#Identifier: GUY FAWKES

[magerywrites]

magery hello,,!! i hope this isnt too forward but i discovered you via _maiqo on twitter a long while ago and have been absolutely enamored by your works ever since — your writing is an enormous inspiration to me and i sincerely hope that my works can one day match the same level of excellence.

you absolutely dont have to indulge me at all, but is there any advice you can give in terms of writing character studies? :’D if not its totally ok !! and anything works !! i just figured it’s worth a shot haha

Thank you very much! It's always lovely to learn that what I've written has meant something to someone. I appreciate it.

In an attempt to answer your question, I'll talk about how I think about and approach character studies. It may be that much of what I say fails to be useful to you, but I hope to be of some small aid regardless!

To begin, I think the most fundamental element of writing a character study—as a piece of fanfiction, though much of this can be applied without significant difficulty to orginal works—is to have a firm vision of who the character is to you.

This is separate from having a firm vision of who the character "really" is. Nobody can have that—every way we engage with media is coloured by our own values and perspectives, and that bleeds into the way we think about and write characters. This is sometimes a difficult dichotomy to balance against the principle of "they would not fucking say that", but to borrow some old and too-simplified physics, I think it can be useful to consider that a character is in many ways like an electron in an electron cloud. Their precise and perfect characterisation is not something that we can ever truly locate, but we can identify the area of narrative space it is most likely to be in.

The task of the character study, I feel, is to hammer down on the part of that narrative space that you find most compelling. To take the meat of their character and cook it the way you would want it served to you. A character study is not to please anyone else. A character study—or, at least, the kind of character study I write—exists for you to get your feelings out about the character you have been rotating in your brain onto the page. It also exists, of course, so that you can try to show those feelings to other people and hope they feel them too, but you will never succeed in actually capturing those feelings in the first place if you don't allow yourself to write your authentic vision of the character.

They don't have to be your blorbo, or your problematic fave, or your three corners of the OC design triangle, or whatever, but when you write them, for that space and time they do have to be yours. Otherwise, what's the point?

Once you have that vision, you can put them in practically any situation you like and as long as there's something in it for them to bounce off, you're going to be able to tell a story that reveals something about the character. If you look at the "plots" of a selection of my character studies, we have "one guy folds sheets, another guy asks him questions" as a plot, we have "a pair of exes talk across a tabletop after a party", we have "oh LAWD they FAWKING" like four and a half times, we have "retelling the plot of something else" twice, and we even have "two people on a helicopter flight for an hour". It's not really complicated stuff. It doesn't need to be. The character, or characters, just need to be in a situation where they're going to have some reason to think about, and maybe even talk about, whatever conflict or idea or relationship you find most compelling about them.

With that said, it should be noted that it's... well, for me, with the way I do things, it's very very difficult to conceive of writing a character study in any situation without a clear and central conflict the character or characters are grappling with. All of my character studies revolve around a problem a character has and how they react to it. And yes, "having a conflict" is, like, the quiddity of a story, the most basic plot diagram there is. But what I'm trying to say here is that even in the story I mentioned where two people sit in a helicopter and talk to each other, the story is intensely focused on the internal struggle one of those characters is having with the choices that led to her sitting in that helicopter and how much they do, or don't, make her like the person she's sitting opposite (both more and less than she knows). And that's the sort of thing that I think is key. The conflict, in my eyes, needs to be philosophically central to the way you view the character and what you want to say about them. It needs to be tightly intertwined into what you find most compelling about them—the thing that you just want to sink your hands into and squeeze, for good or ill. That's how you get to really show the world who they are and why you care about that.

After that, I really think that in a lot of ways it just comes down to the prose. How deeply can you write into your character's head? Are you colouring even your description of the world around them with the way they would see it—or are you taking the opposite path and presenting the character entirely through someone else's eyes, so that you can characterise them through the distance between what the other person thinks about them and how they present themselves? You don't need frame-perfect metaphors or the Inanna-Ishtar LGBTQIA+ sharingan-coloured prose to do that, but you do need to focus on writing in a way that expresses the character.

This does take focus. How much focus depends on how specialised you are into that style of prose, but it is focus nonetheless: you need to think of your sentences, each and every one, as tools to communicate something about your understanding of the character that you want the audience to know. Some of them will inevitably instead become vehicles to reach a point where you can communicate that understanding, but something as simple as what a character notices first when they walk into a room tells you something about them. Lean on that. Lean into that. After all, if you're writing a character study, the writing should study your character.

(Colour this advice with the fact that I am, as you've probably realised from reading my writing, very much a prose-focused writer. I have spent near on fifteen years, since before I even graduated high school, honing my prose for poetry of language and interiority so that I can write in the way I most enjoy reading. That affects what I value in writing, and it affects my opinion on the way people should write. I believe what I am saying is true and good and useful, because I have faith in the way I engage with my art, but my advice does not chart the sole and singular course to the ever-distant utopia.)

To tl;dr myself, my advice for writing character studies fundamentally boils down to to the idea that I think a character study is most potent when it presents a vision of a character that the writer has clearly obsessed over. That they have layered with their thoughts, their perspective, and their heart to the degree that it drips even from their prose. A character study with the confidence to say this is what I think is compelling about this character, and I want you to see it too.

I may not agree with it, I may think "They Would Not Have Fucking Said That", I may even think the writer has just invented an unsustainable interpretation of the character that demonstrates startling reading incomprehension and I can't believe I have to share the same fandom as these people.

But at the same time, I know people have thought and said that about my own works—and I'm still happy that I wrote them.

I have far more respect for someone who's written an entirely committed and deranged interpretation of a character that I think is Flatly Fucking Wrong than I do someone who presents me with the most milquetoast interpretation I can't disagree with. If I choose to read a character study, it's because I want to see you study the character. That's, as the meme goes, why I'm here.

So, really: focus on determining who you think the character is, write them the way you want to see them written, keep your prose tight to who you think the character is (not just "would they say that?" or "would they think that?" but "how would they describe that?" and "what would they see in that?"), and commit to the bit.

(If you've managed to read to the bottom—thank you for entertaining my rambling, and I hope it helped!)

[canines-crown]

Woof! Hello! Slightly odd question, but I was wondering if there was an alterhuman label for those who feel connected to a species, like it is you, but it isn’t exactly? Like it’s you, but you don’t identify as it on any specific level. Like, sorry I’m really bad at wording this lol- like, you’re this thing, say, a crow. And you are a crow. But you don’t know what level(s) the crow identity is on. Like you don’t know if it’s spiritual or physical or something. Idk maybe I’m just stupid but I have been seriously considering cryptids and crows being on this awkward level of identity of “I don’t know where the fawk this is coming from but it feels REALLY right” - A somewhat worried and confused wolf therian anon

So, I'm not the most educated individual when it comes to therianthropy (which is why I'm calling my moots to help me on this (hi guys, please help me lol)) but I don't actually know a specific term for what you feel like...

Hm

Alterhumanity can stem from many different things, but some alterhumans don't know where exactly their identity came from, and that's completely normal I think?

Take me for example... I know I am a serval. I know I am this soul thing. Where did that come from? No idea. It just popped into my head and I IMMEDIATELY knew that it was me. I never even THOUGHT about servals before, I just knew I was one all of a sudden?

In the beginning of the ask you also mentioned that you don't feel like it's exactly you? It could definitely be a form of otherheartedness if you don't feel like you actually are that being? Connections can be really strong and tricky!

