Episode 3.1, "The Empty Hearse"

[sherlockandjohn]

I'm watching TRF again, and a little detail (which I won't bore you with) got me thinking all over again about the fall explanation - why Sherlock did it. Based partly on the explanation towards the end of TEH, partly on the actual events in TRF, and partly on speculation, I think this makes the most sense to me:

 

Sherlock and Mycroft make a plan to defeat Moriarty, involving Mycroft sharing details about Sherlock's life with Moriarty, and in return Moriarty shares bits of information about the extent of his network. This must be in order to not just defeat Moriarty, the person, but all of his web as well. Mycroft lets Moriarty go in order for him to reveal more of himself and his criminal activities, so that they can finally get to him. Moriarty then starts to tear down Sherlock's reputation, and Sherlock has to put up with it, because he is still waiting for Moriarty to give himself away. This doesn't happen until on the rooftop.

 

On the rooftop, Sherlock defeats Moriarty by getting him to talk about his false identity and the manner in which he broke into the Tower, the bank, and the prison. However, Sherlock also knows that Moriarty wants to completely defeat him; that is, kill him. So he and Mycroft had come up with 13 likely scenarios for the rooftop events, giving each of them a code name. He knows he might have to jump off the roof, but he does not anticipate Moriarty killing himself. Before that takes place, though, Sherlock has got out of Moriarty that there are three snipers pointing guns at three of his friends. This, and the fact that Moriarty kills himself, makes it impossible for him to choose any other of the 13 options than to jump, in order to stop the snipers from killing his friends - as Mycroft is unable to get to the snipers before Sherlock jumps. Once Sherlock has jumped, Mycroft has also found the gunman aiming at John, and said gunman is stopped.

 

We don't know if the gunman anticipated in advance where John would stand, but I'm assuming here that he didn't, because it is, quite frankly, a preposterous scenario. However, if the gunman indeed anticipated where John would be, I am sure Sherlock did as well - in which case the above doesn't hold up. But like I said, it sounds highly unlikely, and the consequences are too terrible to imagine (i.e. why would Sherlock and Mycroft not have stopped the sniper sooner, and prevented the whole horrible act?). So let's just go with the assumption that the sniper is following John around until he gets word that Sherlock has jumped.

 

In all of this, Sherlock has avoided including John in his plans. Why? Maybe for the same reason he often chooses not to include John until a case has been solved (think of Raoul, the houseboy, in TGG, or of the drugs explanation in HoB). I think there is pride in it; like John said in TBB, "I'm Sherlock Holmes, and I always work alone, because no one else can compete with my massive intellect!" Also, he doesn't need to include John, and it just "wastes" valuable time for him to do so. Then, when Sherlock realises that he's going to have to fake his death, he needs John to believe it as well - not necessarily for long (it doesn't seem like he had any plans NOT to tell John, since he later says, "I've nearly been in contact so many times") - but at least while he's on the rooftop. In the aftermath, he starts worrying that John might "let the cat out of the bag," and he needs to keep his survival a secret from Moriarty's web.

 

One might wonder, though, if Sherlock shouldn't have thought through the emotional repercussions, but as we know, emotions are not his focus. On the contrary, he attempts to push them away in order to work more efficiently. It is a long practised mechanism, and it's coming back to bite him when John finally learns of his deception. However, even if he had thought it through, he would still have needed to keep his survival a secret... but the possible repercussions might have persuaded him to take the risk of trusting John.

 

As time went by, it might just have got harder and harder, though, to come forth with his "little secret!"

[Carol the Dabbler]

... just as John found it harder and harder to phone Mrs. Hudson.  (Too bad Sherlock didn't know about that -- he could have used it to explain his own hesitancy to John.)

 

I agree with you on just about everything, except that John had to be back at Bart's in order for Sherlock's plan to work.  He had to leave, obviously, to give Sherlock time to set everything up, but then he had to return to witness The Fall.  After all, he is the only usable witness.  The "doctors" and "nurses" wouldn't stand up to scrutiny, because even if they really are doctors and nurses, they aren't currently employed at Bart's.  John is absolutely crucial to the plan (just as in the original story), because he's the only one who can talk with the police and the media.

