Episode 4.0: The Abominable Bride (alias The Special)

[J.P.]

 

VBS:

● The shooting of the bride. Long one.

She 'shot' herself, handling her gun upside down with right hand at very close proximity because of the length of the gun. On the real shooting, someone shot her at slightly further range in proper position.

There were many eye witnesses and I would like to think at that time, without proper forensic, physical evidences would be very important.

 

So there are too many things missed here:

-  the angle and impact of the bullet (self shooting with that position would probably create a different angle compared to straight shooting by someone else, proximity also matters). These two scenarios would certainly create different wound result.

 

- the blank shooting by the left hand. Blanks still do damage at close range, in this case, the floor of the balcony is close enough. Bullet casing, residue, damage, there is always something.  But maybe this can be ‘arranged’ by making her aim to an object that could contain all the evidences and get rid of the object later.

Wasn't it so that in the times of ACD, Holmes' methods were revolutionary? That the modern forensic didn't really started yet in 19th century? I don't know if back then anyone was able to detect residues on the balcony, not to mention anyone thinking of it. The same with the wound angle - I think the similarity of the wounds would be enough. After all everyone have seen what happened. As well as everyone have seen Sherlock falling from Barts' roof... You don't question the obvious.

- dramatic suicide, people almost get shot, full attention to the street. Yet when Emelia walked out it’s life as usual, no attention, confusion, bystanders whatsoever.

We don't really know when Emelia left the house. It could be hours later. She needed to change her clothes and I think alone that took a while, with all those corset's lacing etc.

 

There is another repetition that catches my attention and I wonder if it has any significance.

 

After Eustache’s murder, regarding Miss Me in the stranger room.

Mycroft asks Sherlock: ”Where do you pick up these extraordinary expressions?” When Sherlock mentions crime scene. (maybe because this term is not used in Victorian time and it’s an indication that modern Sherlock is thinking?)

Then,

Sherlock asks Mycroft: "Where do you pick up these extraordinary expressions?" When Mycroft mentions pure reason toppled by sheer melodrama: your life in a nutshell.

 

I didn't see it as significant - just the usual bickering between them. They mock each other about using pompous expressions. Sherlock surely didn't like the way Mycroft described him - especially because it wasn't untrue. :D

[Slithytove]

Being Generation Y, (born September 1976), I can see that they target specific audiences for their own reasons, but afster two unfortunate run-ins against Sherlock-merchandising, I have become especially leery of the creators' inmost thoughts and moral compasses! The Abominable episode was just one more step on the downslope which they hit upon with the beginning of S3: if Billy and Gene Wilder can make spoofs of Sherlock Holmes, so can we, and more stylishly, too, because we are Brits and they were just silly Americans, (OK, Billy Wilder was originally Austrohungarian,) seems to be their motto, and the devil take backstory, plot lines, ACD himself, if it's good for an insider joke!

Crime scene was regularly used by the Yarders, ever since New Scotland Yard was set up, following Sir Robert Peel's establishment of a regular police force in the 1850s. So, the repartee between the brothers looks like the usual Sherlock-Mycroft bickering, especially since it comes after the whole 'obliquity of the ecliptic' rigmarole.

I believe that Peel established the Met in 1829.  He was dead by 1850.  Of course, the Met didn't move to New Scotland Yard until 1890, and then moved again in the 1960s.

 

I wouldn't agree that Sherlock has ever been intended as a spoof, though Gatiss has spoken of his affection for the Billy Wilder film and its "perfect combination of reverence and irreverene."  Its influence is probably shown best in the warm but largely unspoken affection between the two main characters.  I suppose it depends whether you like the film and, if you do, you probably will like its echoes in Sherlock.  However, I don't think the film is anything more than one influence amongst several.  Sherlock is an original piece of work and I doubt that the writers see themselves as writing a pastiche.

[Shadow Dweller]

A Millennial here, from the very beginning not impressed by the self-entitled diva attitude. Thank God for the 'support characters' else I would be put off the series at season 1.

