#elementary 1x21

[sanguinarysanguinity]

For the ask game, I'm very curious about your thoughts behind this passage from A Meaning Behind Every Little Thing:

He shook the bag out violently, scattering legos wide across the floor. When that did not relieve his feelings, he hurled the bag across the room. (And it was wrong, wrong, that Watson was not there to rebuke him for it.) He stood there, breathing hard, trying to gather himself.

Call her Joan. Anyone can be a Joan.

Thank you for the ask!

For those following along at home, "A Meaning Behind Every Little Thing" is a pair of missing scenes for the first two Elementary finale sequences, specifically "A Landmark Story" from S1 and "Paint it Black" from S2.

So, one of the lovely (or cursed) things about Holmesian fandoms is that there's no shortage of analytical, detail-oriented people who pick apart the meaning behind every little thing. (Heh.) One of the things we discussed at the time "Paint it Black" aired is that the medical bag Sherlock uses in the S2 finale is not the same bag he used in the S1 finale. Why not? Surely the bag from S1, presumed to be Joan's old medical bag, is still lying around the brownstone somewhere? The legos detail in this excerpt is meant to establish exactly that: the bag from S1 "Landmark Story" is still in his possession (and still filled with the legos seen in the ep!), and Sherlock could have used it if he wanted to. (Which is key to the rest of the story, which exists in part to explain why he didn't just use the bag he used from S1.)

Another notable thing about "Paint it Black" is how often Sherlock breaks things in that episode. As I said at the time:

Gosh but Sherlock spent a lot of time breaking shit this ep. Think he's doing it because he's getting a mental echo of her breaking that plate in the kitchen at him? I do. "If I can just break enough things, Joan will have to give up being kidnapped so that she can come chew me out for it. I just need to break enough things, and Joan will come."

So his making a mess, his throwing the bag -- I intended all that as more than him just venting anger and frustration in the moment. It's also magical thinking: if I can just break enough shit, she'll show up to tell me off.

(You can also read all that violence as a sign of her being a restraining influence on him: day-to-day, he makes an active effort to rein in his behavior out of respect for her, and now that she's not here… For myself, though, I like to believe that he has enough respect for her lessons to try to hold himself to them in her absence. Which is why I prefer the "magical thinking" reading behind all that breaking stuff.)

And the last bit, about calling her Joan. Anyone can be a Joan.

So, in original Sherlock Holmes canon, Holmes and Watson routinely call each other Holmes and Watson. Elementary's Sherlock calling her Watson is a nod to that, obviously. One common fic trope in Victorian Holmes fandoms concerns given names: when and why, if ever, do they call each other Sherlock and John? As an author, you can signal an increase of intimacy by switching to Sherlock and John, and you often see it used in fic in moments of heightened emotion. On TV, the Jeremy Brett version of "The Devil's Foot" does exactly that: in a moment when they almost die together, Holmes grabs Watson and calls him "John!" In that vein, some fans read Elementary Sherlock's switch from "Watson" to "Joan" in "Paint it Black" as just that: a sign of the true affection and intimacy he holds for her, normally hidden underneath a mask of distance and infifference.

I find that unsatisfying. (Yes, even though I do the first-names game in my historical fandoms!) Sure, he initially called her "Watson" as a distancing mechanism: he didn't want a pseudo-friendly relationship with her, and refused to pretend to be in one. But as the series progressed, "Watson" became imbued with all his developing affection and regard for her. Almost a pet name, if you will: something specific to their bond, something no one else in the world calls her. After all, this isn't a world where everyone habitually refers to each other by surnames! This is a world where Sherlock does. Anyone might call her "Joan." His brother calls her Joan. Sherlock, who loves her most in the world, calls her Watson.

So rather than reading that shift from "Watson" to "Joan" as an increase of intimacy, I and a few others viewed it as a decrease. A step back from the special bond that joins them. A step toward the nonspecific, mundane, unexceptional, and everyday. He's too emotional to think clearly; too upset to give her his best; he desperately needs some distance. So he deliberately steps back and begins calling her Joan, who could be anybody. This could be any week, any client, any victim, someone with the anonymous name of Joan. This is absolutely not his beloved Watson.

Thank you for the ask! Please feel free to ask any follow up questions!

And if anyone else would enjoy commentary on a passage, my ask box is open.

[amindamazed]

do you remember what episode it is where sherlock asks joan if she needs anything, and she responds "i need a drink" before realizing her mistake and apologizing? sorry to ask you such a dumb question you just seem to have an amazing memory for these things and it's been bugging me that i can't remember where it's from

happy to help out! It’s from 1x21, Landmark Story, after they’ve taken Daniel Gotlieb.

[amindamazed]

Sherlock to Kitty, 3x04: Remember, I cut my hand while we were dissecting that cadaver?

[previously] Watson to Sherlock (as he's about to cut off his own thumb), 1x21: You're using the wrong... You'll get— Just stop!