I'll just go give you my number one trick, that being to just call yourself a crow, say that you're crowkin (or cryptidkin) and see how it makes you feel!

But yeah, that's where my wisdom ends, rip

MOOTS

Assemble!!!/lh

[thepastisalreadywritten]

Guy Fawkes and the Gunpowder Plot

By Ben Johnson

Published 30 October 2020

Remember, Remember, the 5th of November, Gunpowder, Treason and Plot!

Fireworks can be seen all over France every July 14 as the nation celebrates Bastille Day.

Across the USA some ten days earlier on the 4th of July, Americans celebrate their Independence Day.

In Britain, the words of a children’s nursery rhyme “Remember, Remember the 5th of November, Gunpowder, Treason and Plot” are chanted as fireworks fly and bonfires gradually consume a human effigy known as the ‘Guy.’

So who was this Guy? And why is he remembered so fondly 400 years after his death?

It could be said that the story started when the Catholic Pope of the day failed to recognise England’s King Henry VIII‘s novel ideas on separation and divorce.

Henry, annoyed at this, severed ties with Rome and appointed himself head of the Protestant Church of England.

Protestant rule in England was maintained and strengthened through the long and glorious reign of his daughter Queen Elizabeth I.

When Elizabeth died without children in 1603, her cousin James VI of Scotland became King James I of England.

James had not been long on the throne before he started to upset the Catholics within his kingdom.

They appear to have been unimpressed with his failure to implement religious tolerance measures, getting a little more annoyed when he ordered all Catholic priests to leave the country.

A group of Roman Catholic nobles and gentlemen led by Robert Catesby conspired to essentially end Protestant rule with perhaps the biggest ‘bang’ in history.

Their plan was to blow up the King, Queen, church leaders, assorted nobles, and both Houses of Parliament with 36 barrels of gunpowder strategically placed in the cellars beneath the Palace of Westminster.

The plot was apparently revealed when the Catholic Lord Monteagle was sent a message warning him to stay away from Parliament as he would be in danger, the letter being presented to Robert Cecil, James I’s Chief Minister.

Some historians believe that Cecil had known about the plot for some time and had allowed the plot to ‘thicken’ to both ensure that all the conspirators were caught and to promote Catholic hatred throughout the country.

And the Guy? Guy Fawkes was born in Yorkshire on 13 April 1570.

A convert to the Catholic faith, Fawkes had been a soldier who had spent several years fighting in Italy.

It was during this period that he adopted the name Guido (Italian for Guy), perhaps to impress the ladies.

What we do know is that Guido was arrested in the early hours of the morning of November 5th 1605, in a cellar under the House of Lords, next to the 36 kegs of gunpowder, with a box of matches in his pocket and a very guilty expression on his face.

Under torture, Guy Fawkes identified the names of his co-conspirators. Many of these were the relations of a Catholic gentleman, Thomas Percy.

Catesby and three others were killed by soldiers while attempting to escape.

The remaining eight were imprisoned in the Tower of London before being tried and executed for High Treason.

They experienced that quaint English method of execution, first experienced almost 300 years earlier by William ‘Braveheart’ Wallace.

They too were hanged, drawn, and quartered.

*Hanged, drawn and quartered:

Victims were dragged on a wooden hurdle behind a horse to the place of execution where they were first of all hanged, then their genitals were removed.

They were disembowelled and beheaded.

Their bodies were finally quartered, the severed pieces often displayed in public.

—

Guy Fawkes (13 April 1570 – 31 January 1606), also known as Guido Fawkes while fighting for the Spanish, was a member of a group of provincial English Catholics involved in the failed Gunpowder Plot of 1605.

The Gunpowder Plot of 1605, in earlier centuries often called the Gunpowder Treason Plot or the Jesuit Treason, was an unsuccessful attempted regicide against King James I by a group of English Catholics led by Robert Catesby, who considered their actions attempted tyrannicide and who sought regime change in England after decades of religious persecution.

The plan was to blow up the House of Lords during the State Opening of Parliament on 5 November 1605, as the prelude to a popular revolt in the Midlands during which King James's nine-year-old daughter, Princess Elizabeth, was to be installed as the new head of state.

[motguernesiais]

Mot d'Ogniet Guernésiais

Guernésiais Word of the Day

05/11/2023 Boudloe n. m. [budlo] "Guy (Bonfire Night effigy)"

Originally referring to a log burnt for the new year, later re-identified with Guy Fawkes Night/Bonfire Night. La Seraïe Boudloe - Boudloe Night (i.e. Bonfire Night)

[ramrodd]

Is the UK, for the first time in its modern history, on the verge of a civil / class war? What are the aggravating factors and what can be expected if the protests continue further down the road?

Is the UK, for the first time in its modern history, on the verge of a civil / class war? What are the aggravating factors and what can be expected if the protests continue further down the road?

COMMENTARY:

Project 2025 was behind Bresit and this white supremacist unrest is being driven by News Corp, who sen Will Lewis to the Wall Street Journal and Washington Post to reconfigure the editorical policy to be congruent with News Corp and the global Nazification that began with the vast right wing conspriacy Hillary Clinton identified and the media poo-pooed.

Steve Bannon was up to his eyeballs with Johnson in Brexit and in the attempt by right wing extremist to hijack the Hong Kong Umbrella Democracy movement, President Xi’s complaint of American interference was perfectly justified because of the US Chamber of Commerce in Hong Kong with a bunch of Project 2026 activists churing things up to sabotage Nixon’s China Policy,

In America, this vote comes down to the vote by the Cambridge Union between James Baldwins’ BLM proposal versus William F. Buckley’s “Negro Problem” rebuttal. That debate took place four mounths after the Johnson v Goldwater election, Project 2025 Jijacked Boldwater’s Conservative brand and have proceeded in their Nazification agenda under that banner in America ever since.

You hav Rupert Mrudoch, I mean, in terms of 20–20 hindsite, we now know with absolute Metaphysical clarity why Bush the Elder didn’t go inio Baghdad with Desert Storm.l He’s a Fellow Traveler with Project 2025, We exported Project 2025 to Russia with Merrill Lynch and Supply Side businessmen like Bill Browder and Paul Manafort which became the Nazification Oligarchs who are an existential threat to Russian constitutional authority and Putin, personally, as a individual,

Steve Bannon is in that mix. Murdoch is the turd in the punchbowl of the Commonwealth. Steve Bannon is the John Galt of the January 6 rebellion but Project 2025 started out as being the turn in the punch bowl of Yale University, but it became the turd in the punch bowl of the GOP after the Goldwater campaign and is now the turd in the punch bowl of the world in waiting for either an electoral impossibility or civil war.

Rupert Murdoch is your home-grown Guy Fawkes, You need to treat him on that basis,

[the-october-country]

On the tangled roots of Hallowe'en...

I've noticed a ten-year-old Washington Post article making the rounds again. It theorises that British colonialism determines whether or not other countries celebrate Hallowe'en. While the timing of various waves of colonisation and immigration (and for one thing, it seems important not to treat those as identical) from Britain can often be used to trace certain cultural or linguistic patterns, with Hallowe'en, the story is a bit more convoluted than is often thought.

The ways in which Hallowe'en has spread and changed over the centuries can't be understood through just ones lens. It needs the context of other autumn and winter calendar customs, the agricultural year, the Reformation, and - especially over time - the urban/rural divide.

Let's take a deep dive...

