You know what else “wasn’t canon in the original stories”?
-The modern day setting -Mobile phones -Texting -Watson having a psychosomatic limp -Watson having a therapist -Watson and Stamford getting Starbucks -Molly Hooper -Mrs. Hudson being married to a leader of the drug cartel -Mrs. Turner and her married gay couple (Mrs. Turner WAS Mrs. Hudson) -Blogs -Laptop computers -Taxi cabs -John’s gay sister -Sally Donovan and Philip Anderson -The lady in pink (the victim was a man) -The scratched message (it was written in blood) -The case being solved in one night -Angelo’s -Holmes and Watson sitting around inquiring about each other’s sexualities and history of significant others -Mycroft kidnapping Watson -Mycroft being in the first story at all (Holmes’ background was pretty much a mystery to Watson until the case of the Greek interpreter; he only made appearances in a couple of the 60 stories, not almost every Goddamn one) -Watson murdering Hope to save Holmes -There was no case of the Blind Banker -Nor the Great Game (there were canon elements tied in - West and the Bruce-Partington Plans - but never in canon did Moriarty challenge Holmes to solve a series of puzzles to save people from being turned into suicide bombers) -Moriarty kidnapping Watson at any point -Moriarty was really only in one story, and foreshadowed in another -Irene Adler being a dominatrix -Adler was involved with the King of Bohemia, not Kate Middleton -Adler being romantically/sexually interested in Holmes -Adler elopes and escapes with her blackmail material in the end of “A Scandal In Bohemia”; she outsmarts Holmes -The fear gas from The Hound Of The Baskervilles
-Baskerville being a secret laboratory
-The glowing rabbit
-Holmes was barely in The Hound of The Baskervilles at all
-Moriarty stealing the Crown Jewels
-Holmes testifying against Moriarty in court
-Kitty Riley or whatever that ginger reporter’s name was
-Moriarty publicly discrediting Holmes
-Moriarty went over the side of a waterfall in Switzerland; Holmes did not willingly jump from the top of a hospital in London. And Watson was not there to witness it.
-Holmes was gone for three years, not two. Before his disappearance, Watson married Mary Morstan and moved out of Baker Street and she passed away some time during Holmes’s absence.
-Mary is a governess, not an assassin, and initially a client of Holmes before marrying Watson
-Sebastian Moran attempts to assassinate Holmes, not Mary
-There is no bomb threat on Parliament
-Watson is not thrown into a bonfire
-Holmes actually explains himself to Watson upon returning and Watson forgives him. He does not beat Holmes repeatedly (in fact, he faints).
-There is no wedding celebration story for Watson and Mary (ACD could barely remember her name)
-James Sholto and Watson have no connection (professional or otherwise)
-Mary and Watson never have children
-Billy Wiggins is a street urchin, not a drug dealing adult
-Charles Augustus Magnussen is actually Charles Augustus Milverton
-Holmes doesn’t court CAM’s PA, he courts her maid (under the guise of a plumber)
-Lady Smallwood does murder CAM, not Holmes
-Mary doesn’t shoot Holmes
-The entirety of The Abominable Bride
-Mary never goes along on cases (outside of The Sign Of Four, she barely gets any dialogue at all)
-Some kid doesn’t disguise himself as a fucking car seat
-The AGRA team
-Mary doesn’t die by gunshot
-Watson doesn’t blame Holmes for Mary’s death
-Mrs. Hudson never stunt drives a Martin Aston
-Culverton Smith only kills one person that we know of, his nephew Victor Savage. There is no mention of a daughter.
-Smith attempts to infect Holmes with a deadly virus, not drugging and smothering him
-Holmes fakes his own illness for Smith’s sake, not for Watson
-THERE IS NO EURUS
-THERE IS NO EURUS
-THERE IS NO EURUS
-Baker Street getting blown up by a grenade
-Sherrinford is the third Holmes brother, and only in paracanon
-The Three Garridebs is totally wrong
-Musgrave is not the Holmes’ summer home
-“Redbeard”/Victor Trevor is not a little boy who was Holmes’ childhood friend. He was Holmes’ friend for university whose dog bit Holmes.
So don’t tell me Mofftiss couldn’t have Sherlock and John be in an openly romantic relationship because it wasn’t in the original canon.
We don’t really have a strict key as to what ties symbolise what exactly, but we can deduce roughly what they mean by comparing the different occasions in which they are worn.
