I think you're right, Willow.
But I do think John forgives Mary because Sherlock does.,
Sherlock is prepared to take the risk on....
So John is.

besleybean wrote:

I think you're right, Willow.
But I do think John forgives Mary because Sherlock does.,
Sherlock is prepared to take the risk on....
So John is.

That is the emotional analysis of the situation; I'm not sure that it's the accurate analysis of the situation. Mary is, after all, Sherlock's passport into Appledore; it's the thing which Sherlock thinks will persuade CAM that Sherlock is genuine in his offer. Had he called time on Mary then Sherlock has no way in, and Sherlock very much wants a way in to those vaults.

We learn in the course of the encounter with CAM at Appledore that Mycroft has wanted his head for a very long time; I see no reason to doubt CAM's assessment of the situation, nor that both Sherlock and Mycroft believed that those vaults really did exist.

If we look at it in terms of greater or lesser evil, rather than the black and white of good or bad, then Sherlock has already failed to help Lady Smallwood because of his prolonged hospitalisation; incarcerating Mary will not help Lady Smallwood, but not incarcerating her gives Sherlock the pretext which allows him to set the trap which would have worked if the vaults existed.

I find it infinitely more plausible to believe that Sherlock is trying to salvage something from the wreckage than that he is driven by sentiment; I entirely accept that Sherlock has a somewhat romanticised view of motherhood, but he did not trust Mary in the same house as his unconscious parents and brother in his absence without ensuring that Mary was unconscious as well. Had Sherlock 'forgiven' her he would not have drugged a pregnant woman; he did that because he knew just how dangerous she is...

belis wrote:

I deffinitely agree that John wants to be the 'sane' one. I think that he actualy genuinly believes that he is the 'sane' one. He doesn't have the best insight into what's going on in his head and how much he is affected by his emotions. John's 'not my fault' fits with that.

I think Mary's 'not my fault' is very different. First of all she never denied responsibility for her actions. She never appologised but that's a bit different. She is ruled more by logic than feelings and that what makes her appear a bit ruthless. She has tendency to become quite fixated on her goal to an extent when she stops pretty much at nothing. She has conviction in her actions therefore she won't appologise.

Their actions are similar but I think they are quite different personalities. Both a bit disfunctional though so I can see where 'Mr and Mrs Psychopath' comes from.

 
I think I must cite her line about people who should be killed as her claim that it's not her fault; she's just the person who is forced to kill people because they deserve to be killed. That is an unequivocal attempt to exonerate herself by blaming her victims, and I do not see how that line can be construed in any other way.

Equally, as others have pointed out, it is illogical to shoot someone as a means of having a conversation with them later; it's much easier to either sort it out quickly or agree to meet later. No bullets need to be expended in either case.

John is more complicated, I think, and since he's one of the heroes we do need to get him sorted out at some point; Moftiss can dispense with Mary if they choose but John's a fixture.

I suppose that John may have been the sort of hearty rowing, rugby playing chap who really didn't enjoy his rotation in the psychiatric department, or may have been able to omit it altogether, and this may explain his avoidance of accepting that he genuinely does need help, and his belief that he really doesn't need to sort his head out because there's nothing wrong with it.

I'm not sure what could be done to change that; do you think it is possible that he has switched gears and now perceives himself to be 'the sane one' in his relationship with Mary? Does that provide him with the way to tell himself that he's fine, and that it's everyone else who is nuts?

Ok, it's 1am and my response has just vanished into the cyber void; I am taking it's hint, and given up for the night...

belis wrote:

Willow wrote:

I suppose that John may have been the sort of hearty rowing, rugby playing chap who really didn't enjoy his rotation in the psychiatric department, or may have been able to omit it altogether, and this may explain his avoidance of accepting that he genuinely does need help, and his belief that he really doesn't need to sort his head out because there's nothing wrong with it.

I'm not sure what could be done to change that; do you think it is possible that he has switched gears and now perceives himself to be 'the sane one' in his relationship with Mary? Does that provide him with the way to tell himself that he's fine, and that it's everyone else who is nuts?

