Discover Top Posts Tagged with #five episodes

Jul 14, 2022

THE GOVERNOR AND HIS WIFE - revisited and expanded

________________________________________________________________

While writing on the ‘Tapestry of Sherlock BBC’ series, I picked up again my previous interpretations regarding the Five Tasks of Sherrinford. The attempt to summarize Eurus’ first task in some short sentences and linking it to the first series of the show, simply wouldn’t work out smoothly. Although I basically still agree with most of this first interpretation, the feeling was undeniable that something (isn’t there always something?) wouldn’t really fit. Therefore I started to mull over that problem in order to reach a more fitting conclusion. Apparently, the distance of several years resulted indeed in some new ideas and perspectives.

TBC below the cut .....

Sherlock BBC is dominated by a ‘pattern of five’, that has been noticed very early on by several people. To name just a view: Good things come in fives by tjlcisthenewsexy (now @debussy-reverie), A series of five by @thepineapplering , 5 Pips by @waitedforgarridebs and @sagestreet has connected the Five Tasks of Sherrinford with the four existing series of Sherlock BBC, along with the prospect of a possible fifth and final one. Which would be great and very much appreciated because the story, as it is now, feels quite open-ended. In any case, I couldn’t agree more with @sagestreet regarding the possible relation between five series and five tasks of Sherrinford (although I prefer a slightly different reading of some character mirrors).

As mentioned in previous posts, I tend to view the whole story told in Sherlock BBC on a metaphorical level, as something that happens entirely inside the great detective’s head. In TAB it is mentioned that Sherlock is able to create complex scenarios, even whole worlds, inside his mind palace. It seems only reasonable that he uses this extraordinary gift as a means to understand and solve his clients cases. That he uses the same methods when he tries to solve his very own case - the pink one - would then also be quite plausible. The investigations and deductions, necessary to explore his own persona, could very well happen on - what I like to call it - a mind stage. Like a director Sherlock writes the scripts for his plays and casts different characters for different roles to understand either the motives behind criminal cases, strange mysteries or the workings inside his own mind and body. In this old post I played with the idea of Sherlock BBC as a metaphhorical prism, created to make the different aspects of Sherlock’s personality visible, like rainbow colours occur when white light is sent through a prism. That actually ‘anyone’ inside this story is Sherlock, or more precisely, represents a certain part of him, is something @sherlockshadow suggested very early on.

The first task of Sherrinford

A possible interpretation based on metaphorical reading:

SHERRINFORD ISLAND - is a high-security government facility on a prison island and - the way I interpret the story - a metaphor for Sherlock’s innermost core. It represents the deepest part inside his mind, the place where he keeps everything under lock and key what he deems too dangerous or too painful to deal with. This high-security facility is under the supervision of the government, represented in this story by Lady Smallwood, Mycroft and the island’s Governor David (no family name given). It is mentioned that the mysterious Uncle Rudi had been the first one who took care of (his niece) Eurus and brought her to Sherrinford. Later Mycroft thought it best to continue what Uncle Rudi began. It might be of interest that the Hebrew name ‘David’ means ‘beloved’ or ‘uncle’.

JOHN - he is the central part of the story, the crux of the matter, around whom everything else rotates. In the original story about the Musgrave Ritual one crown and two kings of the same name are involved. This might be another indication that not only cyphers come in pairs. I wrote about that topic in: Two times - John, Faith, Charles, pairs, therapists, John’s stamp. Either way, there are some indications that two versions of John are involved in this story:

Dr John Watson, the century old traditional eternal just-friend, the fixed point in a changing age, who constantly assures in this adaptation that he’s not gay. He represents Sherlock’s supressed and desperately unspoken love for his best friend, an unfulfilled desire that almost kills him.

John, a changed and new version of this character, openminded and vibrant, a man who is able and excited to become Sherlock’s lover. PILOT-John gives the impression to be ecaxtly the man whom Sherlock desires.

John in TFP seems to be on a good way to become that man ... not because the character per se has changed. Much more important is that Sherlock’s attitude towards the problem, that the John-character represents, has changed. John - on Sherlock’s mind stage, isn’t a ‘real’ person, like all the other characters he is an imagined ‘actor’ and represents a certain attitude (for lack of a better wording). More pecisely, if the theory of the ‘two Johns’ is correct, two possibilities can be associated with that character ... eternal friend and future lover. And it is Sherlock’s decision to see and to choose, which of the two attitudes he is willing to engage with in real life, outside his mind palace. Because if ‘real’ John is the man he seems to be in PILOT, it will certainly not be him who stands opposed to the ‘lover-attitude’. It will be solely Sherlock’s move to change his own literary history. Will he be bold enough to ‘get involved’ ... or not? One thing is certain, Sherlock has changed enormously from ASIP to TFP and has become a very good man by now. ‘Real-John’ could hardly get a better one ... :)

JIM - the virtual stationmaster and ticking clock of the experiments conducted in Sherrinford is called ‘Eurus’ revenge’ and represents, as he himself says in TRF ‘I’m Mr Sex’. The changeable criminal mastermind is also the one who hides in plain sight as ‘Hamish’ behind the ‘H’ of John’s middle name. When five years ago Eurus noticed Jim’s interest in Sherlock’s activities, Mycroft took a calculated risk and brought Jim to Sherrinford as a Christmas present for Eurus. It turned out that Jim and Eurus - sex and emotions - ‘got on like a house on fire’. And apparently this ‘five minutes conversation, five years ago’ had been THE trigger for everything that happend afterwards ... ‘It took her just five minutes to do all of this to us.’ The way I interpret the story, this can only be the moment when Sherlock laid first eyes on John Watson. Suddenly Mr Sex raises very intrigued his head and the long neglected, disparaged and locked-up Emotions react to that entirely unexpected situation and desire to know more about that ‘special condition’. As a consequence Emotions finally want to break free from their prison ... or, to put it in metaphorical words: “there’s going to be a terror strike on London (Sherlock) - a big one ...” (And suddenly everything changes The first time ever I saw your face)

Jim, Mr Sex, has been chosen by E, the ‘avenging sister, to be ‘her revenge’. With so much revenge and avenging on the table - associated with emotions and sex - inevitably the title screen of the Unaired Pilot comes to mind with Anteros (Eros’ brother) at centre stage. In Greek mythology Anteros is the god of requitted love, punisher of those who scorn love and the avenger of unrequitted love.

So he is in love, but he knows not with whom; he does not understand his own condition and cannot explain it; like one who has caught a disease of the eyes from another, he can give no reason for it; he sees himself in his lover as in a mirror, but is not conscious of the fact. And in the lover’s presence, like him he ceases from his pain, and in his absence, like him he is filled with yearning such as he inspires, and love’s image, requited love [Anteros], dwells within him; but he calls it, and believes it to be, not love, but friendship. (From Cupids: Eros, Anteros, and Greek Interpretations by @fandeadgloves)

EURUS - she represents the ‘other one’. Sherlock’s supressed, neglected and almost forgotten emotional other side - locked-up deep down at his innermost core and under the strict surveillance of the government, the brain. I’m going by the assumption that all the criminal gangs, all the terrorist groups as well as TABs 'invisible army, the monstrous regiment’ - established and led by the avenging ghost-bride and faithful sister Emelia - ‘ignored, patronised, disregarded, not allowed so much as a vote’ - that all those opponents actually represent Sherlock’s revolting emotions. In TFP this ‘league of furies’ seems to have been compressed into one single character - Eurus - of which two versions (they always come in pairs) appear in this episode:

The adult woman and high-security prisoner who is incarcerated deep down in Sherrinford, surrounded by an ocean of water, until she breaks free and takes control of the island.

The frightened little girl high up on a driverless plane, surrounded by sleeping people, who calls for help and is the motivator for Sherlock’s, John’s and Mycroft’s co-operation.

This seems to indicate that Sherlock’s persona is neither united in harmony nor fully developed. While one part of him, although grown up, is locked in a high-security prison cell, vengeful and furious - another part, although flying high up in the sky, is still trapped in childhood, alone, overstrained and terrified.

