What will follow is a very long explanation of why I think BBC Sherlock has become fan fiction in every sense of the word, applying a technique called estrangement effect to achieve as well as envision this. It has been happening since S3 – but came into full force in S4 and especially TFP.
Let me state at first: Sherlock Holmes is dead. He died after jumping off Bart’s. That’s the one thing Mofftisson did that no other adaption has dared to do. Not even ACD did describe Holmes dying. But Mofftisson showed us: Sherlock jumped and hit the pavement. We saw it, and it was never explained how he survived. Because he didn’t. What we watch in TEH is altered footage, like in the beginning of TST. Alienated ficitional reality.
But still Sherlock came back. How is this possible? Because Sherlock Holmes never lived, and so could never die; because Sherlock Holmes as a fictional character has long ago crossed the line between ficiton and reality. He exists in both worlds, the ficitonal and ours. Schödinger’s Sherlock, so to speak.
Mofftiss (and Steve Thompson) have adapted Holmes for the 21st century – with all its consequences. They are the first who allow Holmes to die – as it should have been, in Watson’s arms. This is truly new – like it or not.
But why could he survive? Because of the fans. Fans brought Holmes back in 1903 – and they brought him back in S3 (or even MHR). Whereas S1 and S2 might still be somehow canon compliant if modernised, with S3/MHR the show left the realm of ACD and became something else. It became our story. We are the narrators. Therefore, we appear, for example, as Anderson or the Empty Hearse Club, before we, in TAB, leave this concrete narrator position behind to ascend onto yet another narrative level.
Many commented (and lamented) the change from S2 to S3. The show became a romcom! The cases didn’t matter anymore! All those new characters! All true – because the BBC adaption had detached itself from ACD and started to become its own work of art, it’s very own pastiche. That might be self-referential; and perhaps wasn’t even always well made (TFP!) – but I think we should stop applying real life structures and standards to this work of art – because it simply doesn’t work. (And, as every writer, Mofftiss have the right to fuck their own story up).
The audience and fandom struggle with a lot of twists after S2 because making the distinction between canon compliant fictional verisimilitude and the realm of associative fan fic is especially hard to mark with a figure like Holmes – who seems real and yet never was. On the other hand, he is the perfect character to undergo such a narrative transformation.
If this interests you, please continue under the cut.
@isitandwonder this is incredible, thank you so much for writing such a thoughtful meta. For decades and decades, fan-created Sherlock Holmes stories inevitably follow a similar path – as the canon is over a century old, each fan-creation carries baggage accumulated through different time, space, language, and culture. However, Sherlock Holmes as an icon often overpowers the narrative – today, one doesn’t need to ever read a word of Doyle’s story to know who Sherlock Holmes is: a Victorian-era detective in a funny hat. Following that icon, a myth; or, the same narrative with 130 years worth of baggage.
You’re absolutely correct in saying that a Sherlock Holmes fell to his death in TRF. I believe that’s the icon – the one most familiar, the same Sherlock Holmes that fans continue to fall in love with decade after decade. With series 3 and 4, the assembling of a myth, but this one with a consistent undercurrent of dissonance. The thing is, sometimes the medium is part of the message; and the beauty, as well as the downfall of modern visual media, is its ability to deceit in ways the written text or the theatre simply can not. But audiences are complacent because “it’s always been this way.” For better or worse, I think the creators of Sherlock (and this is everyone, not just Mofftiss) might be taking the estrangement effect beyond the narrative – because in shattering the myth of Sherlock Holmes (by making the romance between Holmes and Watson explicit) there’s no escape of it being political, and the only way to create this necessary distance, the audience has to be aware of the medium, the visual media – not only as a tool used to present the narrative but also part of it. For most of series 4, we were explicitly made aware of the medium, and TFP, the shattering climax that everyone noticed, not by the narrative presented in the traditional sense, but through visual narrative assault (for lack of a better phrase). Where we landed was certainly unexpected, but it served very little purpose – the Mary-the-narrator myth did not travel far from the 130 years worth of baggage, the distance created was for… nothing?
And I think this is where I disagree. Yes, you can kill the idea of Sherlock Holmes as the mainstream media/audience know it – first by killing the icon (check), then the myth (not quite) – right now we are one tiny step short, and both my heart and my brain tell me this is an interruption rather than a conclusion. However, at the end of the day, Sherlock is a commercial product, the creators are free to do whatever they like, or necessary. It’d be a shame, though, to have it end this way, don’t you think?
