She can’t sit there 

 (Sherlock Meta by sherlockmeta, fkef.tumblr and theleftpill)

sherlockmeta:

So, I haven’t seen anyone mention that in His Last Vow, when John sees that Sherlock has moved his chair–doesn’t it seem like that was another adjustment Sherlock had made as part of his ruse relationship with Janine?

He went to all the trouble to allow her into his living area, and let her be physically close to him (to an extent)…but the one thing he couldn’t bear was to have her sitting in John’s chair. Because moving it to his own bedroom wouldn’t have kept it out of Janine’s way, I assume he carried it all the way upstairs to John’s old bedroom, to ensure it wouldn’t be violated. Lugging a bulky armchair up a staircase, by himself…quite a bit of effort to go to, and not the type of thing I see Sherlock doing if he’s simply trying to cut John’s place out of the flat in retaliation for his marriage.

No. His relationship with Janine was an elaborate performance, requiring sacrifices of his personal comfort in order to play the role to the hilt…but he was, in the end, unable to countenance the thought of allowing Janine to sit across from him, in the space that was rightfully John’s. And as soon as he’d got Janine out of the way, he immediately brought the chair back…

theleftpill:

It’s possible that this was Sherlock’s motivation, but by making Janine the reason he lost the chair and her absence the reason he brought it back, you lose not only a pretty big plot point but also the stronger symbolism connected to John’s absence and return.

John’s missing chair is a lovely physical, non-verbal, passive-aggressive, pity-party tantrum of a metaphor. Sherlock Removed The Chair. And then he didn’t re-arrange the furniture to balance out the room, he didn’t shift things around to better utilize his living space; he left a huge gaping hole in the middle of the floor. One you can’t possibly hope to miss. And when called on it, he gives such a lovely bullshit response. The removal is used as another metaphor for Sherlock’s inability to cope with John’s absence.

The chair returns to signal John’s “beginning of the end” of his trust in Mary. It’s Sherlock’s way to break the news gently to John that he’s soon to move back in, along with the perfume bottle working as the clue as to why. The chair’s return communicates that Sherlock is prepared to take John back, that John is welcome back, and neither of them have to discuss it. The trust and support is inherent and explicit. You know how these men hate to directly address all this touchy-feely stuff. It works beautifully.

If Janine is Sherlock’s motivation for losing the chair, you lose all of that metaphor. It’s not gone because of Sherlock’s pain; it doesn’t return because of Mary’s betrayal; it comes and goes because of the presence of this woman (whom Sherlock invited into his home, as the OP points out.) The chair then signifies John only peripherally. Janine also is made into a stronger force than John. Sherlock can cope with the empty chair: “Yes the chair brings fond/painful memories, but I can experience them and move on.” But put Janine in it: “But when this harpy comes in and tries to sit down well we need to put a stop to that. Sore feet is what she deserves.” This idea raises Janine’s emotional importance to Sherlock above John’s, and that’s just not this show.

It further reduces the gesture to an act of hostility towards a woman he’s using for a purpose. Sherlock is rarely (ever?) hostile without a reason - either manipulation to get what he wants or emotional retaliation. He has no reason to be vicious to Janine; she’s there because he wants her to be and he genuinely likes her. The chair’s return furthers the petty motivation and discards its use to forward the plot; it wasn’t there to tell John gently that he’s soon to move back in, it was already there for some other reason and John sat in it out of habit.

Sherlock’s inability to bear Janine in John’s chair can’t be the reason Sherlock lost it, if you want to keep the symbolism of the loss of John and how it works in the plot. It is a nice headcanon layer though.

And don’t forget that if she doesn’t have a chair to sit in, then she’s forced to sit in Sherlock’s lap. And that’s a bonus he probably didn’t mind having.

fkef:

I always find it incredibly interesting that people forget that Sherlock used Janine. And didn’t let her know what was up. Because he didn’t trust her. No, he didn’t like her. We saw his fake smile fall as soon as she left the apartment. Do we just all see Sherlock let a woman sit in his lap and all go, [OMG Sherlock in love]?

Jesus christ. I don’t think Sherlock liked her. He knew from the start that she was of use to him, and so he carefully nurtured that relationship. If Sherlock knew of Mary’s ex-boyfriend before meeting him, what makes you think he didn’t know where Janine worked before meeting her?

Sherlock calls himself a high-functioning sociopath (and we see that it’s pretty true until we meet Redbeard), and that means he manipulates people; he uses people. People are means to his ends (which, because he’s on the side of the angels, are “good” according to us).

The chair has nothing to do with Janine and everything to do with John. Janine was simply a key to Magnussen’s office.

theleftpill:

Of course he wasn’t in love with her; he was absolutely manipulating her by staging that “relationship.”  But that doesn’t exclude him liking her.  It’s most succinctly shown in their delicious “So we’re good?  Of course” moment.  That moment is genuine camaraderie; he respects her and enjoys her company.  The Sign of Three is rife with great Sherlock/Janine moments.  I mean jeez, the guy spends the whole day trying to find her a guy she can hook up with.  This is Sherlock; why in the hell would he waste his time like that on someone he doesn’t like?  He confesses his love of dancing to her.  He searches her out to dance with.  Yeah, Sherlock likes Janine.  It’s all in the show.

I don’t think he “knew from the start that she was of use to him.”  Until His Last Vow, Magnussen wasn’t on his radar: it was Lady Smallwood’s request of Sherlock to be a go-between that motivates his cultivation of their “relationship.”  It was a “stroke of luck” that she happened to be the maid of honor (as far as Sherlock knew at the time.)

Sherlock knew about Mary’s ex because he’s seen the guy’s tweets and cropped Facebook pictures, because Sherlock is friends with Mary and he notices these things.  Not because he’s been researching random people in the hopes that they someday might have use in a case.

Sherlock calls himself a sociopath. Sherlock is a crap sociopath. (I have a great gif set idea for this; anyone know how to build those?) We see it’s pretty not true; hugging and kissing Mrs. Hudson, revenging Mrs. Hudson, showing true remorse and apologizing to Molly, do I really need to list the proofs with John to you? Sure he manipulates people.  He also is capable of liking them and having friendly relationships with them. One of the great dichotomies of his character is that he does both at the same time to the same person. Sherlock is a complete shit to the people he loves.  I love that complexity.

So I’m sorry if it upsets you, but Janine is truly and canonically more than simply a key to Magnussen’s office. She caught Sherlock’s attention. She earned his respect. You can’t reduce that richness of character to a mere prop. (Well, you can and did, but that doesn’t make it accurate.)

Why Molly and Not John?

 (Sherlock meta by theleftpill)

An anon asked Petratodd if she thought Sherlolly would ever become canon. This is something I’ve been mulling over since my my third full viewing of S3. I’m a professional editor for film/TV and spend most of my job working with story structure, character development, and how to best reveal the plot. From this point of view, I think the writers are pointing to a romantic attachment between Sherlock and Molly in both the plot points and character development. While I’ll be really surprised if it becomes a major storyline, or is ever happily resolved, I think it’s definitely headed in that direction.

Sherlock goes to Molly to save his life. Twice. Even his subconscious goes to Molly, the first person he trusts. She’s the person he depends on for his life, the person he can trust without limits. “The one who mattered the most.” When John refuses to be available after the return (both emotionally, and physically for cases), Sherlock turns to Molly. He wants to “solve crimes” with her. Molly’s the one who runs his urine test (ew) and calls him on the carpet for his stupidity. She’s becoming very physically involved in the story, even when they could use a different character.

He could have gone to John to save his life. John is an army doctor. He has extensive knowledge on how to survive a gunshot wound. Sherlock knows this. John could easily have been used to talk him through the fall. Sherlock could have let John in on Lazarus; there are many scenarios where John could have been prevented from “letting the cat out of the bag”, or they could have just not used John’s inability to lie as a plot point. It makes narrative sense for John to be the one to help save his life both times, but that’s not who Sherlock goes to. He goes to Molly.