The author seems to assume that the Hallowe'en chaos (and associated crackdowns) in parts of the US in the 19th century also occurred in Victorian Britain, and then makes the further assumption that English immigration during a resulting period of Hallowe'en not being celebrated in England is the reason for its absence in places Britain colonised at that time.

Aside from the fact that 19th century migration from Britain to the US took place in a very different context from the centuries-earlier colonisation by Britain, this seems to illustrate the pitfalls of applying the term "Victorian" to countries where Victoria was not actually Queen, and people didn't identify as Victorians, any more than Americans in 2023 would call themselves "Carolingians" on the grounds of existing while Charles III is on the throne in the UK.

In Victorian England, there was no big pushback against Hallowe'en - that would've been out of step with the spirit of the age. The Victorians lived in the century when the word "folklore" was coined, after all, and there was huge interest in cataloguing and preserving traditions, most famously those of Christmas, which by 1810 had declined, before being rehabilitated by antiquarians and given new life, above all, by Charles Dickens. The Victorians half-reconstructed, half-invented an idea of Christmas in much the same way that that we have ransacked history, folklore, fiction and commerce for Hallowe'en customs of yore in the hope of celebrating it in its ideal form. Even if England in the 19th century had been on some perverse mission to bury Hallowe'en, there was little enough left to bury. It had for some time been in decline in most parts of England for a variety of reasons, notably the Protestant Reformation that began in the 16th century, but also the shifting of various Hallowe'en customs (notably bonfires) to Guy Fawkes Night on 5th November in the wake of the Gunpowder Plot.

The Protestant/Catholic distinction is significant because Allhallowtide - the period encompassing All Hallows' Eve on 31st October, All Saints' Day on 1st November, and All Souls' Day on 2nd November - was a Catholic tradition. And in rural Ireland, where Catholicism remained strong - and unsurprisingly, Guy Fawkes Night was not a folk celebration - the old tradition of bonfires remained attached to Hallowe'en. So the popularity of Hallowe'en in the US and Canada has less to do with what the English who settled there in the 19th century weren't doing, than it does with what Irish and Scottish settlers at the time were doing - they came from cultures in which Hallowe'en traditions remained strong.

This is particularly obvious when you read accounts of late 19th century and early 20th century Hallowe'en parties in the US, which combined aspects of the harvest home tradition (which had deep roots in Britain and Ireland) with the custom - strong in Ireland and Scotland - of divination rituals related to who you would marry and which relationships would succeed or fail. Women's magazines of the time, in their advice for hostesses, drew strongly on those traditions. In their focus on sweethearts and romantic divination, the party ideas may strike modern readers as evoking Valentine's Day rather than spooky season.

This was much more encouraged than the wilder aspects of the day. On the scale of small, rural Irish communities where everyone knew each other, Hallowe'en pranks had their place - and usually, reasonable limits. You could disassemble the village curmudgeon's cart and then reassemble it, donkey and all, in his farmhouse kitchen, but you knew nobody would be laughing if you burned his house down. And the goodwill (however strained) with which villagers tolerated absurd pranks by their neighbours' sons did not translate to city contexts, where large groups of youths engaging in higher-stakes pranks and vandalism caused real harm and real fear. It's this expression of Hallowe'en traditions that was attracting pushback in the 19th century - just not in England.

The Washington Post article cites this Quartz map to further its claims. The logic is supposed to be that countries which today have a bump in sweet imports in October must celebrate Hallowe'en. But it's a weak argument, as many of those countries - notably those in continental Europe - did not see large-scale, culture-changing British immigration in the 19th century, But they do have their own centuries-old traditions of children going from door to door - perhaps disguised, perhaps rhyming, sometimes with lanterns and often begging for sweets by way of a song.

These range from Pão-por-Deus, a souling custom children perform on All Saint's Day in Portugal, to St. Martin's Day, wherein parts of Flanders and the Netherlands, and most of Germany, Switzerland and Australia, children travel from house to house with lanterns, singing in exchange for treats. The bump in sweet imports seems more likely to be due to their own homegrown traditions, combined with more recent adoption of Hallowe'en, and the tendency for major retail chains to stockpile ahead for Christmas.

And these autumnal singing/guising/begging traditions in themselves are part of a broader, older and geographically widespread tradition of guising and mumming (by adults, also), often during the darker months - one that often coalesces around Christmas or New Year (as in mummers' plays).

We think of Hallowe'en as occurring squarely in the autumn, particularly with climate change causing unaccustomed mild weather and the shops bringing out Hallowe'en products earlier and earlier. But it traditionally marked the start of winter, and it's not coincidence that St. Martin's Day, as celebrated in various parts of mainland Europe, falls on what was originally Samhain Eve.

This makes more sense when you understand that the calendar itself has changed over the centuries. In Jack Santino's book The Hallowed Eve: Dimensions of Culture in a Calendar Festival in Northern Ireland, he observes that:

"In the old Celtic calendar, November 12 was the first day of the year. The adoption of the Gregorian calendar in 1752, with its dropping of twelve days, meant that some traditions associated with November 11, Samhain Eve (later known as Old Halleve), were now observed on October 31. Hiring fairs were held on November 12 and May 12, and parties were given on Old Halleve to celebrate the end of the six-month hiring term. The tradition was also related to the potato harvest."

I'm writing this as the clock ticks from the 11th to the 12th of November, and it certainly does feel more wintry now. By this stage of the year, back in the days of the old calendar, the days would have been shorter and darker for a good while, your crops and your cattle would be safely gathered in, and whether you marked the turn of the year with Hallowe'en or St. Martin's Day, a lantern was a welcome thing in the cold and dark.

[duran-duran-less-official]

I dunno man, I reckon Macavity gets a really bad rap, the true scapegoat of Andrew Lloyd Weber's Cats. Just listen to those lyrics.

Like, the only thing the other cats know for sure about him is that he's NOT at the scene of a crime. That doesn't sound particularly sinister to me. You can't fault someone for not being around when crimes are happening!

And they play it up all suspicious-like every time he's NOT apparently guilty of something, it's insane! Oooh, you can't even find his paw-prints in Scotland Yard's files! So, what, you're telling me he DOESN'T have a criminal record? Hasn't even been arrested for anything, ever? Sounds like a completely innocent cat who's done nothing wrong to me.

"He's broken every human law, he breaks the law of gravity!" That's entirely normal for a cat!

"You would know him if you saw him, for his eyes are sunken in. His brow is deeply lined with thought, his head is highly domed, his coat is dusty from neglect, his whiskers are uncombed." Okay, so you're telling me that if he DID show up at the scene of a crime, ever, in his life, you have an instantly recognisable mental picture of him that you can use to identify him, but you STILL can't place him at the scene of a crime? Like this guy isn't some sort of anonymous Guy Fawkes mask-wearing shadow, you know EXACTLY what he looks like. Basically what you're describing is a slob, perhaps, or a lout. And to be honest, I probably wouldn't find the time to groom myself properly if I was constantly being treated as a social pariah.

"You may meet him in a by-street, you may see him in the square, but when a crime's discovered, then Macavity's not there!" Ah okay, so you see plenty of him when there AREN'T crimes occurring? How did you come to the conclusion that this is the guilty party then?

So much of this damn song is just people listing hypothetical crimes that Macavity hasn't been seen doing! And then, and then, they go on to blame him for everyone else's crimes too! "And they say that all the cats whose wicked deeds are widely known... are nothing more than agents" Like, do you not know a smear campaign when you hear it?

