The love that “conquers all” and who idealises who
"If there was one single theme that ran through this entire season, it’s family. Tackling both the families we’re born into and the ones we create, season 4 reveals the dynamics between members to be as intricate as the deductions that Sherlock makes. John and Mary play perfect partners and parents, but their hidden insecurities do not a happy ending make. The tightknit relationship between John and Sherlock is built on shared experiences and mutual trust, but as soon as they are challenged they fall apart. The three Holmes siblings share exceptional gifts of intelligence and social inadequacies, but the streak of madness that runs through them forms rifts between them all.
As dysfunctional as these families are, they do shape who our heroes become. With Mary’s death and becoming a single father, John steps up to the challenge to be the man she imagined him to be. Sherlock, in his attempt to save John, ends up saving Eurus and himself as well when he finally connects with his emotions. Mycroft comes to realize that he does care for others more than himself, and reveals his vulnerability when he offers to be the one who dies. Even Eurus ultimately reveals that it is her desperation for familial love that drives her madness, and Sherlock’s empathy salvages what little humanity she had left. We get a chance to see that each one’s love for biological and chosen families make them better people in the end. "
unreconstructedfangirl:
This is nice commentary. I felt like the plot was all over the place, but the emotional story rang true for me, so I enjoyed it. People who refuse to see what Benedict Cumberbatch meant when he says “love conquers all” were anticipating a narrower definition of love.
mild-lunacy:
I agree with the theme of Series 4 being families in large part, as in
@stephisanerd’s meta, and at least it’s a positive review, but…. Man, I’m used to a deeper and higher quality analysis in fandom. So this is… not cutting it for me, particularly the simplification of the dynamics and heteronormativity involved. Like, John ‘steps up to the challenge to become the man she imagined him to be’? Hell no. With Sherlock’s help and acceptance, he accepted that he *can’t be* that man, and that’s okay. Mary idealized him and didn’t really know him. John became more *himself*, not some projected ideal of a father and soldier, thanks to the faith of a good woman! That is a cliche, but it’s not the story here (thankfully).
And of course, I take issue with the description of John and Sherlock’s relationship as falling apart ‘as soon as they are challenged’. They’ve been challenged many, many times already and survived, not least in
The Empty Hearse. That suggests it’s actually weak, or that falling apart was somehow a sign of how they didn’t really know or really trust each other in the end.
The Lying Detective shows both of them know the other deeply, with Sherlock’s predictions being spot-on, including knowing John would leave the cane with the recording device Sherlock slipped inside, because he hated himself after beating him. That’s actually some amazing insight and closeness with another person, even at their lowest point. And of course, the fact that John’s back at Sherlock’s side by
The Final Problem suggests their trust and ‘tightknit relationship’ was as strong or stronger than before and equal to the heaviest challenge.
This isn’t to say, of course, that the *overall theme* of hidden faultlines in seemingly happy families, or the potential hidden even in the most broken of bonds, wasn’t part of it. And naturally, Sherlock’s success with Eurus and ability to tap her remaining human feeling was definitely a sign that he 'finally connects with his emotions’. I just like the more nuanced narrative. This surface description is probably not enough to make people see what was really poignant and powerful in Series 4 if they’re not seeing it already.
Definitely think that 'love conquers all’, though. John and Sherlock’s, even, haha.
unreconstructedfangirl:
Do you really think MARY idealised him? I don’t. I think Mary knows him and loves him for a damaged, morally complicated man who is trying to live up to his own ideas of himself. I think Sherlock idealises John to some extent, but not nearly to the extent that John idealises himself. John has an idealised, perfectly upstanding version of himself in his mind, a man who meets every metric, and whose image he compares himself to, and continually comes up short, and hates himself for not being. I definitely see nothing in it at all to indicate that Mary is guilty of idealising John. Perhaps she sees him with the eyes of love, that expand every good and minimise faults, and perhaps she knows what kind of man he can be, but I don’t think she idealises him.
But Sherlock, though. Sherlock sees his every fault magnified in John’s eyes, and sees John as the arbiter of whether or not he is worthy of BEING ALIVE. He bets on John in the biggest way possible and he does so straight out of the depth of his oceanic feelings of unworthiness.
So, we’ve got one man who can’t accept himself because he never manages to live up to the idealised version of himself he has in his mind, and another who has dissociated himself from his own emotional life out of self-defense and who can’t imagine he deserves what he wants, and from this they are supposed to have an unassailable bond? Something that doesn’t fall apart when TRULY tested? How can they really know and trust each other when neither of them is willing to admit what he really, really is?
Sherlock’s insight into what John will do shows he DOES know John, but to know that John would say goodbye forever and leave him that stick? WOW. Bummer. Plus, all of that insight, apparently, is on Sherlock’s side… because that’s what he does.
