Lol! *Hugs back* Really, you shouldn't encourage me. Give me an inch and I'll babble all over you for a mile, dahling :)
I wonder if it's meant to highlight her modesty and sensibleness or something
I wouldn't be surprised. It baffles me that Watson isn't forced to spend half his chronicling time detailing most all of London (male and female)hitting on the pair of eligible usually-bachelors up at 221B. Perhaps because it's a theme on which he prefers not to dwell :) Does put a new spin on Miss Sutherland's rather ostentatious loyalty and devotion, though, dunnit?
the discrepancy between how much different things cost boggles me
That opera price is insane! Maybe it's a little like the distinction between cost of living today in a third vs. first world nation, only all crammed into London? Victorian attitudes towards poverty make me cringe frequently (the whole point of the workhouses, which were supposed to be charitable institutions (!), was to make unemployment so unbelievably hellish that everybody would, theoretically, give up their lives of sin and idleness and go become moral and hardworking citizens). I wonder sometimes how much income distribution has actually changed from then to now... and then I remember that understanding the answer to that question would require knowing something about economics, and decide that my time would be better spent learning about something more sensible. Like poetry XD
no subject
I wonder if it's meant to highlight her modesty and sensibleness or something
I wouldn't be surprised. It baffles me that Watson isn't forced to spend half his chronicling time detailing most all of London (male and female)hitting on the pair of eligible usually-bachelors up at 221B. Perhaps because it's a theme on which he prefers not to dwell :) Does put a new spin on Miss Sutherland's rather ostentatious loyalty and devotion, though, dunnit?
the discrepancy between how much different things cost boggles me
That opera price is insane! Maybe it's a little like the distinction between cost of living today in a third vs. first world nation, only all crammed into London? Victorian attitudes towards poverty make me cringe frequently (the whole point of the workhouses, which were supposed to be charitable institutions (!), was to make unemployment so unbelievably hellish that everybody would, theoretically, give up their lives of sin and idleness and go become moral and hardworking citizens). I wonder sometimes how much income distribution has actually changed from then to now... and then I remember that understanding the answer to that question would require knowing something about economics, and decide that my time would be better spent learning about something more sensible. Like poetry XD