Eurus

[Doe]

I live in The Aegean Sea coast and I know Greek God and Godness but I heard Eurus name first from Sherlock. I heard Euros but not Godness. Euros is a God. 

 

 

[J.P.]

That's true.

Wasn't the idea of the 3rd sibling being a sister a last minute change?

[Doe]

That's true.

Wasn't the idea of the 3rd sibling being a sister a last minute change?

 

My thoughts exactly.

 

One female character is dead (Mary). I think, they made addition a new female character lest the whole of the series is masculen.

 

Maybe...

[Arcadia]

I'm not sure if it was last minute?? Didn't they know she was a sister when they wrote season 3? I can't remember.

[Carol the Dabbler]

I'm willing to bet that they intended to make "the other one" female when they wrote HLV (or at least they wanted to keep that option open) -- otherwise, why use that carefully-neutral wording?

 

Before S3?  Who knows.  They may not even have been seriously intending to introduce a third sibling at all.

[Carol the Dabbler]

Back to names.

 

Eurus says that their parents "loved silly names, like Eurus ... or Mycroft ... or Sherlock."  But "Sherlock" and "Mycroft" are English surnames, whereas "Eurus" is the given name of a Greek deity.  I could see Mummy and Dad dropping the surname theme in order to give their daughter a more feminine name -- but "Eurus" is the name of a male deity.

 

A deity that "just happens" to correlate with a Conan Doyle quote that the writers borrowed to use in "His Last Vow."  I find myself having a hard time believing that Moftiss already had the sister in mind when they wrote that scene.  If they had, seems like they would have chosen some other Conan Doyle line, one that ties in with the surname theme and/or leads to a more plausible girl's name.

[J.P.]

I think they could have plotted the East Wind arch from the beginning, but didn't think about Eurus being a girl until it was too late. :P

[Amber§]

About male or female, I don't think that the name Euros (or Eurus) has a gendre. As the name Ariel: Ariel was a male spirit in a Shakespeare's work, but then was assingned to Disney's siren. Or as a lot of other names, here in Italy, at least. For exemple we use the name Andrea both for girls and boys, the firs case is less frequent but it happens.

[Carol the Dabbler]

I figure I'll just have to live with the Eurus part of it.  Nothing I can do about it, so try not to think about it too much, 'cause it makes my brain hurt.

 

What about the Eurus part bugs you? I don't think I've even seen you mention her before now.

 

I think we were talking about the epilog, but I'm going to answer regarding the character in general, and more specifically how the writers used her in this series.

 

T6T: I like the gal on the bus.  If she had really been herself (rather than someone Eurus was just pretending to be), I would have been interested in seeing how far John would pursue her (or vice versa).  They were cute together and I blush to admit that I was kinda cheering them on.  So really no complaints there.

 

TLD: As you may have noticed, I have a very low tolerance for WTF, and Eurus's role in this episode has more than enough.  Why does she approach Sherlock via John?  Why does she reveal herself to him, rather than maintain his trust in order to extract further information from him?  Why does she shoot him with the trank gun?  I believe I could answer any one of those questions to my own satisfaction, but cumulatively they're a bit much.  (The fake-Faith scene doesn't bother me as much, so maybe I need to watch it again.  ;) )  Dare I progress to ....

 

TFP:  Why did she (presumably) blow up Baker Street?  I suppose I understand (intellectually) why she "experiments" on the guys -- the same sort of empathy-free curiosity that some people exhibit toward insects -- but this sort of thing is a HUGE turn-off for me.  When Sherlockology said in their review that the whole episode was similar to the John-as-lab-rat scene in "Hounds," I just hoped that it wouldn't strike me the same way, because that scene is one of my least favorites ever -- but unfortunately that's exactly the way the episode struck me.

