Yes, and thank you for your comment!  I will try to write more later, at the weekend. 

I don't know how familiar you guys are with TJLC but a lot of their analysis of the show IS sound. It's been done following the rules of narrative analysis by the book. Basically the same way kids are taught to analyse literature. I remember agonizing over Dostoyevsky in school, thinking HOW ON EARTH are we supposed to know what he meant to tell us besides the obvious plot? We looked at the recurring themes, at the use of specific narrative elements, at the political and social environment back in his day and came up with a little conspiracy theory of our own.

That's decades ago now. I'm not agonizing over anything anymore because lit analysis comes naturally. I've read many books and watched many movies since then and don't remember being too wrong about anything, really, having predicted the outcome more often than not. Now that we have all evidence on Sherlock, I'm not thinking I've been cheated out of the logical ending, I'm rather incorporating what we got into analysis. And my analysis tells me (in Steven's voice) that on a show like Sherlock, the question of who sleeps with whom isn't likely to arise in a typical conversation. So John and Sherlock can become whatevery they want to each other and it won't matter because they are a legend first and foremost. I can live with that.

It upsets me a little that people whom I've been talking to for the last year don't even try to see my side of things. I loved the point-by-point analysis of the romantic tropes here because it was a two-sided conversation instead of a shouting match between deaf people (how it often happens when emotions are involved). I remember putting a lot of effort into trying to understand how half Americans could have voted for Trump, how half Austrians could have voted for our local right-wing president candidate, how all my Russian friends who used to be smart and independently-thinking could be so very pro-Putin now. Such mental exercises teach empathy and humility. You are right that you can hardly prove the negative. But when arguing that you don't see johnlock, please remember that there are a lot of people seeing it and they are not stupid per definition, just like all those half-countries worth of population can't be stupid just because they see their country's best bet not the way you see it.

ewige wrote:

I don't know how familiar you guys are with TJLC but a lot of their analysis of the show IS sound. It's been done following the rules of narrative analysis by the book. Basically the same way kids are taught to analyse literature. I remember agonizing over Dostoyevsky in school, thinking HOW ON EARTH are we supposed to know what he meant to tell us besides the obvious plot? We looked at the recurring themes, at the use of specific narrative elements, at the political and social environment back in his day and came up with a little conspiracy theory of our own.

That's decades ago now. I'm not agonizing over anything anymore because lit analysis comes naturally. I've read many books and watched many movies since then and don't remember being too wrong about anything, really, having predicted the outcome more often than not. Now that we have all evidence on Sherlock, I'm not thinking I've been cheated out of the logical ending, I'm rather incorporating what we got into analysis. And my analysis tells me (in Steven's voice) that on a show like Sherlock, the question of who sleeps with whom isn't likely to arise in a typical conversation. So John and Sherlock can become whatevery they want to each other and it won't matter because they are a legend first and foremost. I can live with that.

It upsets me a little that people whom I've been talking to for the last year don't even try to see my side of things. I loved the point-by-point analysis of the romantic tropes here because it was a two-sided conversation instead of a shouting match between deaf people (how it often happens when emotions are involved). I remember putting a lot of effort into trying to understand how half Americans could have voted for Trump, how half Austrians could have voted for our local right-wing president candidate, how all my Russian friends who used to be smart and independently-thinking could be so very pro-Putin now. Such mental exercises teach empathy and humility. You are right that you can hardly prove the negative. But when arguing that you don't see johnlock, please remember that there are a lot of people seeing it and they are not stupid per definition, just like all those half-countries worth of population can't be stupid just because they see their country's best bet not the way you see it.

I agree. TJLCers have written some of the best analyses and I think they got it right in many ways. I do not like some of their attitudes at the moment but I have been following many TJLC blogs and appreciate their work. It is a fact that the writers have not given us anything definite. But this goes both ways. We did not get Sherlolly or Adlock either but two men and a little girl in a flat. 
And I fully agree that there has been a constant use of romantic tropes where Sherlock and John were concerned and much less where all other possible hetero pairings were concerned. Johnlock is not about being delusional, it never was and is not now. 

 

Oh, I never said Sherlock loves her back. I think it has been made clear throughout the show that he is intrigued by Irene, respects her in some way, maybe feels a sort of kinship with her, but that he does not love her, neither romantically nor sexually. Even in Canon Irene Adler has been special to Holmes and they chose to reflect this in BBC Sherlock. I think her most important function is to point out what there is between Sherlock and John. "Somebody loves you". "Look at us both." Sherlock talking to John while being alone with Irene.


 

But when discussing John's 'cheating.'  Sherlock compares John's texting 'E', to his texting Irene.

No, obviously they are both single and can do what they like.
But the point Sherlock is making is that just as he didn't actually do anything with Irene, so John didn't actually do anything but text.

In the same conversation, John equates Sherlock's relationship to Irene, with his own relationship with Mary - in the sense of grabbing romance/love with the person you want while you can, because you may lose them. 

ewige wrote:

Yeah, but I think he's just relieved that Sherlock might have somebody too and pushes him towards that person not realizing that all Sherlock needs is Jawn That speech John gives - it's 100% him and Sherlock, but he doesn't realize that just yet, too.

This!

We are never shown that kind of relationship between Sherlock and John.
Baffles me why people imagine there is one.

Gotta love John's deductions!
And I remember the wedding's echo even tho I had no idea about this show back then! I imagine this thread grew a couple of pages (had been growing a couple of pages a day?) over it