seth's miscellany.

Posts tagged with “let's talk about sherlock holmes”

The new flashback has been so wonderfully heartbreaking. I love how you manage to make me like your Sherlock much much better than the Sherlock in the series. It's amazing how you capture his personality AND mental state so realistically well. I love it. It hurts, but I love it.
misterbilbo

Thank you very much.  On that note, I read a review of series 3 that perfectly captured my problems with the show’s Sherlock…

More importantly, while “His Last Vow” might close out the third season out on a more solid, dependable note than the previous episodes, it can’t do enough to correct the fact that Sherlock has lost sight of its title character.  It isn’t impossible to draw a line between “Hearse“‘s cruel manipulator, “Three“‘s sad clown, and “Vow“‘s brave child, who will do anything to protect the people he loves except tell them he loves them.

But Sherlock doesn’t seem particularly interested in drawing that line, and the tonal shifts between its three episodes, the way they each seem to take place in a subtly different world to the others, only intensifies the feeling that they also represent three different takes on the same character rather than three facets of the same person.  [x]

I feel like it’s my job to tie these Sherlocks together into one believable person.  I had to do that in series 2/Texts 1.0, too, but series 3 intensified the issue by a lot.


Hey, can you tell me what you thought about 'God is a ludicrous fantasy'? It's bugging me, because that's not the stance of ACD's Holmes and I can't work out if Sherlock was being insincere at this point of the speech or if the writers have decided that's what a modern Holmes would think. If the former, why? If the latter, do you agree? (I understand if you don't want to say, it's a thorny question!)
–Anonymous

Thorny question indeed.  To be honest, I don’t know for sure.  I felt like that section of the speech was meant to exemplify why he is “the most unpleasant, rude, ignorant and all-round obnoxious asshole that anyone could possibly have the misfortune of meeting.”  It could be hyperbole to make his point, to establish him as a foil to John, or…

I am a scientist.  A vast majority of us are atheists, outright scornful of God.  I am not.  I am an agnostic theist because I feel like as a scientist I can’t prove it one way or the other.  Even if Sherlock is an atheist, I think there’s no way he’s not also agnostic.  His comment, “The universe is rarely so lazy,” sort of brings to mind Einstein’s thoughts on deterministic physics: “God doesn’t play dice with the universe.”  Einstein did not believe in a personal god, but rather the pantheist God of Baruch Spinoza.  He considered himself agnostic, but not an atheist.  This is how I envision Sherlock, and how I’ll probably continue to write him in the future.

So, maybe that comment refers to something else.  Sherlock would be far more scornful of the “ludicrous fantasy” that surrounds God: organized religions.  ”I am dismissive of the virtuous,” he says, while the camera switches to the priest.  Let’s be real, there’s a lot Sherlock Holmes would hate about modern religions.  The bigots, the deceivers, the illusionists, the abusers, the fraudulent, the cultlike.  Kidnappings, child abuse, money-laundering, witch hunts, wars, blackmail, murder.  It’s all there, marauding as virtue.  Sherlock wouldn’t be able to stand the hypocrisy.


Yeah. In the comments he's even forgetting to capitalise properly. No way he isn't high.
–Anonymous

Maybe Joe Lidster just fucked up, but it seems so intentional.  It all seems so god damn intentional.

image

Dropping the capital on speaks volumes.  I’m not great at spoken dialogue, I’ll admit it, but written dialogue has so many ways of expressing how a person really feels beyond tone and inflection.  Dropping the capital on himself, on “me,” is blowing my mind.  That is how he feels about himself.  He’s small, he’s insignificant.

edited to add: His grammar is fucked up too.  ”If he were here”…


(1/2) Hey hey Seth, I'm looking to add to your annoyance about the season premiere: I'm hoping I'm not the only one upset about the characterization of Sherlock's and Mycroft's parents. They're so nice and pedestrian, while their kids are stereotypical mad geniuses. That just doesn't happen. Brilliant, tortured eccentrics aren't *born*, at least not that simply; they're *made*, always, at least to some extent. Making Sherlock's and Mycroft's genius an unexplained, supernatural/genetic gift is
–Anonymous

(2/2) just implausible. A bit insensitive as well: it buys into the “nature” side of the nature/nurture thing, a problematic stance; and it discounts the fact that most of the time, brilliant, pathologically quirky but functional people usually have very intense if not painful childhoods. And no non-neurotypicality accounts for this on its own; Asperger’s doesn’t just churn out gruff-but-charming, highly-skilled people. Just wondered if you share my chagrin, or have another perspective on this.

