#but (and i love him okay) this sherlock is pretty different from acd canon holmes but in a bad way

[moinsbienquekaworu]

Yeah I've had a S4 poster on my wall since middle school and I still have a deep deep fondness for the show, I mean I'm reading fanfics for it still, but if you think that Eurus Holmes was a good and well executed idea I don't know what to tell you :')

Unstoppable force (I really really want to rewatch some Sherlock BBC episodes and my brain won't let me do anything else) vs immovable object (none of them are actually good and I don't want to go through that experience again)

[glass-rose-paperweight]

The Mysterious Case of Queerbaiting

BBC Sherlock

There’s one thing about BBC Sherlock that has never made sense to me. As I’m sure many of you are aware (and something I’ve talked about before), BBC Sherlock has been accused of Queerbaiting, of intentionally setting up John and Sherlock as being attracted to each other but never following through with that or even intending to do it. And it’s one of those things that has just always baffled me; I can’t make it make sense. A lot has already been said about the way things are portrayed in the show and what the subtext behind a million different things could mean (seriously, I love that I am part of a fandom with so many perceptive and intelligent people; watching the show is only half the fun) and how none of it makes sense. Today, I would like to use my powers of deduction get to the bottom of this mystery.

The way I see it, there are 3 possible explanations.

1. The Producers of the Show Queerbaited

I have to admit, this seems unlikely given that one of them is literally a gay man. Why would a gay man knowingly and intentionally engage in something like this? Why would a gay man write a script that constantly pokes at Watson’s sexuality if the only point was to make it into a joke? To say ‘oh, no, the poor straight guy is constantly mistaken as gay. Look at how defensive he is getting, hahaha, what a funny joke’. That just makes no sense. It makes no sense for Mark Gatiss to have gone to the lengths he has gone to within the show, from whatever direction he gave the actors so that they portray an obvious chemistry between Sherlock and John to having a jealousy trope at John and Mary’s wedding except it’s Sherlock getting Jealous over John’s ex commander to this interesting thing about the best man speech to Mary saying ‘neither one of us were his first’ or ‘the man we both love’ or ‘I know what the two of you could become’ to Sherlock putting John Watson face on The Ideal Man to all the gay artwork in TBB (I could not for the life of me find this meta even though I know I saved it, and I am so distressed) to a thousand other things that the fandom has discussed over and over and over again. Who puts that much effort into queerbaiting? Especially when you would have a vested interest representation? So, it just doesn’t make sense for those directly involved with the show the be the reason.

2. Higher Ups at BBC Told Them No

This seems much more plausible to me, however I still doubt it. I can’t say I know just a whole lot about BBC, but I do know they have tended to be on the more progressive side of things, and I just really can’t see any of the higher ups just flat out refusing to allow the writers to make Johnlock canon. The first season gets a pass because I’m pretty sure that openly same sex couples weren’t allowed in media at the time (I think it was allowed in 2011, but I’m honestly not sure. I’m in the US, not the UK, so if I’ve gotten this detail wrong, please correct me). But they had 3 other seasons and another 7 years to make it happen, and I just don’t think that the higher ups at BBC would have just flatly said ‘no’. So, that leaves the last explanation.

3. Someone Other Than Those Involved With The Show Stopped Them

The majority of the Sherlock Holmes stories are in public domain. Copyright expired in 1980 in Canada and in 2000 for the UK (X). This would seem to make it a pretty cut and dry case: in the UK, you can do pretty much whatever you want with the Sherlock Holmes stories. But it’s no quite so simple. The US works a little different because copywrite law isn’t the same (isn’t he US just great?). As it stands, there are still 6 stories today that the Conan Doyle Estate still has the exclusive rights to in the US. If I understand how the copywrite law works correctly, that would have been 14 stories back in 2010. But, that shouldn’t have affected anything going on in the UK, right? Theoretically, no. The Conan Doyle Estate wouldn’t have had any legal rights to coveting the characters and the stories in the UK. However, that doesn’t mean that those involved with the show wouldn’t have been extremely apprehensive of the power that the Estate wielded, especially considering the previous decade of legal battles. Only 3 cases are listed here, but the Conan Doyle Estate is very protective of its copyright of the work (as evident by the fact that they are literally trying to sue Netflix, among others, for portraying characters in a way they supposedly weren’t portrayed until later books). There were other court cases after 2010, however. A decisive court case in 2013 declared once and for all that the stories written prior to 1923 were completely in public domain and that a license wasn’t needed to create things based on any of the stories prior to those dates (something the Estate had convinced BBC of when they first created BBC Sherlock). However, an appeal by the Estate was later made, stating “Sherlock Holmes is a ‘complex’ character, that his background and attributes had been created over time, and that to deny copyright on the whole Sherlock Holmes character would be tantamount to giving the famous detective ‘multiple personalities.’” The appeal was, thankfully, thrown out. But it’s the attempt that matters. 

Oh, and here’s a fun little tidbit, the 2 stories that have, perhaps, the strongest evidence of there being more than just friendship (this quote, this quote, and this quote (which was said after Holmes stated that, if he had hypothetically loved someone, he would kill the person that killed the person he loved)) come from the stories The Problem of Thor Bridge (the first quote) and The Adventure of the Three Garridebs (the last 2), which both belonged to the Estate in the US until after the final season of the show.

So, let’s get into the minds of BBC, for a moment. Someone has decided they want to reimage Sherlock in a new and unique way: modern day. The Holmes Estate has been fighting legal battles in America for the past decade and has won all of them, and has also issued the verdict that to make stories, you need a license. You say ‘okay’ and go along with it because you’re a big corporation that can afford to do such a thing. When the first season of the show airs, it isn’t legal to have openly gay characters, so everything has to be regulated to subtext. You outright state that being gay is okay because you want to let people know you are in full support of homosexuality, even if it isn’t legal yet. The writers and producers of the show are huge ACD fanboys and BIG fans of The Private Life of Sherlock Holmes, so, yeah, there’s some gay subtext. By the second season, hey! Homosexuality is legal! Except the 2 stories with the biggest indication of Sherlock and John’s attraction towards each other are still very much in the hands of the Estate, who has spent the past decade fighting legal battles. You may be able to pay for a license, but a lawsuit really isn’t something you’d like to go through. Whether the Estate has any legal standing to do such a thing or not, a lawsuit would be a long, messy battle. By the third season, a court case in America has decided that anything written prior to 1923 doesn’t need a license (damn, that’s 2 seasons of being successfully intimidated into a license). However, the two stories with greatest evidence still belong to the Estate, and the Estate tried to weasel their way into owning more of Sherlock than they should by arguing about his character. They probably wouldn’t take well to an openly gay Sherlock, would they? By season 4, the same problem still exists. Cut to 2020. Both of the stories with those quotes have entered public domain. But, uh oh, a month, a month before the 10th anniversary of your show, the news breaks that the Estate is filing yet another lawsuit, this time against multiple different parties, one of them being the mega corporation of Netflix (god, that’s some balls right there) that what they did broke copyright law because it portrayed characters in a way they supposedly weren’t portrayed until later stories, stories the Estate still owns (that is some balls right there). So you might feel the need to cover your ass a bit. Despite the past decade of saying that they characters you have portrayed are nothing but platonic, the fans don’t seem to buy it, and, in hindsight, there’s a lot of reasons not to. Maybe something needs to be created that subtly tells fans that they really are just looking too far into it. And, what great luck, a YouTube channel is asking you to make something for the 10th anniversary. 

