the bbc sherlock series by the dr who 'bloke' and starring tim from the office

kind of an accepted part of real life these days

i think it's good: partly because it forces you to address certain mechanics about how these things work in your plots (text updates to get Watson out of bonfire, can't keep anything secret cos of Twitter), which in turn forces the writer to consider glib use of plot mechanics, also refreshes the language and visual presentation - total effect is to produce something that is aware and receptive to technology in the world, even if it also means getting it wrong sometimes (in a Scandal in Belgravia persistently referring to a phone that could take photos as a 'camera phone' for instance).

The Leinster Gardens facade i've known since god knows when, tho can't remember where I first heard it. Fairly commonly ref'd as prank played on newly-recruited... fucking finding a gender neutral term for postman is a bastard - I'm going to go for the appropriately 19th C PO term 'letter carriers'. It's mentioned in a few tube histories as well.

I didn't really like the whole swipe card thing because it was Rube Goldberg sort of solution, when the best Sherlock stuff to me hinges on his inhuman ability to observe and recall things. Of course in the original story he doesn't really perform any feats of that kind... they just kind of watch Milverton get his comeuppance and stay out of the way.

I read it as less of him relying on a technical glitch and more his observation of how human nature would make people react to variations on that situation

I think the fact that he's proposing to Janine merely to get into Magnussen's apartment was sufficient Sherlockian antics for the scene, and the swipe card stuff was too gimmicky. The idea that a bunch of security guards will come running because someone unauthorized tries their swipe card on his private elevator is pure silliness. It just wouldn't open the elevator. If Magnussen was that paranoid, he'd station a guard next to the elevator.

One thing bugging me about the episode: How did SPOILER#1 get in the office?

I thought Sher's mom's book on the mathematics of combustion might tie into Watson's burning, but no.

Also, a bit ironic that they seem to be getting their science facts from British rags like Murdoch's tabloids.

One thing bugging me about the episode: How did SPOILER#1 get in the office?

I thought Sher's mom's book on the mathematics of combustion might tie into Watson's burning, but no.

these things bother me less when they're not central generally - but let's say as an assassin her approach wdve been less to deceive Janine than, idk, steal her card and get it copied, maybe (she's dressed in black the in the brightest building in the world) she got in from outside w'out using the lift "somehow".

I thought Sher's mom's book on the mathematics of combustion might tie into Watson's burning, but no.

The mom's book seemed to be a Moriarty reference; in "The Final Problem" Moriarty is a former math professor, and in some other story it's said he's written a book with a similar title. Because of this, some internet folks have speculated that Sherlock's mom was actually behind the final plot twist, and will be the main antagonist for season 4... I guess there are a couple things that support such a theory: during the Christmas dinner scene, we find out Mrs. Holmes is quite protective of Sherlock ("Somebody's put a bullet in my boy, and if I ever find out who, I shall turn absolutely monstrous!"), and the plot twist certainly gets him out of a bad situation.

Spoiler #1 got in through Janine somehow, it's in the dialogue. Sherlock compares notes with her about building a fake relationship just to get in - in the fake house iirc.

One thing that bugs me is the USB stick containing the files on her former life... IIRC they go straight from the fake house to Baker Street, so she must have had the stick with her when she went to the fake house, but why would she? At that point she didn't know she would be exposed. I guess that could be a simple continuity error, but why did she have those files in the first place? If she wanted no one to know about her past, shouldn't she have destroyed them long ago?

Yeah. During the episode I assumed she got it from Magnussen, but the ending means that's unlikely.

Maybe she keeps it with her at all times so she knows where it is?

Maybe Magnussen typed it all out for her in plaintext ASCII for convenience?

Maybe she keeps it with her at all times so she knows where it is?

Maybe, but why would she have that stuff on file in the first place, if she wants no one to find out about the past? What if John had accidentally found the files and taken a peek?

Ahh, that explains everything, Tuomas! She carries it on her everywhere, and to ensure that John will never peek at it, she sets up the entire Magnussen plot so that after an initial interim of tension, John will take a principled stand and refuse to read her files AND destroy the USB drive FOR her. Ingenious! CIA training!

