fandomsecrets | [ SECRET POST #2144 ]

[ SECRET POST #2144 ]

⌈ Secret Post #2144 ⌋

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.

__________________________________________________

16.

__________________________________________________

17.

__________________________________________________

18.

__________________________________________________

19.

__________________________________________________

20.

__________________________________________________

Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 01 pages, 023 secrets from Secret Submission Post #306.
Secrets Not Posted: [ 0 - broken links ], [ 0 - not!secrets ], [ 0 - not!fandom ], [ 0 - too big ], [ 0 - repeat ].
Current Secret Submissions Post: here.
Suggestions, comments, and concerns should go here.

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

Honestly, the fact that people are constantly alluding to the fact that John and Sherlock must be gay because they live together, but then they basically go "LOL AS IF NO HOMO"

Yeah, I actually disagree that that's what happens. There is no "must be gay" assumptions, and there's no "LOL AS IF NO HOMO".

I looked at the exchange between Irene and John and to be honest, do you think there's a more likely explanation? If so, what?

I looked at the exchange between Irene and John and to be honest, do you think there's a more likely explanation? If so, what?

That Irene was just trolling John like she did everyone else in that episode?

I mean all John does in reply is scoff. Like he knows he's just bashing his head against a wall to deny it. The same way he does when others imply him and Sherlock are together, by the end he just stops bothering and acts despondent.

And considering there is nothing else in the entire series that follows on from that to imply either he or Sherlock are in love...yeah, I'd say it was just another example of Moffat's queer-baiting.

Why are people even reaching for this squint and maybe you'll see it stuff these days? Canon gay is a thing. It is a (poorly handled) thing within that very show. If there was going to be anything between John and Holmes, it would be more blatant than John deciding that arguing with a troll isn't worth his time.

Thank you for your common sense here. Sometimes I feel like Sherlock fandom hates anyone who DOESN'T ship John/Sherlock.

I think that's reading against canon, but you're entitled to your opinion.

There is no "must be gay" assumptions, and there's no "LOL AS IF NO HOMO".

There's plenty of both. Hell, there's two in the first episode alone (Mrs. Hudson wondering if John will need the other bedroom [Of course I will!], and the whole dinner scene). Also Sally in TGG, the innkeeper in THOB, and his reaction to being referred to as a "confirmed bachelor" (i.e., gay) in the some paper in TRF. The last two take place after ASIB, btw (in fact, TRF is six months later; the ASIB scene was before New Year's while Sherlock is said to have "died" in June). So either Irene was wrong about John's feelings, in which case, what the the point of the scene; or she was she was right, but John's still denying it as much as half a year later, in which case, what was the point of that scene?

Edited 2012-11-16 02:48 (UTC)

I don't agree that the fact that people think they're a couple is queerbaiting and No Homo.

John is the only one who protests (and I think it's because he is a bit insecure about his sexuality and worries about his image in that department). Sherlock doesn't care, and thought he was seriously flirting in the first episode and answered the same way as he would any romantic overture.

I think people's assumptions come naturally, because of how they act and the fact that they live together. It's not something people who know them keep harping on about, it's not something they're mocked for, it's treated by all characters as a legitimate and normal possibility, not something half-forbidden that's joked about.

either Irene was wrong about John's feelings, in which case, what the the point of the scene; or she was she was right, but John's still denying it as much as half a year later, in which case, what was the point of that scene?

That he's in love but denying it, for various reasons, I'd say. Or he's accepted it and moved on, as he must be pretty sure Sherlock isn't interested. Especially after Irene.

That he's in love but denying it, for various reasons, I'd say. Or he's accepted it and moved on

Then the point of that scene was...? See, in real life, there are loose ends, stuff that happens you're not privy to, etc. But in fiction, if you're not willing to follow through on something, then DON'T BRING IT UP. If John is so repressed that the audience will never see him express his feeling towards Sherlock, then it's the same thing as him NOT having them, so there's no point to his having them. And if he's already moved on--same thing. So, again, if Moffat doesn't have the balls to show John expressing his feelings towards Sherlock, there's no point in claiming he has them. And don't ask me "How should he (John) do that". It's Moffat's plot point, HE should figure how to deal with it.

