# sherlock series 3 **URL:** \ **Category:** Cafe Society\ **Created:** [March 18, 2013, 11:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sherlock-series-3/653312 "2013-03-18T23:15:23Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 17\ **Page:** 29
**Author:** ![Voyager](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/voyager/32/133_2.png) [@Voyager](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Voyager)\ **Post date:** [February 12, 2014, 8:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sherlock-series-3/653312/561 "2014-02-12T20:32:04Z")
> [@MaxTheVool](#): > > But (a) that weakens the impact of everything if it turns out that Magnusson is such a dumbass that after a lifetime of brilliant and successful criming he lets his guard so comically down when his adversary is only, I dunno, the most brilliant detective in the world, whose brother is the most brilliant spy in the world, whose partner is a former solider and whose partner’s wife is a trained assassin who almost killed him a few days earlier, and (b) it also means that Sherlock won basically due to dumb luck, unless we’re meant to think that Sherlock was somehow playing the game one level deeper all along and manipulated Magnusson into being overconfident, which I didn’t see anything in the show to support. Actually, I think there is something to support this - the question of why Sherlock had a gun in the first place. We know Sherlock doesn’t carry a gun just in case, so he brought it for a reason. As has been mentioned, releasing blackmail documents on the death of the blackmailer is standard procedure, so if Holmes thought that there were actual pictures and documents in the vault killing Magnusson would be stupid. Therefore, Holmes had to know that the information was locked in Magnusson’s head, which was the only case in which killing Magnusson would make sense. How could Sherlock know? I think it was Magnusson’s act of inviting him. Magnusson has insulted Watson but has not yet demeaned Holmes. Pissing in his fireplace didn’t seem to do it. The only way would be to dominate Holmes intellectually, by showing that Holmes was totally wrong and could never make Mary safe. This also explains why Magnusson didn’t have his security check for guns. (Which is a good point.) He was sure that Holmes thought the had the stuff in the vault, which meant that killing Magnusson would lead to disaster for Mary and England, and that therefore Holmes would never bring a gun, and therefore patting him down was so very ordinary and would seem to indicate that he was not sure about what Holmes would do. Simple, huh? 🙂 ---
**Author:** ![StGermain](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/stgermain/32/2868_2.png) [@StGermain](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/StGermain)\ **Post date:** [February 12, 2014, 8:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sherlock-series-3/653312/562 "2014-02-12T20:41:05Z")
The big question is whether or not Mycroft is a sociopath? StG ---
**Author:** ![Lamia](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/8e7dd6/32.png) [@Lamia](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lamia)\ **Post date:** [February 12, 2014, 11:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sherlock-series-3/653312/563 "2014-02-12T23:12:13Z")
> [@Stanislaus](#): > > This inability to predict others’ emotional reactions also makes him less likely to be a sociopath - they are superficially charming and manipulative, well able to predict people’s reactions and use them for their own purposes. If Holmes was capable of that, he wouldn’t have such trouble forming even professional relationships. We saw Holmes being superficially charming and manipulative in this same episode – that’s how he got Janine to go out with him. He’s pulled the same kind of thing on Molly once or twice before. That said, I agree with others that Sherlock probably isn’t really a sociopath but just likes claiming to be one. I suspect most of his issues in dealing with people can be explained by the fact that he’s much more intelligent than most of the people he meets BUT grew up in the shadow of an even more brilliant older brother. ---
**Author:** ![rocking\_chair](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/rocking_chair/32/2918_2.png) [@rocking\_chair](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/rocking_chair)\ **Post date:** [February 12, 2014, 11:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sherlock-series-3/653312/564 "2014-02-12T23:17:52Z")
i’m reckoning some school councillor or psych. may have put sociopath in his “permanent record” at some point. sherlock found it helpful and goes with it. rather like sheldon stating he is not crazy, his mother had him tested. well done teela brown! now see if you can get her email and send her gif links. ---
