Subtext Interpretation... What Do You See?

[Zain]

I hope it will be in season 4. Not in 5. I'd prefer to know more about it this decade.

 

It's interesting how many possibilities there are. Often, shows go for a very narrow interpretation. Sherlock is a bit different. There are so many open ends. And some seem to never get a proper answer. 

[Bakerstreet Irregular]

 

Often, shows go for a very narrow interpretation. Sherlock is a bit different. There are so many open ends. And some seem to never get a proper answer. 

 

  Oh boy, if that is ever true.  And if Sherlock was dishing out the slights on Mycroft that night he was giving him a full serving.  Like the line: "Don't start any wars before I get home. You know how it affects traffic."

[T.o.b.y]

While we are delving into subtext (and I assume that refers to more than just hints at possible sexual relationships between characters, right?), isn't Sherlock's whole attitude towards love very, very interesting? He always speaks of it, at least the romantic kind, with the "gibe and sneer" Dr Watson ascribed to the original Holmes; calls it a "chemical defect", the "human error", a "vicious motivator" etc. Yet on the other hand, he seems to have a strong, almost childlike, aversion to relationships going wrong and a decided tendency to take lovers' sides and try to make things "all right" for and between them. John and Mary are the latest and most glaring example of that. I mean, very few people would advise their best friend to come to terms with the fact that his wife is an ex-assassin who married him under an assumed name and who still on occasion runs around London with a gun, taking a friendly shot at anybody who gets in her way. And when that little intervention at Baker St didn't prove entirely successful, Sherlock had them down to his parents' house for yet another try. For some reason, it matters tremendously to Sherlock that John and Mary save their relationship.

 

This makes me wonder about his parents. If I put aside the fact that the story seems to be written "on the run" and the writers don't necessarily think up explanations for things until after they have established them (if ever), if I pretend that the people I watch are real (which I love to do), then I simply cannot believe Mr and Mrs Holmes are indeed such a wonderful, happy, harmonious, normal couple as they seem. Of course I neither expected nor wanted them to be abusive or cold. But the Holmes' home life must have been more complicated and troubled than we have lately been asked to believe.

I think it would make a lot of sense if Sherlock's parents had almost split up at some point. And if his father had had an affair, from which resulted a half sibling who came to no good and was "eliminated" by Mycroft, then that would explain a lot about everybody involved, wouldn't it?

[Bakerstreet Irregular]

 

I think it would make a lot of sense if Sherlock's parents had almost split up at some point. And if his father had had an affair, from which resulted a half sibling who came to no good and was "eliminated" by Mycroft, then that would explain a lot about everybody involved, wouldn't it?

 

  Yes, now that you do point out how hard Sherlock does try to save a relationship and at what lengths he will go to do so, it makes a whole lot of sense.

[Carol the Dabbler]

Back (briefly) to the "riot" question -- here's what Mycroft said:

 

...there is no prison in which we could incarcerate Sherlock without causing a riot on a daily basis.

 

I have always taken that to mean a riot within the prison, and now I see why -- if Mycroft were instead talking about public rioting, why would the choice of prison make any difference?

 

I can imagine Sherlock arguing with his fellow prisoners ("I know ash!") till they can't help punching him.  Alternatively, I can imagine him urging them to go on strike for laptops and comfortable furniture.

 

[Zain]

To be honest, I'd love to see him cause a riot like this.

 

And you're making quite a nice point, Toby. That could be a good explanation why Sherlock tries to keep John and Mary together. Maybe he had a childhood fright when his parents almost divorced. Children often feel like it is their fault. Then it would feel like a repeat to him: If John and Mary split up because she shot him, it basically is his fault, too (I know it's not, it's Mary's, but from his perspective...). That's a rather sad interpretation, I think.

And it would lead to another question: If Sherlock was old enough to remember that his parents had a marital crisis (assuming it's due to Daddy Holmes cheating on Mummy Holmes), Jim must have been old enough to remember Daddy Holmes, too. I hope it's reasonable to say that Sherlock probably is the youngest. I'd put Jim (if he's brother No. 3) between Sherlock and Mycroft. So, did Daddy Holmes keep another "family" on the side for a couple of years? If Jim had a face and a name (Daddy Holmes), then it would mean he was aware of their relation from the very beginning of the series while Mycroft and Sherlock would only know the name of their potential third sibling if Daddy Holmes had come clear in all regards. It would also cast some light on his motives. Or at least give us a new angle from which to interpret his actions in season 1 and 2.

