#your math is wrong

[arg0t]

getting lightheaded and giddy from the sheer manic glee of proving my professor who I hate wrong. Wrong! Wrong! Wrong!

[randomness-is-my-order]

for me, nothing at all changes about jiang cheng’s end-of-canon circumstances by the reveal that he distracted the guards that led to his capture by the wens after the lotus pier attack and the reason for it is simple: you can’t be redeemed by something you did before you committed your wrongdoing. the change of character and growth needs to happen after you fucked up. his prior “good” choices/“heroic” acts do NOT make him a better person in hindsight because he went ahead and acted like a piece of shit later on, anyway. it’s like saying a murderer should be pardoned because they saved a bird from dying ten years ago or that they donated to charity that one time, “omg look they had a good heart <3”. even the text treats it like this afterthought, contextually, because by the time any of it would be revealed—it’d have been way too late for anything to change. a history of violence and hate cannot be erased nor reduced by an action taken in good faith (if not good sense) before this history ever began.

redemption happens as a response to your choices in the aftermath of your fuck-ups (or in some cases, the narrative effectively nullifies the wrongdoing itself which leads to a blank slate/redemption; but that is NOT the case with jc), not as callback from the distant past when you were perhaps a less shitty person. many think jc revealing this “secret” would be significant in some way. but... how exactly would you expect wei wuxian to react to this revelation? show gratitude after jc’s choice inevitably led to the loss of his golden core? be happy that his once-buddy cared for him before jc contributed to his death and the death of the wens and the death of countless other innocents? imagine someone once close to you lied and betrayed your trust and say, framed you wrongfully so you got jailed. later, they recount how they kicked your bully in the balls when you were both in school. okay...? how the FUCK does that change anything? you are STILL in jail?

jc’s prior good will means nothing after the bridges he’s burned to the ground, burying them twenty feet under. and he knows this. he knows that revealing the truth will make no dents. wei wuxian won’t have a better view of him just because of it. jiang cheng’s actions do not gain a softer edge. the redeeming action has to come after the tragedies he has helped with and participated in. he’s not magically a better person with this context. he’s just as who he was before. because what we are evaluating his morals on was not his supposed love/care for wei wuxian but his actions. his violence. his hatred that targetted people unjustly. these do not change. these don’t go away. these should not go away. these should not be as easy to go away. that’s all.

[coffee-scrub]

Tfw the worst guy you know makes a good point

Extra lil doodles of the girls <33 they have all my love ty for carrying tgaa

[bennetsbonnet]

I know that Elizabeth and Mr Darcy's love story in Pride and Prejudice can provide a lovely escapist fantasy at times, and certain adaptations absolutely add to the dreaminess of it all... but a healthy dose of realism is also beneficial every once in a while, before you get too far into the whole 'I wish I could be a Regency woman with no rights, no thoughts... only a husband to take care of me,' mindset.

Just from the story itself, perhaps it isn't so dreamy when you consider that you would have been far more likely to meet with a Mr Collins or a Mr Wickham than a Mr Darcy. Perhaps your father would not have been as much of a deadbeat as Mr Bennet, and you would have been forced to marry a man who you could neither love nor respect, like a Mr Collins, all so you would not end up as a financial burden to your family. Or, perhaps you would have been preyed upon by a man like Mr Wickham, who would have ruined not only your reputation but that of your family's, too. Even if he did marry you (though knights in shining armour like Mr Darcy who would make it so didn't exactly exist) he would likely soon fall out of love with you and renege on his vows. All while you were held to a different standard to him and expected to remain faithful and to obey him.

As for the real historical context itself, ever heard of coverture? A legal term where, upon marriage, a woman ceased to be a person under the law and instead became her husband's property. She could not own anything because she was not seen as an independent human being. This was not repealed until the late 19th century in the UK, under the Married Women's Property Act 1870 and I hardly need point out that even then, women were far from equal rights.

Idk, Pemberley has lovely grounds and all... but I think I'd rather retain my right to be a person...

[wicked-ghoul]

I'm doing sketch commissions through Ko-fi!

They start @ $15 per character. 2 char. = $30; 3 = $45; etc

There's 10 slots available!

If you're unable to pay for a commission, even a $1 donation to my Ko-fi would be hugely appreciated as I could definitely use the money.

