Aurel's Lair

Sherlock BBC Torture Fever S1E1

I rewatched Sherlock BBC with as open of mind as possible, to try and see threads that are worth exploring and where it legitimately did something interesting to me. As a teen, I watched the first two seasons, was briefly into fandom, and watched the Hhbomberguy's famous takedown video later.

This is not a polished work. It is just dump of my thinking while watching.

Study in Pink (Original text Study in Scarlet)

Seeing sherlock bbc have 8.4 on the streaming site I’m using is crazy. Shit should have 6.9

Structural acknowledgement:

Granada Sherlock never covered Study In Scarlet and there's a good reason for it. Sherlock novels borrow from a french author Gaboriau in its construction. The detective works with a crime and then the novel cuts to show the past that led to the crime. Three out of four of Sherlock’s novels then end up as two separate books stapled together. This makes it hard to direct while you want to focus on the detective character. Soviet Sherlock borrows Study in Scarlet's initial character introduction and casts it in a small unique story of Watson legitimately starting to suspect that Sherlock is a criminal. It’s cute and original but then it goes into the The Speckled Band story. The Sherlock half of the Study in Scarlet is adapted and serves to introduce Lestrade and Gregson later, but the whole part here is the psychology and history behind crime is skipped because Sherlock isn’t there.

Doyle actually does something interesting here - he has Sherlock solve the crime before the reveal of the story, which is a bit of showing off to show he is smarter than Gaboriau’s Lecoq. Which is, really funny in an almost pathetic way because Gaboriau wasn’t making a great detective he was building a frame for the story on how brutal history leads to terrible crime as it resurfaces. Ye, Lecoq fucks up and needs someone to read him accounts of the past so he can solve the crime but— It’s a bit…pathetic to be like WELL MY DETECTIVE CAN SOLVE IT BEFORE. Because you are writing it.

But, let’s go to actual watching.

—-------------------------------

Watson is interesting in this adaptation and us seeing his boring life and inability to come back to normal civilian life. This will be elaborated later but the introduction, and casual reveal of the gun in his cupboard is good. It legit builds up our image of this guy - depressed and feeling terrible and static. General kudos to engaging with it at all, in an interesting way and not just acting like his army service is something Sherlock gets to have as his level 1 deduction.

What follows is an intersection of the seemingly unrelated victims of our killer. And we are introduced to Lestrade! One of the two recurring detectives in Sherlock stories and yet here we have only one. Gregson and Lestrade had an interesting rivalry dynamic in the original.

“Gregson is the smartest of the Scotland Yarders,” my friend remarked; “he and Lestrade are the pick of a bad lot. They are both quick and energetic, but conventional—shockingly so. They have their knives into one another, too. They are as jealous as a pair of professional beauties. There will be some fun over this case if they are both put upon the scent.”

In most stories, as the baker street wiki states, the one who appears is Lestrade, so picking him makes sense, but here the show already removed a duo that had chemistry and replaced it with an NCIS ensemble as we’ll see later.

Interestingly this episode already pisses me off, because as he is questioned by the press like hey the fuck is going on, one guy says “I mean come on suicides arent’s serialized” and it’s kinda like… yea they fucking are. Copycat suicides and Werther effects are real and observed. This is a known fact. This line is meant to instill in us a doubt that it is suicide, which yea, no shit, but it’s so utterly wrong, it’s insulting.

And then Sherlock starts sending everyone in the room texts where he is like “wrong” to everything Lestrade says and it’s like OK. OK.

I am not defensive about changing personality in adaptations if it has due cause. In fact, I feel like it’s almost necessary - Sherlock is basically an Victorian gentleman that largely makes sense in that particular context. I am just questioning making him this child-like annoying asshole that thinks everyone else is a moron? I can see the throughput to that particular personality, in the OG Sherlock is energetic, he could be callous sometimes, he could be dramatic. But this whole performance is not really anywhere close to the cluster of personality that Sherlock displays. Doesn’t it read almost like a cool asshole guy, a cool dickhead genius which? Again, you can make a case that this is Sherlock before he can perform his mind working at Wattson. This is something to keep an eye out for, if he has a tendency to perform this kind of arguing in public, and if so, why was never something reported on a weirdo who just sends confidential police details to people.

This whole performance of sending reporters loud WRONGs feel more like Christie’s Poirot to me, when he does the work of identifying the killer at the end of the stories.

But this Sherlock needn’t be wrong or bad. Again, the Sherlock we had is a particular idealized god of rationalism of the Victorian and Edwardian era. Making him an annoying if brilliant manchild could work if you do some actual work with it. Hell, this could be a bored Sherlock being extra mean because he’s like PLEASE PLEASE GIVE CASE! Otherwise it just feels like modern edginess, such as letting Buttercup from Powerpuff Girls say FUCK.

