Moftiss ship Sherlolly

 (By anonymous and mizjoely)

Anonymous: I can't help but add my two cents about Moftiss and their take on Sherlolly and post series 4 interviews. I totally agree with you that they deliberately kept all ships possible and ambiguous enough so any shipper can be happy (except for jl as TPTB went out of their way to show those two men are attracted to female part of population ;) alas it still can be shipped as two guys raising Rosie together etc etc) anyway. I like that's it all left to our interpretation, yet I can't stop feeling that Sherlolly has become a secret pleasure and the OTP of Moftiss. Yes, I include both Steven and Mark here. It's no secret that Steven ships Sherlolly, he even admitted it on s3 extras. But I also think Mark ships them too for it's him who wrote the shippiest moments of them and now doesn't deny what Sherlock feels but tries to keep it ambiguous. Why I think Sherlolly is this secret OTP of Moftiss? We're the only ship that [gets a] liplock on screen (true, it's Anderson's crazy theory butstill it has been shown on screen -I always felt it was an indulgence of Steven on his desire to see those two together, so he came up with a way for it to happen). Then the ILY scene. It had been added as a last afterthought/makeover of a scene no one liked except them. So if they couldn't have had a puzzle t hey went for ILY. Which is one of the biggest deals in this show. And who is it aimed at? Molly. Because they needed to change their scene why not make it into something they secretly would like to see but were keeping from doing to keep it neutral? Let's make it pleasurable to ourselves if the puzzle needs to be changed. So while still keeping it all ambigous it's actually quite obvious and self indulgent. Also all those tiny moments with tons for Sherlolly interpretation. Sherlolly has always been in the back of their minds. Subconciously at first then deliberately in the end. (I truly need to write some proper meta on this.)

mizjoely: However the showrunners feel about the ship, they definitely gave us a lot in a very economical manner. If I had to pick a quote to encapsulate my feelings about both Molly Hooper and her screen time, it would definitely be “Though she be but little she be fierce.” Thanks for sharing.

The Curious Case of Mollyless Metas

 (Sherlock meta by cassbel5)

In honour of International Women’s Day, I would like to take a minute to observe the extent to which Molly Hooper is ignored in the zillion pages of Sherlock meta and comment in some corners of fandom, corners that normally take great pride in their feminism.. (And here I don’t mean metas on romantic pairings but rather general discussions of Sherlock).

I get that people don’t ship it, fine. And that they ship something else. OK. But like how can you just ignore her as a character and as an important part of Sherlock’s world? Why is this unique character with a unique relationship with Sherlock hardly ever mentioned in a lot of these metas and then mostly as poor lovelorn Molly? I mean, a lot of people were all over Mofftiss after The Final Problem because “how can they reduce her to this poor girl with a crush” when what I’m seeing in a lot of these metas is people doing exactly that. Mofftiss haven’t done it, you can’t pin it on them. Together with Louise Brealey they’ve given us an interesting and important character. But even if she doesn’t appeal to you in and of herself, I’m guessing you’re interested in Sherlock’s world, right?

Let’s say that you have decided that Sherlock definitely didn’t mean the 'I love you'. OK. Let’s leave that then. But just the fact that Molly and Sherlock share a scene with so much “emotional turmoil” (Gatiss), and this toward the end of Sherlock’s Sherrinford-Musgrave journey should catch your attention in terms of her significance. And the very least we can take from it is that Sherlock lost control and went through extreme emotional drama over this woman. Can we then at least consider the possibility that she is in some way important to Sherlock? Can we stop accusing Mofftiss of being the ones who are diminishing her? Because it’s not Mofftiss who have written pages and pages and pages of meta and comments on Sherlock, his relationships and his character without even mentioning this woman or if mentioning her then mostly condescendingly implying that she’s there merely to show Sherlock’s insensitivity or lack of interest in women or perhaps, in The Final Problem, compassion.