It’s not really a point of emotional investment to me, but it struck me that for all the fan criticism about Molly’s apparent lack of resolution in TFP, the fact is that the show never really showed her moving on. Note, I’m only interested in this from the perspective of characterization continuity; I have no personal interests at play with Molly or her infatuation. If pressed, I’d say I relate to the pining but don’t actually feel that she’s had enough character development for me to be invested. As Ivy wrote recently, there’s only so much you can expect from minor characters in a show focused on the main protagonist and his… significant other, and Molly’s definitely a minor character who did not have an arc. Then again, even John didn’t have an arc, as I’ve said. However, regardless of your *opinion* of Molly still not being over Sherlock, there was actually little enough reason to think she was. That is an example of reading into things and ‘confirmation bias’, much like the divergent interpretations of Mary after HLV, like I referred to earlier.
Basically, I think there’s a fundamental difference between character *continuity* and character *development*. Molly (and every other minor character) has had continuity without development, except (arguably) for Mary, who seems to have some development in TST without the benefit of retaining full character continuity. John and Sherlock are the only two characters on the show who *definitely* show both continuity and development. A lot of people mistake one for the other or assume they always go together. They do not. In fact, there’s also a third level of growth and that’s a development *arc*, which only Sherlock himself has had on the show.
To sum up, we had this set of ‘new and different’ responses from Molly in Series 3:
Molly was quite willing to be Sherlock’s ‘John substitute’ in TEH, and even dressed and tried to take notes like him for Sherlock, but it didn’t really work out. When she realized it wasn’t working and Sherlock kept calling her John, she begged off from dinner and mentioned having a fiance.
She’s still willing to help Sherlock no matter what, even when it comes to weirder and/or less romantic things than helping on cases, like helping with Sherlock’s Stag Night preparations for his best friend. This is a bit of a subjective thing, ‘cause I suppose helping Sherlock with John could be used as proof of a lack of jealousy. She made a face when she saw the Vitruvian Man page of Sherlock’s little John binder, so maybe she also realized he’s gay (but this doesn’t mean she’d now have to get over him, ’cause that’s just a different reason for him to be unavailable as always). Still, Molly had never previously implied Sherlock was gay or into John romantically. Sure, she said he looks ‘sad’ when John can’t see him, but that’s not necessarily romantic. Anyway, no reason to think she helped Sherlock with any small task for any different reasons than the ones established in ASiP, when she got him coffee.
Then we meet her fiance in TSoT, and he’s a Sherlock clone to the point of copying his coat and scarf. Still, he showed himself to be a bit of an idiot, and Molly stabbed him with a fork when he embarrassed her. In other words, she was apparently looking for a smart bloke who looked and dressed like Sherlock.
When we see Molly in HLV, she’s acting tough on Sherlock’s drug relapse and seems angry and disappointed enough to slap him. She definitely feels close to him in a way that’s not shown to be going both ways (that is, Sherlock cares but doesn’t interfere or offer opinions on her life). Molly’s shown taking Sherlock’s behavior personally and including herself and John as the ‘people who care about you’, though this approach clearly doesn’t work on Sherlock, who makes a sarcastic remark. Anyway, she’s certainly more feisty, but not thinking rationally about Sherlock or able to see him as he is, unlike the flash of insight she showed in TRF. If anything, you could say she’s as attached as ever but a bit more bitter or conflicted about it and/or about Sherlock in general, whom she’d clearly idealized. The implication is that she’s angry he’s not living up to her ideals.
Finally, we see Molly in TST, and she’s taking care of Rosie and clearly feeling awkward about delivering such bad news about John, and feeling sorry for Sherlock. She’s not really acting like a close friend, in the sense of trying to *help* Sherlock with his grief and pain somehow, but she’s clearly still emotionally invested and as awkward about it as ever. Then of course we have proof she’s not over her infatuation in TFP.
I realize there a lot of opinions and responses that people have to this, whether it’s happiness or disappointment, but my point is that the one thing it’s *not* is surprising. I also realize that people *were* surprised, but this is mostly due to projection or ‘real life behavior’ assumptions, which rarely apply (particularly on BBC Sherlock, which typically picks the more dramatic over the more realistic response). You may or may not think Molly ‘should have’ been over it by now, or maybe you think it’s great that she isn’t. Either way, I mostly don’t have an issue, although I probably disagree regardless. Essentially, there’s really no reason for characters to do the ‘healthy thing’ when people so often don’t, but on the other hand, there’s nothing cool or special or even romantic to me about endless pining for a person you’re idealizing and can never have *or* grow much closer to unless you stop pining. Regardless, it is what it is, and furthermore it is what it’s been since we were introduced to these characters, more or less.
