I just had a look at your blogs and they look very interesting. Hope to see more of those. 

As for the other question: I was quite astonished to read about the homophobic accusations as I did not have any such notions while watching the episodes. And I am usually quite sensitive about these matters. As for Moffat I am not familiar with Dr Who and the discussions about the show. But I cannot believe that a show co-created by Mark would have any such tendencies. He is not only openly gay but also an activist with LLGS. 

Swanpride: More posts. Two blogs are a lot of work, I suppose. 

There's a huge difference between a writer presenting material that others can find offensive or disturbing (whether homophobic or homophilic, depending on the audience offended or disturbed) and that writer *being* homophobic.

A writer can't write a realistic, honest show without also writing characters of many spectrums, with many complicated reactions to sexuality.

Case in point: Irene. No, she's not an ideal poster child for lesbianism. But, then, she's not a poster child for anything. She's an attempt to create a character as scandalous and boundary-crossing as the original Irene in a culture with a lot fewer boundaries. She's an attempt to create an intelligent woman in balance with Sherlock who remains a) out of Sherlock's real grasp, b) sexually compelling while not being someone Sherlock could ever dream of "possessing"--always a bit of a fantasy, just out of reach. Most of all, she's someone who, like the original, hits Sherlock on two levels--mind and body--of which he and she are both most fixated on mind. Lesbian prostitute dominatrix Irene fills those obligations to the original quite well.

We already know from canon (new AND old) that Irene sexually misbehaves with men, which by default makes Sherlock a not-unreasonable target for her on the utility level. She'd be as willing to use Sherlock as any other potential client/victim. The big question is whether she could care for him, too--love him intensely, even if it's not her sexual preference, and whether that love would ever make her stop being sexually oriented as a lesbian.

Ruling out that she could love him with fierce fixation because she's a lesbian rules out the idea that John, too, could love him with a fierce fixation.  Which, IMO, is what that key conversation in the warehouse was about: John and Irene both in their respective ways saying, "What IS it about this guy? He's way outside our normal sexual inclinations, but OMG, that mind! That character!"

One of the reasons I think they then have Sherlock so shaken after overhearing the conversation is that there he is, celibate, virginal, with two people who could slip into the Significant Other position in his life if he dared--and neither will ever be a "natural" fit sexually. The love will always be there, the seuxal markers never will naturally. For Irene it's less of a practical problem because she's already willing to cross the barrier for profit and convenience, but it's still real: Irene can and does sleep with men, but she's sexually and romantically inclined toward other women. 

IMO they made Irene lesbian for two reasons: first, it does ensure almost as completely as the original's "marraige" that she'll never completely be available to Sherlock: it will always involve compensation and compromise at the very best. Second, though, and most important of all, is that parallel with John: I think Moffat wanted that little scene between the two, in which it's made clear that both characters can be intensely drawn to Sherlock outside their own sexual parameters without actually losing those parameters. She and John are reflections of each other's sexual boundaries, both cut off from any overwhelming desire to be Sherlock's lovers while hungering to find some way to achieve intimacy with him. Irene is *not* the lesbian who converts upon meeting the right man, she's a lesbian who never converts but who still finds a man as compelling to her outside sexuality as he would be if he WERE inside her sexual parameters. Just as John's struggling with a love as enormous as most sexual True Love, without his relationship with Sherlock being sexual True Love.

Which, to me, is a lot fo what Moffat keeps trying to say: "Sherlock" is a love story...but it's not a sexual romance. And it's a lot about watching two men come to terms with the entire complexity of having someone you love that much--that completely--*without* the easy excuse of romance. Take away Sherlock's celibacy, take away John's straight alignment, take away even Irene's lesbian standing, and you take away the core question: What is it to completely love someone when there's no biology pushing it along? How deeply can we love someone who will never be a lover, but always a "friend"?

The answer from Moffat and Gatiss continues to be "You can love someone so completely and so profoundly that it becomes almost impossible to tell the difference between sexual/romantic love and friendship," Irene's right: John and Sherlock are "a couple." But they're not a sexual couple. Similarly Irene's deeply attracted to Sherlock's mind, without being extraordinarily drawn to him sexually. (Laugh) Both of them really are in love with his mind, not his body.

NONE of that is about homophobia, and all about trying to understand and respect characters and consider the broad range of love. Stripping it down to offense over how the show differs from an idealized world in which all gender preferences are shown as they would wish to be misses the actual point and message: that we're all so much more than our gender identity, and all so precious regardless. That we all love--regardless. That we're all vulnerable--regardless. That we can all be shaken to the core by people outside our preference ranges--regardless. 

