#acd what a legend have you created

[fogdraws]

Imagine you're a man in the nineteenth century writing silly stories abt a silly detective and his dear army doctor and people are still talking abt the characters you created a century later. Must be crazy

[belphegor1982]

Got tagged by @accidentallylita for a 20 questions for writers thing! Thank you 💜 I'm gonna tag... @tameila, @fantasiawandering, @kabbal, @kaantt and @thisstableground - no pressure at all though.

How many works do you have on AO3?

88. But I still have 44 others over on FFnet.

What's your total AO3 word count?

659,354 (holy crap that's a lot!) and I'm way too lazy to add the FFnet numbers. The FFnet counters are a mess anyway.

What fandoms do you write for?

I have written for... Ready? Go! *deep breath* Harry Potter, Great Mouse Detective, The Mummy, Pirates of the Caribbean, Kung Fu Panda, Watchmen, Justice League, Discworld, White Collar, Hogan's Heroes, Zorro (the 1950s Disney series), Kaamelott, Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles (the 2012 cartoon and a TMNT 2003 and 1987 crossover missing scene from Turtles Forever) , the Don Camillo stories/films, Cobra Kai, Karate Kid, The Legend Of Vox Machina, and Critical Role. Whew! And that's not counting unpublished WIPs, because then I would have to add ACD Sherlock Holmes, Jeeves and Wooster, or The Pirates! In an Adventure with Musicians Scientists :D It's mostly Critical Role and Vox Machina at the moment, though.

What are your top 5 fics by kudos?

Let's see:

Villains (Justice League Unlimited, Flash's Rogues watch the finale of season 2's near apocalypse on TV in their bar, 442 kudos)

Reading the Colours (TMNT 2012, kid!Mikey having trouble learning to read and a bit of synaesthesia, and kid!Ralp being a good brother, 225 kudos)

Culture Shock (Turtles Forever (TMNT 2003 and 1987 crossover), 2003!Don and 1987!Leonardo having a conversation about danger and stakes and genre shifts, 215 kudos)

After the Sunset (The Mummy, a getting-to-know-each-other scene set just after 'The End' to tie up loose ends and explore character dynamics, 202 kudos)

Wife (Justice League Unlimited, the writers made Captain Cold (of all people XD) mention a wife so I created a character and explored her relationship with her husband and his nemesis, 168 kudos)

Aww 💜 I was kinda surprised by this list, to tell the truth!

Do you respond to comments? Why or why not?

I try (oh my god do I try ♫). Currently there's still a couple in my AO3 inbox I haven't responded to yet because I like to take my time (and also I like having that little number beside my inbox on my page 😭)

What's the fic you wrote with the angstiest ending?

Oh that's easy. If, a Hogan's Heroes snapshot (<800 words) where I essentially went "hey, what if [character] really had been killed in that scene?" and picture the aftermath.

What's the fic you wrote with the happiest ending?

Oh that is hard! I have comforting endings, I have peaceful/hopeful endings, I have bittersweet endings with a side of sweet... But just plain happy? I mean, Pas de Deux would end on a thoroughly good and happy note if it weren't for that pesky last sentence ("This summer 1914 is going to be the best summer"). I'd say Perfect Picture has the happiest: it's a (few years into the) future JLU fic set at a Christmas do, PoV Jimmy Olsen, that ends on him taking the titular perfect picture in the immediate wake of a very happy announcement. I love it a lot.

Do you get hate on fics?

No, thank goodness. Something of a miracle in 22+ years of writing online! My beta has, though, because some people are idiots.

Do you write smut? If so, what kind?

I do, although it's a recent (ish) development! I've written three kinds of smut: loving and sometimes fumbling between two then three young people who don't a ton of (or any, in some cases) experience, quick and ill-advised between two desperate people convinced they'll die in a few hours, and cosy and warm as a means to (re)connect (two different fandoms) between middle-aged people. Love every one of them.

Do you write crossovers? What's the craziest one you've written?

I have! Like the aforementioned TMNT crossover (within the same franchise, bit still, two different shows and fandoms). And, well, it's not exactly crazy, but I wrote a tavern-as-an-afterlife fic in which Sergeants García and Schultz have a little conversation about their respective supposed-to-be enemies. Would that count as "crazy" if they have approximately a century and a few years between their lifetimes?

Have you ever had a fic stolen?

I don't... think so. Can't be sure. Sometimes I post fic here and I've definitely found my Tumblr accounts on those crappy Tumblr mirroring websites, so yeah, probably.

Have you ever had a fic translated?

Someone asked me once if I minded them translating one of my Don Camillo fics into Italian, to which I responded with happy flailing and "not at all, go ahead!" But I never heard back from them. OTOH, I have done the translating :D I translated a Mummy fic into French back in the day (2004) with the author's permission, and I wrote L'éléphant de Carter (Hogan's Heroes) in French then translated it into English.

Have you ever co-written a fic before?

Not really. I participated in group projects and big bangs and stuff, but I've written a fic "with four hands".

What's your all-time favorite ship?

It should be an obvious choice, because I have so few I ship actively - you know, not just "sure, I like the idea of them together". For the purposes of the question I will say Pike Trickfoot/Scanlan Shorthalt, from Campaign 1 of Critical Role/The Legend of Vox Machina (it's a slow burn with minimum pining! They both have personal growth! He pursues her but then apologises and asks if they can be friends! Each is the only one who truly sees and perceives the other on that level!). But also I really really love my one-third-canon-character-two-thirds-OCs OT3 set in 1910s Oxford. So... tie? :3

What's the WIP you want to finish but doubt you ever will?

I have one of those eternal WIPs (more of an idea, really) of a Discworld/Quantum Leap crossover where Sam Beckett Leaps into Sam Vimes who's in the middle of an investigation, which would mean that 1) Sam B has to wrap his mind around the existence of magic and dwarves and trolls and Nobby Nobbs while Sam V and Al Calavicci stare at each other down (Spider-men-pointing-meme style in the end) going "if my guy/my people get(s) hurt by your shenanigans then so help me I will go SQUARE" (and quickly enough work together).

What are your writing strengths?

Dialogue, apparently? I've been told a few times over the years by readers that they could "hear" the characters speak in their heads, which is the greatest compliment 💜 (especially since English is not my first language, so I'm always worried about things not sounding right!)

What are your writing weaknesses?

Actual plots, especially ones with a bit of complexity in them 😅 I'm the first to admit 80% of my fics are one-shot character exploration (with conflict - internal and external - being resolved via dialogue and/or communication). Also finishing things on time, GOD.

Thoughts on writing dialogue in another language for a fic?