Do we really need to totally avoid spoilers in this thread? People were talking pretty freely about the previous two episodes as soon as they'd aired. Personally I avoid this thread until I've seen the latest episode, I was kinda assuming everyone does the same. Are there people reading this who haven't yet seen "His Final Vow"?

What did the episode title a refer to, btw? What was the "final vow"? In the previous two the title was dropped in the dialogue, but it was less clear in this one... Or did I miss it?

― Tuomas, Tuesday, January 14, 2014 2:45 AM (Yesterday) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

otm

oh whoops

i mean tot otm the other tuomas post, oh well

Also, while I mostly enjoyed this episode, I thought the way they defeated Magnussen felt a bit too easy, since the writers' and the actor had done a nice job in making him a memorably icky villain. For a supposed mastermind, he was pretty stupid in revealing the secret of his secret vaults to Sherlock and Watson, right? I mean, after that he was fair game for anyone who wanted him dead; even if he was sure Sherlock and Watson wouldn't kill him, they could've simply tipåed off someone who would be willing to do it, and based on what Magnussen's actions, there probably wouldn't have been a shortage of candidates.

In fact, I was pretty sure the twist at the end was gonna be that Mycroft's men were actually gonna shoot Magnussen, since it seemed Sherlock wanted to make it clear Mycroft would learn his secret by shouting it out loud. But now I don't quite get it: what was the point of Sherlock shouting it, if it wasn't for Mycroft's benefit?

― Tuomas, Monday, January 13, 2014 2:26 PM (2 days ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

this one

maybe sherlock shouts to let mycroft know hoping that then mycroft's men would take out magnussen and then when that didn't happen deciding he'd have to do it himself. that's a stretch. seems to me sherlock could've simply let mycroft and his men take them away (surely he would've gotten off, esp since he was working for lady shagwell or whatever) and then, having decided he was going to kill magnussen simply wait to a more opportune time. it's not like sherlock holmes couldn't figure out a way to get away w/ murder. a tidier way to clean it up might have been to have watson stand up to magnussen (toss him over a balcony maybe, something that could easily be swept under a rug ) or if you wanted something w/ punch have mary pop up and finish the job, maybe after they leave and sherlock knows but doesn't care and nobody solves it cuz (as in the original story) so many ppl had a motive. hell you could just have sherlock mention magnussen's vault is his mind palace (ugh) to mary in passing then cut to sherlock reading a paper w/ magnussen's death as the headline and sherlock does a half smile and then o what's this on the telly moriarty is alive somehow.

the empty vault was symbolic

why are we in thrall to the redtops. why do we trust them as a source of meaning. they are but an empty room. wake up sheeple

i find it weird that they're doing this mind palace thing since it's a thomas harris thing. you'd think they'd want to dissociate him from popular culture's second most famous sociopath

kinda hated the mind palace stuff cuz it makes it seem that sherlock isn't esp bright or observant, he's just really good at those memory tournaments. reminds me of movies like phenomenon or something where the guy is suddenly incredibly intelligent and they demonstrate it by showing he knows the capitals of all the countries in africa.

pop culture's second most famous sociopath surely tom sawyer

its probably sheldon cooper but i was mainly just writing words in an order i thought sounded good

didn't realise it was a thos harris thing, just associated it with this:

http://studyplace.ccnmtl.columbia.edu/w/images/9/9c/Yates-1966-Art-of-Memory-excerpt.pdf

that's frances yates's the art of memory for those who don't like clicking unspecified links. follows the persistence of classical methods of mnemonics, particularly that of associating memory with place or abstract architectural structures, through into renaissance magic and thought.

but yes. memory less appealing than observation. capacious high-recall memory feels like it's special - we can't do it, our memories don't work like that. reasoning from observation feels like we should be able to do it and indeed can do it to a lesser extent.

this has always bugged me but sherlock isnt really a sociopath is he? i thought sociopaths were supposed to be quite charismatic, very good at mimicking normal human interaction, and so on. i mean you could argue that he IS all those things but i think the point is that with sociopaths they appear in general to be "normal" at all times. sherlock presents as difficult from the start; he seems more autistic than sociopathic.

curious how long 'actually sherlock is a monster!' has been around. the first time i can remember coming across it was mark s here and then it kinda became the norm to have sherlock as clearly understood to be some asshole weirdo instead of just incredibly smart and observant (even the recent sherlock but not really precursors to the current wave had this eg house). seems like previously any revisionism of sherlock usually just focused on drug use or they'd have it turn out that watson was actually the smart one like some remington steele situation.

