And not dull, boring, predictable at all.

Absolutely. And I don't have to agree with everything they're saying, come to think of it, even if it happens to be more or less obvious that they're telling the truth. At the end of the day I still love the show (at least up until now) and yes, of course they can do with it whatever they want. And I can do whatever I want with it, as well.

I actually tend to believe them most of the time. Even while I know they could be telling lies. The only reason for them to lie is when it would otherwise spoil something, like with the Moriarty thing. Most of what they say tends to be true, and if not,well, we'll learn that in the next series. And it'll be a nice surprise.

Count the lies. The ones we know for sure now are lies. It's less than you think. 

I admire them for their well-placed lies. Quality over quantity.

besleybean wrote:

Which ones in particular?

Harriet wrote:

Copy and paste:

- We were told the show wasn’t going to go into Mycroft and Sherlock’s childhood
~ Lo and behold in S3 not only do we meet their parents, we get a glimpse as to what Sherlock was like as a child, as well as his childhood pet

- We were told the writers weren’t going to touch on the drugs bit any more than the tiny bit they did in A Scandal in Belgravia
~ Come His Last Vow, we see Sherlock in a drug den, and learn from Molly that he wasn’t clean (which was obvious given the drug den but w/e)

- We were told Mary wasn’t going to come inbetween John and Sherlock or be an adversary in any way
~ She became snippy at John over Sherlock, then ended up shooting and (albeit temporarily) killing Sherlock in His Last Vow

- We were told that Moriarty was definitely dead, and the writers even joked about it at Comic-Con 2013
~ “DID YOU MISS ME?!”

- We were told throughout 2013 that there was no Christmas special, that the whole thing was a rumor.
~ At the start of December 2013, we found out there was a special S3 prequel that aired for us - Many Happy Returns

- Something not linked to Sherlock but equally as important - in 2013 Moffat himself deliberately caused a fake controversy surrounding the Doctor Who 50th anniversary special, saying that none of the classic doctors were going to be remembered in any way, shape, or form, which wasn’t the case. Moffat is one of the creators and writers of Sherlock, so where does that leave us?

- ETA - Moffat and Gatiss both have said contradictory things about the show (for example, about the nature of Sherlock’s interest with Irene) and Moffat also had everyone believing that he actually would reveal the Doctor’s actual name in The Name of the Doctor, which also turned out to be false.

Those. And BTW:

nakahara wrote:

Yes, we fans are stupid - why are we doubting such a truthful people?

“Anything is possible. 

But we do our best to surprise you with a combination of lies and deceit. 

So, we’re never going to tell you what we’re going to do.”
— 
Steven Moffat, when asked about upcoming stories in S4 and S5.
 
XXXXX
 
“QUESTION: What is your opinion (if any) on Sherlock’s sexuality? Does it matter, or is it irrelevant to you as writers? 

GATISS/MOFFAT:Sherlock lives in his brain — everything else is transport. 

Unless we’re lying. 

Again.”
—  
Mark Gatiss and Steven Moffat
 
XXXXX 
 
“INTERVIEWER: So what did you say to Steven and Mark after you read the [Mary] twist? 

ABBINGTON: I texted them, 'You bastards.' It was brilliant. I was so happy. 

INTERVIEWER: I feel like Steven lives for people saying, ‘You bastard’ to him in that way. 

ABBINGTON: He does. He loves that. That’s why he brought Moriarty back after he said in interviews, 'Moriarty’s dead, okay? He’s dead.' 

And here’s Moriarty in the finale saying, 'I’m back. Did you miss me?'”
— 
Amanda Abbington, after the first airing of His Last Vow.
 
 

Last edited by Schmiezi (January 4, 2015 6:15 pm)

silverblaze wrote:

To get back on topic. I get that. People have different interpretations of the same work. What I don't get is people who insist that their interpretation is just as valid as the creator's. I mean if I write something, and something interprets it differently than I intend, I'd say a mistake was made, either by me, the recipient or both of us. I don't say: oh, your interpretation is just as valid as mine. No one operates that way. Why would it be different in art? 

If the idea is still in your head, unrealised, it´s still a part of your subject and you have a power over it. But if you write something on paper, compose or paint, you created a new object, which - now separated from you - can be percieved, processed and interpreted by anybody. And althrough you still hold some power over it, it´s not absolute. You can claim author rights, for example, but you cannot force people to percieve your creation certain way, or prevent them from being inspired by your work. It´s like having children - you have born them, you have some power over while you raise them, but when they reach adulthood and stand on their own, you must accept that they will develop in their own way from now on.

If you theory of  "the Author-God" whose interpretation always holds precedence over other interpretations of his work was really true, then the following would never be possible:

The "Plan 9 of Outer Space" directed by Ed Wood would never be seen as a bad movie, because the author intended to make serious sci-fi movie, not the unintentional, badly-acted parody of one. 

The "flying Legolas" scene from the new Hobbit movie (if you still haven´t seen it, I´m sure you can youtube it) would be regarded as thrilling, as Peter Jackson, not as a laughably bad Matrix-wannabe that raped Tolkien´s lyrical work.

"Battlefield Earth" made according to the scientist holy book would be percieved as a holy revelation meant to lead and educate people, not as a messed up nonsense.

But in all three examples it is obvious why an author´s reading was dismissed and the audience´s interpretation prevailed. If an author swears that he is feeding you a heavenly manna, but you see and smell the turd - why should you pay any attention to his words? You have your own brain by which you judge things. The work of art is not religion - even if it is jokingly described as "canon", it has no actual holy "authority" that would ensure only one interpretation. A different interpretation can and would happen everytime when the new work of art appears. That cannot be prevented nor dismissed. 
 

Really, why aren't people getting this?!

Vhanja wrote:

If I made a story about how it feels to be bullied, people are free to interpret that as a Lone Wolf-story, a reptile alien story, a communist story, a captialist story etc etc. People can think my story is the best they've read or horrible crap. People can have whatever opinion they want on my story.

But if my story was about how it feels to be bullied, then that is the one TRUE interpretation of what that story is about - I should know, I wrote it! 

But if you make your work ambiguous so that it can be read as a Lone Wolf-story, a reptile alien story, a communist story, a captialist story etc. and at the same time you would not include enough scenes proving that the story is actually about being bullied, your true interpretation would not hold even if you say so, because the people wouldn´t see it in a finished story. 

If you want your one interpretation to hold, be more sincere and don´t try to be too artsy if you don´t know how to properly do it so that your message would be conveyed.
 

Last edited by nakahara (January 4, 2015 6:29 pm)

Oh, so why does anybody ever bother creating any work at all?