Something I really liked in the story from TAB to TFP is the whole question of what made Sherlock what he is – and indeed, I think it’s the central question in TFP. I’ve read lots of comments on this in people’s meta around here, and wanted to have a go at saying what I liked about the storytelling in this particular regard.
Many have noted the apparent contradiction between Sherlock’s “Nothing made me. I made me” and Mycroft’s saying that everything Sherlock is, ever decision he’s ever made is because of Eurus. I feel like a mistake we make is taking everything the text tells us as a thing we are being told directly by the text, rather than thinking about how reliable what the text is telling us really is, considering the source and the character who says it.
I loved Sherlock’s “I made me” in TAB. It was one of my favourite moments. I loved the idea that in his mind, he was able to take responsibility for himself, and know, somewhere deep inside, that he was the one making the decisions that kept him separate and alone. I feel like, if we can realise that WE choose things, then we have some kind of agency, and power over them, and I like the idea of his having that kind of power over his own narrative. So, when this story of Eurus and young Victor comes along, and Mycroft tells us of that this isn’t true – in fact, Eurus made him? If I’m to take that at face value, it’s disappointing – childhood trauma made Sherlock what he is.
Dull – and done to death, right?
The thing I love, though, is that they are both right, and both wrong, and I really enjoyed thinking about what the constellations are in the spaces between them.
What we all do, every day (and I think being in love with and retelling this story is part of this effort for many of us) is tell ourselves the daily story of what we mean and who we are. In the words of Neurologist Oliver Sacks, we “throw bridges of meaning over abysses of meaninglessness” and create ourselves via narrative – the stories we tell ourselves about who we are. This is what makes us human beings – this continual myth-making – and this narrative of who we are and what we mean is a construct of our minds.
So…Sherlock told himself a story – he made himself. It was a defensive mechanism, and it coincided with his emotional withdrawal, a mechanism he used to protect himself from the pain of love, loss, grief, and importantly, horror. Sherlock made himself, and part of making himself was denying the fact that other people have the power to shape us, and reshape our narrative. He radically claimed agency in defiance of pain. But, it’s not quite true, and what’s more he can’t quite stay away from a world full of horror, can he? As a detective and a junkie, he tries to solve the mystery of horror and pain over and over again while keeping emotional reality at a distance.
Mycroft, meanwhile, sees Sherlock from the outside – sees him as a victim of trauma whose subsequent decision not to feel has kept him safe from further trauma, and he encourages it: “…caring is not an advantage … don’t get involved … Redbeard!” Mycroft sees Sherlock as fragile, prone to self-destruction, and in need of protection – as powerless, and he’s not wrong. Sherlock is compulsive, an addict, and a person in denial of his own heart. Mycroft acts out of love in a paternalistic manner towards not only Sherlock, but the whole family, because that’s the story Mycroft told himself… and the story tells us that this is “limited”, and it is. It’s nice that in the end, Sherlock is able to see that Mycroft did his best, though. That’s real progress.
The fact that both of these things “made” Sherlock isn’t a contradiction, it’s two seemingly contradictory things that are both true from different perspectives; two data points that allow us to see what’s happening when Sherlock remembers Victor and opens his heart to his Eurus, and then chooses the path that will allow him to remake himself, having integrated what he knows into a truer version of events. He DID make himself, and also, she made him. We are not impervious to others, but we do choose which way we go. Sherlock chooses love.
The experiments Eurus runs to try to find out who Sherlock is – what he will do given the choices she gives him all lead to this question of what he will do with her when he knows the truth – and she needs him to know, or she can never come down from her metaphorical plane. She loves him and she needs his love, so she is trying to find out how his love works throughout the episode. Because, Eurus did something terribly damaging, and she needs her brother to know it. She also loves him, and needs him to love her. I love that Sherlock, because of everything that he has been through and felt and experienced is able to have the empathetic response that he has. That he realises that he has a role in healing something in her, as she has healed something in him by finally helping him to see that he is not, never has been, and can never be an island.
And I love, at the end, seeing Sherlock embrace the fact that who we are
is a co-creation – a relationship between the people we love and our
responses to them. We are not islands of independent myth-making.
Sherlock Holmes is not an isolated freakish genius – he is a person of
some experience and the wisdom that came from it – he has a past, he
lived a life.
