Well, if not even that can make you guys feel that Sherlock is cold and cynical, then I understand why you view him a bit differently than I do. I feel that the definition of the terms and the view of both Ben and Moftiss, says that he is those things, so I can't say I understand where you come from. But I am starting to understand that if this is where you are coming from, that is probably why we are viewing the show and the characters very, very different.

I think it's not so much cynical as practical: Sherlock just sees it as a means to an end.  He has often acted a part to manipulate people to achieve a goal, and I get the impression he doesn't think much farther than that - not even as far as coming up with more reasonable plan (like using Janine as an ally).    Bear in mind that he has just been to a wedding, which was probably what planted the idea.   Then he just carries out the plan rather than worrying about how he could mimimise hurt feelings.  

It's definitely cold.  Not that Sherlock is naturally a cold person (clearly, he's not), but this is how he operates - shutting off those pesky emotions in favour of his work.  Courting Janine was "work".

I think he does show some regret in hospital.  And not having sex with her does show at least a recognition that this is a dodgy thing to do.  I think he might also feel regret when Magnussen reveals that he had tortured Janine (and I think Magnusssen says that to hurt him), and of course, Sherlock knows by then Mary befriended Janine for her own purposes too, and that she attacked her.   

First of all, I'm not sure, if "rationalizing" is a much better term than "handwaving away", which in itself is a evaluation as how users here discuss certain questions. But maybe that is just me.
Secondly, I agree with Liberty that there is a difference between being cynical and being practical, the first one shown now and then in Sherlock's work ( remember the school head lady), the second I cannot really come up with an example.
Thirdly, the basic problem here might be the question if Janine truly was in love with Sherlock, which some here (including me) have doubts. If one considers that she is not evil per se but maybe a bit looking for her fun, and as Susi said, just an interesting guy, than they are both the same level. In the hospital she is good humoured in my opinion and not hurt, maybe slightly regretful. But that's about it. Such women do in fact exist.
And fourthly, as the murder of CAM comes up again, I have repeatedly mentioned that NOBODY here seems to be happy with that, so no rationalizing there. I have never ever got an answer to that.

I can see what you're saying, Vhanja, but I feel that in this case Sherlock ignores or dismisses accepted standards of honesty/morality, rather than having contempt for them.  I'd see being cynical as more about seeing the negative side of people, and distrusting their motives - for instance, if Sherlock had chosen to falsely court Janine rather than honestly befriend her because he believed that friends let you down (not the best example).  I don't think he's being cynical about Janine, but just thinking of the courtship as a convenient step in the process of getting to Magnussen. 

I think he probably can be cynical at times, but I'm not sure it's the case here.  But it's not something I really have an issue with.  We're maybe just disagreeing over the meaning of the word.

Nature - I couldn't agree more. I don't think all Sherlock's actions are meant to be morally justifable, and that it was intrigues me. I don't need that either. Actually, I don't want that, because white knight heroes are boring in my book. I don't like Sherlock despite his flaws - I like him and find him endlessly interesting and fascinating because of them.

Liberty - With cynical, I mean how he deliberately uses the fact that Janine is interested in him to have the fake relationship. That is the act that is cynical to me. But I agree with you, it's not necessarily the word itself that is the most imporant to me. It's the fact that the act can't, and shouldn't, be morally justified. Whomever Janine is, and whatever much or little she feels about Sherlock, the act from Sherlock himself is immoral. Because it's not a mutual understanding about what their relationship is. 

Kitty - I agree with you about your points in TSoT. However, the harsher points in that episode doesn't automatically exclude the fact that he was ALSO loving, caring, warm, vulnerable and fluffy. Also, I agreee wholeheartedly about his behaviour towards Mary's ex AND the underground scene. Makes me a bit glad that someone else here see those bits as horrible as I do. (But I would never have had enough of him).

Really, you didn't mind the underground scene? For me it's one of the most horrible scenes of all nine episodes - the only redeeming feature being that it's so far at the end that I can switch off before. Mary's ex I could have forgiven because I simply don't care about the guy... (which probably makes me a horrible person as well. Well, with three murder victims in the fridge...)

Harriet wrote:

Vhanja wrote:

Makes me a bit glad that someone else here see those bits as horrible as I do.

LOL, now I start feeling morally totally corrupted
 

LOLOL, me too...

I don't find him unlikeable at all. It's the complexity of his character, the fact that he is NOT a white knight with a square jaw and perfect moral principles, that makes him so interesting to me. 

So, we don't find BBC Sherlock's character to be unlikable, actually, we like him for being a horrible person? Is this just a sign of the times thing-- that we prefer anti-heroes to Petey Pureheart types? 

RavenMorganLeigh wrote:

So, we don't find BBC Sherlock's character to be unlikable, actually, we like him for being a horrible person? Is this just a sign of the times thing-- that we prefer anti-heroes to Petey Pureheart types? 

Well, yes, I think it's maybe a sign of the time   although
1/ Sherlock Holmes has never been a  Petey Pureheart types hero, wether in the canon or in most adaptions
2/ anti-heroes always had their share ( Odysseus is a cheating husband who can kill dozen of men before breakfast, or each and every knight of the round table are as much heroic than deeply flawed )

And, as for " why" they did write him like this (although I think, as vhanja, that  Holmes is complex, but not unlikable) I think that Moffat and Gattis have claimed that they wanted inject a good dose of humour in their adaptation, since they thought a lot of former adaptations lacked of it.
And the rude/uncaring/blunt/childish sides of Holmes are definitly funny, so they underlined them in some scenes (as much as the grumpy and annoyed sides of Watson). But Janine, mary's ex-boyfriend, the little girls who are said that their grand-father has been burned in a box, and  so on, are secondary characters who allow the writers to show those horrible sides from Holmes and make the audience laugh without guilt since they're on-off in the show.

But they offsetted that by showing a strong friendship and real dedication between Holmes and Watson ( wow, in different words I have said  the same as  "  I am a ridiculous man. Redeemed only by the warmth and constancy of your friendship."  )... and more recently between Holmes and some supporting characters:  We also could add some scenes with Molly, and even Lestrade, Mary Morstan  and Mycroft Holmes to the "offsetting process."