BBC Sherlock Fan Forum - Serving Sherlockians since February 2012 / I.O.U. Version 2.0, a VERY convincing theory.

**Posted by Joalro** March 20, 2013 8:49 pm

Hello all! I have posted on these boards a while ago with a fairy-tale theory with some mixed responses. Some people had issues with it, some people liked it. Since then I have actually made some very significant progress, enough that I think it would be better to start a new thread than to bump up the old. The new version of the theory will take some reading, but I promise you there will be pay off.

Some really important quotes from the episode (some may be off, as I don't have these quotes written down, if you wanna correct them I'll edit this first post):

"Every Fairytale needs a good old fashion villain." - Moriarty

Sherlock: I never liked riddles.
Moriarty: Get used to it, because I owe you a fall. I owe you.

John?: What kind of criminal leaves clues behind?
Sherlock: The kind of villain who wants to boast, to show off (something along those lines)

"I love newspapers. Fairytales, pretty grim(m) ones too." - Moriarty

So these are some quotes that I will be bringing up in my discussion. So the first one I would like to mention is the "what kind of criminal leaves clues behind"? When Sherlock responds, he is clearly talking about Moriarty. However, in Moriarty's grand scheme of things, in all the episode, what clues did he leave for Sherlock? The code? Well he stated that was fake, so that doesn't appear to be a clue at first glance. The crumbs? Well that was a clue for the kidnapping portion. The gingerbread cookie? That seemed to be more of a message "run, run as fast as you can". It actually appears as though Moriarty left no hints behind as to what his grand scheme was. But if he left no hints, then why is he so disappointed that it was so easy to take down Sherlock? Surely it would be disappointingly easy to take down anyone with a gun. Moriarty wanted a challenge, and hence he wanted to leave clues. So where are they?

This brings me to "I never liked riddles". "Get used to it, because I owe you a fall". So here Moriarty stated "get used to riddles" then "I owe you a fall". I intend to think of this as a riddle itself. The obvious thing to do is to look at it as "I O U" as many people have done before me. Now, I would like to perform a direct letter to number translation. A = 1, B = 2, and hence I O U = 9, 15, 21. So where do we go with that? In the episode, Moriarty gives Sherlock a book of Grimm's Fairy Tales, of which Sherlock skims through. It is even shown in a flashback the table of contents from that book. Matching up these numbers with stories, we get 9 = Twelve Brothers, 15 = Hansel and Gretel, 21 = Cinderella.

The middle story is Hansel and Gretel, and the middle of the episode is the kidnapping. The children leave behind a trail to follow (lemon seed oil) like the breadcrumbs, they are taken to a candy factor and fed until they died (as the witch intended to kill them). The connection here is so obvious, Sherlock states this explicitly in the episode, and is even how he went about finding the children. This is clearly nothing new.

The first story is 12 brothers. Now, this is mostly an unfamiliar story. I recommend reading it:http://www.pitt.edu/~dash/grimm009.html but here is a short version.

A king and queen have 12 sons. Queen gets pregnant. King only ever wanted a daughter, so he says if the queen gives birth to a girl he will kill all the 12 brothers, but if he has a boy he will let them live. The queen sends her sons into the forest and says "If I have a girl, I will wave a red flag, stay in the forest. If I have a boy, it's safe to come home and I will wave a white flag". The queen gives birth to a girl, and so she waves a red flag and they stay in the forest. The daughter then grows up and sees 12 cots, and asks who those belonged to. When she finds out she had brothers, she goes into the forest to meet them. They ends up staying at the cottage with them for a bit. Then she finds flowers and picks them. It ends up those flowers belonged to a witch and put a curse on the girls brothers. The 12 brothers are turned into ravens. In order to break the curse, she must remain silent for 7 years. A king strolls through the forest and sees her and falls in love. He takes her home and marries her. The king's mother says things like "she is evil" and "the devil took away her voice" and things like that. Eventually she convinces the king and the king sentences the girl to death. At that moment 7 years has passed, the 12 ravens turn back into brothers and save her in the last moment.

The connection:

There are 12 jury members (brothers) whose lives were threathed based on the binary decision (innocent or guilty, boy or girl). So there is a connection.