Personally, I would say that there is no question of HIDDEN fault lines. The fault lines are big, obvious and yawning, and that’s been true from episode 1. I’ll agree that the Eurus plot was a bit ham-handed, but the Sherlock who could succeed in finding and comforting her only got there because every single person in his life who loved him brought him there and helped him see how much he needs and loves them back.
In fact, the more I think about it, the more I feel like every single thing that happened after Reichenbach is a resolution of the rupture of Reichenbach. They did fall apart, and it took all of this to put them back together. What they were together before that was built on shaky foundations, but what they have at the end of season 4 is honest, realistic and survived the fire.
mild-lunacy:
I definitely agree that everything that happened post
The Reichenbach Fall have been repercussions from Reichenbach; I just wrote extensively on it yesterday. I also think that John and Sherlock’s relationship was built on some shaky foundations, because Sherlock tried to embody the 'high-functioning sociopath’ persona (or more like, used it as a 'disguise’), and to some extent John believed it, as
@stephisanerd described in her classic meta. At the same time, it’s John who’s always telling Sherlock he’s 'flesh and blood’, asking him what he’s feeling on ASiB, still telling him to take a chance while he has one with Irene. He knows Sherlock for real if anyone does; it’s himself John has real issues with. Still, I think those shaky foundations don’t justify the review saying 'as soon as they are challenged they fall apart’, and I also think that John clearly forgives Sherlock fast enough and often enough that it’s worthwhile to focus on their strengths *because* of the fact that there are also these impressive weaknesses or issues standing in their way.
With regards to Mary, I just had
a discussion with @airstyledraconos about these issues in
The Lying Detective. I don’t think it’s that Mary is the source of John’s issues; clearly they predate her or anything she said. However, I was replying to the article, which did say that in
The Final Problem, John chose to live up to her challenge of being 'the man she imagined him to be’, which is idealization. That directly states it’s about Mary’s narrative, with which I disagreed. Yes, definitely, it’s about the issues John has with himself. I simply think it’s canon that *John* was frustrated with and ashamed of Mary’s faith in him (that he’d rescue Sherlock if Sherlock went to 'hell’, for example). That’s what he told Sherlock: he went to the hospital since it was Mary’s certainty that he’d do it, but he still didn’t believe in the two of them (or himself) being salvageable before Sherlock embraced him and said it was okay. 'It is what it is’. Not to mention, you can certainly argue that since the whole point of Sherlock’s efforts in
The Lying Detective was to save John from himself, as per Mary’s instructions (not just defeat Smith), he also had to know leaving the cane wouldn’t be their last goodbye. Basically, I simply think Sherlock’s the bigger catalyst in John’s growth and progression in
The Lying Detective, and the review totally ignored this (heteronormativity or too shallow of a reading, take your pick).
I realize I didn’t really address how and why I think John does know Sherlock, and of course, it’s just Sherlock’s nature to be much, much better at deduction than John. A lot of it’s kinda sublimated because we primarily see into John’s mind in
The Lying Detective through hallucinated Mary as the conduit and/or 'inner voice’, but
as Ivy said, a lot of it’s about what Mary says (Sherlock’s 'our monster’) or how she looks at him when he’s talking about the old case to the children at the hospital, or the way he deduced it’s Sherlock’s birthday at the end. And then there’s the way he *knows* he’s Sherlock’s family in
The Final Problem, and gives a private little smile to himself: they definitely did talk and have come out of it stronger than ever. Even so, I think it’s simply canon that in fact, they have always had an unassailable bond (whether or not John or Sherlock believes or accepts it at any given time). I just don’t think John’s break was purely due to the weakness of his relationship with Sherlock, certainly not predominantly. It was also about weaknesses within *himself*, unaddressed issues even with Reichenbach, a lack of self-acceptance and a huge helping of projection and guilt.
My point: some relationships are definitely meant to be seen as stronger than others. John and Sherlock’s bond is canonically extremely strong, the central thread that binds it all together for both of them and triumphs. I’m honestly not being shippy, that is really how I read Series 4. However, I’ll admit that both John and Sherlock had certainly had unhealthy aspects in how they related to each other and themselves;
as @notagarroter wrote recently, for example, Sherlock’s reckless relationship with his own mortality has been pervasively problematic since
The Reichenbach Fall, and probably earlier. Realizing that his death is 'something that happens to everybody else’ was a sign of growth for him; his *fake* suicide was certainly something that nearly destroyed John, and he was rather blase about this initially in
The Empty Hearse. And yes, I do think he lives for John, or that’s where he was in
His Last Vow after Mary shot him. But Sherlock’s grown too: he didn’t want to die (for the first time ever on the show) when Culverton Smith was strangling him. He’s slowly learning to value his existence, just as he is, and if he still uses John, then it’s just because John’s someone who loves him. It is what it is, and I still think that’s beautiful.
unreconstructedfangirl:
@mild-lunacy, you say in your post that you’re really honestly not being shippy, but… I don’t mind a bit if you were, and if you were, you’d be preaching to the choir in your reply to me. I ship it, as I always have! I don’t need convincing that John and Sherlock are two halves of an unbreakable whole – that’s canon, and that’s embedded in the very DNA of the characters from their inception.
