#wow i really am falling into some predictable motifs with these things

[honouredsnakeprincess]

Places of mundane life are transported into a hell, and your university campus has been transformed into a site of mortal peril. You encounter someone you think you had a class with last year, but she insists she's never met you before in her life, and denies even being a student here.

She does know the person you think looks like her, and curses her name and her lack of honour. Is this a monster wearing her face?

[plunder-heaven-and-devour-god]

im gonna go full english lit under the cut

I saw measure for measure??? with my local Shakespeare in the Park about  month and a half ago and im mcfucking obsessed with it. So much so that ive tried to find every clip of every film, every show, rehearsal, production, that i can to compare how scenes played out. I even listened to a harvard lecture about it, i’m that far gone. I BOUGHT. A SHIRT. I bought the book with additional notes and discussions because this play is fascinating.

WHY AM I OBSESSED?!

All readings through different lenses are there in full force, fully supported, living side beside with one another. And professors, actors, directors, scholars etc, all seem to congregate on the fact that not one reading is more valid than the other. Theyre so well balanced without ever really given moral answers but merely presented, almost like the Jacobean meaning of the “glass” both a mirror to predict the future and reflect on oneself. And in a post elizabethan age where puritans were outlawing plays and putting stricter holds on licentiousess this play is so close to upsetting the dominant religious force.

And the READINGS! ARE ALL! SO GOOD! There is historicist reading (king James I), Folkloric, Religious, SadoMasochist, Psychosexual, Moral, Feminist, and Capitalistic readings. THEY ALL EXIST SIDE BY SIDE.

And the staging of the play determines how many of these a production can pull together. I think that is why I wanted to see as many scenes are possible. 

I think just the way Angelo and Isabella are played will determine which main reading the play tackles. 

I’ve seen some versions of the interview scenes that are truly horrific acts of sexual violence that made me watch between my fingers. In this the feminist reading can come into full force, the full underline of Angelo as a sexual predator is made prevalent. And the line “and with an outstretched throat i will tell the world what man thou art, Angelo” being present that strong feminist reading IS ALWAYS THERE. (DID I MENTION I LOVE ISABELLA FLAWS AND ALL). The idea that Isabellas voice is the most crucial device in the play is FLOORING.  

The Duke being a nearly godly figure who knows all and manipulates all, Angelo as his emissary becomes like an angel in the process of self corruption, from the inhumane ice he is so dubbed to warmed by the sins he so condemns. And Isabella defending the thing she so hates because it is her brother who commits the sin is the defense of someone who does not truly believe her brother is just. Mercy as justice. To wield power and to use it for mercy is so profound, and she is the only one who carries her ethos through like this to the end ofthe play. I’m not a theologist but so far this is the reading of theologists into the matter.

The version I saw in person he practically throws himself at her feet and it becomes an interplay of the psychosexual and moral. His knees buckle under her touch, it becomes the interaction of repressed sexuality channeled into both law and religion. In the Stratford production Isabella wipes her brow with water out of disgust or heat, no one is sure. it’s left ambivalent. In the one I saw Angelo was made almost comedic and sympathetic, which made ISabellas mercy still feel like an axe coming down upon his head. 

And then characters like Barnadine just using comedy, the genre of the gods as the greeks called it, to dimish law, to put it to shame. To put the godly/playwright Duke in his place.

The folkloric bed switch (which is folklore yes but Im not totally comfortable calling it consensual even tho Angelo is a sexual predator you can bring modern sensibilities to the reading), is indicative of oral traditions that predate shakespeare. The idea that every character must do in this play the thing they most loathe to do.

Claudio fears death so he must die, Isabella must have sex to save a life when she has sworn herself to chastity. Then they both sort of hurt each other, Claudio by asking her to yield herself up to this non consensual sexual coercion of upmost grossness, and isabella by telling him to be happy he will die because there is nothing so painful as being alive (ISABELLA HES AN EXPECTING FATHER). He asks her to do the thing she loathes most in a fit of desperation because the man who loves life must die. And Isabella the woman who “would wear these keen whips as rubies” would have have done anything but sex, tells her brother that living isnt worth it. ITS INTENSE. LIKE WOW.

It’s absolutely no surprise that Isabella and Angelo are my favourite characters in the play. This awful sexual coercion (the degree of violence is dependant on staging which is like holy shit WTF), lives side by side with the fact that they are the two only people whose language, diction, beats, and intelligence matches each other. They both have the same fervor for their moral divisions and hierarchies. The idea of strict testing of morals and faith is in the text. Isabella wishes for harsher, more challenging, and harrowing tests of faith. You can argue as to why, I personally think its for the strengthening of faith and connection to the divine. Meanwhile Angelo is the one setting restrictions for hundreds of thousands of vienna, setting those on other people to strengthen the connection to a higher moral fibre, and I think in some respects faith as well but thats my interpretation. 

Where others live their vices without restrictions, these two set limits for either themselves and/or others to be something more. They are in the way that motif of the “glass” The mirror. In that sense they reflect each other, but they also become each others foil. Which is why I do think a case can be made for the parallels with the psycho sexual and the SadoMasochist readings. Restraints for rewards, the repression on both their parts is there.

I’m not saying that negates the strong feminist reading or in anyway shape or form validates the absolute horror of the coerced sex/rape. I just say that they exist side by side with each other. They are equals in text/language/fervour AND YET they are not because he holds every power over her and her brother. He wants to restrict others where he cannot restrict himself, and Isabella restricts herself in part because she lives in a Vienna full of vice. She has a control over her own self that he proves not to have. And HE has a control over the world of the play that she cant. 

AND YET. SHE IS MARRIED TO THE DUKE. SHE MARRIES INTO PROMINENCE. I don’t love the idea that she does not become a nun, her original want, and is instead coopted by the shitty duke (i am not pro duke sorry). The only upside at the end of the play is that Isabella can, in some measure, have political sway over the masses. Meanwhile Angelos fall and forgiveness put him into a marriage where his vice of coercive sex becomes consummation of a sleeping marriage. IT FEELS LIKE they sort of mirror each other the whole way through the play. ITS WEIRD BECAUSE THERE IS SO MUCH SEXUAL AND POLITICAL INEQUALITY TO THEM. ITs a play full of contradictions which I LOVE BECAUSE IT IS NOT SIMPLE NOT BECAUSE IT IS RIGHT. I do think there is a case to be made that Isabella unwillingly comes face to face with sexuality, his and hers, and its not on terms she wants, but it happens. And you see her struggling to maintain the authority over her own autonomy. But then she has to contemplate sex for herself, “to give up her boy into saucy sweetness, licentiousness, the filthy vices”. What does ISabella do when she comes face to face with her own sexual needs, whatever she may be? We have productions in the Stratford archives from 50 years ago that make an ambiguous case that the meeting of morality and sex might actually do something for her? I DON’T KNOW. The readings keep coming. There is a possiblity for a strong Ace reading for her which no one really touches on. 

ON A LIGHTER NOTE

This play has my favourite sexual innuendo. When theyre like “WHAT DID CLAUDIO DO?”

“Her?”

“no! What did he do to get taken away by the provost”

“HIS GIRLFRIEND.” 

