wsswatson:

I was expecting someone to ask this, so I have my answer prepared!

The programme is very much one about perspectives. In almost every scene, we are watching from the implied point of view of a particular character (which is, I should mention, why there is so much homoerotic subtext, but that’s another discussion entirely). In that scene, we were in John’s position. We had no idea how the situation was going to be resolved (though, unlike John, we of course knew that it would be, or else the programme would not be able to continue), and so we were afraid, and we were upset. We looked to Sherlock. As John said, he’s the cleverest there is. We, as an audience, felt helpless, and we wanted - and counted on - Sherlock to make everything alright. Now, imagine if Sherlock had immediately said “Don’t panic! I have everything under control! I know exactly what to do, the police are on their way, we’ll be safe in no time!” The scene would have immediately lost its potency. There needed to be suspense, we needed to feel hopeless and scared, and since we experienced the scene through John, he needed to feel the same.

So yes, it was cruel of Sherlock, but what you have to remember is that one of the most important considerations in creating fiction is to write what will have the desired effect on the audience, and that certainly did.

Fear, hoplessness, relief, outrage, along with John - and he was outraged, I felt, but he was also relieved - he’s not going to die, his best friend’s not going to die, he’s going to see his fiance again and marry her and live out his life with her as he wanted. Relief is the best possible cure for fury, in my experience!