BBC Sherlock Fan Forum - Serving Sherlockians since February 2012 » Asking Molly for help

Davina · May 3, 2012 6:11 pm

Refer to article with interview from Steven Moffat about Series 2 and Sherlock's character. Have quoted a section of it which also seems elegant here.

Sherlock Holmes · May 3, 2012 7:55 pm

Yes, according to Moffat, Sherlock is a very emotional person!! I knew it!!!

Irene Adler · May 3, 2012 8:37 pm

Sherlock Holmes wrote:
I don't think he'd even risk his life for Mrs Hudson...

I can't disagree more with this, sorry... I think Sherlock would do almost anything to protect Mrs. H. from any harm. And John, of course. Not so sure about Lestrade, though I love the character and the way their relationship has developed through the six episodes, I've always found a bit weird that Sherlock said his name in that moment and not Molly's or Mycroft's (unless, as many people think, Sherlock left those two out to test if Moriarty had a sniper on any of them).

And I'm one on the team that thinks he cares. He tries to make it look as if he doesn't, but deep inside he does. But that's just my interpretation of the character, of course. I don't see Sherlock as a cold machine, just someone who thinks that letting know what he feels about people makes him vulnerable (in the way I see it, vulnerable beacuse it blurs his intellect, yes, but vulnerable too because exposing your feelings allow other people to play with them, the way Irene Adler tried).

kazza474 · May 4, 2012 1:29 am

I don't think he would risk his life for anyone. There's a better solution than that & he found it. And his ego tells him that he always will. THAT is the danger surrounding Sherlock.

His obsession is with beating Moriarty at his game & he did that. He formed a plan to beat Moriarty & he achieved that, regardless of who 'felt hurt' by the outcome.

Now, if you 'really cared' for people, would you do that to them?

Last edited by kazza474 (May 4, 2012 1:30 am)

tobeornot221b · May 4, 2012 4:14 am

He wouldn't risk his life for anyone?
Then he stayed at home instead of heading into the Dragon Den Tramway?
Then he ran off at the pool when John told him so?
No, you can't explain everything with his big ego and a self confidence that makes him sure that he will beat everyone whatever the situation might be!
No, Sherlock slowly is developing into a "good one", like Lestrade hoped him to be one day. That's because he cares and doesn't hesitate to risk his life at times.
That's the stuff heroes are made of.

kazza474 · May 4, 2012 6:22 am

Maybe to you or I those situations would be life threatening.

He's developing, learning more about life etc, but please don't clutter it up with sentiment. That's NOT what Sherlock Holmes is about, it never was.

Do you believe Moftiss will develop the character into being 'nice'? Then I believe you are sadly mistaken.
He is learning how others feel, but as we see in the canon version (which is the truly adult Sherlock that Moftiss are heading towards) Sherlock will never clutter his thoughts with all this sensitive stuff.
I wouldn't be surprised to see him do some things next season that will annoy viewers; he'll never be the 'romantic hero' that modern day fans seem to want.

Sherlock Holmes · May 4, 2012 11:37 am

He kind of already is though. Sherlock will always be my hero regardless of what he does and whether or not he cares about people. I know you're not supposed to make people into heroes and that if there were heroes Sherlock wouldn't be one but whoops, bit too late for that...

Sherlock Holmes · May 4, 2012 12:08 pm

Just had another thought actually...

There is a reason why Sherlock Holmes has remained such a popular figure since ACD first wrote the stories and why he is such a hero to many people...and it's because he does care. It would be bad writing to create a character who was completley selfish, inhuman, only cared about himself, only used people for his own gains etc 100% of the time. I know Sherlock does these things but he also has a sensitive side and he cares even though he would never like to admit it.

There's got to be something in a main character of any work of fiction that the ordinary person on the street can relate to and can see something of themself in them, otherwise it doesn't work. And there has to be something likeable about them.

