and of course it’s not important to anyone but me, but it really stings when people pair Sherlock with OMCs or other male characters in the show because “John is an abuser and Sherlock doesn’t deserve that.”
Because, yes, S4 John was an abuser, and Sherlock didn’t deserve that, but if that version of Holmes/Watson becomes Canon, and supersedes ACD’s protective, admiring, loyal, patient, affectionate John Watson, then Moftiss have done what the Criminal Law Amendment Act, the Oscar Wilde Trials, the homophobia of 130 years and the 130 years themselves have never done, and that is to separate Sherlock Holmes and John Watson.
Which is infinitely sad: a star has died in the literary universe.
“i don’t have friends…i’ve just got one” like seriously if someone said that to you in real life and they just happened to be the same someone you had spent the last year-ish trying not to wank yourself to death over in a stew of hormones that has you google searching whether soulmates are real at 3 a.m. while he plays you a lullaby downstairs on his fucking violin bc you had ninety seconds of a nightmare, what would you even do. what do you even do with that. implode on the spot? spontaneously combust? honestly by the fact that he got through that alive, john watson is a powerful man and deserves to be feared
A very cursory search on “sherlock holmes 1893” shows me that FINA (the final problem) was published in the strand that year, as well as CROO, GREE, RESI, and NAVA. Having recently read all of those with the @astudyincanon book club, each of those stories mirrors or highlights some aspect of the central relationship. A love triangle, self sacrifice, betrayal by a close family member or crony.
I’m guessing the FINA connection is the most important, maybe another indication that “reichenbaching the show” is part of the plan?
Tagging some of the usual suspects, hope that’s ok.
The bloh jpeg, the picture of John they changed, the adress isn’t the same as the real blog’s from what I would see, the 18493. Even reading the post is horrible because nothing in here makes sense.
Even when you compare how John updates his blog, you see it’s not the same:
It’s obvious in the second one that he’s definitely not writing anything on his blog.
The Hit counter is definitely suspicious because it vanished before S4 began.
As for what it means, I don’t know. I get the feeling that we’re not supposed to see the date is wrong from the get go.
It’s like, you know that poem, it’s always 18… what year is it again? 18 something? And there’s a 9, right?
If you tell me it’s always 1894, 1893 or 1895, I wouldn’t be able to tell you which one is the right one.
Emelia Riccoletti died in december 1894. It’s always 1895.
But for someone who glances at it, when you always know it’s 18 something+ a 9, when you don’t pay attention, you go past this.
It’s because there’s one number too many you can’t help but look back. Like the funny gravestones in TFP.
John isn’t writing his blog. In fact, the blog is the fakest fake to have faked this world.
The only one writing anything here is Sherlock.
You think he’s texting, but he always has his phone when we see the case file, from that, you can wonder if he’s not tapping what we’re seeing as we speak.
There’s no John, but it’s only him there. Who else would write this case?
He never stops!
And yes, John wrote on his blog 221Back! But Sherlock wrote to twitter 221BringIt.
We may even speculate that, because this is nothing but infos on the case and none of the little things John says like, oh Sherlock was so baffled, or Lestrade came and gave us that case, that this isn’t John’s style. He rarely goes straight to explain what the case is about without telling us how he and Sherlock are. Look, not once can you know who wrote it! Sherlock’s name never appears!
NURSE CORNISH: I love his blog.
You believe in EMP from Sherlock’s POV? You think EMP’s John knows this isn’t real?
The blog is an utter fake, and Sherlock knows how it’s supposed to look but missed a few precious details. 18… something 9. 18493, that’d do. It’s 1895, but he forgot it was a 5 and hesitates between a 4 and a 3. So 18493.
I mean… that’s literally how I remember the number. I can’t unsee it now.
It’s not 1895. It’s… well not a 5, a 4 or a 3? Oh, let’s put both, that way I’m right! 18493. Nailed it.
Because it’s Sherlock’s EMP, he is the one writing the cases and John’s blog is only a facade and because John isn’t real, he can’t modify his blog.
