I'm not clear on this: do you mean that you think Sherlock has romantic feelings (or just pantsfeelings) for Joan, and is trying to bring her around to his way of thinking? Or that he just gives bad advice because he thinks she should share his views on romantic attachment?

A little of all it, all smooshed together and swirling around in a blender. Since Holmes returned to NY he feels different in regard to Watson. His posture and stance look different. Something is off. The time apart seems to have made him crave her, in his emotionally repressed stiff-upper-lip way. Physically? Emotionally? Romantically? Sexually? Perhaps in just one or two dimensions, perhaps in all. The way he divides himself up, I don't think he would read the same "in love" as a more ordinary man would. Last season, I was feeling their chemistry as so utterly platonic that I imagined that they could conceivably fall into bed together to scratch the itch as friends then roll over and carry on fighting crime like they had done nothing more emotionally significant than single stick sparing. They would manage it more cleanly than the episode of Seinfeld when Jerry and Elaine tried to be friends with benefits. It would be a tougher sell for Watson because she does generally want more out of sex than Holmes does, but in the right circumstances she could choose "just sex". This season? It wouldn't work. Holmes could not carry it off any more because he wants too much intimacy (of all kinds, I think) with Watson. Watson would not want to try it because of annoyance and broken trust - and it does not feel to me as though her end of their chemistry has altered in the least.

It's not that I think Holmes wants to be in love with Watson, or would admit it if he were. I think if he could arrange the universe to suit his whims, he would bring Watson back to the brownstone, have her living and working with him for the rest of their lives in an intellectually and emotionally (as much as he can manage) intimate relationship all the while never touching her (because that way lies Adler/Moriarty madness), the two of them satisfying any sexual urges dispassionately elsewhere. If Holmes can convince Watson she can happily shed the desire for conventional relationship, he will be just that much closer to the relationship that he wants.

OK, I know McGarret has crossed a lot of lines on various occasions, but cutting down the tree may be too far for me.

At least they didn't get away with it.

I can't imagine Joan EVER using Holmes to scratch an itch. Not very far under the skin, he is emotionally volatile and unpredictable. Best case circumstance is he would use it as a weapon for the rest of their lives whenever he wants to annoy her. If Joan ever decides to have casual sex (and for all we know, she has on occasion) , IMO Holmes is the last person she'd ever choose.

-t, totally. That was awful. Felt more like out of character, sloppy writing than McGarrett line-crossing, I thought.

If Joan ever decides to have casual sex (and for all we know, she has on occasion) , IMO Holmes is the last person she'd ever choose.

You are not wrong. I was imagining it happening after years of successful partnership in which they had grown very comfortable. Sure as shootin' it won't happen now, as weird as Holmes is being about Watson now,

So Gracepoint. Seriously?

Right? I'm not feeling inclined to watch Broadchurch, but maybe I'll look for some spoilers on the ending.

After explaining the ending to a mom who'd watched Broadchurch, she declared it (the end of Gracepoint) a softening of the original ending, that it was easier to stomach. For myself, I thought it was more horrific, because not only was your husband still a pervy almost-pedophile, but now your beloved child was guilty of homicide, and you're covering up a cover up to protect your manslaughtering kid. Is this a "for a mom, covering your kids sin and husbands unfruited perversion and attempt to save mutual son" is easy in comparison to a pervy almost pedophile killing a kid who is also your husband".

For me, the inclusion of the kid being involved in part of the blame makes it immediately worse. Bu this mom, even before I said it was an accident, was bitching that the US version went soft. Is this, like, the viewpoint of a mother's ulitimate forgiveness. It's not horrible, mum' gonna love you anyway and not be heartsick that you did something awful because you're an innocent kid?

But she has triply horrid burdens to bear. One public, one private and because of her job, that one professional too. Everything in her life is fucked up.

Haven't seen Broadchurch, so I can't comment on the contrast.

Maybe it is a "softer" ending because the dad gets to redeem himself somewhat by protecting his son whereas in the Broadchurch ending he had no redeeming qualities.

I'm not sure I agree with that but I can understand why it might be perceived that way.

I definitely think it made for a harsher ending given the position that it puts the mother in.