Episode 4.3 "The Final Problem"

[BLS_Pro]

More Existentialism references:

 

Existentialism proceeds from the premise there is no "Creator" of existence to imbue things with any meaning.  There is no God who has a "plan".  The absence of such a plan is what renders everything absurd - arbitrary - pointless.  This absence of such a Creator - and the consequential absurdity and horror of existence - is alluded to by the Governor when Watson, about to shoot him, asks "Do you want to pray or anything?" to which the Gov replies:

"With Eurus Holmes in the world, who the hell would I pray to?"

 

Even the Gov recognizes the supposed truth of Existentialism.  But his love of his wife is what gives him meaning - in his life and in his death.  It is why Watson calls him "a good man".

 

[Arcadia]

Sooo.... (faint but pursuing here ) ... this episode shows us one answer to existentialism? We can find meaning in our treatment of, or attachment to, others? Which seems to be an answer to Sherlock's "problem." But does it solve Eurus' problem ... aha. Not at first, but when Sherlock starts coming to play with her.

 

I do think they make it clear she cannot be "cured", though. It's not just her lack of connection, there is genuinely something missing from her makeup that makes her a threat to the world. Some problems can't be solved, even by Sherlock Holmes.

[BLS_Pro]

More Existentialism references

Again, to Sartre's "Nausea".  In the end of The Final Problem, Eurus has become completely isolated - "She won't talk.  She won't communicate with anyone in any way.  She has passed beyond our view.  There are no words that can reach her now."  But Sherlock goes to her repeatedly, playing his violin.  It is through his music that she is finally brought back from the abyss.  It is through his music that love is expressed for her by another.  And it is the two of them playing music together which makes her finally happy - saves her from the terror of existence.

This is an allusion to the ending of "Nausea".  Roquentin considers existence to be "beyond words".  Words are "lies".  And he thinks the same about music.  It too doesn't "reach" existence.  Existence "is beyond - always beyond something, beyond a voice, beyond a violin note.  Through layers and layers of existence, it unveils itself, slim and firm, and when you try to seize it you meet nothing but existents, you run up against existents devoid of meaning." 

Music is as meaningless to Roquentin as the rest of existence.

But then he actually listens to it.  "Behind these sounds which decompose from day to day, peels away and slips towards death, the melody stays the same, young and firm, like a pitiless witness."  He thinks of the person who created the music, that he suffered just as Roquentin suffers. "There was nothing very pretty or very glorious" about his life or suffering, "but when I hear the song and I think that it was that fellow ho made it, I find his suffering and his sweat...moving.  He was lucky." 

Roquentin recognizes "this is the first time for years that a man has struck me as moving.  I should like to know something about that fellow.  I should be interested to find out what sort of troubles he had... not at all out of humanism,,,but because he made that [song]."  "I don't suppose it would make the slightest difference to the fellow if he were told that in the seventh largest town in France, in the vicinity of the station, somebody is thinking about him.  But I would be happy if I were in his place; I envy him."  Roquentin then listens to the woman singing the song "Some of these days You'll miss me honey" and thinks "That makes two people who are saved: the [composer] and the [singer].  Saved." 

Roquentin is struck by the recognition that they have 'justified their existence' - that by giving this of themselves to others, they have been "saved".  It is the idea of "empathy" - of placing one's self in another's shoes - which suddenly grants him meaning.  "This idea suddenly bowls me over, because I didn't even hope for that anymore....I feel something timidly brushing against me...something I didn't know anymore: a sort of joy."  And he imagines he can do this himself - do something like performing music, and give it to others and they would think of him as he had thought of the composer and the singer.  And then he too would be saved.

This is what happens between Sherlock and Eurus.  As music saved Roquentin from the existential terror of existence, so too it saved Eurus. 


 

[BLS_Pro]

But does it solve Eurus' problem ... aha. Not at first, but when Sherlock starts coming to play with her.

Her problem is the same as Roquentin's problem.  It is the same as everyone's problem.  It is the existential problem:  the terror of being alone in a meaningless world.  And, in the end, she is saved from this endless nightmare.  Her problem is solved.

 

That Eurus remains, like The Woman, 'a lunatic, a criminal, and insanely dangerous' is not her "problem" here (though the solution to the Final Problem is the path to solving the rest - since all solutions derive from the Final Solution).