I did laugh at the “If it’s murders how do people keep themselves safe” “Well, don’t commit suicide”. (And then Sally is like DUDE THAT’S DAILY MAIL) Damn. They got me guys. This show could be funny, which I did forget in how bitterly I came to see it later.

Sherlock being introduced as using a riding crop on a corpse is him being quirky. In the original he is just excited and doing lab research but this guy is like YEA I need to recreate riding crop marks on the BODY of a DEAD GUY for someone’s alibi. I am so cool. Which, fairly defensible, but wait, he already has a case? Why is he pestering Lestrade then? And again this is, imho, watching in 2026 trying too hard. The original was almost fucking dorky and hyper specific in what it was looking for scientifically. But no, in 2010 we don’t have that excuse really, because science of forensics advanced GREATLY. Which begs the question, why is he doing this, and how does it help the case he is working on? Is the body he is doing this on similar to the body that was found? Similar conditions? I don’t want to nitpick, but… yea no, he is annoying so I want to be annoying back. How did he get the body? Why not just read a monograph or one of many papers forensic scientists have to do? Because Sherlock has to be introduced in an interesting way! And isn’t vague posturing about necrophilia and pretending that’s what we’ll do awesome and funny!

I feel overwhelmingly like I am nitpicking. This is here to introduce us to the idea Sherlock doesn’t care about being proper, results and solutions are what he values and what gets him going. Which is alright as a starting point for a protag, and it looks and acts as a proper extreme, weird idea. But in 2010 you just have such a corpus of literature on the subject, you have to commit extremely. This is kinda like that one episode of CSI I remember, where one of the recurring cops HAS to play a video game that is used as the basis of the bank robberies. Like it sounds… like it’s something you have to do and it’s entertaining and clearly memorable. Like it’s…cool.

But also, when the Original Sherlock is sloppy about science, or even the fact he never does deduction but induction or abduction, I am like awww ok sweetie, this is part of the narrative or just knowledge at the time. But this fucking guy is already so annoying I’m like - no you know what? Fuck you. Your ego is unearned.

Why not have him be arrogantly correcting previous academic research on crime? You have a hole in one, you have to have him be condescending and mean and have a more neat callback to the Study in Scarlet! Hell you can have him expanding on the same topic as Sherlock was doing there, if you want to be cute.

Soviet Sherlock actually sort of gets this idea of not being fully scientifically sound - when he sums up the Speckled Band and claims the whistling was to train the snake, Watson says : “but new research shows snakes are deaf”. And then Sherlock just shrugs. The solution was, after all, overall correct even if he got some details wrong.

Why is Molly in love with this weirdo? I do know that he treats her like shit and uses her later in the show, which is a point that he can’t do social interactions at all but… why would she even fall in love with him? “SHERLOCK IS SO FUCKED UP DUDE HE THINKS NOONE WANTS TO BE HIS FLATMATE.” And then there is this lady going aw man but he’s soooo charming, like he’s a goddamn Colleen Hoover male protagonist. Molly, you can do better. I need to keep this in mind so I can comment. But this feels like such a Moffat move.

The Afghanistan deduction is always as stupid as it was in the original but here he starts by asking "Afghanistan or Iraq" which is more honest in the fact there are more options, which are timely and relevant.

He ends on a wink and leaves, which. I don’t want to do queer analysis, but for how boring he finds normal people and how much he rebuffs poor Molly, is weird. This comes especially after he tells her her now absent lipstick makes her mouth look too small. Which is a very mean gay comment to make about a woman's aesthetic. And now he seems legit animated by a guy. I don’t want to do queer analysis. Mostly because this show is interested in being cruel about this and doing it will just get you stabbed. (Because Gattis never got a therapist probably.) But it offers itself really readily, which is not weird, considering the subject material.

Unfortunately I will have to keep doing the queer analysis, because they visit Baker street and Mrs Hudson is like teehee will you need two bedrooms. And so begins the big. Gay Joke part of the show.

