Episode 4.0: The Abominable Bride (alias The Special)

[J.P.]

 

Well, she had, in a way. I am pretty darn sure she was originally flirting with him on Magnussen's orders.

This is also my interpretation, but if CAM was any good, Sherlock probably don't know that. So he might as well think he used Janine.

[Arcadia]

Even if he did know that, he still used her. He had no intention of forming lasting relationship with her, therefore he was planning to ditch her once he got what he needed. Using her.

 

He gets props from me for being too honorable to sleep with her, though. I suppose that's a bit old-fashioned, but I like it. I like believing there are some lines he will not cross. (Sorry, Sherlock, but I really need you to be a hero... keep after him, John! )

[T.o.b.y]

What kind of brute was Sir Eustace, though? His crime was similar to Sherlock's ... using a woman, then throwing her away when she was no longer convenient.

 

Abandoning a woman after having had an affair with her had far more serious consequences in the 1800s than it has today - for the woman, at least. Emilia would have had no financial or social security. Molly says she was "penniless". If anyone knew she had had sex outside of wedlock, her reputation would have been ruined and her chances of marrying someone else who would provide for her very low. There was no birth control to speak of nor protection against STIs. She could have been pregnant and / or ill for all Sir Eustace knew or cared.

 

Janine on the other hand might have suffered some heartbreak (although she didn't seem particularly devastated to me), but neither her income nor her social standing or her health was likely affected by having been dumped by a boyfriend.

 

What I don't agree with is that Eustace "deserved" to die for his actions, any more than Sherlock does for his. That's a troubling overtone developing in this series; that murder is an acceptable remedy for injustice. I'm sure there are many terrorist organizations that would agree, but not I.

 

That's definitely the overtone of many of the Sherlock Holmes stories, though. I don't agree either, but I can accept this in fictional worlds that have good and evil. I prefer the ones that have abandoned that concept, but in a universe that allows for Moriartys and Magnussens, the heroes are to a degree justified in using swords and pistols.

 

I wouldn't have killed Sir Eustace either, though, not even in fiction. I don't believe in revenge. It made sense for me to shoot Magnussen because other people could be protected from the harm he was causing, but Sir Eustace seemed fairly harmless in his old age. If he was still pursuing young girls, it would have been quite enough to warn them off and expose him for the dishonorable man he was. Sherlock said something that sounded as if he was abusing his wife, though. If that was meant to be the case (and the justification for killing him, since getting a divorce on such grounds would have been impossible), they should have made it way more clear to the audience.

 

(There's a Victorian novel btw that deals with the situation of a woman back then married to an abusive, unfaithful man, and it's pretty dire. "The Tenant of Wildfell Hall" by Anne Bronte, sister to the famous Charlotte Bronte. If Sir Eustace was anything like the husband in that story, I could understand, if not approve of, people wanting to stab him. But like I said, more evidence needed.)

 

He gets props from me for being too honorable to sleep with her, though. I suppose that's a bit old-fashioned, but I like it. I like believing there are some lines he will not cross. (Sorry, Sherlock, but I really need you to be a hero... keep after him, John! )

 

:lol: I really liked that bit too, though probably for different reasons. Man out of his time, indeed. Good old Sherlock, he probably did think his actions were a little less dastardly for refraining from sex with Janine, while from her perspective, that would have been consolation, actually - something nice and fun to remember if she couldn't have him forever (and I don't think she would have accepted that ring, anyway. Janine doesn't seem terribly bright to me, but she does not come across as naive and / or inexperienced. She can't have honestly thought Sherlock was in any way husband material. Nor do I think she was truly in love with him, because she wouldn't have been able to shake the story off with so much humor if she had been really badly hurt. By contrast, just imagine he had done that to Molly!).

[Shadow Dweller]

In regards of this thread's title:

 

*crows to those who often brand Mycroft as too much control-freak in Sherlock's life* Ha! Take that, would you. He actually have a very good reason for it!

[Arcadia]

???

[Amber§]

Uh I've never thought that Jeanine could be a problem for Sherlock. I figured her like a not very clever person, maybe impulsive or sensible, but not brilliant. And sometimes I find her a bit unbearable. Of course Sherlock used her and this isn't fair, but I can't see Sherlock in love with Jeanine, the figure of the massive intellect and impeccable person would fall at my eyes.

