Episode 2.2 ,"The Hounds Of Baskerville"

[Carol the Dabbler]

That's what I've heard too -- "cor blimey" is a euphemistic modification of "God blind me."

 

And just "cor" is presumably short for "cor blimey."

[Pseudonym]

Yea, cor would would be short for cor blimey but no one really says it. Or very very few people. I have an awful cockney accent I put on now and again and I might say it then though my standard is 'shine ya shoes, guv'nor?' but seriously, no. Of course it pales in comparison to my upper class pilot accent, 'chocks away, old chum!'

[Boton]

I have a terrible Hoosier (Indiana) accent that will come in when I'm tired or when I'm doing certain kinds of chores.  Luckily, I never put Sherlock and John in situations where they might accidentally drop a Hoosierism!

[Carol the Dabbler]

Ooh, gimme some examples of what they might say!

[Artemis]

I've got four questions about this episode.

 

1.  Was there 1 hound, or 2?  After they kill the first hound, it appears that they hear another growl and shoot again, but they never address where the second hound might have come from, do they?  They only discuss the one kept by the innkeepers.  It all happens so fast that I can't tell for sure what's going on there.  Also, when it's lying on the ground, the first hound looks like it has floppier ears, like a black lab or lab mix, but the outline of the head on the second hound looks like it has pointy ears.  And if there's only one, why is the episode titled "Hounds", plural?  Just a bit confused there.

 

2.  Why did Dr. Mortimer get mad at John and leave after what Dr. Frankland said in the pub?  Was it because she found out he was investigating (which he kind of already told her in a roundabout way), or because she found out he was a "live-in PA" to a private detective?  She seemed more bothered by the "live-in" part, but I don't really see why.  Her parting remark was, "Why don't you buy him a drink?  I think he likes you."  So I was left with the impression that she thought "live-in" meant "gay" or something, but that's quite an assumption, and not really anything to get angry about... is it?

 

3.  Why was Lestrade there?  Was it actually to spy on Sherlock for Mycroft?  He looked a little unsure when he said, "I don't just do what your brother tells me."

 

4.  It is common anywhere or in any context to abbreviate the name of an American state with only one capital letter, as in "Liberty, In"?  When I was watching the episode the first time, it had crossed my mind that "In" could have stood for "Indiana", but I dismissed it because I was always taught that the proper way to abbreviate a state (when mailing a letter, for example) was with two capitals, e.g. "IN".  But maybe that's how they do it in the UK or something, for all I know.  :/  Or maybe they were just trying to throw off the audience because "IN" would have been too obvious, but I don't think using a typographical error to accomplish that is very clever, lol.

 

 

[Pseudonym]

The ways I take it:

 

1. There was the real one, kept by the inkeepers, that was getting 'bigged up' in people's minds by the drugs. There was also the one that was a pure hallucination, that, having been told there was a monstrous dog on the loose, everyone was prepped to imagine. So one real, one not. 

 

2. The way Franklin emphasises John lives in says to me that he's gay, but pretending not to be to try to seduce her into giving information. He's using her and it's never going to go anywhere because he's already in a committed relationship with Sherlock. It's not so much the gay thing as the idea he's already in a relationship. If Sherlock were female I think the doctor would have the same reaction. 

 

3. Mycroft sent Lestrade because Sherlock was poking about in things he shouldn't. It would have made more sense though to either have someone with jurisdiction involved, or an agent, or an army officer. Sending Lestrade in is weird. Maybe it's part of the reason for Mystrade, if Lestrade were involved with Mycroft as more than 'distant acquaintances' perhaps he would be more likely to acquiesce to keeping an eye on Mycroft's wayward baby brother, even if he was in another part of the country. So yea, no answer there, it is a bit odd. 

 

4. Speaking for myself I don't abbreviate American states at all, and actually it drives me nuts when people do. How the hell am I meant to know what two letters stand for in a country half way around the globe? If I was going to abbreviate it though I'd likely go for In, not realising they should both be capitals. Since it's one word, I'd probably use one capital.  

[Boton]

Regarding the last point (as an Indiana girl myself), I always assume that the memory of "Liberty In (or IN)" was a memory of seeing a postal address.  IN is the official postal abbreviation for Indiana; many years ago, it used to be Ind., which made more sense, but they standardized to two-letter abbreviations in caps, no periods.  I think it was an early attempt to allow for machine sorting of the mail, but I might be wrong.

[Pseudonym]

Actually, do we ever see it written down except for in Sherlock's mind palace?

[SherlockedCAMPer]

Yes, during Henry's flashback. It's grainy but legible.