Is this what happened? I don’t really know. I have nothing more than circumstantial evidence and guesswork here to go off of. I’m not privy to the private thoughts of Mark Gatiss or Steven Moffat or any of the head honchos at BBC. I don’t know what kind of executive decisions are made in the best interest of the company. All I know is that the Conan Doyle Estate is hanging on to whatever copyrights they can possibly manage, that they are willing to level lawsuits on, quite frankly, ridiculous terms, and that having a lawsuit put against you is no laughing matter and that those whose work revolves around Sherlock Holmes and creating stories about him would want to tread carefully. This explanation is, admittedly, far fetched. But it’s the only one that really makes sense. It’s the only one that would explain why a gay man and a generally progressive company would have a show that has layer upon layer upon layer saying that there is more between John and Sherlock than just friendship, as well as a rabid fanbase that they know ship it, and still not deliver, even attempt to squash such mindsets. 

There is, however, one final note I would like to end this on. I have talked before about how I think there will be another season, if the stars align and schedules allow such a thing. The best estimates of when another season might come out is 2022 or 2023, and I’m inclined to think the later year (god, that seems so far away). The year that the last story will become completely open to the public and the entirety of Sherlock Holmes will be public domain is 2023. So, maybe there is hope. 

[thewatsonbeekeepers]

The Wizard of Oz and tjlc - more thoughts

Edited to add in a link to this meta  by @bug-catcher-in-viridian-forest which inspired these thoughts - v wonderful eye for detail in these parallels and would definitely recommend reading it before this!

Entirely indebted to @bug-catcher-in-viridian-forest​, whose post made me think about this - I have no idea how recent this post is, because the time stamp says 2016 but it contains details from s4, which suggests a tumblr fuckup! But my 2c based off this -

I’m a big EMPer. And - as I mention in every meta I write, not just because it’s a hyperfixation but because it’s super important to tjlc - I’m a huge David Lynch fan. David Lynch is the guy who defined the dream-movie genre, who made it more than The Wizard of Oz and turned it into the most self-referential meta psychological thriller possible - and won huge critical plaudits for it. (Incidentally, except from Tarantino - his response to imo Lynch’s most underappreciated film, Fire Walk With Me, is hilarious. Look it up. But anyway.) Lynch is obsessed with The Wizard of Oz, and has stated it’s his favourite movie, and even went so far as to remake it as a very loosely adapted thriller in Wild at Heart. My meta on TAB (x) talks about how indebted Mofftiss are to David Lynch, and how making a dream based piece of media is basically impossible without using him as a reference point. Like a fool, I forgot Lynch’s own biggest reference point - The Wizard of Oz.

@bug-catcher-in-viridian-forest​ makes a lot of excellent parallels, but I want to pull on them in the light of EMP theory! The biggest one is that Eurus is Dorothy - red shoes, pigtails, blue and white dress. This is also, crucially, something Lynch does with his characters who are meant to parallel Dorothy - see Dorothy Vallens in Blue Velvet and her red shoes, for example.

Only the most iconic costume in the history of film. Anyway. Red shoes are also seen on the girl on the plane, although her costume is stripes, so not a perfect link - we do know, however, that they are the same person. Parallels with flying the plane and flying the house - lovely. Parallels with the name of the east wind - obviously this is derived from ACD canon, but it’s nevertheless lovely. However, where I want to jump in now is the plot of TWoO, because this is really important.

Everybody knows that Dorothy has a dog (making child!Eurus playing with Redbeard even more striking in resemblance) - but what is really important in TWoO is that her dog is going to die. That’s the reason she runs away from home, which is what leads to her getting knocked unconscious and having this mad dream. @sagestreet​ has pointed out exactly why dogs are connected with homosexuality, and I’ve elaborated in my EMP series on the idea that Sherlock realises he needs to wake up because John is suicidal without him. This ties in beyond well. Incidentally, the bit about TWoO that never works for me is that when Dorothy wakes up, Toto is still destined for death. Everybody just conveniently ignores it. What Sherlock has right - if we’re right (we may never tell, but I assure you guys that the series 5 I dreamed the other night was fantastic. is that reality shifting?*) - is that the dream can actually make a difference to the situation, because the dream is the difference between life and death. Think of If I Stay. Or something like that.

Okay. But here’s the deal. TWoO is all about home. When Dorothy is asked what she has learned from her dream (the knowledge that she needs to wake up), Dorothy says:

If I ever go looking for my heart's desire again, I won't look any further than my own backyard, because if it isn't there, I never really lost it to begin with.

If I may say, that is a terrible mantra. And I love that film. But anyway. (MGM movies are a hyperfixation - come and talk to me about them.) Mofftiss know that this is a fucked up end to a fantastic film, not least because it leaves Toto dying. In queer terms, this is a terrible end to the movie - queer film icon John Waters famously said:

So Mofftiss, with Gatiss being the good queer writer that he is, don’t take the backyard literally. Just a Dorothy’s heart’s desire was literally to be home on the farm, and that’s where she finds the impetus to wake up, what does Sherlock need to do to wake up?

I’m incapable of finding images on the web (my metas are so sparse in comparison to everyone else!) but it’s literally in his backyard, as he pushes down the fake wall to get into the garden where the answers are. And this time, home is much more complicated - the ancestry that is built up in Musgrave hall, which is metaphorically connected to the history of Sherlock Holmes as a character, is pushed down just like a wall in Sherlock’s mind, instead helping him to find an internal home, a unity with Eurus, the other part of himself. That’s the necessary home here, not the home-as-absolute-normality that TWoO seems to espouse, which is inevitably exclusive of queerness. And then we get that literal scene of Eurus waking up inside her bedroom from this nightmare scenario she has invented.

The original post also points out comparisons between John and the scarecrow and Sherlock and the tin man, but I think it’s more helpful to understand the theme linking the three friends of Dorothy (no pun intended ;) ). The idea here is that all of them are convinced that they lack something because of the way they are made, but of course they learn throughout the dream that they have it intrinsically. As I’ve mentioned above, Dorothy is where that logic falls down - it also doesn’t work as nicely thematically with the lion, because lions are not supposed to be cowardly - scarecrows, on the other hand, are supposed to be brainless, and tin men are supposed to lack hearts. The idea that you can go beyond the role assigned to you and still find the love you’re not allowed to have - that is peak EMP theory. Nothing better. And the fact that it ties back into the original dream movie - !!

I genuinely haven’t given this a huge amount of thought - these are cursory thoughts. I want to go and watch Wild at Heart and get back with more thoughts, because I’m pretty sure there will be a lot more parallels on overlaying TWoO onto a much darker story.

Anyway! @sagestreet​ @sarahthecoat​ @lukessense​ @therealsaintscully​ @possiblyimbiassed​ @ebaeschnbliah​ @raggedyblue​ @helloliriels​ if you’re interested!

[alltingfinns]

A Scandal in Belgravia

So I’m back on this.

The swoosh on some sped up footage in the previously, don’t remember noticing that.

This episode’s start gets so much funnier if you read some of the fic written between this and the previous episode.

Silly song now becomes more dramatic in TRF.

What did Irene offer Jim to get him so riled up? If it’s the plot plane plan that would explain why Sherlock is needed alive. But his emotional reaction... maybe he’s already been trying to get it on his own. Indicates possibly that Jim has been looking for a way to get to Mycroft.

“You’re typing a lot.”

This montage is nicely done.

Arguing about the blog.

The pouncing on the title.

He’s so hurt. He knows ash!

“We do watch the news.”

“You said boring and switched the channel.”

First time where “people” = John.

And the hat.

“It’s time.” I never thought about the waiting period.

Ehh, Hudson called up to the next floor so John’s room? Boys?

Ha cool, a SAAB. An old one too. I’d guess a 900 model from the early nineties.

Lestrade probably makes these calls a lot.

I get Sherlock’s confusion, he’s just in a sheet it’d make sense for him to be humiliated.

Their silent conversation + John’s acceptance of the absurdity.

That was a pretty long look on Sherlock’s lap and then asking about pants.

The Swedish subtitles on Netflix just referred to John as ”kronans gosse” I love it!

John took the queen liking his blog as a point in their argument.

I always like looking at John during the sheet bit.

