XistentialAngst's Blog, page 67
September 30, 2016
thetimemoves:
micdotcom:
Watch: President Obama reminds us...
Watch: President Obama reminds us all exactly what’s at stake in this election
Watching him give no fucks is a beautiful thing.
That man knows how to throw some kick ass shade.
Character Mirrors that are Actually Relationship AUs in BBC Sherlock: How to Predict the Improbable by Examining the Impossible
That title is a bit confusing, yes? Let me explain a little better what I’m about to analyze. BBC Sherlock has multiple representations of the main characters, Sherlock and John, as seen through the other characters in the show. These “character mirrors” are emphasized through matching outfits, lines of dialogue, backstory, camera focus, and personality traits. What’s worth noting is that many of these character mirrors for John and Sherlock are two people who are, or could be, romantically linked. These parallel relationships serve more than one purpose, though. First, they’re meant to ease the viewer into realizing the impending canon Johnlock. Second, and what I am to argue through this meta, they are meant to show the viewer the ways John and Sherlock’s relationship could have gone in an alternate universe, leaving no other choice but for their actual relationship to go the way it’s been predetermined. Each relationship, platonic or not, that serves as a character mirror for these two people has a fundamental flaw that makes it different in the end. Sherlock and John’s ending will be different from those of their character mirrors. Once we’ve eliminated the impossible whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth. And the truth, dear friends, is canon Johnlock.
I will address eight different relationship/character mirrors - even though there are so many more character mirrors - for the sake of everyone’s time and sanity.
Mrs. Hudson and Chief Bridesmaid Margaret
Our favorite land-lady is a character mirror for John in every episode, however, in TSOT she opens up about her best friend Margaret and her husband Frank. Margaret cried the whole day of Mrs. Hudson’s wedding and ended up leaving the wedding early - exactly the way Sherlock and John handled the Watson wedding. (Frank is obviously a mirror for Mary, so you can all guess exactly what’s going to happen to her in S4). Mrs. Hudson never saw Margaret much after that day. Sherlock and John were headed straight down that route, until Sherlock’s plane reversed and brought him back to John. We see here that their relationship will not follow that of Mrs. Hudson and Margaret. John and Sherlock will have some future together.
Eddie Van Coon and Amanda the P.A.
These two made a minor appearance in TBB. Eddie was the trader shot in his apartment and Amanda was his P.A. who he was dating. She felt under appreciated, much like John does to Sherlock in S1. John is often called Sherlock’s “P.A.”. Eddie was always dashing about, flying off somewhere on a moment’s notice. Sherlock does the same thing and John is usually struggling to keep up - physically and mentally. Sherlock and John are colleagues, like Eddie and Amanda. Amanda didn’t take her relationship with Eddie seriously, because she figured he didn’t take her seriously. Sherlock and John will not have that flaw - they’ve been given ample time to develop mutual respect and trust.
Irene Adler and Kate the P.A.
It’s easy to see Irene as a mirror for Sherlock - her physical features, cleverness, riding crop, drug needles, always needing the last word - the list could go on for miles. Kate is not seen often, however she is a P.A. (like John) and was drugged by Irene (like John is by Sherlock we’re told in TSOT). Irene is a self-identified homosexual who claims to have fallen for Sherlock against her usual instinct. Irene and Kate have a professional relationship, but it could be understood that they are more than “friends”. However, Irene has been at the center of two political scandals and had an affair with two married people - if she’s also romantically connected to Kate it is probable that she is not monogamous. This relationship is everything John and Sherlock’s is not. John and Sherlock will not be romantically linked AND polyamorous. Sherlock is not a homosexual who also claims attraction to women.
Soo Lin and Thomas
Another pair from TBB whose relationship never gets off the ground. Thomas, who dresses much like John and who is a colleague to Soo Lin, tries very hard to get her to date him. She is too focused on her work to comply. She also doesn’t seem to like him at all in that way. She, like Sherlock, is self-deprecating. She’s linked to drugs and to a brother who associates with “M”. She and Sherlock share knowledge of the smuggling ring. This relationship is not what John and Sherlock will have. Sherlock will not pick his work over a romantic relationship. John will not be rejected. John and Sherlock will not stop working together.
Alex Woodbridge and his Female Flatmate
Alex was the gallery attendant killed by the Golem in TGG. Sherlock literally dressed as him when he visited the gallery. John went to investigate the flatmate and we saw them both reflected in a literal mirror on the wall. She was dressed much like John. She and Alex were only flatmates - nothing more. She liked him, he was nice. His job was just a job - he rather adored stargazing. We saw Sherlock look up and compliment the stars, too. Later, stars are projected onto John’s face, further implying their subtextual connection, but that’s a whole different analysis. John and Sherlock’s relationship will not follow this one here. John and Sherlock will not be platonic flatmates.
