XistentialAngst's Blog, page 85
August 17, 2016
TAB is not mind palace, sez Mycroft
I was just reading this interesting exchange here about TAB being a dream and not MP and it reminded me of something.
I apologize if this has been brought up before–it likely has and I’ve either forgotten or missed it. Anywho, this line during TAB from Mycroft…
MYCROFT (looking across to him): You really think anyone’s believing you?
JOHN: No, he can do this. I’ve seen it – the Mind Palace. It’s like a whole world in his head.
SHERLOCK (frustrated): Yes, and I need to get back there.
MYCROFT: The Mind Palace is a memory technique. I know what it can do; and I know what it most certainly cannot.
SHERLOCK: Maybe there are one or two things that I know that you don’t.
Isn’t this a bit odd? Mycroft is essentially telling us that the MP technique ‘most certainly cannot’ lead to the state Sherlock claims to be experiencing. MP is a ‘memory technique’, not a state in which one hallucinates entire stories and alternate realities. Sherlock’s quip back is meant to imply that maybe he can do such things with his MP, but seriously. Isn’t Mycroft the smarter brother? Why include this line in the dialogue at all unless Mycroft is trying to tell us something (i.e. setting up a future reveal) – the sections of 1895 in TAB are not MP.
If they are not MP, what else could they be? A dream is pretty much all that’s left. And if the 1895 segments are a dream, then in all likelihood so are the ‘modern’ scenes in TAB because one doesn’t go in and out of a dream state the way Sherlock seems to on the plane.
A painted breadcrumb
So as some of you know, I’ve been asking for a subtextual clue (because a textual one would be a) too much and b) impossible to find before S4? TAB?) of Mycroft’s knowledge/frankly nonsensical inaction about “Mary Morstan/AGRA” past activities. Or a symbol, a subtextual breadcrumb left for us to rely on something “tangible (i.e. left for the writers for us to see) besides logic.
So I think I found it. The breadcrumb. The subtextual proof.
Okay… If you say so?
Ehm, what are we looking at?
This painting is called “Peacocks”. Made by Melchior
d'Hondecoeter. This dutch guy lived in the XVIIth century. Quoting the wikipedia page on his work, “he painted virtually exclusively bird subjects, usually exotic or game, in park-like landscapes. Hondecoeter’s paintings featured geese (brent goose, Egyptian brent and red-breasted brent), fieldfares, partridges, pigeons, ducks, magpies and peacocks, but also African grey crowned cranes, Asian sarus cranes, Indonesian yellow-crested cockatoos, an Indonesian purple-naped lory and grey-headed lovebirds from Madagascar.”What do we have on that painting? Peacocks, obviously. The African grey crowned crane (the big white bird with the red head). A squirrel. A turkey. Also a spider monkey. And what is that, flying free? A MAGPIE.
Please notice the birds he almost exclusively painted. This guy knew his market. He knew where the money was, so he mastered his themes catering to his clients’ taste. His repertoire was limited. If you see a bird flying on a Melchior painting, chances are that is a magpie you’re seeing.
And pray tell, what on earth has that painting to do with the show? Well, since you’re asking…
That painting is hanging on the walls of Mycroft’s house.
Mycroft has a painting of a magpie mastering the skies.
Shown on the same episode “Mary Morstan” marries John Watson, breaks Sherlock’s heart metaphorically, while Mycroft, knowing who she is (ok, who she definetely isn’t, for sure) does nothing to stop her/tells anyone the truth.
Mycroft is shown running while going nowhere. Watched by a magpie.
Is that the same painting? It is.
If you read my last meta M for mutant (and let’s face it, even if you didn’t), you know magpies are a symbol for the villain “Mary Morstan”. So there it is. The breadcrumb I was referring to. An arrow to the link (or the lack of).
Tagging people who were very helpful
Thank you so much for tagging me, @thepineapplering. This is an amazing find and I am in awe of what clues people are still able to find after all this time. All this subtextual bird imagery summed up in one painting, hanging in Mycroft’s home. And I love your remark about Mycroft running while going nowhere. This may be taken as one of those clever moments where superficial amusement (the British Government working out and checking their tummy) is subverted by the symbolism of the treadmill. Brilliant!
Check this out, @ebaeschnbliah.
Thanks for tagging @stillgosherlocked . To find this painting in the first place, recognize it and assign it to the artist is indeed great work @thepineapplering . About the bird - sorry, but I’m sure this is no magpie. As you stated, the artist is incredible talented in depicting characteristic attributes of different species. A flying magpie shows a very specific flight silhouette - especially the tail and the wings. I anwered a similar quesstion not long ago on this meta (x) and added pictures of flight silhouettes of magpies and swallows. Because of the forked tail, the sickle-shaped wings and the auburn colored spot near the beak I’m sure the bird on the painting is a barn swallow. Did some pictures for comparison:
The black and white bird above in the middle is a flying magpie. Below is the bird painted by Melchior d'Hondecoeter. Left and right are barn swallos.
