Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Slithytove last won the day on April 20 2014

Slithytove had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

759 Excellent


About Slithytove

  • Rank
    Detective Chief Superintendent

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Location
    Leicester, UK
  • Favorite series 1 episode
    The Great Game
  • Favourite Series 2 Episode
    The Reichenbach Fall
  • Favourite Series 3 Episode
    The Sign of Three
  1. No Eurus. No Mary - or no more than we get in ACD's work, i.e. the occasional reference along the lines of "Holmes summoned me and Mary was fine with that." Then she could quietly die offstage, as she does in the original, and John could move back to Baker Street. I'm in the minority that didn't want Jim to be dead. I would have liked them to develop that hint of a link between Mummy Holmes and Moriarty. Much more intriguing than the insane genius sister locked up in a fortress. Basically, I would have liked a finale that was a good, twisty mystery with lots of clues, not a version of a horror film. Still wish they would come back though, with or without Rosie. (I'm not saying I would kill her off, just not give her any screen time - maybe let it be implied that Mrs Hudson was on permanent babysitting duty.)
  2. Throughout the 4 series, the writers have done some clever and original things but (like most writers) they've sometimes gone for a glib or cliched answer. We've already had "...and it was all a dream", but they just about managed to get away with it by integrating it into a real-life storyline. We've also had "salvation by sacrifice" - didn't you just know​ Mary was going to have to redeem herself by taking a bullet for Sherlock? IMO, the most facile piece of plotting, the one which annoyed me the most, was "you've done terrible things, including killing people for money and shooting my dearest friend, but I'm going to turn a blind eye because I love you." Now we've got Eurus and "inside this psychopath is an inner child, just wanting to be loved." A lot of the material is smart, a lot of it is funny...but some of it is just a cop-out. That doesn't make it into the disaster that some critics claim. It simply means there are a few weak places in the various stories. In the case of Eurus, the individual scenes are interesting but I don't think her storyline works that well at all. It's a pity, because it could have been brilliant.
  3. No. Just as accepting an idea is true (or possibly true) absent evidence is irrational, so too is accepting an idea is false (or possibly false) absent evidence. You show me the evidence which contradicts my premise (about the integration present throughout the episode [and since Bride]). You show me evidence that thematic integration simply does not exist - that it is only a phantom of the imagination - then I'll certainly consider that evidence. But you just tell me to think I may be wrong for NO reason whatsoever? Not happening. The capacity for error is not evidence of error. Sorry. As to the statement about plot holes and mis-characterization, I've already said they exist and that I don't like them. But, even there, the thematic integration explains them. OK, THIS IS MY REPLY:- I fear that this reply will probably not post properly and may be included in your quote. I have a new tablet and it seems to have a mind of its own. I'm old and not good with technology. Apologies. Anyway, I'm not going to get into an argument with you about absence of evidence, as I suspect we would bore the pants off everyone else. This is a fan forum, not a symposium. If you happen to be Mark Gatiss or Stephen Moffat and can thus confirm that you created an episode of prime-time tv as an exercise in existentialism, then I'm sorry. You were right and I was wrong. If not, I stand by my assertion that your interpretation is simply that - your own and no more unassailable than any literary theory. When I studied "Frankenstein", decades ago, I had a lovely little theory that Victor and the Creature were one, the latter being his shadow self which enacted the dark desires suppressed by a respectable member of the Genevan bourgeoise. Then I got to the one scene in the book where a third party sees Victor and the Creature together. Damn. However, up to that point, all the details meshed together perfectly. It is perfectly possible to think you can discern an underlying theme which integrates every detail into a perfect whole. It doesn't mean, though, that it is what the writers intended. When I read the Famous Five stories to my kids at bedtime, I used to think you could do a convincing Freudian interpretation of those books - not just the gender stereotyping but the symbolism too (all those tunnels and lighthouses....) There could be an entire chapter on George's Electra complex alone. I don't think, though, that Enid Blyton deliberately went for that in terms of thematic integration. In Sherlock terms, Johnlock is a perfect example of a theme that you can read into every episode. If you are sufficiently convinced, you can interpret the whole thing as the story of John & Sherlock's love. In fact, Youtube has people doing exactly that and, frankly, they have more evidence for their theory than you have for yours. IMO, the writers knowingly contributed to Johnlock, especially in Season 3, but that doesn't mean that its the correct and only explanation. It's one way of interpretating narrative - one of many.
