SolarSystem wrote:

If there are different interpretations anyway, why do you need the creators to tell you what the 'right' interpretation is...? I honestly don't get this.

I know me and my boyfriend have discussed this. (Well, not Johnlock, but the issue in general).

Some people believe that when a work is out there, be it a book, a painting or a movie/tv-series, the viewers interpretations of it are just as valid as the original point of the author/creator. What they originally meant with their work is now irrelevant.

I am on a different note. I believe that the creator's view is the one, true meaning. The one right interpretation. How can it not be? Moffat and Gatiss knew what they wanted to come across, how can I say that they are wrong? That baffles me just as much as you are baffled by my view.

I do agree, however, that we are all influenced by our culture and background, and that the creators might not always be aware of that in their work. 

I don't see it your way. The intention of the artist is not irrelevant, not a bit, because to begin with it's what made him do his art. But I could never consider this the one and only meaning, how boring would our life be? No discussions about every form of art because everything is explained in art guides? No. I differs from age to gender to your culture to your own experiences in life so far and so on and so on. And even the artists keep changing their opinion about their works themselves. So how can there only be the one and only true meaning and interpretation?

Vhanja wrote:

Then I get feedback from those who read it where some of them say the fic portrays them only as friends. Of course, everyone is entitled to believe what they want, but I honestly believe that would be an objectively wrong interpretation when I wrote the fic to show a romantic relationship.

Well, if one person gets it 'wrong', then maybe that person basically misunderstood your fic completely. But if hundreds or thousands of people see it like that, then maybe you'd have to ask yourself if you didn't get your message across clear enough? 
 

That's the key word, isn't it? Mixed. It's ambiguous and it would be pretty boring around here otherwise. And give your work free to interpretation is what artists do, or they have to hide it away in a closet. If there's something out there, people talk about it.

And nobody said that the creator's intention is less valid than the interpretation of every single viewer or reader. But artists certainly are aware that the art they produce will reach many different people (as mrshouse already mentioned) and that each person brings his/her own background, experience, penchant into the tv show, the film, the painting, the novel. Otherwise you could just deliver a little note with your novel or movie or put up a note next to each painting in a museum in order to let everyone know what your intentions were. 

But according to your logic the message should not be mixed or open to interpretation, because there is only what the artist wants to express by it. Boring.

So how about works of art that were created hundreds of years ago and where no information about the intention of the artist has been passed on or has been lost? Do you rely on what scholars have to say about it? Do you rely on your own interpretation?

mrshouse wrote:

Liberty, I do not see physical reactions to her approaches at all tbh. The moment she approaches him naked his gaze is hardly shown wandering down the chin area, combined with her "Somebody loves you" directly aimed at John and him not denying it at all. When he is at his room it is John he calls after, directly after waking up. It's him he asks for, when they sit at the fireplace and she is very aggressively going at him. He is NOT hungry, how can you be clearer? He is fascinated by her cleverness, she beat him, but did you see a flicker of longing when she offers to satisfy him twice on the table? I don't, not even hot eye sex.

Thanks for answering .  First of all, Benedict is acting somebody who's hiding it, isn't he?  So it's going to be subtle and controlled. The funny thing about the nudity is that I don't think it's a sexual approach in itself at all (she has a wardrobe of sexy clothes if she just wanted to look sexy).  It's a very clever disguise, and Sherlock recognises (and admires!) that.  But we can see clearly that he's flustered later, when he stumbles over his words.  (And it turns out that he has surreptitiously looked at her - he knows her measurements).

I did see sexual tension when she makes the comment about making him beg for mercy - definitely!   And during that scene.   That's the point where he makes the bad decision, because he's swayed by feelings for her. 

I don't think she's aggressive in the fireplace scene at all - quite gentle and seductive.   And it turns out that although he's not giving anything away, he's taken her pulse (he wants to know if she wants him).

I think the sherlocked scene is important - it's a great bit of acting, and I can clearly see he has feelings for her there.

But I'm still not sure how you think he should have played it, considering he's a character who is repressing that bit of himself and not giving away secrets ... do you think he should have been more direct?  How?

Liberty wrote:

I don't think she's aggressive in the fireplace scene at all - quite gentle and seductive.   And it turns out that although he's not giving anything away, he's taken her pulse (he wants to know if she wants him).

I think the sherlocked scene is important - it's a great bit of acting, and I can clearly see he has feelings for her there.

 
I'd have pages to say, but here just a little bit.

At the fireplace Sherlock was not romantically holding hands, but taking Irene's pulse. Do people really do that, when they are really attracted to someone? IMO this was just another proof, that he was NOT in love, but still deducing. Because if she really was in love with (or attracted to) him, he could use that against her. (Human error)

And in the sherlocked scene I only see her having feelings for him. But not the other way round.

Vhanja wrote:

Liberty wrote:

Thanks for answering .  First of all, Benedict is acting somebody who's hiding it, isn't he?  So it's going to be subtle and controlled. The funny thing about the nudity is that I don't think it's a sexual approach in itself at all (she has a wardrobe of sexy clothes if she just wanted to look sexy).  It's a very clever disguise, and Sherlock recognises (and admires!) that.  But we can see clearly that he's flustered later, when he stumbles over his words.  (And it turns out that he has surreptitiously looked at her - he knows her measurements).

I did see sexual tension when she makes the comment about making him beg for mercy - definitely!   And during that scene.   That's the point where he makes the bad decision, because he's swayed by feelings for her. 

I don't think she's aggressive in the fireplace scene at all - quite gentle and seductive.   And it turns out that although he's not giving anything away, he's taken her pulse (he wants to know if she wants him).

I think the sherlocked scene is important - it's a great bit of acting, and I can clearly see he has feelings for her there.

But I'm still not sure how you think he should have played it, considering he's a character who is repressing that bit of himself and not giving away secrets ... do you think he should have been more direct?  How?

I greatly agree with you here, I see the same thing as you do in the begging for mercy-scene.

As for being flustered, Benedict says in the commentary that was due to jealousy when John got Irene's attention. He could see that John was about to turn on his woman-charm, and so he stumbled in his eagerness to get the attention back on him.
 

When exactly do we see John about to turn on his charm for Irene?   He treats her with disdain from the begining.  He sees her nudity for the maniplative move that it is and even ask her to put clothes on.  The scene where he shouts out his middle name seemed to me an attempt to get her to stop messing Sherlock about.