floccinaucinihilipilificationa:

Sherlock flying on a gigant bee because why not ˎ₍•ʚ•₎ˏ

floccinaucinihilipilificationa:

Sherlock flying on a gigant bee because why not ˎ₍•ʚ•₎ˏ

(via mazarin221b)

hideback:

The Queen of the Night

Wicked Diva in Mozart’s Magic Flute opera

1. Karl Friedrich Schinkel (German, 1781-1841)

2. Simon Quaglio (German, 1795-1878)

3. Erté (Russian-French, 1892-1990)

http://onedelightfulday.wordpress.com/tag/queen-of-the-night/

thescienceofjohnlock:

Pyrex do a scientific kitchen range, turn your kitchen into a lab!
That green thing on the flask is a top that when you push down on the middle of it it seals air tight.

thescienceofjohnlock:

Pyrex do a scientific kitchen range, turn your kitchen into a lab!

That green thing on the flask is a top that when you push down on the middle of it it seals air tight.

mid0nz:

Framing as “Evidence”: The Science of Deduction Art of Interpretation
My first principle of meta writing is keeping a clear distinction between the facts and my interpretation of them. Some things are objectively true, obviously, but what they mean is, to a very large degree, subjective. Meaning changes given the context in which facts are read and the agenda of the reader which itself is often half-baked but most certainly fluctuates. Some “objective facts” carry with them heavy cultural significance and communicate with their audience on an affective level. Facts can launch a set of gut reactions that “we” as a culture basically share. Basically. So what are the facts of this frame?
The rule of thirds divides the frame horizontally along two obvious visual points: the top of the frame and Sherlock’s line of sight.
The gap between the interior of the wall to John’s right and its exterior darkens the top third of the frame thereby focusing our attention on the bottom 2/3 of the frame.
Sherlock stands right down the middle of the line that bisects the bottom 2/3 of the frame. Mary’s head lands to the left of his field of vision while John lands to the right.
Sherlock occupies two quadrants of the bottom 2/3 of the frame. Mary and John stand (mostly) in different quadrants of the frame. Their heads occupy different quadrants. Mary’s right shoulder is in the same horizontal line as John’s head and vice versa so they aren’t completely sectioned off. 
Mary cannot see Sherlock at all. John can see (at least) half of him.
So those are the facts. But as I said there’s always a cultural component at play when we attempt to decipher their meaning. In my culture the dark stripes at the top and the bottom of the frame tell me to focus my attention on the middle. That’s a widespread enough code that the cinematographer can count on it like I can count on the fact that you’ll understand the structure of this sentence. You have to understand English, of course. (Contrary to popular belief not everyone does.) In languages that share a common syntax with English this sentence would translate pretty easily. Those who speak languages that don’t share syntax with English have a whole lot more conceptualizing to do in order to understand my factual meaning. Sometimes we have to do multiple kinds of translation to understand each other’s literal meaning. (That’s why Google Translate still sucks.) Not everybody will focus their attention to the bottom 2/3 of the screen automatically. To understand the show in its own syntactical terms you must, but we can’t assume that’s a universal tendency. It’s a fact that the frame is arranged along the lines of the rule of thirds, but we cannot take it for granted that this means that all readers will react the same way to the proportions even though the division is mathematical (based on ϕ, the golden ratio, aka the golden section). 
Which leads me to the next level of interpretation. None of the three characters are in alignment. While at the moment I write this I personally take this to mean that there’s great conflict happening amongst them (this reading is informed by the context of the plot, but the grid reinforces this notion to me), I could be persuaded to look at it differently. I could say Sherlock is the center of a balance and Mary and John, the weights. So that brings me to my next level of interpretation.
If Sherlock is the center and John and Mary weigh at either side of him I could say they’re a unit the three of them. I’m a pro-choice feminist and I don’t count the fetus in Mary’s womb as a person. So yes, for me it is the three of them. I could also say John and Mary are almost completely divided, but their shoulders tell me that they still share the same space to a degree. Metaphorically that could be the shared space of their parentage, the space of the fetus, the potential baby. On the other hand they could be so divided that the only thing connecting them is Sherlock who occupies space with both of them. I could say he understands both their points of view even though Mary doesn’t look at him and John can only see him in partiality. I could say Sherlock has Mary’s back. Or I could say he’s trapping her in the hall way so she can’t escape. Both things, even, could be true. So now, after thinking about it I don’t know what to believe! But I’m writing so I’ll CHOOSE an interpretation, one that best suits me right here, right now. By the time you read this it may be invalid to me.
When I get lost I go back to the facts. There are facts we cannot ascertain even though they’d be useful. Who is looking at whom? Is John regarding Mary or Sherlock or both. (Or neither?!) But even if we did know what would that tell us? 
And that’s the next level of interpretation. The unspoken. A gaze can say everything silently yet nothing precisely. This is why Sherlock and John have a danger code, “Vatican Cameos.” With lives at stake they don’t take a chance that the other will misinterpret a glance. That leads me to speculate that John and Sherlock have determined that they have, in the past, misunderstood each other’s physical cues and that they expect that they would do so in the future. I could speculate happily about this all day long. That is one way that I form head canons. Which leads me to the last level of interpretation I want to address in this post— the agenda of the reader (or in this case the meta writer).
I started off with empirical facts and I was cheerfully confused along the way about what they meant until the end when I arrived at Johnlock. I think it’s a pretty convincing point that Sherlock and John can’t flawlessly read each other’s physical body language or each other’s minds. I ship them so for me this is exciting “evidence.” But I got there not by looking at what’s in front of me in the screencap of this grim hallway. I got there by a whimsical leap of logic made possible by my readerly erotics. I got there by asking myself what I CAN’T see. In a vacuum my mind heart will almost always supply Johnlock. So. To my mind, and perhaps ONLY to my mind, my conclusion is not far-fetched. I logically hopped to something true, a fact: John and Sherlock have a code phrase. My happy thoughts about this are mine and I own them and they’re just as valid as your happy (or unhappy) thoughts. Happy thoughts don’t necessarily have squat to do with facts. I prefer, as a writer and a fan, to arrive at my happy Johnlock place by meditating on what most of us viewers can agree to be true things. That’s just how I roll.   
Oh wait! Doesn’t everyone everywhere know, then, that Sherlock and John don’t know they’re madly in love because they can’t read it in each other’s physical gestures? No. No they don’t. That’s a conclusion of mine and of the people who think like I do, or who I convince to think like I do. Everyone else? Nope, they’re not (necessarily) deluded. They’re not (necessarily) bigots or homophobes. They disagree with your interpretations. 
There are facts. And there are many, many, many factors that influence their interpretation. But it’s also important to realize that we ALL think our viewpoint is universal at one time or another. We’re self-centered we humans. And very often, very, very often we mistake our interpretations for facts. If you care about the distinction between the two you must be vigilant. Always. 
If we all agreed on the nuanced meanings of Sherlock I doubt the fandom would be so vital and so global in spite of the cultural codes we’re all navigating. And for that I applaud the artistry of the people who make the show for all its glories and its flaws. Those value judgements too, are subjective. No matter which facts you base them upon.

