#sherlockmeta

[maryholmes94]

‘Sherlock’ Out Of Fandom. Essay №1

For several years I’ve been writing about ‘Sherlock’ and its actors, Sherlock Holmes and his various adaptations, and a couple of weeks ago I’ve decided: why not to write about it in English on Tumblr? As some of you pointed out, it is not that easy to find any analysis of this show, which is not johnlock-related (at least on the English-speaking websites). So I’ve decided to express my thinking in writing, hoping that it could be useful not just for me, but for somebody else. I have no idea how many essays I’m going to write, but I want to unite them under the title “‘Sherlock’ Out Of Fandom”. And by that I mean that I’m not going to give any attention to the theories and speculations which were based on the incorrect interpretation of the original source (which in this case is the ‘Sherlock’ TV-series itself). So I’m not going to talk about the so called “Johnlock Conspiracy”, or about “season 4 is not real” theories, or about any other fantasies this fandom is so full of. Furthermore – I’m not going to be involved in the discussions which are concerning such theories, so I warn you in advance: if you want to talk about ‘Sherlock’, please be kind enough to talk about the actual show. The show that was actually released on television and not on AO3 in some fics you like so much. That would be a different topic and I’m not interested in discussing it.

Since we established this simple but important rule, I think we can move to the first essay in this series, which is titled

Three things that make ‘Sherlock’ special

The viewers may like ‘Sherlock’ or hate it, but whatever their personal opinions on this show are, they can’t deny that it is indeed very special. And not just because of the unique place it occupies in the ‘multiverse’ of interpretations of the original stories written by Sir Arthur Conan Doyle. And even not because it helped to speed up the revolution that changed the whole TV industry and our perception of it. What makes ‘Sherlock’ really special is its authors’ innovative attitude towards the old narrative. It was a radical break from traditions, which, surprisingly, is still unnoticed – maybe because other subjects interest people more, but maybe because, however radical this break was, it looked so natural that people simply didn’t realize its significance.

This innovation is visible through the entire series, but there are three milestones, which are the fundament for the whole narrative and story-telling of ‘Sherlock’, so let’s have a look at each of them.

The analytical approach to the original material

The fans of Conan Doyle’s stories know that there are basically two ways of bringing them to the screen. The first one is the good old ‘filmization’ – or, to put it simpler, the film adaptation, when the creators take the original story and adapt it to the screen. That was the path taken by the famous ‘Granada’ TV-series, the Wilmer-Cushing series from the 1960s and the Soviet version from the 1980s. The second way is the good old ‘based on the characters created by Sir Arthur Conan Doyle’, when the creators write a new story and add here and there some ‘easter-eggs’ and references to the original source. The best examples here are Rathbone-Bruce movies from the 1940s, the Guy Ritchie’s movies, and all these young sherlock holmeses, extremely old sherlock holmeses, enola holmeses etc. Which way have Mark Gatiss and Steven Moffat chosen? Some may say – both, but the more correct answer would be – none. What they did is what every true scientist is doing when he or she needs to analyze their sources: they’ve read them all, they’ve singled out the essentials and they’ve drawn the balance – which at the end became the carcass of their story. So therefore each episode of their show is not just an adaptation of the original story, and not something new that they invented – it is a profound analysis of the Conan Doyle’s stories which is put under the lens of their own perception. And that makes ‘Sherlock’ not just an adaptation, but a philosophical research both of Sherlock Holmes as a cultural phenomenon and of the world Gatiss and Moffat – and their audience – are living in.

Which brings us to the second point.