Thanks!!!

~WickedGhoul

[angelsdean]

siblings will get into math vs english fights. siblings will get into heated, emotionally charged debates abt math vs english. siblings will remember cain and abel and nearly commit acts of violence, over math vs english.

[stickyvoidpaper]

hc that Tim has a false sleep disorder diagnosis from when he was younger because he refused to tell his parents he was awake for most of the night.

[katzensilber]

Man, this is why I always hated math class.

Khan Academy gave me this easy (or so I thought) problem to solve:

"A factory makes toys that are sold for $10 a piece. The factory has 40 workers, and they each produce 25 toys a day. The factory is open 5 days a week. What is the total value of toys the factory produces in a day?"

I said to myself, okay...

10 times 40 times 25 equals 10,000. That means the factory produces $10,000 worth of value per WORKING day.

10,000 times 5 equals 50,000. And then there are two days per week (the weekend) when no value is produced. So, per week, the total value produced is still only $50,000.

And finally, there are seven days in a full week, so $50,000 divided by 7 equals roughly $7,142.86. That's the total value of toys produced per day. Not "per work day", but "per day", as it specifically says in the problem.

But what does the teacher say as he guides us through it? 10 times 40 times 25 equals 10,000, so the answer is 10,000.

That's it. The end.

He even acknowledges: "So, you might be thinking, 'Hey wait, we didn't use all the information! We didn't use the "five days per week" information!' And yeah, as it turns out, that was information we didn't need."

'As it turns out'?! Are you kidding me right now?! I carefully read the question, precisely calculated exactly what it was asking for, taking all of the provided information into account... and now you're saying I'm supposed to have somehow magically known to ignore one of those pieces of information in order to make it easier for myself?

Just admit that your problem is worded badly, dude. UGH this kind of shit drives me crazy. Why can't people use words clearly >:(

[pure-koison]

I feel an entire SG binge festival coming on

[whatrealbeautylookslike]

ajax saying "it must be 50 miles to get back" when in reality it's like 16 miles to Union Square from Woodlawn Cemetery is so fucking hilarious to me

[unnonexistence]

the math secret nobody tells you is you can make anything equal anything else with the power of extremely bad notation

[stopmyhearts]

there's this acronym in German that's called FLINTA, standing for women, lesbians, intersex, nonbinary, trans and agender, and like. I do get why they use that. But if you say this is a FLINTA-only event that is literally the easiest way ever to make sure I never ever go there. Because most of the time that's used? It just means 'this thing is for people we consider women but we can't say that because we're progressive'

[nickbutnodick]

do u know that we know each other for about nearly two years now?

that's actually crazy

[jonathanbyersphd]

Me, here to tell you that logically if this leak is real the flashback should be sometime between November 6th 1979 - March 22nd 1980

[bg3-brainwormed]

Born to write durgetash, cursed to do hydrothermal vent chemistry.

[skyriderwednesday]

Still liable to changes, but I have at last placed every single story into my chronology! I have also made some changes to the order of stories placed previously, based either on new information or their vibes. Comments and feedback are much appreciated.

The ‘Gloria Scott’ - Summer 1875 [1] (Framing: Winter 1882-3?)

The maths as stated don’t work, as 1855 + 30 = 1885, and these events can’t occur after A Study In Scarlet. 1875 would have to be Holmes’s second year of college. 

The Musgrave Ritual - Spring 1879 (Framing: Winter 1882-3?)

It is stated to have been four years since Holmes last saw Musgrave. Holmes mentions telling Watson about the events of ‘Gloria Scott’. Watson must be living at 221b at the time, as his intro describes Holmes’s extremely messy habits in terms of lodging with him.

A Study In Scarlet - January to March 1881

Watson states the date he discovered Holmes’s profession explicitly as the 4th of March, which was several weeks after they moved in together. I find it likely that it was at most mid-January when they met, and that Watson spent February observing Holmes’s habits and trying to figure him out.

The Resident Patient - October 1881

Watson describes these events as being ‘towards the end of the first year during which Holmes and I shared chambers’, and then specifies that it was October.