(god and isnt it nuts that the first man on the scaffold for unlawful fornication IS IN A CONSENSUAL LOVING RELATIONSHIP WITH HIS GIRLFRIEND, A BOND AND CRIME THAT THE LAW (ANGELO) HAVE DEEMED IMMORAL. YET THE LAW (ANGELO) WOULD HAVE IT PARDONNED BY A NON CONSENSUAL SEX FOR EXECUTION PARDON. THE MASK OF MORALITY OF ANGELO. JFC HES SO FUCKED, like hes AWFUL, because he ends up sending claudio to death after he thinks hes had sex with isabella. LIKE WHAT A PIECE OF SHIT ND YET STILL WEARS THE LAW AS HIS MASK AFTER THE ANGEL HAS FALLEN. ITS COMPLEX AND I LOVE IT)

God and just…the sex jokes, the black comedy of barnadine right next to the high shooting morals of angelo, isabella, and mariana (another complex af character. The 1976 version certainly makes a psychosexual explanation out of that, which im not sure i enjoy. Again the psychosexual has its limits in a play about sexual coercion and rape)

AND THE FACT THAT MERCY IS WHAT SETS YOU FREE, LIKE PROSPERO FORGIVING HIS ENEMIES, ISABELLA FORGIVING ANGELO IS A HERCULEAN FEAT, IT FEELS CLOSE TO GODLINESS IDK MAN. AND I UNDERSTAND WHY SHE TELLS HER BROTHER NO I WONT SLEEP WITH HIM FOR YOUR LIFE BECAUSE ITS RAPE, BUT THEN IS LIKE BE GLAD BEING ALIVE IS SHITTY ANYWAYS. Im like? ISABELLA? WHAT?! ISabella does not know about herself that she can be desired because GOD DOES IT TAKE HER A WHILE TO UNDERSTAND ANGELOS MEANING, and yet shes got such a force for words. I find it hard to think being married to the duke that she wont have some power. 

And the exchange of Angelo and Isabella in the second interview.

-His moral stance on unlawful fornication starts with abortive language, the harsh restrictions but DEVOLVES INTO THE SEXUAL WITH THE INTELLECTUAL DICTION, It becomes a mirror of himself until he is explicit of what he wants from her. (OH GOD TRULY HE GIVES ME NAUSEOUS AND YET THE ONE IN THE PLAY I SAW HE WAS ENTHRALLING I HATE THE RANGE OF THINGS ANGELO CAN MAKE ME FEEL). His mask of morality is slowly removed

-ISABELLA must argue on behalf of her brother, believing in restrictions of the kid angelo speaks of, they believe in restraining oneself to achieve a higher form of being, and yet has to straight up defend something she hates because she loves her brother. And ANGELO CAN SEE IT. I WISH THERE WAS AN AFTERMATH WHERE WE SEE HER USING HER INTELLECT AND WORDS FOR HER ENDS. 

I truly think the second interview scene is one of the best exchanges Billy Shakes wrote. Because it ENDS LIKE THAT. GOD the david tennant one is chilling, the oregon shakespeare festival one is fucked. The 1976 which is the most psychosexual was so intensely disturbing that the Angelo got applause for it. IDK What that means and im too scared to ask. Idk how the RSC managed because youtbe doesnt show me that. The Repurcussion theatre was the most varied array of contradictions for angelo instead of just corrupt judge. It literally is all the shakespeare villains that do the most heinous things that Im like THATS MY FAVE. Iago was just RACISM/Sociopath and fifteen year old me was like YES HIM. I mean Richard III is bad but hes fun. ANGELO AT THE BEST IS A SEXUAL PREDATOR AND YET IM STILL LIKE WOW HOW COMPLEX ALSO THE ACTOR WAS SO GOOD LOOKING AND PLAYING UP THE BDSM BOTTOM ANGLE I WAS GONE. 

And the Isabellas go from wilting lily, to some sort of quiet and reserved girl, and the one i saw was literally “she is tiny but fierce” like her voice was really forceful and i thought it was amazing. 

THIS PLAY IS FUCKED WHEN IT COMES TO THESE READINGS LIVING SIDE BY SIDE BUT BOY IS THIS INTERESTING. 

if you made it this far wow holy shit. thanks for coming to my ted talk.

[hyperfixatingrn]

Rewatch & Explanation

TL;DR: I rewatched all of season 4 and took notes on interesting things, themes, and just general things I noticed. I also responded to supposed plot holes and other questions I’ve seen floating around. The extensive notes are, expectedly, in the “keep reading.”

For anyone who cares: Season 4 of Sherlock fucked me up. Not necessarily because I was depressed by it; it was more because the show literally consumed me for almost the entire month of January. The day after TFP, I looked in the mirror and realized that I had forgotten to take care of myself for over a week.

I wasn’t fully satisfied with season 4 on my first watch, but I liked it enough. But having trusted Moftiss almost implicitly when it comes to the writing of this show, I was really surprised when this season didn’t wow me as much as it usually does. The negative attitude that just erupted with the end of the season and the feeling of impending doom concerning the show’s future was a bit too much for me. I felt my opinions of the season were too clouded and influenced by my own anxiety and other people’s frustrations. But this show has really meant so much to me for the past 7 years.  So, on the Monday after TFP aired, I did what was most therapeutic and rewatched the whole season while commenting on it/answering any questions or assumed plot holes I have seen floating around, so that I could decide my real, final opinion on the season. At the end of the rewatch I cried tears and tears of joy. I really think this season is worth another shot. It wasn’t the best, but that doesn’t mean it was bad. I am finally posting it.

P.S. A side note... I’ve never really done meta and I’m too fragile/insecure to test my abilities out right now. So sometimes I will point out something or a theme/motif but not go deep into why I think it is that way. Sorry!

1. “Sherlock said he knew exactly what Moriarty was going to do next, but he didn’t.”

At the end of TAB, we see Sherlock say he knows what Moriarty is going to do next. This line is referred to in the beginning of TST. Lady Smallwood says, “...You also say you know what he’s going to do next.” To that, Sherlock responds that Moriarty has, “Planned something, something long-term. Something that would take effect if he never made it off that rooftop alive. Posthumous revenge. No, better than that - posthumous game.” What we see here is that while Sherlock does not know “exactly” the specifics of Moriarty’s return, he has basically hit the nail on the head in terms of a “posthumous game,” which we see in TFP.

side analysis: Sherlock asks if it is his birthday in TST, and then it is his birthday in TLD. Cute little wrap up.

2. In TST, we see Mycroft look at a photo of a baby girl and have no idea what to say about it. He goes on to say that he has never been good with humans. This is indicative of how he could put his sister in a prison for 30 years and tell her parents she was dead and allow her other brother to believe she doesn’t exist.

3. “Eurus’s powers are over the top. She is not a superhero.”

In TST Sherlock says, “The world is woven from billions of lives, every strand crossing every other. What we call premonition is just movement of the web. If you could attenuate to every strand of quivering data, the future would be entirely calculable. As inevitable as mathematics.” This theory is brought up a second time in the season in TLD: “Interesting, isn’t it. I have theorised before that if one could attenuate to every available data stream in the world simultaneously, it would be possible to anticipate and deduce almost anything.” As this is brought up TWICE, we can assume is how Eurus operates. It is a foreshadowing of Eurus’s impressive capabilities. She is able to predict and control the world. She is so clever that she makes herself aware of all the data of the world and can therefore predict the future. It is also worth noting that Mrs. Holmes is a former mathematician. So Eurus’s intelligence/attention to the world’s data is as easy for her as mathematics is for her mother. Ahhh... family.

