The Abominable Bride: Does It Mean Anything?

[Arcadia]

 

 

I just don't expect there will be any further consequences for Sherlock for having shot Magnussen. That chapter seems to be closed.

While I maintain mine, I buy yours.

It's subjective, because I appreciate callback a lot in a story, especially something as powerful as him killing someone, a step I believe he never crossed before.

 

Oh, I like that sort of thing too! I wasn't talking about what I want so much as what I expect will happen (or in this case, won't happen).

Me three! Shall we petition Moftiss? "Let the killing mean something!"

[Van Buren Supernova]

Oh, I like that sort of thing too! I wasn't talking about what I want so much as what I expect will happen (or in this case, won't happen).

Actually me too. It's not what I want but what I thought where the story should go to make it compelling.

I'm probably the only shooting-Magnussen supporter here and ghastly believe I would do the same given the same circumstances and time frame, but I also believe getting away just like that is too much of a fiction, and I regard this show more than that.

You brought up interesting point, come to think of that, I don't remember I've ever wanted any particular thing to happen, in specific. What I want is probably very general, that it keeps making me feel the way I almost never feel about any other shows. In a funny way it actually helps me learn about myself, and eventhough it's not always positive (on the contrary), all I hope is they keep doing that.

 

 

First I pounce, then if I'm hungry, it's a hard bite to the spine until they're done. But sometimes I like to bat them around first, it's so entertaining to watch them try to limp away. :P

:blanket:

No no no, NO!

Not the Let's Play Murder, gosh...good lord. :lol:

As much as I hate them in the house, and do whatever to get rid of them, I don't think I can bring myself to kill them actually. In fact, I saved some of them from imminent deaths when I was still a child, in a house with so many of them that killing them was necessary because they were such a pest. Yes, I know. Shoot Magnussen but saved rats that were supposed to be killed. Idiot.

 

 

 

Me too. Maybe it's a way to calm and/or organize our minds? Sort of like a mind palace, only full of fantasies instead of facts. (Although mine's more of a mind forest, I think. Lots of criss-crossing paths, and random leaves with things buried under them.....)

Mind forest..what a nice image.. sound tranquil and peaceful...who...whoatttt? What is buried under the leaves?

What is the matter with you this evening?

[bedelia1984]

 

 

 

 

Given his past behaviour, though, he has a tendency to be at his worst when he feels someone has figured out his failings.

Actually I thought he was maybe a bit too hard on himself there. His actions towards both Molly and Janine were poor, but I think he regretted them, and in his own way had tried to make amends. …. he was only seeing the women in terms of how he had apparently let them down.

Very good point. I think you hit it. Imo.

The logic is questionable, but those are very relatable,

not everyone understand how to react and handle feelings.

Some people are so incapable of that it's maddening for them.

 

 

I'm trying to think in what way he tried to make amends. Janine basically forgave him after she got her revenge, he never admitted he'd hurt her. Molly ... we've never seen them together after the slaps. This episode makes me think he's never made it up to her, given the way he and Hooper interacted.

 

 

 

With Molly, I'm thinking more of his apology at Christmas (though yes a new one may be in order after HLV- then again there was a bit of mutual provocation there before his sharp words). And then with Janine, their conversation in the hospital, I guess she did take her own revenge but I got the  impression they hadn't left things on a bitter note, and still to some degree liked and respected each other. 

[Arcadia]

 

First I pounce, then if I'm hungry, it's a hard bite to the spine until they're done. But sometimes I like to bat them around first, it's so entertaining to watch them try to limp away. :P

:blanket:

No no no, NO!

Not the Let's Play Murder, gosh...good lord. :lol:

 

Purr, purr, purr, purr........

   

 

Me too. Maybe it's a way to calm and/or organize our minds? Sort of like a mind palace, only full of fantasies instead of facts. (Although mine's more of a mind forest, I think. Lots of criss-crossing paths, and random leaves with things buried under them.....)

Mind forest..what a nice image.. sound tranquil and peaceful...who...whoatttt? What is buried under the leaves?

 

Old ideas. A few dead mice. Some bugs. They're all quite tasty if they haven't been there too long.

