violsva: Sidney Paget illustration of Watson reading, with the caption "Winner, JWP 2016" (watson's woes)
Title: Plots of Sax
Rating: T
Universe: Biscuitverse (BBC Sherlock)
Character(s): Sherlock Holmes, John Watson, Mary Morstan
Summary: For once it’s not (entirely) autocorrect’s fault.
Warnings/Enticements: Polyamory, Non-Consensual Drug Use, Texting, Humour
Word Count: 596

On AO3
violsva: Sidney Paget illustration of Holmes and Watson, seated, with the caption "Cut out the poetry, Watson" (Holmes)
okay, new theory (well, probably not new, but i haven’t seen it before):

Sherlock Holmes is stolen by fairies at Reichenbach

Luckily he had wide-ranging literary tastes as a child and it turns out his forgetting mechanisms are faulty, so he remembers not to eat anything and fights his way out three days later.

Except, you know, not three earth days later, whoops.

#doesn't really have a plot #so #meta #sherlock holmes #fairies #reichenbach #crack meta i suppose #there would be more plot if watson was fighting him out #hmm #i have seen the dr who version #multiple times
violsva: full bookshelf with ladder (books)
Putting this on Dreamwidth as well as Tumblr:

So I’ve been thinking about soulmate AUs. The kind where your soulmate’s name is written on your skin. How would that start? When would that start?

Not with the beginning of writing. For centuries, in China, in Sumer, in Egypt, in Mesoamerica, writing was used for accounting or religion, and nothing else. Most people would never be able write their names or recognize them if they were written. Only royalty, gods, and perhaps some property owners would.

Individual scribes might have had signatures. For that matter, for all we know individual Paleolithic artists might have had signatures. But most people wouldn’t. What would happen the first time someone was born with an unknown symbol on their hand?

Probably it would be an isolated mystery. Remember, in most of these scenarios there’s no actual guarantee that you’ll ever meet your soulmate (although most people seem to end up with one from the same general area. Which is statistically unlikely). No one would know what it meant. Maybe people with symbols would be seen as special, or divine, or demonic.

And then it might start happening more often - or stop happening, if writing stopped being used (like in Greece after 1200 BCE). But most of the time still no one would know what the symbol meant. And most people wouldn’t have symbols, because most people’s soulmates wouldn’t know how to write.

(Sometimes I think the theory is that people would have a thumbprint instead of a soulmate mark? But this would be basically useless for matching purposes - you would have no idea where to start. So from that point of view the first people with actual names would just have them instead of the thumbprints that everyone else had and didn’t know the meaning of.

Incidentally, using thumbprints for recognition isn’t universal in non-literate societies either. European society didn’t realize that fingerprints were unique until the late 19th century. In a lot of places, they weren’t used until people were already using signatures, and needed an option for illiterate people. Also, while they are an identifying mark, they really have no relation at all to your name. For most of human existence, having a physical marker of your identity really wasn’t that important.)

Only somewhere with at least moderately widespread literacy would someone be able to look at a mark and go “Oh, that’s my friend Imhotep’s name. What a coincidence!” And only somewhere with widespread literacy would Imhotep’s soulmate also be able to write their name. Most early languages were logographic, and in cuneiform names specifically were almost always logographic, so you wouldn’t even be able to sound it out.

Phoenician (starting 1050 BCE) was the first widespread writing system, and was simple enough and common enough that sailors could write in it. It was also the first phoenetic script which would allow you to easily approximate the pronounciation of the writing on your skin.

But still, most people wouldn’t have symbols. Most people would never meet anyone with their name on their skin.

This would be a problem in AUs where you never feel sexual attraction to anyone who isn’t your soulmate. Imagine religion and culture in a world where almost everyone is functionally asexual.

How long would it take, until someone realized that if people’s names matched up, they had some kind of bond? How long would it take before this was a generally accepted theory?

Also, how long before this was seen as at all important, given that most people with the status to know how to read would also have arranged marriages?

But once it was generally accepted, suddenly literacy would become a lot more important. People would demand to learn how to write. (Some people would learn that their soulmate’s name wasn’t in the local writing system. What happens then?) People would want to give their children more unique names (ancient Rome had about thirty given names for men total, and they named their daughters “first Julia” and “second Julia.”)

