#but its like the exact opposite of how moffat writes

[davidmann95]

Comics this week (12/16/2020)?

Iron Man #4: Still good! Every issue I remain surprised that this is staying good, and yet it does!

The Immortal Hulk #41: A real good revisitation from a completely different angle of the ‘here’s why regular superheroes can’t fix what’s going on here’ thread from way back in #7, and god between this and Empyre Ewing writes such a perfect Ben Grimm.

King In Black: The Immortal Hulk: Surprised this didn’t end up a direct follow-up on the dangling thread left behind from the Absolute Carnage tie-in, but this was excellent so I’m not complaining.

Solid Blood #17: A new Robert Kirkman comic (joined by Ryan Ottley) announced right before its release like Die! Die! Die! before it, this one has the added gimmick of dropping its seventeenth issue with no preamble. The actual comic...well, the actual comic is basically 1963 for the 90s in the most fun way (it’s even printed on authentically fitting paper stock!), but the seeds of something much stranger are established and I have almost no clue what to expect next, quite literally. It must be nice to have that sort of fuck-you Walking Dead money, and I’m glad Kirkman’s choosing to do something as weird and interesting as this with it.

We Live #3: This one felt somewhat disjointed, but still an excellent experience.

Stillwater #4: I cannot believe I’m getting and enjoying so many horror comics on a regular basis now.

Once & Future #14: I keep saying I’m appreciating and decently enjoying this book while not connecting with it, but maybe it is winning me over.

We Only Find Them When They’re Dead #4: Get this book.

Decorum #6: I swear to god this series might be the prettiest comic of all time.

Commanders in Crisis #3: I didn’t review this one for AIPT, but this one’s a bit of a bridge between the first two issues tonally, both as grounded and as weird as the book has been thus far. I’m ready for it to return to something more bombastic, but I still have zero doubt this is going to be an all-timer when it wraps. No character interview with Ritesh Babu on AIPT this month, BUT in its place @deathchrist2000 has interviewed Prizefigher for Comic Book Herald on the subject of an in-universe James Bond novel written by Steven Moffat, and it rules.

Second Coming: Only Begotten Son #1: To borrow a line from @deathchrist2000, that sure is the death of Krypton as portrayed by the writer of The Flintstones. That’s the opposite of a complaint for me, but that’s sure what it is.

Superman #28: Kind of a perfect ending to Bendis’s tenure, in that it ends up totally whiffing some great ideas even if you can only mind so much given the quality of the character insight with the narration, but then there’s a Superman Moment so perfect it breaks your heart. Very glad Bendis will keep writing him in his half-announced Justice League with Marquez, and that he said today he’ll keep writing him elsewhere as well (I continue to assume he’s working on a Future State-era Jon as Superman book). Let’s see how well Action can put even more of a bow on it next week even with that art holding it back.

Batman #105: Does the ending here totally make sense? Ehhh. Am I willing to forgive any lapses in logic that get us way more Ghost-Maker? Hell yes. Speaking of which, he and Bruce totally used to be a thing off-panel, right? That’s the vibe I got from the opening in a BIG way.

Catwoman #28: I’ve been saying I’ve been loving it but also been waiting for what it looks like when it gets out from under Brubaker’s shadow, and I think I’m starting to see it, and it’s definitely my jam.

The Batman’s Grave #12: So someone either didn’t see or didn’t care that I explained I had already checked with my store to ensure my purchase of this wouldn’t result in any money going to Warren Ellis, so they messaged me spoilers for the ending of the issue in an attempt to ‘dissuade me’ from any further interest. A. Wherever the motives there are coming from, incredible dick move, for the love of god don’t do this. B. They misunderstood what happened in the ending? Wild. Anyway, it’s fine but also Ellis’s fourth-best Batman comic, strange if not at all undeserved that his now presumed/hopeful final Big Two comic, intended as a huge prestige Batman perennial (still confused why it wasn’t Black Label) and sure to forever be pushed as such if not for outside circumstances, ended up one of his passable third-tier works, destined to be remembered only as “that Batman comic DC had to finish publishing even after it turned out Warren Ellis was a piece of shit”.

Rorschach #3: Standard policy regarding my comments on this series applying: it was good.

Dark Nights: Death Metal #6: This one...kinda blew? Totally perfunctory moving-the-pieces into place issue for the most part, one or two nice moments aside. What a disappointing capstone to a story from 2017 to now I largely loved, hope it at least delivers a few haymakers with the finale.

Tales of the Dark Multiverse: Crisis on Infinite Earths: Mixed feelings. The beginning and ending are the sort of slaughter in mass of super-dopes without fanfare and on such a scale that it reminds me of World’s Funnest doing the exact same scenes for comedy, but that middle chunk? By god, Orlando makes me give a shit about the JSA, and that’s no mean feat, plus nice to see him write a few great Superman bits on his way out the door. Speaking of which, I’m mainly parsing this issue as an expression of Orlando’s bitterness over said exit and his time with DC as a comic about a big swaggering puffed-up dumbass living for destruction before whom our heroes our powerless, and a man has to sacrifice himself for a queer kid in servitude to it so that they can have a future and keep building that world. I liked it in balance, but I think I found it more interesting than good.

