Sherlock: His Last Vow (Series 3, Episode 3) - I MISSED YOU!!!

Okay, I've calmed down a little. Not much, but a little.


Last night's season ender was epic. Not, I think, my favorite all-time Sherlock episode, but certainly an excellent addition to what has been a fairly amazing season.

First things first: I TOLD YOU SO.

While not entirely evil, Mary certainly catapulted into the realm of "complicated" last night. I knew she was way too clever with the code deciphering and the successful playing of both Sherlock and Watson. And, of course, the "liar" and "linguist" warnings from Sherlock's initial reading of her.

I didn't exactly see her shooting Sherlock, though. But my Sherlock-senses were definitely tingling whenever she was on scene.

Things I Loved About Last Night's Episode:

1. Mary - I was worried they were going to straight up villainize her. They didn't. They made her complicated and worthy of a second chance. They also pointed out what everyone already knew: John loves himself a dangerous sociopath. There was no way Mary and he could be happy if she weren't. I'm pretty sure I fist-bumped myself when my earlier deductions were remotely right, though.

2. Moriarty - While it was great to see Moriarty trapped in Sherlock's mind dungeon, it was even greater to see him serve as the perverted deus-ex-machina, saving Sherlock from exile (and, perhaps, most likely death) with his timely return. Of course, there are so many questions here. Is he really back or is this someone using Moriarty's image? How did Moriarty fake his own death? Have the writers decided to go off canon now? It doesn't really matter, of course, since I'm about to pee my pants with excitement about Season 4 regardless.

3. Sherlock fighting death - This entire scene was incredible. My husband said this and I totally agree: they've gotten so much better about showing Sherlock "think" as the seasons go on. Here, it's a mind palace on the brink of collapse. Molly and Mycroft serve as prompters, getting Sherlock to make the necessary calls to save his own life, but it's Moriarty, still tormenting from his padded cell, that really highlights the bond these two sociopaths share, even in death.

4. Molly - Season 3 Molly not only got to kiss Sherlock (albeit in Anderson's fantasy - do with that what you will - although Sherlock did give her a little cheek peck later) but also gets to slap him as well. You go, girl! Molly is braver, feistier, and less likely to suffer fools. When she slaps Sherlock for squandering his gifts, you know it isn't just about that.

5. Sherlock playing human - I'd earlier lamented that they were trying too hard to humanize Sherlock this season, while hoping it was for a greater purpose. Seems it was. While Sherlock clearly has special emotional dispensations for Watson, he is in his element abusing the emotions of Jeanine (last week's bridesmaid) in order to get what he needs/wants. And, of course, we poignantly see him reaffirm his high-functioning sociopathy at the end when he shoots Magnusson in the head. Not a very elegant Holmesian solution, I fear. I hope they won't waste any time on Sherlock feeling guilty about that next season.

6. Christmas - Sherlock's parents are back! This time, for Christmas! And we see just how amazing a Holmes' family Christmas can be. We learn that it's Holmes's mother who is the "genius" (a mathematician turned mommy) - which is probably Moffat's way of saying "See, I'm not a misogynist!' Still, when  Sherlock drugs them all to run off to catch Magnusson, you just feel so warm and fuzzy and right.

7. Wiggins - In season one, one of the homeless network girls was named Wiggins. Which was cute and all, but I was hoping Wiggins would be a far more central figure. Prayers answered! The role gets recast here as a junky with a budding interest in deductions and chemistry.

Things I Didn't Love:

1. Magnusson - Sure, he gets shot in the head, but that's so not satisfying. We watch Sherlock because we want to see him mentally best the baddie. Not shoot them in their mind palaces. This felt like a copout or misdirection solely to get to the amazing punchline of the season. And that's a shame, because the guy playing Magnusson was so creepy he could have been a truly special villain. Instead, we just have to take it from Sherlock that he was the most dangerous opponent they've ever come up against. Having Sherlock win by default (if murder can be considered default) feels most unsatisfactory.

Things I Will Obsess Over:

1. AGRA - I'm guessing these initials are the IOU red-herring of Season Three but I can't help to think that Mary's identity and the mysterious USB are a clue I'm somehow missing. Besides, if nothing else, knowing a rogue agent is on your team to fight Moriarty has got to feel good.

2. Did you miss me? I had a feeling this was coming about halfway through the episode. They've used Andrew Scott a lot this year; for a guy who's supposed to be dead, he certainly was getting a fair bit of screen time. If he's really back, that should be an epic season 4. If he's not, it should still be pretty amazing. But I do worry. Now that Sherlock is a "murderer" - what's the incentive at beating Moriarty at his own game? They sacrificed a little of Sherlock's integrity this season and I don't know how or if they'll be able to successfully reclaim it in any meaningful way.

More after the rewatch!

Sherlock: His Last Vow (Series 3, Episode 3)

Guys.

Holy shit.

I'm going to need a minute.

Or a year.

To process that episode.

Can I spoil it a little???

Just a little.

Moriarty lives.

Maybe.

More later! MUST REWATCH AND PROCESS!

FiftyFiftyMe: Takedown Twenty (Book #2)

i've stopped buying stephanie plum books. sure, i still read them, but now i wait for weeks and weeks to get them from the library instead of shelling out good money for crap fiction.

this one was pretty not good.

first, the beginning chapters read like a warped version of the babysitter club series where stephanie introduced us to each and every person in her life as if we hadn't been there with her for the last 19 installments.

this is lulu. lulu dressed like a ho. but lulu ain't no ho. except lulu is considering become a ho again so she can get an expensive purse.

to each their own, i guess.

i don't recall evanovich ever just listing her exposition in a fucked-up little litany of who is who before. but maybe i just usually skim those parts more.

it has been awhile since i've read one of these.

if i were grading this novel, in the margins, i'd have written "show, don't tell!" about 24249 times, so, maybe the introductions were the least of her problems.

i recently wrote a review about comedy in literature being written like it's amped up to eleven. if that's the case generally speaking, here, it's amped up to at least thirteen. stephanie is, perhaps, even klutzier than usual - maybe because of bella putting the "eye" on her - or maybe because she's getting a little too old to be traipsing around trenton, getting shot at and blowing up cars that don't belong to her.

of course, the mystery here is so phoned in as to be ridiculous. i'm sorry, but if you don't figure out the calling card way in advance of stephanie and joe, you deserve to read the rest of these. the giraffe was a surreal little touch, but, of course, most of us are still reading these for the morelli-ranger-plum triangle.

for an almost engaged woman, stephanie sure kisses ranger an awful lot.

also, isn't it about time that she and morelli take another break so us rangerphanies can get ours a little?

thanks ever so much.

not that i'm anticipating hurrying to read the next installment. these are going the way of the sookie stackhouse books, only with no hint to an end in sight. which is a pity, because when evanovich is on, she's on! it's just not really happening here for me.

2 stars - a few laughs, a quick read, but some awful exposition and hyperbolic comedy.

Sherlock: Sign of Three (Series 3, Episode 2)

Well, well, well, isn't this a horse of a different color? A second or  middle episode that was actually pretty amazing.

The Sign of Three was highly anticipated after Sherlock's auspicious return to television. At least highly anticipated in my home. But I was wary. There are some distinct tonal changes going on - Sherlock and Mycroft are far more human, far more accessible, than they were previously. Also, at times, the show teeters on campy. We saw that in the first episode with the Inspector Clouseau bit. Here, it's a bit more subtle, but I can't remember...well...laughing quite so hard at Sherlock in the past.

Maybe I've just obsessively watched the humor out the older series?

Maybe it's Mary. Can I just say how much I fucking love Mary? I'm serious. She's amazing. She plays both Watson and Sherlock so perfectly. And she doesn't dare try to come between them. I hope it lasts because, dang, is she incredible.

I will give some major spoilers of tonight's episode. Here is your final warning. I won't tell you everything - because I've got small children and they're disruptive only in the 90 minute blocks I take for myself at bedtime. Tonight, it was adventures in potty training.

Don't ask.

Anyways, tonight was John's wedding. It did not disappoint. However, first, we saw the return of Donovan, who I'd hoped was away on traffic duty in Canterbury or something but apparently was not. We see her and Lestrade trying to crack down on an elusive gang of clown-faced bank robbers. They're on the brink of capture and police glory when...Sherlock texts! He needs help! Please! Come right away!

Of course, he's texted enough that we all know he is no danger, but Lestrade, well, Lestrade is sticking truer the canon and is not a very good police detective so he calls for all kinds of major backup at Baker St. where a totally fine Sherlock is in the throws of a "best man speech writing" meltdown.

Poor, Gavin. Er...Graham...uh...Greg.

Of course, the thing with the robbers is either all a very elaborate lead up to that punchline or signs of future trouble to come.

The writers are also doing this weird time-hopping thing that is making it difficult to know what time anything is happening in. Flashbacks are problematic that way. And we've definitely jumped forward from Sherlock's amazing return from the dead.

Sherlock gives an amazing speech, if you're worried. He makes the audience laugh and cry and gives us hope of Sherlock's increasing interest in joining society successfully. Peppered throughout are cases the boys have worked on together, including an unsolved case of a bloody guardsman and a ghost boyfriend. There are also some pretty amazing interviews Sherlock conducts with various members of the wedding party. It's nice to see him connect so vividly with a young child.

I'd totally let him babysit.

I was curious to see how they'd handle the central mystery of the Sign of the Four (the locked room). It was actually pretty clever here, although, I dare say, I'd figured it out. I won't tell you how it's done, just pay attention to the filming. They give a little visual hinting with some of the shots.

I also don't believe for a second that Sherlock would have trouble figuring out the intended target. That took way too long, but was fairly hysterical in the process.

Also fun - Sherlock dancing, Sherlock's bridesmaid friend, Sherlock visualizing his chatroom (and those women!!!), and the drinking scene (Sherlock and John both get wasted and try to solve a crime; it is just as epic as you imagine).

Of course, the major spoiler comes with the pun on the title. Changing the Four to Three in the title is surely designed to have people think of the new John-Mary-Sherlock triangle. Of course, we all forget how much the writers love a good pun.

Mary is off-put by wine. She gets nervous and sick in the morning of her wedding. She's put on some weight.
It doesn't really take a Sherlock to deduce what comes next.

But it's really, really sweet when he does.


See you after the rewatch.

FiftyFiftyMe: Where'd You Go, Bernadette? (Book #1)

This is my first book of 2014, a year in which I hope to read more than every Fancy Nancy or Stephanie Plum out there. 

I mean, I'll still read those other books, but I kinda hope I read some stuff that resembles "real" literature, too.

First, a caveat: I feel the need to be spiritually pure for as long as possible this year, and, sadly, that means being honest in my reviews. Not that I usually lie, because I don't, but that sometimes I will say mean things. I will try not to be mean for mean's sake (unless I feel like the book deserves it) and I will make no personal attacks against the writer.

Unless some garbled up piece of fanfic gets mainstream popularity again.

Did I already break my book resolution?

I say this because I'm not really sure how I feel about this book at all. And, considering I've read it and thought about it for a while now, isn't probably a good thing.

You need to understand: I get satire. I teach AP Lit to brilliant 12th graders. Or, I used to in a semi-former life (I'm on sabbatical). I'm not so rusty that it eludes me. This doesn't feel particularly like satire, unless Maria Semple is a mean girl who hates the Hollywood machine and Seattle housewives everywhere.

And I don't think she does. Or I hope she doesn't. Because feminism! Or something.

So, if she's not trying to make fun of reclusive geniuses everywhere or their aesthetically-minded, neurotic neighbors...I guess I'm not entirely certain what's the point.

There is a distinct black comedy vibe here; and, with comedy, an author runs the risk that what you think is funny does not mesh with what another person deems hilarious. It's actually even worse in literature because everything has to be amped up to eleven (one does not simply fall into a lake in books; one trips on one's overly long pants thus causing them to spontaneously rip up the side revealing one's undergarments as one spins wildly out of control culminating in a ceremonious drenching in a local waterhole that happens to be populated by nuns and schoolchildren). If the reader is not on the same wavelength, comedy, sometimes, reads as "What the fuck?!" and that's not good for anyone.

I didn't know much about this book before I borrowed it from the library. I knew that it had an almost four star rating and that my aunt was sort of iffy on it while my cousin recommended it violently. Those were all pretty good indications I'd like this one well enough. The premise seemed a bit...dramatic...to me "reclusive architect disappears and brilliant teenaged daughter tries to find her". 

Let's just say, nothing particularly screamed "COMEDY!" to me. And so imagine my surprise when that was what I was faced with.

This, obviously, worked against the novel for me. It was until about 100 pages in when I turned to my unsuspecting husband and said, "Huh. I think this is supposed to be funny." Which was better than thirty pages before when I told him I just didn't get the point.

There's a lot going on in this one that is beyond the absurd: genius parents, art vs. science. social anxiety, stilted creativity, boarding school, Antarctica, lawsuits, interventions, TEDtalks, affairs, the Russian mafia, a house-destroying mudslide, unplanned pregnancies, drug rehabilitation wilderness camp, and an uncle named Van.

This is a world where people act erratically and cash seems limitless. It's also a world where forgiveness and disappearance walk hand in hand, apparently.

I get the overwhelming greater message about creativity and being who you are and acceptance and love. I do. And, once I stopped trying so hard, it was much more fun to get lost in the crazy escapades of Bernadette and her kin. But no one here was particularly likable. First, Bernadette, who is our shining star, is batshit crazy. And, yeah, I know that genius and insanity are often a subtle dance held barely in check by creative outlet and the right combination of medication, but that's not what is happening here. I sympathized with her abhorrence for social interaction and nothing there seemed wildly out of sync with my preferred reality (which is probably saying something very telling about me). Obviously I'm way higher functioning than Bernadette ever was but it was not the off-putting part to me. Her reliance on the internet drone was weird, particularly that, for a genius, she was so quick to give away highly sensitive information like social security and bank account numbers.

There is no way the Russian mob would have waited that long to take all of her cash.

And I get why she leaves. The end sort of worked for me on that level. But she's not ever really approachable in scope. She feels, way too often, like the victim. A self-centered, highly neurotic, quirky, artistic victim that her husband indulges, her neighbor hates, and her daughter reveres.

And Bee was one of those precocious book children that reads as impossible. And then her dad called her a little bitch and I got indignant until she agreed he was right.

Plus, what the hell was up with the Josh Groban thing?
I'm sure we were meant to laugh at Bee, while she weeps and tries to turn herself into the reincarnation of Jesus while listening to Christmas carols and sporting a bandanna advertising The Hangover, but I just couldn't do it.

I'm not into that level of absurdity.

And this is before I get into Elgin, Soo-Lin, and Audrey.

Nobody seemed happy here. And maybe nobody really is. Was that the point? We are all weird locally-sourced architectural designs and when we fail it is because we designed ourselves to do so? Because damn that's bleak. But that's sort of what the first 2/3 of the book felt like to me. Like I was that damn house on the hill, just waiting for the bulldozers to come.

Then we went to Antartica and the tone shifted and we were light as blue ice and restored with hope and reunion.

And that just confused me more.

"Bernadette" is an interesting, if not at times upsetting, read. There are genuinely funny moments here, but, too often, absurd and cruel ones. 

3.5 stars - an inauspicious start to a new year.

Sherlock: The Empty Hearse (Season 3, Episode 1) - More Thoughts and Spoilers

So, first, a correction. Turns out, like Sherlock, I'm fallible.

Anderson's group is called "The Empty Hearse." This is embarrassing and I'm sure I did catch it the first time around but I assumed the real empty hearse of the story was, of course, a pun on Sherlock's empty grave (or sort of empty grave) and the empty car holding all those explosives under Parliament.

My bad.

To make amends:

Don't say I never gave you anything.