 

Then (finally getting to the part that you asked about) there's the whole "poor Eurus, she only wanted somebody to play with, so of course she drowned Sherlock's best friend and tried to force the guys to kill somebody for her, so let's make everything right by playing violin duets" thing.  I suppose if she were my sister it might be a little different, but I really can't feel much empathy for her.  She's sufficiently intelligent and insightful to fake being normal (as Elizabeth and fake-Faith and John's fake therapist), which means that she's perfectly capable of acting normal if she chose to.  Instead, she chooses to treat other people in a way that I assume she would very much not care to be treated herself.

[T.o.b.y]

TLD: As you may have noticed, I have a very low tolerance for WTF, and Eurus's role in this episode has more than enough.  Why does she approach Sherlock via John?  Why does she reveal herself to him, rather than maintain his trust in order to extract further information from him?  Why does she shoot him with the trank gun?  I believe I could answer any one of those questions to my own satisfaction, but cumulatively they're a bit much.  (The fake-Faith scene doesn't bother me as much, so maybe I need to watch it again.  ;) )  Dare I progress to ....

 

TFP:  Why did she (presumably) blow up Baker Street?  I suppose I understand (intellectually) why she "experiments" on the guys -- the same sort of empathy-free curiosity that some people exhibit toward insects -- but this sort of thing is a HUGE turn-off for me.  When Sherlockology said in their review that the whole episode was similar to the John-as-lab-rat scene in "Hounds," I just hoped that it wouldn't strike me the same way, because that scene is one of my least favorites ever -- but unfortunately that's exactly the way the episode struck me.

 

Then (finally getting to the part that you asked about) there's the whole "poor Eurus, she only wanted somebody to play with, so of course she drowned Sherlock's best friend and tried to force the guys to kill somebody for her, so let's make everything right by playing violin duets" thing.  I suppose if she were my sister it might be a little different, but I really can't feel much empathy for her.  She's sufficiently intelligent and insightful to fake being normal (as Elizabeth and fake-Faith and John's fake therapist), which means that she's perfectly capable of acting normal if she chose to.  Instead, she chooses to treat other people in a way that I assume she would very much not care to be treated herself.

 

Thanks for elaborating, Carol, I was curious too as to what you meant when you alluded to Eurus, even though I could make a few educated guesses that turned out to be mostly correct.

 

My brain has been pondering some of these questions too and I have a few suggestions on how one could make at least a little sense of the story in universe. I have my own bones to pick with Eurus, though - more on that later.

 

Why does she approach Sherlock via John?  Why does she reveal herself to him, rather than maintain his trust in order to extract further information from him?  Why does she shoot him with the trank gun?

 

She actually approached Sherlock in her role as Faith, so she must have had some other motive for posing as John's therapist. I think she wanted to get to know John himself since she planned to use him in her elaborate experiment. And since she was most interested in emotional / moral conflict, approaching him first as a potential love interest and then, when he chickened out of an affair, as a therapist, would give her the most information in that area. Of course, in both capacities, she would have learned a lot of useful details about Sherlock too and about their relationship, which she was apparently very interested in. So I think her actions there make sense. I was wondering, in the opening sequence of The Lying Detective, why the therapist was asking about Sherlock Holmes at all. By the end, of course, I knew why... :D

 

As for the reveal, in the end her goal was to get the boys to come and play at Sherrinford, where she had everything set up. She thought Sherlock had missed the clue she left on "Faith's" note, so she probably decided she had to become more obvious. Also, Sherlock in the past had a tendency to leave John out when dealing with Big Bad (see: Reichenbach Fall, Moriarty) but she wanted both of them there, so letting John know the whole truth instead of going to Sherlock directly with it wasn't such a bad idea either. She didn't try to extract further information because she thought she had all she needed and besides, her trap had been set for ages and she wanted to finally use it. That's also why she shot him with a tranquilizer rather than killing him; she needed him alive for her game. As to why she shot him at all, so she could get away, of course.

