chekhov's-gun

obsessivelollipoplalala  asked:

Hi, Steph! I was thinking about how weird it is that we never know what John's note to Sherlock in TST says and how it could be seen as evidence that s4 is fucky, but how do you think John's note could play into the fuckiness? Like we gotta find out what it says, but why withhold that info? If I'm making sense

Hahah, the note is one of many things that were introduced that could explain a tonne of the plot problems, yet they’re never talked about and / or discarded them in TFP. Something’s fucky in my humble opinion, and TFP is why I’m super suspicious about everything.

anonymous asked:

"It STARTS our story" when you said this you mean bellarke that they aren't gonna have any buildup, for a part i find it logical because we had 4 years of developement and build and both still pinning for each other like you said in other post a weeks ago love at first side and they stting up their romance in s4 finale,but for other they have been apart 6 years maybe we get some reconection but seeing that they are been promo the bunker out loud and bellarke i can see puting them together soon.

Exactly. They’ve done all this development for four seasons and left us with a Bellarke separation cliffhanger. 

So when they come back to the new season, they have to resolve the cliffhanger. The cliffhanger was, “where is bellamy, why aren’t Clarke and Bellamy together.” It was framed as specifically Bellamy because that’s who she was talking to. And, for the bellarke shippers, “WHERE WERE THOSE BELLARKE FEELINGS HEADING!”

I’ve talked about the chekhov’s gun, the story telling concept that, if you show a gun in chapter 1, you have to use it by the end of the story. The “gun” they were showing in this scenario, was an intense, personal, physically close, emotionally open, centering, trusting relationship, which got closer and closer to consummation until Clarke made a move and Bellamy ran away. And yet, even after they pull away from each other, by Praimfaya, they had regained that emotional connection, adding in intimate TOUCHING, not casual, and an urge to “hurry,” so that they could be together and go into space…

AND THEN NOTHING. Or rather, then tragic separation that was legitimately WORSE than all the other separations, as he thought she was dead and she was left alone on a barren earth waiting and pining. Their mutual self sacrifice culminating in the loaded gun of Bellarke romance, pointed, cocked, ready to go off, and then stopped by a six year separation.

I’m still so pissed. 

BUT that chekhov’s gun has NOT gone away. As a tv show, episodic in nature, rather than a novel (which I’m sorry to say is where i get my story structure from, so my bad. recognize that I’m a novelist not a tv writer, please,) they do cliffhangers to keep the audience interested for the next season. And they made Bellarke romance a big part of the cliffhanger. Loaded gun. “Waiting for the other shoe to drop.” It’s a way to build tension and anticipation and get us invested.

Which means we must get off the cliff right away when we come back. Gotta pull the trigger. DROP. THE. DAMN. SHOE.

I think the REUNION will be without buildup. Not like season 3, where, she was missing, we saw their lives without her (we’ve already gotten that in the last scene of s4, btw, so check that off the development list. he’s missing, we see her life alone,) he hears news of her (sees the eligius thinking it’s him,) he spots her and risks his life for her and loses her, goes to rescue her in polis and is rejected, she goes to him in arkadia and is rejected, they are finally reunited in nevermore. Like, that took HALF a season. I don’t think that will happen again. Or even the reunion of season 2 where it took 5 episodes. 

First off, they’ve done some of the bellarke reunion development already in Praimfaya. Secondly, Clarke has no one to act with or against until spacekru comes down. I might have thought Eligius, but JR said that she wants to be harsh and murdery with them and Bellamy talks her down. So she’s Wanheda. If she wants to be murdery she’ll be murdery and that she doesn’t means her dealings with Eligius are going to be influenced by Bellamy, so until spacekru comes back, her Eligius dealings will be kept to a minimum, meaning, again, she’s got no story until they come back. Especially since she can’t open the bunker without help, and she’s not getting help from Eligius, not unless Bellamy’s there, so again, no story without Bellamy. From a NON romance perspective. 

I just don’t see them holding off the reunion. As for the development of Bellarke romance? They’re going to have to reconnect, but I do NOT believe that the connection they made over the 4 seasons will have disappeared. When they meet, it will be like strangers–but strangers who are intimately connected, have immediate trust and respect and understanding, and a sudden intense attraction and need to be together.

