theawilford asked: Very much like your published submission about Sherlock & sexuality issues! One comment, please: You say,"the entire problem with the creative team behind Sherlock: is that they expect us to agree with their reading of it when they didn’t write it in a consistent way." Actually, they've made clear that even when they mock somebody's disagreement with their comments, it doesn't mean anything. MOFFAT ADMITTED THEY TELL LIES. Thus, nothing they say can be believed; none of it counts at all.

alskjfhdoupiogk;lm THAT IS A VERY GOOD POINT THANK YOU

full of liars ahahaha

I feel a rising amount of concern at some of the misinterpretations of the post I made the other day about queer interpretations of Sherlock, both in the show and in the ACD canon, so I just want to clear up a few points.

Firstly is that I bear no ill will and hold no judgement for anyone who disagrees with what pairings I may or may not prefer, and that I honestly fully embrace anyone who is in favor of Mary/John, Molly/Sherlock, Irene/Sherlock, etc, whatever their motivation. This extends to the writers of the show and the creative team behind and in front of the camera.

My only concern is the fact that Ian’s initial tweet and Amanda’s response did feel judgmental to a large portion of fans. I have also learned that Ian took the time to contact someone who had a very popular post about why what he said was hurtful, and while I still think his initial comment was ill-thought and rude, I am very impressed by that level of care and communication that he chose to foster with them. My concern is not that John/Sherlock was not going to happen, but that a queer reading of the narrative they had presented to us was being treated as completely invalid in and of itself, not just by Ian but as a recurring theme with the creative team, which not only do I strongly disagree with given the material, but that I felt was rude and hurtful to a lot of fans who had thought maybe this show would be different in that respect.

I have seen a few people interpreting my comments as being mad and demanding that John/Sherlock be written into the show, and that the lack of John/Sherlock canonization in and of itself is queerbaiting. I wanted to make clear that what I think is queerbaiting is that they wrote the subtext in and then made fun of people for taking it seriously, not that they didn’t follow it to a romantic conclusion. I hope that this clarifies something of my position and makes clear what I meant, but as I also hope I’ve shown, I’ll be happy to discuss anything about either my post or this interpretation of the material to a mutually respectful conclusion. I think the most important thing in this style of debate is that mutual respect and I hope that we can use it to come to an understanding.

View high resolution

ivorylungs:

….forgot this was in my sketchbook

finished it up and well now, here you go.

(via arthurdentistry)

So! I wanted to take the opportunity you kindly offered when I contacted you in your ask to talk this up a little, because I see a lot of points where we agree and a lot worth talking about. Of course if I get boring feel free to skip away. I’m getting way too affected by this issue, honestly; it’s been riding down on me all day and I’m sort of hitting a brick wall mentally on it as well, so I’m not sure I’m going to be saying anything productive but I feel the need to express it anyway.

That said!

Read more

ampkiss'd: repeat after me: Sherlock Holmes is not empirically straight in the... →

ladylilymalfoy904034:

ampkiss:

ladylilymalfoy904034:

ampkiss:

ladylilymalfoy904034:

ampkiss:

ladylilymalfoy904034:

ampkiss:

repeat after me:

Sherlock Holmes is not empirically straight in the canon

100+ years of queer lit theory and derivative works exist for a reason

Anyone who thinks people who make queer conjectures about Sherlock Holmes are fantasizing is dramatically and tragically misinformed about the history…

Sherlock might not be canonically straight, but John *is*. Yes, let’s have ALL the ships and have fun with them, but let’s also remember this fact when getting into this sort of territory.

The film-makers don’t want to go there because Johnlock would detract from the show - yes, good bye followers - but it’s true. For the millionth time, it’s about the friendship between Holmes and Watson, and anyone who questions whether or not that friendship can be sustained when John is married…Well, I think you need to go back to the roots and get your heads out of fanon for a while.

Your argument, though, is precisely the problem. If within the narrative of the show John/Sherlock is presented as a serious potentiality, then a blatant refusal to respect that interpretation is supporting a society that lacks the strength of character to accept and promote queer characters as a possibility in media. If it makes perfect sense when you watch the show, and you have to step outside the show in order to discredit it, then that’s problematic and it makes you complicit in the society that you’re so determined not to offend.

Again and for emphasis, I’m talking about being treated seriously, not demanding a “ship’s” canonization. Demanding respect and nothing more.

