In-Class Movie: "Flight Risk" (S01E06)

"There is, however, one of [the cases] which was so remarkable in its details and so startling in its results that I am tempted to give some account of it in spite of the fact that there are points in connection with it which never have been, and probably never will be, entirely cleared up."

 -- John Watson, The Five Orange Pips

Austin: This episode was fascinating for a variety of reasons but only a few of them were the mystery. This week we had a plane crash but the victim in question wasn't killed in the crash. From this premise I was intrigued because I was trying to get the puzzle to fit. Was he murdered separately and was quickly stashed in the debree? How was he murdered on the plane? Is this the first time a wrench was used in a non-Clue related murder?

But the episode only wanted to focus on that part for a little bit. Whenever Sherlock rambled it was like he started a new mystery. It's all about lawyers! It's all about who was in the hangar! It's now about drug smuggling! I didn't care about any of this because once again Elementary didn't set up any groundwork for this to be solved. Yet I still kinda liked this episode. Most of it was because of Sherlock's past which we'll get to in a bit, but I liked the initial premise of this mystery.

It tied in well to Sherlock's past due to his fear of flying which is what every weekly mystery should do. Not as bluntly like this every week, but there should be some tying together. Anywho, am I being too nice to this episode considering most of the mystery didn't make any sense or is motive and mechanics not always the most important in a mystery? Am I judging this for what it could have been or for what it presented for a few minutes?

Leigh: (As a side note, debree is spelled “debris” I remember because the Brits pronounce it “deb-ris” simply because I think they hate pronouncing anything even remotely French-like. Filet is pronounced “fill-it” usually too.)

Just finished the episode and I have to say that I am confused as to what the episode wanted the audience to take away. You mentioned that Sherlock’s fear of flying is tied to the mystery but I think it is only there so that the two plotlines of the episode are related in some way. Aside from this one detail the mystery and Sherlock’s past have nothing to do with each other. I’m not saying that every episode should meld the two aspects beautifully but I think this episode was more clunky than not.

Earlier this week we read a mystery that didn’t quite add up but it didn’t really leave me confused, just curious. This episode left me confused. Each clue seemed to build on top of each other, like LEGOs, but also like LEGOs, the mystery tower got so big and complicated with each addition, like a child building their dream home and having to add the basketball court and the swimming pool and the zoo that it got too complicated fell over from being too top heavy, much like this metaphor. I like the idea of stashing a body on a plane and it was a great starter to a mystery but there were so many odd additions that didn’t seem to make sense. First the plane is too heavy and that’s why it failed and that is what everyone agreed on but then the sand is in the gas tank and that’s OBVIOUSLY the reason why it failed. So why was the audience presented with the first explanation at all? Instead of having a smooth yet interesting murder mystery, we have a complicated, confusing, cumbersome mystery. I still don’t quite understand why the company owner killed seemingly his entire staff. That seems like incredibly poor planning if he was hoping to get away with the murders. Any remaining staff should/would fear for their life.

Sherlock’s past was very interesting in this episode. Even the greatest Holmes scholar doesn’t know much about Holmes’ past simply because it’s rarely talked about. As far as we’ve read with this project, we know nothing about Holmes except what Watson has told us. We haven’t even been introduced to Mycroft yet. But Elementary is ignoring that. I’m okay with this. They’re providing good reasoning to the assumptions that they’re making. One would assume that even Original Holmes came from at least a middle class family so that he could get the education that he received. Sure, he might’ve been lower class and gotten scholarships but in Victorian England, that wasn’t very likely. Of course, I could just be speculating and the writers are doing what makes the most sense to them. How else could someone afford a house in New York City and rehab and a sober companion without some outside income? Why not have a rich relative?

You asked if you were being too nice and now I’m going to ask if I’m being too mean. I will admit, I was a little let down with this episode. After last week’s amazing comeback, I was hoping for something a bit more on par and I felt this was lacking. Am I wrong? Am I crazy? And how much would it cost to build my childhood dream LEGO house, complete with movie theater?

