Why do we have to be so serious and start rolling eyes? I'd like this discussion really to be a bit lighter. I think Martin gives an excellent example of how to do that. 

SusiGo wrote:

Why do we have to be so serious and start rolling eyes? I'd like this discussion really to be a bit lighter. I think Martin gives an excellent example of how to do that. 

I love how they make the jokes in the show...to me, that's funny.  They put them in intentionally precarious situations to help lighten the mood.  I like that the writers aren't afraid to play around with it, no matter what the fandom says.

Last edited by sj4iy (September 30, 2013 9:04 pm)

IMO it is not. For me it is - or should be - a friendly and relaxed discussion about different interpretations. But this seems to be difficult. 

I guess it depends on what this thread is trying to achieve:

Are we debating whether or not the characters are actually gay?  Or are we just picking out things we find funny about the writing in various sources (books, movies, shows).

sj4iy wrote:

I guess it depends on what this thread is trying to achieve:

Are we debating whether or not the characters are actually gay?  Or are we just picking out things we find funny about the writing in various sources (books, movies, shows).

IMO neither the one nor the other. For one thing I am interested in why so many people see/want/imagine them as a couple. What hints there are. What things are taken as hints. How people interpret the same dialogue/acting in a totally different way. What the intentions of the creators are. 
And it is not just about being funny. The end of the wedding scene in "A Game of Shadows" is not funny. Or when Holmes says he'll die alone while John leads a married life. And I am sure the same goes for "Sherlock" as well. 
 

Holmes is most certainly a tragic hero indeed.

Of course, but he has a tragic side to him. He clearly depends on Watson to be his companion and to give his life structure. When Watson hasn't been around for a while and he returns to Bakerstreet, he often finds out that Holmes has barely eaten, and that the rooms are a big mess. Without Watson, there is a pretty big chance that Holmes would have died before his time.

Swanpride wrote:

The canon scene in The Sign of the Four is even more depressing...there Watson says that everyone won at the end of the case, he got the girl, the police got the credit, but what is left for Sherlock? And Sherlock answers that he still has the drugs...

That's what I had in mind too. And the way he says something like he doesn't want to congratulate Watson.

I am a huge Johnlocker, so obviously, I see signs everywhere and even where others don't see anything at all. That's how I am. Been a fan of slash for years and can't help it when watching a show/reading a book... My slash radar is always on.

Sometimes I know what I "see" is pure fantasy (ie. in Harry Potter, I like Draco/Harry or Snape/harry) because there aren't any hints at all in the canon, it's just my imagination and what I would like to see.

Other times, I think the writers/directors... etc give the ammunition us "slashers" need. I think of Sherlock/John BBC or for those who know this show, Dean/Castiel in Supernatural. As far as Sherlock is concerned, I'm with Susi and Solar there. I mean, if they didn't want a part of the fandom to fantasize about a possible romantic relationship between Sherlock and John, they could have easily avoided all the gay jokes. One or two is funny, but Mycroft, Mrs Hudson, the guys in Baskerville, Irene... If everyone in their entourage think there is something between them, then maybe that's because there is something. I'm not saying they're gay, I'm just saying that their relation is a very unusual and unique one, which can lead people to think there are more than friendship. Same go with certain looks they exchange.

(ie. I had a best friend, still have, long story... anyway, for years, people thought there was something between us when none of us had ever thought of our relation this way and I was a huge believer in male/female strong friendship. Until we had an affair...)

When my mother (who is not at all a slash fan or anything and couldn't care less about this, but has nothing against homosexuality) first watched BBC Sherlock, I hadn't said a word about the Johnlock phenomenom and yet after 2 episodes, she said "But they're gonna end up together, aren't they? In which episode?" and she was surprised when I said that it would never happen. She said it seemed so obvious that there was something between them. And that's when I thought "Good. If people who couldn't care less about slash see slash in this show, then that means my mind isn't completely slash perverted!" lol.
 
If I take Sherlock in a general way (canon, BBC...) and tend to be as honest as possible, I'd tell you the way I see them (of course, I'd like to believe they're in love, but I am conscious this is a fantasy): I think John is heterosexual but has deep affection mixed with limitless admiration for Sherlock, but I think that Sherlock needs John much more than John needs him, and I think John is the closest thing to love that Sherlock would ever feel, even though he may be not aware of this himself. And in the canon, without speaking of homosexuality, I feel like Sherlock is kinda addicted to John, and when John gets married, Sherlock gets back to his previous addiction, drugs (end of Sign of four)

But maybe that's just me...

"How can it be wrong to assume that something is going on when all involved people in the series (Mrs. Hudson, Irene, Mycroft e.g.) do remarks about a relationship between Sherlock and John" ? Because I read that (or at least something similar) several times in different posts, I have to ask now: And what´s about Molly? She never assumed that Sherlock and John are a couple. She´s in love with Sherlock (not really successful as we know ). And since TRF we know that she is extrem sensitive. Could be an argument against the other argument. . And Lestrade? Whatever...
My personal view on the jokes in the series about a sexual relationship between John and Sherlock (and I as a hetero share that with my best friend, a lesbian, with whom I watched that show together): I never had the idea that both could end up in a relationship. I never felt a sexual tension between them although I find that series extremly sexy . I see a strong and unusual friendship and nothing more. This is from my side not meant better or worse in comparison with Johnlock shippers. It´s just for the discussion. As a former theatre maker I know that people interpret in different ways and that´s fine.
For me the jokes were made on the one hand - which was said already here several times in that thread - to show the utter astonishment/helplessnes/prejudices of people who can´t classify a friendship like that or a friend of Sherlock. On the other hand it´s a stylistic device, a funny leitmotiv woven through the entire series. Cleverly made also as a nod to literature interpreters/scientists, who - especially in the sixties and seventies -, wrote huge essays about the homosexuality in ACDs (and so many others) canon. Later literary studies came back to a less subjective way of interpreting books, focus on: "Look, what is really in the text, don´t guess wild" - the mantra for every prospective philologist in my study time . This mantra, just btw, was of course not made for fans but for literature students.
When I saw Sherlock for the first times I had always these "subjective sixties and seventies" in my mind, when a joke about a possible gay relationship of them appeared during the series. I am convinced that Moffat/Gatiss know these essays and discussions. They´ve read nearly everything about ACD, they can´t have missed out these. And so I interpreted the respecting jokes also as a nod towards these.
From Johnlock I heard the first time here in that forum. With surprise, I never felt that, not my cup of tea. But it´s also a quality point for Sherlock that it opens different worlds and also is open for different worlds. 

Last edited by anjaH_alias (October 1, 2013 3:25 pm)

anjaH_alias wrote:

"How can it be wrong to assume that something is going on when all involved people in the series (Mrs. Hudson, Irene, Mycroft e.g.) do remarks about a relationship between Sherlock and John" ? Because I read that (or at least something similar) several times in different posts, I have to ask now: And what´s about Molly? She never assumed that Sherlock and John are a couple. She´s in love with Sherlock (not really successful as we know ). And since TRF we know that she is extrem sensitive. Could be an argument against the other argument. . 

Yes, but really, what about Molly? In TRF she does make a remark about Sherlock and John. Granted, she doesn't explicitly say they're gay, but she acknowledges that they do have a very special relationship. And she basically says that John counts for Sherlock, but she herself doesn't count. So I'm not so sure if the way in which she sees John and Sherlock is so different from the way Mrs. Hudson or Mycroft see them.

Then again, she is in love with Sherlock. The question is: would she even want to see what's really going on between Sherlock and John - if indeed there is something going on between them?