Episode 3.1, "The Empty Hearse"

[Zain]

Even if it made no sense to Mary, it was in her interests to agree. She wasn't likely to say "Surgical precision? Rubbish. Actually, I was aiming for his heart....". No wonder she accepted the excuse, however ridiculous, when it was offered.

 

So true. And it's not like she ever confirms any of the "good" motives Sherlock attributes to her. She is rather quiet on that front. Sherlock's already spinning some tale to justify her action, so no need to come up with one. 

 

 

 

 

What feels like letting Sherlock down is not having that deep bond which says, " I don't care what excuses she makes, or you make for her, she hurt you - I nearly lost you, forever this time - and I can't get past that.". 

 

That's what I wanted him to say, not to go on about the problems of her past and her future, as if he'd just found out that she used to be a stripper, or had been caught kissing the milkman, or something.....

 

Nothing to add. Spot-on.

[T.o.b.y]

I love the way this show connects the episodes across series. Remember when Sherlock said in A Scandal in Belgravia "fire exposes our priorities"? I could slap myself for not having noticed this right away... It's so obvious once you think about it.

[Bakerstreet Irregular]

That is why I love rewatching this series and see how certain elements show up through all three Seasons although I have to admit there are people who are better and more skilled at pointing them out.

 

  And this ability of Mofftiss of filling in scenes gives me hope for Season Four and beyond.

[Carol the Dabbler]

I love the way this show connects the episodes across series. Remember when Sherlock said in A Scandal in Belgravia "fire exposes our priorities"? I could slap myself for not having noticed this right away... It's so obvious once you think about it.

 

 

So were they already planning toasty!John when they wrote "Scandal"?  Or did they have John threatened by fire (rather than by, say, drowning) in order to tie in with that line?  Or are we examining the episodes in such minute detail that we're seeing things that would astonish Moftiss (not that they'd admit it)?

 

[Bakerstreet Irregular]

 

So were they already planning toasty!John when they write "Scandal"?  Or did they have John threatened by fire (rather than by, say, drowning) in order to tie in with that line?  Or are we examining the episodes in such minute detail that we're seeing things that would astonish Moftiss (not that they'd admit it)?

 

  Could be any of these....but they do have an eye for detail.  Molly's facial expressions all through the reception.....how Sherlock and Irene mirrored each other. In "ASIP"  Sherlock asks John what would he say if he knew he had only seconds to live. In "TRF"  Sherlock says...."Goodbye, John"  just before he jumps.

 

 Then we have kept track of all the things from "The Unaired Pilot" that got revisited throughout the aired episodes.  So it could be possible that they too are keeping track.

[Carol the Dabbler]

 

 

... they do have an eye for detail. <snip>
 
 Then we have kept track of all the things from "The Unaired Pilot" that got revisited throughout the aired episodes.  So it could be possible that they too are keeping track.

 

 

Series 3 had a number of presumably-intentional references to earlier episodes, such as Sherlock saying to Mycroft, "How would you know" about being lonely, in parallel with Mycroft asking Sherlock the same question with regard to sex in "Scandal."  So you're right, they do pay close attention to detail sometimes.  (Other times, not so much.)

 

[Bakerstreet Irregular]

 

So you're right, they do pay close attention to detail sometimes.  (Other times, not so much.)

 

 

  Or maybe so, just not in evidence, as yet?

[Carol the Dabbler]

Well, I suppose we can always hope.  *sigh*

 

[Bakerstreet Irregular]

 

Well, I suppose we can always hope.  *sigh*

 

   Always.

[T.o.b.y]

It doesn't really matter to me whether the episodes are connected intentionally or I just tie things together because my brain thinks it's fun - I'm just happy that the series allows for me to make as much sense of things as possible. Another example is Shan's quote: "What does it tell you when and assassin cannot shoot straight? It means they are not really trying." (I'm not sure if those are her exact words, but that's more or less what she says, right?). That fits so well with Sherlock's "surgery" explanation for Mary's near-but-not-entirely-fatal shot.