Look, I fully believe the gentle homophobia was structurally necessary. Making a show and potentially making your big fictional hero of Britain explicitly queer, would make those poor Brits lose their shit and all the beans they have in their guts. However, you kinda structurally have to address the original form, which is deeply intimate in its very conception. Defusing it, or turning it into “no homo” jokes is like poking fun at the deep intimacy of it all, while also simultaneously… doing nothing to fully explain the shape of the intimacy we SHOULD be holding. Clearly friendship, right? No because Sherlock and Watson are both dogshit friends to each other, if I remember correctly. And if it’s just vague fascination/guy you can explain hyperfixations to, then why should we give a fuck about the so called emotional depth of this friendship at all? But there is honestly even a question of why the fuck would anyone question two guys sharing an apartment, in a city where having a roommate is a fucking neccesity. Wait actually why is it a necessity? Isn’t Sherlock loaded? Can’t his English Government Brother just… get him a decent place? There is an idea he was dropping hints that he needs someone, but how could he have KNOWN that he’d get someone? Is Mrs. Hudson asking this because is a fujoshi, or because she legit knows something about Sherlock’s preferences? Or am I overthinking this deep anxiety of the writers wanting to be like “YEA DON’T WORRY GUYS WE KNOW IT’S SUS EVERYONE ELSE DOES TOO”. My brother, who is straight, but don’t worry, I love him despite his flaws, has a male roommate but noone is like YOU’RE GAY, people are like “yea prague is fucking expensive”. It would be tiring to stop for every single fucking “So you guys are Gay tm” Joke but everytime they Happen, I am very much the Image of doom guy killing demons in hell with the caption “WHERE THE FUCK IS GATTIS”. It gets trite and boring and frankly just insulting to me. But I get why they felt like such a sugar to bees for people looking for Johnlock proof, because, again Sherlock is written to not react to these accusations, while he is happy to correct people he doesn’t want relationships because he wants to focus on his jobs. So it feels like there isn’t a denial, like the writers want to PLAY with it. It also reads a bit like “Sherlock doesn’t know why it’s scandalous while Watson has to overreact” and the overreaction eventually gets to the point of like “Watson this stopped being reasonable like the second it started, can you stop crying and shitting about this”.

Rant over. Hopefully I can focus.

“I need an assistant” and “Anderson doesn’t work well with me” is interesting and lends credence to the idea he was fishing for someone to bounce off at home as well. Watson just became well, more. I do think him going like YESS THERE WAS A MURDER THIS IS SO AWESOME. It was kinda goofy and silly and it made my mouth twitch into a grin. His composed, wanna be cool appearance makes him feel younger than the Sherlock in actual canon and more divorced from the respectable British gentleman archetype.\

The one where Sherlock explains how he managed to fully read Watson’s history contains this delightful line: “You’ve got a psychosomatic limb of course you’ve got a therapist”, which is just… not realistic on the therapist availability?

We meet Anderson and Sally, and they are both oh, so mean to Sherlock who just innocently points out that they are sleeping together and cheating on his wife. Their use of “freak”, to someone who is like just a guy who notices things, this disdain for someone who doesn’t perform for society and is just efficient inside it. That’s close to autistic depiction of a character, someone who doesn’t care to perform for society, nor be social, really.

But here’s the thing - Sherlock…wasn’t hated by Victorian society. He was a well-bred gentleman, who fully read the entire racial and class of the era and environment to get his people read. Within that hierarchical nightmare he could effortlessly identify which strata the person occupied. He was extremely magnanimous and didn’t seem to think less of people… or did he? One of his modes of failures is that he is misogynistic, which is what allows Irene Adler to surprise him. I wouldn’t say emotional intelligence is part of Sherlock Holmes, but emotional awareness is. And look, this paragraph was me originally trying to give Sherlock BBC a fat double W, which I will do, but I will also condense it now - Sherlock BBC is this idea of smartness that encompasses everything, smart in every field, smart in every way that matters at the moment, even if his character shouldn’t be. But back to trying to give the show some credit.

This doesn’t foreclose the examination that someone who stands a part of society now, and giving out clear answers to a complicated reality wouldn’t be met with suspicion, because we are not used to reality giving us clear answers anymore, not in the way we used to be. We know truth is not easily read, class and place in society have more dissolved ends. Certainty no longer exists, and what was honestly way more defensible in the Victorian era does not feel as possible. Forcing a character like Sherlock into modern times, would be far more well… fucked up. Because it brings up an idea on how you can read so many categories that you produce impressive deductions. Knowing our complexity would produce someone called a freak. Will the show fucking do anything with it? Well, considering the season 4 “super secret mega intelligent sister” I doubt so.

Now I actually want to think clearly about the dead pink body analysis. First, as a kid I was so fucking impressed with the quick show of info, the game-like UI. Now, it just feels hollow. Mostly because what does it do? It shows you the thinking fast and does not let you pause and think hey what could that bloke be doing? Now, of course, I’d argue this is also the original Sherlock sleight of hand. But, in the books you actually get an examination first and then something happens and THEN Sherlock yapps at you about what he was doing. By making distance, it allows us to at least on a genre level FEEL like we are thinking alongside Sherlock and trying to figure out a scene.

Arguably this show is more open about what Sherlock sees but this sight is already doing a heavy lifting and feels tad insulting. We can already note the scene, you don’t need to show us the conclusions. Now a lot of interpretation work happens outside of this bubble, so props on that, and it is somewhat coherent. It just feels both wrong and right, and I am not sure if proper balance was struck. But this could be Aurel post-”this is a fucking fear gas btw” of season 2, not Aurel seeing this a-new.