And I hope that Jeanine would't be involved with Moriarty, because, in my opinion, she's angry with Sherlock and she could become very very bad.

[Arcadia]

She's definitely not up to Sherlock's standards, but as goldfish go, I thought Janine was a pretty smart cookie. She leveraged a fake relationship with a famous detective into a retirement home in Surrey ... not too shabby! :d But no, I can't see her as a supervillain either; why would one of those be working for Magnussen? (A supervillian disguised as a PA ... nah, just doesn't fly for me. )

[Slithytove]

I watched TAB again today and the sad irony of the final lines struck me more than ever this time.  Sherlock is, of course, "a man out of his time" in this version, whichever way you look at it - either as a modern version of a Victorian icon or, in TAB, a Victorian fantasy happening in the mind of a modern man.  However, it was the previous line which struck me as particularly sad, where Holmes says he knows he would be at home in the modern world which he had imagined.  

 

The truth is, of course, that he is such a unique person - so gifted, so isolated and so misunderstood - that he isn't really comfortable in either era.  ACD's Holmes is, perhaps, less alienated than 21st century Sherlock (I don't imagine him describing himself as a high-functioning sociopath, even if the term had been in use at the time) but he seems to have no family except Mycroft and no friends but John, and apparently ends up as a bee-keeping recluse.  As for modern Sherlock, he seems to think there is something wrong with himself - hence the "sociopath" tag - and is even less capable of functioning easily in everyday society.

 

Quite sad, really, particularly as the final scene takes place (presumably) in Sherlock's mind, and must reflect the way in which he sees himself. 

[sfmpco]

Three articles just popped up:

 

Did TAB reuse a DOCTOR WHO set?

http://www.cultbox.co.uk/news/galleries/did-sherlock-special-re-use-doctor-who-plane-set

 

SHERLOCK "mansplaining" irks viewers

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/tvandradio/12078074/Sherlocks-suffragette-mansplaining-irks-Abominable-Bride-viewers.html

 

CINEMA RATINGS TRIUMPH IN ASIA

http://www.cultbox.co.uk/news/ratings/sherlock-special-cinema-release-triumphs-in-asia

[Boton]

 

What kind of brute was Sir Eustace, though? His crime was similar to Sherlock's ... using a woman, then throwing her away when she was no longer convenient.

 

Abandoning a woman after having had an affair with her had far more serious consequences in the 1800s than it has today - for the woman, at least. Emilia would have had no financial or social security. Molly says she was "penniless". If anyone knew she had had sex outside of wedlock, her reputation would have been ruined and her chances of marrying someone else who would provide for her very low. There was no birth control to speak of nor protection against STIs. She could have been pregnant and / or ill for all Sir Eustace knew or cared.

 

Janine on the other hand might have suffered some heartbreak (although she didn't seem particularly devastated to me), but neither her income nor her social standing or her health was likely affected by having been dumped by a boyfriend.

 

...

 

That's definitely the overtone of many of the Sherlock Holmes stories, though. I don't agree either, but I can accept this in fictional worlds that have good and evil. I prefer the ones that have abandoned that concept, but in a universe that allows for Moriartys and Magnussens, the heroes are to a degree justified in using swords and pistols.

 

I wouldn't have killed Sir Eustace either, though, not even in fiction.

 

...

 

He gets props from me for being too honorable to sleep with her, though. I suppose that's a bit old-fashioned, but I like it. I like believing there are some lines he will not cross. (Sorry, Sherlock, but I really need you to be a hero... keep after him, John! )

 

:lol: I really liked that bit too, though probably for different reasons. Man out of his time, indeed. Good old Sherlock, he probably did think his actions were a little less dastardly for refraining from sex with Janine

 

 

So much good stuff here to agree with, ladies!

 

Definitely, we have to remember how tragic an out-of-wedlock affair could have been for a Victorian woman.  As Toby points out, Emelia would have been "ruined" forever, with her only possible recourse being marriage to a man who would lend her legitimacy and help her keep her "secret" to the extent that it wasn't already out.

