BBC Sherlock Fan Forum - Serving Sherlockians since February 2012 / Violence at the reunion

**Posted by maryagrawatson** August 8, 2014 3:34 pm

Yes, that's exactly what I mean. He is threatening to deck him -- Sherlock won't need morphine if he's passed out (or dead...).

Anyway, going around in circles here. I've said my bit. Moving on.

Mary

**Posted by SusiGo** August 8, 2014 4:27 pm

I do not believe he would have hit Sherlock. Incredible anger or not, John knew he had escaped from hospital. John is not an idiot where his job is concerned even if he did not notice the urgency of the situation. It is strange but the only person that makes me really angry in this scene is Mary because she seems totally devoid of feeling. Sherlock is sad and under stress and weakened and trying to keep himself together and while John is rightfully angry and terribly disappointed and has to confront the catastrophic mistake he may have made in marrying her. But Mary … well.

**Posted by mrshouse** August 8, 2014 5:32 pm

Exactly, Susi. That is what made me choke as well. And furthermore the cuts between Baker Street and Christmas at the Holmes where it's mostly snark we get from her.

**Posted by Mattlocked** August 8, 2014 5:53 pm

maryagrawatson wrote:
That is the moment that John crossed the line for me, not the scenes in TEH.

Oh? I don't think you've mentioned that before?

maryagrawatson wrote:
Yes, that's exactly what I mean. He is threatening to deck him -- Sherlock won't need morphine if he's passed out (or dead...).

Yes. I think we mentioned this before: John is extremely stressed. He is deeply disappointed from Sherlock and has also just discovered the truth about Mary. (Which probably is a reason why he doesn't see - or just ignores - the serious condition of Sherlock.)
And when Sherlock talks, he thinks he's making strange jokes again.

I can understand him.

**Posted by mrshouse** August 8, 2014 6:05 pm

Call me thick, but I just don't get what the reason in this particular scene might be to be disappointed from Sherlock? Not talking about TEH here but this particular scene. Sherlock does everything to help John and Mary sort things out. And I didn't get the impression that John thought Sherlock was making silly jokes but was just centered around mainly himself and his flawed marriage.

**Posted by Mattlocked** August 8, 2014 6:21 pm

John says: "Shut up! And stay shut up. Because this is not funny. Not this time."

"Disappointed from Sherlock" - okay, maybe wrong expression. Sherlock "died", he came back making silly jokes, finally John forgave him. All could be fine, he marries Mary as planned, gets a lovely speech... and then discoveres this. And now Sherlock and Mary seem to "be on the same side", everything just making him more angry.
I cannot perfectly explain, it's just a feeling through the whole scene....

AND imo you cannot just forget TEH, because I'm pretty sure it all is still present in some way, forgiven or not.

Last edited by Mattlocked (August 8, 2014 6:23 pm)

**Posted by Liberty** August 8, 2014 7:07 pm

A lovely light wrote:
And everybody now see only one as a bad persons predicting he is able to do violence toward a child and having no chance of redemption, while the other is the saviour knight, sweet and perfect.

Just because one is the main character it doesn't make it worst what he become from the others and better what he makes.

I am not sure i like this perspective of forgiving very easily and excuse whatever Sherlock does and extrapolate to the extremes whatever the other does to him.

This is just a general post, but I'm replying to you, A Lovely Light, just to say that it really isn't everybody. Just me and a couple of other people. And in my case, I think a lot has to do with personal experience.

My original post and what I've been saying since is really about how these scenes affect me, personally. The whole series has a touch of fantasy, and I've been quite happy with seeing some completely unacceptable things without getting all upset about them. I suppose mastermind serial killers and the like aren't so familiar to me. But domestic violence is very, very common and there was something about this scene that really struck home as completely familiar and recognisable and "real life".

To be more precise, it's not just John's actions in these scenes, it's Sherlock's attitude as well. The conciliatory manner, trying different approaches to try to get it right, repeatedly becoming passive to try to minimise the anger and violence when you get it wrong - I've been there, and this absolutely hits the nail on the head. That may not even have been intended by the writers at all. Maybe my personal experience gives me a bias which would explain why some of you don't see what I seem to see so clearly. I think I'm strongly identifying with Sherlock here, and the comments about what he did and said wrong ... well, that's just typical, because I think many of us in that situation are made to feel it's our fault for making the abuser angry. That's partly why the fact that it's repeated violence is so controversial. It doesn't matter what Sherlock does or says - John feels he deserves to be hit whatever approach he takes. Because it's his fault for making John want to hit him.

