I took it to be sarcasm. Tonnaree.  (Sorry, if it's not - not meaning to wrongly imply it is, but that's the way I read it.  I've seen quite a few sarcastic/funny-style Johnlock posts on tumblr, etc.).  Making fun of the idea of shippers being delusional, rather than making fun of the shippers? 

Anyway, I'm catching up on the last couple of pages of posts, you busy lot . 

(But about the video - Martin has a point - I think Sherlock shows a special sort of relationship, one we don't normally see.  "Platonic" is useful to distinguish it from non-platonic, but doesn't describe the power of it).

Last edited by Liberty (September 17, 2014 6:50 pm)

I thought it was pointing to those who could seem delusional, it didn't say all shippers.

Shouldn't getting to know each other..and falling in love.....come before the sex....@that seems to be what has been happening for SH towards JW..
Sex doesn't really come it at all....look@Romeo@Juliet...and other great love poems/stories/films......none of them have any sex...

The writers and the beeeb want to keep it a family show ...there will never be sex. Handholding hugs and kisses..maybe some tame nakedness...two people meet have sex /end.....no fun in that!

nakahara wrote:

Liberty wrote:

Nakahara, Sherlock is a loved one. (Just not a lover ).  And the things you mention (a sense of belonging, security and peace) don't strike me as overtly sexual (and it's got to be overtly sexual if the writers wanted us to see it).    Those are things that we already know about his relationship with Sherlock and his attitude to danger - that's all established in the first episode.  Mycroft confirms that it calms him, rather than stresses him.   It's a twist on the idea of a traumatised soldier having nightmares after the war - in John's case he has those dreams because he's missing it (the characters confirm that).  Sherlock fills that gap for him.  (When you walk with Sherlock Holmes you see the battlefield ... You're not haunted by the war, Doctor Watson, you miss it).  

Sherlock does not comes to John in his dream as some sort of a succubus or incubus, the phantom who makes you have intense erotic dreams, that´s true. OK, if tha´s your criteria about how such a dream should look like and if you see no significance in dreaming about the person while you are laying in your bed with another - and then waking up and dressing in the same blue stripped robe your "dream-person" frequently wore when you were together, then nothing would persuade you, I´m afraid.

My criterion is just that if the writers want to tell the casual viewers that the dream is sexual, then it has to be obviously sexual enough for the casual viewers to see it. 

I think instead that the dream refers back to that dream right at the beginning of ASIP.   He dreams about the battlefield, and we're meant to imagine, initially, that it scares him.  We later find out that in fact, he craves it, and Sherlock provides a replacement.  So in the next dream scene, we see the battlefield being replaced by Sherlock, calling him back.    It's not that he wants sex with Sherlock, instead of what the battlefield provided - he wants the excitement the battlefield provided, but with Sherlock. 

Liberty wrote:

And it does matter that it's fine to be gay in that world, if you're saying that the writers are trying to tell us that John is under such extreme pressure to hide his sexuality that he not only keeps it quiet for years but dates women and even marries a woman, just to hide from some disapproval that clearly doesn't exist in the story.   If other people don't care about John's sexuality and John himself doesn't care what people think, then why on earth would he create a cover-up?  We need to be given a reason why it would be imperative for him to deceive those women and live a lie, and we're not.

You seem to understand John´s need to live a boring middle-class life in terms of some extreme external pressure (like if an inquisition would hunt him if he didn´t confomt to that). But I was speaking about "soft", invisible kind of pressure that people don´t even realise because it was ingrained into them while they were children.

By extreme pressure, I meant something more internal - something compelling enough to make him act so against the grain.  The pressure isn't coming from outside.  We're shown the sort of society lives in and if he was trying to conform, to be part of the group, he'd probably be non-homophobic and not have much success with women.  . 

Lots of people have been under extreme pressure (from fear of death to fear of disapproval) to hide their sexuality, but I don't think we're being shown that for this particular character.   John is not homophobic so there isn't the internal pressure, and there is no social disapproval that we see.   And he's also somebody who is comfortable with being non-conformist and not toeing the line.  The way that he throws himself into the relationship with Sherlock confirms that.  He happily moves in with an apparently anti-social stranger, jumps at the chance of doing something dangerous, ignores warnings about the guy, is ridiculously loyal and steadfast, interferes with a police investigation and shoots somebody dead.  And that's just the first day.  He's not a terribly good conformist . 

nakahara wrote:

And please note this:
Sarah, the first of John´s more serious dates resembled him - she was blonde and sweet. In no time, he replaced her with dark haired, tall Jeanette, who had a prominent cheekbones and wore a dark coat:  Why do authors include such things into their narrative?

