Reichenbach Theory, My Clues. Let The Obsession Begin!

It came!!!!  It JUST came, I just opened it and numerous other things I bought off Amazon, and I'm watching it now, as of 2:37 pm.

"Henry Fishguard never committed suicide.  Bow Street Runners missed everything!"

"Every fairy tale needs a good old fashioned villain."

 . . .

John's wrong.  Mycroft couldn't have sold Sherlock out to Moriarty.  Why do that and then make John aware of the assassins that moved in within spitting distance of 221B?

I think the whole idea of Moriarty wearing some kind of mask to steal the kids and make the girl think it was Sherlock who kidnapped her is ridiculous, honestly.  Much more likely is this scenario: if it wasn't Moriarty himself who apprehended them from the boarding school, then it was one of his men.  Obviously, someone couldn't be seen at night dragging two kids around, it'd be noticed immediately.  So, what's a criminal mastermind to do?

The most logical thing would be for Moriarty to do exactly what he does to Sherlock later in the episode.  Drive a cab himself with the kids in the back, and have the TV on, playing something with Sherlock's face.  It could have been footage of him doing some weird experiment at Baker Street, as per the hidden camera, or it could have been something Moriarty fashioned that was Sherlock's image on the screen, and a voice over (that Moriarty has made, computerizing his voice to sound exactly like Sherlock's, of course,) telling the kids that Sherlock is the criminal, that unless they do exactly as he wants, they'll never make it out alive, etc., etc.  That would scare the bejeezus out of two kids, explain her screaming when she saw Sherlock, and help to plant the idea of Sherlock actually being behind things in Donovan's mind.

And in answer to another blog I saw that wondered on the inaccuracy of the police saying 'our boys can't do that,' in regards to what Sherlock did as far as finding where the kids were, well, I admit, I don't know a huge amount about forensics, but my opinion is that in a way, Sally Donovan was exactly right.  Yes, the police are good with forensics and yes, in time, they may have been able to piece together where the kids were.  But at the same time, Sherlock's the only one who would have been able to piece together the kidnapper's gait, shoe size, etc., that he mentioned, and he's the only one who could have put together that it was Addlestone that quickly.  But because of the screaming, that dediced it in Donovan's mind that Sherlock had crossed over from the thrill of just solving crimes, to the thrill of initiating them and then 'solving' them to prove 'how clever' he is.

And the fall begins.

Now, one thing I noticed on the initial watch of this is that Mycroft showed John  the files for four major assassins who were in the vicinity of Baker Street.  One is killed when saving Sherlock from being hit by a car after he gets out of Moriarty's cab after Moriarty's "Sir Boast-A-Lot" story.  Another is killed when he saves Sherlock and John from being hit by the bus when they're handcuffed to one another.

Oh, and just something random that I love.  Rupert Graves, the one who plays Lestrade, was in V for Vendetta.  I think they did a tip of the hat to that movie when Sherlock says, "You can't kill an idea.  Not once it's made a home . . ." taps Lestrade's head, " . . . there."

I love the scene in Kitty Riley's apartment where Moriarty walks in, and there's the whole thing with him being "Richard Brook, the actor."  Honestly, I didn't give Benedict Cumberbatch proper dues for the acting job he did there.  He doesn't say a word.  Simply looks shocked, amazed, and then . . . admiring.  He knows his reputation will be in tatters.  He knows exactly what Moriarty's doing and knows Moriarty knows exactly what he's doing, having gone to Kitty Riley, someone Sherlock rejected before.  And though he hates what this will do to his credentials, he can't help but respect the play Moriarty has made.  They compare the events in this episode to a game quite often, and Moriarty has just made a killer move, and both he and Sherlock know it, and Sherlock, at first, can do nothing but admire what is an underhanded, sneaky, yet positively brilliant maneuver.  But his emotions take over as Moriarty plays his part to the fullest.

"There's only one thing he needs to do to complete his game and that's to . . ."

Molly . . .

Molly was the only other person besides John who never lost faith in Sherlock.  Who's dedication and trust in him never wavered.

He says it himself to her.  "Molly, I think I'm going to die."  I think that's what he wanted her for.  Needed her for.  He tested her.  Asking her if he wasn't everything she thought he was, if he wasn't everything he thought he was, would she still want to help?  And she didn't hesitate.  Just asked what he needed.  He needs her.  He needs her to give credit back to his name.  John can't do it.  John's too close.  John was Sherlock's blogger and someone everyone figured was Sherlock's boyfriend/bromancer/always vigilante defender.  But Molly . . .  She's someone else.  She's someone different.  People may listen to her, if she speaks in the right ears.

