Episode 4.0: The Abominable Bride (alias The Special)

[Arcadia]

I think his difficulty staying on his feet was meant to convey that he had, indeed, overdone the drugs. (And I'm conservative enough to believe that any drugs are overdoing it, but that's another issue.)

 

And yes, why was Molly so hostile? Was it anger over the drugs, or something else? Aghgh... I feel like Sherlock ... too many! Too many! Too many delicious scenes to pore over!

[sittything]

 

 

And yes, why was Molly so hostile? Was it anger over the drugs, or something else? Aghgh... I feel like Sherlock ... too many! Too many! Too many delicious scenes to pore over!

I assumed Molly was hostile in the MP because that is how Sherlock perceives Molly's attitude to him at this time. Last we saw she was slapping the snot out of him for his drug use in the lab. I'm guessing he thinks she doesn't have a high opinion of him at the moment and is angry and disappointed in him.

 

 

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I337Z using Tapatalk

[sfmpco]

Although Victorian Sherlock used a syringe, I have to think that modern Sherlock may have been snorting, at least on the plane.  That would have been the fastest, and least conspicuous way to get it into his system.

[Ruthyone]

I really enjoyed 'The Abominable Bride' with all the characters entwined present time and in the past. 

When I realised it was all in Sherlock's mind and that it complemented the last series, I was happy.

They didn't find 'the bride's body' and they didn't find 'Moriarty's' - is he dead or alive?

I hope he is still alive as the acting between him and Holmes is brilliant.

Roll on the next series.............

 

:sherlock2:             

[bedelia1984]

 

And yes, why was Molly so hostile? Was it anger over the drugs, or something else? Aghgh... I feel like Sherlock ... too many! Too many! Too many delicious scenes to pore over!

I assumed Molly was hostile in the MP because that is how Sherlock perceives Molly's attitude to him at this time. Last we saw she was slapping the snot out of him for his drug use in the lab. I'm guessing he thinks she doesn't have a high opinion of him at the moment and is angry and disappointed in him.

 

 

 

I agree that there was an emotional residue from the slapping scene (which seems pretty firmly ingrained in his mind palace). I also thought it was interesting that there is a mutual animosity there, in the initial scene in TAB with 'Hooper'- as well as both being 'male', they both have a similar level of hostility towards each other- I suppose it illustrates again that the characters are on more of an equal footing at that point.

 

It's also kind of interesting that Sherlock's John notices Molly, as in the show, Molly tends to overlook John (and John is polite and nice to her, but you don't get the sense they are at all close). I think the scene in TAB is the most involved scene John and Molly have ever had- in the actual show, he'd never call her on anything like that.

[BlackButterfly]

I think the scene with Molly was Sherlock realising that Molly was a little annoyed he only interacted with her in regards to work and was angry at him for not fancying her or noticing her as a female and potential girlfriend . Like the christmas party scene in 221b.

That Watson notices and deals with these situations much better than Holmes is not surprising as women are Watsons area in Holmes mind . That Molly is not over Sherlock and christmas eve thing was reminded in S03 with the lookalike boyfriend.

I think they can be friends and are considering the day they spent together investigating in HLV.

 

At the comment on Irenes photo in the pocket watch , the pocket watch is a stand in for the mobile phone of Irenes Sherlock kept , and thats why it makes the same noise.

Additionally the idea is taken from the opening of the private life of SH film where they find an almost identical watch and picture in the chest. A few scenes and lines in TAB are taken from that film .

 

What do people think about John defeating Moriarty in SH MP means ?

[Arcadia]

 

 

And yes, why was Molly so hostile? Was it anger over the drugs, or something else? Aghgh... I feel like Sherlock ... too many! Too many! Too many delicious scenes to pore over!

I assumed Molly was hostile in the MP because that is how Sherlock perceives Molly's attitude to him at this time. Last we saw she was slapping the snot out of him for his drug use in the lab. I'm guessing he thinks she doesn't have a high opinion of him at the moment and is angry and disappointed in him.

 

I agree that there was an emotional residue from the slapping scene (which seems pretty firmly ingrained in his mind palace). I also thought it was interesting that there is a mutual animosity there, in the initial scene in TAB with 'Hooper'- as well as both being 'male', they both have a similar level of hostility towards each other- I suppose it illustrates again that the characters are on more of an equal footing at that point.

 

It's also kind of interesting that Sherlock's John notices Molly, as in the show, Molly tends to overlook John (and John is polite and nice to her, but you don't get the sense they are at all close). I think the scene in TAB is the most involved scene John and Molly have ever had- in the actual show, he'd never call her on anything like that.

