Sherlock - understand all the squeeing now.

[shadowkat]

Rather adored Moffat's Sherlock - it was such a fascinating character piece, particularly Sherlock's faceoff with the killer - who in some respects was a mirror to himself. Loved the mirroring effects in the episode, how Watson mirrors Sherlock and etc.
For someone like myself - who loves psychological character dramas - this was a treat.

Now I understand all the squeeing on my flist regarding this series over the summer. Yep, right on the money, guys. Once again.



The face-off between the cabbie - who turned out to be the serial killer and Sherlock was not only suspenseful but fascinating. I sort of liked the contest being the serial killer's method. As Sherlock pointed out - you are already dying, you don't care if you live or die - so you play the game ...as a) a means to commit suicide or b) to outlive as many people as possible. As the cabbie points out - I don't kill them, I outwit them. But Sherlock states - it's not a game of logic, it's one of chance, pure luck. There's a 50/50 chance anyway you cut it. What I found interesting in the exchange and why it is such a brilliant character moment - is Sherlock who is always confident that he is right, is shaken. He's not sure. He might actually be wrong. He's furious when the Cabbie is killed and he's denied the answer to the puzzle. The gun isn't what compells him, but his curiousity - his desire to figure out the puzzle.

That's his fatal flaw and at the same time his greatest strength - his obsession with figuring out the riddle. To be constantly challenged. To constantly learn.

The other bit about the face-off that is rather fascinating - is the Cabbie tells Sherlock, he's the idiot. Sherlock throughout the episode is calling everyone else an idiot, but here, the tables are turned - he's confronted with someone potentially smarter than he is? Or is he?

The dynamic between Sherlock and Watson reminded me a lot of House (another show I adore, because it is basically a weekly exploration of a complex and deeply flawed character.) But what works here - is Watson, brilliantly played by Martin Freeman - who was recently cast as Bilbo Baggins in the Hobbit. He's not what you think. A crack shot. Also killing someone doesn't bug him that much - not when it is necessary. As Mycroft points out - you should fire your shrink, the war isn't making you tremble, it is the fact that you miss it. The battlefields you traverse with Sherlock don't bother you, anymore than standing opposite from me in this room does, no what bothers you is the boredom. Watson reminds me a great deal of Jeremy Renner's character in The Hurt Locker - the war veteran who doesn't know what to do with himself away from war. As Watson told his shrink - what is there to blog about, nothing interesting ever happens to me. He's bored. And is as a result a perfect entry for the audience into Holmes world.

Rating - A. Am looking forward to the next episodes.


In other news, bought the Dresden Short Story collection for my Kindle, and am eagerly anticipating the next Dresden novel which is due out on April 26, 2011.

Comments

[next_to_normal]

He's furious when the Cabbie is killed and he's denied the answer to the puzzle.

My thought was - Sherlock didn't take his pill. (Neither did the cabbie, but it might've been dropped and lost when he was shot, whereas Sherlock should've still had his.) That means they could've tested it in a lab to see if it contained the poison or not. (I would think they'd want to do that anyway, as evidence.) So Sherlock could've easily gotten his answer, even though the cabbie was dead.

Does this mean I'm smarter than Sherlock Holmes? :)

[shadowkat]

Nope. That occurred to me as well last night but...so did the following.

1. While we know Sherlock didn't take his pill, he threw it at the Cabbie after the Cabbie got shot - we don't know if the Cabbie did. We were in Watson's pov.

2. Assuming the Cabbie didn't take his pill, there's no gaurantee that Sherlock could have gotten hold of it = most likely was lost.

3. Sherlock reacted emotionally, understandable considering someone shot the Cabbie in front of him, as he was considering taking the pill (we don't know if he'd have taken it or not.) So in fit of anger he threw it at him, therefore, making it impossible to determine which pill was which, assuming he picked it and the Cabbie's up again. Can't go by fingerprints, both touched it. Both pill cases are the same.

4. Assuming the Cabbie took it, and there was only one pill remaining - even if Sherlock tested it - he would not know if the other pill was toxic as well. (The Cabbie for all Sherlock knew could have built up a tolerance for that pill - as did the hero in The Princess Bride, which was how that problem usually resolved. But Sherlock has no way of knowing that without a toxicology test and medical exam.)

So, no, your analysis while superficially correct, isn't if you look deeper.

The game like Russian Roulet is purely psychological. The only no lose gambit is for one of the parties to have an edge - ie. a tolerance to the toxin and as a result not to care. But in this case, the Cabbie had another reason not to care - he was dying anyway and lacked the courage to kill himself, instead he put himself repeatedly in a Russian Roulet scenario - daring people to either a)assist him in his suicide, or b)kill themselves.

The way out? Not to participate.

[next_to_normal]

It's not about looking deeper. It's about Sherlock not thinking of it before he threw the pill.

[shadowkat]

Sigh.