(Since I’m mentioning two Orlando books in here, worth noting I read this week his and Ricardo López Ortiz’s The Pull on Comixology. I’m not clear if it was released in single issues - I can’t quite wrap my head around TKO’s publishing model - but it’s basically an unholy mash between shonen manga, grungy noir crime comics, and a Crisis, and it rules and you should get it.)

The Green Lantern Season Two #10: What a strange, messy, fascinating capstone to Morrison’s DC work this series has turned out to be, and holy cow how has this been Liam Sharp lately? When did he get on this amazing Frazer Irving shit? And how is Ultrawar gonna happen and be resolved entirely within #12, unless it goes for a more abstract “The Ultrawar was really inside us all along!” conclusion?

#Week's Comics #Opinion

[thecaffeinebookwarrior]

Tips For Writing Time Travel:  An Illustrated Guide.

@jjpivotz asked:

“What is a good way that I could write time travelling without it being cliche?”

Ooh, I love questions like this!  They’re so much fun, and on a somewhat self-indulgent level, they really get me thinking on the tropes themselves.

So without further ado, here are my personal thoughts on writing about time travel:

1.  Embrace the fact that it’s not gonna make total sense.

This goes for a lot of creative fiction.  When I was writing my urban fantasy novel, for example, I used a lot of traditional mythological figures whose duties and depictions (i.e. one humanoid being reaping the dead despite the fact that over a hundred thousand people die a day, billion-year-old entities who still look and behave like teenagers, figures from religions whose world views wildly conflict interacting with each other, etc.) weren’t compatible with what we currently know about the laws of physics.  

And the sooner I resolved not to even attempt to explain it, the sooner my novel improved.  

The wonderful thing about fiction is that it doesn’t have to imitate reality as we know it;  the laws of the physical universe need not apply.  And as long as the characters in your universe accept that, so will the reader.  

I’ve had around twenty beta readers look at my book, and not one of them has poked holes in my casual disregard for the conventionally accepted rules of physical reality.  The suspension of disbelief is an amazing thing.

As for how to best apply this to time travel, take Back to the Future, for example. This is one of the best time travel series ever made, but if you really look at what’s going on, you’ll come to find that none of it really makes any sense at all.

First of all, Marty McFly is a popular high school student whose best friend is an eccentric nuclear physicist.  Conventional wisdom (and just about every fiction writing book or advice blog I’ve ever read) would dictate that this is a pretty heavy plot-point and warrants some explanation.  But the narrative never questions it, and as such neither does the vast majority of its audience.  

It is in this exact manner that Back to the Future handles its heaviest of all plotpoints, the act of time travel, which is the main driving force behind its entire plot.  

How does it explain Doc Brown’s ability to time travel?  Well, he invented the Flux Capacitor, of course.  What is a Flux Capacitor, you ask?  How does it work, exactly?  Well, fucked if I know.  All I know is that the narrative treats it like it’s a real thing, and by default, so do I.    

The same could be said for the magically changing family portrait, the fact that the characters can’t interact with their past or future selves without universal destruction, flying cars, and the fact that the McFlys’ future children inexplicably look exactly like them.  None of it makes any sense.  And it’s fucking magical.

Another of my favorite examples of this is pre-Moffat Doctor Who.  The science is campy, occasionally straight-up ridiculous, and unabashedly nonsensical, yet paves the way for some truly great and thought provoking storylines and commentary.  

Bottom line is, I don’t know how to time travel.  I’m guessing you don’t either, otherwise you probably wouldn’t be asking me for advice on how to write it.  Accept it.  Embrace it.  Don’t be bashful about it -- trust me, time travelers are probably a minority in your readership, so they won’t judge you.

So as to what would be a good means of writing time travel, the short answer is:  any way you want.  For obvious reasons, I’d stay away from old cars, police boxes, and phone booths, but with the power of the suspension of disbelief, virtually nothing is off the table:  a pair of magic sneakers, a refrigerator, a closet, a treehouse -oh, crap, that one’s been done before.  But you get the picture.  You can be as creative as you want to be about it.  Don’t be afraid to step outside the police box, so to speak.  

Trust in the magic of the suspension of disbelief, and don’t overthink things.  Your story and readers will thank you.

As for how to avoid other cliches, that brings me to my next point: 

2.  Look at the tried and true tropes of time traveling.  Now subvert them.

This might just be me and my adoration of irony talking, but since you specifically asked how to avoid cliche I’m going to indulge myself here.

Do the exact opposite of what people expect from narratives about time travel.  You know the old trope:  the protagonist steps on a bug, and comes back to the present to find the world being ruled by gorillas.  

I’m not telling you not to include drastic consequences for time travel, because there would probably be quite a few (at least if you believe in the chaos theory, which states every action has a universal reaction.)  

But you could toy around with the idea that fate isn’t something that can ultimately be altered at all, and that all the protagonist accomplishes is solidifying (or even triggering) a pre-existing outcome.   

My knee-jerk suggestion, as someone who takes fiendish glee in incorporating humor into my writing, would be to make the protagonist have some Forrest Gump-type encounters that unwittingly trigger huge, history-defining event, but it can also be significantly more tragic than that:  maybe the protagonist goes back in time to save his father from a hit-and-run car accident, for example, and then accidentally kills him.  Or perhaps he realizes that his father was a bad man (beat his mother, planned on killing someone, etc.) and makes a moral decision to kill him (which is also a great way to ask philosophical questions.  More on that later.)  

