âThe obsession, particularly online, with the homoerotic tension between Sherlock and Doctor Watson⌠The template for us was the Billy Wilder film The Private Life of Sherlock Holmes, which deliberately plays with the idea that Holmes might be gay. Weâve done the same thing, deliberately played with it although itâs absolutely clearly not the case. Heâs only a brain, âeverything else is transportâ to him and John clearly says, âIâm not gay, weâre not togetherâ but the joke is that everyone assumes that in the 21st century that these two blokes living together are a coupleâ what they wouldnâtâ have assumed in the 19th century. Theyâd have assumed they were bachelor best friends and now they assume theyâre lovers. Thatâs obviously such fun to play with and the fact that people now assume, in a very positive way, that theyâre together is a different joke to it being a negative connotation.â Mark Gatiss in The Gay Times, February 2012
Hmm, Iâm actually not so sure about that. Because I never got this joke (and no, thatâs not a generation thing. Iâm round about the same age as the show creators). Honestly, to me, two blokes sharing a flat in central London in the 21st century are just two blokes sharing a flat because itâs fucking expensive. Iâd never assume anything else.
Even if one of the man was depicted as obviously gay (Girlfriend? Nor really my area. - Boyfriend? I know itâs fine.) - I wouldnât assume any kind of romatic interest between them. I canât see a joke there either.
But when their flat sharing gets laden with innuendo? For example, their landlady asking them if they share a bedroom. Another acquaintance taking them for being on a date. Those two blokes gazing at each other as if they were about to eat each other alive. One of the man killing for the other, who, in return, protects him from being prosecuted⌠Well, then Iâd start to assume somethingâs going on - because it is shown to me and hammered home.
Only, I canât see a joke there eitherâŚ
So, what Gatiss described in the above interview wasnât what happened. They were not just showing us two blokes living together. Because then no one in the 21st century would think of them as a couple. Moffat and Gatiss had to actively insert innuendo for their viewers to catch up on their âjokeâ in the first place. They encouraged this on many levels: text, acting choices, casting, costume, music, lighting, cinematography.
They actively implemented homoerotic (sub)text in their show - only to lament at the same time that people cought up on it? That some viewers expected something to come out of it. Because, in the 21st century, no one thought it possible that it could just be a lame joke! Because there just is no joke to it.
The viewers took the positive attitude Gatiis desrcibes a step further and expected positive representation from the writers after playing with the inherent homoeroticism of the original stories. The fandom was far more advanced than the show runners, it seems.
And why play with the homoeroticism it in the first place? I really canât see where the fun might be in there, apart from cracking some cheap gay jokes that feed an outdated no-homo attitude?
What is there to play with when itâs not an issue anymore? And if itâs still an issue, Iâm not sure that making fun of it ist the appropriate approach to it.
Weâve done the same thing, deliberately played with it although itâs absolutely clearly not the case.
Clearly not the case??? How can a gay man, an LGBTQ advocate be so obtuse? They have used every gay trope in the book. The result is a desperately broken gay man who is in love with his repressed flatmate. Can Mark and Steven be this stupid, this unobservant, this deep into their own form of homophobia, that they cannot see what their own creation has become? Sorry Mark, but it was never clearly not gay. It was clearly the opposite.
I agree. Sorry Gatiss but thatâs bs. In Friends Joey and Chandler shared a flat and nobody expected them to get together.
You know, for a brilliant man, Gatiss can be remarkably thick. Total BS, in my book.
Hereâs the thing from my perspective: there were enough tent poles in the writing (not even the acting or the direction or the cinematography, but just the writing) for people to come up with a reading that Sherlock and John had unusual, deep, possessive feelings for each other that many would not categorize as simple friendship. Itâs not even the multiple lines of dialogue where others assume that Sherlock and John are a couple (including everyone cited above, together with the gay innkeepers and Dr. Frankland and Henryâs psychologist and Kitty and arguably Magnussen and âŚ.) I find it morbidly fascinating that despite evidence in the writing itself that was more than third party characters making joking assumptions about John and Sherlock, the creators in their public statements basically chalk it all up to the âdelusional fangirlâ stereotype and say âplay online but donât talk about it with us, the writers.â
The Battersea conversation between John and Irene is one example of relationship implications being directly in the writing, despite some posts Iâve seen attributing Johnlock to some manifestation of acting and editing. We all know the scene by heart. John says theyâre not a couple; Irene says that they are. John says heâs not infatuated with Sherlock because John is not gay, and Irene counters that she is gay, and âLook at us both [being infatuated?].â
What are we looking at, Moffat? Genuinely, I would like that answered and am confused about Moffat and Gatissâs hostility towards discussing romantic interpretations of their writing. What was that line supposed to do if not invite us to examine the nature of both Johnâs and Ireneâs feelings towards Sherlock and perhaps the immutability (or lack thereof) of romantic attraction? I know that script page floated around ages ago that said that John then laughs at the absurdity of the situation in response to Ireneâs comment, but whether he laughs or gives that rueful huff that we get in the final version, John has no spoken answer to Ireneâs comment. Was she right? Was she wrong? What was Moffat trying to convey? Was it only about Irene in that moment? Is she the only one with a bendable sexuality? Thatâs an ugly implication.
