Oh, I agree completely. Someone picks up the bust, the AGRA memory stick is immediately out of the bust. It is quite stupid, right?
Problem is, how else could Ajay put the memory stick in the bust? A memory stick like that is enormous and have you seen how small the hole was in the Six Napoleons? It was enough for a pearl but a memory stick? No.
I usually tend to forgive such gaffes because I don’t see how else anyone could hide a memory stick in such a hurry. I close my eyes and think *suuuuure*.
But let’s forget our suspension of disbelief for a second.
What happened on screen cannot be real. There is absolutely no reason someone would see a memory stick and think ‘oh what a MARVELOUS IDEA! Let’s hide it in the bust anyway! I LOVE treasure hunting!’
So either you take a Doylist approach and say ‘plot convenience! let’s not overthink this’ or you choose the watsonian approach and ‘well… this scene is fake, right? It cannot be real’ and we’re back in EMP.
Anyway, let’s go back to yesterday’s heart vs head conundrum and see where we’re going with this. Irene hid her phone in a safe whose code was her measurements. Her heart was hidden in her body/her chest whose security was quite deadly. So far, so good.
The memory stick/lesser version of the brain was hidden in the bust of a really hated women (in the show) and the defense of said bust was ridiculous.
By showing herself naked to Sherlock, without any disguise, she revealed the safe’s code. The safe is her true self, without any pretense, any disguise.
Similarily, the bust shows Mary’s real self. Past the perfume, the disguise she puts, we finally see her true self.
Speaking of Thatcher. Margaret, like Greta has quite an interesting etymology: it comes from Greek μαργαριτης (margarites) meaning “pearl”. The only real pearl was Thatcher all along -and
Greta Bengtsdotte the most dangerous spy in the world, in other word, Mary- so Mary=Greta=Margaret=Thatcher.
YES!! Again, it TOTALLY works on the metaphorical level! And bonus, it reinforces the connection between “mary” and thatcher, ie, in case anyone hadn’t already picked up on those qualities (homophobia, heteronormativity).
and on a mirroring level, Sherlock/Ajay hides his brain-self in his sociopath facade/”mary”, but then he smashes the facade/bust to reintegrate. That’s not a simple process, hence the “chase to morocco” etc. I think Sherlock is still trying to figure out whether John wants the “real” Sherlock or the facade, and that kind of hiding oneself is a difficult habit to break.
Thank you for the wonderful additions @impossibleleaf@sarahthecoat Tracing a deeper level is indeed much more interesting and plausible than the surface reading – especially regarding that flashdrive business. And let’s not forget this isn’t the first time the contents of a flashdrive loses its meaning from one moment to the next. Just the same happens with the oh so important ‘Bruce Partington Plans’ in TGG. Jim throws them into the pool …. done and forgotten. :))) Flashdrive and brain is an excellent comparison I think. The AGRA flashdrive is hidden inside a ‘head’ after all …. the head of Thatcher=brit.Government=Mycroft=BRAIN …. and according to Mycroft in TAB (therefore Sherlock himself) Mary secretly works for Mycroft … for the BRAIN …. the facade has been created by the BRAIN (on a metaphorical level).
And what an interesting coincidence that the meaning of Margaret is … ‘pearl’. :))))
Not only was Sherlock’s the only vow we’ve seen on the show, but it seems like Sherlock was the only one to do everything in his power to keep the vow he made the day of the wedding.
Mary lied and manipulated John from day one, so she’s right out. And then John had his little text fling, so there he goes.
Sherlock on the other hand, put his life on the line, and was willing to sacrifice everything to keep the vow he made (to John).
Sherlock really IS the best man
Sherlock honestly deserves everything, more so than anyone else, even John.
Like, Sherlock is single handedly the only one trying to do literally everything to make everyone else happy. Consider: everything he did for John even when it was at the expense of himself, everything he did for Mary despite her shooting him (and then not hesitate that she’ll do it again) and then also drug him when he was trying to help her, Sherlock still trying to help eurus despite her killing his childhood best friend and then again trying to kill him and his current best friend or his brother. Everything he’d done was for very selfless reasons, he did it for the sake of the people he cared about no matter how difficult or unfair the situation was against him.
This is why I honestly just wish to see Sherlock be happy, be loved and appreciated and cherished. And having John come back to baker street and assume that role isn’t enough for me. After everything Sherlock has done for John, I honestly think Sherlock deserves much more than just “having John back”. John must apologize to him, take care of him, be protective of him without being selfishly possessive, be loyal and trustworthy to him. Coz Sherlock deserves it all
I fully agree with all of this! Literally all of series 3 was about nothing but Sherlock doing everything in his power to make John happy, literally without limit, up to and including throwing his own life away so that John could be happy with a woman who hadn’t even been honest enough with him to tell him her real name. Sherlock has spent all of his time since the return trying to apologize to John, even though he was literally saving John’s life then, too, and all he gets in return is unfair blame, John going back to Mary, he’s constantly assumed the worst of, gets beaten nearly to death while already near death – AGAIN for the sake of saving John- and an acknowledgement – not even an apology – that Mary’s death was in no way his fault. He deserves so much better.
