#queerlock

graceebooks replied to your photo: ravenamore: unpretty: unpretty: unpretty: ...

you seem to have a very simple assumed definition of what “canon” even means in the first place… but is it really that easy?

Well, this definitely made me think about what my definition is, at least for the purposes of 'slashy' or homoerotic vs 'canon romance'. I'm not absolutist, in the sense that I need explicit proof and cannot take any implied romantic involvement as canon. Like, I've heard about people who refuse to accept when it's a queer romance even when the intent is clearly there but there's no announcement, or the kiss wasn't public, or there was no kiss and only hand-holding, etc. That's pretty clearly homophobic on some level. Still, part of it seems to be about a sort of split in fandom as far as 'slash goggles' are concerned, where people either see 'canon' or nothing at all. Homoeroticism isn't enough (ie, it isn't queer representation), and so it seems like we've created a bigger umbrella for things that are 'queer'.

I hope it's obvious that I have no intrinsic issue with a queer reading-- and I'm a big fan, specifically of seeing Kirk/Spock in TOS and the Reboot-- but I think I just find it useful to differentiate a queer reading from 'canon', which I feel is on the level of something that's inarguably the text rather than subtext. I do think subtext is also a part of the text-- that is, we're not just making it up, or it's not simply a misreading-- but neither is it factual. It's a grey area. And because I think literary analysis has so *much* in the way of grey areas, I find it important to be specific (and perhaps pedantic) about what I consider the text's core elements. As in, this is what I would teach and expect to see as part of an analysis in a lit class exam, and if you don't see it, you're not reading closely enough or have a bias.

Sometimes what you have is a muddle, because while you can be reasonably sure the intent went one way (either towards or away from the queer interpretation), the actual text doesn't bear up. For example, we know that Billy Wilder meant TPLoSH to have a gay Sherlock, but in my opinion, the actual film doesn't really support this except very indirectly. In that case, it's not that I propose ignoring the queer elements, which are quite real, and I would hope any serious analysis would take them into account. At the same time, there is no queer romance in canon, and to me that is simply a fact. I feel similarly about Star Trek TOS. We know Gene Roddenberry was open to the queer potential between Kirk and Spock, and you can certainly talk about the queer or homoerotic elements in the show, of which there are many. You can do a very easy-- and consistent!-- queer reading. But this reading would be... a reading. And any reading, no matter how good, no matter how fitting or logical and natural, is not the same thing as *canon*.

So what *is* canon?

It's not just the *purely* factual. That's definitely an oversimplification, and I'm not one of the people who thinks like that. But at the same time, calling every aspect of subtext 'canon' can *also* be oversimplification. Naturally, I think the characters' feelings, whether spoken or unspoken (but shown) are definitely part of the canon. At the same time, if the feelings are unspoken and implicit, you have to have some sort of contextual action-- or reaction by other characters-- that makes the relationship canonically romantic. Part of this has to do with talking about the larger focus and/or 'bent' of the narrative, which often coincides with Authorial Intent (given it's a competent writer and censorship can be ruled out; what is 'canon' in censored or altered texts is a whole different kettle of rather confusing fish).

Thinking about my post about Gatiss's quote on Sherlock's sexuality from yesterday, I think it didn't quite hit me immediately what really bothered me. It's not like I was surprised; in fact, you'd wonder why I bothered reblogging something like that at this point, even. So it only hit me now that it's just that when you think of how Gatiss referred to Sherlock's increased *humanity* (thanks in part to his experiences with Irene and in Series 3) that it slots together with similar statements Ben C and Moffat have made many times. Sherlock is the way he is and Johnlock isn't an option essentially because Sherlock isn't quite human, by his own choosing.

With TFP and the revelation about Eurus, with Mycroft saying she's the reason why Sherlock's chosen to be the 'high-functioning sociopath', I assume that the implication is clearly that Sherlock's thrown off some of that legacy now. That's his arc. It's just, by tying Sherlock's romantic entanglement so closely to his humanization arc-- both in the show (with that conversation at the end of TLD, once again) and in interviews about Sherlock's potential romantic and sexual interest in John-- the narrative is essentially saying that at the end, Sherlock's *still* not quite human. By choice. A lot of people have called this an issue of 'Chekhov's gun' after Series 4, in that this is a major question that is left hanging. The thing that occurred to me, however, is that from the creators' perspective, this whole thing-- this questioning-- is meant to highlight that this continues to be Sherlock's choice. He is a brain, and he still chooses to remove 'distractions' even as he learns to accept and integrate sentiment so that it's more useful to him, less of a danger. But (the implication is) he remains a being apart. That's the idea.

