#also the way they handled irene adler is just | Explore Tumblr Posts and Blogs

stonewallsposts · 2 years

Text

Head v Heart Thinking

In answering some personality questions, the contrast between head and heart popped up a couple of times.

To bolster this, I have been reading the Adventures of Sherlock Holmes, and in the first page of the book, I read "It was not that he felt any emotion akin to love for Irene Adler. All emotions, and that one particularly, were abhorrent to his cold, precise, but admirably balanced mind. He was the most perfect reasoning and observing machine that the world has ever seen."

Perfect reasoning, we are told, must be absent emotions.

Usually I found myself siding with at least wanting to be more head, or reason, driven. But then the question came: if the head is so much better, why do we have the heart? And of course I'm using colloquial terms to define what most people think of as the distinction between rational or emotional decision making.

One site called head thinking analytical/cognitive; heart thinking it called emotional/affective. Another site called heart thinking 'intuitive' and head thinking 'rational'. Thinkers v feelers is the way a third site put it.

A fourth site suggested that where you see yourself is the more important factor. People who see themselves as heart tend to see themselves as more interconnected, whereas people who see themselves as head see themselves as more independent.

I saw head thinking described as consequential thinking; playing through steps to see if you get to where you want. Heart thinking is more gut-based- something feels right, so you do it. But as one site said, sometimes what feels like 'inner knowing' might just be an emotional response coloring your judgment.

But of course things that often 'feel right' can actually turn out quite wrong.

One site thought we needed to ditch the distinction altogether and see them not as sides, or different ways of thinking, but as interconnected.

They mentioned an interesting case. A successful and intelligent businessman had a brain tumor removed near the amygdala, which they said is a "critical part of the limbic area of the brain, sometimes called the emotional brain for it's critical role in handling our emotions." After the surgery he changed dramatically. "He lost his emotional capacities and motivation, but also his ability to make decisions. Even mundane decisions became a long a difficult process. Although his reasoning and logic weren't affected, his brain became unable to make even simple decisions with logical thoughts alone."

The site that mentions this goes on to note feelings arise when we connect meaning to changes in the body and brain. The brain becomes aware of the body's reactions to stimuli, then processes this awareness of physical sensations to make meaning from them using pre-existing neural maps, which result from prior experiences and meanings.

For example, they mentioned you might see a dog running towards you and sense a rapid heartbeat. Whether the emotion that rises is fear or excitement will depend on existing neural maps or concepts.

If you've had prior experience with a dog jumping at you and biting you, fear will be the emotion and will signal you to escape.

Essentially, the site says, the brain is constantly trying to predict outcomes to get us closer to the universal goal of achieving pleasure and avoiding pain. The brain uses the feeling process to help it predict possible outcomes. But you can't just separate feelings from reason.

Psychology Today also wrote in an article that head thinkers can fall into what is called analysis paralysis, by trying to weigh too much evidence before making a decision.

Cognition Today wrote an article agreeing with the position that there aren't really two separate categories.

Emotions and thoughts ( the word used here for the logic process) inform one another. It isn't an either/or.

The heart carries connotations- implied meanings, associations. When we look at these connotations, we can have informed ideas about what we wish for, or wish to do.

The heart v mind metaphors represent these types of comparisons:

Illogic v logic

Emotion v logic

Feeling v thought

Simple v complicated

Unconscious b conscious

Instinct v purposeful

Inner voice v outer voice

It's convenient for us to think in binary, but both these metaphors are created by the mind and are a false dichotomy. We make decisions with both rational and irrational thought. Heart-based thoughts could emerge from habits (automatic processing), experience (intuition), or emotional reactions before you've processed the thoughts. Emotions make you want to choose or avoid something and there is often no need to think when your heart says something based on your experience or emotional reactions. Even if you rationalize it, you may end up with cognitive dissonance. Likewise, if you have thought something through but your heart says you don't like it, you may feel uncomfortable or keep doubting.

While the dichotomy may be false, it's also inevitable. Understanding the connotations help you understand your own thoughts, so try and be precise with your ideas. Understand both heart and head are different perspectives to evaluate when making a decision.

Clearly, as the case of the gentleman with the section of brain removed due to the tumorectomy (I made that word up because I didn't know what else to call it), having only reason with no emotion cripples the decision making process. So despite Sir Arthur Conan Doyle's remark that Holmes was the most perfect reasoning specimen ever known, because he eschewed emotions, that can't be right.

If I'm going to try and process all of this, I get the usefulness of the head/heart dichotomy, but it doesn't seem like it can be true that there are two separate processes for deliberation. They have to be connected and I like the idea that they are simply different perspectives we use. We have the facts in front of us, but we also have gut feeling and past experience that play a role. We must use both of all of that when confronted with choices.

I may look at the facts in front of me, but what I do about those is going to be informed by my past experiences that are similar in whatever way, and the combination of experience and the present facts will produce an intuition that influences my leaning.

If I'm going back to the original personality test statements, I feel like I can't make a solid distinction about what influences me more. Did you find your answers?

One thing that seems like it ought to be true: the older we are, the more our experiences will influence our decisions. This brings up an interesting conundrum. One of the examples of connotation that was mentioned in the article was; between a baby and 60 year old, which is heart and which is brain? Most of us would probably say the baby is heart and the 60 year-old is brain. But if I'm correct, then the 60 year-old's 60 years of experience should give him/her a lot more intuition to pull from when making decisions, and therefore the decisions are likely more heart/intuition based, rather than fact based. But of course a 60 year-old has a lot more practice evaluating facts in a logical process too, so maybe I should throw that hypothesis out.

0 notes

hugintheraven · 2 years

Text

Race and Fandom

So I decided to look at how fandom handles race(and to a lesser extent gender) by focusing on a very specific subset of the world, specifically looking at Sherlock Holmes adaptations and expys. Since most Holmes versions have roughly the same cast(there’s always a Holmes/Watson/Lestrade, with other chars mostly showing up), just swapping various elements about them, it felt like a good way to look at how fandom treats it’s various characters.

I’m only going to hit a handful of these(I don’t have a year to review every Holmes thing), but if anyone wants to add something, feel free. I’ll be using AO3 tags for this, because they’re easy to check(if occasionally glitchy). And if I screw something up, it’s carelessness, not malice, and I’d appreciate y’all gently letting me know.

Also, this isn’t calling anyone out specifically, rather I just want fandom to examine what we default to thinking about.

First off, the OG books. No major PoC, and Irene Adler shows up exactly once, so TBF I can’t exactly blame fandom for this:

No PoC, Irene Adler isn’t even listed, and the only relationship with a woman in Watson/the wife whose name I didn’t remember before starting this. I mostly included this for completeness and to establish a baseline, there’s not much fandom could do here. This is also likely being contaminated by cross-tagging with other Holmes works, but there’s nothing I can really do about that. And yeah, Holmes/Watson dominates, a trend we will see continue.

House MD:

So this is one of the ones I expected to show issues. Because yes, Wilson(Watson) is white, and we know Watson is the most common choice to pair with House(Holmes). But look at Foreman. The guy was on the show more than almost any char, and yet he shows up significantly less in fanfic. In relationships it’s even worse, with him being a far distant third to either of the other two original trainee docs. Yes, you can come up with explanations for that, but let’s be honest. An adversarial mentor/student relationship is fandom candy and the two of them had a LOT more screentime than House/Chase or House/Cameron(sticking to non-canon couples out of fairness). The only real reason for fanfic to not care about him at all is because he’s black. Cuddy at least makes a good showing, but given how the show handles her that’s less than surprising.

Elementary. Female Watson of Color, an excellent Irene Adler, and while actual Lestrade is still white(and ignorable), Marcus Bell fills a lot of the Lestrade role and is black.

Sherlock/Joan dominates, of course, but everyone who’s non-Sherlock in the relationship tag is either female or a POC. This even has the only sapphic relationship on any of these lists. Marcus also makes a good showing over Gregson, which surprised me. 4 for you, Elementary fandom, you go Elementary fandom.

Sherlock(BBC). Again, not much fandom could do here. This show hated women and forgot PoC existed.

But this surprised me in a good way. The female chars at least exist in fandom. No Irene Adler, but given Moffat that’s hardly surprising, and the other female chars get some attention. Not Elementary, but it’s something.

Psych. This is the one that started me down this road:

Because looking at that, you’d assume Lassiter is Watson(Shawn is Holmes). But nope, Burton Guster is the black Watson. Childhood best friend to Shawn Spencer. And third in the relationship list AND character list. It’s a Holmes adaptation where Watson is forgotten by fans. There’s really no justification for that.

So yeah, no hard statistics this time, but that’s a lot of fandoms and the only one where POC aren’t an afterthought is Elementary(which forced the issue by putting Lucy Liu front-and-center and lost fans due to that). That’s not good. Yes, the shows need to do better, but it’d be nice if when shows do include the occasional black dude, fans didn’t immediately ignore him in favor of literally every other character.

#Sherlock Holmes #archive of our own

1 note · View note

seeingteacupsindragons · 2 years

Note

Hi Marr! I’m sorry if this ask is troublesome, but I’ve just been thinking about it and wanted to hear someone else’s thoughts. So we can hopefully assume that William and Sherlock are gonna stay in London now. But with everything that happened and their faces being public knowledge by this point, what are your guesses on how they are going to handle the reaction of the people of London. In Sherlock’s case, the return of the great detective who was thought to have died would be something that would be met with joy, but the people of London all know of William as the Lord of Crime, the man who threw the city into chaos. People will be less than pleased if it comes to be known that he’s still alive and back in London. Of course, you wouldn’t know what kind of direction would the story take, but as a writer yourself, what do you think would be the best way to handle this situation?

My suspicion is that this is going to be handled one two ways.

Option One: This is never addressed, ever, much like how "Irene Adler's" return for the dead was never addressed (although he immediately reverted to Bond, so if anyone was looking for Adler...idk, I guess Sherlock gets to be an ass to them? But also Mycroft is the Secretary of State so.) Or how Albert is out of jail (I mean, I guess he was theoretically given a pardon, but also this has never been clarified).

I'd like to say this isn't something I'd do myself, but that's a lie, because I have done this before, in a story in college. I had a character age from 15 to 23 and gave him a giant facial scar and most people didn't recognize him unless he wanted to be. This was silly.

But it's fiction and it served the story best and who cares that it was kind of a silly plot contrivance when it was dramatic? Lots of plot contrivances are silly.

Option Two: How this is handed is explicitly tied to whatever William's "answer" to atonement is. Maybe he will reveal himself (I find this sort of unlikely, given that John's books/the ACD canon exists in this universe, and thus William is very publicly dead). Maybe people will conveniently not really remember the face of someone who was in one newspaper literally years ago (I'm not sure that's even a silly plot contrivance, really). Or maybe he will have to arrange what he does specifically to avoid this fact. But Moran has been wandering around, even if "nameless" even though he's publicly and legally dead, so, I don't think the series cares so much about that kind of thing.

#Yuukoku no Moriarty #Moriarty the Patriot

22 notes · View notes

thehollowprince · 2 years

Text

THE AUTUMN TABLE

This is the table where the traditional and historical heads of mutant society sat, demonstrated by the seating of Xavier, Magneto and Apocalypse.

