winterdaphne2

[winterdaphne2]

[winterdaphne2]

Thank you! And yes, this is also an excellent point! DS9 lets us see the perspectives of characters who are willing to work with the Federation at times, but whose ultimate loyalties lie elsewhere. Kira's the perfect example, but I agree that it's one of the real strengths of the show that there are so many recurrent, important characters for whom this is true.

I love how the show explored Garak's and Odo's experiences with this in particular, because this raises interesting questions about what loyalty and patriotism really mean. Garak is in exile from Cardassia, but he makes it clear that he still loves Cardassia and its people. He has to figure out what that means to him and how he can do what he believes is best for Cardassia when it's currently being ruled by an undemocratic and dangerous regime. And Odo develops deep friendships on DS9, but he still longs to be with his own people. He has to make sense of what that means to him, too, especially once he realizes who his people are and what they've done. It's just so fascinating and nuanced, and there aren't always tidy answers for these characters.

And yes, about Voyager. It's actually a bit odd how seamlessly the Maquis crew gets integrated into the Voyager crew after the first episode. Except for the Seska storyline and the one episode where Tuvok has to train a couple of the former Maquis officers, we hear very little about the Maquis after "Caretaker," and Voyager functions entirely as a Federation ship. I think part of it is that the writers decided to make the main former Maquis characters—Chakotay, B'Elanna, and Tom—characters who had previously joined Starfleet (or had at least started at the Academy, in B'Elanna's case) but left for the Maquis. So for them, Voyager is a fresh start where they get to serve in Starfleet without having to deal with the context of the Federation/Maquis conflict. That lets the writers run with a much neater and more positive portrayal of the Federation than the more nuanced and ambiguous portrayal that we get in DS9.

Here's why I think DS9 is so fucking good: Most of the time, in Trek, there's a Right Choice, a Wrong Choice and an Expedient Choice. The Wrong Choice is Out, because our characters are Lawful Good.

So that leaves Right vs Expedient. And many times the characters make the Right choice and suffer the consequences (like Janeway destroying the Caretaker phalanx), or make the Expedient choice and come to regret it.

And there's stories like that in DS9, too. But there are also so many stories where the choices are Bad and Worse. Or Bad and Equally Bad in a Slightly Different Way. Many times it's Moral Choice vs Survival, but so, so many times both choices are equally valid, or equally bad.

Examples: The episode where Juilan and Miles are stranded with the Jem'hardar and Julian tries to cure them of the White addiction while Miles works to escape. And the thing is, they're both right. Miles saves their lives, but Julian, as a doctor, thinks of his first duty to his patients (and also the strategic advantage it would bring them to be able to break the Jem'hardar dependency on the White). They're both right, and they're both wrong.

Kira and Odo during the entire Dominion occupation arc. Kira wants to resist to aid the overall war effort, Odo prioritises Bajor and the safety of the people under his direct care. They're both right, and they're both wrong. Odo is collaborating, Kira is being a terrorist and endangering Bajor. They're both wrong. And they're both right.

Or when Miles and Julian go after Section 31 for the Changeling cure. They do some SHADY SHIT to Sloan, and Julian doesn't blink once, even though he's a doctor and definitely Doing Harm. And then they DON'T give the cure to the Founders, even though they could prevent their genocide, but they don't do it because they're at war. And you can't honestly blame them, but for Starfleet, that's rough.

And the thing is, DS9 isn't saying that our heroes are always right. They want you to question their choices. They want you to ask yourself, what would I do? Who's right here, who's wrong? What's the right thing to do if there IS no 100% moral choice? What do you do to survive? What price are you willing to pay?

And it's not always comfortable to watch, but it's compelling, and it's riveting, and it's real.

[winterdaphne2]

YES YES YES to this. You hit this on the nose. I made a tumblr for BBC Sherlock content and that's entirely what my blog is, but DS9 is actually my favorite tv show. I don't think anything else will ever top it for me.

