mouthporn.net
#john or james – @sarahthecoat on Tumblr
Avatar

SarahTheCoat

@sarahthecoat

mostly Sherlock. The New Semester my dreamwidth
Avatar
Anonymous asked:

Hi Rebs!

So I’ve noticed that everyone said a lot about John & Jim mirroring each other. What purpose does it serve to the show (or the game 👀)?

And do you happen to know any metas on that too?

My anonymous friend, you have stumbled upon the most important mirror of BBC Sherlock! (Well, that's me saying that, bear in mind that I am heavily of the "Moriarty must be alive if TJLC is happening" persuasion)

And it has everything to do with The Game. The way I read it, Moriarty is essentially a stand in for everyone Mark and Steven think are "getting it wrong." The "fans" and the "storytellers," who misunderstand the point of the stories and the societal forces that have kept the true story from being told.

John Watson, meanwhile, is the reason we have a Game to begin with. Well, if you're playing The Game he's the reason. If not, then you can discount every inconsistency in the canon as mistakes on Doyles part. But that's not where the fun is, the fun is in believing they're intentional and Watson is hiding things from his audience: the truth about Holmes.

So in this version John and Jim have very similar roles, both are telling a story about Sherlock, both misunderstand him in fundamental ways (and most interestingly, they both know the information the other is missing), and, most importantly, both want Sherlock Holmes to be theirs.

Ultimately, if this story is about unveiling the truth about the Holmes stories, then this becomes the most important conflict. Not if Sherlock will become the man Moriarty wants him to be, he never has been and never will be, but whose version of Sherlock's story will prevail: John or James? Right now, Moriarty is winning that fight. But if we do make a comeback someday, then John Watson is the only person who can finally tell that true story. But he has to discover the truth himself first.

Avatar
Avatar
sarahthecoat

good one to re read. cos, if moriarty=all the people who've been getting it wrong, then Of Course it was moriarty who pushed irene and sherlock together. that's like the #1 thing on the getting it wrong to do list.

Avatar
reblogged
Anonymous asked:

Hello! So in your profile you say u are working on a collection of metas, so may I ask for some BBC Sherlock metas that tackle on John & James mirroring (like for example: a high incidence of John & James and the meanings behind that, their roles as storytellers)? Thank you so much!

Hi anon! x

I guess you're referring to the link between John and characters called James (i.e. Jim/James Moriarty, James Sholto, James Bond and John himself in a story in the ACD canon) and to the trope of storytelling/breaking the 4th wall.

Before anything, we need to keep in mind that ACD called John "James" in "The Man With The Twisted Lip" and this might be the main reason behind this link.

Anyway, these are the meta I have about John-James, storytelling and breaking the fourth wall in BBC Sherlock:

TFP is John's Mind Palace masterpost (so he's the author and teller of the story)

BBC Sherlock and James Bond (I need to add 4 things to this post but I'm sure there are many others: John loves James Bond movies, Mycroft refers to the "Bond Air", James Sholto is in the 207 room and the famous M-Theory)

I hope this is what you were looking for; If I have missed the point of your question, tell me! x

Avatar
Avatar
reblogged
Anonymous asked:

Hi Rebs!

So I’ve noticed that everyone said a lot about John & Jim mirroring each other. What purpose does it serve to the show (or the game 👀)?

And do you happen to know any metas on that too?

My anonymous friend, you have stumbled upon the most important mirror of BBC Sherlock! (Well, that's me saying that, bear in mind that I am heavily of the "Moriarty must be alive if TJLC is happening" persuasion)

And it has everything to do with The Game. The way I read it, Moriarty is essentially a stand in for everyone Mark and Steven think are "getting it wrong." The "fans" and the "storytellers," who misunderstand the point of the stories and the societal forces that have kept the true story from being told.

John Watson, meanwhile, is the reason we have a Game to begin with. Well, if you're playing The Game he's the reason. If not, then you can discount every inconsistency in the canon as mistakes on Doyles part. But that's not where the fun is, the fun is in believing they're intentional and Watson is hiding things from his audience: the truth about Holmes.

So in this version John and Jim have very similar roles, both are telling a story about Sherlock, both misunderstand him in fundamental ways (and most interestingly, they both know the information the other is missing), and, most importantly, both want Sherlock Holmes to be theirs.

Ultimately, if this story is about unveiling the truth about the Holmes stories, then this becomes the most important conflict. Not if Sherlock will become the man Moriarty wants him to be, he never has been and never will be, but whose version of Sherlock's story will prevail: John or James? Right now, Moriarty is winning that fight. But if we do make a comeback someday, then John Watson is the only person who can finally tell that true story. But he has to discover the truth himself first.

Avatar
Avatar
sarahthecoat

this is like the ultimate meta in a nutshell.

Avatar
reblogged

Boltholes

ˈbōltˌhōl/
noun
plural noun:
boltholes
a place where a person can escape and hide.“he thought of Antwerp as a possible bolthole” BRITISHa hole or burrow by which a rabbit or other wild animal can escape.

In HLV, we learn of Sherlock’s boltholes for the first time. I don’t think any of us were surprised to learn that Sherlock had places no one knew about, where he could hide, lay low, whatever. But, that’s the interesting bit right there: apparently everyone knew about them?

What’s the point of having a hiding place that’s not secret?

The thing is, I think they are secret. Even still. How?

Because they are all in his mind palace. Because I believe they are all part of his mind palace.

Where has Sherlock been in his mind palace? 

  • The Underground (TEH)
  • The Courtroom (TSoT)
  • Baker Street (TSoT)
  • A Morgue (TSoT)
  • Mycroft’s Office (HLV)
  • Roland-Kerr Further Education College (HLV)
  • A Padded Cell (HLV)

*I’m sure I’m missing some there, and if I am, please, let me know. :)

Then we get the mention of all of Sherlock’s boltholes after he’s escaped hospital (improbable). That everyone, right down to Mrs Hudson, knows about these places where Sherlock can hide, just seems to defeat the purpose for me. Unless…these are all mentioned after Sherlock has been shot and in a time where I believe that Sherlock is indeed unconscious and this is all taking place in his mind palace anyway.

Is it possible- or even plausible- that these ‘boltholes’ are still more areas of Sherlock’s mind palace?

  • Parliament Hillan area of open parkland in the south-east corner of Hampstead Heath in north-west London. The hill, which is 98 metres (322 ft) high, is notable for its views of the capital’s skyline. Many landmarks can be seen from its summit such as Canary Wharf, the Gherkin, the Shard and St Paul’s Cathedral. This hardly seems appropriate for a ‘bolthole’ or place to hide, quite the contrary. It’s a place that would allow Sherlock ‘to see’, London: to observe. You know, like maybe, try to get the ‘big picture’ in his mind?
  • Camden Lock- or Hampstead Road Locks is a twin manually operated lock on the Regent’s Canal in Camden Town, London Borough of Camden. The twin locks together are “Hampstead Road Lock 1”; each bears a sign so marked. Hawley Lock andKentish Town Lock are a short distance away to the east; there are no nearby locks to the west. Again, not much of a place ‘to hide’. But, the added water metaphor here is interesting.

*ETA: this post by @longsnowsmoon5 and further amazing input by @tjlcisthenewsexy regarding water and ‘two’ rivers and the Camden Lock.