[Arcadia]

The ways I take it:

 

3. Mycroft sent Lestrade because Sherlock was poking about in things he shouldn't. It would have made more sense though to either have someone with jurisdiction involved, or an agent, or an army officer. Sending Lestrade in is weird. Maybe it's part of the reason for Mystrade, if Lestrade were involved with Mycroft as more than 'distant acquaintances' perhaps he would be more likely to acquiesce to keeping an eye on Mycroft's wayward baby brother, even if he was in another part of the country. So yea, no answer there, it is a bit odd. 

 

 

I always just took Lestrade at his word, lol. But if Mycroft did send him, maybe it's because Lestrade is someone who's presence Sherlock would accept? 

[Artemis]

4. Speaking for myself I don't abbreviate American states at all, and actually it drives me nuts when people do. How the hell am I meant to know what two letters stand for in a country half way around the globe? If I was going to abbreviate it though I'd likely go for In, not realising they should both be capitals. Since it's one word, I'd probably use one capital.  

 

I can understand that.  But if an important part of the story was going to hinge on that semi-important detail, I would have thought they would look it up to make sure they presented it correctly.  :/  Even aside from the incorrect capitalization, it's sort of inconsistent with grammar rules.  They should have at least included a period to indicate an abbreviation.  And Ind. would have been more correct than In.

 

Abbreviating states without two capitals would be weird, I think, because not every state's abbreviation is the first and second letter together, and some states are two words (like New Hampshire).  Using one capital letter for some states but two for others would be inconsistent, and using one capital for a two-word state (like Nh) would look a little funny.  There are a lot of single words abbreviated with two capitals anyway, such as NW for Northwest.

 

 

[Artemis]

Actually, do we ever see it written down except for in Sherlock's mind palace?

 

Yes, what CAMPer said.  We see it pretty clearly when Henry is recalling the words to Dr. Mortimer, and then again on Frankland's shirt in Henry's flashback to the murder.

 

 

[Hikari]

This episode is not without its problems.  It's the weakest one of S2, but since the other two set such a high bar, that actually makes it quite good.  I was a bit miffed by in on first viewing, due to the heavy sci-fi/techno element . . but it grew on me a great deal with subsequent viewings.  Mark Gatiss had the large and unenviable task of translating 'the' best known Sherlock Holmes story, and the most-filmed episode, into 21st century terms that would make sense in a modern context.  I love the views of Devonshire & I lurvelurvelurve the set-up to the case proper, in Baker Street, Cluedo, the harpoon . . and the calling of Henry Knight.  Some of the best dialogue and comradeship moments between our duo, both 'at home' and on location.

 

"Is that why you're calling yourself GREG?/I don't just do what your big brother tells me" has become the foundation for all the Mystrade shipping out there.  Many shippers can devise any number of scenarios in which Lestrade does exactly what Sherlock's Big Brother tells him to do . . .and likes it.

 

Given how often Mr. Gatiss invokes Margaret Thatcher (this being the first of two episodes he wrote around her), that makes me wonder--is he poking fun at Ronnie's pal, the Tory minister, or is MG actually a Maggie fanboy? 

 

"Who?  (general mouths agape)  "Who is this?

--SH, upon being confronted with a picture of Mrs. Thatcher

 

Gee, Sherlock . . .even Americans know the answer to that question!

 

In Sherlock's defense, he would have been in infant school during the Thatcher administration.  No excuse, though. 

[Artemis]

"Who?  (general mouths agape)  "Who is this?

--SH, upon being confronted with a picture of Mrs. Thatcher

 

Gee, Sherlock . . .even Americans know the answer to that question!

 

In Sherlock's defense, he would have been in infant school during the Thatcher administration.  No excuse, though. 

 

I admit, I did/do not know Margaret Thatcher on sight.  I know hardly any famous person on sight, lol.  Name and history/accomplishments, sure; but picture, I'd have to guess.

 

 

[Artemis]

Isn't it funny how, in both THoB and TFP, the repressed trauma-based childhood memory of a dog turned out to be a person?  Only one was a murderer and the other a victim.  There are a lot of parallels between the two episodes, really.

 

 

"Childhood trauma masked by an invented memory.  Boring!"

 

^ The irony.

 

 

[SherlockedCAMPer]

My thought on the in kind of goes back to what Sherlock said to John about memories being only partially accurate in TBB. We see Henry's memory, but it is an inaccurate one for any of a number of reasons such as forgetting the period that would go after a 2-letter state abbreviation when only the 1st letter is capitalized (similar to the Ind. listed earlier).

[Artemis]

My thought on the in kind of goes back to what Sherlock said to John about memories being only partially accurate in TBB. We see Henry's memory, but it is an inaccurate one for any of a number of reasons such as forgetting the period that would go after a 2-letter state abbreviation when only the 1st letter is capitalized (similar to the Ind. listed earlier).

