You all seem to want the Johnlock kiss to happen in a three garridebs episode. And yeah, that sounds good to me, too. But, like. I want it with the roles shifted. Like, we’ve seen Sherlock go out of his mind with fear for John before and protect him with everything he has. I mean, he faked his own death for him, and freaked out when he was stuffed in the bonfire, and killed Magnussen to protect him, and was actually incoherent when Moriarty kidnapped him. But, we haven’t really seen that same level of protectiveness from John. I mean, there was the potential when Sherlock was shot, but John was a bit distracted by the Mary situation, too, and totally unsure of what to do. Sure, he’s pretty damn protective, but like, just imagine.
Sherlock in mortal danger, or wounded or something, and John just flipping shit. Like, imagine Sherlock getting kidnapped, and when John finds him, he totally shoots the kidnappers, but doesn’t kill them, because that would be too easy. And then he’s all over Sherlock, running his hands over him, making sure he’s okay, and Sherlock’s just staring at him, gaping at him, because he never truly realized how much John loves him because even after John said he was his best friend, there was still all that doubt there, because how could he love someone likeme?
And then John’s hands are grasping the sides of his face, almost too hard with worry. And all Sherlock can do is whisper “John,” his voice all choked up. Their lips brush together hesitantly, and John pulls back, and everything is written there in his face, how much he loves Sherlock, and how he always has, and how hard it was for him when Sherlock died, and he never really got over it, even now with Sherlock alive right in front of him. And he knows if Sherlock died again, he wouldn’t make it through this time.
And Sherlock sees all of it, and he says, “John,” again, but this time it’s an apology and then continues, “That day…. I wasn’t going to say ‘Sherlock is a girl’s name.’”
And then they’re kissing, finally, really kissing, and it’s all desperation and fire and passion.
A man is murdered (the metaphor we see equated over and over to falling in love), and is found face down in a plate of noodles (food being the running metaphor for sex/physical intimacy).
Initially, everyone denies that it could have been intentional–even though there is obvious evidence to the contrary–because everyone who could possibly have been responsible denies knowing anything about it.
Because Sherlock (or any curious detective) can’t get anywhere with that, he shifts his attention to who might have wanted this to happen, who would want to see a man die in his plate of food (a.k.a. fall in love and have sex).
In the following statement, replace reasons for why they want Wong dead with reasons why the powers that be might be all fucking over making a subversive gay narrative that they couldn’t do in an obvious way:
An ex-member of staff had tweeted about how Wong had unfairly sacked him. Someone had replied saying that he’d been attacked by Wong years earlier. Someone else had replied… and so on and so on. A group of seemingly random people, all connected online.
…and you have exactly why this is a real thing that’s really happening.
There was no proof, of course. No taped meetings where they planned and plotted. And, after reading about some of the things Wong had done, Sherlock was quite happy to let it go. He was actually impressed by what they’d pulled off.
Sherlock’s okay with it, in case you’re worried about him.
And…yeah, I don’t know about you guys, but I for one am very impressed with how they’ve managed to pull all of this off. The fact that Johnlockers are literally synonymous with conspiracy theorists is a testament to their success.
If you need further evidence in that area, even the comment section of this entry reads like Johnlockers arguing with non-Johnlockers.
But the photo that John has placed in this entry is of a pile of evidence laid out in the way that (we know from the Casebook) John does before writing up the cases, with one and a half cigarettes placed on it. –Basically, this entire entry is meant to remind us how John Watson and Sherlock Holmes analyze/organize information about cases, and how we can do it too.
In other words, this entry is about encouraging fans of TJLC to go online and look up some information if they’re really interested in this mystery. That it really, truly, is not us reading too far into things, that this show is, in fact, a puzzle that’s inviting us to solve it.
So, good show, skulls-and-tea, loudest-subtext-in-television, and literally everyone who takes the time to enjoy writing and reading meta. Good show Johnlockers. We have, in fact, done exactly what the creators of the show wanted us to do all along.
And even if there’s no “proof” yet–no clear admission by anyone involved–Sherlock, the most brilliant detective of all, has come to the same conclusion, and has given it his blessing.