OK, so that was my understanding of the text as it stands, but I just wanted to add that I understand @jedilock’s critique and comparison to Doctor Who (at least in broad strokes, ’cause I don’t watch Doctor Who). The feel-good ideal is certainly ‘very affirming’, as Sherlock would say. The woman who’d been pining– for the sake of that woman– should grow as a person and realize her own worth, and (essentially) move on with her life. That would be best. Fixating on someone who cannot give you what you want definitely isn’t romantic, admirable or satisfying to watch (except for either people who project onto the character and insert their own happy ending, or people who just… like angst). However, I can excuse and/or dismiss the argument if it’s made on those grounds *alone*. I’m not particularly interested in fiction portraying the healthy and/or best case scenario, nor do I have a problem with all minor characters being fodder for Sherlock’s growth, as Ivy described. Except those aren’t the only grounds for critique by far.
One, there’s the issue that while it’s fine that Molly’s not really that important to the narrative and doesn’t need an arc, her continued fixation is simply… hard for many viewers to swallow because it doesn’t ring true. Even if a character doesn’t get an arc, their responses *do* have to change and develop with time to some degree, and we *have* seen some movement in Series 3 (even if my original post clearly shows that it’s easy to overstate the nature and the degree of Molly’s development). As I said, her motivations didn’t *change* in any fundamental way. However, she was not completely divorced from the effects of time, either. So it’s easy to feel that a real person (who is not a minor character created for a certain purpose) would not feel as Molly feels, not to the degree and *intensity* we see in TFP, most of which was there purely for the drama. That sort of forced drama is definitely a concern in terms of writing.
Two, there’s the use of a woman to further a man’s emotional growth and give him cathartic suffering, to the detriment of that female herself, which is definitely problematic. This has been a theme with Molly, Irene and even Mary in BBC Sherlock, as @delurkingdetective has discussed. That is probably excusable with Molly or even the category of ‘minor characters’ in general, but definitely worth critiquing when it’s actually an example of a trend with the treatment of women specifically in Moffat’s writing.
The larger issue is primarily a certain laziness, a reliance on tropes and reusing old, comfortable characterizations. This isn’t to say that tropes are *bad*, really… but used carelessly, they may confuse the audience and mess up the characterization of the protagonist (which is presumably not what anyone wants). One example is obviously all the extensive usage of romantic tropes in Sherlock, which certainly helped give some of us the impression the show’s structure meant to follow through on those signals. Perhaps even *more* problematically, the writing reuses some of Sherlock’s *own* mistakes and blind spots for plot convenience in ways that don’t entirely make sense in context. It’s not just *Molly* who keeps making her old mistake, over and over again, in ways that aren’t fully believable. The bigger issue is something like Sherlock’s behavior with Norbury in TST, as @delurkingdetective described. To have Sherlock trust that Norbury won’t or couldn’t kill him after being in a similar situation with Mary, *and* going on to be super-predictive detective again in TLD might explain why *John* lost faith in him, but it could easily justify the *viewer* losing faith in the show, as well. He wasn’t emotionally compromised with Norbury the way he was with Mary, so there’s no real excuse for his arrogance overriding his ability to predict and understand murder and murderers except pure plot necessity.
In essence: Mary had to die. Molly had to be in love. Sherlock had to suffer. And that is simply not good enough writing.
2nd- blink and you miss it. Sherlock is on the bridge after he says, “Its not who will miss it.”
Then we get this shot of the London Aquarium (excuse the status bar please)
3rd gunshot
4th- Euros
5th- right after Euros, right before the credits
Did you notice anything different about two of those guns?
#2 and #4 are the same. There is an extra piece of metal at the bottom under the barrel opening. #1,#3,#5 are all the same.
We’ve also got Euros wearing this when she shoots John (#2 ):
But the person with the other gun in shots #1, #3, & #5 is wearing a dark long sleeve shirt.
It’s not Norbury because she has a white shirt under her jacket cuff and the trigger of the gun is different.
Its not Mary either, because she is left handed and wearing gloves when she shot Sherlock:
However, there is someone who was wearing a black jacket and made a shot that looked similar to this
(if someone can get a shot without the status bar id be so grateful and would link your blog here. I know you cant see his sleeve but I promise its all black)
According to Mofftiss, we’re about to get the story they’ve been telling us from the beginning. I think we’re all in for quite a ride.
Let us have a look at how Mycroft addresses John because there is an interesting development over the episodes, one may even call it an arc. I checked with @callie-ariane‘s transcripts and found this. (N/A = not applicable, Mycroft does not meet John or does not address him by name):
ASiP – Doctor Watson
TBB – N/A
TGG – John
ASiB – John calling Mycroft by his first name, so we can assume it is mutual
THoB – N/A
TRF – John
TEH – John (when talking to Sherlock)
TSoT – N/A
HLV – John calling Mycroft by his first name, so we can assume it is mutual
TAB – Doctor Watson in BOTH modern and Victorian scenes
TST – N/A
TLD – N/A
TFP – Doctor Watson
They start with the formal address when they first meet in ASiP, change over to a first name basis some time between ASiP and TGG, and remain like this until some time after Mycroft’s drugs bust in HLV.
