BBC Sherlock Fan Forum - Serving Sherlockians since February 2012 » Johnlock: The Official Debate

Little Weed · February 2, 2016 10:32 am

But it was acknowledged they'd previously hung around together and had a history...

Liberty · February 2, 2016 11:49 am

Harry's drinking is taken straight from Doyle. I don't think it's meant to show that gay people are unhappy. The lesbian couple are in the blog only (never shown in the show, unless I've forgotten!), and seem to have a happy ending. Neither of these seem to be shown as a barrier to John and Sherlock getting together, or even against showing the audience that they fancy each other. (And to be honest, I don't think Moftiss would use being gay as a barrier).

The writers didn't have to follow canon with TRF and Mary (and Mary certainly is nothing like Mary from the TSOF!). But they could have done that and still shown the romance, if they'd chosen to.   There's no reason to have to start with a fulfilled romantic relationship - they could prolong the agony by just being clear that they fancy each other (for instance one of them confiding in somebody else - the audience being given information that the other character doesn't have), but also putting clear barriers in their way.   The thing is, they show absolutely nothing concrete at all.    It's not a slow burn ... as far as what we've actually been shown, it hasn't started yet.

We don't know if John ever stopped dating women. I think we were shown enough to show that he dates women, and didn't need to keep being shown casual girlfriends who weren't part of the story.   He never says that he's stopped dating, and nobody comments on it.   But even if he had, he doesn't make any move to date Sherlock - that's not his intention.

I agree that Sherlock's avoidance of relationships is a barrier to him dating anybody, but the other barriers (John's army life? His sister?) are not actually presented as barriers.    John's denial of being gay, could be just because he's not gay - that aligns with what we're shown (he's only shown dating women). (He clearly means that he's straight, not bi. "Of course it's a woman", etc.).

Last edited by Liberty (February 2, 2016 8:36 pm)

Whisky · February 2, 2016 4:19 pm

besleybean wrote:
See this is where my viewpoint differs.
Tension, what tension?
It's like we speak different languages or watch different shows or something.I see no tension, in the Johnlock sense.
I see two close friends(one of them pretty extraordinary)and their roller coaster life during amazing adventures.
A couple of times on here I've seen people say things like: we can't keep the status quo, there has to be progress.
But why?
Personally I'm happy with the status quo.
Why can't they just go on surviving more scrapes together.
In real life, if you are getting your adrenaline kick , knocking about with your bestie...when do you think: oh we can't keep this status quo, there has to be progress?
I just don't think it happens.
I believe John will think: I love this guy and I want it to go on and on- exactly as it is.

I meant the tension between subtext and what everybody sees. I was unhappy with the kind of ambiguity that is there. Everything is open to every i nterpretation (Yes, thats what I think, meta argumentations or not), but I don't feel we agree on our interpretation. I just want to say that it would help to clear things up a bit. I realise I'm not a fan of slow burn romances if it's not indicated for everyone that there is a romance happening at all. I'm fine with them going on exactly as it is, John and Sherlock. I'm just not so happy with coding it in a way that it's not clear what's happening. And no, that it's not clear isn't because odf heteronormativity imo, but it's because they hint at so much background in the series that it's hard to read the series intention on its own. Because we don't even agree on the canon, do we. I think even if we discussed canon, some would say friendship and others hidden romance. I wouldn't mind if the writers
would decide, that's all. But maybe it's just another hint to canon if they don't.
I think as long as most are convinced the coding is unambiguos in a Johnlock sense, there isn't a real debate going on anyway... :-) (not meant offensive, more observing....)

Last edited by Whisky (February 2, 2016 4:42 pm)

besleybean · February 2, 2016 5:03 pm

I see no coding at all...where does that put me?!

ukaunz · February 8, 2016 3:13 am

So I feel like the mood in here has become a bit tense, awkward... or maybe it's just me? Anyway, it's very quiet. Maybe people are just busy. Maybe some people are feeling like their opinions are being rubbished, or that they're not being heard at all. It can be frustrating. We all need to remember that this is meant to be a fun, friendly debate of a show we all love

I'm not very good at articulating things like this, but I just listened to the latest Three Patch Podcast episode, and the segment titled The Elephant in the Room Roundtable: Responding to Sherlock (timestamp 1:12:43) really struck a chord for me. I can relate to so many of the thoughts and feelings that were expressed in the roundtable. Several interpretations of the show are represented. I highly recommend everyone listen to it

Last edited by ukaunz (February 8, 2016 6:00 am)

besleybean · February 8, 2016 6:32 am

'Several interpretations' sounds good...
I'm not sure how many are possible, or at least exist, with regards to Johnlock.
I suppose you can at least be either:
A believer, A non-believer or an agnostic.
There are variations in that, of course.
For example myself, where I would have loved to have seen it, but just don't believe it exists in the show.

ukaunz · February 8, 2016 6:49 am

The TPP podcast discussion is not actually a debate about which interpretation is right, but more a discussion about what a person's interpretation of Sherlock might mean to them personally, and how people should be free to interpret it they way they want without being alienated in the fandom. It also addresses people's feelings about the subject of Mary.

