Zain

It might sound rather hypocritical (because I do advocate introducing Victor Trevor...) but I don't want the third sibling to be someone entirely new. That's cheap, too, if you have to introduce new characters that haven't even been mentioned before just because you thought of something clever but no existing character fits the bill. It's like the broadest hint ever you can give your audience that you came up with that later on and hadn't exactly planned it in advance. Otherwise you'd carefully implement it from the beginning. Just to get the best response from the audience. If you put it under their nose from the beginning, and then you present them with the solution, it makes them want to revisit the previous chapters/episodes. A much greater effect, more of a surprise than pushing a new character on stage. It's kind of bad practice, crowding your fictional universe when you can go with a narrow set instead. So far, Jim is the only educated guess that comes to my mind. In a way I hope it's him. Better than the alternative that it is someone completely new. On the other hand, I totally agree with you that it's still somewhat cliché. While I would really love it to be a sister, the only female character in the show who had something bad happen to her (from Mycroft's perspective) is Irene. And I am not really seeing the connection. Sad, in a way. I'd love for it to be a sister. Less obvious. Overall, there aren't many characters, female and male, who could be the third Holmes sibling. I suppose that's why it's such a popular theory.

But I wonder if that wouldn't make Mycroft resent Sherlock? If he knows that his father stayed for Sherlock but wouldn't have stayed for him. On the other hand, we never get to see Mycroft and his father interact. Only Mycroft and his mother. Maybe Mycroft resents his father instead of Sherlock. Which is the more mature "resentment." Children usually react with jealousy, adults with grudges. Now that I think about it, Mycroft also wasn't visiting his parents at Christmas in S2. He wasn't working either. So maybe their relationship is strained as well. Or they were line-dancing... well. Or would you say that "Mycroft resents Sherlock because their father stayed only for Sherlock" is a sufficient explanation why Mycroft sometimes seems to rejoice in making his brother's life a bit difficult? I can picture that childhood theory. But I don't like it as much. I don't want to get some excuses for Mycroft's behavior. I hate it when writers try to explain everything by saying "oh, and he was wronged by his parents and deeply hurt, and that's why he turns out this way." I always feel like it's a bit cheap. People are molded by the sum of their experiences and decisions, not just that one traumatic experience they had no influence on. Like I said. Personal preference. But I see where you're coming from. And I would probably like it, too, if things turned out that way. I don't dislike the idea. But I am not sure if I want the writers to "explain" Mycroft away. I don't like to be hit with a bat over and over until I believe that the character is simply misunderstood and tragic. I simply fear that this scenario could be taken into this direction. If Jim had been abandoned "because of Sherlock", it would explain why he seems to be fixated on Sherlock instead of Mycroft, even after he had gotten bored with him.

Just to dive into that: So you'd say Daddy Holmes left little Jimmy when Sherlock was on his way? So you'd also say Sherlock knows already about the other brother at Christmas in S3? If Sherlock hadn't been born yet, he'd not experienced the tension in the family. The affair could have been revealed later on, yes. Just to get a time line from your post: Mycroft is born. Daddy Holmes has got some extra-marital fun. Little Jimmy is born. Mummy Holmes gets pregnant. Daddy Holmes leaves little Jimmy. Sherlock is born. Somehow Mummy Holmes finds out about Daddy Holmes' extra-marital fun, most likely from Sherlock or Mycroft who deduces it. They fight and almost break up. I hope I didn't get that wrong? Just for clarification. Personally I prefer the theory that Daddy Holmes kept his family on the side until Sherlock or Mycroft deduced it. Makes for even more drama. But doesn't change much on the supposed time line. Really? Just take out all the interesting stuff from the theories going around and make it a bit more mainstream. And make sure to somehow screw up female characters! They work best when mentally unstable. Seemed to work with season three And I am pretty sure we'll get more on the Ho(l)mes front. Maybe not the complete resolution but I expect the third episode to end with the ugly reveal of the third sibling's identity.

Oh, I am sorry. I kind of assumed everybody knew what I was referring to. There has been a lot of speculation about a possible third Holmes sibling, and mainly it is assumed it is Jim ( as in Jim Moriarty). Though there have been interesting theories about Moriarty not being a person's name but a sort of "brand name", too. So, for now I'd rather use the name Jim without the last name.