DS9 is much more willing to engage with moral ambiguity than the other Star Trek series. A big part of that is done through really thought-provoking episodes like the ones you mentioned, where the characters have to make tough choices and there aren't clean, satisfying solutions. I mean, just remember "In the Pale Moonlight," the episode where Sisko and Garak trick the Romulans into joining the Dominion War! And Sisko's closing line, about how the most damning thing of all is that "I can live with it."

But on top of that, DS9 also portrays the Federation in a very different light from all the other Star Trek series, and this is one of the things that I find most compelling about DS9. TOS and TNG read like clear products of the Cold War, with the Federation representing the democratic West and the Romulans (and sometimes the Klingons, and maybe even the Borg) representing the Soviet Union or undemocratic other. You're supposed to root for the Federation/Starfleet because they make the "right" choices...and it's often stated or implied that they know what's best for the other groups that they encounter (yikes). But DS9 complicates that dynamic brilliantly, because in DS9 we start to see the Federation as an imperialist power. Kira makes this clear in the very first episode when she's talking to Julian right after he arrives on the station. Naïve-season-1-style Julian (before all the fantastic character development that he goes through over the course of the show) tells Kira that he chose an assignment on DS9 because he's excited for an adventure on the "frontier." Kira angrily tells him that this "frontier" is her home, and she expresses frustration that as soon as the Bajoran resistance kicked out the Cardassians, the Federation came swooping in. So from the very first episode, DS9 indicates that it's going to be a much more political, much more critical Star Trek series that wants us to question the motives and morality of the Federation itself. Which is awesome. Sisko's character arc also wrestles with this brilliantly. When he's first assigned to DS9, Sisko's mission from Starfleet is to prepare Bajor for Federation membership, and he starts out by believing that this is what's right for Bajor. But as he comes to embrace his role as the Emissary and to identify with the Bajoran people, Sisko truly questions whether Federation membership is actually what what's best for Bajor.

In the end, as viewers we're still on the side of the Federation and Starfleet. After all, the Dominion provides a clear villainous foil. But at the same time, we're made to feel a bit uncomfortable about it at times, and we have to think about it. We can't just take for granted that the Federation is always going to be in the right and that its standards are always defensible ones. DS9 gives us so much to think about because it's willing to bring up moral ambiguity over and over again, both through the very premise of the show—by portraying the Federation the way it does—and through really thoughtful, interesting episodes where the characters have to make tough decisions. And as a result, like you said, DS9 feels much more real and compelling than the Star Trek series that came before it.

I also love that DS9 has more long-term plot arcs than the other Star Trek series, and I think the characters and character development that we get to witness over the course of the show are just fantastic. (DS9 also brought us Garak, a morally gray and fascinating Star Trek character if there ever was one.) I absolutely love Voyager too, and I think it also does a great job with the characters. But DS9 is even better at long-term plot arcs, and Voyager kind of backs off from DS9's ambiguous portrayal of the Federation. DS9 is a lot grittier and more political, and I think it's more willing to dive into moral ambiguity in part because of its commitment to wrestling with war and occupation as recurrent themes.

So yeah, DS9 is my favorite. 😊

Here's why I think DS9 is so fucking good: Most of the time, in Trek, there's a Right Choice, a Wrong Choice and an Expedient Choice. The Wrong Choice is Out, because our characters are Lawful Good.

So that leaves Right vs Expedient. And many times the characters make the Right choice and suffer the consequences (like Janeway destroying the Caretaker phalanx), or make the Expedient choice and come to regret it.

And there's stories like that in DS9, too. But there are also so many stories where the choices are Bad and Worse. Or Bad and Equally Bad in a Slightly Different Way. Many times it's Moral Choice vs Survival, but so, so many times both choices are equally valid, or equally bad.

Examples: The episode where Juilan and Miles are stranded with the Jem'hardar and Julian tries to cure them of the White addiction while Miles works to escape. And the thing is, they're both right. Miles saves their lives, but Julian, as a doctor, thinks of his first duty to his patients (and also the strategic advantage it would bring them to be able to break the Jem'hardar dependency on the White). They're both right, and they're both wrong.

