Sherlock might be gay, that has never been answered. So he might be, and he might not. That is not queerbaiting, that is just leaving the question open. The main point here as I see it is that it doesn't matter if he's gay or not, because he is not going to act upon it. (Also, considering that Benedict seems to think Sherlock had sex with Irene, he at least doesn't see him as gay).

Having it an open question whether or not Sherlock is gay is not the same as heavily implying that he falls in love with John. 

Point is - there is a lot in the show that is written or done in such a way that it can be open to interpretation. It can be interpreted as Johnlock, but it works just as well as "only" friendship. What Moftiss has done now, as they have done several times in the past. is letting us know which of those interpretations won't happen.

I don't see that as queerbaiting. They are actually being quite honest about it.

Vhanja, I agree, being pro-representation doesn't mean they have to make the main characters of every show they write LGBT.   I think what they have done in Sherlock, is "normalised" (for lack of a better word - it's not the one I want at the moment) it.   They've created an atmosphere in the show where it's certainly not normal to be homophobic.   John wonders if Sherlock is gay, but without any judgment, and can freely ask him about it.  Mrs Hudson assumes, and is delighted with the idea of them being a couple.   The innkeepers appear to be openly, happily together.  I'm not sure this could have been done thirty years ago, or certainly not without comment. 

Liberty wrote:

Mothonthemantel wrote:

Ref gay jokes.

The very first comments on John Watson's blog have John writing Sherlock might be gay. That was John's initial impression of Sherlock Holmes. Later John asks about girlfriends and Sherlock seems to confirm no interest in women but no boyfriend. None of those are jokes?
Later Ansgelo and Mrs Hudson and Sherlocks own brother imply to John Sherlock is gay and John is his boyfriend it's funny because they just met not because there's no way they could be gay.
The writers and cast members then go on to all give interviews claiming to have written a love story and MF even comments how it's the gayest story ever in series one promos.
From the very beginning we had a heavily implied gay Sherlock falling in love with a not gay John.
That is how they presented and promoted their show from the start.

But when it comes down to the nitty-gritty, what they actually show us about the characters, it has been pretty clear - John is only seen dating women.  Sherlock's more ambiguous, really because he avoids romantic relationships, so there's nothing to pin on him.   But they do show an attraction to a woman, hint at another one, and no attractions to men.   (I'm still happy to believe that Sherlock could go either way, but I can't deny that what they've actually shown us so far leans towards him being straight). 

They've always represented it as a friendship, two men who love each other.   Martin Freeman has always said it's a friendship, it's platonic, etc.   I can't think of anything they've said that contradicts that.   I could find some quotes if you like about how they see the relationship, but it's honestly pretty consistent.

The conversation at Angelo's is funny because Sherlock misunderstands John and thinks he's asking him out, and that's slightly socially embarrassing.   If it's not clear from that scene that Sherlock doesn't have boyfriends or girlfriends, it's clear from the rest of the show.   Cleary, John didn't get the impression that Sherlock was definitely gay, because he later asks Mrs Hudson if he's had boyfriends or girlfriends - he still doesn't know.    And I don't think we know either, but Irene does put a spanner in the works!   And then the conversation in TAB where Sherlock explores his sexuality - he only talks about women.   I'm not trying to make a case for him being straight.  I don't think it matters too much, unless they decide to show him doing something that involves his sexual orientation.  I'm just making a case that they certainly haven't defined him as gay. 

I don't actually argue johnlock, I even wrote a not gay John.I argue that Sherlock is presented as heavily hinted to be gay. Yes it is my assumption but it also the assumption of Angelo Mrs Hudson Mycroft and John . In the show.All of whom I assume are better acquainted with Sherlock than me. ( the audience )
Irene confuses people because she flustered Sherlock when naked , I find that funny. Sally Donovan would be flustered , anyone and everyone would , except perhaps a true sociopath. Which in my opinion was the point of that scene - Sherlock not being a sociopath.
I agree the writers have consistently denied Johnlock.
However You could find a quote easily where they say Sherlock is not gay and I could find one where they say he is not straight or not asexual or a sexual volcano!
This only highlights how incoherent and irrelevant the things they say are.
I get that you give authorial intent much kudos but for myself (and Wikipedia has a great page on authorial intent ) I find them irrelevant and paradoxical and prefer new criticism
. If they have written a story about humanizing Doyle's cold calculating Babbage machine falling in love and  being the very opposite of the self claimed high functioning socipath then showing him having and acting on his emotions is crucial.  Yes it should be ordinary and normal and unremarkable that Sherlock might be gay but sexuality is one of the primary impulses and motivators of humanity and so becomes very relevant in any understanding of a humanized Sherlock.
I am amazed anyone actually pays attention to anything the writers and actors say anymore. So many years and so many hours spent talking while attempting to give away nothing . For me it's got to the point where the output of creativity, beauty , art , fiction , meta and intelligence far exceeds the input.