(I have to give credit to Martin here, and think he would be great at portraying an abuser (I really am meaning it as a compliment. It's playing against type really, for such a likeable-looking guy, but I find it believable)).

It could just be an accident that the writers happened to create this perfect little vignette of a violent relationship. It really could. I know what it means to me, but I don't expect it to mean the same to everybody. And I don't think it's meant to mean what it means to me.

I'll get back to you on the HLV after I've watched it. It might feel quite different to me.

Last edited by Liberty (August 8, 2014 10:03 pm)

**Posted by maryagrawatson** August 8, 2014 7:11 pm

Mattlocked wrote:
Oh? I don't think you've mentioned that before? (snip) I can understand him.

Still going around in circles, but I agree that what John's going through is understandable. Understandable is not appropriate. Whether he was going to hit Sherlock is immaterial, the thought was there and it is very ugly. There are therapists who can help him find more acceptable outlets for his stress than hitting, or threatening to hit, one of the two people he cares about most in the world.

Mary

Last edited by maryagrawatson (August 8, 2014 7:13 pm)

**Posted by Schmiezi** August 9, 2014 4:55 am

What about Mary shooting Sherlock? Does that not make you feel she might not be the best mother in the world? Is she less likely to show domestic violence because she did not punch Sherlock but shot him? Or is the difference that she did it in cold blood and not with anger?

**Posted by Liberty** August 9, 2014 7:19 am

I haven't seen that scene yet, but so far no scenes have made me feel like the same as these ones and I suspect that will be continue to be the case. To be honest, it might be as simple as the fact that guns don't really feature in my life, so it wouldn't strike a chord with me.

I wasn't too keen on Sherlock throwing the CIA guy out of the window, either.   How do you control how much damage is caused in that situation? He could so easily have killed the guy. Or left him paralysed for life. Brain damaged. It's quite difficult to justify that level of violence to somebody who was restrained and wasn't a threat at that point, and it probably does say something disturbing about the person meting it out. But for some reason, it doesn't feel real to me, in the way that the restaurant scenes do.   It's taking place in a fantasy "Sherlock" world, where violence can be funny and without serious consequences.

I do understand that the restaurant scenes are taking place in the same world. And as such, are meant to be funny, along with showing the depth of John's emotion. But instead, it feels real.   So, as I would in real life, I find myself repulsed by the character. Anything I've said about John being capable of domestic violence is based on those feelings, and not on what I think the writers intend for the character.

Anyway, thank you all for your various views on this.   I'll be back after HLV .

**Posted by Schmiezi** August 9, 2014 7:30 am

Enjoy it. And have some handkerchiefs ready.

**Posted by tonnaree** August 9, 2014 10:46 am

Liberty wrote:
I haven't seen that scene yet, but so far no scenes have made me feel like the same as these ones and I suspect that will be continue to be the case. To be honest, it might be as simple as the fact that guns don't really feature in my life, so it wouldn't strike a chord with me.

I wasn't too keen on Sherlock throwing the CIA guy out of the window, either.   How do you control how much damage is caused in that situation? He could so easily have killed the guy. Or left him paralysed for life. Brain damaged. It's quite difficult to justify that level of violence to somebody who was restrained and wasn't a threat at that point, and it probably does say something disturbing about the person meting it out. But for some reason, it doesn't feel real to me, in the way that the restaurant scenes do.   It's taking place in a fantasy "Sherlock" world, where violence can be funny and without serious consequences.

I do understand that the restaurant scenes are taking place in the same world. And as such, are meant to be funny, along with showing the depth of John's emotion. But instead, it feels real.   So, as I would in real life, I find myself repulsed by the character. Anything I've said about John being capable of domestic violence is based on those feelings, and not on what I think the writers intend for the character.

Anyway, thank you all for your various views on this.   I'll be back after HLV .

