[ SECRET POST #2583 ]

[case]

⌈ Secret Post #2583 ⌋

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

01.


__________________________________________________



02.


__________________________________________________



03.


__________________________________________________



04.


__________________________________________________



05.


__________________________________________________



06.


__________________________________________________



07.


__________________________________________________



08.


__________________________________________________



09.


__________________________________________________



10.


__________________________________________________



11.


__________________________________________________



12.















Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 02 pages, 043 secrets from Secret Submission Post #369.
Secrets Not Posted: [ 0 - broken links ], [ 1 - not!secrets ], [ 1 - not!fandom ], [ 0 - too big ], [ 0 - repeat ].
Current Secret Submissions Post: here.
Suggestions, comments, and concerns should go here.

Comments

OP

[(Anonymous)]

Oh don't get me wrong. I know it's definitely not authorial intent on ACD's at all. Not from the guy who can't remember if Watson was hit in the leg or shoulder, and who dated a case to 1892, when Holmes was pretending to be dead. O.<

I just mean that from a text-only perspective, it's consistent. It makes perfect sense for Holmes to decide "well, okay, maybe I should expand my brain attic to include a ton more trivial information, and maybe some Goethe quotes too" since trivial, seemingly irrelevant information has actually helped him in cases on more than one occasion.

Or maybe Watson's knowledge just rubbed off on him over the years. Holmes may "endeavor to forget" irrelevant information all he wants, but that's psychologically impossible to do consciously.

Re: OP

[intrigueing]

Late to the party, but I always pictured Holmes spectacularly bungling a really obvious case because he couldn't accurately parse, say, a really obvious Dickens or Shakespeare reference that a witness overheard someone else using. And then maybe Holmes would say to himself "okay, maybe the brain attic idea is actually kind of stupid. I will go devour all Watson's books to acquire the same frames of reference as a normal educated man would have."

After all, Holmes isn't one to dogmatically stick to his ideas when they fall apart. For example, he talks up how unreliable and irrational women are when he's being theoretical, but when he actually deals with women, his prejudices never lead him to illogically treat them like hysterical morons, because he prizes doing what actually makes sense far above any of his theories and inclination (some of which are really, really weird anyway, let's be real. Moran's character development mimicking his ancestry, what?)

Re: OP

[(Anonymous)]

That would make sense, except that we're never shown that Holmes has changed his mind. We're only ever given one explanation that's confirmed later on canon. Holmes says one thing, but demonstrates another via his actions.

That's textual inconsistency.

Re: OP

[tweedisgood]

That's ACD :-) We love him.