they were insane for this

This is where Mary in disguise says the disturbing phrase at John's obvious mirror:

(X) PASSENGER (politely): Did you have a nice time? In London? MARY: It was okay, I guess, but did somebody hide the sun? (She takes off her sunglasses.) Did you lose it in the war?

Now I always struggle to see Mary as Sherlock's mirror because her being the heteronormative facade of John is so huge that I don't see anything else. But obviously I don't ignore all the similarities and the fact that the facade is something you put on top of something already existing. So it works as a screen for John but it can be a disguise for his true love interest. Whether it is intentional or not. If it's Sherlock's way of trying to see himself as different and more "suitable" or if it's a story tailored to make a couple that isn't more acceptable. If anyone has speculated that Watson was Holmes' wife, and she did so in all seriousness, the reverse is also true.

So Sherlock is London right?

John asks the runaway facade if she was somehow part of Sherlock and she says yes, she tried, but it's as if she found a barren ground there, as if that way she didn't really get what she wanted, the sun, which we know to be John. The sun had been lost in the war. It belonged to the soldier, John's, if you really have to divide it neatly in two, homosexual side.

Could it be a reading that makes any sense?

@possiblyimbiassed @gosherlocked @ebaeschnbliah @sagestreet

@sarahthecoat

Oh you bet! Now go read “Mary’s” letter to “John” when she left and let it ache

yes, absolutely!

Time, Space and Sherlock

After the surrealistic ending of BBC Sherlock’s fourth series in 2017, many of us might have asked ourselves: is it even possible to construct a coherent plot line out of this mess? Is it possible to trace some ‘real’, believable story arc for the show; a narrative where things would still make logical sense? Or is the whole show rather a sort of abstract work of art, where everything is to be read metaphorically? Strangely enough, I think both. :)

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:

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?

The space-time continuum

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.

What is real?

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).

Weiterlesen

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 …  :)))

Keep reading

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:

Keep reading

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.

Time, Space and Sherlock

After the surrealistic ending of BBC Sherlock’s fourth series in 2017, many of us might have asked ourselves: is it even possible to construct a coherent plot line out of this mess? Is it possible to trace some ‘real’, believable story arc for the show; a narrative where things would still make logical sense? Or is the whole show rather a sort of abstract work of art, where everything is to be read metaphorically? Strangely enough, I think both. :)

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:

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?

The space-time continuum

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.

What is real?

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).

Weiterlesen

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 …  :)))

Keep reading

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:

Keep reading

rb for discussion. i like the parallel between the TGG bomb outside 221b, while the TFP bomb is inside, with the HLV and TST shootings. maybe this is why "mary" gets the big spurt of blood, as if the shot was coming from inside her.

How To Fake Your Death by Mary Watson

this is another of the nonsense of the plot (I’m collecting them with a glacial advance). Why the hell would she have to fake his death on the plane. Surely she was already embarked on a false identity, the issue of dying in a real world would only draw attention to someone who could easily disappear after the landing (not that I’m an escape master, maybe I’m missing something).

Surely yet another reference to Sherlock Holmes and his false death, which was followed by a period of identity change.

Assuming that even the canonical “death” was a consequence (in addition to the author’s boredom and / or fear) of having to escape Moriarty, still trapped in the allegorical role of homophobia, we have in Sherlock that stages on his Mind Theater his disappearance. The character threatened, forced by homophobia is deleted from the story, and Heteronormativity takes over. Which is what happened in 99% of the subsequent adaptations of the Canon and that aniway continued to dominate the textual plot of the Canon itself. And the we have the growing disaster from S3 onwards.

Now as an exercise in style, Heteronormativity is removed, following the same procedure, false death and distant travel.

But without Moriarty freed, without a correct homosexual reading, the story is still nowhere to go. Not that a story without romanticism is not possible of course, but the Canon in the Platonic version still loses part of its soul. John is a mess, soulless and Sherlock a wreck.

@possiblyimbiassed @gosherlocked @ebaeschnbliah @sarahthecoat @sagerstreet

Yes, @raggedyblue , the story feels very much unsolved by the end of series four. TST looks like a repetition of events in prior episodes in which Mary takes on Sherlock’s part. But it’s not just a repetition, it’s also a rewriting. 

Sherlock comes back to life. Mary’s coffin burns in blue flames. As I read it, emotions finally burn away Sherlock’s facade. Then Eurus, the East Wind, becomes the ‘therapist’ (who ‘got on with Jim like a house on fire’) and the facade turns into memory (DVD). TFP returns the story - with Musgrave and Victor Trevor - to a time where in canon Sherlock Holmes hadn’t met John Watson yet. Before the beginning, one might say. An interesting concept although quite open-ended …. just like the ‘unfinished melody’ in Jim’s story about Bach in TRF:

@possiblyimbiassed @gosherlocked @sarahthecoat @sagestreet @lukessense 

Interesting discussion! I very much agree, @raggedyblue , that the 99% of canon adaptations dominated by heteronormativity are represented in BBC Sherlock. Which produces the ’growing disaster’ from S3 and onwards. And the same story of ’heroic’, fake suicide to protect others from the traditional, allegorical destiny of same-sex relationships is repeated again and again in Sherlock’s Mind Theatre scenarios, each time with new actors and slight alterations. From the ’Casablanca’ scene in HLV when Sherlock is sent by plane on a suicide mission to Eastern Europe, followed by Mary heroically going to Morocco (was it Casablanca or another town this time?) in TST to ’move the target away from you my darling’, faking her death on a plane in the mean time. And Ajay - in search of his memory stick - is killed off by a ’trigger happy’ policeman (nice catch @ebaeschnbliah!), resembling the ’doctored footage’ of CAM dying from a random MI6 agent’s fire instead of Sherlock shooting him (to stop him from telling the truth about Mary). And after this Mary theatrically throws herself in front of Vivian’s bullet to protect Sherlock.

The shifting identities of Mrs Heteronorm is particularly interesting, because whatever happens to her, she never seems to go away. That’s extremely annoying, seeing as from a meta perspective, killing off a character often has the function of letting the story move forwards in some sense. But this one doesn’t move forwards; it moves in circles, and by TFP we’re back at the beginning. Mary says it clearly in the end: the only thing that matters is the legends and the adventures. (To hell with a coherent plot line and characters who are allowed to be who they really are; allowed to feel alive). Because the hetero norm is still there, maintaining its grip on the narrative.

The way it left us in TFP, BBC Sherlock is not a progressive story because there’s no progression (at least not plotwise). Just like ACD left his audience for a decade with the protagonist killed off ’heroically’ to protect the world from Moriarty. And Holmes ’died’ in a suspicious, absurd way, very much resembling suicide. (I mean, who leaves an explanatory note the minute before they necessarily have to wrestle with their nemesis at the brink of an abbyss? And what kind of villain would let them write that note?). But, as @ebaeschnbliah says, our story is still open-ended. Moriarty can still come back and break free. And hopefully, Sherlock’s facade is burnt away this time, while his heart stays intact. ;)

@sarahthecoat @gosherlocked @ebaeschnbliah @raggedyblue @sagestreet @lukessense

yeah, ms heteronorm still has hold of the story. it would be a great nod to the rathbone films if "mary" got killed off multiple times only to return as if nothing had happened. they did that with moriarty back in the 1940s (except, the time to do that would have been s3, please not going forward, done with her thanks). but moriarty being killed off and coming back is much more interesting for the johnlock metaphoricalizers, it's the gay that can't be got rid of since it was there from the start.

