Hello, you may call me SP. It's a nickname I procured somewhere else on the Internet. I've grown somewhat attached to it. This blog houses multiple fandoms. Politics are here as well.
More information (fandoms, ships, photography, edits/graphics) can be found by navigating the buttons below my sidebar image.

loryisunabletosupinate:

i like when people are like, “elementary isn’t sherlock” because yeah, you’re right! because if it was, we’d hear vague asian music playing every time lucy liu was on-screen

(via blairbending)

fictionalfix:

uh youtube are you trying to start some shit

fictionalfix:

uh youtube are you trying to start some shit

(via killerkhaleesi)

littleclaudy:

thescienceofjohnlock:

celloplayingtimelady:

One day, John may just punch her.

I know I would if someone continually called my best friend “freak”

This is why I dislike Donovan, it’s got nothing to do with her gender, colour or how well she does her job. It’s this.

Then I would hope you also dislike Sherlock because he deliberately tortures a man, drops another out of a window, laughs when investigating a crime about kidnapped children, makes general unkind and arsey comments to strangers and friends alike, scared the old lady at the Surrey boarding school, continually refers to Anderson as ‘idiot’, drugged his best friend and put him through a traumatic experience with little to no remorse, forces a man with PTSD (or whatever he had) to go to a triggering place and then does an Edmund and denies he’s seen the Hound, also getting excited after Henry almost kills himself because he enjoyed the case, commented on a woman’s sex life therefore attempting to shame her and embarrass her in front of her peers at her place of work, calls murder ‘Christmas’ and belittles everyone he ever interacts with.

Otherwise it would seem you are holding this female poc character to a different standard to the white male character, and being unnecessarily harsh on her for merely reacting to a person who demeans her and her colleagues often and doesn’t show much kindness. 

I also want to point out to the op that Sherlock calls Sally’s best friend/lover/colleague ‘idiot’ often. Think about that. Yet I don’t think Sally would descend to the level of violence. 

The narrative presents Sally in a way that means you aren’t supposed to like her while they push that Sherlock is just too -amazing- to be held accountable like other human beings. This doesn’t mean you can’t love Sally, but it IS an important flaw in the show and how it tells the story.

(Source: martincrief, via thatllbe63fiftynotincludingtip)

I admit that BBC Sherlock was more, idk how to say it, forceful with its pilot, relationships, etc. and as a viewer, that was very interesting to me, and Elementary’s pilot may seem dull by comparison. What I loved about Elementary’s pilot and how it sets up the season is that Joan and Sherlock’s relationship mean very little by then because they know very little about each other. While BBC Sherlock’s pilot seemed more meant to capture an idea through a forced relationship, the start of Joan’s and Sherlock’s, not John’s and Sherlock’s, relationship seemed more realistic to me; it asks for patience and starts out with little meaning because that’s how relationships do often start.

karz4kidz:

i don’t get sherlock fans who are like “making john ‘joan watson’ will make romance/sexual tension too big a part of the relationship” when literally a huge portion of the bbc sherlock fanbase is the “johnlock” or w/e quadrant and the “joanlock” portion of the elementary fanbase is minimal, respectful, and often acknowledges that it’s a very positive thing to see a male/female friendship on network tv

(via stankface)

swampjaeger:

when a show has been out for so long that a better show using the source material comes along and by the time the promos for your dormant show are out, no one actually cares

(via sadbrownwomanparty-deactivated2)

sevenpoints:

willgrahampa:

reasons to not have a two-year hiatus for your tv show: fans will have a lot of time to realize the problematic things about the show and will be disillusioned when it finally airs again

#and a better adaptation of your source material will emerge and take your fans

(via laffbending)

Is it called Molstrade or Lestrolly?

britophile:

image

I mean look at them <3

image

(I love Molly. She’s my absolute favourite and simply the cutest Sherlock character ever.)

Lestrolly is cuter/better imo.

cumberbatchitis:

amethystarcher:

cumberbatchitis:

Bear with me now, as I am not a native speaker and my explanation might lack eloquence, especially when it gets lengthy.
Canonical John Watson was a medical man and as such had some analytical skills, but he hardly got to use them in canon - only several times and often wrong, especially as far as his analytical skills are concerned. (His knowledge of medicine was also used only sparsely, but nobody says John will not use it in the future, as they are still early in the story). Therefore I see nothing wrong with John getting similar (not same) treatment, although I honestly do not think there is a lack of give/take balance. He assists Sherlock in other ways and he can impress him at times, for example at Baskerville Base. I understand one may find more appealing the more equal dynamics between Elementary Holmes and Joan, but that’s a different interpretation of the canon. ACD’s stories always had unequality between Holmes and Watson, it was a part of the whole narrative - and at the same time it did not demean their friendship, which is what BBC Sherlock displays well IMO.
Mrs. Hudson and Sherlock share a backstory which was not yet explored fully, but from the events of ASiB it’s quite obvious how dear she is to him and how relaxed he feels in her presence. Yes, she accepts a lot of his antics (that’s the thing about friendship - you can teach someone to be better and still accept the person’s bad side), but does not hesitate to tell him off when necessary. He is changing only very slowly, but his behaviour towards her varies with the situation they are in. He can be a prick under some circumstances, but he is also willing to humour her, he is tender to her when she’s distressed and ultimately - he is willing to risk his life for her. Sherlock will probably never be terribly polite to Mrs. Hudson under all circumstances (for example when he is annoyed, bored, etc.), but why do you think the show presents is as an excuse? The viewer can see it is not right. Yet it sill happens. IMO that’s what life is all about.
You ask why should an “intelligent…. young woman be so infatuated with a belligerent, rude” etc. man?” Maybe because it does happen all the time IRL? We all make bad choices - and Sherlock is Molly’s bad choice. He is using her, sure, but as the creators stressed so many times, he is not a full developed character yet. He only gradually comes to realize how he should or should not treat her - and how important he is to her. That is a part of a process we are likely to see developing in the next episodes. Sherlock is on his way to appreciate her for her friendship and Molly will most probably grow out of her obssession with him, which is only good for her.
As for Lestrade - I only have to repeat myself. Yes, indeed, relationships do not just happen, they form. Even Lestrade has some sort of past with Sherlock (there is also this hint about Sherlock’s possible drug addiction) and it is coming up only slowly and subtly. I personally appreciate the viewers are not spoon-fed everything.
Also, there is nothing wrong with these characters being white. Lestrade and Mrs. Hudson were white (and probably heterosexual - though I doubt ACD gave it a single thought) in the canon and Molly is white because Mark Gatiss and Steven Moffat wanted to give this role (originally very little) to Louise. Hardly a crime. 
Your last paragraph - no, I cannot agree. The creators never mean to say Sherlock is better than anyone - they often show him flawed in many ways. There is no justification in this, you can see him criticized and (understandably) unloved by many, and he is often being told off by his friends. Indeed, he is shown solving everything through his special skills, but that is what Sherlock Holmes is about! He is supposed to have special skills, he is supposed to be unlike others - and better, at least in this one aspect. 
Besides, Sally is never painted as stupid or horrible (neither Anderson - he is doubtlessly smart, he just overlooks things - as all people except Sherlock, but that’s the point of the story). As I have said elsewhere, I suggest wellingtongoose’s metas on Sally, which comment on her character very well. 
Also, why do you want everybody to have healthy, happy, equal relationships? That’s unrealistic - and not what the show is about. It shows flawed people doing mistakes, even Sherlock. For a time he gets out with being rude to everyone, yes, but in the end he is very much punished for his treatment of people. That’s what TRF is also about - it is his downfall and we can see how it partly happened because of his previous attitude. And it is surely going to be a part of his future development. 
 

