The Johnlock Conspiracy

[Caya]

That's sad. :( Again, I admit that I'm talking out of my cis straight arse here, and I realize that the IGB project is self-selecting to a certain degree (the people for whom it *didn't* get better won't post there, now will they). But from what I saw of it, many of the folks who uploaded their video once also thought that no, it would never get better. I know that Dan Savage (who started this) comes from a strict Catholic family, and as a teen thought he'd never be able to come out and have to settle for marrying a beard, and look at him now, happy with his husband and adopted kid and with full support of both their families. Keeping my fingers crossed that it'll work out for you as well, one day, meanwhile hang in there!

[Pseudonym]

I'm not sure how old you are, but things do get better. I was suicidal as a teenager, for a number of reasons, and honestly it took me a long time to come to terms with a lot of those things. I was so, so unhappy for most of my teenage years and a fair chunk of my twenties as well, I think a lot of people only really come to accept themselves and gain enough confidence to be proud of who and what they are in their late twenties and early thirties. Sure, for some people it's earlier, for some people it's later, but things will get better for you. 

I know it seems like a particularly shitty time right now, but you have to remember that things are progressing. Gay marriage has become legal in so many more countries (ridiculous it wasn't before, but it's still progress), and although a lot of news outlets like to big up homophobia and xenophobia it's because scandal sells. I don't know about your country, or the people you know, but where I come from my generation and those younger than me are so much more accepting than people used to be. I was one of the first people my gay friend came out to about ten years ago, I also have a trans friend who only came out to me a few weeks before Christmas about the things she is going through. Sure both of those people have been through some crap, they were both terrified of telling their families, but I don't think it's as shocking as it would have been ten, twenty, thirty years ago. 

Yes, I've never had to deal with it personally, but I firmly believe things will get better for you. I think that right now Sherlock has just become the straw that broke the camel's back and made it seem like the world is against you, but it isn't and you have to hold in there. This may just seem like a spiel, and if I was talking to my teenage self I'm not sure I would believe it either, but it is true - it won't always feel like everyone is against you and you are being victimised. You won't always feel like you have to hide your true self. Things will get better. 

[Fantasy Lover]

In case you're wondering, I'm 22 and I'm from Belgium.

 

But I don't think things will get better, at least for LGBT people in America the next four years http://zizo-online.be/article/10668

 

For those of you who don't understand Dutch, it appears that Trump wants to get rid of LGBT protection. My heart goes out to every LGBT person living in America.

[Caya]

True enough, sadly, and since US culture tends to have an influence on the rest of the world (whether us Europeans like that or not), there's bound to be some ugly fallout elsewhere too. But things are not completely bleak, even in the US - like Dan Savage said in the column right after the election (note: Dan Savage is a sex advice columnist, so the following link is NSFW, follow at your own risk! , here goes) , scroll down to the second letter:

 

" "There is no realistic possibility that anyone's marriage will be invalidated," said Shannon Minter, legal director for the National Center for Lesbian Rights, which has taken marriage-rights cases to the US Supreme Court (and won). "The law is very strong that if a marriage is valid when entered, it cannot be invalidated by any subsequent change in the law. So people who are already married should not be concerned that their marriage can be taken away."

And Minter says the court is unlikely to overturn Obergefell, the decision that legalized same-sex marriage across the country.

"The doctrine of stare decisis—which means that courts generally will respect and follow their own prior rulings—is also very strong, and the Supreme Court very rarely overturns an important constitutional ruling so soon after issuing it," said Minter. "Even the appointment of an anti-marriage-equality justice to replace Justice Scalia would not jeopardize the Supreme Court's 2015 ruling on marriage equality, and the great majority of Americans still strongly support the freedom of same-sex couples to marry." "

 

Trump (and his VP even more so) may wish to roll back every right LGBT have fought hard for and won, but the US is not a dictatorship, fortunately. Also, remember that many of the LGBT US folks who grew up in the Reagan area have seen some bad stuff thrown their way, and they know how to fight (these rights didn't just materialize themselves). Things will likely get worse, yep, but they'll get better again too.

