Slithytove

I assumed that anything which seemed anachronistic was supposed to be a clue that 21st century reality was bleeding through into 19th century fantasy.

I believe that Peel established the Met in 1829. He was dead by 1850. Of course, the Met didn't move to New Scotland Yard until 1890, and then moved again in the 1960s. I wouldn't agree that Sherlock has ever been intended as a spoof, though Gatiss has spoken of his affection for the Billy Wilder film and its "perfect combination of reverence and irreverene." Its influence is probably shown best in the warm but largely unspoken affection between the two main characters. I suppose it depends whether you like the film and, if you do, you probably will like its echoes in Sherlock. However, I don't think the film is anything more than one influence amongst several. Sherlock is an original piece of work and I doubt that the writers see themselves as writing a pastiche.

Regarding telephones...This is the 19th century in the imagination of a man who didn't know that the earth goes round the sun. Wouldn't he have deleted most of the history he learned at school, including dates, as being irrelevant to the Work? As for Mr Cumberbatch being too feminine to be Holmes...Well, admittedly he is beautiful, rather than ruggedly handsome, but he seems entirely masculine as far as I'm concerned!

Thank you for the link, Arcadia - that was an exceptionally good review by someone who clearly grasps the fundamental point of the episode, i.e. that it is ​Sherlock's ​interpretation of situations and people (including himself.) So it doesn't matter if the explanation of feminism is a bit heavy-handed or the women look like they're in the KKK, or if Watson in 1895 should have known what a telephone is... This isn't a portrayal of Conan Doyle's London, it is Sherlock's imagined London peopled by Sherlock's perception of his friends and enemies. So, for instance, if Mycroft is greedy and immobile and has some sort of death wish, or John is the driving engine who makes Sherlock into a hero for public consumption but also insists that he lives up to the role, this isn't a distortion of the characters. It is the way Sherlock thinks of them. It also told us quite a lot about the way he sees himself - insecure about his own talents, tormented by the fear of weakness or error, struggling with guilt about his treatment of women, and reliant on John for support, perhaps even for survival. I can't understand people who, having watched the previous series, found it baffling. When you think about it, it was quite an illuminating episode as far as Sherlock's inner world is concerned.

I find it very odd that anyone could be dissatisfied with the fact that Mary is extremely bright. There may be some annoying issues with the way the writers portray women, but they're not shown to be fools - Irene's intelligence, as well as her daring and her beauty, evidently impresses Sherlock, and Molly would have to be clever to be capable of doing her job - and I'm surprised that anyone would expect them to be less intelligent than the men. I don't think we would want ​anyone, ​except Mycroft and possibly Moriarty, to be Sherlock's equal in any way, because he is the hero, but I would certainly expect the female characters to be as bright as, for instance, John or Lestrade. Mary in the Victorian era reminded me how much I would have liked the character, if it hadn't been for the storyline of HLV. That Mary clearly hadn't shot Sherlock. In fact, neither John nor Sherlock apparently realised she was anything but a conventional wife, right up to the point where she discovered the Brides conspiracy. It's also interesting that, in the Victorian parts of Sherlock's dream, she does not appear to be pregnant. (Not as far as I can see, anyway. I could be wrong.) Perhaps in the modern part of his dream he couldn't wish away her pregnancy, but in the Victorian part he can. (I know he seems pleased about the baby in TSOT, but is he really? Fatherhood, even more than marriage, is likely to take John away from him more and more.)

I watched TAB again today and the sad irony of the final lines struck me more than ever this time. Sherlock is, of course, "a man out of his time" in this version, whichever way you look at it - either as a modern version of a Victorian icon or, in TAB, a Victorian fantasy happening in the mind of a modern man. However, it was the previous line which struck me as particularly sad, where Holmes says he knows he would be at home in the modern world which he had imagined. The truth is, of course, that he is such a unique person - so gifted, so isolated and so misunderstood - that he isn't really comfortable in either era. ACD's Holmes is, perhaps, less alienated than 21st century Sherlock (I don't imagine him describing himself as a high-functioning sociopath, even if the term had been in use at the time) but he seems to have no family except Mycroft and no friends but John, and apparently ends up as a bee-keeping recluse. As for modern Sherlock, he seems to think there is something wrong with himself - hence the "sociopath" tag - and is even less capable of functioning easily in everyday society. Quite sad, really, particularly as the final scene takes place (presumably) in Sherlock's mind, and must reflect the way in which he sees himself.

The Private Life of Sherlock Holmes is a very enjoyable film, made by the late, great Billy Wilder. I've seen it several times and it always makes me smile. You have to remember, though, that it was butchered by the studio, which deleted several chunks of the story, so the beginning and the main story are a bit disjointed. I watched it once with one of my daughters when she was quite small, and she found it genuinely creepy.

