The Johnlock Conspiracy

[Shadow Dweller]

>> As to Sherlock’s ending, he quipped, “Sherlock Holmes ends up keeping bees in the Sussex Downs. That was established 90 years ago.”

 

Grins. My shipper-head is remembering about who in series 3 bought a cottage home in Sussex but got rid of the bees. Janine! :D

[J.P.]

Ah well, maybe Sherlock brings back the bees and gets rid of Janine :D

[Carol the Dabbler]

THIS!

 

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

It's a longish article, but packed full of very specific statements from Moftiss. Well worth reading!

[Arcadia]

Interestingly, it's popped up on Sherlockology as a sort of featured (?) article. It looks to me like they would very much like to have it widely circulated. Wonder if it will have any positive effect, or if it will just stir up resentment (as so much seems to, these days.)

 

The Moftisses do seem a bit annoyed, and I don't blame them. But I've argued that point before, so let it be.

[T.o.b.y]

 

THIS!

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

It's a longish article, but packed full of very specific statements from Moftiss. Well worth reading!

 

*Big Sigh*... So it's as I feared: fannish over-enthusiasm and media madness do get to the lovely people who write this lovely series. It does affect them and they are annoyed by it. Which means that the writing very, very likely has / will become more cautious and more self-conscious, which never does a show any good if you ask me.

 

I wish they could just create in a complete vacuum. I suspect that one of the reasons why I like the first 3 episodes the best is that they were made before all this happened.

[J.P.]

And now, from what I see on Twitter, people are doubting the statement. Mark has confirmed that interview twice already, I have seen a statement from Sue too, I think. So far it comes to me only as echoes, but it seems the dark side of the fandom has risen... The cynical part of my mind thinks "serves them right" - all that "lying" and misleading seems to backfire at them right now.

 

But, yes it almost seems like something happened and it moved them to make this unusualy stern and clear statement.

 

... that nobody believes :P

[T.o.b.y]

I can understand why they became fed up. It's one thing to say "I'd really like for soandso to happen" or "I think what I see on screen can be interpreted in such and such a way", but it's another entirely different story if a person makes a clear statement and you just respond with "la la la I don't hear you and besides I don't believe you're telling the truth." That would infuriate me to no end. When I say something, I mean it, and I do not appreciate people telling me that no, I actually mean something else.

 

Still, I think it would have been wiser to ignore the so-called "conspiracy". They can't convince people who don't want to be convinced. People will always talk, so what? Do what Sherlock does. Just turn up your nose and don't give a shit.

[Pseudonym]

Does anyone know if it was something in particular that pushed them to the point of making a statement about it? I know people were reading too much into what Gatiss said but they always have done, that's always been the case so it's strange that it's now he's made a point of addressing it.

[Carol the Dabbler]

Maybe it kinda reached critical mass, the last straw? Ignoring (or "filtering") can work pretty well for a while. But that sort of concerted attack is bound to get to just about anyone, eventually.

[T.o.b.y]

I just really hope they won't shy away from further exploring the characters' relationship as it is, just because everything could be misinterpreted. It would be a hopeless effort anyway (look at Mycroft / Lestrade, people go and ship anything, the characters don't even need to have exchanged a single sentence) and it would greatly impoverish the story in my opinion.

[Arcadia]

Does anyone know if it was something in particular that pushed them to the point of making a statement about it? I know people were reading too much into what Gatiss said but they always have done, that's always been the case so it's strange that it's now he's made a point of addressing it.

From here, it seems as if the "last straw" may have been what Moffat was mentioning in the article we all just read .... he was on a panel at SDCC, made some heart-felt statement about gay representation, only to have it pop up a short time later out of context and reinterpreted to say something he didn't mean. That would upset anyone, I think.

 

The other possibility that occurs is that maybe this is the first time someone they trusted actually gave them the opportunity to speak at length and unfiltered on the issue. I've been interviewed for the paper a couple of times, and was shocked at 1) the amount of information they deleted from my answers, which slightly changed the meaning of what I said and 2) how much they paraphrased what I said. It was embarrassing to me, although none of my friends who read it saw anything wrong with the results. But dang it, that's not what I actually said! Close enough is good enough to some in the media, apparently. At any rate, I'm a lot more wary of reporters than I used to be.

