Requested by whoverine 

Wowow that was fun! I got kind of carried away on the tiger (ノ◕◕)ノ (but really, I loved doing this, thank you for your request!) ooweee


Some Sherlock/His Dark Materials sketchcards for katiewont to go with this.

Commission information here.

Mycroft Holmes is prepared to acknowledge that Malcolm Tucker is very clever, too, though the realisation is old and tame as the metre of ancient carpet between their chairs.

He’s gleaned this Absolute Truth from Tucker’s silence, rather than the irritable darting he does in the corners of television screens and the sustained high-velocity Scottish roaring he’s rumoured to do behind every camera. The PM’s undertaker has come neatly turned out, gaunt and sleek in a thousand pound coat and, today, utterly without a politician’s unawareness of how to wear a shirt. Everything about him is new as his shining turncoat halfway red party and objectively very dangerous. Already he knows not to shake Mycroft’s hand.

So you’re Westminster, like he’s imagined the place into existence – so you’re all the rest – this is enough. (x)


Mikey Holmes, the most powerful man in Britain bickering with his mother like a five year old.

(Source: ohgodbenny)


hollydiggity replied to your post: don’t even get me started…

my idea for that is that john really didn’t have that many issues from the war cause he’s kind of generally okay with whatever? i think he was less PTSD from the war and more like, fuck i’m bored, i can’t shoot anyone now which Sherlock did change.

I am not comfortable, myself, making a claim on whether or not John has PTSD because I’ve no experience with it and wouldn’t know. I do have a theory that is similar to what you said, because the experience of combat and the sort of bonds formed with the men and women you experience it with would be intense and thrilling as much as terrifying and almost an emotional high that would be very very very hard to recreate in a civilian setting (War by Sebastian Junger is a very interesting read in regards to this) and to be torn from that so suddenly (to be torn from those people so suddenly) without an adequate support system would be wrecking and definitely definitely John would attach himself to Sherlock is Sherlock was offering an alternative life that brought those bonds and feelings back.

But almost everything about John’s struggle just disappears until Sherlock “dies,” then it reappears, and I find that a bit, very not right. John is still in the civilian world, even if it is a world with a hidden war. I suppose this is ok considering the tone of show, but I have problems with the tone of Sherlock too. (I am not a fan of how cartoonish it is. I think it would benefit by addressing these sorts of issues a little more, because it brings them up. But that’s just the way I see it.)

hollydiggity replied to your post: hollydiggity replied to y…

no don’t be sorry cause i like to talk about this too and it’s overlooked a lot and like, i love the show but there’s absolutely wasted potential. and with mycroft i’d love to know if he justifies his actions to himself or if he accepts it?

Probably Mycroft is smart enough to know that what he is doing is not right and that quite a bit of his justification for it is complete utter bullshit, but he probably also believes, truly believes, in the soul way, that the world can not exist without Structure and that the Structure it needs can not exist without Evil (a word which, I am sure, he both reflexively respects but outwardly looks down upon as the rhetoric of antiquated religio types).

(And Moriarty is Anti-Structure, Chaos, and those developments in science that leave us both knowing and more confused.)

But this is delving purely in the realm of my headcanon, now, so.

Also, I think to an extent Sherlock had a duty to tackle these issues further than it did rather than ducking sidelong and using them almost cartoonishly, to use Will’s word? Because it very deliberately made John a veteran of a contemporary ongoing conflict (used actual combat footage as its opening shots and everything) and Mycroft an Orwellian CCTV-type counter-terrorism Ambiguous Government Figure with specific ties to present intelligence culture and controversies (torture, mass surveillance, airplanes as terrorist targets, etc).

But it engaged with these issues about as far as the Doyle stories did, which in my mind is equivalent to making a modern show and keeping carriages instead of cars but I think about this shit a lot but you know. Doyle’s Watson does have a kind of war trauma, but the first Strand stories appeared long before the First World War and so that wasn’t a prominent or explored theme in British literature; Mycroft’s canonical position in the government is satisfyingly ambiguous because this was the late Victorian era before the formation of Britain’s modern intelligence services and the development of a culture of suspicion towards government. You get that information about them and then they function independently of that, mostly in relation to the younger Holmes.

This needed an update and didn’t get it. I think Sherlock’s John and Mycroft are a Traumatised War Veteran and an Ambiguous Government Figure with references to, but not actual engagement with, modern warfare and politics, if that makes sense. That’s cowardly, complacent writing, and a dangerously complacent attitude to have. I also see so little discussion (in the Sherlock fandom, but also about wider media) of the wider implications of PTSD in veterans or surveillance culture or torture or the changing power of government - and I understand this isn’t what the show is about, but if you’re going to have characters so closely tied to these fundamental problems we have living post-9/11 you’ve got some responsibility to have or create the fucking discussion, surely.

SORRY this sort of thing is about 85% of what I think about at any given time help

archive older ›
get your car outta that gear
theme by Robin Wragg