In other words: It’s going to be love at first sight for them. 

I think they went from the enemies to friends to…almost lovers, mutual pining trope in seasons 1-4 and now they’re switching over to the love at first sight, fated to be together, missing other half, true love soul mate (as in the greek soul mate,) trope. But it won’t be a magic connection they have it will be one that they developed, already. So when it explodes, it’s going to be

A.

FUCKING.

MAZING.

cornerbackcastiel  asked:

Hiya! I see you (and/or lizbob?) mention chekov's guns a few times recently. Do you have a post or link that talks about what those are? I feel like it might be a kinda-sorta inverted red herring but I've never heard of the phrase before.

The phrase is attributed to playwright Anton Chekhov, hence the name. It’s a very simple concept that applies to pretty much all fiction writing:

That every element in a story must be somehow RELEVANT to the narrative, otherwise it’s making a false promise to the reader/viewer and should be removed.

Most frequently it’s quoted along the lines of, “If you introduce a gun in the first act of a play, it must go off by the end of the third act.”

Chekhov himself is quoted in various ways making this same sort of comment. He equated it with making “false promises” to the reader (or to the viewer of a play). In a way it’s sort of like a red herring, but even something that’s a “red herring” has a narrative purpose. It’s one thing to DELIBERATELY mislead the audience in order to subvert expectations later in the narrative (what would a murder mystery be without that element of suspense, right?), but an element that doesn’t even have THAT narrative purpose and is otherwise just sitting there like an unfired gun that NEVER goes off… 

That’s the difference. A red herring DOES “get fired” later in the story. It HAS a purpose in the narrative, even if that purpose is to serve as a distraction.

So all red herrings are chekhov’s guns, but not all chekhov’s guns are red herrings?

To clarify, if the gun is introduced, it must go off. But it the shot might miss its target. Or maybe it was fired into the ground. Or in self-defense and not murder. Whatever the case, it has no narrative purpose unless it is fired. Even if the firing of the gun is part of the trick. If it just hangs on the wall untouched for the entire play (or novel, or tv show or movie or whatever), there’s no narrative point to even mentioning it was there in the first place.

It’s the narrative equivalent of a movie studio announcing there’s queer representation in their movie, only to learn later that they simply hadn’t declared anyone’s sexuality at all, leaving it up to the viewer’s interpretation. They deceived the audience, and I think everyone agrees that’s a bad thing to do, right?

Chekhov thought so too. 

anonymous asked:

please i'm so sure of this i need to say this somewhere but i don't have a big blog, HARRY IS THE CHECKHOVS GUN OF THE SERIES. mofftiss have talked about us missing something big and the average fans don't really think or care about johns backstory or his family history, but harry has been mentioned periodically since the VERY FIRST EPISODE, so she's "the other one" (mycroft knows everything so he knows what emotional stuff happened to/between the twins that made them both fucked up addicts)

UGGGGGHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH NONNY YOU ARE SO RIGHT. 

GIVE US HARRY WATSON YOU MONSTERS, NOT RENT-A-VILLAIN CHURROS.

helenxwoh  asked:

Hello! Do you know who has the dagger which was used to try to kill Bran? Either in the books or the show.

I don’t know (or care) about the show, but in the books, Ned took the dagger from Catelyn when she came to King’s Landing, and Petyr Baelish claimed Tyrion had won it from him at Joffrey’s 12th birthday tourney. (Which was not true, it was Robert that had won it.) Littlefinger took the dagger back from Ned in the throne room coup scene:

As his men died around him, Littlefinger slid Ned’s dagger from its sheath and shoved it up under his chin. His smile was apologetic. “I did warn you not to trust me, you know.”

–AGOT, Eddard XIV

The last we saw of it, he was using it to cut fruit…

Petyr cut a pomegranate in two with his dagger, offering half to Sansa. “You should try and eat, my lady.”   
“Thank you, my lord.” Pomegranate seeds were so messy; Sansa chose a pear instead, and took a small delicate bite. 

