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

nakahara · January 25, 2016 8:33 am

Liberty wrote:
Yes, and the Sherlock universe seems to be shown as not homophobic.

Sherlock´s universe was from the very start shown as a place that does not tolerate difference. Characters like Donovan, Anderson, Sebastian Wilkes and in the most recent episodes, Mary, are established in the story to sneer at and belittle Sherlock as the character embodying that difference. It is implied that Sherlock must change and become like the others or he will be regarded as an outcast forever....

So is this world really "not homophobic"? The world that cannot stand a difference from any standard?

Also, with the sole exception of two gay inkeepers in HOUNDS, every other gay character in the show was depicted as a villain. Moriarty, Irene Adler, even Magnussen.... hmmm, to me it seems as if "the sin" makes you a criminal automatically in this Sherlock´s universe.

nakahara · January 25, 2016 8:39 am

Liberty wrote:
Well, maybe I'm being a bit unfair - referring to men only is the concrete difference for me, but there are others, that depend on how the word is being used. As I mentioned, bromance can mean a more intense relationship than just a close friendship. Friendship doesn't tend to be used in a disparaging way, whereas bromance sometimes is. Friendship can sometimes include a sexual relationship, whereas I don't think bromance can (being non-sexual by definition).

(Hopefully that's more helpful!)

The word bromance seems like a nonsense to me. Especially because it´s derived from "romance" and romance never describes friendship. It implies something sexual by its very definition and it´s used interchangeably with the word "love":

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Romance_%28love%29

So why would a "romance between two brothers" imply something platonic or asexual? (The wikipedia page added above claims that romance stands in direct opposition to an idea of platonic love).

If anything, it should imply incest or something similar.

Liberty · January 25, 2016 9:51 am

I think maybe people's definitions differ. Merriam-Webster has it as a "a close, non-sexual friendship between men". The other dictionaries all seem to specify that it's non-sexual.

nakahara · January 25, 2016 9:54 am

Liberty wrote:
I think maybe people's definitions differ. Merriam-Webster has it as a "a close, non-sexual friendship between men". The other dictionaries all seem to specify that it's non-sexual.

Then why is the word "romance" used to describe love between two people? If it´s entirely nonsexual? Or the meaning of the word immediately becomes nonsexual if it involves two men instead of man of a woman? Reeks of homophobia to me...

Vhanja · January 25, 2016 10:04 am

nakahara wrote:
Sherlock´s universe was from the very start shown as a place that does not tolerate difference. Characters like Donovan, Anderson, Sebastian Wilkes and in the most recent episodes, Mary, are established in the story to sneer at and belittle Sherlock as the character embodying that difference. It is implied that Sherlock must change and become like the others or he will be regarded as an outcast forever....

So is this world really "not homophobic"? The world that cannot stand a difference from any standard?

Also, with the sole exception of two gay inkeepers in HOUNDS, every other gay character in the show was depicted as a villain. Moriarty, Irene Adler, even Magnussen.... hmmm, to me it seems as if "the sin" makes you a criminal automatically in this Sherlock´s universe.

The world is the same as ours. Some are bigoted and can't stand difference, some can.

I don't see Irene as a villain, and we don't know if Magnussen was gay? Either way, I see no link between being gay and being a villain in the series.

Liberty · January 25, 2016 10:11 am

Well, "romance" doesn't have to include sex, and it isn't gender-specific. It's a very broad word, that is used in different ways (just to confuse us!). But if two men were in a close sexual/romantic relationship, you wouldn't call it a "bromance", would you? Except perhaps as a joke. I don't think most people would even use "romance", as it's a kind of old-fashioned word in that context.

nakahara · January 25, 2016 10:18 am

Liberty wrote:
Well, "romance" doesn't have to include sex, and it isn't gender-specific. It's a very broad word, that is used in different ways (just to confuse us!). But if two men were in a close sexual/romantic relationship, you wouldn't call it a "bromance", would you? Except perhaps as a joke. I don't think most people would even use "romance", as it's a kind of old-fashioned word in that context.

I would certainly just use "friendship" or "love". One does not need to invent words like "bromance" only because love / friendship involves two males.

Little Weed · January 25, 2016 11:04 am

nakahara wrote:
Liberty wrote:
Yes, and the Sherlock universe seems to be shown as not homophobic.
Sherlock´s universe was from the very start shown as a place that does not tolerate difference. Characters like Donovan, Anderson, Sebastian Wilkes and in the most recent episodes, Mary, are established in the story to sneer at and belittle Sherlock as the character embodying that difference. It is implied that Sherlock must change and become like the others or he will be regarded as an outcast forever....

So is this world really "not homophobic"? The world that cannot stand a difference from any standard?

