Thoughts for the Brain - Sherlock

Apropos of nothing, except perhaps finding out the new series of Sherlock goes into production next month I decided to scan various online theories about the Final Problem, the Reichenbach Fall and how Sherlock escaped death. It also helps because it means after this little blurb comes a list… great.

The mechanics of Sherlock’s faked fall are still unclear, but there is a wonderful section in the middle of this post, which very convincingly unpicks the Final Problem and the origins of Jim Moriarty. It’s not spoiling much (because it’s really excellent detail) to say the headline is Jim Moriarty is the fake identity while Richard Brook is real. It also explains why Moriarty/Brook, a man with very high self-regard, ends up committing suicide on St Bart’s roof.

It’s worth emphasising that show like Sherlock would not have been made 15-20 years ago. It is a product of internet culture, the now instant pooling of popular expertise, and the DVD. Sherlock rewards repeated, detailed viewing and lateral thinking. Video cassettes could not offer the same level of viewer scrutiny. In McLuhanite terms, Sherlock is the medium of television warming up (we are talking here of the dialogue and visual tableau), changing from broad effect to fine detail. Nothing can be taken simply as random. The narrative however cools everything down. We see at the end Sherlock died yet is clearly alive (Schrodinger’s Detective).

The audience is invited to peer deeply at the detail of the show, the norm under modern mass culture, yet is compelled to fill in key narrative details as the story is left unexplained. In a whimsical way it is an example of the mass critical intellectualism engendered by capitalist culture. Whether they write about Sherlock or Doctor Who or David Bowie  or whatever, people are out there examining whole topics, illuminating subjects and doing it for free. The barriers between manual and intellectual labour have long since been removed. There is one enormous obstacle left, namely private property.

  

1. There are two SherlocksWe were all a bit confused when that little girl went mental upon seeing Sherlock in Sunday’s finale. Some people are suggesting that she was actually one of Moriarty’s youngest employees, or that she had been threatened with dire consequences like the jury before her, but some of you are convinced that Sherlock has a doppelganger. The fact that this lookalike apparently co-operated with Moriarty’s plans makes him even more of a mystery, yet it is possible that Holmes talked him round and persuaded him to commit suicide on his behalf.
Likelihood – 2/10 

2. A Sherlock Mask on Moriarty’s Body.
This theory fits in nicely with the idea that the name Rich Brook (Moriarty’s alias) is loosely German for Reichenback and as such the title of the episode falls into place, yet there are plenty of unanswered questions. Most theories hold the delay between Dr Watson seeing Sherlock fall and him reaching the body as crucial, but this one utilises the gap between the point when the Napoleon of crime shot himself and Watson arrived upon the scene. The bus that drove past after Cumberbatch threw down his phone could have been the point when Holmes pushed his dead adversary over in his place, yet it doesn’t explain why the person falling seemed to be alive on the way down.This theory fits in nicely with the idea that the name Rich Brook (Moriarty’s alias) is loosely German for Reichenback and as such the title of the episode falls into place, yet there are plenty of unanswered questions. Most theories hold the delay between Dr Watson seeing Sherlock fall and him reaching the body as crucial, but this one utilises the gap between the point when the Napoleon of crime shot himself and Watson arrived upon the scene. The bus that drove past after Cumberbatch threw down his phone could have been the point when Holmes pushed his dead adversary over in his place, yet it doesn’t explain why the person falling seemed to be alive on the way down.
Likelihood – 5/10 

3. Mycroft Was In On It
Mycroft Holmes is certainly a cold fish, but we thought the reaction to his brother’s demise was dislocated even by his standards. He even looked a bit bored during the scene in which he read about Sherlock’s death in the newspaper. If you also consider the way he completely sold his brother out to his most deadly enemy, something doesn’t quite fit. Maybe Sherlock realised that his death would be inevitable as the scandal rose and enlisted Mycroft to help him out by planting an idea in Moriarty’s mind. But what? And how?Mycroft Holmes is certainly a cold fish, but we thought the reaction to his brother’s demise was dislocated even by his standards. He even looked a bit bored during the scene in which he read about Sherlock’s death in the newspaper. If you also consider the way he completely sold his brother out to his most deadly enemy, something doesn’t quite fit. Maybe Sherlock realised that his death would be inevitable as the scandal rose and enlisted Mycroft to help him out by planting an idea in Moriarty’s mind. But what? And how?
Likelihood – 7/10

