Up For Discussion...
Mar. 15th, 2014 11:04 am![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png)
![[community profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/community.png)
Hey, everyone. Hope your week has been going well.
Our discussion from last week (well, okay, Monday really, but...) went very well. I had a great time and I adore seeing everyone else's point of view.
So, today we have a new topic. The most brilliant Scandalbaby sent me this:
The Link: http://www.entertainmentwise.com/news/140592/Benedict-Cumberbatch-On-Sherlocks-Devastatingly-Cruel-Love-Life
Benedict Cumberbatch on Sherlock’s “Devastatingly Cruel” Love Life
The series three conclusion of Sherlock was full of surprises, with fans of the reclusive super sleuth, played by Benedict Cumberbatch, even treated to a bit of romance.
His Last Vow aired in the UK last month, and aside from the return of Moriarty and the secret identity of Mrs John Watson, viewers also saw Sherlock proposing to pretty bridesmaid from episode two, Janine.
Just when we thought the confirmed bachelor had gone and got himself a girl it turned out it was all a ruse to get close to new super villain Magnussen.
In a behind the scenes interview with Benedict and show creators Steven Moffat and Mark Gatiss on the soon to be released DVD of the series, the trio explain the the decision to have Sherlock break a woman's heart.
"In the original story, he does become engaged to Milverton's maid," MTV News report Gatiss as explaining on the DVD. "Heartlessly, which is what Steven has extrapolated into this thing."
Gatiss and Moffat go on to laugh about how Watson's (Martin Freeman) reaction to Sherlock was spot on: "But you're behaving like a human being here!" Gatiss says, laughing.
"You think it's nice, he's become humanised," Moffat continues. "He knows how to do all that, but he exploits it to terrible ends."
"It's devastatingly cruel, what he does," Cumberbatch chimes in. "He inveigles his way back into her life and impresses her, and turns his ability on to a single focus."
At a Q&A ahead of the last episode last month, Moffat explained that such scenes, along with glimpses of the detective's parents, were all about humanising the character:
"The frightening thing about Sherlock Holmes is that he has all the impulses that other human beings have, he just suppresses them in order to be a better detective and it's in those moments that he doesn't successfully suppress it that he gets into trouble.
"He believes that emotion gets in the way of his brilliant brain. On the evidence of the show so far and on the original stories, he's completely right. When he gets emotional, he gets blinded, he doesn't stop Mary as a fraud like he should have had, as she points out in the episode, ages ago."
---------------
What is your favourite part of this? Do you agree with what they say about Sherlock and emotions?
Our discussion from last week (well, okay, Monday really, but...) went very well. I had a great time and I adore seeing everyone else's point of view.
So, today we have a new topic. The most brilliant Scandalbaby sent me this:
The Link: http://www.entertainmentwise.com/news/140592/Benedict-Cumberbatch-On-Sherlocks-Devastatingly-Cruel-Love-Life
Benedict Cumberbatch on Sherlock’s “Devastatingly Cruel” Love Life
The series three conclusion of Sherlock was full of surprises, with fans of the reclusive super sleuth, played by Benedict Cumberbatch, even treated to a bit of romance.
His Last Vow aired in the UK last month, and aside from the return of Moriarty and the secret identity of Mrs John Watson, viewers also saw Sherlock proposing to pretty bridesmaid from episode two, Janine.
Just when we thought the confirmed bachelor had gone and got himself a girl it turned out it was all a ruse to get close to new super villain Magnussen.
In a behind the scenes interview with Benedict and show creators Steven Moffat and Mark Gatiss on the soon to be released DVD of the series, the trio explain the the decision to have Sherlock break a woman's heart.
"In the original story, he does become engaged to Milverton's maid," MTV News report Gatiss as explaining on the DVD. "Heartlessly, which is what Steven has extrapolated into this thing."
Gatiss and Moffat go on to laugh about how Watson's (Martin Freeman) reaction to Sherlock was spot on: "But you're behaving like a human being here!" Gatiss says, laughing.
"You think it's nice, he's become humanised," Moffat continues. "He knows how to do all that, but he exploits it to terrible ends."
"It's devastatingly cruel, what he does," Cumberbatch chimes in. "He inveigles his way back into her life and impresses her, and turns his ability on to a single focus."
At a Q&A ahead of the last episode last month, Moffat explained that such scenes, along with glimpses of the detective's parents, were all about humanising the character:
"The frightening thing about Sherlock Holmes is that he has all the impulses that other human beings have, he just suppresses them in order to be a better detective and it's in those moments that he doesn't successfully suppress it that he gets into trouble.