I was not commenting on the shows as respective adaptations to Conan Doyle’s canon, but rather as narratives in themselves who flesh out real characters, yes, based on certain materials, but should still stand on their own. John being able to occasionally surprise Sherlock does not indicate a “balance” in their relationship. Further, I never stated that Elementary’s Watson and Holmes did have an even 50/50 give and take (hint: they don’t, but they progress toward it, and Joan expresses continual dissatisfaction over this and refuses to let Sherlock act like a child, while in return Sherlock accurately calls out her sometimes inappropriate decisions or actions).
Also, speculation as to what the show might do with John rather than what the show has done with John is irrelevant to this criticism of the show as it is. The show’s potential and the show’s credentials are definitely not the same, and potential should not be used in a critique of the show, unless it is to point out that the show is not living up to it. John’s assistance to Sherlock is not one of a colleague, but rather an often-exasperated admirer. Joan in Elementary is actually employed to personally help Sherlock with coping with sobriety etc., and she quit her practice because of medical error on her part and yet she is given much more credit as a an intelligent, autonomous person who is actually learning analytical skills from Sherlock.
Moreso, ACD disliked his character Sherlock and the series itself; he believed Sherlock to be an arrogant jerk and wrote him with a specific person in mind whose personality he detested. Though Sherlock in the books only really is rude and affronting to the rich and corrupt (making him much more sympathetic than BBC Sherlock), any disparity within the Holmes/Watson relationship was probably deliberate on his part to convey his distaste for the pomposity of his former colleague who had inspired the character. And make no mistake, Elementary’s Holmes is rude, arrogant, and pushes people away, but he’s also complex beyond just being bored or misunderstood and feels genuine compassion for and empathy with people.
Some viewers can see that it’s not right. The narrative does not call out Sherlock’s behavior toward Miss Watson through any repercussions. As for the rest of it, those are feeling one gets by filling in the blanks the show leaves. While I don’t have anything against getting the utmost enjoyment from a show you can (I was in the Glee fandom; I KNOW what it’s like to fill the void through fanfiction, headcanons, and metas), if the show does not actually show it or prove it, the message is not strongly conveyed.
As for Molly, yes I realize that it does happen in real life, but my point is that BBC Sherlock does not point out that Molly’s behavior is sad, not because Sherlock rejects her advances or even because he is rude to her, but because she holds an unrealistic idea of who Sherlock is in her head, and it’s not healthy.  And though her initial infatuation is not entirely unique, a continued infatuation with someone so rude and uncaring toward her is a bit unrealistic, especially when Molly gets so little development to explain any emotional context for latching onto such a man. It’s implied he reminds her of her father, but without fleshing out Molly’s character, it’s speculation.
Again, the future development of Sherlock is not what is being discussed right now, and he has been the principal character of the series which collectively adds up to around nine hours of screen time (18 episodes of development focused solely on him to give context). Sherlock’s underdevelopment can only be attributed to the shows continual romanticism of his rudeness/intelligence combination and its prioritization of dynamic, clever, plots over characterization (as pointed out in an earlier reblog). 
As a MODERN adaptation of the series. Note: Conan Doyle wrote these things back in late 1800s to early 1900s, and he was probably racist. Excluding PoC is racist. There is no reason that in London, a hugely diverse city, the main cast is derived of white people. Shows should make a conscious effort to include people who are not cisgender, heterosexual, and white because the world is surrounded by those factors. What is the point of creating a modern adaptation if you can’t fix some of the source material’s archaic flaws i.e. lack of PoC and LGBT+ representation?
I don’t mean to claim that the show doesn’t present Sherlock as flawed, but it’s obvious through the way people treat Sherlock, paralleled with John’s amazement and acceptance (and tolerance of Sherlock’s rudeness) that they are portrayed as wrong and misunderstanding of him. When people do criticize him, he is still the hero in the story, his actions aren’t presented as indelibly cruel, and the viewer is not urged to reject Sherlock’s overall demeanor and arrogance from the narrative’s standpoint. The most instrumental piece of evidence is John Watson’s implementation into the plot as the voice of reason who believes in Sherlock Holmes.
I have never had a problem with Sherlock’s powers of analysis or deduction (in either modern adaptation). I do take issue with how Sherlock handles his skills in the BBC show and with how the narrative treats him. His genius is often conveyed to be his saving grace because of some elemental truth in his deductions (though they can be wrong and often are), while the show loses its own message that Sherlock’s saving grace is not his genius, but the humanity and compassion that he holds despite his set of special skills. The show acting like Sherlock’s genius somehow elevates him over the other characters’ moral accountability is the issue.
Sally is painted as rude with poor judgement. Regardless of whether you love her character when you read between the lines, the narrative still pits her at odds with Sherlock continuously with little insight into her side or attempts to make him sympathetic. She’s shown as seeing a married man, and the show heavily implies she dislikes Sherlock because he can guess her bad secrets, and that she’s in the wrong for detesting being exposed.
Metas are great, and many of her few lines can be pieced together to show more depth into Sally’s character, but the show never gives the viewer the benefit of providing significant and sympathetic shows of her viewpoint. Also, Sherlock pointedly said to Anderson that he was lowering the I.Q. of the people in proximity, obviously played for laughs. It may be evident through his profession that he is intelligent, but that is not expressed in the show as important or of any worth.
Elementary does not have everyone happy and healthy; it simply just portrays relationships better. Sherlock is a recovering addict with trust issues who closes off and shuts down conversations by waving his intellect around often and commits various microaggressions of misogyny. The difference between Elementary and BBC Sherlock is the dynamics of the relationships are more fairly portrayed, and the viewer is more apt to hold Sherlock accountable for what he does as well as see real development in characters. The Reichenbach Fall does portray Sherlock as being overly rude to some people, but it insists that the world is being worse to Sherlock than he is to the world. It’s not really poetic justice but rather more than he deserves in an attempt to push a sympathetic frame on Sherlock’s character.
I’m sure that BBC Sherlock will continue to portray Sherlock as insufferably insensitive to others and sure of his own intellect and judgment in almost all situations, but I would not presume that he will learn much from it in the preceding episodes to come; whether or not this comes to be, as the series stands, it unfairly presents Sherlock as misunderstood man whom the world hates for revealing truth, rather than a rude and uncompassionate man who many people do just tolerate because of his skills.

Well, that might be the problem then, as I am indeed commenting on the shows as respective adaptations to Conan Doyle’s canon, because I believe it necessary. (I cannot agree with the canonical jerkiness because of ACD’s hate towards the character, though. He never really painted Holmes as a disagreeable man, the only way his hatred manifested was in The Final Problem - or in TBH, where he kept him “off-screen” for a long time.) 
(Also, The initial argument was about one show being better than the other - which is mostly up to personal taste - and I wanted to point out that some of the “flaws” - such as Sherlock and John being cishet whites - cannot be perceived as a fault, as it was the original setting and there is nothing wrong about keeping the race and sexual identity of the original characters intact.) 
Also, I realize we might never agree on many things - you see Sherlock portrayed as always being “insufferably insensitive to others and sure of his own intellect and judgment in almost all situations” while others see him in the process changing this very behaviour. You see Sally painted as someone who dislikes Sherlock because he knows her intimate secret, I think it is obvious she rightfully dislikes him for his cold attitude and lack of sympathy towards victims. You do not see the show showing Molly’s advances are sad because she deserves better, I think it’s clearer than a day. I cannot see TRF insisting that the world is worse to Sherlock than Sherlock is to the world - or that he will continue being a misunderstood man (because he hardly is portrayed this way). And I think it’s not because one of us is guided by the love for the show while the other views it with a sharp analytic eye. 
You claim that show must provide the viewer with “significant and sympathetic shows” of other people’s viewpoint - but why? It is all perceivable, even if subtle (which is understandable, given the format of the show). It does not guide, it¨s not didactic - but why should it be? If the viewer stays perceptive, he gets all he needs to know. Seeing between the lines is what makes the show enjoyable and I prefer it to having things spelled out in a very special way. 
Guess we won’t get much farther with this (also, must go to bed, it’s nearly 3 AM here.) I liked talking with you, even if we will probably never agree, as we see things we both perceive as facts differently.    

All I&#8217;ll say on the rest of this is: there is something ostensibly better about a show that is inclusive toward people versus one that participates in archaic erasure of people. I do believe that Sally&#8217;s and many other&#8217;s attitudes are justified toward Sherlock, but the show does not give her a sympathetic viewpoint; therefore, unfairly representing her. Fandoms can pick apart things as much as they want and read between the lines, but that doesn&#8217;t eliminate the flaws in the source material of excluding meaningful scenes. I reiterate that I do and did enjoy the show, but as a consumer of media, it&#8217;s also my duty to look at what I consume critically and acknowledge its flaws.
(And you&#8217;re also mistaken on the point of the post; the OP made this as a joke, evidenced by the MS Paint, to show how ridiculous it is when sections of the BBC Sherlock fandom invade the Elementary tag with hate by listing simplified praises of Elementary and simplified flaws of BBC Sherlock. My initial reblogs pointed out some strengths in Elementary, but was mostly focused on a critique of Sherlock, and yes exclusion of PoC and LGBT+ people from its narrative is a problem; adaptations are supposed to improve upon source material&#8217;s flaws, not copy them.)

cumberbatchitis:

amethystarcher:

cumberbatchitis:

Bear with me now, as I am not a native speaker and my explanation might lack eloquence, especially when it gets lengthy.

Canonical John Watson was a medical man and as such had some analytical skills, but he hardly got to use them in canon - only several times and often wrong, especially as far as his analytical skills are concerned. (His knowledge of medicine was also used only sparsely, but nobody says John will not use it in the future, as they are still early in the story). Therefore I see nothing wrong with John getting similar (not same) treatment, although I honestly do not think there is a lack of give/take balance. He assists Sherlock in other ways and he can impress him at times, for example at Baskerville Base. I understand one may find more appealing the more equal dynamics between Elementary Holmes and Joan, but that’s a different interpretation of the canon. ACD’s stories always had unequality between Holmes and Watson, it was a part of the whole narrative - and at the same time it did not demean their friendship, which is what BBC Sherlock displays well IMO.

