Episode 2.1, "A Scandal In Belgravia"

[Bakerstreet Irregular]

I hadn't even heard of this movie until people got to talking about it here and how similar it was to ASIB so I went to Youtube and watched a few of the instalments and wow was I blown away by how much Moftiss garnered for their own interpretation.

[wildwoodflower]

Hello, metobillc -- welcome to Sherlock Forum!

 

I had never thought of that possibility, but your wife has a point -- the whole scene does seem sort of surrealistic. But some things puzzle me either way.

 

Supposing the scene was to be taken literally: How did Sherlock know that Irene was in danger? Did he somehow get the information from Mycroft without letting on that he meant to save her? How did he fool Mycroft into believing that she was dead?

 

Or, supposing the rescue was Sherlock's fantasy: Did Irene really die, then, and if so, how was Sherlock able to enjoy the fantasy?

 

In either case, one explanation would be that Mycroft was lying to John (in whole or in part) -- but why? Of course, I've probably missed a whole assortment of other possible explanations.

 

How do you see it?

 

There is an excellent story that answers these questions really well. Holmes is nothing if not thorough. And she left a few breadcrumbs for him to follow. It's got a lot of action/adventure, and ends up very sexy and sad. The writer is really familiar with Pakistan, Afghanistan and how things work in "the government." One of my favorites.

Neither a Soldier Nor a Gentleman.

http://archiveofourown.org/works/338793/chapters/548227

[Bakerstreet Irregular]

Interesting. There is a school of thought that Sherlock and The Woman was secretly married. Some Holmesians say that there was a Holmes child, a rotund detective that loved orchids and was a bit lazy. Some say this is more in line with being an offshoot of Mycroft then Sherlock...but who knows.

[SolitaryCyclist]

Interesting. There is a school of thought that Sherlock and The Woman was secretly married. Some Holmesians say that there was a Holmes child, a rotund detective that loved orchids and was a bit lazy. Some say this is more in line with being an offshoot of Mycroft then Sherlock...but who knows.

 

Yikes! Nero Wolfe, son of Sherlock?! Gotta love it

[biscuitbear]

That's Baring-Gould's theory, one wonders what he could possibly have found to suggest this. I haven't read him but he seems quite fanciful! I enjoy fun theories but I like them to be founded on at least a very small hint in the canon...like SH's birthday.

[SolitaryCyclist]

That's Baring-Gould's theory, one wonders what he could possibly have found to suggest this. I haven't read him but he seems quite fanciful! I enjoy fun theories but I like them to be founded on at least a very small hint in the canon...like SH's birthday.

 

Amazing, Helene; I just checked this book out of the library - "Sherlock Holmes of Baker Street" by William S. Baring-Gould. This book was mentioned in the preface to "The Moor" by Laurie King, one of the Holmes/Russell books. I saw an acknowledgment to Rex Stout (among others) in the front of the book, and wondered if this was the reference....

[biscuitbear]

Good, then you'll be able to tell us how Baring-Gould got this idea. Maybe there are clues in the Nero Wolfe books, I haven't read them. Rex Stout also played the game and in 1941 made a famous address to the BSI which is quite hilarious (http://www.hwslash.net/stout.html).

[Carol the Dabbler]

That's Baring-Gould's theory, one wonders what he could possibly have found to suggest this. I haven't read him but he seems quite fanciful! I enjoy fun theories but I like them to be founded on at least a very small hint in the canon...

Well, Nero Wolfe does have a portrait of Sherlock Holmes hanging in his office.

 

Since the Holmes stories predate the Wolfe stories by at least several decades, it might make more sense to do your hint-searching in the Wolfe canon. However, having read virtually all of Rex Stout's fiction (albeit some time back), I cannot offer anything concrete, other than the above, and the aforementioned fact that Wolfe bears considerable resemblance to Mycroft.