Mycroft and John conversing in subtext that you need to remember their original conversation from a whole series/three episodes ago. And people think johnlock is too subtextual.

They made “the woman” a work title clearly to explain why Sherlock would refer to her that way. A bit harder to work in the context from ACD canon. It would be weird if Sherlock in modern times went “a credit to your gender” for defeating him.

Sherlock’s reaction Mycroft’s veiled assertion settles the question, I think. He’s making a “damn, he’s got me there” face. Mainly because John’s presence, if we considers his previous statement. If it were just him and Mycroft he’d just say “just because I haven’t done it doesn’t mean I can’t understand it!”

Btw, in case you think my typing speed is phenomenal I am hitting pause when something gets really interesting to me.

The parallel of checking the pictures have the “obvious” reading of romantic set up. But Sherlock is still learning details of a case he has been given so another reading is that while he’s targeting her she’s targeting him.

My reading is backed up by Sherlock’s immediate demeanor. His interest in her didn’t really appear until he found out she didn’t ask for anything. Blackmailers are a dime a dozen, but someone making a point of threat against the reputation of the BRF without asking for direct compensation? That’s someone with a plan and someone who can give him the kick he feeds of from casework.

John getting the last word in only for Sherlock to get the laterer word in.

Pinching an ashtray from the aforementioned BRF, whom himself mentioned as his first client with a navy, just to make John laugh? Some things are priceless but for everything else there’s MasterCard.

Okay, I had to back up a bit but: I don’t know who’s getting these pictures for Irene, but the last one that makes her smile is focused on John. She sees Sherlock more naked in the pictures where he’s fully clothed in the back of a cab than when he was in just a sheet on the pavement.

More parallels. This is really about their similarities. Could still be considered romantic foreshadowing “they’re made of the same cloth” type.

Ah yes, punch me.

That little dialogue snippet about “punch me” usually being subtext is what got me to first watch this show.

In general I have a lot of issues with how they handled Irene. But I especially don’t think I get the nudity in this scene. It reveals to Sherlock immediately that his ruse was all in vain since she either a) knew he was coming anyway or b) usually greet priests in distress while stark naked and might therefor just be stark raving.

Unflappable John Watson. Oh dear, my flat mate who I just beat up is sitting in front of a naked dominatrix with his vicar collar between her teeth. “I’ve missed something, haven’t I?”

He doesn’t like being a third wheel either. “I had tea too! Just so you know. In case you thought Sherlock got tea at the palace by himself. I was there too. The tea was lovely. Just the right temperature.”

Dammit.

Now I want tea.

Wait wait wait! When did John put his “date” shoes on? Only time it makes sense is when Sherlock was looking through his disguises. (He definitively wouldn’t wear them to traipse around the muddy crime scene.) Maybe they’re part of his “battle uniform”? Also obviously Sherlock can only “deduce” date because he knows what shoes John wears on dates. This isn’t really clothed people are easier to deduce.

How is he not deducing the heck out of her make up and ear piercing? Is it because she’s acting so extraordinary that her indicators become harder to contextualise?

Or is that whole thing just a plot hole?

And her comes her actual opening chess move. Nudity and banter was just setting up the pieces.

“Somebody loves you.” She pressed John’s big red “DO NOT PRESS” button right away. Later she says Jim told her how to play the Holmes brothers, but he definitively gave some pointers on John as well.

There’s something about John’s facial movements when Irene says he knows exactly where to look. Hard to compare with the sheet scene because of the different angles. But yeah, John is bi.

“You do borrow my laptop” with such an angry glare.

Wait are Irene’s shoes those shoes that are expensive because they’re red on the bottom? (I do not care enough to google their names.)

And it’s when John starts to smile that Sherlock does his verbal keysmash. Officially Ben said it was because Irene was paying attention to John instead of him, but she does that a number of times previously and has had quite a moment of getting cosy at John. But up until then John has been a bit standoffish. Of course you can only take so much of a pretty lady flirting with you before your smile reflex gets activated. Also he whips his head immediately at Sherlock in medical concern for his friend and Sherlock can speak clearly again.

Sherlock thinks he knows her game now as he makes his move getting her to confirm that the pictures are in the room.

Imagine the egg on his face if John hadn’t managed the smoke alarm in time.

“Amazing how fire exposes our priorities” should be part of a collection of lines that are only said once but thematically repeated throughout the show.

Some would argue maybe “I really hope you don’t have a baby in there” could be added but I don’t think it could be considered as repeated enough thematically.

Sherlock being his usual demanding self about turning off the fire alarm. The fool! Doesn’t he know how hard fire alarms are to turn off? (Maybe just a problem for me...)

Okay sure, easy enough with a gun, but impractical as a long term solution.

Umm, excuse me why does he go “no disrespect but you were clearly born in the 80s” in an episode from 2012? The most she’d be is 32, so clearly she looks at most like that then. Why would she be insulted by that? Also he earlier called a dude unhealthy, stupid and with bad breath in front of him without clarifying level of respect. So basically he’s needling her by adding that. That’s the most positive spin it can get.

John apologising for not stopping /forewarning about a whole bunch of trained killers sweeping in? That is diehard loyalty.

She’s staring hard at him as fire exposes his priority.

She actually does give him a clue by looking down the moment he looks at her. Never thought of that.

He heard something click wrong, looked at her for additional clue so she looks to the side “get out of the way”.

I love that John’s priority is medically inclined in the action scene, checking the vital signs of the guy that got shot.

“Observant?” “Flattered?” Honestly he shouldn’t be so surprised by the first bit as it was obvious some kind of observation + deduction got Sherlock the code.

As usual Sherlock gives zero fucks about gun safety. I feel John at some point is going to tie him down and lecture him about it. “We do not scratch our heads with the barrel of a gun, and we don’t call for the police by shooting in the air!”

You know if you’re knocking him out cold regardless, you don’t need him to drop the phone first. You just wanted the beating to be literal.

“He’ll be fine. I’ve used it on loads of my friends.” Yeah no, tell the doctor what chemical knockout drug you just put in a former drug addict!!

I wonder how much of dream Adler is actual Adler speaking to a drugged out Sherlock.

Could be nothing with the only real part being “hush now, returning your coat”. Would make sense for a dreaming brain to jumble the two cases together.

Start of series 2 we get to see Sherlock’s bedroom while John’s remain a mystery after 4 series.

John is not on the top of his game this episode. “What woman?”

And so it begins.

Mycroft does not have “shut up Hudson” privilege.

That whole phone noise discussion is punctuated with embarrassment.

Ah the gaping jaw that set the sails for the lestrolly ship.

“Christmas is canceled!” I love when John banters with Sherlock.

Sherlock is mean to Molly, but to be fair she kind of blundered a bit with the others and Sherlock complaining about John being away was clearly something he told in confidence. Telling Greg and John that their loved ones are betraying the trust put in them is general misanthropy, but Sherlock probably feels justified in needling Molly about a crush that he figures none of them know anyway.

Oh John’s look there. Greg clearly knows too what is coming but John has the recognition factor.

“Oh shit. It was me. Still me? She still has a thing for me?”

For a sort of dramatic moment it still has one of John’s absolutely funniest facial journeys. “Wait, you apologised? You know what an apology is? Are you feeling well?”

Obviously Irene’s text signal gets a lot of funny moments, but nothing will beat the timing of this one. And now I am imagining Jim with a pair of binoculars sitting across the street and telling Irene “now, send it now, it’ll be fucking priceless!”

And Greg “wait really?” When you’re not sure what your consultant can do to surprise you next.

I believe I made a post about it earlier but Jeanette’s boyfriend just said he’s been keeping track up till 57 on text messages that his platonic flat mate gets where the signal is a woman moaning.

“Do you ever reply?”

Jeanette starts working on her break up speech about then, I believe.