MYCROFT - big brother represents Sherlock’s rational side, logic and reason, the mind, just-brain. His immediate superior is Lady Smallwood who also opperates under the code name ‘love’. This could be a possible reason for Mycroft’s janus-facedness regarding his brother - sometimes he’s cold, emotionless, even cruel and then again constantly concerned, protective and caring. While in the previous episode Mycroft, as usual, monitores and controlles everything, this changes noticeable in TFP. Suddenly ‘big brother’ seems to have lost much of his former omnipotence. Now it is Sherlock who sets the pace and leads the way. Maybe the reasons for those changes in Mycroft’s personality have to do with Lady Smallwood’s invitation for a drink (a small shot of chemistry?). She gave Mycroft her number ... one wonders if he ever called her back. The question is, will the chemistry of love overrule the pure rational mind in the end? This conflict could become an important confrontation if the story continues.

THE GOVERNOR - he is Mycroft’s subordinate and therefore can be viewed as the extended arm of the government ... the brain. Shortly before Sherlock, Mycroft, John and the Governor find themselves locked in Eurus’ former prison cell, the audience learns that the Governor of Sherrinford disobeyed the orders of the government, regarding Eurus. He contacted her, spoke to her, even evaluated her and as a consequence the man got compromised. It is John who notices the Governor’s ‘enslavement’ by Eurus but it is already too late. The red alert goes off and Jim enters the stage via speeker system and TV screen. Metaphorically this seems to indicate that - caused by the yearning for love and sex - a certain ‘subordinate’ part of Sherlock’s mind grew curious. Against orders he took a closer look at the concept of emotions, got compromised and as a consequence started secretly working for the ‘other one’. It turns out that this forbidden involvement has serious consequences for the Governor as well as his Wife.

THE WIFE - informations about that character are sparce. There are recorded tapes on which Eurus can be heard talking to the Governor about his Wife. Eurus asks him to meet her because 'I can fix her for you’ and she promises to give her right back ‘good as new’ afterwards. The Governor hesitates. He thinks it’s not right what Eurus is proposing. Then Eurus asks the man repeatedly if he really trusts his Wife. The Governor wants her to stop saying these things, which he considers ‘completely inappropriate’.

In a nutshell: Eurus wants to ‘change and fix’ the Governor’s Wife. The husband hesitates and fears that such a change could be not right, even completely inappropriate. The man’s trust in his Wife seems also to be of great importance.

As mentioned above, I view the Governor as part of Sherlock’s rational mind, compromised by emotions, resulting from a lack of love and sex. In my opinion, the Wife can then only represent traditional John, who lives in a ‘legal’ relationship - a just-friendship - with Sherlock, thus the marriage. Eurus, Sherlock’s emotional side, wants to change that character - this situation - into something new, something that could still be interpreted by some people as ‘not legal’. The curious and compromised part of Sherlock’s mind fears,that such a change might be not right, even completely inappropriate. What else could that be than a metaphor for Sherlock’s desire to change John from ‘legal’ eternal just-friend to ‘illegal’ lover?

Eurus’ challenge

Imprisoned in Eurus’ former cell, Sherlock, Mycroft, John and the Governor are confronted with the first task. Eurus, Jim and the Governor’s Wife are connected to them via TV screen, the little girl on the plane via audio. The Governor’s Wife can be seen sitting in a chair, handcuffed and gagged, while Eurus announces that she will shoot the woman in about a minute ... unless ...

‘You want to save the Governor’s wife? Choose either Doctor Watson or Mycroft to kill the Governor. You can’t do it, Sherlock. If you do it, it won’t count. I’ll kill her anyway. It has to be your brother or your friend.’

That’s a clear demand. In order to save the Governor’s Wife, the Governor himself has to die and Sherlock must decide who shall kill the man ... Mycroft or John. Without any hesitation the Governor is willing to sacrifice his life for his Wife. Mycroft refuses rigorously to shoot the man. John tries to do it but also fails in the end. In his desperation the Governor takes the gun out of John’s hand and shoots himself. This sacrifice doesn’t save the Governor’s Wife though. Sherlock wasn’t able to accomplish the task as demanded and so Eurus shoots the Governor’s Wife as threatened.