Rotating through psychiatry doesn’t alter ones personality and communication preferences. One would hope that we can help students develop some skills and maybe help them reflect on their strength and weaknesses but to be honest I don’t hold my breath. I think John would do OK in psychiatry as he can recognize emotions in other people rather well and has a caring nature. Maybe he would have developed some self-awareness through psychotherapy group (it’s great fun to be analysed by your colleagues lol).
Personality is something that is quite stable throughout person’s life so I don’t think John will change dramatically. What often helps is for someone to talk you through the weaknesses and defensive behaviors as they are often in a blind spot. It’s not so much about changing but being aware of ones limitations and developing effective coping strategies. Sherlock gave John some good insight in that living room scene however considering his level of agitation I doubt any of that was heard and retained. If repeated a couple of times it may lead to some realization.
I think he definitely sees himself as the sane one with Mary. In addition alongside his sense of duty he has this burning desire to be needed and useful. He has seen himself as taking care of Sherlock. That didn’t go to well. First John thought that he failed completely and Sherlock killed himself. Then Sherlock turned out to be alive but clearly not really needing John he coped just fine without him for 2 years. Now John has turned his efforts towards Mary.
 

I think Fanon has always seen John as the caring one, the kind one-- partly because for the first two seasons, we saw through his POV. But there are little glimmers that he's actually just as callous at times, as Sherlock-- he's better at appearing to be normal. That's possibly how he sees himself-- 

But look at the way he deals with women through the first 2 seasons-- *he* has trouble keeping their names straight, he's the one interested in "getting off" with Sarah, and tries to guilt her for not sleeping with her. 

When Sherlock rescues them from the Chinese Acrobatic Gang, and Shan, it's Sherlock with the soft words for Sarah as he unties her, John cracks a joke about the next date. 

And remember the laughing and joking after shooting the cabbie? 

John is angry at Sherlock for faking his death--for two years, but he never contacts Mrs. Hudson for those two years, either-- and the difference is, he's much better at coming up with platitudes. We see more of this during season 3-- John writes off Billy as scum, and sprains his wrist; Sherlock takes Billy on as protoge. 

I truly think that in Fanon , there's a tendency to put each character into very narrow boxes; Fanon says Sherlock=bad, crazy, addict, mean, selfish, childish, etc, .. John=good, kind, patient, selfless, adult, sane.

We polarize. 

The truth is that they are more alike than John would ever want to admit. 

That doesn't mean that John is bad, he doesn't need defending-- but in terms of a fictional character, he's a writer's dream, because of so many flaws that even he is unaware of--and that's a big part of his "Hero's Journey"; it's part of his character arc-- it's important for John to finally come to terms with who he is and what he wants, and fully own it.  

It seems to me that major themes in BBCSherlock are, "the lies we tell ourselves"-- along with "hidden in plain sight" and of course, "wolf in sheep's clothing"--  take your pick. 

John is not just a regular bloke, and one day, maybe, he'll embrace that. 
 

Last edited by RavenMorganLeigh (March 8, 2014 6:34 am)

belis wrote:

There is no doubt in my mind that there is a darker side to John Watson. I  think that a lot of it is in his blind spot thogh and he isn't that aware of himself.

I think (speculate) that some of his behaviours stem from this black and white way of thinking. Sherlock is dead. This chapter of life is closed now. Grieve, cut all ties, move on. Mrs Hudson was part of life with Sherlock and he closed that chapter. I haven't quite made my mind if that is him being callous or a bit inept at dealing with his own emotions and using avoidence as a defence mechanism.

As far as Billy is concerned John would see him as criminal who approched him with a knife. Those are the facts that he knows about Billy. After that he isn't particularly intrested in finding out more. Sherlock is more open minded and tends to continue to look for possibilities rather than make a judgement based on the first couple of facts.

 

Oddly enough, John is more like a computer than Sherlock insofar as he is binary; on/off, black/white, no complex layers of shading. Possibly one of the reasons he seems reluctant to see his therapist is that he would have to engage with the existence of his darker side; one of the ways of avoiding acknowledging his own capacity for uncontrolled anger is simply to pretend that it doesn't exist.

