Digging up the thread, but just thought, that scenario would remind me of the Dumbledore brothers in Harry Potter, where the sister died tragically and one brother moves away and keeps distracting himself while the other keeps blaming his brother, his friend (and maybe a little himself) for it and the secret and  circumstances of their sisters death makes the relationship between the brothers a very difficult one.

I think something like this might be between Mycroft and Sherlock, too.

I'm here.  Not feeling very well and struggling with the real life out there. Not really following the forum though right now. Ironically, I only saw this because I felt the need to check the forum after the US vote. Dunno why. Just to read that people are still around and sane and keeping their heads up, I suppose. A bit shaken like most, I am, I guess. Take care, all.
I miss the forum. Will be back, just dunno when.

Fandom is a word I didn't know when I was younger. How old is it?
Back then, me and two or three friends where our own fandom, sharing stuff, talking about it. There where smaller things, but Harry Potter was the big thing for us, being the Harry generation... until Rowling got too slow with writing to keep Harry at our own age ... It was amazing. I remember reading the magazines and collecting posters and finally joining the hp-fc, harry potter fan club, which started as a tiny place on the still new-for-us internet. Internet wasn't the number one place of fandos yet, I think. Except for those intelligent guys who knew how email news groups worked I guess, but that wasn't us, we were only eleven years old.

First time I heard the name fandom was actually when interacting with Sherlock fans.

I have liked many things, but a fan in a way that does the term justice I have been of Harry Potter (books), LoTR... and this especially in the waiting for the films, and Sherlock.

I'm very fascinated by fandoms, fan cultures... it's like a microcosmos. In love reading scientific works on how fandoms work... there is more and more being written which is nice.

I'm not sure anymore what this thread is about. Do I get it right when I assume that it is only for opinions and examples "why I see or don't see Johnlock"? No "meta Johnlock", related stuff, etc? I find it difficult to explain why I think Johnlock will not happen without naming one of the reasons, which would be an interview, and at least my own reaction to it.

I found the recent discussion interesting, is there a place it went to/is moving to?

They make it clear in the show they're not a couple?
If they even let a character call them a couple, like in Battersea station, that's not really true is it?
Yes, John says he is not gay, but Irene says gender doesn't matter, so that's that. I wouldn't blame anyone wondering about it after that scene.
That's the ambiguity. They put it in, and no, it's not minor. It's in your face, very straight forward, or so it feels to me at least.

So, there is that, a possibility. Not unusual to expect more after such a declaration. They live together, work together, have dinner... they can be friends, they can be more... and yes, I can see why people expect more.

And then add fandom habit to slash the hell out of anything. (wherever that need comes from.)

they put a match to dry firewood... if you don't like a big fire, maybe don't fuel it.

It's not about telling people. It's about telling her lover, a person who trusts her and loves her.

If she isn't accepted for what she is, then that's something she has to live with. A past comes with a price. As far as we know, she is no victim of crime, where I would say selfprotection is valid. She has done bad stuff, and if she cannot find a date with that past, well, bad luck for her. I'm sure she would have found a nice guy if she told him everything and told him how much she regrets it. John stays with her, doesn't he? Why wouldn't he have done so in the first place, too?

The past always catches up. It doesn't sound reasonable to deny that and to believe in happy endings with a new identity. It sounds a lot like running away. And as you say, if she was truly done with Agra business, she would have stayed away from Magnusson. Well away. But she doesn't.

Another option would have been to stay away from John as soon as Magnusson catches up on her, to protect him. She doesn't, but pulls him right into it (and his best friend) - without telling either. That doesn't sit well with me.

John staying with her could be love. Could be forgiveness. Could be a feeling of duty (the child). Could be an agenda we don't know yet. I don't want to judge that yet.
 

As soon as I encounter anything BBC Sherlock nowadays, Johnlock feels big, in your face, everywhere at once. I found it exciting and interesting until recently, but find myself wondering if maybe I'd feel more comfortable behind the fence, to watch it from the outside. It feels like walking down a tunnel with only two exits, Johnlock yes, Johnlock no. It starts to feel very boring.

I cannot imagine how much more omnipresent it must feel for the Sherlock team. Often their interviews struggle not to get reduced to this topic because of questions that push them there. I don't need their answers. What I see in the series and make of it is enough for me. I'm still interested in their opinions on gay issues, in their characterization of John and Sherlock, etc. But there also lies the difficulty - what is what? Where is the line between fiction and real life? Between what's happening in my head (our heads/ the heads of fans) and important issues out there.

But in general, it feels to me like digging deeper into the Johnlock question is loosing joy of what's there. (...probably that's also why I don't enjoy this thread very much anymore because it also contains this ambiguity).

But I'm disappointed that the writers get tangled up in this topic and don't seem able to cut themselves clear out of it. Maybe they missed the right moment. Maybe they enjoyed the lying prop one time too many. But by now, I agree with the posted article, it starts hurting the show and their work. I disagree that they should stop talking about it. They just shouldn't use it as means for suspense anymore, and I think that is what they try to do now... but it's not working apparently? The line between "fun johnlocking" and real agenda (topics like gay characters in tv, queerbaiting, etc., the serious discussion) has been blurry for a long time now, if it has ever been there (though I guess it must have been there, for some fans johnlock without reading interviews, and some engage with the writers op

besleybean wrote:

You've actually got me pondering this one...why or in fact how do any of us love anyone?!

 
Once, Sherlock would have said "chemical defect".
Would he still?

What's worse in her opinion though... him breaking or her loosing him?
She's not very clear on her priorities, that's what annoys people I think...
The excuses are just that, imo, excuses. She should have put her arse down on a chair in their flat and have a proper relationship talk with John. Honesty being the key word.

I also think love can be genuine and selfish at the same time. Like we need to watch out for ourself too. Making big sacrifices isn't a healthy way of living in a relationship either. Because it won't make myself happy if my partner makes himself unhappy for my sake.

But Mary's lying is in the way of genuine love. Lying isn't genuine, ever.

The assassin, the past, all that is unclear about her... I could deal with it if she was honest at least. But look at us - a whole fandom having trust issues with her!

Liberty wrote:

she takes the risk of him losing his best friend or losing his wife and unborn baby and everything that he thought Mary was. 

 
But it should have been his choice, if she did it for his happiness. She decided that option B, saving herself, was a better outcome  for John than not harming Sherlock. That is a selfish decision, because she never asks John.
Although the choice is one I don't want to see, although I fear we still might see a similar choice being made in S4. I'm not sure what John would have done. Guess he would have convinced Sherlock to fight for Mary, and that is what it comes down to anyway... so the old question, why shoot Sherlock in the first place.