Zatoichi wrote:

Liberty wrote:

 And I accept that the show does do awful things to Sherlock and makes it attractive - humiliation comes up a lot in the show and they show him dirty and drugged,  or in pain and near collapsing, and still make him beautiful.  This is definitely a thing, and I suppose John's violence is actually a mild example of how far they will go to bring Sherlock down for our viewing pleasure.  

I´m still struggling with accepting this.. It´s just a personal thing, because I find very little pleasure in watching him shattered, humiliated and devastated. Struggling and shaken by his emotions like in S2 was just the right amount of drama for me, S3 left me feeling confused and emotionally drained (and as a result a little angry and less emotionally invested in the show).

Althrough I love S3, I also found this way in which Sherlock´s acquaintances uniformly decided to put him down and humilitate him loathsome. It bordered on "Tall poppy syndrome":

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tall_poppy_syndrome
http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/TallPoppySyndrome

The idea that someone whose capabilities exceed those of his peers must be put down seems harmless at the first sight (as if you are saving those overachievers from their own ego), but in reality it is quite dangerous way of thinking. Because with such a mindset, the people are led to belive that an overachiever is their "enemy". Genius is then forced to bow to mediocrity. Good, ingenious ideas of how to make things better get dismissed only because the unpopular person made them, while the people maintain tired status-quo perpetuated by "the nice people". People are taught to extreme conformity and are bullied if they "stick out" from among their peers. "Socrateses" of the world are forced to poison themselves so as not to disturb the cowardly souls of their less enlightened political enemies. If such a "tall poppy syndrome" continues unhindered for some time, society as a whole becomes stagnant and repugnantly totalitarian.

It therefore disturbs me that Sherlock S3 seems to propagate an idea that a man with an exceptional abilities whose way of doing things is eccetric but otherwise beneficial has to be physically punished, humiliated and broken for his difference. That´s just wrong, wrong, wrong!

The pleasure of watching Sherlock comes from the fact that the main protagonist of the story is unique in every way, clever, rebelious, unconventional. It is amusing to watch him juxtapositioned against the "normal" protagonists of the story, for example John, Lestrade or Molly. But all that viewing pleasure will disappear completely if Sherlock will be forced to conform and to be lowered to the levels of others, to become a polite, docile sheep. I hope the authors won´t steer the story into that direction - that would be a "shark-jumping" of an epic proportions!

Zatoichi wrote:

Liberty wrote:

 And I accept that the show does do awful things to Sherlock and makes it attractive - humiliation comes up a lot in the show and they show him dirty and drugged,  or in pain and near collapsing, and still make him beautiful.  This is definitely a thing, and I suppose John's violence is actually a mild example of how far they will go to bring Sherlock down for our viewing pleasure.  

I´m still struggling with accepting this.. It´s just a personal thing, because I find very little pleasure in watching him shattered, humiliated and devastated. Struggling and shaken by his emotions like in S2 was just the right amount of drama for me, S3 left me feeling confused and emotionally drained (and as a result a little angry and less emotionally invested in the show). But I seem to be in the minority, many people got really hooked after S3 so it seems to be the right thing to do to make the show successful .

I'm still coming to terms with S3, so I'm not sure exactly where I stand on it.  I think I'm fine with the awful things that happen to him, but I'm really bothered by what seems to be lost - I loved him being supremely clever, and rejoicing in that and sometimes showing off about it.  That was part of the character, for me. In TEH, he's physically abused, in TSOT he's mentally demeaned (or seems to be).  By HLV, he seems to be mentally and physically dragging himself through the episode. 

I suppose we're told right at the beginning of S3, seeing him running away and being captured, tortured, that he's going to have a hard time.  Maybe there's a lovely irony in him faking his own death and sacrificing himself, only to have to go through a real death and yet another sacrifice at the end of S3. 

There are some things I love about S3 (the scenes with Mycroft, for instance, and the confirmation that Sherlock is morally good, selfless, heroic, etc.).  I think I just want to see the cleverness back more than anything.  Which is maybe why I keep suspecting that it's there all along, under the surface (he must have known about Mary, etc.  I'm still really struggling with TSOT).   I'd like to see him come out victorious. 

Well, I think this is a phase. Because I am sure we will not get back the Sherlock from series 1 and also series 2. He was supremely clever but emotionally completely suppressed. In series 3 his brilliance is clouded by emotion, he cannot process all the things that happened in those two years and keep happening after his return. He struggles to keep to his old self but it does not work anymore. As I said before, for me this is part of the storytelling arc. I am sure his brilliant mind will return, but complemented by a milder and softer manner towards other people. But he has to learn it the hard way and the process may not be over yet. 

