during my long and intimate acquaintance with mr sherlock holmes

Hmm, I’m actually not so sure about that. Because I never got this joke (and no, that’s not a generation thing. I’m 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 it’s fucking expensive. I’d never assume anything else.

Even if one of the man was depicted as obviously gay (Girlfriend? Nor really my area. - Boyfriend? I know it’s fine.) - I wouldn’t assume any kind of romatic interest between them. I can’t 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 I’d start to assume something’s going on - because it is shown to me and hammered home.

Only, I can’t see a joke there either…

So, what Gatiss described in the above interview wasn’t 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 ‘joke’ 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 I really can’t see where the fun might be in there, apart from cracking some cheap gay jokes that feed an outdated no-homo attitude?

The Battersea conversation between John and Irene is one example of relationship implications being directly in the writing, despite some posts I’ve seen attributing Johnlock to some manifestation of acting and editing. We all know the scene by heart. John says they’re not a couple; Irene says that they are. John says he’s not infatuated with Sherlock because John is not gay, and Irene counters that she is gay, and “Look at us both [being infatuated?].”

What are we looking at, Moffat? Genuinely, I would like that answered and am confused about Moffat and Gatiss’s 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 John’s and Irene’s 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 Irene’s comment, but whether he laughs or gives that rueful huff that we get in the final version, John has no spoken answer to Irene’s 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? That’s 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 we’ve never met or Mycroft (like the Ritchie movies, right?) being in on this little celebration). But instead we’ve 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 doesn’t mind touching Sherlock’s leg. Why is that line there if it doesn’t mean something? That’s 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 “couple” or “attraction” 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, it’s cheeky to say that everyone will assume that they are together. Maybe Gatiss’s 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.

1) Stare blankly into the empty space next to her face.

2) Take your time to process the happy news.

3) Do not talk about the baby with her! Aggressively talk about how your best friend is so much cleverer than you instead.

4) Look away from her face, it´s getting too much.

5) Instead focus on your best friend and bicker with him for a bit.

6) Ok, this shit is real, time to panic.

7) OMG, your best friend just said something self ironic, panic break. Now you can look at him for a while.

8) Actually, what he said was really funny, you can look a bit longer if you want.

9) Okay, it wasn´t funny, it was hilarious! And look at his cute little smile! You can touch him now and pull him a bit closer, let him know how important he is to you!

10) Was there anything else? Holy shit, your wife! Well, Fuck! Quickly throw her a smile and ask if she´s okay.

11) Maybe touch her too, to let her know that you love her. A hesitant pat on the shoulder will do the trick!

12) Now that´s done, look at your friend again.

13) While you´re at it, check out is body too, make sure everything´s in the right place!

14) Yep. All good.

15) Hm, maybe that was a little to much Bro-time. His face looks sad….this is getting intense, time to look away uncomfortably.

16) Okay, maybe one more glance….

17) Nope, shit, it´s still pretty intense, look away!! Focus on how happy you are about the wedding and the baby, not on how he taught you the waltz!

18) What? He said something, lick your lips and stare at his face again.

19) Did he say dance?? Fuck, you´ve been found out! Look for escape routs!

20) Oh, the wife wants to dance, thats fine, no danger there. You won´t be dancing with anyone else though, let´s nip this very much in the butt, eeer bud! He doesn´t want to anyway…. Right? 

21) Right. Thought so. Ok, what next? Probably ought to look at the wife again, she just said something….Don´t smile, don´t talk about a baby and don´t directly say yes to the dancing thing though. Everything in your own time. 

22) OH SHIT, he just mentioned the dancing lessons! Quickly, throw a no homo joke at him to safe the day and grab something - ah, yes, the wife!

23) Ok, all good now. Let´s dance close enough to not see her face all the time.

24) 

Don´t look back.

Don´t look back.

“Bitch the pot” - Pour the tea (HOW RELEVANT IS THIS!?)

