Vhanja wrote:

I always saw the marriage as John's attempt of getting a normal life, a way of getting over Sherlock by seeking normalcy. A life in the suburbs with a wife, a child and a regular job. 

And he gets that. And it does't make him happy. So in my opinion, John is in general quite miserable after the wedding, because the normalcy he sought and achieved isn't giving him the piece of mind he thought it might.

I think that becomes particular clear with his line "But she wasn't supposed to be like that". Mary was supposed to be his way into normalcy, not "another Sherlock". 

So there is a lot that isn't working out for John in S3. His relationship with Sherlock never quite returns to what it was, there is too much that has changed. But neither does his life with Mary turns out the way he wants (first becase of him being unsatifised with the normalcy, then being completely unrooted by the assassin reveal).

Or so I see it, perhaps I'm reading too much into it.

Nope-- that makes a lot of sense. 

Welcome Ho Yay! And thanks for sharing this (which site is it from?)  - it neatly sums up a lot of things we've been trying to say here. Have you had time to look around already? 

Congrats, good job! 

Ehm, yesss. I know that state. Go and work something! 

Ho Yay wrote:

I'm the person from the article XD.

I just jumped in from nowhere without introducing myself because I'm in a hurry and should be studying for an exam, but I also can't stop my self from speaking about Johnlock.

Howdy! (waves) 

Welcome, Ho Yay!  I love your username, especially in this context .

You mentioned the romantic tropes: I think this interview (Gavin Essler interviewing Steven Moffat and Mark Ravenhill) from right back at the launch of the series is really good on how their relationship is portrayed:

MR: And I think that's what's so fascinating about the Watson/Holmes relationship.  Often in movies and TV, the buddy relationship (...) they're easier to know than the women around you.  So you retreat to your buddy.  But actually, Holmes and Watson ... Watson's never going to quite figure out who Holmes is.  So he .. here is an element of mystery about him, as well, as there is with the Doctor.  

GE:  How far is this a buddy movie?  I mean, it is about the relationship between these two men.

SM: You know I think the Sherlock Holmes stories have always been about the friendship.  I mean, the surface level is the detection, but what you fall in love with is these two impossible opposites who adore each other.  And it's a very male friendship in that they never sit down and ever, ever talk about it.  And there's only one instance in the entire canon of the show that comes to where Sherlock Holmes admits he likes Dr Watson, one occasion, when he thinks Dr Watson is about to die.  That's it!  A totally male friendship, you only say anything nice if someone is dead in front of you.  

GE: Where does the gay bit come in?  I mean are you playing with it?  Are you teasing the audience?

SM: Do you know what?  It doesn't really.   Even in that scene, what we're doing there is kind of dismissing it.  Who knows who Sherlock Holmes fancies?  I don't think he fancies anyone except himself.

GE: So, that's part of the mystery that Mark was talking about.  Is that how you saw it?

MR: Yeah, I think on one level it's not gay at all, and that scene brilliantly dismisses that.  And yet, as I said, it does play with this thing of normally the male-male relationship is you're with somebody more comfortable and more safe than females, who are strange and mysterious to straight men.  And yet, Dr Watson finds himself with this kind of elusive, changeable, mysterious person.  And in a lot of fiction, it's the female character.  So there is something about the male-female relationship, alongside the buddy thing, which makes it much more complex than most buddy-buddy relationships.

So this i not either a straightforward romance, or a straightforward "buddy" type relationship, but something different ... I suppose I see it as a friendship with romance elements.  (But I don't think that sexual attraction is one of those elements).   And perhaps some of the romance tropes are a good way to show that.  (So it's not a case of me sayinng "this could happen in a friendship in real life", but "this shows something which goes beyond a usual friendship").

I think your post is written as if John is being shown as closeted and bisexual, but actually, there's no evidence for that.   Yes, there's room for a story about somebody in that position, but the writers have given no setup in John's case - no attraction to men, no backstory of persecution, etc.   In fact, they seem to have gone out of their way to create a homophobia-free world.  In the Sherlock universe, there is no judgment about sexual orientation, so we aren't even given a reason for John to be closeted.  Sherlock clearly doesn't disapprove (so there would be no problem with John being out to him).  If they were going to set up a story in which we saw a man trying to hide his sexuality, then I don't think they would do it like this.  (And also John just doesn't appear to be hiding that sort of secret.  He might not talk about his feelings, but he's pretty much an open book).

My points were not about the BBC report (which shows that there wouldn't have been any barriers to Johnlock), but about what we'd expect from Moftiss, given what they've said and written on the subject (particularly about TPLOSH).  I think Mark Gatiss explains it quite well in the Mumbai interview.  If they'd wanted to make them a gay couple, they would have done.

