Themes and Through-lines

[Boton]

I'm casually doing yet another rewatch, this time backwards.  I often do this with shows that I want to analyze rather than just be entertained by, because it seems to highlight character development for me.  Anyway, I thought it would be fun to have a thread to talk about themes that emerged and were developed throughout S3.

 

I'll start with the theme of Sherlock's understanding of and actual practice of friendship.  Throughout S3, we see that Mycroft and Sherlock never had many friends, first by accident as children, then by being isolated by their intelligence, and later by choice.  Mycroft has been the enforcer on this, as he emphasizes to Sherlock his disdain for forming any kind of attachment to anyone or anything and his feeling that this is a weakness, an attitude that Sherlock has adopted.  But what do we see happen in S3?

 

The Empty Hearse:  Here, Sherlock's understanding of friendship is at its most infantile.  In fact, I think the writers make him regress a little bit so we can see the trajectory develop, although it pleases me to instead imagine that two years getting the pulp beaten out of you by Moriarty's network while you're on solo mission could make anyone socially regress.  But here he starts by thinking that everyone in his life will stay static.  He's frankly amazed that John can't laugh off his reappearance.  And even when he (quickly, to his credit) realizes that he's wrong, he thinks an apology is going to fix it.  ("I said I'm sorry; isn't that what you're supposed to do?")

 

Of course, he gets this attitude from his exposure to Mycroft.  They say that siblings are people's first friends; while I don't know that Sherlock and Mycroft were ever "friends," there is a constancy to family that you don't get anywhere else.  Sherlock can disappear off the grid for months or years, and when he comes back his relationship with Mycroft will still be the same prickly, contentious thing it ever has been.  He expects that his friendship with John will be the same.

 

The Sign of Three:  So by TSoT, he realizes that he has a completely different animal here in the form of his friendship with John, and he doesn't want to do this wrong.  Luckily, being an honor attendant at a wedding is one of the best-scripted friendship roles in the entire world.  What does your best friend (best man) do?  He helps the groom with any planning, throws the stag night, reads the telegrams,makes the speech, and dances with the chief bridesmaid.  It's all there in the book.  We see a few wonderful flashes of genuine friendship, such as some of the wonderful speech quotes, the discussion with Mary about her pregnancy, and the composition of the first dance waltz, but otherwise, Sherlock is trying to be the best friend possible without having any organic understanding or practice of how that really works.  He just knows that he's been informed that John considers him his best friend, and he's not going to muck this up.

 

His Last Vow:  Which sets us up so nicely for HLV.  By this point, Sherlock doesn't need instructions.  Certain friends you are willing to live and die for.  John is one of those friends, and Sherlock is going to move heaven and earth to make sure that he's not hurt.  It isn't just the idea of recovering from asystole and living "for" John, it's also the goodbye before the exile.  This time, Sherlock is going to postpone John's grieving as long as possible by not admitting that he's off on a suicide mission.  This time, he knows what his death would mean.  (And I believe John knows full well the broad outlines of the danger, if not the specifics.)  So this is a truly adult and evolved sense of friendship.  

 

Kind of fun to take the three episodes as one continuous "movie."  What does everyone else see thematically?

[SherlockedCAMPer]

Well thought out and well written.

[Carol the Dabbler]

They say that siblings are people's first friends; while I don't know that Sherlock and Mycroft were ever "friends," there is a constancy to family that you don't get anywhere else.  Sherlock can disappear off the grid for months or years, and when he comes back his relationship with Mycroft will still be the same prickly, contentious thing it ever has been.  He expects that his friendship with John will be the same.

Oh, interesting thought! Sherlock's apparently never had any real friends before, so he uses the "family" template for his relationship with John -- and is bewildered when John fails to follow the "rules."  Thanks -- that interpretation raises Sherlock from total social ignoramus to social oversimplifier, which makes perfect sense for an intelligent person with scant experience.

 

[Arcadia]

Kind of fun to take the three episodes as one continuous "movie."...

Oddly enough, I was just thinking a few minutes ago that I think of S3 as more of a 4.5 hour movie than I do as 3 separate stories. S1 seems more like unrelated episodes to me, and S2 falls somewhere in between. I don't know what that means, tho.

 

Love your question about themes, will have to think on it some.

