#i am legally contractually obligated to post saw. sorry

[wonkyradio]

Made myself a discord icon

Edit: Please do not use this for yourself without permission

[mariana-oconnor]

The Cardboard Box pt 1

An uninspiring title, but apparently it's controversial? All my brain is thinking (I am still le tired) is 'Big fish, little fish, cardboard box' over and over again.

If you don't get that reference, that's probably for the best. the early noughties were weird.

Anyway. I hereby do swear that this time I shall read the text more carefully and all my claims, accusations and harebrained ideas will be based in textual evidence and not mere vibes alone. One cannot thrive on vibes alone!

I'm going to try anyway. I may still dislike characters on principle, though.

He did however take a particular fancy to some of the paragraphs at the beginning of the tale and urged me adapt them for later revisions of my story ‘The Resident Patient’, which I sent to you in January.

OK, so is this going to be an AU version of The Resident Patient? Because I feel like that gives me a head start on the guessing.

I did a side by side of the two and overall it seems pretty much the same, except we're now in August and it's blazing hot. I shudder to think how Watson would have described August in the UK last year. Then we have the discussion about Holmes reading Watson's mind body language. Until we get to the first significant difference:

"Have you observed in the paper a short paragraph referring to the remarkable contents of a packet sent through the post to Miss Cushing, of Cross Street, Croydon?” "No, I saw nothing."

Aha, the titular cardboard box, one wonders?

Watson is really falling behind in his paper reading duties. Holmes is doing all the legwork here. Honestly. You just can't get a good chronicler these days! But he's still making Watson read it aloud.

Holmes does like hearing things read aloud. He'd be all over audiobooks, but he's got Watson for that so it's all good.

I picked up the paper which he had thrown back to me and read the paragraph indicated. It was headed, “A Gruesome Packet.”

Ooooh, I think I might remember a bit of this one. I might remember what's in the box, anyway.

Sorry, that was my contractual obligation.

“Miss Susan Cushing, living at Cross Street, Croydon, has been made the victim of what must be regarded as a peculiarly revolting practical joke unless some more sinister meaning should prove to be attached to the incident."

If it's what I think it is then practical jokes were significantly more aggressive in the Victorian Era. I don't think even TikTok has graduated to this level. We're getting a pretty weird look at the 1800s English sense of humour: beating other children with sticks and... this.

"A cardboard box was inside, which was filled with coarse salt."

Everyone needs some seasoning on their... "two human ears [...] quite freshly severed".

Okay, poor taste, poor taste. I know it's there for preservation. Also weirdly I thought it was going to be fingers. Don't know why I thought that. But yes, this is quite the jape, my friend. I just cut off some human ears and sent them to you.

How is this a practical joke? These are genuine freshly cut ears. Even if they're from a cadaver, that's theft and criminal damage at the very least. Isn't it? And I thought they were particularly strict on stuff like that in the 1800s. We're a little late for the Resurrection Man and Burke and Hare, but they did not like people messing around with corpses.

Okay, research research: 'The Anatomy Act of 1832 made it legal for corpses from workhouses that remained unclaimed after forty-eight hours to be used to satisfy the demands of the anatomists.'

Welp, I guess it was okay to do anything to corpses if they were the corpses of poor people with no friends or family (or at least no friends/family who could afford to claim them).

I mean, on one hand it stopped people from being murdered and science needed bodies to learn how bodies work better (good lord did we need to learn how bodies work better) but on the other hand, this does make me uncomfortable. Workhouse in life, still put to work in death. Also, from a purely scientific viewpoint, your sample is biased. You need some rich people bodies in there, too.

"There is no indication as to the sender, and the matter is the more mysterious as Miss Cushing, who is a maiden lady of fifty, has led a most retired life, and has so few acquaintances or correspondents that it is a rare event for her to receive anything through the post."

So, either she's secretly running an underground crime ring. Or the ears were meant for someone else with the name S. Cushing.

"...she let apartments in her house to three young medical students..."

Oh, yeah, fine. All makes sense now. Medical students are fucking feral. I have met literally one in my life who I would have been comfortable to have as a doctor, and I think he was just really good at hiding it. Guy once got 'kidnapped' by an entire female hockey team and ended up in an entirely different city. Another one I know just kept a dead squirrel in the shared freezer so he could do dissection practice on it.

I'd put the Dead Dove, Do Not Eat gif, but he didn't even label the fucker.

"...their noisy and irregular habits..."

Medical students... yeah.

"In the meantime, the matter is being actively investigated, Mr. Lestrade, one of the very smartest of our detective officers, being in charge of the case.”

Oh hai, Lestrade!