 

[Zain]

 John is absolutely crucial to the plan (just as in the original story), because he's the only one who can talk with the police and the media.

 

Yes, he can. But would John do that? He would have to talk to the police, yes. But would he talk to the media? I don't think so. The media would tear into this story with every claw they have. Not because Sherlock's fate mattered to them but because it is a good story. I doubt John gave them something to play their game. Maybe he'd punch a camera or two. But talk to them? 

 

I am fully with you that it makes sense to have John as a witness. I supported this idea up until TEH. Then Sherlock's return put some things, well, into perspective. More or less. Sherlock completely omitted this part in his "fall explanation". and it makes me wary. Sherlock admits that he had to "get rid of John" to prepare for the roof showdown. On the other hand, he never states that he had anticipated John's return (or needed John to return). He gives us every necessary piece belonging to "fall" puzzle. Ball, airbag, Molly, Mycroft, homeless network, blood. If Sherlock had "used" John like he used Molly, that ball, or Mycroft -- why hide it? Sherlock is, to our knowledge, not aware that it was the wrong thing to do. On the other hand, if he simply hid how he used John deliberately -- this means he is aware of how much he wronged John. A nice little conundrum.

Maybe he didn't want to admit it to John's face. On the other hand, why wouldn't he? Pride alone? Seems unlikely when he admits at the same time that he made a mistake with Jim, that he had to go to Mycroft (of all people) for help. 

 

It's another reason why I now firmly believe Sherlock not to have anticipated his jump. Not any further than to assume it a likely scenario, one of those 13 ways it could go. Maybe it had even been the worst case solution. Who knows?

To me, it sounds contraproductive to have John at the scene, especially because of his baggage, the sniper. It would have been far more convenient to have all three snipers find out about Sherlock's sudden demise from the news. Why not have the cyclist make a statement? Some paid minion? John is a good witness, but do the risks (the sniper!) outweigh the gains? I don't think so. It's rather dangerous to have an unknown quantity on the premises. While Sherlock could control John's movements to a certan degree, they had to let the sniper choose his own location. If they had tried to interfere, he would have noticed that everything was staged and shot John on the spot. Why would he wait until Sherlock jumped if he knew from the very beginning it was staged?

[Carol the Dabbler]

Right, I agree that actually jumping was a worst-case scenario.  In fact, Sherlock said about as much in TEH.

 

Sherlock had to fool John into leaving (with that fake paramedic phone call), but he had no need to fool him into coming back.  Sherlock must have realized that as soon as John found out Mrs. Hudson was perfectly all right, he would realize that the phone call had been a fake (presumably assuming Moriarty was behind it) and high-tail it right back to Bart's.  That took no additional effort at all on Sherlock's part, so he didn't even need to think about it -- thus perhaps explaining the fact that he didn't mention it.

 

I agree that John probably didn't want to talk to the media, and may not have done so.  But of course he to talked to the police, and of course they would have told the media.  All of which makes John's return a crucial part of Sherlock's plan.

 

[sherlockandjohn]

Hmm, interesting points. I agree that Sherlock must have foreseen that John would return as soon as he found out about Mrs. Hudson. Unless he, again, underestimates John's loyalty to him. However, with regard to a witness, it seems likely that they could have paid someone from the homeless network. Anyway, we're not told, so of course that's just speculation. The more obvious answer probably is that John was meant to serve as a witness.

 

I just realised that my words from before, "Sherlock has avoided including John in his plans," could be interpreted that John was not part of the plan. What I really meant was that Sherlock avoided telling John what was going on.

[Slithytove]

Each time I watch TRF, it makes less sense to me in terms of TEH.