Sherlock allows himself to be vulnerable to Molly. Twice. Three times actually. The Reichenbach request, in his Mind Palace/subconscious, and in The Empty Hearse when he thanks her for helping him. This vulnerability is a huge move forward in Sherlock’s character development; asking for help, placing trust and giving sincere thanks were things that just did not happen in S1 and most of S2. Sherlock is growing and the writers are using Molly to facilitate it.

(Oh wait - four! Four times Sherlock was vulnerable - the Christmas present! Fuck! They really are setting this up!)

He could have gone to John. John and Sherlock adore each other. It’s no secret. They love each other and have said so - Sherlock in public. But Sherlock has never been vulnerable to him before (the closest he’s come is the “apology” in The Hounds of Baskerville and that’s debatable.) It would make narrative sense, and more importantly, demonstrate tremendous character growth to be that vulnerable to John. But he didn’t. He’s vulnerable to Molly.

Now. Why would they use Molly for all that? John is one of the main characters on the show and ACD canon, and his character has been established enough that you could replace Molly with him in any of those scenes. But the writers didn’t use him, they used Molly. Why would they use a secondary character? She isn’t in the ACD canon, so they are not beholden to any canon story line involving her. Why spend so much time on her?

Because they are making Molly IM. POR. TANT.

Screen time in a TV show is very important. You want to use only the elements that are crucial to your story because you have only so much time to tell it. Good storytelling includes setting up your later plot points earlier in the story so it leads to a natural and satisfying conclusion. If you don’t have those seeds early on, your story ends up feeling fake and your audience will cry bullshit. So you want to put elements in the start of your story that will become important later on.

I have this issue in my current show. I have a big revelation in the last act of the show that is set up beautifully in the first act of the show. Unfortunately, I have 39 minutes to tell this story (yes, an hour show is only 39 minutes long) and there is more important content than this, so I won’t have time to play the earlier scene. So now the big revelation is going to come out of the blue and feel fake, disingenuous. “Sherlock” has only 4 hours 30 minutes to tell a story which could reasonably be three times that. The writers aren’t going to waste screen time on plot or character that doesn’t serve some sort of purpose. So I ask again, why use Molly to further Sherlock’s character in such crucial, momentous ways?

I think these and just about every other Molly scene is setting up for a stronger emotional attachment and certainly a strong role for Molly in the show. My conjecture is that Sherlock will fall in love with her, as far as he is capable. I said in my earlier post that she will be a “love interest”; there are many levels to that and many directions it can be taken. I don’t think it will ever be consummated, because there goes your conflict (see: Moonlighting), and Sherlock is canonically a bachelor, but I do think that’s the direction the story is pointing.

But wait! you cry. Sherlock is gay! He admitted it to Janine and because the Mind Palace courtroom is red! (Both of which are bullshit and merit their own post.) So he can’t end up with Molly! Well, not so much. The Sign of Three pretty clearly tracks Sherlock’s growing attraction - yes, attraction - to Janine. The wedding starts with him noncommittal to her presence, and ends with him hopefully seeking her out to dance with. (Again, this could be its own post, and probably will be.) According to this narrative, Sherlock is either straight or bi, both doors opened wide to an emotional interest in Molly. Again, sowing the seeds for a later narrative.

Whether or not you take this to prove “Sherlolly will be canon” is up to you, because I’m not trying to prove that either way. This is what I see in the show, combined with my professional experience, and it leads me to believe that Molly is being set up for a romantic attachment to Sherlock. Don’t know if it will actually happen. Only Moftiss know for sure.

Why did Sherlock hand the gun to Mycroft first?

 (Sherlock meta by notagarroter, anarfea, harriet-spy, cumberbatchitis and thecutteralicia)

notagarroter:

In the scene where Eurus wants them to kill the Governor, I mean. Just curious about people’s headcanons, since Sherlock doesn’t explain his reasoning.

anarfea:

Sherlock has built Mycroft into an almost god-like figure: omniscient, omnipotent, not-quite benevolent. He’s the Voice of Authority in Sherlock’s mind palace, where he appears with what look like a halo and angel wings.

And while Sherlock resents Mycroft’s meddling and intrusion, he also relies on him. Whenever he OD’s, he makes a list for Mycroft. When he shoots Magnussen in the head, he expects Mycroft to get him a pardon “like a proper big brother,” (and Mycroft does him one better by making it look like it never happened). And even though Sherlock and Euros spell out “fuck off” when they’re wandering the streets, I think Sherlock takes comfort in knowing that Big Brother is watching over him.

Mycroft has cultivated this image, probably from a pretty young age. The Final Problem shows us how quickly Mycroft grew up; he watched his sister kill his brother’s best friend, threaten his brother’s life, and burn down the family home when he was 12-13. The more we learn about Mycroft, it’s clear that “caring is not an advantage,” is something he says because he knows the pain of caring too much. So he buried his heart deep, and cultivated his Ice Man persona. And it appears to have worked–his code-name is Antarctica, which shows his colleagues, at least, believe it.

I think Sherlock believes it, too. He thinks that Mycroft has succeeded in entirely suppressing sentiment–a behavior he initially tries to emulate in S1. By S3, he’s learned that there are advantages to having friends, and he tries to encourage Mycroft to find himself a goldfish. But while Sherlock transitions from wanting to be like Mycroft to wanting Mycroft to be like him, his belief that Mycroft doesn’t form attachments is constant.

I think over time, because of whatever resentments and feuds and unsettled scores lie between them, Sherlock has come to believe Mycroft doesn’t care for him, either. His comment, “then why didn’t you want me to take it?” re the suicide mission to Eastern Europe is only half-jesting. And Mycroft realizes that he’s made a mistake by guarding his heart so closely even Sherlock has come to suspect he doesn’t have one. So he tells him, “Also, your loss would break my heart.” And Sherlock chokes on his cigarette; he’s that unaccustomed to sentiment from Mycroft. But Mycroft continues to let Sherlock see through the facade. At the end of The Abominable Bride, he tells him, “I was there for you before, I’ll be there for you again, I’ll always be there for you.” I think, even though Sherlock brushes him off, it’s gotten it through his thick skull that Mycroft cares about him. But the goldfish? Not a chance.

So he hands Mycroft the gun because he thinks it should be easy for Mycroft to do this for him. Mycroft has always fixed all his other problems, and anyway what’s one more dead goldfish to The British Government? I think he’s shocked when Mycroft refuses. (So was I, and I’m still not entirely convinced that that moment was in character). If I try to defer to the fact that Mark Gatiss is writing a character and playing a character he knows well, the best explanation I can come up with for Mycroft’s behavior is that he’s already seeing how this is going to end–he knows how Euros thinks, and he’s terrified that Sherlock and/or John is going to die and it’s all his fault. And I also think having to kill the Governor in particular hits him especially hard because of the threat he makes when they first arrive to Sherrinford: “I find any indication my sister has left this island at any time, I swear to you, you will not.” I’m not saying that was an idle threat, but I don’t think Mycroft can deal with being forced to carry it out. While I suspect that Mycroft has, even if he’s never murdered anyone himself, at least sanctioned murder before, I don’t think he can deal with getting blood on his hands when he’s not the one making the decisions.

Anyway, he can’t do it. And Sherlock is surprised, I think, because it doesn’t fit with the image of Mycroft that he has. I think a huge part of The Final Problem is about Sherlock remaking his image of Mycroft, realizing he is not a demigod but a man. Mycroft if fallible, Mycroft isn’t always clever, in short, Mycroft isn’t as strong as he thinks he is. Or as strong as Sherlock thought he was.

