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 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?]
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.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).
How does your (believable and well-rounded) characterisation of Sherlock influence the choices you make for his IC blog? Is there a degree of your own taste in his blog? Do you feel as though you identify with him? How has the degree of your identification fluctuated since you first discovered ACD’s Sherlock?
1) Sherlock’s IC Tumblr specifically exists to help me emphasize his interests beyond the work. Just an easy way of fleshing out the character, since Texts from John and Sherlock is all about answering questions on minutiae. So, that mission includes but is not limited to—
- Music: Sherlock enjoys classical music, of course. However, it’d be boring to reblog only classical music when most of these songs are banal. So, which modern genres feature violins and other string instruments in a way that Sherlock would find pleasing? Neoclassical, ambient, post-rock, experimental, etc. He reblogs music from modern groups, which his modern audience should find new and intriguing. Either way, Sherlock wants music that will make him think, or introspect. In ACD canon, Germanic music is his preference for this. Mine has chosen Icelandic—Ólafur Arnalds, for example. Why? Iceland has many more orchestral post-rock bands.
Texts won’t load for me.
(Also, I’m working on a “why I have trouble with calling Sherlock a psychopath” post, but since I don’t think about this as much as my blog would lead you to believe, it’s going to take a while… and I have to leave for Real Life.)I’m actually hunting through academic articles (or the bits I can get my hands on) so my only source isn’t relevant personal experience. Now I’m thinking that it may not be that Sherlock doesn’t have psychopathic tendencies and more that I do…
For what it’s worth, I don’t think Sherlock is a psychopath. (Just severely repressed.) I’m actually pretty surprised that Moffat even said so—using words flippantly, he tried to make his point that Sherlock is different from everyone else. Sherlock is kind of deranged, his relationship with Irene is kind of deranged, etc. Saying “psychopath” was just the easiest way to conjure the idea of how darkly different he is based on social stereotypes.
Leading up to series 2, Moffat did an interview where he called Sherlock “possibly psychopathic.” Then, he started talking about Sherlock’s psychopathic tendencies. Then, he used the label bluntly in that interview about Irene. It was just a progression of I don’t know how to say it, so I’ll try saying this. The English language is abused like that on a daily basis.
Regardless of what he is, Sherlock definitely has some psychopathic tendencies. Especially when he’s in a violent or distressed emotional state. After the whole “I am you” and “you are me” thing with Moriarty, I’m convinced Sherlock has the potential to go down the dark, bloody rabbit hole. However, he chooses not to. He’s on the side of the angels because he wants to be.
At the end of the line, with everything to lose riding on his shoulders, he’d willingly embrace that darkness to save his friends. His intentions are, ultimately, pure. He’s a good man.
Anonymous asked: Hello, Seth! This question will probably be very silly but since it’s such a generally unknown and unconfirmed thing, I can’t help but to be curious; I just wanted to ask you what do you think about Sherlock’s a/sexuality and his supposed love for John and/or Irene? And I mean this in general, regarding the books, the previous series, the current one, etc.
I hope you don’t mind a lot of words, anon. Breaking this down by adaptation:
BBC Sherlock
Maybe it’s surprising, but almost everything concerning Sherlock’s inclinations has been confirmed. Moffat and Gatiss have gone on the record about how they write sex and romance where Sherlock is concerned. To begin with, Moffat has done at least two interviews (one, two) that we can reference easily. Let’s pull out some important quotes:
Hmm, the thing here is that I’m not willing to take Moffat’s word as truth. Because it’s not a straightforward deduction - there are a million holes in this ‘logic’.
[…]
Here’s the thing: It doesn’t matter if Moffat is using words incorrectly. As far as “psychopathy” goes, it’s emphasized a hundred times that Sherlock does have severe behavioral problems. He’s an abusive person and shows next to no remorse for most of the series, period. He doesn’t hesitate to torture his enemies, period. The Reichenbach Fall is all about him embracing “I am you” with respect to Jim Moriarty, who is a bona fide psychotic whichever way you slice it.
