Your idea is interesting, Fetchinketch, but I personally don't think Molly would have been Sherlock's choice for that role either.
Judging from the Christmas scene in Scandal, I'd say Lestrade and Molly are two people who would enjoy taking care of each other a little more in the future  , but John and Molly? Just don't see it.
Also, it would not really tie in with their dialogue at the hospital - why explain to Molly that he was not who she tought he was, why ask if she would still want to help him?
If all he needed her to do is look after John, it would have sufficed to tell her "if anything happens to me, keep an eye on John" or something along those lines. From their conversation, I would say that he needed her to do something quite outrageous, something she would not easily agree to.
But then, that is just my own impression, we will all have to wait and see...

Fetchinketch wrote:

This may be a little out there, but:

I'm starting to think that one of the requests Sherlock made of Molly, if not the only one, was to ask her to take care of John.  At that moment, as he wrote in the original "note", he was "pleased to think that I shall be able to free society of any further effects of his {Moriarty's} presence, though I fear that that it is at a cost that will give pain to my friends, and especially, my dear Watson, to you".  He was willing to accept the collateral damage to himself, if he manages to get rid of Moriarty.  Like in the Great Game, when he has John's agreement on this.  However, all along, he has been aware of how fragile John's emotional health is.  He's seen how intuitive and kind Molly is, he can trust her to help John through what he still thinks may be his own death.

Anyone else thinking along these lines?

You know I never thought of that but that makes a lot of sense. I hope that turns out to be true. Good thinking!

"Molly" is a derivative of "Mary," but I don't think they are plannning to get John and Molly together.* I believe I heard one of the creators say that originally Molly wasn't going to be regular character, but she worked out so well that they kept her going. And aren't we glad that they did? Besides helping Sherlock, she is adorable.

Anyway, I think Sherlock was asking for her physical help.

We didn't see an actual funeral or ceremony. I wonder who would have come. Would Molly have come and pretended to grieve? Would Donovan have shown up and gloated?

*Watson falls in love with and marries a woman named Mary in the canon. Totally different circumstances, though.

Last edited by veecee (June 19, 2012 6:42 pm)

I think John might find it a bit strange if Molly started hanging around and fussing over him, don't you.

Very true!

But then again, he is bereft and she would be someone to talk to, who really did understand the relationship.

Anyone who works in a morgue has to have a strong stomach to start with, I should think.  So although Molly's personal life may be not exactly stable, professionally she must be pretty tough.

JaneCo wrote:

I don't agree that Molly is 'unstable'. She has a sweet personality, has unrequited feelings for Sherlock, but she is quite strong. In her own rather gentle way she is not afraid to call Sherlock out when necessary. When push comes to shove she doesn't even miss a beat with "What do you need?" Granted, she is played in a slightly comedic way, but certainly not weak.

I agree. I don't know what Sherlock's thoughts are. But if he wanted someone to look after John it would have to be someone he knows is kind, sympathetic and observant of sad moods. It would be one of a handful of people Sherlock can count on for what passes as personal favor based on "friendship".

I don't agree Kazza. Or rather,yes I agree that Molly isn't going to start looking after John. I don't think John needs looking after. If he does then Mycroft has the resources to 'keep an eye on him'. However I believe that people underestimate the strength of Molly's character. Unrequited feelings do not demonstrate weakness I also have a suspicion that the way she is played or perhaps the way Moffat and Gatiss want her played is comedic deliberately so that people underestimate her. As excruciating as the 'Christmas drinkies' scene was it was important in the development of Molly's role. Although not in the canon, I think that Molly Hooper has been quite a useful character for the writers to develop in a rather subtle way over the two series.

I really don't expect to see a romantic attachment between M and S 'anytime soon'. In fact, because of the fans' seeming overwhelming desire to see a romance of sorts between characters I have thought that the 'romanticise Sherlock at your peril' remark was made to remove any expectations of that.

