The "Victorian bit" at the end of the Bride

[Kat 9]

Hello to you all,

I'm confused about the ending of the special and would be glad of your thoughts. When modern Sherlock is getting closer to the car suddenly we see Holmes and Watson talking about airplanes. This scene appears almost out of nowhere. Then we have a nice transition from a street with carriages to a street with buses. That's great. Maybe it shows that Sherlock Holmes a fictional character is timeless.That's how I understood it. I couldn't find a thing about this ending online even when I typed all sorts of things into the search engine in 2017 hoping for some revelations, a few months after the episode aired. What is your opinion on this scene that takes place in a Victorian setting? In your view is it in modern Sherlock's mind palace? If that were so, how would you explain the change of the street then? When the street changes we don't see modern Sherlock in Baker Street, but a view from the window only. Modern Sherlock is near his car close to the airport when the Victorian bit takes place is how I understood it.

Oh, I know that the grave digging and the scene at the hospital takes place inside Sherlock's mind palace. He doesn't leave the plane to dig the grave. Sherlock leaves the plane later. The waterfall is certainly in the mind palace. It's hard to decide what's in his mind palace and what's not so I gave 8/10 for the episode.

[Carol the Dabbler 14,783]

22 hours ago, Kat said:

When modern Sherlock is getting closer to the car suddenly we see Holmes and Watson talking about airplanes. This scene appears almost out of nowhere. Then we have a nice transition from a street with carriages to a street with buses. That's great. Maybe it shows that Sherlock Holmes a fictional character is timeless.That's how I understood it.

Yes, that's my general impression.

22 hours ago, Kat said:

What is your opinion on this scene that takes place in a Victorian setting? In your view is it in modern Sherlock's mind palace?

No, that's not the feeling I get.  I think those are the real Holmes and Watson.  When Holmes looks out the window, and then the scene changes to modern London -- well, he and Watson have just been discussing the future, so maybe he's imagining us?

All I know for sure is, that scene gives me goose bumps!

 

[Arcadia 18,654]

8 hours ago, Carol the Dabbler said:

11 hours ago, Kat said:

What is your opinion on this scene that takes place in a Victorian setting? In your view is it in modern Sherlock's mind palace?

No, that's not the feeling I get.  I think those are the real Holmes and Watson.  When Holmes looks out the window, and then the scene changes to modern London -- well, he and Watson have just been discussing the future, so maybe he's imagining us?

That's what I thought too ... it's Victorian Holmes, imagining what the future will be like. I think they're deliberately trying to blur the line between imagination and reality. It's a trick that's used quite often in film ... usually as sort of an "inside joke."

[Kat 9]

Well put about blurring imagination with the real world. That was my point in asking this question. I even wrote that this fragment appears out of nowhere. Modern Sherlock is outside the car in his famous contemporary coat and then we get this scene that makes us think about what we're actually seeing.

I like that coat it's a nice transition from the Victorian coat. It's strange that I wrote how Sherlock Holmes is a fictional character, but it seems such emphasis is needed, though not necessarily here, I hope. There was a famous survey where respondents thought Churchill was fictional! This Prime Minister lived to be 90 and the current Queen even attented his funeral, wow.

The difference between fiction and reality has always baffled scientists ever since we left the Middle Ages behind us. I'm glad my question has generated interest.

[Carol the Dabbler 14,783]

3 hours ago, Kat said:

There was a famous survey where respondents thought Churchill was fictional!

Do you happen to recall what percentage thought that?  I assume they were younger people, and they'd probably heard of him only in some movie or TV show, where he was portrayed by some actor, just like all the fictional characters.

It's easy to say they should have remembered their history lessons, but there's an awful lot of history, and therefore A] the books can't properly cover it all, and B] the students aren't likely to remember every bit of what is presented.  I made good grades in history class, but I was unaware until my adult years that virtually all Japanese-Americans had been incarcerated during World War II, merely because of their ancestry. If our history books covered it at all, it must have been a very brief mention, worded in euphemisms.

