IN responce

“Any speculation based on derivation is like speculation based on fan-fiction, it has no place for an appreciator of the art of storytelling. It also has no place for someone who truly cares for the series, because if you did, you wouldn’t be disrespecting it with your ridiculous stupid shitty theories.” -Alexds1 in his tumblr post: “There is but one step from the grotesque to the horrible”

Let me begin by saying that I refuse to stoop to your level, sir, and critic people for their opinions. If I can help it, phrases such as “this rant is written for a specific group of people. If you don’t belong to it, […] congratulations, great shall be your reward in the afterlife” and “I’m not going to assume that all of the people who have seen and enjoy the modern franchises are terrible terrible people” (and let me pause a moment, dramatically, to point out that crossing out a phrase hardly makes it less readable and therefore that statement is insulting).
Second, let me say, that yes, it can be “extremely annoying to see arguments about sexual relationships,” because sometimes they get out of hand. However, your claim that “if you read the canonical material, their relationship and characters are blatantly obvious” is incredibly inaccurate.


First of all, your opinion that “the source material is the only material that matters; there would be no derivations without it;” is both very far into the wing of Literary Critique called New Criticism
and incredibly presumptuous.
Now, I don't pretend to have read every Sherlock Holmes story (I have only recently acquired the full volumes) and I also don't pretend to know who everyone in the fandom is, but your second claim that “anyone who focuses on sexuality in this series is either being manipulative or completely missing the point” is first rude, and second inaccurate.

For those who are unaware, New Criticism is the realm of critique that focuses on only the textual evidence presented within the confines of the story. The author's intent and the historical context does not count in to the understanding of the story.
I find that theory to be more than restrictive and I'm sure many others would agree. While Alexds1 is accurate in pointing out that “there would be no derivations without” the original Sir Arthur Conan Doyle stories, I pose that the source material, while being obviously very important, is not the only important factor that must be considered here and I also would argue that people who look at “sexuality in this series” are not “being manipulative or completely missing the point”.

[dramatic pause before beginning rant so as to imply insult]

Step one to conquer:
Sir Doyle was writing the Sherlock Holmes stories at a time where homosexuality was a subject so distressing that people would likely be ridiculed and discredited for presenting characters in that fashion.
It wasn't something that you did. Homosexuality was something to be hidden in those days, and it has hardly been an overly accepted part of the world today.
So, shall we overlook the presentation of Sherlock even though it is kin to the cliché descriptions of homosexual men?

Let's forgive fans for holding onto the possibility that Sherlock can have a homosexual orientation, shall we? Because, let's be honest. IT'S QUITE PROBABLY TRUE. There is not just one interpretation of the text, and if you really take a look at the fan base that exists, a fan base that has been reading the acclaimed work for years you will see that there are many people who see the romantic relation between Sherlock and Watson who haven't watched the BBC version. And they do it with seriousness that should be respected, not criticized.
The statement he made saying: "Until recently, I would have never guessed that people would care about the series for the stupidest, basest possible reasons… namely, the way the actors look and the possibility of fucking."
"basest" reasons? Oh, no no no.
Yes, it may be annoying if it's the only thing you see on your dashboard when you check it very 10 mins. but you could ignore it or block it, just like the rest of us. And anyway, romantic and sexual attraction are a major portion of the human condition and (fortunately or otherwise) a really strong drawing point for audiences today and in the past.
When the genre of the novel itself, as a genre was first formed, people rebelled against it because it was considered a form of masturbation to read privately to yourself as such. Media, yes, continues to harp upon that very aspect of enjoyment. Catering as it were, to its audience. That's how it survives, you can't really use that critique as a standpoint for why you don't like the fans of a series. Especially since, I would like to point out, Sherlock himself was described in a handsome light himself THROUGH the books. He wasn't described as ugly.

Now, let me take his argument further, section by section and address the issues I find in them.

FIRST, let's take a look at the lines that Alexds1 avoided when quoting the text. In that quote he places a […]. Do you know what goes in that bracket? Let me tell you, the full quote goes like this (brackets designate what he omitted):
“He never spoke of the softer passions, save with a gibe and a sneer [They were admirable things for the observer -- excellent for drawing the veil from men's motives and actions. But for the trained reasoner to admit to such intrusions into his own delicate and finely adjusted temperament was to introduce a distracting factor which might throw a doubt upon all his mental results.] Grit in a sensitive instrument, or a crack in one of his own high-power lenses, would not be more disturbing than a strong emotion in a nature such as his.”

Alexds1 says that “If you want to use this information to prove that Holmes is asexual, you are missing the entire goddamn point. He exists to illustrate the completely rational man: a human machine with only one function. [...] It says less about the subject and more about you trying to force this character whose was defined 100 years before you were born into a mold that fits the lifestyle that most occupies your thoughts, in an intensely self-serving and incomprehensible way. Sex is never mentioned in the stories outside of the context of children or pregnant women, so it is a non-issue.”