Back on the Mycroft-sold-Sherlock-out possibility . . . once again, I think it's wrong.  Mycroft never confirms anything.  He simply lets John draw conclusions.  But Mycroft is smart.  Too smart to give away anything about his brother to someone so dangerous with such an important keycode.  Mycroft would not fall for the equivalent of 'show me yours and I'll show you mine.'  John's wrong.  Mycroft didn't sell out Sherlock.  But I do think that he may have underestimated Moriarty, and that's why he was stammering about "I never imagined . . . I never dreamt . . ."

"I love newspapers.  Fairy tales.  And pretty grim ones, too."

I know this entry is going all over the place, but I'm typing as I watch the episode (and while a little birdie keeps climbing down my arm to wreak havoc on my keyboard...)  Anyway.  That's the clue I think everyone's missed.  That and/or possibly the line about Henry Fishguard towards the beginning.  "Henry Fishguard never committed suicide."

As far as the fairy tales, though, think about it.  Sherlock and Moriarty are constantly taking clues off one another's words, actions, facial expressions, and I think Moriarty and he both knew the other had something planned, even if they didn't know every nuance of what that plan was.  I think Moriarty gave Sherlock an 'out,' because he's not done playing with him yet.  I think there's something, in one of the Grimm brother's fairy tales, that will give a major clue.  I don't know what story it could be, or how it would be modernized to work here, or how Sherlock used it to his advantage in so short an amount of time, but that's what I think the clue is.  Grimm's Fairy Tales.  One of them.

And I'm determined to find out which.

He willingly went off the roof of the building because he believed Moriarty was dead (which I don't buy.)  And I'm going to figure out if I'm right in my theory.

R.I.P. Sherlock.  For awhile.

The Reichenbach Heartbreak - BBC Sherlock's Third Episode

SPOILERS AHEAD.

So yeah.  If you've somehow missed these episodes (I don't know what rock you'd be living under to have accomplished that, but still,) then read with caution.  I spoil the ending, I talk about my theories, and I swear to God, I will put money on this, I'm positive I've found the clue that everyone's missed.  I don't know how it fits in with Sherlock faking his death, but I'm sure I know what the missing clue is.  I'll develop further theories to that aspect once I have the DVD in my hands and can watch it a bazillion times.

I cried.  I freely admit it.  I cried when Sherlock called up John and told him that everyone was right.  That Sherlock was a fraud, and that John should tell Mrs. Hudson, Lestrade, everyone, because the papers were right.

And I cried again when John was at the grave.

I haven't gone into much detail about the performances of the actors in past blogs, but I'd like to now.  I think Martin Freeman's performance throughout this episode was amazing, but his true shining moment was at the grave.  From the start, we see him trying to be tough, cold, not to let his emotions take over.  His speech, therefore, was somewhat stilted, not over-flowing with emotion, like we would normally see of one at a gravesite, who is overcome by what they're in front of.  What the world they're suddenly facing will be like.  Let's face it: John Watson was trying to be like Sherlock always was.  A machine.  Separating himself from caring because he didn't see it as a worthwhile means to an end.

But that facade fades as he speaks.  As he asks Sherlock for one final favor: to not be dead.  I think this was Martin Freeman's crowning achievement so far for this series.  He's been absolutely amazing thus far, but that scene . . .  It was just so powerful, so well done, and so moving.  I wish I could do it justice by description, but I think even if I filled up a novel, writing about those, maybe, two minutes, I still wouldn't be able to.

Benedict Cumberbatch's Sherlock is incredible.  The sheer amount of effort that must go into him so flawlessly executing the deductions, the aloofness, everything, and making it seem effortless is nothing short of remarkably amazing.

I have to say, I think my two favorite parts of this episode with Benedict Cumberbatch were his reactions to Molly's thoughts about him during the "You look sad...when you think he can't see you," bit, and his acting on the rooftop.  Specifically, when he says, "Oh, I may be on the side of the angels, but don't think, for one second, that I am one of them."  And then, of course, when he's on the phone with John.

Honestly, as far as what I think the clue everyone missed is, I'm not going to say right now.  I'm going to wait until I have the second season DVD in my hands and I can watch all six in a row.  Nine hours of Sherlock.  I'll be on British hot guy overload . . .  Totally worth it.