 

I'm still mulling this scene ... I don't see Hooper as being angry at Holmes in that scene, I see mutual and long-standing hostility between them, but especially on Hooper's part. Essentially, Hooper is playing the part that Anderson played at the beginning of the series (only smarter). So I can't get into the theory that Sherlock conjures up Molly that way because he thinks she's angry with him, I keep thinking it must mean something else. But I'm not sure what yet. Need to see it some more.....

 

 

What do people think about John defeating Moriarty in SH MP means ?

Ha. We happen to be discussing that right over here...

[bedelia1984]

I'm still mulling this scene ... I don't see Hooper as being angry at Holmes in that scene, I see mutual and long-standing hostility between them, but especially on Hooper's part. Essentially, Hooper is playing the part that Anderson played at the beginning of the series (only smarter). So I can't get into the theory that Sherlock conjures up Molly that way because he thinks she's angry with him, I keep thinking it must mean something else. But I'm not sure what yet. Need to see it some more.....

 

 

 

 

I don't know if I'll ever understand all the layers in TAB. For that scene, it might be helpful to remember that Hooper as the character she/he actually is in TAB, is concealing a pretty big secret, so literally the last person she wants constantly snooping around her workplace is Sherlock Holmes, master of deduction. We don't see many characters in Sherlock that are longterm hostile to him- but one is Sally, and he did deduce her affair. Though to me, that still doesn't explain his own hostility towards her. I know some have said that Sherlock may have realised her secret and been helping her hide it, so is it possible he's also keeping up the act with the attitude?

[Arcadia]

Also there is an implication that Holmes does respect Hooper's opinion, even if they seem to be looking daggers at each other. I think. Really, I need to see it again and see if I notice anything else. I think it's already one of my favorite scenes in the Special, though, just because Loo's so great in it.

[Carol the Dabbler]

Although Victorian Sherlock used a syringe, I have to think that modern Sherlock may have been snorting, at least on the plane.  That would have been the fastest, and least conspicuous way to get it into his system.

 

Though that is undoubtedly true, isn't snorting generally done with cocaine, and isn't cocaine an upper -- whereas Sherlock seemed to be kind of acutely relaxed?  (Please excuse all the questions -- not really my area....)

 

At the comment on Irenes photo in the pocket watch , the pocket watch is a stand in for the mobile phone of Irenes Sherlock kept , and thats why it makes the same noise.

 

:facepalm:   Oh, of course!  Just as John's cell phone in "Study in Pink" was a stand-in for Watson's pocket watch in "Sign of the Four."  Thank you. 

[sfmpco]

Also there is an implication that Holmes does respect Hooper's opinion, even if they seem to be looking daggers at each other. I think. Really, I need to see it again and see if I notice anything else. I think it's already one of my favorite scenes in the Special, though, just because Loo's so great in it.

 

The only thing is that in HLV when she is in his mind palace, she represents all medical knowledge to him, and he depends on her medical advice for survival.  If she hadn't slapped him in real life, he couldn't have used her slaps in his mind palace to keep him focused.

 

So it doesn't make sense to me that they would be giving daggers to each other EXCEPT if he is projecting her disapproval of his being high...again.  I don't think he is so unobservant as to not know she is not a he but rather that they put on a show to keep her cover.  This is not the same Holmes as in ASIP where he was quite dismissive of her and her attempts at femininity.  He knows fully well her feelings for him in ASIB and even apologizes for being such a cad at that moment.  And certainly he needed her help in TRF, and she was the one who mattered the most in TEH in a truly sincere moment between them.  Therefore it makes no sense that she (in his mind palace) was actually tetchy and not just putting on an act to survive.  

 

Also, the camera frames her so warmly and beautifully in the end at the church, she and Holmes in warm tones.  Really, she is beautiful there, and her like that is in his mind palace too.

[BlackButterfly]

Hmmm . Can anyone say for certain what was real and what was not ?

We are still thinking the whole thing was in the mind palace.

Conversations are confusing with people thinking parts were real.

[Arcadia]

No, I'm certain at least two of the scenes were real ... when the plane lands, and when they disembark. Still not sure about in between, though, need to see it again. Plus I suspect we're not meant to be sure at that point, so we may never be able to really resolve it .... sigh. Moftisssss! :d

 

 

Although Victorian Sherlock used a syringe, I have to think that modern Sherlock may have been snorting, at least on the plane.  That would have been the fastest, and least conspicuous way to get it into his system.

