Case (![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
case) wrote in ![[community profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/community.png)
fandomsecrets2012-09-12 07:00 pm
case) wrote in fandomsecrets2012-09-12 07:00 pm
[ SECRET POST #2080 ]
⌈ Secret Post #2080 ⌋
Warning: Some secrets are NOT worksafe and may contain SPOILERS.
01.
__________________________________________________
02.
__________________________________________________
03.
__________________________________________________
04.
__________________________________________________
05.
__________________________________________________
06.
__________________________________________________
07.
__________________________________________________
08.
__________________________________________________
09.
__________________________________________________
10.
__________________________________________________
11.
__________________________________________________
12.
__________________________________________________
13.
__________________________________________________
14.
__________________________________________________
15.
__________________________________________________
Notes:
Secrets Left to Post: 00 pages, 034 secrets from Secret Submission Post #297.
Secrets Not Posted: [ 0 - broken links ], [ 1 2 3 4 - not!secrets ], [ 0 - not!fandom ], [ 1 2 - too big ], [ 0 - repeat ], [ 1 2 - posted twice ].
Current Secret Submissions Post: here.
Suggestions, comments, and concerns should go here.
TL;DR POST ABOUT SOMETHING REALLY UNIMPORTANT
(Anonymous) 2012-09-13 11:41 am (UTC)(link)Admittedly, people are throwing around the "homophobe!" war cry quite freely and it is, alas, idiotic no matter who wields it. The point being: this is fiction, people need to get the hell over it and realize the creators/writers/show runners do not mean to make a larger comment on society, rather, they just want to PUT ON A SHOW. That is the primary concern of most people in the entertainment sector of the arts and to think otherwise is both a quick path to bass-ackwards liberal censorship that makes people cringe (particularly those who would like to call themselves liberal and proud, but do not want to see it give way to this sort of fascism). Sherlock and Elementary are both free of hate-speech and any other sort of criminal act against a race or sexuality, so please, regard it as fiction and MOVE ON.
The Blind Banker? Racist. Yes, absolutely. I'd like to forget that episode exists, just as I would like to forget that most of Will and Grace exists and pretty much every representation of bisexual characters in the media. In this sense, Sherlock is far more guilty than Elementary thus far. We shall have to see if Elementary stumbles in some sort of 'ism' regard, it likely will.
That said, I do not think Sherlock is homophobic or misogynistic in the least. The most misogynist overtone I got from the show was Irene's loss to Sherlock in ASiB. I did not agree with that particular move and I thought the ending of the episode was just outright silly due to sheer impossibility of the situation. It made Irene lose because of her love for Sherlock, her feelings and she should have been the woman who beat him. The end. That's how it should have gone. The main problem was her connection to Moriarty and if she had won, it would have skewed the plot progression ever so slightly. However, I would have preferred this, still.
Irene, however, is a kickass woman and I'm kind of disappointed with anyone who says otherwise. She gets to the point, she actually wields her power, she jumps into action, she is strong, she is clever, she does what she needs to in order to survive without asking permission. She is unapologetic about her sexuality (in all senses) and she is willing to take on a considerable force with confidence in her actions. She is ruthless in her methods but she is not shrill about it and she is no wilting flower. She will survive on her own and you know what? Even the strongest of people need help sometimes. So what? Sherlock had to get her out of a bind. It was a testament of his respect for her and if you think that it makes her weaker, to need help, because she's a woman? You need to check who's the misogynist here. There was no slut-shaming, her profession proved to be quite an advantage and she genuinely seemed suited to it. She did not run around and sleep with people to get ahead, she was not subtle and demure about her methods. She THREATENED THE BRITISH GOVERNMENT WITH PHOTOGRAPHS OF ROYALS. I'm sorry, but if that isn't totally taking the bull by the horns, I don't know what is.
But let me say this, as a pansexual (in appreciation and behavior only)/grey!a (in true, base desire) person, I found the representation of the fluidity of sexuality beautiful on the show and in no way invalidating or erasing of the community, nor did I find it fan-service-y.
Irene IS a lesbian and if you think she isn't, because she was into Sherlock? I have to question your views on sexual fluidity and the right of the individual to their own label. You have no right to invalidate her lesbianism because she fell in love with Sherlock. Did you even know if she wanted to sleep with him, or was she in love with his mind? Was it purely romantic? Was it deep admiration? Come on, broaden your horizons a bit and stop being so daft and stuffy. The only person invalidating her sexuality is the viewer, if they choose to, because falling for Sherlock =/= SUDDENLY BI/STRAIGHT! No. She clearly regularly sought out women, worked with women and had some sort of involvement with Kate. So please, let's just not.