Anyway, as per what I said in my original entry, before I'd actually seen the episode and was going off of thirty second YouTube clips, I still don't think Molly was in on it.  I don't think that's what Sherlock needed her help with.  I have no evidence right now, it's just a gut feeling, but I'm voicing it, because my gut feelings are usually dead on.

I think if anyone knows he faked his death, it's Mycroft, and I think the reasoning for that is that Sherlock went to him at some point and said to him, "You sold me out to Moriarty, someone determined to destroy me.  You. OWE. Me."

I also don't think Moriarty's really dead.  I still support the idea that he planned it, and planned Sherlock knocking his arm.  We never actually see the shot happen, we just see Sherlock's back as it rings out and Moriarty falls.

My worry with that is, if Moriarty turns out not to be dead, where will they go from here?  How much more of a climax can they bring to the table?  I admit, I'm a bit apprehensive that so early in the show's running, it could go down very quickly if not handled properly.  But I'm going to keep faith in Steven Moffat and Mark Gatiss that they know what they're doing and will continue to bring us quality films for a long time.  They've definitely set themselves up with a challenge, however.  Most TV shows run several seasons before giving a climax like a character dying and then coming back from the dead, and the reason for that is it implies they've reached their limit.  They've got nothing left, so they have to go out on a bang, and then they come back for one more season that limps its way along because they can't just do a one-episode season to wrap things up.

For the record, I don't think that Sherlock will come back for the third season and just flop.  The writers are too good for that, and there's too much of an expectation for them to live up to.

Well, I've found out that I should receive the second season tomorrow, so I'll be able to watch the episode again and discuss more in-depth my theories.  Until then, I leave you with something I found, which is semi-Sherlock Holmes related:

This is a line from Hugh Laurie, about the ending of House.  I just found the similarity to how he describes House and some lines from Sherlock eerie.  Of course, House is based on Holmes, but even so, it's odd to hear/read that line about 'on the side of the angels' twice in two days...

“I like him very much,” Mr. Laurie said. “I think he’s lonely. He has a wonderful sense of humor. He’s got a wonderful sense of playfulness about him. He’s just calibrated differently. He’s on the side of the angels, but that doesn’t mean he has to be an angel. He most definitely isn’t. But I think somewhere within him there burns a very fierce and righteous flame.”

How Reviews Influence a Writer

Well, this writer, anyway.  Honestly, I wish there were more constructive reviews of my books on Amazon.  There are two that I continually come back to and read/reread.  Ange de Mystere's and Sand Under Foot's.  It was when I read the former's review of Rendezvous that I realized, "Oh, crap.  Not everyone's gonna get why I went so close to the lyrics from Phantom for this book."  But seeing how a reader felt about it helped with my Jekyll and Hyde one, because I reference the lyrics numerous times in that one, but I don't rewrite them.  There are simply subtle hints that, if one knows the lyrics as well as I do for that show, they could pick up on it.  For instance, there's a line in 'Facade' that goes "Look around you, I have found you cannot tell by looking at the surface what is lurking there beneath it.  See that face, now I'm prepared to betcha what you see's not what you get cuz man's a master of deceit."  My tip-of-the-hat to that line came in Erik's letter to Holmes: Of course, you can never tell what may be lurking underneath the surface.  There are other such examples where I hint at lyrics rather than thinly rewrite them, or quote directly.  (I wonder how many people realized the title was a lyric?  Lost in the Darkness.  Go check out the lyrics.  It's there.)

Anyway.  I know that one of the pieces of advice for writers is to not read their reviews.  To an extent, I see why and I perfectly agree.  I mean, especially when people don't like it, who wants to read something that tears their book to ribbons?  No one, honestly.  Though there are exceptions.

This YouTube review is one of those exceptions.  It's the second part of a video review (supposed to be a miniseries about mine and the other Phantom/Holmes crossovers, but no more videos were put up, as far as I can see,) about Rendezvous at the Populaire.  In the first part, she talks about the two characters and their appeal (which includes a picture of Megamind and an unintentional slash implication,) and says, "So, how many crossover stories have been written, with Holmes and the Phantom having the face off of the century?"

Four.

Which leads into my favorite part, where fun, carnival-type music comes over and the screen says, "Thank you for your patience while we attend to some technical difficulties."

I swear, click on the link.  I'll wait.  Cuz the picture she found of Erik when she comes back from the technical difficulties is priceless.  Seriously, go watch it.  I'll be right here.

.............

Did you see it?  How great is that?  It just fits perfectly!

