@a-darling-thing / a-darling-thing.tumblr.com
✨Drunkstarion✨ Rare dialogue about the "bear" he found while we were camping in the underdark. I adore his little deranged laugh it's the best! I'm so happy I got this cutscene while in the Underdark I never knew how to trigger it.
Turns out, 2000 was 20 years ago. Which is odd, since 1980 was also.
The thing Gen-Z really needs to understand is that no one older than them is ever going to be able to estimate time correctly because the Millennium.
The Millennium will always be Not That Long Ago. Everything since the Millennium will always be, in some sense, ‘new’.
It just broke us, OK? It was too big and we’ll never quite be able to deal.
Was the real millennium bug inside us all along?
yep.
I think at least part of this is that pop culture has gotten such a longer shelf life over the past 20 years.
You can listen to a Top 40 station now and hear a song from 10 years ago easily, even songs from the 80s or 90s on special occasions (which might just be the Nineties at Noon or whatever every single day).
A Top 40 station in the 80s? Played the current fucking Top 40 and that was it. You were lucky if you heard a song that was one year old, definitely never ten. I was born in 1979 and heard almost no music from before I was born until high school or college. If you wanted to hear anything older than a year, you had to listen to a classic rock (late 60s to 70s) or oldies (50s to early 60s) station. There was nothing earlier than that on the radio.
A restaurant was playing What a Feeling, from 1983. 28 years before my son was born. That’s the equivalent of hearing a song from 1951 in the late 80s, which just did not happen. Even for an oldies station, it was hard to find anything that old.
VCRs were just getting big in the mid-80s, but there was a limited selection of videos you could buy (or even rent) for them. Most video rental stores didn’t bother to stock TV shows, it just wasn’t worth it. (Few shows were even released on VHS.)
So you could generally watch recent movies and “classics” but if you were looking for some random movie from the mid-70s - that’s only ten years previous - you were mostly out of luck. Imagine looking for a movie from 2006 right now, and you can find maybe the top-grossing ones and a few that won Oscars, but Night at the Museum? The Devil Wears Prada? You’re shit outta luck. That’s what it would have been like looking for movies from 1976 in 1989.
So for those of us who grew up in the 80s and early 90s, pop culture had a hard limit of about a decade, if that. By the late 90s, the internet was good enough that music was starting to stretch that, but you still couldn’t really get video through the internet and DVDs were still catching up in terms of what was available. You didn’t really get entire seasons of TV on DVD until the early 00s - the first season of The Simpsons, which aired in 1989, wasn’t released on DVD until 2001.
Anyhow, I think that’s why a lot of older millennials and Gen Xers are having trouble wrapping our heads around the idea that the year 2000 was almost 20 years ago. Because we grew up in a world where if you heard a song regularly, or watched a movie or a TV show that wasn’t late-night reruns, it had probably been released within the past 5 years, and almost definitely within the past 20. Our brains haven’t quite gotten used to hearing a new song followed by a 30-year-old song on the radio and not just being able to find any decade-old movie at will but seeing gifs of decade-old movies almost daily. Our brains think that means those things must still be new.
I have never heard anyone explain it so clearly before. And I LIVED it.
“To Sherlock Holmes she is always the woman. I have seldom heard him mention her under any other name. In his eyes she eclipses and predominates the whole of her sex. It was not that he felt any emotion akin to love for Irene Adler. All emotions, and that one particularly, were abhorrent to his cold, precise but admirably balanced mind. He was, I take it, the most perfect reasoning and observing machine that the world has seen, but as a lover he would have placed himself in a false position. He never spoke of the softer passions, save with a gibe and a sneer. They were admirable things for the observer—excellent for drawing the veil from men’s motives and actions. But for the trained reasoner to admit such intrusions into his own delicate and finely adjusted temperament was to introduce a distracting factor which might throw a doubt upon all his mental results. Grit in a sensitive instrument, or a crack in one of his own high-power lenses, would not be more disturbing than a strong emotion in a nature such as his. And yet there was but one woman to him, and that woman was the late Irene Adler, of dubious and questionable memory.” Watson’s narration in “A Scandal in Bohemia” by Sir Arthur Conan Doyle
On a surface reading of the above quote Irene Adler/Norton falls into the trope of one woman being worthy of respect while other women continue to be treated as inferior. Watson’s later narration and Holmes’ actions shows this isn’t the case. Her affect on Holmes is not simply that he retains a positive memory of her, but since she outwitted him he has not dismissed women’s cleverness, a trait Holmes greatly values. The respect he has for her translates into a respect he shows for all women except the ones who have done something to lose it.
