Feel my Moffat-induced rage
I've been in a rage all night, thanks to this gem of an interview from the grade-A tool known as Steven Moffat.
So much about him gets my goat. After bingewatching Doctors Nine, Ten, and Eleven, I've come to the conclusion that the Eleven series' just don't hold my interest in the way the previous ones did. I mean I still enjoyed them, but that whole River Song thing that took like all of series six to unravel was a bit feh. That plus the whole "You're all missing the clue of how Sherlock isn't dead and stuff!" makes me feel like he's just sort of going look-how-clever-I-am and it's bothersome.
And that wasn't even meant to be my rant here. My real rant relates to this:
"But how did Moffat and Gatiss solve the most vexing mystery, Sherlock's sex life? "There's no indication in the original stories that he was asexual or gay. He actually says he declines the attention of women because he doesn't want the distraction. What does that tell you about him? Straightforward deduction. He wouldn't be living with a man if he thought men were interesting."
Moffat is not saying that Sherlock, like Austin Powers, misplaced his mojo. "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. There's no guarantee that he'll stay that way in the end - maybe he marries Mrs Hudson. I don't know!""
Coupla things about this:
1) Moffat thinks a lead character who's asexual can't be interesting. Because the only tension that matters is sexual. Asexual people experience no tension ever. Okay.
2) Moffat thinks that since ACD never states explicitly that Sherlock is asexual or gay, he must be straight. Nothing at all to do with the fact that at the time ACD was writing, a story with a lead character who was explicitly non-straight wouldn't have been published in the first place, and that doesn't preclude the possibility of subtext. Everyone is presumed hetero until proven otherwise. Sigh. Not that one could really expect more from the Moffat, who clearly fails at queer anything.
3) Moffat thinks that Sherlock's not gay because if he was, he'd be walking around the house with a perma-boner because living with someone whose gender you're sexually and/or romantically attracted to means you're going to want to do sex on them all the time. This sounds accurate. And he does find John interesting: I'm not saying I think they're totally bumming each other and stuff, but if he had no interest in John, they wouldn't be living together. He dismisses things that aren't interesting to him. Like having a sexy naked lady standing in front of you. Not interesting. Living with John = interesting.
I don't know. It just vexes me to no end that, well, Moffat's a prinkle and annoyingly in charge of not one, but two shows I happen to really like, in spite of his fail. SIGH.
So much about him gets my goat. After bingewatching Doctors Nine, Ten, and Eleven, I've come to the conclusion that the Eleven series' just don't hold my interest in the way the previous ones did. I mean I still enjoyed them, but that whole River Song thing that took like all of series six to unravel was a bit feh. That plus the whole "You're all missing the clue of how Sherlock isn't dead and stuff!" makes me feel like he's just sort of going look-how-clever-I-am and it's bothersome.
And that wasn't even meant to be my rant here. My real rant relates to this:
"But how did Moffat and Gatiss solve the most vexing mystery, Sherlock's sex life? "There's no indication in the original stories that he was asexual or gay. He actually says he declines the attention of women because he doesn't want the distraction. What does that tell you about him? Straightforward deduction. He wouldn't be living with a man if he thought men were interesting."
Moffat is not saying that Sherlock, like Austin Powers, misplaced his mojo. "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. There's no guarantee that he'll stay that way in the end - maybe he marries Mrs Hudson. I don't know!""
Coupla things about this:
1) Moffat thinks a lead character who's asexual can't be interesting. Because the only tension that matters is sexual. Asexual people experience no tension ever. Okay.
2) Moffat thinks that since ACD never states explicitly that Sherlock is asexual or gay, he must be straight. Nothing at all to do with the fact that at the time ACD was writing, a story with a lead character who was explicitly non-straight wouldn't have been published in the first place, and that doesn't preclude the possibility of subtext. Everyone is presumed hetero until proven otherwise. Sigh. Not that one could really expect more from the Moffat, who clearly fails at queer anything.
3) Moffat thinks that Sherlock's not gay because if he was, he'd be walking around the house with a perma-boner because living with someone whose gender you're sexually and/or romantically attracted to means you're going to want to do sex on them all the time. This sounds accurate. And he does find John interesting: I'm not saying I think they're totally bumming each other and stuff, but if he had no interest in John, they wouldn't be living together. He dismisses things that aren't interesting to him. Like having a sexy naked lady standing in front of you. Not interesting. Living with John = interesting.
I don't know. It just vexes me to no end that, well, Moffat's a prinkle and annoyingly in charge of not one, but two shows I happen to really like, in spite of his fail. SIGH.