Aurora, I really like this.  I'm not a careful reader, so won't comment point by point, but... Your question and musings are great!  We get so tangled in seeing things from John's perspective.  But if the writing is good, (and I think it is) then each character has a valid, coherent view, and their actions make sense to them (even if another character, or we the audience, misinterpret).

Jim certainly does seem to be testing Sherlock.  He sees himself, then is disappointed, then is encouraged again.  Like a professor with a student.  And certainly he sees that, in addition to destroying Sherlock's reputation, he needs to burn away any bit of humanity/sanity Sherlock may be harboring.  What will remain?  A creation in Jim's image.  So very good-  although he encourages Sherlock to jump, doesn't he always say it in a bored manner, as if Sherlock's suicide would be a disappointment?  (sorry, I'll have to back and watch the darn thing AGAIN.). What WE see is Jim telling Sherlock to jump, because that's what we think is the right thing to do in that impossible situation.  What Jim is really asking Sherlock to do is discard those little bits of humanity, let his friends die, and STAY ALIVE.

Sorry, I think I'm just repeating most of what you already said in this great post!  Consider it a compliment, please.  Thanks!

Last edited by Longsnowsmoon (May 27, 2012 4:33 pm)

Hi Longsnowsmoon and m0r1arty, thanks for the welcome and the encouragement. So glad you both think there could be something in this.

Longsnowsmoon, I agree we tend to look at things from John's point of view. He's definitely the most normal of the characters and therefore the easiest to understand. Sherlock is exceptional in so many senses of the word. Outstanding intellect but also doesn't fit in with our expectations for a "normal" person (lack of compassion, doesn't care about being polite or courteous, asexual, often doesn't seem to quite get what is acceptable). He's also very guarded. It all makes it very hard to work out what's going on in his head. Moriarty is nuts which also makes him hard to predict. He does seem to be instigating most of the plot, though, and Sherlock is responding to it and trying to outwit him. That's why I think it's essential to understand what Moriarty is trying to do - if Sherlock has worked it out then it helps us understand what he's up to too.

m0r1arty, I definitely think Mycroft and Sherlock are up to something. I found it very interesting to compare their interactions with each other when they were alone to when others were present. They seem to get along so much better when noone else is there. I find it hard to describe, they seem somehow strong together when they are alone. Particularly in the "morgue" but even in the plane scene - Mycroft is angry and dissapointed but... his criticism is more like telling Sherlock the hard truth because he needs to wake up to it rather than being nasty for the sake of being nasty. Whenever someone else is there (possibly excepting Irene) they are both constantly throwing nasty acid barbs at each other. It looks like a bad case of sibling rivalry and they never grew up and got over it. Is it all just an act?

Oh dear I love a challenge.


Ok
First up, that is one mega post & you will probably find many points are overlooked by others, but I'll start dissecting it,lol. Now please do not make the mistake of thinking I am telling you what is fact, because none of us know many facts about this. But you will see by my words that some things I believe in 100%, so I am not going to say 'perhaps.. blah blah" I will however say " "Its obvious blah blah". That's the way I debate things, if I don't believe it I won't say it.

1) IOU

Lots of people have been talking about this and trying to work out what its clever double meaning might be. What’s bothering me, though, is the straightforward interpretation. We all assume that Sherlock has been ruining Moriarty’s plans and he wants to pay him back but, when you think about it, how much of this have we really seen? Most of the interactions between the two were instigated by Moriarty when he was playing games (A Study in Pink, The Great Game). I can only think of two things we have seen Sherlock do outside of these games which we know impacted on Moriarty: interpret the terrorist bomb email and help him advertise at the trial. Both of these were big wins for Moriarty – I can’t help thinking that Moriarty owes Sherlock a payment more than a payback.

IOU is said by Moriarty very slowly, very distinctly. It is a threat, pure & simple. Delivered dramatically by by word of mouth & by images in unusual places that seem to haunt Sherlock through the show. There is no hidden meaning to it.
It is repeated throughout by an insane man; and Moriarty is insane. And that's what insane people do!
And certainly Moriarty DOES owe Sherlock as any consulting criminal can tell you if you are thwarted by some detective you look bad to your future customers.
Successes? While the Coventry thing was a mistake by Sherlock and hence a win, the court case certainly held no win factor. Advertising? I don't think it was much of a success, Moriarty had to use a new ruse of being someone else straight after it. If it were a success, Moriarty would have been a very busy consulting criminal.