The Valley Of Fear - January 1882 [2]

It is stated to be ‘in the late eighties’, but Holmes appears to still be getting used to Watson’s sense of humour, which he claims is ‘developing’, which points to it being earlier while Watson is still recovering from his illness. Any later and Holmes would already be very familiar with his closest companion’s personality. It cannot be any earlier than 1882 however, since January 1881 is taken up by the events of A Study In Scarlet.

The Speckled Band - April 1883

The Yellow Face - Summer 1883

The Beryl Coronet - February 1884

The Copper Beeches - Early Spring 1884

Charles Augustus Milverton - Winter 1884

I get the feeling this is an earlier case, as Watson’s attitude is oddly naïve when it comes to morality and the ability of the law to handle Milverton. I cannot see him behaving like this/holding these beliefs if he has already experienced Moriarty with Holmes for instance. He is also very jumpy while he and Holmes are performing their burglary.

The Hound Of The Baskervilles - October 1885 [3]

Mortimer’s stick is dated 1884, and Holmes notes this was five years ago (making it 1889), but Watson neither appears to be married nor in medical practice, and since this story was explicitly written as to have occurred before Holmes’s ‘death’, this precludes it being set after 1888.  

The Greek Interpreter - Summer 1886?

The Reigate Squires - April 1887

The Sign Of Four - July 1887 [4]

It is stated to be July (later mistakenly stated as September) 1888, but this contradicts both SCAN (March 1888) and FIVE (September 1887). There also appears to be a pearl missing as Mary describes their delivery. 

The Cardboard Box - August 1887

Holmes mentions both A Study In Scarlet and The Sign Of Four by name -- which implies that Watson is a very speedy writer, as this would be only a few weeks later. However, this may be taken as self promotion on Watson’s part.

The Noble Bachelor - Autumn 1887

This story is dated to 1887 via Lord St. Simon’s age, but Watson is soon to be married -- which is not possible if he has not yet met his fiancée. Dating SIGN to July 1887 fixes this discrepancy. 

A Scandal In Bohemia - March 1888

Watson explicitly dates the start of this case to the 20th of March 1888, and states that he hasn’t seen Holmes for several months after his marriage (which would be in the late autumn to winter of 1887)

The Stockbroker’s Clerk - June 1888

Watson states that he acquired his practice ‘shortly after’ his marriage, and that he was too busy to visit Holmes at Baker Street for three months. Counting most of March as the first month (per SCAN), that takes us to the June he states, which is the first time Holmes has visited Watson at his practice. 

The Naval Treaty - July 1888

[The Second Stain - July 1888**]

I take it that the story of this name is heavily if not entirely fictionalised. This is when the real events that inspired it occurred.

The Crooked Man - Summer (August?) 1888

The Five Orange Pips - September 1888 [5]

It is stated to be September 1887, but even if SIGN occurred in July of that year, Watson and Mary have not married yet for him to be ‘staying at Baker Street’ while she is away visiting her (dead) mother.

The Boscombe Valley Mystery - Spring 1889

The Man With The Twisted Lip - June 1889

I place this after BOSC, as Holmes takes it as a given that Watson’s wife will not object to him sending a note and running off on a case in the middle of the night. (I suspect he’s wrong and will be due a bollocking after breakfast)

The Engineer’s Thumb - Summer 1889

The Dying Detective - November 1889

Watson describes this as happening in his ‘second year of marriage’, which, 1888 being his first, works out as 1889.

A Case Of Identity - September 1890

Holmes comments in REDH that the case of Mary Sutherland occurred ‘the other day’. 

The Red-Headed League - October 1890

The Blue Carbuncle - December 1890

Watson states it to be ‘the second morning after Christmas’, making it the 27th. When discussing cases that didn’t involve a crime, Holmes cites the events of SCAN, IDEN, and TWIS. This also lines up with the publication order, BLUE being the seventh short story, and Watson states that of the ‘last six cases’ he has written up, three of them were legally free of crime (morally however…)

The Final Problem - April to May 1891

Holmes has apparently been working in France since ‘the winter of 1890’ when he suddenly shows up in Watson’s consulting room on the 24th of April. His ‘death’ occurs on the 4th of May. 

The Empty House - March 1894

The Norwood Builder - Summer 1894

Stated to take place ‘several months’ after Holmes’s return. Watson has moved back to Baker Street and sold his practice. 