Last edited by Mothonthemantel (July 30, 2016 3:06 pm)

Mothonthemantel wrote:

I don't actually argue johnlock, I even wrote a not gay John.I argue that Sherlock is presented as heavily hinted to be gay. Yes it is my assumption but it also the assumption of Angelo Mrs Hudson Mycroft and John . In the show.All of whom I assume are better acquainted with Sherlock than me. ( the audience )
Irene confuses people because she flustered Sherlock when naked , I find that funny. Sally Donovan would be flustered , anyone and everyone would , except perhaps a true sociopath. Which in my opinion was the point of that scene - Sherlock not being a sociopath.
I agree the writers have consistently denied Johnlock.
However You could find a quote easily where they say Sherlock is not gay and I could find one where they say he is not straight or not asexual or a sexual volcano!
This only highlights how incoherent and irrelevant the things they say are.
I get that you give authorial intent much kudos but for myself (and Wikipedia has a great page on authorial intent ) I find them irrelevant and paradoxical and prefer new criticism
. If they have written a story about humanizing Doyle's cold calculating Babbage machine falling in love and being the very opposite of the self claimed high functioning socipath then showing him having and acting on his emotions is crucial. Yes it should be ordinary and normal and unremarkable that Sherlock might be gay but sexuality is one of the primary impulses and motivators of humanity and so becomes very relevant in any understanding of a humanized Sherlock.
I am amazed anyone actually pays attention to anything the writers and actors say anymore. So many years and so many hours spent talking while attempting to give away nothing . For me it's got to the point where the output of creativity, beauty , art , fiction , meta and intelligence far exceeds the input.

Very nice points, Moth! Especially about their absolutely contradictory views on the same thing (claiming that Sherlock is asexual in one interview, then in the next he is sexual volcano).

On Mofftiss using lies to hype the show:
For myself, I remember very nicely how Mofftiss claimed that TRF contains "the clue that nobody noticed but which is crucial to the solution". Fans were trying for two years to find that elusive clue - and in the end it was not delivered at all. It was simply a bait and a case of false advertising with the intent of creating the hype.

They are certainly not above baiting, they proved it again and again.

SolarSystem wrote:

mrshouse wrote:

- For myself: I care less and less.

I'm totally late to the party, but let me just say: YES, I'm, feeling the same. Totally. I'm reading that article, I'm reading the reactions here and on tumblr and I'm just thinking 'I'm almost over it. I don't really care anymore. It won't take long and this will just be like any other tv show to me'.
 

It is such a sad outcome if the creators make their former passionate fans feel like that. And with the new series of the show at hand, no less. 
 

Mothonthemantel wrote:

Agree with the sadness Nakahara. Time hopefully will heal .

@My theory on that clue people missed was Sherlock crying on the roof. Sociopaths don't cry . I also think they give themselves too much credit for writing Sherlock as a sociopathic uncaring machine becoming more human in the first place. I never saw him that way rather it was his protection from the cruel world ( aka Mycroft ) .Of course if it was the tears they would have to explain why he cried and his love and care for John and friends . So .

Good points, Liberty. I do think they have mixed it a bit up with the labels, especially things like "asexual" and "sosiopath". Benedict has said various contradictory things about these particular things through the years. 

However, you can't blame the writers for some people losing interest. That happens all the time in a long-running show. Some love it immediately, some hate it immediately. Some grow to love it as time goes, some tires of it as time goes. That is how it is, and is no fault of the writers. People are different and we react to the show in different ways (just look at this thread).

If you're gonna fault them for some people losing interest, then they should also get the credit for all the people who still love the show.

I agree. I have a feeling they might not know what the terms actually mean.

I also think they have a bit of a dilemma in that they seemed to be starting out at the beginning and I know they mentioned something about showing how a young man grew into the mature (e.g. Rathbone) Sherlock Holmes we see in most adaptations.  But there is so much time between series that Sherlock is no longer young - both actors are now in their 40s, and they've done the big stories already.   

We're now in a kind of parallel to Rathbone et al: this is a Sherlock approaching middle age.   And actually, we seem to be going in a different direction - to a less controlled, more emotional Sherlock, as he matures, perhaps. 

I've been thinking a lot about Benedict's comments about his progression in S4, along with Moftiss saying that there are now more Rathbone references (I think they meant generally, rather than character development but we'll see).   I probably need to rewatch some Rathbone before hand, because I think of him being the other way (less emotional, less connected to people, etc.) but I may well have misremembered.

Which is starting to get OT a little, sorry, but maybe relevant in the "where are they going"/"what story are they telling" sense.

Last edited by Liberty (July 30, 2016 6:35 pm)

All I'm saying is, not throwing away the glitter yet.