Oh but he's been lurking around our Jellicle Ball! Have you considered that he probably wants to join in, since he's also a cat?

Oh but he cat-napped Old Deuteronomy! And what happened then? You say that all the cats called on a Stage-Magician cat who conjured Deuteronomy out of thin air? So everyone ended up blaming Macavity and praising this "Mr. Mistoffelees"? How very convenient. Let me ask you: how did he know where to conjure Deuteronomy from? I reckon we've all been hoodwinked. Macavity is just some socially awkward cat who everyone hates, and the REAL villain is Mr. Mistoffelees, the cat who has a history of cat-napping ("and not long ago, this phenomenal cat produced seven kittens right out of a hat!" - where did those kittens come from??), and even has an illegal monopoly on certain kinds of magic ("for performing surprising illusions, and creating eccentric confusions"), but he gets all the accolades because he's charismatic and makes flashy lights.

Macavity did nothing wrong.

[midnightactual]

Anonymous asked in response:

Aizen 2012!

Hmm...

@mysteriousshopkeeper:

“Hey, Kisuke! I think I have your next piece of merch.”

[toothplug]

saw someone on twitter be like “i’m mostly straight and not bi enough to identify as bi and even tho straight feels kinda limiting i’ll never face any of the oppression LGBT ppl go thru so i’ll just stick with straight” and bi people r flockinggg to him to say “we all face different struggles you’re welcome here fellow bisexual :)” this is why i hate y’all

[fictionallyinparadise]

The beloveds and their pride HCs, part one!! I also couldn't get all the tags lmaoo

Satine: Pansexual and demisexual!!! I always thought she was pan, but then learnt more about demi and that,,,fit her? If that makes sense?

47 (both): Bisexual! Because being ace is canon BABEY!!! Anyway!!!!!

Diana: Pansexual!! So cool.

I don't have HCs for Ella and Charming

Erik: Bisexual and genderqueer! Yeah<3

Charles: Pansexual and demisexual! I watched the movie and went "that man is demi" and then continued with life?

Arthur Morgan: He's queer!! He doesn't identify with any particular identity. He just Is.

Lucifer: Agender, and he's canonically pansexual!!!

Geralt: Pansexual, non binary!! Totally wasn't projecting when I HCed him as non binary NOOO-

Jaskier: Bisexual! Is this canon? It feels canon. Anyway.

Scully: Polysexual!! Ahh,,,

Volga: Omnisexual and trans!!

Gordon: Bisexual and trans. Also I adore how everyone HCs him as trans that's so,,,,

Karl: Queer and trans, preference towards men?? Yeah.

I don't have HCs for Jon and Martin

Sully: Abrosexual!!

Alice: Cupiosexual!

I don't have HCs for any of my Narrator f/os

Amanda/The Pig: Bisexual and graysexual!

Dewey: Bisexual!!

Jason: Asexual!!

Brahams: Questioning!

Slender: Agender and queer

Warren: Gay and trans,,,!!!

Arthur Hastings: I think I've said this before but bisexual!!!!!

Luigi: Pansexual, demisexual, trans!!! Aaa.

Daisy: Bisexual and non binary!

Ray: Abrosexual,,,man I feel bad for not talking about my Sharktopus f/os...wack.

Nicole: Queer? Idk I've never thought about it.

Thomas: Gay!!

I don't have HCs for Harvey?

Lucio: Pansexual and non binary!!!

Revan: Bisexual!!

Nihilus: Queer and trans,,,

Sal (Support Agent): Bisexual and genderqueer!

Therius: Queer!

I don't have HCs for all the Cookies lmfao

Bazz: Gay!!

Cian (Lone Soldier): Bisexual!

Luke: Queer!!!

Din: Unlabeled,,!

Nate (Phone Guy): Polysexual and trans!

Miles Upshur: Gay and non binary!

Bigby: Trans and bicurious!

Snow: Questioning!

Mireal: Omnisexual and asexual!!

Fawkes: Bisexual and graysexual!!

Izold: Polysexual and non binary!!

Alna: Lesbian!

Lyca: Pansexual and trans

Sofia: Bisexual,,

Maleficent: Bisexual and genderfluid!!!

Bruce: Bisexual and demiboy!

Wadsworth: Bisexual

Yvette: Queer!

I don't have a headcanon for Abraham

I also don't have headcanons for my AC:NH f/os

[isaacsapphire]

The article about this incident everyone is arguing about is paywalled. Can you summarize or drop a pastebin or something? Thank you.

Whoops, you can tell I'm not a local because I didn't realize that was paywalled.

As best I can tell, in 2019 there was a MIRI reunion event at a retreat center called Camp Meeker in Westminster Woods in Somona. While people were still setting up for the reunion, before everyone had arrived, four to five people in black robes and Guy Fawkes masks were handing out flyers and acting in ways understood as threatening, including possibly blocking the exits with multiple large vehicles. At some point someone said there was a gun, but no gun was found. The police responded with a large amount of equipment, including a helicopter and a bearcat, arrested the berobed folks at gunpoint after they ignored police instructions, and evacuated a large number of people. An 8th grade school field trip unrelated to CFAR was affected by this incident as they were at the ropes course when the incident started. Part of the highway was shut down for several hours. The protestors refused to identify themselves to the police and were apparently identified by fingerprints.

For those unfamiliar with incarnation, they strip search you and generally check your nether orifices for contraband as a safety precaution (you'd be surprised what can be stuffed up there), so I'm guessing that's what the protester was referring to irt the whole, "You are complicit in my future sexual assault" thing. I think that some or all of the protestors are trans, so that probably didn't improve their anticipated incarceration experience, as prison is gender segregated and hence based on gendering prisoners, which can be an additional unpleasantness if you are ambiguously gendered or have a different legal gender than felt gender.

I'm going to post a link to all the different news stories on the event in hopes that some of them aren't paywalled. First one. Second one. This one focuses on the experience of the 8th grade field trip that was affected. This one details how much hardware the cops deployed. Mandatory Wikipedia article. Contemporary r/lesswrong post. And here's a contemporary tumblr post. Another news article. Short news article. Timeline wiki for CFAR that mentions both the incident under discussion and some previous drama.

Several links have further links, or information that will probably generate more details from searching.

[emptymanuscript]

Things that make me suspiscious

I heard today about the protests in France about the Covid Passport. Phrased on our news as “Hundreds of Thousands of people” protesting that. 

Well, that’s interesting if not good, so I go look up the protest.

Immediately of note that the number on the actual coverage is “Thousands of people.” 

So, which is it? Thousands or Hundreds of Thousands. That’s a pretty big difference and it makes the whole thing mean something else if it’s thousands of disaffected people vs hundreds of thousands. You can get a couple thousand people to make trouble at the drop of a hat.

The first lady I saw interviewed said all the right stuff but also insisted it was her first time protesting. Everybody’s got to start somewhere. My first protest was over my college trying to eliminate all ethnic studies from the curriculum. I was part of a large group of students who chased the chancellor into the bushes and occupied the admin building until the wee hours of the morning while the three or four people who actually knew anything about anything had a summit with the chancelor. I mostly did my homework. There was a lovely group of ladies next to me trying to figure out how to turn Lauryn Hill’s Doo-Wop into a protest song. I think they mostly just wanted to sing “That thing, that thing, that thiii-iiing.” It was fun. Good times. But the really important part of my experience there that has left an impression of how the world works is how much of my time I spent sneaking off to the payphones to call my girlfriend of the time to urge her to come along and then to ask why she wasn’t coming. “But you’re a black studies major.” 

