Who cares about decent?

Crime, Police Report, Alibi 

“The Criminal Law Amendment Act 1885 however, went a step further once again, making any male homosexual act illegal – whether or not a witness was present – meaning that even acts committed in private could be prosecuted. Often a letter expressing terms of affection between two men was all that was required to bring a prosecution. The legislation was so ambiguously worded that it became known as the ‘Blackmailer’s Charter’, and in 1895, Oscar Wilde fell victim.” (x)

@possiblyimbiassed​ John’s alibi - poetry or truth? (x)

Still 1895 (x)

“John is a made up person” (x)

@sarahthecoat​ @raggedyblue​ @therealsaintscully​ @disfictional​ @ebaeschnbliah​ @helplessly-johnlocked​ @thewatsonbeekeepers

Well spotted, @lukessense; gives food for thought! Suddenly Sherlock’s comment (”Who cares about decent?”) to Mrs Hudson in ASiP, when she claims that ”it’s not decent”, makes perfect sense subtextually. ”Gross indecency” was the offense (as of the 1885 Criminal Act in your link) that Oscar Wilde was convicted for. So yes; John and Sherlock ending up in police custody after the stag night (which I try to explore in this meta series about John’s wedding being a crime scene X, X, X) might also be seen as a response to Sherlock’s initial comment, yes? On a meta level, the characters are being punished for their same-sex relationship. And the fact that Mycroft (= British government) has a file on John also speaks of some kind of ’fellony’. But Mary is his alibi, his ’beard’ (= facial hair). Interesting is then also Sherlock’s comment on John’s moustache in TEH: ”Well, we have to get rid of that”. And that in TLD Sherlock consequently blames himself for Mary’s ’death’.

@possiblyimbiassed yes and additionally something I wanted to post earlier but you were faster now ;) (because I think it’s not just about the wedding/stag-night):

Self-reblog for discussing the police report under the picture of John with his beard (TEH):

It‘s not the same police report as the one on set in 2016 (x) but there were additional ‚crimes‘ committed until S4 right? What I‘m getting at: I think this connection of John‘s beard (=his alibi, his heterosexual facade) and the police report make it rather obvious what the crime of S4 is about, doesn’t it? Mofftiss decided to put exactly this picture of John on top of a police report so that the subtextual crime and alibi-connection can be made. And we know that John needed an ‚alibi‘ after TRF where the media turned (confirmed bachelor John Watson), Mr. Sex Jim Moriarty broke into ‚London‘ etc. and as the quote above shows us is that even just the suggestion of a ‚crime‘ was enough to get people persecuted (x). And we know that at least John is still stuck in ‚1895‘ at the very end of TFP (he remains Dr. Watson).

So to me this is yet another subtextual proof that the crimes committed here are the crimes @possiblyimbiassed suggested (x). The problem is that while Sherlock embraced his human/emotional side throughout S4 John still ends with his doctoral degree (Dr. Watson). TLD and TFP specifically focus on John being first a bad doctor (Culverton‘s claims) and then describing John as a soldier in TFP who is „unmarried, practical about death, alone“ (via mirror Molly) because that‘s what soldier-John is. He‘s still stuck in ASiP, only his „who you are […] doesn‘t matter“/Dr. Watson-side made it to TFP, but it‘s not the real John. It‘s Dr. Watson from 1895 („Since when do you call me John?“). If you‘re thinking about the last scene of TAB they specifically pan from 1895 into the modern world to show us how Sherlock and John move into S4. As a Sherlock who realizes he is „a man out of […] [his] time“ and a John who is still hiding behind his moustache. I think S5 really needs to be about John now. Saving him from the ‚well of emotions‘, saving his true identity. He is the original storyteller, so he is the one we should ‚end‘ with to finally tell the true story :).

(quotes are from memory here, I hope they are right)

What do you think @sarahthecoat @raggedyblue @possiblyimbiassed @disfictional @i-believe-n-sherlock-holmes @megara-holmes @not-a-bit-good?( @therealsaintscully just subtext here but maybe the police report in TEH could be helpful for your theory?)

Yes @lukessense, I agree: the police report is making this emphasis and S5 needs to be a great deal about John. I think he needs to fully embrace (and be recognised for) his both ‘sides’; soldier and doctor. As for John’s doctoral degree, I realized something interesting in this very short story by ACD (X): When Watson receives a letter from Edinburgh’s University, Holmes deduces what it is about, and makes this comment regarding Watson’s title:

So apparently, at this point in the stories, Watson had not yet received his MD title. According to ACD, he was not an official ‘doctor’. ;) And looking at ACD’s own medical career (X), he was first a Bachelor of medicine (while working as a ship surgeon and also trying to run a medical practice) for four years before he received his doctor’s grade.