I decided to stick with that theme and keep this table stocked with Leaders, even though I've booted both Xavier and Mags for their lackluster leadership skills and their attempts to manipulate, mansplain, and manslaughter the rest of Krakoa.

I'm trying to keep one of the current seats at each table the same, and as such I let Destiny keep her seat. Not only just to spite Moira (who, if I'd been asked the question of who I'd pock for the QC a year ago, would have had Apocalypse's seat), but because I think it just makes sense to have one of the strongest precogs around sitting on the ruling body of Krakoa, to see any potential threats before they come, or to see ways out of a sticky situation if they find themselves in one.

Note: I don't have any cool names for the individual seats like The Great Ring of Arakko, so bear with me here...

The October Seat: Irene Adler - DESTINY

Next up, given that I fully support the idea of the actual citizens of Krakoa getting a say in who helps lead their country, we have the ultimate leader, Cyclops.

Not only is Scott the protégé of Xavier, but he's been the leader of the X-Men pretty much since their inception. He's been the headmaster of the Xavier School for Gifted Youngsters and post-decimation (M-Day), he was the leader of what few mutants remained on the planet. He was well on his way to being the next Magneto (as evident by everyone's attempt to turn him into a villain), and actively fought to defend and literate his mutant brethren from those who would constantly oppress them. He's also one hell of a tactician, and I feel that there should be someone on the Council who can either cooperate or give orders to the War Captains in a time of crisis.

Also, given his rather public death at the hands of Dr. Nemesis and the fact that Krakoa wants to keep the resurrection protocols under wraps, it would make sense to have Scott in a leadership position once again.

The November Seat: Scott Summers - CYCLOPS

PS: this was a much better design for Scott to wear at the Hellfire Gala. It's giving me very much 'Anakin marching on the Jedi Temple during Order 66' vibes.

And the final seat will go to a long time frenemy of the X-Men, the king of the oceans himself, Namor!

Aside from being the long-time holder of the title "the world's first mutant" (debatable), he has been a member of the X-Men before, back during the Utopia days, where Utopia itself (formerly Asteroid M) wad supported by Atlantis. He joined Jean Grey's X-Men before Krakoa during the original X-Men: Red title, and he was a part of the Phoenix Force Five during the AvX story.

He has a long history with the X-Men and I could see him filling that seat perfectly, the same way Scott easily filled Magneto's. Unlike Xavier, at least Namor's a dick to your face.

Now, I can hear some of you already crying, "but he's King of Atlantis! How could he be both a King and member of the Quiet Council?!" To which, I respond, Look! If Storm can pull quadruple duty (QC member, Great Ring member, Regent of Sol/Representative on the Galactic Council, and that weird High Priestess for the resurrected thing) than Namor can do both.

The December Seat: Namor - THE SUB-MARINER

Additionally, I will have Charles Xavier attached to this table, though he doesn't hold a seat himself. Given his intrinsic role in the foundation of Krakoa, and that he's been out, front and center since the country was formed, I thought it would be a good idea to have him be the Face of Krakoa, the Head of State, as it were, rather like the Queen of England. He handles all the ceremonial stuff, while the Quiet Council does the actual governing.

Links to other tables

X X X X X

#scott summers #irene adler #namor #namor mckenzie #namor the sub mariner #charles xavier #lucas bishop #the quiet council #krakoa #x-men #x-tag

18 notes · View notes

deluweil · 3 years

Text

This is my 4x12 review - skip if you haven’t watched yet.💖

In my opinion the whole Treasure Hunt thing, had a S2 bank mystery vibe about it. Like the silly calm before the storm, again in parallel to right before when Buck was hurt.

I knew the Author jerk is alive the second I saw the actor who played it, the was not one show where he guest starred and wasn’t a jerk 😂😂

So since I did my own version of live writing, I apologize if this is a bit disorganized.

We got so much buddie bread crumbs, that eventually felt like a meal at the end of the episode so let’s start with: Both boys in sunglasses - oh WOW! 🔥🔥

Bobby sending Eddie with Chimney and Buck looking thoroughly unhappy to be separated from Eddie. They nod at each other and while Buck frowns at Chimney, Eddie crosses himself before going to get geared up.

It was a small gesture but very significant because Eddie has already crashed in a chopper (in 3x15 and watched Hen and Strand crash in the crossover) he knows what could go wrong.

Chimney’s “cheer up you can go next time” doesn’t really reassure Buck. I think a “we’ll be fine” or “I’ll keep him safe” would have calmed Buck’s nerves a lot more.

Can we discuss for a second how HOT!! Eddie looked doing the aerial rescue? I mean WOW, I watched it several times. 🥵🥵🥵

The 118 sitting together trying to figure out the riddle was funny, everyone thinking how it’s a bad idea to even consider this to be a real thing, except for Buck, of course. 😂

And while the others are already considering how freaking horrible the rest of their shift is going to be like, because it’s all over the news thanks to Taylor Kelly’s story.

Eddie called Taylor - Buck’s “girlfriend”, but we don’t see his face, we do get to see it, when Buck stresses (for what feels like the millionth time from the sigh and tone of his voice) that she is his friend not his girlfriend.

Eddie’s “Yeah, sure, right.” face is priceless!!😂😂

Buck and Taylor plotting together again, is always hilarious, those two are disaster magnets, it makes for good fun. What bothered me was that Buck offered Taylor to pair up, but re-watching, everybody’s reaction didn’t exactly originally encouraged a teaming up vibe.

However the problem with human nature is - everyone love to obsess over riddles. 😉😉

Eddie jumping through the window into the fire truck? epic!

Eddie did suggest to team up to Buck and I love that even after Buck told him he’s working with Taylor, the look on Eddie’s face melted Buck almost immediately and had him suggesting Eddie joins the two of them. 🥰🥰

The scene in Buck’s apartment, with the three of them Eddie is right between Taylor and Buck in the shot and kind of “talking to himself” was so funny. - Gave me a BBC Sherlock scene between Irene Adler, Sherlock and John.

The way Martin Freeman stole the scene just by dropping small comments. I gotta give it to Eddie, out of all of everything in that scene, Ryan performance is what I’m going to remember. - Acting choices were made all throughout this episode by both Oliver and Ryan.

Also can we talk about the fact that Eddie is now stating little bits of knowledge like Buck now - “I can know weird stuff too” from 4x03 is so haunting me, these boys have totally rubbed off each other. (get your minds out of the gutters... for now anyway 😉)

I love how Eddie and Buck sit down and scratch, just thinking about the fire ants 😂😂

Buck being lowered into the septic tank - notice, Eddie is the one handling the rope, again, his expression worried while Buck is still down there, especially after having to drop him into the water.

I have noticed that Bobby sent Eddie up in the chopper, but is reluctant to send him under ground still 😉🙃

Buck’s “come on” when Eddie and Bobby made a face and walked away from the stench was so funny. Also super adorable on Buck’s part.

I love how Taylor keeps shutting Buck down, it’s amusing to watch now that I know how the episode ends.

Athena being done with idiots the entire episode was hilarious! Angela is a queen!

I loved that 9-1-1 dispatchers were running a bet of places where the treasure may be. (Josh’s “Who thought that was a good idea?” and someone shouting “not it!” had me in stitches 😂😂)

Let’s take a break from buddie for a second:

Hen and Chimney joining the race and Bobby trying to hide his research from Athena was so funny, I mean, she is a police sergeant, there was no way she wouldn’t figure him out.

Bobby planning a future together, a life after the job, and Athena shutting him down. I do think this is what will come between them eventually. Athena making a unilateral decision, without considering even talking about a future with Bobby that doesn’t revolve around them working until they’re either forced out or buried six feet under ground.

I find it interesting because it’s usually the other way around, my mom has been working on my dad to retire for years now so they can travel before both of them are too old to do it. So I kinda get where Bobby’s coming from.

In parallel though, Athena making the unilateral decision like Eddie did when he re-enlisted in 3x15. I do hope Bobby and Athena manage to work things out, I love them together.

Back to the hunt:

Of course Athena worked out where the treasure is, Karen built an algorithm, and Taylor apparently helping Buck and Eddie figure it out bringing all three teams together.

Athena looking to Buck and Eddie asking them if they seriously brought their gear with them and Eddie pointing at Hen and Chimney to divert the attention from them about their med-kits. - like children trying to justify themselves to their parents. 😂😂😂

Wasting time negotiating about the money was hilarious, especially with Taylor in the chopper hovering over them lmao.

And then there was probie - Jesus! I laughed so much. 😂🤦‍♂️

Also Buck’s “I’m not doing anymore math”, as a reference to “she taught me math”, Buck’s not doing that shit. He calculated enough for one day and he is done! 😂

I do like that Oli and Ryan’s marks are closer together again ❣❣❣

Eddie: “We didn’t kill him” Buck: “We just wanted to” Bobby’s “Shut up” face killed me.

Probie selling them out “I don’t know these ppl.” You don’t say shit like this as a probie 😂😂😂

Also Rick saying “I didn’t actually think it was” and I'm just enjoying the moment, was awesome. I like it when he shows up in episodes, he and Athena make a good and amusing team.

Back to buddie bread crumbs:

Everyone in Bathena’s house, including Taylor, who took the place next to buck, leaving Eddie to sit directly in front of Taylor and next to Chimney. - The “At this point I don’t trust anyone.” cuts to Eddie’s face, that looked as if he’s saying “Seriously dude? hurtful” - The fact that Buck stopped and met Eddie’s reproachful gaze even though they are not directly in front of each other says so much!

Also the “Stop for a second and think about what you said.” looks from Chimney and the others are very meaningful. (#everybody knows 😉) Buck sticking his foot in his mouth and him backtracking are shot directly from Eddie’s perspective. - hmm, I wonder why…? 🧐🧐

And to complete the meal:

Taylor placing Buck directly in the Friend-Zone category, was genius. And while Buck and Taylor have a fun energy together it never really felt romantically oriented. Also I have a certain feeling that seeing Buck and Eddie interact, at Buck’s place and at Bathena’s house and not for the first time either, she knows it will not work between her and Buck.

Buck, trying to feel something more for her, even if in a gentler and way sweeter way than the cursed ship I will not name, it feels forced on his end too - and Taylor lets him off the hook in a gentle way too, I like her for that even more.

I really hope we keep seeing Taylor in a friend capacity for Buck, I think it’s good for him to have support and someone to talk to outside the 118. And I will absolutely worship Taylor if she will be the buddie catalyst, I mean Megan does ship buddie too, it will only be appropriate 😉💖

The episode in itself was pretty nice, I would have probably enjoyed it more if I watched it before LS who absolutely kicked me in the feels today. But I do know that just like 9-1-1 2x15 I’ll go back and watch it like a million times because it is a fun episode to pass the time, and the buddie crumbs were delicious.