  4. Yes. Its all just a mishmash they threw together. The complete and astonishing level of integration, down to every small detail, including the joke "The Hungry Donkey" is just pure coincidence. It's happenstance. The writers aren't intelligent. They didn't write their story to be unified so absolutely that every action and word they wrote can be explained by the one theme. They didn't plan it. That's just an accident (just as Bride actually being ALL about Eurus is just an accident). :facepalm: Obviously the writers are intelligent. Doesn't mean they can't have plot holes (even the best episodes have them), contradictory storylines, improbable characterisation and all the other difficulties that writers face. You can read your own meaning into the story, in which every tiny detail fits perfectly into place, but that doesn't mean that it's true. You can impose your own narrative on fiction - people do it all the time - but you can't insist that it is the only interpretation. You have to accept that you might, just possibly, be wrong. I'll give you a non-Sherlock example. Years ago, I had to study a Thomas Hardy poem, "The Self-Unseeing." People had various ways of understanding the poem but one of the tutors insisted that it was about a wedding. Read it yourself and see if you can see this meaning. Most people couldn't but this particular tutor was convinced, and felt that every word contributed to the wedding theme. She was reading her own narrative into Hardy's lines. You believe that you understand the themes in TFP and TAB. You may be right. On the other hand, you may be utterly mistaken. Personally, I feel that a certain amount of humility is necessary when declaring the meaning of someone else's work.
  5. One - that's not how the funding works for episodes of a show. Two - you presume the BBC was told that was the theme. Again, that's not how it works. Three - as I pointed out elsewhere, the same writer (Moffat) wrote the same theme into another Who episode (Heaven Sent). It shows up in a lot of his stuff. One does not have to "imagine" it. The writers SHOW it explicitly in her song, which others see (and can't see PAST) as simple 'murderous insanity' but is explicitly her plea to be loved. And they show it explicitly when he finds her in her room. No imagination required. The writers hit everyone over the head with it! He didn't. He had a different solution to The Final Problem. His solution wasn't love. His solution was cannibalism. I'm well aware that funding isn't based on "what is the essential nature of this story?" but a mainstream BBC programme, which hopes to capture a large UK audience and also produce lucrative overseas sales, is hardly likely to be based on the premise that the world is meaningless and inexplicable. Even less likely if that programme is detective fiction, given that its whole rationale is to solve mysteries! Moffat may like complex storylines and long narrative arcs but he is hardly Jean-Paul Sartre. The premise that Eurus just wants to be loved by Sherlock is a facile plot resolution. Not only does it make very little psychological sense - inside every psychopath is a child who just wants to be loved? - but it feels fake from an artistic point of view. Eurus shows every sign of a very severe anti social personality disorder from earliest childhood, either intending to kill Victor or being indifferent to his death, and expressing a death wish for Sherlock before committing arson in her own home. Presumably she intended him to die and, based on her previous behaviour, was probably indifferent to the fate of the others. As an adult, we know she was responsible for the murders of at least six people, whom she killed without a shred of emotion. So far, so textbook. And then she turns into a little girl weeping for the love of her brother? If I thought the website would let me, I would use a very rude word to express my opinion of that plotline. It feels like a cheap way out. The only way that storyline can make any sense is if Eurus has two personalities and one of them is a psychopathic killer. This is a popular fictional use of dissociative identity disorder, of course, the latest being James McAvoy's film "Split", despite objections from mental health professionals who say there is no evidence that people with DID are prone to violence. Assuming that this is Eurus's condition, how does one of her personalities manage to be aware of the other one and to exploit it as a way to increase the pressure on Sherlock? Even if one personality is aware - as adult-Eurus is aware of child-Eurus but not vice versa - it seems very unlikely that she could switch at will for the purpose of pressurising her brother. It's another aspect of the story which requires a massive suspension of belief. I do love the show as a whole, even though you could drive a bus through the plot holes, and I'm prepared to suspend belief pretty often - even to the extent of believing that Sherlock's heart could magically restart several minutes after flatlining! Even when it was at its silliest, it had emotional resonance that held the story together. It just didn't work in TFP. The revelation about Eurus felt, to me, as if the writers had written themselves into a corner and had to find a way out. It happens, sometimes.