John and Major Sholto
If TSOT didn’t make the connection between Sherlock and Sholto incredibly obvious then I suggest you go watch it again. John is, in a way, his own mirror, because we’re focusing on the John that Sholto knows - Captain John Watson. Sholto and John were colleagues with a huge amount of mutual respect for one another. Sholto sees John as a friend, which is why he called him “John” and not “Watson” after awhile (this same theme gets used in TAB). John beams at being called his first name by such a remarkable man. It is arguable that Sholto was also, at one point, pining for John, but the relationship never progressed to a romantic or physical one. The relationship John and Sherlock will have will not be confused with pining. John and Sherlock will not be just colleagues and friends.
Sherlock and Molly
Molly is a mirror for John in every episode. She reacts to Sherlock in the same ways John does, yet the average viewer sees Molly as crushing and John as platonic. Unfair? Oh yes. But still very important. Molly and John both use the phrases “I’ve moved on”/”I’m moving on” and “It wasn’t working for me” in regards to Sherlock or something Sherlock has said. But this is the important part: John is not Molly. Sherlock tries to replace John with Molly in TEH but he just can’t do it. Molly doesn’t love it either. While they are mirrors, they are not the same person. Sherlock and Molly’s relationship is not a precedent for Sherlock and John’s relationship. John will not be rejected. John’s feelings for Sherlock will not be a crude deduction and humiliation. Sherlock will not use John’s feelings for him to his advantage in his work.
Holmes and Watson
This is by far the most important mirrored relationship in the whole narrative. This friendship is what Sherlock and John would have had given the circumstances of society in 1895. Their future was shown to us at the end of TAB: Holmes and Watson sucking pipes in front of the fire, nobody else to come between them, happy with each other’s company. But this future is not what’s actually in store for these two. This is the ultimate Alternate Reality. Sherlock and John will not be best friends obeying a strict societal code of bachelorhood. Sherlock and John will not be sucking pipes in front of the fire.
We don’t have to worry about what might happen to Sherlock and John in the future because we already know what won’t happen. Thank goodness we have all those other characters to try out the remaining scenarios for us. Nothing like knowing the two main characters will live happily ever after. We’ve eliminated the impossible and the improbable is what remains: canon Johnlock.
It’s the only possible solution.
Obviously and definitely and absolutely completely … YES!
great!
Why Mary Didn’t Shoot Magnussen
Of course, you couldn’t shoot Magnussen on the night that both of us broke into the building, your own husband would become a suspect, so ….
This is the explanation Sherlock offers John in HLV. I call bullshit. Here’s why.
Amanda Abbington has confirmed that Mary shoots Sherlock with a Walther PPK (for those into Bondlock, that’s the same gun that Bond uses).
The gun I used was the gun that Daniel Craigused in Skyfall. It was purely coincidental. Lee, this wonderful firearms guy, taught me to fire it, said, “You know that’s James Bond’s gun.” I was like, “Don’t say that!” I was walking around going, “I’ve got a Walther PPK.” It’s brilliant.
The folks over at the Internet Firearms Database have ID’d John’s gun as a Sig Saur P226R. So there’s no way the police would trace Mary’s bullet to John’s gun if she’d shot Magnussen.
I’m pretty sure giving Mary the Walther PPK was a deliberate Bond reference, because there are other Bond references in Sherlock, like Mycroft saying, “as my colleague is fond of remarking, this country sometimes needs a blunt instrument” in HLV. The “blunt instrument” is a reference to James Bond, who Ian Fleming described as such.
“James Bond is a blunt instrument wielded by a Government Department. He is quiet, hard, ruthless, sardonic, fatalistic.”
M and Bond also quip about Bond being a “blunt instrument” in Casino Royale. Which means the “colleague” Mycroft refers to is presumably M (which also implies that Mycroft is not M since he refers to M as his colleague, to the disappointment of Bondlock fans like myself who headcanon Mycroft as M).
Still, I know others have argued that it being physically impossible for a ballistics report from Mary’s gun to implicate John doesn’t mean much, since Moftiss don’t know or care about firearms. This idea mostly comes from Moriarty asking Sherlock at the pool, “Is that a British Army Browning L9A1 in your pocket or are you just pleased to see me?” when that’s not the gun that’s actually on screen. My explanation for this is: Moriarty knows John shot Jeff Hope and that Sherlock has John’s gun, but hasn’t actually seen it. He assumes it’s a Browning
L9A1
because those were the standard issue sidearm at the time John served in Afghanistan; they’re not anymore, the British Army has since replaced them with the Glock 17 in 2013). I suspect that John turned in his service weapon as he was supposed to and then acquired an illegal gun after he returned to the UK (possibly with the intention of killing himself with it; more on this later).
