Sherlock (BBC)

[Mr. Breathmask 555]

Yesterday evening, me and my girlfriend walked into a theatre filled with Sherlock fans, ready to expect a fun and creepy stand-alone episode that had nothing to do with the series.

 

What I got was something quite different which was both confounding and intrigueing. To accurately describe how I've come to think of this episode, I have to describe my experience and thoughts I had while watching the episode. So here goes:

 

The special started off with a "Previously on Sherlock" bit, recapping a bunch of things from the pas three series: John meeting Sherlock, Irene Adler, Moriarty shooting himself in front of Sherlock and Sherlock shooting Magnussen. It was accompanied by dates (2010, 2012, 2014) and ended with Sherlock put on the plane and Moriarty appearing with his "Miss me?" message. The date then read: "Alternatively..." with the year counting back from 2014 to somewhere around 1885.

 

We open on John Watson, in the middle of a battle. Watson's narrating voice-over describes it as the Second Afghan War. Yes, we're right where we were at the start of A Study in Pink. Flashbacks to battle by a troubled John Watson, who can't sleep at night. Except this time, it's the late nineteenth century and Watson is narrating the story - much like in the original stories, which are written as accounts by Watson observing Holmes. The next five minutes are an abridge retelling of the start of A Study in Pink: Watson meets the same college friend played by the same actor and accompanies him to the morgue where they find Sherlock Holmes beating a corpse with a riding crop. We get a repeat of their first encounter right up to and including "Yes, he's always been like that."

 

Start credits.

 

Flashforward a couple of years. John Watson has published many of his adventures with Sherlock Holmes in The Strand and the two are now minor celebreties. We've basically caught up to where their relationship has gone in 2014 Sherlock. From here, this special could dive into any Sherlock Holmes adventure and have great fun doing a period-accurate retelling of one of Arthur Conan Doyle's stories, utilizing the same wonderful cast that made modern-day Sherlock so much fun to watch. The stage is set for exactly such a thing: we got to see an old-timey variation of a scene we've seen before. Watson's narration and the look make the show more period-accurate and there are tiny subtle differences in the actors' performances to differentiate these versions of Holmes and Watson from the ones we've seen them play before. There's some fun banter with Mrs. Hudson and an even more bumbling nineteenth-century Lestrade and a great Gothic horror mystery starts. The dialogue is snappy and fun, the performances are great and it's great watching this thing with a large audience. I'm having a good time.

 

Let me again stress how well everything is set up to be a one-off Victorian era variation on the regular series. For the first part of the episode, all signs point to just that: a stand-alone adventure set in the late nineteenth century, just for the fun of it. An indulgent treat, but one I think they've earned to give us with the high quality given in the past three seasons.

 

During the intermission (which was awfully placed - it came just before the greenhouse scene, right in the middle of the spinning transition from day to night), we wonder what's in store for the second half: we saw Irene Adler and Moriarty in the "previously on" bit, just like we saw John meeting his friend from Barth's. I theorize they too might pop up in the Victorian era. We ended the "previously on" with Moriarty's "Miss me?", so they might do something with that. They might even give some explanation as to how Moriarty returned in 2014, while never leaving the late nineteenth-century story world. It's a fun premisse and I'm curious to see where this is going.

 

But the rug is about to be pulled out from under us in a brutal and jarring fashion that makes me question the "why" of this episode. Why do it like this? What purpose does this serve in the overall structure of the series? Why tell the story the special ends up telling in this fashion? Why fool us into thinking we're going to watch one thing when we're going to end up with something else entirely?

 

For about an hour, I was thoroughly enjoying myself. There's a few little things that seem off. Sherlocks keeps mentioning he has to go deeper inside himself to solve something, but it's not clear what he's referring to - I assume that will be revealed somewhere down the road. Mycroft mentions "a virus in the data," and there are references to Moriarty both shooting himself in the face like he did at the end of season 2 and Moriarty falling down the Reichenbach Falls and dying like he did in the books. It's a bit confusing, but I'm sure it will be sorted out within the framework of this one-off 90-minute Victorian era special. Because that's what I'm watching, a one-off, right?

