Yes, but when you’re co-writing a novel or series, major plot and character points are the kind of thing you need a unanimous vote on, not just a majority. IF Moffat doesn’t want to do it (and your guess is as good as mine, since probably neither of us know him personally), then it’s not likely to happen.
The thing is, I just find the “will they/won’t they” of TJLC kind of a boring conversation at this point. There’s a point where everything that can be said has been said, and we’re just sitting around twiddling our thumbs and waiting to see which side is right. It’s not like our opinions matter. This is a scientific fact kind of situation. It’ll either end up there or it won’t.
Now, what it means IF it does, and what it means IF it doesn’t—that’s an interesting conversation.
Another good conversation is whether it’s queer representation or asexual erasure to require that some physical sign of affection be involved.
I’ve seen a lot of declarations that you’re being homophobic or participating in erasure if you don’t want them to kiss or something to make it clear, or if you say you think that where they’re at now feels, I dunno, sufficiently consummated. And yet from where I’m standing, given all the cues and subtext we’ve seen in the show, this is pretty much exactly how I’ve always imagined a story about an asexual relationship would look.
So there’s that issue on the one hand, and on the other there’s the very reasonable point that unless you make it slap-across-the-face explicit, people will feel within their rights to continue to deny it.
But if you can’t tell a queer story without people making out, then there’s a whole bunch of types of queer relationships you’re still erasing.
(Not that all asexuals are against kissing, but there is a principle at work there.)
I dunno, I suppose if they really went the asexual route, the characters could hold up signs or something. But considering the ‘couple’ thing has already been called out right to the characters’ faces, they’d probably have to issue engraved invitations to their Non-Sexual Commitment Ceremony for the audience to buy in.
When I say a there’s a good conversation to be had about this, mind you, I mean more that rock-and-a-hard-place situation that society puts us in when it comes to things like this, rather than the implementation (or lack thereof) in the show. If I can’t find it in my heart to have faith that Moffat really would be interested in writing a story with a gay lead, then I REALLY don’t believe that he’d go to the length of deliberately making this the first show featuring a committed asexual couple.
I suppose another good conversation would be whether we truly do think this show was created with the intention of basically being queer lit, vs. if we think it was made primarily with the intention of presenting us with a fairly mainstream entertaining good time. (Or if we really do think that it’s out to make the leap and demonstrate to the world that these things don’t have to be One Or The Other.)
^^^^ Man, I’ve said this before, but there are more ways to be deeply in love than fucking. (And I say that as a staunch Johnlock pornographer.)
Oh, yay, so glad to see someone bringing up the asexual aspect. I have friends who are very deeply committed to an asexual reading of Sherlock’s character, and the constant push by fandom to define Sherlock as some variety of sexual is fairly hurtful to them. Sexuals aren’t the only ones who’d like a little mainstream and fandom representation, after all.
It’s my *personal* guess that (and I’m NOT a professional, this is my gut reaction), the actual goal of BBC Sherlock is to be ambiguous. The Private Life of Sherlock Holmes has been repeatedly cited as a strong influence on the series (large chunks of ASiB were lifted entirely from that source, bearing that out) — and TPLoSH is also widely considered to be a model of “ambiguous Holmes sexuality.” (Thank goodness the originally scripted revelation that Holmes was a traumatized heterosexual was cut — I think the movie is much better without that trite garbage included, but I digress.) You can watch that movie and successfully interpret Holmes as straight, gay, asexual, or pretty much anything in between.
I suspect the BBC Sherlock of aiming for a similar level of ambiguity. In fact, I think all the subtext gay/bisexual coding people are picking up on so strongly is, in fact intentional, and aimed at allowing a queer interpretation of the show — if desired. I don’t think anyone reading that subtext is delusional, for the record.
I see an equally strong subtext of asexuality, running in parallel.
And then there’s the traditional “no homo!” heterosexual text overwitten on top of it all … but in such a way it can be ignored if either subtext is preferred.
Watching the show, I see Schroedinger’s Sexuality (or maybe a sexual orientation palimpsest of sorts?), and while yes, it would be great to have flat-out, in-your-face gay/bisexual or asexual representation on TV (I am not disagreeing with that), I’d hate to see it at the expense of asexual representation. The minute you open that orientation box either way, all the other interpretations collapse and it stops being a show that’s as deeply relevant for *everyone* as I think the current show is.
I like the inclusivity of that interpretation (so sue me, I like sitting around campfires singing Kumbaya), and for me I think the key is the “It’s as good as any of your theories!” quote in TEH. (Also note the team’s fondness for ambiguity in the fact we never *did* receive a definitive answer of “how Sherlock did it” for that particular cliffhanger.)
Of course, that kind of “it’s all good!” approach runs the risk of attempting to please everyone and ultimately pleasing no one, which may end up being the case. In the end, as said above, all we can do is wait and see how the next season plays out.
This is what I suspect too.
I know the possibility pisses some people off because they read as queerbaiting. Which is not me trying to say it’s not, either. I’ve just heard so many conflicting theories on that one that I’m still in the listening phase on that issue.