The “Sherlock is queerbaiting” argument doesn’t even make sense at this point.

Meta
Title:	The “Sherlock is queerbaiting” argument doesn’t even make sense at this point.
Creator:	warmth-and-constancy
Date(s):	August 21, 2015
Medium:	online
Fandom:	BBC Sherlock
Topic:	The Johnlock Conspiracy, queerbaiting
External Links:	Tumblr, archive link
Click here for related articles on Fanlore.

Posted by Tumblr user warmth-and-constancy in 2015, this untitled meta - referred to here by its first sentence - criticizes allegations of queerbaiting often lodged against BBC Sherlock, suggesting that TJLC is the logical interpretation of what other fans often identify as queerbaiting and homophobia in the show.

Excerpts

The “Sherlock is queerbaiting” argument doesn’t even make sense at this point. It literally does not make nearly as much logical sense as the “Johnlock is going to be canon” argument.

The “Sherlock queerbaiting argument” suggests that:

1. Mark Gatiss, openly gay co-creator of the show and LGBT activist, whose favorite Sherlock Holmes adaptation is a movie which he has specifically stated – via verifiable sources – that he appreciates because of its gay, romantic subtext, and from which he has drawn numerous scenes, characterization, and lines of dialogue to incorporate into his own Sherlock Holmes adaptation, and which he has spoken at length about when introducing screenings of what is (or rather was) quite frankly this obscure film [...] and Steven Moffat are demonstrably “fixing” multiple elements of in their own adaptation, is going to A) not fix the “Watson doesn’t love Holmes back” element of that movie instead of B) using the financial and creative resources which are already at his disposal and the multi-episode set-up which he has already written into the show in order to fix it.

2. Despite not knowing how popular their Sherlock Holmes adaptation would be, and not knowing whether it would be renewed beyond the first three episodes, and having measured/realistic expectations for its success which have almost certainly been vastly exceeded, the show’s creators A) put gay subtext and text into those initial episodes – and the six subsequent episodes – in hopes of attracting and retaining a potential audience of LGBTQIAP-identified viewers which is SMALLER than the potential audience of heterosexual viewers and therefore less influential in keeping a show on the air through sheer ratings numbers, despite never promising to actually deliver on the subtext, instead of B) putting gay subtext in the show for reasons spelled out in the BBC’s own LGB representation report

3. Despite making a show which is a massive hit with tens of millions of people worldwide, the majority of whom – statistically speaking – must be heterosexual, and the majority of whom don’t even see the gay subtext, as reflected by a global entertainment media which barely discusses it, the showrunners have A) decided to keep the subtext going not for their own reasons, as suggested above, but in order to continue baiting a small fraction of that audience for reasons which aren’t clear, instead of B) putting whatever the fuck they want to put in their show and making it exactly how they want to make it regardless of what the audience actually wants at this point, because they are literally the BBC’s #1 show and pretty much have a guaranteed audience of tens of millions without the need for “baiting” anyone

4. the BBC, which released, prior to Sherlock’s first episode airing, a lengthy research report which was created after surveying LGB-identified viewers about how to avoid queerbaiting and how to create realistic, compelling portrayals of LGB characters, which spells out in black and white that a show which does what Sherlock is currently doing must deliver an actualized, on-screen relationship in order to both avoid queerbaiting and to give those LGB survey respondents what they asked for, which is a relationship that unfolds slowly, is A) aware that Sherlock is queerbaiting and is somehow just sort of okay with that, lol, whatevs, instead of B) holding Sherlock to the anti-queerbaiting standards set by the network, which dictate that Johnlock must become canon.

Ha. Yeah. Good argument.

Some Responses

[loudest-subtext-in-television]: Okay but try to understand my counter-argument: I’m crusty and bitter that people like things. I want to hate things, and I want people to care that I hate things. If you’re so smart, then answer me this: would anyone care about my opinion if I DIDN’T say that Moftiss is somehow ruining the world for spurious benefits? That’s right: no. So I will continue to not expose myself to conflicting evidence, thank you very much. I don’t need to research anything to know that Steven Moffat is a monster, you’re all his fawning slaves, and Mark Gatiss is the biggest fawning slave of all.

[galaxy-warping]: Wow don’t you just love heterosexual stoo blind to understand the facts presented to them

[warmth-and-constancy replying to galaxy-warping]: Like, truuuu, but also, the OP of this post is heterosexual (hello! *waves*) and the people making the argument that the show is deliberately queerbaiting frequently are not. This isn’t a case of straight people not seeing the gay subtext – most just don’t see it and therefore don’t discuss it. This is a case of people seeing it…and then ascribing malicious intent to it.

I realize that my being straight may cause certain people to accuse me of trying to explain to LGBT folks what queerbaiting is and isn’t, but that doesn’t change the fact that A) the facts demonstrate that this is not queerbaiting according to most people’s understanding of the concept, but, most importantly, according to the BBC’s understanding of the concept, and B) queerbaiting in Sherlock makes no rational sense from a business standpoint or from a creative one. Put yourself in the shoes of the creators and of the execs at the BBC and you’ll see that it’s absolutely not worth the time, effort, money, squandered good-will (which is more important to than the BBC than money…yes, really), and the cost to the coherence of the story and character arcs, to construct what people are suggesting is essentially an elaborate set-up of Sweet Fuck-All for five years running. But, regardless of whether or not people agree, I’m going to keep making the argument because it’s terribly unfair and in my opinion wrong to accuse Mark Gatiss, LGBT activist, advocate of “softly” introducing gay and bisexual characters into established stories, and writer of a story involving a bisexual protagonist who was only revealed to be bisexual out of the blue halfway through the story (at which point readers were already hooked), of deliberately and cruelly stringing along the same people who are supported by the charities he supports, and who are in the same position he was in as a young man and which he has spoken about (seeking gay representation in media), by doing the exact opposite of what he has always done, with no good reason given why he should do such a thing. Maybe there’s a slight chance he is, but in fairness shouldn’t we wait until he concludes his show without delivering this important thing before accusing him of not delivering it? It’s also true that the accusations of “it’s queerbaiting!” are not aimed at the showrunners, they’re aimed at fans on Tumblr who are doing nothing wrong and are excited and hopeful at the prospect of canon Johnlock and of seeing themselves represented in their favorite show, and while we can debate endlessly whether or not Mark Gatiss is acting cruelly, there’s no question when it comes to the people shitting on other fans.

[jcporter1]: ONLY…. Gatiss has said in many interviews (including those in gay magazines) - that he will not be doing Johnlock.

I hope he is lying. I don’t think we will ever get this close again for years to a possible Johnlock if Mofftiss backs away now.

It is precisely because I fear that Mofftiss will back away from Johnlock that I continue to keep my social media firmly at Gatiss’s metaphorical throat. he must go bravely forward with this and not back away like Billy Wilder did in TPLOSH.

Provided they can convince BC to go along with it.