 

If it was all a set- up, a plot by Sherlock & Mycroft, what were they trying to achieve, exactly? What did they learn from the rooftop confrontation? It makes much more sense as a showdown between a man whose life is being destroyed around him and the man bent on his destruction - a confrontation which only one can survive, like the original meeting between Holmes & Moriarty at the waterfall. As part of an elaborate plan, it doesn't achieve anything.

 

If it was a set-up, Mycroft's conversations with John at the Diogenes Club are cruel, manipulating his emotions - and for what purpose? They make more sense as a genuine warning and a genuine apology.

 

One of the craziest things, whether it was a set-up or not, is John's sniper. He must have expected John to stay at Bart's with Sherlock, but then he would have had to follow John back to Baker Street and then dash with him back to Bart's. Was he in the next taxi? And Mycroft's men catch him inside a building, so presumably he had to dash inside a suitable building with a view of where John was standing and run upstairs to a window......

 

TEH strips all of the sense out of TRF.....As an episode, I enjoyed it but the explanation was daft. No wonder Anderson didn't buy it.

[Carol the Dabbler]

Hmm, interesting points. I agree that Sherlock must have foreseen that John would return as soon as he found out about Mrs. Hudson. Unless he, again, underestimates John's loyalty to him. However, with regard to a witness, it seems likely that they could have paid someone from the homeless network. Anyway, we're not told, so of course that's just speculation. The more obvious answer probably is that John was meant to serve as a witness.

 

I just realised that my words from before, "Sherlock has avoided including John in his plans," could be interpreted that John was not part of the plan. What I really meant was that Sherlock avoided telling John what was going on.

  

 

Of course he did -- that's canon!

 

As for Sherlock underestimating John's loyalty -- John's loyalty to Sherlock meant that he absolutely would return to Bart's.  He would have no reason to believe that Sherlock didn't want him there, and every reason to believe that Moriarty was behind the fake phone call.  So of course he'd return to Sherlock's side, to help him face Moriarty.

[sherlockandjohn]

Oh, absolutely! John would return, no question about it. But would Sherlock know that for sure? Sherlock, the man who didn't even realise that he was John's best friend, until John said it flat out in TSo3. Hard to say.

[sherlockandjohn]

Each time I watch TRF, it makes less sense to me in terms of TEH.

 

If it was all a set- up, a plot by Sherlock & Mycroft, what were they trying to achieve, exactly? What did they learn from the rooftop confrontation? It makes much more sense as a showdown between a man whose life is being destroyed around him and the man bent on his destruction - a confrontation which only one can survive, like the original meeting between Holmes & Moriarty at the waterfall. As part of an elaborate plan, it doesn't achieve anything.

 

If it was a set-up, Mycroft's conversations with John at the Diogenes Club are cruel, manipulating his emotions - and for what purpose? They make more sense as a genuine warning and a genuine apology.

 

One of the craziest things, whether it was a set-up or not, is John's sniper. He must have expected John to stay at Bart's with Sherlock, but then he would have had to follow John back to Baker Street and then dash with him back to Bart's. Was he in the next taxi? And Mycroft's men catch him inside a building, so presumably he had to dash inside a suitable building with a view of where John was standing and run upstairs to a window......

 

TEH strips all of the sense out of TRF.....As an episode, I enjoyed it but the explanation was daft. No wonder Anderson didn't buy it.

 

Agreed. I know a lot of people like the open possibilities, but I would have preferred clear-cut answers - ones that make sense with TRF. I do love the episode as a whole, though. But the fall explanation is difficult... there are so many holes to it, that I have to disregard at least part of Sherlock's statement that he and Mycroft had everything planned out. How is that even possible? Besides, Sherlock also said that he sat back and watched Moriarty destroy his reputation bit by bit. Now, that part makes sense. But for him to always have been in complete control of the situation? No. That sounds like bravado to me. In every episode, Sherlock and John are in some kind of danger before Sherlock (it's usually him) gets them out of it. Why should this situation be any different?

 

[Bakerstreet Irregular]

 

But for him to always have been in complete control of the situation? No. That sounds like bravado to me.