Molly nervously gulps a drink. Now Molly is everyone’s favorite John mirror. Medical professional with a crush on Sherlock, and whose favored type of outfit involves knitwear. John usually takes a drink at emotionally difficult times. Is this Molly handling her rejection, or showing what John is doing/will do without showing John?

Mycroft. If they passed a new law why would Sherlock know about it before you?

“How did Sherlock recognize her from... not-her-face?”

Mycroft answers with a smile and leaving the room.

“I got plans”

“No” I know you. If it’s a date you’ve probably bungled it already. Regardless if it is or isn’t you’ll still prioritize my brother because you always do.

John really goes for the superconfident strategy when dating, huh? “I always thought I was great.”

“I’ll even walk your dog!”

“I don’t have a dog!”

“No, because that was the last one...”

Always thought you were a great boyfriend, huh?

When even your landlady who got out of her marriage through execution thinks you bungled it, you probably bungled it.

Think I’ll break here and continue the rest of the episode tomorrow.

[holmesguy]

The Blanched Soldier, or, that one time Holmes sat down and wrote out a story with his own hands about admitting he was wrong for criticizing Watson’s romanticism, and about feeling abandoned after Watson’s marriage, and reflecting on the abandonment and incredulity Watson must have felt after Holmes’s disappearance at Reichenbach, and saying he misses Watson and his remarkable characteristics and cunning questions, and telling a story about a handsome soldier being separated from his beloved best friend by a lie and by an inability to touch and be near eachother for fears of scandal and death...

It’s difficult for me to explain The Blanched Soldier without going on a bunch of tangents so I will list off things I want to say about it with bullet points:

It’s written by Holmes and told from his point of view (1 of only 2 stories that do so) and Watson isn’t in it, but Holmes opens by talking about him.

It starts off with him conceding that he has annoyed Watson with his criticism of Watson’s writing enough times for Watson to say “Try it yourself, Holmes!”...which Holmes is now attempting with this story.

He says the case he is writing up is one that Watson has no notes of, because Holmes was alone since “the good Watson had at that time deserted me for a wife.” (which he refers to as the only selfish thing Watson ever did)

He says of Watson: “Watson has some remarkable characteristics of his own to which in his modesty he has given small attention amid his exaggerated estimates of my own performances.” and calls him “an ideal helpmate”. (If you don’t know, here is the definition of helpmate: “A helpful companion or partner, especially one's husband or wife.”)

That’s from the first two paragraphs. Onto the case:

Holmes says according to his notes it occured on January 1, 1903, just after the conclusion of the Boer War. (And a few days before Holmes’s birthday, if you place his birthday on January 6th...Holmes would be about 50 here)

His client is a soldier recently back from the war who Holmes describes as “a big, fresh, sunburned, upstanding Briton” and “a gentleman of virile appearance” with stern blue eyes and a square jaw.

Holmes’s first line of dialogue to this “big, fresh” and “virile” recently returned soldier is “From South Africa, sir, I perceive.”

Ummm okay. What was the first thing Holmes said to Watson again? Oh yeah: “You have been in Afghanistan, I perceive.” 👀

The client has come to him because of his “closest pal” for whom he feels “real love” and who he describes like this: “We formed a friendship—the sort of friendship which can only be made when one lives the same life and shares the same joys and sorrows. He was my mate—and that means a good deal in the Army.”

His friend was wounded and sent to the hospital--and after that seems to have disappeared. “Since then not a word—not one word, Mr. Holmes, for six months and more, and he my closest pal.”

Was there anyone else in canon who had a story where their best friend disappeared without a word for a long time...? Ohh yeahh...Holmes and Watson...

I’m going to fast forward a bit now and spoil the ending while I describe the case and the soldier’s friend...

After returning from the war, in search of his friend, the client contacts his friend’s father to ask about his friend’s whereabouts. The father says that he had “gone on a voyage round the world” but the client begins to get the impression that this is a lie and the father is hiding something.

Again, who was it in canon who disappeared, went on a voyage around the world, and had a family member as a confidant? Oh right...Sherlock Holmes. 

The client isn’t convinced that his friend would just leave without telling him. He resolves to go to the father’s house to investigate.

While staying there, things become more and more suspicious.

In a strange twist, the client actually sees his friend outside the window. It’s night time and his friend peers in at him, then runs away when he realizes he has been seen. 

The story continues, I’m going to skip the details and come to the end: The friend had apparently contracted leprosy from unknowingly sleeping in a leprosy patient’s bed, and the family was keeping him hidden in a small detached house on their property under the care of a doctor. His disease had to be kept secret to avoid scandal in the town and to avoid being taken away to live among strangers, segregated from society. All this is revealed, and when he and the client finally speak to eachother, his friend says “Old Ralph [the servant] told me you were there, and I couldn’t help taking a peep at you. I hoped you would not have seen me, and I had to run to my burrow when I heard the window go up.”

Okay, once more: Who else is it who was in hiding from the world and keeping it secret from his best friend, and who ran away after a close encounter together? Ohh yeah...Sherlock Holmes, who says in The Empty House: “Several times during the last three years I have taken up my pen to write to you, but always I feared lest your affectionate regard for me should tempt you to some indiscretion which would betray my secret. For that reason I turned away from you this evening when you upset my books, for I was in danger at the time, and any show of surprise and emotion upon your part might have drawn attention to my identity and led to the most deplorable and irreparable results.”

The story, thankfully, has a happy ending: Holmes brings in a different doctor to provide a second opinion, and he determines that the patient doesn’t have leprosy, but instead a much less serious condition that is not infectious, and therefore he doesn’t need to remain isolated or in hiding. Presumably the friends are reuinted and able to be together freely from then on. 

Let me paint a picture: Sherlock Holmes was sitting alone at Baker Street, and inevitably his thoughts turned to Watson leaving him, and he wrote all this. Maybe he made it all up, or maybe it was a real case, either way, this is the story he chose to write down out of many possible others, and he drew a clear parallel between this soldier character and Watson when he echoed his own first words to Watson with his first words to this client (who Holmes gives a pretty flattering physical description of). The story is woven together with feelings of love, abandonment and guilt. The thoughts on Holmes’s mind while writing this are something along these lines (I’m not much of a writer but I’ll do what I can): “Watson left me...Why did he leave me? He never did a selfish thing to me in his life, except for that. We formed a friendship, lived the same life, shared the same joys and sorrows--he was an ideal helpmate. And I was criticizing him for his excess of sentiment. Look, now I’m trying to do things his way. I can see that I was being unfair. I even abandoned him myself. But I had important reasons...Didn’t I? Maybe not. Maybe I should have gotten a second opinion, maybe it was unnecessary for him to suffer...I miss him. I wish we could touch eachother without consequences.”

So that’s The Blanched Soldier, a story in which Watson does not technically appear but in which Watson is the predominant feature of interest. As always, things get murky if you try to create totally cemented interpretations of canon stories, because the timeline is very disjointed, and Watson and Holmes, and whoever wrote the third person stories, (and ACD...) are all unreliable and inconsistent narrators. So the exact details of why Holmes wrote this story, if Holmes wrote this story, when it was written, when it occured, if it occured, how Holmes really felt, whether Watson’s wife actually existed, etc. are all up for anyone’s best guess. I just wanted to throw this out there.  

Edit: I want to make note of the fact that the friend was (supposedly) afflicted with leprosy. I find this significant because it means that physical touch and closeness are dangerous for him and his friend. When the friend is discovered, he says to Holmes’s client: “Don’t touch me, Jimmie. Keep your distance.” Furthermore, he must remain hidden from the public eye so no outcry breaks out about his condition and so he doesn’t have to face “segregation for life among strangers with never a hope of release.” 