On a personal note I have never agreed with the idea that a strong woman must avoid caring, compassion, and kindness or any of the traditional stereotypes of woman nor I think think that a strong woman must avoid any characteristics that are traditionally considered masculine. Irene Adler/Norton is herself. She sings. She dances. She is a trained actress. She is intelligent. She reads people well. She shows compassion. She shows gratitude. She loves. She sometimes dresses as a man to be more free in society. She rides horses. She is an excellent shot. She is aware of her own beauty without relying on her beauty for her power.
The King describes her as “She has the face of the most beautiful woman, and the mind of the most resolute men.” Irene Adler’s extraordinariness comes in large part for her taking on characteristics and roles that society deemed masculine.
Part of Irene Alder/Norton’s attraction is her confidence in herself. You can see how upset she is with herself when she realizes that she has given away where she hid the photo. Like Holmes she prides herself in her ability to thwart those who challenge her.
Irene Norton dressing in her “walking clothes”, the phrase she uses to describe her “male attire”, and following the man she suspects to be Sherlock Holmes in order to confirm her suspicions is a nice touch. Earlier in the story Holmes warned Watson about making inferences before one has the available data and here we see Irene Norton testing her theory. Her imprudently good-night to Sherlock Holmes (not simply Holmes, but Sherlock Holmes) shows she is unable to resist reveling in the knowledge that she will ultimately outwit him.
Great read! Tangentially, I would like to point out the existence of Miss Irene Aldridge - opera singer, enthused over by Gounod, befriended by the Wagners despite their conspicuous racism, mixed race Swedish and African American. She was born in 1860, making her 31 at the time SCAN was published - the perfect age to be consistent with the story. Her father was Ira Aldridge, at one time the highest paid actor in Russia. He was world-famous for his Shakespeare, which included whiting up to play King Lear, in a reversal of the convention that regularly saw white actors blacking up to play Othello. Imagine the sort of personality she must have had - with a father who claimed to be descended from royalty, and a mother who claimed to be a baroness - to acheive the fame and position that she did, before her career sadly fizzled out due to ill health in 1896. Driven and resourceful almost begin to describe it. If I were reading SCAN when it was published in 1891, and I knew a little bit about the arts, I would have a very hard time not concluding that “Irene Adler” was a tissue-paper-thin disguise for Irene Aldridge. And that would suggest to me a far more likely reason why a royal figure on the brink of a politically advantageous marriage wouldn’t want the affair to be known about than his fiancee’s family being very strict and religious, and another contributory aspect to him being found wanting by Holmes.
Interesting. I did not know this. Thanks for the addition.
After some more sleuthing I found a rather lengthy write up in The New Yorker on Ira and Irene (Luranah).
Their photos:
v for vendetta is a film with a female protagonist that criticises capitalism, condemns pedophilia, encourages the viewers to question their governments, has a central plot about how LGBT people are condemned in right wing societies (more than three LGBT characters are in it) and was directed by a trans woman and her brother.
why has this become a fuckboy classic
because they mistake V for the protagonist and Evey as simply the viewpoint character, wilfully ignore the part of the plot about LGBT discrimination, and concentrate on how cool V is with his mask and his government-rebelling plots.
What I find interesting is that - V is actually, imo, coded as trans, especially in the original graphic novel. Alan Moore claims that clues to identity of V ‘are all there’, which implies it might be a named character. If it was one, the only person matching would be Valerie, the woman whose journals V gives to Evey. Everything would match - Valerie was an actress, which would fit with both costume and tastes of V, and also why said letter was so important - and really, how the hell an occupant of a high-security concentration camp under constant observation had ability to write a letter, and also how a letter written on toiler paper would survive all these years, and burning down of Larkhill camp. (answer - by being written AFTER all these events).
Except, V appears to be male. Everyone is using male pronouns for him, in the movie he speaks in a masculine voice, and in the novel we do see a panel of his silhouette naked in Larkhill, and he definitely has a masculine physique.
But, if Valerie becoming V was metaphor for transition, that’d make sense.
That’s in addition to well, the fact that a lot of trans men begin their self-discovery as butch lesbians? It’d sure fit.
Why do I believe that theory? In addition to whole LGBT themes thing, and the letter thing, there’s one more reason. Well, I think this was skimmed by in the movie, but in the novel, we get a pretty solid clue. See, in the movie, exact nature of experiments performed on Larkhill inmates is kept rather dubious if I recall - we know they gave V abilities slightly above normal humans, but that’s it.
