BBC Sherlock Fan Forum - Serving Sherlockians since February 2012 » plot believability in Sherlock

saturnR · July 26, 2014 6:16 am

I know he's extraordinary & his adventures are supposed to be outrageous but was there any point where you went: What the? Oh, never mind. It's Sherlock, what was I expecting?

Also it would be on a continuum so if you were to rank the episodes, which one would have the highest what-the? factor and which one the lowest?

Last edited by saturnR (July 26, 2014 6:17 am)

Liberty · July 26, 2014 7:43 am

There have been a few moments - I'll see if I can remember them. Most recently was in TEH, at John's GP surgery. Sherlock thinks Mary is a nurse, but she seems to be working as a receptionist, and also diagnosing the patients before John even sees them. (I also wondered why he chose general practice if he craves excitement, but that's more a character point).

Nobody (including John, a doctor) being at all bothered by Sherlock being virtually comatose after being given an unknown drug in ASIB.

Irene's rescue seemed a bit unbelievable, because we weren't shown how it was achieved. I read a fanfic about that which filled in some of the blanks!

Oh, one thing that I found really odd in ASIP was that Sherlock didn't guess it was the cabbie. To the extent that I thought it was impossible that he wouldn't guess it was the cabbie. I mean, he's waiting to see who the killer is and a cab stops (and he's also set it up with the little speech about getting into cars). Could Sherlock really be stupider than the average person in this scenario? I watched the pilot, and Sherlock does guess much earlier. I suppose it was changed for dramatic effect (and because it can be fun for the viewers to guess something that Sherlock doesn't).

besleybean · July 26, 2014 8:01 am

I think there would be more openings in general practice.
Mary could be a qualified nurse, but didn't want to pursue it.
It's very old fashioned for a receptionist to ask about patient's symptoms!
Oh I think John was concerned in SIB.
Yep, we all said that about the cabbie!

BrettHolmes · July 27, 2014 11:44 pm

The series can be unrealistic but in a good way. Sometimes its “fantastical” nature is part of what makes it stylish and sometimes very surreal. After all it is written and created by Steven Moffat and Mark Gatiss, who worked on Doctor Who. So why should we be surprised that it does things that out of the ordinary or outside the box.

We must also remember that Conan Doyle’s stories could be fanciful or borderline strange (i.e. "The Four Orange Pips"). Not to mention that Sherlock Holmes himself is an implausible person, no human being no matter how intelligent could be able to make 100% correct deductions about any person or thing just by looking. But then again this is fiction not real life so why not have some fun.

Liberty · July 28, 2014 6:33 am

Yes, and maybe that's why it's mainly the mundane things that have jumped out at me as being unbelievable, rather than more fantastical things!

A lovely light · July 28, 2014 8:55 am

I have to laugh very hard about Sherlock trying to find out what substances are in some probes by .... microscope and some chemical tests . Nowadays you use far more quickly and reliable spectrometric methods, especially in the organic chemistry area (the hound of baskerville case when he analyses the sugar).

Mattlocked · July 28, 2014 9:30 am

Liberty wrote:
...

Oh, one thing that I found really odd in ASIP was that Sherlock didn't guess it was the cabbie. To the extent that I thought it was impossible that he wouldn't guess it was the cabbie. I mean, he's waiting to see who the killer is and a cab stops (and he's also set it up with the little speech about getting into cars). Could Sherlock really be stupider than the average person in this scenario? I watched the pilot, and Sherlock does guess much earlier. I suppose it was changed for dramatic effect (and because it can be fun for the viewers to guess something that Sherlock doesn't).

Right, I liked that much better in the pilot, but I also guess it has been changed for dramatic effect.
They had to fill 30 minutes more....
Although he really appears very slow then.....
But then again the audience can see earlier and scream at the screen: It's the CABBIE!! Don't you see??

Kittyhawk · April 21, 2015 11:42 am

Well, on a scale from 0 to 10 I'd give plot believability a -5... I came to the show without ever having watched a single Dr. Who episode, so I didn't know what to expect from Moffat and Gatiss. I read the original stories so long ago that I've completely forgotten the details, and whether the plots were fantastic/surreal. I do remember, however, that I was always ticked off that the reader never really had a chance to guess correctly, because Dr. Watson simple wouldn't notice some important fact and therefore not report it. That's something I like better in the show, when at least occasionally we can follow Sherlock's observations by means of on-screen text.
But both the basic plots and the mundane details are completely nonsensical more often than not (I've read fanfic that made a lot more sense). Otherwise - what would we discuss? (Really gotta look whether there's a discussion forum for The Wire - that's supposedly a show that got everything right...)

nakahara · April 21, 2015 3:22 pm

I think that we are starting from the false premise here - that the plot of not just Sherlock, but all detective stories, should be realistic.

