Beware: wall of text. 

Sherlock often feels like an apolitical show with a comic-book-style, surfacey take on death, injury, and abuse. How interesting is it then that Series 3 deals with some of the most serious political issues of our time. 

Read More

Ohhhhhhhhhhhhhh, damn, I am loving this.

But in the end, TSoT, much like TEH, leaves off on an ambiguous note, politically: the possibility that there is a military sphere that operates outside of justice, that by bringing this murderer to justice Sherlock and co have simply help keep the cover-up at status quo; that the murderer’s act was an act of armed resistance which was once again quashed.”

And then in HLV, we see it in action.  It’s glossed over once again by the Sherlock & John drama, but Sherlock never goes to trial for the cold-blooded murder of a man.  He gets whisked off into the bowels of MI6 instead.

And, for that matter, when they’re made aware of Mary’s criminal history—she implies that she may be wanted by multiple governments for her crimes!—and she puts the evidence in John’s hands, John is left to unilaterally decide her fate.  And you know, previously this has been mentioned in the context of feminism, but how about legally and morally?  Are we comfortable with one man making this call, rather than a jury of her peers?

Violethuntress is right.  It’s so consistent.  One of those things that leaves me wondering again whether it’s a strain the writers consciously included or not.  Except that are Canon callbacks here, too, to…was it “Blue Carbuncle” where Holmes plays judge and jury and sets a guilty man free?  Oh, hey, and it was Christmas then, too.  Which indicates that this was absolutely not an accidental, unconscious move.

Makes me wonder what next season might look like, if it continues to follow these threads.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *