#and we get to see a more complex holmes in this one too! :')

[sherlock-is-ace]

You were warned last night... Here are my thoughts and feelings about The Norwood Builder ajcnsj

First of all, an amazing episode for Watson imo. Up until now, we have seen him sort of grow into the detective he is. He's tried to make deductions, has tried to apply Holmes' methods, he has repeated Holmes' findings to clients like it's something he did in an attempt to participate in cases. And he has done this beautifully btw, with the consent and support from Holmes.

But The Norwood Builder is a different story. In this episode you can see how much Watson has grown, how much he has learned from Holmes. Watson is on top of things from the second their client comes in and Holmes does his typical deductions about his job, general living habits and possible health issues. Watson promptly replies to the confused look on McFarlane's face with "Your untidy clothes, sheaf of legal papers, watch chain and your somewhat irregular breathing". This means that Watson made the same observations and possibly got to the same conclusion himself, or at least can now easily and quickly see what Holmes sees. No longer "and how in the world did you guess that?". That in itself is amazing!

This is also the first time Holmes and Watson get separated on a case, each one with their own lead and actually goes somewhere. (Sure, Watson did some solo investigating in The Solitary Cyclist but he did a very bad job, bless him). In fact, in this episode Watson finds a pretty crucial clue that Holmes couldn't find. Mr. Logic was too upset about the case being too hard that he needed Watson to put in the work with a clear head and sit through paperwork until he found something. And he did!

And that leads me to another point that I adore about this episode. Holmes' whole mood. He's happy when he gets the case, he's interested and having fun. But later, it proves to be too complicated and difficult to solve. It frustrates him and before he goes into full depression mode, you can tell how desperate he's becoming to solve thins thing because he starts saying things like "I feel it in my bones" and "All my instincts are one way and all the facts are the other". Very unusual language for the man who can't make bricks without clay...

Which leaves me with another fantastic moment, and back to Watson, he is so kind in this episode. Twice he offers a frustrated Holmes a warm and calming hand.

Firstly by offering to go through Oldacre's bank papers while Holmes clears his head looking for clues outside. Which is a great decision since they both come across very important pieces of information.

But also at Baker Street, when Holmes is too focused, too frustrated, too depressed to eat, his loyal colleague and intimate friend the doctor is there to help. He's kind and patient, he picks up the discarded violin from the floor with such care. He crouches down next to Holmes to kindly ask him to eat. He pours him his tea and presents a plan: "Let's have some breakfast and then go out together and see what we can do." He's not sure how to solve the case either, but he's encouraging and supportive.

"I feel as I shall need your company and moral support today". That's all Watson can offer and that's all Holmes needs :')

This is particularly important to me because Sherlock Holmes can be quite extreme sometimes. He spends a little bit of time without any new cases and suddenly there's no more criminals in London. He finds a case a bit challenging and what if he's lost his talent? What if he'll never be able to solve another case again? (way too relatable Mr. Holmes, I feel attacked). So having a loving friend to reassure him that he can do this, is something that can actually be so personal <3

[savagewildnerness]

Immortal, bloodthirsty creatures that feed on humans - they have sharp fangs and a hatred for sunlight and garlic.

Vampires might not be the hero you typically root for, but they have transfixed us for centuries.

The first short story about the monster written in the English language was John Polidori's The Vampyre in 1819.

More followed, with Bram Stoker's Dracula in 1897 inspiring F.W. Murnau's silent film Nosferatu in 1922. This is now being remade by Robert Eggers and is set to be released in the UK in 2025, starring Bill Skarsgård, Lily-Rose Depp and Nicholas Hoult.

But what's driving our hunger for vampire stories?

For writer and actor Mark Gatiss, his fascination with vampires started early. The co-writer of BBC drama series Sherlock and Dracula has been a "horror obsessive" for as long as he can remember.

Gatiss went on from a childhood love of scary stories to star as Dracula in an audio production, made a documentary on the monster as well as a 2020 BBC series, which sees the Count (played by Claes Bang) venture to London.

He says the opportunity to bring Stoker's iconic vampire to life felt "too good to be true".

"Like Sherlock Holmes, it's an imperishable myth and, really, if anyone gives you the chance to have a go at it - you have to do it," he explains.

Gatiss explains an image of Benedict Cumberbatch as Sherlock Holmes "silhouetted against a doorway when he comes back from the dead with his collar up" helped spark the 2020 Dracula series with Claes Bang

Rolin Jones is an executive producer and a writer on the TV adaptation of Interview with the Vampire, based on Anne Rice's collection of novels.

The series, available on BBC iPlayer, follows vampire Louis de Pointe du Lac (played by Jacob Anderson) who shares the story of his life and relationship with Lestat de Lioncourt (played by Sam Reid) with a journalist.

He explains stories about the vampires "come back over and over again" because they "get in your bones and haunt you," with many raising questions of immortality, death and love.

The modern popularity of the figures can be seen on social media with #vampire having 2.7 million posts on TikTok.

Jones adds that each day he will see more people tattooing the characters' faces on their body, explaining "this is a rabid fan base".

"They're really tense and complex characters", Jones says

'Scared me to death'

While the characteristics of fictional vampires have changed throughout history - some burn to a crisp in the sunlight, others have famously sparkly skin - they have one thing in common: immortality.

Dr Sam George - an associate professor at the University of Hertfordshire who taught students about vampires in fiction - explains that part of the reason the monster endures is because they "get us to think about the big questions that concern us, ideas about ageing" as well as "what happens beyond the grave".

She adds that "the vampire's always been linked very strongly with disease, with contagion," adding that if we look back in history we can see that our interest in the immortal monster seems to pique around times of mass disease.

"When the first fictional vampire appeared in 1819, there was a strong link with tuberculosis," she says.

"Nosferatu is made to actually look like plague rats," Dr George explains

She adds that F.W. Murnau's silent film Nosferatu in 1922, centring on a character famous for the plagued rats he brought in his wake, came shortly after the Spanish influenza pandemic.

The academic adds that this is "really important to why vampires are so popular and on trend now, when you think of Nosferatu and its link to the plague, post Covid we're very interested in the vampire as contagion."

Executive producer Jones adds that a key point of interest for him lies in working out why vampires want to keep living. "You take mortality out of any drama, and it's quite interesting," he says.

Jones adds that Ms Rice herself wrote the novel after losing her daughter and that this sense of "grief and mourning" is "exceptionally articulated" in the book.

'They seduce you'

"There's this allure to them," Jones says of vampires - like Assad Zaman, who plays the vampire Armand and Jacob Anderson, who plays Louis de Pointe du Lac

While vampires may let us play out our fears about mortality and death, Jones adds that there is something else that draws us to the fanged figures.

"They're the sexiest, the most sensual of monsters," he says. "They seduce you."

Jones adds that when he first picked up the novel Interview with the Vampire, "it seemed to me what I was reading was this really repressed and really messy love story."

Dr George agrees, explaining "vampires have gotten younger and better looking over the years" and notes the difference between Nosferatu and Twilight's Edward Cullen (played by Robert Pattinson).

The academic adds there has been "a shift" in the way people read vampire fiction, explaining there has been a lot of interest in the topic of sexuality and vampires, like the "queer family" presented in Ms Rice's novel. 

The combination of love and immortality, Dr George says, is also seen in Francis Ford Coppola's 1992 film Bram Stoker's Dracula, which ran with the tagline "love never dies".

For Dr George, the "sense that the vampire can address a number of questions all at once," from death to love is the reason it stays with us today.

This article made me curious (I haven't put combination of some/all as an option as 100% would vote for it, as of course it isn't just one thing... so I ask the *most* significant thing for you)...

Edit to add that this is very difficult even for me to answer and I created the poll. Now, I'd say existential questions would be my top answer, but when I first read the books, it was the exploration of the outsider/difference I think for me, so perhaps that's the truest answer?

[one-awesome-beetle]

sherlock season one analysis ramble (feat. johnlock. a lot of johnlock.)

ok so i had a sleepover with my best friend and she may or may not have introduced me to bbc sherlock and i may or may not have gone on an hour-long tangent (after watching ONE EPISODE) about johnlock that i cannot FOR THE LIFE OF ME REMEMBER but im just gonna keep typing and see what bullshit i end up with. also i have only watched season one, and we are going to rewatch it before moving on to season two because!! I JUST WATCHED LIKE FIVE HOURS OF TWO MEN FLIRTING. THEY ARE SO IN LOVE ABHUDFGNZMRNCGAJBghnsccbHVHAUVHAAAAAAAAAAAUGHH

shit ok so, ahugsabhfbdn okokokokok so i'm going to yap in two sections (mainly, they will cross over and blur at one point and i will not apologise for that), one regarding mainly sherlock and one mainly regarding john, because both their characters are so incredibly complex and interesting (aaaaahhh)

firstly, sherlock

he is... so incredibly interesting. he investigates crime because it excites him, not because he's concerned for the wellbeing of others- no, he wants to get into the criminal's head, to understand. he states that he is married to his work, but what i see there isn't love; what kickstarted it was likely this need to know what was off about a case, like an itch he desperately needed to scratch, which then developed into a habit, a passion, and then a(n unhealthy) obsession - at least, that's how i see it. venturing into more johnlock territory, to me, john is definitely his first love. i see him with past relationships, but i think he would've had them because that is what is standard and expected, but it was never truly love, you know? this is why we get the flirting-but-not-flirting when he's talking to john, because he's used to flirting, he knows how to, he just has to get accustomed to the new feelings that now come with flirting. i also believe he's definitely not a virgin, he gives far too much power bottom energy (the way i see it, john def tops and sherlock is being a flirty brat until he actually gets flustered and gets hit with the "oh shoot, he's hot")

this kind of brings me to john, though i'll probably get back to sherlock when i actually remember what else i have to say

john was immediately my favourite character, he's... i lack the words to describe him properly in the moment but HES INCREDIBLE AND I LOVE HIM. having been a soldier and a doctor, he is more stoic and reserved than sherlock, definitely braver, while sherlock is just stupid but never has to face the consequences due to his brilliance; how my friend put it was "if he was an average person, he'd die first in a horror movie, but since he's sherlock holmes there's no way he wouldn't survive". this gives us a lovely contrast of character which is wonderful as it paves the way to so many corny ship dynamics and tropes that i will be taking advantage of. firstly, i want to draw attention to the fact that while john makes himself as small as possible, sherlock wants to occupy and cover as much room as he possibly can - this also leads to john being more sturdy and reliable while sherlock spreads himself just a little too thin.

i do think it's interesting that in hindsight, throughout this section i have mainly analysed john's character by comparing him to and showing the contrast between him and sherlock, which, ironically, also tells us a lot about him as an individual. he is always second to sherlock, to others, because without someone else to bring attention to him he'd be able to live practically unnoticed by anyone - this can be attributed to his trust issues and lack of people he can, or wants to, rely on. this is especially funny when you consider his hesitance to trust people in the context of sherlock. because while he may not trust him, completely, he's definitely already developed this form of unwavering loyalty. one of my favourite scenes where this is shown is in episode one (i think ?) where when sgt. donovan warns john about sherlock, he is so quick to doubt her, his "why?" is so fast and delivered with such intent and confidence it shook me, and left me with such a lasting impression it is still such a core line i associate with him.

next i want to touch on just how much gay (johnlock) subtext there actually is, especially in the first and third episodes, because trust me when i say there is a lot. i obviously won't be able to explain and analyse all of the gay scenes as there are far too many but i will try, and will spend the most time on my favourites. firstly, within 24 hours (i think) of meeting him, john watson has killed a man for sherlock. what the fuck.

