nakahara wrote:

Liberty wrote:

It's an interesting point, but I'm not sure that John does prefer machine Sherlock.   When he tells him he's a drama queen, not a problem-solver, outside Sholto's room, I think he's actually being quite perceptive and even helpful (even if he's also rude).

Do you believe that if John offered some encouraging words (like "you can do it!") or plead with Sherlock to save Sholto, the outcome would be different and Sherlock would not save Sholto? Sherlock was already putting great effort into the rescue of the Major, was it so neccessary to insult him to make his performance better? How did being treated like a lackey improve his problem-solving?
 

That just seems to be how John needs to frame things with Sherlock. He insults, or browbeats or nags, he complains on his blog about "the Madman"-- he can't really see Sherlock as a Positive figure. 

I guess this is another one of those things where I hardly recognize the John you see, Raven. Your view of John seem to be a bit too harsh and negative compared to what I see.

I think that the fact he himself struggles dealing with his own emotions makes him unwilling to deal with others -and in particular, others who also seem to struggle with them be it for their sheer strength or his unfamiliarity to them.

SusiGo wrote:

Yes, this is true. Just think of John's words in the Underground car: "I find it difficult, this kind of thing." John is mostly unable to talk about his feelings, be it with his therapist or with Mrs Hudson he does not visit in the years after Sherlock's death or with Sherlock (the park bench). And as for Mary - we only get the awkward reconciliation scene in HLV which is not much.
So we have two men who have problems to openly deal with their emotions, not just one. Which does not make it easier for them.  

This is how I view it as well. That is why I think they are both a bit dysfunctional when it comes to emotions, only in 
slightly different ways.

Yes, indeed some interesting thoughts. 

nakahara wrote:

Interesting meta that touches the subject nicely:

http://just-sort-of-happened.tumblr.com/post/114926810935/mary-you-dont-know-anything-about-human-nature
 

Very pertinent to the discussion. 
And I agree with the meta.  I think that in Fandom, there's a tendency to want to see Sherlock as "Spock", or as Austistic, or even devoid of the ability to understand or even feel emotion-- and I think it's because of taking *John's comments and (sometimes insults and sly digs) as Gospel-- and John is an unreliable narrator. 

Last edited by RavenMorganLeigh (August 17, 2015 6:19 pm)

Vhanja wrote:

Interesting thoughts, indeed. I think there is a difference in understanding human nature in such a way that you can use it to manipulate or analyse other, and understand in a way that you can relate to it, empathise with others an be able to communicate in a way that shows this.

Sherlock is a master at the first one, and quite bad at the second one. (So bad, in fact, that it was this bit that made me believe for a while that he was somewhere on the autism spectre).

Psychopaths often manipulate the feelings of others without understanding emotions or empathising with anyone, yet I think we can agree that Sherlock is not a psychopath. Personally, I´m under an impression that he understands emotions in a normal way, like any other person - what makes him look as if he was bad at it is his brutal honesty and (as I see it) his deliberate ignorance of social boundaries other people adhere to. This characteristics saves him from being unneccessarily hurt. Because when Sherlock tries to display his emotions too openly, this happens:



He gets dismissed as if he really doesn´t have any feelings.

So he deliberately maintains this "I don´t understand those puny emotions" image.

Still, when he´s alone and has nothing to loose, he emotes quite fine, like any other person would. Here´s his reaction on realisation that Sarah and John were kidnapped in TBB:



He is disturbed when old lady is killed in TGG:



And the most famous example - tears when nobody is close enought to witness them:



I don´t think he is especially cold or weird when emotions are involved. He is just forced to mask it by strange circumstances of his life.

Vhanja wrote:

First example:

I don't see this at all as John dismissing Sherlock's feeling. This is where Sherlock tries to break the ice by using humour. That isn't good enough for John, he wants a proper apology. Which I understand and agree with (and I love this scene, how John is strong enough in himself to not give in by the slighest attempt to "break the ice" by Sherlock. Here Sherlock actually has to dig deep enough to give a proper apology, which he bothces in his own way, of course).

OK and what about TSOT? That weird scene where they are sitting on a park bench and John says: "Why are you suddenly so interested in another human being?", after which Sherlock answers: "I´m chatting... won´t try again."

In my eyes it was a dismissal with a D.

Vhanja wrote:

Fourth example: 

This is probably (and unfortunately) fake tears. Confirmed by Moffat as well. No, John can't see the tears, but if you can get yourself to cry, your voice will shaking more, and you will sniffle - things John can hear through the phone.
 

But we had a few examples of Sherlock´s fake tears in the show and they look nothing alike, IMHO. Plus, Thompson wrote this episode, not Moffat.
 

Vhanja wrote:

John is suprrised, because Sherlock has never done that type of "chatting" before. That scene doesn't come across to me as John dismissing Sherlock's feelings, more that he is surprised. And probably a bit suspicious, which is understandable considering how Sherlock has never done or said anything like that without ulteriour motives before. 

OK, I can buy suspicious John - Sherlock pulled his leg many times before, that´s true. 

Vhanja wrote:

 Also, Sherlock doesn't come across as very emotional in that scene, more curious. (You could even argue that Sherlock is the one dismissing John's feelings here, because this is one of the few times John tries to open up and tell Sherlock how much Sherlock means to him, and Sherlock just leaves).

But Sherlock left only when John started praising Mary and how she magnificently changed his life.... it was painful for him to hear this. So personally, I see him as emotional in this scene.

Vhanja wrote:

All of these areas seem to improve somewhat, but even as far out in the series as TSoT, you see Sherlock being bewildered and honestly not understanding why his words in his speech made people cry. And as late as HLV we see him manipulating someone in the coldest way possible through emotions (Janine), and he doesn't see even the slightest problem with this.

But HLV is not the best of examples. Sherlock only lied to Janine in an effort to stop the hateful blackmailer. There was nothing personal in it, no gain for Sherlock. 

How come people can accept Mary´s murder attempt at Sherlock´s life as neccessary and understandable and in the same time they condemn this much more beningn deed that was also committed out of neccessity?

Vhanja wrote:

I want to ask the question the other way around - how come all Sherlock's behaviour, no matter how cruel and manipulative, is always easily understood and defended, while as Mary (and now also John) seem to get the flak and being highly criticized for the tiniest thing. None of those two get even a hint of the same stretch of tolerance that Sherlock gets. 
 

It is possible to forgive Sherlock, because he knows shame and is able to apologise when he feels he overdid it - while Mary never apologised for any bad thing she has done.