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

besleybean · May 2, 2017 7:02 am

The difference being, we can't go and listen to Kafka speak about his work.

Schmiezi · May 2, 2017 7:23 am

No but we can go and read his diaries for example. That's really not the problem.

Vhanja · May 2, 2017 8:05 am

Yeah, this has to do with original intent from the author/creators. We can of course interpret the work into something more or something different than what the creator intended, but I don't think we can argue about the original intention if the creator has clearly stated this.

besleybean · May 2, 2017 3:39 pm

Just my point.

JP · May 2, 2017 4:03 pm

Schmiezi wrote:
First of all, why reducing Johnlock to sex? Not that I mind imagine them having lots of it in the future but in the state of slow burning romance I don't expect to see more than longing. And frankly, I can see longing in more than one scene

Well, longing for sex is as sexual as having it.

tonnaree · May 2, 2017 4:04 pm

Schmiezi wrote:
tonnaree wrote:
besleybean wrote:
I wasn't aware there was a set way to look at one's sibling or one's partner...I doubt I fit into either category!
Well, one usually doesn't look at one's sibling like one wants to shag them into the floor.
But that's just my interpretation.
In my new fic, I will include a scene where Sherlock shags John into the floor just for you dear! <3

Thank you darling! xoxoxoxoxoxo

Schmiezi · May 2, 2017 4:16 pm

JP wrote:
Schmiezi wrote:
First of all, why reducing Johnlock to sex? Not that I mind imagine them having lots of it in the future but in the state of slow burning romance I don't expect to see more than longing. And frankly, I can see longing in more than one scene
Well, longing for sex is as sexual as having it.

Is that a language problem of my part? Does longing for somebody always mean sexual longing? Can't it also mean longing for being loved, for romance, for connecting your souls?

besleybean · May 2, 2017 4:17 pm

Define 'romance' and 'souls'.

Liberty · May 2, 2017 4:22 pm

I know I've said it before (sorry!) but the reason sex comes up is that that's the major difference between Johnlock and not. If there's no sexual attraction then it's not Johnlock, is it? Yes, I understand that they could be asexual and still have romantic feelings and so on, but that's not really what we're talking about, is it? It doesn't mean to say that sex is the main thing (either the main thing that they'd show us, or the main thing that they feel), but that it's the thing that differentiates from a friendship-only attraction. For instance, I'd say Molly was sexually attracted to Sherlock, but we don't really see sex (I think she only mentions it when she's trying to pretend that she's not attracted to him!) and I imagine her feelings being more about romantic yearning. But take away the sexual attraction, and it's something else - she would just love him as a friend, like Mary or Mrs Hudson, I think. (And yes, again, I know there are nuances to this and people feel things differently, but I'd say that usually romance is shown with sexual attraction. Passionate kissing is sexual, for instance).

I feel like I'm wittering on trying to say the same thing differently! But I think it's one of the points that we've always had some difference on, so I thought I'd give it another go .

besleybean · May 2, 2017 4:25 pm

Yeah, the language and defintion things make me ponder, too.
I see it as loving someone(family/friend etc) or being in love with some one(partner).

Liberty · May 2, 2017 4:57 pm

Yes, that's a good distinction. I think there's a bit overlap even then ... that the feelings of a special friendship can be very like falling in love. And can involve love, infatuation, jealousy, etc., and yes, that connection of souls too. I think sex is the main thing that it doesn't (normally!) involve.

besleybean · May 2, 2017 4:59 pm

I have an issue with the term 'souls'...I think I might prefer 'being' or 'essence'...or just 'selves'!

Schmiezi · May 2, 2017 5:45 pm

I know the difference between living someone and being in love with somebody. What I don't know is: does "longing" always have a sexual connotation?

besleybean · May 2, 2017 5:50 pm

No, in the sense that you can long to be in someone's company...

Schmiezi · May 2, 2017 5:57 pm

besleybean wrote:
No, in the sense that you can long to be in someone's company...

Ah, so I got it right. Thank you. :-)

besleybean · May 2, 2017 6:03 pm

I remain puzzled.
So Johnlockers aren't seeing the boys as having sex, or wanting to have sex, or going to end up having sex ...they just somehow see them as gazing dreamily at each other I mean, will they want to kiss, cuddle...how does this scenario pan out?
Further, how does that fit in with John already having a healthy, sexual relationship with his wife and dallying with another female?
Most of all, how does this fit in with the actors and writers saying they don't see Johnlock and Benedict(for one) feeling Sherlock at least had a night of passion with Irene in Karachi?

Schmiezi · May 2, 2017 6:24 pm

Why do you think my idea of longing tells you what all the other "Johnlockers" want? O.o

I think you are over-generalizing here.

besleybean · May 2, 2017 6:28 pm

I'm not over generalising at all...I was asking questions!
But okay, purely dealing with your own personal point of view, then.
I really don't understand what you are saying.
How do you see John and Sherlock's relationship?
If possible, if you reply with words like 'soul' etc, can you define what you mean.
Cos otherwise to me, it could just sound like two guys who just wanna hang out together, you know, good mates.

Liberty · May 2, 2017 6:45 pm

I do think it's natural to pair people up - I don't know why we do it (as viewers) but we often do. Maybe it's partly due to being brought up with romance stories, where the happy ending has to involve a couple getting together romantically, or getting married, etc. And Sherlock and John are such an obvious couple to pair up. I completely get that. But I wonder if that tendency to pair people puts a different slant on what we see?

For instance, I think it's obvious that Mycroft loves Sherlock, and would give his life for him, but because they're brothers we know it's brotherly love. There's no feeling that they should be paired romantically. (I do know the fan fiction exists, but I don't think anybody actually sees it in the show). So Mycroft looking at Sherlock lovingly, will be interpreted in a different way to John looking at Sherlock lovingly.

besleybean · May 2, 2017 6:51 pm

But what I'm not understanding, is why some of us just see this as a loving friendship: which for clarification, includes what we have been shown- hugs between two close, male friends...I don't understand what others are seeing differently, especially against a backdrop of writers and actors contradicting what they see.
But yes, let the 'eye sex' brigade explain that term, obviously it doesn't apply to everyone.