Spoilers again
So Mark Gatiss decided to jump on the Spoilers, What Spoilers? bandwagon, by tweeting "Must admit I'm amused by the notion of spoilers for a story published in 1893!" In my previous post, what did I call people who used that excuse? Oh, yes, DAFT!
Mr Gatiss you are being disingenuous, on purpose I'm sure. Like to keep the cat hanging on the bait, do you? Now this is what I call truly trolling.
I'll therefore clarify my position on Sherlock spoilers with an easy list.
Do the following apply?
- Irene Adler is an American contralto blackmailing the King of Bohemia,
- the Hound is indeed a hound and there is a family legend about it, as well as an heir bent on murder,
- Moriarty kills Sherlock (and himself) by sending both over a waterfall in Switzerland.
Absolutely nothing on this list is a spoiler: it has been published for over 100 years (although even then I used some discretion regarding the Hound). Everything else is a fucking spoiler.
Thank you for your time.
Mr Gatiss you are being disingenuous, on purpose I'm sure. Like to keep the cat hanging on the bait, do you? Now this is what I call truly trolling.
I'll therefore clarify my position on Sherlock spoilers with an easy list.
Do the following apply?
- Irene Adler is an American contralto blackmailing the King of Bohemia,
- the Hound is indeed a hound and there is a family legend about it, as well as an heir bent on murder,
- Moriarty kills Sherlock (and himself) by sending both over a waterfall in Switzerland.
Absolutely nothing on this list is a spoiler: it has been published for over 100 years (although even then I used some discretion regarding the Hound). Everything else is a fucking spoiler.
Thank you for your time.