But even if you think Moftiss don’t know or don’t care about ballistics, it still doesn’t make sense when Sherlock says Mary didn’t kill Magnussen because she didn’t want John charged with murder. Mary did shoot Sherlock, and while I don’t believe she meant to kill him (I’ll refer you all to @wellingtongoose‘s brilliant meta on the subject), she had to know that there was a possibility he might die. And if Sherlock had died, by the same “logic” of John becoming a suspect in Magnussen’s murder, he could easily have been charged with Sherlock’s murder. So Sherlock telling John Mary didn’t shoot Magnussen because John would become a suspect makes no sense at all, which makes me believe that Sherlock is lying. I think he knows Mary had no intention of killing Magnussen, but doesn’t say anything because he doesn’t know why.
Here’s my theory as to why: I suspect that Mycroft had his own plan for neutralizing Magnussen, and that Mary was involved in it. TAB strongly implies that Mary is working for Mycroft, both because she helps Mycroft spy on the feminist vigilante murder cult (don’t get me started on that; it’s a whole other meta) in Sherlock’s homoerotic
Victorian
fever-dream, and because Mary “hacks” MI6 from her phone on the airplane near the end. I know Sherlock exists in a world with really brilliant people (and really shitty computer security), but I don’t think we’re seriously supposed to believe Mary hacked into MI6 in a minute from a phone. A more plausible explanation is she already had access to MI6’s databases because she’s an agent, and she’s needling Mycroft because she knows he won’t contradict her. I also think Mycroft connection with Mary is the reason he didn’t go to the wedding; he was worried Sherlock would deduce too much if he saw them together. But I think Sherlock has figured out that Mary is Mycroft’s asset by the end of TAB.
So, if Mary wasn’t in Magnussen’s office to kill him, what was she doing? I think she intended to steal the AGRA files, or to intimidate Magnussen into giving them to her. The only reason why I think Mycroft would endorse this plan of action were if he were also incriminated by whatever is in the AGRA files.
I think they reveal, among other things, that Mycroft recruited Mary away from Moriarty: I think she’s the sniper who killed General Shan in TBB, and that she’s at the pool in TGG. I’ve seen metas circulating that point out that the USB stick actually says A.G.RA and that perhaps Mary’s initials are AG and “RA” stands for “Recovered Agent.” I suspect more likely it’s just a random detail they overlooked, like the continuity error about Mycroft’s tie changing between HLV and TAB which was made so much of. But I do think that, regardless of whether “RA” means “recovered agent” or “Royal Artillery,” or if Mary just happens to have four initials, I think Moriarty is whom Mycroft recovered Mary from. Probably she realized that Jim was going crazy and wanted out. Another possibly is that she was MI6 the whole time and Mycroft had her pretend to go “freelance” so she could infiltrate Moriarty’s network while undercover. Either way, I suspect that Mary did some Not Good things at Mycroft’s behest. Possibly Mycroft even instructed Mary to get involved with John to keep him from being suicidally depressed again (in ASiP he has access to John’s psychiatrist’s notes, so he presumably knows that John has a history of depression).
Whatever is on the files, I think Mary wanted to retrieve them to neutralize the leverage Magnussen has over both Mycroft and Mary, and allow them to move against him. I’m using the word “move against” because I do not believe Mycroft wanted CAM dead, given that he tells Sherlock Magnussen is “a necessary evil, not a dragon for you to slay.” I do think Mycroft has been working for a while to bring CAM down.
MAGNUSSEN […] By now, your brother will have noticed the theft, and security services will be converging on this house. Having arrived … (he looks down at the laptop) … they’ll find top secret information in my hands … (he reaches forward and picks up his glass from the table) … and have every justification to search my vaults. They will discover further information of this kind and I’ll be imprisoned. You will be exonerated, and restored to your smelly little apartment to solve crimes with Mr and Mrs Psychopath.
(He looks at John, who holds his gaze, though his cheeks move as if he is gritting his teeth a little. Only once Magnussen starts talking again does John cast a quick glance at Sherlock.)
MAGNUSSEN (lifting his glass closer to his mouth): Mycroft has been looking for this opportunity for a long time. He’ll be a very, very proud big brother.
This exchange (quoted from Ariane de Vere’s transcript of HLV) shows that
Magnussen
regards Mycroft as an adversary, despite Sherlock’s conviction that Mycroft is protecting him. Which is yet another reason I think Mycroft was also implicated in those files. He tells Sherlock not to go after Magnussen because he knows that, at the moment, Magnussen could hurt him.
