I Hear of Sherlock Everywhere: Benedict Cumberbatch

Showing posts with label Benedict Cumberbatch. Show all posts

Smart Women Don't Have To Be Evil

<h4 style="text-align: center;">
<b>"</b>She was as good as she was beautiful, and as intelligent as she was good.<b>" [MISS]</b> </h4>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiE1QL2BdkUWsYYNe9h2VEUuIuy1TINBPgMJkHIdTzmycqQyYQPQOZQ5rnSGhtnaYvNNj_wi40CIvL_pfOS4izy0DGCW9j9Bjw2cNDzf7YL9e8VtXpXTHBHFAnc9QguyrS9IyuZLRbZ74EE/s1600/Nobl-07.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="284" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiE1QL2BdkUWsYYNe9h2VEUuIuy1TINBPgMJkHIdTzmycqQyYQPQOZQ5rnSGhtnaYvNNj_wi40CIvL_pfOS4izy0DGCW9j9Bjw2cNDzf7YL9e8VtXpXTHBHFAnc9QguyrS9IyuZLRbZ74EE/s640/Nobl-07.jpg" width="640" /></a></div>
<br />
One of the things I love most about BBC's <i>Sherlock</i> is Benedict Cumberbatch. Sorry, I meant, Benedict Cumberbatch. Darn it all. I need to fix this auto-correct. Let me start again.<br />
<br />
One of the things I love most about BBC's <i>Sherlock </i>is that it has featured some of the most fascinating female characters I have seen on television. You have Mrs. Hudson, the matron of Baker Street, you have Mary, you have Molly, whom I featured <a href="http://www.ihearofsherlock.com/2017/01/molly-hooper-and-romanticizing-of.html">in my last post</a>, Eurus, who came on the scene rather suddenly, and of course you have, well, <a href="http://ihose.co/ihose41" target="_blank"><i>the</i> Woman</a>. There is a problem, though. The smarter the woman on <i>Sherlock</i>, the more likely it is that she has, at best, a checkered past. Maybe more like a crazy quilt past and a checkered present.<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiA-MTgrrefjV61nuxKlSa6j5MROxQ-_rg6l4BdK8fZVj10SCOf0_vYCncFUX8XTg1L2F8zRguoFQeSeYZ6ObpRy__1S7EGgp0x3ueXBDr3hrTEX4fylFRwCwpKcRIFsUG721QjBiGSgPak/s1600/ABOM+-+Mary+Morstan.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="400" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiA-MTgrrefjV61nuxKlSa6j5MROxQ-_rg6l4BdK8fZVj10SCOf0_vYCncFUX8XTg1L2F8zRguoFQeSeYZ6ObpRy__1S7EGgp0x3ueXBDr3hrTEX4fylFRwCwpKcRIFsUG721QjBiGSgPak/s400/ABOM+-+Mary+Morstan.jpg" width="266" /></a></div>
<br />
<h3>
<b>"You see, but you do not observe." [SCAN]</b></h3>
Irene Adler is a fascinating female character because she uniquely combines femininity and sexuality with power. This is something many writers, of books and of visual drama, tend to avoid, because, well, that's just too much! Given her uniqueness, the writers could have framed Irene Adler to be a force for good, and it would not have weakened her character in the slightest. With the royal family and other top names at her beck and call, Irene Adler could have used her power to bring warring factions to a peace summit if she had wanted.<br />
<br />
Instead, the writers made the Woman manipulative, weak, devious, and generally a sour character. While I suppose her infatuation with Sherlock is meant to show her complexity, the fact remains that she is one of the few characters in the show who is able to match wits with Sherlock, and she even beats him. Why must she come across as a villain rather than a hero?<br />
<br />
The same sad truth applies to Eurus. The idea of a Holmes sibling even smarter than Sherlock and Mycroft was exciting, but it seems that in this world, the more brilliant a woman is, the more psychotic she must be. In fairness, Sherlock certainly represents a parallel between genius and psychosis, but John is his foil, and as such is very smart but not as manipulative and devilish. Eurus is supposed to be the most brilliant character in the Sherlock universe, but she also proves to be the most disruptive and evil. The writers easily could have had her cast away in a convent instead of a top secret asylum. She could have used her mind control powers for good, or she could have separated herself from her brothers in the interest of being kinder to humanity.<br />
<br />
Finally, there is Mary. While I would not say that she is a genius in the same way as the Woman, and certainly not in the same way as Eurus, she is another woman who can meet Sherlock where he is on his mental plane. She can also confidently call John and Sherlock on their crap. Yet when push comes to shove, even Mary proves to have a dark and shadowy past, complete with a fake identity and mad ninja skills. She is smart, powerful, clever, and more, but in the end she just proves to be another woman with personality issues.<br />
<br />
<h3>
<b>"I never make exceptions. An exception disproves the rule." [SIGN]</b></h3>
In fact, there are two notable exceptions to this theme of smart women having no choice but to be evil. Molly Hooper must be smart since she works as a medical scientist, but she is presented as being slightly flighty, awkward, unsure of herself, and naive. This is as disappointing as the smart women who must be evil in order to show off their knowledge. It would be wonderful to see Molly rattle off some of her knowledge to shut up John or Sherlock. You get the feeling that she is brilliant, but for some reason the writers do not let her present that way.<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjlZb4HFwpgguK2tE0WCW-4PrkqDt_2o1GQRMD1crNSUk8-UUDQV8CUWyFPZBkHZJ2E1GQUvvr5vOFqfEFtLuxKigmbOyrZR9i7EKtkZxPL_St1898Kv8fzaHTwswko_PNsRJOG1GGN1Lr1/s1600/ABOM+-+Mrs.+Hudson.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="400" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjlZb4HFwpgguK2tE0WCW-4PrkqDt_2o1GQRMD1crNSUk8-UUDQV8CUWyFPZBkHZJ2E1GQUvvr5vOFqfEFtLuxKigmbOyrZR9i7EKtkZxPL_St1898Kv8fzaHTwswko_PNsRJOG1GGN1Lr1/s400/ABOM+-+Mrs.+Hudson.jpg" width="266" /></a></div>
<br />
<br />
The other exception is Mrs. Hudson, who seems likewise to be somewhat flighty and perhaps ignorant of her surroundings, yet she falls more into the miscreant category with her gangster husband and her sordid history. The car introduced at the end of the last series seemed unnecessary, and I am still not really sure what the writers were trying to prove or suggest with that scene. Does Mrs. Hudson need to be "racy" in order to be an interesting female character?<br />
<br />
I would love for the writers of <i>Sherlock </i>to give us a female character who is smart, clever, maybe a little weird, but who is able to match John and Sherlock's wits without being a murderous lunatic. Is that so much to ask?<br />
<br />
--<br />
<br />

Smart Women Don't Have To Be Evil

" She was as good as she was beautiful, and as intelligent as she was good. " [MISS] One of the things I love most about BB...