The problem is, of course, that Sherlock is (and always has been) painfully, ridiculously human. Gatiss acknowledges that during the show, Sherlock becomes 'slightly more human', but it seems... odd to say that there's a stopping point. Let alone a stopping point for Sherlock with John. I mean, he's literally lost his mind for John in TLD. He was so high, he was walking on walls. He's killed a man in full view of the British government. In what way is he still supposed to be protecting himself? In what way does that really work? That's the thing that frustrates me. It's that they all apparently think you can write such a deeply emotional Sherlock and then keep the lid on, so to speak.

The thing is, about humanization arcs, it doesn't make sense to go 99% of the way and then stop. That's not how it works. That's what I was talking about with the post on gay jokes in Sherlock-- alone, these narrative elements aren't damning or overwhelming, but the full story creates its own momentum. The biggest force of momentum has always been Sherlock himself, because of his arc. If you think of other humanization arcs in stories-- say, Spock or Data, or even Pinocchio-- you'll see that the stories generally *emphasize* the character's incremental growth and development. There's no way to do it without going 'all the way'; the idea of stopping at a point where the main character is still not entirely human at the end seems ridiculous.

Note, and I really want to make this clear, romantic entanglement isn't automatically necessary for humanity. In fact, neither of the three characters I mentioned above are known for their romantic arcs. Friendship is certainly enough. The problem mainly arises when you highlight or use the character's difference as a *reason* for why they're not relationship material. This doesn't just happen in interviews but also on the show, of course. Sherlock outright says he's married to his work. It's just that by Series 3, particularly TSoT, this is obviously no longer the case... and fundamentally, I get the feeling that Moffat and Gatiss don't see the conflict being created, because Sherlock could simply keep making the conscious choice to abstain at any point. Even when the *reasons* for it look increasingly flimsy and largely pointless, because he's suffering the consequences of excessive attachment without all of the potential benefits.

With John and Sherlock's conversation at the end of TLD, it becomes explicitly textual that Sherlock thinks of both himself and John as only human. Someone prone to 'human error', someone to be understood and accepted, to be forgiven for their flaws. It's no longer just a subtextual implication is that Sherlock is human: it's so factual that the twist is that *John* is, too. And yet... Sherlock is apart, never going all the way. Oh, he's certainly human: he texts Irene back! And look how he cares about John Watson! He's happy now, really. What else is he supposed to desire but a nice, juicy murder?

In the end, I feel frustrated and confused by the underlying understanding of 'humanity' here. I have to insert canon Johnlock just to make sense of the Sherlock's arc, even though I've essentially said I can see the story as intended, mostly platonically, overall. I just can't reconcile their Sherlock with the Sherlock we are actually shown.

MOFFAT: You’re talking about ‘The Gay Thing’, I think. Well, I - I... that joke exists... But the joke exists only because if two blokes did move in together in modern London, and... hung around and all, people would say, ‘You’re a couple’. That’s quite sweet, if they say it in a total non-judgemental way. ‘Oh, you’re together? Yeah, I should think that’s the case’. Um... In terms of the many... fantasies that have been unleashed on the internet... Um. Fine? Uh... You’re allowed to make it any way you like. Yes, Mark?

GATISS: Just - stop it! 

MOFFAT: Um, the thing about Sherlock Holmes is, you’ve understood nothing if you haven’t understood that sex, for him, is thinking. Right? That’s where he’s dislocated, that’s the problem. He’s like a genetic experiment where they’ve wired up someone’s libido to the brain, instead. So he doesn’t really think in those terms. He thinks... all he has to do is solve stuff. Um... So, it’s not - it’s not that kind of a relationship. Uh... I don’t - it can be in your mind or anyone (else’s...) But the reality is (...) No, but the, uh... You know, it’s kind of limiting - why do we have to make it sex? You know, there are love stories that are sex scenes. Love is a bigger subject. And it’s certainly a love story. But it’s not a sex scene - I don’t think. But if other people want to make it that, they’re very, very welcomed.

