maybe Wilder is some kind of Diogenes Club ‘judge’ swearing them to secret-illegal-Victorian-gay-marriage because honestly I die
Fun fact! Some 19th century gay men’s clubs would really conduct clandestine marriage ceremonies – often with invitations, guests, cake, the whole deal.
I was JUST trying to find out if this as the case, @weeesi OHMYGOD
Ahhh!!!! @cupidford yes – both London and the Culture of Homosexuality AND Strangers: Homosexual Love in the Nineteenth Century talked about this. To quote from Strangers:
“…marriages continued to be a common expression of love and sociality. A surprising number of priests and vicars were prepared to perform marriages for homosexual men or lesbians, and there were also many private arrangements. […] There is evidence from late 19th-century America, Britain, France and Germany of hotels rented for weddings, male brides in gorgeous gowns, exotic honeymoons (sometimes ruined by blackmailers) and bridal bouquets kept under glass in front parlours. These events were the feast days of small communities, dates in an otherwise blank calendar. The fact that they took place at all shows a remarkable sense of organisation.”
And now, I’m here thinking about 1895 Sherlock reliving when he met John, the choice of Wilder at the club, and the meaning of potato as described by @welovethebeekeeper He reimagined John getting married, but with him instead, in their own quiet little ceremony.
John strolling up alongside Sherlock, no wedding ring on, and Sherlock looking so happy.
YES,
Fun fact!
Some 19th century gay men’s clubs would really conduct clandestine marriage ceremonies
More fun facts…Arthur Conan Doyle was friends with/spent time playing casual games of cricket with George Cecil Ives, the man who founded, in 1897, The Order of Chaeronea, “a secret society for the cultivation of a homosexual moral, ethical, cultural and spiritual ethos…as a result of his belief that homosexuals would not be accepted openly in society and must therefore have a means of underground communication.” (x)
An elaborate system of rituals, ceremonies, a service of initiation, seals, codes, and passwords were used by the members. The Secret Society became a worldwide organization and Ives took advantage of every opportunity to spread the word about the “Cause.” [the end of the oppression of homosexuals] (x)
In Ives’ words:
We believe in the glory of passion. We believe in the inspiration of emotion. We believe in the holiness of love. Now some in the world without have been asking as to our faith, and mostly we find that we have no answer for them. Scoffers there be, to whom we need not reply, and foolish ones to whom our words would convey no meaning. For what are words? Symbols of kindred comprehended conceptions, and like makes appeal to like. (x)(x)
If clandestine marriage ceremonies were being held in 19th century gay men’s clubs, then I imagine that Ives’ Order of Chaeronea would likely be one group to conduct and support such marriages. And ACD was friends with its founder.
A little more about the Order:
The primary goal of the Order was to form a global chain of lovers, building upon the Platonic ideal of the “army of lovers” first realized by the Theban Band. The “bibles” of what amounted to a homosexual-centered (or proto-Gay/Queer Spiritual) faith included Ives’ own books of ritual as well as the Greek Anthology and Whitman’s ”Leaves of Grass” (1855). The god of the Order was Eros, that “gay, capricious angel of night” with “vast wings” of Ives’ poem “With Whom, then, Should I Sleep?”(1896).
The seal of the Order is comprised of: a double wreath of calamus (sacred to Whitman) and myrtle (sacred to the Greeks), a chain signifying the “great chain of lovers;” the number 338 referring to the Sacred Band; the letters “D” (for discipline), “L” (for learning), “and “Z” (for zeal); and the mystical word AMRRHAO.
@holmesguy THANK YOU for the additions!!! I’ve been wondering for a while now whether Eminent Order of Freemen/The Scowrers in The Valley of Fear may be alluding to Order of Chaeronea, but was lacking any collaborating evidence that suggests ACD knew George Cecil Ives – now the connection has been upgraded from possible to probable because of the information you provided…… please accept my teary gratitude 😭
Yesterday I was back working on my Dad’s notes on his Holmesian thoughts and discussions. I stumbled across notes on a debate that was held in The Domininion Pub, Liverpool, back in 1963 [not December, but July] during a Sherlock Holmes readers group. Preface: The Dominion was on the dock road, a seafarers pub, and one of the few that catered to queers. It was known for ‘queer evenings’ a few times a week. My Dad was a regular there. Several of the men were working class Holmesians, not welcome in Holmesian Societies, probably gay or bi, and considered outsiders.
