Stalking the elusive Fen.
Elusive.
Yes.
That's what we are.

Always feel free to build on my Head Canons and Ficlets, I ask only that you reblog me so I can go read them. :D
-------------------------------------
I have an Auto Queue running all day every day, so usually you only get 11-25 posts a day from me. :)

15th June 2014

Photo reblogged from Holy Flying Detectives with 1,039 notes

wsswatson:

joolabee:

creepyass-sherlockfans:

This above image was made by said user. We can’t find it, so we’re posting the screencap with its built-in attribution.
This is another one of these ‘where do we begin’ posts where the bullshit needs to be deconstructed, and another melodramatic offering from someone who claims to be in the LGBT community when they’re actually perpetuating gayness as an ‘other’, an object of fantasy, ultimately trivializing gay men in real life (especially to young people who haven’t had the opportunity to know any gay men) and in media.
tl;dr version: taking queer theory 101 classes at university doesn’t necessarily make you read up on LGBT ish. As we’ve said, leave your Sherlock bubble and meet the tons of LGBT folks who think BBC Sherlock is homophobic for the queerbaiting.
If you don’t believe me, google ‘queerbaiting’ and see what suggested searches and images come up. 
Long version to break it down:
"not gay" is in reference to John Watson’s line in numerous episodes when pressed about his relationship with Sherlock. It’s a running joke.
In real life, if someone says they’re not gay and/or not attracted to someone of the same gender and you insist they’re somehow not being frank or entirely forthcoming, not only would you be fucking rude and deserving of a good smack, but you’d also be considered homophobic as well (and rightly so).
To create a double standard in this respect for fictional characters reveals prejudices and really ass backward attitudes towards gay men. It is a form of entitlement, of privilege, and a sense of ownership of a group of people you do not belong to. 
Being a non-straight woman does not give you any leverage or credibility in your obsession with two fictional men being gay. If you think non-straight women are not capable of being homophobic, like it’s some kind of get-out-of-jail-free card, and if you think gay men and gay women are fighting the same struggle, you best check yourself. 
If you’re so obsessed with men being gay on TV - and you clearly are - why not actually obsess over a show where characters are unambiguously gay and have been recognized by GLAAD for their representation? Modern Family, Reno 9/11, True Blood come to mind.
Roland Barthes is dead. No philosopher takes him seriously anymore. He was part of a French school of postmodern philosophy that fell out of fad a while back…and thank heavens for that.
Most of the (serious) interpretations making the case for ‘johnlock’ come from really young and naive people who don’t seem to understand how writing a TV show works. Not unusual for teenagers, but again, it is also revealing in terms of prejudices and objectifying the ‘other’. No one really stops and thinks that maybe the gay gags on the show were created for an entirely different reason.
While this is anecdotal, it should be pointed out all the people obsessed with ‘johnlock’ are young women. I’ve never come across an actual gay or otherwise non-straight man who dig it. In fact, the few gay men we’ve come across actually hate it and like us, find it homophobic. If you obsess over ‘johnlock’, something found to be problematic by actual gay men, and you ignore or don’t find that somehow significant or valid, you are a bigot. You have not checked your privilege.
Lastly but not least - and I consider this to be the most important one of all: Sherlock writer and co-creator Mark Gatiss is gay and has emphasized the Sherlock Holmes he and Moffat created is not interested in men (or anyone else for that matter). It’s insulting if not a bit bigoted to call a gay man a liar about perceived homosexuality in his work. 
@penguintim

I cannot stand this shit for another fucking second. To start us off, I’m bisexual. I have known gay men. The majority of the people that i know and interact with in fandom are queer. I am not coming from a place that doesn’t know what the LGBT community is like or what LGBT people are like. They’re my fucking friends.
And could I mention that you, in this meta about invalidating people’s labels, start it off by saying that someone "claims" to be in the LGBT community? And then say that they are “actually” doing something else? In a meta where you call people bigots forignoring a stated sexuality? Are you going to tell me that I am not actually queer, that I just took a “queer theory 101 course” and I’m otherwise lying, you piece of shit?
I don’t even know where to start with you. Maybe the suggestion that i should be pleased with the portrayal of gay men on Modern Fucking Family, and that I should transfer any feelings I have about potential queerness in a detective drama to a stereotype-heavy, standard-conforming (in terms of current American relationship discourse) relationship on a comedy. Okay, but no. I’ll go bullet-by-bullet.
Did you know that the running joke actually isn’t "not gay?" That’s the running fandom joke. Here is a noncomprehensive list of what John actually says:
"Of course we’ll be needing two" (bedrooms)
"No, we’re- not—"
"We’re not a couple"
Silence on two occasions in Hound of the Baskerville, the first from the innkeeper, second (accompanied by an exasperated sigh) when called Sherlock’s “live-in PA”
And, yes, in ASiB and tEH, “Not actually gay.”
And yes, there has been a lot of fandom discourse recently where people gay that “not gay” = “he’s not denying being queer he’s just denying being gay”, which, when looked at in context, does not hold up. John “three continents” Watson attempts to appear staunchly heterosexual. But he never says “I’m straight.” This is a message both from John and from the writers. These protestations are never about his sexuality and his sexuality alone. It is always, always, always in relation to Sherlock. Can they be written off as nothing more than a joke? Yes, they can. Go right ahead. Enjoy yourself.
But thankfully, John Watson is not real, and people have been debating his sexuality since the publication of the original stories. You know who was a contemporary of Arthur Conan Doyle? Oscar Wilde. Not that they were friends, or anything (though I do think they were at a few of the same dinner parties), but look at what Wilde was writing at the time. Queer subtext is not new. Academics read Holmes stories all the times for their queer interpretations.
But oh, lord, how would John Watson feel if he found out that academics had been calling him gay? All these years? Even though he got married and we’re supposed to assume he’s heterosexual because they didn’t say otherwise? How could i have been so blind and insensitive? We all deserve a slap in the face!
Oh, wait. Or maybe discussing the homosexuality of a fictional character within a text is inherently different from telling a real human being to their face that you don’t believe in their identity. Which, I might remind you, you did at the beginning of this post.