 

Last edited by Liberty (September 13, 2015 8:38 am)

Zatoichi wrote:

Harriet wrote:

Harriet wrote:

It happens a lot in love story telling that one partner marries someone else first, even when the partners know each other already, for whatever reason.

SusiGo wrote:

... IMO John settles for the best he can get in his opinion (wife, work, suburban life) because he thinks that from Sherlock he will never get anything more. 

And here we have a very good reason.

 

Personally I wouldn´t consider the above a very good reason, because it would mean that everything that happened and every life-changing decision John made was based on one assumption he never checked against reality. If the prospect of tying the knot with another person was not enough to make him overcome his fear of rejection and of his own emotions and have one honest conversation with Sherlock, then what would? If the repression is so much stronger than his desire for this relationship, so he easily chooses second best without one attempt at fighting for his true nature, then I couldn´t help but thinking he just doesn´t want it enough.. 

Even after he found out his marriage was based on lies, which would be a great excuse to end it if it made him miserable, he stayed with Mary. He let Sherlock kill a man for Mary. He let him fly off to his exile while holding hands with Mary. For me repression and being closeted only drives a story that far, and doing all that to the man you secretly long for would -to me- be a really really awkward base for a middle-age-coming-out-story.


@Ho Yay: Welcome on board! 
 

Hi!
But the point of coming out at an old age is exactly that, that you're repressed. It's especially harder to realize bisexuality because of bisexual erasure. It's hard when you already like a lot the socially acceptable thing and the other thing is socially unacceptable to realize you like both, especially when society erases the possibility of liking both things. I say this also for personal experience, it took me fifteen years to realized I had a crush on the first same-sex person I had a crush, same for all the ones between then and now, because I was also romantically attracted to the opposite sex and it wouldn't really enter my mind that I could possibly not be straight. I just flat out ignored all possible clues, because I was raised to believe I wasn't attracted to females (and so I was very repressed) and bisexuality is so underepresented that it is not something that had thought of taking in consideration.

Concerning John, I don't believe it is just about coming out, but also about ruining a friendship.
I don't think he really has got a fear of rejection in his mind, but a certainty of Sherlock not being interested, to John's mind telling him has no chance of resulting in a relationship and all chance of Sherlock being very uncomfortable with his best friend, so in way not telling him would also be better for Sherlock.
Sherlock is so much more intelligent than him and has a facade of "not doing sentiment", plus the marriage happened after two years of abandonment and John doesn't know how much Sherlock missed him in those years too. I don't think John ever thought telling was an option that had a chance of succeding. It could be argued that the friendship with Sherlock is so important that a near to zero chance of it turning romantic and sexual its not worth, even if John is also romantically love.
Sherlock also is in a most confused state of mind about the marriage and probably realizes that he didn't want John to marry only during the cerimony. Sherlock has repressed his feelings about everyone for years to make his brain work better and, when he comes back and John is angry with him, he starts doing everything he can to please John, including being supporting of the marriage. So even on this front John has no reason to think Sherlock might want him.

I think John was in love with Mary anyway, even if he loved Sherlock more. Mary is very clever and funny and hadn't he met Sherlock before he might have been very happy with her, if the personality for which he married her had been real. John doesn't necesserily have to be a romantic hero and he was getting old, might as well have started a family like many people do while the big love of his life isn't interested, it's not unrealistic. He might even have thought that this was the solution that would have made Sherlock more comfortable.

Again, from a story telling point of view, something had to happen in the plot, if it's a slow burn romance ostacles like this had to be created, he couldn't just go and confess when there are at least two more seasons, slow-burn romances tend to last till the end of the show to keep the tension up.

In TLV final things are more complicated, because we don't really know what's happening yet and we will only know in the future.
There are several theories that John is working to save Sherlock or might have not really forgiven Mary, but playing along with it to keep the child safe.
John could have just decided to forgive Mary because they had a child together and still thought Sherlock wouldn't be available. If the child disappears from the show is purpose might have just been that of having a reason to forgive Mary.
John didn't really let Sherlock kill Magnussen and go to exile, Sherlock did that on his own without anyone asking him and without telling anyone that he was about to do it in advance.

Liberty wrote:

Welcome, Ho Yay!  I love your username, especially in this context .

You mentioned the romantic tropes: I think this interview (Gavin Essler interviewing Steven Moffat and Mark Ravenhill) from right back at the launch of the series is really good on how their relationship is portrayed:

MR: And I think that's what's so fascinating about the Watson/Holmes relationship.  Often in movies and TV, the buddy relationship (...) they're easier to know than the women around you.  So you retreat to your buddy.  But actually, Holmes and Watson ... Watson's never going to quite figure out who Holmes is.  So he .. here is an element of mystery about him, as well, as there is with the Doctor.  