 

I think that could make sense for the first time we see it in his memory, because at that point the comma after "Liberty" isn't shown either (presumably because the writers don't want to give it away too early).  But his flashback of the actual murder, in the final Hollow scene, is as much intended to show us "This is what really happened" as it is to show us Henry remembering what really happened, so I take it as an accurate memory.

 

Also, I just remembered that we see "Liberty, In" another time, not in anyone's memory, when Sherlock is looking at the information about H.O.U.N.D. on the computer.

 

 

[J.P.]

Isn't it funny how, in both THoB and TFP, the repressed trauma-based childhood memory of a dog turned out to be a person?  Only one was a murderer and the other a victim.  There are a lot of parallels between the two episodes, really.

Exactly.

 

As for 2 - I always thought that John was using his usual MO and tried to hit on Dr. Mortimer to get the information along the way. When Frankland says he's investigating she realizes that John isn't interested in her, hence the reaction.

[Pseudonym]

Though I’m sure he would have, er, ‘taken one for the team.’

[Janyss]

This episode is not without its problems.  It's the weakest one of S2, but since the other two set such a high bar, that actually makes it quite good.  I was a bit miffed by in on first viewing, due to the heavy sci-fi/techno element . . but it grew on me a great deal with subsequent viewings.  Mark Gatiss had the large and unenviable task of translating 'the' best known Sherlock Holmes story, and the most-filmed episode, into 21st century terms that would make sense in a modern context.  I love the views of Devonshire & I lurvelurvelurve the set-up to the case proper, in Baker Street, Cluedo, the harpoon . . and the calling of Henry Knight.  Some of the best dialogue and comradeship moments between our duo, both 'at home' and on location.

 

"Is that why you're calling yourself GREG?/I don't just do what your big brother tells me" has become the foundation for all the Mystrade shipping out there.  Many shippers can devise any number of scenarios in which Lestrade does exactly what Sherlock's Big Brother tells him to do . . .and likes it.

 

Given how often Mr. Gatiss invokes Margaret Thatcher (this being the first of two episodes he wrote around her), that makes me wonder--is he poking fun at Ronnie's pal, the Tory minister, or is MG actually a Maggie fanboy? 

 

"Who?  (general mouths agape)  "Who is this?

--SH, upon being confronted with a picture of Mrs. Thatcher

 

Gee, Sherlock . . .even Americans know the answer to that question!

 

In Sherlock's defense, he would have been in infant school during the Thatcher administration.  No excuse, though. 

 

I have been completely caught in this episode. I have seen it once only and I'm waiting for some real time off to rewatch...So far, it is one of my favourite, in fact. Mark Gatiss did very well with, as you  said, this large task (I'm not sure he would call it "unenviable"...). I love the story and its interpretation in our days, the parallels between the original book and what we see (the map! They kept the map "on a very wide scale"!...). The plot is both complex, good and easy to read, with parallel stories, digressions (does it exist in English?) full of  much irony and poetry (the contrary of what we get, in fact, in many Moffat's épisodes, which are unusefully complicated and so serious and dark...)

 

I didn't notice the "Mystrade" implication of the lines you quote (I don't remember them, actually), but even if it could be cute, I don't really believe in "Mystrade". May be I'll change my mind...

 

About Margaret Thatcher...That must be an exaggeration of the fact that Sherlock, in ACD's books, doesn't remember things which seem essential (about the solar system...). And a politician can't be more famous, mainly by the hatred she raised against her: here in France we have a very famous song called "Miss Maggie", against her and the model of society she represented in her time. The song caused many problems between French and British diplomats. It is quite difficult to guess Moftiss's opinion about Margaret Thatcher, as "Sherlock" has certainly not direct political speech (even if it conveys much in terms of philosophy, psychology and relation to life, nation, etc...). But the parallel with Napoleon ("The six Thatchers") is the transposition of "The six Napoléons", isn't it?) is not a plea in favour of a good opinion about her in our dear writers' minds.

[Arcadia]

Isn't it funny how, in both THoB and TFP, the repressed trauma-based childhood memory of a dog turned out to be a person?  Only one was a murderer and the other a victim.  There are a lot of parallels between the two episodes, really.

 

 

"Childhood trauma masked by an invented memory.  Boring!"

 

^ The irony.