Being a non-straight woman does not give you any leverage or credibility in your obsession with two fictional men being gay. If you think non-straight women are not capable of being homophobic, like it’s some kind of get-out-of-jail-free card, and if you think gay men and gay women are fighting the same struggle, you best check yourself. 


and what does this mean, by the way? Did you think I was laboring under the misapprehension that it’s only okay for queer women to ship johnlock? Because I’m not! Straight people, welcome aboard! I would love to have explained to me how actively supporting a gay relationship in the canon of a popular show is homophobic!
And, now, I’m so glad you brought up obsessing over men being gay on tv, because oh, I do. I don’t need to be told. As a writer and a scholar, queer rep on tv is one of the most important things to me. And you know how it is?
Fucking awful.
I’ll give you the shortest lesson possible. Currently, comedy is doing a much better job representing (male) homosexuality than drama is. (I exclude Netflix and pay per view from this conversation and will talk about network/broadcast television, for the sake of simplicity). Will and Grace, Modern Family, Reno 911. But with the exception of Brooklyn 99, comedic depictions are still falling into the pit of keeping queerness “safe” by making it camp. The joke’s on us, so to speak. Comedy is also great a poking fun at masculinity and the homosexual panic inspired by close male friendships - look at Scrubs’ JD and Turk, for example. But who is to say that the staunch heterosexuality of JD and Turk is not a homosexual panic of its own? I believe the same deal is with Psych. And these shows don’t have huge juggernauting ship followings (as far as I’m aware) because comedy does not treat romance the same way drama does. And comedy does not treat homosexuality with the respect that it does heterosexuality.
Back in the 60s, comedy was trying. Sure, it was trying, for the 60s, but some of their shows are like a subtextual fun fair. There was an entire genre of what are called “magicomedies” - I Dream of Jeannie, Bewitched, Mr. Ed, My Favorite Martian, etc - that are now read as potentially having been about queerness. The shows themselves were in the closet, so to speak. Successful suburban white male lives with an amazing friend who can do all sorts of wonderful things, but no one must ever know. not even his wife. Especially his wife, even.
Drama is a different story. In fact, homosexuality in cop dramas goes way back too!!! Can you believe that?! It’s almost as though this narrative was created where, in police work, the most important person to you, the person you sacrificed everything for, was your (also male) partner. It’s almost as though CEOs at big companies started getting scared of this (or, you know, saw a way to make it profitable)and came out with lots of cop dramas where the main duo was a man and a woman. Bones. X Files. Castle. (I’m sorry to lump X Files with these guys, but alas, I must).
In terms of drama in general, it does not have a clue what it’s doing when it comes to queerness. I have hope that less commercially-funded ventures open up drama to queerness that will allow large broadcast networks to “take a risk.” Orange is the New Black, House of Cards, Shameless, and I only don’t list HBO here for their long-standing branding of showing the elicit for money (which they’re trying to change, but it’s an uphill climb). You know who also has it in their power to do this, due to how they’re funded? The BB fucking C. So excuse me for having hope. All I want to do is watch my gays kiss on tv, after all.
But oh, wait. You don’t care about this. You think that I should be “GLAAD” for the representation I currently have. You think I should be rejoicing over a televised queerness that I find barely satisfactory as opposed to creating a narrative of my own off the bones of something that I already like and have hope for.
As for Roland Barthes? Yes, he is dead? Congratulations on doing a fucking two minute google search to make an argument against somebody who was trying to defend your shitty fucking blog?
AND OH, HERE IT IS, MY FAVORITE PART OF THIS WHOLE FUCKING POST:
"MOST OF THE SERIOUS INTERPRETATIONS OF THE SHOW COME FROM YOUNG NAIVE WOMEN WHO HAVE NO IDEA HOW WRITING A TV SHOW WORKS" AND "THEY DON’T PUT THAT MUCH THOUGHT INT THE GAY JOKES ANYWAY"
STUDYING HOW WRITING A TV SHOW WORKS
IS THE ONLY THING I DO
EVERY DAY
OF MY LIFE.
AND LET ME INFORM YOU, YOU BITTER, STALE HOT PRETZEL OF A PERSON, THAT “WRITING SUBTEXT” IS THE LYNCHPIN OF WHAT TELEVISION IS. Scripts are a limiting format of expression. You don’t have narrative, you don’t have internal thought, your narrator is the camera. You only have words and actions to convey how characters are, and those words and actions have to be compelling, telling, and consistent. So if you think they’re just throwing words down on the page because Sherlock leaving the wedding early as a parrallel to Mrs Hudson’s earlier prediction and condemnation of the act (“Who leaves a wedding early?), if you think that making Irene gay with one exception (Sherlock) and telling John “look at us both” in the same fucking breath is an accident, I’m fucking coming for you. Have more respect for writers and their work. And most of all, if you’re going to argue that Sherlock fucking queerbaits, don’t try and say that said queerbaiting doesn’t exist in the same fucking post.
Also um HOW MANY GAY MEN DO YOU KNOW? DID YOU TAKE A SURVEY? I AM SO HAPPY TO BE CALLED A BIGOT BY YOUR FUCKING FICTIONAL GAY MALE FRIENDS
Are you aware that your argument, that the lynchpin of your argument, is that non-cited, anecdotal queer friends of yours are unhappy with something? And this makes me a bigot? That the cornerstone of your argument is that you are more educated on queer theory than me, and thus your word is gospel? Are you aware that your bullets are bullshit and I have been studying representation and queer issues in media and television specifically for three years? That I myself was furious over queerbaiting in BBC Sherlock no more than a year ago?
This anger has temporarily subsided due to the heaps of what I feel like is relevant evidence towards an idea   This is where fucking Barthes comes in, by the way— he’s no use to me, either. I believe that the authors are steering their vessel to canonical queerness of their two main characters. Nice try trying to talk about what you don’t understand, though, in order to sound smart.
What are you trying to gain from this, by the way? You want people to stop shipping noncanonical gay couples?
And even if johnlock does not become canon, who gives a FUCK about how anybody decides to enjoy media consumption? A year ago, I wrote an infuriated open letter about queerbaiting in BBC Sherlock and why it’s dangerous, and, lo and behold, I managed to remain in fandom. Why? Because fandom is the only place where a sufficient narrative existed for me. Because the show itself is enjoyable and well made and I like the characters. You know what Moffat, Gatiss, Cumberbatch, Freeman, etc have never condemned? Fanfiction and fanwork. Yes, they have said that it’s not the show’s reality. (Though they admit to lying all the time when talking about the show anyway). But they have never said “cease and desist.” Why? Because imagining Harry Potter as a series with POC leads is not harmful. Because changing the ending of some dissatisfying book or movie in your head is a creative act. Because making, free of charge, for your own enjoyment and the enjoyment of others, a character or two queer in your headcanon is not a fucking bigoted act. It is a progressive act. Sure, it’s just a bit of fun. But it is also a creation of a subverted narrative in communication with a dominantly heterosexual cultural discourse.
Finally, as someone who devotes the majority of her life to tv watching and scholarship, I am extremely loath to say this, but media is not the be-all and end-all of any social justice movement. It’s not even close. So if you do care this much about homophobia and gay fetishization, how about you actually try to spread awareness about something real and fucking worthwhile. Pornography. Hate crime. Anything but “John Watson on BBC Sherlock says that he isn’t gay, so he isn’t.”
Get a life.

