The moment Johnlock became canon.

The moment Johnlock became canon.

*Sherlock *destroyed* John. Eviscerated him. When John lost the love of his life, he himself felt dead inside. How do you forgive a betrayal like that?* – Um, John wasn’t betrayed by Sherlock, Sherlock and John were hounded by a psychopath who is so powerful he has Mycroft, MI6 himself, in knots. Why is everyone blaming the victims and not the victimizer?

cloisteredself:

anigrrrl2:

caitlinispiningforjohnlock-deac:

I’m going to try really hard not to be snippy or sarcastic here, I promise.

John watched Sherlock commit suicide IN FRONT OF HIM and believed it was because he was about to be unmasked ‘as a fraud.’ He believed this for TWO YEARS. When Sherlock comes back John tells him he wants to know not how, but why.

But knowing the why doesn’t mean those two years didn’t happen! It doesn’t undo the trauma or the betrayal. it’s not a “Oh, well, no harm no foul!” kind of situation, is it? Expecting John to just instantly get over that depth of devastation isn’t just unreasonable, it would be truly crap writing and characterization. 

(Also, honestly struggling with forgiveness isn’t the same as ‘blaming the victim.” )

In addition, however, I also take some issue with characterizing Sherlock as a ‘victim’ in this scenario. There were many, many points he could have done things differently. He WANTED a confrontation with Moriarty. He CHOSE a confrontation with Moriarty over preserving his relationship with John.

Sherlock and Moriarty are presented as equals. To think that Sherlock didn’t get a rush from being cleverer than Moriarty is to not fully grasp the motivations of Sherlock Holmes. Painting Sherlock as Moriarty’s ‘victim’ is doing Sherlock a grave disservice.

Out of many possible choices, Sherlock made the decisions that funneled the possible outcomes down to the confrontation on the roof.

He did what he did to save his friends, yes, but Sherlock also chose to fake his own suicide because it was incredibly clever. 

This mix of motivations is why the ‘why’ is important to John, and why Sherlock is genuinely remorseful in S3. His decisions were a tangled mix of altruism, thrill-seeking, protectiveness, and showing off. Exactly like Sherlock himself.

In the end, the road of finding true forgiveness and acceptance is hard, bumpy, and filled with emotional nuance. Why would anyone not want to see that amazing journey?

Also, John doesn’t have to forgive Moriarty, does he? He can happily hate and revile him ‘til the end of time. That’s easy. 

In a very simple sense, something I say to my children every day, saying sorry doesn’t make it not hurt. 

Sherlock isn’t a victim, and I don’t blame him, so neither descriptor is accurate. I love Sherlock. I love him, and I sympathise with him, and I want him to have all the happiness in the world with John, because I feel they both deserve it. But recognising his flaws is healthy and we should all, as intelligent fans, be able to recognise that both Sherlock and John make some really terrible decisions. Especially where it concerns each other. 

Sherlock deceived John not just in ONE singular moment, but for two years. That’s a lot for anyone to forgive. 

Everything both these smart people said is dead on.

loudest-subtext-in-television:

thetwogaydetectives:

In series 1 they kept the subtext more subtle. It was harder to notice if you didn’t know what you were looking for, or you hadn’t been trained to see past the heteronormative lens. They did use homoerotic tropes, homosexual references, and clear sexual tension, but they didn’t take it further than that.
( excluding the pilot, because I’m pretty sure that was one of the gayest pilot in the history of TV)

In series two the subtext was not so subtle anymore. They stepped up their game, and began to actively intertwine the subtext with the plot. They began using more and more romantic tropes. The amount of homoerotic scenes and subtext laced scenes also increased. Also, they introduced two elements that had been mostly dormant in series one; jealousy and possessiveness, which were solely used when perceived romantic tensions, with other characters, arose.

In Series three, they completely blurred the lines between what is considered subtext, and what is considered text. The sexual and romantic tensions were palpable. Sherlock pining for John was painfully obvious. The romantic parallels that were used stood out, given that they come from extremely well known movies. The Homoerotism was blatant. The romantic tropes and the homosexual stereotypes were unmissable. The text corroborated to further enhance the romantic tension.

The only logical next step, I think, would be to make the subtext/text into indisputable text.

This exactly.

Plus the whole subtext-becomes-literal bit in ASiB with John’s “I always hear ‘punch me in the face’ when you’re speaking, but it’s usually subtext.”