To be honest, I'd love to see him cause a riot like this. And you're making quite a nice point, Toby. That could be a good explanation why Sherlock tries to keep John and Mary together. Maybe he had a childhood fright when his parents almost divorced. Children often feel like it is their fault. Then it would feel like a repeat to him: If John and Mary split up because she shot him, it basically is his fault, too (I know it's not, it's Mary's, but from his perspective...). That's a rather sad interpretation, I think. And it would lead to another question: If Sherlock was old enough to remember that his parents had a marital crisis (assuming it's due to Daddy Holmes cheating on Mummy Holmes), Jim must have been old enough to remember Daddy Holmes, too. I hope it's reasonable to say that Sherlock probably is the youngest. I'd put Jim (if he's brother No. 3) between Sherlock and Mycroft. So, did Daddy Holmes keep another "family" on the side for a couple of years? If Jim had a face and a name (Daddy Holmes), then it would mean he was aware of their relation from the very beginning of the series while Mycroft and Sherlock would only know the name of their potential third sibling if Daddy Holmes had come clear in all regards. It would also cast some light on his motives. Or at least give us a new angle from which to interpret his actions in season 1 and 2. I prefer the theory that Sherlock knows Mary is dangerous, and that she'd "do everything" to keep John by her side. Until season 4, I'll happily believe he is passing time until he can safely get her out of the picture. And that he's simply not willing to take the risk that she'd shoot John if John decided against her. I am not sure if I should really watch season 4, though. Could destroy my carefully picked version to have a nice hiatus instead of raging against HLV.

I hope it will be in season 4. Not in 5. I'd prefer to know more about it this decade. It's interesting how many possibilities there are. Often, shows go for a very narrow interpretation. Sherlock is a bit different. There are so many open ends. And some seem to never get a proper answer.

I read that as a slight against Mycroft, actually. He quite stressed "me." Maybe Mycroft pointed out his father's infidelity? Which would be interesting since many stories have it the other way around: With Sherlock pointing it out and upsetting their mother.

Ah, I know that one! Had to look at the author's works but then I recognized it. While I do like the darkness in that story, I can't picture it as anything but AU. It is somewhat conflicting with my "impression" of Mycroft and Sherlock. There's a similiarly chilling story that has got Mycroft seriously contemplating killing Sherlock as a baby because he cannot stand how nobody pays attention to him anymore. He then is frightened by his own thoughts, and develops a guilt complex that leads to his meddling and protective stance. Sadly, the child neglect/abuse stories are rather AU, too, after they introduced their parents. I liked some of those theories as well. While Sherlock isn't such a dark series, the subtext often invites a dark "reading." I love it when people come up with a setting that makes you say "Noooo" with exasperation, and then they lay it out in a well-written way that then makes you say, "Okay. I can imagine that." Back on topic: If Jim turns out to be Holmes brother No. 3, this could actually be some sort of connection between them. Funny how Sherlock and Jim have been compared to each other for quite a long time, but we both rather compare Mycroft and Jim. Maybe they are even connected through that one event. You mention death and loss of someone. Possible. But I could easily imagine betrayal to cause their reactions. Maybe by a parent? Anyway, I completely agree. The subtext makes for a strong connection between Mycroft and Jim.

Do you have any concrete theories? I know some have been interested in the ring he wears. Just asking because it sounds like you do have a theory. Or at least spent some time contemplating it. Sorry if I am cutting right into your discussion. I am reading it but I can't really contribute. Not my area. I distinctly remember something from the news but I don't think it was covered that much where I am living.

Yes, that's what I meant when I wrote that he essentially isn't supposed to be important. Every time he plays a major role for the plot, his actions happen off-screen. We are being told what he did. We don't get to see it. I suppose it's because whenever he is important for the plot, it's due to his work. But whenever he appears on-screen, he is stuck in the brother role. So it's really hard to get a grasp of his character, to see past this weak ground for characterization. We barely see any action, until season three most characterization relies on what he says. I had my issues with Mycroft for two seasons. It took a two years wait for me to get a feeling for what kind of character he is. And since then, I've actually come to, well, not like, but respect him. In a way, he's the most human (which is a rather alarming picture of humanity). Caught between self-interest (work) and family. He's like a darker incarnation of our everyday struggle to find some middle ground between selfishness and selflessness. Well, that's what I read from him, subtext-wise

No harm done Thanks for putting it up once more, I suppose.

