Audient!

This episode imposes upon us (well Jake mostly) the horrors of shoddy writing and bad aesthetics. And yet, Sir Arthur Conan Doyle's creation seems to be very much alive. How is that? Why?

We get to touch on some long-neglected Star here, Il vaut mieux Lyotard que jamais, hearkening back to its post-structuralist origins.  We go back down memory lane to when me and Jake were reading this exact critique of that exact attitude, that time between Analytic philosopher John Searle and the evil Continentalist Jacques Derrida and his essay Signature, Event, Cuntext. There, Derrida shows how each utterance, of necessity, breaches whatever context is assigned to it, thus always opening the way for what Holmes keeps pretending to have had already hermetically closed: the other possibility. 

Sherlock Holmes is shown to play out a fantasy of control, one that professionalizes thinking in much the same way an AI does. Holmes' "method of logical deduction" is explored in this vein to reveal a logical abduction, where Truth is nowhere acknowledged, and the process simply arrives at the least improbable outcome. Alas, since the entire context, the full "One", will always be breachable - we were thinking also of Gödel's Incompleteness Theorem here - the probability will forever be dangling, insecure; or worse, open to various biases of 'normativity.'

Jake, once again, recalls Jack Bauer, as a distilled version, a sublimated Sherlock Holmes; one that stopped bothering about that (quite flimsy) justification, along with the 'method' Holmes uses to construct it. If it was always bullshit, why not go right to the point?

Our perverts also hone in on the obvious closeted Homosexuality that emanates from this dynamic duo, and all the libidinal affirmations and denials that move this - many times unspoken, but always quite present - sexually-tense relationship. 'No Homo,' this time operating as a literary device...

Stars:

IL VAUT MIEUX LYOTARD QUE JAMAIS; Pervs 'R Us; Beast & Sovereign.