 

Truly, I think TAB was walking quite a line here.  The episode couldn't really allow itself to delve too far into domestic violence, but we hear that Mr. Ricoletti was as much of a brute as Sir Eustace.  In my own head canon, Sir Eustace "used" Emelia and tossed her aside, and she thought she'd landed on her feet with Ricoletti, only to find out that Ricoletti used the excuse of discovering her to not be a virgin (or thinking he had -- these things aren't as exact as some men used to think) to allow any amount of physical and emotional abuse.  Then, if Emelia discovered that Sir Eustace was at minimum emotionally abusing his wife (which we see hints of as he belittiles her morning of embroidery and the millaners, like she had many other options as a Victorian woman), it may have pushed her over the edge.

 

Like Toby, in a world where you have a Magnussen and a Moriarty, I think it is legitimate to have our heroes make life and death decisions.  As much as I wish Sherlock Holmes were real, he's not, and the fact that he's a fictional character allows me the room to "enjoy" a permanent resolution to a brute like Sir Eustace, rather than what I would do in real life, which is probably let him die a natural death and stew about it until he did.

 

I agree that Sherlock has his own personal moral code, and it came into effect with Janine.  Mostly, I believe this because that's what my husband said the first time he saw HLV!  He said of course Sherlock wouldn't sleep with Janine, because he knew his motives weren't honorable and that was keeping him from going over the line to truly "using" her.  (He actually put it more eloquently, but I was too busy pausing the DVR and hugging him to remember the quote.)

 

I think that's an important part of any hero like Sherlock Holmes.  It's one thing to postulate a hero that doesn't follow *the* rules, but you can't have a hero that doesn't follow *any* rules.  Sherlock has his own code, but it doesn't always match up with what society might expect.

[Arcadia]

Three articles just popped up:

 

Did TAB reuse a DOCTOR WHO set?

http://www.cultbox.co.uk/news/galleries/did-sherlock-special-re-use-doctor-who-plane-set

 

 

SHERLOCK "mansplaining" irks viewers

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/tvandradio/12078074/Sherlocks-suffragette-mansplaining-irks-Abominable-Bride-viewers.html

I agree, the purple robes were a bad idea. But where do people get the idea that it was a group of suffragettes? Mary was a suffragette, but she wasn't (ironically) a member of the Killer Brides -- and their mission was represented as taking revenge on brutish men, not seeking the vote. What did I miss?

 

Also, being vengeful killers doesn't make them feminists. Standing up for their rights as human beings would have, but again, only Mary actually stood up ... the rest hid behind masks, even our beloved Molly. It's subversive, yes, but that alone doesn't make it feminism. Nor am I convinced Moftiss meant it to be. I still think the real point of that scene was not to say that women are equals; we already know that. The point was to illustrate how blithely men still misuse women, imo. John assumes Mary will be happily domestic; Sherlock uses one woman for his own ends, and fails to "see" another. It's not enough for women to assert their rights; for true gender equality, men need to change too. I agree they didn't make the point very well (Sherlock treats everyone that way!) but that is the point I got out of that scene.

 

What amuses me is that if the "splaining" had been given to a woman, we would have people complaining that the women were "taking over the show". Some are already complaining because Mary is shown as being as smart as the men. How dare she! I noticed no one complained when Jeff Hope, Moriarty and Magnussen turned out to be as smart as the Holmes boys. In fact, I notice that the Holmes boys were the only ones who didn't seem particularly threatened by Mary's skills. Now THAT's feminism.

 

[Arcadia]

 

 

Truly, I think TAB was walking quite a line here.  The episode couldn't really allow itself to delve too far into domestic violence, but we hear that Mr. Ricoletti was as much of a brute as Sir Eustace.  In my own head canon, Sir Eustace "used" Emelia and tossed her aside, and she thought she'd landed on her feet with Ricoletti, only to find out that Ricoletti used the excuse of discovering her to not be a virgin (or thinking he had -- these things aren't as exact as some men used to think) to allow any amount of physical and emotional abuse.  Then, if Emelia discovered that Sir Eustace was at minimum emotionally abusing his wife (which we see hints of as he belittiles her morning of embroidery and the millaners, like she had many other options as a Victorian woman), it may have pushed her over the edge.

I'm still a little unsure who actually killed Sir Eustace; Sherlock seemed to think it was Lady Carmichael, but her motives were never shown, and before she's revealed we veer off into the whole Moriarty thing and never resolve his murder.