I don’t know what kind of time travel your writing or what your style of writing is, but these are things I’d personally just love to play around with.    

Or maybe time travel does change things, but it’s not even close to what the protagonist expected:  maybe his words of wisdom to his newly married mother about true love and the meaning of life and whatnot unexpectedly lead her to realize that she’s deeply unhappy in her current marriage, and he returns to the present to find her divorced (lesbian stepmom optional.)  

Maybe absolutely nothing at all changes, but he realizes that he’s responsible for some famous Mandela Effect, like the Bearenstein/Bearenstain discrepancy.  

Bottom line is, don’t be afraid to do the unexpected.  But conversely, don’t be afraid to use tried and true tropes, either:  regardless of how overdone they may seem to be, they can almost always be rejuvenated when interjected with a thought-provoking plot.

Which brings me to my final point:

3.  Make sure it has something to say.

Science fiction, especially the speculative variety, tends to be best when it begins by asking a question, for which it will later provide an answer.  Take, for example, Planet of the Apes.  The pervasive question of the movie is whether or not humanity is inherently self-destructive, which it ultimately answers with its famed final plot twist that humanity has long since destroyed itself.  

Rod Serling (who was incidentally responsible for the original Planet of the Apes, by the way) did this remarkably well:  almost every episode of the Twilight Zone packed a massive philosophical punch due to the fact that they followed this simplistic formula.  The episode would begin with the presentation of a question, big or small (frequently by the charismatic Serling himself) and by the end of the episode, that question would be answered. 

I’m not going to go in to detail here, as it would spoil the magic of uncovering the plot twists for the first time, but Serling used his speculation to tackle the narrow-mindedness of beauty standards in Eye of the Beholder, the dangers of fascism in Obsolete Man, the communist paranoia of the time period with the Monsters are Due on Maple Street, and countless more.  

I would recommend watching the original Twilight Zone for almost anyone looking to write speculative fiction such as time travel. 

Even if your work isn’t compatible with this specific formula of Question => Debate => Answer (which some work isn’t) it will still need to have some kind of underlying statement to it, or no matter how clever the science fiction is or how original the time travel is, it will fall flat.  

This is why Twilight Zone, Planet of the Apes, Back to the Future, and (pre-Moffat, as I always feel inclined to stress -- he does literally the opposite of almost everything I recommend here) Doctor Who still remain widely enjoyed today, despite the fact that many of their tropes have been used many, many times since they original aired.

So for time travel, remember that it is a means, not an end.  You could write the most cliched type of time travel story imaginable, and your audience will still feel fulfilled by it if your message is heartfelt, thought-provoking, and/or poignant.

Maybe you want to use time travel to make a statement about your belief in the existence of fate, or lack thereof.  In this case, using the Sterling Approach, you would have your story begin with the question of whether or not humans can alter or change destiny, allow the narrative/characters to argue the question back and forth for a while, and then ultimately disclose what you believe the answer to be.

Or maybe you want to use time travel to explore or subvert the treachery of history and how it is taught, and show how the true narrative can be explored, purposefully or otherwise, by the victors.  

Maybe you want to show that there’s no clear answer, or maybe no answer at all, a la the cheerful nihilism of Douglas Adams novels.

Either way, figure out what you want your message to be long before you put pen to paper, and then use time travel, like any other creative trope, as a means to an end to answer it.  Your story will thank you for it.

(I hope this helps!)

#writing #writing tips #writing advice #time travel #science fiction #back to the future #doctor who #planet of the apes #the twilight zone #rod serling #ask the author

[wildwoodgoddess]

The Problem Finale: Thoughts on Sherlock “The Final Problem”

This is probably going to get long, but I don’t really want to split it into two posts, so just brace yourselves.

I’m planning to cover the following:

1) What TFP Got Right (in my opinion) 2) What TFP Got Wrong (also imo) 3) About Johnlock 4) Some personal thoughts on #3 and the series as a whole

You won’t find wank or hate in this post. Quite the opposite. And I’m hoping it will be accessible and interesting regardless of your opinions on Item 3.  

I’ll do my best to respond to any asks, but I am headed into a writing deadline of my own and need to switch my attention to that for the next several weeks, so I might be a little slow on replying. Please feel free to get in touch, though. Would love to hear from you.

So here we go…under the cut:

What TFP Got Right:

The entire show, as stated in ASiP, was aimed at showing Sherlock’s progression from a “great” man to a “good” one. In the context of the show, this meant becoming more socially aware and embracing emotions as good and healthy, allowing himself to love, to have a family.  

And it did that. I thought it was key in TFP that Sherlock flat out insists that John remain during Mycroft’s explanation of Eurus because John IS FAMILY. Compare that to ASiP where Sherlock is barely willing to acknowledge Mycroft as his brother.  

TFP makes it very clear that emotions, especially love (of all kinds) are the key to solving the final problem. Without understanding emotions, Sherlock wouldn’t have been able to avoid shooting Mycroft or John. It was his insight into Eurus’ own emotions that made him realize that threatening to shoot himself was the only way to get her to stop. And it was his own ability to show her compassion that allowed him to be able to save John.

That message is pretty hamfisted, in my opinion, especially in how Mycroft speaks, compared to how Sherlock reacts. But it’s there, and Sherlock’s ability to show Eurus compassion and grace is the culmination of that transformation.  