Anyway on to my find: My Dad had drawn out an idea that had been discussed.
At the top: Watson’s Great Cover-Up
Then three subheadings: Cases. Vigilante. Invert.
Under ‘cases’ he has a huge list of the Sherlock Holmes cases including the mentioned but not explained cases. I presume there had been discussion on each one as to how John was twisting or inventing plot to hide things.
Under ‘vigilante’ he has the words Milverton killing. Now we all know that many readers felt that Sherlock had killed Milverton and the unnamed woman who just showed up at the right time to kill Milverton was a lie. [CAM Towers scene reinvented this scenario. Mary there to kill CAM first then kills Sherlock instead] But there are other instances in canon where Holmes displays a habit of being his own form of justice. Another notation which I haven’t even gone into yet is ‘Baskerville. Holmes secretly there.’ And finally ‘LAST’ for His Last Bow. Undercover Holmes could have done many things in the name of Altamont.
Under ‘invert’ is written ‘all’. I think he means ‘ALL’ of the canon Watson’s subtext. Everything proves that Holmes was gay.
But the main thing for me in reading this is that readers were seeing Watson as not just a narrator, a Boswell, but asa spin doctor. Watson himself being Holmes’ ALIBI whenever required. An upstanding doctor, a retired captain of the Queen’s Army, a stalwart citizen, a married man…..a perfect alibi for any dodgy behaviour. Watson was cover for Holmes’ need to go beyond the law at times regarding villains, and also to remain inside it regarding homosexual acts. Watson gave Holmes credibility. Watson was ALWAYS protecting Holmes in every word he wrote. Mofftiss touch on this in TAB repeatedly. John’s spin on Sherlock bleeds into their reality. John creates the legend as well as facilitates it.
I believe the now fandom famous ‘John’s Alibi’ is not an alibi for John but John’s alibi for Sherlock. John is spinning reality. Always has done. And Mofftiss have tried to incorporate this into the show and attempted to modernise it. If John is covering up for Sherlock killing Mary, how layered would that be with the Milverton kill/CAM Towers redo. Sherlock actually states; I killed his wife. Maybe he really did, and the rage from John is the cover up, the staged reaction for form sake.
All thoughts welcome on this.
Oh mercy this is so good.
Bless this precious piece of history @i-love-the-bee-keeper – thank you so much for sharing! I truly believe in my heart of heart this is the case — John-the-spin-doctor has been in control of the narrative, always — as Dr. Watson did in canon because every story is written in codes.
There’s a hidden narrative in every canon story, and I don’t mean just subtext. Albeit this is my personal opinion/speculation as I can’t find any collaborating evidence… but there IS a pattern. Nearly every story in canon is constructed the same way, as in two parts – Holmes and Watson domestics and conversations and/or Watson monologue/conversation about Holmes, then, the case. The signs are usually provided in part one, and as you read through part two you use the signs in part one to decode the real story in part two. Some signs I noticed to-date:
locations (as in NWES of London) in relation to past/present/future,
time (as degrees in a circle) a gauge of gay/straight (as the missing ring/bell, or, an incomplete circle is a reoccurring motif in many stories)
currency (something to do with 7% return/solution – working on this one)
physical features of characters (usually what’s considered defects in the Victorian era=crooked=criminal=gay)
languages and nations (France/French/Latin=heart and love, Germany=logic and the matters of the mind…..)
This is all very overly simplified obviously…. but in regards to Sherlock, I’m probably in the super minority that still believes we are simply never given the whole picture, i.e. the untold stories rather than dream-states. The theatric was for…… solving a past that our modern Sherlock and John never lived but must address, and that past is being manifested in all the M characters (as Mor in ACD canon because it all began with the, um, religious organization in A Study in Scarlet). Case in point:, the last six episodes of Sherlock, with TAB in the middle as a bridge, are all about the M characters: Moran, Morstan, Magnussen, Margrete Thatcher, Morphine (as in what it really means in canon – morphing of different characters, i.e., disguise), and finally Moriarty/Mycroft/Mary with Eurus as M inverted to W and the true meaning of the phrase “the Woman” for both Holmes and Watson.
