Musings on A Study in Pink (2)

Part 2: ’You can’t have serial suicides’ – media, chain suicides, and social problems

TRIGGER WARNING: long discussions of suicide; image of a gun

Literally the whole of Part 2 is about suicide. If that is not what you want to read, close this tab and go look at some kittens. Take care of yourselves.

So here at the start of ASiP we have John Watson: recently invalided out of the army, the one place where he feels useful and respected. He is burdened by residual self-esteem and trust issues from his childhood. He is struggling – financially, mentally, physically – in a city that does not feel like home anymore. He has probably quite recently watched Sholto – the one he cares for, the one who has allowed him to embrace his sexuality to a fuller extent – fall from grace. In the news, people are committing suicides, albeit under suspicious circumstances.

What could possibly go wrong?

Keep reading

Musings on A Study in Pink (1)

Trigger Warning (General): Mentions and discussion of homophobia and suicide

More specific trigger warnings will precede each part of the meta

Summary: The theme of the show has been clear since day one. Heteronormativity, homophobia, and toxic masculinity will kill John, Sherlock, and Johnlock if the former are not stopped.

This meta is a series with three parts:

All transcripts taken from Ariane Devere Sherlock episode transcripts. Appropriate pages will be linked after each quote.

All S1-S3 screenshots taken from screencapped.net  

Part 1: Shot in the left shoulder – the Cabbie as a John mirror

TRIGGER WARNING: Discussions of homophobia and suicide; image of fake but realistic blood

The main flow of the case in ASiP goes like this: the Cabbie is one of those ‘just want the best for his kids’ parents. He is diagnosed with a terminal illness. Motivated and enabled by Moriarty, he goes on a potentially fatal murder spree, leaving four people dead in his wake. Sherlock eventually solves the case, but the Cabbie is ultimately stopped by John.

In short, the main characters at play are: Moriarty, Cabbie, Sherlock, and John. Moriarty and the Cabbie are the main enigmas. What do they represent?

In Part 1 we will focus on the Cabbie and what he might stand for.

Keep reading

@sherlockshite said: I hope I’m not being repetitive here, but I’m adding also the fact this moment (John shooting John mirror) is very significant as it not only solidified the foundation of trust and friendship between Sherlock and John, but also, it symbolically shows that John was ready to take on a new adventure (solving cases with Sherlock), wherein he shot his father mirror (heteronormativity, and tradition). 

Totally! For me the ending of ASiP foreshadows the happy ending that John and Sherlock will have. In the episodes following ASiP, he hasn’t really shaken his father’s shadow, hence his unsuccessful relationships with women and never ending up with Sherlock. John, my man, you need to tackle your childhood issues. You’ve started doing that in TLD so don’t give up, all right? Love ya. 

@sarahthecoat said: Wow, this is excellent, glad i saw it! i’ve seen the cabbie as a john mirror for a while, but you deepened my understanding considerably. Also, just twigged on his initials, after how many years?! Jeff Hope, John Hamish watson.

Thank you <3 And for the point about Jeff Hope and John Hamish Watson - yes! I totally agree! @heimishtheidealhusband have written several metas on John’s middle name. Here they discussed how Hamish stands for John’s sexuality. In another meta, they suggest that ‘James’ stands for queerness, and Hamish is the Scottish form of James. 

And… I come from a culture where there’s no such thing as middle names, but as far as I know, a lot of times middle names are used to pay tribute to close friends or family members yea? This definitely adds onto the JH-JHW connection. 

YES. Also rb for the other thread of discussion. ASIP is beautifully structured as a hero-journey, ticks all the boxes, but is about John. I forget if i have written up my own notes yet, I twigged on this years ago, before i started reading meta on tumblr. I think in the overall orc of the show, ASIP functions as the “call to adventure” for Sherlock, and if we ever get a s5, then all the boxes may be ticked again, i hope so.

‘Don’t make people into heroes John’ because John is the hero :’)

yes!

rb again just because.

Happy to see the first "John commits suicide" mirror 3min into the ep

Sure, continue by showing a drunk person on a birthday party who clearly isn't supposed to drive, and who also ends up committing suicide fjaskdlfjdaslfjla

How to keep yourself save from a serial killer? Don't commit suicide.

It’s never twins (OR IS IT?)

There’s a recurring joke in Sherlock about it “never being twins”, one of the many unfired Chekhov’s guns. Now the smart and lovely @patiencegrenade has pointed me towards the possible answer. Stay with me, please!

A Canadian show called Murdoch Mysteries, about an 1890s detective solving crimes (sounds familiar, anyone?), had three episodes which featured Arthur Conan Doyle as a character. Whenever he visited, he and the main character detective Murdoch had some serious Sherlock-Watson vibes.

In the episode Belly Speaker, which aired in 2008 (so two years before ASIP), Doyle makes his second appearance.

The episode starts when an alcoholic dad (cue John Watson-reference) gets murdered. Murdoch and Doyle enter the crime scene and open the closet, where the victim’s son Harcourt and his puppet are found hiding. The man is a ventriloquist and his puppet’s name is… Mycroft. I wish I was making this up. Harcourt quickly confesses, but Murdoch doesn’t believe him: he gets the cause of death wrong, for example.

Now – spoilers: Harcourt turns out to be his own secret twin brother (also named Mycroft), who took revenge on his dad for rejecting him at birth. He did this by murdering Harcourt at age ten, burying his brother in/underneath the closet, and then posing as his own twin for years and years. When he finally killed his dad, he tried to act as if he was his own twin brother Harcourt covering up for his twin Mycroft (all while really being Mycroft), hoping the detective would think Mycroft had fled the country and would let ‘Harcourt’ off the hook, thus getting away with murder. Like a triple bluff.

Does this sound ridiculous? The very premise that a child could plan something like this, is mocked by Sherlock in TAB, after John suggests Emilia Ricoletti had a secret twin.

One of the reasons Murdoch DOESN’T think “Harcourt” did it, is because Harcourt is lefthanded and the killer was righthanded. In other words, Mycroft went as far as pretending to be differently-handed to cover up for a murder. As recent meta by @221bloodnun has pointed out (link), this is something that was seen done by Sherlock and John in S4.

Also, there is the eye thing. Murdoch uncovers that Harcourt is Mycroft because of his eyes: the right one is brown, the left one is blue. This was the other way around in a childhood picture. The different eye color thing is seen in Sherlock when Eurus removes her contact lenses. Also, in an old version of the Great Game script, Moriarty does the same contact-lenses-trick.

Murdoch Mysteries thereby connects Moriarty, Eurus AND Mycroft.

What about the puppet? Wouldn’t the puppet have been referenced somehow in Sherlock and especially season 4, if there was really some significance? Glad you asked. In Eurus’s bedroom, we can see a ventriloquist puppet hanging to the left of her room – by that house; sorry for the bad quality pic. Now, dolls are normal for a child to play with. Belly speaking puppets? Not so much.

