BBC Sherlock Fan Forum - Serving Sherlockians since February 2012.


You are not logged in. Would you like to login or register?



January 13, 2017 7:47 pm  #221


Re: John's violence

I made a post and lost it.  Something about how I feel that a lot of the violence (the CIA guy, the reunion, etc.) is flagged as comedy, fantasy, or both, whereas this one feels a bit more "real" and maybe that is why it is disturbing people more.  I think that might be due to the tone of the episode and the feel of the new series rather than any change in attitude to violence.

Anyway, this is such a fraught subject and I'm sure there is some crossover here with Torchwood fans, so for some light relief here's a scene of violence which I feel is flagged as comedy and fantasy (and sexy), and also consensual!




 

Last edited by Liberty (January 13, 2017 7:49 pm)

 

January 13, 2017 7:49 pm  #222


Re: John's violence

That's a good point, Liberty.
I hated the fact that John belted Sherlock in TEH, yet The Reunion sequence is hilarious.


---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://professorfangirl.tumblr.com/post/105838327464/heres-an-outtake-of-mark-gatiss-on-the
 

January 13, 2017 7:57 pm  #223


Re: John's violence

besleybean wrote:

I know.
I also don't want to underplay the issues around violence and its portrayal.
I was one of the first to object to Sherlock beating up the CIA guy and then shooting CAM.

I am more interested in causes , psychological background. What happened, happened, we cannot change it by hating anybody, we can only spoil the show for ourselves by it. But when we manage to see the scene from different points of view we may start to understand . It is not necessary to agree with characters behiviour to enjoy the show, just feel it as realistic and true.

I am trying not to be on anybody's side. With only one exception  I WANT MORE LESTRADE!!!!!

 

January 13, 2017 8:01 pm  #224


Re: John's violence

Don't we all!

 

January 13, 2017 8:01 pm  #225


Re: John's violence

Preceja wrote:

I am more interested in causes , psychological background. What happened, happened, we cannot change it by hating anybody, we can only spoil the show for ourselves by it. But when we manage to see the scene from different points of view we may start to understand . It is not necessary to agree with characters behiviour to enjoy the show, just feel it as realistic and true.

I am trying not to be on anybody's side. With only one exception  I WANT MORE LESTRADE!!!!!

Couldn't agree more. That is why I always say that I don't need to be able to justify or defend a character's actions to enjoy the show. Quite the opposite - it makes the characters even more interesting and fascinating to me.

(And nothing wrong with more Lestrade!)

Last edited by Vhanja (January 13, 2017 8:02 pm)


__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
"We'll live on starlight and crime scenes" - wordstrings
http://i.imgur.com/NzWTIDd.png

Team Hudders!
 
 

January 13, 2017 8:30 pm  #226


Re: John's violence

kgreen20 wrote:

Don't forget that up to this point, John has only beaten up Sherlock twice in the entire series (TEH and TLD), and that on both occasions, he was extremely provoked and/or stressed out.  He has not made it a regular practice to beat up Sherlock.  On every other occasion that he was angry with his flatmate, he expressed his anger verbally; once, he expressed it by leaving the flat and spending the night elsewhere.

Therefore, the "abuse" accusation really doesn't fit here.  Abusers make it a regular practice to beat up their victims, and John does not.
 

Oh, well, but the issue was complicated by the fact that meanwhile, Sherlock was shot by Mary and John not only forgave her, he also threatened Sherlock "you won´t need morphine!" in Baker Street confrontation. Which made him look like he approves of Mary´s attempt on Sherlock´s life in the long run.
Also, in TEH, Sherlock was not assaulted once but three times - he was throttled, strangled and finally headbutted. That rises the amount of assaults to four instead of two.
During TAB, John´s aparition threatened Sherlock "I could break every bone if your body while naming them". Later, when Sherlock was rushing to help Mary (who endangered herself while solving the case), he was suddenly verbally assaulted for no reason at all from John´s side "tell me where my wife is, you pompous prick, or I´ll punch your lights out!". I might add that Sherlock was merely informed about Mary´s whereabouts in that scene, but was in no way responsible for her behaviour.

