lol. Well I do play the violin too, like every other viola player on the planet.

I choose to play the viola  . 

So bring on the jokes because, yk, its unlikely I've heard any of them before ;-)

 

Ok. This piece is not in Hello. Its in the foremost, best respected, left wing newspaper in Britain. He expressed political opinions. It seems to me that its unlikely he was deliberately misrepresented, rather that he expressed his opinion perhaps unclearly.And if he'd expressed the original opinion, I'd a. have vehemently disagreed, and b. thought, oh god, another public schoolboy expressing a simplistic opinion. The opinion has been corrected-and they printed that. Fair enough, I think. They haven't treated him especially badly. Like I say, its not Hello. He's a good actor, his opinions are interesting, but its reasonable to debate them in just the same way as any other opinions someone has expressed and its also reasonable, I think, to look at the life experience behind them-which in his case includes education at a school that both costs, annually more than the British average wage, and which is pretty much a prerequisite for entrance to the highest echelons of British society.

Public schoolboys are really not an oppressed group in British society. They make up most of the corridors of powers. I'm sure he'll cope. The fact is, he actually got to get his views across in a major British paper. Privilege in and of itself.

I really want to come back to the ideas about race. Obviously, we come from different viewpoints here but I'd see race representation as important. 

London is a city where white British born people are in the minority. (incidentally, as a Londoner that statistic gives me nothing but pride, I'm so proud of our diversity-I really love it). Sherlock is set in 21 st century London. Even aside from my feelings around the importance of representation, to have an nearly-all white London feels enormously inauthentic. Why on earth not have more black extras? I can't see a reason on this earth not to have black lead characters, or symathetic secondaries, but even if that's felt not to be ok, why not have extras in the crowd scenes that actually reflect London-particularly the North and Central London which I'm familiar with, and in which Sherlock is set?  Make a positive decision to recruit a good percentage of black actors? This isn't actually about pcness, its about making a show that reflects 21st century London. 

Regarding the portrayal of the Chinese characters in the Blind Banker. Well first off, they were all villains, with the possible exception of Soo Lin. But also, the idea of sinister, yet agile, Asians infiltrating the West really is an unfortunate stereotype that I'm honestly surprised they showed. I'm all for being as authentic as possible to the stories, but Conan Doyle's casul, 19c racism-not so much. ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yellow_Peril). Its 21st century Holmes and that means more than smartphones. 

What I truly think is going on here is not that the showrunners are covert racists, but that this isn't something that registers for them. I think, as someone else said, if you are white its enormously easy not to notice how many people of colour there are in the show. And I do understand how that seems to be a good thing, how being "colour blind" might seem to mean you are also not prejudiced, but I think unfortunately it can also mean you don't r

Can I gently suggest that the experiences of those who are actually non-straight, who have experienced homophobia, might be slightly different? Homophobia is quite a nuanced thing, and often experiencing it isn't logical, its about hints and suggestion, about having sterotypes thrown at us again and again. I think people have specific objections to the representation of minorities in Sherlock, with most issues occuring where Moffat is the writer.

I love Sherlock, I really do, and I would not say that generally its a homophobic show. But tbh I don't think anyone is suggesting that, really, not from what I've read. Its been accused specifically of queerbaiting, which isn't exactly homophobia-its trying to pull in gay viewers by giving them just enough to make them think they are being represented, without confirming enough to put off straight viewers. I think, yes, Sherlock does do that a bit actually, and the episodes which are probably the worst for that are the ones not written by Gatiss. I'm on the fence anyway about queerbaiting. I think is not great but its a sign of the society we live in more than anything, and for LGBT teens, or older people working through their sexuality, I do think that the representation on shows like Sherlock is better than nothing. 

But I think what people are really objecting to is some of Moffats personal views, expressed both through the show and in interview. Irene Adler was a big issue for lesbians/bi women for a number of reasons, but mainly that she played into the whole lesbian-til-man-comes-along thing and didn't seem to have a strong, believable lesbian identity at all, her sexuality seemed a titilating afterthought. Gatiss may be gay but he is a gay man and there is not a single female writer on Sherlock-or Doctor Who. The experiences of lesbians and bi women are fundamentally very, very different to those of gay men and I would not say that there's much evidence that gay male writers tend to lead to greater lesbia

:-) I'm not on the computer much right now, so if I have a go it will go pretty slowly. Does someone else want a turn?

A

I have, probably when I was about 11 or so. And I bloody envy those of you who haven't, you had that to come :-).

I'd love to find a really well read audio book, with a more modern Watson, as opposed to those harrumphing country doctor types they normally have. No one in Britain actually speaks like that any more. My partner and I have a six hour round trip journey at the weekend and I was going to get something off audible but I was really put off by the stuff there. OTOH the reading of the House of Silk (the Anthony Horowitz tribute) is superlative.

I don't especially want a turn, btw, although I guess I will take one if need be. But please please take my go if you want a turn.

Now shut up and smoke 

(but I'm not at home today so someone else take my go pls)

But it is John who Mycroft reads, not Sherlock. Mycroft has never suggested to Sherlock that anything is going on between them, only to John. 

This could be because he's trying to goad John. But why? And why in that particular way? (as every single person who has been a sibling knows...you only bother teasing with something people will rise to...and nothing will get a rise so much as something someone is uncertain about themself)

I'm so not a shipper-I'm certainly not suggesting anything going on there. Really not. But I think that the relationship with Sherlock may have rattled John, and that Mycroft uses this to psychological effect.

John is into the ladies, without a doubt. But almost to a silly extent. Almost like he's trying to prove something. And he drops them when Sherlock snaps his fingers. 

TBH more than anything I think its a show about two men with a lot of emotional maturing to do. The way they act remind me of the way my 10 year old son is with his friends, doing their boy adventures with sticks and so on. The trouble I think is actually with mapping those intense, tween friendships onto middle aged men. 10 year old boys are pretty "yuk, girls" IME. When a 35 year old man is the adult equivalent of "yuk, girls" we think, "hmmmmm, interesting.".