The whole episode rests upon Mycroft ACTUALLY getting away with the murder, disappearing at the end of the episode. So, we could deduce that season 4 is basically about the Holmes brothers getting away with murder. (hint: Mary’s murder)

Also, his brother was IN THE CLOSET the whole time. Just saying.

sorry for the bad quality but this is from the Emmy’s script found here

fyi I’ve watched all of season 1 and this was the only confusing episode 

@coffeeteaitsallfine and I were talking about Murdoch Mysteries s1e9 Belly Speaker and she pointed things out to me that I did not connect to Sherlock at first ( Also I know you were talking about lover’s quarrel and when you mentioned ACD saying “ someone is going to meet his maker” and then the camera pans to “ Harcourt” and “ Mycroft”. ) ( Maybe you could help me clear that up because I am a bit confused about that because I am having a hard time finding the scene. ) 

So Fake Harcourt aka real Mycroft is right handed yet he employees his left hand the most so that Murdoch wouldn’t think he’s the murderer because he used  his right hand to kill his dad and Hannah pointed out to me that that connects to Sherlock s1e2 The Blind Banker 

- Sherlock points out that Eddie Van Coon was murdered where as everyone thought  he had committed suicide because Eddie was shot on the right side of his head where as the layout of his apartment proved that  he was left handed 

( TBB SUMMARY ) 

And yet again this leads back to the suicide theme, it seems…

@patiencegrenade Not quite, the fake suicide to make it look like a lover’s quarrel was in reference to episode 4 “Elementary, My Dear Murdoch” the first episode of the season to feature Arthur Conan Doyle as a character. A man’s son died and he wanted to keep talking to his son through a medium. But the woman was going to possibly discredit the medium, and he didn’t want to lose connection to his son so he shot the woman and framed it on her lover. Then he shot the man, putting the gun in his right hand to make it look like suicide, but they figured out it was fake because the man was left handed similar to TBB and what we know about john.

 Then in episode 9 “Belly Speaker” I was mistaken about the phrase “met his maker” which wasn’t in the scene I thought it was, and was in reference to someone else’s case Doyle was concerned about.

Another interesting thing I found, was that in TGG as the earlier scripts show that Kanan dug up, Moriarty “reveals his brown eye to now be blue,” but earlier in this scene as he is making John say whatever he wants he makes him say, “Gottle o’ geer … gottle o’ geer … gottle o’ geer.” This phrase is well-known as a garbled version of “Bottle of Beer” for being hard for ventriloquists to say because they can’t touch the lips together. So John is effectively being used as a puppet during this crucial moment as it is often thought that the 5 pips foreshadow each season respectfully.

Then in TSoT, in CAM’s telegram he says, "To Mary, lots of love poppet, oodles of love and heaps of good wishes, from Cam. Wish your family could have seen this…“ which sounds very close to puppet if CAM is trying to send her a message, and we know they like to play with words: ammo/amo, etc. 

( Montage from TFP ) 

Here’s another lovely ‘coincindence‘: remember how in S4 they made Arthur Conan Doyle part of the story itself… as if he was present, watching it all happen? (x)

i’m still trying to absorb what’s going on with all of this but fyi Mr. Harcourt is one of the clients in the case montage in TEH

wow, that's a lot.

Why Sherlock is a real victim at John’s wedding and how it was planned from the moment of conception. Part 1

This idea was stuck in my head for a while now, but mostly since three days and me rewatching TGG. Besides having two nights shifts both for 12 hours I feel like in two last days I didn’t do anything mostly except the research for this.   I feel the need to wrote this down and just moved on from the subject or my brain will just explode from too much information. 

It’s a long thing so I’ll probably split it into parts. Do you remember when I wrote that killing Carl Power was rehearsal for injecting Sherlock with the poison. Well mostly I was right, but that’s only very small part of the bigger thing. Like it turned out there was also another person who was killed by Moriarty with the same poison. Well, surprise surprise - Connie Prince. Carl Powers - Connie Prince. Couldn’t they be more obvious? Both killed by botulinum toxin.   

So now we have two people who were part of ‘planning and rehearsal’ thing. Why do that in the first place? Well since botulinum is a really specific kind of toxin I believed Moriarty did it to oscillate the best dose to give to human to get  a desired effect. Remember how Jim said at the pool that he would spare killing Sherlock for something special. I think this might be it, but more about this later when I will explain how the poison works.   Let’s be honest poison is not something taken out of the blue. It’ a common theme in the show. In TSiP Hope talked people into commiting suicide with the poison. In TBB both John and Sara were drugged and kidnapped. In TGG we learn that Carl and Connie were both killed with poison. In ASiB and THoB Sherlock was drugged with some kind of a toxin. And Henry too. In TFP kids were poisoned with mercury. In TEH John was again drugged and kidnapped. In TSoT we had a case of Poison Giant. In HLV all Holmes family and Mary were drugged by Wiggins. In TST Marry drugged Sherlock and we have this important conversation about jellyfish. Now I know that botulinum toxin can’t be extracted per se from jellyfish but still jellyfish has a neurotoxin poison and botulinum is exactly one kind of neurotoxin. So there’s connection here. Also jellyfish is one kind of sea food and you can get poisoned by botulinum by eating some sea food too. In TLD there’d TD-12 and well in TFP Mycroft, John and Sherlock were all drugged by Euros. When you consider how botulinum toxin works there’s so much more to read here in TFP but about this later too. I don’t mention the times when Sherlock took drugs on his own, because that’s not what we talk about here. Honestly I don’t remember if anyone was drugged in TAB. If I forget about someone please let me know. Now changing the subject. Let’s move to a Sholto for a moment. I’ll be moving a little from one thing to another since that’ll be important later. Major is Sherlock’s mirror. They both love John and they never told him about this. The press discredited them, they have a lot of enemies and they both very asocial persons and not easy to like, yet John from all the people in the world decided to trust them. Now. Like I already told I believe that EMP starts since Mary shot Sherlock in HLV. But I’m open minded and I’m trying to consider other possibilities. I believed I couldn’t accept it starting since the end of TSoT, because I didn’t agree with the idea of Sherlock commiting suicide. And there just wasn’t another option available. Why Sherlock would never commit suicide? I know that at this point some of you will look at this at least skeptically. I’m winking toward you. :D Just hear me out. Sherlock is a man who went through some traumatic experience when he was young and still grow up to be this amazing person. He’s a man who leaved behind the gay he love, all people he care about, his home, live he deeply love and city that is his heart and spend two years alone, on his own dismantling Moriarty network seeing and doing probably many terrible things and survived being tortured. I know you like to think that Sherlock is some damsel in distress and all softies (well God help me I love reading fanfictions like that too) but he isn’t. He’s a survivor. Not a victim. Yes. Sherlock is reckless and he doesn’t care whether his going to survive or not. He’s doing things before he thinks about them don’t caring about the consequences for himself. But  that’s totally different from intentionally taking his life away. But Sherlock will not try to kill himself over a broken heart. Why? Because he’s a man who accepts the pain and walks through it. He’s a man who will do anything for John. So if that doesn’t convince you. Let’s talk about John. Now, I know that Sherlock is not aware what kind of feelings John has for him and he’s convince that they’ll never be together. Still Sherlock learnt his lesson after TFR. He knows that John loves him as a friend and how much he hurt him when he faked his suicide. Sherlock will never do anything to hurt John like that again. Besides he just promised John at the wedding that he he would always be there for him. 

Also Sholto. What James was trying to do after he was stabbed? In some way commiting suicide. And what they both agree with Sherlock?

SHOLTO: Mr Holmes, you and I are similar, I think. (John turns away from the door and Sherlock walks closer.) SHERLOCK: Yes, I think we are. SHOLTO: There’s a proper time to die, isn’t there? SHERLOCK: Of course there is. SHOLTO: And one should embrace it when it comes – like a soldier.  SHERLOCK (firmly): Of course one should, but not at John’s wedding. We wouldn’t do that, would we – you and me? We would never do that to John Watson. (x) That’s what they just agree about. They’ll never do that to John Watson. So that said, Sherlock will never kill himself intentionally.  Also I just realise this now: And one should embrace it when it comes – like a soldier. Do you remember form TFP: Soldiers today! But still something must happend to Sherlock. Now, do you remember this amazing meta by @possiblyimbiassed about Sherlock being a victim at Sherlock wedding. But she was speaking more about Sherlock overdosing drugs because of his broken heart.  But consider this. What if Sherlock really was a victim at the wedding? 

Not because of his broken heart, but literally. How? Why? How do I know?

