Davina wrote:

Yes but remember he doesn't like John's girlfriend (she's boring) and he's got the hump about John going away for Christmas with her (he's been moaning about it to Molly). What would the effect have been if the present HAD been for John?

I've read this post 4 times since you posted it & each time I think you are saying :

"Yes but remember he doesn't like John's girlfriend  and she's got a hump ..."
I'm thinking "I don't remember him saying that, I would have been on the floor laughing!!!"

kazza474 wrote:

Sentimental Pulse wrote:

I don't agree that the canon portrays Sherlock as an emotionless automaton of a bore.He was animated and eccentric amd clearly had affection for Watson. He was also created in late Victorian England which surely tempered his portrayal .I also think that if we are going to consider violation of canon as blasphemous, we have far more than perceived emotion to rail against. This is a 21st century TV show based on the characters of ACD.It is not ACD.  I am not arguing for or against canon because the show and the original stories are equally wonderful and neither disrespects the other. But as far as what we have seen so far on this show and where it is going, in my opinion there are far too many clues and instances of Sherlock displaying emotion to conclude he experiences none. I for one hope more of his emotional  layers come to surface in the future.

So you expect this character to develop into a more emotional one than is seen in the canon?
That is how I am reading what many of you are saying.

The premise of this series is that it is YOUNG Sherlock. We're seeing him develop, and he will develop more into the canon Holmes as time goes on. This has been clearly stated by both Moffat & Gatiss.

And yes, Holmes from the canon would have gone through these similar emotive learning phases, but we didn't see anything of this as the stories & adventures did not start till later in life.
What I believe we will see in Sherlock, is that he will learn & understand more about emotions, and love etc, but that doesn't mean he will display those emotions.
Again, it is a scientific learning opportunity for him. He will learn & understand better and will use that knowledge later on in life. He will file it away in his brain. But as he says, "Love is a chemical defect". He will learn to push that defect aside.
He is becoming a much wiser man before our eyes; something we didn't see in the canon. He was already a wise man then.
We are watching the evolution of that wise man.

Let me try and throw a few things out here for consideration. I don't have any definitive answers, only a gut feeling. By saying he experiences emotion, I don't just mean emotional attachment. I am talking all sorts of emotion. Anger, disgust, sadness, petulance, boastful pride, joy and exhilaration.

As to his experiencing emotional attachment, I believe M&G clearly set out with this series to take the original characters and plunk them squarely into modern society as real believable people and show what that environment would do to them and what they would be in this modern world.

I am suggesting it is possible that M&G view Sherlock's heretofore outward lack of feeling and lack of emotional attachment as a product of two things. One aspect is  the traditional canon company line that he views emotional desire and attachment as weakness and as such has no use for it. But the other notion that I think they are hinting at is this. It could be that Sherlock is vulnerable to emotional attachment but he has never had the right set of circumstances to allow that to happen.

Sherlock has alienated and put off every person he ever met in his life. In return he has never met a male suitable for comradeship, one who shares his love for danger and adventure and who has requisite intelligence and courage to pursue both. He has never met a woman who has lured him with her combination of exceptional intelligence and challenge and beauty. He has never been around someone like Molly who slowly earns his respect and gratitude as she wears him down with her continued help, her goodness, her kindness and her ability to fend off his barbs.

I think Sherlock will continue to be the Sherlock we all know and love. Signs of emotional attachment will be only hinted at. He will continue to try and hide all outward displays of caring. When John calls him out on it he will rail against the notion.  He will be sarcastic and blunt and cavalier with people's feelings. But over time after viewing his actions, the audience will come to say: Methinks he doth protest too much..

Sounds like Dr Phil has much to answer for.

Wholocked wrote:

I've just caught up with this thread. It's interesting how desperately everyone wants to cling to Sherlock's emotional growth - myself included. We want him to be someone we can relate to or aspire to be. However, my feeling is that Kazza is right. Moftiss are exploring Sherlock's growth from a young man into the man he is in the canon stories and the more traditional depiction of Sherlock Holmes. Moving him into the 21st century doesn't change his essential character (which is why it works so well) and Moftiss have already demonstrated, and outright stated, that they intend to keep as true to the canon as they possibly can. I have also seen Moffat quoted as saying something along the lines of "sentimentalise Sherlock at your peril"

We want to see him grow and develop and learn and become a regular vulnerable feeling human being. But if that happened, he would no longer be Sherlock and I think anyone who expects that kind of character journey in season three will be very disappointed.

So it makes logical sense that as Sherlock ages he will discard any youthful dalliance with experiencing feeling?  When Ben and Martin are 50 and are still doing the show ala Dr. Who and Sherlock and Watson have been "friends" for 20 plus years we will see the same Sherlock deny any attachment to him? No growth as a human beings or in their relationship?  We've seen no subtle change in Sherlock over the past two seasons? OK.

This quote of Moffat's about not over sentimentalizing Sherlock that I have seen raised a number of times in these threads seems to be Exhibit A in the prosecution of anyone who thinks Sherlock might have real feelings How are we to take this statement? I don't know. To me it could mean a lot of things: that Sherlock has no feelings and some like me are reading in too much, that Sherlock has feelings and will never fully acknowledge them, that Sherlock will acknowledge them grudgingly but never be a touchy feely guy. Or it could just be a producer blowing smoke and misdirection between seasons like I used to witness all the time with Carlton Cuse and Damon Lindeloff torquing up the fans of LOST. What I do know is, Sherlock bent over backwards to apologize to John and tell him Sherlock viewed him as a friend. He went to Karachi to rescue Irene and wanted her phone as a momento even though he supposedly cared naught for her. He told Molly that she mattered. He jumped all over Mycroft for being disrespectful to Mrs Hudson. He jumped off a roof to at least in part save people's lives. When John states unequivocally that Sherlock is incapable of feeling, Mycroft asks him to take another look. Perhaps those can be reasoned away as something else and maybe not. I am sure we will all be eager to watch and find out

I know it's terribly dull to sit on the fence but I can kind of understand everyone's point of view on this matter and people on both "sides" so to speak have made some quite valid arguments, and yes we have seen examples of Sherlock "caring". Actually, I don't think anyone is trying to say that Sherlock doesn't care about people. The fact that he chose to use his skills to be a detective and fight crime rather than commit crime tells me he cares on some level, otherwise he'd just be like Moriarty. Just don't expect him to go expressing his emotions anytime soon.