1. We've been told that Sherlock has a temper.
2. We've been told that he is addicted to drugs.

The Cabbie tells us that he undermines his victims by getting into their heads. He plays a psychological mind-game with them.
Which is what he did with Sherlock - who we are told throughout the episode has some issues with people.

He threw the pill in a fit of anger. You are projecting what you think you would have done or a rational person would have done in those circumstances - judging the writing and the character based upon the projection. That's a huge assumption. Because a) you have no clue what you'd do.
b) you don't know what rational person would do. c) the only person unlikely to reacte in anger is a robot or not invested in the situation.

So, yes, it's about looking deeper - at the psychology of the character - not what is the common sensical reaction.

Also if he kept the pill? It still would not have mattered. Unless he had the Cabbie's pill as well, which I doubt he'd get. This wasn't done in a nice safe environment, it was done in a situation fraught with tension.

Last I checked Sherlock was human not a robot.

[next_to_normal]

Well, that's the point, isn't it? Because if Sherlock were actually a sociopath, as he claims, he would have been totally rational about it, not emotional.

Also, seriously? It was a fucking off-hand comment. I don't need a fucking dissertation telling me how fucking wrong I am. I think I have enough actual serious shit to think about without you getting on my fucking case about a stupid TV show.

[shadowkat]

So do I, obviously.;-)

And sorry, been having a rough month, and your comments obviously rubbed me the wrong way.

[next_to_normal]

Likewise. Honestly, your second comment more than rubbed me the wrong way. I thought it was incredibly patronizing and rude, considering I thought it was clear I wasn't interested in engaging with your analysis, and yet you felt it necessary to explain it again in great detail, with the obvious connotation that you find me to be a complete idiot. I was, frankly, rather upset by it.

Apologies for the f-bombs - I have a potty mouth when I'm angry.

[shadowkat]

I get really really patronizing and condescending when I get furious.
Your comments were insulting to a post that was meant to be fun.
Did not appreciate it.

But that is no excuse. Next time, I will just not reply.

[next_to_normal]

My original comment was certainly not intended to be insulting. It was meant as humor, and I apologize if it didn't come off that way. I can't say the same for the subsequent comments, as I was admittedly annoyed and then rather furious at your (IMO uncalled for) responses.

It shouldn't be a problem in the future, as I will be sure to avoid commenting on any further posts of yours.

sort of spoilery, maybe

[maeve_rigan]

I liked it very, very much, and am putting the DVDs on my wishlist. Also liked the push/pull between intellectual and emotional intelligence--Sherlock calling himself a "high functioning sociopath," e.g.
As for the pill standoff, it reminded me greatly of Vizzini's poisoned goblet(s) in The Princess Bride, so I fully expected a reveal that BOTH pills were poison somehow. It's better if we (and Sherlock) don't know for sure, though.

Re: sort of spoilery, maybe

[shadowkat]

I've seen the pill or poison game done many times before - it's basically a form of Russian Roulet.

I liked this version better than the Princess Bride's because it added a wrinkle. Vizzini wanted to live. The Cabbie knew he was dying anyhow. So from the Cabbie's perspective it was win/win, he couldn't lose the game. Either his victim would assist the Cabbie in killing himself, or the Cabbie would watch his victim commit suicide and outlive him.
Basically "Russian Roulet" but in pill form. ;-)

And that final bit puts into question is Sherlock truly a highly functioning sociopath or is Watson?

[rogin]

I loved Sherlock too, especially the first and the last episode. I'm glad it was so well received and is going to get a second season.

Kinda also looking forward to Watson playing Bilbo, that has got to be fun.

[ponygirl2000.livejournal.com]

Enjoy! I'm so glad you like it and can join the squee! There's also been an amazing amount of quality fic produced since this came out - though you'll have to be careful of spoilers obviously.

[embers-log.livejournal.com]

I'm so glad you like it (I thought you would!)!

I particularly love the Watson character... he really works for me. The whole thing works for me.

[rahirah]

I liked the series overall, but this one scene actually annoyed me because it's such a close copy of the iocaine scene in The Princess Bride (and without Holmes deducing the obvious solution) that I found it very difficult to take it seriously.)

[shadowkat67.livejournal.com]

Been a while since I watched or read the Princess Bride. So refresh my memory?

The obvious solution being building up a tolerance to the toxin over years, so it doesn't matter?

Guess that works if a) you know what the toxin is, and b) you have the time to build up a tolerance for it.

It's a psychological game not a logical one. That's why Sherlock failed it. Sherlock is a deductive reasoner, not a toxicologist or a psychologist.

[petzipellepingo.livejournal.com]

Yes, I watched it Sunday night and had a wonderful time. Well worth all the squee.

[elisi]

Welcome aboard the Sherlock train. :) I don't have anything to add really, except say how much I agree with you. My greatest kink of all is competence, and Sherlock delvers that in spades!