And the elephants hidden in the background in TEH, which turn into a living breathing elephant juuust off-screen that Sherlock nearly comments on, then decides to keep his mouth shut. And the accompanying blog on the case where we learn it’s about two bodies, and John says he reaaally wants to talk about the elephant in the room but it’s part of the Official Secrets Act. And Sherlock commenting he’ll talk about it during his best man’s speech. And Gatiss saying they wrote a very important line in that speech. Which is probably “the universe is rarely so lazy” bit about coincidences, that things being in two groups isn’t a coincidence (i.e. the matching pairs aspect of The Subtext Game). And how it was planned lying. And “something is going to happen.” And they don’t want to “milk it” too much.

Not to mention Gatiss has always said he thinks the way to do revolutionary gay characters is to gently ease the fact of their sexuality into the story. And Moftiss repeatedly tell us they lie about spoilers because they MUST lie about spoilers and can’t believe anyone believes them. And how Moffat has always done the specifically coded subtext with literal meanings that actually come to pass; like 221beemine commented yesterday, Coupling is basically the codebook for the one-for-one substitutions in Sherlock. And how conspiracy theorists on the show are always right.

If they wanted to keep it subtext forever, they wouldn’t blatantly ramp it up and make it so obviously part of the text’s plot by the third series that even casual viewers think at least Sherlock is in love with John. The first two series wouldn’t be organized around the romantic misunderstandings keeping them apart, and the third series wouldn’t dismantle most of those obstacles so that the only one truly remaining is John thinks Sherlock is straight and incapable of romantic feelings even though the audience knows the newspaper articles about Janine are made up. The subtext wouldn’t include a huuuge bit about Sherlock realizing his sexuality in TSoT, and the text wouldn’t confirm he has sexual urges in HLV (porn preference) but apparently not toward women if they wanted to just sit on it forever. The subtext wouldn’t put in huge bits about John returning Sherlock’s feelings if it were supposed to be unrequited.

Add to all that the fact that it’s made clear that romantic relationships and sex are very important to John, but we know he and Sherlock are almost certainly going to end up spending their lives together. Sherlock being gay is as near to actual text as it can get at this point without being outright stated (and remember no straight character ever has to say they’re straight to prove it on a show, and again, plenty of casual viewers believe it to be canon). It’s nearly inconceivable that they could end up living together at this point and John NEVER finds out Sherlock’s gay and in love with him. It would be absurd to have Sherlock’s feelings so obvious that he can’t even keep them off his face anymore in series 3, that he dies and brings himself back to life for John, and cries constantly, and pines and pines and pines for him, but he never says or does anything about it. And it would be a really odd decision for the writers to work so hard to create that dynamic, and code it everywhere, and then decide they’re not going to actually use the drama and tension of it later. The drama of making it spoken at this point is going to drastically outweigh keeping it unspoken.

Plus the whole fact that Moftiss never exactly copy anything, they always add a twist to it. The whole Time Shift documentary on Sherlock Holmes is filled with the gayest clips from Sherlock along with Mark Gatiss talking about The Private Life of Sherlock Holmes being the template for Sherlock, soon after which the narrator says, apropos of seemingly nothing, that Billy Wilder always regretted not making Holmes openly gay. It’s hard to fathom Gatiss as a writer deciding he’s just going to copy TPLoSH and stop there, or that Gatiss as a gay man thinks it would be cute or funny to have Sherlock be closeted forever. Imagine being a gay kid, growing up loving the queer subtext in Sherlock Holmes, and imagining Holmes and Watson in a relationship for decades. Imagine feeling sad how Victorian England made it damn near impossible for love stories to be written about people like you, and that’s still largely the case a century later. Imagine being the kind of guy who called a gay hotline as a kid because you saw it in the background of a television show, and it meant so much to you to see that on TV that you bring it up in interviews. Imagine being the kind of guy who Tweets links to those kinds of things, because you remember being that age, and you know how alone queer kids can feel. Imagine being gay and wishing it weren’t such a big fucking deal, that people could just walk around being gay and no one would care about it. (“I don’t have to,” a lot of you are probably saying.)

When you make your adaptation of Sherlock Holmes, what do you do? Do you keep the setting of oppressive Victorian England? No. You make it in the modern day, so gay characters can exist openly with considerably less strife. So what about your Holmes and Watson? Do you keep them closeted forever, because you find it funny? Well, did you find it all that funny when you were a kid? This idea that gay people exist, but not out in the open? No, that hurt. You called a gay hotline because you felt bad. You see the pressure to stay closeted hurting gay people all the time, even today. 