 

It's not just Baring-Gould, though. His book Nero Wolfe of West Thirty-Fifth Street has an extensive quote from "Some Notes Relating to a Preliminary Investigation into the Paternity of Nero Wolfe" by Dr. John D. Clark, which makes a case for Wolfe having been the son of Sherlock Holmes and Irene Adler. Baring-Gould follows that up with a list of characteristics that Wolfe shares with Holmes. But all of this is "could have," "might have," "may have" -- with no hint of a smoking gun anywhere.

 

* * * * *

 

Thanks for the parallel synopses of Secret Life and "Scandal" -- good heavens! I'll definitely have to see that movie.

 

wow was I blown away by how much Moftiss garnered for their own interpretation.

Where does an homage leave off -- and ....

[biscuitbear]

Since the Holmes stories predate the Wolfe stories by at least several decades, it might make more sense to do your hint-searching in the Wolfe canon.

Oh I don't intend to - studying the ACD canon is keeping me busy enough. It seems Baring-Gould invented quite a lot of things about Sherlock which have become more or less accepted, and why not, as long as you know it's only an invention (you're right about Nero Wolfe, Clarke proposed it first and then Baring-Gould seized on it). Certainly there are lots of short stories by various authors which use some biographical details first proposed by Baring-Gould (I just read an excellent one by Neil Gaiman where Holmes travels to China to work on a youth elixir derived from honey; and Moriarty as maths tutor as well as Sherrinford as older brother turn up quite often in Holmes fiction). Some info on Baring-Gould's Holmes biography is here :

http://www.sherlocki...aringgould.html

 

Beth, I'm so jealous you can check out that kind of book so easily, here of course it can't be found in libraries and often the books by the early scholars like Baring-Gould or Starrett are out of print and have to be ordered from the UK or the US. I wish more of them were made into ebooks. I see that Sherlock Holmes of Baker Street was made available in Kindle format last December, so I may get it, let us know how you like it.

[SolitaryCyclist]

Beth, I'm so jealous you can check out that kind of book so easily, here of course it can't be found in libraries and often the books by the early scholars like Baring-Gould or Starrett are out of print and have to be ordered from the UK or the US. I wish more of them were made into ebooks. I see that Sherlock Holmes of Baker Street was made available in Kindle format last December, so I may get it, let us know how you like it.

 

Helene, one of the most wonderful things about where we live is the library!! I mean it; I am constantly amazed at what I can find and check out. Best of all, the branch I go to is a half mile from where I live, and all I need to do is walk to get there

 

I'm really grateful to this forum for all of the Sherlock related reading; I can see I've been missing a LOT of great literature. Thanks everyone!

[Carol the Dabbler]

...Moriarty as maths tutor as well as Sherrinford as older brother turn up quite often in Holmes fiction....

Interesting. I believe that "Sherrinford" was one of Conan Doyle's preliminary names for Sherlock (but I am too lazy just now to get up and check my reference book), so in that sense he really is Sherlock's predecessor -- or you might say his "older brother."

 

We watched "Scandal" tonight, and it occurs to me that the reason why John finally changes his mind at the end of the episode, and hands Irene's phone to Sherlock is simply that Sherlock says "please." John must have been trying to persuade him to say that for quite some time, so when he finally does, John doesn't have the heart to discourage him. (Then Sherlock even says "thank you"!)

[Bakerstreet Irregular]

is simply that Sherlock says "please." John must have been trying to persuade him to say that for quite some time,

That is a running theme in many essays and short stories being written, how John is to become Sherlock's moral compass and how the man needs his "Boswell" or, in this case, "Blogger" to become the "good man" that Lestrade sees the potential of Sherlock being and not merely the "great man" that he is now.

 

Sherlock has been so long on his own boundries have had no meaning they didn't need to have. But he is learning through the "good" people around him, Mrs. Hudson, Lestrade, Molly, and now more importantly John, that there is something in becoming less of a sociopath and he can let himself feel for others what they feel for him. His asperger's doesn't help, but he is more then willing to try.

