lol "whose". Honestly when I clicked on this I thought the theory would be that it was the Doctor.

I don't understand this though. Isn't it Sherlock's ? Why woulnd't it be?

Can I just say-I know I've said it before BUT....the hand that pulls John's away has a right hand ring on it-so like Mycroft and Antheas. Just saying.

beekeeper wrote:

lol "whose". Honestly when I clicked on this I thought the theory would be that it was the Doctor.

I don't understand this though. Isn't it Sherlock's ? Why woulnd't it be?

One of the theories floating around forums and blogs is that the body John sees on the ground is a dead one Moilly supplied from the orgue made to look like Sherlock.  That theory includes a lifemask, and is justified by the girl screaming when she saw him.

It's not a theory I subscribe to, but is that Cumberbatch's actual hand was one of the questions.  I didn't know if it was around here. Apparently not!

That page gave me TLG feels 

MysteriaSleuthbedder wrote:

anjaH_alias wrote:

I was also wondering at first . But it is a real interesting homepage/blog though, I enjoyed especially the Reichenbach pages.

I've always thought how he gets to the roof is so much more interesting than how he survives the fall.  Surviving the fall is just slight-of-hand.  (Or slight-of-body?) Anyway, I love the show for many reasons but am mostly stunned by Sherlock's perfect character arc in the first six episodes.  The first time I saw Sherlock, February 1, this year, I watched all six episodes straight through. What he is, in the Reichenbach Fall, is just so interesting to me.

As Sherlock has worked at St Bart's for a while, and he's naturally curious (and also a talented hacker with a brother in the British Government!), he has probably either explored St Bart's enough to find a rooftop entrance, or he hacked a file or (unlikelily but possibly) found in the public domain a map of St Barts, which he could then use to work out where the door would be 

Last edited by Sky Holt (April 6, 2013 7:15 pm)

MysteriaSleuthbedder wrote:

anjaH_alias wrote:

I was also wondering at first . But it is a real interesting homepage/blog though, I enjoyed especially the Reichenbach pages.

I've always thought how he gets to the roof is so much more interesting than how he survives the fall.  Surviving the fall is just slight-of-hand.  (Or slight-of-body?) Anyway, I love the show for many reasons but am mostly stunned by Sherlock's perfect character arc in the first six episodes.  The first time I saw Sherlock, February 1, this year, I watched all six episodes straight through. What he is, in the Reichenbach Fall, is just so interesting to me.

So, is it your blog? I have to say then, that I found at least 90% of my thoughts in it. It was a kind of deja-vu-feeling: My thoughts, much better explained (not only because of language problems ),but, yes, I was really surprised, because in advance I found a lot interesting stuff as well in a lot of forums (like tumblr or other areas). I picked out this here or that there, but there was never anything so much in compliance with me in one blog/one person. Funny . I mean, of course, we don´t know now what really happened, but nevertheless....
And in my absolute first text here in that forum I also wrote something like "the fall itself is not so important to me - somehow it has worked, with or without truck" -, but the story before, the "out of character"-behaviour is much more exciting to me. I am really really enjoying that (your?) blog....

Last edited by anjaH_alias (April 6, 2013 11:23 pm)

anjaH_alias wrote:

MysteriaSleuthbedder wrote:

anjaH_alias wrote:

I was also wondering at first . But it is a real interesting homepage/blog though, I enjoyed especially the Reichenbach pages.

I've always thought how he gets to the roof is so much more interesting than how he survives the fall.  Surviving the fall is just slight-of-hand.  (Or slight-of-body?) Anyway, I love the show for many reasons but am mostly stunned by Sherlock's perfect character arc in the first six episodes.  The first time I saw Sherlock, February 1, this year, I watched all six episodes straight through. What he is, in the Reichenbach Fall, is just so interesting to me.

So, is it your blog? I have to say then, that I found at least 90% of my thoughts in it. It was a kind of deja-vu-feeling: My thoughts, much better explained (not only because of language problems ),but, yes, I was really surprised, because in advance I found a lot interesting stuff as well in a lot of forums (like tumblr or other areas). I picked out this here or that there, but there was never anything so much in compliance with me in one blog/one person. Funny . I mean, of course, we don´t know now what really happened, but nevertheless....
And in my absolute first text here in that forum I also wrote something like "the fall itself is not so important to me - somehow it has worked, with or without truck" -, but the story before, the "out of character"-behaviour is much more exciting to me. I am really really enjoying that (your?) blog....

 Thanks!  It is so good to find a "kindred spirit" in the view of Sherlockian reality!  You know, they didn't call it "The Adventures of Sherlock Holmes" or anything, they called it "Sherlock."  I think what Moffat and Gatiss are so fascinated with is what fascinates you and I and readers of Doyle for over 100 years, the character of Sherlock Holmes.

I only found the show in February of this year (I have no TV) and I made the blog to sort out my thoughts before I started posting.  This way, I make my own limbs to crawl out on! 

beekeeper wrote:

"I think what Moffat and Gatiss are so fascinated with is what fascinates you and I and readers of Doyle for over 100 years, the character of Sherlock Holmes."

yk though-just to go off on a tangent-but I've never found Holmes that interesting. TBH he seems like your standard repressed tortured genius-eccentric-antihero, British literature is full of them. ..

Is it?  Was it full of them prior to 1887?  I'm not a student of British literature, so I wouldn't know, but if you  have a few examples...?

But I also have not found Doyle's Holmes very interesting.  I also don't care for the stories very much.  I do find the BBC Sherlock quite fascinating.  How he gets from who he is when we meet him to what he is on the roof of Saint Bart's is so brilliantly and seamlessly done and the actor carries it off so perfectly. 

If I met Mark Gatiss, I'd bow.