joolabee Thank you.
This won’t show up in the notes because creepyass-sherlockfans has so kindly blocked me so that I can’t defend myself on this trainwreck of a post, but if you/anyone else sees this, I explained my stance here.
Thank you to you and everyone else who has assisted and supported me in this ridiculous situation.

Seriously, folks- Click here for WSSWatson’s epic smackdown of OP-

I am thinking OP is a blatant troll, not some misguided person.
I think this is an intentional trolling attack.
TBH, it is starting some good discourse, but people need to treat this like a TROLL and not click on the blog, or generally give it attention. By following it “To catch them at shenanigans!” You are lending a false legitimacy to their trolling.
I know some people will ignore that advice, but, please, everyone, the best thing you can do is applaud WSSWatson and ignore the troll.

Ps in the off chance ANYONE honestly follows OP’s line of thought?
My mildly homophobic 80 year old parents, AND their parents, thought John and Sherlock were Gay, and they didn’t mean happy. Using terms like “pair of confirmed Bachelors” to describe them. And in fact, when I was prepping for the convention, a LOT of my mom’s friends who heard about it (also in their 80s) made comments about how “At least they’re (still) keeping them in the closet like the original.”

More telling is how many people in my parent’s generation/friend’s circle saw Joan Watson in Elementary as “good” because it let the couple “possibly be open” for the first time.
Mind you, this is highly problematic thinking(about Elementary) and it DISCOUNTS the idea that they could honestly just be friends, but, NO it is not JUST tweenage girls or 20somethings saying that the canon source material is chock full of subtext between John and Sherlock.
For over 100 years there has been a LARGE sub-section of the Sherlockian population quite sure that there were queer implications in ACD’s Sherlock Holmes.
And while I’m not touching the queerbaiting or potential canon of Johnlock in BBC Sherlock, I CAN say that anyone shaming folks for their FANFICTION or personal beliefs and headcanons, yanno what, no. Stop.
There is not enough goddamn representation. Period.
Fans and fandom are MAKING representation because we so sharply lack it.