Yeah, Sherlock's condition is clearly Asperger's, I'm not sure why the writers keep on repeating the sociopath thing; "high functioning sociopath" is not even a real diagnosis, but "high functioning autist" fits Sherlock perfectly.

(xpost)

doyle vacillates in the stories, like yeah in 'study in scarlet' we encounter him beating up corpses and he doesn't know the order of the planets in the solar system but in a lot of the later ones he's just smart + forbidding

also worth noting if mb obvious that the axes along which sherlock might present as 'weird' in a late-victorian context are different to those along which he might present as 'weird' in 2010-date

curious how long 'actually sherlock is a monster!' has been around. the first time i can remember coming across it was mark s here and then it kinda became the norm to have sherlock as clearly understood to be some asshole weirdo instead of just incredibly smart and observant (even the recent sherlock but not really precursors to the current wave had this eg house). seems like previously any revisionism of sherlock usually just focused on drug use or they'd have it turn out that watson was actually the smart one like some remington steele situation.

Well, in the Conan Doyle stories Sherlock can be rude and antisocial and "weird", but he almost always shows high moral standards. It's often hinted that he gets more pleasure in solving the crimes than bringing the guilty to justice, but IIRC it's never ever suggested justice and morality wouldn't matter to him a lot. I mean, in "The Final Problem" he's willing to sacrifice his life if that also means the worst criminal he's ever met dies with him. (Unlike in Sherlock, in the short story Moriarty never threatens the lives of his loved ones, so protecting them is not a motivation for his sacrifice, it's purely justice.) So I don't really feel the canon supports this "Sherlock is a monster" revisionism.

Maybe the revisionists feel Sherlock's moralism is just something Conan Doyle was forced to include in the stories because of the era in which he wrote, and that if he had had a free reign he would've made Sherlock more ambiguous and less heroic, so they feel they're revealing the "real" core of the character... But I dunno, morality still feels like a large part of the character to me, it rarely feels superficial or tacked-on. (One of my favourite Sherlock story is "The Yellow Face", which is all about morality, and it's also one of the few cases where Sherlock's deductions actually prove wrong.) So the "heroic" Sherlock is just as real as the "monster" one, even if the latter is more popular now. I guess people just prefer different types of protagonists these days?

(xxpost)

I think morality matters a great deal to this iteration of Sherlock though - it's more like this version tries to paint him as someone who chooses to see himself as a monster, rather than him actually being one.

There's a bit in the Irene Adler episode, where Mycroft tells Watson that Sherlock had the brain of a scientist or a philosopher but chose to be a detective instead, and then asks Watson what that says about Sherlock. we're clearly meant to see him as someone who does have a strong sense of morality and justice, even if he doesn't care about conforming to polite social norms.

didn't realise it was a thos harris thing, just associated it with this:

http://studyplace.ccnmtl.columbia.edu/w/images/9/9c/Yates-1966-Art-of-Memory-excerpt.pdf

― Fizzles, Wednesday, January 15, 2014 9:23 PM (Yesterday) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

I don't think it is 'a Harris thing' , it is something that Harris has had Lecter utilise but I think it is a much older means of structuring your memory so that you remember things.

Doesn't Thomas Cromwell use such techniques in Wolf Hall?

that's frances yates's the art of memory for those who don't like clicking unspecified links. follows the persistence of classical methods of mnemonics, particularly that of associating memory with place or abstract architectural structures, through into renaissance magic and thought.

― Fizzles, Wednesday, January 15, 2014 4:28 PM (Yesterday) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

John Crowley works with these notions in his Aegypt-Love & Sleep-Demonomania trilogy, also

Have that yates book on my nook, one of many things I'm dying to read if I ever stop frittering

it's excellent, jon - stop frittering. also groundbreaking if i remember rightly - finding a continuity that wasn't a post-enlightenment retrospect 'progress of thought' narrative, but an examination of the sources and the use made of them, ie magic, and power, and renaissance humanism, was revolutionary.