But he did his best.

harriet-spy:

I have had very similar thoughts about the failure to shoot myself. I would add that the moment seems to have arisen from a tension between the demands of theme and of plot. As we’ve been told, the point of The Final roblem, and of Euros’s tests, was to force Sherlock to choose emotion and human connection over Mycroft and mere reasoning. Which means that, all along, Mycroft should have been advocating for the ruthless/”logical” choice in every test. But if he did so, it wouldn’t have been much of an episode. They had to find some way to avoid his simply short-circuiting every supposedly riveting moment of emotional suspense by killing a bitch or three, and the best they could come up with was to vaguely cripple/sideline the character, regardless of continuity.

Many, many things about the treatment of Mycroft in The Final Problem bothered me, but I do think that, in order for Sherlock to become more mature, he needs to take a more realistic view of Mycroft. His response to Mycroft’s perceived infallibility has always incorporated a large element of childish abdication of responsibility. That’s something he is only likely to get over at this late stage in his life by recognizing that the infallibility has its limits. To me, this is the most legitimate of what I will (in extremely petty fashion) refer to as the attacks on Mycroft in this episode, the one that is most psychologically sound generally, and most consistent with prior episodes. And yet, to be honest, I’m not sure that the writers fully thought it out, and I wouldn’t be surprised if any S5 showed regression on this point.

(now if only they could’ve bothered to construct their plot so it supported their conclusions, rather than having a lot of random loud! exciting! stuff! happen and then informing us that it meant this or that…) 

anarfea:

I do agree with you that The Final Problem has a lot of tension between plot and theme, and also between plot and character. I find the reading of The Final Problem that I like best is to look at it as almost an allegory about the show rather than an actual episode (not sure if that makes sense). All of the characters feel symbolic on pretty much every level. I do agree with you that while there were some moments in The Final Problem which I loved and which gave me lots of Mycroft feels (the whole flashback sequence where adult Mycroft is interacting with the Holmes children, for example, and the bits about Lady Bracknell, and of course the Holmes killing Holmes sequence) I was upset about a couple of decisions they made, particularly the clown sequence. I can come up with satisfactory (to me, at least) explanations for why Mycroft couldn’t shoot the Governor.

I cannot reconcile the version of Mycroft we see in Serbia, who clearly has field experience and trusted himself enough to go in and get Sherlock out of there, with the Mycroft who is apparently incapable of dispatching an intruder in his own home. Much the way I cannot reconcile the idea that the Holmes’ family had an ancestral home in the countryside with the version of Mummy and Daddy Holmes we see in The Empty Hearse. I was arguing in my multi-shipping meta that I almost think of the different series of Sherlock as existing in parallel universes or something. Up until now, all my longer fics have been canon compliant, but I now feel like there are too many inconsistencies for me to come up with a coherent narrative. At this point I’m just going to use the parts of canon that I like and ignore the bits that don’t make sense.

cumberbatchitis:

I have always thought he simply considered Mycroft responsible for the whole mess, so in his eyes he was supposed to be the one to deal with it. And also he did not want John to face such a task. But yeah, all points mentioned are very reasonable.

thecutteralicia:

I must say, I’m surprised that so many people have a hard time with Mycroft being unable to shoot the governor. Serbia was different, as Mycroft had control of the situation and also no one died (that we know of) - if he had, for example, been forced to kill the man beating Sherlock, it would have been in defense of his brother (and himself). Being prepared to shoot a home invader is self-defense. Should I find it disturbing that so many people can’t see a difference between those situations and being forced to murder an innocent person with one’s own hands???

John is a soldier. In the first episode, he killed Jeff Hope with zero remorse. Yet no one seemingly had a problem with his inability in The Final Problem to carry out the murder of the governor. In his case, people seem to realize that just because someone is a soldier - and prepared to shoot a person who is actively a danger to others - doesn’t mean they’re automatically okay with the willy-nilly murder of innocents. Why isn’t the same extended to Mycroft?

We know Mycroft is in intelligence and probably his orders have resulted in the deaths of others. However, every indication in the show is that Mycroft specializes in counter-terrorism and homeland protection. His goal is to protect as many people as possible - we see that in The Final Problem, too, with his thought that they should have the girl crash the plane into water or away from civilization, so more people don’t get hurt. His job is to have pragmatic thoughts like that - if the girl and the plane’s passengers can’t be saved, then obviously the next best option is to have the plane crash in a place where people on the ground won’t be at risk.

The situation with the governor is different. For one thing, Mycroft is not in control. They are being manipulated, and the choice is either one person dies or two people die, and really, there’s no guarantee Eurus wouldn’t just kill the governor’s wife anyway. The prospect is to kill a person with his bare hands - something we have zero evidence Mycroft has ever done (and Sherlock has done, FFS). Furthermore, we have the psychological weight of the situation: this is the place (Sherrinford) and the person (Eurus) Mycroft is supposed to be able to control. This is the sister who has haunted him his entire life suddenly having power over him.

Mycroft has spent literally most of his life trying to contain Eurus, and now it’s all gone wrong. As a child, he witnessed his baby sister turn into a psychopath and kill another child, then threaten to kill Mycroft’s adored baby brother. Then she burned down the home with (presumably) the entire family in it, which could have killed them all. Then Mycroft was burdened with the secret of her captivity and pressed by his uncle into being complicit into a huge, groundbreaking lie to this own parents. Mycroft then spent years tending to his drug addict baby brother by himself. The man has more issues than Vogue, and in Sherrinford they all began to collapse in on him.

anarfea:

"if he had, for example, been forced to kill the man beating Sherlock, it would have been in defense of his brother (and himself). Being prepared to shoot a home invader is self-defense. Should I find it disturbing that so many people can’t see a difference between those situations and being forced to murder an innocent person with one’s own hands??? "

No one in this thread is arguing that killing a home invader and being forced to kill an innocent person is the same. What I specifically said is that while I think it makes sense that Mycroft was unable to kill the Governor, the bit I really feel was OOC for Mycroft was the clown sequence. Like you said, the clown is an intruder. Killing him would have been self-defense. Serbia!croft would have skewered that clown.

I get that Mycroft was in charge in Serbia and he feels out of control when he thinks Eurus is in his house. Even so, I feel like the reason Mycroft panics and runs down the stairs instead of killing the clown is because that’s what he has to do for the sake of the plot. And I do think that writing Mycroft OOC for plot reasons was a disservice to his character.

Also, when people are talking about Mycroft’s hypocrisy, again, the comparison isn’t really between killing a home invader vs. killing an innocent person. The comparison is between ordering an assassination and pulling the trigger yourself, or between authorizing an operation which will result in people dying and killing someone yourself. We know from The Six Thatchers that Mycroft employed AGRA. We don’t know what exactly he utilized them for, but we do know what kind of work Mary did. We know from The Final Problem that he authorized the purchase of a number of “patience grenades” that will presumably kill a bunch of people.

And yes, you can argue that there’s a difference between ordering the assassination of a terrorist and killing an innocent person. But innocent people die in counter-terrorism operations too, and their deaths are written off as collateral damage. People try to justify the deaths of those innocents by making the utilitarian argument that more deaths may have been prevented, and we see Mycroft employing that argument:

"His goal is to protect as many people as possible - we see that in TFP, too, with his thought that they should have the girl crash the plane into water or away from civilization, so more people don’t get hurt."

Quite so. And if you carry that argument through to its logical conclusion, he should have shot the Governor so that just the Governor died instead of the Governor and his wife. Fewer people would have been hurt. That was the utilitarian choice, and presumably when running counter terrorism operations, Mycroft makes utilitarian choices.

But he couldn’t make that choice in The Final Problem because he didn’t want to get his own hands dirty. And the reason people are saying that he’s a hypocrite for that is because his hands are already unclean.

thecutteralicia:

“What I specifically said is that while I think it makes sense that Mycroft was unable to kill the Governor, the bit I really feel was OOC for Mycroft was the clown sequence. Like you said, the clown is an intruder. Killing him would have been self-defense. Serbia!croft would have skewered that clown.” 

He tried to kill the intruder. He pulled out the gun and pulled the trigger, but Sherlock had removed the bullets in anticipation of that so no one would get hurt. As for skewering him, you can’t stab someone who is many feet away and out of your reach.

