Offline
I think it is more than just eye sex. They are using traditional romantic tropes like the Casablanca-inspired tarmac scene when they could have given us a "manly hug ". Restarting one's heart for someone is not how you depict a brotherly friendship. As ever - if John was a.woman no one would hesitate a second to call this love (and not in a bro sense). But I think we are running in circles here. The fact that someone tells me that something is not there which I have been seeing for years does not make it disappear.
And I would like to repeat the question what it is that they could become if Mary is gone. There is only thing they are not. A sentence they could easily have left out but it is there.
Offline
I speak excusively for myself now. Putting what I see between John and Sherlock in (foreign) words is not easy, I hope I can get my point across.
I think they are in love with each other. Unrequited love so far.
There is nothing sexual going on between them so far but I see both of them wanting it one time or another. That does not mean they are both horny all the time but the sexual attraction exists. There are loads of screenshots all over this thread to demonstrate what I mean. Go ahead and look at them. John staring at Sherlock’s backside, for example.
I see them looking at each other longingly, I see them needing each other to be complete.
My son makes me watch Finding Nemo once a day these days, and every time I hear Dory say a special part of dialogue, I have to think about our boys. When Marlin is about to leave her near the end, she says "I look at you, and ... I am home". This is how I see John and Sherlock. This is what I mean when I say they share a bond that is beyond friendship and beyond sex.
John has not been home with Mary. He would have been happy in his marriage if he had been.
John is only home when he is with Sherlock, and Sherlock is only home when he is with John.
Do I think they will celebrate that with shagging in every room of 221b? God yes, I do. But there is so much more to what they will be. There will be deep friendship and there will be sex and there will be more than the sum of these two aspects.
They will both be home.
Last edited by Schmiezi (May 2, 2017 7:42 pm)
Offline
I think Liberty has a point regarding it being natural to us (due to how television/cinema works) to pair people up. I know we once talked about how not seeing Johnlock means you have a heteronormative view. Because, as mentioned a few times, if the scenes between Sherlock and John had been with a man and a woman, a lot of people would assume they would get together or at least be attracted to each other.
However, I think it's the other way around. I don't think the problem is the heteronormative view. I think the problem is Hollywood's (and TV in general) idea that there has to be a romantic attraction in any movie or series no matter what the plot is. They shoehorn in a romantic and/or sexual attraction in just about everything, because for whatever reason, Hollywood thinks it needs to be there.
So in a movie, a man and a woman need only glance at each other, and we know they will kiss before the movie is over.
To me, it's not a good thing if this kind of thinking made it's way into same-sex relationships shown on-screen. That you can't have two very close friends on TV, because there has to be some kind of attraction to make the show interesting. I don't want those over-used tropes and "rules" to go for same-sex relationships, and I don't want it judged or interpreted by that (low) standard.
Last edited by Vhanja (May 2, 2017 8:10 pm)
Offline
Yes, and it's not just Hollywood. It's the stories we're brought up on, especially as women/girls, I think - the famous female stars of fairytales tend to end up with the guy/prince. There are quite a few who don't, but the romance ending is the classic happy ending. And in books, films, TV you often expect people to pair up. So pairing Sherlock and John seems quite natural.
I did answer the question above about what they could become after Mary's death - the heroes of legend. (If they were going to become lovers - well, they could have done that at any time, before or after Mary. Or during, I suppose. But it just doesn't happen). I think the point there is about them being flawed characters and doubting themselves, but Mary/us knowing what they will become.
Schmiezi, I loved your post, and I do get your point there. I feel something similar - that they belong together, and I want it to be the two of them. But I don't think that means as lovers. John's comment about "completing", I think is about him genuinely wanting Sherlock to be happy. He knows he can't provide love and friendship, but not that.
Sherlock coming back for John is a big thing, I agree. But it doesn't need to mean he fancies him, in the end. We even see Mary giving up her life for Sherlock - that's a big thing too, but doesn't mean she fancies him!