[Carol the Dabbler]

John is definitely training Sherlock, but it appears to me that Sherlock may be using some of his new knowledge to control John.

 

Even though John isn't officially a psychiatrist or psychologist, he does seem to have some inclinations in that direction, as evidenced by his occasional use of the therapeutic "we" (as in "how are we feeling about that?"). In any case, he's well aware of the importance of consistent positive reinforcement, especially in the early stages of learning. So when Sherlock says "please" (perhaps for the first time in his life), John decides that the benefits of rewarding that behavior outweigh the discomfort of the (presumably) ensuing argument with Mycroft.

 

And I kinda suspect that Sherlock knew that. He's learning how to fit into society, yes, but he sometimes uses that knowledge as a tool.

[Bakerstreet Irregular]

Even though John isn't officially a psychiatrist or a psychologist, he does seem to have some inclinations in that direction

Which makes John so very darn important as the corner stone in this new support group Sherlock is gaining. And just as important, John is not an enabler. He can and does take Sherlock to task when he steps to far out and does not back down, no matter how waspish Sherlock gets in trying to get his own way.

 

He's learning how to fit into society, yes, but he sometimes uses that knowledge as a tool.

Which is classic text book Sociopathic behavior. He used it on Molly all the time. But as aely has often said, Sherlock shows some sociopathic traits but not all. The same with his asperger's which does make him very much high functioning indeed.

 

His family does not seem like a close knit unit and if Mycroft is the norm for the Holmes clan, was not at all supportive which would re-inforced his anti-social behavior. People with these tendencies need a solid support base. Sherlock is just gaining his. He has a lot of baggage to get rid of but it seems he is coming along just fine with this solid group of "good" people that have gravitated to him.

[Carol the Dabbler]

We're now watching "Hounds," and Sherlock plays the "please" card again (at the beginning, when John won't get him a cigarette). This time, though, it doesn't work. Apparently John considers reminding Sherlock to live up to his own decision (to quit smoking) is more important than rewarding the "please."

 

I do wonder what happened to the nicotine patches, though.

[Carol the Dabbler]

After seeing how positively people responded to his apology (to Molly) in "Scandal," Sherlock has another new tool in his kit.

 

In "Hounds," he wants to test the sugar on John, to see whether it's been drugged -- but John doesn't like sugar in his coffee. So Sherlock presents John with a cup of sugared coffee by way of an apology, knowing that John will feel obliged to accept the peace offering.

[Bakerstreet Irregular]

So Sherlock presents John with a cup of sugared coffee by way of an apology, knowing that John will feel obliged to accept the peace offering.

Manipulation is one of the foremost tools that Sociopaths learn early on. Play society's game and it gets faster results, if they have the patients to wait that long. The coffee thing is played a bit humorous but again, it is classic behavior. If you have watched the "Hounds" in commentary mode, even the actors talk about how they feel that the locking of John in the lab, drug him then play the snarling dog bit was one of Sherlock's most callus and cruel episodes. But he does apologize to John at the out door breakfast and says that it will never happen again and John seems to have taken him at his word and forgiven him.

 

But saying all that it is straight out of the canon and "A Study In Scarlet" and John H. Watson was forewarned that poisons was one of Sherlock Holmes' interests and not to be alarmed nor blame Stamford if Watson discovered himself dosed up with something but to be fair, Stamford went on, that Sherlock would be just a likely to take something himself just to better judge the results and side affects of the stuff he was investigating.

[Carol the Dabbler]

Right. Since reading the original "Study," I've thought it just a little odd that they didn't include that bit of Stamford's dialog in the episode. On the other hand, maybe they preferred to wait and show us that side of Sherlock, rather than just tell us upfront.

 

As for Sherlock's "won't happen again" promise, what is specifically said (thanks once again to Ariane DeVere's meticulous transcripts) is this:

 

JOHN: You were wrong. It wasn’t in the sugar. You got it wrong.