Anyway, around ancient Rome or so, when there would not only be a lot of literate people but also a lot of people able to recognize foreign alphabets, suddenly there would be a huge drive for 1) more literacy and 2) better long distance communication, so you could find the Caius or Ξανθίππη or שָׂרָה who had your name on their skin. And as this idea became more and more widespread, so would this desire. The same thing would be happening in China and Ethiopia and India.

This would revolutionize world history. There would be strong motivations both for exploration and for making peace with foreign cultures. Everyone in Rome with a Jewish soulmate would want to make sure they wouldn’t be killed before they could meet them. Everyone with a soulmate in a strange language would want to know at least what language it was.

Come to think of it, these are also all good reasons for why people wouldn’t believe in soulmates. Your soulmate can’t be one of the hated barbarians, so that symbol doesn’t mean anything!

And that’s leaving out the fact that lots of people still wouldn’t have a soulmate who could write, and completely ignoring the existence of polyamory.

So getting to a modern society with everyone just knowing that that was your soulmate’s name would involve a really complicated history, probably nothing at all like ours. And there would be huge pressure to ignore the existence of soulmates at all.

No conclusions here, just taking an illogical premise way too logically.
violsva: Sidney Paget illustration of Holmes and Watson, seated, with the caption "Cut out the poetry, Watson" (Holmes)
Vaguely inspired by Watson's Woes JWP#2:

“I don’t see,” said Holmes, an element of danger in his voice, “why your ridiculously-named American journalist friend couldn’t take his equally ridiculously-named Siamese to the Continent with him.”

“You,” I told him, “are simply annoyed by phenomena which you cannot immediately explain.”

Holmes sneered at the feline perching on the bookshelf again. “I enjoy mysteries, as you well know. I am entirely in favour of phenomena that at first defy explanation. However, Doctor, cats cannot solve crimes.”

“I didn’t say they could,” I assured him, grinning.

“Yow!” said Koko, and knocked The War of the Worlds to the floor.
violsva: Sidney Paget illustration of Holmes and Watson, seated, with the caption "Cut out the poetry, Watson" (Holmes)
There is Holmes/Watson AU fic where they're Supernatural fanboys.

I mean, of course there is. Why wouldn't there be? Oh fandom. <3 <3 <3

RDJ!Holmes, but you can't have everything.
violsva: full bookshelf with ladder (books)
Title: All That Life Can Afford
Author: Violsva
Fandom: Elementary
Rating: Gen
Warnings: None
Word Count: 556
Summary: "London wasn't a woman. London was a city."

At AO3.

Actual headline: Sunscreen Recalled After People Catch on Fire
violsva: Sidney Paget illustration of Holmes and Watson, seated, with the caption "Cut out the poetry, Watson" (Holmes)
Excerpt from Shakespeare's lost play, The Aduentures of Sherlocke Holmes, Prince of Deduction.

Holmes. What's that? It's witchcraft? No, it's simply art,
Not artifice, not magic, just my eyes. I see
What all see, Watson, but I then observe,
I think, I make conclusions. Any man
Could do it, but no other man has tried.

Watson. Not any man, I think. You're marvelous.
I know your methods, but I cannot learn
One half of what you see. I say again
That, if not witchcraft, then you are a god -
Say witchcraft, or make me idolatrous.

Holmes. Blasphemous, either way. But there's no time
To argue details of theology.
I hear a knock; Watson, the game's afoot.
Just sit and take your notebook; you assist

Enter the King of Bohemia, masked.

Have you got my note?
I must insist this matter be privy
Between us, and no other ear intrude
Upon our counsels.

Watson. I -

Holmes. No, prithee, sit.
The doctor is my closest trusted friend.
No word that I hear shall be barred from him.
Go on.

The icon is unusually appropriate for this.


violsva: full bookshelf with ladder (Default)

September 2017

10111213 141516


RSS Atom

Most Popular Tags

Style Credit

Expand Cut Tags

No cut tags
Page generated Sep. 25th, 2017 09:57 am
Powered by Dreamwidth Studios