[ SECRET POST #2654 ]

[case]

⌈ Secret Post #2654 ⌋

Warning: Some secrets are NOT worksafe and may contain SPOILERS.

01.
[Ioan Gruffudd/Fantastic Four 2005]


__________________________________________________



02.
[Laurell K. Hamilton]


__________________________________________________



03.
[Bates Motel]


__________________________________________________



04.
[Sherlock]


__________________________________________________



05.
[Korn; Breaking Benjamin]


__________________________________________________



06.
[American Horror Story]


__________________________________________________



07.
[Gwyneth Paltrow, Iron Man]


__________________________________________________



08.
[Kino's journey/Kino no tabi]


__________________________________________________



09.
[Roxy Music]












Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 01 pages, 019 secrets from Secret Submission Post #379.
Secrets Not Posted: [ 1 - broken links ], [ 0 - not!secrets ], [ 0 - not!fandom ], [ 0 - too big ], [ 0 - repeat ], [ 1 - posted twice ].
Current Secret Submissions Post: here.
Suggestions, comments, and concerns should go here.

Comments

[dreemyweird]

Yeah, this. I'm amazed how anyone can say it's canon when the show itself is so insistent that it's not.

[(Anonymous)]

when the show itself is so insistent that it's not

Lol, we've totally been watching a different show then. I don't even ship them but even I've got to disagree with you there; there is pretty heavy subtext. Your statement seems just about as "delusional" as the kind of fans OP is bitching about. I don't particularly care whether it happens or it doesn't as I don't watch the show for shipping (though I am a little fond of Molly/Lestrade) but I think they need to bite the bullet either way- shit or get off the pot so to speak.

[(Anonymous)]

LOL, they won't. Even with a gay co-creator who loves The Private Life of Sherlock "in unspoken love with J Watson" Holmes (from the 70s, no less!) they STILL won't stop the queerbaiting.

[(Anonymous)]

Alas! I fear you're right nonnie.

[dreemyweird]

I hear this opinion everywhere, and I can't even say that I'm all that against it - I admit I am horrible at telling different kinds of emotions/attractions apart when we are not talking written narratives - but nobody gave me a single argument as to why this "subtext" is necessarily non-platonic.

What is the difference between friendshippy dynamics and romantic subtext? All the people who try to tell me how this relationship is "too deep" to be a friendship just make me froth at the mouth.

To me, the supposed queerbaiting actually looks like a way of denying that any kind of non-platonic relationship between the leads exist. Like, the creators just go, look, they clearly love each other, and every episode makes it clearer and clearer, but not a single part of what they do is unambiguously romantic. What could that possibly mean? Well, it probably means that there is no romance going on??? Isn't that a bit obvious?

And did everyone miss this part where when someone hints at their relationship being romantic, one half of the supposed pairing nopes his way out of it? Or do people think that he's incapable of deciding for himself, or that the whole of Sherlock is just one big story of John Watson's struggle with his sexuality?

[(Anonymous)]

nobody gave me a single argument as to why this "subtext" is necessarily non-platonic...All the people who try to tell me how this relationship is "too deep" to be a friendship just make me froth at the mouth.
As somebody who, IRL, actually values deep friendships more than romantic relationships I get where you're coming from. But I think they go beyond a "deep friendship", there are plenty of wildly popular m/m ships that are the kind of friendships you're talking about that I ship like nobodies business but I don't necessarily think my reading of it is anything more than me seeing what I want to see (Kirk/Spock comes to mind). I feel like there are too many indicators about Sherlock/John that these other deep friendships don't have that sets them apart. To me the evidence/arguement for what makes this subtext non-platonic isn't just about "they have great on screen chemistry and lots of meaningful looks", its that plus all the "jokes" about them being a couple (their landlady after knowing them for years still believes them to be a couple). It's either deliberate queer subtext or deliberate queerbaiting. Which brings me to...

the supposed queerbaiting actually looks like a way of denying that any kind of non-platonic relationship between the leads exist

Uhhh...yeah. Thats exactly why people call it queerbaiting. If there was no mention/subtext/whatever of them being more than friends in the first place there would be no need to deny it. If they have 100% platonic feelings for each other and the writers want to convey that then why have all the "jokes" about them being together? Why have Mrs Hudson after years of knowing them still think they were romantically involved? Why have Irene refer to them as a couple? Either 1)they intend to move it from subtext to maintext or 2)THEY ARE QUEERBAITING.

At the end of the day I think it will only turn out to be queerbaiting which is really disappointing.

[dreemyweird]

So your argument is that the jokes are what constitutes the non-platonic subtext? I see why you'd think that (and, as I said upthread, so far it is the only evidence in favour of this ship I actually consider valid), but it really... isn't much. One would think a relationship with romantic undertones would have something more to it than just deep friendship+no homo jokes.

If there was no mention/subtext/whatever of them being more than friends in the first place there would be no need to deny it

IDK, I feel like by now everyone is aware of the existence of slash fandom culture, so of course they are going to deny it if they want to make it clear that it's just a friendship. No in-universe subtext is necessary. Fandom is going to find the shipping material if they look hard enough, no matter what the source material actually says.

And note how all you have pointed out is some external secondary signs that may be pointing at the existence of a romantic subtext, but the primary signs simply aren't there.

As to why we have the jokes... eh, I tend to think that yes, it may be queerbaiting, but it also may be a clumsy way to show how unusual and deep their bond is. Someone may be under the illusion that these things are genuinely funny. I'm not sure why we should trust the characters' remarks when we don't see anything unambiguously romantic ourselves. Mrs. Hudson isn't exactly a couples' therapy guru.