 

But what I thought the explanation was: Emelia killed her husband, then herself (with help.) Then the other women "resurrected her ghost", so to speak, as a cover for the other murders. Emelia didn't need to know anything about Sir Eustace, her own husband drove her over the edge.

 

And I think I had a point to make with that, but it seems to have wondered off...

[Slithytove]

I find it very odd that anyone could be dissatisfied with the fact that Mary is extremely bright.  There may be some annoying issues with the way the writers portray women, but they're not shown to be fools - Irene's intelligence, as well as her daring and her beauty, evidently impresses Sherlock, and Molly would have to be clever to be capable of doing her job - and I'm surprised that anyone would expect them to be less intelligent than the men.  I don't think we would want ​anyone, ​except Mycroft and possibly Moriarty, to be Sherlock's equal in any way, because he is the hero, but I would certainly expect the female characters to be as bright as, for instance, John or Lestrade.

 

Mary in the Victorian era reminded me how much I would have liked the character, if it hadn't been for the storyline of HLV.  That Mary clearly hadn't shot Sherlock.  In fact, neither John nor Sherlock apparently realised she was anything but a conventional wife, right up to the point where she discovered the Brides conspiracy.  It's also interesting that, in the Victorian parts of Sherlock's dream, she does not appear to be pregnant.  (Not as far as I can see, anyway.  I could be wrong.)  Perhaps in the modern part of his dream he couldn't wish away her pregnancy, but in the Victorian part he can.  (I know he seems pleased about the baby in TSOT, but is he really?  Fatherhood, even more than marriage, is likely to take John away from him more and more.)

[bedelia1984]

...  It's also interesting that, in the Victorian parts of Sherlock's dream, she does not appear to be pregnant.  (Not as far as I can see, anyway.  I could be wrong.)  Perhaps in the modern part of his dream he couldn't wish away her pregnancy, but in the Victorian part he can.  (I know he seems pleased about the baby in TSOT, but is he really?  Fatherhood, even more than marriage, is likely to take John away from him more and more.)

 

Yes I think the psychology behind all of this is quite interesting. The thing is, Sherlock seems genuinely fond of Mary, and even in the TAB world, he notices her before John does- I think he feels he knows and understands Mary very well, and he also says she was s good choice of wife for John. I believe he is genuinely happy for them in TSOT, and then I also think the baby may be part of why he pushes John to reconcile with Mary in HLV. He wants John to have everything he deserves, and to be happy. I sometimes get the feeling that Sherlock enjoys almost living a normal life vicariously through John. That, or he's more like an older brother looking forward to a new sibling.

 

I think he's pleased with Mary-as-John's-wife in the sense that she's close enough to Sherlock's 'type' of person to not drive a wedge between himself and John. Yet of course, in the special, we see him thinking things would be simpler if John would just abandon her and spend all his time solving cases with Sherlock (as in TAB), and he would feel less guilty fantasising about that if there was no baby being left behind.

[jadpdr]

What a lovely, insightful discussion! One thing seems nearly certain: with 800,000 fewer viewers than TEH and such contradictory reviews, the Abominable episode won't get any BAFTA or Emmy nominations any time soon, it's so controversial!

[T.o.b.y]

My DVDs finally came!

I just watched The Abominable Bride again, alone in bed and way too late at night (I have to get up in less than six hours and go to work). I couldn't resist. And it's so much nicer to have a DVD than a stream. I've also finally gotten to the point with this episode where I can fully enjoy it. It doesn't make sense logically in many places, but I think I finally got the jist of it. Those were a really lovely one and a half hours just now.

 

Oh Sherlock. I am so in love with you.

 

 

I think that's an important part of any hero like Sherlock Holmes.  It's one thing to postulate a hero that doesn't follow *the* rules, but you can't have a hero that doesn't follow *any* rules.  Sherlock has his own code, but it doesn't always match up with what society might expect.

 

YES! Exactly. I think that's also one of the reasons why I could warm to Phillip Marlowe. He's not a good, a moral or a law-abiding man, but he has his principles and he sticks to them. (Plus, like Sherlock Holmes, he also has a few well-hidden soft spots and a sense of the poetic).
 

 

 

I'm still a little unsure who actually killed Sir Eustace; Sherlock seemed to think it was Lady Carmichael, but her motives were never shown, and before she's revealed we veer off into the whole Moriarty thing and never resolve his murder.