3) Looking at the outcome from another point of view

"Richard Brook"  has been on a mission to convince everyone that "Moriarty"  was Sherlock’s creation. To the police and all law abiding citizens this makes him look like a nutter who hurts innocent people so he can be a hero. There is another group of people, though, who know that Moriarty Inc is very real and very effective. Have they been forewarned, or is Moriarty also alleging to them (both employees and clients) that it is Sherlock who is the brains behind the whole outfit? YMMV on whether they would believe it or not, but it does set up the possibility that Sherlock could walk into Moriarty Inc. claiming that everything "Richard Brook"  said was true and try to take over. Then, being the good guy we all know he really is, he could systematically set about pulling apart the organisation and all its clients from the inside. Did Moriarty made a fatal mistake? Or maybe he didn't…

I doubt very much any of the criminal element would ever believe the story, in fact 'Mr Insanity' would have gloated about what he was about to do with the whole 'Rich Brook' thing to build his image up with his clients, etc.
Also, we know that Moran for example tries to get revenge later on, so that kind of storyline would be too far away from the original that it couldn't be pulled back.
Interesting idea but I can't see it happening. Let's face it, it would make for a quick end to BBC Sherlock; he'd have nothing to do.

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 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.

Sherlock has always (in the original) been portrayed as having the mind similar to a master criminal. That has been the attraction with the character all along, one turn the wrong way & he'd be a dangerous criminal indeed. This is what makes him stand out from the crowd, the fact that he COULD take the more 'lucrative' pathway & be a master criminal but lucky for society he chooses the side of the angels.

On to Phase 2. Moriarty sets up the 3 big break-ins, the capture, the trial and release then he goes to meet Sherlock. After a bit of taunting ("side of the angels" , "final problem" ) and implanting the "key code" , Moriarty starts bragging about his success – he can get into any bank account (infinite money), discover any secret, blow up whatever he wants (infinite power) and everyone wants him (infinite fame). Then he reveals the first IOU – the apple. "Do you find this tempting?"

Next comes the kidnapping, the exposé and IOU number 2: "lights out on your career" . The police don’t trust him = no more special relationship, no more being asked to help out on the interesting cases. The public don’t trust him = no private cases either. With such a distinctive face and being easily recognisable, he would have little chance of getting any kind of job that required any intelligence or trust. No work, no reputation, nothing to look forward to but eternal boredom.

And finally, IOU number 3: "the fallen angel" . With one hand Moriarty has taken away everything Sherlock lives for and with the other he offers him everything he could possibly want. (Or so he thinks.) But there is a price to pay: Oh, just kill yourself…. Your friends will die if you don’t. To a normal person it doesn’t sound like a choice, but think what would Moriarty do in that position? John, Mrs Hudson and Lestrade are all good people who are influencing Sherlock in the right direction. If Sherlock is to be Moriarty’s successor, they have to go. And from Moriarty’s point of view, what better way to do it than have Sherlock to commit ultimate act of evil – the absolute fall from saint to sinner – betray his friends to their death and burn out his own heart in the process. In one act both proving himself worthy and stepping past the point of no return.

I don't think he had taken away 'all that Sherlock lives for' at all. 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.
Moriarty talks big at the tea party, but there is no proof in anything he says. He is a madman talking himself up to goad Sherlock. In his mind, he's done this great advertising campaign, but I don't see anyone rushing to him for help or to help him or cheer him on.
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.

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.

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.
However he was continually thwarted in his attempts to do so. So he changed his plan, he changed his story. There was no proof that the 3 men with guns would shoot anyone unless Sherlock jumped.They may have been just set up to kill on command if need be. It was only Moriarty's words that suggested what the trigger would be. They were simply his safeguards if the plan to even get Sherlock alone on the roof failed.
so many assumptions are made on Moriarty's word. More than likely, considering he's insane, most of those words were lies.

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.

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.



OHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH
And welcome to the forum.
I am the shy retiring old granny who sits in the corner knitting and listening.

m0r1arty wrote:

Hi Aurora and welcome to the boards.

Once I reached the time segmentation part of your post which indicates how Sherlock and Mycroft's relationship had splintered to the point of no direct contact starting at the end of 'A Scandal in Belgravia' and throughout 'The Reichenbach Fall' (There have been hints that John's blog doesn't necessarily reflect the true sequence of events - so 'Hounds of the Baskerville' could be during 'Scandal') it started to make a lot of sense to my mind.

If Sherlock were a genuine blight on his daily crimelordery Moriarty could easily have had him killed, but never under Moriarty's direct commanding does he ever go through with it on Sherlock. He's assumed to have sponsored the cabbie, assisted the Black Lotus Tong, been the focus of 'The Great Game', aided Irene, within Mycroft's ward during 'Hounds' and again the focus of 'Fall' but never once threatens Sherlock's life with anything other than Sherlock being the hand that ends it.

So killing him certainly doesn't appear to be his motivation. Why Mycroft led him go free does ring some bells with me though - perhaps Sherlock's big brother would like Sherlock to run the 'criminal' aspect of society thereby ensuring that 'security' is maintained properly.

It was certainly an entertaining and thought provoking opening post Aurora and one which I will come back to once I've digested all the potential connotations within this warped understanding of the show I have.

Glad to have you on board!

-m0r

m0r, have you considered Moriarty's 'games' with Sherlock as being a way to show to the criminal world how he can control Sherlock by being led in a certain direction with a sprinkling of clues?
If so, he certainly wouldn't want to just kill Sherlock, how boring. He wants to use him as his pawn; show off to his clients.

