The use of ‘Verisimilitude’ to create false theory... or are the writers using this to fuck us up?

I know, I know. Just hold your horses here and lets fall down a rabbit hole.

Wiki explains: Verisimilitude (or truthlikeness) is a philosophical concept that distinguishes between the relative and apparent (or seemingly so) truth and falsity of assertions and hypotheses. The problem of verisimilitude is the problem of articulating what it takes for one false theory to be closer to the truth than another false theory.

In Holmes pastiche the use of a False Document is often in play.

Wiki explains: a false document is a technique employed to create verisimilitude in a work of fiction. By inventing and inserting documents that appear to be factual, an author tries to create a sense of authenticity beyond the normal and expected suspension of disbelief for a work of art. The goal of a false document is to convince an audience that what is being presented is factual.

A prime example of false document in a Holmes pastiche is TPLoSH, as we are introduced to the story by having the documents Watson left to his heirs [Rosie] discovered and they form the basis of an ‘untold canon story’ being released to the world. Mark and Steven in BBC Sherlock stated that their ‘truth’, their ‘template’ for their AU was based on their choice of false theory, verisimilitude, of a gay Holmes versus the other countless number of pastiche that theorise Holmes is straight and celibate, straight but has occasional trysts with Adler, or asexual. So BBC Sherlock is the fruit of a false document. I think Rosie may be the personification of this as her existence makes little sense in the overall plot of the show, yet is fundamental if the writers want to lay a trail back to TPLoSH.

Another use of false document in Holmesian pastiche is the work of Nicholas Meyer. He favours the ‘Lost Manuscript’ trope, a common false document, for his books. In The Seven-Per-Cent-Solution introduction, Myer uses the false document and states that The Final Problem and The Empty House were fabricated by Watson in order to cover up the events about to be told in the book, basically Sherlock facing his demons with a therapist and recovering from addiction. So two theories now in play, do you believe the canon, or is this the real story? Which theory sounds better and more true? So let’s pause here: The Final Problem and Empty House were fiction not factual according to a false document in Meyer’s work? They were just covering up Sherlock’s psychological journey to recovery? Could our TFP be the same? 

Meyer’s The Canary Trainer is another ‘lost manuscript’ false document. This time covering an adventure during Holmes Hiatus [due to recovery from drugs versus a fake death] and in which Holmes tries to replace Watson with a young Parisean, and has the icky affair in Montenegro with Irene Adler [yuk!] Do NOT read this book. However there are a few mentions of canary trainer in our show. I think one was in TFP wasn’t it? A clue to false theories being thrown our way? 

Finally in The West End Horror, Meyer opens with the ‘false document’ in the guise of a forward saying that a manuscript was brought to him by a female relative of Vernet [hello Eurus??? Miss me?] 

Anyway, moving on, I think we have false documents utilised in series 4, yes, you guessed them: Faith’s document written under the influence of the memory drug [the ultimate false document] which a few years later fell into the hand of the non-existent mad sister. John’s note which we never see, never know it’s contents, we just presume what it says due to Molly’s comments on handing it to Sherlock. And Mary’s out of character letter to John is another. These documents are to convince the audience that what we are seeing on screen is factual. Yet this theory when we compare it to the show’s previous theory of a gay Sherlock, bi John, two men in love, two inseparable men, one a devoted protector to his very core,……if we have to engage verisimilitude here, then the theory closer to the truth of canon is not the one proposed in series 4 of Sherlock. The original BBC Sherlock series 1- 3 plus TAB theory made more sense, based on the canon, and it was closer to the truth. 

Please add onto this if I shake any ideas loose. That canary trainer mention is haunting me. Also the crimes in The West End Horror, @isitandwonder are very akin to The Ripper crimes we were discussing last night. Could we see Smith and Faith in any of this? The West End Horror does include the character of Dr Moore Agar borrowed from The Devil’s Foot and is one of the cases in canon Watson ‘may some day recount’. You know me, any Devil’s Foot links are welcome. Thanks to @chocolate-nogged for her prompt to look at The West End Horror and Canary Trainer for clues.