 

I think it was Lady Carmichael. And here's why:

 

Until this viewing today, I thought she must be an incredibly good actress. The way she behaved around her husband, and around Sherlock Holmes... She seemed so incredibly genuinely frightened for her husband and concerned, and the acting didn't so much as hint at duplicity of any kind. Besides, she seemed terrified by the Bride even when there was nobody else around to observe her. Then it occurred to me: This wasn't real. Of course. Duh. Stupid. This is Lady Carmichael how Sherlock pictured her based on the information he had, before he solved the murder.

 

Because this is the thing: He didn't suspect her at first. Because he liked her. Because she appealed to him, as a woman ("admirably high arches", a face slightly reminiscent of Irene, based on the pilot of the plane he was on whom he also couldn't help noticing) and as a person (clever, can see worlds where other people see nothing at all). He didn't suspect her based on emotional and faintly sexual reasons, and so he locked up Sir Eustace with his killer. And so Sir Eustace died, and Holmes failed to save him. And we all know that there are precious few things Sherlock Holmes hates more than failing to protect a client. (Note, btw, how much calmer and more professional Dr Watson is about that. For him, it's unfortunate, he's lost another patient, but you can see this is something he is used to and at peace with as part of his job. Sherlock will never get there, no matter how long he lives and how many cases he has. Because his problem is not lack of feeling, it is feeling too much and too keenly. Like me, Sherlock dear. Thank you for letting me identify with you a bit more).

 

This is why "miss me", Moriarty's note, appears at this particular point. Because this is the moment that illustrates Sherlock's weaknesses. And as Moriary said: "I am your weakness. Every time you fail, every time you fall."

 

I find it very odd that anyone could be dissatisfied with the fact that Mary is extremely bright. 

 

I am annoyed with every character who is as bright as or brighter than Sherlock, because it diminishes him. The villains, okay, they need to be smart or else he'd have no proper challenges, but aside from them, I'm not pleased when another character steals the show. Mycroft is much more my problem in this area than Mary, though.

 

 

...  It's also interesting that, in the Victorian parts of Sherlock's dream, she does not appear to be pregnant.  (Not as far as I can see, anyway.  I could be wrong.)  Perhaps in the modern part of his dream he couldn't wish away her pregnancy, but in the Victorian part he can.  (I know he seems pleased about the baby in TSOT, but is he really?  Fatherhood, even more than marriage, is likely to take John away from him more and more.)

 

Yes I think the psychology behind all of this is quite interesting. The thing is, Sherlock seems genuinely fond of Mary, and even in the TAB world, he notices her before John does- I think he feels he knows and understands Mary very well, and he also says she was s good choice of wife for John. I believe he is genuinely happy for them in TSOT, and then I also think the baby may be part of why he pushes John to reconcile with Mary in HLV. He wants John to have everything he deserves, and to be happy. I sometimes get the feeling that Sherlock enjoys almost living a normal life vicariously through John. That, or he's more like an older brother looking forward to a new sibling.

 

I think he's pleased with Mary-as-John's-wife in the sense that she's close enough to Sherlock's 'type' of person to not drive a wedge between himself and John. Yet of course, in the special, we see him thinking things would be simpler if John would just abandon her and spend all his time solving cases with Sherlock (as in TAB), and he would feel less guilty fantasising about that if there was no baby being left behind.

 

I think Sherlock is conflicted about Mary, and Mary and John. On the one hand, he really likes her (and therefore failed to see the potential killer in her, just like Lady Carmicheal). He thinks she's a good match for John (which she is), that John doesn't fully appreciate that (which he doesn't). He likes the idea of them as a happy family, baby and all.

 

Still, of course he misses John, and having him drop by from time to time for The Work turns out not to be the same as when he lived at Baker Street. The empty chair is a bigger problem than one might have thought. Also, Sherlock seems to blame himself, at least partly, for John's marital problems, probably also for John's occasional bad behavior towards his wife.

[Arcadia]

Another review, and I think a pretty fair one. Warning; they hate the modern part! http://whatculture.com/tv/4-great-things-and-4-abominable-things-about-the-sherlock-special.php

The way they describe it, I can understand the criticism ... the special almost requires fanatic attention to it in order to make sense (although I noticed a few bright people got it right from the start.) But heaven help me, that's exactly why I love it. I really think if it had really "just" a Victorian episode, I would have found it mildly amusing and that's about it. The "intrusion" of the modern era made me love it to death.