4. In TST, Mycroft reveals that Sherlock wrote his own version of “Appointment in Samarra” as a child because he didn’t like that the man had to die. He writes “Appointment in Sumatra” instead where the man actually outruns death and becomes a pirate. (Sherlock is the softest.) In TFP, Moriarty reveals TO Mycroft (five years in the past) that he wrote his own version of the Nativity as a child called “The Hungry Donkey.” He says that putting a baby in a manger is just asking for it. Sherlock and Moriarty’s fan fictions give insight to the inherent emotional differences between Sherlock and Moriarty. Sherlock is highly emotional and afraid of death, while Moriarty welcomes it. Much like how Sherlock fakes his death, but Moriarty shoots himself in the mouth just to win the argument.

5. “TFP was just a bunch of horror movies in one episode.”

Well, while I lack the knowledge to actually dispute this (I don’t watch horror movies) the horror movie trend was already set in TST. While John and Mary discuss Rosie’s destruction of the front room, they mention a couple of horror movies, The Exorcist and The Omen, and then speak about how Rosie cannot be both the devil and the antichrist.

side analysis: Napoleon is mentioned twice in the series. Once by Craig in TST: “Thatcher’s like, I dunno, Napoleon now.” And once by Sherlock in TLD: “Napoleon Bonaparte... Actually, just Napoleon would do.”

6. A theme of daughters.

I was suspicious of this, but I believe my theory has been confirmed. There is at least one daughter in every episode. TST: Rosie and also the daughter of Jack Sandeford, the owner of the last Thatcher bust. TLD: Culverton’s daughter Faith. TFP: Eurus. In TST, Sandeford’s daughter is swimming in the pool. This is most likely a foreshadow for the deep water nightmares and Eurus’s relation to it. Faith is the daughter of a psychopath, while Eurus is a real psychopath, and Eurus disguises herself as Faith. This obviously isn’t a proper analysis... but the fact is there.

7. Sherlock is off his game is TST, but the revealing part is why.

Sherlock is trying very hard in TST to be Season 1′s “high functioning sociopath.” He wants to be unemotional and focused on only work. He texts during his best friend’s important life events and doesn’t seriously engage with anyone in a manner that is unrelated to work. He is assumes his strategies have succeeded and that he knows exactly what is happening. He assumes Moriarty is behind the busts because Mycroft mentioned that Jim had, “latterly shown some interest in tracking down the Black Pearl of the Borgias.” Which is why Sherlock breaks the Thatcher bust with such arrogance saying, “Let me present Interpol’s number one case. Too tough for them, too boring for me.” He is wrong about what is in the bust, obviously. He misses what is “right in front of him.” Sherlock also loses his cool and goes off on deduction temper tantrums twice in the episode. First, he fake-deduces that a man’s wife is a spy, just because the man thought he had “done something clever,” but it’s actually quite “simple.” In this moment, we see that Sherlock still has a lot of growing up to do. We see it again in his interaction with Mrs. Norbury as he degrades her again and again, even as Mary warns him not to. He ends it with a kicker: “Vivian Norbury, who outsmarted them all. All except Sherlock Holmes.” The second fit proves fatal to his best friend’s wife. In the end, Sherlock must realize that it is not his detached, callous, emotionless manner that gets him to solve the cases AND save the life. It is his heart. That is what is so important about this episode and really why it starts the journey of Season 4.

8. “Families fall out.” - Sherlock

Sherlock says this in TST in response to Mary. Clearly foreshadowing Eurus. What is even more damning is the game he plays with the boy in Morocco. 

Sherlock: Mr. Baker. Well, that completes the set. 

Boy: No, it does not. 

Sherlock: Well, who else am I missing?

Boy: Master Bun. It’s not a set without him.

Sherlock: I suppose I’m not familiar with the concept... happy families.

This is so clearly a reference to the fact that Sherlock is unaware his family is incomplete, yet still completely aware that his family is unhappy. Also Mr. Baker? Baker Street? Mr. Baker is probably a symbol for Sherlock. Sherlock saying that Mr. Baker completes the set shows that he believes he is the youngest child and the end of the Holmes family. The boy then says Sherlock is missing “Master Bun,” who is apparently a “him” in this game, but I think that the metaphor still holds. 

9. “There was no indication that Sherlock dreamt of water. Also how could Sherlock dream of water if he had no idea about the well?”

Well first of all, it is clearly stated that Eurus called him “Drowned Redbeard,” but never told them where he was. So it is perfectly reasonable to believe that Sherlock would be haunted by water as his “dog” drowned in it. We also see that Sherlock’s memories are coming back to him even before he is aware of Eurus. When Mary knocks Sherlock out with the drugged letter he has a dream of Redbeard, playing pirate, and Eurus’s song. Then as the dream fades out you see Sherlock running off in the distance, with another boy. Who we know is not Mycroft, because Mycroft was pretty overweight as a child and also much taller than Sherlock. So this is clearly a hazy memory of Victor coming back to Sherlock. As Sherlock wakes up you hear the crashing of the waves, which again emphasizes the importance of water. When the bullet starts towards Sherlock he instantly has a look of fear as a reflection of water dances across his face and loud sounds of water splash all around him. Here we see another example of how Eurus was right and it is true that Sherlock has nightmares of deep water. In Sherlock’s session with Ella, she asks him, “You’ve been having dreams. A recurring dream?” SO we must assume this is a dream about water as it is a reoccurring motif. Sherlock AGAIN hears Eurus’s song in TLD when he is on the bank after Eurus, disguised as Faith, says, “Anyone.”

10. “Not on my watch.”

This phrase is said three times in season 4. It is said by both Sherlock and Mycroft. Mycroft says it in TST, “I don’t like loose ends, not on my watch.” Sherlock says it in TST and TFP. He says it in TST in response to Mycroft suggesting Mary would be “retired in a pretty permanent way.” And he says it in TFP in response to Eurus. “Five minutes. It took her just five minutes to do all of this to us. Well, not on my watch.” I feel as though the implication of actual minutes gives a deeper meaning to the phrase “not on my watch” in TFP. Like, perhaps it wasn’t actually five minutes, it was much longer or much shorter... Just a thought. Fucky.

11. Planes

This is a weak thought, but again the facts are there... There’s never been a season with more than one plane and in season 4 there are three. The one Mary is on disguised as an American, the one all three of them are on, and the one Eurus is on. And John daydreams Eurus (disguised as the girl on the bus) while on the plane, which is coincidental considering Eurus’s main dream/hallucination is that she is on a plane. 

12. Culverton poster in TST foreshadowing (I just honestly didn’t notice the tagline)

“It’s murder in...”

13. In TST, in between the shots of Norbury being escorted out of the aquarium and John in the cemetery, we see a visual of a casket burning. This cannot be Mary because she would either be cremated without a casket or put in a casket (I’m not an expert, but I’m pretty sure that’s how it works?) After watching TFP for the second time, I can confirm that the casket is either pratically identical or is the Molly Hooper casket in TFP. So the question is: Why? Honestly I don’t know. I’ll get back to you.