Irene Adler was a lesbian and she was not ashamed of it, and no, she didn't fall in love with Sherlock because he was a man. Sherlock is very queer, if anything, I think.
She fell for him because of his mind and yes, his mind is one-of-a-kind, so it does make sense that she would have found that long to find one like his. The body is just transport, think about it, she is his mirror image in many ways.
As far as John's sexuality, I'm also ashamed of your views if you think that a deep, enduring friendship cannot translate into love or some desire to spend one's life with a person, which John may not have really experienced before. He is clearly baffled, because Sherlock is a man and John is not gay, nor is he comfortable with personal attraction to males. Okay, so we can say that John can be assumed pretty far on the straight side of the spectrum. But again, Sherlock is not ordinary and here is a man that John shouted for through a window and was willing to kill a man for within a day of meeting him. Sherlock is his world, he brought him back to life, he quite possibly saved his life. This is a man who opened up the wardrobe for him, if we're talking Narnia contexts, he showed him a world he had not seen before. He is comfortable with Sherlock, he knows that the man needs him, deep down and he understands him despite consistent misinterpretations. Can you imagine how alone they would be without one another?
John goes as far as to track Irene down and insist she un-breaks Sherlock's heart, even though he distrusts her and maybe even hates her. This is an act of love on his part. Romantic? Who knows. Sexual? Maybe, admittedly, probably not... but not out of the question. Who knows. New interpretation, new rules. Just because characters do not have sex doesn't mean they don't have a kind of love for one another and perhaps they aren't a couple, but they are a 'couple' in a less traditional sense. They are partners, they trust one another implicitly, would likely turn to any measures to follow one another into the depths of hell and have built a nest in 221B together. They may not be involved, romantically or sexually, but they are a couple. Irene points this out to John, both their weaknesses for Sherlock and she is not so rigid as to only see John's history and comfort level. She sounds the uncomfortable truth, that John is a slave to his feelings surrounding Sherlock, as she is.
The fact that this will not become canon is not necessarily homophobic. I would like to see a bit more openness on behalf of the cast and crew to this subject, but the show actually lacks this denial of possibilities, even if it doesn't happen. The show itself seems very open to interpretation, even if the statements of the people involved shows otherwise and really, the show should be judged on its own merit. It seems as if they could end up together and they just as well might not, because John may not be attracted to Sherlock, Sherlock may be asexual, John may not want to admit it, Sherlock might be afraid of his feelings, really... anything could thwart a coupling. The odds are not in their favor anyway, let's face it. Fan-work is fan-work and thank God for it. I enjoy the fandom immensely.
Okay. Onto Elementary, which will be much shorter because I have not seen it, nor have I viewed it illegally. First off, I have little interest in it, and it has nothing to do with the fact that Watson is female, Asian or anything as completely insignificant as that.
It's more to do with the actors in question and the dynamics of the show. 1) I don't like the interpretation of Holmes and I can tell by the trailer. Jonny Lee-Miller has eyes like a puppy and he is apologetic in a way that I really can't stand when it comes to Sherlock. I like mine cold and pointy with secret heart. It's just a preference. Jonny Lee-Miller wears his heart on his sleeve. I also really just am not a fan of him as an actor. 2) I'm not a huge fan of Lucy Liu. Just as I am with music, I judge the mettle of an actor by the flexibility in the mediums they work in. I saw Lucy Liu in a play in New York when I was there and honestly, was really disappointed. However, I hear her work in Elementary was good and she's a good film actor, so I might check it out just to see her performance. I'm actually delighted they do service to Watson in this. We need more interpretations in which Watson is not a bumbling fool. 3) I do not like the dynamics, Sam I Am, I do not like them at ALL. Watson is not Sherlock's HANDLER, initially, he is his flatmate and his friend. When you start out with Watson acting as his handler, you add a great distance between them and an uneven power dynamic, thus removing the 'both parties are guilty of their own flaws' and the need for them to duke it out for the final word at some points. They should be on even ground, it makes for a much more fun party. Simple as that. Having Watson as his handler makes me angry, even, as I personally detest 'handlers' and I can just feel Sherlock's rage in my own bones at that set-up. Yeah, okay, it's personal.