1. Botulinum toxin. I know I talk a lot about poisons, but this one is kind of special. I think because of the way it attacks human body, and well it’s one of the deadliest poisons in our world. Why Moriarty wouldn’t choose this one to kill Sherlock, he’s all about dramatics. I’ll talk more about how it work latter, but now we have three ways you can get poisoned by this: by wound (like Connie), by food, there’s also one way but it applies to children only. Of course there are some exceptions of people who were poisoned in different ways, for example by inhaling it. Well Carl wasn’t poisoned like that, because it would be too simple for Moriarty. To just kill him? No. So he applied this toxin to his cream for enzema.  More or less for now, what you need to know is that botulinum attacks the smaller parts of nervous system, causing paralyze of the body. Imagine how terrifying it must be for this young kid to be in the water and not be able to moved. And he just slowly drowned.  Now of course it works a little different when poison is inside your body. Still if Sherlock was treated with the same poison don’t you think that all this water themes, Sherlock drowning since TAB in his EMP, and deep water in his life is how his subconscious is trying to let him know, that what’s happening with him already happened in the past? 

2. James Sholto.  So we already know he’s a mirror for Sherlock. So why if he was attacked at the wedding, Sherlock couldn’t be too? Why James was a target exactly at this day, because it was the only opportunity when they could get to him. Now Sherlock. Maybe he’s not completely away from the world, but he’s a hard person to poison. He’s observant, he sees everything. It’s incredibly hard to get close to him. I think that if someone scratch him in any way, he would sooner figured out what’s happening to him. Buy it’s not so easy with food, because the symptoms at the begging are similar to regular food poisoning. Yet normally Sherlock doesn’t eat much and like I already said he always pays attention. So wedding seams like the mosty perfect opportunity for this. Because it’s probably one of the most stressful days for him, and the one when he was the most emotional. Also too many people in one place, made it harder to focus. But that not all. I believed that all this Myfly Man, and stabbing Sholto case was intentional to distract him, from the real target - himself. 

That already happened in the past: Sherlock believed that kidnappings in TGG were for distracting him from looking for a missing plans. In ASiB working on a Irene case about pictures, was also for distracting him from what really was happening.

I don’t buy the story about a photographer who planed this all on his own. Like he wasn’t smart enough to do it. He would need someone to help him. And who’s good at this? Remember all road leads in some way to Moriarty. 

3. Sherlock’s speach. We know so far that both James stabbing, and Sherlock poisoning was planed and rehearshaled. 

SHERLOCK (softly): Oh, not just planned. Planned and rehearsed. (x)

But that’s not all. Sherlock is too figuring out things about his murder.

Also I like this line:

SHERLOCK (steepling his hands in front of his chin as he progresses forward): Imagine someone’s going to get murdered at a wedding. Who exactly would you pick? MRS HUDSON: I think you’re a popular choice at the moment, dear. (x)

SHERLOCK: Most people you can kill any old place. As a mental exercise, I’ve often planned the murder of friends and colleagues. (Rubbing his hands together in an Evil Genius sort of way, he walks back along the room, then gestures towards John.) SHERLOCK: Now John I’d poison.  (Mary nervously looks across to her husband.) SHERLOCK: Sloppy eater – dead easy. I’ve given him chemicals and compounds – that way, he’s never even noticed. He missed a whole Wednesday once, didn’t have a clue. (x)

Neat!! Yes. Another moment when someone mentions poisoning someone else. I forgot about this!  Also by food! Yes. Sherlock is deducing attempt at killing him here. 

SHERLOCK: Clearly it’s a rare opportunity, so it’s someone who doesn’t get out much. (The camera angle changes and more guests – and their tags – have vanished.) SHERLOCK: Someone for whom a planned social encounter known about months in advance is an exception. Has to be a unique opportunity. (He turns around and more of the guests have gone.) SHERLOCK: And since killing someone in public is difficult … (He turns again and more guests have disappeared.) SHERLOCK: … killing them in private isn’t an option. Someone who lives in an inaccessible or unknown location, then. (He turns again and all the visible seats are now empty.) SHERLOCK: Someone private, perhaps, obsessed with personal security. (One final “TARGET?” tag drifts into view as he walks forward. It is pointing at the only person left in the room. Sherlock turns to face him. It is Major Sholto.) SHERLOCK: Possibly someone under threat. (x) Now. Aren’t this all applies to Sherlock too, only in different way? He doesn’t get much except for work, he doesn’t take parts in social encounters, he’s private, he’s under a threat, and Mycroft is his personal security. 

SHERLOCK: Major Sholto, no-one’s coming to kill you. I’m afraid you’ve already been killed several hours ago. (x)

Now, this also makes sens in Sherlock case, because it’ll take hours before he’ll realized that something wrong is happening with him.

So Sherlock was drugged at the wedding and he came back home on his own, didn’t expect what’s going to happend next. But about that I’ll wrote in the second part. I’ll explain how this poison works. And what possibly was happening to him through S4. 

Now it’s long enough. Warning: more bad things to come. 

@monikakrasnorada @possiblyimbiassed @loveismyrevolution @fellshish @sarahthecoat @loveinthemindpalace @meta-lock @marcespot @may-shepard @raggedyblue @rosegard @watsonshoneybee @sherlock @mmelibrarian88 @gosherlocked  @chriscalledmesweetie @devoursjohnlock @shylockgnomes @lijahlover @asherlockedwizard @consultingdads @tjlcisthenewsexy @darlingtonsubstitution @watsonshoneybee @sagestreet

OMG We’ve been talking about heart attacks for ages and I had tonnes of meta about botulinum and heart attacks. I’ll find it.

@shylockgnomes if you find them send me the links. I want to read them. To be honest this poison makes the most sens to me so far.

I’d like to put forth a few things, including a theory. They picked The Six Napoleons for specific reasons, not the least of which is probably this: Napoleon was suspected of having been poisoned!

This goes into the details of his Arsenic poisoning, but, this scene is cute, because of this theory “Although never established as being the case, the theory that arsenic poisoning was made possible though the dyes present in the new wallpaper used at Longwood House in 1819” Paper. Which made me think of:

This is just throwing possibilities out there. Moriarty is dead, we know that. That leaves only Mary, who would have had access to Sherlock’s apartment, AFTER sending the boys off to go solve the very case that would lead to Sholto. I have strong belief they also mirrored Sherlock with Napoleon, for good reason, so this  poison theory is probably true.

@shylockgnomes @ebaeschnbliah @gosherlocked @fellshish

Amazing theory and great additions!

This very much makes sense to me, because i’ve never understood why it took Sherlock such a long deduction to arrive at the very obvious conclusion that the target was Sholto. If it’s indeed written to warn us the real target is Sherlock, then that’s brilliant.

I usually headcanon Mary shooting Sherlock as the beginning of EMP however. In this scenario - Sherlock being a target at the wedding - where does that leave Mary? Is she not an assassin perhaps? She did recognise a skip code on sight in TEH. Perhaps she was the one poisoning Sherlock? (“This wine is bloody awful”)

@tendergingergirl @shylockgnomes @consultingidiots @sagestreet @possiblyimbiassed @88thparallel

Interesting ideas about poison and its role in the show, @consultingidiots and @tendergingergirl! That’s really something to think about! There’s a lot of poison in Sherlock’s cases; also mercury in the ‘Hansel and Gretel’ case in TRF. And I believe that poison, as a metaphor, can mean homophobia, which operates like a poisoning of people’s mind.