…while teaching Sansa a certain lesson:

“Tell me, Alayne—which is more dangerous, the dagger brandished by an enemy, or the hidden one pressed to your back by someone you never even see?”
“The hidden dagger.”
“There’s a clever girl.” He smiled, his thin lips bright red from the pomegranate seeds. “When the Imp sent off her guards, the queen had Ser Lancel hire sellswords for her. Lancel found her the Kettleblacks, which delighted your little lord husband, since the lads were in his pay through his man Bronn.” He chuckled. “But it was me who told Oswell to get his sons to King’s Landing when I learned that Bronn was looking for swords. Three hidden daggers, Alayne, now perfectly placed.”
“So one of the Kettleblacks put the poison in Joff’s cup?” Ser Osmund had been near the king all night, she remembered.
“Did I say that?” Lord Petyr cut the blood orange in two with his dagger and offered half to Sansa. “The lads are far too treacherous to be part of any such scheme… and Osmund has become especially unreliable since he joined the Kingsguard. That white cloak does things to a man, I find. Even a man like him.” He tilted his chin back and squeezed the blood orange, so the juice ran down into his mouth. “I love the juice but I loathe the sticky fingers,” he complained, wiping his hands. “Clean hands, Sansa. Whatever you do, make certain your hands are clean.”

–ASOS, Sansa VI

The fact that the Valyrian steel dagger, one of GRRM’s biggest Chekhov’s guns (if fired already, but then hung back on the wall) appears in this highly metaphorical and foreshadowing-filled scene with Sansa… well. I think, I hope, I believe this dagger will play a certain part in Littlefinger’s downfall. And since it’s Valyrian steel, then likely Sansa will have the dagger for defense against the Others during the upcoming War for the Dawn. Hope that helps!

  • interviewer: you've put a gun in all of your episodes that is labeled, quite literally, "chekhov's gun", which belongs to a character in your show named chekhov
  • me: yeah
  • interviewer: and you include a zoom-in on the gun every episode to make sure the audience can see it
  • me: i do
  • interviewer: why is that
  • me: i like reading really angry and wildly theoretical thinkpieces

anonymous asked:

If b & c were truly just good friends/best friends then there would be no drama or need for delay about them saying I love you/etc esp when she thinks she's going to die in 4x13. If that was all there is and all the writers ever intended it to be in the future there'd be no need for them to be always interrupted or hold back from saying how they feel. Just imo though.

In my opinion, too. Not just narratively, but with the way the characters act around each other.

With a platonic best friend relationship, there’s no anxiety about touching or how someone feels. There are simply no longing looks when the other isn’t paying attention. The platonic relationship is significantly devoid of longing, that’s what makes it platonic. Bellamy could say goodbye to Jasper, knowing that it was their last meeting, even though it hurt, because there was no further longing or desire or unspoken feelings. He was forced to let Clarke say goodbye to him, and it came out of those gentle touches, and Clarke’s longing to be touched by him even though she thought she was dying, and even then, he didn’t accept it, telling her that he had her to be the head, claiming a further connection that would be spoken at a later date….

except it wasn’t. He had to leave her behind and left half his heart behind with her.

Not platonic. 

Also left unfinished, unstated, open ended. 

I said that they would have to pick up the intimacy of the Bellarke relationship of the early season 4, as a chekhov’s gun. They still have to do that. I was incorrect in assuming they were planning to resolve that storyline WITHIN season 4. 

Nope. They left the emotional and romantic Bellarke connection as part of their cliffhanger. 

The Bellarke romance was the cliffhanger for season 4. 

Bellarke romance, why spacekru didn’t come down on time, what happened to the bunker folk, and Eligius. 

Four cliffhangers. One of which is Bellamy’s love for Clarke and Clarke’s love for Bellamy, which has been separated, and yet, kept alive by 2199 days of sending him messages. She loves him. She has been focused on him for 6 years without contact. Will he still feel the same way? Will he love her back? Will he ever know? Will she tell him? We know they WILL come back together, but the cliffhanger is HOW that relationship will shake out. That is not platonic. There would be no dramatic tension if they were just good buds. Because there would be no expectations.

What kind of romance bullshit is this?

Not a romance my ass.

I want my money back. 

No. I just want a Bellarke kiss. Talkin’ to you @the100writers

Thoughts after a rewatch...

