Summer 2021 Guessing Post

[holmesticemods]

Thank you so much for another wonderful round of Holmestice! The mods want to say THANK YOU to all the creators who joined us this round. Being in this community with you is a joy and an honour.

Reveals and the Master List go up on June 21st. Until then, please enjoy and comment on all the lovely fanworks. (If you haven't thanked your creator for your own gift yet, please do!) Creators, please do NOT respond to Dreamwidth comments or post your works elsewhere on the Internet until reveals go up in the community. You may of course reply to comments on AO3, which preserves your anonymity.

In the meanwhile, stay tuned: treats are coming up! For anyone thinking of making a treat, we will accept treats until reveals, so if there's a prompt that inspires you, please have at it! Just use the regular submission guidelines and send your headers to holmesticemods@gmail.com.

If you'd like to guess who created what in this round, here's a list of all the contributors for the main gifts. (You'll have to put in some extra work to guess the treat-makers!) Go ahead and take a guess! It's all in good fun.


17pansies
alisha1221
arwamachine
BookGirlFan
c.art / comicArtistA
commoncollective
deelaundry / dee_laundry
discordantwords
eliza_underscore / marveling_under_an_open_sky
firecat
fleetsparrow
fridaythegowerstreetcat / gowerstreet
ghostbees / vernets
graycardinal / gray_cardinal
happyeverafter72
helloliriels
iwantthatcoat
language_escapes
marta-bee
merinda / Janto321
milverton / algy / AlgySwinburne
monkiainen
natrix_natrix / two_nipples_maybe_more / Biscia
Noob / 0archangel0
nottoolateforthegame
ohlooktheresabee
oldshrewsburyian
oraorahime
papysanzo
pipmer1 / pipmer
queenoferebor
rachelindeed / educatedinyellow
Rocío / disheveledcurls
saki101
sanguinity
sanspatronymic / sans_patronymic
senmut / Merfilly
simplyclockwork
strampunch / Dapperpunch
tepidspongebath
thedoubtfulguest / violet_strange
trobadora
urbanhymnal
vulgarweed
write_out / thetimemoves
yuliares


Go forth and leave love for your fellow Holmestice artists, authors, podficcers, and vidders! See you again on the 21st, when we reveal who made what!

Comments

Re: A Study in Inductomancy™ (batteries not included)

[iwantthatcoat]

Vulgar and I were briefly discussing who this could be (as only one person formally offered it), and I did say that it is sooooo Townsend that no one who hadn’t known of him before could have possibly pulled it off. So I suppose I did unintentionally help you out by saying Townsend is not exactly someone one picks out of a list of possible topics to offer and goes, “yes, yes this one!” TBH, I see to have underestimated many people’s... ummm... shall we say embrace of “teh pron”.

Re: A Study in Inductomancy™ (batteries not included)

[sanguinity]

If nothing else, it's so damn hard to get a copy! I managed to ILL a copy years ago and scanned the entire damn thing and stashed it away on a hard-drive, which is how I happened to have source to work from. And you DO want source to work from, Townsend's style is so distinctive. I don't think I quite managed to stay true to Townsend -- the Klein/Stockdale parts owe a lot to Patrick Califia -- but I did try.

I was planning on doing a post about my thoughts on The Sexual Adventures of Sherlock Holmes now that reveals over, but I haven't had a chance to write it yet. Shall I ping you when/if I get it up?

Re: A Study in Inductomancy™ (batteries not included)

[iwantthatcoat]

Heh ehheheheh “get it up”.
Yeah, actually. I would love to read any views on Townsend. And I know I speak for Vulgarweed as well. He is so fascinating. As is the whole premise and however the hell he got away with publishing it.

Re: A Study in Inductomancy™ (batteries not included)

[sanguinity]

Oh, I probably can't satisfy on those points! I've just gotten very tired of Sherlockian reviews of it that don't seem to get that it comes from a very particular social/political context, and that maybe it wasn't for them in the first place.

Re: A Study in Inductomancy™ (batteries not included)

[iwantthatcoat]

Still wanna read it.
And whatever do you mean? Is not everything designed entirely for their personal consumption?
I have not read any Sherlockian reviews of it, actually. That’d be pretty amusing.

Re: A Study in Inductomancy™ (batteries not included)

[vulgarweed]

I'm also a little bit tired of critiques from people coming from an m/m slashfic background who bounce hard off the style (understandable) and say it's bad writing rather than a perfectly serviceable style that just operates under entirely different conventions and is aimed a very different audience.

I once saw an anonymous comment saying the author clearly didn't know anything about gay sex. Which is a strange thing to say about the author of The Leatherman's Handbook and an advice column for Drummer. :D

Re: A Study in Inductomancy™ (batteries not included)

[sanguinity]

I once saw an anonymous comment saying the author clearly didn't know anything about gay sex.

Oh. My. Fucking. God. Wow. Just, wow.

Re: A Study in Inductomancy™ (batteries not included)

[vulgarweed]

I ABSOLUTELY want to read this, please! (I wrote an essay about it years ago for a web publication that's now defunct - I have PDFs and have been meaning to put it on AO3 for a while but haven't gotten around to it.)

One of the reasons why it's so hard to get a hard copy at a non-catastrophic price, even of the 90s reissue, is that it's a desirable collectors' item for two mostly totally different groups of collectors: Sherlockians and vintage gay pulp fans.

I did manage to snag a 90s reissue for about $15 from a used-book dealer who didn't know what they had, but before that I was relying on the PDF circulating in fandom that's made from someone painstakingly photographing every page.

Re: A Study in Inductomancy™ (batteries not included)

[sanguinity]

Oh, I'd love to read your essay about it! If you ever put it up on AO3 (or would be willing to let me peek at your pdfs), please let me know.

Yup, yup, I DEFINITELY see how there are two groups of collectors fighting over extant copies.

Oh, lucky you, managing to snag your very own copy for a song! I was thinking there must be some under-the-table digital copy circulating somewhere for people to be requesting it, but I haven't heard about it. My own scan is mostly readable, but every once in a while you lose a word or phrase to a shadow in the gutter. I keep saying I'll do an OCR of my copy and clean it up by hand, but obviously I never have. (Oh but I wish I had done at some point! Not being able to ctrl-F certain things was a crimp in my writing process!)

Re: A Study in Inductomancy™ (batteries not included)

[vulgarweed]

I'll be glad to send it you by email. (It's a screengrab, not a PDF, I found, which will take a lot of zooming to be readable but it can be done.) What's your email addy?

Re: A Study in Inductomancy™ (batteries not included)

[sanguinity]

This username at gmail, and thank you very much!

Re: A Study in Inductomancy™ (batteries not included)

[vulgarweed]

Sent! I also sent the circulating photographed PDF of the book in case that's easier to use somehow.

Re: A Study in Inductomancy™ (batteries not included)

[sanguinity]

I received them both, thank you so much!

Re: A Study in Inductomancy™ (batteries not included)

[vulgarweed]

Townsend passed away in 2008 and I have no idea who has the rights but this is definitely something an enterprising LGBTQ+ press should reissue now, as an ebook at least.

Re: A Study in Inductomancy™ (batteries not included)

[language_escapes]

Add me to the list of people who want to read your thoughts! I freely admit that I probably know nothing about the context.

Re: A Study in Inductomancy™ (batteries not included)

[vulgarweed]

Two people formally offered it, fleetsparrow and me. That's why I was so sure it was FS, because I know I didn't write it for myself. That's the pitfall of settling on the easy and obvious choice.