Heh. I'm French and when I write for Hogan's Heroes I often write a French character who canonically (though rarely, gotta respect the ratio) says things in French sometimes. Of course I'll include some! But I always make sure 1) to include a translation/explanation in the notes (AO3 is really great for footnotes) and 2) that it doesn't really require a translation to understand the situation/stakes. I tend to go back and forth on the use of italics for foreign language words.

Now, if I don't know the language as well as I do French (and, more importantly, if the PoV character who hears it speaks that language), I just clarify in the "s/he said", like

"You gotta be kidding me," muttered Bob in [insert language here].

Works in English too, of course, especially if you're having a multi-language environment in your fic.

First fandom you wrote for?

I was gonna say "Harry Potter", because that's the first fandom I wrote for (and published) after discovering fanfiction (the first fics I read were for Starsky & Hutch), BUT. I guess I should answer Titanic?? On account of how I kinda wrote a self-insert in high school (when the film came out) in which an imaginary inventor uncle build a time machine and my sister and I did some time tourism (obviously money wasn't an issue), thinking "oh we'll just go home on April 14th". I was a soppy 16 years old otherwise 0% interested in romance, so I had my stand-in recently lost her boyfriend (very tragically) and Fabrizio (Jack's Italian friend) be her gently manic pixie dream boy (and, of course, die). In retrospect I might have given my 14 year old sister the best part as the snarky no-nonsense little sibling. I tragically lacked self-awareness and poured my entire heart into it. Thank goodness I had no idea you could put out stories on the internet and that my best friend at the time (the only other human being who read this story) was kind and just as obsessed with the movie as I was ^^'

(I should point out that I wrote it with pencil on loose paper gathered in a binder I lost long ago. Such is life.)

Favorite fic you've ever written?

You can't just - I - oh come on! I can't choose between my babies!! No but seriously, I actually can't choose, sorry :D

[concerningwolves]

Listen few things delight me as much as the existence of so-called "Holmesiana" (not to mention the fact that we've decided to call this body of art and literature a name that evokes Arthuriana, which is also very delightful in itself). I love how it falls broadly into two categories – stories where Holmes faces the supernatural, and what fanfic writers would call "casefics" – with an infinite variety of subcategories.

I love that you have some very good stuff and a lot of bad stuff with a very large body of "mediocre but nonetheless enjoyable stuff", and that it's something that pretty much anyone can jump into writing because most of the Holmes canon is now available online free. I love that if someone thinks "Hm, I want to see Sherlock Holmes face Cthulu", they can find multiple works on that very theme. Same with "what if Sherlock Holmes faced Dracula?". It, like post-apocalypse and romance, is one of the ultimate "yay, two cakes!" genres.

What also enthrals me about this whole phenomenon is that, relatively speaking, Sherlock Holmes is a baby. The first Holmes story was A Study in Scarlet, published in 1887. Although 135 years ago feels like a very long time, it's really little more than a lifetime, give or take a few decades. To put that in perspective, the oldest living person is Lucille Randon at 118 years old; she was born in 1904, and the last published ACD Holmes story was published in 1927. And yet Holmes' presence in the arts world is as ubiquitous as that of King Arthur, heroes from Greek myth, or characters from Shakespeare's better-known plays.

I mean, Arthuriana has had hundreds and hundreds of years to trickle into the cultural subconscious. Arthur was and is a very large (you could easily say integral) part of Welsh myth and legends, but what most people consider to be "real" Arthuriana first appeared in the 12th century. That means the ""modern"" image of King Arthur has had, what? 800 years to crystallise and circulate. And I'm not even going to expound on how much longer Greek myths have had to percolate through popular culture because then we'd be crossing back over the BC/AD divide and that gives me a headache.

But it's incredible to me that with nothing more than a magnifying glass, a deerstalker, and a pipe (and sometimes not all of these together), you can create an immediately-recognisable shorthand for Sherlock Holmes. Conan Doyle wasn't even the first person to write what we'd now consider a Holmesian archetype! That honour is widely attributed to Edgar Allan Poe with C. Auguste Dupin, who was created before the word detective had even been coined, iirc.

So what did (and does) make Holmes so popular, in particular? That's not a question I want to try and answer, but it is one I enjoy pondering, much like my dog enjoys systematically dismantling all of her toys. Is it the iconography? I mean... maybe? Heracles has his club and lionskin. King Arthur has Excalibur. Harry Potter as his lightning scar and glasses. The Doctor their TARDIS and sonic screwdriver. People do like easily-recognisable visuals, and there is a high correlation between that and characters who've become wildly popular...

But it could just as easily be his friendship with Watson, maybe. Or the fact that Holmes is at once alienated and also deeply, fundamentally human in ways that are uncommon but meaningful. Or the sheer prolific nature of the Holmes canon. Or the appeal of someone swanning into your life and righting injustices with quick observations. Or the delightfully multi-faceted nature of his character. Or the thrill of the cases. Or the fact that Holmes is ripe for queer and autistic readings. Or. Or. Or.

I don't know.

[Image description: the "I just think they're neat" meme, which depicts Marge Simpson holding up a potato. The potato is labelled "Holmesiana" and the caption reads "I just think it's neat". /End ID]

My recommendations on audible are now 90% derivative & transformative works based on ACD Holmes, and a lot of it is currently included with my membership which means there's nothing stopping me from doing a deep(er) dive into the wonderful, wild and whacky world of Holmesiana. Uh oh

[crunch-nerd]

I posted 4,126 times in 2021

375 posts created (9%)

3751 posts reblogged (91%)

For every post I created, I reblogged 10.0 posts.

I added 449 tags in 2021

#crunch rambles - 245 posts

#yes - 51 posts

#crunch answers - 49 posts

#kaz brekker - 18 posts

#loki spoilers - 16 posts

#yep - 16 posts

#patrochilles - 15 posts

#shadow and bone - 14 posts

#this is beautiful - 13 posts

#please - 12 posts

Longest Tag: 128 characters

#i have like a thousand fandoms but i don’t pay enough attention to any one one of them for long enough to make a proper sideblog

My Top Posts in 2021

#5

About me

Call me: Crunch or Jules

Pronouns: they/them is always fine but my pronouns change, so feel free to ask :)

Gender? What’s that

Sexuality: biromantic and somewhere on the ace spectrum

Hello all! Welcome to my somewhat chaotic blog! Usually I post art or just random stuff. Warning, I will change fandoms randomly, so if you follow me for a specific fandom, I’m sorry in advance.

Ancient civilizations sideblog is @pro-milone (although I haven’t done much in that blog yet lol)

My random shitposts and stuff will be under the tag #crunch rambles

This blog is and will always be a safe place for poc and lgbtq+ people.