  6. I like the idea that the whole episode is an exercise in existentialism. Unfortunately, given that the show has proved to be a massive cash cow, I can't see the BBC funding anything on that basis. I think it is rather like Dr Who - complicated and interesting when it works, contradictory and unconvincing when it doesn't. Thinking about the major villains - Moriarty, CAM, Smith and Eurus - most of them seem quite insane. Only CAM was obviously sane, although creepy and unpleasant. He was also the only one interested in solely in power and wealth, not murder. I still find it a bit odd that he was the one Sherlock considered worthy of shooting. The other three are evidently psychopaths, though I don't think psychiatrists use that term now. They lack empathy and remorse and are interested in other people only insofar as they can be manipulated in the psychopath's own interests. Smith put it pretty well when he spoke about turning people into things. People suffering from anti social personality disorder do seem to regard others, even their own close relatives, as objects. It's hard to imagine that Eurus is pining for Sherlock's love, particularly as she murdered his best friend, tried to burn down the family home (presumably, given the "RIP Sherlock" notes, with him inside it) and tried to force him to kill someone he loved. I can't imagine that all Moriarty wanted was a big cuddle, and I can't believe that that was what Eurus wanted either. If you think about real life criminal psychopaths. e.g. Ted Bundy, Charles Manson, the Yorkshire Ripper, they're pretty terrifying. I can't honestly say I disagree with Mycroft's decision to keep Eurus incarcerated. Smith would obviously face life imprisonment too, and it would be the best place for Moriarty as well if he wasn't dead. You can't "cure" a psychopath - it's just who they are, probably for some as yet undefined genetic or neurological reason. I do think it is interesting that Moriarty, who seemed the most exuberantly mad (the voice and the weird facial expressions), was the one who had turned his own personality disorder into the basis of a worldwide criminal enterprise. To go off on a tangent, those gravestones puzzled me. Who has a cemetery in their garden? And why would the headstones have the wrong dates? Were all the Holmes family deeply peculiar, to have such a creepy front lawn?
  7. I don't really like detective stories which go too close to horror. (That's why I'm in the minority which isn't keen on Scandinavian noir, such as "The Bridge.") Basically, I'm a wuss - someone bought me "Crimson Peak" because I like Tom Hiddleston but, so far, I've been too scared to watch it. The use of horror tropes in TFP is the main reason why I didn't enjoy it as much as the others. However, reading through everyone's posts, I think people have made some very fair criticisms, particularly: The world's most observant man can't tell there's no glass in a window, when standing only a few feet away? Eurus's command of her workforce is remarkable, considering all the effects she has to set up and the logistics involved in getting Sherlock back to his old home (inside a fake room) and John into the well. Mycroft may be an unreliable narrator but his mental image of Redbeard as a dog, when he knows it was a child, is a cheat. I was also amazed that the sequence in Mycroft's house wasn't a dream. Again, the amount of time and resources needed to set up the prank would be considerable, and Sherlock's ability to create the whole thing is somewhat surprising, given that he has only just learned about his sister's existence. You would also think that the British government could manage a better standard of security for someone as vital as Mycroft. The abrupt change in Eurus's personality in the final game is the hardest thing for me to swallow. Sorry, but I agree with Surelock on this one. The first 4 games do seem to be designed to reinforce her point, as outlined in the tape John and Mycroft watch, that morality is meaningless. They point towards Mycroft's maxim that "Caring is not an advantage." Then, in the 5th game, morality becomes important and caring is the only advantage. Only by showing his love for the child within Eurus can Sherlock save John's life. Huh? What happened to the woman whose argument was that there is no such thing as good and evil? Has she reverted to a second personality, one which craves love and needs someone to care? If so, are these personalities aware of each other? It appears that child-Eurus is unaware of her other self, but adult-Eurus is fully aware of her child self and uses it as part of her games. This seems pretty far-fetched to me. I don't think I've ever heard of a case where one personality uses the thoughts or feelings of another personality. I'm not sure ii makes psychological sense - is it even possible? Also, Eurus says that whenever she closes her eyes she is back on the plane, which implies that the child isn't actually another personality, but a mental image of herself. If this is so, why did the self that regarded morality as meaningless, to the extent of seeing nothing wrong in murdering innocent people, suddenly become a person who requires a response based upon morality? To change the subject, I was interested to see that people apparently feel that "trapped on a plane" was Eurus's experience post-imprisonment. I took it to mean that she knew she was much more intelligent that everyone around her - the sleeping passengers who could not wake up - but out of control. There was no adult who could take charge and rescue her, because she was far too brilliant (and evidently too disturbed), and thus she went on a path that led to murder, arson, incarceration and then more murder. Or maybe I'm wrong. BTW, Arcadia, I met Art Malik (yes, "Hari Kumar"!) many years ago, when he played one of the leads in a radio play I wrote. He is slightly older than me but I think he has aged rather better than I have.