Sherlock is using his phone/heart to write what happens next. It’d do for now. Sorry John, Sherlock has taken over your blog. And Nurse Cornish is right.
The blog we see in S4 is Sherlock’s.
I have been pointing out the exact same things about the blog for months now, @impossibleleaf. (X) (X) (X) There is literally no doubt in my mind that we are meant to understand the blog is now being ‘written’ by Sherlock, as we are in his head still from HLV.
I love your explanation for how he got to the number 18493. That is the most Sherlockian idea I have ever read and makes so much sense in his head.
Wonderful explanation, @sarahthecoat, @impossibleleaf and @monikakrasnorada. And isn’t it exciting that we get such a blatant signal? We all wondered about the exchange with Nurse Cornish in TLD although in TST we already saw that John technically did not write his blog. Love this. @ebaeschnbliah
Yes, this is a very good explanation. It makes sense that Sherlock views certain things as highly important and others as trivialities …. decorations for his mind-stage its main purpose. :)))
Another piece of evidence that Sherlock’s past trauma has actually something to do with his dad is the scene with the two fishermen in TFP.
You know from my ‘Follow the dog’ meta (x) that I think Sherlock’s father is in the closet and was probably in love with his best friend who might or might not turn out to be the mysterious Uncle Rudy. (Or maybe Uncle Rudy and Daddy’s lover are two separate characters, and Uncle Rudy was in charge of getting rid of Daddy’s lover; I don’t know.) In any case, I believe that Sherlock’s trauma will turn out to be all about his dad being in love with a man.
So, here’s one more piece of evidence (apart from the tonne I have already amassed in the original ‘Follow the dog’ post):
In TFP, we are shown two fishermen who are caught in a storm. We know that ‘water’ is a metaphor for emotions, and in that scene, we get a huge body of ‘water’: the sea! And there is a storm brewing over these ‘waters’.
To spell out what kind of emotional storm this is all about, the set designers put a tea pot right in the foreground of the opening shot of this scene (remember that ‘tea’ is a metaphor for homosexuality on this show):
So, in other words, we have two men (one old, one young) who are both caught in the same (!) emotional storm: Sherlock and his dad are both faced with the same emotional storm, ie, have the same kind of emotional problem
(=they both fall in love with men).
To make this mirroring easier to pick up on, the older fisherman even calls the younger one ‘son’ at one point, which, of course, in English, is just an affectionate way to address a man much younger than yourself, but word choice on this show is never a coincidence. The word ‘son’ here evokes the image of a father and his (actual) son being caught in the same storm.
Well, and then there’s the fact that the younger fisherman is called Ben. The name Benjamin literally means (young/youngest) ‘son’…Sherlock!
The older fisherman (the metaphorical dad character) has got used to the storm (=has been in the closet for ages and has resigned himself to his fate). He is navigating it without ever leaving the cabin (=closet).
Young Ben (=Sherlock) is still struggling, though. He is vomiting (=finds his situation disgusting). And he is literally oscillating between being inside the cabin (=closet) with his metaphorical dad, where they’re both safe from the storm but he himself gets nauseous, and outside the cabin (=the closet) where it’s dangerous but where there’s fresh air. As the conversation starts, he has just come in again, apparently undecided as to where he should be: inside the cabin (=closet) or out.
There’s also one tiny detail that could be significant: The costume designers couldn’t give us as many mirroring clues as they usually do because both men are wearing these yellow fishermen overalls over their clothes. And yet, there’s this teensy, tiny clue:
The dish towel! It’s checkered. Like John’s clothes. Checkered things on this show always refer back to John. That’s why I think this checkered dish towel is not a coincidence. It’s nicely situated in the foreground in the above shot, too. And it’s hanging right next to the mirror image of the tea (!) pot. In other words, the checkered towel (=John) and the ‘tea’ (=gay love) are shown in close proximity to each other via an actual, real-life mirroring (!) effect.