Also, with the sole exception of two gay inkeepers in HOUNDS, every other gay character in the show was depicted as a villain. Moriarty, Irene Adler, even Magnussen.... hmmm, to me it seems as if "the sin" makes you a criminal automatically in this Sherlock´s universe.

I think people mean that it's the 21st Century ergo it doesn't matter but it doesn't feel like that when you live it... There's the weight of hundreds of years of this is wrong.

nakahara · January 25, 2016 11:22 am

Little Weed wrote:
I think people mean that it's the 21st Century ergo it doesn't matter but it doesn't feel like that when you live it... There's the weight of hundreds of years of this is wrong.

Yes, I see it similarily. You cannot wipe away hundreds of years full of prejudice so easily....

Liberty · January 25, 2016 11:27 am

nakahara wrote:
Liberty wrote:
Well, "romance" doesn't have to include sex, and it isn't gender-specific. It's a very broad word, that is used in different ways (just to confuse us!). But if two men were in a close sexual/romantic relationship, you wouldn't call it a "bromance", would you? Except perhaps as a joke. I don't think most people would even use "romance", as it's a kind of old-fashioned word in that context.
I would certainly just use "friendship" or "love". One does not need to invent words like "bromance" only because love / friendship involves two males.

Agreed!

Little Weed · January 25, 2016 12:19 pm

nakahara wrote:
Little Weed wrote:
I think people mean that it's the 21st Century ergo it doesn't matter but it doesn't feel like that when you live it... There's the weight of hundreds of years of this is wrong.
Yes, I see it similarily. You cannot wipe away hundreds of years full of prejudice so easily....

That was in part some of the take home info from the Special... Though badly framed.

nakahara · January 25, 2016 2:02 pm

Now, this meta and the addendum to that meta both speak from my heart:

http://writernotwaiting.tumblr.com/post/137958513329/the-fallen-woman-has-been-replaced-by-the-gay-man

http://incredifishface.tumblr.com/post/137962477884/the-fallen-woman-has-been-replaced-by-the-gay-man

No matter what lip-service we pay to the acceptation of homosexuals in our society, gays in the media are still depicted in two ways: as "kanonefutter" (the characters who are only there to be killed) or as villains who must be subdued.

I noticed this trend (in this case in the British media) myself:

Agatha Christie´s Marple - Murder is Announced (2005) - two elderly ladies who lived together in the original book are transformed into a young lesbian pair in this adaptation. Of course, one of the pair is killed before the story is over. It was like that in the original also, but why couldn´t they change this in this modern adaptation? They changed many key elements of the story anyway....

Agatha Christie´s Marple - The Body in the Library (2004) - here, the identity of the perpetrators of the crimes was changed from the original and surprise, they were revealed to be a pair of lesbians who were painted as cruel, ruthless murderers here. Of course, it is implied that they both would be hanged at the end of the story. Way to go, ITV!

Father Brown - episode "The Hammer of God" (2013) - in the original short story by G.K. Chesterton the guy is murdered because he was an insufferable bully who terrorised all his aquaintances. Now, this was probably not considered modern by BBC because they changed this outcome. And in their new version, the guy is murdered because he was seen having gay sex by his murderer. Instead of his awful personality, his gay orientation was the reason for his murder in this new adaptation. Wonderful BBC! Just like in the fifties...

Don´t let me start on London Spy and similar shows....

Last edited by nakahara (January 25, 2016 2:10 pm)

Liberty · January 25, 2016 2:31 pm

This has long been a problem and I agree. Personally, I'd also like to see a lot more of main characters in films just happening to be gay - the leads in Star Wars for instance - rather than keeping LGBT characters as more minor characters.

I'm not sure about the examples, though. The Imitation Game did feel a little uncomfortable with the focus being on Turing's relationship with a woman and absolutely no male partners being seen - however, I can see why the film was made that way. London Spy as well, was very dark, but the main character is gay, survives to the end and almost "wins" in a way.

But the comments at the end bring me back to thinking: Moftiss would not hide their characters' sexuality in that way, if they wanted to show LGBT characters. It's different with Sherlock himself, because he's celibate - it doesn't come into it. But if John is supposed to be bi, then they would be hiding it - making him only date women. And I don't think they'd do that.

besleybean · January 25, 2016 5:00 pm

Indeed Liberty, particularly when they do show other gay characters in the show.

Ho Yay · January 25, 2016 5:06 pm

It doesn't look to me like they are hiding it.
After I finished seeing all episodes in a row I was under the impression that John was very visibly in love with Sherlock from the start, that it was a romantic arc and that that was visible to everybody. Like, I had no doubt what so ever. Only dating woman has never been something that precludes being bi.
I found out that people didn't see it only after joining discussions. I remember very well that the first thing I said to the first person I talked to about Sherlock was how much beautiful the show was and "OMG Sherlock and John are in love and they are going to get together" and he replied to me "No, they just put things for the fangirls", which came a bit as a shock for me, because I didn't know the word queerbaiting existed, but I instantely felt like, if that were the truth, it was something very wrong of the show to do.

