To Sherlollies out there (and I am purposefully not misspelling because I am actually wondering), I know most of you don’t expect Sherlolly to be canon. But, my question is, if Molly were in John’s place, would you? I was thinking last night about what if John and Molly switched roles. John is the pathologist in the lab and Molly is Sherlock’s partner. The stuff that has happened between Sherlock and John in the show instead happens with Sherlock and Molly. What if Sherlock restarted his heart bc she was in danger after Tom shot him? What if Sherlock googled Molly’s ex “friend”? What if Sherlock had a two inch thick file on Molly with a page where her head is pasted to the Birth of Venus? What if Sherlock looked up Molly’s birth certificate in order to find out her middle name? What if Molly planned her and Tom’s wedding but the whole time acting “terrified”? What if CAM threw Molly in a fire and Sherlock rescued her? What if CAM said “look how you care about Molly Hooper, your damsel in distress”? What if Sherlock left Molly’s wedding early looking super sad? What if Sherlock relapsed after she got married, like…would you all not read those things as romantic? And furthermore would you still not think sherlolly would end up being canon?

I guess my point is whether or not you think Johnlock will happen, we aren’t pulling these things out of our asses, they all canonically happened between these two men. All we are doing is not allowing the fact that they share the same gender keep us from reading typically romantic tropes as romantic.

Anyway I do often wonder about that, I mean you guys see Sherlock congratulating Molly on her engagement as romantic so like if he planned her wedding and then left it early looking devastated I wonder what you would think?

You don’t have to reblog if you don’t want I would be fine with DM as well. Thanks!

  • Sherlock Fandom:*crying in a corner*
  • Supernatural Fandom:wow its been a while since the last time it cried
  • Doctor who Fandom:yeh the have a new trailer for the new series
  • Supernatural Fandom:do you think we should do something?
  • Doctor who Fandom:wibbly wobbly, timey wime- oh well we could throw them their Moriarty doll, that will cheer them up
  • Supernatural Fandom:they're weird

Would the real Sherlock Holmes please stand up?

More than a century after first emerging into the fogbound, gaslit streets of Victorian London, Sherlock Holmes is universally recognizable. And yet many of his most recognizable features don’t appear in Arthur Conan Doyle’s original stories. Sherlock is a cultural text, repeatedly altered over time as each new interpretation becomes superimposed over those that proceed it. This means that Sherlock continually evolves, embodying ideas and values often far removed from those found in Conan Doyle. And after each particular story ends, Sherlock rises again, a little changed, perhaps, with a new face and fresh mannerisms or turns of phrase, but still essentially Sherlock, our Sherlock.

For a peek into the evolution of Sherlock, watch the TED-Ed Lesson Who IS Sherlock Holmes? - Neil McCaw

Animation by Lasse Rützou Bruntse

here’s how the other one thing will axtually happen:
mary: but. you wouldnt. kill. your own sister?!
sherlock: ……..BAHAHAHAHA WHAT
mary: yeah! im your sister! birth records show the holmes family had a daughter! who vanished! and she was me!!!
sherlock: uh no, she was me, i’m a trans man, nice try lol
mary: ……..*makes a run for the door* *accidentally falls out window instead* shit

Steven Moffat on twisting his words about gay representation to suit Johnlock conspiracy theorists (from With an Accent interview):

“What is irksome is what I am talking about is quite a serious thing, a serious question, seriously answered by both myself and Bryan Fuller who managed to answer much more quickly than I did.  I was talking about the representation of minorities in science fiction shows and in popular culture. Using the example of talking about gay characters and how you present them. I was actually largely talking about Doctor Who, ’cause Doctor Who addresses children. And I was talking about how do you handle gay characters in a fiction like Doctor Who when you are addressing very directly, children.  You don’t want it to be campaigning. You don’t want to be table thumping about it. You don’t want to essentially tell children that there’s something to campaign about. You want to say this is absolutely fine and normal. There is no question to answer. You want to walk right past it, in a way. You don’t want to… If you say, as sometimes other kinds of literature or movies might, we forgive you for being gay. You’re just saying you’re gay and it doesn’t matter. There’s no issue.”