Does anyone understand why he didn't stay in touch with her? I haven't a clue, myself, and it makes me uncomfortable. If I felt like he had an understandable reason, it probably wouldn't bother me, at least not in the same way. I just figured that it reminded him of Sherlock. John left 221b. He left the flat, and we are not aware of any memento he took. He apparently didn't clean out the flat either. So he can't have spent much time there after Sherlock's death. I doubt he would have allowed Mycroft to dictate him what to do with Sherlock's things. I suppose John turned his back to all things connected to Sherlock. Mrs. Hudson included. Maybe because it was too painful. Then it felt uncomfortable. Or maybe because it was more convenient than to deal with everything. Could be a "running away from it" phenomenon. That's up to everybody's head canon I guess.

Really? I actually read concern for Sherlock into this. Because I think Sherlock would rather have six months and the chance to survive than waste away in prison in complete boredom for years to come. I don't think he would have survived prison with its scheduled life, and the regulations. If he had been charged for homicide instead of being exiled, it would have been official business as well. A trial, a sentence. I believe it would have been much harder to allow Sherlock to return to London as a free man if he had been trialed. Because it was a "deal behind closed doors", he was a phone call away from home. I also think Mycroft would have been looking for a reason to call Sherlock back asap. Let's take the last scene when he calls Sherlock back. I mean... it's not like there has been any crime committed as of yet. There wasn't even time to check if it was a hoax. Still, his first reaction is to use it as leverage to get Sherlock back. I believe Sherlock put him in a tight spot: Mycroft values "the work." And then there's Sherlock who is his weak spot. We never truly know Mycroft's priority. Throughout the series, we get to know that he values both. We don't know what he prefers if he has to decide. In a way, I think he tries to juggle both because he is afraid of what his decision will mean. He compromises. If he had sent Sherlock to prison, as should be and as the others had wanted, he'd have lost Sherlock. The prospects of getting him out of prison without showing his hand, without showing how much he cares for Sherlock and without making himself even more vulnerable, are rather bad. If he had gotten Sherlock a "carte blanche", he'd have made himself very, very vulnerable. I doubt his colleagues would not have used this against him. To me, this seems like Mycroft was forced to make a decision. Which I actually like. I would love to see Mycroft's first priority. Work? Sherlock? Instead, he has pushed for a compromise: Sending Sherlock away. It's somewhat unfair to both, his work and Sherlock. He doesn't make a decision. To me, it stinks of stalling a decision Mycroft would rather not make yet. He bought himself six months.

So, any hope this goes into season 4? Maybe... let's wait (aren't we all experts at that?) and see.

Fully agree that these are the main points that make no sense. I got some theories (because, really, it's much more satisfying to attempt to make sense of it than accept that it is a plot hole). Let's say Sherlock jumped because he had to (and not just because he wanted to prove he could). He also mentions "several outcomes", and he decides to "jump in person" after Moriarty killed himself. We are given a glance at another escape path from the rooftop. Emergency stairs. What tipped him off to choose the fall instead? The sniper must have had a good view on him. If Sherlock had retreated from the rooftop, and if they had simply thrown the corpse on the street and sent in some fake witnesses, the sniper would have known it was fake. Even if John believed it. He'd have shot at first sight. On the other hand: Sherlock claims they had to "negotiate" with the sniper. So the sniper must have somehow known the jump was faked. His view must have allowed him to either see the place where Sherlock landed, or the mattress when it was carried away.I suppose it was a close call, otherwise it doesn't make much sense. John, after all, thought his friend dead. So why would he have had any incentive to shoot if there hadn't been something that told him it was staged? Maybe that explains the tears, too (if one doesn't want them to be faked, too). It seems like the sniper hadn't been taken care of yet at that point. Sherlock had no influence anymore, he could only jump and hope that Mycroft knew what he was doing. But we never got an explanation why Sherlock didn't tell John about his survival. He states that he thought about contacting him but didn't. He claims it was because he thought John would "say something indiscreet", that he'd "let the cat out of the bag." I assume Sherlock suspected that someone was still keeping an eye on John. It's not like John would have told a reporter. That's an unrealistic fear. But he could have "let the cat out of the bag" by not being in mourning, or by changing his habits. Reporters would not have noticed. But maybe someone who was keeping track of him? I've seen the theory crop out at some places: John is like one of those "rats" Sherlock keeps an eye at. A marker. I consider it possible that he wasn't sure whether he got everybody from Moriarty's network. Let's not forget that Sherlock claims in the beginning of TEH that "he doesn't want everyone to know he's still alive." Why? Shortly after, he hits the news, and then he makes a public appearance, does that mean he feels like there is still another threat? At this point, I cannot remember if we ever were told how Sherlock's survival made the news. Did someone see him? Or is it Mycroft's doing? Sherlock himself only appears before the camera at the end of TEH. Who told the reporters in the first place? If it wasn't initiated by Mycroft, maybe it got out before Sherlock and Mycroft wanted to make it official. Just one explanation why Sherlock would have reasons to keep John in the dark, and why he'd jump in front of him. Or to be exact: In front of the sniper. Btw, did anyone notice the logo on Mycroft's laptop in TEH? It resembles a Q ( Compaq but not sure...)