PPS: If anyone NOT a massive troll says “gay women/bi women don’t have it anywhere near as hard as gay men” I will kick them in the crotch.
Seriously. Stop. No. Bad. 
Yes, they can be homophobic and problematic, but So Can Gay Men. And everyone in the queer community gets fucked over by the system, can we please NOT start this bullshit infighting for, what, 5 min? Try for an entire hour without one group being a total asshat to the others? (surprising how often it’s the white male gays followed by white female lesbians that are doing/starting it)

wsswatson:

joolabee:

creepyass-sherlockfans:

This above image was made by said user. We can’t find it, so we’re posting the screencap with its built-in attribution.

This is another one of these ‘where do we begin’ posts where the bullshit needs to be deconstructed, and another melodramatic offering from someone who claims to be in the LGBT community when they’re actually perpetuating gayness as an ‘other’, an object of fantasy, ultimately trivializing gay men in real life (especially to young people who haven’t had the opportunity to know any gay men) and in media.

tl;dr version: taking queer theory 101 classes at university doesn’t necessarily make you read up on LGBT ish. As we’ve said, leave your Sherlock bubble and meet the tons of LGBT folks who think BBC Sherlock is homophobic for the queerbaiting.

If you don’t believe me, google ‘queerbaiting’ and see what suggested searches and images come up. 

Long version to break it down:

  • "not gay" is in reference to John Watson’s line in numerous episodes when pressed about his relationship with Sherlock. It’s a running joke.
  • In real life, if someone says they’re not gay and/or not attracted to someone of the same gender and you insist they’re somehow not being frank or entirely forthcoming, not only would you be fucking rude and deserving of a good smack, but you’d also be considered homophobic as well (and rightly so).
  • To create a double standard in this respect for fictional characters reveals prejudices and really ass backward attitudes towards gay men. It is a form of entitlement, of privilege, and a sense of ownership of a group of people you do not belong to. 
  • Being a non-straight woman does not give you any leverage or credibility in your obsession with two fictional men being gay. If you think non-straight women are not capable of being homophobic, like it’s some kind of get-out-of-jail-free card, and if you think gay men and gay women are fighting the same struggle, you best check yourself. 
  • If you’re so obsessed with men being gay on TV - and you clearly are - why not actually obsess over a show where characters are unambiguously gay and have been recognized by GLAAD for their representation? Modern Family, Reno 9/11, True Blood come to mind.
  • Roland Barthes is dead. No philosopher takes him seriously anymore. He was part of a French school of postmodern philosophy that fell out of fad a while back…and thank heavens for that.
  • Most of the (serious) interpretations making the case for ‘johnlock’ come from really young and naive people who don’t seem to understand how writing a TV show works. Not unusual for teenagers, but again, it is also revealing in terms of prejudices and objectifying the ‘other’. No one really stops and thinks that maybe the gay gags on the show were created for an entirely different reason.
  • While this is anecdotal, it should be pointed out all the people obsessed with ‘johnlock’ are young women. I’ve never come across an actual gay or otherwise non-straight man who dig it. In fact, the few gay men we’ve come across actually hate it and like us, find it homophobic. If you obsess over ‘johnlock’, something found to be problematic by actual gay men, and you ignore or don’t find that somehow significant or valid, you are a bigot. You have not checked your privilege.
  • Lastly but not least - and I consider this to be the most important one of all: Sherlock writer and co-creator Mark Gatiss is gay and has emphasized the Sherlock Holmes he and Moffat created is not interested in men (or anyone else for that matter). It’s insulting if not a bit bigoted to call a gay man a liar about perceived homosexuality in his work. 

@penguintim

I cannot stand this shit for another fucking second. To start us off, I’m bisexual. I have known gay men. The majority of the people that i know and interact with in fandom are queer. I am not coming from a place that doesn’t know what the LGBT community is like or what LGBT people are like. They’re my fucking friends.

And could I mention that you, in this meta about invalidating people’s labels, start it off by saying that someone "claims" to be in the LGBT community? And then say that they are “actually” doing something else? In a meta where you call people bigots forignoring a stated sexuality? Are you going to tell me that I am not actually queer, that I just took a “queer theory 101 course” and I’m otherwise lying, you piece of shit?

I don’t even know where to start with you. Maybe the suggestion that i should be pleased with the portrayal of gay men on Modern Fucking Family, and that I should transfer any feelings I have about potential queerness in a detective drama to a stereotype-heavy, standard-conforming (in terms of current American relationship discourse) relationship on a comedy. Okay, but no. I’ll go bullet-by-bullet.

Did you know that the running joke actually isn’t "not gay?" That’s the running fandom joke. Here is a noncomprehensive list of what John actually says:

  • "Of course we’ll be needing two" (bedrooms)
  • "No, we’re- not—"
  • "We’re not a couple"
  • Silence on two occasions in Hound of the Baskerville, the first from the innkeeper, second (accompanied by an exasperated sigh) when called Sherlock’s “live-in PA”
  • And, yes, in ASiB and tEH, “Not actually gay.”

And yes, there has been a lot of fandom discourse recently where people gay that “not gay” = “he’s not denying being queer he’s just denying being gay”, which, when looked at in context, does not hold up. John “three continents” Watson attempts to appear staunchly heterosexual. But he never says “I’m straight.” This is a message both from John and from the writers. These protestations are never about his sexuality and his sexuality alone. It is always, always, always in relation to Sherlock. Can they be written off as nothing more than a joke? Yes, they can. Go right ahead. Enjoy yourself.

