I would like to come back to the meta posted in the first thread.

I like the way the writer presents series three being about Sherlock paying penance for faking his death. Seeing the tarmac scene (and not shooting Magnussen) as "the big climax" makes perfectly sense the way they explain the story arc.

(And it makes the tarmac scene even more painful. Thank you for that.)

I think that when discussing S3 we keep forgetting that we got stuck in the middle of a story arc that is still going on. I wonder how we all will look back on S3 once we have seen S4. Somewhen. In the distant future. ;-)

Thank you, Schmiezi, this is what keeps me hoping...

Seems to be a tradition. I watched the Holmes film with Rupert Everett. He was not too pleased with Watson's wedding either. 

I do think it is more controversial. And also provides more material for Johnlock discussions. These might be reasons as well. 

You make a very good overlooking review of John's issues, Magingus.
I just wonder TBH why the thing you mention here- the point of no return, the men who healed him - doesn't make him - after having dealt with anger about being left in the dark- absolutely over the moon?
he found love and has his best friend back! Why feels everything so sad?

SusiGo wrote:

Yes, in series 1 and 2 most of the time he suppressed his emotions in order make his brain function better. In series 3 he allows emotions but starts making mistakes (misjudging Mary, underestimating Magnussen). The pendulum image is good, he has to mature by finding a balance between heart and intellect. And I really love this development and cannot understand the viewers who were so disappointed by a "weak" Sherlock whose brain does not work anymore. I think they do not recognise that this about his personal journey, not just and not foremost about the cases. 

 
But if we think his personality oscillates like a pendulum between the poles heart and intellect, wouldn't that automatically mean that he's not the same exceptionally brilliant mind he has been anymore, as soon as he finally finds balance and a middle ground? Personally I don't think it works like that.. and also to me it seemed very obvious from the beginning that he actually already has a very feeling heart, he just didn't let it show (except when John or Mrs. H were in danger). To me he never was a machine at all, did you see his face when he heard Soo Lin Yaos sad story for example? Not letting those emotions cloud your judgement is something else than not feeling anything at all, and personally his ability to control emotions is one of the things that make Sherlock Holmes for me, so I don't want his personal journey to lead to a place where he loses that characteristic (although I can see how tempting it is to take him there from a storytelling point of view). I would have wished for a more linear personal journey that had allowed him to get involved, to learn some virtues and the convenience of sticking to social conventions sometimes from John, without the pendulum swooshing to the opposite pole of barely holding it together due to overwhelming feelz..

Also personally I wasn't so much disappointed by seeing Sherlock vulnerable or "weak".. his meltdown in Hounds or his panic and tears on the roof were very touching and made me love him even more. What I do resent however is weakening him to a point beyond recognition. For example for me it was very funny and in character that he didn't know anything about the Solar System.. John and with him the audience were allowed to think "oh dear, how can he not know that?" while still basically respecting him. Because don't we all have our blank spots even in basic knowledge? (for me it's basic geography, please never ask me where places or cities are located..) But him not knowing or caring where the little bisquits come from, because his mother never taught him, is a different quality.. I've seen reactions ranging from "spoiled brat" to "idiot", and on the commentary Steven found it obviously very hilarious, too, that everyone is cleverer than Sherlock. There ar many of such moments in S3, where I personally feel that the mocking has been taken a few steps too far. "We ARE still supposed to admire Shelock, aren't we?" is something I asked myself quite a bit during viewing. There are those silly and childish moments, and there are those exceptionally cruel moments (like making a veteran think he will blow up any second and then laughing his arse off because of "your face, ahahahaha..").. that for me make it absolutely impossible to see any desirable character development in Sherlock. I can agree that at first he mainly cared for the cases and now he really cares about people, too.. that's something I could actually see as progress. But the rest is just an assortment of snapshots for me, that are either "vile" or "endearing" depending on what was needed in that scene.. I can't for the life of me see any congruency or internal character logic, as sad as it is.. unless you see it as kind of adolescence in which the whole personality gets fragmented and put together anew again. In which case I'd still be sad, because his personality in S1 and 2 were my happy place and I feel we're quite far from that now. Sniff.

Last edited by Zatoichi (September 22, 2015 5:11 pm)

Vhanja wrote:

Pouty like a five year old, stupid like a four year old, unforgivably cruel, cold as a psycopath, fluffy as a teddy bear... And it all goes back and forth, there is no clear progression.

I personally don´t remember any scenes where he was defined like that (maybe you could cite some examples?) For me it´s little internal inconsistencies that grate the most - for example being a best man while he hates the institution of marriage and all the ruckus around it, getting drunk and being ridiculous to the point of Mr. Bean homage, admitting to being an asshole in front of a bunch of faceless nobodies....

