Subtext Interpretation... What Do You See?

[T.o.b.y]

But why is my brain free to interpret things the way I don't want?

[Bakerstreet Irregular]

Because the brain and heart seem to be able to act independently from the rest of us.

[Carol the Dabbler]

Maybe it's like "don't think about elephants."

 

Now -- what are you thinking about? 

 

[Bakerstreet Irregular]

   Exactly!

[T.o.b.y]

Moving on to another bit of subtext that one could or could not see in the episodes: I think it is noticeable that Sherlock has a strong dislike of or contempt for unfaithful spouses. He is, even for him, very quick to notice people having affairs and points them out mercilessly. In A Study in Pink, he even uses, at least in his mind, the extremely old-fashioned term "serial adulterer" (btw, I love how they managed to create a kind of unique "Sherlock" language that blends modern and Victorian phrases and seems totally natural to the character).

 

His attitude reminds me of that children usually have towards grown-ups and their relationships: They don't want a partner themselves (yet), except in the form of a "best friend", but have a strong need for the partnerships around them to stay intact, noticing the sexual side of those with a certain fascinated disgust. Who knows, maybe one of his parents had an affair and that ruined his home life?

[Bakerstreet Irregular]

 

Who knows, maybe one of Who knows, maybe one of his parents had an affair and that ruined his home life?

 

    That has been hinted at even in the interviews with Gatiss, Moffat, Martin and Benedict.  In one round table, the question was asked about Sherlock's childhood. BC started to say something about the absent Mr. Holmes then he looked at Gatiss and asked if there might be something mentioned in one of the upcoming episodes. Gatiss smiled and that there might...so BC clammed up and didn't say anything more.

 

[T.o.b.y]

You mean I might actually have been wearing the right kind of goggles when I saw that? Great!

 

I don't think they will give much background, because mystery is an essential part of the character. They wouldn't want to disenchant him. But I hope they put in bits and pieces about his past that call for further speculation.

[Bakerstreet Irregular]

It is to be hoped for, and sometimes Moffat or Gatiss will slip in a little information that the audience could never even guess at. For example, there are a few fanfiction writers that have taken the stance that "Mummy" is actually dead. But when people were talking about "TSiB" something was mentioned about all the Christmas cards on the mantle of 221b.  Gatiss said something like: Well how many friends do you think Sherlock would have to send him any? Most are for John, one for Sherlock from Mummy. So that lays that little head canon to rest. She is alive after all. Maybe she can show up in a future episode? That might be fun.

[T.o.b.y]

 Most are for John, one for Sherlock from Mummy. So that lays that little head canon to rest. She is alive after all. Maybe she can show up in a future episode? That might be fun.

 

I never noticed that! And I had also always assumed that "Mummy" must be dead. Maybe that's where he's been hiding during the two years he was away?

 

[Bakerstreet Irregular]

 Yup, at Mummy's and since he is supposed to have family in France, maybe there was well. Of, course, that could be where Mummy is anyway. On the French Riviera?

[T.o.b.y]

Family in France? Where does it say that?

[Bakerstreet Irregular]

 He is supposed to have been descended from the French artist, Vernet. His great uncle, so he claimed.

[T.o.b.y]

Oh yes, I remember that bit. But it doesn't say anywhere that he has actual live relatives in France, does it? Oh dear, I do hope they'll fill us in a little on what Sherlock has been up to away from London (or maybe in this version, he stayed there?). But knowing Sherlock, he either won't tell at all or just make obtuse remarks.

[Bakerstreet Irregular]

I don't know, even in real time, it's been almost three years, and that's exactly right for canon as well. In canon he traveled much of the Middle East, visiting Tibet and Mecca in Saudi Arabia....but as you say, we will just have to wait and see, I guess.

[T.o.b.y]

Was he really away for only 3 years in the original? I thought it was ten. Or was it that Watson was only allowed to write about it after ten years? As if nobody would have noticed he was back before that...

 

By the way, "The Empty House" is subtext heaven and really very, very funny (not a good mystery, though - and the humor is partly unintentional). If anybody has not read it yet, I really recommend doing so.

[T.o.b.y]

At first, I seriously disliked Sherlock's Sherlock. I'm not saying that I thought the character was badly written or badly played -- just that I wouldn't have cared to meet him! He seemed like a spoiled brat, throwing temper tantrums when he was bored, sulking in fetal position when he didn't get his way, and acting like the entire apartment and everything in it was HIS. Frankly, I'd have said two-year-old!