 

 

I do think they make it clear she cannot be "cured", though.  I do think they make it clear she cannot be "cured", though. It's not just her lack of connection, there is genuinely something missing from her makeup that makes her a threat to the world. Some problems can't be solved, even by Sherlock Holmes.

Actually, it is Mycroft who believes that Eurus is beyond redemption - that her soul cannot be saved - that she cannot be "cured".  But it is also Mycroft who believes Eurus cannot be reached by any means.  Of course Sherlock demonstrates Mycroft is wrong.  Sherlock does reach her.  He "solves" that problem. 

 

He saves her. 

 

And Mycroft would believe Eurus is unreachable and unredeemable (as he always did), wouldn't he?  For Sherlock is the one who became "a good man", not Mycroft.  Mycroft hasn't learned that lesson - at least, not yet.  (Since he now has his brother as an example and guide, like Eurus, he can learn it if he so chooses - as Sherlock learned it.)

[BLS_Pro]

More Existentialism References

Mary's end video is an allusion to Roquentin's epiphany at the end of Nausea.  She says: "I know who you really are: a junkie who solves crimes to get high and the doctor who never came home from the war.  Will you listen to me?  Who you really are?  It doesn't matter.  It's all about the Legend.  The Stories.  The Adventures." 

This is Roquentin.  He knows who he is - what he is - and it is nothing to speak of.  But what he is doesn't matter.  What now matters to him - what gives him meaning - is being like the composer and the singer:  "Could I try...Naturally, it wouldn't be a question of a tune...but couldn't I in another medium? ... It would have to be a book: I don't know how to do anything else.  But not a history book: history talks about what has existed - an existent can never justify the existence of another existent. ...Another kind of book... [one where] you would have to guess, behind the printed words, behind the pages, something which didn't exist, which was above existence.  The sort of story, for example, which could never happen, an adventure.  ... A book.  A novel.  And there would be people who would read this novel and who would say: "It was Antoine Roquentin who wrote it...and they would think about my life as I think about the life of [that singer]: as about something precious and almost legendary."

 

This is what Moftiss is saying about Doyle (and indirectly - or perhaps directly - about themselves).

"There is a last refuge for the desperate, the unloved, the persecuted.  There is a final court of appeal for everyone.  When life gets too strange, too impossible, too frightening, there is always one last hope.  When all else fails, there are two men sitting, arguing, in a scruffy flat - like they've always been there and they always will."

This is gift Roquentin sought to create.  It is the gift Doyle (and Moftiss) gives to everyone who suffers from the angst of living an absurd world: the legendary love and adventures of these two "best and wisest men" - in the hope that gift of love will "save" them all.

 

[sfmpco]

Nice one.

 

[Inge l-w]

Dear sfmpco, isn't it enough that the whole TJLC is up in arms, do you seriously think we need more Mollock/Sherlolly?

Nice as that video is, hopeful as we are that there will be a fifth series, this is NOT going to happen. Molly is a feminine John mirror anyway.

Back to the Case of the Vanishing Balcony:

Right at the end of TST, there is no balcony outside the first floor flat, although it is seen through the curtains, but I realised that it wasn't there for a purpose for the whole series: how else could Sherlock and John leap through the windows in the b#%#^*# TFP if there was a balcony to block their escape route?

Question remains, why was there a balcony throughout S3, which suddenly disappeared in S4 without any refurbishing being made until the end of TFP?

[Amber§]

I like Sherlolly! :lol:

[J.P.]

It's not even overly romantic. But they at least TALK to each other. That's what was painfully missing from TFP. I could include the video into the show. Like Many Happy Returns.

[gerry]

Dear sfmpco, isn't it enough that the whole TJLC is up in arms, do you seriously think we need more Mollock/Sherlolly?

Nice as that video is, hopeful as we are that there will be a fifth series, this is NOT going to happen. Molly is a feminine John mirror anyway.

Back to the Case of the Vanishing Balcony:

Right at the end of TST, there is no balcony outside the first floor flat, although it is seen through the curtains, but I realised that it wasn't there for a purpose for the whole series: how else could Sherlock and John leap through the windows in the b#%#^*# TFP if there was a balcony to block their escape route?

Question remains, why was there a balcony throughout S3, which suddenly disappeared in S4 without any refurbishing being made until the end of TFP?

I'm curious what you mean by Molly is a feminine John mirror? I have never viewed it that way since they have very different relationships with Sherlock.