GATISS: It’s also back to the whole thing about... why characters are compelling. And in the end, the ambiguity is what’s interesting, and not the solution. If you just say it... I mean, it’s obviously much more fun for people to assume and for them both to get slightly affronted, but they not really see the obvious, which is - they are (!!!) - they love each other. But not in a sexual way... Series 4, Series 4!

- Steven Moffat and Mark Gatiss, Q&A at Clapham Picturehouse, 2011

In retrospect, I think a lot of things resolve for me if I take Moffat and Gatiss at face value, here. 

I know a lot of people are understandably upset by seeing this interview going around again, but their apparent honesty struck me as being particularly clear. I think if you don’t insist that Moffat really means that he’s aiming for canon Johnlock when he says it’s a love story but not a ‘sex scene’, and you simply accept that Gatiss genuinely thinks that it’s ‘the ambiguity is what’s interesting’, you come to a very simple conclusion, and it’s not that Moffat and Gatiss always intended to have canon Johnlock. This is not a receipt or any kind of proof of initial romantic intent for John and Sherlock in the show, as people have suggested even post-S4. Once you stop fighting it, it actually seems odd to me to see it that way, because both Moffat and Gatiss are explicitly saying the opposite... it’s just that the opposite of canon Johnlock, for them, is not a total ‘no homo’, per se. It’s more nuanced and ambiguous: quite self-consciously so. It also uses fundamentally different assumptions or axioms than fandom does.

Another way to put it is that I think it’s that they always intended to queerbait, if you take the definition of queerbaiting to mean a combination of using sexuality as a ‘recurring joke’ (for any reason), or ‘denying the assumptions’ of romantic interest ‘without modifying the character’s behavior’. In other words, if you focus on impact and results, it obviously is.

However, it’s not queerbaiting if you take it to mean specifically an intentional marketing scheme ‘to attract/appeal to the queer market’. That’s when you start talking about the Authorial Intent and/or what the creators are trying to actually communicate to the audience with the work. Here’s where the quote seems most useful, particularly if you use it as a lens to understand the waterfall ending of TAB.

It seems that after Series 4, an increasing number of people think BBC Sherlock is TPLoSH come again. Sherlock is therefore in unrequited love with John (ala Molly, seen as Sherlock's own mirror). Whether it's because they cannot unsee the gay pining in TSoT or because a loving John wouldn't have beat up Sherlock or blamed him for Mary's death, it is what it is. And either that's okay, or (more commonly) it's the reason people leave fandom or simply reject BBC John as hateful and Johnlock more broadly, or at least shipping it in canon. The way I see it, however, BBC Sherlock only makes sense and works for Mofftiss' stated purposes in showing how Sherlock became a 'good man' and John and Sherlock became the legendary Sherlock Holmes and Dr Watson in two ways.

Version One: it was always just really intense devotion, true platonic love at first sight. John is 'not gay' as in he's heterosexual, and Sherlock made the choice to be pure mind, as Moffat has said. So basically, he's not gay or straight because he's not anything, as I discussed in my post-S4 reading of ASiB and Sherlock's sexuality. Sherlock genuinely angsted over losing his life with John in TSoT, as I've said post-S4, but it doesn't mean that he's in love. It certainly could be but doesn't have to be read romantically to make sense. Given we're interested in making the show work as a narrative, I think TSoT works best as a tribute, a high point before John and Sherlock's slide into prolonged suffering, and a narrative demonstration of the parallels between John and Sherlock and John with Mary.

I don't wanna write this post... and the fact is, it's still not a natural reading of canon for me, but I think I like challenging myself to go deeper and deeper into the dark and the damp. As I said in my post-S4 meta on Sherlock's sexuality, I can't actually see Sherlock/Irene in the show even when I try to and suppose I should be able to, but I have to believe the intent was straightforward in the interviews about Irene, at least insofar as the acting. I'm thinking of the recent pre-S4 mention by Ben C, where he says Sherlock has a 'private life' with her to some degree. Given that I take Mofftiss' old interviews seriously (like I said recently), I suppose you could argue it follows we're meant to consider Sherlock ambiguously (but not really *romantically*) involved with Irene ever since ASiB-- in a very limited sense, anyway.

In other words, I imagine taking that texting reference in TLD seriously only makes sense if he'd texted her every now and then (not particularly often) but ever since the beginning. That would mean he'd done it in TSoT, for example, and that's why she showed up in his Mind Palace with all those other women he was intending to interview. So what do I think about that?