SHERLOCK: A bit. It won’t happen again.

 

Which I take to be a boast that he won't be wrong again, rather than any kind of apology.

 

In general, John seems to be resigned to the fact that, even though Sherlock has begun to learn better manners, he is still going to do "unusual" things. So he frequently just puts up with it, and doesn't bother to correct Sherlock's behavior unless 1) it's a good opportunity for a lesson, and/or 2) it's just too awful to ignore.

[Bakerstreet Irregular]

JOHN: You were wrong. It wasn’t in the sugar. You got it wrong.

SHERLOCK: A bit. It won’t happen again.

 

Which I take to be a boast that he won't be wrong again, rather than any kind of apology.

Maybe a bit of both? Knowing Sherlock, it could be just about anything including just anything to placate. But this takes place well after the Christmas and Molly episode and he has been contrite and remorseful about telling John "I don't have friends" to amending it to "I just have one."

 

All this about Sherlock not seemingly not to care about people and being a "high functioning Sociopath" is very canon. He considered John to be a close friend, partners, yet he would go out of his way to keep information from him. "The Dying Detective" and "The Illustrious Client" comes especially to my mind. But also in the episodes watch Sherlock's eyes. They respond and give Sherlock's true reactions. "The Blind Banker" when he introduces John as his friend and John amends it to colleague. Or in the "SIB" at the Palace when Mycroft tells Sherlock not to be alarmed, it's about sex and Sherlock says "Sex does not alarm me." Mycroft answers "How would you know?"

 

Then there is the whole scene at St. Bart's before Sherlock goes to the roof to confront Moriarty. John should have known something was up when he gets the call that Mrs. Hudson had been shot and Sherlock does not rush out. Because we all know what happened to that American CIA agent for roughing her up.

 

Sherlock feels things deeply he just learned at some point not to let them show.

 

And John cares enough for Sherlock to put up with these things and not simply walk out as most people might have done. He has to be willing to put up with it for a reason.

 

It will be interesting how this progresses in Season Three.

[Carol the Dabbler]

Maybe a bit of both? Knowing Sherlock, it could be just about anything including just anything to placate. But ... he has been contrite and remorseful about telling John "I don't have friends" to amending it to "I just have one."

At the very least he's learning how to play the game. I suspect that "I don't have friends" felt like the truth when he said it -- having even one friend is a new experience for him.

 

 

All this about Sherlock not seemingly not to care about people and being a "high functioning Sociopath" is very canon. He considered John to be a close friend, partners, yet he would go out of his way to keep information from him. "The Dying Detective" and "The Illustrious Client" comes especially to my mind.

From a real-world perspective, by keeping information from Watson, Holmes is of course keeping it from us, so that we won't guess "who done it" too soon. From an in-universe angle, Holmes seems very reserved at times. As a physician and a contemporary of Freud, Conan Doyle may well have been familiar with the sociopath syndrome -- or he may simply have been basing Holmes' behavior on what he had observed of Dr. Joseph Bell, his inspiration for Holmes.

 

 

...in the episodes watch Sherlock's eyes. They respond and give Sherlock's true reactions.

Yes, they do. I wonder whether this is typical of sociopaths, or if it's a bit of dramatic license.

 

 

John should have known something was up when he gets the call that Mrs. Hudson had been shot and Sherlock does not rush out. Because we all know what happened to that American CIA agent for roughing her up.

John did know that something wasn't right, because he made that very analogy. But he's accustomed to being mystified and frustrated by Sherlock's behavior, and didn't feel that he could take the time to understand this particular bit just then.

 

 

And John cares enough for Sherlock to put up with these things and not simply walk out as most people might have done.

Thank goodness he is such a caring individual, or there wouldn't be a series for us to enjoy. (Unless you consider 243 different types of tobacco ash to be a rip-snorting adventure.)

 

 

It will be interesting how this progresses in Season Three.

Amen!

