#sherlock rant

if i remember right, he was there for definitely the Commune and the events that led up to it (The Franco-Prussian War)

and during their rein, the Parisian soldiers that were obviously mad about the whole thing lowered bread prices and gave free public education

maybe that's also why he could understand what Liam meant by the "social reform" goal because he literally saw it happen (and Bloody week too)

not to mention all of the deaths that happened DURING bloody week

I have been in the Sherlock fandom for about two years now and I am so grateful I found such a safe place.

I started watching Sherlock during a difficult time in my life.

I was hanging out with a friend one afternoon and I don’t even really know how it happened, but she convinced me to watch Sherlock.

It can take me a while to get into a show. Like… a long while. So, I was a bit wary about it, but I’m grateful for her persistence because she just sat me down and turned it on.

I’m going to admit that I didn’t instantly fall in love with it. There’s a lot to the show and (in my opinion) it can be tough to understand if you don’t pay good attention to it.

My friend and I only ended up watching two episodes. After that, I didn’t think much of it.

One evening, I was sitting on my sofa, scrolling through my TV to see what’s on and low and behold, I somehow find Sherlock.

I watch it again… and this time I can’t stop watching it. It only takes me a few days to get through the whole series, and suddenly it’s my new obsession.

I legitimately couldn’t stop thinking about it. It got worse when I found fanfiction.

Sherlock saved me. I don’t mean to be too dramatic, but it really did. I was in such a stump part of my life and reading Sherlock fanfics or watching Sherlock(TV) allowed me to feel a little lighter, like all the burden that was presented at my shoulders could just dissipate.

The creators of the show turned characters that were popular in the 1800s into something people in this century could relate to.

They got these marvelous characters and studied them in such a deep manner and brought them to life on screen, in the modern world.

And it isn’t just about the characters but it’s also about the whole feeling of the show. They show 221B Baker Street as a cozy, homey safe haven which Sherlock and John can live their adorable domestic life. It is where they plan, discuss cases, laugh, drink tea, sleep, sit by the crackling fire, watch crap telly, eat takeout, and all the things that make them feel at home.

And with Sherlock and John seeing 221B as their home, it has also had the fandom seeing it as such as well.

Just the thought of the show makes me feel comforted. It made my past self feel comforted when she was going through hell.

I know for a fact Sherlock has helped every person in the fandom someway, somehow. It’s a beautiful show that portrays intelligence, friendship, family, relationships, mystery, excitement, warmth, sadness, grief, romance, happiness… there’s too much to list.

But all the qualities of the show have allowed us fans to find a place where we can feel safe. We go to Sherlock whether we feel happy or sad, we go to Sherlock when we need comfort, we go to Sherlock when we need distraction, we go to Sherlock when we need to cry, we go to Sherlock when we need to feel something.

So, sorry for my dramatic rant but I just needed to get this off my chest.

I hope that Sherlock has offered all of you some sort of happiness.

Have a marvelous day <3

As much as I've got to admit that I'm lowkey very fond of this detail, it still doesn't make any sense to me. I've looked it up and V.R. is apparently supposed to stand for Victoria Regina, the queen during Sherlock Holmes' time

in bbc, sherlock rarely shows much emotion at all and he’s a bit of an asshat to everyone for the majority (keyword majority, I really enjoy the character development at the end) of the series. he shows no concern or fear ever until later in the series. he’s stuck up and kind of stuck in his own little bubble for most of the series too. john watson is also different from his own counterpart, he’s a bit more angry and more involved in relationships and such (correct me if I’m wrong, I haven’t finished arthur conan doyle’s series of books yet and I’ve plenty to go! hope I manage to finish it, it’s really interesting so far). not to mention other characters like lestrade and mycroft (especially mycroft’s relationship with sherlock)