Well, either its a plot hole, awful characterization or... they intend to go into it in season 4? Discarding the first two options, because, really, it makes one feel rather gloomy when looking at the plot holes(?) in HLV.... - let's assume there's a deeper connection. There actually are some things that don't add up. Which, as we know, isn't necessary. They didn't drive themselves against a wall. Dozens of fans fared remarkably well with the setting in their stories, and made something respectable of it. It's not a dead end by default. Why, for example, did Sherlock jump? If Mycroft had only invited John's sniper to "reconsider" after Sherlock jumped, the sniper'd have seen Sherlock "fake it", and he'd have pulled the trigger instantly. No time to reconsider. So they must have already "negotiated" before Sherlock jumped. Sherlock simply could have walked down the stairs. Assuming he didn't jump because he always wanted to know what it feels like to fly - the "how" isn't the right question, I think. It's "why." And Sherlock beautifully evaded this question in TEH. He didn't need to jump. The witnesses were fake anyway. It wouldn't have mattered if they falsely claimed to have seen someone jump, or if they truly did.

I know the gist of it but I have to admit that's one of the stories I haven't read (yet). I am one of those people that groaned whenever there was a Sherlock Holmes adaption. Then I was one day bored, and I gave Sherlock a go (with the shallow reasoning that I wasn't expecting much but at least the main character was good-looking, and it was only 90 minutes...). And it hit me hard. I am still catching up. Have been reading some of the stories. I've wanted to give the Case of the Gloria Scott a go for quite some time. Maybe tomorrow. All this discussion has made me a bit wistful. And I still think your dark interpretation is brilliant. Fueled my imagination. It is true that the setting is rather like a two-edged sword. Trevor is both: An introduction to Holmes' past and youth, someone who knows more about Holmes than even Watson. Then he's also this dark stain. Because had Trevor been an exception to Holmes' preference for solitude, just like Watson? Or had he been a milestone? Had the ugliness of the events made Holmes become more wary, and more closed off? And it was only Watson who managed to worm his way into Holmes' lives? I wonder how John would deal with someone who knows Sherlock better than him. All the people he had felt jealous of, or at least uncomfortable with (Irene, Janine), they hadn't had more insight than him. I don't think we'll ever get details. Frankly, that'd destroy a lot of Sherlock's charm. We accept him because everybody imagines a different past, and we construct a past based on his actions. But some people must have those insights into his life. Some other people than Mycroft, Mummy, and Daddy (father?). I'd love to see the writers deal with that while NOT revealing too much. Besides, I want Sherlock to have a staring match with a dog. Maybe after it bit him. I bet that'd be hilarious.

That's brilliant. Awesome. I wouldn't mind such a dark flashback either. Maybe embedded in a "current case", which then is always interrupted with a new flashback snippet from the Case of the Gloria Scott. There's a lot of potential! Like... it's raining, and they are standing next to a corpse at a crime scene. And near the end, Sherlock suddenly gets quiet. John doesn't understand why Sherlock acts so strange. In the background, Victor walks past the crime scene. Their eyes meet and both recognize each other, but they suddenly avert their eyes. Sherlock then shakes his head and solves the case. He however never finishes his story. When John asks, he leaves the crime scene while shouting "Dull." And it is unclear whether Sherlock means the case or that what happened between him and Victor. Something like that. Preferably written more professionally. I believe there are quite a lot of stories that have this "Sherlock leaves the household because he makes everybody uncomfortable there" theme. Sometimes even paired with an aggressive Victor who blames Sherlock, which then leads to a fight. I remember an especially dark one where Victor almost chokes Sherlock to death. I think Victor stopped and left with the words "Be glad I love you." I remember that it was a rather disturbing scene. So yeah, I guess there's quite some potential for darkness. Just as much as there's the promise of another meaningful friendship, be it past or to come.