I did like that they had Sherlock “rewrite” his memories of his childhood friend because he couldn’t deal with the murder.  

And I really liked that the writers have said that these 4 series turned into a sort of origin story for how “our” Sherlock went from a cold-blooded faux-sociopath to a truly loving, caring human being that would be—if the show goes forward—more like the mature, good-hearted person in the ACD stories. I can get on board with that, and I think the 4 series did well with that progression.  

Other small things I liked: Eurus giving Sherlock violin lessons, Mycroft being disguised as the old man (paralleled TEH where John thinks his elderly patient with the porn videos is Sherlock), Sherlock playing with Rosie at the end, the fact that Mycroft had such a weak stomach when it came to shooting someone himself, Mycroft trying to goad Sherlock into shooting him by insulting John, Sherlock spotting that immediately, and making Mycroft sit in the client chair.

What TFP Got Wrong:

Where do I begin? *sigh*

A lot of people are talking about plot holes and implausibility. And in spite of the larger-than-life nature of the show itself, I think a lot of stuff in this episode does strain credulity, basically, because Eurus is—as another article said—almost comic-book super villain. The rocky island prison was practically Azkaban, and her abilities were nearly magic. I believe that the writers definitely intended it to be taken as in-world fact, but it did seem to be a bit much.  

I would have been able to accept it as plausible in this story world if Eurus had been a looming presence in some form over the course of all 4 series. The attempt to tie in Moriarty to her seemed a bit forced. Moriarty was set up from episode 1 as the arch-nemesis, and I felt all along that killing him at the end of series 2 didn’t make a lot of narrative sense. Eurus felt to me like an attempt to fill in that gap, but it would have been much more effective if there had clearly been a shadow presence even beyond Moriarty from the very start. The audience didn’t have any emotional connection to Eurus because she really only showed up for like 30 seconds at the end of TLD and then for TFP.  

And the analysis I read (and reblogged) about Eurus being treated like a Victorian woman put into an asylum because she was too clever was very insightful. I really like SO much of Moffat’s style of storytelling, but it’s pretty hard to defend him against all the charges of misogyny when he keeps stepping in it over and over.  

Because of the lack of build up to the Eurus reveal, the emotional arc of the episode felt rushed. Too much plot, not enough space for reactions. The fact that John was saved by being thrown a rope, and somehow the chain disappeared, and the immediate aftermath of that rescue wasn’t shown—not only were these plot holes, it was supposed to be the climax of the episode and it lacked strength and emotional resonance because it was rushed.

I am constantly telling my editing clients that they have to show the emotional response of their characters. It’s one of the most common writing mistakes that I encounter. And this episode made the exact same mistake—which is painfully ironic considering that the importance of emotions was the theme of the entire story.

But because the story needed so much flashback and exposition and plot, the emotional journey of the characters was glossed over, rushed. That’s another reason why it felt implausible. I strongly suspect that if the characters had been allowed enough space in the story to react, to respond to the plot, the plot itself would have felt more plausible, even if the plot holes remained. That’s how story works—if the story can show the characters’ emotions well enough, you will connect with them on that emotional level, and you won’t mind the plot holes so much. I think the story failed on that point because it chose to center plot over character.  

That may have been the fault of the writers, or it may have been the fault of the director/editor. Just keep that in mind—an editor can change the entire tone of a story just by removing space between lines or choosing one shot instead of another.  

I could probably nit-pick more, but I’ll stop there. I really wanted to like this episode, and I did to an extent, but I could have been completely transported by it, and I’m sad that I wasn’t.

About Johnlock:

I find myself in the truly wonderful position of having a lot of new followers in the past few weeks. And some of them don’t ship at all, others ship John and Sherlock, and others prefer other pairs. I love that I have such a variety—thank you to all of you for giving me a try.

With that in mind, I want to address the Johnlock people and then the not-Johnlock people.

First, Johnlock people and TJLC’ers: 

You weren’t wrong. You weren’t seeing things that weren’t there. I thought some of the subtext analysis was a stretch, but not all. Not by a long shot.  

I ended up joining Tumbler after TEH aired. It was the first episode I saw, and then I went back and watched all of S1 and S2. But what I saw in the flashback of the Fall made me think “are they putting John and Sherlock together romantically?” And that started me Googling, and that led me to Tumblr Sherlock meta, and here I am three years later.

I have repeatedly said that John and Sherlock’s relationship follows a classic romantic story arc. But I’ve also said that this formula can also be used for platonic friendships (The King’s Speech is my favorite example of that). It’s just not as common.

In this case, I think it was perfectly reasonable to suspect and predict that they’d get together. And I was disappointed from a story-telling standpoint because I think it would have made much more sense for them to go ahead with a romance.

First, they have explicitly demonstrated that neither John or Sherlock can have a romantic relationship with someone else because the two of them together just isn’t compatible with a trio. There won’t be anyone else for either of them.

Second, they’ve never given any good, compelling reason why they wouldn’t get together, other than John’s protestations that he isn’t gay (which, hello bisexuality) and Sherlock’s belief that he can’t have relationships because of The Work, which has been effectively destroyed.  

Instead, we are being presented with the suggestion that Sherlock and John live forevermore together in domestic 221B, totally platonic bliss, raising their daughter together.