 

What is the matter with you this evening?

I had a really good night's sleep for the first time in forever, so I'm finally back to normal......

 

 

I'm trying to think in what way he tried to make amends....

 

With Molly, I'm thinking more of his apology at Christmas (though yes a new one may be in order after HLV- then again there was a bit of mutual provocation there before his sharp words). And then with Janine, their conversation in the hospital, I guess she did take her own revenge but I got the  impression they hadn't left things on a bitter note, and still to some degree liked and respected each other.

 

WEll, I agree he gets credit for the apology, and also for the way he interacted with Molly in TEH and TSoT. (Good boy!) But I was thinking of how it was left between them after HLV, I guess.

 

He and Janine did seem to understand each other pretty well, didn't they? But Janine made all the moves, imo. Pretty generous of her, I thought, considering what a dirty trick he played on her.

[Van Buren Supernova]

 

What is the matter with you this evening?

I had a really good night's sleep for the first time in forever, so I'm finally back to normal......

 

No you are not yet.

If you do, you would know that is direct quote from Sherlock to John XD in TAB.

 

But Janine made all the moves, imo. Pretty generous of her, I thought, considering what a dirty trick he played on her.

Don't forget, she is a grasping, opportunistic, publicity-hungry tabloid..whore. :P

 

Other topic..

What exactly is 'Moriarty' going to do next?

[T.o.b.y]

 

Other topic..

What exactly is 'Moriarty' going to do next?

 

Haven't the faintest idea.

 

One thing I think we can say for sure, whoever it is wants a lot of public attention and fear. It could still be a trick of Mycroft's and / or Mary's plus whoever else of Sherlock's friends felt like helping to have an excuse for turning the plane around; I don't think that has been entirely ruled out. The timing is a little too convenient, and what do we say about coincidences?

 

If it's not all for Sherlock's sake, if there really is a new player in the field (which I am almost hoping, because it gets boring if Mycroft is beyond everything...), then after getting everyone's attention, I suppose the next step would be to state what they want.

 

[Caya]

But there should be something in the episode that tells us, something that Sherlock picked up and us goldfish missed (I say should and not must, because Moftiss don't always play by the rules, sadly). If we're starting a betting pool, my money is still on Mrs. Holmes being behind this, she's supposed to be a genius after all (plus the episode was rather into female perpetrators, too).

[Van Buren Supernova]

If it's not all for Sherlock's sake, if there really is a new player in the field (which I am almost hoping, because it gets boring if Mycroft is beyond everything...), then after getting everyone's attention, I suppose the next step would be to state what they want.

You mean it's some kind of blackmail?

Or that new player wants to request for help by helping first?

 

 

But there should be something in the episode that tells us, something that Sherlock picked up and us goldfish missed (I say should and not must, because Moftiss don't always play by the rules, sadly). If we're starting a betting pool, my money is still on Mrs. Holmes being behind this, she's supposed to be a genius after all (plus the episode was rather into female perpetrators, too).

Interesting,

Did she do it just to save Sherlock, or is there a agenda?

After all, it almost kills him again.

However, if she is such a genius, how come she didn't get a hint of what was going on in HLV and took the punch? Did she fake it?

 

Bill Wiggin doesn't do a very good job, does he? XD

[Van Buren Supernova]

I.. ahem.. did some rehearing again at work, and trying my best to compile what I have in mind here.

Some of the dialogues in TAB:
Your bed is surprisingly comfortable.

It's on the tip of my tongue.. I peeked at this scene and Sherlock was saying that with Moriarty's voice at the end.

Yes..Moriarty is Sherlock's inner demon. He is intimately hidden in him. They are the same, just on different sides. I think it's been mentioned, but are there anything more to that?

Then further in the episode:
I am your weakness!
I keep you down!
Everytime you stumble, everytime you fail!
When you are weak, I am there!
..
Lay back and lose!

I have scary theory, that may or may not been said before.
Sherlock is a dark character, sometimes we forget but we know it.
How if he was actually much darker than he is now in the past?

