Wilson Buys House One Of Those Reversible Squid Plushies As A Joke And House Dismissively Tosses It On

Normal Sherlock and Watson

Medical Sherlock and Watson

Horror Sherlock and Watson

Supernatural Sherlock and Watson

And last but not least, lo and behold

Biblical Sherlock and Watson

(Honorably mention to merlin and King Arthur, the medieval Sherlock and watson)

I figured since cartin got me kinda popular all of a sudden and I got a lot of new followers I might post some old art that I like

ALWAYS CREDIT ME IF YOU WANNA REPOST! or just don't repost, that'd be perfect actually

obsessed with the Helena and Irving parallel and what it says about the aspects of our identity we think are fundamental (but aren't)...

Like Outie Irving assumes his Innie is just as radically anti-Lumon as he is. He assumes his hatred of Lumon is something ingrained in his personality! That's why he stays up at night drinking coffee and making paintings, because he hopes that when his innie dreams about the testing floor, he'll say "okay bet" and start exploring. That's what Outie Irving would do, after all. But he miscalculated! His hatred of Lumon isn't inherent--- his desire for meaning and art and spirituality is inherent. That's what his hatred for Lumon is built on. But in a world where there's no meaning outside of Lumon propaganda, of COURSE his innie would become ridiculously devoted to the company.

And Helena!! She is the corporation, that's her whole identity. She presumably assumed that Helly would be just as pro-Lumon as she is. But she miscalculated too! Her devotion to the company isn't inherent, her headstrong and entitled nature is what's inherent! And in a world where she's denied any agency whatsoever, that manifests as rebellion.

It's the same dynamic flipped on its head. They both sent their innies in there with opposite intentions--- one to take down the company, one feed the company's expansion--- only to realize that rebellion and devotion aren't inherent characteristics. Their innies have become the exact opposite of their outie selves, while still being exactly the same!! Because even though your personality is inherent, the values you hold are determined circumstantially. OUGH IT'S SO GOOD.

🎄🐾🐺✨🌘

It’s crazy to me that people read Sherlock Holmes’ obsession with Irene Adler as romantic when it is so clearly the same kind of obsession that gay men have for Lady Gaga

So apparently the version of the "Isn't It Bromantic" interview that gets passed around isn't the full thing

So after seeing a tumblr post I can't find, about two and half hours of intensive internet digging, and one purchase from a sketchy second-hand site later (full story under the cut, I promise it's interesting, but also long), I got the physical magazine and scanned it

So here you go: the full "Isn't It Bromantic?" TV guide interview with Robert Sean Leonard and Hugh Laurie

Feel free to repost wherever you want- I want people to be able to find the full thing

SO, as for how I found it:

I saw this tumblr post forever ago that I can't find anymore because tumblr is just Like That with a cropped screenshot of an interview with Hugh Laurie and Robert Sean Leonard. In the interview, they're asked about the "bromance" between their two characters. Leonard makes an annoyed comment about how "everyone [is] obsessed with homosexuality", followed by the interview apologizing and Laurie immediately jumping in with, "No, no, let's talk about it. Wilson and House have an unusual relationship so you have to explore…" and the screenshot cuts off there. Cue funny comment from the OP about the interaction, roll credits.

Except, as these things tend to do, it ended up becoming a bit of a brain worm, and I wanted to find it again. But I couldn't find the tumblr post. I looked absolutely everywhere, and in the process of looking everywhere, I found what I thought was the original interview- a blog post with the full quote from the actor. I didn't think too much about it, I figured it was just a short quote given to a popular blog in 2008. There's a magazine cover above it, but I don't think too much about it, because I'm focusing on the quotes in the article instead of the rest of it.

So I send screenshots to a couple friends to make jokes, and it probably should have died there.

However, late at night I end up thinking about that interview again, because of course I did. I start to think about how it's weirdly formatted for, what I assumed at first reading, was just an entertainment news blog reaching out for comment and getting a response. So I pull up the screenshots of the article (because weirdly enough, the old-ass blog only loads on mobile) and look at it again.