Now, of course this could just really be about fears and stigmas surrounding leprosy, but it brings to mind for me a possible relation to or reflection of what might be Holmes’s fears about physical touch and closeness bringing disaster to him and Watson and the scandal and possible prison sentence and perhaps even death that would result if it were found out. I also find it interesting that the leprosy was (supposedly) contracted specifically by sleeping in a bed. Which, if we’re going with the “leprosy = intimacy (or homosexuality)” point of view, a bed seeming like a safe refuge but later proving to be deadly for the occupant and anyone who tries to get near him is pretty heartbreaking. It’s at least a comfort that by the end of the story, the patient’s case of “leprosy” turns out to be a less harmful condition that can be treated and isn’t contagious--that this, intimacy is not going to hurt his loved ones and he doesn’t need to hide himself away. 

[notagarroter]

 @moriartysgrimmfairytales asked: Just popping in to see if you've succeeding to come to terms with TFP? And in which case, share your secret? Saw your post about Jim recording those gifs, made me giggle for the first time in a long while (Sherlock related, I mean). Still struggling.

oof, good question.  Humor definitely helps!  In addition to thinking about how much fun Jim and Eurus must have had together, planning this whole ridiculous game, I'm also developing headcanons about the Holmes siblings as practical jokers.  One of the things that had bothered me about TFP was how artificial everything on Sherrinford seemed, and how different it was from the style and structure of ordinary episodes.  But it helps to think of it as a culmination of the cruel and fucked up experiments/games we've seen Sherlock and Mycroft playing all along.  From Mycroft kidnapping John in the first episode, to the "flight of the dead", to Sherlock drugging and tricking John in THoB as an experiment, to the cruelty of the Tube car scene "just to see John's face", to the over-the-top confrontation with Mary at Leinster Square, to the scary clown in Mycroft's house...  It actually makes sense to me that if Mycroft and Sherlock have a sister, she'd be into this drama/silliness too.  And if they had an ~evil genius~ sister, she'd have to go even darker and more fucked up than they did.  Which is already pretty dark and fucked up!  So, viewed in that light, Eurus's experiment/game kind of makes some sense. It feels more like a natural culmination of the show, or at least of an element of it.  Rather than a completely bizarre left turn. 

It also helped me to headcanon that Sherlock is ~kind of~ a willing participant in the game.  And in fact, so is Mycroft.  It's not like Saw or other horror movies, where the heroes are regular people who are completely horrified by their situation.  I think both Sherlock and Mycroft know they could think their way out of this "game" if they really wanted to, but they choose to play along.  Maybe because they genuinely want to reach their sister, maybe they think they owe it to her.  Maybe because they're dramatic weirdos too, and they just like this stuff.  This is the Holmes family idea of a fun afternoon.

And I think this is something Moriarty has always enjoyed too.  As consulting criminal, the crimes he set up were just to make money or get revenge or whatever – ordinary human motivations that he always found boring.  Sherlock intrigued him because he had this concept of crime as a game they could play together/against each other, and Moriarty discovered he loved that.  So I can imagine that he was thrilled when Eurus invited him to play along in the Holmes Family games.  I prefer not to think that she mind-controlled him or used him.  It makes more sense to me as a real partnership, where they sat around together planning out these ridiculous games for Sherlock and Mycroft to play.  And Jim would have found that endlessly amusing.

(and no, it wasn't all accomplished in five minutes.  Five minutes was the time Eurus needed to introduce herself to Jim and tell him about Redbeard.  After that, she and Jim together could certainly manipulate or strong arm the Governor into giving her whatever she wanted, so I'm sure they spent more time together—on skype if nothing else. )

Does any of this make sense with the idea that Jim thought Sherlock was going to kill himself on Bart's roof? No, it doesn't.  There's no point in trying to think about that too much, because it honestly does not make much psychological or logistical sense.  But you know what?  Reichenbach never did.  The explanation we got for Reichenbach about who knew what when never made a lick of sense, and I made peace with that ages ago.  I don't think it was even supposed to make sense, really.

That too has helped me come to terms with TFP.  I don't think it's great that they took a lot of stuff that *did* make sense, and retconned it to make *less* sense (like Redbeard, and Sherlock's parents).  But that's always been a premise of this show too – best not to look too closely at the details.  To a certain extent, this show demands that you make the choice to just go with narrative and have fun with it.  

And in that respect, it's very like ACD canon.  There are a million plot holes, contradictions, inconsistencies, and implausibilities in ACD.  Every reader of ACD has to figure out how to make peace with these at some point. Some ignore them, some develop hyper-complicated backstories to justify them, some accept them as just part of the fun and silliness.  I tend to be in that last camp, and I think Moftiss are too. So I'm willing to accept any plot holes, etc. as a kind of homage to Arthur Conan "I can't remember my main character's first name" Doyle.  I mean, the Moriarty storyline if anything makes even *less* sense in Doyle. 

The other thing that has helped me appreciate TFP is thinking of it as a showcase for the actors.  I still pretty much feel that the story Moftiss were telling came to a natural and basically satisfying conclusion at the end of TLD.  So that left Episode 3 as a coda where they could have some fun/do whatever they wanted. And I think one thing they decided to do was give the actors (especially Benedict and Mark, and to some extent Loo) a lot of super intense emotional scenes to play, which may not have made tremendous sense within the scope of the story, but are a lot of fun for the actors. This show has always primarily been a story of the relationship between John and Sherlock.  With that thread more or less resolved in TLD, I think Gatiss particularly decided it would be fun to spend the last episode digging deeper into the Sherlock/Mycroft relationship and giving them some powerful scenes together. Sure, some of it was a little OTT and OOC, but after all they've given us, how can I begrudge Mark Gatiss a little fun? 

So that's pretty much where I'm at right now in my efforts to come to terms with TFP.  I've watched it a number of times now, and there really is a lot to enjoy: powerful acting, enjoyably loopy story concepts, some great lines, and a lot of gorgeous imagery.  Yeah, they made some narrative choices I would have advised against, but... it's okay. I can accept it.  Nothing is perfect, but overall, Sherlock came very very close.  

[the-cardboard-constructionist]

I have a lot of mixed thoughts on JKR and the information that she has given out since the series officially ended. 

On one hand, it has never been a secret or a surprise that she had developed every single minor character in that series with a back story and relevance to a variety of things. This is not new information. She has been saying that the entire time, since as soon as this series became popular. Even before Pottermore, she had a website where she sometimes posted snippets about minor characters and gave them more depth, and some of it was things she contemplated putting in the books and ended up not having room for, and some of it was things that had no business being in the books because the backstory for that one kid who was killed when Voldemort collapsed a bridge and is really only mentioned in a small snippet of an article was not necessary there. Not everything she knew and planned for this universe had a place in the books. These are children’s books and not only that, but they are long as fuck children’s books, and honestly, children only have so much patience for books. There is only so long you can make them, and only so many things you can include. Which is why a lot of things, even things she originally intended to put in, aren’t in there. Which is honestly probably why Pottermore exists. Because she wanted to share the things that didn’t have a place in the book. The most memorable scene I remember from her original website about this was a scene where Theodore Nott goes to the Malfoy manor and hangs out with Draco while their parents are doing death eater things. It’s been literal years since I’ve read it so I don’t remember much else, but she has been releasing things like this all along. It just didn’t fit in the book. 

I think this also kind of applies to Nagini as well. I mean, let’s be realistic here. From the moment Nagini was introduced into the books, there has been a gazillion fucking theories about that snake. Some as tame as, Nagini is actually that same snake that Harry talked to in the first one, and others more complex, saying things like Nagini is an animagius, or other backstories. I can remember back when the most recent book was Order of the Phoenix reading fan theories about Nagini. The idea that she is not just an ordinary snake is not new. It is in absolutely no way new. In fact, it was taken as fact until it was revealed in the last one that she was a horocrux and then we all moved on and was like okay, that’s what special about her. But the fact that now we’re learning more... it’s... I don’t understand why it’s a bad thing. So now she’s a mythical being, and based on what I know about the mythical histories of the type of being she is, it makes sense that she’s Asian? Like... if they had given this same story, the same creature, who’s name is based on Indonesian mythology, and had a white person play her... I see just as many people being upset? Like... I honestly don’t imagine anyway that people would be happy with that at this point. It makes sense. And yeah, maybe she didn’t include enough representation of Asian people initially, why would it be wrong of her to try to fix that now? Why shouldn’t she do that? Like... sometimes people realize their mistakes and grow from it.

