Anonymous said: I'm sorry if this comes as offensive because I'm not trying to offend you: your metas and your slow mo gifs are entertaining and funny but half of the things you say don't make sense to me. I'm not homophobic (the thousands of fanfics are enough proof of that) but I fail to see Johnlock. I'm not kidding. I don't see it. When I talk to nay-ers they say it's because the johnlockers are crazy. Now I'll try to ask the other side. Who'd the crazy in your opinion?
Hello! No need to apologize, I’m not offended. And thanks re: the metas and gifs. :)
I don’t think either “side” is crazy. And I definitely don’t think everyone who doesn’t believe John and Sherlock are in love is homophobic. That’s absolutely untrue.
I do think the heteronormative lens is very powerful, and difficult to comprehend (especially for those who don’t want to accept it exists). This has been said many times, but the simplest way to put it is that if the roles of Sherlock and John had been cast as a man and a woman and the writing and everything else remained the same, the debate would not exist at all. Sexual tension between a man and a woman is never explained away as a sort of coincidental element in their particularly deep platonic friendship. Even if people didn’t ship the couple, they’d still see where the show was going. A slow-building romance.
Here’s a simpler way to say it: viewers generally default characters to heterosexual unless explicitly told otherwise through dialogue or blatant stereotyping.
As far as things in my metas not making sense, I understand what you’re saying. And you’ve asked me this very respectfully, so please know I’m answering honestly here and am not in any way trying to insult you.
I write fiction for a living. It’s not a hobby – it’s how I pay the bills. I have a few novels in bookstores and several more under contract. I also teach creative writing, and I’ve written a few scripts for a very small production company. That’s why my metas focus mostly on metaphor and subtext and such, because those are standards in any writer’s toolbox. I know how to use them, and I know how to identify them when they’re used by other writers. Moffat, Gatiss, and Thompson are highly experienced, skilled, successful writers. They know what they’re doing.
You’ve probably read other metas on this show as well. Some are written by film school students and graduates. Some are written by actors. Some are written by photographers, some are written by gender studies majors, musicians, doctors…and so on. They all use their expertise to shed light on certain elements of this show. And at one point or another, a lot of them have been called crazy, too.
Some people think claiming that an episode of a show contains an metaphorical mystery illustrating one character’s unspoken revelation of love sounds crazy.
To a writer, it’s not crazy at all.
Some people think analyzing the objects on a character’s desk in order to better interpret his mental state sounds crazy.
To a production designer, it’s not crazy at all.
Some people think using lighting and shot composition to explain a character’s emotions or secret desires sounds crazy.
To a still photographer, it’s not crazy at all.
Some people think studying themes and motifs in a soundtrack to interpret character motive and mood sounds crazy.
To a composer, it’s not crazy at all.
Some people think claiming viewers are wildly misinterpreting the main character arc in a popular show thanks to an institutionalized ideological system which asserts that heterosexuality is the norm sounds crazy.
To a gender studies academic, it’s not crazy at all.
There are many, many roles involved in putting together a show or film. Roles filled by educated, experienced individuals all collaborating to tell a story. Subtext and lighting and set design, all of it – there are teams of people dedicated to this stuff. Don’t believe me? Do your research! ;)
That’s why I cringe when I read comments about “over-analyzation” and “reading too much into it” and “tortured metaphors” and “delusional.” Not because I’m offended, but because the commenter is oblivious to how ignorant they sound. (Not you, Anon!)
Frankly, this is also why I cringe when I read things like “stop making arguments based on a ship that isn’t even canon!” or “it’s not canon yet, you’re just seeing what you want to see!” Well…false.
There are nine episodes of canon. A canonical romance does not magically appear from nothing when two pairs of lips touch. Canon is foundation. Canon is structure. Canon is building towards something. The writers and all of the cast and crew have given us nine episodes of canon. Good storytelling is about much more than The End.
I’m absolutely not saying all the metas (including my own) are hitting the nail on the head every single time – theories are theories. But I, and a lot of meta writers, are basing our observations on facts.
To end on a positive note, here’s where I confess something bordering on blasphemy: I love hiatus. I really do. As excited as I am to find out what happens next, I love having all this time to absorb and digest these few episodes, to pick them apart and discover new connections, to speculate on what’s to come. And I appreciate that this extra-long wait is the reason this show is so high-quality. Sure, it’d be great if we got three more episodes this coming January. But would they be as good when written, filmed, and edited under such a rush? We all joke about how hiatus is torture, but I think it’s one of the most fun parts of being a fan of this show.
Hell, maybe I really am just crazy after all.
This is so far the best blog I’ve ever found on deducing Sherlock. Love the way a proper writer picks the show apart to help us find beautiful subtle things hidden here and there. Respect <3