Because, you know what, let’s even forget about The Final Problem and THAT scene. Let’s just go back and look at their relationship, their previous scenes together. Everyone goes all weak at the knees over how amazing and touching it is when we get glimpses of Sherlock the man behind the mask, the heart beneath the armour etc. Well, take a look at what Mofftiss and Benedict have put in the show for you. Take a look at Sherlock’s scenes with Molly from A Scandal in Belgravia onwards. You want the man behind the machine? Look at the man who apologises sincerely and the man who is kind and compassionate with Molly in the morgue in A Scandal in Belgravia. You want a man who is surprised and unsettled that someone sees behind his armour? Well, lab scene with Molly in The Reichenbach Fall. A man who willingly reveals himself as vulnerable, perhaps even scared and unsure of himself? Well, night lab scene with Molly in The Reichenbach Fall, everyone. A man who is gentle, sincere and physically affectionate? Hallway scene with Molly in The Empty Hearse is right there for you. A man who is playful and flirty? Go see crime solving day with Molly. A man who is completely on the back foot – lab scene with Molly in The Sign of Three. Or is it scared and helpless but trusting you want? Mind palace with Molly in His Last Vow. Compliant Sherlock anyone? Shilcott’s flat and Rosie’s christening – or “how Molly gets Sherlock Holmes to obey with a look or a single word”. Yes, these and other similar scenes are actually there in the show for us to see and learn about Sherlock. And Molly. And their relationship.

Of course she’s not a main character. Of course Sherlock’s and John’s friendship is the central relationship in the show. That’s why there are literally thousands of pages written about it. And that’s great. But I just can’t understand how there can be so much discussion about Sherlock’s character development and humanisation, about how Mofftiss have given us this amazing Sherlock who is so much more than a thinking machine, who pretends, even tries, to be a high-functioning sociopath but actually really really isn’t one… and all this discussion just ignores Molly whose interaction with him, in like 99.9% of their scenes together since S2 consistently and clearly shows you precisely that more human, “hidden” Sherlock.

This stuff is actually there in the text. The actual spoken text. (Not to mention how it is played by Benedict). But I’ll end with a question with some wild conjecture.

So, how come, when love and its redemptive force is the huge and much discussed topic of S4 in so many of these metas, how come they never wonder what it means for Sherlock to have this woman in his life who loves him so steadfastly and unconditionally? Who has loved him through all the shit he has been through and all the shit he has piled on others. (I’m deliberately not mentioning what he might feel for her. I’m not going near that here.) But this man, who seems to have felt he is undeserving of love unless he is larger than life and whom even John, for a long time, had difficulty accepting in all his humanity and fallibility, this same man is loved - truly, deeply loved by a woman who has seen his most flawed and human self, has known him at his worst and weakest, has seen him for all the beauty and horror that he is and loved him. Always. And could it even mean something to him to be reminded of this so poignantly directly before facing his worst trial and the traumatic secret of his childhood? So, you write pages and pages and pages about the redemptive power of love but never actually even mention this woman. Really?

TJLC and The Real World

 (A conversation about fandom between mid0nz, bookshop, 

pj-gingernuts and greyhairedgeekgirl)

mid0nz:

Fandom is not an escapist respite from the real world. Fandom is a microcosm of the real world. 

There are so many parallels between what’s happened in the Sherlock fandom in the last three years with what’s happened on the global political stage. The same discourses we’ve seen wielded so effectively by Trump, Farage and their ilk are afoot in much of the tin hat fandom. Dogma. Conspiracy. Zealotry. Insularity. Religiosity. Xenophobia. Cultishness. Anti-intellectualism.

First under their attack were the formally-trained intellectuals (acafans) then the writers/artists who thought differently, shipped differently. Then the straw men: “casuals.”

They used dog whistles, gaslighting, trolling, doxxing.

A ray of hope 

If we can shed some light, if we can understand what the hell happened with this conspiracy- how it got legs, why and how it grew, how it is that good people got caught up and STAYED caught up in it even after hearing the history (#notall)- we might gain some insight for how effectively to resist the discourse and the oppressive methodologies of the current regime.

bookshop:

This is exactly the point I made in my article on how shipping has increasingly turned into ideology. My article focuses on the thought processes that go into these ideologies, not the methods — the methods mentioned above are increasingly common tactics for every facet of internet discourse at this point — and how shippers have fundamental thought patterns that feed into the idea of their ship as a crusade which hold true regardless of what the pairing is, regardless of whether the ship fictional (e.g. johnlock) or RPF (e.g. larry).

