#shco spoilers

[onceinawhilemoon]

tonight's insomnia is brought to you by:

in the ending where mycroft narrates the aftermath, he briefly mentions how one of his agents’ vehicles was ignited during a surveillance operation..

mycroft then says, “there's only one man who could orchestrate such a feat - or perhaps two.”

i'm pretty sure one of the "two" is M. him being responsible for something like this is my personal canon and just makes sense. but the way mycroft says it right after talking about sherlock and how he's afraid for him, and right after saying, "i suspect he is growing paranoid," drives me insane. the way it's phrased seems to suggest that mycroft is referring to sherlock as one of the two men who could have been responsible, and that seems to be what led mycroft to suspect sherlock was growing paranoid..

but why would mycroft even suspect sherlock, and why would sherlock even do such a thing?

"she was lucky to get out alive" implies the incident was pretty serious and could have killed the agent and whoever was inside the vehicle with her. i doubt that sherlock would intentionally endanger people's lives like that..

and why would he even go out of his way to sabotage mycroft's operations in the first place? unless this “surveillance" operation was actually a “keep an eye on my brother and make sure he doesn't do anything stupid” operation. and when sherlock realized that he was being followed/watched, he set fire to the agent’s vehicle to protect himself and scare her off, perhaps thinking she was sent by someone he antagonized in cordona?

i've spent more time than i care to admit squinting at this screenshot depicting Mystery Man Around the Corner. M would definitely hire someone to do the dirty for him, but sherlock is more of a hands-on kind of person, right? i mean... the hairline kiiiiiind of resembles sherlock's, i guess? maybe? if you squint? i'm probably just seeing things at this point..

what further firms my suspicion that the "two" is in reference to sherlock and M, is how the phrasing seems to play into the idea of them being equals. the idea of only two people possessing the same level of intelligence and cunning, who have access to certain information, and who are capable of knowing exactly when and how to intercept mycroft's operations. M, who seems to have consistently stayed at least one step ahead of mycroft, and mycroft's own brother, who knows him a little too well and shares his brain genetics, who is also familiar with many of his agents, some even by name.

i love this ending because it's the only one where we get a glimpse into Sherlock After Jon from a perspective that isn't sherlock's. he's lonely, he's likely paranoid, his brother is worried about him... all of it contradicting the other endings in which sherlock tells us that he's fine and has moved on with his life.

so the whole fire incident thing and mycroft’s line about who could have been responsible could be a way of hinting at the negative consequences that jon's loss is having on sherlock. now, without jon to course-correct and reorient him, he's more prone to (extreme?) paranoid reactions such as this. though i'm not sure if i like the aspect of going to the extent of jeoprodizing lives... (also, funny how the loss of what sherlock perceived as his "irrational" part probably caused HIM to act in irrational ways..)

it gets even sadder when you think about it from mycroft's perspective, especially with him saying, "i saved my brother. he will never forgive me" right after he mentions the fire incident. if he truly believes that sherlock could have been responsible, then it would not only sprout worry and confusion, but also send him into a spiral grappling with conjectures, because what if sherlock WOULD go out of his way to deliberately break mycroft’s trust? what if it's an act of retaliation because mycroft broke HIS trust by lying to him to save his life? but mycroft attributes it to paranoia, possibly because he doesn't want to fully lose faith in his little brother and their relationship yet, but most likely because he's resignedly too aware of their family history...

from mycroft's perspective, even if sherlock truly did it, he had to have been driven by something out of his rational mind, rather than by mere spite or a desire for revenge. and mycroft doesn't hold it against him because he knows that sherlock only did it to defend and protect himself from a perceived threat. instead, he fears for sherlock and his mental health because the last time someone close to mycroft took action against a perceived threat in a fit of paranoid delusion... well, we all know how that went..

anyway. i'm choosing to end the ramble by rolling down the brighter side of this hill: mycroft dropping hints about his awareness of M in this ending (and his knowledge of M in TA in general) implies to me that sherlock taking jon's advice and swallowing his pride to ask Big Bro for help regarding M is most likely very canon. weeee :')