I am a Ravenclaw, an INTP, and a chaotic neutral. Usually I just post about whatever my current obsession is. I am a parent to plants and chickens. My hobbies include reading, exploring new places, making various kinds of art, learning about history and physics, and a lot of obessing over books, shows, and movies.

I probablyyy have adhd, but it’s not diagnosed or anything.

My longtime interests include Sumer, the Minoans, and astrophysics.

I am on pacific standard time.

I enjoy talking to people, so don’t be afraid to send me an ask or a message. :)

Anti LGBTQ+, racist, sexist, etc., pedophiles, Tr*mp supporters, Nazis, ableists, exclusionists, and other general scum of the earth, please DNI.

Main fandoms list*:

BBC Sherlock

Sherlock Holmes books by ACD

Good Omens

Random history stuff-mostly ancient civilizations or American revolution (does this count as a fandom? I’m putting it on this list anyway)

Shakespeare plays

Turn: Washington’s Spies

Six of Crows/ Shadow and Bone

Wings of Fire

All of the books by Rick Riordan

DC Legends Of Tomorrow

Song of Achilles, The Iliad, and Troilus and Cressida

Classics and greek plays

The Clone Wars, Star Wars Rebels and The Mandalorian ( as well as other Star Wars stuff)

Marvel and Marvel Agents of Shield 

See the full post

72 notes • Posted 2021-01-07 06:36:18 GMT

#4

I love the fact that Alexander the Great shipped patrochilles and wanted his relationship with Hephaestion to be like it.

76 notes • Posted 2021-04-09 05:15:58 GMT

#3

BI ACE AND BI ARO SOLIDARITY

104 notes • Posted 2021-07-04 06:35:45 GMT

#2

The “killing your gays” thing started with Homer

110 notes • Posted 2021-06-23 06:17:18 GMT

#1

Straight friend groups be like: *chad*, *jock™️*, *girl with a lot of unnecessary y’s in her name*

Gay friend groups be like: *wlw power couple*, *shapeshifter*, *chaotic bisexual exorcist*, *reformed theif romance novelist*, *daughter of evil cult leader* , *magic amulet user*, *soft and slightly idiotic person doing their best*

301 notes • Posted 2021-01-24 01:26:41 GMT

Get your Tumblr 2021 Year in Review →

[lioncel]

OK.  Now What??

So here I am, long after Season 4, and I’m still trying to wrap my head around everything and find a way to make this mess work for me.  A few assorted thoughts to start.

First of all, you will never, ever convince me that Moffat and Gatiss are fans of ACD SH.  Their entire goal seems to have been to debunk and demolish the myth and rebuild it as a mockery of the original.  The original legend rests on two pillars, Holmes’s decision to hold himself aloof from emotion in order to better perform The Work, and Holmes and Watson’s relationship, built on mutual admiration and  respect.  After Moftiss’s butchery, we’re left with a lovelorn, pining Sherlock who seems determined to sacrifice himself endlessly for a massively damaged John who is not only quite prepared to let Sherlock die, but actually wants to do the job himself.  The fact that Moffat made comments to the effect that living in Baker Street solving crimes was absurd and ridiculous and no-one could live a life like that seems to me crucial.  Whereas ACD created Sherlock’s lifestyle as an ideal to be respected and even envied, Moftiss (like Ritchie, interestingly) view it as a schoolboyish and irresponsible way of living that can’t sustain itself but must inevitably be abandoned for marriage and family.  I believe that’s why Moftiss chose to change the show in Season 3.. As long as they were presenting Sherlock solving cases, it conferred a value on Sherlock’s talents because we could see people benefiting from and being grateful for those talents.  From Season 3, Sherlock’s talents are deployed in trying to navigate personal issues, reducing The Work for the benefit of others to an addled and incomprehensible ramble through Sherlock’s psyche in search of “being human.”

Way back in the beginning, Moffat was sending out troubling signals.  He said they were “taking the mickey out of SH, in the way that you can only do when you love something.”  But really, if you want to “mock, tease, joke, ridicule, scoff, or deflate” someone, there isn’t much love entering into it. You can’t ridicule someone in a loving way, The implication is that you think someone is too full of themselves without justification, and you want to bring them down a peg. There is always a faint but definite amount of contempt involved.  Moftiss, and by extension John certainly seem to feel this element of contempt in regards to Sherlock, but ACD’s Watson, the one who really is a true friend and a soulmate of his Holmes would be horrified at the thought of belittling his Holmes. 

Yeah, yeah, I know.  Moftiss are trying to strip away all the hero worship and reduce Sherlock and John to their very ground level, basic humanity.  But why?  That’s the central problem that I just don’t understand, why it was so desperately important to Moftiss to ridicule and deflate Sherlock, why they arrogantly thought it needed to be “fixed”, and how they could possibly think that their version was in any way an improvement over the original, or even over Granada, for that matter. 

Yeah, yeah, I know again.  It’s all backstory.  The Sherlock and John of S4 are not the finished version.  Moftiss has deliberately burned them both down to the lowest possible state so that they can from there rebuild themselves in the likeness of Moftiss’s beloved Rathbone Sherlock and Watson.  But in stoking the fires of that particular bonfire, it feels to me as though Moftiss have caused so much damage to John and Sherlock and their relationship that it’s impossible to imagine them ever being able to fight through to the rock-solid affection and trust and RESPECT that ACD;s pair shared from the moment they met.

[ebaeschnbliah]

THE  ROADS  WE  WALK  HAVE  DEMONS  BENEATH ...

________________________________________________________________

GOING ROUND IN CIRCLES ON THE QUEST FOR THE TRUTH

THE HEADLESS NUN

This term is used for the very first time in the PILOT. Sherlock refers to a previous case in which Angelo obviously was involved as well.

SHERLOCK: Angelo, headless nun. ANGELO: Ah, now that was a case! Same again? SHERLOCK: If you wouldn’t mind.

At least between Sherlock and Angelo the term 'headless nun' seems to be a secret code for a certain kind of action. 

Going into action - going into acting

On this special occasion: acting like a drunk who is thrown out of a restaurant ... with the addition of a splash of white wine.

________________________________________________________________

VATICAN CAMEOS

Another term that is used as a secret code for a certain kind of action. This time between Sherlock and John in ASIB before Sherock opens the safe where Irene's camera phone is kept ... guarded by a spring-gun.

SHERLOCK (urgently): Vatican cameos.

But this time the meaning is different. The term is meant to be a warning that some kind of deadly danger is about to occur.