If John is so repressed that the audience will never see him express his feeling towards Sherlock, then it's the same thing as him NOT having them,

It really isn't. I think the scene with Irene really said it all, especially the non-verbal acting.

John expressing his feelings to Sherlock? How could that be IC in any way, especially as long as the feelings are unrequited? Especially when they are feelings he doesn't even want to admit to himself?

Also, the story isn't finished, so talking about what the writers (there are more of them than Moffat; isn't Gatiss and him doing it mostly as a joint project?) never did is a bit strange to say at this point in time.

If John is so repressed that the audience will never see him express his feeling towards Sherlock, then it's the same thing as him NOT having them

It really isn't.

Yes, it absolutely is. If the audience can't see it, it doesn't exist.

John expressing his feelings to Sherlock? How could that be IC in any way

And ain't that fucking convenient? Write a guy who's sexually repressed, have someone he's in love with his male friend (look, we're progressive! We're talking about gays and shit!), then justify never actually following through by pointing out repressed he is. Something YOU (I don't mean you, I mean Moffat & Co.) wrote him as in the first place. Why, it's kind of like saying a woman is gay, but the only relationship we see her in be with a man.

See, that's the problem with this show: It'll TALK about homosexuality all the live-long day, but when comes to portraying homosexuality? Yeah, not so much.

Also, the story isn't finished,

This is true. So are you saying that at some point in a future episode, John WILL express his love for Sherlock?

there are more of them than Moffat

Yes, there are three writers. But Moffat wrote SIB.

Edited 2012-11-16 20:46 (UTC)

If the audience can't see it, it doesn't exist.

But the audience can see it. He doesn't have to express it to Sherlock for us to do so.

Write a guy who's sexually repressed, have someone he's in love with his male friend (look, we're progressive! We're talking about gays and shit!),

Well, is this in any way common in mainstream fiction? A main male character implied to have actual, serious romantic feelings for the other main male character? I haven't anywhere said it's progressive. I just think it's better than a world where it's implied that same-sex relationships don't even exist. It's not progressive, it's simply not reactionary.

Why, it's kind of like saying a woman is gay, but the only relationship we see her in be with a man.

We're not actually shown Irene having a relationship at all, unless you count the heavily implied connection between her and her female assistant. The whole case starts up because of Irene's relations with a woman (heavily implied to be the girlfriend of one of the princes).

So are you saying that at some point in a future episode, John WILL express his love for Sherlock?

How should I know?

Are you saying that unrequited love is automatically homophobic if it's between two men?

Yes, there are three writers. But Moffat wrote SIB.

At least Moffat and Gatiss are involved in the overall plotting, if I've understood things right. And it's not as if Scandal is the only episode where people have thought John and Sherlock were together.

(no subject)

fenm - 2012-11-17 00:43 (UTC) - Expand

(no subject)

sarnath - 2012-11-17 15:53 (UTC) - Expand

Every time someone alludes to the fact that John and Sherlock might be in a relationship, there's either the response of "I'M NOT GAY" or laughter and a mocking/derisive tone, as if anyone thinking they were gay is positively ridiculous. And yet it keeps coming up, because the writers know that fans ship it and they want to have their cake and eat it too. If the only reason you even mention that they might be a couple in an episode is to either go "NOPE NOT GAY" or laugh at the very thought because there is no way you ever intend to make that couple canon, you are pulling a no homo moment. So, yeah, there is an awful lot of queerbaiting going on.