[Fantasy Lover]

Yeah but Reagan ruled during the 80's, which had that AIDS/HIV panic.

 

I just didn't expected those things in 2017.

[Inge l-w]

Oh, ma petite Aurelie, you have your whole life ahead of you, studies and work, and meeting interesting people at work! Like johnspec and cumbercowley, you are young enough to be able to shape your future any way you want. And if you want, I shall send a PM and we can do Skype or Messenger. You will have to excuse my accent in French, it's decidedly foreign. :D

[Arcadia]

Yeah but Reagan ruled during the 80's, which had that AIDS/HIV panic.

 

I just didn't expected those things in 2017.

I didn't expect them either. I thought we (the USA) had grown beyond that. I've been feeling like I've been living in an alternate universe ever since the election, and I feel like I don't belong in this country any more; the lunatics have taken over the asylum.

 

But here's the thing ... like Pseud said about her country, the same thing is true here ... most people have become more accepting of "alternative lifestyles", especially younger people. I believe it's truly a minority who supports Trump's idiocy on LGBT issues. Even among the people I know who voted for Trump, they think it's ridiculous and unfair in this day and age to discriminate against LGBT people, or any other group of people. Yes, there are a lot of bigots out there. But they are not in the majority.

 

So in that sense, things have gotten better. And having taken several steps towards more acceptance in recent times, I don't think we'll be backing away from them anytime soon. Of course, I never imagined a person like Trump would end up in the White House, either, and I agree that has shaken my faith a bit. But then I talk to ordinary people, and feel a little hope come back.

 

But I understand your dismay. We've come so far to falter now. It's hard to cope with. But never give up, because then the bastards really do win.

[Fantasy Lover]

Thank you all, it really means a lot to me.

 

Oh, ma petite Aurelie, you have your whole life ahead of you, studies and work, and meeting interesting people at work! Like johnspec and cumbercowley, you are young enough to be able to shape your future any way you want. And if you want, I shall send a PM and we can do Skype or Messenger. You will have to excuse my accent in French, it's decidedly foreign. :D

I'd love to talk to you on Messager, if that's okay for you. And don't worry about the accent, I have an accent of my own.

[Inge l-w]

Then I might be able to understand the whole issue from your viewpoint. Sent you a PM, look forward to a constructive discussion! All lives end, but not all hearts should get broken! Take a leaf out of Sherlock and Vivian Norbury's exchange, and enjoy the good things in life, even an ice lolly! :D

[J.P.]

Found this great post on ThreePatchPodcast forum.

 

Thank you for sharing your thoughts on this. Time is an interesting way of describing the difference in between what the creators thought they had been giving us and how we, the fans, interpreted what was received. I can't speak on whether or not creator decisions for S4 were retaliatory or attempts to push against popular fandom narratives, but I wonder if fans might be missinterpreting the cultural gulf between us and them. The metaphore of time is makes the differences very... progressive? like we are ahead of them, or at least ahead of where they think we are in terms of tolerance for and interest in LGBTQIA narratives. But what if it weren't unidirectional?

Ignoring how we interprete the identities of the main characters, it seems to me that the world of BBC Sherlock was initially constructed to be non-homophobic, or at least post-homophobic. Characters might carry heteronormative assumptions, but only because of statistics, not prejudice. The repeated play on John and Sherlock's couplehood is, in this case, a reminder of how easily this would be accepted in this universe, and John's declarations of his orientation would be attempts to have his identity recognised in a a naturally confusing situation, rather than a rejection of an unsavoury or embarrassing inference.

What is funny about John calling out "I'm not his date!" ? We are supposed to laugh at Angelo's insistence and John's frustration, but there are lots of ways to explain that discomfort. Is it a "No-homo" moment or just the familiar problem of people jumping to conclusions, the way they might if John and Sherlock were a hetero pair in other fictional spaces.

What if the creators expected us to recognised that queer subtext wasn't necessary in this world, because there was no shame in being queer, no reason to hide it? Moriarty fellating a gun isn't subtext, Irene's sexual fluidity isn't subtext, Harry's marriage isn't subtext, Sherlock calling out Jim from IT's sexual orientation isn't subtext, because it's fine, it's all fine.