 

I prefer the theory that Sherlock knows Mary is dangerous, and that she'd "do everything" to keep John by her side. Until season 4, I'll happily believe he is passing time until he can safely get her out of the picture. And that he's simply not willing to take the risk that she'd shoot John if John decided against her. I am not sure if I should really watch season 4, though. Could destroy my carefully picked version to have a nice hiatus instead of raging against HLV.

 

 

[CumberCookieCrumble]

Jim?  as in Jim Moriarty or Jim Holmes?

 

*sorry again my brain going into sleep deprived over drive*

 

 

[Zain]

Oh, I am sorry. I kind of assumed everybody knew what I was referring to. There has been a lot of speculation about a possible third Holmes sibling, and mainly it is assumed it is Jim ( as in Jim Moriarty). Though there have been interesting theories about Moriarty not being a person's name but a sort of "brand name", too. So, for now I'd rather use the name Jim without the last name. 

[Slithytove]

Re. the riot issue (again, briefly), I think Mycroft's remark only makes sense in the context of prison riots. And can't you imagine Sherlock causing endless disruption in any enclosed space? You could put him in a monastery and the other monks would want to kill him after a day or two.

 

Betrayal would certainly be another source of pain, particularly when seen through the eyes of a small child. If, as suggested, Daddy Holmes cheated on Mummy and they came close to divorce, that would explain Sherlock's ambivalence over relationships - love is a weakness, it's a defect, it's vicious.....but he can't bear people he loves to break up (even when their marriage is based on lies.) If Daddy had a second family with a Ms Moriarty but chose to stay with Mummy and his legitimate sons, that might explain both Jim's general rage against the world and his particular obsession with the Holmes brothers. But why target Sherlock more than Mycroft? Maybe Daddy chose to stay with Mummy because she was pregnant with her second child? So Sherlock would be very upset by the idea that John and Mary might break up whilst she is pregnant.....

 

Like Zain, I'm hoping Sherlock's arguments on behalf of Mary are all part of a cunning plan, but I'm not holding my breath as I think we are all expected to go on liking her, despite her actions. I do think, though, we might get more revelations regarding Mummy & Daddy. Could they really be so picture-perfect but raise two such emotionally damaged children? (You can see why, prior to S3, nearly all the fanfic writers imagined parents who were physically absent, emotionally distant or even cruel, particularly to Sherlock when he was little.) And "the other one" has to be featured now he or she has been mentioned and that must mean delving a little deeper into the family's past. Or maybe not. I find future plots incredibly hard to predict!

[Zain]

Betrayal would certainly be another source of pain, particularly when seen through the eyes of a small child. If, as suggested, Daddy Holmes cheated on Mummy and they came close to divorce, that would explain Sherlock's ambivalence over relationships - love is a weakness, it's a defect, it's vicious.....but he can't bear people he loves to break up (even when their marriage is based on lies.) If Daddy had a second family with a Ms Moriarty but chose to stay with Mummy and his legitimate sons, that might explain both Jim's general rage against the world and his particular obsession with the Holmes brothers. But why target Sherlock more than Mycroft? Maybe Daddy chose to stay with Mummy because she was pregnant with her second child? So Sherlock would be very upset by the idea that John and Mary might break up whilst she is pregnant.....

 

 

 

Just to dive into that: So you'd say Daddy Holmes left little Jimmy when Sherlock was on his way?

So you'd also say Sherlock knows already about the other brother at Christmas in S3? If Sherlock hadn't been born yet, he'd not experienced the tension in the family. The affair could have been revealed later on, yes. Just to get a time line from your post:

• Mycroft is born.
• Daddy Holmes has got some extra-marital fun. Little Jimmy is born.
• Mummy Holmes gets pregnant. Daddy Holmes leaves little Jimmy.
• Sherlock is born.
• Somehow Mummy Holmes finds out about Daddy Holmes' extra-marital fun, most likely from Sherlock or Mycroft who deduces it. They fight and almost break up.

 

I hope I didn't get that wrong? Just for clarification.

 

Personally I prefer the theory that Daddy Holmes kept his family on the side until Sherlock or Mycroft deduced it. Makes for even more drama. But doesn't change much on the supposed time line.

 

 

 

 

I find future plots incredibly hard to predict!

 

Really? Just take out all the interesting stuff from the theories going around and make it a bit more mainstream. And make sure to somehow screw up female characters! They work best when mentally unstable.