Yes, that was good fan work fodder, wasn't it? I've read some brilliant works that are based on that moment. It seems a bit crazy to state this after playing advocate for letting Sherlock have some happy moments in season 4: I love Sherlock!whump, and a lonely past sure is a major feature in those works. It just seems like they've overdone it last season...

Fully agree. And I am still hoping ( a bit more realistic, maybe?) for some Lestrade background. That could present us with delightful insights into Sherlock's past, too. Was Sherlock already on drugs when they met for the first time? How did they meet - did Lestrade take Sherlock to the station, did Sherlock stumble over a crime scene and solve it? Or did they simply run into each other at a street corner one sunny day in August? It's not a very important detail but... I'd love to see a flashback. Which is unlikely to happen because flashbacks can be a pain in the... well. Anyway. Then there's the matter of how close Sherlock and Lestrade exactly are. We never got anything confirmed or denied. Lestrade hugged Sherlock when he returned. He lets him get away with a lot. He goes after him in Dartmoor. He was at the Christmas party. On the other hand, Sherlock didn't seem personally hurt when Lestrade arrested him in TRF. Lestrade also apparently didn't make a fuss after Sherlock died. He kept his position, so he can't have voiced a lot of criticism. Were they really close, for example did Lestrade help Sherlock with withdrawel? Or did he simply keep an eye on him without getting "his hands dirty"? Of course there are more or less educated guesses to be made but it would be nice to have something final.

Just to make sure because I am not certain: Do you completely abhor the idea that somebody could take John's place, even if it was just for one episode, or more in a "John can't be replaced in the long run" way? Because I do not want Sherlock to have somebody more important than John, either. But right now, their friendship seems to me very inequal. John is constantly reaping the benefits of what Sherlock sows. And John is not giving Sherlock anything in return besides his continued friendship. Throughout the season, it's always Sherlock who makes concessions, and who gives (which in itself is ironic...). John's the one who takes and takes without any consideration. I don't think that is something he does consciously. But to me, it means that John has to recognize how inequal their friendship has become to return to something both emotionally profit from. To me, the idea behind Victor Trevor is that he could act as an intermediary. As a mirror for John to gain another perspective on the state of Sherlock's and his friendship. How will he ever notice how much they are not what they once have been if he has got no reminder of how they once were before? It'll never be the same, yes. That's clear. But they are drifting apart so much... I think Slithytove put it quite nicely. There's a shift in their friendship. Sure, most friendships are anything but selfless, but I really liked the series because it depicted this kind of friendship. The one that is very rare, and the one I value a lot. I can't imagine watching another season which shows so much affection between the two characters but which seems hollow when you take in how they act towards each other. It might be canon that Sherlock is doomed to be lonely while John goes away to live a merry life, but it seems very inappropriate after giving us two seasons which show a completely different friendship. One of mutual need, understanding, and acceptance. Everybody needs someone who puts them first no matter what. If John will never put Sherlock first again, then there are very tragic and unfair seasons to come. I don't think I can stand watching Sherlock put John first at every occasion, just to be forgotten for one month, then visited by John, then again forgotten until Sherlock goes begging for attention once again. Even if it's canon, it seems wrong to me. The times have changed, and the writers have shown different sides of the characters in their adaption. Sherlock is not Sherlock Holmes. He's an AU version of Doyle's Holmes. So why not have him live a different life? I wouldn't feel like they betrayed canon if they allowed both characters some more shared happiness. Btw (If you are still reading this. I really have to rein in my outbursts of, well, ranting...), I agree on something very strongly with you: We need a good, clever, brilliant case in S4.