Okay, so I don't ramble about stuff liek that the whole time, I'll get back to my main point.  To a degree, I understand not reading reviews.  For instance, years ago, my dad told me this story about an actor who was in a play, I think it was.  His publicist told him over and over not to read the reviews of his performance because he didn't want it to affect how the actor would be onstage.  The actor didn't listen, and read one particular review where the writer criticized how a certain line was said.  Afterward, the actor was never able to say it the same way again, even after being told the reviewer didn't know what they were talking about, that he'd done it perfectly, etc.

I admit, I don't look over the more negative reviews a lot (for instance, I've only watched the three things Ange de Mystere didn't like about Rendezvous twice,) but I greatly appreciate the criticisms.  Sand Under Foot's criticism that I've humanized Holmes too much and that they'd like to see more of Watson was invaluable to me.  Honestly, I was kind of disinterested in Watson for these novels.  Of course, I was going to keep him in them, but had it not been for that review, he may have just become more and more of a background character, instead of so fully invested the way he is in Jack of All Trades.  In fact, I don't think I thought of everything I'm doing to Watson until after that review.

I suppose my main point in all this rambling is that while I don't like or appreciate the purely negative reviews of "this books sucks," "the author's horrible," "why did this ever get published," I do appreciate the well-thought out ones that have honest criticisms and suggestions for improvement.  There are more than just Ange de Mystere and Sand Under Foot, for instance, Alistair Duncan's blog review where he mentions me writing that Watson was looking at Holmes's pant leg.  It never even occurred to me, an American, that someone British would say 'trousers.'

Anyway, the constructive reviews I've received thus far have helped me greatly to up the bar for the next novel.  I'm hoping that my deadline will work out, because I want to have Jack of All Trades typed, looked over, and sent in in time for it to be available for purchase by mid-July.

Anyone who hasn't reviewed, please do.  Offer what you like, what you don't like, what you'd change, what you'd keep the same, anything you wish.  As long as it's respectful and thought-provoking, I welcome it.

Rendezvous at the Populaire

 I Will Find the Answer

House Predictions

Okay, so I know House isn't specifically Sherlock Holmes, but let's face it: everyone by now knows that he's based on Holmes.

Unfortunately, I didn't seen the episode where 13 came back, so I admit, this could be a bit outdated of a guess for what happens.  However, even though I was a season off, I did call it that House was going to be driven insane.

The last episode I saw was the one where the morgue doctor cut into his own head and it turned out that his diagnosis had something to do with industrial strength soap.

I can't help feeling like what happens in the end, in the last episode, is that Wilson is going to die, and instead of wasting away from cancer, he asks House to assist him in suicide.  House, unable to deal with facing life without his best (and possibly only) friend, decides that after he does this for Wilson, he's going to kill himself, too.  When he does, Chase becomes the new head of the team.

Or possibly, Chase or 13 or someone saves House from dying by his own hand, but he's comatose, and again, Chase takes the lead and the final patient is House, and it's them trying to save him.

Two more days until The Reichenbach Fall!!!  I'm gonna be obsessing over this episode.  I've already pre-ordered my Sherlock Season 2 DVD.  :)

Future Holmes Projects

For those who don't know, Rendezvous at the Populaire and I Will Find the Answer are the first two novels in my five book Holmes series.  Jack of All Trades is the third one.  The fourth, I'm rethinking the title for, but it's Holmes and Van Helsing pairing up to face off against Dracula and Moriarty.  (Don't worry, Watson fans, yes, he is in this one!)  And the fifth is called Finding Camelot and features Erik bringing three Americans to Holmes's attention, one of whom believes that Camelot, Excalibur, and the King Arthur legend were all real.

In addition to those, I've come up with three Holmes short stories I'm gonna see about publishing through MX in one volume.  It'll depend on how long they wind up being.  I may have to wait till a couple more ideas come to me.

After that, I have an interesting novel idea.  This one's going to be a stand alone.  It starts out with a girl in the present time, up at Niagara Falls.  She's about to commit suicide because, while only in her late twenties, her life has gone to complete Hell.  She's thinking about her pathetic suicide note, written on a post it, stuck to her apartment's fridge, and how that seems to epitomize her life.  Even when she's going to kill herself, her life has amounted to nothing more important than a square piece of paper on the fridge that no one would ever actually notice.

But then she thinks except for one person.  He'd notice.  He'd realize what kind of living Hell she was in.  And he'd be there for her.

The girl's last thought as she goes to step off the waterfall and be splintered to bony bits on the rocks below is, 'This is it.  This is the end.'

