BBC Sherlock Fan Forum - Serving Sherlockians since February 2012 » Solution of the Bride/Womens case

Whisky · January 26, 2016 8:58 pm

I discussed with a friend, and she told me she was dissatisfied with the ending of the Victorian Era case. She critizised exactly what Sherlock also wondered about: why would the murderer engage Sherlock Holmes to solve her case. It's not very logical after all.

I argued with drugs and Moriarty, how he appears right there and says "Sherlock, it's not real."

She said it was still a problem of the scriptwriting, the story hasn't got a proper ending. First, I thought that's not true, because it's all about Moriarty and Sherlock's mind and not the Bride or the Women's Movement. But the longer I think about it, the more I can see her point. It's unfinished in a way.
I just didn't linger on it because, well, drugs! Moriarty! the plane scene, Mycroft! etc.
But it's a valid point imo.

Does anyone feel the same way? Or has ideas that go beyond "it wasn't real anyway so it doesn't need a solution"?

We also compared this to some Dr. Who episodes where things weren't plotted through to the end as well. I'm not so confident to confirm or deny any parallels there, as I'm still rather new to DW, but maybe some of you can help me there.
Is it intentional or just the easy way out?

I promised her I'd ask opinions :-)

Last edited by Whisky (January 26, 2016 9:03 pm)

nakahara · January 26, 2016 10:19 pm

Well, we have canonical precedent for that. In the story of "Retired Colourman", the murderer himself engages Sherlock in the case and lives to regret it. And this is the reason why he called Sherlock in

:"You certainly seem to have met every difficulty," said the inspector.
"Of course, he was bound to call us in, but why he should have gone to
you I can't understand."

"Pure swank!" Holmes answered. "He felt so clever and so sure of
himself that he imagined no one could touch him. He could say to any
suspicious neighbour, 'Look at the steps I have taken. I have consulted
not only the police but even Sherlock Holmes.'"

And that´s probably what happened in TAB too. Lady needed to give credibility to her alibi by engaging Sherlock in a case and to have him witness this almost impossible crime. She probably felt well-prepared and considered her plan so perfect, she was sure even Sherlock would not see through it.

Last edited by nakahara (January 26, 2016 10:21 pm)

Yitzock · January 26, 2016 10:44 pm

Not only that, but sometimes hiding in plain sight is effective. It wasn't in this case, but that could have also been a motivation for going to Holmes.

Last edited by Yitzock (January 26, 2016 10:44 pm)

Liberty · January 27, 2016 8:07 am

That makes sense, Nakahara. And also, I know this is too obvious, but there was no Sherlock Holmes when the case "really" happened, so she didn't engage him! Sherlock maybe found it easier to think about the case with her as client.

We also never find out of Sherlock was right or not - not that it really matters - but his deduction is just hypothetical. I suppose his real purpose is to link it to Moriarty. And that's the bit I struggle with. He shows how a death could be faked, and then seems to say that he knows for sure that Moriarty is dead (I presume because he was there and witnessed the shot and the resulting injury, but that's not clear).

nakahara · January 27, 2016 8:36 am

Liberty wrote:
And that's the bit I struggle with. He shows how a death could be faked, and then seems to say that he knows for sure that Moriarty is dead (I presume because he was there and witnessed the shot and the resulting injury, but that's not clear).

Yes, that part is a bit puzzling.
There were theories about the meaning of the scene which claimed that Emilia faked her death, but really died later and her "legacy" was overtaken by the organisation of women. Thus, every member of an organisation could be new "Emilia" by default. Just like Moriarty could be "reborn" in new memebers of the criminal organisation that had overtaken his legacy and his dirty business.
But that still does not entirely explain the discrepancy of "successfully faked death" = "cerainly dead"....
Still, I´m glad they didn´t retconned Moriarty´s death on the rooftop. Sherlock´s powers of observation would be deplorable if he didn´t recognise the veracity of the death that took place in front of his very eyes....

miriel68 · January 27, 2016 8:43 am

Sherlock in fact solves the crime immediately - as soon as he has found the body he says there is only one plausible suspect with the motive & opportunity. Obviously he knows lady Carmichael did it.
But I do agree the script becomes a bit muddy here. We are derailed from the case and the whole Victorian setting by "Moriarty factor".
I am not bothered by consipiracy and Ku-Klux-Klan appearence in the church, because it is obviously a kind of parody of gothic setting. (in fact, when watching the trailer I was reminded of RDJ Sherlock and felt doubious about it). But I am not entirely happy about the role played by Mary who deux ex machina discovers the whole conspiracy and only then informs Sherlock.

besleybean · January 27, 2016 5:18 pm

Well possibly Mary was aware of the group, but didn't see them as a problem until the link to a murder.
Didn't she then tell Sherlock as soon as she knew?

