This is an experiment.
And before you read the following, please make sure that you are sitting in a comfortable position, perhaps with crossed legs or flat on your back. Put on some relaxed music, I’d recommend an Arctic Monkeys or Simon & Garfunkel song.
And when you are ready, when you feel like your mind is in a state which makes it possible to actually think, continue.
Imagine where you would like to be right now, not with whom, but an actual place. Think of how the ground would feel under your bare feet, what you would smell and how the light would hit your skin. Would the heat make your face tingle or would a gentle breeze hit your bare arms?
Close your eyes for a moment and try to experience this place, a place that makes you feel safe and comfortable. (Please, so it, for real).
Do you have a certain area in mind?
If yes, take a few steps forward. Think of how a simple change of your position would affect your senses, what you hear, what you can see and what you feel.
Focus on the way the sun’s shadows would paint images on your body, focus on how a smile starts spreading on your face.
Can you feel how every heart beat sends a feeling of warmth through your body? Can you feel your soft lashes on your skin?
Close your eyes and focus.
// this is your mind palace.
this is where you can go when you are afraid, when you feel the need to escape this world for a moment or two.
Keep this place dear and close, keep it to yourself.
And now, please close your eyes one last time, to focus on all of your senses, one after the other.
Find your mind palace.
Unreliable Narrator in The Six Thatchers is NOT Go
I’m with @sussexbound on how to interpret The Six Thatchers. I don’t think it’s a retelling for an alibi or an imagined sequence or mind palace. I could be wrong, and will be happy to accept any and all told-you-so’s in that case, but coming from a story telling perspective, odds are good that the story is meant to be accepted as is.
For me, it comes down to how stories build trust with the audience.
Once you establish the rules of a story world, you can’t break them without also breaking the trust of the reader. It’s a contract. The reader agrees to suspend their disbelief and buy into your story world. You, in turn, promise to give them a story world that is consistent and has some kind of internal logic–even if it’s the most fantastical story world imaginable.
Sure, there’s experimental storytelling in which there truly are no rules or internal logic but Sherlock is definitely not that kind of story.
I’m going to go into more detail and analysis of this, and it got long so I’m putting it under a cut. Basically, tl;dr: Revealing that entire episodes that appear to follow the established story-world rules are either complete fabrications or mind-palace fantasies utterly destroys the viewer-storyteller contract and break trust with the audience because it’s not part of the deal the story creators set up at the beginning.
WHY 👏 IS 👏 NO 👏 ONE 👏 TALKING 👏 ABOUT 👏 THE 👏 FACT 👏 THAT 👏 THIS 👏 IS 👏 MORAN????
i’m reposting buT IT MEANS THIS IS MAYBE SORT OF PROOF THAT THIS WHOLE JOHN CHEATING THING IS IN SHERLOCK’S HEAD. we already had hints that this is mind palace/dream sequences with the glowing skull on the wall, with sherlock admitting to reoccurring dreams, with water references happening everywhere (including when he was drugged and dreaming about pirate times). the newspaper he’s holding references a case he was working on ‘two places at the same time’, the advert peeking over her shoulder is of culverton being creepy af and she is culverton’s daughter (or in some way related), Sherlock’s mind is filling in the blanks and adding random faces to people in his dream and then he’s trying to make sense of it by going to ella, either for real or more likely in his mind palace
it’s sherlock’s nightmare that not only john decides to cheat which is bad enough bUT HE DECIDES TO CHEAT WITH SOMEONE WHO ISN’T HIM. and then proceeds to tell him to fuck right off for something he had no control over/no way of helping
The first tip off in The Abominable Bride that what we’re watching was mind palace and not just a Victorian one-off, was the moment Sherlock was in the morgue and muttered to himself “how could he survive”, instead of saying “she”. It gave me chills! I was genuinely shocked at that moment. The audience knew something was up, we just didn’t know what, because the music was intense and the parallel he drew between Ricoletti and Moriarty was obvious.
But what about the two other times Sherlock mistook “she” for “he” in The Six Thatchers? We’ve brushed those off as character quirks or continuity errors. Why?