TJLC is a hugely prominent example of this, but I have seen this pattern play out again and again in fandom after fandom: Fans pick an OTP, then a) create a discourse around that ship being a “true” or “canonical” ship, and then b) use that discourse as a reason to demonize an “other,” whether that “other” is an oppositional ship, or a subset of fans who are shippers but who aren’t invested in the ‘truther’ discourse. (It’s rarely an “other” that exists outside of fandom.)

And once these core ingredients are in place — the rationale for the belief that the ship is “true,” and the existence of an othered minority to attack — the toxicity begins and develops en masse, sanctioned by the unshakeable belief in the truth/canonical nature/rightness of the core belief.

In other words, it plays out exactly like crusaderism has played out for centuries.

mid0nz:

Ok so if this is an age old phenomenon in scores of fandoms WHY? Why does it happen? Why is the pattern similar or more or less the same? What is is about fandom, or shipping in particular that makes it ripe for this kind of situation? How do these crusades tend to end? Is there one or another kind of personality that’s likely to lead the charge? What do they gain? What are their weaknesses? What do their followers gain? Why do they attack the others? HOW do they attack the others? What of their strategies are effective and why? Why is there such an unshakable fetish for “truth”? What kinds of relationships do the crusaders have with the putative author (or showrunner)? What kinds of ships tend to be at the center? Is it conversation that spreads the “truth” of a ship? Meta? Fic? What are the hallmarks of a “convincing” argument for the “truth?” What are the similarities among the ships at the center of these storms? How is it that those who don’t believe in the truth of a ship BECOME the minority, or the perceived minority? HOW, IN SHORT, DO THESE CRUSADES FUNCTION? 

pj-gingernuts:

I can attest to the “identity” part of TJLC. While I was following TJLC I felt I was somehow better than those who didn’t know about it. Difference is I was able to entertain other readings and could let go of TJLC completely once I saw the rest of S4. I was also able to just focus on basic construction of the show instead of The Conspiracy. But then, I’m 42, from a different generation than most of TJLC people. I also don’t “engage” in the fandom much but read it like a magazine.

My theory about TJLC’s implosion has a lot to do with it being kids in their teens and early twenties who are searching. I wonder if exploring the connection of this fandom stuff, identity and social/emotional development for millennials and the like would yield some good insight. Delayed adolescence. That kind of thing.

And this is not to say that all TJLC followers are/were people who have not developed emotionally or are all young. But the ones who are sending hate, who are so tightly latched onto their ideology with the ship and the creators “owing” them something - that is identity development related. I can’t remember what it’s called in psychology but there is a name for people who come out of adolescence with an unexplored identity and I think latching onto TJLC may be a result of some of that need for identity.

greyhairedgeekgirl: 

I’m a lit major with an interest in comparative religion as well as comparative lit. I remember seeing the initial interest in “meta” and thinking “wow, there’s some really interesting critical analysis happening over there, isn’t it great how fandom sparks all kinds of thought and writing?”

And then I saw it turn into a cult. I could see the Prophets emerging, some dueling for primacy, others becoming Apostles. I could see the critical play with words and ideas and images becoming hardened, encoded, treated as fact. Treated as Revelation. There was a Revealed Message in a Shared Text, and there were those who claimed to be able to to interpret that message in the Right Way. There were Those who Believed and Would be Vindicated, and Those who Scoffed and Would Suffer.

It’s one of the things that has convinced me of the basic human trending towards religious behavior and thought, actually. As we become “post religious” in modern democracies, as attendance at the traditional houses of any worship decline precipitously, I’d expect to see more of this. More of this replacement of religion with cult-like behaviors around media, around sports, around political candidates. I think that the need for structures and formative narratives and group behaviors runs very, very deep in the human brain, to the point where these types of “movements” emerge.

