Super interesting theory! Where are all the mind palace moments in S4? Were there any?? Was it all? I love this stuff so much
this meta is actually rly cool and is organized so well its like ur actually following a story !!!! reminds me of the theory of morality: mary v. moriarty !!!!
Thank you so much, @selinaphile. That is a lovely compliment and I’m thrilled you took the time to check it out.
The set design of the lab at Bart’s when John and Sherlock first meet shows us their feelings towards each other with regards to their emotional availability.
In front of John the tableau reads like something out of TBB: “always in pairs, John”. (Thanks to LSiT for talking about the importance of that line in TBB, and that theme in the whole show). When we look at John we see sets of two identical things in front of him and behind him symbolic of a couple. We see a green light behind him signalling his readiness to pursue a relationship.
Two blue dots flank the opening of the door: circles represent their feelings towards each other, the blue represents that we are seeing them and they’re representing themselves as straight. and we see the door as a new begging. They’re both walking through this relationship door on the way out.
*
How we see Sherlock
What we see about Sherlock is very dissimilar. When we see him, the tableau of objects directly between him and John is a jumbled mess: chaos, busyness, there seems to be no pattern, at all, only unrest.
Behind him, from left to right: we see a lamp, symbolic of feelings via its solar system like quality, and the lamp is mustard yellow, the colour of cowardice and lies. He will not pursue a relationship because he’s afraid and he will pretend he is not interested.
Then to the right, the explanation, the cabinet of emptiness and fears. We see here, this contrastingly barren cabinet with slight allusions to the couples theme but with unevenness and difference. The pairs that are identical are filled with a different colour liquid, the ones that are filled with the same colour liquid are very dissimilar and the colour is very dark and opaque. This shows his alienation, he doesn’t feel that anyone is equal to him, whether he’s different from them due to his intelligence or whether he feels beneath people and unworthy of them. The dark liquid is pessimistic and foreboding: his impression of relationships is that they’re something to be avoided. Yet, he’s lonely as the cabinets is relatively empty. We can see why he’s afraid and wants to hide it.
*
What they see about each other
How Sherlock sees John
The camera works shows us John and Sherlock’s separate states of mind as well as their perceptions of each other.
Sherlock sees John how we see him: ready to couple up, open, his green light on. This is John wearing his lipstick,
This show us that Sherlock has a realistic view of people and that it is he, ironically, not John who’s being emotionally perceptive, here.
How John sees Sherlock
First off John doesn’t get to see the things between them from our point of view: he is robbed of the perspective that shows a jumbled mess of obstacles between them.
The cabinet is cut in half by John himself. He is the reason he can’t see more. Maybe he projects too much. Maybe, it’s because he’s a romantic, he doesn’t want to see his bad side. He does see the lamp of lies, though.
To further the idea of John as a romantic who can only see Sherlock but not things about Sherlock, we get,
This is the romantic, ‘all I see is you’, viewpoint. We can read this a clear indication of John’s romantic interest but must also note the obvious disadvantage to being a romantic: he’s editing out information about Sherlock that he does not want to see, because it’s negative.
Note that Molly sees Sherlock similarly,
This is the price you pay for your rose-coloured glasses: you can see the best of someone and love and appreciate them but if you don’t understand the background, the circumstance, the terrain, you’re in for a world of hurt and confusion.
We see here that Sherlock is guarded and John is open. Sherlock sees John how he is. John sees Sherlock in an idealised way, through the prism of his attraction.
In the end, a sad epitaph: Sherlock puts on his scarf and turns away,
John is here, open, though wounded, wearing his plaid shirt of bisexuality, with couples symbolism and a green light on. Sherlock is attracted, in kind, but his desk is a confusing mess and his background a sad, fearful, desolate place. Nonetheless, they make a connection. But, then he puts on his blue scarf straight façade and winks at a door with two blue dots on it. Their feelings, here, must be platonic, straight feelings because the dots are blue. Because he scarf is blue, because Sherlock’s desk is a mess and his shelf is sad and empty.
We see that open John Watson is going to go for it at Angelo’s, however obliquely. He’s got nothing left to lose but maybe there are too many pairs in front and behind John. Maybe being in a couple is too much on his mind. Maybe that level of symbolism implies fixation and neediness. (He does also feel out Anthea in a similarly indirect way and similarly quickly) John is so vulnerable here that while he does like Sherlock he is also lonely and desperate. It may be unhealthy to get involved when it seems like the only thing that will make you feel like you’re not broken.
When he does hit on Sherlock he will not only not be surprised from what he’s seen, which he liked btw, but we can see that turning him down is a foregone conclusion from what we’ve seen of both of them here.
Finally, all of this would seem to support Sherlock’s idea that sentiment does cloud the analytical mind. We can empathise with him, here, because it’s illustrated by John’s view so well.
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.