Westworld and the art of plot twist

SPOILERS (for Westworld, Sherlock)

Miller’s discussion on audience as well as some of the recent plot installments in Westworld have got me thinking about the “art” of plot twist and how audiences and writers handle them. The “plot twist”, different than normal plot developments, is the revelation of unexpected information within a narrative that helps direct its audience towards the resolution of a given mystery. These developments, while unexpected, are not irrational and sensibly fit into the rest of the story. For instance, in episode 9, Westworld's plot twist was Bernard being modeled off of Ford’s original partner, Arnold. This gives us important information into what drives Bernard’s actions, into the mystery surrounding Delores’ interactions with “Arnold”/Bernard, and into Arnold’s continuous involvement with the park. The reason this “twist” is fulfilling to the viewer is because it both advances the plot that the audience has been following (and wanting answers to), and because it fits well in Westworld’s universe; it is sensible for Ford to have recreated Arnold as a host and it does not contradict prior evidence that has been presented in the show.

This insight into Westworld’s plot twists have allowed me to think about why Sherlock’s most recent plot twists have tremendously failed, one being the explanation into Sherlock’s desire to remain unemotional and unattached to others in the form of… the existence of an evil sister he had erased from his memory. The reason this “twist” failed? Because it neither furthered the plot nor was sensible in Sherlock’s universe. Since the show began seven years ago, it’s been primarily concerned with “televisuality” (thanks Miller), intricate plot lines, clever adaptions of Doyle’s original stories, and most importantly in developing Sherlock and John Watson’s characters into sympathetic, moral, and emotionally healthy people.

However, instead of helping Sherlock's characters heal from trauma and overcome their emotional hang-ups, the last episode simply explained why Sherlock was unsympathetic in the first place, which does nothing for his or for John’s character. In fact, no fans seemed very curious as to why Sherlock wanted to be void of emotion, it appeared clear that it was his older brother’s influence trying to protect him from harm. The last season of the show left the characters especially traumatized: Sherlock in his renewed memory of the abuse suffered by his sister and John still healing from the death of his wife. With nowhere to go from here, this “twist” just leaves the audience with a lack of fulfillment: they want to see the resolution to these characters’ storylines, not added complexity. This also gets to the second reason why this twist was unfulfilling: it did not fit in with the form of the rest of the show, as it was not based on any original Doyle story, included little to no detective work or mystery, and leaned towards the supernatural rather than the logical and explainable.

What does the discussion about plot twists add to television studies? I think it speaks to an audience’s relationship to television and to the creators of the narratives it presents. Contrary to what Postman believes people of an image-based culture desire, we want plots that flow in a logical way and that fit into the universe of its show or genre. This may also add to how we examine a given show’s narrative progression: who is its audience? What do they expect? What should we expect from season two of Westworld, given its audience? What should an audience expect from a possible season five of Sherlock?