2. ‘Sherlock’ tells the story of its own time

Again, the fans of Conan Doyle’s Holmes certainly read many books and articles about the famous writer and his attitude towards his creation, about the origins of his ideas, and about many other things, but what sometimes is overlooked is the fact that all the stories about Holmes written by Conan Doyle are a huge source of historical material. His stories present a chronic of his own time – yes, it has its flaws and it is far from complete, but nonetheless, if the reader wants to know something about the late Victorian and Edwardian era, Conan Doyle’s books are a rich source of knowledge on the subject. And ‘Sherlock’ is the first interpretation of it which is also a chronic of its time. Yes, there were other movies before that which were set in the contemporary era, but how much can a viewer find out about the 1940s from the Rathbone-Bruce movies? Yes, there was a war, and people wore certain clothes and travelled by trains, but who were these people? What a world they were living in? The information on this subject is scarce and hides behind the human drama and detective plots. ‘Sherlock’, on the other hand, is rooted in the time it speaks about – just like the original material it is based on. That’s why Conan Doyle’s stories were so popular, and that’s why ‘Sherlock’ is so popular too. People see in it the world that surrounds them, they know it and understand it, and understanding brings interest and a sense of belonging – the key to any TV-show’s success.

3. As its title says, ‘Sherlock’ has only one main character

The third milestone of ‘Sherlock’ narrative seems at first sight to be more concrete, but it is closely tied to the other two. A long history of bringing to the screen the characters created by Sir Arthur Conan Doyle accustomed the viewer to a certain paradigm. Sherlock Holmes is always accompanied by Dr. Watson, and sometimes (though in fact very rarely) they are joined by other characters, such as DI Lestrade and Mrs. Hudson (more often) and Mary Morsten or Mycroft Holmes (more rare). And here ‘Sherlock’ broke the tradition again: not only did Mark Gatiss and Steven Moffat give the supporting characters important roles, but at the same time they also made Sherlock Holmes a little bit lonelier than he already was by putting his personality at the center of their attention. In the end, it’s all about Sherlock and the circumstances which made him a man he is. Yes, his interactions with other characters are part and parcel of the story, but the fact that Dr. Watson doesn’t have the “exclusive access” to him anymore enriches the narrative and enables the writers to show all sorts of Sherlock’s personality. Suddenly he takes a whole number of roles nobody before thought him capable of taken: he is a son, he is a Godfather, he is the best man at the wedding, he is a close friend of Mary Morsten, a defender of Mrs. Hudson, a sarcastic, but caring younger brother and a tender forgiving older brother. And the main subject of the show is the moral and internal evolution of this extraordinary man. Sherlock Holmes written by Mark Gatiss and Steven Moffat and played by Benedict Cumberbatch is not a legend and not a monument: he is a man of flesh and blood, and it is his extraordinary inner world and not his deduction skills that makes him so unique – and special.  

These are the three major things that in my opinion make ‘Sherlock’ a special adaptation of the original Arthur Conan Doyle’s stories. It presents an analytical take of the original source, it perfectly depicts its own time (and its main problems), and it brings Sherlock Holmes at the center of the narrative, making him not just a hero of his time, but a man who has a story all of us can understand, and some – even relate to. In the end, ‘Sherlock’ is not just another adaptation – ‘Sherlock’ is an original story everyone can take to heart without even knowing about its source.

@rey-jake-therapist - tagging you in case you find it interesting

[theveryfinalproblem]

“Don’t get involved” and why that scene has always bothered me - A Johnlock meta post

Let’s talk about my favorite scene in The Sign Of Three. The infamous phone call with Mycroft. "Don't get involved."

I have thought a lot about this scene since seeing it for the first time. And even after watching season four, I can’t wrap my head around its meaning. What is going on here? Why does that phone call feel like it leaves a whole paragraph of things unsaid? What the hell is it what we see on screen, what happened that caused it, and how do you read it in a logical, in-character way? Is it even possible to do so without making it some blatantly in-your-face Johnlock?

I. What is the setting? (Introduction)

It’s the wedding day. Sherlock is calling his brother sometime between meeting Major Sholto (and being absolutely jealous, there is no other way to read his behaviour) and giving his best man speech.