[T.o.b.y]

I just noticed a little detail the other night, which is probably due to sloppy writing, I suppose, but which helps if you're trying to tell yourself that Sherlock's explanation as given to Anderson is not true:

 

At the beginning, when Sherlock has been cleaned up and is getting ready to know London again, he asks for his coat with the words "where is it?" and "you know what". Now, Sherlock told Anderson he had lots of coats. Doesn't seem like that's the case in the light of that little scene, does it?

[Arcadia]

I noticed that too but darned if I know what to make of it. Why fall back on sloppy writing in what is arguably the most important scene in the episode? But if it's intentional, why jerk the audience around on such a trivial point as the number of coats Sherlock owns? It's a madhouse. A madhoussssse!

[Bakerstreet Irregular]

I think that Anderson made a point. Sherlock would not be telling him, of all people, what went down. True, at this point no one is listening to Anderson....so it might not matter....but why bother. If Sherlock still doesn't want people to know he's alive why tell Anderson who's going to blab the whole thing to anyone who'll listen?

[T.o.b.y]

My main reason for believing what Sherlock told Anderson to be the truth is that I had the impression the writers intended it to be. This, I thought, is the "official" version, and it was purposely delivered in such a way that all those who want to cling to their own theory for ever still have that option.

 

But if I ignore that angle for a while and pretend there are no such things as writers and intentions and manipulating the audience involved and Sherlock is real (which I love to pretend), then it's a lot harder to believe.

 

Not only is there the bit with the coat. Mycroft also has to be told Sherlock spent the last two years dismantling Moriarty's network and that the Serbian gang was the last of it. Now, if the Holmes boys had really been working as closely together on the whole affair as Sherlock let on, then I would have thought Mycroft would have known those things perfectly well. (Again, one could argue that it's not Mycroft who needs to be told but the audience and this is simply how they did that, but I wanted to forget that angle for a second).

 

Then there is of course the whole thing of Anderson being the listener and taping Sherlock the while. So this is above all Sherlock's "official version", which he wants the public at large to believe. Of course he'll make it seem as if he and Mycroft had everything under control. What is interesting there is that he tried to tell John earlier, at one of the restaurants where they eventually got thrown out, and it does not seem like the beginning of the same story. Sherlock mentions stuff he couldn't have planned in advance, like the possibility of jumping into the laundry truck. It sounds a lot more improvised.

 

I wonder why in the end, Sherlock decided not to tell John at all, even though John finally showed interest. Why did he change his mind?

[Arcadia]

Why did he change his mind? For the same reason that he fooled John in the first place, naturally.

 

 

Just for the heck of it, here are some possible answers, which I in no way stand by.

 

By the time he told Anderson, his survival was all over the news anyway, so there was no more point in keeping it a secret. (When did this taping actually occur, btw?)

 

Maybe he told Anderson out of kindness? Okay, never mind, forget that one.

 

Maybe he was just idly reminiscing when he was talking to Mycroft about the Serbian network? And he wanted to make a point that he'd been gone for two years because he figured Mycroft was too disinterested to notice?

 

And maybe he did finally tell John, but it happened off screen because, uh, because, they ran out of film. Or something.

 

*goes and whimpers quietly in corner*

 

 

[T.o.b.y]

Why did he change his mind? For the same reason that he fooled John in the first place, naturally.

 

Yes, well, I guess it's likely that Sherlock decided the least said about the whole thing in John's presence, the better, after all. He'd only just been forgiven (kind of), he probably wasn't keen on a discussion of particulars that could only enrage his friend anew.

 

By the way, isn't it funny that Moriarty kept talking about "burning" Sherlock or "burning the heart out of" him, and then at the beginning of series 3, we get an actual fire?

[Bakerstreet Irregular]

 

By the way, isn't it funny that Moriarty kept talking about "burning" Sherlock or "burning the heart out of" him, and then at the beginning of series 3, we get an actual fire?