Yes, losing Redbeard is intense, I know that. I believe that is part of what made him.
But, how if he crossed the line further than that? When he is down, when he is weak, when he fails, when he gives in, he becomes Moriarty.

 

 

Like when he shoot Magnussen.

 

And he did something very bad in the past too. That is why he locks Moriarty up deep deep down in his Mind Palace. (HLV) Because he is worried that he would lay back and lose again?

How if, what he said are all true,
he doesn't have a heart, he is not a hero, he is not an angel,
at least in his past.

[J.P.]

 

And he did something very bad in the past too. That is why he locks Moriarty up deep deep down in his Mind Palace. (HLV) Because he is worried that he would lay back and lose again?

 

I agree about the possible dark past, but we shouldn't forget that Jim happened to Sherlock some time around SIP (he hired the cabby). Even if the game was runnig since the Karl Powers(?) death, Sherlock didn't know him. IMO if he had some bad loses or dark secrets earlier in his life they would have another face...

Does it make sense?

[Van Buren Supernova]

 

 

And he did something very bad in the past too. That is why he locks Moriarty up deep deep down in his Mind Palace. (HLV) Because he is worried that he would lay back and lose again?

 

I agree about the possible dark past, but we shouldn't forget that Jim happened to Sherlock some time around SIP (he hired the cabby). Even if the game was runnig since the Karl Powers(?) death, Sherlock didn't know him. IMO if he had some bad loses or dark secrets earlier in his life they would have another face...

Does it make sense?

 

 

Yes, that is what I meant. Something unrelated to Moriarty, and he kept it down but meeting Moriarty brings that side of him back.

[Arcadia]

I have scary theory, that may or may not been said before.

Sherlock is a dark character, sometimes we forget but we know it.

How if he was actually much darker than he is now in the past?

 

Yes, losing Redbeard is intense, I know that. I believe that is part of what made him.

But, how if he crossed the line further than that? When he is down, when he is weak, when he fails, when he gives in, he becomes Moriarty.

 

Like when he shoot Magnussen.

 

And he did something very bad in the past too. That is why he locks Moriarty up deep deep down in his Mind Palace. (HLV) Because he is worried that he would lay back and lose again?

 

How if, what he said are all true,

he doesn't have a heart, he is not a hero, he is not an angel,

at least in his past.

The thing is, though, when he shot Magnussen, he did it to save someone else. So I don't think he really became like Moriarty there; Moriarty would have formed an alliance with Magnussen, or something, and left Mary to be eaten by the wolves.

 

Still, I get your point ... Sherlock could have a black past. But that would make two of them; Sherlock AND Mary. From a storytelling point of view, that doesn't feel right to me; it makes Sherlock less unique.  Besides: I don't want it to be true, so ... there. :p

[Van Buren Supernova]

Yes..less unique doesn't sound right for him.

 

Unless, he did something very bad because of the same reason, to save someone/something.

 

While of course, I believe he is a good man, the most human, it's not impossible he is that because he is on the upper hand of fighting his demon. Maybe he doesn't always win. Moriarty believes he is capable for that if he wants to on the rooftop, and I believe both of them.

 

There is something bothering me about Redbeard. All the while we know Redbeard is his pressure point, perhaps something that makes him trying to be heartless.

But why does he keep Redbeard in happy place? Something happy, to keep him from shock, in his Mind Palace HLV.

 

I understand that we are told to remember only happy times instead of sad times when we lose someone. (Fictional wisdom I say...)

Then why Redbeard is his pressure point and (at least partially if not all) drove him into what he is, if he manages to associate Redbeard with happiness? Or he has Redbeard in his sad Mind Palace too? But that is risky isn't it, you choose one thing that reminds you to happiness but is so close to sadness when your life depends on that.

 

One can say John makes him happy but he is also his pressure point, but John is different. Redbeard is dead, they can't use it against him like they use John. But it is pressure point, so they can use Redbeard differently.

 

I feel like I'm hitting a paradox.

 

Argh..

[Arcadia]

Good point. Hmmm. Still .... Sherlock thought of Redbeard to help himself stay calm, but it didn't last long. So maybe it wasn't the best choice, it was just the first thing he thought of in his haste? Death was very much on his mind at that moment (!) so to think of someone he loved, but who died, was actually somewhat logical?