[Van Buren Supernova]

Wasn't it so that in the times of ACD, Holmes' methods were revolutionary? That the modern forensic didn't really started yet in 19th century? I don't know if back then anyone was able to detect residues on the balcony, not to mention anyone thinking of it. The same with the wound angle - I think the similarity of the wounds would be enough. After all everyone have seen what happened. As well as everyone have seen Sherlock falling from Barts' roof... You don't question the obvious.

But...The obvious usually wrong.

Not necessary residue, it could be some damage, dent, something specific enough as result of propulsion from the top. Sherlock should see that, well, unless they use an object to hold the impact and get rid of the object.

 

Yes, it's obvious and no one would pay more attention to the suicide until she showed up later and killed her husband.

At that time, beside it being considered 'supernatural', why nobody looked at everything in more detail? And there is Sherlock.

He didn't solve the case, wouldn't he pay attention to all those? And precisely because there was no modern forensic, one of his way could be examining the physical look of the wound. After all, he is determined that ghost is impossible, so there is something else to be found.

 

We don't really know when Emelia left the house. It could be hours later. She needed to change her clothes and I think alone that took a while, with all those corset's lacing etc.

Yes, this could be the explanation. They might have a lot of maids, and she could easily hide among them. Which also means everyone in the house except Ricoletti might be in it. But why didn't she wipe out the make up? I guess for dramatic effect in Sherlock's mind? :D I buy that.

 

I didn't see it as significant - just the usual bickering between them. They mock each other about using pompous expressions. Sherlock surely didn't like the way Mycroft described him - especially because it wasn't untrue. :D

Not true? :P

Maybe I just expect their bickering to be richer in expressions, they don't seem like they ever run out names to call each other. Except when Sherlock is cornered, then his comeback is always You gained weight. :P

 

I always thought Gen Y doesn't start before 1980/1981. But some source also determines 76/77 as the milestone.

Geez, those theorists couldn't even agree on something like that?

[Arcadia]

 

Oh, you're probably right. It's just part of a trend I sometimes think I see (or I think I sometimes see?) -- that Moftiss thinks it's okay for Sherlock to behave that way. That just because he thinks he's right, that's enough to justify any of his actions.

What Sherlock does and how he behaves is rarely okay. "Flawed" doesn't even begin to describe him. He's rude, sometimes deliberately hurtful. He lies to, manipulates and betrays nearly everybody who loves him. He kills people. He takes drugs. He steals. He got engaged to gain access to an office and he tries out dubious substances on his unsuspecting best friend.

...

We idolize Sherlock at our own risk. Like John, like Molly, like Lestrade, we are constantly disappointed. But like them, we love him (well, I love him) and we keep hoping that one day, if we're very very lucky, he will be good as well as great. But when that happens, the story will be over and we (or at least I) will be sad.

Well, I guess there's a point to be made here that every generation gets the Holmes it needs.

 

Much like the portrayal of superheros, the portrayals of Holmes fluctuate over the generation. I think we're in a period in which entertainment is being targeted largely to Generation X and to the Millennials, so roughly audiences under 55. I think these are generations (especially GenX) who have a great deal of self-doubt and criticism, but who want to be told that they can still do something profoundly good or even heroic.

...

I think it is the same thing with Sherlock. Yes, he's clearly flawed, and he very obviously knows every one of his flaws and mistakes. But he can still do things for the greater good, and he can still use his "powers" (of his intellect) to make things right. That doesn't make his flaw OK, but I think many of us don't want his flaw negated. We want to see that we, the viewers, are still capable of producing good in the world in spite of everything we've been through because Sherlock is capable of that, too.

I thought I'd try to explain myself a little better here ... it's always hard because I'm often not sure what I mean myself! But I think what was bothering me was not that Sherlock behaves that way ... it's that I sometimes get the sense that we, the audience, are meant to sympathize with him when he behaves that way. And what I mean by "behaving that way" is ... um ... when he says "get me a pardon", I get the sense he thinks he's entitled to a pardon. That it's a small thing, to get off from a murder charge. That he deserves to be able to do what he wants, without censure.