 

Nineteenth-century Sherlock goes into a meditation and has an encounter with nineteenth-century Moriarty. Or is he? This Moriarty doesn't seem like a nineteenth-century version of the Moriarty we previously saw, the way Cumberbatch and Freeman have subtly changed things in their performance. He seems as crazy as he's ever been on Sherlock.

 

And then it happens.

 

BAM. We're back in 2014 and the jet carrying Sherlock touches down. The whole past hour was a mind palace hallucination by present-day Sherlock. I'm baffled. Why this framework? Why continue where we left off at the end of season 3? Wasn't this going to be entirely detached from the rest of the series?

 

The scene continues. Mycroft, John and Mary enter the plane and the characters all seem to want to move forward from where we left them two years ago. But this bothers me. There's far too much unresolved mystery to abandon the Abominable Bride storyline entirely at this point in the episode and far too little time to solve a mystery set up at the end of season 3. And I realize they're going to be treading water for the next 30 minutes. They're not going to advance the Moriarty storyline. Why bring this up when they're not going to resolve it? Why is this suddenly tied in to the series after all?

 

I hated this. I wanted to go back to the mystery of the Abominable Bride. I wanted none of this corpse drug-addled corpse digging we were forced to watch. You know this is going nowhere. They're going to leave the Moriarty storyline to be resolved in season 4 and probably not until episode 3 of that series. What's the point? Why construct the special this way? Why construct the new Moriarty storyline this way? It doesn't make any sense.

 

Now that's not to say there wasn't anything superfically good beyond this point. I loved seeing the actual Reichenbach Falls and every time we went back to the old-timey Holmes and Watson. I think every cast member was having a blast doing something slightly different with their character and it showed.

 

As the episode ended, I was a bit miffed with this sudden turn of events during the last half hour. Why dangle this Victorian Era stand-alone business in front of us if you're going to tie it in to the series after all, but without advancing the overall plot in any way?

 

We discussed this on the way home and picked apart all the little hints that were dropped in the first hour that something else was going on beneath the surface. And we finally came to the answer of what this was all about:

 

The Abominable Bride is an exorcism.

 

Sherlock, still haunted by Moriarty, and ever the antisocial, needs to accept people like Mycroft, Mary and John into his life as friends and people who will help him. He needs to lose his fear and intimidation from Moriarty and attack the new problem together with his friends. It's why Watson shows up at the Reichenbach Falls and is the one to push Moriarty over the edge. It's why even before that, there's a scene between Mary and Mycroft where they make a deal for Mary to watch over Sherlock. It's the ongoing conflict inside Sherlock: shun all attachments and emotions to be more objective and deductive or embrace his humanity and his friends. Towards the end of His Last Vow, he was at his lowest point. He had embraced his label of high-functioning sociapath and shot a man in the face in cold blood. Now, this hallucination is slowly allowing him to regain some warmth and embrace the compassion others still feel for him. This, in the end, is the heart of The Abominable Bride and it is told in a fascinating and daring manner.

 

Right.

 

Unfortunately, I feel my experience was tainted by expecting a one-off episode. I did not understand exactly what they were trying to tell in the last half hour, because I was so misled by both the pr surrounding this episode and the opening of the special itself. I left the theatre disappointed and - there, I'll say it - slightly angry, feeling duped out of a great 90-minute Victorian adventure. But this special has quite a different function within the overall framework than we were led to believe. It's not an entirely seperate episode. It might still be possible to skip it and go straight from His Last Vow to whatever will follow, but there is something of an internal change going on in Sherlock. There's also some set-up. I'm sure Mary and Mycroft's deal in the nineteenth century has meaning outside of the hallucination as does Mycroft's plea to John to watch over Sherlock when they are alone inside the jet. And I'm sure Redbeard is going to be revealed to be more than the Holmes's childhood pet after Mycroft's notebook receiving such an elaborate close-up. But all this is not why I walked into that theatre. I was not there to watch some vague set-up for a season that's still a year away. 

 

I do think though, that with an episode as layered as this, there is much more to discover. I think I will soon rewatch this at home and I have a feeling I may have a different outlook on this afterwards. I'm just not sure what to make of the baffling experience of watching The Abominable Bride for the first time.

[#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,265]

Great write up Marc.