For me a huge part of SiB comes down to that key scene between John and Irene, and the aftermath. Celibate, virginal Sherlock hearing the two people he could most easily imagine loving each stating their conundrum: that they care about him to the point of complete distraction and confusion, but are not sexually drawn to him. His two best answers, and both ultimately are non-answers--at least, to the question of Sherlock and sexuality. Both are answers to the question of Sherlock and love.

That's not a story told out of a disrespect for either gays or straights. It's not a story about a failed lesbian. It's not a story about sexual desire, but about love that keeps knocking sexual desire into complete confusion.  There they are, the poor dears, all three gobsmacked by impossible longings and loneliness, and not one, even Genius Holmes, having any idea what to do about it.

Reducing it to a story of Irene-the-lesbian "falling in love with" the Right Straight Male misses the point that her love is no more sexual, ultimately, than is John's...and that this is the tragedy for Sherlock. Neither potential lover will ever manage to make romantic and platonic love mesh for him, yet both will love him, and be obsessed by him, in ways that are just as intense as sexual and romantic love are.
 

I think of it as "tragic" for the reasons Mycroft lays out during the reveal on the Bond Air situation and in the "pirates" speech. Baby Bro is lonely, naive, and more than a bit of a romantic. Even after overhearing the warehouse sequence, he's capable of wanting to believe Irene offers him the romantic answer to his isolation: brains and sex and friendship in one wild, wicked, dangerous package. Similarly if sex.romance were involved, John could be a different "right answer."

SiB makes it clear that even having chosen celibacy and "married to my work," Sherlock's quite capable of wanting more. (wry grin) That, to me, is in keeping with Moffat's own comments that, yes, Sherlock does fancy Irene (original and current versions), and that his celibacy is a choice, not a gender idenitity. It's a form of asceticism, not an inate preference. That being the case, SiB is a study of a man with multiple options open to him, none of which is (currently) quite right, and whose inner longings make him succeptible to the temptation of thinking something might work. He's vulnerable because the longing is real. 

That fits at least one sensible interpretation of the origial character as Doyle wrote him, too: Sherlock Rev.I was always quite willing to play hero and rescue the damsel, even if he did try to pretend disinterest. (chuckle) Sherlock is a bit unconvincing in his "emotionless detatchment" in both incarnations, original Doyle flavor and all-new Mofftis flavor blend. He thinks he's Spock more than he really is Spock...and in misunderstanding his own nature, he opens himself up to particular kinds of error.

So, yeah. I do see it as a bit tragic. But most of us have our tragedies. Sherlock's not that different.

I can see wanting Irene to walk out proud and thrive on her own with a Plan B. I can also see why they didn't do it that way, though: the ending they picked underlines just *how* critical that phone really was to Irene, it allows them to show she really does love Sherlock in her way, and it allows them to show clever, clever Sherlock indulging in that pirate-swashbuckling rescue-the-damsel thing. It would have been a hard call for me...each route out offers different benefits and costs. As it is, Irene technically won every single round but the one that lost her the battle with Mycroft. Even the rescue is a win: she's ultimately succeeded in putting a leash of ongoing affection on Sherlock, after all. As she's a guile hero more than an action hero, it's within her natural parameters to "win" by coopting others to do her action work, and she's done that successfully at the end of the ep. She wins--it's just win-win, as Sherlock gets to play action hero, which one honestly doubts he fails to adore doing.

Mycroft, to me, is one of the most fascinating characters in the entire show, and certainly in the episode. He's so clearly failed to avoid caring no matter what he recommends, and while he can hope Baby Brother will avoid that whole mess of feeling and faltering, he's also so absolutely the one solid anchor of love and stability Sherlock had until Lestrade and John and Mrs. Hudson and (in her own way) Molly got dealt in.  Sherlock may tell himself that Big Brother is cold and in control--but it's no more true than what he thinks about himself. Both brothers appear to confuse isolation and alienation with detatchment and dispassion. Both are isolated and alienated from common society. Neither is detatched or dispassionate, though--not toward each other or toward the major issues and people in their lives.

Edit/Query:  This thread--or my portion, anyway--is swinging out of the entire "homophobia" question as of this post. Is there a better place to continue this conversation?

Last edited by TammanyT (December 2, 2013 7:22 am)

besleybean wrote:

All other cases like Irene, are merely part of that journey, altho he genuinely liked Irene
Oh amd Tammany I agree with yuor last comment, but it was good discussion!.

If it's a good discussion, where else can we take it? Because I could respond to your post, but it would continue to be off-topic for the thread for the most part.
 

Last edited by TammanyT (December 2, 2013 8:58 am)

Ok. New Topic started, still within the "Character Analysis" grouping.

>>Romance/Relationships/Emotions, Sherlock, Cont. from homophobia thread

Anyone who feels like discussing the emotional vagaries of either of the Holmes Boys is welcome to shamble on in.