My reading of that task: Sherlock has to decide if the compromised part of his brain should be erased either bei his rational mind or by his supressed desires in order to enable the further existance of the ‘legal’ relationship, the eternal friendship with John. This turns out to be impossible. And so the compromised part chooses to erase himself. But Sherlock’s emotional side doesn’t allow him to back away from this important decision and erases the eternal friendship anyway.

The first task and Series One

The first task of Sherrinford is definitely linked to Series One. The eloquent and talkative serial killer in A STUDY IN PINK, Jeff Hope, who is sponsored by Jim, persuades Sherlock to follow him. There is a strong motive of curiosity that finally overrules Sherlock’s rational mind and his common sense - the orders of the brain - until he willlingly puts himself in great danger just to understand the WHY and the HOW (’I don’t like not knowing’) ... all of this mirrows the interaction between the Governor and Eurus, who calls herself ‘Jim’s revenge’.

‘It’s murder, all of them. I don’t know how, but they’re not suicides, they’re killings’ ... the same can be said about the first task of Sherrinford. The Governor kills himself, he commits suicide but actually it's murder.

’I didn’t kill those people, I spoke to them and they killed themselves’ ... that’s what Jeff Hope tells Sherlock about his victims. The Governor of Sherrinford tells that Eurus once talked to a doctor and as a consequence the man killed himself and his family.

‘If I wanted to understand, what would I do?’ - ‘Let me take you for a ride.’ - ‘So you can kill me too?’ - ‘I don’t wanna kill you, Mr. Holmes. I’m gonna talk to you ... and then you’re gonna kill yourself.’ ... apparently the Governor was driven by the same motivation as Sherlock. He got curious about Eurus, wanted to understand her. His curiosity grew stronger than his common sense and then he talked to her.

But ASIP isn’t the only episdoe of Series One from which certain motives turn up in the first task of Sherrinford. There is also THE BLIND BANKER. This outstanding episode gives the impression to be the user manual for the whole show (About series one). As mentioned in this old post, the showdown in the Black Tramway Dragon Den presents two Johns and two Sherlocks. This happens because of a missunderstanding. General Shan mistakes John for Sherlock and this turns John - for that particular scene - into a Sherlock-mirror while ‘his pretty doctor companion’ Sarah becomes a John-mirror.

In the Dragon Den John as well as Sarah are bound to a chair and both are threatened to be shot. While Sarah sits in front of a massive crossbow armed with an arrow, General Shan aims her gun at John’s head, even pulls the trigger, but there is no bullet in the chamber.

The way the Governor’s Wife sits bound to a chair in TFP, gagged and threatened to be shot, recalls the showdown in The Blind Banker with John and especially Sarah, who is also gagged. And because of the extraordinary mirroring in that scene both characters represent John (while John is at the same time also a Sherlock-mirror), which means that in this quite similar situation in TBB two Johns happen to sit bound to chairs, threatened to get shot.

General Shan is quite interesting as well, especially regarding her name (’the clue’s in the name’ says Jim in TGG). The Chinese character ‘shān’ means ‘mountain’ and its pictograph 山 is meant to show a series of mountain peaks (X). Only one quarter turn is required and that pictograph suspiciously looks almost like an E. How much of a coincidence can it be that Sherlock’s secret ghost sister is first introduced as ‘E’? Then she turns into Faith,Elsa/Eliszabeth and later reveals herself to be Eurus before she aims her gun at John and shoots him ... immediately after he stands up from a chair.

What also comes to mind is the small ‘printing error’ regarding the ‘explosive’ glycerol molecule formula in TRF, which should, correctly written, depict three times ‘OH’ but acutally shows OH-OE-OH (Under the microscope 2). A quite similar letter-turning-game can be played with M&W and there’s also that big E that turns up on a promo shot for S1. (source)

Beyond Series One

As mentioned at the beginning of this post, linking the first task of Sherrinford to Series One fits perfectly on a first glance. There are clear connections with ASIP and TBB. And yet, that comparison doesn’t work out entirely smoothly because there’s something more contained in Eurus’ fist experiment, something that doesn’t happen in Series One. While ‘Saving John Watson’ is clearly a main theme of the show from the start, there is another very strong theme addressed in the first task of Sherrinford, something that emerges only beyond Series One. I’m refering to the SACRIFICE-MOTIVE that starts playing a main role only in Series Two ... The Reichenbach Fall. On Bart’s roof Sherlock has to choose between his own life and the lives of his friends, above all John’s.