 

And yes the intermission was awfully placed, like always at JT cinema (The Fury Road one was appalling)

 

I don't think expecting one thing (a stand alone) episode and getting somethings else is a bad thing though.

 

I am actually pleased that they did return to the Bride mystery and did actually solve it. Though I wonder about the location of the second body, and if that will play a role in subsequent episodes?

[Mr. Breathmask 555]

3 minutes ago, Stefancos said:

I don't think expecting one thing (a stand alone) episode and getting somethings else is a bad thing though.

 

I don't think that's inherently bad, but it really, really bothered me while I was watching this. Wrong expectations can kill any experience and that's certainly what happened here. But these expectations were deliberately fueled by the makers of this episode and I think that's another thing that bothered me. Why go through all this trouble?

 

I guess it's sort of like JJ going all "no way Benedict Cumberbatch" is Khan, only to have Benedict Cumberbatch be all "my name is Khaaaaaaan" and the second half of Star Trek into Darkness featuring numerous scenes that were basically reworkings of scenes from Wrath of Khan. Except this time, nobody saw it coming (I certainly didn't, while I did on STID).

 

It's a twist and we were deliberately misdirected and the twist became even bigger to a preposterous point because of that misdirection. I think you can respect that on some level, but personally, I didn't like this experience at all.

[#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,265]

Yeah Moffat really does love his misdirection. It's slowly ruining Who for me. But for Sherlock, which isn't a 50+ year old franchise, it works.

 

Essentially Sherlock is a show thats all about misdirection, twists and style over actual substance.

Its exquisitely made and acted to near perfection. But it will never be a true masterpiece show ala Breaking Bad.

[Mr. Breathmask 555]

But I look at the first six episodes of Sherlock and I don't see that it's all about misdirection. It's actually fairly straightforward. Of course, there's always an element of what-you-see-isn't-what's-really-going-on in the story, but that's been a part of Sherlock Holmes ever since Arthur Conan Doyle wrote them. It's part of what makes a mystery story. But playing with audience perception and expectations and using misdirection in the execution isn't. And it seems to have started in the third season. A lot of The Empty Hearse seemed pointless and without any sense upon first viewing as well. It wasn't really explained until His Last Vow. They didn't do that in the first two seasons and frankly, I much preferred that structure.

[#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,265]

Agreed.

 

There had been some cases of audience misdirection, like introducing Moriarty as Molly's BF, but that's pretty normal for a show like that.

 

It really started with the Reichenbach Fall. Which very deliberately ends with audience manipulation. We saw Sherlock jump, we saw that it was him dead on the ground, and we saw him near his own grave.

 

Then 2 years happened where Sherlock really became a massive hype. And the "how did they do it?" Became this huge question.

 

The Empty Hearse plays around with that in a very fun way. Actually commenting on the shows own hype. Even at the expense of the actual mystery of that episode (some plot to blow up parliament)

 

The show, like many successful shows is building on things that the viewers loved. So the deliberate misdirection of the audience has been ramped up, and will never go away I think.

[Mr. Breathmask 555]

Pity.

[#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,265]

 

The thing is disliked the most about the Reichenbach solution isn't how Sherlock survived the fall. Which really isn't very important. But that fact that we find out that he and Mycroft carefully planned everything. So the whole part about where Moriarty destroyed Sherlocks reputation and humiliates him in front of the world was just a set up by the Holmes boys.

 

I don't like that kind of writing. Its very clever on a plot level, but emotionally false.

 

The Reichenbach problem will get even worse if it turns out Moriarty survived the rooftop scene.

 

That was a brilliantly written and deeply emotional scene. We know Sherlock would survive it, because he did in the story on which that scene is based.

 

But if Moriarty survived it too? If he also had an elaborate plan designed to fake his death? What would have been the point of the rooftop scene? 

 

 

[fommes 153]

Quote

There's also some set-up. I'm sure Mary and Mycroft's deal in the nineteenth century has meaning outside of the hallucination as does Mycroft's plea to John to watch over Sherlock when they are alone inside the jet.

 

The whole episode is Sherlock's viewpoint though, it's for instance possible that he knows there's something else going on with Mary and he thinks she works with or for Mycroft, but the actual ending in the plane belies that, since it's still Watson who has to look after Sherlock. Probably she's the next big arch-enemy or so, which would fit in the sense that now it would be Watson's person to exorcise.