I certainly agree that Sherlock is the victim at John’s wedding, which was the main point of my meta, but as you might expect, I’m stubborn enough to stick with my working hypothesis until it’s contradicted with evidence. :)

I know it’s a rather sad and bleak idea that Sherlock might have attempted suicide, but I do in fact think there’s support for this in the show (and even in ACD canon), which I tried to back up in that meta and also here, here, here and here. But even if we choose to dismiss this possibility, we still need to find satisfactory explanations to this:

Most people IRL who attempt suicide do not succeed (thankfully), which means it might in many cases be a desperate ‘cry for help’ rather than something based on determination. Sherlock may be exceptionally brilliant, but he’s still human, just like any of us, which means he might be depressed, heartbroken, unable to cope, etc, and he might even let his loved ones down. And he can still have a self-sacrificing character; he can still love and care for others.

As for Moriarty, I don’t believe he’s actually dead (Where’s the evidence? It isn’t enough to me that Sherlock merely believes this, while there’s still no body and no specifics about his death from anyone else than Sherlock. Plus I really don’t see Moriarty’s motive for killing himself; what’s the point of doing something to destroy another human being, if you won’t even be there to see the effects? That’s illogical to me!), but I do think Sherlock’s suicide is exactly what he’s after, which haunts Sherlock’s subconscious:

Moriarty’s goal is to burn Sherlock’s heart out and thereby drive him to suicide, I believe (“I’m gonna kill you anyway”).

And as for where this leaves ‘Mary’, @fellshish, I still think she’s a kind of psychopath hired by Moriarty, but not to actually shoot Sherlock (which wouldn’t be consistent with ‘burning his heart out’). My hypothesis is that ‘Mary’s mission is to keep John and Sherlock apart, but her baby is actually someone else’s (probably David’s). It wouldn’t surprise me if ‘Mary’ has disappeared by the time Sherlock wakes up from his coma. In ACD canon she just, well, ‘disappeared’ without any clear comments about what had actually happened with her.

@monikakrasnorada  @loveismyrevolution @sarahthecoat @may-shepard @raggedyblue @gosherlocked @devoursjohnlock @shylockgnomes  @tjlcisthenewsexy @darlingtonsubstitution @watsonshoneybee @sagestreet

Basically I understand your point of view @possiblyimbiassed, and it’s pretty convincing. However, to answer your questions, let us not forget that there is at least another suicide declared in the show, John. And if Sherlock had underestimated this thing in TRF, I don’t think he would dare to do it again, unless he aspires to staging  Romeo and Juliet. Surely Sherlock flirts with the idea of suicide constantly. But is one thing to think about doing so, another actually doing it. I’m not an expert, and I don’t want to talk so lightly about things so dense, without having the skills. However, I’m familiar with depression and suicidal thoughts that sometimes accompany her. And I think sometimes the thread that binds you to this world sometimes is firmer than others. And I don’t talk about differences in feeling things between different people, but also about the “thickness of this thread” that changes at different moments of a person’s (potentially suicidal) during his own life. And I think that for Sherlock, at this point, this thread, represented 99% by the consequent pain of John, is rather solid. Willing to alleviate pain with the use of drugs is a consequence, for someone who has used it in the past, I think quite logical. Obviously, I have no proof for this, but the promise of being there forever that he did to marriage is objectively contrary to the thought that only after a couple of hours he may then commit suicide, not to forget the line in which he claims that dying is not a what he would do to John Watson. The consequent thoughts of suicide in S4 could be read as fear that John may not endure his death, as we have seen quite clearly that the poor devil is not exactly very well. Or as an in-depth thought of the actions that led him there. If he didn’t have intend to kill himself, it is likely that the use of drugs, possible if not probable, was induced by the attempt to suppress / endure suicidal thoughts. Then something went wrong.

At a metaphorical level, Moriarty is the personification / cause of Sherlock’s suicidal thoughts, so we see him very involved when these are highlighted. Also in HLV is that part of his MP who invites him to give up. However, I agree that at the textual level there is no evidence of his death.

@monikakrasnorada  @loveismyrevolution @sarahthecoat @may-shepard@possiblyimbiassed @gosherlocked @devoursjohnlock@shylockgnomes  @tjlcisthenewsexy @darlingtonsubstitution@watsonshoneybee @sagestreet

Very interesting, @raggedyblue! I definitely agree that John has also been suicidal at more than one point in the story. And Sherlock’s worries over what will happen with John if he dies is what’s actually keeping Sherlock alive, I have no doubt about this. This issue might of course explain some of the questions above, but not all of them, I think. I’m actually not so sure that ‘Romeo and Juliet’ is very far from what we see happening… :´( And wouldn’t that story also fit in with all the other Shakespeare references in the show? But I firmly believe that BBC Sherlock is not a tragedy; we have a far happier ending to expect in S5! ;)

Just to clarify: I have no professional or other competence in this area either; all I’ve said here could just as well be looked up on the Internet by anyone. But since this topic comes back repeatedly in the show, I hope it’s OK if we try to analyze it regarding Sherlock and John. I’m not a native speaker, so I apologize beforehand if anything I say here may cause misunderstanding or discomfort (then please let me know).

Regarding Sherlock’s words to James Sholto: I don’t believe his message is 100% clear here. I think it’s interesting that he actually agrees with suicidal Sholto about embracing “the proper time to die” when it comes. But then he specifies the conditions under which “we would never do that to John Watson” as “not at John’s wedding”. Why does he even talk about timing here? Why not just say that we would never do that to John Watson period? I think Sherlock is balancing on a very fine edge here, trying to side with the major on one hand (to make him know that he, Sherlock, understands what this is about - painful, ‘unrequited’ love for John), but on the other hand definitely trying to prevent his suicide. But the result doesn’t sound very convincing to me. It’s just momentarily convincing.

About the time line: Yes, Sherlock made a vow to always be there for John and his family, and then he went home. And John and ‘Mary’ went on honeymoon, probably shortly after the wedding. According to John’s blog, there’s a time lapse of at least three weeks between the stag night and Sherlock’s post on the blog, during which the wedding must have taken place at some point. And even if the wedding was as late as August 10, there were minimum three days when Sherlock was clear-headed enough to write a post and then several comments on the blog. And Mrs Hudson probably came up to play Cluedo with him at least once. 

But in TAB Mycroft (most probably MP!Mycroft) talks about Sherlock’s recent OD and his history of drug use and then says the following (thanks Ariane DeVere! My bolding): 

MYCROFT (softly): I’ll always be there for you. (He looks down.) This was my fault. SHERLOCK (shaking his head slightly): It was nothing to do with you. MYCROFT (gazing downwards reflectively): A week in a prison cell. I should have realised. 

SHERLOCK: Realised what? MYCROFT: That in your case, solitary confinement is locking you up with your worst enemy.

If (at least) the second part of HLV happens in Sherlock’s MP, then there is no Sherlock murdering Magnussen, right? Thus MP!Mycroft is referring to something else - and what might that be? I think he’s referring to Sherlock locking himself up in 221B for a week in solitary confinement, taking more and more drugs until he collapses and someone finds him. This state of things is also reflected later in TLD, where 221B is a meth lab and MP!Molly tells him he’s dying. He may not have sought to kill himself, but he couldn’t cope, could he? In TLD I also think he projects this on MP!John, who supposedly abandoned his own daughter with the explanation “can’t always cope”. 

And isn’t it interesting that in TAB MP!Mycroft says “I’ll always be there for you”, sounding exactly like Sherlock’s ‘last vow’?

@monikakrasnorada  @loveismyrevolution @sarahthecoat @may-shepard  @gosherlocked @devoursjohnlock @shylockgnomes  @tjlcisthenewsexy @darlingtonsubstitution @watsonshoneybee @sagestreet @consultingidiots

I’ve been reading this discussion with interest. As a both-and meta reader, i’m not necessarily seeking the One True Reading of the show, but interested in the variety of possibilities, and how much meaning is packed into the details, to be teased out. Thanks for tagging me!