 

 

Wow, I really wish I'd read through the whole beginning of this thread before I started posting in it.

Anyway, you are totally right, he is very child-like in a lot of ways, not just his attitude towards other people's partnerships.

 

This being a "brat" is the biggest difference, in my opinion, between him and his literary counterpart, who is very sophisticated, even though he does curl up on his furniture and solve cases sitting on five cushions smoking non-stop while Watson is trying to sleep.

 

And I just love that difference! I think Sherlock is great as a big child with a monstrous IQ and I really don't want him to change at all. Though if he has to grow up, and if, as you say, he starts at toddler level, we should be seeing the teens before the boring grown up stage. Hmm, that sounds very promising...

[Carol the Dabbler]

 Most are for John, one for Sherlock from Mummy.

 

I never noticed that!

 

You never noticed it because they never really showed it -- the Christmas cards were never shown up close, so we'd have no idea who they're from if it weren't for comments from the production people.

 

... even in real time, it's been almost three years, and that's exactly right for canon as well.

Was he really away for only 3 years in the original? I thought it was ten. Or was it that Watson was only allowed to write about it after ten years?

 

Sorry, it only feels like three years.  It's just going on two years since "Reichenbach."

 

In canon, "The Final Problem" takes place in May of 1891, and then "The Empty House" takes place in "the spring of the year 1894" -- however, the latter was not published till 1903, and Watson says, "Only now, at the end of nearly ten years, am I allowed to supply those missing links."

 

[Bakerstreet Irregular]

Has it only been two years? It certainly does feel like it's been longer, thank you Carol.  Yup, it took ten years for Doyle to give in to public pressure...and financial woes...to bring Sherlock Holmes back from the dead. But, as Carol pointed out, he dated the Empty House only three years from the events in "The Final Problem".

[T.o.b.y]

Of course, you guys are right. Interesting, huh, that the original Holmes was very careful about what was made public about him and when. He was also very careful with the press and liked to let the police take the credit for his work (at least in the eyes of the public at large, in private he took all the admiration and applause he could get - and if it wasn't enough, he staged dramatic moments to get more).

 

I expect we'll see that happen with Sherlock after his experiences with fame in series 2. Luckily, today's audience is not dependent on John's blog to find out what happens at Baker St. Imagine having to wait a whole decade for the next episode!

[Carol the Dabbler]

... the original Holmes was very careful about what was made public about him and when. He was also very careful with the press ....

 

Sounds kinda like Moftiss & Hartswood, huh?

 

Luckily, today's audience is not dependent on John's blog to find out what happens at Baker St. Imagine having to wait a whole decade for the next episode!

 

Gaaahh! 

 

[T.o.b.y]

Yes, unfortunately the word "intimate" is going to be interpreted as being sexual.

 

Too bad... We were discussing here a while ago about what to call a relationship like that of our two favorite men, because I dislike the word (if it even is a word) "bromance". There were some nice suggestions from very educated and creative people.

 

I just thought I'd go to the original and see what they call themselves there. Quite a list:

 

colleague, companion, partner, friend, close friend, intimate friend... I really like "intimate friend", but as Fox has pointed out, that expression is unfortunately dead. And "partner" also has a different meaning nowadays.

 

[Janie]

"Bromance" is a horrible word. I don't like it either. What's wrong with just "best friend"? 

[Bakerstreet Irregular]

  Actually, bromance isn't a bad word, it isn't meant to have any kind of sexual connotation at all, but since we human's see the word "mance" and of course put the two little letters "ro" at the beginning, it's going to get ruined. Best friend is good, but as it has been pointed out, their relationship goes deeper then that. As aely so rightly pointed out, anam cara covers it very nicely. Soul friend.

[Caya]

Gabriel Knight - Sins of the Fathers had an interesting word for this, too. Tetelo's people (invented, afaik) called it Zingsti ... the Unbidden. The universe bringing two people together because they had a task to fulfill, together. Which would describe the two of them nicely, if you allow for several tasks instead of one. It did have a sexual component in the story, though, but that might only be because the two pairs who were such bound were hot for each other anyway .

 

Actually, there's lot of fictional words for this, come to think of it. Eyra of Glenraven, Valin of Krynn, even Recognition of Elfquest could fit, in a way (Cutter telling Skywise that they, too, are recognized, "Yes for the soul, no for the cubs"). It's just our real life that hasn't come up with a good word yet, save for the Irish.

[Carol the Dabbler]

Any such term that anyone comes up with will be overinterpreted.  But "bromance" is just asking for it!