#who knows better than well known show writiers

[glass-rose-paperweight]

The Narrative Structure of Sherlock - And Why Season 4 Seems So Off

A lot has been said about why Season 4 just seems wrong (for a more complete list than I could ever hope to make, go here and here). And while all of those are great points that point to something strange going on, I want to take a step back and look at the bigger picture. I propose that what’s wrong with Season 4, ignoring plot holes and inconsistencies and things that seemed to have just been done for shock factor, is that the narrative structure itself is just incorrect. We all know what big proponents of the 5 act structure Mofftiss is. Let’s take a moment to look at the five act structure for a moment, shall we?

The Five Act Structure

The five act structure has its basis in the narrative structure of the ancient Greeks, of telling a story with a beginning, middle, and end. However, it was really solidified starting with German playwright Gustav Freytag in 1863 and his mapping of a narrative structure. He identified the different parts of a story: the Exposition (which sets up the story, introduces characters, gives the audience the background needed to understand the story, and, most importantly, contains the inciting moment, the conflict that the story and the protagonists will revolve around), the Rising Action (which are the obstacles placed in the way of the protagonists resolving the conflict and any more information needed for the audience to understand the story narrative and the characters; often here is where you really start getting a good understanding of what characters are like and understanding their complexities), the Climax (the turning point of the story, the point with the highest tension; often the Big Showdown or big battle), the Falling Action (the end of the climax and the aftermath of whatever happened; things are starting to calm down and resolutions are being reached), and the Dénouement (the final resolution and tying up of lose ends. This is the moment of emotional release, when the characters you have been watching and hopefully grown attached to are reaching their happily ever after and you get to see what their life is like after going through the climax). This is a well known narrative structure that basically everyone learns in grade school. You’re probably familiar with the Story Triangle. 

A lot of stories revolve around this narrative structure. Most of Shakespeare’s plays revolve around this narrative idea. The plot triangle is one of the most commonly used ways of telling a story. Supposedly, this is the model that Mofftiss are trying to shoot for with Sherlock. Lets take a look at how this structure generally fits within a typical 5 act play. 

Well ... we already have a bit of a problem when it comes to Sherlock, don’t we? The climax is in the wrong spot. If we try and fit Sherlock into the Freytag narrative structure, the first episode really serves as the exposition while everything leading up the The Reichenbach Fall serves as the rising action. And then we get the fall itself as the climax. But, if we think of each season as being like an act, then the climax comes at the end of the second act. Which would leave all of season 3, 4, and 5 to act as falling action and dénouement, which generally leads to a slow, drawn out story. However, lets take a look at the Freytag narrative in a 3 act play, shall we?

The Three Act Structure

Now, a 3 act structure can really just be thought of as a condensed 5 act structure. The Exposition and Rising action are somewhat combined together to serve as an act 1 with a mini climax at the end of act 1. Then, in act 2, there’s more Rising Action, more obstacles to overcome, usually with some sort of midpoint in which a big twist happens. In Buddy Road Trip Movies, this is usually the annoying point at which they split up for some reason before coming back together for whatever the climax is, which falls at the end of Act 2. Act 3 is composed of the end of the climax, the falling action, the resolution, and the dénouement, the time of emotional release and seeing our characters ride off into the sunset. 

Well, I’d say Sherlock fits much more securely in this narrative structure. You have the exposition of the fist episode, with the inciting incident coming at the Cabbie saying Moriarty’s name. The rest of the season is more buildup, with the end of The Great Game acting as the climax of act one (and one of the biggest fucking cliffhangers ever). Then we have the resolution of the climax of act one, more rising action, and the the big climax of act 2 with Sherlock jumping. The first two seasons of Sherlock fit much better into the 3 act narrative than into a 5 act narrative. 

Sherlock’s Structure

That’s not to say the show doesn’t fit into the 5 act narrative at all. It isn’t uncommon for stories to have multiple ‘climaxes’, smaller ‘peaks’ in the narrative structure that add tension and draw audiences in to the story being told. Each peak just needs to be ‘higher’, with the stakes rising and the climax getting more and more tense each time (this is one of the reasons why big superhero movie franchises constantly feel the need to one up themselves when it comes to the size and scope of the final climax of the movie and why its often so hard to do that with later movies - once you create an ‘Avengers level threat’, where do you go with the story from there?) And, admittedly, the end of the ‘third act’, the end of season 3, does come with a pretty big climactic moment that ‘one ups’ the previous climaxes: Moriarty returning. There’s just one little problem: this is almost immediately resolved.

