Mycroft’s Kitchen

A Sherlock’s 10th anniversary gift.

Mycroft: What’s going on in here? Eurus, what happened to your forehead?

Eurus: I tried to reach a teacup on the top shelf and it fell in my face.

Mystrade. That was never going to be canon anyway. It doesn’t hurt to think about

Depression

Denial

Chocolate

Mark Gatiss- The League of Gentleman 

BBC Sherlock - Super-High-Quality Production Stills - Sherlock, Mycroft & John Watson at Mummy’s house for Christmas -

Click here for top resolution: Pic 1: (5104x3403), Pic 2: (4585x3057), Pic 3: (5158x3439), Pic 4: (4940x3293), Pic 5: (4284x2856).

Alternatively: Deception in the Play that is Series 4 (The Importance of Being Earnest reading)

“The curtain rises. The last act. It’s not over. SH”

I’m going to discuss why this whole series 4 is just an act, such as there are different scenes to form a play. Some of the themes of The Importance of Being Earnest revolve around: duties/responsibilities, religion, morality, societal class, marriage, impressions, deception.

Let me just stress on two points here: deception (fake lives, fake people, and fake names) and impressions. Sound familiar? These motifs can also be found in series 4.

“Lady Bracknell” from Oscar Wilde’s play The Importance of Being Earnest (hereafter, TIOBE) was mentioned three times in The Final Problem.  It was during these three instances:

1)

2)

3)

Thus, it is necessary to know the significance of TIOBE to this show.

[Note: I’ll discuss some important points in TIOBE first, then proceed to using these points in reading scenes from BBC Sherlock. After that, I’m going to draw parallels between the two plays (considering that Series 4 is a play) by discussing the twins, handbag, bunbury, acting, christening]

The Importance of Being Earnest

TIOBE has three acts. Brief summary first. (If you already know about TIOBE, you can skip this part) The first act is the introduction of the characters, where the “Bunburying” by both Jack/John Worthing and Algernon Moncrieff is revealed to us.

Bunburying = is an act, that comes from the word Bunbury, who is a poor, invalid friend of Algernon. Algernon made up Mr. Bunbury, to use as an excuse/alibi (that Algy needs to pay a visit his very ill friend) for him to avoid doing his duties.

In Algernon’s own words: “You have invented a very useful younger brother called Ernest, in order that you may be able to come up to town as often as you like.  I have invented an invaluable permanent invalid called Bunbury, in order that I may be able to go down into the country whenever I choose. Bunbury is perfectly invaluable. If it wasn’t for Bunbury’s extraordinary bad health, for instance, I wouldn’t be able to dine with you at Willis’s to-night, for I have been really engaged to Aunt Augusta for more than a week.”

In the same way, Jack also does bunburying, but with Mr. Ernest Worthing

In town, Jack uses the name Ernest Worthing

In the countryside, Jack uses the name Jack but he has a brother named Ernest

The second act is Algy going to the countryside as he was curious about who Cecily was (the ward of Jack). Thus, to get into Jack’s place, Algy identifies as “Ernest Worthing” to everyone he meets in Jack’s place in the country. This causes a problem, of course, most especially since Jack also arrived during that same day to state that Ernest died because of illness, whereas Algy (dressed up as Ernest) was alive and well, and even inside the place.

The third act is both Cecily (supposedly engaged to “Ernest!Algy” and Gwendolen (supposedly engaged to “Ernest!Jack”) finding out that Jack and Algy were deceiving them with their names. You see, some of the themes of this play is about deception and impressions. The name “Ernest” is a great deal for the two girls, and if this isn’t Jack and Algy’s names, they are to decline the marriage. (Oh, and the views on marriage were also highlighted in this play)

Who is Lady Bracknell then? She is the mother of Gwendolen, and the aunt of Algy (in the end, it will also be found out that she is the aunt of Jack). Her attitude is VERY similar to Mycroft in various ways. (Btw, if you weren’t aware there are so many reasons why Algernon is a parallel for Sherlock and Jack/John for John, some of which are pointed out by @brilliantorinsane here.) 