mid0nz:

Framing as “Evidence”:
The Science of Deduction Art of Interpretation

My first principle of meta writing is keeping a clear distinction between the facts and my interpretation of them. Some things are objectively true, obviously, but what they mean is, to a very large degree, subjective. Meaning changes given the context in which facts are read and the agenda of the reader which itself is often half-baked but most certainly fluctuates. Some “objective facts” carry with them heavy cultural significance and communicate with their audience on an affective level. Facts can launch a set of gut reactions that “we” as a culture basically share. Basically. So what are the facts of this frame?

  1. The rule of thirds divides the frame horizontally along two obvious visual points: the top of the frame and Sherlock’s line of sight.
  2. The gap between the interior of the wall to John’s right and its exterior darkens the top third of the frame thereby focusing our attention on the bottom 2/3 of the frame.
  3. Sherlock stands right down the middle of the line that bisects the bottom 2/3 of the frame. Mary’s head lands to the left of his field of vision while John lands to the right.
  4. Sherlock occupies two quadrants of the bottom 2/3 of the frame. Mary and John stand (mostly) in different quadrants of the frame. Their heads occupy different quadrants. Mary’s right shoulder is in the same horizontal line as John’s head and vice versa so they aren’t completely sectioned off. 
  5. Mary cannot see Sherlock at all. John can see (at least) half of him.