I do like their point about the show becoming too much about the main character. I don't think they're actually there yet, but as many of us have noted, John seems to have been slightly marginalized starting with S3. Sure he has these great scenes, like storming at Mary in HLV or showing up at the Falls in this episode, but we don't seem to be getting inside his head so much anymore, and it makes him seem ... I'm not sure what. Less than he was, somehow. Or maybe just more removed from the audience? I hope they realize that and fix it before it goes too far.
 
 

I find it very odd that anyone could be dissatisfied with the fact that Mary is extremely bright....

Well, I suspect a lot of them don't really think through what they're saying when they say Mary is "too smart." From what I've observed, the majority of those who complain about Mary's role in TAB want her gone from the show, period, because they think she'll get in the way of the boys getting together (romantically or otherwise.) To which I would say, wait and see. I can think of any number of ways to get the boys together (not romantically, though) whether Mary is in the picture or not, and Moftiss is a lot more clever than I am. At any rate, some fans have become so invested in hating Mary that any trait she's given will be seen as a negative, it seems, even intelligence.

[T.o.b.y]

I do like their point about the show becoming too much about the main character.

 

:lol: While one of my biggest complaints about series 3 is "too many secondary characters! I want them to focus more on Sherlock!"

 

The way they describe it, I can understand the criticism ... the special almost requires fanatic attention to it in order to make sense (although I noticed a few bright people got it right from the start.) But heaven help me, that's exactly why I love it. I really think if it had really "just" a Victorian episode, I would have found it mildly amusing and that's about it. The "intrusion" of the modern era made me love it to death.

 

Me too. This is why I find it ironic when the writers say they don't have the die-hard fans in mind with what they do, because we seem to be the only people who are able to enjoy it, let alone understand half of it.

[Arcadia]

What a lovely, insightful discussion! One thing seems nearly certain: with 800,000 fewer viewers than TEH and such contradictory reviews, the Abominable episode won't get any BAFTA or Emmy nominations any time soon, it's so controversial!

Eh, I'm not so sure. Hollywood loves to award controversy, and popular often, to them, means "low brow." I'd say it has a pretty fair chance at an Emmy nomination ... but I don't know what it will be up against ... if there's something more controversial out there, it will probably win.

 

My DVDs finally came!  

 

 

 

I'm still a little unsure who actually killed Sir Eustace; Sherlock seemed to think it was Lady Carmichael, but her motives were never shown, and before she's revealed we veer off into the whole Moriarty thing and never resolve his murder.

I think it was Lady Carmichael. And here's why:

 

Until this viewing today, I thought she must be an incredibly good actress. The way she behaved around her husband, and around Sherlock Holmes... She seemed so incredibly genuinely frightened for her husband and concerned, and the acting didn't so much as hint at duplicity of any kind. Besides, she seemed terrified by the Bride even when there was nobody else around to observe her. Then it occurred to me: This wasn't real. Of course. Duh. Stupid. This is Lady Carmichael how Sherlock pictured her based on the information he had, before he solved the murder.

 

Because this is the thing: He didn't suspect her at first. Because he liked her. Because she appealed to him, as a woman ("admirably high arches", a face slightly reminiscent of Irene, based on the pilot of the plane he was on whom he also couldn't help noticing) and as a person (clever, can see worlds where other people see nothing at all). He didn't suspect her based on emotional and faintly sexual reasons, and so he locked up Sir Eustace with his killer. And so Sir Eustace died, and Holmes failed to save him. And we all know that there are precious few things Sherlock Holmes hates more than failing to protect a client. (Note, btw, how much calmer and more professional Dr Watson is about that. For him, it's unfortunate, he's lost another patient, but you can see this is something he is used to and at peace with as part of his job. Sherlock will never get there, no matter how long he lives and how many cases he has. Because his problem is not lack of feeling, it is feeling too much and too keenly. Like me, Sherlock dear. Thank you for letting me identify with you a bit more).

 

This is why "miss me", Moriarty's note, appears at this particular point. Because this is the moment that illustrates Sherlock's weaknesses. And as Moriary said: "I am your weakness. Every time you fail, every time you fall."

