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.
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)