Kira and Odo during the entire Dominion occupation arc. Kira wants to resist to aid the overall war effort, Odo prioritises Bajor and the safety of the people under his direct care. They're both right, and they're both wrong. Odo is collaborating, Kira is being a terrorist and endangering Bajor. They're both wrong. And they're both right.

Or when Miles and Julian go after Section 31 for the Changeling cure. They do some SHADY SHIT to Sloan, and Julian doesn't blink once, even though he's a doctor and definitely Doing Harm. And then they DON'T give the cure to the Founders, even though they could prevent their genocide, but they don't do it because they're at war. And you can't honestly blame them, but for Starfleet, that's rough.

And the thing is, DS9 isn't saying that our heroes are always right. They want you to question their choices. They want you to ask yourself, what would I do? Who's right here, who's wrong? What's the right thing to do if there IS no 100% moral choice? What do you do to survive? What price are you willing to pay?

And it's not always comfortable to watch, but it's compelling, and it's riveting, and it's real.

[winterdaphne2]

An Experimental Application of Homospectrality

So @heimishtheidealhusband wrote the world’s most amazing meta about homospectrality. I highly recommend reading it, because they were spot on, and also just for some sweet, sweet education. I am also hoping they’ll be writing a post TAB meta soon about how it all played out but I thought I might try my hand at using some of the understanding I got from them to explain something in TAB that bothered me.

Ok, so, after Sir Eustace is killed, Holmes gets very angry and shouty toward Watson. And I kept asking myself, why is he so angry? On one hand, I know that Sherlock hates it when he can’t save people (I think it’s why he prefers to investigate crimes, he can manage bringing justice to people but it’s too much for him emotionally to try to protect living people all the time) but it still seemed to me like there might be something else going on, he is specifically angry about Watson’s belief in ghosts.

When Watson first brings it up in the train carriage, Holmes mocks him and states, “There are no ghosts in this world save those we make for ourselves.” If ghosts are taken to represent the threat of homosexual impulses, then this line could be read as stating that homosexuality is only monstrous if we make it out to be that way, the danger is in believing it’s dangerous. 

Later, when they’ve gone into the house to find out what’s happened Holmes charges Watson with guarding the escape route of the window, but in Holmes absences, Watson succumbs to his belief in the ghost and leaves his post. Watson can’t stand guard against his acceptance that homosexuality is monstrous. Remember, this is all in Sherlock’s mind, this is a reflection of Sherlock’s subconscious belief that John chose straight marriage as an antidote for his feelings for Sherlock. John’s closetedness is his fear of the specter of homosexuality, and it causes him to abandon his guard. 

Holmes shouts at Watson, “There are no ghosts!” “There is no reason to fear homosexuality!”

Then:

Lestrade: “You really musn’t blame yourself you know”

Holmes: “No you’re quite right.”

Watson: ”I’m glad you’re seeing sense.”

Holmes: “Watson is equally culpable, between us we’ve managed to botch this whole case.”

They’ve managed to botch their whole relationship with misunderstanding and fear. 

Watson: “I saw the ghost with my own eyes.”

Holmes: “You saw nothing you saw what you were supposed to see.”

Watson: “You said yourself I have no imagination.”

Holmes: “Use your brain such as it is to eliminate the impossible in this case it’s the ghost and observe what remains which in this case is a solution so blindingly obvious even Lestrade could work it out.”

Sherlock is angry that John has given in to seeing what he was “supposed to see”, to choosing a “normal life” with Mary. But if the fear of homosexuality were eliminated, what obvious solution would remain? Well, even Lestrade has probably worked out that they belong together. 

Further, several people have already pointed out that Sir Eustace is a mirror for John. I think Sherlock’s anger, beyond that he thinks John is afraid of his feelings for Sherlock, is that Sherlock feels by giving into that fear, John has actually put himself at great risk. Just as Sir Eustace was a victim of the Bride, so John is in danger from Mary and it’s the danger to John that Sherlock really can’t handle. 

I don’t mean to imply that Sherlock in real life has been ready to run off with John if only John were out. Obviously, Sherlock has many layers of his own hang ups to work through, and since this is all in Sherlock’s head anyway, it is equally possible to level the accusations at Sherlock himself, that he allowed his homosexuality to be made into a specter and it his fear that has botched everything. 

