although i'm not upset about it

may-darling  asked:

Hey Em! I haven't seen the Sherlock episode yet but lots of my friends were pretty upset about it. And although I was a true Sherlockian the last couple of years I am less and less inclined to buy this season. I will probably watch this last episode but the way I currently read it, it didn't save the rest of the season for me like i hope. In my opinion they got to lost in the grandeur of a high budget. In the end they cared more about a spectacle than a truly good story. (1/2)

(2/2) I also still feel slightly uncomfortable about episode two who I think was a bit foreshadowing for episode 3? Maybe? Were they needed to make EVERY. SINGLE. CHARACTER. HETERO. In the last couple of minutes. My queer ace heart was not particularly pleased about it. Also: This season was fucking dark as shit and it left me feel weird. Not only because of hella depressing themes but overall the vibe of the OOC characters.

In a way, Sherlock has always, for me, been a lot about the look o the thing as much as the story. There are just some really beautiful iconic shots that will stay with me; there are lines of dialogue that stay with me too. In these latest episodes, we had “it is what it is” and “soldiers today”, both of which I thought were really nice touches. the stories that they were involved in… the killing off of Mary, the dark Saw-esque “shall we play a game”… I wasn’t so moved by them as I was by those lines of dialogue. One of the reasons I loved Sherlock at the beginning was its sheer style. In that last episode, though, style diverged too far away from substance, for me. The plot just didn’t hang together imo and the last act was so rushed as to be jarring.

Also, I agree that in hindsight, the decision to suddenly take a dive into Mycroft’s sexual proclivities in the second (and arguably the start of the third) episode feels fairly deliberate, given how sexuality was brought up in the TFP. Mycroft is firmly placed on the side of the heteros, just so we know he’s good - in much the same way as Irene was self-professed gay and definitely a villain, until she fell in love with a man and her character began to edge upwards on the moral spectrum. The overt text of Sherlock tells us that the straights are on the good side, and the gays are on the bad. And that is not a fun thing. Do not like.

Sherlock has always been kind of dark - the Reichenbach Fall wrecked me for weeks, honestly, I cried and cried - but I agree with you that this was a different kind of dark. I didn’t cry, I just felt hollow. It wasn’t a fun kind of horrible, like Jim Moriarty; it disturbed me, it made me want to look away. I can only speak from my own perspective here and I completely appreciate that other viewers might have thoroughly enjoyed the darkness. But given the claustrophobia and pointlessness of the “case” of the episode, I just ended up wanting to turn it off.

hungryhungryhannibal  asked:

I love your headcanons about the Railroad gang. So how do you think the rest of the RR would react to finding out Deacon and the Sole Survivor are in a relationship?

Aw, thank you! I love thinking about these misfits, and I’m lucky people send in questions that me ramble about them.

@allmyvault and I kinda riffed on this concept one night and it went like this:

Fraternization is never good because shit can get complicated and awkward if things go south, but no one can really tell Deacon what to do. I mean, Dez can try but he’s often off working on whatever he wants. He’s a lifer, he’s not going to be kicked out of the Railroad for bad behavior (they tried a few times, but he just keeps showing up).

There’s a general air in HQ of “do not fuck this up, Deacon” because the Railroad is already running on borrowed time and they don’t need a setback or a new enemy in the form of a jilted lover who knows where their secret HQ is, and they really can’t afford Deacon doing his usual disappearing act if he gets hurt.

Desdemona is a bit more on edge about it than everyone else, just because this is another thing that can potentially go wrong on an already long list of things that can go wrong. She’s got Glory, though, so who’s she to talk about fraternizing? (Just my headcanon) She definitely does a few shots when she finds the two of them making out somewhere for the first time. She asks Deacon later, in all seriousness, “Are you sure about this?” and when he nods his head and responds, “Yeah, Dez… sure as I can be,” she wants to believe him.

Drummer Boy really likes the idea. Deacon’s such a great agent, and the Survivor is too, so what could be better than the two of them together? They’re some sort of super squad. Drummer Boy writes friend fiction about them, complete with drawings. A few copies of their Rated-R adventures circulate through HQ, and you’re goddamn right Deacon and the Survivor read them together.

Carrington initially thinks it’s neither the time nor place for this kind of thing, but it’s happening whether he approves or not. He has one conversation with Deacon about it, it goes nowhere fast, and he drops the subject. The two agents do get quite a lot of work done, so if anything, it seems like a great motivator, for however long it lasts. Deacon does seem a little less… flighty with the Survivor around. 

Glory may not be Deacon’s biggest fan, but she’s not heartless. She fought hard for the life she’s built, including the love in it, and she wouldn’t deny anyone the same right. Plus, she’s a hopeless romantic, which is why she’s the first in line for Drummer Boy’s monthly friend fiction stories. She and Dez really enjoyed the crossover friend fic that Drummer Boy did with them and Deacon and the Survivor, titled “THE DOUBLE DATE OF DEATH” where the four of them took out an entire nest of Super Mutants using nothing but swords and grenades.

P.A.M. places the statistical probability that they will last more than six months at 33.333%. Once the Institute is dismantled, she recalculates it to 68.94%.

Tinker Tom is happy for them once he notices it. He doesn’t ask a lot of questions about it, he’d rather know Deacon’s other secrets (TIME TRAVEL), but Deacon talks less and smiles more, and the Survivor seems more relaxed, so that’s good, right? He hopes it stays that way.

You know what I think about this a lot, but am I the only one that’s actually made pretty uncomfortable by the idea that romantic/sexual attraction is what gender you’re attracted to?

I understand why that was changed from sex, because that was problematic in itself

But I don’t feel like gender is a better term either because that’s presuming that you can somehow see and determine gender when?? It’s one of the most volatile, indistinguishable and intangible things on the planet?? How in the hell are you attracted to gender?? What is gender?? Where is it???

idk maybe it’s just cause i’m non-binary (and quite clearly straight men and non-straight women arent attracted to me bc of my gender) so I suppose it affects me more directly, or rather I have more reason to question it…. who knows

In case you were wondering why a lot of Britain seems upset/angry/hopeless right now, this is why: We’ve just had an election, and the British political system is so fucked up and broken that the blue section is classed as a ‘majority’- and that means David Cameron has remained as prime minister.

This is because he got more ‘seats’ in government; The way it works in Britain is that you vote for an MP to represent your local area, and if more than 50% of the 650 elected MPs belong to one party, that’s classed as a ‘majority’, and the leader of that party is automatically asked by the Queen to form a government. Note: This is mostly a ceremonial role now, it’s just traditional, the queen’s involvement means very little.

The reason the process is flawed is that the MPs don’t actually need to get more than 50% of the votes to be elected- they just have to get the most votes for their constituency. Essentially, one candidate could have 9500 votes, and three other candidates have 9499 each, and that first candidate would still win. It’s only the parties who need a majority of seats- because of that, technically you could have a majority conservative government even if Labour candidates had more actual votes.

Essentially, this means that the Conservative party, if they all agree with a policy being voted on, can ensure that it’s approved; that’s going to mean benefits cuts, tax reductions for the wealthy, and bits of our treasured NHS being sold off to private companies amongst other things. 

On top of all that, the polls and predictions we’ve had in the run up to the election all suggested that it would be very, very close- it looked like no one party would have a majority, which would have meant a ‘hung parliament’, where different parties have to work together to gain a majority, and it was only in the final poll after the elections closed that anyone realised someone might win a majority.. (Sadly it doesn’t mean we get to hang all the politicians and start again…)

So yeah, we’re a bit angry. I hope you can understand why.