[Bakerstreet Irregular]

I suspect that "I don't have friends" felt like the truth when he said it.

This may be true especially since he was feeling the effects of the drugged fog, believing that he had seen "the gigantic hound" and admitting that he was afraid. He was almost in tears. He was probably feeling very confused and out of sorts and having few social filters, he says the first things that come into his head.

 

Conan Doyle may have been familiar with the sociopath syndrome.

This may have been from taking care of his father through his spiral into madness and finally having to be committed into an asylum. It is known that his father used drugs and may have been autistic so would be dealing with sociopathic issues as spectrum people do. Sherlock's own drug use seemed to have died with Conan Doyle's father.

 

Yes, they do. I wonder whether this is typical of sociopaths, or if it's a bit of dramatic license.

I think it's a insightful reading of Sherlock's personality traits by Moffat, Gatiss, and Cumberbatch. Moffat and Gatiss know their Conan Doyle and have a seem to have a very good handle on some of the annotated scholastic research. Also there is the Jeremy Brett series and he did a deep character study of Holmes sharing himself some of the psychological problems that scholars have picked up from the canon. Jeremy was bipolar and brought that into his portrayal of his Sherlock. In the canon Sherlock becomes very angry when injustices are done to his clients. He wouldn't have if he was unable to care about them. He tries to even reach out, no matter how clumsily, to some of his female clients. He compliments Mary Morstan at the end of "Sign of Four". Cumberbatch said that he watched the Jeremy Brett episodes so he is bringing to his Sherlock what Jeremy did.

 

Sherlock can and does care, but for what ever reason, is unable to let it show as many sociopath symptoms are environmentally learned. "All lives end, all hearts are broken, caring is not an advantage, Sherlock." For how many years had that been drummed into the Holmes' boys.

 

If he had loved deeply and lost, love would indeed feel like a chemical defect where the lover was indeed the loser. Why bother showing sentiment if it only led to such pain. You can't help what you feel, love, anger, disappointment, depression..etc, etc, but people do learn how to bury it up to a certain point and dealing with these issues makes it more difficult for someone on the spectrum anyway.

 

But as Gatiss said about Sherlock Holmes during the commentary on the "Hound" this is a very young Sherlock. One we are not used to seeing. He is growing into the more mature and steady Sherlock seen in the earlier portrayal's by the likes of Basil Rathbone.

[Carol the Dabbler]

... he was feeling the effects of the drugged fog, ... and having few social filters, he says the first things that come into his head.

That may be one reason why John -- once he had time to cool off -- finally just sort of let it slide. That, and Sherlock's apology. Such as it was.

 

 

... [Conan Doyle's] father used drugs and may have been autistic .... Sherlock's own drug use seemed to have died with Conan Doyle's father.

Interesting. So there may have been some of Conan Doyle's father in Sherlock, along with a good bit of Dr. Bell. I wonder why Holmes stopped using drugs around the time that CD's father died. (I don't suppose CD ever said anything on the subject?) Could be that, once he could look back on his father's life with some perspective, he started to blame the drugs for his father's problems? Could be that he no longer needed the personal therapeutic effect of dealing indirectly with his father in the persona of Holmes? Could be a coincidence? Could be -- ?

 

 

In the canon Sherlock becomes very angry when injustices are done to his clients. He wouldn't have if he was unable to care about them. He tries to even reach out, no matter how clumsily, to some of his female clients. He compliments Mary Morstan at the end of "Sign of Four".

That compliment really struck me (even though it was a bit clumsy was by modern standards -- with the implication that it's too bad she's "only" a female), considering the possible implications for Mary in Sherlock. But I personally wouldn't read too much into Holmes's anger over injustice to his clients. Some men see injustice or insults to "their" people as injustice or insults to them personally -- like, "Hey, that's my client you're insulting!" And I see some of that general attitude in Sherlock, when all that he cares about (or at least all that he'll admit to caring about) is how the case turns out.