[winterdaphne2]

Love the terrible made-up brand/company names in Sherlock. "MePhone" in ASIP, "Flyaway Airlines" in ASIB. In TBB when Sherlock shows John a news article about the dead journalist, the website is literally titled "Online News." ONLINE NEWS

[winterdaphne2]

[winterdaphne2]

This is a great original post with great additions. Personally, I truly do believe that there is a beautiful, complex, and really well thought-out story to unpack across S1, S2, and most of S3 and TAB. And I think that story masterfully integrates the actors' performances with the major plot points so that it hangs together really well under close analysis. Back in May, I did a rewatch and wrote up my own 38,000-word reading of the show just for fun and to sort out my thoughts in one place (I haven't posted that). And I had a ton of fun doing it, because for a lot of the show, the story really works and was crafted with such incredible care. It's like Mars said and LSIT has explained elsewhere: analyzing the first couple seasons is like cracking a mystery, where the mystery is a love story that's heading towards a beautiful conclusion. Honestly, I still think Sherlock is the most moving and compelling love story that I've ever come across, and I love it.

But to my eye, the show really starts to fall apart partway through HLV, when the plot choices become chaotic. I'll grant that TAB is fascinating and provides interesting commentary on a lot of the events that we've already seen, plus (I think) foreshadowing of the happy Johnlock ending that I truly do believe the writers initially planned for. But after that, S4 is a total train wreck, and Mars's post perfectly explains why. The writers got carried away and wanted to have fun with the plot without having to deal with realistic consequences. Crazy shit happens and the characters are forced to move on without reckoning with any of it. Mars is totally right about the genre shift. So to me, trying to square S4 with the meticulously planned and executed story that I see unfolding in the earlier episodes just doesn't feel worth it. The only way I think I could make sense of S4 is through EMP Theory, but...I don't know, Mars's explanation for what happened seems a lot more realistic, especially since the show ended with S4.

This is why Sherlock still haunts me and keeps me up at night. It's because I really do think the writers and actors spent several seasons creating an incredibly clever and moving love story that was supposed to stand up under careful analysis, and does. But for whatever reason, the writers then threw that away in S4. Based on everything we saw from Benedict Cumberbatch and Martin Freeman in S1-S3 and TAB, I think the Johnlock ending we were initially going to get could have been, like, the most beautiful thing I would have ever seen on screen (ever!!), just really something amazing and to be treasured. But it didn't happen.

When I get really sad about this, I try to remind myself that the alternative endings in my favorite fics are just as real as S4. That's where the brilliance of the fandom is so wonderful.

I probably shouldn't have started typing this up, because this just turned into a little rant lol. I have a lot more thoughts about this (and could go on for another 38,000 words lol), but I'll refrain.

Defying analysis: Sherlock S3-4.

Thoughts on meta and analysis in the post-S4 world.

Keep reading

[winterdaphne2]

[winterdaphne2]

[winterdaphne2]

The car backfires and the hiker turns to look… which was his big mistake (x)

[winterdaphne2]

How are we feeling about that?

for shinka

[winterdaphne2]

it’s a form of slasher fiction (x)

[winterdaphne2]

You know my methods, John. I am known to be indestructible.

[winterdaphne2]

Sherlock built his mind palace out of places from his first case with John.

It’s always you. John Watson, you keep me right.

[winterdaphne2]

[winterdaphne2]

My own recent reading included The Picture of Dorian Gray, and the introductory material to my edition mentioned that the Marquess of Queensberry's name was John Sholto Douglas. This guy was the father of Wilde's male lover, Alfred Douglas, and he accused Wilde of sodomy, which led Wilde to charge him with libel.

John Sholto Douglas?!

In The Sign of Four, Arthur Conan Doyle named one of the minor characters Major John Sholto. Sholto enters the story because of his connection to Mary Morstan, since he and Mary's father served in the British army together in India. "John Sholto" doesn't strike me as a particularly common name, so it's hard to imagine this being a pure coincidence—especially since Doyle and Wilde knew each other and were even commissioned to write The Sign of Four and The Picture of Dorian Gray for Lippincott's Monthly Magazine at the same time. That said, The Sign of Four came out in 1890 and the timeline in my edition of Dorian Gray makes it sound like Wilde met Alfred Douglas some time in 1891. So maybe the timing is off here, and Doyle didn't actually name this character after the Marquess of Queensberry...but still, that's wild.

