MAsters of the universe?
149
considered ‘cult’ or marginal,” which are now, as Jenkins, Ford, and Green
argue, “becoming how more people engage with television texts.” 62 Not only
this, but Sherlock itself is a detective series, where guessing (or deducing)
the outcome is part of the viewing experience, and where the hero himself
models this restless intellectual energy that the show stimulates amongst
viewers. Given these conditions, it seems bizarre that the show and its lead
writers, in their public appearances, should combine to criticize press and
fan power. This situation can be seen as what Fathallah calls the “legitimation
paradox”, where fan activity “is legitimated and empowered – because and
so far as the author says so.” 63 What is objected to in particular by Moffat
and Gatiss is any attempt to tell other stories about the show, which from
their point of view are inaccurate, unauthorized, and incorrect stories. 64
Moffat, in particular, relishes this aspect of his job as lead writer: the
ability to tell gripping, surprising stories that give privileged viewers “the
feels,” but also to withhold key information, to mislead, to tease and taunt. In
an interview alongside Gatiss for the series three return of Sherlock, Moffat
speaks of wanting to “pull the rug one more time” from under viewers’
understanding of what happened to Sherlock and how he survived, by
making the final explanation given by Sherlock to Anderson – after all the
red herrings in “The Empty Hearse” – deliberately implausible in several
key respects. 65 Having played with viewer expectations of an explanation
for Sherlock’s survival, Moffat and Gatiss initially bombard us with theories
within the show, and then leave us without a single one that fits the facts. As
Gatiss puts it, giving a similar account to Moffat but phrasing it in diplomatic,
almost Mycroftian language, “In ‘The Empty Hearse’, Sherlock presents
a perfectly acceptable and rational theory as to how he faked his death.
Anderson, quite rightly, has some questions about the method but there’s
no reason why it didn’t happen like that. You may believe what you want!” 66
In the BAFTA Q&A after the screening of “His Last Vow,” Moffat makes
it even clearer how much he relishes this power that he and Gatiss hold
62 Ibid., 142.
63 Fathallah, Fanfiction and the Author, 10
64 As we have seen, this is an eccentric position to hold for a show, which is itself openly an
adaptation of multiple sources. Gatiss and Moffat make no secret of having been inspired by
the wartime Holmes films starring Basil Rathbone and Nigel Bruce, and also by Billy Wilder’s
film The Private Life of Sherlock Homes. See Tribe, Sherlock Chronicles, 20. Mark Gatiss’ famous
comment regarding the team’s inclusive principle of adaptation, “everything is canonical,” clearly
applies only as far as the moment of Sherlock’s creation. See Mumford, “Sherlock returns to the
BBC.”
65 “Unlocking Sherlock.”
66 “Live Q&A with Steven Moffat and Mark Gatiss.”
149
considered ‘cult’ or marginal,” which are now, as Jenkins, Ford, and Green
argue, “becoming how more people engage with television texts.” 62 Not only
this, but Sherlock itself is a detective series, where guessing (or deducing)
the outcome is part of the viewing experience, and where the hero himself
models this restless intellectual energy that the show stimulates amongst
viewers. Given these conditions, it seems bizarre that the show and its lead
writers, in their public appearances, should combine to criticize press and
fan power. This situation can be seen as what Fathallah calls the “legitimation
paradox”, where fan activity “is legitimated and empowered – because and
so far as the author says so.” 63 What is objected to in particular by Moffat
and Gatiss is any attempt to tell other stories about the show, which from
their point of view are inaccurate, unauthorized, and incorrect stories. 64
Moffat, in particular, relishes this aspect of his job as lead writer: the
ability to tell gripping, surprising stories that give privileged viewers “the
feels,” but also to withhold key information, to mislead, to tease and taunt. In
an interview alongside Gatiss for the series three return of Sherlock, Moffat
speaks of wanting to “pull the rug one more time” from under viewers’
understanding of what happened to Sherlock and how he survived, by
making the final explanation given by Sherlock to Anderson – after all the
red herrings in “The Empty Hearse” – deliberately implausible in several
key respects. 65 Having played with viewer expectations of an explanation
for Sherlock’s survival, Moffat and Gatiss initially bombard us with theories
within the show, and then leave us without a single one that fits the facts. As
Gatiss puts it, giving a similar account to Moffat but phrasing it in diplomatic,
almost Mycroftian language, “In ‘The Empty Hearse’, Sherlock presents
a perfectly acceptable and rational theory as to how he faked his death.
Anderson, quite rightly, has some questions about the method but there’s
no reason why it didn’t happen like that. You may believe what you want!” 66
In the BAFTA Q&A after the screening of “His Last Vow,” Moffat makes
it even clearer how much he relishes this power that he and Gatiss hold
62 Ibid., 142.
63 Fathallah, Fanfiction and the Author, 10
64 As we have seen, this is an eccentric position to hold for a show, which is itself openly an
adaptation of multiple sources. Gatiss and Moffat make no secret of having been inspired by
the wartime Holmes films starring Basil Rathbone and Nigel Bruce, and also by Billy Wilder’s
film The Private Life of Sherlock Homes. See Tribe, Sherlock Chronicles, 20. Mark Gatiss’ famous
comment regarding the team’s inclusive principle of adaptation, “everything is canonical,” clearly
applies only as far as the moment of Sherlock’s creation. See Mumford, “Sherlock returns to the
BBC.”
65 “Unlocking Sherlock.”
66 “Live Q&A with Steven Moffat and Mark Gatiss.”