 

Though that is undoubtedly true, isn't snorting generally done with cocaine, and isn't cocaine an upper -- whereas Sherlock seemed to be kind of acutely relaxed?  (Please excuse all the questions -- not really my area....)

That's already more than I know! But Holmes said he took cocaine, didn't he? I, for one, then made the assumption that's what Sherlock took. But now that I think of it, apparently he had taken several drugs. Ewwww, I don't like to think about it ... and I feel like slapping him even harder than Molly.....

 

 

At the comment on Irenes photo in the pocket watch , the pocket watch is a stand in for the mobile phone of Irenes Sherlock kept , and thats why it makes the same noise.

 

:facepalm:   Oh, of course!  Just as John's cell phone in "Study in Pink" was a stand-in for Watson's pocket watch in "Sign of the Four."  Thank you. 

 

Wait, what? The pocket watch made a noise? THAT noise? (How did I miss that?) (Although I missed hearing Holmes say "Redbeard" too, the first time .... I really need to check the speakers on my TV, apparently!)

[J.P.]

You know - IMO Sherlock is not just a series. It is an universe. Full of links and levels and influences of makers, viewers, fans, fan-aritsts/writers.

Probably a parallel universe (in a way) of the original canon Sherlock Holmes and similar to this of Star Wars. How many works of art manage such a thing?

 

More than most of stories It also makes me aware of the levels of the reality.

In the Victorian era we have had ACD writing about Dr.Watson who is writing about (in his world a real) Sherlock Holmes and himself, creating a fictional Dr Watson and Sherlock Holmes.

We can see it clearly in TAB. It starts with Sherlock reading Watson's diary about the fictional version of himself, and immersing himself into it, but we don't really know which of Sherlocks is it: the show's Sherlock, or the Mind Palace Holmes. In any case the MP Watson is influenced by MP illustrator who made him change his appearance to fit his fictional Watson's... So how many levels there are in the MP? At least two? Then - is the MP Holmes we follow through the story the one who exists in the MP reality or is he a fiction inside it?...

 

You see how my Mind Trash Heap looks like now? And it is EXACTLY how I felt about it after the first teaser. Only I have hoped that TAB brings some ANSWERS...

 

[Northern Holmes]

This is my first post on this forum and it appears I may be swimming against the tide a little.  I've loved the Sherlock series to date, but didn't like the Abominable Bride, or indeed Benedict Cumberbatch's portrayal of Holmes in the Victorian era.  Maybe this was a device to separate Sherlock in mind palace and Sherlock in the real world, but it wasn't for me and I struggled to empathise with him as a character.  I also though the whole story was far more complicated than it needed to be and contained far too many unsubtle nods to Sir Arthur Conan Doyle's canon.  To me this distracted from the story, and I think there was a better way to plant Cumberbatch and Freeman into Jeremy Brett's Victorian London.

 

I've elaborated on this in my blog, please feel free to right my wrong.

 

http://www.melsmall.com/fiction/blog/abominable-bride-10Jan16

 

Mel

[Arcadia]

First of all ... welcome to the forum! So glad you felt like jumping right in!

 

Second ... I identify a bit ... as I have probably said elsewhere, I was enjoying, but not enthusiastic about, the Special, right up until we literally bumped back into the modern version. From then on I loved it! I too found the Victorian Holmes too remote and offputting ... I identify a lot with modern Sherlock, but wasn't identifying even one bit with the Victorian version. But once I understood that was how Sherlock sees himself, it suddenly became very funny to me and I've loved it since. So yes, I think you're right, the difference in characterization was a device to separate the two versions, while simultaneously poking a hole or two in Sherlock's admittedly overinflated vision of himself. :P

 

I miss most of the canon references anyway, so I can't comment on that, except to say that it's probably just a matter of taste; a lot of people have reported enjoying the references. And the complexity of the story is probably a matter of taste too; I like puzzles, so it's right up my alley, I'm happy to worry at a knotty problem for days on end. I don't know if there's any consensus on that yet, though ... it seems to me most people are still digesting the episode. I admit I thought Last Vow and Scandal, and even Reichenbach, were more convoluted than this.

[Northern Holmes]

Hi Arcadia, 

 

I've watched it three times now.  I felt it only fair given the drubbing I've given it on my blog.  I normally quite like the references to ACD stories, but for some reason they started to annoy me.  I think there were just too many of them, picked from all across Sir Arthur's work.  To get super nerdy, if the story is set in 1895 how does Holmes know about "the dog one", The Hound of the Baskervilles written in 1901.  Maybe that was just another device to let you know we were in the mind palace.  This mind palace let's you get away with  all sorts.  Another of my gripes I suppose.  It's kind off "that doesn't make sense" / "well that's mind palaces for you."    