Was the music not dramatic enough? Were the parallels not obvious enough?
Sherlock said “she” (Mary) destroyed her flash drive, but we know John did it. Sherlock said “she” when talking about the boy who died in the car.
There are other theories for why Sherlock said these things, but not many people question if these moments are meant to parallel The Abominable Bride. If they are, then series 4 can be read as a mirrored universe to The Abominable Bride.
And this works exquisitely well for all three episodes.
They told us Eurus, Redbeard, and Sherlock were all the same person in TAB
Do you remember the part where Sherlock drags his friends to Ricoletti’s grave and we think it’s real, but it’s actually mind palace?
The grave stone says “Emelia Ricoletti, Beloved Sister”
Sherlock jumps in and starts panting like a dog. He shovels dirt with his hands, digging like a hound with paws.
Sherlock is all three people.
“My husband is three people”
The Final Problem makes sense only in subtext. Whether you think it’s John’s MP or Sherlock’s MP, that’s still up for debate. I’m officially siding with Sherlock’s because there are flashbacks to the waterfall scene from TAB in TFP, which means both of those episodes must have been experienced by the same character, and I don’t think it was John for both.
Sherlock DID have a friend named Victor Trevor, but his death happened much later in Sherlock’s life. Because of that Sherlock took to hard drugs as a young adult, not as a child. There are two separate deaths he combined together to create TFP.
Redbeard was an imaginary friend. Sherlock didn’t have friends, we know this. He wanted to be a pirate – Mycroft remembers and misses that carefree child.
So what changed Sherlock’s mind? Why did the cold, logical, calculating machine take over and get rid of Sherlock’s imaginary friend?
Mycroft. He kept calling Sherlock “a stupid little boy”, saying “you always were so stupid”. Sherlock even says Mycroft thought he was an idiot. Sherlock stopped being “stupid” and tried to emulate his big brother – the only person in his life that would tolerate him. He tried solving the Carl Powers case and boom! Sherlock Holmes the little detective was born. This is why Mycroft brought up Redbeard at the wedding – “Hey, don’t get involved, remember when you had to resort to imaginary friends like a pathetic little child?” makes a lot more sense than “Hey, don’t get involved, remember your dead friend Victor who disappeared because our secret sister killed him?”.
Eurus represents the crushing logic that destroys everything Sherlock loves.
Because it’s happened before. Twice we’ve seen Sherlock’s mind explain how Victor died, we just didn’t know it.
“All the palace chambers are not lovely, light and bright. In the vaults of our hearts and brains, danger waits. There are holes in the floor of the mind.”
Part 2 in a two piece series studying the places they have hidden away inside of their minds. Both the scene and the quote never fail to break my heart, because 1. we all know why Will is asking if Hannibal could be happy in his mind palace and 2. knowing Hannibal’s backstory, it’s not hard to guess what some of his chambers contain.
This shot above made a lot of people speculate, if this was the Holmes’ family House, where Mycroft and Sherlock grew up (not the house, where their parents live now). @welovethebeekeeper also suggested that Sherrinford might actually be the name of said family House.
I assume that burning down the house is the endpoint of a long process. We know that their will be flashbacks to Sherlock’s childhood. And I think, there’s a consensus that “The Final Problem” for Sherlock is to figure out who he truely is, where he came from, who he wants to be and how he wants to include other people in his life, and especially which role John will play in his life.
So I was wondering, if Sherlock might have built part of his mind palace based on his family house. Because for building a mind palace it is best to choose places, buidlings you know for the basic construction. If he started building his mind palace as a child or teenager, building his mind palace as his family house would be the most logical thing to do.
But obviously there are things in his past, Sherlock needs to work through and then get rid off (hence burning down the house). So does this mean, he will destroy these parts in his mind palace as well? And has to start to rebuild parts of his mind palace?
Does he need a blank canvas for this? Like an almost empty room, built out of concret without any doors, windows or electricity?
(maybe this is the kitchen table of the mp!family house as the last thing he didn’t destroy)