Well, I'm a diehard Johnlock supporter, but I do like the idea of Sherlock living happily ever after with Miss Moriarty...

This makes sense - Mycroft clearly believes that his brother's Mind Palace is a mnemonic device, a system for storing information, but Sherlock uses it for this purpose and much more. As you say, he uses it to make connections between apparently unrelated facts, and it may puzzle (and perhaps trouble) him that Mycroft fails to grasp this. Also, in HLV, he goes into his Mind Palace not only to retrieve factual information which can save his life, but to make the emotional connections which enable him to withstand shock and to motive himself to survive (i.e. Redbeard, and the threat to John.) Superficially, the brothers share a very similar intelligence, as shown by their games of deduction, but it is possible that their minds work in very different ways. That might go some way towards explaining why their relationship is so tense and difficult.

Sorry, can't get the hang of quotes! The middle paragraph beginning "To be honest" and ending "not my thing" was a quote from T.o.b.y. I seem to have deleted the little box which showed it was a quote. My only excuse is that I'm old and technology confuses me... That's okay, fixed it. -- Arcadia

We've debated the moral issue a lot, regarding HLV, so I won't go on about it except to say that I think it is Dr Watson's reason for existing. He is isn't just the narrator in ACD's stories, he is the yardstick against which the behaviour of the other characters - including Holmes - is measured. Watson isn't a genius like Holmes but he is intelligent, humane, courageous and fair. In short, a decent man. Holmes does not expect him to be able to solve a mystery but he does trust him to be able to judge right from wrong (as in "The Adventure of the Abbey Grange, for instance.) I feel that John should fulfil the same role for Sherlock.

Downton Abbey...Boring, predictable, stuffed with stock characters - loyal old butler, heart-of-gold cook, proud but kindly head of the family, proud but spirited daughters, proud but spirited old lady, etc, etc - and every line a cliché OR REALLY OBVIOUS EXPOSITION SPELLED OUT IN CAPITAL LETTERS. I hated it but could not avoid it, because my husband liked it. Incidentally, it gets 5 stars and glowing reviews on Amazon. So much for their opinions!

Funny that several of you around here say that you didn't particularly care for the Victorian Sherlock and / or felt like he was a completely different person. It wasn't so for me. Not only did I really like him, but I felt at home and comfortable with him, both as Holmes and as Sherlock. He was little more dignified and a little more mature, but no surprise, since this is Sherlock's idea of himself plus his idea of himself as written by John. Of course this man doesn't lie on the sofa pouting, or stutter or go to Buckingham Palace dressed in a bed-sheet. Sherlock isn't likely to think of himself that way. Very human, very understandable. Don't we all have idealized versions of ourselves who we cast into the stories that make up our daydreams? Victorian Holmes had me thinking "whew, he's back and in top form" one moment and "awww, Sherlock" the next. John however... You know, I am kind of sad to say this, but I don't really like his recent character development. He was "off" for most of series 3 in my eyes, and the mind palace version simply highlights this. I was really relieved to see him more "like himself" on the plane. I thought the contrast between 21st century John and this 19th century Dr Watson was pretty striking. Things are definitely getting louder. Everyone is more aggressive, not just the boys. Even Molly is shouting and slapping and killing people (the latter only inside Sherlock's mind as far as we know, but still). I also liked Molly better before. What I did miss a little during the Special was the gentleness the series used to have. Not always, but often. Even His Last Vow, for all it was such a brutal episode, had all this low sad music and the softly spoken dialog and subtle little moments. But then, The Abominable Bride takes place inside Sherlock's mind, and he's not a gentle person nor would he harbor gentle fantasies. He loves crashing and banging and yelling, fighting. Far from objecting to John as a macho bulldog, he likes him that way, and the women he dreams of are all more or less d0minatrices. I do share Sherlock's taste for melodrama. Melodrama is my guilty pleasure, I can identify with him very well in that respect. I agree completely. You summed up the way I feel about Sherlock, in his modern and Victorian incarnations, and also about John. I love ACD's Dr Watson - a kind, brave and loyal man - and John in S1 and 2 is a perfect modern version. He has the virtues of the original but he is also prepared to challenge Sherlock and guide him when he is being insensitive to other people's feelings. Perfect. In S3, though...Well, it is understandable that he is angry when he discovers the lie about Sherlock's "death." More believable than Watson's immediate acceptance and forgiveness. However, something about him seems to have changed. He seems harder towards Sherlock, less understanding and, in my opinion, less moral. I still love the dialogue between the two men, which is still quick and funny, but I hope John in S4 is more like the man he used to be.

Or hung at Execution Dock in Wapping, like Captain Kidd. I've sailed down the River Thames past the point where pirates received "the Grace of Wapping." Still looked pretty grim when I saw it, though it may have been gentrified now.