Sorry
@ebaeschnbliah @thepineapplering But then the Birds behind Mary on the wall at the Wedding reception are swallows as well? There would be a connection between Mary and Mycroft, especially as both scenes transition?
@isitandwonder @thepineapplering @stillgosherlocked Did a bit of research about swallows and their symbolism:
“For sailors, swallow tattoos have specific meanings. Typically, a sailor who has traveled for more than 5,000 nautical miles will get a swallow tattoo to demonstrate that he is well-experienced. Swallow tattoos are also considered lucky for seafarers, as they believe that if they drown, the swallow will carry their soul away safely. The birds were also associated with working-class pride in England, and many fighters tattooed swallows on their knuckles or fists to symbolize their strength and swiftness.
In ancient Greece, the swallow was associated with Aphrodite, the goddess of Love, and was believed to bring good luck and happiness. The ancient Romans believed that the swallow was a totem bird for mothers in sorrow, and that it embodied the souls of children who had been lost in childbirth. Modern Christians see the swallow as a symbol of sacrifice and rebirth, as well as a symbol for new beginnings.
No matter what cultural belief you choose, swallows are seen as a symbol of hope. The birds are protected in many cultures, and are rarely hunted or harmed.” (x)
My favourite picks would be ‘sailor - love - luck - happiness - sacrifice - rebirth - hope and carry the soul away into safety’ …. all of this with the ’real couple’ in mind, of course. :)))
August 16, 2016
jenna221b:
jenna221b:
lynneyginnyjoan:
jenna221b:
I DO BELIEVE THAT’S A CERTAIN SOMEONE’S DYING...
I DO BELIEVE THAT’S A CERTAIN SOMEONE’S DYING GREEN CARNATION… :(
(thanks to @221bgay for the original screengrab from Sherlock uncovered! (x) )
OH! @lynneyginnyjoan
MAGNUSSEN: I’ll look at the files on Mrs Watson. […] Ah, she is so wicked. (x)Thanks to @waitingforgarridebs for drawing my attention to this quote! <3
Also!! I forgot to add @makeyourdeduction‘s amazing catch:
in the top left corner there’s stuff about tgg and the turner piece??? why is that in the same shot as the mary stuff? MARY HAS BEEN THERE THE WHOLE TIME THAT’S WHY???? ~ @makeyourdeduction
A painted breadcrumb
So as some of you know, I’ve been asking for a subtextual clue (because a textual one would be a) too much and b) impossible to find before S4? TAB?) of Mycroft’s knowledge/frankly nonsensical inaction about “Mary Morstan/AGRA” past activities.Or a symbol, a subtextual breadcrumb left for us to rely on something “tangible (i.e. left for the writers for us to see) besides logic.
So I think I found it. The breadcrumb. The subtextual proof.
Okay… If you say so?
Ehm, what are we looking at?
This painting is called “Peacocks”. Made by Melchior
d'Hondecoeter. This dutch guy lived in the XVIIth century. Quoting the wikipedia page on his work, “he painted virtually exclusively bird subjects, usually exotic or game, in park-like landscapes. Hondecoeter’s paintings featured geese (brent goose, Egyptian brent and red-breasted brent), fieldfares, partridges, pigeons, ducks, magpies and peacocks, but also African grey crowned cranes, Asian sarus cranes, Indonesian yellow-crested cockatoos, an Indonesian purple-naped lory and grey-headed lovebirds from Madagascar.”What do we have on that painting? Peacocks, obviously. The African grey crowned crane (the big white bird with the red head). A squirrel. A turkey. Also a spider monkey. And what is that, flying free? A MAGPIE.
Please notice the birds he almost exclusively paint. This guy knew his market. He knew where the money was, so he mastered his themes catering to his clients’ taste. His repertoire was limited. If you see a bird flying on a Melchior painting, chances are that is a magpie you’re seeing.
And pray tell, what on earth has that painting to do with the show? Well, since you’re asking…
That painting is hanging on the walls of Mycroft’s house.
Mycroft has a painting of a magpie mastering the skies.
Shown on the same episode “Mary Morstan” marries John Watson, breaks Sherlock’s heart metaphorically, while Mycroft, knowing who she is (ok, who she definetely isn’t, for sure) does nothing to stop her/tells anyone the truth.
Mycroft is shown running while going nowhere. Watched by a magpie.
Is that the same painting? It is.
If you read my last meta M for mutant (and let’s face it, even if you didn’t), you know magpies are a symbol for the villain “Mary Morstan”. So there it is. The breadcrumb I was referring to. An arrow to the link (or the lack of).
Tagging people who were very helpful
Interesting. I definitely think mycorrhizal has to know and either his hands are tied or he’s working his own agenda.
Mary Morstan - Mary Watson - AGRA
I just did a bit of research and found out that even if Mary married John under a false name, the marriage would still be valid. You marry the person that signs the certificate, not a name. If identity fraud was involved, that’s a matter for a criminal court - but the marriage stands.
