BBC Sherlock Fan Forum - Serving Sherlockians since February 2012 / How to survive the fall and the things out of character......

**Posted by Be** February 11, 2013 8:30 am

Would you mind if I point something out that might be out of character?
I am a bit obsessed with Sherlock's cryptic words in TRF. I often feel that there is something hanging around like subtext. We know that he himself is sensitiv with the use of correct grammar. I wonder if there is a doubble meaning in the sentences:" Alone is what I have. Alone protects me." I am not a native speaker but these sentences sound a bit odd. One is alone. Being alone can protect you. It's not having but being. Can somebody tell me if I am wrong?
Is there a possibility that it is a clue for John and for us?
Doyle uses in canon something called äquivocation/homonym = words that sound identical but have a different meaning. e.g. band, rat ballarat ...
What if Sherlock said:" A loan is what I have. A loan protects me." This sounds grammatically right and it can make sense.
Take another piece of the puzzle "I have got something of yours that you might want back."
"What do you need?" "You."

**Posted by Davina** February 11, 2013 10:34 am

The phrase is however used within a 'conversation' he is having with John at the time. They are disputing whether it is 'friends' that protect people or is it isolation that protects them. The use of 'have' is a little unusual to be sure, however in the context of the conversation it makes sense albeit in a slightly abbreviated way of speaking. It is not, I suppose, completely correct grammatically, however it does make perfect sense.

I like your thoughts about the plays on words/homonyms.

**Posted by romahp** February 26, 2013 9:38 am

Yup, I agree about the tears part! He's the Sherlock Holmes, he can cry on cue! I think what Benedict Cumberbatch meant was that he showed humility by asking John to tell everyone that he was fake, when of course he was trying to save their lives.If there is any other meaning hidden, then please explain!
And yes, he was acting strange right from the beginning. I was surprised to see him posing in front of cameras, but he was of course planning it all just so that he could accept the most publicised cases to lure in Moriarty! Mycroft was in on it, so was Molly. But what I don't get is Moriarty's suicide. SH clearly didn't anticipate that, so what was he planning on doing to Moriarty? He was eventually going to jump because he had the world's best trained killers following him who would have tortured the key code out of him even when it didn't exist. So he'd have to plan a suicide, just the way in the original series except in them he was escaping Moriarty's right-hand man, Moran. So the question remains, since how long was he planning this ?

**Posted by Schmiezi** February 26, 2013 12:28 pm

I'm still convinced that Sherlock was planning the final confrontation with Morioarty since Baskerville, together with Mycroft. That's the only reason (in my mind, I know we discussed that one before, but can't remember where exactly) why Mycroft set Moriarty free.

I think that getting rid of Moriarty in the end was a inherent part of the plan, I'm just not sure about when Sherlock realised that he had to fake his death to achieve that goal.

**Posted by anjaH_alias** February 27, 2013 12:50 pm

Schmiezi wrote:
I'm still convinced that Sherlock was planning the final confrontation with Morioarty since Baskerville, together with Mycroft. That's the only reason (in my mind, I know we discussed that one before, but can't remember where exactly) why Mycroft set Moriarty free.

I think that getting rid of Moriarty in the end was a inherent part of the plan, I'm just not sure about when Sherlock realised that he had to fake his death to achieve that goal.

I am agreeing with that - the beginning of TRF purposely misleads us: we should assume that Sherlock is on the roller coaster of fame because of his vanity, but I am convinced he planned all that. So he started eliciting Moriarty out of his web. But, of course, he couldn´t plan and foresee everything, a lot was left to improvisation. As in "The Final Problem", where Holmes mentions that, whatever he did and planned, Moriarty was anticipating it very quickly and sometimes also a step ahead.

**Posted by kira666** March 14, 2013 7:52 pm

the things out of character
Please
he said please
that moment in privacy for the fake death

**Posted by besleybean** March 15, 2013 7:00 am

He said please when asking for Irene's phone.

**Posted by tobeornot221b** March 15, 2013 7:13 am

And he says please twice (!) when asking John for the cigarettes in HOUNDS.

**Posted by SusiGo** March 15, 2013 7:22 am

And he said "Paddington Station, please" when getting into the cab in Hounds.

**Posted by sirlockofthesher** November 7, 2013 1:54 am

In Hounds, Sherlock negotiate a deal with Mycroft to get back into Baskerville. Then at the end of the show, you see Mycroft let Moriarty go. This is where the plot to draw out Moriarty begins and its the Holmes brothers-this time- working together to bring him down.

As for Gatiss and the "something Sherlock does that is out of character," the publicizing of Sherlock as that act is debatable. Sherlock in the Belly Botton Murder was exposed to unwanted press attention and it was not within his control. However, the press intrusion at the beginning of RF seem to be press conferences-something Sherlock could have said no to attending. So this theory is possible.

Another act out of character is Sherlock telling John to tell everyone that Sherlock is a fake. Sherlock doesn't care what people think. But this one is too obvious and serves another plot point purpose to ensure John's safety once Sherlock is gone.

Another act is the tears. Sherlock doesn't cry but I think the evolution of his character serves this particular act of tears rather than the excretion of the Hounds chemical Sherlock may have administered to Moriarty on the roof.

Can anyone think of anything else Sherlock did out of character?

**Posted by besleybean** November 7, 2013 6:34 am

Throw his phone down.

**Posted by BrettianHolmesFan** November 7, 2013 7:27 am

I have always been convinced and of the belief that while Sherlock had things in place in case his meeting with Jim went south, he did not intend for John to be there when he stepped off that roof -- the fake call that Mrs Hudson had been shot is one thing that makes me think this. As I said I don't think he meant John to be there but once he was he had to go through with it and did have things in place that would convince John he was dead because if John believed he was, then Moriarty's people would believe it too!

**Posted by sirlockofthesher** November 7, 2013 5:55 pm

besleybean wrote:
Throw his phone down.

Some are saying this due to the fact that he taped the conversation. This may be right for reasons dealing with Mycroft. Leaving behind the taped conversation to Mycroft would help M determine that the code was a fake, ect.

I don't think they can use this to determine Sherlock's innoscence due to the premise of Sherlock "hiring" an actor and most would presume this is just another staged scene.

The throwing of the phone is important-I think it is to provide information to Mycroft. M was the one that probably facilitated the removal of Moriarty's body and clean the scene. The phone would be acquired then.

Another out of character moment is Sherlock's confusion on the roof about the code,ect.Sherlock seems the doofus during this scene, but I think this is just another method to have someone divulge information that they normally would not do. (and then Sherlock can send this information-taped via the phone- on to Mycroft)

Anything else? I do believe that if we can figure this out that the missing plot point on how Sherlock faked his death will be revealed.