SHERLOCK: “The Abominable Bride” {Roundtable}

Sherlock came back for a New Year’s Special this year – and played a complicated game with time and space and multiple mysteries that are either wholly compelling or utterly confusing. It seemed that it was too much for just one set of reactions, plus the Nice Girls are pretty much all fans, so it’s roundtable time!

1. What do you think about the construct of Sherlock’s “mind palace”?

Lexie: Um. See question 2? But yeah, I like all the fidgety bits with the editing and stuff.

Roz: I’m all for meta and alternate universes, but the blending between one and the other made everything hard to follow in the span of ninety minutes. If at the episode’s end I’m still confused, it’s too complicated and too much too soon for resourcefulness.

Rueben: I had a feeling – at the beginning – that it was all in Watson’s mind until the plane landed; and then it was clear that it was inside Sherlock’s mind. But a mind palace, really? I had a flashback moment to the Syfy series Haven, as they used a mind palace idea near the end of the show’s current, final season. It was a clever plot device, but traveling back and forth between the two alternate universes made what should have been an incredibly intriguing episode even harder to follow.

Mel: The mind palace is an established structure within the Sherlock-verse, so it didn’t strike me as odd at all. There were several clues along the way that we weren’t actually in Victorian England – bits of anachronistic language were my biggest clue – and after the reveal, it made sense that this was all in Sherlock’s mind. Given the trauma Moriarty has inflicted on Sherlock, both in his life and his death, I readily accept that upon hearing that Moriarty was “back”, Sherlock took to his mind palace to discover if that was possible.

Cay: It was a clever device to tell a story, but I’m with Roz in that I found it rather hard to follow and at the end, I’m not sure what really happened. I’ll admit this is not the first time this has happened with Sherlock for me, though. Even though I gave it my [rare] undivided attention, I’m still a bit perplexed.

2. Is the way the episode played out a way for Gatiss and Moffat to avoid being wholly accurate to the time?

Lexie: YES. It all felt incredibly smug, like they were patting themselves on the back the entire time. We’re going to do Victorian London, they said! And fans called them out on Sherlock having an electric torch, they said “But 1910 is still Victorian London!” Even though their outfits were definitely not 1910-accurate. They wanted to have their cake and eat it, too.

Roz: Yes. I mean, the housemaid who talked back to Watson – no way! – but it tried, if in an odd way.

Rueben: They were trying to be clever, but it just made for more confusion. Although, seeing Hooper in drag during that time, battling to be accepted in a time when women were nothing more than chattel, was interesting nonetheless. I have a feeling, though, that they tried to – perhaps – be too clever.

Mel: I think the inaccuracies were meant as clues to the viewers that we weren’t watching something actually happening in Victorian England. I also think we have months and months of work ahead of us parsing how Sherlock’s 21st century mind perceives that era, himself in that era, his friends and family, etc.

Cay: I wasn’t looking for accuracy, just entertainment as I am not sure I’d recognize little anachronisms anyway. As far as I’m concerned, it was a clever, albeit often confusing, way to poke a bit of fun at the characters and the source material. They’ve thoroughly modernized Holmes and Watson, so why not send them back just for funzies?

3. Were the silent army of women condescending or really condescending?

Roz: At the point when Sherlock went on his deduction about why Emilia had help and how she got away with correcting a decades old wrong, I wanted to do something nasty to Sherlock. Sure, more ladies with lines, but not in a way that I wanted. They were all vindictive at a time when they had no voice, which is how I usually find them on the show. Not impressed. Historically I know this women had no voice and that Suffragettes had less than appealing tactics to my modern mind (I thoroughly enjoyed Suffragette for that reason), but in the world of Sherlock where the women are normally marginalized, this seemed to go so far in the other direction that it was trying to make me like all these women and I couldn’t when there were other powerful ways for all those women from all those social classes to bring down both men.

Rueben: Yes, it was condescending although if they were really in that era the silent army of women would have been (somewhat) realistic given how women were perceived in that generation. Women were only of purpose to provide children, cook and clean. That was wrong, but they had to remain silent or be on the wrong end of trouble.

Mel: You guys know that “The Silent Army” is an actual historical term used to discuss women during this era in history, right? Like, there are books about women activists that use variations on the phrase in their titles? It’s not condescending, it’s an accurate representation of what was happening in Victorian England in the late 19th century. Mary even references it when she’s told to stay behind at Baker Street – “I’m part of a movement,” she says. “Votes for women.” Until fairly recently, women HAD no voice, especially women in service (see: Watson’s maid). In order to affect social and political change, they had to form “silent armies”. And yes, violence was often part of those armies. (Pardon my history rant; I studied Victorian social history for both my Bachelor’s and Master’s degrees.)

Lexie: Everything Mel said is true, but it’s still condescending because this is a show written by Stephen Moffat and Mark Gatiss, who have a horrendously long and varied history of writing female characters in a very sexist and demeaning manner. The more famous a historical figure, the worse she’s treated. (Lookin’ at you, Girl in the Fireplace and turning MADAME DE POMPADOUR into nothing but a lovesick girl moping after the Doctor, the bastion of all that is intelligent and male.) Look at their treatment of Mary and Molly in this episode alone! Characters are dismissive and awful to them. So yes, the ability to vote IS fairly new and there are still leaps and bounds to be made, having Sherlock and Watson—two men—literally give voice to the women and talk over them is condescending as hell. Basically, I want Moffat to stay far away from lady liberation storylines because he misses the point. Just like this episode.