@sarahthecoat I’m not sure there ever will be a One True Reading - or even that there should be :) Isn’t that the way art is, and indeed the beauty of it, that there’s always more than one possible interpretation? I guess each one of us needs to find a way to make the show make sense to them, and probably that way won’t be the same for all of us. Which is perfectly fine by me, and I love to see all the possible explanations for the enigmas of the show. 

Most viewers will probably never agree with this rather ‘dark’ scenario for Sherlock, and I honestly wish it weren’t what this show tells me, but I’m afraid it is what I see, and where I think the authors are going. But since I’m convinced this is not how the show is going to end, I still find it interesting to explore. And if I’m wrong, and there’s another, perhaps more uplifting explanation, I’ll be happy as well. Maybe this is just wishful thinking, but I believe this show is trying to point out a bigger picture than the usual story of a psychopath coming after a specific victim: the harm people do to themselves, trying to live up to norms that go against who we really are. Our lack of tolerance drives people to do this; our frequent exclusion and stigmatization of anyone who is different in any sense. And I think Sherlock’s character is expressedly fighting against this, but since the problems are also part of himself it’s a long inner journey for him. 

yes!

also, any mention of the suicide theme in the show, reminds me of @tjlcisthenewsexy 's meta, about murder disguised as suicide, and how that is a real danger faced by the queer community.

The subtext of locked things and empty vaults

There’s a mysterious repeated theme in the show of information that is stolen, locked away or inaccessible. It’s something that Sherlock seeks, and goes to great lengths to try and obtain. But when the vault opens either it’s empty or the thing of great value turns out to be worthless.

[Thank you @ebaeschnbliah for inspiring these thoughts with their meta The ones and the other ones !]

Weiterlesen

This is the meta we needed right now because it gives the show we are analysing here some relevance regarding the current affairs (yes, I mean electing a fascist, the ultimate enemy of liberty and freedom, to the White House) - so thank you @tjlcisthenewsexy for writing this up durig these difficult times.

What does Sherlock say in HLV, when talking about the Appledore vaults?  The personal freedom of anyone you’ve ever met is a fantasy. 

As long as Sherlock (or we) don’t discover what is going on beneath the surface, how Sherlock (we) is controlled, played, tricked and oppressed, there is no freedom or liberty to be gained. Sherlock (we) has to deconstruct how this oppression works. The journey is its own reward? The bare cupboard means that at the end of this journey Sherlock will discover that if he deconstructs the ways he is controlled he can be free, for he will then see that nothing has ever been taken from him in the first place.

Freedom through perception? Realising that you are oppressed will set you free?

But there seems to be a debate what freedom constitutes of? Individual freedom vs. universal freedom. 

As I was looking up smart quotes in connection with this I found Schopenhauer: A man can be himself only so long as he is alone, and if he does not love solitude, he will not love freedom, for it is only when he is alone that he is really free. - Alone is what I have, alone protects me?

But that is early on, before Reichenbach. In S3/TAB Sherlock realises that this is not all there is. So it’s not just about individual freedom. Marx says that only individual freedom is possible in capitalistic society, but that real freedom is to be found positively in our relations with other people. 

Sherlock and John coming together is therefore a form and expression of real freedom. There lies the  revolutionary force of the core of the show - realising that nothing prevents them from coming together except pre-deceived notions of oppression that can be shown as empty threats when they get finally dismantled.

Woah - thanks for coming to this philosophical tutorial…

This is all so beautiful and relevant. Thank you, @tjlcisthenewsexy and @isitandwonder

Yes @isitandwonder !! Thank you for sharing your thoughts! In the wake of you-know-what I’ve read some great articles and this was one of them. It talks about direct action as…

“a group, sometimes an individual, takes an action intended to ‘reveal an existing problem, highlight an alternative, or demonstrate a possible solution to a social issue’. … It can be any form of activity people decide upon and organize themselves which is based on their own collective strength and does not involve getting intermediaries to act for them.

Most of us… have power enough to make immediate change to our communities through direct action, because we have far more flexibility to create change than the state itself is capable of, or allows. This flexibility stems from the fact that direct action does not ask us to delegate our power, or to defer it to a set of unjust laws and corrupt institutions. Instead of getting someone else to act for us, we act for ourselves. And by acting for ourselves we are expressing the ability to govern ourselves, to take control of our own lives in the pursuit of liberation. In other words, we stop waiting for a better world to happen to us and begin doing the work of creating it, for it is through acting and learning to act, not voting, that we will open the path to a world free of oppression.”

So johnlock IS a form a revolution via direct action by doing ALL those things - revealing an existing problem (clearly we do not have the representation we need when 99% do not believe that the romance will happen simply because that sort of thing never happens), highlighting an alternative (a romance that’s incidental) and a demonstration (a kiss broadcast across the world). It’s a protest that is within the power of Moffat and Gatiss but with potentially much greater implications than just John and Sherlock and their love story. Because there’s this other thing I read about that better defines johnlock as an insurrection…

“revolution…must be built daily through more modest attempts that do not have all the liberating characteristics of the social revolution in the true sense. These more modest attempts are insurrections. In them the uprising of the most exploited and excluded of society and the most politically aware minority opens the way to the possible involvement of increasingly wider sections of the exploited in a flux of rebellion which could lead to revolution.

For these events to build, they must spread; insurrectionary anarchism, therefore, places particular importance on the circulation and spread of action, not managed revolt, for no army or police force is able to control the generalised circulation of such autonomous activity….Therefore, what the system is afraid of is not just these acts of sabotage themselves, but also them spreading socially. Uncontrollability itself is the strength of the insurrection….It is materially impossible for the state and capital to police the whole social terrain….In moments when larger scale insurrections are not taking place, small actions - which require unsophisticated means that are available to all and thus are easily reproducible - are by their very simplicity and spontaneity uncontrollable.”

By normalising same-sex romance in media Moftiss are opening up the possibility for others to do the same. So it’s a relatively small action, but one which could potentially be the beginning of a chain reaction that spreads. Only in retrospect can we look back on history and find the one small action that was the trigger of a chain reaction that lead to real social change that “no army or police force is able to control”. 

And I think Moftiss may be referencing this with the subtext of fire = love (either intentionally or accidentally because seriously…can anybody really be this clever?). In TEH we get Sherlock’s imaginings of him and John as the single spark of fire/love which triggers a chain reaction (a bomb literally works this way - it’s a chemical chain reaction) that leads to an explosion (revolution) that destroys the Palace of Westminster / the Government…

@monikakrasnorada @ebaeschnbliah @longsnowsmoon5 @gosherlocked

LOVE CONQUERS ALL!

This is so uplifting and so desperately needed- this hope- this wish for that very thing: for love to, not just conquer, but triumph! We all need to remember this. Hold it dear. Keep these tiny sparks of love and light, to feed them and nourish them, so they can ignite and light the darkness that is trying to smother us all. Love HAS to win.

wow, this is still timely. still, no sitting back and hoping someone else will do it for us.

Who is Carl Powers?

As I like to keep myself somewhat occupied during lockdown, I’ll just keep on writing meta posts about BBC Sherlock until…well, I don’t know when.

This time I’d like to talk about Carl Powers. Others have drawn the connection between Redbeard = Victor Trevor = Carl Powers = John Watson before me, but with this post I’m trying to connect the dots and put the death of Victor Trevor in context of my understanding (x) of the show. I’m basing my knowledge and my interpretation of Carl Powers on @sagestreet​ understanding of Victor Trevor in the meta text and dogs in the subtext of the show (x), @possiblyimbiassed​ understanding of Victor Trevors influence on the show (x) and @gosherlocked​ connection between Carl Powers and Victor Trevor (x). So thank you (and every other meta-writer out there) so much for all the work you’ve already put into the analysis of the show.