- The Red Tie of Love and Sentiment Worn on occasions to do with sentiment/familial love and helping Sherlock e.g., reading about Sherlock’s suicide in the paper in the Diogenes, Christmas, in the helicopter after Sherlock shoots Magnussen. - The Navy Ties of Business, Work, and Duty Worn typically while trying to save lives and prevent terrorist attacks. Usually Mycroft wants to use Sherlock as a weapon e.g., discussing taking down the London terrorist network when Sherlock returns from Serbia. - The Johnlock Fleur De Lis Tie Aka., the best tie. Worn whenever Mycroft goes to John to discuss Sherlock’s feelings and to Sherlock to discuss John’s feelings e.g., talking to John at Speedy’s/the Diogenes, the “narrow it down” speech in TSoT. - The Black Tie of Death and Sorrow Helping Sherlock fake his death in Reichenbach, helping Lestrade locate Sherlock’s boltholes after he escapes the hospital, when Mycroft is committing suicide by eating many, many cakes in TAB, when Irene ‘dies’ in ASiB (with additional white slashes here). - The Grey Moriarty Tie Self-explanatory. Any time Moriarty is making Mycroft do something against his will, or otherwise influencing him, the steel grey ties come out. It may be a specific shade of grey that indicates Moriarty, however, as there are also lilac-grey ties that Mycroft wears which are slightly different. - The Purple Tie of Mystery and Fuckiness Mysterious. No one knows. Does it indicate illusion? Fictitiousness? Insincerity? Wisdom? Mycroft wears alternating purple/pink ties on the tarmac/plane in HLV/TAB aka., “Tie Hell”.
The Six Thatchers:
TYPE: Lilac/grey tie with small spots CONTEXT: Presenting the doctored footage of Sherlock shooting Magnussen WHAT WE CAN INFER: Most likely not directly linked to Moriarty. A lilac-grey tie may indicate objectivity/planning/calculated thinking here. Also probably links into the fabrication of events.
TYPE: The Grey Moriarty Tie CONTEXT: Discussing Moriarty’s next move with Sherlock in the first bunker scene WHAT WE CAN INFER: It’s likely that Mycroft is holding back and not saying all that he knows in this situation because of Moriarty’s influence.
I know this idea has come up more than once. In this post I will try to collect as much evidence, mostly from TFP, as possible - visual, textual, and narrational.
In this first scene together their hands seem to melt into each other. Sherlock does not expect to be able to touch his sister, and then their fingers interlace just like that. In the second picture both have become one. Sherlock is shining through Eurus’s reflection, her hear roughly being place where his heart is (head/brain and heart becoming one).
Additional note: If we assume that this is her real hair as opposed to the wigs she wore in TST and TLD, they both have dark curly hair.
Sherlock and Eurus are very close in age. True, it’s never twins. But at least Irish twins, it seems. (Or just one person after all?)
Sherlock has been deemed a genius from the beginning. Eurus “was described as an era-defining genius, beyond Newton.”
Both play the violin. Eurus even plays a Stradivariusas does Holmes in ACD Canon.
Sherlock had no friends before John. “I had no one.”
Both love to be dramatic.
Both are prone to violence: Sherlock torturing the cabbie / throwing a man out the window / shooting Magnussen. / Eurus’s violent behaviour in TLD and TFP.
Both are seen in a cell of some kind: the padded cell in Sherlock’s HLV mind palace / the Sherrinford cell (All places from the HLV mind palace have real counterparts - so what about the cell? And how probable is it that two siblings both have been inmates of a cell in a mental hospital/prison at some time?)
Both are in a way attracted to Moriarty and are willing to play games with him.
Both are given delicate tasks/cases by Mycroft that concern state security (the Bruce-Partington plans/Irene Adler/the Parliament bombing in TEH/the planned terrorist attacks mentioned in TFP).
Sherlock experiments on John in ThoB. Eurus experiments on Sherlock in TFP.
Both are very focussed on knowledge: “I don’t like not knowing.” / “She knew things she should never have known …”
Both are disguising themselves / hiding in plain sight.
Both are being used by Mycroft for matters of state security and intelligence.
Both are believed to be dead for years. Both times Mycroft is involved in the plots to fake their deaths.
“She was different from the beginning.”/”Because he attacks people who are different and preys on their secrets.” (Why Sherlock hates Magnussen)
“Listen. This is my hard drive and it only makes sense to put things in there that are useful.” / “I remember everything; every single thing. You just need a big enough hard drive.”
Sherlock being involved in the flight of the dead/saving Irene from terrorists/revealing the terrorist plot in TEH/ “She predicted the exact dates of the last three terrorist attacks on the British mainland after an hour on Twitter.”
