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

Aurora · May 29, 2012 4:49 am

kazza474 wrote:
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…
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 totally agree with you here. I'm not saying that Sherlock is like this, just that that's how Moriarty might see him. Particularly if that's what he wants to see.

kazza474 wrote:
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.

Also agree with this.

kazza474 wrote:
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.

This I'm more cautious about. Certainly he does do some future planning. For example, even if you take the surface view of the story, he gets Sherlock's life story out of Mycroft to use in the Rich Brook setup to destroy Sherlock's reputation and force him to die in disgrace. That needs some degree of planning.

Aurora · May 29, 2012 5:04 am

kazza474 wrote:
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 agree with this too. It's just a question of what he is trying to control Sherlock to do. Does he just want to drive him to his death or to manipulate and twist him so much that he deserts the "side of the angels" and is recreated in his own image? Which would be the more thrilling challenge?

kazza474 wrote:
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.

Of course he wouldn't get to see everything from a camera in the lab. I also don't think he only wanted to see Sherlock's response to the calls. He wanted to watch Sherlock dance to his tune. The lab is one of the main places where Sherlock does his research and also a place where Jim has easy access. An easy way to at least get to see and hear some of it. In terms of risk, I don't think so. Just put it in the smoke detector (always going to be one of those in a lab) noone will look there until the next time the battery has to be changed. Only chance of it being found is if someone chooses to sweep for bugs. Unlikely. He could even do it officially, claiming it's necessary to put in CCTV to stop chemicals/equipment being nicked for drug manufacture.

kazza474 · May 29, 2012 5:32 am

Moriarty himself says that Sherlock's meddling/investigating is becoming a problem to him.
He stopped the cabbie from further killings, something which Moriarty was sponsoring him for & enjoying the havoc those killings caused. He would have been using his connections to that crime as advertising had it not been for Sherlock stopping the whole thing.
All the puzzles were indeed set by Moriarty to lure Sherlock but you can bet your bottom dollar he used the 'success' of the bombing of the deaf lady as another advertisement also.

Sherlock doesn't have to have had Moriarty arrested or anything to be considered the winner in their 'games', he just has to have stopped what was going on. And he did that.

So indeed he was outsmarting/thwarting Moriarty and that wasn't making Moriarty look good.

And Moriarty's claims of being 'Mr Sex' ? As you say, we only have his word for that. What was his word really worth?

As far as pre-warning clients etc, all Moriarty would have said would be something like " Get the word out, everyone watch how Sherlock is going to be taken down in the public eye" no details. The underworld works on rumours, not open statements. This wouldn't tell even the police etc what was going to happen. And let's face it, Sherlock & Mycroft had known for ages that Moriarty was out to get Sherlock so it was no great surprise.

Having Sherlock infiltrate the criminal network just would not work; which side would trust him? I just think it kills the whole Holmes premise & would be unworkable as being believable in any way.

Getting Sherlock's story from Mycroft was indeed planning, but for the immediate future. Long term planning, just doesn't work for a criminal like him.

I still don't see the point in cameras & mics spying on Sherlock and they would easily be detected without sweeps. General maintenance would eventually reveal them. Unless there was a specific reason to have them there, it's just too 'spy novel' based to have a place in these shows.

You have some interesting ideas, I just see some as too intricate. They'd be better suited to a spy/sci fi movie. How in the world would Moftiss explain all these things AND bring a new story to light in 90 minutes?

Aurora · May 29, 2012 5:43 am

kazza474 wrote:
I don't think he had taken away 'all that Sherlock lives for' at all.

Oh no, I don't either. I'm just saying that that's what he was trying to do. He's identified the things that would be important for him and assumed that Sherlock is the same.

kazza474 wrote:
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.

Again, agree. It's nothing to do with the bible, just a cultural reference in the same way the breadcrumbs are. (There's actually no apple in the bible anyway.) The symbolism is deliberate, though - the writers intend for you to make the connection. The question is whether it's a plot point or just a red herring.

kazza474 wrote:
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.

Yes, Sherlock could well enjoy the challenge of rebuilding his reputation. But what I am talking about is not how we see Sherlock or how Sherlock sees himself but how Moriarty sees Sherlock. This could well be a very long way from the truth, particularly if he really is insane.

kazza474 wrote:
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.

Thanks for the vote of confidence in my sanity.
I don't think Moriarty is really wanting Sherlock to kill himself. Actually, what he says first is that he wants to "finish the game" - it's Sherlock who says this means his suicide. He does say "just kill yourself" but I think this is because he's annoyed that Sherlock keeps on insisting he can turn back the clock. He knows that when faced with the possibility of death Sherlock will try to find a way out - isn't it what almost everyone would do? Then he can put forward the alternative - then let your friends die instead. I think Moriarty thinks he's set up a situation where he can't lose. Either Sherlock kills himself or Sherlock turns into a villain. My opinion is that Moriarty would prefer the latter but if he gets the former that'll do too and he'll just have to go back to "playing with the ordinary people".

kazza474 wrote:
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.

