Not too long ago, I was bored and surfing the Sherlock page on TV Tropes. (Naturally, I should have been in bed instead.)
The description next to Fridge Brilliance is what really caught my attention; this was something I had been thinking about ever since I apped the character, AKA the question of, "What's really keeping Sherlock from becoming a murderer himself? He's certainly clever enough for it. It'd keep him from being bored all the time."
The obvious but not exactly satisfactory answer to this is the fact that he's Sherlock Holmes. The character himself is, with such a rich history and many different versions, expected to solve murders and not commit them.
But if we want to get a little deeper than that, the TV Tropes page gives a good, if only surface reason. (Jen will copy pasta because she is lazy.)
"Sherlock's comment about hubris and the "fragility of genius" explains why he tests his intellect by solving crimes rather than committing them (as Sgt. Donovan suggests he will someday): it allows him to be incredibly clever and then brag about it, whereas criminals can't very well flap their mouths about their evil schemes without being caught."
I did think about this, of course, while playing around with the question in my head. Sherlock is very much a genius in what he does, and to his belief all geniuses need an audience. It's logical enough that he doesn't want to deal with the inconvenience of being hunted down by the police, or being caught; it even suggests that eventually, an intelligent killer would wish to be caught, if only for the sake of his fifteen minutes of fame.
The only problem I have with this being his only reason is that... this alone, really, doesn't sound like it would be enough to stop Sherlock. After all, wouldn't it be even more of a challenge to not get caught? Wouldn't you achieve enough fame through the complexity and jarring nature of your murders if you managed to continue to do so long enough? Wouldn't playing games with the police/detectives/etc. be enough to satiate your boredom? The risk of getting caught certainly didn't stop Moriarty, and both he and Sherlock are very much alike in many ways.
So basically why hasn't Sherlock turned into Moriarty? Or why won't he, sometime in the future? How about some canon.
Moriarty: Do you know what happens if you don't leave me alone, Sherlock? To you? Sherlock: Oh, let me guess. I get killed. Moriarty: Kill you? No, don't be obvious. I mean, I'm going to kill you anyway, someday. I don't want to rush it, though. I'm saving it up for something special. No, no, no, no, no. If you don't stop prying, I'll burn you. I'll burn the heart out of you. Sherlock: I have been reliably informed that I don't have one. Moriarty: But we both know that's not quite true.
Yes, that's right, kiddies. Deep, deep, deep down, somewhere beneath all those sociopathic tendencies, Sherlock does indeed have a heart. Of course I know that this can strictly taken to mean that he has feelings and not necessarily morals, but I think that, given the nature of the character itself (see: It's Sherlock Holmes), the two can be very much related.
I tend to think that this version of Sherlock, though keeping the immensely unrivaled analytical skills of all the previous ones, is somewhat less mature in his moral development, as if the development itself is just beginning. The potential is there; it just has barely taken root.
When Lestrade says, "Sherlock Holmes is a great man, and I think one day, if we're all very very lucky, he might even be a good one." (can also be found in the article, under "Anti Hero").
When Mycroft is talking to his assistant about John, "Interesting, that soldier fellow. He could be the making of my brother... or make him worse than ever."
The above implies that Sherlock could easily go either way, at the moment. Which may be true, but there is more evidence to the contrary, given by Sherlock himself.
After all, it was Sherlock himself who said geniuses like to show off. At the end of the first episode, he has a chance to flaunt his intelligence, by telling Lestrade who it was who shot the serial killer. In the process, however, when he realizes that it's John, he decides to take the high road instead and feign ignorance. All to protect his flatmate that just saved his life.
I'm sure there are more subtle examples of this, and I'll try to add them as I think of them. But for now I guess we'll just have to wait and see if our "great" man does indeed turn out to be a "good" one.
(Like you don't already know the answer to that one.
The Browning L9A1 is a semi-automatic pistol, firing a 9×19 mm bullet from a 13-round magazine. It has been the standard sidearm of the British Army since 1957, succeeding the Enfield No.2 Mk.I revolver. The weapon is very, very similar to the Browning Hi-Power or GP35, but with an Army designation, L9A1 - Land use, 9 mm, mArk 1.
The weapon is ineffective against modern body armour and the Army has been testing replacements for some time. Various offerings from SIG, Heckler und Koch, and Carl Walther have already been adopted by other arms of the British military.
Okay, maybe this is just a weird roleplaying quirk of mine, but sometimes I need to hear the character's voice in my head to "check" and see if my tags are at all in character. Yes, their literal voices. I don't know if this is just me and if this makes sense at all, really, but there you go.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
no subject
Not too long ago, I was bored and surfing the Sherlock page on TV Tropes. (Naturally, I should have been in bed instead.)
The description next to Fridge Brilliance is what really caught my attention; this was something I had been thinking about ever since I apped the character, AKA the question of, "What's really keeping Sherlock from becoming a murderer himself? He's certainly clever enough for it. It'd keep him from being bored all the time."
The obvious but not exactly satisfactory answer to this is the fact that he's Sherlock Holmes. The character himself is, with such a rich history and many different versions, expected to solve murders and not commit them.