Sometimes I recall that we were mocked for saying 'Sherlock is Gay' on Tumblr, of all places, and it strikes me as *really* odd.

Isn't it, though? Because surely, it's accepted now that everyone is gay, trans and/or black if you say so, at least in book fandoms, though not *only*. It's actually somewhat odd to think this would be challenged a couple of years ago; *everyone* says equivalent things these days almost indiscriminately, more or less. There's an understanding in fandom that a) if canon doesn't explicitly discuss or dismiss something, particularly re: race or orientation and gender status, it's close enough to being canon; b) even if canon does dismiss it, you can either disagree or identify a loophole (see: Ronan Lynch is black and Irish but simply has blue eyes; John Watson isn't gay but he is bisexual). People don't *ever* hedge about their headcanons in fandom, as a rule. In fact, people argue with the explicit canon or stuff creators have said was canon *all* the time. It's generally accepted on Tumblr as a whole that cishet or white readings and/or canon characters are boring, if not outright inferior. So it strikes me as... weird that that 'gay Sherlock' had been openly proclaimed to be problematic, and indeed this was often 'excused' by people saying he's otherwise queer (as in, aro ace). I suppose actually outright defending 'straight Sherlock' was usually avoided (even by people who obviously did read him as heteroromantic) through deflection or moving the goalposts: we're all straight fangirls fetishizing gay men, and then blaming/invoking Mofftiss or insisting the show was bad.

In the end, as is typical on Tumblr, it became just another senseless bout of SJW-style discourse, I suppose, so that many people arguing Sherlock was gay were arguing that he *should* be or we deserved it and so on, including many instances of supporting toxic masculinity (ie, he's too fashionable, too affectionate or not indiscriminately sexual enough to be a straight man). Of course, heteronormativity and a rather stubborn insistence on a narrow understanding of 'canon' and/or Authorial Intent held sway on the opposite side, no matter what people liked to claim. Naturally, bad arguments are simply par for the course.

Anyway, my point is that headcanons saying 'this character is actually canonically queer' are part of a widespread and widely accepted discourse on Tumblr. It coincides with but is separate from an actual *queer reading* that uses or requires evidence. Like, it's a bit quaint to even talk about evidence for headcanons or interpretations nowadays, it seems to me. I've certainly seen posts that implied or indeed explicitly rejected the idea of needing evidence for such readings. Projection (headcanons) are overwhelmingly the default in fandom, including headcanons that seek to define and/or overwrite canon (which was the sort of thing people said they found problematic about TJLC). So it's in *that* context that it causes a bit of cognitive dissonance to realize this wasn't as prevalent even a couple of years ago. And I also feel a bit hopeless in insisting, 'wait, no, this isn't what I mean; I'm actually talking about the text'.

The thing that I'd really like to argue is about the need to create a *space* for queerness. That is, I'd like to dismiss heteronormativity rather than insisting that any given character *must* be gay, or otherwise queer. In the case of Sherlock, I feel like it's more important to note that he's *not straight*. I don't mean he's 'not straight' the way *any* character doesn't have to be read as being straight no matter what, or that he's Sherlock Holmes and therefore *can't* be straight, or even that he's queer as in 'different', the way people argue regarding nonhuman characters such as Data or Castiel. I mean that the narrative of Sherlock intentionally creates a null space, a silent space where Sherlock is literally always silent or deflecting about his sexuality even though he's obsessed with getting in a last word, as John says in ASiB. It's literally canonically ambiguous, and it's deeply frustrating to me that this isn't simply taken as fact. I think it's fine to take that a step further and call Sherlock gay, and it's fine to not go any further and admit his orientation is either presented as irrelevant or ambiguous (in canon). It's just that this ambiguity doesn't mean he's automatically either asexual or heteroromantic by default.

I suppose it's a fair question to ask, then: why is calling Sherlock gay different? Isn't this 'homonormativity', somehow, especially given the rather critical view of fandom's headcanons I just took?

