This is (1) an extraordinarily well-written and brilliantly reasoned narrative, (2) in a direction that hadn't occurred to me to anticipate, and yet (3) is clearly and utterly ingeniously derived from -- of all things -- the title of my signup post for this round.
The level of craft here is first-rate; in particular, the rendering of Holmes' narrative voice is fully authentic and convincing. More, Holmes' character comes through here very much as it does in ACD's own renderings -- this is a Holmesian manuscript, not one from Watson's pen.
And the central conceit of the manuscript -- Holmes' own puzzlement at the matter of Watson not being threatened -- is one that makes complete, perfect sense in the context of canon. Pre-Reichenbach Holmes has not had occasion to look closely enough at his bond with Watson to see what Moriarty would indeed have seen. By contrast, post-Hiatus Holmes has learned enough (both from Moran and from the self-examination that's necessarily been a component of his exile) to realize what his earlier self had failed to see.
And yet -- Holmes insists on framing this revelation as a "posthumous defeat" at Moriarty's hand, rather than any sort of emotional breakthrough on his own part. It's entirely the wrong moral for the story Holmes is relating...except that it's exactly the sort of wrong moral that ACD-canon Holmes would take from this particular insight. I am reminded of the line from Merchant of Venice: "But love is blind, and lovers cannot see the pretty follies they themselves commit." That's certainly Holmes here....
Bottom line: I could roll out three or four paragraphs of adjectives going on about just how beautifully done this is, but all it would demonstrate is that my anonymous gift-giver is way better at controlling their narrative instincts than I am right now. I am honored -- and, indeed, stunned -- to have been the inspiration for this piece. Bravo cubed!
no subject
....
[woozily climbs back into chair]
[pauses, frowns]
[glances back at signup post]
[SFX: KLUNK!!!!]
[long pause]
[rubs head, climbs woozily back into chair again]
Wow.
Let me say that again.
Wow.
This is (1) an extraordinarily well-written and brilliantly reasoned narrative, (2) in a direction that hadn't occurred to me to anticipate, and yet (3) is clearly and utterly ingeniously derived from -- of all things -- the title of my signup post for this round.
The level of craft here is first-rate; in particular, the rendering of Holmes' narrative voice is fully authentic and convincing. More, Holmes' character comes through here very much as it does in ACD's own renderings -- this is a Holmesian manuscript, not one from Watson's pen.
And the central conceit of the manuscript -- Holmes' own puzzlement at the matter of Watson not being threatened -- is one that makes complete, perfect sense in the context of canon. Pre-Reichenbach Holmes has not had occasion to look closely enough at his bond with Watson to see what Moriarty would indeed have seen. By contrast, post-Hiatus Holmes has learned enough (both from Moran and from the self-examination that's necessarily been a component of his exile) to realize what his earlier self had failed to see.
And yet -- Holmes insists on framing this revelation as a "posthumous defeat" at Moriarty's hand, rather than any sort of emotional breakthrough on his own part. It's entirely the wrong moral for the story Holmes is relating...except that it's exactly the sort of wrong moral that ACD-canon Holmes would take from this particular insight. I am reminded of the line from Merchant of Venice: "But love is blind, and lovers cannot see the pretty follies they themselves commit." That's certainly Holmes here....
Bottom line: I could roll out three or four paragraphs of adjectives going on about just how beautifully done this is, but all it would demonstrate is that my anonymous gift-giver is way better at controlling their narrative instincts than I am right now. I am honored -- and, indeed, stunned -- to have been the inspiration for this piece. Bravo cubed!