I agree with those things being in there (they're not screamingly obvious, but a lot more so than the sex in the dream) - I just don't think they're showing sexual attraction (again!).  John and Sherlock are a "couple" as Irene says.  John gets something from Sherlock that he can't get from women, but I don't think that something is sex.  There is love and even a kind of romance (in my view, but I think friendships can be very romantic).  And also, in the show, there is a lot of play on the fact that people do ship them - and not just since the show started, but the original characters.

 

Last edited by Liberty (September 17, 2014 6:53 pm)

I actually disagree John couldn't get 'it' from a woman, in tnat I think that 'it' is friendship..
Though this might be for other men.
In John's case he seems to enjoy male cameraderie but female relationships.
EDIT: and I disagree too on tha art analogy..what you are describing is somebody else's vision and not that of the artist...to which I would say: go and paint your own picture if you see a swan, plenty of us see the dog that was actually painted.,.

Last edited by besleybean (September 17, 2014 6:27 pm)

Lib@agree...they met...bleh..and only just agreed they love each other...thats the point of story we are at..there's no evidence that there will never be implied sex....its been very deliberately kept ambiguous..and encouraged though..b4 S03 I thought Mary would quash johnlockery...why didn't they?...why keep options open if not a plan?...if a plan..something is going to happen.
MGT..have put a huge romantic/bromantic spin on the usual SH@JW story...its modern..in a dark pulpy noir twisty way....we can only guess at the future from what is in the show so far......because with MGT the lunatics are usually running the asylum.

??? Looks like my post had caused quite a stir. Like it or not many of the Sherlock fandom has labeled us johnlockers as the delusional shippers who has to see romance in every goddamned thing. I know it’s never easy to be called things like this by complete strangers who know nothing about you but I’m more or less pretty chill about all this. I for one never expected to root for Sherlock Holmes and John Watson to be a romantic couple when I first heard of this show. But when the showrunners design the entire story arc of the series as a slow build romance and puts every other aspect as secondary it’s kinda hard not to you know? So as far as I’m concerned Moffitson and their writing made me believe that John and Sherlock will eventually become a romantic couple. Now naturally people can have differing opinions but it would be really nice if people realizes that people wanting or interpreting different things can actually peacefully coexist in the same universe. Sadly in the social media this Sherlock inter-fandom war has become really toxic and I think it has ruined the fun of the show itself for a lot of people.

Interestingly, this inter-fandom feud reminds me of the plight of Anderson at the start of series 3. He is absolutely convinced that Sherlock is alive and shows some seemingly bizarre and far-fetched ‘evidence’ to Lestrade to convince him as well. Then at some point Lestrade angrily dismisses his conspiracy theories by saying, “do you honestly believe that if you have enough stupid theories it's gonna change what really happened?”.  Nobody believed the poor man but lo and behold it turned out that Sherl was actually alive and some of Anderson’s suspicions were even true. Maybe he didn’t get every detail correct but his general theme was spot on. TEH being called an episode of fan pandering so I wonder if this was Moffitson’s subtle way of reassuring the johnlockers that their seemingly delusional theories are actually true. So yeah I try not to engage in the hate and interact with fans with differing view politely and enjoy the show (this forum has been a lifesaver). I mean maybe I see things differently but so what? Why would I mind? Why would anyone mind? 

Also isn’t it interesting that in TEH it is indicated that Sherlock/Molly and Sherlock/Moriarty shipping is merely a fantacy but johnlock is not portrayed that way. I mean if the showrunners wanted to squash the johnlock rumors they sure missed a huge opportunity there.

Anyways, hours ago I posted a gif series of Mr. Freeman oh so very convincingly saying that Sherlock and John are simply platonic. I mean he was not struggling for words at all or asking the interviewer himself to help him answer the question he asked him or anything.  If you watch the source video you’ll get more authentic cast opinion on what was to come in series 3. Like how Ms. Abbington ensures us that Mary would not come between John and Sherlock like AT ALL. I mean if you don’t consider all the fiasco in HLV that is. And how Benedict says that Sherlock would be more like the Sherlock we see in series 1. You know the bitchy asshole emotionless and inconsiderate anti hero of series 1.      But I degress.