Either way, Moffat, Gatiss, and Thompson decided to include the character Major James Sholto in TSOT. And if Thompson based TRF in part on the Wilde trial (which certainly seems likely based on the above!), then they must have known that the Marquess of Queensberry was named John Sholto Douglas. So if the show writers were also thinking about the Wilde trial when they wrote TSOT, then what's the subtextual message sent by their decision to write Sholto into the story the way they did?

First, let's talk a little about the TSOT version of Sholto. This version of the character plays a very different role in the story from the Sholto of ACD canon. Crucially, the show writers decided to make Sholto someone connected to John rather than Mary. (They also changed his first name to James, I guess so there weren't two Johns. Doyle totally didn't care about repeating names and did it all the time lol.) We learn that Sholto is someone John was apparently once very close to but doesn't really keep in touch with anymore, and the nature of their past relationship is left somewhat ambiguous. Maybe they were just close friends, maybe they had some sort of romantic and/or sexual relationship, or maybe one (or both) of them had feelings for the other and never acted on them.

So what could all that mean? I have three ideas.

First, in the 1895 Wilde trial, the real John Sholto Douglas accused Wilde of homosexuality and brought about Wilde's public disgrace. In TSOT, Sholto's ambiguous relationship to John has been taken by some fans as further evidence of John's bisexuality. Moreover, Sherlock is visibly jealous of Sholto; Sherlock seems to suspect, or at least fear, that there might have been something between them. So maybe in TSOT, Sholto's character is meant to provide another piece of evidence that reveals John's bisexuality to the audience and to Sherlock, like Douglas publicly revealing Wilde's homosexuality.

Second, if Sherlock sees John's relationship with Sholto as evidence that John could be interested in men but isn't willing to act on those feelings when it comes to Sherlock, then maybe Sholto serves to punish Sherlock for his love for John. Sherlock's new knowledge about Sholto makes the pain of not being able to be with John even more intense for him. So maybe this mirrors how John Sholto Douglas punished Wilde for his sexuality. After all, in TRF, Moriarty mirrors the real-life John Sholto Douglas and punishes Sherlock (who mirrors Wilde) for being in love with John instead of him.

Or...if this is actually about John and not Sherlock this time, then maybe John mirrors Wilde in TSOT and the connection to the Wilde trial is meant to show that John thinks his past relationship with Sholto somehow embarrassed him or made him feel unsafe. Maybe for John, Sholto is a reminder of the supposed dangers of acting on his same-sex desires. And so the subtextual message could be that John is still afraid to act on his love for Sherlock. Hence the big heterosexual wedding.

I don't know, I'm just spitting out ideas here! This meta about TRF and the Wilde trial absolutely blew my mind, so then when I learned about the shared Sholto name I couldn't help but wonder about the significance of Sholto's character in TSOT. Has anyone written about this already? Did everyone already know about this but me lol

OK, so my recent reading included “The Trials of Oscar Wilde” by H. Montgomery Hyde.

As I was reading through the fairly extensive introduction, particularly the contextual information surrounding the first trial, in which Oscar Wilde prosecuted Lord Queensberry for criminal libel, I noticed a few details that I would like to take up with Stephen Thompson and his writing for TRF.

Some of these have been pointed out elsewhere, but I’m including them here anyway:

The Old Bailey: 

It’s common knowledge in the fandom at this point that the court where the Wilde trials took place is also the court where Moriarty stood trial in TRF.

Timing: 

The first of the Wilde trials began on April 3, 1895, and Wilde was convicted on May 25 of the same year.

Going by the dates on John’s blog, the Baskerville case is dated March 3 and John’s “he was my best friend and I’ll always believe in him” post is dated June 16.