 

TFP:  Why did she (presumably) blow up Baker Street?  I suppose I understand (intellectually) why she "experiments" on the guys -- the same sort of empathy-free curiosity that some people exhibit toward insects -- but this sort of thing is a HUGE turn-off for me.  When Sherlockology said in their review that the whole episode was similar to the John-as-lab-rat scene in "Hounds," I just hoped that it wouldn't strike me the same way, because that scene is one of my least favorites ever -- but unfortunately that's exactly the way the episode struck me.

 

The only part I find remarkable about the grenade attack is that she must have been very, very confident that all three men would make it out alive. She wanted John dead, but only in the right way - as Victor Trevor's successor, he had to suffer Victor's exact fate. Sherlock she did not want killed at all. And she needed all of them for the game, which, again, I do not believe she was ready to forfeit, she put so much time and energy into it.

 

As to why she takes that risk of losing her lab rats before the experiment as properly begun, maybe she thought she needed to create a sense of urgency and danger to get Mycroft on board. "I am coming for you, get me before I get you first". I don't know whether Mycroft would have agreed to Sherlock's pirate plan and to all three of them going to Sherrinford without the explosion.

 

Then (finally getting to the part that you asked about) there's the whole "poor Eurus, she only wanted somebody to play with, so of course she drowned Sherlock's best friend and tried to force the guys to kill somebody for her, so let's make everything right by playing violin duets" thing.  I suppose if she were my sister it might be a little different, but I really can't feel much empathy for her.  She's sufficiently intelligent and insightful to fake being normal (as Elizabeth and fake-Faith and John's fake therapist), which means that she's perfectly capable of acting normal if she chose to.  Instead, she chooses to treat other people in a way that I assume she would very much not care to be treated herself.

 

You can fake being normal perfectly and still remain completely crazy inside. Intelligence, unfortunately, does very little for sanity.

 

I don't feel much for her either. But like you said, she's not my sister and I do know what it's like to have severely deranged family members and I can tell you, if she were one of mine, I would feel differently. I see why Sherlock seeks a human connection with her and why he hopes he can save her, even though it's obvious enough these attempts are hopeless and she's irretrievably lost and gone to some far-off plane of insanity from where she'll never return, and if she did, she wouldn't be functional in the least. The fact that he was separated from her very early and did not witness any of the further trouble she caused first hand, like Mycroft did, makes it worse. She's a "lost sister", Sherlock is a lonely boy actually craving a relationship with someone from the same planet as him (which is why he was initially more fascinated than repulsed by Moriarty).

 

And Sherlock is a much more romantic and feeling person than we ever gave him credit for. In the end, Eurus' purpose, like that of all Sherlock villains and minor characters, is to draw out and highlight aspects of our hero's personality. Exploring Sherlock's character is the top priority and the main focus of the show and that makes many other things fall to the wayside, but at least they do this one thing well and they never pretended they were doing anything else. It's called "Sherlock", not "The Adventures and Cases of Sherlock Holmes as well as all his Friends, Relations and Enemies".

 

 

What bothers me about Eurus is that she's so over the top. As long as she was posing as Faith, the woman on the bus and the therapist, she was creepy and scary and cool, but once we saw her unleash her full potential in that surreal asylum type prison, my disbelief-suspension-powers were over-taxed and I just couldn't take it all seriously any more. Like I said, I giggled all through The Final Problem because I hugely appreciated all the little fan service moments and the humor while the horror of Eurus' experiment was just too cartoonish and felt fake. The whole situation there is way too artificial and contrived for my taste.

 

Also, she just takes away from other characters. Moriarty, even though we know he wasn't, all of a sudden just comes across as her pawn. She outshines Mycroft in coldness and cleverness, Moriarty in insanity and all other villains in villainy. And the fact that she was just tacked on for the final series and not properly introduced or foreshadowed earlier makes it worse. The main antagonist was supposed to be Moriarty and he was perfect. In fact, he could have played a posthumous game with Sherlock all on his own without Eurus. That could have made for a way cooler final episode, especially if they left the question of whether he was really dead or not open until the end. Even if they needed some childhood trauma for Sherlock, why not just invent a backstory for his and Moriarty's connection? It did always seem as if Moriarty knew Sherlock long before A Study in Pink and had a grudge against him, couldn't have been too difficult to come up with something.