That would work, I suppose, if Sherlock was portrayed as completely asexual as just his natural orientation. But he’s not. He’s shown as someone who suppressed emotions for the sake of reason (and now, because of the trauma he experienced at the hand of Eurus). But he’s changed now, and the show has gone out of its way several times to point out that romance is a lack in Sherlock’s life. Whether or not John is right that romance would complete him is debatable. And maybe even after Sherlock’s inner transformation, he simply doesn’t have sexual or romantic desires. But that idea rests completely on speculation. It isn’t addressed one way or another in the show itself.

So keeping them from being a couple does seem to be an unnecessary contortion.  

The only defense I can make of it is that I believe the show’s in-world truth is that John loved Mary in a flawed but real way. And TFP takes place not so very long after Mary was killed. John may not have been emotionally ready to begin a new romance, no matter how much he truly loves Sherlock.  

But it’s a pretty weak defense, and it just seems to me that since they clearly aren’t going to do another trio by giving either of them another partner, there really isn’t any good story-telling reason to NOT do a romance. I’ll let others speculate about why they chose not to, but I think it was a poor creative choice.

However, they DO end up together and happy—even if it’s in a way that feels a bit like a story-telling cheat.  

So for people who are sad, disappointed, angry, and feeling betrayed by this creative choice, please know that you weren’t totally imagining things.  

I also want to encourage you, as others have already done, to channel those emotions into positive and productive energy. Create the stories you are asking for—whether books, film, or other media.

If you can’t create, then find ways to support people who can. And not just Sherlock fan creations. There are web series worth supporting on crowd-fund sites, there are authors who would appreciate if you spent a couple bucks on their books. If you don’t even have a couple dollars, at least offer encouragement. Offer to beta read. Volunteer as a personal assistant to an author or artist who needs some administrative help. Be the loudest megaphone to help promote these works so that others who can afford to fund will do so.

To Non-Johnlock people: 

Be considerate. Please. I haven’t seen anyone on my dash being rude or mean or even gloating. That’s lovely. Keep it up. Understand and remember that a lot of people looked to the show to offer a positive reflection of themselves. A lot of people need to hear that not only are they ok, they are heroes. And if that is what you are longing to hear and have been getting hints of, to have that taken away is really hard. Have compassion.

Personal Thoughts:

Stories are important, stories are life changing. Even without John and Sherlock becoming a romantic couple, this show has changed my way of viewing stories. It’s made me more empathetic. Not so much because of the show itself, but because of the analysis and historical context I’ve gained from Johnlock people.  

No matter who we would like to see together, we ALL need more empathy and to understand different perspectives.  

And yet, at the same time, it is ONLY a story. It shouldn’t be your identity. It shouldn’t be what you live for. And it shouldn’t be something that ruins your relationships with other people—even ones on a blog site.  

Live for something that you can create for yourself—your own life, your relationships, your career, your passion. Enjoy the creations of others, but don’t let that be your foundation. Create—and live—your own story.

Don’t put creators on pedestals. But don’t be mean to them either. They are fallible human beings, just like the rest of us. Believe me, I know. We have things we don’t understand. We have biases. We sometimes fail to communicate clearly. We can be assholes. I really don’t think that anyone involved with the show intended to hurt or disappoint anyone. Why would they? There’s no incentive in that. They may have screwed up or disappointed you, but they aren’t evil.

I just want to say a big thank you to the Sherlock fandom—you’ve inspired me, challenged me, and taught me so much. You’ve helped me see areas in my own writing that I need to grow in—as far as representation, getting out of my own comfort zone, being more aware of the impact that the way I tell my story can have on my readers.  

And going forward, no matter what the Sherlock creators plan to do next, I can tell you what I’m going to do:  

I’m going to do a better job at representation in my books. I’ve been wanting to, especially with LGBTQ+ characters, for some time, but I knew there was a lot I needed to learn and understand first because I really want to get it right and my upbringing and younger experiences didn’t prepare me at all for that. I’m getting there, and you all are helping so much with that, and I’m very grateful.  

I’m going to keep learning, and I’m going to continue trying to find and then promote stories that offer the representation we all need to have. Marginalized people need to be represented. But I also need them to be represented, whether the diversity represents me or not. I need to have those stories normalized. I need it because I need to get rid of my own biases and misunderstandings. I need it because I need more empathy. I need a broader perspective.

This is what story is supposed to do—provide validation, challenge ideas, help people grow, inspire them, give them hope. Bring about greater justice and compassion and empathy.  

Time will tell whether or not Sherlock accomplished any of this, or even meant to.  

But I think we all can take away a few lessons from it that ought to be applied to real life as well as the fandom:

Compassion, not cleverness, matters in the end.  

Love—in all its forms—is more important than being right. 

Emotions, connection, relationships are life-saving, not a liability.

Forgiveness is healing.

Hugs and love to you all! I’ll be a bit quiet after this because of my writing project, but I’m not going away entirely, and I’m looking forward to where the conversation heads from here.  

#bbc sherlock #meta #spoilers #tfprob #s4 #story structure #storytelling

[mild-lunacy]

Johnlock and the million-dollar question

The fact is, I hesitate to say anything. That's where I am. I'm not ready to really engage with fandom the way it is now, or possibly ever.