'Oh, just kill yourself. It’s a lot less effort. … Okay, let me give you a little extra incentive. Your friends will die if you don’t.’ - ‘John.’ ... this is exactly what the first task of Sherrinford addresses as well. In order to save the life of the Governor’s Wife, the Governor has to die and ultimately he kills himself.

Like the Governor of Sherrinford in Eurus’ first task, Sherlock too chooses to sacrifice his own life in that scene on Bart’s roof, to save the ones he loves. It is Jim (Eurus’ revenge) who forces that decision on Sherlock by taking his own life first. Both characters manoeuvre themselves in a deadlock position by talking each other into suicide. They are ‘killing with words’. That’s the same method Jeff Hope uses in ASIP and Eurus in TFP.

Same methods ... and then ‘the Government explodes’

As mentioned above in the character description, Mycroft seems to represent Sherlock’s rational side, logic, reason, the mind - the brain. Applying this metaphor to the story told in Sherlock BBC, some interesting connections and motivations become visible. And it looks like all of them have to do with Sherlock’s fear that - under certain circumstances - he could ‘lose his mind’. There are some characters involved, who decide to end their lives in a very similar way ... by destroying their brains.

On Bart’s roof, Jim takes a gun to his mouth and shoots himself. He sacrifices his life in order to force Sherlock to do the same, if he wants to save the ones he loves.

Sherlock sacrifices his own life and although he chooses a different method, the outcome is the same - head bashed in and blood on the pavement.

Emelia Ricoletti wants to make her death count. Her suicide in TAB - both fake and real - mirrors Jim’s, Sherlock’s and Irene’s (although in ASIB there are no visuals of the Woman, respectively of her doppelgänger in the morgue). Emelia’s death becomes the birth of the ‘league of avenging brides’ and later of ‘ghost-sister’.

Blood on the floor, a destroyed brain and a gun beside his hand applies also for the Governor of Sherrinford when he sacrifices his ‘compromised’ life for his wife.

‘I’m remembering the governor’ ... with these words Sherlock decides to go the same way as David, when he tries to back out of Eurus’ fourth task, because it’s impossible for him to erase either Mycroft (rational mind) or John (his desire for the eternal just-friend).

And of course, the massive bomb inside the Underground train compartment at Sumatra Road - the station which was closed before it ever opened - the bomb that threatens to destroy the Houses of Parliament in TEH should not be forgotten either. It’s his highly ‘explosive transport’ with which Sherlock is dealing in this adaptation, after all. :)

This imagined explosion - stopped and prevented by Sherlock in the very last second - is mirrored in TST, when Mycroft reminds Sherlock of his old, rewritten childhood story 'Appointment in Sumatra’. The scene ends literally with Mycroft’s head - and the queen’s picture - exploding and shattering into pieces (And then the government explodes).

Those pieces then merge into the transition of the shattered plaster bust, owned by Mohandes Hassan. That man’s first name is linked with a winged god of love and lust, armed with arrows, while his family name is linked with an Irish deer. (The plaster bust owners)

All those destroyed brains seem to point at one and the same problem and Sherlock explains that ‘problem’ in quite clear words in The Reichenbach Fall, when he talks about ideas planted in heads and the impossibility to erase them again from that place - the mind:

“You’re gonna have to be strong to resist. You can’t kill an idea, can you? Not once it’s made a home ... there.”

That’s what all those ‘killings’ and sacrifices and shuttered brains are about, in my opinion. Sherlock wants to erase a certain idea from his mind. He is at war with himself over this problem because a part of him considers that idea ‘not right’ maybe even ‘completely inappropriate’ as the Governor puts it when he talks about Eurus’ suggestion ‘to change and fix his wife’. Sherlock is driven by his long neglected emotions to change the traditional relationship with his eternal just-friend into something new. The idea of a romantic and sexual relationship with John has made a home inside his brain and whatever Sherlock tries to do to erase that idea .... it’s completely futile. That particular idea seems to be simply indestructible. If you can’t kill the idea, destroy the head ... before you lose your mind. And that’s a deadlock position in itself.