But thankfully, John Watson is not real, and people have been debating his sexuality since the publication of the original stories. You know who was a contemporary of Arthur Conan Doyle? Oscar Wilde. Not that they were friends, or anything (though I do think they were at a few of the same dinner parties), but look at what Wilde was writing at the time. Queer subtext is not new. Academics read Holmes stories all the times for their queer interpretations.

But oh, lord, how would John Watson feel if he found out that academics had been calling him gay? All these years? Even though he got married and we’re supposed to assume he’s heterosexual because they didn’t say otherwise? How could i have been so blind and insensitive? We all deserve a slap in the face!

Oh, wait. Or maybe discussing the homosexuality of a fictional character within a text is inherently different from telling a real human being to their face that you don’t believe in their identity. Which, I might remind you, you did at the beginning of this post.

  • Being a non-straight woman does not give you any leverage or credibility in your obsession with two fictional men being gay. If you think non-straight women are not capable of being homophobic, like it’s some kind of get-out-of-jail-free card, and if you think gay men and gay women are fighting the same struggle, you best check yourself. 

and what does this mean, by the way? Did you think I was laboring under the misapprehension that it’s only okay for queer women to ship johnlock? Because I’m not! Straight people, welcome aboard! I would love to have explained to me how actively supporting a gay relationship in the canon of a popular show is homophobic!

And, now, I’m so glad you brought up obsessing over men being gay on tv, because oh, I do. I don’t need to be told. As a writer and a scholar, queer rep on tv is one of the most important things to me. And you know how it is?

Fucking awful.

I’ll give you the shortest lesson possible. Currently, comedy is doing a much better job representing (male) homosexuality than drama is. (I exclude Netflix and pay per view from this conversation and will talk about network/broadcast television, for the sake of simplicity). Will and Grace, Modern Family, Reno 911. But with the exception of Brooklyn 99, comedic depictions are still falling into the pit of keeping queerness “safe” by making it camp. The joke’s on us, so to speak. Comedy is also great a poking fun at masculinity and the homosexual panic inspired by close male friendships - look at Scrubs’ JD and Turk, for example. But who is to say that the staunch heterosexuality of JD and Turk is not a homosexual panic of its own? I believe the same deal is with Psych. And these shows don’t have huge juggernauting ship followings (as far as I’m aware) because comedy does not treat romance the same way drama does. And comedy does not treat homosexuality with the respect that it does heterosexuality.

Back in the 60s, comedy was trying. Sure, it was trying, for the 60s, but some of their shows are like a subtextual fun fair. There was an entire genre of what are called “magicomedies” - I Dream of Jeannie, Bewitched, Mr. Ed, My Favorite Martian, etc - that are now read as potentially having been about queerness. The shows themselves were in the closet, so to speak. Successful suburban white male lives with an amazing friend who can do all sorts of wonderful things, but no one must ever know. not even his wife. Especially his wife, even.

Drama is a different story. In fact, homosexuality in cop dramas goes way back too!!! Can you believe that?! It’s almost as though this narrative was created where, in police work, the most important person to you, the person you sacrificed everything for, was your (also male) partner. It’s almost as though CEOs at big companies started getting scared of this (or, you know, saw a way to make it profitable)and came out with lots of cop dramas where the main duo was a man and a woman. Bones. X Files. Castle. (I’m sorry to lump X Files with these guys, but alas, I must).

In terms of drama in general, it does not have a clue what it’s doing when it comes to queerness. I have hope that less commercially-funded ventures open up drama to queerness that will allow large broadcast networks to “take a risk.” Orange is the New Black, House of Cards, Shameless, and I only don’t list HBO here for their long-standing branding of showing the elicit for money (which they’re trying to change, but it’s an uphill climb). You know who also has it in their power to do this, due to how they’re funded? The BB fucking C. So excuse me for having hope. All I want to do is watch my gays kiss on tv, after all.

But oh, wait. You don’t care about this. You think that I should be “GLAAD” for the representation I currently have. You think I should be rejoicing over a televised queerness that I find barely satisfactory as opposed to creating a narrative of my own off the bones of something that I already like and have hope for.

As for Roland Barthes? Yes, he is dead? Congratulations on doing a fucking two minute google search to make an argument against somebody who was trying to defend your shitty fucking blog?

AND OH, HERE IT IS, MY FAVORITE PART OF THIS WHOLE FUCKING POST:

"MOST OF THE SERIOUS INTERPRETATIONS OF THE SHOW COME FROM YOUNG NAIVE WOMEN WHO HAVE NO IDEA HOW WRITING A TV SHOW WORKS" AND "THEY DON’T PUT THAT MUCH THOUGHT INT THE GAY JOKES ANYWAY"

STUDYING HOW WRITING A TV SHOW WORKS

IS THE ONLY THING I DO

EVERY DAY

OF MY LIFE.