So those are the facts. But as I said there’s always a cultural component at play when we attempt to decipher their meaning. In my culture the dark stripes at the top and the bottom of the frame tell me to focus my attention on the middle. That’s a widespread enough code that the cinematographer can count on it like I can count on the fact that you’ll understand the structure of this sentence. You have to understand English, of course. (Contrary to popular belief not everyone does.) In languages that share a common syntax with English this sentence would translate pretty easily. Those who speak languages that don’t share syntax with English have a whole lot more conceptualizing to do in order to understand my factual meaning. Sometimes we have to do multiple kinds of translation to understand each other’s literal meaning. (That’s why Google Translate still sucks.) Not everybody will focus their attention to the bottom 2/3 of the screen automatically. To understand the show in its own syntactical terms you must, but we can’t assume that’s a universal tendency. It’s a fact that the frame is arranged along the lines of the rule of thirds, but we cannot take it for granted that this means that all readers will react the same way to the proportions even though the division is mathematical (based on ϕ, the golden ratio, aka the golden section)

Which leads me to the next level of interpretation. None of the three characters are in alignment. While at the moment I write this I personally take this to mean that there’s great conflict happening amongst them (this reading is informed by the context of the plot, but the grid reinforces this notion to me), I could be persuaded to look at it differently. I could say Sherlock is the center of a balance and Mary and John, the weights. So that brings me to my next level of interpretation.

If Sherlock is the center and John and Mary weigh at either side of him I could say they’re a unit the three of them. I’m a pro-choice feminist and I don’t count the fetus in Mary’s womb as a person. So yes, for me it is the three of them. I could also say John and Mary are almost completely divided, but their shoulders tell me that they still share the same space to a degree. Metaphorically that could be the shared space of their parentage, the space of the fetus, the potential baby. On the other hand they could be so divided that the only thing connecting them is Sherlock who occupies space with both of them. I could say he understands both their points of view even though Mary doesn’t look at him and John can only see him in partiality. I could say Sherlock has Mary’s back. Or I could say he’s trapping her in the hall way so she can’t escape. Both things, even, could be true. So now, after thinking about it I don’t know what to believe! But I’m writing so I’ll CHOOSE an interpretation, one that best suits me right here, right now. By the time you read this it may be invalid to me.

When I get lost I go back to the facts. There are facts we cannot ascertain even though they’d be useful. Who is looking at whom? Is John regarding Mary or Sherlock or both. (Or neither?!) But even if we did know what would that tell us? 

And that’s the next level of interpretation. The unspoken. A gaze can say everything silently yet nothing precisely. This is why Sherlock and John have a danger code, “Vatican Cameos.” With lives at stake they don’t take a chance that the other will misinterpret a glance. That leads me to speculate that John and Sherlock have determined that they have, in the past, misunderstood each other’s physical cues and that they expect that they would do so in the future. I could speculate happily about this all day long. That is one way that I form head canons. Which leads me to the last level of interpretation I want to address in this post— the agenda of the reader (or in this case the meta writer).

I started off with empirical facts and I was cheerfully confused along the way about what they meant until the end when I arrived at Johnlock. I think it’s a pretty convincing point that Sherlock and John can’t flawlessly read each other’s physical body language or each other’s minds. I ship them so for me this is exciting “evidence.” But I got there not by looking at what’s in front of me in the screencap of this grim hallway. I got there by a whimsical leap of logic made possible by my readerly erotics. I got there by asking myself what I CAN’T see. In a vacuum my mind heart will almost always supply Johnlock. So. To my mind, and perhaps ONLY to my mind, my conclusion is not far-fetched. I logically hopped to something true, a fact: John and Sherlock have a code phrase. My happy thoughts about this are mine and I own them and they’re just as valid as your happy (or unhappy) thoughts. Happy thoughts don’t necessarily have squat to do with facts. I prefer, as a writer and a fan, to arrive at my happy Johnlock place by meditating on what most of us viewers can agree to be true things. That’s just how I roll.   

