221B Recs

Title: Sherlock’s Disguise: On Believing in a High-functioning Sociopath as a Higher Power
Author: stephisanerd
Pairing: Gen
Length: 2,485
Rating: G
Warnings: none
Verse: Sherlock BBC

Author's summary: IRENE: D’you know the big problem with a disguise, Mr. Holmes? However hard you try, it’s always a self-portrait.
SHERLOCK: You think I’m a vicar with a bleeding face?
IRENE: No, I think you’re damaged, delusional and believe in a higher power. In your case, it’s yourself.

Irene, here, is seemingly talking about Sherlock’s obvious disguise—he’s dressed as a vicar. She’s talking about that, but she’s also talking about another disguise that Sherlock uses—one that he never acknowledges is a disguise.

SHERLOCK: I’m not a psychopath, Anderson. I’m a high-functioning sociopath. Do your research.

Reccer's comments: One of the things I admire about this meta, beyond the insights into Sherlock's character, is that both Sherlock and John here come off as complex and flawed. If Sherlock so assiduously hides his humanity, we cannot blame John for not fully accepting its existence. If John hides from those flashes of Sherlock's humanity, we cannot condemn Sherlock for thinking that John only stays for that "higher power". Both men fail to see and observe what is in front of them in order to protect what they have, but those attempts at protection and preservation have failed and will need to razed to the ground before they can make progress as partners. When you understand this, it is easier to retain compassion for both characters, even when you are intensely frustrated with them.

Title: Moriarty as Two-Faced God and Response
Author: sherlockedaspergirl (on hiatus) and mild-lunacy
Pairing: Gen
Length: 2,244
Rating: PG
Warnings: none
Verse: Sherlock BBC

Author's summary: So I recently posted this meta about how the things that Jim says can be taken as prophecies in the pattern of Greek tragedy wherein prophecies are inescapable once uttered. But I would like to now show how it actually goes much further than that, and Moriarty is not merely a messenger of the gods as prophets are, but is in fact a god himself. His prophecies are still infallible in this reading, but his own role in Sherlock’s story is explained much more fully by this understanding.

Reccer's comments: Not long after the airing of S3, Sherlockedaspergirl examined the character of James Moriarty through a Greco-Roman lens, building on their earlier meta on his role as a prophet in the tradition of Greek tragedy. Prophets' prophecies are both inescapable pronouncements and clues that are invariably misunderstood (leading to tragedy). James might be a prophet (he is certainly full of pronouncements), but certainly he acts like a god when he makes use of prophets himself in TGG. Through them he makes himself known to Sherlock and tries to seduce him; many a god and goddess has fallen for a mortal. Sherlockedaspergirl argues that he is most like Janus, the two-faced Roman god of beginnings and endings, of doors opening and closing, of birth and death. Janus seems a fitting identity for James, though he certainly plays more than two living characters during series 1-3: Jim from IT, James Moriarty, and Richard Brook. Even his dialogue tends to dualism, veering between playfulness and unhinged rage. After his death, he plays yet another role, representing the negative aspects of Sherlock’s id: doubt, fear, and self-loathing. He still appears at liminal moments as befits Janus, when Sherlock dies and then is reborn in HLV, and in TAB when Sherlock gets “too deep” into his Mind Palace, scenes that include James’s death and rebirth, his near destruction of Sherlock, and then his final(?) death. So perhaps we might argue his two main faces are his roles as a living being and then his incarnation as the negative emotions Sherlock tries to divorce from himself. If Moriarty always speaks as a true prophet, something which Sherlockedapsergirl notes is not yet certain (has Sherlock's heart truly been burnt out, with the rumblings of an even darker S4 ahead of us?) then he has achieved a kind of immortality as part of Sherlock’s inner world. Nevertheless, for the Falls scene in TAB to retain its symbolic power, James’s overwhelming influence over Sherlock should now be weakened. It suggests that an important turning point in Sherlock's character arc has been reached.