But it’s not presented as a possibility - it never was. John has *always* been and will always be straight. He cares about Sherlock equally if not more, but not in a romantic, sexual way. Why does a relationship have to be validated by sex? 

It would be far more disrespectful to follow that route for no reason other than to tick boxes and submit to the fans. I don’t see how sticking to canon can be considered ‘a blatant refusal’, and why does it matter? 

It’s social justice and ridiculous shippers, and good of the Sherlock crew for not bending to that nonsense. 

Get over it and enjoy Sherlock as it is - a bloody good show, not a political platform.

Your surmise that John’s sexuality is fixed would be acceptable if it were not a part of Scandal’s premise and characterization that Irene is gay and still attracted to him both intellectually and physically. If you are willing to accept a lesbian who “turns straight” for Sherlock then you should be willing to accept a straight man who “turns gay”. For them to ask us to accept the one and scoff at the other is offensive to me as a queer woman, because it implies that my sexuality should be treated less seriously than a hetero man’s.

But I’ll be real, the tone of your response is making it clear that you think those feelings are invalid anyway.

I don’t believe for a moment ‘turned straight’ for Sherlock. And for the record, I am a queer woman so don’t give me that. 

The premise of Scandal, in regards to John and Irene is about love, and loving Sherlock. That, in no way, means that they want a sexual relationship with him and it CERTAINLY doesn’t imply that Sherlock wants one with either of them, much less *should* be in one.

Yes, I think those feelings are invalid, and my issue with this whole debate is the sense out personal outrage in the Johnlock community which only stems because they are the mass ship. 

I have never had much patience for it, and this only strengthens that.

I don’t know how I can state more clearly that this is not about wanting ANYTHING to be canon. You seem to be continuously missing that. I am saying that there is just as much fodder in the show for Sherlock and John as there is for Sherlock and Molly, piles more, and that isn’t being mocked. It is about *not being mocked*. And the fact that what Moffat has out and out asked us to believe of himan sexuality isn’t offensive to *you* doesn’t mean it isn’t offensive to *me*. Moffat and Benedict have both said that they think Irene was into Sherlock, so whether you think she was or not isn’t the issue any more than my thinking John is in love with Sherlock is the issue. The showrunners are the ones who are saying Irene is sexually interested in him, but that for the same reason John can’t be. My entire problem is that THEY are the problem.

I am asking for respect and nothing more and am really not appreciating the tone you’re taking when I have been nothing but emphatically polite at most.

It’s being mocked because people behave ridiculously about it. That’s the end line, if that’s the point you are trying to make. It’s not about sexuality, it’s about what is right for the show. John can’t be because he isn’t, Irene was - that’s the difference.

That is, that is *all* I’m talking about. And Ian’s comments weren’t making any distinction between fanatics and people who simply treated John/Sherlock seriously. Making fun of fans for thinking they were at all at any point being respectful about Sherlock’s sexuality is really, really not good for the show. And I’m afraid we aren’t going to see eye to eye on that Irene is but being respectful to fans and any viewer with a queer interpretation isn’t. But thank you for for being willing to discuss it.

ampkiss'd: repeat after me: Sherlock Holmes is not empirically straight in the... →

ladylilymalfoy904034:

ampkiss:

ladylilymalfoy904034:

ampkiss:

ladylilymalfoy904034:

ampkiss:

repeat after me:

Sherlock Holmes is not empirically straight in the canon

100+ years of queer lit theory and derivative works exist for a reason

Anyone who thinks people who make queer conjectures about Sherlock Holmes are fantasizing is dramatically and tragically misinformed about the history…

Sherlock might not be canonically straight, but John *is*. Yes, let’s have ALL the ships and have fun with them, but let’s also remember this fact when getting into this sort of territory.

The film-makers don’t want to go there because Johnlock would detract from the show - yes, good bye followers - but it’s true. For the millionth time, it’s about the friendship between Holmes and Watson, and anyone who questions whether or not that friendship can be sustained when John is married…Well, I think you need to go back to the roots and get your heads out of fanon for a while.

Your argument, though, is precisely the problem. If within the narrative of the show John/Sherlock is presented as a serious potentiality, then a blatant refusal to respect that interpretation is supporting a society that lacks the strength of character to accept and promote queer characters as a possibility in media. If it makes perfect sense when you watch the show, and you have to step outside the show in order to discredit it, then that’s problematic and it makes you complicit in the society that you’re so determined not to offend.