 

I agree, that's what's going on. I also think they never truly resolved the Carmichael case because, as Moriarty himself pointed out, it wasn't relevant to what Sherlock was trying to do ... which was, trying to figure out how Moriarty could have survived. Once he'd solved the Ricolletti case, the rest was a distraction, and it became more important for him to wake up.

 

I think. :D

 

Question: what does everyone think Holmes jumping off into the falls represents? Falling was the end of Moriarty, but it seemed to be the resurrection of Sherlock. But why? (Symbolism (or is it allegory?) has never been my strong suit.)

 

 

I do like their point about the show becoming too much about the main character.

:lol: While one of my biggest complaints about series 3 is "too many secondary characters! I want them to focus more on Sherlock!"

 

Oh, I don't want more characters! But there is a risk that the characters they already have will become mere ciphers -- not very interesting -- if we don't get occasional insights into them. I would like to know a little more about Lestrade, for instance. Because I love Lestrade. :D

 

 

The way they describe it, I can understand the criticism ... the special almost requires fanatic attention to it in order to make sense (although I noticed a few bright people got it right from the start.) But heaven help me, that's exactly why I love it. I really think if it had really "just" a Victorian episode, I would have found it mildly amusing and that's about it. The "intrusion" of the modern era made me love it to death.

Me too. This is why I find it ironic when the writers say they don't have the die-hard fans in mind with what they do, because we seem to be the only people who are able to enjoy it, let alone understand half of it.

 

True, they have said that, haven't they. Hmm. Define "die-hard", Moftiss!

[Pamela]

I think that article had a real point when it said:

 

Gone are the days when Sherlock was a grounded series about a man who sometimes seemed to be able to make supernatural deductions but which always had a logical explanation. Now he seems to be some sort of supreme being – it is almost a science-fiction series. This is the trouble with the success of the show – it is now being run as though it is elaborate Fan Fiction.

 

As for Arcadia's question about Holmes jumping into the Falls, all I know for sure is that was how he supposedly was going to "wake up." Otherwise, I don't know either. He was really smiling broadly during that jump! What does that mean?

 

[Arcadia]

I think that article had a real point when it said:

 

 

Gone are the days when Sherlock was a grounded series about a man who sometimes seemed to be able to make supernatural deductions but which always had a logical explanation. Now he seems to be some sort of supreme being – it is almost a science-fiction series. This is the trouble with the success of the show – it is now being run as though it is elaborate Fan Fiction.

 

Well ... it IS elaborate fan fiction! But I get their point. It just fails to bother me. ;)

 

As for Arcadia's question about Holmes jumping into the Falls, all I know for sure is that was how he supposedly was going to "wake up." Otherwise, I don't know either. He was really smiling broadly during that jump! What does that mean?

Exactly! :D

[sfmpco]

I think that Mycroft won't die also because in Conan Doyle's books he's alive until the end (if I remember well). Making him die in the series, in my opinion, would put too much distance between the show and the book and many people wouldn't appreciate it (like me, for example)

 

Well he's still alive in the Laurie L. King books, which take place 20+ years after he died in ACD's stories.  And all is all is all fair in canon.

[Pamela]

 

I think that article had a real point when it said:

 

 

Gone are the days when Sherlock was a grounded series about a man who sometimes seemed to be able to make supernatural deductions but which always had a logical explanation. Now he seems to be some sort of supreme being – it is almost a science-fiction series. This is the trouble with the success of the show – it is now being run as though it is elaborate Fan Fiction.

 

Well ... it IS elaborate fan fiction! But I get their point. It just fails to bother me. ;)

 

As for Arcadia's question about Holmes jumping into the Falls, all I know for sure is that was how he supposedly was going to "wake up." Otherwise, I don't know either. He was really smiling broadly during that jump! What does that mean?

Exactly! :D

 

Doesn't bother me either - well, much. I admit I miss "the old days," but I'm still enjoying Sherlock immensely, and for me, that's what it's all about.