Now here is where things get really interesting...

Moriarty stated that "Every Fairytale needs a good old fashion villain". Initially, I interpreted this as the reason why Sherlock needed Moriarty, cause Sherlock needs that villain to be complete. However, I now think this is wrong. Moriarty actually intended to turn Sherlock into that villain.

When the two kidnapped children saw Sherlock they screamed. This set up the whole third act where people then began to suspect Sherlock responsible. But I think there is more. To the children, it would appear Sherlock was the witch from the story. Sherlock is the villain.

Further, if we now assume Sherlock is the villain of the 12 brother story, that places him as the mother of the King. She spoke out against the silent girl, called her a villain and evil. During the court case, Moriarty remained silent, while Sherlock took the stand and spoke out against him. Called him a villain, said he is not even a man but a spider. Moriarty gave no defence (remained silent) so the judge had no choice but to say he is guilty (as the king did). In the last second, however, the 12 jury members (12 brothers) came to the rescue of the silent one.

So with Sherlock as the villain, the entire first story falls into place. So in fact, both 12 brothers AND hansel and gretel are nearly enitirely told through the court case and the kidnapping.

I O U a fall. This is actually a list of events.

I - 12 Brothers -court case
O - Hansel and Gretel - Kidnapping
U - Cinderella - ??
a Fall - The conclusion to Moriarty's plan.

Now, it should be noted that in the end, Sherlock is the villain from the perspective of the newspaper. Throughout the episode, there is repeated references to newspapers. John is constantly worried about how the public perceives Sherlock, while Sherlock constantly brushes it off. Moriarty wishes to teach him a valuable lesson. He says "I love newspapers. Fairytales. Pretty Grimm ones too". It is the newspapers themselves that are the fairytales. At the end of the episode, the newspapers report that Moriarty is innocent, that Sherlock spoke out against him at the trial, and the jury saved him. The newspapers report that Sherlock kidnapped the children and fed the candy.

This whole time I have been ignoring Cinderella. The last time i mentioned this theory, everyone agreed Cinderella was the weakness of the story. But now I know more. Now we know Sherlock must be the villain of the story, and we know it must be from the newspaper's point of view.

So what?

I believe that it was actually Sherlock's job to complete the Cinderella story. On the rooftop, Moriarty is extremely disappointed with Sherlock. Sherlock was unable to figure it all out. However, there was a moment things changed. Moriarty and Sherlock stared in each other's eyes and Sherlock claimed "I may be on the side of the angles, but don't think for one second I am one of them". This is the point Sherlock is acknowledging what Moriarty was getting at the whole time. He was the villain. However, I don't think Moriarty would simply accept this, Sherlock had to prove it. Somehow, Sherlock completed the story of Cinderella and had some form of evidence for this. I believe that Cinderella is the key to figuring out what Sherlock did.

Now if Sherlock is the villain, then he is clearly the evil step mother. The evil step mother neglected Cinderella, wouldn't let her go out, and would give her tedious tasks to do. I think the clear choice for Cinderella is Molly. When Sherlock solved Moriarty's riddle, the first person he went to was Molly. And then he told her "You were wrong, you do matter". I think this meant more than just trying to make her feel better so he would help her. She was fundamental to the whole puzzle.

Further, on the rooftop Moriarty tells Sherlock he is going to kill all his friends.

Sherlock: John
Moriarty: Everyone.
Sherlock: Mrs Hudson
Moriarty: Everyone
Sherlock: Lastrade
Moriarty: Three bullets... etc.

Why not Molly? Moriarty knows Molly has some sort of relationship with Sherlock. Sherlock is famous at this point, I'm sure any worker in the Morgue would be happy to help Sherlock out, yet he keeps going back to Molly. At the very least, Moriarty knows Sherlock doesn't wish her dead. So why neglect her when he clearly intends for "Everyone" to be the victim. It's because Molly is a person of interest. She is Cinderella.

If we can figure out what Sherlock then did, as the evil stepmother, I personally believe we will know if Moriarty is indeed dead, among other things.

