Rereading all the Sherlock Holmes again and MY GOD. I thought I'd made up in my head, or been influenced by fandom, but this is the queerest shit ever.
Yes!!! Another person discovers canon Holmes is seriously queer. What’s really interesting is that even when you read it with an understanding of the time when it was written it still has a lot of stuff which, even then, could be considered queer.
One of the things that don’t exactly behave normally in BBC Sherlock is time. And this is not limited to S4, but can be found all over the show. We see people perform things that would be highly questionable, or even wouldn’t be physically possible, to do in our real world, considering the time it would take. Like Sherlock and John climbing over rooftops and still arriving in time to shortcut a taxi in ASiP. Or Moriarty in TRF, arriving to have a chat with Sherlock at 221B from having been in custody at The Old Bailey (at least 15 minutes apart with car, according to the maps), basically within the time it takes for Sherlock’s kettle to boil.
Or Mary showing up in the top apartment of a sky scraper in HLV, knocking out people and wreaking havoc, within the time it takes for John and Sherlock to ascend there with the only elevator. Or Sherlock, when Mary shoots him, having three seconds of consciousness left, and yet he’s able to notice how many minutes it takes for John to get there and call the ambulance. It really doesn’t add up, does it?
We also see and hear these specific elements (along with other, similar examples that I won’t bore you with now) being repeated again and again in the show, in a seemingly haphazardly and meaningless manner. In TSoT we see a sequence from Sherlock’s best man speech where he and John are chased over rooftops by Cupid a short man with a blow pipe. A rooftop is also where Sherlock chooses to meet Moriarty in TRF, and consequently then uses for his fake suicide.
Apparently Sherlock had predicted the exact method of Moriarty’s blackmail from start. But if he knew beforehand, why even put himself in this situation? Couldn’t he thus prevent it? Or is he some kind of oracle that can predict but not interfere with the course of the events? And who was he really planning to con here - Moriarty or John? From the angle they were standing, Jim would have seen the whole theatre from above, had he not opted for a sudden - supposedly unpredicted - suicide on the rooftop. Logic fails when time is twisted here, I believe.
The boiling kettle is mentioned by John in another not too dissimilar context in THoB (thanks for the transcripts, Ariane De Vere X), when Sherlock and John are trying to fake their way into Baskerville’s military facility:
SHERLOCK: What’s the matter?
JOHN: We’ll get caught.
SHERLOCK: No we won’t – well, not just yet.
JOHN: Caught in five minutes. “Oh, hi, we just thought we’d come and have a wander round your top secret weapons base.” “Really? Great! Come in – kettle’s just boiled.” That’s if we don’t get shot.
John is ironic here of course, ridiculing the idea that the military would immediately welcome their intrusion by offering them tea. But this is exactly what Sherlock absurdly does with his arch enemy the very next episode. He even uses precisely the same words: ”Kettle’s just boiled” to greet Moriarty. It’s almost as if he would aim to fulfill John’s ironic ‘prophecy’, isn’t it?
If it was strange in HLV how an unconscious Sherlock could know how long it took for John to find him after he was shot, it’s even weirder in TST to see Mary perform a long speech after being shot. And the way she throws herself in front of the bullet after it has been fired is physically impossible. In real life with a real time frame, she wouldn’t have the time to move, because no human being can move faster than a bullet.
In the show we can also see scenes shifting forwards and backwards in time, where later events are superimposed over former events without any explanation. Like in HLV when John and Mary are being welcomed as Christmas guests at Sherlock’s parents’ house, shown before the trio had even attempted to sort out the horrible event when Mary had tried to kill their son (which they actually didn’t sort out - they were interrupted by Sherlock’s second heart failure).
And in S4 we have these inexplicable ’jumps’ in time where big chunks that would be explanatory for the story line are simply skipped over. What happened, for example, in TST after Mary had ordered John to ”pull over” - did she give birth in the car? Or was little Rosie born on the sidewalk in the middle of London? Or was this just another labour pain after which they could continue to the hospital? We don’t get to know, because suddenly it’s time for the baby shower. Or in TFP, John and Sherlock jump out of an exploding 221B Baker Street in London, but next moment they’re suddenly hijacking a fisher boat out at sea, perfectly unharmed. How did they even get there? And what happened in between? We never get to know.
This is not how you construct a believable story, is it? All in all, time and space are being handled in a very sloppy manner in BBC Sherlock - actually from start, but increasingly so until it gets really absurd at the end of TFP. Which is a bit illogical in a story about a detective where the facts and details are supposedly essential to his crime solving. In this show one can get the impression that time is not a linear chain of events, and space is not even relevant. But maybe it’s all just a matter of perspective?