[insert 15-ish minute break where i paced around the kitchen muttering to myself like a lunatic]

this man is, somehow, in a way that even he can't comprehend or understand, completely devoted to helping sherlock. "why??" you ask? because he is also a fucking madman. he isn't traumatised by, but rather misses the war, and to get back to that sense of adrenaline and excitement he is willing to go around with a (technically) unqualified, unemployed detective who is thrilled by serial murders and bombings. though he might look at sherlock differently, or even so much as get scared by his attitude towards his their line of work, he gets off on it as much as sherlock, and the only reason he hasn't left, like a normal, sensible individual who values their life would've is because he too indulges in the thrill of the chase, and is very content to be able to marvel at sherlock's skill and hang onto his every word*, though he refuses to admit this to himself, as he seems to value independence pretty highly. this is interesting in contrast to sherlock because while he too values independence, he seems to not mind relying on others - that is, until you consider his refusal to trust in or rely on the police, professional organisations, other detectives, etc. this is when you notice that the people he doesn't seem to mind relying on are himself, and john.

*again with the complete and utter devotion. also half of season one is just john listening to and being in awe of sherlock's rambling.

i just got very sidetracked, though i'm still technically on topic (and still typing) so i count that as a win. in episode one, when john and sherlock go to the restaurant (i vaguely remember it being for something relating to the case but that's besides the point), their conversation basically goes like this:

john: so... do you have a girlfriend?

sherlock: no, not really my area (im gay haha) (...but why is he asking me this? [gears turning]

wait.)

john: (oK, OK OK)... do you have a boyfriend? that's cool btw im uh... ally! woo (im gay. i'm GAY)

sherlock: (oh sHIT he's hitting on me) *fast* i know its cool (I KNOW YOU'RE GAY)

john: (ah, ok *resignation*) so you have a boyfriend-?

sherlock: *way too quickly* no

john: (OH, :0) so you're single - i'm single btw too (what the actual FUCK am i doingggg)

Then we have 1) sherlock just rocking up to john's date

and 2) THE MORIARTY POOL SCENE

i can't even EXPRESS how incredibly i was giggling and squealing and kicking my feet im sorry??? as soon as he thinks jim is gone and he can drop the calm and composed act he- i-

[thoughts then proceeded to refuse to let themselves be expressed in writing so here have a video clip]

moriarty: i am going to burn, the HEART, out of you

sherlock, completely apathetic/used to people telling him he's too heartless/cold/etc.: i have been reliably informed that i don't have one

moriarty, after seeing him completely flip out (internally) when he saw john in the bomb vest with a sniper pointed at him: but we both know that's not quite true

(^^ i don't know that quote just stuck out to me. a lot.)

another thing, that, now having rewatched i am able to string into coherent thought, is sherlock as soon as moriarty is gone is concerned with nothing other that is john okay? is he alright? will he be alright? he doesn't seem to be able to recognise that his life was on the line as well, because he doesn't think his own safety is nearly as important as john's. (godAMMIT THIS MAN)

alright, thank you for coming to my ted talk, i have more thoughts that didn't make it to this rant that i will likely post over the duration of the next few weeks, but that is the majority. thoughts? :)

BONUS FOR READING TO THE END

screenshots of texts i sent while writing this:

[room-surprise]

POLL: Do Living Paintings need to eat?

There is I think, no right or wrong answer to this one, so just go with your gut and have fun. Thoughts: They don't appear to be "alive", the World Guide implies they are normal paintings with a spell cast on them, and that the people trapped inside die of starvation or suicide... But after they die, what happens to the bodies/souls/magical energy of the victims? Is it just discarded, the way a spike trap would result in a corpse, soul and magical energy that decay or are scavenged? Or do the paintings somehow "use" or "consume" the remains of their victims?

(For that matter, do the paintings only trap humans, or do they trap animals/other monsters as well?)

Living Paintings are listed in the Monster Guide, and "monsters" are generally classified as some kind of animal, plant, or spirit (which all need to eat/consume things to live), or they are some kind of dead creature that used to be alive, but the terminology is loose and implied to be incorrectly/inconsistently applied in-universe, and several other things that aren't alive but also aren't dead (golems, gargoyles) are listed as monsters as well.

It's unclear if the golems, gargoyles, or living paintings require some kind of "fuel" to keep functioning. Is this not an issue because they're inside of a dungeon where there's infinite magic circulating, and they can just keep going on the ambient magic? When these things are used on the surface (we know at least golems used to be!), do people have to regularly "feed" them magical energy, the way Holm has to feed his spirit familiars?

(It's unclear, but possibly implied that the elven communication fairies, which are also magical constructs like a golem, may require periodic "feeding" with blood, the same way as a spirit familiar? But it's also possible they only require a one-time "feeding," during creation. Is that because they don't need fuel ever, because they operate on ambient magical energy even on the surface where it's thin, because they automatically "live" off the operator's energy, or even just periodically have to be replaced when they run out of fuel, like a cellphone with a battery that can't be replaced/recharged anymore?)

The spell on the Living Paintings appears to be incredibly complex, supporting a vivid illusion of the real world, full of imitation people that can react realistically to new things happening... To me, this suggests they must need a lot of power to keep operating. Obviously in the dungeon this is no issue, but the general implication in Dungeon Meshi is that most of the things we see can and do exist on the surface, but less frequently and on a smaller scale...

So, since Living Paintings "trap" things the way a plant does, do they get anything out of it, is it part of how they "survive" or "keep operating"? Or are they more like a spike trap that operates on magic instead of physics?

[margridarnauds]

I think the fandom is generally uncomfortable with Dracula being this iconic character like Sherlock Holmes with so many takes on him, while most other characters and themes from the book are basically forgotten. It paralles too closely in their minds how abuse victims are often silenced while their abusers keep enjoying the society's respect. So, even if Dracmina wasn't a thing, perhaps then they would focus their hostility on comedic or children Dracula media (hell, I've already seen someone complain about Hotel Transylvania existing), or some other feature of Dracula mythos.

Sorry, I just remembered I had this sitting in my ask box, but I definitely agree! And for what it's worth...I do have a lot of complicated feelings about like. Rape culture and society telling victims that they actually REALLY wanted it/that they should be grateful that it was someone hot/etc. etc. etc. One thing that I think really...became clear early on in the whole DD thing was how many people, upon reading the novel for the first time, REALIZED that there were some pretty chilling descriptions of abuse and manipulation, that there was this entire side to the novel that is generally forgotten amidst the countless parodies of (specifically, Bela Lugosi's) Dracula. And I think that, even though a lot of the early DD posts were about Jonathan and Dracula being gay, a lot of abuse survivors, particularly queer abuse survivors, REALLY felt for Jonathan and saw themselves in him and saw Jonathan/Mina as the desire for normalcy that society often tells abuse survivors we can't have, because we're too fucked up. Even as I can be critical of ASPECTS of the fandom and how they approach things, I can see the really human reasons behind it.

It's always difficult with media that deals with abuse or that is generally relatable to abuse survivors because there's really no universal way that people cope with it (on the record for my particular circumstances, I'm more disturbed by the girlbossification of Rebecca de Winter that I see in a lot of academic takes on Rebecca than I am by Count Chocula, because Rebecca de Winter hits a lot closer to home for me, even though I can accept, on an objective level, that there are also reasons for people to identify with her as a character. I have to be really careful with how I interact with content for Rebecca as a result because if I'm not careful, I end up in this spiral of agitation and anger and I don't really want that to be my overall experience.) I see posts that are like "how is how you write REAL abuse survivors" and it's undoubtedly true for that individual person's experience but also does not hit home for another percentage of abuse survivors, who feel like they're being told that their experiences are being minimized and invaldiated. And it's difficult as well because it's obviously something that's really, deeply personal, and it leads into people....getting very attached to headcanons or interpretations that align the closest with their experiences. (And, again, on the record, I'm not putting myself on some perch, looking down on people who do this -- I do it, too, I think it's natural to do it, I just try to be honest with myself when I do it so that I am more at peace.)

All this to say: I agree with you and I get why people might be dismayed by the general pop culture prevalence of Dracula, especially if they see someone who deeply hurt them in the past IN Dracula, and particularly when their major experience with Dracula before might have, for example, been Bram Stoker's Dracula, which is very romanticized, which might cause them to go to Dracmina as the Root of All Evils (and, again, I think that there are more complex reasons why a lot of Dracula adaptations aren't...particularly good, either as horror or romance when they CHOOSE to do the latter, which is rarer than people think, and it doesn't hurt that, in general fandom culture, it's always easier to blame M/F ships/shippers as opposed to heteronormativity, homophobia, rape culture, etc.) Basically, I think the horse is well and out of the stall, there's no closing the barn door at this point when it's in the next county, but I can also see why people can feel disturbed or disheartened when Dracula adaptations don't deal with it. (Again, on the record, I hated it when the Dark Shadows 2012 remake totally removed Willie Loomis' complexity for humor and that Barnabas does abuse him in the early run of the show.) As we've established: I love vampirefucking, BUT I can also feel deeply uncomfortable with certain rape culture-y aspects of some adaptations (and, honestly, worse rape-culture-y aspects of some academic takes on the novel.)

