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

Zatoichi · December 12, 2014 6:33 am

Oh god yes, platonic frollicking!
I´d open one instantly, I just can´t think of a good name yet.. any ideas?

nakahara · December 12, 2014 7:31 am

A nonlock thread, huh?

So instead of opening a thread about Sherlolly, Adlock, asexual Sherlock, Sherlock as a great detective or any other interpretation of the character you like, you would open nonlock thread. Whose sole purpose is your disaproval with other people´s interpretation of the story.

But of course. Opening a thread about things you actually like would take effort. Like finding metas, writing essays about why you interpret story that way, finding proofs supporting your claims. While in nonlock blog all that suffices is your disagreement about Johnlock interpetation of the story. And you must not give up anti-gay bigotry and trolling other people opinions in the process. Neat!

So go on. It would probably resemble that "sherlock-is-straight" parody I recently found. "John is looking at Sherlock in tight jeans and drooling because he is thinking about woman´s breasts." Only this time it wouldn´t be a satire.

By the way, if hate threads are allowed now, can I open an anti-Adlock and anti-Warstan thread in reciprocation?

Vhanja · December 12, 2014 7:35 am

Harriet wrote:
That's ok. The meta was the main reason why I personally changed my mind and hardly doubt it anymore

I haven't had time to read it yet, but just going from what you have said about it I would have thought that BBC creating an openly gay show would be something else than Sherlock. I would think it would be gay from the start, that it was part of the sell.

Also, even though Moftiss take liberties with the ACD-canon, I highly doubt they would take such great liberties as to portray them openly in a relationship. I know that the Johnlock debate is far older than BBC Sherlock, but that would still be a huge step to take.

I don't know, I just can't see it happening.

nakahara · December 12, 2014 7:48 am

Vhanja wrote:
Also, even though Moftiss take liberties with the ACD-canon, I highly doubt they would take such great liberties as to portray them openly in a relationship. I know that the Johnlock debate is far older than BBC Sherlock, but that would still be a huge step to take.

So a depiction of Sherlock as an autist and a psychopath is OK, but depicting him as gay would be a huge step to take?

But...oh, yes. We all know that gays should not be visible to public that way. Like, it´s OK that they exist, but their sexuality should not be made overt. Actually, they should not act on their leanings at all, because according to Christian teaching it´s a sin. They should therefore stay celibate. All their purpose in life should be - sacrificing themselves for the sake of heterosexual marriage of their best friend and then conveninently die.

Of course, depiction of gays as villains (like Moriarty) is fully all right and should be supported. Just don´t make gays the protagonists of a story.

Like, if that´s the way in which the authors want to push the story, then I´m shocked. Not with Steven Moffat (who knows what goes in his head), but with Mark Gatiss. That a man who is gay himself would spread such messages around... bleh!

Liberty · December 12, 2014 7:48 am

As long as it doesn't have "bromance" in the title, I'm fine! Maybe something like "Sherlock and John's relationship" - now there's an exciting and inventive title. But would we have anything to talk about there that doesn't come under the other categories? I, personally, don't feel I need a support thread, for it, but it might be nice to talk about the relationship without feeling I have to defend my view that it's not sexual. There wouldn't be the links to metas, etc., because non-Johnlock is not a thing. And I'm always a bit wary about criticising the stuff that's out there.

Vhanja wrote:
But I don't see the knee grab as a sign of affection. As I saw it, John was losing balance (because he was shitfaced) and automatically grabbed Sherlock's knee to steady himself. Only then did he realise what he had done and drunkingly declared that he didn't mind.

Yes, I think you're right, and I think Martin is brilliant at acting drunk here (the overly deliberate and precise movements). I'm almost surprised that they didn't go for the cliche of them hugging each other and saying endearments. But I do think they are a little more openly affectionate and less inhibited than usual.

Liberty · December 12, 2014 7:55 am

nakahara wrote:
But of course. Opening a thread about things you actually like would take effort. Like finding metas, writing essays about why you interpret story that way, finding proofs supporting your claims. While in nonlock blog all that suffices is your disagreement about Johnlock interpetation of the story. And you must not give up anti-gay bigotry and trolling other people opinions in the process. Neat!

Please don't say this, Nakahara. It's a horrible accusation and completely unfair and unjustified (from what I've seen).

Vhanja · December 12, 2014 8:05 am

Seems I can't multiquote.

nakahara - I would say that you are speculating just as much as anybody when you put that much into it. If they don't portray them as gay, I don't think any of the writers or the actors would think like that. I actually find it offensive to even think it, as Motiss, Benedict and Martin have never said anything but positive statements about homosexuality.

And they don't depict him as a psycopath, far from it. Sherlock might want to aspire to be a "high-functioning sociopath" (although that term doesn't even exist) but he cleary isn't. He isn't all that autistic either. (But this might be fitting for a different thread).

Liberty - I agree, Martin does a fantastic (and hilarious!) job at being drunk. As for the drunk affection - I think they were quite cute laying side by side on the stairs.

SusiGo · December 12, 2014 8:06 am

Mod's note:
We should please refrain from personal attacks of all kinds in this thread. I understand that this is a delicate subject and that the discussion has been heated over the months, but I friendly request everyone to stay respectful and polite.
I am quite unsure why this is such a touchy subject but I hope that we will be able to continue this discussion in peace. Thank you.

