Follow TV Tropes
The example list on Sherlock is cluttered with non-recurring tropes belonging to the recap pages and character tropes. Gonna migrate those soon.
The Stayin' Alive ringtone? As Arc Words? That's not even trying.
I think "Mythology Gag" needs an own page...the list is very long already, and far from complete. And when the new season starts, there will certainly be even more to add.
EDIT: Never mind. It seems I misremembered a few facts.
Sherlock has a Crowning Moment Of Heartwarming page, but it reads more like Plot Recap. Anyone else think it's gotten a bit out of hand?
This entry is being subject of an Edit War. Please don't readd until you've hashed it out:
In addition, there is this from the YMMV page:
You two need to work this out here rather than making a mess on the wiki.
'As of "The Reichenbach Fall," try emailing Richard Brook the storyteller who may or may not have been Jim Moriarty at "firstname.lastname@example.org" with nothing in the subject line but I believe in Sherlock Holmes, Moriarty was real in the body of the letter. What arrives in your inbox a few minutes later is downright spooky or if you know how hardcore the trolling creators Steven Moffat and Mark Gatiss are when it comes to trolling the fandom, downright cruel.'
^ Does this still work for anyone? I tried it and got nothing, and I am really, really curious as to what happens.
the reply I got was just:
Thanks for getting in touch. Unfortunately, I will be out of town and
without access to email for an unknown period of time. For all urgent
requests, please contact journalist Kitty Reilly, and she will be able
to direct your message. Otherwise, please feel free to reply with more
details and I'll be sure to respond when I return!
Thanks from your favourite storyteller,
If you go the site(r-brook.co.uk), you will find a disclaimer that the said website was not made by the bbc but is a fan-made one.
So according to this article Moffat has Jossed the theories about Sherlock being gay or asexual and instead described him as a Celibate Hero.
Yes, I think that needs to be amended. Although, I guess your mileage may vary, since much of the fandom still believe John is gay and probably wouldn't change that even if Moffat did explicitly say "John is not gay" (and he probably has.) Also, I guess it depends on how you define asexuality, but Celibate Hero works for me.
Although I personally totally agree with Sherlock being classified a Celibate Hero, because of all the ambiguity, it is worth noting that Moffat is a self-professed Lying Creator, so any proclamations he makes may be genuine for all the writers, may be true only for him, or may simply be him trolling the fans.
I was wondering, do these two entries cancel each other? Or we'll just have to find a way to edit the first entry so that it reads "even though they were introduced earlier"?
I find this hilarious, by the way. I was so focused on the awesome that is Mycroft that I completely ignored the details on those terrorists things. For all I cared, they could have shown a couple of Leprechauns and it would have been the same to me.
...Oh God. Wouldn't it have been AWESOME if the IRA had been involved instead? That would explain why Moriarty talks with them- apart from the "they pay him" answer which is so not exciting.
Removed this from under Big Bad Friend:
It isn't an example, because it wasn't meant to be malicious, he did it for what seemed like a good reason at the time and he does seem to feel terrible about it afterwards. Big Bad Friend is only for actual villains, and while what he did was a terrible idea Mycroft is still, so far as we know, one of the good guys
Mycroft and serious double standards.
Everyone but everyone is super quick to jump to Sherlock's defense no matter what his behavior. He puts on an act of superiority, egotism, unfeeling, high and mighty insufferably genious-ness...and yet fans see through it to what we all know lies beneath.
This same behavior applies to Mycroft, and those self. Same. Fans. swallow it down whole, to the point of praising John for reaming Mycroft for a mistake and name calling, mocking, and downright abusing the character.
This troper is REALLY sick of the double standard.
Mycroft has a level of emotional maturity and self-awareness that Sherlock doesn't seem capable of reaching though. He is capable of knowing better, and calling someone out when they should have known better (and for what was a pretty school-boy error too) is a rather different thing. Sherlock is someone that really needs a carer because he cannot socially function without one. Mycroft not only can socially function, he has thrived, reaching the top of British society. That means he is capable of suppressing or ignoring the impulses that Sherlock is bound by.
Mycroft is /human/. Humans make /mistakes/. He had a choice between a sucky choice and a suckier choice, and he chose the one that sucked the least. I defy you to tell me what you would have done in that situation. How you would have resolved it.