Don’t get me wrong; I still ship them absolutely. But there are reparations that need making here.
I still don’t understand how on earth John supposedly subconsciously knew Mary was an assassin or had a dangerous life or whatever. I still don’t think he chose her. She chose him because he was her assignment from Moriarty.
There’s some great replies to that thread about John “choosing Mary” and whether it holds up to scrutiny or represents a inherent contradiction in the narrative.
As an aside, for me the Mary arc drives home for me that ACD dispatching Mary was a mark of realizing (even if out of something we might less generously call laziness or a lack of imagination) that he had created such a tight formula with his protagonists that Mary was a disruption that was easier doing away with than having to constantly accommodate.
It was easy for Moffat and Gatiss to characterize this as sexist and then “fix” it. But that remains for me itself not half as cut n dried as one might think.
I’ll not rehash old territory but: Moffat and Gatiss didn’t pick up on a very appealing feature of the stories – some seriously kick ass women clients and their parts in a series of gothic horrors. Who for their time were daily fighting to survive independently in a system built to ensure they didn’t have independence. There are some truly heroic women despite their victimization. COPP remains for me a marvel in this respect – I still feel a thrill of admiration every time she chooses to take the position even though she knows something weird is afoot. She has courage. She is not fearless. But she acts anyway. And she’s not the only one.
Kitty in the illustrious client is another personal favorite. These women feature throughout the short stories – SOLI and SPEC too: you are a woman, you know something is wrong and have reason to fear for your safety or even your life and you choose to walk back into the “lion’s den” despite your fear. For these women the danger of the domestic realm is a key element in the gothic sensibility of the canon.
The women in Mofftiss collective imagination are there all right but to my mind there is a quintessential “Gibson girl” spunk missing that ACD for all his era-conforming faults captures so brilliantly and often with incredible economy.
I remain resolute that they made a massive error in trying to redeem Mary. They didn’t earn it.
And I know this will probably make me a huge outlier but the more time passes the more I find their evolving backstory for Mrs Hudson ridiculous. Their version of her shifts from being a truth teller into something she doesn’t need to be and with all the subtlety of a sledgehammer. The idea that ACD didn’t think Mrs H. had the capacity for bravery is ridiculous- had they not read EMPT? She becomes in BBC Sherlock then a parody. Her best lines are when she is pointing out the emotionally obvious. Why is her ability to care and forgive and always speak her own mind not enough? She’s like a mirror to Norbury. And alongside Mary and Eurus I can’t help but think they really just don’t get something about writing women. (A charge often made about Moffat I have in the past resisted.)
I love the canon because its 2 protagonists are amazing. The stories don’t need more heroes. But they are there. Women bucking against a system. Surviving.
In a contemporary setting so many of the women get pushed into extremes rather than sharing that same basic resilience. Molly in TAB is a shining but perhaps (because it’s set back in ACD’s era) telling exception to the rule. It was a stroke of genius to have her disguise herself as a man to reach her potential.
By having in Eurus their actual “Moriarty” [big bad] be a woman, Mary had then, I presume, in their mind to be a mere decoy villain, along too with Moriarty. (Despite him being such a cleverly drawn character that far exceeds his canon incarnation.)
Had they not created Eurus they could have followed through with Villian!Mary. And I stand by my longstanding pun:
John Watson was literally “sleeping with the enemy” and didn’t know it.
And that is where the perils faced by the canon heroines and the gothic aesthetic of fear become ripe for mining:
His domestic world away from 221b was primed for the deep gothic terror of the canon: you are not safe in the house that circumstances have made your home. You are trapped by circumstance in the place you *should* be safest. That is the scariest thing to Sherlock Holmes of canon. [See his incredible speech in COPP. TLDR: At least in the darkened foggy alleys of London someone might hear you scream.]
And in that “home” you will slowly realize something is wrong. The particular uncanny sensation of “unheimlich” is all through the canon. The veiled “sister” in SHOS or the absolute horrifying terror of DEVI, which is the terror captured in SPEC turned up to ninety.
What a missed opportunity. For John to slowly sense something is wrong but not understand why but separated from Sherlock realize he is isolated. For he and Sherlock to keep secrets from each other. For the audience to know Mary is dangerous and for there to be a cat and mouse game. To make John the Violet Hunter who despite fear walks into danger – a quality they share. THAT was the twist I wanted.
The Empty Hearse appeared it would deliver it and immediately snatched it away.
She was the domestic facade. What an incredibly clever piece of symbolism. But they didn’t follow through. They didn’t let John’s bravery run its course, only his loyalty to her which turns out to apparently not be misplaced at all. Confusing characterization of a man who doesn’t like his wife one minute and lifts her up as he one who taught him who he is is the next aside, why does that feel like a betrayal of canon and its women heroines?