What makes Sherlock different from Moriarty? Why is it that Sherlock chooses to use his skills for good instead of evil? You can have just as much (if not more) fun, doing evil things but he chooses to be on the side of the angels - because somewhere deep down he cares.

imane nikko · May 30, 2012 9:33 pm

Made an account just to say this:

Sherlock identifies himself as a sociopath; the difference between a sociopath and a psychopath like Moriarty is that sociopaths *are* capable of forming attachments to people, and feel guilty for hurting those people. Wouldn't want to be in a sociopath's way if he wanted something and didn't know me, though. Brrrrr.

I think when he asks Molly for help, he's reading her... she has to be willing to not only help him in that moment, but also to keep quiet after, no matter what she hears about him, and he knows that what she hears will be all bad. He's also manipulating her to ensure the outcome, a bit... the echoing of her words, "you do count," and "I need you," he knows exactly what kind of effect they'll have on a woman who is in love with him.

That's not to say he's totally callous, she's one of those he trusts, but his use of John as an experiment in Baskerville proves he's not above manipulating and using the ones he's attached to as long as it's not likely to hurt them.

Tantalus · May 31, 2012 1:30 am

imane nikko wrote:
Made an account just to say this:

Sherlock identifies himself as a sociopath; the difference between a sociopath and a psychopath like Moriarty is that sociopaths *are* capable of forming attachments to people, and feel guilty for hurting those people. Wouldn't want to be in a sociopath's way if he wanted something and didn't know me, though. Brrrrr.

I think when he asks Molly for help, he's reading her... she has to be willing to not only help him in that moment, but also to keep quiet after, no matter what she hears about him, and he knows that what she hears will be all bad. He's also manipulating her to ensure the outcome, a bit... the echoing of her words, "you do count," and "I need you," he knows exactly what kind of effect they'll have on a woman who is in love with him.

That's not to say he's totally callous, she's one of those he trusts, but his use of John as an experiment in Baskerville proves he's not above manipulating and using the ones he's attached to as long as it's not likely to hurt them.

imane,

Firstly, welcome! See what fun we have here?

Secondly, I think the above is well-said. If Sherlock has a weakness, it isn't that he doesn't care about other people. It's that he's lonely. His incredible brain does indeed make him a sociopath (though not, thankfully, a psychopath). To carry himself to the fullest of his intellectual and logical potential, he must eschew closeness with others, sentiment, even friendship. But the divine spark is still within him. Our humanity has always been our weakness, but, if nurtured and properly cultivated, it can manifest itself beautifully, and can become our greatest asset. Sherlock cannot be the unique "super-brain" that he is and also be a normal human being. He isn't the greatest, highest manifestation of man--he is, sadly, a freak.

We love that freak because, as others have said, deep down, he still is human, like us, even though he doesn't want to be. (And, I suspect, because we really do like superheroes, and we see Sherlock as one.) As the series goes along, I think we will see him struggle through these emotions until he finally becomes more comfortable with a [slightly] increased acceptance of his feelings for others (For example, I believe he will become friends with Molly--I'd love to see it become more than that, but I think that's too much of a stretch of the character.). This was the case with the Holmes of the canon, and I think Moftiss will work Sherlock towards this same end.

Just my 2 pence worth...

Tantalus · May 31, 2012 1:35 am

kazza474 wrote:
If I wasn't everything I thought I am, everything you think I am, would you still want to help me?
If I wasn't everything I thought I am - he thinks himself a detective battling the forces of evil for the good of society.

everything you think I am- Molly believes he is a detective battling the forces of evil for the good of society; she believes he is doing things for the right reasons, so much so that she allows him to beat dead bodies, use body parts for research etc, without having a specific 'job or position' in the hospital. That would take a lot of trust in his motivation.

He is asking 'what if I am not doing all these things for the reasons you think? What if I was fooling you all along?

Her answer shows that she knows that is not the case and that she still trusts his motivation and knows he would do no wrong. She would have heard about the police raid, his escape from custody etc because no doubt the police would have checked whether he was there earlier in the evening.

Okay, I posted a question about this on another thread, but I'm not buying that Sherlock isn't doubting himself here. What else can he mean by adding in "not what I think I am". He's already suggested to Molly that he may not be what she thinks he is, so why throw in this extra bit about his thoughts about himself?

