sherlock and john get home and its STRAIGHT into pajamas (the only kind of straight they deal in). its late and theyre tired and wanna be cozy. they make lil tv dinners in their pjs in the dimly lit kitchen and yawn a lot while leaning on each other and checking their phones. sherlock rubs johns back while he stands at the microwave. they settle onto the sofa and turn a nature program on as background noise while they eat (they’re eating two different dinners and keep stealing bites off of each other). besides some comments on the program they dont talk much because its been a long day but they enjoy each others company. sherlock finishes eating first and pokes around on his laptop with his head on johns tum (and john using sherlocks head as a table) until john suggests he make them hot cocoa. sherlock does that while john finishes and they get even cozier together and drink their cocoa while accidentally getting caught up in a dramatic black and white movie with a bad romance plot but an interesting crime plot (john remarks about how much better the plot would be if sherlock was working the case, sherlock goes on about how much better of a couple he and john are). they fall asleep tucked up and nestled into each other, very warm and cozy (sherlock just manages to kiss john goodnight before passing out, however john was already asleep)
To clear the air: I’m not just talking about Moftiss. But I’m also talking about Moftiss.
The thing about plot holes is that there are two types: ones which are unresolved plot threads, and things wherein the writers failed to show us something and assumed we would fill it in ourselves. An example of the first type would be John’s letter to Sherlock at the end of TST. Why introduce the letter if it was never going to be shown, read, or referred to again? An example of the second type is how John got out of the well and still had feet in later scenes. There, the writers could have showed us John realising that only his shoes were chained and showed him removing them and climbing up the rope, or they could have showed someone climbing down to cut through the chains. But it feels like a hole because they didn’t.
Eurus *could* have used all of her brainwashed fellow inmates/patients to make all of those arrangements, but without seeing any of it, it feels difficult to swallow. If they’d shown even one scene of her doing some of this, we might have been more willing to extend some benefit of the doubt, some extrapolation of “oh, I guess there was more of that, then, ok”, but we didn’t see any of it. There was nothing there to explain how supposedly-dead Mary kept sending posthumous home videos.
Then again, most Bond/spy movies do the same thing, honestly. If Bond’s credit cards were cut off, how did he rent that Aston Martin? Where did he get that new suit? Last time we saw him, he was wearing jeans and a ripped t-shirt and had no luggage with him. Has he been wearing the same underwear for the entire movie? Does he ever brush his teeth? Personally, I’m one of those irritating watchers who always wants to be shown the parts that make it feel real. I suspect that screen writers leave this stuff out deliberately for three reasons:
1) They think it will be dull. They figure audiences don’t want to see Bond trying on shirts or going to the bank to take out cash or maxing out on a credit card. Better put in some more car chases!
2) They’re already trying to edit things down to fit into a prescribed run time. Therefore Bond doing cardio to keep fit for all those foot chases gets cut.
3) They actually don’t want the protagonist (or villain, as the case may be) to seem human; they want us to see them as almost super-human, so Bond clipping his toenails never gets written.
The thing is, the day and age of willing suspension of disbelief is over. Audiences are more analytical than they used to be. We’re used to getting explanations when we want them, because information is so widely available now. When things don’t add up or make sense, we find it irritating, not artistic. I honestly think that Moffat and Gatiss think they’re being artistic by not explaining things fully (though that doesn’t excuse them by a mile for constantly underplaying the realistic emotional fall-out of the things their characters suffer), but the fact is that their audience simply finds it underwhelming and sloppy. I think it may be partly a question of generations, too, but I also know fans of Sherlock who are their age and older, who find their plot holes as irritating as fans in their teens do. Personally, the more realistic something is, the more it will draw me in. I want to know where Bond got those dry socks from to replace the ones that got wet in the rain. I want to see him jet-lagged after flying halfway around the world. I want to know how he paid to get to that island or that city without any working credit cards or debit cards. You can’t book a flight with cash, not a commercial one, at least. “He took a charter,” the screen writer says, shrugging it off in an interview. Sure, fine: then show it.
Moffat mentioned somewhere that Sherlock delivered Rosie, which is a frankly appalling thought, especially given that there was an actual doctor in the car, and given Sherlock’s horrified face at the thought of an event involving female genitalia unfolding in his very presence, I somehow can’t picture this in the slightest.