 

   I'm in agreement. It was speculated early on by people like Baring-Gould that Mycroft must have been feeding Professor Moriarty information about Holmes and his fleeing to Switzerland. Holmes only involved Watson so that he would be there as some sort of witness. Of course in canon, Watson wasn't at the Falls, but he has been fed information about what was going on and why they were going to Reichenbach by Holmes himself.

 

 But I don't think everything had been planned out to the letter. It couldn't be really. You can manipulate people just so far and Moriarty wasn't stupid....insane....maybe....but not stupid. I think that's why we and John cannot get a straight answer out of Sherlock....he really hadn't been all that sure of the outcome himself and for what ever reason, he can't bring himself to show that side of the situation to John.

[T.o.b.y]

After all the speculation and theorizing that had been going on for two years, they probably felt they couldn't give a one hundred percent watertight and final explanation without antagonizing hundreds of viewers who were passionately in love with their own (of course conflicting) ideas by the time The Empty Hearse aired. I think they handled that very elegantly.

 

As usual, I wonder more about what went on inside Sherlock's funny old brain than what happened in the real world. My biggest question for The Empty Hearse / The Reichenbach Fall is did Sherlock really have no clue what he'd done to John, did he really think his friend would be "delighted" if he just went to Baker St and said hello? I doubt it. Sherlock was there in the graveyard and he heard John's speech. You don't have to know anything at all about human nature to realize then and there that something is not quite good.

[Bakerstreet Irregular]

 

My biggest question for The Empty Hearse / The Reichenbach Fall is did Sherlock really have no clue what he'd done to John, did he really think his friend would be "delighted" if he just went to Baker St and said hello? I doubt it.

 

 And more then one person agrees with you, T.o.b.y which is why there is at least one meta that tackles the idea that Sherlock's little speech to Mycroft about going to Baker Street and perhaps jumping out of a cake is more of Sherlockian bravado.

[Arcadia]

It looked to me like he hadn't really thought about it (John's reaction) one way or the other ... he just had a goal (go see John!) and acted impulsively. (He was awfully full of himself in those first few scenes.) It wasn't until he actually saw John in the restaurant that it seemed to dawn on him that just striding up and saying hello might a bit "not good". Up until then he was focused on what he wanted, not on how John might feel about it. Classic Sherlock!

[sherlockandjohn]

I have speculated an awful lot about this part of TEH myself, and discussed Sherlock's behavior ardently here on the forum. Gradually I've come to change my perspective... maybe it's just because I need to make sense of Sherlock's behavior, I don't know but I no longer get quite so angry with him.

 

All of the thoughts I've been having lately about Sherlock's perspective of the events in TEH has made me want to write up the scenes as seen from Sherlock's point of view, though probably in 3rd person perspective. I will delve into Sherlock's thoughts. I don't wish to idealise his purpose of keeping this huge secret from John, but I do feel like I've come to a deeper understanding of it, even if it's only speculation, of course.

[T.o.b.y]

 It wasn't until he actually saw John in the restaurant that it seemed to dawn on him that just striding up and saying hello might a bit "not good".

 

Maybe he even thought it was very good. After all, John had said he wanted Sherlock not to be dead, Sherlock wasn't dead, ergo John was getting what he wanted and of course that should make him happy - right? I guess that was kind of Sherlock's logic. But the way the character is played in The Empty Hearse, I get the impression that part of him (maybe a part that the great brain does not really listen to) knows full well that what he did was awful and meeting again will not be easy. I guess John's anger did take him a bit by surprise. I mean, he played pretty horrible pranks on John before and the reaction was no more than a resigned laugh. Take The Hounds of Baskerville. Sherlock probably was expecting no worse than what he got when John realized Sherlock had locked him in the lab and invented the hound.

 

[Slithytove]

If you do something terrible to someone - like breaking their heart - then motive has to be important.

 

If Sherlock jumped to save his friends's lives, and then kept silent to continue to preserve their safety, then I think it was a noble thing to do. Harsh, yes, but noble because it was an act of self-sacrifice. If it was all a deliberate plot, exploiting John's trust all the way through and then staying silent when there was no pressing reason to avoid contact, then it was just cruel.