Mrs. Hudson and Sherlock share a backstory which was not yet explored fully, but from the events of ASiB it’s quite obvious how dear she is to him and how relaxed he feels in her presence. Yes, she accepts a lot of his antics (that’s the thing about friendship - you can teach someone to be better and still accept the person’s bad side), but does not hesitate to tell him off when necessary. He is changing only very slowly, but his behaviour towards her varies with the situation they are in. He can be a prick under some circumstances, but he is also willing to humour her, he is tender to her when she’s distressed and ultimately - he is willing to risk his life for her. Sherlock will probably never be terribly polite to Mrs. Hudson under all circumstances (for example when he is annoyed, bored, etc.), but why do you think the show presents is as an excuse? The viewer can see it is not right. Yet it sill happens. IMO that’s what life is all about.

You ask why should an “intelligent…. young woman be so infatuated with a belligerent, rude” etc. man?” Maybe because it does happen all the time IRL? We all make bad choices - and Sherlock is Molly’s bad choice. He is using her, sure, but as the creators stressed so many times, he is not a full developed character yet. He only gradually comes to realize how he should or should not treat her - and how important he is to her. That is a part of a process we are likely to see developing in the next episodes. Sherlock is on his way to appreciate her for her friendship and Molly will most probably grow out of her obssession with him, which is only good for her.

As for Lestrade - I only have to repeat myself. Yes, indeed, relationships do not just happen, they form. Even Lestrade has some sort of past with Sherlock (there is also this hint about Sherlock’s possible drug addiction) and it is coming up only slowly and subtly. I personally appreciate the viewers are not spoon-fed everything.

Also, there is nothing wrong with these characters being white. Lestrade and Mrs. Hudson were white (and probably heterosexual - though I doubt ACD gave it a single thought) in the canon and Molly is white because Mark Gatiss and Steven Moffat wanted to give this role (originally very little) to Louise. Hardly a crime. 

Your last paragraph - no, I cannot agree. The creators never mean to say Sherlock is better than anyone - they often show him flawed in many ways. There is no justification in this, you can see him criticized and (understandably) unloved by many, and he is often being told off by his friends. Indeed, he is shown solving everything through his special skills, but that is what Sherlock Holmes is about! He is supposed to have special skills, he is supposed to be unlike others - and better, at least in this one aspect.

Besides, Sally is never painted as stupid or horrible (neither Anderson - he is doubtlessly smart, he just overlooks things - as all people except Sherlock, but that’s the point of the story). As I have said elsewhere, I suggest wellingtongoose’s metas on Sally, which comment on her character very well. 

Also, why do you want everybody to have healthy, happy, equal relationships? That’s unrealistic - and not what the show is about. It shows flawed people doing mistakes, even Sherlock. For a time he gets out with being rude to everyone, yes, but in the end he is very much punished for his treatment of people. That’s what TRF is also about - it is his downfall and we can see how it partly happened because of his previous attitude. And it is surely going to be a part of his future development. 

 

I was not commenting on the shows as respective adaptations to Conan Doyle’s canon, but rather as narratives in themselves who flesh out real characters, yes, based on certain materials, but should still stand on their own. John being able to occasionally surprise Sherlock does not indicate a “balance” in their relationship. Further, I never stated that Elementary’s Watson and Holmes did have an even 50/50 give and take (hint: they don’t, but they progress toward it, and Joan expresses continual dissatisfaction over this and refuses to let Sherlock act like a child, while in return Sherlock accurately calls out her sometimes inappropriate decisions or actions).

Also, speculation as to what the show might do with John rather than what the show has done with John is irrelevant to this criticism of the show as it is. The show’s potential and the show’s credentials are definitely not the same, and potential should not be used in a critique of the show, unless it is to point out that the show is not living up to it. John’s assistance to Sherlock is not one of a colleague, but rather an often-exasperated admirer. Joan in Elementary is actually employed to personally help Sherlock with coping with sobriety etc., and she quit her practice because of medical error on her part and yet she is given much more credit as a an intelligent, autonomous person who is actually learning analytical skills from Sherlock.

Moreso, ACD disliked his character Sherlock and the series itself; he believed Sherlock to be an arrogant jerk and wrote him with a specific person in mind whose personality he detested. Though Sherlock in the books only really is rude and affronting to the rich and corrupt (making him much more sympathetic than BBC Sherlock), any disparity within the Holmes/Watson relationship was probably deliberate on his part to convey his distaste for the pomposity of his former colleague who had inspired the character. And make no mistake, Elementary’s Holmes is rude, arrogant, and pushes people away, but he’s also complex beyond just being bored or misunderstood and feels genuine compassion for and empathy with people.

Some viewers can see that it’s not right. The narrative does not call out Sherlock’s behavior toward Miss Watson through any repercussions. As for the rest of it, those are feeling one gets by filling in the blanks the show leaves. While I don’t have anything against getting the utmost enjoyment from a show you can (I was in the Glee fandom; I KNOW what it’s like to fill the void through fanfiction, headcanons, and metas), if the show does not actually show it or prove it, the message is not strongly conveyed.

As for Molly, yes I realize that it does happen in real life, but my point is that BBC Sherlock does not point out that Molly’s behavior is sad, not because Sherlock rejects her advances or even because he is rude to her, but because she holds an unrealistic idea of who Sherlock is in her head, and it’s not healthy.  And though her initial infatuation is not entirely unique, a continued infatuation with someone so rude and uncaring toward her is a bit unrealistic, especially when Molly gets so little development to explain any emotional context for latching onto such a man. It’s implied he reminds her of her father, but without fleshing out Molly’s character, it’s speculation.

Again, the future development of Sherlock is not what is being discussed right now, and he has been the principal character of the series which collectively adds up to around nine hours of screen time (18 episodes of development focused solely on him to give context). Sherlock’s underdevelopment can only be attributed to the shows continual romanticism of his rudeness/intelligence combination and its prioritization of dynamic, clever, plots over characterization (as pointed out in an earlier reblog). 

As a MODERN adaptation of the series. Note: Conan Doyle wrote these things back in late 1800s to early 1900s, and he was probably racist. Excluding PoC is racist. There is no reason that in London, a hugely diverse city, the main cast is derived of white people. Shows should make a conscious effort to include people who are not cisgender, heterosexual, and white because the world is surrounded by those factors. What is the point of creating a modern adaptation if you can’t fix some of the source material’s archaic flaws i.e. lack of PoC and LGBT+ representation?

I don’t mean to claim that the show doesn’t present Sherlock as flawed, but it’s obvious through the way people treat Sherlock, paralleled with John’s amazement and acceptance (and tolerance of Sherlock’s rudeness) that they are portrayed as wrong and misunderstanding of him. When people do criticize him, he is still the hero in the story, his actions aren’t presented as indelibly cruel, and the viewer is not urged to reject Sherlock’s overall demeanor and arrogance from the narrative’s standpoint. The most instrumental piece of evidence is John Watson’s implementation into the plot as the voice of reason who believes in Sherlock Holmes.

I have never had a problem with Sherlock’s powers of analysis or deduction (in either modern adaptation). I do take issue with how Sherlock handles his skills in the BBC show and with how the narrative treats him. His genius is often conveyed to be his saving grace because of some elemental truth in his deductions (though they can be wrong and often are), while the show loses its own message that Sherlock’s saving grace is not his genius, but the humanity and compassion that he holds despite his set of special skills. The show acting like Sherlock’s genius somehow elevates him over the other characters’ moral accountability is the issue.

Sally is painted as rude with poor judgement. Regardless of whether you love her character when you read between the lines, the narrative still pits her at odds with Sherlock continuously with little insight into her side or attempts to make him sympathetic. She’s shown as seeing a married man, and the show heavily implies she dislikes Sherlock because he can guess her bad secrets, and that she’s in the wrong for detesting being exposed.

Metas are great, and many of her few lines can be pieced together to show more depth into Sally’s character, but the show never gives the viewer the benefit of providing significant and sympathetic shows of her viewpoint. Also, Sherlock pointedly said to Anderson that he was lowering the I.Q. of the people in proximity, obviously played for laughs. It may be evident through his profession that he is intelligent, but that is not expressed in the show as important or of any worth.

Elementary does not have everyone happy and healthy; it simply just portrays relationships better. Sherlock is a recovering addict with trust issues who closes off and shuts down conversations by waving his intellect around often and commits various microaggressions of misogyny. The difference between Elementary and BBC Sherlock is the dynamics of the relationships are more fairly portrayed, and the viewer is more apt to hold Sherlock accountable for what he does as well as see real development in characters. The Reichenbach Fall does portray Sherlock as being overly rude to some people, but it insists that the world is being worse to Sherlock than he is to the world. It’s not really poetic justice but rather more than he deserves in an attempt to push a sympathetic frame on Sherlock’s character.

I’m sure that BBC Sherlock will continue to portray Sherlock as insufferably insensitive to others and sure of his own intellect and judgment in almost all situations, but I would not presume that he will learn much from it in the preceding episodes to come; whether or not this comes to be, as the series stands, it unfairly presents Sherlock as misunderstood man whom the world hates for revealing truth, rather than a rude and uncompassionate man who many people do just tolerate because of his skills.