AND LET ME INFORM YOU, YOU BITTER, STALE HOT PRETZEL OF A PERSON, THAT “WRITING SUBTEXT” IS THE LYNCHPIN OF WHAT TELEVISION IS. Scripts are a limiting format of expression. You don’t have narrative, you don’t have internal thought, your narrator is the camera. You only have words and actions to convey how characters are, and those words and actions have to be compelling, telling, and consistent. So if you think they’re just throwing words down on the page because Sherlock leaving the wedding early as a parrallel to Mrs Hudson’s earlier prediction and condemnation of the act (“Who leaves a wedding early?), if you think that making Irene gay with one exception (Sherlock) and telling John “look at us both” in the same fucking breath is an accident, I’m fucking coming for you. Have more respect for writers and their work. And most of all, if you’re going to argue that Sherlock fucking queerbaits, don’t try and say that said queerbaiting doesn’t exist in the same fucking post.

Also um HOW MANY GAY MEN DO YOU KNOW? DID YOU TAKE A SURVEY? I AM SO HAPPY TO BE CALLED A BIGOT BY YOUR FUCKING FICTIONAL GAY MALE FRIENDS

Are you aware that your argument, that the lynchpin of your argument, is that non-cited, anecdotal queer friends of yours are unhappy with something? And this makes me a bigot? That the cornerstone of your argument is that you are more educated on queer theory than me, and thus your word is gospel? Are you aware that your bullets are bullshit and I have been studying representation and queer issues in media and television specifically for three years? That I myself was furious over queerbaiting in BBC Sherlock no more than a year ago?

This anger has temporarily subsided due to the heaps of what I feel like is relevant evidence towards an idea   This is where fucking Barthes comes in, by the way— he’s no use to me, either. I believe that the authors are steering their vessel to canonical queerness of their two main characters. Nice try trying to talk about what you don’t understand, though, in order to sound smart.

What are you trying to gain from this, by the way? You want people to stop shipping noncanonical gay couples?

And even if johnlock does not become canon, who gives a FUCK about how anybody decides to enjoy media consumption? A year ago, I wrote an infuriated open letter about queerbaiting in BBC Sherlock and why it’s dangerous, and, lo and behold, I managed to remain in fandom. Why? Because fandom is the only place where a sufficient narrative existed for me. Because the show itself is enjoyable and well made and I like the characters. You know what Moffat, Gatiss, Cumberbatch, Freeman, etc have never condemned? Fanfiction and fanwork. Yes, they have said that it’s not the show’s reality. (Though they admit to lying all the time when talking about the show anyway). But they have never said “cease and desist.” Why? Because imagining Harry Potter as a series with POC leads is not harmful. Because changing the ending of some dissatisfying book or movie in your head is a creative act. Because making, free of charge, for your own enjoyment and the enjoyment of others, a character or two queer in your headcanon is not a fucking bigoted act. It is a progressive act. Sure, it’s just a bit of fun. But it is also a creation of a subverted narrative in communication with a dominantly heterosexual cultural discourse.

Finally, as someone who devotes the majority of her life to tv watching and scholarship, I am extremely loath to say this, but media is not the be-all and end-all of any social justice movement. It’s not even close. So if you do care this much about homophobia and gay fetishization, how about you actually try to spread awareness about something real and fucking worthwhile. Pornography. Hate crime. Anything but “John Watson on BBC Sherlock says that he isn’t gay, so he isn’t.”

Get a life.

joolabee Thank you.

This won’t show up in the notes because creepyass-sherlockfans has so kindly blocked me so that I can’t defend myself on this trainwreck of a post, but if you/anyone else sees this, I explained my stance here.

Thank you to you and everyone else who has assisted and supported me in this ridiculous situation.

Seriously, folks- Click here for WSSWatson’s epic smackdown of OP-

I am thinking OP is a blatant troll, not some misguided person.

I think this is an intentional trolling attack.

TBH, it is starting some good discourse, but people need to treat this like a TROLL and not click on the blog, or generally give it attention. By following it “To catch them at shenanigans!” You are lending a false legitimacy to their trolling.

I know some people will ignore that advice, but, please, everyone, the best thing you can do is applaud WSSWatson and ignore the troll.

Ps in the off chance ANYONE honestly follows OP’s line of thought?

My mildly homophobic 80 year old parents, AND their parents, thought John and Sherlock were Gay, and they didn’t mean happy. Using terms like “pair of confirmed Bachelors” to describe them. And in fact, when I was prepping for the convention, a LOT of my mom’s friends who heard about it (also in their 80s) made comments about how “At least they’re (still) keeping them in the closet like the original.”

More telling is how many people in my parent’s generation/friend’s circle saw Joan Watson in Elementary as “good” because it let the couple “possibly be open” for the first time.

Mind you, this is highly problematic thinking(about Elementary) and it DISCOUNTS the idea that they could honestly just be friends, but, NO it is not JUST tweenage girls or 20somethings saying that the canon source material is chock full of subtext between John and Sherlock.

For over 100 years there has been a LARGE sub-section of the Sherlockian population quite sure that there were queer implications in ACD’s Sherlock Holmes.

And while I’m not touching the queerbaiting or potential canon of Johnlock in BBC Sherlock, I CAN say that anyone shaming folks for their FANFICTION or personal beliefs and headcanons, yanno what, no. Stop.

There is not enough goddamn representation. Period.

Fans and fandom are MAKING representation because we so sharply lack it.

PPS: If anyone NOT a massive troll says “gay women/bi women don’t have it anywhere near as hard as gay men” I will kick them in the crotch.

Seriously. Stop. No. Bad. 