14. I wish this was #13, but it didn’t work out that way. So the question is WHAT is 13th? It is on a post-it note on Mycroft’s fridge and he sees it and immediately calls Sherrinford. What does it all mean? That doesn’t mean it’s a plot hole, it just means it’s something that hasn’t been explained explicitly. There is a difference.

15. “Your kitchen window faces east.”

Sherlock says this in TLD in his explanation to “Faith” about how he knew her kitchen was tiny. “Faith” is Eurus. Eurus is the east wind. EAST WIND IS COMING. Obviously a foreshadow that this woman is Eurus and the east wind.

16. Development: Mycroft

In TLD, when Lady Smallwood defends Sherlock’s grief over Mary, Mycroft says, “Everybody dies. It’s the one thing human beings can be relied upon to do. How can it still come as a surprise to people?” He is so callous he almost sounds like Moriarty. However, in TFP, he refuses to take a man’s life, “I can’t do this. It’s murder.” He is the one at Sherrinford who cannot take the violence or death. He is constantly shocked by death in TFP. This is clear human development on Mycroft’s part. He is learning and growing and becoming more human.

17. “Is he with someone?” “Not sure. We keep losing visual.”

I think this part has been vastly overlooked. At the time I believe some assumed (though not me because I know a Sian Brooke when I see one) that this little interaction between Mycroft and the man watching the video feed suggested that Sherlock was hallucinating Faith, but after it was confirmed that she was real, the interaction was glassed over. The interaction signifies, to me, that Eurus has power in the government as well or at least that Sherrinford kept keeping Mycroft from seeing her.

18. Game of chess.

Remember in TEH, we think we see Sherlock and Mycroft enraptured in a game of chess, but it actually turns out to be a simple game of operation. In season 4, there were many visuals of a chess table. The hostages in TST play chess and say, “Chess palls after three months.” In TLD, as Sherlock falls onto his couch after his swirling hallucination, we see a chess table underneath the couch. It also in the last shot of the flat before the scene in which Eurus is revealed. In the promotional photos of TFP, Mycroft and Sherlock are actually playing chess, as opposed to in TEH. This probably suggests that season 3 was easier and more child’s play, and that the struggles the boys are up against in season 4 are much more serious and complicated.

19. Once More Unto the Breach

EASILY my favorite scene in the entire seires, besides the hug and Sherlock/baby scenes. Drugged out Sherlock/Ben reciting Shakespeare is something I thought I could have only imagined in my wildest fantasies. This speech itself is usually pretty tame in comparison, though, in context, it is King Henry V RILING his troops up to try to once again attack a weak spot in the enemy’s walls. What is worth noting is that this is the speech when Mrs. Hudson becomes part of the plan to save John Watson. She watched the video, so she might be aware of what Sherlock is doing, but she decides to speed him up. She becomes one of his troops. Also, at the end of his speech he shoots a picture of Culverton with a quote that says, “You wouldn’t believe the things they let me get away with!” Nice detail.

20. Eurus answers John’s phone

WOAHH. Something I totally missed first time watching. Eurus answers John’s phone while he’s dealing with Sherlock and the person on the other end is Culverton Smith. So... that’s worth noting. Especially considering later that she says that Culverton Smith “gave” her the letter. Also like... John is polite to women and also distracted so he doesn’t call her out on this, but like that ISN’T chill. That’s his first session and she answers his phone? Something was off right away.

21. “Get me a fresh glass of water, please, this one’s filthy.”

VERY funny. I laughed, we all laughed. BUT Eurus actually gets him a new glass of water. A metaphor possibly? We all know that he is haunted by her song and water... sooo.... idk just an idea

22. “It’s gone downhill a bit, hasn’t it?”

Everyone assumed that this scene was an indication that this was a dream. No one really knew who John was. It was off, but maybe for a different reason. Let’s consider the fact that John probably hasn’t really been with Sherlock for a significant time. It’s been over three months since Mary died (because it had been three months from when Sherlock had the drug hallucination after Faith to when he and John met Culverton) and also it has been over half a year since the baby was born. John hasn’t gone out with Sherlock in, I’d say at least four months. And before that he was going out with him less and less because of the baby and maybe his last blogs were rushed or spotty BECAUSE he was multitasking and he had a lot on his mind. So, what we can assume is that the blog HAS gone downhill and people are maybe even starting to forget John Watson, which is frankly John’s worst nightmare and sets off his temper. It also makes me wonder if this is related to why John was looking at an image of his blog in TST.

23. The sheep in the waiting room

This visual IMMEDIATELY reminded me of “The Story of Sir Boast-a-lot” in TRF. I actually thought it WAS the exact same visual at first. The sheep are jumping over a fence which is suggestive of “counting sheep to get to sleep.” SO, it is understandable that some people believed this was a dream. I tend to think that instead it was just a hypnotizing, drug-affected scene. Sherlock isn’t totally there. He feels “psychedelic,” as he just topped up in the bathroom. He’s awake, but he isn’t totally there.

24. “Why did John beat up Sherlock? Why didn’t he trust the evidence in front of him instead of listening to Culverton?”

Well, from what we’ve learned from TFP, Eurus can reprogram people’s minds. Eurus was John’s therapist. Whether Eurus made John more susceptible to insecurity or the death of his wife did, I’m not sure. But what we do know is that in the scene in the mortuary Culverton mocks John’s intelligence many times. He really drives home the point that John’s an idiot and not a real doctor for listening to Sherlock who is too high to know what’s real anymore. These attacks really shake John, whereas I argue they would not have in the past. He is usually rather confident in himself and his abilities. But this insecurity in him is rather noticeable. It is also pretty valid. John is nearing rock bottom already and it takes one more nudge from Culverton to get him to the bottom of the barrel. Whether it was Eurus or Mary’s death that made him so fragile, is up for debate. As for John attacking Sherlock, we can speculate whether Euros programmed John to beat up Sherlock. However, I would like to imagine that John just loses his mind in that mortuary. He is not himself. He hasn’t spent time with the man who keeps him grounded, Sherlock, in maybe over 4 months. His wife is dead. He doesn’t spend time with his daughter. He is losing himself. He takes it out on Sherlock, which is not healthy or good, I agree. I cannot explain this away. I would like to quote John Watson on this one, “Why can’t some things be unacceptable and we just accept that?”

25. “Why did Mrs. Hudson call Mycroft a reptile? A bit overboard?”

Well, right before Mrs. Hudson calls Mycroft a reptile she tells everyone to get out because they’re about to watch John’s deceased wife’s video. She says that “Anyone who stays here a minute longer is admitting to me personally they do not have a single spark of human decency.” And then everyone leaves, except Mycroft, who stays with his eyes fixed on the screen ready to watch. So she calls him a reptile because he has just proved that he doesn’t have a “single spark of human decency.” She is such a BAMF. She is the ideal grandma.

26. “I don’t want to die.”