The worst part of the TJLC breaking thing for me is the confusion. Like, I was always invested, obviously, but the main thing is that I felt strongly this subtext and the arc and all that stuff about romance and references to Sherlock's sexuality (like, ASiP, ASiB, TSoT and TAB) were important to the show. Not just there for shits and giggles, or even for representation. I'm not talking about subtext or code: sexuality, romantic attachment and embodiment are actual textual themes in the show. That's the 'rifle on the wall' Ivyblossom references being left in TLD in her recent post, but there's any number of such rifles. Way, way too many for coincidence or anything other than intent. That's the heart of TJLC, to me: that assertion that the show is consistent, that it follows its own continuity. Letting that go is more than letting go of a subtextual gay romance; it's letting go of things in the text *making sense*. My point, however, is that I don't necessarily need to *predict* or to be right about *how* all this works. Am I disappointed there's no kiss, no explicit Johnlock? Obviously. But what I really need is a sense that things *make sense* again. So many tiny plot things led to the 'Redbeard as Victor Trevor' thing, for example, you just *know* Mofftiss are well aware of the queer narrative and take it seriously like all the other aspects of the subtext. So, the million-dollar question: what happened?

Anyway, after Ivy said that about the last conversation in TLD vis-à-vis the situation in TFP.... I had one of my Moments. That special sense of enlightenment, haha. And like, so my *initial* read of the sex reference in TFP was to shrug and dismiss Eurus as being wrong, even though she's set up as not wrong by nature ('cause obviously it's like, not true? who exactly would he have had sex with, and when?), but. Irene's theme and Irene in general is definitely tied in with sex, symbolically, so if Sherlock plays it differently, that's a big deal. So we have that plus the John being 'family' to Sherlock thing, plus John inviting Sherlock to watch the video in the first place.... It adds up. Not to mention the odd, easy and mischievous intimacy of planning that Mycroft caper together after TLD. John pretty much bragged about convincing Sherlock to do it. Like... dude. This is presented very casually, matter-of-factly, but it's no casual thing, y'know? John wasn't speaking to Sherlock not so long ago. And yet... so easy, so suddenly. Hmmm. And, of course, there's Mary making that reference to what they 'could be' together, wrapped up in some spiel about how their private lives and selves don't matter *for the story*, for their public 'legend'. And to all this, they didn't bat an eye. And most viewers apparently assumed this all meant there's nothing else there... never a safe assumption on this show. But regardless, you'd think John, at least, would react somehow, or maybe take the opportunity to bluster or roll his eyes or something, which he always had done before.... Always.

But no. Nothing like that. Ho hum, Mary thinks we're in love and both she and Eurus (and Irene, and Mrs Hudson, etc etc)... possibly everyone we've ever met at this point thinks we could be fucking and probably are already. John reliably reacts to this somehow. Outright denies it sometimes (unless Sherlock is there). Unless it's actually true this time, in which case, you know, it's all fine, isn't it? (Well, obviously? But who cares? It's old news, really.)

Anyway, this placid 'invisibility' of their relationship in TFP happens after their talk in TLD, and we know Gatiss thinks that's the ideal 'married couple'-type relationship for a queer detective.... To me, it definitely adds up, as I said. The narrative works beautifully with that reading. It is consistent! Voila! The test is passed. We have continuity lift-off.

Note that this bare bones approach to character development hasn't been unusual in BBC Sherlock; quite the opposite. They *love* using implicit stuff, hints and hidden corners. ASiB is full of it, and so is TAB and TSoT. Moffat is obsessed, obviously, and he wrote TFP. We know what kind of men they are, don't we? Oh, we do. They barely ever have anything be straightforward, honestly. Would they have Johnlock happen implicitly, almost entirely in the interstitial spaces, depending on the fans to fill in the blanks? Yes. You have to admit they would. Certainly they're both pretentious enough, indifferent enough about people's understanding their intent, and just about big enough trolls for that. And as Ivy also said, they *did*, I think. Essentially, I feel like this level of implicitness is their idea of canon Johnlock, though I'm not without hope we'll get a kiss one day in a Special. After the level of subtext-as-text we see in TAB, I'd say it's definitely possible.

Anyway, Ivyblossom generally sees the surface plus the first few layers of Johnlock subtext, which... is the show. And it struck me that this exact line, that type of reading, *this* is closest to the apparent intent for Mofftiss as of Series 4 (given a full canon and hindsight, since Ivy's overall reading of S3 still works mostly unbroken too). Remember, consistency is important, both in the text and the interpretation. And this is just so like them. To literally have Johnlock happen in the empty space between TLD and TFP is... absolutely like them. It makes sense, *given* you don't assume that the nature of the show would or *could* change dramatically after canon Johnlock, more or less, and given you refuse to believe TSoT and TAB are somehow episodes in an entirely different show.