 

[#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,265]

Sounds dreadful.

[Marian Schedenig 8,172]

I liked the concept of the special. But I generally don't have a problem with the supposedly overly convoluted plots* that apparently are putting people off Sherlock and Doctor Who. I like it if a script can surprise me (The Abominable Bride did) and I also don't consider emotional scenes dishonest if they're later retconned, as long as they ring true for the characters/stories at their own point in time.

 

For Bride, I was under the impression that people had been wondering how much sense a one off, standalone Victorian setting made in (or outside) the context of the regular series. I know I was - not that I actively minded, but it did seem odd. What bothered me more during the first part was that the story, with its initial reliance on a seemingly supernatural element which I found unconvincing, reminded me quite a bit of "the dog one", which has never been one of my favourites (side note: I've had a complete edition of Doyle's Holmes stories for a year now, but still haven't read more than the beginning of the first one, although I've read some short stories plus Baskervilles years back, so I don't know the original context).

 

So I was positively surprised when the whole thing suddenly tied directly into the series' modern day timeline, and very convincingly so I thought. And it at least seems to put worries at rest that Moriarity will return as a living being, giving the special an actual purpose even without interfering much with the main timeline.

 

Other bits and pieces: Plenty of funny and clever meta lines, including Mrs Hudson's "I'm your landlady, not a plot device" Bones moment. Cumberbatch was great as always, of course, but so was Freeman - and again, he impressed me by giving his old and modern characters quite different performances. With much of the score sounding intentionally "old fashioned" and an original title sequence, I wonder why they retained the modern day orchestration for the main titles.

 

*) Although Stefan's oft cited "cleverness" does occasionally give me impression that an episode is on the weak side before the puzzle comes together - as it happened with this one and with The Sign of Three (which still ended up being my favourite episode by the time it was over). But unlike Stefan that bothers me with Sherlock more than with Who, and usually only temporarily. And in the end, I think both series are set up to handle that sort of thing very well (and in fact thrive on it).

[#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,265]

I do recall a lot of people wondering what the point was of a one-off episode set in Victorian times. Since the whole concept of the show was all about having a modern day Sherlock Holmes.

 

And now some people are complaining they were robbed of a "proper" Victorian Sherlock....

 

Oh well...

[KK 3,307]

Watching this tonight. I've heard a lot of disappointment from friends and Facebook though...

[#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,265]

I was pleasantly surprised by it.

[Jay 37,281]

Sherlock 3x04 The Abominable Bride

 

Unlike many I was not upset by the fact that the "one-off, Victorian Era Sherlock episode!" turned out to not be a one-off at all, but a part of the main narrative with a huge section taking place in Sherlock's mind palace.  In fact, I found that to be quite brilliant!  As much as I loved the idea of a one-off going in, here at the other end, the fact that the episode had real meaning and wasn't done "just for fun" I think was the better choice.  In a way, the creators (and cast!) got to have things both ways in a sense, getting to the have fun of recreating the Victorian era and acting their familiar characters in subtlety different ways, but also have it all done for a reason and reveal something really huge at the same time, especially since the next proper season is further away than any season break before.

 

That isn't to say the episode is perfect, though.  For one, it was very predictable; Around 15-20 minutes in, we had to pause it for a bit, and I said to Marcy "I think the reason he said he instead of she is because the current Sherlock is trying to figure out how Moriarty survived being shot, and this whole thing is in his head".  And I was exactly right!

 

But the biggest problem is the way they chose to reveal the twist.  Basically, I think they should have wrapped up the Bride mystery and have Sherlock solve it underground there BEFORE we ever jumped back to the present to see what was really going on.  Because as soon as that bomb is dropped, it made everything else shown in the mind palace lose all momentum, drive, and meaning.  At that point, did it matter much about the bride stuff?