**Author:** ![Sherrerd](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/sherrerd/32/8_2.png) [@Sherrerd](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sherrerd)\ **Post date:** [February 12, 2014, 11:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sherlock-series-3/653312/565 "2014-02-12T23:34:15Z")
> [@Voyager](#): > > Actually, I think there is something to support this - the question of why Sherlock had a gun in the first place. > We know Sherlock doesn’t carry a gun just in case, so he brought it for a reason. As has been mentioned, releasing blackmail documents on the death of the blackmailer is standard procedure, so if Holmes thought that there were actual pictures and documents in the vault killing Magnusson would be stupid. Therefore, Holmes had to know that the information was locked in Magnusson’s head, which was the only case in which killing Magnusson would make sense. It’s a well-thought-out theory, but if Moffat had it in mind, wouldn’t he have Watson _only_ asking to see the vault, and Sherlock simply looking superior while Watson makes the demand? Wouldn’t there have been stage directions in the teleplay along the lines of “when the “vault” doors are opened, Watson looks flabbergasted but Sherlock carries on looking smugly superior” or the like? Instead we had Sherlock asking to see the vault, and looking just as flummoxed as Watson, for several beats, after the doors are opened. ---
**Author:** ![Sherrerd](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/sherrerd/32/8_2.png) [@Sherrerd](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sherrerd)\ **Post date:** [February 13, 2014, 12:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sherlock-series-3/653312/566 "2014-02-13T00:24:49Z")
> [@Parenchyma](#): > > Moffatt and Gatiss have both been deeply into the stories since they were boys, and said they have always believed that Watson’s somewhat vague report of how Milverton was murdered by the strange woman was actually because either Watson or Holmes truly shot him. And Watson could not, of course, admit that in his story. That has always been their considered personal reading of the canon, and they decided to go there with their show. Sherlock Holmes is in the public domain. Moffat and Gatiss are free to do with the character whatever they please. But the fact is that Arthur Conan Doyle never showed, nor reported via another character, Holmes murdering anyone in cold blood. Attempts to get around this with assertions that ‘Conan Doyle meant to show it’ or that ‘Conan Doyle wanted us to infer it’ or that ‘Conan Doyle really thought of Holmes as someone who would do cold-blooded murder in certain circumstances’ or…whatever…are not sufficient to counteract the fact that Conan Doyle never showed, nor reported via another character, Holmes murdering anyone in cold blood. Now, readers and viewers are perfectly within their rights to declare approval for characters who, in certain circumstances, kill fellow-humans despite not being in any immediate danger from those humans. Such readers and viewers are also within their rights to call for depictions of Sherlock Holmes in which he kills fellow-humans despite (etc.). But the fact is that up until this latest episode, the show _Sherlock_ has not been one of those many fictional productions in which the hero does cold-blooded murder. Is this change for the better? Opinions clearly differ; _Sherlock_’s ultimate ratings fate may be affected or may not. Given the number of factors at work, it might not be possible to tease out the influence of this one. But it’s futile to pretend that this episode didn’t cross a line. > [@](#): > > Originally Posted by Sherrerd > Up until now, the Sherlock Holmes franchise has not been about the fantasy of being the Powerful Badass Who Kills In Cold Blood, Righteously. > [@MrDibble](#): > > _Elementary_ and the Holmes-inspired _Mentalist_ have already gone there. Which proves what, exactly, about the Gatiss/Moffat show? As mentioned above, writers are free to do anything they please with public domain characters. New directions may prove to be popular or artistically successful or both–or neither. For example: For many decades, particularly following the 1897 publication of Bram Stoker’s Dracula, vampire stories were dark, violent, gothic, and macabre. Variations over the years offered some innovations in tone, adding a more explicit and center-stage treatment of glamour and sex. But Stephanie Meyer’s Twilight series turned our first associations with the term “vampire” into “teen melodrama”. Did that new direction in the depiction of vampires violate the spirit of the original stories? Arguably, it did. Another