Again and for emphasis, I’m talking about being treated seriously, not demanding a “ship’s” canonization. Demanding respect and nothing more.

But it’s not presented as a possibility - it never was. John has *always* been and will always be straight. He cares about Sherlock equally if not more, but not in a romantic, sexual way. Why does a relationship have to be validated by sex? 

It would be far more disrespectful to follow that route for no reason other than to tick boxes and submit to the fans. I don’t see how sticking to canon can be considered ‘a blatant refusal’, and why does it matter? 

It’s social justice and ridiculous shippers, and good of the Sherlock crew for not bending to that nonsense. 

Get over it and enjoy Sherlock as it is - a bloody good show, not a political platform.

Your surmise that John’s sexuality is fixed would be acceptable if it were not a part of Scandal’s premise and characterization that Irene is gay and still attracted to him both intellectually and physically. If you are willing to accept a lesbian who “turns straight” for Sherlock then you should be willing to accept a straight man who “turns gay”. For them to ask us to accept the one and scoff at the other is offensive to me as a queer woman, because it implies that my sexuality should be treated less seriously than a hetero man’s.

But I’ll be real, the tone of your response is making it clear that you think those feelings are invalid anyway.

I don’t believe for a moment ‘turned straight’ for Sherlock. And for the record, I am a queer woman so don’t give me that. 

The premise of Scandal, in regards to John and Irene is about love, and loving Sherlock. That, in no way, means that they want a sexual relationship with him and it CERTAINLY doesn’t imply that Sherlock wants one with either of them, much less *should* be in one.

Yes, I think those feelings are invalid, and my issue with this whole debate is the sense out personal outrage in the Johnlock community which only stems because they are the mass ship. 

I have never had much patience for it, and this only strengthens that.

I don’t know how I can state more clearly that this is not about wanting ANYTHING to be canon. You seem to be continuously missing that. I am saying that there is just as much fodder in the show for Sherlock and John as there is for Sherlock and Molly, piles more, and that isn’t being mocked. It is about *not being mocked*. And the fact that what Moffat has out and out asked us to believe of himan sexuality isn’t offensive to *you* doesn’t mean it isn’t offensive to *me*. Moffat and Benedict have both said that they think Irene was into Sherlock, so whether you think she was or not isn’t the issue any more than my thinking John is in love with Sherlock is the issue. The showrunners are the ones who are saying Irene is sexually interested in him, but that for the same reason John can’t be. My entire problem is that THEY are the problem.

I am asking for respect and nothing more and am really not appreciating the tone you’re taking when I have been nothing but emphatically polite at most.

“I am disappointed in everybody”, Or: No, My Expectations were Never that High

reapersun:

I’m gonna put the rest of this under a read more because there are spoilers (that I didn’t want to be aware of but now am kind of glad I am, this particular one anyway), but if you’re semi aware of the tension in the fandom these past couple days, give it a read. This is pretty much how I feel about the subject as well.

joolabee:

Read More

ampkiss'd: repeat after me: Sherlock Holmes is not empirically straight in the... →

ladylilymalfoy904034:

ampkiss:

ladylilymalfoy904034:

ampkiss:

repeat after me:

Sherlock Holmes is not empirically straight in the canon

100+ years of queer lit theory and derivative works exist for a reason

Anyone who thinks people who make queer conjectures about Sherlock Holmes are fantasizing is dramatically and tragically misinformed about the history…

Sherlock might not be canonically straight, but John *is*. Yes, let’s have ALL the ships and have fun with them, but let’s also remember this fact when getting into this sort of territory.

The film-makers don’t want to go there because Johnlock would detract from the show - yes, good bye followers - but it’s true. For the millionth time, it’s about the friendship between Holmes and Watson, and anyone who questions whether or not that friendship can be sustained when John is married…Well, I think you need to go back to the roots and get your heads out of fanon for a while.

Your argument, though, is precisely the problem. If within the narrative of the show John/Sherlock is presented as a serious potentiality, then a blatant refusal to respect that interpretation is supporting a society that lacks the strength of character to accept and promote queer characters as a possibility in media. If it makes perfect sense when you watch the show, and you have to step outside the show in order to discredit it, then that’s problematic and it makes you complicit in the society that you’re so determined not to offend.

Again and for emphasis, I’m talking about being treated seriously, not demanding a “ship’s” canonization. Demanding respect and nothing more.

