But don't tell me that Sherlock is now a more open and caring individual, when he shows zero remorse for having crushed his best friend two years prior.
*nods* It's pretty inconsistent across the board, isn't it? Who is this Sherlock Holmes who calls himself "ridiculous" and says that he's a child John and Mary have been looking after? That makes no sense in the context of Sherlock's charcterization whatsoever, even if you're willing to buy the Sherlock's small heart grew three sizes that day arc they seem to be trying to construct. More caring, yes, perhaps, but hardly a man who now sees himself as childlike or ridiculous.
I feel like they're playing fast and loose with ways to make you like the character more, and that's annoying. What was that dancing scene, you know? Just as they're playing fast and loose with the sources of his unsociability--they're long past the point where they can pretend he's tone deaf or inept with social cues, for example, and yet they keep returning to that theme. It's a bit like Moriarty--once you've done certain things, options should now be CLOSED, and yet Moriarty may still be alive.
I seem to be less riled by the general direction of the series than you are (and feel free to just tell me to shut up nicely, since this journal is your place to be riled) if only because I tend to see series three as depicting a 180 degree turn--Sherlock realizing he's lost John, panicking, questioning, coming to terms with it, and trying to figure out his next steps. He's still very much expecting John to be waiting for him at the beginning of the Empty Hearse--not too much has changed since the end of series two--but he's taken aback by his reception and the fact that he's been displaced by Mary. (And to add insult to injury, he soon learns that Sholto was there before him, anyway.)
(I haven't rewatched The Empty Hearse because I thought it was awful, but I've rewatched the next two. I might not be remembering those first scenes clearly.)
So the thing that's puzzling me is that I don't know how to interpret this reason for his new-found interest in John as anything other than romantic/sexual attraction. (With a healthy dose of possessive jealousy on the side.) Or are we meant to understand that this is world's most epic, emotional, and overdetermined friendship? Because he just come across as pining in a way that makes no sense, given what I understand to be the parameters of the show. Am I completely unable to see this from outside a shipper's perspective? I'm not usually that unable to switch lenses. I get that we're supposed to understand that he doesn't do things by halves, and so he's now really, really attentive to John after a period of inattention, but still.
Also, Mary's bothering me more and more, as I think about it. But perhaps I won't burden you with more discussion.
Ironically, I think the all-over-the-map character development will probably help the larger ficcish project, but only once folks have been able to forget (or rationalize) the parts that didn't make sense to them. M.
ETA: Wow, that was a lot longer than I'd intended. I have more to say than I thought I did. No need to reply in kind.
There's no way I'm going to tell you to shut up, because this response is lovely! I'd much rather try to hash out what's going on with this character (and what *I* can do with it) than spiral into an endless complaint fest. I mean, I clearly needed to let off more steam, but I also want to do the meta/analysis work to make sense of it all. So clearly I'm about to reply in kind. :)
I feel like they're playing fast and loose with ways to make you like the character more, and that's annoying. This really is at the heart of the problem, and it's what pinged me as fan-service early on. They don't just want you to like this character; they want you to LOVE him (and assume you already do) yet still keep the he's-such-an-asshole jokes. You can't have your cake and eat it too, writers. He can't be the Perfect Man Whom Everybody Loves and also the Complex Antihero. The dancing, ugh. A perfect example of something completely unnecessary AND out of character, thrown in because the writers think it will amuse. (Same with the "I'm a child" joke.) They thought it would be funny if Sherlock had to give a wedding speech, so they wrote an entire episode around it. "Wouldn't it be funny if..." is a terrible basis for a drama! And then during the speech, they take him from misanthropic to saccharine and back again fast enough to cause whiplash.
So, I do like your interpretation of Sherlock, actually. That once he realizes he's lost John to someone else, then suddenly John matters to him again, and suddenly he'll do anything for him. (Although it would have seemed more in character if Sherlock had petulantly distanced himself instead.) But it still bugs me that I don't think Sherlock ever considers that he's responsible for damaging their friendship. There's zero guilt. Then they act like the friendship can just pop back to the status quo, but there's a palpable difference, whether or not the writers are aware of it. If it feels like Sherlock is pining, it's because their relationship has become very uneven. There was this equilibrium in season 1, where they both needed each other and made each other better people. And now John's had to move on, and he found someone else to care about, and suddenly Sherlock is the friend who entertains him on weekends. Whereas John is still a central part of Sherlock's identity, even if he thinks he can put him away when he doesn't need him. So yeah, Sherlock's pining for John to feel the same. I don't know if that has to be sexual attraction, but it's certainly unrequited.
