(Inspired by this thread)
Back when S4 aired, I compiled pretty much every early meta on TST and TFP and made tables comparing what theories explained what issues. The result? No one theory could cover every problem. None even came close.
So why can’t we write a single unifying theory for all of S4?
After mulling this over for six months, I think there are three reasons why: the different types of problems each episode had, the abundant subtext, and the difficulty of combining partial explanations.
The first problem is that even though we generally agree that S4 was worse than previous seasons, each episode is bad in a different way.
TST is basically logical on a plot level. The subtler subtext (the dog, the boy in the car) fits Johnlock. It comes off as jarring because of the characterization–particularly that of Mary–and unexplained elements that, though they don’t affect the plot of that episode, make no sense in the context of the show. These include the glowing skull and the fact that The Six Thatchers is already a case on the blog.
TLD feels so much better because the characterization is closer to who the characters are. The plot is logical, though a bit hallucination-heavy. It’s also necessary for John’s character development, showing him at his worst in order for him to realize how he must change. The subtext is beautiful; with Faith as a mirror and Culverton Smith as a foil, it’s maybe the clearest in the entire show.
But despite The Hug and everything leading up to it, it still comes off as not-quite-right. Because this time, even though the episode makes perfect sense in the broad context of the show, there are parts that don’t make sense in the context of S4′s plot. Why introduce a hallucinatory drug, and never use it? Why suggest that John isn’t the blog’s author, then never bring it up again? Chekov is rolling in his grave.
TFP looks awful because the plot is a shambling mess. Ironically, the problem with a surface reading of this episode isn’t so much that the plot is bad as that the subtext is excellent. There are myriad scenes that, from John’s or from Sherlock’s perspective, give us insight into their characters. These include Sherlock’s choice between killing John (heart) and Mycroft (brain), or John being stuck in a well (of pent-up emotion).
TFP looks distant from not just most of the show, but also from the type of mistake made in TST and TLD. TST and TLD tried to provide logical plots. TFP didn’t. TST and TLD had surface-level continuity with earlier character development. TFP didn’t. TST and TLD had subtly odd elements. TFP had gaping logical fallacies.
That’s why when we make theories that explain one odd element, such as mischaracterization, plot holes, or continuity errors, we can’t explain the problems in another episode. For example, EMP explains all continuity errors and mischaracterization of Mary, but it erases John’s character development. TFP-as-mind-bungalow explains all problems in that episode, but it creates plot holes in TST and TLD in terms of explaining away Eurus. And Brechtian absurdism/blog theory explains the fact that we have excellent subtext but poor plots, but it doesn’t explain why TFP would even exist (unless Amy has more brilliant meta up her sleeve, which I suspect she does). These are my favorite three theories, all brilliant, but the fact remains that none of them explains everything in isolation.
@may-shepard has put it very well:
I’m comfortable, however, with a different explanation for each episode of s4. I don’t need it to be all tied up in a single grand theory, and, given the radically different tones and appearances of each episode, I don’t think we’re meant to, but that’s just me.
The second problem with developing a unifying theory of S4 is that we’re given so many loose ends and motifs to play with.
Just what I remember off the top of my head:
- Sherlock’s ability to go into a mind palace that looks like reality => EMP?
- TD-12 causing hallucinations and distortions => A distorted retelling?
- John as the storyteller => John’s blog or story?
- The suggestion that John isn’t running the blog/telling the story anymore => Sherlock’s or a villain’s retelling?
- Hints that everything is fake, such as the projectors and literal fourth-wall breaking in TFP => Completely made up?
- Ella’s comment on recurring dreams => A dream or mind palace?
- John being shot but somehow not getting hurt => Garridebs?
- Mary dying ridiculously => A distorted retelling?
It’s not that we don’t have any leads, it’s that we have too many. With the show hinting at a zillion different solutions, it’s impossible to find one theory that fits every hint.
The third problem is that combining the most logical theories is hard.