I like that Elementary takes risks and I look forward to Lucy Liu's supposedly awesome performance, but it doesn't seem like my cup of tea, so far. I love Sherlock, I can't even really explain it. It's silly sometimes. It's not half as deep as people think. It's full of plot-holes. But it speaks to me on a deeper level and the characters are people to me, as real as people in my own life might be. I hold it in a dear place, regardless of my acknowledgement of its lapses. Anything that can touch me on that level is really personal to me, as I do not usually allow myself that luxury in comparison to picking things apart. I hate Doctor Who. I'll say it. I think it's trash and quite silly and lazy writing. Come at me.
But I do think that the accusations on both sides of this coin are absolutely annoying and it's high time they stop. I don't think either show is guilty of the cardinal SJW sins. I think that Elementary will have some fail and wank, as the Blind Banker did. It happens eventually and honestly, I do think there seems to be a total lack of apology for it that needs to be addressed. Again, that episode was kind of grotesque in that regard and almost put me off of the show. Almost does, if I think about it too long.
But saying that Watson and Sherlock are sure to hook up because OH MY GOD IT'S HET IT'S CANON IT'S HOMOPHOBIC is actually really sexist. So Sherlock fans? Shut the hell up. They are not sure to hook up because they are a man and a woman, that is ridiculous and this show is not standing in the way of your ship, so just shut up please, you're embarrassing the rest of us. Elementary fans? We do not hate Lucy Liu because she is a woman or Asian, we might have completely separate reasons to be suspicious of the quality of the show. We are not trying to get in your way, so press on. I hope that she is an amazing Watson, I really do. It's just that Martin Freeman is such an incredible actor and I have trouble imagining a performance that hits me as hard as his does, but I welcome a challenger.
So, that all said, let's just stop stirring crap up for the sake of it. I'd like to just look at my art, my rule 63, my crack!art, my kink meme, hear my fan mixes, watch my fanvids and forget about this silliness. I'd like to think most of us are better than this.
Re: TL;DR POST ABOUT SOMETHING REALLY UNIMPORTANT
(Anonymous) 2012-09-13 01:32 pm (UTC)(link)Re: TL;DR POST ABOUT SOMETHING REALLY UNIMPORTANT
(Anonymous) 2012-09-14 02:36 am (UTC)(link)Let's have dinner first?
Re: TL;DR POST ABOUT SOMETHING REALLY UNIMPORTANT
(Anonymous) 2012-09-13 06:07 pm (UTC)(link)Go on, call me narrow-minded or something for finding it repellent.
Re: TL;DR POST ABOUT SOMETHING REALLY UNIMPORTANT
(Anonymous) 2012-09-14 02:35 am (UTC)(link)They are not excuses, they are simply a look at the range of human sexuality and the nature of what Irene does. She is a sexual woman and makes no excuses for it, yet I don't believe she necessarily shows a history of attraction to men, just interaction, which is understandable, to me as a viewer. Most gay people have had some small interaction with the opposite sex at some point, it does not negate their sexuality.
Luckily, you do not ever have to revisit this episode if you don't wish to.
Re: TL;DR POST ABOUT SOMETHING REALLY UNIMPORTANT
What "sexual fluidity"? I saw a woman saying she was a lesbian, then having at least one line in nearly every scene she's in talking about wanting to fuck a man, or talking about men she's had relationships with--I know she uses that "I know what he likes" line twice. You can find that in straight guy porn, ffs. She's the sexy lesbian guys can fantasize about having sex with other women, knowing that they'll get to have sex with her, too.
She fell for him because of his mind and yes, his mind is one-of-a-kind
But it's not. Moriarty is a lot like Sherlock; the previous episode was about that very thing! And, hell, I think it would have been far more interesting if she'd fallen in love with Moriarty. They're far more like, and she did meet him first.
the right of the individual to their own label.
Irene's not an "individual", she's a fictional character, created by a straight man and reinvented by another straight man. It was that second straight man who put the label of "lesbian" on her, while at the same time intending for her to fall in love with a man.
John goes as far as to track Irene down
No, she had him brought to her. Hell, he thought Irene was dead, and that it as Mycroft who had sent for him. I'm pointing this out becasue you seem to think that the lengths he went to to find her prove his love, but since he did no such thing...
