So, apparently I have a friend who actually and honestly subscribes to the maxim “Don’t like gay marriage? Don’t have one!”

She’s morally against homosexuality (as a Christian), but in favour of the legalisation of gay marriage because people should be able to do what they want and that’s just her personal morals.

Um.

I

I honestly don’t know how to feel about this? It -

On the one hand, it’s completely absurd and narrow and close-minded because really? Really? Anyone ~morally against homosexuality~ is just plain - eugh; and also what’s your stance on other sexual identities? Gender? I don’t - that is just awfully stupid.

But then, on the other hand…

I mean, that’s remarkably tolerant.

I -

I don’t know how to feel anymore.

WHY WON’T HARPERCOLLINS PUBLISH THE REST OF THE SHERLOCK HOLMES STORIES IN ITS CLASSICS SERIES? I WANT CHEAP COPIES OF THE REST OF THEM, DAMMIT!

wow being stuck on hold with the bank is incredibly boring

sigtryggr:

cuddlytogas:

Sherlock Holmes is like History.

You have certain bits of evidence, primary sources - some people have examined them more than others - and, from these, you try to make a coherent, logical narrative. Some of these narratives make more sense than others, some would seem to be only tenuously based on the evidence at hand; but they’re all striving to make sense of a confused, occasionally brilliant collection of miscellania.

So basically, every new adaptation of Sherlock Holmes is like a new characterisation of the Emperor Caligula, or a different way of framing the French Revolution. They may be completely different, or they may share a number of similarities, and they usually tend to have the same basic cast of characters — but they are all valid interpretations of the evidence.

Except The Asylum’s Holmes. Asylum is the would-be historian who only read Suetonius and wasn’t even paying attention half the time.

 #I guess that would explain why I like them both so much perfect symbiosis does that mean the intrinsic value for me here is in… what multiple narratives? creating order out of chaos? the possibility of creating multiple constrasting orders out of the same chaos? okay this is turning into some self-psychoanalystic bullshit I’ll just leave now point is History and Sherlock Holmes adaptations both involve forming a proper narrative out of the evidence given and though most people have a preferred or favourite version there’s no such thing as one undeniably true form

That was the sound of me emitting a dreamy sigh because this fucker has ruined my life.

YES OF COURSE THEY’RE SIMILAR THAT’S WHY YOU LIKE THEM BOTH YOU BIG IDIOT TOGAS. You like to analyse things and compare different points of view and remark upon the relative merits of a good story versus adherence to the source material, eg. the stuff you told me about baby Caligula calming the mutinying troops at the Rhine, which makes for a hilarious anecdote but is hardly realistic. That’s why the Ritchie Holmes movies are fun! That’s also why people prefer the Richard Coeur de Lion who appeared in the Robin Hood stories over the one of real life. This is why this is all so damn interesting. 

(Hey wasn’t there some book you read where the author was rambling about all of his Holmes headcanons and how he’s convinced that Holmes and Adler had a baby that they named something monstrous like John Sherlock Hamish Watson Adler Holmes?)  

#YOU LITERALLY JUST REALISED THAT TOGAS????

*sigh* Yes, it just cemented itself in my head during breakfast this morning.

In other news OH MY GOD. Yes. Trevor Hall, I believe it was, and his completely batshit theory in, uh - Sherlock Holmes: Ten Literary Studies. In which, clearly, his idea of a “literary study” varies wildly from any other sane person’s. *headdesking forever* Also I’m pretty sure there was a ‘Mycroft’ in there somewhere, too. *siigh*