The most annoying thing here is the fucking wedding ring. Dirty wedding ring means serial adultress? That’s a jump that needs justification - it’s not impossible to arrive there. Some jewelry is clean, she clearly doesn’t have a job where she needs to remove it often, so it is offered as a clean resolution. But wait, jewelry you wear often would of course get dirtier. And ring being clean on the inside is far more likely to stay clean if you actually keep it the fuck on your fucking ringer. Skin isn’t a cleaner, it doesn't rub the ring clear if you take it off for quickie sex with a young stud on Tinder, unless there is like 5 quickies a day five times a week. And I wouldn’t be so annoyed with this if Sherlock didn’t treat it as well, self-evident. Maybe he is also a misogynist who thinks less of women and this is brilliant foreshadowing for the Irene Adler story, lol I wish. And here is a bit of problem with Sherlock as a fucking jackass. The mechanism of his humbling is there. Just say, dude, this actually doesn’t follow. We have tools Doyle didn’t. Where is this brilliance infallible, where it is not enough? I don’t remember if Sherlock BBC gets into this, maybe it does, maybe I am too mean.

There is also something here when Sherlock says “of course it’s not Rache you morons it's Rachel”. And this is directly calling the original stupid. It does so in an extremely forced way, rather than in genuine discussion with the older text. And is the writing being Rachel even important? Now, a reminder of what the original was doing - Jefferson Hope was a man taking revenge on people who murdered people he loved and got away with it. He isn’t some gigachad Light Death Note. He only got as far as he did because he was determined, hurt, and had friends who helped him. Him writing Rache isn’t stupid, insofar as it’s a clue that never could have happened. It is grotesque and over the top, sure but not illogical. So Sherlock BBC changing parameters (victim wrote Rache not the murderer), and then invoking original solution by a “stupid person”, honestly feels like jerking itself off. It could, however, be signalling “don’t assume everything is the same”. Which, fair enough, stop jerking yourself off over it though.

Also to be perfectly mean I kinda like Lestrade, but Anderson and Sally are both so nothing and I kinda hate we don’t have some…fun original dynamic of Lestrade and Gregson who hate each other.

“Fun? There’s a woman lying dead ""Perfectly sound analysis but I was hoping you’d go deeper.”\

Again, I giggled. And, I don’t hate it. Pointing out that Sherlock being hype when he gets news of a crime, and how it’s fucking weird isn’t a bad thing to do, and if I remember correctly, it’s not really done badly? Like if I remember, shit happened and it’s his job to resolve it, that’s his take. It’s his place in society, one of few things he’s good at and something that actually stimulates his brain. Is he being rather cruel to the idea of the dead person, sure? But it reminds me of Twin Peaks, where everyone HATED the one FBI guy who came in to help with the corpse. But all he wanted to do was… figure it out. Meanwhile everyone else in town just wanted to return to normal, forget Laura Palmer died, bury her and act like nothing ever happened. They cared about corpses and constructed Laura in their own head, which led to another murder of a similar young woman.. Detectives restore the original order, but they also pose a real threat to it, which is interesting. And as an autistic person myself… Why should he externalize and perform grief? So he can be less intrusive on other people's comfort? That’s a lofty cognitive demand. I see his point. I also see how this can be less autism and more of performance of coolness, that doesn’t ask itself (yet at least) what it can cost someone, and how Sherlock didn’t drift fully from not caring about corpses and humanity. There’s a bit of side of both here, but I vaguely remember liking they touched on Sherlock and efficiency and humanity and respect later.

My inner instinct tells me “aw it’s cute that Sherlock wants to be praised and Watson does it” but then the inner guardian wolf of my deepest sanctum says “NO. we will not do queer reading of this wretched text.” because that way lies only leaves covered trap into a hole full of fucking spikes.

There is a neat moment of arguing with Watson that gives Sherlock an idea, which is good. I don’t know. I feel like I have to force myself to note every single one win of this show, just so I have proof it legit happened.\

As Sherlock runs off Watson limps away from the scene, clearly feeling awkward and out of place. And the interaction with Sally here is interesting. She is the only woman of colour that is featured prominently, but I don’t recall her ever doing anything else in the show, which you know, awesome. She is fairly courteous to this invader of the crime scene, but then she has to be venomous “You’re not his friend. He doesn’t have any friends.” This does a crude job of telling us something, for absolutely no reason. Sherlock… is understood as a threat and as something dangerous too. It’s something being beaten into us. The Soviet show actually does something far less embarrassing, which is show us Watson trying to investigate Sherlock and consider him a criminal. It’s funny and novel and doesn’t beat us into teeth with characters being like “Dude, he’s fucked up lol. Stay away from him-”. This talk also feels so insanely long for no reason, reminding you very clearly that they forced Gattis and Moffat to make it one hour thirty instead of normal people 45 minutes. This moment is a prime show-don’t tell material, and I can’t find anything redeeming about it.