First of all, homonormativity does not exist. That's my answer even in fandom-- even with everything I described. You simply *cannot* truly default to it aside from issues of individual projection, because heteronormativity is that omnipresent and ingrained in society at large. I would *prefer* that any and all fans could consider Sherlock-- or a similar character-- as being in a truly liminal, ambiguous space with regards to sexuality, because I think that's a useful mental habit to get into in order to undermine one's inevitably ingrained heteronormativity. However, 'gay Sherlock' doesn't have to take away from that in the same way a straight or purely asexual reading would, because of the existence of heteronormativity and its unfortunate perpetuation and normalization through the desexualization of queer-coded characters. This is to do with the history of the portrayal of queer characters in film. As long as 'odd' or 'non-straight' characters weren't portrayed sexually or shown to be romantically involved, they were allowed to continue uncensored. Besides that, you really cannot default to actual asexuality, any more than to homosexuality; aside from a pure headcanon that exists totally apart from the text, it would need to be explicitly portrayed and established in its own right. This is something only heterosexuality would be exempt from. In other words, in the heteronormative environment we all exist in, no character can be *assumed* to be either gay or asexual. It has to be shown or otherwise coded. Sherlock, of course, *is* queer-coded. It may look and sound just like the rampant fannish headcanons, but it's actually a reading based on strong textual evidence.

Well... I was simply thinking of @sidryan's post on TAB's waterfall scene in the larger context, you know, considering Series 4. Of course, at the time this seemed virtually a guarantee of canon Johnlock, y'know? At least to me. Like, it was very affirming. And it's not that Sherlock shoots it down, really. John said 'impertinent' and I know that doesn't mean it's 'wrong'... but BBC Sherlock's problem was never that the show was homophobic, exactly, right? So it's not about that. Of course Sherlock didn't imply Moriarty offended him with a queer insinuation itself, because 'it's all fine'. Besides, Sherlock never really reacts to such insinuations with any comeback or offense on a personal level. He usually stays silent or deflects but never clarifies (except to say sex doesn't alarm him, but that's 'cause it's Mycroft).

Sorry I hadn't gone into a tag meta this time haha, so my stream of thought was probably unclear. I just think that both John and Sherlock shut Moriarty down, but in a way that wasn't overtly homophobic or even suggesting necessarily that they *shouldn't* elope (that's their private business). The ambiguous homoerotic tension between them is preserved or even heightened. That was a very Johnlocky scene, and it's one of my favorites in the entire show, encapsulating as it does the best about the Holmes/Watson legendary dynamic and the sheer faith and affection they have for one another: this is it, 'the two of us against the rest of the world'.

It's just... what I mean is, John's 'impertinent' should have told us that BBC Sherlock isn't interested in really blowing this thing wide open. It's ultimately an ambiguous shut down that could be understood about the same as John's 'I'm not actually gay'. That is, John is clearly not actually gay, and Moriarty's words *were* quite impertinent. But the show isn't interested in telling us what these characters really think or who they really are in this sense, so all we have are these ambiguous denials. You could argue that this is because the whole question is impertinent and invasive of their privacy, and indeed I can't help but think of this scene after Gatiss's comments on how it's distasteful to 'out a character for the sake of it'. That's the sense I get from the phrasing here: they're certainly leaving us room to see it as an acknowledgement on some level, but no one is being outed any time soon, and I think the choice of words is important in suggesting so.

I'm not only talking about opinions, but the *emphasis* placed on those opinions. Like, if I agree with you but ultimately I don't care that much and you care a lot, we're still ultimately disagreeing, in a sense. It's hard for me to get super angry in the long-term without burning out and avoiding it, and I'm not nearly as political or specifically invested (comparatively) in my identity as a female or queer viewer. So in other words, I don't really feel I'm *comparatively* emotionally fixated on either female or queer characters, either in BBC Sherlock or elsewhere. I'm interested and even invested, but if it's about comparison to other people's responses, I'm not that emotional myself. Mostly, I don't personally feel I need representation as a woman in the audience of BBC Sherlock. I sympathize but I don't *relate*, even though sure, I'm a lot like Molly. Sure, I'm given to hopeless, endless crushes. Sure. But so what? That's a trait I share with millions of characters and even more real people, most of whom I don't care for or know anything about. That's just reality. Sharing certain traits with people is good for friendship or building empathy, but with characters I prefer understanding or enjoyment. Shared experiences are only truly meaningful for me when fiction illuminates them in some way rather than just faithfully reproducing a state of being I simply recognize as real. Like, surely that's the *least* a good story can do.