And that's another roadblock I'm coming up against in my potential fic-to-be. I'm having trouble imagining that John would ever make Sherlock a part of his central identity again. They're "just friends" now, in a way that is not fic-inspiring, and in a way is a bit sad compared to the intensity of what came before.
Hm. I'm still sussing it out. Now it's my turn to say you don't have to respond in kind, although if you want to start discussing Mary, hey! I'm definitely game!
They don't just want you to like this character; they want you to LOVE him (and assume you already do) yet still keep the he's-such-an-asshole jokes. You can't have your cake and eat it too, writers. He can't be the Perfect Man Whom Everybody Loves and also the Complex Antihero.
My two cents on this: In all fairness to the writers, this *is* a very consistent theme in the show, albeit one that continues to anger and repel me. They *do* want you to love this character while retaining the right to depict him as an asshole, and they seem to be getting away with it. They undercut awkward or painful moments with humor; they create lovable characters (Molly, Mrs Hudson) whose function is to love and forgive him and model that behavior for us; they add manipulative details (the dancing, the childhood dog) that pull his center of gravity back away from the negative, even though they haven't justified or earned these details. It's either a very cynical move on their part or indicative of a fundamental lack of parity between writers and audience, that we aren't assumed to be smart enough or interested enough to demand that the characters suffer the consequences of their own actions. You and I are demanding something that they don't feel required to deliver on--that they put Sherlock out there as someone we might actually dislike or criticize. Conscious or unconscious, there's a level of contempt for the audience even at the same time as they clearly take joy in sharing their love for this particularly set of characters.
I'm having trouble imagining that John would ever make Sherlock a part of his central identity again. They're "just friends" now, in a way that is not fic-inspiring, and in a way is a bit sad compared to the intensity of what came before.
I can see your problem here--that chapter in John's life seems to be over, doesn't it? I'm really confused at to what's going to happen with Mary in the next series (more on this below), and that's making it hard for me to understand what might happen with John. That said, somehow knowing that John has had a series of intense relationships with dangerous and perhaps charismatic people--Sholto, Sherlock, Mary--has made him more interesting to me.
As for Mary, I'm not quite sure what to make of her. Okay, so she's mad, bad, and dangerous to know--gotcha!--but I'm not sure how that fits into her current life as a nurse. Are we supposed to understand that she, like John, wants both adventure and domesticity? (And in that case she's closer to John than Sherlock?) The more I think about it, the more I'm disturbed by the implication that he past is something to be ashamed of and covered up. Why isn't she allowed to be a morally grey character like Sherlock? M.
In all fairness to the writers, this *is* a very consistent theme in the show, albeit one that continues to anger and repel me. Hm, that's a fair point. I think what made his character more workable for me in earlier seasons is that when he was a jerk, at least people got angry. We were seeing him through John's perspective, will all his flaws intact, instead of And I don't think he's ever done anything to genuinely hurt the people he liked until now, which makes me more critical of him now. But I'm not sure. I have to explore this more fully to see if that's true.
My reading of Mary-and this is pure speculation, but at least there's room to speculate-is that she does want domesticity. She doesn't seem interested in taking part in John's adventures, although she can pull her weight if she needs to. I think she wants her past to stay in her past. And I think she *is* morally grey, whether or not the show will explore that. I see the "hiding her past" conceit as just making it more frightening when we don't know what it is. Again, I don't know what they'll do in the show, but you are giving me some fic ideas of when those aspects of her personality might come out. :)
And I don't think he's ever done anything to genuinely hurt the people he liked until now, which makes me more critical of him now.
*nods* I think that might be the source of our different reactions. I reacted very badly to Sherlock's treatment of minor characters in the first episodes of the first series--perhaps overly so--and thus his thoughtless and unapologetic return in TEH seemed very in-character, and I appreciated seeing John's reaction. (Whereas the scene in the tube car just seemed cruel and stupid beyond belief, but then that entire subplot was so stupid and half-baked that I could hardly process it, and I'm fast on the way to mentally deleting the entire episode.) I actually would buy a scenario in which John's anger dissipates over time, as it does with Mary in the last episode, because he seems to be the kind of person to forgive, but it's like they've dropped the issue of John's anger altogether, and the weird disjunction between TEH and TSOT puzzles me--so everything's okay again already? Complete with a yes, you're my best friend, why is that a surprise? testimonial from John? And then John's pissed off with the world again by HLV but ready for more adventures? I feel like the series makes sense if you read it as Sherlock discovering he's had a fall from grace and then dealing with, but it doesn't make as much sense from John's perspective at all.