GE:  How far is this a buddy movie?  I mean, it is about the relationship between these two men.

SM: You know I think the Sherlock Holmes stories have always been about the friendship.  I mean, the surface level is the detection, but what you fall in love with is these two impossible opposites who adore each other.  And it's a very male friendship in that they never sit down and ever, ever talk about it.  And there's only one instance in the entire canon of the show that comes to where Sherlock Holmes admits he likes Dr Watson, one occasion, when he thinks Dr Watson is about to die.  That's it!  A totally male friendship, you only say anything nice if someone is dead in front of you.  

GE: Where does the gay bit come in?  I mean are you playing with it?  Are you teasing the audience?

SM: Do you know what?  It doesn't really.   Even in that scene, what we're doing there is kind of dismissing it.  Who knows who Sherlock Holmes fancies?  I don't think he fancies anyone except himself.

GE: So, that's part of the mystery that Mark was talking about.  Is that how you saw it?

MR: Yeah, I think on one level it's not gay at all, and that scene brilliantly dismisses that.  And yet, as I said, it does play with this thing of normally the male-male relationship is you're with somebody more comfortable and more safe than females, who are strange and mysterious to straight men.  And yet, Dr Watson finds himself with this kind of elusive, changeable, mysterious person.  And in a lot of fiction, it's the female character.  So there is something about the male-female relationship, alongside the buddy thing, which makes it much more complex than most buddy-buddy relationships.

So this i not either a straightforward romance, or a straightforward "buddy" type relationship, but something different ... I suppose I see it as a friendship with romance elements.  (But I don't think that sexual attraction is one of those elements).   And perhaps some of the romance tropes are a good way to show that.  (So it's not a case of me sayinng "this could happen in a friendship in real life", but "this shows something which goes beyond a usual friendship").

I think your post is written as if John is being shown as closeted and bisexual, but actually, there's no evidence for that.   Yes, there's room for a story about somebody in that position, but the writers have given no setup in John's case - no attraction to men, no backstory of persecution, etc.   In fact, they seem to have gone out of their way to create a homophobia-free world.  In the Sherlock universe, there is no judgment about sexual orientation, so we aren't even given a reason for John to be closeted.  Sherlock clearly doesn't disapprove (so there would be no problem with John being out to him).  If they were going to set up a story in which we saw a man trying to hide his sexuality, then I don't think they would do it like this.  (And also John just doesn't appear to be hiding that sort of secret.  He might not talk about his feelings, but he's pretty much an open book).

My points were not about the BBC report (which shows that there wouldn't have been any barriers to Johnlock), but about what we'd expect from Moftiss, given what they've said and written on the subject (particularly about TPLOSH).  I think Mark Gatiss explains it quite well in the Mumbai interview.  If they'd wanted to make them a gay couple, they would have done.

 

Hi you too!

The problem with interviews is that the creators are not going to reveal plot points and future couples and will lie about it, so we can't really take what they say in interviews as proof that a couple won't happen if the show hints differently.

There's some evidence that he is bisexual if one doesn't presume that he isn't. He shows sign of attraction to Sherlock all the time and romantic tropes are used in their relationship. Without presuming that he isn't bisexual we are also shown another man he might have had a romantic attraction to (sholto). We are not shown more because the show is not about that, that would remove the incidentality of the situation and visible showing him as bi from the start and focusing on it would reinforce the idea that being closeted or bi is an issue that can't happen in television without being the center of attention.
Also, since there are very few nonhet couples, if they spent time on John's bisexuality it would be obvious that it was a set up fot him to be with Sherlock and the "will they won't they" that creates tension would disappear.

If they thought using that huge amount of romantic trope (and in the article I listed only the generic tropes, not all other romantic moments because I haven't had time and I was also afraid that if I hadn't a link to prove that it's a romantic thing, people would just say romantic moments were jokes, but I may add them in the future) could represent a friendship, it's still queerbaiting because people cannot know their intention, they have to convey them trought the show and a large number of queer people firmly believe it is a romance and that's enough for it to be queerbaiting if it doesn't result in a romance (same argument for romance-baiting). All those people could not know that they were using the romance code for describing a friendship that is more than romance but it's never going to be a romance and there's no reason why they should have presumed it. When I joined the online community I was shocked to discover that there were people that didn't think there was a romance between them, because the romantic coding was so heavy and I didn't know a thing about queerbaiting. They spoke me in a language and I understood that language, how could I know romantic tropes where not used for romance? Many of them don't even have a thing to do with friendship.