I think Sherlock had not only calculated the height of the fall but actually aimed for Mrs. Hudson's bins so that the guy wouldn't die.
Cause that's what Sherlock's do.

And you need to go watch His Last Vow NOW!!!!!!!

**Posted by SusiGo** August 9, 2014 11:12 am

There is something about this whole discussion I simply do get:

It seems that for some people a work of fiction can only strike a chord if it is about something they have experienced themselves. For me this is quite a strange notion. What I love about fiction - be it in books or films - is that I get to see and feel things that are completely different from my own personal life, that lead me to physical and emotional places I have never been before.

Guns do not feature in my life and neither do terrorists, consulting detectives, criminals, or PTSD suffering veterans. But the thing is that they do not have to in order to fascinate and entertain me. When I feel that Mary's bullet hits me in the heart as well it is not because I have experienced a shooting at any time in my life but because this is a brilliant piece of storytelling and filmmaking.

**Posted by maryagrawatson** August 9, 2014 1:27 pm

Schmiezi wrote:
What about Mary shooting Sherlock? Does that not make you feel she might not be the best mother in the world? Is she less likely to show domestic violence because she did not punch Sherlock but shot him? Or is the difference that she did it in cold blood and not with anger?

Huh?! What the heck does my opinion about Mary shooting Sherlock have to do with my opinion of John's behaviour? Her shooting Sherlock and Sherlock torturing people are separate issues with those characters.

Mary

**Posted by mrshouse** August 9, 2014 1:41 pm

Nope, I don't agree. We considered a wider selection of scenes and not only S 3 but also the earlier ones, so we should try not to put actions to different standards. Which is difficult of course as you will be more forgiving towards a character who is likable for you but anyway. What I like about this thread for example is that it gave me some brain food to reconsider actions that I didn't think about in dephts, for example the bad guy being thrown out of the window.
But I agree with Susi that I'm not just touched or entertained or annoyed by words, deeds and actions I've confronted in my own life already.

**Posted by Schmiezi** August 9, 2014 1:42 pm

maryagrawatson wrote:
Schmiezi wrote:
What about Mary shooting Sherlock? Does that not make you feel she might not be the best mother in the world? Is she less likely to show domestic violence because she did not punch Sherlock but shot him? Or is the difference that she did it in cold blood and not with anger?
Huh?! What the heck does my opinion about Mary shooting Sherlock have to do with my opinion of John's behaviour? Her shooting Sherlock and Sherlock torturing people are separate issues with those characters.

Mary

Anyway, what is your opinion? I'm just curious.

**Posted by A lovely light** August 9, 2014 2:41 pm

La Jolie wrote:
SusiGo wrote:
We also have another person who killed someone in the name of friendship, love, or whatever, a person he had known for barely 24 hours. A person who did not have a gun pointed a someone at this moment (just like Magnussen).
I meant to stay out of this thread for the time being because it keeps turning in circles at the moment, but I just have to give you a big thumbs up for pointing that out, Susi.

Exactly. The only person endangering Sherlock's life at that moment in ASIP was Sherlock himself, and if you look at it from a high moral horse, so to speak, it was strange to let a poor unarmed taxi driver pay for it. No less strange than shooting a poor unarmed media tycoon in the head just to make his brain stop working. If you accept a moral justification for that gunshot in ASIP, you have to extend that same generosity to the one in HLV. Because just like the poor unarmed taxi driver also happened to be a mentally deranged serial killer and therefore deserved to die anyway, the poor unarmed media tycoon is probably directly responsible for at least four deaths, too (just think of poor Lord Smallwood), so the same judgement should apply to him. Period.

There are obvious differences between the two killings, but i will not deal with this thema anymore, what i have to say, i said it, if it was hard to get to the others my message, i am not better through more messages to achieve that.

If we are to talk about personal experiences, i will told you mine. I come from a country where 3 dictatures come succesivly. The third one begann supported from people believing in the greater good. In the name of a greater good people were tortured and thrown in prisons without real process and let there die or been killed. Information about every person was kept and used against you, even information about your parents and great-parents was used against you. All in the name of a greater good. I am not happy to read with how much easieness people justify even today Guantanamo or spying of people because of the greater good. I think every human being, good or bad, should have human rights respected. IMO we have laws and we have to play by them, no shortcuts when we think it suits a greater good (i include here the laws and rules which are in place for secret services and co.) Other way it lowers the values of democracy and make us no better than the baddies.