+ Read more »

by Margie Clayman

Molly Hooper and the Romanticizing of Emotional Abuse

<h4 style="text-align: center;">
"You have been cruelly used" [SPEC] </h4>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhBVmLHK7ko7WMYDpvzZBHuYPTyBTqYEPsef_xI-W7GY3_VYIsCAJfwtut7sDvRXwPPolHdbFkrUUmdQ5tcP9sI8XEKiJnQFNNBeti4BgU-_eJpVTYN3-ZhmjMcjORozs8Hysrgwrpz-d06/s1600/Baker+Street+skul+and+wallpaper.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="360" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhBVmLHK7ko7WMYDpvzZBHuYPTyBTqYEPsef_xI-W7GY3_VYIsCAJfwtut7sDvRXwPPolHdbFkrUUmdQ5tcP9sI8XEKiJnQFNNBeti4BgU-_eJpVTYN3-ZhmjMcjORozs8Hysrgwrpz-d06/s640/Baker+Street+skul+and+wallpaper.jpg" width="640" /></a></div>
<br />
When I first started watching <i>Sherlock</i>, I was of course taken by Benedict Cumberbatch’s portrayal. Sherlock was mysterious, outwardly a jerk, and otherwise unappealing, but there were little touches, little hints, that indicated he might be redeemable, at least on the inside. I was able to completely gloss over his obviously manipulative treatment of Molly Hooper, and I think that was the desired effect. Molly was a sort of awkward little mouse of a woman, Sherlock was conniving and an admitted sociopath, so their interaction was bound to not be ideal. <br />
<br />
<div>
After watching "The Final Problem," however, I began to reconsider the treatment of the character of Molly Hooper from the beginning of the series to the unsatisfying and dismal end, and I realized that in effect, Gatiss and Moffat created a scenario in which viewers were tricked into lusting after what was actually an emotionally abusive dynamic between Sherlock and Molly. <br />
<br />
<h3>
"Holmes had, when he liked, a peculiarly ingratiating way with women" [SECO] </h3>
Throughout the first season, you can see clear evidence of this facet of emotional abuse between Sherlock and Molly.  In case you  are not well-versed in the verbiage of emotional abuse, “love bombing” (which can also be called the honeymoon stage) is when the abuser will offer compliments, often directly tied to wanting something. After they get what they want they cycle back to devaluing/demoralizing their victim.<br />
<br />
Perhaps the best example of this occurs in the episode “The Blind Banker.” Sherlock asks Molly to “wheel out” Eddie Van Coon and Brian Lukis so he can reexamine the cadavers, but Molly informs him the paperwork on the bodies has already been completed. At that point, Sherlock notes that Molly has changed her hair and he encourages her by saying, “No it’s good. It suits you better this way.” Molly then proceeds to do what Sherlock wants.<br />
<br />
Sherlock perpetually insults Molly as part of the devaluing cycle. He tells her, for example, that talking is not her strong suit. In “The Great Game,” the episode directly following “The Blind Banker,” Sherlock insinuates that Molly has gained weight since she started dating her new boyfriend “Jim.” This, incidentally, is another tact emotionally abusive people use to keep their victims off guard. Sherlock drops little treats for Molly but never fulfills her wishes. However, he gives her an equally hard time when she tries to form relationships with other men.<br />
<br />
<h3>
"no ghosts need apply" [SUSS]</h3>
Another aspect of emotional abuse that appears in Sherlock is what is known as ghosting. In “The Empty Hearse,” Sherlock asks Molly to work with him, but throughout almost the entire time they work together, he continues to call her John. One could argue that this simply is to re-establish how close he is with John, but in the context of the entire dynamic between Sherlock and Molly, that feature in the episode takes on more disturbing undertones.<br />
<br />
<h3>
“I am bound to say” [WIST] </h3>
This all takes us to that now much-discussed part of the finale, where Sherlock must make Molly tell him she loves him. There are almost too many problems with these scene to explain. To put it succinctly, Molly is encouraged by Sherlock to finally make herself fully vulnerable, even though she knows, after all of the abuse he has heaped upon her and all of the manipulation he has done, that she will not get anything out of it. He forces her to voice her feelings, but she gets no reward for being emotionally brave. Instead, he hangs up, and she is left with the final proof that he does not have the same feelings for her. Her hopes are crushed as just a minor part of the episode, which almost feels like emotional abuse from the writers themselves.<br />
<br />
<br />
Molly Hooper is an obviously clever woman, sweet, thoughtful, and caring. She is the perfect target for a sociopath like Sherlock, but viewers are led to be forgiving, and even sympathetic, of Sherlock. “That’s just how he is.” In the process, we are saying that treating women in this manner is acceptable and something to be shrugged off, especially if the abuser is attractive and clever.<br />
<br />
Do we really want to perpetuate that way of thinking?<br />
<br />
<br />
<i>Image credit: <a href="https://flic.kr/p/FEftYi" target="_blank">Zuza Ritt (Flickr)</a></i><br />
<br />
--<br />
<br /></div>

Molly Hooper and the Romanticizing of Emotional Abuse

"You have been cruelly used" [SPEC] When I first started watching Sherlock , I was of course taken by Benedict Cumberbatch’s...

+ Read more »

by Margie Clayman

Sherlock Series 4 — That's a Wrap

<h4 style="text-align: center;">
"a glimpse of a great heart as well as of a great brain." [3GAR]</h4>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiMcbDNdLcJn083vMySm-ULaRJb_HmZcDVytx1h0ZNcWUBjmr_hVIKqiK9wOaWmlC52y6E9EeBRFp1p3AymekO_QCl6MGjqNTkGI7NAGxmEKfbfpbXDX5Tt5uUgrW2ZbHYpacFnxcIuDKNs/s1600/Sherlock+-+Series+4+finale.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="480" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiMcbDNdLcJn083vMySm-ULaRJb_HmZcDVytx1h0ZNcWUBjmr_hVIKqiK9wOaWmlC52y6E9EeBRFp1p3AymekO_QCl6MGjqNTkGI7NAGxmEKfbfpbXDX5Tt5uUgrW2ZbHYpacFnxcIuDKNs/s640/Sherlock+-+Series+4+finale.jpg" width="640" /></a></div>
<br />
[<b><i>Editor's Note:</i></b> this is the 14th in the series of reviews we're sharing on Sherlock Series 4. And spoilers? Yeah, we got that.]<br />
<br />
After six years, Sherlock Holmes’ journey is complete. Series 4 of the hit BBC series has come and gone amid rumors that this latest offering could be the very last we see of the detective’s famed modern incarnation. “The Six Thatchers,” “The Lying Detective,” and “The Final Problem” represent the culmination of a six-year-old story, and in a way that recalls the very best of Sir Arthur Conan Doyle, these tales give us a rollicking, powerful ending that still manages to toss out all of the viewer’s lingering preconceptions.<br />
<br />
<div>
If you come into this crop of episodes expecting to be entertained by intricate Holmesian plots, you may emerge from your viewing with disappointment. There is <i>a lot</i> going on in this season—along with trying to solve the overarching mystery of Moriarty’s continued appearances from the afterlife, Sherlock and John must confront the unspeakable tragedy of Mary Watson’s death and unravel the secrets of the previously unknown Holmes sister, Eurus. All of these storylines are compelling to follow, but the sheer amount of material that has to be covered sometimes reduces the impact of the individual episodes themselves.<br />
<br />
The strongest standalone tale of the bunch is certainly “The Lying Detective;” in addition to possessing the best single-episode villain in the entire series' history, Toby Jones’s chilling Culverton Smith, our main characters both have time to solve a case and cope with their traumas. In contrast, “The Six Thatchers” and “The Final Problem” race through their scenes at breakneck speeds, leaving fewer quiet moments for the audience to savor even as they create almost unbearable dramatic tension.<br />
<br /></div>
<div>
While some of the plots are slightly jumbled, there are still plenty of delights to be found throughout all three episodes. As always, the performances are top-notch; Benedict Cumberbatch and Martin Freeman brilliantly infuse Holmes and Watson with believable shades of ambiguity that challenge our perceptions of the famed heroes. And, as in “The Abominable Bride,” the women of the show get another opportunity to shine. Even as a figment of John’s imagination, Amanda Abbington is a heartbreaking delight as Mary Watson. Series newcomer Sian Brooke steals every scene she’s in, making Eurus Holmes a singular creation that is equal parts terrifying and pitiable. And Una Stubbs may have just cemented herself as the definitive on-screen Mrs. Hudson, bestowing the beloved landlady with an indomitable spirit and the driving skills of James Bond.<br />
<br /></div>
<div>
<h3>
"with special reference" [LADY]</h3>
A furor has recently been raised about this series’ similarities to the Bond films, but I actually find the season’s referential nature to be a strong point in its favor. <i>Sherlock</i> has never been shy about drawing upon outside influences, but it’s fun to see the writers stretch beyond the Basil Rathbone canon and instead incorporate elements from Bond, <i>The Silence of the Lambs</i>, and even Batman’s Arkham Asylum. What makes them all work is that these sources once drew from Sherlock Holmes; now, the show is returning the favor while still maintaining a distinctly Holmesian twist in re-adaptation.<br />
<br />
Even after brawling over a bust of Margaret Thatcher, Sherlock still finds it necessary to dramatically announce that he’s found the Black Pearl of the Borgias with a wording that doesn’t sound too far removed from the actual canonical text. Instead of engaging in a philosophical prison debate à la Batman and the Joker in <i>The Dark Knight</i>, Eurus torments her brother by demanding a violin performance from her jail cell. Steven Moffat and Mark Gatiss have always pushed the boundaries of how adaptations can pay tribute to and innovate their source materials, and their experiments in this respect continue to be an entertaining spectacle to witness and analyze.<br />
<h3>
<br />"pray what remains for you?"</h3>
</div>
<div>
But perhaps the largest success to come out of series four is in its resolution. I was keenly aware as I was watching “The Final Problem” that I was witnessing an ending that had been building since “A Study in Pink,” and one that has always been reflected in the title of the show. When we were first introduced to Sherlock way back in 2010, he was a high-functioning sociopath who couldn’t even understand why someone would be distraught over losing a child. He was prickly, irascible, petty, and brilliant—even Greg Lestrade couldn’t deny that he was great and terrible. But it quickly became clear that the show’s goal wasn’t to see Sherlock achieve further illustriousness; if they had wanted to associate him with greatness from the start, the title would have been <i>Sherlock Holmes</i>, which would have instantly aligned this version of the character with his iconic legacy. <i>Sherlock</i> was not fully formed—it demanded evolution.</div>
<div>
<br />
This season was not the climax of the entire series’ plot; it was its emotional apex. Sherlock’s character transformation was wrenching and revelatory in these three episodes—he finally saw the disastrous consequences of giving into his own ego. Instead of lapsing into drug use to stave off his own boredom, Sherlock went to hell and back in service of a friend. This character finally was able to be there for other people—he hugged the bereft John Watson; he was able to bring Eurus Holmes down to earth by promising to be by her side, not through a series of dazzling deductions. Greg Lestrade could smile when he realized that his hope from six years ago had been realized.<br />
<br />
Instead of being great, Sherlock Holmes finally became good this season. If it turns out there are more journeys with him ahead of us, I know I will look forward to seeing what they will be like with the good detective and his best friend.<br />
<br />
--<br />
<br /></div>