If we ignore The Abominable Bride for a moment and focus just on the ‘actual’ episodes of each season, act 3 ends with Sherlock shooting Magnessun and Moriarty returning and act 4 starts with both of those issues already resolved. It’s the gaming playthrough equivalent in Minecraft of ‘I did some mining offscreen’. Even though, technically, there wasn’t anything done ‘offscreen’ to resolve the conflict (except for editing a video of Sherlock shooting Magnessun), we never see anything done on screen to resolve the problems, especially not the problem of Moriarty. Sherlock simply dismisses it as not real and moves on. ‘Moriarty isn’t really alive, this is just some plan from beyond the grave that I can deal with easily because I am the great Sherlock Holmes.’ The climax wasn’t really a climax. It just kinda fizzled out, and then the story moves on to instead deal with Mary. Now, we later come to learn that Moriarty had, actually, returned ... in a round about sort of way. We learn of Euros and everything she had done behind the scenes, directing Moriarty, and how the climax at the end of act 3 is linked with her. Ignoring all the plot problems that come with her, the biggest problem with her is placement: her story is in the wrong spot. Her story, the part that finally gets around to explaining and resolving the ‘big climax at the end of act 3′ doesn’t happen until the end of act 4, when we’re supposed to be drawing to the end of the falling action and about to enter the dénouement. That’s not to say that ‘climaxes’ can’t happen in the falling action, because they can. The caveat is that they have to be smaller than whatever the ‘big’ climax of the story is (and that the big climax of the story needs to be resolved in a satisfying way). The climaxes in the 4th act have to simply be what happens while trying to tie up the lose ends of the story. The Final Problem acts as a resolution to the climax of act 3, but it happens almost an entire act after when it is supposed to, with no sort of rising action or narrative structure to fit the two stories, the two pieces of the narrative puzzle, together. Nothing in The Six Thatchers or in The Lying Detective really link Moriarty’s return at the end of act 3 with The Final Problem. The other issue with The Final Problem is that it attempts to fit all of the falling action and the dénouement into the end of the episode. Not even all into one episode, but to fit everything into, like, the last 5 minutes of the episode. The end montage with Mary’s voice over feels very much like a ‘riding into the sunset’ kind of moment, even if you believe there will be a fifth season. You just can’t resolve a story in 5 minutes. You can’t fit two whole acts into 5 minutes and it feel like a satisfying story. And if there is another season, the end sequence of The Final Problem just throws another wrench in the Freytag narrative structure. 

Basically, what I’m getting at is, no matter which way you try to look at it, Sherlock doesn’t fit neatly into clearly established narrative structures. Which isn’t inherently a bad thing. Stories don’t have to fit into a 3 act or 5 act structure or even follow the Freytag narrative structure at all to be good stories. However, most of the stories we consume today, most of the books we read and movies we watch and, to a certain extent, the overarching plot of many TV shows we watch, fall into this narrative structure. While there are plenty of stories out there that don’t, in any way, fit into these structures, the point is that it is a narrative structure we are familiar with and that Sherlock attempts to fit into it. Sherlock makes it look like it’s going to fit into that narrative structure. And then it doesn’t. After growing up experiencing all these stories that very clearly follow the Freytag narrative structure, we expect stories that attempt to fall into that narrative structure to stay in that narrative structure. To follow it all the way through. It leaves audience members extremely unsatisfied if it doesn’t. This is why even if all the plot holes and inconsistencies and the characters being out of character were resolved, even if the Extended Mind Palace theory turns out to be true or John’s Bungalow theory or whatever other theory you could come up with to resolve season 4, the narrative structure of Sherlock will never be satisfying. It’s the reason why people have proposed different orders for watching the Star Wars movies or watching the Avengers movies. Because we understand how these stories are supposed to work and end up feeling unsatisfied when the curtain closes and the lights come back up. We want that familiar structure, that release of emotion that we have come to expect from clearly established narration that we are accustomed to. This is the problem inherent with Sherlock. Not the secret sister that seemed to come out of nowhere. Not the inconsistencies or characters knowing things they shouldn’t or doing things they shouldn’t. Not even Redbeard being a boy and not a dog, but the very foundation of the show itself. It’s narration. Because the ‘final’ climax is likely going to have to fit itself into the 5th season (especially if the Extended Mind Palace Theory is correct and we have a ‘it was all just a dream moment’), a resolution to the problem, all the falling action, AND the dénouement are all going to have to be shoved into the 5th act. Which is likely going to make for a story that feels very rushed.

That’s why I have a proposition: a restructuring of the story. This doesn’t resolve plot holes, but it does, I think, make the story more satisfying. It’s moving things around kind of a lot, so things might get a little messy.