How To Fake Your Death by Mary Watson

this is another of the nonsense of the plot (I’m collecting them with a glacial advance). Why the hell would she have to fake his death on the plane. Surely she was already embarked on a false identity, the issue of dying in a real world would only draw attention to someone who could easily disappear after the landing (not that I’m an escape master, maybe I’m missing something).

Surely yet another reference to Sherlock Holmes and his false death, which was followed by a period of identity change.

Assuming that even the canonical “death” was a consequence (in addition to the author’s boredom and / or fear) of having to escape Moriarty, still trapped in the allegorical role of homophobia, we have in Sherlock that stages on his Mind Theater his disappearance. The character threatened, forced by homophobia is deleted from the story, and Heteronormativity takes over. Which is what happened in 99% of the subsequent adaptations of the Canon and that aniway continued to dominate the textual plot of the Canon itself. And the we have the growing disaster from S3 onwards.

Now as an exercise in style, Heteronormativity is removed, following the same procedure, false death and distant travel.

But without Moriarty freed, without a correct homosexual reading, the story is still nowhere to go. Not that a story without romanticism is not possible of course, but the Canon in the Platonic version still loses part of its soul. John is a mess, soulless and Sherlock a wreck.

@possiblyimbiassed @gosherlocked @ebaeschnbliah @sarahthecoat @sagerstreet

Yes, @raggedyblue , the story feels very much unsolved by the end of series four. TST looks like a repetition of events in prior episodes in which Mary takes on Sherlock’s part. But it’s not just a repetition, it’s also a rewriting. 

Sherlock comes back to life. Mary’s coffin burns in blue flames. As I read it, emotions finally burn away Sherlock’s facade. Then Eurus, the East Wind, becomes the ‘therapist’ (who ‘got on with Jim like a house on fire’) and the facade turns into memory (DVD). TFP returns the story - with Musgrave and Victor Trevor - to a time where in canon Sherlock Holmes hadn’t met John Watson yet. Before the beginning, one might say. An interesting concept although quite open-ended …. just like the ‘unfinished melody’ in Jim’s story about Bach in TRF:

@possiblyimbiassed @gosherlocked @sarahthecoat @sagestreet @lukessense 

love love love the metaphorical reading!

there's also maybe an echo of mycroft's "overeager squaddie" line from the opening of TST, in the "nameless policeman" who shoots ajay. (and then in TLD, john himself appears to get shot, so, sherlock is running scenarios about john being in danger, too)

 Some assorted stills from the s4 credits that are driving me bananas

Thatcher watching over London

John with the gun that isn’t a gun but also is very much a gun layered over a very cozy Baker Street

John walking towards 221b and staring at the burning AGRA flash drive

Tea spilling onto a slowly drowning John

wow, every one of these images is so rich, especially in the "love and/or sex" metaphors.

if thatcher=institutionalized homophobia, and london=all the sherlocks ever (i'm extending the metaphor of a house standing for not just the body but the life, an identity, so a city=the many holmes adaptations and pastiches, etc), then that's a central issue.

Baker st is a symbol of john and sherlock's life together, and i note there is a fire in the grate. here there is real passion. gun=dick metaphor, so to me this image is saying, combine those.

(john himself is a richly layered image as well. himself, sherlock's heart, his love-object, etc)

fire=passion, fire exposes our priorities. depending on how closely we identify AGRA with "mary" and "mary" with sherlock, this could be an image about that facade being shed. john putting it in the fire could be his message to sherlock, that he's not just here for the "danger addiction". sherlock running the scenario could be his willingness to accept that.

memory stick=repressed memory, or something from the past anyway. it keeps coming back though, in ASIP it went into the pool, in HLV it went into the fire, but in TST it comes back once the last thatcher is smashed.

I LOVE the tea=gay love spilling onto john in the well of depression. feeling chained to the bottom of a hole with no way out is exactly how depression feels. i know, recovery is more complicated than just "throw him a rope" but wow just that there is a rope to be thrown down by someone who cares enough to bring it, really does break the chain. plus water=emotions and closet metaphor and the teacup has England on it and mrs hudson drops it and sherlock catches it before it's too late and <3<3<3<3<3

Bisexual flowers and houseplants

I only recently noticed this. (Sorry if this has been discussed before).

When John is in therapy in ASIP, he is framed with two different houseplants in the shot:

On the right hand side, there are “Calla lilies” (I encircled them in pink for your convenience). 

I’m sure you can all do the whole google and wikipedia thing just as well as I, so I’ll just say that they are often associated with the Greek goddess Hera, with femininity, fertility and childbirth. Bingo!

So, that’s our metaphor for heterosexuality on this show; that’s the heterosexual side of John’s dual sexuality, so to speak.

Do you want further proof? Well, do you know what a “Calla lily” actually looks like? I shall be a gentleman and refrain from posting pictures of the female organ in question here. Instead I will just leave you with this lovely painting by Georgia O’Keeffe and whistle innocently to myself:

On the left hand side, there’s a “Monstera” (I encircled it in blue in the screencap above).

This houseplant is literally called the “monstrous” or the “abnormal”. You do understand where I’m going with this, right? Mofftiss have repeatedly used this metaphor in (and even outside of) their show because it’s something that has been done A LOT in Victorian horror stories. Think of the brilliant meta ‘Ghost stories are gay stories’ (x) by @heimishtheidealhusband. Mofftiss did this with ‘Dracula’, too, wherein Dracula himself is a metaphor for repressed, ‘abnormal’ homosexual desire, for the monstrous, the exotic, the weird.

And if you don’t believe me that the “Monstera” plant in that shot is supposed to represent John’s homosexual side, here’s one other little hint. This is the fruit of the “Monstera”:

Yeah, I know, right?:D 

Kinda phallic!

And what’s even better: You can eat it.:D Apparently, it’s delicious. Which is why this plant is actually called “Monstera Deliciosa”. You can’t make this stuff up.:)

So, in other words: John is sitting in the office of his therapist, and visually his problem (his actual problem, not the surface-text problem, but the subtextual one) is sitting right there in the room with him: He has trouble dealing with his bisexuality.

I mean we had seen a similar metaphor on the menu during John’s wedding, hadn’t we? There were two meal options, remember? (x)

Bonus plant:

There’s actually a third plant in that room (encircled in yellow). (Of course, there is! This is five minutes into the show; it’s all exposition. They have to introduce Sherlock, too.)

It’s a bit blurry, but I’m willing to bet that this is a ficus. And you know, ‘ficus’ is slang for ‘gay man’ in some languages. Because a ficus is, erm, tall, wispy and sort of sprawling all over the place…like…I hate to say this, but there’s an ironic eye twinkle in this and I’m saying this with love, really…like Sherlock!:)

And look they put it right next to the infamous bust, which I had already discussed in my sculpture and art meta series (here: x), the bust that represents introspection and childhood.

Yeah. So, the solution to John’s conundrum above (bisexuality) is already in the room: The solution is Sherlock! It’s just that Sherlock is caught up in some introspection business (dare I say, extended-mind-palace stuff) and has to deal with his childhood first (*ahem* see ‘Follow the dog’ theory: x) before he can be the solution to what ails John.