 

One of the reasons why I am so glad the series is over is that it was beginning to suffer from "too many characters syndrome" and that's usually the first stage of decline for a show. So thank god they pulled the brakes while it was still good. Because I do like series 4 and I feel like I have finished product with no major, fatal flaws. More that can be said for most series I liked.

[J.P.]

Funny, I don't feel like rewatching TFP at all. Not even the additions on the DVD. A bit not good.

There were some serious WTF moments in the whole show before, but the amount of WTF seems just too much in S4

 

So when an idea popped up in my mind, that Eurus might have been given Sherlock CS, because he needed a big baddie to save John, I don't even tried to check if it makes sense, because, let's face it, nothing makes enough sense in TFP even to try. :(

 

The whole thing would be soooo much better if it wasn't so firework-sy. And yes, they should have stuck to Moriarty as a big baddie, and… I don't even know what exactly. Making Eurus just an example of genius going insane?

[Boton]

I haven't gotten into the Eurus discussion much, mostly because I feel like I should think the character is more profound than just a plot device, but mostly I look at her as such.  

 

 

 

 

A deity that "just happens" to correlate with a Conan Doyle quote that the writers borrowed to use in "His Last Vow."  I find myself having a hard time believing that Moftiss already had the sister in mind when they wrote that scene.  If they had, seems like they would have chosen some other Conan Doyle line, one that ties in with the surname theme and/or leads to a more plausible girl's name.

 

I don't think they had figured out Eurus at that point either, at least not fully.  The reason for me is that I don't think that Mycroft is as cruel as that scene makes him out to be when viewed in context of the entire series/show.  If Mycroft was in the habit of periodically testing Sherlock's memory to see if it was coming back, and he had been doing so since his early teens, then it's downright cruel to construct a horror story about the East Wind coming to get Sherlock, when Sherlock has repressed memory of his sister, the East Wind, killing his best friend and doing something that made him scream all night.  I just don't think Mycroft would do that, and so I think the writers were ret-conning some stuff, and they took the mention of the East Wind to be clever but couldn't really get the rest to fit.

 

 

 

 

Then (finally getting to the part that you asked about) there's the whole "poor Eurus, she only wanted somebody to play with, so of course she drowned Sherlock's best friend and tried to force the guys to kill somebody for her, so let's make everything right by playing violin duets" thing.  I suppose if she were my sister it might be a little different, but I really can't feel much empathy for her.  She's sufficiently intelligent and insightful to fake being normal (as Elizabeth and fake-Faith and John's fake therapist), which means that she's perfectly capable of acting normal if she chose to.  Instead, she chooses to treat other people in a way that I assume she would very much not care to be treated herself.

 

 

I don't feel empathy for her either, although I like the idea of playing duets with her.  I think the whole family missed the boat with her mental illness (schizophrenia?) manifesting so young, and there probably was a time that Eurus could have been "rescued" if people had figured out the signs early enough.  That's a lot to expect of a family, though.  So it is nice that they are finally deciding to interact with Eurus, even if that is actually more therapeutic for the family than for Eurus herself.

 

[Carol the Dabbler]

Thanks, guys.  I pretty much agree with and/or find interesting everything y'all said.  I appreciate your explanations, but find that (much as I expected) even though many of them do make some sort of sense -- they really don't help my "appreciation" of the episode.  Afraid I'm in the same boat with J.P., though I will presumably rewatch the entire series at some point (and may get back to you then).