Oh wait! Doesn’t everyone everywhere know, then, that Sherlock and John don’t know they’re madly in love because they can’t read it in each other’s physical gestures? No. No they don’t. That’s a conclusion of mine and of the people who think like I do, or who I convince to think like I do. Everyone else? Nope, they’re not (necessarily) deluded. They’re not (necessarily) bigots or homophobes. They disagree with your interpretations. 

There are facts. And there are many, many, many factors that influence their interpretation. But it’s also important to realize that we ALL think our viewpoint is universal at one time or another. We’re self-centered we humans. And very often, very, very often we mistake our interpretations for facts. If you care about the distinction between the two you must be vigilant. Always. 

If we all agreed on the nuanced meanings of Sherlock I doubt the fandom would be so vital and so global in spite of the cultural codes we’re all navigating. And for that I applaud the artistry of the people who make the show for all its glories and its flaws. Those value judgements too, are subjective. No matter which facts you base them upon.

Hi. So, this is an apology. With an explanation, though the explanations are not meant to be excuses.

Things with my job are quite busy just now with some high profile projects, some big cheeses being well, big cheeses, and we are quite and unexpectedly understaffed. Pretty much every day I’m hitting the wall of mental exhaustion. This is causing me to be very out of touch and I know I’m not being a supportive or even engaged friend. I’m also not writing or making any crafty things right now. I know I’m letting folks down wrt some commitments & I apologize for that. I have not forgotten though you can remind me if you like too.

I also want to remind myself - and you please feel free to remind me too- when I am not behaving nicely. Being stressed is no reason to bring grar and wank to fandom and I’d like to participate with kindness even when I’m not up for joyful enthusiasm.

I hope I’ll be feeling more myself soon and that means my best self, not the whiny avoidant person I am just now.

xo

moon-goddess-girl said: Hi, I was wondering if you had anything to say about the lack of representation of female superheroes in children's merchandise (to the point of erasing Natasha from the adaptation of The Avengers!?!) I've just been thinking about it a lot and then I wrote a really long post about it and you seem like the kind of person who would know more about these things than I would so ... I thought I would ask if you ever thought about it. Also I think you're awesome but that's beside the point.

fuckyeahblackwidow:

I went to a comic book convention a year or so ago with the intention of buying some Black Widow merchandise for a blog giveaway, but there was none.  At a comic book convention.  A smallish comic book convention, but still.

You have to understand this goes back to the reasons Disney bought Marvel in the first place.  Like Gail Simone has pointed out, in the wake of the “Young Justice cancelled because too many girls were watching” fiasco, Disney wanted a share of the boys toy market to match the Princess brand’s stranglehold on the girls toy market.  And one of the easy and frequent ways to market to boys is to hang up a no girls allowed sign.

Marketing logic goes like this: if you have a target demographic identified, you spend all your time and $$$ pitching to that demographic, because that is the most efficient way to get returns.  If you do not have a target demographic identified, you identify a target demographic.  And the big population % casualty of this clever logic, not just when it comes to superhero toys but geek culture in general, is women.

When giant boobs and ass pointing the same impossible direction grace all the covers of your comic books, when five year old kids have Hawkeye nerf arrows and Iron Man masks to play with, but not Widow’s bites, it says, hello chums, this is for you.  For you, and not for girls.  Girls games and girls merchandise are kept on special shelves, conveniently colored pink, so they can be bordered off, easily identified.  Comic book costumes for women are made in “sexy” variants, comic book shirts for women tend to say things like “girl power” or “my boyfriend is a superhero” and are kept, in this way, safely in their girly-place. (And why there are shirts like this one that got Greg Rucka so mad.)  It is why, so often, when nerdtypes are troubled by Anita Sarkeesian types or articles like Janelle Asselin’s, they act like something has been taken away from them.  You can’t expect comic books to be made for you, they say.  Comic books are not for you.

Yes, I think about this a lot.  I think about this a lot, and it grows fangs in my mouth, turns my rhetoric vicious. I think about how much money toy companies must have spent to convince the world that action figures and dolls are not the same thing. I think about what it means that we do not have so many Black Widow toys for girls to play with, because superheroes are for boys.  And what it means that we do not have so many Black Widow toys for boys to play with, because boys do not need women to be superheroes.