This guy could probably give me an estimate...

Austin: I think why I liked the mystery on the surface level is that it was the attempt at a Sherlockian puzzle mystery. It never added up properly but it made me curious to what was going on even though I had a feeling it was filling the plot with red herring filler. I will give the episode points for this: they had a guest actor I recognized and 24's Michelle Dressler was not the killer!

"I'm a recognizable guest star and I wasn't the murderer! Or was I? DUN DUN DUUUN!"

But really Sherlock was the A and B plot to this episode with C being whatever was going on with that plane.

Today in dramas we can't just have an icon; they need to be a person as well. Daniel Craig's James Bond isn't just a jokey womanizer but a man tormented by his lifestyle. Matt Smith's The Doctor is haunted by his violent past and his incredible loneliness. Christen Bale's Batman is all sorts of messed up. Now with Jonny Lee Miller's (and Benedict Cumberbatch) we have a Sherlock Holmes whose intelligence removes him from any emotional connection and the pains caused from that.

Icons appear fully formed but people have pasts. With Elementary I'm worried it may just add up to a betrayed love and daddy issues but it is something. I was all ready for the name to be Moriarity but instead it was Irene. They want us to know what makes him the way he is and even if it's network TV simplicity, it shows that audiences aren't settled with a Superman.

But now the criticism. The show isn't handling it well. There is not a solid sense of the show's world. Whatever happened to Watson having to be with Sherlock all the time? She went to bed early instead of following him to a witness where we know he is often erratic. That is in addition to her going to dinner. I know I'm repetitive, but the show needs solid rules on her working relationship or she will only be a plot device.

Teasing the backstory this much means we will only get answers during sweeps months and finales. (And Super Bowl episodes!) I want a proper story not just stalling for answers. Move things forward; challenge the status quo. Why hasn't a show like this had a couple episode arc about the media catching on that the police is too dependent on consultants and now they look bad so they have to hold back on people like Sherlock. Then have one of their biggest cases but the police chiefs won't let Sherlock at the crime scenes. Bam! Challenge the structure or you will be stuck like all of its predecessors. By the time they solved Monk's wife's murder the mystery was too vague to make sense. How I Met Your Mother just has codewords pretending to be a mystery and let's not start on how little Burn Notice's mythology makes any sense.

I'm on your side Elementary. A little bit. Don't be lazy

Leigh: I completely agree. Audiences have gotten bored with Superman and they want Batman. Audiences might not realize it but they enjoy fully fleshed out, 3D characters as opposed to cardboard cutouts. We need to see the flaws in our fantastic hero to show that he is a person so that eventually we can (hopefully) see the character learn and grow.

Audiences also need something to relate to. There are more people out there who have parental issues and lost loves than have extreme social awkwardness. It’s easier to have a character distressed by his dad coming to visit than it is to have him be thrust into the middle of a social situation because then you risk our hero becoming the comedic sidekick like Big Bang Theory. Sheldon Cooper isn’t a hero by any means and instead is laughed at by his inability to understand basic human interaction. Sherlock Holmes would risk becoming this extra character if audiences are forced to watch his painful social interactions. Everyone has been in a situation where they worried about seeing their parents again whether if you had wrecked the car in high school and were waiting for dad to get home and see the damage or if you got a new haircut and you knew your over-critical mother would hate it. It’s a more relatable situation and for that, I give Elementary props.

I, too, wished it would’ve been Moriarty. This would’ve set up a great overarching storyline which I still think this show needs. Okay, we have an addict on the road to recovery but what made him this way. The episode talked about not learning about Sherlock’s past and it’s true. We know nothing! And for a show that’s trying to tell us about it, it’s doing a really crap job of it. Irene has been a very vague continuing mystery but there haven’t been enough clues, I feel, to count really. It isn’t something that loyal viewers are rewarded with. Anyone watching this episode would’ve been caught up with what’s going on whether they had seen the other five episodes this season or not. I know that there are still 15+ episodes left this season but if Irene is going to be introduced by the end of the season (she will) they need more clues about her. And I really hope that the drugs and Irene are more tied together than Sherlock was doing drugs to get over Irene because replace drugs with alcohol and you have every police drama ever. It has to be interesting or different at least.

