fandomsecrets | [ SECRET POST #3070 ]

⌈ Secret Post #3070 ⌋

Warning: Some secrets are NOT worksafe and may contain SPOILERS.

01.

__________________________________________________

02.

__________________________________________________

03.

__________________________________________________

04.

__________________________________________________

05.

__________________________________________________

06.

__________________________________________________

07.

__________________________________________________

08.

__________________________________________________

09.

__________________________________________________

10.

__________________________________________________

11.

__________________________________________________

12.

__________________________________________________

13.

Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 03 pages, 072 secrets from Secret Submission Post #439.
Secrets Not Posted: [ 0 - broken links ], [ 1 - not!secrets ], [ 0 - not!fandom ], [ 0 - too big ], [ 0 - repeat ].
Current Secret Submissions Post: here.
Suggestions, comments, and concerns should go here.

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

NS, NF, etc.

[ 1 - not!secrets ]

Bullshit, he did.

God, saying shit like that makes me so mad. Not about this specific issue - I mean it really pisses me off any time someone tries to take some weird, fringe-y position or interpretation and then just treats it like it's established fact.

It's by no means clear that ACD did that. Sorry. Nope.

+10000000000000

SA

Should this not be troll!secret instead of not!secret? Or is it n!s becaus this is basically what 99.9999999% of BBC Sherlock fandom believes, with all of their blackened little cinder chips of hearts?

omgwhysobitteranon

Why are you applying 21st century concepts to books written over a hundred years ago?

... what 21st century concepts are we talking about?

(no subject)

(Anonymous) - 2015-05-31 20:38 (UTC) - Expand

(Anonymous) - 2015-05-31 20:40 (UTC) - Expand

(Anonymous) - 2015-05-31 20:43 (UTC) - Expand

(Anonymous) - 2015-05-31 20:48 (UTC) - Expand

(Anonymous) - 2015-05-31 20:49 (UTC) - Expand

(Anonymous) - 2015-05-31 20:50 (UTC) - Expand

(Anonymous) - 2015-05-31 21:23 (UTC) - Expand

(Anonymous) - 2015-05-31 21:58 (UTC) - Expand

(Anonymous) - 2015-06-01 00:24 (UTC) - Expand

(Anonymous) - 2015-06-01 01:11 (UTC) - Expand

(Anonymous) - 2015-06-01 03:18 (UTC) - Expand

this

Some how I doubt that entered into his mental equation. Don't apply 21st century motivatiins to 19th century (early 20th century) works.

Some how I doubt that entered into his mental equation.

+1

Thank you. SO fed up with people not understanding that the past is...different from today. Ritchie and RDJ's stupid comments didn't help any.

(Anonymous) - 2015-05-31 22:02 (UTC) - Expand

(Anonymous) - 2015-06-01 01:38 (UTC) - Expand

On second thought, let's not go to this trolling effort. It is a silly place.

+1 for the Spamalot reference XD

kamino_neko - 2015-05-31 23:41 (UTC) - Expand

(Anonymous) - 2015-06-01 04:38 (UTC) - Expand

raspberryrain - 2015-06-01 05:04 (UTC) - Expand

Please don't be unutterably stupid. ACD wrote SIGN when Holmes was still a little known character about whom almost no-one cared except a few favourable critics and a willing publisher who asked him to write a second story to follow STUD. There WAS no 'view of Holmes as possibly gay' to be counteracted. He married Watson off to have a nice little resolution to what he thought would be the final story of Holmes.

This secret could only have been written by a 'fan' of the newer adaptations [BBC most likely] desperate to erase Mary in service of "canon Johnlock" and who knows absolutely nothing about Doyle, the original stories or their context but has heard and believed some post on tumblr that that's what Doyle *must* have been doing. Probably thinks it has something to do with the Oscar Wilde trial as well. (hint: the dates are way off, not that facts ever got in the way of TJLC mob's theories).

I love how the RDJ adaption is literally the entire photo of the secret and you still had to turn it around to shit on the BBC adaption's fans. Like, it's a fandom I won't touch with a ten-foot pole, but come on. You're being ridiculous.

(Anonymous) - 2015-05-31 23:39 (UTC) - Expand

(Anonymous) - 2015-06-01 06:37 (UTC) - Expand

I wasn't serious. Obviously.

Even if it was a (rather poorly told) joke, it wasn't really a secret.

Re: OP

It's okay, trolling takes practice just like everything else.

Maybe you'd have better luck if you slipped in a lot of qualifying phrasing like "I can't help but feel like..." or "Maybe it's just me, but it seemed as if..."

(Anonymous) - 2015-06-01 22:07 (UTC) - Expand

Dude, just go with it.

Uh no, that's not the case. First off, you're applying a very weak brand of 21st century logic to Victorian times. In ACD's day, there wouldn't have been "gay and freeloader accusations" because people did not automatically assume that two men living together = TEH GAY. It was very common for men of that class who were single to live with other men. It was cheaper, which is the very logical and canonical reason ACD set out in "A Study in Scarlet".

Secondly, what freeloading? They were sharing the cost of those rooms at Baker Street. Watson had a pension, and when he physically recovered enough, he worked as a doctor. How did you miss that?

The reasoning behind him getting married is simple, it's showing he's less selfish than Sherlock Holmes.
Remember in the time the books were written, men were considered naturally asexual and women were naturally oversexed. It was a man's duty to take a woman to wife and allow her to taint him with lust in order to help tame and purify her. To remain a bachelor was seen as selfish, because you were maintaining your own purity at the expense of a poor woman who would be damned by her own sinfulness.

It's not until later that lust was seen as a positive emotion and men naturally sexual while women were supposed to be sexless and an outlet for their husbands' urges.

Uh huh. Yeah. Okay.

That sounds kind of hot. I'd actually really like to read a story with this sort of character dynamic. /not joking

Nah, by the late 1800s, the whole "women being sexless" thing was definitely, well, a thing. The switch happened earlier than you seem to think it did.

No.

Yrs, an historian.

Leaving aside everything else, not every adaptation includes Mary or any other Watson wife or love interest for either character. The Granada series, for example, included Mary in The Sign of the Four (kinda hard to avoid) but nothing ever happened between her and Watson, Watson never gets married and never moves out (except for a time when Holmes is off being fake-dead), and Mary is never seen or mentioned again.