At least the police are putting an actual detective on the case and not just saying 'oh it's a silly prank' and ignoring the transportation of human body parts. Was it illegal to send human remains by the royal mail at that time?

“I think that this case is very much in your line. We have every hope of clearing the matter up, but we find a little difficulty in getting anything to work upon."

'We're totally going to do this, we just don't have... any idea how. But we totally could!'

"The box is a half-pound box of honeydew tobacco and does not help us in any way."

Did somebody say... TOBACCO?

A specialist subject has entered the chat.

If Holmes doesn't use his extensive and very detailed knowledge of tobacco to help solve this case, I will be v. disappoint.

Lestrade, as wiry, as dapper, and as ferret-like as ever...

Watson is contractually obliged to remind you that Lestrade looks like a ferret every time he appears. His publisher insists on it.

I'm informed that an antimacassar is an arm cover for an armchair or sofa. My Nana used to have them. They had tassels and I'd get told off for plaiting the threads in the tassels together. Good times.

“Why in my presence, sir?” “In case he wished to ask any questions.” “What is the use of asking me questions when I tell you I know nothing whatever about it?”

Miss Cushing has very strong Done With This energy and I am here for it. Those are not her ears. She has perfectly good ones thank you very much, and she does not need any more. Why are you still bothering her?

“Quite so, madam,” said Holmes in his soothing way. “I have no doubt that you have been annoyed more than enough already over this business.”

Holmes once again showing that he does have emotional intelligence no matter what people might think.

“The importance lies in the fact that the knot is left intact, and that this knot is of a peculiar character.”

Oh, not the tobacco knowledge, but the knot knowledge. I see 'peculiar' and 'knot' in the same sentence and I immediately think 'sailing'.

Address printed in rather straggling characters: ‘Miss S. Cushing, Cross Street, Croydon.’ Done with a broad-pointed pen, probably a J, and with very inferior ink. The word ‘Croydon’ has been originally spelled with an ‘i’, which has been changed to ‘y’.

Our sender has poor handwriting and poor spelling, then. The 'wrong person' theory is growing stronger. The likelihood that Miss Cushing is a criminal mastermind diminshes. Shame.

He took out the two ears as he spoke, and laying a board across his knee he examined them minutely.

Is he wearing gloves? Please tell me he's wearing gloves.

“Bodies in the dissecting-rooms are injected with preservative fluid. These ears bear no signs of this. They are fresh, too. They have been cut off with a blunt instrument, which would hardly happen if a student had done it."

This feels like something the police should already have noticed. If the questions are 'Where did these ears come from? Has a crime been committed?' you would think someone would have considered whether they were from a preserved corpse or someone fresh. I know that policing has changed a lot since then and forensic medicine wasn't really a thing, but clearly they suspected foul play was a possibility, because Lestrade called for Holmes.

"We know that this woman has led a most quiet and respectable life at Penge and here for the last twenty years. She has hardly been away from her home for a day during that time."

Oh, Lestrade. The things you can do without leaving your home. She might have anyone buried under the floorboards. She might have been sending blackmail letters to her neighbours. She might have been doing any number of things. I still think the wrong person got the parcel, but saying that she's just too respectable for this is very optimistic of you.

I do agree that if she knew what the ears were about, she probably wouldn't have told anyone about them. Unless she's in such a secure position that she doesn't think anyone would ever trace anything back to her. In most situations, it wouldn't be the best move.

"One of these ears is a woman's, small, finely formed, and pierced for an earring."

Did no men wear earrings in Victorian times? Admittedly, probably not 'respectable' men, but the knot's already pointing me at sailor (as is the tarring on the string, tbh) and it used to be a thing that tattoos were mostly a sailor thing over here, and piercing is a similar kind of body art. So a woman or a sailor with small ears.

omg. pirates.

"The other is a man's, sun-burned, discoloured, and also pierced for an earring."

Oh, okay, so the earring wasn't the thing. Doesn't prevent the first ear from belonging to a small pirate, though. Sunburned also makes me think sailors. They have to be outside a lot with no shade. Sunburn on your ears is the worst. They have my sincere sympathy.

Also, y'know, cause they got their ear cut off - with a blunt blade, which... eesh.

"These two people are presumably dead, or we should have heard their story before now."

I mean, they could have been kidnapped and this could be proof of life. These days if you get an unsolicited body part in the real life mail the mind does go to kidnapping. Maybe that originates here - but they have no way of knowing whether the ear was detached ante or post mortem at this point, do they? So it's more proof of having, rather than proof of life. And I don't think I'd recognise my friends or family by their ears, so it's not even really that. If the earrings had been attached then I might recognise them.