What I observed at the first moment there and have since is that, especially the first protest, isn’t so much about whatever the people you’re protesting are doing, it’s about you. I protested the excisement of ethnic studies because I saw that as an excisement of myself. The unwanted have to go. My girlfriend at the time, did see it as an attack on learning about that kind of history but didn’t take it as an attack on herself. For her, it’s just what people in power did: use her, put her down, erase her, move on, same shit different day. She both felt like she couldn’t do anything and didn’t feel like it was a good use of her energy.

So now I’m looking at this middle aged French Woman. It’s her first protest. She sees it as creating multi-class citizenry. She sees that as an existential threat. Fine, I don’t disbelieve that. What makes me suspicious is that were clashes between police and anti-racism activists last year. She’s worried about different classes of citizenship because of paper identifying (not to the eye, it’s a QR Code) her vaccinated status. But not because of racial inequalities. It makes me suspiscious that what she means by embedding class differences is different from what others might mean. 

Ok, I’m watching more of this stuff and there’s a guy with a Maga hat. A french guy, assumedly, in Paris, wearing a MAGA hat. I...

Wait, here’s another guy, a FRENCH guy, wearing a Guy Fawkes mask. 

Who the hell is at this rally???

Another interview. This guy is ranting that he doesn’t give a damn, he doesn’t care, he just wants to eat out at a resturaunt. Great to know his priorities.

And now I can’t help but wonder, as was angrily pointed out to me this morning, we’re not in a global world, everyone is everywhere. Are these folks the same as our astroturfers? Am I looking at literal French Magats??

I don’t but I just saw two different groups try to chase off reporters... when the goal of a protest is to garner attention. Hmmm. Yep, pretty suspiscious.

[skippyv20]

History of Trick-or-Treating

smitsonian

Trick-or-treating—setting off on Halloween night in costume and ringing doorbells to demand treats—has been a tradition in the United States and other countries for more than a century. Its origins remain murky but traces can be identified in ancient Celtic festivals, early Roman Catholic holidays, medieval practices—and even British politics.

A man representing the Winter King holds a flaming sword as he takes part in a ceremony celebrating Samhain in Somerset, England, 2017. Matt Cardy/Getty Images

Halloween has its roots in the ancient, pre-Christian Celtic festival of Samhain, which was celebrated on the night of October 31. The Celts, who lived 2,000 years ago in the area that is now Ireland, the United Kingdom and northern France, believed that the dead returned to earth on Samhain. On the sacred night, people gathered to light bonfires, offer sacrifices and pay homage to the dead.

matadornetwork

During some Celtic celebrations of Samhain, villagers disguised themselves in costumes made of animal skins to drive away phantom visitors; banquet tables were prepared and food was left out to placate unwelcome spirits. In later centuries, people began dressing as ghosts, demons and other malevolent creatures, performing antics in exchange for food and drink.

This custom, known as mumming, dates back to the Middle Ages and is thought to be an antecedent of trick-or-treating.

An early 20th-century postcard of children on Halloween. Rykoff Collection/Corbis/Getty Images

By the ninth century, Christianity had spread into Celtic lands, where it gradually blended with and supplanted older pagan rites. In 1000 A.D. the church designated November 2 as All Souls’ Day, a time for honouring the dead. Celebrations in England resembled Celtic commemorations of Samhain, complete with bonfires and masquerades. 

Irishimbasbooks

Poor people would visit the houses of wealthier families and receive pastries called soul cakes in exchange for a promise to pray for the souls of the homeowners’ dead relatives. Known as “souling,” the practice was later taken up by children, who would go from door to door asking for gifts such as food, money and ale.

In Scotland and Ireland, young people took part in a tradition called guising, dressing up in costume and accepting offerings from various households. Rather than pledging to pray for the dead, they would sing a song, recite a poem, tell a joke or perform another sort of “trick” before collecting their treat, which typically consisted of fruit, nuts or coins.

Guy Fawkes night celebrations

An effigy of Guy Fawkes is burnt on Bonfire Night, 1952. Bert Hardy/Picture Post/Hulton Archive/Getty Images

Modern-day trick-or-treating also has elements akin to annual celebrations of Guy Fawkes Night (also known as Bonfire Night). On this night, which commemorates the foiling of the Gunpowder Plot in 1605, British children wore masks and carry effigies while begging for pennies. On November 5, 1606, Fawkes was executed for his role in the Catholic-led conspiracy to blow up England’s parliament building and remove King James I, a Protestant, from power. 

On the original Guy Fawkes Day, celebrated immediately after the famous plotter’s execution, communal bonfires, or “bone fires,” were lit to burn effigies and the symbolic “bones” of the Catholic pope. By the early 19th century, children bearing effigies of Fawkes were roaming the streets on the evening of November 5, asking for “a penny for the Guy.”

Trick-or-Treating in the United States

Children dressed up for Halloween in Jersey City, NJ. Bettmann Archive/Getty Images

Some American colonists celebrated Guy Fawkes Day, and in the mid-19th century, large numbers of new immigrants, especially those fleeing the Irish Potato Famine in the 1840s, helped popularize Halloween.  In the early 20th century, Irish and Scottish communities revived the Old World traditions of souling and guising in the United States. By the 1920s, however, pranks had become the Halloween activity of choice for rowdy young people. 

The Great Depression exacerbated the problem, with Halloween mischief often devolving into vandalism, physical assaults and sporadic acts of violence. One theory suggests that excessive pranks on Halloween led to the widespread adoption of an organised, community-based trick-or-treating tradition in the 1930s. This trend was abruptly curtailed, however, with the outbreak of World War II, when sugar rationing meant there were few treats to hand out. At the height of the postwar baby boom, trick-or-treating reclaimed its place among other Halloween customs. It quickly became standard practice for millions of children in America’s cities and newly built suburbs. No longer constrained by sugar rationing, candy companies capitalised on the lucrative ritual, launching national advertising campaigns specifically aimed at Halloween. 

Today, Americans spend an estimated $2.6 billion on candy on Halloween, according to the National Retail Federation, and the day, itself, has become the nation’s second-largest commercial holiday.

https://www.history.com/news/halloween-trick-or-treating 

Love it....thank you😊❤️❤️❤️❤️

[omniversalobservations]

Daria (March 1999)

"Depth Takes a Holiday" is the third episode of the third season of Daria (episode number 303). It aired on March 10, 1999 and was written by Sam Johnson and Chris Marcil.

Everything you're about to read actually happened.

Summary Daria encounters two kids identifying themselves as Cupid (AKA Valentine's Day) and the Saint Patrick's Day leprechaun, who claim that Christmas, Halloween, and Guy Fawkes Day ("British dude") have left Holiday Island and gone to Lawndale to start a band. Daria refuses to believe it, but is eventually convinced... starting with Cupid putting Helen and Jake under a love spell.

At Jane's house, Daria meets the three errant holidays, who've come there to jam with Trent, and takes all of them out for pizza at Pizza King, where they encounter Cupid and St. Patrick's Day. The holidays refuse to return because Holiday Island sucks; Cupid warns that this means the human holidays of Christmas, Halloween, and Guy Fawkes Day will cease to exist, but Daria and Jane don't care. Meanwhile, Quinn is convinced that her parents' newfound amorous feelings signal an intent to have another child, and starts following them around to keep them from having sex. Having failed to convince Daria to help them, Cupid and St. Patrick's Day attempt to recruit Kevin and Brittany, but redouble their efforts to get Daria's help after they actually talk to the two. A trip to the mall -- showing that Christmas and Halloween sales are dying -- doesn't convince her, nor do the annoying antics of the three AWOL holidays, but an amorous Helen and Jake prove to be the last straw.