Well, each to his or her own, where literature is concerned, but I could have chosen pretty much any of the classics and there would have been Amazon critics giving low ratings and half-baked opinions. One my favourites was the reader who complained that Thomas Hardy had written Tess of the d'Urbervilles in his "turgid 19th century style." Given that it was first published in 1892, what other century's style could the poor man have used?

TAB drew the biggest UK viewing figures over the Xmas holidays, plus they have managed to sell it widely overseas, so I doubt that the BBC sees it as a failure or has any reason to dismiss the idea of a fifth series on the grounds of either popularity or content. When it does eventually come to a stop, the reasons will most likely be the unavailability of the stars or the constraints of the BBC budget. Viewing figures do, of course, play a part but Sherlock is more than holding its own in that respect, with no sign that the viewers are deserting it. I think it is fair to say that a lot of us liked it.

Wow, you really didn't like it! But the whole point, surely, is that it isn't supposed to be ACD's Holmes - that has already been done, and done well (and, it has to be said, done badly in some instances.) And, much as I love the original stories, maybe we should remember they were pot-boilers in their author's eyes. He didn't think of them as deathless prose and, more or less, said that he didn't give a toss about the ways other people played with the character. The fast and furious pace of Sherlock, the plot holes and the jokes, will inevitably disconcert some people but there are many of us who enjoy it all in spite - or because of - its occasional silliness. As for the jokes, I'm afraid that I like them. I don't tend to pay too much attention to reviews on Amazon or elsewhere, as so many of them fall into one of two categories - basically, the show-offs and the idiots. I certainly would not take them as a reliable indicator of artistic worth. For example, just look on amazon.co.uk to see how many reviewers gave 1 star and a stinging review to The Brothers Karamazov, James Joyce's Ulysses, Madame Bovary and so on...If the classics don't escape a thrashing at the hands of the internet's self-appointed critics, poor old Sherlock doesn't stand a chance!

In the UK, there is "the royal prerogative of mercy", i.e. a pardon from the Queen, but it is very rare and sometimes posthumous (as in Alan Turing's case.) I think you have to be convicted before you are pardoned. Generally, convictions are only overturned by appeal to a higher court, but sometimes people get statutory pardons through Acts of Parliament. Again, though, I think you have to be convicted first. It would be convenient if Sherlock could be secretly tried and then pardoned, but this would be very difficult under UK law. There was a secret trial here in 2014 under the terrorism act, but the Court of Appeal refused to allow complete secrecy. So it would be quite difficult for Sherlock to be tried and then pardoned without whole thing being played out in public. Maybe we should just accept that Mycroft has near-magical, unofficial powers of life and death in his undefined role as "the British Government."

I never saw Sherlock as being unhappy with himself, or regretting being different. Even in the morgue scene with Mycroft, his question about something being wrong with them I always hear it as is there anything wrong with us - as opposite to the rest of the human race being wrong, as he assumed. Been there, done that - first you wonder what's wrong with the others, before you realize that you are the "wrong" one. :P The way you write, responsibility sounds too much like guilt for me. I don't see it in Sherlock, not regarding himself. If someone asked me, what made me into that - so, so sad and pitiful - introvert, almost asexual, nerdy person who would rather write online instead of chatting with (almost non existent) friends, I would give a similar answer now: that there was most probably no big trauma in my life, that nobody destroyed me, that it's how I was born, and circumstances wouldn't change much. And I don't feel destroyed or sad or pitiful. Well, watching Sherlock made me even feeling a bit proud and RIGHT being like this. Of course Sherlock under Mycroft's influence was thought that you are what you make out of yourself, and that to much greater extent than other children, so he doesn't value external influences that much. Well, maybe it's just me. :D Have to watch it again. I wouldn't say that it is guilt. I don't think he has anything to feel guilty about, as far as his personality is concerned. (Though he would be right to feel guilty about some of his actions - I still can't see that it is acceptable to murder an unarmed man who isn't threatening you with violence, even if he is as loathsome as CAM. To a lesser degree, the way he has hurt the feelings of those nearest and dearest to him, on several occasions, should weigh on Sherlock's conscience but I very much doubt that it does!) As I said, I'm basing my opinion on the way the line was spoken, and I don't see regret but maybe resignation, because he sees his own flaws as well as his virtues. I don't think there is any doubt that Sherlock is very well aware of his own strengths, and takes full credit for them. In that moment of reflection, maybe there is an acknowledgement that he has weaknesses too, and that he takes responsibility for them as well. I don't mean that as a criticism of Sherlock (or anyone else.) In fact, I think it is admirable to be able to look yourself in the face and say, "I made me" whilst acknowledging that some aspects of yourself didn't turn out the way you hoped. Surely everyone - even Sherlock! - is aware that they are not perfect. It is true that John is trying to edge towards questions regarding sex and/or romance and Sherlock's experiences, or lack thereof. However, we don't know that Sherlock is specifically referring to that aspect of himself in his reply. I thought he was speaking of the man he is, in his entirety. However, it is possible that his feelings regarding love/sex are more complex than either pride or shame, and that in fact he feels neither. He has indicated very clearly in previous episodes that love and romance are not part of his life and he views them as a hindrance - following, of course, the same line as ACD's Holmes. I doubt that he regrets this, and why should he? However, there are strong hints throughout the series, and particularly in TSOT, that he may be lonely, particularly without John, and perhaps he does feel some regret that his life turned out this way. If he is acknowledging that he is responsible for both the good and the bad, then surely that is better than it's all my brother's/my parents'/the world's fault. But, as I said, I might be reading too much into a single line, and it might be wishful thinking on my part.