Thus, we read:

Lady Bracknell = Mycroft

Algernon Moncrieff = Sherlock

Jack/John Worthing = John

Points of similarity between Lady Bracknell and Mycroft:

1.  She checks (interrogates) on Gwendolen’s potential partners

Lady Bracknell  (pencil and notebook in hand): I feel bound to tell you that you are not down on my list of eligible young men, although I have the same list as the dear Duchess of Bolton has. We work together in fact. However, I am quite ready to enter your name, should your answers be what a really affectionate mother requires.  Do you smoke?

Jack: Well yes, I must admit I smoke.

And this goes on. Anyway, it is comparable to this scene:

where Mycroft questions/tests John to get to know if he will be loyal to Sherlock.

M: Could it be that you’ve decided to trust Sherlock Holmes of all people?

JOHN: Who says I trust him?

M: You don’t seem the kind to make friends easily.

JOHN: Are we done?

M: You tell me.

M: I imagine people have already warned you to stay away from him, but I can see from your left hand that’s not going to happen.

Also:

Lady Bracknell: You can take a seat, Mr. Worthing

Jack: Thank you, Lady Bracknell, I prefer standing.

M: The leg must be hurting you. Sit down. JOHN: I don’t wanna sit down.

2. Lady Bracknell’s view on marriage/romance

Lady Bracknell: To speak frankly, I am not in favour of long engagements.  They give people the opportunity of finding out each other’s character before marriage, which I think is never advisable. 

MYCROFT: Well, it’s the end of an era, isn’t it? John and Mary – domestic bliss.

SHERLOCK: No, no, no – I prefer to think of it as the beginning of a new chapter.

SHERLOCK: What?

MYCROFT: Nothing!

SHERLOCK: I know that silence. What?

MYCROFT: Well, I’d better let you get back to it. You have a big speech, or something, don’t you?

SHERLOCK: What?

MYCROFT: Cake, karaoke … mingling.

SHERLOCK: Mycroft!

MYCROFT: This is what people do, Sherlock – they get married. I warned you: don’t get involved.

SHERLOCK: Involved? I’m not involved.

3. Role of the mother (consequently, the grown-up):

Lady Bracknell is the mother of Gwendolen, and the Aunt of Algernon. She shows authority in the play. She cared for her daughter the most. Such can be found in these:

ASiB:

MYCROFT: I’ll be mother.

SHERLOCK: And there is a whole childhood in a nutshell.

ASiP:

TAB:

MYCROFT: Doctor Watson? Look after him  … please?

BBC SHERLOCK

The mention of Lady Bracknell three times may suggest  that these are the three acts. The first act started after the explosion. See that the scene after the explosion at 221B is the pirate one. The explosion kick-started the play.

Okay, let’s dissect the dialogues. Replace the word “Lady Bracknell” in these dialogues to “act”. It totally fits in with the Play theory (where a brilliant meta on this was written by @porl0ck here, seriously, go read it if you haven’t):

FIRST *SUB-ACT:

MYCROFT: I’m sorry, Doctor Watson. Any movement will set off the grenade.

MYCROFT: I hope you understand.

JOHN: Oscar Wilde.

MYCROFT: What?

JOHN: He said, “The truth is rarely pure, and never simple.” It’s from ‘The Importance of Being Earnest.’ We did it in school.

WE WERE OFFICIALLY TOLD THAT “the truth is rarely pure and never simple” BEFORE THE ACT STARTED. It was the explosion that started the sub-act (*calling this a sub-act because TFP was the act within the bigger act (the whole of series 4).

(continuation)

MYCROFT: So did we. Now I recall. I was Lady Bracknell.

SHERLOCK: Yeah. You were great.

MYCROFT: You really think so?

SHERLOCK: Yes, I really do.

MYCROFT: Well, that’s good to know. I’ve always wondered.

SHERLOCK: Good luck, boys.

SHERLOCK: Three, two, one, go!

A nod to A PLAY by Oscar Wilde right before the “three, two, one, go!” and the explosion. The explosion in 221B signaled the start of the play. 

Then, 

We see this scene  literally after the explosion. Two points: 

1) No transition as to how we (or how Sherlock, John, and Mycroft) got to this part (specifically, in the British Isles: “RADIO: … Lundy, Fastnet, Irish Sea, Shannon, Malin, Sherrinford. Sherrinford. Sherrinford.” - These are all islands in the British Isles, except Sherrinford). 