Not so long ago, I saw this post from 2014 on my dash (X), now with an addition by @sarahthecoat (X) which in turn linked to this very interesting meta by @impatient14 (X). The latter is about BBC Sherlock seen from a space-time continuum, a concept which I find truly mind-boggling and very fascinating - thanks for the link, @sarahthecoat! Here’s Wikipedia’s representation of the space-time continuum (X):
This idea originates from Einstein’s theory of relativity. The speed of light is constant. If space has three dimensions, time can be seen as the fourth dimension. In the representation above, space has been reduced to only two dimensions, leaving the third for time. The observer is placed at an event in Origo (O), the null point where all the time and space axes and the two ’light cones’ of future and past events meet. A signal with equal or less speed than light can travel from O to a position and time within the future light cone. Therefore it’s possible for event O to have a causal influence on this future event. The future light cone contains all the possible events that could be causally affected by O.
Likewise, a signal with equal or less speed than light could have travelled from a position and time within the past light cone to O. The past light cone contains all the possible events that could have had a causal influence on O.
But what has this to do with BBC Sherlock? Years ago, we had this really interesting discussion based on a meta by @gosherlocked about ill-treated children in BBC Sherlock (X), where we tried to explore what could be seen as ’real’ events in BBC Sherlock, and what could be seen as purely metaphorical representations. @ebaeschnbliah made a good point explaining how things only happening inside Sherlock’s head would still appear just as ’real’ to him, since every action from a person always starts from within their own brain. I think this idea of a ‘inner universe’ might also be consistent with space-time continuum: within the light cone of possible, future events even absurd things can occur, because in our fantasy everything is possible. So if Sherlock is setting up scenarios within his mind palace, separated from other people’s reality, he might get to absurd conclusions that appear very true to him. And to him the time-line might even seem logical and normal, even if it would appear twisted to an outside observer.
In light of more recent discussions around @sagestreet’s analyses of possible starting points for Sherlock’s extended mind-palace - EMP - (X), I felt inspired to try to apply @impatient14’s idea of the space-time continuum to my own view of this show.
As far as I can see (with my very limited understanding of the topic, because this ’timey-wimey’ stuff is a bit confusing, and a far cry beyond my ’event horizon’ :D) the space-time continuum idea seems to correspond with EMP theory and also with a lot of other stuff we’ve been discussing for the last few years after S4 aired.
However, when it comes to the observer’s point in the space-time continuum, the moment when Sherlock presumably enters his EMP and starts running scenarios of possible future events, I like to see things a bit differently. I’m still inclined to hold on to the ’possibly-raggedy-theory’ as @sagestreet calls it, which places this moment right after John’s wedding.
I have several arguments for this, and some of them involve John’s online blog, which we can all still find on the wayback-machine (X), and also in the mirrored version on tumblr (X). I’ll try to describe my view here, followed by an attempt at argumentation. It might be a bit much to read, but I’ll do my best to point out the main components, so please bear with me 😊. But first of all I recommend you to read @impatient14 ’s space-time meta (X).
This has been a very interesting read, @possiblyimbiassed Thanks for putting all this down. Although I’m not on board with coma theory, as you know, I very much agree with your idea that the turning point in this story - O - is located in TSOT. There are probably even two such points in this episode, I think. Doesn’t come everything in pairs in Sherlock BBC? As I see it, the first flash of revelation happens when ‘Jonny’ Small’s camera goes off with a blinding light right in front of Sherlock’s face. That’s Sherlock’s moment of revelation - ‘The Mayfly-Man is here today!’ - the ‘stabber’! He drops the glass of champagne. A slow motion ‘fall’ that ends with shattering glass.
The second and even bigger ‘flash’ happens when Sherlock makes ‘one more deduction than he was really expecting’ … that Mary is ‘expecting’ . The facade has been stabbed/penetrated, by John (Johnny-boy), just like Sholto by Jonny Small (the ‘monomaniac’ who reminds me so very much of Jim). It’s Sherlock’s love-deduction that becomes the turning point and changes the game completely. Translating the ‘chemistry of love’ on a metaphorical level, into the ‘chemitry of drugs’ on the mind stage, I very much agree that Sherlock ‘suffers’ an overdose of that particular emotion after his unexpected revelation in TSOT. In that sense, ‘Oh what a night … I was never gonna be the same …’ , was a perfect choice of song for this moment. Afterwards everything changes. HLV is already a rewriting and changing of ASIB (Strange similarities) and then - unlike than in ASIB - a ‘plane’ takes off and carries Sherlock away to yet unexplored depths …..