II. What do we learn? (Introduction)

Sherlock is incredibly tense and nervous the whole time. It doesn’t take Mycroft long to realize that “It’s today, isn’t it?”, most probably by the way Sherlock acts and talks. The way he phrases that sentence suggests that they have already talked about it in person. Reminder: Talking to Sherlock about the wedding looks like this and rather is a monologue than a conversation:

 He wants Mycroft to come over and join the celebration. Mycroft refuses. Instead, he reminds his brother that “This is what peole do, Sherlock. They get married. I warned you, don’t get involved”. Sherlock repeatedly claims to not be involved in whatever they are talking about, and everytime he does, Mycroft gives him a pretty knowing look.

III. Questions (Main Part)

When I first saw that scene, my mind was full of questions. I now have watched it several times as TSOT is my favorite episode and most of them remained. Let’s establish the main three ones really quick:

Why is Sherlock really calling Mycroft?

What is he involved in, in what way, and why does he deny it?

Why does Mycroft mention Redbeard at the end of the call?

IV. Answering the questions (Main Part)

A) Why is Sherlock really calling Mycroft?

I do not think that Sherlock wanting Mycroft to come over is the (only) reason for the call. They seem to have already talked about that before, agreed on the fact that Mycroft won’t come (why should he? He isn’t that important to John or Mary, so this would only be for Sherlock) and Sherlock doesn’t put a lot of effort in trying to convince him otherwise. This question seems like a pretence for the actual reason for the call which is also supported by the fact that Sherlock doesn’t hang up immediately after Mycroft says he definitely won’t come.

So let’s look a little deeper.

Besides all his struggles, Sherlock is a grown man. Still, he seems to need a little support in that moment and that is absolutely valid. If you go for the straight-forward Johnlock reading, he is devastated that John is marrying someone else. Otherwise he might simply be overwhelmed by all the people or nervous to hold the speech. No matter what’s going on, it definitely shows his more vulnerable side. This is not about inviting Mycroft. He is pacing nervously, his voice and facial expressions are quite stiff and he is incredibly fast to talk back to Mycroft which suggests a high emotional tension.

So Sherlock chooses to talk to someone for a little support (and ask that person to come join him in person for some companionship). Notice how all the people he would normally talk to about something like that are already present in the room?

Still, he calls his brother. The only one who’s not a wedding guest. A person he called his enemy in ASIP. Their relationship is loving in some way, they take care of each other and help each other out, but I don't expect them to talk a lot about feelings. Mycroft thinks that “Caring is not an advantage”, so I doubt they do at all.

And I don't expect Sherlock to show weakness in front of him by telling him how much he struggles with John getting married (or talking in front of people; you see, this reading gets more and more absurd). He wants others to believe he is a sociopath and even in front of his brother, he is hiding behind that mask. Still, Mycroft remembers the date so I think Sherlock told him about the wedding itself and was emotional enough to make it possible for Mycroft to read his emotions and his struggle without having to mention it ,despite trying to hide it.

He may have chosen Mycroft out of all people because he could not open up about it but knew Mycroft would understand him nevertheless. He has known him since his birth.

Also, might it be that Sherlock is so upset about something the guests of a wedding should not know about their best man?

That scene tells us a lot about their relationship and their past. The Holmes brothers don’t talk about their feelings a lot, but they for sure know what’s going on with the other one. There is no need to talk about it because it’s already so obvious.

(A little addition that reaches a little further from the actual topic: I love the headcanon that Mycroft could reach Sherlock in his darkest times with the addiction when his parents couldn't anymore because Sherlock for sure doesn't talk about it. The agreement to "make a list" definitely comes from those times.)

So we have something very emotional going on here. Sherlock is not just nervous to hold the speech. He is so emotionally confused and overwhelmed he calls his brother. A person he normally doesn't speak to about his feelings. And Mycroft still knows what's going on because they have been through a lot together. Sherlock is unable to talk about it, so he wants a conversation with someone who already knows. 

B) What is he involved in, in what way, and why does he deny it?