All that being said, I agree with Davina (I think it was she, on the other post) that if this line were crucial to the plot it would never have been cut out of the American airing.

kazza474 · May 31, 2012 2:08 am

Tantalus wrote:
If Sherlock has a weakness, it isn't that he doesn't care about other people. It's that he's lonely. His incredible brain does indeed make him a sociopath (though not, thankfully, a psychopath). To carry himself to the fullest of his intellectual and logical potential, he must eschew closeness with others, sentiment, even friendship. But the divine spark is still within him. Our humanity has always been our weakness, but, if nurtured and properly cultivated, it can manifest itself beautifully, and can become our greatest asset. Sherlock cannot be the unique "super-brain" that he is and also be a normal human being. He isn't the greatest, highest manifestation of man--he is, sadly, a freak.

We love that freak because, as others have said, deep down, he still is human, like us, even though he doesn't want to be. (And, I suspect, because we really do like superheroes, and we see Sherlock as one.) As the series goes along, I think we will see him struggle through these emotions until he finally becomes more comfortable with a [slightly] increased acceptance of his feelings for others (For example, I believe he will become friends with Molly--I'd love to see it become more than that, but I think that's too much of a stretch of the character.). This was the case with the Holmes of the canon, and I think Moftiss will work Sherlock towards this same end.

Just my 2 pence worth...

I have just 3 questions here.

1. How to you leap to the conclusion that 'he is lonely'?

2. A freak? Donovan called him a freak, but then she's not someone I'd care to listen to. There are actually a fair few people with equal intellect and traits within the world, look at Mycroft even. At least equal in intelligence, has no-one 'significant' in his life that we know of and works for the good of mankind in his own way also. Is he too a freak?

3. What was 'the case with the Holmes of the canon'?

Davina · May 31, 2012 7:55 am

I agree with you Imane, especially about using Molly, I have referred to that in another thread in this topic. His telling phrase in this episode is, 'Alone is what protects me.'

Great first post by the way!

Tantalus · May 31, 2012 7:35 pm

I have just 3 questions here.

1. How to you leap to the conclusion that 'he is lonely'?

2. A freak? Donovan called him a freak, but then she's not someone I'd care to listen to. There are actually a fair few people with equal intellect and traits within the world, look at Mycroft even. At least equal in intelligence, has no-one 'significant' in his life that we know of and works for the good of mankind in his own way also. Is he too a freak?

3. What was 'the case with the Holmes of the canon'?

1. For someone as "detached" as Sherlock is, isn't it remarkable how quickly he takes up with John? "I'm lost without my blogger [Boswell]." Watson, in a sense, completes Holmes by providing a sounding board, "reflecting light though not in himself luminous". But I believe it's more than this. Sherlock can't stand the thought of being without Watson. Witness his over-the-top attempts to make ammends with Watson in Hounds, even making the (startlingly) direct statement that Watson is his friend. Caring for people may get in Sherlock's way, but his human need for companionship won't allow him to let John leave him...alone.

2. Freak: an ardent enthusiast, a person obsessed with something, markedly unusual, abnormal, or irregular in appearance or behaviour. Sherlock. Certainly there are intelligent people in the world, and perhaps many of them are at least awkward socially, even loners. But even Mycroft doesn't use his incredible intellect (at least as far as is revealed to us) to some obsessive end. He, rather, is a pretty good picture of intelligence put to a more "normal" use. Same thing with having a "significant other" or working for "the good of mankind". Perfectly fine traits to exhibit, and neither of these traits is what makes Sherlock freakish. Donovan uses "freak" as a perjorative against Sherlock. I use it more descriptively, I suppose.

3. I think there are clear signs in the canon of Holmes' relationship with Watson becoming one of caring and true friendship. Look at his reaction when he thinks Watson may have been shot in "The Three Garridebs", his concern over Watson's feelings as he observes the mourning Watson at Reichenbach, and his self-blame over nearly costing Watson his life in "The Devil's Foot", just as three examples.

imane nikko · June 1, 2012 1:19 am

Thank you to Tantalus and Davina for the welcome!