Though this conversation also reminds me that this book chapter exists:

(From "Make America Hate Again: Trump-Era Horror and the Politics of Fear". I didn't have time to really read it or give it the attention it deserved because I was looking at this book for...a paper that for once had absolutely nothing to do with vampires, but it actually looked well done.)

[hplovecraftmuseum]

I must admit that I am not the first to interpret the Lovecraft tale, THE MOUND, ghost written for client Zealia Bishop as a comment by HPL on the underground culture of Hollywood. Even in Lovecraft's time the American movie industry had become a symbol for many 'common people' for a land of decadence, illusion, and unbridled sexual escapades. "Tinsel Town" is a term that says a lot about how many see Hollywood in general. Of course Lovecraft lived in the days of 'pre-code' media. Nudity, orgies and wild sex parties, homosexuality, gangster-worship, and even some profanity existed - or was at least suggested - in cinema beginning in the silent era. Actress Theda Bara whose stage name was an anagram for 'Arab Death' was one of the most famous - or notorious actors of the early pre-code days. As I have noted elsewhere in our exhibits she bore more than a trifling physical likeness to Lovecraft's one time wife, Sonia Greene Lovecraft. Getting back to THE MOUND, the decadent 'proto-humans' of the story who were brought to planet earth by Great Cthulhu (whom they call Tulu) perhaps a million years before native humans evolved on the earth naturally. As Lovecraft tells the story these humanoids resemble Native Americans (Indians) vaguely but wear perhaps more advanced styles of clothing and accessories. Lovecraft says that despite the copper-coloured skin tones this race of humanoids are distinctly "long-headed" rather than "round-headed". I suppose what Lovecraft is trying to promote here is that these 'space Indians' have skulls that would look egg-shaped if viewed from above. HPL is probably trying to link the citizens of K'nyan with Anglos or Aryans. The idea that the aforementioned 'White Folks' are long-headed is interesting. One might confuse being 'long-faced' with ' long - headed' but they are not the same. Now back to Hollywood, actors are famous for wearing makeup. 'Indians' have for years been associated with War Paint - They have been associated too with plastic surgery. In THE MOUND all manner of complex plastic surgery is also common. Hollywood virtually worships youth and beauty. Movies record actors at their prime and anyone who fails to maintain the ideals of 'Tinsel Town' is risking -'cannibalism'. "Hollywood eats its own" is a common phrase. The subterranean citizens of THE MOUND are cannibals by the way and capable of living for thousands of years! Lovecraft tells that the super Indians of his tale have fallen into a state of malaise and decadence from earlier days in their history. Hollywood movie actors have always been subject to the judgement that they are "lesser than" individuals from "stage actors". Of course the decadent underground culture of Hollywood has been fodder for the "movie rags" for decades. Just as the citizens of K'n-yan sometimes choose to intentionally end their existences because they find living forever boring, so more than a few Hollywood types have ended their lives by suicide. Another aspect of THE MOUND that we might link to Hollywood and Movie Culture is the fact that the civilization beneath the surface is "Blue-litten" in other words it is bathed in blue light. Similarly movie theaters of old were often filled with the blue clouds of smoke rising from the pipes, cigars, and cigarettes, of the viewing audience (smoking in movie theaters was allowed in Lovecraft's day and even at least until the 1960s generally) Below center left is a silhouette cutout that was meant to be a side view of H. P. Lovecraft. Rt center is a photo of infamous actress Theda Bara. Bottom right is a painting by artist John Holmes from the 1970s. In addition to the above aspects of Hollywood/K'n-yan connections, gold, representing the monetary riches that are so plentiful within Hollywood culture is similar in the culture of THE MOUND where we are told that gold is incredibly common, so much so that it is almost considered a routine substance for the decadent super-human inhabitants. (Exhibit 592)

[jolieblack]

Jolie's thoughts on

The Illustrious Client (Sherlock & Co. Podcast)

(Here’s me gushing about the whole show in general, in case you don’t know it yet.)

OK so I've been an avid listener of true crime podcasts for years, and I just love how this one makes fun of all their usual trappings like the tacky advertising, and how it raises that forever unanswered question how far exactly you can go in using other people's worst nightmares for entertainment.

I wouldn't have expected this case to be the one to kick off Sherlock and John's collaboration, but boy those themes are still relevant today, and as haunting as they ever were.

Also, what a genius way of getting them the capital to start their company. Mariana going from "I‘m calling the police on you creeps" to practically being part of the family in less than 24 hours is so lovable, too. She is a true Mrs Hudson for the 21st century.

And did we just see Sherlock swallow all his pride and professional principles just so John can earn enough money to stay and solve crimes with him? In their very first case together? It doesn’t get any sweeter, or more telling.

More stuff I loved in this episode:

"He solves complex cases because he‘s a complex person." - If this isn’t Sherlock Holmes in a nutshell, I don’t know what is. Well done, Mr Emory.

"Unless you plan to challenge him to a duel - "

"Who played who in the what?" - Thank you, I relate so hard.

"The vice grip closes on the baron." - "Well, the vice grip can’t use his thumb for two weeks." (Can I just mention that Sherlock letting himself get beaten up without batting an eyelid in order to gather useful evidence about the bad guy is like all my favourite whump / H/C fanfic scenarios come to life? Thank you Mr Emery, you make me a very happy fangirl indeed.)

"Your socks are pathetic."

Sherlock telling John he's being childish for NOT wanting to play the hot/cold game.

And a special shoutout to Harry Attwell (or the editing team, who knows), for delaying for that one special extra second after John says "So he's going to kill again?" - " - - - Boiling." That's the difference between predictable theatrics and actually brilliant audio drama.

Can't wait to share my thoughts on the next episode!

[dross-the-fish]

A drabble about Theo learning about Hatshepsut (who acted as a male pharaoh despite being AFAB, mostly for political power)

Sorry this took so long. I had to do some research on Hatshepsut because I didn't actually know much about her. I also wasn't sure under what context Theo would find out about her or which character would give her that info but I did my best with it!

...

Watson was surprised to find Theo hiding away in the library, nose buried in a book of law. She hadn’t struck him as the type to enjoy reading, much less about a topic as complex and intricate as the criminal justice system and Watson found himself wanting to question her on her choice of reading material.

“Miss Kipp, what brings you here? Everyone else is in the dining room. I know you don’t eat but it’s not like you avoid company. What are you reading there?”

Theo gave him a resigned shrug and shut her book, moving it so that the cover was obscured and shifting aside to make room for Watson to sit with her on the velvet sofa, “Harkers are here to see Quin,” she sighed, avoiding the question about her choice of reading material, “They ain’t rude exactly but I know when I ain’t wanted. I figure it’s better for everyone if I stay out of the way until they leave. They brought Lord Godalming with ‘em too. I don’t know if he’s all affronted with me because I’m a monster or because I’m in trousers,” she chuckled dryly then caught herself. Giving Watson an anxious glance she quickly added, “I swear I’d ‘ave put on a dress if I knew we were ‘avin’ company. I ain’t doin’ nothin’ disruptive on purpose.”

Watson reached over to touch her shoulder reassuringly, “I know you aren’t, Theo, I’m not here to scold you.”

“’Preciate that,” she replied, “I could wear dresses if that would make everyone more comfortable, I don’t mind. I can’t do much about me fangs but I c’n try to look more…well, more regular if y’think that’d help.”

“I don’t think that’s necessary. If this isn’t an impertinent question, would you mind telling me why you chose to be a male impersonator? And why you wear the costume outside of your performances?” Watson asked.

Theo chewed her lip anxiously, she seemed momentarily to shrink into herself before she screwed up her courage to answer, “It feels…right. I dunno how else to explain it. Even if it’s a role, passing for a man makes me feel secure, gives me more freedom and especially if I’m walkin’ the streets at night, it feels safer, so long as no one can tell the difference. To tell the truth I got a taste of livin’ like a man after I started performing and I liked the doors it opened. I settled fer bein’ an actress but when I started out, I thought if I could just get me foot in the right door, I thought maybe I could figure a way to be a lawyer,” she waited for Watson to laugh at her but he didn’t. He sat with his hands folded and patiently waited for her to finish. Emboldened she pulled her book back into view and continued, “I seen too much injustice in my life and when people like me, people who are on the lower rung of society, as it were, get an unfair shake from the law I want them to have a friend on the other side who can represent them.”

Watson nodded thoughtfully, “You know, that reminds me, Holmes once told me a story of an Egyptian king who was a woman. Shortly after a case involving an actress named Irene Adler he took a bit of an interest in remarkable women,” he smiled fondly at the memory, “Once Holmes took an interest in anything he became obsessed and he devoured every scrap of information he could find on the subject with the purpose of broadening his mind. In his research he found an account of a Pharaoh named Hatshepsut.”

“This Pharaoh was a woman? A woman who lived as a man?” Theo asked incredulously.

“She was, and her reign was a prosperous one, but it was, if I recall correctly, quite the scandal at the time and after she died her successors tried to erase her from history.”

“So…she wasn’t accepted?”

“It was complicated. It’s undeniable that her reign was one of peace and prosperity and that she was largely respected during her time but it was unheard of for a woman to be king, and that is what she was, a king, not a queen or a regent but king to her people. Quite an accomplishment, wouldn’t you say?” Theo nodded, “Do you think maybe, I could still be me and maybe… more? Do you think if I c’n cure meself of this affliction,” she bared her fangs and gestured to her mouth, “I could be what I want?”

“You could certainly try, Theo, even the smallest chances can succeed with enough effort, perseverance and a little bit of luck,” he smiled kindly and Theo felt a lump form in her throat.

“T-thank you, doctor, I don’t think…I don’t think anyone’s ever said anythin’ like that to me before.”