 

 

"All lives end, all hearts are broken, caring is not an advantage, Sherlock." For how many years had that been drummed into the Holmes' boys.

Mycroft does almost seem to be quoting something there. I wonder if that was an old family saying.

 

 

But as Gatiss said about Sherlock Holmes during the commentary on the "Hound" this is a very young Sherlock. One we are not used to seeing. He is growing into the more mature and steady Sherlock seen in the earlier portrayal's by the likes of Basil Rathbone.

I have not really made a point of reading the canon in chronological sequence, but I would think that'd be interesting. I do know that Holmes seems very young, almost coltish, in "Study in Scarlet," but is much more dignified in some of the later (though I don't know how much later) stories. We've already seeing some of that progress in Series 2, and will presumably see more in this next go-round.

[Bakerstreet Irregular]

...when all that he cares about (or at least all that he'll admit to caring about)...

I think this might be the case. The very first thing that he says to Moriarty when the "consulting criminal" steps into view is "people have died" and he didn't go into some kind of tirade about how he had actually won that contest....so did he actually feel bad about what happened to that blind woman and the other people killed in that blast? Yes, I could be reading more into this, but I can't help how my mind works. The questions persist.

 

Mycroft does almost seem to be quoting something here. I wonder if that was an old family saying.

I find myself wonder the very same thing.

 

He was young by modern standards being only 27 at his and Watson's first meeting and they would share at least 17 years of adventures together. One scholar said they probably worked on some 1700 cases during those years. That's a lot of personal growth for the both of them.

 

I will see if I can find more on Doyle's father. There is a film on Youtube dealing with Doyle's life in Scotland. His meeting with Dr. Bell and his family life. I'm drawing a blank on the title...something about " the dark beginnings of Sherlock Holmes" or some such thing. I'll also go through my annotated volumes. The internet should have something as well. I did read that when Granada was ready to film the "Devil's Foot" Jeremy got in touch with the surviving member's of the Doyle estate on how to deal with Sherlock and his drug issues. I suppose that is where the scene of Holmes dumping out his vial of cocaine and burying his syringe in the sand came from.

 

I would think that those years during the "Great Hiatus" would also be an sobering experience in many ways. Sherlock would probably be doing a lot of psychological growing and maturing. I am so looking forward to seeing how Season Three is handled, as we all are.

[Carol the Dabbler]

The very first thing that he says to Moriarty when the "consulting criminal" steps into view is "people have died" and he didn't go into some kind of tirade about how he had actually won that contest....so did he actually feel bad about what happened to that blind woman and the other people killed in that blast?

You're right. Hmm. Maybe it depends on who he's talking to (and therefore comparing himself with) -- he takes pride in being coldly logical in comparison to the "bleeding heart" John -- but on the other hand he reacts to Moriarty's callousness in more or less the same way that John reacts to Sherlock's callousness. So Sherlock is the Golden Mean between John and Moriarty -- John is to Sherlock as Sherlock is to Moriarty.

 

 

I did read that when Granada was ready to film the "Devil's Foot" Jeremy got in touch with the surviving member's of the Doyle estate on how to deal with Sherlock and his drug issues. I suppose that is where the scene of Holmes dumping out his vial of cocaine and burying his syringe in the sand came from.

God forbid that somebody stepped on the syringe!

 

(Sorry to wander off on a tangent like that. But I believe you or somebody mentioned that scene before, and that's all I can think of. Of course in real life, I'm sure they retrieved it. But in-universe -- yikes!)

[Bakerstreet Irregular]

(He did bury it deep, but eventually, I suppose, the sand would have washed away so I can see the "yikes" issue for sure and yes, I would imagine that as soon as the scene was shot the crew would be scurrying to dig it back up.)

 

Going back to "The Great Game" another thing that has me wondering if he felt something at the death of the blind woman is the way he reacted, slowly putting the phone down and slumping back into the chair and that kind of blank look that comes over his face.