 

(Just as a side note: one guy once interviewed me over the phone for about two minutes, then said he'd call back for more later -- which he didn't. When the article came out, it was obvious that he'd simply copied the "about me" page off my web site, made up some questions to go with each of my bullet points, and presented the article as a question and answer session! I didn't really mind; at least he used my actual words! :D )

[Pseudonym]

Yeuch, made the mistake of going on Tumblr. 

[Arcadia]

I can imagine. I sometimes check in on another forum, over there the refusal to accept the article is already blooming, as are the ugly remarks about Moftiss. And that place is mild compared to some.

[Carol the Dabbler]

I can imagine. I sometimes check in on another forum, over there the refusal to accept the article is already blooming, as are the ugly remarks about Moftiss. And that place is mild compared to some.

 

I haven't been over there for a while -- thanks for the warning!  What do you mean by "refusal to accept the article"?  Are they saying the article is a counterfeit, or simply refusing to believe that Moftiss are telling the truth?

[Pseudonym]

I think it's crazy that some people are taking it as some kind of personal attack, and furious that Gatiss would dare not have Johnlock be part of the show, as if he somehow promised and is now going back on his word. It's how vitriolic some people are being that shocks me. I love Sherlock, I like coming on here and discussing our various nutty ideas, but at the end of the day it's a TV show. It has no bearing on my real day to day life, and frankly there are too many real things to be worrying over to allow something so trivial as whether two characters will get it on or not to affect me to such a degree.

The people who are really up in arms are all talking about how Sherlock should be representing the gay community as if the writers have some sort of responsibility to make Johnlock a reality. It's utter craziness. And the anger seems to be directed at Gatiss more than Moffat, as if he is some sort of traitor for daring to be gay and not write his main characters as gay. Really, the level of anger around this mystifies me. They haven't even said that Sherlock isn't gay, they have left his sexuality ambiguous, and people are still fuming. I understand being invested in characters, and I like reading Johnlock stories as much as the next person, but people really need to get some distance on this. 

[Carol the Dabbler]

I can understand that the gay community would be hopeful in this case -- apparently Johnlock is a longstanding theme in Holmes fandom, and here's an adaptation co-created by a gay man! So I can understand the disappointment when those hopes failed to materialize.

 

But my impression (and it's only that) is that the most vehement voices are those of straight women. Are they ardent supporters of gay rights -- or are they turned on by the thought of two good-looking guys getting it on -- or am I missing the point altogether?

[Pseudonym]

I don't know, the opinions I came across on tumblr were mostly from gay women. 

[Carol the Dabbler]

OK, thanks. As I already said, that disappointment is understandable.

[Shadow Dweller]

In my experience, the control freaks who (sometimes literally) foam in mouth about something that actually is beyond their scope of influence is actually unhappy people who (futilely) trying to fix the unpleasant feeling by trying to manage (read, force) what they perceived as the outside world to fit their own ideals. It is fantasy-fulfillment for them and they had deluded themselves to think that it is the only way to set things right (to heck with pesky thing like other people's right to decide how they should lead their own life) in order for them to be finally satisfied, which is foolish at best since that kind of people only will take the next cause then continue in a never-ending attempts to 'fix' the world. Their enemy is human-nature itself which resist being limited in choice.

[Carol the Dabbler]

How true, how true!

[Arcadia]

 

I can imagine. I sometimes check in on another forum, over there the refusal to accept the article is already blooming, as are the ugly remarks about Moftiss. And that place is mild compared to some.

 

I haven't been over there for a while -- thanks for the warning!  What do you mean by "refusal to accept the article"?  Are they saying the article is a counterfeit, or simply refusing to believe that Moftiss are telling the truth?

 

Both. Actually, I think it was one of their links where someone was questioning the veracity of the interview. The anger is either people believing they've been duped from the start ("gaybaiting" came up) or people who think Moftiss have backed away from their plan out of fear. There wasn't as much chatter there as I thought there would be, I was just curious what their take on it would be.