 

I like your point about Victorian Sherlock, being how he sees himself.  My thought was that it end up being a poor impersonation of Jeremy Brett's Holmes.

 

I think I'll give it another watch.

 

Cheers

 

Mel

[Carol the Dabbler]

Hmmm . Can anyone say for certain what was real and what was not ?

We are still thinking the whole thing was in the mind palace.

Conversations are confusing with people thinking parts were real.

 

Can we ever say for certain how things really are and how they seem to be?  I think that applies even more to real life than to most fiction -- since most fiction is intentionally written to be understandable.  In the case of TAB, however, we seem to have gone a bit in the other direction.  I don't think we should be too worried about not knowing what's real -- I doubt that Sherlock has any better grasp of the difference right now!

 

At the comment on Irenes photo in the pocket watch , the pocket watch is a stand in for the mobile phone of Irenes Sherlock kept , and thats why it makes the same noise.

 

:facepalm:   Oh, of course!  Just as John's cell phone in "Study in Pink" was a stand-in for Watson's pocket watch in "Sign of the Four."  Thank you. 

Wait, what? The pocket watch made a noise? THAT noise? (How did I miss that?) (Although I missed hearing Holmes say "Redbeard" too, the first time .... I really need to check the speakers on my TV, apparently!)

 

I didn't notice it making a noise either, Arcadia.  (I was replying only to the "standin" part of Butterfly's post.)  Will have to pay attention when he opens that pocket watch tonight!

 

This is my first post on this forum and it appears I may be swimming against the tide a little.

 

Not a problem!  It'd get a little boring if we just sat around saying "Oh, my, isn't this wonderful!"  You are welcome, nay, invited to disagree, as long as you're civil about it (and in your forum posts so far, you've been a perfect gentleman!).

[sfmpco]

There are people who have loved it and hated it.  I love it simply because I am so happy to see Sherlock again.  That being said, I am still breaking it down because it is quite layered.

 

I don't think it's a cheap shot to use the mind palace as his way of sorting through how Moriarty could possibly still be alive, nor do I think it was written sloppily.  However, if it is taken only at face value without examining the layers and parallels... as well as his own ghosts and demons, so to speak, then one has really missed the plot.

 

I read a review by one group on Twitter and I had no problem commenting that their review was in fact shallow.  They only skimmed the surface and didn't hit any of the parallels and layers.  

 

This is the most we have ever seen of the mind palace.  We were first introduced to it in HOB although I think there's an early nod to it in ASIP when all the streets and pathways are flashing through Sherlock's brain.

 

With each progressive venture into his mind palace, we get a more intense view of how it works.

 

I am not not a canon aficionado.  My interest with Sherlock lies squarely with the BBC version.  Therefore canon references don't pop out at me like a sore thumb although I have come to recognize the possibility of them at every turn.  They are not important for me and my enjoyment of the show.  They would simply be like Easter eggs... of which this episode is full.

 

When I have finished my breakdown of the episode, I will post a link to my own blog.

 

[T.o.b.y]

I find myself liking the Special better and better the more I think about it. There are a few unfortunate elements that I wish had been handled with greater sensitivity (or simply left alone), but for Sherlock, I am willing to make more allowances than I probably should (love is blind). The Conan Doyle references I enjoyed very much.

[Carol the Dabbler]

Hi Arcadia, 

 

I've watched it three times now.  I felt it only fair given the drubbing I've given it on my blog.  I normally quite like the references to ACD stories, but for some reason they started to annoy me.  I think there were just too many of them, picked from all across Sir Arthur's work.  To get super nerdy, if the story is set in 1895 how does Holmes know about "the dog one", The Hound of the Baskervilles written in 1901.  Maybe that was just another device to let you know we were in the mind palace.  This mind palace let's you get away with  all sorts.  Another of my gripes I suppose.  It's kind off "that doesn't make sense" / "well that's mind palaces for you."    

 

I like your point about Victorian Sherlock, being how he sees himself.  My thought was that it end up being a poor impersonation of Jeremy Brett's Holmes.

 

I think I'll give it another watch.

 

Cheers

 

Mel

 

Before I go any further, it occurs to me that we haven't been properly introduced.  So, hello, Mel -- welcome to Sherlock Forum!    I'm glad to see that you've jumped right into the discussions.

 

I've read your blog and have a couple of comments:

 

The obvious environment for all these shenanigans is Holmes’ mind palace, but if that is how all this is made possible, how come Watson is narrating?