Here’s the other thing that Series 4 killed in my soul besides beating the crap out of Johnlock … 

OR

What happens when Johnlockers operate in a bubble where critical thought is ostracized in order for them to bask in imagined superiority 

(By alexxphoenix42 and thecutteralicia)

alexxphoenix42:

Here’s the other thing that Series 4 killed in my soul besides beating the crap out of Johnlock … the loss of the idea that anything in the show MEANS anything beyond a surface level reading.

I found it fascinating to follow the metas that people wrote about what all the symbolism revealed in the show. LSiT wrote some amazingly thoughtful stuff and others followed. A drinks code was developed - drinking tea meant gay, coffee meant straight, beer was friendship, wine was romance and social time, hard liquor meant fear, and so on. Side characters mirrored John and Sherlock often in name as much as role, and we seemed to get so much information from them for our two protagonists.

The whole name thing that “William” was Sherlock’s actual first name, and “Hamish” was John’s hidden hated middle name fit into a fantastic theory that heimishtheidealhusband had – the names were code for Sherlock and John’s state of mind. Sherlock wanted to be extraordinary, thought of as high-functioning sociopath, and as such he embraced his oddness, his queerness and reveled in being “Sherlock.” With smoke and mirrors, he hid his fallible, vulnerable human side, his ordinary self called Billy.

John on the other hand, tried desperately to fit in and appear normal, wanting to erase anything weird or unusual about himself. Everything from his middle name, to his destructive impulses, to his bisexuality needed to be under lock and key. And how many other John’s, and Billy’s did we get in this show? The names come up over and over, pointing to things like Billy Wiggins showing a path that Sherlock could have followed, or Jonathan Small, the Mayfly Man, working as a mirror for John in his casual dating of women, using them to reach a special man as his target. So interesting!

The introduction of Sholto to John and Mary’s wedding seemed to be a fantastically coded moment revealing John’s bisexuality more fully in the show. Sherlock planning John’s wedding and knowing the bridesmaids’ dresses were called “LILAC” and then folding napkins to look like swans and opera houses seemed to out him as a lovely camp gay.

So many moments of Sherlock sliding in and out of his mind palace were great fodder for speculation, what was real and what was mind palace? During TAB, it was more obvious that any Victorian era shots were in Sherlock’s drug-addled dream, but some of the “real world” scenes seemed to be fantasy as well. In TSOT, Sherlock slips in and out of his mind palace as he give his epic best man speech. When he interviews women in a courtroom, this is obviously metaphor, but when he sat in 221b with a host of open laptops on a table, this too seemed to be mind palace, just on another inception-like level, worlds within worlds.

I was utterly captivated that a show could BE this clever. I read every meta I could find about how the characters tied together, was Janine Moriarty’s sister, was Mary serving as the Sebastian Moran character in this version of Holmes and Watson? It was heady, creative stuff, and I so enjoyed playing the game, dissecting with the creators gave us to find layers of meaning.

And then Series 4 came out, and nothing made sense. Nothing fit together well. If parts of the series were in the mind palace, we got literally no cues to be able to sort them out. The relationship between John and Sherlock, something that seemed to be at the heart of BBC Sherlock from the beginning got shuffled to the side for some Bond-like splash and dash.

The creators themselves stated several times that the “gay” theme running through the show was a joke, something they lifted from another movie - “The Private Life of Sherlock Holmes” written by Billy Wilder. Wilder made a more openly gay Holmes pining so obviously after his Watson in his version, but played it off for laughs. Later though, he revealed a deep regret that he hadn’t gone further with the queer relationship in the film, saying the 1970’s just weren’t the right time for it.

So, nothing means anything, the gay is a joke, none of the character have anything more interesting going on with them than whatever quick surface reading you can glean, and oh by the way, here’s an explosion. I know some people enjoyed the madness of Series 4, and I’m glad they did. Sadly, though, I found it to be a death of my favorite show, because in the end, I thought BBC Sherlock was something much different from what it actually turned out to be.

The good news to this is that the meta writers, and the fanfic writers, and the artists, and the vid makers continue to be clever, creative people, and we in the fandom can continue to make the Sherlock world and characters come to life with the depth and respect they deserve no matter what the showrunners think about it.

