But it's still not a tragedy, there is no downfall of the hero. You could say it's a tragic event, in the modern sense of "sad" or "appalling", but not in its classical sense. The hallmark of the true Greek tragic hero is his total ruin: the loss of everything he holds hear, of his good name and social standing. There's no silver lining, there's no side-victory, he just fails (while Sherlock actually does save John and Mary).

 

silverblaze wrote:

belis wrote:

silverblaze wrote:

BTW, did any of you ever follow a course on ethics philosophy? There's no one theory that's always right. People don't really understand ethics, we partly reason and partly just feel them. 

There is a good evidence that we feel more than reason actually. If you put people in the scanner and ask them to solve ethical problems the main part of the brain that lights up is the one that deals with emotional processing, not rational thoughts.

At the risk of going a bit off topic, there are some interesting psychological experiments that demonstrate the same thing too. The railway experiment is pretty famous. Whether you're somehow involved with someone or something, whether it has a face to you, is often more important than weighing the costs and benefits. You actually see that in the scene too, I doubt Sherlock would have killed CAM for an abstract client, Mycroft doesn't even understand why he's bothered at all. 
 

I agree. 
 

Schmiezi wrote:

Criosdan wrote:

Schmiezi: It's "Men at Arms" (I love the Guard books so much as well as the Witches.)
 

Thanks! ( The Guards books are great. IMO, "Night watch is one of the best time travel stuff I've ever read.)

It's easily my favorite Discworld book and the audiobook that I've listened the most.

Absolutely great.

I completely accept what Sherlock did was in character for him and in keeping with the show.
Sorry, we somehow(and maybe it was my fault) wandered into the : 'and I think CAM deserved it' territory.
This just prickled me, cos we are all have equal human rights and we are equal under the Law.  We have to behave BETTER than the bad guys, not follow their blueprints! That's the whole point.
But yes sorry, just for a TV show, all is fine.
Bottom line, I can't think of many people who deserve a bullet to the temple.I think it's better they face up to what they did and hopefully repent and I don't mean in a religious sense. But they would still be incarcerated.

Criosdan wrote:

Unfortunately, there is no such thing like a just justice system. Even in fiction...
Imagine CAM would have gotten his trial what do you think what would happen?

 But he wouldn't even go to a trial, this is the whole point: Sherlock was trying to set a trap and finally "catch" Magnussen and send him to prison, using Mycroft's laptop as a bait (yes, he wanted to retrieve compromising documents on Mary, as well). Only he got outsmarted by Magnussen and to make things worse, as a result he handed him Mycroft on silver plate and ruined John and Mary as well.
 

miriel68 wrote:

Well, I think here we have to deal with the logic of the show: they came as near to the tragedy as they could, but after all Sherlock is not a melodrama, it is a detective show, a bit theatrical to add, and they needed to remind us about it at the end. I would "like" the melancholy heart wrenching ending as well, but it would go against the rules of the genre and would also bring us dangerously into TRF climate again. They could not afford to repeat it, IMO.
 

Singer (2001, 44–48) suggests five concepts that characterize melodrama: nontraditional narrative structure, sensationalism, moral polarization, pathos, and overwrought emotion. Sherlock fulfils all thee elements.

"Indeed, one of the more enjoyable aspects of the show is the way in which it rarely leaves viewers with moral certainties: as the show has proceeded through each season, it has become increasingly morally complex. Far from altering the melodramatic essence of the show, this complexity only enhances it. If, as Brooks argues, the modern soul was, and is, hungering for moral certainty, it must be a moral certainty that is relevant to the times, and in the current context it cannot have escaped the notice of the sensitive viewer that our moral context is extremely complex. In short, there are no absolute certainties, but conflicting ethical models. An appropriate TV fantasy is one that offers epic moral clashes—with, perhaps, one moral framework coming out on top." L. Schmidt

A quick copy an dpaste because it sums up my two cents quite well...
 

The Doctor wrote:

[
Singer (2001, 44–48) suggests five concepts that characterize melodrama: nontraditional narrative structure, sensationalism, moral polarization, pathos, and overwrought emotion. Sherlock fulfils all thee elements. 

 Singer talks about early twentieth century melodrama, basically, but of course I agree with you, these elements are universal to melodrama. However, Sherlock is not a melodrama, but a detective series which incorporates some components of other genres recurrently or occasionally and keeping the balance between these elements is essential to keep the show's identity.
 

Swanpride wrote:

But Moriarty was Sherlock's equal...Mycroft is supposed to be smarter than Sherlock, so it makes sense that he is smarter than Moriarty, too. Magnusson was Mycroft's equal...which is most likely one of the reasons Mycroft avoided to take him on.

 
I hadn't thought about that.  Now that you mention it, it does make sense.  It kind of makes me wonder if Mycroft already knew that there were no actual files.  That would support why Mycroft, being "the government", wouldn't have already made a move against Magnusson.  Maybe he was biding his time until Magnusson slipped up and didn't want Sherlock to interfere and jeopardize himself based on the false assumption that there was actual physical evidence somewhere.

Even if there is physical evidence, like the films and even letters,, Magnusson could of explained them as part of his media / newspaper empire archives..thats exactly the kind of thing they all have tucked away.