 

I'm the kind of person that has to be able to relate to the protagonist in order to enjoy a show ... and boy, do I relate to Sherlock. Not in spite of his flaws, but because of his flaws. But "a sense of entitlement" is one attitude guaranteed to turn me absolutely monstrous. That's a whole different level of flawdom than shouting "Biscuits!" at Mrs. Hudson. Because ... hm. Because it's not funny, and "Biscuits!" is? That might be part of it. Most of the time I think we're supposed to giggle at Sherlock's flaws, and that's how they get away with portraying him so outrageously. Other times we're supposed to sympathize with the victims of his behavior (Molly at the Christmas party), and I like that too.

 

But to agree that he is "entitled" to do whatever he wants ... no, I can't do that. I think that's the opposite of what Boton is saying ... if we accept that he is above the law, an omniscient dispenser of justice, then how can we poor little mortals hope to compare?

 

 That's why I like JP's take on it ... Sherlock's guilt is driving him to act like a spoiled child, and no, we're not supposed to find his attitude acceptable. Except this little niggly voice keeps telling me that we are .... (shut up, voice!)

 

Anyway, I'm not sure I've cleared up anything; I'm still feeling my way through it myself! Feel free to ignore. :P

 

? The shooting of the bride. Long one.

She 'shot' herself, handling her gun upside down with right hand at very close proximity because of the length of the gun. On the real shooting, someone shot her at slightly further range in proper position.

There were many eye witnesses and I would like to think at that time, without proper forensic, physical evidences would be very important.

 

So there are too many things missed here:

- the angle and impact of the bullet (self shooting with that position would probably create a different angle compared to straight shooting by someone else, proximity also matters). These two scenarios would certainly create different wound result.

Did Holmes investigate her that closely, though? Hooper was quick to confirm the corpse was Emelia Ricoletti, and that was pretty much that, wasn't it?

 

Mycroft asks Sherlock: ”Where do you pick up these extraordinary expressions?” When Sherlock mentions crime scene. (maybe because this term is not used in Victorian time and it’s an indication that modern Sherlock is thinking?)

Then, Sherlock asks Mycroft: "Where do you pick up these extraordinary expressions?" When Mycroft mentions pure reason toppled by sheer melodrama: your life in a nutshell.

 

Both in the same scene.

I think your first guess is the right one ... this was not a Victorian era phrase, and was just another clue that all was not as it seemed.

 

 

[Slithytove]

I assumed that anything which seemed anachronistic was supposed to be a clue that 21st century reality was bleeding through into 19th century fantasy.

[Boton]

 

I thought I'd try to explain myself a little better here ... it's always hard because I'm often not sure what I mean myself! But I think what was bothering me was not that Sherlock behaves that way ... it's that I sometimes get the sense that we, the audience, are meant to sympathize with him when he behaves that way. And what I mean by "behaving that way" is ... um ... when he says "get me a pardon", I get the sense he thinks he's entitled to a pardon. That it's a small thing, to get off from a murder charge. That he deserves to be able to do what he wants, without censure.

 

 

 

Well, if it helps, I never read that scene as one of entitlement, even if I do think we are supposed to sympathize.  (And I do sympathize and empathize.)

 

To me, I read that entire scene is that Sherlock is embarrassed and is trying to restore normalcy. In the space of less than 15 minutes, he told his best friends goodbye forever, got on a plane to certain death, was called back for a specific job (maybe that is an excuse, but I don't think Sherlock is confident of that), and has tried to speed his mental processes enough to deliver on the job upon landing.  He therefore slipped into a drug stupor and has just had his best friends witness the fact that his brother has him habitually keep a list of his drug use so that he can be properly treated medically, and now he's the focus of everyone's attention.

 

Given that, I think that Sherlock brusquely saying "Shouldn't you be getting me a pardon, like a proper big brother?" is his way of trying to say "Come on, Mycroft, let's go back to the comfortable bit of our relationship where you're the emotionless British Government and I'm beneath your notice and we all just get on with it."

