Slithytove

I don't consider Benedict to be long-winded, but that might be because I suffer from the same affliction myself. It is such a treat to watch an interview with a personality whom you like and admire, and not have to cringe because it reveals that they are shallow, wholly self-centred or simply not very bright. Benedict seems to be highly intelligent, passionate about the things he believes in and genuinely likable. (And, yes, I admit that the voice is a joy - I could happily listen to him reading a shopping list...) As for Hamlet....I had my tickets since March! (My husband bought them as a Mother's Day gift.) The live screening was everything I had hoped it would be. I'm a lifelong Shakespeare fan - not just for the beauty of the language but the ageless insight into human nature - and Hamlet is one of my favourites. No-one wrote moody, self-pitying young men more perceptively (Romeo springs to mind) and I thought it was interesting that they chose to portray Hamlet as an unhappy boy-man. They took a few liberties with the text but nothing ridiculous, and the whole production was fresh and vivid. And to hear that glorious language spoken in that glorious voice....Of course, the rest of the cast was excellent, particularly Cieran Hinds. And now I have to admit to being shallow myself but Mr Cumberbatch is a beautiful man. Sorry, but he is!

Leicester is my home town, so I will be trotting down to the city centre tomorrow although I don't expect to get near enough to get a glimpse of Benedict. The crowds here for King Richard's funeral procession and lying in state have been huge - throw "Sherlock" into the mix, and you can imagine how packed the streets will be around the cathedral. Still, at least I'll have been part of the king's funeral, in a very small way. I'm not a royalist - in fact, I'd like our country to become a republic - but medieval kings and queens were interesting, particularly Richard who was the last English king to die in battle and got a very bad press from the Tudors ( who were lucky enough to have Shakespeare to write their propaganda!) We're proud that the University of Leicester discovered his bones and that he's being buried here in our city. And having Benedict turn up is the icing on the cake....

I agree that the complex nature of the character is one reason why Sherlock is endlessly fascinating. Although he isn't a realistic character, in the sense that he is someone you might meet in the real world, he displays inconsistencies and contradictions and yet remains fundamentally the same person - and that is how real people behave. I don't know which characters annoy me most, the stereotypes (step forward, Downton Abbey) or those whose fundamental nature changes without explanation. You see it a lot in the soaps, where someone is introduced as a villain and then, having become popular, morphs into a warm- hearted goody. Even allowing for the fact that, for instance, the scheming, faithless wife-beater might possibly change completely and become a caring family man, other people don'tt forget the past. In these shows, everyone has total amnesia regarding the character's previous behaviour. So you either have characters who never surprise you or ones who never convince you. Sherlock avoids both those traps, and it is one reason why I love him!

Well, I haven't forgiven Mary, of course, because I still think that shooting an innocent person is unforgivable, whether or not they interfered when you were on the verge of killing someone else. So I suppose I was quite close to tears of rage after the pathetic "surgery" explanation and the Xmas reconciliation scene!

Being only a couple of years away from our Ruby Wedding - 40 years together - I can't really share the cynicism regarding marriage, though I certainly don't feel it is compulsory for a happy relationship. One of my kids is married, the other isn't, and it doesn't really make any difference to the strength of their relationships, the security of their children, etc. It's a personal thing - Benedict & Sophie obviously agree, as I do, with The Proclaimers' lyric - "Yeah, it's just a piece of paper but it says 'I love you.'" If they feel that way, then why not? And why not choose Valentine's Day if they feel it's symbolic? The Isle of Wight is a funny choice, though. Some of it is really lovely in summer, but in February? Not the first place that springs to mind. I think we got lost around Mottistone when we went on a country walk there, years ago when our children were little. Nice little village, if I remember rightly.

Interesting that so many of us who admit to crying at films don't seem to cry very much at Sherlock. I am a terrible cry-baby (particularly anything involving children) and the tears flow freely at books, films, tv shows....I was given a DVD of Third Star for Xmas and still haven't watched it because I'm certain I will embarrass myself by snivelling. Haven't cried at Sherlock, though. Maybe it's the balance of tragedy and humour, or the feeling that Sherlock & John are somehow invincible and will get through anything that life throws at them. TRF was very emotional but I felt Sherlock would survive somehow - after all, the original character came back from the dead, so it seemed right for Sherlock to make it through too. I wasn't so certain in HLV, so the shooting scene and its aftermath gave me a bit of a wobble. Have to agree that the murder at Appledore and the airfield scene came close to provoking tears of rage rather than sorrow! Use your incredible intelligence, Sherlock, not a gun....and stop acting like a robot, John. TSOT is probably the one which had me closest to tears because Sherlock is at his most vulnerable and exposed, and you'd have to have a heart of stone not to empathise with his loneliness.