 

Really have no idea what I'm talking about here........ :p

[Arcadia]

Glancing at a few reviews of TAB, it seems the most common complaint is "too complicated." But I don't think it is all that much, really; it just requires a few rewatches for some of us (me, for instance. ) to fix the sequences in our minds. I think Scandal is more bewildering, and HLV, and maybe even TRF.

 

But one sequence I still can't figure out: what's the deal with the scene in the graveyard? I'm pretty sure it's in Sherlock's mind palace; well, it has to be, doesn't it? Because the next time he wakes up in the present, he's still in the plane. Right now, I'm taking that scene as meaning Sherlock has "gone too deep" and is mixing up the past and present in his mind palace.

 

Still..... why does Sherlock imagine John ditching him at Mrs. Ricoletti's gravesite? Why is Sherlock so determined to find the second body, what would it mean if he did? If it was so important, why was it never resolved? And why was John the only one who refused to help?

Couple of ideas... Did digging for the body represent Sherlock succumbing to the drugs and unable to find his way back to the real world? Or worse, preferring to stay drugged? If so, was John the only one understood him well enough to realize that, and so refused to enable him?

 

And to show I'm actually on topic :p ... could any of this be foreshadowing events in S4? Something to do with Moriarty's body never being recovered, perhaps? Or hinting at future drug use, I suppose ....

[Van Buren Supernova]

Maybe it's all very fuzzy and he starts to lose his grip and the edge of OD?

He's making questionable decisions and priority.

 

Or that is the scene when he realises he needs a friend who does not only follow what he wants, because he would never become better.

Mycroft frowns at his usage, but I believe he never really gets too angry. He only demands that he keeps a list, it could be that Mycroft giving up trying to control Sherlock and decides to go along so that Sherlock would still allow him to be close.

Lestrade always listen to Sherlock and does what he wants.

 

But John, John is super angry when Sherlock harms himself and that is actually what Sherlock needs, for someone to shout sense at him to hold to higher standard, because he doesn't live for himself only. Other people need him to take care of himself, including his friends because his loss would break their hearts. Like Molly. Slap slap slap.

 

I really have mind block now, can't think of anything else.

But there is one thing really nice in that scene, he remembers how much he hurts John by pretending to be dead.

[joanneta1]

And maybe the whole graveyard sequence and the possibility of the double coffin were taken from The Disappearance of Lady Frances Carfax, where they were intending to bury her alive, drugged, beneath the body of the con artist's wife's dead nanny. A plot device which was even more effectively borrowed by Georges Simeon in one of his short stories, La Dame de Lisieux. Nothing new under the sun, as Sherlock remarks in the Abominable episode.

This was just a huge exercise in imposing your hobby on the rest of the world and getting paid for doing so!

Why does Mind Palace Sherlock talk to Dr Watson about "jets" and the word is not immediately queried? Does that count as a blooper or simply another "don't give a #@%# about the story-telling or the fandom? "

For the sake of a cheap gag, the most observant person in England, bar Mycroft (enormous faux pas to ridicule overweight people in the Western world, where even child obesity has become a health issue!), fails to notice that the pathologist is a female in drag, while Dr Watson does. Drug-addled or not, would Sherlock's observational skills have dropped so low?

[Arcadia]

Still..... why does Sherlock imagine John ditching him at Mrs. Ricoletti's gravesite? Why is Sherlock so determined to find the second body, what would it mean if he did? If it was so important, why was it never resolved? And why was John the only one who refused to help?

 

Couple of ideas... Did digging for the body represent Sherlock succumbing to the drugs and unable to find his way back to the real world? Or worse, preferring to stay drugged? If so, was John the only one understood him well enough to realize that, and so refused to enable him?