Next time, we get to deal with more drug addicts and learn that all the cool kids were doing opium in Victorian England.

And now Austin with the final word!

Austin: Whythehelldidgregsontouchallofthatmoneywithoutgloveson?!?!?!

Seriously? 

Book Review: "The Five Orange Pips" (Doyle, 1891)

“I think, Watson,” he remarked at last, “that of all our cases we have had none more fantastic than this.”

“Save, perhaps, the Sign of Four.”

“Well, yes. Save, perhaps that.”

--Sherlock Holmes and Dr. John Watson, “The Five Orange Pips”

Leigh:  Okay, I'm gonna go ahead and get this out of the way.

 Every time I heard the word "pip" I think of this. So. Yeah.... 

It's really hard to come up with a train of thought to this that doesn't involve oranges...But I'll try! (All I can imagine right now is a KKK member trying to peel an orange and it amuses me.) 

I have to say that I really enjoyed the opening of this one. We are back in the sitting room but instead of going through another situation of Holmes telling someone stuff they should already know about themselves for the audience's sake, we are given little tidbits that help describe Holmes to an audience that might not be familiar with the stories. It's almost like ACD was evolving as an author and honing his skills and trying something new. HMMMM. Watson reminding Holmes that he isn't all-knowing and in fact, kinda sucks when it comes to the Political Science category in Trivial Pursuits amused me. Even Holmes was a bit modest at the beginning of the story was a new side that we haven't really seen. Was he being modest or just humble-bragging?

When listening to this one again (because I totally forgot to read it yesterday so I listened to it at work), I had forgotten most of the plot points except the orange pips. Maybe because I was focussing on the pips too much. Pips pips pips. But I think this is a great example of a unusual mystery and ACD writing what he enjoyed writing about. Did you know that he wrote other books that WEREN'T Sherlock Holmes books? I KNOW! It seems strange but it's true. He was a fan of history and wrote a couple of historical fiction novels. I think this story of the pips does a great job of writing about Sherlock Holmes but still adding in his other interests as well. We get a VERY brief history of the KKK and some history on the American Civil War but we still have odd clues that wrap the mystery and the history together. (After a very short search as to whether or not the KKK actually sent pips to their enemies, I haven't found conclusive evidence. Forgive me for not wanting to search for this further but the KKK's ignorance and stupidity scare me.) 

We also get another example of Holmes wanting to bring bad guys to justice even after the case has, in essence, ended. He still does his best to find out who killed these people and tries to bring them to justice. I think the most telling of Holmes' character is when he said, “No; I shall be my own police. When I have spun the web they may take the flies, but not before.” He doesn't care about the law, he is going to do what he thinks is right and ain't no one gonna stop him! 

So what do you think? Is Holmes growing as a character or was he being slier about his pompousness? And what about those pips? 

Austin: And here I just thought of a certain Dickensian character. Oh Pip!

Oh I always think that Holmes is humblebragging. Even when he's being played by Basil Rathbone I can see the sneaky glint in his eye of knowing how right he is. I like when that's being pushed how he keeps redefining his place in the justice system. He ranks himself above anyone else so nobody challenges him on taking on the criminals himself. The only thing that outranks him is the unknowns, the elements that he can't solve. Then he solves them and takes his rightful place as king of the cerebral mountain.