Sherlock’s ostensible motive for shooting up in a doss house (which I don’t believe, but again, another meta) is to attract CAM’s attention. Magnussen doesn’t give a shit. “The drugs thing I never believed for a minute.” He doesn’t need leverage on Sherlock because he doesn’t see Sherlock as anything but a stepping stone to Mycroft, and Mycroft, as
Sherlock has deduced, is “under [Magnussen’s] thumb.”
It’s only after Mary breaks into his office and pistol whips him (and, IMO, retrieves the AGRA files) that Magnussen shows interest in Sherlock and accepts his deal to trade Mycroft’s laptop for a visit to Appledore. IMO it’s because he’s lost his hold over Mycroft and he needs to get it back, and he knows that Mycroft’s biggest pressure point is his baby brother.
But presumably, once the AGRA files were retrieved, Mycroft began implementing some plan to take Magnussen down but not kill him. I suspect that he and Lady Smallwood hoped they could actually take him down through legal means; HLV in fact opens with an official inquest into Magnussen’s influence over the Prime Minister, which gets derailed when CAM begins blackmailing Lady Smallwood (which begs the question of why Lady Smallwood would involve Sherlock by hiring him to broker the return of the incriminating letters Magnussen is using to blackmail her husband when she has to know Mycroft would object to this, but again, my thoughts about the power struggles that have been going on between Mycroft, Lady Smallwood, and, I believe, Lord Moran, behind the scenes of what we see on the show, would also be a whole other meta. For the moment, I’ll say that between offering Sherlock the job offer Mycroft asks Sherlock to decline, and throwing him in CAM’s path, it seems that Lady Smallwood has it in for Sherlock, for reasons as yet unknown, but which I suspect have something to do with The Other One).
All Sherlock had to do would be to wait for Mycroft and Mary to take out Magnussen, but instead he goes galloping off to play dragonslayer with John and tow and ends up making a complete mess of everything, once again counting on Mycroft to swoop in and save the day and get him a pardon “like a proper big brother.” At this point, I will stop speculating and wallow in Mycroft feels.
Tldr: I don’t think Mary intended to kill Magnussen when she broke into his office, but rather to steal the AGRA files that have info on them that would incriminate both her and Mycroft. I think that Mycroft and Mary have been in cahoots for a while, and that while they may not be “evil,” in the classic villain sense, they’ve probably done things that are really illegal and morally questionable and would be very bad for both of them if they were find out. And I think whatever chickens they’ve raised together are going to come home to roost in S4. I am very, very intrigued by Mrs Hudson telling Mycroft, “get out of my house, you reptile” in the trailer.
Thank you @anarfea for pointingout the stupidity of Sherlock’s explanation for what allegedly happened at CAM tower! You are right: it doesn’t make sense.
This is a nice write up and some interesting things to think about.
I personally think Mary is absolutely evil and not someone who (hopefully, like Mycroft) has done some bad things but all in service of king and country or is redeemable ala Birdy Edwards. Not the least because Amanda herself has crowed over how much of a ‘fucking psychopath’ Mary is, and also because I think Moftiss prefer very big, grandiose villains ala Andrew and Lars. So if Mary is bad, she will be VERY VERY BAD.
However, she must be in cohoots somehow with Mycroft due to his conspicuous lack of concern over her even after she shot Sherlock. We all know paranoid Mycroft would have investigated John’s new bride. But possibly he’s trying to figure her out or is held back because he’s under her thumb somehow.
A very simple explanation for why Mary didn’t shoot Magnussen, which I’m surprised Sherlock didn’t come up with, is that she went to Magnussen’s office to force him to give her the physical proof he has against her so she could destroy it, much like Sherlock and John went to Magnussen’s to do the same at Christmas. But she didn’t get the ‘proof’, so she couldn’t kill Magnussen yet. And then when Sherlock showed up she was out of time to try to get it and had to leave Magnussen alive. But you’d think if it were that simply,they’d have just said that.
XA
meetingyourmaker:
searchingforastory:
I made a list of amazing Sherlock Holmes comics published...
I made a list of amazing Sherlock Holmes comics published here on Tumblr.
30 Day OTP Challenge - By @aiwa-sensei
Complete. An amazing journey through Sherlock and John’s relationship using the 30 prompts of the OTP Challenge. (NSFW)
30 Day OTP Challenge - By @reapersun
Complete. Another amazing interpretation of the OTP Challenge prompts, following Sherlock and John from a post-reichenbach reunion and into a new and fragile relationship. (NSFW)
A Feline Tale - By @katzensprotte
Complete. A short Breadcrumbs comic, following John, after Sherlock’s fall, and the strange cat that won’t leave him alone.
A Study in Black - By @reapersun
Ongoing. A comic about Sherlock and John’s first meeting and case. Except John is a priest, Sherlock is a vampire, and together they are investigating the occult.
