/ if i ever do anything creative or worthwhile or not annoying it can go here/
/until then i'll just fill it with useless junk on an ugly page/
/i like all kinds of things and i fix robots and machines for a living/ /boom you know me enjoy gg adios/
and very, very often, self care is not plants and ice rollers and fluffy blankets of peace.
it’s standing over your kitchen sink and crying while doing the dishes because you just want to go back to bed but the dishes need done. and you don’t know why you’re crying but you’re trusting you need it. and you aren’t listening to the music that pulls you into a spiral; you’re listening to some cheerful shit your friend sent you. it’s getting up and staring at your fridge and closing your eyes and then cooking yourself food even though you hate it and it’s miserable. because you know that you’d cook for your friend, and you are trying to befriend yourself. it’s dragging yourself into the shower because you know you’ll feel better afterwards. it’s doing mundane tasks with patience, cursing under your breath, trying desperately to give yourself grace. grace is the beginning of care. care is the beginning of love.
we think it’s supposed to be peace and yet the most powerful self care moments are when we hate everything but especially ourselves. and life does not feel worth the loving. to look into that pain and yet choose to care for yourself in however many pieces you are — that is care. love. grace. trust. belief. it hurts because it’s love where there was no love before. it heals because it believes there will be love, one day, soon.
I’m so tired of hot actors with no actual talent or magnetism. we need more ugly little cuntservers giving performances that fuck so hard you leave the theatre with road rash. willem dafoe if you’re out there
To invading germs, you are a jungle full of hungry tigers. To your gut bacteria, you are a warm orchard of perpetual bounty. To your eyelash mites, you are a walking fortress and a mountaintop pasture. How many generations have you hosted? What do they name the wilderness of you?
— “Host” by @cryptonature, in his book Field Guide to the Haunted Forest
Parasites and other symbiotes (*symbiosis is actually an umbrella term that includes parasites, before anyone asks) outnumber free living organisms in both species and individual numbers, meaning that the *norm* for life on earth is to live your whole life in or on another creature. Us larger independent beasts are technically special in having adapted to survive the harsh non-living world; to gut bacteria and mites and parasitic worms we’re like planets keeping them safe from an immense deadly void.
Consider, from the perspective of ten years ago, an ex-president saying he used to constantly fantasize about fucking men, and the reaction being “yeah, whatever, poser.”
This is the best AITA because on the actual matter at hand I’d say he’s kinda right (ish), $4900 for a week of work is really good money and they can always celebrate later. He should have obviously talked it over with her first but still. What makes him an asshole (or just like, a really really weird person) is every other detail that is tangentially mentioned.
honestly it was a red flag when bbc sherlock went “well obviously the word written in blood isn’t the german word for revenge, it’s clearly the beginning of the name ‘rachel’, what absolute idiot would fail to see that” when in the original novel it is, in fact, the german word for revenge, which sherlock points out gleefully to a roomful of policemen who all figure it’s the beginning of the name ‘rachel.’
and by red flag I mean it was a clear sign that the adaptation was trying to one-up the source material, instead of engaging with it with love.
You’re so right. I remember watching 1x01 and thinking “wow! they got the texts to pop up on the screen, that’s super cool!” and thinking it was just like. A super well done show and so amazing. But looking back, what I actually liked about it was the snappy editing and the little bit of development that Martin Freeman was allowed to give to his character.
Apart from that, the show is so full of… contempt? Like even from the beginning, there’s this sense that the show thinks you’re probably too stupid to be watching it, but sure, I guess we’ll let you tag along and see what a clever, amazing person Sherlock is. He’s definitely smarter than you though so don’t even try to engage with the source material, a dummy like you could never get anything right.
And then that just stayed the tone of the show until I got fed up and stopped watching.
That’s just it, that thing with the texts on screen was the first time I’d ever seen phones so smoothly and cleverly integrated into the visuals, it was genuinely brilliant, and the Watson we’re introduced to in ep1 is a compelling character. And frankly even the condescension doesn’t jar yet in ep1, because part of the joy of mystery stories (and especially of sherlock holmes adaptations) is watching the detective be so incredibly clever, so it wasn’t immediately apparent that the writers didn’t want us to be able to follow along. They’re just showing off their mystery-writing skills!
