I appreciate the collection of perspectives, which I myself love perusing. My own view is probably closest to Ivy’s, in that I can’t think they’re ‘making love too difficult to work’ because even in this, John and Sherlock parallel each other. In their difficulty, their brokenness, their painfully sharp edges. I mean, we definitely love their idealized selves in fandom, and create new legends around them as much as we psychoanalyze and decide when something is ‘too much’. But it’s the characters who could really tell you when it’s too much, and I think that finally, in TLD we see that Sherlock and John see and accept all of one another. You could say that *theoretically* this should break them, but in fact it makes them stronger. If nothing else, by the end of TFP, it seems they’re happy. It’s not a tragedy, after all. It’s just a brutal thing to watch, they’re definitely both traumatized, by this and many other things. Their brokenness is supposed to be something they can use, though. As Ivy said, John’s flaws are part of what Sherlock needs and can use. The violence is part and parcel of how it works, because Sherlock knows how to help John channel it, how to make London into John’s warzone. And sometimes it’s all too much, but that’s been true for Sherlock, too. Sometimes Sherlock himself is way, way too much. But somehow they’re exactly what the other needs and can handle. That’s the secret of their dynamic.
Of course, I agree, it didn’t have to explore this possibility, even if it always existed in the realm of the possible for this or any Holmes and Watson. But at the same time, this started in Series 3, ‘cause they kept not dealing with the old traumas enough, ever since Reichenbach, and then piling on complications. John was set on a collision course with himself as soon as he married Mary and she turned out to be the worst possible option. It was a bad decision compounded by her pregnancy and further exacerbated by the ensuing series of events– that unfortunate vow, the shooting, Sherlock back on drugs and saying he killed Magnussen ’cause he’s a sociopath, Sherlock pushing them back together and John choosing to do it without dealing with any of their problems. Everything kept being swept under the rug, with the only explanation being that John ‘chose her’ and he should just deal with it. So he let it go, and let it go, and controlled himself and held back. And then (as Martin Freeman said), he just needed an excuse when he failed again (this time to protect Mary). In John’s mind, someone has to be in control: usually that’s Sherlock ’cause as Ivy said earlier, Sherlock can do anything. Sherlock is his superhero; his ‘commander’. Alternatively, of course, John *himself* expects to be in control, or it’s a personal failure. Remember how he took it in HLV, with Sherlock telling him (ruthlessly, from John’s perspective) that he chose Mary: it’s his ‘fault’. John automatically jumps to the question of whose *fault* it was that Mary was the way she was, and he wasn’t ready to take responsibility and accept this, but Sherlock pushed and so he did. Then, when another traumatic event happens, John doesn’t have any reserve left, I guess.
What I’m saying is, I think many of us knew that some kind of reckoning had to be coming for John in S4. But all the talk about John’s arc was mostly supposed to be about John getting better, not worse. And if he got worse, we expected to see him recover, step by step. And that didn’t happen. We got a hint, a first step, and I understand why that’s not enough for many people. At the very least, though, I don’t think it’s the same as the ‘tragic gays’ trope would have it. In TLD, even if they didn’t show us everything, they showed enough that it’s clear they do always save each other, even if it’s not in the ways that Mary or anyone else would expect. Even if John can’t see it anymore, or thinks he’s not that person, he’s still the person who makes Sherlock better. And when John stumbles, Sherlock would believe it enough for the both of them. And I do think, in the end, that it is enough.
I haven’t obtained the DVD of BBC Sherlock Season 3 yet so I can view the episode with commentary, but I am wondering if Mark Gatiss obtained some of his inspiration for the case presented in “The Empty Hearse” from a short story written by Conan Doyle called “The Lost Special,” published in 1898. It is implied to be a Sherlock Holmes story, although his name is never used. The story’s narrative mode is third person, subjective, although the narrator is never identified either.
In TEH, Sherlock concludes that the terrorist (Moran) who gets on the train, but never gets off, waylaid one of the cars onto abandoned tracks that no one knew about. In Doyle’s “The Lost Special,” a privately hired train (a special) on its journey from Liverpool to London not only never reaches its destination, but seems to disappear into thin air. A letter sent to The Times by “an amateur reasoner of some celebrity at that date” is excerpted at one point, the style of which suggests that the author is probably Holmes. This “recognized authority upon such matters” suggests that the train and its passengers were destroyed by a mafia-type crime syndicate. He suggests the train was directed onto unused tracks leading to an abandoned mine nearby. The theory meets with heated opposition, although objectors fail to supply any alternative. Authorities do not act on the proposal and the public never shows any interest because a political scandal has distracted their attention.