[billiex-x]

I just saw a compilation of all the shco endings for the first time-

Why did it have to be so sad ☹️😞

The panic from Sherlock in the ‘Jon did it’ ending after he shoots him 😭😭

The S▪️J in the ‘Sherlock did it’ ending 😭😭😭

The way Sherlock pulled a gun on Mycroft in the 'Mycroft accused Richter wrongly' ending 😭😭😭😭

AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA

[pocket-lizart]

It's been over a week and I am still thinking about Sherlock hugging Mycroft qwq

[hey-sherry]

Sherlock with a buzzcut...

[escachromepb]

hey sorry but your boyfriend disintegrated. yeah you solved the mystery surrounding your mother's death and just didn't need him around anymore. yeah it was really sad. :( it was probably all for the best though idk. maybe someday you will meet someone like him

[budgiepunk]

i think another thing I don't like about verner vogel is like. If he didn't know sherlock was. SHERLOCK in the hotel, he definitely learned afterward. Iirc It's also only after sherlock tells him in the graveyard that he's back in cordona to process his mother's death that verner goes "ah but DID she die of tuberculosis? :)", which kind of makes me wonder whether or not he planned this whole thing.

Do you guys get what I'm saying? Like either he waited for sherlock to come back specifically to torment him (weird)

OR

he saw (and recognized) sherlock, shrugged and decided that, hey, might as well fuck with the poor guy haha :) make him relive trauma he kept locked away heehee (also weird)

Either way this is all done to a guy who is just barely getting his other foot into adulthood, too, like. Grrr verner is a terrible little man

[atlitudes]

welcome to watch mojo top 10 moments that will definitely not be important mhmm no sir not significant at all for the future

[showingpitytowardsyourownkind]

Image ID: John touching Sherlock's arm to comfort him with the text "Friendship ended with JON" "Now JOHN is my best friend" on top in orange, pink, and green gradient text. At each bottom corner is a picture of Jon crossed out with a green X.

[landlordevil]

undefined

Sorry for the quiet audio, but here it is: The saga of the gay ass puzzle

[williamscigar]

SHCO spoilers.

My jaw was ON THE FLOOR, PAY FOR MY THERAPY FROGWARES!

[lucere-aeresta]

The Myth of Sherlock Holmes, Told By Frogwares

Some philosophical discussion, or just wildly wandering thoughts of mine, on SHCO and SHTA. Long and...potentially boring...or intriguing, depending on the reader themselves.

Warning: Contains spoilers.

Also warning: If you are the kind of people be like "the bad guy is wrong and immoral so everything they say or think has no merit whatsoever", please please don't open it.

I have long been thinking about writing something about the dialogue in the gallery between Sherlock and Vogel in SHCO, and now after finishing SHTA remake, I realize this new game paints a clearer picture of the philosophical implications of this new FW Sherlock Holmes series, so I can explore it a bit more.

First, a point to make: in both games, the antagonists are correct, in a way. Yes, they are manipulative, immoral, even blatantly cruel and crazy; and no, I am not saying they did something right. But examining only the logical and philosophical aspects of the stories, they both got something right, some core understanding of the world, no less.

In Vogel's case, it is the power and role of human emotions and the absurdity of the notion of truth. In the gallery and the party, he makes it clear that feelings are powerful and irresistible; human rationality is no match for feelings and emotions; everything that matters is what we feel. He also insists that truth is more than what you simply observe; the consequence and influence are part of the truth, which makes "truth", in a way, a matter of interpretation and choice rather than ironclad objectivity.

And he has a very brilliant point there. The social implications of truth and which aspects we choose to reveal or emphasize can not be understated. Moreover, knowing the limit of human rationality is the first step towards real reasoning and a better world. The arrogance of believing everything is rational or reasonable always leads to disasters and the worst form of irrationality.