That said…
I said that Sherlock seems – to me! – to be the one with all the insight in
The Lying Detective, and that the insight he has is… pretty sad really. I stand by that. I think Sherlock HOPES John will come back to him, but I don’t think he KNOWS he will. He’s taking a chance. He does bet on John, which to me indicates that he has some measure of faith in him, but without the true peril of the possibility of John making another choice, the whole thing falls apart a bit, doesn’t it?
I think John ends
The Lying Detective having made a breakthrough, but he’s still pretty deluded in some ways – cases in point, his apparent belief that Mary idealised him, and his suggestion that Sherlock take up with Irene don’t strike me as particularly insightful. Your examples of John’s insights, like suggesting that Sherlock take his chances with Irene, strike me as instances in which (unless they are viewed metaphorically, with Irene as stand-in for Sherlock’s sexuality) John kind of proves he still does not quite understand Sherlock. Also, what kind of advice is that! Go experience love and high expectations from… Irene? That does not strike me as a particularly good perscription, Doctor. All in all, I feel a bit… unconvinced by John’s insight into his friend’s heart of hearts, and whatever realisations about it he has come to by the time of
The Final Problem must have been reached in a moment we do not see on screen. A room for us to fill, I guess, as fans.
I mean, I even have a very different reading of John’s little half smile when Sherlock insists he stay on the basis that he is family – I read it as John being gratified and a little… not surprised, but perhaps still in the process of accepting that THAT is is place in Sherlock’s heart. Something he is still learning is true. I see that as a moment in which he is reassured of his place and smiles wryly at himself for still needing it. John is always in need of reassurances and finally Sherlock has reached a place in which he is able to give them in a meaningful way.
I think the point of the whole series thus far was building a characterisation and a backstory that could explain the depth of Sherlock and John’s friendship, and the lived-in strength of it that we see in ACD canon. I think the point is that before all of this, they are VERY assailable. Both of them are very unstable and mired in self-doubt and self-hatred of different provenances, and don’t know how to properly love anyone. John holds himself and Sherlock both to impossible and unrealistic standards, and Sherlock is so busy pretending to be a thing he isn’t and preening his pretty feathers of genius and/or drowning his sorrows and then hating himself for not being the man he imagines John is, or the man John imagines he is… I mean… I think THE POINT is that none of that is any kind of basis for an unassailable bond.
I think you’re absolutely right that John is deeply ashamed of not living up to the man he imagines Mary imagines he is (because, seriously, there is no real evidence ANYWHERE that Mary is unrealistic about John and plenty of evidence that she isn’t) and I think he is even more ashamed of not being worthy of being called the bravest, wisest and kindest man Sherlock has ever had the pleasure of knowing, because let’s also remember that John is pretty unrealistic about who Sherlock is in lots of instances, and appears to believe he is capable of actual magic tricks. All of this builds up into John’s finest moments at the end of
The Six Thatchers and
The Lying Detective, in which he behaves in a nigh-on unforgivable manner that he SHOULD be ashamed of.
And, in fairness to him, HE IS. Good.
I’ll agree that the review we are both responding to could be more nuanced on the subject of who idealises who, but even so, I think it shows some insight into the kind of love that “conquers all” in series 4, and the fact that it’s not narrowly defined by romantic love between John and Sherlock, which is something I, personally, am tremendously RELIEVED about in the story, and further, it does nothing to negate that notion, if it’s the hill you die on.
Nor, I would argue, does it particularly point to any kind of “heteronormativity” either in the story, or that I can identify in the reviewer’s thinking. It’s just that the romance you are saying that you are not championing is beside the point in a discussion of all the other forms of love that are the explicit focus of the discussion and the story. They told a story about how the love in a person’s life can make them whole, and give them the strength that allows them to forge a bond based on real things instead of imagined ones. They declined to make romantic love the only form of love that can do that. They opened all the rooms, and closed no doors, and they refused to authoritatively privilege one reading over alternatives. At the same time, they made them, finally, people who might be capable of that kind of love.
I think that despite some arguably messy narrative shenanigans, they managed to tell a story that had, for me, some emotional resonance, and I think it was the right decision not to force it to a single point. We are all free to have our reads, and as you know,
@mild-lunacy, I have mine. Nothing that happened had jossed it. I have no need to prove it or torture it further. It is what it is.