Sherlock isn't interesting to me 'cause he's real or 'realistic' (he's not, in many ways), but because he captures and expands upon traits and concepts I've experienced in slightly different or even very different ways. That skewed reflection-- that's enlightening. That's useful. I also find Sherlock interesting 'cause I admire him. I enjoy his many personal quirks, the way he's written. I enjoy his depths, and this is because I feel I *know* him. I *can* know him, which I find absolutely essential to truly loving or caring about a character. I know a whole lot more about him, and it's not because he has a hopeless crush on John, either. As I said recently, he doesn't. At most, it's a misunderstanding they've now implicitly resolved. More importantly, he's the most vivid, most fleshed out character in a show I've loved as soon as I first saw it, only comparable to John... and we actually don't know that much about John's family or history (comparatively).

In the end, it seems to me that talking about any character other than Sherlock and John (and often also Sherlock and John) involves projection; in other words, talking about yourself. To be clear, I've spent my whole life understanding my own life and feelings through fiction. I'm just saying that, I suppose, there's situations where other people's personal experiences work to brilliantly bring light to the characters in a way I could never manage, because they are the things implicit in the text that I miss. I acknowledge that I don't relate to certain minor characters like say, Kavinsky or Henry Cheng in The Raven Cycle, while other people do... and they write really great meta about it. They use their personal insight as a way in, as a motivation to do a close reading that works closely with the text. That's amazing. I live for that reading that adds to the text while taking all of the nuances and narrative contexts into account. And then there's simply projection, where the major context is personal, and only useful or enlightening *for* that person. This process can be cathartic and important for the individual in question, and I do sympathize. I just don't relate to projection and/or strong feelings about minor characters who happen to be female (basically, Mary and Molly, though this extends to Mrs Hudson, Rosie, Irene and Janine). Of course, I definitely don't need characters to be like me in general, 'cause that's not how I relate to fiction.

In the end, I really don't care about any minor character pretty much ever, unless that includes Mycroft (sort of... I only sort of care about Mycroft). I'm just... very, very single-minded. Once I'm really hyper-fixated on a character or pairing, there's really nothing that can happen to distract me if I'm still interested in their world. Eventually I'll get tired or burnt out, and I'll probably have to take an indefinite break, but I don't really... give up or focus on other things if there's anything left to say about my favorites. Basically, here are the things I ultimately don't really care about in BBC Sherlock:

Anything except John and Sherlock's relationship, in whatever form it takes.

I think that's why I can be relatively sanguine about Series 4. My interest in John and Sherlock is extremely broad within its purview, because it's also very, very narrow in the larger context of everything you *could* talk about with the show (or fandom). By 'broad', I mean I'm extremely flexible about what happens as long as it's happening to John and Sherlock, 'cause... that's what I'm interested in about the show (I mean, obviously I was into the whole romance thing, but that's just what made the most sense at the time). Conversely, my interest is also very narrow. Like, I can't imagine leaving the fandom because of Mary, for example, 'cause ultimately I'm apathetic since she's not John or Sherlock, is she? If we're just talking about John and Sherlock, we snap back to the fact that my interest is broad: it's not just about my headcanons or specific goals or preferences. Anything I can see or acknowledge as making sense in characterization continuity (like I immediately could do with S4 John) is enough, with a preference towards interesting or unusual twists. I like surprises (whether in plot or characterization) if I can see why that something surprising happened in retrospect. I usually can. That probably goes a long way towards explaining why Series 4 worked so well for me (comparatively).

As I said, though. I certainly feel... different. I dunno where it is that I put 2 and 2 together and got 5, exactly, but I suspect it probably comes down to my somewhat radical apathy about Mary (and, you know, everyone else), and my general flexibility with plot devices and in terms of the line between romantic and platonic. Obviously I have my preferences and my (many) opinions, but it's all fine as long as I feel everything always revolves narratively around Sherlock and John. And it clearly seems counterintuitive to most people, but I definitely still feel everything revolves around John and Sherlock's needs, in S3 as well as in S4. I wanted Mary gone as soon as possible when John married her, for example, and she really was! As I wrote recently, there's actually no sense of dwelling in tragedy when you really think of the pacing of S3-S4, and they move quite fast if you think about it. They used TEH to introduce Mary and reunite John and Sherlock. In TSoT, Mary and John got married in one ep, and the very next ep, their marriage was in trouble and Mary was revealed to have a secret past. In the very next ep, TST, it comes back to bite her and she dies. John spends one ep coming to terms with her death, his issues with Sherlock and himself, and then it's all resolved just in time for the final climax of Sherlock's own arc in TFP. That's fast.