Re: Mary, it's unclear to me whether there's a specific mistake in her past that she'd like to put behind her, one so grave she'd change names, continents, and careers to move past (perhaps even a mistake related to Moriarty, given her reaction in the final scene) or whether the show just think it's cool she's a former assassin. Given the show's abysmal record on women characters, I suspect it's the second, though I'd be happy to be wrong and see the first scenario play out. The implication that she needs to be ashamed of her behavior (that she's desperate to keep it from people she loves and needs to be forgiven for it) is something they don't press with Sherlock or John, both of whom stand behind some questionable decisions. Also, the melodramatic vagueness of her references to the contents of the thumb drive (there are things on there that would make you hate me) isn't promising. We'll see where this goes. I do hope it's in a good direction--I want her to stay around. M.
So I ended up rewatching TEH when it aired, and I realized that the turning point in John and Sherlock's relationship is when John is rescued from the bonfire. Before that they're not speaking, and then after that they're fine. So I guess saving John's life was supposed to be a stand-in for a sincere apology? Writers, come on now.
As far as Mary goes, I think I have a better idea of what you're saying. My reading of the character was different, although the show is vague enough for a lot of interpretations. I didn't think that Mary was hiding from her past out of shame. I assumed it was more of a witness protection thing. Not that her reputation and marriage were in danger from the blackmailer, but that her very safety was in danger if her identity was made public. Maybe even that she'd left her job without permission, and that her former employers were looking for her. I also like thinking of her in contrast to Sherlock, where they're both exceptional and charismatic and somewhat psychotic people, but Mary is the one with a heart and a conscience. So I can see her having deeds in her past that she, unlike Sherlock, deeply regrets. And like Sherlock, she also hurt John in a huge, huge way, but at least she knew she had done something wrong and felt bad about it.
But let's be honest: the writers just think it's "cool" to have a female assassin. I have to quote something from a Doctor Who blog post that summarizes Moffat's female characters in the most accurate way I've seen, and while it's a bit specific to Doctor Who, I think it's clear which category Mary falls into: "He literally cannot write anything but two types of women: the randy, adventurous middle-aged woman, and the wide-eyed, supportive, 'assistant' girl with a mystery in her past." Or maybe Mary is a combination of the two. :)
*nods* It's pretty inconsistent across the board, isn't it? Who is this Sherlock Holmes who calls himself "ridiculous" and says that he's a child John and Mary have been looking after? That makes no sense in the context of Sherlock's charcterization whatsoever, even if you're willing to buy the Sherlock's small heart grew three sizes that day arc they seem to be trying to construct. More caring, yes, perhaps, but hardly a man who now sees himself as childlike or ridiculous.
I feel like they're playing fast and loose with ways to make you like the character more, and that's annoying. What was that dancing scene, you know? Just as they're playing fast and loose with the sources of his unsociability--they're long past the point where they can pretend he's tone deaf or inept with social cues, for example, and yet they keep returning to that theme. It's a bit like Moriarty--once you've done certain things, options should now be CLOSED, and yet Moriarty may still be alive.
I seem to be less riled by the general direction of the series than you are (and feel free to just tell me to shut up nicely, since this journal is your place to be riled) if only because I tend to see series three as depicting a 180 degree turn--Sherlock realizing he's lost John, panicking, questioning, coming to terms with it, and trying to figure out his next steps. He's still very much expecting John to be waiting for him at the beginning of the Empty Hearse--not too much has changed since the end of series two--but he's taken aback by his reception and the fact that he's been displaced by Mary. (And to add insult to injury, he soon learns that Sholto was there before him, anyway.)
(I haven't rewatched The Empty Hearse because I thought it was awful, but I've rewatched the next two. I might not be remembering those first scenes clearly.)
