The symbol used by the Man of Letters in Supernatural, this one
is called a unicrucal hexagram and resemble the symbol used by the religion Thelema
And the founder’s name is .. Aleister Crowley. Also the religions code is “Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law”. In other words Free Will. (x) I don’t know if this is a coincidence, but if it is - it’s a good one.
Pros-and-cons of Sherlock and Elementary, rebloggable by request
Something that I really wanted to add about Elementary v. Sherlock that’s really important to remember when keeping them both in the context of the books is the characterisation of Holmes;
In canon, Holmes was not an asshole. He sometimes screwed up, because he’s peculiar and brilliant and has a bit (ha ha) of an ego, but if he offended someone he cares about (not just Watson, but clients & near-strangers who didn’t deserve the abuse), he regrets it.
He has a massive heart; it’s half the reason he solves crimes.
- Sherlock doesn’t seem to even touch Sherlock’s humanity outside of John.
- Elementary handles it brilliantly. Sherlock has a heart, and while he often steels himself, he is very much human. And when Sherlock screws up, Watson holds him accountable for it.
You know, I don’t wanna be that dude, but I’m gonna do it anyway. Writing your plot around your characters, there’s a term for that. It’s called “writing well”. Writers who shape their characters through plot rather than vice versa are taking the easy way out.
I’ve never seen Elementary so I won’t judge it but if that’s something the writers of the show do, I’m not inclined to check it out.
(Plus there’s no way any episode of Elementary tops “A Scandal in Belgravia” or “The Reichenbach Fall.”)
Actually, that’s some bullshit. Having your characters be a part of their world rather than the center of it is neither easier nor a less valid style of writing. Building a situation, putting your characters in it, then using their reactions to develop them is actually a much more advanced style of writing than building a character completely and then custom-tailoring a situation around them.
Characterization comes from within the character, in response to the world they’re in and the events happening within it. On “Sherlock,” the world is built completely around Holmes, and not just insofar as it is his story. Every last one of those stories, even those not written by Moffat, is written in that annoying Moffat style of coming up with the solution first and then reverse-engineering the problem. He figures out what direction he’d like Holmes to go in, and he builds a vehicle to get him there, and every now and then, it shines through as completely inorganic. “
The reason I kept mentioning that about “Sherlock” is because, especially in a Holmes story, I would rather them build the vehicle, put Homes in it, and see where it takes him. “Sherlock” has major issues with cause-and-effect. The writers figure out what they want the effect to be, and then they custom-create a cause to generate that effect.
I prefer stories that actually put a little bit of work into their characterization, expose us to the characters, then expose the characters to a situation, and allow them to show us who they are, and stories that have everything else in the world custom-designed to fit their characters perfectly just feel lazy and inorganic to me. Maybe that’s a con for you even though it’s a pro for me, but luckily, in reference to this post, it doesn’t really matter what’s a con for you, because it’s not your list of pros and cons, it’s mine.
Also, several episodes of “Elementary” have been as good as “The Reichenbach Fall,” and most of them are better than “A Scandal in Belgravia” (and contain fewer racist caricatures).
PLOT TWIST. What happens when you and Benedict Cumberbatch are in a room alone together with a camera?
Oh don’t you dare.
HOLY FUCKING SHIT.
HOLY SWEET BABY JESUS CHRIST MOTHER OF GOD WHAT IS THIS HOLY SHIT
Okay so the Doctor was threatening to use the red setting to blow up the submarine which obviously involves killing the people on it, even if it was for the greater good. Does this mean that the red setting is a setting for harming people and destroying things, and that when River said it will one day have a red setting, she was saying that the Doctor is going to get darker and darker and more and more angry and have settings on his screwdriver that can cause harm and damage and that she was telling ten that he is going to become more ruthless and angry because that is kind of what I am thinking here
It’s a signal booster! It is the strongest and fastest setting on the screwdriver so nothing can interfere with it. He was using it to make sure that there was no way another signal would beat his - the other signal being the ice warrior triggering the missiles.
So before that signal could be sent to complete the missile launch, the red setting would have overridden it and sent the stronger signal to blow the submarine up.
I thought it was time to give some thought to what the Doctor-assistant relationship is, what function the assistant has on the show, how Doctor Who distributes personal qualities by gender, and why I now hate this lovely show that I used to love.
Damn, this rings true and it breaks my (1) heart.
“[in Moffat’s Who] the woman is not of interest for her character or her abilities, but for some fundamental mystery in her being. The mystery isn’t even a secret she’s keeping, something over which she has control- it’s something she does not know about, that the Doctor must puzzle out in his own mind. It’s not about her- it’s about what’s wrong with her. When Steven Moffat took over Doctor Who, women became a problem.”
I love this article.