[T.o.b.y]

I think friendship, or rather Sherlock's specific struggle with that, has been a big theme ever since series 1. You sum up the series 3 developments very well.

 

One big theme I see in series 3 is "who / what is Sherlock Holmes?" And I find that fascinating. Lots of viewers have commented that, in the Sign of Three especially, Sherlock seems out of character to them. But what is "in character"? What expectations are tied to "being Sherlock Holmes"? Like Sherlock says, he doesn't even know what that is supposed to mean. Then later, we have the image of him with a post-it-note that has his own name on it stuck to his forehead, unable to guess himself. And in The Sign of Three, there's this "I am not a hero" thing again, this thing where Sherlock very deliberately decides what he wants to be, and what that person can and will do if necessary, and what "common" limits don't apply to him.

 

In that context, I see a lot of series 3 as attempts on Sherlock's part to become more "normal", and the ending as his realization that no, it's just not for him, and he goes back to the idea of himself that we were introduced to in series 1.

 

I wonder where series 4 will go with that. Because Sherlock can't actually develop backwards, even if he tries. I expect some kind of identity crisis, and I'm going to love it if I get one, especially if it involves some whacky psychedelic mind palace sequences...

 

More on this topic when I'm back in the land of the technically advanced, but I just couldn't resist...

[SherlockedCAMPer]

Sherlock is a genius with possible leanings towards the Asperger's side of the autism spectrum so social skills for him are difficult at best (many geniuses have poor social skills because of the high IQ & not getting "ordinary" people) and almost completely over his head at worst (more common with people on the spectrum...From TRF:  DIRECTOR: A small token of our gratitude. (Sherlock takes the box and looks at it.) SHERLOCK: .... All my cuffs have buttons.  JOHN (to the Director): He means thank you. SHERLOCK: Do I? JOHN: Just say it. SHERLOCK (insincerely to the Director): Thank you. (He starts to walk away but John holds him back.) JOHN: Hey. [then the photo shoot for the papers]).

 

It'll be interesting to see how he gets developed because of that.

[Boton]

 

 

One big theme I see in series 3 is "who / what is Sherlock Holmes?" And I find that fascinating. Lots of viewers have commented that, in the Sign of Three especially, Sherlock seems out of character to them. But what is "in character"? What expectations are tied to "being Sherlock Holmes"? Like Sherlock says, he doesn't even know what that is supposed to mean. Then later, we have the image of him with a post-it-note that has his own name on it stuck to his forehead, unable to guess himself. And in The Sign of Three, there's this "I am not a hero" thing again, this thing where Sherlock very deliberately decides what he wants to be, and what that person can and will do if necessary, and what "common" limits don't apply to him.

 

I think you are quite right.  And one way for him to evolve forward is to decide which of his "quirks" he really wants to embrace as being part of his personality, and which were foisted upon him by his childhood and earlier experiences and which he can discard.  So he may well decide that compassion and friendship really are virtues, but that he still has little patience for people in general. How much more interesting this character is going to be if he is not just born exceptional, but if he also decides to be exceptional, with all the pluses and minuses that might imply.

[Arcadia]

I think you are quite right.  And one way for him to evolve forward is to decide which of his "quirks" he really wants to embrace as being part of his personality, and which were foisted upon him by his childhood and earlier experiences and which he can discard.  So he may well decide that compassion and friendship really are virtues, but that he still has little patience for people in general. How much more interesting this character is going to be if he is not just born exceptional, but if he also decides to be exceptional, with all the pluses and minuses that might imply.

I'd watch that! I'm still hoping a major theme of the show is the evolution of Sherlock from great man to good one. Although I think a lot of people equate "good man" with "boring man," at least in fiction. But it doesn't have to be that way. (Spock fit my definition of a good man, and he was the most interesting character on the show!)

[Boton]

 

 

I'm still hoping a major theme of the show is the evolution of Sherlock from great man to good one. Although I think a lot of people equate "good man" with "boring man," at least in fiction. But it doesn't have to be that way. (Spock fit my definition of a good man, and he was the most interesting character on the show!)