Going into action -  going into defense/rescue mode

On this special occasion: Sherlock and John are immediately crouching down for cover. Only a short time before this happens, both Sherlock and Irene are adding a 'splash of color' to prepare themselves for the meeting. Real blood for Sherlock. Lipstick in the shade of blood for Irene.

The definition of CAMEO/S:

a gem, small medallion, statue with a profiled head carved in relief

a small literary or filmic piece

a small theatrical role

The VATICAN:

A small state in the middle of Rome, seat of the Roman Catholic Church, ruled by the Bishop of Rome ... the Pope. The Pope is also the supreme authority of all catholic monasteries and therefore ... of the nuns.

Originally 'Vatican Cameos' is an untold story mentioned in 'The Hound of the Baskervilles'

“I must thank you,' said Sherlock Holmes, 'for calling my attention to a case which certainly presents some features of interest. I had observed some newspaper comment at the time, but I was exceedingly preoccupied by that little affair of the Vatican cameos, and in my anxiety to oblige the Pope I lost touch with several interesting English cases.”

VATICAN CAMEOS = A WARNING AGAINST VATICAN PERFORMANCES ?  AGAINST SOMETHING THE 'HEAD OF THE NUNS' ORDERED TO DO ? BUT 'THE HEAD' IS MISSING AND THEREFORE STILL UNKNOWN ?  A GHOST .... AN ANONYMOUS PLAYER ?

________________________________________________________________

HEADLESS NUN & VATICAN CAMEOS ... UNITED

Both terms reappear in the episode 'The sign of three' at John's wedding. Sherlock promises little Archie the picture of a 'headless nun' if he is able to answer the question: how to kill someone in public.

SHERLOCK: Oh, hello again, Archie.  What’s your theory? Get this right and there’s a headless nun in it for you.

Sherlock uses 'vatican cameos' to inform John - without alarming the other wedding guests - that Major Sholto is in mortal danger and about to be murdered.

SHERLOCK: Oh! Ladies and gentlemen, can’t stand it when I finally get the chance to speak for once, Vatican Cameos.  MARY: What did he say? What’s that mean? JOHN: Battle stations. Someone’s gonna die.

The most interesting aspect here is that the main action happens entirely between three Sherlock mirrors:  

'Director of the Mind-Stage' Sherlock tells 'Little Sherlock Mirror' Archie, he will get a 'headless nun' if he is able to deduce how 'Sherlock Ex-Comander of John Mirror' Sholto could be killed in public without anyone noticing it.

________________________________________________________________

'Headless Nuns' in ghost stories:

This kind of character can be found in legends and ghost stories. They are sometimes hauting places, seeking revenge, guarding treasures, bloodthirsty and murderous ... in short - they are the perfect tools for creating fear and terror in ghost stories.

The real roman catholic nuns (x x):

A nun is a woman who lives in a religious community.

She swears an oath to live in chastity and obedience.

She dedicates her life to the greater good she believes in.

She is considered to be a 'Bride of Christ'.

There is a wedding ceremony where she wears bridal white with wreath and veil.

She wears a wedding ring which will be buried with her after death.

After the ceremony she exchanges the bridal robes for a sombre religious habit.

A nun is also called 'sister'

Turning a nun into a ghost story is basically the same thing as turning a sister into a ghost story.

________________________________________________________________

A LITTLE DETOUR - THE DOUBLE MEANING OF WORDS

The creators of Sherlock BBC are known for using word-games with great fondness. Just a few examples (I'm sure there are more):

beech & beach - the Holmes children play on a beach, pebbles on a beach ... or ... looking for somthing buried under a beech tree.  

Welsborough & wells burrow - used as family name ... or ... for creating a well one has to burrow a hole in the ground first.

pals & palls - Mycroft uses the term to describe Sherlock's and John's relationship in TGG  ('since you and he became ... pals')  meaning 'mates/close friends' ... or ...  the dialoge between the ambassador and her husband in TST  ('chess palls after three months/everything palls')  mening 'losing interest/becoming bored'

birds & birds - flying animals (most of them) with feathers ... or ... young women,

Harry & Harriet - brother or sister? sister or brother? Right from the beginning ....

________________________________________________________________

MR.SZIKORA FROM THE EMPY HEARSE

After Sherlock returns from his hiatus John has a visiter at the surgery. An old man with white hair and beard who presents John with three small gifts.

MR. SZIKORA: I run a little shop, just on the corner of Church Street (?). Er, magazines, DVDs. Brought along a few little beauties that might interest you. “Tree Worshippers.” Oh, that’s a corker. It’s very saucy. “British Birds.” Same sort of thing. “The Holy War.” Sounds a bit dry, I know, but there’s a nun with all these holes in her Habit.   

This scene is a canon reference to ACDs 'The Empty House'.  Sherlock Holmes visits Dr.Watson in the disguise of an old man and tries to sell him three books .... 'British birds' (the real feathery ones), 'Catullus' (the roman poet who did actually write a lot of 'saucy' stuff and also poems about  'how to comfort a friend in the death of a loved one') and 'The Holy War' (most likely without the nuns).

In the original story Dr.Watson is fooled by this disguise and doesn't recognise Holmes whereas in Sherlock BBC John tries to pull of the assumed fake wig of his patient because he suspects Sherlock to play a prank on him.   

A second canon reference can be found in Mr.Szikora's statement that his usual PG is Dr. Verner. As told in ACDs story 'The Norwood Builder' ... Dr. Verner is a distant relative of Sherlock Holmes.

A young doctor, named Verner, had purchased my small Kensington practice, and given with astonishingly little demur the highest price that I ventured to ask -- an incident which only explained itself some years later when I found that Verner was a distant relation of Holmes's, and that it was my friend who had really found the money.

A man comes to John's surgery who actually IS Sherlock Holmes in canon but in this adaption Mr.Szikora comes from a person who IS a close relative of Holmes in canon.

Also - Mr.Szikora speaks in a heavy Eastern European accent. I don't know when or where John heard Sherllock speak French to make any comparison. Either way, because of his strange habit and his stiking accent John comes to the conclusion that Mr. Szikora must be fake. John believes that this man is Sherlock in disguise.

JOHN: It’s not as good as your French. Not as good as your French. It’s not even a good disguise, Sherlock!

Sherlock speaking French - or more precisely: John obviously knowing that Sherlock speaks French -  is a third canon referce. Original Sherlock Holmes doesn't only speak French, part of his family comes from France. In ACDs 'The Greek Interpreter' Holmes tells Dr. Watson: '.... my grandmother, who was the sister of Vernet, the French Artist' 

Does this mean that Mr. Szikora is triple-coded as a Holmes?