The first task and Series Four

From The Reichenbach Fall onwards the SACRIFICE-MOTIVE moves significantly into focus. Saving John Watson, even at the cost of Sherlock’s own life, is the main theme that runs from now on like a scarlet ribbon throughout the story. Though heartbroken, Sherlock marries John and Mary in TSOT to protect his eternal friendship with Dr Watson. He murders Magnussen, the keeper of (his own) secrets and scandals, also to protect eternal friend and facade and he willingly goes away on a suicide mission, never to return. But then in TST Mary (his facade) - who secretly works for Mycroft - throws herself in front of Sherlock to take Norbury’s bullet. Sherlock’s facade breaks and crumbles and now everything starts to change. Without facade, Eurus, his emotional side, can’t be contained any loger.

‘Save John Watson. Save him, Sherlock. It’s up to you. Save him. The only way to save John ... is to make him save you. Go to Hell, Sherlock. Go right into Hell, and make it look like you mean it. Go and pick a fight with a bad guy. Put yourself in harm’s way. If he thinks you need him, I swear ... he will be there.’

This is Mary’s last advice for Sherlock at the end of TST. Stricktly speaking, one can summarise that whole paragraph in just two words: ‘trust John’. That’s exactly what Eurus wants to know about the Governor’s wife ... ‘do you trust your wife’. And in TLD, the very next episode, Sherlock puts precisely that advice into action. He picks a fight with Culverton Smith, a talkative serial killer who has quite striking teeth. Sherlock lets himself be abducted by that man in order to get killed. John is the ultimate reason for Sherlock’s hazardous plan in the first place. None other than John brings Sherlock into that situation. Using Jim’s words from TAB: ‘Doesn’t this remind you of another case? Hasn’t this all happened before? There’s nothing new under the sun. What was it? What was that case?’ Of course, Jim refers with those words to occurrences in ASIB and TRF. Using them in this context, I want to point to the close connections between the Jeff Hope case in ASIP and the Culverton Smith (father of Faith) case in TLD. It’s hard not to notice those Serial-Killer-Connections that take the story backwards to its beginning ... although the ending of both episodes differs quite interestingly.

In ASIP John shoots and kills Hope, the talkative serial killer who had been sponsored by Jim.

In TLD John is shot by Eurus, who calls herself ‘Jim’s revenge’ and the talkative serial killer Smith (father of Faith) goes to prison.

Taking all those connections into account it becomes clear that the first task of Sherrinford isn’t linked exclusively with Series One. It stretches across the whole show on to Series Four. And just like S1 & S4 are linked, the first & the fourth task of Sherrinford are linked as well. In both cases the same characters are moved into focus - Mycroft and John - the one represents Sherlock’s rational mind and the other his supressed sexual desire aimed at the best friend. Both tasks end with a slightly different shooting - same as the relevant episodes in S1 & S4 (ASIP&TLD).

Sherlock has to decide who shall do the shooting ... Mycroft or John.

Sherlock has to decide whom he himself shall shoot ... Mycroft or John.

In the end it turns out that neither of them is able to erase any of the other parts and when Sherlock tries to erase himself (in exactly the same way as the Governor in the first task), Eurus intervenes and catapults Sherlock right away into the Musgrave Riddle ... where the dog lies burried ... wo der Hund begraben liegt ... where the crux of the matter lies. Redbeard, Victor, John in the well.

Therefore the Musgrave Riddle - Sherlock’s fifth task in Sherrinford - should point to the Fifth Series of Sherlock BBC .....

PS:

Some musings about ‘living’ and ‘dying’ in Sherlock BBC

‘Each Sherrinford task gives us the same challenge as the corresponding season, but shows us the exact opposite outcome’ ... wrote @sagestreet in the above mentioned Sherrinford Meta. That’s what I see as well. For example:

In Series One ASIP John shoots Hope and saves Sherlock’s life and Sherlock rescues John and Sarah (John-mirror) from getting shot by the Black Lotus Gang in TBB. The third episode, TGG, is quite special in itself, because of its five-case structure that, just like the five tasks of Sherrinford, also strongly points to five possible series of the show. Therefore not the last case - John’s abduction by Jim and the following swimming pool showdown, interrupted by Irene’s (the naked truth’s) phonecall - should be taken for a Sherrinford comparison. Instead the fourth case is here the relevant one, the one with the fake Vermeer painting about the exploding supernova and the lost child, who cries for help like little Eurus on the plane and Victor in the well. Sherlock is able to prevent the explosion of the fourth bomb and save the child. Everyone lives, only the blind old lady dies, who might represent love, because ‘love is blind’ the saying goes (Love, actually).

