I have honestly never read the scene that way.
1. I just think CAM sees the situation the same way Moriarty did: want to burn Sherlock?  Go after John.
2. What do you think would actually happen if a 'Johnlock' story was printed?  We're not a fascist state...nobody could care less. I'm sure Mary would have a good laugh if she read them!

Last edited by besleybean (August 26, 2016 9:38 pm)

How is it obscure?

I just see it that as a junkie Sherlock could be physically vulnerable, so an emotional Sherlock could be pyschologically vulnerable.
It's not about John at all.
It's about the Holmes boys and Mycroft specifically.

Well, not to me it doesn't. 
I feel the point is moot anyway:
CAM is dead and I don't think anybody cares what he thinks about anything, now.

However you did hit on a valid point: some straight men don't like to be 'accused' of being gay.
John in particular is heartfelt sick of it, by the time Mrs Hudson still mentions it.

Last edited by besleybean (August 26, 2016 9:53 pm)

I also see the damsel in distress reference as linking in with the 'fairy tale' themes in TRF.

The line (you wouldn't care if it was exposed, would you?) clarifies what Sherlock was trying to do (encourage Magnussen to think that he could be blackmailed with the threat of exposing his drug use, not that his weak point was being drugged).  Magnussen had done his research and found that Sherlock wasn't bothered by public exposure - there was lots of bad press about him in TRF.  That's not his weak point.  His weak point is John Watson.

I honestly don't see what you're saying here.   That Magnussen is saying that his weak point is the worry that John will be exposed?  Exposed how?   If it's about sexual orientation, John has already been "exposed" as gay in the press in TRF ("confirmed bachelor").  He was a bit irritated because it was inaccurate (and because he was worried about Sherlock courting fame) rather than because being gay was undesirable ("it's fine"), but hardly to the extent that would cause Sherlock much anguish and drive him to terrible things.   If it's about them being a couple, then people comment on that all the time - again, it's irritating rather then life-threatening.

And Magnussen hasn't used that approach.  With Lady Smallwood, her weak point is her husband, and he threatens to publish a story which could have her husband branded a paeodophile and drive him to suicide.  He even shows the "letters" to Sherlock.   There are no such threats of exposure with Sherlock, no fake documents - he simply threatens John's life to check that John is Sherlock's weak point.   John's weak point is Mary, and Mary's weak point is her secret.  So Magnussen threatens exposure of Mary, which will have her killed.  There is no exposure of John involved. 
 

Last edited by Liberty (August 26, 2016 10:03 pm)

I think they're both above that.

Why would Magnussen think LeStrade was Sherlock's weak point above somebody who he has publicly declared that he loves?  

And Sherlock killing Magnussen because he might make John "uncomfortable" by suggesting he's gay is just too much to swallow.  (Whether or not John was gay!)

nakahara wrote:

Liberty wrote:

Why would Magnussen think LeStrade was Sherlock's weak point above somebody who he has publicly declared that he loves?  

But I did not suggest that Lestrade was Sherlock´s weak point, did I? 
Actually, here you seem to agree with me that Sherlock´s feelings to John are love, while his "friendship" is what we see from him in regard to Lestrade. 

Liberty wrote:

And Sherlock killing Magnussen because he might make John "uncomfortable" by suggesting he's gay is just too much to swallow.  (Whether or not John was gay!)

You extrapolate on what I said.
I said that John might feel uncomfortable about being called gay and that´s why CAM insinuates things about him in his veiled statements. Ultimately, his aim is to annoy and humiliate Sherlock. It´s the same like when he starts flicking his face - the act is there to make Sherlock feel belittled too.

You are the first person who brings CAM´s murder into it somehow.

 
I agree with you, Nakahara.  I think it's interesting that in the deleted scene with Magnussen, he seems bent on feminizing Sherlock, when he talks about Sherlock's "woman's hands". If he was trying to make anyone uncomfortable by emasculating them, it would be Sherlock. He humiliated John by forcing him to reign in his tendency to violence to save his wife. Magnussen got John's pressure point wrong, so did Sherlock-- and John... John probably still doesn't realize that his most important pressure point is Sherlock, not Mary. (Maybe)

Liberty wrote:

But Magnussen isn't trying to get to John specifically.  He's trying to get to Mycroft.  He can manipulate Mycroft through Sherlock, and Sherlock through John (and John through Mary).   He has no interest in John at all beyond being Sherlock's pressure point.   So it doesn't matter to him that Sherlock if Sherlock is John's pressure point.  I'm sure John could be manipulated through both Sherlock and Mary.

I talked about killing CAM because people were suggesting that it wasn't John in general that was Sherlock's pressure point, but specifically John being exposed at gay.  

Or the other suggestion was that Sherlock's pressure point was people finding out that he cares for John Watson - but that's something he's publicly expressed. 

And yes, Sherlock loves John - that's maintext.  John is the centre of his world - maintext.  That's why I don't see how Lestrade can be compared.  I'm sure Sherlock would be protective of Lestrade if he was in danger, but Lestrade isn't as important to him as Sherlock is to Mycroft, Mary to John, Lord Smallwood to Lady Smallwood, etc.

 I think that the fact that Sherlock named Lestrade-- and Mrs Hudson during TRF makes them both very important to Sherlock. Maybe not life-partner important, but I don't think that Sherlock would have just let them die, even if John's life hadn't been in danger.