Well, that might be the problem then, as I am indeed commenting on the shows as respective adaptations to Conan Doyle’s canon, because I believe it necessary. (I cannot agree with the canonical jerkiness because of ACD’s hate towards the character, though. He never really painted Holmes as a disagreeable man, the only way his hatred manifested was in The Final Problem - or in TBH, where he kept him “off-screen” for a long time.)

(Also, The initial argument was about one show being better than the other - which is mostly up to personal taste - and I wanted to point out that some of the “flaws” - such as Sherlock and John being cishet whites - cannot be perceived as a fault, as it was the original setting and there is nothing wrong about keeping the race and sexual identity of the original characters intact.) 

Also, I realize we might never agree on many things - you see Sherlock portrayed as always being “insufferably insensitive to others and sure of his own intellect and judgment in almost all situations” while others see him in the process changing this very behaviour. You see Sally painted as someone who dislikes Sherlock because he knows her intimate secret, I think it is obvious she rightfully dislikes him for his cold attitude and lack of sympathy towards victims. You do not see the show showing Molly’s advances are sad because she deserves better, I think it’s clearer than a day. I cannot see TRF insisting that the world is worse to Sherlock than Sherlock is to the world - or that he will continue being a misunderstood man (because he hardly is portrayed this way). And I think it’s not because one of us is guided by the love for the show while the other views it with a sharp analytic eye. 

You claim that show must provide the viewer with “significant and sympathetic shows” of other people’s viewpoint - but why? It is all perceivable, even if subtle (which is understandable, given the format of the show). It does not guide, it¨s not didactic - but why should it be? If the viewer stays perceptive, he gets all he needs to know. Seeing between the lines is what makes the show enjoyable and I prefer it to having things spelled out in a very special way.

Guess we won’t get much farther with this (also, must go to bed, it’s nearly 3 AM here.) I liked talking with you, even if we will probably never agree, as we see things we both perceive as facts differently.    

All I’ll say on the rest of this is: there is something ostensibly better about a show that is inclusive toward people versus one that participates in archaic erasure of people. I do believe that Sally’s and many other’s attitudes are justified toward Sherlock, but the show does not give her a sympathetic viewpoint; therefore, unfairly representing her. Fandoms can pick apart things as much as they want and read between the lines, but that doesn’t eliminate the flaws in the source material of excluding meaningful scenes. I reiterate that I do and did enjoy the show, but as a consumer of media, it’s also my duty to look at what I consume critically and acknowledge its flaws.

(And you’re also mistaken on the point of the post; the OP made this as a joke, evidenced by the MS Paint, to show how ridiculous it is when sections of the BBC Sherlock fandom invade the Elementary tag with hate by listing simplified praises of Elementary and simplified flaws of BBC Sherlock. My initial reblogs pointed out some strengths in Elementary, but was mostly focused on a critique of Sherlock, and yes exclusion of PoC and LGBT+ people from its narrative is a problem; adaptations are supposed to improve upon source material’s flaws, not copy them.)

(Source: mahakavi)

cumberbatchitis:

Bear with me now, as I am not a native speaker and my explanation might lack eloquence, especially when it gets lengthy.
Canonical John Watson was a medical man and as such had some analytical skills, but he hardly got to use them in canon - only several times and often wrong, especially as far as his analytical skills are concerned. (His knowledge of medicine was also used only sparsely, but nobody says John will not use it in the future, as they are still early in the story). Therefore I see nothing wrong with John getting similar (not same) treatment, although I honestly do not think there is a lack of give/take balance. He assists Sherlock in other ways and he can impress him at times, for example at Baskerville Base. I understand one may find more appealing the more equal dynamics between Elementary Holmes and Joan, but that’s a different interpretation of the canon. ACD’s stories always had unequality between Holmes and Watson, it was a part of the whole narrative - and at the same time it did not demean their friendship, which is what BBC Sherlock displays well IMO.
Mrs. Hudson and Sherlock share a backstory which was not yet explored fully, but from the events of ASiB it’s quite obvious how dear she is to him and how relaxed he feels in her presence. Yes, she accepts a lot of his antics (that’s the thing about friendship - you can teach someone to be better and still accept the person’s bad side), but does not hesitate to tell him off when necessary. He is changing only very slowly, but his behaviour towards her varies with the situation they are in. He can be a prick under some circumstances, but he is also willing to humour her, he is tender to her when she’s distressed and ultimately - he is willing to risk his life for her. Sherlock will probably never be terribly polite to Mrs. Hudson under all circumstances (for example when he is annoyed, bored, etc.), but why do you think the show presents is as an excuse? The viewer can see it is not right. Yet it sill happens. IMO that’s what life is all about.
You ask why should an “intelligent…. young woman be so infatuated with a belligerent, rude” etc. man?” Maybe because it does happen all the time IRL? We all make bad choices - and Sherlock is Molly’s bad choice. He is using her, sure, but as the creators stressed so many times, he is not a full developed character yet. He only gradually comes to realize how he should or should not treat her - and how important he is to her. That is a part of a process we are likely to see developing in the next episodes. Sherlock is on his way to appreciate her for her friendship and Molly will most probably grow out of her obssession with him, which is only good for her.
As for Lestrade - I only have to repeat myself. Yes, indeed, relationships do not just happen, they form. Even Lestrade has some sort of past with Sherlock (there is also this hint about Sherlock’s possible drug addiction) and it is coming up only slowly and subtly. I personally appreciate the viewers are not spoon-fed everything.
Also, there is nothing wrong with these characters being white. Lestrade and Mrs. Hudson were white (and probably heterosexual - though I doubt ACD gave it a single thought) in the canon and Molly is white because Mark Gatiss and Steven Moffat wanted to give this role (originally very little) to Louise. Hardly a crime. 
Your last paragraph - no, I cannot agree. The creators never mean to say Sherlock is better than anyone - they often show him flawed in many ways. There is no justification in this, you can see him criticized and (understandably) unloved by many, and he is often being told off by his friends. Indeed, he is shown solving everything through his special skills, but that is what Sherlock Holmes is about! He is supposed to have special skills, he is supposed to be unlike others - and better, at least in this one aspect. 
Besides, Sally is never painted as stupid or horrible (neither Anderson - he is doubtlessly smart, he just overlooks things - as all people except Sherlock, but that’s the point of the story). As I have said elsewhere, I suggest wellingtongoose’s metas on Sally, which comment on her character very well. 
Also, why do you want everybody to have healthy, happy, equal relationships? That’s unrealistic - and not what the show is about. It shows flawed people doing mistakes, even Sherlock. For a time he gets out with being rude to everyone, yes, but in the end he is very much punished for his treatment of people. That’s what TRF is also about - it is his downfall and we can see how it partly happened because of his previous attitude. And it is surely going to be a part of his future development. 
 