But for a lot of (let's face it) American viewers, who barely have the right to gay marriage, and many other people living between safe queer spaces, could we even pick up on the subtle absence of homophobia when we have learned to anticipate and project it into the world for our own safety?

Well, I say "we" but I'm not really part of this team. I'm in the arts and academia in a metropolitan area and I grew up without fear of being rejected for my sexual orientation. I am so used to queerness being OK that it's hard for me to detect the things that trigger other peoples homophobia sensors. I haven't heard anyone use "gay" as an insult since I was 12, and have found so many other axes of oppression to worry about, that this one is just not that big of a deal. And I kind of expect that Gatiss and Moffat (and Virtue and Freeman and Cumberbatch, etc. ) might be in a similar bubble.

And when homophobia is so not a thing, the jokes change their meaning, the intimacy between John and Sherlock become more ambiguous, and a story about their gay love is not be revolutionary, at least not within their world.

Anyway, the point I'm trying to make is that another way to explain this conflict between audience and TPTB is counter to the progressive narrative that puts the audience ahead of the creators. I could be completely wrong here, but it's the explanation that makes the most sense to me, given how often they tried to tell us that there was no-"no homo" in their show about something other than a gay romance.

from http://three-patch.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=8&t=124#p759

[Pseudonym]

Interesting. I don't know whether I believe it's true or not, I'd have to mull it over, but I have noticed recently the huge gulf in attitudes and beliefs between urban and rural areas. It seems a big part of politics recently, cities swinging votes in one direction whilst rural areas swing them in another. So I think they are right in that a huge part of how you view the show depends on where you are watching it from, not just what country, but where in your country. 

[Boton]

The part of this that makes sense to me is that, especially early on, most of what people label as subtext is stuff I thought was clarification, just like the comment above suggests.

 

When I first saw the Angelo's scene, I did think that of course it's possible that two single men in their 30s who are each looking for a flatmate might need to have a conversation clarifying expectations, because one or more of them could be gay and/or could be looking for a partner. It made sense to me that John might want to know who his new flatmate might be bringing home (if anyone) or what the expectations were.  The fact that the conversation got awkward and confusing made it funny to me, not subtext.

 

Ditto almost anything that happened in the first couple of seasons.  People were accommodating of whatever the relationship was -- so much so that it became frustrating to John, who happened to be straight.  That's funny (or it was for a while); it wasn't a coded message for me.

 

I got very frustrated and upset at all of the subtext discussions because of two things:  First, I thought that making Holmes and Watson have the kind of relationship they had in the ACD canon was wise, and second, I started resenting the idea that accepting that two guys were straight friends was some kind of commentary on whether or not it would be OK if they were gay.  Of course it would! Just because I was rooting for a "canon" relationship as in the first point above doesn't mean I think it wouldn't be "OK," just that I think it's better storytelling in this case.

 

FWIW, I grew up in a working class town and live near a minor city but really in a rural/suburban area.  I think we need to be careful about overlaying all of the new theory about education and urban living and the impact that has on politics on top of people's perceptions of a TV show.  Just IMHO.

[Pseudonym]

I don't mean it's education related, it's just what you're more used to seeing. What I meant was that in a city a gay couple isn't a big deal, in a small rural village it probably would be. 

 

I always thought the whole thing of them being mistaken as a gay couple was funny at first but got a bit eye-roll inducing after a while. Just because people would accept them being a gay couple I don't think everyone would instantly assume that they are. If I saw them somewhere my assumption would be that they are just friends, unless body language told me otherwise. I think the joke is a bit overplayed, I've said before that Mrs Hudson being shocked that John is marrying a woman is where it starts to get a bit much for me to the point where I'm just annoyed.

 

Of course John would want to clarify what to expect from Sherlock - if my potential flatmate was the type to bring home a different guy or girl every night of the week I wouldn't be happy so I'd put some feelers out too. 

 

[Arcadia]

Found this great post on ThreePatchPodcast forum.