And what may be two isoated incidents became the chain of verbal and physical abuse that way.


-----------------------------------

I cannot live without brainwork. What else is there to live for? Stand at the window there. Was there ever such a dreary, dismal, unprofitable world? See how the yellow fog swirls down the street and drifts across the dun-coloured houses. What could be more hopelessly prosaic and material? What is the use of having powers, Doctor, when one has no field upon which to exert them?

http://49.media.tumblr.com/eb0e156f55878fcd6f89dcf91ae89811/tumblr_o0eyyzrphE1spvwrzo2_1280.gif
 

January 13, 2017 8:44 pm  #227


Re: John's violence

Vhanja wrote:

I just don't like the double standard I see when anything Sherlock does to John (and others) is handwaved away as ok "because it's for a case" etc, while as everything and anything John does to Sherlock is judged very harshly.
 

I can´t find the nice post that explained "the double standard" you mention, so I´ll recapitulate in my own words:

Sherlock (and also Mary) were introduced into the story as "freakish" or bizarre individuals. We were supposed to be amused by the ourtrageous stuff they do, but not to agree with their behaviour neccessarily. That´s why we can handwave Sherlock´s behaviour away - this was never supposed to be a role-model behaviour to anybody anyway. 

But if you introduce the character as a role-model, conductor of light, moral compass, humanising angent and what not, whose behaviour is presented as the norm, you cannot suddenly have him beat best friends and hurt severely ill people or approve of the actions of serial killer without protest. This will create the dissonance - and of course people would disagree with these actions more than with the actions of "freakish" Sherlock.

The original poster also mentions that Mary and Sherlock must ultimately pay for hurting John by extreme self-harm or by sacrificing their life. But when John hurts somebody, the story makes a U-turn and becames "how will the characters who angered John atone for this?" and John is never held accountable for anything he does.


-----------------------------------

I cannot live without brainwork. What else is there to live for? Stand at the window there. Was there ever such a dreary, dismal, unprofitable world? See how the yellow fog swirls down the street and drifts across the dun-coloured houses. What could be more hopelessly prosaic and material? What is the use of having powers, Doctor, when one has no field upon which to exert them?

http://49.media.tumblr.com/eb0e156f55878fcd6f89dcf91ae89811/tumblr_o0eyyzrphE1spvwrzo2_1280.gif
 

January 13, 2017 9:12 pm  #228


Re: John's violence

Well, then I view it differently. I hold both Sherlock and John equally accountable for their actions. Sherlock being a "freak" doesn't work as an excuse for me. You can't just declare yourself as "I don't confine by normal social norms" and therefore you shouldn't be judged by your actions anymore.

Neither do I see John as a role model. And the fact that this presumably stoic, fair, calm, kind and morally decent character is actually shown to be flawed - properly flawed - is to me something that strengthens my fascination for the character, it doesn't diminish it.

Same with Sherlock - the fact that he does these horrible things is something that makes me more fascinated by him, not less. 

So, no, I don't buy that explanation. It doesn't work for me. 

Both Sherlock and John are emotionally dysfunctional. They are both great man, but they are also greatly flawed. Seriously flawed, not just a tad rude or grumpy, but actually able to do horrible things - and have done so. To me, that is a good thing - it makes the show and the characters more interesting.


__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
"We'll live on starlight and crime scenes" - wordstrings
http://i.imgur.com/NzWTIDd.png

Team Hudders!
 
 

January 13, 2017 9:50 pm  #229


Re: John's violence

nakahara wrote:

But if you introduce the character as a role-model, conductor of light, moral compass, humanising angent and what not, whose behaviour is presented as the norm, you cannot suddenly have him beat best friends and hurt severely ill people or approve of the actions of serial killer without protest. This will create the dissonance - and of course people would disagree with these actions more than with the actions of "freakish" Sherlock.