—————-

And I have only decided to post this now because @dinner-starving had asked me about any new meta coming up. Apparently I need a kick up the backside sometimes.:)

All screencaps taken from here: https://kissthemgoodbye.net/

Tagging a few people: @loveismyrevolution @waitedforgarridebs @loudest-subtext-in-tv​ @ebaeschnbliah @gosherlocked @sarahthecoat @sherlockshadow @possiblyimbiassed @raggedyblue @spenglernot @tjlcisthenewsexy  @dinner–starving  @kateis-cakeis  @kettykika78 

Thanks @sagestreet​ - yet another brilliant one! :) How many times are they able to point out the same problem in the subtext while never once addressing it directly? How many opportunities have they created to smuggle in more and more symbolism? Is there a single prop in this show that doesn’t have any hidden meaning about Sherlock and/or John? Seems like Sherlock, in order to ‘save John Watson’, must go the full circle of introspection, recognising who he really is (and was). And for all that Sherlock (and by extension John) might be dying in S4, the underlying problem is psychological/emotional rather than physical, right?

By the way - once we’re at it - what might be going on with Sherlock and this Snake plant (X, Dracaena trifasciata) when he’s seeing Ella in TST?

According to Wikipedia it’s “associated with Oya, the female Orisha of storms”. Is the East Wind coming, perhaps? ;)

@ebaeschnbliah​ @raggedyblue​ @gosherlocked​ @sarahthecoat​

Dracaena means ‘she-dragon’ and another name for that plant is ‘Saint George’s sword’ … knights, swords, dragons and ‘Sherlock is a girls name’ … well, well … :))))   (X X X)

@sagestreet @possiblyimbiassed @raggedyblue @gosherlocked @sarahthecoat

OK, so Sherlock is both Smaug a dragon and a dragon slayer @ebaeschnbliah ? In that case he’d ’slay’ himself, so to speak. :) And Ella is a double mirror, as @sarahthecoat pointed out. Who probably only recieves in Airbnb, according to @raggedyblue . Love this fandom! :))

rb for discussion!

Wow this is awesome deduction @sagestreet ! Thanks for posting soon :)

I’ve two immediate thoughts :

1. Whose decision is it to place these plants for the shoot? Moftiss or the director?

2. If Dracaena means ‘she dragon’ as pointed by @ebaeschnbliah, could it be that its being referred to Mary?

She dragon - Mary

Dragon slayer - Sherlock

Cos she’s the only one who calls him that (which she shouldn’t have known) apart from Mycroft.

@dinner–starving  Here are some links regarding the topic ‘creation of Sherlock’ and about the importance of details: 

Regarding the ‘she-dragon’ and Mary: as I read the story (entirely metaphorical), Mary is Sherlock’s facade and therefore part of his persona - his main mirror hiding in plain sight. That way, sacrifying her life for Sherlock in TST, can be interpreted as Sherlock parting from his facade consciously and out of his own free will. Only then his locked up emotional core (Eurus) is able to finally break free. So yes, dragon and dragon slayer might be actually the same. This would also explain Mary’s knowledge about dialogues she didn’t hear, including also the ‘a doctor and a junkie’ part from the epilogue, that links back to the beginning in ASIP. But of course, this is just a theory among many. :)))

@possiblyimbiassed @sarahthecoat @gosherlocked @raggedyblue @sagestreet 

Sorry for only replying to this now, @dinner–starving . But I see @ebaeschnbliah basically already did all the work for me.:) Thank you, @ebaeschnbliah!

These are absolutely excellent links, @ebaeschnbliah, and I encourage everyone to click on them and read them. Brilliant stuff!

@possiblyimbiassed I have to admit that when I saw the Dracaena plant you had discovered in that therapy scene in TST, my first thought was, “Isn’t this that ugly thing they put in all the office buildings to ‘purify the air’ or some shit like that?” I see them everywhere.:D Can’t remember if there were any in the hospital rooms when I was in hospital last year. But I bet there were some. So, maybe that’s another EMP tell? I don’t know. It could be. Maybe it’s a case of reality-bleed-through for an unconscious Sherlock who’s lying in a hospital room somewhere.*shrugs*

Also I got this here note by @dorian-they, and I wasn’t sure whether I should reply to it:

I decided to reply to this because this might be useful to some of my followers (or maybe not, I don’t know). So here goes:

I respectfully disagree. This is not how filmmaking works. If anyone’s interested in how shot composition is done and how hard directors work on every minute little detail in it (set design, props, lighting, lenses, filters, framing, etc.), I would like to recommend the following excellent book:

“The Filmmaker’s Eye” by Gustavo Mercado

In the first chapter, Mercado describes how he watches a film directed by a beginner (I believe it was a film student, but I’m quoting this from memory) who is asked by his audience of other film students why he put all those posters, DVDs, CDs and pictures on the walls and shelves in a particular shot of his film and who basically just answers, “Ugh…I don’t know. I thought they were cool,” and who is subsequently criticized rather harshly by his young film critics and professors for doing so because this IS NOT HOW IT’S DONE. 

Everything you put in a frame has to have a meaning for the scene that unfolds in front of it. You have to know what you’re doing there and why. 

And as I said: This was a beginner…so it was a beginner’s mistake. No filmmaker (and certainly not Moffat or Gatiss) is going to let the props department or set designers just put something somewhere that they have on hand. Like…Hell would freeze over before that happens.

Anyway, I can’t recommend Mercado’s book highly enough. And also…go read @ebaeschnbliah’s excellent links above.

Toodle-oo.

excellent, now we have the specific book rec to put to rest the nonsense idea that multi million dollar film sets are dressed just like junior high class plays, with whatever happens to be lying around. i am sincerely glad that people went to schools where they got to be in class plays, and by all means dress those sets! but srsly film making with a real budget goes way beyond that.

Bisexual flowers and houseplants

I only recently noticed this. (Sorry if this has been discussed before).

When John is in therapy in ASIP, he is framed with two different houseplants in the shot:

On the right hand side, there are “Calla lilies” (I encircled them in pink for your convenience). 

I’m sure you can all do the whole google and wikipedia thing just as well as I, so I’ll just say that they are often associated with the Greek goddess Hera, with femininity, fertility and childbirth. Bingo!

So, that’s our metaphor for heterosexuality on this show; that’s the heterosexual side of John’s dual sexuality, so to speak.

Do you want further proof? Well, do you know what a “Calla lily” actually looks like? I shall be a gentleman and refrain from posting pictures of the female organ in question here. Instead I will just leave you with this lovely painting by Georgia O’Keeffe and whistle innocently to myself:

On the left hand side, there’s a “Monstera” (I encircled it in blue in the screencap above).

This houseplant is literally called the “monstrous” or the “abnormal”. You do understand where I’m going with this, right? Mofftiss have repeatedly used this metaphor in (and even outside of) their show because it’s something that has been done A LOT in Victorian horror stories. Think of the brilliant meta ‘Ghost stories are gay stories’ (x) by @heimishtheidealhusband. Mofftiss did this with ‘Dracula’, too, wherein Dracula himself is a metaphor for repressed, ‘abnormal’ homosexual desire, for the monstrous, the exotic, the weird.

