The Johnlock Conspiracy

[Carol the Dabbler]

Hmm, no, I just googled "sherlock is gay because he drinks tea" and got some extremely detailed explanations.  So it ain't just that American men don't often drink tea.  I have the feeling that many of their examples are kinda forced and/or contain assumptions (e.g., that Mycroft and John are drinking tea in Speedy's at the end of ASiB -- whereas even the very detail-conscious Ariane DeVere refers merely to a "mug").  But they certainly have developed quite a system -- whatever it may mean.

[Pseudonym]

I drink up to six cups of tea on some days, thank God I'm not male or I don't know what that would make me!

 

 

Edited to add:

Did everyone else know that 'learned to play the clarinet at school' was a euphemism?! Because I had no idea - every now and then I come across a post that does make me wonder. 

[Carol the Dabbler]

Did everyone else know that 'learned to play the clarinet at school' was a euphemism?! Because I had no idea - every now and then I come across a post that does make me wonder. 

 

Oh dear God -- where's the brain bleach?    John surely wouldn't have meant that, not talking to Sarah!

[Pseudonym]

Yup, 'tis on the Urban Dictionary. There's no way they wrote that and were unaware surely?

[Carol the Dabbler]

They, maybe.  But I can't imagine John saying that to a woman he's just met and is attracted to.  Or, you know, a woman.

 

[Arcadia]

According to the Urban Dictionary, everything is a euphemism. The fact that the example they give "just happens" to refer to Sherlock makes me very suspicious..... (yes, yes, I just looked it up. I'm weak, sue me. :P )

 

Anyway, I know how you feel ... I'm still a little bruised after my run in with "putting up shelves"....

[Carol the Dabbler]

According to the Urban Dictionary, everything is a euphemism.

Yup, so it would appear! But *sigh* they're probably right about that. I didn't even have to look up "clarinet." Just mention it's a euphemism and it's obvious for what. But now I'm gonna have to go look up "putting up shelves." And regret it.

[Carol the Dabbler]

Hmm -- interesting. Especially the Three's Company excerpt.

 

Is Sherlock written entirely in euphemisms?

[T.o.b.y]

 

Eargghhhhhh... it just occurred to me ... THIS may be the reason they married off John ... to eventually bring him to the point where he has to make that agonizing choice. No, no, John's been through enough already!!!! Although I think Sherlock would do everything in his power to make sure that never happens, which would (for me) be a more satisfying story.

 

The thought occurred to me as soon as I knew Mary was going to become part of the story. I can imagine a situation like in The Dark Knight, where Batman has to choose whether to save his love interest or his friend, but Joker gives him false information so he ends up going to the person he didn't choose. It seems like Moriarty's kind of humor (Moriarty reminds me of Joker a bit anyway). The way I think it would play out would be that John would choose Mary, instead find Sherlock who has already escaped on his own, then together they'd try to save Mary who has also escaped on her own and set out to save the boys. Result: chaos.

 

I actually hope they don't try anything like this, though. While it would be terribly funny to have a dialog along the lines of "what are you doing here?" / "where's Mary?", the whole idea of John having to make this kind of choice is better off in the realms of fan fiction than the actual series. It's just too... cliché? Cheesy? Obvious? Somebody help me out with a word here. Sherlock just isn't Batman.

 

I drink up to six cups of tea on some days, thank God I'm not male or I don't know what that would make me!

 

I think for women, it's supposed to be beer... Or something like that. What do I care about such nonsense.

[J.P.]

 

Is Sherlock written entirely in euphemisms?

 

I wouln't exclude it entirely. :P

 

 

I drink up to six cups of tea on some days, thank God I'm not male or I don't know what that would make me!

 

So gay that you become straight again.

[Arcadia]

Hmm -- interesting. Especially the Three's Company excerpt.

 

Is Sherlock written entirely in euphemisms?

Three's Company excerpt?

[Arcadia]

 

Eargghhhhhh... it just occurred to me ... THIS may be the reason they married off John ... to eventually bring him to the point where he has to make that agonizing choice. No, no, John's been through enough already!!!! Although I think Sherlock would do everything in his power to make sure that never happens, which would (for me) be a more satisfying story.