@welovethebeekeeper I think you have your finger on the pulse… and the exercise in identifying false documents in S4 alone is staggering. Within the opening minutes, we have D-Notice and security footage; John’s jpeg blog post; Sherlock’s tweets (same visual treatment as John actively typing his blog previously); E’s phone number because the murkiness of Eurus’ identity; AGRA drives; Mary’s DVDs, and John/Faith’s note and memory as you mentioned. Then, almost inevitably, we arrive at TFP. But all this were built up from day one – by including John and Sherlock’s blogs, the on-screen treatment of texted messages, the images of newspaper and tv news footage as part of the narrative. The evolution has to be deliberate.

The connection to Language philosopher Steve Neale’s two types of verisimilitudes is incredibly compelling as well: cultural verisimilitude, the plausibility of the fictional work within the cultural and/or historical context of the real world, outside of the work; and generic verisimilitude, the plausibility of a fictional work within the bounds of its own genre. TFP is essentially a study in generic verisimilitude – Sherlock Holmes in many ways is its own genre, and regardless of our individual view re: Sherlock, detective mystery and horror generally don’t share the same conventions. The question, then, is why present to us this blatant crossover.

For Sherlock Holmes, queerness is never a monster. But for the genre of Sherlock Holmes, the mere mention of a queer relationship between Holmes and Watson is considered monstrous by many mainstream Holmesian societies. Our Sherlock was “trained” to forget about Redbeard, and it’s taken the monster in detective mysteries, three serial killers (the cabbie, Jack the Ripper, Culverton Smith), and a parody of Sherlock as a horror film, for us to get to this point:

“Then I restore the settings. Everyone assumes it was a fault, or you just gave up the ghost.” Culverton Smith likely is a mirror to Sherlock’s “therapist” during his years in the padded cell, but this time Sherlock survived – because he prevented further “virus” from re-entering the special wing of his mind palace (memory of his past) while John arrived just in time.

Who’s the canary trainer, then? The person that’s been telling Sherlock to repeat the same story, to sing the same tune?

“All lives end. All hearts are broken. Caring is not an advantage, Sherlock.” {x}

This study in generic verisimilitude is a commentary of the cultural verisimilitude of Sherlock Holmes and Sherlock – in moving Sherlock Holmes and John Watson to the 21st century, the plausibility of a queer relationship between Sherlock and John is much closer to the truth than their Victorian counterparts. And yet, here we are. If it weren’t for a sudden epiphany while rewatching TBB yesterday, and our discussions with @isitandwonder about Jack the Ripper, I’m not sure I can arrive at this conclusion.

So what’s next? My tinfoil-hat-wearing-self wants the clue about The Woman to mean something. But honestly, who knows? Series 5?

I wrote a VERY long meta over the weekend dealing with the meaning of the shitty narrative of s4 and especially TFP. Perhaps it will be ready for publication tomorrow. But I’m quite sure this isn’t just bad writing - it means something. My main question was: who’s the narrator?

@isitandwonder The answer I think is EVERYONE. It’s mixed narrators, just as in pastiche. They have thrown it all at us. Sherlock, John, Mary, Moriarty, Mycroft, are all in there. It’s chaos. They want to rug pull and they gave us insane wishfullfillment of everyone, of all the characters, of the fandom, of Holmesians, of the writers of pastiche. I know it sounds mad, but I think they went for chaos. 

Interesting discussion. I felt when watching S3, that those episodes were veering away from what felt like “sherlock holmes stories”, and S4 went right into the ditch. TAB worked for me, and I’m not entirely sure why. Maybe just having been well prepped with Heimish’s Ghost Stories are Gay Stories meta?

I like that you raise the different kinds of verisimilitude. There are things we are willing to accept in a Sherlock Holmes episode even though we know they don’t happen “in real life”, but other things, which they seem to be doing more and more of, not only don’t happen in real life, but throw us right out of the story too.