 

Totally agree on both points.  I also think there's an opportunity to explore here how one can be a "good man" and still be exceptional.  I think a lot of fiction falls into the trap of portraying gifted people (intellectually mostly, although sometimes musically or other) as necessarily having a deficiency that causes the quirkiness.  It's the whole, "Well, you may be smart, but I have social skills" line of reasoning that gets thrown at intellectually gifted children from others, both peers and parents of peers.  It isn't necessarily true that intellect inhibits someone from having or developing "social skills."

 

Spock is a great example and was always my favorite too.  (In fact, I think there's a little tendency for some people to assume that Sherlock is Spock, when he obviously is not -- Mycroft is the one clamping down successfully on his emotions, not Sherlock.)  Spock was an incredibly intelligent, loyal, moral, and brave man who chose to emphasize his logical side instead of his emotional one, but he certainly had emotions aplenty.  I remember feeling like a complete goon the first time I ever saw "Amok Time" and teared up when T'Pau told him to "live long and prosper," and he said, "I shall do neither; I have killed my captain, and my friend."  

[Arcadia]

That's amazing, that's the very episode I was thinking of when I wrote my bit. Well, it WAS one of their best ones ....

 

Eeep, gotta run off to teach class. Finish my thought later!

[Arcadia]

Or not. I have no idea now what the rest of my thought was going to be. I assume it was brilliant.

[Arcadia]

Hey, Boton, I'm not sure this is the kind of thing you had in mind, but I started wondering about it today ....

 

I'm guessing most of us would agree that Sherlock's growing throughout the series, in one way or another; from sociopathic to compassionate, maybe, or from great to good, or whatever else you think the change(s) may be.

 

But what about the other way around? What is John's character arc, in what way is he changing as the story progresses? I'm finding this a little tougher to make out. I suppose you could say the trust he placed in Sherlock was a step forward for him, but since that trust was somewhat violated I'm not so sure. Anyone have any insight into this?

 

Also .... I think most of us would agree Sherlock has things to learn from John, yes? Such as the importance of friendship, the value of compassion, stuff like that. But again, what does John have to learn from Sherlock? Observational skills, perhaps? Surely something more meaningful than that, but I'm not sure what; John seemed a pretty whole person to begin with. Just curious to see what others think.

[Carol the Dabbler]

Not sure I have any answers for you, Arcadia, but I do have a related question/comment:

 

We know several facts about Sherlock by now -- we've met his brother and his parents, and heard a bit of their history.  We know that he attended a university, plays the violin, has a history of drug use, and had known Greg Lestrade for five years as of "Study in Pink."  And there are probably more items that I'm not thinking of just now.

 

But what about John?  He's a doctor and was in the army in Afghanistan.  We know a little about his sister.  I think that's about it.  We haven't met the sister -- she wasn't even at John's wedding!  We know absolutely nothing about their parents, not even whether they're still living.  Oh, wait a minute -- we know that John played the clarinet in school!

 

 

[Arcadia]

Well, we know he goes out with Mike sometimes. And we're supposed to believe he's addicted to a certain lifestyle, although I'm still finding that one a bit hard to swallow. He still goes to see the shrink from time to time, sos I guess that means he's found more healthy ways of being addicted to a cerain lifestyle? (Bet you he visited her after HLV ... heck, I almost did.)

[Convict13]

I think friendship, or rather Sherlock's specific struggle with that, has been a big theme ever since series 1. You sum up the series 3 developments very well.

 

One big theme I see in series 3 is "who / what is Sherlock Holmes?" And I find that fascinating. Lots of viewers have commented that, in the Sign of Three especially, Sherlock seems out of character to them. But what is "in character"? What expectations are tied to "being Sherlock Holmes"? Like Sherlock says, he doesn't even know what that is supposed to mean. Then later, we have the image of him with a post-it-note that has his own name on it stuck to his forehead, unable to guess himself. And in The Sign of Three, there's this "I am not a hero" thing again, this thing where Sherlock very deliberately decides what he wants to be, and what that person can and will do if necessary, and what "common" limits don't apply to him.

 

In that context, I see a lot of series 3 as attempts on Sherlock's part to become more "normal", and the ending as his realization that no, it's just not for him, and he goes back to the idea of himself that we were introduced to in series 1.

 

I wonder where series 4 will go with that. Because Sherlock can't actually develop backwards, even if he tries. I expect some kind of identity crisis, and I'm going to love it if I get one, especially if it involves some whacky psychedelic mind palace sequences...

