hmmmm

certainly interesting. I really like the theory

What I'm hesitating over is that the writers don't really depart far from the canon. They play with it and let it inform their work and deconstruct it and turn it inside out but at the end of the day, everything can be traced back to the canon or if not the canon, a side nod to the fanfic/spin offs.

I do wonder if she's just exposing mahoosive plot holes (like, yeah, Moriaty being a long term actor, I wondered about that too. Though one thing I wondered-its not clear whether he has just joined the cast of the long running show. Being an actor is actually a potentially perfect cover for Moriaty because he can claim to have been trying to get jobs for years.

The funny name "like the fairy tale" I just thought was "Grimm" or something. I didn't see it as that significant. Maybe I see but do not observe.

Last edited by beekeeper (March 26, 2013 1:40 am)

beekeeper wrote:

hmmmm

certainly interesting. I really like the theory

What I'm hesitating over is that the writers don't really depart far from the canon. They play with it and let it inform their work and deconstruct it and turn it inside out but at the end of the day, everything can be traced back to the canon or if not the canon, a side nod to the fanfic/spin offs.

But remember that in canon, Moriarty did have a respectable public identity - that's why it was so hard for Holmes to get anyone to believe that he was a master criminal.  I've always liked the theory that Richard Brook is his real identity (there is a thread to that effect on the board).  I just wonder that Sherlock doesn't seem to have made the connection.  He has an amazing memory - he might delete what he doesn't need to know, but I should think that the list of Carl Powers' classmates would not be consigned to the recycle bin.

I think that, after watching "Falls"  again, Sherlock is definitely on to Richard Brook under the lense of Eva-Christine's theory posted above.

When John pucks up the breadcrumb envelope suggesting "Hansel and Gretyl" Nothing is mentioned to Sherlock about this yet. We only know there is a kidnapping of two children that looks political in nature. Sherlock goes through his analysis at the school site and then back at the lab says, "The oil, John. The oil will lead us to Moriarty."

since when does Moriarty come in to play on this case? Only Sherlock, knowing the fairytale/name challenge game of Moriarty is making this connection-suggesting get is well aware of Moriarty's moves ahead of time.

On a separate note. At the school site, Sherlock asks for Anderson to come to him . why? Anderson's a nitwit and the following scene shows Sherlock out-classing his forensic skills on every level and beratin him along the way. I think this is the moment he really needs to provoke this jealousy and doubt, setting his skill apart from the others. This is the catalyst that drives Sally to question how he could make these connections when Anderson clearly can't and setting Sherlock's arrest/fugitive" play" into action.

I always assumed that Moriaty took the shoes, just to prove I suppose how silly the police are and to prove how clever he is, and also because he thinks of it as a game. 

Good. God. I'm mean...that was amazing to read and the blogger makes it all fit but is there really so much going on between the lines? Would the writers make it so complicated? I hope so though! I LOVE the Rumplestiltskin idea and the idea and that Moriarty chose to steal that particular painting...I did find it odd how Sherlock started appearing at press conferences etc as it seems out of character and this theory explains it. I hope the writers have seen this!

There is probably somethig right in this theory and yet it is still wrong (IMO)

Moriarty/Brook/or let's call him Jim which is the lowest common denominator has at least built himself an identity that is totally believable for the investigating press (Kitty). There are hints about his past and a career as an actor for several years. This is his daytime occupation as innocent Jim.
Moriarty can be an alias under which he works as consulting criminal.

But the problem with this theory is that Sherlock and John saw Jim at the pool and if he was a famous actor why wasn't he charged and accused under his real name Brook? The police and the "British Government" aren't (so) stupid. Jim would have been identified as actor Brook. Why was Sherlock surprised when he was told that there is no Moriarty when he knew his name Brook and his job. Mycroft watched Jim and caught him to interrogate him. So he found Jim living somewhere under the name Brook.