Part of the problem is also that their episodes span too much time too rapidly to address the questions of how their day-to-day relationships function, what those dynamics really are, etc. Too much is skipped over for the sake of advancing the plot. I would personally rather see more attention given to detail and less to unbelievable plot arcs. I expect Doctor Who to be wholly unbelievable (and even there I used to snark about dropped plot threads and unsatisfactory resolutions as well as under-handled emotional fall-out, when I still watched it). I expect Sherlock to be believable, though, and there was just so many holes.
All I’m saying is that Sherlock is not the only show that does this. There are a LOT of holes in series 3 and 4, but my larger issue is the emotional fall-out thing and the dropped threads. (Why make such a big deal with the memory altering drug? Why was there a dog bowl that Sherlock recognised? What did that damned letter say??? What did Ella tell Sherlock to do for John? Because I bet it wasn’t “go to hell, Sherlock”, yet that’s the advice he chose to take. Why???) Yeah: we like to be shown these things. It’s not enough to explain it later in an interview or a panel at a conference. Put it right there in the canon as though you meant to all along. That’s what ticks my boxes, at least.
Rambling aside. Back to the current fic. As you were!
Both Mofftiss have said they will not just pop in discussion about a character’s sexuality unless it contributes to the plot. We’ve had so many conversations about that very subject in Sherlock that it is the plot.
This is not the end (we were told between the lines).
We all know: TAB works as a mirror-episode for the events of following episodes. And how does TAB end?
With a remake of ACD’s TFP: Moriarty and Holmes face each other at the Reichenbach Falls to die together. But: TAB doesn’t follow ACD’s storyline here anymore, because the circumstances - times - have changed; other than in ACD’s TFP, John is there to save Sherlock from his demons, because he is the only one capable of doing so. The only uncontrollable variable.
But how does Moftiss’ TFP end?
John is reduced to a simple plot device; his absence wouldn’t have changed the events much either. He doesn’t save Sherlock, because he is utterly helpless. Again, Sherlock is the one to save John. But it’s not framed like any of that would really matter, anyway.
John is not there to save Sherlock from his demons; Sherlock has to face them all on his own. And - because John is not there this time - he gives in: Other than putting to rest what/who destroys him, moving on and living in happiness, he makes himself a humble, dependent slave to his demons.
That’s another reason for feeling rejection towards TFP: Because it wasn’t what we were told it would be, and it wasn’t at all what “love conquers all” feels like - it wasn’t a “happy end”, not for any of the characters at all. It was nothing new; it was subtly and slowly killing off the characters’ arcs which they painstakingly achieved throughout the first ten episodes:
“Does it really make a difference, killing the innocent instead of the guilty?”
It was no different than ACD’s TFP, because, in the end, Moriarty does win over Sherlock, does burn the heart out of him, for John is nothing more than a plot device - just for decoration and for the sake of character-set completeness, even his clothing merging with the background.
TAB’s foreshadowing may have gotten lost in people’s minds somewhere along the way - so remember:
The longest 5 minutes, better make that 15, in TV History
Yesterday, after adding a comment to @just-sort-of-happened ‘s post about the connection between “watch” and “5 minutes”, and its relation to Sherlock’s deduction about Sebastian Wilkes’ watch in TBB, and John’s watch in Anderson’s Derren Brown fantasy in TRF, I began to wonder if we have yet to see how Sherlock got off that stupid plane. Now, after seeing @isitandwonder ‘s reply to the gifsets “You didn’t kill Mary. Mary died saving your life.”, it just dawned on me – what John said was a very round about way of the same thing Sherlock said to John in HLV:
In a way, Mary that John and Sherlock knew did die. Ironically, at the exact moment Mary shot Sherlock. I think… series 4 was indeed about tieing up the loose ends, and it all happened during that “5 minutes since Mycroft called" and 10 minutes after Sherlock landed – neither we saw complete versions of. And the loose ends are not just about the plot of Sherlock (TRF, HLV and everything since) but also about making a case for Johnlock.
In the two years since the loss of his friend Sherlock Holmes at Reichenbach Falls, John Watson has tried his best to move on. When his maid, Jane, reports hearing noises in the attic of John’s house, he begins to hope that Holmes means to contact him from beyond the grave. Unprepared for dealing with the realm of spirits, John agrees to consult with four lady scientists, who promise to use their groundbreaking technologies to help him deal with that which haunts him.
I made a thing to celebrate the fact that this Ghostbusters / TAB-verse fusion is now complete!
Featuring a John / Sherlock plot that culminates in chapter 8, now with bonus femslash epilogue (Jillian Holtzmann / Jane the sassy maid from TAB). It’s extremely silly and a bit sad and uh, tonally boisterous? (And explicit, naturally.) Characterisations are as true to TAB as I could manage. I promise this has an extremely upbeat ending.
