The World’s Only Consulting Fandom:
An Analysis of Modernity in Sherlock’s Transmedial Narrative, Reception and
Interaction.
Student: Saskia Smit | S2027763 Supervisor: Dr. C. Guédon Date of Completion: 28 July 2014
Word Count: 15.651
Master’s Dissertation Literary Studies Writing, Editing and Mediating
2
Table of Content
Introduction 3
1 Adaptation 5
1.1 Evolving London as a Setting 5
1.2 London’s Fear Landscape 7
1.3 Queerlock: Perceptions of Heterosexuality and Non-Heterosexuality in
Sherlock
11
2 Reception 16
2.1 Sherlockian and Holmesian fan culture 16
2.2 To Ship or Not to Ship 20
2.3 Fandom in Critical State 23
3 Interaction 27
3.1 Transmedial Fandom 27
3.2 Social Media Bridging between Fans and Creators 28
Conclusion 38
3
Introduction
“It’s been years and I’m still wondering what situation could have possibly lead to Sherlock discussing his flatmate problems with Stamford” is the question Tumblr user Oddbadwolf asks1 herself. Oddbadwolf is part of the Sherlock fandom on Tumblr, a social blogging website, and the post I am describing is one of the many that arose among the fans of
Sherlock, the BBC show that modernised Holmes and his companion Dr Watson. In this
thesis, I examine three aspects of BBC’s Sherlock, a recent adaptation of Sir Arthur Conan Doyle’s stories about Sherlock Holmes, namely the adaptation process, its reception by its online fandom, and the interaction between those who created the series and those who are passionate about the series. BBC’s Sherlock stands out from other adaptations because Mark Gatiss and Steven Moffat, who reinvented Holmes, have taken the character out of its traditional Victorian setting, and placed him into current-day London. The smoke, the hansoms, the gas-lit lanterns, the top hats, the hoop skirts, and the pea-soupers are all gone. Instead, the ultra-modern Sherlock Holmes is equipped with a smartphone, a Belstaff coat, nicotine patches and a hard-drive-like brain. In order to examine the adaptation process, I analyse the ramifications of modernisation concerning Sherlock’s characters, episodes and setting in the first chapter.
Sherlock was almost an instant success; the first season managed to silence the critics
with astonishment, and generated an enormous fan base that, through the years and with each season, has only grown, to the great surprise of the creators and cast members. As Moffat said, “It’s a common myth that series grow. They don’t. Hit shows start high and slowly drift down, so it’s extraordinary for Sherlock to be drifting up. So yeah, of course it’s a surprise. Everything about Sherlock’s success, including the 30 million Chinese people, has been a success, and heaven knows what they make of it” (“Meet the Filmmaker”).
What the fans make of it can be found online as, along with the Sherlock franchise, the fans have embraced modern technologies. The Sherlock fandom, the collective of fans, are up to the challenge of exploring Sherlock, and are especially keen on doing so on Tumblr, a popular blogging website in size comparable to Facebook, but fundamentally different in use and utility. With the intent of studying Sherlock’s reception online, and specifically its reception on Tumblr, I have created a blog titled Sherlock and the Fandom2 with the purpose
of collecting interesting and noteworthy posts by fans. In chapter two, I describe how fans
4 interact with the content of Sherlock, and how the fandom has benefitted from using the same modern tools for communication that Sherlock showcases.
5
Chapter 1 – Adaptation
1.1 Evolving London as a Setting
In this section I explore how Sherlock’s success can be contributed to its successful
incorporation of modern elements with emphasis on the show’s setting. As Doyle’s Holmes, BBC’s Sherlock operates from his townhouse at 221B Baker Street, London, the iconic address that has come to sy8bolise the original stories. Sherlock’s modernisation necessitates a modern setting, and thus a modern London, naturally, but so far, the necessity of the modernisation is yet unclear. Moffat explains that “Conan Doyle's stories were never about frock-coats and gas light; they're about brilliant detection, dreadful villains and blood-curdling crimes and frankly, to hell with the crinoline” (Moffat qtd. in Khan). Effectively, the modern setting helps bring out Sherlock’s brilliant detections since the viewer is no longer distracted by an overwhelming and stuffy period setting. By removing the narrative from that period setting, Gatiss and Moffat have emphasised Sherlock as “a show about a detective, not a detective show,” clarifying that the episodes focus on the unusual relationship between “two men and their friendship,” not the cases they investigate or Victorian London, and that the “adventures they go on are interesting because it happens to them” (“On Sherlock Series 3”). Instead of being absorbed by the period drama’s ambiance, the viewers can now focus on the adventures that take place in an environment familiar to them, which enables the viewers to better interact and engage with the narrative. As I argue in this section, the audience’s familiarity with contemporary themes and motifs of a social, political, and technological nature that the show relies on makes Sherlock more accessible than its Victorian counterpart. Therefore, the modernity of Sherlock’s setting and perspective are necessary for the
audience’s interaction with the show.
Sherlock’s modernity instantly becomes clear in the opening credits, which show both
6 particular shot, the new landmark, the London Eye, obstructs the view of the old landmark, the Houses of Parliament, and, in fact, frames the entirety of the Victoria Tower, once the tallest square stone tower in the world (Parliament). This indicates that the creators put a considerable amount of thought in juxtaposing these images of the old and new London, and also confirms the importance of the contrast; TV series commonly present images that function as symbols for the show along with the title of the show to establish its essence. In this case, the contrast between old and new landmarks is connected to the identity of Sherlock. The principle of juxtaposing old and new elements of London is thematic to the opening credits and the episodes themselves, and so Sherlock already demonstrates in the opening credits how the show is a reinterpretation of the original stories by Doyle.
The reinterpretation of Doyle’s Sherlock Holmes stories furthermore entails the juxtaposition of old and new story elements, which, too, is visible in the opening credits. In
Sherlock this results in the fact that the newly introduced aspects of the show are used to
frame the old elements created by Doyle, much like the London Eye frames the Victoria Tower. The opening credits’ images of London are contrasted with images of Sherlock investigating and experimenting. The last image of the opening credits shows blood cells that are only visible by means of a microscope, which is visually linked to the image before that shows a drop of blood into which a chemical reagent is released. These two images can be interpreted as the experiment Holmes was working on when he first met Watson:
“I’ve found it! I’ve found it,” he shouted to my companion, running towards us with a test-tube in his hand. “I have found a reagent which is precipitated by hæmoglobin, and by nothing else.” Had he discovered a gold mine, greater delight could not have shone upon his face. Doyle, Sherlock Holmes 17.
The original experiment is thus incorporated in the modern Sherlock, and it is given a modern twist by a zoom-in on the blood, showing the hæmoglobin using a microscopic image. The essence of this reference to the Canon, a term used to describe the stories about Holmes written by Doyle, has remained the same, while the experiment being rendered visible on screen is the result of technological advancement. As such, this new aspect of the series, the use of modern technological equipment, has quite literally framed a Canonical story elements.
7 rule but as a guideline, meaning they preserve the fundamental plot aspects and themes in their refurbishing of the stories. The story they construct around these fundaments is
interpretive and conforms to modern demands, which can be likened to St. Bart’s hospital. St. Bart’s is one of the Sherlock’s essential historical settings, and it functions, just as in Doyle’s stories, as Sherlock’s laboratory. Though the hospital’s external appearance has not changed at all during the last century, the Victorian equipment and instruments have been exchanged for newly developed medical tools to comply with the current standard for health care and science. The essential function of the hospital remains, but treatments implemented at the hospital have been improved and expanded through years of scientific research and
development. Doyle’s Victorian values, themes, and social commentary have gone through the same development and have consequently been given the same transformation; Sherlock discusses the same themes and problems, such as science, fear, privacy and friendship, but from a modern perspective and with the help of modern tools.