Yeah... s'weird. But it doesn't necessarily mean they're dead. Although... Victorian hygiene and understanding of germ theory.

...

Yeah, they've got sepsis. They're dead.

Question spiral! Holmes just asking himself question after question is very relatable. And bringing up all relevant points about how if Miss Cushing knows what's going on, taking the ears to the police but telling them nothing is the weirdest possible response.

I'm assuming that the subject of this email is wrong, because if this is part 1 of 1, there is no conclusion to this story and so without further evidence, I am forced to believe that one large pirate and one small pirate, genders unknown, are currently dead/dying of sepsis and the true recipient of these ears, M. S Cushing (any or all letters interchangeable) has heard nothing of their fate. Although, given it was in the newspaper, they probably have heard about it by now. So maybe they don't need the ears.

No idea why the ears were sent though. Proof of a hit? Proof of life? Just a creepy serial killer who likes to send the ears of their past victim to their next victim? Probably not that one, seems a bit Criminal Minds for a Sherlock Holmes story, but you never know.

[iamanartichoke]

I completely agree with your post about Tom. People’s entitlement over their favourite celebrities goes to far. And tbh I really hate when fans act like they know for sure how he feels and what he’s thinking based on very ambiguous “evidence”. This is usually done so people can align Tom’s views with their own which requires most of the time someone else to be villanised. What I mean is that fans have no actual proof that the writers, producers and director of Loki are bad people and that Tom is unhappy with the directions the show took. There is usually nothing to be inferred about who these people are beyond their merits as professionals. But fans present their assumptions as facts anyway and that has evolved into actual harassment of the production team. All the while piggybacking on this idea that Tom thinks exactly what like them. And I am saying this as someone who hated TR and thinks Loki was deliberately made weaker/less important so Thor could shine more. And someone who hates pretty much all of Mike Waldron’s previous work on Rick and Morty. But is still feels very presumptuous to act like these people deliberate compromised the their own work because they hate Loki and his fans. And that they are filled with every prejudice know to man. And it’s also very demeaning to victimise Tom in the process. Of course some of the people involved suck but most of the time these assumptions have no basis whatsoever. And there is also an over-identification going on between some fans and Tom which isn’t healthy for anybody.

Sorry it took me several days to get to this, anon. It took me a minute to get my thoughts in order. But in a nutshell, yeah, I agree with a lot of the things you pointed out here - especially with fans acting like they know for a fact what he's thinking or feeling.

Under the cut for length and a bit of wank and disagreement w/ the "Marvel hates Loki" discourse so please skip if you don't want to see it.

A lot of the Loki series wank is rooted in whether or not Tom actually likes the series and significantly contributed to it, or if he's just saying what he has to say for publicity and his ideas and contributions were largely ignored. None of us will ever know for sure, bc none of us are Tom and none of us were directly involved in the series, so it's moot speculation, really. But it seems to basically come down to people trying to reconcile their feelings about the show with their feelings about Tom.

I don't necessarily think there's anything wrong with believing that Tom's hands were tied to an extent and/or he just says things that he has to for promotion, but I also don't think that it should be treated as fact and then used as, like, ammunition against other people working on the show. I personally have not seen anyone I know or am friendly with taking their complaints to the level of harassment of actual people irl (that seems to be more of a twitter thing, as far as I can tell, and imo comes from an entirely different place than just hating the show [I think there's an inherent meanness in people whose instincts are to harass and bully bc they want to actively make others feel like shit]) but I do see it posted as fact, time and time again, that the showrunners had a personal vendetta against Loki and were intent on making the series as bad as possible, and that Tom was helpless to do anything about it.

Which I get, in a way, bc I personally believe that the Russos had, if not a vendetta, an active dislike of Loki and a vested interest in getting him "out of the way" in a manner that would make him look pathetic in IW - but, I certainly can't say that's the case for sure, and I also think it's a little different bc Tom's contractual obligations for his film appearances were likely very different than what he (and/or his people) negotiated for the show.

That's neither here nor there but my point is, I can understand where the theories come from but I just don't think that's the case here, and seeing it so often makes me feel kinda uncomfortable (for a lot of reasons but also) bc, imo, it undermines Tom's autonomy for fans to act as if he's little more than a puppet on a string, just saying whatever he has to say to please the powers that be. Like, yes, there are legally binding contracts that probably limit how candid he can be, and we all know that he sugarcoats things and never says anything bad about anyone, which can make him seem like a bit of an "unreliable narrator" when he gushes about the show -

- but, he's also a big name celeb (I mean, the studio has always banked on his name being attached to the project bc he's the one who would draw in the most viewers). He's got clout (is that the right word?) to back him up - they wanted him, specifically, to play Loki in this series. Without Tom, there's no show. So why would they want to alienate him, silence him, or dismiss him when he comes to the table and says "here are my ideas"?