Further reading, if you’re interested:

allieeps:

Finally finished the companion piece to Watsons are less concerned with The Game so I put references to their lore in a more obvious place. Can you spot them all?
Paint Tool Sai

allieeps:

Finally finished the companion piece to Watsons are less concerned with The Game so I put references to their lore in a more obvious place. Can you spot them all?

Paint Tool Sai

(via mildredandbobbin)

kassna:

Great Sight

Greaserlock photo set 4/x (1) (2) (3)

~*~

Bonus

image

~*~

Greaser Sherlock - kassna
Nerd John (and edit) - itsloki
Photographer - mi-caw-ber

Inspiration - traumachu and her wonderful story as well as the art of archiaart

~*~

This is what happens when you leave John to his own devices… He gets himself some visitor. ;)
(Yes, there’s water right behind me. Yes, I was a bit scared. o.O)

No, this is not the end. Believe me, it gets better. ;)

This is so cute and makes me grin to look at it. Beautiful cosplay, photography and ficcing.

I had a rough day and to just see this comforting, happy thing on my dash improved my mood 1000%. I admit I’m shmoopy for when fandom makes RL a sunnier place.

(via traumachu)

spookybelledraws:

"For never was a tale of more unresolved sexual tension woe, than this of Tybalt and Mercutio.”
- William Shakespeare
You can kick me out of the fandom now. You should kick me out of the fandom now. It’ll only get worse.

spookybelledraws:

"For never was a tale of more unresolved sexual tension woe, than this of Tybalt and Mercutio.”

- William Shakespeare

You can kick me out of the fandom now. You should kick me out of the fandom now. It’ll only get worse.

(via moxieangel)


Your teddy bear will protect you.

Your teddy bear will protect you.

(Source: begemott.deviantart.com, via provocatrixxx)

foxestacado:

I just came back from Anime Expo and DashCon so for everyone who didn’t make it to one of these cons, here’s a giveaway for one of you to win some of my stuff! (Here is a list of other cons I will be at later this year!)

Here’s what you get if you win! 

And Bonus Prizes!

  • Extra prizes such as Sherlock & Harry Potter buttons and pouches will be added to your winnings if you follow me on Twitter and/or Like my Facebook page!

The Rules! 

  • Winner must be following my blog (and hopefully you’ll like following me)! If picked and winner is not following this blog, another winner will be picked. 
  • Reblogs and Likes both count. Increase your chances, do both!
  • Winner will be randomly picked using a random number generator on 7/30/14 at 10:00 Pacific Standard Time. The winner will be contacted via Ask box (make sure yours is open, if not, another winner will be chosen). If winner does not respond with requested info within 24 hours, another winner will be picked. 
  • In order to get all the Bonus prizes, winner must have Liked my Facebook fan page and/or follow me Twitter by 7/30/14 10:00 PST. 
  • I will ship winner giveaway items anywhere in the world, with tracking! :) 

slenderlock:

soulmate tattoos- Sherlock’s says “that’s amazing” and so he tries so hard to find someone who will accept him but the only things he hears are “freak” and “piss off” so he gives up hope and then one day he meets John Watson who hears him deducing something and when John says “that’s amazing” all he can say is “what?” and John smiles and rolls his sleeve up and there on his arm, written in the most elaborate script he can imagine, is the single word what?

(via melilossa)

mylittlecornerofsherlock:

threadear:

The Tree of Life. Metaphor. Yes.
Finished piece for mylittlecornerofsherlock, based on her ficlet. 

I love it!  Thank you so much for such an amazing and beautiful job!

mylittlecornerofsherlock:

threadear:

The Tree of Life. Metaphor. Yes.

Finished piece for mylittlecornerofsherlock, based on her ficlet

I love it!  Thank you so much for such an amazing and beautiful job!

brassmanticore:

Silver coin of Ephesus with a bee (Wikipedia).

brassmanticore:

Silver coin of Ephesus with a bee (Wikipedia).

(via violethuntress)