“Bang up the elephant” - Absolutely perfect; super stylish

“Well, that’s shot the bale” - Something that has missed the mark entirely

“Church-bell” - A woman prone to gossip

“Chuckaboo” - A dear friend, a bosom chum

“Beer and skittles” - A great time (see also: Irish Gaelic “craic”)

“Butter on bacon” - Something overdone or too extravagant

“Cupid’s kettle drums” - Breasts, particularly large ones

[ johnlock meme ] ¹/₄ tropes → everyone sees it

bonus:

Mycroft, to John: Sherlock’s business seems to be booming ever since you and he became…pals.

SOME THINGS:

1.) MYCROFT HESITATES BEFORE EMPHASIZING ON THE WORD ‘PALS’

2.) SHERLOCKS EYES SHOOT UP WHEN MYCROFT SAYS IT

3.) MOFTISS DIDNT NEED TO INCLUDE THIS, NEVER DISREGARD ANY SMALL HINTS/MOMENTS THAT LEAD TO JOHNLOCK

Okay. So as some of you may know, in the original Holmes books, Professor Moriarty has a younger brother named Colonel James Moriarty. He was a stationmaster.

In BBC Sherlock, Moriarty has a brother who was also a stationmaster, although his name and age were not mentioned.

In The Final Problem, Eurus plays clips that Moriarty recorded for her before he died. We know this because Eurus plays them for Sherlock, John, and Mycroft when trapped in Sherrinford. During the flashback from 5 years ago in the episode, Mycroft tells Moriarty that he is allowed 5 minutes of unsupervised conversation with Eurus, and though we don’t know what they talked about, we know somewhere in those 5 minutes Moriarty agreed to record them for her. We still don’t know how he got them to her, how he knew what to say, etc.

Of course the trio is taken aback from seeing Moriarty’s face on a screen. After all, Sherlock saw him blow his own brains out. John asks him, distraught:

To which Eurus responds:

But what she says directly after is something I hadn’t noticed up until the most recent time I watched this episode:

NOW. We know that Moriarty has a brother that was a stationmaster. No more assumptions here. This was ACTUAL CONTENT in the show. But we DONT KNOW his name, age, what he looks like, etc. And just because he was younger than Professor Moriarty in the canon doesn’t necessarily mean that Moftiss has to follow this rule in their adaptation. I’m saying this because the phrase “Its never twins” is brought up multiple times throughout the show.

Sherlock says it to John in The Six Thatchers when working on the case called “The Duplicate Man” after he thinks that’s what John’s come to the conclusion of, and again in The Abominable Bride. Watson says, “Holmes. Could it have been twins?” Holmes tells him it couldn’t, so Watson asks him why, provoking Holmes’ “Because it’s never twins.”

Popping up only once in the show might cause it to have no significance, but since it’s popped up more than once, especially regarding a case that was being related to Moriarty’s (Emelia Ricoletti’s case) could mean something. Once is a coincidence, but twice is a pattern. And what do we say about coincidences, especially ones that are written my Steven Moffat and Mark Gatiss? Maybe the reason the writers keep bringing up the fact that Sherlock never even considers twins to be a possible solution to Moriarty’s case is because it actually is the solution. Which leads me to my next point.

Shortly after Eurus mentions Moriarty’s brother being a stationmaster, Sherlock, John, and Mycroft are taken to the next task in another room, and during the transition Eurus plays another of Moriarty’s clips:

How obvious can they be? Moriarty’s brother was a stationmaster, as said by Eurus herself, and here we have Jim Moriarty, (or his twin brother) saying “All aboard!” and making freaking train noises.

yooo everybody. my mom and i were goofing around and found this seriously FUCKED UP site. all your information, (phone number, nam, address even) is available for 2.99. like everything. please watch this video on how to remove it. (im not sure if it’s there for minors, but if you’ve ever owned/rented a house you’re definitely there. it’s worth checking it out to make sure.)

video on how to remove information. : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JPFLagxnDsA

fucked up website: http://www.spokeo.com/

also, if you’ve lived in more than one place/state it has you multiple times, remove all of your profile things. (it had my mom 4 times, all over our state. even from when she lived in a house 9 years ago.)