And I thought I had it ALL FIGURED OUT. That deductive reasoning isn’t as difficult a skill as most TV makes it out to be, and that I am a special butterfly who happens to have this skill all tied down.
Well, like most people who watched House, CSI, or other crime dramas, we over estimate our skills and thought that by binge watching a series over and over again, we absorb the skills of the hero character. For my case, it was the love of the books.
But 2 hours in solving a grid puzzle, I realize how much more I have to re learn.
Today I finished episode 2 of season 3 of BBC’s Sherlock starring Benedict Cumberbatch as the lead role. I was a big fan of the show, because of how amazing the performance was and how the deductive sight was portrayed (through text markers & all that.). But what really got me off, was the finale of the season.
If anybody read the ‘Final Problem’ (it was one of Doyle’s worsts), one would know how the duel between Moriarty and Holmes were so evenly matched that it only had to end in a stalemate where both of them died. But season 2 was one problem after the other, where we see Sherlock get whipped and always two steps behind Moriarty.
It was frustrating to watch, and I eventually lost all hope for the series.
But I got curious with season 3, and I’m glad I gave the show another chance. Sure, they tried to fix the terrible finale with a convoluted explanation for Sherlock’s survival (which was never fully revealed), but the thing that won me over was episode 2.
It was an amazing mystery that not only made me think, but showed me a better metaphor for the thought process of one Sherlock Holmes. The jump cuts between real life and his head was amazing, and I could actually appreciate how he thought. I could replay that third act over and over again, for how awesome it was. The reveal was even awesome that explained the “invisible man”.
So tonight, I might just crack open my books again and read an adventure or two before sleeping.
Today is good day.