1, on loneliness:

I'm not sure whether Sherlock's weakness is loneliness exactly. He tells John that the frailty of genius is its need for an audience, and part of what endears (for lack of a better word) John to him is how appreciative John is. That little moment in the car in the pilot, when John says "that was amazing" and Sherlock replies that most people just say "piss off"? From that time on, I think Sherlock turns up the charm to make sure that John stays with him.

That's the thing about sociopaths... they can be very seductive and will make efforts to "keep" people who are useful. John is a doctor, a good audience, and lonely, making him an easier target. He rejects Mycroft's offer to spy. By the end of that case, he's even proven he'll kill to protect Sherlock. It's obvious that Sherlock has formed an attachment to John by the end of the second series, is loyal to him, would not hurt him (at least physically -- clearly inflicting emotional pain is still possible, probably because Sherlock wouldn't consider it very serious), will even risk his life for him. If he lost John's companionship at this point in the story, no doubt he would be lonely, because now he'd know what he was missing.

But he has ample practical reasons to keep him around at the beginning that have little to do with loneliness.

2, on doubt:

That speech to Molly is entirely manipulation, as far as I can tell. I think those words definitely indicate that he's doubting himself, but that's not proof that he is. Making it appear that he is experiencing doubt is a great way to arouse her pity and protectiveness.

3, "alone is what protects me":

That exchange was really interesting. Sherlock's statement is true, but he is very aware that John's also right in his retort that "friends protect you." Sherlock's relying on Molly's friendship; he was protected in one way before, and is protected in another now.

4, Sherlock and Molly:

I, too, would love to see him soften and be closer to Molly. I'd love to see him have a girlfriend. But I hope he doesn't. That tension between wanting friendship and love for him and his fundamental inability to embrace those things is really pleasant. It's what so great about the character for me... the little flashes of emotion and tenderness are so deliciously rare.

Edited to say: I'm going to have to avoid posting too much. I love the Wrong! under my name.

Last edited by imane nikko (June 1, 2012 1:24 am)

Tantalus · June 1, 2012 2:47 am

Interesting (and insightful) comments, imane. On Sherlock & Molly, I agree that a relationship between them would be a bad idea. But the romantic in me wants Molly to get what she wants. I find myself wishing I could jump in and give her a hug...

On the issue of doubt, I just don't know. I think Sherlock is extremely vulnerable at this point (after all, he is planning to jump from the roof). I would like to think he really is experiencing some degree of doubt at this point, and that he is letting Molly see this. Again, probably just sentiment clouding my judgment...

kazza474 · June 1, 2012 3:31 am

imane, I agree with you on the 'loneliness' description.

I don't find Sherlock showing any signs of loneliness at all and I doubt he would feel that emotion really. Not everyone wants human companionship in any form. There are plenty of people around him; in fact I would go so far as to say, he probably feels quite 'crowded in' at times and may frankly want to lock himself away in the lab so he can get some work done.

Tantalus, I don't really see an issue with the short time it takes Sherlock to become familiar with John. That relationship has merits and he has assessed John adequately to know that the bond would be a good one. Like it or not, he has scientifically viewed all aspects and decided this would be advantageous to him to befriend Watson.

imane - 'on doubt'
Oh yes, totally manipulative speech to Molly.
Tantalus - I'm in a huge minority of probably one here, but I think Molly is alone because she is what I would call (I am going to get slaughtered for this comment but here goes) 'a bit of an airhead'. I don't find the character 'lovable', frankly she gets what she deserves when it comes to relationships. Are there really females like that these days? How terrible for womanhood as a whole if so.

I still cannot buy too much of the 'emotional Sherlock'; I believe it is what people want him to be like but that is not who Sherlock Holmes is. Thus far, Moftiss have done a good job at keeping him that way. There's a place for romantic fantasies and cutesy little plots; a show about Sherlock Holmes however is NOT the place for it.

imane nikko · June 1, 2012 3:38 am

kazza474 wrote:
I'm in a huge minority of probably one here, but I think Molly is alone because she is what I would call (I am going to get slaughtered for this comment but here goes) 'a bit of an airhead'. I don't find the character 'lovable', frankly she gets what she deserves when it comes to relationships.

