-1 rhetoric

if I see the “bbc sherlock is Bad because the audience isn’t let in on any clues and so the mystery aspect falls completely flat” argument one more time I’m going to scream. those are not the mysteries you are supposed to solve! it’s not what the show is about! you have been told but you are not listening!

well @ those people

…as a big fan of BBC Sherlock AND as a big fan of canon Sherlock Holmes stories…

it’s accurate tho

the show didn’t stick to the original stories’ structure of giving you all the clues and then stitching them together

it pulls shit from nowhere in the last minute of a case that would have been impossible for you to know because we don’t actually get John’s retelling of a case, we just watch some parts of their lives as the case happens

BUT

that’s a creative decision on the writers’ part, and it doesn’t mean the show sucks

it may mean that some people are disappointed if they were expecting that

but if you weren’t or if you don’t care, then you can still enjoy the show, and that is just one aspect of it 🤷🏼‍♀️

Not to be rude, but you missed Op’s entire point. There are mysteries to solve in BBC Sherlock - they’re just not the indidual cases that get solved at the end of each episode.

The mysteries the audience has to solve and is given clues for are the overarching plot of the series (Moriarty, Mycroft, etc) and the relationship between John and Sherlock. That’s what Op was talking about.

still being active on tumblr is camp

Night Windows   -   Julie  Blackmon  2008

American b.1966-

Edward Hopper. Night Windows. 1928

COQUILLE - CHLOÉ MILOS AZZOPARDI

It’s always “why did you get in the river” and “your soaking wet” and never How was the river The river looked fun was it fun

flavourful illustration of Lotte with her cloak that lets her shapeshift into animals.

from the found grocery lists collection

E. E. Cummings, The Complete Poems: 1904-1962

  › request by anonymous