That would depend on your annual financial statements, but I doubt I could claim you as a dependent, especially considering that I don’t know who you are.
"TJLC" is an abbreviation for "The Johnlock Conspiracy," the notion that the show’s creators have a longstanding plan to make John and Sherlock canonically romantically involved, but have inexplicably kept it secret for three entire seasons.
“There are also plenty of people who are quick on the draw, who can puncture an adversary with a snappy comeback or a moment of drawling folksy parody. But they’re hardly ever the same people, and Vidal was funnier and sharper than almost all of them too. He was once on TV with the English novelist Richard Adams, who told him his work was “meretricious.” “Pardon?” asked Vidal. “Meretricious,” Adams repeated. Vidal laughed heartily. “Well, meretricious to you,” he said, “and a Happy New Year.””― How one sexy gay novel derailed Gore Vidal’s literary career - Salon.com (via dduane)
Ah, thanks for that. I’m really not all that familiar with the trope, so I was doing research from a very limited pool of resources.
I did not do that drawing, I do not draw. I believe the one you’re referring to is by reapersun so it would be best to ask her.
As an American, I’m not familiar with which organizations in Australia could make optimal use of such a donation, but I’ll leave this open for suggestions from followers.
I confess, I did not know this!
Oh dear. I keep forgetting that the majority of US viewers wouldn’t know about this. It’s why the phrase “Please Jim will you fix it for me…” has in recent years acquired a whole new horror that it did not have when Sherlock started.
For more details, people should check the Wikipedia page, which gives as much info as you’re likely to need for general reference purposes:
Warning for discussion of pedophilia, massive coverups, conspiracies, apologism, etc. at the link.
His relatives had the headstone of his grave removed, destroyed and its remnants sent to a landfill…
What is a sociopath, anyway?
Many people have taken either amusement or issue with Sherlock’s description of himself as a “high-functioning sociopath.” Some insist that the use of the term is ableist, and jabs at people with Antisocial Personality Disorder. Others insist that it’s simply inaccurate, while still others agree with Sherlock’s self-assessment wholeheartedly.
But have we really looked at the word “sociopath” and what it entails?
The term “sociopath” was coined in psychological literature at some point between 1940 and 1945, and was used interchangeably with “psychopath.”“Sociopath” was preferred simply because it sounded less severe. In the later part of the 20th century, “sociopath” evolved in its usage to describe someone with what we now call Antisocial Personality Disorder (manipulative, exploitative behavior, lack of empathy, inability to form personal connections, and often criminal tendencies).
The term “sociopath” is no longer used in connection with any specific mental disorder and is not considered a real medical diagnosis, though people diagnosed with Antisocial Personality Disorder are sometimes described in layman’s terms as having “sociopathic tendencies.” A Stout research study claims that as many as 4% of the population exhibits some behaviors associated with sociopathy.
So when Sherlock describes himself as a “sociopath,” what does he mean?
He is likely referring to his difficulty with empathy, his tendency to disregard others’ feelings, and his ability to feign emotions to manipulate people. He is not describing himself as violent, amoral, or criminal.
By referring to himself a sociopath, is Sherlock diagnosing himself with Antisocial Personality Disorder?
Sherlock is not qualified to make that diagnosis, and moreover, does not fit the typical profile of a person with Antisocial Personality Disorder. This is probably why he chooses the term “high-functioning sociopath,” because he is aware that he exhibits certain sociopathic tendencies without fitting the profile for any specific mental disorder.
Is use of the term “sociopath” ableist?
Far be it from me to tell people what should and shouldn’t offend them, but it’s worth mentioning that “sociopath” does not refer to any actual medical condition and is not used to describe people with legitimate mental disorders. While it can hardly be called a complement, common usage of the term does not specifically or intentionally target people with mental disabilities. It’s more likely to be used as a criticism for someone who is self-centered, rude, or manipulative.
Holmes certainly gets a bit rude/inconsiderate with people in the ACD stories, though somewhat less frequently, so there is some precedent for him being insufferable.
"Sociopath" is a subjective term and used somewhat jokingly in the show, so what it entails exactly is up to the individual. There’s simply no getting around the fact that withe very remake of the stories, there will be a new interpretation of Holmes’s character. If you aren’t fond of the way Sherlock deals with characterization, just remember that your opinion is every bit as valid as the writers’, and even if you like the show you don’t have to agree 100% with everything they do.
I’ve addressed this before, but I’ll just say in brief: ”??????” does not necessarily mean “no data” but rather, “conflicting data.” Irene is very intelligent, and she deliberately did seemingly irrational things like showing up naked to throw him off. Sherlock is simply not used to dealing with people like Irene, so she challenges him.
Unfortunately I won’t have an opportunity to see “His Last Vow” when it airs, as I’ll be out of town for work until Tuesday of next week. This will significantly impede my ability to respond to posts and asks as well. Sorry in advance.
That’s why I generally refer to Doyle’s works as “the Doyle canon,” because they’re organized into several volumes and several dozen stories, so I have to refer to that in it’s entirety as something. I can’t just list them all, that’d take forever. I’ve differentiated on several occasions between “Sherlock (tv program) canon” and “Doyle canon.”
The notion of “canon” is very subjective in this case regardless. Sherlock Holmes is in the public domain and there are thousands of subsequent/fan works about him. Moffat and Gatiss don’t get the definitive final word on what is and isn’t canon, they aren’t authorities on the matter any more than any other dedicated Sherlock Holmes fan is. When they say that other Sherlock Holmes works are “canon” they mean they consider them fair game as far as material to draw from for use in the show.
Also, I’m not sure what you were trying to say in that last sentence, because I didn’t get a second message, but I’m having a giggle at “the origin of d”
What is the origin of the D, pray tell? I need to know about the D.
A fairly extensive internet search has led me to no such conclusions. I also have family friends in the military, none have never heard of any such code, historical or otherwise.
The only thing I found that seems to corroborate this claim is a tumblr post saying that “Vatican cameos” was a code used during WWII to indicate that someone is armed, but the post refers to no reliable source. In fact, it refers to no source at all. Even if it were true, John was not alive during WWII and is not a military historian.
Notably, Sherlock also said “Vatican cameos” in “The Sign of Three,” and John’s reaction was clearly not to duck, so it seems to be a personal code for “danger”.
"Vatican cameos" were mentioned in The Hound of the Baskervilles:
“I had observed some newspaper comment at the time, but I was exceedingly preoccupied by that little affair of the Vatican cameos, and in my anxiety to oblige the Pope I lost touch with several interesting English cases.”
Which was written in 1901, 38 years before the outbreak of WWII. As such, any connection between “Vatican cameos” and the military seems incredibly unlikely.
Sorry, I meant to post this sooner, but the BBC actually has a TV Guide website:
Episode 2 airs TODAY at 20:30 GMT
Episode 3 airs Sunday January 12 at 20:30 GMT
If anyone was wondering, this is the Reichenbach theory that I posted on my personal blog in February of 2012.
I’m not confident that my line of thinking is the same as that of the writers, so I anticipate the actual resolution being different, but I’m still quite fond of it.