I don't know... we don't really get to see much of Molly outside of the social context, in which she's uncomfortable. Sherlock makes her doubly so. Socially awkward doesn't necessarily equate to airhead.

More importantly, in the scene where she asks Sherlock about IOU and then tells the story of her father, she shows a side of herself that was quite sharp. You can see Sherlock being shocked by her perception, reevaluating his estimation of her. Who, other than Mycroft, has seen through him so clearly?

Tantalus · June 1, 2012 3:59 am

kazza474 wrote:
I don't really see an issue with the short time it takes Sherlock to become familiar with John. That relationship has merits and he has assessed John adequately to know that the bond would be a good one. Like it or not, he has scientifically viewed all aspects and decided this would be advantageous to him to befriend Watson.

He's not a machine, kazza. He's just like you & I (well, actually he's just a make-believe character adapted from a book, but I kinda feel like that myself sometimes, so we'll let it slide). If he has no emotion, no human needs, well then, he's just a tragic character, and I don't think that's who Conan Doyle created. But, that of course, is just my opinion. : )

I'm in a huge minority of probably one here, but I think Molly is alone because she is what I would call (I am going to get slaughtered for this comment but here goes) 'a bit of an airhead'. I don't find the character 'lovable', frankly she gets what she deserves when it comes to relationships. Are there really females like that these days? How terrible for womanhood as a whole if so.

Whether or not Molly is an airhead (and does that necessarily preclude her being lovable?), I think there's room in womanhood for her. I agree with imane: she's got more going on than first meets the eye.

Aurora · June 1, 2012 4:30 am

Hi imane nikko, I love what you've written. Here's what I think.

1. On loneliness. I agree Sherlock does value John's appreciativeness and that is part of the reason he works to ensure he stays around. I actually think that might be one of the clues that Sherlock isn't truly a sociopath. For some people, having someone say something kind or encouraging is really important. It's not about an ego boost, but about feeling that you matter. Feeling "loved", if you will, but in the broad sense of love which you share with your friends and family. It's the same feeling other people get from sitting down having a long chat with a friend or having someone help you out when you need a hand. Some people are just wired to need to hear positive words directed towards them. I think it's something Sherlock hadn't had very much of in his life (witness how Mycroft speaks to him) and didn't realise he needed. When John gave him a compliment I think it touched him. Not in a big way, just like a breath of fresh air when you don't realise you're in a stuffy room. To my mind, Sherlock has worked hard to rationalise away his emotional needs and he has got 99% of the way there. I expect this started when he was very small. If Mycroft's behaviour is any indication of family life, it may be that his need for encouragement and affirmation has never before been met. I'm certain Sherlock would think you were talking total rot if you told him this (although maybe he's starting to realise by the middle of Baskerville). I think he's convinced himself that he is entirely rational and there is no place for emotion or feelings in his life. To my eyes, one of the central themes of this series, though, is Sherlock realising that this is not totally true.

2. I agree that what he said to Molly was manipulation but I don't think it was necessarily cold-hearted manipulation. I suspect she was an indispensable part of his plan. I think the plan was risky and he was vulnerable and he chose to reveal that to her because he really did need her. There was logic behind it too. He's pre-warned Molly that his credibility will be attacked and got her to pledge her unwavering loyalty no matter what happens. So, the next morning when Sherlock is exposed as a "fake" and the police are chasing around asking questions (there will certainly be an internal inquiry) she doesn't start to have doubts and need to talk to someone about them and therefore give the game away.

4. I too hope the relationship between Sherlock and Molly will grow stronger and he'll learn to rely on her and respect her more, but I very much hope they never try to make it more than that. It would be a total train wreck and far too big a distraction from the point of the Sherlock Holmes stories.

Last edited by Aurora (June 1, 2012 4:37 am)