Stranger things season 3 will have a love triangle with Mike/El/Will and a lot of people will be surprised but tbh I will be surprised if they DON’T do that because I feel like they’ve been building to that over the two series.

1) all the gay coding for Will. It’s either gonna come up eventually or else it’s just another example of creators being too chicken shit to actually have gay characters. Also if it doesn’t come up or figure into the plot then that’s just shitty writing. Chekhov’s gun and whatnot. Don’t allude to it (in somewhat blatant ways imo) unless it’s going to mean something later and actually factor into the plot. Otherwise Joyce going “hey my son is missing and yea ok he may be gay but let’s not get into that now…” seems like bad writing and all the gay slurs seem excessive and unnecessary.
Yes incidental gayness is a thing and should be a thing with characters, but this never felt like that. They kinda clunked us over the head with it (I think. Tho some may have missed it, but I think it’s very obvious for anyone who pays attention, knows how subtext and foreshadowing work, and aren’t blind to the idea that non straight characters exist)

2) all the parallels between Will and El. They both are the closest to Mike. He is kinda their knight in shining armor and they know it. They’ve both now spent a respective season being super close to Mike while the other was out of the picture. So. Many. Parallels. Others have made great posts pointing these out. Calling for Mike in the upside down, hand holding scenes highlighted by camera close ups (once again thunk thunk on the head), scenes that are literally the same for both Will and El, shot wise and dialogue wise. It’s a lot. If it was just to show how Mike is both the closest to those two than its kinda unnecessary? I mean I think you can show that a character is close to two people without literally repeating scenes/scenarios and whatnot. Especially when you are repeating scenes/dialogue that was between a character and his female love interest. It’s just suspicious as hell and once again shows either brilliant forethought or complete ignorance as to how the Mike/Will stuff could be seen (do show runners not realize if you code characters in a romantic way then people will think that? And it’s not ridiculous or crazy when we do? So many times they go “that wasn’t our intention! Not gay!” Yea ok but then why did you write, direct and shoot it that way then? Riddle me that.)

3) Will and El have yet to actually share one scene or properly meet onscreen. Besides that one scene in the first season where El approached him in the void whatever, they have yet to really interact (also was Will the only person she could touch in the void? Am I remembering this correctly? If so that’s interesting enough on its own). This is suspicious. Are they saving it for something big? If not then why not have them finally meet this season? Seems about time, no? Why not a scene with them meeting at the snow ball at last? Yet they didn’t and I refuse to believe it’s just an oversight. Going two full seasons without any actual interaction seems silly and blatant as hell and once again IMO it’s either part of a well thought out plan and good writing or it’s a huge error and lazy storytelling.

4) all the other “couples” have had love triangles more or less. Steve and Jonathan and Nancy. Dustin and Lucas and Max. I’m not sure if Bob and Joyce and Hopper qualify but maybe if you squint? I guess t could since Joyce was with Bob even though it was clear Hopper cares deeply for her, even if it wasn’t a typical triangle situation (aka jealousy, longing looks, tension etc). It would be off trend for El and Mike to not have a triangle as well, and so far who is the only one of the kids to not have a love interest or crush? Will. Well…that we know of.
And some could argue that well wasn’t the Mike and El triangle with Max, seeing as how El was jealous of Max? And maybe. But I don’t really think that works because a love triangle is, well, a triangle. One character being jealous over two characters who don’t even like each other romantically (and Mike barely liked Max at all) does not a love triangle make. If anything it felt like a fake out. A faux triangle. Is the real one coming next season?

And yes I realize Will was super busy being kidnapped and possessed over two seasons to like be a normal teen and worry about crushes and whatnot, I grant you, but if they wanted to they could have easily had a throw away line or two about liking a girl or wanting to ask a girl to dance blah blah. They didn’t. Ever. And I feel like with the kids most likely moving into high school next series, this is going to become glaringly obvious that Will hasn’t had a love interest or even the inkling of one. And I think it would be the perfect time to go there with him.

I just read an article from Indiewire where the Duffers were saying that series three will be less about expanding their universe, and more about intimate moments, aka character building and getting to know more about these characters, as well as dealing with the things that happen with a group coming of age/teenage stuff. So yeah, basically a perfect time to get to know more of who Will is as a person.

