BBC Sherlock Fan Forum - Serving Sherlockians since February 2012 » What is Moriarty really up to?

Aurora · May 27, 2012 12:07 pm

Hi,

So addicted to Sherlock! It’s wonderfully clever and really gets the brain fired up. I’ve been thinking about it a lot over the last couple of months and I’m wondering if Moriarty’s plan was even more cunning than at first appears… It’s becoming far too much of an obsession (work is suffering) so I thought I’d put my ideas out there and see if anyone else thinks there might be something to them. It’s a big idea and very complex so please be patient with me… I’ve tried to be as concise as possible.

There are three things which really stand out to me:

1) IOU

Lots of people have been talking about this and trying to work out what its clever double meaning might be. What’s bothering me, though, is the straightforward interpretation. We all assume that Sherlock has been ruining Moriarty’s plans and he wants to pay him back but, when you think about it, how much of this have we really seen? Most of the interactions between the two were instigated by Moriarty when he was playing games (A Study in Pink, The Great Game). I can only think of two things we have seen Sherlock do outside of these games which we know impacted on Moriarty: interpret the terrorist bomb email and help him advertise at the trial. Both of these were big wins for Moriarty – I can’t help thinking that Moriarty owes Sherlock a payment more than a payback.

2) Staying Alive

On the rooftop Moriarty makes it clear the final problem is "Staying Alive" . It could be he’s so bored with life he’s become depressed and suicidal, he could have some terminal illness (like the cabby) or maybe he’s so chaotic that the idea of blowing his brains out is becoming an irresistible temptation. Regardless, it seems like he thinks his death is near.

3) Looking at the outcome from another point of view

"Richard Brook" has been on a mission to convince everyone that "Moriarty" was Sherlock’s creation. To the police and all law abiding citizens this makes him look like a nutter who hurts innocent people so he can be a hero. There is another group of people, though, who know that Moriarty Inc is very real and very effective. Have they been forewarned, or is Moriarty also alleging to them (both employees and clients) that it is Sherlock who is the brains behind the whole outfit? YMMV on whether they would believe it or not, but it does set up the possibility that Sherlock could walk into Moriarty Inc. claiming that everything "Richard Brook" said was true and try to take over. Then, being the good guy we all know he really is, he could systematically set about pulling apart the organisation and all its clients from the inside. Did Moriarty made a fatal mistake? Or maybe he didn’t…

Then my mind exploded…

Then I went and looked at everything again from the beginning…

You’ve got to remember that we know Sherlock is a hero because… well… this is TV and the show’s called Sherlock so he must be. If we’ve read the books, we’re even more certain. Moriarty doesn’t have any of these clues, though. All he can know is what he sees: a very intelligent man with little respect for anyone else, someone who is interested in crime and gets bored without a challenge. Kind of like him…

He wants to know more so he sets up the cabbie. (The cabbie says Sherlock’s "fan" told him about the website and paid him to set up the deaths.) The whole point of the exercise seems to be to make Sherlock aware of Moriarty. The cabbie says he’s not going to say the name, but he puts the idea of a fan out like a lure. Moriarty had no need to tell the cabbie his name in the first place unless he wanted him to pass it on. It’s interesting that right from the start we have a dying man wanting to leave a legacy. The cabbie wants to look after his children – I doubt Moriarty has any kids but he does have a baby… his organisation. Could it be that right from the start Moriarty is trying to find a way to make sure his baby is looked after it after he’s gone?

I can’t glean much from The Blind Banker – it all seems to have been instigated by Shan rather than Moriarty – so on to The Great Game.

Moriarty says he wants to watch Sherlock dance – is it just for amusement or does he also want to find out more about Sherlock’s character and motivation? The first "conversation" between Moriarty and Sherlock (via the woman) almost sounds like flirting… We can be pretty sure that "Jim from IT" will have set up a hidden camera and microphone in the lab (and possibly also the "morgue" if it doesn’t already have CCTV) so he can watch the "dance" . What does he see? That Sherlock doesn’t care about random strangers: Oh, she doesn’t matter, she’s just a hostage, no lead there. and: John: Try and remember there’s a woman who might die. Sherlock: What for? There’s hospitals full of people dying, Doctor. Why don’t you go and cry by their bedside and see what good it does them? He also doesn’t care about patriotism or national security: Missile plans are out of the country now. Nothing we can do about it. The only thing that matters is the distraction from the boredom of life: The only mystery is this, why’s my brother so determined to bore me when somebody else is being so delightfully interesting? He also saw some pretty satanic looking grins… Conclusion: Sherlock is pretty much amoral… When you think about it, he really could make a good candidate for a criminal mastermind…

Then we have the climax. Moriarty admits he’s been showing off to Sherlock about the extent and complexity (and ruthlessness) of his empire. He tells Sherlock to back off. A coward would do so and Moriarty wouldn’t have to bother about him anymore. A brave man or a ruthless man would push on – that kind of man has potential… Moriarty does say he’ll kill him someday – it’s certainly still on the cards – but not yet. Could he be waiting to see whether Sherlock has the potential to shape up into Moriarty MK2? Of course, Moriarty recognises that Sherlock does have some heart – he’ll need to burn that out of him first… Maybe the concern Sherlock showed for John after Moriarty left the first time changed Moriarty’s mind and he decided he would have to kill him then – then Irene interrupted with a better offer.