“This trope happens when two characters are just perfect for each other, but neither realizes it (or only one realizes it). However, everyone around them — such as their friends, family, and enemies — can see their obvious feelings for each other. This can also happen when people (outsiders) mistake them for a couple when they’re not together, resulting in a ‘She Is Not My Girlfriend' situation, designed to show the audience (and the characters) just how strong/obvious their feelings for each other are.
One of the popular ways to do this is to bring in the Romantic False Lead for an episode or a few, expressly in order to contrast this short-arc relationship with the long-arc relationship that’s been developing. The Romantic False Lead will be the character to comment on how perfect they are for each other. Will likely require Selective Obliviousness on both parts.
Sometimes one or both of the prospective couple can see it, but nothing ever happens because they 'Cannot Spit It Out' (To the great annoyance of all observers).”
- Everyone can see it, except them - Commonly used romance trope in television and fiction. [x]
I know this song in the context of Sherlock and John’s reunion has been analyzed (xxxxxxx) quite a lot. And if anyone bothered to understand the lyrics - which is sung in Spanish, they’ll realize that it’s unambiguously romantic. Here’s the lyrics translated in English from lyricstranslate.com:
[Chorus:]x2 Where are you, where are you Yolanda? What went down what went down, Yolanda? I look ‘round, I look 'round, Yolanda! Can’t find you, can’t find you, Yolanda!
Your eyes have looked at me your lips were kissing me with such an ardent flame the fervor of a dame
The light in your eye stare the heat of your lips’ flare sent arrows through my chest I love you I attest
(chorus)x2 Ticky ticky tack!
I’ve been told you were cruising in a new car Yolanda that’s neat and flashy kinda and all whistled at you
If one day I stumble on you I don’t know what I’ll do; maybe I’ll lose my brain if we don’t see again
Well, the lyrics pretty much speaks for itself. What I love about this song is that it works equally well putting Sherlock or John in place of Yolanda. But I think there’s another thing pointing to the use of this song as homoerotic subtext if ya know, it wasn’t apparent already.
First of all you should know that this song has two versions. At first when I searched for the song online every time I came up with the version sung solely by the male vocalist, Pepe Raphael. After searching some more I found the lesser known version where the band’s female vocalist China Forbes joins in. This version is used in TEH and only the part where Ms. Forbes sings is used for vocals. If you catch my drift, Moffitson decided to use a romantic song where a woman longs to reunite with her female lover. Homoerotic subtext, anyone?
And YES, I’ve checked. Yolanda can’t be a boy’s name.
Like, seriously. I sincerely recommend that Johnlockers read NekosMuse’s Decoding the Subtext. Every last entry depicts increasingly strong evidence that John and Sherlock were always gayer than people overtly noticed. If the writers of BBC’s Sherlock are approaching the Holmes canon from this angle—and genuinely looks like they are—they’re actually being loyal to ACD in a way that all other adaptions have failed, in that they utilize the cases as a way to support the subtextual messages, and use particular phrases to draw attention to the fact that the readers/viewers should be paying attention to the little details.
I mean, the relationship NekosMuse is reading out of the subtext of the canon stories is precisely that portrayed by the BBC’s John and Sherlock. I mean, to the point where it being a coincidence is completely absurd. The writers of this show are geniuses. The writers of this show are geniuses. This show is the most brilliant thing ever written.
Can we all just take a moment to realize that Sherlock actually set aside a few moments in his day to find some scissors and a glue stick and sit down and cut out a picture of John’s face and paste it onto the Vitruvian man and then admire it for a little before hiding it away in John’s medical files.Does that scream platonic or what.
Softly, Softly: The BBC's 2009 LGB Research Commission and The Johnlock Conspiracy
(Note: This post WILL CUT OFF in the Tumblr app on mobile devices because it is too long. If you want to view this post on a mobile device, you must open it in your mobile device’s web browser.
Alternately, there is an EPUB version for e-readers and iOS devices — I recommend using the iBooks app and NOT the Kindle app because it doesn’t recognize all the formatting — or a MOBI version for Kindle e-ink readers.)
