The Johnlock Conspiracy

[Arcadia]

 

... 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."

 

 

Actually, I have seen where "feminists" argue that very thing, once upon a not so long ago. Even then, however, it wasn't considered, ahem, "politically correct", not even by the person writing it.

 

>> 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.

 

I'm quite sure that's exactly what it is for some people!

 

However, I've seen several people say "I believe in Johnlock and I wasn't even looking for it," and I get that, because for a little while there I started to think there might be something to it myself. (Heck, sometimes I still do. Some of the arguments are very compelling!) But in the end it fell apart, for me, because too much of the "evidence" is based on assumptions, supposed (but unconfirmed) "code", and stereotyped ideas of romance. ("John & Sherlock look each other in the eyes, it MUST be lust!" ... Srsly???) Sooo .....

 

 

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.

 

Erm .... thanks? :P

[Carol the Dabbler]

 

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

 

Actually, I have seen where "feminists" argue that very thing, once upon a not so long ago. Even then, however, it wasn't considered, ahem, "politically correct", not even by the person writing it.

What exactly *was* it considered, then?

[Inge l-w]

Lovely perceptive discussion and insightful article notwithstanding, Mr Moffat has lied and lied, as Janine said in his own script, so he cannot very well cry wolf now, even though he may be in the right on the issue!

[Arcadia]

 

 

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

Actually, I have seen where "feminists" argue that very thing, once upon a not so long ago. Even then, however, it wasn't considered, ahem, "politically correct", not even by the person writing it.

What exactly *was* it considered, then?

 

 

The particular case I'm thinking of (and I finally remembered where I saw it ... the Washington Post) just said she was a feminist, I don't think she especially cared whether she offended anyone or not. However, judging from the letters column, readers found it decidedly politically incorrect (and some of them labelled themselves feminists too.) As was pointed out, it wasn't "correct" to advocate excluding everyone else in an attempt to elevate your own group.

 

Sometimes the letters column is the best part of the whole paper.

[Arcadia]

Lovely perceptive discussion and insightful article notwithstanding, Mr Moffat has lied and lied, as Janine said in his own script, so he cannot very well cry wolf now, even though he may be in the right on the issue!

 

Okay, I'll play this game ... what exactly has he "lied and lied" about?

[Carol the Dabbler]

The particular case I'm thinking of (and I finally remembered where I saw it ... the Washington Post) just said she was a feminist, I don't think she especially cared whether she offended anyone or not. However, judging from the letters column, readers found it decidedly politically incorrect (and some of them labelled themselves feminists too.) As was pointed out, it wasn't "correct" to advocate excluding everyone else in an attempt to elevate your own group.

 

See, that's the problem with "political correctness" -- it's all relative to your own politics. I assume that writer considered herself to be extra-correct, but her fellow readers disagreed.

[Fantasy Lover]

I have one thing to say about this, and one thing only: I they're so tired of the gay question, then WHY do they keep making it a question? It's simple, no johnlock moments anymore.

[Carol the Dabbler]

Yeah, I think the Moftisses are starting to realize that they've dragged that little joke out waaaay too long!

[Pseudonym]

I like the little moments but I have to admit that Mrs Hudson still being incredulous that John was dating a woman in season 3 was a bit too far for me. 

[Fantasy Lover]

Yeah, I think the Moftisses are starting to realize that they've dragged that little joke out waaaay too long!

You mean the couple joke?

[Carol the Dabbler]

Right, where everybody assumes they're a couple, just because they're two men living together (or, in "Hounds," traveling together).

[Pseudonym]

I know I read, possibly in that interview where everything kicked off, that they did that because these days it wouldn't be a taboo issue, people would just assume they were together. But I don't assume that every time I see two guys travelling together or sharing somewhere as flatmates that they must be a couple. If they're flatmates I assume they're actually flatmates - if they were partners I would expect they would say that they were. 

[Inge l-w]

Dear Carol and Arcadia, Mr Moffat started the whole cohabitation=connubial existence in SiP, with the two bedrooms comment by Mrs Hudson. He opened a hornets' nest, and he kept it up until at least SoT, which introduced the trope of balletlock, and let's not forget the 'confirmed bachelor John Watson' in TRF! So, he is not in a position to claim plausible deniability of TJLC in discussion panels at this moment in time. There were even bits of it in TEH and Many Happy Returns.

[Arcadia]

 

The particular case I'm thinking of (and I finally remembered where I saw it ... the Washington Post) just said she was a feminist, I don't think she especially cared whether she offended anyone or not. However, judging from the letters column, readers found it decidedly politically incorrect (and some of them labelled themselves feminists too.) As was pointed out, it wasn't "correct" to advocate excluding everyone else in an attempt to elevate your own group.

See, that's the problem with "political correctness" -- it's all relative to your own politics. I assume that writer considered herself to be extra-correct, but her fellow readers disagreed.

 

No, not at all ... she didn't care about being politically correct, she cared about demanding that women writers should only write about women. I think the "problem" with political correctness is that its original intent ... sensitivity in language, action and legislation to other races, creeds, etc. ... has been hijacked and the phrase is now used by many to mean something else. (Similar to a problem a certain Messrs. Gatiss and Moffat are experiencing!) I assure you, I have acquaintances who know exactly what I mean when I use the term. But I acknowledge your previous point about everyone being on the same page as to the meaning of the phrase; which is why I keep providing my definition of it.