[T.o.b.y]

I should probably read that article you linked, Arcadia, before I comment on it, but I have a feeling it would be bad for my blood pressure, so you know what, I won't. :P

 

I think that article had a real point when it said:

 

Gone are the days when Sherlock was a grounded series about a man who sometimes seemed to be able to make supernatural deductions but which always had a logical explanation. Now he seems to be some sort of supreme being – it is almost a science-fiction series. This is the trouble with the success of the show – it is now being run as though it is elaborate Fan Fiction.

 

Gosh, have they been watching a different series than I have? To me, Sherlock was way more of a "supreme being" earlier, when we knew so little about him. He's becoming more human every series. (And the deductions... well, they were always sort of semi-logical, both in the original and on the show. I would like them to use the floating words more often again, though. I like the feeling that I'm being taken along for the reasoning process instead of just being presented with the result).

 

Why science fiction series? They did get that the time travel in The Abominable Bride wasn't real, yes? Or do they mean Sherlock's mental powers? Geez, those were beyond realistic right from the start. He's a superhero and always has been - just a very, very classy one.

 

And of course it's elaborate fan fiction. That it has also been from day one. It's professional fan fiction based on Sir Arthur Conan Doyle's Sherlock Holmes stories, duh. Only if you get paid for it, you're supposed to call it an "adaptation".

 

When I first saw The Empty Hearse, though, one of my first responses was "did they let a bunch of fan fic writers loose on their script?" Series 3 was just so full of things I never thought I'd see the Sherlock characters do or say. It felt as if not just one but a whole line of borders had been crossed. I wasn't happy at first. But what would we have the team do? Churn out five repeats of series 1 until they run out of ideas with static characters being served a new problem each weak, like any other series? This isn't Mission Impossible. Or a regular crime show. There are a gazillion of those anyway.

 

Now it seems everything is possible. Sherlock could retire, keep bees, get married, go to the moon. It's a bit of an anxious feeling. Maybe this lack of restraint in the story-telling is what they mean by "elaborate fan fiction" (but then, they should go read some of the fan fiction out there and they'd witness lack of restraint on a whole new level).

 

The first time I saw the Special, I thought "oh dear, nobody but me will like this". I am not surprised by negative reviews. I just don't agree with them. :D

 

 

 

As for Arcadia's question about Holmes jumping into the Falls, all I know for sure is that was how he supposedly was going to "wake up." Otherwise, I don't know either. He was really smiling broadly during that jump! What does that mean?

 

I don't really have a solid theory on this yet either. What I know is that if you fall and / or die in a dream, you almost always wake up. Sherlock finally decided to wake up and join the real world again, so he willed his mind to do something that would take him there. Maybe he's smiling because it's a relief to just let go and not be driven to go deeper and deeper into his subconscious any more, desperately trying to solve The Final Problem. Because this is what I think was going on.

 

Sherlock claims he went into his intense day-dream to solve the case of Emilia Ricoletti, and so to determine whether Moriarty could be alive. But he began taking drugs before he even knew about the broadcasts, while he was locked up in solitary confinement. So what he was really doing was escaping from reality. He was working on much greater problems too than whether one can or cannot survive a head-shot. He could have probably figured that out in a few seconds.

 

I don't quite grasp what's really going on between Sherlock and his inner Moriarty. Something about the Final Problem and being super brilliant and stuff little me just doesn't understand. What I do understand is getting lost inside your own imagination. What I also understand is the temptation to stay inside your mind-palace dream world, where you (think you) are in control of people and events and so many of your wishes come true.

 

Sherlock has had a rough time lately, and way back in A Study in Pink, I got the impression that he has a death wish. Maybe Mind Palace Moriary represents that: Why wake up? Why go back at all? Why not just lie back and die, or go insane, stay on drugs and escape the mess of living, feeling, failing and hurting for good? And then John shows up, all no-nonsense and practical, with his gun just like at the end of the first episode, pointing out that life isn't all that horrid because he's there and he's got Sherlock's back. Now enough fooling around, time to wake up, Sherlock, we have work to do.

[sfmpco]

I have felt that Sherlock taking a very premeditated leap into the falls was a cleansing metaphor.  He has freed himself of Moriarty and now he's just washing it all away.  He is absolutely delighted to be "bathed" in the falls.  He knows he's "dreaming," and he is able to enjoy the ride.  

 

There is an old myth about dreaming of falling - that if you land you're actually dead.  Somehow Sherlock isn't exactly falling - he's flying in a way.  Well, he's high as kite too.