 

The thought occurred to me as soon as I knew Mary was going to become part of the story. I can imagine a situation like in The Dark Knight, where Batman has to choose whether to save his love interest or his friend, but Joker gives him false information so he ends up going to the person he didn't choose. It seems like Moriarty's kind of humor (Moriarty reminds me of Joker a bit anyway). The way I think it would play out would be that John would choose Mary, instead find Sherlock who has already escaped on his own, then together they'd try to save Mary who has also escaped on her own and set out to save the boys. Result: chaos.

 

I actually hope they don't try anything like this, though. While it would be terribly funny to have a dialog along the lines of "what are you doing here?" / "where's Mary?", the whole idea of John having to make this kind of choice is better off in the realms of fan fiction than the actual series. It's just too... cliché? Cheesy? Obvious? Somebody help me out with a word here. Sherlock just isn't Batman.

 

Are you sure? You have seen the latest shot of him jumping from the top of the boat, right? :D

 

JP, Toby, why have your avatars suddenly turned green?

[Boton]

 

 

Eargghhhhhh... it just occurred to me ... THIS may be the reason they married off John ... to eventually bring him to the point where he has to make that agonizing choice. No, no, John's been through enough already!!!! Although I think Sherlock would do everything in his power to make sure that never happens, which would (for me) be a more satisfying story.

 

The thought occurred to me as soon as I knew Mary was going to become part of the story. I can imagine a situation like in The Dark Knight, where Batman has to choose whether to save his love interest or his friend, but Joker gives him false information so he ends up going to the person he didn't choose. It seems like Moriarty's kind of humor (Moriarty reminds me of Joker a bit anyway). The way I think it would play out would be that John would choose Mary, instead find Sherlock who has already escaped on his own, then together they'd try to save Mary who has also escaped on her own and set out to save the boys. Result: chaos.

 

I actually hope they don't try anything like this, though. While it would be terribly funny to have a dialog along the lines of "what are you doing here?" / "where's Mary?", the whole idea of John having to make this kind of choice is better off in the realms of fan fiction than the actual series. It's just too... cliché? Cheesy? Obvious? Somebody help me out with a word here. Sherlock just isn't Batman.

 

 

 

I've said before (and written a meta on it), that I think something like that will be the way Mary eventually exits, except less bait-and-switch.  I think they may do this because a version of it worked on House, and I think they pull more inspiration from that show than they care to admit; there are just too many little details that are the same.  The only problem is that they have a baby to deal with, so I guess now it has to wait until the child is sent to boarding school or something.

 

Re: "learned to play the clarinet at school" as euphemism for coming out of the closet.  The same thing, of course, is said about "helped him put up some shelves," and then is taken within TJLC circles (and others) to mean that that Sherlock had sex with the chip shop owner.  And then Urban Dictionary is often cited as proof.  I mean, maybe Sherlock did have sex with the guy (I doubt it, but that's just me), but it's the circular logic here that makes me chuckle, since I think half of the UD entrees are written to substantiate a point being made elsewhere.  :-)

[sittything]

I don't personally understand the Johnlock dedication, especially since Mofftiss have said specifically that Sherlock is not gay, but you do you Johnlockers.  Actually, maybe I do understand.  Carter told me for SEASONS that Mulder and Scully were just platonic soooo... 

 

I think people get very dedicated to their ships and will often continue to ship it against insurmountable odds and in the face of evidence to the contrary (me and Sherlolly anyone?).  Hell, The Walking Dead fandom still has people waiting for a dead girl to come back and get with a 40-something year old man.   I don't think Johnlock is going down in this version of Sherlock, but hey, maybe they're pulling a Carter?

 

 

[Arcadia]

I wonder, though, if Moftiss draws from House so much as a lot of writers just draw from the same creative wells. For example, I've recently become an NCIS junkie, and hardly an episode goes by that I don't go "Aw, they got that from Sherlock," before remembering that NCIS came first. But I'd be surprised to learn that Moftiss are consciously inspired by NCIS, in spite of the similarities.
 
I stopped watching House after the first few seasons, without ever realizing it was supposed to be a take on Sherlock Holmes. But I do remember thinking at the time that it seemed to owe a lot to another Fox show that was popular a few years before: Boston Public. They both had those kind of snarky scripts and offbeat characters that seemed so new and refreshing at first, but gradually deteriorated into something nastier. (Imo, of course. :D )  Boston Public wasn't even a mystery show, but they were in some ways so much alike, that for the longest time I just assumed they were made by the same people.
 