I remember seeing a video where Morgan Freeman wore librarian glasses and kept doing random things that he was worried people would think were disgusting, like peeing in front of another person and yelling "I'M NOT GAY!' or accidentally walking into the women's lingerie section and yelling "I'M NOT A PERVERT!"

...I remember I had a point to this.

MORGAN Freeman?

...I hope so, because the image of that is even more hilarious.

And adorable ♥

Damn, I need to find this video.

Dammit, now I can't go back and edit it.

I meant Martin Freeman, sorry. And here's the link, if anyone's interested:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N5nMzrSkmIg

Every time someone alludes to the fact that John and Sherlock might be in a relationship, there's either the response of "I'M NOT GAY" or laughter and a mocking/derisive tone, as if anyone thinking they were gay is positively ridiculous.

No, there isn't. You're misremembering, and probably internalising what people have said online. John is denying it, Sherlock doesn't care, people they meet treat it as a normal thing, not something titillating or as a joke.

My impression isn't that the writing says a gay couple would be ridiculous, but that people believe them to be together because they don't consider it a strange or weird thing. Two men in their situation could likely be a couple, that's why other characters assume. It makes John insecure, for several possible reasons, but no one else seems to care.

And I don't agree that not making a couple who has subtext canon is always per definition queerbaiting.

Not sure if troll, or poster child for delusional shippers

No, there isn't. You're misremembering

No, I'm not.

John is denying it

Yes, and notice that it's usually aimed at him. All but one of the examples I gave were aimed at him. The topic is brought up SPECIFICALLY for him to deny it. Why do that?

And I don't agree that not making a couple who has subtext canon is always per definition queerbaiting.

No one's saying it is. But bringing up the topic just to have to shot down OVER AND OVER AND OVER is.

Dude, it's not really necessary to patronize me. I've seen the series and episodes in question, and I remember them quite clearly. The fact that you view and interpret them differently does not mean that I've somehow viewed them in the wrong way or that I can't remember correctly.

When people mistake Sherlock and John for a couple it's either played for laughs, used to reflect that insecurity that John has about his sexuality that you mentioned (which plays into the whole idea that being mistaken for gay = bad), or some combination of both. The same people don't have to keep accusing them of it or bringing it up for it to be queerbaiting. The fact that it comes up in every single episode constitutes queerbaiting. Also, the fact that they appear to have no intention of exploring John's sexuality or any of those insecurities related to how it is perceived by other people beyond poking fun at the fact that so many people assume he's gay, and that makes him flustered. "Constantly gets mistaken for and denies that he is gay" really shouldn't be a character trait that they feel like sticking in every episode when it has absolutely no pertinence to the plot. They're basically just using it as ship fodder and to add to the John-is-so-put-upon schtick (which isn't a bad schtick, but he spends the majority of his time with Sherlock; there is more than enough there to make him seem put upon without having to go the everyone-thinks-they're-a-couple route).

The fact that the show contains queerbaiting doesn't mean that the ship is bad or awful or that people shouldn't ship it. I'm all for people shipping it if they want to. I have a slash couple in another series that I ship where the writers like to use them to queerbait. I will always love them as a couple, but that doesn't mean that I have to just accept or like all the no homo crap that the writers write with them and toss my way. The fact is that a lot of shows pull that kind of crap, and it gets really, really old. You can write two male characters in a relationship where they're extremely close and show that closeness without going for the gay jokes or using the fact that people ship them together to boost your ratings. And the constantly being mistaken for a gay couple thing is generally not a show of acceptance or open-mindedness. Not when it's happening to two guys who've not been presented as queer in canon, and when every time it gets brought up, it's either followed by a giggle, a denial, or some sort of negative reaction by at least one of the characters in question.

And the constantly being mistaken for a gay couple thing is generally not a show of acceptance or open-mindedness. Not when it's happening to two guys who've not been presented as queer in canon, and when every time it gets brought up, it's either followed by a giggle, a denial, or some sort of negative reaction by at least one of the characters in question.

MOTHERFUCKING THIS.