in the original books (from what I’ve read) sherlock is much more welcoming. he shakes john’s hand when they are introduced to each other and isn’t as cold or demanding as bbc had made him out to be. when he makes deductions, he does so humbly, never really shows any hint of pride at his ability to deduce such complex details from just observation. he isn’t very stuck up, and has a nice brotherly relationship with mycroft (again only from what I’ve read!! please correct me if I am wrong) and is willing to admit that mycroft’s observational ability is indeed much better than his. he also was immediately willing to admit all his flaws to john and make sure he was comfortable living with him. I’m not too sure about john as for me it’s slightly difficult to explain or deduce his personality. he is writing from his perspective and I never quite see much of his dialogue, but I realise he’s much less awkward with sherlock the first time they met. he almost immediately took to calling sherlock his friend and they shared nice conversations. john was never forced to follow sherlock anywhere, neither was he dragged around too much. also just a side note but I find the rivalry between lestrade and gregson really fun to read.

but something I like about bbc sherlock is the different interpretations of characters. all sherlock series or movies (including all sherlock media. like granada [I should watch that soon] or that one dinosaur movie. I love that movie.) have different interpretations of the characters. the ones where robert downey jr acted in portrayed sherlock as slightly jealous of john’s other relationships. I liked john and sherlock’s relationship there because it was very sibling like. and the dinosaur movie’. sherlock was mumbling but that’s okay because there was a 7 foot tall CGI dinosaur and sherlock and john fought it. also lestrade had an incredibly strong cockney accent.

back to the topic of bbc sherlock, it’s modernised so that it takes place in the 2000s. sherlock is more mean there because nobody really has a clue what he’s saying most of the time. they don’t try to match his sort of not as “modern (?)” way of speech. they drive him up the walls. that’s why he’s so stuck up. he thinks his ability is ordinary and that others should be able to do it if he can. basically, he’s mad because nobody really can be on his level in terms of observational skill. that’s why he was such good friends with mary. because she was, in a way, as smart as or even more intelligent and witty than him. in the bonus episode of the series (the abominable bride, if I’m not wrong) when he is lost in his thoughts, he goes back to the time period in which the original sherlock holmes books took place. he might think he is born in the wrong time period (or rather it’s merely implied) or he could simply just be thinking about the possibilities. he seems happier and more carefree in that episode too. he’s actually willing to admit to being inferior to mycroft.

overall, I absolutely adore both versions of sherlock. both of them are amazing. if you dislike bbc’s sherlock, that’s totally okay!! but personally I love the individuality of character steven moffat and mark gatiss gave the cast. amazing actors on set too.

fuckkkj that went on for entirely too long I’m sorry for ranting so much

If you haven’t heard Introduction and Rondo Capriccioso, I reckon you do now. The patterns in both compositions are very similar, and it costs nothing more than a mindful pair of ears and some knowledge in classical music to see it.

Okay, I know that this isn’t a very important detail, and surely it could all just be a coincidence, but what do we say about coincidences again? “The universe is rarely so lazy”, isn’t it? So, as you can see, I’m here. Have in mind that I don’t really know what I’m doing here, I’m not a classical musician, I have never written anything similar to this, or have ever even analyzed any medias from their music, and I don’t even have English as my mother tongue. However, it is quite an intriguing idea, so this is just me having a go at it.

Rolling back a few pages in history, Introduction and Rondo Capriccioso was written in 1863 by Camille Saint-Saëns for the violinist and composer, Pablo de Sarasate, who was then only 15 years old and was recognized as a violin prodigy. The piece was originally intended to be the rousing finale to Saint-Saëns’ first violin concerto, but succeeded as a solo composition, resulting in him publishing the piece individually.