 

 

Okay, those links Toby provided gave me an idea I like; Sherlock was literally and metaphorically digging himself into a grave by pursuing the Ricoletti case in his (drugged-out) mind palace. He was supposed to be figuring out if Moriarty could have survived, but instead he was scrambling around looking for the second body; and yes, getting lost in his mind palace. (It occurs to me this might be a comment on the fans too; instead of accepting the answer to TRF that they gave us, we keep harping about the extra body.... :d )

 

I like your idea too, VBS; that John is the one who tells Sherlock what he needs to hear. John's opinion is the only one that really matters to Sherlock, perhaps? I love that moment when John tells Sherlock he must hold himself to a higher standard ... because he's needed. Once again we have a suggestion that Sherlock doesn't think he is worth much, but John sets him straight. Nice.

[Inge l-w]

Oh, dear Arcadia, when I tried explaining why I cannot relate to a drug "user" as the main lead of the series using said lady's expositions, VBS landed on me like a June bug! Tried, convicted and sentenced without a right to an appeal, just because I like her views, without endorsing them! The exchange would be downright funny in the How do you relate to Sherlock thread, with all my past history ending up as him in ShadowDweller's quizzes, if it weren't taken so seriously! Have a relaxing Sunday!

[Arcadia]

Actually, Inge, if you re-read your own post in that thread, you will see that you never said that you couldn't relate to Sherlock because he used drugs. You said: "After the Abominable episode, I find it really hard to relate to t h I s version, because ... the writers suck at casefic, and the particular episode was half HLV-fix-it and half "pukeworthy"!"
 
That can be easily read to mean, those of us who did like the episode must like puke. If you re-read VBS's response to you, I believe you'll see that this is what she took exception to.
 
You're right, we do take it seriously ... but I don't think it's the show we take seriously. Most of us quite realize that the whole series is a proper lark, even when the stories go into dark places. No, what we take seriously is our LOVE for the show; and it's human nature to leap to the defense of something you love when you perceive it's under attack. That sounds a bit silly when talking about a TV show, doesn't it? But that's the way people are, bless us. Sentimental goldfish! The best we can do, imo, is try to remember that when expressing our opinions. Lord knows I've insulted more than a few people when I've forgotten to be mindful of their feelings about a particular subject. (Sorry, y'all, I didn't mean to! )
 
Now: you are saying you can't relate to Sherlock because he's a drug user? I for one can agree with you on that. Never "used" drugs, never will. Quite share Molly's opinion of them. Since they've brought it into the story, however, I hope Moftiss will use this as an opportunity to have Sherlock grow a little more, and realize that John is, once again, quite right: Sherlock needs to hold himself to a higher standard. Because in his little fictional world, people need him. And, I might add, John deserves it from him. It's not a case-fic, but it could be an interesting look into the mystery that is Sherlock Holmes. (Not that I expect to get anything as mundane as answers out of Moftiss; just more questions! :D )
 
There: back on topic!

[Arcadia]

And since I'm back on topic: I woke up this morning thinking about the bodies. (Oh no, I'm not obsessed with this show, not one little bit!) It seems to me a great deal of this episode referred back to TRF; but why? Aside from the obvious point that it's the last time we saw Moriarty alive, why bring up the bodies again? (Both literally and figuratively....)

 

Let's see if I've got this right: Sherlock is "reviewing" Jim's death, by thinking about Emelia Ricoletti's case, because she died the same way Jim did, then appeared to return from the grave. Sherlock speculates she used the same ploy he did when faking his own death; a body double. But Moriarty couldn't have used a body double, because Sherlock was a witness, standing one foot away. No time to make the switch; so the man who shot himself is really dead.

 

But then they bring in this thing about Jim's body never being recovered, and Sherlock unsuccessfully looking for Emelia's body double in the grave. ? What the heck are we supposed to make of that?

 

The more I think about it, the more I think it may be a message to the viewers; stop focusing on the bodies (the theories) and start focusing on what's actually happening. If so ... nice try, Moftiss! I don't think we'll give up that easily! (We enjoy tormenting ourselves, why quit now? :D ) And of course, what I said elsewhere ... it could represent Sherlock digging himself into a grave.

 

But what I'm wondering ... does it also mean anything, in-story? And drat ... I had an answer to this earlier, but I got distracted and have forgotten it. Anyone seen it lying around?

