nakahara wrote:

All this is a sign to me that John cares about his friend and certainly isn´t angry at him.

I agree with you on this. John has forgiven Sherlock by this point, but I still think that he doesn't know half of what Sherlock went through in his two years ago. Without an onscreen scene about that, I can't be convinced otherwise. I feel such a rift between the two of them on the tarmac. Sherlock is doing his deflecting thing and trying to be funny and John, while seeming to expect something profound in regards to the thing Sherlock has always meant to say, isn't willing to push it.

John definitely cares for Sherlock. There is no doubt in my mind that he (platonically) loves that man with all his heart and that Sherlock loves him, too (platonically) in his own way. Which makes the vastness between them on the tarmac so much harder to watch.

Mary

maryagrawatson wrote:

nakahara wrote:

All this is a sign to me that John cares about his friend and certainly isn´t angry at him.

I agree with you on this. John has forgiven Sherlock by this point, but I still think that he doesn't know half of what Sherlock went through in his two years ago.

But that's certainly not John's fault alone, is it? I would assume that Sherlock himself doesn't want to talk about it, just as he said "You know my methods" when in TEH John asked him how he faked his death. Both of them aren't especially experts when it comes to expressing their emotions, their feelings. And I would think that Sherlock doesn't really want John to know every last detail of his two years away...

 

Sherlock probably doesn´t want to disturb John more by describing to him all the tortures he went through while chasing after Moriarty´s gang. If that spares John more pain, then it doesn´t matter to him that John will be inadvertently harsh to him sometimes - he can take it.

And considering their dialog on the tarmac... the vastness of feelings that is between them cannot be conveyed in words in a short time that has been left to them. It probably cannot be conveyed by words at all:

However much we describe and explain love,
When we fall in love we find ourselves short of our words.
Explanation by the tongue makes most things clear,
But love unexplained is clearer.
When pen hasted to write,
On reaching the subject of love it split in twain.
When the discourse touched on the matter of love,
Pen was broken and paper torn.
In explaining it reason gets stuck, as a mule in a mire;
Nothing but Love itself can explain love and lovers!

Last edited by nakahara (May 13, 2014 8:46 am)

silverblaze wrote:

Very well said, Nakahara. Where's that poem from? 

We had a similar discussion about this scene before, somewhere in another thread. There are more people who thought the scene was really cold and unemotional. I really don't understand that. Not only did I find it touching, I thought it was the most emotional scene of the whole series and it actually made me weep. 

It's interesting that people can have such different reactions to a piece of art or entertainment. I would never have thought that people could interpret that scene so differently from me. Goes to show that you cannot always generalise your own experiences. I do think people who found that scene 'cold' have missed an awful lot, not being able to feel that, but everyone enjoys it in their own ways, I suppose. 

The verses are taken from Jalal-ud-din Rumi, the famous persian poet of 13-th century, from his book Mathnawi-ye manawi (Verses with Double Meaning). This is a poetic tranlation, but you can find more literal translation together with notes and a persian original here:

http://www.dar-al-masnavi.org/n-I-0109.html

Considering the conflicting opinions of the scene, I think it´s the case of "Rashomon effect".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rashomon_effect

Everybody has seen the same thing, but in every eye it looked a bit different. It happens frequently.
But i suppose, it´s a sign of a good entertainment, to raise questions, rather then to dumb you with too obvious solutions.

Yes, their poetry is one of the most beautiful in the world, especially that which conveys some mundane and spiritual meaning at the same time. Persians/Iranians are experts on that. And they have a huge number of classical poets like Rumi, Saadi, Nizami, Khayyam or Firdawsi. With such huge poetic tradition it´s no surprise they like poetry. 

Every translation takes something from the original, I´m afraid. Still, without it we wouldn´t be able to read those nice pearls of culture, so thanks at least for that.

silverblaze wrote:

True, I was translating Hamlet the other day (for fun, because I'm weird), and you always have to make a tradeoff between literal meaning, rythm, rhyme and understandability (if that's a word). English to Dutch is not the hardest thing in the world but still. . 

You are fabulous Silver!

tonnaree wrote:

silverblaze wrote:

True, I was translating Hamlet the other day (for fun, because I'm weird), and you always have to make a tradeoff between literal meaning, rythm, rhyme and understandability (if that's a word). English to Dutch is not the hardest thing in the world but still. . 

You are fabulous Silver!

Eh, thanks Tonnaree and Nakahara

Regarding the tarmac scene, quite often, when there's different interpretations, I tend to think: 'ok, interesting, different truths here, etc.' In this case, however, I'm more like NOOO, YOU'RE WRONG!!! 

Towards the topic of the thread: I like things unsaid. Let's keep them that way. 

.. and Sherlock sees it and stops opening up although he knows it´s their last moment together and instead makes a joke to give John a way out.. *sob*

But at least Sherlock got to see John laugh one more time...................

*curls up in fetal position and sobs*

It must have been quite a task, ending series three. Last series ended with basically the cliffhanger of the century, now it's your turn. Wuhah, stress! Though Moffat probably likes that sort of thing. He pulled it off really well.