“In any event, there is no prison in which we could incarcerate Sherlock without causing a riot on a daily basis.” / “The depth of Eurus’s psychosis and the extent of her abilities couldn’t hope to be contained in any ordinary institution.“
“That in your case, solitary confinement is locking you up with your worst enemy.” This can also be applied to Eurus’s imprisonment in Sherrinford.
These are a lot of similarities. Too much for coincidence, if you ask me. To me, Eurus is an exaggerated, overdramatic version of Sherlock himself. What he could have become without John’s friendship and Mycroft’s support, without the friends he has found quite late in life.
Reading “The Man with the Twisted Lip” with annotations was quite interesting. So far in this version (The New Annotated Sherlock Holmes edited by Leslie S. Klinger) the footnotes have always been quite in depth (usually historical context, discrepancies in canon, speculations about locations, character studies, and various theories by Holmes scholars throughout the years), but the annotations on this story were a freaking journey.
Annotations about romantic relations and Holmes’s sexuality
First there’s the intensely heteronormative intro which alludes to “tantalising hints of a romantic interlude between Holmes and the lovely Mrs. Neville St. Clair.” Like, can you just let the reader form their own opinions instead of trying to force the idea that of a romantic relationship between Holmes and a woman down our throats before we’ve even started the story?
This next one actually made me write “WTF???” on the page flag I stuck here. It’s a list of theories to explain why Holmes got involved in the case so quickly and was already staying at the St. Clair residence.
Theory 1) Holmes was having an illicit liaison with Mrs. St. Clair
Theory 2) Neville St. Clair and Holmes were old friends
Theory 3) Holmes and Mrs. St. Clair were old friends (generally accepted as more likely)
Theory 4) Mr. and Mrs. St. Clair were not actually married; they were brother and sister, and she was really the wife of Sherlock Holmes (this was the one that really inspired my “WTF” note)
References to Richard Asher’s article “Holmes and the Fair Sex” which speculates that Mrs. St. Clair was coming on to Holmes as indicated by her attire, attitude and insistence that Holmes stay with her despite that fact that the house was an inconvenient 7 miles away from the scene of his investigation. However Asher has a different take on Holmes and asks, “Is it not abundantly clear that Holmes had brought Watson with him as a chaperon? Yet, even with [Watson sleeping in his room], Holmes does not seem to have felt quite secure, for he sat up all night […] probably ruminating over his narrow escape.” [yup, you’re right, dude. Holmes had no interest in her or any other woman]
C. Alan Bradley and William A.S. Sargeant in Ms. Holmes of Baker Street: The Truth about Sherlock, see this incident as the plainest indication that Holmes was a woman. Of course, the entire incident is easily explicable by those who suggest a homosexual relationship between Holmes and Watson (for example, Larry Townsend’s The Sexual Adventures of Sherlock Holmes, first published by “J. Watson” in 1971)
Speculation about the many coloured dressing gowns of Sherlock Holmes: Purple in “The Blue Carbuncle”, mouse-coloured in “The Bruce-Partington Plans and the blue in “The Man with the Twisted Lip”.
[This annotation just made me giggle because the first one is ridiculous but people actually had in-depth discussions about it and the editor thought it was important enough to include.]
Christopher Morley addresses this in “Was Sherlock Holmes an American?”: “Elementary. This particular gown was blue when new. … It had gone purple by the time of ‘The Blue Carbuncle.’ During the long absence 1891-1894, when Mrs. Hudson faithfully aired and sunned it in the backyard, it faded to mouse.”
S.B. Blake suggests that Holmes had two gowns, one blue, one purple, that were burned in the fire set by Moriarty’s minions in April 1891 (see “The Final Problem”), and that Holmes acquired a third gown in Italy (see “The Empty House”), which he took with him during his travels in Tibet and elsewhere.
Richard Lancelyn Green dismisses the controversy, observing that the dressing-gown was likely borrowed from Neville St. Clair.
A list of theories about the John/James name mix-up. Some normal, others crazy as hell.