The promo kicked me in the feels too, I will not discuss it here right now, but I do hope that that last part won’t be a cliff hanger and we’ll have to wait an entire week for the rest, two weeks of frayed nerves are a LOT to suffer through 🙈

Sending big hugs out there to whomever needs it 🤗🤗🤗

#9-1-1 4x12 #118 firefam #evan buckley #eddie diaz #buddie #the buddie crumbs were yummi #i want more of those #everybody knows #bathena #Henrietta Wilson #chimney han #taylor kelly #love her for friend zoning buck #now somebody get rid of the other pesky LI #i don't usually say this but #jealous!eddie #was everything #can't wait for the next episode #someone sedate me

53 notes · View notes

muchtohope · 3 years

Text

alright so here’s the thing with ritchie holmes, and before I dig in here I just want to say I do not hate these movies, they are a really fun time and I love the cast. the first time I saw either of them was in theaters and I remember really enjoying them. imo they are both absolutely worth a watch and IF I HEARD RIGHT they’re making another one?? if so then I totally plan on seeing it.

that said, I revisited them a couple months ago or so at some point after completely losing my mind to this hyperfixation and the portrayal of holmes and watson’s relationship is Painful to watch. I think it starts with the foundational issue that their characterization of sherlock holmes is extremely loose. when we meet him, he’s a complete mess of a man despite drugs not showing up in any real way -- we’re not meant to infer that he’s been on some sort of coke bender, he’s just a full disaster I guess because that’s who he is, or who he turned into anyway.

when we meet watson, he’s already at the end of his rope with holmes. he’s moving out, getting married, trying REALLY hard to make it clear that he’s done here. the implication is that he’s tired of picking up after holmes (both literally at home and figuratively, emotionally), he’s moving on to his respectable adult life while holmes continues to dwell in his own chaos. it’s very much a one-sided thing, like they make it REALLY clear that holmes is unhappy with the fact that watson’s leaving.

I’ll toss the rest under a read more because this. got long lmao.

it’s worth noting that both of these movies came out in the same general time span as BBC sherlock, queer baiting thrived and we took what we could get. press junkets with jude law and rdj had them coyly skirting questions about their characters’ sexuality and as ever, what mattered to us was what they DIDN’T say. and so keeping that in mind, a lot of us walked into these movies with our fine tooth combs absolutely READY to pick out whatever we could get.

I honestly don’t remember exactly what I latched onto when I first watched them, but here’s what I saw on this last re-watch, bearing in mind that I KNOW I know it was not the director’s intent -- like presumably if you’re reading this then you know we’re here to talk about holmes/watson, that is What It’s All About:

everything about these guys looks exactly like salvaging the remains of a friendship after a messy breakup. there’s a lot of bitter resentment that they won’t talk about, there’s the needling each other about pet peeves (married couple stuff, except, like, sans any affectionate undertones), and the hardest part to watch is that sherlock holmes clearly still wants to be with watson and watson is ready to be done with him. holmes makes multiple attempts to convince watson that deep down watson wants to stay, at times to the point of self-degradation. he’s not ready to let go but watson’s already gone.

there ARE, of course, a few moments here and there where they seem to reconnect, presumably because it’s true that watson at heart loves the adventure of working a case. for the sake of drama, naturally, the most common ground they find again is immediately before holmes’s encounter with moriarty at reichenbach -- culminating in holmes locking eyes with watson in the seconds immediately before going over, then closing his eyes as he falls like he wants that to be the last thing he sees before he dies. which is. you know. Pretty Gay.

the movies also predictably fall victim to assigning Bisexual Icon irene adler the role of holmes’s love-interest-slash-beard or whatever, which is a whole thing on its own, like, that’s a separate post, love rachel mcadams though ugh.

anyway this post came about from thinking on what a wasted opportunity it was casting jude law as watson for the way they handled that character, and I’ll just revisit that at the end here because it’s SO TRUE. like, in My Ideal Adaptation, in some beautiful future where the doyle estate is fucking obsolete and we can have the gay sherlock holmes we deserve, we’re looking at a challenging and troubled but ultimately happy relationship founded on mutual respect.

I don’t know how jude law identifies personally but he has a PRETTY EXTENSIVE repertoire of queer roles, and I’d love to have seen him play the kind, forgiving and big-hearted guy john watson is, and I think he’s really perfect to be able to do that while also in some or any capacity addressing watson’s war trauma, which most adaptations also totally fail to do. like when these movies came out he was about the right age for watson around the time final problem happens, which also makes a considerable difference in how people metabolize these stories, like, really understanding that they weren’t old men from the moment they met, they have basically an entire life together.

I know a lot of die hard acd holmes fans really hated rdj’s holmes, and I definitely agree that like. that’s not really quite sherlock holmes. but it’s not an altogether bad take on him, or watson for that matter (or irene for that matter), it’s really just their relationship that kills me. they hardly even seem like friends sometimes, and even after sign of four when watson leaves for mary, he’s always happy to see holmes and he never hesitates when holmes asks him for help with a case. there’s no sense of feeling like he’s trying to get away or that he’s tired of holmes, like my angstiest headcanon for so4 is that watson couldn’t keep watching holmes self destruct and decided he had to put on his own oxygen mask first, that the healthy choice here was to give himself some distance with the p.s. that he would be there if holmes ever decided he wanted help.

SO LIKE basically it’s not that a breakup as messy and painful as that could never believably happen, but it sure is some Darkest Timeline shit and it’s really impossible for me to watch the ritchie holmes movies without my heart breaking into a billion irretrievable pieces, the end, I am so sorry if you read all of this.

#ritchie holmes #acd holmes #I'll spare you though #the tldr of it is that the ritche holmes movies read like a bad breakup #and my heart hurts #and jude law's hot watson would be hotter if he and holmes like #actually respected each other #again I am Sorry lmfao I DID SAY THOUGH #I SAID #it's A LOT

43 notes · View notes

silverfoxizzy · 3 years

Text

Extras from my TGAA Avengers AU! I'll probably add more to this as I think of more. If I do. Because i am a very inconsistent person and might just leave this AU untouched until AA7 comes out and I get back into Ace Attorney.

POSSIBLE SPOILERS FOR THE GREAT ACE ATTORNEY CHRONICLES!!! FINISH THE GAMES FIRST!!!

The team's code names on missions are as follows: Cap(Barok), Hare(Herlock), Mouse(Susato), Hawk(Ryunosuke), Red(Kazuma), Doc(Rei) and Falcon(Gina)

Sholmes's private Baker Street A.I. is called IRENE, based on The Woman Irene Adler of course. She was a witty nanny of his that lasted the longest, and he misses her a lot. IRENE only operates at Baker Street and instead communicates with a second A.I. The second A.I for missions in the Iron Man suit or anything involving Sholmes Industries is WILSON, who is named after John Wilson, Sholmes' mentor and the tech genius present during the super soldier project. He isn't quite as developed as IRENE. Both the real life counterparts have passed away.

When still living in London, Ryuu would sometimes get mugged on the way home. He fended them off with ease, but Sholmes still had a heart attack when he got home with several bruises. They designed him a special panic button system so they could be more prepared in the future. One push of the button means he got attacked, but he could handle the fight. Two pushes though, meant he needed Sholmes to get to him ASAP as he either couldn't handle the fight or was badly injured.

Ryuu can't sleep in a normal bed. It's too close to the ground for him and he always has flashbacks or nightmares. Herlock first discovered this when he caught Ryuu sleeping on top of a wardrobe instead of his own bed. They designed him a loft in his room that had easy access to the building's ventilation system to make him feel safer. It also inadvertently makes it easier for Ryuu to spy on people.

Ryuu ended up going to middle and high school, although he was certainly advanced on many subjects. Partnered with the fact that he had a world genius as a dad tutor, and he probably didn't need to go to school. He absolutely loved taking language classes though, and managed to push a few of his other classes out of his schedule so he could learn more languages.

Karuma is a small katana-themed knife (or so everyone thinks) that was one of the only things left on Genshin's body. SHIELD assumes it's a family thing, because it's too dull to be used as a weapon. Kazuma keeps it in his room at Baker Street. (Sholmes couldn't help but think of old rumors, that during hours of need Genshin Asogi somehow wielded a mighty katana that appeared out of thin air and dissappeared just as quickly. But those rumors surely didn't have anything to do with this suspicious knife, did they?)

Kaz and Ryuu met when Kazuma hurt himself in a training room, and Ryuu was watching through the vents. Ryuu wrapped a red cloth around the wound and distracted Kazu with tongue twisters (that annoyed the man greatly since he couldn't repeat them) until they got to medical. Kazuma tried to return the cloth after he cleaned it, but Ryuu refused it, so Kazuma took the cloth everywhere as a sign of his gratitude.

Hey, did you notice that Klint almost instantly gains some memories back when he looks at the loves of his life? Hehe

Don't you just love making AUs of AUs? By that I mean an AU where everything goes even MORE right (I love fluff sue me) and Herlock, Genshin, and Yujin being shadowed by their Murdery Teenage Children. I can't get it out of my head.

Sholmes getting insulted by some narcissistic politician and that politician gets politely OBLITERATED (with words) by a pissed off Ryunosuke. Kazuma's resting b*tch face terrifies everyone, meanwhile Genshin is like "why is everyone so cooperative in my investigations all of a sudden?" Yujin dealing with misogynistic council members and double checking with his daughter, who has killed several people before, about their ideas. Someone tries to attack any of the three adults and their kids go full on Attack Mode. Barok and Albert came up with the group name while talking about them. Albert wanted to know why Kazuma wasn't with his dad but couldn't ask where "Agent Asogi" was so he instead asked where was Genshin's "murdery… teenage child" was while Barok facepalmed with embarrassment. The kids think the name is really funny.

#dgs modern au #tgaa #dgs #asoryuu #herlock sholmes #kazuma asougi #ryuunosuke naruhodou #lady baskerville #Silver's AA Superheroes #genshin asogi #genshin asougi #Silver's AU Collection

12 notes · View notes

transsexualhamlet · 3 years

Text

sherlock holmes reactions part 4 (?) ive lost count already but unsurprisingly ive grown even more attached to him

using this as the cover image because i made him a playlist. cause im awful

no legit this is gonna need a read more because it's SO LONG SHIHEWIESHEFSHIEWHF

Had three mental breakdowns this week and realized i do in fact kin sherlock motherfucking holmes. this does not bode well for anything in my life mentally I've diagnosed him with so many things

Oh boy lol you want the list I think hes autistic (undisputed honestly) plus also adhd but on top of that there's the manic depression and uhhh the bpd lmao I dont even think that's it those are just. the obvious ones

But yeah man's a fucking mess and a shit person but in the same way as me so 👍

Some highlights I thought were very funny:

watson: we are in fact going to be waltzing into a place where people are Shooting People you do not have your gun. this is a problem

sherlock: don't worry watson I have my trusty stick!

watson: visible pain

This clearly happens like every day or so with them

but yeah there were some really honestly sweet scenes with them at the apartment and why am i getting soft over the crusty man being gay

have you considered tho. have you considered them

have you considered sherlock, who usually only plays absolute garbage on his violin serenading watson to sleep when he was tired and in pain and watson being so fucking in love with the man and waxing poetic about falling asleep to his music and waking up to see him fallen asleep on the couch next to him and oh my god them

They're just really sweet together for such a completely dysfunctional couple so much of the time lol I just. Sherlock being like.

Sherlock half of the time: watson you're fucking stupid. no i won't take care of my personal needs stfu. watson get a goddamn life. watson shut up. watson no one cares about your goddamn opinion. no i need to disturb you in the middle of the night it's for science. hey watson mind if i manipulate mansplain malewife

Sherlock the other half of the time: HELLO SIR YOU ARE MY FAVORITE MAN TO EVER MAN HELLO MAY I SPEND THE REST OF MY DAYS WITH YOU HELLO I WILL DO ANYTHING FOR YOU WE ARE PERFECT MATCHES I LOVE YOU AND I NEED YOU YOURE SO MUCH BETTER THAN ME PLEASE MARRY ME

They're... they certainly are.