  • Dagmar Court  -Housing association block built on the site of the Dagmar Arms (Public House) I suppose it’s possible that he owns one of the flats here? A simple flat seems to be so mundane in this list, though.
  • The Blind Greenhouse in Kew Gardens  -a glass building in which plants are grown that need protection from cold weather. I searched the Kew Gardens website and found nothing about ‘the blind greenhouse (if anyone has this info, please tag me or send me a link?) but there are loads of greenhouses on the property. Again, a greenshouse seems a terrible place to hide out???
  • The Leaning Tomb in Hampstead Cemetery -the place for eternal rest, usually gated off because the ground has been consecrated. Again, I searched the Hampstead Cemetery site for any mention of a ‘leaning tomb’ and came up with nothing. Would Sherlock literally desecrate someone’s resting place, to hide from anything? Perhaps this is Sherlock’s ‘burial ground’ for those things he deletes. 
  • Molly’s bedroom- again, what kind of sense does this make as a bolthole? It’s possible he stayed with her directly after the fall, but when would he need to go there again? 
  • Behind the Clock Face of Big Ben- “I think he was probably joking.” I think so, too, because JOHN IS PRETTY DAMN SMART.
  • Leinster Gardens-  The empty houses that were demolished years ago to make way for the London Underground, a vent for the old steam trains. “That’s his number one bolt hole. It’s top-top secret.” And, we’re to believe ANDERSON, of all people, knows about this?? That Sherlock Holmes, as clever as they come, allowed Anderson to follow him and find out about this bolthole? Of all the boltholes mentioned in this episode, this is the only one that comes close to actually being what it says it is, imo. I can imagine Sherlock hiding out here, no one knowing about it. Hell, there’s even a lab set up you can see in the background. The thing is, there was no reason to have this confrontation. Sherlock could have just as easily (and more comfortably) had Mary come to Baker Street. Sherlock took all that time to set up the Leinster Gardens face-off, when he could just as easily have set something similarly up in Baker Street. John could have listened in over the phone from 221C. I’m sure they could have used the same sort of camera the assassins used in TRF. There was no need for it to have happened like that in Leinster Gardens (yes, I know, it goes with how the Moran deal went down) but still. Could Leinster Gardens be Sherlock’s mind palace where he goes to face the hard truths?

I understand the thought that this is ‘too much’, but it is Sherlock, and he is a drama queen.

Because of this post by @sherlock-little-weed. I’ve got boltholes on the brain again. 

Avatar
gosherlocked

@monikakrasnorada, the boltholes have been bugging me for a long time and your analysis is on spot. I made a post here X about how we get a greenhouse (glasshouse) and a tomb in TAB which is clearly MP. And the whole Leinster Gardens layout is an impossibility X which would be no problem had they had not used a real structure everyone can research online or visit in London. There is no house, no hallway, no rooms, nothing but a wall. 

I went looking for this Blind Greenhouse and came across a remark in Sherlock forum about it. I found this quote: “Blind Greenhouse – I would assume the word “blind” in this case refers to a greenhouse where the glass is covered with curtains to reduce the amount of sunlight reaching the plants – which would also make the interior fairly private (unlike most greenhouses)“

’‘Blind’ has several meanings including “having or causing a lack of discernment or awareness.”

Looking over the buildings I came across the Orangery. Built in 1761, it was originally meant to house Oranges and other Citrus trees…but they made it too dark, so the trees were taken out.

Avatar
sarahthecoat

ooh, thanks for bringing this back. in the notes, yan-yae mentions the idea that sherlock had particular places to hide depending on who he wanted teso find him, so maybe look into the metaphorical readings on those connections too.

and as always any mention of glass says glass closet to me, and the orangery is such a perfect example. was there a single person present for that best man speech who didn’t pick up on sherlock’s Big Secret?

reviewing the lists of locations in the op, they are each a range of sites, from underground to way up high (stairs code by @just-sort-of-happened ) private to public, if that matters. interesting that only some of them seem to exist in our world, i wonder if any of the ones that don’t are references to other adaptations in the Giant Lego Set Of Canon ™. i love that camden lock is all about controlling the flow of water=emotions! and the giant clock face, after TAB, we associate the pocket watch with the modern phone=heart.

testing whether there is a matching between the two lists, just in case that twigs anything.

the underground, and leinster gardens

the courtroom, and dagmar court?

baker st, and molly’s bedroom (since molly is a john mirror, and there’s that indication in ASIB that both boys were up in john’s room)

the morgue, and the tomb

mycroft’s bunker, and parliament hill?

roland kerr college and the padded cell don’t immediately suggest connections (to me) to any of the others, camden lock, the greenhouse, or big ben… i would be interested in anyone else’s thoughts!

Avatar
lukessense

@sarahthecoat I haven’t given the boltholes much thought yet but to me they are all to be understood metaphorically on the map of London, all as places inside of Sherlock’s mind. 

First of all it’s interesting to note how the boltholes are presented and by whom:

  • Lestrade knows about Parliament Hill, Camden Lock and Dagmar Court and he seems to be talking over his phone to Mycroft (?) as Mycroft is picking up the conversation in the next scene.
  • Mycroft names the Blind Greenhouse and the leaning tomb in Hampstead Cemetery while observing over his laptop and talking to Lestrade in person.
  • Molly is speaking directly into the camera as if she was interviewed and she is talking about a “spare bedroom” which turns out to be her bedroom.
  • Mrs. Hudson is talking to John and knows about the bolthole behind the clock face of Big Ben.
  • Lestrade’s sniffer-dog Anderson knows about the number one bolthole Leinster Gardens and is talking to Mary.

Some extra notes that could be of relevance: 

Dagmar Court is located on the Isle of Dogs in London. The Blind Greenhouse seems like a foreshadowing for TAB. Hampstead Cemetery seems to be the location that inspired scenes on Bram Stoker’s Dracula (x). Cemeteries and tombstones were also featured on BBC Sherlock a couple of times (THoB, TRF, TEH, TAB, TST and TFP of course). But the way I understand it a tomb is not exactly a tombstone but a crypt? There don’t seem to be any crypts of relevance on Hampstead Cemetery, especially no leaning ones. Maybe this is to be understood metaphorically as well, as a grave that is ”wrong” somehow. And Hampstead Cemetery seems to be a victorian cemetery (x). Molly’s bedroom is also very interesting with Molly being a mirror for John and a “heterosexual cover” of sorts. And she seems to be talking to the audience here which is…funny considering S4 and TFP especially. Big Ben was featured both on ASiB (Moriarty standing in front of the clocktower while receiving the flight details from Irene and informing Mycroft) and TEH (exploding Palace of Westminster). Clocks are also very interesting as time seems to be ticking throughout BBC Sherlock as if something was coming. But we’re also frozen in time a couple of times, for example at the end of TFP. Then on Leinster Gardens are the empty houses Mary’s face is projected on, the facade for the London Underground. 

I guess the boltholes are worthy a whole analysis, maybe somebody has already done that with the additional information given in S4.

@ebaeschnbliah Look, Dagmar Court is on the Isle of Dogs. 😉

Great comments, everyone. A metaphorical reading of those boltholes seems to be the most plausible explanation to me as well. Interesting that the Orangery at Mangham Park - a former greenhouse - has been chosen as set for the wedding reception, @tendergingergirl  A greehouse that lacks sunlight as location for a wedding with a facade … a cover. Fits suspiciously well in my opinion. And the greenhous talk in TAB revolves around the same topic … romantic entanglements, impulses, mingling. :)   

Five boltholes, says Mycroft. But then there are two more. Of course, the mention of the number five at once brings the possibility of five series to mind. Including TAB into that count … the blind greenhouse would represent the Special Christmas episode and the leaning tomb would refer to S4 … a sister turned into a ghost story and a tomb brought off balance, because of demons below the surface, can be easily connected. This would indicate that Molly’s bedroom and Big Ben’s clock face are references for a fifth series. Two for one? Maybe … in case Molly and Big Ben are mirrors for John and Jim … love and sex. Sherlock’s final challenge. That works nicely for the way I read the story … as does the involvement of the Isle of Dogs, @gosherlocked. :)))

rb for even more discussion.

also, i want to correct myself way up above, @the-7-percent-solution wrote stairs code, i just associate it with JSOH because she reblogged nearly all the meta in s3 semester, so i just read the whole blog back when i was a lurker.