"He believes that emotion gets in the way of his brilliant brain. On the evidence of the show so far and on the original stories, he's completely right. When he gets emotional, he gets blinded, he doesn't stop Mary as a fraud like he should have had, as she points out in the episode, ages ago."
---------------
What is your favourite part of this? Do you agree with what they say about Sherlock and emotions?
no subject
Date: 2014-03-15 03:12 pm (UTC)I like seeing the thought processes in how the character development goes. But the thing that caught my attention here was the last part. Sherlock thinks his emotions get in the way and Steven Moffat thinks he's right. I'm not sure I agree. Okay, he does make some interesting choices, but I think his emotions give him a broader view for his brain. Before John, he only saw love and caring in an academic way, a motivator for crimes. Now he can understand it, can see how loving someone, no matter what form that love is, can inspire one to do something drastic for them. I think, because he doesn't have much experience with the softer emotions, he's floundering, getting used to them. But, I think he'll come to realise, that if he lets John in, really lets him in, that they can make each other stronger.
As to Mary, I might agree that he should have caught her right off, but he was too overwhelmed with John. But, in the end, he didn't really spare John, taking the emotion out of it and making her simply a client. Did he make a mistake? I'm not sure yet. I feel like there is a bigger game being played here with Mary and we're only seeing the beginning of it.
Just my thoughts. :)
no subject
Date: 2014-03-15 03:20 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2014-03-15 03:33 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2014-03-15 04:11 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2014-03-16 01:33 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2014-03-16 01:42 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2014-03-15 10:21 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2014-03-16 01:32 am (UTC)Maybe it's because I'm not tuned into it, but when I read that it never occurred to me that it might mean having sexual feelings humanised him. (Mostly because I'm not convinced he does have them. We saw him care for John and want John in his life and want John happy, but nowhere in there did I see him trying to get John into bed.)
Just my thought on it.
no subject
Date: 2014-03-17 12:30 am (UTC)we have to know more about the extreme he takes to repress his emotions and urges to know exactly what his sexuality is, but sure thing he is romantic!
no subject
Date: 2014-03-17 01:36 am (UTC)But, despite the fact that Molly has earned a place in his mind palace, he doesn't picture her naked and isn't attracted to her. He's not interested in Lestrade. Irene earned his respect, even if he is wary and he adores John enough to die for and kill for him. So, I think these are the two people he is attracted to.
So, yeah, thinking demisexual.
no subject
Date: 2014-03-17 09:38 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2014-03-17 03:04 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2014-03-21 10:50 am (UTC)I kind of get the humanise thing, being as we see it from John's point of view, but I think it's less that John thinks, "oh, look, he's being a human being" and more, "what the crap? I didn't really think he was into this kind of thing."
I know what they are saying, but I really saw it as John being completely flummoxed and trying to understand what was happening. (I also feel like, when he did get it, while he was horrified at how far Sherlock was willing to go, he was a bit relieved to see that he hadn't completely misunderstood Sherlock.)
no subject
Date: 2014-03-23 08:17 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2014-03-17 01:17 am (UTC)In reality, the absence of emotion is far more likely to impede Sherlock's intellectual and psychological functioning than its presence. It's called emotional intelligence for a reason: it's actually really important. And you could say that the text (apparently unwittingly) backs up that argument too. Why does Sherlock suffer so intensely from spells of boredom? Why does he require constant stimulation to stave off his impulsive, neurotic, and seemingly depressive moods? Why does he resort to hard drugs and other destructive behaviors in order to stave off these moods? Could it be because he suffers from a self-identity made precarious by its lack of emotional grounding? Hmm...
Sherlock suffers from boredom with the severity that a young child suffers from boredom, possibly because he's never progressed emotionally beyond the age of a young child. He hasn't developed the capacity to be secure in his self-identity without needing to elicit constant feedback from the world around him. He needs constant stimulation from the outside world ("I NEED a case!") because he can't turn inward for self-comfort and emotional self-sustainment*. Why can't he? Because there's very little in there. Little that he sees fit (or knows how) to acknowledge, foster, or make any use of, anyway. Not only has he spent his whole life rejecting emotion, he hasn't even accepted the idea that the value of a thing may, in some cases, be predicated simply by one's own emotional enjoyment of said thing. So he deletes what isn't useful, abstains from what isn't rational, rejects whatever is sentimental, and basically does everything he can to insure that his inner landscape is as BARREN AS IS HUMANLY POSSIBLE. And it's sad, IMO, because he absolutely believes this is what he needs to do, because The Work is all that matters...because Sherlock himself has unwittingly made it so that he doesn't have anything else to point to and say "That's important. I care about that. That matters."