Mel: Chiming in here again re: the treatment of Mary and Molly in this episode – wasn’t that the point of their Victorian characters, as well as the maid’s and Lady Carmichael’s? To show how marginalized women of all classes were at that point in English history? Granted, I don’t have the same history y’all do with Moffat and Gatiss (I’ve seen 1.5 episodes of Doctor Who), so I’m not bringing what seems to be the attendant rage with me into this viewing. Perhaps I’d feel differently if I’d watched more of the Doctor, although y’all aren’t really making a good case for that.

Cay: I haven’t put nearly as much thought into it as you all clearly have, I have never seen an episode of Doctor Who, and I have no opinion whatsoever about either writer. That said, it didn’t bother me. I actually kind of liked that the storyline highlighted the poor treatment of women back then, which has only marginally improved over the decades. Also, Watson and Holmes talk over everyone, not just women.

4. Mary Morstan – great or greatest? Explain.

Lexie: GREATEST. I really wish she were on another show so that her greatness weren’t constantly being put down by the writing. Her interactions with Mycroft also made me laugh.

Roz: Greatest! I applaud that she was figuring out how Emilia had help while Sherlock and Watson were off running around. She’s got skills that Sherlock won’t – or doesn’t – want to admit are valuable.

Rueben: Agree, greatest! Whether it was the modern-day Mary breaking into MI5 via a cell phone or in Victorian Era figuring out the truth behind the army of women who helped Emilia, she is a formidable woman who deserved much more recognition.

Mel: Whether she’s calmly showing up Mycroft and hacking MI-5’s non-existent security or conducting her own investigation into Emilia, Mary is a great addition to the team. I think Sherlock does admire and respect her, both for her abilities and her love for John. After all, in his mind palace, she’s the one who solves the mystery. It’s John who seems to underestimate his wife. Well, at least in the Victorian part of this story; in the modern storyline, he now knows who she is and what she’s capable of, and I didn’t see him acting surprised that she was handily accessing all sorts of classified data.

Cay: I still haven’t recovered from the reveal last season that she was such a badass because I so never saw that coming. I do enjoy her interactions with Mycroft and Sherlock.

5. Does Molly Hooper deserve better than Sherlock gives her?

Lexie: YES. She always has and she deserves better than one-note fury and John smugly patting himself on the back for seeing through her disguise. Good job, you have eyes. Now get your privileged ass away and let the woman do her job.

Roz: Yes! She’s deserved better for a long while, but in this world she also didn’t have her own value admired by Sherlock in the morgue.

Rueben: Absolutely. She is a smart, clever woman who deserves much better; and hopefully, at some point, Sherlock will finally wake up. However, given his character flaws (good, bad or otherwise) he will never fully give her credit where credit is due or show her the respect she deserves.

Mel: Yes. And I think we were being shown his realization of that. In Sherlock’s mental construction of the Victorian case, Molly had to disguise herself in order to get ahead in her career, and it was John, not Sherlock, who saw through her disguise. It remains to be seen whether Sherlock’s behavior toward her changes. (See? Plenty to parse over the coming months. Tumblr is going to have a field day!)

Cay: Clearly Sherlock respects her, or she wouldn’t have had the role that she did in his mind palace where she figured it all out (although I’m struggling trying to recall/figure out which parts were in his mind versus in reality). But again, Sherlock and Watson are the two characters the show is built around and both (obviously Sherlock, but often also Watson) think they are the smartest people in the room and that everyone else is stupid in comparison, so I don’t feel that Mary gets any worse a shaft than any of the other characters.

6. Best and/or worst adaptation from modern to Victorian and back?

Roz: Can I say I like Mycroft’s fat suit in the Victorian era? I rather like that Mycroft’s vice in that time was food rather than purely information.

Rueben: I was flabbergasted by Mycroft’s fat suit. No, actually I was reviled by the fat suit. As for the jump back and forth, I’m not sure if it was a good adaptation or not. It was entertaining to say the least, but far too much jumping back and forth, making it hard to discern and even harder to follow. It might have been more interesting if they had just stayed in the Victorian Era and then had Watson wake up from a crazy-fever filled dream after being sick; although that wouldn’t have fit in with the way the last episode ended with Sherlock being brought back because Moriarty was supposedly back.

Lexie: I’m with Reuben about the fatsuit, but it’s on par for the quality with this writing team so I wasn’t surprised. I felt like the use of the Victorian period was a gimmick, a wink and a nod to the original that didn’t actually have enough of the time period itself to justify it. You’re not a magician, you’re a crime storyteller, which means that as part of the social-contractual obligations to the audience means revealing how the crime was actually committed. But really, that’s just—again—par for the course with them. We still don’t know how Sherlock survived,  and now we’re never going to find out how Moriarty came back. So basically, it all washed out for me? 3/10 overall. Would’ve preferred just an alternate universe Victorian London Sherlock than the mess we got. Solve the crime, give us a definitive answer, don’t bother with this Moriarty stuff.

Cay: Once again, this episode was fun, but didn’t instill any passion in me. They went back to Victorian England in a quirky gimmick, maybe it wasn’t so accurate, can’t say that I care. I was kind of horrified by fat Mycroft as well, but as he was a construct of Sherlock’ mind, it worked for me.

Mel: So. Much. To. Discuss! Because the Victorian investigation was all happening in Sherlock’s mind, in service to him deciphering how/if Moriarty survived, we have a wealth of insight into how his mind works, how he perceives himself in relation to his work, to his addiction, and to other people in his life. We also have insight into how he perceives others (of note: John rescued him from Moriarty on the precipice; Mary identified the perpetrators; Molly’s disguise; his banter with Mycroft about his impending time of death). This is going to be so much fun!

Sherlock is part of Masterpiece and will return again before we die. Hopefully.