BBC Sherlock Fan Forum - Serving Sherlockians since February 2012 » Questions and ponderings about Sherlock

Vhanja · November 4, 2015 7:57 pm

I have another question about the fall and the explanation. I know we've discussed this before, but can't remember the answer to this:

Sherlock didn't tell John because John needed to believe Sherlock was dead to survive. John is a terrible liar, so if the sniper suspected John knew Sherlock was alive, he would be shot.

But the sniper was "told to reconsider" by Mycroft. Meaning the threat to John was gone in what seems minutes after the jump. So why keep John in the dark for two years?

besleybean · November 4, 2015 8:07 pm

But it was important that Sherlock was considered dead and according to him in TEH, they couldn't trust John to act as if Sherlock was dead!

Vhanja · November 4, 2015 8:24 pm

But John didn't need to act as if Sherlock was dead anymore, because the threat to his life had been eliminated. That's what I don't get.

Magingus · November 4, 2015 8:27 pm

One of the many fun ways that the third explanation doesn't add up.

Although it's possible that while the immediate sniper "reconsidered", there may have been others also watching out for John that Mycroft may not have known about. (Having multiple snipers on John makes sense when you consider that he was bouncing around London in the time leading up to the fall.)

Vhanja · November 4, 2015 8:32 pm

Yeah, could be. I reckon the only reason that sniper was paid off was because he could see the cushion from the window?

It just seems a bit off to me.

nakahara · November 4, 2015 8:36 pm

Vhanja wrote:
I have another question about the fall and the explanation. I know we've discussed this before, but can't remember the answer to this:

Sherlock didn't tell John because John needed to believe Sherlock was dead to survive. John is a terrible liar, so if the sniper suspected John knew Sherlock was alive, he would be shot.

But the sniper was "told to reconsider" by Mycroft. Meaning the threat to John was gone in what seems minutes after the jump. So why keep John in the dark for two years?

I believe that it was not John who was in immediate danger if Moriarty´s people knew that Sherlock survived but Lestrade and Mrs. Hudson. Because his sniper "reconsidered" but theirs stayed in place. And that´s why John needed to be kept in the dark. His indiscretion could cost the life of his friends, not his own life.

Liberty · November 4, 2015 8:38 pm

I think the point was that it was a network (Sherlock describes Moriarty as a spider in a web) - getting rid of the snipers wasn't the same as getting rid of the whole network. Sherlock was trying to get rid of the whole network during his two years away, and during that time he had to be believed to be dead. And it does look as if John was still at risk (i.e. it wasn't just those particular snipers who were watching him) because Sherlock DOES tell some people what's going on (Molly, his parents, etc.), but keeps the targets (John, LeStrade, Mrs Hudson) in the dark for two years.

Of course, it's possible Sherlock didn't quite destroy the network, as Mycroft calls him back to London.

Vhanja · November 4, 2015 8:38 pm

So why not tell the two other snipers to reconsider as well?

Edit: Liberty, yes, that is a good point. I just can't reconcile with this, to be honest. Guess it's more me than the story, perhaps.

Last edited by Vhanja (November 4, 2015 8:42 pm)

nakahara · November 4, 2015 8:42 pm

Because as Liberty specified above - they could not be sure of the identity of everyone in the "network".

nakahara · November 4, 2015 8:44 pm

Vhanja wrote:
So why not tell the two other snipers to reconsider as well?

Edit: Liberty, yes, that is a good point. I just can't reconcile with this, to be honest. Guess it's more me than the story, perhaps.

The original story has the very same plothole in its narrative, so it´s "hereditary".

RavenMorganLeigh · November 5, 2015 3:10 am

nakahara wrote:
Because as Liberty specified above - they could not be sure of the identity of everyone in the "network".

I've always thought that they told us exactly why John was kept in the dark in TEH; I think John was a "marker" -- for people in Moriarty's network. (Of course, I think Mary was assigned to John, and fell in obsessive "love" with him...)

ukaunz · November 17, 2015 7:15 am

Oh. My. God.
http://finalproblem.tumblr.com/post/133327416319/finalproblem-wanda-ventham-is-real-life-mother

Vhanja · September 22, 2016 6:04 pm

I came across this today. I haven' seen this comparison before, but I loved it. It says a lot.

http://sannapersikka.tumblr.com/post/150716038640

Liberty · September 22, 2016 6:08 pm

What about it? I'm not sure of the point being made (unless it's what we already know - that Mycroft uses John as a kind of carer for Sherlock)? Not being critical, just getting the feeling that I'm missing something! Is it John's gradual progress that I'm supposed to be looking at?

Anyway, I love Mark's expression in the middle frame. We hear so much about Benedict and Martin's wonderful acting, but Mark's not so bad himself!

Last edited by Liberty (September 22, 2016 6:10 pm)

besleybean · September 22, 2016 6:09 pm

I still love Mark's mock outrage at that Q&A, when Amanda said Andrew was her favourite actor!

Liberty · September 22, 2016 6:10 pm

Yes, that was great!

Vhanja · September 22, 2016 6:30 pm

As I see it, it's the gradual change of Mycroft. How he starts with trying to bribe and intimidate John, then trying to give a slightly snarky and begruding request - and then losing all pretense, an open and honest plea.

And, yes, Mark Gatiss is a great actor. I love him as Mycroft.

Liberty · September 22, 2016 7:06 pm

Thanks for the explanation, Vhanja!