Loves and stratagems

stardusted:

Aussie Builders surprise public with loud empowering statements in new Snickers Australia Ad.

(via tardiscrash)

closetofheroes:

catbushandludicrous:

More ejaculations of wonder.

This is my favourite bit of QI ever.

(via newdawnfadesout)

seanoftheundead:

jaimelann:

So I bought this book because it actually produces some really great prompts. If you ever need any ideas for an au or something original holler at me I’ll dial you up one of these.

I want this.

(via everandeverprolixity)

mumblingsage:

prokopetz:

of-castles-and-converses:

felurianthefata:

bennybatch:

le-le-lestrade:

elementarysherlock:

radculas:

doomslock:

HanLock AU: Closing In

└ Sherlock Holmes assists Will Graham on catching a cannibal.

run, sherlock!! HE’S GONNA EAT YOU

Oh no. Hannibal won’t eat Sherlock.

He knows a clever mind and loves to watch that mind slowly twist inside itself.

He’s going to find the source of that mind’s sanity.

He’s going to eat John.

hOW ABOUT NO

Who the fuck gave u the right

Actually Sherlock is a rude shit. He could be brilliant, but Hannibal would end eating him

yea, sherlock would be food so quickly…

I don’t think y’all are properly considering the implications here.

In his 1996 novel Excession, science fiction writer Iain M Banks formalised the concept of the “outside context problem”. In a nutshell, an outside context problem is a threat that cannot be anticipated - indeed, a threat the possibility of which cannot properly be conceived of prior to its appearance - because it’s simply not playing by the same rules as everyone else. The canonical example of an outside context problem given by Mr. Banks is the sudden arrival, in the midst of a naval engagement between wooden sailing ships, of a fully armed 21st Century battleship.

Both Holmes and Lecter are, within their respective milieux, outside context problems. The former is a pulp-fiction polymath supergenius, and the latter, a monster in the grand tradition of gothic horror, both operating in settings that otherwise much more closely approximate our own world. Their strength derives primarily not from any personal merit, but from the simple fact that, by authorial fiat, they are not obliged to play by the rules that govern the worlds they inhabit.

Consequently, which of them would emerge victorious is less a question of capability and more a question of thematics. According to the pulp adventure tropes that Sherlock Holmes carries with him, Lecter’s evil is a lurking shadow to be banished by the light of Reason. Conversely, the gothic horror tropes that cling to Hannibal Lecter demand that Holmes’ intellectual worldview be revealed a pathetic delusion that will ultimately be swallowed by the darkness of Unreason. They’re playing different games with different and largely incommensurable rules.

It’s for this reason that the question of who would “beat” who can’t meaningfully be answered. The outcome would depend entirely on which set of tropes the author found more persuasive.

One thing I can tell you, though?

If it’s done right, no matter who wins out in the end, nothing would be left standing in their wake.

There is nothing about the previous comment that didn’t give me an intellectual boner. 

(via mumblingsage)