As for the rest of your post, the talk of “collateral damage” runs into a philosophical debate about war that I’m not interested in having in this context. I don’t think it’s OOC for Mycroft (nor John, for that matter) to not have wanted to shoot the governor in the head as part of Eurus’ games, no matter their pasts or what they’ve done to protect others (and again, it astounds me how many people forget that we’ve seen John shoot someone already on the show).

Molly Hooper and the Science of Attraction 

 (Sherlock meta by notagarroter)

There is great variety in sexual behavior and response throughout the mammalian class, and particularly among human animals. Males of the human species are generally considered, in the existing literature, to have a heightened perception of and reception to sexual advances by females, but there exist, of course, many exceptions to this norm. One outlier of particular interest to the Experimenter is the subject of this experimental trial. The Experimenter has designed a series of experiments to investigate the sexual awareness and responsiveness of this male human subject (referred to henceforth as the Subject). Results and conclusions will be reported.

Experiment 1: Lipstick.

Method: The Experimentor left the room to apply some lipstick, then returned to observe the Subject’s response, if any.

Results: The Subject explicitly commented on the lipstick, therefore it can be concluded that it did have some effect on him. However, he does not seem to have interpreted it as a sexual advance.

Conclusion: While the Subject is aware of typical female body-modifications, his response to them is decidely negative.

Follow up to Experiment 1:

At the conclusion of the experiment, the Experimentor removed the lipstick. The Subject responded to this action negatively, and insisted that the Experimentor’s appearance was improved by it. Initial conclusion may need to be revised. Further data to be gathered at a later date.

Experiment 2: Denial of favors. 

Method: In the past, the Experimenter has generally been accommodating of the Subject’s requests. For the purposes of this experiment, the Experimenter denies a request and observes the result.

Results: Subject compliments Experimenter on her physical appearance.

Conclusion: Subject understands common human mate-attraction behaviors (“flirting”) and can mimic these behaviors in appropriate circumstances. The sincerity of the sentiment underlying the behavior remains in question, however. Further study required.

Experiment 3: Jealousy. 

Method: Experimenter seeks to incite jealousy in Subject by introducing him to a sexual rival.

Results: Subject is largely unperturbed by the rival. Unforeseen flaw in experimental design: the chosen rival seems more sexually interested in the Subject than the Experimenter, skewing the results.

Conclusion: Despite some experimental error, jealousy does not appear to be a useful motivator for the Subject.

Experiment 4: Glamour.

Method: Seeking clarification from the mixed results of the Lipstick experiment, the Experimenter uses the excuse of a Christmas party to test the effects of sexually provocative clothing on subject.

Result: While other males in the area responded to the display, the subject did not. In fact, subject reacted aggressively to the display. Further observation: Unexpectedly, the Subject reacted positively to being challenged and scolded by the Experimenter.

Conclusion: Visual displays of sexuality are not effective on subject. Surprising, given the subject’s tendency to dress in sexually provocative clothing himself. The Subject’s response to extra-experimental stimulus, however, warrants further study.

Research note: 

Subject appears to have intimate familiarity with the naked body of another woman. This information is unaccountable, based on what the Experimenter knows of the Subject. Further research definitely warranted.

Experiment 5: Bonding and Sympathy

Method: Experimenter initiates intimate conversation, including sharing personal history and offering friendly support.

Result: Subject seems at turns offended and baffled by overtures.

Conclusion: Total failure. No need for further research on this approach.

Edited conclusion: 

Experimenter may have been hasty with initial conclusions. Subject appears to have experienced a delayed reaction to the experiment. Subject returned later with an altogether different response to stimulus.

Experimenter has decided to discontinue experimental trial. Due to the shifting nature of her relationship with the Subject, the Experimenter can no longer maintain adequate objectivity for this study. The trial is on indefinite hiatus.

When Sherlock says he doesn't know 

why Molly can't say ILY to him

 (Sherlock meta by writingwife-83)

Q: Molly says that she can't say "I love you" to Sherlock, and that he knew why, but Sherlock denies it and says he doesn't know why. Do you think he lied or genuinely did not know why she wouldn't say it to him?

A: I don’t think he was lying at that moment. I think he honestly didn’t understand why she couldn’t just say it. Because in his mind it was already established that she loved him. It wasn’t a secret. So he simply wanted her to say the words. And actually, it’s obvious that his initial attempt was to get her to say them WITHOUT the meaning behind them. Basically just a “repeat after me” idea. But that’s where he was at first still thinking too much with his head.

I said this before in another post, (and also in my post TFP fic) but the problem with that is that those aren’t just meaningless words. If you say them to someone and mean it, they’re very emotionally powerful. It’s a powerful experience to hear it said to you but also to speak it, especially the first time! My belief is that he didn’t fully grasp that till she made him say it first. Which, to me, proves their truth from his lips. If he spoke those 3 words without the hard hitting truth behind them, I really don’t think he would have felt the need to shred a coffin with his bare hands immediately afterward.

So basically, once again, Molly Hooper schooled him.

You Clearly Don’t Understand. Play You. 

(Or: Things That Everybody Thinks Make Sherlock Canonically Straight But They Really Really Don’t...)

 (Sherlock meta by moffat-rocks)

[...] I. Loved. Series. Four!!! In particular, I loved The Final Problem. I loved Sherlock calling John family, I loved the smashing of the casket, the touching of non-existent glass, the air plane metaphor, Mycroft outside his comfort zone, etcetera etcetera etcetera. I loved the whole bloody thing.

But my favourite, favourite moment was the one when Eurus asks Sherlock to “play you”. And he plays the theme of The Woman. 

Because it is the bravest thing Sherlock has ever done. And it makes this moment incredibly powerful. 

MIND OVER MATTER 

Irene Adler - “The Woman” - is, mildly put, a disputed character of the modern adaptation. Among other things, she is thought to be Moffat’s attempt to make Sherlock “ungay”.

But it really is quite the opposite. The Woman is not a love interest for Sherlock - she is a psychological interest, because she is everything that Sherlock is not. Or more precisely, she is everything Sherlock does not allow himself to be.

Sherlock is a man who suppresses his emotional and physical desires - not the sociopath he would like everyone to believe, but still someone who views emotional and physical desire as a distraction from the true power that is his mind.

Irene fundamentally challenges this belief by being all about desire and being extremely powerful because of it. If Sherlock cannot beat her, it would be an existential defeat to him, as it would question the very foundation of his self-imposed refrain and celibacy.

And so it is no coincidence that Irene is wearing Sherlock’s coat and that her dark hair and blue eyes mimic those of Sherlock. Irene Adler, in a way, is Sherlock. She is the human version of his desires. And A Scandal In Belgravia is entirely about Sherlock’s internal battle between his heart and his head. 

Let me make it very clear at this point that I she is not the human version of Sherlock’s wet dreams. This is an easy confusion to make, but Sherlock does not at any moment show any sign of sexual attraction towards her. (He really doesn’t. Go back and watch it again.)

He is mesmerised by her, yes, and flustered when she calls him sexy, yes, but when she flirts with him, he doesn’t flirt back, when she wants to have dinner, he is not hungry, when they spend a would-be intimate moment in the living room, Sherlock asks for John. Because that is who he really wants to see, as we can tell - not least by the fact that the human version of Sherlock’s desires is, very specifically: gay. 

But what is really interesting about A Scandal In Belgravia is, again, how incredibly powerful Irene is and how much Sherlock underestimates her. Because it shows us just how strong Sherlock’s emotions are and how hard he has to work to contain them. And now that we have seen The Final Problem, we can understand just how tragic Sherlock’s story really is. 

WHAT MIGHT WE DEDUCE ABOUT HIS HEART?

The moment when Mycroft tells the story of Redbeard, we finally learn really why Sherlock chooses to suppress his emotions:

Mycroft: “Sherlock was traumatised. Natural, I suppose. He was, in the early days, an emotional child. But after that he was different.” (The Final Problem) 

Sherlock, the child that is taunted for his lack of cleverness, is traumatised and blames himself for not solving the riddle that could have saved his friend. Sherlock blames himself for being too emotional. 