Why not fire that Chekov’s gun and reveal that Will is gay and likes Mike? Not only would this be an original and interesting spin on things, it would be a great surprise twist to the majority of the public who are too stupid to pick up on these things, and also be very inspiring to kids who desperately need to see this kind of representation.

If a fucking DISNEY show can have a gay preteen/teen or whatever then this show, that def skews more adult, can have one. And no I am not here for the “sexualizing kids” wank, so don’t even start that shit. Gay relationships are not inherently sexual and if you immediately go there then the issue lays with you and your prejudices. Gay people do not spring forth fully formed as adults. Gay adults come from–surprise–gay kids. And there should be depictions of that onscreen. It’s not dirty or wrong, and if you think a teen having an crush on a boy and holding their hand, or giving them an innocent peck or something is “omg sexualizing!!1” but it’s a-ok if it’s a boy and a girl, then you need to investigate your own hang ups and biases. I’m not here for that.

Anyways that’s my thoughts on the issue. I look forward to next series, and with a focus on the characters and their relationships, plus all the build up from the first two series, I really can’t help but feel like they are going somewhere surprising (to others, not me or to anyone who pays attention) next series.

But I will admit I’ve been here before–convinced that the foreshadowing and subtext and everything was so clearly saying one thing when in the end….it was not. And it was a huge let down (and more often than not an obvious cop out). So we will see. If there isn’t a love triangle angle then fine, but more than anything I am convinced they will move forward on the whole Will/gay thing (but truly I think all the build up so far screams that there will be at least some sort of…~tension there between Mike/Will/El)

In the end I am here for a good story. An original story where original things happen. So far this show hasn’t let me down on that front. I’ve yet to be truly let down or disgusted with this show yet so my hopes are high.

And I don’t have any skin in this game–I am cis straight woman–so if they don’t go there then it is what it is. But my passion comes from wanting to see the best story. To see the outcome of the tale they’ve been telling from the start. To see the foreshadowing and subtext that’s been there all along pay off in the end. To not see creative people cop out. To see representation and diversity in fiction. I value that in creators and I think more of that is needed.

But as I’ve been saying, it’s either shitty writing in the end or it isn’t. We shall see.

@doctorsuperman Okay, I hope I explain this in a way makes sense, because I’m not a writing teacher or anything. Just an aspiring writer. But it comes from a quote from Anton Chekhov: “If in the first act you have hung a pistol on the wall, then in the following one it should be fired.”

Basically, if you make sure to point out an object/person/etc. in the background that isn’t immediately relevant to the scene, that it should be relevant later on. Here are two examples, one from the movie Baby Driver and one from the show Major Crimes. (Also, I’m trying to be detailed enough so that if you haven’t seen either of those things you get the point, but also not to patronize you if you have seen them or spoil it for you if you haven’t but plan to, so bear with me.)

In Baby Driver, music plays a heavy role (and the soundtrack on that movie is KILLER), especially to the main character, Baby. At one point, Baby and another character are bonding over their taste in music, specifically the song “Brighton Rock” by Queen. On the surface, it seems like more of a character-establishing scene, but later, in a very important scene, “Brighton Rock” returns.

The Major Crimes example is a bit more obvious, but not in a clunky way. Major Crimes - typical police procedural show (one of the best). In one episode, the victim is a runaway with an assumed name. They solve the case, but they never discover her real identity and thus can’t notify her parents. In one scene, later in the season or even in the next season, I noticed that in the background, on the white board, was the victim’s picture. And based on camera angle and the way the actors were standing, it was clearly meant to be seen, and I was immediately like “They’re going to re-address that on some later date.” Spoiler alert: They did.

Now, the cat could have just been to point out the asthma (which, if the asthma ends up being relevant, is still sort of a Chekhov’s gun), but a detective also mentioned the cat’s existence, so. I’m not very far into the series, but if I were writing it, that cat would definitely end up being relevant to the case somehow (and not just because I love cats).

Wow. I clearly get very excited about Chekhov’s gun. Did not realize that.

fried-cereal  asked:

whats all this about johns letter? also what letter are ppl referring to?