The final scenes, in which John and Sherlock embrace what they can be together, and rebuild their home and their hearts to include all that they have experienced and become because of love, and they are surrounded by their village of loved ones were really moving to me. In fact, when I watched it again, I didn’t even hate Mary’s voice over – she was an important part of their shared story, she loved them both, and she belongs there. I really like this as the beginning of them BEING WHAT THEY ARE in legend – a brilliant, humane detective and his astute storyteller who is smarter than he looks, and now the myth they are making is their partnership. It’s a story with both horror and love, and the only way it is what it is, is in partnership. I mean… I loved that!
Plus, parentlock. COME ON! It’s like a cherry on top.
Was it ham-handed in some ways, and even stupid? Yes. Yes it was. But, I
loved what it was TRYING to do, and I think that was enough for me to just
go with it in TFP, rather than picking it to pieces. I liked thinking these thoughts, and I like who Sherlock and John are in the end.
Anyway, YMMV, but… that’s
me. I think this is a big part of what I liked about TFP.
So, I agree with your analysis but one of the things that always got me about the line, “you do remember her, in a way. Every choice you ever made, every path you’ve ever taken, the man you are today: is your memory of Eurus.” is how true this is–of Mycroft.
Mycroft says, “what Uncle Rudi began, I thought it best to continue.” Locking Eurus up wasn’t Mycroft’s choice. If we decide that they took Eurus away when she was five (which I’m basing solely on child Eurus’ apparent age and Mycroft’s comment to the governor that “she’s been capable of [enslaving people] since she was five”), then Mycroft was thirteen. He was a child. Rudi decided to lock Eurus up in Sherrinford with the “uncontainables” and like to Mr and Mrs Holmes about the fate of their daughter. Mycroft simply carried on the lie. Again, he was thirteen and presumably traumatized by knowing that his sister killed his brother’s best friend and his brother no longer remembered her. Presumably he thought it would be best if his parents could also, if not forget that Eurus existed, then move on with their lives thinking she was gone.
But that decision irrevocably changed Mycroft’s relationship with his parents, and with Sherlock. It isolated him from his entire family (ironically, except for Eurus, the only one in on his secret). Mycroft spent Christmas with Eurus and Jim Moriarty and then went home to drink alone while Sherlock celebrated at 221b surrounded by friends.
Uncle Rudi also seems to have set Mycroft on his career path. He seems to have been some kind of shadowy government spook, and put Mycroft on the path to shadowy government spook. Who knows who or what he might have been if he hadn’t spent his entire life protecting this secret.
So yes, Mycroft is the man he is today because of Eurus. And IMO, he’s projecting when he says that about Sherlock. It’s true for him, so he thinks it’s true for his brother. And on some level, it is. Someone on my dash (i think @themissadventurer?) was saying that when Sherlock says “I made me,” in TAB, we hear a dog barking in the background and he says “Redbeard,” immediately after. Of course his childhood trauma influenced him. We are all shaped by our childhood traumas (or at least I know I was). So Eurus having shaped them is the truth.
But the truth, as Oscar Wilde said, and TFP keeps reminding us, is rarely pure, and never simple.
The full lyrics to Eurus’ song and a quick breakdown of how Sherlock pulled the hidden message from it (I am not the first to post either) under the cut.
still hemorrhagging internally from even the thinnest possibility that the “special hair band” conversation is about john stealing his mom’s queen albums and listening to them in secret and getting his ass beat by his homophobic military dad
EURUS: My hairband. Did you bring it like I asked?
SHERLOCK (hesitantly): I’m not one of the … I-I don’t work here.
EURUS: My special hairband.
SHERLOCK (more firmly): I’m not one of your doctors.
EURUS (sounding exasperated): The one I made you steal, from Mummy. (She turns to face him.)
EURUS: It was the last thing I said to you, remember, the day they took me away.
like i’m sorry but WHAT ELSE could this be if we’re not in JOHN’S MIND talking not about hairbands but hair. bands. aka BABY JOHN’S LOVE OF LATE 70s/EARLY 80s GLAM ROCK AND HEAVY METAL AS EVIDENCED BY DROPPING BOTH IRON MAIDEN AND QUEEN SONGS INTO HIS DEATHBED DREAM SOUNDTRACK
and FURTHERMORE WHY was that the last time that Euros/Eros/Love spoke to him before being taken away from him forever IF NOT BECAUSE OF BABY BI JOHN’S SWEET CRUSHES ON/EMULATIONS OF ANDROGYNOUS GLAM FRONTMEN I’M THROWING A CHAIR
So, um, Euro’s song includes the line “my steps – 5 by 7″
…57.
Which is not from the original Musgrave ritual which goes:
“ ‘Whose was it?’
“ ‘His who is gone.’