No, I absolutely agree.  I just haven’t had a chance to talk about other parts of the episode I disliked when I’ve been so blindsided by Sherlock’s personality issues.  Suffice it to say, that little scene nuked every last bit of familial headcanon I had.  There’s oft-accepted fanon from the days of ACD about Sherlock and Mycroft’s parents (my favorites being Sherlock’s estrangement from his father and/or his father liking Mycroft best), and it seems the writers didn’t want to indulge any of it.  Yet they’ll use fanon for Sherlock’s birthday, John’s middle name, etc…

I also feel like this portrayal is kind of a retcon when compared to prior Word of God.  Originally it was suggested by Gatiss that Sherlock caught his father cheating on his mother and fucked up their family, which is the cause for Sherlock and Mycroft’s quarrel at the end of A Study in Pink.  (“I upset her?  It wasn’t me who upset her, Mycroft.”)  Yes, I know marriages can repair themselves after things like that, but it just feels weird that these thirty-something-year-old men would mention if it it weren’t a Big Deal.  Maybe they’re just unreasonably immature about it?  Okay, whatever.

That’s my perspective as a writer.  I’ll defer to what you said for the rest of it.  Sherlock and Mycroft having these well-meaning, apparently totally supportive parents is just bizarre to me.  It’s like the narrative really wants you to think they’re inhuman monoliths, but we know they’re not true due to other narrative choices.  The dissonance is incredible in the entire episode.


Sherlock’s personality, hoo boy.

Read More


Anonymous asked you:

does sherlock wanting to relive the worst day of his life ‘with perspective’ equal him understanding more about what victor did to him?

The rest of the ask and my answer under the cut.  Trigger warning: rape.

Read More


(Made rebloggable by request:)
I believe anyone is capable of loving anyone else romantically.  Honestly, even Texts John and Sherlock are one step removed from a romantic relationship; they just don’t acknowledge it.  People have invented labels for what to call something like that, but, whatever.  I don’t see a point to splitting hairs.
As far as John is concerned, though, we must discuss his sexuality too.  John identifies as straight, so that’s what he is, regardless of whom he does or doesn’t have sex with.  The sticking point is that he seems to link sex and romance inextricably in his mind.  In Scandal, he cannot comprehend being told that he’s in a relationship with Sherlock when he’s not sexually attracted to men.
So, is John Watson capable of realizing he can love Sherlock without wanting to have sex with him?  Sure.  Can he end up wanting to have sex with Sherlock anyway?  Sure.  All of these scenarios—and more—happen in real life.  The brain chemistry of love and sex isn’t the least bit predictable.
John’s behavior is ultimately determined by whomever is writing him.  In Texts, he has struggled with love and attraction over time, similar to Sherlock.
(Of course, Sherlock’s issues stem from his first experience with friendship, love, and sex going horribly wrong in the form of Victor Trevor.  John resembles Victor a great deal in some ways, so it was very disconcerting to fall in love with John.  There are too many “what ifs” [cf. dark!John fanfics] for his liking, you see.)

(Made rebloggable by request:)

I believe anyone is capable of loving anyone else romantically.  Honestly, even Texts John and Sherlock are one step removed from a romantic relationship; they just don’t acknowledge it.  People have invented labels for what to call something like that, but, whatever.  I don’t see a point to splitting hairs.

As far as John is concerned, though, we must discuss his sexuality too.  John identifies as straight, so that’s what he is, regardless of whom he does or doesn’t have sex with.  The sticking point is that he seems to link sex and romance inextricably in his mind.  In Scandal, he cannot comprehend being told that he’s in a relationship with Sherlock when he’s not sexually attracted to men.

So, is John Watson capable of realizing he can love Sherlock without wanting to have sex with him?  Sure.  Can he end up wanting to have sex with Sherlock anyway?  Sure.  All of these scenarios—and more—happen in real life.  The brain chemistry of love and sex isn’t the least bit predictable.

John’s behavior is ultimately determined by whomever is writing him.  In Texts, he has struggled with love and attraction over time, similar to Sherlock.

(Of course, Sherlock’s issues stem from his first experience with friendship, love, and sex going horribly wrong in the form of Victor Trevor.  John resembles Victor a great deal in some ways, so it was very disconcerting to fall in love with John.  There are too many “what ifs” [cf. dark!John fanfics] for his liking, you see.)