I am not the least bit surprised that Doyle is interested in history. It's all over his stories, especially "A Study in Scarlet" and "The Sign of Four." It's like he feels he's confined to having a concise plot in mysteries that whenever he has the opportunity for a tangent he takes it. Time was not on his side with his story because I kept waiting to figure out what KKK stood for. It was treated like a Robert Louis Stevenson mark of death, but instead it actually was the Ku Klux Klan. Perhaps as a Brit, this was a crazy new story but as an American who grew up with shaming Indiana textbooks it's a well established embarrassment.

I think this was a very mature story of Doyle's. Maybe not the most exciting--Watson himself brings up stories he thinks are more thrilling--but very intriguing. It's a story that has the enhanced feeling of adventure why still wanting to focus on the details.

Yet here's the question I pose to you. Does the mystery actually add up? We've poked holes in Elementary episodes. Does this one actually work?

Also imagine the song "Island in the Sun" by Weezer. Now imagine they're saying "Pip Pip" throughout the song. Better, right?

Pip! Pip!

 

Leigh: Or just that other Britishism, Pip Pip Cheerio! 

I think that this mystery might add up if we had more parts to it. Right now, we are left with vague ideas and as much of a mystery as when we started. We don't know why the Colonel was originally targeted, we are just left with the idea that he probably was because he left America with a box of important papers...? And then that these papers are so important that the original band were willing to kill anyone who might get it to them...? What this story needs, I'm sad to say, is another 40 page tangent like we had with A Study in Scarlet. We need a way to get that back story that we just don't have right now. But, with that said, maybe ACD made it that way so that the audience would be left just as confused as when they started? Or, maybe like the first time I had read this, they didn't think twice about it. Like how many licks it takes to get to the center of a Tootsie Pop, the world will never know. 

I think as a short mystery that was introduced as one that doesn't quite add up, it works. The written word is allowed to have more loose ends than a more physical medium like TV because books inherently ask you to use your imagination. TV just spills it all out on the screen for you. A TV audience is upset when everything isn't wrapped into a nice, neat package with all of the ends tied into nice little bows. Why don't we find out what the papers in the box meant? Maybe we are supposed to think critically and figure it out for ourselves? We are given little hints as to what it might be, but I think we're supposed to try to figure it out for ourselves. We're supposed to do what kids in high school English classes across the country are forced to do and don't see the point in doing it. (But seriously, sometimes the curtains are blue because they're freaking blue!) 

You brought up an interesting point. We are both from Indiana. There are numerous towns that are within shouting distance of my home town that housed at least one KKK Grand Dragon (Why does the KKK have such cool names for their higher ups? It's just not fair.) One of my hometown's claims to fame is that, allegedly, we ran Frederick Douglass out of town and broke his arm when he was doing a speaking tour in the US. Does this story mean something else to us, as Americans, as Hoosiers, than it does to someone from the UK? And is there a way to apologize for other people's ignorance?

Austin: I'm really curious about your thought that it's more lenient for prose to have plot holes than something that was filmed. I don't know if I'm more of a visual learner, but I'm always one to find the problems in movies or TV over a book. I always took it as someone else created the world of film and now as a viewer I can really inspect it. With books, like you said, our imagination fills in the frame. If I reread something, then I have already sculpted the world with my mind so I'm more likely to pick up on something that doesn't make sense. 

The exception is the clue that really sticks out to me. Something I feel the author is trying to bring up and then quickly push aside so I'm sticking with it to be stubborn. Then I spend most of the story in the back in my mind thinking "But what about the twin!"

With Sherlock Holmes stories that doesn't always work because it's so linear and we don't get all of the information. There should never be a dropped clue when it comes to Sherlock. That did happen the first time I watched the first episode of Sherlock where I thought it was really odd Sherlock didn't consider someone a suspect who turned out to be the bad guy. Vagueness!