@possiblyimbiassed​ I keep coming back to the question of how much of John Watson on the show is real. If we’re inside of Sherlock’s Mind Theatre it would make sense that each “actor” is also a projection of himself, which does seem to apply most of the time (or always?). So what about John Watson? The reason I’m asking this is because it feels like we have two John Watsons right? Dr. Watson and John Watson. John Watson is a made up person (x). Made up by whom? Dr. Watson or Sherlock? Because we do have this:

So if John is a mixture of love interest and Sherlock’s projection it’s interesting to follow John’s sad musical theme throughout the show. It keeps reappearing in moments where trauma is an important subject: the experiment inside of Baskerville in THoB, the Hänsel and Gretel-case in TRF etc. And we have the talk about Molly’s father in TRF who is directly connected to Sherlock’s emotions. But Molly is supposed to be John’s mirror. Furthermore we have Billy the skull John is filling in for, but Billy is a part of Sherlock’s. What I’m getting at is that the question is wether the trauma, the loneliness that the character John Watson is presented with are a part of John’s or Sherlock’s. Because after Mary’s death in TST the question about John’s abilities as a doctor are questioned more and more. This could either be because John’s facade as Dr. Watson crumbles without Mary (the facade of 1895) or because Sherlock’s facade crumbles because John Watson was never the real John Watson. The real John Watson is still Dr. Watson who is somewhat present in the story, but only as a fragment. There are times he is addressed, e.g. in TAB or by Eurus in TFP which is interesting because he claims to be a soldier here all the time. This feels like TFP is about Sherlock confronting both identities of John Watson that need to be saved. The question is wether this is about Sherlock’s projection of John that is actually a traumatized part of himself that needs to be saved and/or (because we have two John’s) the real John Watson that is still Dr. Watson. This is kind of hard to grasp I guess. The reason I keep asking myself this question is because I want to know what trauma that’s being presented on the show is about which character. Are they all about Sherlock? Because then the John Watson on the show is definitely a part of Sherlock. Or is the show also about a traumatized John Watson Sherlock knows about and tries to figure out until he realizes that he needs to save this traumatized John Watson by giving him emotional context? John Watson was always our original storyteller, so where is he hiding?

Additional thought: it is interesting that the story mentioned above, where John doesn’t have his doctoral degree yet, is the story where they took the quote for the best man‘s-speech from you:

Just makes me think about doctors, marriage…

@therealsaintscully​ @raggedyblue​  @sarahthecoat​

Thanks @lukessense; you reminded me of something I think is important when trying to analyse BBC Sherlock: If we choose to see characters in the show as mirrors of certain other characters, or as metaphors for certain concepts (especially if we also see them as ‘avatars’ in Sherlock’s inner musings), it might be a good idea to look with the same glasses at the things these characters do or experience in the show. 

For example: When Molly in TGG, instead of having any success with Sherlock, whom she’s actually in love with, gets together with ‘Jim from IT’, she believes she’s in a relationship with someone from work (”office romance”). As it turns out, she’s actually in a relationship with Jim Moriarty, “Mr Homophobia”, and the relationship is fake. In TRF Molly claims that this was never a true relationship: “Jim actually wasn’t even my boyfriend. We went out three times. I ended it.” 

But if Molly is a mirror for John, what does this tell us about John? At least twice he gets together with ‘someone from work’: Sarah and Mary. Are John’s relationships ‘true’ or is he just attached to his own internalised homophobia? I think the latter. But since Molly also says “I ended it”, might we expect John’s ‘real’ character to develop in S5 so he ultimately ends his fake relationship? Because in S4 he sure as h*ll doesn’t end anything; he just proceeds with his relationship with Mary-the-assassin even after she’s supposed to be dead. And she gets to have the last word about his character: “the doctor who never came home from the war”. 

Another example: We have some interesting conversations between Molly and Sherlock in TEH and TSoT (quotes originally from Ariane DeVere’s transcripts). In the client’s house in TEH:

And at Barts in TSoT :

We do know that Molly in TEH is dating someone who looks very much like Sherlock, right? Some rather interesting points about ‘Molly’ and ‘Tom’ here: 

So this seems more like John’s Molly’s real love interest. Except that she does seem to break up with him after TSoT (Sherlock at least makes this assumption because she’s not wearing her engagement ring at Barts in HLV. But has it ever occurred to Sherlock that wearing a ring might not be practical while working in a lab that’s supposed to be sterile?). I’d rather say: Foreshadowing, anyone? ;)

Regarding your question, which I believe is very relevant. I think it makes most sense to see ‘MindPalace!John’ as either a metaphor for Sherlock’s heart or as the man existant in the show’s ‘reality’ that Sherlock is trying to analyse. And I don’t mean that these two are mutually exclusive; ‘MindPalace!John’ could sometimes represent the heart, and in other scenes the real man. Or in some scenes even both at the same time. 