1.2 Sherlock’s Fear Landscape
Over the course of their adventures, Holmes and Watson have faced many mysteries, most of which Holmes solved. In several cases, such as in the novel The Hound of the Baskervilles, the mystery involves the supernatural, a very popular theme characterised by Victorian gothic horror novels such as Bram Stoker’s Dracula. Leading up to the 21st century, science has debunked the supernatural more and more, and, it has effectively become associated with mental disorders. Those who believe in the supernatural are nowadays seen as unreliable, and therefore the fear of the supernatural in The Hound of the Baskervilles would not affect a modern audience in the same way as its Victorian audience. In order to recreate the anxiety that Doyle’s stories caused among his Victorian readership, the creators of Sherlock have reinterpreted the elements of fear, and have created mysteries that appeal to the fears of its modern audience.
The modern horror of the episode “The Hounds of Baskerville” is inspired by the supernatural and combined with current-day fear of technological advancement. Doyle’s The
Hound of the Baskervilles centres on the mysterious death of the baronet of Baskerville, who
8 the description of terror indicate the extent to which anxiety and fear are inherent to the novel, and how frightening the hound was perceived to be. In order to make a similar construction involving a hound that is perceived as frightening by a modern-day audience, the story needs to be adapted convincingly, and that is exactly what the writers of Sherlock have done. The initial fear of the supernatural is transformed into fear of the “faceless government,” realised by means of a secret military base named Baskerville, which forms a play on conspiracy theories (Gatiss, “On Writing the Hounds of Baskerville”). The story further distances itself from cliché horror stories by lacing the conspiracies with advanced scientific developments, such as genetic modification and cloning, justifying and increasing the underlying
technophobia that is an integrated part of the modern mind set. Together, the government-issued military research base and the hallucinogenic drug developed by the team of project H.O.U.N.D. contribute in particular to both technophobia and the fear of the faceless government, and make the episode a successful modern horror story.
Moriarty, Holmes’s arch nemesis, is given terroristic characteristics with the intent of offering a modern reinterpretation of the classic villain that inspires fear. Moriarty can be classified as a “true foe” and the “antiself,” who is Holmes’s equal in talent, if not his better (Tallon 73). However, Moriarty applies these talents for evil. As Moffat explains, “the original Moriarty is suave, accomplished, a relatively typical super-villain, [and] over a century later, that kind of villain seems rather cosy. In the suicide bomber age, we're frightened of people who don't prioritize their own survival” (“Sherlock Holmes Goes Digital”). Moriarty’s transformation from professor to erratic and unpredictable terrorist discusses the threat of terrorism in an effective way by portraying him as an anarchist; however, it is his manipulative power of people and the ease with which he manipulates anyone regardless of technological security that really emphasises how dangerous terrorists can be. The court’s inability to convict Moriarty for his break-ins in the Tower of London, the Bank of England and the Pentonville Prison in “The Reichenbach Fall” plays with the
audience’s fear of terrorism and establishes Moriarty as the villain who controls the legal system, and subsequently the government, implying the corruption of both organisations. Moriarty’s implied cyber criminality (his ability to access any and all data at will) brings the threat closer to the audience as potential victims of crimes such as credit card information theft or identity theft. Therefore, Sherlock succeeds in creating a realistic but unpredictable modern-day villain, a combination that is sure to inspire fear among the audience.
9 questions its approach to surveillance. The British Security Industry Authority estimates that there were approximately 5.9 million CCTV cameras in 2013, resulting in one security camera for every eleven people in the UK (Barrett). Reports such as these are the foundation for fears of a surveillance society, and the ethics of surveillance are much debated. Sherlock’s brother Mycroft, who represents government, and his control of surveillance cameras as he demonstrates in “A Study in Pink,” broaches this subject effectively. Mycroft applies
10 not ideal either. The conundrum that Sherlock accurately represents is undoubtedly familiar to its audience.
Sherlock further criticises the British government by highlighting their recent approach
to criminality in the form of the ASBO order. The ASBO, the result of Tony Blair’s New Labour government, “typologize crime as inherent and inheritable” (Kustritz and Kohnen 90). This social order’s supposed purpose is to fight anti-social behaviour effectively and quickly, but in reality, its effectiveness is questioned. In a review of antisocial behaviour policies, John Flint states that while ASBOs have had successes, they “are often completely rubbished” (Reid). In fact, the increased surveillance and implemented policies that were initiated to subdue criminality and antisocial behaviour have not done so; instead, the increased attention for antisocial behaviour has only made people more perceptible to transgressions and quicker to act on them, leading to, for instance, ASBOs being assigned to cats (Squires 4; Nsubuga). The ASBO makes its appearance in Sherlock in episode “The Blind Banker,” when John is arrested for holding a spray paint can that belonged to Sherlock’s graffiti expert and informant, who escaped the scene in time. As a result, John is assigned an ASBO, the anti-social behavioural order that typically targets youths and substance abusers who repeatedly perform antisocial behaviour. As the viewer knows, John is innocent of his accused crime, but the real social criticism lies in the fact that John is given an ASBO without further
investigation. According to The Crown Prosecution Service, “[ASBOs] are designed to be preventative, not punitive,” and thus, in order to determine the necessity of assigning John an ASBO, the likelihood of John demonstrating further antisocial behaviour should have been investigated. John’s background as a physician and his status as war veteran as well as his general proper conduct should have indicated, if not his innocence, at least the high
improbability of him displaying this type of behaviour. As John experiences first hand, the system of ASBOs is flawed in its conviction and its execution. While the only reference to the government’s antisocial behaviour policy is John’s angry exclamation that “They’re giving me an ASBO!” Sherlock nonetheless manages to offers valid criticism, and demonstrates that the show is not merely set in 21st century London, but is part of it and adheres to the same rules (“The Blind Banker”).
As I have indicated, Sherlock is aware of the problems and fears of modern-day
11 both the city and its detective. According to G. K. Chesterton, Doyle “triumphed and
triumphed deservedly, because he took his art seriously, because he has lavished a hundred little touches of real knowledge and genuine picturesqueness on the police novelette” (173-174). As is clear from its media reception, Sherlock triumphs as well, and I propose that it is in part due to its discussion of modern topics, or the “hundred little touches of real
knowledge” that are scattered throughout the series. This also includes the modern awareness, and growing acceptance, of different sexualities which will be addressed now.
1.3 Queerlock; perceptions of heterosexuality and non-heterosexuality
in Sherlock.
One of Sherlock’s modernised aspects is its acceptance non-heterosexual relationships, which is an integrated and apparent aspect of the series which returns in the episodes as well as in fan interaction. As I elaborate on later, many fans of the show are interested in exploring the character dynamics and their underlying homosexual tension. In this section, I argue that the show’s acceptance of homosexuality is in itself a modernisation, and I explore how the creators of the show have incorporated this.
