The Reichenbach Falls was the Fall of Moriarty

[Montag]

My first post to share my own Pet Theory

There has long been a theory that there is a missed clue. I think the clue is simply the title. The whole episode is not about the fall of Sherlock, but the fall of Richard Brook, Moriarty.

It rests on the final conversation between Sherlock and Moriarty. Moriarty asks Sherlock if he thinks that he can make him talk when his brother failed. Without missing a beat Sherlock say "but I'm not my brother" throughout the pretense is that Sherlock is unaware that Mycroft had Moriarty. But the conversation doesn't sound like this is a surprise....

Sherlock and Mycroft pushed Moriarty and manipulated him to a reliance on Sherlock. They knew that death was preferable to losing so that had to get him to choose death. He alone knows all the threads, so if dead then the web ceases to exist. The individuals in the web are still dangerous but the conspiracy will fail.

Sherlocks fake death was twofold; protect his friends and to go after the threads incognito.

Ties into IOU as Mycroft has been pushing Sherlock into becoming Moriartys nemesis, not the other way round. All the cases shown so far have been an elaborate trap for Richard Brook to fall.

My 2 penny's worth

[Carol the Dabbler]

Hello, Montag -- welcome to Sherlock Forum!    Thanks for posting some of your thoughts right away!

 

You're right about the literal meaning of the episode title -- so either it's a clue or it's something that just accidentally made sense.  It certainly does seem that Moriarty fared far, far worse than Sherlock did in the "fall."

 

At least we won't have to wait much longer now to find out for sure what everything means!

 

[Bakerstreet Irregular]

Hi Montag! Yeah, that's a pretty good theory actually! So glad to have you here in the Forum, so welcome indeed.

[Montag]

Also is Sherlock crying not because he knows john would mourn is death , but because his only friend might never forgive his deceit?

[T.o.b.y]

I think we'll never know about those tears, whether they were genuine or not and if genuine, what exactly they were shed for. It's just as well that way, I guess...

 

Welcome, Montag! Your theory is interesting, but I can't quite believe the writers came up with such an elaborate conspiracy against Moriarty. To begin with, if what we saw was really planned long in advance between the Holmes brothers, then why didn't they find a better solution?

 

I still think "The Fall" in the title refers to Sherlock. Of course it is true that it is a play on the location in "The Final Problem" where actually only Moriarty plunged to his death while Holmes was able to save himself. But on "Sherlock", only the title character falls, as well in the literal as in the figurative sense: off the roof and from public grace. I think the latter is pointed to by Sherlock having been dubbed "The Reichenbach Hero" by the press after a case that recently made him famous.

[sherlockandjohn]

I think we'll never know about those tears, whether they were genuine or not and if genuine, what exactly they were shed for. It's just as well that way, I guess...

 

Welcome, Montag! Your theory is interesting, but I can't quite believe the writers came up with such an elaborate conspiracy against Moriarty. To begin with, if what we saw was really planned long in advance between the Holmes brothers, then why didn't they find a better solution?

 

About the tears: I honestly don't care either way. I know some people feel it is important to know that Sherlock was sincerely crying, but all I care about is that Sherlock and John are very close friends, proven by all the times they risk their lives for each other, and how they complement each other. Even if the tears were faked, that doesn't change how Sherlock feels about his friend.

 

Personally, I tend to think that he was faking his distress so well that it produced actual tears. Not even in that dire situation, knowing that John would be hurt, do I believe Sherlock to be so overcome with emotion that he was crying. I don't mind it if the tears were real, but I have my doubts. I believe that Sherlock, at this point, was on top (hehe) of the situation, knew what he was doing, and was focused on the task at hand.

 

About your theory, Montag: Though I like to think that Sherlock was more in control of the situation than we might expect, there are also clear indicators that he was shocked and scared throughout the episode. Like when Moriarty plays that 'Story teller' DVD in the cab, or when Sherlock and John encounter Moriarty/Brook at Kitty Reilly's flat. He knows that things are starting to look bad.

[Carol the Dabbler]

I tend to think that he was faking his distress so well that it produced actual tears.

 

Got carried away by his own act?  That had never occurred to me, but it makes as much sense as anything else.  So does Montag's idea.

 

I guess my own current theory is that Sherlock was feeling very conflicted -- on the one hand, he needed to lie in order to save his friends' lives, but on the other hand, he knew very well the anguish that the lie would cause them, especially John.  We saw in "Hounds" the tremors caused by the intellectual conflict of seeing a monster that he knew couldn't possibly be real.  Perhaps this more emotional conflict caused the tears -- not so much tears of grief as tears of frustration.

 

Sherlock never has dealt well with frustration, but at least he's no longer throwing temper tantrums. 

 

 

[J.P.]

I was actually looking for information about the figures in Mycroft's room, but stumbled upon this instead.

I think it fits into the thread. The text is quite long, but it does make sense to me, and I don't remember seeing this before.