I do hear the arguments about Voldemort being a “white supremacist” and therefore it being a problem that a non-white character is working with him. And here’s what I have on that: Voldemort is not actually a white supremacist. Like, if he had existed in a non-magical setting, and his father had been a black man instead of a muggle, would he have been a white supremacist? Probably, yes. Does he have the same ideology that many white supremacists have? Absolutely. But he is a metaphor for a genocidal leader, and his particular problem is related to magic vs non-magic. Not actual race. It’s a metaphor for race, most of the time. So yes, it is a little bit off. But we also have to think about the fact that the metaphor is outside the story. The metaphor is how we related it to the actual world. There’s two way of looking at a story. Watsonian and Doylist. Watsonian is looking at it in story. Looking at an explanation for it in the story, and a reason why it works there. Doylist is looking outside the story and it’s context in the real world. (Which of course comes from Sherlock Holmes, the Doylest explanation always being that Sir ACD was not actually paying attention to what he was writing ever and named everyone James and then forgot about it). Looking at it from a Doylist perspective, yeah, it seems a bit off. But looking at it from a Watsonian perspective, it matters more about her blood status than her race. But also, it’s not like every single death eater fits the mold that Voldemort would have wanted. Hell, fucking Voldemort doesn’t. I see absolutely no reason why there wouldn’t have been wizards of color who were on the side of Voldemort. We know there were. We absolutely know there were. The Zabini family for one. In fact, I think so far our small amount of wizards of color were sprinkled pretty evenly across all the sides of the war. (The Zabini family is on Voldemort’s side, and on the good side we’ve got Dean Thomas and his family, we’ve got Kingsley Shatterbolt.)

Yes, she should absolutely have originally included more diversity. Yes, she should continue to include more diversity now as she seems intent on producing more content. But every time she does something like try to include different races, everyone jumps on her throat about it. Like... positive reinforcement, y’all. It works. And also, I’m relatively sure that she is not in charge of casting. She probably gets a say, she definitely approves of this one, but a reminder that she is an author, not a casting director. And as we all learned from the casting fiascos on “To All the Boys I’ve Loved Before”, the author doesn’t actually end up with much say in the casting once the agreement has been made between the production company and the author. 

I can see how this Nagini thing can go wrong, but I can also see how it could go well. I’m not going to make up my mind until I’ve seen it. And again, it’s not like this information came out of nowhere. 

For everything more she added to those books, she would have had to take something out. So she made her choices on what was MOST relevant to the story. And maybe those choices aren’t the same as what some of us have made. Personally, I would have liked to see Dumbledore’s story explored in a way that showed us that he was gay. But she made a choice on what was deemed most relevant to his story, and that wasn’t it. It would have been nice if it was included, but it wasn’t. And I’m sure there are many reason for that, but honestly, when she says things like “Dumbledore is gay”, I have no doubt in my mind that that was something that was lurking in her brain the whole time. And certainly, we see no indications that would prove that statement wrong in the books. But realistically, the only time Harry’s professor’s love lives were relevant to him at all in any way, was when it was Snape and his mom. And that was less because it was Snape and more because it was his mom. But also because that led to the time Voldemort tried to kill him. Dumbledore’s love life from many years before Harry was even born just isn’t relevant to him. Like, I would have loved to see it. But I understand why it wasn’t there. Harry was hearing about everything with Grindlewald through what amounted to a rumor mill a lot of the time anyway, and Dumbledore is often a very private man. It made sense, storywise, for it not to be there. (And quite frankly, I’m not sure that Harry would have picked up on any subtle ways of saying it either.)

The Cursed Child was a disaster and all that, yes. And she approved it, but she wasn’t the one brainstorming the ideas for it, and honestly, none of that was exploring the world she created. It was a different potential. It probably wasn’t how she saw it all playing out. So I don’t really accept that as canon, in the same universe. Just like how the movies are in a slightly different but related universe than the books. So I don’t really feel the need to address that. 

Now... the wizarding school in America and the wizarding world here... it’s obvious that she doesn’t entirely understand American culture, but honestly, why would she? She isn’t American. And she knows of America and magic what is most obvious and taught. Salem Witch trials. The early types of New England magic. The types of magic we hear about in old Native American tales that aren’t quite right to what was actually believed, but changed by being passed down by those who didn’t know it 100%. She should have done more research. There are things I disagree with in her ideas about magic in the United States, but you can see where the ideas come from, and I think some of them are very good ideas about how it stated. It just... should have expanded since then. England is one of those countries that have been around for a very long time and a lot of things are very similar to how they’ve always been. America isn’t. It’s bigger and more diverse, and has so many different types of things. But is she really the person to incorporate all those things in? I think that honestly, no matter what she said about magic in America, we would have objected as a whole. Because there are things she doesn’t understand, and maybe she’s only there to set the frame work of it, and the people who understand better are the ones who can take it from there. Her origin story of the wizarding school sounds reasonable, it just needs to evolve. But we also need to remember that the wizarding community is different from what Americans are like not in that community. Just like it is in England. I don’t know how many of these ideas were ones that have been lurking in her head for years, because I’m sure some of them are. I’m sure some of the basics of how it works here have been in her head for a long time, because there’s a backstory for everything in her world. 

Now, how she is outside of her Harry Potter content, that I won’t speak to. I’ve heard some things I don’t like, but haven’t had a chance to fact check most of them and I’m not going to make a judgement until I do.

I just think a lot of the objections to her sharing her ideas on behind the story things is a bit intense and unnecessary. You don’t have to like it or believe it. But most of it isn’t coming from nowhere, and I’m sure a lot of it isn’t just being produced just for the sake of gaining interest back. It’s been there for years. 

[roadswewalk]

T6T - my full reaction

Right I know this is super late (work project overload, apology posted preemptively), but here, finally, are my actual thoughts on second watch of T6T.  This is my first new episode since joining the fandom, so I really indulged.  This is like a live-blog meets rewatch review meets spaghetti meta.  Almost all of this is uninfluenced by others, since I missed the majority of what’s been written, but I’ve called out a few cases where popular opinion filtered through.  It probably goes without saying that to be able to write functionally about any of it, I have to make a baseline assumption that what I’m seeing has enough relationship to reality to be worth reacting to.  Doesn’t mean I believe that overall, but I’m not interested (not here, anyway) in playing mistake-lie-or-clue for every detail, so.  Grain of fish food.

Under the cut because LONG.

The hearing - uh oh.  Retcon technique crashes through the fourth wall into the fictional universe.  Or, I’m all up in ur fictional universe, redefining fiction.  Meta.  I get it: Don’t believe everything we’re about to show you, nor everything we’ve shown you before.  Or, at least, don’t take it too seriously.   And THAT is actually problematic

For starters, some of the people who abandoned ship last series complained that consequences aren’t real enough on this show.  For me, shooting Magnussen looks awfully gimmicky now that they’ve resolved it in this way; they'd never have got away with this if there hadn’t been a three-year hiatus.  Mycroft’s “oh Sherlock, what have you done?” is one of my favorite lines in the series.  Every.  Time.  Watery eyes to sobbing in 6 words.  It is utterly cheapened by not making the consequences real.  A little resistance, an impassioned appeal on the strength of Sherlock’s record of service - these would not have been out of place.  “My brother is a murderer”, sardonically, as the episode’s opening line should have been the first clue, I guess.