Obviously this is just my reading of the character. And obviously it's all much more complicated than what can be summed up in a two-paragraph rant. But I stand by my rant.
I love Sherlock, and I love him in part because he is a deeply confused and stunted adult human being. But that the writers suggest he's not confused or stunted - that in fact his simplistic, backwards beliefs about human emotion are right - is something I find endlessly aggravating. Mainly because by understanding him in such simplistic terms, it means they then write him in simplistic terms, which makes it all so much less enjoyable.
Granted, I do think it's highly realistic that Sherlock would struggle with emotion. He's in his mid(?)-thirties, but has the emotional development of a child. If/when he does begin to experience some emotion (beyond whatever limited amount he already experiences) he's probably not going to know how to deal with it. Plus, his deeply ingrained automatic response is to see emotion as a repellent and hostile thing, which is likely to make dealing with his emotions all the more difficult for him, at least at first. But there's a big difference between saying "His inability to integrate his emotional intelligence with his intellectual intelligence is detrimental to his deductive abilities," which is true, and saying "His emotions blind him," as Moffat and Gatiss are saying.
**He needs constant stimulation from the outside world ("I NEED a case!") because he can't turn inward for self-comfort and emotional self-sustainment // Of course Sherlock is not completely unable to provide his own self-comfort and emotional sustainment. He is not a completely...hmm, shall we say "empty house," on the inside. He simply has a very limited range of ways at which he is practiced in doing so. He has his experiments, for example, which he is capable of producing for himself and by which he is capable of entertaining (and perhaps also comforting) himself. However, his experiments don't seem to be adequately sustaining for more than short periods of time between cases.
no subject
Date: 2014-03-17 01:48 am (UTC)Do you think he is stunted because of something internal, like autism, or do you think it was a learned thing, such as from growing up being different and having no friends and a big brother who called him stupid and said the East Wind was coming for him?
I ask, because this line caught my attention: his deeply ingrained automatic response is to see emotion as a repellent and hostile thing, which is likely to make dealing with his emotions all the more difficult for him
I found myself thinking his childhood must have been a nightmare, not fitting in, being teased. I would think he'd avoid other children and pull into himself and there he still is.
And yes, because caring and emotions are new to him I can see how integrating them into his life would be distracting, such as when he was working through the Mayfly man case in his head and Irene showed up and he had to focus and force her out. But, I think embracing them gives him a wider view of things for his cases, beyond motivators for crimes. I think it also makes him a better person, such as him understanding that it is more important to save a life than to solve a crime.
I don't think that his emotions blind him. I think that is too simplistic a view.
Anyway, great thoughts here. I'm very impressed!
no subject
Date: 2014-03-17 03:55 am (UTC)I'm glad you think so. It's all so complicated and squishy, psychology, and I love it but I'm also painfully aware that you can argue it in so many different directions. So I often muse about Sherlock and then just never post the musings.
Do you think he is stunted because of something internal, like autism, or do you think it was a learned thing, such as from growing up being different and having no friends and a big brother who called him stupid and said the East Wind was coming for him?
My personal conviction is that Sherlock's "issues" generally defy diagnosis and that they are, to a large extent, learned - a product of nurture more than nature, though certainly nature plays a part as well.
I found myself thinking his childhood must have been a nightmare, not fitting in, being teased. I would think he'd avoid other children and pull into himself and there he still is.
Yes, I absolutely agree. I've never fully fleshed out my personal headcanon of Sherlock's childhood experience (plenty of ideas, none of them certain), but I definitely imagine Sherlock's childhood being full of chronic distress, probably stemming from neglect, rejection, and hostility. I mean, ultimately if a six year old (just to name a random age) suffers acute distress over a long enough period of time, he'll learn - as thought it were an absolute fact - that the intelligent thing to do is to simply not care. And if the distress is acute enough, he'll learn that the necessary thing to do is to not care. Which, it seems to me, is essentially what happened to Sherlock. Instead of developing more complex, robust attachments and internalizing the emotional processes he'd need in order to self-comfort and emotionally self-sustain, as most healthy young children begin to do at a certain age, Sherlock was learning to do the opposite: pulling into himself, as you said.