Interesting to speculate about the relationship between Moriarty and Irene. She does say she "knows what [the man who keeps the medical records] likes" . Could "Jim from IT" have been a client? Certainly they had a lot of common goals and found each other useful in achieving them. What does Moriarty get out of A Scandal in Bohemia? Yes, he foils the anti-terrorism plans but I think he’s also trying to push a wedge between Sherlock and Mycroft. Mycroft is a very powerful figure but also very focussed on "the good of the nation" . He needs to be got out of the way but, if Sherlock is right about how important he is, he will be too highly protected to assassinate. Moriarty needs to manufacture a serious estrangement between them to free up Sherlock for his purposes. Irene seems to be a perfect catalyst for this. Mycroft first orders Sherlock to investigate her then orders him to stay away. Sherlock resents this. Sherlock reveals the email contents and thus screws up Mycroft’s plans. Mycroft is angry, does he also now trust Sherlock less? This continues in The Hounds of Baskerville where Moriarty tricks Mycroft into betraying Sherlock’s life history. In The Reichenbach Fall it appears that they are no longer talking to each other. Phase 1 (apparently) accomplished.

On to Phase 2. Moriarty sets up the 3 big break-ins, the capture, the trial and release then he goes to meet Sherlock. After a bit of taunting ("side of the angels" , "final problem" ) and implanting the "key code" , Moriarty starts bragging about his success – he can get into any bank account (infinite money), discover any secret, blow up whatever he wants (infinite power) and everyone wants him (infinite fame). Then he reveals the first IOU – the apple. "Do you find this tempting?"

Next comes the kidnapping, the exposé and IOU number 2: "lights out on your career" . The police don’t trust him = no more special relationship, no more being asked to help out on the interesting cases. The public don’t trust him = no private cases either. With such a distinctive face and being easily recognisable, he would have little chance of getting any kind of job that required any intelligence or trust. No work, no reputation, nothing to look forward to but eternal boredom.

And finally, IOU number 3: "the fallen angel" . With one hand Moriarty has taken away everything Sherlock lives for and with the other he offers him everything he could possibly want. (Or so he thinks.) But there is a price to pay: Oh, just kill yourself…. Your friends will die if you don’t. To a normal person it doesn’t sound like a choice, but think what would Moriarty do in that position? John, Mrs Hudson and Lestrade are all good people who are influencing Sherlock in the right direction. If Sherlock is to be Moriarty’s successor, they have to go. And from Moriarty’s point of view, what better way to do it than have Sherlock to commit ultimate act of evil – the absolute fall from saint to sinner – betray his friends to their death and burn out his own heart in the process. In one act both proving himself worthy and stepping past the point of no return.

So, is this idea too crazy even for Moriarty? One advantage it has is that it allows some sense to be made of the very cryptic conversation on the roof. Moriarty starts by probing to see how much Sherlock has worked out. Initially it looks good but then Sherlock seems to have fallen for the key code ploy – he thinks he can undo everything and life can go back to normal. What a let-down. Moriarty brings out his trump card: suicide or betrayal. He also puts out another lure: Your death is the only thing that’s gonna call off the killers. I’m certainly not gonna do it. Sherlock seems to give in and asks for privacy – Moriarty is so disappointed. And then Sherlock starts playing too. And he says exactly what Moriarty wants to hear: I am you – prepared to do anything; prepared to burn; prepared to do what ordinary people won’t do. You want me to shake hands with you in hell? I shall not disappoint you. Moriarty is cautious: Naah. You talk big. Naah. You’re ordinary. You’re ordinary – you’re on the side of the angels. Sherlock: Oh, I may be on the side of the angels, but don’t think for one sssecond that I am one of them. Did you notice that?! Sherlock/Benedict of the perfect diction slurs the start of a word. And Moriarty echoes it straight back to him: I see. You’re not ordinary. No. You’re me. Hissss. You’re me! Sherlock is saying: "I see your temptation, O serpent, and I will take it… I will burn… I will join you in hell." And Moriarty falls for it. He is overjoyed. He has his "happy ending" . The fairytale villain can die but his empire will live happily (evilly) ever after. It doesn’t really matter whether Sherlock at this point intends to nurture or destroy Moriarty Inc – if he still has any "good" tendencies, Moriarty is sure it wont take long for the empire to suck him in and consume him. He’s so delighted he wants to hug Sherlock but instead settles for shaking his hand – the deal is concluded. Moriarty can finally indulge his longing for suicide – and in doing so ensure Sherlock has no option but to pay the price. I’m certain he would be absolutely shocked and horrified if he could have known that Sherlock really did go ahead and jump.