And the reason our modern Sherlock and John must be the “face” of that past? Because Holmes and Watson are part of the collateral damage, and as an audience, we are being asked to confront what we know and believe to be “the true story” no matter where we stand.
Anyway, my apology for rambling on your post! Glad to see you on my dash once more, welcome back!
I’ve a seen few people throw around the idea of Chekhov’s gun in reference to S4 (I think the first was @finalproblem) but I don’t think anyone has put this in one place yet, so here we go. Full disclosure: I’m a supporter of alibi theory (linking @inevitably-johnlocked‘s tag for this, because there’s a lot there).
We are first shown Sherlock’s knife in A Study in Pink, when Sherlock stabs his mail to the mantel. This is basically the first thing we see happen at 221B.
This knife remained on the mantel until the Watson Domestic in His Last Vow, when we saw it standing between John and Mary. @just-sort-of-happened noticed this years ago.
Next, we see a Victorian version of the knife in The Abominable Bride, when John and Sherlock arrive at the beginning of the episode, and John is narrating. He explains that there are truths that he can’t tell us.
“Over the many years it has been my privilege to
record the exploits of my remarkable friend, Mr Sherlock Holmes, it has
sometimes been difficult to choose which of his many cases to set before
my readers. Some are still too sensitive to recount.”
On that familiar theme, “Some are still too sensitive to recount”, we focus on the knife.
[During S4 setlock, Sherlockology posted a picture of the knife stabbing the deerstalker into the mantel. A problem that remains to be solved? I’m not keen on its reappearance in The Lying Detective, so I hope so. But I digress.]
In The Six Thatchers, the first thing that happens in 221B is again Sherlock plunging the knife into the mail on the mantel. But this time, it’s a new knife. (Yeah, it was in the setlock photo above, too.)
What happened to the old knife? Like Chekhov’s gun, it was sitting there all this time, quietly waiting to be used, and now it has been replaced.
The dominant theory about Mary’s death appears to be that it didn’t occur in the way that we were shown, but we all seem to agree that she was shot. We keep seeing that smoking gun, as a dream or in memory (check out @somedrunkpirate‘s gun meta if you haven’t).
Then why is the knife missing? And why does a missing knife sound familiar? In John’s The Six Thatchers blog post, a man kills his lover, and then hides the murder weapon, a knife, in a bust of Margaret Thatcher. John and Sherlock catch the killer, but the story still nags at Sherlock.
Sherlock has now had five years (since A Scandal in Belgravia) to figure out how to do that.
One way or another, the knife has to have been involved in Mary’s death, such that it had to be disposed of, and I think that means that Mary’s death probably occurred at 221B.
But who was wielding the knife, who did they stab, and how does the gun factor in? Did Mary threaten Sherlock with the knife, prompting John to shoot her? Was Mary even shot at all? Her body was cremated, so maybe she was stabbed. Maybe the gun is a red herring, after all.
Now that we’re dealing with multiple weapons, this really is beginning to sound like a game of Cluedo.
This is an amazing meta! The tie in with the six thatchers is a clever catch! Your point about that Sherlock had 5 years to think about how he would hide a weapon is great. It could be the missing knife, or maybe the knife is a stand in for the gun in our The Six Thatchers, where the main murder weapon seems to be a gun. There are theories that John shot someone (Mary) with the Walther and Sherlock hid it somewhere clever. For us, he seems to have hidden in in a story… One with enough truths that we will swallow the lie.
Subtextually the knife represents Sherlocks frustration and resort to emotion (aggression/anger) when he can’t solve something logically. As told by lovely Hudders. Is the missing knife a hint to us that he understands what is going on now? (or that emotional reactions could solve the problem too and he stabs Moriarty to death, I personally would be fine with that)
Besides, I agree with the Clue thing. As Clue the Movie says: It’s not a game anymore.