And from that moment on, he puts his entire existence into getting it right, into becoming a calculated, unattached, high-functioning sociopath, who is above all physical needs and the very best at solving crimes. Sherlock is a consulting detective - not out of vanity, but out of guilt. 

But his emotions, his desires, his yearning for affection - they have never left him. They distract him, they slow him down, they burst out of him. I think even Sherlock’s constant state of withdrawal is a conscious choice made by the writers to symbolise just how bad his mental state really is. Sherlock is forcing himself not to give in to any emotion or physical desire. And it is tormenting him. (Trust Moffat to make me tear up over a nicotine patch…)

In the form of Irene Adler, Sherlock’s emotions tease him, flirt with him, and frequently try to get his attention. But he never ever allows himself to act on it. He never texts back. Or almost never. Because sometimes, he can’t help it. Deep down, Sherlock wants to let his emotional side win.

PLAY YOU 

And then comes the moment when Sherlock finally faces the demons of his past; when he meets his long forgotten torturer, the sister who has forced him to incarcerate himself inside his own mind, the person who, according to Mycroft, has influenced Sherlock’s every choice ever made and every path ever taken. And she asks him to “play you”. 

And at first, Sherlock does put up a front and plays Bach. Look at me, sis, I play highly complex, mathematically structured pieces. Even the name, “Bach”, fits beautifully here: Water from the past creating Sherlock’s rational façade.

But Eurus interrupts him. No, you clearly don’t understand. Play you. 

And at that moment, Sherlock decides to play the theme of Irene Adler. 

The mastermind, the high-functioning sociopath, the consulting detective is told to “play you”. And his answer is: I am emotion. I am desire. I am love. 

He doesn’t know it at that moment, but Sherlock is standing in front of the person who has caused him the greatest damage of his entire life. But instead of hiding himself away as he has done all his life, Sherlock finally shows his true self. The man he wants to be. The man he really is.

Sherlock is coming out as a human being. And it is the bravest and most beautiful thing he has ever done.

Molly Hooper is stronger than we give her credit for 

 (Sherlock meta by moderatelyindecisive)

Seriously guys, what is this crap about Molly being a weak character? Sherlock needs her for everything. She doesn’t need him at all. When did Molly need rescuing? When did Molly need help? Molly doesn’t need anything and doesn’t ask for anything. She loves Sherlock but she doesn’t expect anything, she doesn’t pine or wait for him to love her back. She lives her life, she dates other people, even though it doesn’t work out because Sherlock is just in her blood. She doesn’t become bitter about it but she wont let him push her around. Both Sherlock and John rely on her for everything but she doesn’t need either of them. She IS a strong independent woman and that’s final.

This pretty much sums up the ILY scene

 (Sherlock meta by miz-joelys-sherlollilists)

Q: Someone please explain the I love you scene in S4: TFP!....Did sherlock mean it? Why did he break the coffin? Please! My sherlolly heart is dying to know!

A: There have been a ton of posts about this already, so if you’re asking for my POV: He meant it. The second ILY was him realizing he meant it and the coffin smashing was him venting his frustrations at his sister for forcing him and Molly to go through this devastatingly emotional moment. Especially since he was just realizing how deep and true his feelings for Molly were, and because it hurt him to know that he was hurting Molly by doing it the way Eurus made him do it.

Two good friends who have been through all sorts of shit together who just need to say 'I Love You'...

 (Sherlock meta by theleftpill)

Q: [Eurus] sits back and watches them both go completely bonkers. Literally fall apart over something as simple as saying 'I love you'. Two good friends who have been through all sorts of shit together who just need to say 'I love you' – for a case, for a game, for a dare. I mean, how difficult should that be? Well. If there were no complications, it would be simple and quick. But things have become quite complicated with those two under their facade of "You're my friend. We're friends". All Eurus in fact [has] done is metaphorically put these two people in a room together and put before them the word 'love'. And they both go completely bezerk, completely lose it. And in the process, the facades come crashing down. And when I saw Sherlock on the floor, with his back to the wall, still shaking with all the shards around him. -those shards, that's his facade in pieces right there. Not clumsy at all, Eurus, not clumsy at al.

A: [...] I am in complete agreeance - the very existence of the struggle from both of them proves “ILY” is legit. I mean, it’s no surprise from Molly, but Sherlock should have breezed his part, right? And I love your parallel of the coffin being his facade. What I love about that moment is its complexity: he’s destroying his facade, he’s raging against his entrapment and manipulation, he’s punishing himself for hurting Molly - and how does he feel about all that??? I don’t get the feeling that the rampage is entirely controlled or deliberate; Sherlock doesn’t go off like that. He doesn’t even know what he’s feeling or why he’s doing it.

But you’re right - making these two finally face what’s really going on between them was hugely destructive in the best way. If nothing else makes Sherlolly canon, this does:

Two good friends who have been through all sorts of shit together who just need to say I love you – for a case, for a game, for a dare. I mean, how difficult should that be? 

If there were no complications, it would be simple and quick. 

Nailed it.

The Deconstruction of John Watson

 (Sherlock meta by mild-lunacy)

I’ve been thinking about the John characterization in Hubblegleeflower’s post-S3 fic ’In the Dark Hours’, in the context of S4 and specifically The Lying Detective. It really seems on-point, even prescient. I was also thinking about what Ivy said about John’s inherent violence, how “when John is bad, he is terrible”, and how disappointed in himself he was in TLD. The fic makes me think about what John must have wondered about himself *before* Mary’s idealization to have the dissonance hit him *so* hard, that he’d have to punish himself and Sherlock and lash out so extremely. In the fic, a younger John sounds like shades of Sherlock– wondering if there something ‘wrong’ with him for being addicted to danger, for getting off on the rush, enjoying these things to make himself feel alive. That tendency to say and act the right way in order to 'seem normal’– he actually has that in common with Sherlock, except that (of course) John is much better at it.

On the other hand, I agree with John’s own conclusion in the fic and with Ivy that John is actually not 'like that’. He’s definitely not like Mary (as per all those endless debates post-HLV); he *is* a good moral compass after all *because* “he knows exactly what it means to be pointed the wrong way”. At the same time, the fact that he’d wondered about himself seems realistic. Seems *likely*, even. If Sherlock is someone who has tried– and ultimately failed– to make himself into a high-functioning sociopath after Eurus, as I wrote recently, John is coming at his persona from the other direction. Trying to be *normal*, trying to do good, trying to be someone he thinks– he knows– he’s not.

A lot of people depended on John to be Series 1 John even after Series 3, essentially, even though Sherlock told us in His Last Vow that John is addicted to a 'certain lifestyle’ and 'abnormally attracted to dangerous situations and people’. John is not surprised, he just says *Mary* wasn’t supposed to be 'like that’; he’s not happy about his attraction to all these things but he was *aware* of it, and he wanted to get away from it. It seems to be that instead of an arc, what we have here is a sort of deconstruction. We started out with John and Sherlock in opposite corners in Series 1, and they’re in opposite corners again in Series 4, except they’re the flipside of each other. Sherlock is the 'good man’ even though he’d shot someone to protect someone else, and John… John is a bit 'not good’, but he has a heart. He’s still human. On the abstract level as well as implicitly, being truly established partners in The Final Problem, they’ve met in the middle.

