The people who appealed to the BBC Trust about the elaborate and offensive queerbaiting on BBC Sherlock, after having remained unsatisfied with the previous derogatory responses from the BBC Complaints Team on the matter (x and x), received this rather stupefying reply today in the mail.
The most baffling sentence in this long letter is perhaps this one:
“It was not about fact and although the issue mattered a great deal to those who complained it was not serious – it was fiction.”
The BBC Trust almost seems to suggest that the BBC’s editorial guidelines do not apply to fiction, while the BBC’s own introduction to those very guidelines states the following: “We seek to uphold the BBC’s Editorial Values in all we do. They embody our freedoms and responsibilities and, like the Editorial Guidelines, apply to all our content, whether it is made by the BBC itself or by an independent company working for the BBC.”
So how can this be an argument not to put the appeal before the Trustees?
Also, the Trust gave this puzzling statement:
“[The subject matter] was not a matter of intense debate or importance in a particular nation, region or discrete area likely to comprise a significant part of the audience.”
Apparently, a particular but significant group of the audience not centred in one geographical location doesn’t count when it’s negatively affected?!
OpNorbury would love to hear your thoughts on this!
Go read this! At least they are finally adressing the complaints in detail. (they even mention the online petition). Their answer of course is horrible. It boils down to: Everything is allowed in fiction + the lgbtq part of the Sherlock audience is too small for them to be bothered.
wow. i’m fucking speechless. I’m seriously amazed and not in a good way. so yeah, three things that made me go ‘woah! w t f’:
– bbc has double moral standards for fiction and non-fiction products
– it doesn’t matter if lgbt audience is hurt if the majority is okay with the content
– freaking british broadcasting corporation used a link to urban dictionary definition of queerbaiting.
not only this is a big lol as a matter of fact, but another ‘fuck you’ from them. because that article has this:
We at TJLC agree with @worriesconstantly and @alwaysanoriginal: making enough anti-S4 noise using twitter hashtag #norbury is the most likely interpretation of what the Sherlock PTB want out of fandom during this… shall we call it an intermission?
Dale Pike, a fic author whose works are almost certainly a product of Moffat & Company, suggested this course of action on January 29th. As of yesterday, in a new fic, The Players, a character IN-NARRATIVE confirmed as Moffat (masquerading as a very clumsy Sherlock), BEGS US to tell the world who he really is. Because that matters. And we just wanted to hear him say it.
In Dale Pike’s first suggestion, we received a link to THIS HANDY VIDEOwhich sums up the most egregious of s4 sins. We’ve been encouraged to TWEET THIS VIDEO as well as any other original content we may want to berate the internet with. The only ao3 tag on “The Players” is #norbury. So let’s get this show on the road.
Will it work? I DON’T KNOW. BUT WE SHOULD TRY!!!!!!! WE SHOULD TRY!!!! And we should see if we can manage to get enough of a buzz going in time for March 8th, since, supposedly, if I’m reading the signs right, SOME sort of truth ought to be revealed.
The goal here is to get #norbury trending within one hour, then keep it going as long as we can sustain. This blog is thinking we should go for 7pm London time/2pm EST/11am Pacific on Saturday and Sunday, March 4th and 5th.
In “The Players,” it’s been suggested that we’ve got to get Sherlock’s attention with a one word test, yelling, together, as loud as we can. This disorients Sherlock enough that the bomb hidden beneath his coat becomes exposed. While I have a feeling TPTB may be trying to remedy this situation themselves, they’re clearly struggling, and WE SHOULD TRY TO HELP!
BONUS TIP: IF WE CAN GET SOMEONE WITH 50K FOLLOWERS TO RETWEET OUR MESSAGE, WE SHOULD BE TRENDING WITHIN MINUTES.
ALL TOGETHER NOW:
>GET #NORBURY TRENDING >WITHIN 1HR >ON MARCH 4TH AND 5TH >AT 7PM LONDON/2PM EST/11AM PST
I’m hashing out an idea I had this morning on my way to work:
So, at the moment, the showrunners remain largely silent about the backlash that they know is happening and have apparently even anticipated; there’s been no announcement about a fifth series happening or not; there have been winks and hints from Moffat and the Sherlock YouTube channel guy about a fourth episode and plenty of reasons to believe one exists, but nothing concrete has emerged so far, even though the production team is still releasing behind-the-scenes stuff to social media; and we may have an ARG on our hands. We are definitely in a holding pattern, but we have no idea how long this could go on. It is possible that TPTB could be facing the public and talking about their “brilliant” S4 finale before we get anything else.