example: Beginning in the 1940s, several popular and well-received novels and movies portrayed life in POW camps in Nazi Germany. There was often some comic relief in these stories, but on the whole they were serious stories of heroism in adversity. In the 1960s, the American TV show _Hogan’s Heroes_ told such a story in an innovative way: as a situation comedy, complete with wacky, goofy Nazis. It was very popular. But did it violate the spirit of the original stories? Yes, of course. I’m not saying that the makers of innovative variations on originals are bad or wrong. I’m just saying that once you make a change that violates the original enough, then you have A New Thing. If Gatiss and Moffat want to strap a bandolier and shotgun back-scabbard on Holmes, and have him go around gunning down people who annoy him, then they can do exactly that. It might be a very entertaining show. But it won’t be Conan Doyle’s Sherlock Holmes. * * * …I was going to address the silly \*‘you said that writers are incapable of writing characters who differ from themselves!!’ \*claims from a few pages back…but… ridiculousness is ridiculousness. If I need to say more, I’ll say it later. ---
**Author:** ![Gyrate](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gyrate/32/3588_2.png) [@Gyrate](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gyrate)\ **Post date:** [February 13, 2014, 9:36am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sherlock-series-3/653312/567 "2014-02-13T09:36:12Z")
> [@Sherrerd](#): > > For example: For many decades, particularly following the 1897 publication of Bram Stoker’s Dracula, vampire stories were dark, violent, gothic, and macabre. Variations over the years offered some innovations in tone, adding a more explicit and center-stage treatment of glamour and sex. But Stephanie Meyer’s Twilight series turned our first associations with the term “vampire” into “teen melodrama”. Nitpick: arguably _Buffy_ gets the credit for turning it into teen melodrama. _Twilight_ just turned it into moronic crap. ---
**Author:** ![teela\_brown](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/d9b06d/32.png) [@teela\_brown](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/teela_brown)\ **Post date:** [February 13, 2014, 1:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sherlock-series-3/653312/568 "2014-02-13T13:26:57Z")
Mycroft warns Sherlock away from the Magnusson case, and Sherlock tells him to stay away from his bedroom. This implies he doesn’t want Mycroft to know he’s seeing Janine, because since Mycroft knows everything, he’d know that Janine was Magnusson’s P.A. and Sherlock’s point of entry to the office building. So Mycroft doesn’t know Sherlock is seeing Janine. Why then does Janine call him Myke and say that the brothers fight all the time? She must have stayed hidden in the bedroom a lot. ---
**Author:** ![Malthus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/85f322/32.png) [@Malthus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Malthus)\ **Post date:** [February 13, 2014, 3:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sherlock-series-3/653312/569 "2014-02-13T15:55:18Z")
> [@Sherrerd](#): > > Sherlock Holmes is in the public domain. Moffat and Gatiss are free to do with the character whatever they please. > > But the fact is that Arthur Conan Doyle never showed, nor reported via another character, Holmes murdering anyone in cold blood. > > Attempts to get around this with assertions that ‘Conan Doyle meant to show it’ or that ‘Conan Doyle wanted us to infer it’ or that ‘Conan Doyle really thought of Holmes as someone who would do cold-blooded murder in certain circumstances’ or…whatever…are not sufficient to counteract the fact that Conan Doyle never showed, nor reported via another character, Holmes murdering anyone in cold blood. > > Now, readers and viewers are perfectly within their rights to declare approval for characters who, in certain circumstances, kill fellow-humans despite not being in any immediate danger from those humans. Such readers and viewers are also within their rights to call for depictions of Sherlock Holmes in which he kills fellow-humans despite (etc.). > > But the fact is that up until this latest episode, the show _Sherlock_ has not been one of those many fictional productions in which the hero does cold-blooded murder. > > Is this change for the better? Opinions clearly differ; _Sherlock_’s ultimate ratings fate may be affected or may not. Given the number of factors at work, it might not be possible to tease out the influence of this one. > > But it’s futile to pretend that this episode didn’t cross a line. It is true that in the original short stories by Conan Doyle, Sherlock never himself killed anyone. On the other hand, he