I know I’ve said yesterday that my problem is that Sherlock’s arc encompasses and sort of *consumes* John’s role, with John not really being able to match Sherlock’s growth due to being the deuteragonist. I agree with @plaidadder’s comment on @ravenmorganleigh’s post, about the growing fannish consensus that “John and Sherlock’s emotional arcs are no longer intertwined” in Series 4. I do still disagree that this means Sherlock’s growth in Series 4 is somehow more about Eurus and Mycroft (and Mary!) instead. Certainly (but more subtly), John’s arc also didn’t suddenly become about Mary either, if nothing else then because everything (but everything!) in this show has always been about Sherlock. Although this means Mary’s not the *point* in The Lying Detective, in many ways it also means that unfortunately, John is not the point either. I do agree with the analysis in that the plot of The Lying Detective is essentially *all* orchestrated by Sherlock (including John’s beating, which was demonstrably part of Sherlock’s plan to stop Smith). The only bits Sherlock didn’t predict were to do with Eurus, and more broadly the fact that Mary was shown to be wrong, because she didn’t know John the way Sherlock did. As I said, and I cannot emphasize this enough, this is because everything is about Sherlock. 

Basically, Sherlock never had to manipulate John into saving him. Rather, he needed to save John Watson in a different way– and in the end, Sherlock did.

I think a lot of this confusion has to do with a misreading of Mary, and Sherlock and John’s relationship to her, or a sort of… overcompensation, I think. Like, a lot of us thought (or rather, hoped) that it’s all going to go to hell after S3, in a way that would justify the fandom’s suspicion and dislike of Mary as well as the fandom’s resistance to the surface reading of His Last Vow. In other words, she’s going to pay, somehow. We were so deeply polarized by His Last Vow, with such a long and bitter fandom divide forming on Mary, that virtually no one actually took the time to synthesize a Mary characterization that actually *included* the facets of devoted (but unfortunately unsuitable and unhappily married) wife and the cold assassin. People were *so* certain that either she *couldn’t* have shot Sherlock if she truly cared about John, or the whole attempted murder thing was genuinely nothing, simply 'surgery’ as Sherlock claimed, because what’s a little murder between friends? Neither option made sense by itself. And so, Series 4 broadly made no sense to people (without really extreme rationalization) because the answer was always 'both’, and The Six Thatchers went as hard in the direction of sacrifice as His Last Vow went for armed assault and implied threats. There was no bridge, and so a lot of connections were just never made, it seems.

I’ll admit that His Last Vow set things up in a way that was (in retrospect) difficult to fix, and I agree with the other point that S4’s characterization issues started in His Last Vow. I just don’t think that Sherlock’s acceptance and forgiveness as well as John’s intense anger (and projected guilt) at Sherlock about Mary are meant to whitewash absolutely everything about Mary’s behavior, *including* things like her abandonment and drugging Sherlock in The Six Thatchers. As The Abominable Bride showed clearly, Sherlock has *issues*; he has severe self-esteem issues in terms of relationships, and specifically in regards to John. Obviously, we can’t just take him at face value when he says Mary’s actions 'conferred a value’ upon his life; I don’t know, I think it’s obvious that this isn’t rational or somehow deserved. Anyway, the kindest interpretation is that she *shot* him but wanted to atone, to do better, to do the right thing in the only way she could. Otherwise, this is about Sherlock and John and their existing issues, although the narrative simply focuses on Sherlock’s agency… to a fault, really.

It’s true (I think) that Sherlock genuinely tried to include Mary because he liked her, and I even think Mary honestly did like him (though of course that didn’t mean she wouldn’t shoot him), but it was always about John. As Ivy said, John is the central figure in both their lives, so both of them have had to accommodate the presence of the other. They’ve *both* done that. I know it requires a certain kindness to Mary to accept this, which may not come naturally, but I think you really cannot parse John or Sherlock’s motivations anymore at this point without accepting that point. To say that Mary (or Mycroft) *replaced* John’s place in Sherlock’s narrative is going much too far, although I do think Eurus did take over and expand on *Moriarty’s* place as Sherlock’s Shadow and antagonist. Anyway, the problem is indeed that Sherlock and John’s arcs are clearly not intertwined in Series 4, which is why John doesn’t get a full, explicitly shown climax. But this is because as I’ve said, John lacks an arc (as deuteragonist), not because it’s now remade in Mary’s image. If he had an arc with Mary, we’d see an actual resolution *through* Mary; instead, Sherlock’s actions and reactions make the difference. That is not to say Mary (and Irene, and Eurus) haven’t mediated and acted as conduits for both characters’ development. Of course, I still agree with @delurkingdetective’s response to Raven’s post. I just think there’s a big difference between a conduit and a focal point. Mary may be a *motivation* for John or Sherlock’s actions, but that doesn’t mean she’s the underlying *reason*. It’s one thing to critique the show for using women as conduits, or Moffat and Gatiss for being too conservative to write this arc between two men explicitly. It’s another thing to mistake a conduit for a character of true importance, a character whose agency truly makes a difference rather an *obstacle*, even if it’s not about Mary or Irene being *romantic* obstacles. They are definitely still treated by the narrative as something for the male protagonist to deal with and ultimately defuse or overcome.

Unfortunately, although I’d like to use the Mary of 'In the Dark Hours’ for insight, the fact is that she is something like a dark conduit herself, a presence mainly felt through her absence from John’s life. In that sense, she is similar to S4 Mary, although I suppose most readers would say it’s very different because this fic’s version is clearly an emotionally abusive character who’s *labeled* so. The truth is, of course, Mary is just as problematic in Series 4 as ever, and John’s relationship to her never improved while she lived (and in fact, he cheated on her, just as he did in the fic, although it was always indirectly). It’s more satisfying to see Mary labeled and understood as abusive, but at the same time… I don’t know if it’s realistic. More importantly, I think this is the flaw of focusing so entirely on Sherlock, and avoiding a truly joint arc and/or canon Johnlock. If Mary *was* abusive, John would need an independent arc to deal with it; more realistically, Mary would have to actually stay longer on the show. In the fic, Sherlock tried to heal him emotionally just as he tries in The Lying Detective, except this goes a lot deeper, and they talk a lot more (and it involves touching, claiming, binding John to himself). Not that I’d ever need or expect the show to go there, but my point is that Mary’s impact *couldn’t* be too deep because then you couldn’t hand-wave it by Mary simply giving her blessings by The Final Problem. In Series 4, John’s issues are more about his self-image, his conception of himself as a moral man, as someone who’s capable of being his 'best self’. Sherlock doesn’t *clearly* say it’s John who makes him better, but Mycroft already said it as far back as ASiP. It’s obvious. It’s also obvious that it’s *Sherlock* who makes John better and he always had. John is just doubting that; doubting himself, doubting Sherlock. He’s ashamed, lost, angry at himself, wishing he could have been the kind of man who Mary had envisioned (even though he’s already the right man for *Sherlock* and is exactly what Sherlock needs– as he implicitly recognizes by The Final Problem). I just think the show expects us to know that implicitly, to understand that without spending the time to spell it out… and they also use female characters as tools to communicate all this, unfortunately. It doesn’t quite… work.

Anyway, the John of 'In the Dark Hours’ struggles very much with that sense of shame, with all the guilt issues. Even if The Lying Detective  John had somewhat different motivations for it, I still think it’s a source of ongoing fracture for John, and it seems critical to all his worst, most violent and stonewalling behavior in the show. Remember in His Last Vow, John exploded into violence (frightening Mrs Hudson) when he assumed Sherlock was implying Mary was his *fault*. He clearly has a severe reaction to that idea, a violent reaction, and specifically with Mary, with his choices. He thinks everything is always his *fault*, and then, of course, he also thinks Sherlock is brilliant, superhuman, can do anything. Could have saved Mary if he wanted; he promised. So, that was Sherlock’s fault. An excuse, as Martin Freeman said. An excuse to let all the anger out, to succumb, to dissociate. And Mary’s hallucination is a sign of dissociating, isn’t it? Not that she’s literally a split personality like with Eurus, of course, but she’s always saying the things John thinks but can’t or won’t say: monster. Posh boy. One of the reasons I do think John has progressed in S4 ('cause even if it’s not a full arc, neither is it a *retread*, in other words), is because of this new insight into John. Series 3 was about Sherlock’s Dark Night of the Soul, and John’s S4 version is a bit condensed: sparked by Mary and mediated by Sherlock. We see John’s darkest corners, but in the end they are simply accepted and integrated because they always have been, by Sherlock. With Sherlock, John is always safe. With Sherlock, John is contained, and even his worst violence is both expected and accounted for.

