Oh the fun meme of "It could never be canon"

[deelaundry]

There was a tweet by Ian Hallard, husband of Mark Gatiss, expressing incredulity about a Sherlock/John romantic relationship happening in canon for Sherlock BBC.

"OK, I get that some people like to fantasise about Sherlock & John as a couple but no one seriously thinks it will actually happen,do they?!" --Ian Hallard

He later apparently expanded on his comment, pointing out that the two characters identify on the show as heterosexual (true) and asexual (not really, Sherlock identified as "married to his work," which could mean asexual or could mean aromantic or could mean not currently pursuing relationships while still having a sexual and/or romantic identity).

Does Ian not watch the show? He's an actor, so I would assume he has some skill at analyzing text, but maybe not.

Here is a huge clue that within this show's canon, the stated sexuality of the characters does not necessarily indicate every kind of attraction they experience: Irene Adler, so singular in ACD canon as to be called "The Woman," falls for BBC Sherlock despite being gay. So if Irene's attraction to women does not preclude her from falling for Sherlock, why is it "fantasy" to assume John's attraction to women doesn't have to preclude him from falling for Sherlock?

And as for Sherlock's sexuality, I will refer you to John's take on it: "Who the hell knows about Sherlock Holmes." (Episode 2-1, "Scandal in Belgravia")

Comments

[taiga13]

I thought the same as you about Irene Adler, she even spelled it out clearly. John is exasperated when she thinks he's in love with Sherlock and says "I'm not gay" and she says "whereas I am". Translation: you don't have to be gay to fall in love with Sherlock Holmes, John. I do think Sherlock is asexual, though, and definitely aromantic (is that a word? I keep reading it as aromatic).

[deelaundry]

"Aromantic" is indeed a word. It clarifies the distinction between romantic interest and sexual interest. (I do wonder as well if Sherlock is aromatic or scent-free :)

[liviapenn]

But... you don't think it will happen on the show, right? That seems to be what the tweet is about-- people thinking not just that it is a plausible interpretation of the characters, but that it WILL happen in canon, which does seem a bit unlikely.

[deelaundry]

"Will" as in "is certain to happen"? No, absolutely not. "Will" as in "is a plausible option for these showrunners to take that could be consistent with the canon they've established"? Yes, absolutely yes.

Many people then take the discussion down the argument of "the studios wouldn't let them do it," which I find too depressing to contemplate.

[liviapenn]

"Will" as in "is a plausible option for these showrunners to take that could be consistent with the canon they've established"? Yes, absolutely yes.

Wow, I'm honestly surprised people could think that.

I mean... if you assigned a team of writers to the next season of "White Collar" and told them to write a season-long arc where Neal, Peter, El and Sara all get together in a polyamorous bisexual foursome, it could be done well and it probably wouldn't even be that difficult to make it consistent and plausible with the canon that is already established. But saying "that's a plausible reading of canon" is completely different from "could plausibly happen on the show in reality," for a dozen different reasons, starting with the fact that the showrunners and actors have *constantly* stated, from the beginning, that this wasn't their intention, and that the canon itself brings it up *to deny it* several times.

And I don't think you have to blame "the studios." I don't think Moffatt or Gatiss *want* to write "the gay Sherlock Holmes." They're fans of the classic, traditional Sherlock Holmes. If they wanted to tell a story about two straight friends who bonded and fell in love, they'd probably be doing it with original characters-- not with Sherlock Holmes. Considering how poorly they did at "updating" the show in terms of race, gender, and disability issues, did anyone really think that they would honestly be groundbreaking in terms of their representation of gay issues?

Again, it's a plausible reading of the characters. But taking a step back from the "in-universe" perspective, where we can analyze at the characters as if they were as complex and realistic as actual real people-- and looking at them as characters on "Sherlock" the television show, It seems profoundly unrealistic to think that they would ever, *canonically*, be explicitly stated to be gay and actually in love with each other.

[taiga13]

He would smell look damp wool and those nicotine patches :) I can't wait until the next season.

[bironic.livejournal.com]

I think the argument is much stronger extratextually than intratextually (Doylist vs. Watsonian?). Seem to remember kerfluffles before & during the last season in which showrunners pissed off much of the fandom with their comments about Sherlock's sexuality ... and possibly also the (non)likelihood of Sherlock/John? Not remembering clearly. Also getting mixed up in my head with similar remarks about Doctor Who. See also: Steven Moffat.

[deelaundry.livejournal.com]

Oh so many kerfluffles. I just continue to be dismayed by those who can't or don't distinguish between "not likely" and "not possible."

[petitecuriosity.livejournal.com]

I'm not too familiar with Sherlock (although I have guiltily read quite a bit of smut fic for it ;) ), but I do feel as though, in general, (and I could be totally off on this), in fiction there exists a double standard for the acceptability of homosexuality. A lesbian being attracted to a man "feminizes" her, and a heterosexual male being attracted to a man does the same thing, which is considered socially unacceptable. Gay men can be negatively stereotyped in fiction; they can be viewed as weak. Due to this stereotype, I think that some people have difficulty accepting a gay male protagonist, or even a male character who happened to be interested in just one particular other male character. A lesbian protagonist, on the other hand, is more likely to be viewed as strong, with an interesting, sort of off-beat charm. Alternately, a female character who is bisexual or doesn't have a clearly defined sexuality is often viewed as mysterious, interesting, or badass. (See Remy Hadley/Thirteen)

There are many people who view themselves as sexually and/or romantically fluid, where gender is inconsequential in terms of romantic and sexual partners, but that seems to be a bit of a taboo subject. I believe "Torchwood" is one of the few shows that has explored this.

From what I know of the character of Sherlock Holmes, he seems to follow his own whims and line of thinking. He likely wouldn't take the time to bother defining his sexuality because it would get in the way of more important matters, and due to the fact that he is often focused on his own thought process, he would be less likely to care how others define his sexuality. He could also very well be asexual or aromantic, finding that relationships or sexual encounters take away from his other activities. But then again? Who the hell knows about Sherlock Holmes? ;)

Therefore, I think it's entirely plausible for Sherlock to develop an interest in any character, and if he weren't to develop an interest, it wouldn't be due to their gender, but out of boredom or dislike. I have a similar opinion on House's sexuality, but that's an entirely different topic. ;)

Once again, all of this is merely speculation and my opinion, and based really only on things I have personally read or seen. Others may have a far different take.