Now let me show you how very recently our talented showrunners themselves has reacted to the idea of Sherlock and romance (in their comic con 2014 panel):




He already has?? What was that all about? Guess that will remain a mystery. Buuuuuuuut then we learn this in TSo3 from Mr. Holmes himself:

"Now John I’d poison. Sloppy eater, dead easy. I’ve given him chemicals and compounds that way, he’s never even noticed. He missed a whole Wednesday once, didn’t have a clue."

 
EDIT: Oh oh and also this!!
 



Honestly I can’t with the Sherlock people. I suppose as writers Moffat and Gatiss has practice deflecting the many questions about revealing the true nature of their plots/characters but I really feel for Ben and Martin. I mean How would it feel outright denying their very deliberate in-love acting throughout the series? Like they have this ONE JOB and that's to use their voice and expressions and mannerisms to convey this specific thing to the audience and they have to deny that they did that successfully for years. Like when they have to lie and say it’s all simply bromance the implication is that they or TPTB don’t know what their faces are doing. Or worse still that they are so personally in love with each other that they can't keep it out of their acting. Like so hopelessly in love that they have no grip on their emotions which overwhelms their considerable acting ability and which can’t be kept off screen even after 1001 retakes. Like honestly though if johnlock somehow didn't happen I would probably assume Ben and Martin are just madly in love lol.

Last edited by tykobrian (September 17, 2014 8:02 pm)

@tonnaree of course. It's all fine.  

Liberty wrote:

lil wrote:

Shouldn't getting to know each other..and falling in love.....come before the sex....@that seems to be what has been happening for SH towards JW..
Sex doesn't really come it at all....look@Romeo@Juliet...and other great love poems/stories/films......none of them have any sex...

The writers and the beeeb want to keep it a family show ...there will never be sex. Handholding hugs and kisses..maybe some tame nakedness...two people meet have sex /end.....no fun in that!

It doesn't need to be at all explicit.  There are ways of showing it.  (As an example, the Sheriarty almost-kiss gave a clear enough message that imaginary Sherlock was attracted to imaginary Moriarty). 

There are different routes to falling in love - no "should" about it.  (Lots of people do the sex first then fall in love later in real life, although I admit that's less often shown on screen).  And Sherlock and John have already got to know each other and already love each other.   I think Romeo and Juliet assumes (very young, adolescent) sexual attraction.  Imagine if they'd both been gay and it had been a friendship - not quite the same story, I think (speaking personally).  If I remember correctly, Romeo and Juliet didn't get to know each other.  They went straight for the infatuation.  (Also, there would have been no story if they could have been together, getting to know each other!).  In a sense, their "love" is superficial (sorry, Romeo and Juliet fans - and it's not my favourite play, so maybe I'm remembering it wrong), unlike John and Sherlock's enduring (but non-sexual) love. 

Well, we are not a religious sect trying to overturn you to our "religion" and this forum is not some form of synod where some dogmas are agreed upon. If you don´t see John - Sherlock connection as sexual, it´s allright - it´s not like we can catch you by the hand and enchant you and make some light descend on you after which you would suddenly see their relationship our way.

In some way this discussion is similar to discussion whether Benedict Cumberbatch is ugly. If somebody doesn´t see him as attractive, then that´s it - the attractivity cannot be forced upon somebody and the people´s opinion on those things differ. But you certainly understand, that if somebody does indeed find Benedict attractive that he doesn´t see him that way because he/she is delusional. He/She simply does get those vibes from the man while other people don´t, althrough they are looking on the same face, the same man.

And it´s the same with Johnlock - people who see it in the show have their reasons for it and feel strong connection between the characters - but some other people must not share the same opinion.

In the words of Menander, the ancient Greek writer:

Tell me, where is Fancy bred?
It often comes that we wonder
where Love´s bounds have their origin.
To what in Love is man enslaved?
To face? That´s nonsense! All would then
love the same girl -
their eyes would be for them the same criterion.
Some pleasure in companionship entices love?
Why then, in spite of this, does one man suffer naught
and off he goes and mocks it, feeling nothing
while this man´s done for, mad in love with the same person? 
Soul-sickness, that´s the reason - and the stricken man
we must conclude, is wounded by the inward blow.

But I think that althrough you do not see beautiful bond between Sherlock and John as sexual, you must agree that what they share is special and that it is indeed love, no matter what form it currently takes. No matter whether it´s eros or agape or filia - those two men are made for each other and something wonderful will be lost if they are parted from each other.
 

Well of course they have been separated from each other twice already:  2 years and then through John's marriage...but yes, it would be nice to have them both back in Baker Street.

Last edited by besleybean (September 17, 2014 8:10 pm)