Anonymous said to inevitably-johnlocked: Can you give me some good sources on how to convert the nonbelievers to the cause. Victorian and BBC
Anonymous said to inevitably-johnlocked: I need some resources to convert the masses to the good way of johnlock. Please help. TIME IS OF THE ESSENCE!!
Well, this seems to be a popular topic! I got the first ask and took my time answering it, and then these second two came in over the last two days, so rather than repeat links, I’m going to just put them all in one post!
So Nonny #2 and 3, for BBC Sherlock, I’ve actually done a LOT of posts about this already (obviously) so I’ll direct you to the following posts about it:
And because I think it’s still relevant, even if S4 isn’t, I have a TJLC Beginner’s Guide, which went around quite a lot pre-S4 to help introduce new people to the fandom. Please note that a lot of the links may be broken due to people leaving the fandom. Updates to the list can be found on my blog’s header bar(you have to go directly to my blog) under “new to TJLC / Johnlock?”. The most recent one is here.
Sherlock becomes a weird, crazy version of his former self and John beats him to a bloody pulp out of resentment. And Sherlock lets him! Then, Greg asks John if they should have seen it coming. “It” being Sherlock’s spiral out of control. John says “we did see it coming” but they didn’t care to heed the warning signs because back then it was “fun” to watch Sherlock in distress and reach farther and farther away from who they thought he was. Greg knows about Magnussen somehow, which doesn’t fit the story at all, so that stands out as a red flag. They didn’t need to include that line about Magnussen, the audience still would have made the inference. Then John blatantly hears Smith wants to take Sherlock to his “favorite room”, which he KNOWS is the morgue, yet he IGNORES THAT (“What the fuck is that about” you say? I’ll tell you in a bit). Smith used subtext to tell the world he was going to kill Sherlock Holmes and EVERYONE in the audience understood but John “Pretty Damn Smart” Watson did not. How???
John Watson stands for something larger here. He is the global audience, he is “people”, just like he has been through every other episode in this show. Seriously, take the word “people” out of every line in BBC Sherlock and replace it with “John Watson”.
“What do people have in their ordinary lives?”
“Do people like me?”
“People want to know you’re human.”
BBC Sherlock turned into a weird, crazy version of its former self and the audience beat it to a bloody pulp out of resentment. And the cast and crew let them! The audience wonders if they should have seen it coming. They realize they should have, that BBC Sherlock started to diverge at the end of His Last Vow but nobody made a fuss because back then it was fun! However, the subtext of what’s happening is staring them directly in the face, they are being told directly what’s happening, that BBC Sherlock is about to be murdered and the audience DOESN’T NOTICE. The audience doesn’t care anymore. What they once loved is gone, what they expected to come never came, the show has spiraled out of control, and they’re leaving. Forever.
But BBC Sherlock knew that. They knew that weeks ahead of time. They counted on losing their audience. They can’t save the audience that desperately needs it, they need to put themselves in harms way and watch what happens. On the show, Sherlock knows John won’t return on his own choosing. Same with this. It’ll take more footage from a seemingly deceased person/franchise to revive the audience’s trust in BBC Sherlock. The show knows its audience has abandoned it.
“It’s not a trick, it’s a plan.” – a plan Sherlock can’t tell John because he won’t like it.
Sherlock didn’t fake the drugs, he actually took them. BBC Sherlock actually sacrificed itself. The audience abandoned it at the final hour and that’s been accounted for. Subtext was used and ignored.
Series 4 is a commentary. The characters are not *just* characters anymore. When Sherlock can see into the future and know how his friends are going to act, when Sherlock throws himself into harm’s way even though he knows his friends are going to abandon him, he completes his mission anyway because it’s the right thing to do. BBC Sherlock is doing the exact same thing and they tried desperately to show the audience ahead of time that they aren’t wrong about this and that we should still trust them. They knew it wouldn’t work. And that’s okay.
The audience will come rushing back once the extra DVD tells them to, and BBC Sherlock will be waiting there. We’ll call it names and be mad that they were clever. BBC Sherlock will be like “yeah, we’re monsters, but you love us” and we’ll be frustrated but we’ll get over it.
And to think ALL of this hassle could have been avoided if John Watson understood Smith’s “favorite room” subtext.
