Liberty wrote:

As I said, other interpretations are possible.   But for me, the story behind it, consistent with other episodes, is that he is suppressing romantic/sexual feelings in general, not that he's suppressing a particular orientation.   This is modern day Sherlock's mind palace, and in the modern day setting they make a point that it's not an issue: everybody from sweet, elderly landladies, to criminals, to ex-servicemen is fine with it.   And in the Victorian mind palace, they could have made a thing of it, but they completely bypassed it and focused on women instead.   Sherlock is essentially questioning himself here, and his version of John Watson doesn't show any homophobia, but is understanding, caring and perceptive. 

The reason (I think) that he's uneasy about admitting it to himself is that he's tried so hard to suppress it.   He doesn't want to be "normal".  He wants to be above all that, he wants his mind to function better (as taught by Mycroft, no doubt) and, I suspect, he might also be afraid of getting hurt.  He has the "proof" that his mind would be affected (although I think it's his judgment rather than his mental acuity) because of his massive mistake with Irene, and her massive mistake with him.   But going deeper, I do think there's some regret about removing himself from that arena, and I feel it very strongly at the end of TSOT, when he looks round at all the imperfect couples and leaves on his own. 
 

Once again it gets to the issue of personal interpretation. I believe the Victorian segment of TAB was created with the intention to more or less portray the era as it was, up to the point of Moriarty´s appearance. The characters are thus not merely Sherlock´s hallucination, but they represent the Victorian era and her trappings to the big extent. That would explain why the conservative TAB Watson was portrayed as a misogynist here whereas our modern John Watson never was so callous to women. Story-wise (especially because the scene was more or less borrowed from TPLOSH), the scenes are certain portrayal of the times 100 hundred years ago, not mere Sherlock´s introspection.

But we don't see Watson being homophobic.  His Victorian attitude to women is entirely related to the case.   The whole episode covers women's place,  women's roles, relationships with women, etc., not homosexuality.  Women's rights are talked about, not gay rights.   So how are we supposed to deduce that this conversation can only be about Sherlock being gay? 

And sorry, I cross-posted and missed your comment about the pilot.  Lady C is an invention of Sherlock's, but I think he must have noticed the pilot and found her appealing - no big deal, but it does seem to show that he's not always quite as oblivious as he makes out and can notice an attractive woman.  Why should he show any reaction to her?  He's not looking for a date, he doesn't do relationships. 

Last edited by Liberty (July 31, 2016 7:57 am)

Liberty wrote:

But we don't see Watson being homophobic.  His Victorian attitude to women is entirely related to the case.   The whole episode covers women's place,  women's roles, relationships with women, etc., not homosexuality.  Women's rights are talked about, not gay rights.   So how are we supposed to deduce that this conversation can only be about Sherlock being gay? 

And sorry, I cross-posted and missed your comment about the pilot.  Lady C is an invention of Sherlock's, but I think he must have noticed the pilot and found her appealing - no big deal, but it does seem to show that he's not always quite as oblivious as he makes out and can notice an attractive woman.  Why should he show any reaction to her?  He's not looking for a date, he doesn't do relationships. 

The feminism is the central theme of TAB but that doesn´t mean we don´t have other themes mixed into it: for example the problem of drug abuse, Mycroft´s concern and brotherly love, the reflexion on reality and illusions, etc.

Gay issue could only be the minor thing in this context but there´s no indication it can´t appear at all because the episode concerns itself with women rights mostly. Sherlock could be introspecting on his own reluctance of getting involved in relationships and the Victorian era could help him to realise that the reason is his gay identity and fear of committing to it.

To me, the appearance of the pilot as Lady Carmichael only indicates that Sherlock is aware of his surroundings to some extent, even as he is buried in his day dream. Nothing about his attraction to women or lack thereof.
 

The thing is, yes, they could make gay issues and homophobia a minor theme, but they don't.   The other things you mention, Nakahara, the drug issues, the relationship with Mycroft, etc. are there explicitly in the text, but gay issues are nowhere to be seen.    But it's stated from the beginning that modern day Sherlock does not have an issue with it ("I know it's fine"). 

