nakahara wrote:

John behaves strangely around women. Very strangely:

http://beejohnlocked.tumblr.com/post/134711100951/john-and-women
 

I think we all agree that John has strong feelings for Sherlock and needs to be with him! We just disagree about the nature of the feelings and what being with him would entail .   

John doesn't tell Sherlock that he wants to "get laid"  (on the date with Sarah), if I remember correctly.   He only says that wants to get off with her.  

John doesn't come on to Sherlock on the stag night.  (If he had done, it would be much more of a story! And would leave them in quite a different position - with any attraction on John's part now being open and acknowledged). 

John doesn't appear to be trying to escape the wedding planning (even though I'm sure he's itching to be out with Sherlock, he doesn't try to do it).  Although it doesn't quite ring true for me (neither of them have family that will be there), John and Mary seem to have chosen to have a wedding that takes a lot of planning.  In the end, it's Mary who gives John the "escape route". 

The cycling to work thing I'm not sure about.  We know Mary works part-time and is a practice nurse (different hours) so it's unlikely they would be commuting together anyway. 

John calls Mary a client because that is their relationship at that point (I believe).  I don't think it's meant to be about their relationship before the shooting.  (Correct me if I'm wrong).

We now know John isn't jealous in the scene with Janine (the commentary). 

Apart from that, I don't agree that he shouldn't be with any woman.   Dating didn't get in the way of being with Sherlock too much in the past (especially as they were living together).   I think Mary has got in the way more, and I do think that needs to be resolved in S4 (I don't think it will work as a threesome).   But that doesn't mean John shouldn't have any relationships with women. 

 

Oh, my goodness!   So funny!

(I suppose the "but, seriously .." comment gives it away though ).

They do have fab chemistry...
Nobody has ever said they don't.

And something new about this Xena revival. Makes me more hopeful for Sherlock too:

http://www.radiotimes.com/news/2016-03-14/xena-warrior-princess-reboot-set-to-fully-address-main-characters-sexuality

Good news for Xena and her fans. 

But I do think it shows how times are changing.  In the '90s, we still needed subtext.  Now, not so much.   I still feel that (as Mark Gatiss says in Besleybean's helpful signature!) if they wanted to make the characters gay, they'd have done it, and shown it directly rather than giving us clues and subtext.  It no longer needs to be hidden.

Anyone want to see my new tattoo?!?!?

Vhanja wrote:

Let me just say... Johnlock or no Johnlock, I love this fandom! 

http://johnlockfanfiction.tumblr.com/post/140993071953/therealmartinsgrrrl-weeesi

Ride 'em cowboy!  
 

tonnaree wrote:

Vhanja wrote:

Let me just say... Johnlock or no Johnlock, I love this fandom! 

http://johnlockfanfiction.tumblr.com/post/140993071953/therealmartinsgrrrl-weeesi

Ride 'em cowboy!  
 

Behave, tonnaree!  (Or is that B silent too?)

Liberty wrote:

Good news for Xena and her fans. 

But I do think it shows how times are changing.  In the '90s, we still needed subtext.  Now, not so much.   I still feel that (as Mark Gatiss says in Besleybean's helpful signature!) if they wanted to make the characters gay, they'd have done it, and shown it directly rather than giving us clues and subtext.  It no longer needs to be hidden.

You say that we don´t need subtext in our shows anymore.... and yet it´s an undeniable fact that Sherlock is practically loaded with subtext and deliberately so (or do you presume these alleged "gay jokes" Mofftiss are adding into the storyline serve another purpose than to create subtextual situations?).

So no matter if we need it or not, subtext already exists in this show, that´s the fact.

The parallel with Xena is obvious here. Xena was the show where subtext between two female leads and their romantic connection was very prominent, although the authors gave both heroines plenty of male love interests during the course of the series. And now the same authors admit that it was not just "make-believe" of their audience - their decision to make the leads openly gay is practically the adminission that their heroines were gay all along. The heavy subtext was the indication of this state, otherwise it would be senseless to add this into the story in this shape and form (it was obviously not just friendship the two heroines shared with each other).

Makes me a bit hopeful of Sherlock. Maybe the authors would be as bold as the authors of Xena one day and make subtext into maintext eventually....

nakahara wrote:

Liberty wrote:

Good news for Xena and her fans. 

But I do think it shows how times are changing.  In the '90s, we still needed subtext.  Now, not so much.   I still feel that (as Mark Gatiss says in Besleybean's helpful signature!) if they wanted to make the characters gay, they'd have done it, and shown it directly rather than giving us clues and subtext.  It no longer needs to be hidden.

You say that we don´t need subtext in our shows anymore.... and yet it´s an undeniable fact that Sherlock is practically loaded with subtext and deliberately so (or do you presume these alleged "gay jokes" Mofftiss are adding into the storyline serve another purpose than to create subtextual situations?).

So no matter if we need it or not, subtext already exists in this show, that´s the fact.

The parallel with Xena is obvious here. Xena was the show where subtext between two female leads and their romantic connection was very prominent, although the authors gave both heroines plenty of male love interests during the course of the series. And now the same authors admit that it was not just "make-believe" of their audience - their decision to make the leads openly gay is practically the adminission that their heroines were gay all along. The heavy subtext was the indication of this state, otherwise it would be senseless to add this into the story in this shape and form (it was obviously not just friendship the two heroines shared with each other).

Makes me a bit hopeful of Sherlock. Maybe the authors would be as bold as the authors of Xena one day and make subtext into maintext eventually....

The thing is, I think the authors are as bold.   I know I keep coming back to it, but a really good example is Vastra and Jenny in Doctor Who - an openly gay couple in a children's/family TV show, with Steven Moffat as the showrunner and main writer, shown through maintext rather than subtext (I honestly can't see any way a viewer could possibly interpret that they were straight, or that they weren't "in a relationship".  That's just as bold. 

It's not that there's no subtext in Sherlock (it's there, if open to interpretation!), but that it isn't needed as the only way to show a same sex relationship.   I don't get the point from the Xena thing that the best way to show a relationship is to only use subtext, then years later make it maintext.   It seems to me that making it maintext now is correcting a problem with the original - and admission that it should have been maintext all along. 

I don't know much about Xena, but given when it was shown I think it was quite possible that only subtext was used because it was thought that audiences/studios/backers/etc. would not be so accepting of a same sex relationship and it wouldn't be mainstream enough.   There's no need for Moftiss to be forced to stick to subtext in this day and age, as writers writing for a company who want more LGBT representation, and who normally write openly about same sex relationships.