So far I haven’t seen anyone analyse the deduction Sherlock makes about the unemployed fisherman and his mother in THoB – or rather I have seen a few posts here and there, but they didn’t interpret it the way I would. A lot of these interpretations read this dinner scene at the inn as Sherlock metaphorically meeting his own mother (or John meeting his, for that matter.) Personally, I would disagree with both those readings and would propose a different interpretation that I think (I hope) hasn’t been done before.
(Please correct me if I’m wrong. This fandom is so huge that it’s perfectly possible that someone has done this before, and I just missed it.)
Now why is the unemployed fisherman important? And what does this have to do with dogs? (Because this scene is actually a big deal for all things dog-related that I’m trying to take a look at in this ‘Follow the dog’ meta series…)
When I first watched this scene, I, too, thought the fisherman might mirror John (because of the jumper) and wondered who the mother sitting across from him might represent. Since then, however, I have come to realise that we have to do something else to understand this scene: We have to look at this in exactly the same way @loudest-subtext-in-tv looked at the hiker-and-the-backfiring-car deduction in ASiB:
The point I will be trying to make is that both the unemployed fisherman and his mother represent John. They represent two aspects of John, which is important since John’s sexuality is depicted as having a dual nature throughout the show.
I propose that the unemployed fisherman and his mother together represent John’s bisexuality, with the fisherman representing John’s homosexual side and the mother representing his heterosexual side.
We already know that Irene is Sherlock’s sexuality from ASiB. One episode later, we get to meet John’s in the form of the fisherman and his mother.
So, let’s take a look at these two characters representing John’s bisexuality:
1) The unemployed fisherman
It’s very obvious that the fisherman mirrors John: Both the ugly jumper (a John reference if there ever was one), the fact that it’s a Christmas jumper (which takes us back to the Christmas scenes in ASiB where John wore a jumper like that) and the fisherman’s unemployment (John referred to his unemployment in TGG) are clear indicators that this all is about John. And we can add the fisherman’s poverty (Sherlock points out his worn cuffs and old shoes) to that list since we saw that John, too, sometimes struggles to make ends meet (TBB).
All of these facts about the fisherman have more than just a literal meaning, though. They have a symbolic meaning, too.
Why was the ‘hound’ of the ACD!canon story title turned into the plural ‘hounds’ in the title of the episode THoB?
I’ve seen a few explanations for this change (cf. this comment by @raggedyblue (and @ebaeschnbliah) under a post of mine) according to which the two dogs represent John and Sherlock, the two loyal companions in love with each other. Personally, I don’t think this is the case. I think there’s a different reason for the use of the plural ‘hounds’ in the title. (Although with a multilayered show like ‘Sherlock’, who knows…Both explanations could be true at the same time. Mine doesn’t have to be the only accurate one.:) I’m just tossing a few ideas around here.)
So, why this change from ‘Hound’ >> to ‘Hounds’. Why is there a plural? And why are we shown two dogs (not one!) behind Speedy’s shop window at the beginning of THoB? What do these two dogs represent? Why is it important that there are two of them?
Remember what Sherlock tells us (and himself) at the beginning of TAB?
To solve a case, one must first solve another, a much older case.
@ebaeschnbliah once pointed out to me that what Sherlock is talking about in TAB is more than just the connection between the Moriarty case (new case) and the Emelia Ricoletti case (old case).
She pointed out, accurately, I think, that subtextually the new case Sherlock has on his plate is the How-can-I-be-in-a-(gay)-relationship-with-John case, while the older case is the What-happened-to-me-in-my-past case. The new case is Sherlock’s homosexuality, his love for another man (John) and the question of how they can both declare their love for each other and be together. The old case is Sherlock himself; the repressed memories from his past. It’s whatever trauma was buried in his past (possibly his childhood).
These two cases that Sherlock mentions in TAB, while connected, are still essentially two separate cases. To solve one, you must first (!) solve the other (older) one.
So, there is a strong connection between the two cases, but they have to be addressed separately. In other words, if Sherlock just tries to solve the new case by declaring his love for John, and doesn’t deal with his own past, it won’t do. He won’t be able to solve that new case if he just ignores the trauma of his past. He has to dig up that shit first. He has to actually deal with it.
Two cases: Sherlock’s homosexuality in the here and now. And Sherlock’s trauma in the past.