From TAB onwards Mycroft addresses John as Doctor Watson until the end of TFP. This cannot be explained by it being Victorian since in the last modern scene we get Mycroft saying: “Doctor Watson? Look after him …. please?”
The most conspicuous S4 episode in this regard is TFP where Mycroft throughout addresses John as Doctor Watson, even when they are alone.
I can think of three possible explanations so far:
sloppy and inconsistent writing
a conflict/development between Mycroft and John unknown to the viewer
EMP/dream
The switch takes place somewhere between the 221b drugs bust in HLV and TAB which equals the period of time in which a start of EMP is often assumed. I would love to hear your thoughts.
Guess who’s ascended to a whole new layer of confusion? It’s me.
At first I was absolutely convinced of EMP due to the fact that most of season four appears to be partially/wholly constructed. However, some scenes are impossible. Which makes me wonder if we are witnessing a collaborative retelling of events the perspectives of Sherlock, John, and Mycroft. An alibi. Or perhaps a version of John’s blog. Also, maybe there are drugs involved. It’s all very strange.
NOTE: I try to provide explanations for these scenes, however, the main thing is having them all laid out in a list. Whenever I’m coming up with theories these are always the moments I end up coming back to.
… to John throwing the AGRA data stick in the fire at Christmas — an event he was never present for because he wasn’t even in the room; he was outside eating mince pies with Wiggins (or something.)
(Left: HLV. Right: Sherlock’s TST flashback).
Explanation 1: Sherlock constructed the Holmes family Christmas scene where John forgives Mary in his mind palace as an alternate reality/test scenario. Explanation 2: John and Sherlock have constructed this memory together as part of an alibi. Explanation 3: Although The Six Thatchers seems deeply rooted in Sherlock’s POV, it’s actually filtered through John’s. Explanation 4: Mary plants this scene in Sherlock’s memory through use of HOUND/TD-12. Explanation 5: ???
Considering the other weird POV scenes in S4/HLV I’m still not sure where I stand on this. But within TST when Sherlock has this flashback the lighting flickers exactly like it does when Mary is in Sherlock’s hospital room and says:
“You don’t tell John. Look at me and tell me you’re not going to tell him.”
Which leads me to believe that Explanation 4 may be correct and Mary has convinced Sherlock that John forgives her through drugging him with “TD-12″/a derivative of HOUND that renders the recipient extremely suggestible.
2) Sherlock has a flashback in TLD …
… after seeing Faith!Eurus, to John walking off into the night with his cane — an event he was never present for because he was off dumpster diving for the pink suitcase. This scene is odd because John is seen from behind, from an outsider’s POV. In the next shot John gets the phone-booth call from Mycroft, who has been watching him through security cameras.
(Left: Mycroft watching John in ASiP. Right: Sherlock’s TLD flashback)
Explanation 1: This scene is from John’s POV and he’s imagining how he used to be before Sherlock from an outside perspective. In a flashback from Sherlock’s perspective. (?) Explanation 2: TLD has been filtered through Mycroft’s perspective as well and he’s working collaboratively to devise an alibi for John and Sherlock. Explanation 3: Sherlock had a flashback to something he didn’t see because it represent’s John in ASiP generally and it isn’t supposed to matter about where the shot is from itself. Explanation 4: Sherlock was secretly watching John leave somehow, hiding in an alleyway. Explanation 5: Season 4 is John’s blog/Sherlock collaborating with John in writing the blog. Explanation 6: ???
At the moment I’m quite interested in Explanation 2, just because it has relevant metaphorical implications considering how Mycroft represents the writers/writers of Holmes adaptations in general.
But to be honest, at this point I’m not sure how lenient this show is with it’s logic/suspension of belief. Explanation 3 does seem possible. It could be that the more simple answer is correct and that this really is Sherlock’s flashback.
Especially considering the fact that there aren’t that many good shots of John walking alone with the cane in ASiP that would fit the tone of this scene. This is a moment in which John feels isolated/alone, so it could just be representational.
Explanation 5 is also pretty interesting, considering how we haven’t seen the blog updating this season while it’s had a lot of attention drawn to it. It could be that the show has become the blog or some other variation of this.
3) “He’s better than a great man …”
In one of the final scenes of TFP Lestrade says that Sherlock isn’t merely a great man, “he’s a good one”, which references what Lestrade told John in ASiP when they first met. A conversation Sherlock wasn’t present for. He was in the cab with Jefferson Hope.