This is profound for me. Sherlock has always been incredibly careless with his life. In ASIP, he was willing to risk the 50/50 chance of death, just to prove he was clever. In TGG, he anxiously scratches the back of his head with a GUN. He doesn’t appear to value his life. He risks death, or great harm, more times than I can count, just for the high or just to prove he’s clever. BUT, this episode we finally see the turn. We see Sherlock understand that when you die you’re not losing your own life, your friends and family are losing you. “Your life is not your own. Keep your hands off it. Off it.” And now as he faces death, he cries and admits that he doesn’t want to die. This man is not Season 1 Sherlock Holmes.

27. “How did Eurus get the original note??? Why?”

This one is tricky, not a plot hole, just challenging (as Gatiss said). But I do have some theories. Eurus says that, “Culverton gave me the original note. A mutual friend put us in touch.” We must assume, or at least I did, that this mutual friend is Moriarty, unless Eurus made other “friends” on Sherrinford. We can also assume this because Eurus says that Sherlock didn’t get the “big one” (one as in deduction that she added to the note), which WAS “Miss Me?” Now what she says about who gave it to her causes me to come up with three possible theories all of which start which the fact that I assume Culverton is friends or at least in touch with Moriarty as they are both legendary criminals. These are the theories: 1. Culverton decided he wanted to finally be free and confess to everyone permanently (why else would he keep the note after all that time?) and gave Moriarty the note to give to someone to help him out. BUT based off of Culverton’s face when he finds out that Sherlock had a recording device in John’s walking cane, this theory seems unlikely. 2. Culverton gave it as a present to Moriarty because Moriarty is weird and twisted like that and would probably love a present like that. THEN Moriarty gave it to Eurus. And finally... 3. Culverton told Moriarty about the note, Moriarty told Eurus about the note, then Eurus drugged Culverton (with TD-12???) and stole the note herself. So perhaps when she says that Culverton gave her the original note, she’s more being ironic and doesn’t mean it as precisely as it comes off.

28. The gun. “A tranquilizer gun is not the same as a real gun...”

I thought that I was going to have a very difficult time analyzing this or even proving this wrong until I actually rewatched the scene. The focus is never put on the gun. The gun is actually never in focus. Then we hear a gun shot and we look down the barrel of a gun. When you look down the barrel of the gun in the end and the screen turns red, I believe that meant to be a literal red herring because quite honestly, to me, the barrel we stare down in that final moment does not look the same as the gun in the rest of the scene. The gun she is flailing around (out of focus, mind you) seems to have two separate barrels, which is what appears to be the requirement of a tranquilizer gun. And I did some research on tranquilizer guns and what they can look like, and they can look quite similar to a regular gun, not exactly alike, but similar. And then the plot hole question becomes “John is a soldier, shouldn’t he have known the difference?” Well, as capable as John is, I’d like to give him the benefit of the doubt in this situation, because I’ve been to therapy and I know what it’s like to have your guard down and then suddenly realize your therapist isn’t trustworthy. It’s very intense. So a woman he trusted suddenly started locking him in and revealed she was the crazy secret sister of his best friend who he had also vaguely had an affair with and then she pointed a gun to his face. No matter his training, he was not prepared to be in battle mode and check out whether her gun was real. If it looks like a psychopath and talks like a psychopath, assume she’s pointing a real gun at you, was probably his instinct.

29. “So you’re telling me Eurus was just going to “tranquilize” John so he could just run and tell Sherlock??”

Yes... literally that is what I am telling you. She planned a massive, intense, dark game for Sherlock at Sherrinford. Are you telling me she was just going to kill John and risk Sherlock never showing up to her murder island? Of course she wants him to find out who she is. But also she’s a HOLMES. She wants credit for her cleverness. THEN ALSO people are saying, “Yeah ok, but then why did she send a grenade to their house.” As we’ve already discussed Eurus can accurately predict people’s actions almost perfectly. She probably predicted how they would react to the grenade and how they would try and save themselves from the grenade. A point I will make later is that the aftermath of the blast does not seem that devastating. All of the walls are fine. Sherlock and John’s chairs are fine. Papers and stuff are burnt but there is no structural damage. I believe Mycroft overestimated how awful the grenade would be. I don’t even think it would have killed them. They all survived. She wanted them to come. She didn’t plan for five years for nothing. She just wanted to play with their heads.

30. “Why would Mycroft’s first instinct be to smile when he saw his family film rather than the movie he was watching? Rather than wondering what was wrong?”

Well as they (they as in Mycroft and Sherlock) say, “Sentiment is a chemical defect found in the losing side.” Mycroft is clever, but as Mrs. Hudson points out... he’s an idiot and he’s becoming more human every episode. So when he sees himself as an overweight child eating cake next to his “brother mine” of course he smiles. Of course, he’s confused. But of course he smiles.

31. If TFP was going for the horror movie theme, this opening scene really sets it up very nicely. It gave me chills the first and second time watching. 

32. “How could Redbeard have been a child? If he was, how could Mycroft talk about it as if it was nothing?”

Well, I believe there are a couple things of note here. Mycroft, while cold, cares about Sherlock a lot. This is made clear from the very first episode. We see in the TFP that even when Sherlock felt he was bullying him by bringing up Redbeard or the “east wind,” Mycroft was trying to analyze Sherlock and see if his memories had resurfaced, if at all. He’s very sensitive about it. He worries. In the scene in the flat, Mycroft is delicately telling Sherlock about his sister that he forgot existed and I think it would have been a bad idea for him to suddenly drop the bomb that his beloved dog was actually his best friend. Mycroft lies to protect Sherlock. When Sherlock accusing Mycroft of lying, he admits it and says, “It is also a kindness.” Another moment that is revealing is:

John: You don’t lock up a child because a dog goes missing.

Mycroft: Quite so.

So Mycroft is actually hinting that Eurus wasn’t locked up because a dog went missing, but for a much bigger reason: Victor Trevor’s death. He continues to go into depth on why they had to send her away, which reveals a scene in which she draws Sherlock’s death a number of times while her parents talk in the background. Daddy Holmes says, “She knows where he is!” To which Mommy Holmes responds, “We can’t make her tell us. We can’t make her do anything.” This already indicates that it is a much bigger issue than a dog, though I admit I missed it at first glance. If Eurus had drowned a dog, they wouldn’t still be worrying about where the body is. Only a human body would still be necessary for a funeral and also the family. Another side point is that, a dog is usually a family thing, but Sherlock has always described it as “his dog.” At first I thought this was endearing, but then I realized it was because Victor was HIS best friend and that’s how he remembered it.

33. “John knows what grenades are & Mycroft knew what that specific grenade was and could have mentioned it before the motion sensor turned on!”

In terms of Mycroft, he’s not used to field work. You hear him say the second he sees it, “Keep back! Keep as still as you can!” His reflexes are not as sharp as John’s or Sherlock’s because he’s a behind the scenes man. If Sherlock had known what it was he would have formulated a plan in seconds. He’s the “dragon slayer,” he lives for the action. Mycroft however is always on the other side. He panicked, I believe. He knew what he was seeing and tried to warn them, but it wasn’t good enough. He is not perfect or great in the field and we see especially in TFP. As Sherlock points out, “I’m beginning to think you’re not [clever].” In terms of John, this is very clearly not a regular grenade, or one John is used to, because someone would have to pull the plug and throw it, while this is resting on a drone. If John had seen a grenade thrown in a room his response time would be immediate. Again, when called to battle his reflexes are immediate. His question also comes immediately after he hears Mycroft say, “Keep as still as you can!” This I guess begs the question exactly what KIND of grenade are we dealing with? So he IMMEDIATELY, literally immediately after Mycroft says that, asks “What is it?” I think he was asking very specifically what kind of grenade it was rather than being like, “oi doi, what’s that? I’ve never seen one of these before.” He was responding to Mycroft’s fierce reaction. He wanted the specifics based on the reaction.