But in the novel, it’s more specific. So, what is the field of experiments that are being performed Larkhill concentration camp that they needed human specimen?
Hormone research.
V got strength to throw off chains of opression and fight back and yadda yadda, became a character who ticks off literally every single checkbox on definition of a superhero, including superpowers…
By literal fucking hormone therapy.
Administered to him, ironically, by the very oppressors.
From what I’ve read of Alan Moore’s stories, he doesn’t leave details up to a chance. Everything has a reason, and everything is interconnected with each other. And this, this doesn’t look like a bit of dark irony Alan Moore would pass up, since he loves that shit.
So, those are my reasons for this particular interpretation.
Dead!Mary Fashion Meta
So it seems that as time passes, John’s vision of Mary depends on what he’s seen or thought of recently.
Loving this.
So there was a ‘pure drama’ trailer on my local BBC radio station this evening and I haven’t seen any mention of it on here (I’m not sure how new it is) so here is a transcript:
Mycroft: Memories can resurface, wounds can reopen. The truth is rarely pure and never simple.
John: I know this is difficult but you’ve got to keep it together.
Sherlock: You’ve got to tell me the truth Mycroft… pure and simple.
Mycroft: You’ve got no idea what you’re dealing with. NONE AT ALL. (he sounds very angry/ distressed here)
Voice over lady: It’s not a game anymore.
John: There’s a place for people like you: the desperate, the terrified, the ones with no where else to run.
Mycroft: What place?
John: (really chirpy and upbeat) 221b Baker Street. See you in the morning!
Beware that this is obviously not a coherent conversation. Different clips had been edited together. From what I can tell, I think TFP is going to be a very Holmes family-centric episode. Almost like Mycroft’s the client telling them his story. I can’t wait!
I mentioned on twitter after I saw the trailer that he looks like he’s sat in the client’s chair, the above confirms it I guess…
“ENLIGHTEN ME” coming right up!
ARE YOU FUCKING KIDDING NJKGDFJKHJFHLDFH
Oh.
You probably have no idea, that Sherlock will be shown in Russia practically in the same time as in UK, so all episodes were dubbed and translated and so were the names of episodes. And in Russia The Final Problem become Семейное дело (A Family Business), because translators decided, that it suits better to the episode than the name given by creators of the show. Take it as you like it.
What even..
The way the Mary points at herself coyly when John talks about a divorce, like, ‘who, me?’. On the surface narrative she’s just being coy/cute but on another level she’s saying, ‘whom are you doing to divorce?’, like there is more than one option. Possibly John could divorce someone else to whom he’s also married. This, like, ‘neither one of us were the first, you know’, (Mary) and, ‘the two people that I love and care about most in the world’, (John) and, ‘the two people who love you the most in all this world’, (Sherlock, all from TSoT) serves as another type of triangulation between them. Mary and Sherlock are equivalent as John’s partners. This reinforces, again, that Sherlock and John are most than just friends,
The Sign of Three can be seen as an obvious reference to the three of them and their love triangle. Here in The Six Thatchers we see more of this heavy, ‘John has two partners’, innuendo. Considering how much twins and triplets have been discussed on the show maybe the Six Thatchers is like double the Sign of Three. Maybe it’s like the Sign of Three x 2: now with more Mary/Sherlock/John comparisons.
PS maybe some of the subtext of Mary’s coyness includes an implication that if John just broke up with his other partner, Sherlock, then this conflict wouldn’t even be happening. Like, ‘who, me? Maybe it should be him.’
This is to certify that all materials pertaining to: CASE: BT198255D./SH (??)
Have been classified as: D-Notice - 100 YE(ARS BAN?)
By order of E. Smallwood (???)
TOP SECRET
SCREAMING
I googled D-Notice and:
“It has been reported that in 1971, four days following the Baker Street robbery, a D-Notice was issued, requesting that reporting be discontinued for reasons of national security. It is claimed that some security boxes contained embarrassing or nationally sensitive material.”
Baker Street robbery?? Read the wiki! Sexually compromising photos of a royal princess, kept in a security deposit box??
“The robbers left a cheeky message on a wall: ‘Let’s see how Sherlock Holmes solves this one’.”
Has anyone seen this before? @waitingforgarridebs @monikakrasnorada @isitandwonder
WHAT?!? These people successfully pulled a ‘Red-Headed League’ robbery! It’s exactly the same, no wonder they left that message on the wall saying ‘Let’s see how Sherlock Holmes solves this one’! . I’m joining the dots and NOW I get a lot of things, let me give you a list.