Things like Sherlock´s prank on John in TEH, on the other hand, are all right and aligned with Sherlock´s image in the canon. Sherlock made such pranks frequently, for example during an adventure of a "Dying Detective", "Mazarin´s Stone" and the like.
 

@nakahara: I forgot so many things about the original stories.. does he really laugh about people painfully pressing out some emotions before they are sure to die? For me it went too far to still consider it a prank.. I think it's worse than the drugging for me, because at least he had the decency to explain himself and be a bit sheepish about it afterwards. The combination of the fake crawling and crying together with the laughter afterwards make it really awkward to watch for me.

I agree about all other points you mentioned.. I can see how attractive it must be for the writers to put him in exactly such situations he would hate. Challenge your character, take them out of their comfort zone and so on.. I know many people loved to see it, too. For me he was sufficiently challenged by The Woman, The Hound and The Professor, and putting him in situation so contrary to everything he stands for (because all existential fears and his most prominent nemesis were already through?) didn't do him any favour..

@Vhanja: I didn't mind his behaviour before S3 so much.. Yes he had mood swings and cruel moments before, but you could still see him as a grown-up whose over-efficient brain sometimes spirals out of control (and who can never resist a touch of drama ;p). In S3 however he is repeatedly and explicitly shown as child, who doesn't get the intricacies of grown-up life, is scolded by Mycroft, still mourns his dog, needs to be parented by the Watsons (blegh) and cries in the face of what he's done.. Then he is machine-Sherlock all over again who is cruel to people who love him (he has never openly laughed about John before or barked at Mrs. H).. It's like both his cruelty and his unbalanced emotional state have been heightened to a point of not feeling plausible anymore (to me).

Last edited by Zatoichi (September 22, 2015 1:37 pm)

Vhanja wrote:

Pouty - The "domestic" in TGG, and when John said no one read his blog
Stupid - Solar system
Cruel - tube scene in TEH, experiment in HoB (especially with his laidback feet-on-the-table while John is panicking)
Cold - fake relationship with Janine
Fluffy - best man speech 

The two first are ok, as they were in the earlier seasons. But in S3, he varies between being cold, warm, fluffy, mature, immature and cruel back and forth with no clear progression.

Our lineage may wary and of course, I understand why you would see him that way. Still:

In TGG and in similar "pouty" occassion I only see him being deliberately dramatical. This show established it right away from the very start that both Sherlock and Mycroft posses this trait and do theatrics very often just for the kicks of it (the way the Reichenbach Fall was staged by both of them being the most obvious occassion where they did this).

Your "stupid" and "cold" examples stem directly from the canon and were used both in it and in BBC version to deliberately shock us. So I would not consider them a particularily valid examples of Sherlock´s character flaws, because in this story (be it original or an adaptation) they only served as an illustration of Sherlock´s somehow twisted logic and didn´t come out of the blue.

I would not consider Sherlock fluffy in TSOT, because he actually hated every minute of it and didn´t try to change his misanthropic, anti-marriage attitude even during speech. Fans only consider him sweet because of the context, I guess ("he is doing it and torturing himself all for John, aaaaahhh!")

So "cruel" is the only thing left - and althrough I don´t consider these examples to be a real cruelty, let´s presume he was cruel. But I think this trait didn´t appear randomly, but is sometimes visible in Sherlock´s character. He simply has such prankish, devil-may-care attitude hurtful to his friends from time-to-time. Once again, canon.
 

nakahara wrote:

Well, in a Dying Detective Sherlock scared both Mrs. Hudson and Dr. Watson to death by pretending he got a contagious deadly disease that could kill you in four days. Then he not just misused their fear, their goodwill and frantic attempts of Dr. Watson to save him, but literally milked them for greater effect, so that he could catch a particularily vile poisoner.... TEH is absolutely nothing in comparison to this, yet it was laughed away at the end of the story. Dr. Watson and Mrs. Hudson were so used to this particular side of Sherlock´s character that they didn´t even blink after being had in such a manner...
...

You are right with that "child" thing. It really seems that they like him infantile - cruelty would not contradict that (children are often cruel because they don´t know better yet).

 
But in The Dying Detective Sherlock says: "My dear Watson! I owe you a thousand apologies. ... It was very essential that I should impress Mrs. Hudson with the reality of my condition, since she was to convey it to you, and you in turn to him. You won't be offended, Watson?" And then goes on to praise his medical knowledge. How very different from Teh that is..(I love the story, I was so afraid for Holmes when I first read it..^^)

Yeah, right? @the "child"-thing. Is that "taking the piss" again? I don't know, but what I know is that i don't like it one bit.

Last edited by Zatoichi (September 22, 2015 3:49 pm)