Alchemistlock - By @nitefise-art
Ongoing. Holmes is a genius alchemist. Watson is a military doctor. They fight crime.
Angel’s Kiss - By @reapersun
Complete. Follows Sherlock and the regular cast on a puzzling case following the death of an aged bee keeper.
Background Challenge - By @katzensprotte
Complete. While not exactly a comic, its close enough to put here. Amazingly creative scenes full of different AUs.
Cupidlock - By @meetingyourmaker
Ongoing. Sherlock inherits Cupid’s powers. What could go wrong? (NSFW)
Doglock - By @pawspaintsnthings
Complete. A short comic about how two lonely dogs found happiness.
Dragonlock - By @abitto
Complete. A three-part comic about a dragon Sherlock and his rescuer.
Endless Dream - By @navydream
Complete. A BBC Sherlock / Sandman crossover comic.
French Kiss - By @reapersun
Complete. A short comic about John teaching Sherlock about french kissing.
Merlock - By @beansterpie
Ongoing. Merman Sherlock and Octopus John under the sea.
Nameless Outlaws Compendium - By @imrisah
Ongoing. Spaghetti western. Need I say more?
Noumenon - By @navydream
Ongoing. An unexpected complication with the Tardis reverts Sherlock into an addorable baby.
Oh What a Night - By @anotherwellkeptsecret
Complete. The stars have aligned (finally) and Sherlock and John go on their first date. (NSFW)
Sky-high - By @imrisah
Ongoing. Pirate Sherlock with flying ships. Awesome.
The Archer - By @thetwelfthpanda
Ongoing. A fantasy story about a brave archer and a cursed prince.
The Bed Day - By @reapersun
Complete. A short story about spending the entire day in bed. A sequel to Reapersun’s 30 Day OTP Challenge.
The Daily Emerald - By @thedailyemerald
Ongoing. Holmes and Watson solve mysteries inspired by HP Lovecraft and Victorian sci-fi/horror stories.
The Hounds of Baskerville - By @emillu
Ongoing. A comic about BBC Sherlock Series 2, Episode 2, The Hounds of Baskerville. Only with Johnlock.
The Losing Side - By @anotherwellkeptsecret
Ongoing. Sequel to ‘Oh, What a Night’. In which Sherlock Holmes decides to propose.
The Mysterious Case Of…? - By @yuki-almasy
Ongoing. Sherlock and John go to high school and maybe solve a few cases on the side.
The Youth Who Went Forth to Learn What Fear Is - By @reapersun
Complete. A short story based on a story by the Brothers Grimm. Created for the artbook Breadcrumbs.
Were!John - By @flyingrotten
Ongoing. Follows the story of John and Sherlock, if John was a werewolf and they met as children. Flyingrotten also draws a lot of other comics not related to Were!John (NSFW)
Wreck - By @reapersun
Complete. A post-reichenbach reunion between Sherlock and a wrecked John.Along with the series, we have a lot of random/non plot comics from some really amazing artists!
Comics - By @ghostbees
Comics - By @eliosu
Comics - By @sashkash
Comics - By @ireallyshouldbedrawing
Comics - By @floccinaucinihilipilificationa
Comics - By @ivorylungs
Comics - By @liberiproject
Comics - By @thebritishteapot
Comics - By @geothebio
Comics - By @joanacchi
Comics - By @brewhay
Comics - By @kriskenshin
Comics - By @enerjax
Comics - By @floobings
Comics - By @deebzy
Comics - By @aristofranes
Comics - By @alifetimeaheadtoprovethat
Comics - By @thetwelfthpanda (NSFW)
Comics - By @shootbadcabbies (NSFW)
Comics - By @katzensprotte (NSFW)There are also so many amazing one shots out there. Too many to post in one place. You can find all I’ve reblogged here, or maybe introduce me to some I’ve missed?
Oh WOW!! THANK YOU SO MUCH :D!!
Amazing stuff! Thanks so much for gathering this list.
bbcthree:
After being bullied as a child, this man’s turning a...
After being bullied as a child, this man’s turning a negative into a positive by running 401 marathons in 401 days. All to raise money for an anti-bullying charity.
Mary’s Confidante
I’m rewatching HLV. This bit struck me as odd:
From a narrative perspective, this line feels like it is setting something up for a future reveal. Mary has a confidante.
I’ve seen meta suggesting this is Janine (x) and also David (x). These are certainly possible. But the gut sense I got rewatching this was that Mary’s confidante must be someone we know, and knew at the time of this scene.