The only problem is how could Sherlock possibly get into Moriarty Inc.? But we’ve already been told there is a key that can break into every system... finalproblem discusses the binary code and concludes it simply converts into a short string of random characters – a string that looks remarkably like a good quality password. Together with Moriarty’s phone the possibilities are endless…

So, does anyone think there might just be a shred of truth in any of this? Or is even Moriarty not that crazy? Please be gentle, even if you do think it’s complete rubbish.

Thanks for having the patience to listen.

Last edited by Aurora (May 27, 2012 12:10 pm)

Longsnowsmoon · May 27, 2012 3:16 pm

Aurora, I really like this. I'm not a careful reader, so won't comment point by point, but... Your question and musings are great! We get so tangled in seeing things from John's perspective. But if the writing is good, (and I think it is) then each character has a valid, coherent view, and their actions make sense to them (even if another character, or we the audience, misinterpret).

Jim certainly does seem to be testing Sherlock. He sees himself, then is disappointed, then is encouraged again. Like a professor with a student. And certainly he sees that, in addition to destroying Sherlock's reputation, he needs to burn away any bit of humanity/sanity Sherlock may be harboring. What will remain? A creation in Jim's image. So very good- although he encourages Sherlock to jump, doesn't he always say it in a bored manner, as if Sherlock's suicide would be a disappointment? (sorry, I'll have to back and watch the darn thing AGAIN.). What WE see is Jim telling Sherlock to jump, because that's what we think is the right thing to do in that impossible situation. What Jim is really asking Sherlock to do is discard those little bits of humanity, let his friends die, and STAY ALIVE.

Sorry, I think I'm just repeating most of what you already said in this great post! Consider it a compliment, please. Thanks!

Last edited by Longsnowsmoon (May 27, 2012 4:33 pm)

m0r1arty · May 27, 2012 4:28 pm

Hi Aurora and welcome to the boards.

Once I reached the time segmentation part of your post which indicates how Sherlock and Mycroft's relationship had splintered to the point of no direct contact starting at the end of 'A Scandal in Belgravia' and throughout 'The Reichenbach Fall' (There have been hints that John's blog doesn't necessarily reflect the true sequence of events - so 'Hounds of the Baskerville' could be during 'Scandal') it started to make a lot of sense to my mind.

If Sherlock were a genuine blight on his daily crimelordery Moriarty could easily have had him killed, but never under Moriarty's direct commanding does he ever go through with it on Sherlock. He's assumed to have sponsored the cabbie, assisted the Black Lotus Tong, been the focus of 'The Great Game', aided Irene, within Mycroft's ward during 'Hounds' and again the focus of 'Fall' but never once threatens Sherlock's life with anything other than Sherlock being the hand that ends it.

So killing him certainly doesn't appear to be his motivation. Why Mycroft led him go free does ring some bells with me though - perhaps Sherlock's big brother would like Sherlock to run the 'criminal' aspect of society thereby ensuring that 'security' is maintained properly.

It was certainly an entertaining and thought provoking opening post Aurora and one which I will come back to once I've digested all the potential connotations within this warped understanding of the show I have.

Glad to have you on board!

-m0r

Aurora · May 28, 2012 4:47 am

Hi Longsnowsmoon and m0r1arty, thanks for the welcome and the encouragement. So glad you both think there could be something in this.

Longsnowsmoon, I agree we tend to look at things from John's point of view. He's definitely the most normal of the characters and therefore the easiest to understand. Sherlock is exceptional in so many senses of the word. Outstanding intellect but also doesn't fit in with our expectations for a "normal" person (lack of compassion, doesn't care about being polite or courteous, asexual, often doesn't seem to quite get what is acceptable). He's also very guarded. It all makes it very hard to work out what's going on in his head. Moriarty is nuts which also makes him hard to predict. He does seem to be instigating most of the plot, though, and Sherlock is responding to it and trying to outwit him. That's why I think it's essential to understand what Moriarty is trying to do - if Sherlock has worked it out then it helps us understand what he's up to too.

m0r1arty, I definitely think Mycroft and Sherlock are up to something. I found it very interesting to compare their interactions with each other when they were alone to when others were present. They seem to get along so much better when noone else is there. I find it hard to describe, they seem somehow strong together when they are alone. Particularly in the "morgue" but even in the plane scene - Mycroft is angry and dissapointed but... his criticism is more like telling Sherlock the hard truth because he needs to wake up to it rather than being nasty for the sake of being nasty. Whenever someone else is there (possibly excepting Irene) they are both constantly throwing nasty acid barbs at each other. It looks like a bad case of sibling rivalry and they never grew up and got over it. Is it all just an act?