(Left: ASiP scene with only John present. Right: TFP scene)
Explanation 1: TFP is Sherlock’s recurring dream from TST and/or he is unconscious/in a coma after overdosing. Lestrade/John says this at his bedside, the real-world dialogue bleeding into his dream. Explanation 2: Sherlock and John are collaborating by formulating an alibi which involves explaining Sherlock’s dream and they add this line in. (?) Explanation 3: TFP is from John’s perspective and Sherlock explained to him that Moriarty’s “final problem” was to kill him. Also the TAB waterfall scene was beamed into his brain somehow. (?) Explanation 4: It’s in-universe fanfiction/a movie/a TV series about Sherlock and John’s lives. Explanation 5: Sherlock’s dream is being recounted on the blog for whatever reason. Explanation 6: Sherlock and John are coming up with a ridiculous explanation of events on the blog as part of an alibi, because they think the mainstream audience will think it’s the truth. Explanation 7: ???
4) “That wasn’tthe final problem.”
In TFP Moriarty introduces the episode with: “Hi! I’m Jim Moriarty. Welcome to the Final Problem!” John has never heard Moriarty say the phrase “the final problem” before. Only Sherlock hears this multiple times during Reichenbach — once at 221B over tea, again in the story of Sir Boast-A-Lot, and again on the rooftop of St Bart’s.
(Left: TRF with only Sherlock present. Right: TFP)
“Deep water, Sherlock, all your life, in your dreams. Deep waters …”
While Sherlock has flashbacks to his “past” we get a shot of the waterfall scene from TAB. If TFP were John’s dream, he would be unable to form a perfect visual recreation of a scene that occurred within Sherlock’s mind palace.
However, within TFP we also get these:
(Left: MHR, only John and Lestrade present. Right: TFP)
(Left: ASiP, only Sherlock. Right: ASiP, only John) (Both are shown during Mary’s final TFP speech)
(See #3) and additionally: Explanation 1: TFP is from Sherlock’s perspective and the ending references to ASiP and MHR are metaphorical/parallels. Explanation 2: TFP is from Sherlock’s perspective and he is telling it to John / it is being retold by John somewhere like the blog. Explanation 3: TFP is a fan-theory. Like Anderson’s in TEH or a movie/tv series/book/fanfic.
5) TAB is definitely from Sherlock’s POV …
… because, again, narratively it wouldn’t make much sense any other way. A concrete link is that Moriarty tells Sherlock “Because it’s not the fall that kills you, Sherlock. Of all people, you should know that. It’s not the fall. It’s never the fall. It’s the landing” in reference to “I want to solve problems… our problem. The Final Problem. It’s gonna start very soon, Sherlock… the Fall. But don’t worry: falling’s just like flying, except there’s a more permanent destination” from TRF as well as “I-O-U a fall” — conversations John was not present for.
(Left: TRF. Right: TAB)
6) Gunshot flashbacks.
Within TLD both Sherlock and John have flashbacks to gunshots that look exactly the same. Which makes me wonder what the exact logic of this show is. Can two characters have the same memory of a gun going off? We already know that within this episode Sherlock has a flashback to something it’s likely that only Mycroft has seen — so perhaps these gunshots are also metaphorical, or part of a retelling of events by Mycroft/John/Sherlock?
Gun #1: Norbury’s gun. (Or Mary’s. They’re the same model.) Gun #2: Likely John’s gun. Appears after “Taking your own life” speech to Faith!Eurus.
The fact that when Sherlock is on the bridge with hallucination!Faith!Eurus, the shot of the smoking gun is superimposed over him means that Sherlock is the one who got shot at in this memory.
This matches up with the flashback. Ungloved, right handed, with a Walther PPK without a silencer. (As opposed to gloved, left handed, with a silenced Walther PPK like Mary in CAM tower.)
But TST is presented so it seems like John did not see Norbury’s gun go off at the aquarium.
Therefore, either: a) John was there to see the gun go off and he, Mycroft, and possibly Sherlock are crafting an alibi. b) The whole of TLD is from Sherlock’s perspective, including John thinking about the smoking gun, and he subconsciously knows that John was present to see it be fired in TST but his memory manipulated through drugs. c) The whole of TLD is from Sherlock’s perspective, and he imagines John dreaming about the gun going off metaphorically. d) John’s dreaming of the smoking gun is from his POV and the shot is completely metaphorical.
Summary of Main Points:
– Sherlock has a flashback in TST to Christmas HLV. Therefore the burning AGRA data stick scene is fabricated, the flashback is metaphorical, or TST has been filtered through John’s POV.