Offline
I am sorry if I seem to be crass here or harping on a point and yes, thank you for peoples honesty...
But reading back over the posts, the bottom line does seem to be this: the difference between bromance and Johnlock is sex...even as a goal- or in fact even as a tiny part of it.
So I am glad we were apparently all speaking the same language after all.
Well we haven't seen that between Sherlock and John and I accept we are never going to.
Yes they need each other and yes for all kinds of reasons.
But their ultimate purpose is to provide love, support, care and friendship...bromance.
Offline
I have never understood the concept of bromance and would like to quote Jude Law who is talking about Holmes and Watson, too:
"Bromance? It’s a horrible term. What about just a romance?”
Offline
For me it just means love without sex, but each to their own.
I know romance doesn't have to mean sex, but for the vast majority of the population...it ultimately does.
I know I'm a cynic, but to quote Frasier: men can't possibly use sex to get what they want, because sex IS what they want.
Last edited by besleybean (May 2, 2017 8:58 pm)
Offline
Bromance is a ridiculous word created by heterosexual men because they are terrified that someone might for one second think they might be gay if they express affection for another male.
Offline
I fully agree with tonnaree on "bromance".
As for pairing people: interesting thoughts. I doubt that TV etc are to blame for that though. If you look at history, being a couple seems to be the prefered social arrangement within society. It goes back several millenia. So I'd say TV etc just pick up what's human nature.
What I detect here is a certain fixation of some people who don't see Johnlock on sex. Why is it so important for you to point it out again and again?
Being a romantic couple is not just "deep friendship plus sex", it is more. "Deep friendship plus sex" is called "friends with benefits", if I remember my pop culture correctly. That is not how I personally see Johnlock and I think I made that clear.
Offline
Well I am still misunderstanding and one may see it as repetition and fixation, but let's consider why that might be.
Possibly because I am dealing with what we are actually shown in the show, what some of us see and what the creators and actors have said about their own work.
There is one man who isn't shown to be in an established relationship with anyone, though there are hints that the only person he has been 'romantically'(and that's still a bit of a minefield)linked to is a female.
There is another man who is shown after a series of girlfriends marries and starts a family with the woman who for me(and I would suspect for the team)is the love of his life. Yes the marriage experiences difficulties(people are lucky if theirs hasn't), but the man seeks 'distraction'(again contentious) with another woman.
Now through all of this, yes we are shown the growing and strengthening bond between the two male leads.
But I stand by my claim that I see nothing there that means 'romance' to me, again, depending on what you mean.
It is a close, loving friendship between two men and I am happy to personally know of such relationships..
Last edited by besleybean (May 3, 2017 5:39 am)
Offline
It's not a fixation on sex, it's just (as I'm trying to say!) that sex is the major difference between Johnlock and non-Johnlock. We agree that they love each other, that they'd give their lives for each other, etc., etc. What we don't agree on is whether their attraction to each other involves sexual attraction or not. That's why we keep coming back to it. It's not like there's anything wrong with sexual attraction - it's a natural, human thing! Anyway, some people were seeing sex in the way they look at each other (eye sex). I was trying to compare that to the way (for instance) Mycroft might look at Sherlock - we wouldn't see that as sexual, even though he could look with love.
I agree with Besleybean about their sexual orientation too. I don't like to mention it too much as we know things can change, but John could hardly be more clearly shown as straight. And although Sherlock seems more ambiguous, we're only shown sexual attraction to women. (Irene, of course. But he also tries to deny an attraction to Lady Carmichael in his mind palace!). I suspect that's not because the writers desparately want him to be straight, but because an attraction to men would raise the question of whether he's attracted to John. Which would complicate things!
Offline
And the writers have made it as clear as they can that they are not going down that route.
Repetition?
Yes, but this doesn't stop it from being real.
This has to at least count as much as speculation.
Offline
Ah, yes, the writers. They chose to give us this. Repeatedly. Sherlock, John, and Mary talking about Sherlock and Mary in connection with John and not once qualifying the love, not once making a distinction what kind of love it is meant to be:
It is, and I want to be up there with the two people that I love and care about most in the world.
