If it’s in the story, it’s in the story: 

meta commentary is only meta commentary 

 (By Ivy Blossom)

warmth-and-constancy:

“Romantic entanglement would complete you as a human being” Yeah, guys, when Moffat says Sherlock was never a love story, it’s literally bullshit, he is literally lying to you, because he also wrote this line. Whether they have – unbelievably – kicked that particular can another couple of years down the road, or whether the fourth episode rumor that they started themselves is true and there’s another installment waiting in the wings, they still told us that their main character is incomplete without romantic fulfillment. You are entitled to continue waiting for an explanation of this very obvious Chekhov’s gun situation if you are willing and able to do so, and it is not crazy for you to do so.

Ivy Blossom:

Agreed. Though I don’t think you need a fourth episode or even another series to safely assume the logical conclusion here. While I remain a fan of these writers, to be honest at this point I’m not that interested in their retroactive statements about what they intended to do. It’s already done, it’s in the story. This is what we have, this story, and this particular narrative gun.

Sherlock’s sexual and romantic needs have been on the table in this story for a long time now, from the beginning, and particularly in focus since A Scandal in Belgravia. We have been asked to pay attention to these questions, and there is a coherent narrative arc about them through the entire show. The final problem is, in fact, this question: is it so impossible for Sherlock to love and be loved? There is, to my mind, every indication that these issues are resolved in The Final Problem. Very likely not in a way that satisfies you, but I’d call them resolved nevertheless.

We’ve always said ignore the writers when they talk about this story because they lie. At this point, I’d say you should still ignore what they say, because the only thing a writer communicates about a story that actually matters or has any weight is the story itself. (Dear J.K.: you can’t retroactively out Dumbledore, either. It’s in the text, or it’s not!)

If it’s in the story, it’s in the story. They had their chance to say otherwise when they composed it; it’s out there now, and meta commentary is only meta commentary. They don’t have to like interpretations or confirm that anything in particular was intentional, it doesn’t matter. It’s there, it’s coherent, and it’s valid.

It’s yours.