Agreement SH. It would be insane of course if we had the death penalty for blackmail,  and that he is a vile man is not a crime. It is as the writers twattered ,- sometimes someone has to die. Without any credible evidence , and as Magnusson says..he holds everything and everyone Sherlock holds dear...Sherlock see's there is no choice. I think it is undersandable, but he still realises there will be a cost. I think both the Holmes suspect it all along.
Maybe they planned the Moriarty get of jail free card too.
Maybe they play the long game with Marmite Mary also..because of the baby.

but thats another topic.

Last edited by lil (January 17, 2014 9:46 pm)

Willow wrote:

SH

I think there is a considerable difference between the sort of patriotism which is all about the surface trappings and essentially for show, and the love of country which motivates someone to die in the service of their country. Sherlock finds the first to be risible but is prepared to take the MI 6 job believing that he will die in six months. He doesn't have to; he could run and never be found.

This season begins with Mycroft having to rescue him, with a crash course in Serbian, because Sherlock had been pissing people off in Eastern Europe; I don't think he was there investigating common or garden crimes. Equally, preventing the Houses of Parliament being blown up is fairly heavy duty stuff; the theme continues through the whole of this season. HLV begins with a hearing in a Parliamentary committee room; there is more than one way of destroying parliamentary democracy.  The first episode involved blowing up the people along with the buildings; the third is about someone who can make Parliament do exactly what he wants because he blackmails ministers and civil servants.

I think that Sherlock does consider democracy to be important, and that democracy in his own country is more than an abstract idea. He's no John Bull but there are things which he thinks are worth dying for; viewing him as solely motivated by personal feelings seems to me to be as one-sided as viewing him as solely motivated by abstract intellectual puzzles and the thrill of the chase. He's more complicated than that, which is why he's so interesting...

 
Yes this willow..I think the patriotism theme is from his last bow...they have thrown all the canon stories into a beautiful 3 part pastiche.
The motive is supposed to be ambiguous I think..so we can choose , it delib fits all motives.
Like the relationship s.

I firmly disagree,
Decent peoples come together and get to decide what is right and wrong.
This becomes enshrined in The Rule of Law and we are all equal before that.
I don't need a mythical god to tell me murder is wrong, I can work that out all by myself.
I also prefer civil justice, over  the miniscule chance of a tree falling on a car(And incidently, you'd imagine a divine super power could do better than that).
And really?
John knows Sherlock is alive and after last time, this is reward enough.

lil wrote:

Weirdness wrote:

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.

 
Magnusson did say Mycroft was looking for a way to get him.
Rem the phonecall in TSOT..Mycroft is warning Sherlock off, randomly mentions red beard, he seems to know how all this will end , but Sherlock ignores his advice.
By the time its christmas , Mycroft knows MAG is becoming a problem (smallwood suicide) and seems to change his mind.
In canon the safe is referred to as the dragon.replace dragon for safe the smoking convo looks very different. Mycroft oks the op on Magnusson?
Slay dragons...destroy the safe..thats why he drinks the tea, @and has brought the laptop...they never do xmas.
Sherlock does not betray his brother for Magnusson,  just like Mycroft does not betray Sherlock to Moriarty.They planned it.
The op goes wrong, because there is no vault its a mind palace.
Sherlock waits for Mycroft , look what he shouts to the sky/mycroft.
Translation...there is no vault, its in his mind, you messed up, now look what I have to do , get ready to have my back.
The merry christmas is Sherlock s sarcasm..by shooting Magnusson he has saved the country and Mycroft from falling under Magnusson s power, what a xmas pressie for everyone, but what a price for Sherlock. Oh Sherlock....
Smallwood and Mycroft become the people behind the curtain..maintaining their cover , but looking the other way over the murder.
Just my speculations.