But if we want to get a little deeper than that, the TV Tropes page gives a good, if only surface reason. (Jen will copy pasta because she is lazy.)
"Sherlock's comment about hubris and the "fragility of genius" explains why he tests his intellect by solving crimes rather than committing them (as Sgt. Donovan suggests he will someday): it allows him to be incredibly clever and then brag about it, whereas criminals can't very well flap their mouths about their evil schemes without being caught."
I did think about this, of course, while playing around with the question in my head. Sherlock is very much a genius in what he does, and to his belief all geniuses need an audience. It's logical enough that he doesn't want to deal with the inconvenience of being hunted down by the police, or being caught; it even suggests that eventually, an intelligent killer would wish to be caught, if only for the sake of his fifteen minutes of fame.
The only problem I have with this being his only reason is that... this alone, really, doesn't sound like it would be enough to stop Sherlock. After all, wouldn't it be even more of a challenge to not get caught? Wouldn't you achieve enough fame through the complexity and jarring nature of your murders if you managed to continue to do so long enough? Wouldn't playing games with the police/detectives/etc. be enough to satiate your boredom? The risk of getting caught certainly didn't stop Moriarty, and both he and Sherlock are very much alike in many ways.
So basically why hasn't Sherlock turned into Moriarty? Or why won't he, sometime in the future? How about some canon.
Moriarty: Do you know what happens if you don't leave me alone, Sherlock? To you?
Sherlock: Oh, let me guess. I get killed.
Moriarty: Kill you? No, don't be obvious. I mean, I'm going to kill you anyway, someday. I don't want to rush it, though. I'm saving it up for something special. No, no, no, no, no. If you don't stop prying, I'll burn you. I'll burn the heart out of you.
Sherlock: I have been reliably informed that I don't have one.
Moriarty: But we both know that's not quite true.
Yes, that's right, kiddies. Deep, deep, deep down, somewhere beneath all those sociopathic tendencies, Sherlock does indeed have a heart. Of course I know that this can strictly taken to mean that he has feelings and not necessarily morals, but I think that, given the nature of the character itself (see: It's Sherlock Holmes), the two can be very much related.
I tend to think that this version of Sherlock, though keeping the immensely unrivaled analytical skills of all the previous ones, is somewhat less mature in his moral development, as if the development itself is just beginning. The potential is there; it just has barely taken root.
cont.
When Lestrade says, "Sherlock Holmes is a great man, and I think one day, if we're all very very lucky, he might even be a good one." (can also be found in the article, under "Anti Hero").
When Mycroft is talking to his assistant about John, "Interesting, that soldier fellow. He could be the making of my brother... or make him worse than ever."
The above implies that Sherlock could easily go either way, at the moment. Which may be true, but there is more evidence to the contrary, given by Sherlock himself.
After all, it was Sherlock himself who said geniuses like to show off. At the end of the first episode, he has a chance to flaunt his intelligence, by telling Lestrade who it was who shot the serial killer. In the process, however, when he realizes that it's John, he decides to take the high road instead and feign ignorance. All to protect his flatmate that just saved his life.
I'm sure there are more subtle examples of this, and I'll try to add them as I think of them. But for now I guess we'll just have to wait and see if our "great" man does indeed turn out to be a "good" one.
(Like you don't already know the answer to that one.
It's Sherlock Holmes.)
no subject
"Is that an British Army Browning L9A1 in your pocket, or are you just happy to see me?" –Moriarty
Quick overview, taken from here:
The Browning L9A1 is a semi-automatic pistol, firing a 9×19 mm bullet from a 13-round magazine. It has been the standard sidearm of the British Army since 1957, succeeding the Enfield No.2 Mk.I revolver. The weapon is very, very similar to the Browning Hi-Power or GP35, but with an Army designation, L9A1 - Land use, 9 mm, mArk 1.
The weapon is ineffective against modern body armour and the Army has been testing replacements for some time. Various offerings from SIG, Heckler und Koch, and Carl Walther have already been adopted by other arms of the British military.
More in-depth article over at Wikipedia.
no subject
Okay, maybe this is just a weird roleplaying quirk of mine, but sometimes I need to hear the character's voice in my head to "check" and see if my tags are at all in character. Yes, their literal voices. I don't know if this is just me and if this makes sense at all, really, but there you go.
So, uh, reference I guess?
Lol acting.
no subject
Finally found the links again. Thought I might have lost them for good.
Here and here.
Dolce & Gabbana? Belstaff? Paul Smith? Good god. Sherlock you are far too expensive for your own good.
Will post a summary when it's not horrendously late. The first link alone is worth it just to stare at the slightly amusing screencap.
no subject
No wonder Sherlock can't afford a flat on his own, he's spending all his money on clothing.
no subject
He has to be the best dressed one, after all.
no subject
no subject
If Sherlock ever gets his own consulting detective agency or whatever on the Thor, this should show up on the network.
no subject
no subject
no subject
asdflkjal;gja; *STILL LOLING*
no subject
no subject
Again, for voice purposes.
And because this scene is so funny.
(John got so BURN'D at the end.)