Can I be honest, I find the … Mycroft government shit and multiple phones ringing to be annoying and performing cool in a wrong way. If you’re really this powerful, just send a disguised Taxi driver to kidnap Watson. This whole performance is just embarrassing and time consuming. Me when the bosses tell me my pilot is good but it needs double the lenght so I put on a circus act of a guy showing he can… control cameras and make phones around Watson ring? Is Mycroft fiddling with some secret camera controller personally while eating chips? Just call him on the phone, tell him the car is there for him, and he needs to get in. Identify him by his name, old service tag. Yes it does lead to Watson under pressure, Watson performing ideally when he is under stress. But did we need this slowly eating time? This is a quarterback making the decision to hand off the ball for the run to eat the clock, rather than building dread.

Now to Watson, this moment is crucial to utterly shattering my good will towards this show taking Watson as a narrative trope and character seriously.

First, the scene with Mycroft is honestly just. So far away from the register of the show as crime solving and forcing it into something else territory. Which later becomes a real problem. It’s my suspicion this is one of the things added in the pilot, because it’s such a weird awkward middle sibling who you kind of forget is there. Because ok. This scene wants to do, in my head - introduce Mycroft, while also kinda acting like it’s Moriarty. Why? I don’t know - perhaps a good show would make an analysis on how close the government and crime world kiss. Mycroft performs coolness and complete access to information - he even drags out the notepad of John’s therapist. Why? Won’t this cut out John from this therapist in future? This relationship is now shattered for cool effect. But the whole therapist is no longer fucking needed by the logic of the show.

Because the problem Watson has is that he doesn’t have PTSD. He misses the danger and excitement. And FUCK. Fucking Christ. This is our genius smart government weapon government in his head guy making the most elemental mistake about PTSD and trauma and Moffat/Gattis are reducing all of it to simply to the cool guy effect. He is not traumatized; he wishes there was more excitement! Isn’t that the ultimate dream masculine fantasy? And these two readings are seen in opposition to the other.

There is something to the idea that Watson simply is built for the stress and danger and he cannot thrive in civilian life at all. That he needs something exceptional or he can’t function. While this is coherent as an idea, it has to twist what PTSD is, how it presents and it has to admit that this twist with the nightmare dreams of conflict are missing it and not being horrified by it. The mental illness becomes the most infantile gotcha in the world. Missing the battlefield is very much a symptom. of PTSD. Mycroft being like "fire your therapist. You aren't haunted by the battlefield, you miss it." is an utterly revealing thing of how gattis/moffat even understand ptsd. and that they don't. ptsd just isn't something that happens to cool people like their Watson. And this…already evaporates my trust that the show can do something that doesn’t make their character look less “cool”.

Watson is cool. He’s just been threatened and he flirts with a woman. Isn’t that awesome guys. He is so heterosexual and cool and he stops his psychosomatic tremors because these are just him not getting enough to do. Fuck you. You know, let’s look at the original Watson. The original boring Watson who is just an audience surrogate. Yea, sure. But there is a real loss of idea in… the fact that Watson is our filter and lens we view Sherlock from. He is deeply fascinates by him, the person, or he wouldn’t be fucking writing all this. There is a real case to be made that Sherlock wouldn’t exist if Watson wasn’t so utterly fascinated by him. Now, I would argue that Watson, when you move outside of this frame does need to justify his presence. What does he add to the theme? To the structure? Can he just be replaced with a skull and no one would notice. And Moffat and Gattis say No. Because he is so fucking cool guys. Making Watson cool is one of the least interesting things you can do about him. It’s literally just a Strong Female Character logic.

But I have to stop myself. Because while I know it fails epicly, and it failed me now, there is a meantime in which it can have interesting ideas on why Watson matters and how. But the shape of “god he is just so fucking Cool”, which plagues latter seasons is already here and not just for Sherlock.

When Watson comes home, he finds Sherlock clearly looking drugged up, but then he is like “tee hee nicotine patch”. Which is… OK. We need to talk about Sherlock and drugs, because this is a really specific move of cute gesture at the original while failing to replicate it. First, Sherlock is associated with pipes and smoking, which isn’t just Sherlock, people back then loved industrialism they just chain smoked even more dirt into their lungs every day. The pipe is one of the thinking symbols precisely because of Sherlock. So a nicotine patch is a stand-in for that. “Ugh we know how pipes are iconic but we are in a modern environment so we can’t do that guys.” But the very specific imagery is about Sherlock’s drugs use, the dramatic exhale and lying on the bed

“Which is it to-day?” I asked,—“morphine or cocaine?”

