Fic Rec: Sheep Go to Heaven, by Mad_Maudlin

[ancientreader]

Title: Sheep Go to Heaven
Author: Mad_Maudlin
Pairing: none (but not incompatible with John/Sherlock)
Length:  1240 words
Verse: BBC Sherlock
Rating: mature/R
Warnings:  graphic (but brief) depictions of violence
Author's Summary: "Sherlock shouldn't have any trouble killing someone. He is, after all, a sociopath."

Reccer's Comments: That good old trope, Sherlock as (not) a sociopath. It's been done to death, I suppose, in the past five and a half years, but this, posted in late 2010, was one of the earliest variations on the theme and I'm still impressed by the characterizations of both Sherlock and John. (We could argue for hours over whether the picture of Sherlock here is jossed by the climax of HLV, and I would be delighted to have that conversation if anyone wants!)

To say much more would spoil the plot, but I suggest looking closely at the ending. I'm not sure that it's not ambiguous, and if that's cloudily worded, that's because I'm, oh, let's say 98% sure that everything is as it seems. You?

Excerpt:

   "You are tiresome," Sherlock tells [the murderer he has at gunpoint].
    Stockton grins. Blood from his split lip runs down his face. "Then kill me."
    Sherlock shifts again. The angle of his arm is rather uncomfortable. "To kill everyone who irritated me would needlessly complicate my social life."

Read on the AO3.

Comments

[saki101.livejournal.com]

What an interesting story. I think I'm sure what has happened, but what is it you see that leaves that 2% doubt? Shall we PM so as not to leave any spoilers here?

[ancientreader]

Duly PMed!

[rachelindeed.livejournal.com]

Eeeep! Thanks for the rec, this is definitely thought-provoking. The fic is really well-written (of course, everything from Mad_Maudlin is); though I find that characterization of John quite disturbing. That's not at all to criticize the fic -- I think perhaps the story may have been designed to be ambiguous and open to reactions of discomfort with John from some readers and approval from others. My standards of justified defense/self-defense are usually pretty high even in fiction (more so, I think, in realistic settings rather than more fantastic AUs, for whatever reason). Excessive use of force, especially fatal excess, tends to creep me out. With some mental work I can interpret the Hope shooting in ASiP in a way that I can reconcile with my own sense of morality, but not the events of this story. It is interesting how we all grapple with the sort of 'vigilante adventure' strain in the Doyle stories, which is IMO very tricky to modernize without making the characters scary. Thanks very much for the intriguing story rec!

[ancientreader]

Oooh, what an interesting response! In principle I am of your mind about what you so elegantly call the "vigilante adventure" strain in ACD and about how violence is treated in fanfics; I've been dismayed and even sickened by fics in which Sherlock and/or John casually kills someone or tortures them for information and no moral weight seems to attach. (I pause here to relish the ironic probability that these authors would, if asked, object strenuously to "enhanced interrogation" techniques ...)(And this is to say nothing of how many skilled interrogators have pointed out that torture is counterproductive as well as wrong.)

In this story, though, I thought the killing justified, because "[Stockton] has bitten off various pieces of three different girls" seems to imply that he presents a grave danger to Sherlock even though his hands are tied behind his back. Unease arises, for me, during the conversation between John and Sherlock afterward. Is Sherlock the best judge of who's a sociopath and who is a sheepdog?

[rachelindeed.livejournal.com]

Oh, interesting observations about the closing conversation! Your interpretation of the unreliability of Sherlock's perspective is particularly interesting given some of the ways that the show has developed since this fic was written. While I do depart from this assessment of John in my own headcanon, I also think that as the series has gone on it has made sense to see Sherlock as being blind to the dangerous ethics of people he otherwise likes. He was unfazed by Irene helping terrorists to bomb planes, and almost admired her for swindling him into violating national security in order to blackmail Mycroft for money. Irene's plan was almost identical to Magnussen's in HLV (trick Sherlock into committing treason to get leverage on Mycroft), but with Irene I think we weren't supposed to mind because she did it sexily while Magnussen did it repulsively? And of course the whole debate over Mary's character comes down to whether you think that Sherlock's attempt to excuse her attack on him makes sense or not. I'm in the "not" camp, myself, but I don't think the writers' intentions necessarily align with my interpretations :) In any case, this is one of those early fics that seems to grow more prescient as time goes on..

[ancientreader]

Truthfully, I long ago gave up on any notion that the showrunners have coherent or long-term "intentions" -- there are just too many obvious plot holes and inconsistencies in characterization, too much general hand-waving. Medically speaking, for example, you're entirely correct that Sherlock's remarks about "surgery" are preposterous. And all this is to say nothing of what are, as you point out, the dubious ethics.

I no longer trouble myself trying to make the show make sense, but in a weird way I also find the sloppiness freeing -- as with, oh, say, the Bible, any number of interpretations is available, depending on what one chooses to emphasize or ignore. Your reading of Sherlock as "blind to the dangerous ethics of people he otherwise likes" is brilliant, and it had not occurred to me in precisely those terms before.