And then, we get shot after shot of the young fisherman (=Sherlock) standing next to this towel+tea pot combo, talking about how he is literally sick (…of the whole situation he’s in):
Then both men hear the radio clearly enunciate the word ‘Sherrinford’. But the older man (=Sherlock’s dad) tells the younger one (=Sherlock) in no uncertain terms to ignore that message completely. Since ‘Sherrinford’ is basically Sherlock’s unconscious, this means that Sherlock’s dad tells Sherlock to ignore the call of his own unconscious. Wow!
“Sometimes when we’re out in these waters, we hear that message,” the older fisherman says (=sometimes when you’re faced with an emotional storm somewhere very far out on the emotional sea, ie, sometimes when you experience same-sex desire because you’ve just seen a handsome man, for example, sometimes when you’re so far out in these ‘waters’, you hear the call of your own unconscious). But the older man tells the younger one that it’s best to just ignore that call.
It’s the younger guy who keeps asking and prodding what ‘Sherrinford’ (=the unconscious) is. He (=Sherlock) is the one who doesn’t seem to want to ignore it. He has his hand on the door handle (of an actual closet!) as if he’s about to pull the closet door open any minute now:
It’s the older guy who seems to be hiding so deep in the closet that he wants to ignore ‘Sherrinford’.
And yet…The older guy (=Sherlock’s dad) seems to know deep down that being in the closet isn’t good for you because, as the young man (=Sherlock) tells him that he’s feeling sick, the older one wistfully replies, “Better out than in.”
Yeah, the subtext here is quite clear: Better out than in!
It’s just that it’s apparently too late for the older man (=Sherlock’s dad) to heed his own advice.
But then the fact that Sherlock’s dad is probably not happy with his situation was already established in my ‘Follow the dog’ meta: Sherlock’s dad was said to be allergic to dogs (‘dog’=homosexuality metaphor). Note that it’s not that Sherlock’s dad hated dogs. For all we know, he loved dogs. But he had an allergy, aka an internal condition (=internalised homophobia) that made it impossible for him to have a dog (=be in an openly gay relationship).
So, this conflicted attitude the older fisherman is displaying by, on the one hand, saying, “Better out than in,” and, on the other, hiding in the cabin and ignoring the call of ‘Sherrinford’ seems consistent with a character who is torn between what he wants and what he thinks he has to do, deeply conflicted about his own same-sex desires.
And then there’s, of course, the fact that, in this TFP scene, they are both presented as fishermen. And we have already seen how an unemployed fisherman in THoB was a metaphor for homosexuality (here).
The TFP scene ends with both fishermen being forced out of their cabin (=closet) by pirate!Sherlock, ie, Sherlock in the incarnation of his childhood dreams.
Sherlock has reverted back to who he wanted to be as a child (ha!) and forced both his metaphorical dad and himself to literally ‘come out’. As he does this, he’s holding steadfastly on to the radio mast that is transmitting the weather news from ‘Sherrinford’ (=his own unconscious). He doesn’t want to ignore it any longer.
And let’s not forget that Sherlock forces himself to come out of the cabin (=closet) with the help of John wielding his gun (=penis).:) Sorry, not sorry.:P But that’s Mofftiss for you. With Mofftiss, a dick joke is never very far away. John’s penis is the thing that forces Sherlock to sail towards ‘Sherrinford’ (=confront his unconscious).
And how does the whole ordeal end for the two fishermen (=Sherlock and his dad)?
Whether they want it or not, they’re both dragged to ‘Sherrinford’ island (=to confront the unconscious). And once there, they’re tied to each other: One cannot solve his problem without the other. The two problems are literally entangled with each other, which again tells us that Sherlock being closeted (at least for now) and his father being in the closet (since…forever) are two things that are inextricably bound to each other. To resolve one situation, the other has to be resolved too.
Oh, by the way, the older fisherman is double coded and can be read as a mirror for Sherlock himself too, as is evident from the cheekbones, the eye colour, the hat that Sherlock will wear himself just minutes later and the black ‘popped’ collar visible underneath his yellow overall.