 

Also, it was a bit  odd the way they had a fake present-day scenario too (with Sherlock digging up the grave).  I hated that the show made you feel like that was really happening, only to then later pull the rug out and say that was fake too.  The Victorian stuff being fake was completely fine and logical, but I didn't like the way we got that fake present.  Somehow I didn't mind the 3rd (4th?) fake scenario, that with the books-version of the Riechenbach Fall, with Sherlock, Moriarty, and Watson by the waterfall.  Because that was the crux and point of the whole episode:  That Sherlock has realized that he cannot take on a return of Moriarty by himself, that he needs the help of his friends and family.  And that is a big change for him!  But it makes sense.  Because despite the fact that we've only have 10 episodes of the show, it has been on for 6 years now, so Sherlock should be growing and changing somewhat.  I liked that ending.

 

And I REALLY liked that the show has pretty much confirmed that Moriarty is truly dead, and the videos are some sort of thing he set up before dying.  Good!  I would have lost some respect for the show if both Sherlock and Moriarty had survived that rooftop scene.  Sherlock surviving made sense and was good.  Moriarty truly returning would have just rubbed me the wrong way no matter how they did it.

 

So I like that with this one-off special, they've gotten the "could Moriarty be alive"? angle over with, and the new season can jump right into "How do we stop the bad things happening now" stuff.   Can't wait for it!

 

 

 

I do wonder what would have happened if Cumberbatch and Freeman weren't the world's busiest actors, and we had gotten a proper Season 4 this month instead of one special.  Surely the first episode would have done this "could Moriarty still be alive" stuff in some way, but it probably wouldn't have taken up a whole episode, maybe just the beginning of one?  And I wonder if a Victorian era mind palace would have been used?    Or, I suppose its also possible that Moffat and Gatiss had already broken down Season 4, and this episode is more or less what Episode 1 would have been, and now they have to add on another one before the next season begins filming?  Anybody know if they've talked about the writing process much anywhere?

[#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,265]

I really don't think we can take it on faith that Moriarty is truly dead!

 

He could have had a twin!

 

[Jay 37,281]

The whole "REDBEARD" thing was a brand new clue, and not something from old episodes I've forgotten about, right?

 

And did I miss something about the whole "Mary is working for Mycroft" aspect of the Victorian era scenes?  It felt like a setup with no payoff?

[#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,265]

Its the only scene in the mind palace that takes place without Sherlock having any knowledge of it. I think. Everything else is told from his perspective. So it's a little weird.

 

It seems to go with the "female" angle that runs though this story. And it actually means Mary solves the mystery before Sherlock does I think.

 

need to watch it again soon.

[Jay 37,281]

I'd actually like to re-watch all 10 episodes before Season 4 premiers in a year.

 

I've seen every episode exactly once, all the day they premiered or thereabouts (actually, I don't think we saw Season 1 until after it was over, but from Season 2 onward we've watched them all immediately).

 

I'd think I'd pick up on a lot of fun stuff on a second viewing of some of these!

 

(And Christ, has it really been almost 6 years since Season 1?  Good lord...)

[#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,265]

I've seen all of them at least three times, most of them more....

[Jay 37,281]

1 hour ago, Jay said:

The whole "REDBEARD" thing was a brand new clue, and not something from old episodes I've forgotten about, right?

 

[#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,265]

Yeah that was new. Mycroft mentioned Redbeard once to Sherlock, in The Sign Of Three, but we didnt see it in his notebook.

[Jay 37,281]

Aha, then it wasn't new!  Interesting!

[#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,265]

Mycroft actually introduced Redbeard into the series, so it is interesting.

 

Maybe he's the new Moriarty?

[Jay 37,281]

I definitely need to rewatch the old eps before watching next season!

[#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,265]

They make for great binge watchers.

 

Just be sure to have a flow chart ready

[Incanus 5,713]

They have been broadcasting the whole series here before they show the new episode on the 17th so I'll be able to jump seamlessly to the special. And I must say the show has retained its appeal and entertainment value. Can't wait for the special!

[Marian Schedenig 8,172]

18 hours ago, Jay said:

I'd actually like to re-watch all 10 episodes before Season 4 premiers in a year.

 

I've seen every episode exactly once, all the day they premiered or thereabouts (actually, I don't think we saw Season 1 until after it was over, but from Season 2 onward we've watched them all immediately).

 

Same here. And I should read the stories first.

[#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,265]

You never read them?

[Jay 37,281]

I've never read a Sherlock story either, I don't think.  Maybe we had to read one in class in school at some point, but I don't remember.