So the thing that's puzzling me is that I don't know how to interpret this reason for his new-found interest in John as anything other than romantic/sexual attraction. (With a healthy dose of possessive jealousy on the side.) Or are we meant to understand that this is world's most epic, emotional, and overdetermined friendship? Because he just come across as pining in a way that makes no sense, given what I understand to be the parameters of the show. Am I completely unable to see this from outside a shipper's perspective? I'm not usually that unable to switch lenses. I get that we're supposed to understand that he doesn't do things by halves, and so he's now really, really attentive to John after a period of inattention, but still.
Also, Mary's bothering me more and more, as I think about it. But perhaps I won't burden you with more discussion.
Ironically, I think the all-over-the-map character development will probably help the larger ficcish project, but only once folks have been able to forget (or rationalize) the parts that didn't make sense to them. M.
ETA: Wow, that was a lot longer than I'd intended. I have more to say than I thought I did. No need to reply in kind.
Reply
I feel like they're playing fast and loose with ways to make you like the character more, and that's annoying.
This really is at the heart of the problem, and it's what pinged me as fan-service early on. They don't just want you to like this character; they want you to LOVE him (and assume you already do) yet still keep the he's-such-an-asshole jokes. You can't have your cake and eat it too, writers. He can't be the Perfect Man Whom Everybody Loves and also the Complex Antihero. The dancing, ugh. A perfect example of something completely unnecessary AND out of character, thrown in because the writers think it will amuse. (Same with the "I'm a child" joke.) They thought it would be funny if Sherlock had to give a wedding speech, so they wrote an entire episode around it. "Wouldn't it be funny if..." is a terrible basis for a drama! And then during the speech, they take him from misanthropic to saccharine and back again fast enough to cause whiplash.
So, I do like your interpretation of Sherlock, actually. That once he realizes he's lost John to someone else, then suddenly John matters to him again, and suddenly he'll do anything for him. (Although it would have seemed more in character if Sherlock had petulantly distanced himself instead.) But it still bugs me that I don't think Sherlock ever considers that he's responsible for damaging their friendship. There's zero guilt. Then they act like the friendship can just pop back to the status quo, but there's a palpable difference, whether or not the writers are aware of it. If it feels like Sherlock is pining, it's because their relationship has become very uneven. There was this equilibrium in season 1, where they both needed each other and made each other better people. And now John's had to move on, and he found someone else to care about, and suddenly Sherlock is the friend who entertains him on weekends. Whereas John is still a central part of Sherlock's identity, even if he thinks he can put him away when he doesn't need him. So yeah, Sherlock's pining for John to feel the same. I don't know if that has to be sexual attraction, but it's certainly unrequited.
And that's another roadblock I'm coming up against in my potential fic-to-be. I'm having trouble imagining that John would ever make Sherlock a part of his central identity again. They're "just friends" now, in a way that is not fic-inspiring, and in a way is a bit sad compared to the intensity of what came before.
Hm. I'm still sussing it out. Now it's my turn to say you don't have to respond in kind, although if you want to start discussing Mary, hey! I'm definitely game!
Reply
My two cents on this: In all fairness to the writers, this *is* a very consistent theme in the show, albeit one that continues to anger and repel me. They *do* want you to love this character while retaining the right to depict him as an asshole, and they seem to be getting away with it. They undercut awkward or painful moments with humor; they create lovable characters (Molly, Mrs Hudson) whose function is to love and forgive him and model that behavior for us; they add manipulative details (the dancing, the childhood dog) that pull his center of gravity back away from the negative, even though they haven't justified or earned these details. It's either a very cynical move on their part or indicative of a fundamental lack of parity between writers and audience, that we aren't assumed to be smart enough or interested enough to demand that the characters suffer the consequences of their own actions. You and I are demanding something that they don't feel required to deliver on--that they put Sherlock out there as someone we might actually dislike or criticize. Conscious or unconscious, there's a level of contempt for the audience even at the same time as they clearly take joy in sharing their love for this particularly set of characters.
I'm having trouble imagining that John would ever make Sherlock a part of his central identity again. They're "just friends" now, in a way that is not fic-inspiring, and in a way is a bit sad compared to the intensity of what came before.
I can see your problem here--that chapter in John's life seems to be over, doesn't it? I'm really confused at to what's going to happen with Mary in the next series (more on this below), and that's making it hard for me to understand what might happen with John. That said, somehow knowing that John has had a series of intense relationships with dangerous and perhaps charismatic people--Sholto, Sherlock, Mary--has made him more interesting to me.