I was not commenting on the shows as respective adaptations to Conan Doyle&#8217;s canon, but rather as narratives in themselves who flesh out real characters, yes, based on certain materials, but should still stand on their own. John being able to occasionally surprise Sherlock does not indicate a &#8220;balance&#8221; in their relationship. Further, I never stated that Elementary&#8217;s Watson and Holmes did have an even 50/50 give and take (hint: they don&#8217;t, but they progress toward it, and Joan expresses continual dissatisfaction over this and refuses to let Sherlock act like a child, while in return Sherlock accurately calls out her sometimes inappropriate decisions or actions).
Also, speculation as to what the show might do with John rather than what the show has done with John is irrelevant to this criticism of the show as it is. The show&#8217;s potential and the show&#8217;s credentials are definitely not the same, and potential should not be used in a critique of the show, unless it is to point out that the show is not living up to it. John&#8217;s assistance to Sherlock is not one of a colleague, but rather an often-exasperated admirer. Joan in Elementary is actually employed to personally help Sherlock with coping with sobriety etc., and she quit her practice because of medical error on her part and yet she is given much more credit as a an intelligent, autonomous person who is actually learning analytical skills from Sherlock.
Moreso, ACD disliked his character Sherlock and the series itself; he believed Sherlock to be an arrogant jerk and wrote him with a specific person in mind whose personality he detested. Though Sherlock in the books only really is rude and affronting to the rich and corrupt (making him much more sympathetic than BBC Sherlock), any disparity within the Holmes/Watson relationship was probably deliberate on his part to convey his distaste for the pomposity of his former colleague who had inspired the character. And make no mistake, Elementary&#8217;s Holmes is rude, arrogant, and pushes people away, but he&#8217;s also complex beyond just being bored or misunderstood and feels genuine compassion for and empathy with people.
Some viewers can see that it&#8217;s not right. The narrative does not call out Sherlock&#8217;s behavior toward Miss Watson through any repercussions. As for the rest of it, those are feeling one gets by filling in the blanks the show leaves. While I don&#8217;t have anything against getting the utmost enjoyment from a show you can (I was in the Glee fandom; I KNOW what it&#8217;s like to fill the void through fanfiction, headcanons, and metas), if the show does not actually show it or prove it, the message is not strongly conveyed.
As for Molly, yes I realize that it does happen in real life, but my point is that BBC Sherlock does not point out that Molly&#8217;s behavior is sad, not because Sherlock rejects her advances or even because he is rude to her, but because she holds an unrealistic idea of who Sherlock is in her head, and it&#8217;s not healthy.  And though her initial infatuation is not entirely unique, a continued infatuation with someone so rude and uncaring toward her is a bit unrealistic, especially when Molly gets so little development to explain any emotional context for latching onto such a man. It&#8217;s implied he reminds her of her father, but without fleshing out Molly&#8217;s character, it&#8217;s speculation.
Again, the future development of Sherlock is not what is being discussed right now, and he has been the principal character of the series which collectively adds up to around nine hours of screen time (18 episodes of development focused solely on him to give context). Sherlock&#8217;s underdevelopment can only be attributed to the shows continual romanticism of his rudeness/intelligence combination and its prioritization of dynamic, clever, plots over characterization (as pointed out in an earlier reblog). 
As a MODERN adaptation of the series. Note: Conan Doyle wrote these things back in late 1800s to early 1900s, and he was probably racist. Excluding PoC is racist. There is no reason that in London, a hugely diverse city, the main cast is derived of white people. Shows should make a conscious effort to include people who are not cisgender, heterosexual, and white because the world is surrounded by those factors. What is the point of creating a modern adaptation if you can&#8217;t fix some of the source material&#8217;s archaic flaws i.e. lack of PoC and LGBT+ representation?
I don&#8217;t mean to claim that the show doesn&#8217;t present Sherlock as flawed, but it&#8217;s obvious through the way people treat Sherlock, paralleled with John&#8217;s amazement and acceptance (and tolerance of Sherlock&#8217;s rudeness) that they are portrayed as wrong and misunderstanding of him. When people do criticize him, he is still the hero in the story, his actions aren&#8217;t presented as indelibly cruel, and the viewer is not urged to reject Sherlock&#8217;s overall demeanor and arrogance from the narrative&#8217;s standpoint. The most instrumental piece of evidence is John Watson&#8217;s implementation into the plot as the voice of reason who believes in Sherlock Holmes.
I have never had a problem with Sherlock&#8217;s powers of analysis or deduction (in either modern adaptation). I do take issue with how Sherlock handles his skills in the BBC show and with how the narrative treats him. His genius is often conveyed to be his saving grace because of some elemental truth in his deductions (though they can be wrong and often are), while the show loses its own message that Sherlock&#8217;s saving grace is not his genius, but the humanity and compassion that he holds despite his set of special skills. The show acting like Sherlock&#8217;s genius somehow elevates him over the other characters&#8217; moral accountability is the issue.
Sally is painted as rude with poor judgement. Regardless of whether you love her character when you read between the lines, the narrative still pits her at odds with Sherlock continuously with little insight into her side or attempts to make him sympathetic. She&#8217;s shown as seeing a married man, and the show heavily implies she dislikes Sherlock because he can guess her bad secrets, and that she&#8217;s in the wrong for detesting being exposed.
Metas are great, and many of her few lines can be pieced together to show more depth into Sally&#8217;s character, but the show never gives the viewer the benefit of providing significant and sympathetic shows of her viewpoint. Also, Sherlock pointedly said to Anderson that he was lowering the I.Q. of the people in proximity, obviously played for laughs. It may be evident through his profession that he is intelligent, but that is not expressed in the show as important or of any worth.
Elementary does not have everyone happy and healthy; it simply just portrays relationships better. Sherlock is a recovering addict with trust issues who closes off and shuts down conversations by waving his intellect around often and commits various microaggressions of misogyny. The difference between Elementary and BBC Sherlock is the dynamics of the relationships are more fairly portrayed, and the viewer is more apt to hold Sherlock accountable for what he does as well as see real development in characters. The Reichenbach Fall does portray Sherlock as being overly rude to some people, but it insists that the world is being worse to Sherlock than he is to the world. It&#8217;s not really poetic justice but rather more than he deserves in an attempt to push a sympathetic frame on Sherlock&#8217;s character.
I&#8217;m sure that BBC Sherlock will continue to portray Sherlock as insufferably insensitive to others and sure of his own intellect and judgment in almost all situations, but I would not presume that he will learn much from it in the preceding episodes to come; whether or not this comes to be, as the series stands, it unfairly presents Sherlock as misunderstood man whom the world hates for revealing truth, rather than a rude and uncompassionate man who many people do just tolerate because of his skills.

cumberbatchitis:

Bear with me now, as I am not a native speaker and my explanation might lack eloquence, especially when it gets lengthy.

Canonical John Watson was a medical man and as such had some analytical skills, but he hardly got to use them in canon - only several times and often wrong, especially as far as his analytical skills are concerned. (His knowledge of medicine was also used only sparsely, but nobody says John will not use it in the future, as they are still early in the story). Therefore I see nothing wrong with John getting similar (not same) treatment, although I honestly do not think there is a lack of give/take balance. He assists Sherlock in other ways and he can impress him at times, for example at Baskerville Base. I understand one may find more appealing the more equal dynamics between Elementary Holmes and Joan, but that’s a different interpretation of the canon. ACD’s stories always had unequality between Holmes and Watson, it was a part of the whole narrative - and at the same time it did not demean their friendship, which is what BBC Sherlock displays well IMO.

Mrs. Hudson and Sherlock share a backstory which was not yet explored fully, but from the events of ASiB it’s quite obvious how dear she is to him and how relaxed he feels in her presence. Yes, she accepts a lot of his antics (that’s the thing about friendship - you can teach someone to be better and still accept the person’s bad side), but does not hesitate to tell him off when necessary. He is changing only very slowly, but his behaviour towards her varies with the situation they are in. He can be a prick under some circumstances, but he is also willing to humour her, he is tender to her when she’s distressed and ultimately - he is willing to risk his life for her. Sherlock will probably never be terribly polite to Mrs. Hudson under all circumstances (for example when he is annoyed, bored, etc.), but why do you think the show presents is as an excuse? The viewer can see it is not right. Yet it sill happens. IMO that’s what life is all about.

You ask why should an “intelligent…. young woman be so infatuated with a belligerent, rude” etc. man?” Maybe because it does happen all the time IRL? We all make bad choices - and Sherlock is Molly’s bad choice. He is using her, sure, but as the creators stressed so many times, he is not a full developed character yet. He only gradually comes to realize how he should or should not treat her - and how important he is to her. That is a part of a process we are likely to see developing in the next episodes. Sherlock is on his way to appreciate her for her friendship and Molly will most probably grow out of her obssession with him, which is only good for her.

As for Lestrade - I only have to repeat myself. Yes, indeed, relationships do not just happen, they form. Even Lestrade has some sort of past with Sherlock (there is also this hint about Sherlock’s possible drug addiction) and it is coming up only slowly and subtly. I personally appreciate the viewers are not spoon-fed everything.

Also, there is nothing wrong with these characters being white. Lestrade and Mrs. Hudson were white (and probably heterosexual - though I doubt ACD gave it a single thought) in the canon and Molly is white because Mark Gatiss and Steven Moffat wanted to give this role (originally very little) to Louise. Hardly a crime. 

Your last paragraph - no, I cannot agree. The creators never mean to say Sherlock is better than anyone - they often show him flawed in many ways. There is no justification in this, you can see him criticized and (understandably) unloved by many, and he is often being told off by his friends. Indeed, he is shown solving everything through his special skills, but that is what Sherlock Holmes is about! He is supposed to have special skills, he is supposed to be unlike others - and better, at least in this one aspect.

Besides, Sally is never painted as stupid or horrible (neither Anderson - he is doubtlessly smart, he just overlooks things - as all people except Sherlock, but that’s the point of the story). As I have said elsewhere, I suggest wellingtongoose’s metas on Sally, which comment on her character very well. 

Also, why do you want everybody to have healthy, happy, equal relationships? That’s unrealistic - and not what the show is about. It shows flawed people doing mistakes, even Sherlock. For a time he gets out with being rude to everyone, yes, but in the end he is very much punished for his treatment of people. That’s what TRF is also about - it is his downfall and we can see how it partly happened because of his previous attitude. And it is surely going to be a part of his future development. 

 

I was not commenting on the shows as respective adaptations to Conan Doyle’s canon, but rather as narratives in themselves who flesh out real characters, yes, based on certain materials, but should still stand on their own. John being able to occasionally surprise Sherlock does not indicate a “balance” in their relationship. Further, I never stated that Elementary’s Watson and Holmes did have an even 50/50 give and take (hint: they don’t, but they progress toward it, and Joan expresses continual dissatisfaction over this and refuses to let Sherlock act like a child, while in return Sherlock accurately calls out her sometimes inappropriate decisions or actions).