Watching The Lying Detective again, it becomes clearer and clearer that we’re in some variation of a dream, a trip, an alibi, Sherlock’s mind palace - some sort of false reality. There’s plenty of good meta on this: see the EMP masterlist (someone lmk if there’s a more recent list to link to). There was a compelling case for it before TST & TLD, but I resisted, because I didn’t get why they would do this.
(I’m a bit like John Watson when he gets angry at Sherlock - not interested in the how, but the why. Plenty of amazing meta writers worked out the how of TJLC, but I had to write a 13k word meta before I could accept the why.)
Anyway, I can deny it no longer, EMP is happening. But… why?
Here’s my best guess (and, not coincidentally, my greatest hope): EMP is happening because they want to get even more metafictional.
I haven’t watched all of Moffat’s Doctor Who episodes. In fact, they used to annoy me – Moffat uses the sci-fi setting to set up really fantastical plot twists. In Sherlock, Moffat’s plots are bounded by reality, plausibility, science. Or, well, they were.
To be fair to Mofftiss, BBC Sherlock is still bounded by plausibility. They’ve gone to the trouble to present multiple in-universe mechanisms for us to be watching a false reality. Interestingly, these are all introduced in the second series. We get drug-induced dream sequences in ASiB. We get drug-induced hallucinations and memory-altering substances and the mind palace in THoB. We also, in Series 2, get the first truly metafictional storylines: Irene Adler and the destructiveness of love; Henry Knight haunted by his own story, a distorted truth; and of course, Moriarty, telling Sherlock’s story all wrong.
Prior to Series 4, I thought this was more or less the limits of their metafictionality. Sure, they’ll throw in a lot of imagery and symbolism, but they wouldn’t go further than that, would they?
Of course they would. They ended Series 2 with a character called The Storyteller writing Sherlock to death. That was half a show ago. They had go somewhere after that.
Ok so like Johnlock ficlet but set in Scotland....you down? If you don't write it I will, but yours would be soooooo much better. (Also *coughs* kilts *coughs*)
YES okay I have half finished ficlet for @tenderlock (FROM SETLOCK DAYS DHFDLH SORRY OMG) and I keep on delaying it cause I want it to be Authentic…so far the plot is Sherlock is drunk and fakes a really bad Glaswegian accent and “none of the cabs will take him.”
Hi there! My name is Jay. I have had to retype this about three times lol. I really love Sherlock, this show has gotten me through some rough times. Observing the way sherlocks brain works, watching the growth of friendship between john and Sherlock, the plot, moriarty, the over all interaction of characters and the theme has helped me stay alive. Sherlock has taught me that even though I’m not the best at feelings, even though I have a very small circle of friends, I still have my bestfriend who helps to better me as a person, and I still have my talents. Sherlock is one of my lifelines, and my favorite show. I will post daily, share some conspiracies, etc:)
After series 4, I think I am not the only one wondering about that. I am so eager to solve this riddle of a season that I decided to rewatch every episode as often as required to figure things out (TST about 5 and a half times by now, still discovering some things); may be masochistic, but here I am, more sure than ever that we are fooled by Moftiss and that our theories are far from wrong.
(Note: I still have not made an in depth analysis of every episode yet - so, in the following days, I will probably add a lot of things.)
So, I am going to make a list of the things that bugged me the most, beginning with TST:
In depth comparison: “The Six Thatchers” - blog entry and episode
Okay, so let’s take a look at the blog entry first:
(Note: I coloured the characters yellow, relationships red, significant details blue and the a significant repetition purple.)
First, I want to clarify one thing: This case
is not just any random case that the show puts no emphasis on and can be dismissed due to the “John Watson is no longer updating his blog”-line; in A Scandal in
Belgravia, it is actually shown while John points out that the blog-counter is
stuck at 1895 – the year of Oscar Wilde’s trial and the year that John and Sherlock are always stuck in. It is also the year TAB takes place in - Mark put great emphasis on that. Thus, may we assume that TST is similar to TAB - is someone stuck in a Victorian fever dream?
Next aspect: mirroring. I tried very hard figuring out who is who in our love triangle. Sherlock was the easiest one:
Sally Barnicot: “barn” is clear. “i cot” is Italian, meaning “the crib”. Who is referred to being like a child over and over again and to a suffering Christ-figure? Sherlock, right. Furthermore, Sally’s first name has the same first letter as Sherlock’s: an “S”.
