BBC Sherlock Fan Forum - Serving Sherlockians since February 2012 / plot believability in Sherlock

**Posted by Schmiezi** April 23, 2015 4:25 am

Actually, looking so hard for errors the way you do would spoil the fun for me. So I just accept some of the polt holes and stay happy.

**Posted by SolarSystem** April 23, 2015 10:02 am

Couldn't agree more, Schmiezi.
Being a Trekkie, I always loved the "Nitpicker's Guide" and the fact that some people really look out for errors in an almost religious way. I'm not interested in doing so myself, but I enjoy reading about other people's findings. For the fun of it.

**Posted by Sherlock Holmes** April 23, 2015 7:58 pm

I wouldn't necessarily call some of these "errors"...more just, "we must suspend our disbelief here".

**Posted by SusiGo** April 23, 2015 8:03 pm

Yes, I agree. This is not a crime documentary but, as the creators have stated themselves, a "romance". And suspension of disbelief is quite an essential part of (romantic) fiction.

**Posted by REReader** April 23, 2015 10:28 pm

After all, the ACD stories were FULL of plot holes and inconsistencies--for example, people have worked out that for Dr. Watson's timeline to have any hope of being true, he'd have to have been married at least three different times, although only one wife was specifically mentioned. (And at least one of them didn't know his first name!) So we could call all errors an homage.

**Posted by Liberty** April 24, 2015 6:47 am

I think there's a general sort of unbelievablity in (most) crime fiction too, including ACD. I believe that in most murder cases it's pretty obvious who done it - there's no mystery. Serial killers who target strangers are unusual.

**Posted by RavenMorganLeigh** April 30, 2015 7:08 pm

Good writing should "push the envelope"-- but (just my opinion) needs to do it in a way that allows the viewer to suspend their disbelief and immerse themselves into the world of the story.

If you get kicked out of the story by something like, "Whoa! Mary shot Sherlock--- to save her marriage????" , or " Wait....in TRF, there were snipers, and it was only after Sherlock jumped that they packed their guns away, where's this new 'Mycroft had it all in hand' thing coming from???" , or " EEEYowtch!!!!, Did John just really forgive Mary?? AND throw away the memory stick????" -- well, then I'd say that might be a less successful attempt at pushing that envelope....

But that's just my take on it, all in good fun!

**Posted by Vhanja** April 30, 2015 7:18 pm

My biggest issue with plot believability in Sherlock is the few times when I feel the plot is driven forward by too much coincidence.

- Why would Sherlock care about mail not being picked up from a flat in Chinatown?
- Why would he care, or even spot, a library book and then just happen to find the code in the right isle? (And how did the guy who got killed happen to find it there in the first place)
- The note written on the museum envelope is also a bit of a stretch for me
- How can John accept "Not a good time for a reunion" when he proposes they speak with Mycroft when they're on the run? It's the most non-sensical, vague and lazy excuse I've ever heard in Sherlock.
- Same scene, they just happen to run across a stack of fresh newspapers while on the run.

Using that amount of coincidences to drive the plot forward is what I consider weak writing. And interestingly enough, all the examples above are from the same writer (and not Moftiss).

**Posted by RavenMorganLeigh** April 30, 2015 11:42 pm

I'm finding that lowering my expectations of the show-- in other words, treating it like a "superhero" type show--rather than anything remotely serious has helped me not care so much about some of the obvious mishaps with plot, characterization, continuity, logic. Because, if it's that sort of show-- it doesn't *have* to make sense.

Law and Order; SVU has to be somewhat believable. "Hannibal", "Dexter", "James Bond" ; shows and movies with "human" superheroes-- can still get away with Comic-book-like plot twists and scenarios.

**Posted by Vhanja** April 30, 2015 11:44 pm

I find Sherlock to be leaps and bounds better, quality-wise, than any superhero movie I've ever seen when it comes to plots and characterizations.