@ Sir Edwin shutting down the Moriarty discussion quickly and single-handedly: Has following TJLCers made me better at watching television, or was this disappointingly obvious?  @ Sherlock in this entire scene: I love it too, baby.

So the scene leaked via KBS dubbing was at the beginning, after all.  And completely not serious spoiler material, thanks for the slap on the wrist!

I like this tango they’re playing during the case montage!

Birth scene, :/  cliché.  Baby jokes - okay actually really cute.  Loving these boys with the baby, and apparently I could go for parentlock if it’s always just side-plots and comic relief.  John’s little flirtation - not so much, hope this is going somewhere plotty.  John’s backbend to ask about being godfather, though.  How flexible is that back, Dr. Watson?

Welsboroughs are pretty adorable.  Why does Mr. W. wear his ring on the pinky, though? - asked about this separately and never got a reply.  Mirror / magnifier next to Sherlock’s head - I guess this is Meaningful but it escapes me.

Noticing the Thatcher bust / pricking of my thumbs, a little difficult to accept.  But, “intuitions are not to be ignored” OKAY DADS.  A lot different from previously, though, with “dangerous to theorize without data“ etc.  “OCD - my respects”, lol.

Is Mr. Welsborough a John mirror here?  They’re wearing turquoise and defending Mrs. T’s existence together.  (Is this the same day that John goes home and texts E back?  He’s wearing the turquoise jumper?)  Wonder where Gatiss picked up this horrific story of Charlie’s death, I was in slight tears.  Relatedly (or not), Mycroft is GOLD in this episode.

On the established subject of the client-with-a-spy-wife being a John mirror: Note also, his line “I thought you’d done something clever.  But now you’ve explained it, it’s dead simple, inn’t it?” is directly from Watson on multiple occasions in ACD canon.  Also, at first I was like, “Why is Sherlock spending so much time impressing this man with his deductions?  He doesn’t know yet whether Lestrade (and arguably Hopkins) have brought him anything more interesting.“  Then I realized - he thinks John is sitting there watching him, apparently stunned into silence and charmed head-waving.  Awww. 

Lestrade saying “straße”, John saying “idée fixe”... it’s clearly Sherlock narrating.  Reliably or not, that is the question.  Sherlock noticing the scent of formaldehyde mixed with Lestrade’s usual cologne. <3 Sherstrade moment.  But why do people think Lestrade is going on a date with Hopkins?  He’s not? Sherlock said someone new from forensics; Hopkins is a DI working with Interpol.

“Slow, but sure, John.  Not dissimilar to yourself...  Well, I like you.”  I wasn’t sure I heard this right the first time!  Gratuitous compliments why.  John’s face does a nice journey after this but unfortunately Mary speaks right away.  Lovely on slo-mo.  “Having fun while I can” / “a noose for me to put my neck into” - awww, cheer up Sherlock, honey; you can’t die, you’re the star of the show.

When Craig first tells Sherlock the busts are from Tbilisi, he’s already looking up with his eyes doing their deduction dance.  The next scene implies it’s because of the Black Pearl of the Borgias case, but is it?  Lestrade’s reaction when Sherlock already knows the name of his victim - priceless.

Why does “luxury 1, 2 & 3 bed apartments” scroll across the screen when Sherlock is searching his phone about the pearl?  Graphics team: “well ads are unavoidable, it adds to the realism” lol what.  Man, it makes me a bit salty that they’re mentioning the blog so much even though we don’t get updates anymore, boo.

Sherlock: “They’re not destroying them, that’s not what’s happening.” ��Lestrade: “Yes it is.”  Sherlock: “Well it *is* what’s happening but that’s not the point.  [Okay, thanks AGAIN, dads.]

Floor-to-ceiling Hokusai “Great Wave” print behind the pool - I am in lo<3!  Wearing leggings printed with Hokusai’s Phoenix as I type this and I just.  Guh.  That entire location is beautiful, thank you scouts!

All the ‘hand-waving” instead of proper switches in this house - again, I get it, thanks.

19:00 ... 22:00 flashing on screen.... so Sherlock waited 3 hours.  Am I supposed to get something from this?  (I hate not trusting anything I see on this show, nor my own ability to interpret art.  I take back one of those ‘thanks’, dads.)

Fight scene: gratuitous, fun, hard to accept.  Boys will be boys.  The people living in the house didn’t wake up?

 Why does Sherlock know what John said to forgive Mary?  Also, biggest mistake of the episode is right here, revealing he knows what that flash drive is and who had it.

The ambassador says she’s got something they would dearly love if they could get out - amo/ammo...  I’m still not sure how she fits in?  The flash drive is dangling around Ajay’s neck during the op?  So if the rescue goes wrong, AGRA are supposed to kill themselves, and what - hope the hostages are allowed to survive in captivity thereafter?

Lestrade knows about Mary’s past, seriously?  Once again the blog and the Internet fame make Sherlock & friends easy targets - though I don’t doubt Ajay could have found them easily enough without that.  Wow, shooting up the plaster bust studio must have been a good time ;)  Sherlock’s hidey-hole is... epic.  He even has a travel chemistry set and microwave (for the real experiments~), all that’s missing is a John Watson balloon, gods.  “That was quite a text you sent me” - what did it SAY?  At least he’s not giving her an easy time here. And is a different accent coming out?

“We were family.”  “Families fall out.”  [later, paraphrase] “I don’t know anything about them - happy families.”  Break my heart.  Sherlock, your mum and dad and big brother love you.  Don’t they?  Don’t they, Moftiss~?

Mary’s little smirk when Sherlock reminds her of his vow pretty much mirrors mine.  Like what can Sherlock Holmes do to protect her family better than a trained assassin?  (As we find out, nothing.)  The hubris here... it’s a huge part of what goes wrong in this episode, too.  Making the vow in the first pace was problematic and one of my least favorite things that Sherlock did, because it’s out-of-order, ridiculous, and impossible to maintain even before we knew anything about Mary and just.  Did anyone except Sherlock EVER believe that vow was worth something in reality, as opposed to some sad devotion he pledged to his best friend for wont of any more suitably dramatic exit from said friend’s wedding?  This brings me back to the awful angst-fest of a head-canon wherein Sherlock no longer places any value on his life alone, and he’s secretly longing for an excuse to start on a path that will secure his own death.  I’ve been there in depression and I’m not sure the writers realize they’re invoking it, nor that I trust them to handle it properly if they do.

Aw, PLEASE give us more of baby Holmes boys playing pirates.  Also, again, Mycroft <3.  But, Sherlock’s got a cracked rib here and he won’t go to John to get it wrapped.  “You don’t have many favors left” - apparently the only real consequence so far.  Mycroft: “What then?” - YES, THANK YOU, VOICE OF REASON!  “Not on my watch” - first from Mycroft, then from Sherlock.  But only Mycroft turns out to be able to back it up.  Score one for ice.

Why do the country names include U.S.S.R?  LMAO at Gatiss coming up with this sequence, like oh then she’ll grab a passport out of a rock in Norway, then how about a motorcycle in America?  I hope alcohol was involved, let everyone have fun with it.

She covers her head but shows her ankles?  Sherlock’s game with Karim, again, love.  It’s easy to forget why I love this show when I can’t follow the plot, but in the end, I do love it.  Sherlock’s little speech that he’s been preparing for ages to rattle off to Mary.  And then John walks in and wow, I can feel the smile slide off my face faster than Sherlock’s.  Definitely a hell of a lot faster than Mary’s!  It’s so awkward that Sherlock is there for the following conversation, especially the point he joins in, literl chills at the creep factor.  But - “couples are supposed to stay together and work things through” - as in, what John and Sherlock did while she was away?

And sorry to break in again here, but the “love” connection (lol) is tenuous enough.  Who would believe that an intelligence committee member would use a variation of her own code name as a sabotage code word?  Trying too hard to be clever, Mark, sorry.  Lady S under pressure is pretty hot, though.

