The Johnlock Conspiracy

[Carol the Dabbler]

I guess the thing that bothers me most about the blog that Aurelie quoted is the repeated assertion that Sherlock and John are gay, which is then used as evidence that Moftiss intend to "bring them out of the closet" someday.  The author makes some good points, but that frequent use of circular reasoning kinda spoils the effect.

 

I saw something else that puzzles me on Twitter today, a brief reference to hopes for "Freebatch."  It could simply mean that the tweeter enjoys seeing the two actors interact on set.  Or it could mean that some fans are actually hoping to orchestrate those men's private lives.  I tried googling, but could come up with nothing conclusive.  Somebody please tell me I'm reading too much into it.  Please.

 

[Fantasy Lover]

 

 

I guess the thing that bothers me most about the blog that Aurelie quoted is the repeated assertion that Sherlock and John are gay, which is then used as evidence that Moftiss intend to "bring them out of the closet" someday. The author makes some good points, but that frequent use of circular reasoning kinda spoils the effect.

 

I saw something else that puzzles me on Twitter today, a brief reference to hopes for "Freebatch." It could simply mean that the tweeter enjoys seeing the two actors interact on set. Or it could mean that some fans are actually hoping to orchestrate those men's private lives. I tried googling, but could come up with nothing conclusive. Somebody please tell me I'm reading too much into it. Please.

First of all, according to her Sherlock is gay, but John is bisexual. Secondly, they are reading too much into it. These people ship Freebatch, as someone who read PiaLR, I'm like nope. I take satisfaction with NPH and Ellen.

[J.P.]

I also think that some people do seriously ship Freebatch, including photo-manips, which for me is a no-go. A big NO-GO and totally tasteless. As I think it's okay to take fictional characters where you like to, but real people slash stories are bleh.

 

My rule is: write things in a way you would say them if the person you talking about was in the room.

[Arcadia]

I think there's a not uncommon longing for actors who play friends on screen to be friends in real life ... why, I'm not sure. I've always associated that kind of thing with a certain, er, immature romanticism, and not particularly harmful unless they take it too seriously. I don't mind the manips so much if they're labelled as such, but the ones that pretend to be real are not that different from libel, imo.

[Pseudonym]

I have to admit I find it disappointing when you hear that actors don't get on in real life. I mean, I know they're acting and it's a job but I can't help thinking how hard emotional scenes must be when you really dislike your co-star. It can ruin some scenes for me, especially romantic ones, I'm looking at you Mulder and Scully.

I also like to think that the actors enjoyed making the series as much as the audience enjoy watching it, and it seems sad if they were forced to do it with someone they don't like. 

 

Manips of real people always freak me out a bit, even if it's meant to be John and Sherlock rather than Martin and Ben I'd prefer a drawing or something carefully shadowed where you can't see their faces all that clearly, it's a bit squicky otherwise.

[Arcadia]

Yeah, like watching Fred Astaire and Ginger Rogers dance knowing they didn't like each other much; it does take a little something away from it, doesn't it?

[Carol the Dabbler]

Remington Steele.

 

 

First of all, according to her Sherlock is gay, but John is bisexual. Secondly, they are reading too much into it. These people ship Freebatch, as someone who read PiaLR, I'm like nope. I take satisfaction with NPH and Ellen.

 

First of all, I agree, they're reading too much into the show; you really can't use your own headcanon to prove anything about the writers' intentions.  And secondly, you lost me right after Freebatch.

 

[Arcadia]

Remington Steele.

 

Oh dear, really? Well, that doesn't bother me so much ... I never "shipped" their characters, as I recall.

[Carol the Dabbler]

It was pretty obvious on screen, I thought.  The realistic way she bristled at him -- even in scenes where they were supposed to be on good terms -- seemed to indicate real-life friction, which was confirmed by some articles I read later (assuming those were to be trusted?).  Apparently she had been promised a series of her own to star in, and then this unknown guy they got to play the mythical Mr. Steele ended up getting all the attention.  So it was presumably  more the situation than him per se.   I guess it was fortunate that Laura Holt was supposed to feel similar resentment toward "Mr. Steele," so that the bristling wasn't really inappropriate.

 

[Inge l-w]

Well, both creators claim to be ACD buffs, so asexual is what they might want to end up with. The dear doctor started the theme in The Sign of The Four, continued it in A Scandal in Belgravia, in The Copper Beeches, The Devil's Foot and in The Abbey Grange, not to mention The Veiled Lodger, The Cardboard Box, The Second Stain and The Illustrious Client: Sherlock can understand passion and emotions, but he cannot empathise with them.

[Boton]

Well, both creators claim to be ACD buffs, so asexual is what they might want to end up with. The dear doctor started the theme in The Sign of The Four, continued it in A Scandal in Belgravia, in The Copper Beeches, The Devil's Foot and in The Abbey Grange, not to mention The Veiled Lodger, The Cardboard Box, The Second Stain and The Illustrious Client: Sherlock can understand passion and emotions, but he cannot empathise with them.

 

Yes, and I think that's the real "conspiracy" from Moftiss.  At heart, they seem to want to create an experience that makes their viewers excited about the Sherlock Holmes universe in the way they were as boys.  Sherlock Holmes as a character is, ultimately, just the kind of hero you want when you are a young person: probably inexperienced in romance, possibly not interested in sexuality at all, but very interested in having exciting adventures with your best friend and proving yourself strong and capable in the world.  

[J.P.]