Avatar
reblogged

WHEN  THE  MAN  WITH  THE  KEY  BECOMES  KING

________________________________________________________________

A metaphorical reading ot ‘The Reichenbach Fall’

If TRF is a scenario that happens inside Sherlock’s head, on his Mind-Stage, then Sherlock himself is the creator of the character ‘Jim Moriarty' and the way he is portrayed in this episode. Jim’s external appearance, his profession as a criminal mastermind, his behaviour, the words he uses …. everything is constructed by Sherlock. It’s how Sherlock perceives what Jim represents.

And Jim seems to represent some of Sherlock’s darkest fears but at the same time he is also the cause of immense fascination. Jim - the dangerous and destructive side of Sherlock - a side which turns everything into negativity. Boredom grows into depression …. depression increases into suicidal thoughts. 

And when Sherlock’s mind suddenly starts to contemplate about the topic of ‘girlfriends and boyfriends’ …..

… while I’m flattered by your interest …

… it doesn’t take very long and ‘Jim’ focuses exactly on this topic as well (‘hello, sexy’). At first Sherlock deeply enjoys to learn more of this thrilling part of himself. He enjoys playing the game. Not long though and Sherlock starts perceiving Jim as an uncontrollable danger, as a risk for everything that is dear to him … especially his heart (John). But Jim stubbornly refuses to stay away. Very quickly he turns into the criminal mastermind, the consulting criminal, a constantly growing threat, ticking like an unstable bomb …. ready to explode at any moment. And suddenly it becomes an absolut necessity for Sherlock to examine and investigate and deduce this ‘threat’ more closely ….

More under the cut …. 

Avatar
lukessense

@ebaeschnbliah​ I re-watched parts of TGG and TRF yesterday as I noticed that events that take place between both episodes keep repeating itself in S3 and S4. But anyway. While I was watching TRF I decided to only read it on a metaphorical level this time and the story turned out to be similar to the one you read. What I asked myself: We know that Moriarty really became a threat when Sherlock received his heart on Christmas (ASiB) and connected emotions to his sexuality (TFP), right? Or am I reading this wrong? So was he afraid of his sexuality alone before that? He seemed to be intrigued by Moriarty, but as soon as Moriarty met John and Sherlock later received his heart, he became a threat Sherlock needed to escape. Why did Sherlock get involved with Moriarty in the first place when he had some kind of past trauma (Redbeard/Victor etc.) that made him afraid of his sexuality? Because he repressed this trauma? Or because he thought he was above all emotions and impulses and wanted to test himself in a way? Prove he was clever? In a way as Mycroft tried to initiate the Flight of the Dead only to realize that Sherlock was already too involved to prevent the fall/flight?

But what I might have loved the most about TRF is Mofftiss decision to create this sequence on the show:

Moriarty (the villain every fairy-tale newspaper needs) steals the CROWN JEWELS

Sherlock better put on his hat (I’d say mask in this case?) as this case seems to reflect a deeper malaise at the heart of a society.

But Hi John

Interesting.

Avatar
sarahthecoat

mmhmm, always a good re read.

so, moriarty first turns up, just a name, in ASIP, soon after sherlock meets john, and totally clicks with him. then TGG has aspects of “james or john” right through to the pool scene, are they even the same person? (no, not quite) then the link over to irene, which is also readable as pure subtext/metaphor. hmm. later it seems like moriarty pops up at times when sherlock is especially deep in his feelings about john: on the plane in HLV, and of course in TAB and TFP. hmm.

the other thing that struck me this time, is how moriarty has that same uncontainable aspect as Dionysus in The Bacchae. Pentheus tries to close the city gates, but Dionysus gets in. he tries to imprison Dionysus, but he gets out. the more Pentheus resists, the more he falls under the influence. not saying this is any specific intertext, probably just free associating. but…? Dionysus is Life energy, the desire for freedom, human connection, with one another and the natural world, resist at your peril. if moriarty is a personification of sherlock’s sexuality, his capacity for desire, love, connection with john, then it’s no wonder he is also uncontainable.

@sarahthecoat yes to me it seems like there is no way to escape Moriarty, only to accept and dissolve him in a way. And not just him but all incarnations of him, all of Sherlock’s fears. What I keep coming back to is the question if the subtext is really telling a very different story than the one the plot does. E.g. what does Sherlock texting Irene on NYE exactly mean? Or finding her lying in his bed only to have her showered looking like him later where she unlocks her phone for a short time as Sherlock solves the Bond-code and John blurts out Hamish. I mean „what the hell are they implying“? And it is this moment where Moriarty becomes a real threat right? Before that it was more of a game for Sherlock. But now Mycroft understands that the Bond-flight won‘t work, Sherlock is already falling for John. And then in TRF Moriarty steals the Crown Jewels at the same time as John is standing around freshly showered in his dressing gown. Afterwards Moriarty‘s threat becomes more prominent as soon as the media turn, the police turn and Sherlock is put in jail, all outside sources who turn as soon as the seed of a thought is planted, an idea they don’t like. It really makes me question how much of the „real“ story is hidden in the subtext. And the only way to stop TRF from repeating itself again seems to be applying emotional context but also finding a balance between brain, heart and body. And to tell John that it’s him he chooses.

Thank you @lukessense @sarahthecoat for your intersting comments. The whole story told in Sherlock BBC seems to circle round the character of Jim Moriarty. Even after his ‘death’ he constantly keeps coming back. He keeps sending his messages, his notes, on paper, TV screen DVDs and static interferences . And although that character, who appeared already by the end of the 1st and died in the 6th episode (of 13), he is also the centre point of TheGameIsNow, the escape room event, which started 2 years after S4 had aired. Jim keeps coming back because one can’t kill an idea and because Sherlock doesn’t like not knowing. Jim is short for James and John’s hidden middle name is Hamish, the Anglicized form of Sheumais, vocative case of SEUMAS, which is the Scottisch form of JAMES. Jim hides behind John’s middle name. (The Hamish Investigation)  It might also be a clue that two Faiths as well as two Johns appear in the story (X X X)

Since his creation, more than a decade ago, the literary character Sherlock Holmes misses something. Inside the canon stories (most of them), the character is defined by his biographer, John Watson. It is canon Dr Watson who describes the man under the hat to the public. Sherlock BBC starts out the same way but then something happens. In the first series Sherlock asks John to pass him the pen and by the end of the fourth series, Sherlock has become the writer of his blog. He has started to write his own story. And this story seems to be quite different from the one his blogger kept telling the audience. 

I’ve come to view the quintessence of what is told in Sherlock BBC as the story of an awakening … the emotional and sexual awakening of the literary character Sherlock Holmes. (A Sign of Change) This special SH adaptation is done from Sherlock’s POV and shows how the great detective deduces his own personality. He takes up his own case (X X). And by getting to know himself, he is also able to change himself. No outward opinion is forced upon him anymore. Sherlock Holmes sheds his mask and lays open his heart. At least that’s how I interpret this story. :)

@ebaeschnbliah very interesting information about the names James, John and Hamish and your take on doubles within the show. I gotta read up on more of your meta as you shed new light on topics and ideas that seem to have been established, but of course can’t really be proven (yet), so a different interpretation is always very useful. What I found to be a very interesting take was your idea about Mary as Sherlocks facade. I’m still struggling so much with the character of Mary and her role within the show. Not just that her character is blown out of proportion, but that she is so contradictory all the time

And yes, John passed Sherlock the pen, that makes a lot of sense. It always made sense to me that the show was from Sherlock’s POV, not John‘s. It focuses so much on Sherlock’s struggle with identity and the idea of who he is trying (?) to be vs. who he actually is. That is something you work through from within, not from the perspective of another person, a storyteller. 