The “what” of that question is quite easy to answer. It must have to do with the wedding. In this conversation, the wedding is referred to as “John and Mary. Domestic bliss” what leads me to the realization that it’s a stand-in for their general relationship. Mycroft doesn’t want Sherlock to be involved in their relationship and “the big day”. He doesn't want Sherlock to get in the way with what he does, their conversation wouldn’t make any sense if that involvement was something positive. He is afraid Sherlock might destroy the wedding and he tries to prevent that from happening.

But in what way is Sherlock involved in their big day?  My theory is that they are talking about being emotionally involved.

Mycroft doesn’t seem to have that much respect for his brother’s job from time to time, but he wouldn't want him to do nothing when a crime might happen on the wedding, so the involvement is not “detective work that may disturb the guests”.

John made Sherlock his best man after knowing him for years. This means he knows how socially awkward he can get and he calculated that. He knows Sherlock is not good with people and still he’s allowed to do the most important speech of that day. Sherlock being Sherlock would not destroy the wedding as John chose him as his best man because he is Sherlock.

That leads us to the following: "Don't get involved" means doing or revealing something (of an emotional nature) not even John would expect or something that has never been a topic until now. That’s why Sherlock denies it. It’s something those characters never talk about, despite it being powerful enough to destroy a whole wedding if revealed. The obvious truth going unaddressed. Sounds familiar?

C) Why does Mycroft mention Redbeard at the end of the call?

Oh, regarding what we just found out,  I love that he reminds him of Redbeard in that scene. Redbeard kind of means "show no emotions about people that mean a lot to you" and mentioning him should remind Sherlock of that. So Mycroft wants to protect Sherlock from showing so many emotions that he would get involved in (~Destroy? Influence?) a wedding and the relationship of the bride and groom. He doesn’t want him to say the one thing nobody has ever talked about. Something a wedding party should never know about the best man: Him being in love with the groom. The actual reason for the call and for that scene.

In my opinion, there is no other way to logically read this.

[nightowltheory]

TFP, Hell & Demons

So many of you noticed all the Horrors VS. James Bond references in TFP and if you don't know what I'm talking about you should read this wonderful meta (on which I base almost all my meta theories).

Anyway, I've rewatched TFP (after many years of mournig) to find clues to decode this last episode, and I was hitting by the number of hell, evil and demons references.

"The road we walk have demons beneath" - Mycroft

"...I can give you a map reference for hell" - Mycroft

Mrs Hudson vacuuming is listening "666 the Number of the Beast" by Iron Maiden

This shot of Eurus(love)'s eye burning

Then we have those shots from the scene at 221b, very explicit.

And maybe not so visible but this red mirror has horns on top of it, right ?

And from John's mouth also.

Of courses we've been told about "Go to hell Sherlock". Wondering what else can we deduce about this ?

[hemlock-her-loss]

Sherlock Meta - The Haunted Man and the Ghost’s Bargain

Whelp, I’m writing meta when I should be finishing my master’s thesis, so not much has changed in my life… Anyway, I delved back into TAB, because I still feel like understanding TAB is the key to making sense of S4.  I was reading about the Pepper’s Ghost illusion, and I stumbled upon a story by Charles Dickens, called: The Haunted Man and the Ghost’s Bargain, the connection being that: 

Pepper first showed the effect [Pepper’s Ghost] during a scene of Charles Dickens's The Haunted Man¹.

The story is the fifth and final of Dickens’ Christmas stories, the first and most famous being A Christmas Carol. Of course my interest was immediately piqued, because we know that Mark Gatiss has a great fascination (or obsession) with ghost stories, and particularly Christmas ghost stories. I haven’t yet read the story, so the following information is what I’ve gathered from different articles, which I’ve included links to at the end.

The protagonist of The Haunted Man is Redlaw: 

a brilliant teacher of chemistry...whose lonely existence is oppressed by a host of gloomy memories...Redlaw broods in solitude upon the pall of his misfortunes, summoning a desire to be rid of every recollection of suffering, unhappiness, and wrong that he has ever known².