Sherlock Series 4 — That's a Wrap

"a glimpse of a great heart as well as of a great brain." [3GAR] [ Editor's Note: this is the 14th in the series of revi...

+ Read more »

by Unknown

Sherlock Series 4 — An Improbable Truth

<h4 style="text-align: center;">
<b>"a good many of us
may wither before its blast" [LAST] </b></h4>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhZT_OerjSfdVzTmcxpBqktR4vj8SGUTEQng-X0vowSJ1IHQPIH5TseJaZj8U9sDKB5lrinJfkqyYQ9Niu_eaav7pOWtuwuN2pr6h-tpz7WepJ1n28Sn_xamBvWmH4xRm5N1Vs08qSC7bEW/s1600/Sherlock+-+Series+4+explosion.PNG" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="356" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhZT_OerjSfdVzTmcxpBqktR4vj8SGUTEQng-X0vowSJ1IHQPIH5TseJaZj8U9sDKB5lrinJfkqyYQ9Niu_eaav7pOWtuwuN2pr6h-tpz7WepJ1n28Sn_xamBvWmH4xRm5N1Vs08qSC7bEW/s640/Sherlock+-+Series+4+explosion.PNG" width="640" /></a></div>
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
[<b><i>Editor's Note:</i></b> this is the 13th in our <a href="http://www.ihearofsherlock.com/search/label/Series%204#.WIHVH_krLb0" target="_blank">series of reviews</a> for Series 4 of <i>Sherlock</i>.<b> </b>Yeah, yeah, spoilers.]</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
  </div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
So let me get this out of the way. I am a traditional Sherlockian.
If cinematic versions of Holmes and Watson never existed, my Holmesian world
would not feel one whit smaller. <i>Sherlock</i> is an incredibly well-acted and
produced show. My criteria for the cinematic Holmes must be that it tells a
good Sherlock Holmes story. I have never seen a film version of a Canon story
get it right to my liking. Sorry Granada.</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br />
In fact, I prefer original stories about the detective or original spins on the material. As
such, "A Study in Pink" was brilliant. There were quibbles, such as
in the opening shots the bottle of pills being offered by Jeff to his victims
containing more than two pills, and it took an inordinate amount of time for
Sherlock to realize the cabbie was the killer. Those don't matter. It was a
brilliant modern-day reimagining of the character.</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br />
Now at the end of Series Four, we can clearly see that Steven Moffat and Mark
Gatiss weren't telling a unified, coherent story about a detective but a series
of interlinked stories about the many versions of the Holmes/Watson mythos with
each episode having its own emotional cohesion, but only a tenuous
relationship with preceding or upcoming episodes, and, indeed, storytelling
logic. As an example, look at "A Scandal in Belgravia" and
"Hounds of the Baskerville" (thanks to<a href="http://arianedevere.livejournal.com/"> Ariane Devere</a>)</div>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<div class="MsoNormal">
SHERLOCK <i>(walking closer and looking down at her)</i>:
Oh, enjoying the thrill of the chase is fine, craving the distraction of the
game – I sympathise entirely – but sentiment? Sentiment is a chemical defect
found in the losing side. <br />
<i>(He bares his teeth slightly as he finishes the sentence.)</i> <br />
IRENE: Sentiment? What are you talking about? <br />
SHERLOCK: You. </div>
</blockquote>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<div class="MsoNormal">
SHERLOCK: So they didn’t have it put down, then – the dog. </div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
JOHN <i>(tucking into his breakfast while Sherlock stands
next to him and drinks his coffee)</i>: Obviously. Suppose they just couldn’t
bring themselves to do it. <br />
SHERLOCK: I see. <br />
JOHN <i>(smiling)</i>: No you don’t. <br />
SHERLOCK: No, I don’t. Sentiment? <br />
JOHN: Sentiment! <br />
SHERLOCK <i>(rolling his eyes)</i>: Oh. </div>
</blockquote>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal">
In "Belgravia" Sherlock knows knows all about
sentiment and uses that knowledge to break Irene's code. However, in
"Hounds," sentiment is a foreign concept, in keeping with the
episodes depiction of Sherlock as an unfeeling automation:</div>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<div class="MsoNormal">
SHERLOCK: Always been able to keep myself distant ... <i>(he
takes another drink from the glass)</i> ... divorce myself from ... <i>feelings</i>.
But look, you see ...<br />
<i>(He holds up the glass and glares at his shaking hand.)</i><br />
SHERLOCK: ... body’s betraying me. Interesting, yes? Emotions. <i>(He slams the
glass down onto the table.)</i> The grit on the lens, the fly in the ointment.<br />
JOHN: Yeah, all right, Spock, just ...<br />
<i>(Realising that he is starting to raise his voice, he looks around at the
other people in the restaurant behind him and then looks back to Sherlock.)</i><br />
JOHN <i>(more softly)</i>: ... take it easy.</div>
</blockquote>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br />
When John explains to Sherlock that the owners of the Cross Keys Inn couldn't
kill their dog because of sentiment, you could practically hear Cumberbatch
recite the Spock line, "Ah yes, one of your Earth emotions." </div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br />
By using various pop tropes (superhero, action hero, spy, horror) as applied to
Sherlock Holmes, Moffat and Gatiss are telling different stories about
different Holmeses and Watsons. This is made clear in the fourth wall-breaking
"The Abominable Bride" which opens with clips dated 2010, 2012 and
2014, years the shows aired, not internal chronology, and with the
"Alternatively" year running down not to 1881 but fading around 1884.
<i>A Study in Scarlet </i>was published at the end of 1887, but accepted for
publication by Ward, Lock Co. early in 1886. 1884 might then be Moffat and
Gatiss' guess at when Arthur Conan Doyle first thought about writing of Holmes.</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br />
If "Abominable" was its own stand-alone episode, then a modern Sherlock
imagining a Victorian, Canonical Sherlock who knows details of Doyle's Holmes
(such as the implied knowledge of Sidney Paget) and whose mind palace has all
cinematic tricks of the BBC series tucked into it, well, that would be fine.</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br />
But "Abominable" is part of the show's continuity, violating both
regular and meta-storytelling techniques. Then Series Four makes a mockery of