I know I’m likely the lone voice in the fandom about this. But for the last time – TBB is far from racist if one familiarizes oneself with the Opium Wars, The Great Game (not the Sherlockian kind), Eight-Nation Alliance, the end of Imperial China, and the history of Modern China the last 105 years – it’s been like a game of falling dominoes except for the pieces are civilian casualties and broken nations and the reverberations from that single point of entry may never end for the people in the region. If one only perceives “orientalism” and has zero curiosity as for why the Asian characters were portrayed the way they did, please at least entertain the notion that maybe, just maybe, a 21st-century Western perspective is not the only one in conjecturing the whole picture.
Eurus: The name of the East Wind. Sherlock tells John in HLV that the East Wind takes us all in the end. ‘The East Wind, this terrifying force that lays waste to all in its path. It seeks out the unworthy and plucks them from the Earth. That was generally me.’ Sherlock was the ‘unworthy’ and Mycroft had to mould him into a cold, calculating machine, or else Sherlock’s genius would destroy him. Eurus is that genius unchecked. Locked into an identity [the cell] by her brother. Begging to be released and free to find love.
Elizabeth: Sherlock’s sexual attraction to John. The part of him that seeks love and romance. E/Sherlock wants an affair with John, texts him, flirts, puts herself in John’s path even when John has walked away. And John wants it to. He wants more than the straight life he’s saddled himself with. He wants more; he wants Sherlock. And Sherlock knows this.
Faith: Is Sherlock and John’s world, their life together. A suicidal figure with a limp and a cane, and a gun, who enters 221B for help. Then goes off into London to walk the streets as the duo. And they/Faith are haunted by a name, one word; Moriarty. Sherlock revisits his time with John through Faith, he smiles at Faith’s comments, he eats chips, but is then brought to his knees by the pain of loss, the pain of love. Then suddenly it’s all gone. Faith disappears. The John and Sherlock he has had, loved, enjoyed, relied on, is gone.
Elsa, the therapist: All therapists are using deductive skills. Assessing the words, the tone, the facial expressions, the clothes, the hair, the presentation of their client. Absorbing the reality behind the facade of a person. Listening with the eyes as well as the ears. Using deductive reasoning to really hear the messages coming from the client. Elsa is Sherlock’s deduction skills, his ability to KNOW people. His remarkable talent that has set Sherlock Holmes aside from others, the ‘thing’ that everyone who meets him becomes aware of, then terrified of. He exposes people. And his number one study of humanity, scrutinised in detail, is John Watson. He knows John Watson. In TLD Sherlock is ‘off his tits’ high due to losing John and he’s angry. Furious. He’s slowly committing suicide over it. He’s had enough of John’s oscillation, his repression, his wife, his child, his discipline, his condescension and his physical abuse in that dreadful beating. He’s held John when John broke down. He’s done everything for John Watson, and yet John just wants to get cake. John just wants to ask Molly to join them for cake. John suspects Sherlock is in love with Irene Adler. Sherlock wants to shoot him in his fucking adorable face. [Wouldn’t we all in these circumstances?]
This is beautiful, @i-love-the-bee-keeper how each Sian character is a ‘facet’ of Sherlock’s personality. I don’t want to offend anyone, or make anyone uncomfortable, but there was a thought that popped in my mind yesterday, as I was writing about Mycroft and his ‘control’ but the famous quote we all know: “Sentiment is a ‘chemical defect’ found on the losing side.” Schizophrenia is a ‘chemical defect’ of the brain. I don’t know if I want to entertain this might be something they are hinting at, but it is still a thought that seems to want to come to my mind in relation to Sherlock.
Also, why are his 4 faces and personalities female???
There was this interesting post (x) that talked about Jungian influences on Sherlock’s interpretation that could well be adapted in this case.
It was a while that I thought we should shift attention to Freud at Jung, because the allusions to the Viennese alienist were too obvious, and they know, they like to joke.
Soul (Animus for Women) can be identified as the totality of unconscious female psychological qualities a man possesses. It is said that it manifests appearing in a dream, often in the form of metaphor.
Jung believed that the development of the soul was distinguishable on four levels he called Eve, Elena, Mary and Sofia.