But anywho, I think this story does mean something to Americans. It's a less exotic story. This isn't a fantastical villainous group from across the world; it's a part of our history that we are ashamed about. We have movies like Mississippi Burning reminding us of how horrible the group was. This story uses that as an informative bit of trivia and that's fine because it was probably effective for that audience. As a midwest American, I was hoping that KKK stood for a different secret society of wrongdoers. Betrayed orange farmers or some ridiculous backstory. But it's silly to judge a story on what it isn't. This was still a strong Sherlock story that isn't talked about too often.

But now here's Leigh Montano with the last word.

Leigh: Pip!

"I don't know where to add this picture but it's of Gladys Knight and the Pips. I tried to find one where the Pips were wearing orange but I gave up after a few minutes. Get it...Orange Pips... HAHHAHAHA! I crack myself up." -- Leigh

In-Class Movie: "Lesser Evils" (S01E05)

“‘I am ashamed of you Holmes,’ said Lestrade with dignity after a few minutes silence. ‘Why should you raise up hopes which you are bound to disappoint? I am not over-tender of heart, but I call it cruel.'"

--Arthur Conan Doyle, “The Boscombe Valley Mystery”

Austin: Time to talk a little inside baseball. I showed some frustration last entry with Elementary and even more so with my texts to Leigh. I was just about done with the show. The show had turned into such an unambitious piece of nothingness where it's truly too boring to review. I was begging it to be better or worse just so there's something else beyond a pulse-less program. 

This episode had to show something or else we were about to call it quits and limit the episode review to a mini-review filled only with comedy. But as you can probably guess from my introduction....

I liked this episode.

I did! It's not perfect; I wish it had more of the comedy from Episode 3 ("Child Predator") but it actually handled the structure really well. Finally we have a new way of Sherlock received a case, there is forward moment with every scene, the mystery is twisting and a bit clever, Watson's subplot isn't embarrassing, and it concluded in a satisfying way.

The only major problem I had wasn't with the writers, but with the casting director. Easily my favorite episode, but I solved it before the opening credits. [SPOILERS FROM HERE ON OUT. DUH.] When the janitor walked out of the room, he said one line. I said aloud, "Wait was that David Costable of The Wire, Breaking Bad, Damages and Flight of the Conchords?" The opening credits confirmed it and I knew it had to be the killer. No idea how, but way too obvious of a face (and one of my favorite character actors working today) made it a no-brainer.

"Don't bother looking at me. I'm just a janitor.....and a newspaper editor, meth cook, hitman and husband to Kristen Schaal. Definitely not the killer...."

Yet there's so many good things to talk about with this episode. What surprised you the most? What was it that made you sit up in your chair and start to take note of this episode? And why was this the only episode The AV Club didn't like? Why can't we ever get along?

Leigh: ...

Well...

...

Huh...

That was NOT what I was expecting. I sat down to watch this week's episode with the expectation that it was going to be on par with the rest of the episodes so far. Cliche plot with cliche twist with cliche cops. This was none of those things. This, I will gladly say, is by far the best episode of Elementary. Of all of our complaints, everything seemed to be addressed. Watson was useful and not just a blob on the screen, Holmes was smart and did smart things, the mystery wasn't a crime procedural "How to" guide and the cops, when they were there actually seemed to have a brain. It's like everyone visited the Wizard of Oz and got what they wanted. It's a Primetime miracle!

Your complaint of using a well-known actor didn't bother me because I didn't recognize the guy. I could see this being a problem but I didn't catch it so I can't complain.

If I had to find something to complain about with this episode, it would be back to something that I had problems with when they announced the pilot synopsis. Watson, traditionally, is a former doctor. Sometimes he has an active practice and other times he doesn't. In this adaptation, she is a disgraced former doctor? Hold up. She was suspended for some reason as this episode alluded to, probably for killing a patient which has also been mentioned. To me this smacks of a woman not being good enough to be a doctor. I could be reading the situation wrong but that's how I feel. She isn't good enough to be a doctor so instead they put her in a more traditional female role of caretaker. Caretakers are awfully parental, aren't they. Motherly almost. -eyes narrow- Again, I could be overly suspicious and picky at this point.