Which means that the Wilde trials and TRF took place at the same time of year and the dates on John’s blog fairly neatly bracket the dates that the Wilde trials would have occurred. 

Show Off: 

During Lord Queensberry’s trial for libel, Wilde himself was the prosecution’s primary witness. During his cross-examination, Lord Queensberry’s lawyer and the judge were both annoyed by Wilde’s sass. According to the intro:

“Wilde could not resist the temptation to show off, a temptation which was later to prove damaging when he was in the box at the Old Bailey. Almost his very first answer called down a mild reproof from the bench.”

In TRF, as we know, Sherlock’s showing off lands him in contempt of court.

No Defense:

In Lord Queensberry’s trial, the defense never had a chance to present its evidence or call witnesses. In this case, it’s because Wilde’s cross-examination during his earlier testimony was so incriminating, that Wilde’s lawyer interrupted Queensberry’s lawyer during the defense’s opening statement in order to withdraw the charges.

In TRF, Moriarty’s lawyer opts not to present a defense at all, because the whole point is to show that Moriarty has the power to walk free without his lawyer even trying.

In both cases, the defendant was acquitted without presenting a defense at trial.

Sending a Message:

Lord Queensberry elected to send a message rather than pay a visit, but this is from the introduction:

“As soon as he had obtained his discharge from the Court, the victorious defendant sent a characteristic message to his adversary, on whom the tables were now to be savagely turned. ‘If the country allows you to leave,’ said Queensberry, ‘all the better for the country; but, if you take my son with you, I will follow you, wherever you go, and shoot you!’”

Moriarty, of course, in TRF, chose to call at Baker Street in person, and leave his ominous IOU that way. 

Both defendants, immediately upon acquittal, lost no time in getting in touch with the opponent in order to make threats of what was to come.

Arrest:

There are two things here. First, once the warrant for Wilde’s arrest was issued, a friend came to let him know about it before the police arrived to arrest him. Wilde refused to see the friend who came with the news, and sent his other friend, Robert Ross, who was with him, to receive the message instead.

In TRF, warning Sherlock that the officers were on their way to pick him up falls to Lestrade, who makes a phone call to John.

And then when the police arrived, Wilde put on his coat, picked up his gloves and book, and went with the police without any trouble.

In TRF, as the police are arriving, we see Sherlock putting on his coat and scarf and putting out his hands for the officer to cuff him. (I mean, things went to shit a couple of minutes later, but that’s irrelevant.)

Brook/Brookfield:

I’ve saved this bit for last because honestly it fucked me up the most. This is the part where I could no longer explain away the similarities as mere coincidence.

“It is a curious fact, which does not seem to be generally known, that the most damning clues were provided by an entirely voluntary agent who received no fee for his services. This was the actor Charles Brookfield, who had conceived a violent hatred of Wilde…”

“The subject of Oscar Wilde had by this time developed into a positive obsession with Brookfield. Consequently, when the Queensberry storm broke, he went round London getting up opposition wherever he could against the unfortunate dramatist.”

“… after Wilde’s conviction Brookfield and some friends entertained Queensberry to dinner in celebration of the event. These details are confirmed by the journalist who introduced Brookfield to Queensberry’s solicitor.”

An actor named Brookfield provided the worst of the evidence against Wilde, and was put in touch with Queensberry’s lawyers by a journalist.

Moriarty provided all of the false evidence of Sherlock’s crimes and destroyed Sherlock’s reputation… by posing as an actor named Richard Brook and talking to a journalist.

[winterdaphne2]

Archived link to John's blog post

interesting note that the case from the blog that John gets complimented on, the aluminium crutch, is actually just a transcript of a voicemail that Sherlock left him. it is, perhaps, the most true account of all the cases on the blog, because John does no interpretation of the facts at all, he just transcribes Sherlock’s telling of it. and it is pointed out to us twice as a favorite case in universe, which I’d always loved as a bit of an inside joke because people compliment John on it when really it’s all Sherlock’s words, but even that goes to show the power the blog takes on in the story. once John writes it down, the truth of it becomes John’s telling of it - and for casual audiences at home who don’t know about the existence of the blog, the significance is lost entirely.