Already the Sherlock similarities are pretty intense: a brooding, brilliant individual who has studied chemistry, lives a relatively solitary existence, and is haunted by memories from his past. And what exactly is the past event that so haunts Redlaw? The death of his sister in his youth.

Soon after Redlaw’s introduction in the story, he is visited by a ghostly Doppelgänger (i.e. a dark mirror, Dr. Jekyll/Mr. Hyde type figure) comes to Redlaw and offers him the opportunity to forget all his past traumas, to erase or delete the memories if you will... While Redlaw is suspicious of the offer, he immediately jumps at the opportunity, but there is a catch: everyone who he comes into contact with will also have their bad memories erased. Redlaw is willing to accept the consequences, and agrees to the conditions.

REDLAW: If there were poison in my body, should I not, possessed of antidotes and knowledge how to use them, use them? If there be poison in my mind, and through this fearful shadow I can cast it out, shall I not cast it out?²

I find it interesting the parallels between how Sherlock and Redlaw describe their unpleasant, human emotions: Redlaw as poison to the mind, and Sherlock as the fly in the ointment, grit in the lens, or virus in the data. 

As the story continues, Redlaw begins to realize a change in his behavior and in the behavior of those around him, who have also had their bad memories erased. Redlaw is esteemed by his students, not only for his brilliance, but also his kindness towards them. This slowly begins to change as Redlaw becomes angrier at the world, and less caring for those around him. This is also reflected in the cast of characters around Redlaw, for instance the Tetterby family (similar to the Cratchit family in A Christmas Carol) who are portrayed as warm and caring toward one another in the beginning of the story, but begin quarreling and practically abusing one another after their past memories are forgotten.

Through this change, Redlaw comes to realize that the negative memories from his past, while they may have caused him a great deal of suffering, were the source of his humanity and compassion:

Redlaw, reaching rock bottom, describes himself as ‘a man without a soul, as incapable of compassion, artistic sensitivity or spiritual understanding, as the abandoned waif whose neglected short life is equally barren of memories.’ He soon regrets his decision, and realizes that personal harmony does not come from surrendering one's memory of suffering, but in reconciling it with one's joys. Redlaw learns it is best to forgive, not forget³.

Through acceptance of and working through past traumas, and forgiveness of past transgressions, an individual is able to grow as a person and become more compassionate towards others. Steven Moffat discussed how it is precisely Sherlock’s compassion which makes him the superior of Mycroft or Eurus in an interview with Vulture Magazine: 

Well, they [Mycroft and Eurus Holmes] have extraordinary mental equipment is what they’ve got, an extraordinary mental acuity. They are extremely brave, the computer runs well. Both Mycroft and to a greater degree, Eurus, cannot see value in morality beyond the idea that it is the survival strategy of a pack animal. Sherlock Holmes can. He can actually feel and experience compassion. And he is quite a compassionate, passionate man underneath it all. But that’s always been the case for Sherlock Holmes. He is claiming to be the arch-intellectual, but we all know he’s a wise old man and a hero, too. Eurus reveals the extremes of where a great brain can go without a great heart to accompany it⁴.

I would of course love to deep dive into this story and do a full blown meta, but the whole thesis thing means this is the best I can do for now. I tried looking around to see if anyone else had mentioned The Haunted Man, but I didn’t find anything, so maybe you guys can make something more of it or link to someone who has already covered this.