Come, show me how you would have averted such an easy, school boy mistake. I'm waiting.
Just because Mycroft /acts/ more socially acceptable then Sherlock- and just because he is more capable of channeling his talents in a certain direction- doesn't make him any more or less human or capable of making errors in judgment.
It's a show, calm down. As Cryptic Mirror says, Mycroft is definitely capable of knowing better. I was the one who submitted the "awesome" entry that so enraged you, and I'm not apologising for it, because this is in the context of two seasons worth of Mycroft's smug, overbearing attitude toward John (and Sherlock, for that matter). Making mistakes is quite understandable, but when you present yourself as the Grand High Lord of Never Making A Mistake (as Mycroft does, especially to Sherlock on the plane in Belgravia) it's inevitably going to come back and bite him, hard.
Moreover, I don't give Sherlock much leniency in that respect either.
I actually quite like Mycroft as a character, for what it's worth. This is not personal. It's a show.
I deleted two comments by fauxnormal because they were rude. Attack the argument not the person.
I'm not angry. I'm making a point. If you are unable to grasp that Mycroft is putting up as much of a front as Sherlock does, perhaps you need to practice your character understanding.
Disagreeing with other tropers is fine. Being disrespectful in debating said disagreements is not. Wiki suspension issued for fauxnormal.
Might I suggest a more mundane explanation? Sherlock is young and pretty; Mycroft is not. The end.
Or maybe it's because Sherlock is our main character? Don't assume the fangirls are all just shallow.
I was going to put this under "Funny" but I'm sure nobody ever checks there:
Is "Funny" broken for anyone else? When I go in to edit it, it comes up as a wall'o'text that can't be edited in any way. Aaargh.
James Phillimore, one of the suicide victims, is a shout out to "The Enigma of the Warwickshire Vortex," a Sherlock Holmes short story by F. Gwynplaine MacIntyre that dealt with the unsolved disappearance of a man named James Phillimore.
False — both the episode and the MacIntyre story are referring to one of the original Sherlock Holmes stories (Thor Bridge, I think?) in which Watson mentions Phillimore's disappearance as one of Holmes's previous cases. There's no evidence that the episode writers were referencing the MacIntyre story or even knew of it.
Both this and most of the Shout-Out entries about the original Sherlock Holmes stories duplicate the entries under Mythology Gag. Strictly, I guess they qualify for both, but do we need to keep both lists? For now, I'll remove the Shout-Out list as it's less complete than the other, and with this being an adaptation of Sherlock Holmes, it seems to make more sense to use the Shout-Out heading only for references to works that aren't Holmes-related.
We've already addressed the trope "darker and edgier", but is there any other way to convey that season 2 has in spades what season 1 seemed cautious about or even anxious to avoid? I mean, Sherlock isn't, as Martin Freeman pointed out, "horrible." It's not overly graphic or offensive. But I'm just noticing for example that the word "cigarette" wasn't even mentioned in season one, and both episodes of season 2 so far have freely addressed the smoking issue, with Baskervilles depicting the highly un-PC scenario of a doctor giving someone a packet of cigarettes to shut him up. The language is slowly getting there (instances of real, actual swear words in this second series, instead of the more creative get-arounds of season one), not to mention the "nudity" of Belgravia. Do you think this is a pattern or am I just reading too much into it? To me, it's like they had to use due caution in series one because nobody knew how it would go, but now that the show is a raging success, they feel they can add a couple of instances of the word "shit" and allude to rampant nudity and cocaine and stuff and whichever body makes sure these shows play nicely for their audiences will suck it up because of the show's success. (And they're probably right.)
So is there any consensus on when we can start to relax on Season One spoilers? As yet anything that pertains to the Great Game side of the pool scene is still heavily censored (doesn't particularly bother me because I have the censors off, but I'm sure the page looks awful with all those blank lines.) When does "spoiling" become "oh come on, why are you visiting this page if you haven't seen it?"
Honestly just curious. I'm generally erring on the side of caution.
It's been a year now, and the second mini-series is airing, and the books the stories are based on are about a century old. I'd say we're safe on those now. You need to know about how the pool scene turned out to understand anything in season two so that isn't really a spoiler now.