He raised his eyes languidly from the old black-letter volume which he had opened. “It is cocaine,” he said,—“a seven-per-cent. solution. Would you care to try it?”

“No, indeed,” I answered, brusquely. “My constitution has not got over the Afghan campaign yet. I cannot afford to throw any extra strain upon it.”

He smiled at my vehemence. “Perhaps you are right, Watson,” he said. “I suppose that its influence is physically a bad one. I find it, however, so transcendently stimulating and clarifying to the mind that its secondary action is a matter of small moment.”

(between text)

“My mind,” he said, “rebels at stagnation. Give me problems, give me work, give me the most abstruse cryptogram or the most intricate analysis, and I am in my own proper atmosphere. I can dispense then with artificial stimulants. But I abhor the dull routine of existence. I crave for mental exaltation. That is why I have chosen my own particular profession,—or rather created it, for I am the only one in the world.”

(Sign of Four)

Now I feel like the original is doing coolness here too, because structurally it cannot doubt its protag. But note the drug used. Cocaine. At least it’s gesturing at the seriousness. It’s pointing at the cost that this specific mind trained in this specific way gets. Sherlock BBC isn’t doing that yet. It’s performing cuteness and vague pointing like “No our Sherlock says no to drugs.” Give me a fucking break. This is such a normie-washed Sherlock. And you are allowed to change the text. The question is what does it tell about your relationship to the original. Why are you doing so? Well, cocaine is illegal now. There's a practical problem of getting it. But this feels so fucking…lame.

And yes, it’s a three patch problem is a reference to the “it’s a three pipes” line, but like … modernized. Whatever. That too. But a thing can be more than one thing and the show was absolutely pointing at drug usage with cinematography and then saying lol nevermind guys!

The idea that Sherlock sent for Watson just to send a text is… with how desperate it was, it’s this idea that he needed someone to do deduction at. So there is a level of self-awareness. Watson needs Sherlock, and Sherlock needs Watson, but it’s not fucking gay, it’s just that biographer needs a subject, and a performer needs an audience. Stop making it gay please guys. Joke aside, this was a cute exchange.

The suitcase and phone bit is a call back to the Study in Scarlet scene, where Watson and Sherlock try to bait the killer. The “deduction” and how it found it rests on… so many shaky assumptions, but criticising every deduction is time consuming and also… just not there the best criticism of the show can be made, really. He is actually trying to see if he made the correct deduction, which, props. And there is also a cute moment of “you get off on this” “and you like the danger!”. Which is actual dialogue I just wish it wasn’t tainted with how Moffat and Gattis see PTSD.

“That’s the frailty of genius, it needs an audience”. Ok you don’t need to wink that much Moffat I get it. I promise. I am stupid, but I get it.

The dinner scene which is just more, teehee you guys are gay joke. And it’s again someone Sherlock knows. There is this… ugh, pattern. Is he? Isn’t he? Sure he doesn’t want to perform, but saying he is not gay is just… A normal thing? I am autistic, I don’t care to perform, but if you want to have a relationship with someone as your genius witness, clearing the air is good. And Sherlock feels the need to say he isn’t a murderer. Why can’t he say I am not gay, don’t worry. He explicitly doesn’t say boyfriends aren’t his area. Which could be just writing economy, like it’s implied as continuation of the “girlfriend, not my area”. He also says, yea I know being gay is fine. I am trying to avoid being like this is gay. They intended him as a gay. Because they didn't, Moffat is a fuckass coward, who didn’t know what he wrote and how it came across and Gattis… I don’t even know what to say about that part of the equation. It’s almost like they wanted to have that in their pocket, which is weird because neither of them would have wanted to use it, it’s a fucking BBC show.

Men don’t need to anxiously perform their heterosexuality like…John fucking does. I am saying that on Sherlock’s side there is almost… resistance of the work to categorize him. “Married to my work.” isn’t a category. You don’t need to have a category like. Shoutout, focus on labor. But it feels so fucking suspicious. And this could be me inserting like all the Johnlock analyses I read as a teen. But writing wise it’s just so suspicious and it keeps fucking with my head. Because this doubles the cruelty of spitting on the queer readings. I read Celluloid Closet as a kid. Identifying all the shapes of queerness that could be in plain sight, expanding how it presents, I like that as an exercise, plus it gives me some company. I want to see queerness or something that could be it. And this is really decent fucking bait.

I don’t know. I don’t want to deal with this anymore. I don’t fucking want Johnlock from this dogshit show. But I feel like it’s working on my registers and I hate that my pattern seeking is working against me, not in any meaningful way, but in a cruel way. And this is abduction, but I feel like weaponizing this shape of wanting could be done very effectively by precisely someone like Gattis.