As mentioned above Mr. Szikora has the appearance of an old man with a beard. This reminds me of another person with a beard. A Person who is also mistaken for Sherlock Holmes. The beard is fake but the person is indeed a Holmes.

________________________________________________________________

THE NUN WITH THE HOLES IN HER HABIT

Nuns wear a special habit.  'HABIT' though is another word with more than just one meaning. It can be: 

a garment

a usual way of behaving

the bodily appearance of someone

a mental attitude of someone

a strong need to use a drug 

This leads of course straight away to HLV where this special word is heavily used - but not for nuns.      

SHERLOCK: There’s every chance that my drug habit might hit the newspapers. The game is on.

MYCROFT: The siren call of old habits.

MYCROFT: You’re a celebrity these days, Sherlock. You can’t afford a drug habit. SHERLOCK : I do not have a drug habit.

What do have 'headless nuns' and 'habits with holes in it' in common?

A person is very hard - if at all - to recognize when the head/the face can't be seen/is hidden. A very important information is missing.

It's the same with 'holes in the habit'. Something is missing. A hidden behaviour. A hidden attitude. Someone is hiding something. Any information not seen is like a black hole for the knowledge. Missing puzzle pieces leave holes in the picture. Under certain circumstances 'not knowing' something - 'having black holes about something' - can be very dangerous. But of course, attempting to fill such 'dark holes of knowledge' can be equally dangerous. And there is someone who never liked not knowing:

SHERLOCK: I don’t know. I don’t like not knowing. Unlike the nicely embellished fictions on your blog, John, real life is rarely so neat. I don’t know who was behind all this, but I will find out, I promise you.

And when Sherlock sets out on his journey to explore his past - his family history - his subconscious mind is looking for a sister .... a faithful one ...

But someone turned the 'sister' into a 'ghost story' ...  a rotten skeleton still with maggots in the eye holes even after more than 100 years ... the cold and terrifying force of the East Wind who plucks the unworthy from the Earth  ... to scare Sherlock off.

A nun is a bride. She wears the white robe of a bride with a veil ere she changes it to black or grey - mostly with a splash of white. A nun is called 'sister'. She has no wordly husband but wears a wedding ring, she believes in a higher purpose and lives in her/for her conviction.

Conviction is a dangerous thing. If it gets to strong - to extreme - it can lead to 'holy wars' ... to  'crusades'. But that must not always involve whole nations or confessions or even a lot of people. It is quite possible that a single person can be on a 'crusade' on its own - for their own private reasons. Misplaced love ... the greater good .... murderous jealousy .....

And the male equivalent of a nun  ... is a Monk.

A nun is called sister.  A monk is called brother.

In MHR a blond woman hides among monks ... but ...

LESTRADE: A blonde woman hiding amongst bald monks? That wouldn’t exactly take Sherlock Holmes!

JIM: No, no, no, no, no, this is too easy. (He buries his head in his hands.) This is too easy.

________________________________________________________________

Sherlock BBC is full  of words and scenes with double meaning (or more), of things that start out in one way and then turn into the opposite. Harry or Harriet - brother or sister - it was this question right from the start. Sherlock got it wrong the first time ...  in the PILOT/ASIP. He assumed Harry to be a brother when she actually is John's sister. In his own family Sherlock is looking for a sister. But it turns out that the sister he finds is actually a part of himself. Which way will the wheel turn next?

I leave you to your own deductions.   Thanks @callie-ariane for the scripts.

February, 2017

@gosherlocked @loveismyrevolution @isitandwonder @monikakrasnorada @sarahthecoat @sianbrooke @longsnowsmoon5 @tjlcisthenewsexy @justshadethings @shadow3214 @yan-yae @tendergingergirl

[isitandwonder]

I’ve read Rachel Talalay’s post on her tumblr re: TST and I have to say I really appreciate someone from the ‘creators’ engaging with fandom without ridiculing or insulting us, but, as it seems, out of curiosity and genuine interest. This is such a wholesome attitude for a change! Only, I’m way too shy and in no psition to address an established and experienced director as Ms Talalay (yep, I simply don’t dare to.). But I am a viewer and recipientof her work, so I’d like to chip in my 2 cents.

Her post got me thinking. She writes that she deliberately refused to read TFP when directing TST. If I understood correctly, it was because her characters don’t know their future either, and she wanted to keep that perspective.

Of course, she is fully justified to make her own artistic decisions. Only, in retrospect, I’m not sure that approach really worked so well. Not because of not knowing that there would be a mad sister incarcerated on an island and  that Sherlock would in the end befriend her... not because of the future outcome of the show.

But because of what TFP revealed about Sherlock’s past. I think knowing about Victor/Redbeard/the well, and incorporating this knowledge into TST, could have made the whole thing a bit more explicable, a bit easier to swallow.

For example, Sherlock suddenly has premonitions in TST. He never had before on the show or in canon. It wasn’t that ACD was averse to such things (he believed in fairies and seances), but it didn’t fit in his stance at Holmes and detective fiction as logical and reasonable. So, where does this supernatural element stem from in Sherlock?

Those premonitions are linked to water. Rememeber the promo picture of 221b? TST starts with a shot of the aquarium and the story of Samara = destiny + water. Sherlock again experiences a watery premonition at the Wellsborough’s, combined with a shot of the table that reminds me of the well, while dealing with a missing, dead child.

Was this just foreshadowing the end of the episode, the showdown at the aquarium? Or couldn’t this have been foreshadowing the revelation in TFP of Victor = Redbeard, drowned by Eurus in a well? Hmm... not if you don’t know about this. But it was hammered home in the trailers that this series would deal with Sherlock’s past - what made him. Wouldn’t it have been crucial for directing an episode that led up to this reveal that the director had known about these aspects of Sherlock’s past? Wouldn’t that have been fair to the viewers, to give them a chance to figure it out by leaving hints for them? This is what makes one appeal of the Holmes stories - if they get explained to you in the end, you ask yourself: Of course, why didn’t I see this? But in S4, we didn’t have a chance. Because evreyone seems to have stumbled though the story in the dark.

In TFP, all the water in the show - from the pool in TGG to Reichenbach in TAB - is connected to Sherlock’s childhood loss of Victor and his search for a replacement of such a friend ever since (hello, John). But this just seemed so subsequently invented, almost forced onto the narrative. Because, for example, Sherlock fights an assassin in a pool in TST - but there is no premonition in this scene, no sign that water could mean something, anything to him. Now, I really appreciate the aesthetic of a dripping wet Benedict Cumberbatch - but this scene could perhaps have tied in better with the whole childhood/Victor plot if the director had known about this plot? Also, the line with the memory stick: “But she destroyed it” - accompanied with a flashback to John throwing the drive in the fire in HLV - this might actually have been planned as foreshadowing the reveal of Eurus destroying Sherlock’s childhood and home, and therefore a hint for the viewers where Sherlock’s premonitions came from (WATER!) - but without knowing this, it wasn’t emphasised enough and became just another odd plot hole.