I've read through this entire thread from the beginning, making notes as I've gone along as certain ideas have occured to me. As such, the following narrative might not always flow perfectly, but these are some of the things I'm thinking right now:

Some have you have mentioned that he did all this to protect Mary which was something of a morally questionable act considering she is essentially a serial killer (she's killed multiple people). I don't feel much sympathy towards her other than the fact that she's left that life behind and wants to be a more "normal" person now and apparently regrets some of the things she's done. I found it difficult to understand why Sherlock would have sympathy for her and forgive her for shooting him. Sure, she gave him a non-lethal shot but it looked pretty damn lethal to me, I mean, he literally had to fight for his life, so I'm not convinced by that argument. I think the main reason, and really, the sole reason, that Sherlock is so protective over Mary, is because of John. He can see how much John loves her, how much he needs her, and he knows that as long as Magnussen is around, John's life will be made a misery. He did it for John, not for Mary. I honestly think he couldn't really give a shit about Mary right now, but he's made a promise to his best friend and he wants him to be happy and safe. I do find it slightly difficult to understand why he thinks he'd be safe with an ex-assassin but Sherlock is generally a pretty good judge of character so if he believes that she has reformed her behaviour then we have to go with that. Part of me wishes she'd done something a lot simpler and less darker in her past like, killed someone in revenge because they'd killed someone she loved, or something (sort of a take on The Devil's Foot). There's the baby as well. Someone mentioned that the baby was the one innocent party in all this and yeah, that's totally correct.

He definitely didn't have any choice at that moment with regard to killing Magnussen. There was no way they were ever going to get a conviction on him. They had literally NO evidence. Hearsay doesn't stand up very well in court, there needs to be actual solid evidence otherwise he'd just end up walking away and carrying on - particularly with the massive influence he has to just blackmail his way out of tricky situations. It's in keeping with the canon that Magnussen should die, and I think it was a brilliant take to have Sherlock be the one to pull the trigger. Some serious drama right there. Personally, I think Sherlock probably has killed people in the past, but never in such an execution style fashion. I can well believe he's been in some epic fights with people where he's won and quite possibly left them for dead, not knowing whether they would survive or not...I can imagine him in some dark scrapes during the Hiatus, going off the first scene of Empty Hearse...but I still feel him shooting Magnussen like that was a momentus and significant moment in his life; the fact that he made that decision, to do it for John. Because, let's make no mistake here...it was for John.

This was definitely "in character" for me, and very much in keeping with the dark side of Sherlock Holmes we get exposed to occasionally in the canon. As he says himself, he's not a hero, and sometimes acts as his own judge, jury and in this case, executioner. He's let murderers off in the past if he felt their crimes were justified (like in Devil's Foot that I mentioned above), and so I can kind of understand him forgiving Mary although her crimes do seem quite extreme. Then again...if she worked for the CIA she was essentially killing bad guys, one would imagine.

John has killed people, probably more than just the cabbie. Sherlock kills someone ONCE and everyone is freaking out? I don't get it. Also, if you read John's blog on the Poison Giant case it was pretty much hinted at that they killed someone there too - they threw one of them off the roof. This isn't the first time either of them have been involved in cases where people die, possibly as a result of their actions. Yeah, alright, he never actually shot anyone in the canon and I agree that by law, it would be considered first degree murder in cold blood. Sherlock was perfectly aware of that too and was more than willing to go to prison for his friend's future. Magnussen was a loathsome person and I honestly applauded Sherlock's actions at that point, despite being worried for his future. It was a brave, selfless thing to do. He didn't do it just to save John's marriage, he did it to secure John's entire future and make sure that he wasn't spending the rest of his life getting blackmailed, and essentially he was saving a life too - he was saving Mary's. CAM had already basically threatened her, saying he could arrange her death in one phone call by informing her enemies of her location. That would put John's life in immediate danger too, as he would invariably leap to her defence, get involved in the entire affair and possibly end up getting killed by Mary's enemies too. Sherlock's killing of Magnussen WAS 100% justified.

I honestly don't think they'll address the murder again in Series 4. Why would they need to? That case is over now. Just the same as they won't go back and explain any more of Reichenbach. Time to move on. I don't think Magnussen will even get mentioned except perhaps in passing when they're discussing Mary's past - which they're bound to discuss some more of, for sure. I think all those concerned that Mary has got away with her crimes will be satisfied when they kill her off in Series 4, which they are sure to do.

Also, I don't think Sherlock did it for his country. He's just about the least patriotic person ever. He makes fun of John at one point "Queen and country, how quaint"...doesn't want a knighthood, turns up in Buckingham Palace in a sheet, etc etc. He does what he does for the thrill of the chase, the blood pumping through his veins, he plays the game for the game's own sake but most importantly, despite everything he says, he is in fact, extremely human and empathetic and will go to the ends of the earth to protect the people he cares about.

This scene seriously makes my heart break, in so many ways. It's perfection. It makes me happy and sad at exactly the same moment.

P.S. Magnussen is definitely dead. It's canon that he dies. Mind you, I said that about Moriarty, haha, but seriously, I still think he's dead but that's a different discussion.

Also, I think it's an interesting idea that there might in fact be physical evidence out there somewhere. I found it a little hard to believe that he could pull off all this just on his own memory. Perhaps when he came across actual evidence - like the letters - he memorised them and then destroyed them. Also, we know that he definitely did have REAL video footage of John in the fire, it wasn't just a video he played in his own head - because he played it to John and Sherlock when they came to Appledore. That was evidence right there! Still not enough for a conviction though, probably.