These two cases are actually the core of the entire show. They are what it’s all about. These two cases have to be solved.
So, what if these two cases (the new one and the old one) are represented by the two ‘hounds’ in the title of THoB?
Let me explain:
I think it’s crucial for the understanding of THoB to keep in mind that there are actually two (!) dogs in the episode itself, not just one:
There’s the monstrous dog that everyone is afraid of (and that later turns out to be imaginary and, most importantly, induced by a hallucinogenic gas).
And there’s the actual, real dog that belongs to the (gay) inn keepers.
So, two dogs, yes?
And while these two dogs are connected in many ways, they are essentially two separate entities in the episode’s subtext.
Now, what do these two dogs represent? And why is this so important for John and Sherlock?
(More about Churchill, dogs and cases under the cut…)
I promise a full meta on The Valley of Fear eventually just as soon as I figure it out, but for the moment, here’s a thing I noticed recently, thanks to an episode of BBC Radio 3′s Arts and Ideas podcast, Unfinished Art and Literature. The episode begins with a brief discussion of Coleridge’s preface to a 1797 collection of his poems, which included “Kubla Khan: A Vision in a Dream. A Fragment”. The poem represents two layers of unreality, because it describes a dream within an opium hallucination. It’s a fragmentbecause Coleridge was interrupted (he tells us in the preface) while writing it. This importantly rude person was a man from Porlock.
The Author continued for about three hours in a profound sleep, at least
of the external senses, during which time he has the most vivid
confidence, that he could not have composed less than from two to three
hundred lines; if that indeed can be called composition in which all the
images rose up before him as things, with a parallel production of the
correspondent expressions, without any sensation or consciousness of
effort. On awakening he appeared to himself to have a distinct
recollection of the whole, and taking his pen, ink, and paper, instantly
and eagerly wrote down the lines that are here preserved. At this
moment he was unfortunately called out by a person on business from
Porlock, and detained by him above an hour, and on his return to his
room, found, to his no small surprise and mortification, that though he
still retained some vague and dim recollection of the general purport of
the vision, yet, with the exception of some eight or ten scattered
lines and images, all the rest had passed away like the images on the
surface of a stream into which a stone had been cast, but, alas! without
the after restoration of the latter! (preface to Kubla Khan)
“I have to go back. I was nearly there, I nearly had it!” (The Abominable Bride)
For this reason, “the person from Porlock” has come to symbolize the interruption of a creative work. But, of course, the man from Porlock was Coleridge’s own invention. He interrupted himself deliberately, as part of the creative work.
@devoursjohnlock thank you so much for this! The mysterious Porlock, sounding an alarm of murder via ciphers; another case of a bashed-in head and mistaken identity. The intent of drawing a connection to The Adventure of the Dancing Man (Watson) and TBB (Mofftiss)is obvious, and we were presented with the actual dancing man ciphers at the end of TFP – it would seem that Sherlock was begging us to connect the dots between TBB, DANC, TFP and ACD’s The Final Problem.
Two additional stories came to mind for me – Elise Patrick in DANC reminded me a lot of Edward in The Man with the Watches because of the duo-gender in name and appearance; and your “Kubla Khan: A Vision in a Dream. A Fragment” to Joyce-Armstrong Fragment from ACD’s The Horror of the Heights (which read like a companion piece to The Valley of Fear – I’ve discussed it a bit in Stoppage Time). It’s funny you mentioned Greek E… the fifth letter, and in the system of Greek numerals it has the value five, derived from the Phoenician letter He – which is the symbol for helium, yes, the red balloon John. It would seem that, once again, we might be arriving at the same place through very different paths.
But back to Porlock in Sherlock – at first, I thought each code names represents one person in the room, but I no longer believe that’s the case. The characters we came to know in their “meatspace” were definitely playing different roles in series 4. But why? Por, means portrait per Oxford Dictionary [x] – whose portrait, or disguise, “lock” in place that we are supposed to see through?
Who exactly is/was Irene Adler? The answer likely lies within The King of Bohemia. I think…… there’s some truth in Douglas Adams’ 6 Bowie-Watson description, and more to be discovered in the honorary title of THE woman (which I won’t get into for now because this is still 911 territory if you know what I mean, haha).
When we think of farewell scenes in BBC Sherlock, two things come to mind: The Roof and The Tarmac. Both times it is Sherlock who is going away, leaving John behind. The fall’s echoes resonate throughout the show.