 

That's a long explanation, but that's pretty much how I hear that line every time I watch TAB, and I was frankly a little surprised when I saw that people (here and elsewhere online) were taking it at face value.  YMMV, of course!

[J.P.]

The same here. Mycroft has already used his powers to get Sherlock on his mission instead of a murder trial. I don't think that shooting CAM Sherlock was hoping that Mycroft gets him out of trouble. I think he did it, knowing about the consequences and accepted them (he also could have been shot by the special forces). It was Mycroft who intervened on his own.

 

At the end of TAB Sherlock was irritated because his situation changed again - to me his words sounded like "can you finally make up your mind what to do with me, do it RIGHT and be done with it?"

[Serkis]

i'm impressed a parody, Mrs. Hudson not spoken. and Holmes plays little part in The Hound of the Baskervilles. Lol

[sfmpco]

The same here. Mycroft has already used his powers to get Sherlock on his mission instead of a murder trial. I don't think that shooting CAM Sherlock was hoping that Mycroft gets him out of trouble. I think he did it, knowing about the consequences and accepted them (he also could have been shot by the special forces). It was Mycroft who intervened on his own.

 

At the end of TAB Sherlock was irritated because his situation changed again - to me his words sounded like "can you finally make up your mind what to do with me, do it RIGHT and be done with it?"

 

Except that drugs tend to heighten his petulance and snark.  Had he been sober, he might have spoken differently.

[sfmpco]

i'm impressed a parody, Mrs. Hudson not spoken. and Holmes plays little part in The Hound of the Baskervilles. Lol

 

That was a funny bit.  Welcome to the forum!

[Arcadia]

 

I thought I'd try to explain myself a little better here ... it's always hard because I'm often not sure what I mean myself! But I think what was bothering me was not that Sherlock behaves that way ... it's that I sometimes get the sense that we, the audience, are meant to sympathize with him when he behaves that way. And what I mean by "behaving that way" is ... um ... when he says "get me a pardon", I get the sense he thinks he's entitled to a pardon. That it's a small thing, to get off from a murder charge. That he deserves to be able to do what he wants, without censure.

 

Well, if it helps, I never read that scene as one of entitlement, even if I do think we are supposed to sympathize.  (And I do sympathize and empathize.)

 

To me, I read that entire scene is that Sherlock is embarrassed and is trying to restore normalcy. In the space of less than 15 minutes, he told his best friends goodbye forever, got on a plane to certain death, was called back for a specific job (maybe that is an excuse, but I don't think Sherlock is confident of that), and has tried to speed his mental processes enough to deliver on the job upon landing.  He therefore slipped into a drug stupor and has just had his best friends witness the fact that his brother has him habitually keep a list of his drug use so that he can be properly treated medically, and now he's the focus of everyone's attention.

 

Given that, I think that Sherlock brusquely saying "Shouldn't you be getting me a pardon, like a proper big brother?" is his way of trying to say "Come on, Mycroft, let's go back to the comfortable bit of our relationship where you're the emotionless British Government and I'm beneath your notice and we all just get on with it."

 

That's a long explanation, but that's pretty much how I hear that line every time I watch TAB, and I was frankly a little surprised when I saw that people (here and elsewhere online) were taking it at face value.  YMMV, of course!

 

 

See, there, that's why I joined this forum! I get stuck on a certain p.o.v., but I can trust you all to knock me around until I get a new perspective! :D I not only concede there may be other interpretations of that scene, but hereby officially declare them to be better than my own.

 

I do think, though, that's exactly how the Magnussen case will be resolved; with a pardon for Sherlock. Pardons are good; I approve of mercy. :P

 

Annnnd ..... I achieved my goal of getting the conversation started up again on this thread......  

 

[Arcadia]

i'm impressed a parody, Mrs. Hudson not spoken. and Holmes plays little part in The Hound of the Baskervilles. Lol

Welcome to the forum, Serkis!! Hope we haven't scared you off already! :d

 

[Inge l-w]

What worries the #%#% out of me is a single sentence by the unlikeable Dr Watson: in the train scene, a direct copy of the Musgrave Blaze etching, he says, when Sherlock questions his lack of imagination: "Perhaps since I convinced the reading public that an unprincipled drug addict was some kind of gentleman hero."