So, I can’t agree. Sherlock Holmes in the BBC adaptation—they’re definitely writing him as someone with psychopathic tendencies. Maybe it’s a symptom of his severe repression. Maybe it isn’t. Maybe Irene Adler is better at hiding her own tendencies. I don’t know. But if Sherlock is Jim Moriarty, and Sherlock is another one of Irene, then it follows that…
Regardless, that’s what they think when writing for him. For someone like me, who is invested in writing as close to canon Sherlock as possible, their opinions are as important as fuck. I understand some people don’t want to do that. It’s fine. Continue to have other interpretations all you want. I’ll still read other people’s fanfics. I like reading.
As for sexuality, there are plenty of Sherlockian scholars who agree with Moffat’s interpretation of Conan Doyle’s canon in that Sherlock was self-repressive and voluntarily living life as a sort of monk. His work was what he “served,” so to speak, and he refused any other distractions save for the ones which alleviated his boredom. That’s what made John Watson so special—he was able to fit into Sherlock’s cloistered lifestyle. Seamlessly.
Just as many Sherlockian scholars think that’s a load of shit. Again, like I said, Conan Doyle’s canon has been analyzed six ways from Sunday. Figure out what you like, what makes the most sense to you, and run with it.
But it’s still important to consider, What are the BBC’s creators doing with Sherlock? If you’re looking to reproduce canon, then adopting Moffat and Gatiss’ thought processes is the easiest way to do it. If you don’t care about what they think, then all the more power to you.
Personally, reproducing canon is exactly what I want to do. I will write their Sherlock as they see their Sherlock.
Anonymous asked: Hello, Seth! This question will probably be very silly but since it’s such a generally unknown and unconfirmed thing, I can’t help but to be curious; I just wanted to ask you what do you think about Sherlock’s a/sexuality and his supposed love for John and/or Irene? And I mean this in general, regarding the books, the previous series, the current one, etc.
I hope you don’t mind a lot of words, anon. Breaking this down by adaptation:
BBC Sherlock
Maybe it’s surprising, but almost everything concerning Sherlock’s inclinations has been confirmed. Moffat and Gatiss have gone on the record about how they write sex and romance where Sherlock is concerned. To begin with, Moffat has done at least two interviews (one, two) that we can reference easily. Let’s pull out some important quotes:
h3rring reblogged your photoset: h3rring: aofunk: h3rring: haley—james: …
No. It’s a complete deviation. Any “darkness” of Sherlock’s was fabricated by the Jeremy Brett adaptation—mostly while…
Now that’s not true. At least that’s not really what I meant. Brett’s Holmes is much more depressed than ACD’s, I’ll give you that, but I mean dark as in “doesn’t care much about his enemies” and therefore the BBC scene is not a deviation from canon. You know what I mean? ACD’s Holmes is happy but he can also torture his enemies. He does show compassion for his clients but he doesn’t care at all about the criminals (the ones he regards as criminals, here he and the law have some disagreements).
I really can’t agree with the idea that ACD Sherlock is so disrespectful of criminals as to be abusive, even going as far as to torture criminals for information. And this is on top of BBC Sherlock being a completely abusive fuck to his friends, which is also not ACD canon. (There’s a line between what ACD Sherlock does to be negligent, and what BBC Sherlock does.)
Torture is never justified, even if his intentions are good. It isn’t. Moffat is specifically writing Sherlock as a psychopath, or psychopathic. Sherlock is a devil that has aligned himself with the angels. This is not ACD Sherlock at all. Sorry, it just isn’t. I’m bewildered. Brett’s adaptation’s darkness has altered public perception, even though Brett’s also never went as far as BBC Sherlock does.