 

  And with John at the very heart of it, no less. That would have "burned" Sherlock for sure, if John had actually died, then there would be no way for Sherlock of have begged his forgiveness.

[Arcadia]

Wow. Is this just coincidence, or is Moftiss really that good?

[Bakerstreet Irregular]

Oh, I don't think it's coincidence. Not at all.

[Pamela]

Oh, I don't think it's coincidence. Not at all.

What do we say about coincidence?

[Bakerstreet Irregular]

 

What do we say about coincidence?

 

  Well, we know what Mycroft says anyway.   

 

And knowing how lazy he is....why wouldn't he believe the universe just as lazy?

[T.o.b.y]

Mycroft... one of the reasons I object to him is that his pulling the strings all the time makes Sherlock even harder to figure out. For example, because Mycroft pulled him out and ordered him back to London, we'll never know whether Sherlock himself had planned on returning after he had gotten rid of the last of Moriarty's network. And was using John for the "Lazarus" plan really mostly Mycroft's idea? Or is that just an excuse of Sherlock's so he will appear less cruel? (If the latter, then it is a pretty bad one and it does not exactly make Sherlock look more admirable - "it was my brother's idea and I had neither the guts to stand up to him nor the intelligence to come up with a better alternative" is not exactly a statement that calls forth a lot of sympathy, is it?)

 

It's really interesting what John gets angry at and what not. For example, when he learns that Sherlock was actually at the graveyard and listened to all he said at his grave, I'd have expected him to blow another fuse. But nope, he doesn't seem to mind.

 

The Empty Hearse is probably my least favorite episode to date, yet I can still sit there completely enthralled and watch it over and over again. It has some really wonderful moments and great acting. Like that little scene on the stairs with Molly and Sherlock where she asks what their day was about. It's hard to believe sometimes that Molly does not actually exist somewhere, that if you went to Bart's and snuck into the morgue, you wouldn't be able to find her there in her white coat.

 

Or the fire. My brain tells me this is not a sign of good taste or mental maturity, but I am a total sucker for glaring, blatant, "Sherlock is a hero" moments. Him running straight into the flames, shouting, coat flying... that was glorious. Especially since I've been afraid of fire ever since I was little.

[Zain]

Yeah, TEH had some great scenes, didn't it? Of course there are weaknesses but I've come to like it best. Not for the great mystery but for the human reactions. I feel like the characters were most true to themselves while being... different enough. It is believable that two years have passed. The funny thing is: Mycroft is right. Time hasn't stopped in London. But it hasn't stopped for Sherlock either. Sherlock isn't the same, neither are the other characters the same. Maybe the following episodes show us in what ways Sherlock has changed more than we realized on the first viewing. He was alone. For two years. Maybe that's why he is much more open towards John than he was before. Funnily, when I watch TEH nowadays, I feel like Sherlock is the character most affected by the fall. 

[T.o.b.y]

Funnily, when I watch TEH nowadays, I feel like Sherlock is the character most affected by the fall. 

 

Yes, it is a bit as if he did die, somehow. The Fall was truly "the end of an era", not John and Mary's marriage.

 

[Zain]

There we'll have to agree to disagree. To me, the wedding is the turning point. John declared his change of priorities at this point.

In TEH, Sherlock is basically like a deer caught in the headlights of a car when he is confronted with the fact that time did not stop in London. I wonder if it isn't so much about ignorance, and more about the psychological phenomenon that it was the thought that kept him going. That he could return to his life. Imagining that the world is closing the gap you left behind while you are away is very depressing, and it is not the best of motivation. I believe this is something soldiers often experience. But I am not an expert on psychology. Just something I read once. It is very easy to blend out the fact that time is passing at the other end of the world just as fast as it is passing where you are. That's why soldiers often have an out-of-place feeling when they return. They don't fit "in" anymore. (And of course because they experienced horrible things but PTSD is another can of worms...)