 

[Arcadia 18,654]

10 hours ago, Carol the Dabbler said:

It's easy to say they should have remembered their history lessons, but there's an awful lot of history, and therefore A] the books can't properly cover it all, and B] the students aren't likely to remember every bit of what is presented.  I made good grades in history class, but I was unaware until my adult years that virtually all Japanese-Americans had been incarcerated during World War II, merely because of their ancestry. If our history books covered it at all, it must have been a very brief mention, worded in euphemisms.

Whereas that is something I well remember learning at least by college, maybe even high school. And I'm MUCH younger than you! 

I suspect it's simply a subject I was more interested in, unlike, say, the Boer War, which bores me so silly I can't even remember when it took place. 😉 

 

[Carol the Dabbler 14,783]

1 hour ago, Arcadia said:

... that is something I well remember learning at least by college, maybe even high school. And I'm MUCH younger than you! 

Your relative youth (such as it is    ) may be the key.  I have a vague recollection of something like one sentence in our high-school history book, to the effect of Japanese-Americans being "relocated" during WWII -- certainly nothing about them being locked up inside tall barbed-wire fences patrolled by armed guards.  Maybe the textbooks we used were written when the US was still (quite rightfully!) embarrassed by that chapter of our history, but by the time you were in school, enough time had passed that the authors were encouraged to tell it like it was.

1 hour ago, Arcadia said:

the Boer War, which bores me so silly

Presumably how it got its name -- or was that your point?

I have absolutely no idea when it occurred, other than "a while back."  I can, however, tell you that the word Boer is Dutch for farmer (related to the -bor part in the English word neighbor), because the Dutch settlers in South Africa were mostly farmers -- and the reason I know that is that language interests me FAR more than history does (at least, the way history was being taught when I was in school -- e.g., memorize this list of names and dates -- which hopefully has changed).

 

 

[Arcadia 18,654]

6 hours ago, Carol the Dabbler said:

7 hours ago, Arcadia said:

the Boer War, which bores me so silly

Presumably how it got its name -- or was that your point?

Hah, I wish I was that clever! Alas, it was simply the first name my tired brain could think of. Although maybe my brain was trying to be clever and I just didn't notice?  

[J.P. 8,366]

I think the writers just wanted to mess with our brains. I think I remember a similar thing in an episode of Dr Who written by Mark.

What is reality, what is fiction, what are they from the perspective of the show's universe?
Is modern Sherlock in canon Sherlock's head or the other way round?
Is the canon Sherlock a real man or just a charakter written in the Strand Magazine by canon Dr. Watson - and both of them are in modern Sherlock's mind, because he thinks he doesn't live up to the Blog-Sherlock written by John?

I also think, that Mofftiss didn't intend to answer any of those questions. They play with us, and to be honest, I imensely enjoy the ambiguity of it all.

[Carol the Dabbler 14,783]

5 hours ago, J.P. said:

I also think, that Mofftiss didn't intend to answer any of those questions. They play with us, and to be honest, I imensely enjoy the ambiguity of it all.

I think your first sentence is correct.  As for the second one, I also think they do -- which I sometimes enjoy and sometimes don't!

 

[Artemis 4,095]

On 3/31/2021 at 1:52 AM, Carol the Dabbler said:

Maybe the textbooks we used were written when the US was still (quite rightfully!) embarrassed by that chapter of our history, but by the time you were in school, enough time had passed that the authors were encouraged to tell it like it was.

There's probably something to that.  I learned all the dirty details in high school, multiple times, and in middle school too I think.

Overall I think my American History education was fairly balanced.  Half of it was about the bad things Americans did, and half was about the good things.  In generations past, I think it skewed a lot more towards emphasizing the good and hiding the bad, while these days, it's gone the opposite direction, to emphasizing the bad and ignoring the good.

 

[Carol the Dabbler 14,783]

1 hour ago, Artemis said:

Overall I think my American History education was fairly balanced.  Half of it was about the bad things Americans did, and half was about the good things.  In generations past, I think it skewed a lot more towards emphasizing the good and hiding the bad, while these days, it's gone the opposite direction, to emphasizing the bad and ignoring the good.

That does seem to be human nature, doesn't it?  Recognizing and correcting an overemphasis, then overcorrecting till the opposite overemphasis is reached.  Eggs are good for you.  No, wait, eggs are bad for you.  I'm getting a bit dizzy.