We know that it all takes place in Sherlock's head, but it denotes two things:

a ) Sherlock's extremely low self-worth in the series, self-esteem, self-confidence, call it what you will, and

b ) the creators' image of the most iconic sleuth in crime fiction.

What does it say about how Messers Moffat and Gatiss regard their creation/victim?

[T.o.b.y]

What worries the #%#% out of me is a single sentence by the unlikeable Dr Watson: in the train scene, a direct copy of the Musgrave Blaze etching, he says, when Sherlock questions his lack of imagination: "Perhaps since I convinced the reading public that an unprincipled drug addict was some kind of gentleman hero."

We know that it all takes place in Sherlock's head, but it denotes two things:

a ) Sherlock's extremely low self-worth in the series, self-esteem, self-confidence, call it what you will, and

b ) the creators' image of the most iconic sleuth in crime fiction.

What does it say about how Messers Moffat and Gatiss regard their creation/victim?

 

I like that scene and that line of John's. I think it illustrates once more how the series doesn't take Doyle's Holmes at face value. For the character of Sherlock, their approach seems to be: "If Holmes had been a real person, what could he have been like? Based on the portrait Dr Watson painted painted for the public, what can we maybe deduce about the man he really was?"

 

I do not doubt Sir Arthur imagined a very different kind of man, if he gave the matter much thought at all. But I certainly love this one, and I do see how they got him out of the original.

 

Sherlock makes the hero so much more than just an "iconic sleuth". It looks behind the hat, the pipe and the deductions and explores what kind of a human being could have been hidden there. In a way, the series has the same effect on me as that Indian Cabinet in that one kids' movie I saw when I was little, that the little boy put his toys inside and it made them come alive. They've taken one of my favorite characters and given him a soul. I guess this is why the series feels so real to me, even though neither the plots nor the protagonists are actually very realistic.

 

If you're really sold on the idea of Sherlock Holmes as a revered hero, then of course this must feel like iconoclasm. You cannot get to know anybody very intimately and keep that kind of image intact. But you see, I am not all that interested in heroes and idols. I love real, flawed, faltering, complex, conflicted, struggling human beings, who occasionally rise up to heroic levels when the world needs them to.

 

I think Sherlock is both an unprincipled drug addict and a gentleman hero. And a lot of other things as well. I find the question they raised at the beginning of series 3, namely what is being Sherlock Holmes supposed to mean, very fascinating, too.

 

[J.P.]

TOBY, you're the best in expressing my thoughts

[Slithytove]

I think that, from the very beginning, the writers have shown us Sherlock as a narcissist - the vanity, the need for admiration, the sense of entitlement, covering up a profound lack of self-esteem.  Just look at the way he responds to people who treat him badly, such as Irene and Mary.  He even seems to like Janine better when she hits back at him.  It is one way of interpreting the original character, and a perfectly valid one.  I think it works very well.  Like T.o.b.y., I enjoy the depth of a character who has frailties as well as strengths.

 

Holmes is certainly an iconic character, which is the very reason why he is capable of so many interpretations.  Years ago, I was at a talk about King Arthur, where the historian Ronald Hutton said that every age gets the Arthur it needs.  The Empire-building Victorians had the noble hero, later generations have had the mystical hippy, the laddish gang leader, the environmentalist....Maybe the same applies to Sherlock Holmes.  Maybe we need a hero who, despite his genius and his pride, has moments of self-doubt when he questions not only the things that he does but the man that he is.  I don't think this interpretation detracts from the pleasure of reading the original books.  You can still see Holmes as the invincible thinking-machine.  Other interpretations just add to the richness of the character.

[J.P.]

After all the canon Holmes was also an interpretation of him written by Dr. Watson. :D

I think TAB addresses it very strongly.

