Linguistic Synonymy

[wouldbeashame]

Title: Willful Destruction of Evidence
Author: wouldbeashame 
Beta: captain_vox 
Rating: PG-13
Characters: Lestrade, Anderson, Donovan
Summary:  The one in which Lestrade ignores a footprint. Not misses, but ignores. And then willfully destroys evidence.
Word Count: 552
Warnings: Description of light torture.
Spoilers: A Study in Pink

Comments

[wouldbeashame]

Complex is always intriguing to me, as well as paradoxes. To have a character rife with darkness and still utterly loyal covers both of these points. I'd blame Heroes fandom for this tendency of mine, but it started long before then, that was just when I realized it.

How much danger is perceived really depends on how long John was watching. I have to check exactly when the last shot of him searching occurs in relation to Sherlock and the cabbie. Of course, even if he didn't see the 'gun', what he knows is that this man with Sherlock killed four other people through some self-administered means. He might be worried that the killer has a backup plan or gun that he will use if wounded/startled by a gunshot but not killed/incapacitated completely. Or he might not be thinking at all past 'killer in room with flatmate'.

John fascinates everyone, even Sherlock. The way Sherlock's face lit up when he realized John was not going to have a crisis of morality over killing the cabbie was both surprised and gleeful.~
And now I'm kinda seeing potential for John to spin off in a Dexter-ish direction...

So nice to meet a fellow over-considerer.~

Yeah, I find spelling and grammar are a neverending game of slow improvement for myself. I've always got a little red pen running in the back of my mind when reading things, but since the open scene of The Great Game it has distinctly come to resemble Sherlock.
Also, if you were to take 'intensive purposes' literally in your statement, that would imply John is not the moral core during the less intense parts, rather than the 'all all times/for all purposes' meaning of the original phrase. Although this might just be my tendency to debate over everything coming out.

[wouldbeashame]

hmmmmm, I'm not sure when I realised I'm drawn to that dynamic. I did watch the first series of Heroes but it's not a fandom that I've delved into. Maybe I will.

I'm defiantly going to have to rewatch SiP. Ooohhh the hard ship!

I was thinking of the potential Dexter parallels to. John doesn't seem to have the existential crisis Dexer does... Or at lest in a very different way.

Going back to the morality issue. There was a very Sherlockian applicable quote in one of the Diskworld books, 'Guards Guards' I think. Which to paraphrase was: If your going to be killed, be killed by an evil man because he will lecture you at length about what he's doing, giving you time to escape. A good man will just kill you straight.

With the G/S often my issues is that I know doing things wrong but I don't know what should be right. I do read though everything I do when I read things back I knew what I meant to type and thats what my brain sees.

Hehe, I admit that I didn't mean John was the moral core part time, But you can't argue that I could of done :P

[genclay]

That was me, I fail today.

[wouldbeashame]

I'd recommend Heroes, anyway. Good and just as twisted, if not occasionally more so at least in fandom, as Sherlock.

I re-watch SiP every time I show it to someone new. I've lost track of how many times I've seen it. This lessens my desire to see it not even a single dram. {You meant hardship. Unless you were talking about a difficult pairing or a sturdy sea vessel, as I at first took the statement, to much confusion}

{too} John seems entirely unaware that he should be having a crisis of morality. And then he gets upset about Sherlock's morals/ lack of expressed empathy.

I like that quote, the last bit of it. Sounds just like John. If killing is necessary, hesitation is nonexistent.

Training yourself to see what is there, and not what you expect/want to see is the bane of every writer I personally know. Human brain is great at filling in gaps and covering inconsistencies. This is occasionally less than useful.

I can't argue you {couldn't} have meant that (and the way you just phrased that reminds me of Firefly in all the good ways, fyi), but I can argue that it would both make less sense and weaken your point. I can also argue that having a pedantic nonstop 'red pen' is really annoying, and that it needs to stop spending time conspiring with my Sherlock muses.