Well, the world isn't all black and white. I don't think John was ever portrayed as that perfect rolemodel some people seem to want him to be. Neither was Sherlock ever portrayed as the freak some people seem to think he is. They're both interesting characters with good sides and bad sides and very human flaws, which - at least according to my taste - makes for much better television than just stereotypical and boring "goodies" and "baddies". 

nakahara wrote:

But when John hurts somebody, the story makes a U-turn and becames "how will the characters who angered John atone for this?" and John is never held accountable for anything he does.

You mean as accountable as Sherlock was being held for murdering CAM? I think John has already reached rock bottom and is broken enough after everything that's happened to him lateley, so what good would any sort of "holding him accountable" do? He hates himself enough as it is and how much more broken do you want him to get than he was by the end of TLD? Just because no one is telling him "what you did was wrong, you were being a lousy friend and husband" doesn't mean he doesn't know it. He knows very well, as his last speach to imaginary Mary shows. And he wants to try and become a better man. 

And what's even more tragic: I think John trying to live up to the high standard he had set for himself led to him holding in all the anger, grief and guilt he had built up over years. And all those bottled up feelings just flooded out and came crushing down on Sherlock in the mortuary. So probably John should lower his standard and allow himself to be human and flawed from time to time to prevent anything like this from ever happening again. And probably we should give him the same break. 

Last edited by Kae Em (January 13, 2017 10:05 pm)

 

January 13, 2017 10:01 pm  #230


Re: John's violence

Kae Em wrote:

You mean as accountable as Sherlock was being held for murdering CAM? I think John has already reached rock bottom and is broken enough after everything that's happened to him lateley, so what good would any sort of "holding him accountable" do? He hates himself enough as it is and how much more broken do you want him to get than he was by the end of TLD? Just because no one is telling him "what you did was wrong, you were being a lousy friend and husband" doesn't mean he doesn't know it. He knows very well, as his last speach to imaginary Mary shows. And he wants to try and become a better man. 

And what's even more tragic: I think John trying to live up to the high standard he had set for himself led to him holding in all the anger, grief and guilt he had built up over years. And all those bottled up feelings just flooded out and came crushing down on Sherlock in the mortuary. So probably John should lower his standard ans allow himself to be human and flawed from time to time to prevent anything like this from ever happening again. And probably we should give him the same break. 

Beatifully written. http://cdn.boardhost.com/emoticons/love.png


__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
"We'll live on starlight and crime scenes" - wordstrings
http://i.imgur.com/NzWTIDd.png

Team Hudders!
 
 

January 13, 2017 10:09 pm  #231


Re: John's violence

Vhanja wrote:

Beatifully written. http://cdn.boardhost.com/emoticons/love.png

So is your post #228! http://cdn.boardhost.com/emoticons/love.png

 

 

January 13, 2017 10:28 pm  #232


Re: John's violence

Kae Em wrote:

You mean as accountable as Sherlock was being held for murdering CAM? 

CAM was shot with John´s gun, the deed itself was aimed at ensuring the safety of John´s family and John was complicit in the murder (following Sherlock to the Appledore, allowing Sherlock to pull the gun out of his pocket, never preventing him to shoot CAM). Sherlock was originally sent to a deadly mission for this murder. And how was John punished for his complicity? He wasn´t at all.

And that was the point of the original poster, I think.

Also, I find it bizarre to bring CAM ´s murder as the proof of Sherlock´s depravity.
Sherlock only shot CAM dead to keep the vow he gave to the John in TSOT.
And in the very next episode, TST, he was denounced for not keeping the same vow.
You can´t denounce somebody for keeping and not keeping the same vow at the same time. So if keeping the vow was the goal, Sherlock can´t really be denounced for the time he actually kept it, even if the result was CAM ´s murder.