“Between you, Adam and Erik it seems there are a lot of people who could use a second chance and a little encouragement. Now, I’m sure that tome you have is quite advanced, I’m a doctor, not a lawyer, but I know a thing or two about criminal justice. What say we go through it together? Could pass the time until the Harkers leave,” Watson offered, looping an arm around her shoulders and giving her an energetic squeeze. Theo gave him a tiny but genuine smile and cracked the book back open, “Alright, Doctor Watson, I think I’d like that.”

[mad-rdr]

June Reads

10 books this month!

Lightlark by Alex Aster (★ ★ ★/5): there's so much potential but unfortunately the author fell into the trope hole and came up with a love triangle out of absolutely nowhere. Could've been more creative with the names too lol no need to be so boring

Eve: How the Female Body Drove 200 Million Years of Human Evolution by Cat Bohannon (★ ★ ★ ★ ★/5): this was super informative without being a bunch of nonsense technical words. The human body is an incredibly complex thing and we always forget that

Assistant to the Villian by Hannah Nicole Maehrer (★ ★ ★ ★/5): this wasn't perfect but it was entertaining so I can definitely see myself reading the sequel- I love "evil" people who are wonderful employers

A Game of Hearts & Heists by Ruby Roe (★ ★/5): if you're going to have an enemies to lovers at least make the arc make sense ffs, also this plot was so full of holes I could barely follow it

The Butcher of the Forest by Premee Mohamed (★ ★ ★ ★/5): wildly suspenseful and downright creepy, this short story about an otherworldly forest left me wanting more. Give me the strange and weird things! please!

Beach Read by Emily Henry (★ ★ ★/5): this did not in fact take place on a beach (okay barely) and was kind of cliche but it was cute so it gets four stars instead of three

Murder Your Employer by Rupert Holmes (★ ★ ★ ★/5): this was so entertaining and unlike anything I've read before; a guide to murder (or delete) someone in your life at a top secret university designed to teach you the best way to achieve your murder (or thesis). Very fun read and unique idea

Final Deception by Stephanie St. Klaire (★ ★ ★/5): falling in love with your bodyguard while you’re in witness protection? Questionable. Him coming to save you over and over and over again till he kills the guy coming after you? Acceptable.

Angel on My Corner by Kyle Scafide (★ ★/5): this book was fucking weird and was trying way too hard to make meaning out of something. And the religious iconography was not working the way the author hoped

Butcher & Blackbird by Brynne Weaver (★ ★ ★/5): I need authors to stop writing for the booktok audience PLEASE. I still found this one enjoyable but my god can we please focus on a story and not just the smut

[eregyrn-falls]

So, I think that this theory is true to an extent. It articulates ONE of the reasons that media gets fandomized. The problem is, it just leaves out and doesn't address OTHER reasons that fandoms spring up and why people get into a fandom, and produce fanworks for it.

In a way, I see this theory as related to the often-expressed idea that fanfiction is primarily a way of "fixing" things. And like, again, yeah, that is ONE of the reasons that people do fanfiction. But it's not the only reason, or the only way that fans engage with the stories.

And it's just... flatly untrue that "good media", even "REALLY good media", doesn't attract fandoms, or that fans can't find any way to add onto those pieces of media.

I mean, like... is The Lord of the Rings good media? The books have had a robust fandom since the 1960s, at least, and it hasn't significantly slowed down. Are the books good media? Are the movies good media? I would say that most people talk about them as if they are. But through decades, fans have found a LOT of ways to interact with both the books and the movies. (There's a books fandom, and a movies fandom, and sometimes those overlap, and sometimes those don't. And the movies didn't erase the books fandom at ALL.)

(I could also use the original Sherlock Holmes stories as an example, because I think most people agree those novels and stories are pretty darned good, right? And it had what we recognize as "a fandom" for it by the 1900s, if not earlier. It's one of the great early examples of what we think of as a modern fandom. And while its various adaptations - of varying quality - have attracted their own subset fandoms, the original stories still have their own fandom, and even some adaptations that are considered Very Good - such as the Granada TV series with Jeremy Brett - have a fandom too.)

I'm not saying this as a huffy fan who just wants to argue that I've never been involved in a fandom for a property that could be called "half-baked hot garbage". Oh I very much have! I was in Pern fandom for YEARS. I also spent years active in ElfQuest fandom. (The way both of those bodies of work are regarded is complex; they probably don't deserve to be called hot garbage, and people, including critics, have said good things about them over the years; but they also invite some pointed criticism.)

For the past several years, though, I've been involved in Gravity Falls fandom, and that's another media property that has gotten a lot of accolades from both viewers and critics. So I'd categorize it as "really good media" (well, of course I would, I love it; but as indicated, when I'm in love with media that isn't all that good, I'm willing to say it), but it too attracted a very robust fandom (that is still going, even though smaller than it was when the show was airing).

Again, I wouldn't say that the show is beyond criticism or doesn't have some flaws (frankly, I think it's really hard to name a media property that is truly "perfect"?). But the flaws are not, from what I've seen, the reason it has a fandom, or the main inspiration for a lot of the fan-works it still inspires.

(In my entire discussion of this so far, I'm not even including the aspect of shipping. I'm not, foremost, a shipper, usually; so I'm looking at fandoms from a more general point of view.)

In short: sometimes a media property that is a very good work attracts a fandom because there are things that people LOVE about it. There are plenty of aspects that people grab onto that inspires fan-works. Even in the best media, there's always scenes that aren't included, pasts or futures to explore, alternative plots to consider, motivations and internal reflections to expand on, and so on.

I don't even disagree with the chart above, and putting The Good Place at a high point of Objectively Good and Fun to Watch. I'm just not sure about putting it outside "the fandom zone" -- it has over 1,500 works on AO3. Does it have an "organized fandom"? I don't know the answer to that, but, what defines a "fandom" for the purposes of the original post here? Does it need to be a variety of types of fan interaction, or is there a fandom for a work so long as there are fans writing for it, and fans wanting to consume writing and art and discussion for it?

In conclusion, I guess, I think the question of "why does this very good, and well-loved media property NOT attract 'a fandom'" (meaning a large, "organized" fandom, I guess?), while these other media works do, can't be answered merely on the basis of "how 'good' is the media". While I think there's something to Gallus's suggestion above that some works are too "smooth" and don't invite fan engagement as obviously as other works, that isn't the only thing going on here. (And "smooth", in that sense, is in the eye of the beholder.)

stating to think there’s an inverse correlation between how good media is and how easily fandomizable it is 😁

[pyromaniacsable]

Here's my film review from my cinema class, I'm actually relatively proud of it considering it's a mfk SCHOOL ASSIGNMENT?

_________________________

The Girl, The Android, And The Alien

Alien is a riveting science fiction/horror film released in 1979 that many can agree to be considered a horrifying classic to modern day. Directed by Ridley Scott and written by Dan O’Bannon , Alien brings the audience into a spine chilling setting with futuristic devices and beings far beyond our comprehensible world. Dallas, played by Tom Skerritt, is a captain of the ‘Nostromo’ crew, Ripley (Sigourney Weaver), Lambert (Veronica Cartwright), Kane (John Hurt), Brett (Harry Dean Stanton), Ash (Ian Holm), and Parker (Yaphet Kotto), who all traverse the galaxy in hopes to get home only to be met with acid and blood.

Our first meeting of the Nostromo crew are hushed and curious as our space cadets, along with their very furry friend, are awakened from hypersleep that was expected to occur when they reach home, but it is soon realized by the crew as well as the audience that fate would have different plans for them. As the story goes on, the Nostromo crew must grapple with absurd rules from the space station, and soon they realize that they’ve been sent on a suicide mission where a horrifying being with gangly limbs and an iconic elongated skull would hunt them down with such stealth and precision that you cant help but hold your breath. The anxiety only continues to thicken as the remaining escapees flee the spacecraft only to be met with a very unpleasant surprise that leaves the audience in a state of panic and a “what the ****!” caption hanging in your head. 

The film's direction was phenomenal when it came to putting a sense of unease and heaviness into people's chests. There was something so unsettling about what Ridley Scott decided to produce for this film. Many of the scenes between characters were quiet and that almost made the entire complexity and dynamics between them all seem even more real. There wasn't too much talking to overwhelm the space created, it felt like you were experiencing what the characters were, and that made scenes all more genuine. Scenes like when Dallas is shuffling through the tight and dark air shafts, you can't help but feel confined and anxious as Dallas moves slowly through them. This use of spatial awareness dramatically set the mood of terror in the film. 

Other scenes used sound to bring a chill down your spine, scenes like when Ripley (Signourny Weaver) is running back and forth through corridors and you hear nothing but her heavy breathing. Other times you would expect some ominous violin to be heard in the background to invoke fear and yet just the sound of Riply’s breathing does the trick. That lack of music made the film that much more unnerving. 

The lighting is another thing to appreciate as it just made sense for it to be so dark. Even before the xenomorph is introduced, the spacecraft is filled with whites, grays and blacks and the lighting is very dim. Only when things progress does it get darker. The lighting was natural to a space like theirs, emitting from one source that was a part of the spacecraft, making it more natural. In very few parts did the lighting dramatically change to show a new detail to the plot, like the introduction of the xenomorph or the unfortunate fate for many members of the Nostromo. A very daunting scene that displays this dramatic change in lighting is after the very sudden brawl between Ripley and Ash, where it is revealed that Ash is not as human as we think. Near the climax of the movie, we see Ash’s disembodied head on the white table and the scene seems so bright that it brings this sense of importance as vital information is revealed regarding the survival of the Nostromo and how to kill the xenomorph. Ridley Scott’s and Dan O’Bannon’s decision for natural lighting and the emotion put behind it is something to be recognized and applauded for as it brought something so authentic to the film and its characters.