Sherlock's statement</div>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<div class="MsoNormal">
SHERLOCK: Moriarty is dead, no question. But more
importantly ...<br />
<i>(He raises his head and looks to one side.)</i><br />
SHERLOCK: ... I know <i>exactly</i> what he’s going to do next.</div>
</blockquote>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br />
As we soon see, Sherlock doesn't have a clue. He has suppressed all memory of
his sister, the real boogieman behind Moriarty and leaving the viewer to wonder
if Moffat and Gatiss make this stuff up all on the fly.</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br />
As Series Four keeps throwing in the viewer's faces, Sherlock (and <i>Sherlock</i>)
is all about emotion, which explains why that in a  supposed
"clever" show it rarely has Sherlock getting out of tight spots by
brain power. "The Great Game" has the Mexican stand-off with Moriarty
and his snipers end by Moriarty getting a phone call and being distracted and
leaving. The terrorist bomb in "The Empty Hearse" has an off switch.
Sherlock uses the Mike Hammer deductive technique of putting a bullet in the
bad guy's brain in "His Last Vow". He then gets out of exile-to-certain-death through the <i>deus
ex machina</i> of Moriarty hacking every screen in Britain, then having the
government, through Mycroft, altering the surveillance tapes to show a
government sniper killing Magnussen instead.</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br />
The show has, in fact, has pushed the characters past the breaking point of
being any sort of representation of Sherlock Holmes and John Watson. It is the
canon of <i>this</i> show that Sherlock is, to put it nicely, a "d*ck." He
unknowingly made John an accomplice to murder:</div>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<div class="MsoNormal">
SHERLOCK <i>(loudly, lifting his head)</i>: Oh, <i>do</i>
your research.</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<i>(He steps closer to John, reaches round behind him and
into John’s coat pocket, then steps away again and walks forward towards
Magnussen.)</i></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
SHERLOCK: I’m not a hero ...</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<i>(Magnussen turns to look at him.)</i></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
SHERLOCK: ... I’m a high-functioning sociopath.</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<i>(He widens his eyes and glares at the man.)</i></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
SHERLOCK: <i>Merry Christmas! </i></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<i>(He raises John’s pistol, aims it at Magnussen’s head and
fires. As John recoils and even before Magnussen hits the ground, Sherlock
drops the gun to the patio and turns towards the helicopter, raising his
hands.)</i></div>
</blockquote>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal">
And Sherlock sees Watson less than a friend and more as a
fashion accessory:</div>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<div class="MsoNormal">
<i>([Sherlock] looks at the picture of John with his new
moustache.)</i><br />
SHERLOCK: Well, we’ll have to get rid of <i>that</i>.<br />
MYCROFT: “We”?<br />
SHERLOCK: He looks ancient. I can’t be seen to be wandering around with an old
man.</div>
</blockquote>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal">
This Holmes and Watson have a dysfunctional relationship,
with John physically assaulting Sherlock and Sherlock emotionally abusing John,
such as letting John believe he and Sherlock were going to die, just so John
would forgive Sherlock for deceiving about his death in "The Empty
Hearse".  </div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br />
Watson is not the stalwart companion of the Doylean Canon, but the
damsel-in-distress, needing to be saved by Sherlock from Chinese circus spears,
dynamite vests and burning Guy Fawkes effigies. Finally, Sherlock saves John by letting John believe he's saving Sherlock from his drug use (call it the "Miss Mary Sutherland Treatment"). Mary Morstan, even in death, is
a more Canonical John Watson than what the scripts give Martin Freeman to work
with. With Sherlock making a vow to Mary, to protect her from her past, he is
in essence making John, Mary and himself a polyamorous unit and it is Sherlock
and<i> Mary</i> to the rescue in "The Empty Hearse." And while "The
Sign of Three" refers to John, Mary and unborn Rosamund, it could also
refer to John, Mary and Sherlock and their union of love and partnership. In
this triad, someone has got to be diminished, and John becomes lessened in
comparison to his ninja assassin wife.  He's someone prone to texting
flirtations with a stranger on a bus while Mary does her superspy thing <i>and</i>
being a sleep-deprived mother of a new born.</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br />
How does the show explain how Sherlock came to be the great detective, whether
Canonical or pop cultural? Moffat and Gatiss have concluded that Sherlock
Holmes is the way he is because his psychopathic six year old non-Canonical
sister killed Sherlock's best friend; Sherlock suppressing all memory of her;
Eurus being locked away, but like
the Joker in Arkham, running the secret government asylum; controlling
Moriarty, thanks to an incredibly stupid Mycroft; Eurus responsible for who
knows how many deaths, all because she wanted Sherlock to play with her. And
we're supposed to be happy with the conclusion of Sherlock making regular visits to
play (the violin) with Eurus because, what, family is family?<br />
<br />
We've entered the
world of comic book superhero soap opera mythology where John and Sherlock jump
through second story windows microseconds ahead of a devastating bomb blast and
land in a busy metropolitan street without a scratch and left the Doylean realm
of human beings.</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br />
Sherlock Holmes is widely recognized as having said <b>"When you eliminate the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth."</b>  Well, the series was filled with improbabilities, which made it impossible to like.<br />
<br />
And that's the ugly truth.</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br />
--<br />
<br /></div>

Sherlock Series 4 — An Improbable Truth

"a good many of us may wither before its blast" [LAST] [ Editor's Note: this is the 13th in our series of reviews fo...

+ Read more »