This was probably done to tell us loudly and clearly that Sherlock himself has, at least, the potential to end up like his dad: closeted and sad.
Unless Sherlock does something about it right now…like break into his own unconscious (‘Sherrinford’) and confront what’s in there.
After all, the old fisherman is called Vince. And the name Vincent means ‘Conqueror’, the ‘Victorious one’.
Sherlock has the potential to score a victory here. But he has to face up to the battle with his (inner) dragon. He has to confront his own unconscious.
The double coding makes this scene so, so brilliant. Because you can basically read the old fisherman as an AU!version of old, closeted Sherlock and young-fisherman-Ben as that other inner aspect of Sherlock that’s sick of it all and just wants to ‘come out’. A conversation, a conflict, between two voices inside Sherlock’s head.
(It’s at least possible that this scene is even triple coded: You could read the old fisherman as a closeted Sherlock and the young fisherman as John who’s struggling to come out. In this case, pirate!Sherlock and John-with-his-*cough*-‘gun’ would be forcing themselves (!) out of the cabin, aka the closet. They would be forcing themselves to confront the unconscious, aka go to ‘Sherrinford’, where the two of them, Sherlock and John would be shown bound together by fate. Because John and Sherlock have always been bound together. What happens to one of them is inextricably linked to what happens to the other one.)
That double coding (and possible triple coding) is what makes this whole fishermen scene so fascinating.
It was intentionally written so that we would understand that, whichever way we turn this puzzle, it’s all about the issue of coming out; it’s just that the characters change with our shifting point of view.
Edit: Also, look at the mirror image of the tea pot above. There are three mirror images of the tea pot. It’s mirrored three (!) times. Triple coding it is, then.
Evolution- Deductions vs Mind Palace: A Comprehensive Look
“Sometimes a deception is so audacious, so outrageous that you can’t see it even when it’s staring you in the face.”
Disclaimer #1: This is where you get off if you are not on the EMP train. Sorry, but the entire reason for all of these posts boils down to EMP theory and what it means for the show as we’ve seen it.
Disclaimer #2: I know. There are loads of amazing meta out there, pointing to different origins for Sherlock’s continued mind palace wanderings. The pool. The fall. There’s amazing proof that could back it up all the way to the gay pilot. There is difference of opinion on when it began even within the diehard group of us that have been crying EMP since TAB. And, I’m not trying to disprove any of those theories or ideas. Like I said, there’s loads of proof for all of them. This is my interpretation and what I believe is happening and why. If it turns out that the beginning point ends up somewhere else in the timeline, I will not be hurt at all. Because, for me, if EMP ends up being what is truly happening within the show, I will take any starting point they want to give us. It’s all about Sherlock in the end. His journey and what he reveals and understands of himself.
Disclaimer #3: EMP, as a theory, was never meant to ‘excuse’ what we didn’t like about the show, and especially S4. It was never meant to be a bandaid over plotholes or an eyepatch to hide what we didn’t like seeing. It’s not to excuse Mofftiss’ heinous comments or to prop them up as infallible and almighty. It was truly only ever an idea we saw clear evidence in support of. We didn’t go looking for a way to shape this theory, as some other theories in the past have done. We aren’t- and will never- claim that anyone that doesn’t believe or support this theory are wrong. Or that this is the only theory for what could possibly be happening within the show.
I have no illusions that I am in any way, trying to reveal something new about this episode. It’s been talked to death, examined, meta’d to within an inch of its life. None of these mind palace posts are meant to highlight new information. I am merely trying to illustrate the continued expansion and use of the mind palace device in a linear fashion. There is a method to my madness, I promise. 😉
So, all of that being said, this meta series (X)(X)(X)(X)(X) is based on EMP starting with Mary shooting Sherlock.
tl;dr- In case you don’t want to read K’s of words of no new info- HLV is mind palace heaven. The amount of mind palace in this ep is astronomical, and thus, this theory (that I’m trying to prove) remains in place: With each consecutive episode of the show, the mind palace moments we see, increase in length and intensity.