34. “How are Sherlock, John, and Mycroft not scathed at all after enduring a blast of a grenade?”

To be fair, I think Mycroft vastly overestimated its powers. I don’t actually think it was that deadly. If they had stood in the same spot, sure. BUT, the entire flat was mostly salvageable after the burst, so the bomb couldn’t have been that bad. There was absolutely no structural damage and all of the furniture was fine. I think it was a fire that burned hot but burned quick. It wasn’t that deadly. Eurus wanted them to get to her, so she wasn’t trying to kill them. Think of it like TGG when Sherlock endures the blast of the bomb from across the street, but is not in the bomb, so he doesn’t really get hurt. A second story window is honestly not that high. Yes broken glass, but their backs endured most of the damage. Their arms/elbows went through the glass first so as not to damage their beautiful faces. Who knows if they have scratches on their backs and arms. They were covered for the entirety of the episode. Anything that happened to them would probably be bruises or cuts beneath their clothes. The jump is a bit fantastical, yes. But Sherlock has always been that way. Always. We’ve just always forgiven it or accepted it as part of the world.

35. “How did they get on the boat?”

Helicopter. The new boy on the boat asks if he hears a helicopter, but the older man passes it off as just the weather. But this is the helicopter that helps Sherlock and John get on the boat. Helicopters have drop down ladders or ropes. Not that difficult really. They do it in the military all the time. John is a soldier and Sherlock is clearly very trained in many forms of things so, not that far fetched.

36. “It’s totally ooc for Sherlock to ignore Vatican Cameos.”

Well, yeah. That’s 100% the point. Eurus is intoxicating for almost everyone. Sherlock is so distracted by her psychotic nature that he doesn’t notice that there is NO GLASS. He admits the scheme is so easy “its transparent” (haha pun). But seriously, this moment was supposed to make you feel uneasy. None of them are safe, none of them are in their element. This whole EPISODE is meant to make you feel uneasy. 

37. “The Molly scene was sexist and unnecessary.”

Okay, but like... of course it’s unnecessary. Murder Island is unnecessary. Unnecessary is a very subjective word. The whole point is that Eurus is psychotic and an ACTUAL psychopath who doesn’t understand the benefit of emotions or sentiment. She is analyzing Sherlock for his emotions. She is using people to experiment with his emotions. It’s awful. Molly will survive, her entire life will not be defined by this moment. AND if it is it will be for the best reason. She will finally move on or she will figure out who she is. I’m not saying that this scene was good, but in the worst situations come the best recoveries. To me she is not “throw away” and never was, and I disagree greatly with anyone that says that “this scene proved she is.” I think that Molly is inCREDIBLY strong. It’s like John said in TLD, Molly “see’s through [Sherlock’s] bullshit.” And I really feel like we see that in this scene. She isn’t weak. She is a woman in love, but she isn’t weak. She almost hangs up on him and tells him to stop making fun of her. That is a very brave thing to do. And then, the best part for me, she makes him tell her he loves her first. He must embarrass himself too. She won’t allow herself to be the sole prisoner of this game. THEN after he says it, she almost hangs up. Molly is a bad ass ok? This scene isn’t fun. But Molly is a great character. Just since season 1, she has proved time and time again that she survives and every time you think she’s been broken she comes back better. In that scene, Molly was crying and having a bad day so, I assumed that she had broken up with her fiancee Tom. I should have done some engagement ring analysis from the rest of the season, BUT in TFP she is definitely not wearing an engagement ring. So by this analysis this is honestly just an awful time for her and why she’s crying so much. And as to her still loving Sherlock, I still love people I shouldn’t and have never even been with and they have broken my heart. It’s just that until you find the right person, you’re in love with the person you were in love with before. She is not destined to be the girl that never gets over Sherlock Holmes, she just hasn’t found the right man yet. It is not sexist or anti-feminist to be in love with someone for a long time. Loo even tweeted that herself. The really important part about this scene is what it does to Sherlock. When Sherlock finds out that he did that to Molly for NOTHING? He breaks a fucking coffin. He is DEVASTATED. He hates that he has to embarrass her like that. Which is soooo different from Season 1 Sherlock who embarrassed Molly all the time without even realizing it. For me this scene is beautifully dark. After murder island Sherlock definitely came back and was like, “Molly I’m so so sorry. I thought your flat was going to explode and that was the code word.” And she would be like, “Oh. You’re a bastard, but okay.” Long live Molly Hooper.

38. “Why is Molly talking to her home screen?”

On smart phones this is actually completely possible. You can have a call and do a million things at one time. You can click the home button and still be on the call. I’m sorry, but this question is really lazy. This might have actually been a mistake while making the show, but even if it wasn’t like... we all know that it is possible to still be talking on the phone while your phone is on it’s home screen. Maybe she accidentally clicked the home button.

39. “How did Sherlock destroy a coffin without hurting himself?”

Because it was a cheap ass coffin. Couldn’t we all tell the second we saw it that it was a cheap ass coffin? It’s tiny and flimsy. He also, when he starts actually grabbing at pieces and destroying it, pretty clearly grabbed it by the fabric (so it was soft on his hands) and flung it around.

40. A big moment for me in this episode was watching Mycroft watch John and Sherlock, like anytime they did anything. He realized how crucial John was. Especially after Sherlock destroys the coffin, John just goes over and tells him he has to get it together and helps him up and Mycroft clearly analyzes this. And in the next scene he is calculatedly callous to help Sherlock decide to shoot him instead of John. Sherlock reads into it immediately. It made me cry. 

Sherlock: Even your Lady Bracknell was more convincing.

Mycroft: You said you liked my Lady Bracknell.

41. “It’s out of character that John didn’t react when Sherlock had a gun to his head.”

John trusts Sherlock and this was Sherlock taking control of the situation. This is what John knows. In that moment, EURUS actually starts freaking out and you realize that Sherlock is now in charge. I don’t know if John believed that Sherlock would actually end up shooting himself. I know Sherlock believed it; he was willing to die for Mycroft and John, but I think John was perhaps in shock, maybe also not wanting to startle a man with a gun to his chin, but I also firmly believe that he finally had some hope.

42. “How did she get them from Sherrinford to Musgrave so quickly?”

Who said it was quickly? We have to assume they were out for hours. It was daytime when they were at Sherrinford and it’s the middle of the night at Musgrave. Sherlock even asks the “little girl” how long he’s been gone and she says, “hours. Hours and hours.”

43. “John is a doctor. He should know what kind of bones they are.”

This comment actually makes me laugh really hard hahaha. Look, it’s pitch black so he can’t see, he’s wet so his sense of touch is off, and also it’s been .05 seconds. He’s a doctor identifying bones with no eyes, not an archeologist. Give him a minute. He gets it eventually.