However, there is another pattern as well – John going away and leaving Sherlock behind, even rejecting him. In every single episode after Sherlock’s return this theme is explored, either in the reality of the show or in Sherlock’s mind (no matter what you think happens in EMP and what does not).
TEH
For me this has always been one of the saddest scenes in the show. In spite of the violence preceding this moment, John talked at least to Sherlock. After the head butt, however, he drives off with Mary, leaving Sherlock behind, injured and alone.
This post essentially sums up the one thing I hate the most about the entire show: John keeps leaving Sherlock. I also agree that the one redeeming feature of TFP is that John didn’t leave him and that they were a united team throughout. (That and Sherlock’s cute, slouchy walk, hehe!) But yes, this is so painful. The cane scene is almost the worst for me: that John’s final leaving was done in such a cowardly way, rejecting everything Sherlock ever was to him, down to healing his limp, and without even doing it face to face. Leaving Sherlock while he was unconscious and dying. Ouch.
I wanted to post this, a long time ago, but one of the main fandom friends that I used to talk to about the inter-weaving of Myths and Astrology in BBC Sherlock left ( I miss you @longsnowmoon5!), so I shelved it. Previously, I toyed with the idea of Mycroft as Saturn. That was fun. In A Scandal In Belgravia, Aphrodite Venus, the Empress Tarot, herself, is reincarnated as Irene, who really lived up to the myth, not only coming between Sherlock and John, but also being a strong catalyst for attempting to bring their romantic relationship to the surface. Venus, the planetary body, representative of Love, is known by certain motifs: I will go through them here.
“What are you going to wear?” asks Kate. “My Battle Dress.” answers Irene. “Lucky Boy!” Irene then ask for a lip color in the shade of Blood.
This is awesome @tendergingergirl – Irene Adler is more important to the romantic relationship of Holmes and Watson in ACD canon than I ever realized. She is indeed THE woman, her gender is her disguise and battle dress, or vatican cameo, and she’s the invert of every M characters. I think we’ll see why Sherlock Holmes from being the witness-in-disguise to Irene Adler’s wedding in ACD canon, to being John Watson’s best-man-in-battle-dress in TSoT. Perhaps The 7th Chronical is foreshadowing what’s to come, because:
We’ve been stuck on “the sixth” for a while now – The Six Thatcher, a total of six episodes after TEH (including TAB). “The Big Rat. Rat Number One.” The Giant Rat of Sumatra “a story for which the world is not yet prepared” according to Holmes………
A terrible reality that isn’t technically “real”, but which represents an undesirable, regressive future. Like a simulation, you could say. Or a nightmare. I have actual truck loads of evidence for this. There’s lots more to come in future parts. For now, I will share why I am very convinced that Moftiss have covertly inserted a dystopian tale into the 4th act of this five-act series. It would explain the extremely confusing (opposite, in fact) characterization (like John), Mary’s redemption, and the removal of the romance and chemistry from the show. A nightmare. Possibly our nightmare more than Sherlock’s.
It seemed like they were telling a different story because they were telling a different story, a “What if?”. What if heteronormativity and homophobia won? What if not only the love story failed to come to fruition, but the love story never even existed.
I hear you asking already; what would be the point of that? I came across this:
“Many novels combine both [utopia and dystopia], often as a metaphor for the different directions humanity can take, depending on its choices, ending up with one of two possible futures.”x
Without yet having the final and fifth act to give the fourth series meaning, it makes one hell of a stressful puzzle to be left with for a hiatus. It’s a puzzle, because it’s a dystopia that’s missing it’s counterpart, the utopia.
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’. :))))
Today’s topic: Dates in Sherlock and why we probably must ignore all of them (hint: cause they’re all wrong)
Seriously, it’s a mess. I am afraid that we will never figure out which year we’re currently in because we can’t. We don’t have the correct data. Because they’ve made a couple of mistakes. It happens that writers mess up from time to time. Sometimes, what looks like mistakes actually are mistakes and not hints or clues that have a deeper meaning.
What we know, for sure and it’s the only thing we know for sure is that John and Sherlock met on January 29th 2010. But what happens after then? Makes little to no sense. (Warning: this post is a bit long cause there are pics)
Sherlock Fandom Archive 