cont… as “why are people blaming me for this shit, this isn’t actually my fault so why am I being blamed for it fuck this”) would indicate John is aware of what Sherlock does to him. Which seems, at least to me, incongruous with the *way* he forgives Sherlock (i.e. right after Sherlock’s made him think they’re going to die). But you definitely are right in that abuse doesn’t really make *sense*, and John’s actions probably could be considered plausible because Sherlock’s fucked with his head. I just have a lot of problems with the way season 3 has treated the abuse storyline on the whole (I found the whole thing kind of a trivialising, romanticising mess that unreservedly excused all of Sherlock’s behaviour), which probs makes me leap to conclusions? (Sorry, I have no idea where these asks are going).
And the thing about being upset by people being fascinated about it is again because I’ve been there and I can’t understand looking at an abuse storyline (and one told as carelessly as this) and the first thought not being disgust, I guess? But the comment was definitely not directed at you, I’m sorry if it seemed that way 🙂 Anyway apologies for the long-ass message, I hope it made some semblance of sense xD -C
Ahhhh. Well, if it helps any, Holly replied to another reblog about her comment (the one before mine) with a bit more detail, and it turns out she kind of agrees with you.
She pointed out in her second reblog that blame and responsibility are two different things, and that Sherlock is leveling responsibility on John, but is not blaming him—that is, Sherlock doesn’t seem to be putting any kind of value judgments on John’s choices. It’s John who is doing that. And insofar as only John can decide what he thinks things mean, that burden is on John.
But on the other hand, if Sherlock understands how John is likely to receive what Sherlock is telling him, then that’s just an argument of semantics, because Sherlock could very easily use that very understanding to manipulate John into taking the blame.
In terms of this: “can’t understand looking at an abuse storyline (and one told as carelessly as this)” — Like I said, I totally get the revulsion, and god knows, wanting to get as far away from that toxic crap as possible is a vastly sane reaction, especially when you’ve experienced it for yourself (and you have my deepest condolences). My point was only that I’ve seen people confuse interest with approval before, and it tends to lead to people on both sides of the argument getting hurt. After all, a writer or psychologist needs to be interested in how people think and what they want, and their personal opinions of whether those things are good or bad need to get set aside in favor of understanding.
Which, you know, doesn’t need arguing about. ^_^ ”Good for you! If you want me, I’ll be running in the other direction screaming” is a totally valid reaction.
Being upset because of the careless way the narrative this season seems to have handled Sherlock and John’s relationship is a whole other ball of wax, though. And I mean that in the sense that you’ve got a really great point. It’s one thing to tackle themes of abuse in a story. It’s a whole different thing for a writer to just carelessly splat it in there as some sort of cheap, horrible and creepy version of faux ‘romance.’
And there are conversations still going on about whether that’s what we’re actually seeing here, but if it is… Like I said, there’s a difference between finding something interesting, and approving of it. And that goes for the text too. I’m cool with stories about abuse. I am not cool with stories that try to tell us abuse is fine.