I'll buy that, all but "sherlock the cold blooded murderer" part that is. Simply doesn't "sit right" (cue the moral justification speeches again) it seems a lot of people think the same thing about the execution of CAM though - personally I don't mind my heros a bit dark but this just seemed a bit..."lazy". - I think the writing of sherlock has been great but personally I just didn't "believe" the ending of HLV, I was waiting for the blunt force trauma that puts CAM in a coma trapping him in his own vault (I don't think anyone would question that as a poetic comeupance). Can't wait for series 4 and 5!!

The christian theme has been throughout , in short, Sherlock was tempted by Moriarty/devil, sacrificed himself to save people and rose from the dead...via a miracle (unknown magic trick) as a godlike figure.
(If interested further see the thread general discussions...I realalize its prob not deliberate. )
Within the theme..Sherlock/godlike...dispences out something like gods justice.

predictable.....

Last edited by lil (January 18, 2014 12:44 am)

The Doctor wrote:

I would settle on the point that the Moftiss/Gatiss Sherlock narrative as well as fan discussion clearly shows an obsession with a sacred moral world that one could argue is lacking in our post-Enlightenment era.

People want heroes aka people with god-like characteristics, it seems.

Actually, no.  If anything, it's the complete opposite.  Our heroes AREN'T perfect and there ISN'T strict moral code.  Sherlock and John often break laws and cover up crimes in their line of work.  Sherlock isn't a role model, nor is he a god...at heart, he's simply a man with a strong sense of right and wrong that doesn't always line up with what society deems right and wrong.  I don't think there's anything 'sacred' about it.  If Sherlock Holmes sees a terrible man doing terrible things who is untouchable by man's laws, he would have no qualms about destroying that man or seeing that man destroyed.  The original Sherlock Holmes was very much the same way, so this has nothing to do with the the show's writers or fans.  It's what the story has always been.

Last edited by sj4iy (January 18, 2014 1:18 am)

Exactly so ....that we hold our idols up to impossible standards and then tear them down /are shocked when they fail.Almost the theme of this thread no?

Ironic wasn't it that Magnusson was in the media...thats what he did.
But sure...we are all grey..human...thus roll on the humanising of Sherlock.

And is only part of what The Enlightenment was about!

I disagree.
Sacred has specifically religious connotations which I totally reject.
I take ACD's work as the Original book. The difference between me and a fundamentalist Christian, is that I have the honesty to admit they are just stories.
I don't even re-read the Holmes Canon that often, then again, how many Christians have read much of the Bible?! I have read all of both.
I have no doubt religious paralells can be found in Sherlock Homles tales, as in any other genre. I can see them myself.
But I know the writers(well at least 2 of them) are not religious, so I know that is not their concern.
I reject the notion of hero, as Sherlock does.
I can accept Sherlock as a fitional character, I would have far greater problems with him if he were real.
I state that BBC Sherlock is the best TV ever, that is why I rewatch.
I have once attended setlock at Gower street, last April.
I had very mixed feelings about it, but thought I may not get another chance.
I loved watching the filming process. meeting other fans and seeing my favourite actor.
But I do not worship Benedict.  I think he is the best actor in the world, at the moment.  Bit I freely criticise the things about him I don't like. And at the end of the day he is just an actor, not a doctor or scientist etc...
I have no autographs and would never ask for one.
I analyse the show, but not in a meditative or worshipful way, more as an amateur arts crit.
I visit Speedy's and the Sherlock Holmes museum: the former to eat/drink and the latter to buy Sherlock Holmes stuff. He is my fave fictional character.
I also belong to other communities, many atheist.

Last edited by besleybean (January 18, 2014 11:18 am)

I agree with you, bb and Willow, in most points. Some elements may be interpreted as having a religious meaning - coming back from the dead, sacrificing oneself for his friends - but they need not necessarily interpreted in this way. We can also argue that Sherlock uses his mind (palace) to return to world of the living. The whole scene is at once highly emotional but also driven by logic - how to fall, how to avoid shock, how to cope with pain. 
And I do not view my involvement in this fandom in any religious way.