Last edited by ukaunz (February 8, 2016 7:09 am)

besleybean · February 8, 2016 6:57 am

Yes, sorry, we seem to be at cross purposes?
I er, obviously, was just expressing a view.
Continuing in that vein...
So Mary: could for some immediately be seen as a block between John and Sherlock.
Maybe that's only if you hold a view of John and Sherlock as a couple, or at least a potential couple.
So this may go some way to explain the bafflement of the non-Johnlockers who, after all, see no relationship to block!
Again there are nuances:
Some people may just be concerned with Mary coming between the boy's friendship.
There is of course the added complication with Mary, in that we have the big reveal over the truth about her..and therefore the wondering if there are going to be any further reveals.
The future reveals would only be a Johnlock issue if:
The reveal meant Mary didn't really love John.
The reveal stopped John being able to love Mary.
Though none of those things would necessarily mean John suddenly started loving Sherlock.

ukaunz · February 8, 2016 7:06 am

No worries, I was just trying to better explain what the segment of the podcast actually is... I was worried people would think it was a Johnlock debate.

besleybean · February 8, 2016 7:12 am

Which could possibly be justified, in a Johnlock debate thread!
Ha.

ukaunz · February 8, 2016 7:21 am

Yes, of course I should have been clearer when I first posted about it.

I've never been good at debating, personally. I can usually see both sides of the argument and can't commit to one "side". I'm very indecisive Also, I can't cope when debates/arguments get heated or overly emotional. (I think this stems from my childhood, with parents who used to fight a lot in front of my brother and I, before they divorced.)

To me, it feels like things are getting a bit heated around here, but like I said, it could just be me.

besleybean · February 8, 2016 7:23 am

Of course it's not just you.
I would argue Johnlock is the most hot topic in the fandom.
People do stay away from this thread, because they find it difficult.
After all, it spawned 2 sister threads...for that very reason.
How important the debate is to enjoying they show, or how much it matters to the Sherlock team...is open to debate, too.
Infact I will state the case even stronger: I have personal Sherlockian friends who stay away from fora altogether, because of Johnlock.

Last edited by besleybean (February 8, 2016 7:25 am)

ukaunz · February 8, 2016 7:41 am

It's not so good when it takes away from one's enjoyment of the show. I guess that's when I need to step away

I think we crossposted (or cross-edited) besley, I didn't see your edit!

Last edited by ukaunz (February 8, 2016 7:51 am)

Vhanja · February 8, 2016 10:16 am

To me, Johnlock is like a little spice in everyday life. Reading Johnlock fics and watching the show with that in mind is something I find entertaining. But I don't think it will happen in the show, and have a clear separate distance between what I would like to see and what I think will happen.

And, as mentioned before, would like nothing better than to be proven wrong. (Hear that, Moffat?!)

ukaunz · February 8, 2016 10:41 am

I think that's a good way to approach Johnlock. I can see why people become more emotionally invested, though.

Vhanja · February 8, 2016 10:53 am

Oh, absolutely. We all come into this with our own background, personality and experiences - which will always affect how we approach things.

SusiGo · February 8, 2016 4:53 pm

Vhanja wrote:
To me, Johnlock is like a little spice in everyday life. Reading Johnlock fics and watching the show with that in mind is something I find entertaining. But I don't think it will happen in the show, and have a clear separate distance between what I would like to see and what I think will happen.

And, as mentioned before, would like nothing better than to be proven wrong. (Hear that, Moffat?!)

But if I look at the recent discussion, I get the impression that at least for some people this is about more than having a little spice in everyday life. People who wish and hope to see themselves represented in a big successful show. And I think we should respect that.

Last edited by SusiGo (February 8, 2016 4:54 pm)

Vhanja · February 8, 2016 4:55 pm

SusiGo wrote:
But if I look at the recent discussion, I get the impression that at least for some people this is about more than having a little spice in everyday life. People who wish and hope to see themselves represented in a big successful show. And I think we should respect that.

Absolutely. As long as every view is respected, I do the same.

besleybean · February 8, 2016 5:00 pm

I wouldn't expect my favourite writers to write the show I wanted or how I thought it should be written.
I would write my own show for that.
I also don't particularly want a writer to feel they have to sit with a check list on the lines of:
disabled character...check
ethnic minority character...check
strong female character...check.
gay character...check.
transgender character...check.

And so on.

If shows have those characters in: fab.
But nobody should feel obliged to meet some kind of politically correct quota.

I think this would be more likely to happen if Mark and Steven were writing a totally original show...but they are working from well known Victorian source material.
We have to take what we are give.
We ether like it, or we don't and we watch it, or we don't.
If we feel that strongly about it, we are free to write our own show...but I would never feel somebody had a duty to do that for me.

Last edited by besleybean (February 8, 2016 5:03 pm)

Harriet · February 8, 2016 5:01 pm

Do you really believe, Vhanja, that it's a fine thing to make use of the stories of queer people to spice up your life? Just for your entertainment, as you put it?