[Arcadia]

That's one of the things I like best about TAB ... the way it plays with perceptions of the characters, and reveals things about them through the changing perceptions. I still don't think I've picked up on all the nuances, actually ... and that's another thing I like, it practically demands rewatching it, then thinking about it, to fully appreciate it. I like the process of peeling back layers, a bit at a time, to find out what and what isn't underneath. (In other words, I like TAB because it's "complicated!" :D )
 
It doesn't hurt to bear in mind the Holmes humor, either .... I love the bit at the beginning when he's deducing Mary ... "You have recently married a man of a seemingly kindly disposition who has now abandoned you for an unsavoury companion of dubious morals." That may be a reflection of how he thinks of himself, but it's also a very funny line, intended, I think (as humor often is) to defuse the tension in the room. Also I think Holmes just likes to amuse himself.

 

I'm thoroughly confused about where they're going with Mycroft, though, it will be interesting to see if they follow through on his sudden vulnerability. I just don't want Mycroft becoming the sympathetic character at Sherlock's expense, if you see what I mean. Or his role bumping John even further out of the picture. Hey, I have to find something to worry about .......

[Inge l-w]

Well, I d I d say 'the unlikeable Dr Watson' and here, dear Arcadia, Sherlock says it himself :seemingly kindly disposition! QED

As for Mycroft, there is already fan fiction offing him in the aftermath of the 'Moriarty' debacle. And don't forget that in Mr Holmes, both Dr Watson and Mycroft are dead when he tells the story of his last case, coincidentally another 'failure', or is the universe rarely so lazy, just the scriptwriters?

[sfmpco]

I think it's interesting to see how Mycroft has warmed from ASIP to TAB.  From being Sherlock's arch enemy to the one who will always be there for him because he's always been there for him, even if Sherlock didn't always appreciate it.  I think John has been a bit of an unwitting bridge between the brothers.

[bedelia1984]

 

After all the canon Holmes was also an interpretation of him written by Dr. Watson. :D

I think TAB addresses it very strongly.

 

I love this way of looking at the series. It's also interesting to consider how Sherlock is affected by the fact that Watson is writing about him- and I think that shows as well in TAB. The fact that he developed an audience- not only Watson- but the readers, whether of the stories, or the blog, that must have to some extent altered the way Sherlock behaved, and given him something a little more to live up to. Then we have the secrets Watson may have kept from the readers- were there times the drug use was worse than he wanted to let on? Were there any incidents too personal to reveal (maybe Redbeard?). I love the complexity for which our version of the the stories allows.

 

I think it's interesting to see how Mycroft has warmed from ASIP to TAB.  From being Sherlock's arch enemy to the one who will always be there for him because he's always been there for him, even if Sherlock didn't always appreciate it.  I think John has been a bit of an unwitting bridge between the brothers.

 

Yes, but also I think the Mycroft that John in particular sees has naturally changed, because in the beginning Mycroft was testing John's loyalty to Sherlock, and acting the heavy in his role as over-protective big brother. He wanted to seem cold and a bit frightening to John, to see how easy John was to manipulate, and gauge how much he could be trusted if he were placed in a stressful or dangerous situation. Mycroft's opinion of John seems to have continually improved, and in TAB he seems to trust him with Sherlock's safety. So in a sense we are always seeing Mycroft as he wants John to see him, and as he warmed to John, he seems to us a warmer person.

 

[sittything]

I'm deeply concerned about Mycroft.  I still can't shake the ominous feeling I get from Mycroft's "Doctor Watson, look after him, please?"   I think people's (not here... Tumblr) assumption that Mycroft is dying from some disease are taking the mind palace Mycroft scenes too literally, but I definitely wouldn't put it past Mycroft to sacrifice himself for his little brother.   And I worry that Mycroft dying would be a good catalyst (of many) in Sherlock's becoming a "good man."  

[J.P.]

Story-wise yes. But... Hell, I might quit watching if he's going to die. Favorably - quit BEFORE he dies.

Or go to the third Sherlocked to strangle Mofftiss.

[sittything]

The thing is, would Gatiss write himself out of the story for the sake of the story?  He really does seem to enjoy playing Mycroft from all interview accounts.   Does killing off Mycroft advance the story?