Then Vogel's view goes this way: the notion of pursuing truth is but an illusion, and it could be undesirable and destructive. We see that too at the endings of SHCO. Even after finishing the story, there is still no absolute truth about Violet's death, which is partly open to Sherlock's (or the player's) own interpretation. He has nothing to say to reproach Vogel's remarks. He says Vogel is lying, but that only addresses the man's motive, not his argument itself.

As for Rochester, at first glance, he shares very few similarities with Vogel: he is a much, much worse man and makes less sense than Vogel. Vogel, at his worst, is to prove himself right by manipulating Sherlock and inflicting pain on him (and you can't deny that he does help Sherlock, intentional or not, to find the truth, which is what Sherlock desires), but Rochester is utmost destructive, a mass murderer, trying to bring an end to the world.

But Rochester, as mad and evil as he is, also grasps some level of truth about the world, about the ancient gods.

The game is amazingly vague about if all the Cthulhu business is real or merely Sherlock's hallucination and the result of cultists' manipulation. But comparing the remake with the original game, one thing is clear: there are more "magical" or supernatural elements in the new one--the mysterious mind-controlling Khaleid lenses, the increasing storms, the things Sherlock sees and experiences...if they are not entirely created by some ancient gods and their worshipers, at least on thing is clear: there are much more mysteries that science cannot decipher exists in this world.

More importantly, in the very end, Rochester makes Sherlock admit that everything he has seen is real. The horrifying legends and lurking danger of an ancient entity truly exist, not pure madness and hallucination, not the effect of drugs. In my opinion, this is more significant than the argument of "if Cthulhu really exists". It's all about Sherlock and his interpretation of the world, reality and sanity. And here, during the confrontation, he starts to doubt it all. In this way, he proves Rochester right--there is no such thing as sanity. Ironically, at this point, between the two, Rochester is the sane one--if sanity is to distinguish false and true, to face and accept reality, and insanity entails denying reality, indulging in delusions and false beliefs that fail to align with the real world, then Sherlock is the one who truly has gone mad.

It sounds absurd at this point--at the end of both games, Sherlock is proved to be wrong to an extent, his rationality tested, belief questioned, and sanity shattered. It seems he has failed in his own pursuit, yet he still persists and fights back--but on what ground? If the antagonists are proven right, then what is he standing for? If he has lost the core of himself, then what else matters?

"Nothing beside remains" is Vogel's assertion. To him, Sherlock has become a "half sunk shattered visage", a man proven to be futilely struggling against the inevitable. Rochester plunges to his death, refusing to give Sherlock the answer he desires. Rochester stands firm on his ground till the bitter end, leaving Sherlock alive, questioning everything about himself. Doesn't that sound like a spiritual failure, the worst form, since he achieves his goal but is left internally shaken and broken?

And for me, THIS is, paradoxically, the entire point of these stories. It's the very charm, the magic of the new FW SH games.

Sherlock Holmes, one of the most popular fictional characters mankind has ever seen, is the personification of rationality and reasoning mind, at least in the original design and/or public interpretation. He was created and celebrated in the new dawn of science and rationality, the age of enlightenment and reason. At the time, human beings worshiped reason as the worshiped gods. Many believed everything was rational and all problems could be solved by science and progress. The all-mighty rationality of humanity could overpower the greatest gods in history.

Well, we all know how that went.

In a way, Sherlock Holmes is a god himself, a myth collectively created by the minds of the Age Of Reason. His methods marked a revolution in criminology and forensics studies. This never existed character is sometimes called "the father of modern forensics". It could easily be one of the most absurd things in human history; nevertheless, evidence-based detection is much superior to the crude and erroneous methods used before. It's no surprise that someone believed justice could be achieved merely by applying those new methods.

We all know how that went as well.

The essence is: human rationality and the ability to reason are limited; humans are always prone to be affected by feelings and other factors than pure reasoning--it's etched in our physical existence. Falsely believing in the equation "reason = correct" is fatally dangerous. I don't mean it in a negative way; on the contrary, only by recognizing the limits of reasoning can humans improve society. The fundamental merit of the scientific method is to question and test existing theories and find breakthroughs from challenging things that used to be believed to be the truth. For a true rational mind, "truth" and "objectivity" are really holding a thin layer of perilous ground, ready to be tipped over by newly found evidence. The very foundation of our existence and all human knowledge could be challenged at any time--it happened before, and it will happen in the future. And the truth-finding time always brought some doubt, commotion, and chaos.

