So. Just to make sure I’ve grasped this. Out of all that the Emmy Awards could’ve picked to represent Sherlock series 4, they picked the “Sherlock and John embrace” from The Lying Detective…. and then didn’t give Sherlock any awards. Huh. So the elephant in the room attended the Emmys…. but didn’t win any awards.
Guys. It’s been staring at us, in plain sight. The elephant in the room is “we had one night.” But Sherlock and John’s love remained unspoken because 1) neither Sherlock nor John thought their love for the other was requited after that night; 2) Sherlock believed falling in love with John cost Mycroft Bond Air.
Somewhere along the way, Sherlock became unsure if that one-night had happened at all. The night he loved and was loved by John in every way imaginable.
It all happened during ASiB. The clues can be found on John’s blog first, with The Woman as a disguise; then, the show itself. Let me walk you through the…… devastation.
I had thought this meant there were missing pieces about the confrontation between Sherlock, Mycroft and Irene Adler at the end of ASiB – we all saw what happened, but John couldn’t blog about it due to Official Secrets Act. Odd, isn’t it? But it was never about Irene Adler; it was always about Sherlock and John. The comments provided clues.
Room. Fancy. Revolver. John’s starving. Sherlock would love some… brunch. They missed brunch, but Ms. Hudson was able to feed them lunch after all. Sherlock thought it was incredibly tedious to talk in codes because of some ridiculous law thing. Cake… may be death in S4, but it was sex first.
The Elephant in the Room post is smoke and mirrors, but Sherlock’s comments were very telling. Go look. I’m going to give you evidence from the show itself now. Let’s starting with ASiB:
Sherlock knew he was in love with John since… probably the end of ASiP. But ASiB was where he (mistakenly) came to realize that caring is not an advantage and John likely didn’t feel the same.
After TGG Sherlock thought they were getting somewhere; but by Christmas, they were still stuck in 1895. Sherlock was so jealous of John’s strings of girlfriends he took it out on Molly (the Christmas party deduction was about himself). But, later on, during Irene Adler’s “fake death” period, Sherlock and John ended up spending one night together. But in the end it cost Mycroft Bond Air - Sherlock was able to say everything in the scene above with certainty and vehement because he was speaking from… experience.
The one night was likely before this:
The reappearance of Irene Adler and the scenes that followed… led to John and Sherlock each had their moment of confusion:
They both thought they were… together, like, together; but after seeing the exchange between Sherlock and Irene, John likely thought he was just a placeholder (yes Irene was flirting but Sherlock was completely oblivious which John couldn’t tell for some reason). The whole Hemish baby name thing flew over Sherlock’s head but he did notice that John was… confused and unhappy. Mycroft was right, in a way:
The 007 deduction was Sherlock’s desperate attempt to show off – for John’s benefit. Sadly, John missed it completely and likely thought Sherlock was trying to impress Irene Adler.
Sherlock and John’s one-night gave context to the exchange between John and Mycroft at Speedy’s:
Translation: I know Sherlock is gay because I had sex with him. But he doesn’t love me or Irene Adler for that matter. I don’t think.
Which prompt Mycroft’s question about Sherlock’s heart; he thought John would have the answer given the new… status. In the end, Mycroft settled with letting John know that he was well aware of the fact that they’ve been busy, and when the “one-night” happened:
(You can see John visibly “gulp” in this scene)
After Sherlock’s return, the memory of that one-night became… unreliable.
Tessa’s dinner with a ghost could’ve been a callback to ASiP, but the editing is telling a very different story:
You can go back to watch it – despite the way the subtitle appears, the first scene cut exactly at the end of “one night”, and the second scene came in right before “dinner.” The way Sherlock and John reacted in the scene suggested they both remember their own one-night. Somewhat, under the drunken haze.
HLV rolled around, everything went sideways quickly. But again, that one-night provided a very different emotional context to all that happened.
Which brings me to TLD, Sherlock began to remember:
It wasn’t Faith. It was The Lady in Red John.
Not convinced? Ghost has the answer – emotional context again!!
Because just moments before, this:
The revolver. A callback to Sherlock’s last comment on John’s blog post.
I’m going to leave you with the following for now, cause I’m exhasted; this is the reason we are given TFP, emotional context, remember?
Alright, this may be out of line, but there’s an elephant in the comically-undersized room and it’s high time we addressed it. Simply put, breed standards have become stringent to the point where inbreeding, and all the health issues that come with it, is rampant in the clown-showing circuit. Confused? Let me show you an example.
This is what a Belgian Spurthigh looked like in the late 1800s. Like most breeds in the Japing group, it was bred for function over form - those distinctive bony spurs on its hips, for example, protected the pelvis during particularly intense pratfalls. But over the last 100 years, we’ve exaggerated these features to a grotesque degree - take a look at the modern Belgian Spurthigh.
