[ SECRET POST #2577 ]

[case]

⌈ Secret Post #2577 ⌋

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

01.


__________________________________________________



02.
[Theresa Lopez-Fitzgerald-Crane, from the soap opera Passions]


__________________________________________________



03.
[BBC Sherlock]


__________________________________________________



04.
[Nobunaga the Fool]


__________________________________________________



05.
[Carrie Fisher as Princess Leia from Star Wars]


__________________________________________________



06.
[The Quick and the Dead]


__________________________________________________



07.
[Nathan Fillion]


__________________________________________________



08.
[Warehouse 13]


__________________________________________________



09.


__________________________________________________



10.


















Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 02 pages, 030 secrets from Secret Submission Post #368.
Secrets Not Posted: [ 0 - broken links ], [ 0 - not!secrets ], [ 0 - not!fandom ], [ 0 - too big ], [ 0 - repeat ].
Current Secret Submissions Post: here.
Suggestions, comments, and concerns should go here.

Comments

[(Anonymous)]

There is a boy child mentioned in one of the stories that is implied to be Watson and Mary's(?) son. ACD couldn't keep track of Watson's injury. I don't think he really kept track of who Watson was married to either.

[(Anonymous)]

No, there isn't.

[(Anonymous)]

Dude, yes there is. There are Holmes Scholars who have written articles about it.

[fenm]

What story is this in? In the canon as written by Doyle, not something written by other people.

[(Anonymous)]

I'll have to look it up when I get home, but I believe the child in question is being held by Watson's wife. It's a quick mention but there is speculation that it's Watson's son - and that lack of mention of the child later is because well kids died young a lot in those days.

[(Anonymous)]

No there isn't. Holmes scholars have written essays about how Nero Wolfe is Holmes ans Irene's son and about how Watson was actually a woman. IT'S ALL JUST IN FUN. It's a fun pasttime that has little to do with canon. Look up "the Great Game" (not the bbc episode) for an explanation.

[(Anonymous)]

Yes, it really is very silly.

Wolfe is clearly Mycroft's son, not Sherlock's.

[fenm]

... OMG, that works.

/does everyone just forget Irene married her true love, and probably never even gave Holmes a second thought once she sailed off with her hubby? Hell, she was probably more important to Holmes than he ever was to her.

[(Anonymous)]

does everyone just forget Irene married her true love, and probably never even gave Holmes a second thought once she sailed off with her hubby?

Pretty much, yeah. Same as everyone forgets that she was never actually involved in any criminal activity.

Uh, not talking about that? At all?

[(Anonymous)]

I am not talking about that? At all? It's a very quick mention of a child and the speculation is also that the child probably died and that's why it's not mentioned again (or that ACD forgot).

[(Anonymous)]

Articles written by Holmes scholars aren't canon. If there's a boy implied to be Watson and Mary's son in the stories themselves, then which story is it?

[(Anonymous)]

You are being an idiot on purpose. And I will have to look up the exact story when I get home. It's like a one sentence mention. Seriously, I did not expect this to become a thing.

[(Anonymous)]

There's no mention.

[(Anonymous)]

DA- Yeah, this really isn't funny anymore. Cut it out.

[(Anonymous)]

Yeah, you go and do that. Please be sure to come back and tell us which story it's in, maybe in tomorrow's General Comments.

[(Anonymous)]

P.S. Asking for a citation for a claim isn't idiotic, that's how reality works. People aren't obliged to believe everything you say, especially when it strikes them as less than credible. On the other hand, someone who makes rather outrageous claims and then throws a tantrum when people ask them for evidence is definitely "being an idiot on purpose".

[(Anonymous)]

*Dude* you are wrong. Plain and simple. It's fanon, not canon.

[(Anonymous)]

No.

It's painfully, embarrassingly obvious you've got all this info secondhand. You know, not reading the books doesn't make you a bad fan. You don't have to pretend.

Also, I'm going to make a wild guess: The child you're referring to is probably from a tongue-in-cheek parody theory postulating that a metaphor Watson used in The Five Orange Pips (the wind howling like a child in the chimney) meant that Watson had an actual child in his chimney. Its making fun of overzealous Game-players.

[(Anonymous)]

Urgh, I did not expect this to be a thing. Jesus fucking Christ. It is like a one sentence mention of the child and I even said ITS SPECULATED. Like literally I am saying right there that the text does not out right say it is Watson's son. Why are you people being assholes over this?

[(Anonymous)]

Its NOT speculated. He makes a metaphor about what the wind sounded like. If you had actually read the story, you would know it's not even a one-sentence mention of a child, and it's not speculated either.

[(Anonymous)]

...That isn't the passage I am even talking about. You need to just shut up.

[(Anonymous)]

Who was that who's an asshole again?

[(Anonymous)]

No there isn't.

[(Anonymous)]

Go fuck yourself. You are all probably the same asshole.

[(Anonymous)]

DA. Nope. There are a lot of people in this thread who know what they are talking about, whereas you clearly don't, and are a seriously bad loser into the bargain.

Ignorance isn't a crime. Willful ignorance ought to be.