But since Sherlock ends up analysing himself and his own traumas in TFP, these things tend to mix up a bit, right? Sometimes, when Sherlock thinks he’s pondering John’s problems, he might as well be looking into himself. And ‘poetry’ is not the same thing as ‘truth’. So yes; this isn’t easy to sort out.

And that’s why we need the blog as an anchor to ‘reality’, in my opinion. The blog tells us there is a man named John Watson, according to himself “Dr. John H. Watson”, who was - at least when the blog started - “an experienced medical doctor recently returned from Afghanistan”. Which means he at least was both a medical doctor and a soldier. And no-one can take that away from him; I do hope that John will remain being both, even if one side of him will turn out to be more important. But if the blog is not intended to be updated any more, we need to see John’s character development in S5. We need to see him end his fake relationships.

As for your observation about by ACD’s story The Field Bazaar (X): I think it’s interesting that Holmes is downplaying Watson’s doctor title here, at the same time as he’s accentuating the intellectual contrast between the two of them. Is it this that Mofftiss have chosen to pay attention to in TSoT? Because John as a doctor is also questioned by the commander of the ‘bloody guardsman’ in this episode, but then restored by Sherlock, when he takes this case as an example of John’s actual competence. And the officer also question’s John’s competence as a soldier, but John’s resolute behaviour when he saves the guardsman’s life is proof of his competence in both aspects.

@therealsaintscully​ @raggedyblue​  @sarahthecoat​

wow, yes, this makes a lot of sense! (also i just had my morning tea, which might be helping me!) i especially like the metaphorical translations of the molly scenes. i think that is exactly what we are supposed to get from the character mirroring.

and i agree that we need to see john reject fake relationships and choose sherlock, not as "what's left after my wife died" but as his first choice all along.

Who cares about decent?

Crime, Police Report, Alibi 

“The Criminal Law Amendment Act 1885 however, went a step further once again, making any male homosexual act illegal – whether or not a witness was present – meaning that even acts committed in private could be prosecuted. Often a letter expressing terms of affection between two men was all that was required to bring a prosecution. The legislation was so ambiguously worded that it became known as the ‘Blackmailer’s Charter’, and in 1895, Oscar Wilde fell victim.” (x)

@possiblyimbiassed​ John’s alibi - poetry or truth? (x)

Still 1895 (x)

“John is a made up person” (x)

@sarahthecoat​ @raggedyblue​ @therealsaintscully​ @disfictional​ @ebaeschnbliah​ @helplessly-johnlocked​ @thewatsonbeekeepers

Well spotted, @lukessense; gives food for thought! Suddenly Sherlock’s comment (”Who cares about decent?”) to Mrs Hudson in ASiP, when she claims that ”it’s not decent”, makes perfect sense subtextually. ”Gross indecency” was the offense (as of the 1885 Criminal Act in your link) that Oscar Wilde was convicted for. So yes; John and Sherlock ending up in police custody after the stag night (which I try to explore in this meta series about John’s wedding being a crime scene X, X, X) might also be seen as a response to Sherlock’s initial comment, yes? On a meta level, the characters are being punished for their same-sex relationship. And the fact that Mycroft (= British government) has a file on John also speaks of some kind of ’fellony’. But Mary is his alibi, his ’beard’ (= facial hair). Interesting is then also Sherlock’s comment on John’s moustache in TEH: ”Well, we have to get rid of that”. And that in TLD Sherlock consequently blames himself for Mary’s ’death’.

@possiblyimbiassed yes and additionally something I wanted to post earlier but you were faster now ;) (because I think it’s not just about the wedding/stag-night):

Self-reblog for discussing the police report under the picture of John with his beard (TEH):

It‘s not the same police report as the one on set in 2016 (x) but there were additional ‚crimes‘ committed until S4 right? What I‘m getting at: I think this connection of John‘s beard (=his alibi, his heterosexual facade) and the police report make it rather obvious what the crime of S4 is about, doesn’t it? Mofftiss decided to put exactly this picture of John on top of a police report so that the subtextual crime and alibi-connection can be made. And we know that John needed an ‚alibi‘ after TRF where the media turned (confirmed bachelor John Watson), Mr. Sex Jim Moriarty broke into ‚London‘ etc. and as the quote above shows us is that even just the suggestion of a ‚crime‘ was enough to get people persecuted (x). And we know that at least John is still stuck in ‚1895‘ at the very end of TFP (he remains Dr. Watson).