A quick thought though:

This definitely would confirm that Moffat and Gatiss are serious about Sherlock having a sister whom he thinks dead, and that he has erased his memory of her (as well as other memories, like the death of Victor Trevor). For me though, I still don’t take this to mean that the Eurus Holmes we encountered in S4 is actually his real sister (my money is on Rosamund Mary Holmes, but that’s a whole other meta in itself), rather his MP version of her. I still think S4 is in Sherlock’s mind palace, and what we are seeing is him bringing the past memories to the surface, which they demonstrate beautifully in TFP:

Sources: 1. The Haunted Man Wiki article https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Haunted_Man_and_the_Ghost%27s_Bargain

2. Crisis Magazine article about The Haunted Man

https://www.crisismagazine.com/2013/dickens-forgotten-christmas-tale-the-haunted-man

3. Blog about The Haunted Man

https://blog.bookstellyouwhy.com/charles-dickens-final-christmas-novel-the-haunted-man-and-the-ghosts-bargain

4. Vulture Magazine interview with Steven Moffat

https://www.vulture.com/2017/01/sherlock-showrunner-steven-moffat-the-final-problem.html“If there were poison in my body, should I not, possessed of antidotes and knowledge how to use them, use them? If there be poison in my mind, and through this fearful shadow I can cast it out, shall I not cast it out?”

[elldotsee]

The Fall of Reichen-BACH

I just had a….thought.

I did a quick search for something similar and came up with nothing, so *deep breath* here goes my first ever meta.

What if Bach is a metaphor?

Mofftiss mention Bach multiple times, despite Sherlock’s musical preference never being mentioned in canon.

Bach is typically associated with “church music”- he was the exemplary pious Christian man.

 So what if Bach = Heteronormativity??

 When Moriarty arrives at Baker Street, Sherlock is playing a Bach Sonata. Moriarty says “Bach would be appalled” (Why would “Bach”, i.e. Heternormativity, i.e. The Church/Society, etc. be appalled? Because Sherlock is gay of course.)

 Bach is the key. Moriarty says so himself on the roof. And the “man with the key is king”.

 So….that means Reichenbach = Rich Brook was just a red herring. What if Mofftiss, in their wicked ways, used a simple play on words here?

 The Fall of Reich/En/Bach

Reich (or rule, kindom, reign) of BACH.

 The FALL of the KINGDOM of BACH.

  And then.

 THEN!

 In TFP, Sherlock begins to play the violin for Eurus. He’s playing Bach again (although a different piece- oh boy. Looks like I already found my next meta). She stops him and says “Not Bach. You clearly don’t understand it.”

Because HE IS IN LOVE WITH A MAN.  

[sherlockshadow]

“We Still Had Ten Minutes to Go”

John in TFP: “Shot me during a session. We still had ten minutes to go.”

With exactly ten minutes to go in TRF, Sherlock steps onto the ledge of Bart’s Hospital to commit suicide.

Is this the moment John is referring too?

Eurus killing John = Sherlock killing John = Sherlock dies/John dies.

The end of TLD isn’t a cliffhanger, it’s a metaphor. He replaces the gun with a tranquilizer because…

“Don’t solve the murder. Save the life.”

Sherlock lives/John lives

@ebaeschnbliah @gosherlocked @monikakrasnorada @sarahthecoat @kateis-cakeis @221bloodnun

[escaroles]

The Hug and the Sexy Discretion Shot

Thank you to @what-left-unspoken​ for posting about this and making me realize I was not going crazy. I had idea going since I saw the episode, I screamed when if faded to black and it had an establishing shot. This is just insane. This is the original post. Go look at it. 

Let me humor you for a minute.

We saw Mycroft and Lady Smallwood alone, in a room (not a bedroom though). They put on their coats. She invites him for drinks. Mycroft is confused.This is coded. This is two people, a man and a woman, getting dressed. Everyone is taking this as code.

And we saw this:

They hold. Fade to black. Establishing shot from outside 221B (with a camera panning from the sky to the fucking window, I cant). They are putting on their coat. They talk for a while. John invites Sherlock to eat cake. He says yes.