Eve represents the birth of desire. Shrelock meets John. John meets E.
Elena is an allusion to Elena of Troy. Women are seen as very successful, functional but inwardly not virtuous (ex. lack of faith). John and Sherlock work well from an apparent point of view, but both would need something more. Sherlock meets Faith, nice dress, beautiful handbag, but broken inside, ready for suicide.
Mary refers to the Virgin Mary, to the virtue, to what is virtuous. And we have the therapist, with her ability to understand things and deduce, which for Sherlock are the best qualities.
In the end we have Sofia, the wisdom,the knowledge. In a nutshell Eurus. Complete development of an individual occurs when this aspect of the soul is also accepted and integrated.
It is interesting also to know that Jung said the “coup de foudre” was the result of the projection of an individual’s soul. Indeed, in these cases, people see their unconscious component in the other.
So we have a Faith that we thought was modeled on John, but it is possible that John himself is modeled on Sherlock, just his half of the apple, destined for him (as if we did not know already) from the very first time.
Instead our worst aspect is called Shadow.
Reblogging because the more I think of this, the more I love it. This is the definitve meta of S4 for me. The absolute surety I have that all of S4 is taking place within Sherlock’s mind is right here. It can’t be anyone else. This is about Sherlock, not John.
Yes. I agree, @monikakrasnorada s4 is all Sherlock’s perception.
IS NOBODY GOING TO MENTION THE FACT THAT MORIARTY WAS A PATIENT AT SHERRINFORD!?!?!
wait what the hell? someone explain!
During the TFP flashback to when Moriarty was in Mycroft’s office at Sherrinford:
MYCROFT: You know what this place is, of course? JIM (quietly): Of course. (He fiddles with some of the animals on the table as he speaks.) So am I under arrest again?
Implying that he had been held under arrest at Sherrinford, referring to this scene at the end of THoB:
Actually, the scene in THoB is an arrest afterhis first encounter with Eurus.
Sherlock and John met at January 29, 2010.
The Christmas in ASIB was in 2010.
Moriarty died and Sherlock “died” before June 16, 2011 via John’s post.
As stated by John’s therapist: 18 months since your last appointment—John’s last appointment was in January 2010 via his blog where Ella Thompson had commented on his January 25 and 31 posts saying “Is that why you missed your appointment? I tried to call.” “Please answer your phone.” respectively. Her next comment was in April 20, 2013 after John’s post about moving on.
Sherlock comes back from the dead on November 3, 2013 with his name finally cleared and him visiting all his friends immediately after being rescued.
John and Mary get married on 2014.
Sherlock kills Magnussen on Christmas 2014.
The tarmac scene happened on January 2015.
Mary died around 2015.
The ending of TLD happened in January 6, 2016 (Sherlock’s bday)
TFP
A few days after Sherlock’s bday, John got shot by Eurus.
A few days after, they go to Mycroft.
The next day, Mycroft goes to 221B to talk about all this.
A few days after, everyone thought Mycroft was still being attended to in hospital which im assuming takes days, especially since they haven’t replaced Mycroft yet to take care of everything—if it took a week, Mycroft would have had a temporary replacement…
So everything that happened in TFP happened about a week or two after Sherlock’s birthday. This is consistent with Sherlock’s eye haemorrhage he got in TLD—either from John’s beating or being asphyxiated by Culverton.
From my observation, since it’s still around January, Christmas 2015 is still in mind… so Christmas five years ago, in the mindset of everyone, would be Christmas of 2010.
So basically, what I’m saying is that this:
Was on the same day as this:
And that Mycroft being alone in ASIB, thinking here:
Happened in the evening after this, which is probs why he was thinking so hard in the dark at night on Christmas Day cos this thing just happened:
Which means that this:
Happened months after this:
Which is probably why Moriarty was much more interested with Sherlock’s life story as pointed out by John here, saying “…in return you had to offer him Sherlock’s life story”:
Because Moriarty had met Eurus but they had only talked in 5 minutes, and probably only talked about how to successfully destroy Sherlock by threatening to kill his best friends since Eurus had witnessed it happen before… and he probably wanted more info about Sherlock regarding that…
We also know that Eurus didn’t know that Sherlock had forgotten her completely.