Wow, John is so smooth when he’s being hit on.  Like the plot or no, really makes me want to try it, hehe.  Vampire... this screams foreshadowing but I won’t know of what until I see it, derp.

John’s bus number is 59 (159 return).  Another reference to that sonnet?

“How many more times?”  Lady S calling Mycroft on putting his brother before his other obligations.  Ouch.  When this dries up it’s going to be even more painful...  And, “you had better be right about this”, 'cept he wasn’t.  No wonder Sherlock is ready to die later.  There’s no pretty escape at this point.

“The curtain rises” - third time we’ve heard that.  He does love a touch of the dramatic.  Does it mean something else too?  The different text styles, poetry to one, usual demands to the other - I love it but i don’t know why.  Does it mean we won’t get poetry anymore from Sherlock?

Ballsy to film up in there.  I was expecting the aquarium walls to get shot up at some point.  Pity.  Well, maybe not.  Is this the entire shark analogy - “we’re like them, ghostly, living in the shadows, predators, we have to keep moving or we die”?  I guess the last one pretty well clinches it.  But it rubs up the wrong way to use the same symbol as for Magnussen, but for different reasons.

So she got involved for money, then she set up both sides of the rescue operation to get the ambassador assassinated to protect the fact that she was ever involved and hopefully make her exit?  Why didn’t she retire at that point?!

Hmm, does John call Mycroft or Lestrade from the cab?

So Sherlock going on about the wedding ring relocation here, when John is still wearing his ring on his left ring finger in the chess promo photo from TFP... I blogged some crack about it but now I’m wondering if it’s legit significant.  But anyway, Sherlock, shut up about single old ladies, alright.

Mystrade on screen together.  Maybe eye contact!  And Lestrade putting his brave on when Mrs. Norbury raises her gun.  Sherlock staring down the bullet like “I give in, I am yours” - not sure why people wondered at him not jumping out of the way, seems clear he’s ready and willing to die at this point, because he thinks it’s a solution to something.  Well, living on borrowed time, now, and with all favors called in, that’ll make for some good drama, can’t wait!

Wow, so, a woman has been on the edge of a dangerous lifestyle, but eventually she just wants a little peace.  A man with uncanny knowledge and mysterious connections to the government is on her trail.  She tries to confront him, but there are inconvenient witnesses.  Eventually she does fire her gun, but someone else gets shot, and it resolves nothing.  ...Am I describing Vivienne or Mary?

Pausing between Mary’s moment and John’s so I can appreciate the scene properly.  Oh god, I hate myself for this.   But really, Martin’s acting in TRF was perfect.  I know real primal grief is not pretty and that was probably very accurate, but I don’t come to television to see that much of reality.  You’re breaking our contract here a little by shocking me so much in a moment like this.  First watch, my tears dried right up.  This time I let them fall for awhile, and it was nice.  :/

They’re talking about proper portrayal of grief, but isn’t this transition to the anger stage a bit quick?  Mystrade and Sherlock facing off above the Watsons - this is very iconic-looking, though for the life of me I couldn’t say why Lestrade is there.  Hope it’s a backstory thing that we get to hear about later.  So many white men on this show, always coming out on top.  How can I adore them all?  Feel like I have to take a few punches out of my various identity cards for this weakness.

Roll call, who knew almost instantly that Ella was talking to Sherlock? How did you know?  I can’t decide what clued me in - I guess it was the camera angle, the transition from John to her on the same side of the frame?  By her second or third line it was obvious, but I swear I knew before that...

It just bugs me when Ella speaks in platitudes.  When my therapists weren’t as clever as me, they would do this.  It solves nothing.  Also I’m pretty sure she would have to recuse herself from Sherlock’s case if he mainly wants to talk about John, another client.  They’ve shown in THoB that they understand doctor-patient privilege, so, not sure what to make of this.

Mycroft at home is my severe kink.  Him with his lack of furniture in his kitchen, brolly has to lean against his case on the floor.  Still wearing his coat and waistcoat when he gets to the fridge (suits are cut much better this season, damn Mark), rubbing his sore neck, takeout menus, cuff links, pocket watch.

It’s hard to express the strength of my yearning to see inside Mycroft’s fridge.  Like I love that it’s mostly empty, but not seeing pitiful gaping immaculate interior is still one of the biggest disappointments of the episode, tbh.  And frankly that yearning extends a bit further, into slithering up behind and offering a neck rub territory.  People who read him as queer, are we talking zero exceptions?  Mind if I test that?   Antarctica, darling, give me a call.  That empty, listless feeling… I can help.  I hear you’re the Ice Man.  Well it may interest you to know that in certain circles, I’m known as the Ice Queen.  I realize you have incredible power and influence - probably enough to stop global warming.  Don’t do it, baby, I don’t care about that stuff.  I wanna melt with you.  (Heh, might send  that one to bbcsherlockpickuplines.)

13th in a post-it note, prompting a call to Sherrinford - at this point my money’s on drug rehab facility.  That Sherlock burns down.  Won’t that be fun.  And like season 2, I’m guessing this is setup for a plot arc that will be fully revealed in episode 3.  And that’s about the extent of my non-crack predictions for the next few episodes!

John’s balloon drooping off the table, oof.  “Work is the best antidote to sorrow” - like sorrow is poison, oh Sherlock, what would Ella say?  Not it’s not, it’s normal and it’s a thing you work through.  “Norbury” - she doesn’t know the details but she can see the significance, poor Hudders.

Mary making Moriarty jokes on the level of sensitivity that I often display (and which never fails to earn me zero notes)...   LOVE IT DON’T STOP BITCH!

“Nothing’s certain, nothing’s written” - the words that overlay John and Mary holding hands in that teaser of all teasers - a throw-away line picked up by marketers or a sign of things to come~?

“The danger was the fun part but you can’t outrun that.  You need to remember that so I’m giving you a case.”  What, retire to Sussex and stop putting John Watson in danger?  This is getting ‘danger’ously close to some of my crack theories for why a longer hiatus should follow.  MAYBE I’ll accept but only if they actually film us three episodes of retirementlock - with some quaint flashbacks or something - alright?

I’m glad Molly only says sorry the one time.  It’s not her apology to make.  Maybe best scene in the episode right here.  Reading the letter in the cab... brave.

Path locking around your feet, the demons under the street and the sharks in the river (sharks in a river?   really?), etc. - this seems to be confirmation that Sherlock is still awaiting his consequences; okay, good.  But “can Samarra be avoided?” - learned nothing, have you?  Or is it that your survival is necessary to save John Watson?

Go to Hell - not speculating, too little information.  I already know Sherlock’s going to Hell, that he takes John with him, and that they come back - my dad told me.

Summary things:

So live-Tweeting didn’t happen.  That was disappointing.  What is Joe Lidster’s new project, then?

I already knew the Samarra story really well from childhood and then a brief study in Arabic class once.  So the communication of it here felt really heavy handed.  Wish I hadn’t brushed up on it (thanks to NYT reviewer, I believe) beforehand.  I feel like Benedict’s retelling with the sharks would have been chill-inducing.

Contrasting with my complaint about weak consequences for the Magnussen incident, perhaps I’m supposed to take it that this episode was Mary’s consequences.  I wonder if we’ll see Sherlock’s consequences in episode 2 and John’s in episode 3 (or vice versa)?  Or, the ensembles (Hudders & co) in 2, and Sherlock & John’s in episode 3?  I know it’s a three-part story arc so I hope we’ll see something.  Sharks in the river, I’ll get my fishing pole!

Lastly, the “NO WAY” moment that the press reported - which even was it?

- Vivian "Ice Lolly” Norbury as the double agent?

- Mary jumping in?

- Sherlock at therapy?

I seriously couldn’t tell.  Again, does that me good at watching television, or bad?!