My point is, it's unfair and, yes, demeaning to act as if Tom is this voiceless, powerless victim who has no choice but to act in a series he hated that was purposefully trying to destroy his character, and then to turn around and mindlessly sing its praises while promoting it.

I think that the truth is somewhere in the middle - Tom's creative control was likely limited bc he wasn't the director and wasn't the showrunner or head writer, and no one person is ever completely in control when it comes to the end result that we, the audience, end up seeing on the screen anyway. He may not have been entirely happy with every writing or directing choice that was made. But it's also very unlikely that he had no say at all or that any input he had was dismissed (or 95% of it, as it were); again, the series is banking on his name being the draw and he has the advantage of being an authority on Loki while also being intelligent and eloquent enough to convey his perspective on the character. I think that the real issue is that Tom's current perspective and/or interpretation of Loki no longer aligns with his interpretation of OG Loki from 2011-13. Which is, admittedly, a very hard pill to swallow.

Anyway, this may have veered off in another direction and idek if you wanted this answered or to have a conversation or maybe you were just venting - but, here we are.

To make it less about Loki specifically and more about Tom in general, though, yeah, ultimately I just wish his fans wouldn't feel so entitled toward him and his opinions, or his career choices, or his love life, or his clothes. I was browsing one of the Tom ask blogs (or maybe it was a Zawe one, I don't remember now) the other day and I find it really creepy, for lack of a better word, at how invested people are in Tom's, like, day-to-day whereabouts. Someone saw him at a restaurant in NYC - I wonder if he's still there today? Where's he staying? Is he there as a tourist or for work reasons? Who could he be meeting with in New York? A producer? Another play? Will he host SNL? Is Zawe still with him or did she go back to London? etc etc like, it really goes back to my original point in my original post which is, basically, who caaaaaaaares, why are you investing so much of your day trying to figure out what Tom is doing with his?

Now I'm just venting, but yeah ... shit's weird.

[ayyoparayko]

things i find hilarious... context I’m an oilers fan (grew up in alberta) and have friends that are bruins fans. The bruins are my favorite east coast team. todays game they went off about how the oilers got away with everything under the son. went off about how dirty of a player drai is. drai for sure should get penalized by the league for that. the kicker is that their other favorite team is the stars. yet they saw nothing wrong with perry at the wc or with marchand.

Sorry just saw this today. I’ll warn you (Anon who sent this or whoever’s reading this) that I’ve had a crappy day and I might have went off on my rant. Here’s my take though:

Look I’m one of the older hockey fans on tumbler (which is weird to say cause i joined almost a decade ago). There’s things I’ve learned over the years and this is not just about hockey and the NHL. It’s about sports culture in general. For instance I see a lot of this stuff with my brother-in-law who is obsessed with Basketball (and football to a slightly lesser degree).

The face of the matter is... Fans are 90% blind to their own teams faults. I try to keep an open mind when my team plays and I’ll call my team out for their bullshit or I’ll keep my mouth shut because I don’t want even more hate to be spewed. For instance, I’m a Blues fan. I don’t like Binnington at all as a human being. I think he’s a racist piece of crap. Is he a good goaltender, yes. Will I praise his plays on the ice, yes. Will I praise him as a person, no way in hell.

[[MORE]]

That being said you can look at my other team the Vegas Golden Knights. I love them pretty darn close to the Blues but slightly less. Tuch is also a racist piece of human garbage who like Binnington hasn’t truly apologized for the racist things he’s done. Do I get excited when he scores, yes. I want my team to win and if it’s because he scored a goal then I’m not going to get mad. Am I going to dislike him as a human and refuse to support him, of course. As soon as someone shows their true colors and doesn’t learn, grow, and sincerely apologize for them, I’m done. Binnington and Tuch have been given chances. Tuch basically ignored it, Binnington played the “I was young and stupid card.”

A lot of people shit on binnington because he got caught, he’s been called out... but refuse to acknowledge that players for their own team, even some of their favorites have said/done things in the past as well and not apologized for it. For example Auston Matthews this summer. Tumbler was furious but eventually when the case got dropped people immediately forgave him and praise him both on and off the ice.

The fact of the matter is this is at not just a league wide level but a fan wide level as well. The NHL does next to nothing unless it is 100% confirmable that a person has done something wrong, even then some of these people only get a slap on wrist (Austin watson, Semyon Varlamov, Patrick Kane {the cab driver incident in this case since it was proveable}), etc.