Schmiezi · January 28, 2016 5:16 am

miriel68 wrote:
But I am not entirely happy about the role played by Mary who deux ex machina discovers the whole conspiracy and only then informs Sherlock.

Me neither. Is that what Sherlock imagines what Mary will be like in RL from now on? And does he like it or dread it?

besleybean · January 28, 2016 6:42 am

Or possibly just accepts it?

SusiGo · January 28, 2016 8:06 am

Schmiezi wrote:
miriel68 wrote:
But I am not entirely happy about the role played by Mary who deux ex machina discovers the whole conspiracy and only then informs Sherlock.
Me neither. Is that what Sherlock imagines what Mary will be like in RL from now on? And does he like it or dread it?

I think it more likely that he would dread it. I base my opinion on the whole way Mary is shown in TAB. And it also makes me doubt that the first plane scene is real. We have not a shred of evidence why she suddenly patronises Mycroft or just like that is able to bypass MI5 security. It looks as if there was a relationship between them where we have not seen any contact before - a fact, btw, that has often been discussed. The first time Mary and Mycroft are in the same place at the same is on the tarmac where we do not get any signs of interaction. And then this … And Sherlock does not even seem to question it. Since I do not believe that this is a giant plot hole, I assume that it is
a) just in his mind
b) will be explained in series 4.

At the moment I tend to a) because in the last plane scene that is probably real there is no such interaction between Mary and Mycroft anymore.

Liberty · January 28, 2016 8:17 am

I think if it's in his mind, it STILL needs to be explained in S4! Otherwise we'd go into it assuming the Mycroft/Mary connection. Roll on 2017!

nakahara · January 28, 2016 8:47 am

SusiGo wrote:
Schmiezi wrote:
Me neither. Is that what Sherlock imagines what Mary will be like in RL from now on? And does he like it or dread it?
I think it more likely that he would dread it. I base my opinion on the whole way Mary is shown in TAB. And it also makes me doubt that the first plane scene is real. We have not a shred of evidence why she suddenly patronises Mycroft or just like that is able to bypass MI5 security. It looks as if there was a relationship between them where we have not seen any contact before - a fact, btw, that has often been discussed. The first time Mary and Mycroft are in the same place at the same is on the tarmac where we do not get any signs of interaction. And then this … And Sherlock does not even seem to question it. Since I do not believe that this is a giant plot hole, I assume that it is
a) just in his mind
b) will be explained in series 4.

At the moment I tend to a) because in the last plane scene that is probably real there is no such interaction between Mary and Mycroft anymore.

I find it interesting that in Sherlock´s MP, Mary is spying on Sherlock on Mycroft´s request.
This is exactly the role which John refused to play in ASIP and it was this refusal which established him as a loyal, principled person.
Mary did the very opposite and accepted the dreadful role without any hesitation.... hmmm.

Last edited by nakahara (January 28, 2016 8:47 am)

miriel68 · January 28, 2016 9:40 am

It COULD be that they show Mary in TAB as superclever as part of the whole women-need-to-be- respected-and-appreciated-more. Still, Mary as Mycroft's spy is not really endearing character to me. And surely Mary as even cleverer than Mycroft and MI6 is even more unbelieveble. If she really were this clever, in first place she would have been able to come clear of her past and neutralize Magnussen herself.
Also, no way Mycroft wouldn't have done inquiries about Mary when John was about to marry her. That was one thing that really bothered me in the series 3: I get it that they wanted a twist and shock for the audience, but it came at the cost of a huge logic gap.

nakahara · January 28, 2016 9:42 am

miriel68 wrote:
It COULD be that they show Mary in TAB as superclever as part of the whole women-need-to-be- respected-and-appreciated-more. Still, Mary as Mycroft's spy is not really endearing character to me. And surely Mary as even cleverer than Mycroft and MI6 is even more unbelieveble. If she really were this clever, in first place she would have been able to come clear of her past and neutralize Magnussen herself.
Also, no way Mycroft wouldn't have done inquiries about Mary when John was about to marry her. That was one thing that really bothered me in the series 3: I get it that they wanted a twist and shock for the audience, but it came at the cost of a huge logic gap.