To understand my interpretation of the show it’s aways important to note the different layers of text:

Weiterlesen

Very interesting read, @lukessense. One question: How do you think Carl died if not by Moriarty’s hand? Did he commit suicide? What about the shoes? I agree on the meta and subtextual levels but I think it would have to work on a reality level as well. 

hmm, this is interesting.

i wonder if carl powers' death is another "murder disguised as suicide", which is one way homophobia kills.

In the second reblog of this meta @i-am-adlocked says:

Sherlock prevented four separate suicides in four separate seasons from happening by talking to them.

4 seasons, 4 suicides blocked. Two for John or John’s mirror, two for Sherlock, for Sherlock’s mirrors. This save each other that counts repeated throughout the series, repeated and strengthened until the final blow against suicide. Always an interesting topic ….

@ebaeschnbliah @gosherlocked @sarahthecoat @possiblyimbiassed @shylockgnomes

yes! also, at least the first three reference the "murder disguised as suicide" theme discussed by @tjlcisthenewsexy , if i recall correctly.

It’s not suicide, it’s murder: WHY SHERLOCK IS DYING

**suicide tw

There’s a montage of deaths in ASiP…

We can’t see the cabbie, all we see is a person appearing to take their own life.

Sherlock knows that somehow these are murders not suicides, even if he doesn’t yet know how it was done.

What could be the subtext of a death that looks like suicide but is actually murder?

What about the reality that suicides in the LGBT population are 40% higher than in the non-LGBT population?  

“I do not think it far from wrong when I mention that at least half of the suicides of young men are due to this one circumstance” - John Addington Symonds (1840-1893)

If a person takes their own life due to depression directly caused by a heterocentric culture and institutionalized homophobia, then is it really suicide? Or is it murder?

The victims in ASiP were persuaded to take the pill. The cabbie never touched them. 

I don’t want to kill you Mr ‘olmes. I’m gonna to talk to yer, and you’re gonna kill yourself.

The idea of suicide is put in front of us by the implication that comes with prejudice; that we’re freaks, that we don’t belong, we’re faulty, or ill.

So the murderer (homophobic society) need only push the pill towards us. There were two bottles though, a good one and a bad one. So apparently there’s a way to stay alive. But there wasn’t for the cabbie’s victims. All of his targets, including Sherlock, somehow chose the poison pill. 

The choice was an illusion. Because while suicide is ultimately the decision of it’s victim, it’s a choice that was made for them by a society that forced their hand. It’s not suicide, it’s murder.

We see this over and over…

Looks like suicide but is actually murder: 

Regardless of what really happened, how Sherlock really survived the fall, the fact remains that he killed himself because he was persuaded to do it.

I don’t want to kill you Mr ‘olmes. I’m gonna to talk to yer, and you’re gonna kill yourself.

And again in HLV when Sherlock goes on a “suicide mission” that he was sent on as punishment, forced into a position where he had no choice but to accept “suicide”.

The death by suicide of millions of gay men and women throughout history is the real life tragedy that this subtext is referencing. It’s one of the reasons why Sherlock is dying, and why the show is a fairytale where true love will defeat the enemy that wants him dead.

Yes Anna! Yes this! Wonderful work. :)

This brought me to tears  @tjlcisthenewsexy! 

Think about 1895, the year Oscar Wilde, as a prominent victim, was murdered by society; he died a social death in that year, only to be followed by his physical extinction a few years later.

Think about people like Clive Durham in Maurice, who kind of committed suicide by repressing his true feelings only to end up in a dead, unhappy, loveless - but socially accepted - heterosexual marriage.

Or Alan Turing - only a few days back the British Government prevented the pardon of thousands of gay and bisexual men by outtalking the so-called Turing Law. The Government’s plan will only pardon dead gay men convicted for same sex offences - as if only death would make them worthy to be redeemed. In 2016!

But these are only some prominent cases - there are too many forgotten lifes ruined by bias, prejudice, harrassment and hate.

Because of this, Sherlock as a gay show matters!

This is so painful, @tjlcisthenewsexy but so true. This is exactly the point of this show. Thank you for painting the truth so poignantly.

I mean. When you think of the sheer number of not-really-dead/communicating-beyond-the-grave/secret-deaths/plans-involving-faked-deaths/murders....

Yeah.

It’s a Real Pattern.

1. Fake suicides that are actually murders

2. Fake accidental drowning (actually a murder)

3. Fake flight full of dead people

4. Fake Death By Hound (actually a murder)

5. Fake murder in a car boot

6. Fake death to save friends

8. Fake death of a dominitrix

9. (Almost) murder of two soldiers (fake deaths)

10. Supposed death of former partner in crime

So, 11. Fake death of martyred assassin.

Not much of a deduction, really.

... this was in my drafts. For how long, I have no idea.

it really is, and it's in almost every episode! Bit of a theme.

ASIP, the murders disguised as suicides; TGG the "janus cars" fake death; ASIB irene fakes her death, possibly twice if sherlock really did fool mycroft at the end, plus the whole "bond air" scheme; THOB as you say; TRF don't remind me. S3 is full of fakery, so is s4. TAB revisits moriarty's supposed death in at least two versions. "mary" is fake from start to finish, including her "death". I get a bit twisted up when i try to connect this to the "murder=falling in love" metaphor.

“Inadmissible” (‘Sherlock’)

Moffat more or less told us, through the Culverton storyline in TLD, what’s going to happen, didn’t he?

The “inadmissible” part is particularly interesting!

(x)

Since Culverton in TLD made his ‘confession’ by Sherlock’s bedside, doesn’t that mean that John might make his (love) confession sitting by Sherlock’s bedside, too? Possibly while Sherlock is unconscious?

And afterwards everyone (the audience of this show) will treat this confession like it didn’t count (=was inadmissible). 

The audience, and ESPECIALLY those fans who weren’t too keen on a gay reading of the show to begin with, will claim that, “John didn’t mean it like that. It’s just bro-love. He just said, ‘I love you,’ because Sherlock was comatose and John felt desperate and overwhelmed by what was going on. There’s nothing gay about it. It doesn’t count as an actual love confession. This ‘love’ is just a bromance. This confession is ‘inadmissible’.” 

It’s possible that even Sherlock himself, who somehow will have heard that ‘confession’ despite being in a coma, that even Sherlock will keep telling himself that John’s confession ‘doesn’t count’ (=is inadmissible). Not for long, though…:)

But Moffat clearly told us that all of that noise and chatter by the usual suspects won’t matter. What will count is that, in the end, John won’t be able to stop himself from confessing over and over again.

That’s a nice explanation for Moffat’s choice of the word (‘inadmissible’) here, right?

This way we would, maybe, FIRST get a (subtle, half-hidden) love confession in one episode. And then get the real deal in a later episode. And in between those two, millions of viewers (including every stupid journalist ever) would explode and fall all over themselves trying to prove that that first confession was totally ‘inadmissible’, ie, didn’t point to John being in love. And then…baaam…the second one would happen.

Well, a guy can wish, can’t he?

@ebaeschnbliah @sarahthecoat @gosherlocked @possiblyimbiassed @raggedyblue @tjlcisthenewsexy @fellshish @88thparallel

Wonderful to hear from you again, @sagestreet  And I rally love your interpretation of ‘inadmissible’. The whole story feels extremely open, feels like something big is missing, alle the relevant mirrors point in the direction of a confession too. And after so many words ‘unspoken’ I would love to hear a lot of repetitions. The more, the better! :)))

@sherlockshadow

Thank you.:)

Aaand I’ve just remembered my own meta (x) from ages ago (*slaps self*) about Moriarty’s, “Did you miss me?” shtick.

And now I’m thinking that maybe John’s confession by Sherlock’s bedside won’t be an, “I love you.” 