**Posted by Be** March 21, 2013 1:14 pm

You are probably right that Molly is key to this. But there is no evidence towards a relationship between Molly and Sherlock. Except Sherlock exploiting Molly's crush and a bit of guilt maybe that she told Moriatry everything about Sherlock.
The problem with Grimm's fairy tales is that they can easily be interpreted and streched. They are full of metaphors and images and you can put in everything you like to prove everything you want. I did that myself some months ago and reread "Grimms Kinder- und Hausmärchen". Just to make sure that I didn't miss anything. Especially with Sherlock's line: "IOU ...What are you?" But I came to the conclusion that Gottiss could have picked each fairy tale they like. There are vilians, kings, apples, foxes, mountains/tall buildings and so on.....
Finally I think that the answer must be simple.

**Posted by Joalro** March 21, 2013 1:42 pm

Just because Grimm's fairtales can be stretched does not imply what I have suggested is wrong. I haven't just used the Fairytales, but I used them in a very specific order, to specific scenes, with a specific lens. This theory would not work if the 12 brothers portion occured after the Hansel and Gretel portion. The fact is all the 12 brother elements occur very nicely exclusively in the court scene.

Also remember this is Moriarty's plan. Hence, I cannot and did not use story elements from the episode that Moriarty did not have direct control over. Remember, Moriarty wrote specifically "get Sherlock". He wanted Sherlock to speak at the trial.

Further, I have used several direct quotes that actualy make more sense in this context.

I would say between the correct ordering, the neccessity of the events I used being under Moriarty's control, and the explanetory nature of what I suggest, I think I have done a bit more than stretch and interpret the Fairytales.

I am willing to hear critisms, but you'll have to be more specific than a vague dismissal of all theories containing Fairytale connections.

Last edited by Joalro (March 21, 2013 1:43 pm)

**Posted by anjaH_alias** March 22, 2013 1:49 pm

I unfortunately also have to say that your theory seems to be much too complicated. It´s not the style of Moffat and Gatiss (as far as I know their style, which is only from Sherlock). Your theory looks like a far fetched mind game to me. Simply imagine the creative process behind: How could that have happened? Moffat and Gatiss sitting together in a train or whereever, thinking - what was first: the "IOU"-idea or that one with the fairy tales? Did they construe the Reichenbachfall along the fairy tales, like "Oh, what could the 12 brothers be in TRF? Let´s implant a court case!". Or was it rather like: "Which book can we take to give some sense to our IOU? Hm, Nietzsche? No, doesn´t match. Oh, here, Grimm´s fairy tales in that special edition, with that we can give IOU a secret meaning behind!" Come on, neverever, that would have been weird!
As Be mentioned, the Grimm stories have all a very general truth - you could use nearly all of them to explain everything. But this is too arbitrary for Moffat/Gatiss. For me the fairy tale allusion in TRF is a very cleverly set leitmotif which is leading through the whole story, circling that sentence "every fairy tale needs a good old fashioned villain". This leitmotif makes the story more dark, even haunted, and has also some connection to a child´s world (Moriarty behaves like a naughty child sometimes, stomping with his feet e.g.) He is the storyteller on kid´s TV, the villain, he uses breadcrumbs to make them follow the kidnapped children, he sends a gingerbread man - and much more. Beautifully constructed, evoking a lot of sensual pictures! A sophisticated mind game can never score this - too much brainwork .

Last edited by anjaH_alias (March 22, 2013 1:53 pm)

**Posted by Cabear5** March 25, 2013 4:22 am

Regardless as to whether the theory above is a stretch, I am really impressed with the creativity and analysis that went into it. This reminds me of a time when the fifth Harry Potter book came out and bloggers were coming up with mind blowing analysis on bubblegum wrappers and codes, etc. In the end, the story was much simpler and straight forward than some of the solutions presented, but the journey, and depth of discussion, was both rewarding and inspiring. Kudos for making these connections Joalro; whether too complex, wrong, or right on the money--your thoughts/ ideas on the IOU storyline are FAR better than anything I've been able to come up with.