So to me this is yet another subtextual proof that the crimes committed here are the crimes @possiblyimbiassed suggested (x). The problem is that while Sherlock embraced his human/emotional side throughout S4 John still ends with his doctoral degree (Dr. Watson). TLD and TFP specifically focus on John being first a bad doctor (Culverton‘s claims) and then describing John as a soldier in TFP who is „unmarried, practical about death, alone“ (via mirror Molly) because that‘s what soldier-John is. He‘s still stuck in ASiP, only his „who you are […] doesn‘t matter“/Dr. Watson-side made it to TFP, but it‘s not the real John. It‘s Dr. Watson from 1895 („Since when do you call me John?“). If you‘re thinking about the last scene of TAB they specifically pan from 1895 into the modern world to show us how Sherlock and John move into S4. As a Sherlock who realizes he is „a man out of […] [his] time“ and a John who is still hiding behind his moustache. I think S5 really needs to be about John now. Saving him from the ‚well of emotions‘, saving his true identity. He is the original storyteller, so he is the one we should ‚end‘ with to finally tell the true story :).

(quotes are from memory here, I hope they are right)

What do you think @sarahthecoat @raggedyblue @possiblyimbiassed @disfictional @i-believe-n-sherlock-holmes @megara-holmes @not-a-bit-good?( @therealsaintscully just subtext here but maybe the police report in TEH could be helpful for your theory?)

Yes @lukessense, I agree: the police report is making this emphasis and S5 needs to be a great deal about John. I think he needs to fully embrace (and be recognised for) his both ‘sides’; soldier and doctor. As for John’s doctoral degree, I realized something interesting in this very short story by ACD (X): When Watson receives a letter from Edinburgh’s University, Holmes deduces what it is about, and makes this comment regarding Watson’s title:

So apparently, at this point in the stories, Watson had not yet received his MD title. According to ACD, he was not an official ‘doctor’. ;) And looking at ACD’s own medical career (X), he was first a Bachelor of medicine (while working as a ship surgeon and also trying to run a medical practice) for four years before he received his doctor’s grade.

@possiblyimbiassed​ I keep coming back to the question of how much of John Watson on the show is real. If we’re inside of Sherlock’s Mind Theatre it would make sense that each “actor” is also a projection of himself, which does seem to apply most of the time (or always?). So what about John Watson? The reason I’m asking this is because it feels like we have two John Watsons right? Dr. Watson and John Watson. John Watson is a made up person (x). Made up by whom? Dr. Watson or Sherlock? Because we do have this:

So if John is a mixture of love interest and Sherlock’s projection it’s interesting to follow John’s sad musical theme throughout the show. It keeps reappearing in moments where trauma is an important subject: the experiment inside of Baskerville in THoB, the Hänsel and Gretel-case in TRF etc. And we have the talk about Molly’s father in TRF who is directly connected to Sherlock’s emotions. But Molly is supposed to be John’s mirror. Furthermore we have Billy the skull John is filling in for, but Billy is a part of Sherlock’s. What I’m getting at is that the question is wether the trauma, the loneliness that the character John Watson is presented with are a part of John’s or Sherlock’s. Because after Mary’s death in TST the question about John’s abilities as a doctor are questioned more and more. This could either be because John’s facade as Dr. Watson crumbles without Mary (the facade of 1895) or because Sherlock’s facade crumbles because John Watson was never the real John Watson. The real John Watson is still Dr. Watson who is somewhat present in the story, but only as a fragment. There are times he is addressed, e.g. in TAB or by Eurus in TFP which is interesting because he claims to be a soldier here all the time. This feels like TFP is about Sherlock confronting both identities of John Watson that need to be saved. The question is wether this is about Sherlock’s projection of John that is actually a traumatized part of himself that needs to be saved and/or (because we have two John’s) the real John Watson that is still Dr. Watson. This is kind of hard to grasp I guess. The reason I keep asking myself this question is because I want to know what trauma that’s being presented on the show is about which character. Are they all about Sherlock? Because then the John Watson on the show is definitely a part of Sherlock. Or is the show also about a traumatized John Watson Sherlock knows about and tries to figure out until he realizes that he needs to save this traumatized John Watson by giving him emotional context? John Watson was always our original storyteller, so where is he hiding?

Additional thought: it is interesting that the story mentioned above, where John doesn’t have his doctoral degree yet, is the story where they took the quote for the best man‘s-speech from you:

Just makes me think about doctors, marriage…

@therealsaintscully​ @raggedyblue​  @sarahthecoat​

rb for discussion. afraid my brain gets tangled up at this point!