  8. I don't know what's wrong with them, but this isn't the first drama to have a strong, intelligent man become infatuated with a domin8trix. And frankly, I'm not sure I want to know why. I mean, ew ... seriously? But it's a thing, apparently. Dopes. (And before anyone jumps on me, yes, I know some women are fascinated by it too. Dopes. :D Not jumping, but I do find this sort of comment rather offensive. I've known quite a lot of people in the BDSM community and they're not dopes. They're just people whose sexuality happens to work that way. They're no more dopes than people whose sexual tastes are vanilla. They're unorthodox, I grant you, and most people don't understand their feelings, but the same could have been said at one time about people in the LGBT community. In fact, it would be fair to say that many people still regard anyone whose sexuality isn't heterosexual and vanilla as dopes. Though I'm pretty much a Johnlocker, I can imagine Sherlock being fascinated not only by Irene Adler's intelligence but also by the way she plays with power and the renunciation of power. I could well believe that his fascination with mind games could apply in his emotional and sexual relationships too and I don't think that that would mean he was a fool.
  9. I think the reason why I liked Moriarty so much, and was disappointed that he hadn't really returned, was his humour. Yes, he was creepy, murderous and clearly insane but he was funny. The other main villains were just creepy and/or mad. Jim was nasty but his character was allowed flashes of humour and, for me, the humour in this show has always been an important part of the story. I don't really agree that Season 4 has squashed Johnlock in any way. Obviously we have seen that John likes the ladies but, for Johnlockers, he likes them "as well." Sherlock is occasionally in touch with Irene but we don't know anything about their relationship, so maybe he just texts her when he's bored and lonely. (Missing John?) And he was upset when he had to force Molly to admit she loved him but maybe he has finally realised how painful that love is for her and how much he has hurt her. On the other side of the argument, we have Sherlock hugging John - maybe that's just a normal human reaction when someone is distressed, but it fits into a lot of Johnlock scenarios. At the end, of course, we see John apparently back in 221b with Rosie and the three of them happily together, like Two Men And A Baby. This wasn't a season which seemed inspired by Johnlock - that was season 3 - but it will still fit pretty well into fanfiction on that theme. On a totally different point entirely, if one small child evidently abducted another and refused to say where he was, wouldn't the police and social services be involved straight away? Would she still be at home and able to burn down the house?
  10. Oh, so disappointed that Jim wasn't alive! I was so pleased to see him back, and looking forward to a convoluted explanation of how he pretended to shoot himself in the head.... I think that I may have liked this episode least of all we've seen so far, because it was a bit too close to the premise of a horror film and I don't watch horror as a rule. Eurus was very good but it was all rather creepy and nasty. Some excellent acting, of course, as one would expect but I prefer dashing-about-detection to locked-room-horror. And poor little Victor Trevor down the well was a bit ghastly. Clearly they could be rounding off the whole thing by showing Sherlock becoming a good man as well as a great one, John back at 221b and both of them having adventures. On the other hand, all the people involved have apparently said they'd be ok with a 5th series. The writers say that Sherlock would finally have learned that it was his own emotional intelligence which made him smarter than Mycroft, having learned a lesson from Eurus who was a brilliant mind with no emotional attachments. That would be interesting but I hope they don't wait years and years. I'm too old to hang about!