Davina · May 28, 2012 7:14 am

I am intrigued by your analysis. I too think there is something afoot between Mycroft and Sherlock. I think back to how Irene tells them that Moriarty has told her how to play The Holmes Boys. It is equally possible, indeed probable, that The Holmes Boys, both very high-functioning, know how to play Moriarty. One thing Mycroft is good at, I think, is 'the long game'. Sherlock is great at tiny details. They both, actually, complement each other perfectly. I also agree with the sibling rivallry it is more acute in company.

The view is very much John's throughout, that is canon after all. Certainly from Moriarty's viewpoint your ideas make sense. I am still pondering on how mad he really is. Insane? Maybe. High functioning? Definitely. Illogical? Doubt it.

kazza474 · May 28, 2012 8:25 am

Oh dear I love a challenge.

Ok
First up, that is one mega post & you will probably find many points are overlooked by others, but I'll start dissecting it,lol. Now please do not make the mistake of thinking I am telling you what is fact, because none of us know many facts about this. But you will see by my words that some things I believe in 100%, so I am not going to say 'perhaps.. blah blah" I will however say " "Its obvious blah blah". That's the way I debate things, if I don't believe it I won't say it.

1) IOU

Lots of people have been talking about this and trying to work out what its clever double meaning might be. What’s bothering me, though, is the straightforward interpretation. We all assume that Sherlock has been ruining Moriarty’s plans and he wants to pay him back but, when you think about it, how much of this have we really seen? Most of the interactions between the two were instigated by Moriarty when he was playing games (A Study in Pink, The Great Game). I can only think of two things we have seen Sherlock do outside of these games which we know impacted on Moriarty: interpret the terrorist bomb email and help him advertise at the trial. Both of these were big wins for Moriarty – I can’t help thinking that Moriarty owes Sherlock a payment more than a payback.

IOU is said by Moriarty very slowly, very distinctly. It is a threat, pure & simple. Delivered dramatically by by word of mouth & by images in unusual places that seem to haunt Sherlock through the show. There is no hidden meaning to it.
It is repeated throughout by an insane man; and Moriarty is insane. And that's what insane people do!
And certainly Moriarty DOES owe Sherlock as any consulting criminal can tell you if you are thwarted by some detective you look bad to your future customers.
Successes? While the Coventry thing was a mistake by Sherlock and hence a win, the court case certainly held no win factor. Advertising? I don't think it was much of a success, Moriarty had to use a new ruse of being someone else straight after it. If it were a success, Moriarty would have been a very busy consulting criminal.

kazza474 · May 28, 2012 8:32 am

2) Staying Alive

On the rooftop Moriarty makes it clear the final problem is "Staying Alive" . It could be he’s so bored with life he’s become depressed and suicidal, he could have some terminal illness (like the cabby) or maybe he’s so chaotic that the idea of blowing his brains out is becoming an irresistible temptation. Regardless, it seems like he thinks his death is near.

*looks blank faced*
Oh, no no no no.

The final problem is that Moriarty & Sherlock cannot both function; they are in each other's way & something has to give.
This always was & always will be The Final Problem. Staying Alive is a song, nothing more.
Moriarty is insane, not suicidal. However suicide or more to the point, disregard for life is common with insane people. We've witnessed Moriarty do ludicrous things & manipulate bad happenings. That's not the work of a sane person by any means.
His decision to end his life was just the next move in his game with Sherlock. Unfortunately for him he didn't ponder the consequences long enough.

Whenever you wonder why Moriarty does or says anything, first remember 'he's insane'. It's one of the only truthful lines spoken on the rooftop.

kazza474 · May 28, 2012 8:39 am

3) Looking at the outcome from another point of view

"Richard Brook" has been on a mission to convince everyone that "Moriarty" was Sherlock’s creation. To the police and all law abiding citizens this makes him look like a nutter who hurts innocent people so he can be a hero. There is another group of people, though, who know that Moriarty Inc is very real and very effective. Have they been forewarned, or is Moriarty also alleging to them (both employees and clients) that it is Sherlock who is the brains behind the whole outfit? YMMV on whether they would believe it or not, but it does set up the possibility that Sherlock could walk into Moriarty Inc. claiming that everything "Richard Brook" said was true and try to take over. Then, being the good guy we all know he really is, he could systematically set about pulling apart the organisation and all its clients from the inside. Did Moriarty made a fatal mistake? Or maybe he didn't…