Another reason I fucking love Benedict Cumberbatch.
Matt Damon has been saying that the men who haven’t been raping/molesting/inappropriately touching women should be praised for y’know, not being rapey and grabby, for having basic human decency. Someone on twitter was saying how if someone broke a dish, Damon would show up and ask you to say what a good job he did for NOT breaking dishes that day.
Matt Damon, I’m going to quote the ancient one….IT’S NOT ABOUT YOU.
But the rage directed at Damon, a privileged white man who has the world laid out for him on a golden platter (I’m speaking as a woman who lived in a refugee camp for over a year to escape persecution and death in the Middle East…I can expand on that if you wish).
It’s. Not. About. You.
This is about women, this is about the daily struggles of women. Women who wake up every morning and think “oh is my boss going to grope today?” “am i going to get blackmailed into submission?” “is my boss going to be condescending today?” “how much blatant disrespect am i going to have to put up with before i explode?”
For a lot of women, this is a reality, this is every day.
Matt Damon, it’s not about you.
But as most things, this reminded me of BC. I will forever and always blow his trumpet when it comes to the work he did for the Syrian refugees and for the graceful way he dealt with Weinstein.
Damon had/has NOTHING to lose when the allegations against Weinstein started. Cumberbatch, on the other hand, had a movie coming out, had started the press tours, had introduced the movie at TIFF. TCW was set up to premiere just in time for Oscar nods, and even though the TIFF reviews weren’t kind as a whole, they all agreed that Cumberbatch delivered and he was generating Oscar buzz.
Cumberbatch had A LOT to lose. And yet, he SPOKE UP. he could’ve quietly gone along, no one would have really blamed him and we would all have attributed his silence to him being a private person and never really jumping into inner-Hollywood drama, and being a busy daddy of 2 young babies and a busy actor and budding producer with his own company to run.
And yet!
HE SPOKE UP.
Almost immediately, he was one of the first actors to come out and he kept his statement focused on the victims, NEVER talking about himself except to say that he was disgusted.
I hated Damon the second he said that he found Weinstein’s actions to be deplorable now that he had a daughter….Meaning that it was ok for Weinstein to do what he did when Damon had no daughters. Meaning that it’s ok as long as it happens to someone else’s daughter?
But then you have Cumberbatch, with 2 boys. With Damon and the rest of Hollywood’s logic, he should’ve kept his silence then, encouraged his boys to do as they wished. EXCEPT HE DIDN’T. His boys will grow into men, read their father’s statement, see the campaign he participated in, and know the difference between right and wrong, between acting like a decent human being and well, acting like Weinstein (and Trump…and Lauer….and Rose…and Spacey…)
And the DAY that TCW was set to release, this movie that got pushed back, that meant BC lost a chunk of the year, lost the US market, he participated in a campaign that empowered and encouraged WOMEN and VICTIMS to speak up without ever, ever, ever putting himself into the equation except to lend his voice. his articulate, loud, methodical voice.
How lovely is that? Just let yourself think about the statement he made.
So Matt Damon wanting praise for not being a rapist makes me love Benedict Cumberbatch even more.
As a woman, as a victim, and as a budding advocate, I choose to praise BC in the way that he will never praise himself.
Know why? He’s a decent, human being.
He is a good man.
(I realize I’ve been writing essays on here latey but I’m going to be out of court for like 3 weeks and the advocate in my head is getting bored)
Thank you for putting this so eloquently @thehiddenlawyer. To paraphrase a source we all know well, Benedict is so much more than a great man; he is a Good Man.
The very definition of a Good Man.
Un homme de bien, qui me réconcilie avec l’espèce humaine en déclin. Probably one of the reasons why, at 40, Benedict is the first actor I admire for his acting skills AND for the man behind the scenes.
Sherlock Fandom Archive 