Last edited by MysteriaSleuthbedder (April 10, 2013 9:58 pm)

beekeeper wrote:

.
I'd argue Holmes is a bit of a cliche but yk, Watson actually really isn't.
 

Depends on which Holmes, I suppose, as I believe Doyle pretty much invented the character type.  So, being first, he can't be a cliche.  If you are speaking of BBC Sherlock, then he is cliche, I suppose by definition, as so many Holmesian characters have appeared on television, from Columbo to House, Hawkeye Pierce to Monk. But all these types are from the original Doyle Holmes.  Now we have a BBC Sherlock who is original not in his archtype, but as the embodiement of a Holmes we've never seen before, a Sherlock Holmes not yet Doyle's Holmes, but a younger man we see becoming the Holmes of the Canon. 

Of course, going back to Doyle, this makes John Watson the archtype of the stalwart companion, the brawn not brains of the operation. The friend who will give his life to save the intellectual hero.  Booth and Bones spring to mind as a perfect example, but I can think of rather a lot of women who have taken over the stalwart companion role like Lisbon to Patrick Jane.

I do find this version of Watson to be irritatingly underwitten ( John Watson: Too Dumb to be a Doctor) but also find him to be more consistent with the Canon Watson.  I suppose that makes him, necessarily,  a cliche by definition, also.

Last edited by MysteriaSleuthbedder (April 11, 2013 1:09 am)

beekeeper wrote:

If you find him interesting, that's great, but insofar as drama is a way for us to ponder upon ourselves, for me, there's nothing new there. To me, he's just a posh, highly emotionally immature, yet very clever, man, of the kind that women seem to be endlessly attracted to. Perhaps its my age-at my age (I'm around the same age as Sherlock) I've met so many highly (public school) educated, emotionally completely out of it, looked after, men that I just kind of think, yeah, meh. I suspect anyone who has spent a few years at a university full of public school Oxbridge near-misses feels the same..

Well, your personal exprience notwithstanding, the character of Holmes has always been most fascinating to men, if you go by the male/female ratio of Canon Holmsian fandom.  If you want to account for women being drawn to such men, you have to understand the concept of Alpha male.  Holmes, in any form, is always the Alpha male.  This particular Holmes is most definitely, the writers have made him that way.  So did Doyle.  This also makes him fascinating to men.

The thing is that being Alpha has certain very clear biological characteristics: one of which is looks, height, fitness, physical power.  Most of this is genetically determined.  But Alphas also display supreme self-confidence.  Now, if "smart is the new sexy" (and since life is at its most basic simply about production and reproduction, all Alpha males are, by definition, sexy to women) the poor fellow who is not great-looking, not genetically blessed with height, physical prowess or power, can hope for himself to acquire the mental characteristics, learn to display confidence and level the playing field so he is not stuck in Gamma mode forever vying for the leftover females the Alpha male chooses to discard. 

This, BTW, is a classic experession of a Gamma male:  I suspect anyone who has spent a few years at a university full of public school Oxbridge near-misses feels the same. 

Besides, I think he went to Harrow.

Last edited by MysteriaSleuthbedder (April 11, 2013 7:32 pm)

Hey guys! I think, hope, it was unintentional. The comment that takes it from generalities to being more personal is the penultimate one.

Can we shake hands, virtually speaking please and make up. I really don't fancy being a 'Second' for pistols at dawn.

My other observation is that sometimes women are in fact attracted to men who are not Alpha Males and not just because an Alpha Male has previously discarded them. In our society men can also acquire the 'attractiveness' of the Alpha through other means than looks, height, physical prowess or power (certainly physical power). I would rather not give examples but I am sure we can all think of those who are immensely attractive to women because of their position in society who frankly, and this sounds pretty callous to my ears, would not get a second look if they were in a different walk of life or strata in society.

I now ask the question...what about the Alpha Females? 

Davina wrote:

My other observation is that sometimes women are in fact attracted to men who are not Alpha Males and not just because an Alpha Male has previously discarded them. In our society men can also acquire the 'attractiveness' of the Alpha through other means than looks, height, physical prowess or power (certainly physical power). I would rather not give examples but I am sure we can all think of those who are immensely attractive to women because of their position in society who frankly, and this sounds pretty callous to my ears, would not get a second look if they were in a different walk of life or strata in society.

Sorry if I was unclear, I was speaking of the most basic kind of evolutionary response.  That's a phayical repsonse to physical c ues, for the most part.  But power is about a lot of things in a social species.  So when we look at it culturally, power translates into influence, most commonly money.  But it is always, whether in chimps or humans, about status. 

I now ask the question...what about the Alpha Females?

That's the best part. The  fact is the Alpha female is the one who is really in charge of status..  No matter how many male chimps posture subserviently to the would-be Alpha male, if the Alpha female rejects him, he loses his status. But that only works in chimp societies where there is no such thing as rape.

Still, in a group, the attention of the high status female, or her lack of attention, has the most to do with the status of those vying for Alpha male.  Thus the allure of being the "loner" who distains women and rides off into the sunset on his horse.  Or his Harley, these days, I suppose. After all, if you don't pursue women and refuse to join groups, you aren't subject to any status markers.

Now, as your post followed mine but was without quote, I am assuming you are concerned with something I said?  My observations are usually anthropological in nature because of my background, not personal. People sometimes read tone of voice where none is intended. 

The original discussion  was about Sherlock and John as interesting  characters.  John, in fact, is the perfect sub-Alpha (which I believe these days they have designated Beta) male.  He is close to, supportive of, and not threatening to the Alpha male.  What's really interesting in S1E1 are the various interactions with Lestrade, which shows how relative to the present situation and how fluid status is.  Good writers..