What if the creators expected us to recognised that queer subtext wasn't necessary in this world, because there was no shame in being queer, no reason to hide it? Moriarty fellating a gun isn't subtext, Irene's sexual fluidity isn't subtext, Harry's marriage isn't subtext, Sherlock calling out Jim from IT's sexual orientation isn't subtext, because it's fine, it's all fine.

from http://three-patch.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=8&t=124#p759

 

THIS. Before I knew that "Johnlock" was a thing, this is EXACTLY how I saw the "gay jokes" in the first two seasons. I feel so validated! :D

[T.o.b.y]

I never saw the matter in any greater context before I discovered the Internet fandom. I thought they were just commenting on the relationship the original characters had, the tradition of speculating about its exact nature and how people would react to all this now.

 

I did (and do) read John as slightly homophomic (against his own better judgment), I think (unlike Sherlock who really doesn't give a damn) that he really doesn't like being thought of as gay, which I think fits his character; he is a military man of a certain age after all. Also, his sister probably got flak for her orientation. I didn't mind and it didn't make me like John less, he just felt more real and believable to me. After all, he intellectually shares my values (it's all fine) and his emotional hang-ups aren't his fault.

 

Now that we have an ending, I can safely say I think they got the relationship between Sherlock and John just right. This matters an awful lot to me and makes me forgive many weaknesses of series 4. And I like that even though they have made very clear that they don't agree with them, they left the ending ambiguous enough that the shippers can uphold their interpretation if they want.

[Boton]

I don't mean it's education related, it's just what you're more used to seeing. What I meant was that in a city a gay couple isn't a big deal, in a small rural village it probably would be. 

 

...

 

 I've said before that Mrs Hudson being shocked that John is marrying a woman is where it starts to get a bit much for me to the point where I'm just annoyed.

 

Of course John would want to clarify what to expect from Sherlock - if my potential flatmate was the type to bring home a different guy or girl every night of the week I wouldn't be happy so I'd put some feelers out too. 

 

My bad; I wasn't clear with that first point.  I'm importing some stuff that is going on in my field where people are tending to argue that the "cognitive elite" tend to congregate in urban environments in part because of the location of many of the major research universities (in the U.S.) and in part because of the location of high-tech job opportunities.  The implication (or sometimes the direct conclusion statement) is that everyone who lives outside an urban environment is an uneducated rube who must be racist, homophobic, and a lot of other -ists and -ics that aren't necessarily true.  I just didn't want to see that "logic" get laid on top of a TV show.

 

As to your last two points, totally agree.  I definitely wanted Mrs. H to get a grip at the point you mentioned, and I would certainly quiz my new flatmate enough to know how often I was going to have to make sure to wear my robe in the kitchen and lock my bedroom door because of the parade of potential romantic strangers walking in and out.   :P

[Carol the Dabbler]

I did (and do) read John as slightly homophomic (against his own better judgment), I think (unlike Sherlock who really doesn't give a damn) that he really doesn't like being thought of as gay, which I think fits his character; he is a military man of a certain age after all. Also, his sister probably got flak for her orientation. I didn't mind and it didn't make me like John less, he just felt more real and believable to me. After all, he intellectually shares my values (it's all fine) and his emotional hang-ups aren't his fault.

 

Agreed.  My feeling is that he's been hit on by men often enough to develop a knee-jerk reaction.

 

The implication (or sometimes the direct conclusion statement) is that everyone who lives outside an urban environment is an uneducated rube who must be racist, homophobic, and a lot of other -ists and -ics that aren't necessarily true.

 

Thank you.  I live in a rural area where the KKK reportedly has a bit of a stronghold.  Two of our neighbors are very clearly racist (e.g., one young fellow has a "White Power" tattoo), but those individuals are unpleasant in general and are pretty universally disliked.  I haven't discussed the matter with the other neighbors, so it's entirely possible that some of them have their limits (e.g., might not want their daughter to marry one), but a Mexican family recently moved into our development and a Chinese family has bought a lot, both within sight of our house, and I have seen/heard no negative reactions from the others.  I have heard several of them comment on the newcomers, and if they don't know their names, they refer to them as "the Mexican family" or whatever, but there seems to be no hostility.

 

Seems to me it's the self-congratulatory urban intellectual elite who are the real -ists.