Because in the world of ACD the home you find yourself in can be just as, if not more, scary than meeting a lunatic psychopath in an asylum. What thrills the reader is the idea that you are a prisoner in your own home and don’t realize the windows are locked not to keep out predators but to so as to keep you in until it’s all too late.
They missed one of the most deliciously satisfying threads of the canon. That deep unsettling and incredibly Victorian threat: that the truly ghastly is hidden in something as innocuous as some simple modifications to the ventilation. Or to put it in modern parlance: the call is coming from inside the house.
They had John right there with her and they missed it.
And so too lost is that Villain!Mary could have been meted justice by her own machinations (like being bitten by your own snake. Or mauled by your dog. Or attacked with oil of vitriol. Or trapped by the closing of a heavy stone trap door to a cellar.) What a thoroughly wasted opportunity.
God, you paint such a beautifully chilling picture of a suffocating, perilous chamber drama. This could have been so good if they’d just stuck to what they had set up – and what ACD had provided them with: an intense, intimate triangle. Even Lady Di has said that three make a marriage a bit crowded – so, there’s your suspense and tension. But instead of exploiting this menage a trois, they branched out with Eurus, Moriarty, Sherlock’s back story, Victor… it really got too crowded to keep up the excitement.
Sherlock talking about Howard Garrideb in The Final Problem:
SHERLOCK (quick fire): Howard’s a lifelong drunk. Pallor of his skin, terminal gin blossoms on his red nose … (he zooms in on the man’s face and then lowers his gaze to his hands) … and – terror notwithstanding – a bad case of the DTs. [Delirium tremens.] (x)
The picture of Mary holding a pink elephant mixes two idioms: “the elephant in the room” and “seeing pink elephants.”
The elephant in the room= the obvious problem no-one wants to talk about. We’ve seen this referenced already- the literal “elephant in the room” Sherlock brings up at John’s wedding. We already know the metaphorical meaning is: John and Sherlock are in love with each other.
But, what happens when we combine “the elephant in the room” with the saying “to see pink elephants”, a drunken hallucination?
The elephant in the room now is the fact that the ‘elephant’… is a hallucination.
In Sherlock Series 4, the ‘pink’ elephant in the room is… that the events portrayed are not real.
This is not to say that everything is literally a hallucination, just that the events presented are unreliable. And the fact that John is strongly linked with alcohol, once again strengthens the concept of John as an unreliable narrator. He is the one creating these “pink elephants.”
So – I’ve meant this for a longer meta but simply will never have the time. I googled Rose of the World because it seemed to be called out. Molly mentioning it in English – very deliberately. Rose of the World – It’s a cult. A Russian cult. A Russian cult that reprogrammed people using Mary-style gaslighting- type techniques and browbeating. A Russian cult wherein two semi-famous Russian models commit suicide by jumping off buildings – and it was alleged that neither was particularly suicidal prior to the jump off. I’ll leave you to your deductions.
*Edit: Also the Russian Model was nicknamed “Russian Rapunzel”
Another “Rose of the World” was a1918 film – here’s the synopsis (emphasis mine):
As described in a film magazine,[4] Captain Harry English (Standing) is reported to have been killed during a battle between factions in India and his wife Rosamond (Ferguson) remarries. As time passes Rosamond finds that her love for her deceased husband is greater than her love for the older man that she has married, Sir Arthur Gerardine (Handyside). She goes to live at Harry’s old house and there breaks down and tells her husband the truth. She becomes ill and in her ravings asks for Harry. Harry (the Husband), who was not killed, learns that his wife has remarried and, disguised as an Indian, becomes secretary to Rosamond’s husband. He comes to her at a peak psychological moment and, after the shock wears off, they are reunited.
reblogging for another interesting “Rose of the World” reference.
“becomes a secretary to Rosamond’s husband”…well, secretaries know everything – don’t they?
One of the ways that Sherlock deduces that David still has romantic feelings for Mary is that in all his Facebook pictures of John and Mary, John is, ‘always partly or entirely excluded’. This shows that he wants John, ‘out of the picture’, so to speak.
Then we see director Colm McCarthy’s approach to framing his shots during the best man speech. During Sherlock’s speech, Mary is, ‘always partly or entirely excluded’, in any shot that also includes Sherlock. Janine, a character we’ve only just met, and of much less importance to the proceedings, seems to have plenty of room to fit in shots that exclude Mary.
If excluding half of a couple is a sign that someone wants them to not be a couple, then, here, the show is explicitly telling us that John and Mary are not the right couple. The compositions escalate from merely cutting Mary out to having Sherlock actually physically block her from the audience’s view. We are meant to not see John in relation to Mary but Sherlock. It’s always Sherlock.
Sherlock Fandom Archive 