Now, that starts to sound familiar, not unlike what is conveyed in these two games, doesn't it?

In the wake of the ever-shifting understanding of the universe and the chaotic scientific development and new findings, facing the challenge of questioning every piece of knowledge that humans used to hold true, the sense of emptiness, meaninglessness, and absurdity of human existence emerged. Believing in gods, or whatever "irrational" higher power used to be the source of life's meaning and purpose, a way to find comfort despite the dangerous and chaotic state of being. And now all these are shattered--not only the notion of gods but also the mere idea of something we could always hold true, never to be challenged.

Cthulhu mythos is one of the products of this sense of desperation and emptiness--cosmicism, the focus on an indifferent universe and the insignificance of human existence, and the fear triggered by facing the cosmic void.

It may sound gloomy and pessimistic, although Lovecraft himself said it was neither pessimistic nor optimistic, only scientific. I don't think being scientific and pessimistic are inherently contradictory, they are in two different realms. This view is, in a way, scientific and rational, the universe, as we can see now at least, doesn't have a purpose, and human beings are not the center of the "meaning" of the universe, if it ever has one.

Therefore, I conclude that the Cthulhu mythos is the dark side of human rationality. Or being less judgmental, the original myth of hopeful and powerful reasoning power, represented by Sherlock Holmes, and the dismal, pessimistic picture painted in the myth of otherworldly gods, Cthulhu being the most prominent, are the two sides of the same coin.

And here is the very question: where do we stand between these two powers? Or: what is the meaning of life?

In this line of thought, I see SHCO and SHTA as a set of stories exploring the realm of existentialism.

This idea may appear like my overthinking and over-reading the games, which I don't deny entirely--I enjoy digging deep into something until my interpretation surpasses its own intention. Nevertheless, I don't believe I make it all up--the repeatedly mentioning of Sisyphus in SHCO is more than a dim hint, but a strong implication.

In Camus' The Myth of Sisyphus, the figure Sisyphus represents the human condition of the absurd--the desire for meaning in life contradicting the silent, indifferent universe. Our life is like Sisyphus' predicament--rolling a giant rock uphill only to watch it fall down helplessly, then repeat the same toil again and again. The predestined falling rock could also be a metaphor for the inevitable death waiting for everyone, yet we unfailingly roll it up, without the hope for it to stay even a moment. In the quest to seek reason and ultimate truth, the situation is not unlike the falling rock. We see in history that no matter how perfect a scientific theory seems, it always ends up being challenged and modified, even thrown away.

There are three stages of this journey in the absurd and existentialism realization: first, one is not aware of their meaningless existence, thus ignorantly happy; then, as soon as one becomes conscious of the absurd, they are in the center of a tragedy; yet, only when one is fully aware of the true nature of their being and face it, scorn it, own it, could it be conquered, and only then, true happiness could be achieved. "At each of those moments when he leaves the heights and gradually sinks toward the lairs of the gods, he is superior to his fate. He is stronger than his rock."

Back to SHCO, in the gallery scene, Sherlock makes two assertions: "Feelings are simply one's animal ancestry trying to wrest back control of the brain." And "Mankind's highest achievement, above all others, is objective and rational thought."

He is not wrong, only too confident, even arrogant. Vogel is not wrong to say "men never act freely and rationally anyway," either. The fact is we can never totally free our brains from our animal ancestry, and when we hold our achievements in too high a position and refuse to reevaluate, we are surely doomed.

At this point, Sherlock is unaware of the absurdity of rationality and holds tightly onto his ignorant happiness and confidence. The end of the game marks his entering into the next phase when he acknowledges his own tragedy, with a trace of hope that he is braving it and taking control.