Silver Blaze - Late Summer 1894 

(I would like to set Silver Blaze to be after NORW, since I think Holmes and Watson deserve a fun case after that one. I believe it to be post-hiatus since Watson is evidently resident in Baker Street and does not appear to be in practice at this time.)

The Golden Pince-Nez - November 1894

The Red Circle - Winter 1894

Watson is living at Baker Street, and Holmes refers to his medical practice in the past tense. 

The Solitary Cyclist - April 1895

The Three Students - 1895

Black Peter - July 1895

The Bruce-Partington Plans - November 1895

The Veiled Lodger - Early 1896

The Shoscombe Old Place - 1896

The Missing Three-Quarter - February 1896-7?

Described as occurring ‘seven or eight years ago’ from the time of writing, presumably 1904. 

The Devil’s Foot - March 1897

The Abbey Grange - Winter 1897

Wisteria Lodge - March 1898 [6]

It is stated to be March 1892, but this is impossible as Holmes is presumed dead at that time. It also can’t be March ‘91 as Holmes is too busy at that time, and referencing REDH eliminates March ‘90 or any year earlier. Further, Holmes complains of boredom due to a lack of cases, which eliminates 1894 due to a very high number of cases in that year (he also would only have been back about two weeks at that point). Holmes is also busy in March ‘95, ‘96, and ‘97. It is not until 1898 that there may be time to be bored by March.

The Six Napoleons - Late May/Early June 1898

It must be the end of May or the start of June, as Beppo was arrested and sentenced to a year in prison in late May of the previous year. (I’d like to set this one near DANC, since Holmes deserves the praise. 

The Dancing Men - July 1898

Mr Cubitt says that he met his wife while in London ‘for the jubilee last year’, and that Elsie received a letter from America ‘about a month ago, at the end of June’. 

The Sussex Vampire - November 1898

I date this story to after 1897, as that is the year vampires rose significantly in the public consciousness.

The Retired Colourman - Summer 1899

Amberley married his wife in 1897, and Holmes comments that the events that have resulted in their contact with him have occurred ‘within two years’.

The Priory School - May 1901?

Years listed with regard to Lord Holdernesse date the story post 1900, and wording makes it seem that that is not the present year.

The Disappearance of Lady Frances Carfax - Spring/Summer 1901?

The Problem Of Thor Bridge - October 1901

The Three Garridebs - June 1902

The Illustrious Client - September 1902

The Blanched Soldier - January 1903

Holmes claims that Watson has ‘deserted [him] for a wife’. 

The Mazarin Stone - Summer 1903

Watson is visiting Baker Street, and comments that nothing has changed in his absence, which infers this to occur after his second marriage. He also comments that a dummy of Holmes has been ‘used before’, referencing the events of EMPT. 

The Three Gables - 1903?

Watson has not seen Holmes ‘in some days’.

The Creeping Man - September 1903

As originally published, the date is stated as September 1902, but when collected in Case-Book, this changes to 1903. I place it in 1903 as Watson is not living at Baker Street at this time, having been summoned by a note from Holmes.

The Lion’s Mane - July 1907

Holmes is retired

His Last Bow: The War Service Of Sherlock Holmes - August 1914

Holmes has been undercover for the past two years.

Additionally:

This chronology was started in direct opposition to and due to frustration with Baring-Gould's chronology. Any comments or suggestions based on it will be disregarded.

It is my aim with this chronology to take into account all stated dates, and take them as correct except for where they blatantly contradict others. (e.g. SIGN being dated to either July or September 1888, when FIVE references Watson's wife in September 1887 and SCAN refers to his marriage in March 1888; Wisteria Lodge being dated to March 1892 when Holmes is 'dead' at this time)

It is also my intention that Watson is only married twice, the first time to Mary Morstan in late 1887 and the second to an unknown Mrs Watson in early 1903 (being strictly canonical, my own headcanons of him retiring to Sussex with Holmes aside)

I estimate that Holmes was born January 6th 1857, making him 18 at the time of GLOR and 24 at the time of STUD. Also by this estimate he would be 57 at the time of His Last Bow.

I estimate that Watson was born 23rd May 1853, making him 27 at the time of STUD. This would make him 61 at the time of His Last Bow.