And if you don’t believe me that the “Monstera” plant in that shot is supposed to represent John’s homosexual side, here’s one other little hint. This is the fruit of the “Monstera”:

Yeah, I know, right?:D 

Kinda phallic!

And what’s even better: You can eat it.:D Apparently, it’s delicious. Which is why this plant is actually called “Monstera Deliciosa”. You can’t make this stuff up.:)

So, in other words: John is sitting in the office of his therapist, and visually his problem (his actual problem, not the surface-text problem, but the subtextual one) is sitting right there in the room with him: He has trouble dealing with his bisexuality.

I mean we had seen a similar metaphor on the menu during John’s wedding, hadn’t we? There were two meal options, remember? (x)

Bonus plant:

There’s actually a third plant in that room (encircled in yellow). (Of course, there is! This is five minutes into the show; it’s all exposition. They have to introduce Sherlock, too.)

It’s a bit blurry, but I’m willing to bet that this is a ficus. And you know, ‘ficus’ is slang for ‘gay man’ in some languages. Because a ficus is, erm, tall, wispy and sort of sprawling all over the place…like…I hate to say this, but there’s an ironic eye twinkle in this and I’m saying this with love, really…like Sherlock!:)

And look they put it right next to the infamous bust, which I had already discussed in my sculpture and art meta series (here: x), the bust that represents introspection and childhood.

Yeah. So, the solution to John’s conundrum above (bisexuality) is already in the room: The solution is Sherlock! It’s just that Sherlock is caught up in some introspection business (dare I say, extended-mind-palace stuff) and has to deal with his childhood first (*ahem* see ‘Follow the dog’ theory: x) before he can be the solution to what ails John.

—————-

And I have only decided to post this now because @dinner-starving had asked me about any new meta coming up. Apparently I need a kick up the backside sometimes.:)

All screencaps taken from here: https://kissthemgoodbye.net/

Tagging a few people: @loveismyrevolution @waitedforgarridebs @loudest-subtext-in-tv​ @ebaeschnbliah @gosherlocked @sarahthecoat @sherlockshadow @possiblyimbiassed @raggedyblue @spenglernot @tjlcisthenewsexy  @dinner–starving  @kateis-cakeis  @kettykika78 

Thanks @sagestreet​ - yet another brilliant one! :) How many times are they able to point out the same problem in the subtext while never once addressing it directly? How many opportunities have they created to smuggle in more and more symbolism? Is there a single prop in this show that doesn’t have any hidden meaning about Sherlock and/or John? Seems like Sherlock, in order to ‘save John Watson’, must go the full circle of introspection, recognising who he really is (and was). And for all that Sherlock (and by extension John) might be dying in S4, the underlying problem is psychological/emotional rather than physical, right?

By the way - once we’re at it - what might be going on with Sherlock and this Snake plant (X, Dracaena trifasciata) when he’s seeing Ella in TST?

According to Wikipedia it’s “associated with Oya, the female Orisha of storms”. Is the East Wind coming, perhaps? ;)

@ebaeschnbliah​ @raggedyblue​ @gosherlocked​ @sarahthecoat​

Dracaena means ‘she-dragon’ and another name for that plant is ‘Saint George’s sword’ … knights, swords, dragons and ‘Sherlock is a girls name’ … well, well … :))))   (X X X)

@sagestreet @possiblyimbiassed @raggedyblue @gosherlocked @sarahthecoat

OK, so Sherlock is both Smaug a dragon and a dragon slayer @ebaeschnbliah ? In that case he’d ’slay’ himself, so to speak. :) And Ella is a double mirror, as @sarahthecoat pointed out. Who probably only recieves in Airbnb, according to @raggedyblue . Love this fandom! :))

rb for discussion!

Wow this is awesome deduction @sagestreet ! Thanks for posting soon :)

I’ve two immediate thoughts :

1. Whose decision is it to place these plants for the shoot? Moftiss or the director?

2. If Dracaena means ‘she dragon’ as pointed by @ebaeschnbliah, could it be that its being referred to Mary?

She dragon - Mary

Dragon slayer - Sherlock

Cos she’s the only one who calls him that (which she shouldn’t have known) apart from Mycroft.

@dinner–starving  Here are some links regarding the topic ‘creation of Sherlock’ and about the importance of details: 

Regarding the ‘she-dragon’ and Mary: as I read the story (entirely metaphorical), Mary is Sherlock’s facade and therefore part of his persona - his main mirror hiding in plain sight. That way, sacrifying her life for Sherlock in TST, can be interpreted as Sherlock parting from his facade consciously and out of his own free will. Only then his locked up emotional core (Eurus) is able to finally break free. So yes, dragon and dragon slayer might be actually the same. This would also explain Mary’s knowledge about dialogues she didn’t hear, including also the ‘a doctor and a junkie’ part from the epilogue, that links back to the beginning in ASIP. But of course, this is just a theory among many. :)))

@possiblyimbiassed @sarahthecoat @gosherlocked @raggedyblue @sagestreet 

love that metaphorical reading, and how all the surface nonsense suddenly resolves through that lens!

they were insane for this

This is where Mary in disguise says the disturbing phrase at John's obvious mirror:

(X) PASSENGER (politely): Did you have a nice time? In London? MARY: It was okay, I guess, but did somebody hide the sun? (She takes off her sunglasses.) Did you lose it in the war?

Now I always struggle to see Mary as Sherlock's mirror because her being the heteronormative facade of John is so huge that I don't see anything else. But obviously I don't ignore all the similarities and the fact that the facade is something you put on top of something already existing. So it works as a screen for John but it can be a disguise for his true love interest. Whether it is intentional or not. If it's Sherlock's way of trying to see himself as different and more "suitable" or if it's a story tailored to make a couple that isn't more acceptable. If anyone has speculated that Watson was Holmes' wife, and she did so in all seriousness, the reverse is also true.

So Sherlock is London right?

John asks the runaway facade if she was somehow part of Sherlock and she says yes, she tried, but it's as if she found a barren ground there, as if that way she didn't really get what she wanted, the sun, which we know to be John. The sun had been lost in the war. It belonged to the soldier, John's, if you really have to divide it neatly in two, homosexual side.

Could it be a reading that makes any sense?

@possiblyimbiassed @gosherlocked @ebaeschnbliah @sagestreet

@sarahthecoat

yes, thank you. yet another one of these bits of surface nonsense that makes sense once you translate the subtext.

Mary’s hiatus …..

An interesting journey based on the randomness of a dice

At least that’s what Mary says. Taking a closer look on her journey, it doesn’t feel random at all though.

TBC below the cut …

Keep reading

ok, tonight i'm twigging on the gabrielle ashdown thing. maybe it's just that the writers wanted to tuck in one more little TPLOSH easter egg, which there hadn't been a place for in ASIB. maybe it's nothing more than that, and it works here because "mary" is already an alias and a spy and assassin and all around fake person. probably that's all.

but is there any other connection, back through TPLOSH, to bbc irene, who is basically gabrielle/ilse transplanted wholesale and assuming the name irene adler as an ACD easter egg?

Mary’s hiatus …..

An interesting journey based on the randomness of a dice

At least that’s what Mary says. Taking a closer look on her journey, it doesn’t feel random at all though.