"You never see anything anyway. They always, uh, turn the camera, and... play music and... y'know, the wind blows and then the curtain moves. You don't see anything."— Frustrated viewer, The Truman Show (from tvtropes)

This is called a Sexy Discretion Shot:

Two characters have been talking, talking has turned to kissing, and as kissing starts to turn to... other things (and clothes start coming off), the camera suddenly decides to look elsewhere. The view pans away as itfades to black or rests upon an intimate but innocuous object like a burning candle, the curtains of the open window or the door being closed. (x)

Now. I'm not saying they had a shag on the living room floor. But it was CODED that way. It's way more sexually coded than with Mycroft and Smallwood. They are hugging (Mycroft and Smallwood didn't even TOUCH). There is a fade to black and an establishing shot. Why? We don't need an establishing shot. We KNOW WHERE WE ARE. This is how they do in movies that can't show sex. Kissing, fade to black, stablishing shot and get on with their day.   Honestly, if this was on the 40s/50s/60s it would be enough to assume they have had sex. Well, everyone is assuming Mycroft and Smallwood might have and THEY WERE JUST PUTTING THEIR COATS ON!!!! 

But it's the 21st century, so I'm not saying it is what happened. But it is supposed to evoke that. Its supposed to take us to that mindset subconsciously. This is a romantic relationship. 

Is this not enough for you? Oh, please, keep reading

There are two things that are kind of necessary if you want to go through this, and they are: 

Sexy Discretion Shot (x)

I'm not going to try to explain this, because it's pretty simple and the link provides you with a quick explanation. There is a great list of movies that do that, beware of spoilers. BUT WHY PEOPLE WOULD NEED TO CODE THIS? (And I'm not even going to go into being gay, because the kiss between two men is happening next week so) 

The Hayes Code

For this to make perfect sense, we'll take a little trip to the past, when Hollywood had something known as the Hays Code. If you want a deeper knowledge in this, there is a pretty decent wikipedia article about it. I am not a Hays Code expert, but cinema school is not just watching movies. I had a whole semester where this concept was pretty well explained. Here we go. Feel free to correct me in anything that has been said in this post.

There was a time in Hollywood where the Hays Code, a guide book, was law. I don't want to bother you with details, but it was a list of stuff you couldn't do in movies. It only fell through because of the popularity of European movies and the take of European directors that made Modern cinema and, there is a lot of world history and movie history, so I'll let you all do your research if you want to. During the Hays Code time, there was stuff you COULDN'T do, stuff you SHOULDN'T do. If someone wants to correct me about this, please do.

There are multiple versions of this, because it was around for like, 37 years, so I'll put here the interesting points that would be relevant for this post.

So, here we go:

General Principles

1.  No picture shall be produced which will lower the moral standards of those who see it. Hence the sympathy of the audience shall never be thrown to the side of crime, wrong-doing, evil or sin.

2.  Correct standards of life, subject only to the requirements of drama and entertainment, shall be presented.

3.  Law, natural or human, shall not be ridiculed, nor shall sympathy be created for its violation.

So, let's go to topic number 2: Sex!

The sanctity of the institution of marriage and the home shall be upheld. Pictures shall not infer that low forms of sex relationship are the accepted or common thing. Adultery and illicit sex, sometimes necessary plot material, must not be explicitly treated or justified, or presented attractively.

I'll just give you a quick summary of this whole fucking thing: There are a FUCKLOAD of movies with married couples sleeping in twin beds. And I'm not even considering that is gay for this point. Because if I did, this would be 300 pages. But being queer was considered a perverse topic, so if you had a character that could be interpreted as queer, they had to be punished in some way. They couldn't be redeemed as characters in anyway.

So, movies created codes. The characters might kiss... (Excessive and lustful kissing, lustful embraces, suggestive postures and gestures are not to be shown) might dance... (Dances suggesting or representing sexual actions or indecent passion are forbidden.) they had to deal with what was available. So, a lot of codes were created and lost, others were created after. Some of them will stand for a long time, we learnt to watch movies that way, this was the golden years of Hollywood.

@bluebluenova @wssh-watson @benedicttumblebatch @love-in-mind-palace @marathecactupus @vitruvianwatson @the-7-percent-solution @sussexbound @loudest-subtext-in-tv @quietlyprim @inevitably-johnlocked

[lostspecial-blog]

Why this can't be the end

the last thing I want is for people to get their hopes up about the lost special or the missing episode or whatever you want to call it, only to be disappointed again afterwards.