 

That's why I prefer to think that Sherlock's explanation in TEH was yet more bluff - as Anderson himself says, he is the last person to whom Sherlock would tell the truth. I prefer to think that it was what it seemed to be in TRF, i.e. a desperate plan pulled together at the last moment (hence the appeal to Molly for help), resulting in Sherlock having to jump because he was under duress, and crying because he knew he was saying goodbye to his old life, perhaps forever, because he had no other choice. Works so much better that way, I think.

[Zain]

Yes, that's the problem. Exactly. That's why I have a hard time reading posts that condemn Sherlock's behavior. I feel like we didn't get the truth. So I'd rather not judge Sherlock for now. I never know how to respond to posts like this. I can't find any fault with their interpretation. On the other hand, I believe there is more to it. And that it is not justified to condemn Sherlock by default, and to compare this to Mary's deceit.

[T.o.b.y]

If you do something terrible to someone - like breaking their heart - then motive has to be important.

 

If Sherlock jumped to save his friends's lives, and then kept silent to continue to preserve their safety, then I think it was a noble thing to do. Harsh, yes, but noble because it was an act of self-sacrifice. If it was all a deliberate plot, exploiting John's trust all the way through and then staying silent when there was no pressing reason to avoid contact, then it was just cruel.

 

That's why I prefer to think that Sherlock's explanation in TEH was yet more bluff - as Anderson himself says, he is the last person to whom Sherlock would tell the truth. I prefer to think that it was what it seemed to be in TRF, i.e. a desperate plan pulled together at the last moment (hence the appeal to Molly for help), resulting in Sherlock having to jump because he was under duress, and crying because he knew he was saying goodbye to his old life, perhaps forever, because he had no other choice. Works so much better that way, I think.

 

It does work better, and I used to believe something along those lines until I saw The Empty Hearse. I find it hard to not believe the majority of Sherlock's statement to Anderson. It might be a bit glossed over and tidied up, but in all, I think it's supposed to be more or less the truth. Especially when it comes to Mycroft's involvement. And the moment the almighty Mycroft has his fingers in the pie, there really is no conceivable necessity to use John the way they did - it can't be more than mere convenience (besides, my brain likes to accuse Mycroft of grasping at the chance to disrupt Sherlock's few meaningful ties to other human beings, because he doesn't approve of friendship in general and his little brother's friendships in particular).

 

As for staying silent after The Fall, that makes the most sense to me if Sherlock did realize on some level, a bit too late, that he had done more damage than he and his brother had calculated and therefore felt uneasy about getting in touch again. Actually, I wonder whether he would have ever showed up again of his own accord. It's interesting to speculate what would have happened if Mycroft had never pulled Sherlock out of Serbia and back to London.

 

[Arcadia]

Among other things, Mary wouldn't have shot Sherlock, CAM would still be polluting the world, and we'd be having a whole different set of discussions!

[by the sea]

Watched this episode again last night.  I hadn't even thought about whether Sherlock would have come back from Serbia of his own accord.  I'd have thought he would,  given that, at some point, doesn't he say something like "who am I without my blogger ?".  The draw back to Watson was strong.  I keep hearing John say at Sherlock's grave in TRF "I was so alone".  So poor, ol' John has had to come a long, long way to move on and, to a large extent, he's actually succeeded ... he's got a medical practice (even though all his patients seem to have very ordinary maladies for sure !), he's found love and his life, in spite of his air of what looks to me like resignation ... with the exception of Mary ... seems to be going along as well as can be expected.  He believes that his best friend and the source of all the excitement in his life is gone and this is what he has to do for himself.  And then along somes Sherlock and makes everything topsy-turvy ... just like he did at the very beginning of their relationship but with all that history added to the mix.  Personally, I'd be angry, too.  And, my goodness, it's so incredibly funny !   Every so often you get the impression that it might have dawned on Sherlock just what he's done to Watson's world and then it sort of passes.  Mary says to Sherlock "you don't understand human nature at all, do you ?" and he seems surprised.  But, when all is said and done, he'd do anything to save John ... despite making fun of him in the underground car.  That's why he faked his death and that's why he didn't let John in on the secret ... to keep John safe.  BTW ... I like Mary.  In spite of what's to come and who she used to be, I like Mary.