On the other hand, they could have gone for true punch to the gut, nothing foreshadowed, just BAM! right in your face - here’s a dead childhood friend, drowned, and Sherlock suppressed everything about that and his sister now take that, audience! But they didn’t. The writers wanted to be clever. Redbeard features since S3 - only, I don’t think the writers had a plan how to exactly solve this narrative streak back then. And this ‘making the story up as we go’ bleeds through again and again - and perhaps even more than necessary, if the outcome had been known to all the participants. This could ahve been a chance to tie up at least some of the mess made by the writers.

I read a post a while ago that said the secrecy of the writers killed the show. I think it’s true when you look at Mary Morstan, for example. I doubt that Jeremy Lovering, who directed her in TEH, or Ms Abbington herself knew what would happen to the character in HLV, directed by Nick Hurran. Now, such surprises, the uncertainty, can add suspense and a flirring sense of vagueness and unrealness to a story - which was a great thing in Broadchurch. The doubt, the mistrust, added to the feeling that no one was save, that everyone could have been the child’s killer. But for Sherlock? Mary was just a side character - this form of surprising suspense asigned way too much weight to her in an already complicated narrative. Why?

And then her end in TST! I’d really like to ask Ms Talalay if this was done purposefully ridiculous, as a form of satirical comment on Mary’s arc? Because it made no sense. Mary transformed from a sassy girlfriend to ruthless assassin to selfless hero. In one episode, she shoots Sherlock (without a good reason) and in the next she saves him without necessity, sacrificing herself without good reason either. Now, if the directing of this scene should subtly emphasize the inadequacies of Mary’s arc - I bow deeply to Ms Talalay’s directing choices, while making the most of a ridiculous script.

This secrecy prevented the actors from engaging with their characters. They only do the show every odd year for a few episodes. Retconning everything they might have thought up as a backstory for their character with every new script is not helping to get a grip on your character, I imagine? And it was done with Ben as well, as Mr Gatiss said in post mortem after TAB. He revealed something to Ben during the filming of TAB (presumably about Redbeard not being a dog?) that Ben shouldn’t have known back then. Keeping such big points a secret, while later playing on them, thereby forcing some foreshadowing onto an already established narrative, caused more plotholes  than it gave explanations, because it prevented the actors, actresses and directors to incorporate this knowledge into their acting and directing choices. And this is not a good idea on a show like Sherlock, that has to make some sense and can’t prevail endlessly in the realm of vague suspense - based on... nothing , apparently.

A series like Shelrock needs explanations. That’s what detective fiction is about. That’s what a Holmes story is about. Logic and reasoning, solving the mystery, not creating one after another until everything is muddled up.

I checked back. S1 and S2 - the series which, for me and many others, still work best - were largely made by Paul McGuigan. He directed 4 out of 6 episodes. TBB was made by Eurus Lyn, who’d already worked with Moffat on Doctor Who. So, both directors were involved with the series long-time or knew how the writer(s) worked, could develope arches - they knew where they were going with this. And that added to the cohesiveness of the narrative. Bringing in Toby Hayns for TRF was also a good idea. It needed someone new to sweep everything up and kill the main character - fresh perspective, new approaches. But after that, every episode had a different director. And the scripts came late. No preparation, while the times between the series grew longer and longer.

Only for TLD - for me the best episode in S4 - they allowed Nick Hurran back, who’d also done HLV. And to me that is noticeable, even in the character of Mary. Because he had worked on the story and the characters before. He had some ideas where they came from and where they might be going (turned out it wasn’t right, but it did fit at least with the previous episodes). Even for John... he’s angry in HLV, and still angry in TLD. I can see at least some connection there.

So, in short, I think too much secrecy killed the show, because it lost course and purpose. No one seemed to have known where this was going (how could they?) - and this led to opening up narrative sidelines via acting and directing that weren’t followed up, because they were never intended to. It created a vagueness that allows now for almost every interpretation you might throw at the show to seem valid, because there surely can be found a line or shot that supports it in all this jumble. Because everybody seems to have done the best they could, bringing in their own ideas - but no one coordinated this. It was all secrets and rug pulls - but no cohesive story telling, at least after S2.

This might be a chance for fandom to take away form the show what you want to see in it - but it’s just so not Sherlock Holmes that I wonder why they didn’t make their own show about three people suffering, marriage, childhood trauma, toture, assassins, spies, gay pining (or not), spiced with horror elements, and just called it something else after S2?

Oh, and I’d really like to know what Ms Talalay thinks of Mary’s end-monologue: “Who you are doesn’t matter, it’s all about the legend.” Is that true? Did she see the characters like this? Does she approve? Perhaps I should dare to ask her after all?

[katyagrayce]

The Final Problem: my final opinion

I know that there are some fans, on Tumblr and elsewhere, who actually liked this episode. THAT’S OKAY. SERIOUSLY. You’re entitled to like whatever you want. It doesn’t mean anything other than that we have different taste in movies/different priorities when it comes to what we want from Sherlock, and that kind of opinion divide is pretty much inevitable with a show this varied and this popular. So if you belong to the TFP Fans Club, I want to clarify that I mean you no hate :-)