The fact that this will not become canon is not necessarily homophobic.
No, but the fact that they keep having the topic come up in every episode just to slap it down is.
Re: TL;DR POST ABOUT SOMETHING REALLY UNIMPORTANT
(Anonymous) 2012-09-14 02:32 am (UTC)(link)Moriarty is, in my opinion, not at all like Sherlock. He would like to think they're very similar, but the fact is that Sherlock has a heart and he has a mind that is very in tune with people and they way they work. He is not as able to pull strings as Moriarty is, ultimately, though he does outwit him because he understands The Final Problem. Whether Moriarty knew he was beat or not is debatable, but I'd say he did understand it in his last moments. I, too, wonder what it would have been like if Irene had fallen for Moriarty, but I think she ultimately didn't because she's not looking for a psychopath that could rip her apart and eat her for breakfast, she's looking for a mind she can sharpen her own against.
As a character, she is an individual and I think that it's ridiculous that people are upset that she interacts with men as a lesbian. It reinforces the idea of 'gold-star gays' and that elitism that you sometimes find, people who try to rip people's identity away from them on the basis that they do not have a 'perfect' sexual history in their opinion.
John did not track Irene down that first time, no, but he stated very clearly that he would tell Sherlock and he would pursue her if need be. It's not far-fetched to believe that he would have followed her. I do realize I spoke in error, but the scene does support the idea that in theory, he would have gone on to do this, in no uncertain terms.
The characters are not perfect. John is uncomfortable with the topic of his own homosexuality. Sherlock seems unbothered by the whole thing. It does get tired, yes, but I don't regard it as homophobic. The characters are flawed, as people are, and their flaws come through with their discomfort about certain subjects.
I thank you for a thoughtful, calm rebuttal.
Re: TL;DR POST ABOUT SOMETHING REALLY UNIMPORTANT
but the fact is that Sherlock has a heart
See, I think this makes him different from Irene, as well. Given the way she screws with people for fun, she doesn't strike me as having much of a heart, either.
she's not looking for a psychopath
LOL! Tell that to Moffat; he thinks she IS a psychopath.
people who try to rip people's identity away
She's not a person with an identity, she's a character given her identity by a straight man--the same straight man that had her fall in love with a man while at the same time never once showing her having a meaningful relationship with a woman.
but he stated very clearly that he would tell Sherlock and he would pursue her if need be.
Ah, true...
Still, it's really damn annoying: With Irene, they say she in love with him--I mean, she says it herself (as opposed to John, who does not)--she talks about wanting to fuck Sherlock, etc. It's TEXT. It's blatant. With John, not only is it all background and subtext, but even after ASiB, he's still being all defensive about them not being a couple, etc...
John is uncomfortable with the topic of his own homosexuality.
What homosexuality?
and their flaws come through with their discomfort about certain subjects.
The writers could have easily NOT made him be so sensitive about the topic.
Re: TL;DR POST ABOUT SOMETHING REALLY UNIMPORTANT
(Anonymous) 2012-09-14 03:29 am (UTC)(link)Irene is certainly more heartless than Sherlock and there is some question as to whether she's capable of feeling at all, up until the end. She is clearly operating on the desire to survive (a powerful motivator) and she definitely has a desire to connect with Sherlock. I do think she could be bordering on sociopathic, though, as you said.
We don't really see Irene's personal life outside of the show, so we aren't really privy to her relationships. Just because this isn't represented doesn't mean it isn't true, but she may have not had many meaningful relationships at all. She is given her identity by a straight man, but many women write male characters, gay ones, many non-trans* people write trans* characters, etc... and this does not necessarily negate the portrayal. Especially because Irene's sexuality wasn't quite necessary to the show, but it was an interesting tidbit in her and John's conversation. Again, Sherlock could be an exception, as far as her feelings go, we don't know. I just know that I've known many a lesbian who falls for a man and a gay man who falls for a woman. They are often still attached to their identities but find that there is sometimes an exception.
It is text, it's not subtext, but Irene is also playing a game, remember. She knows how to use her sexuality, she reverts to it, she may be trying to make him uncomfortable... there are a lot of reasons why she may use this sort of talk in particular. She may mean it. Like I said, sexuality can be fluid. She may find him beautiful, she may be turned on by his mind and express it through sexuality, who knows? It's hard to know what her motivations are at that point.
The concept of John's homosexuality, considering there is no evidence he is truly homosexual in the show.