by James C. O'Leary

Dear Mr. Gatiss

<h4 style="text-align: center;">
"attracted admirers who occasionally hung about" [BERY] </h4>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgYy1P1D71AllAB6WEkdzRgCg6t6eLoIYsKoKLYHggsnhlAQIsIkmFB-K7NRjip15tboWIvgRPItvMPog9SYDUUZ_JgSlWN5uxardEEfDbGmawQOjmlpAqeRuQZv7keYfHCGQzJ0zx_cNF_/s1600/Sherlock+-+Series+4+chess.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="426" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgYy1P1D71AllAB6WEkdzRgCg6t6eLoIYsKoKLYHggsnhlAQIsIkmFB-K7NRjip15tboWIvgRPItvMPog9SYDUUZ_JgSlWN5uxardEEfDbGmawQOjmlpAqeRuQZv7keYfHCGQzJ0zx_cNF_/s640/Sherlock+-+Series+4+chess.jpg" width="640" /></a></div>
<br />
[<b><i>Editor's Note:</i></b> this is the 12th is a <a href="http://www.ihearofsherlock.com/search/label/Series%204#.WIHVH_krLb0" target="_blank">series of reviews</a> of Series 4 of <i>Sherlock</i>. Minor spoilers ahead.]<br />
<br />
In <a href="http://www.dailystar.co.uk/showbiz-tv/hot-tv/578507/Sherlock-BBC-complicated-Benedict-Cumberbactch-show-creator-Mark-Gatiss" target="_blank">a recent interview</a>, Mark Gatiss — co-creator of and actor in BBC One's <i>Sherlock</i> — took a dig worthy Mycroft Holmes (well, <i>his </i>version of Mycroft Holmes, at least) at the show's critics:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
"People ask if it's good to challenge the audience. Of course it f***ing is...Go and read a children's book with hard pages if you don't want to be challenged. We’re making the show we want to make. We don't make it a certain way because fans are pressuring us."</blockquote>
I hear it being said with a sneer. I hope it's out of context.<br />
<br />
I know better.<br />
<br />
And for that reason, I have a letter for Mark Gatiss.<br />
<br />
<br />
Dear Mr. Gatiss,<br />
<br />
I admire your work.<br />
<br />
Many of us here do.<br />
<br />
All of us, anyway, have decisively made room for Sherlock Holmes and his adventures in our brain attics. So the implication <a href="http://www.ihearofsherlock.com/search/label/Series%204#.WH90mhsrJPY" target="_blank">our near-universal condemnation of Series 4</a> is somehow due to a lack of understanding and appreciation for "challenging" art is, at the very least, tedious.<br />
<br />
You know there would be no <i>Sherlock</i> without its fans. You know there'd be no <i>Sherlock</i> without Sir Arthur Conan Doyle. And you know there'd be no <i>Sherlock</i> without ACD's formula:<br />
<ol>
<li>The tangle of impossible evidence.</li>
<li>The untangling.</li>
<li>The reveal.</li>
</ol>
<br />
The wonderful, sure arc you just derided. We bump along with Watson and Lestrade down the track — through the tunnel, 'round the bend, past the pirates — and we like it that way. We hang our deerstalker on the logic and sense of it all and the assurance that the cleverest of us will solve the mystery.<br />
<br />
Series 4 unfortunately did away with the gamut.<br />
<br />
Episode 1 served to write Mary out.<br />
<br />
Episode 2 felt a bit more familiar. (The delicious baddie. The bugged cane.)<br />
<br />
But Episode 3 completely got away from you. How did the chick from <i>The Ring</i> escape Alcatraz to pose as a flirt on a bus then as a tranquilizer-wielding shrink? Right right right. She's an evil genius I suppose I'm incapable of fathoming. Why the drone? How did John end up shackled in a well? And Redbeard was a kid? C'mon. Enough.<br />
<br />
If you and Mr. Moffat do write a fifth series, consider us for a Christmas treat: consider we deal with enough challenges outside the fandom that when we tune into you, <a href="http://www.standard.co.uk/news/uk/sherlocks-huge-ratings-confirm-its-status-as-one-of-uks-mostloved-shows-ahead-of-finale-a3440896.html" target="_blank">as we have in huge numbers</a>, we are the case in the chair. Craving reason in the unreasonable and, for me, cheekbones I could cut myself on.<br />
<br />
Looking forward,<br />
<br />
Jessica Levine<br />
<br />
--<br />
<br />

Dear Mr. Gatiss

"attracted admirers who occasionally hung about" [BERY] [ Editor's Note: this is the 12th is a series of reviews of Se...

+ Read more »