Moving onto a topic that made this film so enduring, was Sigourney Weaver's outstanding performance throughout the entirety of the plot. As we address the quietness once more, the conversations between our characters were limited to what needed to be said and nothing more. When conversation was held, the actors and actresses' performances made the entire experience mold better into that realism that held a nice contrast to what was surreal. Even in the beginning of the film we can see Sigourney Weaver’s character, Ripley, portray such passion and power that would stick with her and ultimately be her greatest weapon in surviving, and so it made perfect sense that Ripley would be the iconic “Last Girl Standing”. Through her many arguments with Dallas or Ash, for a say in leadership, it is evident that Ripley is a strong woman who refuses to take crap from others. Yet our gutsy heroine isn’t as strong as we may think and maybe the film is better for it. The writers of Alien build such a bold image of Ripley and so when we see scenes of desperation and fear from our heroine, it makes the experience so much more authentic. When Ripley attempts to ask “mother”, their ship's AI system, for help; she is met with answers that don't satisfy her, it drains the hope out of her and we see a moment of panic as she learns the truth about the priorities of the science station. This moment all comes to a climax when Ripley snaps and attacks “Science officer Ash” who has appeared at her side out of nowhere, saying, “There is an explanation for all this you know.” The audience feels just as frustrated about this unsatisfactory explanation as Sigourney Weaver so powerfully showed in her role as “Warrant Officer Ripley”.

It was not only Sigourney Weaver’s acting skills that made the film so great but the other actors and actresses portrayal as well. Throughout the film you see what the dynamics are between the Nostromo crew, one dynamic being the one between Brett and Parker. In the beginning of the film when the crew experiences technical troubles; Brett’s and Parker's friendship is aloof, simple and wasn’t too obvious as the “comedic relief”. It seemed like any other friendship between people; they complained to each other and goofed around and laughed together, this lightheartedness carried up until the brutally fast death of Brett. After Brett’s gruesome death, there's a stark contrast in Parker’s personality as the crew grapples with problem after problem. Soon we see that there's vengeance in Parker's eyes as he puts all his effort into hunting the xenomorph that killed his best friend in front of his own eyes. The sadness and anger Parker exhibits is something the audience can't help but feel sympathetic about. 

The situations the crew had to go through were not for the faint of heart; moments of weakness, revenge and pure fear put such a riveting spin to something as original as Alien. 

★★★★   Alien has a fundamental level of originality, of course it carries many similar aspects of other films such as “The Thing” (1951) but its story and character development is something to be both adored and feared. Alien gives a new outlook of what could lie beyond our minuscule solar system and maybe that is what Ridley Scott’s goal was, to give a new perspective of the unknown, either way the film was extremely well written to attend to what horror and sci-fi loving people crave. From the moment the Nostromo Crew awakes to Ripley’s sentimental last words before she is to enter hypersleep once more, the entire film's cinematography and direction was so artistically developed for its time and indubitably one of the best made films for its genre. It is definitely a movie worth watching and re-watching.

[lauranthalasah]

So, I read this excellent post about representation and left me thinking.

Since the end of BBC Sherlock* I've had a big problem in the way fandom demands representation sometimes, the way that if it is not exactly what they want then it is worthless. Let me explain myself.

For a long long time a lot of people have seen Holmes and Watson as a couple, and in new recreations of Doyles' work people get more and more hype for a possible in screen representation of this "headcanon", because new times gives hope to them that sooner or later Holmes and Watson ARE going to be gay (sooner or later they are gonna get it, tho).

Now, my issue is that Holmes and Watson have always... ALWAYS been a representation of something that is very dear to me, you see, Sherlock seems to me like asexual and aromantic, while Watson is very clearly heterosexual, but THEY ARE A COUPLE. They are life partners, they are! They just are not interested in each other in a sexual/romantic way, but they very much construct their lives around each other, at least for a while.

BBC Sherlock gives us that end, they end up raising a child together even! For me, the show that gets it right and makes it obvious is Elementary, they purposely made Watson female (and I think heterosexual? maybe bi?), and Holmes is quite sexually active (he might be pan), and then they proceed to give us a story in which they never fell sexually and romantically in love with each other. But do you know what they are at the end of everything?! Life partners!

For a long time people have been trying to put Holmes and Watson's relationship into one tag, when they are a perfect representation of another one that it needs its due representation as well. Like, the day someone finally makes them gay I'm gonna be okay with it, because it is gonna happen and it is gonna be a blast, but I need people to understand that there are other things that are valuable too.

The same happens with Good Omens, there are interesting representations going on there from season 1 (and the book if you want too). But because the author explained that the two protagonists we love were not MEN therefore they were not GAY** a round of "queerbaiting" accusations raised against it. Like they are undoubtedly queer, but because they were not explicitly gay then it was queerbaiting. And I don't like that. 

How many opportunities we'll have of seeing two people fell in love, one of them usually male presenting, one of them however they want to present themselves, both of them in which gender is literally a choice, both of them loving each other, I'll say romantically at least, not necessary sexually, but it could be (more after season 2 I guess). How many times are we gonna see this kind of complexity in a love story? And it is queer! Is so damn queer that we don't have the words for it! They are not humans! But it is a representation of love beyond heterosexual conventions without a doubt.

Also, tell me that Aziraphale and Crowley's romance is the only representation in that show! Or that even Aziraphale and Crowley are the ONLY characters who represent queerness on it?! Tell me that Crowley's gender fluidity isn't fucking amazing! I haven't watched every show in the world, but Good Omens is the most gender transgressive fictional show I have ever seen!

To be fair, I do think we need more queer representation, my point here is that we shouldn't stomp on one kind of representation simply because it is not the one we wanted from it. I don't think any piece of fiction is ever going to meet everyone's expectations of it, it is impossible, but we need to start thinking critically about it. Even when it represents part of what and how we are, it might not be perfect. It might not reflect my reality (there's no fictional work that has ever done that for me), but it doesn't mean it is not representing someone's reality. There's not a singular individual who is going to experience the full spectrum of anything except for their own personal experience of it.

What we need to learn to do is to look around us, to other people that are in similar boats as us who might be telling us "oh wait… I'm sorry that is not you, but that's me!", and we are not listening, and by condemning those fictional works we are kinda telling those people that they are not worthy of representation, or that their representation is less valuable than ours… and I don't like it! Just... just look around once in a while.

*Once upon a time I defended BBC Sherlock over the queerbait allegations against them because the creators were always clear they didn't intend to make Holmes and Watson gay in their show. Later on I realized that not everyone who watches a show watches interviews, cons, etc., but everyone who watched the show would get all those little jabs that, mostly Watson, would get about him and Sherlock being a couple; and I understood why people were so angry and disappointed. They were right to be. So this is not a defence of BBC Sherlock and the shit show they created. I just use the show as an example about Holmes and Watson in general because it's well known on Tumblr.

**I hate that the two examples I used were of gay couples that fandom wanted, I use those because are the cases I know the best, and I truly believe a canon gay Holmes/Watson is just a matter of time.

[sunnnfish]

Okay. Okay tashiro gonzaburou post for real. Under a cut bc it got much longer than i expected. ^_^

Tashiro Gonzaburou is frankly someone we don’t know that much about, really. He’s an average student, if a little lazy. He likes having his hair bleached but it’s not like he’s repeatedly bleaching it because the captain of his club told him it’s not allowed. He helps out around a bathhouse full of older folks who treat him like a grandson, giving him candy and recipes and elderly wisdom, which he takes in stride. He often wears a bright green jacket with a even brighter orange messenger bag. He doesn’t seem to like his bangs in his face, rather wearing a ponytail or a headband or beanie. He’s cheerful and a little scatterbrained, but always willing to help his friends. He wants a girlfriend, one day. He’s got crazy leg hair. He notices whatever sasaki and miyano have going on, way before there’s actually anything going on. He was a little worried about whatever they have going on because sasaki comes across as a little scary to anyone who’s not miyano. He’s in the ping pong club. He was chosen to be the next captain of the ping pong club because he’s the type who can get along with everyone. He is oddly susceptible to thinking boys are girls. He has very dexterous fingers, and is capable of spinning two pens around his fingers at the same time. He’s repeatedly said how he thinks what’s on the inside is more important than the outside of a person. He skips club practice, often enough for hanzawa to get angry with him. He doesn’t think he’s smart enough to be club captain. He’s a little worried about how busy hanzawa is, and doesn’t want to be a further burden to him, so he accepts the position as club captain.

And so I guess all this is to say we actually do know a lot about him. He’s a complex and well rounded person, full of kindness and a sharp insight that could make him a top student if he could apply it to his studies. But instead it’s applied to the people he knows and sees, capable of making connections that are far beyond surface level, because that’s the most important part, of course. He doesn’t have low self esteem, he’s just never considered himself one to be very… important, in the grand scheme of things. Especially in the eyes of someone like hanzawa. That “Why me” mentality. But he’s got charm and charisma and is really good at bringing people together. A guy who can be anyone’s friend.

If we want to get into real headcanon-ish (aka things I hold true in my heart no matter what anyone says) territory, I do think he’s the type to not really. tell people his problems. Surface level ones like forgetting his homework, sure, but like. Deep seated fears or worries or stresses. If we want to make comparisons, hanzawas got that kind of smile where you can tell there’s something more going on in him, while tashiros has that outward air of head empty. A persona built around being happy-go-lucky as a kind of defense mechanism—if he isn’t optimistic then who is he. But it’s not like he isn’t genuinely optimistic and cheerful—he is. But it kind of makes being vulnerable hard. He’ll gladly let people open up to him but. Opening up to others doesn’t come naturally. He doesn’t want to burden others. It’s like. Not as deep as I feel like I’m making it sound but it’s just. He will bottle things up. Just a bit.

And then about his insightfulness— nobody really. Tells tashiro things. Likely out of a thought he can’t take things seriously or that he’s too immature. (He does take things seriously though). And at this point nobody thinks to tell him things cause he just figures it out rather quickly. He keeps eyes and ears open and gathers information easily. And people are surprised when he knows things because he doesn’t seem the type to know things or be so insightful to the very core of who they are. He pulls out Sherlock Holmes-esque reasonings like I know you’ve been feeling less nervous lately cause your nails look healthier aka you haven’t been biting them. Idk I’m not good at Holmes but surely you get it. Like the noticing of the most minuscule of things combined with general knowledge of a persons mentality thus creating very accurate assessments. Not that he tells anyone these things unless it piques his interest. Nor that he himself really knows these are deep insights either.