They could have made him not as sensitive, yes, but it shows a bit of hypocrisy on John's part. The "it's fine as long as it's not me", the point of view a lot of "straight but not narrow" men have that I've noticed. John is also a military man. That definitely affects a man's point of view on the acceptability of these things.
You bring up some very good points. I admit we might always be suspicious of one another's arguments, considering it's very hard to change a person's mind when things are so subjective as a character's history and what is portrayed on a television show. And that's fine. Nothing is affected at the end of the day if we have differing points of view, luckily. But I do respect the things you're saying and I do think that there is a bit of defensiveness on the cast and crew's part on the subject, though the show can be interpreted differently. The art sometimes transcends the artist.
Re: TL;DR POST ABOUT SOMETHING REALLY UNIMPORTANT
Wait, a few post ago, you said she DIDN'T sleep her way to the top... now you're kinda saying she did.
I think this could just as easily appeal to lesbian women as straight men.
Yes, but it DOES appeal to straight men. And, really which do you think Moffat is more likely to have written that scene for?
Irene is certainly more heartless than Sherlock and there is some question as to whether she's capable of feeling at all, up until the end
She's attracted to Sherlock; that's not the same as feeling anything meaningful for him. Considering their total interaction in the episode is about... what, half a day? If that. Honestly, I'd be more inclined to say she's in lust with him than actually in love with him.
She is given her identity by a straight man, [...] and this does not necessarily negate the portrayal.
No, but the fact that he wrote her saying she's gay (and really, the only evidence we have of her lesbianism is one line from her), when he intended from the beginning to have her fall in love with Sherlock kinda does. He never intended for her to, ya know, actually ever be in love, or have any meaningful relationship with, a woman. So... why have her say she's a lesbian?
It is text, it's not subtext, but Irene is also playing a game, remember.
What does this have to do with John's feelings for Sherlock not getting to be text in the way Irene's are?
The concept of John's homosexuality, considering there is no evidence he is truly homosexual in the show.
Yes... that's kind of the problem I'm having. That scene with Irene and John was supposed to "compare" the two, and to show sexual fluidity by showing that they both fell in love with Sherlock despite having orientations incompatible with falling in love with a man. But the only actual evidence we see, at the end of the proverbial day, is the lesbian being attracted to Sherlock The straight man being attracted to Sherlock? Still a big question mark.
They could have made him not as sensitive, yes, but it shows a bit of hypocrisy on John's part.
Yes, but to what end? It's not like they're examining this in any meaningful way. They use it for a cheap laugh and move on.
Nothing is affected at the end of the day if we have differing points of view, luckily
Hee, true. (-:
Re: TL;DR POST ABOUT SOMETHING REALLY UNIMPORTANT
(Anonymous) 2012-09-14 04:47 am (UTC)(link)And sure, it does appeal to straight men, but what are we to do? Condemn things that appeal to straight women and gay men because they could appeal to women? Condemn things that could appeal to some lesbians because they could appeal to men? That would be a disregard of the people who are attracted to a more heteronormative look, potentially disregarding a gay person's desires in the process. I live in an area in which the men are very attracted to the 'masculine' ideal most straight women seem to drool over, and it's perfectly valid. I am also aware that a lot of the lesbian community does find more heteronormative women attractive and I have known many personally that do. I've also known people who don't, at all and prefer more alternative types. I can't comment as to who Moffat was trying to appeal to, as I don't really know the break-down of Sherlock's demographics, as far as viewers go. I'm sure Moffat was aware of that number, but I'm also sure he was just trying to represent that Irene was not straight, despite the tone of the episode.
I cannot speak to Irene's feelings for Sherlock either. Attraction can take an instant and how we interpret those feelings is different. Some people look at a stranger and think, "I would like to date this person, they seem interesting." Some people think, "I would like to sleep with them." The nature of Irene's attraction remains ambiguous to me.
I believe the idea of her being a lesbian was intrinsic to the discussion she had with John and further tried to prove that she was 'just playing a game'. In the end, of course, it did not prove a thing, as Sherlock foiled her plans. We did not see her lesbianism in the show, but again, do we see the lesbianism of women walking down the street, necessarily? In certain areas of their lives, where we are not privy to their over-all behavior, or their innermost thoughts? It is a bit puzzling, yes, but as an impetus for that talk and ambiguity of the 'game', I can see what he might have been reaching for as a writer. And I believe Gatiss wrote ASiB, correct me if I'm wrong, but I think he was largely responsible for that.