 

More on this topic when I'm back in the land of the technically advanced, but I just couldn't resist...

 

 

There is one thing that Sherlock does that is very Sherlock in TSOT,  he doesn't invite anyone else to the Stag night (I assume as he is the best man he would do the inviting).  He doesn't think to ask Myrcoft, although we all know he won't come, but neither does he invite Mike or Greg , both of whom I am sure would love to come, you could even think that perhaps that is part of the reason that Greg yells at them in their hungover state the next day, he was annoyed for not getting invited, that and he probably was just enjoying himself. Sherlock would never think that John needs anyone else there, or he didn't want anyone else there, that would mean having to engage in conversation with others, either way it's very Sherlock.   You could argue how do we know they didn't get invited but choose not to come,  well I'm assuming  that if you invited 3 at least one of them would have come, but none of them are there.  

[sfmpco]

I have a feeling that there is going to be some real shake up and shake down of Sherlock's world in S4 as they continue to develop his character.  

 

He is definitely at his most developed in HLV.  I see him at his most commanding when he takes control of John and Mary at Leinster Gardens and then back at Baker Street.  He was brilliant in ASIP but not commanding, not in the same way he is all these years later.  He has earned a whole new level of respect in both John and Mary's eyes... and if Mycroft only knew.  Well, that would be too sentimental for Mycroft.  

 

I love where Sherlock is at now.  He's on the cusp of some major personal development.

 

And here's a weird thing for me about Sherlock.  I watch him and I don't see Benedict.  I just see this different entity, and I am able to separate Benedict from that character as if they are not even connected to each other.  I don't feel that with the others, but Sherlock is so unique.  Then again, because I play with the characters in fanfiction, they become real to me in a different way.

 

I'm rambling.  Sorry I haven't been on much lately.  I hit the road on Oct. 18 and my posts will become extremely sporadic after that.

[Convict13]

I get the "don't see Benedict",  I too find that he seems to disappear into Sherlock,  but I find that he does that with most of his roles, I think that is what makes him such a strong actor.  
 

[Carol the Dabbler]

There is one thing that Sherlock does that is very Sherlock in TSOT,  he doesn't invite anyone else to the Stag night (I assume as he is the best man he would do the inviting).  He doesn't think to ask Myrcoft, although we all know he won't come, but neither does he invite Mike or Greg , both of whom I am sure would love to come, you could even think that perhaps that is part of the reason that Greg yells at them in their hungover state the next day, he was annoyed for not getting invited, that and he probably was just enjoying himself. Sherlock would never think that John needs anyone else there, or he didn't want anyone else there, that would mean having to engage in conversation with others, either way it's very Sherlock.   You could argue how do we know they didn't get invited but choose not to come,  well I'm assuming  that if you invited 3 at least one of them would have come, but none of them are there.

I would assume also. This may hark back to Sherlock's assertion in "Many Happy Returns" that "all of John's friends hate him." So maybe Sherlock thought (or was at least telling himself) that John would have more fun without the others. (Whereas I suspect the real reason why John's friends all exhibit "uncomfortable" body language is that Sherlock sees them only when he himself is also there.) 

 

Good point about Greg's delight in tormenting them next morning!

 

And here's a weird thing for me about Sherlock.  I watch him and I don't see Benedict.  I just see this different entity, and I am able to separate Benedict from that character as if they are not even connected to each other.  I don't feel that with the others, but Sherlock is so unique.  Then again, because I play with the characters in fanfiction, they become real to me in a different way.

 

I'm rambling.  Sorry I haven't been on much lately.  I hit the road on Oct. 18 and my posts will become extremely sporadic after that.

Please do check in when you can. I for one will be awaiting your travel reports. But your main job is to have a terrific time!

 

I don't generally see any of the Sherlock actors showing through their characters.  Admittedly I've never seen most of them in any other roles, but I've seen a bunch of Martin Freeman's work, and the only time he tends to pop up (in Sherlock or any of the other things) is during the Waltz -- but I suspect that's my fault, because it's just so tempting to see Freeman and Abbington sort of overlaid on John and Mary in that one scene (in the same way that I sometimes look at places in the area where I grew up and simultaneously "see" them the way they used to be).