**Posted by AndyO.** March 25, 2013 2:35 pm

Cabear5 wrote:
Regardless as to whether the theory above is a stretch, I am really impressed with the creativity and analysis that went into it. This reminds me of a time when the fifth Harry Potter book came out and bloggers were coming up with mind blowing analysis on bubblegum wrappers and codes, etc. In the end, the story was much simpler and straight forward than some of the solutions presented, but the journey, and depth of discussion, was both rewarding and inspiring. Kudos for making these connections Joalro; whether too complex, wrong, or right on the money--your thoughts/ ideas on the IOU storyline are FAR better than anything I've been able to come up with.

I agree <3

**Posted by Joalro** March 27, 2013 7:12 pm

I appreciate the support from you two. If you have any ideas as to how to make it all fit, I'm looking for input.

**Posted by sherlockian111** March 30, 2013 10:56 pm

I quite like your theory, it more or less makes sense, but I think it's a bit too complicated. Anyway, a lot of people have been asking "how could Moriaty overlook Molly, why wasn't she included?" etc. We're all assuming that Moriaty sees Molly how we see her, he probably sees her quite differently to how we see her. This is just my opinion obivously, but I think Moriaty saw Molly as a silly girl who had a crush on someone who's more or less out of her league. And so, he didn't think she would be important, and he definitely didn't think Sherlock would go to her for help.

**Posted by sherlockian111** March 30, 2013 11:25 pm

Another point to think about, because I've been thinking about fairytales, and how they relate to Sherlock. And I've noticed that the story of Rumpelstiltskin(think that's how you spell it) is sort of similar, and Moriaty is very similar to Rumpelstiltskin. (cos you know, the whole Richard brook/Jim Moriaty thing is like the guessing his name)

**Posted by Sampy Arctica** April 2, 2013 5:58 am

I like how creative you got with this, that you really seemed to knuckle down and put your best efforts into figuring out what happened...but I have to agree with the people who said that it is far, far too complicated to put into a show, I don't think this would transcribe over to screen in a way that the viewer would easily comprehend.

I do think it's going to be relatively simple, and as soon as we find out exactly what happened, it'll make us all go, "Ohhhhh!" and laugh at ourselves for over analysing it all. ;)

Last edited by Sampy Arctica (April 2, 2013 5:58 am)

**Posted by Joalro** April 2, 2013 9:49 pm

Actually, it would be quite simple to explain this in the episode. Rich Brook has already been shwon o be "The Storyteller", hence we can have the Storyteller tell the story, which is played overtop of the events. For dramatic effect, they could show one story per episode, which means you wouldn't actually find out what it is Sherlock did until the last episode of the season.

**Posted by Sampy Arctica** April 3, 2013 6:50 am

Hmm, interesting. It might be easily understood by you, but I found it very difficult to imagine in a TV series. -shrug- Kudos to you, I guess.

**Posted by MysteriaSleuthbedder** April 5, 2013 6:35 am

Sampy Arctica wrote:
I do think it's going to be relatively simple, and as soon as we find out exactly what happened, it'll make us all go, "Ohhhhh!" and laugh at ourselves for over analysing it all. ;)

I don't agree. I think Moffat will give us his triumphant explanation and we'll be royally POed and posting here why his explanation is actually not any more sensible than "Sherlock had springs in his shoes."

"What sort of kidnapper leaves clues?"

"The sort that likes to boast; the sort that thinks it's all a game."

Moffat has given us clues. But games between authors and readers/viewers always end with the writer/director declaring victory over the audience. But the Sherlock audience is a very smart one and in the end, there are far too many production errors and inconsistencies for anyone to know what we are supposed to take as Sherlockian reality and what we are supposed to suspend our disbelief and accept. So even if you approach the magic trick, you can't be sure because the pictures don't match up. Jo Rowling used to actually lie in public statements when posters guessed truths she wanted to keep hidden. At least Moffat isn't doing that.

As for the topic, I think the Grimm story that will be most enlightening is the "Brother and Sister" story, which is also what they sometimes called Hansel and Gretel and people would confuse them, as well as the" Youth Who Went Forth to Learn what Fear was."