I think this is a fascinating way to imagine Moriarty, as a god and prophet, even as I wonder whether the show both supports and destablizes those roles. For example, I think TAB has done what the respondent mild-lunacy predicted: John Watson, not James Moriarty (“John or James?”) has become Sherlock's "other face”, the one whose name brings Sherlock back from the dead (a miracle worthy of a god) and who cheerfully kicks the seemingly indestructable Moriarty into the Reichenbach cauldron. “There’s always two of us,” Mind Palace!Victorian John says, negating James’s claim that "it's always" just Sherlock and himself. And yet afterwards in probably the only completely “real” or “waking world” scene in the episode, we are left wondering if "Moriarty" is now (or always was) a title, for it is heavily implied that "Moriarty" will return with a new face in the coming season. Janus returns?! If so, will this character have exactly the same kind of negative personal relationship James had with Sherlock? I suspect not, for there would be a risk of the newcomer becoming a pale imitation of their predecessor. However, unless a mischievous deity is choosing my words, I cannot be certain.

Title: Sherlock and the Posthuman
Author: don-gately
Pairing: Gen
Length: 1,861
Rating: G
Warnings: none
Verse: Sherlock BBC

Author's summary: None by the author, but it is a character-centric meta focused on Sherlock's characterization arc via his increasingly unsuccessful attempts to live up to his flawed version of the posthuman ideal: the separation of the mind from the body and its messy emotions and needs.

Reccer's comments: The third series of Sherlock has inspired a body of brilliant meta, which provided insights into the show's characters, plot, and visual elements. Unsurprisingly, Sherlock himself was the focus of many metas, including this first-rate effort by don-gately (who sadly remains in an extended hiatus). In it d-g argues that Sherlock is a very much a man of the digital era:
Sherlock really is a sort of cyborg, or fancies himself as such: someone who can do away with the inconvenient sides of being a material being (including all those hormones and emotions, gasp) and use mechanics as an extension of his own brain.

Although posthumanism is associated with the late 20th and 21st centuries, Sherlock’s version of it dovetails well with canon Holmes's taking to extremes the older notion of liberal humanism and the Victorian ideals of upholding the rational intellect, placing it above physical, especially sexual, needs and desires. As the author methodically takes us through the three series and then each episode, it becomes clear that the show's primary Sherlock-centric arc is the journey from great to good man (ASiP), which for him will mean the breaking down of this incorrect version of the posthuman ideal and the slow, painful acceptance of his embodied humanity, that his body is intermeshed with his mind _and_ technology. He no longer will be able to pretend that he is a cyborg or a wired brain in a jar.

Many fans have complained that Sherlock is suddenly OOC in S3, but don-gately deftly illustrates how we gradually got from point A (when the faulty version of the posthuman ideal is firmly in place) to points B and C (from S2 onwards the ideal is increasingly challenged until Sherlock begins breaking down, leading to a series of serious failures in HLV). By doing so, the author convincingly challenges the notion that the Sherlock of S3 is somehow suddenly a failure and/or a failure to no good purpose. Realize that we are at the crisis point in Sherlock's journey, a necessary part of a good characterization arc. Moreover, this battle and its painful consequences must continue for a time (see the writers’ hints about S4) as Sherlock struggles to achieve what d-g calls "entropy": "Sherlock is in the process of achieving thermodynamic equilibrium between 'caring is not an advantage' and pumping himself full of drugs to forget his misery. He’s a man of extremes, but it is not viable on the long run and those extremes have to be reconciled for him to be a good man AND a great man." Making Sherlock's journey too easy and straightforward would shortchange his character growth, throw off the pacing of his arc and seriously damage the quality of a show that is clearly centered on the evolution of its two main characters, Sherlock and John, and their relationship. I for one cannot wait to see Sherlock truly embrace his post/humanity.