 +++

MY META ON S4
part 1 - The Laws of Good Writing
part 3 - On the death of a partnership


thecutteralicia:

If you believe that characterization means things like invented fictional codes about tea meaning homosexuality or imagined relationships that don’t exist between characters, rather than actual emotional beats and plotlines, it just shows that what people knew all along: you Johnlockers don’t know how to read a text. Your never did. You know how to invent completely fictional “codes” connecting mundane things, but not a single thing about narrative. You don’t know how to debate, to engage, to determine and interrogate evidence like true analysts or academics. Inventing imagined connections between props is not storytelling. Johnlockers operate in a bubble where critical thought is ostracized in order for them to bask in imagined superiority - telling themselves that never having created an original work or written a story doesn’t matter, they are still supremacists above all others, whether it’s other shippers or casual fans or even the actual storytellers and creators of content (Peabody and Emmy Award winning writers).

Johnlockers tried to destroy depth in favor of delusional codes. They tried to destroy respect by attacking the show’s cast, crew and other fans. They replaced the camaraderie of fandom with cultish obedience and nastiness. What’s really interesting to me is that most people are content - and even revel - in their sexual and romantic fantasies. They recognize them for what they are. But Johnlockers lash out because at heart, they are completely insecure regarding their fantasies. Whether trying to wrap it in a false social agenda or simply use it to destroy others, it must mean something to them because they can’t accept they got this invested in a fantasy of two white men gettin’ it on. If you look in the tjlc tag, you can see many posts repeating over and over variants of, “We’re not wrong. We’re never wrong. Everyone else is wrong, including reality.” While other shippers (whether in Sherlock fandom or other ones) are happy to enjoy both canon and their own works (and recognize the difference) if Johnlockers don’t have anyone to look down upon, they don’t exist. They’re like Trump supporters in that way, where it is more important to bubble wrap one’s fragile ego than confront the real world and the realization that you are like every other human being and can be wrong - and you can lash out over and over, but it won’t make the world bend to your will.

It has been gratifying in recent days to see the old fandom come a bit back to life and see several old names return, emboldened, to help return depth and respect to the Sherlock world, characters and fandom that they deserve. If S4 does nothing else but drive away permanently the Johnlockers who tried to hijack and destroy the fandom, it will be worth it.

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.

The Johnlock Conspiracy fallout

 (by ninezku)

I came to Sherlock fandom after season 2 aired.

No, actually: I first stopped after watching ASIP and googled “BBC Sherlock gay?” to see if the show had really gone there, as it seemed from what I had just watched. I was surprised to find out that no, they hadn’t officially gone there. I was so certain, it seemed so obvious! After watching both seasons it felt even more true: all the gay jokes, that scene with John and Irene, John telling his therapist there was something he wished he would have said and so on.

And then I found the fandom and the fic, oh my god, all the wonderful fic. All those clever answers to TRF, all the angst and cases and feels, all the meta and the hiatus jokes and crossovers. It was so much fun.

I remember at some point reading a well-written, interesting fic that had John grieving and then Sherlock returning, all proud and happy about the joke he had managed to play, the whole situation wasn’t that serious at all, and he was somewhat surprised how John hadn’t realised it. And John was furious at him and the fic dealt a long while with how Sherlock came to realise how he had erred with John and there finally was a reconciliation. And I thought to myself: yikes, this is actually something Sherlock could do, but there’s no way this would actually happen. And went back to reading all those other fics with all the painful, complicated answers.

And then season 3 came and that one fic was actually a lot closer to the canon resolution than anything else, no competition. And it felt to me like stepping out of the Matrix: the show was still clever and the relationship between John and Sherlock was still so important, but it wasn’t that clever. And the relationship was definitely not going to go there. I still loved the show, but had to get my expectations in line, took a step back, separated the canon and the fanon in my mind. We had all these great fics and we had this beautiful show. It’s not TPTB’s fault that my expectations didn’t meet with their creation. I was disappointed, but they owed me nothing. I could take it or leave it, and I still wanted to take it.