Went to see the film tonight with my daughter, and plan to lure my husband to go and see with me next week. (This ploy worked for me when I wanted to see The Fifth Estate twice.) It's a wonderful film, though tremendously sad - how could it be anything else? All the performances are good, and I agree with Convict 13 that the boy who played the young Alan Turing was excellent. As for Benedict's performance....Well, if he doesn't get an Oscar, I'll feel that he was robbed. The man is a fine actor and thoroughly deserves his success. I hope that, at last, Turing's achievements will be appreciated by the general public and that he will finally receive the recognition he deserves. The Royal Pardon was a start but it isn't enough. I was glad to see that, although the film only touches fairly briefly on Turing's problems as a homosexual at a time when it was illegal, it has been welcomed by gay campaigners such as Peter Tatchell, as it reminds everyone not only of the shameful way that Turing was treated by his own country but also of the thousands of gay men who were prosecuted because of their sexuality. All in all, a film well worth seeing and a brilliant central performance by Benedict. (And I don't feel it's rude to refer to him by his first name, as I'm sure he couldn't care less what his fans call him! )

At the risk of adding to a hijacked thread, I would agree that Benedict was beautiful as a young man. (And when he and his wife-to-be start a family, won't those Cumberbabies be adorable? ). However, he has managed to improve with age. A good bone structure helps. I don't know if many of you have seen Paul Newman's early films but he was a handsome young man - however, he lived to be a handsome old man, because he had a good bone structure and incredible eyes. Remind you of anyone?

I believe Benedict has said he prefers his hair short because he thinks the longer, curly style, used in Sherlock, makes him look like a woman. I can't say that I agree! I think he looks quite lovely. His hair was fairly short on the Graham Norton Show and, I presume, his natural reddish colour.

Announcing forthcoming marriages in the local newspaper isn't as popular here as it used to be, though some still do it. Of course, if you are posh like Benedict's family, the proper way to do it is in The Times.

Sorry, my previous post only went through in part. What I was trying to say was that traditionally the wedding would take place in one of these churches, usually the bride's (because her family foot the bill.) Publishing the banns gives people a chance to say if the marriage should not go ahead, instead of having to jump up and object during the actual wedding.

Re. the wedding banns....The banns are a declaration of the intention to marry and are published - and read aloud by the vicar during Sunday morning worship, for three consecutive weeks - in the parish churches of the bride and groom. Traditionally, the wedding would take

Jonny Lee Miller is extremely good as the Creature. I saw his performance for the second time, last week, and it was impressive. However, I still think Benedict's performances were best, in both roles. (Okay, so I'm completely prejudiced.). I've now seen him twice as Frankenstein, and going tomorrow to see him as the Creature for the second time. One of his strong points, I think, is that incredible voice - when he has learned to speak, as the Creature, his voice just inhabits the florid, emotional language and makes it flow. In both roles, he also manages to bring out whatever humour there is in the play, even whilst he is breaking our hearts. Looking forward to tomorrow - even though the story is so unbearably sad.

Ah, bless them both. I hope they'll be very happy. And, as you say, such is the degree of nepotism involved in creating Sherlock, surely she'll pop up in an episode sooner or later. Who have we seen so far? Benedict's previous long-term girlfriend, his mum, his dad, Martin's partner, Mark's husband, Steven's young son...Have I forgotten anyone?

But Moriarty only appears quite briefly in canon, but he is a significant character in Sherlock. Even when he is not directly involved in an episode, he casts a faint shadow over the entire series 1 & 2. I don't think that this detracts from the stories whatsoever, and I don't begrudge Mycroft a bigger role because the interaction between the brothers is funny and/or revealing. It's interesting that Watson didn't know about Mycroft's existence for ages, but he didn't know about Moriarty either. As the latter is supposedly the kingpin of crime, you would have thought Holmes might have mentioned him earlier....

