This is my personal opinion: that is utterly hideous and the writer ought to be thoroughly ashamed.
I'd possibly better not say anymore.
Well only this:
It reminds me of the last days of my political party:
I attended a notorious meeting. I remember looking around the room and thinking: do I really want to be in a party with any of these people?
Sorry, I am cross, but really: well it wasn't as if they hadn't been told...plenty of times and all the way through.
Some of us got the memo.
#notinmyname

Last edited by besleybean (August 2, 2016 10:05 pm)

Shani wrote:

I think the difference is that, by their own admission, the young people in this video state clearly that they identify with Johnlock in a very serious, particular and individual way. Therefore by its nature, Johnlock not happening is not the same as a pop band breaking up. They seem to expect and need Johnlock to be realised for self-affirmation. A pop band or a comic is just not an accurate comparison.

Also, to be fair, I've not seen any examples of anyone identifying with Mary or Molly as feminist icons with the passion and strength of feeling that people cling on to TJLC. So no one was ever going to be devastated in the same way when Mary was revealed as a murderer.

I don't think anyone is trying to make TJLCers feel guilty. Just that in a fandom which purports to be supportive of its members, I think it's worthwhile contemplating for a moment how these young people might react if Johnlock doesn't happen, and how the wider fan community might support them - at a time when presumably the majority will be exploding with rage and indignation at Moffat and Gatiss (if the past week is anything to go by!)

I think it's interesting to hear you describe TJLC as fun. In my experience, the most hardcore TJLCers take it deadly seriously and react swiftly and aggressively to anyone who dares express any doubts about the conspiracy. Even today, a fan has deleted their blog after being mocked and attacked. It seems to be about representation, social justice, LGBT rights and identity. I don't think anyone pretends that all the metas and arguments and analyses are just done 'for fun'. If they were, Gatiss & Moffat's interview last week wouldn't have provoked the outraged reaction it did. This is an example of one of the tumblr postings from last week: 

It really doesn't sound to me as if the poster is just using TJLC and Johnlock to have a bit of fun. As I say, I really worry about how high feelings have risen about this issue.

Dear Shani, I´m calling TJLC and Johnlock fun because it really is just that - fun. What you showed us is the most extreme part of the group that you somehow ended generalising on the whole of Johnlock fans.

Yes, you can find extremists in every human group imaginable.

A fan of Rudolph Valentino shot herself into the head over the table full of his photos when he died. But does that mean every female Valentino fan was like that?

A suffragist Mary Richardson attacked the painting of Venus in a gallery and later joined nazi movement. Am I justified to call every suffragist a nazi now?

Some of Benedict Cumbarbatch female fans ended up hating him and his wife when he was married. That automatically makes us all haters, according to this philosophy.

Life doesn´t work like that and you know it.

Also, just because you didn´t saw any dedicated Mary fan that takes their dedication to the extreme, that doesn´t mean they don´t exist. Here is the example of the most vocal of them:

http://sherlockfandomhateswomen.tumblr.com/

Whisky wrote:

I'm not sure anymore what this thread is about. Do I get it right when I assume that it is only for opinions and examples "why I see or don't see Johnlock"? No "meta Johnlock", related stuff, etc? I find it difficult to explain why I think Johnlock will not happen without naming one of the reasons, which would be an interview, and at least my own reaction to it.

I found the recent discussion interesting, is there a place it went to/is moving to?

Sherlock Holmes wrote:

In Canon
In BBC
In Guy Ritche
In any other adaptations.

DIscuss, debate, support, refute Johnlock in all its forms. Have fun.

Whisky, this thread is to discuss Johnlock, so metas about it is exactly what it is about, I'd say.

But it is about discussing Johnlock, not about discussing  hate coming from outside the forum. Or to put it more broadly, this is not the place to discuss fans.

The discussion is interesting but does not be long here. One would need to open a new thread for it.

May I ask , very respectfully...
what constitutes "Hate"? Anything contradictory to the Party Line? Just curious? Because I'm not seeing hate. I'm seeing criticism. Not the same thing. 

Schmiezi wrote:

RavenMorganLeigh wrote:

May I ask , very respectfully...
what constitutes "Hate"? Anything contradictory to the Party Line? Just curious? Because I'm not seeing hate. I'm seeing criticism. Not the same thing. 