I keep coming back to the question where we end up with the story, if there is a certain point in time that Sherlock comes back to. Hopefully more ‘human’, reborn as a real person, not a concept that’s hiding in mirrors. Because I think making Sherlock Holmes human would actually make him immortal.

lovely discussion!

hmm, now i wonder if anyone has listed all the scenes where a character is holding a pen, or if only some of them are significant in this way...

Avatar
reblogged
Avatar
gosherlocked

Names Again

JOHN: Hamish. John Hamish Watson – just if you were looking for baby names.

SHERLOCK: William Sherlock Scott Holmes. JOHN: Sorry? SHERLOCK: That’s the whole of it – if you’re looking for baby names.

JOHN: Alex, Gabriel, Ajay … You’re ‘R.’ Rosamund. MARY: Rosamund Mary.

So we get three scenes in which the full names - at least the full first names - of three characters are disclosed. And there are some interesting points.

  • The disclosures of John and Sherlock are similarly worded, Mary’s is completely different.
  • John expresses jealousy, Sherlock expresses love, thereby in a way complementing each other’s feelings. 
  • John and Sherlock are the ones to disclose their names themselves (after Sherlock failing to find out John’s second name). They give them up voluntarily, offering them to the other to emphasise their respective feelings. Mary, however, is found out by John when he makes the connection between the R in AGRA and Rosamund. 
  • Both John and Sherlock stay alive after offering their names - Sherlock even spectacularly so by the plane turning round. Mary, however, dies shortly after John has learned her name. 
  • Which, again, might be a fairytale association. Just think of Lohengrin urging Elsa never to ask for his name. Or the Grimm fairytale of Rumpelstitskin which centres around the character tearing itself to pieces after its name has been found out. 

(All quotes courtesy of @callie-ariane)

Avatar
raggedyblue

Sherlock and John offer spontaneusly to give their names to one another’s children, thing who often a couple do. On the other hand, Mary is the only one to actually name a “real” child … But I still have to think about how to put this data together.

And Rumpelstitskin would really fit Mrs. Hudson’s description (”Funny name. German, like the fairytales”) of the name writtten on the envelope with the Gingerbread man in TRF. Would it not, @gosherlocked ? By the way, the story of the Gingerbread man is also an interesting one, not about names though. (X)  It’s about a gingerbread man’s escape from various pursuers and his eventual demise between the jaws of a fox. Which reminds me of the tiepin Jim wears in TRF … a fox. But I’m deviating now, sorry. :))))

It’s an interesting choice of John to offer his second name in that scene in ASIB. He offers the name ‘Hamish’ (Scottish for James/Jim) to Irene though, because Sherlock already knows it at the time. Somehow between Christmas and the ‘flight of the dead’ he had been able to obtain John’s birth certificate. This only becomes known during the Hamish investigation scene in TSOT. Basically John tells Mrs Sex that his secret name is James (Jim/Mr. Sex), if anyone is looking for baby names. On a metaphorical level that’s really fascinating, I think. 

Baby names turn up again later in two different scenes which mirror each other. 

  • Sherlock claims that his name is actually a girls name and would fit for the new baby. John declines that offer. (HLV)
  • John later wants to name the new baby Catherine. Mary declines that offer. (TST)

According to EMP theory, both scenes already take place inside Sherlock’s mind. And viewing Mary as a mirror for Sherlock, representing his facade, it would actually be Sherlock himself who declines here John’s choice, the name Catherine. I really wonder now if Catherine is actually a boys name in this story. :)))))  Either way, names are important and the knowledge of the right name often means power in many stories and myths … or it brings death. 

Avatar
sarahthecoat

OH, yes, good point about hamish=james, furthering the john/james mirroring.

If a “baby” is a metaphor for the future of a relationship (@sagestreet ’s baby-switch meta), then “john mr sex watson” is offering himself to “irene sherlock’s libido” for consideration. Or as molly (john’s mirror) says, “if there’s anything you need, you can have me”.

Exactly, @sarahthecoat  The baby is a metaphor for the future. That baby is named neither Sherlock nor Catherine but Rosamund (X) … rose of the world … as stated in the dialogue of the show itself. Rosa mundi is a real rose though and like many roses it comes with a second name. It’s also called ‘rosa versicolor’. The meaning of ‘versicolor’ is “changing in colours, having many colours, iridiscent ”

The word iridescence is derived in part from the Greek word ἶρις îris , meaning rainbow, It is the phenomenon of certain surfaces that appear to gradually change color as the angle of view or the angle of illumination changes. (X)

The topic of change runs throughout the whole story that is told in Sherlock BBC … as do rainbows. I guess it has some meaning that the baby got the name Rosamund. :)

A little more thoughts about the Hamish-Scene: In a mind palace scenario which takes place inside Sherlock’s head, there woud neither the friend John Watson nor the woman Irene Adler be present … only what both characters are representing would be on stage.

TBC below the cut …

YES, rb for excellent discussion.

Avatar
reblogged
Avatar
gosherlocked

Names Again

JOHN: Hamish. John Hamish Watson – just if you were looking for baby names.

SHERLOCK: William Sherlock Scott Holmes. JOHN: Sorry? SHERLOCK: That’s the whole of it – if you’re looking for baby names.

JOHN: Alex, Gabriel, Ajay … You’re ‘R.’ Rosamund. MARY: Rosamund Mary.

So we get three scenes in which the full names - at least the full first names - of three characters are disclosed. And there are some interesting points.

  • The disclosures of John and Sherlock are similarly worded, Mary’s is completely different.
  • John expresses jealousy, Sherlock expresses love, thereby in a way complementing each other’s feelings. 
  • John and Sherlock are the ones to disclose their names themselves (after Sherlock failing to find out John’s second name). They give them up voluntarily, offering them to the other to emphasise their respective feelings. Mary, however, is found out by John when he makes the connection between the R in AGRA and Rosamund. 
  • Both John and Sherlock stay alive after offering their names - Sherlock even spectacularly so by the plane turning round. Mary, however, dies shortly after John has learned her name. 
  • Which, again, might be a fairytale association. Just think of Lohengrin urging Elsa never to ask for his name. Or the Grimm fairytale of Rumpelstitskin which centres around the character tearing itself to pieces after its name has been found out. 

(All quotes courtesy of @callie-ariane)

Avatar
raggedyblue

Sherlock and John offer spontaneusly to give their names to one another’s children, thing who often a couple do. On the other hand, Mary is the only one to actually name a “real” child … But I still have to think about how to put this data together.

And Rumpelstitskin would really fit Mrs. Hudson’s description (”Funny name. German, like the fairytales”) of the name writtten on the envelope with the Gingerbread man in TRF. Would it not, @gosherlocked ? By the way, the story of the Gingerbread man is also an interesting one, not about names though. (X)  It’s about a gingerbread man’s escape from various pursuers and his eventual demise between the jaws of a fox. Which reminds me of the tiepin Jim wears in TRF … a fox. But I’m deviating now, sorry. :))))

It’s an interesting choice of John to offer his second name in that scene in ASIB. He offers the name ‘Hamish’ (Scottish for James/Jim) to Irene though, because Sherlock already knows it at the time. Somehow between Christmas and the ‘flight of the dead’ he had been able to obtain John’s birth certificate. This only becomes known during the Hamish investigation scene in TSOT. Basically John tells Mrs Sex that his secret name is James (Jim/Mr. Sex), if anyone is looking for baby names. On a metaphorical level that’s really fascinating, I think. 