**I should note that a couple of the quotes are in academic speak, but most of the text is user friendly, with d-g communicating their argument in plainer language.

Title: The Lie of His Last Vow and Response to ArchipelagoArchaea's recent meta on Mary Morstan
Author: ArchipelagoArchaea and Marta-Sherlock
Pairing: Gen
Length: 4,563 and 2,303
Rating: PG
Warnings: none
Verse: Sherlock BBC

Author's summary: 1) It’s time to take down the surface reading of His Last Vow. This is the episode that purports to end with Mary’s past revealed, her lies and actions forgiven, and her role in John’s life firmly established, while Sherlock’s role is diminished by a combination of unborn child and his new criminal record. The casual viewer will probably take it at face value, sweeping any inconsistencies under the rug. However, there’s ample evidence they shouldn’t.

2) Let me be absolutely clear upfront that I haven’t been able to put anywhere near the amount of thought or writing effort into this piece that Archaea has. This is a reaction, not an original meta, and I don’t want to detract from her piece. I think in a lot of ways I agreed with her, and certainly felt my own more kinder!gentler!Mary (which isn’t the same as wanting her to go on as Mrs. Watson) interpretation more challenged (in a good way!) than I have by most other opposing views. Even if you like the idea of a Mary who doesn’t become a villain, even if you want her and John to go on to their stereotypically heterosexual happily-ever-after of a kid and a house in the suburbs (I put myself in the first camp but not in the second), I still really encourage you to give it a read. It’s thought-provoking and just fun to work through.

All that said… let me try to reply critically.

Reccer's comments: Note: I included both metas, not only because they are clearly linked, but also because the authors kept the discussion polite and respectful, something in short supply over on the Tumblr side of Sherlock fandom. I'd also recommend several of the substantive replies in the posts' notes, as they make interesting points and retain the same level of decorum.

I chose these meta because they both address issues in HLV that have puzzled, angered, or otherwise disappointed many fans and do so by combing carefully through that episode, as well as by looking back to previous episodes when exploring character continuity. Using clear, careful language, ArchipelagoArchaea and Marta-Sherlock agree that much of HLV appears to not work logically if one uncritically accepts the surface, taking the dialogue and action at face value. Neither sugarcoats the characters' actions, agreeing for example that Mary Morstan has not made any attempt yet to redeem herself (redemption is not the same as forgiveness, for it is an impulse that comes from within and is then made concrete through atonement), but do disagree on whether there may be space in S4 for her possible redemption. AA feels that, as a secondary character, there may not be time enough to make Mary more complex; there were many opportunities to signal that in S3, but instead the writers clearly positioned her as an antagonist in HLV. M-S counters that there still may be redemption for Mary; the writers may want to keep her redemption a surprise and therefore did not show their hand in HLV (in effect misdirecting the viewers).

M-S also differs from AA on the "Mary as Moran" theory that some fans have picked up on. There are clear parallels between Sebastian Moran and BBC's Mary Morstan in HLV, but, considering how much canon is jettisoned in this series, we cannot be sure that these parallels won't be subverted in some way next season and that subversion could lead to a more character than a villain.

AA makes additional points not discussed by M-S (this is not a criticism of M-S, just noting that M-S's meta is primarily focussing on one character and on things she disagrees with, rather than a point-by-point review). At the beginning of the body of AA's essay, for example, she marshals pragmatic reasons, genre expectations, and characterization to dispel fears that the Watson baby is going to play much of a role in future seasons of Sherlock.

AA also points out that Mrs. Hudson's morally ambiguous past serves as a mirror for Mary's. If one compares the actions of the two women, Mrs. Hudson comes out as gray, but not dark, because she does make some positive choices, such as confessing what she's done and decisively leaving that part of her life behind. Mary, however, does not volunteer detail on what she has done (apart from the USB stick that she tells John not to read), nor has she put aside her assassin's gear or her willingness to mortally wound or kill even an unarmed man who is offering to help her. These differences, which were decided upon by the writers, do make it easier to paint Mary as a villain at this point in the show.