As for Mary, I'm not quite sure what to make of her. Okay, so she's mad, bad, and dangerous to know--gotcha!--but I'm not sure how that fits into her current life as a nurse. Are we supposed to understand that she, like John, wants both adventure and domesticity? (And in that case she's closer to John than Sherlock?) The more I think about it, the more I'm disturbed by the implication that he past is something to be ashamed of and covered up. Why isn't she allowed to be a morally grey character like Sherlock? M.
Reply
Hm, that's a fair point. I think what made his character more workable for me in earlier seasons is that when he was a jerk, at least people got angry. We were seeing him through John's perspective, will all his flaws intact, instead of And I don't think he's ever done anything to genuinely hurt the people he liked until now, which makes me more critical of him now. But I'm not sure. I have to explore this more fully to see if that's true.
My reading of Mary-and this is pure speculation, but at least there's room to speculate-is that she does want domesticity. She doesn't seem interested in taking part in John's adventures, although she can pull her weight if she needs to. I think she wants her past to stay in her past. And I think she *is* morally grey, whether or not the show will explore that. I see the "hiding her past" conceit as just making it more frightening when we don't know what it is. Again, I don't know what they'll do in the show, but you are giving me some fic ideas of when those aspects of her personality might come out. :)
Reply
*nods* I think that might be the source of our different reactions. I reacted very badly to Sherlock's treatment of minor characters in the first episodes of the first series--perhaps overly so--and thus his thoughtless and unapologetic return in TEH seemed very in-character, and I appreciated seeing John's reaction. (Whereas the scene in the tube car just seemed cruel and stupid beyond belief, but then that entire subplot was so stupid and half-baked that I could hardly process it, and I'm fast on the way to mentally deleting the entire episode.) I actually would buy a scenario in which John's anger dissipates over time, as it does with Mary in the last episode, because he seems to be the kind of person to forgive, but it's like they've dropped the issue of John's anger altogether, and the weird disjunction between TEH and TSOT puzzles me--so everything's okay again already? Complete with a yes, you're my best friend, why is that a surprise? testimonial from John? And then John's pissed off with the world again by HLV but ready for more adventures? I feel like the series makes sense if you read it as Sherlock discovering he's had a fall from grace and then dealing with, but it doesn't make as much sense from John's perspective at all.
Re: Mary, it's unclear to me whether there's a specific mistake in her past that she'd like to put behind her, one so grave she'd change names, continents, and careers to move past (perhaps even a mistake related to Moriarty, given her reaction in the final scene) or whether the show just think it's cool she's a former assassin. Given the show's abysmal record on women characters, I suspect it's the second, though I'd be happy to be wrong and see the first scenario play out. The implication that she needs to be ashamed of her behavior (that she's desperate to keep it from people she loves and needs to be forgiven for it) is something they don't press with Sherlock or John, both of whom stand behind some questionable decisions. Also, the melodramatic vagueness of her references to the contents of the thumb drive (there are things on there that would make you hate me) isn't promising. We'll see where this goes. I do hope it's in a good direction--I want her to stay around. M.
Reply
As far as Mary goes, I think I have a better idea of what you're saying. My reading of the character was different, although the show is vague enough for a lot of interpretations. I didn't think that Mary was hiding from her past out of shame. I assumed it was more of a witness protection thing. Not that her reputation and marriage were in danger from the blackmailer, but that her very safety was in danger if her identity was made public. Maybe even that she'd left her job without permission, and that her former employers were looking for her. I also like thinking of her in contrast to Sherlock, where they're both exceptional and charismatic and somewhat psychotic people, but Mary is the one with a heart and a conscience. So I can see her having deeds in her past that she, unlike Sherlock, deeply regrets. And like Sherlock, she also hurt John in a huge, huge way, but at least she knew she had done something wrong and felt bad about it.
But let's be honest: the writers just think it's "cool" to have a female assassin. I have to quote something from a Doctor Who blog post that summarizes Moffat's female characters in the most accurate way I've seen, and while it's a bit specific to Doctor Who, I think it's clear which category Mary falls into: "He literally cannot write anything but two types of women: the randy, adventurous middle-aged woman, and the wide-eyed, supportive, 'assistant' girl with a mystery in her past." Or maybe Mary is a combination of the two. :)
Reply
Leave a comment