Baby names turn up again later in two different scenes which mirror each other. 

  • Sherlock claims that his name is actually a girls name and would fit for the new baby. John declines that offer. (HLV)
  • John later wants to name the new baby Catherine. Mary declines that offer. (TST)

According to EMP theory, both scenes already take place inside Sherlock’s mind. And viewing Mary as a mirror for Sherlock, representing his facade, it would actually be Sherlock himself who declines here John’s choice, the name Catherine. I really wonder now if Catherine is actually a boys name in this story. :)))))  Either way, names are important and the knowledge of the right name often means power in many stories and myths … or it brings death. 

Avatar
sarahthecoat

OH, yes, good point about hamish=james, furthering the john/james mirroring.

If a "baby" is a metaphor for the future of a relationship (@sagestreet 's baby-switch meta), then "john mr sex watson" is offering himself to "irene sherlock's libido" for consideration. Or as molly (john's mirror) says, "if there's anything you need, you can have me".

Avatar
reblogged

John or James?

In The Reichenbach Fall, Sherlock tells Kitty Riley that there are two types of fans: the Moriarty and the Watson.

SHERLOCK: “Catch me before I kill again”—type A KITTY: Uh-huh. What’s Type B? SHERLOCK: “Your bedroom’s just a taxi ride away.” KITTY: Guess which one I am.

We’ve seen several examples of John/Moriarty mirroring in Sherlock: they’re both associated with cabbies; they’re both described as “the storyteller”; they both vie for Sherlock’s affection and their relationships are described in the same terms (“Just you and me against the rest of the world” vs. “At the end it’s always just you and me”).

In The Great Game, Sherlock briefly takes John for Moriarty in the pool scene.

JOHN: This is a turn-up, isn’t it, Sherlock? SHERLOCK: John. What the hell? JOHN: Bet you never saw this coming.

Why?

In the 2007 film Reichenbach Falls, the villain is the writer who kills off his own detective hero, just as Arthur Conan Doyle killed off Sherlock Holmes in The Final Problem.

In the Sherlock Holmes stories, Watson is author’s self-insert character. In the film Reichenbach Falls, Moriarty is the author’s self-insert.

Sherlock extends this idea by suggesting that both may be true.

———— 

Further discussion of John/Moriarty mirroring and Sherlock’s many other references to this film in The ACiD Test.

Avatar
reblogged

Just the one … a calculated risk … a Christmas treat

(He was never the same after that Christmas. It’s as if he had finally woken up … and he started to research, to investigate, to deduce … first a middle name … then deeper and deeper he went. Things like this can come to pass when an otherwise highly disciplined intellect allows his body a little bit of distraction … just a small breath of … chemistry. Just five minutes …)

Impressions from Sherlock BBC:  A Scandal in Belgravia

July, 2019

Avatar
gosherlocked

@ebaeschnbliah: This is good. What do you make of the fact that Mycroft, the brain, offers him the distraction? 

Good question, @gosherlocked  As I interpret the story told in Sherlock BBC, it is Mycroft who downright forces Sherlock to take the case of The Woman. It is also Mycroft who offers Sherlock the cigarette … a chemical drug, after all … a minor substiture for the ‘real’ thing. And it is also Mycroft who releases Jim, Mr. Sex, who then together with Irene, prevents that the Flight of the Dead takes off. If Mycroft represents Sherlock’s ratio, then it is Sherlock himself, his own will, who starts to investigate a certain topic. 

Irene, the libido, beats Sherlock and exposes him to her chemistry. Later, John, the ureliable narrator, notices at Christmas that the counter on his blog, where he offers the public a censored picture of Sherlock Holmes, has stopped at 1895 hits. Mycroft, the ratio, allows a ‘calculated’ shot of chemistry to test a theory …. and then Sherlock starts to investigate earnestly and intensively. He starts with x-raying the phone, the heart, then he wants to know who hides behind the H. of John’s middle name. Hamish is the Scottish equivalent of James. James/Jim, Mr.Sex, is already hidden in plain sight among the other names of the ‘eternal friend’. The Flight of the Dead from ASIB evolves to the Flight of the Sleeping in TFP, where Sherlock is able to safely land that plane. And it looks like the blog, the story of Sherlock’s life, gets now written by himself … a man who, by now, has parted from his facade. 

All of this happens inside Sherlock’s head, innitiated by his own rational mind … hesitation, resistance, conflict, disgust, scorn, doubt and fear included. In the words of ASIP: the whole thing is ‘self administered’. At least, that’s how I read the story. :)

@ebaeschnbliah: And now this may be splitting hairs but when Mycroft offers the ciggie Sherlock is looking to his right. After accepting it we see him and Mycroft in profile, looking to the left. This could be interpreted as Sherlock taking a 180 degrees turn. ;)

Interesting idea, @gosherlocked  It reminds me strongly of …  “You just went the wrong way last time, that’s all. This time, get it right.“ from TFP. Turning round, changing direction … walking the opposite way. I guess such a turn of direction could additionally be supported by a visual presentation too. 

Also interesting is with the play on mirrors/glass/reflection we get the flame to light the cig actually within Sherlock as it also lights the cigarette, further enforcing this idea that it is a metaphor for sparking something within the character - and mirrors certainly have their own significance throughout the show - with great meta out there on their extensive use, including their use in TAB for creation of the fake bride (ultimately shattered) or the mirror buildings of Roland Kerr Further Education College where John chose the wrong building, the glass/mirror in TFP that was used to meld Eurus and Moriarty and was/wasn’t there for Sherlock and Eurus or you can even consider the original pilot episode a mirror universe of sorts. 

In this scene it is often hard to tell if we are viewing Mycroft and Sherlock through a mirror or one of several windows frames in the scene - from inside the morgue through the door (most are shot from here), from outside the window that looks in, from outside in the hall (where the grieving family is) looking in through the door, or from the door on their right. However, if you really look at the angle of these on the cigarette lighting scene you will see that the window is in front of Sherlock but the the glass is so close that the morgue door has to have literally been moved right up against his and Mycroft’s back for the filming of the scene to get those kind of light reflections - and doesn’t that have a profound metaphorical meaning - he was literally pressed between panes of glass at that moment - the morgue at his back and the window at his front.

Also interesting is the shapes, because I’ve seen a great meta somewhere on the circles being used throughout to represent emotion and the squares to represent logic and in this scene there are a lot of the squares until the moments Mycroft talks to Sherlock about why he might want a cigarette, then we get the lower angle and we can see that on the ceiling there are these large circular light fixtures. Just three of these moments. When he offers it - when Sherlock points out that it is low tar and Mycroft says that Sherlock hardly knew her - and when Sherlock goes to walk away and it is clear that it is a ‘danger night.’

Avatar
sarahthecoat

fascinating discussion! I also noticed the visual framing of sherlock within the window panes. I dimly remember a (s3 semester?) meta about similar shots in TGG where sherlock is framed in the lab door window while he's examining the shoes, but it makes it look like sherlock is the one pinned in the slide. @just-sort-of-happened wrote a lot about the circles/emotions and squares/logic visual theme that runs through the entire show. @kateis-cakeis made an extensive video meta examining the mirroring (often literal, mirror-image blocking/framing) between ASIP and the pilot.

It's so interesting looking anew at these earlier episodes, in light of the later ones. So many recurring and developing themes!