Last edited by JaneCo (June 20, 2012 5:18 am)

KeepersPrice wrote:

Of course the writer's set out tantalized us with those lines:
Molly:"What do you need?" 
Sherlock: "I need you".
It was made to sound very, very intimate.  And of course it was, but not in the way it was set up.  I believe that Sherlock was essentially putting his life in her hands.  He was asking her to help set the stage for the fall.  There was no rehearsal time and if one detail went wrong it then it really would be a fall to his death.  He had to trust her implicitly. I think maybe she did a lot physically like lining up people in the hospital to come out quickly for the body and hold John back, etc. Timing was everything. Did she have enough "clout" at the hospital to set the stage  completely on her own? Maybe.  And maybe Mycroft helped arrange things too, I just don't know at this point because I don't know how the trick was done.  But it's pretty clear Molly was a (if not the) key player and that Sherlock trusted her with his life.

Nicely put, Keepers. Not that Sherlock had much choice in who to trust at that point. With Watson, Lestrade and Mrs. Hudson "unavailable", who else was left? But I agree with you that he must have actually trusted her to follow an obviously difficult and risky plan, so the admission "I have always trusted you" was really true.

As much as Molly is used for comic relief in the series, her character is actually not funny at all. As others have pointed out, she works with dead bodies on a daily basis, and appearently her strong point is scientific research, rather than social interaction (even Sherlock notes that making conversation is not her thing!). In a situation like Sherlock's at the end of Series two, he needs someone with exactly that kind of attitude. Someone who won't overreact, won't try to talk him out of it, and btw has a precise understanding of what it takes to kill someone or keep them alive.
She is, therfore, the perfect partner in his crime, but she is - at least in my opinion - not very useful as a "firend in need" for John.

Some points of rebuttal so guys can jump up & down at me again.

1. It's such a common thing now for movies/shows to have this weak looking female who 'conquers all' and actually turns out to be 'quite strong' in the end. That is such a 'Hollywood' scenario and rarely the truth in real life.Yes you can all tell me that you know someone like that, etc. To that I say, no they were weak to get themselves in that spot/predicament/light. With Molly, I have based this analysis of a 'weak' personality on the fact that she's a grown woman and follows this guy around like a little puppy, can't have him & so latches onto some new guy in IT (that no-one knows anything about obviously.. think about it) and then announces in front of her peers how it's an "office romance'. For heaven's sake, does she eat Mills & Boon/Harlequin novels for breakfast? Who in the world actually talks like that?!
And you guys are suggesting at least that she is strong enough in character for someone like Sherlock to 'trust with his life?!" Thank god he is NOT dead or he'd be turning in his grave over that suggestion, lol. I am quite sure the only person other than himself that he would have trusted IF he had to use someone else's opinion & skills on this matter would have been his brother Mycroft. Life is rather a serious topic for him, I am sure he would have used the best on this occasion.

2. By saying Molly has a weak character, I am not saying the writing of her character is weak or that she does not have an important part in the overall show; I'm just saying as an individual she is weak.

3. Of course Moftiss write some of the lines to evoke feelings of 'romance/touchy feely bits' etc, because frankly 'sex sells' and there will always be a certain percentage of any audience that wants sex or romance in the most inopportune moments of any show. There are mind twisting stories, devious sub plots , underlying meanings for the hard core Sherlockians & lovers of mystery; there are straight out scenes with a good storyline and then there's the token 'love interest'  thread for those who wish "love, happiness & mung beans" in all things they watch. We in Australia call it 'getting sucked in' ; it works & it helps sell the show. I wonder how long that will last though?

4.

hypergreenfrog wrote:

Nicely put, Keepers. Not that Sherlock had much choice in who to trust at that point. With Watson, Lestrade and Mrs. Hudson "unavailable", who else was left?

Why were they unavailable? This happened before he went to the rooftop; before the fake call about Mrs Hudson even. No reason he could not have gone to any of those to plan things.
Molly can't decide for herself whether to wear lipstick or not without words from Sherlock, how to wear her hair, which meat to eat at lunchtime & yet he is going to trust her with his life?
Yeah, right.