Last edited by nakahara (January 13, 2017 10:29 pm)


-----------------------------------

I cannot live without brainwork. What else is there to live for? Stand at the window there. Was there ever such a dreary, dismal, unprofitable world? See how the yellow fog swirls down the street and drifts across the dun-coloured houses. What could be more hopelessly prosaic and material? What is the use of having powers, Doctor, when one has no field upon which to exert them?

http://49.media.tumblr.com/eb0e156f55878fcd6f89dcf91ae89811/tumblr_o0eyyzrphE1spvwrzo2_1280.gif
 

January 13, 2017 11:19 pm  #233


Re: John's violence

nakahara wrote:

Kae Em wrote:

You mean as accountable as Sherlock was being held for murdering CAM? 

CAM was shot with John´s gun, the deed itself was aimed at ensuring the safety of John´s family and John was complicit in the murder (following Sherlock to the Appledore, allowing Sherlock to pull the gun out of his pocket, never preventing him to shoot CAM). Sherlock was originally sent to a deadly mission for this murder. And how was John punished for his complicity? He wasn´t at all.

And that was the point of the original poster, I think.

Also, I find it bizarre to bring CAM ´s murder as the proof of Sherlock´s depravity.
Sherlock only shot CAM dead to keep the vow he gave to the John in TSOT.
And in the very next episode, TST, he was denounced for not keeping the same vow.
You can´t denounce somebody for keeping and not keeping the same vow at the same time. So if keeping the vow was the goal, Sherlock can´t really be denounced for the time he actually kept it, even if the result was CAM ´s murder.

Do you mean how was he punished for "where are we going" leting himself be invited by Magnusson for a visit, taking his gun with him that he was entitled to own, then " do you have any plan?"  "What are we going to do ?" "Christ Sherlock?" It was normal visit up to the murder of CAM. The army was there because Sherlock stole Mycroft's computer full of state secrets to let CAM arrested.

So you expect John to be punished for allowing Sherlock to take his gun from his pocket? I cannot call it unbiased opinion.

I do not think that fulfilling vows is expected even if it means murder , crossing the law should be the border.  To protect somebody from being murdered and murder somebody is a big difference,but he was really awful character. Sherlock wanted to help Mary but it was not the only one, he had great ambitions to let Magnussen arrested and made a big mistake . His deductions were wrong which led to imminent  threat of Magnussen to destroy life of Sherlock's friends and his family. So not only Mary, anyone including Mycroft and Sherlock. 
Sherlock had no choice either being destroyed by Magnussen or accept punishment for murder he chose at least  the lesser evil, to help others.  I love the scene and the development in Appeldore but again I would not used it against John because he was just shocked audience and I am not sure if he approved the solution even if it helped his family. Even if he is a bit violent and does not always  control his emotions  it seems to me he has problems with murders. 

Last edited by Preceja (January 13, 2017 11:35 pm)

 

January 14, 2017 12:46 am  #234


Re: John's violence

Preceja wrote:

Do you mean how was he punished for "where are we going" leting himself be invited by Magnusson for a visit, taking his gun with him that he was entitled to own, then " do you have any plan?"  "What are we going to do ?" "Christ Sherlock?" It was normal visit up to the murder of CAM. The army was there because Sherlock stole Mycroft's computer full of state secrets to let CAM arrested.

So you expect John to be punished for allowing Sherlock to take his gun from his pocket? I cannot call it unbiased opinion.

Oh, come on... guns are there for shooting / threatening people. When Sherlock ordered John to bring gun to Appledore what did he think was the purpose of that order? He never pondered about that?

Also look:

http://66.media.tumblr.com/69236b313329c980e3053a1f54c30f85/tumblr_n89q98mIBj1qewsw4o1_400.gif


Sherlock could only pull the gun out after John lifted his arm and allowed him.
I refuse to believe that a former army man could not guess how would that gun be used in the next minute.

John never pulled the trigger, but he was an accomplice to this crime.

Preceja wrote:

I do not think that fulfilling vows is expected even if it means murder , crossing the law should be the border.  To protect somebody from being murdered and murder somebody is a big difference,but he was really awful character. Sherlock wanted to help Mary but it was not the only one, he had great ambitions to let Magnussen arrested and made a big mistake . His deductions were wrong which led to imminent  threat of Magnussen to destroy life of Sherlock's friends and his family. So not only Mary, anyone including Mycroft and Sherlock. 
Sherlock had no choice either being destroyed by Magnussen or accept punishment for murder he chose at least  the lesser evil, to help others.  I love the scene and the development in Appeldore but again I would not used it against John because he was just shocked audience and I am not sure if he approved the solution even if it helped his family. Even if he is a bit violent and does not always  control his emotions  it seems to me he has problems with murders. 