David is Mary’s ex-boyfriend. He’s involved only in TSoT as an ex, and perhaps serves as a foil to John’s “ex”, Sherlock. But otherwise we don’t really see much of David. It’s possible he’s being set up as the baby’s father, which gives a better explanation as to why he exists at all in the story. But as Mary’s confidante? That would hardly be a rug-pull moment since the viewer doesn’t know David and has nothing invested in him. Furthermore, he’s already in the position of “on Mary’s side" as her ex-bodyfriend. Also being her confidante is sort of <shrug>, not a reveal.
Janine – Janine gets involved in Sherlock’s plots in HLV, so it would be a bit of a surprise if she had deeper ties to Mary and knew she was an assassin all along. It would also explain (possibly) how Mary got into Magnussen’s office (though Mary could have just done her assasiny-spider man thing, as we saw her scaling a building in the black outfit in S4 setlock). But again, it’s not that much of a rug-pull because we don’t have much invested in Janine .
The question is: a confidante for what? Even though she’s speaking of Sherlock coming back from the dead here, I’m not convinced she’s speaking of her own “resurrection” as Mary Morstan 5 years ago. Again, it’s not that relevant story-wise HOW she took over the dead baby’s identity. She simply did. I don’t see that figuring into a big future reveal.
What if the thing Mary’s “confidante” is helping her with is the scheme to infiltrate John life and become involved with him, Mary’s whole “nicey nurse” personna at John’s work? That’s much more relevant to the main arc of Sherlock. And what if it’s someone we know? Someone in the main story who has helped Mary all along?
Mycroft? Lestrade? Mrs. Hudson? Molly?
My bet is on one of these. It could be any of them, especially Mycroft. Yet let’s take a look at Molly. Now THAT would be a rug-pull. I submit:
1. We have Molly saying at the Sherlocked con that she was Mary were “good friends” (on screen) in (or by the end of) S4.
2. We have that odd tweet from Amanda to Loo after the S4.E3 readthrough (”What are we going to do?”), implying somehow they were in the same boat.
3. We have Molly appearing during setlock at the beach bit when Moriarty makes his appearance. Why the hell would lab scientist Molly be there? Unless she was a plant all along. (I was looking for the photo she posted of her shoes in sand/rock during that setlock but couldnt’ find it. If you have it please add!
4. We also have this “Molly in disguise” from S4.E3 setlock. Why?
Also, Molly has medican knowledge, so she could have helped Mary with faking being a nurse.
On the con side: If Molly was BOTH SHerlock and Mary’s confidante Mary would have known all along that Sherlock wasn’t dead. So that opens some new questions. Was she hanging out with John waiting for Sherlock to return?
Am I positive about this? No! It’s just a theory. Take it as you will.
Interesting thoughts @xistentialangst . And with all that ‘going back stuff’ in mind which has been deduced during setlock and Sherlocked con (the plane from the flight of the dead, the girl on the plane, the counter stuck at 1895 which leads to the cases ‘Sherlock Holmes baffled’ and 'The six thatchers’) the story seems somehow to point back to a time before ASIB happended. And what is the last thing we saw from Molly at that time? Before she attended the smal Christmasparty at 221b in ASIB? It’s Molly at TGG - storming out of the lab at Barts - full of exasperation and rage - because Sherlock outed her new boyfriend Jim as gay in a rather insensitive way. And isn’t that a bit of a strange thing too? Sherlock crushes Molly’s blossoming relatenship - Molly is devastated - Molly writes 'Dearest Sherlock, love Molly’ at Chrismas. What happened in between I wonder.
Here are two pictures from setlock with Molly’s shoes X X or better - the cover for the shoes.
Thanks for the pic of Molly on setlock at
Southerndown, @ebaeschnbliah. Interesting point about TGG.
I love Molly as a naive and sincere friend to Sherlock, so I hope this isn’t true, actually. But at this point nothing would surprise me. And since Molly isn’t a canon character, and was initially intended just for ASiP , the writers could certainly do just about anything they liked with her for the sake of drama.
I was thinking… if we do the thought experiment that Molly is in league with Mary, it raises a lot of hard questions. Mary would have known Sherlock planned to fake his death, so she would presummably have allowed that to happen and been fine with Sherlock working all those years to take out Moriarty’s network. Why? Was it a way of doing some housekeeping and getting rid of those loyal to Jim before taking over as Moriarty? And then she insinuates herself with John to be sure she’s right there when Sherlock returns?
Seems a bit far fetched, honestly, but Moftiss have certainly written some crazy uber drama before, including on Sherlock.
September 29, 2016
Mary’s Confidante
I’m rewatching HLV. This bit struck me as odd:
From a narrative perspective, this line feels like it is setting something up for a future reveal. Mary has a confidante.