I think I just continue to struggle with the execution, in part because of the differences between written work and film, as well as issues of genre. 'In the Dark Hours’ is a supremely internally focused fic, in a way that the show could never be. Everything had *always* been mediated by metaphor and external action on the show, from the very beginning. Women were used as the markers and conduits since the start– not just Irene in A Scandal in Belgravia, but Soo Lin Yao in The Blind Banker, who’s a really blatant Sherlock mirror. Perhaps… as much as I wish we could have continued on track with The Lying Detective, and as much as I accept the many valid critiques of the execution and Moffat and Gatiss’s self-indulgence and narrative conservativism in Series 4, this is what fanfic is for, in the end. These conversations.

Meanwhile, Molly 

(Or: More Things That People Think Make Sherlock Canonically Straight But They Really Really Don’t)

 (Sherlock meta by moffat-rocks)

Allow me to address one more incredibly beautiful part of Sherlock (and then I’ll stop overusing the word “beautiful”, sorry, I just loved series four): Let’s talk about what is the point of Molly Hooper. 

I’ve always sympathised with Molly, but I admit that from a literary point of view, I didn’t quite get her. If she was a love interest for Sherlock, why would the story not revolve more around her? But if she wasn’t a love interest, where was her character going? Why was she there in the first place? It didn’t feel Moffat-y sound. (And yes, I just made that expression up.)

But looking back on all four series, the intention of Molly’s character actually becomes pretty clear. In a nutshell: At any given moment of the show, Molly is an indicator of John Watson’s feelings towards Sherlock. (No really, let me show you.)

THE LOVE OF JOHN WATSON 

It seems that every supporting character in the show is the embodiment of some part of Sherlock’s psyche. Not necessarily in an it’s-all-in-Sherlock’s-head kind of way, but definitely in a literary, metaphorical reading. Irene Adler, for instance, embodies Sherlock’s emotions and desires, and this is further underlined by the fact that she is dressed and styled a lot like Sherlock himself (see coat, hairstyle, and cheekbones).

Molly’s style, however, is nothing like Sherlock’s. Her shortness, the blond-ish hair, the striped cardigans, not to mention the fact that she works in the medical field - Molly is all about John. And with Molly’s ongoing soft spot for Sherlock, it is really not hard to guess which part of John she represents: “Hooper”, the one who binds everything together - Molly embodies John’s love for Sherlock.

“I FIND IT DIFFICULT… THIS KIND OF STUFF…” 

While you’re still pondering if that might be too much of a stretch, let us talk about John for a moment: John is portrayed as the emotionally capable one, highly empathetic, calling Sherlock out on his insensitivity, and quick to make friends.

But actually, when it comes to showing or even admitting his own feelings, John is struggling. John is an army doctor, a man of military ranks and medical degrees, and he is trying very hard to keep up appearances, no matter what. He cannot talk to his therapist about the loss of Sherlock, he cannot watch Mary’s video message while there are strangers in the room, he cannot be vulnerable in front of other people - John is finding it difficult to dig deep.

If Molly represents John’s love, it makes sense that she is portrayed as timid and insecure. If John really does have feelings for Sherlock, they too would be having a hard time getting noticed. Not just by Sherlock, but first and foremost by John. John is too busy proving his non-gayness through lots and lots of fruitless dates with women he is barely interested in.

Meanwhile, Molly is falling for a gay man. 

MEANWHILE, MOLLY 

When Sherlock pretends to be dead for two years, John “moves on” by rushing head-first into an engagement with a woman. He even grows a super-manly moustache, almost to prove to himself that he is most definitely not gay. John Watson is trying very hard to be his straight, moustache-wearing, canonical self. The one that does not live between the lines. 

Meanwhile, Molly is engaged to a walking, talking Sherlock copy. 

But when it all goes horribly wrong and Mary suddenly dies, John has to live with the guilt of not having loved her the way he wanted to. I am not the man you thought I was. John let Mary down. How can he face Sherlock now? How can he ever feel even the least bit of affection toward that man without also feeling horribly guilty?

Meanwhile, Molly is answering the door in John’s name. And sends Sherlock away at the doorstep. 

I LOVE YOU 

I said in the beginning of this post that at any given time, Molly tells us something about John’s state of heart. This holds true in The Final Problem, too. Because Molly is not at all pleased to hear from Sherlock, which has never been the case before. We have seen her furious with him when he is toying with his own health, yes. But never have we seen Molly this down. 

Because John is still grieving. Yes, he has forgiven Sherlock, but he has not forgiven himself, and it is going to be a long time before John will allow himself to be happy with somebody again. Especially with Sherlock. John's love is still having a really bad day. 

Nevertheless, Sherlock is forced to make Molly play Eurus’ game. And this scene in Sherrinford is entirely a scene about the internal conflict of every person who has ever been prone to over-thinking: If love is not proclaimed out loud, it is dead. This is exactly how Sherlock’s mind works. He needs people to state their love out loud, or else, that love must not exist. Which is why he is utterly shocked in The Sign of Three when John calls him his best friend. (”Well of course you are.”)

And Sherlock actually has manipulated people in the past to say something meaningful to him. I always thought the scene in The Empty Hearse, where Sherlock fake-panics in the tube, seemed a bit heartless, even for him. But I get it now, because it is the same thing as in The Final Problem: Make John say he forgives you, make it all seem like a joke, and do not make him see that you are currently terrified that you might lose him for good.

But this time, Sherlock learns something else: After he allows logic and rationale to manipulate him into hurting Molly, after he has humiliated love itself, Sherlock is informed that there was never any danger. Even if the words had remained unspoken, Molly would not have died. 

Even if John cannot say it out loud at the moment, even if his love is bruised and battered - it is and has always been indestructible. The one thing that mattered the most. 

I can’t help but read this as a message to the fandom as well. Even if it is not always spelled out - Sherlock and John’s love was never in any danger.

[...]  EDIT: I love that half the of the readers have responded to the post with “you’re preaching to the choir”, the other half with “what the hell is this nonsense”. To both of you: my apologies. ;-)

How did Molly have Sherlock's coat?

 (Sherlock metaby writingwife-83)

Q: So, I have one question. in The Lying Detective, Sherlock told Molly that he hoped that she didn't forget his coat. How did she even have his coat in the first place? Does he leave his clothes at her flat because her bedroom is one of his bolt holes? I. NEED. TO. KNOW.

A: Mm, I like this ask! I think there’s a couple easy explanations for this, and frankly, I like both of them.

First, yes I think it’s super likely that Sherlock keeps clothes at Molly’s since it’s one of his bolt holes. He probably keeps a couple changes of clothes, maybe a couple of coats, maybe even some disguise pieces depending on the circumstances. And we know he’s “got lots of coats,” so he could certainly choose to stash them wherever needed so that he can always have one in a pinch. I will always like the idea of Sherlock keeping important things at Molly’s, so that’s a nice explanation.

Here’s another though! I also would like to think that Molly has a key to Sherlock’s flat. Granted, it could absolutely have been one of those things that he did selfishly back in the day, because we all know how he likes to demand that his friends run errands for him. But still, I like the idea that she would have access to his flat, seeing as he clearly has access to hers. What are the chances she doesn’t have a key? There’s likely only a handful of people that Sherlock would trust to have access to his flat and go in to get something for him, and what do we know about Molly? He has always trusted her! 

And in reviewing both options (and realizing how much I like them both) I’d have to conclude that both are true. I’d say that Molly has a key to Sherlock’s and he also stashes clothes at her place. Case closed!