If you couldn't already tell, this type of thing gets me a bit worked up. Lol. I just get so, so irritated when people use examples like that to prove how progressive a particular show or group of writers are. Mentioning queerness =/= progressive. Hell, even having queer characters =/= progressive. It's all in the context around those mentions and how they actually deal with the characters in question.

I find it endlessly frustrating when writers tease this stuff and play things up to get people's hopes up, because there's almost never any pay off. Whereas when they're teasing a straight couple, at least they have more than a snowball's chance in hell of actually happening. And I can ship non-canon couples with the best of them, but having it constantly brought up with absolutely no intention of taking things beyond the references to people thinking they're gay together is annoying. Especially given the lack of queer representation in T.V. shows, books, movies, and other entertainment media. And even then, when you look at what we do have, there's not a lot of good queer representation among that. Better than what we had even 5 years ago, but still in need of some serious work. Unless you're going to follow through, just keep writing your stories. I guarantee that shippers will find enough context within to ship to their heart's content without you having to mention that people think they're a gay couple periodically. They don't really require the reminder.

Lol, sorry for the ranting. I just have a constant, low-level simmering annoyance at this type of thing, and apparently it's chosen today to boil over.

Whereas when they're teasing a straight couple, at least they have more than a snowball's chance in hell of actually happening.

Plus, there's often another straight couple as major/main characters on the show. How many mainstream shows that tease a gay couple have another gay couple as major/main characters somewhere?

(no subject)

(Anonymous) - 2012-11-16 06:36 (UTC) - Expand

(no subject)

fenm - 2012-11-16 06:44 (UTC) - Expand

(no subject)

(Anonymous) - 2012-11-16 06:30 (UTC) - Expand

(no subject)

(Anonymous) - 2012-11-16 06:43 (UTC) - Expand

(no subject)

sarnath - 2012-11-16 19:44 (UTC) - Expand

It's not "played for laughs". That a situation is funny to the audience doesn't necessarily mean it's ridiculed.

that insecurity that John has about his sexuality that you mentioned (which plays into the whole idea that being mistaken for gay = bad)

This is John's problem, yes. But why confuse it with something the underlying text is trying to say? It's not as if anyone else share his opinion.

The same people don't have to keep accusing them

There have been no "accusations". Some people have made assumptions in good faith, and simply thought they were a couple. No dramatics involved.

"Constantly gets mistaken for and denies that he is gay" really shouldn't be a character trait that they feel like sticking in every episode when it has absolutely no pertinence to the plot.

Why not? It reminds the audience of the impression they give to new people they meet, and reinforces the idea that yes, this is not a weird assumption to make, considering how it seems from the outside. It also tells the audience what their relationship does look like from the outside, and may make them wonder if there could actually develop into something.

I also think you're exaggerating this "constantly". It isn't actually that big a part of the show.

there is more than enough there to make him seem put upon without having to go the everyone-thinks-they're-a-couple route

Sure, and they use those other things a lot more, if you recall. There are a lot more scenes about how Sherlock's weird behaviour makes him a horrible flatmate than to what people think of their relationship, for example.

Which, by the way, seem to be strangers who don't know them. Their friends and close acquaintances don't joke, accuse, or even assume anything in that vein, and even Mrs. Hudson never mentions it after that first time.

Oh, I'm not denying that queerbaiting exists. Supernatural, for example, is brimming with it, especially this season. But I don't think having strangers react to what they perceive as a romantic relationship is in itself queerbaiting. Not when they do it in a way that essentially normalises queer relationships. The fact that even Sherlock himself treated it as a legitimate possibility in the beginning is a clear indication, IMO.

There's also the fact that the writers and producers have no need for queerbaiting of any kind, as the show is completely unaffected by ratings or fan reactions. I don't actually think the writers, especially Moffat, really care about anything but telling the story they want to tell. But that's speculation, of course.

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only