[bedelia1984]

 

Now: you are saying you can't relate to Sherlock because he's a drug user? I for one can agree with you on that. Never "used" drugs, never will. Quite share Molly's opinion of them. Since they've brought it into the story, however, I hope Moftiss will use this as an opportunity to have Sherlock grow a little more, and realize that John is, once again, quite right: Sherlock needs to hold himself to a higher standard. Because in his little fictional world, people need him. And, I might add, John deserves it from him. It's not a case-fic, but it could be an interesting look into the mystery that is Sherlock Holmes. (Not that I expect to get anything as mundane as answers out of Moftiss; just more questions! :D )

 

 

Sorry to jump in (I'm having a devil of a time keeping up will all the fascinating discussions on here)

 

Just about Sherlock and drugs- I don't share his experience of drugs, but I can very much relate to the feeling that you would like to escape from reality as it is too intense, or even to escape from your own thoughts. Sometimes enjoying art, or music, or a show like Sherlock is a way to escape too. I like to remember that Sherlock has other aspects of his personality that are feeding into his relationship with drugs- if you have obsessive thoughts that you can't shut out, then medication, whether from a professional or a drug dealer, is going to be a tempting way out. There is often a strong link between mental health and drug or alcohol misuse. I don't say that to excuse his taking drugs (I really hope they don't have him go any further with all that). I just mean that as a whole person, the same obsessive thoughts that make him so adept at puzzle solving (and not stopping until he does solve the puzzle), could be very difficult in emotional situations where there is no solution (like being exiled and losing all your friends and desperately wanting to find a way out but not being able to think of one).

 

And since I'm back on topic: I woke up this morning thinking about the bodies. (Oh no, I'm not obsessed with this show, not one little bit!) It seems to me a great deal of this episode referred back to TRF; but why? Aside from the obvious point that it's the last time we saw Moriarty alive, why bring up the bodies again? (Both literally and figuratively....)

 

 

 

I also think all this dwelling on the bodies and replacement bodies might mean more than we yet know. It also made me think of SiB, when Irene clearly found a replacement body too. Is it really so easy to go about procuring replacement bodies that look exactly like an actual dead person (admittedly Irene's has a damaged face, which to my mind is more believable.) 

 

There was one crazy moment as Sherlock toppled in TAB, when I thought, finally they are really going to explain the fall. I just don't think we ever got the full story.

[Inge l-w]

@Arcadia: does that mean that after a rather diverting, adult discussion on the existence of Santa Klaus, VBS missed the quotation marks, as I was reporting what someone else had said, pointing out that I would never go that far in excoriating the Abominable episode? Seriously? ??

[Carol the Dabbler]

And maybe the whole graveyard sequence and the possibility of the double coffin were taken from The Disappearance of Lady Frances Carfax, where they were intending to bury her alive, drugged, beneath the body of the con artist's wife's dead nanny. A plot device which was even more effectively borrowed by Georges Simeon in one of his short stories, La Dame de Lisieux. Nothing new under the sun, as Sherlock remarks in the Abominable episode.

This was just a huge exercise in imposing your hobby on the rest of the world and getting paid for doing so!

Why does Mind Palace Sherlock talk to Dr Watson about "jets" and the word is not immediately queried? Does that count as a blooper or simply another "don't give a #@%# about the story-telling or the fandom? "

For the sake of a cheap gag, the most observant person in England, bar Mycroft (enormous faux pas to ridicule overweight people in the Western world, where even child obesity has become a health issue!), fails to notice that the pathologist is a female in drag, while Dr Watson does. Drug-addled or not, would Sherlock's observational skills have dropped so low?

 

I agree that the idea of two bodies in one coffin was probably borrowed from "Lady Frances Carfax."

 

As for "imposing" their hobby on the world and getting paid for it, isn't that the most sensible way for anyone to live?  Do what you love and find a market for it?  Some people paint landscapes, some hand-craft furniture, some bake cookies.  And some do adaptations of Sherlock Holmes.  If people enjoy the result, then there is no "imposing" involved.  (And if they don't like it, then they will presumably ignore it.)

 

John notices that Molly is a woman because even in canon, "the fair sex" was his specialty, not Sherlock's.