ALSO OH MY GOD.

THIS ONE TIME WHEN SHERLOCK WAS JUST PACING AROUND THE ROOM AT 3 AM GOING "IT DOESNT MAKE SENSE >:(((" AND HUDSON LIKE BARGED IN TO COMPLAIN AND THEN WATSON WAS LIKE DUDE YOU GOTTA STOP DOING THIS AND PROCEEDS TO SAY THE LINE "YOU ARE KNOCKING YOURSELF UP, OLD MAN"

BAHGHSFHGRHEWHEWHIFEW

BRB SOBBING

CALLING HIM AN OLD MAN???? KNOCKING HIMSELF UP?? I DONT KNOW WHATS FUNNIER

The main highlight of this part was I have now gotten to see him have a great time watching his homo homie get married

Its so fucking funny.......

I was prepared for a funny reaction by yuumori sherlock's face when he said it lol but. Damn i was really not prepared tbh

watson: I'm engaged!

sherlock: *pained groaning*

watson: do you... not like her?

sherlock: no she's fine she's great you'll be wonderful together bUT I HATE IT WHEN PEOPLE ARE HETEROSEXUAL WATSON DO I HAVE TO MARRY MYSELF THEN WATSON? ARE YOU GOING TO MAKE ME MARRY MYSELF.

watson: yeah... yeah... fair, I feel really bad because you did this whole case and I got a girlfriend out of it and all you got was me leaving you alone fuck man im sorry what are you gonna do without me

sherlock, highly sarcastic: dont worry watson I've always got my handy cocaine! *pulls it out and gets high in front of watson just as he's about to leave*

watson: *in fucking agony*

sherlock: good for you!

I DONT EVEN- THIS SCENE KILLED ME MULTIPLE TIMES OVER WHAT

ITS SO GODDAMN NONCHELANT ABOUT IT SHERLOCK IS JUST LIKE YEAH I WILL IN FACT NOT BE MENTALLY HEALTHY IF YOU ARE NOT WITH ME 24/7 BUT WHATEVER YOU DO YOU /S

I'd like to apologize to watson on sherlock's behalf lmao. man is being a bit too codependent on main

The last thing about sign of four I do need to address is yeah, there's the Horrific Amounts Of Racism in that one and the whiplash hearing it is just ridiculous because they seem to be so knowledgeable in all other areas and fairly... politically correct, taking sherlock's original misogyny as a purposeful character flaw, but then they just mention someone indigenous once and suddenly its all parrotting racist propaganda and just... really awful shit. There's no way I'm gonna speak for the group that just got absolutely hate crimed here but anyone can tell the author just has no clue what he's fucking talking about and it's physically painful.

And I don't know, it's just so bad it seems out of character? Doyle's making these motherfuckers say shit that honestly, Sherlock would know better about. And especially Watson. Come on, you cannot tell me watson is mentally capable of being prejudiced against someone. Please do not make him that way.

I'm not sure how to handle it specifically, or what's the proper way I should handle something like that in a media I otherwise like. Is it ok to say Doyle was clearly a piece of shit on the matter and separate those characters from his bias or is that insensitive?

I don't know, I was Not a fan of it and I'm glad to see they've at least finally shut up about the guy

But anyway yeah, uhhhh onto the short stories because I'm trying to read those before I get to the final problem

Scandal in Bohemia was a fucking ride, first of all, before we even get to Sherlock's girlboss arc we have to discuss how gay the whole situation was and how Doyle's attempt at making them less gay failed spectacularly

Like he's all "ah yes I need to marry off watson and uhhh make sherlock ummmm interact with a woman so they dont look gay" but he does it SO BADLY that it makes them look EVEN GAYER

cause i mean, even the conversation they had about watson getting married back in sign of four was gay af, but how Doyle handled things afterward was in no way straighter.

Cause you know, the man kind of wrote himself into a corner with the fact of Watson narrating these stories. So Watson has to be around to witness them, and to witness Sherlock's own thought process rather privately, so he has to be around sherlock at night, a lot. But trying to come up with a reason for that happening just... it didn't occur to Doyle. He just went. Ah yes this makes sense. And it's Watson just like Sleeping Over At Sherlock's like every other goddamn day and every time his wife leaves town and having them basically still live that cute domestic home life but they have absolutely no excuses for doing it anymore. It's quite funny

Like it was gay already the way they interacted when they officially lived together but it was like, a necessity for them. Now it's not, Watson just comes over because he goddamn wants to, and it's hilarious to me.

LIKE IDK I THINK THEY KIND OF BROKE UP FOR A YEAR OR SO BC OF WATSON GETTING MARRIED AND THEY LIKE DONT HAVE CONTACT WITH ONE ANOTHER BUT ONE DAY WATSON JUST INEXPLICABLY HAS THE URGE TO COME VISIT SHERLOCK ON NO NOTICE AND THEN SUDDENLY THEY ARE TOGETHER NEAR 24/7 AGAIN LIKE BARELY ANYTHING CHANGED AHIEHOEWH

SIT DOWN AND TRY TO TELL ME THOSE ARE NOT HOMOSEXUALS

Watson walks in on no fucking notice after a full year and Sherlock is just. In the middle of some experiment obviously but hes like

Sherlock, carrying around unidenfiable chemical mixtures: W A T S O N you look good you look good! i see you've gained seven pounds!!

watson: uh. thanks??? Hey lol *awkwardly waves* Uh um Wanted to Uhm sEe you

Sherlock: ABOUT gODDAMN TIME AND YES WONDERFUL LOOK LOOK SIT DOWN I HAVE THINGS TO INFODUMP ABOUT

watson: :) ok :) *turns to camera* and we were back to the old days

sherlock: makes a deduction

watson: wowwwwwwwwwwww !! so true bestie !!

sherlock: !!!!!!!!! :))) !!!!! :))) uh fuck im supposed to be smooth Its Elementary Lol

watson: *turns to camera* when i stroke his ego like this and compliment him he blushes like a girl like i just complimented his dress so i do it more because he likes it. this is a homie trait

watson: well i should probably get going! my wife will notice that i am gone my dear buddy bro homie!

sherlock: NO DONT LEAVE IM LOST WITHOUT YOU (pretty much a direct quote lol) your. wife doesn't. get back home until monday. I know this because I am smart and definitely have not been stalking you.

watson: alright :)))))

AND THEN HE FUCKING SLEEPS OVER LMAO FUCKING HOMOS

So yeah they're right back where they were before pretty much and there's a case bc of course there is

And honestly I think this short story specifically was so insane mostly just because of how absolutely fast it all went. Yuumori kind of made me believe the original Irene Adler was more of an important character than she really is? And I think that's. Honestly so funny. Motherfucker shows up for ten pages, girlbosses her way around town, and changes sherlock's entire opinion of the female gender while still keeping him gay?

LIKE NO LOL SHES NOT IN ANY WAY A LOVE INTEREST AND WATSON GOES OUT OF HIS WAY TO SPECIFY THE FACT THAT IN NO WORLD WOULD THEY HAVE BEEN ROMANTICALLY INVOLVED BECAUSE. SHERLOCK. DIDN'T DATE WOMEN.

HE WAS JUST??? SO IMPRESSED AND SHELL SHOCKED BY HER EXISTENCE HE DECIDED IT WAS TIME FOR GIRLBOSS APPRECIATION DAY TODAY AND ALL DAYS HENCEFORTH???

AND THEY HAVE LIKE O N E INTERACTION?? God, the power this woman(?) has. Watson looks at her once like. damb shawty 😳 and she's like "no<3" and he's like FUCK

Like yeah it's pretty much just the king walking up like "help girl the whore is blackmailing me" and sherlock being like "ok lol this will be easy" and then it proceeded to not in fact be easy or even possible

sherlock like... posed as a dead body and tried to get her to give up the location of the photo but she out-acted him and skipped the town the next day after doing the 'good night mr. sherlock holmes' thing with sherlock completely tricked

and she just. sends a letter like "dear sherlock holmes. you're a fucking idiot and i think it's funny that you lost. nice job tho mad respect" and sherlock just SHORT CIRCUITS

the king comes back a bit later like "hey Dude where's my Photo" and sherlock's like oh yeah uhhhhhhhhhhh about that and the king is like HOW COULD IT POSSIBLY HAVE BEEN THAT GODDAMN HARD i would have dated someone more noble if she wasn't so pretty i swear im on a whole different level from her

and then. GIRLBOSSIFIED SHERLOCK HOLMES RESPONDS "from what I have seen of the lady, she seems indeed to be on a very different level from your majesty" ABSEHHESHEFHHFES ROASTED

and the dude just LEAVES

After that I read a few more of the short stories and well the highlights I got from that pretty much were these conversations

Watson: sherlock. honey. have you. eaten anything today

Sherlock: IT DIDNT OCCUR TO ME DEAR WATSON

Watson: ITS FIVE PM

and:

Sherlock: *having one of his Moment Moments at three in the goddamn mornig* GRRRR CRIME ISNT WHAT IT USED TO BE

Watson: MY DEAR SHERCOCK WHAT IS CRIME S U P P O S E D TO BE LIKE ACCORDING TO YOU

Sherlock: no one's original anymore fucking copycats

Watson: so you want the criminals to make things harder for you specifically.

Sherlock, exasperated: yes!

I love them your honor.

#rowan's hyperfixation essays #rowan screams into the void #rowan views moriarty #sherlock holmes

14 notes · View notes

msclaritea · 4 years

Link

By Elizabeth Carolyn Miller

The Perils of Public Visibility

Conan Doyle’s resistance to visually identifying the female criminal sometimes appears, nonetheless, as a denial of women’s public subjectivity, a refusal to grant women full citizenry by refusing to grant them full criminality. The anonymous female avenger in “Charles Augustus Milverton” perfectly exemplifies this tendency in the series. Despite the violence of the murder she enacts, Holmes keeps her publicly invisible by chivalrously covering up her deed; her name remains a secret even to readers of the story. This is not the only case where Holmes opts not to pursue legal redress after discovering a crime, but it is the most obviously illegal instance, since he actually witnesses the murder. On the night in question, Holmes and Watson break into the home of Milverton, a blackmailer, to secure some letters written by Holmes’s client, Lady Eva. While searching his study, they inadvertently witness Milverton’s meeting with a lady’s maid who has offered to sell him her mistress’s letters. Page 63

"You couldn't come any other time—eh?"

Fig. 14. From “Charles Augustus Milverton”

Page 64

The maid turns out to be a former victim in disguise. Milverton previously exposed her secret letters to her husband, who died from the shock, and she has returned to enact revenge.

In describing the interplay between Holmes, Milverton, and the avenger, Conan Doyle orchestrates a complicated interplay of the visible and the invisible. An illustration of the avenger shows her thickly veiled��utterly obscured by the accoutrement of feminine propriety (figure 14). Secreted behind a curtain, Holmes and Watson witness her visual revelation: “The woman without a word had raised her veil and dropped the mantle from her chin. It was a dark, handsome, clear-cut face which confronted Milverton, a face with a curved nose, strong, dark eyebrows, shading hard, glittering eyes, and a straight, thin-lipped mouth set in a dangerous smile” (171). While suggesting formidability, this description counters the visual criminal theory of criminologists like Lombroso, who claimed female criminals have racialized or masculine features such as a heavy jaw (102). The avenger speaks:

“It is I … the woman whose life you have ruined. … you sent the letters to my husband, and he—the noblest gentleman that ever lived, a man whose boots I was never worthy to lace—he broke his gallant heart and died. … You will ruin no more lives as you ruined mine. You will wring no more hearts as you wrung mine. I will free the world of a poisonous thing. Take that, you hound, and that!—and that!—and that!—and that!”

