Zain

I am sorry, I cannot remember. I think it was an interview comment. However, I cannot place it in my memory, though it probably was one of the interviews pre-S3 and not in the context of Magnussen's death, but about their interpretation of Sherlock's character and why they decided to have Sherlock be a bit darker, less "gentleman-ly." Gatiss, for example, did a few rather deep interviews. The thing is that few people think like me. A lot claim that Sherlock was justified in killing Magnussen, because he is disgusting, evil, and threatening Mary. Others interpret it as self-defense. It is a heavily debated scene, and I suppose if you ask 10 fans, you'll get 10 different interpretations of it. I am not 100 % sure how the writers think about it, but I am fairly sure Gatiss actually posted "Sometimes someone has got to die" as a comment on twitter the day HLV was first aired. You can take that any way you want... to mean everything or to mean nothing at all. I haven't bothered with many interviews, because s3 didn't sit right with me, so it might be that they have already answered questions on the topic. But I do not know if they ever offered their own interpretation. I have to admit, I now feel rather useless. I am quite out of the loop. Sorry. Anyway, it might just be that they think Sherlock was doing the right thing, so the plane returns. Because he didn't "really" do the wrong thing... who knows. I've stopped trying to make sense of HLV. It's more brawn than brains, imo. And imo is stressed. I understand that some like it, and do see more going on in those scenes than I do.

Some have interpreted this as a hint that Sherlock had planned to murder Magnussen from the very beginning. I am not comfortable with that interpretation, though it certainly has its right to exist. Would you, based on your theory that this is actually a reference to The Speckled Band instead of a hint at intent, then argue that he did not go there with the intention to kill? I know that at least one of the two writers believes that the subtext of the original Milverton case implies that Holmes and Watson killed Milverton, and that the report is just a "cover up." On the other hand, they decided not to go with this: The "burglary" fails. However, Sherlock still kills - or murders depending on one's interpretation - Magnussen. Maybe they intend to let the murder be "covered up" in a similar way as their own interpretation with John claiming that there was a third person. Though I still believe they should not have had Sherlock kill Magnussen. Whether that's their preferred reading or not. Before that, he may have been a liar, condescending, rude, selfish and/or arrogant - but he never stooped as low as Mary. If they truly meant for it to be murder rather than snap judgement paired with despair which led to violence, then I wish I had not seen the episode.

It's more or less a flying buttress attached to the exterior wall of the church/cathedral they were filming at. Okay, I learned a new word Thanks for correcting me. I was however more thinking of how they could use the location in-story.

A monastery's passageway? Or a school building's?

That's brilliant. I love it. I like your mind

Well, it is a canon reference, the treasure of Agra, if I am not mistaken. And it was empty. Which has started a lot of the "Mary is Agra, therefore she is empty = not pregnant" debates. But I was thinking of the more recent theory that it might be a red herring and actually another reference to her being Moran, as Moran killed Adair. So you are spot-on.

Well, definitely the Tardis, if you ask me... I know a lot of you basically ate the books and are oozing with knowledge when it comes to the "canon." Is there any character with the initials A.G. or a variation of sorts in the stories? After a break of S3's infuriating mess, I've noticed that the conspiration theories are cropping up. I particularly like the idea of R.A. actually being the initials of Ronald Adair, who was killed by Moran. It makes sense that someone would write on a closed USB connector instead of an open one. But I can't find any good theory on the A.G. part. Maybe those are her initials?

Oh, I really wish he was Victor...

Well, there are some obvious tells, but mostly, you are right. Hard to prove a relation wrong unless mother and father are blond, and suddenly the child turns out to be dark-haired (can happen, but very rare unless grand-parents already show this phenotype). And babies notoriously change a lot in the first few days/weeks/months. But for the sake of my (crazy) theory: Sherlock knows John's blood group by heart and the child's blood group on the hospital records proves that John cannot be the father.