I doubt very much any of the criminal element would ever believe the story, in fact 'Mr Insanity' would have gloated about what he was about to do with the whole 'Rich Brook' thing to build his image up with his clients, etc.
Also, we know that Moran for example tries to get revenge later on, so that kind of storyline would be too far away from the original that it couldn't be pulled back.
Interesting idea but I can't see it happening. Let's face it, it would make for a quick end to BBC Sherlock; he'd have nothing to do.

kazza474 · May 28, 2012 8:48 am

You’ve got to remember that we know Sherlock is a hero because… well… this is TV and the show’s called Sherlock so he must be. If we’ve read the books, we’re even more certain. Moriarty doesn’t have any of these clues, though. All he can know is what he sees: a very intelligent man with little respect for anyone else, someone who is interested in crime and gets bored without a challenge. Kind of like him…

He wants to know more so he sets up the cabbie. (The cabbie says Sherlock’s "fan" told him about the website and paid him to set up the deaths.) The whole point of the exercise seems to be to make Sherlock aware of Moriarty. The cabbie says he’s not going to say the name, but he puts the idea of a fan out like a lure. Moriarty had no need to tell the cabbie his name in the first place unless he wanted him to pass it on. It’s interesting that right from the start we have a dying man wanting to leave a legacy. The cabbie wants to look after his children – I doubt Moriarty has any kids but he does have a baby… his organisation. Could it be that right from the start Moriarty is trying to find a way to make sure his baby is looked after it after he’s gone?

We can't say that Sherlock has little respect for others, if that were the case why would he bother solving puzzles; nor do I think he has an interest in crimes specifically but the best puzzles do seem to stem from crimes. I mean after all, he does have the 243 different types of tobacco ash to ponder.

I believe the point of the poisonings was twofold. Mostly it was to be in control of a hideous set of crimes without getting his hands dirty. This would be a great advertisement for any consulting criminal. Secondly yes it was to get Sherlock's attention.

And again, Mr Insanity wouldn't be looking to the future or pondering what happens after he dies. He lives for 'the now' & nothing more. Frankly he places no value in life, so why should he care?
Nup, planning for the future is not in the handbook of the criminally insane.

kazza474 · May 28, 2012 8:56 am

Moriarty says he wants to watch Sherlock dance – is it just for amusement or does he also want to find out more about Sherlock’s character and motivation?

He wants to control Sherlock. Pure & simple it is all for control, as that (he believes) is the ultimate power.

I don't think you will find cameras placed in the morgue/lab etc because Sherlock took the calls in very random places. It would be hit & miss as to where he would be when he reacted to anything. It would also be too risky if they were discovered; too many ways that those items could lead an investigation back to Moriarty before his 5 games were up.

Sherlock has always (in the original) been portrayed as having the mind similar to a master criminal. That has been the attraction with the character all along, one turn the wrong way & he'd be a dangerous criminal indeed. This is what makes him stand out from the crowd, the fact that he COULD take the more 'lucrative' pathway & be a master criminal but lucky for society he chooses the side of the angels.

kazza474 · May 28, 2012 9:13 am

Interesting to speculate about the relationship between Moriarty and Irene. She does say she "knows what [the man who keeps the medical records] likes" . Could "Jim from IT" have been a client? Certainly they had a lot of common goals and found each other useful in achieving them. What does Moriarty get out of A Scandal in Bohemia? Yes, he foils the anti-terrorism plans but I think he’s also trying to push a wedge between Sherlock and Mycroft. Mycroft is a very powerful figure but also very focussed on "the good of the nation" . He needs to be got out of the way but, if Sherlock is right about how important he is, he will be too highly protected to assassinate. Moriarty needs to manufacture a serious estrangement between them to free up Sherlock for his purposes. Irene seems to be a perfect catalyst for this. Mycroft first orders Sherlock to investigate her then orders him to stay away. Sherlock resents this. Sherlock reveals the email contents and thus screws up Mycroft’s plans. Mycroft is angry, does he also now trust Sherlock less? This continues in The Hounds of Baskerville where Moriarty tricks Mycroft into betraying Sherlock’s life history. In The Reichenbach Fall it appears that they are no longer talking to each other. Phase 1 (apparently) accomplished.

Irene only had one goal. Through her work as a dominatrix, she acquired quite a lot of sensitive information from various sources. She kept these 'for security' but it was only when she had something on a Royal that she made a move. This hopefully points out one factor in what kind of information she has. Obviously many of the other evidence she's collected is somewhat 'ageless' but the royal scandal would be something that needed to be used straight away. 'Royals' get older & proof gets dimmer; eg frankly if William was suddenly in the middle of a 'playboy prince @ 20 has affair with homosexual lover' who would care now? Who would believe it now? However at the time, it would have been devastating.
I doubt 'Jim' was a client; do you really think he'd risk it? No, just a client & consultant relationship for those 2. I'm actually disappointed that Moftiss put those 2 villains working together at all. Both would have been fine without the other.