I wish I could watch Private Life of Sherlock Holmes, because it also played with this. But I can’t due to Sherlock BBC utterly pre-destroying any association and not having an appetite for this kinda humour.

Back to trying to find the good bits - There is already some of Sherlock’s humanity - he has a deep connection with people he helped that he remembers.

Building his mind to contain a map of London and being able to quickly refer to it to somehow know where a taxi could go is also a nice utilisation of Sherlock as a machine built for crime solving.

He has psychosomatic limp and he just runs when he is in danger. Another point in this masculine fantasy of what PTSD is and isn’t. Arguably even what psychosomatic is and isn't!

The drug bust at Sherlock HINTS at his drug use, but it also… feels like police keeping in step with Sherlock like they do treat him as a dangerous dog. But even here the show performs quirkiness. “Oh are those human eyes?” “Put them back, that’s an experiment”. No it’s not. The experiment needs parameters, repeatability, multiple subjects. Is this just Sherlock being utterly bored when he doesn’t have a crime? And Anderson is like “this guy is a A FUCKING CRIMINAL”. Look, the pure contempt and the sadism of wanting the strange Other finally locked up and contained is doing real damage to Sherlock, I’d argue and could explain his aloofness. I am trying OK? But it also feels like deep inspiration from a Soviet series, just dragged out in almost the opposite - everyone else but Watson thinks Sherlock is someone three seconds away from snapping. But the sad thing about Sherlock even in canon is that he would

But then there is this fucking line:

“We found the case in the home of our favourite psychopath!” “I am a high-functioning sociopath. Do your research.” DID THE SHOW? NEITHER IS A CLINICAL DIAGNOSIS. And this could be a good moment of humbling for two characters performing smartness by someone outside them. But no! It’s seen as a fat double W for Sherlock, a smart remark. So. Maybe it’s the writer performing smartly.

Lestrade is… interesting? He is like that. He is a bully. He bullies Sherlock. He doesn’t like him, he needs him. This is also a payback for the start, for making him look stupid in front of the press. But he understands Sherlock. He is like “hey, I get the need for nicotine, let’s work together”. He is playing good cop, after forcing everyone to play bad cop. He is very…emotionally smart. Like the dude is legit, clever. This is an interesting take on Lestrade/Gregson, seen as the “better of the police” in the original.

And here Sherlock is forced to admit new data and force them into his framework. And this gestures at being insensitive as a way to come to terms with the fact he was wrong: “Why would she still be upset about having a stillborn child?” But he instantly says, yea not good. A child, he is compared to. But again, as autistic person, this is how I work. When the world stops making sense I get angry and petty. Why wouldn’t she be over it after 14 years? It’s something I think during a meltdown. Demanding that the world makes sense.

High functioning is not used for sociopathy, it’s used for autism. Which is often read as sociopathy. Was this intentional? Well, neither writer cared to research PTSD. I don’t know. Something to keep in mind. But there is something saying, no I am a sociopath which is a loaded language while displaying traits that could be autistic. It’s self-villainization.

The whole “she left us her password to track her phone she planted”. Uh. Can’t the police just. Do that themselves? Why not scratch in “GPS”, because that makes more sense as a hint? Or the image of a phone to let people know it’s what you planted? Then the police might make a guess that’s what you want. Whatever not the point, that’s the planted seed to the mystery. OK.\

The taxi driver comes into the house. He comes into the house and everyone, including the police, just ignores it. He’s standing there. Now this is partly the point, Sherlock needs stimulation and to face off against the criminal yada yada.

I want to call the whole thing forced but I can’t, can I? Because the cabbie’s ultimatum - if you don't come with you’ll never know the truth is why I am here forcing myself through this slogfest, to answer myself. What is interesting here. What here is good. Where are the ideas? Why didn’t Gattis get fucking therapy. I am Sherlock, and I am getting into that fucking cab and I am swallowing both the pills. Curiosity works. The arrogance in thinking you can handle it also works.

Lestrade now says what I consider something of a show’s thesis “Sherlock Holmes is a great man, and one day he might even be a good one - if we’re lucky.” But… the show hasn’t yet earned the position that he’s uniquely evil. Yeah, he’s excited about murder, yeah, he’s not emotionally the best, but there is nothing to suggest evilness.

The cabbie, however, makes me think about one particular point.