[Updated June 19, 2014: Added entire section “In his novels, Gatiss revealed a protagonist to be queer halfway through the story just so it wouldn’t be labeled a "gay” story from the outset.“]
We live in an incredibly diverse and culturally rich society and the BBC has a responsibility to reflect and celebrate this diversity in all the content that we make and broadcast. […] And that is why, when I volunteered to chair the Lesbian, Gay & Bisexual Working Group at the BBC, I agreed to commission the study we are publishing today. […] The BBC has an absolute obligation to serve all our audiences as best we can. Not only to understand them and how they watch, listen and surf our content, but as importantly to more fully comprehend what they expect from us and how we can then to try and deliver against their expectations. There is also an element of promoting better citizenship through the research we undertake with our audiences – by ensuring that audiences are fairly, authentically and equally portrayed the BBC can be part of the solution to a more inclusive and better informed society.
I always thought that what Russell [T. Davies] did in Doctor Who was extremely ground-breaking, in a slightly more subversive way than it looked like. It never occurred to me that [the representation of gay characters] was too on the nose; what he did brilliantly was introduce incidentally gay characters — obviously as well as some more in-your-face ones. One of my favourite stories is [the episode] Gridlock: there’s an elderly couple of ladies who are together, and it just sort of passes by, and that’s the way—softly, softly.
That’s how the revolution happens, as it were: you just become aware that people are incidentally gay.
I think when the day comes that you have a big detective show where the first half hour was this man at work, and he’s a maverick, and all the usual things… and then we went home and his boyfriend says, ‘Are you alright?’, [and] it was just a thing… then something would have genuinely changed. I think the problem still is, [being gay] becomes the issue. I think the thing with gay characters is that it has to be an issue, as opposed to being part of everyday life — which of course, as we all know, is what it is.
I’ve argued in the past that Sherlock has obviously been a homosexual love story between John and Sherlock from the unaired pilot forward and that the BBC is in on it, but that’s largely been a logical extrapolation I’ve made. Until now, I’ve only been able to point to things like the show itself and related BBC media (e.g. the Timeshift documentary), the structure of character and narrative arcs, the historical precedent of literally coded language in queer culture (and in Moffat’s works in particular as well) and why it’s not plausible that Moffat and Gatiss are keeping it a secret from the BBC. I have also argued that that the BBC and the showrunners would want to make television history.
But understandably, that’s not convincing to a lot of people. I’ve always had a positive impression of the BBC in regard to LGB issues, but that’s only my impression. It’s tragically reasonable of people, queer people in particular, to feel cynical, because we’ve seen such slow social progress until fairly recently. Where I’ve seen huge strides in the portrayal of LGB characters on television, and in the progress of LGB rights in general, one could still easily get the impression that broadcasters will always cave to homophobia and I couldn’t blame them. “The BBC would never do it” is one of the most common arguments against The Johnlock Conspiracy, even among those who “want to believe.” And I can’t really argue with cynicism, particularly when it comes from older queer people who have experienced more disappointments in this area than I have, or other queer people who have just lead harder lives than I have. People are cynical for good reasons.
Until today, all TJLCers have had to point to are shell casings, but no smoking gun. We have skulls-and-tea’s quote project, and we’ve made deductions based on things people involved with Sherlock have said, but there’s been nothing to dispel the greater cynicism some feel. Until today, we couldn’t prove that the BBC cares about LGB issues. We couldn’t prove that homophobia isn’t a significant influence on BBC programming. We couldn’t prove that the BBC wants to make LGB television history. And we sure as hell couldn’t tie it directly to Sherlock.
Well, I’m happy to tell you that all ends today. As it turns out, skulls-and-tea is an excellent arms dealer: she found the closest thing to a smoking gun that we’re going to get.
Don’t get me wrong: the writers will never admit to TJLC before it happens, because they alwayslie about spoilers. That degree of confirmation won’t come to pass, and most of us don’t want to be spoiled anyway.
But a curious thing happened in 2009.
In January 2009, the BBC saw the pilot of Sherlock.
As many with eyes and ears have pointed out, that pilot is pretty gay. And upon seeing this pilot, the BBC liked it so much they decided they wanted a 90 minute format instead of a 60 minute format. They allocated a TON more money toward it, and Moffat and Gatiss went off to rework everything. So far, this is all common knowledge.
What isn’t common knowledge is that in April 2009, as Sherlock was being reworked, the BBC commissioned a working group to research LGB portrayals, which focused on the following topics: how LGB portrayals are the BBC’s responsibility given its Royal Charter; how people feel about LGB portrayals; how to present those portrayals to BBC audiences; how to do LGB portrayals right; how far the BBC wants to take LGB portrayals; and how the BBC can do more to encourage its showrunners to include both incidental and landmark LGB portrayals. Their report is what skulls-and-tea found. It’s hundreds of pages, and all very telling.