2) Sherlock and John burst out of the window after the explosion and remained unscathed. No scratches. Anywhere. What a way to start the play.

SECOND SUB-ACT:

MYCROFT: It justifies dressing up or any damned thing I say it does. Now, listen to me: for your own physical safety do not speak, do not indulge in any non-verbal signals suggestive of internal thought. If the safety of my sister is compromised; if the security of my sister is compromised; if the incarceration of my sister is compromised – in short, if I find any indication my sister has left this island at any time, I swear to you, you will not.

MYCROFT: Say thank you to Doctor Watson.

GOVERNOR: Why?

MYCROFT: He talked me out of Lady Bracknell. This could have been very different.

MYCROFT: Are you in?

SHERLOCK: Just arriving at the Secure Unit. Explain.

AUTOMATED VOICE: Door opening.

“It justifies dressing up or any damned thing I say it does” = C’mon Moftiss, you didn’t think we’d see through your costumes for your play? The narrative we’re given is the whole show dressed up in a costume for an act. Moftiss, I wonder: what would justify your cover-up/dressing that is this season?

“Say thank you to Doctor Watson” =  John was our narrator for the last three seasons. We knew everything was real because the story was given to us from John’s perspective (or dare I say, eyes). 

“He talked me out of Lady Bracknell. This could have been very different” =  He talked me out of the act. It was John who guided us throughout the past seasons. JOHN has been our narrator. But Mycroft, this is ALL very peculiar, all very different…  right, because we are shown an act.

“Are you in?” = Interestingly, in the second act, the “are you in?” question asked by Myrcroft to Sherlock could also mean another thing, other than Sherlock making his way to see Eurus. Mycroft (the showrunners), saying to Sherlock (the show BBC Sherlock) “Are you in?” =  Are you in the act, are you joining the play? As is depicted, Sherlock continually enters. So he is in. 

We also hear this while Sherlock makes his way towards Eurus’ cell:

An act, within an act. A narrative within a narrative. A dream within a dream. (However you may want to interpret it)

THIRD SUB-ACT:

SHERLOCK: Please, for God’s sake, just stop it.

MYCROFT: Why?

SHERLOCK: Because, on balance, even your Lady Bracknell was more convincing.

SHERLOCK: Ignore everything he just said. He’s being kind. He’s trying to make it easy for me to kill him.

Sherlock: “For God’s sake, just stop it (the act).”

“Even your Lady Bracknell ACT was more convincing” = Where was the act then? It had already been done at this point, as Sherlock wants to stop Mycroft in putting up the act. Mycroft, as we know can also signify Moftiss in this show, just as Sherlock can signify the show BBC Sherlock. Even the ACT was more convincing than the present one. What does this say? It means that there is an act within the act. An act within an act (series 4).

Sherlock to John (aka us, the audience): “Ignore everything he just said. He’s being kind. He’s trying to make it easy for me to kill him” = Funny, didn’t we just think that Moftiss tried to reichenbach this show? Mycroft (the showrunners and even Sherlock who’s in it) are putting up an act so that it would be easier to kill the show.

(continuation) 

SHERLOCK: Which is why this is going to be so much harder. MYCROFT: You said you liked my Lady Bracknell.

JOHN: Sherlock. Don’t.

MYCROFT: It’s not your decision, Doctor Watson.

*****In case you haven’t noticed:*****

Mycroft = Moftiss

Sherlock = BBC Sherlock

John = Us

Dialogue:

Mycroft (bringing up the ACT again, right before he sacrificed himself to get shot): “You said you liked my Lady Bracknell act”

Mycroft (Moftiss): “It’s not your decision, Doctor Watson” = So, yeah, thanks Moftiss for telling us that we’re not actually in control of the situation.

Thus, three people in the room: (the showrunners, BBC Sherlock, and us)

Three people. Three characters.

Other Points of Similarity between TIOBE and BBC Sherlock:

1) Algy’s Mr. Bunbury

1.1) Richard Brook

While Algernon represents Sherlock, we can also read Algy as being Jim Moriarty - Richard Brook as it is stated in his CV.  (Found from Sherlock: The Casebook)

(photo from @gosherlocked here)

We know that Richard Brook is an actor, one which was invented by Jim to sell his story and prove to the world that it was Sherlock was mistaken all along.