The point I was making with the text vs. subtext was that she may not be completely forthcoming as to her feelings. In the episode, we see not her desires, but what she tells John and Sherlock and we see her heart revealed when Sherlock cracks the code on her phone. So, it is text, but it cannot be taken at face value.
It is a question mark, which I believe leaves it up to the viewer. No, John will not end up with Sherlock on the show, but that doesn't really mean he is certainly free of attraction to him or love for him. The evidence would present that Sherlock is an exception for Irene and John does not say anymore on the matter, but he is rather baffled by Irene's statement and shuts up, which betrays a certain kind of shock. The realization of a truth he did not really want to address. As to how, exactly, this attachment to Sherlock presents itself, we don't know, but we do know that he is rather taken aback when he's called out on it. Again, I do think that the creators and cast are a bit silly in their stubbornness to address John's sexual/romantic possibilities, but the show ended up with a really different tone.
I agree with you, I don't like the cheap laugh bits. It comes off like a buddy movie in which they're HA HA IN SUCH GAY SITUATIONS BUT NO REALLY GUYS THEY'RE NOT GAY. Then again, this is really common behavior in reality. A lot of men feel the need to assert their heterosexuality when they feel it's threatened in any way, which they represented well. John is not perfect. He's pretty damn close, he's patient, caring, loyal, kind, rather selfless, all those things… he accepts his sister's sexuality, he would be fine with living with Sherlock if he were gay, but he has a limit. He is not gay and insists that at every single turn, which shows a bit of unwillingness to accept it completely. It may not be a very useful plot device, but it's damn good character development, if John's progression is to insist upon his own perceived definition of masculinity and have it blown to bits by Irene.
I'm actually really enjoying this conversation, tbh. :) You're making me think about this a bit deeper and really dig for the wherefores I might not have examined if I didn't have to explain my views. To have delightful and ultimately inconsequential discussions is rather nice in the face of scary things like politics, especially in this climate, honestly.
Re: TL;DR POST ABOUT SOMETHING REALLY UNIMPORTANT
Again, though, it's not just that Irene is shown being sexy with a woman, she's also the type of "lesbian" who will have sex--or at least do sexual things--with men. So guys can watch, and know that after she's done with the women, he gets to have sexytime with her, too. It's the idea that even lesbians are sexually available to men.
Attraction can take an instant
Yes, attraction. Not deep, meaningful love. You were talking about Irene's having feelings, but are her feelings for Sherlock that strong? Given their actual time together, I find that hard to imagine. Hell, even with how she felt, she was still willing to betray him and blackmail is brother. She still made condescending remarks about his sexuality. Someone who's willing to do that is NOT in love, imo.
The realization of a truth he did not really want to address. [...]
but we do know that he is rather taken aback when he's called out on it.
Yes, that's all really lovely. Now where's the follow-up? He's not addressing it, but neither is the show.
but it's damn good character development
What development?
if John's progression is to insist upon his own perceived definition of masculinity and have it blown to bits by Irene.
Except she did no such thing. In both episodes after this, John is acting just the same as before.
See, that's the thing that really bothers me about that scene: If it's about sexual fluidity, why is that the only person who's sexuality shows any actual fluidity is the gay woman's?
To have delightful and ultimately inconsequential discussions is rather nice in the face of scary things like politics, especially in this climate, honestly.
Hee. I'm not sure if you're in the U.S., but GOD I can't wait till the elections are over... ~_~
Re: TL;DR POST ABOUT SOMETHING REALLY UNIMPORTANT
(Anonymous) 2012-09-14 05:47 am (UTC)(link)Being a person who is not that romantic and not that sexual, I don't know what attraction means to most people or what the 'true nature' of it is. Does anyone, really? Even the people who experience it 'normally'? Irene and Sherlock are certainly not examples of people with socially acceptable feelings, pastimes or thoughts. Their relation to these aspects of themselves might be very different than what is considered healthy or normal. Again, the sort of budding interest/attraction she had may not conquer the need for survival. It rarely does. But this largely comes down to a person's definition of attraction/love/lust and so I find it hard to really define what it was versus what it could have been. People have very different definitions of love, there are those who say that if a person is in love, they will never fall out of it and if they do, it's not really love. Some say that love can be a strong feeling, but not all-important or capable of conquering human necessity. Attraction, though, interest, can be very powerful for the easily bored and can take a relatively short amount of time. All I know is that Irene admitted freely that she felt something for him that went deeper than a predator instinct and that her body betrayed her interest, whatever it was. Again, though, this is my opinion and you have stated yours… and so, opinions are very hard to argue with, considering the variety of the schools of thought on this subject. There's not really one study to point to that can prove or disprove this, given that we don't really know Irene's thought process.