Personally, however, I did not like The Final Problem. My reasons included, but were not limited to: a) The disproportionally rapid, action-reliant and melodramatic storytelling, which wasn’t really consistent with the series’ tone so far. (This encompasses everything from that crazy Hollywood explosion to the fake cell Euros built for Sherlock - not to mention the the ‘video game’ set up of her puzzle system. Also, the age-old idea of throwing someone down a well. There were a lot of clichés at play in this episode). b) The suddenness with which Euros was introduced as a character, and the unfeasibility (IMHO) of Sherlock not remembering her at all. c) Speaking of unfeasibility - I also had issues with Euros planning the entire torture session in five minutes, building all of that underground lair, ferrying herself between Sherrinford and London so easily, getting everyone to Musgrave Hall/into their various cells so quickly, and getting John/Victor down that well without causing them serious injury. d) The oversimplicity of Euros’ psychological arc also frustrated me. I mean - there is loneliness, and then there is clinical psychopathy. They are two separate things. It’s true that there’s some overlap between the two groups, but not enough to pin all Euros’ behaviour on her being a scared little child with ‘no one’ to turn to - someone who later becomes 100% complacent just because she’s finally been hugged. Plus, when they decided to oversimplify Euros’ psychology Mofftiss basically dropped the chance to create a really complicated, really nuanced villain like Moriarty (remember all that amazing analysis about whether he wanted to beat Sherlock or just wanted the distraction, why he killed himself, whether boredom had driven him almost to the edge of insanity, etc., etc.? Euros doesn’t get any of those interesting conversations, mainly because she’s been automatically typecast as a ‘creepy loner child in need of attention.’) e) Speaking of emotional oversimplification - I also didn’t like the maximum emotional milking that Mofftiss brought to EVERY SCENE. Entire sequences, like Sherlock’s phone call to Molly and Euros forcing Sherlock to choose between Mycroft and John, seemed explicitly orchestrated to stir up audience feels as quickly as possible, instead of doing it slowly, skilfully and in-context (eg. I found Sherlock’s conversation asking for Molly’s help at the end of TRF much more feels-worthy than his phone call here, because it tied back to a conversation they’d already had about her ‘not counting’ and didn’t take place in a completely staged, high-tension situation.) f) And now for a big one - inconsistent character development. I feel that there were a lot of characters who acted quite OOC in this episode. First up, I think that John would have shot the governor. After all, he’s a soldier, he knows the pain of losing a wife, he’s very morally self-assured and he has killed before (see ASIP for evidence of the last two points), so even though he would have found it difficult I think he would’ve pushed through. I also think he would’ve tried very, very hard to talk Sherlock out of suicide, not just stood there dumbly and watched. Especially considering that he’d been prepared to die for him literally twenty seconds beforehand. Now for a second character: Molly. I understand that the scene with Molly was really effective for a lot of viewers, but - I wasn’t one of them. In TEH, it seemed that Molly was finally getting some character development beyond her crush on Sherlock - she recognised that he was using her as a replacement for John and cut that behaviour in its tracks, despite how difficult it might have been for her. In this episode, she spends every second on-screen looking totally lovesick, and proceeds to sacrifice her dignity just to answer a request that - from her perspective - must look a lot like either a cruel prank or a childish whim. The Molly we knew had grown beyond that - and, while I’m happy she survived, I’m not happy she had to fall apart to do it. Plus, what about that quick glance of her in the closing sequence when she pops into Baker St, smiling and seemingly totally okay? Did the phone call really have that low an emotional impact on her? To me, it just seems like a quick, lazy fix. And now, last but not least: Sherlock. This episode throws some spanners in what has been, up until this point, a very consistent and well-written subplot about his emotional growth. Throughout all the previous episodes we can track his ‘becoming a good man’ - he knows he’s hurt Molly in ASIB, he soothes a hysterical Henry Knight in THOB, he can talk down Major Sholto in TSOT and understands John’s grieving process in TLD. He even goes from subtly intervening in John’s suicide in ASIP to explicitly saving ‘Faith’ in TLD, which is an amazing example of how much he’s grown as a character. But in this episode - all of a sudden - he starts fluctuating wildly between ‘emotionally incapable’ and ‘emotional paragon’ when he shouldn’t really be at either end of the scale. The kind of man who can’t understand why Molly isn’t picking up, and who thinks “But it’s me calling!” is a valid excuse, can’t possibly be the same person who charms his sister out of psychosis with a hug and explicitly tells a DI that his brother ‘isn’t as strong as he thinks.’ Personally, I think that the episode’s latter actions are slightly more in-character for Sherlock than the earlier ones, but that’s not the point. The point is that this episode muddled a lot of very good character development back up again. g) A more minor thing, but - this episode was literally full of plot holes. Including, but not limited to, how the furniture in 221B possibly survived the blast, how Euros (an adult woman) sounded like a little girl on the phone, and how John climbed out of a well he was chained to. h) Another, less minor thing - ALL THE LOOSE ENDS FROM THE SERIES THAT THIS EPISODE LEFT BEHIND. Irene Adler was brought back into the picture, only for nothing to come of it. Rosie Watson was born and then featured for a grand total of two seconds after TST. Euros had a working partnership with Culverton Smith (? How did that exist while she was confined at Sherrinford?) that was neither explained nor justified. And, perhaps worst of all - this whole ‘final problem’ promised by Moriarty ended up being organised by someone totally different. i) And finally, one of the most disappointing elements of the whole episode - Mary’s final video. Put bluntly, it contradicted everything that I see the show as being about. Sherlock has always been very much about the two people behind the legend, putting the spotlight on Sherlock’s fragility and John’s dangerous addictions where ACD just smoothed them over with a Victorian gloss - ‘there’s always the two of them,’ as said in TAB, and the focus is on the relationship in between. But what Mary is saying in this speech is that nothing the show gave us apparently matters. Only the legend does. The ACD stories are apparently the important part. It’s a very, very demeaning way for the series to summarise itself, and it’s this, over anything else, that makes me suspect we might have a secret 4th episode upcoming.

Now, you might notice something - reading the above list. You might notice that I didn’t mention Johnlock. That’s right. I, personally, didn’t mind whether Johnlock happened or not. And it’s getting really frustrating seeing people dissatisfied with TFP get dismissed because ‘they’re just angry that their ship didn’t happen.’ There was a lot, a LOT wrong with this episode beyond the ship, and while it might be a valid reason for people not to like TFP (I’ll get to that in Point 4) it’s not the only one. Please, don’t write off some very legitimate, very reasoned disappointment as some kind of ship-driven whim just because you can.

Now, all that said - I have to add that the queer-baiting in the lead-up to this episode was absolutely horrendous. Like I said, I’m not a Johnlock shipper and always had doubts about it happening, but the trailer editing and publicity stunts - Sherlock saying ‘I love you’ right after the Culverton Smith ‘darkest secret’ quote, the flickering rainbow letters on the PBS TV spot, Benedict saying ‘Love conquers all’ and Amanda saying TFP ‘makes television history’ - all those things were pointing in one pretty obvious direction. Now, this wouldn’t be such a bad thing if it had happened with literally any other potential plotline on the show, but the thing about queer-baiting is that it exploits a highly vulnerable and extremely under-represented group - the LGBTQ+ community. It lures them in with something they sorely want and need - media representation - and then not only fails to deliver but thumbs its nose at their disappointment. It rubs salt into the wound. It’s cruel and not okay, and as an experienced partnership with one gay member Mofftiss should have known better. So, even if you think disappointed Johnlockers are ‘just being petty,’ you have to remember that the experience of being denied this ship can carry a lot of emotional impacts other ships don’t.