Sherlock’s modernity lies partly in its overt acceptance of homosexuality, which highly contrasts with Doyle’s stories in which Holmes and Watson only share a close
12 is a “natural” phenomenon as opposed to homosexuality, is still in effect (Kitzinger 487). Sherlock’s modernity lies in the fact that the show addresses homosexuality, is more accepting of it, and plays with the established notions of queerness.
While Sherlock occasionally proposes non-heterosexual side characters, such as the duo that runs the inn in “The Hounds of Baskerville,” the majority of the homosexual subtext concerns Sherlock and John. Sherlock’s sexuality has been ambiguous from the start of the series, as his sexuality is never officially confirmed, a conscious decision on the part of the creators. They have inserted many references to Sherlock’s ambiguous sexuality, which, by association, also raise questions about John’s sexuality. The fact that John and Sherlock live together leads to the assumption that they are a couple despite John’s repeated insistence that he is “not actually gay” (“A Scandal in Belgravia”). The clues are scattered across the
episodes, but especially “A Study in Pink,” the series’ first episode, establishes the homosexual undertones of John and Sherlock’s relationship in several instances. The first person to assume more than a friendship between the two main characters is Mrs Hudson, the landlady, asking them whether they need two bedrooms. While John replies “Of course we’ll be needing two,” Sherlock completely ignores John and Mrs Hudson’s conversation, neither confirming nor denying the need for two separate bedrooms (“A Study in Pink”). Later in the episode, when Sherlock and John go to a restaurant where they await the appearance of the killer, the restaurant’s owner assumes they are on a date. Again, John is the one who denies this, not Sherlock. However, when John specifically asks about Sherlock’s love life, Sherlock answers negatively, saying “I consider myself married to my work, and while I’m flattered by your interest, I’m really not looking for any.” At that point John interrupts him by stating that it was not his intention to inform about Sherlock’s availability, with John acting more
flustered than Sherlock. John’s repeated denials and Sherlock’s silence on the matter implies that, while Sherlock may simply not care about sexuality and relationships, John certainly does. By establishing this stand on homosexual and non-heterosexual relationships in general this early in the series and this thoroughly, the creators indicate their interest in exploring the dynamics between the two men from a possible queer perspective.
In addition to acceptance of homosexuality, the show also makes a case for other sexualities such as bisexuality. Irene Adler is quite firmly established as bisexual by having “recently ended the marriage of a prominent novelist by having an affair with both
13 destruction of that marriage. Likewise, at several points John is implied to be bisexual in extension of his supposed homosexuality in a positive manner. In “The Sign of Three,” John admits to caring equally for his wife Mary Morstan and his best man Sherlock several times. John’s happiness at the attendance of Major Sholto, his former commander, to John and Mary’s wedding reception leads Mary to say “Oh Sherlock! Neither of us were the first, you know,” implying an equal relationship between Mary Morstan, John’s wife, Sherlock, John’s friend, and Sholto, John’s former commander. Admittedly, this reading of John’s sexuality is never confirmed, nor is his supposed homosexuality before his marriage to Mary, but it constitutes a positive reading of bisexuality. It also qualifies as an instance of queer-baiting, a concept to which I return in a later paragraph.
The dynamics explored by Sherlock in this manner opposes modern-day society’s heteronormativity by reversing it. Heteronormativity refers to the notion of heterosexual dominance in society and the assumptions about sex and gender that accompany it. Heteronormativity presumes that only two sexes exist, that heterosexual relationships are “normal” and “natural,” and that non-heterosexual relationships are an anomaly or a
“variation on” heterosexual relationships (Kitzinger 478). Its effect is clear: many countries and states still oppose the legislation of same sex marriage, or actively fight against non-heterosexual rights (Freedom to Marry; Carter et al). Sherlock is aware of heteronormativity and its effect on society, and responds to it by reversing the principle; instead of John and Sherlock being perceived as heterosexuals by default, they are immediately recognised as a homosexual couple by supporting characters, such as Mrs Hudson and the restaurant owner I described in the previous paragraph, but also by Mycroft Holmes and Irene Alder, the only exception being John’s female dates, at least until they personally encounter the relationship between the two men. Heteronormativity presents a set of values that is embodied by conduct, not a prejudiced ideology or a belief, and as such, it is not inherent to society (Kitzinger 478). Sherlock and John’s presumed gay relationship is therefore perceived as normative in the series, and even John’s rather fervent denials cannot change that presumption; this is similar to heteronormativity’s reluctance to accept homosexuality as anything but an abnormality and a deviation.
14 and consciously has to announce his homosexuality in order to come out again; the closet’s “overarching consistency” is nearly impossible to escape (Sedgwick 68). In the reversed situation, John is indeed unable to escape the straight closet, as he has to announce his heterosexuality and deny his supposed homosexuality frequently, thus coming out of the straight closet each time. John’s annoyance at having to correct other’s ideas of his sexuality is clearly visible, and causes him to refrain from denying his homosexuality much in a similar manner to how homosexuals refrain from coming out of the closet in certain situations. John is only openly perceived as non-homosexual after his marriage to Mary, a woman, gaining the status of “out.” By reversing heteronormativity, Sherlock establishes that heteronormative society is flawed, but subsequently emphasises that a homonormative model of society is equally unsatisfying. Both models force a part of the population into the closet and as such suppress this part of society.
Sherlock’s rejection of heteronormativity and its adoption of homonormativity has contributed to the popularity of the show in the form of queer-baiting, a term that refers to the process of providing ample gay subtexts in a show without actually realising their potential. Film and television, with special mention of Hollywood, have a history of ignoring
homosexuals and their relationships, if not depicting them in a negative manner (Mackey 86). Recently, the portrayal of non-heterosexuals has improved, but is limited to queer-themed mainstream films where they “are treated sympathetically but nevertheless seen as social problems” (Green 33). The queer community’s need for on-screen queer relationships has therefore not been satisfied, and is still being handled with caution; when a positively gay character, Hawk, was added to the Star Trek franchise, scenes demonstrating his overt homosexuality were never broadcast (Green 39). His presence may have given the series a homosexual subtext, but, ultimately, his character did not accurately represent homosexual characters. Similarly, the creators of Sherlock actively and consciously play with the homosexual subtext of the show.
As I have argued, the fact that the show acknowledges the need for homosexual
15 as “predominant” (Bailey). Effectively, Sherlock’s queer-baiting has drawn the attention of those interested in queer relationships, among which the fan fiction writers that pair Sherlock and John. These fan writers are encouraged by the number of queer references in the episodes. However, the creators of Sherlock also encourage the production of fan fiction outside of the series itself by discussing queer elements of the show in interviews as well. For instance, Martin Freeman and Steven Moffat mentioned the deletion of the gay bar scene from the stag party sequence in “The Sign of Three.” The fact that this scene existed was unknown until they mentioned it, which means that they condone the fandom’s analyses and fictions, and can even be seen as encouraging them. Nonetheless, the series’ subtext does not satisfy the queer audience’s need for an accurate representation: John, despite the various references, does not identify as gay or bisexual; Sherlock’s sexuality remains ambiguous throughout the series. Irene Adler is the only openly gay character, but also engages in heterosexual liaisons, implying bisexuality. Yet, despite the fact that the show never realises this queer potential, Sherlock’s homonormative portrayal of society creates an outspoken positive reading of non-heterosexuality on television, in which it deviates from other Sherlock Holmes adaptations.