[T.o.b.y]

I don't think they had figured out Eurus at that point either, at least not fully.  The reason for me is that I don't think that Mycroft is as cruel as that scene makes him out to be when viewed in context of the entire series/show.  If Mycroft was in the habit of periodically testing Sherlock's memory to see if it was coming back, and he had been doing so since his early teens, then it's downright cruel to construct a horror story about the East Wind coming to get Sherlock, when Sherlock has repressed memory of his sister, the East Wind, killing his best friend and doing something that made him scream all night.  I just don't think Mycroft would do that, and so I think the writers were ret-conning some stuff, and they took the mention of the East Wind to be clever but couldn't really get the rest to fit.

 

I am not so sure about that... "The Other One" is mentioned in His Last Vow, so when they wrote that episode, they must have had some kind of plan in place to introduce a third Holmes sibling. Maybe it was just a vague idea, like "lets do a third Holmes next series, we'll figure out the details later as we go along", but it's also entirely possible that they had most of series 4 mapped out already at that point, including Euros. We'll never know, probably, unless some interviewer asks that question (and gets an honest answer).

 

Mycroft is cruel. Sherlock said that "Lazarus" was mostly his idea and it's about the most cruel plan I have ever heard of (cruel towards John, I mean). Not that I see Mycroft as intentionally villainous or sadistic, he's just so devoid of ordinary human feeling that he makes incredibly cruel decisions because they make sense intellectually. I do believe he would turn Euros into a horror story. But he wouldn't entirely realize he was doing something terrible.

 

Thanks, guys.  I pretty much agree with and/or find interesting everything y'all said.  I appreciate your explanations, but find that (much as I expected) even though many of them do make some sort of sense -- they really don't help my "appreciation" of the episode.  Afraid I'm in the same boat with J.P., though I will presumably rewatch the entire series at some point (and may get back to you then).

 

It's a case of "I may understand it but I don't have to like it", huh? That's okay, Carol, I sympathize. I didn't mean to go all smart-ass on you...

 

I don't appreciate Euros much either (except during her impersonation of Faith Smith, that was wonderful and that evening she and Sherlock spend together is one of personal highlights this season).

[J.P.]

Yeah, what a shame that it didn't make any sense in the whole story.

 

BTW, I also refuse to believe Sherlock was high during the tarmac scene. <_<

[Shadow Dweller]

In light of Toby's recent posts, I wonder how Mycroft would rate on the Hare's scale - Psychopathy Checklist—revised (PCL-R), lol. There is a saying that those with high result on this made the best organizers during tough and difficult times. http://elitedaily.com/life/motivation/psychopaths-make-the-best-leaders/1108247/

[Arcadia]

I don't need to say much, because Toby said everything I could have, only better. Just as well, since I still shouldn't be here... I can see new emails arriving every few seconds and I  have to go answer them.... arghhh!

 

But I agree with Boton's remark about the "violin visits" being therapeutic for the family. I'm not sure it's meant to show sympathy for Eurus, exactly, I think it's Sherlock's answer to Mummy's plea to find healing for the family. I guess I would say it's about unconditional love. I rather adore it, actually. About the only part of the episode that I do, tbh. Well, that and Sherlock unravelling the headstone mystery ... it's the only time in the episode that he acts like himself. Not that I hate TFP, it's just ... not great. Okay, but not great. Although for me it's less about the plot and more ... about things I don't have time to discuss. Bleh.

 

Urgh, gotta run. But I find Eurus fascinating ... how much is she able to be "normal", as opposed to pretending to be normal? Personally, I think she is meant to represent the latter.

[Carol the Dabbler]

Tobe, my reaction isn't so much "I understand, but don't have to like it" as it is "I understand (since I also know someone who can fake normality despite being profoundly delusional), but what the hell makes Moftiss think this is entertaining?!" (And don't worry, you weren't a bit smart-ass.)

[Arcadia]

I think part of the problem is, they forgot about entertaining and went for dark and profound. Although a lot of people find dark entertaining, for some reason.