So finally at episode 5 we get everything we've been asking for; plot, character development, character traits, intelligence. Why did they wait so long to air this episode? Why didn't they make this the pilot or make the pilot more like this episode if this was the direction they wanted to go? And should we expect this level every week or was this a fluke?

Austin: This is strange, but I think we need to focus on the positives for this episode. Let's really prove to the world we liked this episode. I really liked Watson in the opening scene. I like it when people are less than impressed by Sherlock's antics and her being bored as he strangles corpses just for kicks was fun. Also when she identified the blue dot on the body she tried to keep walking instead of standing openly to announce that she was clever. She noticed something and wanted to keep going.

I also really liked some of the smaller things they did with Sherlock. When Watson comes home with news of her plotline, Sherlock's only way to ask how it went was saying "Victory?" He continues to see the world as a series of victories and defeats, detectives and criminals, the super intelligent and the rest of the world. He's a detective that serves under his own judgment. In this episode he caught the Angel, but he still had more people he felt were responsible for these crimes.

In particular, that structure was compelling. The bad guy is caught earlier than usual. They still left a great final confrontation with the chief of surgery--equipped with a rather cool zoom in of Sherlock across the table. That's where the emotional core of the story was because this was a case that Sherlock hired himself for. The police didn't bring him in, nobody came to his sitting room. He saw a crime and this upset him. So if you caused pain towards someone, he was going to bring you down.

Ultimately this episode really saw what the show could be. Make it Sherlock and Watson. Make Watson good at her job and keep it medical oriented for her. Give her that struggle between her old life and the weird life she has constructed for herself. I really hope this episode wasn't a fluke. This was a new writer. Thank you Liz Friedman! I don't see you on the roster again for the next couple of episodes so I hope that other writers take your lead. Who knows, maybe it's a girl thing. Next week's episode by Corinne Brinkerhoff could also be a good one! As long as they don't have Terry O'Quinn in a guest spot...

Liz Friedman! MVP of the Week!

So let's hear it Montano. I want a response only of positive things about this episode. We may not get this again.

Leigh: Of all the improvements from this episode, I will say that Watson wins for most improved. She had a point other than filler or saying dialog that Holmes really should be saying. I knew something was different about this episode in the first three minutes. Watson was intelligent and contibuted to conversation and plot. She was telling the audience things they (probably) wouldn't have figured out for themselves. I know nothing about chemotherapy so the blue dot was an odd blue dot to me. She did what I think Watson should do. She helped Holmes and helped the audience without being condescending to either one.

I'm so glad the structure was different and not just A-B-C-D... Holmes isn't contacted by the police to help them solve a murder, he finds the problem and takes it to them. And it wasn't your typical "find a dead guy" murder case. Holmes seemed to stumble upon the case and it gave the audience a glimpse at the true Holmes character that we've talked about. He finds the mystery or puzzle in everything. It's almost like this episode was written by someone who had actually picked up a Sherlock Holmes book and didn't just skim the Wikipedia page!

I have hope again for this show. Some have said that we wanted this show to fail and while we sorta did, I at least wanted it to attempt to be a good show. To pretend like it wanted to be something other than another crime procedural. I finally feel like it's trying. I don't want to say it's officially a good show yet but it seems like it's getting there. These next few episodes will be important for you, me, this blog and anyone else who has put a bit of faith in this show now. I want it to be a great show but I am a realist and have been disappointed a lot. So here's fingers crossed.

Next time we deal with fruit and I will try not to make Eddie Izzard references (but will ultimately fail.)

And now Austin Lugar with the last word.

Austin: Gail!

Book Review: "The Boscombe Valley Mystery" (Doyle, 1891)

“He put his hand over part of the map. ‘What do you read?’

“ARAT,’ I read.

‘And now?’ He raised his hand.

‘BALLARAT.’