A single-minded focus on aesthetics has turned the breed into a warped caricature of its past self, and a veritable time bomb of health issues. Cataracts and hip dysplasia are so common that newly-hatched chucklets have to be tested for them, and the hip spurs are so pronounced in utero that they run the risk of puncturing the egg sac. Let me emphasize that again: in their current state, they cannot lay eggs naturally - to prevent the eggs from puncturing themselves, you have to give the mother a C-section and pull the strings of egg sacs out like a bunch of handkerchiefs tied together. This is not a state any living thing should exist in.
But how did it get this bad, you ask? Blame clown-showing authorities like the American Kook Club. The breed standards they set defining “ideal” clowns have gradually called for more and more pronounced features. When individuals win big events like Jokesminster, every breeder of that breed wants to to have the winner sire a litter with one of their clowns. When everyone is focused on a single, homogeneous ideal, inbreeding runs rampant and the breed’s gene pool shrinks dramatically.
So what do we do now? Unfortunately, there isn’t an easy solution. Preserving high-risk breeds may require crossing over with related breeds (in the case of the Belgian Spurthigh, we’ve seen some success with Andalusian Fool mixes). Clown breeders must continue to put pressure on the AKC and other authorities to prioritize health when defining breed standards. The clown breeds we know and love are in danger, but I believe that if we work together, we can continue to have happy and healthy clowns for generations to come.
This is a bit too long to send it as an ask, so I’ll do it this way.
I’ve seen hints etc. for Johnlock since I started watching “Sherlock” but I had never believed it possible to happen till I stumbled unto TJLC. I’ve admired the dedication and enthusiasm people had, loved the approach they took to analyzing the show etc. And of course, I was disappointed with series 4.
I tried to think about what went wrong. Was it deliberate on Mofftiss’ part? Or was the analysis faulty? I’ve looked at the criticism by people who don’t believe in TJLC etc. Tried to take different views into account to avoid just “screaming into an echo chamber”.
An argument that I’ve stumbled unto again and again was that of “confirmation bias”.
From what I’ve gathered, TJLC began with series 3 (hints for Johnlock were really, really blatant here and TSoT will probably remain my all-time favourite episode). Of course, Johnlock could be seen in the previous seasons as well but it was only after series 3 that people started to believe that it was not just queerbaiting, that Johnlock was a real possibility. But what I’ve also seen when the promo for series 4 began and when the series started is that much of what was released indeed was interpreted with the (possible) confirmation of Johnlock in mind.
“You can’t kill an idea, can you?” And that’s the problem, I think (if you want to call it a problem *shrug*). After series 3 we’ve been convinced that Johnlock was endgame, that this was what the show was about, what it was leading to. Problem is that we started looking for evidence that supports this idea but dismissed possible other meanings.
I think, we have to reassess some of the meanings we’ve applied to some of the symbols we’ve seen in the show.
Take “elephants” for an example:
a) There are elephants on the pillow behind Lord Moran in TEH,
b) elephants on Anderson’s conspiracy wall,
c) of course, there’s the case of “The Elephant in the Room” mentioned in TSoT,
d) elephants on the tie of that one guy at the wedding,
e) the elephant on the brochure at Mycroft’s fridge,
Elephants are all over the place and since we’ve come to the conclusion that everything just has to point to Johnlock as endgame that must mean elephants must do so, as well. The phrase “elephant in the room” means an unspoken truth that’s rather obvious.
So it looks like the thought process was: “Johnlock is endgame” –> “elephants” –> “the elephant in the room” is “Johnlock”.
Let’s look at it differently:
a) Lord Moran, a Member of Parliament, secretly a member of an underground terrorist network
b) Anderson’s conspiracy wall had sth to do with the possibility of Sherlock being alive, what he’s been up to etc.
c) “The Elephant in the Room” is a confidential case that no one’s supposed to talk about
d) his girlfriend’s about to break up with him, he didn’t know till Sherlock pointed it out
e) “Put me through to Sherrinford, please.”
Unfortunately, I don’t remember all the other instances elephants could be seen but what the ones above all have in common are “secrets”. So how did we get from all those many different secrets to “the elephant in the room is Johnlock” when all those instances have nothing to do with Johnlock?
I’d like to bring up an example from ASoIaF in which a symbol for one thing has lead to another:
It’s been brought to the readers’ attention that Jon Snow, assumed bastard of Eddard Stark, is different from the other bastards we’ve come to know in the books and that the question of who his mother is might be of importance. There were different theories who she could be, some of those directly brought up by characters in the books.
One theory, the one that’s been confirmed in the show, is R + L = J. That Eddard Stark is not Jon’s father but that Jon’s parents are Rhaegar Targaryen and Lyanna Stark, Eddard’s sister.