Regarding the "I made myself" comment - I took that to be an admission of responsibility, not a boast. Mainly because he looks and sounds quite sad when he says it. It is a far cry from the bragging about being the only consulting detective in the world, and inventing the job, in ASIP. I thought he recognised, with resignation if not regret, that he had made himself into the man that he is - with all of his flaws, as well as his virtues. Of course, I may have been reading too much into it.

One of the responses to the blog entry mentions the robes and hoods worn by penitents in some Spanish religious festivals - during Holy Week, I believe - and that was what sprang to my mind on my first viewing of TAB. In fact, I didn't connect it with the KKK until I saw the comments online. Maybe I'm a bit dim, because the five orange pips is an obvious reference, but I think it was also the vivid colour of the robes which brought the penitents to mind. They are much more flashy than the white robes of the KKK. Re. fat Mycroft...As a fatty myself, I'm not keen on the ridicule of chubby people but it didn't bother me too much, as ACD's Mycroft was overweight, though maybe not as chronically obese as this portrayal. Once it became evident that this was Sherlock's fantasy, it made more sense. Weight is clearly an issue for Sherlock, and he uses it as a put-down - not only to Mycroft, but also to Molly and to John. The man has a problem with food and, maybe, with body image. So it isn't really surprising that, unlike his slender modern world brother, Sherlock's imaginary Mycroft is extremely obese, overeating almost to the point of killing himself. Maybe there is even an element of envy there. Sherlock goes through periods of deliberate starvation whilst on a case, and presumably has a horror of putting on weight if his comments to other people are anything to go by. Perhaps his imaginary fat and very greedy Mycroft represents the pleasure of consumption which Sherlock will not - or cannot - allow himself. It's just a thought...

I'd be more than happy for them to kill off Mary (I'll admit that forgiveness isn't my strongest point!), but I don't want anything bad to befall the other female characters. There are, indeed, so few of them and they are all strong characters - Molly, Mrs Hudson, Irene, Sally...and I'd like Mummy Holmes to reappear, preferably in avenging angel mode after discovering who shot her son. Unfortunately, I think this is unlikely to happen, as I don't think the writers are going to give older women much more than walk-on roles. Mrs Hudson's disgruntled reaction to Watson's stories in The Strand would also be justified in the modern version. Clearly, John and Sherlock love her and she wanders in and out of the stories, mostly as comic relief, but I can't see a story being built around her, or any older female character. That's not a criticism unique to this show, of course.

Isn't the entire graveyard scene an hallucination? When Sherlock wakes up, after John has pushed Jim off the precipice, he is still on the plane. So surely he must have dreamed that he woke up and went off to dig up Mrs Ricoletti. He does say something along the lines of "I see, I'm still dreaming," when the scene changes abruptly from the grave, with the creepy skeletal hand, to the Reichenbach Falls. Unless the final part of the story, where he leaves the plane and goes out onto the tarmac with John and Mary, is a dream, the previous present day episode in the graveyard cannot be real.

Are we sure that the stuff on the plane was real? I'm not certain of anything now...

Sherlock is a child in his Mind Palace in HLV, being lectured by his big brother, but I was never sure about the scene after the shooting. It seems to be Mycroft's POV - "Oh, Sherlock, what have you done?", as Mycroft is looking down from the helicopter - but I was never certain whether we were seeing the weeping child through his eyes, or Sherlock's or both. Personally, I think it makes sense that both might see him, at that moment, as a frightened little boy. I do agree that Mycroft sometimes seems out of character sometimes in TAB. It's interesting, given that it is Sherlock's fantasy. Does it suggest that he understands that, beneath the cold exterior, there is a more flexible and more caring person? Or does it just mean that he wishes Mycroft was like that? Certainly Mycroft's reaction to Sherlock's drug use is far more gentle and reassuring than it was in HLV. I wonder if TAB Mycroft is the brother Sherlock wishes for?