And so people went four different directions. Some were like me: disappointed with the season but still loving the show and shipping the ship (which is a different thing from wanting/believing the ship to become canon). Others loved the season, maybe despite its flaws, found new ships or continued with their previous ones. Others hated it and left. And the fourth group decided to turn their disappointment into Belief: it couldn’t really have been bad. There had to be an explanation, another reason for all this, a hidden meaning. And so became gay or trash, a conspiracy theory was born.

It only turned bad when the theory became a belief, hopes became demands, doubts became attacks. The meta became Proof, instead of all the discussions, rebuttals and debates it had been. Non-believers became Casuals and homophobes and antis and haters. Any criticism towards TPTB was hate and not allowed. One ship becoming canon became the only true LGBT presentation needed, the only true representation that would define TV history, no matter how it was done, no matter what all the other shows were doing at the same time, on BBC or in other countries. This was the only thing that mattered, this was the thing that would either save or destroy all the LGBT youth, these two white middle-aged man kissing on screen, nothing else would do it.

And because of that representation it was okay to harass and bully and doxx real, actual LGBT people. Even though I’ve seen it happening for a few years now, I’m still absolutely flabbergasted seeing the harassment happening towards Mark Gatiss now. Once again that actual LGBT person is subjected to such hate in the name of a fictional relationship that I have to wonder who it is that they’re actually fighting for, since it certainly doesn’t seem to be real discriminated people - and Gatiss is one from the more privileged side, unlike all the people from fandom who have been treated the same way. (Also I have to wonder why Gatiss is taking the brunt of this - you’d think Moffat as a straight white man would be the more obvious recipient, not that I wanted anyone to be the target!) You can think they queerbaited you or not (although even when I disliked the gay jokes: how can it be queerbaiting when they repeatedly told you it was not going to happen and you just decided to ignore the possibility that they weren’t lying about this one? Sherlock Holmes would be disappointed by something as careless as that), but harassment is not okay either way.

So now it’s again a bit like the situation after season 3. Others are disappointed. Others loved it. Others are leaving. I hope there’s no new religion born this time. YMMV, this is what I’ve felt.

The Johnlock ship is a political problem

 (By mid0nz)

Question: Hi, I understand if you don't want to elaborate on this since you've now several times stated that there's something personal that happened that changed how you feel about the show. But could you explain what political reasons you have for the ship being a problem? I feel like maybe I don't get a connotation here, not being a native speaker. Thanks!

Answer:

KISMET. 

I believe it was my soul’s fate to happen upon Sherlock post S1 and to become so obsessed with it that I did what I’d never done before which was join a fandom. I came to the show having studied film theory in grad school- film sound, the technology of filmmaking, film semiotics, the inner workings of film scores, the materialism of film production. I had studied narrative theory for years and years. I taught film and television narratives as a university literature instructor of undergraduates for over 15 years. I came to Sherlock prepared to recognize the show’s semantic nuances quite clearly and to delight in them until what was meant to happen for me happened. While I waited unawares I wrote meta.

I wrote Johnlock meta for fun. I found the ship (once I figured out what a ship IS) exciting, titillating. I wrote some mediocre fic. I meta’d like the pro I was. I got hung up on the cinematography, a topic I’d dabbled in but didn’t understand in any honest, practical depth until later. And I began to try to explain how shot selection and camera movement and light and color helped make meaning which I’ve always maintained is the work of the viewer ultimately. I used shipping as my case study. I waffled back and forth, argued with myself and others for the sake of fun and exercising my brain and trying out thoughts. (Wank happened but I’m not interested in talking about tjlc right now.)

So I’d written a lot of meta post S2 about my fave episodes and it turns out that they were lit by the same Director of Photography who also happened to have operated “A” camera on the eps. (Not all DoPs operate and if they do, they don’t always operate “A” camera.) I was meant to meet him. Kismet. Destiny. That was the point. I didn’t know it at the time– I just did what I was compelled to do which was to fangirl. And anyway I had no way to contact him until S3 production began and he began tweeting. I eventually asked him if he meant the real lost Vermeer of TGG to be visible in the cinematography. It was THERE but was it conscious? Yes, it turned out it was. I feel that I have been interested for years in the question of authorial “intentionality” and the transmission of a predetermined, transmitted/telegraphed meaning in narratives for the express reason that I was supposed to recognize this one person’s intelligence– the intelligence of that one person behind the camera. That was my destiny. Sherlock was just the conduit in the end for us to meet and for our acquaintanceship to grow into a cherished friendship.

