![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Holmes thoughts
So I've been reading some old skool Holmes stuff because really the new movie is fluffy and malleable enough that you can stuff it somewhere in between most of the other canon (though by my count Watson ought to have been married off already before Holmes acquired that cabinet portrait of Irene) and the thing that keeps cracking me up is they cite the stories. I keep reading stuff that's footnoted with references to what story random item X happened in, be it deeply relevant to the fanfiction plot or random aside commentary. It's like, really? Really? Do you not trust you audience to have read the "sacred texts," or do you just want to impress them with how much you have?
In other news: hilarious tongue-in-cheek proof that Watson was a Woman, ca. 1941. My biggest disconnect on it was "dude, your main argument is that they're married, Watson doesn't actually have to be a woman for that." It's like a heteronormative slash thesis with bonus absurd numerology. I am quite fond of the bit about the wedding, though. OH HOLMES. You know, my drag king kink is such that I am REALLY QUITE OKAY with cross-dressing female!Watson in some small portion of stories that do not remotely manage to counter the tide of proper slash.
Movie plot thoughts: okay, three viewings in, the prescience of wirefree technology being the FUTURE and chemical weaponry WILL CHANGE MODERN WARFARE is really just... over the top. Once it was funny, but now I am beyond over it. It, it makes me cry a little.
There was one element of Blackwood's plot that I think they skirt with making textual and never quite, and I almost think there's a cut scene lying on the editing room floor, or even just a cut line of dialogue, where Holmes points it out. See, the thing about the sixth sacrificial virgin, the one Holmes saved, the one that he said was sloppy and out of keeping with the previous five sacrifices--it doesn't fit anywhere on Blackwood's mystical pentacle-cross diagram, because he never meant to go through with it. When he's taunting Holmes about how "you will have made everything possible," that's because, see, he meant to be caught, Holmes caught him, therefore Holmes made it possible for him to be executed and rise from the dead and thereby scare the crap out of people and cash in on a rep as a badass devilraiser. There's several points in the narrative where it's clear to me Holmes sees it--when he asks Clarkie what their aim is, keeping the resurrection secret, Clark responds that they're trying to prevent a panic, and the gears are grinding away in Holmes's head: of course a panic is what Blackwood wanted from this stunt. He planned the stunt for this purpose, therefore, he planned to get caught in order to have the opportunity to perform the stunt. Why doesn't Holmes ever explicate this point? I wonder if it might have been pride--if Holmes was too proud to admit that he caught Blackwood the first time because Blackwood allowed himself to be caught, and that he furthered Blackwood's plans without realizing it at that time by doing so.
In other news: hilarious tongue-in-cheek proof that Watson was a Woman, ca. 1941. My biggest disconnect on it was "dude, your main argument is that they're married, Watson doesn't actually have to be a woman for that." It's like a heteronormative slash thesis with bonus absurd numerology. I am quite fond of the bit about the wedding, though. OH HOLMES. You know, my drag king kink is such that I am REALLY QUITE OKAY with cross-dressing female!Watson in some small portion of stories that do not remotely manage to counter the tide of proper slash.
Movie plot thoughts: okay, three viewings in, the prescience of wirefree technology being the FUTURE and chemical weaponry WILL CHANGE MODERN WARFARE is really just... over the top. Once it was funny, but now I am beyond over it. It, it makes me cry a little.
There was one element of Blackwood's plot that I think they skirt with making textual and never quite, and I almost think there's a cut scene lying on the editing room floor, or even just a cut line of dialogue, where Holmes points it out. See, the thing about the sixth sacrificial virgin, the one Holmes saved, the one that he said was sloppy and out of keeping with the previous five sacrifices--it doesn't fit anywhere on Blackwood's mystical pentacle-cross diagram, because he never meant to go through with it. When he's taunting Holmes about how "you will have made everything possible," that's because, see, he meant to be caught, Holmes caught him, therefore Holmes made it possible for him to be executed and rise from the dead and thereby scare the crap out of people and cash in on a rep as a badass devilraiser. There's several points in the narrative where it's clear to me Holmes sees it--when he asks Clarkie what their aim is, keeping the resurrection secret, Clark responds that they're trying to prevent a panic, and the gears are grinding away in Holmes's head: of course a panic is what Blackwood wanted from this stunt. He planned the stunt for this purpose, therefore, he planned to get caught in order to have the opportunity to perform the stunt. Why doesn't Holmes ever explicate this point? I wonder if it might have been pride--if Holmes was too proud to admit that he caught Blackwood the first time because Blackwood allowed himself to be caught, and that he furthered Blackwood's plans without realizing it at that time by doing so.