Just want to say I'm really enjoying all the comments people have posted here.  Just about all the comments make sense to me.  I think that's part of what makes the show so great: It lends itself to many interpretations.  I think I'd prefer it, though, if the show focused on the journey rather than the destination.

hypergreenfrog wrote:

Davina wrote:

I believe that to be right also. The question is then..Who does he think the present IS for? I think he assumes it is actually for John.

Wow, it never occurred to me that he might have thought it's for John. But wouldn't that have been even crueler, considering John's girl friend was present?

Why would he think it was for John?  John is standing right there with his current girlfriend. No, Sherlock would know John was seeing someone, but not Molly. I think Sherlock meant to only tease Molly a bit, but it sure got away from him.... like a speeding train running off the rails. Molly's actress has such an expressive face-- I really like her, in every way. Not as a potential girlfriend for Sherlock, because she's much too nice for him and not quick enough either, but she's a decent human being. Sherlock deserved to be slapped for what he did to her in that scene-- and he only ended up making a fool of himself.

But anyway, I think Sherlock thought the gift was just for some guy Molly would meet up with later, someone she had the hots for.

John is taken. *ahem*

Yes, he somehow lost control. It's the only time I remember that he behaves so cruel to someone belonging to his "circle".

SusiGo wrote:

Yes, he somehow lost control. It's the only time I remember that he behaves so cruel to someone belonging to his "circle".

He's cruel to John all the time. Granted, he was under the influence and scared out of his boxers in that scene in Hound, but he was *awful* to John there by the fire in the pub. Just awful. The next AM, Sherlock remembered what he'd said and knew he needed to make amends, something he sucks at, but the poor guy did the best he could, terrified that John would tell him to go f*** himself and walk out of his life.  IMO John puts up with waaaay more than anyone else ever could or undoubtedly ever has before. Where else would Sherlock ever find that dedication and (agape) love? John is no saint, but his patience, gentle and not-so-gentle honesty, and his willingness to play along with, obey, and support Sherlock is something to behold. Sherlock might be a sociopath, but he's no fool-- he knows a treasure when he sees one. I wince when he's so nasty to John, but I realize that that's a plot device, and a well-written and well-acted one at that.

KeepersPrice wrote:

....he was quite unhappy about the invasion of his home and privacy by all these party-goers. ( I still feel it was all John's idea and probably Sherlock finally gave in to him grudgingly with something like, "Oh God, go ahead, if you must!".) He did try to be a good sport and play a Christmas carol, and he tried to be good with Mrs. Hudson's joke about wearing antlers; but he started losing it when Jeanette came out of the kitchen playing hostess.  He just wants his home back. We love our Sherlock, but he still has a lot of growing up to do which he hasn't quite managed to do yet. Here he is - the petulant teenager at his best - lashing out at everyone to get even.  It's the classic "I'm not happy so I'm going to ruin it for all of you!"

When he humiliates Jeanette he's also punishing John by attempting to implode his relationship - either because he's brought yet another distracting female home or because the party was John's idea in the first place. Lestrade gets it too, and only his respect for Mrs. Hudson allows her to escape.  But all the motivation for the attack on Molly comes when she reveals something way too personal and revealing - that he's been complaining about John going away. That's just sacred ground where you don't tread, let alone reveal to a room full of guests - including John. So essentially the motivation is, if Molly's going to 'out him' then he's going to 'out her'.  Not a very grown up way to deal with it - but that's one of the reasons we love him, isn't it? And he did learn from this very rude mistake which, of course, is another reason we love him.

I just love this scene - it's got so much going on it - both on the surface and under it.

I've posted all this before so I promise I'll shut up now 

No, no! Don't shut up! A forum made up of people who have all shut up would be boring indeed. Boring! Tedious! Stupid!

I love that Xmas scene, too-- not just my fave scene of the episode but certainly one of my fave of the whole series so far. Lots of loaded-for-bear shippy stuff going on there.

I agree that the party probably was John's idea, but I don't think he'd have asked Sherlock's permission to have it-- the flat is half John's too-- presumably they pay equal rent. So Sherlock could go to a strip joint for a few hours to escape (or wherever it is Sherlock goes to escape, lololololol) or hole up in his room, if he wanted to be a twat.

You're right; Sherlock did try for a while to be nice, not his favorite thing to do, but he at least knows how to try. I don't know that I see his rotten behavior as teen-agery, I think it's more just a symptom of his very real personality disorder. The man could use some meds and a talk therapist, lololololol.

Thinking about it, I also love Lestrade in this scene. Poor guy, sounding so hopeful that he and the wife might be on the mend, and then Sherlock says that nasty thing about her seeing a PE teacher (was that the scene? I might be mixed up, but I know he said something nasty and uncalled for). Lestrade asks Molly if she'd like a drink-- John was busy with the GF, and Sherlock was busy being a jackass, so Greg stepped in and played host, which I thought was so very kind of him.  l like him anyway, always have.

I think by the time John was done with that particular evening, he probably had decided that little social get-togethers for drinkies at the flat were probably out in the future. He didn't have any way of knowing that the following Christmas would find him alone....