In your opinion (at least from what I've interpreted from your #lets talk about sherlock holmes tag, so forgive me if I'm wrong) Sherlock has feelings for John, albeit onesided. Do you believe John is straight and merely loves Sherlock like a best friend/someone very intimate, or do you believe he has the capacity to love Sherlock romantically? I usually find myself agreeing with your interpretations, so I wanted to get your take on this. I'm sorry if you've already answered questions like this!
–Anonymous

I believe anyone is capable of loving anyone else romantically.  Honestly, even Texts John and Sherlock are one step removed from a romantic relationship; they just don’t acknowledge it.  People have invented labels for what to call something like that, but, whatever.  I don’t see a point to splitting hairs.

As far as John is concerned, though, we must discuss his sexuality too.  John identifies as straight, so that’s what he is, regardless of whom he does or doesn’t have sex with.  The sticking point is that he seems to link sex and romance inextricably in his mind.  In Scandal, he cannot comprehend being told that he’s in a relationship with Sherlock when he’s not sexually attracted to men.

So, is John Watson capable of realizing he can love Sherlock without wanting to have sex with him?  Sure.  Can he end up wanting to have sex with Sherlock anyway?  Sure.  All of these scenarios—and more—happen in real life.  The brain chemistry of love and sex isn’t the least bit predictable.

John’s behavior is ultimately determined by whomever is writing him.  In Texts, he has struggled with love and attraction over time, similar to Sherlock.

(Of course, Sherlock’s issues stem from his first experience with friendship, love, and sex going horribly wrong in the form of Victor Trevor.  John resembles Victor a great deal in some ways, so it was very disconcerting to fall in love with John.  There are too many “what ifs” [cf. dark!John fanfics] for his liking, you see.)


bene-dick:

oh come on sherlock, you can do better than that

When you’ve seen all manner of violent and undeserved deaths, everything from serial killer to car crash to suicide, the only thing that’s truly frightening anymore is the idea that no one will know what happened to you.  Maybe, like the lady in pink, you desperately try to scrawl out a clue before it’s over.  Most likely you’re just going to die before you can do anything.

If you don’t have Sherlock Holmes, you have to rely on the common police department to figure out your last moments.  Even then, Sherlock hasn’t solved every death he’s ever investigated.

That’s horrifying.  The unknown is horrifying.

Despite dozens of witnesses and a few people who knew something more was going on, Sherlock felt very alone when he threw himself off of that roof in Reichenbach.  If he didn’t survive—and he couldn’t be 100% sure he would, let’s be real—then it’s entirely possible that no one would find out what happened to him.  Why he did it, what he was trying to do, so on and so forth.  And, obviously, given his line of work, that’s not the first time he was ever in danger of dying for real.

Just try to imagine complete isolation, literal or figurative, in your last moments.  Where you have no idea what will happen to everyone and everything else on the other side—if you’ll somehow survive or not.  Sherlock absolutely hates not knowing things.

Death by drowning, immolation, falling, blood loss, hypothermia, whatever—those are just details.  And they pale in comparison.

(Source: textsfromjohnandsherlock)


allison-cumberbatch:

scareaselle:

allison-cumberbatch:

scareaselle:

i h8 myself

omg hey that’s me. hahaha i did enjoy this. but yea that’s cool Seth, i assumed we were wrong, but i still liked araselle’s theory. so are you gana tell us his “actual reasons”??!!

It’s mentioned in the show that he doesn’t give a shit about politics. -shrug-

yea i remember that and i assumed because it doesn’t deal with his life at all…buttt i was hoping for a more fun answer or something. 

Well, to begin with, Mycroft kind of sort of insinuates that he has a hand in guiding (or even rigging?) foreign elections with his comment about Korea (Great Game).

Mycroft:  No no no. I can’t possibly be away from the office for any length of time. Not with the Korean elections so—  [Pause.]

Sherlock looks up at him, sharp and knowing.  Mycroft dismisses his interest with an eerie smile:

Mycroft:  Well, you don’t need to know about that, do you.