Wouldn’t you have some opinions, some things you might want to say about the remaining factors that keep people closeted today? As a storyteller, wouldn’t you have some ideas of how to best express those views through your art? Wouldn’t it be important to you that bigoted people take those views to heart, instead of feeling defensive? Having grown up seeing that stories with gay romances get labeled as “gay stories,” wouldn’t you know that bigots won’t watch a “gay” show? Wouldn’t you instead do what you’ve always said you’d do, and gently ease people into it so that they’re rooting for a gay couple before they know it?

After all, what was the thing you did like about all that queer subtext? It was subversive. It was right in front of people’s faces and they didn’t get it. It was clever, it made you think. That’s all.

Gatiss got to do the unspoken, subversive bit he loved about TPLoSH for three series. He got to milk it for insane romantic tension. Now he gets to actually take it somewhere and put his own twist on it. If he just straight up copied it and stopped there, it would be the first example I could come up with him actually doing such a thing as a writer. And it would be completely out of character for him a person.

No one can actually read the showrunner’s minds, but if we’re talking balance of probability based on what we know about Moffat and Gatiss and how things have steadily escalated every series, it seems incredibly unlikely their relationship wouldn’t be actualized. It doesn’t match either of their styles as writers, and it doesn’t match how Gatiss operates in real life as regards queer issues. They had the protagonist of their show get shot in the heart and come back to life, but people think “openly gay” is some sacred line they aren’t willing to cross? Really? Or that Gatiss would grow up loving the queer subtext between Holmes and Watson, but now that he finally has his adaptation, he’s decided to pair them off with women, or pair John off with a woman, and keep all the gay stuff behind a curtain forever?

It seems like a very simple deduction to me. We’ll see what happens, but I know where my money is.

About | Meta Masterlist | Tags | FAQ

Meta question: has anyone looked at the pissing contest (literally) between Sherlock and Magnussen; “Sherlock Holmes needs to pee in a jar” and ‘Magnussen’s whiz in the 221B hearth and home’?

annejamison:

professorfangirl:

mid0nz-deactivated20170516:

Hmmm. Never thought about it… Anybody?

Right quick: I think a lot of this season’s about embodiment. While it’s obvious that Sherlock’s coming to terms with his need for emotional connection, he’s also learning about the vulnerability of his body.   “..can this man who’s all mind, pure logic, exist in a vulnerable body? (He begins under torture, he ends as a weeping child.)” (x) “He wants to live by logic, but he can’t escape his chemistry” (x). All the excretions, piss and shit and blood and tears, are evidence of our gross materiality, the inescapable body. (Psychoanalyst Julia Kristeva calls such “effluvia” signs of “the abject,” the filth and waste that  society rejects and is freaked out by.) Most importantly here, they’re means of contamination. Sherlock’s piss will provide evidence that he’s contaminated himself mind and body; Magnussen’s piss is a symbolic contamination of Sherlock’s home. (I wrote earlier about Magnussen as a mirror of Sherlock, only with a disgusting physicality. “To every superego its abject,” as Kristeva would say.)

the saliva left on one’s cheek after unwanted licking, perhaps? 

(1/2) Regarding your ask about “sherlock deducing himself”: oh god I’ve got a BS in Psychology and Criminology, and now that you mention it, I could say so much on that parallelism between Sherlock and the bullet-hole-ridden smiley face… first with the incident of Sherlock actually shooting the smiley face while bored, and then again in that scene in TRF showing them both in the mirror…

iwantthatcoat:

deducingbbcsherlock-deactivated:

(2/2) Basically, equate that smiley face to a punching bag with a cutout of Sherlock’s face on it, and when Sherlock got bored, when his mind rebelled at stagnation, he took to punching that bag (shooting the wall). The deliberate mirroring of the smiley face and Sherlock’s actual face is pretty indicative of them being linked. That’s an entire psychoanalysis just asking to be written.

Ho.Ly.Shite. 

First, can we talk about this? The smiley and the skull, good versus bad. Visually, it reminds me a whole lot of Sherlock’s final problem. Which man will he choose to be? 

image

image

He starts out TGG shooting the “right” version in the face. 

image

Why? BORED! 

image

Show off. Of course, that’s because John’s just walked in.

image

(And keeps him right.)

image

A nice “face to face” moment follows…

image

John sits in Sherlock’s chair rather than his own, mirroring the smiley himself.

image

Nice angle here, with the smiley directly over Sherlock as he points to his head.

image

Also this.

image

And this. 

image

And finally, in TRF:

image

Yeah, please please please please someone write a psychoanalysis on this, for real. Fuck.

Holy crap what a new take on him being self destructive. I can’t believe that soars over my head. The overly broad grin at the face in that long shot is…well..kinda painful.
I seem to remember that at the Christmas party at 221b the skull is decorated in red lights..so would that mean that side is “winning”?