“Quite so. That was the word the man uttered, and of which his son only caught the last two syllables. He was trying to utter the name of his murderer. So and so, of Ballarat.’

‘It is wonderful!’ I exclaimed.

‘It is obvious.’“

--Arthur Conan Doyle, “The Boscombe Valley Mystery”

Leigh: When I first read this story way back three whole summers ago, I wasn't a huge fan of it. It seemed like a really simple case. It seemed like a case that I would see on Law and Order and it wouldn't even be an episode that would stick in my memory. In fact, this was the first one in the canon that I've re-read in its entirety since we started this project. I knew there was a murder and the main suspect didn't do it. I couldn't remember much else. After re-reading it today though, it grew on me. It's still not exciting but there are changes that ACD made to the plot that made it a bit different.

First and foremost, we don't start the adventure in the sitting room at all. In fact, we never even go to the sitting room. There is no moment when Holmes tells someone their entire history because of what shoes they decided to wear that day. Instead we get a little moment with Watson and his wife and then Holmes and Watson on the train together. It's like his editors said, "Hey guy, change it up a bit, will ya?" We still get the instance of Holmes being the most perceptive man ever to have lived but it isn't just to show off his talent and introduce the reader to Holmes' ability but it also is a moment of familiarity with Watson and Holmes. We get to experience the Victorian equivalent of "Bro, you missed a spot," and that tells the viewer where their relationship is. They aren't just acquaintances but they're so friendly that they'll tell each other when they're doing a crap job shaving in the morning. 

We've been talking a lot lately about a balance between mystery and character relationships and I feel that ACD wanted the exact opposite of what the writers of Elementary want. Yes, the story starts with Watson eating breakfast with his wife, but she is only referred to as "his wife," not by Mary or Mary Watson. Their dialog is kept to a minimum and while it is probably more realistic Victorian dialog, it's still a bit rigid for a husband and wife conversation, especially when the husband is getting ready to leave town for a few days in about ten minutes. Sure it wasn't the thing to do at the time, talk about a relationship between husband and wife, but we got more of their relationship when we met Mary in A Sign of Four than we do here. ACD knew when to make it about relationships and when to make it about the mystery and this one is all about the mystery.  

"I would like you all to meet my wife, 'My Wife'"

We get a set of facts that points to one outcome when in fact the solution is something entirely different. Sure, it was a little easy to guess what was going to happen, but there were some facts that threw me for a loop at least. A secret marriage? Stagecoach hold up? Australia? It's another instance where the mystery itself isn't that exciting but all of the clues put together make it more than average. 

And side note, I think that "RAT" that Moffat alluded to about the next series of the other Sherlock Holmes modernization is referenced in this story. Just throwing that out there. 

So what do you think, Austin? Is it just another cut and paste story that we see on other crime dramas or is it better because the clues are odder? What makes this mystery better than an episode of Law and Order? And who will win our bet that we have? 

Austin: Right now I'm sure people are obsessively looking back through the blog to figure out what bet we agreed to. Nope, this is one of those crazy "off-blog" conversations that we sometimes have. To avoid spoilers for something we haven't covered, Leigh and I disagree about the fate of a major character from Sherlock Season Two. When the show returns next year, the one who was incorrect will be recording a speech written by the victor. So look forward to that....in a year or so. (Also, no I don't think "The rat" refers to this story. Giant Rat of Sumatra!!!)

The only problem I had with the introduction was that Watson's wife was basically a non-character. She was the opposite of every wife on TV. I was all ready for "But won't it be dangerous?!" or "But we have brunch with the Featherbottoms that weekend!" but she was fine. She fully understands Watson's mancrush on Sherlock and she is encouraging to see things blossom.

This was more compelling than the one last week. We've had two cases in a row that were a bit low key. Weird silly cases, but nothing like a good old fashioned murder. I wasn't bothered by its typical nature because I thought they did a good job setting up the red herring. Obviously the guy Lestrade suspected didn't do it, but it was thorough enough that it made sense that Sherlock was brought in.