Also, speculation as to what the show might do with John rather than what the show has done with John is irrelevant to this criticism of the show as it is. The show’s potential and the show’s credentials are definitely not the same, and potential should not be used in a critique of the show, unless it is to point out that the show is not living up to it. John’s assistance to Sherlock is not one of a colleague, but rather an often-exasperated admirer. Joan in Elementary is actually employed to personally help Sherlock with coping with sobriety etc., and she quit her practice because of medical error on her part and yet she is given much more credit as a an intelligent, autonomous person who is actually learning analytical skills from Sherlock.

Moreso, ACD disliked his character Sherlock and the series itself; he believed Sherlock to be an arrogant jerk and wrote him with a specific person in mind whose personality he detested. Though Sherlock in the books only really is rude and affronting to the rich and corrupt (making him much more sympathetic than BBC Sherlock), any disparity within the Holmes/Watson relationship was probably deliberate on his part to convey his distaste for the pomposity of his former colleague who had inspired the character. And make no mistake, Elementary’s Holmes is rude, arrogant, and pushes people away, but he’s also complex beyond just being bored or misunderstood and feels genuine compassion for and empathy with people.

Some viewers can see that it’s not right. The narrative does not call out Sherlock’s behavior toward Miss Watson through any repercussions. As for the rest of it, those are feeling one gets by filling in the blanks the show leaves. While I don’t have anything against getting the utmost enjoyment from a show you can (I was in the Glee fandom; I KNOW what it’s like to fill the void through fanfiction, headcanons, and metas), if the show does not actually show it or prove it, the message is not strongly conveyed.

As for Molly, yes I realize that it does happen in real life, but my point is that BBC Sherlock does not point out that Molly’s behavior is sad, not because Sherlock rejects her advances or even because he is rude to her, but because she holds an unrealistic idea of who Sherlock is in her head, and it’s not healthy.  And though her initial infatuation is not entirely unique, a continued infatuation with someone so rude and uncaring toward her is a bit unrealistic, especially when Molly gets so little development to explain any emotional context for latching onto such a man. It’s implied he reminds her of her father, but without fleshing out Molly’s character, it’s speculation.

Again, the future development of Sherlock is not what is being discussed right now, and he has been the principal character of the series which collectively adds up to around nine hours of screen time (18 episodes of development focused solely on him to give context). Sherlock’s underdevelopment can only be attributed to the shows continual romanticism of his rudeness/intelligence combination and its prioritization of dynamic, clever, plots over characterization (as pointed out in an earlier reblog). 

As a MODERN adaptation of the series. Note: Conan Doyle wrote these things back in late 1800s to early 1900s, and he was probably racist. Excluding PoC is racist. There is no reason that in London, a hugely diverse city, the main cast is derived of white people. Shows should make a conscious effort to include people who are not cisgender, heterosexual, and white because the world is surrounded by those factors. What is the point of creating a modern adaptation if you can’t fix some of the source material’s archaic flaws i.e. lack of PoC and LGBT+ representation?

I don’t mean to claim that the show doesn’t present Sherlock as flawed, but it’s obvious through the way people treat Sherlock, paralleled with John’s amazement and acceptance (and tolerance of Sherlock’s rudeness) that they are portrayed as wrong and misunderstanding of him. When people do criticize him, he is still the hero in the story, his actions aren’t presented as indelibly cruel, and the viewer is not urged to reject Sherlock’s overall demeanor and arrogance from the narrative’s standpoint. The most instrumental piece of evidence is John Watson’s implementation into the plot as the voice of reason who believes in Sherlock Holmes.

I have never had a problem with Sherlock’s powers of analysis or deduction (in either modern adaptation). I do take issue with how Sherlock handles his skills in the BBC show and with how the narrative treats him. His genius is often conveyed to be his saving grace because of some elemental truth in his deductions (though they can be wrong and often are), while the show loses its own message that Sherlock’s saving grace is not his genius, but the humanity and compassion that he holds despite his set of special skills. The show acting like Sherlock’s genius somehow elevates him over the other characters’ moral accountability is the issue.

Sally is painted as rude with poor judgement. Regardless of whether you love her character when you read between the lines, the narrative still pits her at odds with Sherlock continuously with little insight into her side or attempts to make him sympathetic. She’s shown as seeing a married man, and the show heavily implies she dislikes Sherlock because he can guess her bad secrets, and that she’s in the wrong for detesting being exposed.

Metas are great, and many of her few lines can be pieced together to show more depth into Sally’s character, but the show never gives the viewer the benefit of providing significant and sympathetic shows of her viewpoint. Also, Sherlock pointedly said to Anderson that he was lowering the I.Q. of the people in proximity, obviously played for laughs. It may be evident through his profession that he is intelligent, but that is not expressed in the show as important or of any worth.

Elementary does not have everyone happy and healthy; it simply just portrays relationships better. Sherlock is a recovering addict with trust issues who closes off and shuts down conversations by waving his intellect around often and commits various microaggressions of misogyny. The difference between Elementary and BBC Sherlock is the dynamics of the relationships are more fairly portrayed, and the viewer is more apt to hold Sherlock accountable for what he does as well as see real development in characters. The Reichenbach Fall does portray Sherlock as being overly rude to some people, but it insists that the world is being worse to Sherlock than he is to the world. It’s not really poetic justice but rather more than he deserves in an attempt to push a sympathetic frame on Sherlock’s character.

I’m sure that BBC Sherlock will continue to portray Sherlock as insufferably insensitive to others and sure of his own intellect and judgment in almost all situations, but I would not presume that he will learn much from it in the preceding episodes to come; whether or not this comes to be, as the series stands, it unfairly presents Sherlock as misunderstood man whom the world hates for revealing truth, rather than a rude and uncompassionate man who many people do just tolerate because of his skills.

(Source: mahakavi)

cumberbatchitis:

amethystarcher:

mahakavi:

mountlandme:

mahakavi:

“YOU CAN’T COMPARE ELEMENTARY AND SHERLOCK!”
yes you bloody well can
elementary is objectively better and that is a thing that is true you can’t prove otherwise
you can enjoy whatever show you want (i still watch bbc sherlock) just stop making inane comments about elementary, alright? alright
and sherlock fandom, collect your fucking trash please

The way to respond to imature Sherlock fans isn’t to become an immature elementary fan. Both shows are great. 
Yes BBC Sherlock isn’t progressive in its casting but in its cinematography and ways of creating a narrative are progressive.
Elementary isn’t that amazing in the way they tell stories or how they film it but are really progressive with their characterisation and representation.
The way to respond to antagonism isn’t to cite the flaws of one show and the good things about the show you like. Both have good points, both have bad points. Lets not ignore the good points of one and see only the bad points as that makes any argument weak as it is so obviously biased. 
You can be fans of both. One isn’t better than they other, just different.

Sorry (but not sorry) to have to break it to you this way, but an inclusive show is objectively better than one that isn’t. 
BBC Sherlock’s cinematography is wonderful, but that doesn’t excuse the racism and misogyny. 

That’s the problem with media; people want things that are more appealing, flashier, or cleverer, but if they’re still stuck perpetuating racism, misogyny, cissexism, and homophobia, what good is that? You may have something pretty to look at or something interesting to feed your bored mind, but anything that’s substantially meaningful to people who don’t have representation is going to be more than that. Not saying that people don’t or can’t identify with BBC Sherlock, but when you compare its human narrative to Elementary’s, it pales in comparison; which is sad, because BBC Sherlock’s overarching view is supposed to be that in the end the mechanical and analytical Sherlock, the rude, selfish, and unabiding man, is actually human after all.
The biggest pitfall of BBC Sherlock is its focus on creating an interesting and pompously clever story line while forgetting the very reason people are supposed to root for Sherlock after all. Human relationships are the heart of a show, of a story, and the biggest difference between Elementary and BBC Sherlock is at the heart of those. Of course, this all correlates withe the progressiveness of these shows. One that takes into account the different types of human beings that exist and their struggles and lack of representation versus one that crafts an almost universally unlikeable man to the rest of his universe, who is an indubitable genius who forces people (who are not very nuanced at all) to tolerate him, is inevitably better at exploring the human beings and their characters. Cinematography is lovely and should be appreciated; it’s great to look at and experience, but the heart of a series is in its people.

Honestly cannot agree. 
BBC Sherlock has an amazing heart in the relationship between Sherlock and John and  their evolving friendship. And do not forget the way Sherlock gets more and more human thanks to Mrs. Hudson, Molly and Lestrade. These characters are indeed nuanced - in a subtle yet really moving way - and have their own struggles. And as for them “being forced to tolerate an almost universally unlikeable man”… please. They all go through their way with Sherlock, teach him and help him change. 
All of these people are the heart of Sherlock and their relationship build the whole narrative. If Sherlock was only about great cinematography and clever cases (which the show undoubtledly has), it would have never became so successful.