Seemed to work with season three

 

And I am pretty sure we'll get more on the Ho(l)mes front. Maybe not the complete resolution but I expect the third episode to end with the ugly reveal of the third sibling's identity.

[T.o.b.y]

 

 

I find future plots incredibly hard to predict!

 

Really? Just take out all the interesting stuff from the theories going around and make it a bit more mainstream. And make sure to somehow screw up female characters! They work best when mentally unstable.

 

Oh dear - you're making me laugh against my will. But the men are quite "screwed up", too, to be fair, aren't they? Sherlock, John, Mycroft, Moriarty, Magnussen... not exactly paragons of sanity.

 

I totally agree with Slithytove that it is hard to believe a "lovely" couple like Mr and Mrs Holmes could have produced sons like that. Something must have happened somewhere that wasn't all nice.

 

[Arcadia]

Maybe they spent too much time line dancing in Oklahoma.

[Slithytove]

I think the problem with plotting is that we try to come up with something relatively logical, whereas Moftiss happily invents storylines which are crazy, have gaping plot holes but have loads of drama.....so it is very hard to predict where they're going to go. The only thing that seems certain is that "the other one" will have to appear at some point. It is like when the characters in a soap opera start discussing a family member whom they've never mentioned before. You can be sure they'll arrive in the next episode.

 

Having Sherlock and Mycroft deduce their dad's misdemeanours is more dramatic, but I incline to the childhood theory on the grounds that being hurt when you are very young has a greater long-term impact on your personality. There has to be something - one repressed, anti-social child might be just be an oddity, but two?

 

As for the sort of childhood that could produce someone like Jim, it hardly bears thinking about.

[Zain]

But I wonder if that wouldn't make Mycroft resent Sherlock?

If he knows that his father stayed for Sherlock but wouldn't have stayed for him.

On the other hand, we never get to see Mycroft and his father interact. Only Mycroft and his mother. Maybe Mycroft resents his father instead of Sherlock. Which is the more mature "resentment." Children usually react with jealousy, adults with grudges. Now that I think about it, Mycroft also wasn't visiting his parents at Christmas in S2. He wasn't working either. So maybe their relationship is strained as well. Or they were line-dancing... well.

 

Or would you say that "Mycroft resents Sherlock because their father stayed only for Sherlock" is  a sufficient explanation why Mycroft sometimes seems to rejoice in making his brother's life a bit difficult?

 

 

I can picture that childhood theory. But I don't like it as much. I don't want to get some excuses for Mycroft's behavior. I hate it when writers try to explain everything by saying "oh, and he was wronged by his parents and deeply hurt, and that's why he turns out this way." I always feel like it's a bit cheap. People are molded by the sum of their experiences and decisions, not just that one traumatic experience they had no influence on. Like I said. Personal preference. But I see where you're coming from. And I would probably like it, too, if things turned out that way. I don't dislike the idea. But I am not sure if I want the writers to "explain" Mycroft away. I don't like to be hit with a bat over and over until I believe that the character is simply misunderstood and tragic. I simply fear that this scenario could be taken into this direction.

 

If Jim had been abandoned "because of Sherlock", it would explain why he seems to be fixated on Sherlock instead of Mycroft, even after he had gotten bored with him.

[T.o.b.y]

I wouldn't want them to completely "explain" Sherlock or Mycroft, ever. An element of mystery is essential for the Holmes boys. All I want is continued hints and glimpses to fuel this kind of speculation, which I love.

 

Luckily, Moffat, Gatiss and Co seem pretty averse to really explaining anything that happens on "Sherlock" lately, so I have little fear we'll get too much information here.

[Janie]

I'm probably the only one here who doesn't like the idea of Moriarty being the third brother. We don't even know for sure that there is a third brother. I want just two Holmes brothers but if there really is a third one I hope the the writers will be more creative and think out something unexpected.

[Arcadia]

Nope, you'r e not the only one, I don't like the idea either! Well, "don't like" might be too strong. I'd prefer a more original solution. "Evil sibling" just seems so ... done.

 

Is there a reason why "the other one" would have to be a brother? A sister could create some interesting family dynamics....

[Janie]

On the other side it would kind of make sense if it was Moriarty but it would seem a bit like a soap opera to me.

 

I still hope that Mycroft didn't refer to a third sibling at all but I have to admit that I have no idea what else it could be.

[Arcadia]

That's funny, that's exactly what I was thinking ... too much like a soap opera.
 