Hi Lovely!

At the end of T6T, Molly gives a letter to Sherlock that is apparently from John, and she tells him to not read it right then. Sherlock does end up reading it in the taxi scene that immediately follows, but we NEVER FIND OUT WHAT’S ON THE LETTER. It’s a case of Chekov’s gun (”If you say in the first chapter that there is a rifle hanging on the wall, in the second or third chapter it absolutely must go off. If it’s not going to be fired, it shouldn’t be hanging there.” x).

Essentially, it, along with many things in S4, should not have been introduced if the writers were never going to do anything with said items. They made a big deal about the letter at the end of T6T; it should have been addressed in either TLD or TFP

There are many theories as to what is on the letterbut unless it’s addressed in either a secret episode or S5E01, then they should have never introduced it as an important plot device in the first place. 

Literary Device: Chekhov’s Gun

Chekhov’s gun is one of my favorite literary devices. This literary device is when the author introduces an object (it can be anything though, like a character or a phrase) that seems invaluable, but later becomes important to the story. Basically: introduce the gun in the first act, fire in the second.

When using Chekhov’s gun, you can do a few things. The first is using it as a red herring. A red herring is a clue that throws the reader off track or a false clue. This is often used in mysteries. Using Chekhov’s gun as a red herring is exactly that: introduce a seemingly pointless object, but hint it might have some significance. However, this has to be executed extremely well to work. If it’s not, your attempt will be seen as useless and an editor will delete it. The reader has to truly believe the object has some sort of significance for this device to work. Never introduce something and then never mention it again.

Or the object could be both Chekhov’s gun and a red herring. Two objects may be introduced and one may carry out as the object readers will see as important and significant. However, the second object, forgotten and completely insignificant, can make a quick comeback. The first object would be the red herring, the second object would be Chekhov’s gun, and putting them together would be a plot twist.

The second way to use Chekhov’s gun is the old fashion way of introducing an object and not explaining its significance until later. JK Rowling did this in The Order of the Phoenix when Harry and the others were cleaning out Grimmauld Place. They found a locket that no one could open and then tossed it to the side. That was one of Voldemort’s horcruxes, but no one knew it until the next book.

Chekhov’s gun is similar to foreshadowing, but not the same. Using an object to foreshadow an event and then using that object in the event is Chekhov’s gun. using Harry Potter as an example again, Dumbledore’s warning to stay away from a part of the third floor is foreshadowing because its significance was heavily implied.

Depending on who you talk to, the guidelines for Chekhov’s gun will vary. Some believe it is synonymous with foreshadowing while others do not.

Who brings a knife to a gunfight?

I’ve a seen few people throw around the idea of Chekhov’s gun in reference to S4 (I think the first was @finalproblem) but I don’t think anyone has put this in one place yet, so here we go. Full disclosure: I’m a supporter of alibi theory (linking @inevitably-johnlocked‘s tag for this, because there’s a lot there).

We are first shown Sherlock’s knife in A Study in Pink, when Sherlock stabs his mail to the mantel. This is basically the first thing we see happen at 221B.

This knife remained on the mantel until the Watson Domestic in His Last Vow, when we saw it standing between John and Mary. @just-sort-of-happened noticed this years ago.

Next, we see a Victorian version of the knife in The Abominable Bride, when John and Sherlock arrive at the beginning of the episode, and John is narrating. He explains that there are truths that he can’t tell us.

“Over the many years it has been my privilege to record the exploits of my remarkable friend, Mr Sherlock Holmes, it has sometimes been difficult to choose which of his many cases to set before my readers. Some are still too sensitive to recount.”

On that familiar theme, “Some are still too sensitive to recount”, we focus on the knife.

[During S4 setlock, Sherlockology posted a picture of the knife stabbing the deerstalker into the mantel. A problem that remains to be solved? I’m not keen on its reappearance in The Lying Detective, so I hope so. But I digress.]

In The Six Thatchers, the first thing that happens in 221B is again Sherlock plunging the knife into the mail on the mantel. But this time, it’s a new knife. (Yeah, it was in the setlock photo above, too.)

