YOU ALL MUST WATCH THIS
IT IS THE BEST THING AND I SMILE EVERY TIME—
needed this. Always need this <33333333
AU: Allison’s funeral.
“You can shed tears that she is gone, or you can smile because she has lived. You can close your eyes and pray that she’ll come back, or you can open your eyes and see all she’s left. Your heart can be empty because you can’t see her, or you can be full of the love you shared. You can remember her only that she is gone, or you can cherish her memory and let it live on. You can cry and close your mind, be empty and turn your back. Or you can do what she’d want: smile, open your eyes, love and go on.”
so please explain me why this is an au
“Loki was brought up with the expectation of entitlement — he was born to rule, both Thor and Loki were born to be kings. And yet, there is no kingdom for Loki, so he has to find one. So he’s come down to earth to subjugate humanity and rule the human race as their king. I guess we’ve skirted over the facts of where Loki disappeared to, but we’ve imagined that he’s had a pretty horrible time and this is his kind of last chance at giving himself an identity or a home, somewhere to belong to.” — Tom Hiddleston
Harry Potter Moments#5 Pain
“Harry, suffering like this proves you are still a man! This pain is part of being human” ”THEN I DON’T WANT TO BE HUMAN!”-Harry roared
how dare you
You can get addicted to a certain kind of sadness,
like resignation to the end.
I don’t think winning is gonna help me at all.
Because she came here w i t h m e.
“Sammy took his ﬁrst steps yesterday. He walked toward Dean” - John Winchester’s journal
Sammy took his last steps today. He walked toward Dean.
I took my last steps today. It was off the edge of a cliff
HOW DO YOU DARE
Ah, hello, Person Of Immense Politeness. I suspect you’re here to talk about my OTP. Luckily for you, I’m in a good mood, so I’m going to go through this nice and rationally.
- Yes, as a matter of fact, I am aware of that. As it happens, I’m an English literature student, and have not only read all 4 novels and 56 short stories, but studied them in depth. I’m writing a series of essays on them at present, actually.
- Perhaps you’re unaware of other adaptations, so let me inform you that in The Private Life of Sherlock Holmes, Holmes is gay (see point 6), in Elementary, Watson is a woman, Moriarty is also Irene Adler and the series is set in New York, and in Basil the Great Mouse Detective, the characters are mice. Also, Sir Arthur Conan Doyle cared very little for Sherlock Holmes, and, despite claiming that ‘Holmes is as inhuman as a Babbage’s Calculating Machine, and just about as likely to fall in love’ in 1892, he later wrote a play, and when appealed to by William Gillette, who was to portray Holmes, for permission to alter his character, Doyle replied ‘You may marry him, murder him, or do anything you like to him.' HE DIDN’T CARE ABOUT HIS CHARACTERS BEING ALTERED.
- You are completely avoiding historical social context. In the Victorian era, MEN COULD NOT MARRY MEN AND WOMEN COULD NOT MARRY WOMEN. In fact, the Marriage Equality Bill was only passed in England THIS YEAR. Sir Arthur Conan Doyle’s close friend, Oscar Wilde, was sentenced to two years of hard labour which so severely damaged his health that he died 3 years later as punishment for ‘gross indecency’, i.e. homosexuality. Do you know what was used against him in court? The Picture of Dorian Gray - his novel - because it contained homoerotic subtext. Doyle wanted to portray Watson as a heart in contrast to Holmes’ head, and as such, he had to be romantic. HETEROROMANCE WAS THE ONLY OPTION IN THE ERA IN WHICH HE WAS WRITING.
- That said, the canon did contain plenty of homoerotic subtext (1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6) which queer theorists have been studying since its publication.
- MEN DON’T HAVE TO BE STRAIGHT TO MARRY WOMEN. Wilde was predominantly attracted to men (many consider him biromantic and homosexual), and he was married to a woman called Constance Lloyd. In the Victorian era, marriage was nowhere near so much based on love as it is today - it was about money, power, status, convenience, all kinds of things. Now, I do believe that Watson loved Mary Morstan (and that Wilde loved Constance Lloyd), but this context is important to recognise. In any case, biromantic/sexual and panromantic/sexual men marry women. That doesn’t make them unable to also feel love or attraction for men. John never says that he is straight, only that he isn’t gay (true) and isn’t Sherlock’s date (also true). That’s very open-ended phrasing that doesn’t rule out attraction to men/a man (and, in fact, series 3 creates plenty of space for a bisexual reading). In fact, even straight people are capable of finding themselves sexually and/or romantically attracted to a member of the same sex. The concept of exceptions to personal rules and the fluidity of sexuality was a key theme in A Scandal in Belgravia.
- The writers were influenced by The Private Life of Sherlock Holmes* (on which Mark Gatiss said: ‘The relationship between Sherlock and Watson is treated beautifully; Sherlock effectively falls in love with him in the film’ and on which the writer, Billy Wilder, said that he wished he’d had the ability to make Holmes unambiguously gay) and deliberately establish homoerotic and homoromantic subtext. In fact, at Anatomy of a Hit, they said that they regard all adaptations to be part of an ongoing canon, and draw as much influence from them as from the canon. For instance, A Scandal in Belgravia was much more closely based on The Private Life of Sherlock Holmes than A Scandal in Bohemia.
* more on this interview here
- On that note, I’m immensely amused that you are so scandalised by the concept of Holmes and Watson being written into a romantic relationship, yet have no issues with the fact that the stories have been translated into the 21st century (a decision which, at Anatomy of a Hit, the writers stated they felt automatically provided them with ‘license to be heretical’), that Irene Adler was portrayed as a lesbian dominatrix, that the meaning of ‘RACHE’ was inverted, that the Reichenbach Falls were exchanged for St. Bart’s Hospital, that Mary Morstan was portrayed as a contract killer and that Charles Augustus’ surname was changed from Milverton to Magnussen to account for his change of nationality from English to Danish and that he was portrayed as the head of a media corporation.
- It is possible to ship something in fanon without wanting it to become canon. There is also nothing wrong with wanting something that you enjoy to happen on screen and hence be more accessible to you, particularly if that thing would also be socially beneficial by providing positive representation to marginalised groups.
- Shipping makes me happy. Fandom makes me happy. Sherlock makes me happy. I think it extremely rude of you to come into my ask box under the cowardly guise of anonymity to try to take that happiness away from me (you failed completely, I might add), when it literally affects you in exactly 0 ways.
So, in conclusion:
And /this/ my friend is why I do not ship Johnlock in the BBC version but I /do/ ship them in the RDJ version when it is based in Victorian England as he does have a reason to hide his feelings and therefore marry a woman
Do I really have to reiterate that men can be bisexual/romantic or pansexual/romantic and marry women, or tell you that John met Mary while he thought Sherlock was dead?
No, and I fully admit that it could be a possibility and would be fine with it if he was, /however/ for me, I don’t see any reason for John to hide his sexuality or feelings for Sherlock if he had any in the BBC version. I welcome anyone to try and convince me otherwise but personally I don’t see it..
I’ve spoken about that here and in the links provided below. I’ll also add that it’s a notable choice to always have John use ambiguous phrasing - I address “not gay” in that post, and he also says “not a couple” and “not his date”, which is true, but doesn’t rule out the possibility of ever being romantically/sexually attracted to/involved with Sherlock/men in general. When writers choose one type of phrasing over another (and use it continually rather than putting an end to speculation with a straight-to-the-point “I’m straight” through a character who points out the different linguistic implications between “previous” and “ex”, which I spoke among other things about here), there’s usually significance to that.