Or Sherlock realizes at first glance that it isn't John's baby, but he keeps silent (for John's sake). However, Mary notices his sudden change in character and once again tries to kill him to keep John. John finds out and forgives her once more, because, really, she was just trying to protect her own happiness, right? Nothing wrong with that...

Intuitors are usually not really "deducing" when they make their conclusions. Oddly, I wouldn't call it a gut feeling, either. More like... perceiving a feeling of right or wrong about the big picture, then going into the details to find out which part of it gave off the bad vibe. I can't speak for the entirety of all intuitors, granted, and there are other factors involved, but that is how it works for me. It's closer to abductive reasoning than to Sherlock's inductive reasoning. Imagine a doe who heard a noise, then sharply looks up. Within an instant, it either decides to ignore it or to flee. That's how I would describe it. And whether to flee or not is decided by your intuition. Something may tell you that something is wrong. Only that we are not animals in danger of being killed, but humans on alert, because something is not right. It feels off, and we cannot place yet why, it just IS. Subsequently, we won't feel comfortable until we found out what set off the inner alarm clock. A strange metaphor, but the only one I could think of. Maybe you are right and being in touch with one's S helps with deductive reasoning. I don't know. But it sounds logical, though I haven't yet seen a study into Myers Briggs types and the preferred reasoning. Sounds like an interesting study for social psychologists, though. I love that picture, too! But it also made me think: What if Mycroft wasn't as faithful to queen and country as he is depicted? I think he'd make a terrific villain. In an AU version of Sherlock, that is. Pragmatic, cautious, arrogant, dominant. Mycroft in a romantic relationship... I do consider him capable of feeling strongly about a person. But i also believe that any expression of his interest would be accompanied by a strong feeling of possessiveness. He's someone who would need to manage the relationship. Unless he feels in control, he cannot feel comfortable with something. I wonder if that is maybe one of the reasons why he doesn't - to our knowledge - seek a partner. It seems like a relationship would permanently cause him to worry about keeping in control, to a point where it may interfere with his other duties. Besides, I struggle with coming up with someone who could accept this need to control., It would be a rather... strange relationship. On the other hand, I, too, think that if Mycroft decided on a person, he'd devote himself to the relationship. That's my take on it.

I completely agree with you. One of my pet theories is that Mycroft took on this role, because his parents were too absorbed in their own issues during Sherlock's younger years. There have been hints of an affair, after all. But over the years, he forgot to adapt to the changing circumstances. And in a way, yes, even now, Mycroft is still nannying Sherlock. And while Sherlock complains, it seems like he is too used to this to truly rebel. He may call Mycroft his enemy, tell him to mind his own business, but when he hits a rough patch, he seeks help from him like in TRF. I once read a meta essay which suggested the theory that Mycroft relinquished control over Sherlock when Sherlock attended university, because he then concentrated on his own career. Subsequently, he feels responsible for Sherlock's drug abuse, because he had "neglected" to pay attention to his brother. Thus, Mycroft now is overbearing to compensate for his "mistake." I like that theory, but I think it's a bit too far-fetched to call it anythng but head-canon.

Maybe I am dead wrong, but are you referring to his statement that he always was fascinated with Dicken's Christmas Carol? I think he said that after he wrote the Doctor Who episode relating to that story.

Maybe because Sherlock isn't a murderer in his eyes until HLV? We did get to see John's apprehension when he spots the suitcase in Sherlock's possession in ASiP. That seems to be the line he draws, doesn't it? Well, until HLV at least. He also tends to storm out whenever Sherlock takes someone's suffering for granted. I can understand why he trusts Sherlock, though. That may be a completely mental and subjective view, but I'd rather have a friend who endangers me because he's short-sighted beyond redemption when it comes to living outside of his mind palace, but who cares, than trust a person who I know to be deceitful and to consciously harm others, myself included. The first one, you just want to smack over the head and be exasperated with... the second, that's the one who is someone to keep at distance. It just stretches my capabiity of willful suspension of disbelief. John is supposed to be a GP, and he was the first to arrive at the scene of the crime. He basically saw Sherlock heart stop in front of him twice. You save somebody's life by getting a bullet out of a body, not by putting it in there in the first place. And that's something he should know by heart. I never took him for a character who deludes himself to such great lengths. But that's what it is, in a way. He is not questioning it. Because he might not like the alternative, I suppose. His reaction seems to be all over the place, anyway. As if the actor's interpretation and the intention of the writer completely missed each other.