 

[sfmpco]

Well, I wouldn't say this of all of his stuff, especially his early stuff.   I think it's when he gets the furthest away from who he is naturally that he can really inhabit a character to the point of making it a separate entity.  I love seeing that with any actor.  

[sfmpco]

 

Good point about Greg's delight in tormenting them next morning!

 

 

 

 

 

I love that Greg torments them.  He has a couple of my fav lines in the series - "Not really!" and "Oh you bastard!"

[Arcadia]

I get the "don't see Benedict",  I too find that he seems to disappear into Sherlock,  but I find that he does that with most of his roles, I think that is what makes him such a strong actor.

I was discussing the beautiful Mr. Cumberbatch with some friends the other day, who didn't realize he was in some of the movies they'd seen. And I had to agree; if I wasn't so aware of who he was, I'm pretty sure I wouldn't recognize him from one role to the next. He just inhabits his characters so well, I really admire that.

[Carol the Dabbler]

Well, I wouldn't say this of all of his stuff, especially his early stuff.   I think it's when he gets the furthest away from who he is naturally that he can really inhabit a character to the point of making it a separate entity.  I love seeing that with any actor.  

 

I agree with you somewhat regarding Freeman's early stuff.  Even though he's already very good in what I've little seen, he has become even better in the interim.  All I've seen of him pre-Office is Bruiser (even in those brief sketches, some of his characters have a life of their own) and a very poor copy of Men Only (where I had trouble even understanding the dialog, so shall reserve comment).  But then Tim is definitely Tim!

 

[SherlockedCAMPer]

With Benedict, when I first saw advertisements for Sherlock, I recognized him as the guy who played William Pitt the younger (or at the time the guy who was friends with William Wilberforce) in Amazing Grace and that is where the similarities stopped basically.  He plays his different roles so well that the only real comparisons are in how they are different from each other apart from the obvious such as time period of the piece and his hair style/color.  Answering questions such as how does he change his voice, how are the mannerisms different, how does he carry himself as that character.  With that last one, I see Little Charles Aiken as the unsure, beaten down young adult, where as Sherlock (for the most part) is very confident and a go-getter if his interests are piqued but can get into a dangerous trap if bored, and William Pitt was a very confident young adult who knew his ambitions in life and worked to get there.

[avoca]

 

And here's a weird thing for me about Sherlock.  I watch him and I don't see Benedict.  I just see this different entity, and I am able to separate Benedict from that character as if they are not even connected to each other.  I don't feel that with the others, but Sherlock is so unique.  Then again, because I play with the characters in fanfiction, they become real to me in a different way.

 

 

I agree with that. he's quite amazing at this role.

 

I can see martin in john, and I don't mean it as a critic. john is a more of an "ordinary" man (again, in a positive way).

 

sherlock is a slightly psychotic individual. it'd have been easy to turn the character into a caricature. whilst benedict does an excellent job with it.

[avoca]

There is one thing that Sherlock does that is very Sherlock in TSOT,  he doesn't invite anyone else to the Stag night (I assume as he is the best man he would do the inviting).  He doesn't think to ask Myrcoft, although we all know he won't come, but neither does he invite Mike or Greg , both of whom I am sure would love to come, you could even think that perhaps that is part of the reason that Greg yells at them in their hungover state the next day, he was annoyed for not getting invited, that and he probably was just enjoying himself. Sherlock would never think that John needs anyone else there, or he didn't want anyone else there, that would mean having to engage in conversation with others, either way it's very Sherlock.   You could argue how do we know they didn't get invited but choose not to come,  well I'm assuming  that if you invited 3 at least one of them would have come, but none of them are there.  

 

 

 

the way I see it, sherlock is a genius, but because of an unconscious mechanism of self defense, he's always avoided carefully all emotions: affection, friendship and such. they didn't interest him, they didn't exist for him, he didn't consider feelings anything worth bothering with.

 

all this until john, who changed his way of seeing things, in many ways, slowly but systematically. I also think sherlock did change john, but that's another story.

 

back on topic, sherlock is like a young child who's been alone for a long time and for the first time, discovers the joys of friendship, the lovely empowering feeling of being special to someone and of enjoying the exclusive affection that person has for you.

 

john is his friend.