When Daria and Jane arrive at Holiday Island, they find that it's just like a high school and that the "beautiful people" -- in this case, the President's Day presidents -- have taken over. Daria cooks up a scheme to put Christmas, Halloween, and Guy Fawkes back in their rightful position at the top of the pack by convincing them to play at the Holiday Island High School Prom. The holidays decide to stay after they see who's running the place, and Quinn is finally off the hook when Cupid's love spell wears off and Helen and Jake go back to their old, arguing selves.

Controversy For the longest time, many Daria fans considered "Depth Takes a Holiday" as one of the worst episodes ever written. The bulk of the complaints come from the "off-canon" nature of the episode, where there is no disclaimer of any kind that this is a dream or some figment of Daria's imagination. It is one of only two Daria episodes that a number of fans view as non-canonical, the other being the equally silly "Daria!" - and "Depth" is the one that's more often dumped.

There is a segment of the fandom that appreciates "Depth Takes a Holiday" for its creativity and general wackiness. As time goes on, you're more and more likely to see people admit, in public, that they liked it.

Source: Daria Wiki

(images via YouTube)

[triciaisonline]

A(N  ESTIMATED )  TIMELINE  FOR  SHERLOCK 

PLEASE NOTE: John’s Blog and the show contradict each other at times, in these cases, the show will be taken as canon. In times where the show contradicts itself, if other media cannot solve the mix up, then estimates based on what makes the most real world sense will be used to find an answer.

ADDITIONALLY: I don’t want to get flooded with everyone's headcanons for things where estimates had to be made; but i greatly welcome canon information that might have been missed or ( ie: The Game is Now Escape Room ) have been unable to experience. I also do not consider interviews with cast and crew as reliable sources for the most part, as these answers have also changed throughout the years. It will only be given consideration if nothing else contradicts it and was said without the air of taking the mickey out of us as many interactions with fans have. They like to say things just to get us going. So I consider this less of a word of god and more of a word of the clown.

BIRTHDATES

DATES OF MAJOR EVENTS

NOTES

TL;DR

SOURCES

THIS VERSION IS THE REBLOG FRIENDLY VERSION OF A TIMELINE MADE ON MY OTHER BLOG ( SEE TAGS )

BIRTHDATES:

SHERLOCK HOLMES: January 6th, 1981 ( stated in The Casebook ); making him younger than the actor playing him. However, this does conflict slightly as Sherlock states he was nine years old when Carl Powers drowned, and the article claims it was in 1989, which places his birth in 1980 instead. This was before they gave Sherlock a canonical birthdate in any media, however, and for the purposes of this, we’ll be using the casebook age, and claiming Sherlock was either rounding or misremembering due to the fact his childhood memories are not entirely factual. Additionally, the headstone image shown in The Sherlock Chronicles says 1977, but the previous date is the one considered to be Canon. ( See Notes )

JOHN WATSON: unknown, but somewhere in the 70′s. A popular fandate is March 30th. Judging off of the actor’s age, possibly around 1971, but maybe younger as many actors are playing younger than themselves.

MYCROFT HOLMES: Exact date unknown, but he is seven years older than Sherlock, which puts him to be born around 1973-1974. Which makes him canonically younger than the actor playing him.  02/25/19 EDIT: According to sources, Mycroft is given a birthdate in the Escape Room based on the series, October 20th, 1968. While the October date works fine, year for this doesn't fit the "Seven Years Older" claim on the show. The oldest birth date given for Sherlock is 1977 and that would make Mycroft nine years older than Sherlock, not seven. The year given falls closer to Mark Gatiss' actual age, and leaves me inclined to think that perhaps year for the game isn't entirely factual. That being said, there's still no reason he couldn't have been born October 20th. Based on the "Seven Years Older" claim, stated in show, the best guess is October 20th, 1974.

EURUS HOLMES: Exact date unknown, but she is a year younger than Sherlock, which makes her born somewhere in 1982-1983 depending on when she was conceived. 

MARY WATSON: Unknown, but based on the actress’ age, likely 1974;  but maybe younger as many actors are playing younger than themselves. 

ROSAMUND “ROSIE” WATSON: January 2015. We can infer this because based on how far along Mary was at her wedding, Rosie would have been conceived Mid-April, and if she was relatively ontime, she’d be born late January. 

DATES OF NOTE:

REDBEARD / THE MUSGRAVE FIRE: Between 1988-1989 roughly; there is no clear indication on the show as to when these events took place. We can only summarize based on what we know about other events. We know that Sherlock "began" solving crimes at age nine ( see below ) due to Carl Powers; and we know that Sherlock had to be younger than ten years old during the events told in The Final Problem. Assuming that the tragic events of Carl Powers triggered something in him, making him take extra notice due to his own past experiences with Eurus and Victor; but still allowing time for all the events to take place and enough time to have passed for Sherlock to have rewritten the story so completely in his head where he can be suspicious but not fully triggered; I'd place him as seven or eight during these events.

THE CARL POWERS DEATH: 1990

*see notes for Sherlock’s birthday

UNIVERSITY: Sherlock attended the same school as Sebastian Wilkes in the early 2000s. Exact years, and if they were at school for the same duration of time is unknown; but he last saw the man roughly eight years ( if Wilkes can be trusted for accuracy ) prior to The Blind Banker, which would be somewhere in 2002/2003

SHERLOCK AND JOHN’S FIRST MEETING: January 29, 2010

CASE: A STUDY IN PINK: January 30th, 2010

CASE: THE BLIND BANKER: March 23rd-March 27th; inferred by Sherlock deducting the incorrect date on Wilkes’ watch and the on-screen passage of time.

Sherlock traveled to and from Minsk sometime between the events of The Blind Banker and The Great Game; based on the dates given, as well as the close air dates of the two episodes, it’s to be believed that Sherlock left and returned from Minsk on March 28th. This is also made plausible due to the funding Sherlock seems to have for himself, his impatience and the fact that it is a three hour flight each way. 

BAKER STREET BOMBING: March 28th; evening

CASE: THE GREAT GAME: March 29 - April 1st; we know this based on both the blog posts and Sherlock updating his website with the case answers. However, the blog post was edited from the original date of April 6th after it’s initial publication. The reason for this is unknown.

DURATION OF SERIES ONE: January 29th, 2010 - March 29th, 2010: three months exactly.

MISC: John and Sarah go to New Zealand for a week and breakup ( April 2010 )

TRIP TO BUCKINGHAM PALACE ( A SCANDAL IN BELGRAVIA ): September 15th, 2010

IRENE MEETING: September 15, 2010

BAKER STREET CHRISTMAS PARTY: December 25th 2010  

IDENTIFYING IRENE’S BODY: December 25th, 2010 

IRENE REVEALS SHE’S ALIVE: December 31st, 2010

JOHN PUBLISHES THE CASE: March 12th, 2011;

We don’t know the exact amount of time transpiring between New Years Eve and this point. Based on his track record, it’s likely January 15th is meant to be the date that Sherlock is told Irene is in Witness protection ( John seems to publish immediately, regardless of how tasteful it might be to reveal details of recent cases ). This gap would cover everything from Irene arriving at Baker Street, Sherlock going to the airfield, him beating Irene at the game, and saving her in Karachi. It’s likely, considering how erratic Sherlock is by early March with no cases, that the day John tells Sherlock the lie, is around late January / early February. Allowing Sherlock enough time to have done all of this as well as get riled up in time for Baskerville, which had to have occured before March 16th

CASE: THE HOUNDS OF BASKERVILLE: Early March 2011; by best estimates given as John doesn’t take too long to post his accounts of the events, and he had already finished typing up the case prior.