Later in SHTA, when facing an even larger challenge, Sherlock tries in vain to maintain that everything can be explained by reasoning mind. Yet as he sinks deeper and deeper into madness, he once again goes through the phases of acknowledging the absurd, this time questioning not only his personal history but the very meaning of the whole world. It is definitely a tougher task for him, and the end is gloomier than SHCO since he shows less courage and hopes for a better future.

Nevertheless, in each ending of the two games, in the struggles, failures, and shattered hopes, when he falters, doubts, and fears, he somehow always holds true to his purpose--an obsession, comments Mycroft. Obsession may it be, it is the meaning he attributes to his course of actions.

At the end of SHTA, it is hard to point a finger at what is exactly the thing he fights for. Truth? Justice? Love? Humanity? Connection with another human being? Maybe a portion of each, but that's not all, not the core of it.

On the top of the lighthouse, Rochester convinces him that everything is real. Sherlock is not winning in their argument, just like when he confronts Vogel, not much to argue against the man other than pointing out his intention was malicious. He can't prove Vogel or Rochester wrong.

Yet he tells Vogel, "I remain", which is the most powerful thing he could say, and all that matters. Vogel believes that he has made Sherlock "let go of the rock", but he fails to understand Sherlock--he doesn't see the truth rock he holds.

He himself is the rock. The meaning is in himself and himself only.

That is what he uses against Rochester, not his logic or intelligence, not even his morality or humanity. Nothing matters but his, and the world's very being itself.

There is a very interesting point in the lighthouse scene, in terms of the thinking process and structure of belief, Rochester and Sherlock Holmes are not that different.

Rochester makes it very clear, everything is real, and it is only rational to accept it as it is. He knows Sherlock and knows him very well. He knows what kind of man he is, and what he values the most--his love for knowledge and truth, his deepest fear and weakness. He knows Sherlock has doubt in his heart. He knows exactly how to counter each argument, maybe in a way Sherlock himself would put it. "One must imagine Icarus happy...(ah, another reference to The Myth of Sisyphus, the last sentence being "one must imagine Sisyphus happy.") And were you to ask him of his choice, he would have not a single regret." Doesn't that perfectly summarize Rochester himself and Sherlock Holmes? At the end of SHCO, hasn't Sherlock "plummeted to his death" spiritually as he found out about the truth of his mother's death? Jon died, and so did part of himself. Yet he insists on flying toward the sun, again and again, with no regret, no looking back, seeking only the truth, or whatever he holds true. Rochester, in this sense, is no different. They are but one at this point. It's not only an irony that the most famous Sherlock Holmes quote comes from his mouth, but also the very essence of this story: Now we both know the truth, that I am right about this world. Then what else stands between us, what else do you hold against me?

In a practical sense, Sherlock has John and his brother, and the knowledge he has gained in the journey, all that can help him win the fight. But in the philosophical and spiritual aspects, he is defeated, temporarily at least. He is forced to his knees, admitting everything is real. Also, in the epilogue, we see how much he is suffering, not able to fully recover from the nightmares.

But also in the philosophical aspect, victory and defeat matter little. As Sherlock tells John, "If our future is black, it is better surely to face it like a man than to attempt to brighten it by mere will-o'-the-wisps of the imagination." For him, the notion of hope is meaningless, a wishful thought. He determines to face everything as it is, without dressing them up with his fancies and lies.

As he lets go of everything, he gains it all.

When he finally completes processing the madness of the world, when Rochester believes he can defeat Sherlock this time, Sherlock finds the peace and courage to face it, and tells Rochester, "maybe your god is unstoppable, but you are merely a man. And I know how to stop you."

What is the point, I would imagine Rochester asks, if you know that Cthulhu is bound to come sooner or later? If the world is predestined to be destroyed, what is the point of stopping me here, only to prolong the empty and meaningless suffering of humanity?

And this choice, when facing the same premise, is what I believe to be the fundamental difference between Sherlock and Rochester, and Vogel too: Sherlock chooses to roll the rock uphill despite knowing it will eventually fall down.