It's really bugging me where I first heard about those facades, like a few months ago. Wee they in another film or documentary prog on UK telly?

i saw it on Britain's Secret Homes a few months ago. maybe there?

I am very late to the party and no doubt ilx is all talked out on the subject of this version of Sherlock Holmes, but...

Having watched all up to the next to last episode of season three, my basic take on it is that it varies from delightful at its best to merely competent at its worst, so that in spite of a great deal of unevenness, it delivers much more entertainment than the norm. The humorous moments are almost always genuinely funny. The fiddly clever plots are full of gaping holes if you take them at all seriously, but as with the original stories, to take them seriously is to miss their value entirely.

Watching them in relatively quick succession (compared to the pace of their initial release) reveals the extent to which the writers soon exhausted their first wave of inspiration based on a novel approach to the characters, then fell back on more elaborate gimmickry, and now are subverting the characters they originally created in order to give themselves new spaces to explore. iow, the usual evolution of successful tv shows. still worth a go, though.

The Christmas special is an odd idea in that it seems to be a period piece...

Yeah, I don't understand how the producers thought it would be a good idea. Are they gonna do the texting stuff - I guess not? Odd indeed. It's a bit of a gamble. Is this gonna turn the show into the other endless tv/film version of Holmes? I remember from my kiddy Guinness Book of Records days that Holmes is the character played by the most actors ever. I don't see how this could do anything interesting.

You don't see how a Sherlock Holmes story could be interesting?

Is this gonna turn the show into the other endless tv/film version of Holmes?

Since it's a one-off for fun and S4 will be returning to modern-day continuity, the answer to this is obviously "no"

but yes. memory less appealing than observation. capacious high-recall memory feels like it's special - we can't do it, our memories don't work like that. reasoning from observation feels like we should be able to do it and indeed can do it to a lesser extent.

― Fizzles, Wednesday, January 15, 2014 3:34 PM (1 year ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

this has always bugged me but sherlock isnt really a sociopath is he? i thought sociopaths were supposed to be quite charismatic, very good at mimicking normal human interaction, and so on. i mean you could argue that he IS all those things but i think the point is that with sociopaths they appear in general to be "normal" at all times. sherlock presents as difficult from the start; he seems more autistic than sociopathic.

― max, Wednesday, January 15, 2014 3:37 PM (1 year ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

curious how long 'actually sherlock is a monster!' has been around. the first time i can remember coming across it was mark s here and then it kinda became the norm to have sherlock as clearly understood to be some asshole weirdo instead of just incredibly smart and observant (even the recent sherlock but not really precursors to the current wave had this eg house). seems like previously any revisionism of sherlock usually just focused on drug use or they'd have it turn out that watson was actually the smart one like some remington steele situation.

― balls, Wednesday, January 15, 2014 3:42 PM (1 year ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

fyi in the superior product ELEMENTARY they make a lot of the above issues converge (no idea how well/where this tracks the canon) by making sherlock kind of a totally committed utility-maximizer, like if john stuart mill discovered that his greatest duty to the world could be found in performing investigations of murderers and then did everything he could to shape his life toward that end. so he's very smart and observant etc, but also constantly training himself with memory games and skill maintenance and relevant scientific inquiries. more than once he has floated the idea to others that essentially the normal rules, laws, etc. ought reasonably not to be applied to him in virtue of the greater good that is done by him being allowed to operate as he sees fit. thus his trying to murder M when he believes M to have killed irene adler, his defiant response to a police dept hearing aimed at canning him for recklessly causing his police colleague to be shot, lastrade's ominous warning to watson that seems to be connected to signs of sherlock's willingness to be utterly deceptive and manipulative to those around him (his doing 'voices'), etc.

i assume a lot of that is pretty normal. as they do it it comes across like sherlock is just an incredibly tense but subtly unstable balance of all the strengths and flaws necessitated by having shaped himself from the person he was born as, with the person with his biography, into the person he is. at times it makes it seem like he's an embodied interpretation of a nietzschean utilitarian.

How can anything with Lucy Liu be superior to a British production?

she's great!

can you have nietzchean utilitarians