Yeah, these are definitely âcry in the wildernessâ material. I mean, y'know, weâre sane and thereâs certainly a lot of very good reasons we drew the conclusions we did. Itâs fascinating that while most of these are Series 3, thereâs one thatâs Series 4. I was talking about this recently with TSoT in particular, how the episode creates lots of parallels between the romantic/matrimonial love between Mary and John and Sherlock and Johnâs partnership. I *think* itâs just that⊠John and Sherlock are super important to each other, and no one gets to like, *surpass* them, particularly in Sherlockâs importance to John. Think Spock and Kirk. Itâs just (obviously) maybe Spock was more important than Jimâs own soul, but he wasnât directly and indirectly compared and contrasted to Jimâs actual *girlfriends*. Thatâs⊠thatâs somewhat tasteless, in a way. On the other hand, Jim never had a serious girlfriend; in the Reboot, Spock has Uhura and they donât have soulmate angst, so itâs just a lot more *normal* relationship, and direct comparison is once again avoided even though Jim has a warm relationship with Uhura just as Sherlock does with Mary (and Molly, for that matter).
The problem in Sherlock is that ultimately, thereâs this structural tension between what the narrative seems to intend and what it actually implies. This is also an issue with Mary. I remember talking with @mifletset about Mary before S4, and she said weâre supposed to like Mary and people only disagreed âcause they expected certain things from the narrative. Itâs ironic âcause Iâd agree nowadays, but Iâd still argue that the narrative messed up. Mary teased Sherlock too much (particularly in TEH and during the wedding in TSoT) in a one-directional way Sherlock didnât reciprocate, and he just took the whole shooting thing for granted and accepted it, and then when she died and John blamed him, Sherlock accepted that and blamed himself too, as Ivy said. I get that itâs actually true that Sherlock did like Mary and that John loved her and the surface reading of HLV happened. Itâs just that itâs still *unnatural*, and not just âcause of shippy fangirls. Itâs that the feelings were presented but not *supported* properly; saying Sherlock didnât actually trust Mary was an attempt to make HLV make more sense, because the way he did react was⊠weird. The cognitive dissonance snowballs.
My point is that all these things happened for a reason that makes sense at the time (more or less), but together they fall flat. Just because you present a character as lovable doesnât mean they *are*, particularly when they still do bad things and donât face many consequences, or the consequences primarily fall on the main protagonists. You have to do more to balance the situation; Mary making cute faces and like, taking a shot for the protagonist the episode after nearly killing him isnât gonna cut it. The circumstances create their own narrative subtext. Mary always being untrustworthy and vaguely threatening to John and Sherlock is⊠subtext. This is what it *feels* like to us (in fact, this is mostly about the structure of the scenes or the episodes, âcause from Maryâs POV, of course sheâd be there at her own wedding or on her date with John in TEH, or even threatening Magnussen in HLV; this sort of externally forced conduit function is made explicit in TLD, when sheâs *literally* an invisible spirit hovering over John and Sherlockâs intimate scene at the end). Saying sheâs got to be the villain was just trying to turn the structural subtext into text. Essentially, subtext organically arises when the text denies explicitly acknowledging the consequences for the parallels being used. Subtext is a natural result of seeing enough patterns, that creates an empty space where consequences should be.
Anyway, so as I said, thereâs a constant narrative mirroring thatâs not even *specifically* about Mary or John and Mary (as well as with Molly and Irene). This is what Ivy was talking about with the âpurpose of minor charactersâ. They serve as conduits and mirrors. Of course, I should note this isnât *just* that, âcause John repeatedly says or implies romantic couple type behaviors with Sherlock that are explicitly paralleled with Mary or Molly. Heâs even commented on his cheekbones in THoB. As Irene said at Battersea, âlook at us bothââ and clearly Mrs Hudson has been looking, so John gets exasperated and tells her heâs ânot gayâ in TEH, just as Mary teases John about shaving for Sherlock and leaving âbristly kissesâ for her, until âHis Nibs turns upâ. Itâs a joke that falls away by Series 4⊠but itâs not a good joke, because all that mirroring tells its own story, and on top of that, Sherlock touches his own mouth when talking about Johnâs moustache. Thatâs just blatant. This is something like compulsive paralleling gone amok. So⊠thereâs gotta be an explanation. What is it?
The fact is that a) Mary did come between John and Sherlock even if all three of them resisted it, which is more or less why she died at the end of TST; b) John did treat Sherlock like a love interest (he âmoved onâ after his death, he felt Sherlock rescued him and he literally said he loved him as much as Mary, he wanted to keep up and look well-dressed and clean-shaven next to Sherlock and his cheekbones, he wanted to really talk about Sherlockâs issues and have emotional intimacy⊠all but the sexual attraction, just as Irene said in ASiB). So, essentially, all the parallelism is there to say, 'look, itâs totally equivalent but platonic, okayâ. John is like totally also married to Sherlock (and look, John is literally 'familyâ in TFP and then thereâs Sherlockâs literal vow to John and Mary so itâs literally like theyâre all married) ⊠but no homo. Except just like with Mary and her likability, it doesnât⊠work. You canât no homo that level of queer subtext. It takes up a life of its own, and possibly eats New Jersey at some point, like a huge carnivorous fungusâŠ. Alas.