 

Unfortunately our hopes for picking up the lose ends in S3 weren't fulfilled (is that the right term? fulfilling hopes?)

Anyway, this is an interesting read.

[J.P.]

Another theory by the same author.

How do people come to such ideas...?

[J.P.]

Well, that thing with Richard Brook being the right name and Jim Moriarty - an alias, and Rich/Jim's double life really stuck with me. Because yes, I immediately dismissed the written pages Kitty gave to John, because it is all too easy to do. I could do it in an hour or so.

But "I’m on TV. I’m on kids’ TV. I’m The Storyteller" made me wonder, how he was able to fake this, or his "medical drama" and awards" You cannot fake a whole life... Why the hell I didn't think of the easiest solution? It always annoys me when others get better ideas. <_<

 

This makes me want to get stuck with Steven Thompson in an elevator for an hour or two. He is surely not that good at answering questions without... actually answering them.

[Arcadia]

She came pretty close to the actual explanation, didn't she? The only problem; in TEH, Sherlock claims he didn't expect Jim to kill himself. But I agree the story makes more sense if Sherlock WAS trying to make Jim kill himself ... otherwise, how did he plan to fake his own death without Jim noticing the giant rubber duck?

 

I don't have a problem with the fake CV, etc. -- Jim only needed people to believe what Kitty published long enough for Sherlock to kill himself, after that it wouldn't matter. It would take at least a day or two, I would think -- maybe even longer -- for someone to confirm that the Rich Brook identity was fake.  By then, Sherlock was supposed to be dead and gone.

 

It occurs to me that it's rather convenient that Moriarty decided Sherlock had to kill himself; after all, it would have been a lot easier to just have a sniper take him out on his way to Bart's one day! Jim said wanting things to be clever was Sherlock's weakness; he shouldl have taken a look at himself!

 

 

[J.P.]

She came pretty close to the actual explanation, didn't she? The only problem; in TEH, Sherlock claims he didn't expect Jim to kill himself. But I agree the story makes more sense if Sherlock WAS trying to make Jim kill himself ... otherwise, how did he plan to fake his own death without Jim noticing the giant rubber duck?

 

Yeah, there is always something... but we don't really know if what Anderson was told was true. To be honest, I don't really understand what Sherlock intended to achieve with this visit and "confession".

 

 

I don't have a problem with the fake CV, etc. -- Jim only needed people to believe what Kitty published long enough for Sherlock to kill himself, after that it wouldn't matter. It would take at least a day or two, I would think -- maybe even longer -- for someone to confirm that the Rich Brook identity was fake.  By then, Sherlock was supposed to be dead and gone.

 

Yes and no. Jim couldn't be sure what Sherlock was going to do. People believing is one thing, but Sherlock would have enough power to choose a counter-attack. And it wouldn't be that difficult to prove that Richard Brook never was on kids TV, nor in the other show, that he never made any DVDs etc., if there indeed were none. But Sherlock has chosen the easy way - for Jim. Which might be as well a plothole/fault in the writing... but I somehow like the idea of Moriarty being a criminal alias for Richard. It makes the character more real, even if the name is fake.

 

 

It occurs to me that it's rather convenient that Moriarty decided Sherlock had to kill himself; after all, it would have been a lot easier to just have a sniper take him out on his way to Bart's one day! Jim said wanting things to be clever was Sherlock's weakness; he shouldl have taken a look at himself!

 

It's a little bit like with Henry Knight: dead people are listened to. Sherlock had to kill himself, having a plausible reason for it. Shooting him would just rise questions, and make him into a dead hero instead of a false detective.

[Arcadia]

 

It occurs to me that it's rather convenient that Moriarty decided Sherlock had to kill himself; after all, it would have been a lot easier to just have a sniper take him out on his way to Bart's one day! Jim said wanting things to be clever was Sherlock's weakness; he shouldl have taken a look at himself!

 

It's a little bit like with Henry Knight: dead people are listened to. Sherlock had to kill himself, having a plausible reason for it. Shooting him would just rise questions, and make him into a dead hero instead of a false detective.

 

True. Plus it makes Jim's victory sweeter. But it's still convenient! :D

 

In my headcanon, Sherlock didn't just tell Anderson, eventually he told everyone. Anderson was the only one who videotaped it, that's why it's the version we see. Or something like that.

[Shocked]

I'm sorry for my mistake... I'm french and my English is not perfect ;)

 

I think that right, the title is for Moriarty !

In the book, Conan Doyle kill Sherlock in 1895 but the fans want he come back so Conan resurrect him...

If the title is about Moriarty, it can explain why he is not dead: the fan of the series want him alive !

the christmas will help us to understand and the story will take place in 1895 ;)

 

I think it can be a good explanation and that can be a good justification (Conan wanted that Morarty kill Sherlock so maybe the Directors will do what he wanted !)