 

I suspect those who favor the concept will eventually have to cave in, and come up with a new term that means the same thing. Maybe they already have, I'm not in that particular loop like I used to be. All that kind of stuff became too contentious for my taste after it went online (thanks a heap, internet! <_< )

 

I have one thing to say about this, and one thing only: I they're so tired of the gay question, then WHY do they keep making it a question? It's simple, no johnlock moments anymore.

I think what they are saying is .... they don't keep making it a question. I think they're saying that some people are interpreting what they've written to mean something they didn't intend.

 

I just ran across this. To me ... and I will admit I am not the least bit interested in seeing Johnlock, and never would have even dreamed of it if other people hadn't pointed it out ... to me it is perfectly clear that Moftiss are saying that LGBT representation on TV is a good and important thing, but they have made no effort, at least in Season 4, to do it themselves. And then they give their reasons why they haven't done so. But the person who made the video has taken their every word and reinterpreted it to mean the opposite of what I think they're saying. Which of us is right? I don't know, but here it is....

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zklcDbVRso4

 

Finally ... there is no denying that they created this situation themselves by starting in with the gay jokes to begin with. To people like me, that's all they were, jokes ... a funny commentary on how our perceptions of male friendship have changed since the days of ACD. I laughed out loud the first time I heard them. I think what they didn't anticipate is the extent to which some people took it as more than a joke ... that is, the extent to which some people changed it from their stated intent into something else. If you believe Mofftiss ... and I'm one of the people who does ... they never meant to do anything except make people laugh. It will be interesting to see if they do indeed dial back on anything that could be construed as a gay reference, or if they have the moxy to keep writing the show the same way they always have. I hope they have; it's worked out well for me so far! :D

 

Yeah, I think the Moftisses are starting to realize that they've dragged that little joke out waaaay too long!

I like the little moments but I have to admit that Mrs Hudson still being incredulous that John was dating a woman in season 3 was a bit too far for me.

Moftiss acknowledged that themselves in the TEH commentary. "This is more or less the last hurrah for this joke, isn’t it?" "Yes."

[Fantasy Lover]

 

 

Dear Carol and Arcadia, Mr Moffat started the whole cohabitation=connubial existence in SiP, with the two bedrooms comment by Mrs Hudson. He opened a hornets' nest, and he kept it up until at least SoT, which introduced the trope of balletlock, and let's not forget the 'confirmed bachelor John Watson' in TRF! So, he is not in a position to claim plausible deniability of TJLC in discussion panels at this moment in time. There were even bits of it in TEH and Many Happy Returns.

You've forgot tso3 and hlv

[Inge l-w]

HLV yes, SoT IS TSOT! Check out emmagrant01, by the way, in Ao3

[J.P.]

 

To people like me, that's all they were, jokes ... a funny commentary on how our perceptions of male friendship have changed since the days of ACD.

 

The same here. Or even more: the fact that they made fun of the issue in the way they did, has taken it into the realm of normality and out of the closet of "awkward themes that must be treated with political correctness." And I love it that way.

[Carol the Dabbler]

Inge & Aurelie -- Nobody's denying the existence of those scenes. The main point of contention seems to be, what was Moftiss's intent in those scenes (other than to make people laugh), and I'm afraid that I (not actually being Moftiss) have no idea. All I can say is my own interpretation, and I've already done that.

[Inge l-w]

And why did Sherock use 'The curtain rises' in both TGG and TAB?

[Carol the Dabbler]

And why did Sherock use 'The curtain rises' in both TGG and TAB?

If that's a Johnlock reference, I'm afraid you've lost me completely.

[Pseudonym]

 

If that's a Johnlock reference, I'm afraid you've lost me completely.

 

 

Yea, me too.

[Inge l-w]

Check it out in tumblr, ladies.

OK, edited to include the gist of what the followers of The Loudest Subtext on Television (which was removed by its creator) said: The specific phrase is a double-entendre of the whole thing being a play within a play, and this was partly confirmed by Mr Gatiss during the SDCC, when talking about modern vs. Victorian Sherlock. His comments have led to a LOT of speculation!

[Carol the Dabbler]

 

See, that's the problem with "political correctness" -- it's all relative to your own politics. I assume that writer considered herself to be extra-correct, but her fellow readers disagreed.

 

No, not at all ... she didn't care about being politically correct, she cared about demanding that women writers should only write about women. I think the "problem" with political correctness is that its original intent ... sensitivity in language, action and legislation to other races, creeds, etc. ... has been hijacked and the phrase is now used by many to mean something else. (Similar to a problem a certain Messrs. Gatiss and Moffat are experiencing!) I assure you, I have acquaintances who know exactly what I mean when I use the term. But I acknowledge your previous point about everyone being on the same page as to the meaning of the phrase; which is why I keep providing my definition of it.

 

I suspect those who favor the concept will eventually have to cave in, and come up with a new term....

I'm sure they will, because the term had changed meaning before I ever heard it. Language is like that, though. People keep using "moot" to mean irrelevant, and they pay no attention when I point out that it actually means debatable. I'm afraid I've lost that one (among others!).

 

But please note that I did not say she presumably thought of her position as politically correct; I said "politically correct.". Please bear our agreement in mind -- with the quote marks it means something like "appropriate to a specific version of righteousness." And I'm sure that woman thought of her position as entirely righteous.

[Carol the Dabbler]

Check it out in tumblr, ladies.

Sorry, I've never been able to make heads or tails of Tumblr. All I ever get is a whole bunch of pictures.

[Arcadia]

 

If that's a Johnlock reference, I'm afraid you've lost me completely.

 

Yea, me too.

Me three.

 

Check it out in tumblr, ladies.

You first, and then you can tell us what it says. :p