I like this idea. Hadn't thought of it that way. Very nice. I still think there's even more to it, though.

kazza474 wrote:
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.

But they why say: I see. You’re not ordinary. No. You’re me. You’re me! Thank you! Sherlock Holmes. Thank you. Bless you.
Is it simply the meaningless rantings of a madman?

kazza474 wrote:
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.

Glad to oblige.

Aurora · May 29, 2012 5:59 am

Davina wrote:
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 agree with all of this. I think you've hit the nail on the head with Moriarty's weaknesses. I also think (hope) that while Moriarty thinks he is manipulating Sherlock, Sherlock and Mycroft are also manipulating him. Enticing him out of the shadows and making him take dangerous risks so that eventually he is completely undone.

Davina wrote:
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?

Hmm... It can't have been to kill Sherlock if he refused to jump because then why didn't he do it? It does makes sense if he intended to kill himself but it's also possible that he always carries a gun when he goes out. (At least, when he's wearing something that can hide it.)

Aurora · May 29, 2012 6:01 am

m0r1arty wrote:
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

Hi m0r1arty, sorry, I'm probably being blind but I'm missing the connection. What do you mean by "Catholic"?

Wholocked · May 29, 2012 7:02 am

I have absolutely nothing of any value to add that hasn't already been expressed in some way but I wanted to chime in and say THANKS for the refreshed look at TRF. It's nice to see a new view point for us to disect!

Aurora · May 29, 2012 10:51 am

kazza474 wrote:
You have some interesting ideas, I just see some as too intricate. They'd be better suited to a spy/sci fi movie. How in the world would Moftiss explain all these things AND bring a new story to light in 90 minutes?

And therein lies the most important objection to all of these wonderful convoluted theories - boring old practicality. I'm afraid I suffer from the same weakness as Sherlock: That’s your weakness – you always want everything to be clever. Perhaps this is a warning to the viewers too... I've got to admit, though, I'd feel quite let down if everything really is just what it seems to be on the surface. It's just so much more fun if it really is clever.

In my dream series 3 I'd have:
Episode 1: The Empty House - Sherlock appears, John knocks him out, and then they both set out on an action-packed race to catch Moran and destroy the final pieces of Moriarty's empire. Only at the end would they finally be sitting back in Baker Street, John would say "So what really did happen on the roof?", Sherlock would steeple his fingers "Ahhh...". Blackout.
Episode 2: Sherlock continues: "I'd actually been pursuing Moriarty for some time..." Flashback episode showing Sherlock cracking really complicated cases which truly damage Moriarty. Possibly even have him infiltrating Moriarty's network as "Mocklock" and really being the one responsible for the kidnapping after all. (If only the kids hadn't been poisoned...) Ending back in Baker Street: John: But how did you survive the fall? Blackout.
Episode 3: Sherlock continues: "You probably saw that Moriarty was weaving his web around me, what he didn't realise was that he wasn't the only one with a plan..." Another flashback describing the plots of Moriarty and Sherlock/Mycroft with each thrusting and parrying against each other. Then finally, only at the end of the series, does he finally explain his brilliant escape.

What I expect we will really have, though, is a quick 10 min wrap up of how he survived the jump and then it will be on to a new case. Most of the interesting conundrums will probably not be addressed but I suppose that will leave us free to believe whatever theory floats our boat. It's still fun to theorise...

m0r1arty · May 29, 2012 11:29 am

Aurora wrote:
Hi m0r1arty, sorry, I'm probably being blind but I'm missing the connection. What do you mean by "Catholic"?

I like the ambiguity of the term generally but having an Irish Moriarty just makes it all the more fun to use.

Moriarty had been terribly meticulous with his plan, very inclusive of everything ergo 'Catholic' about it. The fact that an oppressive cult known for its propaganda and warlike practises shares the same name - well, I love a good bit of doublespeak when done well - that's my odd associative connection.

Apologise to those who follow the Catholic church for any offence you may have taken from this comment, having served as an altar boy and a devout believer in my younger days I get to take a crack at it now as a sceptical adult - Gerry Nugent was one of the priests I served under, feel free to look him up.

-m0r

Davina · May 29, 2012 11:55 am

Oh. I thought his name sounded familiar. Then I looked him up and now I know why.

Sherlock Holmes · May 29, 2012 2:35 pm

Hi Aurora, I'm pretty sure the explanation of the fall will only take up around ten minutes or less of actual screen time told through snappy flashbacks with Sherlock's classic quick talking voice over making everything seem utterly simple (which it probably actually is).

On holiday at the moment so haven't really had chance to read every single post in detail but I just thought I'd add that Moriarty is definitely insane in my opinion. Only an insane person would blow his own brains out just to force someone else to commit suicide. Not sure anyone of a sane mind would ever go quite that far.