44. “Why does Victor eat out of a dog’s bowl?”

He doesn’t. This comment also makes me laugh REALLY hard ahahhahah. Eurus put it there for dramatic effect. Holmes siblings can’t resist a flair for the dramatic.

45. “Sherlock’s reaction to John in the well is so ooc. Remember how he reacted when John was in the bonfire?”

Okay, these are two ENTIRELY different events and reactions for MANY reasons. In the bonfire incident, Sherlock had no reason to believe John was in danger before Mary received the texts. Sherlock was enjoying his chips (well, to a certain extent... “You’re suicidal. you’re allowed chips.”) when Mary interrupted his evening. In TFP, John and Sherlock have been tested throughout the entire episode, so Sherlock was bound to already assume that John was in some kind of cell or dark, dingy place when they awoke. In TEH, Sherlock and John were not on speaking terms at the moment and Sherlock hadn’t truly spent time with him in two years. The idea of losing him just like that was, imaginably, very rattling. It prompted the first “Oh my God,” that we have ever heard out of the mouth of Sherlock Holmes. We can assume it is unnerving for Sherlock to ever think of losing John, but in that moment he was just not even close to ready, okay? In TFP, Sherlock and John are back to normal. They shared that lovely, tender hug, released all of their tension and are now basically as good as new. Their banter in the beginning of the episode was very classic. Sherlock has nothing to prove to John right now in terms of his loyalty to him and their friendship. ALSO John in TEH was literally unconscious, underneath a soon-to-be blazing bonfire that was miles awake from Baker Street. The response time in terms of saving John’s life needed to be much quicker in TEH. In TFP, John is fully conscious and aware in a flooding well that’s on the property Sherlock is standing on. He is also chained to the bottom of this well. Sherlock has no idea where this well is and there is also a little girl who he believes is about to die. He knows John is a very capable man who, at least in this instance (unlike TEH), is conscious and vaguely able to try and fend for himself while Sherlock tries to not only save his life but a child’s. We see the same sort of heat and fear in Sherlock when he insists, “I AM FINDING YOU!” but it is just a different situation. John is not burning and he can try to survive a bit longer while Sherlock buys them time. These are the same married men in a different scenario.

46. “Okay but a CHILD? You wouldn’t stop looking for a CHILD!”

They probably didn’t! Remember, Mycroft has been lying to them! There was no dog and they definitely didn’t stop looking after a short amount of time. Remember Daddy & Mommy Holmes talking about how Eurus knew where Victor was? Well, that was them TRYING to find him. Trying to figure it out. Still searching for the body. If they they did stop looking, it’s only because they looked for so long. Child gone missing is a common report and many cases don’t get solved. And you also certainly don’t think to first look in a well because your son’s best friend’s sister just might have pushed him down there. 

47. After Sherlock solves the song’s puzzle he stands on the beach in his mind palace and young Eurus runs around him playing with a toy plane as she asks Sherlock to play with her. Maybe I was overstimulated the first time through, but I did not notice this. It gave me goose bumps.

48. “How could Sherlock forgive her? After she did all those things?”

Because he’s her brother. When he ran into the room after realizing who she is and says, “But I’m not a stranger am I? I’m your brother,” I instantly got emotional. Because in that moment it’s not about the psychopath, it’s about the terrified girl who never got to grow up or have a family. Eurus has been in a holding cell, alone, since she was a child. To me that is inhumane no matter how seemingly insane the child is. Children are children. She was never taught how to behave because she was never given a chance.  She’s a psychopath, but she craves love. Yes, people died because of her; she’s a villain. But, he’s Sherlock Holmes. She is his family and he’s going to save her. Sherlock understands what Mycroft didn’t. Like Daddy Holmes says, “Whatever she did. Whatever she became. She remains our daughter.” Family is family, man. There’s not much else too it.

49. “They saved John with a ROPE? HIS FEET ARE CHAINED.”

I originally agreed with this argument/plot hole until I realized... really, in what universe would a legitimate fire department or police department carry around a plain ass rope to save people with? They probably threw down the well’s rope (don’t wells usually have ropes to like pull up buckets of water?) to give John something to hold himself up and continue to “try as long as possible not to drown” (his feet weren’t chained right to the bottom. They had about a feet of chain on them) to give the rescue teams time to actually get down there and... rescue him. We didn’t see the rescue and John grabbed at the rope pretty anxiously (because he was dying), so we all just assumed that it was how he got out. But it’s also a pretty bad plan to pull a fully grown man (lol. even considering how short this man is) up a very deep, rough and stony edged well with a thin rope. So yeah... let’s not assume that he was saved with a rope just because that’s all we saw.

50. “You were always the grown up.”

There are some people complaining about this line and saying it is inconsistent. I actually find it completely consistent with a parent’s view of what a grown up is. A grown up is intelligent and emotional and able to make the correct decision. Yes, we see Mycroft taking care of a Sherlock’s most childish self a lot of the time, but when it comes to decision making, Sherlock has him beat by a lot. Sherlock is emotional and intelligent. He is able to make a more informed, adult decision. 

51. She just wanted to play with him. And now they’re doing violin duets together as she’s in solitary confinement. My heart swells.

52. The commentary on “Who you really are? It doesn’t matter.”

That quote itself, alone, is definitely not great. Who you are does matter. Always. But lets look at the context of the quote. “I know who you really are. A junky who solves crimes to get high. And the doctor who never came home from the war... Who you really are, it doesn’t matter. It’s all about the legend.” This quote is to say, you two, as individuals, are messes. But that doesn’t matter. Together you are one unstoppable legend. You are two halves of a whole. John Watson showed Sherlock where his heart is and if that’s not a love story...

Soo THAT’S IT. I hope you enjoyed...

@huglocked, @sherlock-addict 

[sherristockman]