And then his GENDER. Not much to say here but. He was considered along with miyano to be girly enough to do a maid cafe in their first year. When miyano and the gang were thinking abt what their girl names would be tashiro like. Really likes his. Shirahama “I want to be ‘not single’ with a girl” tashiro “want me to crossdress…?” his only claim to manliness is his leg hair. Gender off the charts. Silly guy.

Also silly things I think about him. He’s really into party tricks (like the pencil spinning thing) (started bc he wanted to impress girls but now it’s just fun). He can also do stuff like simple card magic and that thing where you pull a coin out of someone’s ear. He actually really likes problem solving he just can’t handle the school system. Bequeathes him adhd autism. He’s also like. Really into hip hop dance. Because I said so.

Anyways erm. This definitely got longer than expected. I like skimmed through sasamiya again just to find like every piece of him I could. He has CONTINUITY. All of them do. Harusono Shou you are so great at characters. Tashiro Gonzaburou you have a grip on my mind. Love and light

[possiblyimbiassed]

Metaphorical musings about BBC Sherlock

ETA: I now realise that this rambling got rather difficult to follow, so here’s a TL;DR with the points I’m trying to make:

Redbeard could still have been a dog - Victor’s dog - with all its metaphorical implications.

I think the ending of S4 is based on ages of nostalgical thinking from Conan Doyle’s audience, where ”it’s always 1895”.

But too fit in a truly modern adaptation, paradoxically, I think BBC Sherlock needs to align more with ACD Canon.

Canon didn’t end with Mary and two arguing men in 221B - it ended with Watson driving Holmes to a hotel in London.

This show seems to go in circles, but if we’re inside Sherlock’s head, he needs to wake up, get out of that loop and start living in the modern world (discarding the hetero norm of S4).

The recurring theme of “pilots” does, I believe, remind us of Sherlock’s and John’s relationship as it was presented in the Unaired Pilot.

The ‘pilot’ is also John Watson - the driver. He needs to live up to that.  

This was at first going to be an addition to @thewatsonbeekeepers’  excellent meta series about S4 from an EMP perspective, which ended with this little gem of very interesting metaphorical interpretations of TFP (X). But my addition got so lengthy that I thought it would be next to a crime to highjack their thread with it. :)  

@thewatsonbeekeepers‘ analysis makes a lot of sense to me on various levels, giving context and suggesting plausible interpretations to a lot of things that have been baffling me for a long time. But it also inspired me to look a bit closer on some running concepts of this show, as well as its (supposed) ending in relation to its very first beginning - the Unaired Pilot - and try to connect them metaphorically. Here are some of my own musings regarding their meta:

The Redbeard conundrum

We left off with about 20 minutes to go, as Sherlock is sinking into the black depths of his mind – the deepest we’re ever going to get as well as the darkest in colour, chiming with the rest of the series. And then – flashes of Eurus, Redbeard and young Sherlock bleeding in through his memory. @sagestreet’s meta argues that Victor Trevor could genuinely have been Sherlock’s first love even at that age, and I don’t dispute the possibility, but I do have an alternate reading for slightly later in age, based on one image alone. Jump back in your mind to TAB, when Mycroft tells Sherlock he was there for him the last time – we get a shot of a teenager in a drug den which is never repeated again, but which has a sense of absolute past trauma attached to it.

I totally agree with @sagestreet that every dog in this show represents homosexuality – every one of them, including Redbeard. But I also agree with @thewatsonbeekeepers that Victor Trevor could also have meant trauma to Sherlock a bit later in life than what we see in TFP. A metaphorical reading does not necessarily exclude a textual reading, I believe. I do have some problems, though, with the concept that was presented to us at the end of TFP: that Redbeard was supposedly not a dog, but rather Sherlock’s little friend Victor Trevor who died as a child. Because this doesn’t quite fit with the data, does it? Why couldn’t the name Redbeard have meant both the dog and the friend – and be a metaphor for Sherlock’s internalised homophobia?

I’m reluctant to buy the idea that all the flashbacks that Sherlock had of the word ‘Redbeard’ and/or this specific Irish setter with red fur - in HLV, TST, TLD and TFP - would exclusively be his mind’s substitution of a childhood friend who was murdered. The data we’re given seems rather more complex than that. Here’s a resume:

The concept of Redbeard was introduced already in TSoT, when Mycroft (Brain!Mycroft?) was warning Sherlock to ‘not get [emotionally] involved’ with John’s wedding. Sherlock answered with “I’m not a child anymore”, which suggests that ‘Redbeard’ occurred in his childhood.

In HLV the word “Redbeard” is assumed by Magnussen to be a trigger word for Sherlock. That would perhaps work if the dog were the thing in Sherlock’s life he had cared the most about. But if the thing that would trigger Sherlock’s psyche was actually his friend, why wouldn’t “Victor” be an even stronger trigger word?

Then we see the actual dog in Sherlock’s mind palace after he’s shot in HLV, where it’s implied that Redbeard was ‘put down’ (just like the inn-keepers in THoB claimed to have done with the Hound). 

In TAB we don’t see the dog, we only hear the muffled whimpers of Redbeard distracting Holmes in Sherlock’s drug-induced mind palace scenario, when Watson asks him about his feelings for women. 

The word ‘Redbeard’ is also scribbled on Mycroft’s note in the plane scene in TAB, after Mycroft (brain!Mycroft?) has declared that he will always be there for Sherlock.

In TST, when Sherlock is (supposedly) drugged by Mary, we see a dreamy scene with the Irish setter: 

and then we can see Victor Trevor playing pirates with little Sherlock and hear the dog bark at the same time. We can see from Victor’s checkered shirt in TFP that he’s the same little guy, but in TFP he wear’s the dog’s handkerchief:

In TLD, when Sherlock is on the brink of throwing himself into the Thames, we catch a very short glimpse of the same scene, repeating Eurus’ song from TST and TFP, as if to hammer the whole idea in: little Sherlock played pirates with a dog and a friend.

In TFP, Sherlock claims that Redbeard was his dog, who little Eurus locked up somewhere. But then adult Eurus reminds him in another scene that their father was allergic to dogs, so they were never allowed to have one.

Considering all these flashbacks, it seems rather as if Eurus – Sherlock’s gay trauma according to @thewatsonbeekeepers​  – is simply trying to get rid of the ‘dog’ – homosexuality – and claim that Victor was dead anyway, drowned in that same well where she was trying to drown John, so why keep bothering about the dog?

I strongly suspect that one of the main purposes with BBC Sherlock is to encourage the audience to actually read Conan Doyle’s stories about Sherlock Holmes – all 60 of them if possible. :-) Mofftiss haven’t exactly been true to ACD canon textually – in fact I think they have deviated miles and miles away from the original stories, especially in S4 (Watson never had a child, for example, and Mary Morstan was never an assassin. Watson naturally never ever beat up Holmes so he was hospitalised, that was extremely absurd). But on the other hand the subtext is very similar, I believe. I even think some of the metaphors are exactly the same, which our show might want to point out.

The name Redbeard is not mentioned in canon as far as I know, but Victor Trevor is, in The Gloria Scott (GLOR), and he’s not a child. Trevor was, according to Holmes, “the only friend I made during the two years I was at college”, so @thewatsonbeekeepers​’ reference to the scene in TAB with teenager Sherlock in a drug den as a traumatic event, possibly connected to an older Victor than in TFP, is very interesting. Holmes describes Trevor as “the only man I knew, and that only through the accident of his bull terrier freezing on to my ankle one morning as I went down to chapel.”

This is evidence that Victor Trevor did in fact have a dog, even if its name is not mentioned, and Holmes got bitten by it, which effectively tied him to Trevor. This seems to fit extremely well with @sagestreet​’s analogy. So if in our show Sherlock’s father was ”allergic” to dogs (meaning that Sherlock wasn’t allowed to express homosexuality), then Redbeard might actually still have existed belonging to Victor, right? And Victor may have named his dog after the pirate character he used to play with Sherlock. Maybe Sherlock loved Redbeard as if he were his own, and his friend too, but Redbeard might have been put down for some reason, symbolising the repression of Sherlock’s love for his friend? In GLOR, though, Victor Trevor doesn’t die; he moves to Terai, India, to a tea plantation… ;-)

Apart from playing pirates as a boy, in TFP we also see Sherlock hijack a fishing boat and actually become a pirate. I don’t think piracy is ever mentioned as such in canon, but the closest ACD comes to this is probably the story about Victor Trevor’s father – also referred to as ”the Governor”(!). In his youth, Mr Trevor (whose real name was actually James Armitage) got involved in criminality and ended up hijacking a ship – The Gloria Scott – where he participated in a mutiny which eventually blew up the ship in the middle of the ocean. Armitage was among the survivors, but so was Hudson, a man who later caused his death from fear when he threatened to expose his great secret. Considering that homosexuality was regarded a crime in Doyles’ time, I think this points to Victor’s father being a gay man pressured with exposure.

The need for a new start

As for the ending of TFP, I’m still totally baffled by it, after all these years. I think it has been likely to produce cognitive dissonance (X) in the audience, which is probably one of the reasons that so many fans felt uncomfortable after S4. To me, it’s hugely contradictory in a logical sense, and I’ve always had problems trying to wrap my head around the very different messages that I think it sends out.

On one hand, as @thewatsonbeekeepers so brilliantly explains in their meta, Sherlock has finally managed to connect his heart with his brain, going through all the mental trials from his metaphorical sister in TFP. He has also re-built his home and he and John are symbolically running out of ‘Rathbone Place’ (and by association all the old adaptations) in the final scene. Which points to there being room for new, modern things to happen in their story, no longer just ’business as usual’.

On the other hand we have comphet!Mary’s final voiceover about the legend and the non-importance of who Sherlock and John really are, which didn’t at all ring true to me in a logical sense. Why would Sherlock go to all this trouble of finding his true self, connecting heart with brain etc, if it didn't even matter?  And why would a ghost, who didn’t even experience TFP while alive, be allowed to take over the role as storyteller and have the final word? I think this speaks for some huge un-solved problems and ‘lose ends’ that are not at all tied together properly - neither on the text-, subtext- or meta-levels.