by Jessica Levine

The Dilemma of Interpretation, Pastiches, and Sherlock

<h4 style="text-align: center;">
<b>"thousands of other similar cases " [REDH] </b></h4>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgdNOEzIvE3bvLck7izzGB9NYUXE-ne9PbX3l0cm99XAIdQumaNC2gWIeR6WChvNSVPSG_tY0iFWLJaMMr4Hs0ZjWSwRvUX5l9BISEpmKl66q5GqhpsVdEXSirsXuMMvZzYNpLUuFtMbRKg/s1600/FullSizeRender.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="464" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgdNOEzIvE3bvLck7izzGB9NYUXE-ne9PbX3l0cm99XAIdQumaNC2gWIeR6WChvNSVPSG_tY0iFWLJaMMr4Hs0ZjWSwRvUX5l9BISEpmKl66q5GqhpsVdEXSirsXuMMvZzYNpLUuFtMbRKg/s640/FullSizeRender.jpg" width="640" /></a></div>
<br />
No one inhabiting the Sherlockian realm is unaware of the volcanic ire unleashed since the broadcast of <i>Sherlock</i> Series 4 “The Final Problem,” presumably the series' final episode.<br />
<br />
My goal is to remind my friends that the flowing lava will cool in time. In fact, many pastiches of the past were criticized or snubbed in their day, and now are generally regarded with intense affection.<br />
<br />
I've commented in other forums about the nature of pastiches and how we’ve come to regard them. The following is an updated version of an essay I offered in the early 2000s in the <a href="http://www.sherlockian.net/hounds/" target="_blank">Hounds-L listserv</a> -— I was known as “The Lurking Man” — with insertions pertinent to the <i>Sherlock</i> brouhaha, drawn from my comments in a recent Facebook thread.<br />
<br />
Let's admit at the onset that part of my soul is utterly mystified by the repeated references one comes across to Sir Arthur Conan Doyle having "conceived" the Canon. And yet another part of me understands the widespread delusion that, somehow, Dr. John H. Watson relinquished all control of his notes to Doyle and that the Literary Agent was in fact the Author.<br />
<br />
If we aren't reading chronicles related by Watson-as-Biographer, it goes a long way toward explaining why there are so many different Holmeses within the Canon itself. In fact, the premise helps us to understand why so many of the later "stories" actually appear to be pastiches flowing from the presumably mighty pen of Doyle-as-Author himself.<br />
<br />
Take, for example, the different Holmeses of <i>A Study in Scarlet </i>and<i> The Sign of Four</i>. In the first, Holmes is youthful, glib, friendly, chimerical, outgoing, arrogant, energetic, full of brightness and even fun. In the second, he is taking cocaine thrice a day, and when he is not occupied with the case he is moody, brooding and pessimistic. (I reiterated this point recently <span style="text-align: justify;">in an essay about</span> “The Speckled Band,” published in Christopher Redmond’s remarkable compilation <i><a href="http://www.ihearofsherlock.com/2016/10/about-sixty-eliminates-improbable.html" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">About Sixty</a></i>.)<br />
<br />
We see glimpses of these two Holmeses throughout other stories, and we reconcile them by claiming that, at times, Holmes must have been manic depressive or simply dual-natured. But perhaps Doyle-as-Author was dual-natured himself and this tendency emerged in his writings, based on his imagination-of-the-moment.<br />
<br />
A third Holmes often appears, and is neither of these other Holmeses — not the chemist / code-breaker / paralegal / actor / amateur anthropologist. This Holmes is a creative force who searches for things outside of the realm of crime — a varied mind that encompasses the multiple lives of a scholar, art lover, book collector, historian, musician, traveler and author.<br />
<br />
This is a consistent, almost pointed characterization that emerges in many of these separate chronicles/stories. Each new aspect reflects on the same notion that here is a brilliant, wide-ranging mind that embodies the expansiveness of the Victorian era and the increasing opportunities becoming available to the rising middle class of English society.<br />
<br />
In addition to fattening a cheque-book, either:<br />
<br />
<ol>
<li>Watson was well aware of what an astonishing human being Holmes was and sought to capture his character for the benefit and inspiration of others, while acknowledging his weaknesses and self-contradictions; or</li>
<li>Doyle was well aware of what a truly astonishing human being was capable of being, and sought to describe such a character for the benefit and inspiration of others, while recognizing that any human being would have to have drawbacks and inconsistencies.</li>
</ol>
<br />
<br />
In the characterization of these various Holmeses we find a curiously consistent thread — the flash of a scintillating genius, through a glimmer here and a sparkle there, all adding up to a collective blaze that illuminates the body of work we call the Canon, even if individual entries are pale and dull compared to the whole.<br />
<br />
When we read a <a href="http://www.sherlockian.net/pastiches/index.html" target="_blank">pastiche</a>, if we fail to note that spark, that glimmer, that slight jewel-shine that catches our eye and reminds us of that overall, highly personalized genius, then something is missing. Something is wrong. It doesn't ring true. The writer has failed to convince us that he is either Doyle-as-Author or Watson-as-Biographer. There's no subjective or objective reality on which we can suspend our disbelief.<br />
<br />
<h3>
"I fancy that this ally breaks fresh ground" [SIGN]</h3>
However, if the pastiche-wright shows us something new, something jewel-like, it awakens our own inner genius. We recognize Holmes (or some version of him) as the man we met before, and the Master walks among these pages once again. That's a rare event, and such a perfect fiction is hard to forge, but it's no less an accomplishment than what Doyle-as-Author might have set out to do when attempting himself to re-invent Holmes for the later stories. In fact, in some cases, the accomplishment probably is greater.<br />
<br />
For the purist, <i>The Seven Percent Solution</i> is a fabrication to be dismissed. But there's no doubt that <a href="http://ihose.co/ihose85" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">Nicholas Meyer</a> re-awakened some very real conception of Holmes for many, many thousands of people who had forgotten (or never known) the delight of reading about this man of genius living in a time when genius could thrive. <i>This</i> Holmes looked like what <i>a</i> Holmes should look like. That's why Meyer's fiction ranks highly — very highly — when compared with, say, "The Veiled Lodger" or "The Mazarin Stone," both found among the Sacred Writings but neither conveying a well-realized sense of what a Holmes truly should resemble.<br />
<br />
Naturally, I hold a higher esteem for those works that I prize as having come from the pen of Watson-as-Biographer. I have enormous respect for all those that might even have come simply from the pen of Doyle-as-Author. However, if there exist new tales that provide a joy of sudden discovery, and convince me — however briefly — that another biographer has been located at last, so be it. A truly successful "Sherlock Holmes story" conveys to my judgment an appreciation of insightful genius, regardless of its source.<br />
<br />
Genius can and does thrive all around us, and isn't necessarily found only in the same old place, between the covers of only one set of 60 stories about this or that version of Holmes.<br />
<br />
<br />
<h3>
"on which I would willingly dwell" [FINA]</h3>
This is why I came to enjoy rather deeply the Holmes I saw in several episodes of <i>Sherlock</i>, despite the show's obvious modernizations and manipulations of the Canon. When I noted the scripts' quirks and liberties, I reminded myself that I — with many other Sherlockians — had come to honor pastiches such as <i>The Seven Percent Solution </i>and<i> Without a Clue</i>, and view Nigel Bruce's childishness and Basil Rathbone's high-flying coifs with fond respect, even relish. Like many others, I gave <i>Sherlock</i> the same break.<br />
<br />
After all, many of us cackle to see Holmes and Watson dumped into Loch Ness by a monster submarine, because Billy Wilder made it happen in <i>The Private Life of Sherlock Holmes</i>. Some of us even have come to see the made-for-television film <i>Case of Evil </i>as innovative and daring, despite its uncomfortable obsessions about sex and drugs. (Gasp!)<br />
<br />
By canonical standards, all these interpretations and crazy dramatizations are heretical and loony, but time has allowed us to see these creations as <i>appreciations</i> rather than assaults. That means we can admire — even adore — what was offered, and what continues to be offered.<br />
<br />
Remember, my friends: We came to terms with Jeremy Brett's unexpected, eccentric tics and outbursts, which were so deeply criticized when he first appeared on the scene. Brett, now regarded widely as the most canonical of all Sherlockian actors, initially was scorned by many fans who'd been married to the notion that Holmes was Rathbone.<br />
<br />
That perception changed with time — and with the realization that it was all just an interpretation, and that the Canon still stood firmly in place, just as it does today.<br />
<br />
<i>Sherlock</i> hasn't had the gift of time to separate us from our expectations and umbrage, but I suggest we all revisit these amazing programs in, say, 2037. Then we can pass the bottle and discuss amiably just how much fun all these shows have been, despite their ups and downs, heresies, looniness and flaws. We even may discover new ways to appreciate them — ways that only time can develop and reveal.<br />
<br />
Perhaps then we also may look around the room and see how many of us have come to Holmes through <i>Sherlock</i>, and recognize what an astonishing service has been achieved on behalf of the Sherlockian world.<br />
<br />
There are many true chronicles yet to be written and many dramatic interpretations yet to illuminate the screen. Let them come.<br />
<br />
[<b style="font-style: italic;">Editor's Note: </b><i>This is John C. Sherwood's first contribution to I Hear of Sherlock Everywhere. He is from Marshall, Michigan, and has been a professional Sherlock Holmes impersonator since 1987. He was Gasogene XVI of <a href="http://www.watsonstinbox.org/" target="_blank">Watson's Tin Box</a> of Ellicott City, Md., and a recent recipient of the Beggar's Cup from the Amateur Mendicant Society of Detroit.</i>]<br />
<b><br /></b>
--<br />
<b><br /></b>

The Dilemma of Interpretation, Pastiches, and Sherlock

"thousands of other similar cases " [REDH] No one inhabiting the Sherlockian realm is unaware of the volcanic ire unleashed ...

+ Read more »