KITTY: Of course he’s Richard Brook. There is no Moriarty. There never has been.

JOHN: What are you talking about? (Yeah, John is pretty much us. We were sold a lie, and us being clueless about it.)

JOHN: You read this stuff?

MYCROFT: Caught my eye.

MYCROFT: Saturday: they’re doing a big exposé.

(John reads the announcement at the top of the front page. The headline reads: “SHERLOCK: THE SHOCKING TRUTH” with the strapline “Close Friend Richard Brook Tells All”. The article reveals that it is an Exclusive from Kitty Riley and the text reads: “Super-sleuth Sherlock Holmes has today been exposed as a fraud in a revelation that will shock his new found base of adoring fans. // Out-of-work actor Richard Brook revealed exclusively to THE SUN that he was hired by Holmes in an elaborate deception to fool the British public into believing Holmes had above-average ‘detective skills’. // Brook, who has known Holmes for decades and until recently considered him to be a close friend, said he was at first desperate for the money, but later found he had no” [at which point the text just stops].)

JOHN: I’d love to know where she got her information.

MYCROFT: Someone called Brook. Recognise the name?

Plus:

Rich Brook is the “Bunbury”, or the fake person invented by Jim to make his act/lie more believable and convincing. We are John, who’s feels entirely deceived about this all, as we know who Jim really is, thus, we cannot just make ourselves accept Rich Brook. 

Sherlock’s line in TFP is to call out Mycroft to stop his acting.

TFP: “Please, for God’s sake, just stop it.”

We get it in TRF, when Jim Moriarty claimed to be Rich Brook.

TRF: “Stop it, stop it now!”

Similarly, we cannot be deceived by their act, as we know what the show Sherlock really is, and cannot just accept the Series 4, as it is. I mean, look at all their set-up, their costumes, their dialogue.

1.2) Series 4 Acting:

1.3) Helped by a media tycoon to set it all up? 

1.4) The family pictures:

These are staged. These photos are not how family photos should be taken. More meta on this: 1 2 3 

2) Handbag

There’s also this thing about the handbags.

Jack Worthing as a baby was found in a handbag in Victoria Railway station, in a cloak room. The handbag kept the baby in TIOBE. In Sherlock, handbags contained guns, as pointed out in this post.

Where’s the baby in Sherlock? (Allow me to play with concepts here. In TIOBE handbag –> baby. In Sherlock, handbag –> gun. What if the roles of the contents of the handbags remained the same?) 

Mary naming the baby after her name “Rosamund” was like asking for danger waiting to happen. She’s well-aware of her past. Clearly, there are reasons behind it naming the baby after her “name”. Rosie may be used as a misdirection, or as a weapon by Mary. To the manipulator, everything can be used for utility. Most especially, a baby. As pointed out in others’ metas, Rosie is just a fake baby used as a weapon by Mary to achieve her own goals.

More clues leading that the baby is fake. Look no further, the promo pics are here to save the day. As Cecilia pointed out here and here:

So many wrong things in the promo pics.

3) Twins

In TIOBE, Dr. Chasuble, the rector, was requested by both Algy and Jack to christen them both, so that they would obtain the name “Ernest”. There was even a witty line (which mentioned “twins”) in the play, when Jack asked Chasuble to christen him. 

Chasuble: In fact I have two similar ceremonies to perform at that time.  A case of twins that occurred recently in one of the outlying cottages on your own estate.  Poor Jenkins the carter, a most hard-working man.

Jack:  Oh!  I don’t see much fun in being christened along with other babies.  It would be childish.  Would half-past five do?

Chasuble:  Admirably!  Admirably!  (Takes out watch)  And now, dear Mr. Worthing, I will not intrude any longer into a house of sorrow.  I would merely beg you not to be too much bowed down by grief.  What seem to us bitter trials are often blessings in disguise.

The christening of the twins was never shown in the play (or more specifically in the book, as I read it), but this can also mean Algy and Jack, as they both wanted to be christened as “Ernest”.