 

That is of course not our familiar modern John Watson, it's the Victorian Watson -- as "written" by Sherlock for his mind palace.  We already know that Sherlock thinks of John as his blogger, so naturally he sees his Victorian Watson playing a similar role with regard to his Victorian Holmes.  (In fact, just a few scenes later, there are references to Watson having written up their adventures for The Strand magazine.)  Since our Sherlock has a flair for the dramatic, it seems perfectly appropriate for his daydreams (or whatever you'd call 'em) to have a narrator -- who would of course be his biographer.

 

A closer look revealed it wasn’t a skull but a picture of a woman looking into a mirror, the woman perhaps.  If it did mean something there was no explanation.  Not one that I noticed anyway.  Maybe the point of it was all too subtle for my or nothing more than a McGuffin.

 

Actually, that's a famous drawing, "All Is Vanity," done in 1892.  I suspect Arwel Jones was simply looking for a Victorian skull painting to stand in for the modern one, and came across that piece.

 

Any given episode is clearly not going to appeal to everyone.  But I am interested in what you might have to say after watching TAB again.

[T.o.b.y]

Sorry, can't quote properly on my phone. Watson as the narrator is partly explained within the episode when it turns out that Sherlock was reading John's blog before he got lost inside his mind.

[Arcadia]

Hi Arcadia, 

 

I've watched it three times now.  I felt it only fair given the drubbing I've given it on my blog.  I normally quite like the references to ACD stories, but for some reason they started to annoy me.  I think there were just too many of them, picked from all across Sir Arthur's work.  To get super nerdy, if the story is set in 1895 how does Holmes know about "the dog one", The Hound of the Baskervilles written in 1901.  Maybe that was just another device to let you know we were in the mind palace.  This mind palace let's you get away with  all sorts.  Another of my gripes I suppose.  It's kind off "that doesn't make sense" / "well that's mind palaces for you."    

 

 

What I would say is that the sequence of events -- the Hound, the Fall, etc. -- is the same in this episode as it is throughout "our" series, not as it is in the books. So if the Hound has happened to "our" Sherlock already, then it's already happened to this Victorian Holmes too ... irregardless of the year. Because this Victorian Holmes is simply a product of the imagination of "our" Holmes.

 

And if anyone is confused by that paragraph; join the club! I wrote it and I'm not sure what I said! :P

 

There are people who have loved it and hated it.  I love it simply because I am so happy to see Sherlock again.  That being said, I am still breaking it down because it is quite layered.

I think that's part of it for me, too, I'm just so frickin' happy to see the boys again! And it was just gravy on the goose when "our" Sherlock reappeared as well. That alone almost guaranteed I would love it, I guess. But still, the more I dig into it, the more I think it's just the kind of clever I really, really enjoy.

 

I find myself liking the Special better and better the more I think about it. There are a few unfortunate elements that I wish had been handled with greater sensitivity (or simply left alone), but for Sherlock, I am willing to make more allowances than I probably should (love is blind). The Conan Doyle references I enjoyed very much.

Such as, Toby? I know some people are bothered by the idea that Sherlock was high when he said goodbye to John, and I can see why they might be, although for some reason I'm just letting it slide.

 

Personally I'm troubled by the implication that, once again, Sherlock appears to think murder is an acceptable means to achieve justice. If that's actually what is being implied; I'm still not sure it is. 2.5 hours to tonite's viewing!

[sfmpco]

 

I think that's part of it for me, too, I'm just so frickin' happy to see the boys again! And it was just gravy on the goose when "our" Sherlock reappeared as well. That alone almost guaranteed I would love it, I guess. But still, the more I dig into it, the more I think it's just the kind of clever I really, really enjoy.

 

I was particularly delighted to have the plane land and see our Sherlock!  And the curls (although I know for sure they are a wig for this episode, but still...!!!)

[sfmpco]

 

 

Personally I'm troubled by the implication that, once again, Sherlock appears to think murder is an acceptable means to achieve justice. If that's actually what is being implied; I'm still not sure it is. 2.5 hours to tonite's viewing!

 

 

You mean sending Moriarty over the falls?  Of course, Moriarty is only a ghost at this point, and sending him over the falls isn't actually murder but more of a metaphor of getting rid of a part of his past and this time allowing John to do the honors... when he had denied John's involvement in TRF... and in a way he had denied John's involvement in killing Magnussen, because Sherlock took the action to kill him.  So in his mind he is giving John his turn at dispatching the bad guy, but Moriarty and TRF is a big issue between John and Sherlock.  In a way, John may never get over it, but at least in Sherlock's mind, he is giving some closure to that.