You are making some presuppositions based on your understandable love for the characters who hold relations with Sherlock despite his arrogance and rudeness because they see the &#8220;good&#8221; in him. Let me explain why these are fallacious.
John and Sherlock&#8217;s evolving friendship - You used this example to counteract a point I didn&#8217;t make. John and Sherlock&#8217;s friendship is one of the main points of the show. The fandom obviously loves their relationship in part because they were both lonely in their own ways before coming to know one another. The show even iterates the importance of their relationship numerous times by showing how John&#8217;s life has changed or how Sherlock was willing to die for him. However, the show seems to forget what is supposed to be at its heart.John is often pushed into the background, he receives little exploration of analytical skills, and his medical knowledge is hardly touched upon. Rather than a valuable colleague with extensive knowledge, Sherlock views and undervalues Watson as someone onto whom to speak and help himself deduce. While this is not entirely untrue in Elementary, that Sherlock is more patient and more caring of how he hurts people. Though he will still do it, he feels guilt at his impulses and realizes brilliance does not mean he won&#8217;t make bad decisions.John may be astounded by Sherlock&#8217;s brilliance and see something amazingly human in him, but Sherlock hardly returns the favor, and the relationship falls flat in effect of give and take. The worst thing is that John does get frustrated by this, but the show does not seem to care too much about Sherlock&#8217;s rude or demeaning behavior and rather treats it as the price of genius. The only person who is on Sherlock&#8217;s level intellectually seems to be Moriarty, who has psychological disorders.
Mrs. Hudson - She is his landlady and unofficial housekeeper. Sherlock shows evident care for her physical well-being yet is rude and unyielding to her. What is disturbing about this is that the show paints this behavior as acceptable and the price one pays for knowing Sherlock; Sherlock&#8217;s rudeness and ill treatment is seen as a fair price for his company, rather than an element of his personality he should work to improve. Sherlock helping to put her (probably) horrible husband away and asking her to make him tea does not a multifaceted human relationship make.
Molly - Oh, what can I say about Molly? She has the heart of an angel, and the show treats her so badly. The very first episode, she is demeaned by Sherlock. He uses her obvious crush to send scathing comments and send her out of his way. He has little regard for her, and only feels guilty for deducing her personal life and spitting it out at her (with misconceptions) after he realizes she was dressed up and had a present because of him.Later, Sherlock tells her that she &#8220;always counted;&#8221; however, his behavior did little to indicate that. Molly had been under the impression that she was unimportant to Sherlock, to whom she was astoundingly accommodating and helpful. The majority of their relationship on Molly&#8217;s part was all give and no take. She even (seemingly) helps him fake his death, when the man has barely said two polite words to her.While Sherlock&#8217;s lack of give in the majority of his relationships for the majority of the time is meant as a choice to show Sherlock&#8217;s deep effect on people, it falls flat when he cannot be given to actually care about their feelings enough for this to be justified. The relationship overall is slightly unrealistic, or at least not healthy. Why should an intelligent, attractive, compassionate young woman be so infatuated with a belligerent, rude, condescending, distant man?
Lestrade - The most we truly know about Lestrade&#8217;s relationship with Sherlock is that Sherlock can deduce certain things about Lestrade&#8217;s love life, Lestrade trusts Sherlock&#8217;s analytical skills, and Sherlock considers Lestrade a close enough friend to have over for Christmas and a close enough friend for Moriarty to threaten his life. Other than that, we don&#8217;t really seem them interact; it&#8217;s implied that Lestrade has faith in Sherlock above the others in his unit, but we&#8217;re given no real reasons he has this or for the closeness of their relationship. Relationships don&#8217;t just happen, they form, and we should be shown how they work. If not they fall flat onscreen without fandom speculation.
Further, all of these people, Sherlock&#8217;s friends as a lose term, are white and purportedly heterosexual. Their relationships with him are banal, though the narrative pushes a deep meaning, it&#8217;s not expressed onscreen. Don&#8217;t get me wrong, I enjoy the show, and I know how the narrative pushes one to feel about each relationship, but when observed from a logical viewpoint and a critical eye for the healthiness of these interactions, they are far less romantic for the antiheroism of Sherlock&#8217;s secret heart, and more troubling because of how the show excuses and provides reasons for Sherlock&#8217;s rudeness and inattention.
They justify the lead&#8217;s crappy treatment of everyone else by essentially asserting he&#8217;s better than everyone and can see the truth in the world in a unique way (whether you believe this or not). The &#8220;good&#8221; guys who dislike Sherlock, understandably so, for his arrogance and rudeness are painted as horrible or stupid people (don&#8217;t even get me started on how the show portrays Sally, who happens to be the show&#8217;s only recurring WoC, or PoC for that matter). 

cumberbatchitis:

amethystarcher:

mahakavi:

mountlandme:

mahakavi:

“YOU CAN’T COMPARE ELEMENTARY AND SHERLOCK!”

yes you bloody well can

elementary is objectively better and that is a thing that is true you can’t prove otherwise

you can enjoy whatever show you want (i still watch bbc sherlock) just stop making inane comments about elementary, alright? alright

and sherlock fandom, collect your fucking trash please

The way to respond to imature Sherlock fans isn’t to become an immature elementary fan. Both shows are great. 

Yes BBC Sherlock isn’t progressive in its casting but in its cinematography and ways of creating a narrative are progressive.

Elementary isn’t that amazing in the way they tell stories or how they film it but are really progressive with their characterisation and representation.

The way to respond to antagonism isn’t to cite the flaws of one show and the good things about the show you like. Both have good points, both have bad points. Lets not ignore the good points of one and see only the bad points as that makes any argument weak as it is so obviously biased. 

You can be fans of both. One isn’t better than they other, just different.

Sorry (but not sorry) to have to break it to you this way, but an inclusive show is objectively better than one that isn’t. 

BBC Sherlock’s cinematography is wonderful, but that doesn’t excuse the racism and misogyny. 

That’s the problem with media; people want things that are more appealing, flashier, or cleverer, but if they’re still stuck perpetuating racism, misogyny, cissexism, and homophobia, what good is that? You may have something pretty to look at or something interesting to feed your bored mind, but anything that’s substantially meaningful to people who don’t have representation is going to be more than that. Not saying that people don’t or can’t identify with BBC Sherlock, but when you compare its human narrative to Elementary’s, it pales in comparison; which is sad, because BBC Sherlock’s overarching view is supposed to be that in the end the mechanical and analytical Sherlock, the rude, selfish, and unabiding man, is actually human after all.

The biggest pitfall of BBC Sherlock is its focus on creating an interesting and pompously clever story line while forgetting the very reason people are supposed to root for Sherlock after all. Human relationships are the heart of a show, of a story, and the biggest difference between Elementary and BBC Sherlock is at the heart of those. Of course, this all correlates withe the progressiveness of these shows. One that takes into account the different types of human beings that exist and their struggles and lack of representation versus one that crafts an almost universally unlikeable man to the rest of his universe, who is an indubitable genius who forces people (who are not very nuanced at all) to tolerate him, is inevitably better at exploring the human beings and their characters. Cinematography is lovely and should be appreciated; it’s great to look at and experience, but the heart of a series is in its people.

Honestly cannot agree. 

BBC Sherlock has an amazing heart in the relationship between Sherlock and John and  their evolving friendship. And do not forget the way Sherlock gets more and more human thanks to Mrs. Hudson, Molly and Lestrade. These characters are indeed nuanced - in a subtle yet really moving way - and have their own struggles. And as for them “being forced to tolerate an almost universally unlikeable man”… please. They all go through their way with Sherlock, teach him and help him change. 

All of these people are the heart of Sherlock and their relationship build the whole narrative. If Sherlock was only about great cinematography and clever cases (which the show undoubtledly has), it would have never became so successful.

You are making some presuppositions based on your understandable love for the characters who hold relations with Sherlock despite his arrogance and rudeness because they see the “good” in him. Let me explain why these are fallacious.

  • John and Sherlock’s evolving friendship - You used this example to counteract a point I didn’t make. John and Sherlock’s friendship is one of the main points of the show. The fandom obviously loves their relationship in part because they were both lonely in their own ways before coming to know one another. The show even iterates the importance of their relationship numerous times by showing how John’s life has changed or how Sherlock was willing to die for him. However, the show seems to forget what is supposed to be at its heart.

    John is often pushed into the background, he receives little exploration of analytical skills, and his medical knowledge is hardly touched upon. Rather than a valuable colleague with extensive knowledge, Sherlock views and undervalues Watson as someone onto whom to speak and help himself deduce. While this is not entirely untrue in Elementary, that Sherlock is more patient and more caring of how he hurts people. Though he will still do it, he feels guilt at his impulses and realizes brilliance does not mean he won’t make bad decisions.

    John may be astounded by Sherlock’s brilliance and see something amazingly human in him, but Sherlock hardly returns the favor, and the relationship falls flat in effect of give and take. The worst thing is that John does get frustrated by this, but the show does not seem to care too much about Sherlock’s rude or demeaning behavior and rather treats it as the price of genius. The only person who is on Sherlock’s level intellectually seems to be Moriarty, who has psychological disorders.

