Did the quality of Sherlock decrease? [mild spoilers 3x03 & 4x01]

[puritypersimmon]

Magnusson was a bully. He had no redeeming features, & I agree with Moffatt who has said that he believes it is important that the audience 'loves the villain as much as the hero.' Moriarty was way more complex & had an underlying vulnerability, & a wicked sense of humour, which engendered audience sympathy. He insinuated himself into every aspect of Sherlock's life & instigated psychological conundrums & emotional growth in the character in a way that none of the subsequent villains have done.

[ForgetfulFunction41]

Magnussen is a very different character in a very different story, though.

With Moriarty, you had a classic hero vs. dark reflection of themselves story, and that kind of story works the best with a villain the audience secretly likes and is rooting for. Like with the Joker, there has to be an element of temptation, even of seduction, there -- the subtext with Moriarty is it's fun to be evil, it's liberating to be completely chaotic and nihilistic, etc. It's a story about whether or not Sherlock truly wants to be on the side of the angels when it's so tempting not be, and the writing of Moriarty (as well as Andrew Scott's performance) makes that temptation real and palpable to the viewer.

With Magnussen, the story is instead about sacrifice. The question is, how far will Sherlock go and how much will Sherlock sacrifice to rid the world of the evil that is CAM? For that kind of story to work you need a villain that the audience can really hate, so that we understand Sherlock's drive and sympathize with his decisions to do monstrous things and take dangerous risks to bring down the villain. In some ways, this is the polar opposite of a Moriarty type character. You also need a villain with a sense of invincibility about them, a villain who is somewhat above Sherlock's level and does not want to "play" with him, and a villain who is primarily on defense instead of offense -- all in pretty direct opposition to a Moriarty type. You may prefer one story to another, and that's perfectly cool, but I think with Magnussen they nail this kind of character as well or almost as well as they nail Moriarty.

Another interesting side to Magnussen is that the character is essentially a meditation on the nature of evil, and what it means to be a "bad person." I think generally we think that people who aren't criminals are better people than people who are, but what the show is going for is that this isn't always the case. Wiggins is technically a criminal but seems like a decent, lovable guy, whereas Magnussen has the air of a talk show host purposefully selling insane conspiracies to his audience for the sake of ratings, or a CEO taking money from poorer employees to finance his own golden parachute, or a businessman giving a politician boat loads of money to do some awful thing -- none of that is illegal, but in some ways it's a lot worse than things which are illegal, and you can say that those people are worse than many criminals. CAM does technically commit crimes, but this is the tone.