SHIT! I thought. But then I found this on an official UK Government side:
2. Your marriage is defective - ‘voidable’ marriagesYou can annul a marriage if:
it wasn’t consummated - you haven’t had sex with the person you married since the wedding (doesn’t apply for same sex couples)
you didn’t properly consent to the marriage - eg you were drunk or forced into it
the other person had a sexually transmitted disease when you got married
the woman was pregnant by another man when you got marriedMarriages annulled for these reasons are known as ‘voidable’ marriages.
————
I always wondered why TPTB had to make Mary pregnant. Canonically Watson had no children. And why let Sherlock spill the beans at the wedding reception? As if marrying her to John hadn’t been bad enough! Why had there to be a baby as well? And why this clumsy revelation? As another obstacle for Johnlock? Upping the ante? Turning Sherlock into a family show?
Now I know - because Maryhad to be pregnant on her very wedding day. Suddenly I can’t wait for that cuddly little baby in that pink bunny suit to arrive! What a lovely plot device!
Because I’m certain now that the baby isn’t John’s but is needed to get an annulment!
Just trust Mofftiss - they know what they are doing.
I’ll start knitting fluffy little baby bonnets…
Awesome research. It’s possible this was the reason for the pregnancy. However, I think a stronger reason, story arc wise, is to keep John bound to Mary. If there was no pregnancy, he really would have no reason to go back to Mary after she shot Sherlock and he realized she was lying about everything. The baby at least gives a somewhat plausible reason why he might still try to make it work. And there are other ways to get rid of Mary than anullment–divorce, death, or she simply runs away.
However, I wouldn’t be surprised if the baby is not John’s–or even if there is no baby.
atikiology:
i’m just so thankful, from the bottom of my heart, that martin freeman was cast as john...
i’m just so thankful, from the bottom of my heart, that martin freeman was cast as john watson. i thank my local deity every day.
AMEN!
DREAMS ARE TRICKY
_______________________________________________________________
Dreams are a tricky thing. They twist and alter everything. Time and space has no meaning. You can be at a certain place and at the same time somewhere else. Even in another time. The most impossible things seem to be completely normal.
In his dream Sherlock sees a woman. A bride wearing her wedding dress. Standing on a balcony. The bride is aiming her weapons at the street below. Shooting randomly?
The bride doesn’t aim for people … she hits a loaf of bread.
Does the bride aim at the shop window of the bakery?
Sometimes a street with a bakery is called Backer Street.
Is the bride … the wife … aiming at Baker Street?
DREAMS ARE TRICKY AND SOME PEOPLE BAKE THEIR OWN BREAD
.
the-7-percent-solution:
ughjohnwatson:
look at this gif. really look at it.
that is not the face...
look at this gif. really look at it.
that is not the face of a man who just cares for john as a friend.
those are not the words of a man who sees john as anything besides a significant other.
don’t you dare tell me both of them don’t love john. completely, unconditionally.
(x)
THIS SHOT OF SHOLTO IS IN A MIRROR. HE AND SHERLOCK ARE THE SAME. THEY ARE REFLECTIONS OF EACH OTHER. Two men bleeding internally during the wedding. Two men dressed for battle. Two men defamed by the media, taken away from John.
“The world turns, nothing is ever new.”
‘A Messy Divorce’ for S4?
So, John tells us that Sabrina Jennings -a queer woman, closeted for fear of her family’s dissaproval- was having a love affair with the woman she loved…
…and “for all the right reasons”, because, according to John, she “clearly wasn’t in a happy marriage”…
…and was desperate to divorce the manipulative man who blackmailed her…
Now, I don’t know if Mofftiss only wanted to make this parallel because that’s their headcanon for what happened in the books… or if this is actual foreshadowing.
Mark’s so emphatic saying ‘messy, real horrible!’, that I think of crime-scene levels of horrible, murder (attempt? Please don’t let it be Mycroft taking the bullet for John). Which fits with the whole ‘John and Mary’s wedding=death’ theme of TSoT. Like this choice of camera angle to show a cementery (!) in the shot (also because Mary can’t ever have the centered hero-shot only Sherlock has with John, specially in this classic ‘just married’ moment.)
What if John wants to divorce Mary… but she has none of it, and chaos ensues.
After all, she has the chilling profile of a psychopath who will stop at nothing to have what she wants.
Remember how she point-blank threatened Sherlock, “there is nothing in this World I would not do to stop that happening”, ‘that’ being ‘losing John forever’.
Anyway, what we (and Sherlock) know for sure, is that John and Mary’s marriage is coming to end, and Sherlock is going to play an active part on that:
…but how? Could John and Mary’s divorce be in the midst of the ‘tragic’, ‘terminal’ and ‘devastating’ plot of S4? Maybe as a catalyst?
To end on a happier note, the title John chose for that entry is “Happily Ever After”, which is exactly the kind of ending we’re waiting for this show (the LGB research and ‘sick of tragic endings’). Nice.
If Mary was pregnant by another man when marrying John the marriage is defective can be annulled! Just sayin’…
XistentialAngst's Blog
- XistentialAngst's profile
- 15 followers