EURUS: Interesting. Mycroft told me you’d rewritten your memories; he didn’t tell me you’d written me out completely.
So to them, they thought that Sherlock had made up his own story about his best friend dying…
Eurus probably didn’t know that Sherlock had rewritten Redbeard as a dog. The only time we ever really know for certain that Eurus was told that Sherlock thinks Redbeard is a dog was Sherlock telling her himself in this scene:
Before that, when Sherlock mentioned Redbeard, he only said, “I know what happened to Redbeard.” and Eurus was like “Do you now?” HAHA fooled u, u idiot… u probs got it wrong…
But after Sherlock says, “Redbeard was my dog.”
Eurus was softer, but her smirk was larger. And that’s probs why Eurus was much more smug at that point with that particular tone of hers, “Ohhh, Sherlock… You know nothing.” as if she’s just seeing how deeply the scars really went… as if she’s saying something like oh jfc srsly sherl dafuq happened to u daz wayyy worse than i hoped…
The point is that, THOB interrogation happened after Moriarty met Eurus, and before that, Moriarty was already arrested before… probably immediately after that first scene in ASIB.
(Why EMP & Staging A Play Aren’t Mutually Exclusive.)
I’ve already written a whole list of meta about individual films that enter into various seasons of Sherlock, but mostly S4. This is just to give a few examples of camera work, set design, character studies, etc, and a short definition of German Expressionism in film, for those that aren’t familiar with it.
Two genres that were especially influenced by Expressionism are horror film and film noir. Carl Laemmle and Universal Studios had made a name for themselves by producing such famous horror films of the silent era as Lon Chaney’s The Phantom of the Opera. German filmmakers such as Karl Freund (the cinematographer for Dracula in 1931) set the style and mood of the Universal monster movies
of the 1930s with their dark and artistically designed sets, providing a
model for later generations of horror films. Directors such as Fritz Lang, Billy Wilder (yes, the director of TPLoSH), Otto Preminger, Alfred Hitchcock, Orson Welles, Carol Reed and Michael Curtiz introduced the Expressionist style to crime dramas of the 1940s, expanding Expressionism’s influence on modern filmmaking.
The first Expressionist films made up for a lack of lavish budgets by
using set designs with wildly non-realistic, geometrically absurd
angles, along with designs painted on walls and floors to represent
lights, shadows, and objects. (Remember the claims that the glowing skull was due to having a low budget, and bulbs burning out?) The plots and stories of the Expressionist
films often dealt with madness, insanity, betrayal and other “intellectual” topics triggered by the experiences of World War I (as opposed to standard action-adventure and romantic films). (Sherlock as a series is basically one battlefield after another, and always the intellectual battle as well). ( x )
Gatiss: The Cabinet of Dr. Caligari was ambitious, and startingly
original, and it’s cast a shadow over cinema ever since. The film is the
story of a sleepwalking killer who is manipulated to fulfill the
murderous urges of his own psychiatrist. Caligari boasts some daring
narrative twists…subtlety was never an aspiration (of German
expressionism). Expressionist art offered a heightened, stylized
experience that made inward, psychological states, outwardly visible.
That’s what the makers of Caligari hoped to achieve with their set
design. The result, is one of cinema’s most distinctive visions.
German Expressionism was the result of WWI, and several Rathbone/Bruce Holmes films entailed them fighting the Nazis, which is where Moffat and Gatiss have been hinting we’re headed next. “And we have joked about doing one in black-and-white where they fight the Nazis. So maybe that’s what we’ll do.” – Radio Times
The Film “Stay” and How it Brings Things in Sherlock Together ( x )
For people wondering about all the eyes in Sherlock S4, that is also an element in German Expressionism and film noir (which was heavily reliant on GE). I’m not saying John didn’t get shot in the head or lose an eye or whathaveyou, but there is a different explanation. It’s also the way I can reconcile the first thing that bothered me about TFP: Little Eurus has brown eyes, but adult Eurus has to wear contacts to achieve the same color, because her eyes are blue (besides the Moriarty Effect).