But then, I struggled a bit. At that time I was very convinced of Alibi Theory, and I still am, but the whole mirroring of this blog entry is totally messed up, because:
Beppo Rovito: “vito” is Italian and means
“brambleberry”. That is fantastic. Well, if you do not understand here, I am referring to Rebekah’s video “The Blogs and more” (which, unfortunately, is no longer available on YouTube, because xe took most of xer brilliant videos down :/). So, a short summary on this “brambleberry”-thing: Hardly anyone knows about that deleted scene from TRF; originally, Moriarty
would talk about how much John means to Sherlock and compare him to a
brambleberry, meaning someone who comes in between a couple – in this case
Moriarty and Sherlock. Considering the facts that Beppo and Pietro are already
a couple and Beppo is not involved with Sally at all, it means: Mary is Beppo.
Pietro Venucci: He is the victim that had “a fiery
relationship” with Beppo a.k.a. Mary. So, who had a fiery relationship with Mary,
indeed? John. He is the only one left in this triangle.
Meaning: We have a fiery love triangle (amo vs. ammunition): Sherlock who is secretly in love with John, John whose heart gets broken by Mary (not just by means of her A.G.R.A.-past), and Mary who is messing things up. Every time Sherlock and John seem to be getting closer, Mary comes in between. Because of all this, the Watsons’ marriage is horrible. Sherlock is the only one knowing the truth about John’s heartbreak and fully innocent regarding it (see TLD’s final scenes; god, I just realised that I wrote this meta not knowing about TLD at all and getting that aseaffageads). Mary pretends not to see it - at least in public. (Don’t know if the fact that there is also homosexuality is worth noting, but I just leave it here if you want to draw your own conclusions on it.)
If you believe in the unreliable narrator theory, I tried to reconstruct the true events of TST with all of this in mind (while I have to admit, I am not sure what the Thatcher-bust is a symbol for, so I just left it in there): Sherlock and John have actually been working together the whole time. It was not Sherlock hiding in the house containing the last Thatcher-bust, it was John. Mary broke in and grabbed the bust. John called Sherlock to join him. Mary smashed the bust, revealing an A.G.R.A.-memory-stick (maybe revealing her true evil colours to John?), and tried to destroy it (or evidence/witnesses, ergo trying to kill John (maybe by shooting at him)?), but Sherlock and John were able to stop her from doing so. Mary confessed about her past and broke John’s heart. - PLOT-GAP - John leaves Sherlock (maybe metaphorically, as in “he is shot and dying”?).
I also thought about this whole event being about Ajay and Mary, not John and her, but, personally, I gave up on it (does not mean you cannot try to make something of it if you want to).
There are two details though, that fit EMP theory: the river and the sound of a window breaking. The river fits the weird water transitions we get all over TST, first when Sherlock is staring at the Wellsboroughs’ Thatcher shrine; if all of this is happening while Sherlock has been reading through John’s blog on the plane, it makes perfect sense that he throws in this tiny detail and exaggerates its extents (”couldn’t resist a touch of the dramatic”, see the lack of information we get about mafia-boss!Ricoletti and the massive amount of information we get about Mindpalace!Ricoletti). The “window breaking” is a good example for that, too: When Ajay and Sherlock fight, they break a window - very Bond-ish.
Let’s take a short look at the comments: theimprobableone (suspected to be Moriarty) is stressing how “disappointingly simple” this case was and Jacob Sowersby (Sherlock’s fan no. 1) says the exact opposite. Who are we to believe? If this is reference to the ARG - well, I leave you to your deductions …
let’s look at the obvious, yet modified similarities between this version of
The Six Thatchers and the version of the episode:
“Harker”: In the blog entry, there is a Horace Harker who is the victim’s art lecturer telling John about the busts and saying that they have already been taken. He is alive. In the episode, Orrie Harker is Ajay’s only murdered burgulary victim (throat cut) who owns two of the busts as the only person (all the others have one - on the blog entry, everyone owns just one, too). Orrie’s name appears on screen with this additional information: “Invoice: 5869″, 59 skip-coded, which is reference to Shakespeare’s Sonnet 59. Also note the gender switching that resembles the one from TAB: Peter Ricoletti from TRF and Emilia Ricoletti from TAB. So, in both TAB and TST, we are introduced to two characters
whose last names have already appeared on the show. The question is: Who is/are Ricoletti,
who is/are Harker? Peter Ricoletti is a mafia-boss who Sherlock put to prison and who we do not get to know much about. Emilia Ricoletti offers way more information: She fakes her suicide in order to come back and shoot her husband, then orders a friend to kill her, is part of a conspiracy for women rights, sacrifices herself for a greater good and scares everyone with her ghost story. Knowing that, I thought of something: We have general similarities occurring to both Harkers and Ricolettis; the creators blur the truth into something else by redefining certain elements as are: a) switching gender, b) putting more emphasis on side characters, c) adding details that already showed up in real life in
a different context.