This fits with Sherlock’s knowledge of government conspiracies (Scandal), the mysterious purpose of the Diogenes Club (it has been compared to the Illuminati), etc.  Knowing it’s all a bit of an illusion has to be disenchanting.
Second, Sherlock doesn’t give a shit.  In ACD canon he’s supposed to know next to nothing about politics, but he does recognize certain key figures for no apparent reason.  He just doesn’t need that information unless it’s for a case.
Third, if he did give a shit, he’d most likely be somewhere between a libertarian and an anarchist.  He doesn’t like nationalism or civic duty (Great Game); he wants to be left alone.  He’s scornful of interventionism, particularly wars abroad (Pink).  However, he seems to support capital punishment or at least finds it morbidly amusing (Pink, Great Game).  He’s a strong proponent of “an eye for an eye” in ACD canon.
My personal interpretation is that he finds for-profit prisons and other facets of the military-industrial complex to be extremely disturbing, but he feels helpless to change that.  This includes prohibition, sin taxes, etc.  On social issues, it’s none of his business and morality shouldn’t be legislated.  If he were more idealistic, he’d wish people would just stop being shitty to each other just because and form an anarchist, wholly cooperative society with free market that is free of corruption.  Since that’s never going to happen, he can’t muster the sympathy to care.
Not a very fun answer, but it’s how I play him.

allison-cumberbatch:

scareaselle:

allison-cumberbatch:

scareaselle:

i h8 myself

omg hey that’s me. hahaha i did enjoy this. but yea that’s cool Seth, i assumed we were wrong, but i still liked araselle’s theory. so are you gana tell us his “actual reasons”??!!

It’s mentioned in the show that he doesn’t give a shit about politics. -shrug-

yea i remember that and i assumed because it doesn’t deal with his life at all…buttt i was hoping for a more fun answer or something. 

Well, to begin with, Mycroft kind of sort of insinuates that he has a hand in guiding (or even rigging?) foreign elections with his comment about Korea (Great Game).

Mycroft:  No no no. I can’t possibly be away from the office for any length of time. Not with the Korean elections so—  [Pause.]

Sherlock looks up at him, sharp and knowing.  Mycroft dismisses his interest with an eerie smile:

Mycroft:  Well, you don’t need to know about that, do you.

This fits with Sherlock’s knowledge of government conspiracies (Scandal), the mysterious purpose of the Diogenes Club (it has been compared to the Illuminati), etc.  Knowing it’s all a bit of an illusion has to be disenchanting.

Second, Sherlock doesn’t give a shit.  In ACD canon he’s supposed to know next to nothing about politics, but he does recognize certain key figures for no apparent reason.  He just doesn’t need that information unless it’s for a case.

Third, if he did give a shit, he’d most likely be somewhere between a libertarian and an anarchist.  He doesn’t like nationalism or civic duty (Great Game); he wants to be left alone.  He’s scornful of interventionism, particularly wars abroad (Pink).  However, he seems to support capital punishment or at least finds it morbidly amusing (Pink, Great Game).  He’s a strong proponent of “an eye for an eye” in ACD canon.

My personal interpretation is that he finds for-profit prisons and other facets of the military-industrial complex to be extremely disturbing, but he feels helpless to change that.  This includes prohibition, sin taxes, etc.  On social issues, it’s none of his business and morality shouldn’t be legislated.  If he were more idealistic, he’d wish people would just stop being shitty to each other just because and form an anarchist, wholly cooperative society with free market that is free of corruption.  Since that’s never going to happen, he can’t muster the sympathy to care.

Not a very fun answer, but it’s how I play him.

(Source: arasellle)


how do you feel about sherlock crying on st barts roof? do you think it was real emotion, or something they'll later explain (i've heard various ideas of sherlock drugging himself, etc)
–Anonymous

Even if Sherlock rehearsed the hell out of that suicide note, his emotional display was real.  I’ll never believe otherwise.  Generally, fandom fanon says he stopped his heartbeat with a rubber ball tucked under his armpit.  Also, the drug in question would’ve caused blurred vision and other side effects, making it unnecessarily difficult for lining up a jump and so on.  Speaking of, Sherlock’s panic and mini-panic attack after Jim’s suicide seems very real.  He was surprised, shocked—no doubt about that.

Most importantly, claiming Sherlock’s emotions aren’t real would nullify a lot of fucking character development.  Of the three writers, Moffat is the one who likes to write Sherlock as colder, more reserved, more robotic.  Gatiss and Thompson are much more interested in Sherlock’s flaws and very evident humanity.  That’s why Sherlock seems more OOC in Scandal when compared to the other episodes.

People tend to forget Sherlock is not a machine.  That’s the point—BBC’s Sherlock’s character arc is about him rediscovering his empathy, “becoming more humanized,” actually caring about people instead of being a misanthropic bastard, etc.