They are professionals at bullshitting and at keeping secrets, and Moffat and Sue have got the balls to show up at a manga signing, so I’m not convinced that they “have” to reveal something by the time, say, Radio Times Fest rolls around, lest they face hordes of disappointed fans. The disappointed fans (which includes ex-TJLCers, disgruntled casuals like Tammie and Cathy and Susan from the Masterpiece Facebook page, and people like us who think TFP is fake) don’t even want to spend money on the S4 DVD, much less on buying tickets to an event. When it comes to the latter, I think we should.
People in this fandom frequently tell me that I word good, so the idea I had was to put that to some use (apart from writing meta and going off on antis) by compiling a list of trickily worded questions that TJLCers could ask at public Q&A events in an effort to make the showrunners respond with either panicked bullshitting or sincere defensiveness. You know how we always cringe when people start asking questions at public Q&As, and how we all have questions that we wish would get asked, but don’t? Why not create an organized resource so that TJLC questions do get asked? Remember that brilliant “Are we ever going to see Mrs. Turner’s married ones?” question that made them sweat? That’s the idea. Or remember how that one person at Comic Con got that long, eloquent answer out of Moffat about representation of gay characters by asking a question that was basically pointed criticism dressed up as a question? I’m not suggesting that we make Johnlock front and center in our questioning, as that person sort of did, but instead dress up the S4 “backlash” as panel questions. I think it could be useful to have a pre-planned and organized list of community-sourced questions that are not “Why didn’t you make John and Sherlock gay?” or “Is X, Y, or Z going to happen in series 5?” or “What ice cream flavor would series 5 be if it were an ice cream flavor?” but instead “I thought it was interesting how you chose to include A, B, and C in The Final Problem. What went into your decision to write those things into the show in that way? In a previous statement, you said X about them, which differs a lot from what you ultimately chose to do with them.”
I’d create this with, and solicit suggestions, review, and feedback from, trusted and established members of the community – and most importantly, I wouldn’t share it publicly. I’d create a private document away from Tumblr to which I would grant people access once I’d verified that they were legit fandom members with an established fandom presence and with plans to attend Radio Times Fest, or Sherlocked Con, or what have you. That wouldn’t completely prevent the showrunners from being aware of fandom’s criticisms/questions and having prepared responses ready to go, but it would at least protect the element of surprise in terms of the actual questions they’d face. No one would be obligated to ask the questions on the list, but they would be there as a resource for people who really want to ask a question about, for example, obvious visual TAB/TFP parallels in such a way as to make the showrunners aware of what we think/know and require them to either engage with what we think/know or else do some serious Bullshit Improv which could be equally revealing. Previously I would have said “we shouldn’t dig too deep with our panel questions, we don’t want to force them to lie to protect spoilers” but I think in this post-TFP, insane new world, we should apply some fire to their feet about the fakeness of the episode.
Thoughts, positive or negative? Good idea? Bad idea? Is this something people would be interested in? Is there an obvious flaw that I haven’t thought of?
I think this is an excellent idea! However, the questions definitely have to be crafted carefully, I think the act of seeing them have to think of an answer is more telling than the answer itself. So anything that would force them to answer a question that doesn’t necessarily put them in a corner, a “I’m calling you out” kind of question, but more of a “the truthful answer to this is obvious to you but it is also obvious to us that the truth would spoil everything, so have fun trying to make this work,” is an approach that would be very fun.
Agreed! They’d have to be questions that would seem normal to the casual viewer, but are really prompting for answers about something that a casual viewer would not necessarily care/know about. Something backhanded in a way like “I like the ‘Adventure of the Three Garridebs’ reference you put in TFP, what inspired you to feature that story plot more heavily than other canon stories?” Only true TJLCers and Holmes fans would know they fucked it up.
This is my idea exactly. Arm people with questions that don’t come off as “I’m calling you out” questions, but instead sort of trip them up with the details of S4 – all those elephants in the room and unfired rifles hanging on the wall. Enough of the “okaaaay, but is Moriarty REALLY dead?” stuff. I want people asking them serious-sounding questions about the thought processes behind their adaptation of The Adventure of the Three Garridebs and what their inspiration was for turning Sherrinford into an island prison and stuff like that. Don’t attack them, just make them defend their choices (or try to defend them). Watch how they react. Get people asking them hard questions instead of asking them to weigh in on whether John will get a dog.
If we’re right about the show self-Reichenbaching, then it’s time for us to ask hard questions. They joked about calling an episode “Backlash.” Let’s make sure that the portion of the backlash that they get directly confronted with reflects the cleverness and observational skills of this fandom. Even if someone is angry with them about queerbaiting and attributes TFP’s badness to the degree to which they no-homoed the relationship between John and Sherlock, surely it would be more satisfying to ask questions that highlight the show-killing consequences of the apparent queerbaiting than to just have YET ANOTHER round of “look, we said multiple times that we were never going to do that,” etc.