Okay, everything is almost exactly the same through season 3, with the one change being that the clues pointing towards another sibling, the build up of it, happens over the course of season 3 instead of season 4. The Abominable Bride doesn’t really matter in this retelling, so take it or leave it as you wish (personally, I choose to take it). The first episode of the 4th season still has Rosie being born and the very beginning of the episode (with the footage of Sherlock shooting Magnussen being altered and Sherlock being dismissive of Moriarty’s return), but everything that happens in The Final Problem happens in this episode. So, discovery of a secret sister, Sherrinford, confrontation of a secret sister, murder games, all of it happens in the first episode of the 4th season. The climax with Moriarty’s return is resolved when it is supposed to be. However unsatisfying it is that he isn’t actually back, at least the narrative flows in this way. The second episode of season 4 is an entirely new story, something that starts the resolution of Sherlock having a secret sister and of obvious trauma from when he was a child. In The Final Problem, Mycroft mentions that he gave Eurus ‘gifts’ for her assistance in fixing problems, so perhaps a problem comes up that Mycroft and Sherlock can’t solve, and they have the moral dilemma of whether or not they should go to Eurus and whether or not her demands will be worth her help. IDK, I’m just spit balling here. The last episode of the season is also a new episode, something that emphasizes the Johnlock dilemma, something that brings into focus John’s feelings for Sherlock and Sherlock’s feelings for John. Something that explicitly shows their attraction for each other and the problems getting in the way of them being together (Mary, heternormativity, maybe John having internalized homophobia, idk), but they don’t actually get together. The first episode of the 5th season is The Six Thatchers, and Mary dies. That episode plays out basically exactly as it is. The episode still ends with John extremely mad at Sherlock and not wanting to be around him. The second episode is the Lying Detective, basically completely as it is. The final episode of the season and the show is them talking through everything, The Reichenbach Fall and why Sherlock left for two years (because that’s not something they seem to have discussed at any point), the pain John still feels over Mary being dead, the feelings both of them have towards each other, and some sort of case to show them that they are still the good friends of the first two acts, that things haven’t really changed. That regardless of whatever romantic attraction they may or may not have for each other, they still deeply care about each other and want to be in each other’s lives. Something to show us how their lives will play out in the future, that they’ll continue to solve cases together. Hell, you can still have the end montage with Mary’s voice over if you want. It’s certainly a lot more fitting there. In my personal opinion (though others can disagree with me if they like), the most fitting ‘resolution’ to John and Sherlock’s attraction towards each other isn’t actually a resolution, but a beginning. I say, after the end montage and Mary’s voice over, cut to the two of them on a nervous date with each other, obviously not knowing what the hell to do but excited about the possibilities of the future. It leaves things open to the imagination for the audience (which is always nice, especially for fanfiction potential) and it doesn’t try to cram too much into a short amount of time (I really feel like trying to show them long term dating or getting married or anything like that would just be pushing it as far as narrative flow).

I’m not saying my proposed solution solves everything. There’s still plenty of issues to either have to work through or ignore with my version of events. Plenty of plot holes and character inconsistencies. But at least my version of events makes sense, at least narratively speaking. It follows the five act structure Mofftiss say they are so fond of. (If you want to say that The Six Thatchers would work better as the end of act 4, serving as the last episode of season 4, and then have The Lying Detective serve as the first episode of season 5 with a completely new episode as the second episode and then another new episode as the final resolution of what life for our Baker Street boys will be like in the future, I would also accept that proposed version of events; it does allow for more evolution of John and Sherlock’s relationship as a couple, though it does leave things less open ended for the two of them. If you prefer that, that’s valid. If you would rather stick to a 3 act structure, then keep The Empty Hearse exactly as it is, have The Sign of Three as it is but with Sherlock and John getting married, and pretend like season 3 ends with the montage of John, Sherlock, and Rosie and just pretend like John and Sherlock adopted a little girl. If you would prefer that version of events, that is also valid.) Even with all the other issues that come with seasons 3 and 4, this version of events just feels more satisfying, at least to me. 

(Something I wanted to point out but couldn’t find a good place to insert it, so I’m just adding it as a footnote now: that’s why The Hounds of Baskerville feels kinda out of place. Don’t get me wrong, it’s a great episode, but it always seemed to stick out like a sore thumb to me. And that’s because it does, narratively speaking: it doesn’t contribute to the rising action. All the other episodes in the first 2 seasons contribute and lead back to Moriarty in some form or fashion; they act as an evolving narrative leading to the Reichenbach Fall. Except for The Hounds Of Baskerville. It is it’s own, separate narrative. It’s a good narrative. It’s one of the best narratives in the show, if I’m being honest. But it still is out of place. It would fit much better as the second episode of the first season, acting as a continued exposition of the first act before we get the first (not so) mini climax with The Great Game. Narratively speaking, it would make more sense to switch The Hounds of Baskerville with The Blind Banker.)

TL;DR first of all, understandable, this is a very long post. Second, the narrative structure of the show itself is fucky, and that’s why season 4 will never feel satisfying, no matter what happens in a possible season 5 to try and resolve the fuckery of season 4