Crazy as his behaviors are, Rochester's line of thought is not that hard to understand: If Cthulhu is predestined to destroy the world, then I am only following the inevitable. The world is meaningless thus as well destroyed. Vogel follows the same logic: men never think rationally, then why bother? Better only feel and consume since striving for reason is futile.

In their mind, the rock must stay at the top, or there is no point in rolling it up. If not forever, then never.

Don't we, our society, tend to think the same way? If one changes their mind or changes the course of their career, marriage, hobby, etc., we judge them to be a failure, at least in the previous pursuit.

But when death is inevitable, and everything must be put to a stop eventually, then what and who is not a failure?

The highest rationality, on the other hand, is to recognize this inevitable ending and the futility of maintaining certainty and eternity, and go from there.

And this is the essence of Frogwares' myth of Sherlock Holmes, the one who faces the ultimate meaningless, the absurd, and the destruction at the end, yet still "remains". At this moment, "being" is the most, and the only powerful thing, to stand on one's ground and defy the inevitable like Sisyphus rebels against the gods. It doesn't matter how much Sherlock questions himself, doubts everything, and struggles against the darkness; it doesn't matter his own mind lingering between reality and madness. Just as "there is no sun without shadow, and it is essential to know the night", there is no reason without doubt, no reality without madness, and no happiness without gaze into the abyss of the absurd. Despite all the suffering, he remains, holding tight to the rock--himself. And that's all that matters. At this point his victory is the only INEVITABLE, as Camus puts it, "The lucidity that was to constitute his torture at the same time crowns his victory. There is no fate that cannot be surmounted by scorn."

Therefore, one must imagine Sherlock Holmes happy.

[onceinawhilemoon]

so, uh... This absolutely did not shatter me whatsoever

"... I was exlied from Cordona. With no means, no home, and no purpose, I returned to London."

Sherlock considers Cordona to be his home. not London.

[youphoriaot7]

helloooo!! i am sen, nice to meet you all :D been hanging around a bunch on qsmpblr and i'm starting to brainrot on other subjects so i figured i'd update my pinned.

sen – they/them – over 18 i write fic on ao3 here, and cosplay over on tiktok here! if you want more links, you can check out my carrd here! online series: life series, qsmp, ordem paranormal, generation loss streamers/yters: cellbit, tazercraft (pactw / mikethelink), fitmc, goodtimeswithscar, grian, ranboo other: dead boy detectives, the sandman, good omens, sherlock holmes (frogwares games, bbc sherlock), the magnus archives/protocol, malevolent

making a tags masterlist below this (because things got out of hand on here VERY quickly lmaoooo) – not necessary to read ofc, it's mostly for me ksjghsjfk i'll add tags as things happen!

fic/studies masterlist [link soon]

GENERAL TAGS (A-Z) character study | breakdown fanart | fic | whumptober2023 | sen's qsmp whumptober

DEAD BOY DETECTIVES

dbda | dbda fanart | dbda quotes | dbda rewatch | dbda visuals | dbda memes | dbda theory | dbda headcanons | dbda fic dbda spoilers | dead boy detectives spoilers first meeting | dandelion shrine | devlin house | lighthouse leapers | two dead dragons | creeping forest | very long stairway | hungry snake

HERMITCRAFT / LIFE SERIES

hc fanart | trafficblr

ORDEM PARANORMAL

opq | opq liveblogging

QSMP

qsmp memes | qsmp quotes | qsmp clips | qsmp liveblogging | qsmp vodblogging | qmongus | qatching up | the great brazil meetup | qsmp recap | queuesmp qsmp headcanons | qsmp theory | qsmp fanart | qsmp fic | qsmp drabble disappearances | the federation are evil | 00100001 | isla quesadilla pl;anarchy | pl;bluebird | pl;childhood | pl;existence | pl;fuga | pl;missing | pl;paradise | pl;perfection | pl;presidency | pl;worse ev;arena | ev;arrival | ev;dinner | ev;chainsaw | ev;corruption | ev;fedescape | ev;hatch | ev;jaidens | ev;jailbreak | ev;manipulation | ev;memory | ev;resgate | ev;watchtower