Agreed, then. Although I've got no intention of revealing major spoilers for Season 2 as yet, I guess I can't see why there needs to be ANY spoiler warnings on, say, Fridge or Headscratchers or whatever. Because I can't imagine how/why on earth someone who hadn't seen the series would go to those pages anyway...? Though of course on trope pages it's very different. Never mind. :)
So, is it just me or is there starting to be a little Flanderization, although possibly it's just character development?
I'm interested. Could you elaborate?
I just mean, in series two there seems to be an odd mix of moments when Sherlock appears more self-absorbed and childish than ever (possibly flanderization) and there are others where he appears to be growing into a legitimately nice guy (apologizing to Molly, saving the woman he loves, being nicer to John etc.). Having now seen two episodes, I think it's probably just a "Depends on the writer" situation though.
The entry for "genre savvy" says that Anthea worked for Irene. I do not remember seeing her or hearing her mentioned in "Scandal in Belgravia." can anyone confirm if this is true or not?
She waits for John outside the flat, then escorts him to a meeting that John assumes will be with Mycroft as usual... you know the rest.
I saw that and was a bit confused myself. Embryon- isn't it a completely different actress/character?
Hmm, you're right — they are different actresses, and the second one is credited as "Beautiful Woman." I (and apparently some other people) assumed it was Anthea because she never introduced herself and she had Anthea's sly smile and Blackberry habit.
How should one go about spoilertagging the new trope entries bound to pop up with the new season?
I'd suggest leaving a spoiler warning on the top of the page and leaving it all visible, considering it's a detective show. There's too many mysteries and secrets to spoiler mark - the page would become unbearable to read.
I'd do it myself, including removing the old spoiler markings, but I thought I'd ask around first.
I would like to fix this, but I'm entirely uncertain on what it is trying to say:
"Due to the high ratings and great critical response, the BBC commissioned a (who airs the program as apart of Masterpiece) suggested it would begin airing in the United States in early May. Moffat had earlier teased the plots of all three episodes, which eventually turned out to be:"
Are there full episodes available online anywhere?
Depends on how many laws you feel like breaking.
Torrents. Again, depends on how many laws you feel like breaking.
For what it's worth, since this is an old thread, Series 1 is available streaming on Netflix.
So, we will be seeing Miss Adler come season 2. Now the question is, what direction will the writers take her in? Of course, Doyle never intended for Adler to be a romantic interest for Holmes and even had Watson say as much in the opening paragraph of -Scandal.- Sherlock is logical and extremely calculated, so he wouldn't be really capable of love or lust due to their unpredictable nature and the irrationality they cause.
Still, people do love pairing them together (I personally don't mind it either way, I just love Irene's character in general). And recently I read an article where the writers discussed who would be taking which story, with Steve declaring that he wanted to do "the twisted love story" of -Scandal-. So what do you guys think? Are they referring to Holmes/Irene, Irene/Her new husband or both?
I'm hoping the creators' respect of canon keeps anything romantic from happening between Irene and Sherlock. It always bugged me that Irene kept getting promoted to love interest when she gets married in her one appearance. In fact, Ive also noticed that just about every interpretation makes her into some sort of master criminal as well, essentially a female Moriarty. Again, perhaps a berserk button for me (I love canon), but all she did was threaten a jerkass with blackmail.
My wish would be for the writers to turn this on its head completely and have a whole episode of No Yay or show that Irene really does love her husband. Or for her to be played by Snooki (they are both from Jersey).
Well, it doesn't look like Snooki won the audition, as Lara Pulver has snagged the role. Being also of good ol' England, it will be interesting to see whether they get rid of her New Jersey backstory altogether or if she'll go for the Fake American. Either way, she definitely has Irene's singing part down .
I agree with you about Irene's personality—it seems that they always turn her into some sort of criminal...when one of the things that surprises Sherlock the most about her is her kindness. From how the King described her she sounded like a vengeful Femme Fatale, not the good-hearted woman who only wanted justice for being wronged by someone she once loved. Needless to say, most people tend to cling to the first impression rather than the real one—because we all love our snarky, backstabbing, Will They or Won't They? romances.