Whenever we heard about Lyanna she’s been connected to blue winter roses. She loved the scent of them; when Rhaegar crowned her queen of love and beauty at a tourney he did so with a crown made of those roses; when Eddard dreams of her, her statue in the crypt has a garland of blue winter roses etc. etc. Whenever we hear about blue winter roses we associate what we hear with Lyanna Stark. So when Daenerys Targaryen has a vision of a blue flower growing from a chink in a wall of ice, a connection has been made between Lyanna and Jon Snow who is part of the Night’s Watch at the Wall, a massive barrier made of mostly ice.
Here, Lyanna is so strongly associated with blue winter roses because both have been brought up in the same context again and again and again. As far as I can remember, those roses have ONLY been mentioned in connection to Lyanna which is why “blue flower at the ice wall” has lead to the new link between Lyanna and Jon Snow.
Since elephants have been brought up with so many different people with so many different secrets - and unfortunately I don’t know if they’ve been seen in other contexts as well - without being blatantly connected to the idea of Johnlock, it’s hard for me to see how they are supposed to be seen as connected :(
With other symbols, metaphors etc. it’s much easier to come to the conclusion that they are connected to Johnlock, e.g. the food = sex metaphor.
I hope it’s possible to see what I want to say with this post.
Maybe it’s time to reassess the material we’ve gathered, let’s look at it and the context it’s been presented in, let’s look for connections etc. Maybe we’ll come to the same conclusions as before, namely that Johnlock is endgame and that we should have been right, maybe we’ll come to different ones.
Just some thoughts (that I’d really hope to see discussed here).
(submitted by IStillBelieveInJohnlock)
Thank you for your honesty in your Johnlock analysis. I get the point you’re trying to make here – “[…] one begins to twist facts to suit theories, instead of theories to suit facts.” – but with regards to the elephant thing is that it WASN’T such a huge indicator of Johnlock until Arwel. “The Elephant in the Room” in TSo3 was cute, and we just kind of giggled about it because HOLY CRAP THIS EPISODE IS SUBTEXTUALLY ABOUT JOHNLOCK, and then Arwel began tweeting a lot about elephants… I mean A LOT. And there were a lot of subtext used that is commonly found in media where they are suggesting a queer reading of a show but they cannot / will not explicitly say it.
Yes, we may have gotten over-excited about things like elephants and phones and “dinner?”, but there is literally no point to putting ANY of this stuff in if they’re weren’t trying to suggest a Johnlock reading of the show: it’s metaphor and symbolism, and it’s commonly used to invoke an idea in your audience, or to help foreshadow upcoming events in the series. Character mirrors as well were used CONSTANTLY to help viewers see the connections we were supposed to make between the relationships or character arcs of John or Sherlock.
PLUS the show itself used at least over 150 romantic tropes commonly found in media, so it’s not even subtle what they were trying to invoke with the series. They could have done the entire series without all of these things and still could have made a great show. But all of the metaphors, mirrors, subtext, symbolism, tropes… Take ALL of that out in what we CURRENTLY have and you end up with a hot mess. Take out John and Sherlock’s relationship (or FRIENDSHIP even) and you end up with S4.
I totally respect how you are looking at this from another angle, and that’s totally cool. For me, though, there’s just too much evidence in the show that suggests that they WERE going to do a Johnlock endgame, and something happened that caused them to do a 180 in S4.
‘Hell and Back’ is based on Critical Role’s episode 72, ‘The Elephant in the Room.’ This episode features a pivotal moment for Vex'ahlia, as she reflects on her struggles with self worth, her resolution towards forgiveness, and the recent loss and resurrection of Percy.
It’s an amazing moment, and we hoped to capture some of the tension and character growth with a little musical theater flair!
Comedian Sarah Silverman confronted one aspect of the wave of sexual abuse and misconduct revelations that have come out in recent weeks: the anguish when the perpetrator is a friend.
“I wish I could sit this one out,” she says in a monologue for her Hulu show I Love You, America. “But then I remembered something I said on this very show: that if it’s mentionable, it’s manageable. So I’m going to address the elephant masturbating in the room.”
She means, of course, the comedian Louis C.K., one of Silverman’s best friends for more than 25 years.
“This recent calling out of sexual assault has been a long time coming,” she says in the episode that aired Thursday night. “It’s good. It’s like cutting out tumors — it’s messy and it’s complicated and it is gonna hurt, but it’s necessary and we’ll all be healthier for it.”
“It sucks, and some of our heroes will be taken down and we will discover bad things about people we like, or in some cases, people we love.”
Multiple female comics have accused C.K. of sexual misconduct, including masturbating in front of them. Last week, C.K. admitted that “the stories are true,” after previously declining to comment on the rumors about him. One of the women told The New York Times that for years afterward, she felt angry and betrayed, and the interaction was a factor in her deciding not pursue comedy.