Avatar
reblogged

The East Wind: Understanding Eurus (1 of 3)

This first part has been written and finished forever, but then school happened and I haven’t got around to writing the second part yet, so I thought I would wait. But then spenglernot happened to be a super sweetheart and ask to see my meagre meta, so here goes. Hopefully I’ll get the second part up soonish.

I know a lot of people by now are in agreeance that Eurus is not a real person, but rather a manifestation of a side of Sherlock’s personality. However, I’ve seen a lot of different ideas when it comes to what side she is a manifestation of and why it was necessary to include her in the series at all. One of the most common ideas seems to be that Eurus is the Sherlock that Mycroft created and a lot of people are upset that TJLC was overshadowed by this story of two brothers.

The way I see it, though, the overarching conflict of BBC Sherlock is and will always be the conflict between John and Jim, or rather, the conflict within Sherlock to choose to be either a good man with John or a bad man with Jim. Through his relationship with John, Sherlock becomes a softer, better man, a man more capable of showing and allowing himself to feel emotion. Contrarily, every time he chooses to engage with Jim, he closes himself off from emotion and acts on his own, insisting that he doesn’t need other people.

The person who makes Sherlock behave in this way has always been Jim, not Mycroft. When we see Mycroft and Sherlock interact, it’s clear that Sherlock has always felt stupid in comparison to Mycroft. But his reaction is to act childishly petulant, not cold or unemotional. We see this both in the real world and symbolized in Sherlock’s mind palace, where he pictures himself as a boy in front of Mycroft in HLV.

Thus, the relationship between Sherlock and Mycroft is important, but the core of the series is the John-Sherlock-Jim constellation. That is, every step Sherlock takes towards John is a step away from Jim and the bad man and every step Sherlock takes towards Jim is a step away from John and the good man. The overarching romantic arc of the series is closely linked to Sherlock’s overarching character arc. Let us briefly go through Sherlock’s character development up until S4.

Avatar
sarahthecoat

wonderful, thank you so much! I had noticed how sherlock pushed john away when he went to deal with moriarty in TGG and TRF, but i failed to notice what you did, that it's the "john or james" choice. And the crucial difference between the two, the fascination vs the protection.

Moriarty also wants to exclude john, or else use him as disposable, while mycroft, once he has tested john and found him solid, usually seeks to include him as much as possible. He hands john the folder in TGG that sherlock won't accept, sends a helicopter for him in ASIB, and meets with him after (although, testing again), and meets with him in TRF too.

Avatar
reblogged

THE  HAMISH  INVESTIGATION

Experimenting with a time frame

During the wedding in TSOT the audience in front of the TV gets to know the story of how Sherlock finally found out which middle name hides behind the H. of John H. Watson. 

This happens during a sudden revelation which leads Sherlock to the identity of Jonathan Small, the ‘Mayfly-Man’, the photographer who turns out to be responsible for the stabbing attacks at Privat Bainbridge as well as Major Sholto. The revelation is triggered by Jonathan Small himself, by the flashlights of his camera. It takes place during the very short time span when Sherlock’s glass of champagne slips out of his fingers until it shatters on the floor.

But when exactly did Sherlock start his investigation, regarding John’s middle name?

TBC below the cut …

Avatar
sarahthecoat

OOH, excellent! I love how that five part structure keeps coming up and the fives all consistently track with each other.

HMM, now it occurs to me to wonder if there is a set of five relating to moriarty’s identity. In ASIP, the scene where john meets mycroft is deliberately written so as to make the audience wonder if mycroft is moriarty. In TBB, the “M” texting Shan is left ambiguous (could be mycroft, jim, or even “mary”). In TGG, the scene at the pool is deliberately staged to make sherlock/the audience wonder, however briefly, if john is moriarty. In TRF, moriarty poses as a cabbie, and has a fake identity as a tv actor. On john’s blog, he posts comments as “anonymous” and as “theimprobableone” (i think they are both moriarty, at least, there may be other theories)

Anyway, that’s a bit of a tangent, from the john/james thing. John’s identity is also multifold, doctor, soldier, blogger, bi, friend, husband, father, etc. “Hamish” representing the hidden part, his bisexuality, being “introduced” to sherlock and irene (sherlock’s sexuality) all couched with mirrors and metaphors. John is the “three patch problem” sherlock is figuring out.

These are really brilliant observations @ebaeschnbliah ! Indeed the five parts pattern is repeated again and again in this show, and I’m so thrilled you discovered this one to add to the rest of them! And certainly, @sarahthecoat, John is Sherlock’s “three patch problem”. Can’t stop thinking about it, I suspect even John’s reactions to Sherlock’s investigations are reflected in the different seasons. I hope you don’t mind me dissecting this topic further? (more under the cut; it got bit lengthy…)

WOW, that's a very detailed examination! I sure hope we get to see john watson, loving husband, in s5! ;)

Avatar
reblogged

THE  HAMISH  INVESTIGATION

Experimenting with a time frame

During the wedding in TSOT the audience in front of the TV gets to know the story of how Sherlock finally found out which middle name hides behind the H. of John H. Watson. 

This happens during a sudden revelation which leads Sherlock to the identity of Jonathan Small, the ‘Mayfly-Man’, the photographer who turns out to be responsible for the stabbing attacks at Privat Bainbridge as well as Major Sholto. The revelation is triggered by Jonathan Small himself, by the flashlights of his camera. It takes place during the very short time span when Sherlock’s glass of champagne slips out of his fingers until it shatters on the floor.

But when exactly did Sherlock start his investigation, regarding John’s middle name?

TBC below the cut …

Avatar
sarahthecoat

OOH, excellent! I love how that five part structure keeps coming up and the fives all consistently track with each other.

HMM, now it occurs to me to wonder if there is a set of five relating to moriarty's identity. In ASIP, the scene where john meets mycroft is deliberately written so as to make the audience wonder if mycroft is moriarty. In TBB, the "M" texting Shan is left ambiguous (could be mycroft, jim, or even "mary"). In TGG, the scene at the pool is deliberately staged to make sherlock/the audience wonder, however briefly, if john is moriarty. In TRF, moriarty poses as a cabbie, and has a fake identity as a tv actor. On john's blog, he posts comments as "anonymous" and as "theimprobableone" (i think they are both moriarty, at least, there may be other theories)

Anyway, that's a bit of a tangent, from the john/james thing. John's identity is also multifold, doctor, soldier, blogger, bi, friend, husband, father, etc. "Hamish" representing the hidden part, his bisexuality, being "introduced" to sherlock and irene (sherlock's sexuality) all couched with mirrors and metaphors. John is the "three patch problem" sherlock is figuring out.

Avatar
reblogged

I O U

MORIARTY: I owe you, Sherlock
JOHN: I was so alone, and I owe you so much

The word ‘owe’ comes from the Old English agan “to have, own” from PIE root aik “be master of, possess”.

Wait - why have I never noticed this? It’s interesting that John says it after Moriarty, isn’t it? I might be wrong, but as far as I can recall, John didn’t know about ‘IOU’, and Sherlock never told him.

Avatar
raggedyblue

Interesting! Moriarty owes something to Sherlock and this thing seems to be a fall, but then it is Sherlock who falls for him, as if it were a favor, as if a fall were a good thing. John owes so much to Sherlock, undoubtedly a lot, considering the gun in his drawer in the first episode, he owes his life. And this time too it is John who owes Sherlock something but is Sherlock to give it. The fall to Moriarty and his life for John’s.