4. MollyBy far the most popular theory is that the often-sidelined Molly helped Sherlock fake his own death. There are two cast iron pieces of evidence for this. First of all, she had a stack of corpses at her disposal and could have fixed any autopsy. Secondly, Sherlock called her back and told her that she was important just before his death. The second part of that conversation should explain everything when it’s revealed. Also she fancied his pants off and would have done anything for him. That’s actually four reasons now we think about it..
Likelihood – 9/10 

5. Sherlock was the bloke on the bike.How exactly this would work is unclear, but a large proportion of the internet community are determined that Holmes was actually the bloke on the bike who bumped into Watson, delaying him from getting to the body. The question of how he got down from the roof break-neck speed (you know what we mean) is another puzzler. Hmm..
Likelihood – 2/10 

6. Dummy from their roomIf you watch the episode again, there are countless references that appear for mere seconds, but could be crucial in the final mystery and one such prop is the mannequin hanging from a noose in Sherlock’s flat. When you remember that it was Holmes who suggested that he and Moriarty meet on the roof of St Barts, it becomes clear that he could have prepared the location in advance with all manner of tools to kid us. Much is also being made of the rubbish truck which was seen hanging around just before his fall and the fact that Sherlock wanted Doctor Watson to “stay exactly where he was!” Obviously his location was vital if he was to believe that Holmes was dead. Maybe Sherlock dropped into the rubbish truck as the bus passed and then Watson saw the dummy falling. Sherlock then swapped places with the dummy as the bike hit Watson. Yet if Sherlock jumped before the dummy – who pushed it off the roof?
Likelihood – 6/10

7. All people on the pavement – including cyclist – were Sherlock’s peopleIf any body-swap/de-masking/dummy-replacement took place then Holmes would almost certainly have needed help from those pedestrians, who could have aided him while delaying Watson from getting to the scene. Why would he trust a load of people and not Dr Watson though? Possibly because he knew that if the Doctor believed him dead then everyone else would as well. Some boffins have also pointed to the squash ball that Homes was playing with and suggested that he could have used the ‘Squash ball in the Armpit’ trick to disguise his pulse from Watson. Points for cleverness.
Likelihood – 7/10 

8. Baskerville Drug administered to WatsonThis theory suggests that Holmes administered the drug from the previous episode to Watson and put the idea of him killing himself in his head. As such Watson was hallucinating when he saw Sherlock fall. Plausible, but it doesn’t take into account the fact that Moffat, Gattiss & Co would consider it the height of laziness to use the same ploy in two separate episodes. For that reason, probably a non-starter.
Likelihood – 1/10 

9. ScotomaScotoma essentially refers to the power of suggestion and the affect it can have over what a person thinks they have seen. Related to the previous theory, many have suggested that when the Beeb give us the big reveal in 2013, it will actually transpire that someone completely different was standing on top of St Barts and we mis-saw him. There are two ways of doing this; with skillful filming and clever editing or by simply showing us the correct thing and then telling us we were mistaken at a later date.
Likelihood – 6/10 

10. Moriarty Is Not DeadWe really hope this one’s true – how good was Andrew Scott? Anyone who has read the books will know that the idea of one of Holmes or Moriarty striking such a winning blow (ie. killing the other) was unlikely to happen, as Conan-Doyle emphasised how closely matched they were. Essentially they were both struggling for an edge, so if Holmes can return from beyond the grave, why not his arch-enemy?
Likelihood – 5/10

The aestheticisation of politics

From The Work of Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction:

The growing proletarianization of modern man and the increasing formation of masses are two aspects of the same process. Fascism attempts to organize the newly created proletarian masses without affecting the property structure which the masses strive to eliminate. Fascism sees its salvation in giving these masses not their right, but instead a chance to express themselves. The masses have a right to change property relations; Fascism seeks to give them an expression while preserving property. The logical result of Fascism is the introduction of aesthetics into political life. The violation of the masses, whom Fascism, with its Führer cult, forces to their knees, has its counterpart in the violation of an apparatus which is pressed into the production of ritual values.