'Of course she's from Jersey, John. Look at the size of her poof!' (Sorry, couldn't resist)
What I'm worried about is that the Sherlock crew will cave to expectations of making Irene a Femme Fatale instead of the "kind" woman that she really was. They managed to get Sherlock and John right (IMO), so it would be a shame if Irene turned out like the 2009 version.
A romance would be especially problematic seeing as they went out of their way to show that Sherlock does not play well with others. If it looked like he was instantly smitten with her I can only imagine how fast accusations of Canon Sue will arise, and I don't know if one episode would be enough for something to organically develop.
Tropers, are you seriously telling me that Ho Yay has been moved to YMMV? Sherlock Holmes (classic) has so much Ho Yay it has a Ho Yay page of its own, why is it YMMV for this adaptation?
Maybe 'cause John has a girlfriend? I dunno...
But Watson had a wife. Wives, if I'm not mistaken. Yet there's still so much Ho Yay.
I'd like to see Sherlock's drug use mentionned here because this scene was very touching and a reference to the books. I just don't know what trope that would fit.
there definitely used to be some - perhaps they were moved to YMMV? Anyway, it's such an oblique reference in the show it's barely worth dwelling on.
You know one thing I found interesting in retrospect (see: First Episode Spoiler) is that while I completely thought Mark Gatiss was playing the villain Moriarty, I SHOULD have realized he was playing the gov't agent Mycroft, simply because in his first scene, he's standing with an umbrella much like John Steed would!
THANK YOU whoever it was that linked me to weeble's Benedict Cumberbatch video on his page!* I listened to it for 20ish minutes before realizing that IT NEVER ENDS. EVER.
I can hardly wait for the SHERLOCK version of Irene Adler!
Wonder if she will be the one who informed Sherlock of his lack of heart.
Okay, seriously - does Sherlock qualify as a Genius Ditz or a Ditzy Genius? Are the two mutually exclusive?
I was going to just blast one of the entries out of existance, but I've spent too much time comparing the two to not get some kind of answer.
The Ditzy Genius entry says:
"Contrasting with the Genius Ditz, who, while usually foolish and moronic, has flashes of insight or hidden talents, we have the Ditzy Genius who, while very intelligent and talented, has absolutely nothing in the way of common sense, wit or tact."
Sherlock is clearly the latter and not the former, so Ditzy Genius it is.
Yep, it's definitely Ditzy Genius.
Moved from the main page, under Did Not Do The Research:
Just in case someone wonders why the entry about Maneki Neko was removed.
Good call Rebochan. And thanks for pointing me that I was just adding natter with the Red Herring entry. I had just seen the episode and my blood was boiling.
Totally understandable. I actually got a bit obsessed with this myself since they ran it on PBS and I've got a shiny Blu-ray of the whole series now.
Further to that, many (perhaps most) Chinese takaways in England have Maneki Neko on display.
Is there any possibility that the first name of this iteration's Lestrade (Greg, as given on Mark Gatiss's Twitter) is a nod to Gregson from the original "A Study in Scarlet"?
No, in the original stories, Lestrade is mentioned as being "G. Lestrade", but we never find out what the G stands for. This is probably just another nod to the canon.
While this is an old topic: I thought so, too, at first, but in The Reichenbach Fall, Lestrade defends himself "I'm not the only officer who did that. Gregson..." It's easy to miss, because the Superintendent interrupts him at this point, but apparently Gregson is supposed to be a separate character from Lestrade.
Just want to point out- Sherlock is not a sociopath, high-functioning or otherwise. Moriarty is, but Holmes isn't. A case of Did Not Do The Research on Moffat's part.
It was just a joke, it's not a case of did not do the research, it is at best an Alternative character interpretation as valid as he has Asperger's or that he is a Schizoid.
I always read that line as Sherlock taking the piss out of Anderson. I don't see Sherlock as a sociopath, even if he likes to think of himself as emotionless.
I would like to point out that even though Sherlock likes to claim that he doesn't care about other people, he appeared visibly affected by the old woman's death in episode three, as well as Moriarty's using a small child later on. There's also the conversation they had by the pool, although Moriarty could probably count as an Unreliable Narrator of sorts.
The Conversation (paraphrased from memory):
Moriarty: I will burn you. I will burn the heart out of you!
Sherlock: I have been reliably informed that I don't have one.
Moriarty: But we both know that's not quite true.
In The Great Game (episode 3), Sherlock asks John if "caring" will help him save the people Moriarty has strapped bombs to. He's not emotionless, and he's not a sociopath. It's actually sort of like the reason he doesn't care if the Earth goes around the Sun or vice versa - he only allows himself to remember "useful" facts. It's not useful to him to know about the solar system, or to become emotionally invested in a case.
He's such a complex character, I could write pages and pages about him. But I won't.
I always thought that Sherlock was pushing aside emotions and acting like he doest care so no one could force him off the case by threatening to kill someone he values. Look how good that turned out.
I'm trying to figure out which Naming Trope fits "Anthea" best. Only One Name? Fandom seems to think she's a I Have Many Names, but that's not canon.
She does outright state that Anthea is not her real name, and her pause before saying it rather indicates she came up with it on the spot.
I was wondering if anybody might see the trope of "Asexuality" or at least "Chaste/Celibate Hero" fitting Sherlock?
I mean, I've seen that those who watch the show from an outsider's objective standpoint (ie. my parents, my friends, et cetera) exclaim just how deeply intriguing Sherlock's aromantic asexuality is; they claim him to have so far one of the few asexual come-out scenes (ex. the restaurant scene) they've seen on television. And then I tell them about the popular slash fanbase and they fall into conniptions and/or have their lives ruined. haha.
I want to see how valid their opinion is in the majority of the audience, so I'm asking for other points of views. If there is enough agreement, I'll put up an entry for it.
I got the impression Sherlock was employing Obfuscating Stupidity when he was questioning John's sexuality. Sherlock probably has the best Gaydar in the world, but it looks like he also has a cruel streak...
I think it's probably supposed to be ambiguous, given what's been said in interviews. I think it's worth mentioning as a perfectly valid interpretation, esp. given the 'married to my work' speech. /a slash fan's 2p.
(And I dunno, he seemed a bit out of his depth in that scene. I got the impression he was trotting out the standard line and hoping for the best, lacking experience in that area, personally.)
debussy, do you mean to say that Sherlock is obviously gay? Or obviously asexual? It would seem Obfuscating Stupidity would work either way.
And, Ayries, I agree wholeheartedly: the interviews with Gatiss and Moffat concur with keeping Sherlock an ambiguous enigma. (haha, I felt that way, too! My asexual friend actually turned to me after that scene with wide eyes, because, as he claims, this is the exact same conversation he goes through every time he goes to see a new doctor. Awkward, to say the slightest, and easily taken in either direction.)
I've been looking into it out of curiousity, and found that the actor playing Sherlock considers him asexual. 
It's near the end, you'll probably be best using CTRL+F and searching "asexual".
I think that at least this will make it valid for at least mention on the page.
I'll wait until after the final episode tonight, in case anything changes - though I doubt it will. The story's not about all this sexuality, after all!
I meant asexual, and having a bit of fun unnerving John!
Yes, definitely, Sherlock qualifies spectacularly. As asexual/chaste hero/celibate hero etc. You shouldn't really have to wonder, considering it's literally canon. But well...there wasn't so much slash fic in the late nineteenth century...that we know of
haha, yeah, I've always seen it as canon for Holmes to be the typical aromantic asexual, too; I was just a little hesitant seeing the massive amount of slashers I've been seeing ready to die for their ship, and daunted by some (given, the minority) of the possible extreme reactions. Though, exactly as you say, this version of Sherlock "qualifies spectacularly".
If anybody wants to add anything to the main "Asexuality" label that I'll put up in the lines of what debussy is doing (lulz, so true now that I think about it), feel free to do so, too! Though I shouldn't be the one to say...
The image of scads of Victorian slashfic is amusing me no end.
I personally think Chaste/Celibate Hero is accurate as well...
Steven Moffat explicitely described Sherlock to be more of a Celibate Hero than either gay or asexual here.
So, remove Asexuality from the main page entirely?
Shouldn't there be links to the original books, Sir Arthur Conan Doyle, and the original characters?
EDIT: Added the links.
Community Showcase More
How well does it match the trope?