In all fairness, for the real fans, it's the few seconds immediately preceding the kiss which are the most epic - when Sherlock runs his hands through his hair. You're going to want to check out the GIF on the BBC One Tumblr. Christmas came late this year.

So, back to the story. There were a couple of moments I've been thinking about since I wrote my initial reaction.

First, the Holmes bros. It seems the Cold War is thawing between the two boys - so much so that they even engage in a battle of the wits (they play Operation. it is just as awesome as you're now imagining). We even get to see a little deductive reasoning on Mycroft's part, which also allows Sherlock the opportunity to pay him back for the "how would you know" line in "Scandal in Belgravia."

Turns out, our little Mycroft is lonely. Awwww.

Don't go and give him a soul now, Gatiss and Moffat. We like our Holmes boys just a little bit more detached than the average human.

We also get to meet Sherlock and Mycroft's parents - played, quite rightly, by Benedict Cumberbatch's real parents. It was sweet to see the whole family together - a bizarre little Christmas card for true fans - and I think it was sporting of the creators to try guess what Sherlock's parents would actually be like. They're so...normal! And sweet! Except, you know, like Benedict Cumberbatch, they sort of reek of old money, even if there isn't any. When Mycroft has to go with them to see "Les Miz," we all would have paid money to see a scene of that.

But you knew that their parents would have to be loving, if nothing else. Look how coddled Sherlock is! He is, essentially, a petulant child with the brain of a genius and the cheekbones of a gangly, foppish Armani model. For tweaked hyper-geniuses, the Holmes boys certainly are well-adjusted.

After all, they didn't turn into Moriarty.

Too soon?

And, of course, I think we need to consider the possibility that Sherlock lies to Anderson about Project Lazarus. He did say there were 13 possibilities once he reached the rooftop of St. Bart's. If he was really going to use Mycroft the entire time, wasn't there really only one possibility once he was on the roof? Come on, now. Of course, with his ego, he was probably banking on being able to talk Moriarty out of killing him entirely.

And, after giggling with child-like glee, kissing. BECAUSE THAT'S WHAT PEOPLE DO.
in fan-fiction.

But the thing I really want to talk about is the Lestrade hug.

Just kidding, but damn do I hope the slashers are going fucking nuts with that today.

No, this is what I want to talk about:

This took forever to find a screencap of but it's important to me because I knew that we would have to contend with the Mary factor.

Was she too good to be true? Let's look at some of Sherlock's deductions about her: cat lover, bakes own bread, part-time nurse, only child, disillusioned, size 12, lib//dem, secret, tattoo, guardian, shortsighted, and, of course, liar.

In fact, liar shows up a lot (not in this particular pic but in others I've seen). Now, to some degree, we are all liars (I lie all the time, about wanting to read Fancy Nancy books or about wanting to watch Caillou) so we shouldn't all immediately jump on the "Mary is evil" bandwagon. But since she's a liar AND she has a secret, I think we need to maybe brace ourselves for the possibility that...

...maybe Mary is evil.

Blue eyes and shortsighted? Could she somehow be connected to the blue-eyed, glasses-wearing big bad we caught our first glimpse of last night? Or is she lying about wanting to help reconcile John and Sherlock? What are her motives here? Is she as good as she seems or will she break up the band?

I hope not. I hope that she is merely human and loving, if not slightly damaged by the vulnerabilities of life, as are we all.

But, let's face it, this is Moffat and Gatiss we're talking about here.

Bitch is probably evil.

the fault, dear brutus, is in our stars (book #2)

The Fault in Our Stars - John Green

please pay specific attention to the cheery blurb from jodi piccoult.