essentially approved of or protected murderers several times, and outright declared that he would have killed in like circumstances at least once. The story I’m thinking about is _The Devil’s Foot_. Sherlock knows that the murderer who killed the last of the Trigellis family is the African Explorer. He killed in revenge - the wretch the Explorer murdered had previously murdered the Explorer’s long-time girlfriend (the wretch’s own sister) with fear-inducing poision (the Explorer kills the wretch the same way). Holmes lets him go, without telling the police. Watson questions this decision. Holmes says something like “I have never loved, but if I had, and the woman I loved met such a fate, I’d have done the same as [the Explorer]”. So clearly Sherlock was not adverse to killing, under some circumstances. Even revenge killing. In summary, Sherlock himself, in the original stories, was a character who did “… declare approval for characters who, in certain circumstances, kill fellow-humans despite not being in any immediate danger from those humans.”. ---
**Author:** ![Voyager](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/voyager/32/133_2.png) [@Voyager](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Voyager)\ **Post date:** [February 13, 2014, 6:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sherlock-series-3/653312/570 "2014-02-13T18:06:06Z")
> [@Sherrerd](#): > > It’s a well-thought-out theory, but if Moffat had it in mind, wouldn’t he have Watson _only_ asking to see the vault, and Sherlock simply looking superior while Watson makes the demand? Wouldn’t there have been stage directions in the teleplay along the lines of “when the “vault” doors are opened, Watson looks flabbergasted but Sherlock carries on looking smugly superior” or the like? > > Instead we had Sherlock asking to see the vault, and looking just as flummoxed as Watson, for several beats, after the doors are opened. Because if he didn’t ask, and didn’t look surprised (which he did during the standoff) Magnusson would have caught on that he knew. Sherlock is an excellent actor. Remember how upset he was about not knowing how to disarm the bomb in the Underground - even though he had already turned it off? That was to game Watson, but if he could game his best friend he could game Magnusson - who of course wanted Holmes to be flummoxed. ---
**Author:** ![MaxTheVool](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/9fc29f/32.png) [@MaxTheVool](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MaxTheVool)\ **Post date:** [February 13, 2014, 6:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sherlock-series-3/653312/571 "2014-02-13T18:53:40Z")
> [@Voyager](#): > > Because if he didn’t ask, and didn’t look surprised (which he did during the standoff) Magnusson would have caught on that he knew. Sherlock is an excellent actor. Remember how upset he was about not knowing how to disarm the bomb in the Underground - even though he had already turned it off? That was to game Watson, but if he could game his best friend he could game Magnusson - who of course wanted Holmes to be flummoxed. So are you saying “this is my personal theory to explain what happened” or are you saying “this is what the text of the show implies that the writers intended”? ---
**Author:** ![Lamia](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/8e7dd6/32.png) [@Lamia](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lamia)\ **Post date:** [February 13, 2014, 7:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sherlock-series-3/653312/572 "2014-02-13T19:29:28Z")
> [@teela\_brown](#): > > Mycroft warns Sherlock away from the Magnusson case, and Sherlock tells him to stay away from his bedroom. This implies he doesn’t want Mycroft to know he’s seeing Janine, because since Mycroft knows everything, he’d know that Janine was Magnusson’s P.A. and Sherlock’s point of entry to the office building. > > So Mycroft doesn’t know Sherlock is seeing Janine. Why then does Janine call him Myke and say that the brothers fight all the time? She must have stayed hidden in the bedroom a lot. Or Sherlock told her himself that he and his brother “Myke” fought a lot. ---
**Author:** ![Voyager](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/voyager/32/133_2.png) [@Voyager](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Voyager)\ **Post date:** [February 13, 2014, 8:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sherlock-series-3/653312/573 "2014-02-13T20:36:43Z")
> [@MaxTheVool](#): > > So are you saying “this is my personal theory to explain what happened” or are you saying “this is what the text of the show implies that the writers intended”? My personal theory, of course. In something as complicated as this there can be lots of plausible explanations. They could have noticed that the gun was a plot hole and said screw it, no one will notice. In some shows it would be way too convoluted - but Sherlock seems to be written around convoluted plots. ---