I don't know how else to interpret it either, but if anyone can come up with an alternate explanation, I'm sure it will be Moftiss.

[Slithytove]

I don't want everything in the psyches of the Holmes brothers to be explained, though it seems there is little danger of that happening anyway, as the writers seem to have a positive aversion to backstory. I just find it a bit odd that Mummy & Daddy seem so openly warm and nice, whilst both their sons are cold (outwardly, anyway) and difficult. Can't help wondering why....

 

Regarding "the other one", doesn't Mycroft mention him/her in the context of his lack of "brotherly compassion? In which case, it surely has to be a sibling. Somehow I doubt that it will really turn out to be Jim.

 

On the subject of siblings, what is happening with Harry Watson? Why didn't the writers introduce her to us at John's wedding? They could easily have had her as a minor character, either struggling with sobriety or still an alcoholic. (Would Sherlock, with his own experience of addiction, be understanding or would he be his usual abrasive self?) I do wonder if they are keeping her up their sleeve, to give her character a role in some future episode.

 

Or maybe not.

[T.o.b.y]

 

On the subject of siblings, what is happening with Harry Watson? Why didn't the writers introduce her to us at John's wedding? They could easily have had her as a minor character, either struggling with sobriety or still an alcoholic. (Would Sherlock, with his own experience of addiction, be understanding or would he be his usual abrasive self?) I do wonder if they are keeping her up their sleeve, to give her character a role in some future episode.

 

Yes! Exactly! I was really hoping, almost expecting, to finally see her at John's wedding, but nope... It's a pity, really, she should be an interesting character. I still hope they'll introduce her one day - didn't they say they wanted more women in series 4? - but I don't think it's very likely. For some reason, they seem to have no interest in her. Pity.

 

I also doubt that Moriarty will turn out to be "the other one", but I must admit I like the idea, even though it is rather "soapy" (but no worse than Moriarty being still alive at all - and certainly much better than an evil twin!)

[Zain]

It might sound rather hypocritical (because I do advocate introducing Victor Trevor...) but I don't want the third sibling to be someone entirely new. That's cheap, too, if you have to introduce new characters that haven't even been mentioned before just because you thought of something clever but no existing character fits the bill. It's like the broadest hint ever you can give your audience that you came up with that later on and hadn't exactly planned it in advance. Otherwise you'd carefully implement it from the beginning. Just to get the best response from the audience. If you put it under their nose from the beginning, and then you present them with the solution, it makes them want to revisit the previous chapters/episodes. A much greater effect, more of a surprise than pushing a new character on stage. It's kind of bad practice, crowding your fictional universe when you can go with a narrow set instead.

 

So far, Jim is the only educated guess that comes to my mind.  In a way I hope it's him. Better than the alternative that it is someone completely new. On the other hand, I totally agree with you that it's still somewhat cliché.

 

While I would really love it to be a sister, the only female character in the show who had something bad happen to her (from Mycroft's perspective) is Irene. And I am not really seeing the connection. Sad, in a way. I'd love for it to be a sister. Less obvious. Overall, there aren't many characters, female and male, who could be the third Holmes sibling. I suppose that's why it's such a popular theory. 

 

[T.o.b.y]

Well, if I had my way, there wouldn't be any more Holmes'. Actually, there wouldn't even have been Mycroft, at least not in such a prominent role, and no Holmes parents, either (although I quite like what they did with them so far). I want Sherlock to be as unique as possible.

 

But, now they've mentioned "the other one", and there's no going back on that, even of they never elaborate further (which I kind of suspect they won't, they might very well leave it at a little hint like that).

 

Speaking of preparing the audience for things to come, were there any hints, anywhere, that Moriarty would be back? I really can't find any and I think that's rather disappointing, especially because the writers were so careful about giving proper clues and foreshadowing before.

[Bakerstreet Irregular]

I couldn't find any clues either. In all the interviews that Scott gave....TV and newspapers...he iterated time and time again that Moriarty was dead....end of story....his suicide was not an  open ended option

 

So now, since they are saying that it was in the works all along.....then in what capacity is he returning?

[Carol the Dabbler]

On the subject of siblings, what is happening with Harry Watson? Why didn't the writers introduce her to us at John's wedding?

Harry was at least mentioned at the wedding. (Apparently she had said she was coming, but didn't -- John referred to her as a "no-show.") So they're at least keeping the character alive. Ditto Mike Stamford.