1. Arwel’s constant reference to going ‘back to the 70′s’ and more specifically his ‘1971′ tweet! This real-life robbery happened in 1971!
2. The location they chose to announce S4 that looked like a vault of sorts:
3. Arwell actally tweeting the pic of a safe and Jenna’s post about it here:
A Safe Fit For A Queen?
Finally, we end with another tweet from Arwel: a picture seemingly not telling us much at all, simply a safe named “Chubb”, with the British Royal Family Crest on it. Thankfully, @constancecream put on their deerstalker, and found the source of the safe: A company named “Chubb and Sons” from the Victorian era! I then speculated here that the Royal Family Crest could hint at something belonging to Mycroft- Sherlock does tell us that his brother is the Queen of England, after all! ;)
We were enlightened further by fans spotting an ACD canon link as we received a casting update. Dustin Hoffmann-Gill is to play the character “Gold Teeth” in Series 4, episode 1. @thechristmasrapture and @cupidford discussed here that this character’s name is more than likely to be a reference to the original Sherlock Holmes story The Stockbroker’s Clerk.This is a tale that features a villain with gold teeth, and involves safe-breaking! So the case of ‘Chubb and Sons’ may have been very nearly solved by the fandom!
4. Also I’ll remind you of this thread about setlock’s Portland House location!
5. Douglas McKinnon back in ShSpesh days tweeting the VHS cover of the movie ‘Heat’ among others. Just read the plot if you don’t wanna watch it, but Al Pacino’s brilliant, ‘work comes first’ detective against De Niro’s criminal-mastermind-robber rings a lot of bells to me.
Those are the ones I can think of off the top of my head, but I’m sure there’s more hints at bank-robbery/ flashback to the 70′s!
Yeeeahhhhaaa!! Thanks @marcespot !! @monikakrasnorada @isitandwonder @ebaeschnbliah @longsnowsmoon5 @tendergingergirl @loveismyrevolution
This is crazy!
The @threepatchpodcast‘s survey on Fandom and Sexuality has been studied for a month now, and we are ready to share some results! The survey covered a lot beyond the few graphs and numbers listed above, and these numbers gain meaning when put in the context.
Follow @tppfandomstats to catch analyses on topics such as:
Or read ahead with the Initial Report,if you really like graphs and bibliographies. Link below the read more.
Visualisations by: @obotligtnyfiken and @fffinnagain
Mary in the teaser trailer of Sherlock series 4
No ring. Flashback? Also anyone notice that she’s holding the gun with her right hand? When she shot Sherlock, she was holding it with her left. Just curious.
I was watching the trailer for asgahdz time and in this scene, I notice this
There is a flag there
I did a little research about flag and find this:
I can’t highlight rn, but in the last line says “Helmand”
And here says Kandahar,
and who do we know that has been there?
Georgia was with the US and France in the war in Afgahanistan, same UK, so maybe this is something with Mary is Moran and the dishonorable discharge thing? Like this mission/thing Mary did was why she created a new identity five years ago? Why she was forced to run away to London? Maybe we will see that part of the story?
I don’t know if this is relevant or something but I need it point out before I forget it. Any thoughts?
first and last scenes of sherlock season 2
“This phone is only six months old and he’s just giving it away?”
“I won’t even last six months.”
“…that would prove fatal to you in six months.”
“This corpse can’t be more than six months old.”
“Six months of bristly kisses and then his nibs turns up.”
“We were thinking May.” (Mary speaking of her nuptials with John. This convo took place in November, six months before Mary planned to have the wedding.
If the wedding date was accurate, the shooting took place in June. Then the time jumps forward to Christmas. About 6 months later.
There’s a meta here somewhere. I’ve seen some of these references mentioned in meta (like Sherlock and Irene mirroring) but there’s more mentions of 6 months that I really thought at first. Can anyone come up with more?
YES. I had an ask about this ages ago and couldn’t come up with a single theory. Why six months???
There are others on the website, and also several mentions on Doctor Who! I have been analyzing this meta for YEARS, and the only viable solution i have come up with is: Holmes’ birthday is on January 6th, while Watson’s birthday (according to Baring-Gould and Leslie Klinger) is on July 6th - precisely 182/183 days, as close to six months, both between Jan/Jul AND Jul/Jan as possible. So the show really is about those two men after all.
Return of the Aston Martin after last night’s Gordon Square filming? (x)
