nakahara wrote:

Which mental manipulation from Sherlock was as bad as this?

He killed his wife, is not it bad enough? Does not matter that it is not true, he feels it that way, is broken , is not able to be rational. 

Lets imagine:

John is hiding from Sherlock, he knows that it is not a good idea to meet him. He is grieving, unable to take care of his daughter, unable to sleep, hardly able to work, 
But he is forced to meet Sherlock, who is on drugs, looks terrible and asks for help. John remembers the past, all the tricks, lies ,manipulations by which Sherlock got him where he wanted. He does not believe him. Not any more. Last time he trusted him and lost his wife. Is it another dirty trick to reconciliate them like  in  the underground?  Not now, after all that. But it is hard to resist Mrs. Hudson and Mary (i.e. his subconscious) thinks it is at least worth to try.  So he goes with Sherlock. Molly confirms that Sherlock is destroying himself quite efficiently. How far is Sherlock able to go to manipulate  John? With all the drugs it must be pleasure for him, so he can expect anything. Or it is not a trick, who knows with Sherlock.
Sherlock is not willing to share any information, as usually, so John has no idea in what he participates. As many times before must trust Sherlock but  he does not any more. And what happens looks  weird.
Later in the hospital Sherlock seems to be sane and  up to something and what CS says.. everything reminds John good old times when they were working on cases together, he starts enjoying it and for the first time after Mary's death he feels a bit better, not just thinking about her, he starts to believe that maybe , sometimes later, much later,his grief can weaken.
But then, suddenly , what started to be so promising occured to be just a drug fantasy. Sherlock does not recognize the woman who was supposed to give him information about CS, so what are they doing there? What is real? CS is disgusting but it is not a crime. It is  another Sherlock's lie or drug phantasmagoria, does not matter what? Just at the moment John started to see hope . There is no hope , Mary is dead , nothing will ever change, why he agreed to join this nonsense?
Sherlock has a scalpel and starts to behave mad, nervous and agresive, John tries to calm him down it does not work. When Sherlock attacs CS, John must stop him. It is surprisingly easy. Either John is really angry or Sherlock weak. Or both. But what, it was his choise to use drugs and destroy himself. Does he think that John would feel sorry for his heath conditions that is only the result of this? 
The slap was doctor thing,just to wake up Sherlock, to make him realize where he is and what he is doing. But there was something very satisfying in it. It opened something in John that he was suppressing since Mary's death. What game is Sherlock playing now, how does he dare? (Punch) John is not sure, he is not sure of anything but that he does not want to play any games any more. Not with Sherlock. Is it a game, a bloody game? (Punch)He started to trust him and what is the end? He gave him hope and took it from him again (Punch). 
Last time he trusted him  Mary died (Kick) He told he would protect her (Kick) He promised (Kick) John was her husband , he was supposed to protect her but Sherlock was so confident (Kick) John believed him that he would protect Mary better then him(Kick) And Mary died (Kick) Because of this stupid overconfident....."Yes, you killed her"

So is it out of character? Is it really so impossible to understand this? Not to approve just understand that it can happen? That under certain circumstances it can happen to anybody even in real life? Are you 100% sure that you would never ever do anything like it? I do not think that most people can say that. 

Last edited by Preceja (January 12, 2017 1:33 am)

I just had some interesting insight from a friend regarding this scene. She is a paramedic, and she witnessed a patient plunge a scalpel into her partner inside the ambulance. The patient was high yet unrestained, they had administered a sedative and thought he was out. She described the scalpel 'going through X's chest like it was butter'. She said given the way Sherlock was moving forward and the scalpel was pointed at Culverton's chest, he definitely had enough momentum and that thing was sharp enough that yes, it could have been driven into his heart. Her partner survived, had a collapsed lung but it was obviously horrifying all around. She said a sibling of the patient they were transporting was riding along, and the ambulance had to pull over so the driver could restrain the sibling. Apparently he was beating the crap out of his brother, and was not high himself. 

Regardless whether this is meant to be realistic or not, she said that John was supposed to have just watched Sherlock blown Magnussen's braisn out. And now he looked to be repeating that pattern by plunging a scalpel into the chest of the next baddie, who may have even been innocent from John's perspective.

screen shot

And not only that, but he is watching Sherlock throw his life away (drugs, and now potentially going to jail again) very shortly after his wife gave her life so Sherlock could have his. She mentioned John would not see Sherlock as high and vulnerable at that point, he would have seen him as throwing away everything Mary gave him and potentially murdering again, in a pattern, about to turn into a serial killer himself. She felt John's reaction was not overboard, and I was surprised she felt this way as a medical professional; then she stated it was a completely human reactiongiven the context. I haven't had her experience, I've never had to deal with it. But where I felt before that this scene was off the hook abusive and unforgivable, I now see a bit differently due to her insight. It doesn't make teh curb stomping of Sherlock or John's abusive tendencies acceptable, and it also doesn't excuse Sherlock's demonstrations of attempted murder/assault acceptable. 

Just thought I would share!

Thank you both for sharing your thoughts and knowledge. Great posts, both of you!

Ichneumon wrote:

I find it interesting how it is always Sherlock John looses control with (Billy excluded) and always in a situation where Sherlock (or Billy) is not able or willing to fight back.