Also I believe 'plan' between Mycroft & Sherlock to be that they were encouraging the insane Moriarty to over inflate his ego &  this eventually led to his self destruction.

Hi Kazza, thanks to you too for looking through this and for all the work you've put into your detailed response. However, it looks like you've dropped your gauntlet so I'll try picking it up for you. 

(Sorry about the delay in responding - I got this far and got called away. May not have time to comment on everything tonight but I will get back to you eventually.)

It looks like there's an awful lot that we don't agree on. I think it basically comes down to us having totally different readings on what Moriarty is really like. Hence, the words I think are lies or "just talk" are the ones you take seriously and vice versa. For instance, you said you thought Moriarty agreeing he was insane was one of the only truthful things he said on the rooftop. I think it comes into the same category as Sherlock saying he is a sociopath and Irene saying she's gay: there are elements of truth there and it may appear to be true on the surface, but the reality is much more complex - more than anything, though, all of these were just a really good comeback lines to whatever the last person said.

Maybe I'm too heavily influenced by the Moriarty of the book, but I see him primarily as a criminal mastermind. As Sherlock says: a spider at the centre of a vast criminal web and he knows how every thread moves. A strategist and manipulator, charismatic and cunning with a network of people willing to obey his commands through both respect and fear. I can't see that he could have developed a criminal network of this magnitude unless the organisation was highly structured and controlled - how else could it have kept secret and survived for so long? How could he have developed his reputation and client base if he wasn't able to consistently deliver the results his clients wanted? He presents (at least to Sherlock) as being loopy but I think that is more than anything an act that he puts on because it appears scary (and he wants to create fear) and it's also great fun to do. To me his insanity lies in that he sees the conventions and structures of society and the wellbeing of people as irrelevant (boring). Crime is interesting because drives the boring ordinary people out of their comfort zones and it's fun to watch them panic. As a hobby or for amusement I think he does enjoy creating chaos and watching the world burn. To have created this web of crime, though, I think he must also have the ability to consistently be cold and calculating and businesslike.

Thinking about it some more, perhaps he is descending into madness. Initially he must have been pretty much sane to set up his empire, but he's slowly becoming more unstable and chaotic. If that's the case, the question is how far has he gone and how aware is he of it? So, my theory would say he is aware of it and is still able to make plans so he can "stay alive" even after he dies/completely loses it. Kazza, I think you are saying that he's already gone completely insane and is acting on impulse to create confusion and chaos and distress wherever he sees an opportunity. Would this be fair? As Davina suggested, possibly the organisation has been falling apart as Moriarty has been losing his grip on sanity and it's now reached the point of almost being destroyed anyway.

With all of these possibilities, there is the additional factor of whether Sherlock is pushing him along this path to madness and the collapse of Moriarty Inc.?

As I feared, I've run out of time and I'll have to respond to the rest tomorrow. Some of this might not have been 100% thought out - I might add more in the morning. [Now edited to explain what I'm thinking more clearly.]

Thanks for the welcome too. 

Last edited by Aurora (May 29, 2012 4:09 am)

For instance, you said you thought Moriarty agreeing he was insane was one of the only truthful things he said on the rooftop.

Ah see, what I said was "It's one of the only truthful lines spoken on the rooftop."
The line was actually " You're insane" & said by Sherlock.
Moriarty replied " you're just getting that now?"

He wasn't the one saying he was insane, just agreeing with Sherlock's assessment.
Now that is something an insane person could likely do; I agree they don't just come out & say " Oh I am insane".

Insanity takes many forms. Even the canon Moriarty was insane. And yet, yes both are in their own way of genius intellect.
But genius does not always equate with common sense and rationality. This is even true with Sherlock.
History is riddled with insane geniuses; many of them controlling very complex issues.
How complex was Moriarty's network? Who knows in this case? After all we are seeing a Sherlock who is still developing, so what stage was Moriarty at in his development?

Yes m0r, to some extent it will now be hard to tell for sure how insane Moriarty was. We still have Sherlock to diagnose however, lol.

kazza474 wrote:

I doubt very much any of the criminal element would ever believe the story, in fact 'Mr Insanity' would have gloated about what he was about to do with the whole 'Rich Brook' thing to build his image up with his clients, etc.

That's definitely another possibility - it all depends on what pre-warning he gave his clients and employees, if any. What about potential clients, though? How would they know it's all a ruse? If it had been put out in the general criminal community (and to all the rogue governments, etc) word would have made it's way back to Sherlock, Mycroft and the police.  The police would be expecting the attack and know it was rubbish. Sherlock and Mycroft could also have set up a counterattack  in a reputable newspaper to expose Kitty's terrible journalism. Even if they decided to let it play out to entrap Moriarty, by talking about it beforehand he's revealed his hand.

kazza474 wrote:

Let's face it, it would make for a quick end to BBC Sherlock; he'd have nothing to do.

Not at all. There are other criminals out in the world and many of them would not have been involved with Moriarty. It's the same as in the books. In fact, many of the most interesting cases in the books do not involve major crimes or the need for a consulting criminal. Sometimes there's actually no crime at all.