So maybe it's more like the TJLC theory; you tend to see what you're primed to see, based on what your interests, desires and experiences are? Although I do seem to remember Moftiss acknowledging House in some way or another, so it could be as simple as them paying homage to that show, after all.
 
Amazing, I just argued myself back to the beginning ... time for more coffee!

[Boton]

 

 

I think people get very dedicated to their ships and will often continue to ship it against insurmountable odds and in the face of evidence to the contrary (me and Sherlolly anyone?). 

 

I kind of enjoy the people who ship Mystrade for that reason.  It seems like, rather than trying to find evidence in every little eyebrow twitch and knick-knack on the bookshelf, the Mystraders just say, "Yeah, our pair has only even appeared on screen together for 10 seconds if you don't count a mind palace fantasy of digging a grave.  But we still think it would be cute."

[sittything]

 

 

 

I think people get very dedicated to their ships and will often continue to ship it against insurmountable odds and in the face of evidence to the contrary (me and Sherlolly anyone?). 

 

I kind of enjoy the people who ship Mystrade for that reason.  It seems like, rather than trying to find evidence in every little eyebrow twitch and knick-knack on the bookshelf, the Mystraders just say, "Yeah, our pair has only even appeared on screen together for 10 seconds if you don't count a mind palace fantasy of digging a grave.  But we still think it would be cute."

 

 

Gatiss did say Mycroft is gay...  ;)   

[Carol the Dabbler]

 

Hmm -- interesting. Especially the Three's Company excerpt.

 

Is Sherlock written entirely in euphemisms?

Three's Company excerpt?

I'm on my cellphone at the moment, so can't provide a link. Just google

 

 

"putting up shelves" euphemism

The transcripted excerpt is in one of the first two or three hits.

[Pseudonym]

They said Sherlock isn't gay?! That's s bit weird I thought they normally didn't comment on what he was, they should have continued not commenting imho

[sittything]

They said Sherlock isn't gay?! That's s bit weird I thought they normally didn't comment on what he was, they should have continued not commenting imho

 

Question: ‘Did you at any point have to resist the temptation of Sherlock and Watson being gay?’

 

Mark: ‘It’s not a temptation [screams of ‘Johnlock’ from the crowd]…I feel very strongly about this, the trouble is, when you make a successful show of any kind, people then feel that it should carry a torch or fly a flag for a particular thing. The whole idea of John and Sherlock being mistaken for a couple in our show is inspired by the Billy Wilder film ‘The Private Life of Sherlock Holmes’ which we love to distraction. And in that Sherlock gets out of an awkward situation by claiming that he and Watson are a couple, so we sort of run with the same joke. But it’s a joke - that’s obviously not to belittle the idea that they could be, but in our version they are not, and Sherlock specifically says in episode 1 when John asks him if he has a girlfriend or a boyfriend, he says no, all that matters to me is brainwork, everything else is just transport, his body is an appendage to him.

 

Now what happens to Sherlock in his life as he becomes slightly more human is that he discovers different things, he meets Irene Adler, and he has a kind of intellectual relationship with her, which is kind of more shaded than a simple attraction, there’s something about her, it wouldn’t really matter what sex she was, something about her which kind of interests him. And they become a kind of, for a moment, a sort of unit. But I think the point is, Sherlock is brain, everything else is just - it’s a sort of puzzle to him. What’s clear is that he is not a cyberman, he knows that love and emotions are dangerous, it’s a chemical defect found on the losing side, but he chooses like Mycroft to remove them from his life. That doesn’t mean he is not capable of feeling them. It just means he actually tries to remove them cos he knows they’ll mess him up, they’ll mess up his work.  So huh…I don’t…If we had an agenda of making Sherlock and Dr Watson an openly gay couple that’s what we would have done, but that’s not what we’re doing.  That’s not what we’re doing.  And it’s perfect- I’m very happy everybody thinks what they like, but it’s. never. going. to. happen.

 

[crowd complains]

 

No, I’m not joking, it’s not. The point of the series is not to make them an openly gay couple, and as I said the danger is - people say but why, they should be, because we need more openly gay couples in television. Yes we do, but this is our show, and we’re just making a decision about our characters, I’d be very happy to write another show in which there is an openly gay couple and that’s what it’s about, but it’s not this one.”