Issue number one: sex is not a “non-issue” it is a perfectly rational and human consideration.
Second: Alexds1 pointedly omitted the fact that Sherlock recognizes love as an emotion, that he has the capacity but chooses not to love, but for fear of it hindering his capacity to reason he refuses to act upon those emotions.
In a way, this quote may undermine the argument at Holmes is asexual, but it doesn't have to. If we consider that Sherlock is a non-sexual entity and doesn't see the point in any romantic interactions, it's still perfectly valid and within canon “ to prove that Holmes is asexual”.
It is also wrong to say that pointing out the sexual interests of Holmes is “missing the entire goddamn point”. Let's consider what the context of that line is, to begin with.
The story it has been taken from is “Scandal in Bohemia” for those of you reading who haven't read it, it is the introductory story to the infamous Irene Adler (much like the Scandal episode of the BBC Sherlock series is). The quote Alexds1 uses comes in the middle of the opening paragraph. The whole of it goes like this:
“To Sherlock Holmes she is always the woman. I have seldom heard him mention her under any other name. In his eyes she eclipses and predominates the whole of her sex. It was not that he felt any emotion akin to love for Irene Adler. All emotions, and that one particularly, were abhorrent to his cold, precise but admirably balanced mind. He was, I take it, the most perfect reasoning and observing machine that the world has seen, but as a lover he would have placed himself in a false position. He never spoke of the softer passions, save with a gibe and a sneer. They were admirable things for the observer -- excellent for drawing the veil from men's motives and actions. But for the trained reasoner to admit such intrusions into his own delicate and finely adjusted temperament was to introduce a distracting factor which might throw a doubt upon all his mental results. Grit in a sensitive instrument, or a crack in one of his own high-power lenses, would not be more disturbing than a strong emotion in a nature such as his. And yet there was but one woman to him, and that woman was the late Irene Adler, of dubious and questionable memory.”

Irene Adler stands for Sherlock as a woman beyond other women and therefore of interest different from others. I believe that the emotions he feels for her are akin to respect but it's not incorrect for there to be interpretations that see Irene as a love interest for Sherlock. Surely, someone of equal intelligence could be of romantic interest to him. It's not hard to imagine and in fact, adds some tension to the series in the original canon and it's further adaptations.
Also, recall that John Watson is the narrator and states, “he was, I take it, the most perfect...” etc. etc. The story is written in a first person perspective from which our interpretations of Sherlock are colored. We don't know who Sherlock is except through the lens of Watson and technically as such, none of Sherlock's internal thoughts or emotions are privy to us first hand.
Again, the line, the whole paragraph in fact, is something that can be debated upon.

Next, Alexds1 takes on the subject of John Watson.
“He is married to his wife (or wives) […] Sometimes they spend a lot of time together! And sometimes they don’t. In 1890 they only worked 3 cases. They are hardly joined at the hip.
That said, you cannot deny the strength of the relationship between Watson and Holmes. It has been called one of the strongest friendships in fiction, and to treat it otherwise- with no evidence other than information from the umpteenth adaptation of Doyle’s work- is doing a vast disservice to it.”

Watson's female relations. I find this to be a very interesting subject myself,
What happened to them? Don't know? NEITHER DO I. Often it seems, at least to me that it the whole subject matter is blatantly shoved aside. Why? Well, possibly because Sir Doyle didn't know what to do in response to them. Maybe because John Watson is a family man and wouldn't go out galavanting with Sherlock otherwise. Or perhaps it's because Watson has a deeper connection to his male comrade than to his wives.
There is also a theory that Sherlock murdered them.
Not far from possible is it? In fact, we no doubt realize, and no doubt, if we have seen the new season, can easily imagine, that very face, to be a possibility.
It is, I think, an almost universal agreement to state that Watson and Holmes have a beautiful and deep platonic relationship. To treat that relation as progressing into a state that is more romantic, is not a disservice to the canon, far from it. It is a natural and often well thought out consideration for the future of the characters involved. And in a society far more accepting of gay and lesbian relationships, it's much more visible and acted upon in response to the BBC Sherlock series.
Now for Irene Adler.
"Irene Adler, or any other woman inserted into any other series, is placed there simply because television executives don’t think you will have the concentration to care about an otherwise excellent series without a female love interest that you can superimpose your face on top of."

This. Is. Without a doubt the most depriving and disgusting critic of Irene Adler I have ever read and I refuse to merit it with any argument other than; What's wrong with having a female in a series? She doesn't have to be a love interest and whether she is or not a romantic interest to Sherlock is a fact that is easily debatable within and without the canon. Recall that in that same story quoted before, it is mentioned that Sherlock discusses Irene as "The Woman" the ONLY woman who has bested him and his intellect.
No. I don't think Irene is his romantic equal, but it is easy to consider, and just fine by me, for people to consider she and Sherlock in a romantic manner.
Again, the progression of their relationship could become romantic if pulled in the right fashion.
That said, if you want a further critic of this statement let me know. I'd be more than willing to tear apart the “case of Irene Adler” as it stands in a feminist light.