John is seeing but not observing 

 (Sherlock meta by writingwife-83)

Q: I was watching John's Irene speech in TLD and I know many of us know that a huge part of it applies to Molly. When John said, "Trust you [Sherlock] to fall for a sociopath [Irene]," I remembered this bit Moffat said at the Comic Con back in 2013, "I don't think they're [Sherlock & Molly] gonna end up dating. Two sociopaths in one relationship would not be a good idea." Well, what do you know? Sherlock has long fell for a sociopath. She just happened to be wearing a lab coat instead of nothing!

Yeah, there’s another one of those “Moffat, why??” moments lol. There’s no logic to it at all. Fist of all, Molly is the least like a sociopath on the show. And second, the writers have stated that Sherlock clearly isn’t a sociopath and that’s simply what he calls himself. It literally sounds like one of those things he says just to get a reaction from people. I know you were just making a cute/funny wording observation but I couldn’t help picking on Moffat’s statement a bit. ;)

And now you’re gonna get me on another tangent…although I do believe that the meaning of John’s words apply well to Molly, sadly I don’t think that would have occurred to him. I think here we have an instance of John seeing but not observing (at least, up to The Final Problem, where perhaps he got some facts straightened out).

I feel like John is just making the overly obvious assumption. I mean, the fist time he sees Irene, she’s literally naked and on top of Sherlock. And then he watches her flirt with him, exchange lusty glances, and set her mobile alert on his phone to an *ahem* enthusiastic sound clip. What guy isn’t going to assume his bestie is interested in that when he finds out she still sends him texts like 3-4 yrs later?

But when it comes to Molly, even in s4e2, John refers to Molly as “the last person you’d think of” when bringing her up to Sherlock. Say what now, John?? And here is where I’ll put some perspective on this and stop just talking about John like he’s an idiot. (tho, ok he has been a little) Most of what happened between Sherlock and Irene happened in front of John and/or he knew all about it. We can say absolutely that the very opposite is true with Sherlock and Molly. The most emotionally charged scenes for sherlolly have taken place alone. No one else was present, and that includes John. (again, up to The Final Problem) Even stuff that’s not on screen, much of it was obviously not observed by John. Sherlock staying at Molly’s flat, working at the lab with her without John at times, calling her for help with random things…all of that. Most of what John has observed of them has been less than warm and fuzzy, except for the apology and cheek kiss at the [Christmas] party.

I think I’ve said it before, but I will repeat that if John knew half of the stuff that has gone down between Sherlock and Molly, he would have been giving that “get yourself a piece of that” speech to Sherlock a long time ago. And it would have been about Molly Hooper.

What was Mycroft going to say?

  (Sherlock meta by penelope1730)

Q: In The Final Problem, towards the end of the ILY scene, Mycroft steps forward and says, "Sherlock, however hard that was..." What do you think he was going to say?

A: [...] Great question and one I’ve thought about a lot. I think there’s a multitude of answers that would fill in ‘the blank’ nicely. My initial thought when I first watched the scene is that Mycroft was going to offer words to console…perhaps something along the line of reminding Sherlock that Molly is alive and for now that’s what matters - he would be able to explain everything later and make things right.

That answer still makes sense to me because, in that moment, that’s what’s true and about the only thing Sherlock has control over. Mycroft can see that Sherlock’s been laid vulnerable and wants to help him regain some emotional balance. It’s interesting to watch that part of the scene, as John has been taken out of the frame leaving only Sherlock and Mycroft. Watching Mycroft’s reaction when Eurus tells Sherlock he “lost” is very telling - as though Mycroft now has a full grasp of Eurus’s end game.

I think it’s also important to consider what Mycroft knows, not just what he might have said. He’s learned that Sherlock and Molly love one another, but it was a forced acknowledgement, which left both in a place of emotional pain and uncertainty. For as tough and cold as Mycroft can be, we’ve discovered his soft side that allows romance and sentiment - especially where his family is concerned.

So, whatever Mycroft was going to say - I believe it was fueled with the knowledge that his brother is in love and that Molly’s loss would have been unbearable.

[...]

Molly Hooper is not the weak one here, it’s Sherlock

 (Sherlock meta by rainmyselfinharmony)

Whenever I watch Sherlock and Molly scenes from A Scandal in Belgravia, The Empty Hearse and The Final Problem (and even the ones from His Last Vow and The Lying Detective), I get this feeling that Sherlock can’t really believe someone with a heart so pure like Molly Hooper could actually be in love with someone like him.

“After all, not all the men you fall for can turn out to be sociopaths.”

“I hope you’ll be very happy, Molly Hooper. You deserve it.”

“So who loves you? I’m assuming it’s not a long list.”

The depth of Molly’s feelings for him surprises Sherlock. It confuses him. Scares and amazes him at the same time.

“All those complicated little emotions, I lost count.”

His facial expressions in the Christmas scene from A Scandal in Belgravia and the ILY scene say it all. Molly really punctures his protective shell. But he doesn’t think he is worthy of her love.

Molly Hooper is not the weak one here. It’s Sherlock.

Molly Hooper: Attributes vs. Actions 

(Sherlock meta by jengi-tumbl, theleftpill and likingthistoomuch)

jengi-tumbl:

One thing I’ve noticed about Molly Hooper that stands out from all the other characters in Sherlock is her response to the times when Sherlock is unfeeling, inappropriate, or just truly being a jerk.

 She calls out his actions. She never attacks him. 

Not once do you hear Molly say something along the lines of “Sherlock, you’re a terrible person” or one of the many name-calling options John has employed to describe Sherlock (ex: smart-arse, etc.) And not only John, but others who have decided to rip into Sherlock with insults as well, even if some of them (like most of John’s, I would argue) aren’t meant to be truly derogatory (ex: freak, bastard, psychopath, dick/dickhead, stupid, etc.)

There were so many times when Molly could have lashed out at him as a person, but even in her most heated moments, she chooses to call out his actions.

The Great Game: “He’s not gay! Why do you always have to spoil- He’s not!” 

A Scandal in Belgravia: “You always say such horrible things… every time…” * 

His Last Vow: “How dare you throw away the beautiful gifts you were born with… And how dare you betray the love of your friends!” 

(I guess you could technically argue that she does attack him here with the slaps, [...] but that’s besides the point I’m trying to make.)

I find it so interesting because there is a power in calling someone out on what they do rather than who they are. In general, if someone is perpetually called freak, bastard, dick, sociopath, they start to believe it. And if they believe it, they take it on as part of their identity.

Molly steps in and breaks this pattern. She sees Sherlock, the real Sherlock, deeply, and in a way no one else has been able to before. Her responses echo a quote from one of my favorite books, Grace for the Good Girl by Emily P. Freeman:

“You’re not this way. This may be how you cope, but this is not who you are.” 

I believe this is partially why Sherlock considers Molly such a safe place (or a bolt-hole, if you will…) She’s a place of comfort, safety, and rest, even if he doesn’t realize it. The person who loves him because of, and in spite of all he really is. The one who believes in him.

Just an observation.

Also, they need to be together. Like, yesterday.

—————

*(When I first watched A Scandal in Belgravia, oh my gosh, this scene was wonderful because Molly could have just called Sherlock all kinds of nasty names, but she chose those words instead. Ugh, love it. So powerful. It’s when I thought, “Oh she’s different. This girl is gonna be a game-changer.”)

theleftpill: 

Brilliant point - and so crucial for her character. I was surprised (and thrilled) also by the ASiB moment for a different reason though - I expected her to break down (in tears/frustration/anger) and instead she stands with head held high and directly calls him on his shit. But that shouldn’t have surprised me, precisely because of what jengi-tumbl so wisely points out. Her strength was always there - and I didn’t recognize it. So many of us didn’t.

But Sherlock did.

I’ll never understand why/how people can dismiss Molly Hooper. She’s a total Emotional BAMF.

likingthistoomuch:

So well put. Molly’s strength was always in seeing as well as observing, she saw Sherlock as a whole and observed his actions, calling out on them when they became hurtful. She always held her head high, always knew where she stood and has always been such a BAMF.