**Posted by ekai65** April 11, 2013 1:23 pm

I like the Cinderella theory. I think the parallels of the first two stories are quite clear.
"12 brothers" - Moriarty (the sister in the story) stays quiet and the jury (the 12 brothers) saves him.
"Hansel and Gretel" - A brother and sister are kidnapped and fed on sweets.
So, what is the parrallel for "Cinderella"? In Cinderealla, the sisters fight over a shoe which can be used to prove the true identity of the girl at the party. In the Reichenback episode, Sherlock's challenge is to obtain something that shows Moriarty's true identity as a criminal (not Richard Brook). In fact, the thing Sherlock needs, I think, is Moriarty's phone - very simple, not a "clever" thing like a secret computer code.

I think that the writers did intend that IOU should refer to the stories. Look at the time of the story where Sherlock brings up the IOU term. It is at the lab, the Grimm Fairy Tale book is referenced, and he has just concluded that the children's kidnapping is the Hansel and Gretel story - right at that ponit he says "IOU", which indicates that part of the IOU riddle refers to Hansel and Gretel.

**Posted by MysteriaSleuthbedder** April 11, 2013 5:18 pm

ekai65 wrote:
I think that the writers did intend that IOU should refer to the stories. Look at the time of the story where Sherlock brings up the IOU term. It is at the lab, the Grimm Fairy Tale book is referenced, and he has just concluded that the children's kidnapping is the Hansel and Gretel story - right at that ponit he says "IOU", which indicates that part of the IOU riddle refers to Hansel and Gretel.

Actually, that's not where he says it. It's when he is looking through the microscope and kind of speaking unconsciously: "I .....O ....U." (Or perhaps, "I.....owe .... you.") Molly asks him about it, what it means. He deflects her question, "Nothing - mental note." Then she launches into the "sad" speech. It's after she leaves the lab that John notices the seal and brings Sherlock the envelope of bread crumbs and he makes the Hansel Gretel connection and they leave.

**Posted by Joalro** April 12, 2013 12:17 pm

MysteriaSleuthbedder wrote:
ekai65 wrote:
I think that the writers did intend that IOU should refer to the stories. Look at the time of the story where Sherlock brings up the IOU term. It is at the lab, the Grimm Fairy Tale book is referenced, and he has just concluded that the children's kidnapping is the Hansel and Gretel story - right at that ponit he says "IOU", which indicates that part of the IOU riddle refers to Hansel and Gretel.

Actually, that's not where he says it. It's when he is looking through the microscope and kind of speaking unconsciously: "I .....O ....U." (Or perhaps, "I.....owe .... you.") Molly asks him about it, what it means. He deflects her question, "Nothing - mental note." Then she launches into the "sad" speech. It's after she leaves the lab that John notices the seal and brings Sherlock the envelope of bread crumbs and he makes the Hansel Gretel connection and they leave.

This is absolutely true. The best we can say is that Sherlock had I.O.U. on his mind when he made the Hansel and Gretel connection.

I would also like to point out that when Sherlock is first seen with Grimm's fairy tales, he does an extremely quick skim, not looking at any specific page. However, when he makes the Hansel and Gretel connection, not only is the page with Hansel and Gretel shown, but the table of contents (to which I have associated I.O.U.) are shown with his finger running through the list. Again, this is very soon after he whispers "I.O.U.".

**Posted by Fenchurch** April 14, 2013 5:28 pm

Thank you for explaining the twelve brothers-fairytale. I've been thinking about that for a while.
But I still can't see how Cinderella fit.

So I was thinking, there's a lot of references to German in the episode. And if you consider the German letter "ß", can you put it in between "S" and "T" in the alphabet? (Any Germans here?)
In that case "U" becomes the 22nd letter, and not the 21rst, which give a whole new fairytale. And the 22nd fairytale has a promising title; "The riddle".

**Posted by tobeornot221b** April 14, 2013 6:21 pm

Sadly, the German letter "ß" (a mixture of s and z) isn't part of the alphabet...

**Posted by Fenchurch** April 14, 2013 6:28 pm

Ok, it was worth a try.
Guess it's back to Cinderella, then...

**Posted by Joalro** April 14, 2013 8:17 pm

Nice try though! That's the exact sort of thinking I'm looking for!