[Boton]

 

Sherlock isn't though is he so if the ring has meaning it must not have anything to do with Sherlock. Would they have married her off during the time it took to rebuild the apartment? That does seem like something the show would do actually.

Well, we're not even sure if it's deliberate, but if it is, I'm willing to bet it's there so that fans can make of it whatever they want. Married to Sherlock, married to someone else, married but widowed, never married but wearing a ring anyway ... it's all fuel for the fanfic fires, imo. I think it's rather sweet of them. :D

 

And do we know how much time has passed by the time Molly appears? How old is Rosie at the end there, anyway? Did they even manage to bring the series up to 2017, at least?

 

 

As near as I could figure, we should be sometime in 2016.  I think Sherlock's birthday would be his 40th in January 2016.  But I can't quite remember how I managed to work that out, only that I felt quite certain when I did.   :P

 

 

Dear sfmpco, isn't it enough that the whole TJLC is up in arms, do you seriously think we need more Mollock/Sherlolly?

Nice as that video is, hopeful as we are that there will be a fifth series, this is NOT going to happen. Molly is a feminine John mirror anyway.

Back to the Case of the Vanishing Balcony:

Right at the end of TST, there is no balcony outside the first floor flat, although it is seen through the curtains, but I realised that it wasn't there for a purpose for the whole series: how else could Sherlock and John leap through the windows in the b#%#^*# TFP if there was a balcony to block their escape route?

Question remains, why was there a balcony throughout S3, which suddenly disappeared in S4 without any refurbishing being made until the end of TFP?

I'm curious what you mean by Molly is a feminine John mirror? I have never viewed it that way since they have very different relationships with Sherlock.

 

 

I think Molly is "another" John.  They give Molly one of Watson's speeches when she slaps Sherlock in HLV, and there is the bit during the "date" in TEH where Molly herself postulates that she's "supposed to be John," even though Sherlock says she is not.  I think Molly and John serve the same role in Sherlock's life, and that makes them mirrors of one another.

[Amber§]

I don't know.....maybe everyone serve the same role in Sherlock's life. Almost everyone is seen by Sherlock as a sort of assistant. He never consider his friends as his equals, I think. Not consciously but he considers himself superior. Maybe we can make some groups of people: John, Molly, Lestrade and Mrs Hudson is one, Adler, Mary and Mycroft is the other. The people in the second group are those who Sherlock considers intelligent almost as he is, in the irst one those who, from his point of view, aren't.

[bedelia1984]

I would say that there are similarities and differences between John and Molly. I thought it was interesting that Molly, John and Sherlock have become a bit of a threesome in season four (not like that!). They mention Molly going for cake with the two of them, and even the fact that John asked Molly to be a godparent- I had never had the impression before that Molly and John were that close. She also seemed to be a good enough friend to help him with Rosamund. I would have dearly loved to see the dynamic between Sherlock, John and Molly at the cafe. If only we could have had a two parter, so they had time for some quieter, less 'essential' scenes.

[gerry]

I agree Amber about Sherlock's attitude about his friends' intelligence but I just think he uses them in his life differently. John is his partner in crime/puzzle solving and adventure, Mrs Hudson is more like a mother/grandmother figure in his life that watches over his well being, Lestrade is like a collegue he works with/police advocate and Molly is the utility player/voice of reason/emotional touchstone in his life. They all have different functions even if they're all his friends and dialogue may overlap.

 

Maybe I'm not articulating myself well though.

[gerry]

nevermind misread

[bedelia1984]

One thing I both love and hate about this episode is how it book-ends so many of the first episode's scenes. I get the feeling the writers read over their introductory scenes with characters and echoed them- Lestrade's 'good man' comment, Sherlock's 'you know where to find me', and Molly in ASIP saying 'bad day was it?' becomes 'I've had a bad day.'

 

I think they are all lovely ways to recall the early days, but it makes me really nervous that the show isn't coming back.

[Arcadia]

You all are on fire today! Agree with everything above!

 

Oh, except ... I think John has a special place at Sherlock's side. He's Sherlock's one true friend, and he may not have regarded him as an equal before, but I think he does now.

[Inge l-w]

Or maybe pure and simple writer's block, forcing them to re-use expressions from past episodes: Mrs Hudson's 'anything you want...' comes directly from SiP, only there it was Angelo.