There wasn’t much going on with these two musicians, as far as I can tell. Sarasate admired Saint-Saëns’ skills and talents, asked him to write a piece that the young Sarasate could play, and there came Introduction and Rondo Capriccioso (and his first violin concerto in A major as well but we don’t talk about that). Irene Adler’s theme, on the surface, is Sherlock Holmes’ composition written for the supposedly late Irene Adler. Sarasate and Irene Adler were, in fact, very alike. They both had certain charms that made others go wild for them. They both had never gotten married and were flirting with many people (and having sex, too, but then again it was Irene’s literal profession, so it doesn’t really count.) Their works were rarely sentimental and they made them look effortless, however difficult. It might not be too bold to think that the similarity was meant to tell us that Sherlock did not decide to write this piece by himself: Irene had asked him to do that. Perhaps not exactly the piece itself, but the feeling it was supposed to carry: grief. She asks him to grieve for her. Why? Because she needs to play dead. She needs to disappear. And she knows that if Sherlock Holmes himself says that she’s dead, no one would doubt that. In context, this actually makes quite a lot of sense (seeing that there is no way Sherlock could be so certain that she’s dead if she was, in fact, not dead). It could also be a way to remind us that they are nothing more than acquaintances, that their feeling towards the other (at least, until the moment Sherlock composes the piece) is one of admiration and respect for the other’s intellect - similar to the ACD canon.

TL;DR: On the surface, the similarity between these two compositions is a foreshadow for us, telling us that Irene Adler has never been dead, and Sherlock knows that.

But let’s dig a little bit deeper in Saint-Saëns and Introduction and Rondo Capriccioso, especially on Saint-Saëns, because he was an interesting bloke.

Camille Saint-Saëns was known to had been performing in drag and engaged in homosexual activities, yet kept on denying his homosexuality - “I’m not a homosexual, I’m a pederast!” (Hold on where did I hear this oh-)

Better yet - he had shown signs of liking both men and women. (Although I must admit, he had a very terrible love life. Bit like John in ASiB, actually, considering he had a string of girlfriends but they were never together for too long. He got dumped on Christmas, for God’s sake!) And he fell in love with one Augusta Holmes, an exotic and bizarre woman, a lady so brilliant and excellent that her wits and talents made many fall for her. “We were all in love with her,” remarked Saint-Saëns once. (It’s quite interesting because, well, this. No one will convince me that Irene didn’t mean they were both in love with Sherlock Holmes.)

Another comment he made about her was, “Like children, women know no obstacle. She is a woman, an extremist.” And the comparison between Augusta and a child sort of parallels John’s (and Lestrade’s, and Sherlock’s himself) comparison between Sherlock and a child in TSoT and HLV. Anyway, Saint-Saëns proposed to her and got rejected (“John, I think you should know that I consider myself married to my work, and while I’m flattered by your interest, I’m really not looking for any...” - it was a downright rejection and I don’t think it’s just coincidental), but she remained a big part of how he perceived life and love and, well, women. In all of his later works, women were mostly depicted as smart and dominant, using their wits and sexuality to ruin the main character/hero. A misogynistic mindset, honestly, but who am I to say? Worth to mention that he was also abused by his mother, who was at least partially responsible for Saint-Saëns’ misogynistic mindset. (And didn’t we all agree that John and his dad had a difficult - abusive - relationship? If we didn’t, we did now.)

Overall, Saint-Saëns and John were quite similar. So if we put John in as Camille and Sherlock as Augusta, maybe his rejection from ASiP has affected John’s perception of his attraction to men, more specifically his attraction to Sherlock. Which means, while he indulged in his sexual desires for men, John also sees it as dangerous and that it could ruin him, even if he doesn’t acknowledge that. Hence his “I’m not gay”, “We’re not a couple” to Irene - who is a Sherlock mirror. His attraction towards Sherlock literally scares him.

TL; DR: Saint-Saëns could be seen as John’s mirror, Augusta Holmes a mirror of Sherlock, and their relationship could reflect John’s point of view (on his bisexuality).

So. A composition written by Sherlock for his mirror, taking inspiration from Camille Saint-Saëns - John’s mirror. What could we deduce from that? John is what and who inspired Sherlock to do something for himself. John inspired Sherlock to acknowledge himself. John has taught Sherlock how to find out more about himself. And since the episode is literally about sex and love, Irene herself is also about sex and love, then that, that is what John has taught him.

Funnily enough, in the first premiere of Introduction and Rondo Capriccioso, Saint-Saëns was the conductor, while Sarasate was the solo violinist. Pretty telling, I suppose. (Conductor of light - also a reason I believe Saint-Saëns was John's mirror.)