All efforts to render politics aesthetic culminate in one thing: war.

As in 1936 it is in 2012.

More about icons

There are two types of fear abroad in our capitalist democracy, fear regarding the control of information and the resulting manipulation of public opinion. First is that the rigid, hierarchical structure of the mass media means results in information being tightly controlled, the meaning of events strictly determined from above. The second fear is that people are swamped by information, meaning is only broadly defined, the mass of people are allowed, nae, positively encouraged to indulge in fantasy and counter-logic (you can prove anything with facts...).

It doesn't take too much braingrind to realise these two modes of manipulation are closely related, in practice they are intertwined. Rigid control of information is reinforced by exaggeration and fantasy. Fox News is Exhibit A in this case; it turns out no news is better than Fox News.

It's important to recognise neither of these modes of manipulation are not more oppressive or more insidious than the other, though the former might be more obvious. The latter method is icongraphy, broad outlines within which people can determine their own meaning to some degree. Walter Benjamin called it the aestheticisation of politics, which he saw as specifically fascist.

Adolf Hitler was a case in point. Hitler the man was a particular individual, no special talents nor redeeming features; not exactly an aryan superman (not even a vegetarian). Hitler the politician was a deliberately sculpted icon. He may not have been a ruined shopkeeper, impoverished lecturer or disgruntled officer, but a great many of the petty classes, whose lives were crushed the depression, could see an aspect of them in him; one which recovered their dignity (it goes without saying at the expense of others).

Benjamin's response to the aestheicisation of politics was to call for the politicisation of art. More generally this means the continual feeding of the class point of view into each aspect of everyday life (this we take as a practical, as well as intellectual job). Rooting out the material origin of icons demystifies them. It robs them of their power.

Right-wing rock

An interesting feature was broadcast last night on Jarvis Cocker’s BBC6 show about right-wing rock and roll. The argument was hung on rather lightweight, anecdotal examples (interesting examples mind you: the Tories Songs for Swinging Voters, Radio Caroline broadcasting Tory propaganda, worst of all Pete Townsend's shameful shilling for the USAF in 1967... I heard the US airforce was quite busy in those days). I think the point was still clear and valid.

The illusion of the 60s and 70s countercultures* blinds us to what rock music is, and what the music industry is. The rock scene may be described as aristocratic, an elite legion of gods on earth. The similarity between area gigs and nazi rallies has long been noted. Dance music on the other hand is run on thoroughly capitalist line, Fordist composition, sampling, assembling music often from prefabricated parts. With manufactured pop it couldn’t be more explicit; Berry Gordy, Robert Stigwood, Simon Cowell. All of them are examples of musical capitalists, CEOs.

They are a jumble of observations but the more you think about it the more it becomes clear popular music is not a democratic pastime.

Marxists must bear in mind Walter Benjamin’s warning: “concepts, such as creativity and genius, eternal value and mystery – concepts whose uncontrolled application… lead to a processing of data in the Fascist sense”. A rather hot statement, but then he was writing in 1936, and you can still see the sense of the statement. Creativity, genius, eternal value and mystery are all prized, especially in rock music. We need to look at culture from a different angle.

Modern culture is owned by the capitalist class, run by them for them and is generally about them. That’s not to deny the brilliance of any particular work of art, nor its value to society or the joy it may bring to experience it. Any culture for the working class is won from the bourgeoisie. It has to be hung onto. But we must not invest the products of capitalism with qualities they do not have. If you wear a V mask you are endorsing a Wachowski Brothers film, a capitalist endeavour not anti-capitalism. If you fetishise culture you give a part of yourself back to the commodity system, you start to lose the very thing you want keep hold of.

* Note as well the anti-capitalist outlook had to be fought for. Without socialists intervening in the British punk scene, which was wearing swastikas to nightclubs to begin with, the punk scene might have gone in a very different, very ugly direction.