When Sherlock and Magnussen speak in Appledore, their only issue is Mary. Magnussen even explains how he can blackmail Mycroft through Mary´s connection to John and John´s to Mary. Therefore I see this as the main motivation for Sherlock´s action. Also his words after the actual shot: "Tell Mary that she is safe."

I don´t believe Sherlock would be destroyed if he let CAM alive. Like, CAM had nothing on him? Stealing the laptop would rather destroy Mycroft than Sherlock (negligence in keeping the state secrets) and so Mycroft, in order to preserve his place, would never allow the issue to go public. When he doctored the footage of CAM ´s murder in TST, he acted more in his own interest than Sherlock´s. So Sherlock was relatively safe - but Mary was doomed.

I also don´t think anymore that John has problems with murders - considering he remained married to a trained assassin after he found out the truth about her past? I presume murders commited by Mary were probably not any nicer than the one comitted by Sherlock?

But to return to the original issue - Sherlock was always stylised as a "bad boy" and so if he does outrageous stuff, people are not surprised. But they await better from John. And this creates that double standard Vhanja doesn´t like. Maybe it´s unfair but I think it´s understandable.


-----------------------------------

I cannot live without brainwork. What else is there to live for? Stand at the window there. Was there ever such a dreary, dismal, unprofitable world? See how the yellow fog swirls down the street and drifts across the dun-coloured houses. What could be more hopelessly prosaic and material? What is the use of having powers, Doctor, when one has no field upon which to exert them?

http://49.media.tumblr.com/eb0e156f55878fcd6f89dcf91ae89811/tumblr_o0eyyzrphE1spvwrzo2_1280.gif
 

January 14, 2017 8:20 am  #235


Re: John's violence

I think you're right, Nakahara.  John is "supposed" to be the moral compass.  But we actually see Sherlock as moral and self-sacrificing, whereas John doesn't always set the best example.  It certainly makes for a more interesting relationship (and show).  It's kind of funny how John appears to feel worse about fancying somebody else, than he does about his violence.   I get the impression that it's often gut feeling with John.  He's also shocked by Sherlock proposing to Janine.  I don't think he's morally outraged by Sherlock shooting Magnussen, so much as later it seems he's worried that it was the start of Sherlock going off the rails.   But I think he's fine about Sherlock doing it, possibly even more so than Sherlock is!

Last edited by Liberty (January 14, 2017 8:21 am)

 

January 14, 2017 4:14 pm  #236


Re: John's violence

I do not think John expected Sherlock to kill CAM, just was never explained anything before and more less every time did what Sherlock asked him during cases, never asked explanaition because he never got any during it so expected some clever plan that includes gun . He was in shock when Sherlock did it. 
To be fair  I do not think that Sherlock planned killing with the gun from the beginning, it was there just for case.

I agree that Sherlock's main motivation was to help Mary (or more John then Mary) but had very risky plan that should stop Magnussen foor good. Sherlock failed and Magnussen was very clear what is going to happen and very persuasive. How could Mycroft stop him from posting it in press? They had nothing on him ,would  have to release him and press is powerful even without evidence. And he already might have evidence sent abroad. I suppose he is a foreigner, Mycroft has no chance to prevent him from doing it abroad. 
And even Mycroft cannot hide anything on his own, especially his own faults. Do you think that government (or who is the right  for it) would cover that Mycroft does not secure his notebook (why he had it on the table anyway?) and his brother steels it and sells clasified secrets to the press?  No way. 

I agree that Magnussen's murder solved everything and after some time John agreed too, it saved Mary from being killled (at least for a while)  but  it was not only Sherlock's sacrifice to John. He had to remedy what he caused by his risky behaviour  not to ruin lifes of all the people around him. 

 

January 14, 2017 4:23 pm  #237


Re: John's violence

nakahara wrote:

But to return to the original issue - Sherlock was always stylised as a "bad boy" and so if he does outrageous stuff, people are not surprised. But they await better from John. And this creates that double standard Vhanja doesn´t like. Maybe it´s unfair but I think it´s understandable.

According to this logic we love serial killer for another sucesfull murder but hate a good boy for kicking a dog in anger. I understand but personally do not agree especially here . You hate John for not fulfilling your personal expectations. First he never was perfect good boy just has usually very good control  as he is trying to be, second you do not give him chance for personal development , but of course if you like it this way, why not. 

Poor John, he hates himself for not fulfilling his personal expactations, is not it enough?  http://cdn.boardhost.com/emoticons/grin.png

Last edited by Preceja (January 14, 2017 4:25 pm)

 

January 14, 2017 8:41 pm  #238


Re: John's violence

Preceja wrote:

He had to remedy what he caused by his risky behaviour  not to ruin lifes of all the people around him. 

But he actually caused nothing?
Mary was threatened by CAM in TSOT already and CAM´s blackmail was the reason she sneaked like a burglar into his office. So CAM would write about her regardless of Sherlock´s actions?
Mycroft is ridiculously powerful, so I think he would found the way how to protect himself. In the worst case, he would give some bribe to CAM (the same way he tried to do that with Irene Adler).

Sherlock was not devastated because he caused something, but because even his desperate actions could not prevent CAM from blackmailing Mary and John, IMHO.
 

Last edited by nakahara (January 14, 2017 10:25 pm)


-----------------------------------

I cannot live without brainwork. What else is there to live for? Stand at the window there. Was there ever such a dreary, dismal, unprofitable world? See how the yellow fog swirls down the street and drifts across the dun-coloured houses. What could be more hopelessly prosaic and material? What is the use of having powers, Doctor, when one has no field upon which to exert them?

http://49.media.tumblr.com/eb0e156f55878fcd6f89dcf91ae89811/tumblr_o0eyyzrphE1spvwrzo2_1280.gif
 

January 14, 2017 8:47 pm  #239


Re: John's violence

Preceja wrote:

According to this logic we love serial killer for another sucesfull murder but hate a good boy for kicking a dog in anger.

We would not love him, we just would not be surprised - he was presented to us as a serial killer from the very start.
But good boy would certainly shock us if he kicked the dog suddenly. 

Preceja wrote:

You hate John for not fulfilling your personal expectations.

LOL, I hate John?
What I hate is his violent streak that causes him to turn against Sherlock. Not used to it from other SH adaptations.
Also, if John is a flawed character, certainly it´s not wrong to discuss his flaws?


-----------------------------------

I cannot live without brainwork. What else is there to live for? Stand at the window there. Was there ever such a dreary, dismal, unprofitable world? See how the yellow fog swirls down the street and drifts across the dun-coloured houses. What could be more hopelessly prosaic and material? What is the use of having powers, Doctor, when one has no field upon which to exert them?

http://49.media.tumblr.com/eb0e156f55878fcd6f89dcf91ae89811/tumblr_o0eyyzrphE1spvwrzo2_1280.gif
 

January 14, 2017 11:10 pm  #240


Re: John's violence

nakahara wrote:

Mycroft is ridiculously powerful, so I think he would found the way how to protect himself. In the worst case, he would give some bribe to CAM (the same way he tried to do that with Irene Adler). 

Which was the way that that was reffered as hardly acceptable for the country or something like that. With the bribe CAM would own Mycroft  so loss  anyway with terrible future consequencies.

nakahara wrote:

Sherlock was not devastated because he caused something, but because even his desperate actions could not prevent CAM from blackmailing Mary and John, IMHO.

Interesting how the same part can be understood differently.  But HLV have been discussed many time at many places, we have S04 now.

 

Board footera

 

Powered by Boardhost. Create a Free Forum