(I don't think it's Lady Carmichael being the pilot that shows Sherlock is attracted, by the way, but the conversation in TAB.  I think it's clearly talking about sexual and romantic attraction.  There's a parallel exchange in the same conversation about Irene.   And he's clearly on edge and uncomfortable about it - I don't think he'd be so uncomfortable if Watson wasn't getting to the truth.)  If he was just gay and embarrassed to admit it to himself, then he could just sidestep the issue by agreeing with Watson - trying to argue that he isn't attracted to the women isn't a very good way of trying to pretend he isn't gay!
 

besleybean wrote:

Oh, some posts were deleted!

I just don't understand why the team can't make the show they want and how they want to.
I hope it's self-evident none of them are homophobes, same as they aren't racist, sexist or ageist etc.
But they have to be given the freedom to write how they choose.
It is a TV drama and at the end of the day, it is a case of we either like it and watch it or we don't.
As I previously mentioned, with it being a BBC show: UK license payers may feel some entitlement.
Also, Sherlockians may feel some entitlement.
But we cannot prescribe to other artists.
If we don't like what we're given, we just have to produce for ourselves.
As I have been saying from the very beginning: isn't this why we have fan art/fic/vids?
Also, not making lead characters gay, does not make one homophobic.

Because Mofftiss is not a sacred cow. 
I think it's a good thing to question and debate. Otherwise, what is the point of this board? To be a cheering section? 

Oh, now we cross posted!

Er sorry...my point was, should I leave my post or not?
Considering I was responding to one that has been removed?

But anyway, on the points you raised: as I hope has become clear by now, I have no sacred cows.
So obviously everything is open to discussion.
Though I would make the point this is a BBC Sherlock fan site.
But anyway, debate is fine, as long as it doesn't get to name calling.

Last edited by besleybean (July 31, 2016 6:21 pm)

besleybean wrote:

Oh, now we cross posted!

Er sorry...my point was, should I leave my post or not?
Considering I was responding to one that has been removed?

But anyway, on the points you raised: as I hope has become clear by now, I have no sacred cows.
So obviously everything is open to discussion.
Though I would make the point this is a BBC Sherlock fan site.
But anyway, debate is fine, as long as it doesn't get to name calling.

Are you implying that criticism makes one not a fan? I don't really see it that way. 

No, as I've written before in this thread - people can't control what they feel, but they can control what they write. Criticism is all fine, I only have an issue with how things are written and for what purpose. As long as it's constructive, I'm fine with it, even if I disagree with the content. I don't like it when a post is only meant to mock, make fun of, be sarcastic towards or just rage against.

And as besley have written - this is a fan forum. That does of course not mean that we all have to post only positive things about the show and Moftiss, but that if some people are truly fed up with Moftiss and the entire show, perhaps this might not be the best place to express such things.

There are movies and series I greatly dislike, but I don't go on fan forums to write why I dislike them, I just stay away from it all. 

Then again, that might (hopefully) not be relevant for anyone on this board.

RavenMorganLeigh wrote:

The thing is-- I've seen some well thought-out commentary expressing grief, disappointment, and yes-- anger-- but I've not seen people mocking or raging. In fact, the majority of posts I've seen on Tumblr (in particular) have been respectfully saying why the poster feels the way they do. Being angry-- again, we're trying to tell people what they are allowed to feel-- and that just doesn't work. Criticism should be allowed. Even if it's not what one wants to hear.
 
I honestly think that we're acting as if this whole contingent of Johnlockers just started rage-posting, and that's actually not the case. Most of the TJLC folks seem more invested in shoring up their morale by pushing the "Mofftiss lies" campaign. But a lot of Johnlockers are simply expressing doubts. 

Criticism is not Hate. 

I agree. I saw plenty of such posts but I have yet to see ones containing the actual hate towards Mofftiss.

Also, I don´t consider mockery or humour at Mofftiss expense a crime. They mock people and pull people´s noses all the time, I´m sure they´ll live if the tables are turned on them for a while.

Liberty wrote:

If he was just gay and embarrassed to admit it to himself, then he could just sidestep the issue by agreeing with Watson - trying to argue that he isn't attracted to the women isn't a very good way of trying to pretend he isn't gay!

Victorian era-wise: Not evebody is comfortable lying to his best friend who may sense dishonesty in your answer, especially if he knows your character and your daily routines intimately. Side-stepping the answer is better strategy, IMHO.

Mind-palace-wise: If Sherlock is unwilling to admit the truth about his attraction/orientation/relationship to himself, of course he would not even admit it to his MP-extension Watson. But outright lying to yourself is pointless, is it not?