SolarSystem wrote:

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.
 

Yes, you´re right, I didn´t mean it that way. I fully acknowledge that Johnlock is about much more. How to put my intentions without inadvertently offending Johnlockers? I don´t have much luck today, obviously. How did you put it when you agreed there might be room for a non-Johnlock-thread? Celebrating the bromance, or something like that? That. I meant that. 

And I´ll now also assume that the *LOL, wink, oh those people" comments are meant in a nice way and not at all making fun of non-Johnlockers. Cool? Cool.

About the tarmac: That was the thing that at first made me believe in TJLC, although I still found there was so much speaking against it. I´m still not 100% sure what to make of it, because I agree, everything except a confession of romantic love wouldn´t make much sense. If there hadn´t been so many things that don´t make sense in S3 (or just make sense when you read 5 pages of meta about it) maybe I´d be a believer.. but as things are it´s just another point on the list.

Last edited by Zatoichi (December 12, 2014 1:37 pm)

Vhanja wrote:

As for tarmac, it could just as easily be that he wanted to state how much John meant to him as a friend, we don't know.

He already did that in his best man speech.

I think that it´s highly problematic if you completely dismiss the possibility of a queer reading (whether of a sexual nature or not) in regards to this particular show. It would weaken the impact of the show on many viewers because of the following reasons:

It will rob many scenes of heir emotional intensity. The above mentioned tarmac scene is a very good example of that. "John, there is something I wanted to tell you for a very long time... I consider you my best platonic friend?" It´s only my opinion, of course, but to me such scene would seem quite ridiculous. Like, making such a grand gesture for such a trivial statement? "This is John Watson - MY FRIEND!" was stated by Sherlock in the very second episode of Sherlock, in The Blind Banker. It simply makes no sense to have a reassessment of that claim by having it reenacted on the tarmac - in the scene, where Sherlock is going to be banished and killed soon and one would await much deeper emotions and revelations of secrets from him.

It would make a show that had a potential to be slightly subversive and ground-breaking into something that could´ve been written in the 50-ties. Like, people who could be a very good example of gay main protagonists in a loving relationship (with the canon that encourages such queer reading) would be stereotypically described as straight. Meanwhile, the gay characters described as villains (Moriarty and Irene Adler, maybe Magnussen) would remain firmly in place and the only other gay pairing we saw (the innkeepers in Hounds) would be insignificant characters without any real meaning in the story (I think you realise that having a lesbian maid who dust the mantelpiece somewhere in the backround while the main action and drama of a story takes place between straight people does not mean that your show has queer representation now). Gays have next to nil representation in the media even now - introducing them only as villains makes the thing even more insulting.

And the last, but worst problem - Sherlock would then be guilty of shameless queerbaiting. The harmfull praxis that robs gays of their representation by presenting some characters as representing that minority, then turning the whole thing into joke:

http://actualanimevillain.tumblr.com/post/36720884625/an-explanation-of-queer-baiting-and-why-its-a

http://www.autostraddle.com/how-do-we-solve-a-problem-like-queerbaiting-on-tvs-not-so-subtle-gay-subtext-182718/

Allow me to cite from that second article: " Indeed, it may not be homophobia per se – which, besides being a (necessarily) loaded term, implies fear or malice toward homosexuality. What it is is heterosexism, the unchecked assumption that heterosexuality is the norm and anything else is the Other. It’s this attitude that, for example, causes romance advice columns like the ones I’d read in magazines as a frustrated teenager to assume everyone is interested in the opposite sex – not out of hate for gay people, but out of a refusal to check their own privilege or acknowledge the experiences of those who are different from them. Likewise, the problem here is the idea that heterosexual romance is for a general audience, but having a same-sex romance is either specifically for a gay audience or for making a soapbox statement about homophobia."

That´s precisely why I wondered about Mark Gatiss. He should be the firts person to condemn such practices, not to engage in them himself.

nakahara, yes, yes and YES to everything you've just mentioned.
Especially when it comes to Mark and the possible queerbaiting, I would be very disappointed (and surprised) if it turned out that a large part of the fandom just didn't "get the gay joke".  

Mattlocked wrote:

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

 
Is it wrong that I thought this would be a good round in the alphabet game thread?  

tonnaree wrote:

Mattlocked wrote:

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

 
Is it wrong that I thought this would be a good round in the alphabet game thread?  

It definitely should be in a next round.
 

Yes, I have 

nakahara wrote:

I think that it´s highly problematic if you completely dismiss the possibility of a queer reading (whether of a sexual nature or not) in regards to this particular show. It would weaken the impact of the show on many viewers because of the following reasons:

I´d agree if a thread for non-Johnlockers would mean a total dismissal of the possibility of a queer reading.. it´s just that I don´t think it does. And I don´t get why it should - does the existance of a Johnlock-thread totally dismiss the possibility of a non-queer reading? I neither get the leap nor the offence taken.
 

Great minds think alike. 

But you are aware of the fact that there are non-Johnlockers as well as there are anti-Johnlockers?

Last edited by Harriet (December 12, 2014 6:16 pm)