Nor do I think Moriarty tried to specifically put a wedge between Mycroft & his brother. More to the fact, he was simply trying to control as many people as possible, regardless who they are.
The brothers have always had an outwardly tenuous relationship; not even Moriarty could influence that. Both of the brothers obviously value their relationship, not matter how 'strained & unorthodox' it appears to others.

kazza474 · May 28, 2012 9:31 am

On to Phase 2. Moriarty sets up the 3 big break-ins, the capture, the trial and release then he goes to meet Sherlock. After a bit of taunting ("side of the angels" , "final problem" ) and implanting the "key code" , Moriarty starts bragging about his success – he can get into any bank account (infinite money), discover any secret, blow up whatever he wants (infinite power) and everyone wants him (infinite fame). Then he reveals the first IOU – the apple. "Do you find this tempting?"

Next comes the kidnapping, the exposé and IOU number 2: "lights out on your career" . The police don’t trust him = no more special relationship, no more being asked to help out on the interesting cases. The public don’t trust him = no private cases either. With such a distinctive face and being easily recognisable, he would have little chance of getting any kind of job that required any intelligence or trust. No work, no reputation, nothing to look forward to but eternal boredom.

And finally, IOU number 3: "the fallen angel" . With one hand Moriarty has taken away everything Sherlock lives for and with the other he offers him everything he could possibly want. (Or so he thinks.) But there is a price to pay: Oh, just kill yourself…. Your friends will die if you don’t. To a normal person it doesn’t sound like a choice, but think what would Moriarty do in that position? John, Mrs Hudson and Lestrade are all good people who are influencing Sherlock in the right direction. If Sherlock is to be Moriarty’s successor, they have to go. And from Moriarty’s point of view, what better way to do it than have Sherlock to commit ultimate act of evil – the absolute fall from saint to sinner – betray his friends to their death and burn out his own heart in the process. In one act both proving himself worthy and stepping past the point of no return.

I don't think he had taken away 'all that Sherlock lives for' at all. Interesting that you have used the 'apple tempting' reference from the Bible, seems to be a common theme of late. I'm not convinced either men could give a hoot about biblical things.
Moriarty talks big at the tea party, but there is no proof in anything he says. He is a madman talking himself up to goad Sherlock. In his mind, he's done this great advertising campaign, but I don't see anyone rushing to him for help or to help him or cheer him on.
As far as the police are concerned, Sherlock is not concerned with what they think. Nor what anyone else thinks. Yes, he would have to build his reputation up again, but that would be a delicious puzzle for him & one that would occupy him for some time to come.

Now what would the point be to offer Sherlock a chance to be on the same side as Moriarty & then tell him he had to kill himself to get there? I know in my mind Moriarty is insane, but you're not & yet you are saying this is his plan? It makes no sense at all.

Moriarty just systematically tried to control every part of Sherlock's life to the stage that he wanted to control his death. Now THAT would be the best advertising he could get.
However he was continually thwarted in his attempts to do so. So he changed his plan, he changed his story. There was no proof that the 3 men with guns would shoot anyone unless Sherlock jumped.They may have been just set up to kill on command if need be. It was only Moriarty's words that suggested what the trigger would be. They were simply his safeguards if the plan to even get Sherlock alone on the roof failed.
so many assumptions are made on Moriarty's word. More than likely, considering he's insane, most of those words were lies.

When Moriarty had no other moves left, he made one final 'hail Mary' move; one that he believed Sherlock would not be able to counter attack.

Finally, once again do not take my posts as attacks. You have thought through many things & have opened up many possibilities which I welcome as I am tired of reading the same old theories re-hashed!

Thanks for giving me a new aspect with which to view the shows, which I sahll do very soon.

OHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH
And welcome to the forum.
I am the shy retiring old granny who sits in the corner knitting and listening.

Aurora · May 28, 2012 10:34 am

Hi Davina, thanks for your response. Just checking, are you saying that this would be an illogical thing for Moriarty to do or just that he wouldn't do something that is illogical?

kazza474 · May 28, 2012 10:52 am

m0r1arty wrote:
Hi Aurora and welcome to the boards.

Once I reached the time segmentation part of your post which indicates how Sherlock and Mycroft's relationship had splintered to the point of no direct contact starting at the end of 'A Scandal in Belgravia' and throughout 'The Reichenbach Fall' (There have been hints that John's blog doesn't necessarily reflect the true sequence of events - so 'Hounds of the Baskerville' could be during 'Scandal') it started to make a lot of sense to my mind.

If Sherlock were a genuine blight on his daily crimelordery Moriarty could easily have had him killed, but never under Moriarty's direct commanding does he ever go through with it on Sherlock. He's assumed to have sponsored the cabbie, assisted the Black Lotus Tong, been the focus of 'The Great Game', aided Irene, within Mycroft's ward during 'Hounds' and again the focus of 'Fall' but never once threatens Sherlock's life with anything other than Sherlock being the hand that ends it.