Next, it goes to Holmes, fighting Moriarty at Reichenbach Falls.  As they go over the edge, Holmes thinks to himself, 'This is it.  This is the end.'

And with those same thoughts penetrating both their minds, Sherlock Holmes finds himself disappearing from Moriarty's grasp, experiencing the feeling of nothingness for a brief second, and then smashing into a girl at the edge of a waterfall and both of them falling backwards to safety.

Yes, Sherlock Holmes is transported to modern times.  And he hates it.  He has no idea what happened, how it happened, or how he gets back.  The girl brings the disoriented Holmes back to her apartment and when he fully wakes up and isn't dazed, she asks him who he is.  Of course, he replies Sherlock Holmes.  She doesn't believe him.  Figures he's just some actor, or some weird role playing guy who gets really into his costume or something.  She starts getting annoyed, though, when he just doesn't give up.  I mean, who does this guy think he is?  Insisting he's the greatest FICTIONAL detective, the one who NEVER LIVED?

Soon enough, she takes him to meet her therapist/psychiatrist who diagnoses him as being bi-polar and delusional and gives them prescriptions for him to take.  These really screw with his head, and he throws the medicine out, saying if she wants to drug him, he'd rather a seven percent solution.

As the novel progresses, Holmes finds himself succumbing -- much to his horror -- to the language and actions/reactions of people in this age, and our female lead begins -- much to her confusion -- to act all the more Victorian.

Don't worry, I haven't given away anything of the actual plot.  There will be a mystery to solve, and once Holmes realizes he's succumbing to the influences of the modern world, in language, dress, etc., he makes a point of carrying around the Canon, because he begins to feel that's his only tie to his own world, and his best way to remain true to himself.

I can't wait to write that one.  :)

I'd love feedback on the idea.  Let me know what you think, please?

Jack of All Trades - Writing Freak Out 2

The way that I'm doing this novel is different from the previous ones.  I've already mentioned the more historical element as opposed to the fictional one.  Then there's the fact that whereas before, I was more interested in what Holmes's thoughts would be, and how he was handling the things coming at him, now I'm more interested in sitting back and observing his actions through Erik's or Watson's eyes.

This novel is made up of three narrators and then third person POV's of the murders.  Watson and Erik have the majority, but Holmes will narrate about three, maybe four, short segments.  One of which is the reveal for who Jack the Ripper is.  I imagined this in his perspective the first time I wrote a draft of it, and honestly, I can't picture it being in anyone else's perspective but his.

My issue now, though, is that I worry about it being too short.  I'm hand writing it first before I sit down and type it, and I'm already up to the double murder night, and I'm only on page 56 or thereabouts.  Fifty-six?!  I admit, when I transfer it to typed page and then it gets reformatted to what the page size is for MX, I may be pleasantly surprised, but it still seems very short right now to me.  And considering I felt this was gonna be one of the longer ones, that's not good!

I know, I know.  It doesn't matter how long or short something is.  If a book is five hundred pages, but it's five hundred pages of crap, the book sucks and people will hate it.  If it's a hundred pages, but it's a hundred pages of good, quality material, people will love it and appreciate it even in its shortness.

And I will admit, I still have to get through the double murder, Watson's issues, Erik's issues (which is what I'll handle after the third person perspective of the double murders,) different parts with Holmes, Watson determining that he's angry enough at his situations that he wants to pour over Holmes's notes and file on these killings and discover who the Ripper is himself, the half a kidney in the mail and the letters coming in, all supposedly from 'Jack,' which means I'll have to do another third person perspective part where 'Jack' is actually writing the 'From Hell' letter that mentions the kidney, Mary Kelly's murder, then there's the reveal itself and the repercussions that has on all the characters, the resolution of Erik's situation and his feelings about that clouding his mind so that he didn't see clues to help Holmes solve this sooner, then Mycroft--

Well, can't give that part away.  You'll have to read to find out what I'm doing there.

I guess I shouldn't worry so much about it being too short right now.  I have a lot more to cover in the month and a week between the night of the double murder and Mary Kelly's murder.  Then there's wrapping everything up after Mary Kelly's murder, and including Holmes's file on the killings, which is going to be at the end of the book.