Also, you can just happen to be gay and a closeted bi in a romantic long arc without those specific aspects being the main focus of the story, even if the romance itself is a big part. Just make them queer is not something that has not been done on Sherlock.
The Abominable Bride is one of the gayest thing I have ever saw in my life, they just didn't resolve the unresolved sexual tension because we are in the middle of the series, but they addressed Sherlock and John being a couple, John and Mary not being a couple and Sherlock having sexual and romantic desires (with a whole scene full of fellatio innuendo with a man among other things).

Last edited by Ho Yay (January 25, 2016 5:10 pm)

SusiGo · January 25, 2016 5:12 pm

Ho Yay wrote:
It doesn't look to me like they are hiding it.
After I finished seeing all episodes in a row I was under the impression that John was very visibly in love with Sherlock from the start, that it was a romantic arc and that that was visible to everybody. Like, I had no doubt what so ever. Only dating woman has never been something that precludes being bi.
I found out that people didn't see it only after joining discussions. I remember very well that the first thing I said to the first person I talked to about Sherlock was how much beautiful the show was and "OMG Sherlock and John are in love and they are going to get together" and he replied to me "No, they just put things for the fangirls", which came a bit as a shock for me, because I didn't know the word queerbaiting existed, but I instantely felt like, if that were the truth, it was something very wrong of the show to do.

Also, you can just happen to be gay and a closeted bi in a romantic long arc without those specific aspects being the main focus of the story, even if the romance itself is a big part. Just make them queer is not something that has not been done on Sherlock.
The Abominable Bride is one of the gayest thing I have ever saw in my life, they just didn't resolve the unresolved sexual tension because we are in the middle of the series, but they addressed Sherlock and John being a couple, John and Mary not being a couple and Sherlock having sexual and romantic desires (with a whole scene full of fellatio innuendo with a man among other things).

I hope you know that there are some people in here who share your opinion.

besleybean · January 25, 2016 5:14 pm

Possibly depends on your definition of hiding it.
John:
Currently married to his pregnant wife.
Before that, had a string of girlfriends.
Never been shown to have an interest in men.

Sherlock:
Never really been in an official relationship with anybody.
Only been linked with women.
Never been shown to have an interest in men.

Harriet · January 25, 2016 5:50 pm

Ho Yay wrote:
...
*all the wonderful things you wrote*
...

Can I sign that, too? An observant, balanced and comprehensive statement

Last edited by Harriet (January 25, 2016 5:52 pm)

Ho Yay · January 25, 2016 5:58 pm

John:
Currently married to his pregnant wife. - > never precluded anyone from being queer
Before that, had a string of girlfriends. - > never precluded anyone from being queer
Never been shown to have an interest in men. - > not true, he has shown the most interest in a man, Sherlock, and possibly there was past in another man, Sholto, and very little interest in any women until Sherlock presumably died. And anyway never precluded anyone from being queer.

Sherlock:
Never really been in an official relationship with anybody. - > never precluded anyone from being queer
Only been linked with women. - > not true, he has been linked the most to a man, John. There has been a male villain expressing interest in him too (if in "link" we include this sort of relationships, otherwise not even women could be counted in "links"). And anyway never precluded anyone from being queer.
Never been shown to have an interest in men. - > not true, he has shown the most interest in a man, John. And anyway never precluded anyone from being queer.

The indicators used are heteronormative ones:
- Who you are in a relationship or the genders you are dating don't define your sexuality. For example there are bi people who by chance happen to date only one gender, or have a preference towards one gender or are closeted.
- What is shown on screen doesn't define all the person experiences. In Sherlock and John case there the indicators of queerness are visible from ep I, but any character in any show can turn up queer at any moment even if you are not shown from the start, because queer people don't "show" until they actually do something with a gender different from the opposite one.

Liberty · January 25, 2016 5:59 pm

besleybean wrote:
Possibly depends on your definition of hiding it.
John:
Currently married to his pregnant wife.
Before that, had a string of girlfriends.
Never been shown to have an interest in men.

Sherlock:
Never really been in an official relationship with anybody.
Only been linked with women.
Never been shown to have an interest in men.

Yes. If the writers wanted to show the characters as gay or bi, this isn't how they would do it!

Imagine if it had been the other way round: if John had only been shown dating men (repeatedly), and perhaps marrying one, with no interest in any women. Is it possible that somebody like that could fall for a woman? Yes, of course. But is this how the writers would choose to show a character they wanted us to perceive as straight or bi? It seems very unlikely.