the Thatcher-busts: In the blog entry, they are made by Pietro who hates Thatcher due to her homophobic attitude and turned them into a satire by putting devil horns on Thatcher’s head; after Pietro’s death, they are given to six friends and acquaintances of Pietro’s; Harker is getting none. In the episode, they are manufactured in Georgia and sold to five unrelated fans of Thatcher, including Harker. Again, this could be traced back to EMP theory.
To be honest, I wrote more than 50 pages meta in total about TST in the time between TST and TLD, trying to solve this riddle, and I am still far from finished (guess I’ll never will be). Hopefully, one day, things will be resolved, so I can sleep well again.
(I will add things to this meta in the next days.)
Requested: Anon asked - Sherlock x reader where the he is so horny he fucks the reader on a table
Plot: Sherlock comes back from the his current case and finds the reader in only a bath towel.
Warning: Smut, language
As Sherlock’s room mate, you didn’t really expect Sherlock to be back in the middle of the day. So, after your shower, you didn’t expect to find Sherlock in the living room with multiple connecting pictures across the wall above the sofa.
Since you were still slightly wet from your hair and, oh yeah, STANDING IN ONLY A TOWEL, you tried to get to your room without Sherlock noticing you.
But, sadly, your clumsiness had to ruin your plan. As you tripped over something on the floor Sherlock failed to clean up, Sherlock whipped around to find a clear view of your naked ass.
Instantly, Sherlock felt emotions he had never felt before. He thought he felt… what’s the word?… aroused. Horny, almost. You stood up from your laying position on the ground to find Sherlock a few inches away from you.
He pressed your body against the wall behind you quite roughly, his hands landing on your ass. From that, you felt turned on. Sherlock crashed his lips against yours and roughly kissed you. One of your hands flew to Sherlock’s curly hair, the other going behind his neck.
His kisses trailed from your lips, to your jaw, to your neck. You moan as Sherlock kisses the sensitive skin just below your ear. He nibbles on the skin, satisfied by your pleasure.
His lips travels down your collarbone to just above your towel. “I don’t think we need this,” he says seductively into you ear. He lifts his hand to the crease of the towel, letting the piece of cloth fall to the floor.
Your hands come from behind his head to the buttons of his shirt. It was your turn to mark Sherlock as your own. Your lips attacked his neck, nibbling at the skin. This action caused soft growls come from his Cupid’s bow lips. The sound made a sense of wetness flood between your thighs.
Sherlock picked you up from the ground, wrapping your legs around his waist. He carried you towards the kitchen table as you tried to undo to last two buttons, resulting in you tearing the shirt off, breaking the buttons off.
He laid your back against the cool wood as he smirked down at you. “Couldn’t wait, could we?” he said in a very sexy voice. He undid his pants buttons, pulling them off.
“But Sherlock, we can’t just have sex here!” you say. Sherlock crawls on top of you. “Does it really matter that much?” he asks into your ear, nibbling your ear lobe. “But it’s where we eat!” you exclaim, pulling him down towards your face.
You could feel the tip of his long member touch your thigh as you moaned into the kiss. Sherlock pulled away and aligned himself with your entrance. His eyes traveled up your body, looking into your eyes, asking for permission.
You chuckle as he looks at you. “You shouldn’t be asking me, considering I’m not the virgin.” Sherlock leaned down and made another hickey on your neck. He pushed into you as you called out his name, not realizing he was THAT big.
Sherlock waits, grunting, you both getting used to the feeling. Soon after, Sherlock takes his first thrust. Then another, slightly faster. Soon enough, Sherlock is pounding into you, the room filled with your moans.
You feel the familiar twist in your stomach as you feel your climax coming along. “Sherlock! I’m-I’m gonna c-cum!!!” You scream. Sherlock grunts one last time as you both cum at the same time.
Sherlock pulls out of you, picks you up in his arms, bridal style, and walks to his room. He lays your naked self on to the bed then joins you soon after. As you were about to fall asleep, you hear Sherlock whisper, “I love you, Y/N.” With that, you snuggle into Sherlock’s warm body and fall asleep in his arms.