The power is in John not addressing it, I think. Silence says a lot. And as far as the character development, he does not correct the inn-keeper in Baskerville. Of course, he may not have wanted to get into it, but I don't believe we see him justify himself to another person after that, aside from the indignant, "Bachelor!" comment in Reichenbach. It seems like a small thing, but it's a deviation from the compulsive corrections he makes earlier on. So I do believe there is a bit of development on John's part.
I do believe that John's silence shows fluidity in a man who is highly uncomfortable with himself and unconscious, until that point, of how he might deviate from the standards of strict heterosexuality. It's all in Freeman's performance, though, not quite the writing, which is why I judge the final product and not the creators as much. I believe it takes on a life of its own due to the actor's interpretation and Martin, thus far, I believe has been very open to the interpretations of Sherlock and John's relationship. Much more so than others on the show.
Over all, I'd say that most of this comes down to how a person views the character's motivations, which cannot really be confirmed or denied until all sources (creators, actors, editors) are consulted. I would not say Moffat is well-informed of the issues at hand and addresses them shoddily at times and I'm not saying Gatiss is innocent of this either. Gay men do not inherently free themselves of potential prejudice, even though they are more able to speak of gay issues/struggles/feelings more accurately than an ally or outsider. But I would say the episode itself was far more interesting than maybe it was intended to be and it can be empowering to some rather than a shameful representation.
I am in the US and… ugh, ugh, UGH, THIS. THIS ALL OVER. I JUST WANT THEM TO BE OVER. PLEASE MAKE THIS ALL STOP. POLITICAL PARTIES ARE THE WORST PARTIES.
Re: TL;DR POST ABOUT SOMETHING REALLY UNIMPORTANT
The quotes are because I'm talking about fictional lesbians, who are only really with women to give men spank material. Real life is much more complicated.
The power is in John not addressing it, I think.
I'm talking about the fact that the show refuses to address is, actually.
And as far as the character development, he does not correct the inn-keeper in Baskerville.
Yes, he does, actually. And he starts to a second time later on.
I believe it takes on a life of its own due to the actor's interpretation
And the fact that the actor has to "interpret" it is the problem. I'm sick of this "open to interpretation", subtext, bromance-y bullshit. Why is it that, in 20-fucking-12, we can't just have them be a openly, obvious, TEXTUAL goddamn gay couple already?!
Re: TL;DR POST ABOUT SOMETHING REALLY UNIMPORTANT
(Anonymous) 2012-09-14 06:18 am (UTC)(link)The show still has episodes yet, I do hope they will address this further though, considering it was a really nice little spark. I hope it becomes more of conversation, but like you, I don't have any high hopes. This stuff is what keeps it from falling into the procedural show formula, in my opinion.
He starts to correct the inn-keeper but has a moment where you can just see him go, 'Screw it', and leave it at that. It's a bit of a change from his arm-waving, "NOT GAY!", response.
Amen. I mean, there are some representations of GLBTQ people as main characters on shows, but I don't think they're necessarily awesome or enough. The characters are never really fleshed out to the extent of straight characters and their sexuality is a HUGE DEAL to their character usually. I don't know that I necessarily want to see Sherlock and John 'together' in a traditional sense, considering I don't think either of them are that good at being normal in this regard. But I wouldn't mind if, hey, the attraction became text or apparent. Or there was some real tension without it being deflated by humor. That would be very nice and I wouldn't mind one character expressing what they feel. I'm just a person who is not a romantic/relationship oriented person and I guess I have some desires to see my sexuality/romantic inclinations depicted on a show as well, haha! As any person, does, really. It's just kind of like, "OH COME ONNNN" as Sherlock is so... possibly many things, regarding his sexuality/romantic identification. I want to see more thiiiiings.
Re: TL;DR POST ABOUT SOMETHING REALLY UNIMPORTANT
(Anonymous) 2012-09-14 05:56 am (UTC)(link)