She had drawn a little gleaming revolver, and emptied barrel after barrel into Milverton’s body, the muzzle within two feet of his shirt front. … Then he staggered to his feet, received another shot, and rolled upon the floor. “You’ve done me,” he cried, and lay still. The woman looked at him intently and ground her heel into his upturned face. She looked again, but there was no sound or movement. I heard a sharp rustle, the night air blew into the heated room, and the avenger was gone. (171–72)

This passage depicts one of the most violent murders committed by a woman in turn-of-the-century fiction, and its graphic illustration brought that violence home to readers (figure 15). Despite the woman’s ferocity, however, Conan Doyle takes pains to rationalize—even defend—her act. Her invocation of her husband and her insistence on her own humility position her squarely in the tradition of self-renunciatory Victorian wifeliness. The scandalous letters do not challenge this characterization:Page 65

"Then he staggered to his feet and recieved another shot."

Page 66

we know from Lady Eva’s case that most of the letters in which Milverton traffics were written when the women were young and unmarried, and Holmes describes Lady Eva’s letters as “imprudent, Watson, nothing worse” (159). Watson’s reference to Milverton’s killer as an “avenger” also serves to justify her act, as does her seemingly selfless invocation of Milverton’s future victims.

Holmes and Watson choose not to expose the avenger. When Inspector Lestrade of Scotland Yard tries to enlist Holmes’s help in solving the case, obviously unaware that he witnessed the murder, Holmes replies, “there are certain crimes which the law cannot touch, and which therefore, to some extent, justify private revenge. … My sympathies are with the criminals rather than with the victim, and I will not handle this case” (174). Even in the moment of watching the woman unload her pistol into Milverton’s breast, while Watson reacts, Holmes holds him back:

No interference upon our part could have saved the man from his fate; but as the woman poured bullet after bullet into Milverton’s shrinking body, I was about to spring out, when I felt Holmes’s cold, strong grasp upon my wrist. I understood the whole argument of that firm, restraining grip—that it was no affair of ours; that justice had overtaken a villain. … But hardly had the woman rushed from the room when Holmes, with swift, silent steps, was over at the other door. He turned the key in the lock. At the same instant we heard voices in the house and the sound of hurrying feet. The revolver shots had roused the household. With perfect coolness Holmes slipped across to the safe, filled his two arms with bundles of letters, and poured them all into the fire. Again and again he did it, until the safe was empty. Someone turned the handle and beat upon the outside of the door. … “This way, Watson,” said he; “we can scale the garden wall in this direction.” (172–73)

Holmes not only keeps quiet about the murder, but seizes the opportunity to actively cover it up and destroy all of the compromising letters in Milverton’s safe. Committed in cold blood, with premeditation, this crime would presumably be quite disturbing to contemporary readers: a woman shooting a man with a phallic gun in his own study is a perfect example of the kind of invading and destructive threat that characterized many representations of first-wave feminism.[34] In covering the woman’s act, however, Holmes ensures that the avenger will remain outside of the public forums of the newspaper, courts, and legal system. Indeed, the female avenger remains anonymous even on a metafictional level, for Watson refuses to reveal her name even to the “public” readership of the story.

Conan Doyle’s discomfort with women in public cannot alone account for his shocking and remarkable female avenger, however; it does not explain why he makes her at once so appalling and so appealing. He takes a potentially threatening woman and normalizes her by providing justification for her act and presenting her as a loyal and loving wife; but he goes on to present her, like Irene Adler, as an object of public desire, idolization, and glamorization. At the end of the story, gazing into “a shop window filled with photographs of the celebrities and beauties of the day,” Holmes recognizes what we might call the “mug shot” for the anonymous avenger:

Holmes’s eyes fixed themselves upon one of [the photographs], and following his gaze I saw the picture of a regal and stately lady in Court dress, with a high diamond tiara upon her noble head. I looked at that delicately curved nose, at the marked eyebrows, at the straight mouth, and the strong little chin beneath it. Then I caught my breath as I read the time-honoured title of the great nobleman and statesman whose wife she had been. My eyes met those of Holmes, and he put his finger to his lips as we turned away from the window. (174–75)

Shop window photography promoting “celebrities and beauties of the day” was part of the new visual landscape of Victorian consumerism. Just as magazine illustrations and newly visual textual formats transformed the medium in which readers encountered crime fiction and other narratives, the display of famous women’s photographs as a means of selling products helped shift public culture toward the visual, consumerist, and feminine. Here, Conan Doyle portrays one such woman—displayed in all her aristocratic splendor to encourage others’ consumption—as a murderer, a sharp distinction from what she appears to signify on a visual, imagistic level. The Holmes series on the whole presents criminality and truth as visually ascertainable categories, but when depicting female criminality, it suggests that the orchestration and framing of an image determines its meaning. Here, the murderer’s photograph is a marketing tool, not a revelation of essential identity. Rather than a low brow, sensuous lips, or a misshapen ear, she has a tiara. The photograph represents the avenger’s invulnerability: she gets away with murder in part because of her social standing, but more obviouslyPage 68

"Following his gaze I saw the picture of a regal and stately lady in court dress."

Page 69

because of her image. Conan Doyle’s depiction of the avenger encapsulates the entire series’ ambivalence about the female criminal, who represents a newly roused feminist power, the failures of patriarchy, and the consumerist appeal of feminine disobedience. The anonymous avenger is not a figure of criminal degeneracy, but of glamour and beauty; she is appealing rather than repulsive to readers. As the illustration accompanying this scene shows, she is literally a representation for the public to admire (figure 16). Thus, while Conan Doyle’s stories do commodify feminine victimization, their commodification of feminine violence and criminality is even more significant. At a historical moment when a faction of the suffrage campaign was becoming ever more violent in its acts of civil disobedience, Conan Doyle’s 1904 story banks on the allure of feminine disobedience for readers. The avenger puts the anger of first-wave feminism into an exquisite, consumable package. Like other female offenders in the series, her image and body project fantasy and glamour rather than criminological stigmata; she suits a consumerist model of vision rather than an anthropological or criminological one. In consumerist discourse, as I discuss in the introduction, to be visible and noticeable is a form of power rather than submission. Late- nineteenth-century advertisers and marketers preached, unlike Holmes, that it was better to be looked at than to look. They also defined, however, what kind of feminine embodiment was worthy of the gaze. Consumerism redefined femininity as public and visible, but only when it conformed to the logic of consumerism.

Given the series’s apparent investment in a criminological theory of vision, one would expect its female criminals to be easily identifiable, but envisioning women is an activity fraught with problems for Holmes, the otherwise expert eye. Women criminals prove capable of resisting the detective’s gaze, and Conan Doyle makes a sustained case for legal interventionism, which he associates (not unproblematically) with state feminism rather than state paternalism. Thus, at the turn of the twentieth century, Conan Doyle’s stories put forth a far more compound and ambivalent theory of gender, vision, and the public than has been previously acknowledged; they support the authority of the gaze and locate ontology in image, except when depicting women criminals. In these instances, Conan Doyle’s detective fiction prefigures filmic genres like film noir, in which femmes fatales reveal a great “truth” about the visual landscape of modern urban culture: that the unknowable is not signified by the invisible, but by a peculiarly modern disjunction between the visible and the real.”

This is an interesting article but it reminded me wasn’t there a meta or mention of a theory saying that it might have been Holmes who actually killed Milverton?

@sarahthecoat @ebaeschnbliah @raggedyblue @therealsaintscully

#Augustus Milverton #Holmes #Canon #The Mystery Lady

35 notes · View notes

tiger-moran · 4 years

Text

So I’ve been trying to collect my thoughts together on all the significant Moriarty and/or Moran centred published stories I can recall. I'm not including every published short story here though, mostly because those are in anthologies that otherwise didn't involve them and were usually not great anyway, and in some cases I probably have not actually even read the stories as I refuse to fork out large sums of money for anthologies I otherwise couldn't care less about and where the stories about them probably aren't even worth reading.

ANYWAY...

My thoughts:

(cut for length and probably ranting)

The Hound of the D'urbervilles by Kim Newman

Was fairly funny on first reading but kind of loses most of that when you read it again. Horrid characterisation of Moriarty and despite having that one kind-of-gay-sounding line that all the BBC 'mormor' shippers in particular seem to be obsessed with it spectacularly fails to be shippy. Newman does seem to be going more for the 'fucked up paternal relationship' route which is... I just don't care, and I hate this take on Moriarty and on their relationship and I don't know either why he did include that one line in that case cos it does sound reasonably queer but then... nothing else in it is queer and he seems to go out of his way to shit on the idea of Moriarty/Moran even.

And Moran is engaging enough sometimes but then Newman inexplicably threw in that awful stuff about Moran being a raging homophobe in the notes (because god forbid anyone misinterpret 'his' characters as queer I guess) which wrecks his characterisation and seriously was not necessary.

Also I can't stand Newman's thing which he seems to do in every one of his books not just this one, bringing in loads of other people's characters from all different texts, it's so obnoxious and annoying. Also this book has just become one of those things I'm sick to the back teeth of hearing about and especially with how elements of it have become treated as or even assumed to be canon. Like the bloody 'Basher' nickname for example, which drives me up the wall.

I also really dislike the handling of other canonical characters like Sophy Kratides or Adler (though sadly this still manages to be one of the better portrayals of Adler; most of the others really are that horrendous), or Holmes, like basically it dismisses Holmes as not actually that great or important. It's just too much of an alternate universe.

And that ending is just shit.

Moriarty books by John Gardner (3 books)

These are terrible. Basically Victorian Godfather type stuff with truly awful characterisation of Moriarty and Moran. Moran is also killed off by Moriarty in the first book and gets replaced by uninteresting original characters, some of whom then proceed to betray Moriarty but get forgiven and welcomed back. But no Moran just gets poisoned for doing far less than that. Fuck that.

And overall these are basically just Gardner showing off all his research about Victorian life in place of a plot much of the time. Then the third book largely just rehashes and repeats or else contradicts and retcons stuff that happened in his other books. I don't know what that was all about and I suspect Gardner didn't really know either, I think he had literally lost the plot by the time he wrote the third because it was so many years after the other two. Also there's lots of homophobia throughout so that was nice, not. Plus bonus absolutely awful portrayal of Irene Adler.

Moriarty by Anthony Horowitz

Horowitz's smugness gets on my nerves, as in he seems to think he's the only person who knows anything about the canon and has to smugly inform us of all the 'subtle' canonical details he incorporated earlier in the story as if we didn't notice them for ourselves, when they were just far too obvious. Or I thought so anyway. The 'shock twist' was way too obvious to me. I mean the fact that it's just called Moriarty and yet at face value Moriarty is dead and barely relevant to the story is a massive giveaway itself. But then other things too, like the 'mysteriously' vanished guy when they've just found a body which is supposed to be Moriarty; like someone who is clearly Moran showing up to 'inexplicably' help them. Also this has lousy characterisation of Moran and Horowitz really going out of his way to shit on the idea of Moriarty/Moran, just like he has shit on the idea of Holmes/Watson previously.

