Hi all!

I’m still on hiatus (meh, sort of) but last night I rewatched The Unicorn and the Wasp – the episode of Doctor Who where Ten and Donna meet Agatha Christie – and I’m absolutely positive I’m not the first person to suggest this but I realized I desperately need this to happen while Capaldi’s the Doctor and I felt like I needed to put it out into the universe (aka Tumblr) immediately:

1. Moffat writes an episode where Twelve meets Arthur Conan Doyle.
2. Arthur Conan Doyle is played by Mark Gatiss. 

3. Twelve, our cranky Scot, and ACD discuss the TRUE nature of the Holmes/Watson relationship and it’s really funny ahaha gay jokes etc, but what it REALLY is is a reenactment of Moffat and Gatiss’s first conversation about Sherlock when they decided to write their own version.
O Moffat, hear my plea.


If you watch this show carefully, there is a subtext about John drinking. - Steven Moffat

for Clem

The ASiB drinking just kills me, it really does.

(via nehoynehoy14)


Anonymous asked:

sister of Janine Hawkins.... (″・ิ.・ิ)


….I stand by it.


in my head whenever I say deducingbbcsherlock's acronym I say DBBCS without moving my lips, the sound is funny and pleases me

thank you and good night

i require audio clippage.


Another Moriarty headcanon: James Moriarty isn’t his real name, or maybe just the Moriarty part is fake. He made it up to conceal his legal identity and thought it sounded cool. In TGG they said they checked the yearbooks looking for someone who could have killed Carl Powers and couldn’t come up with anything. I always wondered if they went back and checked again after Jim introduced himself, but I bet they still wouldn’t find him…

His real name is Richard Hawkins, brother of Janine Hawkins. He really hates the nickname Ricky but he loves when you call him Dick. He’s not the Richard Hawkins who makes clarinet mouthpieces but he has mad respect for that line of work (subtextually speaking).


[thanks to ceywoozle listening to my ideas, and loudest-subtext-in-television for beta reading this sucker]

A recent essay lists arguments summing up problems with TJLC in relation to queer representation on television, and how—should TJLC be real—it would be (and is)…

Really well said. Thank you in particular for pointing out that in the end, it really does seem like many TJLCers and anti-TJLCers are so passionate about this topic for the same reason – a desire for the right kind of queer representation in the media. I think that because the majority of TJLC related posts floating out there are brief (headcanons, gifs, and the like) and are often silly or (knowingly) exaggerated, while the posts that get to the meat of what TJLC really is are long and require a careful read, there’s an understandable misinterpretation of what the “conspiracy” is actually about.

(via allmyfantasiesarethirdperson)


That was me watching this scene

oh my god this gets funnier the longer I watch


That was me watching this scene

oh my god this gets funnier the longer I watch

(via johnlock-is-the-new-black)

Moffat: In the whole 60-story canon, [Arthur Conan Doyle] allows one moment of genuine affection between Sherlock Holmes and Doctor Watson. You always know it’s there … there’s one moment in The Three Garridebs—“You’ve hurt my Watson”—and that’s it. I think arguably (and we would argue quite strongly) that under the surface … the detective stories are merely the surface. It’s the story of the greatest friendship ever.

But because it’s a male friendship, it is simply never talked about. They don’t sit down and say, “Well, I think we’ll become friends now, how do you feel about me?” Never. They never do that.

Gatiss: They don’t need to.

Moffat: No… But I find that the joy in writing this, is writing that friendship.

It’s subtext, but it really is right at the top layer of the subtext. It’s just about these two men and the fact they adore each other.”

Steven Moffat and Mark Gatiss

Sherlock DVD Commentary, A Study in Pink (11:45 mark) [x]

(via skulls-and-tea)

*Gets up on a table, does the can-can and throws confetti* SUBTEEEEEXT

(via don-gately)

It’s about these two men and the fact that they adore each other.

Whenever we doubt, just remember that’s the show that’s being written here. This friendship, this love, these two, forever. 

(via anigrrrl2)

(via penns-woods)

A story where two men meet and form a deep friendship. They are two halves of a whole; they would do anything for one another. They are soul mates. Despite the sexual tension pointed out by nearly every character who sees them together, friends, family, strangers, they never cross that line. Sex would ruin this beautiful friendship. And so they meet women they care for and love, and marry them. But they are still soul mates, and their wives laughingly acknowledge it, content to be second place, to provide sex and children and domesticity. And everyone smiles and is content because no love will ever be as deep and beautiful as the love these two men have for each other.

That is misogynistic writing. That is a misogynistic story. That is misogynistic portrayal of female characters.