Re: Shir's whitefont:

I suspect that Gatiss may have stood over Moffat brandishing an iron skillet and muttering "fix the plot hole you just made . . . no, better than that . . . much, much better than that . . . oh, hell, just shove Mycroft in there and let me ad lib already.

Anyway, I enjoyed it, too.

OK, Tep I don't know what the Thing was in Elementary. Good episode, though!

The conversation between Holmes and Moriarty at the end, the "I watch you to see how you can be like them" / "I don't think I *am* like them" (I'm paraphrasing) conversation.

I have such a weak spot for the poignant side of non-neurotypical characters (as opposed to what has evolved into the slapstick caricature of Sheldon Cooper, feh). Elementary manages to pull it off pretty well sometimes (other times it does fall in the trap of "Make Holmes a generic asshole to people"). But I thought the conversation between Moriarty and Holmes at the end was well done indeed.

That was very nice. I like how ambiguous the "them" was, especially.

As an aside - I can't help but think of Moriarty as Maergery from Game of Thrones, but I think that might help the characterization.

[As another aside, I have always thought that Jim Parsons deserves all the awards he gets because Sheldon is not written nearly as well as he is acted, or at least not as consistently]

Calli:

Since my introduction to Gatiss was in League of Gentlemen, this makes absolute sense.

In other words, please write it.

The conversation between Holmes and Moriarty at the end, the "I watch you to see how you can be like them" / "I don't think I *am* like them" (I'm paraphrasing) conversation.

I did something I almost never do - replayed to get a near-accurate quote cause I think it is important:

"Is that how you learned to be one of them? By caring what someone else thought" [Not exact, but extremely close]

"I'm not sure I am one of them." [If not exact quote, 99.99%]

So Sherlock is not sure he IS one of them, but also is not sure he is NOT. That is an important distinction.

Also, Sherlock may have never been "nice" but he always seems to have had an ethics, a morality. His hatred of people involved in high finance, though it may psychologically stem from literal Daddy issues, also seems to have a strong element of moral judgement. And he seems to genuinely look upon murderers as something evil that must be stopped - not just as puzzles to be solved. That seems to have been there from the first episode and is implied to have been there a long time before that. And that morality has never stemmed just from caring what others think; he had it long before he met Watson and probably before he met Gregson or Detective Bell.

Also your point about the distinction between neuro-atypical and asshole is an important one. Although not all the writers caught the difference, I think the core of the character is that when the series starts he is both. And he will never not be neuro-atypical, but he does not have to be an asshole. And major arc of the series is not any of the plot arcs, but the character change as Sherlock gradually makes the journey towards not being an asshole.

Further, Moriarty has that journey very wrong. He started with a core morality. Joan did not create it. In response to Joan he expanded it, but only so far. He told Joan he would never be a "nice" person, and part of it was that he saw no reason he should, not understanding that what she was really talking about was his that he need not leave a trail of destruction in the lives he passed through. And then he destroyed the life of a suspect that turned out not to be the murderer, not because it was the only way to get information, but because it was the easiest. (It may be that someone who committed murder by auto and then goes drinking in a bar should have his life destroyed - but Sherlock did not do it on purpose. No one should have their life destroyed carelessly and indifferently) And not only was the scumbags life destroyed, but Bell was badly hurt thanks to the fallout. And from that Sherlock learned to operate differently, to not be such an asshole. Not primarily because he cares about others opinions, but because he learns that cavalierly ignoring the rules was not as consequence free as he thought, and that it carries a risk not only to himself but to others. Because he is so much smarter than everybody else and often right where they are wrong, he thought he knew better than everybody else about everything, that he needed to obey no rules except those he made for himself or those made by others whose sense he saw. And he learned he was wrong, not by suddenly developing a morality where he had none, but by extending the morality he had, by learning a little touch of humility by losing a little arrogance. (Too much of his self is tied in to that arrogance for him to ever lose all or even most of it. He really does know better than everybody else a great deal of the time, and for a long time arrogance was the only weapon he had to combat the natural skepticism of the rest of world about this reality. Even if Joan helps him develop new tools, and new weapons, arrogance will always be an important part of his arsenal, something he can't survive with out. But he has learned at Bell's expense to temper it a bit, that it can't be his only way to deal with the world.) And kudos both to the writers and to the actor for conveying this by showing and not telling.

So Sherlock is not sure he IS one of them, but also is not sure he is NOT. That is an important distinction.

I don't think Sherlock is not sure he is NOT "one of them." Assuming Moriarty defined "them" as "regular people," non-exceptional people (and I don't mean honors students, I mean freaky-brained people who are really among the smartest in the world). By that definition, Sherlock -- and Moriarty -- will NEVER be "one of them." Moriarty might wonder how Sherlock has learned the bare minimum to play nicely with "regular" people when he wants to, but that's only because she doesn't want to.

Bell was badly hurt thanks to the fallout.

Not Sherlock's fault. Bell was badly hurt because a guy with a gun shot at Sherlock and Bell reacted according to his training. I get that Sherlock feels bad about it, and I get that Bell blames Sherlock. Still not his fault. I think the show really wants us to blame Sherlock, and I'm not buying what they're selling.

I so don't get why Bell getting shot should be a wake up call for Sherlock. That makes no sense to me at all, and yet it's what the show keeps telling me.

I'm not sure what Sherlock and Moriarty meant when they said "them" in that conversation, or if they meant the same thing, and I really like that.

I so don't get why Bell getting shot should be a wake up call for Sherlock. That makes no sense to me at all, and yet it's what the show keeps telling me.

I'm so glad I'm not the only one.

Me too.