TBC below the cut …

Weiterlesen

Wow, what an amazing post, @ebaeschnbliah! Great idea to follow Mary’s footsteps on her journey. Just some random thoughts:

Thank you, @ebaeschnbliah for this incredibly thorough look at Mary’s weird trip in TST (s4). If anyone in this fandom deserves the “Akribie-Preis”, it’s certainly you.:)

I feel that there is a lot for us to decode in these trip scenes, and we haven’t even scratched the surface yet. Now, thanks to you, we have a reference post if we ever want to take a closer look at what it might all mean metaphorically.

As for what it might all mean metaphorically…I haven’t got the foggiest. But the East-West thing coming up once again is certainly no coincidence.

And brilliant, brilliant discovery of the Dracula locations!!! I don’t think I’ve seen anyone mention that before. With Mofftiss, we just know that’s not just there by accident.

@gosherlocked I guess those Salzkammergut scenes are about as authentic as the “Afghanistan” scenes in s1ep1, meaning: after splurging on Morocco in TST, they didn’t have any money left, so they filmed that somewhere in the UK…probably.:D

glad i pushed through the dracula tag for this one. (maybe it's safe by now to remove that filter, there don't seem to be a lot of dracula fan blogs on my dash!) very good sleuthing, parsing all those screencaps, wow, there is so much embedded in these images that you can only see by zooming in, and half knowing already what is there!

the progression from flying away in a plane, to eventually walking on the ground, reminds me of the saying "head in the clouds, feet on the ground". that's kind of sherlock's arc too, from "only my brain matters" to learning to value body and emotions too. water=emotions, a boat helps you navigate water mostly safely. in the desert there is so little water, it is valued more highly. "i only have one friend"?

as to filming locations, it's often hard to know when one place is standing in for another, but at least i can settle one thing for @sagestreet . the scenes of combat in john's dream in ASIP are clips from a documentary, which is, or was anyway, available on youtube. i think i bookmarked it, i did watch it.

Just a quick reminder that Lady Carmichael (a John mirror) was actually the one who killed her husband (Sir Eustace, a Mary mirror) because of his many past mistakes and wrong doings. So while she accuses Sherlock of being responsible for not keeping Sir Eustace safe it was her plan all along.

These scenes seem quite similar don’t they?

Hmm, I wonder why…

i’ve always wondered though, did she? that’s what sherlock thinks, but then moriarty is the one under the veil at the reveal. it’s one of those little snags that doesn’t quite add up and so makes me go looking for the subtext.

TAB is sherlock running scenarios in his mind theater, and TST may be as well. certainly “you promised” is something sherlock is thinking about, he made a promise to both john and “mary”, but then how does he keep it if they are going in essentially opposite directions?

metaphorically, if john=sherlock’s heart, and “mary”=sherlock’s “sociopath” facade, then he can’t possibly be true to both, ultimately. the attempt brings him face to face with his internalised homophobia (moriarty, miss me?)

apologies to @cheeloveseds if i took this in a direction you didn’t want to go!

@sarahthecoat what I find really interesting about Sir Eustace‘s wound is how it differs from the one that pierces through the show „hurting“ Sherlock (HLV), Mary (TST) and Lestrade (TFP). The wound is on the other side of the chest, it was inflicted by a dagger that comes in an interesting shape and it carries a note saying „Miss me“ with the letter „E“ standing out a bit.

Yes it is easy to see a connection between TAB and TST here but I‘m with you @sarahthecoat and say that the connection might be a bit more complex. On top of that do I see a connection back to TSoT not just with the vow but the dagger and the photographer at the crime scene as well.

right, the other significant stabbing(s) were in TSOT, although non fatal. (also, bainbridge and sholto are both double mirrors, for both sherlock and john, hmmm)

I also can’t help but feel that they parallel because they’re both impossible murders - TAB becomes impossible when Moriarty takes over as murderer, and the TST murder is scientifically impossible as discussed many times. So I’m with @sarahthecoat on this one - they definitely parallel but as reiterations of the same thing, something that isn’t quite right?

@thewatsonbeekeepers uhm well not quite right as in the cases are never (and I mean never) just the cases then yes, I‘m with you here. I think both the death of Mary and the death of Sir Eustace are very symbolic and in a way very connected, yes. But in TAB the murder weapon is a dagger instead of a gun, a stabbing occurs (which @raggedyblue also mentioned in their addition here). A wound inflicted to the heart by a dagger with the note „Miss me?“ with a somewhat present „E“ in the message. The death a seemingly unanswered question.

In TSoT several mirrors for Sherlock (including Mary) get „stabbed“ with a (meat-)dagger by (mirrors for) John (who is heavily linked to Moriarty in this episode). In TAB Sir Eustace gets stabbed with a dagger supposedly by Lady Carmichael but there’s also reason to believe Moriarty was involved. This time Sir Eustace dies.

Well if this doesn’t scream for a metaphorical reading then I don’t know what does. The answer though probably lies within the interpretation of Sir Eustace.

@sarahthecoat

yes, metaphorical reading for the win, every time!

so if there is a gun=dick metaphor, and a sword=dick metaphor, is this going to be like drinks code where it matters what you drink? or phone code where texting is different from talking?

hmm @sarahthecoat tbh I would ‘broaden’ the metaphors here a bit. Yes the meat-dagger in TSoT is a dick metaphor and guns are as well. But a gun or getting shot can also represent something like getting hit by Cupid’s arrows right? And in case of the shot fired by Mary in HLV, the shot that pierces through the narrative and hits Mary in TST, I’d say it’s the shot that destroys facades because Sherlock realizes that he’s in love with John in TSoT. Something along those lines.

Same goes for the dagger in TAB: I think we’re supposed to link it to TSoT but I wouldn’t say it’s exactly a dick metaphor. The shape of the dagger is very distinctive though I’m not sure what it resembles. It does look like something is spiraling downwards. The note strapped to the dagger on the other hand seems more clear: a connection to both Moriarty but also Eurus imo (so sex and emotions do play a role in this murder case).

Then there’s Eustace himself. I’ve read several times that he is a mirror for Mary but to me it’s not that clear-cut tbh. Not just the name Eustace itself is very interesting (x) but also his surname Carmichael which could lead back to a lot of things but what I’m instantly seeing is a combination of car + Michael (x). I know there’s also Eustace Brackenstall in canon who bears resemblance with Eustace Carmichael but was killed with a poker (x). In canon Eustace Brackenstall was married to Mary, in TAB Eustace Carmichael is married to Louisa Carmichael (x). And if we look at TAB they do draw connections between Sir Eustace and Sherlock: the five pips, the ghosts of the past, demons that are “shadows that define our every sunny day”, Sir Eustace believing “he is to be dragged to hell” (“go to hell, Sherlock”, demons trapped in Sherrinford, “I can give you a map reference for hell”) etc.

I think @raggedyblue has good reason to point in the direction of heteronormativity and the oppression of brides in this case. And this is also linked to the repression of emotions and sex. Think about the timing of the murder @sarahthecoat: Holmes and Watson talk about love and sex at the glasshouse around midnight. The ghost appears, a man screams, glass shatters.