Though non-heterosexuality has gradually become accepted in society, there are still many issues with heteronormativity, and Sherlock discusses some of these issues through its homosexual subtexts. The show demonstrates that neither heteronormativity nor
16
Chapter 2 - Reception
2.1 Sherlockian and Holmesian fan culture
As Sherlock says in “The Great Game,” “fan sites [are] indispensable for gossip.” It is interesting that he should refer to “fan sites” instead of fans because fan communities exist offline as well as online. The context – the passing of Connie Prince – would have given the occasion for real-life fan meetings for collective solace. Yet, in a more time and effort-efficient manner, Sherlock retrieves his gossip from the online members of Connie Prince’s website. Nevertheless, Sherlock’s statement may have been prophetic concerning the online reception of Sherlock. As the previous chapter explored how and why Sherlock has been modernised in such a nuanced way, with an interesting and clever mix of old features and bold modernisation, this chapter will focus on the show’s fans and will interrogate the reception of the various aspects of the modernisation in the adaptation process.
Sherlock’s new tools, modern technology and his knowledge of contemporary city life and society, help him solve crimes in London, but these tools are at the disposal of the fans as well, and they use them to interpret the show and participate in the Grand Game. The Grand Game is the tradition of referring to Watson’s writings as historical non-fictional records, and of viewing Doyle not as the author but as the “Literary Agent,” mostly practiced by Holmes aficionados, who are devoted to Sherlock Holmes’s adventures written by Doyle (Polasek 42). Their devotion to the original texts causes the aficionados to scrutinise new adaptations. Generally, aficionados consider fidelity to the originals as an indication of quality as it is a widespread belief that adaptations should, unlike fan fiction, remain faithful to its source (Polasek 44). The reason for this is that aficionados fear that adaptations will eventually replace the written Holmes. However, Sherlock has diverted from the original with its modern setting and has become “an original property;” its status as a stand-alone work prevents aficionados from criticising its infidelity to the canon, which in turn broadens fan discourse and opens up a new version of the Game (Polasek 48-49).
17 communication and speculation has occurred online from the start of Sherlock until now, following in the footsteps of Dr Who’s online fan discourse. As the character of Sherlock self-reflectively remarked, “fan sites [are] indispensable,” both for solving his own puzzles—thus embedding this remark within the narrative—and for his own real-life fans to gather and reflect on the merits of the show—in a self-reflective, metaleptic gesture (“The Great Game”).
The online fan discourse takes place at Sherlock oriented websites with discussion sections, and on social media websites. The show encourages this in the way that it has
accompanying websites that tie in with the episodes as well as official pages on Facebook, the BBC website and BBC accounts on the same social media websites. The BBC offers various online supporting features, and the fans actively engage with these. Facebook boasts a staggering six results out of ten that feature Benedict Cumberbatch, the actor who portrays Sherlock, as the avatar of a page when using ‘sherlock’ as search term, and another four when adding ‘holmes’ to that. Perhaps more telling to the popularity of Sherlock online and on social media is the number of tweets during “The Empty Hearse,” the first episode of the much anticipated season three. According to the Radio Times, 369,682 tweets were sent during the episode, with an average of 2,046 tweets per minute, and the highest peak of 7,744 tweets per minute due to the start of the episode (Dekker). There was a similar occurrence at the end of the season three finale on Tumblr, the social blogging website, which experienced some downtime, though there are no official records for this. Surprisingly, the fans were happy about it, if not proud, that they managed to ‘break’ Tumblr, which, as I said, is not officially confirmed by Tumblr; ‘breaking’ Tumblr shows in their mind how powerful the force of the fandom is.
18 are, above all, keen on Doyle’s stories as Holmesians, and to those who are most interested in the BBC Sherlock series as Sherlockians since it is how both refer to themselves.
The traditional Holmes pseudo scholar, the Holmesian devotee, is associated with the elite “not [because of] one’s financial status but [because of] one’s intellectual and behavioral devotion,” Philip A. Shreffler argues in his editorial notes in the 1988 spring issue of Baker
Street Journal. This was a reaction to the fans of the Jeremy Brett adaptation, who irked
Shreffler and fellow traditional Holmesian devotees with their ungentlemanly appearance and their “half-ideas, half expressed” (Shreffler qtd. in Bakerstreet Babes). While, of course, not all members of the Baker Street Irregulars are prejudiced against fans, this does confirm the stereotype of traditional Holmesians as being both elitist and sceptical towards new
adaptations. Boasting previous members such as Basil Rathbone and T.S. Eliot, the Baker Street Irregulars have indeed the image of being a gentleman’s club, each smoking cigars and wearing suits while lounging in their large red-leather chairs near the fireplace, which is supported by Shreffler’s statement that “the Sherlockian is devoted to the world where it is always 1895 and always 1934” (Bakerstreet Babes).
The fans who Shreffler so eschews constitute their own community, which can be found on Tumblr, Facebook, online forums such as reddit.com, and of course on forums specifically made for fans of the show, such as sherlockforum.com. Particularly on Tumblr, the fandom’s activity and attention is intense, and the fans explore their favourite show and stories by consistently blogging about it. These blogposts can take various forms; short scenes from the show can be converted into .gif files, so that Tumblr users can post their favourite parts of an episode. One such post is a gif of the opening sequence showing Westminster and the show’s title, and despite its simplicity and lack of either Cumberbatch or Freeman’s face, this post currently has 36.815 notes3. Other fans go further and add their opinions or
observations to these posts, demonstrating the concept of “collective intelligence,” a term coined by French cyber theorist Pierre Lévy (Jenkins, Convergence Culture 4). Collective
3 Any blogpost receives notes by Tumblr users liking the post, which gives the post 1 note, and by Tumblr users reblogging the post, giving it another note. 36.815 notes is significant, meaning it has reached many Tumblr users, though not nearly the entire Sherlock fandom. This post is easily surpassed by many others concerning notes, including a text-post by BBC One’s official Tumblr account, asking “Tumblr, shock blanket?” which has accumulated 44.431 notes since January 12, 2014. Although still not representing the entire Sherlock Fandom on Tumblr, the following post puts the numbers of notes in perspective: user jennstarkid made a post titles “if you are even a small part of the BBC Sherlock fandom reblog this now,” which was reblogged by BBC One at January 7, 2014, and has gained 305.718 notes since originally posted on July 24, 2012 (http://bbcone.tumblr.com/post/72558294407/). While this number by no means
19 intelligence works on the principle that consumption of media has become a process of
sharing, a collective activity, and that by pooling resources and skills, every individual’s knowledge can be put together to form a resource of intelligence. Arwel Wyn Jones, BBC
Sherlock’s production designer, tweeted a picture of Sherlock’s tombstone which set off a
reaction on Tumblr that demonstrates the concept: Cosmoglaut4, the original poster on Tumblr, discovered Sherlock’s birthdate on the tombstone, to which 221bee responds by deducing Sherlock’s age at milestones such as Carl Power’s death, the victim of a case from “The Great Game”. Cosmoglaut returns to the debate and, with the help of visual evidence, identifies John’s birth year and a two year span in which Mycroft, Sherlock’s older brother, must have been born. Cosmoglaut also raises the question of Sherlock’s occupation between leaving the university and meeting Lestrade, which is unaccounted for in the series. For the full post, I refer the reader to my accompanying blog sherlockthesis.tumblr.com.