Excellent, Ho Yay. I have been thinking about this quite often and you just found the right words. And because of how you and others feel about this I cannot imagine that Mark of all people would do this.

Just another little point I wanted to make about romance/sexual attraction in the show.  There are elements that are very much like romance there - courtship, seduction, etc.   Except without the sex!  Try replacing "recruit" with "seduce" in "I'm trying to recruit you" and it kind of works.  The thing is, it's not sex that Sherlock is offering there.  I find it interesting that he uses a military term ("recruit").  He does know what John wants: two of us against the world, the battlefield, etc.  Whatever you want to call it - that's what is the "sex" of their relationship, I think (if you were looking at how it compares to conventional romantic relationship).  And the same way that sex isn't the be all and end all of a loving, sexual relationship, the thrills and dangers aren't the be all and end all of their loving friendship.  It's an important aspect, something that draws them together, and something they don't really find with other people ... but there is a lot more to their relationship.

I don't think it's necessary to replace that with sex (including sexual attraction).  But I think we are seeing something that sometimes fits a kind of romance template, but without the sexual element. 

You know what this reminds me of? Starsky and Hutch. It was the show I loved as a pre-teen, and my first Fandom. 

Starsky and Hutch actually went much further with the romantic tropes we're talking about. And this was in the 1970's! I'm talking hand holding, holding each other through the pain, swooning in each other's arms (literally!) actual verbal expressions of love and brotherly/pal/partner-ness, always backing each other up. Any woman coming on the show had a death sentence, just about--- usually deaded by the end of the episode-- and Starsky and Hutch would grieve together and as icing on the cake, a scene with the two of them in Starsky's hospital bed at the end of the series. The show even had an episode where they took on Gay Rights during a case, and ended with an ambigous statement that could be read as--- hey, maybe....

Johnny Carson called the show, " The Gayest Show on Television." That was the year they won the Academy Award (or the Emmy's but--whatever.) In their outtakes, they were forever making fun of it. 

Now-- we all knew, back in the '70's-- that OUT and GAY Starsky and Hutch was NEVER going to become reality. That didn't stop people from writing slash fic, and guess what-- it's still going on today. The Starsky and Hutch Fandom is more active than it's ever been. 

The writers insisted that they wanted to show a close, unusually close-- freindship. These guys are like brothers-in-arms, they are PARTNERS. But, no-homo. 

So, I guess that's kind of what I'm seeing here, with Sherlock. We'll use all those romantic tropes to gin up the angst and tension and "romance" of the relationship-- without the Gay. Why? Ratings. It's like they want Achilles and Patroclus or Alexander and Hephaistion without the GAY. 

With Starsky and Hutch-- the absolute worst moments for the viewers were the couple of times that there was a split between the two. And once, even Starsky VS Hutch.

So, (1) This is where Mofftiss might be headed in s4, and (2) Canon Johnlock could still go either way: forever Palz-- or finally , finally following the romantic tropes and the romantic arc to it's logical conclusion. 

The thing is-- as a society, we're less hopeful than we were back then. We're inured to sappy endings, "soapy stuff", as Starsky used to say. At least, it seems that's what a lot of TV producers/writers/etc,. think.

So, after all that-- still confused.

Last edited by RavenMorganLeigh (September 13, 2015 5:14 pm)

SusiGo wrote:

Interesting thoughts. Here is what I think:

In spite of the parallels, it is not the same. If I remember correctly, S&H is mostly episodic in nature, not one big narrative arc like in Sherlock. If we apply this to the relationship, S&H seems to me more static and repetitive, i.e. there does not need to be a solution whereas in Sherlock one would expect this. 

And why should BBC Sherlock be afraid of the ratings? Many things have changed since the 1970s and the BBC has stated that they actively promote such relationships in their shows. And I think today such an attitude would be criticised far more harshly than it was in the 1970s when a same-sex couple as heroes of a popular TV show was more or less unthinkable.

And one last point - Sherlock and John are not your regular buddies, there is no "bromance" between them. They are bantering, true, but I feel that there are many unspoken things and secret looks and all that that give their relationship a different quality. 
 

Makes sense-- I see your point, particularly about the different shows -- one episodic, the other basically from star to finish, more like a min-series with a long arc. 

I think-- what gives me pause: With Starsky and Hutch, there was never a time where we were left wondering if one partner truly loved the other. The Partner always, always came first... and that's no longer the case with Sherlock. John puts Mary first, or so we're led to believe (and I really, really really don't want to believe it!!!) 

As far as the ratings-- well, everyone is not as enlightened as we are. :-)

There better be a trap for Mary....