Sherlock was in court and he talked about him using the name "James Moriarty".
Being a witness I can't imagine Sherlock not telling the complete truth to the judge and jury. He can be cryptic and he can be careful with his words though. If the present person was in fact Richard Brook he would have told them the truth. And if Jim was convicted under a false name the whole trial would be worthless and probably unlawful.

I've heard this theory or very similar, before. I even wrote my own essay on the topic, but it was just for fun really. It's a nice theory, and there's some interesting points in it, but ultimately I think we just have to believe in the stupidity of the British public to not notice the fact that there was no semi-famous actor named Richard Brook before Moriarty came on the scene, and that his CV was, in fact, entirely made up.

We need a theory to fit all the facts. Moriarty mentioned by the cabbie, the consulting criminal, the trial, actor-identity Brook, and the real boy Jim once was and Sherlock's note about inventing Moriarty and creating him for his own purposes.
As long as the theory runs against the metaphorical wall it is wrong.

Sherlock greeted Jim by playing a piece of Johann Sebastian Bach. And he told him a story. What did Sherlock know about Jim? What did Jim think that Sherlock knows? A bluff, a double bluff, a tripple bluff....What is the real identity?
This is on the one hand complicated and needs some twists and turns.

Last edited by Be (June 21, 2013 9:15 am)

Lupin wrote:

Eh, I have issues with The Reichenbach Fall because Moriarty's character seems to have changed so radically from The Great Game and A Scandal in Belgravia. I don't think there's a level of consistency that runs through the series that involves the fairy tale and metaphysical battle between the master detective and the master criminal.

In The Great Game, Moriarty was about to kill Holmes if Irene Adler hadn't called him. It seemed more about getting rid of a hindrance than destroying an equal. To me, The Reichenbach Fall has a lot that sets it in isolation from the rest of the series, and that disappoints me a bit.
.
Along those lines, the theory really doesn't address the Fall, just a lot of the banter exchanged over the course of the episode.

 
They haven't changed the character of Moriarty. Something has probably happend.
Jim/Richard was about to commit suicide through the hands of Sherlock and at the same time he was able to kill Sherlock. Told him the story he wanted to tell. Everything he wanted he could get at the pool. The only question is: Who called and what did the caller tell Moriarty to change his mind.
If it was Irene the question is: What was so important that Moriarty wanted to live again (at least for some months)? Suicide and killing got postponed.
Why was Moriarty so upset when he got some information we don't know anything about?
Must be of existential importance then.

I don't believe in a Grimm's fairy tale comparison to the plot of the Reichenbach fall either. It is Moriarty's and Sherlock's story. Or Mofftiss/Doyle's if you like. Moriarty just used the "Hänsel und Gretel" tale to make a point. To tell a story. 
TRF is in no way isolated to the rest of the story arc. It is the end of a kind of journey. It ends with Sherlock's note.
If I understand the story (we are already told) about "Moriarty" correctly the story is dreadful and nauseating. I don't like it at all. And I don't know if it was a good idea to do it."People want to know you're human." I don't follow there. Maybe I don't have all information or haven't found it.  And nobody wants to be fooled. Like John.

On the one hand they give us a genius detective and show us his intellectual capacities in TRF and on the other hand they nearly destroy him on another level through an subtextual story. It balances out somehow.

On the one hand they hide a part of the plot to the extremes and on the other hand they tell us everything litterally with words, symbols and pattern.

My interpretation is that there is no absolute good or evil, no black and white. Things are not always what they look like and you have to look hard at things to understand them. Prejudice is easy, but real insight into someone's personality is difficult.

sj4iy wrote:

Irene Adler called Moriarty because she needed someone who could decipher that email from the MOD and use it to gain a profit. Moriarty called off his murder-suicide scheme because he knew he was going to use Sherlock to do it (and, in the process, he would bring Mycroft down, which was why Moriarty wanted Sherlock).  Moriarty just "wanted to have a little fun" with Sherlock first...he never really did let him go.

 
It is not that obvious. What profit? It is not about the e-mail. "There is more. Much more."

SH: You are not interested in money or power. What is it all for?
It is not for fun either. This is not a funny story. Will go post-watershed, if you ask me.