It would have been way better as a straight up mystery/thriller/whatever without the 'shock twist' and overbearing smugness related to that but incorporating all of that ruined it. Meanwhile Moriarty himself is... eh. Better than Moran but then like A Study in Emerald, he spends too long being essentially made out to be someone else and that does compromise his characterisation, and the original characters which often tend to take Moran's place (because again, can't have them being too close now can we in case someone thinks they're queer) are piss poor substitutes.

It gets like half a point for the line about Moran leaving the rifle on the train though, which is still funny.

A Study in Emerald by Neil Gaiman

(Yeah it’s a short story but it’s about the best known one about them, even if still loads of people seem to miss that part.)

Far too focused on preserving the secret until the 'twist' ending at the expense of the story and characterisation. Actually hypothetically does have one or two decent and even vaguely queer-sounding lines and yet I find this story immensely unsatisfying as a Moriarty and Moran story because they simply do not sound like Moriarty and Moran, to the point where this just truly does not register in my mind as a Moriarty and Moran story. I just think Gaiman spent too much time trying to trick the readers into thinking they are Holmes and Watson and never let them actually be their own characters so in the end it just... isn't them. I don't find really anything about them recognisable or engaging.

Also I don't like that it's a fantasy story and I can't stand the Cthulhu stuff in particular so it doesn't actually have much going for it for me.

Moriarty: The Life and Times of a Criminal Genius by Michael Charton

This was one of the worst books I ever read. No really. Terrible characterisation of pretty much everyone but especially Moriarty; the author seemed to know very little about the canon; it made Moriarty the main character without giving him anything that made him likeable or engaging or interesting and actually seemed to go out of its way to make him as repellent as possible, and it called him a 'genius' and a professor without ever having him do anything that was 'genius' (he was just a violent thug in it, no more) and just seemed to forget completely that Moriarty was actually a professor with a career in mathematics. And it's just a deeply unpleasant book in so many ways. Plus as far as I can recall it mostly just forgot Moran even existed.

Yet... really annoyingly this is the only book I know of where Moriarty was shown as an opera fan who admired Adler for her singing and (completely bizarrely) it had Moran (when the author finally did remember he existed) use the phrase "my beloved professor" in reference to Moriarty. ???? So yeah this was one of those really weird times where an awful, awful book with horrid characterisation still managed to have a couple of better elements in it than a lot of the better stories. So that made me very bitter.

The Adventures of Moriarty (various authors; Mammoth books)

These stories are very hit and miss, unfortunately mostly misses. Many forgot Moran even existed. Many had awful characterisation and/or plots and some like the one involving Hitler made me feel profoundly uncomfortable. Barely any had any kind of closeness between them and one of the few that did was some terrible sci-fi thing which contains gems like Moriarty using the word 'cocksuckers' and Holmes exploding, and another wasn't awful but didn't really seem to ever know if it was meant to be a serious story or a funny one and therefore didn't really succeed at being either. I think the one that was probably the most well written and had a decent quantity at least of interaction between them really seemed to have them tolerating each other rather than actually liking each other very much so, overall, there wasn't a single story in it that I really liked and it was very disappointing.

The File on Colonel Moran by Vernon Mealor (two volumes)

The first is better than the second. As far as I can remember the second especially didn't have enough of them in despite the title and focused far too much on Holmes and him foiling their plots which I'm really not interested in. Also they're not exactly brilliantly written. However, at least the two of them get along in these books and there are even some very suggestive/slashy sounding lines which is a shockingly rare thing (alas) for Moriarty and Moran stories. Deeply flawed books, but I probably liked these best after The Empress of India.

Moriarty series by Michael Kurland

My favourite out of any stories involving the characters. A different take on Moriarty in some ways - Moriarty is not really a villain as such - but I like him a lot. BUT... Its main failing for me is the overall lack of Moran throughout. He only appears briefly in one of the earlier stories, then properly in The Empress of India. His characterisation when he does appear is pretty good, but he's never portrayed as Moriarty's chief of staff or right hand man or anything like that and that fact upsets me so much because the one time Kurland did portray them together (in Empress) I love their interaction and it's just so much wasted potential, that he never used him properly before and dropped him after that. Meanwhile I really do not love his original characters who mostly essentially take Moran's place in all of the rest of the stories, I find them and their storylines incredibly tedious and really wish they had not been included and Moran had been included properly instead. I'd rate these stories far, far higher than I do if he'd done that.

So, do you see what I mean, about how even when I don't actually hate the stories involving them, even the best of them still fails to satisfy? How they always have some major thing that lets them down and means that even the couple I like I still can't really love? And how hugely disheartening that is, and more so when there isn't even any fanfiction to fill in this lack of real interaction, real closeness between the characters, except for what I have to write myself?

(I can't remember any others, have I missed any?)

#Sebastian Moran #James Moriarty #Moran #Moriarty #MoraMori #sort of

20 notes · View notes

tea-at-221 · 4 years

Text

The TJLC Debacle: 3 years out from S4 and counting; the copyright mini-theory; so much salt I’m bloated; but in the end, there is peace (I love you Johnlockers)

Ugh, don't even talk to me about Mary.

Don't even talk to me about the way Mofftiss have said they're sick of responding to fans on the subject of Johnlock. Of how they've said they're "not telling anyone else what to think or write about them" (as if they could stop us; as if they even own Sherlock themselves. Do keep reading, because this point becomes much more relevant and in-jokey later on). Don't even mention how they've bitched and whined incessantly because--god forbid--fans got *really really* into their show and emotionally invested.

They're so eager to discount all the beautiful little moments they wrote as accidents. And Arwel, who planted all those props, continually demonstrates that he's on their side (a not-very in-depth-analysis of his Instagram account and the way he interacted with fans towards the beginning of the pandemic showed as much, but I think maybe he’s grown a bit wiser and quieter since at least in terms of Johnlock and all things elephant-related. I don’t know for sure because I stopped looking.)

Anyway--they'd actually prefer for us to celebrate our own intelligence, is I suppose a charitable way of looking at it: our ability to make connections between things in the show; our metas on symbolism; our insightful fanfic; etc., and denounce them as the bad writers that they ultimately are.

More under the cut.

(This post may be of interest to you especially if you came to the fandom a bit later: multiple links to things of relevance/quotes/explanations appear both within and at the end of this entry.)

Because what makes a writer good?

Well, an ability to make people feel an emotional connection to their work, for one. I know this is just my own perspective, but if not for Johnlock, all my emotion about the show would evaporate. There wouldn't be much else there. Other people might get something, but I wouldn’t. Is some of the writing witty and entertaining regardless of any inferred/implied Johnlock? Yeah but, eh, a lot of shows have some good writing and I just don’t give a damn about them.

What makes a writer good?

Not making promises to the reader/viewer that they'll never keep. Plot holes, leading dialogue ("There’s stuff you wanted to say...but didn’t say it.” “Yeah”) never followed through on, puns that are apparently, I suppose, unintentional (e.g. "'Previous' commander?" "I meant 'ex'").

Uh, not writing continual gay jokes that aren't actually pointing toward the inference that people are making them because there's actually something going on there under the surface. (How about just don't make those jokes ever.)

Not being, apparently, oblivious (? questionable) to the queerbaiting they're engaging in *as they’re writing it.*

Acting like their LGBT audience is in the wrong/the bad guy, instead of choosing to remain respectful in the face of dissent. Instead it's just, "we never wrote it that way" / "We never played it that way."

A lot of those other mildly witty shows don’t actually blatantly drag their most passionate fans face-down through the mud the writers themselves created. Imagine that.

I'm not even a fan of Martin Freeman anymore, for the way he handled the whole thing (getting angry, the comments he made about how the fans made Sherlock “not fun anymore”...apparently Martin’s packing up his crayons and going home?)...no offense to anyone who is still a fan of his. I don’t make it a habit to drag him. I do to some degree understand his frustration with having the whole situation taken out on him--he’s just an actor in the show--but I simply wish he’d remained as cool and professional about it as Benedict Cumberbatch instead of pointing at the fans. You’re pointing in the wrong direction, mate.

What also irks me at the end of the day is this: the subsection of people who legitimately responded badly to the TJLC/S4 debacle and went above and beyond to harass the writers and actors/actresses on social media are *few and far between*, but we've been lumped in with them by what feels like...everyone, Martin included. TJLCers/Johnlockers (not the same group, but often treated as such) have been made to look like a bunch of rambunctious, immature, demanding children time and time and again in the wake of S4.

They'd rather, what, suggest John was so in love with Mary? THAT was the relationship they wanted to uphold in that show as so significant and...what, a demonstration of how honorable it is to respect your heterosexual relationship despite, you know...ANYTHING?

Yeah sorry, I don’t believe in that. John’s text-based affair, whether a disappointment for some as to his supposed character, was a very human reaction and I kinda sorta feel like I would have reacted MUCH more strongly than that had I been John. But nope. He stayed with Mary and was *ashamed* of his wandering eye. Ashamed that maybe he wanted to be admired by someone. I can’t think of a scene, off the top of my head, where Mary ever interacted with John without belittling him in some way--if not with words, then with consistently patronizing glances.

The message here is that heterosexuality is not just acceptable, but VALUABLE, however it manifests--but god forbid anyone see a queer subtext. (Why are lgbt+ writers some of the very WORST offenders where this is concerned? And they defend it! Is this childhood nostalgia/Stockholm Syndrome of the very fondest variety or what? Gay angst is all they got if they got anything at all, so it’s still good enough as far as “representation” goes?)

They really want to tell the story of John as so emotionally/mentally fucked up that he surrounds himself with unstable people time and again. They never give any reason *why* he might do that (which they could have done even soooo subtly), or delve into his past--just, apparently it's okay to assume that Sherlock's comment about "she's like that because you chose her" is exactly that.

No. Sherlock and Mary are NOT the same. Not...*remotely*!

Mary is underhanded and evil. She lies. She manipulates. She schemes. Her “love” is based on selfishness, and her assumption that John is a simpleton and hers to mold. She's in it for herself.

Sherlock hides. He prevaricates. He feels. He loves John. He does fucked up things in the name of love, but always for the benefit of those he loves. When he screws up, which he obviously does, it’s painful to us as the audience because we see that it is painful for him when he recognizes and regrets it.

I have never seen Mary regret anything. Those crocodile tears at Christmas? More manipulation. Inconsistent with anything else we were shown about her as a character.

To even think for a SECOND that people could ship Mary and John and mentally condemn John for cheating on Mary AFTER SHE SHOT HIS BEST FRIEND...as if marriage is the be-all-end-all free pass in which every sin must be forgiven until the end of time...as if John broke any covenant with his wife beyond those she broke from the very moment she walked into his life *with an entire fake past.* Is just. Well. It's asking us to accept gaslighting as healthy, loving, normal, *preferable* behavior, so...given the source that message is coming from, it's all a bit meta.

THAT. Is insanity. Maybe Mofftiss are the sociopaths.