I’ve seen meta suggesting this is Janine (x) and also David (x). These are certainly possible. But the gut sense I got rewatching this was that Mary’s confidante must be someone we know, and knew at the time of this scene.
David is Mary’s ex-boyfriend. He’s involved only in TSoT as an ex, and perhaps serves as a foil to John’s “ex”, Sherlock. But otherwise we don’t really see much of David. It’s possible he’s being set up as the baby’s father, which gives a better explanation as to why he exists at all in the story. But as Mary’s confidante? That would hardly be a rug-pull moment since the viewer doesn’t know David and has nothing invested in him. Furthermore, he’s already in the position of “on Mary’s side" as her ex-bodyfriend. Also being her confidante is sort of <shrug>, not a reveal.
Janine – Janine gets involved in Sherlock’s plots in HLV, so it would be a bit of a surprise if she had deeper ties to Mary and knew she was an assassin all along. It would also explain (possibly) how Mary got into Magnussen’s office (though Mary could have just done her assasiny-spider man thing, as we saw her scaling a building in the black outfit in S4 setlock). But again, it’s not that much of a rug-pull because we don’t have much invested in Janine .
The question is: a confidante for what? Even though she’s speaking of Sherlock coming back from the dead here, I’m not convinced she’s speaking of her own “resurrection” as Mary Morstan 5 years ago. Again, it’s not that relevant story-wise HOW she took over the dead baby’s identity. She simply did. I don’t see that figuring into a big future reveal.
What if the thing Mary’s “confidante” is helping her with is the scheme to infiltrate John life and become involved with him, Mary’s whole “nicey nurse” personna at John’s work? That’s much more relevant to the main arc of Sherlock. And what if it’s someone we know? Someone in the main story who has helped Mary all along?
Mycroft? Lestrade? Mrs. Hudson? Molly?
My bet is on one of these. It could be any of them, especially Mycroft. Yet let’s take a look at Molly. Now THAT would be a rug-pull. I submit:
1. We have Molly saying at the Sherlocked con that she was Mary were “good friends” (on screen) in (or by the end of) S4.
2. We have that odd tweet from Amanda to Loo after the S4.E3 readthrough (”What are we going to do?”), implying somehow they were in the same boat.
3. We have Molly appearing during setlock at the beach bit when Moriarty makes his appearance. Why the hell would lab scientist Molly be there? Unless she was a plant all along. (I was looking for the photo she posted of her shoes in sand/rock during that setlock but couldnt’ find it. If you have it please add!
4. We also have this “Molly in disguise” from S4.E3 setlock. Why?
Also, Molly has medican knowledge, so she could have helped Mary with faking being a nurse.
On the con side: If Molly was BOTH SHerlock and Mary’s confidante Mary would have known all along that Sherlock wasn’t dead. So that opens some new questions. Was she hanging out with John waiting for Sherlock to return?
Am I positive about this? No! It’s just a theory. Take it as you will.
"There’s no real reason why she does it."
-
Amanda Abbington during Sherlocked Con 2016 on Mary Watson shooting Sherlock, confirming for the 100th time that Mary didn’t need to shoot him, obviously. (via the-7-percent-solution)
What the hell does it mean? So Mary is a psycho who goes around shooting random people for no reasons at all?
Well, of course I know she’s a psycho, but still…
Exactly: there was no reason for Mary to have shot Sherlock rather than Magnussen. Shooting Sherlock did nothing to help her problem with Magnussen, whom she apparently proceeded to leave well alone for the next six months after that. She shot Sherlock because she wanted to. It’s pretty simple.
(via silentauroriamthereal)
Shooting Sherlock did nothing to help her problem with Magnussen, whom she apparently proceeded to leave well alone for the next six months after that. She shot Sherlock because she wanted to. It’s pretty simple.
This ^^^^ is the crux of it for me, @silentauroriamthereal. She risked so much to get to Magnussen, had him at her mercy- on the ground at her feet- for what? To then let him go on his merry way, with the knowledge, of her having shot Sherlock and not be terrified that he isn’t somehow going to use this literal smoking gun against her???? SIX MONTHS, she just sat and with John’s silence and CAM’s hinkiness and what? Knitted baby booties?? How does this make any sense at all??? How can we believe that she would go to the lengths she went to in order to get to CAM and just ignore him for six months after all of that went down? It’s almost as if that six months of time didn’t exist. *Blink* and it’s gone. ;)
@ebaeschnbliah @tjlcisthenewsexy @gosherlocked @isitandwonder
(via monikakrasnorada)
@monikakrasnorada: Yes, this is one of the most inexplicable things about those missing months. And the fact that the next scenes are set at Christmas really rub it in, don’t they? I mean, they could have had a nice family meeting in August or October. But no, they made it very clear that the wedding is in May, i.e. Sherlock gets shot mid-June and from then on till Christmas - nothing. No investigation into the shooting, no progress in Mary’s case, no recovery process, no new developments on any front - the leap in time simply cannot be reasonably explained on the basis of HLV and TAB. Except there were no leap in time at all because no time had passed.