 

[Kat 9]

I can't recall the name of the survey, but it was about which persons are real and which are fictional. I think it was conducted in Britian. Here's what I found for those that are interested in the survey according to which some respondents thought Sherlock Holmes was a real character, animate, with body and flesh to put it humorously. https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2013/may/13/michael-goves-claim-teenagers-ignorance

https://www.outsidethebeltway.com/winston_churchill_a_myth_sherlock_holmes_real/

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1577511/Winston-Churchill-didnt-really-exist-say-teens.html

you need to subscibe to read the Telegraph, but maybe if someone has one they could access the text. I'm just offering different points of view. There was an article from the daily mail, but apparently it wasn't reliable so I didn't post it. However I include a tabloid to balance the views, honesty is vital.

https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/britons-think-winston-churchill-and-florence-291974

you have to consent to cookies for this one.  This is from a different country https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/politics-and-nation/many-britons-think-gandhi-never-existed-churchill-was-a-fictional-character/articleshow/2756814.cms?from=mdr

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2008-02-04/nearly-quarter-of-brits-think-churchill-a-myth-poll/1031856

Enjoy and feel free to comment!

[Arcadia 18,654]

Somehow none of that surprises me. Which is rather depressing, but not unexpected.

[Carol the Dabbler 14,783]

Thanks for tracking that down, Kat!

On 4/13/2021 at 12:43 PM, Kat said:

There was an article from the daily mail, but apparently it wasn't reliable so I didn't post it.

I assume you're talking about this article?  It does, however, include this handy chart of the names covered in the survey:

... that makes me question the survey's definitions of "fact" and "fiction."  King Arthur and Robin Hood may have actually existed (or may not), while Mona Lisa, Dick Turpin, and Lady Godiva definitely did exist but may not have actually done what they're famous for.  Thus half of their "fiction" names could more rightly be called "questionable."  And enough stories have built up around several of their "fact" names (for example, Richard the Lionheart and Cleopatra) that even though they were real people, there may be little truth in what we "know" about them.  In other words, it's perfectly understandable that people might put a lot of the survey's names into the opposite category.   I would have omitted the iffy ones and substituted names with a more clear-cut status.

I'm a bit critical of this wording from the Australian Broadcasting Company's article:

Quote

Britons are losing their grip on reality, according to a poll which shows nearly a quarter think Winston Churchill was a myth....

In other words, the great majority (77%) of Brits know that Churchill was real, which is a good thing, right?  This article is more informative than many, because it generally includes percentages.  It doesn't particularly bother me that a mere three percent think Dickens is fictitious.  But 58% thinking Holmes was real does seem awfully strange.

I suspect that a good bit of the confusion comes from movies and novels that include historical figures alongside fictitious characters.  For example, some of the 23% who thought Florence Nightingale was fictional may have read the sixth Enola Holmes novel, in which she is a prominent "guest star."

 

[Arcadia 18,654]

On 4/16/2021 at 12:14 AM, Carol the Dabbler said:

Mona Lisa, Dick Turpin, and Lady Godiva definitely did exist

I'm sure glad you said that, for a minute there i thought I was losing my grip on reality..... 

[J.P. 8,366]

Not sure about three Musketeers, but D'Artagnan was a historical figure - saw a documentary few days ago. But he too belongs to the category of possible real sources for fictional characters. Not to mention many real people find their ways into fiction under changed names and strongly altered stories - as in case of Sherlock Holmes. Or King Artur. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

 

[Carol the Dabbler 14,783]

12 hours ago, J.P. said:

D'Artagnan was a historical figure - saw a documentary few days ago. But he too belongs to the category of possible real sources for fictional characters. Not to mention many real people find their ways into fiction under changed names and strongly altered stories - as in case of Sherlock Holmes.

True!  Holmes was apparently based on a medical doctor, Joseph Bell, who was able to make amazing deductions merely from seeing a new patient walk in and sit down.  So exactly where do you draw the line between "real" and "fictitious"?

 

[J.P. 8,366]

There is no line I'm afraid
Okay, in the recent times you can say if someone was a real person or a fictional one, but it ends with the name and some general facts. You might as well depicts someone real in fiction using a different name or use the name and make something totally fictional, let's say, like Abraham Lincoln: Vampire Hunter. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