Under normal circumstances, Autistic Sherlock in Elementary is a CBS Elementary blog only (with the exception of occasional signal boosting of independent adaptations). This is done on purpose, and has been since the beginning.
But, at this particular point in time, I will be discussing an incident involving the BBC adaptation.
Because it’s not an issue that stems solely from that adaptation (and believe me, I see it a lot).
I also see this happen among Elementary fans, and fans of other Holmesian adaptations.
During San Diego Comic Con (SDCC) this past weekend, there were two times when Benedict Cumberbatch (the actor who plays Sherlock Holmes in the BBC adaptation) made dehumanizing comments towards his Holmes during interviews:
The message he sent was that his Holmes was not already a person. That his Holmes isn’t human. That his Holmes needs to adhere to certain guidelines in order to be seen as a person, to be seen as human.
This is a really troubling thing, especially since Sherlock Holmes in general is neurodivergent (even back in the original ACD canon, Holmes has never been neurotypical). Sherlock Holmes in the BBC adaptation, as well as the CBS Elementary adaptation, are autistic coded.
I wrote a post on my multi-fandom blog a couple of years ago that talks about autistic people deciphering how society views them from the way they treat Sherlock Holmes.
If even the actor from a major adaptation doesn’t see Holmes as human, what does that mean for autistic and neurodivergent fans (and additional marginalized identities)? What does that mean for the people that relate most to Sherlock Holmes?
Essentially, the reblog (and actually writing that song in the first place) came from a place of pain. It was yet another reminder that I, we, Holmes, are other.
This is not about another thing that Benedict Cumberbatch said. Not really.
It’s about the pain left behind.
And the song was an attempt to take that pain into productive healing.
“Sherlock Holmes has always been a person/Holmes is a person as is/take it from the ones who relate the most/Holmes is a person as is”
One more theory: The sibling that died tragically was Mycroft’s twin sister. Mycroft gave the impression in HLV that he showed no remorse when his sibling was under threat. She worked for the government, too, except she always liked the “legwork”. In order for Mycroft to continue ascending the ranks of power, he had to reject his sister in her hour of need. And Sherlock NEVER forgot that.
“You know how it always upset mummy.” “It wasn’t ME who upset her, Mycroft.”
“Shouldn’t you be off getting me a pardon or something, like a PROPER big brother?”
Sherlock has been spiteful for years, thinking his brother to be his archenemy. But what if Sherlock knows Mycroft rejected the love of his sister for “Queen and Country”? Sherlock would NEVER forget how his brother prioritizes love and family last. So no matter how hard Mycroft tries to help and love Sherlock, Sherlock will never see those as genuine motivations - Mycroft has already lost his respect. I mean, think about it…. Sherlock doesn’t think Mycroft will mourn him, this comes up multiple times.
“Mummy and Daddy will cry, John will cry buckets and buckets…”
“You were enjoying it. Definitely enjoying it.”
“So why don’t you want me to take [the 6-month suicide mission]?”
Sherlock does not believe Mycroft puts him over “the work”. Sherlock tries to be like Mycroft and reject emotions because Mycroft has proven to be so good at it in the past. Sherlock doesn’t care about the work, though. This is made incredibly clear in episodes 7 through 10.
Mycroft seems to habitually send Sherlock into danger because of “the work”. Sherlock believes Mycroft only cares about the result. But where did this come from?? Why is there such a disconnect between the audience’s opinions of Mycroft and Sherlock’s opinions of Mycroft? Why is Mycroft Sherlock’s archenemy?
Because sentimental Sherlock knows at any moment he could be sold out and follow in his big sister’s footsteps.
A thought that has been bugging me since HLV and the S4 teaser made it even worse. This meta may be completely crazy, I promise you nothing.
I always had two theories about the Other One: a serious one which has to do with Sherlock’s childhood and a tragedy that stroke back then (Redbeard) and a weirder one that almost felt far-fetched to me. Perhaps you already understand that I’m going to talk about the far-fetched one, which however doesn’t feel entirely as such anymore (to me, at least). However, perhaps this theory has already been told by someone else before. In this case, sorry for talking about it again.
Sherrinford Holmes is a non-ACD-canonical character - the third Holmes brother. He is often considered to be the evil one. In All-Consuming Fire by Andy Lane, a crossover of Sherlock Holmes and… Doctor Who,
Sherlock Holmes is forced to kill his ill-willed brother to save John Watson. There are more things going on in this novel (most of them including an alien slug thing) but I do hope Moftiss won’t pay attention to much except for the conclusion of the story and the brother’s allegiances. (If I said anything inaccurate, forgive me, I didn’t pay attention to this story more than what was absolutely necessary :P)