Other forms of fan engagement on Tumblr comprise fan art and fan fiction. While these two concepts seem simple, Tumblr users have shown that these ideas are not as clear-cut as one could consider them initially. Sherlock fan fiction strongly resembles the traditional pastiche genre5 through the following characteristics: both fan fiction and pastiches announce themselves as variations of the original text, and both can therefore be referred to as
“archontic” since they do not violate the source text (Derecho 65). The writers of archontic texts are invited to “enter [the source text,] select specific items they find useful, make new artefacts using those found objects and deposit the newly made work back into the source text’s archive,” in short, to create a work of fiction that draws upon a source text and belongs to the construct surrounding that text, but remains an individual work (Derecho 65).
Traditional fan fictions can be found in abundance on fan fiction websites such as Fanfiction.net and Archiveofourown.com, and on any Sherlock or fandom community website, including social media, which offer alternatives to writing traditional fan fiction and posting images; various posts on Tumblr that could not possibly qualify as a story, present an alternative narrative path with regard to the source material. These alternative narrative paths present themselves in different shapes; a line of text is added to a picture; a gifset’s6 text is
changed, thereby creating a new dialogue; or even the juxtaposition of several images from different parts of the episodes can create a new meaning. Fan art displays a similar level of
4 http://sherlockthesis.tumblr.com/post/89856879762
5 Stories written by Holmesian aficionados, occasionally published.
20 complexity, as it has the ability to present alternative narrative paths as can be seen in a comic recreating a scene of Sherlock, but with a non-canonical plot7. It is therefore difficult to define
fan fiction and fan art as separate concepts.
2.2 To Ship or Not to Ship
There are several key moments in the series that have set off an enormous fan response online. Already part of fan fiction culture, “shipping” is a popular past-time occupation for the modern fan; the fans partaking in the Sherlock fandom are no exception. To clarify, the
infinitive of shipping, “to ship,” is an abbreviation of relationship, according to the Urban Dictionary. The neologism refers to the supposed, invented, or latent romantic and often sexual relationship between two characters. This practice might be more familiar under the name of “slash” fiction, a subcategory of regular shipping fiction that is restricted to pairings of two same-sex members, whereas regular “ships” do not have this restriction. Allegedly, the first slash fictions were written in the early 1970s about Star Trek’s main characters Kirk and Spock, based on the ideas that Kirk and Spock’s close friendship might be more than mere friendship (Jenkins, Textual Poachers 192). While slash fiction “may be fandom’s most original contribution to the field of popular literature” despite its status as a subcategory of fan fiction, it is also a very controversial subject since many fans and creators of the source texts of slash fiction find the concept distasteful, to the extent that slash fiction is occasionally banned from conventions in order not to cause offence to fans and guests (Jenkins, Textual
Poachers 193).
The very existence of male slash fiction questions the traditional image of masculinity and the traditional gender division, and as such slash fiction is used to experiment within that division. As slash couples consists of two same-sex partners, neither character in the slash relationship is entirely feminine or masculine according to traditional gender divisions. Consequently, “slash explores the possibility of existing outside of those categories, of combining elements of masculinity and femininity into a satisfactorily whole yet constantly fluid identity,” creating a relationship in which femininity and masculinity are not linked to sexuality or gender (Jenkins, Textual Poachers 199-200). It is an opportunity to explore relationships that are built on gender equality, which heterosexual relationships are lacking by
21 default, and it therefore appeals to a primarily female writer and readership (Kustritz 371; Bacon-Smith 242).
Slash is a form of textual commentary and criticism, though sometimes rather explicit in its execution. As noted above, this type of commentary is difficult to accept for many non-slash writers, and has therefore, according to Jenkins, been seen as a secretive activity, forcing the writers to work under a pseudonym in order to protect their private lives (Textual
Poachers 206). Jenkins’s book was published in 1992. His analysis is no longer entirely
accurate, as the subsequent rise of the Internet has changed many social norms and cultural values concerning fan fiction and slash. At the outset, fan fictions were published in
magazines, also named fanzines or just zines, distributed from person to person. This changed in the early 1990s when fandoms made the transition to the Internet (Busse and Hellekson 13).
The Internet has opened up the fandoms, leading to an increase in numbers. However, it has also changed the moral values and the code of conduct that was part of the non-digital fandoms. The new form of anonymity is essential to this phenomenon; fans adopt a persona characterised by only their screen names and avatars8 while freely communicating with each other. Consequently, the fans engage in a new form of interaction amongst each other, which is “fundamentally different from pre-Internet fannish interactions” (Busse and Hellekson 14). The reader/writer relationship and the boundaries between these roles have changed because of instant communication; readers’ comments on and reviews of fan fictions are instantly visible for the writer who can in turn respond, but the debates these reviews incite often lead fans to progress from reading to writing fan fictions (Thomas 7). This process is facilitated by the growth of the audience due to the accessibility of the Internet, which eliminates issues such as national borders, language barriers, time zones and age restrictions. Furthermore, the database of fan fictions has grown larger while being filtered by an effective tagging system that alerts potential readers about their contents, and which can be used to filter results to show only the fan fictions of interest to the reader. In this way, those who are against slash may never have to come in contact with slash fiction and those who look for it will find it easily while all will continue being part of the same fandom and public fan communities. Fan fiction, whether it is slash or not, and the fandoms thrive online because of anonymity and accessibility.
22 The Sherlock fandom keeps up with this trend, rendering a solid 1,1409 results when
searching for John/Sherlock slash fictions on Fanfiction.net, which hosts a total of 46,815
Sherlock fan fictions online. What is more interesting to see is how the fan fiction is picked up
on Tumblr. As discussed above, Tumblr users often post or reblog alternative narrative paths that resemble fan fiction, but do not qualify as such. Most of these posts take the shape of a short text, often no longer than a hundred words, in which their writers shortly theorise about how two characters would interact, or which hints they have found in the show to support a conclusion that matches their ship. Tumblr user cumberbang’s post10 forms an example, which features two pictures with an extensive tag; both images are taken from a scene of “The Hounds of Baskerville” in which Sherlock experimentally frightens John to prove the
presence of a fear-inducing drug. The first image shows Sherlock looking down the cage where John is hiding to tell John that the hound is gone, and the second image is a shot of John, who is still very much afraid of the hound, but looks up in surprise as Sherlock appears. The pictures are accompanied by these tags:
#let me explain to you why i made a photoset out of this #because of the look on sherlock’s face #he looks fierce and a little scared #that is not the face of a man who’s smugly satisfied with an experiment #that is the face of a man who realized that he has scared the shit out of his only friend #that he’s allowed john to believe he was going to die #that sherlock would leave him to a monster #i think that the second sherlock realized just how frightened john was he booked it out of his observation room #and laid a hand on his friend’s shoulder just to reassure him that even though it was sherlock’s fault he was there #he would always come back for john #he would do anything for john.