I can only think of a couple—A COUPLE—instances in all of the stories where Sherlock reacted badly under stress. And even then he didn’t actually lash out in a physical manner. (He threatened someone for hurting John, and intimidated his way into a house with his gun.) When the hell did he ever torture his enemies? Self-defense doesn’t count, by the way. And instances of that are also few and far between. The most famous example is using baritsu to gain victory over Moriarty. Read this post for every canon instance of Sherlock getting physical.
There’s a reason why canon purists get upset. I’m actually a reformed one, but I can see still see all of the differences.
Sherlock: Okay. Tell me this. Your sponsor—who was it? The one who told you about me. My fan. I want a name.
Jeff Hope: No.
Sherlock: You’re dying, but there’s still time to hurt you. Give me a name. [Jeff shakes his head. Sherlock steps on his bullet wound, and Jeff groans.] A name! Now! [He presses down harder.] - THE NAME!
Jeff Hope: MORIARTY!In my first viewing, this scene almost—almost—turned me off to BBC’s Sherlock. Just because it’s such a shocking, severe, uncomfortable departure from Conan Doyle canon. But now Sherlock’s psychopathic tendencies are my favorite thing about this interpretation. What the hell?
Is it psychopathic, though? He knows the man is dying. His death means nothing if he doesn’t give out the info first. There’s nothing he can do to help him, and nothing else he can do to help others than getting the info out, one way or another. Desperate times call for desperate measures?
It’s torture without remorse. Psychopathic for sure. Doesn’t matter if his intentions are good. (Hence, he’s a devil on the side of the angels.) Moffat even bluntly calls him a psychopath, so that’s their design when writing Sherlock Holmes. Even if he can be cute and innocent and loving other times, he’s still an abusive person. Hell, they even described him as “abusive but very loving” in the Scandal commentary. People can “kill the author” all they want, but that won’t change the truth. Torture is torture is torture.
It’s not a deviation from canon, though, is it? Even ACD’s Holmes is quite dark at times. This scene made me feel incredibly uncomfortable but I like that they show this side of Sherlock, too.
No. It’s a complete deviation. Any “darkness” of Sherlock’s was fabricated by the Jeremy Brett adaptation—mostly while Brett struggled with his own bipolar disorder. For whatever reason, that has permeated the culture/fanon and is mistaken as canon.
Meanwhile, BBC Sherlock does an amazing job of reviving the Conan Doyle vision of Sherlock being a generally happy person, not constantly moodswingy and depressed. Still, he has an alarming tendency to abuse (even torture) other people. Sherlock Holmes is a douchebag, etc.
This scene is fucking incredible because Sherlock is forced to fully confront and embrace both the angelic and demonic sides of himself. (If I wasn’t everything that you think I am, everything that I think I am… would you still want to help me? I’m sure that refers to multiple things, but this scene especially.)
On the light side, he has to acknowledge having many friends and that they mean the world to him. On the dark side, he has to swear that he’d torture Moriarty—or worse—to get him to call off the gunmen. The intensity reveals Sherlock to be just like Moriarty, the bona fide psychopath, which is so disturbing and magnificent on so many levels. (Sherlock has abused and tortured multiple people throughout the series, but something about threatening Moriarty seems far more dangerous and conscious than before. Despite the alarming matter at hand, Sherlock is not in a violent emotional state; he’s very calm and confident. Until Moriarty pulls a gun.)
Finally, Sherlock is willing to throw away everything, including his own life, in order to protect his friends. This is mildly psychopathic love at its finest, really.
(Source: tavalouris)
This might be a stupid question, but do you write fanfiction? And if you do, where can I find it? I love your discussions on Sherlock, because I think you have a profound understanding of him. Just wanted to read more. Thanks!–ihasblanket
Thank you very much. Well, I write Sherlock Holmes for a long-term project called Texts from John and Sherlock. That’s a roleplay/ask blog with occasional prose interludes that function like fanfics inside of that universe. For example, Sherlock spied on Irene Adler the night of his birthday. Or, last year, Victor Trevor and Sherlock had a somewhat deadly reunion.