 

 

http://itsnotchancemrholmesitschess.tumblr.com/post/106071402687/mark-gatiss-about-johnlock-and-tjlc

 

Transcript is from that Tumblr link for that YouTube video.

[sittything]

Here Moffat said he's neither gay or straight:  http://www.vulture.com/2015/03/sherlock-is-not-gay-not-straight-steven-moffat.html

[Pseudonym]

That's sort of what I take from what sitty posted, sounds like he's pretty much saying neither. Will clicky click link later when not careening around the countryside lost :S

[Fantasy Lover]

*cracks knuckles* well, I'm glad I came across this topic. You got the right person, when it comes to tjlc, I'm your girl. The short version, I believe. For 3 months I'd been reading posts about why it won't happen and why it will happen, before I gave it the benefit of the doubt. The reason why is a post that Loudest Subtext in Television made. I can't copy it because she deleted her tumblr, but luckily, I copied the important part so I'm going to write the whole thing.

 

It's hard to fathom Gatiss as a writer deciding he's just going to copy TPLoSH and stop there, or that Gatiss as a gay man thinks it would be cute or funny to have Sherlock be closeted forever.

 

Imagine being a gay kid, growing up loving the queer subtext in Sherlock Holmes, and imagining Holmes and Watson in a relationship for decades. Imagine feeling sad how Victorian England made it damn near impossible for love stories to be written about people like you, and that's largely the case a century later. You're so attached to Holmes and Watson in large part because as a queer kid, there is nothing else for you out there. Imagine being the kind of guy who called a gay hotline as a kid because you saw it in the background of a television show, and it meant so much to you to see that on TV that you bring it up in interviews. Imagine being the kind of guy who tweets links to those things, because you remember being that age, and you know how alone queer kids can feel. Imagine being gay and wishing it weren't such a big deal, that people could just walk around being gay and no one would care about it.

 

When you make your adaptation of Sherlock Holmes, what would you do? Do you keep the setting of oppressive Victorian England? No, you make it modern day so gay characters can exist openly with considerably less strife. So what about your Holmes and Watson? Do you keep them closeted forever because you find it funny? Well, did you find it all that funny when you were a kid? This idea that gay people exist, but not in the open? No, that hurt. You called a gay hotline because you felt bad. You see the pressure to stay closeted hurting gay people all the time, even today.

 

Wouldn't you some opinions, some things you might want to say about the remaining factors that keep people closeted today? As a storyteller, wouldn't you have some ideas of how best express those views through your art? Wouldn't it be important to you that bigoted people take those views to heart, instead of feeling defensive? Having grown up seeing that stories with gay romance get labeled as gay stories, wouldn't you know that bigots won't watch a gay show? Wouldn't you instead do what you always said you do, gently ease people into it so that they're rooting for a gay couple before they know it?

 

After all, what was the thing you did like about all that queer subtext? It was subversive. It was right in front of people's faces and they didn't get it. It was clever, it made you think, that's all.

 

No one can actually read the show runners minds, but if we're talking about balance of probability based on what we know about Moffat and Gatiss and how things have steadily escalated every series, it seems incredibly unlikely relationship wouldn't be actualized. It doesn't match either of their styles as writers, and it doesn't match how Gatiss operates in real life as regards queer issues. They had the protagonist of their show get shot in the heart and come back to life, but people think openly gay is some sacred line they aren't willing to cross? Really? Or that Gatiss would grow up loving the queer subtext between Holmes and Watson, but now that he finally has his adaptation, he's decided to pair them off with women, or pair John off with a woman, and keep all the gay stuff behind a curtain forever?

 

It seems like a very simple deduction to me. We'll see what happens, but I know where my money is.

[T.o.b.y]

*cracks knuckles* well, I'm glad I came across this topic. You got the right person, when it comes to tjlc, I'm your girl. The short version, I believe. For 3 months I'd been reading posts about why it won't happen and why it will happen, before I gave it the benefit of the doubt. The reason why is a post that Loudest Subtext in Television made. I can't copy it because she deleted her tumblr, but luckily, I copied the important part so I'm going to write the whole thing.

 

It's hard to fathom Gatiss as a writer deciding he's just going to copy TPLoSH and stop there, or that Gatiss as a gay man thinks it would be cute or funny to have Sherlock be closeted forever.

