BBC Sherlock Fan Forum - Serving Sherlockians since February 2012 » Sherlock's explanation

BrettHolmes · June 5, 2014 9:15 pm

Call me crazy but I do believe that the explanation Sherlock had given as to “How he did it” was true. I had other problems with “The Empty Hearse” but this was the one thing that I thought it had delivered on. It seemed very plausible at least to me. Molly’s involvement didn’t surprise me (or the fact that there had been a body double) but I didn’t take Mycroft or The Homeless Network into account.

While I do think the explanation that he gave was the real one, I do agree that the idea of him telling it to Anderson was a fantasy. I know this because he states “Of course you’ve wasted police time, perverted the course of justice, risked distracting me from a massive terrorist assault that could have both destroyed Parliament and caused the death of hundreds of people”. Which tells me that he was imagining this in his mind while he was still in the train car with John.

So while I don’t think his meeting with Anderson ever happened, I do think he was telling the truth about how he staged the fall in that scene. I’m perhaps the only Sherlock fan in the world that bought the final explanation and is willing to live with it.

SusiGo · June 5, 2014 9:24 pm

I agree that there are plausible elements in this. Something must have stopped his fall although a net or tarpaulin would have been less conspicuous. And they provide an explanation for the little girl crying when she saw him.

What I do not get is to whom the explanation should be directed in your theory. It would be only in Sherlock's head, wouldn't it? If they had wanted to show us how he did they could have done a simple flashback or have him tell John. But why involve Anderson, even if it was only in his thoughts?

BrettHolmes · June 5, 2014 10:14 pm

What I do not get is to whom the explanation should be directed in your theory. It would be only in Sherlock's head, wouldn't it? If they had wanted to show us how he did they could have done a simple flashback or have him tell John. But why involve Anderson, even if it was only in his thoughts?

He could have revealed it to John but considering that "the fall" was cruelest joke he ever played on him (it was cruelest you could play on anyone for that matter), an explanation as to how he did it would have been the last thing he wanted hear especially at that moment considering that John thought that both he and Sherlock were going to die as the bomb on the car was set to go off (or so we thought).

As for Anderson, yes I do wonder why he was the one that he revealed it to, even if it was only in his mind. Since Sherlock used to hate Anderson. I would think that he would be last person that he would reveal his biggest secret to. However, I think because the show turned him into a conspiracy theorist that wanted to know “How he did it” (which was done as a nod to fandom), they decided to have him as the one.

Last edited by BrettHolmes (June 5, 2014 10:22 pm)

anjaH_alias · June 6, 2014 11:41 am

Yes, I agree with that. He told it to Anderson - mind palace or not -, because he is "the fans". So he is telling "us" how he did it. He is telling it at a moment in which we are supposed to think death is coming soon (truth in death). It is surrounded by the original fall music. Everything points to that explanation as the true explanation. But Moffat and Gatiss make it a little bit more difficult: We don´t have to believe that if we don´t want. Another joke.
And John doesn´t get the explanation in TEH because of another reference (told in the interview with Gatiss and Moffat). Very Sherlock-like. I am absolutely satisfied with that.
And, btw: One director tells us on DVD that this is the point "where we explain how Sherlock did it" or so. For the makers it´s the true explanation obviously. And I am sure that this was the scene which they have shot already at the end of series 2. All the other theories and the talk with Anderson they had to do at the beginning of shooting series 3 weren´t planned. It´s the referential result of the web discussions of the fans during the years in between.

Last edited by anjaH_alias (June 6, 2014 11:51 am)

Sherlock Holmes · June 6, 2014 11:45 am

I originally hated TEH because of this moment, but it has slowly grown on me. Now, I actually quite like the idea that we are left with a slightly ambiguous explanation, that we can choose whether to believe or not. It means I can still quite happily believe my own theory was correct.

anjaH_alias · June 6, 2014 11:49 am

Sherlock Holmes wrote:
I originally hated TEH because of this moment, but it has slowly grown on me. Now, I actually quite like the idea that we are left with a slightly ambiguous explanation, that we can choose whether to believe or not. It means I can still quite happily believe my own theory was correct.

Exactly :-). I love TEH and also think meanwhile that series 3 is my favourite one. I needed some time for this, because after waiting for such a long time everything had to be disappointing at first. Now, after a break of watching the films and rewatching them recently, I can see more "neutrally" how well done each episode is. Little jewels they are....

Last edited by anjaH_alias (June 6, 2014 11:52 am)

Marta · June 6, 2014 4:11 pm

"anjaH_alias" wrote:
For the makers it´s the true explanation obviously. And I am sure that this was the scene which they have shot already at the end of series 2.