 

OMG, did he really say that??!?!!? (checks) Oh geez, he did. Oh, Moftiss......  :wacko:

 

 

 

About Margaret Thatcher...That must be an exaggeration of the fact that Sherlock, in ACD's books, doesn't remember things which seem essential (about the solar system...). And a politician can't be more famous, mainly by the hatred she raised against her: here in France we have a very famous song called "Miss Maggie", against her and the model of society she represented in her time. The song caused many problems between French and British diplomats. It is quite difficult to guess Moftiss's opinion about Margaret Thatcher, as "Sherlock" has certainly not direct political speech (even if it conveys much in terms of philosophy, psychology and relation to life, nation, etc...). But the parallel with Napoleon ("The six Thatchers") is the transposition of "The six Napoléons", isn't it?) is not a plea in favour of a good opinion about her in our dear writers' minds.

 

 

Oh, I think it's a safe bet that Moftiss are not fans of The Iron Lady.

[Carol the Dabbler]

I've got four questions about this episode.

 

1.  Was there 1 hound, or 2?  After they kill the first hound, it appears that they hear another growl and shoot again, but they never address where the second hound might have come from, do they?  They only discuss the one kept by the inn owners.  It all happens so fast that I can't tell for sure what's going on there.  Also, when it's lying on the ground, the first hound looks like it has floppier ears, like a black lab or lab mix, but the outline of the head on the second hound looks like it has pointy ears.  And if there's only one, why is the episode titled "Hounds", plural?  Just a bit confused there.

 

2.  Why did Dr. Mortimer get mad at John and leave after what Dr. Frankland said in the pub?  Was it because she found out he was investigating (which he kind of already told her in a roundabout way), or because she found out he was a "live-in PA" to a private detective?  She seemed more bothered by the "live-in" part, but I don't really see why.  Her parting remark was, "Why don't you buy him a drink?  I think he likes you."  So I was left with the impression that she thought "live-in" meant "gay" or something, but that's quite an assumption, and not really anything to get angry about... is it?

 

3.  Why was Lestrade there?  Was it actually to spy on Sherlock for Mycroft?  He looked a little unsure when he said, "I don't just do what your brother tells me."

 

4.  It is common anywhere or in any context to abbreviate the name of an American state with only one capital letter, as in "Liberty, In"?  When I was watching the episode the first time, it had crossed my mind that "In" could have stood for "Indiana", but I dismissed it because I was always taught that the proper way to abbreviate a state (when mailing a letter, for example) was with two capitals, e.g. "IN".  But maybe that's how they do it in the UK or something, for all I know.  :/  Or maybe they were just trying to throw off the audience because "IN" would have been too obvious, but I don't think using a typographical error to accomplish that is very clever, lol.

 

1.  How many hounds?  There are a bunch, actually.  There's the big one that the innkeepers were harboring, then there's the widowed mother's pet (little Whiskey), then the picture on the CIA sweatshirt (the biggest flaw in the plot, in my opinion -- as I've pointed out before, the CIA is *very* secretive, so NO WAY would their agents wear those shirts), the hallucinated hound, uhh -- is that it?

 

2.  I think Dr. Mortimer's reaction has been covered very well already.

 

3.  Lestrade -- no idea.

 

4.  State abbreviations -- most of this has already been covered, but just to sum it up:  the original abbreviation of Indiana was "Ind." (with a period).  Then when they introduced "ZIP Codes" (our postal codes), the also standardized all state abbreviations to two letters (some of which are confusingly similar and thus awfully hard to remember).  These are properly written with no period.  The transition seems to have confused many people, though, because I really have seen "In." on letters.

[Artemis]

1. There was the real one, kept by the inkeepers, that was getting 'bigged up' in people's minds by the drugs. There was also the one that was a pure hallucination, that, having been told there was a monstrous dog on the loose, everyone was prepped to imagine. So one real, one not.

 

So just to clarify, in the final scene at the Hollow, they shoot the real one and it falls to the ground, and Henry sees that it was just an ordinary dog.  Then after that, they hear another one and shoot at it (while Frankland takes the opportunity to run off), but that one is just a hallucination and not another real dog?

 

 

[T.o.b.y]

I find it hard to believe that they really had no idea yet when they made this episode for where they were going to go with Sherlock's backstory, Redbeard, etc. I think it works pretty well retconned. Especially that Sherlock freaks out so badly - considering his experience with drugs, he should be used to hallucinations. But if the whole case stirs up his own repressed childhood trauma... It explains a lot. That he was reluctant to take it at first and that it shook him up one he got involved.

[Artemis]

Oh, I don't find that hard to believe at all.  I think they could easily have come up with his backstory well after S2 was made.  In fact I think it's far easier as a writer to put it together later and try to make it look like the details fit in and connect with earlier material in retrospect than it is to plan it out ahead of time and hint at it subtly on screen, years in advance.

 

Personally I don't believe they had Sherlock's backstory or 'Redbeard' until S3.