And - what’s even more important in my opinion - Sherlock and John seem to be frozen in time in the final scene. 

We’re told by comphet!Mary that “...there are two men sitting arguing in a scruffy flat... like they’ve always been there... and they always will.” In TFP, the address 221B Baker Street is described as a kind of eternal institution which people - even Mycroft - turn to as a last resort, when everything else fails. The flat is rebuilt and some piece of furniture is changed, but nothing is modernized. Even the smiley face on the wall, on which Sherlock shot holes in his fit of frustration in TGG, is painted again and done the exact same thing to. But as everyone loves the place, no one protests. Status quo is reestablished.

This may be the conclusion of many adaptations, but it’s not what happened in canon, is it? This is not even remotely similar to the original ending. In ACD canon, it’s not “always 1895″, as so many readers through the ages have nostalgically claimed. Canon’s LAST ends in 1914 - almost 20 years later - with Holmes and Watson driving away together in a car, with Watson at the wheel. Byt that time, Holmes is no longer living at Baker Street - he has retired. In fact, there’s a whole story (LION) where Holmes is now living in Sussex close to the sea, in spite of his earlier statements about how much he dislikes the countryside. So in canon, he spends his time there (when he’s not on super-important spying missions for the government). And in LAST there are even some indications that Watson and Holmes are heading for a hotel room in London - not 221B. I have tried to expand on these conclusions in a recent comment on @sagestreet‘s last meta (X), providing some circumstantial evidence that might be interesting. ;-)

I’m not sure about @thewatsonbeekeepers’ claim that their meta has “just been an academic exercise”. While we don’t have any solid evidence of a pending S5 at this point, logical reasoning - and ACD Canon - still tells me that TFP must not necessarily be the end of the show. If Sherlock is in a coma, any future new content needs for him to wake up, he needs to open his eyes in the show’s reality, for TFP to ever make sense on a plot level. For what’s the point of having a story go in circles? (I tried to analyse the significance of time in BBC Sherlock here (X) some time ago).

Sherlock Holmes and codes

I really like @thewatsonbeekeepers’ musings about Greg Lestrade’s name and the implication of Sherlock suddenly having it right in TFP:

This is tied into Sherlock’s inability to move beyond the mistakes of canon – we see this weird inability to stick in modern Sherlock’s universe in other ways too, like the slightly old-fashioned nature of his costume (passed off as ‘timeless’, but clearly belonging to old as much as modern times), the deerstalker situation, thinking England has a king, not knowing the earth goes around the sun, not knowing Madonna, seeming to forget who Thatcher is – the list goes on, but Greg is the most constant one. Calling him Greg is a symbol that Sherlock has broken out of the confines of all of the past Sherlocks and has completely slipped into the modern version – which is exactly where he needs to be.

I totally agree that this is where he needs to be, and I also agree about Sherlock’s clothing here. I seem to recall ACD’s Watson talks about “a certain quiet primness of dress” in Holmes, which most probably meant a suit, something that our modern Sherlock seems to still use as signature clothing as well, which might appear a bit unnecessarily formal today. But let’s not forget that in the Gay Unaired Pilot, Sherlock was wearing black jeans and a rather more casual shirt with rolled-up sleeves:

Overall, I got a more “modern” feeling from Sherlock’s looks and behavior in the Pilot than in the rest of the show. I think code is significant in BBC Sherlock, and this goes for ACD Canon as well. And I believe that “pilot” might be one of the more important code words, as I tried to explain in this meta about codes a couple of years ago (X).

In TFP, the “Golf” in “Golf-Whisky-X-ray” (the message that Sherrinford picks up from Sherlock’s and John’s highjacked boat) literally means “I require a pilot” in marine signals - a marine pilot, that is. Which metaphorically might suggest that Sherlock needs someone to help him navigate their ‘ship’ through the dangerous waters (= emotions).

There’s also the sleeping pilot in TFP, who little Eurus - probably representing a part of Sherlock - can’t seem to wake up. She requires a pilot to land safely, but for some reason she calls him “the driver” instead of “the pilot”. 

A pilot’s uniform with four stripes on it means the rank of Captain, right? (X) And who do we know who is a military Captain? Why, Captain John Watson, of course, from Fifth Northumberland Fusillers! :-)

In the unaired Pilot Jeff Hope - one of several John mirrors in this show - drives Sherlock home in his cab, instead of to Roland Kerr’s Further Education College as in ASiP. This journey ends at 221B where Hope tries to kill Sherlock with poison, which is stopped by John who shoots Hope (and we don’t see Sherlock stomping on his wound in the Pilot, probably making his aneurysm burst; in Pilot it’s just John). So that would basically be ‘John killing John’, which @thewatsonbeekeepers​ presents as a risk in TFP - the risk that makes Sherlock realize that he needs to open his eyes and save John Watson from killing himself. 

I agree, but I also want to focus a bit on John killing himself being a clear risk already from day one in BBC Sherlock. In their second meta of the series (X), @thewatsonbeekeepers​ also mentions this:

‘Did you miss me?’ works for both of those layers – the danger John is in from criminals is something that was really apparent in s1 and 2, but John’s endangerment from suicide is also something that was there at the beginning of the series. Sherlock changed these things – and didn’t realise he was the changing factor, but something in his subconscious is telling him that with him gone, John Watson is once again in danger.

Most of us probably thought that John had found a far better use for the gun in his drawer in the first episode of the show when he killed a villain instead of himself with it. But looking at it metaphorically, this course of events maybe wasn’t that good either. In canon’s first story STUD, Jefferson Hope dies from an aneurysm - close to the heart; not to the brain as in ASiP, and not from a gunshot at all. Both metaphorically and literally, Hope died from a broken heart. Rather than a villain, he was an avenger who killed two criminals who had caused the death of his loved one and her father and got away with it.

As far as I can recall, in ACD’s stories neither Watson nor Holmes ever shoots anyone, with one exception: they shoot Tonga, the little guy threatening them with poisoned arrows in SIGN. Who I feel pretty sure is meant to represent Cupido, the little guy with the love arrows, of whom ACD wrote this poem (X).  They shoot Tonga, the Agra treasure is lost and as a result of that, Watson marries Mary Morstan instead of staying with Holmes. And then she becomes Mary Watson (representing the heteronormative concept of ’marry Watson’). Love (between Holmes and Watson, I presume) is presented as a bad, toxic guy in canon. 

And in BBC Sherlock Jeff Hope is presented as a bad, toxic guy. The little guy with the arrows being a villain is also mentioned in TSoT, which is drawing from SIGN. In a flashback related by Sherlock at John’s wedding, we see a very small guy chasing John and Sherlock over a rooftop, trying to hit them with darts from his blowpipe. This case is never explained in the show, but from John’s online blog (case called “The Poison Giant”) we learn about a very short jewel thief called James Swandale, who had killed people with poisoned darts. He and his giant friend also tried to kill John and Sherlock (note the symbolism here), but they never got to know why. Metaphorical meanings throughout canon, picked up by BBC Sherlock. 

Already in ASiP Sherlock claims he can identify “an airline pilot by his left thumb”. In the unaired Pilot, however, the pilot’s thumb for some odd reason was instead “a retired plumber’s left hand” (the rest of the quote is identical between the Pilot and ASiP). And, as @kateis-cakeis pointed out long ago, the whole filming of the Pilot is mirrored in ASiP; every single scene these two similar episodes have in common is reversed and reflected like a mirror. As far as I can see ASiP references the Pilot.

And then we have the female pilot in TAB, who comes to ask Sherlock if he had a “pleasant flight” after his OD trip on the plane. 

Four stripes = Captain, right? John. Turns out she very much resembles Lady Carmichael from his MP adventure. (And still I think we have good reason to believe that both characters were only occurring in Sherlock’s EMP).

All in all, I think this points to the concept of “pilot” being an important element to set things right in this show, and that of course has to do with John; he’s the ‘driver’. Some of us have even been discussing that this show seems to go in circles with lots of recurring themes. Canon doesn’t end with 221B; it starts with it. So the full circle is closed with TFP, unlike canon. But returning to the Pilot and things as they were between Sherlock and John at the end of that episode, could also mean the beginning of a new course of their relationship. A version that was never allowed to be shown before because of homophobia, but that new course would ultimately be more consistent with canon, rather than with people’s nostalgic perception of canon for 100+ years. 

@thewatsonbeekeepers mentioned in their other meta about TFP (X) that the Governor of Sherrinford is a John mirror, who lost his authority when Eurus - the ‘gay trauma’ part of Sherlock - managed to manipulate him. The Governor ends up shooting himself - ‘John killing John’ (again). And indeed John’s character seems a bit weak as a doctor in S4. For example is his competence questioned by both Culverton and Sherlock in TLD (but Sherlock still wanted to be examined by John earlier in TLD :) ). This is consistent with canon’s DYIN, where Holmes horribly manipulated Watson to believe he had a disease that was “contagious by touch” and even insulted his competence (“you are only a general practitioner with very limited experience and mediocre qualifications”), in order to set a trap for Culverton Smith.

So my conclusion is that Sherlock’s manipulations of John - especially faking his own death after TRF - might have played a part in John’s lost authority and even in him being suicidal. But my point with all this rambling is that maybe John is meant to regain the lead now, to “buck up a bit” as Mrs Hudson puts it in TLD, before he’s finally allowed to be behind the wheel of her fast sports car. Maybe things will sort themselves out once Sherlock starts to break out from the circle and finally be honest with John, even let John take the lead, without fear of losing him to the villains, and once John starts to regain confidence in himself and who he really is. If they (and we) don’t need any ‘further education’ at Roland Kerr’s, John can simply drive Sherlock home now, wherever that is. :-)

@raggedyblue​ @sarahthecoat​ @gosherlocked​ @sagestreet​ @ebaeschnbliah​

[hope-grace-serenity]

Hello! I know it has been a while and that Far Cry 5 fandom is pretty much dead (D:), but I was wondering what your opinion was regarding The Collapse DLC :-). Because there has been a considerable blacklash about it on tumblr when it came out, but I really liked it & I think it actually showed some hidden depths of the Seed family that I've just been wondering about... till now. So I was just curious about your opinion of the portrayal of the Seeds :-)

Hi! :D I know fandom reception of the DLC was…less than favorable (on tumblr, anyway. I didn’t see backlash anywhere else). But personally? I loved it, and I vehemently disagree with the claims that it was out of character. It might have gone against preferred headcanons, but in terms of what actually ended up on screen in the FC5/New Dawn base games, the Collapse DLC was very much in line with how the characters were previously portrayed. I haven’t seen too much controversy about Jacob, so I’ll focus mainly on John, Joseph, and Faith.

