Sherlock finale thread- WARNING SPOILERS

[Allthingsprettyreturns]

Starting the thread in antcipation!

Drug Addict - only when he had no case to follow and his mind was restless. Cocaine stimulates the mind and works in a different way to alcohol.

Sociopath - no for the reasons you said. Yes he did care about Watson and about his clients. He had a deep sense of moral justice.

Would he have thought enough about himself to attritube a label onto his character? No. He didn't seem to care much when Watson rebuked him for his coldness.

Would he have been confused about why people didn't get him? No, he actually showed great affinity with people when the fancy took him. He had a great understanding of people which is why he was able to read them so well, not just from their clothes but from their expressions and what they said as well as failed to say.

I think we will have to agree to disagree.

That Gatiss and Moffat have a great fondness and knowledge of the character is clear enough and for that they demand respect. But everyone reads things differently and I think they have changed his fundamental character.

They brought in parents, a traumatic childhood, a competitive brother, etc. They sought to explain when I feel they could have left all that out and it would have made it much better. It does nothing to add to the stories, knowing about his childhood and background. It's just something they like to do, it's their mark.

I get what you are saying but have they made it too obvious?

That Holmes is human we know from the books, from his protective streak towards his clients, his fondness for Watson, etc. We didn't need it shoved down our throats and explored in great detail. Yes, he's human, we get it.

Addict or not, he used drugs. Alcohol is a drug - it's not at all inconsistent that he would use it. And bear in mind, he only got pissed because John spiked his drink.

No, Sherlock is not a sociopath - not this one, nor the original.

He is manifestly not a man without emotion (which isn't really an indicator of sociopathy anyway) - he is a man who values logic far higher than emotion, and so suppresses own lest they get in the way.

All of the stories are littered with evidence of his emotional response to things - that he usually owns up to before explaining why he's dismissing them as unhelpful & getting in the way of his cold, hard reason.

Sherlock doesn't have any kind of sociopathic nature - he's just very, very, very clever. And he's actually right - emotion does get in the way of logic.

Well - here's the thing that it all boils down to for me.....

I loved the Jeremy Brett series - but I can't remember laughing my tits off once in any of them, and I bet there's never been a thread on MN discussing at length the plots :)

Conan Doyle wrote to entertain. That so many people are being so entertained by his character 100 years later would please him, I think.

Tell me - do you think there's anyway Mary might not be pregnant? I want her to bugger off - but topping a pregnant woman or mother of a young baby seems a tad harsh! Is there any story that includes a false pregnancy? (Doubtful, I know - but I can hope).

Don't you think he would have known Watson had spiked his drink?

And yes, I admit they do write comedy well and again that doesn't bother me as much as the shooting, the obvious mistakes made by Holmes and this psycho-analytical bollocks. Oh and his parents and traumatic childhood.

Did Holmes ever show his vulnerable side? No.

I don't know how they can make Mary pregnant. As others have said, if this turns into a Three Men and a Baby type thing that would be immensely off-putting.

Watson was childless in the books. Mary died and he re-married.

The only story which involved a baby was the Sussex Vampire. I don't think they'll draw from that somehow.

Your guess is as good as mine!

(I've really enjoyed this thread - we should have a Mumsnet Sherlockian meet-up)

I'm not a Sherlockian - but you have inspired me to re-read the books and become one :)

Watson was childless in the books. Mary died and he re-married

Hmmmm. Most interesting

Oh that's good Hettie

It'll increase your enjoyment of the series if nothing else as you'll be able to get all those little details that have come straight out of the stories, like Watson gaining 7 pounds since marriage but Sherlock thinking "just a trifle more". It had its own humour and that was subtly done, I guess Gatiss and Moffat have made the humour more obvious, which is a bit of a shame again. I preferred the dry humour personally and the way Holmes would put people right in their place.

The kids sometimes catch bits of the ITV series on in the mornings and they are fascinated by it. Especially ds because his middle name is Sherlock

Isn't the big difference that ACD was writing before the advent of modern psychology. This is the big change in the 20th century onwards. Trying to understand what motivates people, why they act as they do, what has happened to them as a child, a young adult to make them the person they are. Ignoring this wouldn't work in a modern age. It's the way the world is understood now.

I think regardless LittleBearPad, it would not have been ACD's style. He may well have been familar with Freud and his theories but there is a reason why he didn't extrapolate on the background of his main characters and that is because he knew the value of leaving the reader with a mystery. Each story contained a mystery but Sherlock was the biggest enigma of all and I feel that was deliberate. Leave the reader wanting.

He also would have felt that it wasn't important and offered nothing to the reader but a distraction from the crime.

meh, I found the original Holmes quite 2D & formulaic (yes I have read the original). ACD was writing about puzzles; our sensationalist age demands more than just clever puzzles.

But that's my point. Sherlock is the greatest puzzle here and by unravelling that puzzle they are just taking away the mystery and intrigue. Sherlock should remain a puzzle with just a few hints here and there, enough to keep the reader speculating and guessing. They shouldn't lay him bare for all to see.

(Calm down BC fans, I don't mean nekkid)

In the post-preview-airing Q&A Moffat was asked about Sherlock not noticing Mary was a liar/had a secret and he said that Sherlock did notice - those things were in the word cloud - but Sherlock chose to ignore it and that got him in trouble. This is the quote from it:

"I think the frightening thing about Sherlock Holmes is that he actually is human, he’s completely human, and he has all the impulses and the feelings that every other human being has, but he suppresses them in order to be a better detective, and it’s on those moments where he doesn’t successfully suppress it that he gets into trouble. He believes that emotion gets in the way of his brilliant brain, and on the evidence of the show so far and of the original stories he’s completely right. When he gets emotional, he gets blind. He doesn’t spot Mary as a fraud as he should have as she points out in that episode. Ages ago, he should have spotted it. You know when you see the word ‘Liar’ all around her – as some people have noticed – when he first meets her there’s a whole blizzard of words and one of them is liar and he ignores that word because he wants to like her."

Proving he's not a Sociopath.

"because he wants to like her"

Holmes would not have done this though. He didn't give 2 hoots about liking people or them liking him. He DID successfully suppress his emotions, which is why he was so successful. They have him ignoring an awful lot and being blinded an awful lot. That makes him look rather unsuccessful.

You can overdo it and I do think they've overdone it.

I don't think we're supposed to think Cumberbatch's Sherlock is a sociopath - he just likes saying he is! There's no such thing as a 'high-functioning sociopath' like he tells people anyway, so unless his is a world where that's not just a made up term he's lying for effect, whether to intimidate people like Anderson or to try to justify not being outwardly emotional/acknowledging other people's feelings.

Sherlock clearly cares deeply about certain people, regardless of the cold front he likes to project. Sherlock chucks people out of windows for hurting Mrs Hudson, will fake his death to protect people, will kill to keep John & Mary safe. For my two cents I don't think that was necsssarily absent from the classic Holmes either - the events of The Three Garridebs weren't those of someone who didn't give two hoots about his friend.

No it's clear that Holmes has a heart certainly and a strong sense of moral justice. I've no complaints about that.

There are glimpses of it in the book, enough to keep the reader intrigued, enough to keep you speculating, but I think it's overdone in the series. They give it too much attention and too much focus.

We get the message loud and clear.

I agree give. I think he calls himself a sociopath to shut people up since they're usually not smart enough to know better. I don't think he could care less what labels may or may not be attached to him. He's not introspective at all - and if he ever is, it's for a reason and not because he finds himself fascinating.

All this stuff about holmes not being human and understanding emotions is complete rubbish - he is a MASTER at understanding the workings of humans, and that's what makes him so good, and able to effortlessly play people. Which is where they overdid the wedding speech.

everyone thinks he's a bastard - gosh!
ah, he's not really - nice twist!
he doesnt understand the reaction - ....bollocks!

they are getting guilty of overdoing it, IMO.

same with the stag night:

holmes is prepared to get drunk and 'have fun' with his special friend - OK...
holmes calculates precisely enough to be tipsy - haha
watson overrides that - hmmmk, amusing guessing game
they go on a case completely drunk - ....bollocks!

I think the high functoning sociopath is sherlock's own in joke with himself. he just says it to amuse himself among the goldfish.

BoPeep that is what pissed me off too, there is no way Holmes would misread a situation or an audience or even an individual. He was actually quite manipulative and to be manipulative you need to be able to understand people and emotions.

Possibly the sociopath thing is his joke.

They are definitely overdoing it and patronising their audience as a result. The general public is capable of working stuff out for themselves, it's fun to do so, we don't need it spelling out for us.

It's strange how they can be clever clever in some ways and bleeding obvious in others.

'was it really necessary to delve into Holmes' past'.

Well, it depends what you mean by 'necessary'. It was obviously necessary for the vision of Sherlock these writers have; it may not be 'necessary' to someone trying to bring to TV a totally faithful reworking of the character and the books.

I think this is what people here are fundamentally disagreeing on: what 'liberties' the writers have taken/should/shouldn't have taken with ACD's original. I think they've said themselves that the series is 'inspired by' and 'a reworking of' ACD; they were never aiming for a faithful retelling. And I think a lot of viewers enjoy the delving into Sherlock's past, family and character in the series.

I mainly agree with Hettie here.

A scandal in belgravia (season 2 ep 1) is the free Starbucks Apple download of the week should you want it.

There's an hour long podcast on the Empire Magazine website been put up today where Steven Moffat & Mark Gatiss talk about the third series and the character development, plotlines, story choices, all sorts of interesting background. I think it's makes fascinating listening, and they certainly make their case for both why they were exploring this more emotional side to Holmes and what they hoped to achieve. For example they said they wanted the audience to think he was almost going 'soft' in the second episode, so then the drawing back into his more cold and callous actions would remind you that no, just because he does actually have and sometimes shows emotions doesn't make him a nice person.

And disgustingly there were several worse things they thought of before having CAM piss in the fireplace...

Interestingly

Thanks, mushy!

Listening now: Moffat says he read somewhere that someone said they had just taken bits from all the online theories about how Holmes survived and incorporated them into the episode and that someone also said they had definitely taken the squash ball idea from the internet.

Erm, I think both those were me on one of the other threads, so do they read Mumsnet?

Let's hope so

They denied both by the way.

Make sure they know that it was on this thread where we figured out that Janine is James Moriarty.

I think that bit was where they said a prominent review commented 'they'd even incorporated the popular internet theory that a squash ball will stop your pulse', when actually they included Sherlock playing with the squash ball in the Reichenbach episode deliberately intending he use it that way (or to serve as a red herring); it wasn't something they once read in a theory and decided to retrospectively use as a theory.

I'm sad about the dog now - they said it was originally going to be explained a bit more completely, and that a young Sherlock was told and believed the whole 'your dog has gone to live on a farm' story. Poor Redbeard!