P.S. -- I just want to say thank you again for your very thoughtful articles. It's really great of you to create a respectful and welcoming environment for fans to chew over some of the most controversial and complicated elements of the show. I know from some of the things you've said before that it can be emotionally wearing to be in the middle of so much heated debate, and I just want to make sure you know that, just because my subjective reaction to this storyline was different from yours, I in no way dismiss your own take on things -- thank you for sharing your interpretation and your personal reaction; I'm glad you enjoyed Mary's character throughout.
Even in my own head, there's no clear logic behind which kind of fictional flaws work to make a character more interesting to me and which damage my appreciation for a character. For example, I had the same negative reaction as you did to Sherlock's emotional manipulation of John at the end of The Empty Hearse. I know many other fans who were able to enjoy the train scene and read it in their own way, seeing Sherlock's manipulation as a sign of how important John was to him in much the same way that many fans read Mary's actions in this episode as proof of her love for John. For me, because I liked and cared about both Sherlock and Mary, watching them be unexpectedly cruel (Sherlock in TEH, Mary in HLV) was a disappointment which I felt emotionally, and that colored my view of their flaws in a way which put them more in the 'problematic for my enjoyment' category, rather than in the 'deliciously increasing their complexity' category, which I imagine is what the writers were aiming for and which clearly worked for many other people.
And yet I am totally capable of accepting Sherlock shooting Magnussen without losing my love for his character, even though in real life we all know vigilante murders are never okay. I don't understand my own approach to morality in fiction, sometimes :) At the end of the day, we all see what we see and feel what we feel! Thanks for letting us all talk it out with you!
I have a reeeeally hard time coming to terms with Sherlock shooting Magnusson... but I can think of three things that might make it easier to forgive him than Mary: 1) We know Sherlock better. We had 8,8 Episodes to grow attached to him before he shoots someone. We know what he's been going through to protect John, and what it must cost him to see that threatened. 2) We see him suffer for it. We see the look on his face after the shooting, when he knows that he has just sacrificed his freedom, his work, possibly his life for the well-being of the man that is most important to him. We see him saying goodbye for John for the last time, boarding a plane that he thinks will bear him on a suicide mission. In short: There are consequences (or at least there would have been, if not for the last-minute twist). 3)Sherlock's shooting is being made much more palatable by making Magnusson as revolting as possible. True, you don't get to shoot someone just for being vile, but it does make it hard to get worked up about it.
There's probably more, but that's what I can think of off the top of my head.
Good points. Personally, I think a major factor for me was also that I have known the original ACD story for twenty years. In "The Adventure of Charles Augustus Milverton," though Sherlock does not pull the trigger himself, he watches the murder take place without interfering, he allows the murderer to escape, and afterwards when Lestrade asks him if he wants to work on the case he flat out refuses, even though he's already deduced the identity of the killer, and says explicitly that he's on the killer's side and morally approves of what they did.
So it's actually been canon for 100+ years that Sherlock was complicit in this character's murder and morally approved of it. It was not a very large step, in my mind, from that to having him pull the trigger himself. They actually presented his action as much more troubling and morally serious than the original story ever did. So, I guess I had a long time to be prepared for it and I was also expecting something like that to happen ever since they announced what story they were adapting for episode 3. In ACD, vigilante justice is generally presented with a lot of sympathy.
Thank you very much for being instrumental in starting up wonderful debates. I really love LJ because people are generally respectful, rational and we can have direct debates. I always enjoy reading your comments, they give me lots to think about so please keep posting!
Even in my own head, there's no clear logic behind which kind of fictional flaws work to make a character more interesting to me and which damage my appreciation for a character. For example, I had the same negative reaction as you did to Sherlock's emotional manipulation of John at the end of The Empty Hearse. I know many other fans who were able to enjoy the train scene and read it in their own way, seeing Sherlock's manipulation as a sign of how important John was to him in much the same way that many fans read Mary's actions in this episode as proof of her love for John. For me, because I liked and cared about both Sherlock and Mary, watching them be unexpectedly cruel (Sherlock in TEH, Mary in HLV) was a disappointment which I felt emotionally, and that colored my view of their flaws in a way which put them more in the 'problematic for my enjoyment' category, rather than in the 'deliciously increasing their complexity' category, which I imagine is what the writers were aiming for and which clearly worked for many other people.
And yet I am totally capable of accepting Sherlock shooting Magnussen without losing my love for his character, even though in real life we all know vigilante murders are never okay. I don't understand my own approach to morality in fiction, sometimes :) At the end of the day, we all see what we see and feel what we feel! Thanks for letting us all talk it out with you!
Reply
1) We know Sherlock better. We had 8,8 Episodes to grow attached to him before he shoots someone. We know what he's been going through to protect John, and what it must cost him to see that threatened.
2) We see him suffer for it. We see the look on his face after the shooting, when he knows that he has just sacrificed his freedom, his work, possibly his life for the well-being of the man that is most important to him. We see him saying goodbye for John for the last time, boarding a plane that he thinks will bear him on a suicide mission. In short: There are consequences (or at least there would have been, if not for the last-minute twist).
3)Sherlock's shooting is being made much more palatable by making Magnusson as revolting as possible. True, you don't get to shoot someone just for being vile, but it does make it hard to get worked up about it.
There's probably more, but that's what I can think of off the top of my head.
Reply
So it's actually been canon for 100+ years that Sherlock was complicit in this character's murder and morally approved of it. It was not a very large step, in my mind, from that to having him pull the trigger himself. They actually presented his action as much more troubling and morally serious than the original story ever did. So, I guess I had a long time to be prepared for it and I was also expecting something like that to happen ever since they announced what story they were adapting for episode 3. In ACD, vigilante justice is generally presented with a lot of sympathy.
Reply
Reply
Leave a comment