Are you referring to me? I meant the tumblr post Shani posted. That feels like hate to me and is profoundly different to the way we talk about stuff here on the forum.

I'm sorry-- what felt like "hate" to you? Questioning? I was actually trying to be as inoffensive as possible-- meek, even. 

SusiGo wrote:

Mod's note: 
I get the feeling that this is not a balanced debate anymore. We expressly opened three threads and this is not the Anti-Johnlock thread. Discussion is fine, making fun of others' opinions is not. Please post such things in the greatest friendship thread, not in here. Thank you.
 

Thank you. (Just saw this)

Liberty wrote:

Just a comment about discussing Johnlock - outside of the show, the evidence for Johnlock has always come from the fandom, metas on tumblr, etc., whereas the evidence against tends to come from interviews and so on.   I think both are very much a valid part of the discussion here.   I don't think we'd get anywhere just discussing what we see in the show as we see different things!

I agree, Liberty.

Concerning the Tumblr post that was posted, I do agree we shouldn't give them too much consideration. I view such things the same as those hating on Sophie, something not worth one's time. They aren't fans of the show, but fans of the show in their own head. (That sounded familiar, did I just quote someone?)

If these posts are wrong for this thread, perhaps a mod can move them into a new one?

Last edited by Vhanja (August 3, 2016 7:37 am)

So, erm... I missed all what happened here lately. Mind if I steer us down a different avenue for a bit?

Ben recently said in an interview for Collider.com, about Sherlock in S4:

"He has moved from being someone who was sociopathic, work-obsessed and slightly amoral, into being someone who has a certain degree of a private life, which is very, very private, with The Woman, or Irene Adler."

I found this to be quite an unexpected statement, mentioning Irene seemingly out of the blue. So... how might we interpret this? Is he saying what I think he's saying...? Might they be trying to kill off any hopes of Johnlock by suggesting that Sherlock would choose, if anyone at all, Irene, not John? The "very, very private" might be saying this will only be hinted at, and not addressed explicitly, but it would still be rather damning if they did either way.

GimmeCat wrote:

So, erm... I missed all what happened here lately. Mind if I steer us down a different avenue for a bit?

Ben recently said in an interview for Collider.com, about Sherlock in S4:

"He has moved from being someone who was sociopathic, work-obsessed and slightly amoral, into being someone who has a certain degree of a private life, which is very, very private, with The Woman, or Irene Adler."

I found this to be quite an unexpected statement, mentioning Irene seemingly out of the blue. So... how might we interpret this? Is he saying what I think he's saying...? Might they be trying to kill off any hopes of Johnlock by suggesting that Sherlock would choose, if anyone at all, Irene, not John? The "very, very private" might be saying this will only be hinted at, and not addressed explicitly, but it would still be rather damning if they did either way.

I was thinking about that too but I lean towards an opinion that the above post only refers to Benedict´s usual idea that Sherlock and Irene had a hot night together there at Karachi. Kind of his personal fanfiction about the pair.

Although to be honest, I find the idea that Sherlock was cured out of his sociopathy and sligh amorality by having sex with Irene, quite amusing. Is Sherlock like Enkidu or what? From an animal to a human being through ritual sex with a woman?

What I find more disturbing in that interview is Benedict´s claim that Sherlock is only John´s friend out of neccessity and that there´s nothing sentimental behind it...

So - he sacrificed his life twice and his freedom once to save the friendship with a man he only needs as a tool, to appear more "human"?
 

Last edited by nakahara (August 3, 2016 8:58 am)

nakahara wrote:

What I find more disturbing in that interview is Benedict´s claim that Sherlock is only John´s friend out of neccessity and that there´s nothing sentimental behind it...

So - he sacrificed his life twice and his freedom once to save the friendship with a man he only needs as a tool, to appear more "human"?
 

Yes, I noticed this as well, and it worries me a bit. It is at odds with everything we've seen in the show and everything the cast and crew have always stated - that Sherlock cares for John as a friend.

As for Irene, I'm not sure where you get "cured for sociopathy" from? I thought it was clear that this was just a facade Sherlock tried to keep, and that it's John's friendship that has first and foremost humanised him.

However, his possible feelings for Irene might also be a factor, but I hope they don't go too far down that road.

Luckily Moffat also stated that Sherlock will always be Sherlock, he will never become like the rest of us.