Fan-made analyses focus on details from the show, many of which implicate romance between characters, and the fandom feeds on them for their enjoyment and inspiration for new fan fictions or short plots. “The Empty Hearse” features a scene where Sherlock passionately kisses Molly, an event which has caused fans to devote more attention to their respective ship, “Sherlolly”. As a result, so-called meta posts arose that explored and analysed the depth of their attachment for each other by, for example, comparing the interaction between Sherlock and John, and Sherlock and Molly prior to Sherlock’s fall in “The Reichenbach Fall”. Molly’s
9 Results gathered on 24 June 2014.
23 loyalty towards Sherlock is greater than John’s, argues Tumblr user notagarotter11. John
would never doubt Sherlock as long as Sherlock remains one of the “Good Guys,” but Molly simply “doesn’t care […] even if he *is* a fraud,” and so her loyalty exceeds “morality,” which is the reason she does “matter” to Sherlock. Other meta posts argue, for example, that John and Molly are doubles12, and that their relationships with Mary and Tom, respectively, mirror each other to a certain extent; another post13 explores Sherlock’s perception of and interaction with Molly, coming to the conclusion that Sherlock appreciates Molly’s company. Meta discourse and its analyses are important to shipping as they justify the shippers’ claims and form the basis for their fan art or writing. The medium’s accessibility facilitates the distribution of these theories, which adds to the general discourse of Sherlock.
2.3 Fandom in Critical State
One of the moments that has most shaped the Sherlock fandom has been the hiatus following the season two finale, “The Reichenbach Fall”. The reason why it has proven to be such defining moment is that the season finale left the fans not only with a traditional cliff-hanger, but also with a puzzle for them to solve; the fans were given two years to figure out how Sherlock has unmistakably survived his suicide. How Sherlock survived the fall has been a mystery for all, including the viewers who do not identify with the online fandom. In addition to this riveting sense of mystery, the answer to how and why the character survived his own death, was only to be provided in the new season, which date of broadcast was unknown at the time.
The enigma of Sherlock miraculously surviving his fall was left to the imagination of the viewers and the fandom. The fandom, in particular, started speculating and filling in details, which is a practice familiar to fandom. Fan culture reflects the fans’ love for the programs they enjoy, their appreciation of good episodes and their frustration when the episodes disappoint (Jenkins, Textual Poachers 165). Many have therefore felt the need to create their own plots, resulting in alternative narrative paths that rework the source text, subject to the fan writer’s interpretation. The motivation behind the fans’ desires to produce fan fiction in response to “The Reichenbach Fall” stems from their wish to add to the show’s universe, to continue the story and to fill in the lacking details and to dutifully serve their
24 commitment to emotional realism (Jenkins, Textual Poachers 167). Generally, when
confronted with a cliff-hanger, fans feel the need to finish the story based on hints and
suggestions within the series; they construct a narrative that might serve as a plausible ending since the source cannot contradict the fans’ speculations unless the show continues.
Despite the negative connotations carried by the term “fans,” these writers are
extremely well-equipped to design such theories due to their critical assessment of the object of fandom. Fans, or rather, fanatics are, in a way, exceptionally fastidious about their show or series, and spend time pondering on the smallest details which can be perceived as tedious and irritating to non-fans. This is beautifully illustrated by William Shatner, the actor who portrayed James T. Kirk, the star of the original Star Trek series, at a fan convention, where he was interrogated by the fans about details from Kirk’s life. Shatner becomes frustrated with the questions he sees as pointless, and eventually tells them to “get a life, will you people? I mean, I mean, for crying out loud, it’s just a TV show!” (qtd. in Jenkins, Textual Poachers 10). This fanaticism is what gives fans their reputation for obsession, but their excessive scrutiny enables the fans to analyse and criticise the series while applying criticism and at times sophisticated theory. After all, what moves anyone to look beyond the actual text and to investigate the themes and motifs of literary works is the desire to know more about the work, to become involved in that piece of literature instead of remaining a passive reader.
Academics aim to present a clear and logical argument, not an overtly emotional discourse based on wants and desires of the stereotypical fan, and yet they share the same wish; to see through the shallow façade of a text and truly understand its deeper meanings.
Fans—through their intimate knowledge of the object of their fandom—prove the idea that practices of theory and criticism belong exclusively to the scholarly elite to be a
misconception. It is because the fans care that they earn the right—but also feel the urge—to be critical. Based on their in-depth knowledge of the complex workings of their favourite show, they have the ability to be critical; “fans often display a close attention to the particularity of television narratives that puts academic critics to shame” (Jenkins, Textual
Poachers 88). As long as the analyst acts from the desire to engage with the text in a serious
manner and has sufficient and appropriate knowledge, that person has the right to criticise and theorise about their fandom with authority.
25 to find it. To cater to their own needs as well as to those of other fans, some have even
founded blogs specifically with the purpose of collecting and posting theories about
Sherlock’s survival; examples of these are reichenbach-theories.tumblr.com and all-sherlock-theories.tumblr.com, which have not ceased their posting activities even after the grand revelation in “The Empty Hearse,” and have continued theorising about new mysteries.
As “The Empty Hearse” illustrates, not nearly every theory is meant to be taken seriously, but while the amount of ‘crack’ theories on Tumblr is quite large, there are plenty of serious theories to which other fans have responded critically. A number of fans performed a close reading of “The Reichenbach Fall” in order to uncover hints. One of the details14 thus
discovered is the appearance of another reference to the motif of IOU, a phrase Moriarty repeats to Sherlock throughout the episode, in the form of graffiti. The graffiti is not prominently visible as it is part of the background, but details like these have informed the more impressive theories on Sherlock, including the fall. One such post is
thescienceofreichenbach’s theory titled “No Ball, No Clones, No Fish: This Is My (Fringe) Theory On How Sherlock Survived the Fall”. Unlike crack-theories, this theory is well-argued, and supported by visual evidence in the form of relevant screen shots, which makes it worthwhile to critically review. Readers respond by drawing similarities between this theory and their own. Thescienceofreichenbach’s arguments concur with anonymiss221’s
suspicions15 that the scene is shot from different points of view, which would account for the
difference in appearance of Sherlock’s body. Others16 refer to the originality of this particular
theory, or even add17 to the theory by implying the cooperation of other characters. Though
not always applying literary criticism, Tumblr fans do look critically at their own and each other’s theories, and have no reservations about giving their opinion when they agree and especially when they do not.
The grand revelation of Sherlock’s survival in “The Empty Hearse” has not stopped fans from theorising about the circumstances of the fall. One of these theories concerns the kidnapping plot from “The Reichenbach Fall:” it is authored by finalproblem18 who runs a
blog with the sole purpose of publishing his/her personal theories so that they may inspire others. Finalproblem’s theory suggests that the circumstances of “The Reichenbach Fall” have not been resolved by the grand revelation; on the contrary, according to this user neither the
26 circumstances of the fall nor the fall itself have been satisfactorily explained in “The Empty Hearse.” Another of finalproblem’s theories19 examines the narrative continuity between “The
Reichenbach Fall” and “The Empty Hearse,” with specific attention to how they captured the scene of the fall. To differentiate between the two portrayals of the same scene, I will refer to the former as “Reichenbach” and the latter as “Lazarus,” the codename given to that
resolution of the fall by Mycroft and Sherlock in “The Empty Hearse.” By means of visual evidence, finalproblem debunks earlier fall theories; subsequently, the theory remarks on the differences between the Reichenbach and Lazarus, and accuses the writers of consciously changing the facts established in “The Reichenbach Fall,” a process more commonly known as “retconning.” Retconning is a neologism for retroactive continuity, and refers to the act of rewriting past events to serve current or future plots (TVTropes). Finalproblem’s theory gains even more authority, in my opinion, by its use of a quote from “A Scandal in Bohemia,” which proves intimate knowledge of not just Sherlock, but also of Doyle’s stories. The quote in question is used to illustrate that the subtle changes between Reichenbach and Lazarus indicate the writers’ mistake of “twist[ing] facts to suit theories” (Doyle, Complete 163). Finalproblem does neither hesitate to question the so-called facts presented to the viewer nor to criticise the writers’ decisions when due.