I agree, this is the explanation they wrote. And I choose not to believe in it. One, because I don't like the idea that Sherlock and Mycroft were few steps ahead of Moriarty for the whole time. Two, the theory with a mask is better than a theory with a double (how did Molly find the body so quickly?). Three, Sherlock says he has a lot of coats. We know they have only three coats at the costume department

Mattlocked · June 7, 2014 6:24 am

I do believe Sherlock's explanation to Anderson. And one point is exactly because Sherlock and Mycroft were few steps ahead of Moriarty for the whole time. In TRF they made us believe that Mycroft destroyed Sherlock by telling Moriarty useful secrets. But we all know that Mycroft really cares for Sherlock so do you really think he would do something like that to his little brother?
And, as Susi said, they provide an explanation for the little girl crying when she saw him.
The mask-theory I find a bit.... overdone.

What I (still) don't like is the place where they've put the scene. It still feels to me as if they simply didn't know where to put it so they've cut in the bomb-scene. Which I find quite disturbing, not to say I hate it! But maybe anjaH has a point here: He is telling it at a moment in which we are supposed to think death is coming soon (truth in death). *shrugs*

besleybean · June 7, 2014 7:41 am

Yes...
I never had any doubt that Mycroft ws in on the Fall plan...

Tinks · June 7, 2014 8:57 am

I think the fall itself was always the back up plan if they couldn't outwit Moriarty - hence when it became clear that he'd have to "die", both Sherlock and Mycroft showed great regret (Molly spotted that Sherlock wasn't OK, Mycroft telling John "tell him I'm sorry" - he was sorry that Sherlock's life was about to be turned upside down, and was also sorry for John).
I've never had a problem with the explanation given to Anderson, nor where the scene was placed; it's honestly the least of my problems with TEH.

besleybean · June 7, 2014 9:53 am

What are your other problems with it?

Tinks · June 7, 2014 12:17 pm

The great big no-no for me was John's violent reaction.
And that a head but was supposed to be comedic.

besleybean · June 7, 2014 12:29 pm

I am entirely with you on this.

maryagrawatson · June 7, 2014 1:52 pm

besleybean wrote:
I am entirely with you on this.

Me three. We should form a club for folks who think John needs anger management classes.

Mary

Marta · June 7, 2014 2:13 pm

Mattlocked wrote:
I do believe Sherlock's explanation to Anderson. And one point is exactly because Sherlock and Mycroft were few steps ahead of Moriarty for the whole time. In TRF they made us believe that Mycroft destroyed Sherlock by telling Moriarty useful secrets. But we all know that Mycroft really cares for Sherlock so do you really think he would do something like that to his little brother?

But if they knew exactly what Moriarty's plans were, why did they let all of this happen? Why didn't they killed Jim when they got all information from him, why didn't they come up with other scenarios, what about the meaning of the key code (did Mycroft know? For how long?), the warning about the killers, what about like half of the episode?
If anyone read a meta when The Reichenbach Fall was explained in the light of facts from The Empty Hearse, please tell me, I'd like to read it.

I'm OK with an explanation that Mycroft didn't know about the consequences when he told Moriarty about Sherlock's life. Sherlock said Mycroft is never wrong but he's only human, he makes mistakes. And they needed information from Jim. Common good is very important to Mycroft.

Mattlocked wrote:
What I (still) don't like is the place where they've put the scene. It still feels to me as if they simply didn't know where to put it so they've cut in the bomb-scene. Which I find quite disturbing, not to say I hate it! But maybe anjaH has a point here: He is telling it at a moment in which we are supposed to think death is coming soon (truth in death). *shrugs*

I've read about it but I can't remember where. The writers were supposed to talk about it during the Q&A after The Empty Hearse was showed to the press in December. So we were apparently supposed to be worried about Shrelock and John at the moment and realise the explanation of the fall wasn't that important - I don't care about the fall at the moment, tell me if Sherlock and John survive! Well, it didn't work for me. I waited two years for the explanation and after their first meeting in the episode, nothing could be more important than that.

I think John's reaction was in character. And really funny.

Mattlocked · June 7, 2014 2:22 pm

Hm. Didn't work for me, either. I mean: It was the first of three new episodes! Of course they were supposed to survive!

besleybean · June 7, 2014 2:22 pm

Oh I confess I do laugh at the sequence.
But that is definitely set against the view that I didn't like the violence.
But yes, sadly, this is how John reacts...

anjaH_alias · June 10, 2014 12:16 pm

Marta wrote:
But if they knew exactly what Moriarty's plans were, why did they let all of this happen? Why didn't they killed Jim when they got all information from him, why didn't they come up with other scenarios, what about the meaning of the key code (did Mycroft know? For how long?), the warning about the killers, what about like half of the episode?
If anyone read a meta when The Reichenbach Fall was explained in the light of facts from The Empty Hearse, please tell me, I'd like to read it.