BASKERVILLE CASE POSTED: March 16th, 2011. This is also the same date Moriarty hacks John’s blog with a video of him inside of their flat. Suggesting he’s already free from his interrogation shown at the end of The Hounds of Baskerville.

The dates surrounding Sherlock’s death and The Reichenbach Fall are highly questionable as the episode, the blog, and logistics for certain events all contradict each other. Joe Lidster, who wrote John’s real world blog, has comically said that Moriarty hacking the blog gave it a virus that messed with the dating system, as a tongue in cheek explanation. Meaning if we were to take that as fact, all the dates in the blog could be false. The newspapers shown in the episode, have dates that suggest different things. I’ve chosen the one which makes the most sense, based on the news reel clip on John’s blog, the statement that he went to therapy three months later, the school holiday schedule for the abduction of the Ambassador’s children and several other people’s attempts to sort this all out. An alternative version can be found here.

MORIARTY’S ROBBERIES: Late March, by best guess. Possibly a bit earlier.

MORIARTY’S TRIAL / RELEASE: April 2011

MORIARTY’S PLAN TO RUIN SHERLOCK: June 12-June 14th, 2011

MORIARTY COMMITS SUICIDE / SHERLOCK FAKES HIS: June 14th/15th; the 15th is the more commonly believed date.

JOHN CONFIRMS ON HIS BLOG: June 16th, 2011

JOHN VISITS SHERLOCK’S GRAVE: Mid/Late June 2011

TOTAL SERIES TWO DURATION: March 29th, 2010 ( The Pool ) - June 2011. Fifteen Months / One Year and Three Months

SHERLOCK DISMANTLES MORIARTY’S NETWORK: June 2011 - Late October / Early November 2013

MARY MAKES HER FIRST COMMENT ON JOHN’S BLOG: April 20th, 2013

JOHN POSTS OLD CASES: April 2013 - October 5th, 2013

WEBISODE ( MANY HAPPY RETURNS ): October 5th, 2013

SHERLOCK RETURNS: Late October / Early November 2013

JOHN ALMOST BURNED ALIVE: Guy Fawkes Day, November 5th, 2013

CASE: THE EMPTY HEARSE / #SHERLOCK LIVES: November 7th, 2013

JOHN AND SHERLOCK’S VARIOUS CASES: November 2013 - May 2014

Another case of Blog vs Screen; John and Mary’s wedding invites are shown throughout The Sign of Three with the date May 13th, while John’s blog states it was in August. The blog is deemed incorrect in this case, as well as his entries about the cases Sherlock reads at the Wedding

ROSIE WATSON IS CONCEIVED: Mid April 2014

JOHN AND MARY’S WEDDING: May 13th, 2014; ( see above note about The Sign of Three )

His Last Vow has the opposite problem as the series finale prior, in which next to no dates are given. We only know the dates at the end of the episode. Just that the events of John getting restless, Sherlock using again, Magnussen visiting, Sherlock being shot, Sherlock leaving early to confront Mary, Sherlock leaving to confront Magnussen, John confronting Mary, Sherlock being taken to Hospital again and being released all happen between May 13th and December 25th, 2014. It can take a couple months for gunshot victims to be released from Hospital, depending on the severity. Applying Mycroft Rules and Television Rules we know that Sherlock likely didn’t stay the time a regular patient would have. Knowing Sherlock he would have wanted out as soon as possible. We know John and Mary were at odds for a bit, reconciling on Christmas. Plus there needed to be time for Sherlock to fake date Janine, John to reach the level of restlessness there was and get Charles’ attention. So these next few dates are estimates. The majority of the scenes shown in episode are out of order and happen in two time periods, before Mary’s revealed and Christmas Day. 

JOHN BREAKS INTO THE DRUG DEN / MAGNUSSEN VISITING BAKER STREET: September / October 2014

SHERLOCK GETTING SHOT:  September / October 2014

SHERLOCK SNEAKING OUT OF HOSPITAL TO MEET MAGNUSSEN AND MARY:  Early/Mid October 2014; presuming based on deleted scenes depicting a Sherlock who was unable to move for a while in recovery that this was maybe days or weeks later when it was deemed safe to wake him up from medically induced coma.

JOHN CONFRONTING MARY: October 2014 ( same day as above )

SHERLOCK RELEASED FROM HOSPITAL: Mid-December 2014, inferred by how the family and friends act as if it was more recent while at the Holmes’ family home.

SHERLOCK SHOOTS MAGNUSSEN: December 25th, 2014

SHERLOCK BOARDS THE PLANE / MORIARTY’S VIDEO GOES LIVE: December 31st, 2014 / January 2nd, 2015; the show itself provides two different accounts of this. Mycroft states in His Last Vow, that Sherlock was in holding for a week, placing the scene at the tarmac in Early January 2015; however, the introduction to The Abominable Bride places the scene with onscreen text in 2014 still. The only way both can be remotely accurate is if Mycroft is rounding up, and it’s December 31st, 2014.

DURATION OF SERIES THREE: Fall 2013 - Winter 2014;  just over one calendar year.

CASE: THE ABOMINABLE BRIDE ( REAL WORLD ): December 31st, 2014 / January 2nd, 2015 ( see above )

The first scene of The Six Thatchers, along with the real world scenes of The Abominable Bride and the final scenes of His Last Vow are the same day.

SHERLOCK IS ACQUITTED OF CRIMES:  December 31st, 2014 / January 2nd, 2015 ( see above )

ROSIE WATSON IS BORN: Mid/Late January 2015, assuming she was relatively on time.

ROSIE WATSON’S BAPTISM: March / April 2015; based on many modern traditions, the baby’s age and the style of clothing worn by the attendees.

The Six Thatchers covers the majority of one calendar year, no exact dates are given but we can surmise things based on the shown development of Rosie Watson ( whom we know to be a year old by the end of The Final Problem ). Rosie is shown to have full head support and movement before Mary dies, which is something that happens around six months. This would mean Mary’s still alive around June 2015. Allowing for time in which Mary is on the lam, leading to the aquarium, the following are my best guesses for events.

MARY IS MISSING: Summer 2015 ( how long she was gone for is unclear )

MARY IS BACK IN LONDON: September 2015

NORBURY SHOOTS MARY: October 2015

SHERLOCK RECEIVES MARY’S VIDEO / JOHN’S LETTER: Late October. 2015 / Possibly Early November 2015 

CASE: THE LYING DETECTIVE: Possibly Mid-December 2015 / Early January 2016

Another case of ‘we don’t know how long’; we know Sherlock returns from hospital on his birthday, but the dates in between are unclear. Nor do we know how long John and Sherlock didn’t speak for. Sherlock would have needed a major detox, as well as treatment for his injuries. Based on the timeframe, it’s unlikely he attended any form of inpatient rehab outside of whatever the hospital had on location due to his injuries. Possibly due to either Mycroft pulling strings, or the more likely, Sherlock refusing and signing himself out when able.