If I could summarize the research in one sentence, it would be this: “We’re doing pretty gay, but we could do gayer.” In fact, it seems the BBC aims to be the gayest. But we’ll get there.
Sherlock began filming in its new format in March of 2010. A Study in Pink aired at the end of July. In September 2010 the working group finished compiling its written report, and Ben Stephenson, the drama commissioner who commissioned Sherlock, began speaking publicly and enthusiastically about how the BBC, thanks to its funding structure, is the only network that can afford to take risks in its dramas when it comes representing the full diversity of its audience.
Today, you don’t have to take our word for it when we tell you the BBC would enthusiastically sign on for TJLC. Take the BBC’s word for it: TJLC is exactly what their research ordered.
Don’t want to read hundreds of pages? Of course not. Instead, skulls-and-tea and I are at your service.
So. Want to see some more?
Table of Contents
Reference: what the study evaluated, in its own words.
The BBC is not funded like other broadcasters: it is not beholden to advertisers and thus can afford to have moral convictions and take risks. And it knows this.
Specifically, the BBC does not directly aim to please an international audience, nor do Moffat and Gatiss.
The BBC feels its Royal Charter not only requires that the BBC deliver LGB portrayals, but that the BBC celebrate them and work to fight homophobia.
BBC research states that the majority of their audience is not only comfortable with LBG portrayal, but wants more and better LGB portrayals.
The BBC was already perceived as fairly LGB-friendly even prior to 2009’s research commission.
The BBC has officially dedicated itself to authentic LGB portrayals.
The BBC has consciously chosen to portray LGB intimacy despite the reaction of uncomfortable heterosexuals. It intends to make comfortable those it can make comfortable, and acknowledges it cannot reach all of them.
The BBC wants to air “landmark” or “watercooler” LGB content that becomes “culturally iconic.” They are pressed that Channel 4 is perceived as more LGB-friendly than the BBC, and they want to out-gay them.
BBC LGB research indicates that in their dramas specifically, LGB “watercooler moments” must be given “sufficient depth and time to unfold.”
The BBC understands that LGB people are sick of tragic endings.
The BBC understands that “landmark content” entails visuals of LGB intimacy.
BBC LGB research lead it to resolve not to queerbait before Sherlock was ever accused of queerbaiting.
The BBC is not messing around. They are taking steps to ensure they are progressing in terms of their LGB content.
The BBC has explicitly stated its intent to work with LGB writers to ensure authentic LGB portrayals.
Mark Gatiss has stated that the BBC has never kept him from doing something he wants to do.
In his novels, Gatiss revealed a protagonist to be queer halfway through the story just so it wouldn’t be labeled a "gay” story from the outset.
Gatiss and Moffat have stated they never disagree on Sherlock, and Moffat has written two other homosexual AU versions of Holmes and Watson.
Ben Stephenson, the man who commissioned Sherlock, would absolutely have commissioned TJLC along with it. In fact, TJLC would have been a huge positive factor in his decision.
NO, you don’t understand though. The best thing about understanding just how much subtext is written into Sherlock, is that when you sit back and watch it again, the little lines like, "We have this website that explains the true meaning of comic books because people miss a lot of the themes, but then all the comic books started coming true,“ are just suddenly totally smiley exclamation point. –> ”^w^ !!“
It’s like, you’re eating the best desert you’ve ever had and then surprise! The chef will be moving in with you in a season or two. ♥♥♥♥♥♥
“You’re worried they’re right. You’re worried they’re right about me. That’s why you’re so upset. You can’t even entertain the possibility that they might be right. You’re afraid you’ve been taken in as well. Moriarty is playing with your mind too, can’t you SEE WHAT’S GOING ON?”
There’s going to be some surprises for you, and for us, and for everybody. I think that’s what they’re really good at. But I think we just know to expect the unexpected now, but within the parameters of a world that we all sortof know and love quite well. Um, we know these characters pretty well now and we know the world they inhabit and uh…what’s been explained to me and Ben, and to Amanda Abbington, my missus who plays Mary, has been very, very exciting. And the plan that they’ve got for the sort of…the over-arching series us just…ah, it’s so exciting.