How these men could write characters they themselves understand so little (or tell us they understand so little because their emotional maturity has yet to surpass that of the average three-year-old’s), I will never know. I can only imagine that they have absorbed, by osmosis over their lives, real and nuanced human behavior...then churned it back out again in their writing unaware, a bit like psychopaths who teach themselves what "normal" people do so that they can pass as psychologically sound in regular society.

Remember, we *are* talking about men who do these sorts of things:

Moffat says that Sherlock is celibate and that people who claim he's misogynistic when he does things like make Irene Adler imply she's attracted to the detective (even though she's a lesbian) are, ironically, "deeply offensive" (despite lines like "look at us both" in Battersea. We aren't your therapists, Moffat--we don't care what you meant, we care what you said, and what you *said* was clear. *Implying* it does not let you off the hook).

Gatiss has proclaimed that "I find flirting with the homoeroticism in Sherlock much more interesting" than the idea of ever making a show addressing LGBT issues. (That link is to a reddit forum, and I can't find the original interview anymore, but I assure you I had seen the actual article myself ages back and can't find it online again now along with some of the Martin quotes I wanted to link to. And nevermind what Gatiss has done with LGBT shows/issues since--my focus here is on what he has said, versus what he and Moffat have since claimed regarding their queerbaiting.)

Here’s a transcript of this screenshot:

"...many people come up and say they didn't realise." Despite this lack of public awareness, being part of the gay community is clearly important to Gatiss: "The older I get the more I want to give something back. I mean, I keep meaning to do something." When asked if he'd be interested in making a series about gay issues his response was enlightening:

"No, I don't think I'd make a kind of gay programme. It's much more interesting when it's not about a single issue. And equally, I find flirting with the homoeroticism in Sherlock much more interesting. Of course this reflects the grand picture of everyone's strange make-up; there are good gay people and bad gay people. I wouldn't like to make an issue film around the culture of being gay."

Instead Gatiss' interest seems to lie in making a drama where sexuality is, if not mundane, part of the wider framework: "I'd quite like to do something about a quite happy, ordinary gay person who's just incidentally gay. For example, a three-part thriller for ITV where the lead character just happens to be gay; when they finally go home, say 45 minutes in, and they had a same sex partner. That to me would be genuinely progressive. It wouldn't be a three-part gay thriller for ITV. It would be that this character just happened to be gay."

--End article quote.

And instead, who is canonically gay in the series? Well, Irene Adler. The innkeepers at the Cross Keys. And perhaps most notably, the *villains*, because that's a helpful trope: Moriarty and Eurus are, in S4, both implied to be at least bisexual.

Any character should be able to be any sexuality, this is true. But can we have some main characters, the good guys, give some good representation? Can't we start making that the standard, rather than the villains and the background characters? Because so far, that is the exception and not the rule.

Writers need to be aware of the damage they are perpetuating. We are not quite in a world yet where any character should be able to be any sexuality but isn't, yet we have no problem with saying the villain is LGBT+ or looks different/functions differently than much of the viewing audience.

"Male friendship is important and valid, not everything has to be gay"--this is a popular point with casual heterosexual viewers (and, to my chagrin, some of my LGBT+ friends) who don't fully grasp what "queerbaiting" is, often even when it's pointed out to them.

The lens of heterosexuality is real. My first time through watching BBC Sherlock, I didn't see the Johnlock at all. I had to look for it and read about it. When I saw it, the lens was lifted for me, and it changed my life and the way I view things forever (and for the best).

But back to my point about how little Mofftiss seem to understand their own story/most ardent fans, and then on to my other theory: in S4 it must be that they dropped their “psychopaths emulating empathy” act and indulged in their own "insane wish fulfillment" by doing away with all of the meaning, continuity, and sense. Right?

So, here’s the alternate theory. One which is not, please remember, in their defense.

Remember that S4 is what Mofftiss are *happy* to have us believe is what they'd do with these characters, given the chance to do whatever they wanted. I repeat, in Moffat’s own words: “Insane wish fulfillment.”

Okay I get it, this pasta has been over-salted.

Without further delay: MY COPYRIGHT RESEARCH THEORY THAT EVEN I DON'T PUT MUCH STOCK IN AND WHICH DOESN’T MAKE UP FOR THEIR CRUELTY EVEN IF TRUE

Part of me also raises an eyebrow at S4 as perhaps an example of the effect of the Conan Doyle estate on any modern production in the US. While it’s true that all of Sherlock is part of public domain in the UK and has been for quite a long time, Gatiss and Moffat still talk about it being partially under copyright. Specifically, the last 10 stories. I’m supposing that this means that because Sherlock airs internationally, or due to whatever contract the BBC has with the Doyle estate, they are still limited by the copyright as to what they can “publish”.

The Doyle estate is known for being a pain in the ass when it comes to abiding by copyright law as everyone else knows and practices it. They’ve tried to argue, for example (in 2013 and, much more recently, with the advent of Enola Holmes), that because Holmes and Watson were not fully developed as their final selves until the conclusion of all 10 stories still under copyright, then perhaps the characters themselves should still be protected, basically, in full.

It’s true that certain elements of the remaining stories are still under copyright here in the US (Watson had more than one wife--uh huh, we have that to look forward to, Johnlockers; the Garridebs moment is still under copyright--yeah, I’m getting to that too; and Sherlock didn’t care much for dogs til later so that’s not allowed either, fuck off Redbeard), but the estate’s problem in 2013 seemed to be based around a fear that *gasp* some day--if not right now!--anyone could write a Sherlock Holmes story in any way they pleased, changing the characters however they wished to and giving those characters “multiple personalities.”

See the following excerpt from the Estate’s case:

“...at any given point in their fictional lives, the two men's characters depend on the Ten Stories. It is impossible to split the characters into public domain versions and complete versions.”

(Click for full transcript.)

Obviously, by this point, that’s been done in multiple iterations. So I dunno. Their argument was *more* than muddy to begin with--they just grasp at straws to stay in control, it seems.

But okay. Backing up: wasn’t there sort-of a Garridebs moment in S4?!?? you cry. Yep. But imagine this: the Conan Doyle estate taking Mofftiss to court to argue that they depicted the Garridebs moment--a moment still under copyright--in The Final Problem.

Did they, though? Did they really?

The fandom cried out about the ridiculousness--the utter disappointment--of that moment when it was shown. It was not what we would have expected/wanted. We didn’t see John injured, Sherlock reacting with tender outrage to the good doctor’s attacker.

Instead we saw some ludicrous BS that was as bad as the clown with the sword-gun-umbrella. More of that.

I think Martin probably found that it was easy to produce real tears when he thought about how fucking terrible the S4 scripts were.

Ahem. Yet, this all seems very Mofftiss-flavored in terms of humor.

I can all-too-easily imagine them saying, “HA. We’re going to show some of these supposedly copyrighted things--and if they take us to court, they’ll be laughed out of the room.” Could that explain some of the overall S4 fuckery?

Sherlock wasn’t supposed to like dogs til later stories, as previously mentioned-- is that why Redbeard pulled a “Cinderella’s carriage” and transformed into a pumpkin (Victor Trevor)? Hmm. Sigh.

It...doesn’t actually appear that the estate has any qualms about taking laughable stuff to court, I mean...*shrug.* They have the money to do it, and money is the name of the game, because you’ve got to pay for rights (cha-ching sounds).

Yep, it does seem that the estate is open to the copyrighted materials being made reality, but who knows for what price or with what caveats. The BBC isn’t, so far as I’ve ever heard, known for throwing money around. Early Doctor Who would be so much less entertaining if they’d had any sort of budget. (And in fact, more of the older episodes would exist, but apparently the BBC--in part to cut costs--reused some of their tapes.)

My bottom-line bitter is this: Mofftiss do like to amuse themselves. To please themselves and no one else, as they’ve shown time and again. Sure, they could do whatever they wanted with S4...and they did...but they were also cruel about it, and that’s what I’ll never forgive them--OR the BBC--for.

A lot of fans gave up after series 4. I was very nearly one of them. I was angry, like just about every other Johnlocker and/or TJLCer, but I was really truly heartbroken. I couldn’t look at fanfiction. My days were full of bitterness and I keenly felt the lack of the fandom outlet that had become so essential to my mental well-being. I didn't know how to overcome the disparity between TJLC and what the show actually was. I didn't know how to separate the things I loved so much from the shitty writers and the way the BBC handled things with their whole response letter (that atrocious, childish blanket response they sent to everyone who complained about S4, not just the Johnlockers/TJLCers. Related to your complaint or not, if you filed one post-S4, this was the response you got). I still boycott BBC shows/merchandise, just by the way.

I tried to link to the blanket response letter but the link didn’t want to work (it’s an old reddit post; I had difficulty finding a copy of the letter elsewhere though at one point it wasn’t so hard...Google is weird these days y’all...tell me it’s not just me) so here’s a screenshot:

Transcript:

“Thank you for contacting us about “Sherlock”.

The BBC and Hartswood Films have received feedback from some viewers who were disappointed there was not a romantic resolution to the relationship between Sherlcok and John in the finale of the latest season of “Sherlock”.

We are aware that the majority of this feedback uses the same text posted on websites and circulated on social media.

Through four series and thirteen episodes, Sherlock and John have never shown any romantic or sexual interest in each other. Furthermore, whenever the creators of “Sherlock” have been asked by fans if the relationship might develop in that direction, they have always made it clear that it would not.

Sherlock’s writers, cast and producers have long been firm and vocal supporters of LGBT rights.

The BBC does not accept the allegations leveled at “Sherlock” or its writers, and we wholeheartedly support the creative freedom of the writers to develop the story as they see fit.

We will of course register your disappointment.

Thank you for contacting us.

Kind Regards,

BBC Complaints Team

So how about that? *Did* they “register our disappointment”? We can actually check that. The BBC’s website has a monthly summary of complaints received. So what did they receive in January 2017, the month S4 aired?

Huh, what do you know. Sounds like that blanket response was exactly the “fuck you” it came across as.

But the show--the FANDOM--had filled a need in my life, and so I had to own that and make it mine, or just...let something in me die: something that felt like an actual vital organ. I had to decide that these characters mean something to me beyond what anyone else tells me they should. I had to accept my own perceptions as truth, as I do with everything else in my life. I had to overcome the idea of canon as law (BBC Sherlock isn't canon anyway; ACD is canon. BBC Sherlock is, in the end, badly written fanfiction--or--worse?--decent pre-slash fanfiction distorted by consistent lies and the hazing of the LGBT audience, topped with the dumpster fire of S4′s incoherent nonsense).

I had to take the good and throw away the bad, just like anyone else who chose to stay. The good bits of the show...dialogue, yes. Plot points, yes. These awful writers did write some good stuff sometimes.

They just broke all the unspoken rules of what not to do to your audience. And then did and said everything they could not to apologize, and to justify their own failings. Which, in the years since I began shipping queer ships beyond any others, I have unfortunately experienced more than once.

So, my vulnerability has been yeeted into the vacuum of broke-my-trustdom: no one can tell me what things should mean to me. I will decide.

I decide that all of the FUCKING AMAZING writing in the Sherlock fandom is a staple in my life that makes it worth living. And that that's okay. And takes precedence over anything the writers or anyone else associated with the show could ever say or do.

Johnlock can not be taken away. It doesn't belong to them. It never did, even if they brought us to it. It belongs to us. To the group of amazingly creative, brainy, empathetic, resourceful, vibrant, resilient people who make up this fandom.

