Though they made up at the end anyway.

I've been rereading this article about TSOT.

“I thought what Sherlock would do,” says Moffat, “is he’d sit there and think, Everyone’s gonna think I’m gonna make a right cock-up of this. Everyone thinks I’m going to screw it up. So, I’m going to make them think that, and then of course I’m going to say something lovely. And I always thought he’d do it well because he’s a genius and he cares about his mate — he wouldn’t let his mate down. I think he paced all night to make sure it was moving.”

So that helps confirm that Sherlock knew and planned the effect of his speech.   It's sincere, but it's supposed to be moving.   Asking John if he got it wrong is ... acting, for comic effect? (And quite possibly the "best man" thing too). 

Production designer Arwel Jones confirms as much, by pointing out that the proof of Sherlock’s real feelings can be found throughout last night’s episode, “The Sign of Three”: If you look closely in the background of Sherlock’s apartment, for example, there’s a model of the wedding venue, and on his laptop there are drafts for the design of the wedding stationery. “He loves John, and he’s a control freak, so he’s actually very involved with the wedding planning,” says Jones.

He's a control freak over some things, but ... wedding stationery?   I can understand him spending ages over the speech, researching it, and drafting in LeStrade because that matters to John.  Or even the stag night, because again, that's for John.  But controlling the stationery and napkins isn't something Sherlock can do for John, or that John would want to have done for him.  

“He’s not a sociopath, nor is he high-functioning. He’d really like to be a sociopath. But he’s so fucking not. The wonderful drama of Sherlock Holmes is that he’s aspiring to this extraordinary standard. He is at root an absolutely ordinary man with a very, very big brain. He’s repressed his emotions, his passions, his desires, in order to make his brain work better — in itself, a very emotional decision, and it does suggest that he must be very emotional if he thinks emotions get in the way. I just think Sherlock Holmes must be bursting!”

Just putting this bit in because I think it's key to how Moffat writes Sherlock.  There never really was a sociopathic, unemotional, uncaring Sherlock.   We were seeing repression and disguise all along.

So know this: Today, you sit between the woman you have made your wife and the man you have saved. In short, the two people who love you most in all this world. And I know I speak for Mary as well when I say we will never let you down, and we have a lifetime ahead to prove that.

It's kind of sad, given what we find out in HLV, that his declaration of love is so mixed up with Mary.  Mary lets John down within weeks of the wedding (how long is it?) and the joint vow is broken.  If Sherlock was being a control freak over the wedding, to the extent of the stationery and researching the guests, then why didn't he research Mary?  He didn't have a problem researching John (to find out his middle name).    Was he really so completely free from doubt about her, so trusting in John's judgment over a fairly recent relationship?  I think the evidence is pointing to Sherlock already working on Magnusson during TSOT and courting Janine for that purpose - it's so difficult to believe that he didn't pick on Mary.  Not only that, but that he aligns himself in the extreme to her.   During HLV, I think he's pretending to align himself to her - does that mean he's pretending in TSOT?  Right at the key point of that speech, when he doesn't need to?

Yep. John and Mary are exactly the same and kill (or almost kill) for exactly the same reasons. Right.

Last edited by SolarSystem (September 21, 2014 8:17 pm)

"He didn’t fire until I was in immediate danger, though, so strong moral principle."
Sherlock, not knowing that he's speaking of John at this moment.
I wonder about Mary's strong morale principle. Haven't found it yet.
 

Last edited by tobeornot221b (September 21, 2014 8:23 pm)

In a teeny weeny box ...

I don't think Sherlock was that much at risk (he says he never guesses - actually, he does, sometimes, but he has to be pretty sure and have some evidence.  If the pill really was just a 50/50 chance, he wouldn't have taken it).   However, I don't think John can actually hear the conversation.   He doesn't know what's going on and doesn't know the gun (if he can see it) is a fake.  All he can see is Sherlock about to take the pill, but he doesn't know why.  He can't even see Sherlock's expression, I don't think, so he doesn't know how he's being coerced into it.  So he didn't gamble, and went straight for a kill shot. 

John has nothing to gain for himself from taking that shot - he's not in any danger.  But he does have something to lose.  He's got an illegal weapon and he's killing somebody, not in self-defence - to protect somebody from what might be their own stupidity (Sherlock isn't under any threat to take that pill).  It's selfless on his part, and entirely for Sherlock.

I think this might be one of the things that was on Sherlock's mind when he wrote the part of the speech about John saving lives.   It didn't ring true to me, because Sherlock is so much the saviour of lives, including John's, AND he saves John in other ways.   But I think this first case together establishes something very important between them and by TGG it's clear how far John will go to save him if necessary.  (Not just saving his life - I think the fact that Sherlock would even consider taking the pill shows a lack of grounding or something that John brings to him).   Sherlock saves, but he doesn't need that stated publicly.  He has more or less heard it from John at the graveside.  John does seem to appreciate it being said publicly. 
 

Last edited by Liberty (September 23, 2014 6:05 pm)

You are right, and my 'philosophical' take on this is that they are nothing without each other. They don't work, they don't function without the other one, they just can't be without each other. They need each other. This goes both ways. Of course they lived their lives before they met, but their lives only just really begun when they met. So it makes total sense to me that Sherlock focuses on their relationship in his wedding speech. Let's face it, pretty much everything in that episode is about Sherlock and John, and since Sherlock is the one giving the speech we see most of it through his eyes.
And yes, it fits his character to always see John in relation to himself. This might turn (or already have turned...) into a problem eventually, but even then... that's what their relationship is about. Everything concerning Sherlock is connected to John and vice versa. 

Liberty: I see it in a different light and the clue to this is Sholto. The fact that Sherlock does not know anything about Sholto (who is so important to John and vice versa that he comes out of hiding to attend the wedding) proves that John has not told Sherlock much or even anything about his past. 

Which goes both ways because in TEH we learn that John possibly did not know Sherlock's parents were still alive and definitely not what they were like. 

I think the moment they met both started something new whatever we want to call it and that is was a life-changing moment for both. There was no need to talk about the past because what mattered was the here and now. 

I am sure that the only things Sherlock knew about John were those he deduced himself (Afghanistan, army doctor, etc.). And John only gets bits and pieces as well - the drugs, the difficult relationship with Mycroft, etc. 

Therefore it is quite logical that in the speech Sherlock talks about what matters to him and what he knows - their life together. 

Plus, I want to add that John secretiveness might have played a role in this.
When I remember his unwillingness to reveal his second name to Sherlock I can imagine he was similarily secretive about things concerning his past.

And him being a man of action and saving lives.