I think if they were trying to write parallel stories, they wouldn't deny writing them as lovers so vehemently.   And I think it means that we won't see anything but a deep and loving friendship at the end.  There will be no passionate kiss to balance out the platonic hug, for instance. Of course that will still leave it open for people to analyse for secret messages, and why not?  I think there is a sense in which it doesn't matter too much, once something is out there, what was originally intended.  But I don't think Johnlock is going to be what has been claimed - that isn't going to be the groundbreaking, television history aspect of the story.  I'd put money on it not being endgame. 
 

Me too.  And I can't remember if I said here, but I felt it was illustration of how their relationship could progress without it having to lead to a romance.  This was new for their friendship.  (And I think they'll be OK now - they'll be together for TFP.  As friends!). 

I completely agree, Besleybean.

When I first watched Sherlock, I thought they were such a shippable couple, and I remember making some comment about that there must be loads of fanfiction on that theme!  Then when I came here, I wondered if I was a "Johnlocker", as I liked the idea.  It was quite a surprise to discover that Johnlock was not about shipping them as about believing that was the writers intention and plan! 

I think canon is open to interpretation, simply because they could not have been shown as a couple in those days.  But it's a very different situation now.  I know I've said it before, but I think Moftiss's reason for not doing it in this version is maybe because they read those stories as children, and as a child you tend to be drawn to the idea of friends rather than lovers. 
 

I find the idea of Irene and Sherlock together extremely titillating. However, their mutual attraction is based on understanding and outwitting each other. I don't think an intimate relationship is the logical next step for them - the same way non-johnlockers don't see it as a natural progression of John and Sherlock's friendship.

I'm still struggling with the definition of johnlock myself. Not all johnlockers are TJLCers. The question about TPTB's intent is a very helpful one for me to understand where I stand. The frequency of scenes with a possible romantic interpretation (Liberty, do I remember correctly that you have marked some of them as such in your analysis?) is a good indication for me that Moftiss show more than they tell. I get it that they deny everything with passion but there can be other explanations for that.

I've meant to ask but kept forgetting - what do you make of John's speech, especially "trust you to fall for a sociopath"? Irene has never been established as one, so while other things (criminal, dangerous) can describe both Sherlock and Irene, the sociopath bit makes it clear for me that the whole speech is about John and Sherlock and not Sherlock and Irene.

Nobody has really been established as a sociopath.  John (and others) seem to just use it in a common speech sort of way, the way people might refer to somebody as a lunatic, without actually meaning they are mentally ill.  Irene's world is build around finding out what people like and manipulating them.   She does act in a way that could be seen as just as "sociopathic" in the sense John is talking of, as Sherlock or Mary. 

I've never thought that Sherlock would end up with Irene, and don't want him to.  That's partly because I love repressed Sherlock, and it seems that this repression is important to who he is.  I love the idea that he's tempted but won't let himself act on it.  That whole greenhouse conversation in TAB is about that.  I would love Irene to come back as secret casting in TFP, but I don't think or want that the "I love you" is for her.  (Despite being told over and over that it's "romantic", my gut feeling is that it's for Euros.  I think we're going back rather than forward).

Scenes with a romantic interpretation - I think there are scenes that can be seen as that individually, but as part of the whole, they don't look romantic.   I think the most ambiguous scene is at Battersea power station with Irene, where she kind of makes an analogy between her and John's feelings for Sherlock.  But again, that's dismissed a little by her saying that they are a couple - I don't think any of them think that they're actually a couple in the romantic sense.   They are a couple in a different sense.  And as I say, it has to fit in with the whole, what we're shown overall.  TSOT, for instance, I think clearly shows a friendship story.  And ASIB does seem to involve Sherlock falling for Irene, as confirmed in TAB and again in TLD (and I think it's a lovely episode in terms of the friendship too!).

Risking your life for somebody is romantic in the broad sense, but the person to really go for that was Mary giving her life to save Sherlock.  And I don't think she ever had "romantic" feelings for him.  (Sorry, I get really confused because "romantic" has such a broad meaning.   So I do think John and Sherlock's friendship is romantic, and what Mary and Sherlock did for each other is romantic, but I think the only romantic feelings are between John and Mary!). 
 

ewige wrote:

@Lola,

But how can you dismiss the sociopath remark? Sherlock always insists on this definition and John must have picked it up by now. Besides, it's not like Irene is a psychopath or something. There is no reason at all to include this remark even as a mistake - apart from the obvious one.

Because all allusions to it have been utterly inconsequential until know. Sherlock is not a sociopath, he is also not a psychopath. Nor are Mrs. Hudson or Mary or , yes, Irene.

The reason to include this remark. The same as always on this show, to indicate a character trait that means someone is not what we might call an "everyman".

Also, what seems obvious to someone committed to one reading of a situation, might mean something quite different for someone committed to another reading or someone who does not commit to any reading in particular. 

I know, and I was not attacking you (sorry if it came across that way). Just between this and the other Johnlock thread, it's really fun to see how the same scene can be interpreted so very differently, depending on which theory someone is committed to. Which is why I refuse to do so, I would miss half the fun

For me it is really not that big a step. I guess most people would agree that John and Sherlock truly are sole mates (I know what you mean with the broken record feeling, btw). I think the main difference for me is: could there ever be a romantic attraction between the two? (I know some Johnlockers will strongly disagree with that reading, feel free to do so)  And here we come to the difficulty in the definition of being a Johnlocker. Do I believe TPTB could tilt the story either way if they wished to without being inconsistent. Yes. Intentionally or not, I think there would be enough ambiguity to support either reading. Do I believe that they will actually do that? I would be surprised if they did. 

I am, however and as always, happy to be proven wrong. 

Last edited by Lola Red (January 10, 2017 1:19 pm)

But what a thing to do to Mary!   It's funny because we all had quite a discussion about how much those texts were emotional infidelity.  If I put myself in Mary's situation, I'd probably have the same wry smile reaction to the texts.  But somebody marrying me, while secretely in love with somebody else, and having that person be best man at our wedding - I'd feel completely betrayed.   It can happen, of course, but it would change my view of John a lot.  The John we see would be wracked with guilt over it. 

And at that point in TLD when it's very clear that Sherlock is capable of romantic feelings, and when John feels that the important thing is to go for it because we all might die, and they're both "single" and have just saved each other yet again, then wouldn't it pop into his head then? 

I know there is some ambiguity, but in the last two episodes, I haven't seen any.  Or I'd really have to search for it.  The only thing I can think of is the idea of Mary as a kind of guardian angel/cupid whose role has been to get them together as lovers, rather than friends.  But I can't make that fit in with the rest!  I have wondered in the past if Moftiss would go down the route of bringing in JL later.  But I think what we've seen of the series confirms that they're very, very unlikely to. 

Lola, I could buy the story of two friends suddenly, years down the line, falling for each other.  It does happen.  But the way the story is being told, I don't think it's likely to.  Technically, yes, they could make it happen in the next episode.  But what they've done so far hasn't built up to that. 

And the whole issue that they had to get together romantically because there was nowhere else for their relationship to go - well, we've resolved that now.  We've seen their relationship develop a lot just in TLD.