@fallingorlanding thanks for delving in and bringing ttis back. i knew it looked familiar, so i followed my own note back to this rb that also includes furher discussion.

The use of ‘Verisimilitude’ to create false theory... or are the writers using this to fuck us up?

I know, I know. Just hold your horses here and lets fall down a rabbit hole.

Wiki explains: Verisimilitude (or truthlikeness) is a philosophical concept that distinguishes between the relative and apparent (or seemingly so) truth and falsity of assertions and hypotheses. The problem of verisimilitude is the problem of articulating what it takes for one false theory to be closer to the truth than another false theory.

In Holmes pastiche the use of a False Document is often in play.

Wiki explains: a false document is a technique employed to create verisimilitude in a work of fiction. By inventing and inserting documents that appear to be factual, an author tries to create a sense of authenticity beyond the normal and expected suspension of disbelief for a work of art. The goal of a false document is to convince an audience that what is being presented is factual.

A prime example of false document in a Holmes pastiche is TPLoSH, as we are introduced to the story by having the documents Watson left to his heirs [Rosie] discovered and they form the basis of an ‘untold canon story’ being released to the world. Mark and Steven in BBC Sherlock stated that their ‘truth’, their ‘template’ for their AU was based on their choice of false theory, verisimilitude, of a gay Holmes versus the other countless number of pastiche that theorise Holmes is straight and celibate, straight but has occasional trysts with Adler, or asexual. So BBC Sherlock is the fruit of a false document. I think Rosie may be the personification of this as her existence makes little sense in the overall plot of the show, yet is fundamental if the writers want to lay a trail back to TPLoSH.

Another use of false document in Holmesian pastiche is the work of Nicholas Meyer. He favours the ‘Lost Manuscript’ trope, a common false document, for his books. In The Seven-Per-Cent-Solution introduction, Myer uses the false document and states that The Final Problem and The Empty House were fabricated by Watson in order to cover up the events about to be told in the book, basically Sherlock facing his demons with a therapist and recovering from addiction. So two theories now in play, do you believe the canon, or is this the real story? Which theory sounds better and more true? So let’s pause here: The Final Problem and Empty House were fiction not factual according to a false document in Meyer’s work? They were just covering up Sherlock’s psychological journey to recovery? Could our TFP be the same? 

Meyer’s The Canary Trainer is another ‘lost manuscript’ false document. This time covering an adventure during Holmes Hiatus [due to recovery from drugs versus a fake death] and in which Holmes tries to replace Watson with a young Parisean, and has the icky affair in Montenegro with Irene Adler [yuk!] Do NOT read this book. However there are a few mentions of canary trainer in our show. I think one was in TFP wasn’t it? A clue to false theories being thrown our way? 

Finally in The West End Horror, Meyer opens with the ‘false document’ in the guise of a forward saying that a manuscript was brought to him by a female relative of Vernet [hello Eurus??? Miss me?] 

Anyway, moving on, I think we have false documents utilised in series 4, yes, you guessed them: Faith’s document written under the influence of the memory drug [the ultimate false document] which a few years later fell into the hand of the non-existent mad sister. John’s note which we never see, never know it’s contents, we just presume what it says due to Molly’s comments on handing it to Sherlock. And Mary’s out of character letter to John is another. These documents are to convince the audience that what we are seeing on screen is factual. Yet this theory when we compare it to the show’s previous theory of a gay Sherlock, bi John, two men in love, two inseparable men, one a devoted protector to his very core,……if we have to engage verisimilitude here, then the theory closer to the truth of canon is not the one proposed in series 4 of Sherlock. The original BBC Sherlock series 1- 3 plus TAB theory made more sense, based on the canon, and it was closer to the truth. 

Please add onto this if I shake any ideas loose. That canary trainer mention is haunting me. Also the crimes in The West End Horror, @isitandwonder are very akin to The Ripper crimes we were discussing last night. Could we see Smith and Faith in any of this? The West End Horror does include the character of Dr Moore Agar borrowed from The Devil’s Foot and is one of the cases in canon Watson ‘may some day recount’. You know me, any Devil’s Foot links are welcome. Thanks to @chocolate-nogged for her prompt to look at The West End Horror and Canary Trainer for clues.