The first task of Sherrinford, on the other hand, ends with the death of both, husband and wife, who represent Sherlock and John.

The big question now is ... what outcome is the good one and what the bad one? In real life, of course, dying would definitely be the bad thing .... but .... on a metaphorical level, where ‘dying’ and ‘death’ can be translated into ‘fallin in love’ or ‘having sex’ (la petite mort), the same thing would then stand for something good, wouldn’t it? When Jim and Sherlock meet on Bart’s roof, the consulting criminal greets the consulting detective with this words, while ‘Staying alive’ from The Bee Gees plays on the phone in his hand:

"Ah. Here we are at last – you and me, Sherlock, and our problem – the final problem. Stayin’ alive! It’s so boring, isn’t it? It’s just ... staying.”

According to Jim, the final problem is ‘just staying alive’ and this state of being seems to be extremly boring for Jim, who calls himself ‘Mr Sex’. If Sherlock considers sexuality as a copletely unnecessary, while distrubing influence - just dispensable transport - as one would expect from a traditional Holmes interpretation .... how would his neglected sex drive react in case someone gave Mr Sex a voice to express his own view on the matter? What extremely boring existance it must be to play the role of Mr Sex, when Sherlock chooses to live a celibate life, because all that matters to him is the work. Especially when Sherlock is living in close proximity to John Watson. Staying alive under these circumstances must become a real challenge for Mr Sex. No wonder Jim longs for revenge and turns into a criminal mastermind just to get Sherlock out to play a great game with him. And most likely Anteros is also very not amused about such a love and sex scorning behaviour .... :)

Another scene that comes to mind immediately is the one in TLD, in which Culverton Smith tries to suffocate Sherlock. The dark John-mirror can only confess his scandalous secret in the presence of people who are under the influence of a memory inhibitor and not able to remember anything afterwards. Before Smith takes any action he demands from Sherlock to say ‘I don’t want to die’. The way Sherlock utters those words feel entirely honest and heartbreaking. One wonders which version of the great detective is here afraid of dying ....

the traditional Holmes, who would rather not change anything because he lives in fear to lose his eternal friend forever if he tells the truth or

the modern, liberated Sherlock, who desperately wants to break free from his prison but is still not allowed to and forced again into silence

And which version of John breaks into the hospital room and saves once again Sherlock’s life? It seems to be traditional Dr Watson, who represents Sherlock’s desperately unspoken desire for his eternal friend, the part of him who shys away from any change. That rescue-scene with the fire extinguisher is the counterpart of the one in TRF, in which Jim breaks open the glass cabinet and ‘frees the crown jewels’. Which break-in can be considered positive and which one negative? Is freeing and helping themselves to the ‘crown jewels’ good or bad? Is it good or bad when traditional Dr Watson saves Sherlock’s life again and again and again?

‘”Liberty in death” – isn’t that the expression? The only true freedom.’

That’s what Sherlock says in THOB, when he refers to the origin of the HOUND aerosol that triggers fear and terror - in other words: the chemistry of love is in the air. Could therefore a metaphorical ‘death’ be the way to Sherlock’s and John’s final liberation? If there are two versions of John and Sherlock - a traditional, closeted pair & a future, liberated pair - wouldn’t it be only logical to assume that one of those pairs has to die, to enable the existance of the other pair. In that case ‘dying’ is also an ambigious aspect in Sherlock BBC. Good or bad depends solely on what version will die and what version will live.

Thanks for reading that far and thanks @callie-ariane for the scripts.

July, 2022

#sherlock bbc #the final problem #tfp #first task of sherrinford #the governor and his wife #revisited #metaphorical reading #five tasks #five episodes #tapestry of sherlock bbc

ebaeschnbliah