Child Prodigy Astounds Music World With Full-Length Opera Composition Dr. Mercola By Dr. Mercola I am so pleased to post this video and I hope it gives you as much joy as it did me when I first viewed it on 60 Minutes. It is beyond extraordinary to have a glimpse into someone as exceptionally talented as 12-year-old Alma. My only regret is that there is no way to post this without exposing you to a minutelong drug commercial, which I’m sure you realize I don’t endorse. For some of you, it may be the only time you see these commercials so let them entertain you. Most of us are gifted with some degree of natural talent — something we do better, or with greater ease, than the average person. And then, there’s the true prodigies; people with seemingly unnatural talent. Their gift is so profound, and comes from God-only-knows-where. Alma Deutscher, from Basingstoke, England, is a perfect example of the latter.1 There are a number of musical prodigies out there, but Alma has most of them beat. She was able to name notes on the piano at age 2 and began playing piano and violin at the tender age of 3. Within a year of tutoring, she was playing Handel sonatas on the violin. She’s now considered a virtuoso of both instruments. By the age of 4, she’d already begun composing her own melodies, and by 6 she’d written her first piano sonata. This was followed by a violin and orchestra concerto at 9. In December last year, her full-length opera, “Cinderella,” premiered at the Casino Baumgarten Theatre in Vienna,2 the city of music, performed by the Viennese opera group, Oh!pera — an unattainable dream even for many adult composers who’ve spent a lifetime perfecting their craft. Alma, who wrote the score for every single instrument, and the lyrics, was 11 years old. The 2.5-hour long opera, with a musical score running 237 pages, received standing ovations. Cinderella Reinvented by 11-Year-Old Prodigy Many were also wowed by her creative reinvention of the classical tale of Cinderella. Rather than being matched with her true love by the way of a lost glass slipper of a particularly minute size — an idea Alma found to be “quite silly” — Cinderella is a talented composer and the pining prince is a poet. The tale is set in an opera production company run by the evil stepmother. The two stepsisters are divas with little talent and much vile. Cinderella, with a natural talent for composing, is not allowed to perform. Meanwhile, the prince writes a love poem that ends up in Cinderella’s hands. Not knowing the identity of the poet, she falls in love with the words and sets them to music. After having her composition stolen by her evil stepsisters, who do their best to sing it at the ball, Cinderella finally gets her chance to perform for the prince. The prince is enthralled by the enchanting melody, and sets out to discover who wrote the music to his poem. As in the classical story, he travels the land searching for his soulmate, but instead of looking for the foot that fits into the slipper, he sings a portion of the melody, knowing only the true composer can properly finish the song. So, the prince falls in love with Cinderella not because of her physical beauty or tiny feet, but because of her talent, and because “he understands her,” to use Alma’s explanation. In other words, he recognizes his soulmate as a talented equal. “I didn't want Cinderella just to be pretty. I wanted her to have her own mind and her own spirit. And to be a little bit like me. So, I decided that she would be a composer,” Alma explains.3 “Cinderella” made its American sold-out debut December 16 at the Opera San Jose.4 Where Does the Music Come From? Most interviews with Alma include the same question: Where does her music come from? In a recent 60-Minutes interview, Scott Pelley received the following answer:5 “I don’t really know, but it’s really very normal to me to … walk around and having melodies popping into my head. It’s the most normal thing in the world. For me, it’s strange to walk around and not to have melodies popping into my head. So, if I was interviewing you, I would say, ‘Well, tell me Scott, how does it feel not having melodies popping into your head?’” Oftentimes, the music comes when she’s most relaxed, either playing outdoors with her younger sister, or skipping rope. Her father, Guy Deutscher, a linguistics professor and amateur musician, taught her to read musical notes, but questions the influence of his role in her immense ability to create music, including scores for instruments she does not play. He tells Pelley, “I thought it was me [that taught her to read music]. I hardly had to say [any]thing — and, you know, her piano teacher once said ‘it’s a bit difficult with Alma; it’s difficult to teach her because one always has the sense she’d ‘been there’ before.’” Alma also says she has “lots of composers” inside her mind, in a special “country” she created in her imagination. These imaginary friends provide her with the emotional juices her tender youth lacks. Each one has their own emotional style of composing. One of them, Antonin Yellowsink, helped her compose a “dark and dramatic” violin concerto. “[S]ometimes when I’m stuck with something, when I’m composing, I go to them and ask them for advice. And quite often, they come up with very interesting things,” she says. Would Rather Be Original Alma Than Second Mozart Many compare Alma to Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart (1756-1791),6 one of the few childhood prodigies that can even compare to Alma’s talent. However, while flattered, Alma insists she would rather “prefer to be the first Alma than the second Mozart.” That said, she has a great affinity for the famed composer and musician, and “would have loved” to have him as a teacher. The question is whether Alma wouldn’t have ended up teaching Mozart a thing or two. In a concerto in Israel, Alma performed one of Mozart’s piano concertos with a cadenza — a musical interlude where the orchestra goes silent, allowing the soloist to perform his or her own music. But in this case, Alma didn’t just perform Mozart’s solo. She created her own. “It's something that I composed because, you see, it's a very early concerto of Mozart and the cadenza was very simple. It didn't go to any different keys,” she tells Pelley. “And I composed quite a long one going to lots and lots of different keys doing lots of things in Mozart's motifs,” Alma says. “So, you improved the cadenza of Mozart?” Pelley asks, to which she replies, “Well, yes.” Robert Gjerdingen, a professor of music at Northwestern in Chicago who has acted as a “consultant to Alma's education,” had the following to say about his star protégé: “It's kind of a comet that goes by and everybody looks up and just goes, ‘Wow.’ I sent her some assignments when she was six, seven, where I expected her to crash and burn, because they were very difficult. It came back, it was like listening to a mid-18th century composer. She was a native speaker … It's her first language — she speaks the Mozart-style. She speaks the style of Mendelssohn … She's batting in the big leagues. And if you win the pennant, there's immortality.” The Many Benefits of Music As for why she composes, Alma says her inspiration is to “make the world a better place,” and she believes beautiful music can do that. She is undoubtedly correct. Music is a form of emotional communication, an emotional protolanguage of sorts, and like emotions it can have a tremendous influence on psychological and even physical health. For example, music has been found to: Help you exercise harder, while making it feel easier Help Alzheimer’s patients reconnect with people around them, remember past life events and reduce agitation associated with dementia Allow patients with Parkinson’s disease move more freely.7 The music appears to provide an external rhythm that bypasses the malfunctioning signals in the brain Improve your mood; calm nerves; reduce stress and/or invigorate and energize Facilitate connection and unification between people. Despite individual differences in musical preferences, classical music has been shown to elicit a very consistent pattern of brain activity in virtually all listeners. Areas activated include those involved in movement, planning, memory and attention. This brain activation creates a sort of unifying force that synchronizes and unifies people together8 What Happens in Your Brain When You Hear Music? When you listen to music, much more is happening in your body than simple auditory processing. Research shows that music triggers activity in the nucleus accumbens, a part of your brain that releases the feel-good chemical dopamine and is involved in forming expectations. At the same time, the amygdala, which is involved in processing emotion, and the prefrontal cortex, which makes possible abstract decision-making, are also activated.9 Based on the brain activity in certain regions, especially the nucleus accumbens, captured by an fMRI imager while participants listened to music, the researchers could predict how much money the listeners were willing to spend on previously unheard music. As you might suspect, songs that triggered activity in the emotional and intellectual areas of the brain demanded a higher price. Interestingly, the study’s lead author noted that your brain learns how to predict how different pieces of music will unfold using pattern recognition and prediction, skills that may have been key to our evolutionary progress. As reported by Time:10 “These predictions are culture-dependent and based on experience: someone raised on rock or Western classical music won’t be able to predict the course of an Indian raga, for example, and vice versa. But if a piece develops in a way that’s both slightly novel and still in line with our brain’s prediction, we tend to like it a lot. And that, says [lead researcher] Salimpoor, ‘is because we’ve made a kind of intellectual conquest.’ Music may, in other words, tap into a brain mechanism that was key to our evolutionary progress. The ability to recognize patterns and generalize from experience, to predict what’s likely to happen in the future — in short, the ability to imagine — is something humans do far better than any other animals. It’s what allowed us (aided by the far less glamorous opposable thumb) to take over the world.” Alma’s future passion project is to write a book, turn it into a film and write the musical score. I hope you’ll take the time to view the featured 25-minute documentary about Alma Deutscher, and revel in her musical talent. You will not regret it. Then, if you’re eager for more, you can listen to some of the “Cinderella” performances in the 1.5-hour-long recording above. May she inspire you to help make the world a better place, every day.