And, finally - there were things about this episode that I liked, even loved wholeheartedly. Sherlock calling John family. Their re-decorating the flat, and the two-second snapshot featuring a happy Rosie. Sherlock remembering Greg’s name, and Greg calling him a ‘good man’ (it was a bit on-the-nose, but still). Mrs Hudson sassing Mycroft about the kettle. Even the idea of Euros as a little girl on a plane was fundamentally a good one, if oversimplified, over-focused on and overdone. So yes - this episode did have its moments. And it’s not affecting my enjoyment of Sherlock as a whole, but still - that doesn’t mean I have to like it. Um... If you’ve read this far, congratulations! I didn’t mean for this post to get so long, but it feels good to have vented a bit :-)

[say-duhnelle]

ok I gotta know what the fuck happened in Sherlock bc people are FREAKING OUT

so um i don’t know how caught up you are but (spoilers ahead, obviously)

this whole season has seemed off- the characterization, the storytelling, the very jumpy, hole-ridden plot that has not matched up AT ALL with what was foreshadowed previously or really any sort of linear narrative at all, it’s all been a mess. So a lot of people were theorizing there was deliberate alteration going on this season - either we were presented a lie, being told to protect someone’s innocence (alibi theory), or Sherlock had never woken up from the gunshot in HLV/drug trip in TAB and everything was occurring in his mind (EMP theory). This was also backed up by other Fucky Stuff ™ such as really glaring obvious continuity errors that would have required actual effort to create (like walls turning different colors and a painting in 221B being lit up differently at random) and John ignoring his child 99% of the time and Sherlock’s birthday being at the wrong time of year and pretty much every character reusing lines that had previously been Moriarty’s.

theeeeeen, on thursday, the preview of TFP at the BFI was held. no one was required to sign an NDA (Fucky Stuff ™), so spoilers got out, and based on details a lot of BNF started to theorize that the version shown at the screening was incomplete, altered, or even completely fake. this theory was partially based on s4 sharing a tagline (It’s Not Just A Game Anymore) with the Clue movie, which infamously had multiple endings. another theory, based on a line in the show last week (”people always give up after 3″) was that a secret 4th episode would be announced when TFP ended.

yesterday, the episode as shown at the BFI leaked on the site of the Russian channel that airs Sherlock - complete and in HD. earlier today, the Turkish affiliate released it (in English with subtitles this time). and like… the BBC did nothing about it. The showrunners and the official show Twitter tweeted something like “the episode has leaked, please keep the secrets”, but the leaked episodes were not taken down (I literally watched the Turkish one on their site as the TV version was airing in the UK lol) and there was no action taken by a legal team that is normally extraordinarily tight fisted re. this show (according to people who were in the fandom in previous seasons, leaking spoilers could get your blog taken down). So naturally, large portions of the fandom are now convinced it has to be fake, otherwise they would at least act like they care, right?

Well, the show aired and turns out this wasn’t the case. And despite the entire marketing cycle (until this very morning) having been all about how this episode would be GROUNDBREAKING and TELEVISION HISTORY and INSANE WISH FULFILLMENT and TYING UP LOOSE ENDS and CLIMAX OF 7 YEARS OF BUILDUP and so on… it was terrible. I’m not even talking about no Johnlock:

the whole thing started with just writing off last week’s cliffhanger in one majorly underwhelming sentence

the entire plot was a reach; any “buildup” we got for it occurred exclusively in s4, not over the whole series arc

it also involved playing the “mental illness = danger to society” trope for shits and giggles so there’s that

there were multiple gaping, obvious plotholes in the same vein as the earlier s4 episodes (and none of those holes were stitched up including but not limited to:

the main characters surviving an explosion that resulted in a fall from an upstairs window with NO injury whatsoever

John being chained up in a well and then the chains magically disappearing one transition later

Sherlock’s villain!sister being able to control people’s minds, apparently

and Sherlock being able to apparently enter HER mind/the whole airplane thing just doesn’t add up)

there was a lot of ridiculous, over-the-top pastiche of horror movies like saw and ring

3 Garridebs, perhaps the most emotional climax in the ACD canon, was completely squandered - played for laughs with nothing of the original plot retained beyond names

Victor Trevor, another story fans have been expecting would be a Big Moment if it was adapted, was almost an afterthought despite being the point of the whole episode - we got no real info on who he was, his relationship to Sherlock, or really even why Euros killed him

all the buildup about Moriarty went nowhere meaningful either

the love confession from the trailer was coerced and actually ruined Sherlock’s relationship with the person he said it to (Molly)

the cinematography and visual style characteristic of the show were almost completely absent

there was little to no variety of location, the sets used in the lion’s share of the episode looked cheap, and there were almost no special or practical effects (unlike every other episode) and what was there was cheap and terrible looking

despite being promised “loads of new music, every note composed with love” by the composers themselves, there was maybe one cue that was not an exact copy of music from earlier episodes

at the end of the episode, a voiceover from Mary (who died two episodes ago I might add) says that “it’s not who you really are that matters, it’s the story, the legend” as the series’ Big Ending Moment when literally every episode up to this point has been about the exact opposite of that so yeah that felt cheap af

there was a lot of other just over-the-top stuff like Sherlock commandeering a boat in the most ridiculous manner ever and creepy clowns and portraits crying blood and umbrellaswordgun and Elephant Glass and Uncle Rudy and and and and

and the “seems fake but ok” nature of the last two episodes continued to be the case in this one

and yeah okay after last week when J&S finally got back together as friends with dead!Mary imploring John to be the man he wants to be and John telling Sherlock that romance would complete him as a person and The Hug, yeah, not getting Johnlock was pretty surprising considering that these writers have been outspokenly pro-textual gays and anti-queerbaiting in many panels and interviews they’ve given

We got no real answers for any of the existing questions, opened up a lot more, and the whole thing felt cheap and poorly thought out. so yeah even though my life doesn’t hinge on canon johnlock like a lot of fans, I still feel ripped off because this thing was a hot goddamn mess. TAB + S4 have also included what at least seemed to be some really obvious shoutouts to TJLC theories, and of course they noticed, so they’re feeling REALLY led on. And since it was strongly implied during publicity that this was either the last season ever, or at least the last one for a realllllllllllllly long time (i’d guess 5+ years) they are going stark raving mad thinking this is all they’re going to get, that this mess is where Moftiss really intend to end this. (There were no extra scenes, nor has there been any announcement thus far about a secret/bonus episode.)

Moffatt actually said in an interview earlier this year that TFP was the single piece of his writing that he was most proud of and like if that’s true… then every negative opinion people have of him is totally, completely, and absolutely justified because this episode was unequivocally trash.