I've been watching some fan vids ( god, I really waste a lot of my time on this show. Ridiculous...) And I finally understand the exact reason why I find the idea of Victor so compelling. Dunno if anybody cares but maybe somebody recognizes that feeling? Because I've read more than once that others feel similiar about the third season. In the past three seasons, we've seen a lot of different characters. It's a narrow set in comparison to other TV shows but there have been plenty of faces. While the show is about Sherlock, positive interaction rarely happens in his presence. Yes, he has got Mrs. Hudson, and Lestrade, and Molly, but I don't think he ever really laughed around them. We never get to see him happy around somebody but John. He's content, yes. But he never appears happy. To me, the most memorable scene is when John and Sherlock return to 221b in ASiP after chasing the cab. I don't think Sherlock ever shares something like this with anybody else. John, on the other hand, seems happier throughout the series. Then, in season 3, it becomes even more pronounced when he has got Mary. It's like Sherlock needs John around to be happy, while John is capable of finding that elsewhere. He misses Sherlock, yes, and I am sure he values their friendship. But in this regard, their friendship is not on equal footing. John doesn't need Sherlock as much as Sherlock does need John. It's why John says "Goodbye" instead of "Take me with you because I can't let you go a second time." And that in itself is perfectly okay. It would be stupid to criticize that John is happy. But to me, season three makes a point of showing how Sherlock and John have not the same priorities. I suppose that's where the idea behind Victor Trevor gets in. I feel like Sherlock should have at least one true friend before John. Someone that made him laugh, someone that laughed with him. Since season 3, I feel like their friendship is very fragile. Not because Sherlock faked his death, but because it has become evident that John can do without Sherlock. He might not want to, but he could walk away if he wanted to. I don't think Sherlock could. It makes me feel very sad for Sherlock. He reminds me of a raven looking for breadcrumbs. And the man who enjoyed feeding him has found another afternoon activity. The man might drop by sometimes, but he does no longer feel the inner need to be there every day at the same time. The raven, meanwhile, remains at the same spot. Hoping. Because maybe this day will be the day, the day when the man will drop in once again. I feel uncomfortable with this. To me, their friendship was beautiful because it was equal, no matter how bossy Sherlock sometimes had been. And I don't think you can repair this. Even if John lost everything else, Sherlock would now be just be "an option", not "the option." I have a hard time seeing how their relationship could be put on an equal footing once again. I feel like Sherlock needs another person that fascinates him, that draws Sherlock's eyes to them whenever there's nothing to focus on. Like the moment when you avert your eyes from the TV screen, just to make sure that the person next to you is alright. Just to check that they are still there. Because you couldn't do without them. I want somebody like this for Sherlock. Someone who looks at him, and someone Sherlock looks at. I believe that John and Sherlock's friendship can only get more equal when John realizes that it is inequal. When he sees it from the other side, when he's the third person, the one Sherlock is not looking at for confirmation. And I believe this has got to happen in season 4. I cannot imagine another season with their friendship in utter ruins. Something has got to make them approach each other once again. It'll never be the same, but I really hate this inequality.

Aw, thanks I'd really like to see it happen - maybe it'll inspire somebody to write a fic. Sadly, I do have a more realistic approach to season 4 than the above. It does not include most of my plot turns. I hope the writers will make something clever out of the mess they left us in HLV. I am a bit wary, though. I don't know if I could stand it if there was no clever twist. It doesn't have to be my solution, but it has to be some twist. Preferably not "Mary dies protecting Sherlock to redeem herself in the eye of the viewer." That'd be... lazy. In my eyes. Everything but clever. I still hope we'll get a Victor Trevor. And more Lestrade screen time. (Well. And Mary gone, but I daren't hope for it...)