I'm OK with an explanation that Mycroft didn't know about the consequences when he told Moriarty about Sherlock's life. Sherlock said Mycroft is never wrong but he's only human, he makes mistakes. And they needed information from Jim. Common good is very important to Mycroft.

They didn´t know exactly what Moriarty has planned. They had 13 possible scenarios in their heads and for each scenario another solution. The only thing they knew definetely was that Sherlock has to get burned first (aka destroy his name) and then die. This they knew since TGG.
And of course Mycroft knew and worked together with Sherlock! Yes, he is human, but betraying his little brother? Never. It´s also ACD canon: here Mycroft was his only confident and both brothers tried to get the spider (Moriarty) out of its web. Together and in advance.

Last edited by anjaH_alias (June 10, 2014 12:40 pm)

Punch me in the face · June 10, 2014 1:43 pm

Tinks wrote:
I think the fall itself was always the back up plan if they couldn't outwit Moriarty - hence when it became clear that he'd have to "die", both Sherlock and Mycroft showed great regret (Molly spotted that Sherlock wasn't OK, Mycroft telling John "tell him I'm sorry" - he was sorry that Sherlock's life was about to be turned upside down, and was also sorry for John).
.

Oh, that's an interesting point! Thank you. I had never seen things like that. You see, Mycroft has become throughout the seasons (even more with this last one) my favourite character.

When I saw TEH for the first time, I was disappointed. Not by the whole episode, which I love, but just by this part. The "explanation".

It had somehow left me frustrated. I wasn't entirely convinced. There were still things I didn't understand (I would have loved to know -not necessarily within the episode, because that would have slowed the rythm, but in a text or anything-- what were exactly all the other plans/scenarii Mycroft and Sherlock had considered for example. Or for example, I'll probably sound dumb, but I don't really understand what was to happen to Moriarty once Sherlock had jumped, I mean, if Moriarty hadn't shot himself etc etc), too much "dark points" for me that needed to be enlightened.

I since watched it several times and slowly grew to accept that theory, maybe not all of it but I was less frustrated thinking "It may or it may not be the real thing, we can think what we want of it and that's better this way".

But there were two things that still buggered me. It was thinking that Mycroft and Sherlock had put on an act at times when I hoped they were sincere and for once, had let their feelings show. That is:

* When Sherlock cries when he says goodbye to John. I don't like the idea he was faking it. But then I realised that his tears could still be sincere. I like to think so, at least.

* When Mycroft says "Tell him I'm sorry". I was obviously pleased to learn in TEH that the whole "I tell Moriarty stuff about my brother" was a plan he and sherlock had made up, because I really couldn't buy the idea that Mycroft had deliberately done something that would hurt Sherlock. (I mean, come on, Sherlock always comes first for him, when something happens to his brother, ie the drug den in HLV, he is there within minutes and he cares about sherlock so much) so I was relieved but I was still frustrated because Mycroft looked genuinely sorry when he told John "tell him I'm sorry", and I didn't like the idea he was just putting on an act. I hadn't thought of your explanation and now find it very plausible. Thank you.

Punch me in the face · June 10, 2014 1:55 pm

Oh, and I forgot to mention that I'm really ok with John's reaction. I think it's the most human and most plausible reaction. (my only problem is that hitting Sherlock three times, at three different places and not three times at the same time, was a bit "too much").

This doesn't mean I support violence, not at all.

But like I said before, I can relate to John as my husband killed himself nearly two years ago.

I'm a very calm woman, who keeps cool most of the time. There is actually only one person in this world who has ever seen me angry (I am angry sometimes,of course, but I never show it) and he's dead.

But believe me, if my husband suddenly came out of nowhere, telling me he has faked his suicide, that he has let me grieve two years without telling me (whatever his motives), and that even worse, he would make his come back the way Sherlock did, thinking he was being funny, I honestly think I would rain blows on him.

Because all the pain inside me would suddenly explode in an imeasurable anger and the "easiest" way to express it at that moment would be violence, not words. I'm pretty sure of that. I would absolutely hate him at that precise moment: for having betrayed me, for having hurt me and let me grieve that long... And I probably wouldn't speak to him for a while. Then I would slowly grow to forgive him and be happy he's back. But it would take time I think.

That's why I have no problem with John's reaction. Even though what I found funny wasn't John hitting Sherlock but Sherlock's "naivety" (like he doesn't even understand why John is angry)