So thank YOU, all of YOU, for giving me Sherlock, Johnlock, and TJLC.

I am SO SAD for those who never found a way to make peace with this fandom again. Let me just say that I understand that inability entirely.

I am fortunate that I found the ability in myself to cling to the joy (something it has taken my whole life to be able to do). I hope others will who haven’t yet but wish they could.

Let Mofftiss and whoever sides with them stay angry and bitter and vicious, always looking over their shoulders for anyone who dares to whisper about subtext.

I’m proud to be part of what they’re whispering so angrily about.

Thanks for sticking it out if you made it this far. I know this was very self-indulgent and rambly.

Articles of interest:

A Study in Queerbaiting (Or How Sherlock Got it All Wrong) by Marty Greyson

“We never played it like that.” - Martin on Johnlock

Henry Cavill on the Enola Holmes lawsuit

More on that--and by the way Sherlock isn’t allowed to like dogs

The way Sherlock creators told fans Sherlock & John aren’t gay is so rude

Especially for those new to the fandom who may not know the distinction between TJLC and Johnlockers and want to know more about TJLC's evolution/what it is/meta through the years

Moffat's view on asexuality, offensive to me in particular *as* an asexual person (same article where he claims he isn't misogynistic): "If he was asexual, there would be no tension in that, no fun in that – it's someone who abstains who's interesting."

Yet he says Sherlock isn't gay or straight and that he's trying to keep his brain pure which is a "very Victorian attitude"

(Nice historical research there, Moff--actually the Victorians were sex-positive).

Sherlock fans were robbed of the gay ending they deserved

Benedict Cumberbatch has lashed out at his Sherlock co-star Martin Freeman over his negative attitude towards fans

BBC complaints January 2017

Martin Freeman: 'Sherlock is gayest story ever'

From 2016: UNPOPULAR OPINION: "Sherlock" Isn't Sexist or Queerbaiting; It's Actually Trying to Stage a Revolution

Queer-baiting on the BBC's Sherlock: Addressing the Invalidation of Queer Identities through Online Fan Fiction Communities by Cassidy Sheehan

36 notes · View notes

wisteria-lodge · 4 years

Text

Character Analysis - Sorting Sherlock Holmes (Sir Arthur Conan Doyle)

a quick note on why I’m moving away from the HP terminology

So @sortinghatchats is brilliant. Absolutely my favorite character (and person!) analysis system. Instead of one house, you get two - a PRIMARY (your motivation, why you do things), and a SECONDARY (your toolbox, how you get things done.) A very stripped down refresher --

IDEALIST PRIMARY Lion/Gryffindor - I do what I feel is right. (MORAL) Bird/Ravenclaw - I do what I decide is correct. (LOGICAL) LOYALIST PRIMARY Badger/Hufflepuff - I do what helps my community (PEOPLE MATTER) Snake/Slytherin - I do what helps me/my inner circle (MY PEOPLE MATTER)

IMPROVISATIONAL SECONDARY Lion/Gryffindor- Charge! React! Smash the system! Snake/Slytherin- Transform, adapt, find the loophole. BUILT SECONDARY Bird/Ravenclaw - Plan, make tools, gather information. Badger/Hufflepuff - Community-build, caretake, call in favors.

Now let’s talk Sherlock Holmes!!!

***

Mycroft Holmes has a terrifying Bird secondary. He knows everything. He sees everything. He holds all the information in his head, all the time, and can tell you exactly how it connects. “Spymaster Mycroft” didn’t become proper fanon until 1970: in the books he’s more like a human computer, or a Mentat from Dune. This man is incapable of improvising. He hates casual conversation, hates changing his routine, just wants to sit and process and plan. He is the cartoon version of a Bird secondary.

Mycroft is so insanely ‘big picture’ that he barely notices specific individuals. He’s off in in the corner thinking about currency regulation and the situation in Siam. In “The Greek Interpreter” he hears about a woman who might be starving to death… and sort of vaguely puts it on his to-do list. Sherlock ends up handling it.

You could make a case for either a Bird or Lion primary. But I’m going with Lion. Mycroft values instinct like Lions do (”All my instincts are against this explanation.”) And Sherlock describes him as someone who “would rather be considered wrong than take the trouble to prove himself right.” This is teasing, but it’s a joke about a Lion who just sort of feels the answer, not a Bird who needs a reason to be correct. Mycroft’s Cause, the one we see him respond to emotionally, is the smooth functioning of his world. He has a little pocket carved out for his brother, but if he had to choose between the country that he embodies and Sherlock Holmes’ well-being, it’d be England every time.

Knowing that Mycroft has that much power but doesn’t care about individual people makes Sherlock... uncomfortable. It takes him a while to even mention his brother to Watson. And then he lies about how important Mycroft’s job is. Thematically, this where Moriarty comes in. James Moriarty – the older genius hiding deep in the establishment, running a criminal empire from behind a tenured professorship, never getting his hands dirty – is Dark Mycroft. Because Sherlock is pretty sure his brother is one of the good guys. He’s pretty sure Mycroft isn’t going to break bad and go full-on ‘ends justify the means’ supervillain.

But… like… he could.

Sherlock Holmes is also defined by his Bird secondary. His deductions, data, knowledge of crime – it’s his loudest trait. But it’s a model. He tells us it’s a model. This “habit of observation and inference which I formed into a system” is something he built – and honestly, he probably built it for Mycroft. The Holmes brothers don’t do conversations, they have deduction games. Sherlock never wins, but at least he plays on Mycroft’s level.

(Everything about Sherlock Holmes makes more sense when you think about Mycroft. Like the “brain-attic” metaphor. How did Sherlock get this idea that there’s some fast-approaching limit to the actual pieces of information he can fit in his head at once? Because he knows someone with far, far greater processing power).

Underneath this logical Bird secondary model, Sherlock Holmes has something that looks a lot more Snake He’s moody and mercurial. He improvises on the violin to help himself think. He loves acting. He loves disguises. He crushes on Irene Adler because their Snake secondaries have so much fun playing together. And when it’s important, Holmes goes full-on Snake. Need to get Watson away from Moriarty? Better forge a letter sending him on a fake errand.

And as far as primaries go... he’s a Badger. Sherlock Holmes cares about people. Oh wow does he care about people. If he doesn’t protect his client, it’s not a win – even if he solved the case with some brilliant bit of detection. He despises blackmailers, because they destroy lives in a cold, impersonal way. (At least murderers care.) He doesn’t mean to upset people with his deductions, and apologizes when he gets too coldly Bird: “Pray accept my apologies. Viewing the matter as an abstract problem, I had a forgotten how personal and painful a thing it might be to you.” When Watson talks about the “depth of loyalty and love which lay behind that cold mask,” Holmes is thirty seconds away from going vigilante killer because somebody hurt John Watson.

But the feeling isn’t just Watson-centric. Holmes doesn’t require Watson at his side the way a Snake would, because as long as he knows Watson is safe and happy, he is content. Holmes need-bases. It’s important that he works for people who need him. He generally dislikes working for the rich or upper-class (Soviet Russian Sherlock Holmes was totally a thing, they didn’t have to change much). He also has a *real* problem with overworking himself, which is very much a Badger primary and not Snake primary thing to do

He even community-builds. His Baker Street Irregulars, his connections over at Scotland yard, his tribe of interesting contacts and informants. Holmes values community. To him, community = safe. He loves London, but isolated rural areas makes him nervous:

“[in London] there is no lane so vile that the scream of a tortured child, or the thud of a drunkard’s blow, does not beget sympathy and indignation among the neighbors, and then the whole machinery of justice is ever so close that a word of complaint can set it going... But look at these lonely houses, each in its own fields… think of the deeds of hellish cruelty, the hidden wickedness which may go on, year in, year out, in such places, and none the wiser.”

And don’t get me wrong. Holmes loves his double Bird armor. It makes him feel powerful, and hides the fact that he cares so damn much. He likes to pretend he doesn’t: to care is to be weak, ineffective, and untrustworthy. (Mycroft is probably to blame for this bit of thinking too.) But Sherlock Holmes is still able to take off his Bird. He takes it off around Watson.

Dr. John Watson is a bright charging Lion secondary who is completely incapable of telling a lie. He’s ex-military. He’s Holmes’ muscle/backup. He’s got a gambling problem. And the thing about Holmes and Watson’s dynamic is that while Holmes calls the shots about 90% percent of the time, when it’s important – Watson goes full unstoppable-force Lion. And Holmes just buckles.

“Well, I don’t like it ; but I suppose it must be,” said I. “When do we start?” “You are not coming.” “Then you are not going,” said I. “I give you my word of honor – and I never broke it in my life – that I will take a cab straight to the police station and give you away unless you let me share this adventure with you” “You can’t help me.” “How do you know that? You can’t tell what may happen. Anyway, my resolution is taken.” Holmes had looked annoyed, but his brow cleared, and he clapped me on the shoulder. “Well, well, my dear fellow, be it so.”

Watson’s absolutely a Lion Primary too. First going into medicine, then joining the army even when that’s not the best career move? At the beginning of A Study in Scarlet, Watson is in terrible shape. Can’t sleep. Can’t stand loud noises. He’s “spending such money as I had considerably more freely than I ought.” But it’s not so much the PTSD as it is the the lack of purpose that’s getting to him. He talks a lot about his “meaningless existence” and how how “objectiveless was my life.” That’s a hurting, burned Lion, without a Cause.

And then Sherlock Holmes stumbles in. Overnight Watson’s life has meaning. He is going to help Holmes bring criminals to justice. He is going to make sure Holmes gets the recognition he deserves. And he’s going to get him clean. (ACD gets massive kudos for being against recreational cocaine and morphine use). The things Watson loves about Holmes, things like his “high sense of professional honor” – those are things that get under the skin of a Lion Primary. This is a guy with pictures of abolitionist preachers framed on his wall. John Watson’s not subtle.

“You don’t mind breaking the law?” [said Holmes] “Not in the least.” “Nor running a chance of arrest?” “Not in a good cause.” “Oh, the cause is excellent!” “Then I am your man.”

And of course, Holmes got lucky in Watson too. Holmes is a Loyalist primary who distrusts other Loyalist primaries – you can’t really blame him, he comes across so many repulsive ones in his day job. (Interestingly, the handful of times Holmes absolutely misreads a motive – “Yellow Face,” “Missing Three-Quarter,” “Scandal in Bohemia” – it’s because he’s going up against a Loyalist primary who is using their powers for good.)

But Watson is a trustworthy, dependable, predicable, honorable, Idealist who can look like a Loyalist because his Cause is so focused on one person. So Holmes can be secure in his doctor’s devotion while also getting to lean on the instincts of someone just unflinchingly moral.

tl;dr

Mycroft Holmes – Lion Bird. An extremely big picture Lion whose Cause involves keeping England together. He’s the light-side counterpart of Professor Moriarty.

Sherlock Holmes – Badger Snake. Builds a loud Double Bird model, partly for pleasure, partly have a relationship with his brother, and partly because dealing with so many low-life Loyalist primaries makes him distrust those instincts in himself.

Dr. John Watson - Double Lion. When we meet him he’s pretty burned, due to his twin Causes of Queen and Country not really working out. Luckily, he meets Sherlock Holmes, and finds a new Cause in him.

176 notes · View notes