When Mycroft is talking about "the other one", he is talking about Sherlock's real father, an affair of his mother, who had a son with another woman, Jim. Sherlock never knew, but Mycroft deduced it early in life. Their mother's book is modelled after Professor Moriarty's from Doyle's works, because it was an office affair after she went back to university to teach Maths, where she met Professor Moriarty (Senior). That's the secret Magnussen truly held over him, and the reason he wanted Magnussen gone at the end of HLV, too. Besides, Professor Moriarty met his end, and Jim continued the family business. That crazy enough for Moftiss, you think?

... I really don't want a baby in the show. Even less than I want Mary around. If I am as lucky as I expect to be, there'll be some disgusting (I know, subjective) scene with the new mummy and her oh-isn't-she-a-darling daughter who just came home from hospital. May I be sick in advance? But I won't begrudge you that scene. I know that some really enjoyed HLV. I will be looking forward to reading what happened in the thread, and then I'll decide whether I want to watch the series or not.

You are definitely onto something, Arcadia. Televised drama is based on the same drama theory. Freytag's pyramid, whose terms you used, is a central literary technique used when you analyze drama. However, it is, as theory often is, inductive of nature. Based on observations, and those observations are then put into a rule. And if the rule fits the bill most of the times, it is generally applied. However, there are lots of variations. Basically, it's about structure, and by definition, every structure element (such as the first act!) has got an inner structure as well, an exposition, and an end. For example, you could argue that Reichenbach Falls and Empty Hearse belong together. Thus, their climax is the fall. If you want to look at the entire show's structure, I'd rather say the climax is when Sherlock murders Magnussen, even though we cannot know how it will affect the series from now on. Sherlock's fall wasn't so much of a turning point as it's longterm consequences are - in season 3 - rather benign. And so far it has not led to his demise. Freytag coined another term (not just that one, but it's the best known one of the remaining ones I daresay): The Retarding Moment, which is the "halting action." It describes the moment, in which it seems like everything will be fine in the end, but then the catastrophe truly gets to the character. If we tried to fit the entire series into the pyramid no matter what, then only Sherlock's return to England in HLV could be a retarding moment. The real consequences are simply not yet revealed. However... theory is a tool, and the outcome always depends on who wields it. I bet that Sherlock's appearance at the cemetry could arguably be the show's retarding moment as well. All interpretation is valid, just some come more easier than others. However, others can be much more brilliant, the road less travelled and all. ... What I actually wanted to say (and I suppose, after months of having to stare at my inner monologues typed down word for word, you opted to read the last paragraph, and only that. I couldn't blame you^^): It is very, very likely that they have got a dramatic structure in mind, be it Freytag's five acts pyramid or one of the more daring ones (for example the 15 act one which name I forgot). Since they do intend to write a fifth series, it's quite possible that they stuck to what they know, and that's Freytag. Even though it's based on Aristotle (Ancient-in-every-sense Greek guy who had more to say than even I do), and described by Gustav Freytag (old-as-in-long-dead guy from the 19th century who could not have cared less about modern drama, let alone televised drama), those are the basics which every student of the arts and philosophic fields of study gets drummed into their head. And there's a reason. It works well. Even the most boring lives fit into it. Birth, going to school to raise your chances of employment, mid-life with children and a job, then you get sick, oh, but you get a bit better, but in the end, you still die. Five acts + retarding moment.