In TSoT Sherlock gets (metaphorically) stabbed in the back with a dagger by John, one more deduction he didn’t anticipate. Somehow John behaves differently at the stag night, saying things like “I don’t mind” instead of “I’m not gay”. Sherlock is confused and tells him “I don’t know who you are. I don’t know who you’re supposed to be.” (Madonna or Virgin Mary?) but also “I’m you, aren’t I?”. Then in HLV the wife suddenly turns out to be an assassin, the facade 'backfiring’ in a way, shooting Sherlock. I’d say both the stabbing and the shooting are connected, one probably more leaning towards John and the other to Mary but the the reasons seem similar: repressed emotions and sexuality, hidden behind John and Mary.

@thewatsonbeekeepers

rb for discussion. this makes sense, thanks.

Just a quick reminder that Lady Carmichael (a John mirror) was actually the one who killed her husband (Sir Eustace, a Mary mirror) because of his many past mistakes and wrong doings. So while she accuses Sherlock of being responsible for not keeping Sir Eustace safe it was her plan all along.

These scenes seem quite similar don’t they?

Hmm, I wonder why…

i've always wondered though, did she? that's what sherlock thinks, but then moriarty is the one under the veil at the reveal. it's one of those little snags that doesn't quite add up and so makes me go looking for the subtext.

TAB is sherlock running scenarios in his mind theater, and TST may be as well. certainly "you promised" is something sherlock is thinking about, he made a promise to both john and "mary", but then how does he keep it if they are going in essentially opposite directions?

metaphorically, if john=sherlock's heart, and "mary"=sherlock's "sociopath" facade, then he can't possibly be true to both, ultimately. the attempt brings him face to face with his internalised homophobia (moriarty, miss me?)

apologies to @cheeloveseds if i took this in a direction you didn't want to go!

The lying liars who lie

Years and years late to the party, I’ve finally gotten my hands on all the DVDs of BBC Sherlock, and I thought it would be fun to watch the extra material carefully, one piece after another, and also listen to at least some of the show makers’ commentary of the episodes. But at this point, after S4 where DVDs seemed to be a constant lying device in general, I tend to look at them with a bit more suspicious eyes…

I still love the show of course, but now that I’ve taken this deep dive into all the special features, I find them a truly hard thing to try to wrap my head around. Even this long after the fact, I’m amazed by the amount of shameless, self-congratulatory BS in the DVDs, where the people involved can’t have enough of complimenting each other and their show, while they skillfully avoid to discuss anything actually meaningful about the plot line. ;) For example, Moffat claims in the S2 DVD that “In fact, you’ll never see a more obsessively authentic version of Sherlock Holmes than this one”. But if we follow their light-hearted commentary, which basically takes the show at face value, I’d call that not just hyperbole, but an outright lie. If you want to see the ‘authentic’ stories from ACD’s work in this show, you’ll definitely need to go much deeper into the subtext and meta levels - neither of which are mentioned on these DVDs of course. Here’s my own (rather subjective) ‘review’ of the whole thing, trying to pinpoint why I view most of the commentary of the show from its own makers as an advanced art of deception. 

(My musings under the cut)

Weiterlesen

@possiblyimbiassed thanks for this elaborate summary of the commentaries on the DVD sets! As I didn’t watch them myself this was really insightful for me :) 

And let me be a tinhatter to the extreme but some of the quotes you included make a lot of sense to me on a subtextual level:

Seems pretty accurate to me considering that John is supposed to be married off to her to hinder a potential relationship between John and Sherlock but in the end it actually leads to Sherlock realizing he’s in love with John. And as Mary is actually Sherlock working against himself (depending on the interpretation of Mary of course) the quote sums is up pretty well in my opinion.

I agree that by watching this scene only on the plot level and then hearing Martin Freeman’s commentary to that, a very “not good” picture of a relationship is being created. But I guess they already did that without the commentary anyway which is somewhat problematic considering that this scene is not that easy to read on a subtextual level (imo). To me, taking the subtext into account, the comment does make sense, because the scene at the morgue really seems to be about Sherlock questioning the role of Dr. Watson. A process that was started with Mary’s death in TST and that continues until the set is rebuild at the end of TFP.

But anyway, you already pointed out a lot of “lying liars”-stuff yourself, so thanks for this joyful read @possiblyimbiassed !

aahhh, thanks for pointing out the subtext! whew. this is why im a fan of the fandom!

A drop of blood on the doctor’s bust …

Toby the bloodhound follows the scent of a blood drop, found on the smashed Thatcher bust of Dr Barnicot. 

TBC below the cut ….

Weiterlesen

@ebaeschnbliah not a 100% sure about this, but maybe the a-ve is supposed to be read separately as in a and -ve. -ve could be an abbreviation for negative energy in a exothermic reaction which would fit the hydrogen and/or theme of explosives as h=enthalpy ? Sorry I didn‘t pay a lot of attention at my thermodynamics class, but I found two separate pages where the -ve was used to describe the negative energy in exothermic reactions (x) (x).

Edit: It could also be about blood types: group A -ve being the negative rhesus factor (x) (x). Makes more sense tbh, especially considering Mary’s pregnancy.

And the structural formulae look like threads around a globe don’t they? And blood=information but also blood=life lives right?

Thank you @lukessense​ for this interesting addition. A blood type description makes indeed a lot of sense. The globe-like structure reminds me also very much of a certain decoration object, Irene has on her table in ASIB. (X)

I‘m very intrigued by the blood type description in this context, especially considering that Toby looses the trail.

About the crystal/globe-like object: also looks a bit like a flame to me? And also reminds me of the single apple on CAMs desk. Just freely associating here…but yes the general direction or overarching theme seems clear.

@lukessense​  It will turn out that it is Ajay’s blood on the doctor’s bust.

And this is a piece of dialogue that immediately reminds me once more of Irene Adler in ASIB, when she admires Sherlock’s cheekbones: “Look at those cheekbones. I could cut myself slapping that face. Would you like me to try?”

The masks that crumble and fall in TST are Sherlock’s masks. And when Sherlock looks at the doctor’s smashed bust in the plastic bag, the audience sees that mask literally crumbling down his face. This could indicate that the ‘bust smasher’ belongs (metaphorically) to the same ‘group’/’family’ as Irene Adler does … the ‘H-Group’.

Like Irene, Ajay is closely linked to Jim as well … by the dialogue, the torture scenes, his desire for revenge, the confrontation beside a pool, the joint fall into blue water, the sign of the Ypsilon that represents the YOU. And right from the start of the episode, it is Jim whom Sherlock expects to be involved in the theft of the Black Pearl and the smashing of the plaster busts. 

Jim on his part is linked to John … by the secret middle name Hamish (scottish form of James/Jim) but also by the dialogue:  “It’s always YOU. John Watson, you keep me right.” 

Sherlock is the one who smashes the last bust, who drops the final facade with his own hand. Viewing Mary as Sherlock’s facade, as part of himself, it makes sense that she sacrifices her own life, when Vivian Norbury pulls the trigger to shoot Sherlock … at the end of an episode, that revolves around broken masks,

Vivian … who occupies a minor position in the governemt, but always wanted to be a field agent, has a rather sweet tooth, frequently enjoys a glass of wine, is cleverer than most and outsmarted them all … appears to be a mirror for Mycroft. Mycroft (the brain, logic and reason), who tries in an last attempt to ‘override’ Sherlock’s desire to connect with his burried emotions again, to break all the masks that present him as the cold, reasoning thinking machine. A Janus-faced brain … full of desire but also full of fear. If one wants too much, one might have less. “John or James Watson? Saint or Sinner? James or John? The more is Less?”  