 

Debbie

 

Debbie

[Carol the Dabbler]

As Anderson observed in "Many Happy Returns," Sherlock did seem to be working his way back to England.  So yes, I think he would have returned eventually -- assuming that he survived his ordeal in Serbia.

 

I like Mary too.  I have to play head games with myself to rationalize some of the events in "Last Vow," but I like her.

 

[T.o.b.y]

I kind of wish they'd let Sherlock come back of his own accord. I do wish Mycroft wasn't behind so much of what Sherlock does, mainly because I'm more interested in the workings of the title character's funny old brain than his brother's master plans.

 

And just for the record, I like Mary too, but I kind of think I've said that before. I totally understand why other viewers don't, though.

[by the sea]

Oh, yeah !  Mary is a complicated character and I can see people not liking her.  She's so capable, though.  And for all her history, she's so human.  And she makes John happy ... and I like to see John happy !  
 

[Caya]

*sigh* Swore to myself I'd not let myself get drawn into that debate again, so I'll quote a cooler head than mine:

 

 

'Mary is a bad person' —> that’s the more important one. This is not hate. Let’s look at this in a different way:

‘So there’s this woman, right, and she shot her husband’s best friend in the chest - even though he said he wanted to help her - and he almost died. Then they met again, and she said she wouldn’t hesitate to kill him again. She also said she’d do anything to keep her husband beside her. Then we learn she’s a contract killer and that she lied about almost everything. She doesn’t apologise even once.’. 

Forget about Mary, forget about the TV show. Imagine this is a true situation and someone is telling you this. Would you say this woman is a good person? Certainly not. Would you try to excuse her actions? No, you wouldn’t. Would you hate her? Perhaps. Or perhaps you’d show sympathy for her. She’s human, after all. But when it comes right down to it, she did bad things. Morally speaking, she’s a bad person. 

You can still like her as a character! After all, there are fans of Moriarty and Magnussen out there. There are fans of Hannibal, too. That’s alright. They’re fictional characters. Well-built, interesting fictional characters. But do not try to excuse their actions.

You can dislike her for what she’s done, though. There are logical, morally justified reasons to dislike her. It’s okay if you don’t like her for what she’s done. 

It’s a character. You can like how they’re written and dislike they for what they are. And frankly, in this case, you should dislike Mary, and even hate her. Or do both and still have some sympathy for her.

[T.o.b.y]

Oh, sorry to have provoked you... Whom were you quoting there?

 

I'm not sure whether morally speaking, Sherlock isn't a pretty bad person as well, but I love him. And as a rule, I don't approve of going to war and being a soldier, either, but I love John. On the other hand, I can't really pin a crime on Mycroft, and I dislike him strongly. At least I can say with absolute certainty that I have no warm feelings whatsoever for Moriarty and don't even get me started on Charles Augustus M... Ugh!

 

I can't say I love Mary the way I do certain other characters, like Molly or Mrs Hudson or Lestrade. I wouldn't cry out in protest for her sake if they "got rid of" her, more for John's. But I find her likeable, and, by the standards of Sherlock's little world, not so bad a person at all. As for capable, she certainly gives that impression, but on reflection, she did make a few choices that seem rather unwise when you think about them (I'd like to quote somebody else here, but won't without permission... just a general hint: if you were an ex-assassin living under an assumed name with enemies living, how would you plan your wedding?)

 

I do still suspect that a lot of aversion towards Mary comes from viewers liking the idea of the two leads being a "proper" couple (or at least the idea of the possibility of that lurking around the corner), but I am perfectly willing to believe that other reasons apply as well, especially after His Last Vow.