Aurora · May 30, 2012 11:40 am

Hi Sherlock Holmes, thanks for your comments.

Sherlock Holmes wrote:
Hi Aurora, I'm pretty sure the explanation of the fall will only take up around ten minutes or less of actual screen time told through snappy flashbacks with Sherlock's classic quick talking voice over making everything seem utterly simple (which it probably actually is).

Oh yes, I think so too. I was just fantasizing.

Sherlock Holmes wrote:
On holiday at the moment so haven't really had chance to read every single post in detail but I just thought I'd add that Moriarty is definitely insane in my opinion. Only an insane person would blow his own brains out just to force someone else to commit suicide. Not sure anyone of a sane mind would ever go quite that far.

I agree - I think you'd have to be very insane to do that. I just don't think Moriarty is that far gone, particularly not when he sounds perfectly rational in the conversation leading up to it. Up to and including his sentence "Nah, you talk big..." everything seems logical and consistent with him trying to destroy Sherlock. Then Sherlock say "Oh, I may be on the side of the angels, but don’t think for one second that I am one of them." and all of a sudden he starts raving then tops himself?! Too dramatic a change to my mind. Why not shoot Sherlock? That's why I think he had to have some other motive for killing himself.

Of course, my theory is far too complicated for them to deal with under they format they are working with. Maybe in a book or a series with 8-12 episodes / year it could be tried, but not with only 3 episodes in 18 months.

To me the solution that he's just stark raving mad would be disappointing, though. It makes him more an object of pity than a worthy opponent of Holmes. Someone suffering a serious mental illness who was too sick to realize he needed help and had noone who cared for him enough to intervene.

Davina · May 30, 2012 11:49 am

But Moriarty has an unusual and aberrant view of death. Looking back at the pool scene in The Great Game think of his reaction when Sherlock draws his attention to the fact that people have died. What is Moriarty's reaction? He shouts out, 'That's what people do!' I truly think that his view of his own death would be no different than his view of the death of others. Something along the lines of, 'It happens' and a shrug of the shoulders. He views everyone as dispensable, himself included. (I also think he is insane).

Sherlock Holmes · May 30, 2012 12:55 pm

Yeah and he didn't exactly seem that bothered in the pool scene when Sherlock threatened to shoot him or when he pointed the gun at the bomb prepared to blow them all to high heaven. He was more bothered about the fact that it would be disappointing, ordinary, predictable etc than the actual dying part.

besleybean · October 7, 2012 12:43 pm

I like what you write.
I think he probably usually does carry a gun.
Was he gonna shoot Sherlock, make him jump, or did he know of the suicide...
I say again: 90 mins is NOT going to be enough!

Jammeez · October 13, 2012 3:34 am

Yay! A discussion about Moriarty.

Has anyone posited that Moriarty faked his own death? It would have been easy, especially compared with the wild theories of how Sherlock faked his.

And speaking of Sherlock's faked death, that also implies Sherlock's several moments of seeming surprise and distress during the rooftop confrontation were cleverly acted out. We know he's a brilliant actor. He acted the old friend with the wife of the car suicide in TGG, and he acted the mugged priest at Irene's door in SiB. He and Moriarty are both consummate actors.

As for Moriarty's faked background as Rich Brook, with all the "clients" at Jim's fingertips it would be simple to fabricate a following of fans for Rich Brook's long and varied career. Even the testimonials on Rich's website could so easily be faked... lol look at me acting like this is all real and it wasn't "faked" by Moftiss & Co.

Another thing: (I'm slowly reading through the entire thread ) I have been wondering how Moriarty could maintain the integrity of his business reputation when he gave away so many of his clients in TGG. (I had gotten the impression that each of the crimes Sherlock solved in the episode were consulted and at least partially orchestrated by Moriarty Inc.) But then I got thinking, maybe these were clients that double-crossed him - such as not coming through with payment - and Jim is outing them as payback. Maybe, as found out by the Chinese Circus Lady, you mess up and Moriarty is not forgiving. That's the risk when you enter into a contract with Jim; If you have what you say you have, I'll make you rich; If you don't, I'll make you into shoes.

Last edited by Jammeez (October 13, 2012 3:58 am)

Davina · October 13, 2012 7:26 am

There are some interesting ideas here, especially the part about why he betrayed some of his clients in TGG. Revenge seems to be Moriarty's main motivator throught both series. I still think he is really dead though. I'm confident that Mofftiss would not go against the canon to such an extent as to have him come alive again.

Last edited by Davina (October 13, 2012 7:27 am)

Jammeez · October 16, 2012 5:08 am

Oh, thanks for making me aware. I'm just beginning to read the complete works of ACDoyle. Was not aware that Moriarty dies. Man, I really thought I was on to something!

Last edited by Jammeez (October 16, 2012 5:09 am)

besleybean · October 16, 2012 5:46 am

Mark and Steven tend to try and keep as canonical as possible.