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
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)