(via gosherlocked)
“There is no real reason why she does it” …. this statement by Amanda Abbington is more than interesting and bewildering in my oppinion. Because there is always a reason. Even the most insane person has a reason to do what they do. Even if no one else can understand it. Nothing happens without reason. It may be out of love, hate or fear, out of someones believe or only because someone enjoys it or gets the order to do it . But there is always a reason. Cause and effect - that’s a principle. A law of nature.
Questiion is - was this statement just an empty phrase or has it meaning. If it has meaning …… Well, nothing happens without reason. But if there is no real reason …. then what?
@monikakrasnorada @gosherlocked @isitandwonder @tjlcisthenewsexy @longsnowsmoon5
(via ebaeschnbliah)
I agree, Amanda’s words are completely bewildering. She seems to dislike lying, so she often says things that are sort of true and quite spoilery rather than just stating the opposite like Moffat and Gatiss do, like Amanda’s “we all know that it happens” comment about Mary’s death. I really think though that Moftiss have pretty well-defined motives for all their villains, and that Mary’s motive is part of the long-game puzzle and knowing her motive would be potentially VERY spoilery. So maybe Amanda is flat out lying and stating the opposite of truth, because maybe her life depends on it. Lol :)
Yes. There’s no way you write a scene like that, with Mary shooting the main fucking character, without the writers knowing every nuance of her reasons. And one would presume any actor would ask them ‘what is my motivation. why am I doing this?”
On the surface, Mary shoots Sherlock because he’s caught her in her AGRA guise and she doesn’t want John to know about it. She doesn’t shoot Magnussen because she came there to get the ‘proof’ he has on her and destroy it. She never got the proof so she can’t kill Magnussen yet. With Sherlock appearing, and John downstairs, she had to make a quick getaway.
Yet that’s a simplistic explanation. Do you really decide, split second, to shoot you husband’s bff, and supposedly your own friend? Could she not have appealed to Sherlock to keep her secret, as she later does in the hospital?
There must be a deeper motive that Amanda doesn’t want to give away because its spoilery. If she has really been tracking Sherlock and John for a long time (as Moran or Moriarty), she may have been fully prepared to kill Sherlock one day, so that when this moment occurred, she was ready to just go ahead with it then. Hopefullly we’ll get an actual explanation in S4.
Mary and John. Whatever it takes, whatever happens, from now on I swear I will always be there, always...
Compare this to Mycroft’s words on the plane in TAB…
“I was there for you before. I’ll be there for you again, I’ll always be there for you.”
So Sherlock and Mycroft both make a vow. People commented right after TAB that Mycroft’s declaration on the plane was like a flashing neon death foreshadowing. If Mycroft’s vow was so obviously foretelling his death, suggesting that he in fact won’t be there for Sherlock, then can we read Sherlock’s vow in the same way?
I will always be there for you.
As it turns out, his words in TSoT did foreshadow his “death” a month later when Mary shot and killed him.
SO what if the title “His Last Vow” refers not to the promise he made, but to the death it foretold. That the negative was true, like we were baited to believe will be the case for Mycroft. That Sherlock wouldn’t be there for them and would never get the chance to fulfil his vow at all. It was his last vow, his final vow, and death is our last and final act. So what if the “being there for John and Mary” never actually happened at all, but his “death” did…and he’s still dying?
Bonus cracky EMP thoughts: Forwards or backwards? A Bow is kind of like falling forwards. His Last Bow was chronologically ACD’s last Sherlock Holmes story. It really was the end for him, and it was an end that he went to without his Watson…
Stand with me here upon the terrace, for it may be the last quiet talk that we shall ever have. - His Last Bow
Forwards or backwards; Dream 1 where John chooses Mary, or Dream 2 where John chooses Sherlock (x)
Forwards, like ACD Holmes’s Bow that ends with him going alone to his eventual death, and like Sherlock does in his Modern Dream, Dream 1.
When John rescues him at the Falls, Sherlock was about to go off the falls backwards…
Backwards, to change 1895, to unstick the counter on John’s blog and start time ticking forwards again.
@ebaeschnbliah @isitandwonder @monikakrasnorada @sherlock-little-weed @gosherlocked @longsnowsmoon5 @may-shepard
baskervielle:
How would you describe this man, his...
How would you describe this man, his character?
James Moriarty isn’t a man at all.
We were told, but we didn’t listen.
XistentialAngst's Blog
- XistentialAngst's profile
- 15 followers