We also know that the jump from The Lying Detective and The Final Problem can’t be too long. Even though Sherlock has had a magical recovery from all ailments between episodes, it’s extremely unlikely that John sat on the ‘I was almost killed by your secret sister’ tidbit for a few weeks. Meaning these episodes likely happen very shortly after one another. It also feels unlikely that Eurus would make herself known to John and then wait weeks/months to then begin acting out again once the secret was revealed.

JOHN AND SHERLOCK’S REUNITING: January 6th, 2016

JOHN’S FINAL THERAPY SESSION WITH EURUS: Somewhere between January 6th - January 13th 2016; assuming he went about once a week.

CASE: THE FINAL PROBLEM: January 13th, 2015 - January 20th, 2016; presuming John was able to tell Sherlock after ( not knowing how long he was knocked out for ); and allowing Sherlock and John some time to figure out their next move. This would also cover the attack on Baker Street and the entire event on Sherrinford Island.

ROSIE WATSON’S FIRST BIRTHDAY: Mid/Late January, 2016

OTHER NOTES:

The Entire Series spans six years.

The Sherlock Timeline runs one year behind real world time, with the show’s episodes in universe during 2016, aired in January 2017

Sherlock Holmes would be 29 in A Study In Pink, and 35 by The Final Problem based on the Casebook date. 30 and 36 by The Carl Powers age. and 33 and 39 by The Sherlock Chronicles age. All would make him younger than Benedict Cumberbatch, born 1976.

An incorrect headstone, as seen in The Sherlock Chronicles would make sense with the fact that until The Lying Detective, John states he never knew his birthdate. Which, had his tombstone had it, would make little sense. Providing an in universe reason for this odd lack of knowledge on John’s part. Perhaps John merely guessed? Maybe Mycroft knew he wouldn’t want it known, so they put a fake date? Especially as Mycroft knew he was alive. Otherwise, this is just another plot inconsistency  --- which, I’m getting quite tired of. 

We don’t know when Mary and John first met, but we can infer they’ve known each other about a year from dialogue in The Six Thatchers when John is attempting to propose.

Alternate timelines surrounding The Reichenbach Fall sometimes claim the following dates: Sherlock Testifies: May 9th, 2011; Moriarty is freed and visits 221B: September 20th, 2011; The Kidnapping: November 19th, 2011; Sherlock Falls: November 20th, 2011. This comes from a couple on screen newspaper clippings; but they are contradictory to the stated three month interval stated. It’s up to fans to decide which version they feel is more accurate.

More of a musing, but it’s kind of interesting how many times John immediately runs to the internet to share the details of really recent cases fresh in the public’s mind; in contrast to Watson’s monologue in The Abominable Bride about how careful he is to avoid doing that very thing. Which is even funnier if you view it through the long standing canon lens of John is an Unreliable Narrator

TL;DR:

SERIES ONE: January 29th, 2010 - March 29th, 2010

SERIES TWO: March 29th, 2010 - June 15th, 2011 

SERIES THREE: November 2013 - December 2014

SERIES FOUR: December 2014 - January 2016

WEBISODE: October 10th, 2013

SPECIAL: December 2014

SOURCES:

AO3 META  /  SHERLOCKOLOGY / JOHN’S BLOG / SHERLOCK ( WIKIPEDIA ) / THENORWOODBUILDER @ TUMBLR / BAKER STREET WIKIA / SHERLOCK FAN FORUMS /  THE CASEBOOK ( BUY / FACTS ) / THE SHERLOCK CHRONICLES  / MOLLY’S BLOG / SHERLOCK’S WEBSITE ( official site no longer live, information reposted from various sites listed above ) / CONNIE PRINCE WEBSITE / SHERLOCK: THE GAME IS NOW 

[ericsexcellentexplanations-blog]

V for Vendetta - 3/5

Movies in this modern era can make one feel emotions without that individual even noticing. Although movies are not real, they can immerse one in genuine feelings and emotions. The cult classic V For Vendetta projects a very motivational and deep mood by the use of cinematography, sound, and by the amazing costume design. 

V for Vendetta is a movie that follows a man named V, and his quest to right the wrongs in his society and gain revenge. Taking place in the late 2020’s the movie depicts a dystopian future of United Kingdom which has been outlawed by a totalitarian government. We are first introduced to V as a masked vigilante saving Evey, an influential character in the film. V believes that the world that he lives in needs change and he is the one to execute that change. At first, the minority accepted the rules and there weren’t any rebellions to release themselves from those rules. He sparks the first bit of his revolution by blowing up Old Bailey, accompanied by triumphant music, enlisting fear into the totalitarian government. Even though, V is labelled as a terrorist by a totalitarian government, his charismatic personality creates an sympathetic persona which allows the audience to understand his views of society.

The camera angles and lighting in the movie V for Vendetta reflect a very intense and mysterious disposition. Throughout the whole movie, hard lighting is used almost constantly. Especially when “V” is on screen, hard lighting is used to emphasize the emotionless mask he has on. The deeper shadows in the background solidifies his mysterious personality he portrays throughout the movie. Camera angles are used effectively in this film as well. Camera angles are used effectively during fight scenes. Wide and long shots are mostly used to show the audience the whole scale of the fight and the number if people that are in the shot. Furthermore, physical relations are also used very effectively. This is shown in the conference room with Adam Sutler, the high chancellor of the totalitarian government. Adam is projected onto the screen looking down at this “finger men”. This physical relation, shows the bold presences of Adam, identifying his significance and power. 

Sound effects in V for Vendetta are one of the most widely manipulated aspects of sound in the movie. Whether it’s the sound of a knife or a building exploding, sound effects are inserted very strategically. The costumes in V for Vendetta put the viewer is a somewhat disturbed and mystified mood. Although it’s always the same, V’s costume brings to the movie an aspect of mystery. The Guy Fawkes mask he wears over his face adds impending vagueness to the character, making the viewer obsessed with discovering V’s identity. V’s costume adds just the right amount of suspense, leaving the viewer constantly shrouded in mystery. Evey’s costume in the second half of the movie gives the movie a chaotic and horrific nature. After Every shaves her head, the tone of the movie, specifically her character, takes on a new substance. The slight inane aspect of the movie turns into a major tone just by the manipulation of a costume and shows the change of belief in Every.

The outlining message in V for Vendetta can be construed to pro terrorist propaganda. Many viewers can perceive the movie to defend violence and terrorism however, I believe the movie has a deeper meaning. It warns them of how apathy and idleness can allow a government to strip rights and freedoms right out from under a person’s nose. Unless the people speak out and hold the government accountable, nothing is done to stop the theft of their civil liberties. Correlating to current issues, as debates continue to rise about government control taking over people’s privacy on social media and unless strict actions are constructed unwarranted actions will continue. “V for Vendetta” is a movie that makes viewers think. Is V right in what he is doing? Could the totalitarian rule portrayed in the movie ever exist? Most importantly, it carries the message of political action. Rather than looking at the violence V causes in the movie, look at the inaction of the public that led to violence as the only option. Reflecting current media and society it bring me to think that the citizens voice is the most important as we see the control that the government and countries currently have. We must be politically active and reflect our current societal values as losing privacy and power is currently a sensitive topic.

The empowering message in this film is unforgettable, teaching the audiences a valuable lesson of empowerment. I finished watching this film with many outlying questions, however, over time I came to appreciate its lessons and views. I would definitely recommend this film to anyone and it will be a movie that I will continue to reflect upon.