SHERLOCK HOLMES

sherlock holmes the awakened | shta sherlock holmes chapter one | shco shta spoilers | shco spoilers shta memes | shco memes | shta visuals | shco visuals | shta quotes | shco quotes | shta fanart | shco fanart

CHARACTER TAGS (A-Z)

A

qsmp antoine | qsmp arin

B

opq benito qsmp bagi | qsmp baghera | qsmp bbh | qsmp bobby

C

cat king charles rowland createtrio crystal palace opq carol qsmp cellbit | qsmp chayanne | qsmp cucurucho

D

dandelion sprites david the demon opq diego qsmp dapper

E

edwin paine / edwin payne esther finch qsmp elquackity | qsmp empanada | qsmp etoiles

F

fitpac frogwares holmes frogwares jon frogwares mycroft frogwares sherlock frogwares watson qsmp felps | qsmp fit / qsmp fitmc | qsmp foolish | qsmp forever

G

goodtimeswithscar / gtws grian guapoduo qsmp german | qsmp goddesses (mine, mumza, lore)

H

hgduo | hideandseektrio

I

impulsesv

J

jenny green / jenny the butcher opq jeffrey qsmp jaiden | qsmp juanaflippa

L

opq lucie | opq luis qsmp leo | qsmp luzu

M

monty the crow / monty finch mumbo jumbo qsmp mariana | qsmp maxo | qsmp mike | qsmp missa | qsmp mouse | qsmp myo (hope / memory)

N

the night nurse niko sasaki qsmp niki

P

payneland pacman | pissa pearlescentmoon qsmp pac | qsmp pepito | qsmp philza | qsmp pierre | qsmp pol | qsmp pomme

Q

qsmp quackity

R

qsmp ramon | qsmp richarlyson | qsmp rivers | qsmp roier

S

seekduo simon the bully qsmp slimecicle | qsmp sunny

T

technoblade tragic mick qsmp tallulah | qsmp tazercraft | qsmp tina | qsmp tilin | qsmp trumpet | qsmp tubbo

V

verner vogel violet holmes

W

qsmp walter-bob | qsmp willy

[pocket-lizart]

[hey-sherry]

I am your friend, your brother.

[deerfests]

So, because I’m me I needed to figure out what dog Mycroft has in SHCO (ramblings under the cut):

So initially, I thought it might be many different breeds. The issue was that the dog is sketchy in the one instance it is shown and as strong my adoration is for dogs and Mycroft, I was surely annoyed about this. 

I had some preliminary thoughts of random breeds I wanted it to be because I don’t like to make myself too obvious...However, very close to the obvious it was.

Looking at this, my friend said “looks like a westie” which as a westie dad I could not let myself believe because it’d be one really scruffy westie. However...

Given how Westie’s looked in the past, it was not that much of a stretch. After asking another friend about their opinion and getting them to say “yeah I can see it” I was almost settled-- of course, the issue is that West Highland White Terriers, are, as the name suggest, white. They are specifically breed to be white to avoid hunting accidents, supposedly... regardless, they are a white dog breed. So that’s an issue because of which it could not be a Westie. Now, Scotties, are a similar looking dog breed-- but they are black exclusively. 

Then, I remembered, there’s a less popular dog breed than Scotties and Westies that also came from Scotland that completes the trifecta of similar looking dogs that are only mostly different because of their fur color -- Cairn terriers. 

And as you can see-- a perfect match, in my humble opinion, Or to be frank, as close a match as I could find to the one in the sketchy drawing. 

This raises a new issue, despite my efforts, Cairn terriers -- were not referred yet as Cairn terriers, they were incorrectly dubbed Short-haired Skye terriers... whoops. Regardless, congratulations to Mycroft, a fellow terrier enjoyer! Hey, at least his little buddy isn’t a digger lol

Anyway, now to give him a name!!