Back when S4 aired, I compiled pretty much every early meta on TST and TFP and made tables comparing what theories explained what issues. The result? No one theory could cover every problem. None even came close.
So why can’t we write a single unifying theory for all of S4?
After mulling this over for six months, I think there are three reasons why: the different types of problems each episode had, the abundant subtext, and the difficulty of combining partial explanations.
The first problem is that even though we generally agree that S4 was worse than previous seasons, each episode is bad in a different way.
TST is basically logical on a plot level. The subtler subtext (the dog, the boy in the car) fits Johnlock. It comes off as jarring because of the characterization–particularly that of Mary–and unexplained elements that, though they don’t affect the plot of that episode, make no sense in the context of the show. These include the glowing skull and the fact that The Six Thatchers is already a case on the blog.
TLD feels so much better because the characterization is closer to who the characters are. The plot is logical, though a bit hallucination-heavy. It’s also necessary for John’s character development, showing him at his worst in order for him to realize how he must change. The subtext is beautiful; with Faith as a mirror and Culverton Smith as a foil, it’s maybe the clearest in the entire show.
But despite The Hug and everything leading up to it, it still comes off as not-quite-right. Because this time, even though the episode makes perfect sense in the broad context of the show, there are parts that don’t make sense in the context of S4′s plot. Why introduce a hallucinatory drug, and never use it? Why suggest that John isn’t the blog’s author, then never bring it up again? Chekov is rolling in his grave.
TFP looks awful because the plot is a shambling mess. Ironically, the problem with a surface reading of this episode isn’t so much that the plot is bad as that the subtext is excellent. There are myriad scenes that, from John’s or from Sherlock’s perspective, give us insight into their characters. These include Sherlock’s choice between killing John (heart) and Mycroft (brain), or John being stuck in a well (of pent-up emotion).
TFP looks distant from not just most of the show, but also from the type of mistake made in TST and TLD. TST and TLD tried to provide logical plots. TFP didn’t. TST and TLD had surface-level continuity with earlier character development. TFP didn’t. TST and TLD had subtly odd elements. TFP had gaping logical fallacies.
That’s why when we make theories that explain one odd element, such as mischaracterization, plot holes, or continuity errors, we can’t explain the problems in another episode. For example, EMP explains all continuity errors and mischaracterization of Mary, but it erases John’s character development. TFP-as-mind-bungalow explains all problems in that episode, but it creates plot holes in TST and TLD in terms of explaining away Eurus. And Brechtian absurdism/blog theory explains the fact that we have excellent subtext but poor plots, but it doesn’t explain why TFP would even exist (unless Amy has more brilliant meta up her sleeve, which I suspect she does). These are my favorite three theories, all brilliant, but the fact remains that none of them explains everything in isolation.
I’m comfortable, however, with a different explanation for each episode of s4. I don’t need it to be all tied up in a single grand theory, and, given the radically different tones and appearances of each episode, I don’t think we’re meant to, but that’s just me.
The second problem with developing a unifying theory of S4 is that we’re given so many loose ends and motifs to play with.
Just what I remember off the top of my head:
Sherlock’s ability to go into a mind palace that looks like reality => EMP?
TD-12 causing hallucinations and distortions => A distorted retelling?
John as the storyteller => John’s blog or story?
The suggestion that John isn’t running the blog/telling the story anymore => Sherlock’s or a villain’s retelling?
Hints that everything is fake, such as the projectors and literal fourth-wall breaking in TFP => Completely made up?
Ella’s comment on recurring dreams => A dream or mind palace?
John being shot but somehow not getting hurt => Garridebs?
Mary dying ridiculously => A distorted retelling?
It’s not that we don’t have any leads, it’s that we have too many. With the show hinting at a zillion different solutions, it’s impossible to find one theory that fits every hint.
The third problem is that combining the most logical theories is hard.
If we can’t find one grand theory, the next best thing is to have sub-theories that fit together to explain S4 as a whole. Unfortunately, all of our strong but incomplete ideas so far are genuinely hard to combine with each other without becoming ridiculously complicated. For example, a mind-bungalow-inside-EMP situation would explain everything, but half the general audience would walk out in annoyance. My personal favorite, reading TST and TLD under blog theory and TFP as Garridebs, would require some pretty impressive explanations to pull off.