Amen to that.

Whisky · January 28, 2016 4:12 pm

So I gather that the reasons for involving Sherlock in the case could be
a) "hiding in plain sight"
b) feeling a bit too clever/ "pure swank"

I don't see the hiding, really. Because Sherlock wasn't onto the lady until she invited him, so where came her need to "hide" from? Hiding in plain sight would be something I'd do if someone already suspected me, or I was among a suspected group. (Which, yes, could be the case here, but as we had basically all women as suspected group, that feels like a stretch.) Or if there was a danger of discovery (which I don't really see here).

To underestimate Sherlock is just stupid. I can only imagine she thought he would be more impressed by the ghost part of the story, and therefore be more affected and less effective in his deductions. But Watson writes stories about him in Strand Magazine, everybody knows how good he is - why take that risk? Or rather, why take that risk if discovery means risking the success of a plan which already involved big sacrifices and is meant to run for a long time yet. I cannot see that either, or at least I would expect the other women to be very pissed off about it. (Which raises the question: did the group plan to send Lady Carmichael to Sherlock, or was it her own decision?)

I find Liberty's answer most convincing (he just "consults himself" to solve the case in his head more easily), but - then I still don't get answers. Then I'm just stuck in his mind again (yeah I know). Bit frustrating.

About Mary: I think Sherlock finally acknowledges her cleverness in the mind palace. Doesn't mean he approves. And also Mycroft acknowledges her cleverness, even asking her for an opinion (even if it's in a mocking way). What I find interesting that it's Sherlock who follows Mary to make sure she's alright (he mentions danger), and John is totally unconcerned. Because before we had Mary, who was terribly concerned about John - she went to Sherlock to get help to save John. And Sherlock freely offers his help to John to help Mary in TAB, and he just shrugs. He doesn't look worried even. I don't know what that says about Sherlock's view on their marriage. That Mary is actually the committed one here?

Last edited by Whisky (January 28, 2016 4:14 pm)

nakahara · January 28, 2016 7:08 pm

Well, if we take TAB for what it really was, then we can dismiss the case as Sherlock´s conjuration altogether... nothing of the case actually happened, it was all halucination, so the bat flying around the castle could be a murderer as well as Lady Carmichael - everything is possible in a dream.

Therefore, story-wise, we must ignore this fact at take the case at face value...

Lady Carmichael probably really engaged Sherlock out of "pure swank". If ACD´s character could be so bold and self-assured, then why not Moftiss´s? (And Agatha Christie had similar plot in "ABC Murders", so it´s not a unique occassion in detective stories).

Of course, in reality, the Lady would simply poison her husband with arsenic and wouldn´t bother with elaborate bride nonsense... but Sherlock is hardly a realistic show of that kind.

besleybean · January 28, 2016 8:37 pm

Indeed.
Clever.

nakahara · January 28, 2016 8:38 pm

Swanpride wrote:
She might not have engaged Sherlock but a random detective who was less competent that him and therefore more easily to fool - plus, would provide an independent testimony. Let's be honest here if her husband had simply died the police might have jumped to the right conclusion, talk about a ghost bride or not. But if there is a witness who sais that she was worried about her husband and tried to get protection for him, well, way less obvious that she is the murderer, right?

I agree with you absolutely.
As to why she engaged Sherlock and no other detective... maybe she thought he is not that compenent in reality? Victorian Molly Hooper (who in MP is Lady´s accomplice) seemed to hate Sherlock... maybe she informed the Lady that Sherlock is just a stupid drug-addict and that he will be fooled easily?

Last edited by nakahara (January 28, 2016 8:39 pm)

Schmiezi · January 28, 2016 8:54 pm

Swanpride wrote:
She might not have engaged Sherlock but a random detective who was less competent that him and therefore more easily to fool - plus, would provide an independent testimony. Let's be honest here if her husband had simply died the police might have jumped to the right conclusion, talk about a ghost bride or not. But if there is a witness who sais that she was worried about her husband and tried to get protection for him, well, way less obvious that she is the murderer, right?

Well, it all takes place in Sherlock's mind. Why would he imagine her to engage someone else?