– The lighting in Sherock’s TST flashback matches the lighting when Mary snuck into Sherlock’s hospital room in HLV. (Possibly indicating that Mary has drugged Sherlock with HOUND/TD-12 at least once to manipulate his memories.)
– Sherlock has a flashback in TLD to John with his cane. This could be metaphorical, an indicator that TLD is filtered through Mycroft’s POV as part of an alibi, or an indicator that TLD is filtered through John’s POV.
– John and Sherlock both have the same flashbacks to gunshots. This could be metaphorical, or an indicator that TLD is filtered through multiple POVs.
– TAB is definitely from Sherlock’s POV.(Thank God for this one concrete episode.)
– TFP has reference to TAB, meaning it has to be primarily based in Sherlock’s POV. There are dialogue references back to ASiP, meaning that eitherSherlock is unconscious and in a coma with Lestrade’s words filtering in, or that TFP is breaking the fourth wall and is an in-universe fanfic/book/movie that Sherlock has somehow influenced along with John — or TFP is a collaboration between Sherlock and John on the blog.
LEONARD: You know I could arrest you? VELMA: What for? LEONARD: Wearing a dress like that. VELMA: Would you like me to take it off? LEONARD: Then I’d really have to press charges. VELMA: Press away.
VELMA (offscreen): Isn’t that how they got started? LEONARD (offscreen, with Mycroft mouthing along): Who? VELMA (offscreen): Adam and Eve. LEONARD (offscreen, with Mycroft mouthing along): Oh, them. VELMA (offscreen): And that turned out okay. LEONARD (offscreen): You think so?
VELMA: Now, what was all that about arresting me? (She flicks the ash from her cigarette onto the floor beside her. Mycroft smiles.) LEONARD (offscreen): Well, maybe not arresting you. VELMA (offscreen): No? LEONARD (on the footage): I could just keep you under close watch.
VELMA: Very close? LEONARD (offscreen): Uh-huh.
VELMA (offscreen): Shame. I was looking forward to putting myself into the hands of the authorities. LEONARD: You were? VELMA: Fingerprinting … (Turning back, Mycroft reaches over and stubs out a lit cigarette in an ashtray.) VELMA (offscreen): … being searched … (Mycroft turns to the screen.) VELMA: … thoroughly.
It’s the little things that make John’s mind bungalow so freaking good.
Velma (Wilhelmina, William) and Leonard (brave lion, my GOODNESS) are delicious together.
Leonard flirts like John does: he comes on clearly enough, but backs down again to allow room for a “no.” (“Well, maybe not arresting you…I could just keep you under close watch.”)
Velma smokes. Nice touch? Nice touch.
John realises that Sherlock wants him: Velma wants to put herself in authoritative hands; Velma wants to be searched thoroughly; Leonard is pleasantly surprised.
I LOVE THIS.
The Final Problem isn’t about sex. John’s figured out that it won’t be a barrier. It’s about whether he can trust Sherlock. It’s about love.
And what about voyeur Mycroft? Well, he’s been watching them from the start, hasn’t he? Bit embarrassing, that. Probably has cameras in 221B. Probably enjoys himself a bit too much.
It’s John’s idea to disrupt the movie. It’s okay for Mycroft to keep an eye on Sherlock as family, but that’s all. The rest is private.
Delayed by a week because I was on my holidays, so some of this covers
familiar ground, but not all of it. If you really don’t want your squee harshed
this post is not for you, but I do have some positive things to say.
Complain for three days then settle down to making the most of it: it is
the way of fandom. Except we may just need three weeks this time. Or long
enough for S4 to settle into place as just part of the Sherlock whole rather
than the dominant feature of the landscape
Quotations are courtesy of ariane devere’s wonderful transcripts.
So yeah, if anyone ever wondered why I ❤ pennypaperbrain… Read this and be illuminated. Regardless of whether or not you agree with the points she makes, it is a delightful read.
“‘Good luck,’ says Sherlock, and lurches bizarrely out of character by adding ‘boys’, lest we forget that maleness is a vital qualification for being human as opposed to the void incarnate.”
I have been waiting for this and it’s here! Amazing analysis, amazing writing.
There is something deliciously satisfying when all of the smart people you follow are in agreement with something. Because, yeah. I did catch that “boys” silliness and the oddness of it stuck with me even as I’m happily forgetting a lot of details that were in that ep.
Thanks for this:
What Sherlock’s showing here – and this so often is how the show gets to into our hearts, or at least into mine – is a traditionally female quality, in this case primarily a maternal one. How many women absorb monstrous behaviour from one family member while protecting others, in order to keep the family together or in order to try to help that person because no one else can? And how often does it involve the kind of catastrophic destruction of self-esteem that Sherlock seems to have undergone to get him to the point where he doesn’t lash out when he realises that Euros killed his best friend? It’s not healthy but it’s relatable, and relatable primarily to women;
It helped me get a better understanding of why certain things about this season have upset me so deeply.