by John C. Sherwood

The Final Problem — Balancing Intellect and Emotion

<div class="MsoNormal">
<br />
<h4 style="text-align: center;">
<o:p>"These are very deep waters" [SPEC] </o:p></h4>
<o:p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiEVykxx-bF3nln0lMw67EYWXcyoTkzmJU4SDSaBpu0Rhbg5XKTFDbBNk4OfrSExPDDxFH4gJYhWXxLAn_aW1luj1J9LuHJQ1G0Fv0cuoQ9pOcMOj-IHjiZjBwbvBxZqTVwvKhitIl3l9U/s1600/sherlock+s+4+deep+waters.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="400" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiEVykxx-bF3nln0lMw67EYWXcyoTkzmJU4SDSaBpu0Rhbg5XKTFDbBNk4OfrSExPDDxFH4gJYhWXxLAn_aW1luj1J9LuHJQ1G0Fv0cuoQ9pOcMOj-IHjiZjBwbvBxZqTVwvKhitIl3l9U/s640/sherlock+s+4+deep+waters.jpg" width="640" /></a></div>
</o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br />
[<b><i>Editor's Note:</i></b> this is the 11th in our <a href="http://www.ihearofsherlock.com/search/label/Series%204#.WH4nefkrLb0" target="_blank">series of reviews</a> of <i>Sherlock</i> Series 4. And if we have to tell you that there are <b>spoilers below</b>, you really need to spend more time with us.]<br />
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Dear readers, I may review books from time to time, but I am
not a media critic. The nuances of film, etc., slide right past me, unnoticed,
and I am remarkably unpicky. Basically, I want a good story and characters I
can care about. For the past six years, BBC's <i>Sherlock</i> has delivered that in big
heaping covered plattersful. Lest anyone think that I am completely uncritical
of Moffat and Gatiss’ creation, let me say that the first time I saw <i>Sherlock</i>,
I was unimpressed. I was a new Sherlockian, a zealous guardian of the Canon,
and when I happened onto the middle of “The Blind Banker” on PBS, I thought it
was really boring and possibly even stupid. Was Watson in love with that girl?
Sherlock Holmes doesn’t look like that. Dudes.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<b>*Click</b><span style="mso-bidi-font-weight: bold;">*<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="mso-bidi-font-weight: bold;">Perhaps a year
later, I decided to try the show again, this time starting at the beginning. By
this time, I had read dozens of pastiches. I had begun to look at the Canon in
a historical context, and had become more acquainted with Sir Arthur’s personal
life than he would think proper. I could slide in and out of 1895 at will, and
this time, I was enchanted by the time Benedict Cumberbatch said “Afghanistan
or Iraq?” <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="mso-bidi-font-weight: bold;">And I stayed that
way. Friends, I was very loyal, very quickly. Did I love every single thing the
writers came up with?<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Of course not. I
still think “The Blind Banker” is a little lame, but it has some wonderful lines.
I feel the same way about “The Hounds of Baskerville,” but as a Hoosier who has
actually <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">been </i>to Liberty, Indiana, I
can forgive the DEVI/HOUN fusion that deprived me of a giant, phosphorescent
hound (Plus, does anyone miss the whole icky “she’s my sister” bit? I thought not).
When Series 3 came along, however, I was bowled over, because this—this is what
I came for.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br />
<h3>
"it is a matter of history" [BRUC]</h3>
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="mso-bidi-font-weight: bold;">For most of my life,
I have been enthralled, not by fiction, but by <i><b>history</b></i>. So many people, so like, so different, separated from us only by ticking seconds. We “learn” about them,
or at least we think we do. You, and I, and most of the Sherlockians we know
can cite birth and death and publication dates. We can list the important
events in Arthur Conan Doyle’s life; we have one diary, a roman à clef,
letters, and an autobiography. But if I think of my life, and you think of
yours, I think we might agree that the most important moments in both are not
those we can plot on a calendar. Sir Arthur remembered March 15<sup>th</sup> as
the day he met his second wife, Jean Leckie, but at what moment did he finally
give himself permission to love her? When did he know that his father could no
longer be his father? When did he begin to replace his actual son with the “spirit”
he “spoke” with? <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>For me, there was the
moment my daughter was born, and the moment I became a mother. There are the
things we do, and the things we are, and they are not necessarily one and the
same.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="mso-bidi-font-weight: bold;">In the Canon, we read
quite a lot about the things Holmes and Watson do. They meet, they have
adventures, they solve crimes. Watson gets married twice. Holmes does the
occasional (legal!) drug and smokes a lot. There is excellent banter and fog. There
are puzzles and clever deductions, all in Conan Doyle’s pleasantly
stripped-down prose. For a lot of Sherlockians, I think, this is enough. We see
a man we admire (or with whom we identify), using science and logic to serve
the cause of Right. We see a friendship that never ends, mostly unencumbered by
jobs and spouses and family and even “death.” We know who the bad guys are. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="mso-bidi-font-weight: bold;">For me, however (and
for a lot of people—I am not unique here), the best parts of the Canon are the ones
Conan Doyle occasionally let slip. “It must tend to some end.” “…there still
remains the cocaine bottle.” <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>“For years
I had gradually weaned….” “It was worth a wound….”<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">  </span></span><br />
<span style="mso-bidi-font-weight: bold;"><span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"><br /></span></span>
<span style="mso-bidi-font-weight: bold;"><span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">Sir </span>Arthur was a romantic, passionate man in an
age of emotional repression. He gave us the things Holmes and Watson <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">did,</i> while the men they <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">were</i> remained largely hidden. I would argue
that, with a few exceptions (Jeremy Brett’s Holmes providing many of them) most
film adaptations pre-2009 have done the same, taking at face value Conan Doyle’s
view of his detective as “a calculating machine.”<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<h3>
"a new element has been introduced" [SILV]</h3>
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Moffat and Gatiss have never pretended that their Sherlock
Holmes is a machine, no matter what John shouts at him in frustration. A
sociopath, “high-functioning” or otherwise?<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> 
</span>Please. Series 1 and 2 hint at this, somewhat canonically, but Series 3
decides to go deeper. How do you respond if you’re John Watson and your best
friend has just returned from the dead? What do you think, when you’re Sherlock
Holmes and your only friend punches you in the face when you gave up nearly
everything to save him and the family you’ve made for yourself?<br />
<br />
One of the
fascinating things about Cumberbatch’s Holmes is that a lot of people have been
able to identify with what may seem to be problematic aspects of his character.
For me, the portrayal of an introvert who is very sure he doesn’t fit in with “normal”
people, who wants to connect but overinvests and withdraws from friends in
turn, and who demands reassurance of their affection in subtle (or for
Sherlock, not so subtle) ways rang strikingly true. To see Sherlock gradually
begin to realize that he had friends who liked <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">him</i>, and that, while their lives changed in ways his did not, he
remained important to them, was touching. He grew during that season, arguably
in ways that the canonical Holmes did not.<br />
<br />
Because of this, I could look past the silly
“knife in the belt” thing and the really uncomfortable “let’s play murder” bit
in “The Sign of Three” to see the real event. If, as they often do in weddings,
someone read <a href="https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1+Corinthians+13" target="_blank">1 Corinthians 13</a> for the Watsons, it was actually Sherlock, believing all
things and not self-seeking, and not Love, who kept them together in “His Last Vow,” again at
a<span style="mso-bidi-font-weight: bold;"> cost no one fully appreciates. </span><br />
<span style="mso-bidi-font-weight: bold;"><br /></span>
<span style="mso-bidi-font-weight: bold;">In
fact, as we begin Season 4, John and Sherlock both seem to believe that
Sherlock has some sort of magical ability to keep everyone safe—which, of
course, he does not. The general takeaway from that episode is that Sherlock was humbled by the
realization that the deductions he used as bullets had unintentional ricochets, but I think the wider lesson is that no matter how clever we are, or how
much we love and are loved, we will all keep an appointment in Samara. Obviously this was most traumatic for John, and the fact that his
marriage was in a normal, post-baby rough patch before Mary’s sudden death didn’t
make it better. </span><br />
<span style="mso-bidi-font-weight: bold;"><br /></span>
<span style="mso-bidi-font-weight: bold;">I know that many people were bothered by his beating Sherlock
in Episode 2, which is good, because frankly, that behavior is not okay. But at
the same time, I understood that even very good people, under particular sorts
of stress, can lose control. I’ve seen it happen. In the throes of new
emotional pain, people blame, they strike out, they anesthetize themselves with
all sorts of substances. None of this works, and it cannot continue. “It is
what it is” isn’t a platitude, or some sort of brush-off. It’s the
acknowledgement that some parts of life are horrible. They really, really are,
and they cannot be fixed. Sometimes, too, we do awful things that we cannot
ever take back. In each case, the only way to take away the power of either is not
to fight, and not to run: instead, only by looking at death and guilt straight