Why in fact, detective stories are just fairy-tales for adults. And people love them exactly because the real life works so differently from them.

And so Poirot can have all suspects neatly gathered up in the library of some posh Edwardian house at the end of his cases, elderly Miss Marple can bump into murder at every place she goes to and she can catch the most hardened criminals with ease, both Fantomas and Arséne Lupin can mask themselves so that they can believably impersonate and live the life of another people (sometimes more than 10 people at once) and modern "quasi-detective" Elisabeth Salander can dig herself up from her grave with a revolver, survive three or four shots into her back without bleeding out and still can be so strong as to attack two men with an axe....

All this is full, unadulterated fantasy and that´s why we read and enjoy it!

Harriet · April 21, 2015 3:32 pm

Amen, nakahara! I prefer having mercy on those brilliant writers in spite of some plot inconsistencies.

Liberty · April 21, 2015 3:39 pm

So true, Nakahara . It's a bit of escapism and entertainment. The original stories are like that (entertaining rather than realistic) and the TV series is written in the same spirit (which has confused me at times).

Vhanja · April 21, 2015 3:40 pm

I have to say that I am more than happy with the plots of Sherlock. I think there is some really good writing in that show. Not perfect, of course, but I find it so good that I can easily overlook the weaker details.

Only thing that bothers me are plot leaps that seem random just to move the plot forward, things that are just too much of a coincidence to make sense (Yes, TBB, I'm looking at you). But overall I love the plots of the series.

I reckon that if I analysed all of it a bit more in detail, I would probably find more errors. But I'm not interested in doing that, I am nore than willing to suspend disbelief for the show as long as the errors aren't staring me in the face (as in TBB).

Harriet · April 21, 2015 3:43 pm

I think it's fun to find errors and plot holes, but nothing more than some fun.
No reason to question the value of this show.

Sherlock Holmes · April 21, 2015 7:14 pm

Bombs having an off switch.

Kittyhawk · April 22, 2015 11:19 am

Oh my god, yes! That part is so moronic - and Sherlock's "joke" so cruel - John should have slugged him again - that I switch off the episode before they get to the underground car.

nakahara, I think we'll have to agree that we expect completely different things from a crime story - so different that it's actually amazinig that we are both watching Sherlock ;) I've left Miss Marple behind a very long time ago, never got into Poirot, don't know who Fantomas and Scalander are. I'd have to re-read Arsène Lupin, I don't remember anything outrageous but I might have been so preoccupied with language problems that I didn't notice the plot holes.

My heroes are Robert B. Parker's Spenser, Lee Child's Jack Reacher and I have read all the Dick Francis novels. And quite a lot of John Grisham and Andy McNab...

A story need not be realistic in the sense of "this is likely to happen". But there should be an internal logic to the plot. OT example: I've never gotten into Superman - how can he possibly fly? Whereas I was agreeably surprised (my expectations for films based on comic books are very low) by The Amazing Spiderman - being bitten a spider, developping some of its abilities and buying a costume makes enough sense for me to be able to suspend my disbelief (if instead of buying and dressing into a costume the character had just changed his skin colour at will they'd have lost me right there - see the difference?)

Now, Sherlock Holmes is not a comic book superhero, he's not a magical creature and he lives in what is supposedly our London of the 21st century. For me that means the show should respect the laws of science: No chemical analysis with microscopes, weights that obey gravity, people who feel when they are stabbed and when a Doctor's CV is shown on screen, it should look like a medical CV! The list could go on endlessly - and it will, Harriet is right, "it's fun to find errors and plot holes" - but elsewhere.

Harriet · April 22, 2015 11:30 am

Actually, I enjoy it only here and don't even bother watching the others

Kittyhawk · April 22, 2015 11:40 am

What, you want me to list all (of what I think are) errors of all nine episodes here in this thread?

Harriet · April 22, 2015 11:44 am

No. I was speaking of this show compared to others.

tonnaree · April 22, 2015 11:52 am

My disbelief is so light I don't even have to suspend it, it often floats away on it's own.

Kittyhawk · April 22, 2015 11:53 am

Oh, good. Actually, I think one of the reasons we (or at least I - I probably shouldn't make assumptions about you) notice the errors in Sherlock is that the show is interesting enough - and rare enough, with 3 episodes per year - to rewatch it again and again. I'm pretty sure that there's lots of problems with Elementary too, but I watch each episode once (on YouTube, via tablet, cropped) and that's it. So unless it's a really glaring error, I'll never notice it - I do (try to) enjoy the show - all shows - the first time through.