"This wasn’t a case of, ‘Let’s grab that off the shelf and update it.’It was, ‘We love this, we..."

“

This wasn’t a case of, ‘Let’s grab that off the shelf and update it.’

It was, ‘We love this, we think everybody’s been getting wrong, and we think we can get it right.’

Unless you think you’re correcting everyone else, you shouldn’t be doing something.

You should be saying, ‘Now this is the way it should be done.’

”

-

Mark Gatiss, on updating Sherlock. (2010 interview [x])

[ Skulls & Tea | Sherlock Creator Quotes Collection | Disclaimer/reblogs ]

(via skulls-and-tea)

Yeah, this (among many other quotes) is why I totally agree: it’s deeply improbable to the point of being strange to imagine Mark Gatiss saying this in the context of then intentionally creating Sherlock to include queerbaiting. I do want to think that people argue that in good faith, and I realize that some do, but I also think the thought process necessary suggests some level of acquiescence to heteronormativity and bias or anxiety-driven catastrophizing that isn’t borne out by what we know of the creators’ motivations and interests. At best, it’s choosing to believe in the worst in people even though there’s both strong circumstantial and textual evidence as well as past statements to the contrary.

I think this (and this quote by Ben C) both support the idea that whether or not they had a detailed plan, they did have a *vision* that both the writers and the main actors had to be on board with in order for it to work. There are a number of other quotes that support this, and to focus only on the ones where they deny John and Sherlock being in a relationship (which they’re not in yet) is simply cherry-picking. Further, these quotes support the idea that they thought their plan was big and important, and also that they thought it was *better* this way. Many people may disagree, but I’ve yet to see a real argument as to what would be so much better and so superior if not for canon Johnlock. How is a modern adaptation supposed to be super cool, in and of itself? It really does seem like blind deflection to argue that Mark Gatiss, of all people, would think that doing everything the same except in 2010 (plus queerbaiting! mustn’t forget!) is somehow corrective and exciting. If that’s not blatant heteronormativity, what is?

Basically, if this is not a blatant authorial statement of intent, combined with a near-explicit queer reading of Sherlock Holmes by Sir Arthur Conan Doyle, I don’t know what is.

(via mild-lunacy)