John has always been portrayed as a man with a strong sadistic streak that was simultaneously weaponized and kept in check by Joseph’s presence;  the “urges” speech might not be the most sophisticated writing, but the overall idea was just a reiteration of what we saw in FC5. He takes obvious glee in torturing Hudson and the Deputy and Nick and I did not find the story about the woman he killed to be shocking in the slightest. Maybe it’s because I’m not a John stan, but I find claims that he’s too violent in the DLC to be genuinely baffling. He’s always been portrayed as a sadist. 

In regards to Faith’s portrayal, I felt extremely vindicated lmao. I wrote a long-ass essay about Faith and what I feel are the obvious conclusions about her character and relationship with Joseph that are often ignored or denied in fandom (despite the game’s writer literally confirming it): that Joseph views her as a twisted stand-in for his wife, and he abuses his power to engage in a sexual relationship with her. To provide some background, @intheforest-hides-a-light and myself began collaborating on the doc several months before the DLC was even released. We had 20 pages of content WITHOUT *any* of the blatant subtext from the DLC—and yes, “Faith being the wife’s name” was one of the conclusions we made before it was stated directly. While the hints from the DLC were eventually added into the essay, FC5 by itself provides more than enough evidence that supports that Faith was in an unhealthy dynamic with Joseph.

Joseph is a manipulator and an abuser. He also has a deep sincerity in his mission and genuinely wants the world to be a better place in the post-collapse world. These things are not contradictory, as is the idea that because Faith victimizes others, she can’t also be a victim. I feel like in a lot of discourse regarding his relationship with Faith, it gets broken down into this black-and-white way of thinking that does a disservice to both characters. Joseph is a complex, multifaceted person, and the Collapse DLC just makes him more interesting imo. 

I’m not surprised that tumblr reception to the DLC has been frosty. This is a fandom that rejected Drew Holmes’ own words about the characters he created as being OOC, rejected New Dawn as fanfic despite the director saying it’s canon, and now rejects the DLC. Official content getting rejected in favor of headcanon is par for the course. 

And in a way, that’s fine. The beauty of fandom allows for people to interpret the characters the way they want. There are plenty of fandoms where I downright ignore parts of canon too. But I always remember to separate headcanon from actual canon. And imo, the portrayals of the characters were consistent with their portrayals from FC5.

[twistedtummies2]

Good & Evil - Anti-Heroes

Welcome to Good & Evil: A Study of Heroes & Villains. I’m discussing different forms of heroic and villainous characters, different types of protagonists and antagonists, and providing examples of them each from various sources. Today, we’re discussing one of the more popular and well-known types of characters; one that straddles the fine line between good and evil. Today’s topic is…Anti-Heroes. Anti-Heroes are TYPICALLY described as protagonistic characters who basically do heroic things, but have many villainous traits, qualities, or methods. However, not ALL anti-heroes actually ARE protagonistic: they can be antagonists, too. This, I think, is where the confusion leads with people mistaking other kinds of characters as anti-heroes, or vice-versa. Like with nearly all these categories, it’s a fine line between what makes an anti-hero and what makes some other sorts, and it’s honestly not uncommon for characters to flip-flop between different roles. Ultimately, what establishes the anti-hero and separates them from others can be stated as this: they are usually characters doing ostensibly good things, but in an ostensibly bad way.

Perhaps the quintessential anti-hero in movies is the title character of “Dirty Harry,” played by Clint Eastwood. Harry, at the start of the movie, is a police officer, and his great mission in the film is to capture a notorious serial killer. Neither of these are bad things, but what makes Harry the anti-hero is the extreme lengths he’ll go to in order to fulfill his job. In fact, his methods - which include physical torture - end up causing the killer to get out jail Scott Free, which inevitably causes Harry to resort to even more drastic measures to ensure his nemesis won’t walk the streets free to kill again. Right from the word go, Harry is shown to be a man with flaws and vices, and we only see more of them as the story goes on…but never once does he go so far as to become the villain of the story, himself. Still, we recognize he’s no hero. It’s not simply that he’s rude and crass, it’s that he’ll resort to methods that are not only illegal, but unethical. However, you can’t say the people he goes after don’t have it coming to them.

Another great example of the anti-hero in movies, and one of the most popular and long-lasting, is James Bond. 007 seems to straddle the line between an anti-hero and a simple flawed hero constantly, but I think the balance tips closer to the former than the latter. Bond, on the surface, isn’t doing anything ESPECIALLY wrong: considering he’s working for his government, and his targets include world conquerors and destroyers, not to mention political traitors, master thieves, skilled assassins, and enemy spies…yeah, he’s not necessarily doing anything that would be seen as bad. But it’s the methods Bond uses, combined with his attitude, that makes him less squeaky-clean. Bond is a drinker, a chauvenist, and liberal with his Licence to Kill. While Bond’s attitude towards civilians and innocents seems to shift depending on who is playing him, various incarnations have shown him to be exceptionally ruthless in his work. We cheer Bond on because he has the heroic qualities we seek, but we also recognize he’s highly imperfect.

One of the most recent examples I’ve fallen in love with is actually a reimagining of one of the greatest villains in English literature: Professor Moriarty in “Moriarty the Patriot.” This anime/manga series reinterprets the Napoleon of Crime, Sherlock Holmes’ arch-enemy, as a violent anti-hero who uses crime as a means to achieving a better world. He has no God complex to him, no desires to control or command; in fact, his grand plan ultimately includes his own self-destruction, and this has been intended for a long time. However, while the ends themselves are noble and good, and his sense of self-sacrifice is noteworthy, Moriarty himself is fully aware of the fact he’s NOT the good guy in his own story. He takes great pleasure in the crimes he commits, which involve NUMEROUS murders, and there are noticeable emotional disconnects between him and the world. He doesn’t seem to fully grasp the concept of friendship, and sees most people as pawns in his grand chess game, or puppets for him to manipulate. His reasons for wanting to sacrifice himself, it later turns out, aren’t as noble or as simple as one would expect, either. His goals are heroic, and he never strays into being a villain protagonist by falling too far from grace…but how much one should condone his actions is a constant question.

In direct contrast, one of the oldest and more obscure anti-heroes in fiction, and another personal favorite of mine, is The Shadow. Originating in the golden days of radio and pulp magazines, and surviving into the modern day largely through comics (along with a few cinematic treatments, most of which are terrible), The Shadow is considered the father of the modern day superhero. He is the inspiration for characters like Batman, The Punisher, and more Alan Moore protagonists than you can shake a stick at. An expert on the Shadow (who shall remain nameless) has repeatedly stated that the character is NOT an anti-hero, once even referring to him as, if I recall correctly, “the most white hat objectivist hero there is.” I must respectfully disagree: an “Objectivist Hero” does not necessarily a pure and good Hero archetype make, for a start. And while it’s true the Shadow’s morality and methods within his own world are rarely questioned - at least in the early days of the character’s history - the Shadow HIMSELF fits the definition of the anti-hero perfectly. The Shadow is essentially a spirit of vengeance, who fights fire with fire: he tackles crime with crime, visits evil upon evil, sadistically and delightedly slaughtering his opponents. He not only does this through means of simply shooting them or physically breaking them, either, but will use psychological and even emotional warfare to ensure his enemies are felled. He pulls no punches, takes few chances, and the methods he uses to achieve his war on crime - mixed with his own checkered past - ultimately land him squarely in this area. The Shadow is the villain OF villains; to me, that sounds very much like an anti-hero.

Speaking of comic book characters, and to round this whole thing off…when I started this analysis off, I mentioned that anti-heroes are tricky to classify partially because, while they’re TYPICALLY protagonistic figures, they CAN be antagonistic characters as well. This is usually because their methods or philosophies will, at times, clash with characters who are more pure-hearted (or, on rare occasions, because the protagonist is a villain protagonist, and the anti-hero antagonist is simply a little LESS evil). Usually, you can tell an anti-hero antagonist from other types of antagonists because they will usually side with the hero in the end, or even repeatedly, and because they will flip-flop between the two perspectives. This is most common in comic books, and I would argue the definitive example of this is DC’s Lobo. Lobo is a pretty nasty piece of work: he’s an intergalactic bounty hunter with a style and sensibility that is basically that of a stereotypical biker thug. He smokes, he drinks, he behaves outlandishly and crassly, and his morality mostly seems to center on what suits him most in the given situation. He has few friends and many foes. While Lobo has clashed with Superman and other DC heroes on many occasions, he has also been depicted as the star of his own series and taken other protagonistic roles. The reason for this is because, while Lobo is ultimately a slobbish creep, he does have his soft spots buried deep down, and he can be persuaded to do what’s right or good (though he won’t always do so for the best reasons). His morality is incredibly skewed, but even when he’s depicted as an antagonist, he’s never a straight up villain.

What do anti-heroes represent to readers and audiences? Well, that honestly depends on what the story they’re involved in is trying to get across. However, if there is a common theme with anti-heroes, it is the balance between the ends and the means, and how one can or cannot justify the other. Anti-Heroes do good things, but they don’t always do them in good ways or for good reasons. They typically seem to tell audiences that, sometimes, drastic measures have to be taken. As much as many of us like to idealize that good will be rewarded, evil will be punished, and there will be no complications between the two, life usually isn’t that easy: history has shown that many of the best things to happen in the world happened because of questionable decisions. As our societies constantly struggle with finding the border between what we want to have and what we must do to achieve it, anti-heroes represent most clearly that constant struggle. There’s a reason so many of these characters are crime-stoppers, because they most easily allow us to explore the dichotomy between what is just and good, and what is necessary. The same can be said for other types of characters…but that’s another story.