And – I think this part was really important actually – because in ep1, Sherlock responds to John actually being impressed by his deductions with the startled vulnerability of someone who’s never before met someone who doesn’t immediately want to either defeat him in battle or never speak to him again. John is truly impressed with Sherlock, but unthreatened by him, and Sherlock doesn’t really know what to do with that but he really doesn’t want to lose it. So he invites John along on his case, and then shows off for him like a peacock flashing his tail in the nervous hope that John might say more nice things, and he’s clearly floored when John does.
And that’s a really good dynamic on which to build a friendship! Closet thrill-seeker who’s extremely secure in his own abilities befriends arrogant mean girl genius who’s spent so long being envied and disliked by everyone he meets that he imprints like a duckling on the first person who doesn’t do that, but he has no clue how friendships work so he just drags this person to crime scenes and worse in the hopes that somehow this’ll do the trick.
But although John is confident in his own abilities, the writers don’t actually want him to have any. My beef with this show actually started in the very next episode, where John and his date get kidnapped by bad guys. They’re tied up and being interrogated, and John is unable to do literally anything but sit there and yell about it, even when they nearly murder his date. Sherlock has to swoop in and save the day.
In ep1 when John meets Mycroft, Mycroft’s parting shot is “fire your therapist,” because she says John’s psychosomatic tremble is a response to danger but Mycroft has been unsubtly threatening him and his tremble has firmed up and gone. John responds to danger with level-headed courage, we are told this explicitly in the text. And then when his date is about to be murdered by bad guys who believe he knows the location of the hidden whatever, he can’t find the presence of mind to fucking lie about it? String them along a little? Come up with SOME way to buy time, convince the bad guys he’s cooperating so they’ll stop paying so much attention and he can figure out a way to send a message, something. Anything.
That’s when I realized the writers didn’t actually want John to be able to do anything, they didn’t want this to be the partnership they set up in the end of ep1, they wanted Sherlock to be the competent one and John to be his fangirl. And the thing is, John is the viewer insert character. He’s the one we’re supposed to be able to identify with so he can hook us into the story. And it turns out the writers just want John – and us – to do exactly what you said: tag along and see what a clever, amazing person Sherlock is.
@cafffine I hope it’s cool that I’m copying your tags onto this longer version of the post, bc on the surface that’s just the rache/rachel thing writ large – what if we took the thing that it wasn’t in the book and did that instead! – but it’s also part of this deep contempt the writers have for just…people. I was going to say ‘regular people’ but actually there are no people as clever as their version of sherlock, he’s the specialest guy in the whole wide world and he can never be wrong.
And first of all, that’s just so much more boring than a full on genre twist. The brilliance of making the shift into horror “our infallible detective was wrong,” thus signifying that the rules of the detective story no longer apply, and that same realization is also “the rules of reason and civilization we were operating by are useless, the superstitious locals are right, there be monsters here.” That’s the opening to Dracula! That’s classic horror! What a seamless genre transition, what a great way to shock your readers, what excellent suspense and what a cool mystery.
But it requires Sherlock to be wrong. It requires him to be completely wrong, and specifically it requires him to be wrong to have dismissed the locals as superstitious peasants whose fears were silly. It requires him to admit that just because he’s smarter than someone doesn’t mean his worldview is more correct.
Which, I suspect, is something the the writers of bbc sherlock don’t really know how to wrap their heads around.
They’re just showing off their mystery-writing skills!
I agree with everything in this post except this one specific sentence, with which I disagree vehemently. They are showing off their contempt for mystery writing as a concept. Mysteries are a dialogue between author and audience, in which the audience is an active participant and collaborator. Crafting an engaging mystery that is difficult but possible for the audience to solve is an artistic feat of incredible skill.
Meanwhile, anyone can hide so much information from the audience that it’s impossible to anticipate what the main character’s solution will be. To the author looking to write a masturbatory Smartest Man power fantasy, the audience is not a collaborator, but a threat.