So killing him certainly doesn't appear to be his motivation. Why Mycroft led him go free does ring some bells with me though - perhaps Sherlock's big brother would like Sherlock to run the 'criminal' aspect of society thereby ensuring that 'security' is maintained properly.

It was certainly an entertaining and thought provoking opening post Aurora and one which I will come back to once I've digested all the potential connotations within this warped understanding of the show I have.

Glad to have you on board!

-m0r

m0r, have you considered Moriarty's 'games' with Sherlock as being a way to show to the criminal world how he can control Sherlock by being led in a certain direction with a sprinkling of clues?
If so, he certainly wouldn't want to just kill Sherlock, how boring. He wants to use him as his pawn; show off to his clients.

Also I believe 'plan' between Mycroft & Sherlock to be that they were encouraging the insane Moriarty to over inflate his ego & this eventually led to his self destruction.

Davina · May 28, 2012 11:04 am

I think Moriarty is, as far as he sees it, logical. I also feel that the reference to a 'game of chess' way back in A Study in Pink is relevant. He is trying to 'play' Sherlock and Sherlock is fully aware of that. He says he is not prepared to play the game at one stage. At other points Moriarty does things deliberately to get Sherlock's attention.

Both Moriarty and Sherlock know that Moriarty is at the centre of that 'vast criminal web'. In the courtroom Sherlock actually flatters Moriarty, it might not look like it to us but that is what he is doing. Moriarty likes being compared to a spider because spiders are brilliant at weaving webs, and catching prey and devouring them. Moriarty nods and smiles whilst Sherlock describes him, he does not look in the least bit affronted.

The only thing that is a niggling doubt about Moriarty's complete insanity it that in the rooftop scene he readily acknowledges the truth of this. Criminally insane people usually cannot acknowledge that they are, in fact, insane. Usually their self-image is that they are simply brilliant and the rest of the world is stupid. Although, to be fair, Moriarty does say this to Sherlock.

In my opinion one of Moriarty's weaknesses lies in his conceit and his love of power. The other is that he has a low boredom threshold. He says that Sherlock and he need each other but he still believes himself to be superior to Sherlock.

What Sherlock, and perhaps Mycroft, make him do is to break his own normal MO which is to not get directly involved, to keep his own hands clean. I see it that he actually gets trapped in the web of his own making. I do not believe that Moriarty is hoping Sherlock will take over the organisation once he has gone but I am not sure that Sherlock will not have planned to infiltrate it and destroy it thereafter. That would follow the original although Moriarty dies in the original after the organisation is pretty much destroyed. Thinking again, following that premise, perhaps, in Moriarty's eyes in the series, the organisation may be practically dead by the time they meet on the roof.

One other thought which keeps niggling me which I suppose I might as well post here as elsewhere is...why did Moriarty bring a loaded pistol with him to the roof?

This is bit rambling I'm afraid. What do you think?

Aurora · May 28, 2012 12:03 pm

Hi Kazza, thanks to you too for looking through this and for all the work you've put into your detailed response. However, it looks like you've dropped your gauntlet so I'll try picking it up for you.

(Sorry about the delay in responding - I got this far and got called away. May not have time to comment on everything tonight but I will get back to you eventually.)

It looks like there's an awful lot that we don't agree on. I think it basically comes down to us having totally different readings on what Moriarty is really like. Hence, the words I think are lies or "just talk" are the ones you take seriously and vice versa. For instance, you said you thought Moriarty agreeing he was insane was one of the only truthful things he said on the rooftop. I think it comes into the same category as Sherlock saying he is a sociopath and Irene saying she's gay: there are elements of truth there and it may appear to be true on the surface, but the reality is much more complex - more than anything, though, all of these were just a really good comeback lines to whatever the last person said.

Maybe I'm too heavily influenced by the Moriarty of the book, but I see him primarily as a criminal mastermind. As Sherlock says: a spider at the centre of a vast criminal web and he knows how every thread moves. A strategist and manipulator, charismatic and cunning with a network of people willing to obey his commands through both respect and fear. I can't see that he could have developed a criminal network of this magnitude unless the organisation was highly structured and controlled - how else could it have kept secret and survived for so long? How could he have developed his reputation and client base if he wasn't able to consistently deliver the results his clients wanted? He presents (at least to Sherlock) as being loopy but I think that is more than anything an act that he puts on because it appears scary (and he wants to create fear) and it's also great fun to do. To me his insanity lies in that he sees the conventions and structures of society and the wellbeing of people as irrelevant (boring). Crime is interesting because drives the boring ordinary people out of their comfort zones and it's fun to watch them panic. As a hobby or for amusement I think he does enjoy creating chaos and watching the world burn. To have created this web of crime, though, I think he must also have the ability to consistently be cold and calculating and businesslike.