SusiGo · December 12, 2014 8:45 am

Just my personal two cents - for me it is quite simple: I really do not care about the gender of people as long as I get the feeling that they love each other. I watch the show and look at the evidence I am presented with and draw my conclusions. If there was a convincing story of Sherlock being in love with a woman, I would accept it. But all the evidence I see proves to me that he is in love with John. And that John has feelings for him he maybe does not yet admit to himself (or others) but that are clearly there.

SolarSystem · December 12, 2014 9:36 am

Very much so, Susi.
Furthermore, it's pretty easy to create a tv show with two male friends who clearly are just that: friends. Buddies. Whatever you wanna call it. We see this in hundreds of tv shows every day, so it can't be all that difficult to achieve. The fact that a lot of people see more than just such a friendship in BBC Sherlock probably tells us that this didn't just sort of happen. It was a deliberate choice by Mofftiss to at least play with the idea of Johnlock. Some call it 'a gay joke', some call it 'ambiguity', others call it 'Johnlock'. And some don't see anything at all. That's the beauty of art. And the curse, if you want to call it that.
And again: I know what I am seeing. And that doesn't even have anything to do with Johnlock being sexual (because someone brought this up again: There is so much more to Johnlock than that!) .

Last edited by SolarSystem (December 12, 2014 9:36 am)

Zatoichi · December 12, 2014 9:52 am

Huh, nakahara, I don´t think anyone suggested a hate-thread here? Certainly not me..

I just thought it´d be nice to discuss their relationship amongst people who don´t see a sexual aspect to it (and that´s also the reason why I wouldn´t want to discuss Sherlolly or Adlock, because in my opinion Sherlock is at his best without romantic entanglement).

Last edited by Zatoichi (December 12, 2014 9:54 am)

Vhanja · December 12, 2014 9:54 am

SolarSystem wrote:
And that doesn't even have anything to do with Johnlock being sexual (because someone brought this up again: There is so much more to Johnlock than that!) .

Completely agree with you on this one. In the show, it is not sexual interest I see, first and foremost. It's a closeness that goes beyond "just" a friendship. But it's the emotional closeness and care, the willingness from both to be with each other above everything else, the importance of the other in their mind, thoughts and lives that is more than friendship.

THAT is what I see. Anything sexual would just evolve naturally after that, and isn't really the focus point of any of them.

Or at least that is how I view it.

SusiGo · December 12, 2014 9:57 am

I very much agree with you, Solar. And something else - plot turns are a means of storytelling and they are not restriced to "Moriarty is alive! Or not?" or "Is Mary a villain or not?" but also to the personal relationships among the characters. The creators have said more than once that there is a story arc, that the main characters develop, that they are going to take them to … wherever they want them to go. Their relationship is not static, it evolves. And I am sure it will continue to evolve. And there are only so many new ways they can go.

SolarSystem · December 12, 2014 10:14 am

Zatoichi wrote:
Huh, nakahara, I don´t think anyone suggested a hate-thread here? Certainly not me..

I just thought it´d be nice to discuss their relationship amongst people who don´t see a sexual aspect to it (and that´s also the reason why I wouldn´t want to discuss Sherlolly or Adlock, because in my opinion Sherlock is at his best without romantic entanglement).

Uhm... for a lot of people Johnlock doesn't just include a sexual aspect. There is so much more to it (like I already said earlier). You probably didn't mean it that way, but please can we all acknowledge that Johnlock is not just about that...? It sometimes seems to me that non-Johnlockers talk about this 'sexual aspect' far more often than lots of Johnlockers do.

Harriet · December 12, 2014 10:31 am

Vhanja wrote:
... I would have thought that BBC creating an openly gay show would be something else than Sherlock. I would think it would be gay from the start, that it was part of the sell.

Also, even though Moftiss take liberties with the ACD-canon, I highly doubt they would take such great liberties as to portray them openly in a relationship. I know that the Johnlock debate is far older than BBC Sherlock, but that would still be a huge step to take.

...

And that is why the document plus the meta are an important read, because it will give something to re-think.

Last edited by Harriet (December 12, 2014 10:40 am)

SusiGo · December 12, 2014 11:14 am

One important argument for me is that some key scenes in the show do not make sense without assuming that Sherlock and John love and are in love with each other.

For example the scene on the dancefloor in TSoT. Sherlock's sadness as well as John's discomfort and helplessness in the face of his friend's distress are palpable.

But most of all there is the tarmac scene. I keep wondering how people interpret Sherlock's "There is something I always …" without assuming that he loves John, wants to tell him and restrains himself at the very last minute. This scene is not about gay jokes. This scene is meant to be taken seriously. Of course the name thing is a joke (with implications, btw) for the sake of comic relief but not what is said before. You just have to look at Benedict's face.

SolarSystem · December 12, 2014 11:25 am

Well, for the sake of argument, Susi: Maybe he just wanted to tell John that he is indeed the most important person in Sherlock's life, without love or being in love coming into play? And he decided against it because he knew that it would make it harder for both of them to say goodbye?
I don't actually believe that that's the case, but I do see how other people could see it that way.

Mattlocked · December 12, 2014 11:37 am

Would be an interesting discussion. What, except "I love you", could Sherlock have meant to say when starting: ""There is something I always …"?

Harriet · December 12, 2014 11:42 am

YAY

SolarSystem · December 12, 2014 11:52 am

But even "I love you" apparently doesn't really mean "I love you" to some people.