Speaking hypothetically, of course, how would you set about helping someone like John if they were referred to you? Fan fic writers everywhere would love to know


 

Willow wrote:

Speaking hypothetically, of course, how would you set about helping someone like John if they were referred to you? Fan fic writers everywhere would love to know

I would sit down and weep whilst reading the referral letter considering my past experiences with treating other doctors.  ;)

Seriously though it would very much depend on the set up. Is it going to be NHS or private? Assessment or long term work. Ideally we would want a piece of psychotherapeutic work to be done. The question is which modality would be best for John.

From the glimpses of his sessions with Ella I think that she is a psychodynamic therapist. I don’t think that’s the most suitable choice. I would be more tempted to maybe use CAT. It explores maladaptive behaviours through the prism of relationships with others. I would imagine that it would be much easier for John to talk about other people than himself. I could than use that material to present information about himself. A bit along the lines of Mary being the way she is because he chose her but delivered in a bit less threatening way. Lol There is a lot of structure involved in sessions, which provides useful scaffolding for people who struggle to understand and express their emotions.  It uses questioners and diagrams. You also write letters to the patient at certain stages to summarise the work done.

 The other question would be what it is exactly that we want to treat. If the focus was on personality difficulties, relationships etc than CAT is a good choice. If he wanted an intervention aimed at his PTSD specifically then trauma focused CBT would probably be my first choice. Aside of evidence base it is good for developing transferable skills that can be used to tackle other problems after PTSD is addressed.  

I would definitely want to choose a modality with internal structure that focuses on problem solving and doing specific exercises rather than sitting there and having to speak at length about ones feelings. That would hopefully appeal to John’s practical nature and keep him engaged.
 

Willow wrote:

But I have done some preparatory reading, and black and white thinking leapt off the page when looking at borderline personality disorder; I am always skeptical of 'borderline' because it seems a cop out, but I'm not a psychiatrist and therefore I am not qualified to make those sorts of judgments. The Game is on, though of course it's your game

I don't think he has BPD. The black and white thinking is definitely a feature of it but he lacks some other key elements. You could argue the case for Emotionally unstable personality disorder: Impulsive type although I'm not entirely convinced.  To look at it systematically:
 
F60.30 Impulsive type
At least three of the following must be present, one of which must be (2):
[list=1]
[*]marked tendency to act unexpectedly and without consideration of the consequences; (Well, I suppose you could argue that going to a drug den with your pregnant wife would be a prime example of that )
[*]marked tendency to engage in quarrelsome behavior and to have conflicts with others, especially when impulsive acts are thwarted or criticized (Not much of that going on, particularly in seasons 1 and 2, which makes me question the diagnosis)
[*]liability to outbursts of anger or violence, with inability to control the resulting behavioral explosions; (Kind of but more so in season 3. It doesn't seem to be a constant feature)
[*]difficulty in maintaining any course of action that offers no immediate reward; (No)
[*]unstable and capricious (impulsive, whimsical) mood. (No)
[/list]
F60.31 Borderline type
At least three of the symptoms mentioned in F60.30 Impulsive type must be present [see above], with at least two of the following in addition:
[list=1]
[*]disturbances in and uncertainty about self-image, aims, and internal preferences; (No)
[*]liability to become involved in intense and unstable relationships, often leading to emotional crisis; (Mary… Hmm…)
[*]excessive efforts to avoid abandonment; (No, that would be Mary’s territory )
[*]recurrent threats or acts of self-harm; (No)
[*]chronic feelings of emptiness. (No, but than none asked him so maybe)
[*]demonstrates impulsive behavior, e.g., speeding, substance abuse (Maybe)
[/list]
Personally I wouldn't say that he has a personality disorder. Maybe some 'personality difficulties' and traits but not a disorder in a strict sence.
 