Thinking about it some more, perhaps he is descending into madness. Initially he must have been pretty much sane to set up his empire, but he's slowly becoming more unstable and chaotic. If that's the case, the question is how far has he gone and how aware is he of it? So, my theory would say he is aware of it and is still able to make plans so he can "stay alive" even after he dies/completely loses it. Kazza, I think you are saying that he's already gone completely insane and is acting on impulse to create confusion and chaos and distress wherever he sees an opportunity. Would this be fair? As Davina suggested, possibly the organisation has been falling apart as Moriarty has been losing his grip on sanity and it's now reached the point of almost being destroyed anyway.

With all of these possibilities, there is the additional factor of whether Sherlock is pushing him along this path to madness and the collapse of Moriarty Inc.?

As I feared, I've run out of time and I'll have to respond to the rest tomorrow. Some of this might not have been 100% thought out - I might add more in the morning. [Now edited to explain what I'm thinking more clearly.]

Thanks for the welcome too.

Last edited by Aurora (May 29, 2012 4:09 am)

m0r1arty · May 28, 2012 3:11 pm

To my mind trying to ascertain insanity in either Moriarty or Sherlock is akin to faith in a creator or atheism - there is no way to be sure.

I suppose that boils down to my semantic pedantry; what is insane?

For Moriarty to pull the trigger on a gun he'd purposefully brought with him and for the bullet to not hit Sherlock...well, it seems very Catholic to me.

-m0r

kazza474 · May 29, 2012 1:57 am

For instance, you said you thought Moriarty agreeing he was insane was one of the only truthful things he said on the rooftop.

Ah see, what I said was "It's one of the only truthful lines spoken on the rooftop."
The line was actually " You're insane" & said by Sherlock.
Moriarty replied " you're just getting that now?"

He wasn't the one saying he was insane, just agreeing with Sherlock's assessment.
Now that is something an insane person could likely do; I agree they don't just come out & say " Oh I am insane".

Insanity takes many forms. Even the canon Moriarty was insane. And yet, yes both are in their own way of genius intellect.
But genius does not always equate with common sense and rationality. This is even true with Sherlock.
History is riddled with insane geniuses; many of them controlling very complex issues.
How complex was Moriarty's network? Who knows in this case? After all we are seeing a Sherlock who is still developing, so what stage was Moriarty at in his development?

Yes m0r, to some extent it will now be hard to tell for sure how insane Moriarty was. We still have Sherlock to diagnose however, lol.

Aurora · May 29, 2012 4:21 am

Hi again Kazza,

I've now fixed up my previous post - on to addressing the rest of your questions.

kazza474 wrote:
And certainly Moriarty DOES owe Sherlock as any consulting criminal can tell you if you are thwarted by some detective you look bad to your future customers.

But where have we seen Moriarty being thwarted by Sherlock? Are we just meant to assume it happened? I would have loved to have seen cases where the two were pitting their minds against each other and Sherlock came out on top but they just haven't happened. The best we had was the Great Game but there Moriarty put the cases up as a challenge - he wanted Sherlock to solve them and even sometimes gave him hints.

kazza474 wrote:
Advertising? I don't think it was much of a success, Moriarty had to use a new ruse of being someone else straight after it. If it were a success, Moriarty would have been a very busy consulting criminal.

But that's exactly what Moriarty is claiming: everyone wants him, everyone is competing for his attention, business is booming. Of course he could just be talking it up - boasting but full of hot air. I don't think the Rich Brook thing was a ruse Moriarty needed to use to hide - just another piece in the game he was playing.

Aurora · May 29, 2012 4:38 am

kazza474 wrote:
I doubt very much any of the criminal element would ever believe the story, in fact 'Mr Insanity' would have gloated about what he was about to do with the whole 'Rich Brook' thing to build his image up with his clients, etc.

That's definitely another possibility - it all depends on what pre-warning he gave his clients and employees, if any. What about potential clients, though? How would they know it's all a ruse? If it had been put out in the general criminal community (and to all the rogue governments, etc) word would have made it's way back to Sherlock, Mycroft and the police. The police would be expecting the attack and know it was rubbish. Sherlock and Mycroft could also have set up a counterattack in a reputable newspaper to expose Kitty's terrible journalism. Even if they decided to let it play out to entrap Moriarty, by talking about it beforehand he's revealed his hand.

kazza474 wrote:
Let's face it, it would make for a quick end to BBC Sherlock; he'd have nothing to do.

Not at all. There are other criminals out in the world and many of them would not have been involved with Moriarty. It's the same as in the books. In fact, many of the most interesting cases in the books do not involve major crimes or the need for a consulting criminal. Sometimes there's actually no crime at all.