Yes, they can be homophobic and problematic, but So Can Gay Men. And everyone in the queer community gets fucked over by the system, can we please NOT start this bullshit infighting for, what, 5 min? Try for an entire hour without one group being a total asshat to the others? (surprising how often it’s the white male gays followed by white female lesbians that are doing/starting it)

Tagged: Sherlock HolmesSherlockBBC Sherlockelementaryughrantsfandomwankso much wankif only FW was still a thingthey would have a blast with OP's journal

Source: creepyass-sherlockfans

27th March 2014

Photo reblogged from if you're going through hell, keep going. with 24,908 notes

spocks-pockets:

Happy (future) birthday, Jim Kirk!

Seriously, when people harsh on (mostly female) fans for doing a shrine, memorial or other real life homage, I side eye it. Scotland has one for Scotty, Iowa has one for Kirk, and I am fairly sure there are more scattered around for other OLD fandoms.

spocks-pockets:

Happy (future) birthday, Jim Kirk!

Seriously, when people harsh on (mostly female) fans for doing a shrine, memorial or other real life homage, I side eye it. Scotland has one for Scotty, Iowa has one for Kirk, and I am fairly sure there are more scattered around for other OLD fandoms.

Tagged: Ianto JonesTorchwoodSherlockSherlock HolmesJames T KirkStar TrekST:ToS

Source: spocks-pockets

12th November 2013

Photoset reblogged from fascinating with 11,878 notes

dearjimmoriarty:

quequieresmrmorden:

endquestionmark:

hopelessfangirl:

Holmes and Watson with their good pals, Holmes and Watson.

didn’t JLM and jude law live together at some point

what

what

what

this Watson-switching disturbs me

what

oh btw

Tagged: Sherlock HolmesSherlock Fandomepic cast is epic

Source: hopelessfangirl

20th October 2013

Photo reblogged from Land of Skulls and Dice with 4,408 notes

deducecanoe:

sherlockah0lique:

tabbystardust:

anglofile:

bakerstreetbabes:

casamunroe:

bakerstreetbabes:

echoindarkness:

copperbadge:

deducecanoe:

Holmes: Watson! My fucks, please.
Watson: Holmes, I don’t think you have any. We used them all on the last case. 
Holmes: well, there you have it. I have no fucks to give. 

The opening of basically every interview Sherlock Holmes grants to people requesting his help. (Usually after a few minutes he finds some spare fucks in the couch cushions.)

Watson then usually looks disapproving until Holmes finds them, then neglects his practice/wife/life while he helps.

This is also quite true.

WATSON!  HOLD MY FUCKS!


Sherlock Holmes and the Adventure of the Missing Fucks by Sir Arthur “Here’s another fucking Sherlock Holmes story, ffs” Conan Doyle.



OMG

This is beautiful.

deducecanoe:

sherlockah0lique:

tabbystardust:

anglofile:

bakerstreetbabes:

casamunroe:

bakerstreetbabes:

echoindarkness:

copperbadge:

deducecanoe:

Holmes: Watson! My fucks, please.

Watson: Holmes, I don’t think you have any. We used them all on the last case. 

Holmes: well, there you have it. I have no fucks to give. 

The opening of basically every interview Sherlock Holmes grants to people requesting his help. (Usually after a few minutes he finds some spare fucks in the couch cushions.)

Watson then usually looks disapproving until Holmes finds them, then neglects his practice/wife/life while he helps.

This is also quite true.

WATSON!  HOLD MY FUCKS!

Sherlock Holmes and the Adventure of the Missing Fucks by Sir Arthur “Here’s another fucking Sherlock Holmes story, ffs” Conan Doyle.

image

OMG

This is beautiful.

Tagged: Sherlock HolmesSherlock fandomsherlockians

Source: totalfuckingawsomeirule

13th July 2013

Photoset reblogged from It's An Anagram with 20,389 notes

missevalyn:

"My dear Watson," said the well-remembered voice. “I owe you a thousand apologies. I had no idea that you would be so affected."

- The Adventure of the Empty House

I published the first page of this a little while back. Sorry that it’s taken me a while to get the rest of this posted!

Some of these scenes (such as Watson and Holmes before the web, or Sherlock and Joan on the rooftop) should seem a little familiar. I very deliberately tried to recreate them from all sorts of screenshots and references. 

Thank you very much to everyone who has been so supportive in having me see this through.

"You’ll come with me to-night?"

"When you like and where you like."

"This is, indeed, like the old days.

Tagged: SherlockSherlock HolmesJohnJohn WatsonFanartawesome

Source: missevalyn

3rd July 2013

Photoset reblogged from Calm. Authoritative. R-r-relaxed. with 41,000 notes

thefirstchibi:

catbushandludicrous:

image

It’s like Wang-Watch… but in Canon.

Tagged: Sherlock HolmesSherlock fandomLMAO

Source: catbushandludicrous

26th May 2013

Photoset reblogged from Land of Skulls and Dice with 5,557 notes

Elementary: a show about one woman’s struggle for sleep between solving murders with her best friend.

Tagged: accuratejoan watsonappreciation lifeelementarySherlock Holmes

Source: cezura

26th April 2013

Photoset reblogged from Dragons in the Shire with 20,545 notes

hobbitdragon:

notsosilentwallflower:

fem!lock au:

└ mr. hudson makes breakfast (x)

JFALSKFJLAKSFA YESSSSSSS <3 <3

There is no end to my love of this.