Neither of us were the first, you know.
So know this: today you sit between the woman you have made your wife and the man you have saved – in short, the two people who love you most in all this world.
But, for the record, over the last few years there are two people who have done that.
So here’s a few things you need to know about the man we both love.
Again, I am not talking about sex here. What I wish for - and what I think is clearly hinted at in Mary's last words - is an exclusive relationship.Three's a crowd. And I think it is no wonder that many people - and not just Johnlockers - left the fandom after S3 because they felt that the dynamic they loved had been destroyed.
Offline
I do think it's interesting that they keep comparing the love betwen Sherlock and John and the love between John and Mary. Or at least putting it up there as something similar and equally strong. I can imagine it was done to show that those two both meant a lot to John - Mary as a romantic partner and Sherlock as his closest friend.
Offline
Exclusiveness is an important factor, Susi. I still don't get why we needed Mary storywise if not to show that three is one person too much.
Now that I think of it, that thought probably belong to the Mary thread.
Offline
I need to take a moment and whole heartedly disagree that Mary is the love of John's life.
He does love her in his way and is deeply grateful for her being there when Sherlock was "dead." However, except for a couple of moments at their wedding we do not see them presented as a happy couple. It's not just a matter of occasional trouble, we're not shown their marriage as being a happy stable relationship.
If Sherlock had really died I think John would've stayed with Mary because even though she wasn't what he wanted, she could be enough. Once Sherlock came back though she could never be enough. And we are shown that clearly in the story.
No matter what other terms you may use to describe their relationship I believe that Sherlock is the love of John's life.
Offline
Agreed in all points.
Offline
I think that their relationship is portrayed in a quite nuanced and interesting matter. I do not think that Mary was "the love of John's life" (I am not sure if such a thing exist in real life as you can love many people for different reasons, but I digress). But I do think that he did love her in some way - he says so in his own words as shown with a few of your quotes, Susi.
As I've said before, if Sherlock had never returned and Mary's secret had never come out, I think John would have a good life with Mary. However, as we are shown, he is not content with that life alone. And I think his feelings for Mary became much more complicated after her revelation, which is heavily implied by John himself: ("I used t like it too".)
But I do think John's grief over Mary's death is genuine. Yes, there is gult and anger, but I do believe he loved her in a way, even though it wasn't a perfect, fairytale love. There were dark sides, conflicts and doubt, but I do think John always had feelings for her.
And, so, yes, I do believe that - at least in the beginning - John loved both Mary and Sherlock. But you can't really compare love because there is different types of love towards different types of persons. John's love for Rosie would be again different etc.
Offline
Vhanja wrote:
I think that their relationship is portrayed in a quite nuanced and interesting matter. I do not think that Mary was "the love of John's life" (I am not sure if such a thing exist in real life as you can love many people for different reasons, but I digress). But I do think that he did love her in some way - he says so in his own words as shown with a few of your quotes, Susi.
About those quotes. I find it interesting that we never hear John say "I love you" directly to Mary. Not even when she lay dying in his arms. The only times we hear John speak of loving Mary he's talking to Sherlock.
Offline
Indeed. It would have been easy to slip a simple "I love you" into a scene but they chose not to. But then they are quite economical with the expression. It is only used twice in the show - in ASiP by a minor character to another minor character and in TFP where it is forced and one-sided.
So it is more like "show, don't tell". But then - and we have discussed this a lot in other threads as well - I have never seen much tenderness and love in Mary's and John's relationship. This is my personal view and I know some of you do not agree which is fine. But John's reaction to Mary's death - or better his behaviour towards Sherlock - only makes sense if John is driven by guilt and self-loathing, a word used by Inner Mary. Which means his reaction towards Sherlock is triggered by his own feelings of not being good enough or loyal enough or loving enough.
Last edited by SusiGo (May 3, 2017 3:52 pm)