Hi fam. I want to talk about Sherlock soundtrack from S4. I finally got my hands on the soundtrack and I’m shook. If I can do anything “meta,” this is it. Music is my division…
I have to talk about Eurus and John. Here are my two large points of concentration, followed by the musical evidence:
1. According to the music – all four personas that Sian Brooke plays (E, RedDress!Faith, Therapist, Sister Edgelord) except Faith have the “Eurus” theme, either in entirety or in bits. This is fucky™ because Faith is also the most suspicious one, as she’s associated with TD-12 and also has no trace of Eurus theme in the background. Who the fuck is she? Faith, instead, has a new theme during her hangout with Sherlock, and this is musically unusual and irregular. This has to be intentional. 2. Something terrible has happened to our John. He is not well, perhaps on the brink of death, as most of us are worried. And I’m afraid TFP is really the near-death shit that John is hallucinating.
Musical evidence: (interrupted by some random spewing of thoughts) – all track names are italicised!
(FYI I AM CRYING FRESH TEARS SO FORGIVE ME IF I AM REPEATING THE OBVIOUS or someone had already pointed all this out.)
Listen to “Who you really are” from TFP if you’re not sure what “Eurus” theme is. The first time we hear this shit is VERY early in TST, in major key, from the track called “59 missed calls.” The EURUS theme in major key. Fuck. It’s in the first bus scene with John and E.
You know where else the Eurus theme is played? “Cheating.” That’s right, the second bus scene when John’s all “I’m not free, can’t do this shit with you.” At the end of this track, the pitch pattern of “Eurus" is clear. BUT THIS TIME in minor key (WHY??), though it’s supposed to be the same girl. God I hate this show
“Gunshot” (Mary’s death) has John’s Theme in it, but every time a chord plays it’s accompanied by a note that is half step lower. Like John is faltering, breaking down. This hurts.
The soundtracks from the scenes in TLD where Faith Smith is in don’t have the Eurus theme. She seems to have her own separate theme. If this Faith has indeed had chips with Sherlock AND is John’s therapist AND is E, she’s supposed to have the Eurus theme. (Sidenote, Sherlock actually sees Culverton and Faith’s photograph, which clearly shows the Morgue!Faith, not RedDress!Faith- but it’s just odd that he cannot tell that they’re different people even though he’s apparently a human weight scale even when he’s high)
I AM SCREAMING because “Anyone,” as in “I need to kill someone- who? – anyone,” HAS JOHN’S THEME HIDDEN, AUDIBLE BUT IT’S PURPOSEFULLY HIDDEN UNDERNEATH THE ORCHESTRA. WITH THE FOOTAGE OF JOHN’S FLAT. THIS IS A FORESHADOWING OF JOHN GETTING HURT BADLY I THINK. (however, still no Eurus theme)
Also, end me because the track called “Favourite Room” has John’s theme spread out in augmentation and it sounds like a fading heartbeat. Uh oh.
THIS PART IS FUCKY AF. “No Charges” in TLD also has the Eurus theme spread out. But guess where this music is played? This is when Lestrade and John watch the video in which Culverton Smith is “pressing no charges” and we see a footage of John starting to pin Sherlock to the wall. THE EURUS THEME. What the actual hell is this? Why use it here and not for Faith Smith while she was with Sherlock? ???????????
(crack theory: is the Eurus Theme actually “TD 12″ theme? Is that why every time we hear this theme involved, shit gets fucky?? Is that why Sherlock doesn’t hear the Eurus theme because he’s already high on other types of drugs? Is that why the entire TFP is laden with the Eurus theme? I’m so tired I’m just going to leave these questions here)
“In the Tower,” of course, has a blatant Eurus theme when the therapist turns out to be ~none other than Eurus.~ Also John’s theme in ~shocked~ pitches of high strings. #shook
TFP. Literally the entire soundtrack set is a variation of the Eurus theme and not much else (other than occasional Sherlock and John themes), which is worth noting. We immediately hear Eurus from “She was Different,” continuing in “3 suspects,” “The Hall,” “I had no one,” “Open your eyes,” etc. …ALL THE WAY through the end. It’s as if they wrote this theme first and then used it strategically throughout the whole S4, but TFP is (in musical terms) theme and variations, instead of having multiple themes.