Willow wrote:

So, to clarify, when taking the patient history you will no doubt want the full history because that's what doctors always want, unless someone is dying in front of them when other considerations prevail.

That's right. Psychiatric history isn't that different than usual medical history although we are more intrested in the social stuff and life events than a cardiologist for example would. Alongside history we do mental state examination. That's something that can be done to an extent on fictional characters and in fact I like to teach medical students by showing them clips from various movies.

Willow wrote:

You have noted elsewhere that personalities don't really change, so I assume that if you were considering a possible BPD then the absence of these features in earlier years would be the bit that says 'No'. Is that assumption correct?

That's exactly right. Personality tends to be stable over adult life. It does sometimes change abruptly following a head injury for example but that's quite rare. John has been successfull and highly functioning for most of his adult life. There are some aspects of his personality that may be a bit of a hinderence to him (we all have them) but I don't get a feel of this adding up to a personality disorder.

Willow wrote:

I had a tangentially related discussion last night about how to help bad doctors to become better doctors, and the consensus was that you can successfully tackle skill deficits most of the time; what you can't do is help the guy who offloads everything s/he can, doesn't bother, doesn't care, because that's the way s/he is, and s/he likes being the way s/he is, and sees no reason to change.

'Doctors in difficulty'- big thing this days. Medical schools also try to develop better systems to recognise problems early. Quite a few psychiatric consultants are allocated students on remedial placements as the pace in the department is so much slower and we can give them much more individual attention. I have a student around at the moment who is with us to try and develop some communication skills but it's not going very well. I'm trying to figure out if he can't be bothered or genuinly can't and this whole 'I don't give a toss' is a bit of a defensive mechanism. Either way it;s going to be hard work.

Willow wrote:

What sort of success rate do these therapies have? I appreciate that trying to extract reliable statistics is like wrestling with jelly, and that doctors are really difficult to treat, hence John's referral letter bringing tears to your eyes, but I live in hope of a happy John who has managed to be a bit more honest with himself about who he is and what he wants

Finding reliable statistics for psychological therapies is a big challange as there are very little randomised controlled trials (is much harder to do those with talking therapies than pills). Generally speaking it depends to an extant on what we are trying to treat.Responce rate for trauma focused CBT for PTSD for example is usualy quoted at around  50%. There is a recent RCT trial of CAT for personality disorder that showed remission rate of 33%. The best predictor of sucess is the quality of therapeutic relationship. I don't think he really clicked with Ella.
 

That would only be right if we had some normal, statistically inconsequent people in our story. But Mary and Sherlock are hardly an ordinary pregnant wife and an ordinary best friend.
 
Lets sum up all the good things Sherlock has done for John and Mary:
 

• he organised their marriage perfectly althrough he hates marriages with passion and it was a live torture for him,
• he saved the life of John′s former commander, who was important to John,
• after he was shot by Mary he quickly told John that he married an assassin as was his duty and proved himself to be a sincere and a caring friend,
• but after that he also lied to John about the danger and the cause of his injury in true Monty Pyton Style („it′s just a fleshwound!“), persuading him that Mary had just performed surgery on him – all for the sake of saving John′s shitty marriage and Mary′s skin, once again proving himself to be caring and protective of their relationship,
• he took some notebook with state secrets and offered it to CAM so as to save Mary′s life and John′s family again,
• when that method proved fruitless he shot CAM to silence him on behalf of Mary′s security, but he has done that in front of witnesses, so that John wouldn′t be implied as an accomplice or the actual shooter,
• he deliberately forgots that Mary shot him and is civil and friendly to her even on the tarmac, after he sacrificed everything for John′s and her happiness and is about to pay for it, with his own life.

 
Now, it would be really decent for John to care about Sherlock more than Mary after all that sacrifice, wouldn′t it? The fact that Mary is female and got herself pregnant does not absolute her of her former crimes, her hurting of Sherlock and her constant lies that finally led to Sherlock′s sacrifice.
 
John has no reason nor right to be angry at Sherlock after all this. If John has any reason to be angry, it′s to be angry with himself and his wife rather than his best friend.