The thing is, there are two standards our theories have to meet in order to be plausible. One is whether the theory makes the show logically consistent. The other is whether the theory can actually be done in the context of a television show, a story–not real life or a pile of subtext with no surface-level plot.
My question, then, is not so much “How is S4 fake?” as “How are Mofftiss going to explain how it’s fake?” How are they going to provide an explanation–an explanation that our various efforts have concluded must either be complicated or have multiple parts–and still keep the audience engaged?
From our perspective, how can we extend or combine our working theories into something that explains the whole season without alienating a normal viewer?
These are honest questions. I hope there are answers.
Excellent questions! And a really beautiful summary of the problem(s) with s4. I agree wholeheartedly, that the solution will be limited by what can be accomplished in the course of a television series. I know some people won’t agree with this, but I think, in order to be successful, the explanation will likely be something somewhat accessible / non off putting to people who are only following the broad strokes of the plot. In the details, there will probably also be lots for us to unpack.
At least, that’s how they’ve rolled so far. In series 1-3, there were plots and solutions and resolutions, but simultaneously, lots of fodder for going deeper. I mean, people are still uncovering the ways in which they’ve worked aspects of canon, Doyle’s other work, the pastiches, and Holmesian scholarship into the show. None of these easter eggs have, as far as I’m concerned, jumped in and taken over the broad strokes plot, although we could all probably point to a place or two where the broad strokes plot seems a bit (or a lot) hand wavy.
Things that drive us bonkers (Mr. Blue Skull, for example, and some of the tonal shifts) might be left for us to figure out in retrospect, if at all, because they won’t matter to a casual viewer.
I guess what I’m saying is, I am not sure that a full, textual explanation for all of s4 is forthcoming or necessary. My guess is, we’ll get an explanation for tfp, definitive forward movement / resolution in the John and Sherlock plot–the single plot thread that’s been there since the beginning–and we’ll get a bunch of rapidfire details / images / whatnot that will help us work out solutions to the rest, about which there will probably be a diversity of opinion and fodder for much discussion.
OMG YES. Bless this post! I was just trying to say the same thing in this post about theatre of the absurd. I think they want to leave us trying to find the meaning of the themes adressed in the plot, the “broad strokes” like @may-shepard calls it, instead of having a coherent explanation for the whole of S4.
Sherlock himself invites the audience with this choice when he says:
“As ever, Watson, you see but do not observe. To you, the world remains an impenetrable mystery, whereas to me it’s
an open book. Hard logic versus romantic whimsy. That is your choice. You fail to connect actions to their consequences.”
We have two clear options; either trying to apply hard logic attempting to make sense of every detail; or just discussing the metaphorical meaning of the themes presented. Our two main characters are in fact symbols of this contrast, you know, Sherlock the mind, and John the heart, even though we know Sherlock is very emotional and John is very clever.
But if you choose the latter, the “romantic whimsy”, the “poetry” instead of the “truth”, you end up turning on its head
the traditional misguided concept that the Sherlock Holmes’ universe was only ever “about the legend, the stories, the adventures.“ We end up questioning the characters’ motives, discussing their inner selves, their fears, their desires, and truly examine if we know “who they really are”. The topic of identity has been hammered all through the show, specially in this series, starting with TAB’s “Who
are you? I demand you speak! Who are you?” to Culverton’s banter questioning John’s medical profession. I just think they’re asking the general audience if they really know who these two iconic characters are. They’re inviting us to reconsider what we think we know from the canon, poiting towards
a deeper analysis of what lies underneath
the
unreliability
of Doyle’s choice of narration. Up until now, we could rely both on the story’s logical structure and its subtext in order to understand the characters. But this series exacerbates that
unreliability, just so we can only rely in the story’s subtext.
Fans have had a lot of issues with alleged inconsistencies in Sherlock Series 4–especially The Final Problem. Some I agree with, many I don’t, and others I’m undecided on or just don’t care about.
But there is one issue that, to my mind, carries more weight than any of the others.
Sherlock Fandom Archive 