[Arcadia]

Yes, and I think that's the real "conspiracy" from Moftiss. At heart, they seem to want to create an experience that makes their viewers excited about the Sherlock Holmes universe in the way they were as boys. Sherlock Holmes as a character is, ultimately, just the kind of hero you want when you are a young person: probably inexperienced in romance, possibly not interested in sexuality at all, but very interested in having exciting adventures with your best friend and proving yourself strong and capable in the world.

Hear hear!

 

Although that means they're really lousy at conspiracy, because that's been their stated goal all along, hasn't it? To recreate the thrill of their boyhood infatuation with Sherlock Holmes?

[J.P.]

The video runs in the background and I start to ask myself if I treat them the way the non-fan population treats us fangirls. Maybe my POV needs a bit of adjusting. Not that I will ever believe Johnlock can happen.

[Arcadia]

Maybe so .... but part of the fun of being a fangirl, for me, is baffling the expectations of my peers. It tickles me to see their reactions. And I am completely capable of recognizing that my infatuation with Sherlock has NO meaning in the greater scheme of things. It's silly, I know it's silly, one reason I like it is because it IS silly, for a woman my age to swoon over a fictional character and theorize about him as if he were real.

 

I will admit ... my first reaction upon skimming the video (sorry, I can't sit through 1.5 hours of that) was "come back in 20 years and tell me how realistic you think this is then." If there was anyone on there over 30, I missed them. Does their youth invalidate their belief? Not necessarily. But it does rather validate mine that the "conspiracy" is largely a result of inexperience and youthful romanticism. I'm rather tolerant of the former, and quite admire the latter ... but it doesn't make a believer out of me. Call it ageism if you like, but I do think experience broadens your understanding of people and the world. (If you let it, but that's another argument for another day.)

 

I think encountering the different beliefs/attitudes/hopes/fears of the fans has broadened my views of some things far more than anything that has been (or ever will be) on the show. Don't know if it's changed me, but it's certainly expanded my universe.

[J.P.]

I did listen to it all. And I almost wish for them TJLC would turn out to be true, because it seems really important to them. And it's kind of sad that their hopes and believes are (most probably) based on a misconception...

 

Sherlock the Show seems to be great as a Rorschach blot for some reason: I would say the whole thing is about projection of what's inside you, and it's what I have done since the first time I saw it. So feeling superior to TJLC believers is a bit... not good.

 

And I probably should shut up anyway, because I cannot imagine why the hell it's so damn important who you have sex with, or that you have sex at all... Even if I can understand it with my mind, I will never be able to grasp it's emotional load.

[Pseudonym]

 

Saw this on Twitter, though exactly where he said this isn't clear, followed by some comments about gay characters and not mentioning a character is gay - I'm guessing there's some sort of panel going on right now, is he at comic con maybe? Anyway TJLC guys will jump on this - for people it's genuinely important to their teases are a bit cruel. Not that it's overt. Wonder what it could be? Who knows what goes on in the twisted Moftiss heads.

[Carol the Dabbler]

The Sherlock panel is -- if I recall correctly -- not till Sunday.  I believe somebody said that quote was from an earlier (non-Sherlock-related) panel that he was in.

[J.P.]

And what about this?

 

They all have the uncanny ability to confuse us.

[T.o.b.y]

I did listen to it all. And I almost wish for them TJLC would turn out to be true, because it seems really important to them. And it's kind of sad that their hopes and believes are (most probably) based on a misconception...

 

l know! I kind of hope they never explicitly rule out the idea on the show entirely. It would be nice if everybody could continue to hold on to their own personal favorite interpretation of what they see.

 

And I probably should shut up anyway, because I cannot imagine why the hell it's so damn important who you have sex with, or that you have sex at all... Even if I can understand it with my mind, I will never be able to grasp it's emotional load.

 

I don't know why it's important to other people who has sex with whom either. As to why it's so important to us to have sex, well, I think that can easily be explained by our biology. Reproduction is part of survival, as a species if not as an individual. So of course a strong urge to reproduce is an evolutional advantage. Sex usually has a pretty good chance of enabling reproduction, so it's advantageous that we enjoy it a lot and give it a pretty high priority in our lives. Doesn't mean everybody has to be this way, for humans not to die out, it's enough if it applies to the majority. (A friend of mine at uni used to say "my oxytocin loves you" rather than "I love you". I wouldn't take my argument quite that far, but I do think that a lot of our emotional experiences have a biological basis. Or maybe it's vice versa? You know, it really doesn't matter that much.)

 

And what about this?

 

They all have the uncanny ability to confuse us.

 

What's so confusing? She's basically saying "nothing". (As for a penis, doesn't John have one of those already? Last time I checked, he was a guy.)

 

:D I can't believe she's even answering these kinds of questions.

[Carol the Dabbler]

She's not answering a question, she's making a wisecrack.

[J.P.]

TOBY, I am aware what sex is for, but it's hard for me to relate to it. Actually, (said in RIII's voice) I'm not made of stone. So I can fall in love... like once in 10 years and unhappily, so it always feels like a malady.

 

But in everyday live I have much more problems with resisting sugar craving than missing sex. :P

[T.o.b.y]

TOBY, I am aware what sex is for, but it's hard for me to relate to it. Actually, (said in RIII's voice) I'm not made of stone. So I can fall in love... like once in 10 years and unhappily, so it always feels like a malady.

 

But in everyday live I have much more problems with resisting sugar craving than missing sex. :P

Sorry, I didn't mean to imply... I went all Sherlock, did I? I guess what I meant was that I suppose how we experience / relate to sex could have to do with our personal biology. If you're not feeling it, you're not feeling it, and that's fine.

[J.P.]

 

[J.P.]

THIS!

 

http://www.withanaccent.com/2016/07/27/sherlock-a-case-of-sexual-identity/