besleybean wrote:

Really?
I think he's just cracking a joke to lighten the mood.

The scene where he is giving John his name feels much more weighty to be just about jokes, don´t you think?
I mean, joke is definitely there, but at the same time, Sherlock is giving kind of a legacy to John - symbolicaly being embodied in his name. 
 

Yeah, precisely.

I like your ideas, Nakahara, and something about this feels right to me - that there is actually heavy significance in Sherlock giving his name.  "I love you" almost seems banal in comparism (especially as he's already kind of said it - it's not something he's been meaning to say).   I think it IS a joke, but there is serious meaning behind it.  Again, it's reminded me of John's comment to Sherlock in TRF about being a complete dick all the tiime - the meaning behind the words actually makes it one of the most heartfelt, emotional and powerful things John says to Sherlock (in my opinion). 

I don't know if Sherlock or the writers would know the Viking background, but I don't think it matters - I'm not on up the background and yet I still felt there was something meaningful about true names.  It's embedded in our culture, because if it's in fairytales, we're brought up with it. 

Oh dear .. it's heartbreaking to think that Sherlock is really, genuinely hoping that John will name the child after him because he's going to his death and that will be all that's left.  Sherlock would be dead in 6 months, so it's likely the child would be born while he was still alive, but out of the country.  I think John might seriously have considered naming a child after Sherlock if Sherlock was dead, but if the child is born while Sherlock is alive then he might not - so Sherlock's "joke" is maybe a genuine request, and a kind of warning (that he's going to die).  In a roundabout way, Sherlock is going off to his death to save this unborn child (and John and Mary) after all.

So heartbreaking - I'm SO glad the episode didn't end there!

Liberty wrote:

I like your ideas, Nakahara, and something about this feels right to me - that there is actually heavy significance in Sherlock giving his name.  "I love you" almost seems banal in comparism (especially as he's already kind of said it - it's not something he's been meaning to say).   I think it IS a joke, but there is serious meaning behind it.  Again, it's reminded me of John's comment to Sherlock in TRF about being a complete dick all the tiime - the meaning behind the words actually makes it one of the most heartfelt, emotional and powerful things John says to Sherlock (in my opinion). 

I don't know if Sherlock or the writers would know the Viking background, but I don't think it matters - I'm not on up the background and yet I still felt there was something meaningful about true names.  It's embedded in our culture, because if it's in fairytales, we're brought up with it. 

Oh dear .. it's heartbreaking to think that Sherlock is really, genuinely hoping that John will name the child after him because he's going to his death and that will be all that's left.  Sherlock would be dead in 6 months, so it's likely the child would be born while he was still alive, but out of the country.  I think John might seriously have considered naming a child after Sherlock if Sherlock was dead, but if the child is born while Sherlock is alive then he might not - so Sherlock's "joke" is maybe a genuine request, and a kind of warning (that he's going to die).  In a roundabout way, Sherlock is going off to his death to save this unborn child (and John and Mary) after all.

So heartbreaking - I'm SO glad the episode didn't end there!

Yes, the Sherlock name-giving scene seems quite poignant to me. Althrough it looks jokey on the surface, it has deeper and more emotional significance, precisely because Sherlock´s full name is used as a theme of the scene (and the name is a highly symbolical thing loaded with various meanings - a quasi embodiment of a person itself, connected with a "soul" of a human being). If we took humour out of the tarmac scene, certain "mystical" reading of the scene would be greatly strenghtened. 

I only mentioned Viking tradition, because it had a specific term (nafnfestr, "name-fastening") for the belief in a name as a transport of deceased person qualities to newborn child. But we can find similar, althrough unnamed, beliefs about names in almost every human culture on Earth and some of those belief subconscioulsy form our behaviour even now, being deeply embedded in our traditions and cultures. That´s exactly why such things often appear in the narrations of the stories, althrough the people writing those stories must not be aware where they first came to these ideas.

Sherlock banishment into a foreign land, after which his friends would never see him again, is to some extent a symbolical "death" too. Sherlock also don´t know when exactly would he die. Mycroft assessment that it would be six months at most was a maximal estimation of life left to him. But his demise can come quite sooner. With that in mind, John naming his daughter after Sherlock takes a heavy meaning - as a kind of a legacy, a part of himself Sherlock is leaving behind for John.
 

Liberty wrote:

There's a mention of names earlier - when Mycroft gets irritated that his mother won't call him by his given name.  He asks if it's really so hard to say the extra syllable or something like that - I can't remember the wording.

Yes, that scene made me smile when I was watching HLV for the first time. There are many Mikes on this world but only one Mycroft and he is quite proud on his unusual name. 
 

I just love the fact that Janine calls him Mike, making it immediately obvious that she'd never met him. 

I like that line, I think it's part of that understated blokeish friendship that Moftiss talk about. It's in Reichenbach somewhere, isn't it? 

I think the fact that our protagonist lies and deceives all the time makes him an interesting character (and convenient for screenwriters who like to surprise audiences) but I do hope that John acted on more than just blind faith. I mean, it's not much of a virtue, is it? Maybe he understands Sherlock's personality or he'd seen so much evidence for his methods that he simply knows that he can't be a fraud. Lestrade doesn't seem to buy it either. 

The fraud story is actually really interesting because IRL, Sherlock's methods wouldn't work, and the only way to make them seem work would be fraud. But in-universe, the methods do work, so they're playing a bit of a mind game with the audience. It's completely understandable why Donovan does what she does, because IRL, she'd be right! 

But she thought Sherlock would kill somebody it for his own personal gain (because it excited him, to show off, etc.) - that's why she was so easily manipulated by Moriarty.   She was wrong about Sherlock.  I find it interesting that John doesn't believe her (although on the evidence he has, is she really so far off the mark)?   He's completely loyal to Sherlock when he first meets Mycroft too, although at that point he doesn't have good reason to be.  I think he does go on gut instinct and blind faith.   At that point, he's not even sure if Sherlock really is a good person (he seems to have a little doubt in S1), but he still kind of "believes" in him. 

I do think he has a little bit of evidence for Sherlock not being a fraud.   There's the phone deduction at the beginning, for instance, and Sherlock getting Harry's sex wrong (which he wouldn't have done, if he'd done his research).   But I think at that point (the conversation in TRF) John doesn't even question the evidence.  Despite the fact that he clearly doesn't know what Sherlock is doing or how he is working most of the time, and Sherlock blatantly deceives him at times. 

Sally was wrong about Sherlock in-universe, but IRL her reasoning actually makes a lot of sense. That's what I find so interesting about it. Might be just a coincidence but still. 

I remember from the first time watching TRF that I was surprised that John still believed in Sherlock, even after the speech on the roof. I mean, I'd be convinced. But then if they did a dissillusioned John, the fact that it isn't really possible would probably mess with people's suspension of disbelief. 

But to get back to in-universe explanations: most of the cases happened sorta offscreen, so who knows how much good evidence John really has. And after living with Sherlock for a while he'd probably have quite a good idea of how his mind works. 

I just found this thread (a big thank you to Susi!) and have yet to go through all the posts but wanted to say that I think what attracts me most to BBC Sherlock is the dynamic of friendship that is shown between John and Sherlock.  More than the cases it is the basis for everything in the show to me.  It was also what attracted me to the original stories so long ago (when I was about 10 years of age).  

I have to read through all the discussions on this thread and then I will be back with some contributions of my own.

But I just had to say how thrilled I am to have a place to gush about their wonderful enduring relationship!

-Val