ancientsgate wrote:

Chalotte wrote:

...So clever, I almost can't believe it. Even without the Slavic part, it is clever. Gatiss is a genius. I admire the heck out of him. And I absolutely love his posh-Eton-boy smug attitude. 

I don't know. IMO, there comes a point when someone can be too clever for the room. If 75%+ of the viewing audience either doesn't get it or thinks it's nonsense, what pray is the sense of writing it in the first place, having the actors act it, or not leaving it on the editing room floor?

 

I believe the writers of Sherlock employ a similar method to Shakespeare. Shakespeare knew he needed both the masses and the educated upper classes to maintain his career and his reputation, so he included both bawdy humour for the masses, and subtle humour, historical references, and clever phrasing for the upper classes.

Likewise, the writers of Sherlock know they need the ratings they can only get from the large numbers of average viewers, but they also insert lots of inside jokes, references, and clever word play that only those who've read the books, are up-to-date on current events, or take the trouble to "do their research" would understand and appreciate. That way, they get rave reviews all round. It also ensures that they'll be remembered long into the future in a way they wouldn't be if it were just entertaining fluff. 

And if any show should be as clever as possible, it would be a show about Sherlock Holmes. Those books are the gargantuan English presence that they are precisely because they were so clever. Sherlock Holmes = brilliance. 

There's enough crap out there for the average person - the vast majority of it is for ordinary people. Why can't the smart people have something with more depth to watch and analyze? I hardly think any average viewer was turned off the show because the word "blud" made no sense to them.


 

Is it actually possible that Gatiss put in the "blud" remark without being aware of the secondary meaning, that of an evil fairy in slavic mythology? The fairy, "blud," means "wanderer" - "an injurious fairy causing disorientation" - and leads people aimlessly round and round.

There is so much attention to detail and so many subtle references/double entendres in the Sherlock series, that I can't imagine Gatiss wasn't aware of the double meaning (or Sherlock, for that matter). In my opinion, it was a portmanteau-sort-of compliment-insult by Sherlock, meaning: 

a) English slang "blud" - meaning "bro," or "mate" - which, as someone pointed out, is in keeping with Sherlock's former use of street slang, "laters," which sounds so tongue-in-cheek coming from him.

b) The alternate sense of the slang word, "blood" - like, blood brother. Sherlock and Mycroft are blood. 

c) The evil slavic fairy causing disorientation and leading a person round and round aimlessly. Mycroft had said shortly before the "blud" comment that he had learnt Serbian, and that it has a Slavic root. Can the fact that there is a slavic fairy of the same name (and spelling) be coincidence? If so, it's a very lucky one. Mycroft is the master puppeteer and has a hand in everything. At the end of "A Study in Pink," Sherlock agrees with Watson's idea that Mycroft was a "criminal mastermind." And Sherlock hates being controlled by his brother (in previous episodes, he stubbornly refuses to help Mycroft). Mycroft hates "leg work," so he demands that Sherlock follow up on cases for him. As soon as he gets him shaved and cleaned up, he sends him off to uncover a terrorist network. Like an evil slavic fairy directing the actions of people around him.

In addition, I think it notable that Mycroft referred to Sherlock twice before as "brother" in the scenes leading up to the "blud." Mycroft had also told Sherlock that a "small thank you wouldn't go amiss." Sherlock refused to thank him. But right before Sherlo