I have not said that they took him cleverness away. It is still there. He solves the Moran case, he is solving a murder case while making a best man speech which is quite an achievement. I just said it is clouded, especially regarding Mary and Magnussen. And I think the reason for his getting Mary to wrong is that he is emotionally compromised. He wants to make up to John, give him a perfect wedding and a happy married life and does not see what is in front of his eyes. Or chooses not to see that.

I do not say that he has to learn it the hard way but that this is what the writers chose to show us. And I find it fascinating. They said that they wanted to show his development as a character, how he changes as a man while in Canon IMO he is far more static. If he has to suffer these hardships to tell a good story, I am fine with it.
Btw, I do no think that he deserves to be punished. His physical and emotional suffering it is the outcome of a story that began long ago with Moriarty choosing him as an antagonist. Everything we see in series 3 is a consequence of Moriarty's involvement. And for me this is good storytelling.  

Though we do have the stand alone episode as well.

nakahara wrote:

Zatoichi wrote:

Liberty wrote:

 And I accept that the show does do awful things to Sherlock and makes it attractive - humiliation comes up a lot in the show and they show him dirty and drugged,  or in pain and near collapsing, and still make him beautiful.  This is definitely a thing, and I suppose John's violence is actually a mild example of how far they will go to bring Sherlock down for our viewing pleasure.  

I´m still struggling with accepting this.. It´s just a personal thing, because I find very little pleasure in watching him shattered, humiliated and devastated. Struggling and shaken by his emotions like in S2 was just the right amount of drama for me, S3 left me feeling confused and emotionally drained (and as a result a little angry and less emotionally invested in the show).

Althrough I love S3, I also found this way in which Sherlock´s acquaintances uniformly decided to put him down and humilitate him loathsome. It bordered on "Tall poppy syndrome":

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tall_poppy_syndrome
http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/TallPoppySyndrome

The idea that someone whose capabilities exceed those of his peers must be put down seems harmless at the first sight (as if you are saving those overachievers from their own ego), but in reality it is quite dangerous way of thinking. Because with such a mindset, the people are led to belive that an overachiever is their "enemy". Genius is then forced to bow to mediocrity. Good, ingenious ideas of how to make things better get dismissed only because the unpopular person made them, while the people maintain tired status-quo perpetuated by "the nice people". People are taught to extreme conformity and are bullied if they "stick out" from among their peers. "Socrateses" of the world are forced to poison themselves so as not to disturb the cowardly souls of their less enlightened political enemies. If such a "tall poppy syndrome" continues unhindered for some time, society as a whole becomes stagnant and repugnantly totalitarian.

It therefore disturbs me that Sherlock S3 seems to propagate an idea that a man with an exceptional abilities whose way of doing things is eccetric but otherwise beneficial has to be physically punished, humiliated and broken for his difference. That´s just wrong, wrong, wrong!

The pleasure of watching Sherlock comes from the fact that the main protagonist of the story is unique in every way, clever, rebelious, unconventional. It is amusing to watch him juxtapositioned against the "normal" protagonists of the story, for example John, Lestrade or Molly. But all that viewing pleasure will disappear completely if Sherlock will be forced to conform and to be lowered to the levels of others, to become a polite, docile sheep. I hope the authors won´t steer the story into that direction - that would be a "shark-jumping" of an epic proportions!

THANK YOU!!!!!!! 

Yes. 

Well I don't know who these people are you speak of, because they are certainly not me.
I have always been totally  on board wirh Sherlock, henece my annoyance with John at the Reunion.
I had been totally in sympathy with John at The Fally(while understanding Sherlock's motives0, but it didn't last into series 3.
But I do hope Sherlock eventually told him all.

Ah, the mist clears...

Yes, I don't think Sherlock is ever going to be a talk-about-his-feelings sort of guy.   But it's so frustrating that we're shown that the two years were hell on earth, but nobody else knows (apart from Mycroft), or asks.   John is building his judgment of Sherlock on very little information again, and wondering about whether to forgive when he should be thanking.  John not asking is typical of John (and of their relationship), but difficult for me .   According to his blog, John does eventually know that Sherlock did it for him (but he still struggles to forgive).  But I agree that it seems to be a choice that Sherlock keeps some things secret, as he has done in the past.

I like the parallel you draw with the mind palace.  It's interesting that Sherlock's mind palace is now populated with people and relationships, but ultimately he's alone in what happens there.  And it's in character, again, for him not to share that.   Although I do think John must have wondered why Sherlock risked his life (again) to sort out the Mary situation. 

(And yes, I mean the characters in the show, not us!  We care!). 

Last edited by Liberty (September 4, 2014 7:22 am)

Yes, that was me, mrshouse. It would be nice to see the boys like that (love the "Problemkerze") but also very much out of character. They must prove their feelings more via their actions than their words. And if there will be words - and I really hope it - they will be not cheesy. We know that the writers can do feelings in words and I am sure they will find the right way for this.