That vision of BBC Sherlock as an actual romance was always a jump, an assumption made because we, the fans, know that most people are heteronormative and we know they *need* to see 'proof'. But would Mofftiss *care* about heteronormative people and their assumptions, about proving them wrong? No. They've often undermined these assumptions, and they may tease them, they have fun with them, but ultimately I get the feeling they don't care about people who're essentially not smart enough to see what they mean to show them (see their attitude re: TAB). So... it *works*. And you literally see it-- that change, that equilibrium-- in TFP, just like Ivy said. Instead of overt intimacy, John and Sherlock just... click. Hilariously, it's just like all those fanfics had it: no sex during cases, more or less. God, that little twinkle in John's eye, though. There was just that tiniest bit more relaxation; a more confident, mischievous mood, just a bit softer and more open, as appropriate to the circumstances. So subtle. So... John. For example, we know there's increased emotional intimacy between them outside casework 'cause he asked for Sherlock when he found Mary's other CD, but he also supported Sherlock emotionally during the case, reminding him of the need for 'soldier mode' along with a subtle hand on Sherlock's elbow. God. I *thought* that John was back in old-school form in TFP. That was my immediate response! And what would magically bring the old John back...? Two options: bad writing... or renewed and increased emotional intimacy with Sherlock. I vote Sherlock.

God, it's so subtle, so subtle, but they don't *do* casual touching, you know? They never have, really, from the very beginning. They don't touch intentionally but casually, even when they're drunk off their asses in TSoT. Their legs nearly but never quite made contact, remember, and we all thought John's deliberate, not-so-casual famous knee-grope was like a strip tease for them. Both their hugs were a huge deal, and even their handshake was a production. It's certainly not something to do sober, during a case. Remember when Sherlock grasped John by the head and seemed to go a bit fuzzy in TBB? Yeah. Not casual. Oh my God, I'm crying and not falling asleep. I'm seriously, literally crying 'cause that tiny, casual elbow touch is equivalent to canon Johnlock. That's Martin Freeman for you, isn't it? That's Gatiss, too. Wow. Wow. Wow.

My only dangling reservation is about the John characterization in TLD and TST, to a lesser extent. I wasn't as thrown by the violence at the morgue as some, and I accepted his irrational rejection of Sherlock after Mary's death, but it took me awhile to see the importance of their last conversation about Mary and romantic relationships to the two of them. I mean, I could tell not all was as it seemed and we were being heterobaited, but I wasn't clear what was being communicated. I hoped and expected TFP would clarify this, but of course it didn't, really (though honestly, stagnation or regression is actually often the initial, surface appearance of emotional development between Sherlock episodes. I mean, we've had apparent regression between TSoT and HLV, and an empty space within John and Sherlock's relationship between that beginning conversation in TEH and their stable relationship at the start of TSoT). So my initial read of TLD and the conversation was optimistic but confused; it was painful and didn't *obviously* go anywhere. Of course I had hoped for more from The Conversation we all expected in Series 4, though (just like with The Kiss). I had a very hard time actually imagining how it would actually go that was 100% stylistically consistent with what came before, however. Remember, we'd have to go beyond TSoT... and TSoT itself was an aberration stylistically. Anyway, I thought this was my lack of imagination. More likely, my instincts in the past were just saying a conversation that went 'full Monty' or an actual kiss would... break genre or existing show convention, maybe, in some indefinable way. Just instinctual on my part, apparently. So, we get just enough conversation to suggest the 'sort of thing' they'd talk about (romance! Irene! who they really are! hmmm) and the 'sort of thing' they'd do afterwards (cry and hug... Hmmmmm....)

I still hesitate about the extent of John's seeming hatefulness in much of TLD. I wouldn't say his behavior really shocked me personally at any point, but it's hard to entirely cast away other people's understanding of John if I respect their opinion, even when it's significantly fluffier than mine. Most people's interpretation of both John and Sherlock seems to go either a lot more or much less fluffy, in equally extreme measure. Either people seem to believe John (or Sherlock) is an abusive asshole and/or sociopath, or they're harmless babs. It's not like I was ever in danger of thinking John was a harmless bab, but he went pretty far in Series 4, even further than Series 3, and people could barely tolerate *that* much as in-character. So it definitely helped when I saw @thecutteralicia's last response on TLD!John, which brought up his adrenaline-driven violence against Sherlock in ASiB. Obviously, yeah, TLD is much more extreme, 'cause John's at the very end of his rope and convinced Sherlock's literally about to lose it and go rogue drug-abusing vigilante. He's already called Sherlock a monster and yeah, seen him kill a man that he probably shouldn't have. And he really isn't a hero in an absolute sense any more than Sherlock is. The entirety of TLD was about breaking that down narratively, and *then* having Sherlock accept him anyway, the way he finally accepts Sherlock.

So does this mean their relationship is abusive and Sherlock is martyred? I agree with the TLD!John post on that, too. They're both messed up characters, and the show has not been shy about this; it's not subtext, and in fact it's part of the very last few things the show tells us about the two of them (the two junkies solving cases for ulterior purposes, etc). It doesn't go one way only, regardless of the tally of their respective offenses against one another, which character fans are so fond of. Besides that, on a more abstract level, suffering for love is not the same thing is being abused, in the context of romantic angst within its genre. That's how it works. You take it or leave it if it's not your bag, more or less. Anyway... this sort of reasoning always came naturally to me, though as I said, I know too many people who've got a much softer interpretation of John (even John at the end of his rope). It's easy for me to connect the dots now that I've started. It's obvious, really.