Excuse mE? “Pick Up” is the track during Molly’s phone call, but then as soon as Molly says “I love you” and the tension is resolved… why…are.. they.. using OBVIOUS snippets of the TLD HUG™ motif???????????? SUPER BLATANT that this is MEANT. FOR. JOHN. I REPEAT. THIS WHOLE SCENE IS MEANT FOR JOHN. THE COFFIN WAS MEANT FOR JOHN, “I LOVE YOU” WAS MEANT FOR JOHN. OH MY GOD. ok sorry that was obvious even without the music
“Bones” is John’s well scene and, as you can expect, John’s theme is extremely subtle and weak. You can barely hear it. Another supporting evidence for John’s near-death theory.
UM??? “OPEN YOUR EYES” on screen was meant for Eurus but WHY AM I HEARING JOHN’S THEME? I MEAN I KNOW HE’S IN THE WELL BUT DOESN’T THIS MEAN THAT JOHN IS THE ONE WHO’S SUPPOSED TO OPEN HIS EYES like @marcespot‘s amazing videos?!?!?!?1
I’m so tired that I cannot go on right now. BUT LORD are we in trouble.
John agrees.
There has to be an explanation for this.
Tagging some of my favorite bloggers! (sorry if I missed you)
I’m still not over how disjointed The Final Problem is… it’s all woosh, we’re at Mycroft’s house, woosh, 221B, woosh, and now a boat!, woosh, Sherrinford… just as the explosion faded into the ship scene with no explanation, my mum was all ‘oh, I get it now. it’s a dream’ just on the first watch… you’re meant to feel disorientated. Like a dream that doesn’t make sense but you’re still dreaming, so you just go with the flow…
And that’s not even to mention us opening with the little girl saying “Everyone’s asleep” on the plane and begging them all to “wake up!” Just like how you end a nightmare…
a clip from Inception, which is something Moffat’s borrowed before. Towards the end, he talks about how you don’t realize things are missing – like getting from one place to another. now tell me, do any of the main characters in The Final Problem actually travel from place to place? Or do they jump?
🙌🙌🙌
@peggymarsh seriously, thanks so much for linking this video! ❤
like: “Let me ask you a question: you never really remember the beginning of a dream, do you? You always wind up right in the middle of what’s going on. […] So, how did we end up here? […] Think about it, how did you get here? Where are you right now?”
Where is Mycroft’s house? How did John and Sherlock travel there? Where did they come from? If The Final Problem was real, do you think they’d waste the opportunity of showing John and Sherlock’s reaction to 221B burning, hype up how hard it is to break into Sherrinford, show John, Sherlock and Mycroft forming a plan? But no, we just end up there. We have no idea where we really are. And it’s not strange to them because someone’s not woken up yet.
And it is emphasised by ending TLD in such a climactic cliffhanger, which is barely aknowledged in such a flippant and absurd way at the begginging of TFP, because nah, tranquilizer! They’ve deliberatedly broken their pattern. Think about it:
TGG′s cliffhanger: the pool –> ASiB picks up right from there. TRF′s cliffhanger: the fall –> TEH picks up right from there. HLV′s cliffhanger: the tarmac –> TAB picks up right from there. TLD’s cliffhanger: garridebs –> TFP is a theatre of the absurd.
I think TAB is the best example for this, because it sets a precedent for how they deal with an episode set inside a character’s mind. Sherlock actually does wake up from his dream eventually, and we realize we were on the tarmac. Whereas John still has’t woken up yet.
BBC Sherlock has a lot of taxi scenes, people hailing taxis, getting in and out of taxis, having conversations while inside taxis, but TFP has none. None. Taxis pass unnoticed wherever they go, hunt in the middle of crowds, we’re supposed to notice when they’re not even there anymore.
There’s been a lot of bantering about how it could be possible that Sherlock didn’t notice there was no glass in Eurus’ cell, so I thought I’d have to try to explain this fact to you.
Have you ever been really stressed? Do you know what happens to your brain when you are confronted with a really stressful situation?
Your cognitive abilities shrink, your vision field is limited to the point in which you can get your vision tunneled.
All your senses can become tunneled when you are stressed. For vision, it means your visual attention can be focused on one small geographic area of an emergency scene or one task being performed at a scene and you miss seeing things in your periphery.
When you are suffering from tunneled senses your situational awareness is vulnerable because you are likely to miss important clues and cues.
No wonder, even for such an observant person as Sherlock, that in those extremely stressful circumcstances – seeing his long forgotten, psychopatic sister, after he heard (and ignored) “vatican cameos” from John, he lost his usual abilities to see details, he was doing his best but his it was his humanity, normal physiological and emotional reactions that didn’t allow him to use his brain to its fullest, as usual.
I am really not surprised Sherlock didn’t see there was nothing to see.
Sherlock Fandom Archive 