The Sherlock in the lab (John: You… you machine!) and the Sherlock on the roof are meant to be directly opposed in the audience’s mind.  Sherlock is the most human human being; for him not to be, the narrative falls apart.


i-make-doodles-lol:

I love his little don’t-make-fun-of-my-deduction-skills-bitch smile.

In ACD canon, there were actually two people in college who weren’t assholes to Sherlock about his deductive abilities.  One was Victor Trevor, Sherlock’s only friend, from The Adventure of the Gloria Scott.  The other was Reginald Musgrave, just a “slight acquaintance,” from The Adventure of the Musgrave Ritual.  (Musgrave also alludes to Sherlock dazzling his fellow undergraduates.)

Yes, BBC Sherlock “got his start” with Carl Powers, but that was a matter of observing things and wondering about foul play.  It really didn’t go anywhere.  I can’t believe an event like that, when he was so young, inspired his career choice.  To compare, ACD Sherlock treated deduction like a hobby until he went to college and encountered Victor Trevor, Victor’s flattery, and Victor’s father in Gloria Scott.  That deadly business inspired Sherlock to turn deduction into his vocation.  That’s why I believe Carl Powers and Victor Trevor can exist in the same universe.

So I wonder if we’ll ever hear about the positive influences from Sherlock’s canon history.  It’s just incredibly sad to me if BBC’s interpretation wants to portray Sherlock as someone who was nothing but ostracized throughout his life until he met John Watson (aside from thankful clients, and Lestrade needing him).  Victor and Reginald were just two people out of many, of course, but they were obviously memorable for Sherlock.  Better a few than none at all.

(Sherlock did show some odd familiarity with Sebastian—calling him “Seb” in the bathroom—but that’s too vague.  For headcanon reasons, Sebastian was more so one of Victor’s friends.)

(Source: lokiddles)


collegeahistory asked: Oh and, what do you think of Moriaty/Holmes - it’s because of things like that gif you posted where although Jim it literally ruining EVERYTHING and created this new persona… Sherlock can’t help but be a little bit impressed, and a little bit excited. God, and the flirting going on in the court room.. I don’t believe they should ever ACTUALLY go near each other (in no circumstances would they go ‘on a date’) but it’s there. Jim’s like another one of those drugs Sherlock has to try and stay off

It’s difficult for me to describe my thoughts on Jim/Sherlock in BBC canon.  Definitely not a simple idea, at all.  Although it’s highly sexualized, Jim/Sherlock is not about the sex.  More than anything, it’s another powerplay.  As the dark reflection of Sherlock, Jim seemingly embraces human sexuality as a method to unbalance, confuse, and irritate Sherlock.  (I bet he does that to everyone, really.)  It makes Jim similar to Irene Adler, another reflection of Sherlock.

To answer the question: Do I ship Jim/Sherlock?  Sort of. 

[trigger warning: sexual abuse, mindfuck, rape?]

Read More


iamilex:

Moffat: I find every time watching this, in the edits and the temp versions and everything, the surging of the music and the unbeatable logic of it, it just makes me cry every time. I think it’s fantastic.
Lara: It’s where you really see the mirror of the two them.
Moffat: [Sherlock leans into Irene] That’s not in the script. Was that you Benedict?
Benedict: That was my idea. Because I like the idea of him being in shadow, because it’s such a dark thing he’s playing with: deconstructing love into pure chemistry.
Lara: And this just broke my heart.
Moffat: No, it’s horrible. The idea is that you should start the scene hating her and end it hating him.

Sherlock: A Scandal In Belgravia commentary

and the unbeatable logic of it

I don’t have even close to as many problems with Scandal as most people, but that particular deduction sequence? No. It’s exactly the opposite of unbeatable logic. Love, lust, attraction, or whatever, those are not the only emotions that cause those particular physiological reactions. They’re not even the only ones she could have been feeling at the time. I like everything about this scene except for the deductions. 

I just reblogged this separately, but I need to comment:  Yes.  Sometimes Sherlock makes deductions that specifically support his conclusion, rather than deriving a conclusion directly from his deductions.

It’s part lazy writing, part sane writing—more or less, exploring every meaning to something would be difficult.  Mycroft is someone who just comes up with the conclusion (and he’s correct a vast majority of the time) without working out the steps to get there.  Sherlock is pissy about that, and will work out the steps individually or at least try his best to.

Even so, I’d believe Sherlock is just looking for clues to support his final conclusion at least some of the time.  Step-by-step deduction is much more obvious (Pink) and/or exhausting (Hounds).