  • Mrs. Hudson - She is his landlady and unofficial housekeeper. Sherlock shows evident care for her physical well-being yet is rude and unyielding to her. What is disturbing about this is that the show paints this behavior as acceptable and the price one pays for knowing Sherlock; Sherlock’s rudeness and ill treatment is seen as a fair price for his company, rather than an element of his personality he should work to improve. Sherlock helping to put her (probably) horrible husband away and asking her to make him tea does not a multifaceted human relationship make.

  • Molly - Oh, what can I say about Molly? She has the heart of an angel, and the show treats her so badly. The very first episode, she is demeaned by Sherlock. He uses her obvious crush to send scathing comments and send her out of his way. He has little regard for her, and only feels guilty for deducing her personal life and spitting it out at her (with misconceptions) after he realizes she was dressed up and had a present because of him.

    Later, Sherlock tells her that she “always counted;” however, his behavior did little to indicate that. Molly had been under the impression that she was unimportant to Sherlock, to whom she was astoundingly accommodating and helpful. The majority of their relationship on Molly’s part was all give and no take. She even (seemingly) helps him fake his death, when the man has barely said two polite words to her.

    While Sherlock’s lack of give in the majority of his relationships for the majority of the time is meant as a choice to show Sherlock’s deep effect on people, it falls flat when he cannot be given to actually care about their feelings enough for this to be justified. The relationship overall is slightly unrealistic, or at least not healthy. Why should an intelligent, attractive, compassionate young woman be so infatuated with a belligerent, rude, condescending, distant man?

  • Lestrade - The most we truly know about Lestrade’s relationship with Sherlock is that Sherlock can deduce certain things about Lestrade’s love life, Lestrade trusts Sherlock’s analytical skills, and Sherlock considers Lestrade a close enough friend to have over for Christmas and a close enough friend for Moriarty to threaten his life. Other than that, we don’t really seem them interact; it’s implied that Lestrade has faith in Sherlock above the others in his unit, but we’re given no real reasons he has this or for the closeness of their relationship. Relationships don’t just happen, they form, and we should be shown how they work. If not they fall flat onscreen without fandom speculation.

Further, all of these people, Sherlock’s friends as a lose term, are white and purportedly heterosexual. Their relationships with him are banal, though the narrative pushes a deep meaning, it’s not expressed onscreen. Don’t get me wrong, I enjoy the show, and I know how the narrative pushes one to feel about each relationship, but when observed from a logical viewpoint and a critical eye for the healthiness of these interactions, they are far less romantic for the antiheroism of Sherlock’s secret heart, and more troubling because of how the show excuses and provides reasons for Sherlock’s rudeness and inattention.

They justify the lead’s crappy treatment of everyone else by essentially asserting he’s better than everyone and can see the truth in the world in a unique way (whether you believe this or not). The “good” guys who dislike Sherlock, understandably so, for his arrogance and rudeness are painted as horrible or stupid people (don’t even get me started on how the show portrays Sally, who happens to be the show’s only recurring WoC, or PoC for that matter). 

mahakavi:

mountlandme:

mahakavi:

“YOU CAN’T COMPARE ELEMENTARY AND SHERLOCK!”
yes you bloody well can
elementary is objectively better and that is a thing that is true you can’t prove otherwise
you can enjoy whatever show you want (i still watch bbc sherlock) just stop making inane comments about elementary, alright? alright
and sherlock fandom, collect your fucking trash please

The way to respond to imature Sherlock fans isn’t to become an immature elementary fan. Both shows are great. 
Yes BBC Sherlock isn’t progressive in its casting but in its cinematography and ways of creating a narrative are progressive.
Elementary isn’t that amazing in the way they tell stories or how they film it but are really progressive with their characterisation and representation.
The way to respond to antagonism isn’t to cite the flaws of one show and the good things about the show you like. Both have good points, both have bad points. Lets not ignore the good points of one and see only the bad points as that makes any argument weak as it is so obviously biased. 
You can be fans of both. One isn’t better than they other, just different.

Sorry (but not sorry) to have to break it to you this way, but an inclusive show is objectively better than one that isn’t. 
BBC Sherlock’s cinematography is wonderful, but that doesn’t excuse the racism and misogyny. 

That&#8217;s the problem with media; people want things that are more appealing, flashier, or cleverer, but if they&#8217;re still stuck perpetuating racism, misogyny, cissexism, and homophobia, what good is that? You may have something pretty to look at or something interesting to feed your bored mind, but anything that&#8217;s substantially meaningful to people who don&#8217;t have representation is going to be more than that. Not saying that people don&#8217;t or can&#8217;t identify with BBC Sherlock, but when you compare its human narrative to Elementary&#8217;s, it pales in comparison; which is sad, because BBC Sherlock&#8217;s overarching view is supposed to be that in the end the mechanical and analytical Sherlock, the rude, selfish, and unabiding man, is actually human after all.
The biggest pitfall of BBC Sherlock is its focus on creating an interesting and pompously clever story line while forgetting the very reason people are supposed to root for Sherlock after all. Human relationships are the heart of a show, of a story, and the biggest difference between Elementary and BBC Sherlock is at the heart of those. Of course, this all correlates withe the progressiveness of these shows. One that takes into account the different types of human beings that exist and their struggles and lack of representation versus one that crafts an almost universally unlikeable man to the rest of his universe, who is an indubitable genius who forces people (who are not very nuanced at all) to tolerate him, is inevitably better at exploring the human beings and their characters. Cinematography is lovely and should be appreciated; it&#8217;s great to look at and experience, but the heart of a series is in its people.

mahakavi:

mountlandme:

mahakavi:

“YOU CAN’T COMPARE ELEMENTARY AND SHERLOCK!”

yes you bloody well can

elementary is objectively better and that is a thing that is true you can’t prove otherwise

you can enjoy whatever show you want (i still watch bbc sherlock) just stop making inane comments about elementary, alright? alright

and sherlock fandom, collect your fucking trash please

The way to respond to imature Sherlock fans isn’t to become an immature elementary fan. Both shows are great. 

Yes BBC Sherlock isn’t progressive in its casting but in its cinematography and ways of creating a narrative are progressive.

Elementary isn’t that amazing in the way they tell stories or how they film it but are really progressive with their characterisation and representation.

The way to respond to antagonism isn’t to cite the flaws of one show and the good things about the show you like. Both have good points, both have bad points. Lets not ignore the good points of one and see only the bad points as that makes any argument weak as it is so obviously biased. 

You can be fans of both. One isn’t better than they other, just different.

Sorry (but not sorry) to have to break it to you this way, but an inclusive show is objectively better than one that isn’t. 

BBC Sherlock’s cinematography is wonderful, but that doesn’t excuse the racism and misogyny. 

That’s the problem with media; people want things that are more appealing, flashier, or cleverer, but if they’re still stuck perpetuating racism, misogyny, cissexism, and homophobia, what good is that? You may have something pretty to look at or something interesting to feed your bored mind, but anything that’s substantially meaningful to people who don’t have representation is going to be more than that. Not saying that people don’t or can’t identify with BBC Sherlock, but when you compare its human narrative to Elementary’s, it pales in comparison; which is sad, because BBC Sherlock’s overarching view is supposed to be that in the end the mechanical and analytical Sherlock, the rude, selfish, and unabiding man, is actually human after all.

The biggest pitfall of BBC Sherlock is its focus on creating an interesting and pompously clever story line while forgetting the very reason people are supposed to root for Sherlock after all. Human relationships are the heart of a show, of a story, and the biggest difference between Elementary and BBC Sherlock is at the heart of those. Of course, this all correlates withe the progressiveness of these shows. One that takes into account the different types of human beings that exist and their struggles and lack of representation versus one that crafts an almost universally unlikeable man to the rest of his universe, who is an indubitable genius who forces people (who are not very nuanced at all) to tolerate him, is inevitably better at exploring the human beings and their characters. Cinematography is lovely and should be appreciated; it’s great to look at and experience, but the heart of a series is in its people.

soul shakin': stankface: birdblankets: What if we got Mary in Sherlock season three....

stankface:

birdblankets:

What if we got Mary in Sherlock season three. What if we got Mary and she was:

  • a woman of color
  • a well-rounded, interesting character in her own right, because of who she is and not how she interacts with John and Sherlock
  • a character that we got to spend time with and fall in love with independent of John and Sherlock
  • what if she wasn’t just grudgingly tolerant of John and Sherlock’s relationship, but was actually engaged in it, a part of it
  • what if she enabled them and encouraged them in their shenanigans and sometimes joined them in kicking ass and had a mischievous streak a mile wide
  • but at the same time she was a safe harbor for John and a leveling influence on Sherlock
  • what if she called Sherlock out on his misogyny and put him in his fucking place
  • what if they were all great together
  • what if they were all a team and had fun with each other and worked better together once Mary joined them
  • what if

Had to reblog from the source because the person on my dash was complaining about the first bulletimage

(via potentpotions)

(Source: wholockian221b, via mythornsareofsteel)

greenparcel:

…this was supposed to be some super serious fan-comic but then my brain farted on the second page.

(via secretspy0404)