[Surelock]

So does anyone else find it strange that there's no evidence in this episode that Sherlock decided to give his friend Victor a proper burial? I mean John had found his skeleton in the well. Why weren't there any scenes of Sherlock seeing that his former best friend had his remains buried? 

 

Oh yeah it's because we were supposed to sympathise with Euros. Never mind she killed a 6 year old boy. We're supposed to feel sorry for Euros by the end of the episode.   We can't have a proper burial given to Victor. He would make poor Euros look bad. That's why Sherlock seemed to conveniently forget about Victor a minute after remembering him. 

 

The way Sherlock forgets Victor really does his character a disservice because his relationship with Victor actually had been built up over the series. Everything Sherlock said about Redbeard was actually a reference to Victor. For example, in His Last Vow when Sherlock is going into shock after being shot by Mary, he calms himself down by going to see Redbeard. This implies that when Sherlock was stressed as a child he could rely on Victor to comfort him. It makes basically no sense for him to forget about Victor by the end of the episode.

 

Honestly Lestrade's 'Sherlock is a good man' quote would have made a lot more sense if in that scene Sherlock had said something like, 'There's another friend of mine down that well. I'd appreciate it if you could help me get him out.'

 

That would have done a much better job of showing how Sherlock was a good man than simply expressing concern for Mycroft. We already knew that Sherlock cared about Mycroft ever since that scene in the morgue in A Scandal in Belgravia where Sherlock wished Mycroft a 'Merry Christmas' after Mycroft comforted him on seeing Irene Adler's alleged corpse.

[Pamela]

You all are on fire today! Agree with everything above!

 

Oh, except ... I think John has a special place at Sherlock's side. He's Sherlock's one true friend, and he may not have regarded him as an equal before, but I think he does now.

He's more than a friend, he's family.

[Arcadia]

So does anyone else find it strange that there's no evidence in this episode that Sherlock decided to give his friend Victor a proper burial? I mean John had found his skeleton in the well. Why weren't there any scenes of Sherlock seeing that his former best friend had his remains buried? 

 

Oh yeah it's because we were supposed to sympathise with Euros. Never mind she killed a 6 year old boy. We're supposed to feel sorry for Euros by the end of the episode.   We can't have a proper burial given to Victor. He would make poor Euros look bad. That's why Sherlock seemed to conveniently forget about Victor a minute after remembering him. 

.......

I think that's just another thing we have to assume happened. The episode already had too much material in it, be hard to cram in anything else.

 

I don't sympathize with Eurus, but I did feel some pity for her at the end ... all the way through, really ... because she couldn't help being what she was. She was born that way, and imo Mycroft made it worse by locking her away. But I was glad they didn't have her walking off into the sunset as if none of her evil deeds had ever happened.

[Boton]

I agree with Arcadia above.  I imagine the thing that we will be debating about TFP until the next episode and/or for years to come is which omissions constitute a plot hole and which are things you should be able to fill in for yourself.  I'm actually fairly happy with the episode hitting the points that define the contours of the overall plot and filling in the gaps with my own imagination.  

 

To me, I imagine that Sherlock indeed had Victor recovered and presented to his family for a respectable burial. I also wouldn't doubt that this helped him uncover more of the repressed memories, and that perhaps having John at his side while he did so also helped further cement that relationship, which had taken some damage in TLD. 

[J.P.]

Talking about family. It occured to me that the violin on the poster has four strings, the E-string being broken. But there are four strings to a violine. Eurus, Mycroft, Sherlock… and John. Now John is the family too, as so fiercely stated at the beginning of the episode. Nice, huh? :P

[Arcadia]

Either that, or the 4th sibling makes an appearance in S5. :p

[gerry]

One thing I both love and hate about this episode is how it book-ends so many of the first episode's scenes. I get the feeling the writers read over their introductory scenes with characters and echoed them- Lestrade's 'good man' comment, Sherlock's 'you know where to find me', and Molly in ASIP saying 'bad day was it?' becomes 'I've had a bad day.'

 

I think they are all lovely ways to recall the early days, but it makes me really nervous that the show isn't coming back.

Ive assumed all along it's not coming back based on LB's goodbye Molly tweet and BC's comment about it feeling like an end of an era. Of course BC backtracked a bit but it definitely seems like it would be several years from now if it does come back.