**Author:** ![MrDibble](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mrdibble/32/114_2.png) [@MrDibble](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MrDibble)\ **Post date:** [February 14, 2014, 12:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sherlock-series-3/653312/574 "2014-02-14T12:43:31Z")
> [@Sherrerd](#): > > Which proves what, exactly, about the Gatiss/Moffat show? Sorry, I had no idea you meant the _Sherlock_ franchise when you said > [@](#): > > Up until now, the Sherlock Holmes franchise has not been about the fantasy of being the Powerful Badass Who Kills In Cold Blood, Righteously. ---
**Author:** ![DragonAsh](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/db5fbb/32.png) [@DragonAsh](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DragonAsh)\ **Post date:** [February 14, 2014, 1:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sherlock-series-3/653312/575 "2014-02-14T13:52:04Z")
> [@Sherrerd](#): > > If Author X writes Sherlock Holmes pastiches in which Holmes expresses homophobic views loudly and often, and no one in the story comments, nor does any element of the story provide counterbalance or contradiction, then is this homophobia “Sherlock’s view”…? > > No. It is Author X’s view. > As mentioned above, an author can have Holmes do or say anything at all–and the words and acts are those of the author–not of “Sherlock Holmes.” Always. That was true of Conan Doyle and it’s true of every writer of pastiches and fan fictions since. > > _Fiction reflects an author’s views._ Whatever consequences accrue to the characters written by that author–for words and deeds that the author may admire or may deplore–reflect the values and beliefs held by that author. > > If Holmes is written as an ardent Labour voter, and nothing in the story comments ironically or disapprovingly or posits a negative consequence to being an ardent Labour voter, then you may be certain that the writer of that Holmes story does not disapprove of voting Labour. > > If Holmes is written as a hater of the works of Richard Wagner, and nothing in the story tells you that Holmes is bad and wrong for feeling that way, then you know that the writer sees hating Wagner as a perfectly acceptable stance. > > If Holmes is written as an inveterate cheater at cards, and never is made to look small or shabby for doing so, then you’ve learned that the writer sees card games as trivial and cheating at them as a reasonable thing to do. > > Any writer reveals his or her own values by means of showing the consequences that characters face as a result of what they do and say. > > Surely this is not news. Good god, this might be the stupidest, most asinine thing I’ve ever read on these boards…and believe me, that’s saying a lot - I’ve been in threads with couger58… ---
**Author:** ![Sherrerd](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/sherrerd/32/8_2.png) [@Sherrerd](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sherrerd)\ **Post date:** [February 17, 2014, 1:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sherlock-series-3/653312/576 "2014-02-17T01:12:26Z")
> [@DragonAsh](#): > > Good god, this might be the stupidest, most asinine thing I’ve ever read on these boards…and believe me, that’s saying a lot - I’ve been in threads with couger58… Are you able to explain your reaction in any way that references specific points in the actual post? ---
**Author:** ![Sherrerd](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/sherrerd/32/8_2.png) [@Sherrerd](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sherrerd)\ **Post date:** [February 17, 2014, 1:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sherlock-series-3/653312/577 "2014-02-17T01:17:52Z")
> [@Voyager](#): > > Because **if he didn’t ask, and _didn’t look surprised_ (which he did during the standoff) Magnusson would have caught on that he knew.** Sherlock is an excellent actor. Remember how upset he was about not knowing how to disarm the bomb in the Underground - even though he had already turned it off? That was to game Watson, but if he could game his best friend he could game Magnusson - who of course wanted Holmes to be flummoxed. How would Magnussen have known how Sherlock looked (surprised or not), when the “vault” doors were opened?–and why would Sherlock have thought that Magnussen would be evaluating how surprised he looked? They weren’t facing each other (and the vault had a plain white wall, not a mirror). [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sherlock-series-3/653312.md?page=28)