This is when I realize that this isn't an original piece from a blog interviewing these two after reaching out for comment. This is a blog post quoting and commenting on a full interview from a magazine, which I had originally thought had just been the inspiration for the piece.

So naturally, I go looking for the magazine.

Luckily, the name of the magazine is displayed on the cover, and so is the title of its main piece. This should be easy to find, right?

Wrong.

This is an interview in a physical magazine. From 2008. October 13th, 2008, to be exact.

I know this exact date because searching the article title and magazine name leads me to an archive on the TV Guide website.

Of covers.

And nothing but covers.

I spend like forty-five minutes searching everywhere I can think of on the web. Internet Archive, the TV Guide website, any search result that comes up when I search any combination of the words "House" "Interview" "Bromantic" "Bromance" "TV Guide" "Archive" etc. Over and over, all that's coming up are that original blog post and the cover from the official gallery.

The only things I could find online were:

The cover and date of the issue on the TV Guide website

The original blog post that was screenshotted in the original tumblr post

Another blog post that had a much shorter version of the quote, references something Leonard says from later in the article, and makes a comment on the nature of his reaction to the term "bromance"

An entry on Leonard's IMDB page's "interview" list mentioning it in title only

And:

5. A single listing for the issue on what seemed to be a second-hand site that looked like it hadn't had its UI updated since the mid 2000's, with a listing with no date or additional information besides what issue it is.

This is the only listing anywhere. I checked every other second-hand site I could think of, and then some that only came up through google searches. There's not a single listing for that issue on any of them. There were plenty of listings of TV guide magazines, including one that seemed promising because it included issues from that year, but it was missing all of October.

It seemed like the only listing for this issue on the entire internet was this one copy on this one obscure website. For all I know, this was listed in 2008 and abandoned, and just never got marked inactive. It could also be a complete scam.

A few quick google searches show that that website seemed to be legit, albeit a bit loose on quality control (which makes sense, this website seemed like the kind of thing you'd have to use the Way Back Machine to access). It also had an option to pay via PayPal, which meant I could file a chargeback if need be.

It was $11.50 when you include shipping.

So at about half past midnight, I bought the listing.

Naturally, about an hour later, I manage to actually find a scan of the interview. I had to follow a link in the comments of a post on FanPop, taking me to an old wordpress blog, and I'm sitting in front of the damn interview at last.

But something doesn't make sense. Why would their cover story only be two pages of text that aren't even full pages, and why would it cut off so strangely? There was no concluding sentence or paragraph, even though it started with a fairly long lead-in. It also led right up to the edge of the page, which felt like there should be more to it. There were more images in the interview than text, and the fact that there are so many of them and they clearly did a whole photoshoot indicated that they had them on hand for a while. The silly string one, for instance, I imagine probably had to require a couple takes, which means cleaning off Wilson's hair and face, adjusting makeup, etc. for it. Meanwhile, the conversation itself seems like it could have taken ten minutes total. I could have been totally wrong and that was where the article ended, but I couldn't shake the feeling that there might be more.

So I hold tight. A couple days pass with no update, and then the PayPal purchase gets updated with a tracking number. Promising, but it could still be a scam. Whether or not I get the actual magazine becomes a source of anxiety for the next week.

Until today, when I get told it was delivered. And when I opened the envelope it was sent in: there it was.

When I tell you I was happy stimming in my bedroom just holding the damn issue in my own hands... And then opening it and finding out that I was right, there was a missing page... I was elated. I still am, just typing this.

So I spent half an hour getting my scanner to work, and I give you the above issues.

Like I said above, feel free to repost however and wherever you want. I want all this to mean something.

In the meantime, I have two more House-themed TV Guide magazines coming to try and get articles from.

"I don't think these guys are even at the shipping stage yet, there's just tension" skill issue I was shipping these girls the moment they stepped into the elevator

"House and Wilson are dating and haven't told anyone yet, but they accidentally give themselves away by doing something couple-y" trope except it's not an absent-minded and automatic kiss that gives them away, it's how House straightup licks Wilson's face (to be annoying) and Wilson looks back at House with the wettest heart-eyes imaginable (rather than immediately wiping his cheek and/or hitting House with something)