“ ‘Who shall have it?’
“ ‘He who will come.’
“ ‘What was the month?’
“ ‘The sixth from the first.’
“ ‘Where was the sun?’
“ ‘Over the oak.’
“ ‘Where was the shadow?’
“ ‘Under the elm.’
“ ‘How was it stepped?’
“ ‘North by ten and by ten, east by five and by
five, south by two and by two, west by one and by
one, and so under.’
“ ‘What shall we give for it?’
“ ‘All that is ours.’
“ ‘Why should we give it?’
“ ‘For the sake of the trust.’
That would have been SUCH an embarrassing moment for Eurus because she couldn’t kill her. What would she say? “Uhm … well … yeah, go to the next room, we try to call her later!”
A person who can predict terrorist attacks but didn’t consider THAT, lmao
I’m so glad it wasn’t just me who felt this way!! I went back to the episode to find the exact quotes on the queercoding side of things. First we’ve got Eurus, who has this interaction with Sherlock:
Eurus: Oh! Have you had sex? Sherlock: Why do you ask? Eurus: The music. I’ve had sex. Sherlock: How? Eurus: One of the nurses got careless. I liked it. Messy, though. People are so breakable. Sherlock: I take it he didn’t consent? Eurus: “He”? Sherlock: She? Eurus: Afraid I didn’t notice in the heat of the moment. And afterwards, well, you couldn’t really tell.
Here we have Sherlock, the hero, establishing a heteronormative, non-consensual narrative for what happened; Eurus wrongfoots him by queering this narrative. Throughout their conversation, Eurus is scaring him, setting him off balance, being cruel. This has been the pattern of their conversation so far. So when she introduces queerness, it’s implied that she is intending to have that same effect: of scaring, setting off balance, seeming morally wrong to Sherlock’s morally right. She explicitly states that gender doesn’t affect her sexual choices, which would usually be indicative of, perhaps, pansexuality – but it’s done in a way that’s frightening and destabilising both for Sherlock and for the viewer. Queerness is a trump card for her to play, here, another weapon.
Then we have Moriarty. Firstly, he arrives to the tune of I Want to Break Free by Queen – lead singer Freddie Mercury, “self-confessed bi-sexual”/ The joke in the song name is there, it’s funny, but then you pair that reference with what Moriarty says and things become a bit more nasty. There are two snippets for him:
Moriarty [apropos of nothing, speaking out of the blue]: Do you like my boys? This one’s got more stamina, but he’s less caring in the afterglow.
and
Mycroft: You’re a Christmas present. Moriarty: Oh! How do you want me?
In the first instance, the words are being spoken to the head of the prison; in the second, to Mycroft. Both times, knowing Moriarty as we do, we assume that they are meant to frighten – since that’s kind of his whole thing whenever he talks at all.
Both of these villains use queerness to destabilise the “normal”, to take the good guys’ heteronormative worlds and twist them, add an edge of unexpected danger. Queerness is quite clearly written in TFP as something you shouldn’t do, something that is frightening to do, something you can use as a threat, something you can use as a weapon. This is never challenged. There is no positive queer narrative to counteract it. It’s not a bad thing to have a queer villain – but when both villains are explicitly queer and no one else is, that’s queercoding. It’s hugely damaging. When people react negatively to queerness for no reason they can put their finger on – when people tell you “it just makes them feel weird” or “it grosses them out” or “it makes them nervous” – point fingers at this. It’s this that solidifies the connection between queerness and deviance, queerness and dangerous mental imbalance, queerness and moral wrongness. And it sucks.
This makes me want to cry. I missed some of that dialogue (noisy family members) when I watched it, and this is such a clear explanation. I just don’t understand why the writers would do that. I really want to believe the best of them, but this really is inexcusable.
i like that eurus is apparently the explanation for everything? miss me? eurus. affair lady? eurus. culverton smith? eurus. therapist? eurus. a drone somehow flying into 221B with a grenade? eurus. sherlock playing the violin? eurus. sherlock liking dogs? eurus. where the heck is rosie? idk eurus probably knows
Just like….the hilarity of Mycroft’s “brotherly compassion” line in HLV. you didn’t even put your “other one” sister away when she was 5??? you were 12 and she apparently required lifelong institutionalization????
Put her away when she was 5, but she taught Sherlock violin. Put her away when she was 5 but apparently Uncle Rudi only confided in the 12 year old about what was happening. The 12 year old told his parents his sister died, not the adult responsible for her? And apparently no one in your family talks about her, ever, but your colleagues know all about her?