We had many conversations over the years– both joking and philosophical– about Johnlock. I knew from the start that it was never consciously imprinted into the text in any way by him or the directors he worked with. The phenom kind of mystified and mildly amused him at first. Johnlock eventually grew and grew as a pop culture phenom after S3 so we did have some nuanced discussions about it from time to time- conversations about things like this, for example:



Johnlock was a topic that came up prominently in our final entanglement.

We were friends and have become estranged. But this was right, and we do not want to conceal and obscure it from ourselves as if we had reason to feel ashamed. We are two ships each of which has its goal and course; our paths may cross and we may celebrate a feast together, as we did - and then the good ships rested so quietly in one harbor and one sunshine that it may have looked as if they had reached their goal and as if they had one goal. But then the mighty force of our tasks drove us apart again into different seas and sunny zones, and perhaps we shall never see each other again; perhaps we shall meet again but fail to recognize each other: our exposure to different seas and suns has changed us. ― Roland Barthes

  

Looking back now it was inevitable I suppose. The context of our last musings on Johnlock and its consequences made it crystal clear to me that the ship is this dangerous kind of cosmic lightning rod. If there are concepts that have mythic-level powers then that ship is one of them. John and Sherlock are these other worldly archetypes with the ability to utterly entrance people, to blind them to sense and to make them fall into a deep obsession with the world of 221b. It’s been that way since “A Study in Scarlet” found its first audience. Imbue Sherlock and John’s story with sex and/or romance and what do you get? I have mainly experienced incredible turmoil and massive psychic destruction.

What do you see going around you now in the fandom after The Final Problem?



Our problem. The final problem. Have you figured it out yet?

 

Sherlock beguiles us. Johnlock entices us from our moorings.

THE FINAL PROBLEM IS FUCKING JOHNLOCK.

The bastard form of mass culture is humiliated repetition… always new books, new programs, new films, news items, but always the same meaning. -Roland Barthes

What is the meaning of Johnlock? How in rereading it might we disarm its power over us?

OH YEAH, THE POLITICAL PART! 

Here is one example of Johnlock at play in the wild. How many months were spent by how many people (most of them female let’s be honest) who were convinced that is would have been a Very Good Idea for Mofftiss (an imaginary entity) to HIDE the sexual attraction/romance between two men for YEARS until a grand reveal- a reveal that was, however, only anticipated, only visible to those in the know, with the secret keys to decode The Love That Dare Not Speak Its Name?

 

Why the draw? It’s not just powerful adults brainwashing the queer youth as tumblr would have you believe. No. Johnlock is a vortex, a shorthand for every kind of power implied by the inner workings of its narrative. Sex, drugs, infidelity, secrecy, shame, hubris, ego, hedonism, desire, bodily fluids. Johnlock is inherently political.

Johnlock is the pattern formed when magnetic shavings collide on a table. It’s the phallus, the phalluses, in the steel dust.

How many problematic things come to fruition in The Final Problem? Sexism. The erasure of race (a non issue). The worship of the male genius, the pathologizing of the female, the fetish for the trappings of wealth, class difference as comedy, the unbearable romanticization of the Byronic…junkie, smackhead, who everyone serves. (How does Wiggins get by I wonder?)

I loved the episode– not because it wrapped everything up in a bow of domestic bliss and semantic certainty, but because it did quite the opposite. It blew apart– literally blew apart– the domestic petri dish that gave birth to Johnlock. And in the 221b explosion went the trappings of some twisted homonormative imperative marriage plot demanded by the show’s most obsessed, most rabid fans in the name of queer representation “a happy ending.” Those fans who degraded and damaged hundreds of real people in the name of fidelity to the coupling of TV show characters and the author-gods they made and worshiped like…dads.

Somehow The Final Problem broke the fucking spell. It derailed the fantasy and dismantled, in many permanent ways, the Johnlock “community.”

Moffat and Gatiss laid waste to Mofftiss.

We laid waste to us.