“That’s what I was talking about. Was not talking, I was very much specifically not talking about…” continued Moffat, clearly passionate about the topic, and frustrated at the way his words have been twisted, “It is infuriating frankly, to be talking about a serious subject and to have Twitter run around and say oh that means Sherlock is gay.  Very explicitly it does not. We are taking a serious subject and trivializing it beyond endurance.”

[…] “I was talking about representation, as was Bryan, in quite a serious way. What they did was scale back that conversation and make it about something extremely silly. And that’s not helping anyone.  I cared a lot about what I said on that panel. I meant it. And I don’t like it being reinterpreted as something else. [We’re] not telling anyone what to think. Mark isn’t saying other people can’t write that version of John and Sherlock getting together. We’re not. We’re not engaging in a clever conspiracy to write something under the radar, we’re just writing the show we’re writing.”

I clarified, at this point in the conversation, “That’s not the story you’re telling.”

“Yeah, that’s it,” Moffat responds. “But they can. They can. Once we hand the show to them, it’s theirs and we’re finished with it. They can do what they like.”

"It's not in the rules!"

“Then the rules are WRONG!”

Do you remember this moment? Sherlock shouting at John for not understanding his Cluedo accusation? We all know from John’s blog that in this instance, Sherlock thinks the victim faked his own death - which plays out through his story in TRF. Not only is this blatant foreshadowing, this is Sherlock rejecting everything ordinary people suppose about the game and pushing the boundaries of belief. The structure to the game doesn’t allow its players a chance to think outside the box and make new deductions, and Sherlock thinks that’s just WRONG. But he was right in the end, since he (the victim) fakes his own death and it was the “only possible solution”. You know what this sounds like? Do you know where you’ve heard this maddening exchange before? It’s on the tip of my tongue, it’s on the top of my tongue…

“It’s not in the books!”
“Then the books are WRONG!”

The argument that romance between characters, ie Johnlock, cannot occur because it is not explicitly in ACD canon is this exact conflict. There’s a way us boring, ordinary people are used to understanding how the story goes and we reject the possibility of divergence because it’s “not in the rules”. Sherlock, someone clever and extraordinary, thinks that excuse is utter bullshit. Who cares about the rules? There’s nothing else it could be! Haven’t you seen all the signs?! Don’t you see all the evidence?!

“It’s the only possible solution!”

A Mycroft Theory

There’s something up with Mycroft. This is known. (How’s that for an intro?).

Here is my idea of how Mycroft could be the driving force behind the mystery plot, the source of ‘Moriarty’, and the one ‘behind it all’, without needing to consider him a villain or a bad guy, and without having to attribute any dark motives or evil agenda to his character. Instead, it’s a case of misplaced love and protection, and the unfortunate side-effects of Mycroft’s position and power. I will try and show you how Mycroft does have an agenda, and it’s gotten him involved with Moriarty AND Mary AND Magnussen, but that his agenda arose from his love for Sherlock, and his motivation to protect Sherlock from harm.

I had this idea months ago, and I’ve spent a lot of time refining it and thinking about how it would fit in with everything else. By the end of this you might not be on board, but I’ve got more planned to show how Mycroft’s actions stem from the subtext of what he represents. Also since coming up with this, I’ve completely changed my mind about who and what Moriarty is. But to not make this meta too confusing, I’ve left my descriptions of Moriarty’s history and motives as they are according to what the show leads us to believe; that he is a consulting criminal who developed an obsession with Sherlock, and that Moriarty has kept an eye on Sherlock since they were kids, since the Carl Powers case. I’ll do a Moriarty meta soon, but for now, I’ll keep my Moriarty details very general so I can just focus on Mycroft. 

Here we go then, under the cut… 

Keep reading