And Sherlock’s explorations don’t appear to be over by now. Hopefully. :)
Thanks @ebaeschnbliah, I’m glad you liked it! :-) I particularly like your idea that the drugs OD could be read like an overload of emotions caused by what happens in TSoT - a true game-changer. As for the recurring themes you mention: it’s interesting that glass can break repeatedly throughout the second half of the show, but in TFP it’s suddenly gone. The champagne glass falls to the ground in TSoT, the glass in TAB breaks and reveals the pepper ghost trick (”there are no ghosts - save for those we make for ourselves”). In TST Thatcher busts are smashed and glass seems to break repeatedly, but in TFP we learn that the glass wall was not even there in the first place. It’s also interesting that the plane doesn’t fly in ASiB, it takes off but returns to the tarmac in HLV, in TST it completes a whole journey and in TFP it’s close to crashing to the ground. I’m still mulling over what this might mean. :)
What I meant with this meta is not only the option that it would be possible to construct a coherent plot line from BBC Sherlock as we know it today (which I still believe it would, if Sherlock is in coma or dreaming or similar, and then wakes up), but also another option: that the show is a symbolic work of art where every single scene can also be read metaphorically, and that’s it. The former variant is complex and requires a rather explanatory S5, where loose ends are tied up and gaps in time and space are filled out. From a logical standpoint, however, the latter explanation totally works too, and space-time could still be twisted and circular. And all the subtext and metaphors could still be Sherlock’s subtext and metaphors, we could still be looking right into his head.
Maybe it’s my not-very-artistic lack of imagination, though, but a lot of follow up questions would fill my head in the latter case. For example, I find it a bit hard to see how ‘Johnlock’ could be realised in S5 with an exclusively metaphorical reading, while the surrealistic surface plot line continues in the direction it has at the end of S4 - do you have any suggestions? Or do you think Sherlock somehow needs to act on his new insights in a physical world - converting the subtext into text? Does he need to openly address certain things to John, or is it enough that he’s thinking about them happening? And wouldn’t an exclusively subtextual interpretation, by the way, be ‘business as usual’ - what ACD (and any adaptation leaning in this direction) has already done with Sherlock Holmes? Lots of subtext and symbolism but nothing explicit, indisputable about these two guys being a couple. The two of them were always an item, but no romantic feelings could ever be spelled out for over a century, due to homophobic laws and predominating, heteronormative values. But are we still stuck in 1895?
The thing with metaphors - although thrilling and largely fascinating - is that they are subjective; each person can interpret them their own way, just as with a painting - especially if it’s abstract. We can certainly have Sherlock and John be together in an allegoric way, but I fear the main part of the audience will not recognise their relationship unless it’s outspoken. The facade may be penetrated in TSoT by the Mayfly Man with his meat dagger), but in TFP Mrs Hetero norm Mary is still there, telling John and Sherlock that who they really are (a junkie and a lost soldier according to her condescending view, but we know better ;-)) doesn’t matter - so how do we solve that?
Hey, @possiblyimbiassed and thank you too for your detailed reply. I will try to answer just as detailed and good as possible.
A cut is definitely needed here … :)))
Thanks for your thoughtful, explanatory and very interesting answer, @ebaeschnbliah ! :) Several things there that I definitely need to think over some more.
Our slightly different perception of Mary might be an example of the point I was trying to make about metaphors being subjective. But that’s just the way a work of art operates, isn’t it? It may strike a different chord in different people, and none of them is necessarily more ’correct’ than the other. :)
And here’s the cut for my further long ramblings over these same fascinating topics, which I can’t seem to keep my mind off:
Hallo @possiblyimbiassed Sorry, this comment took me longer than expected and thanks for your detailed reply and sharing more of your thoughts and reflections on this fascinating topic. A topic that seemingly has the potential for eternal discussions and long ramblings …. hence another cut:
So many interesting ideas here, @ebaeschnbliah !! Sorry for this extremely late answer, but I wanted to give this its due attention. :) Thanks for taking all this time to develope your view on the show in such remarkable detail. I’m flattered that it comes as an addition to my space-time meta, but it would definitely merit a meta of its own! I particularly like your idea of the dual shooting and the façade - that’s indeed a lot of food for thought. And the two Johns - even more fascinating! And I love the ’meta’ idea of Sherlock being able to grasp his own ’life’ as a literary character. So, of course, now I can’t help keep elaborating more on these topics.
Cut to more reflections…
i need to re read earlier parts of this conversation, but it is great to see it continuing!
i wonder if the glass-breaking/not there sequence actually begins in ASIP with john shooting the cabbie through the window, and leaving a small hole. this does sort of make me want to comb through the show for all the glass. it is at least as recurring a motif as phones and tea.
similarly, i wonder if that same shooting is also connected to that idea of the "shot" coming from within sherlock, that connects the CAM tower (sherlock) to the empty houses (coin/wall) to the aquarium ("mary"). that sequence is sherlock's idea or realization of love, coming out of himself and shattering his facade. the ASIP shot is john's love getting into sherlock's locked-room heart.
"1895 views" on the blog counter suggested a pun on "views", as in "attitudes". if the blog (story of sherlock and john's adventures) is stuck on 1895 views, then their story is still mired in victorian attitudes toward gay men. that plays out in s4, and without a s5 to break free of 1895 and truly modernize it, the show remains incomplete. The hero's journey maybe only one lens through which to look at a story, but it's not complete until the hero brings what he learned/gained in the adventure, back home to make a better life.
Here, though the world explode, these two survive,
Vincent Starret - 221B