Hmm......beats me how he managed to get shot, and why he seems to have scary dreams of being on the battlefield, not to mention a psychosomatic limp.

I'd like to see them work on another case outside London. I know the capital is Sherlock's natural milieu but ACD''s Holmes did go, for instance, to Cornwall for his health in the Devil's Foot case. Fish-out-of-water scenarios are always interesting.

Forgive me for asking a silly question, but - does Andrew Scott always talk like that? Not the Irish accent - I know he is Irish - but that strange, soft little voice? Or was that just part of his characterisation of Moriarty? I saw him in Legacy but he was a Russian in that, so it was hard to tell, and also performing a very brief excerpt from Angels in America. I just wondered whether Moriarty's voice is his normal way of speaking or whether he had adopted it for the role.

Also, there as several references to Watson leaving his practice in the hands of a locum whilst he goes off on an adventure with Holmes. It would be more difficult - in modern times, anyway - to do that, if he worked in a hospital. I wouldn't have wanted Watson as my GP, as he was clearly more interested in running around with Holmes, chasing criminals, than looking after his unfortunate patients!

There is a chapter on John's medical training at http://archiveofourown.org/works/1235479/chapters/2559208 in the excellent meta by cookieswillcrumble. As John was serving in a war zone, he was probably a surgeon, so the question of why he is working in a GP practice and not in a hospital is a valid one. If he is addicted to dangerous situations, he's going to encounter considerably less in general practice than in surgery, particularly if he chose to work in A&E. Of course, ACD's Dr Watson sets up in private practice after returning from the war, but the Victorian health system in England was nothing like the modern one - no NHS, for a start. I am doubtful that many GP partnership's would be that keen to recruit John, given that his experience is more suited to a hospital than dealing with the day to day problems seen by a family doctor.

Regarding John's gun....isn't it part of the original stories? It is many years since I read them, but I seem to recall Holmes saying, "Do you have your old service revolver with you, Watson?" on more than one occasion when the game was afoot. Presumably he was not intending to murder someone but just wanted to know that Watson was armed if the situation became dangerous. I interpreted Sherlock's remark in this way - not that he planned kill CAM, but rather that he knew they might need to defend themselves if things went wrong. I'm glad to see that Benedict interpreted the shooting as a failure for Sherlock, rather than a victory. That's the way I see it too.

I gave my husband a cinema ticket voucher as part of his birthday presents. (He is an incredibly difficult person to buy gifts for!) Little does he know that I have mentally earmarked it for "The Imitation Game" when it goes on general release.... Well, it's the sort of film he enjoys, anyway. I've got to admit that, although we rarely go to the cinema, all the films we've seen during our most recent visits have involved Benedict. (Star Trek, August Osage County, The Hobbit.) My husband does whisper to me, "Isn't that Sherlock?" but doesn't seem to mind, bless him!

Frankly, the Mycroft-Mary situation makes no sense whatsoever. Either he doesn't know about her past, and is thus incompetent or negligent (which seems unlikely), or he does know and yet allows her to get close to Sherlock and remain there even after she shoots him (which seems even less likely.) I doubt we will ever get an explanation, because I don't think there is one, but it might muddy the waters even further if they try. After all, in TRF there was a coherent reason for Sherlock to jump off the roof, but the explanation in TEH demolished it!

This is seriously weird. I wonder where the idea came from. It sounds so absurd. They must radically change the characters' personalities to make that work. I don't read Mystrade fiction, because that pairing doesn't interest me, but judging by the small amount I've seen, Mycroft is rather more human in these alternative stories. Of course, that can always be justified on the grounds that people will let down their guard when they are in love. Odd couples abound in fan fiction. I think one of the strangest is Mormor, i.e. Jim Moriarty and Sebastian Moran. This pairing pre- dates S3 and is very loosely based on the books. The character of Moran seems to have been created communally by the fans, and the fact that Moftiss more or less threw away Moran in TEH by reducing him to a minor character hasn't had much effect on Mormor devotees.

Mycroft is most often paired with Lestrade, in slash fiction. I don't really understand it - have they even met, in the books or onscreen? A lot of people like this pairing, though. As for the age difference between Lestrade and Molly.....Well, one of my daughters is married to a man who is twenty- three years older than her and the relationship is a very happy one. Age doesn't really matter that much when you're in love.