I like the idea, Toby, though it really clashes with my impression of Mycroft. There is something inherently dark and wrong about him. But then, I somehow see something good in him, too, and that good in him is his obsession with keeping Sherlock... alive? In some form or another, he cares. I am not stating that it's good for Sherlock, it isn't in 3 out of 4 cases, but on the other side, that's Mycroft's biggest flaw, and I harbour the anticipation that they make it his tragic flaw in the end. He is the kind of character where you are not sure where his loyalties lie. And especially after the way John brushed off the fact that his wife shot Sherlock, I feel like I need someone to fiercely care about Sherlock. It's like getting all the hurt scenes, but the comfort ones were cut out of the story. My take on Mycroft's sudden disinterest in Sherlock's life is tha it will be part of the explanation in S4. Mycroft had his attention on Eastern Europe, not on Britain as it seems. He missed to spot Mary, he didn't notice the drugs. On the other hand, his absence when Sherlock was in hospital almost seems too staged when you consider how they presented him in series 3 (apart from the Magnussen deal). He indulges his brother and plays children games with him. He allows Sherlock to persuade him into a "deducing contest." He is shown to phone Sherlock and complain about their parents (which is not a practical call, it is social, an update and a shared point of moaning about their parents). Then Mycroft kept an eye on John (though doubtful how close, depending on whether he knew about Mary or not), and he certainly didn't do that for his own peace of mind. And no matter how.... let's call it controversial... his appearance in Serbia had been, he invested time into his brother's retrieval, time off his usual working ground, and with considerable risk to himself. Mycroft neither did any "legwork" when the Royal family was "blackmailed", nor when the missile plans had gone missing in TGG. However, he got, pardon my language, his ass off the chair when Irene Adler died and Sherlock had a danger night, as well as when his brother was taken captive in Serbia. But I still love that theory. And to a certain degree, he probably despises it whenever Sherlock has got more success than him.

Wouldn't it be brilliant if she were to play Miss Hunter? That'd be such a geeky thing to do. I know that if I was the director, I would not be able to let this chance pass by, even if it was merely for my own sake. After all, there's nothing better (and sadder) than sitting in front of your own work and chuckling about jokes only you find incredibly funny. Cumberbatch read all the short stories and books, right? I bet that's an insider joke between the two of them.

This will give a boost to the amount of Sherlock Holmes/Violet Hunter fanworks...

I am also curious about your time table. Are there specific references which you discovered? I didn't check the newspaper for a date, for example. Is that one of your sources? Well, if they put Janine's visit that many days after Sherlock's surgery, that's stretching the willing suspense of disbelief a bit. They are asking us to accept that he wasn't ready for police questioning until then?... I am going off this story with every new topic that is debated. This really isn't my episode. I should stop writing in this thread...

Depends on when those events occur. Mary entered Sherlock's room about a day later, if I am not mistaken. Sherlock gets into the hospital when it is evening, John meets Mary in the hospital when the sun is up. And Janine... unclear, but more than likely at most a day later. The police seems to not have been given all clear by the doctors yet. She probably was allowed into the room, because she told them she was his girlfriend. Close relation before police, police before other visitors. At least that's the procedure I know. May be different in Britain, but, putting myself at the spot to be severely reprimanded... the British and the German criminal prosecution systems are similar in a lot of ways. I believe that in studies they are often put into one group. But I may be misremembering it. I think they took creative liberties. Sherlock's injuries were severe, and he certainly seems to be bouncing back rather quickly. And then, after his second collapse, he takes his time recovering.