 

Imagine being a gay kid, growing up loving the queer subtext in Sherlock Holmes, and imagining Holmes and Watson in a relationship for decades. Imagine feeling sad how Victorian England made it damn near impossible for love stories to be written about people like you, and that's largely the case a century later. You're so attached to Holmes and Watson in large part because as a queer kid, there is nothing else for you out there. Imagine being the kind of guy who called a gay hotline as a kid because you saw it in the background of a television show, and it meant so much to you to see that on TV that you bring it up in interviews. Imagine being the kind of guy who tweets links to those things, because you remember being that age, and you know how alone queer kids can feel. Imagine being gay and wishing it weren't such a big deal, that people could just walk around being gay and no one would care about it.

 

When you make your adaptation of Sherlock Holmes, what would you do? Do you keep the setting of oppressive Victorian England? No, you make it modern day so gay characters can exist openly with considerably less strife. So what about your Holmes and Watson? Do you keep them closeted forever because you find it funny? Well, did you find it all that funny when you were a kid? This idea that gay people exist, but not in the open? No, that hurt. You called a gay hotline because you felt bad. You see the pressure to stay closeted hurting gay people all the time, even today.

 

Wouldn't you some opinions, some things you might want to say about the remaining factors that keep people closeted today? As a storyteller, wouldn't you have some ideas of how best express those views through your art? Wouldn't it be important to you that bigoted people take those views to heart, instead of feeling defensive? Having grown up seeing that stories with gay romance get labeled as gay stories, wouldn't you know that bigots won't watch a gay show? Wouldn't you instead do what you always said you do, gently ease people into it so that they're rooting for a gay couple before they know it?

 

After all, what was the thing you did like about all that queer subtext? It was subversive. It was right in front of people's faces and they didn't get it. It was clever, it made you think, that's all.

 

No one can actually read the show runners minds, but if we're talking about balance of probability based on what we know about Moffat and Gatiss and how things have steadily escalated every series, it seems incredibly unlikely relationship wouldn't be actualized. It doesn't match either of their styles as writers, and it doesn't match how Gatiss operates in real life as regards queer issues. They had the protagonist of their show get shot in the heart and come back to life, but people think openly gay is some sacred line they aren't willing to cross? Really? Or that Gatiss would grow up loving the queer subtext between Holmes and Watson, but now that he finally has his adaptation, he's decided to pair them off with women, or pair John off with a woman, and keep all the gay stuff behind a curtain forever?

 

It seems like a very simple deduction to me. We'll see what happens, but I know where my money is.

 

You know, this might make sense if it was certain that Mr Gatiss had always thought of Sherlock Holmes and Dr Watson as a gay couple. But is it? I don't remember ever having heard him say so. Just because a person is gay and thinks gay representation would be a great idea does not mean he would see every relationship in fiction through that lens. And it is historically incredibly improbable that Doyle meant to create any gay subtext. He was a devout Catholic. I am not saying that there's no rational basis for interpreting his stories that way, but that would very likely be going against the author's intention and wishes.

 

Listen, I sympathize, I really, really do. My best friend and I watched Sailor Moon growing up, an animated series we actually thought sucked badly, just because it was the only program on TV that went so far as to hint at a lesbian relationship between two side characters (and then in the American dub, they made them cousins, by the way, so suddenly there was incest subtext which I guarantee you nobody actually wanted). We were over the moon when Willow got a girlfriend on Buffy. To this day, we text each other when we find a remotely mainstream bit of entertainment that has gay people in it. I am all for representation. I understand the yearning for representation. And I also understand really wanting two characters to come together. But I am afraid that in this particular case, it's not going to happen. Not in this way. And I don't think this is a terrible thing, because instead, we get a really unique, interesting and very touching relationship. It might not represent anybody but Sherlock and John, but hey, I love Sherlock and John, so I will be happy with that.

 

Anyway. Of course it's fine if you think differently (can't believe I even feel the need to say that). Enjoy the interpretation you personally like best all you want and who knows, perhaps you'll prove me wrong some day after all. You never know until it's over, do you.

 

 

[Arcadia]

I'm afraid that's what I was thinking ... there seems to be an awful lot of assumptions in TJLC, and to my mind that weakens their argument. Some of their "proofs" are pretty intriguing, even convincing, but as a whole, the theory is missing something that would convince me. On the other hand, I'm content to wait and see what happens, rather than trying to anticipate it; that way, I'm always surprised. (My theories are seldom right anyways, so I'm used to being surprised. :D )