**Posted by Davina** May 1, 2015 11:27 am

Do you not find Hannibal at all challenging? It is different. It does have aspects that require suspension of disbelief but that does not necessarily mean it is in the league of little more than a 'super-hero' type show. I also include Dexter in this: yes, it does at time have plot holes and requires the audience to 'play the game' but essentially it is a 'show' that is able to touch one at a very deep level. Not all shows or films that require suspension of disbelief are unworthy or inferior.

**Posted by RavenMorganLeigh** May 28, 2015 8:18 pm

Davina wrote:
Do you not find Hannibal at all challenging? It is different. It does have aspects that require suspension of disbelief but that does not necessarily mean it is in the league of little more than a 'super-hero' type show. I also include Dexter in this: yes, it does at time have plot holes and requires the audience to 'play the game' but essentially it is a 'show' that is able to touch one at a very deep level. Not all shows or films that require suspension of disbelief are unworthy or inferior.

This is actually what I mean by "Superhero" sorts of stories-- Hannibal is really a supervillian, his power is his ability to manipulate, to get into people's heads, to kill--imaginatively---

Dexter: Super-Anti-Hero; always gets his killer, super power: well, he's sort of like Batman in a way.

These aren't literary characters-- they're comic book characters-- and I think that Sherlock has been given the same treatment. They're about creating a Myth-- the Hero's Journey. That's every comic book character ever written.

Last edited by RavenMorganLeigh (May 28, 2015 8:23 pm)

**Posted by A lovely light** May 28, 2015 8:31 pm

What intrigues me is why John doesn't correct Sherlock in TBB about the link hand vs right hand. He as a leftie use after all the right hand to shut the cabbie and is a "crack shot" at it, so obviously he is very much used to shot with the right hand before having problems with tremors in the left one.

**Posted by Sherlock Holmes** May 28, 2015 10:59 pm

RavenMorganLeigh wrote:
Davina wrote:
Do you not find Hannibal at all challenging? It is different. It does have aspects that require suspension of disbelief but that does not necessarily mean it is in the league of little more than a 'super-hero' type show. I also include Dexter in this: yes, it does at time have plot holes and requires the audience to 'play the game' but essentially it is a 'show' that is able to touch one at a very deep level. Not all shows or films that require suspension of disbelief are unworthy or inferior.

This is actually what I mean by "Superhero" sorts of stories-- Hannibal is really a supervillian, his power is his ability to manipulate, to get into people's heads, to kill--imaginatively---

Dexter: Super-Anti-Hero; always gets his killer, super power: well, he's sort of like Batman in a way.

These aren't literary characters-- they're comic book characters-- and I think that Sherlock has been given the same treatment. They're about creating a Myth-- the Hero's Journey. That's every comic book character ever written.

Yeah, I get what you mean by the analogy. And Sherlock is basically a superhero anyway. He's a super detective

**Posted by RavenMorganLeigh** May 28, 2015 11:06 pm

Sherlock Holmes wrote:
RavenMorganLeigh wrote:
Davina wrote:
Do you not find Hannibal at all challenging? It is different. It does have aspects that require suspension of disbelief but that does not necessarily mean it is in the league of little more than a 'super-hero' type show. I also include Dexter in this: yes, it does at time have plot holes and requires the audience to 'play the game' but essentially it is a 'show' that is able to touch one at a very deep level. Not all shows or films that require suspension of disbelief are unworthy or inferior.

This is actually what I mean by "Superhero" sorts of stories-- Hannibal is really a supervillian, his power is his ability to manipulate, to get into people's heads, to kill--imaginatively---

Dexter: Super-Anti-Hero; always gets his killer, super power: well, he's sort of like Batman in a way.

These aren't literary characters-- they're comic book characters-- and I think that Sherlock has been given the same treatment. They're about creating a Myth-- the Hero's Journey. That's every comic book character ever written.
Yeah, I get what you mean by the analogy. And Sherlock is basically a superhero anyway. He's a super detective

Bingo. :-)