What happened to the old knife? Like Chekhov’s gun, it was sitting there all this time, quietly waiting to be used, and now it has been replaced.

The dominant theory about Mary’s death appears to be that it didn’t occur in the way that we were shown, but we all seem to agree that she was shot. We keep seeing that smoking gun, as a dream or in memory (check out @somedrunkpirate‘s gun meta if you haven’t).

Then why is the knife missing? And why does a missing knife sound familiar? In John’s The Six Thatchers blog post, a man kills his lover, and then hides the murder weapon, a knife, in a bust of Margaret Thatcher. John and Sherlock catch the killer, but the story still nags at Sherlock.

Sherlock has now had five years (since A Scandal in Belgravia) to figure out how to do that. One way or another, the knife has to have been involved in Mary’s death, such that it had to be disposed of, and I think that means that Mary’s death probably occurred at 221B.

But who was wielding the knife, who did they stab, and how does the gun factor in? Did Mary threaten Sherlock with the knife, prompting John to shoot her? Was Mary even shot at all? Her body was cremated, so maybe she was stabbed. Maybe the gun is a red herring, after all.

Now that we’re dealing with multiple weapons, this really is beginning to sound like a game of Cluedo.

Thoughts?

Tagging people under the cut.

ETA: I posted a partial correction for this post here, based on a closer look at the knife in the pilot, ASIP, HLV, and S4.

Keep reading

sarellathesandsnake  asked:

Do you think we'll find out what exactly happened to Ashara or are we going to have to live with the theory that Brandon impregnated her and she (maybe?) lost the baby and killed herself?

Almost certainly we’ll find out. It’s not like everything we know about Ashara Dayne was infodumped on us all at once, it’s been developed throughout the series.

  • AGOT > rumor that Ashara is Jon’s mother, rumor that she and Ned were in love, story that she killed herself after Ned returned Dawn to the Daynes after Arthur’s death and/or because her child was stolen from her; detail that she was beautiful and had violet eyes
  • ASOS > story that Ashara was at the Tourney at Harrenhal and danced with several men including Ned (by Brandon’s request), detail that she was one of Elia’s companions
  • ADWD > story that Barristan was in unrequited love with her, mention that she had a stillborn daughter, mention that Barristan has a grudge against “Stark” for “dishonoring” her at Harrenhal; detail that her hair was dark; introduction of the mysterious Lemore (who’s probably too old to be Ashara but whatever, GRRM is teasing a connection on purpose)

There’s two books to go. The Daynes are still involved in the story via Darkstar and Edric. Dawn hasn’t shown up yet, and it’s a serious Chekhov’s gun. Why ever would GRRM not continue giving information on this topic?

anonymous asked:

Do you know if we are going to see Gaia again? And Riley?

Riley should at least get us some wrap up with his story. Whether he has more story to tell after this bit, I don’t know. 

Gaia has to come back. That was set up. They can’t write her in that way with such a big part, and then have her disappear. That’s what’s called a “checkhov’s gun.”

Remove everything that has no relevance to the story. If you say in the first chapter that there is a rifle hanging on the wall, in the second or third chapter it absolutely must go off. If it’s not going to be fired, it shouldn’t be hanging there.—  Anton Chekhov [X]

Gaia is hanging there.

We’ll see her again.

anonymous asked:

Hi steph!! First of all I really love your blog even though it distracts me from leaning for my studies. :D I wanted to ask if I am the only one who thinks the scene in TLD where Lady Smallwood gives Mycroft her number doesn't really fit in this episode? I mean it happens in the last few minutes of TLD shortly before John gets shot. And then this is never mentioned again?! Like this never happened... Why do they wrote this scene??

Hi Nonny!!

Goodness gracious, please get your studies done!! Way more important than this trash blog, LOL!

Yeah, you’re totally not the only one, Nonny. It really felt like it was just… tacked on as an afterthought. 

I feel like it was added in only to show Mycroft’s list in his notebook:

And to show the name inconsistencies with Lady Smallwood’s first name (to be fair, it could just be an easter egg pointing to their very much awareness to the name mishap)  :

Which then begs the question: What was the point if they were never going to do anything about it??

Another Chekhov’s gun to add to the pile for S4.