27
Chapter 3 - Interaction
3.1 Transmedial Fandom
Finalproblem’s assessment of Reichenbach and Lazarus led to the conclusion that the writers consciously retconned Lazarus to fit the fans’ theories. Originally, a number of fans believed that the doctor on the scene was carrying a bag of blood to where Sherlock had fallen due to a picture that suggested the presence of such a bag inside the doctor’s jacket. Other fans have debunked this theory by pointing out that the red colour was just the lining of his jacket, and the object he was reaching for was his lanyard. During Lazarus, the doctor is the only medical professional not wearing a lanyard in the scene while behind-the-scenes pictures have shown that he did have a lanyard on set. Finalproblem therefore concludes that the lanyard was specifically removed from the scene, in order to fit the fans’ theories, or in other words, that the creators twisted the facts in order to explain Sherlock’s survival. This is supported by another argument: the pool of blood around Sherlock. In “The Reichenbach Fall,” the puddle was present before anyone actually reached Sherlock’s body, but in the case of Lazarus, finalproblem points out, the puddle was created by one of the medical
professionals who reached Sherlock’s body before John. Lazarus changed the facts that caused the fans to theorise for two years, and finalproblem adeptly argues that it might just be consciously done. If so, this indicates a form of interaction between the fans and the creators of the show, and in this section I will examine in what ways and to what extent the creators interact with their fans.
28 Sherlock’s fan showcases even more obsessive fan behaviour, among which forcing Sherlock to solve the puzzles he offers him with the consequence of killing innocents if he does not cooperate.
Other than acknowledging the fandom with these characters and references, Sherlock’s transmedia content, written by Joseph Lidster, offers an accurate depiction of the fandom online. Connie Prince’s website has a message board which Sherlock joins with the objective of gaining intelligence among her fans. The comments on this website by the various different members portray a range of stereotypical fans, from the heartbroken and overly attached Joy to the conspiracist trustno1, and from the sympathising Steph to the factual Jax48, who is worries about the order he/she placed with Connie, but has not received his/her products. The show’s regulars also make an appearance, Sherlock by aggravating Prince’s fans, hoping to elicit a reaction, Molly by showing her sympathy and presumably Moriarty as Anonymous simply with the desire to stalk Sherlock. Similar fans appear on John’s blog and Sherlock’s website, the most notable fans being theimprobableone and Jacob Sowersby.
Theimprobableone is a genuine fan of Sherlock’s, it appears, as he shows a great amount of interest and kindness towards Sherlock. He tried to solve the riddles Sherlock refused, and offered up his spare room when he read that Sherlock was having difficulties with his
landlord. Meanwhile theimprobableone also seems jealous of John, posting negative messages on his blog, except when it concerns Sherlock. Jacob Sowersby is more neutral on the subject of Sherlock and John, but is just as devoted to the two of them. His video, used on John’s blog, shows the intensity of his fannish activities. He collects items that are linked with Sherlock, he visits places that Sherlock has been, he dresses like Sherlock, etc., and he vlogs about his hobby and his fandom. The variety among all these different types of fans reflect the nature of the Sherlockian fandom well; while the fandom is often seen as a collective entity, there is actually are many differences between those people who together form the fandom and how they engage with their fandom.
3.2 Social Media Bridging between Fans and Creators
29 paratextual site aimed both at disciplining audience knowledge, and responding to the fan audience’s assumed desire to accumulate detailed information about a text” (Hills 33). To be sure, Sherlock’s DVD box sets are filled with commentaries and special documentaries. Interviews are plentiful in magazines and newspapers around the time of a premiere, but the fact remains that this is not interaction with the fans: just interaction with the media. Fan letters do represent genuine interaction between creators and fans, but only on a very small scale. The Internet offers more than that; being a mass-medium, the Internet has the power to reach millions, and is significantly more effective in terms of interaction. The interaction between the fans of the show and the show’s creators is nearly the same as in the case of Sherlock and his fictional fans.
Using modern techniques is a motif throughout the series of Sherlock and its fandom, and so it is logical that the interaction between these two should arise through the use of modern media. Most of the online communication between creators and fans seems to occur on Twitter, where Mark Gatiss, one of the writers, Sue Vertue, the producer, Amanda Abbington, who portrays Mary Morstan, and Louise Brealey, who portrays Molly Hooper, have an account. Previously, Steven Moffat also had an account on Twitter, but he cancelled it as it proved too much of a “distraction,” but some of Moffat’s tweets have been documented on Tumblr (Vertue). Aside from these individuals, there are several others affiliated with
Sherlock who communicate with the fans via Twitter. I will refer to them as the “creators” of Sherlock. The creators frequently interact with their fans in a friendly way. Take, for example,
a Twitter conversation between Gatiss and @GeorgieAnais, in which Gatiss is asked “[what] the deal [is] with Mycroft’s umbrella?” Gatiss replies: “It’s used to stop one from getting rained on. You should try it.” Though there is sarcasm in Gatiss words, the fandom does not interpret it as hostile, but rather as sassy, which is a running joke within the fandom.
30 circulating as images; where possible, I cite the original tweets, but unfortunately tweets contributing to a conversation have occasionally been deleted.
Professional tweets: the power of social media with regard to publicity has escaped
no one, and it is particularly useful in the case of show business. In anticipation of the
premiere of “A Scandal in Belgravia,” Steven Moffat tweeted20: “So. Three men, a swimming
pool, a bunch of snipers, and a pile of explosives. And then… Sherlock, 8.10, BBC1, tonight.” Obviously this tweet is not part of an official publicity campaign, but it is aimed at the fans of the show, reminding them to watch the new episode. A similar message was tweeted by Sue Vertue who tweeted21: Sherlock – His Last Vow. Sometimes somebody has to die. Sunday BBC1, 8:30. #sherlocklives.” In a somewhat different tone, Louise Brealey announces the publication of an interview: “SELF-PUBLICITY KLAXON. In @RadioTimes talking about snogging Ben again (THEY ASKED ME!), my arse (THEY DIDN'T) & my new film @Delicious_film.” The fact remains that these tweets are aimed at fans of Sherlock who follow the creators on Twitter with the goal of promoting the show or affairs related to the show. The most obvious casual use of language comes from Louise Brealey, while Moffat and Vertue remain slightly more reserved in their choice of register. Yet, none of these tweets can be considered highly formal.
Feedback tweets: this category lies between the professional and teasing tweets.
Tweets of this category offer feedback or are responses to feedback. In the case of a television series, it is rather pointless for fans to offer feedback since the episodes have already been shot, and will not be shot again. The tie-in websites, however, are subject to feedback as they can still be changed, and have been changed. Joe Lidster, the writer of the tie-in websites was asked to clarify the date of John’s wedding, as there was a discrepancy between the date on the invitation in the episode and the dates on John’s blog. Lidster replies: “It's August
apparently. The date was changed. Either emails were sent out or replacement invitation cards were made.” When originating from the fans, these tweets arise from closer readings of the websites or as the example, discrepancies between the different media. On one occasion, the fandom came across a mistake in the comment section and reported it, after a significant amount of speculation among the fandom, to Lidster on Twitter; Lidster responded
professionally but casually, saying “thanks. It's a misprint so hopefully they can change it on Monday.” While there is still a certain professional nature to these tweets from Lidster, they
31 are undeniably casual in a way that closely resembles Moffat’s and Vertue’s professional tweets.