Oh god, I hope not. Brilliant theory though Mhh what about this: Episode 1. It's not an especially interesting case but it reveals that Mary faked her pregnancy to insert herself even more in John and Sherlock's life. Like many fans predicted, she got close to John after Sherlock's death because she actually had been working with Moriarty. She's "Moran", and the one we see in TEH is only a red herring the writers threw into our direction, someone by chance also called Moran (Moran didn't get more than one line, did he? He could be a brilliant enemy, I was really disappointed they didn't even draw some connection to Moriarty. So, here I am. Recycling the idea.). The thumbdrive only included her past without the gory details (her shared past with Moriarty). It was her plan to throw both off track to buy herself more time. Mary's real plan begins in season 4, now that Sherlock trusts her. She intends to take revenge for Jim. She's behind the fake message. If Sherlock had disappeared, she would have lost the chance to stage the last game when she ultimately kills him in a more "meaningul" way after destroying his life. Of course, she gets away. John will be devastated, but his anger will this time be solely directed at Mary. After all, he had decided to trust her once more, and she had used it for her own gains. The episode ends on a sad note because John mourns what he could have had. Even if the baby never existed, he feels like it has been ripped from his life. It's like a barrier between him and Sherlock who tries but cannot comprehend John's feelings. Episode 2 then, like the past second episodes of each series, will included hints for the final episode of the season but the case will not be connected to the "final problem." Sherlock maybe suffers a setback from his injuries in HLV. He "goes on a holiday" and visits Victor Trevor (a doctor!) whom he had lost contact with after a major fight in their university days. John has to come to terms with their new situation (about to move back to Baker Street), and Trevor will serve as an intermediary in the end (in the beginning, John and Victor fight like cat and dog while Sherlock is completely oblivious to the tension). Preferably, Lestrade joins them for a case. While John is busy with keeping Sherlock resting ( which isn't happening!), Lestrade is set on solving some case or another that is important to him because it involves a girl (which is called Gloria Scott). Sherlock and Lestrade thus get some interaction time on their own. John and Sherlock move past their problems, and John finally comes to term with Sherlock's fake death (in HLV, we see he's not past it yet). In episode 3, Mary makes her move. She originally had intended to go through John but during their time together, she has become fond of him, so now she uses Mycroft ( we finally get to see that Sherlock cares about his brother, too). She kills an important politician, and plants evidence that connects the murder to Mycroft. His position is precarious at best, and it is only a matter of days until they will decide how to get rid of him. Mycroft has to ask Sherlock for help. When Sherlock gets involved, he by accident unveils his brother's inglorious past. Sherlock finds out about their half-brother, Jim, whom Mycroft had ordered to be killed in his twenties when he had shown interest in Sherlock, and after he had shown homicidal tendencies in his teens. Jim somehow survived but kept in the shadows, and changed his name to Moriarty (meaning: navigator) as a pun, to forever remind himself of who he wants to take revenge on. Mycroft, and by extension Sherlock (whose loss would break Mycroft's heart). Sherlock realizes that whatever Mycroft saw in Jim (the darkness) is also part of himself, to some extent. He takes Jim's words, "You are me", to heart, and for the first time in his life sees Mycroft not as a meddling protector but as a possible threat to his own life. Sherlock retreats which leaves Mycroft alone and devastated. John, unlike Sherlock, understands that Mycroft in his own frightening way loves Sherlock, and is not pleased with the fact that Sherlock leaves Mycroft to fend for himself. They have a fight. Then Mary who now has eliminated "the queen" from the chess board, goes in for check mate, and seeks Sherlock out to kill him. The season ends with her pointing the gun at him in 221b, to get some symmetry with HLV, as well as TRF. All third episodes nicely connected. I'd like to see that in series 4. Not that I expect it to come true.

I hoped Mary would turn out to be a "baddie" (which she did), preferably as a version of Moran ( I mean, could there be more of an invitation than the name Mary Mor(st)an?? I know it's not canon but I held high hopes they'd go for that), and then she'd disappear after being unmasked to feature as the next major villain. Sherlock and John could use that as a bonding moment after Sherlock's freturn to get reaquainted with each other. I still held hopes when they dropped all those hints in the first (two) episodes, but, well. I lost out on the home straight. I am a bit disappointed, even now. Maybe it's a bit vain but I don't think the "canon" solution to be that clever. One more reason why I hope for a "false bottom reveal" in season 4. I expected the writers to come up with a more intriguing solution than the amateurish one I came up with. It's not quite her background or her dramatic reveal that got my attention. It's her appaling behavior in HLV. I wasn't that impressed with the solution. Seemed a bit lazy to me. I hate all too predicable, stereotypical developments. I also hoped wedding meant an adaption of the Milverton case. I.e. Sherlock marries someone (carrying the theme to the extreme). Didn't quite happen, though I was smirking in the beginning of HLV when Janine made her appearance. The only fear I held that didn't come true was that they'd turn Sherlock into someone "tougher" by stressing his adventures during his absence. Instead, they've portrayed him more vulnerable. Which I quite like. They have even implied that he felt lonely. It fits with my head canon rather well. Yeah, I somehow hoped for another Kitty Reiley appearance as well. It would have provided some symmetry. I love entanglements, and especially profound character development. I for example imagined she could have felt guilty after Sherlock's "suicide." She wasn't portrayed as a journalist that was ruthless to the core. It was the beginning of her career, and Sherlock was, so to speak, her "first victim." Somewhat of a turning point. Would it change her priorities? Or would fame's call win out? I would have liked to see that sort of development we saw with Anderson. I didn't expect it from him, though. An interesting surprise. On the other hand, I feel a bit sad that her character was discarded.