I'm happy. As far as I'm concerned, we did get canon Johnlock, suuuuper implicit as it is. For all my gushing about loving the cases this series, I'm all about the boys. Of course I'm happy. Am I *satisfied*? Well... such is not the nature of humanity. People think we're crazy now more than ever before, obviously, so I resent Mofftiss just a bit for that. Partly, it's just being seen as insane and/or brainwashed indefinitely, which you could argue I've grown used to in fandom (... not really; actually, it sure gets old, lemme tell you). Yeah, that really sticks in my craw, no way around it. Aside from that, it's a shame that most fans as well as casual viewers-- and even many TJLCers now!-- simply won't appreciate that this is a beautiful love story. Maybe not even in 20-50 years when heteronormativity seems quaint, if they still watched the show, because people will always prioritize the surface narrative. Granted, of course, some special 10 years from now doesn't settle the matter, finally, when no one cares anymore. That seems like Mofftiss, doesn't it? But I'm still the person who wrote all those posts about how I need John to be declared bisexual, after all. I think I've processed a lot of that with my feelings about the representation of Adam Parrish in The Raven Cycle, another undeclared bisexual. I'm sympathetic to both sides of the debate, but the fact remains that I really love the portrayal of both Ronan and Adam in The Raven Cycle, so this can't help but influence my feelings. It works, it's consistent and I enjoyed it: that seems to frequently be enough for me. Obviously, there's a significant difference in that The Raven Cycle actually has an explicit, canonical relationship and an actual kiss between Adam and Ronan (though plenty of people in the fandom still thought they were robbed compared to the het couple). So... that sucks. If you think that's not acceptable, that's certainly a valid way to feel. As *representation*, BBC Sherlock definitely sucks the big one. There's no way around that. As a *story*, though, it's as frustrating and wonderful but as consistent as ever (which... suggests there's plenty of plot holes and/or dangling threads to go around, surely, but not about the things that really *matter*).

Basically, I understand if it's not enough for others, and there's good reason for that. But this is where I am. Not quite thankful, but definitely relieved. And maybe not hysterically blissful, but certainly happy, just because I know that's how Sherlock and John Watson canonically feel... as of the end of TLD and into their future as partners, with their private life remaining firmly private, it would seem. Partners in detectiving, in romancing, and-- God help me-- parenting, too. A family in every way.

PS: because *this* is the thought literally haunting me at night (and it's almost 6am, man): Jesus Christ, I can't believe they've done the do! OMG. John, you dog you. hehe I really wanna see how it all went down, but. I guess if you wanna see something done right, ya gotta do it yourself. Again and again and again (.... right, John?)

PPS, even later at night: hopefully @ivyblossom will write it before I have to take such extreme measures, particularly before breakfast, ehehehehe.

#sherlock meta #sherlock spoilers #series 4 #the final problem #sherlock feels #johnlock feels #tjlc

[theacefandom-blog]

@nevr those were just the first two incidents i could think of. while i was looking up some readings for this somebody else pointed out sheldon cooper from the big bang theory. and heres an article where cbs’ elementary handled sherlocks sexuality similarly to the bbc show. the fact is that you have at least three major, emmy-winning television shows that are doing this. its not an isolated incident, and its one that a lot of people are exposed to.

also im confused, are you suggesting that sherlock is queerbaiting gay fans too? because it definitely does. and im not sure why you think your so qualified to discuss it when you’ve never seen it before?

benedict cumberbatch has called sherlock asexual. steven moffat however has called asexuality “boring” and said “It’s the choice of a monk, not the choice of an asexual. If he was asexual, there would be no tension in that, no fun in that – it’s someone who abstains who’s interesting.” when asked whether or not sherlock is ace. so on one hand you have one person p instrumental to the characters development confirming it, while the main writer denies it and refuses to make it canon. 

as to what qualifies as baiting ace viewers, i think this has a very good explanation.  and here’s another one. 

and are you trying to say that queerbaiting is a way to get around censors? because that requires the author to actually intending for there characters to be interpreted as being some sort of lgbt+ identity. which is the exact opposite of what queerbaiting is.

“plus as far as i know sherlock iscalled a sociopath regularly in that show so i don't understabd why you'd want him as "representation"?” im going to link to this post again because it has a good explanation. in addition, as somebody who is autistic, i can relate to his character a lot (bc he is also autistic-coded. not like moffat would ever address that anyways.). believe it or not there are people with intersectional identities and we do like to see representation (admittedly, there are definitely better ways to write an autistic a-spec character, but this is all we have right now and having somebody try to take it away from us is not good). and to quote asexualadvice, “So they don’t get people complaining about queer/ace characters being in the show, and they don’t have to take a stand for anything, but they still get to use the character’s orientation (or hints thereof) for cheap laughs or thrills. And that’s without even getting into how problematic it is that a character’s orientation is even THERE to be used as cheap laughs/thrills instead of a real, valid part of them as a person.”

like i said im sure that these discussions do exist, but they are far rarer and usually only had by people who belong to that specific identity (similarly to discussions of ace queerbaiting). however, a lot of the discussions centered around queerbaiting people who are attracted to someone of the same gender are held not only in their communities, but in the lgbt+ community at large. for example, i am not sapphic but i often read and reblog posts concerning media where a sapphic relationship is the subject of the queerbaiting.

“and as for house i dont know what you expected like i watched that whole show and its not even worth complaining about the bad things in it bc theres so much of it” so if something is so terrible we aren’t allowed to complain about it? this doesnt make any sense, sorry.