If we can’t find one grand theory, the next best thing is to have sub-theories that fit together to explain S4 as a whole. Unfortunately, all of our strong but incomplete ideas so far are genuinely hard to combine with each other without becoming ridiculously complicated. For example, a mind-bungalow-inside-EMP situation would explain everything, but half the general audience would walk out in annoyance. My personal favorite, reading TST and TLD under blog theory and TFP as Garridebs, would require some pretty impressive explanations to pull off.
The thing is, there are two standards our theories have to meet in order to be plausible. One is whether the theory makes the show logically consistent. The other is whether the theory can actually be done in the context of a television show, a story–not real life or a pile of subtext with no surface-level plot.
My question, then, is not so much “How is S4 fake?” as “How are Mofftiss going to explain how it’s fake?” How are they going to provide an explanation–an explanation that our various efforts have concluded must either be complicated or have multiple parts–and still keep the audience engaged?
From our perspective, how can we extend or combine our working theories into something that explains the whole season without alienating a normal viewer?
These are honest questions. I hope there are answers.
-soe
(Tags under cut)
Excellent questions! And a really beautiful summary of the problem(s) with s4. I agree wholeheartedly, that the solution will be limited by what can be accomplished in the course of a television series. I know some people won’t agree with this, but I think, in order to be successful, the explanation will likely be something somewhat accessible / non off putting to people who are only following the broad strokes of the plot. In the details, there will probably also be lots for us to unpack.
At least, that’s how they’ve rolled so far. In series 1-3, there were plots and solutions and resolutions, but simultaneously, lots of fodder for going deeper. I mean, people are still uncovering the ways in which they’ve worked aspects of canon, Doyle’s other work, the pastiches, and Holmesian scholarship into the show. None of these easter eggs have, as far as I’m concerned, jumped in and taken over the broad strokes plot, although we could all probably point to a place or two where the broad strokes plot seems a bit (or a lot) hand wavy.
Things that drive us bonkers (Mr. Blue Skull, for example, and some of the tonal shifts) might be left for us to figure out in retrospect, if at all, because they won’t matter to a casual viewer.
I guess what I’m saying is, I am not sure that a full, textual explanation for all of s4 is forthcoming or necessary. My guess is, we’ll get an explanation for tfp, definitive forward movement / resolution in the John and Sherlock plot–the single plot thread that’s been there since the beginning–and we’ll get a bunch of rapidfire details / images / whatnot that will help us work out solutions to the rest, about which there will probably be a diversity of opinion and fodder for much discussion.
OMG YES. Bless this post! I was just trying to say the same thing in this post about theatre of the absurd. I think they want to leave us trying to find the meaning of the themes adressed in the plot, the “broad strokes”
like @may-shepard calls it, instead of having a coherent explanation for the whole of S4.Sherlock himself invites the audience with this choice when he says:
“As ever, Watson, you see but do not observe. To you, the world remains an impenetrable mystery, whereas to me it’s
an open book. Hard logic versus romantic whimsy. That is your choice. You fail to connect actions to their consequences.”We have two clear options; either trying to apply hard logic attempting to make sense of every detail; or just discussing the metaphorical meaning of the themes presented. Our two main characters are in fact symbols of this contrast, you know, Sherlock the mind, and John the heart, even though we know Sherlock is very emotional and John is very clever.
But if you choose the latter, the “romantic whimsy”, the “poetry” instead of the “truth”, you end up turning on its head
the traditional misguided concept that the Sherlock Holmes’ universe was only ever “about the legend, the stories, the adventures.“ We end up questioning the characters’ motives, discussing their inner selves, their fears, their desires, and truly examine if we know “who they really are”. The topic of identity has been hammered all through the show, specially in this series, starting with TAB’s “Who
are you? I demand you speak! Who are you?” to Culverton’s banter questioning John’s medical profession. I just think they’re asking the general audience if they really know who these two iconic characters are. They’re inviting us to reconsider what we think we know from the canon, poiting towards
a deeper analysis of what lies underneaththe
unreliabilityof Doyle’s choice of narration.
Up until now, we could rely both on the story’s logical structure and its subtext in order to understand the characters. But this series exacerbates that
unreliability, just so we can only rely in the story’s subtext.
Why Theorizing is Hard
Published
Sherlock Fandom Archive 