And then someone on their team wrote a scene episodes later where John and Sherlock are the only people at a bachelor party (when there certainly would have been comedic value in Lestrade or Anderson or relatives weâve never met or Mycroft (like the Ritchie movies, right?) being in on this little celebration). But instead weâve got no explanation for why there are no guests other than our assumption that Sherlock and John wanted a night alone together, and John saying he doesnât mind touching Sherlockâs leg. Why is that line there if it doesnât mean something? Thatâs 15 seconds of screen real estate that could have been spent elsewhere. I want to hear what Moffat and Gatiss say about this scene, the dialogue, the setup, etc.
These are two examples. We all could pull out at least one bit of written dialogue per episode where something in the writing itself implied âcoupleâ or âattractionâ that was not a joke made by a third party. And I really just want to ask them what they were trying to do in any of these types of scenes, because these were not jokes made by third party characters. But no interviewer will ever go beyond asking the question of whether John and Sherlock are a couple with Gatiss pulling out that stock reply about how in the 21st century, itâs cheeky to say that everyone will assume that they are together. Maybe Gatissâs real answer is that they delighted in the ambiguity, never settling on one thing, raising issues and questions about character motivations without any definitive answers in a way that gives their writing (an illusion of) depth (a show like Mad Men played with raising different questions and not always answering them), and they never thought that anyone would seek to insert answers to these little questions that they toyed with.
I also think from my vantage point of reading and watching some of their interviews that Mark especially is not a fan of ardent fans. I know some interpreted TEH as an affectionate homage to the fandom, but I saw then and still see now his discomfort with fans reading anything into this show beyond the emotional context that they are trying to generate in any individual scene. It doesnât matter how Sherlock survived or what John went through: what matters is that we have a little laugh at Johnâs successive losses of temper that send them to progressively seedier establishments in TEH: itâs a joke, itâs a show, itâs not serious beyond taking an emotional journey contained to 90 minutes. I can only see S4 as a massive repudiation of quite a lot of what ardent fans liked about the show, and I think part of it does stem from discomfort with fan expectations (and part of it from writing the season in too short a time period at the last minute).
Very Well said @laconiclurker. Thank you for this!
I donât think Iâm the first person to say this, so apologies if itâs been commented upon elsewhere. Iâm in the same age group as Gatiss. I know a fair number of gay men his age. Subtext is what they know. Itâs their comfort zone. They donât always get the huge need for representation in tv and film because they never had it and âsurvivedâ. To some degree, their fights were more immediate like AIDS and sodomy laws. I think they thought writing a younger Sherlock in a modern setting really was groundbreaking. I doubt they ever would have predicted the changes in representation on tv that have occurred since Sherlock first aired to now. And yes, Gatiss, like a lot of gay men - hell, like a lot of MEN - is not comfortable with womenâs voices. Itâs evident in his disregard of female fans, especially younger ones. And itâs not unusual for gay men to get upset over female-penned slash fiction. How could we possibly write from that perspective accurately? Never mind men have been writing womenâs voices *forever*. Itâs even evident in Gatissâ recent curation of new LGBT writers for the BBC: http://www.bbc.co.uk/mediacentre/mediapacks/new-talent-hotlist/queers-curated-mark-gatiss All but one new writer is male, and the lone female is somewhat controversial. So after a lot of thought, Iâve come to the conclusion that Gatiss is, at times, a great writer. But heâs as flawed as anyone else. And sadly, heâs stuck to his defensive position of superiority and disdain rather than trying to learn. I think in some ways he and Moffatt were the right writers at the wrong time. And thus ends my rare foray into fandom speculation. Tagging a few folks whoâve recently contributed to the conversation: @welovethebeekeeper @isitandwonder @laconiclurker
apologies for lack of paragraph breaks - I donât know where they went
Very interesting points!
Agree with everyone in this post.



