  11. Regarding the Daily Mail, no-one should take their reviews too seriously. The Mail is a horrible right-wing rag which targets the most vulnerable sectors of the community, such as migrants or people living on state benefits, and it loathes the BBC (which it regards as too liberal and supposedly biased towards left-wing politics) and so-called "luvvies", i.e. actors with liberal views. Benedict Cumberbatch has been in their firing line ever since he voiced his opposition to government cuts to funding the arts and they have, of course, pilloried him for speaking out on behalf of refugees. As for the people who comment on the Mail's webpage, they are some of the vilest creatures who lurk in the depths of the internet....The sort of people who blame migrants for everything, gloat when there is a tragedy and try to make excuses for the fascist who murdered the progressive MP Jo Cox. Benedict's stance on the refugee issue hasn't lowered his reputation amongst decent British people - some of us love him even more for it! - only amongst the sort of people who believe the Daily Mail's hate-mongering. I would say that TLD was one of the best episodes we've had, since the show began - fast, emotional and, at some points, shocking. I hope that this evening's episode lives up to it.
  12. Regarding the hospital, I don't think Smith actually owned it but had raised a huge amount of money for it and thus had the freedom to come and go as he pleased. This would seem a bit far-fetched if it hadn't actually happened in the case of Jimmy Savile. Seemed to me that Smith was a villain drawn straight from life - a rich, famous and popular individual whose wealth and influence helped him to get away with a catalogue of hideous crimes against vulnerable people. Of course, Smith was a murderer, whereas his real life counterpart was a paedophile, but the parallel was close enough to turn the character from a cartoon villain to something chilling. This is my theory, anyway, though I was glad to see that The Guardian also thought Smith was a Jimmy Savile style monster. On a different subject, is Sherrinford going to turn out to be a place rather than a person? Maybe the institution where Eurus was supposed to be incarcerated? Surely she has been away from the Holmes family for a long time, or the world's most observant man would have recognised her, even if she was disguised or he was high. Presumably he has not seen her for a long time, or ever - maybe he did not know she existed. That could open up an interesting rift between himself and Sherlock. As for John beating Sherlock...The more I think about it, the more I feel that John should be more penitent about what he did. Imagine he had beaten Mary like that - it would be considered appalling, and he would have to work hard to redeem himself. Mary wasn't blamed for shooting Sherlock, now John isn't blamed for kicking him. I did expect Mary to have to eventually redeem herself by giving her life for Sherlock's but I wonder if, and how, John will become a better man and a better friend.
  13. Jimmy Savile, it should read, not Seville or Saville. Stupid auto-correct.
  14. Yes - wow! That was a hell of an episode. Puzzling, brutal, shocking and grimly funny. I particularly enjoyed Mrs Hudson"s role. The writers might need calling to account for some of their female characters but they've created an icon for older women in Mrs H. I love her. As for John.... This incarnation of Dr Watson had always been different from the selflessly loyal and honourable Watson created by ACD. The character development in the last series - the concerns which some of us felt about the way the character was evolving - reached its logical conclusion in John's attack on Sherlock. We knew already that John had a lot of pent- up rage and a capacity for violence, and that he was self- centred in some ways (turning a blinds eye to Mary's past to save his marriage, blaming Sherlock for her death), but hopefully now his redemption will begin. As for Sherlock, it's always been clear that he suffers from low self esteem, beneath that arrogant façade. He seems to think it is okay for people to hurt him. What sort of childhood must he have had? Culverton Smith made me think of the late Jimmy Savile, a monster who hid in plain sight. The scene where he boasts that he can go anywhere in the hospital and brandishes the keys given to him at an awards ceremony - surely that was drawn straight from the revelations about Savile's crimes. Made me shudder.
  15. I liked it a lot - plenty of plot, lots of nods towards ACD, and Benedict on top form as ever. I was not at all surprised by Mary's death, as I'd always predicted she would die saving Sherlock's life, thus supposedly redeeming herself. I'm glad they got rid of her character early on and I hope that, when he gets over being an idiot, John will resume his rightful status as Sherlock's BFF. (Of course, he'll still have to look after the baby, but presumably they'll work that into the plots.) Excellent performance by Amanda, though. My only criticism is that they've made Sherlock a little bit too soft. I know the writers felt he should be wiser and kinder now but I liked his arrogance and his snarky remarks. Oh, well. You can't have everything. And didn't we all expect 'the other one' to be called Sherrinford? Didn't expect him - or her - to be reachable by phone, though
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of UseWe have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.Privacy PolicyGuidelines.