Which is why I wouldn't write this if I wouldn't be utterly convinced that this is going to happen. Johnlock is endgame. The series isn't finished yet. And I'm going to tell you why.

Because it doesn't make sense.

Ohh sure, that's a good reason, you might say, why should anyone on the show care about logic or offer any kind of follow-up explanation? After all, they all showed us in the last episode exactly what they think of that.

And you could think of a lot of reasons why they would suddenly change their minds and turn everything around, why TJLC may be dead after all and everything was a lie and didn't matter etc.

1. Because Mofftiss are assholes.

2. Because they were queerbaiting.

3. Because they chickened out and were afraid to show the real episode.

4. BBC wouldn't let them do it so they had to alter everything.

5. A trillion other reasons that sound equally inconvincing and quite frankly, short-sighted.

I want to remind you that these people have been producing Sherlock for seven years now. Seven years. They put hard work into it, told us again and again that every little detail matters.

Metas written by brilliant fans predicted whole episodes based on said meta which concentrated on those tiny little details no one else in the main stream media seemed to be able to notice.

Do you truly believe anyone on the show, including the producers, the cast, etc. would all suddenly lose their minds overnight?

Do you really think an experienced actress like Amanda Abbington would really believe Sian Brooke playing more than one character is ‘groundbreaking tv history’ and this is what she meant by that statement? I mean, really?

Btw, Amanda is the only one who reacted on Twitter to questions about the last episode (has anyone made a screenshot of her reply? It has been deleted, which is obviously suspicious because why bother if everything's over?) (Btw, here is a list of actors who played more than one character in a tv show, much earlier: https://www.fromthegrapevine.com/arts/actors-who-have-played-more-one-role-same-tv-show

 It happens quite frequently, actually. Do you think Mofftiss or Amanda wouldn't be aware of this?)

‘The pure and simple truth is rarely pure and never simple.’

Going by that statement, and that is the statement they provided us with in the last episode, remember, deliberately chose to remind us of it, what we have seen on Sunday is not the pure and simple truth.

They even told us directly in the episode it's a quote from the play „The Importance of Being Earnest“. By whom is the play? Why, Oscar Wilde, of course, the man who was sent to prison for ‘homosexual acts‘ in 1895 and who liked to wear green carnations as ‘code’ for other men to recognize his preferences.

Well then, let's repeat once more what we have seen on Sunday so far:

A ridiculous and out-of-place parody of several famous movies or books, including

Stephen King's „It“,

Saw

James Bond

OOC Mycroft

a bad imitation of whatever spy movie you can think of:

I wrote this before but here it is again:

This was the epitome of a typically heterosexual horror/action movie.

Two main characters on a death mission: Reminding themselves to be soldiers (perfected with a manly nod and a bro handshake), people dropping like flies because of a super villain no one knew before existed at all and who has the power to command everything and everyone, even the power to make rooms appear out of thin air and make them vanish again, Sherlock walking like a proper gangster whilst holding a huge gun, bad explosions, life or death decisions – could it be more fake?

This feels like a parody because it is.

And now channeling my inner Sir Arthur Conan Doyle and quoting source material (you know, the one which Mofftiss based the whole show on): „Once you eliminate the impossible, whatever remains, no matter how improbable, must be the truth“.

Is it improbable? Heck, yes. Even die-hard Johnlock fans deleted their blogs or have given up hope. No one expects another episode or case.

They have never done this before.

Why should they start now? Why, at the the very end, the final climax of a show that has been accumulating for seven years now, would they suddenly decide to throw everything over board overnight and forget everything they have ever worked for in these past years?

From a psychological point of view or even only from a logical point of view, it doesn't make sense. It's illogical. Therefore, it is impossible. Whatever remains, must be the truth.

There is going to be another case, addressing the not so simple and not so pure truth.

And we all know what that's going to be about, right?