It bears saying that whatever my headcanon is for Sherlock's childhood, my headcanon for the Holmes parents is entirely different from what we're shown in S3.
But, I think embracing them gives him a wider view of things for his cases, beyond motivators for crimes. I think it also makes him a better person, such as him understanding that it is more important to save a life than to solve a crime.
Agreed. I think that learning to integrate his emotions could be a long, gradual, and in some cases painful process for Sherlock, but I absolutely believe that he would benefit from it in the end, in many ways. I had hoped the writers may have similar opinions on the matter, but it appears not.
ETA: And, er, thank you for the compliments before. I forgot to say.
no subject
Date: 2014-03-18 11:41 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2014-03-21 10:06 am (UTC)Do you think there will be a balance next season? It feels like the first couple seasons was John giving everything to Sherlock, only to get the iceman and then season three was Sherlock throwing himself into it for a John who just couldn't risk it anymore. (Though I think at the very end of HLV, John gets it. When Sherlock kills for him, then is ready to go off to die for him, I think he understands how far Sherlock has come.) (Do you think John knew Sherlock was going off to die? Some part of me thinks Mycroft would have made sure he knew. After all, John was the reason his brother was in this mess.)
Anyhow, I rather hope next season gives us a more equal relationship with them.
no subject
Date: 2014-03-21 11:20 am (UTC)And I sure *hope* things will be more balanced in S4, but no way to know for sure, right? To be perfectly honest, I rather enjoyed John being the adoring satellite and Sherlock keeping him enthralled, but at a distance. That's the way it should be for me. I pretty much feel he should be forever admired, adored, but unattainable.
As for John knowing Sherlock was going to his death, I don't think so. Otherwise he wouldn't have asked what would happen after the six months undercover job.
no subject
Date: 2014-03-21 05:19 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2014-03-21 10:31 am (UTC)As to Sherlock, if he is autistic, (which hasn't actually been said. In Hound, John jokingly said to Greg that Sherlock had Asperger's, but there's been no official statement he is.) I think that somewhere along the way, he learned that yes, he does upset people, but he has no clue how to fix it, so why get fussed about it. He learned that people won't like him, so getting himself in a knot trying to please people will fail. It's easier to just be himself and to heck with everyone else. (Maybe he learned that at boarding school when his parents weren't there to help him? I know with my son, if he has a day where someone is actually upset at him, he asks me to point out where he went off and how to walk it back. If he didn't have our family to consult, I could see the frustration would build up until he just shut it all down and decided people weren't worth it.)
Do I think Sherlock is autistic? I'm not sure. After all, Mycroft is not only the same way, but he does it to a further extent. He can be polite in public, he's learned to pretend to care, but he is unable to actually make any meaningful emotional connections to the point where it pains him to admit he even cares for his own brother. How could the two brothers both turn out that way if it isn't a learned behaviour? It seems even more odd when you look at their parents. They are both outwardly caring and very socially normal, so how the heck did the boys turn out so emotionally inept? (And really, what kind of brother would tell a small child he was stupid and the East Wind was going to come get him? I mean, siblings tease each other and fight, but to tell a seven year old he is just stupid is cruel. (especially when you consider Mycroft was about 14 at the time and should have had more compassion for a small child.))
Anyway, if Sherlock does have autism, that doesn't mean he can't understand emotions. It just means he has to work a bit harder to get there.
no subject
Date: 2014-03-23 12:26 am (UTC)More precisely he doesn't understand the impact of his words on people and that his behaviour is perceived as rude/mean/aggressiv and unsuitable.
I watch "The Big Bang Theroy" as well and would call Sheldon autistic and use the same "he doesn't understand emotions" -phrase when he tells somebody something mean without noticing at all. In that case, I would compare him and Sherlock to people with touret syndrom , who aren't to blame for their rudness/mean behaviour , because it's part of a disease/disability and not their intention to be mean.
But can't autism be heritable , so that siblings can have it , too ? Like in cases of other mental diseases ?
Then this has nothing to do with the behaviour of the parents. I don't know S3, yet, but Mycroft might have bullied him, because he noticed, that Sherlock was the brighter one of the two and he felt jealous ?
I don't understand that East-Wind-Expression, I'm not a native speaker of English.
But Sherlock is called a "sociopath" in the pilot, which is a clinical diagnosis that indeed means "lack of empathy" and "lack of sense of morality" and goes far beyond the idea of autism. It means he really can't feel it, not just not notice social norms.