For christ sake if he’s gay, which he is, he’s always been gay. He’s as gay in A Study in Pink as he is in His Last Vow. As if any half-decent writer would go into an adaptation like this unsure of such a thing, let alone a fucking gay one who has not the privilege of taking sexuality for granted in the first place. I can’t be arsed reading Moran’s tripe so I don’t know the context but it looks dodgy as fuck, as with everything any of them have ever said on the matter. One minute they’re just saying he’s not gay, then they’re saying they never discussed his sexuality then they’re saying they have long discussions about his sexual past and Moffat and Benedict be all like “Sherlock is in love with Irene it’s obvious” and then Mark be all like “Sherlock had no romantic interest in Irene whatsoever” and Moffat’s all like ”He finds no women attractive” I mean…they are trolling. When the subject is pried they troll the fuck out of the priers. They’re a bunch of trolls. A bunch of gleeful, lying trolls.
What I find particularly amusing actually is how in gods name people who read him as straight make a single tiny jot of sense out of Molly, Irene and Janine’s character arcs so far in the show, especially if you think any or all of them are a romantic arc. You either think the people making this show are the most heterosexist arseholes alive or you’re just not paying attention [which is fine]. If you think he’s in love with Molly or Irene, how do you make sense of Janine? Not only the way he treats her in the show, but like, her inclusion in the show full stop. When there is the very popular option of Molly already there as the romantic interest and this would have been an A++++++ opportunity to develop that interest, in which case why Janine? If the intention was to build towards eventual romance or even just build tension between Sherlock and Molly it makes literally NO sense from a storytelling perspective or frankly from any [hetero] perspective.
And that’s because none of those three women are involved in the story as romantic interests for Sherlock. All they ever do in the romance area is highlight just how fucking GAY he is.
All they ever do in the romance area is highlight just how fucking GAY he is.
Here is a very, very old post that I’m reblogging. This called out Mofftiss on their nonsense back in S3…
“You either think the people making this show are the most heterosexist arseholes alive or you’re just not paying attention [which is fine]. “
This blog was created to become a platform to promote and coordinate different kinds of “Norbury actions”. There was a vague idea in the beginning, now we have to get to the details.
People who have knowledge in journalism, pr, general strategic planning
There was this idea of getting more media coverage about the queerbaiting, the lgbtq+ part of the fandom, John and Sherlock’s love story etc. How do we get there? How should we approach media people? Which kind of texts should we prepare to get these people informed? – If you have ideas, please contact me.
Moderating/editing this blog
We also have to develop some basic guidelines about what to post on this blog and what not.
Depening on the general strategy and the blog guidelines we then need people who will maintain this blog (reblogging other people’s projects, writing posts to trigger detailed actions that serve the strategic plan, answering asks, other projects that are unknown atm). – If you want to work on the blog, please contact me.
If you want to get involved, please reply to this post or send an ask with how you want to get involved and your timezone! (you can also do this on my blog @miadifferent. Please don’t send me a message, because I will probably lose your name.)
next step: I’ll try to get people who want to talk about our strategy together in a group chat first, and then I’ll try to get together the people who want to work on the blog to create some guidelines so that the blog will be in support of the overall strategy.
op-norbury.org — thanks to @sherlock-is-my-pressure-point, we’re working on creating a site via firebase hosting instead of wordpress for now (because firebase is free, haha). I should secure the domain in the next few days (p.s. if you’d like to contribute actual dollars to pay for the domain please message me directly.)
What we will need to launch op-norbury.org – contents, contents, contents! Here’s the site outline in case you didn’t see the previous post:
Our Mission
Holmes/Watson since 1887 – Queer reading in ACD canon – Homosexuality in Victorian literature
Queerbaiting in BBC Sherlock – Romantic Tropes used in Sherlock – Queer Coding in Film applied in Sherlock – Examining BBC/Heartwood Marketing Tactics (including Creator quotes) – Meta Collections: (this is where we need to be very specific – how did the narrative/filmmaking techniques/marketing lead fans to believe the eventual culmination of Sherlock/John’s romance – links to resources in the sections above)
Op-Ed
Calling for content creators, admins, researchers to generate submissions, and web developers to update and maintaining the site!
I’ve started a google group so we can coordinate directly –apology in advance that the UI of google group is atrocious, but I figured it’s likely the most accessible (only required a Gmail address) – if you have other suggestions please let me know. I’ve created posts highlighting tasks and positions needed – please check them out and sign up via reply.
Please message me so I can add you to the group, let’s get to work.