But it’s not presented as a possibility - it never was. John has *always* been and will always be straight. He cares about Sherlock equally if not more, but not in a romantic, sexual way. Why does a relationship have to be validated by sex? 

It would be far more disrespectful to follow that route for no reason other than to tick boxes and submit to the fans. I don’t see how sticking to canon can be considered ‘a blatant refusal’, and why does it matter? 

It’s social justice and ridiculous shippers, and good of the Sherlock crew for not bending to that nonsense. 

Get over it and enjoy Sherlock as it is - a bloody good show, not a political platform.

Your surmise that John’s sexuality is fixed would be acceptable if it were not a part of Scandal’s premise and characterization that Irene is gay and still attracted to him both intellectually and physically. If you are willing to accept a lesbian who “turns straight” for Sherlock then you should be willing to accept a straight man who “turns gay”. For them to ask us to accept the one and scoff at the other is offensive to me as a queer woman, because it implies that my sexuality should be treated less seriously than a hetero man’s.

But I’ll be real, the tone of your response is making it clear that you think those feelings are invalid anyway.

ampkiss'd: repeat after me: Sherlock Holmes is not empirically straight in the... →

ladylilymalfoy904034:

ampkiss:

repeat after me:

Sherlock Holmes is not empirically straight in the canon

100+ years of queer lit theory and derivative works exist for a reason

Anyone who thinks people who make queer conjectures about Sherlock Holmes are fantasizing is dramatically and tragically misinformed about the history…

Sherlock might not be canonically straight, but John *is*. Yes, let’s have ALL the ships and have fun with them, but let’s also remember this fact when getting into this sort of territory.

The film-makers don’t want to go there because Johnlock would detract from the show - yes, good bye followers - but it’s true. For the millionth time, it’s about the friendship between Holmes and Watson, and anyone who questions whether or not that friendship can be sustained when John is married…Well, I think you need to go back to the roots and get your heads out of fanon for a while.

Your argument, though, is precisely the problem. If within the narrative of the show John/Sherlock is presented as a serious potentiality, then a blatant refusal to respect that interpretation is supporting a society that lacks the strength of character to accept and promote queer characters as a possibility in media. If it makes perfect sense when you watch the show, and you have to step outside the show in order to discredit it, then that’s problematic and it makes you complicit in the society that you’re so determined not to offend.

Again and for emphasis, I’m talking about being treated seriously, not demanding a “ship’s” canonization. Demanding respect and nothing more.

repeat after me:

Sherlock Holmes is not empirically straight in the canon

100+ years of queer lit theory and derivative works exist for a reason

Anyone who thinks people who make queer conjectures about Sherlock Holmes are fantasizing is dramatically and tragically misinformed about the history of this character. A queer interpretation has ALWAYS been valid. If a queer interpretation was valid in the 1890’s, when gayness was punishable by incarceration, what makes anyone think it won’t be valid in the twenty-first century?

Here’s an added thought: since this debacle erupted, scores of fans have said they “knew it was never gonna happen”.

But you ask why? It’s not because of anything in the show, most of the time. No, their reasons are because ‘they won’t go there’, because Moffat has said Sherlock isn’t gay in interviews, because that won’t happen this decade, because most fans wouldn’t like it, etc. etc. Point out a legitimate reason, presented WITHIN the narrative, why John/Sherlock shouldn’t be treated as seriously as any other (het) pairing in the show- and I will meet you with another, just as legitimate reading of the exact same material that shows why it should be. To insist otherwise is willfully and hurtfully oblivious, and is just what all of these concerned parties are doing.

This is NOT about “wanting a ship to become canon”, this is about the fact that every potential coupling on this show- Sherlock and Molly, Sherlock and Irene, John and Mary, EVERYONE- is treated with more legitimacy than the one couple with the most evidence to them. It’s not about anyone getting together in the show- it’s that it should be treated SERIOUSLY. Otherwise “it’s all fine” was a cruel fucking joke.

At this point, this is honestly lessening my ability to enjoy the show. This is honestly having a negative impact on my feelings about the quality of this otherwise-excellent program. I genuinely do not want to read another word anyone connected with the show in the most peripheral of ways has to say about this, unless it’s an apology. If I want to be able to still enjoy this program, I’m going to have to cut the entire behind-the-scenes aspect off. That’s the point this has reached for me.

Someone please let me know when the show I thought was so wonderful and amazing and inclusive comes back.