John and Sherlock's dialogue and behavior also come under scrutiny. AA notes that if we accept the surface reading of HLV, then the characterizations of Sherlock and John, the two central characters, is not just inconsistent, but would be flattened, leaching them of their richness and complexity. A comparison of how they act in TSoT vs. HLV illustrates those inconsistencies quite well. AA therefore argues that it is probable that Sherlock has some sort of plan going on in the background that necessitates his keeping Mary relatively content as he tries to figure out her past and neutralize any danger she might present to John. Considering Sherlock's history of protectiveness toward John, I doubt anyone would object to the assertion that John's safety has become paramount to Sherlock, nor to the theory that any plan Sherlock might be concocting would maintain that as one primary goal.


I am not trying to push you to agree with one or the other author (or either!), but I do want acknowledge not just the tone of these meta, but the authors' attempts to base their arguments on relevant evidence from the series. I hope both ArchipelagoArchaea and Marta-Sherlock continue to engage thoughtfully with the show and (along with some other stellar models) inspire other fans to treat each other respectfully, even when they disagree.

Title: Difference and the Critical Possibilities of Sherlock
Author: abrae
Pairing: Gen
Length: 2,263
Rating: NR (G)
Warnings: none
Verse: Sherlock BBC
Author's summary: An exploration of Sherlock's potential critique of normative masculinity.

Reccer's comments: For those of you put off by Dr. John Watson in S3, this outstanding, enlightening meta is especially for you. Abrae was puzzled and frustrated by John's behavior and dialogue and decided to trace John's progression through all three seasons, coming up with answers that fit what we see and hear of this well-loved character. In short, John Watson of S3 is the product of: 1) his actions and experiences in S1 and S2 (what he does and says in S3 does not come out of the blue) and 2) what John (vs. the viewer) is permitted to see of Sherlock's emotions and motivations, partly the result of switching the POV character from John (S1, S2) to Sherlock (S3). Throughout Abrae uncovers John and Sherlock's contrasting and evolving attitudes towards difference in themselves and others, concluding that John's major challenge in S4 will be to accept difference in himself and Sherlock. This is something he must do before he can truly see Sherlock as a complex, flawed human being with the capacity to love, someone who refuses to be limited by John's determination to place everyone into neat, stereotyped categories.

Abrae argues convincingly, supporting her claims with relevant evidence from all three seasons. She ably gives voice to my own concerns regarding John in the first two seasons, flaws which, paradoxically, make him much more human and potentially even more likeable (if he can even partly overcome them!) than the unerringly emotionally perceptive BAMF of fanon.

Excerpt: John is caught between a rock and a hard place. On the one hand, he has a (nascent) ability to not just see, but appreciate, people for who they are; on the other, it’s tightly constrained by the way he - and men like him - understand the world and their role in it, and this is where I situate the potential critique of normative masculinity that Sherlock has to offer. Before anything else, John is a white, cisgendered, ostensibly heterosexual, neurotypical man in present-day England. He is “Everyman,” for a certain definition of “every,” and as such his life is defined both by certain self-perceived responsibilities and certain privileges. He’s a soldier and a breadwinner - he fights, he destroys, he upholds. He’s a man in search of a woman, not because he seems to have any great chemistry with them (Sarah, even more than Mary, comes closest - at least we witness that early spark of interest), but because that’s part of what defines masculinity - as John sees it and society defines it. John identifies himself (and others) through neat labels: soldier, doctor, not-gay, colleague, boyfriend, husband; wife, genius, machine. As relentlessly as Sherlock categorizes information, John categorizes people, and in such a way as to leave little room for difference - in others, but most viciously in himself.

Note: Very recently abrae has turned this into a series, with the remaining portions expanding upon this essay, which should be treated as a summary of her findings.