There’s also the case of fans going after the refs because sometimes they miss a call, sometimes from their vantage point they don’t see what started a fight, etc. Fans get pissed and say things like “refs choke”, “refs must be getting paid under the table”, “Refs are fucking blind”. I’ve been hearing that since my college days. Hell I used to say some of those things in my college days. Yes sometimes the refs favor a team, whether intentional or not.

What fans refuse to see is when the refs favor their favorite team. They get defensive about it. “You’re just pissed because my team won”, “maybe it’s because we know how to do it when they aren’t looking”, “you’re only saying that cause your team has more penalties”.

The fact of the matter is, fans only want to see the good in their team and not the bad. Fans will destroy another team for anything but as soon as someone reverses the situation and attacks their team it’s “playing the victim” as shitty as this phrase is. I say this because as much as I love the Demons group chat (and I love them all dearly). Every time the Blues play either the Knights or the Stars they go ham on saying things like “fuck the blues”, “refs dressed in blue and yellow tonight”, “which blues player do we hate the most and why?”. These all came into the group chat tonight. From the beginning of the game to the end of the game I sent a total of one message.

That’s common for me. When the Blues played the Stars in the playoffs last year I very very rarely sent a message during game time and for a good couple hours after.

Because if I were to say anything bad about the Stars I’d get the binnington card thrown at me. Even though Tyler Seguin has said some pretty shade shit in the past I won’t bring it up in the group chat “because he’s changed”. Look if any demons are reading this, I’m sorry but here’s my full thoughts on this and it might hurt you to hear but the fact of the matter is, I get that you hate my main team, I get you’re pissed about last years playoffs, I get that you hate Binnington (I do too), but I keep my mouth shut in the group chat about a lot of things when it comes to the stars because so many of y’all are fans of them. I don’t like the stars as a team. I don’t like Seguin and there’s been some shitty stuff by the management that has soured me on the team as a whole (Jim Lite in particular).

My issues with Seguin are fairly simple. I can’t fault him for his partying ways back in Boston. He was a 18-21 year old, drafted 2nd overall, and won a Stanley cup his rookie year. That being said, he chose this as his profession, when he signed that contract as a legal ADULT he chose to follow the rules set by the team. He got benched for missing breakfast and fans were up in arms about it. It was a mandatory breakfast, which means he was contractually obligated to go. He broke part of that contract and as such he deserved to be benched to learn a lesson.

He’s also said some homophobic and racist things in the past. Yes I’m 100% talking about the tweet from his trade. He used the “I was hacked” card. I’m sorry I don’t buy it and it’s convenient that he was hacked and said something like that right after he got traded.

Onto the racist piece of his. I use this term lightly because it was said in regards to other white people but it was in regards to non-Northern American people. The quote was “Guys always talk in different languages. Sometimes you just put your foot down. We’re in North America, we’re not going to have a team of cliques.”

That is so tone deaf, because people would have been up in arms if he had said that about people of color (I would too because that type of shit is fucked up), however if he’s willing to say that about his fellow white teammates who happen to be European why would he not be saying the same thing about migrants from Hispanic countries?

He sounds so ignorant. Does he go to Quebec and speak strictly French? Did he speak French and German exclusively when he played for Biel in the lockout?

It’s rhetoric like that people just glance over and pretend wasn’t said.

I’m pretty sure everyone at this point knows I don’t like Corey Perry. I think he’s a dirty player, have since he was a Duck.

People loved Roussell when he played for the stars, yet he slew-footed like crazy, gets in to multiple fights for seasons but the minute anybody back in the day attacked him they were bad guy for pointing out he’s a dirty player.

Non-Stars player that I have an issue with that I’ve been given flack for across multiple platforms is Sidney Crosby. He might be one of the best players to ever play in this league. He has also used this to his advantage way to many times to do some pretty dirty things that fans excuse because “it’s Crosby”. (I will forever be pissed about the Claude Giroux wrist incident).

So at the end of my massive rant here’s the summary.

1. Fans will continually bash another team for their dirty plays but praise their own (or completely ignore it or defend it) for similar things. (Bruins fans with Marchand, Hawks fans with Shaw, Caps fans with Wilson). That isn’t going to change.

2. You can either bring it to their attention and get flack for it and potentially end a friendship... or you can keep quite, ignore them in regards to that (until you eventually have enough, and then you do a super long post like this)

3. Every team has dirty players, a lot of teams have someone (or more than one) who has done or said something controversial. It’s up to you to determine if bringing this to other fans attention during a smack down of your team is worth it.

4. Love hockey for hockey. If their talk gets too much then maybe you need to take a break from them.