 

At any rate, maybe this isn't the best place for this but since this is where we're discussing how we feel about S4 (at least for now ) I'm putting it here ... this video is, I think, I nice summation of what I think they got right about S4. Skip over all the bad makeup and gaping plot holes and schmaltzy choral music, and there is still a beating heart in there. It's not lost, it's just, er, surrounded by a lot of fanfare and fireworks.....

 

[J.P.]

Oh, that's beautiful.

 

Talking about profound - if they aimed at it, they had to make it look and feel profound, and not flood us with SFX and a plot from adventure movies.

[Arcadia]

I'm afraid you are right.

 

Even so ... I think this is what they were hoping we'd feel about the Sherlock/John/Mary dynamic. I don't think I do ... but if they had managed to make me feel the way this video does, I think I would have termed S4 brilliant. Like I said above, I think the heart is still there, and I think that's what drew me to this show in the first place. Maybe they just tried to do too much ... should have aimed for three 3 minute episodes, instead of three 90 minute ones. :D

 

[T.o.b.y]

Profound? Did you see a different episode? Wow, that's the last word that comes to my mind when I think about The Final Problem. There were moments in The Lying Detective that I might call profound but I saw the finale as one long roller coaster ride stuffed with all the fannish in-jokes and indulgences they knew had to be used now or never. For me, it's pure popcorn television. I can't take Sherrinford and Eurus there seriously. Do you think we were meant to? If so, they should have toned it all way down and left out the Moriarty bits.

 

The only part that really touches me is the ending, which is an ending for the entire series more than for the episode itself. And Molly, because Louise Brealey seems incapable of playing her character in any other way than authentic and tender. She's a breath of fresh air every time she appears on screen, I wish they had had given her more to do.

[J.P.]

Oh, I found the whole series deep enough to engage emotionally. Maybe that deeper meanings and psychological truths were only a side effects and the makers don't even notice that?

[Arcadia]

Oh, I see where I might have implied I found S4 profound. But no, I didn't, except, as you say Toby, for parts of TLD. But I think that may have been what they were going for in TFP; some sweeping statement about the nature of love and family and forgiveness. And the video I posted reveals, I think, that the bones of that type of story are there. But do I think they pulled it off? No. Except for the ending; there's something about Sherlock repeatedly striding off to spend time with his mad, unredeemable, incarcerated-for-life sister that hits me in just the right spot, and lets me start believing Lestrade's got it right ... Sherlock really is a good man after all. Which is all I ever really wanted from the ending.

 

I suspect you're right, JP ... I think a lot of us got more meaning out of the show than was actually put into it! But I also believe Moffat's scripts are meant to produce conflicting and interesting emotions as well, although perhaps the reactions we had were not always the ones he intended. But I really do think ASiB, for example, is meant to stir speculation about the nature of love and sexual attraction and the relevance (or lack thereof) of gender identity, which is why I admire it immensely, even though it's not a "favorite" episode.

 

Gatiss, I think, comes at it from a different direction, and in some sense his scripts are more accessible, because the emotions in them are less ambiguous. But they're also more plot dependent, and if the plot doesn't work ... phffft.

[bedelia1984]

I have been studying Autism a bit more recently for work, and whilst learning about spiky development, my thoughts went straight to Eurus.

 

I know that we have discussed ASD in relation to sherlock, but was wondering does anyone have any ideas as to whether Eurus is likely to place somewhere on the spectrum? The spiky development I mention was about how a person might be very developed in one area- say Mathematics, for example, and yet be much less developed emotionally- and that these spikes could exist in an array of areas throughout the persons development. It made me think about how we had spoken about her seeming immature in some ways and then like a mastermind in others.

 

Much like when we talked about Sherlock, people might say she only has certain traits, but was just interested in general as to what people thought- especially anyone with more knowledge of the area. I don't mean to lump in the fact that she's a criminal mastermind with my wondering, or to associate that with ASD- it is more the other aspects of her character that I thought might fit.