James is an affectionate reference to Watson’s middle name “Hamish” which is the Scot version of “James” (Dorothy L. Sayers)
James was a playful reference to Watson’s role as Holmes’s Boswell - James Boswell (Ebbe Curtis Hoff)
The “slip” was a familial codeword employed by Watson’s wife meaning “John, leave us alone to talk privately” (Donald A. Yates)
“James” is merely a typographical error (H.W. Bell)
Mrs. Watson just couldn’t remember his name which led to their eventual separation (Christopher Morley)
Watson intentionally falsified the records by having his wife refer to him as “James” to avoid a possible libel action (by Isa Whitney or Neville St. Clair), but later threw in the cabby’s name, “John” as a clue to the true author. (Giles Playfair)
Watson’s name was really James but he used “John H. Watson” as a pen name (J.S. Coltart)
Indicates a second hand in the narrative
James was the name of Watson’s bull pup
James was the name of a child - an adopted son or stepson or child who died in infancy
There were originally two Watsons - John and James. John died prematurely and James seized the opportunity to masquerade as his elder brother (Bliss Austin)
There were identical twins named John and James Watson. John was wounded in the shoulder and James in the leg. It was John who met Holmes in Bart’s and originally shared rooms with him in the Baker Street flat. But as his practice developed James occupied the room. It was James who shared the adventure of The Sign of Four, married Mary Morstan, and attended to John’s practice when ‘the game was afoot’. (Ian Neil Abrams)
Mary’s “James” as a mistake. “She had been silently reliving those days of love with her most ardent suitor. During the ensuing turmoil, it was his name, ‘James,’ she spoke, not that of her new husband.” That man: James Moriarty! (Robert S. Katz and David N. Haugen)
[Hey, look! Even pre-BBC universe theories make a connection between “Mary” and Moriarty! Also, there’s a twins theory. Just saying…]
I’m watching The Bruce Partington Plans and I find it utterly adorable that whenever Holmes mentions Mycroft he’s like ‘my brother Mycroft’ like, this is my Mycroft. There are many like him, but this one is mine.
He’s so impressed with his brother Mycroft. Yes, this is Mycroft. He’s my brother. My brother Mycroft. The Mycroft who is my brother. That Mycroft. He’s terribly clever and knows everything. He’s so important. So clever and important, my brother Mycroft. Other people may have brothers, but my brother Mycroft is the best of them all.
Holmes is so impressed by his big brother.
Not by his handwriting though, because apparently he writes like a drunken crab.
The first time Redbeard comes up, it’s when Mycroft is ribbing Sherlock
at John’s wedding. We’re meant to think
that Mycroft’s point is: Sherlock was once over-emotional about a dead dog, and
now Sherlock is being over-emotional again.
But what if Mycroft is really trying to leave a subtle clue for
Sherlock? Since Mycroft is well-established
by the show to be omniscient, he must already know about Mary’s secret
life. So when Mycroft mentions Redbeard,
he’s actually making an analogy with Mary to warn Sherlock. And what is the analogy?
Mary faked her death to resume life as a different person. Redbeard also faked *his* death to resume life as a different dog.
And what dog would Redbeard choose to come back as, once he tired of
being Sherlock’s adored pet? Naturally
enough, the only other major dog character on the show: The Baskerville Hound.
If you look at them side by side, the physical resemblance is obvious. Both, for example, have ears, eyes, and a nose. I could go on, but you get the idea.
This betrayal is the only possible explanation for the fact that, at the very
end of THoB, Sherlock claims not to understand sentimental feelings for a dog –
despite the fact that Mycroft claims he was overly-sentimental about Redbeard:
So they didn’t have it put down, then – the dog.
JOHN: Obviously. Suppose they just couldn’t bring themselves to do it.
SHERLOCK: I see.
JOHN: No you don’t.
SHERLOCK: No, I don’t. Sentiment?
This proves that Sherlock is in deep denial, but that unconsciously he
has recognized the Hound as his once beloved dog Redbeard. But the horror of acknowledging his own pet
has returned to life and wants to destroy him is too traumatic for him to
acknowledge. This also explains why
Sherlock is so unusually worked up in THoB, after his first meeting with the
Hound. Like Henry Knight (who is a
mirror for Sherlock), Sherlock appears to be losing his mind because he is
repressing a traumatic, dog-related experience from his childhood.
But what does this have to do with the rest of the show’s story
arc? The key is the moment in the final
scenes of THoB, when Sherlock is confronting the Hound. He momentarily flashes to an image of
Moriarty, which indicates that Moriarty and the Hound are the same person (uh,
This connection has already been subtly raised in TGG, when Moriarty observes
“people can be so sentimental about their pets.” This is yet another reference to Sherlock’s
misplaced trust in the evil Redbeard, which is meant to show that the Moriarty
we see on screen is nothing more than a figment of Sherlock’s imagination – a defense
mechanism to cover the fact that the real master criminal and Sherlock’s once
and future arch-nemesis is Redbeard, the family dog.
This is, incidentally, why Moriarty throws the Bruce-Partington plans
in the swimming pool. It’s an oblique
reference to the fact that Redbeard always loved bathtime.