[#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,265]

I devoured them in my childhood. Great stuff.

 

Completely different then the show though. Straight adventure stories, so not with the sarcastic humor or metaphilosophical navel gazing. Just good old fashioned story telling.

[Incanus 5,713]

11 minutes ago, Stefancos said:

I devoured them in my childhood. Great stuff.

 

Completely different then the show though. Straight adventure stories, so not with the sarcastic humor or metaphilosophical navel gazing. Just good old fashioned story telling.

The short stories are my favourites. Half of the novels tend to adopt a strange device of unfolding Holmes' adventure first and then going into half-book long longwinded explanation flashback of the villain's or antagonist's past and then capping off with a three page denouement of the Holmes framestory. Puts the hero out of the tale for far too long for my tastes.

[#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,265]

It works for Hound Of The Baskervilles though. And The Sign Of Four is a brilliant novel (and brilliantly adapted by Granada).

 

But the other 2 are far less successful.

[Mr. Breathmask 555]

I actually really liked that device in A Study in Scarlet.

 

I had trouble making my way through the short adventure stories though. I think I read the first three or four and then quit.

[#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,265]

I kinda tune out in the second part of Scarlett. That similar device was used better in Sigh If Four.

 

Also that didn't have killer Mormons.

[Incanus 5,713]

19 minutes ago, Stefancos said:

It works for Hound Of The Baskervilles though. And The Sign Of Four is a brilliant novel (and brilliantly adapted by Granada).

 

But the other 2 are far less successful.

Agreed.

 

The Sign of Four also had the ever wonderful John Thaw in the adaptation. Great stuff.

[#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,265]

2 minutes ago, Incanus said:

Agreed.

 

The Sign of Four also had the ever wonderful John Thaw in the adaptation.

 

Aye!

[Jay 37,281]

Maybe after X-Files, Marcy and I will check out that Granada series

[#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,265]

It's great! 

 

Jeremy Brett IS Sherlock Holmes!

[Jay 37,281]

Right now we're 94 episodes in, with 108 episodes and 2 movies to go!

[#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,265]

Geez...

[Jay 37,281]

Yea the show went on for far too long1  Season 4 is where we're at and its already starting to repeat some ideas and the overarching alien conspiracy story is already getting muddled

[KK 3,307]

1 hour ago, Mr. Breathmask said:

I actually really liked that device in A Study in Scarlet.

 

Me too. But its no "Hound of Baskervilles" or "Sign of the Four"!

 

By the way, watched the special. Convoluted? Sure. Kind of messy? Yup. But still loads of fun!

[Mr. Breathmask 555]

I don't remember much of The Sign of the Four. I just remember really enjoying A Study in Scarlet as a breakout novel. I loved that Sherlock Holmes actually disappeared from the narrative entirely for the second half of the book. I don't think it was as extensively done in The Sign of the Four, was it?

[Incanus 5,713]

9 minutes ago, Mr. Breathmask said:

I don't remember much of The Sign of the Four. I just remember really enjoying A Study in Scarlet as a breakout novel. I loved that Sherlock Holmes actually disappeared from the narrative entirely for the second half of the book. I don't think it was as extensively done in The Sign of the Four, was it?

It was rather similarly done with the antagonist recounting his long backstory to Holmes after an exciting chase up the Thames. I thought it worked better in The Sign of Four than in Study in Scarlet though.

[#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,265]

Yes it was.

 

The really classic stuff in A Study is the first part. Holmes and Watson meeting. The investigation etc.

[Incanus 5,713]

6 minutes ago, Stefancos said:

Yes it was.

 

The really classic stuff in A Study is the first part. Holmes and Watson meeting. The investigation etc.

Completely agreed.

[Marian Schedenig 8,172]

5 hours ago, Stefancos said:

You never read them?

 

On 03/01/2016 at 1:34 AM, Marian Schedenig said:

side note: I've had a complete edition of Doyle's Holmes stories for a year now, but still haven't read more than the beginning of the first one, although I've read some short stories plus Baskervilles years back, so I don't know the original context

 

[#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,265]

So did you read them or not?

[Glóin the Dark 1,218]

Watched the new episode yesterday. This show is getting so meta that Benedict Cumberbatch and Martin Freeman are bound to be characters in the next series...