I admit, I could have done a better job on Rendezvous.  And should have.  I just felt the lines from the musical were so perfect, it was hard not to write those exact lines down.  And I suppose I had too much of an influence from Angel of the Opera by Sam Siciliano, because I more or less modeled my Raoul after his.  I stepped it up with I Will Find the Answer, though.  Luckily, to my knowledge, anyway, there are no Jekyll and Hyde/Holmes stories where Holmes is dealing with the play version of Jekyll, therefore including Emma Carew and Lucy.  I had to truly mold my own version if I wanted to fit Jekyll's fiancee and the Unfortunate who draws him, and therefore Hyde, into her life.  I did model it somewhat after the book, because in Stevenson's novel, Sir Danvers Carew is the only man killed, and the deed is done with Jekyll's cane.

I raised the bar for myself when I wrote I Will Find the Answer.  I only hope that Jack of All Trades raises the bar even further.  I want it to be the best one yet.  I want people coming away from this novel, hungry for more.  Saying, "Damn . . .  God, I can't wait for the next one!"

Because, let's face it.  For the next one, I'll have to raise the bar even more.  And despite these little freak-outs on my blog, I will rise to that challenge.

Elementary, My Dear Watson?

Elementary Preview.

I look at this and I can't help feeling like it's a train wreck waiting to happen.  When I first heard about this show, I was semi-looking forward to it.  I knew it would be nowhere near as good as the BBC's Sherlock, but then, I have to be fair; I've said this before, but when I first saw the DVD of the BBC's Sherlock, I couldn't help thinking, 'This is either gonna be really good, or really, really bad.'

With the BBC's Sherlock, I was pleasantly surprised and incredibly drawn in to the brilliance of the show.  It truly is a modern day Holmes.  He embodies all the traits of the Holmes of the Canon, and the writers are absolutely brilliant in their incorporation of the old plots and conversations to the present day.  I wish I could find a clip of it on YouTube, because the conversation Sherlock and John have (okay, more like Sherlock's monologue and John's baffled and amazed silence,) about Harry and the phone is absolutely brilliant.  (I need a word besides brilliant.)  It so perfectly encapsulates and modernizes the conversation Holmes and Watson had about Watson's late older brother's pocket watch.

Anyway, I didn't come here to fawn over the brilliance of Sherlock (really need a Thesaurus for a word other than brilliant...)  While on Facebook, I saw the preview/behind the scenes look at Elementary, the U.S.'s answer to Sherlock.  When I first heard about this show, I figured, 'Hey, it's kind of awesome.  House is ending, Sherlock, for all it's amazing, wonderful, terrific-ness, only does three episodes per season, so this'll be a good show to distract me while I wait for Season 3 of Sherlock, and it'll keep me from spazzing incredibly about whatever cliffhanger Mark Gatiss and Stephen Moffat will leave us with next.'  (Cuz we all know another one is coming.  We had the best cliff hanger I've ever seen with the first season, we've got the huge ? hanging over our heads as to how Sherlock pulled off jumping off a building while John watched, and not only coming out alive, but having everyone think he's dead.)

But after seeing the YouTube footage I linked to above, I'm . . . hesitant.  There are a lot of changes, the biggest of which being that Watson is a woman.  Now, if this wasn't an American station doing this, I wouldn't worry so much.  But, and this is not an original thought, many people were commenting on this underneath the YouTube video, when there's a man and woman partnered up in whatever fashion, there's bound to eventually be sparks that fly, a relationship that starts, and insinuated sex scenes to follow.  It happened with Booth and Bones, it happened with House and Cuddy, and I'm sure there are others it's happened with, but I don't watch a huge amount of TV anymore.  The point is, Sherlock Holmes is pretty much the ultimate person to have the 'forbidden romance' with.  He's the one who every woman wants to melt the heart of.  Yet within that lies the problem.  Everyone wants to, but if one wants to stay true to the character, no one can.

I think House handled this the best.  Yes, he and Cuddy got together.  The writers decided to explore the romance possibility.  But at the same time, I don't feel they so escaped the characters' personalities in that exploration, and they also gave the only possible outcome that could have come from a House-Cuddy relationship: it ending BADLY.

Hopefully, if what I'm afraid of happens and they do decide to get Sherlock Holmes and Joan Watson together, it will take much the same route as House did.  Not with Holmes crashing a car through Watson's living room, but with a break up, some kind of inevitable separation, and then something forces them to work together, so there will be a strained agreement to work together professionally, with eventually goes back to a friendly camaraderie, but with an understanding that no relationship will ever happen again.

I'm not going to get into it in this entry, but that is something I'd like to cover.  The idea of why Sherlock Holmes is so appealing.  Why people always want to imagine him as being found by a woman who will melt his heart.

Until next time, I'd love to hear comments and thoughts on Elementary, or on the idea of Sherlock not being the analytical calculating machine we all know and love.