Maybe it is that same, “Did you miss me?” line. (Possibly followed by a later admission of “Miss you,” etc.) 

I have argued before (in the aforementioned meta) that Moriarty’s, “Did you miss me?” is actually John’s voice speaking to a comatose Sherlock and tried to explain why it would make sense for Sherlock to imagine it’s Moriarty’s face saying this.

Maybe that, “Did you miss me?” line IS the bedside confession…I don’t know.

Oh, yes! @sagestreet  I highly agree and those ‘did you miss me’ / ‘miss you’ lines make all the sense in the world to me. They run throughout the whole story. Just like ‘I’m you’ and ‘you are me’. If Jim appears like the monstous hound from hell in THOB, there should be a simple dog hiding behind that hound … most likely RedBeard. RedBeard though is also closely connected to the well, to Eurus, to Victor and to John. RedBeard seems to be the centre point of the story. RedBeard connects all the main characters. John or James, James or John …. what if it shouldn’t be ‘or’ but ‘and’? If John represents friendship and love …  and Jim repressents sex ….. wouldn’t it be only logical that finally both characters have to melt into one as basis for a full-blown romantic and sexuell relationship? 

I don’t know either …. but I wonder …. :)

Oh yes neither saint nor sinner, because there is no sin.

And yes also for MISS ME, and “the bed side’s confession”, like a foreword for a properly love confession.

@sagestreet ​ @ebaeschnbliah

Interesting! Yes, I agree that ‘Did you miss me?’ does make sense as something John might say to a comatose Sherlock - at least if it’s said in a context that has to do with the two years when Sherlock was away pretending to be dead. As I tried to explain in my earlier answer to this post, I think John would only ‘confess’ things to Sherlock (perhaps even when the latter was comatose) that he would be able to kind of take back if needed; he would make his own confession ‘inadmissible’, in order to not risk having to come out without being absolutely sure about Sherlock’s true feelings for him. So even if it’s implying things, the question ‘Did you miss me?’ is still less compromising than openly admitting ‘I love you’. This is the little game John and Sherlock have been playing with each other for years, which is so devastating for their relationship, and I think Sherlock’s repression of emotions is at the root of it. Therefore, I believe, Sherlock is the one who will have to make a clear ‘i love you’ confession first. 

But it does seem as if Sherlock has picked up on the ‘miss me’ issue already in these scenes in HLV and TAB: 

Maybe he hears John say it with his subconscious, and turns the words around in his head into something else (like @sagestreet says in that meta)? 

@ebaeschnbliah @sarahthecoat @gosherlocked @raggedyblue @tjlcisthenewsexy @fellshish @88thparallel @sagestreet 

wow, yeah. And @ebaeschnbliah that “melting into one” idea has been on my mind for years too. Back when tptb were saying “expect the unexpected” about s4, i thought, what hasn’t been done in fic or meta? What if john & sherlock have to team up with “mary” and jim, to defeat some uber-villain? (not mycroft, too expected, try frank hudson)(oh, and then frank hudson got teased in that hangman pic) so anyway, since we have been reading the show metaphorically, it seems to be more and more about personal integration. To the point where sometimes it feels like, not only do “mary” and jim need to be incorporated into sherlock and john, but john and sherlock are starting to feel like different aspects of one being. OR maybe i have just been down this rabbit hole for too long!

and while we’re on “miss me”, isn’t that on one of “mary"s dvds as well? So now we have all four of them connected by that phrase.

Yes, @sarahthecoat  There’s a ‘miss me’ DVD in every single episode of S4. The one in TST is addressed to Sherlock. It’s the same DVD John finds near the end of TLD. In TFP another DVD is addressed to John. 

And lets not forget Jim’s message from the S4 DVD

And of course, Jim’s insistent voice over the speakers in Sherrinford

Missing …. semms to be a main theme of the story  … 

@gosherlocked @possiblyimbiassed @raggedyblue @sagestreet @sherlockshadow

@ebaeschnbliah, @possiblyimbiassed. @sarahthecoat, @raggedyblue, @sagestreet. @sherlockshadow:

Thank you for your inspiring thoughts. And I would go even further and wonder if the “Miss me/you” phrase in all its variations could be a sort of gauge for the reality of the story told. I know there are lots of different starting points for an EMP/coma, but HLV is one of them. And HLV is also the episode when this phrase is spoken for the first time in the show, i.e. in Jim’s video message. 

Btw, when checking the transcript I discovered that “miss you” is used on one other occasion - by “E” when texting John in the night. Well then. ;) 

That’s some interesting food for thought, @sarahthecoat, @ebaeschnbliah and @gosherlocked! Makes me wonder exactly why there are at least five different characters talking about others ‘missing’ them? Something here doesn’t make sense - let’s poke it with a stick! :)  The first character who brings it up is John in HLV, but his words don’t make much sense to me:

JOHN: Hey, what happened to my chair? SHERLOCK: It was blocking my view to the kitchen. JOHN:  Well,  it’s good to be missed. SHERLOCK: Well, you were gone. I saw an opportunity. JOHN: No, you saw the kitchen.

(Sorry about lengthy additions, I’m putting this one under the cut)

Keep reading

rb for discussion, wow, yes. And speaking of suffocation, didn't john use that word at the pink lady's crime scene in ASIP?

What happened to Sherlock? Part IV – Heartbreak and coma (2)

This is the second post of the fourth installment of my meta series where I try to use Sherlock’s own methods to find out what’s happened to him in the show; you can read the first one here. This is about my hypothesis #4: At some point in time between TSoT and HLV, Sherlock takes an overdose of drugs and ends up in coma. In the first post I tested a prediction to try to verify the coma part. Here are the remaining four predictions that I’ll test the same way, corresponding to the rest of my hypothesis. Since this post won’t make much sense unless you’ve read the first one, and since this is also a monster-post, I’ll put the whole thing under the cut, except for this picture of a comatose hospitalized Sherlock in TLD:

Disclaimer: If you feel the subject matter upsetting, please don’t read further - take care and stay safe! I also want to state that no matter what happens in S4 - like nurse Cornish said in TLD, I’m fully convinced Sherlock will survive this. He will pull through and solve The Final Problem - staying alive.

Keep reading

ah, i found part two, and made my way through it, wow, this really is spectacular!

i had a thought while reading the section about how much more attention is paid to the drugs than the gunshot wound. Mummy holmes says something about sherlock having just gotten out of hospital, when the "shooting" would have happened in either june or september, depending on whether the wedding was in may (invitation, maybe only a printers proof) or august (blog entry by sherlock). I have friends who have undergone open heart surgery for valve repair or replacement, I suppose that's less serious than getting shot, but they spent about a week or so actually in hospital, and then several more weeks recuperating at home, gradually increasing their activities. Even allowing for sherlock's more serious injuries, i doubt he spent 3-6 months in the ICU. I think it sounds more likely, if he OD'd during the week following the wedding, that he spent 3-6 months at a drug rehab. Or, that is the scenario he is imagining during "xmas at the Holmeses". If he is in a coma, then yeah, he is in a hospital unit (and who knows what the actual timeline is), but then not traipsing around in a helicopter.

I also wonder if the flophouse at the beginning of HLV is a metaphorical 221b, in some way, ie, how many steps does john go up to find isaac and sherlock? Could it be 17? has anyone counted? I could be out in left field here, or, that scene in HLV could be matching the one in TAB "morphine or cocaine" when john comes in.

you’ll never be able to convince me that the i owe you apple is not a dedication to alan turing and a promise that we will do better

turing’s death is also THE suicide-that-was-actually-murder

that would be brilliant.

Musings on A Study in Pink (2)

Part 2: ’You can’t have serial suicides’ – media, chain suicides, and social problems

TRIGGER WARNING: long discussions of suicide; image of a gun

Literally the whole of Part 2 is about suicide. If that is not what you want to read, close this tab and go look at some kittens. Take care of yourselves.