Do we see John physically attack Magnussen, the man who placed him in a bonfire, threatens his wife and taunts him? No.
Do we see him attack Mary, when he finds out she shot his friend and lied to him all the time?
Do we see him attack Vivian Norwood, the woman who shot his wife?
Do we see him attack Culverton in the end, the man who tried to kill his friend?
Moriarty?
Mycroft in TRF, when John believed he was responsible for giving Moriarty information to destroy Sherlock?
 

THIS.
He only chooses weak, compromised targets. Mostly Sherlock, because it is certain that he will not hit back.
But he never lays a finger on actual perpetrators of these crimes.... you know, these people could RETALIATE.

WhoIWantToBe wrote:

Regardless whether this is meant to be realistic or not, she said that John was supposed to have just watched Sherlock blown Magnussen's brains out. And now he looked to be repeating that pattern by plunging a scalpel into the chest of the next baddie, who may have even been innocent from John's perspective.

And not only that, but he is watching Sherlock throw his life away (drugs, and now potentially going to jail again) very shortly after his wife gave her life so Sherlock could have his. She mentioned John would not see Sherlock as high and vulnerable at that point, he would have seen him as throwing away everything Mary gave him and potentially murdering again, in a pattern, about to turn into a serial killer himself. She felt John's reaction was not overboard, and I was surprised she felt this way as a medical professional; then she stated it was a completely human reactiongiven the context. I haven't had her experience, I've never had to deal with it. But where I felt before that this scene was off the hook abusive and unforgivable, I now see a bit differently due to her insight. It doesn't make the curb stomping of Sherlock or John's abusive tendencies acceptable, and it also doesn't excuse Sherlock's demonstrations of attempted murder/assault acceptable. 

Very nice post, thank you.

Still, I have a bit of an issue with pointing out that Sherlock has a pattern in murdering people and citing CAM´s murder as an example of that.

As we all saw in HLV, Sherlock murdered CAM for the sake of John´s and Mary´s safety. To keep that "sacred vow" which John uses as a pretext to blame him for his misery in TST. CAM was only dangerous with regard to Watsons, he had nothing on Sherlock to blackmail him with. Stealing Mycroft´s notebook would never hurt him - Mycroft would never make that thing public, because this would unveil his own gross negligence in keeping state secrets safe.

So Shelock keeps his vow and accepts that the punishment for this would most likely be his death.... and John suddenly uses this as an example of Sherlock´s insanity? (The way he spoke about this deed with Lestrade seemed to imply that - and John sounds as if Sherlock shot CAM to his head randomly, as if he never heard CAM threatening Mary, as if he was never flicked into the face by CAM, as if CAM never threatened to have both him and Sherlock arrested....)

John was there, he knows what motivated Sherlock to shoot CAM. He heard that speech about how he is Sherlock´s "damsel in distress"...

John profited from CAM´s murder the most. It brought him family and safety from harm while for Sherlock it was practically a self-sacrifice of his life.

What leg to stand has John to even think such things about Sherlock?

Last edited by nakahara (January 12, 2017 9:19 am)

Thank you, Prejeca and WhoIWantToBe for some very interesting thoughts and reflections.

I think it's clear that John lost control, seeing as he had to be restrained (every other instance of violence that he has used has been very carefully controlled and measured). So I think it's sort of a combination of everything mentioned here. Years of anger and frustration have been pent up and John is now allowing it to be released through the trauma of grief. And it became sort of an uncontrollable vent/catharsis.

And, yes, as Martin said - early in TLD, John does hate Sherlock. 

http://sherlocksbestfriend-john.tumblr.com/post/155754441681/because-you-know-sherlock-has-always-pissed-john

Last edited by Vhanja (January 12, 2017 10:52 am)

Hopefully not now.

Sorry, cross posting!

Last edited by besleybean (January 12, 2017 6:01 pm)

True. Martin did say that John was not in a state where he would be able to hear or take in this being more nuanced than "It's Sherlock's fault". Particular not to face his own guilt. So instead he tossed everything - the projection of his own guilt, the anger of previous actions from Sherlock, Sherlock's "fault" in Mary dying, and the grief of losing her - into the bag "It's all Sherlock's fault".

Of course, that's neither right nor rational. But it is what iti s.

Last edited by Vhanja (January 12, 2017 9:21 pm)

This Is The Phantom Lady wrote:

I will admit I've not read all of this thread, and I try to stay away... because damn, it triggers me. 

I will never forgive John for this. And it's not just about the scene where he kicks Sherlock when hes literally lying down. 

The last Baker Street scene... Sherlock stuttering; him trying to keep John sweet and praising him for making the deduction. I recognized something in that. Something I never wanted to see 

I am aware that there's a huge chance Benedict was playing Sherlock as going through withdrawals and being vulnerable... but I saw more. 

(as ever I'm over-sharing... so forgive me)

But I saw an abuse victim. I saw the nervous jitters... the fear of it happening again... the need to praise the other person, the fear that any word, any movement you make trigger them; trying not to remind them that they went too far with you... that something you do was what caused it to happen in the first place (which is so not true). 



Like I said, I might be looking too deep... but this is what I saw

People are acting like real beatings never happen in real life. Phantom, I think you get it-- and I do too, from first-hand experience. 
 

RavenMorganLeigh wrote:

People are acting like real beatings never happen in real life. Phantom, I think you get it-- and I do too, from first-hand experience. 
 

I could just as easily, and just as unfairly, say that people act as if mental and emotional manipulations never happen in real life. I am also talking from first-hand experience.