Eight years later, a criminal mastermind called Herbert de Lernac, scheduled for execution in Marseilles, confesses to the crime, revealing details that vary only slightly from what the amateur sleuth proposed. De Lernac suppresses the names of his employers, but threatens to reveal them if he is not granted a pardon, suggesting that they may be well known public – perhaps even political – figures.
Poster for “The Lost Special” (1932) a Universal movie serial based on the story of the same name by Arthur Conan Doyle. This adaptation moves events from England to the American West.
The Sherlock Holmes pastiche series Solar Pons by August Derleth treated this story as canon with its own version, “The Adventure of the Lost Locomotive.”
Sherlock says, ‘Five minutes. It took her just five minutes to do all of this to us’. And then, ‘well, not on my watch’. Now, he means that while he’s in in charge of the situation (to whatever limited extent) he’s not going to let either Mycroft or John die, of course. This has already been said by both the Holmes Brothers in TST.
But, the play on the word, ‘watch’, really struck me and reminded me of Anderson’s version of the fall. At the end of his story, Derren Brown comes and hypnotises John, setting his watch back what looks like five minutes (we cut away near the four minute mark but the hand is still moving).
I thought these two things might be connected or that there might be a reference to TEH and to Anderson’s story. Or a reference to Derren Brown, even.
‘Five minutes: not on my watch’, is what John might say if he knew that Derren Brown hypnotised him; if Anderson’s story were true.
This is interesting to me because a couple of shots in s4 seemed to linger on watches, like we were supposed to notice. There are two that I can think of with John’s watch. Once during the texting scene in his kitchen in TST, and again in the Watson house when John picks up his phone from the bedside table. His watch is sitting there as well.
There was another scene in 221b, I think, with Sherlock’s watch, but I can’t recall which episode right now.
oh yeah! and there’s also that time where a magnifying glass looks like Sherlock’s watch and it’s like O.O ‘what are you trying to tell us here? pay attention to the time? the watch? the what???’
Promised her everything …left her abandoned and penniless….. a spectre to stalk those unpunished brutes whose reckoning is long overdue…. a league of furies awakened…The women we have lied to, betrayed…. the women we have ignored…and disparaged … Of course it doesn’t make sense. It’s not real.
At the end of tfp, Sherlock says, “You killed my best friend”, while crying. This could be referencing the fact that John really is dying because he got shot in tld. Victor Trevor is a mirror for John, and John is Sherlock’s best friend. They made a huge deal out of establishing them as best friends in tsot. I don’t think they would use the term again if they weren’t making a connetion between them. So if tfp really is happening in John’s mind bungalow, he’s imagining Sherlock getting upset over his possible death. end meee nowww
Okay so I went back to check out 221b on google maps again and made a very intersting discovery. this is the table in their living room…
let’s zoom in on this a bit and…. voilà!
there we have it. what else is this if not a bloody tranquilizer gun?!?
like, I I did a quick search online and couldn’t find the exact same model but it looks very similar to this one:
so yeah, Mofftiss clearly know the difference between a handgun and a tranquilizer and so does John Watson – who was definitely shot in TLD – and not with a tranquilizer gun…
A rifle hanging on the wall AND fresh paint, which is commented on specifically but never explained? It’s getting hard not to believe something’s up with that…
If the Garridebs moment wasn’t happening, it shouldn’t be hanging there?
IS THIS CHEKHOV’S GARRIDEBS, I AM LIVING
Not just there … also on the S4 DVD cover picture (as I added to the other post about Chekhov).
Are there more rifles in S4?
Though let’s point out their not the same guns. Did the AGRA team use this rifle?
still hemorrhagging internally from even the thinnest possibility that the “special hair band” conversation is about john stealing his mom’s queen albums and listening to them in secret and getting his ass beat by his homophobic military dad
EURUS: My hairband. Did you bring it like I asked?
SHERLOCK (hesitantly): I’m not one of the … I-I don’t work here.
EURUS: My special hairband.
SHERLOCK (more firmly): I’m not one of your doctors.
EURUS (sounding exasperated): The one I made you steal, from Mummy. (She turns to face him.)
EURUS: It was the last thing I said to you, remember, the day they took me away.
like i’m sorry but WHAT ELSE could this be if we’re not in JOHN’S MIND talking not about hairbands but hair. bands. aka BABY JOHN’S LOVE OF LATE 70s/EARLY 80s GLAM ROCK AND HEAVY METAL AS EVIDENCED BY DROPPING BOTH IRON MAIDEN AND QUEEN SONGS INTO HIS DEATHBED DREAM SOUNDTRACK
and FURTHERMORE WHY was that the last time that Euros/Eros/Love spoke to him before being taken away from him forever IF NOT BECAUSE OF BABY BI JOHN’S SWEET CRUSHES ON/EMULATIONS OF ANDROGYNOUS GLAM FRONTMEN I’M THROWING A CHAIR