Again, bringing up Jefferson Hope. And bringing up Gaboriau, Gaboriau wrote from a specific point of view. The past reveals the present, that narrative is as valuable as the investigation now. Doyle tweaked on him. My special boy detective can figure out everything in the present, BUT the emotional truth does lay only in the history. This is a coherent position. Hope’s entire pill gambit is a man who just happened to survive twice in a row, watching if God would punish the man who murdered his loved ones. I need to keep restating this because the show resolves into something infinitely more boring. Notice how I pointed out that both of these have thematic purposes. Does the show? You can find one for sure, but at the end of the day it just feels like a spectacle. Joker fucking ruined antagonists.

A man whose superpower is being so smart, that he makes you take the pill. Why? Because uh, he also gets to take the other pill. What?. An extremely shallow “uh chat, did you notice this is someone our hero could become?”. Look, I am trying. I really am. Also teehee, I don’t make people kill themselves but I do make them choose at gunpoint is… It’s so stupid! Like Sherlock said, it's dull. Just because I make people do a Fornite dance before I stab them to death doesn’t make me twisted and deep.

Here is a thing. I think on some level Sherlock knows that. The way he acts is almost like a performance, rather than like. Genuine feel for what the other man is putting down at the moment. He is curious, deeply so. But he also plays along, because right now, to him this is a serial killer and he knows how to take down a serial killer. At least that’s how the performance reads for me, but it could also be for real, for real. You’re just like me, isn't that awesome Batman?

“I’ve played four times and won every time. It's chess.” No, because it’s asymmetrical, unlike real chess and there’s no predetermined moves. If you want to jerk off it’s poker, because you read the opponent and see if there’s bluff. And… Can I be honest? Sherlock, especially this one, isn’t emotionally intelligent. Like that’s not his bit. What are we doing here? What is this Jojo of the Week stand power bullshit? Where is Jefferson Hope’s rage? Is the show aware of how performative this is, am I supposed to say “wow this guy is so fucking cool and twisted?”

I am not the sort of guy who's like oh no they changed it? But what did I gain here? I am trying. Is there some note on vigilantism? Not really, the cabbie is no character. Gaboriau used detective work and crime as framing to the twisted painful past that led to it. And this cabbie is just fucking frame for the Sherlock is so cool work, and a living foreshadowing for the real villain. He’s a fucking low ladder grunt in shonen anime. That's it. We have 9 episodes and the entire first episode is just…. a goddamned grunt. It’s Raditz in Dragon Ball Z saying yea Vegeta and Nappa are stronger than him and they’ll destroy this planet, just you wait.

The Cabbie killed because someone promised that if he got the attention of Sherlock he’ll get his children some money. Alright, we're doing better. But still, this is not a reframe, this is simply Moriarty MO in this show. Tormenting Sherlock, as we see in episode 3 especially. So … this guy is still nothing. A tool. No interiority. It’s also fucking weird because now, every money these kids get is suspicious as fuck. I don’t know how the real cops would act in this situation, or if their money would stay in the family’s hands. Or if they’d be … OK in the future, knowing their financial wellbeing comes from their dad being a fucking serial murderer. And worse, he is still not his own person, he is an extension of a future big daddy villain.

I am so bored with this guy’s fake chatter I’d also take the gun. Did Moriarty seriously sponsor this? I’d be dead bored after the second murder.

Now, here the Cabbie shows he knows psychology. Because he works off Sherlock’s arrogance into forcing a game to happen. Or it’s less of arrogance and more… need for stimulation. Could he live, not knowing if he made the right choice? After all, he is right, isn’t he?

This is a very self-destructive impulse that comes way closer to his drug attention in the original. And this is the interesting thing about Sherlock. He is mean and cruel. But he doesn’t hurt people. He only hurts himself. He puts only his own life on the line, for a stupid thrill.

Which is what Watson stops when he shoots. Protecting a man he has been told over and over is dangerous to others. There is trust. And I like this. Watson identifies Sherlock as interesting and surrounded by danger and thrills and whatever he has reverse PTSD because someone never opened a psychiatry book, that’s bad writing. However, this moment of trust, of seeing someone appear to commit a mistake pushes Watson. And I think this ia good fucking scene.

“I’m in shock, look I got a blanket” Ok that’s three laughs.

It baited for so long with Mycroft as this comical villain, maybe even Moriarty, but then they have this weirdo-off and then Mycroft just drops “You know how this will upset Mummy.” Which is … honestly a sort of earned deflation.

So in the end, the cracks in the foundation are there. Hard to tell at the moment though, and I get why this is so well loved. OK? I get it. Even with the benefit of hindsight. I tried. I tried to read with as much love I could reasonably muster. There are some good bits, and some good thinking lines established. But this already has a thick veneer of coolness and not knowing how mental illness works. And the foundation laid so it can keep its queer Schroedinger’s cat around.

Without Love it cannot be seen ohhhh i am trying mr, Ryukushi. But how can I see with Love when what I am trying to see is trying to throttle me?

List of things to watch out for across series.

#long #rambling #sherlock