The next bit I'd like to address is the one in which Alexds1 states:
“If nothing else, I’m sure I’ve illustrated my utter disdain for people who put their crotches in front of their brains. I will say that these faults are not entirely due to the viewer- studios are hoping like hell that you will continue doing this, this is how they get money. Every time you reblog some post about some shipping, another person is going to start watching. This is why the actor who portrays Sherlock hasn’t been an imposing hook-nosed middle-aged man for a while, they don’t think you are going to watch it if they do that. It annoys me that this unnecessary crutch continues to be thrust upon a series of such strength, and that audiences are being trained to be so superficial as to require it. And it is almost tragic that these grasping, emotionally-driven impulses that keep the fan community going are a direct affront to the type of rational thought that Holmes uses to solve
every
single
case.”
I'd like to continue by uttering my disdain for people who are disrespectful because they think their opinion justifies them to be so. However, I do agree that in some ways, he is right. Attractive people are often placed in attractive roles. But remember that none of the American Presidents since the invention of the television have been ugly either.
– I'm not defending the media for this, but I have to say that there is something to be said for it.
However, I actually must agree with Ms. Adler when she remarks that “smart is the new sexy” and that is what makes Sherlock an attractive character. Personally, I love that Sherlock is a fantastically rational man, and you know what, it's nice to see that he is also played by a talented and attractive actor.
Does that make me a bumbling idiot who is “emotionally-driven” by “impulses” and “put[s] [my] crotch in front of [my] brain” ?? I don't think so but apparently, that's not up to me to decide.
Then our critic, Alexds1 says, "It doesn’t matter how old you are, if you’re old enough to enjoy the television series you are definitely old enough to enjoy the original works. You will be far richer for them as well, will cry tears that are just as genuine and laugh laughs that are just as sincere. You don’t have to inject your life into every work in order to make the context meaningful. That is the crutch you give yourself, you must throw it away. You have been given a ticket for a trip into an era you can no longer visit, and solve fantastic crimes with a fantastic man who never existed. You don’t have to stop enjoying any of the derivations, but at least try out the original. And for the love of god stop treating sexuality like it is the pinnacle of every piece of work. Sherlock Holmes was written at a time when the media didn’t have the power to spoon feed you propaganda on how to feel emotionally fulfilled. If shipping and relationships are the only thing you can focus on, you are surely missing the point.

Appreciate these stories on the level that they were written, they are incredibly accessible. Go read all of the stories for free here, they are also free for eReaders on Amazon. If you want to turn around and imagine everyone fucking (or not fucking) after that, then fine. At least you will know the quality of the material you are disrespecting. I, for one, hope you don’t."

Here, I find myself agreeing with this terrible critic. Yes. READ THE MATERIAL. BECAUSE IT'S FRANKLY EXCELLENT.
– That's the extent of my agreement however, I think it's terribly degrading that he states that people are treating sexuality as the pinnacle of the work. It's rudely inaccurate and actually says more about the people he chooses to follow on tumblr than it does about the fanbase as a whole.

– That aside, he claims that the relationship between Sherlock and Watson is a pinnacle point of the series. By missing that, you miss a good point to the series.
Yes, it's about solving crime.
But it's just as much about the Human condition, friendship, loyalty, and love.
If someone decides that that relationship can blossom in a romantic or sexual fashion, so be it. It is theirs to decide because once out of the author's hands, the story becomes the interpretation of it's audience. Every author can tell you that and some have been ruined by that fact.
You cannot tell me, with any bit of actual evidence, that no one, at the time of it's creation, saw Sherlock and Watson the way we do today. No, they didn't have media the way we do now, but they still have relationships and imaginations.

I'll close with this, dear sir,
You say:
“If you want to turn around and imagine everyone fucking (or not fucking) after that, then fine. At least you will know the quality of the material you are disrespecting. I, for one, hope you don’t."

What is it exactly that you are hoping we are not doing? Are you hoping that we don't imagine the characters beyond the story? Are you hoping we aren't discussing and thinking about the material we have immersed ourselves in?
Whether it means we are considering their romantic or economic or chronological situation beyond the text, we as readers, interact with the material. We enjoy it, love it and criticize it.
If it is wrong to imagine the characters beyond that point than I bow to your opinion and mention that I am, always wrong.
But let's remember this, the next time that you consider bashing a fanbase:
If Sir Arthur Conan Doyle had never been inspired by the character and persona of his friend Dr. Joesph Bell, if his imagination had never stepped off the spring board presented by the origins of detective stories from Edgar Allen Poe, we today wouldn't have the great work you claim to praise today.