My Goodreads Review:

i need to write this now, when the book is still raw, before i forget the minutiae and the emotion as i get suckered into another text. there will probably be spoilers, i fear. i've never been good at self-censoring, particularly in book reviews. read at your own risk.

first, in full disclosure: i was a little disappointed in the pre-ordering of this novel. yes, i dreamt of yetis and hanklerfishes, but moreover, i dreamt that i'd actually get to read the book on its release date. or thereabouts. instead, three days later, the book arrived, to the wrong address, and with no additional signatures to ease the blow of such a monumental disappointment.

alas, there's an old adage about beggars and choosers that i'm conveniently forgetting here.

still, i decided not to let that pepper my review negatively. it is, after all, not john green's novel's fault that it couldn't arrive in a timely fashion with multiple autographs.

right?

i pre-ordered TFiOS solely based on the simple pretext that i happen to enjoy the way john green crafts intelligent teenagers. yes, i find him formulaic, or, more specifically, that, like shakespeare he has types and blueprints that he constantly reimagines for his own purposes (eclectically named teenager - usually male, but here, finally, like pixar, female, road trip in search of some deep-rooted universal truth, highly literary in scope and reference, crude humor at times usually involving urine, the all-encompassing power of teen love, girl with weird colored nail polish, etc, etc) but i also find him enjoyable. he writes the way i wish people talked. his characters love the way i wish love felt.

so, to say that i was surprised to be reading a book about terminal cancer within the opening pages is a bit of the old understatement.

maybe i should have been tipped off by the praise from jodi piccoult that this book wasn't necessarily going to be light and fluffy.

not that green favors fluff, but that, generally, there's hope and happiness somewhere towards the end of it all.

death lingers here, a bad feeling you can never quite shake off. it's everywhere. in your face. behind each word, each action. it's both imminent and remote, which gives a sort of claustrophobic and tragic aura, even in the funny moments.

and there are funny moments here. most of the cancer perks, particularly ones involving augustus's driver's license, are incredibly funny. it's all the typical quick-witted snark and banter of a john green novel, just with the omnipresent threat that these could be the last words this character says.

in terms of dealing with life and death, the philosophical bent of the text works well; these aren't kids to pity but to fall in love with. and that's pretty special.

my chief complaints are this:

1. i saw very easily where we were headed here and it pissed me off immensely. i'm not sure what the intended purpose of the finality of the story was, but, to me, it spoke to the inherent unfairness of life and to the simple fact that one man's oblivion is another man's infinity. it's beautiful in theory but in reality it sucks as a bitter pill to have to swallow.

2. the fake epigraph. this immediately bristled. i'm a recent convert to the altar of gatsby and i felt that the made-up epigraph spoke to a much more subtle and subversive motif in that text. here, when one of the character inevitably brings up gatsby, i sort of wanted to groan, sigh disgustedly, and spit out, "what a load of horse crap, eh, kid?"

3. and, while we're on that subject, let's talk about peter van houten, the pickled author of said fake quote. we had potential here for salinger-esque greatness, but what we got was sad, hollowed out banality. of course he has a tragic connection to his own staggering work of genius, of course he can't give the children what they need/want from him, and of course he cannot possibly make better a situation that is only, by its inherent definition, getting worse. so what's the point? his addition felt extraneous and incomplete, and, worse, it only served to point out the cruelness of both hazel's and gus's lives. and maybe life in general. he wasn't a beacon of hope. he wasn't even a beacon of inspiration. he was a mediocre man posing as this literary genius but nothing about him seemed to merit such acclaim. i just didn't get him.

4. the weak understanding of the term "hamartia" - look, i get it. john green is very smart. and he writes characters that are also very smart (it's one of the reasons i read him - for, as improbable as they are, i hope for a future filled with more kids who memorize william carlos williams for fun). so it's incredibly disappointing to see them espouse a definition of hamartia that is far more over-simplified than it should be (and echoed later by the superfluous peter van houten in the same simplistic vein). hamartia, in the classic aristotelian understanding, is meant to be more than merely "fatal flaw" as it gets defined here. it is a mistake or wrongdoing brought about in some capacity by said flaw (i.e. when hamlet, in an out-of-character act of rashness, stabs a decorative wall hanging and murders polonius. yes, it is a minor complaint, but, if green is going to insist on creating such preciously insightful teenagers, please make sure they are thorough in their understanding of literary terminology.

still, for me, this is solidly 4 stars. i laughed, i cried, i cried a little harder. and maybe there's something to say about confronting the fragility of life once in awhile to actually remember how to live.

i just wouldn't want to do it every day.