Similarly, in the Abominable Bride, we have the concept of twins as well:

WATSON: Holmes, could it have been twins? HOLMES: No. WATSON: Why not? HOLMES: Because it’s never twins. LESTRADE: Emelia was not a twin, nor did she have any sisters. She had one older brother who died four years ago. WATSON: Maybe it was a secret twin. HOLMES: A what? WATSON: A secret twin? WATSON: Hmm? You know? A twin that nobody knows about? This whole thing could have been planned. HOLMES: Since the moment of conception? How breathtakingly prescient of her! It is never twins, Watson.

You see, the “secret twin” or anything “secret” (coughs /secret sister/)  might’ve been intended for this Play (series 4) to work. Jack Worthing never got to know his biological parents as he says that he lost both his parents. (His backstory being a baby left in the cloakroom). 

Jack: I said I had lost my parents.  It would be nearer the truth to say that my parents seem to have lost me

By the end of the play, with the turnout of the events, it is revealed to us by the end of the play that Jack is indeed the elder brother of Algernon. 

4) Killing of brother / friend

Lines in TIOBE (I cut some lines off): (Both Jack and Algy killed their brother/friend to continue with their lies about Ernest and Bunbury flawlessly).

—Jack—

Jack’s killing of his younger brother “Ernest:

Chasuble: Dear Mr. Worthing, I trust this garb of woe does not betoken some terrible calamity?

Jack:  My brother.

Miss Prism:  More shameful debts and extravagance?

Chasuble: Still leading his life of pleasure?

Jack:  Dead!

Chasuble: Your brother Ernest dead?

Jack:  Quite dead.

—Algy—

(Algy is continuing with his lie by making Bunbury appear dead at this point):

Algernon: Bunbury doesn’t live here. Bunbury is somewhere else at present.  In fact, Bunbury is dead.

Lady Bracknell:  Dead!  When did Mr. Bunbury die?  

Algernon: Oh! I killed Bunbury this afternoon.  I mean poor Bunbury died this afternoon.

Lady Bracknell. What did he die of?

Algernon: Bunbury? Oh, he was quite exploded.

Lady Bracknell: Exploded!  Was he the victim of a revolutionary outrage?  I was not aware that Mr. Bunbury was interested in social legislation.  If so, he is well punished for his morbidity.

Algernon: My dear Aunt Augusta, I mean he was found out!  The doctors found out that Bunbury could not live, that is what I mean—so Bunbury died.

The death of a friend… I have seen it in TFP (as narrated by Eurus):

Anyway, my point here is that the “fake” people were killed by both Jack and Algy. There are still lots of discussions on Victor Trevor and Redbeard at the moment, but Eurus’ story tells us that Victor was killed and was replaced with Redbeard, the dog, in Sherlock’s memories. In TIOBE, Algy and Jack killed their fakes to continue with their lies. Might be the same for Sherlock.

5) Christening

Algy and Jack immediately wanted to be christened by the rector to obtain the name “Ernest”, since both Cecily and Gwendolen do not approve of the names “Algernon” and “Jack”, respectively. Thus, they request Chasuble to baptize them to …. continue with their faking? So that they can get away with their lies… For the women they love… Okay. 

We went that far. That far to continue with Mary’s deceit.

In the end, we’re still trapped and watching the act:

The curtain rises. The last act. It’s not over. SH

Even more proof that this series 4 is an act, a lie. They told it to us many times before.

SHERLOCK: Everybody wants to believe it – that’s what makes it so clever. A lie that’s preferable to the truth. All my brilliant deductions were just a sham. No-one feels inadequate – Sherlock Holmes is just an ordinary man.

(They made the act pretty convincing, enough to convince some fans and the mainstream media that it’s ordinary, and not clever as we think it is.)

JOHN: Can he do that? Completely change his identity; make you the criminal? SHERLOCK: He’s got my whole life story. That’s what you do when you sell a big lie; you wrap it up in the truth to make it more palatable.

I would like to add that the Radio Times posted an article yesterday, April 10, with a quote that Moffat liked to write a PLAY. 

Moffat:  And I’d like to write a play because it would be so completely different. My main enthusiasm though is just to be at the beginning of something as opposed to well into it.

We see through your act. 

Please, for God’s sake, just stop it.

Scripts from Ariane DeVere

Tagging some who might be interested (sorry if you don’t want to be tagged):