[amindamazed]

I enjoyed the somewhat more complicated narrative structure of this episode, switching between past and present stories and playing with POV. I like novels that do that, and I'm trying to learn how to write stories that do that as well. One reason why I think I liked it here is that it meant there was no A vs B plot; it was all one complicated story. My favorite A & B plot episodes are those where it's most obvious that A and B have strong thematic resonance (What if B led to A?).

[See the AV Club review & comments for more discussion of the episode's structure and the inspiration for it from some House episodes Liz Friedman also worked on. I am not familiar with them myself.]

Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but I think this was the first time we saw flashbacks to previous episodes (I'm not counting any "previously on Elementary" snippets). The first two flashbacks illustrated references by the lawyer to Sherlock breaking into Victor Nardin's apartment and the funeral home; the third illustrated her comment that officers believed Sherlock had taught Watson how to pick locks too. [gifset not by me] And what an intriguing selection of episodes they were, in the context of "Tremors" and the upcoming mid-season stunt development:

"One Way to Get Off" - Watson and Sherlock at odds but finding common ground in the work (at Watson's instigation), Watson obtaining a packet of letters from (we know now) Moriarty, and Sherlock telling Watson that Irene died.

"A Landmark Story" - Watson taking up the scalpel again (at Sherlock's instigation), Sherlock directly acknowledging that he's changed by his association with Watson, Sherlock ditching Watson again (albeit with a letter of explanation), and the reintroduction of Moriarty through Moran, Douglas, and a phone call.

"We Are Everyone" - Sherlock bursting with pride over Watson's initiative in learning to pick pockets, Bell and Gregson accepting/overlooking the requirement of "getting creative" with how the watch was obtained, Sherlock and Watson having potentially incompatible needs for outside interaction, and a letter from Moriarty.

In each of these episodes, Watson has relatively few qualms about Sherlock's methods: she voices concerns in the first two but her anxiety is more over getting caught than the right or wrong of the actions. In the third instance, she takes the initiative to employ his methods herself, and she's proud of the accomplishment. "One Way to Get Off" is full of issues related to murky ethics in police investigations and Gregson's complicity or willful blindness to them; there's a bit of a nod to that in "A Landmark Story" when Gregson and Sherlock speak after Douglas has been killed. In "We Are Everyone" it may be that Watson didn't think through the implications of stealing the watch from a police procedure standpoint as it's Sherlock who outlines what has to happen to use the evidence. But neither Bell nor Gregson comment on it one way or the other, and the episode concludes with the criminal caught, period.

On a communication level, Sherlock and Watson are about halfway through her contract in "One Way to Get Off" and he's upset by her prying into his life; he said he'd abide by the letter of the contract but any goodwill between them is gone. By the end he accepted her methods and shared a painful personal secret. They're mostly operating under the structure provided by the companion-client relationship. In "A Landmark Story," they're both rather blunt and uninhibited with each other: Watson blurts out a wish for a drink, startling them both, and he not only acknowledges his lack of remorse during "M" — after she brings it up —but gives her credit for why he's different now and leaves a note explaining his actions when he left her to confront Douglas. She's no longer his sober companion, and they're still perhaps in the honeymoon phase of their new partnership, not yet rubbing the other in irritating ways.

In "We Are Everyone," she's rather uncharacteristically open about her uncertainty with her work-life balance and is comfortable discussing her online dating venture despite his scorn. He's open about his preferences regarding socializing with others but hides the receipt of Moriarty's letter in plain sight. They're both a bit lost in determining how their lives will mesh now and into the future, given the explicit and implicit boundaries surrounding and dividing them, some conscious and some unconscious. They're stumbling in the dark, I think, and aren't sure where they want to go or how to get there. They're starting to notice that they might not even be trying to get to the same place. By "Tremors" it's fairly clear they're dangerously out of sync. It occurs to me that it must be Watson's turn soon to stumble because of the fault lines in their partnership; the danger can't be his alone.

I assume the Moriarty references are more to foreshadow her upcoming return and themes related to unreliable narration rather than to explicitly link any of the plot elements of "Tremors" with whatever happens later. Each of the references from the previous episodes took the form of indirect and deceptive communications: faked letters & faked death, faked phone call, and who knows what that last one is/will turn out to be but I assume it's at least 99.9% manipulation. In the first case Watson gets the letters and after a little deliberation returns them to Sherlock, unread. In the second, they're together when Moriarty calls and neither of them hides anything IMLTHO. And in the third, I assume Sherlock is still hiding the existence of the letter(s) from Watson. What might be faked or hidden once they meet her again face to face?

[5secondreviews]

Elementary 1x21 - A Landmark Story

Moriarty's voice is quite familiar

[teamponytail]

OH SHIT MORIARTY.

[teamponytail]

When did Vinnie Jones become a good actor wow

[teamponytail]

BEE ASSASSINS