Tagged: John Watsonsherlock holmesSherlockYesFemlockAU

Source: notsosilentwallflower

21st April 2013

Photo reblogged from rosenrot with 75 notes

bendy-dick:


 “Both Holmes and I had a weakness for the Turkish bath. It was over a smoke in the pleasant lassitude of the drying-room that I have found him less reticent and more human than anywhere else. On the upper floor of the Northumberland Avenue establishment there is an isolated corner where two couches lie side by side, and it was on these that we lay upon September 3, 1902, the day when my narrative begins. I had asked him whether anything was stirring, and for answer he had shot his long, thin, nervous arm out of the sheets which enveloped him and had drawn an envelope from the inside pocket of the coat which hung beside him.” 
 — The Illustrious Client - The Case-Book of Sherlock Holmes


 Completely platonic. 

Totally.

bendy-dick:

“Both Holmes and I had a weakness for the Turkish bath. It was over a smoke in the pleasant lassitude of the drying-room that I have found him less reticent and more human than anywhere else. On the upper floor of the Northumberland Avenue establishment there is an isolated corner where two couches lie side by side, and it was on these that we lay upon September 3, 1902, the day when my narrative begins. I had asked him whether anything was stirring, and for answer he had shot his long, thin, nervous arm out of the sheets which enveloped him and had drawn an envelope from the inside pocket of the coat which hung beside him.”

— The Illustrious Client - The Case-Book of Sherlock Holmes

Completely platonic.

Totally.

Tagged: Sherlock HolmesSherlockJohnlock

18th April 2013

Photo reblogged from The Baker Street Babes with 722 notes

bakerstreetbabes:

He’s all:


This is very accurate on many levels, actually.

bakerstreetbabes:

He’s all:

This is very accurate on many levels, actually.

Tagged: SherlockSherlock HolmesGranadaHolmesBBC SherlockSherlock BBCsherlockianGifAwesome

Source: tearose77

13th April 2013

Photoset reblogged from Shekh ma shieraki anni with 113,655 notes

#i’m gay and i’m not even this gay

Tagged: Gay of GayGaySherlock HolmesRDJJude LawJohn WatsonGame of Shadows

Source: curiiouser

13th April 2013

Photo reblogged from Land of Skulls and Dice with 53,711 notes

all-misty-eyed:

writeyourdamnmind:

At first I didn’t notice what changed….and then it hit me. 


i think i just died

We need less photoshop or more sleep, because it took me a second, then I about died laughing.

all-misty-eyed:

writeyourdamnmind:

At first I didn’t notice what changed….and then it hit me. 

image

i think i just died

We need less photoshop or more sleep, because it took me a second, then I about died laughing.

Tagged: NopeMycroft HolmesSherlock HolmesSherlockBBC Sherlock

Source: the-doctor-to-my-tardis

13th April 2013

Link reblogged from Bay Area Sherlock Con with 40 notes

Watson And Holmes Print Kickstarter - The first African-American Sherlock Holmes series by KARL BOLLERS and RICK LEONARDI →

bayareasherlockcon:

fannishminded:

This is just too cool to miss. 

Physical print copies of Watson and Holmes, to have and to hold, are available on Kickstarter. 

If you haven’t read the comic yet, go do so. It’s 99cents to download the first issue, and TOTALLY worth far more than that. 

I know many of us don’t have much money, but if you like the comic, consider joining the kickstarter, because I for one am really looking forward to holding a physical copy of this amazing comic, and every little bit helps with that.

PS: If you add on one of the Add-On packages to your kickstarter, make sure to message them with the add on you picked! (I’m going for all. All is good.)

Signal Boosting this for all the Bay Area Sherlockians- go check it out, you won’t be sorry you did!

Tagged: Reblogging at a different time to catch different folksSherlock Holmesjohn watsonSherlockHolmes and WatsonAUAwesomeSignal BOOST

Source: fannishminded

12th April 2013

Link with 40 notes

Watson And Holmes Print Kickstarter - The first African-American Sherlock Holmes series by KARL BOLLERS and RICK LEONARDI →

This is just too cool to miss. 

Physical print copies of Watson and Holmes, to have and to hold, are available on Kickstarter. 

If you haven’t read the comic yet, go do so. It’s 99cents to download the first issue, and TOTALLY worth far more than that. 

I know many of us don’t have much money, but if you like the comic, consider joining the kickstarter, because I for one am really looking forward to holding a physical copy of this amazing comic, and every little bit helps with that.

PS: If you add on one of the Add-On packages to your kickstarter, make sure to message them with the add on you picked! (I’m going for all. All is good.)

Tagged: Sherlock HolmesJohn WatsonSherlockHolmesWatsonKickstarterSignal BOOST

11th April 2013

Photoset reblogged from mustn't let a little thing like 'little' stop you with 910 notes

deanoqorman:

The Fangirl Challenge | [2/15] Pairings | Joan Watson & Sherlock Holmes (Elementary)

I am better with you Watson. I’m sharper, more focused. Difficult to say why, exactly. Perhaps in time, I’ll solve that as well.

Tagged: ElementaryJoan WatsonSherlock Holmes

Source: thevaliantrose