 

But then they bring in this thing about Jim's body never being recovered....

 

They did?  In the episode?  Hang on....  Oh, wait, you mean this bit?

 

HOLMES: Moriarty is dead.

MYCROFT HOLMES: And yet.

HOLMES: His body was never recovered.

MYCROFT HOLMES: To be expected when one pushes a maths professor over a waterfall. Pure reason toppled by sheer melodrama: your life in a nutshell.

.

They're talking about the Victorian / canon Moriarty, whereas they handled the demise of "our Jim" far differently, so I wouldn't assume there's any connection.  Though of course there could be.  In this show, there could be damned near anything!

 

I also think all this dwelling on the bodies and replacement bodies might mean more than we yet know. It also made me think of SiB, when Irene clearly found a replacement body too. Is it really so easy to go about procuring replacement bodies that look exactly like an actual dead person (admittedly Irene's has a damaged face, which to my mind is more believable.)

 

I too wonder about their ease in finding duplicate bodies, and would agree that Irene's case is more plausible -- except that Sherlock did positively identify her from "not her face."  Would be rare to find two similarly built women with identical mole patterns or whatever he based his identification on.  Also, Sherlock's "double" was apparently Cumberbatch's stunt double, who bears a general physical resemblance to him, but is certainly no twin face-wise (which is generally what one goes by when screaming at the mere sight of someone).

 

If "it's never twins," then how can it so often be identical bodies?

 

I'm beginning to think the bodies are Moftiss's equivalent of Tolkien's eagles -- when all else fails....

[Arcadia]

 

Now: you are saying you can't relate to Sherlock because he's a drug user? I for one can agree with you on that. Never "used" drugs, never will. Quite share Molly's opinion of them. Since they've brought it into the story, however, I hope Moftiss will use this as an opportunity to have Sherlock grow a little more, and realize that John is, once again, quite right: Sherlock needs to hold himself to a higher standard. Because in his little fictional world, people need him. And, I might add, John deserves it from him. It's not a case-fic, but it could be an interesting look into the mystery that is Sherlock Holmes. (Not that I expect to get anything as mundane as answers out of Moftiss; just more questions! :D )

 

Sorry to jump in (I'm having a devil of a time keeping up will all the fascinating discussions on here)

 

Just about Sherlock and drugs- I don't share his experience of drugs, but I can very much relate to the feeling that you would like to escape from reality as it is too intense, or even to escape from your own thoughts. Sometimes enjoying art, or music, or a show like Sherlock is a way to escape too. I like to remember that Sherlock has other aspects of his personality that are feeding into his relationship with drugs- if you have obsessive thoughts that you can't shut out, then medication, whether from a professional or a drug dealer, is going to be a tempting way out. There is often a strong link between mental health and drug or alcohol misuse. I don't say that to excuse his taking drugs (I really hope they don't have him go any further with all that). I just mean that as a whole person, the same obsessive thoughts that make him so adept at puzzle solving (and not stopping until he does solve the puzzle), could be very difficult in emotional situations where there is no solution (like being exiled and losing all your friends and desperately wanting to find a way out but not being able to think of one).

 

Jump in, please!

 

I thought the same thing; I can't sympathize with drug use, but I know what you mean about escaping from reality, and I know how hard it is to give up bad habits; so on some level I can identify with the compulsion. And now that they've decided to go there, to just drop it as if it never happened feels wrong to me ... just like acting as if Sherlock never murdered someone feels wrong to me. But we'll see; I've noticed the Moftisses have a different way of looking at some things than I do! :P

 

If "it's never twins," then how can it so often be identical bodies?

 

I'm beginning to think the bodies are Moftiss's equivalent of Tolkien's eagles -- when all else fails....

It's never twins, but in TSo3 it was triplets! :D

 

That's the thing; it's almost as if they're saying "Look! We're out of ideas!" Even if that were true, you wouldn't think they'd be so obvious about it (!) So I guess that's why I keep looking for some hidden meaning. Still, I won't be surprised if this is one of the "scarlet roll mops". But it's still fun trying to figure it out.........