Yes, @raggedyblue, it’s interesting because it’s so ambiguous (like so many things in this show). On one hand there’s this eternal idea that Sherlock has to sacrifice himself for John, and that John owes him a lot, but John feels he can never repay the debt. ”Everyone’s got debts”, though, as Lucy told him in TGG, so this shouldn’t be a major problem. Jim seems to think that he owes Sherlock a Fall (no idea why, though, since Sherlock never managed to catch him), but the Fall is for Sherlock; it’s still Sherlock who has to pay for something. If this is just a metaphor for ‘falling in love’, does that mean that Jim is obsessed with Sherlock, so he expects Sherlock to be likewise? On the other hand, if “owe” means “own” as in @catwillowtree‘s suggestion, it would mean that first Jim claims to “own” Sherlock, but it’s actually John who “owns” him in the end. :)

Avatar
sarahthecoat

HMM.

John or James, James or John … from the beginning onwards everything revolvs around this. This theme is played out again and again by a row of different mirrors. But the central question stays always the same … John or James, saint or sinner … 

John ‘fills in’ for the skull, the ‘eternal friend’ (ASIP) and Jim plays the role of ‘Mr. Sex’ (TRF)
John represents the one fixed, unmovable point in a changing age. Jim represents the ‘I’m soooo changable’ turner of the table … Turner, the creator of the Reichenbach Falls/Rich Brook. 
John (the eternal friend) owes his existance Sherlock, who (tried to) remove Jim (Mr.Sex) from the game in order to keep friendship safe and unchanged (which in return protects himself). Jim reaches for the crown jewels and strives to become king, to dominate/own the ‘world’ (the body)

Sherlock though is afraid of becoming ‘a prisoner of his own meat’ … ‘only the brain is what counts’. Mycroft, Sherlock’s ratio, once allowed Eurus (emotion) to meet Jim (Mr.Sex) … and ‘they got on like a house on fire’ …  ‘It took her just five minutes to do all of this to us’

Back in 2016 I tried to work out in The Rug-pull Experiment which one of the characters would be the most likely candidat for the ‘big baddie’ who pulls the strings in the background. Considering the possibilities (at that time), I …

… excluded John right away … although he would be the perfeckt reason for a shocking surprise as well as a terrible heartbreak.

Maybe this decission was a bit too hasty. Today I’m not thinking anymore in terms of ‘good and bad’ though. Eurus says very clearly that ‘there’s no such thing as ‘bad’ (or good) … that ‘good and bad are fairytales’. What I’m trying to say is this: if the character John represents the ‘eternal, unflexible, unmoving friendship’ who is paired up with Sherlock Holmes for more than a century, and the character Jim represents Mr. Sex, the changing age, the ‘What are we dealing with? … Something new.’ (TGG) - - - I ask you, in that case, wouldn’t it be John, the eternal ‘just’ friend, who has to be removed (metaphorically killed by emotion) in order to be remade and changed into something new? And wouldn’t it be Jim who finally has to be accepted and embraced? This is what I wonder about these days. :)))

I agree, @ebaeschnbliah you can not think more in terms of good and bad if you think that every villains in the show is not that one aspect or a fear of the same Sherlock … I must admit that I found myself rather affectionate to the villains in Sherlock since I started reading them this way, to Moriarty in firstly. So why just John should be immune, we have already seen a suggestion to him as a villain in the brief moment in the pool and in the Culverton mirror. What we love often is what we fear most. It would make a lot of sense at the end.

Avatar
gosherlocked

I love this discussion. At first I was a bit hesitant when @ebaeschnbliah suggested that the fixed immovable concept of John Watson as best friend has to be overcome but in the end it would be the only way for a romantic solution, wouldn’t it? Although I would not say that John necessarily has to be killed but rather merge with the sexual Jim concept in order to create a relationship that is friendly and romantic and physical.    

Exactly, @raggedyblue and @gosherlocked! Yes; John is mirrored by villains and ‘serial killers’, from Jeff Hope in ASiP, trough Jim in the pool scene in TGG to Culverton in TLD. But no, John is not going to be killed; he already ‘survived’ Euros’ shot in TLD. He needs to be transformed (see my last comment - sorry for cross-posting! :) )

Just to be clear and to avoid misunderstandings … I consider the ‘real’ person John Watson and the ‘eternal friend’ John-not gay-Watson, actor on Sherlock’s mind stage, as two entirely different things. When I say that the ‘eternal friend’ has to be removed/changed, in order to really transform the character Sherlock Holmes, I’m talking about  the concept of this ‘eternal friendship’ and of course not about the ‘real’ person. 

The end of TLD - first the acceptance of ‘it is what it is’ followed by the shooting of John, the ‘eternal friend’, by Eurus/emotion - heavily points to a metaphorical killing of that concept. As does the takeover of John’s blog by Sherlock. The familiar chronicler/blogger John-not gay-Watson gets replaced by Sherlock himself, who is by now a man who has dropped his mask/facade, to write his own new history. And the first action Sherlock sets in the following episode is to enter Sherrinford, the innermost core of his being, and confront himself with the so long hidden and locked away side of himself … the other one, the one who gets on with Jim like a house on fire. :)))

*flailing* YES!!!

Avatar
reblogged
Avatar
sagestreet

Why the dog keeps barking during the ‘Bruce-Partington case’ – A memory stick meta

First fresh meta in a long time (ie, not from the dark swirling vortex of my draft folder), so I apologise for any typos and lack of eloquence.

A few days ago, @ebaeschnbliah discovered three mysterious dog barking sound bites in TGG, and I promised to write up my theory about them. (You can read about @ebaeschnbliah‘s discovery here: x). Meanwhile @ebaeschnbliah proved to be quicker than I ever could and wrote a post of her own about this (x). So, please don’t be disappointed if the following text, at least in part, repeats some of her points. I promise only some of our observations will overlap and, more importantly, our conclusions will be different.

Okay, settle in, fill your tea cups, grab your reading glasses and let me tell you a story…

The Bruce-Partington case foreshadows s5 like nothing else! 

And here’s why…

Remember that we’ve all pretty much collectively agreed that the 5 pips in TGG foreshadow the five seasons of BBC ‘Sherlock’? Many people had written metas about this over the years. (You can read my take on this theory here: x).

This is why we have to examine the fifth pip, the Bruce-Partington case, more closely than anything else if we want to make solid predictions about s5.

The Bruce-Partington case is what it has all been about.

The Bruce-Partington case=s5!

Ergo, the Bruce-Partington case should contain everything we need to know about s5: What will eventually happen. How Sherlock and John will get together. What actually happened to Sherlock in his past to impede his sexual/romantic growth into a happy, openly gay man. All of this should be coded in the Bruce-Partington case.

As it happens the Bruce-Partington case is one of the most complex ones on the show: This case isn’t just subtextually coded. It is double-coded. I would even argue that there’s some evidence that it is triple-coded!

How so? 