So here at the start of ASiP we have John Watson: recently invalided out of the army, the one place where he feels useful and respected. He is burdened by residual self-esteem and trust issues from his childhood. He is struggling – financially, mentally, physically – in a city that does not feel like home anymore. He has probably quite recently watched Sholto – the one he cares for, the one who has allowed him to embrace his sexuality to a fuller extent – fall from grace. In the news, people are committing suicides, albeit under suspicious circumstances.

What could possibly go wrong?

Keep reading

I did see this before, but I didn’t comment, this is taking the “murder disguised as suicide” to a whole nother level, wow.

It’s not suicide, it’s murder: WHY SHERLOCK IS DYING

**suicide tw

There’s a montage of deaths in ASiP…

We can’t see the cabbie, all we see is a person appearing to take their own life.

Sherlock knows that somehow these are murders not suicides, even if he doesn’t yet know how it was done.

What could be the subtext of a death that looks like suicide but is actually murder?

What about the reality that suicides in the LGBT population are 40% higher than in the non-LGBT population?  

“I do not think it far from wrong when I mention that at least half of the suicides of young men are due to this one circumstance” - John Addington Symonds (1840-1893)

If a person takes their own life due to depression directly caused by a heterocentric culture and institutionalized homophobia, then is it really suicide? Or is it murder?

The victims in ASiP were persuaded to take the pill. The cabbie never touched them. 

I don’t want to kill you Mr ‘olmes. I’m gonna to talk to yer, and you’re gonna kill yourself.

The idea of suicide is put in front of us by the implication that comes with prejudice; that we’re freaks, that we don’t belong, we’re faulty, or ill.

So the murderer (homophobic society) need only push the pill towards us. There were two bottles though, a good one and a bad one. So apparently there’s a way to stay alive. But there wasn’t for the cabbie’s victims. All of his targets, including Sherlock, somehow chose the poison pill. 

The choice was an illusion. Because while suicide is ultimately the decision of it’s victim, it’s a choice that was made for them by a society that forced their hand. It’s not suicide, it’s murder.

We see this over and over…

Looks like suicide but is actually murder: 

Regardless of what really happened, how Sherlock really survived the fall, the fact remains that he killed himself because he was persuaded to do it.

I don’t want to kill you Mr ‘olmes. I’m gonna to talk to yer, and you’re gonna kill yourself.

And again in HLV when Sherlock goes on a “suicide mission” that he was sent on as punishment, forced into a position where he had no choice but to accept “suicide”.

The death by suicide of millions of gay men and women throughout history is the real life tragedy that this subtext is referencing. It’s one of the reasons why Sherlock is dying, and why the show is a fairytale where true love will defeat the enemy that wants him dead.

Yes Anna! Yes this! Wonderful work. :)

This brought me to tears  @tjlcisthenewsexy! 

Think about 1895, the year Oscar Wilde, as a prominent victim, was murdered by society; he died a social death in that year, only to be followed by his physical extinction a few years later.

Think about people like Clive Durham in Maurice, who kind of committed suicide by repressing his true feelings only to end up in a dead, unhappy, loveless - but socially accepted - heterosexual marriage.

Or Alan Turing - only a few days back the British Government prevented the pardon of thousands of gay and bisexual men by outtalking the so-called Turing Law. The Government’s plan will only pardon dead gay men convicted for same sex offences - as if only death would make them worthy to be redeemed. In 2016!

But these are only some prominent cases - there are too many forgotten lifes ruined by bias, prejudice, harrassment and hate.

Because of this, Sherlock as a gay show matters!

This is so painful, @tjlcisthenewsexy but so true. This is exactly the point of this show. Thank you for painting the truth so poignantly.

YES @tjlcisthenewsexy - to all of it! I hadn’t seen this meta before, but this is exactly how I’ve been thinking about BBC Sherlock for a long time now. And even if this was written before S4, to me it fits perfectly with S4 as well. It’s the message that keeps popping up again and again in this show: suicide is referred to more often than murder in this supposed detective story, but it’s provoked by the villains, who represent society’s homophobia and heteronormativity. And this also emphasizes the need of a S5 where these things are finally dealt with.

Mirrored in TFP when the governor shoots himself…

Oh god you’re right 😭

i've been referring to this recently, folks may not have read the original.

Just some s4 thoughts

I just had some thoughts after replying to and reading a great meta about ASIB code by @possiblyimbiassed and the comments raised by @sarahthecoat but they are kind of unrelated and I didn’t want to derail the post so I just thought I’d put them here so I don’t forget them.

I mentioned in my reply to the ASiB code meta how much it bothers me that the girl in ASIB who comes to sherlock about not being able to see her grandad when he’s dead either is or looks a hell of a lot like the girl on the plane in tfp- and as @possiblyimbiassed pointed out for us the flight of the dead in ASiB is repeated in tfp, in a weird way. (Just read the meta if you haven’t it’s super good).

This just made me think… Mycroft said that plane should never fly and yet it is flying in tfp.

In TAB Mary goes off to a desanctified church on her own for no reason other than she thinks she’s found the answer… and in TST Sherlock meets Mary in a desanctified church or at least a derelict one (for literally no reason since when did he have a church hideout?) that location isn’t relevant to the plot so why are we shown it?

“Don’t appall me when I am high” says Sherlock in HLV to Mycroft. And then we get a whole episode- TLD- where Culverton does nothing but appall Sherlock when he is high.

Lady Elizabeth Smallwood- said super slow by CAM. S4 her name is Alicia now and she got over the death of her husband pretty quickly didn’t she? Even though we’ve been shown people grieving their spouses? TGG with Westie dying? John when Sherlock dies? But no it’s fine she’s forgotten about her husband and is ready to bang Mycroft?

We were shown redbeard is a dog in HLV and we are expected to believe it was actually a boy and sherlock forgot?! Even when he’s aware of this kind of coping mechanism because of Henry Knight and THoB! What does Henry try to do when he thinks there is no way out?? Errrr turn the gun on himself. Sherlock forces him to remember and not give in. But hey when Sherlock is asked to shoot Mycroft or John he turns the gun on himself? Like really what would have happened if he had just said no fuck off eurus? We have literally been shown that Sherlock does not think trying to kill yourself when you are under immense mental stress regarding your childhood is a good idea and yet he attempts it anyway.

I am sure that s4 is riddled with examples of stuff that we’ve been told isn’t possible/real/likely. I haven’t thought to look for them.

@sarahthecoat made an excellent point about Turing’s death being murder disguised as suicide and that having huge links to ASIP. Which then just made me think of that fucking chess promo pic that the bbc shat themselves about being released. Well I don’t know about you but every time I see a chess board, and certainly when I saw that promo, I heard “it’s not chance Mr Holmes, it’s chess”. Which all of a sudden gave it a new meaning to me… because id literally just had the thought I outlined above about the little girl on the plane and tfp- it isn’t chance it’s chess. It’s calculated. “Moftiss forgot how to write” nope… it’s chess.

How many times had Jeff Hope played? FOUR. And was he still alive? Yes! The 4th murder went a bit wrong for him- the victim managed to leave a coded note. And by his 5th target (Sherlock) he loses because he gets caught on. If s4 is our coded note, maybe it’s enough to overthrow our sneaky murderer who makes it look like suicide?

Anyway I dunno? Open to discussion!

yep. Seems like in s4, every chance they got, they did something opposite, at least on the surface. Or else confirmed, subtextually, any of the codes we had figured out earlier.

@tjlcisthenewsexy wrote the "murder disguised as suicide" meta, and it's a good one. I should check to make sure it's in #the new semester folder, even though it's from a while back.