@welovethebeekeeper I think you have your finger on the pulse… and the exercise in identifying false documents in S4 alone is staggering. Within the opening minutes, we have D-Notice and security footage; John’s jpeg blog post; Sherlock’s tweets (same visual treatment as John actively typing his blog previously); E’s phone number because the murkiness of Eurus’ identity; AGRA drives; Mary’s DVDs, and John/Faith’s note and memory as you mentioned. Then, almost inevitably, we arrive at TFP. But all this were built up from day one – by including John and Sherlock’s blogs, the on-screen treatment of texted messages, the images of newspaper and tv news footage as part of the narrative. The evolution has to be deliberate.

The connection to Language philosopher Steve Neale’s two types of verisimilitudes is incredibly compelling as well: cultural verisimilitude, the plausibility of the fictional work within the cultural and/or historical context of the real world, outside of the work; and generic verisimilitude, the plausibility of a fictional work within the bounds of its own genre. TFP is essentially a study in generic verisimilitude – Sherlock Holmes in many ways is its own genre, and regardless of our individual view re: Sherlock, detective mystery and horror generally don’t share the same conventions. The question, then, is why present to us this blatant crossover.

For Sherlock Holmes, queerness is never a monster. But for the genre of Sherlock Holmes, the mere mention of a queer relationship between Holmes and Watson is considered monstrous by many mainstream Holmesian societies. Our Sherlock was “trained” to forget about Redbeard, and it’s taken the monster in detective mysteries, three serial killers (the cabbie, Jack the Ripper, Culverton Smith), and a parody of Sherlock as a horror film, for us to get to this point:

“Then I restore the settings. Everyone assumes it was a fault, or you just gave up the ghost.” Culverton Smith likely is a mirror to Sherlock’s “therapist” during his years in the padded cell, but this time Sherlock survived – because he prevented further “virus” from re-entering the special wing of his mind palace (memory of his past) while John arrived just in time.

Who’s the canary trainer, then? The person that’s been telling Sherlock to repeat the same story, to sing the same tune?

“All lives end. All hearts are broken. Caring is not an advantage, Sherlock.” {x}

This study in generic verisimilitude is a commentary of the cultural verisimilitude of Sherlock Holmes and Sherlock – in moving Sherlock Holmes and John Watson to the 21st century, the plausibility of a queer relationship between Sherlock and John is much closer to the truth than their Victorian counterparts. And yet, here we are. If it weren’t for a sudden epiphany while rewatching TBB yesterday, and our discussions with @isitandwonder about Jack the Ripper, I’m not sure I can arrive at this conclusion.

So what’s next? My tinfoil-hat-wearing-self wants the clue about The Woman to mean something. But honestly, who knows? Series 5?

I wrote a VERY long meta over the weekend dealing with the meaning of the shitty narrative of s4 and especially TFP. Perhaps it will be ready for publication tomorrow. But I’m quite sure this isn’t just bad writing - it means something. My main question was: who’s the narrator?

@isitandwonder The answer I think is EVERYONE. It’s mixed narrators, just as in pastiche. They have thrown it all at us. Sherlock, John, Mary, Moriarty, Mycroft, are all in there. It’s chaos. They want to rug pull and they gave us insane wishfullfillment of everyone, of all the characters, of the fandom, of Holmesians, of the writers of pastiche. I know it sounds mad, but I think they went for chaos. 

Interesting discussion. I felt when watching S3, that those episodes were veering away from what felt like “sherlock holmes stories”, and S4 went right into the ditch. TAB worked for me, and I’m not entirely sure why. Maybe just having been well prepped with Heimish’s Ghost Stories are Gay Stories meta?

I like that you raise the different kinds of verisimilitude. There are things we are willing to accept in a Sherlock Holmes episode even though we know they don’t happen “in real life”, but other things, which they seem to be doing more and more of, not only don’t happen in real life, but throw us right out of the story too.