H … for Hamish or Hydrogen, AMO or AMMO … both could be true in each case, because all of it is quite explosive ….

A different kind of smashing, but some thoughts I was having today crystallised around this post - all of these smashes are important, and tie Ajay as you’ve pointed out into everything that’s going on. I’ve written a bit about them being like the walls in his mind he needs to break down (final one is the ludicrous fake wall from TFP) but I was thinking about a more literal smashing in TAB that we could possible link in - the idea of the glass house? I’m p sure we’re all aware this is a Victorian euphemism at this stage, but glass is something that is pretty smashable and is normally used as a metaphor for female empowerment, which is tied into queer empowerment throughout TAB. Glass ceiling/glass house? And don’t forget the smash sound effect that they hear whilst in the house…

@ebaeschnbliah @lukessense @sarahthecoat @therealsaintscully @devoursjohnlock @raggedyblue @possiblyimbiassed

oh, this is getting interesting! i like the idea of norbury as a mycroft mirror!

Wow, yes - interesting! I think that’s an excellent chain of inferences @ebaeschnbliah, @lukessense and @thewatsonbeekeepers: Blood type -> cut -> bust -> cheekbones -> smashing of facades, walls and glass. And also Ajay -> Ypsilon -> YOU -> James -> Hamish -> John. There’s a lot of smashing in both TAB and S4, that’s for sure. I had never thought of Vivian Norbury as a mirror for Mycroft (=brain) but that seems to make a lot of sense @ebaeschnbliah. It also reminds me of @sagestreet‘s meta about Vivian representing what John might become if he keeps up the straight facade; his “dystopian choice” (X). And, connecting it to canon in that meta, that means that “If Watson chooses his heterosexual side, then Holmes takes drugs”. And John will choose his hetero side if Sherlock keeps denying his own emotions. So the facade needs to be smashed and broken; Mary needs to take the bullet and Mycroft’s influence over Sherlock needs to be beaten back.

yes! also i can’t help seeing those molecule diagrams as bubbles. it’s just a goofy thing, i wonder how intentional. probably not super important!

@sarahthecoat for me they look like little globes which would fit the loose thread in the world (TST). But as @ebaeschnbliah mentioned, there are other objects on the show that look similar and bubbles…make me think of balloons as well.

@possiblyimbiassed yes everything seems to be thoroughly connected on this show, a whole web of connection with one loose thread. Norbury as a mirror for John, yes she does seem to have some similarities with him, but many mirrors on the show mirror several people right? And in the end everything seems to lead back to Sherlock and his love for John. At the center there is always Moriarty, Sherlock’s sexuality which also lies ‚hidden’ within John. So for me this blood-connection is again a proof for that. The blood-trail that Toby is following belongs to Ajay but the characteristics don‘t exactly match him do they? Whiskey, the dichotomy of caffeine and the relevance of blood type read more like John to me, because he‘s the one standing between coffee and tea (at least his representation on the show as Sherlock‘s love interest/mirror does). Of course other characters also drink whiskey and even Sherlock is confronted with the choice ‚coffee or tea?‘ on TLD, but this choice is not one that‘s actually concerning Sherlock alone but him in connection with John (with the facade Mary gone choosing coffee would’ve been another mechanism of repression but Sherlock chooses tea). So the blood leads to Ajay -> Moriarty -> John, yet again. And even if we look at the blood from a different point and read it as something connecting Mary, Rosie and John, it would make sense. Mary and Rosie are very present as Toby follows the trail and we know that Mary considered Ajay as a part of her family (a.g.r.a). And Ajay only cut himself and left the blood-trail because he smashed the Thatcher-bust, a symbol that’s actively connected to Mary via a transitioning shot in TST. So we‘ve got another connection to this villainous web, even though it‘s only villainous, because the brain (and metatextually ACD via Dr. Watson) created it that way. Seems like Sherlock tries to decipher all the connections of this spider web but the big problem is the loose thread that endangers the stability of the web, especially if a certain wind arrives that might blow the whole web away?

And there’s Toby as well. Toby is a bloodhound …. a hound. As such, Toby can also be counted as part of the ‘H-Group’. First he isn’t moving. But once he finally starts to move, Toby becomes quite fast. And although he loses the trail in the end … a drop in a puddle, a tree in a wood, a single note in a bookcase, one information inside a mind palace … Sherlock still finds his way to Ajay at the pool.

And right from the start, the hound is connected to both characters … Jim and John. In ASIP the barking of a dog arouses John from his Afghanistan nightmare and announces the pink lady’s case, which is sponsored by Jim, who is chained to a wall, with an iron collar round his neck, in a padded cell deep inside Sherlock’s mind palace in HLV. Something wants to break free … tearing down facades, walls and even elephant glass ….

@lukessense  @thewatsonbeekeepers  @possiblyimbiassed  @sarahthecoat  @gosherlocked

a drop of blood in a puddle, or a pebble on a beach.

and they are #confirmed, Following a Dog, which is #confirmed, equated to Sherlock Liking John.

A drop of blood on the doctor’s bust …

Toby the bloodhound follows the scent of a blood drop, found on the smashed Thatcher bust of Dr Barnicot. 

TBC below the cut ….

Weiterlesen

@ebaeschnbliah not a 100% sure about this, but maybe the a-ve is supposed to be read separately as in a and -ve. -ve could be an abbreviation for negative energy in a exothermic reaction which would fit the hydrogen and/or theme of explosives as h=enthalpy ? Sorry I didn‘t pay a lot of attention at my thermodynamics class, but I found two separate pages where the -ve was used to describe the negative energy in exothermic reactions (x) (x).

Edit: It could also be about blood types: group A -ve being the negative rhesus factor (x) (x). Makes more sense tbh, especially considering Mary’s pregnancy.

And the structural formulae look like threads around a globe don’t they? And blood=information but also blood=life lives right?

Thank you @lukessense​ for this interesting addition. A blood type description makes indeed a lot of sense. The globe-like structure reminds me also very much of a certain decoration object, Irene has on her table in ASIB. (X)

I‘m very intrigued by the blood type description in this context, especially considering that Toby looses the trail.

About the crystal/globe-like object: also looks a bit like a flame to me? And also reminds me of the single apple on CAMs desk. Just freely associating here…but yes the general direction or overarching theme seems clear.

@lukessense​  It will turn out that it is Ajay’s blood on the doctor’s bust.

And this is a piece of dialogue that immediately reminds me once more of Irene Adler in ASIB, when she admires Sherlock’s cheekbones: “Look at those cheekbones. I could cut myself slapping that face. Would you like me to try?”

The masks that crumble and fall in TST are Sherlock’s masks. And when Sherlock looks at the doctor’s smashed bust in the plastic bag, the audience sees that mask literally crumbling down his face. This could indicate that the ‘bust smasher’ belongs (metaphorically) to the same ‘group’/’family’ as Irene Adler does … the ‘H-Group’.

Like Irene, Ajay is closely linked to Jim as well … by the dialogue, the torture scenes, his desire for revenge, the confrontation beside a pool, the joint fall into blue water, the sign of the Ypsilon that represents the YOU. And right from the start of the episode, it is Jim whom Sherlock expects to be involved in the theft of the Black Pearl and the smashing of the plaster busts. 