Well, first of all, let me give you my two main premises, so as to make this easier to understand:

1. Premise number one: Dogs = homosexuality

2. Premise number two: memory sticks = Sherlock’s “lost” memory (about his traumatic past and subsequently repressed gay identity)

Aaaaand finally, in s4, it is recovered…

(There’s more under the cut…)

Avatar
raggedyblue

Ah @sagestreet, and you didn’t even want to write this meta! Fortunately then you did it because as usual you dug deeper, you’re a bit the archaeologist of this fandom, all excavations and pieces of art ;-P All always super interesting. The memory stick thing is always very sensible when read this way. And as I already mentioned it is interesting that these memory sticks are never actually read by anyone. The first is drowned by Moriarty, the second is burned. But perhaps we can find differences between them. The first contains secret plans (if I can, I will focus on the contents of these plans, are missile plans … among all the available weapons, if the gun already seems to have a phallic connotation, I do not even want to dwell on what looks like a missile ) which as you say brilliantly can refer to Sherlock’s homosexual memory. I must say that I am not entirely convinced of the motivations of Moriarty. Always read as homophobia, correctly in my opinion, contains in itself however the pure and simple suffix homo. It is homophobia as long as it is not accepted. It is homophobia as long as it is not free (i want to be free, i want to be …. god). He takes the memory of Sherlock, who already knows, because it is that who created him, and throws it away just because he already owns it. He makes it go back where it was, drowned deep, like it happened at Carl Powers … now here I’m shooting blind, so of pure instinct. If I think better about it, maybe it does not hold water. But Carl Powers was drowned because he laughed at Moriarty. Because he laughed about the homosexual side of Sherlock. And Moriarty / Sherlock drowned him, which is similar to holding in a well, which makes a lot of thinking about the removal. And it is since then that Moriarty has become bad, from homosexual to homophobia. And now he threatens to blow up, burn John, but Sherlock is not ready, his memory is buried, the bomb is taken from John and Sherlock’s sexuality, Irene, draws attention to herself. It is something that must be resolved first. A before and after. The same scene re-reads as prediction tells, as you and @ebaeschnbliah said, a story with a different outcome. The second stick has a different content, contains AGRA that I had already thought (X)could be a representation of Sherlock. A more recent memory, a memory that refers to John, to the love that Sherlock feels for him and to the things what he has done for him. In fact, someone reads that key, Sherlock does it, it is John who refuses to do it, who does not want to see all that is evident. He throws it into the fire, but it stubbornly reappears. The attempt to deny, the memory stick, is hidden in the bust of the Tacher, an irreproachable and homophobic facade, but this ends up shattering. At that point it is likely that John has read it, it is never said, but it is he who suggests to us a locator, so it is likely that he has deepened his knowledge. And the further heteronormative facade that tries to take possession of information, to hide the evidence, is hunted down. I apologize for all this digression, maybe a little shaky on the memory stick. As far as your Bruce-Partington case analysis is concerned, it’s so beautiful! On the second level, the reading of Mycrof as a thief of Sherlock’s homosexual identity, in order to protect him, caring is not an advantage, alone protects me …. it’s clear (the mirror Mycroft / Joe through the outfit is rather cheeky). I would read Mycroft as the rational part of Sherlock who does everything to protect himself, but also to see him as Author is very interesting. And above all, what I love in your meta is how, despite the subtext is laid bare, you can also keep the focus on potential literal development. There are so many possible levels of reading that I continue to think that it is also possible one in which John and Sherlock replace Joe and Westie. You can see it here too, these three screencaps are in sequence.

The first and third are mirrored, in the middle we have the double mirror, John, the military bag at his feet, the bicycle chain, and Mycroft.

The atmosphere, very similar to the stag nigth (we never see Lucy) and the alcoholic inebriation. But while in this case the murder happens, let’s say that finally they end up in bed, in the stag night they are interrupted by a nurse …. But of course with the third one you’ve made sparks. The trio Mummy, Dad and Rudy is perfect. And also the fact that once he’s killed (fucked) Westie is put on a train is interesting. 

A train that had taken a certain direction but then because of an exchange causes the body to fall … the father had decided to choose Rudy but then something made him change his mind and this led to a bad end? ( here death = death).

As always you can stimulate the small gray cells … even if in my comment I fear mine have more than anything else danced samba ….

Thank you, @raggedyblue. I’m glad you liked it.

I love your observation with the train. It makes so much sense:

A guy’s life is supposed to go one way (one endless track disappearing in the metaphorical distance, ie, future), but then there’s a point and he’s suddenly, unexpectedly thrown off course. That makes all the sense in the world.

Incidentally, this could also mean that trains might play an important part in s5. Real trains that stand for metaphorical trains, obviously. Since the Bruce-Partington case foreshadows s5, this seems more than just a bit likely.

When it comes to Moriarty…yeah, you’re right!

@ebaeschnbliah has been telling me, for months, that he represents more than just homophobia. I’ve just been too stubborn to understand what she was telling me.:) 

But she (and you) are right. Moriarty wants the explosion to happen, wants to blow them both up, ie, Moriarty is Love, too. Explosive love. He’s also referred to as the crack in the lens, the speck in the ointment or whatever in TAB. This happens after they have already established that this is the definition of love in the same episode. Yes, I think @ebaeschnbliah and you are both right: Moriarty is Love.

But he is Love and something else too. Moriarty is Homophobia and Love at the same time.

That’s seems to be THE one problem Sherlock has: the two concepts have become the same thing to him, they have melded into one. Internalised homophobia and Love are represented by the same inner persona, which is massively, massively unhealthy, of course.

If we come back to the reading that Moriarty is something like Sherlock’s Freudian ‘Id’ (with Mycroft being Sherlock’s ‘Super-Ego’), a reading people have proposed ages ago, then it all becomes very clear: The Freudian ‘Id’ is the inner space where all drives and desires reside, without the slightest bit of moral connotation. I.e. Sherlock can’t distinguish between healthy drives and destructive drives. They are the same to him. 

To Sherlock, Love=gay sex=suicide are the same thing.

Sherlock’s great task over the course of these five seasons is to differentiate these things. Homophobia has to be defeated, yes, and Love has to be embraced, but first he has to understand where one begins and the other one ends. That seems to be his problem. 

And I maintain that to separate these two into different concepts he has to examine what happened to his dad. (Which is my favourite theory right now.:))

Psychoanalytic reading is always very interesting and I think the show draws fully from it. However, in the allegorical carnival they created I think Sherlock’s ID is clearly played by Eurus (X). And of course, Moriarty has a close relationship with this part of Sherlock’s psyche. The iD is the place where things were removed (X), and Sherlock removed  his being gay when he decided that caring was not an advantage, that love is a crack on the lens. He removed Moriarty in the bottom of a padded cell. But when John appears in his life ID (Eurus) and Moriarty started to work together. To be free, revive the past to dissolve the knots.

Exactly  @raggedyblue  It’s all about choices and consequences and what might happen if one alters the ‘one fixed point in a changing world’. When the friend becomes the lover …. and the passions grenade finally explodes …. 

Sex is action - it can be locked in by force and supressed … and Sherlock tries to be very thorough when he secures Mr.Sex in the padded cell with chain and collar, like a dangerous hound.

Love is emotion - it is impossible to lock in such an indomitable and powerful force of nature … and Sherlock fears it from the beginning, that  “love is a much more vicious motivator”, equipped with velvet paws and deadly claws.  :)))

Avatar
sarahthecoat

MMHMM!

Avatar
reblogged

THE  BIG  QUESTION

________________________________________________________________

WHAT IS THE MEANING OF REICHENBACH

Some time ago I wrote about the three solutions presented in The Empty Hearse (Solutions or Choices) and about the possibility that those three explanations for the ‘fall’ represent actually three different choices for Sherlock to solve his problem. Let me phrase my former statement again:

Sherlock dismisses LOVE/Molly and SEX/Jim as fake and decides instead to team up with BRAIN/Mycroft.

But what is the cause for this decision? And if this is some kind of metaphorical equation Sherlock is experimenting on, what can be found on the other side of that equation? What exactly happens on Bart’s roof and why? Who is involved?

This is a metaphorical reading of events before, at and after Bart’s roof. It deals with the veiled surface level of the story, as I call it, based on the assumption that everything that is shown on screen, is told and coded by the ‘language of Sherlock’s mind’. 

Enjoy (this theory) if you like under the cut ..

Avatar
sarahthecoat

i finally had time to read this, wow! (was away from internet over the weekend) I love all of this, and nifty that "turner's masterpiece" and "mrs turner's married ones" can be metaphorically connected.

You are using an unsupported browser and things might not work as intended. Please make sure you're using the latest version of Chrome, Firefox, Safari, or Edge.
mouthporn.net