No revelations in a sense that there is no information we didn't conclude before. But I still found that deleted scene more illuminating than I thought I would. A pity it got cut. I wonder why they decided against it. The problem with the cut scene, though, is that it may have been cut, because they decided against what this scene establishes (mostly what we concluded before). Without that scene, we only had Magnussen's fear, and it could be taken for Mary simply threatening him to acquire the information he hid. It has been proposed before that she demanded her file, and to get it, she held him at gunpoint as a threat if he did not comply. But if that had been part of the episode, then we'd know that Mary indeed intended to kill Magnussen. Because the scene was cut, we do not know if they decided to change her motivation. While they most likely cut it because they overcrowded the episode anyway, there is no certainty in it. Then there's the fact that Magnussen, in this particular scene, essentially hands the gun to Sherlock. Magnussen states that he intends to make use of the information at a later time. When Sherlock decides not to go to the police with what he knows, he actually complies with Magnussen's wish. He makes the information about Mary more valuable by not revealing her involvement. He makes the information usable for Magnussen, because now it is a secret. From what HLV implies (I am not yet interpreting, I am analyzing) Sherlock did not involve Mycroft, and he did not have Mary processed in any way. If Sherlock had revealed her involvement, it would have severely limited the usefulness of Magnussen's information. I actually can see Sherlock's motivation more clearly in this scene (now I am interpreting!); driven by arrogance, he believes himself capable of beating Magnussen. He accepts the challenge to eliminate the threat and bury Mary's crimes. At Appledore, he then realizes that his own interference raised the stakes. He had taken the challenge to keep Mary out of prison, and if he lost, she'd go to prison (rightfully), but at Appledore, he realizes that it is now Mary's life at stake. And it is his own arrogance that has led to this development. If he had told the police and not taken Magnussen's bait, Mary would have simply gone to prison. Magnussen's information would have been next to worthless. The police would have found out the truth about her. Her cover is too weak to hold up to background research. In a way, that makes it easier to understand the story's flow. His hubris leads to his downfall. Sherlock's involvement threatened Mary's life, and when he realizes that he needs to rectify his mistake, he shoots Magnussen. This scene severely questions his motive for "taking Mary's case." Did he go to Appledore to beat Magnussen at his own game... or to help Mary? That is what I see in that cut scene. But again. It was cut for some reason or another. I am not sure which version I prefer. The way I view the cut scene... it makes Sherlock seem incredibly arrogant. But I do not like to think that he would side with a killer and the woman who almost murdered him. If he was simply playing the game, then I can see him do that. Playing the devil's advocate to find some way to make it alright for himself to represent Mary. I'd rather the mess in HLV was initiated, because Sherlock couldn't keep his own arrogance in check than to have him be this blinded by the fear of alienating John. There's something incredibly sad about it, especially when considering John accepted Mary back after she hurt Sherlock.

I wonder if Moriarty was, in a way, Doyle's idea of an alter ego, the dark Sherlock Holmes. Not quite meant to be a character, but a symbol of the accumulated darkness lurking in every person. Holmes was supposed to die at Reichenbach Falls, and at first he tried to "outrun" Moriarty, however, Moriarty caught up to him and put him on the spot right next to the cliffs. But that is just one more interpretations. I have not read many meta essays around the canon "universe" (to my shame), but I assume there are countless good theories out there. I still want to see Victor Trevor... And I got a crazy theory for you guys. John and Mycroft behind the gif. They plotted behind Sherlock's and Mary's back, because John feared Sherlock would put himself in even greater danger, and he went to Mycroft. This time, it's Reichenbach Falls reversed. The reason why Mycroft didn't drink the punch and implied it was drugged was because John told him in advance that Sherlock asked him to bring the gun. A lovely theory, isn't it?

That's nice if you can see something good in his actions, but I cannot. And frankly, I can neither connect with Mary nor with John in HLV. John just seems completely spineless to me when he chooses a lie over the truth, and Mary... her actions and behaviour is just too bewildering to me to identify even in the least with her. And I am sick with the "but that's what's reality like" explanations. Yes, maybe people tend to choose lies over the truth. But that's not what I want to see happening on the screen... If I want to be disappointed by people and their decisions, I can just sit in a café or read a history book.