This subject together with the one about Moriarty suicide rubbed against me in the wrong way.

Sorry to have bother anyone with my high moral, it was not my intention. I got upset, sorry about that, it will never happen from now on. I will take now my horse and go away to the non-controversy subjects.

**Posted by Liberty** August 9, 2014 2:43 pm

I still have TSoT to watch before HLV. I think I have a date with it tonight, if all goes to plan. Then maybe I can last a week before HLV. It's such a warm, lovely feeling to know there are episodes of Sherlock that I've still to watch, and I'm reluctant to give that up and enter the cold wasteland of waiting for Series 4. How on earth do you all cope?

Tonnaree, falling on the bins could be just as dangerous, but yes, I'm sure Sherlock had some way of making it OK. It doesn't worry me too much, for some reason.

SusiGo wrote:
There is something about this whole discussion I simply do get:

It seems that for some people a work of fiction can only strike a chord if it is about something they have experienced themselves.

That's not what I meant to say. I love being taken out of myself watching things that are outside my experience, but they can still be meaningful to me, and of course writers can write convincingly about things they haven't personally experienced all the time. I was trying to say that personal experience might make me see something that wasn't there ... or rather, something that wasn't meant to be there. I'm not trying to claim superior knowledge by saying I have personal experience. I'm showing my bias .

I think "strike a chord" is the wrong choice of words, as yes, you're right that something completely unfamiliar can strike a chord (for instance, people can be moved by a fictional death without having been personally bereaved - I think we can recognise general feelings of loss and grief). But sometimes something will hit you in a particular way just because it is so familiar, and the distance that you normally have from fiction is shortened, if you know what I mean. It seeps into your real world, and the two blend together. It's no longer entertainment.

It's interesting that we all see different things, and I wonder if that could have been intended (for it to be ambiguous). Wouldn't you just love to be able to ask the writers about it? This one was Mark Gatiss, wasn't it? It's not even just the writers - maybe if Benedict and Martin hadn't played it quite the way they did, it wouldn't have had the same impact.

**Posted by maryagrawatson** August 9, 2014 3:03 pm

Schmiezi wrote:
Anyway, what is your opinion? I'm just curious.

In reply to someone else, it's not separate standards, but rather separate issues.

I've discussed Mary before, that I firmly believe that her shooting Sherlock was a product of the extreme mental conditioning needed for her line of work. She can't be held accountable for the shooting when she was programmed to make decisions that way. This is why I find her so scary, truth be told, because she's making decisions from outside herself, almost like a robot. I think that she truly loves John and will love their baby, but unless the mental conditioning gets addressed she will continue to make poor decisions. I have no idea if she would harm John and/or the baby.

As for Sherlock, as long as he's not high, he's predictable. He sees people as black or white; worthy of respect or not. If not, he'll do what he can to get what he needs out of them (torture the cabbie), will make them pay for hurting the ones he loves (CIA operative, Magnussen), or will dismiss them (Anderson, the skinhead in HLV). I don't see him as being volatile in his normal state because his violent actions are always coldly reasoned and you can see them coming. When he's high is another matter, as Mycroft's arm will attest.

Mary

**Posted by SusiGo** August 9, 2014 3:18 pm

maryagrawatson wrote:
Schmiezi wrote:
What about Mary shooting Sherlock? Does that not make you feel she might not be the best mother in the world? Is she less likely to show domestic violence because she did not punch Sherlock but shot him? Or is the difference that she did it in cold blood and not with anger?
Huh?! What the heck does my opinion about Mary shooting Sherlock have to do with my opinion of John's behaviour? Her shooting Sherlock and Sherlock torturing people are separate issues with those characters.

Mary

Sorry, now we are already talking about Sherlock torturing people? I think I must have been watching a different show for years. I somehow had the idea that he himself had been tortured.

On another note - this is still a work of fiction, not a documentary about torture and domestic violence. We are clearly meant not to regard Sherlock as a torturer or John a man short of hurting his own child. But may I should just stop because this is getting quite upsetting.

Last edited by SusiGo (August 9, 2014 3:22 pm)