I’m also co-writing a project called The Sigerson Letters, which takes place after The Reichenbach Fall.
Other than that, I’m usually little more than makokitten’s beta for Sherlock-related things. I prefer to roleplay rather than write, awkwardly enough.
Anonymous asked: Hi! I love “Sherlock” but I’m a bit puzzled that parts of the fandom seem upset that SH is not a “nice person”? I thought that was one of the premises of the show? It’s clearly acknowledged in canon, lots of people can’t stand him because of his horrible behaviour etc.. Yet I often come across this notion that TPTB somehow don’t know this and write him as a “perfect hero”, and that therefore SH’s characterization is a “weakness” of the series?
LET’S TRY THIS AGAIN. It’ll be slightly different because I don’t have the final product exactly. I’m trying to rewrite it to the best of my ability. Sorry about this, guys. Onward and upward…
Okay, this is opening up a can of worms. Again. Whether or not you agree with them, the creators/writers are writing Sherlock Holmes as something of a repressive misanthrope. Intentionally. They’re writing Sherlock Holmes as someone who understands how much of a douchebag he is, but he just doesn’t give a shit. Recently, Moffat started talking about Sherlock’s psychopathic tendencies, which has additional implications for the character.
Anonymous asked: You and Chelsea have some great theories, so I wanted to ask your opinion on this: If Sherlock had a good idea he would have to fake his death, which is why he asked Molly for help and told Jim to meet him on the roof of Barts - why does he still look so scared after Jim shoots himself? Because he didn’t expect it? Because he’s still scared his plan might backfire and he might actually die? or because he has to fool his friends, fool John into believing he was a fraud and then watch him die?
Well, Sherlock Holmes is still human. Even though he flirts with death (self-destructive tendencies), he is not suicidal. He doesn’t want to die.
On the roof, despite the revelation of no key and so on, Sherlock legitimately thinks that he has Moriarty backed into a corner—that he’ll be able to force Moriarty to call off his snipers. That is the meaning of the “don’t believe I’m an angel” conversation. It does seem like Sherlock has won, too, considering how pleased and understanding Moriarty becomes. And then Moriarty pulls a gun, blows his brains out, and Sherlock realizes that he has no choice.
He is going to have to jump, so the sniper sees him fall—or three of his closest friends will die. Period.
(While I’m writing this, why isn’t Mycroft targeted? Too hard to get at? Sherlock does care about his brother, no matter what’s said about “too much history.” Or maybe we’re not seeing something else that happened. Maybe he knows he has been sold out. Whatever. Doesn’t matter.)
So, yes, Sherlock has an overarching plan and many preparations for falling… but foresight does not guarantee that he’ll survive the fall. He could easily fuck up the jump—he could easily break his neck, or his legs, or become permanently paralyzed, or a hundred other things. Long falls are highly fatal no matter what you’re doing.
Even before making the jump, Sherlock has to reject his friends, his reputation, and his entire life once lived—he has to damn himself completely. That sounds fucking scary to me, personally, and I’m sure it’s just as scary to Sherlock. A million of Sherlock’s greatest fears are coalescing into a single phone call with his best friend. His suicide note. Then, he has to fall and hope it all works out. And? AND? Even if he survives, who’s to say that he will survive after that? What if the snipers just kill his friends anyway? What if he makes a mistake and gets himself killed a year down the road? There’s no way to know.
All he can do is prepare for the worst and hope for the best.
Sherlock Holmes is still a human being. In fact, he’s the most human human being on the planet. Despite his great mind that alienates him and his unwillingness to connect with others until it counts, Sherlock is not a sociopath. He is not fearless, unbreakable, or infallible. That’s what Moriarty was trying to prove, and pretty much did. Sherlock’s diamond veneer is scraped off of him in Scandal, temporarily ripped off of him in Hounds, and completely demolished by the end of the Fall.
He’s a great man who finally becomes a good man—but he’s still just a man.