[Pseudonym]

I've never seen John as homophobic, yea he doesn't like being referred to as gay, because he isn't - being repeatedly referred to as something you're not is enough to irritate anyone, but I don't think he has a problem with it generally. Would he like blokes hitting on him? No, probably not, but I don't think he'd be nasty about it or freak out or anything. 

He might be a military man of a certain age now, but he was only in his mid-thirties in season 1, I don't think he's old enough that such attitudes are to be expected the way they might be with older folk. 

[Carol the Dabbler]

When Tobe said "slightly homophobic," I took that to mean somewhat uncomfortable with being hit on by a man, stuff like that -- rather than that John actually dislikes gays as such.  No, he's not an old fogy, but he's old enough to remember when there was a bit more of an anti-gay climate, and old enough to have experienced it in the military.

[T.o.b.y]

What I meant was "slightly uncomfortable with homosexuality". And in my experience with men around me, especially men who work in the military, law enforcement or as firefighters, this is very common, even in men younger than John. If you'd ask them what they thought of gay people, most would say they are fine with them, many vote for gay rights and intellectually, they know it's "all fine". But if you'd insinuate they themselves were gay, they wouldn't be amused at all and more so than if you assumed something else about them that wasn't correct. 

[J.P.]

I've never seen John as homophobic, yea he doesn't like being referred to as gay, because he isn't - being repeatedly referred to as something you're not is enough to irritate anyone, but I don't think he has a problem with it generally. Would he like blokes hitting on him? No, probably not, but I don't think he'd be nasty about it or freak out or anything. 

He might be a military man of a certain age now, but he was only in his mid-thirties in season 1, I don't think he's old enough that such attitudes are to be expected the way they might be with older folk. 

 

This reminds me about a story my gay friend told me. Once he called a craftsman of sorts to fix something, and could clearly see how this guy grew more and more uncomfortable as he realized he's in a gay pair's home (it's quite clear from the kind of pics hanging on the wall :D)

 

Which made me think that's this guy felt like women often do in presence of men. And it made me grin with the old good German Schadenfreude. :P

[bedelia1984]

I always though part of John's worry about being seen as gay was that he was always on the hunt for a girlfriend and thought that kind of press might scupper his chances. He seemed more concerned about it in the old days when we was a man about town.

[Boton]

I think I want a different word than "homophobic" to describe John's discomfort.  It seems to me that it's a pretty normal reaction to be a little uncomfortable if someone assumes something about your sexual identity or if you are hit on by someone who isn't your "type."  I think it would be a bit much to expect John to think, "Oh, isn't that flattering; Mrs. Hudson thinks Sherlock and I are a couple.  It isn't correct, and I will tell her that, but I'm flattered to think she believes I could get a man as attractive as Sherlock."   :P

 

Plus, I still think part of John's ire is a meta joke:  Most modern readers chuckle a little when reading ACD because they think Watson seems to be sweet on Holmes since he's so adoring of everything Holmes does.  I think Moffatt (I'll lay this one at his feet, although I don't know) chuckled over that as a kid and had a great time having John getting irate because everyone assumes "Watson" is gay and John doesn't know where all this is coming from and keeps having to correct people.

 

 

JP said

Which made me think that's this guy felt like women often do in presence of men. 

 

How so?  I've not ever felt uncomfortable around men, so I'm not sure what you mean.

[J.P.]

Never been in a situation when you felt exposed as an object of sexual interest (even a potential one?) Never felt uncomfortable on a train or at a bus stop, while alone with a strange guy oggling at you? Being hit on in a uncomfortable way?

[Boton]

Never been in a situation when you felt exposed as an object of sexual interest (even a potential one?) Never felt uncomfortable on a train or at a bus stop, while alone with a strange guy oggling at you? Being hit on in a uncomfortable way?

 

 

No.  I love that stuff.  I adore being cat-called, and I like it when guys flirt and stare.

 

The only time I've ever felt uncomfortable is if I think I'm physically in danger, which is very rare and doesn't really line up with sexual interest for me.  The people who are menacing don't feel sexual to me.

 

[shrugs] I don't know; just my experience.  I do know that others feel differently.