 

I think it's crazy that some people are taking it as some kind of personal attack, and furious that Gatiss would dare not have Johnlock be part of the show, as if he somehow promised and is now going back on his word. It's how vitriolic some people are being that shocks me. I love Sherlock, I like coming on here and discussing our various nutty ideas, but at the end of the day it's a TV show. It has no bearing on my real day to day life, and frankly there are too many real things to be worrying over to allow something so trivial as whether two characters will get it on or not to affect me to such a degree.

The people who are really up in arms are all talking about how Sherlock should be representing the gay community as if the writers have some sort of responsibility to make Johnlock a reality. It's utter craziness. And the anger seems to be directed at Gatiss more than Moffat, as if he is some sort of traitor for daring to be gay and not write his main characters as gay. Really, the level of anger around this mystifies me. They haven't even said that Sherlock isn't gay, they have left his sexuality ambiguous, and people are still fuming. I understand being invested in characters, and I like reading Johnlock stories as much as the next person, but people really need to get some distance on this.

I felt something the same when JP posted the "Why Johnlock Matters" video ... it's just a TV show, people! But I sort of feel bad for the youngsters who seem to have become soooooo invested in it turning out a certain way. (No sympathy for older folks, though; they should know better! :P ) I can dimly remember what that feels like. But it's how you learn, I guess. I hope what they learn is a good thing, though, not bitterness or anger.

[Arcadia]

 

 

I can imagine. I sometimes check in on another forum, over there the refusal to accept the article is already blooming, as are the ugly remarks about Moftiss. And that place is mild compared to some.

 

I haven't been over there for a while -- thanks for the warning!  What do you mean by "refusal to accept the article"?  Are they saying the article is a counterfeit, or simply refusing to believe that Moftiss are telling the truth?

 

Both. Actually, I think it was one of their links where someone was questioning the veracity of the interview. The anger is either people believing they've been duped from the start ("gaybaiting" came up) or people who think Moftiss have backed away from their plan out of fear. There wasn't as much chatter there as I thought there would be, I was just curious what their take on it would be.

 

Oh, and there's also the denial ... that is, the interview is real, but Moftiss don't really mean what they're saying because they always lie. That's when I left, that kind of circular reasoning makes me dizzy!

[Carol the Dabbler]

 

... the anger seems to be directed at Gatiss more than Moffat, as if he is some sort of traitor for daring to be gay and not write his main characters as gay. Really, the level of anger around this mystifies me.

Do they then believe that straight writers / producers / actors have a duty to see to it that their characters are straight?  Or that female writers / producers / actors have a duty to make sure all their characters are female?  Or blacks....?  Sounds like a pretty dull and rigid world, if everything is decided by "political correctness."

 

... I sort of feel bad for the youngsters who seem to have become soooooo invested in it turning out a certain way. (No sympathy for older folks, though; they should know better! :P ) I can dimly remember what that feels like. But it's how you learn, I guess. I hope what they learn is a good thing, though, not bitterness or anger.

Oh, dear, good point!  I recall my own crusading days.      So guess I'd better go easy on the ardent Johnlockers.

[Shadow Dweller]

>> Oh, and there's also the denial ... that is, the interview is real, but Moftiss don't really mean what they're saying because they always lie. That's when I left, that kind of circular reasoning makes me dizzy!

 

;) Are you sure that it is not because the problem in perceptive ability? [mischievous smile] Mofftiss might say A but certain people in the audience interpreted it as B since it is what they secretly wishing to to become reality.

[Van Buren Supernova]

I can imagine. I sometimes check in on another forum, over there the refusal to accept the article is already blooming, as are the ugly remarks about Moftiss. And that place is mild compared to some.

Thank goodness I chose the right place.

One fine day, you guys are really going to get that tasty eyeballs in your tea, that is how much I appreciate discussing stuffs with you all.

 

 

Anyway, I remember this but don't quote me.

Someone asked why the creators of Seinfeld don't have black representatives as their main characters.

Their reply was,"we can't fix the world problem with our simple sitcom."