The problem was that there are large chunks of this story of explaining stuff. Some of it was compelling like the typical Sherlock deduction breakdowns, but others felt like a bit of filler. I don't know if Doyle had the Dickens deal where he was paid by the word but this needed to be trimmed down a little bit. Once again we had the bad guy tell us his life story in an attempt to gain sympathy from the audience. Didn't work for me, but it oddly really worked for Sherlock.

The ending led to the most interesting part of the story. Sherlock decides not to send the murderer to prison but held onto his signed confession only to be used if the innocent can't go free. Then the story ends! Once again we have Sherlock being the one to decide justice as he sees fit. He's working outside of the law in a very compelling way. The big plothole for this is, of course, that Watson published this big secret. Silly Watson.

Was Sherlock right to withhold this man from prison? Why wasn't this story is called The Boscombe Valley Tragedy? That's a better title and they even used that phrase!

Leigh: I’ll just say that of everyone I’ve talked to, more people agree with me than with you. Just sayin’…

I have to agree about the ending. It seemed weird to me that Sherlock not only felt sympathy for a criminal who wasn’t that great of a guy but then kept him out of jail. Sherlock is really good at doing what he thinks is the right thing to do and in this situation it seems that letting an old man die in his home is the better choice than setting a younger, innocent man free. Sure the younger man was set free anyway based on the evidence but still, he doesn’t do what is “right” and does what he believes to be right. This situation adds more depth to our (anti)hero and creates a much more complex character than Elementary has done, so far at least.

Watson waited until the old man had died before publishing the story so that might be why he published it. The dead old guy can’t go to jail since he’s, you know, dead. There are other stories where Watson mentions that he changes the names of the people involved so that could’ve been what happened here, just not talked about. What I’m saying is that you probably totally missed it. Way to go.

A day after reading this one and I’m having problems remembering the details again. It is pretty bland if I’m honest. Yeah there are a few odd clues to throw the reader off the scent but in general it wasn’t outrageous, it wasn’t exciting, it was a very typical murder. I’m sure at the time it was written and published it was a bit more scandalous.  Australia hadn’t been an actual country for too long and even at the time this was written, it was mainly known as a land full of scoundrels and all around bad guys. That would give the audience plausibility that not one, but two pretty terrible people came from Australia.

I almost wonder if this story just hasn’t aged well. What say you? Do you think that some of these adventures are showing their age? That they aren’t aging gracefully? That they’re pulling a Madonna and not a Meryl Streep?

Meryl Streep in an Oscar-winning performance as Margaret Thatcher

 

Austin: And 100% of the people who I've talked to about this agree with me, except for one little girl who takes five letters to spell one syllable...

Oh sure Watson changed the names and whatnot. Lestrade knows what's up. I'm sure he read the Strand and was rather ticked. Friends of the family as well could probably figure the changed details. It would be cool to see if there were ramifications from this, but I doubt we're seeing that sort of serialization at play. Maybe his last story will be a Seinfeld-esque clip show with cameos of all the pissed people that Sherlock has bothered returning.

Aside from Doyle's wonderful consistency with properly representing other countries, I think this holds up rather well. I don't think every mystery needs to be completely flashy with bizarre elements. That could distract from the key mystery at the center. I think this is a better example of what Doyle can accomplish than something like "The Red Headed League" because it shows what Sherlock set to accomplish in "A Study in Scarlet". The power of deduction solving a case without being tempted away by other beliefs.

Still the best documentary we've ever seen about Australia

In fact with Sherlock's odd moral ending, this has best of both aspects of the character. The observing quality of The Terminator with the human element mixed into the how he decides to handle the information. This is a story that may have worked better in his novella length to avoid his long passages of describing what happened off screen.

So I'll stick with this maybe not being the most memorable, but it's a good story done rather well. But what does Leigh say? Here she is with the last word.

Leigh: RAT!