Jim on his part is linked to John … by the secret middle name Hamish (scottish form of James/Jim) but also by the dialogue:  “It’s always YOU. John Watson, you keep me right.” 

Sherlock is the one who smashes the last bust, who drops the final facade with his own hand. Viewing Mary as Sherlock’s facade, as part of himself, it makes sense that she sacrifices her own life, when Vivian Norbury pulls the trigger to shoot Sherlock … at the end of an episode, that revolves around broken masks,

Vivian … who occupies a minor position in the governemt, but always wanted to be a field agent, has a rather sweet tooth, frequently enjoys a glass of wine, is cleverer than most and outsmarted them all … appears to be a mirror for Mycroft. Mycroft (the brain, logic and reason), who tries in an last attempt to ‘override’ Sherlock’s desire to connect with his burried emotions again, to break all the masks that present him as the cold, reasoning thinking machine. A Janus-faced brain … full of desire but also full of fear. If one wants too much, one might have less. “John or James Watson? Saint or Sinner? James or John? The more is Less?”  

H … for Hamish or Hydrogen, AMO or AMMO … both could be true in each case, because all of it is quite explosive ….

A different kind of smashing, but some thoughts I was having today crystallised around this post - all of these smashes are important, and tie Ajay as you’ve pointed out into everything that’s going on. I’ve written a bit about them being like the walls in his mind he needs to break down (final one is the ludicrous fake wall from TFP) but I was thinking about a more literal smashing in TAB that we could possible link in - the idea of the glass house? I’m p sure we’re all aware this is a Victorian euphemism at this stage, but glass is something that is pretty smashable and is normally used as a metaphor for female empowerment, which is tied into queer empowerment throughout TAB. Glass ceiling/glass house? And don’t forget the smash sound effect that they hear whilst in the house…

@ebaeschnbliah @lukessense @sarahthecoat @therealsaintscully @devoursjohnlock @raggedyblue @possiblyimbiassed

oh, this is getting interesting! i like the idea of norbury as a mycroft mirror!

Wow, yes - interesting! I think that’s an excellent chain of inferences @ebaeschnbliah, @lukessense and @thewatsonbeekeepers: Blood type -> cut -> bust -> cheekbones -> smashing of facades, walls and glass. And also Ajay -> Ypsilon -> YOU -> James -> Hamish -> John. There’s a lot of smashing in both TAB and S4, that’s for sure. I had never thought of Vivian Norbury as a mirror for Mycroft (=brain) but that seems to make a lot of sense @ebaeschnbliah. It also reminds me of @sagestreet‘s meta about Vivian representing what John might become if he keeps up the straight facade; his “dystopian choice” (X). And, connecting it to canon in that meta, that means that “If Watson chooses his heterosexual side, then Holmes takes drugs”. And John will choose his hetero side if Sherlock keeps denying his own emotions. So the facade needs to be smashed and broken; Mary needs to take the bullet and Mycroft’s influence over Sherlock needs to be beaten back.

yes! also i can't help seeing those molecule diagrams as bubbles. it's just a goofy thing, i wonder how intentional. probably not super important!

A drop of blood on the doctor’s bust …

Toby the bloodhound follows the scent of a blood drop, found on the smashed Thatcher bust of Dr Barnicot. 

TBC below the cut ….

Weiterlesen

@ebaeschnbliah not a 100% sure about this, but maybe the a-ve is supposed to be read separately as in a and -ve. -ve could be an abbreviation for negative energy in a exothermic reaction which would fit the hydrogen and/or theme of explosives as h=enthalpy ? Sorry I didn‘t pay a lot of attention at my thermodynamics class, but I found two separate pages where the -ve was used to describe the negative energy in exothermic reactions (x) (x).

Edit: It could also be about blood types: group A -ve being the negative rhesus factor (x) (x). Makes more sense tbh, especially considering Mary’s pregnancy.

And the structural formulae look like threads around a globe don’t they? And blood=information but also blood=life lives right?

Thank you @lukessense​ for this interesting addition. A blood type description makes indeed a lot of sense. The globe-like structure reminds me also very much of a certain decoration object, Irene has on her table in ASIB. (X)

I‘m very intrigued by the blood type description in this context, especially considering that Toby looses the trail.

About the crystal/globe-like object: also looks a bit like a flame to me? And also reminds me of the single apple on CAMs desk. Just freely associating here…but yes the general direction or overarching theme seems clear.

@lukessense​  It will turn out that it is Ajay’s blood on the doctor’s bust.

And this is a piece of dialogue that immediately reminds me once more of Irene Adler in ASIB, when she admires Sherlock’s cheekbones: “Look at those cheekbones. I could cut myself slapping that face. Would you like me to try?”

The masks that crumble and fall in TST are Sherlock’s masks. And when Sherlock looks at the doctor’s smashed bust in the plastic bag, the audience sees that mask literally crumbling down his face. This could indicate that the ‘bust smasher’ belongs (metaphorically) to the same ‘group’/’family’ as Irene Adler does … the ‘H-Group’.

Like Irene, Ajay is closely linked to Jim as well … by the dialogue, the torture scenes, his desire for revenge, the confrontation beside a pool, the joint fall into blue water, the sign of the Ypsilon that represents the YOU. And right from the start of the episode, it is Jim whom Sherlock expects to be involved in the theft of the Black Pearl and the smashing of the plaster busts. 

Jim on his part is linked to John … by the secret middle name Hamish (scottish form of James/Jim) but also by the dialogue:  “It’s always YOU. John Watson, you keep me right.” 

Sherlock is the one who smashes the last bust, who drops the final facade with his own hand. Viewing Mary as Sherlock’s facade, as part of himself, it makes sense that she sacrifices her own life, when Vivian Norbury pulls the trigger to shoot Sherlock … at the end of an episode, that revolves around broken masks,

Vivian … who occupies a minor position in the governemt, but always wanted to be a field agent, has a rather sweet tooth, frequently enjoys a glass of wine, is cleverer than most and outsmarted them all … appears to be a mirror for Mycroft. Mycroft (the brain, logic and reason), who tries in an last attempt to ‘override’ Sherlock’s desire to connect with his burried emotions again, to break all the masks that present him as the cold, reasoning thinking machine. A Janus-faced brain … full of desire but also full of fear. If one wants too much, one might have less. “John or James Watson? Saint or Sinner? James or John? The more is Less?”  

H … for Hamish or Hydrogen, AMO or AMMO … both could be true in each case, because all of it is quite explosive ….

A different kind of smashing, but some thoughts I was having today crystallised around this post - all of these smashes are important, and tie Ajay as you’ve pointed out into everything that’s going on. I’ve written a bit about them being like the walls in his mind he needs to break down (final one is the ludicrous fake wall from TFP) but I was thinking about a more literal smashing in TAB that we could possible link in - the idea of the glass house? I’m p sure we’re all aware this is a Victorian euphemism at this stage, but glass is something that is pretty smashable and is normally used as a metaphor for female empowerment, which is tied into queer empowerment throughout TAB. Glass ceiling/glass house? And don’t forget the smash sound effect that they hear whilst in the house…

@ebaeschnbliah @lukessense @sarahthecoat @therealsaintscully @devoursjohnlock @raggedyblue @possiblyimbiassed

oh, this is getting interesting! i like the idea of norbury as a mycroft mirror!