rw: mark gatiss

interesting thing, a tuxedo

a couple of months ago i was reading this book for my lgbt+ american history and literature class called The Beautiful Room is Empty by Edmund White, which is a semi-autobiographical book about a gay man growing up in the 50s and 60s (and it’s also really really good). but as i was trying to read it in peace i stumbled upon this line that just stopped me because i knew it, and i just sat there like ‘what the fuck’ before realizing why i recognized it: 

“But for me, the tuxedos (which depersonalize waiters and lend distinction to friends)…”

here’s the paragraph in full

and i realized that it’s almost identical to one of sherlock’s lines in the empty hearse

and i was like oh my god MARK and it was bothering me for months because i researched it to see if maybe both sources were referencing something else altogether but i couldn’t find anything. and so finally this past sunday at the sherlocked con, i was like ‘shit i never asked mark about that book’ and i looked over and there was no one in line for an autograph from him so i went over and asked the woman next to him if i could take a few minutes to ask him a question

and she said yes and so i started telling him this whole story and it was really sweet because when i asked him if he’d read the book he was like “of course i have :)” like genuinely happy to be talking about this book and possibly to realize what i was bringing up

and i told him about how i’d recognized it and realized what it was and i was about to say ‘because it’s in the empty hearse!’ and he cut me off and said ‘it’s the line about the waiter’ and i was like ‘!!! yeah!’ and he started reciting the line with me like. saying it right behind him and i got so excited to have that finally answered, because i mean he just straight up told me that he referenced THAT quote in THAT SCENE 

so um. he Did That thanks for coming to my talk

Imagine it’s John Watson’s wedding. Sherlock has been looking forward to dancing for weeks. John makes a “no-homo” jab at Sherlock for teaching him, then leaves Sherlock to wallow in his loneliness.

Now imagine Sherlock shakes it off, finds Greg Lestrade – who also doesn’t have a date – and proposes they dance the next song together. Greg protests a bit, then says, “Well, I have to lead – I’m more comfortable that way” to which Sherlock replies, “That’s no problem, I enjoy either position”. Then they fall into step, join John and Mary out on the dance floor, the whole room has a collective laugh, and they enjoy the night as one big happy family.

You see, this is what it means to make homosexual innuendo. Something like this is what one would have to do to make that situation a joke.

What actually happened was Sherlock, after John made his “no-homo” jab, resigned himself to a life of loneliness, no longer being John’s choice of life partner, left the wedding immediately, bitched about it all online, and then dove nose-first into a dumpster of cocaine.

So when the writers say, “we never meant to make *that* show”, either they’re lying or they’re the shittiest writers on this planet.

Correct grammar

Today, Mark -who normally completely and utterly ignores TLS-related questions- couldn’t resist correcting a grammar mistake on Twitter: 

Now wait. Where have I seen that before… 

Ok. Bye. 

Note: Of course this can also mean that Mark is just super annoyed by all the questions about TLS. In that case I just love coincidences like these😉