on can Sherlock and John start to clean up the emotional wreckage that damages
and separates them.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="mso-bidi-font-weight: bold;">Which brings us to
"The Final Problem."<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">  </span><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="mso-bidi-font-weight: bold;">I don’t avoid spoilers,
so having read the first batch of reactions, I felt some trepidation as the
show began. After all, I was one of the people who didn’t quite get “The
Abominable Bride” the first time through, and despite everything I wrote above,
there <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">were</i> bits of the season’s first
two episodes that I found underwhelming. I didn’t really buy that Mary, a new
mother, would sacrifice herself for Sherlock—however much I—er—<i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">she</i>—loves him. I liked knowing that Mrs.
Hudson has a Secret Sports Car, but I felt that scene was a little silly—and I
certainly hope her funds come from an offshore account and not a side hustle. I
had also been excited each time Mofftiss announced that Magnussen and Culverton
Smith were Supremely Evil Villains—only to feel that they just didn’t have
enough time to develop either one. It was inevitable that the finale also had
its own hits and misses for me:</span></div>
<div class="MsoListParagraphCxSpFirst" style="mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1; text-indent: -.25in;">
</div>
<ul>
<li><span style="text-indent: -0.25in;">That was a lot of convenient DVD, Mary.</span></li>
<li><span style="text-indent: -0.25in;">Moriarty! I love you so much! Although the
ticking was annoying.</span></li>
<li><span style="text-indent: -0.25in;">I’m going to assume that at least a few people
ended up dead because Eurus could not manipulate them.</span></li>
<li><span style="text-indent: -0.25in;">And speaking of Eurus—she was the villain I
expected in Magnussen and Culverton Smith. I hated her. I enjoyed hating her
and may have called her bad names out loud. I’m glad her own name is really hideous. Even
now, I want to pummel her into the ground. Well done, Mofftiss, well done.</span></li>
</ul>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal">
In the end, we learn, the
Holmes family <i>did</i> produce a true sociopath (or, perhaps more correctly defined as a <a href="http://psychcentral.com/blog/archives/2015/02/12/differences-between-a-psychopath-vs-sociopath/" target="_blank">psychopath</a>). Not Mycroft, the man who knows good
from evil, and believes he is serving the greatest version of the former, even
if his methods are dubious and indirect. Not Sherlock, who has, for
self-preservation, sublimated his emotions and modeled himself after his older
brother, becoming, essentially, a Mycroft who <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">would </i>get his hands dirty when he believes it required.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><br />
<br />
No, of course it’s Eurus, at once the embodiment
of (seemingly) pure intellect and the repository of very primitive, child-like and
self-centered emotions. Her brother didn’t play with her, so she murdered his
friend. She kills and damages and manipulates for her own gain while insisting
on seeing herself as a scared little girl on an out-of-control plane. It may
seem to some that Eurus undergoes some character changes during this
episode—development, healing, whatever. No. She doesn’t. She’s just
manipulating you, too. Her brothers, however—now that’s different.<o:p></o:p><br />
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhCw3G5LlhOw5JiyudDhw8yUkEsqv9NIKdsBBT0gQ7UTX8ramJ3NuySIHArbmKy-b6MrHW39Hfi8jgmG_7uJR7mZw7C5gjQM-diGU9CLh-UueSDBQwTqT07ObRPN0s-aa17f-3NjrYE4L2L/s1600/Sherlock+-+Series+4+Mycroft+Sherlock+portrait.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="225" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhCw3G5LlhOw5JiyudDhw8yUkEsqv9NIKdsBBT0gQ7UTX8ramJ3NuySIHArbmKy-b6MrHW39Hfi8jgmG_7uJR7mZw7C5gjQM-diGU9CLh-UueSDBQwTqT07ObRPN0s-aa17f-3NjrYE4L2L/s400/Sherlock+-+Series+4+Mycroft+Sherlock+portrait.jpg" width="400" /></a></div>
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<h3>
<span style="mso-bidi-font-weight: bold;">"Mycroft Holmes struggled" [BRUC] </span></h3>
<span style="mso-bidi-font-weight: bold;">My
best friends and I, all oldest children, agreed that the entire episode gave us
“eldest child feels.” Mycroft like many older siblings, is bossy, pretty sure
he knows best, and has an enormous sense of responsibility; for him, it extends
beyond his immediate family to the entire United Kingdom. He worries about
them. Constantly. And he’s made decisions for all of them, some of which he was
not really qualified to make. <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span></span><br />
<span style="mso-bidi-font-weight: bold;"><br /></span>
<span style="mso-bidi-font-weight: bold;">It wasn’t
okay to tell his younger brother that “caring is not an advantage.” It wasn’t
kinder to tell his parents their daughter had died. And it did not protect the
citizens of Britain, or the world at large, to give Eurus five unsupervised
minutes with Moriarty in order to have her predict terrorist plots. </span><br />
<span style="mso-bidi-font-weight: bold;"><br /></span>
<span style="mso-bidi-font-weight: bold;">In episode
three, Mycroft is forced to see himself as he really is: someone who believes
the ends justifies the means—as long as they cannot be traced back to him; someone
who, for all of his intelligence, can’t predict the outcome of his actions; and
someone who, in trying to do the right thing, has, instead, hurt the people he
loves and serves. He is fully humbled, as he needed to be, and by the time
Sherlock is given the impossible choice, he has not only taken responsibility,
he is willing to pay the most loving price he can imagine. This was, to me, the
most powerful scene in the entire series.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="mso-bidi-font-weight: bold;">So, if you’re making
a list: with Eurus, we have pure intellect. With Mycroft, we have intellect
tempered by ethics (of a sort) and responsibility. And then we have Sherlock. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjUZge7uUaDLY0C_FNd7jyUGL1R7eSiczYIuq1sExXrk5abntUxtL9IZdCieywTD3N5Bmk-fTjXJPcwXsltVrSx2NQIuXqQy7t6tvVFsVVegyrUYzwyFQaOrfQSYubvRQUl4f8t0iSR79H5/s1600/Sherlock+-+Series+4.PNG" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="226" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjUZge7uUaDLY0C_FNd7jyUGL1R7eSiczYIuq1sExXrk5abntUxtL9IZdCieywTD3N5Bmk-fTjXJPcwXsltVrSx2NQIuXqQy7t6tvVFsVVegyrUYzwyFQaOrfQSYubvRQUl4f8t0iSR79H5/s400/Sherlock+-+Series+4.PNG" width="400" /></a></div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<h3>
"with an evident effort he got a grip upon his own emotions" [VALL]</h3>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="mso-bidi-font-weight: bold;">There is a lot of
talk about how life with John “humanizes” Sherlock. I’m not so sure that’s
true, as much as John’s friendship allows Sherlock to feel safe enough to be
human. When Eurus killed Victor, she taught her brother that love was
dangerous, and in his reactions to this, he ensured that it also became
unattainable. </span><br />
<span style="mso-bidi-font-weight: bold;"><br /></span>
<span style="mso-bidi-font-weight: bold;">Gradually, however, through his interactions with the people
Mycroft considers “goldfish,” he’s learned a different lesson. He no longer has
to take refuge in a sense of superiority, as his brother does. He knows he can
fall, spectacularly, and still be loved. He’s feeling brave enough to venture
out into some sort of arrangement with Irene. </span>And he loves Molly.<br />
<br />
You can see
it dawn on him when she is about to hang up during that crucial phone call.
Molly loves Sherlock in ways in which he does not love her, but she also loves
him in that deep, permanent way which puts another’s interest ahead of one’s
own. At first, Sherlock feels guilty for seeming to toy with her affections—notice
that he doesn’t just give her what he knows might work—but, as she’s about to
end the call, he realizes that yes, he does <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">love</i>
<i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">her.</i> This won’t be the death of an
elderly blind woman he will feel the weight of being unable to prevent. This
won’t be Mary’s willing sacrifice. This will be a loss he won’t be able to
bear, and so, when he says he loves her like he means it, he means it. Utterly.
Just as he loves John, and <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Greg</i>, Mrs.
Hudson, and his parents.</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="mso-bidi-font-weight: bold;">And Eurus? I’ve
heard someone people say that Sherlock has forgiven her, but I don’t think it’s
quite that simple. I believe that Sherlock feels pity for her, but he also
knows exactly who he is dealing with. This is why he plays the violin with her, but doesn’t
speak, staying three feet away from the glass. The whole thing is sad. It’s incomprehensible.
Eurus used to be a little girl and perhaps she has diminished culpability. <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>But she is who she is. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="mso-bidi-font-weight: bold;">The last episode of
Series 4 was, to me, the perfect mix of what Sherlock <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">does,</i> as well as who he <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">is.</i> </span><br />
<span style="mso-bidi-font-weight: bold;"><br /></span>
<span style="mso-bidi-font-weight: bold;">Having, in effect, solved the puzzle of his own life, the 21<sup>st</sup>
century Holmes can be who he was </span>always meant to be: a quirky genius whose
intellect and emotions are tempered with compassion, humanity, and love. It is
this integration, and not the identity of “the other one,” or even Redbeard,
which is the true solution to the final problem.<br />
<br />
Sherlock Holmes finally is who
he is, and whom we love: the Great (and Good) Detective.</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
--<br />
<br /></div>