Teasing tweets: the aforementioned tweet by Gatiss falls under this category. The
function of these tweets is to increase the fans’ interests in the series simply by showing that the creators see the fans’ messages, and that they, like Sherlock tells Molly in “The
Reichenbach Fall,” do count. The tweets are still written from a professional perspective, though, which is evident from a number of different tweets. The first example that best illustrates this concept is one by Sue Vertue; Vertue posted a picture of the 221B Baker Street set with the text “Baker Street awaits. #sherlock,” which was posted March 15, 2013, when the episodes of season three were being filmed. Her tweet caused many responses, varying from “can’t wait!” (Russel) to “AHAHAHSHHDJDJD SHCJDIDHEJDIDNSIBCH I'm so done with you guys” (#221Back). Just after the airing of season two, when a fan told Gatiss how she would not be able to handle a three-year hiatus, Gatiss replied: “three years in the canon @ohcararara , ten years in real life...” Interestingly enough, there are no reactions to this statement on Twitter while there are on Tumblr, where tweets by the creators of Sherlock are reblogged and reacted to, usually in text but just as often with the use of gifs. In this case, a gif is attached to show that the fans are not happy about that statement, and that they know they are being teased22. A possible explanation for the reaction on Tumblr is that Tumblr
offers more in terms of anonymity and fan community than Twitter.
Other tweets by fans focus on the content of Sherlock, asking the creators for details, such as @Screwsgotight’s question “What IS Anderson’s first name?” which is directed at both Gatiss and Moffat. Gatiss answers “Sylvia,” which is nonsense, since two years after that tweet the audience finds out Anderson’s real name, Philip. The responses23 appear to take
Gatiss’s statement at face-value; @SherlockFandom replies “Sources show (@Markgatiss) Anderson’s name is Sylvia…” followed by @Screwsgotight’s reaction: “Perfect. Wouldn’t think anything less than Sylvia.” There is a clear hint of sarcasm in these responses, making it clear that the fans do anything but take it at face-value and are joining Gatiss in his game of teasing. Other examples of teasing tweets are Moffat and Gatiss’s speculation over Mycroft being the Prime Minister24, their evasive reactions to a fan’s outcry25 who tells them they can “NOT MARRY JOHN! HE BELONGS TO SHERLOCK” to which they reply they are “both
32 already married” (Gatiss) “and very happy with each other” (Moffat). In a similar fashion, Louise Brealey teases the fans by revealing the content of Molly’s gift to Sherlock, claiming it was a Borat mankini. The pinnacle of fan-teasing, however, is Gatiss’s “Miss me?” with a picture of Andrew Scott, who plays Moriarty, lying on the floor in a pool of fake blood, which is especially frustrating for the fans since it was hinted in “His Last Vow” that Moriarty may have survived his suicide too. While the objective of these teasing tweets is to play with the fans and to frustrate them, it is not malignly done, and naturally, these tweets are of a highly informal nature.
Friendly tweets: these tweets need not be connected much to Sherlock, but are still
aimed at the fans. Amanda Abbington is usually very friendly to the fans, and often replies to their messages or gives them a retweet, such as when @SherlockArg, an Argentinian fan Twitter, asked for it, Abbington replied “hi Argentina! X.” Lara Pulver’s report of the 2012 Crime Thriller awards is also one of those friendly tweets, as well as Louise Brealey’s fan-appreciation moment: “Dear Sherlock Fandom. You are the best fandom. Everyone says so. Love from Louise x,” which attracts many reactions from fans saying the same thing about Brealey. There is mutual appreciation between the creators of the show and the fans, which may even be qualified as friendship. Certainly, Abbington warning the fans for those who spread spoilers online is an act of kindness, if not of friendship, as she could easily have let it slide like her colleagues. Also noteworthy is how she deals with the fannish reactions to her real-life partner’s popularity; when @danisnotonfire tweets “does anyone else feel an overwhelming urge to hug martin freeman?” Abbington replies “I'll tell him. And then hug him.”
Unfriendly tweets: as mentioned, there are unfortunately fans who have come to hate
the creators of their favourite series, sending unfriendly messages to those members of cast or staff they have come to resent. These fans often turn on the actors in response to the actions of those actors’ characters, or as in the following example, because the fans do not agree with the producers’ decisions in terms of casting. Amanda Abbington was cast as Mary Morstan, John Watson’s fiancé. Naturally, Watson’s fiancé throws a cog in the wheel of the Johnlock shippers, but instead of criticising the writers for their decision, Abbington is given the cold shoulder by, for example, a Twitter user named @andygeoffrey. In the first tweet26, which has been deleted since, @andygeoffrey implies that Abbington got the role purely because
Freeman is her partner, to which Abbington replies in a civil manner. That did not end the
33 argument, and there are several replies from both parties where Abbington is supported by other fans who do not condone this type of behaviour from someone who identifies as a fan as well. At January 2nd, Gatiss responded to a fan’s question, irrevocably stating that “Moriarty
is dead.” When the season finale, aired at January 12th, suggested otherwise, some fans called
him a “fibber,” a “liar,” “bastards” and “u big lying pool of shit.” While there were plenty respectful reactions, this is undoubtedly not the reaction Gatiss expected after providing the fans with their Sherlock fix.
Fannish tweets: even among the creators of Sherlock, there are fans of the show. This
is especially clear in the case of Louise Brealey, who at times seems to be a true member of the fandom as she communicates in the same way and does not avoid the subjects that intrigue fans. A case in point: @EllaRowe97 tweets “my mum ships sherlolly and was sad when she realised the kiss didn't really happen,” referring to the kiss between Molly and Sherlock that was part of a crack theory shown in “The Empty Hearse.” Brealey replied with “IT
HAPPENED.” Brealey’s statement speaks of enthusiasm and passion, not anger, and demonstrates how strongly she feels about the subject. More specifically, this instance of fannish behaviour by one of the creators of the show shows how the lines between Sherlock’s story world and reality have become blurred; Brealey’s fannish behaviour towards Benedict Cumberbatch implies that it was not just Molly Hooper who was being kissed by Sherlock, and that Brealey sees her fannish wishes fulfilled through this scene. Moreover, in a Twitter conversation between Brealey and @AngelaLeicht, Brealey admits to making mistakes in that scene on purpose, so several takes would need to be shot. The kiss in question caused a great reaction among the fans as well, to which Brealey responded on Twitter only a day after the premiere of the episode: “You naughty girls. I love that you all appear to be watching that kiss on a loop. P.S. I told him the hair-ruffle was hot. #Sherlocksnogs” The first part of this tweet is more of a teasing nature, but the post script is definitely fannish. Brealey clearly is very fond of Benedict Cumberbatch in particular, as several of her tweets refer to him; she
comments on Cumberbatch’s look on the red carpet, how Cumberbatch let her “fiddle with his damp hair as a birthday treat,” and another comment on his hair amongst others. That she is not just a fan of Cumberbatch becomes clear from her tweet saying “OH THAT TRAILER. *SCREAMS*” and “Hurry up, Sherlock.”
As noted earlier, being a fan of the show comprises in most cases looking at and engaging with fan art. That the creators participate in this type of behaviour is illustrated by Sue Vertue, who tweeted a fan-made poster. The poster in question is a crossover between
