I just wanted to say that I pointed that out at the time, on my last forum...nobody else had seen it!

Yes, that is a cute one.

Yes, I like that one!

Sorry, this is a bit long but a very rewarding read. One of the best factual explanations of why Johnlock exists and how it explains things that cannot be explained by any other theory. Not sure if it should go in the debate as well. What do you think?

"The show has a unifying theory because it’s not a series of random adventures with nothing connecting them. Each episode builds on the ones that came before it. If you recognize that there is a “story about a detective” (Moffat’s words) being told, then it naturally follows that you recognize that there is a point to that story and that it’s going somewhere. You almost certainly did have a unifying theory of the show before S3, even if you deny it, because if someone had asked you what happens to the characters in the show over time, you probably would been able to produce an answer. Even if it was just the surface-level explanation of “it’s about a friendship that grows between a detective and a doctor who solve crimes together until their enemy, a criminal mastermind, drives them apart at the end of S2.

TJLC has existed as long as S3 has existed, so before TJLC, all you really had was a lack of a unifying theory which took into account the events of S3. There’s a shift in the central point of Sherlock’s story between S2 and S3 which creates two parts of the story, which have to be unified in some way in order for the story to make sense as a whole. In S1 and S2, there are a pair of conflicts in play around the main Moriarty plot: one is that Sherlock has to choose between the values that John represents and those represented by Moriarty, becoming more “human” in John’s eyes and more appreciative of and dependent upon John along the way, and the other is that John has to realize that Sherlock’s “sociopath” presentation is just a defense mechanism and see him as he truly is: the “most ‘human’ human being” he’s ever known (John’s own words). In S3, the Moriarty plot is over (apparently), and the conflict is that John is married and away from Baker Street, and Sherlock is no longer sure of his place in John’s life at the same time that he finds himself willing to sacrifice everything for John’s safety and happiness. But we know that the “human” thing has been overcome, because John said so to Sherlock’s gravestone at the end of TRF. So does S3 represent a total break from S1 and S2? Or is there a coherent story being told here from S1 all the way through S3?

All TJLC really says is that the thing that the big S1/S2 conflicts and the big S3 conflict have in common is that they are all about Sherlock and John experiencing some kind of emotional and/or physical distance from one another. That distance still exists right up until the end of HLV; they aren’t living together and they’re apparently being separated, again, and they struggle to have a meaningful conversation on the tarmac. If you don’t see the distance between Sherlock and John being a problem throughout the whole show which is clearly going to have to be overcome for there to be a happy ending for the two of them, then what do you see? And if the distance between them is exacerbated by one’s marriage to another person and if that distance continues to exist despite the fact that they have already called one another best friends and said that they love each other, then what more is it going to take to overcome the distance? People who reject TJLC as a unifying theory without even considering it as a possibility are constantly downplaying the fact that the distance exists and is a problem — for example, Sherlock was sad at the end of the wedding because “he was feeling lonely and isolated,” ignoring the fact that he wouldn’t feel that way if he weren’t experiencing distance from his best friend John for some reason. Instead of having one thing that explains everything, like TJLC does (all of Sherlock’s behavior is motivated by his growing love of John + distance from him), they have lots of different explanations for lots of different things, all of which fail to address the current Very Big Problem in Sherlock’s emotional arc. A refusal to connect the dots doesn’t mean that the dots don’t form a picture. You might not have a unifying theory, but the show does, and always has. When I want people to tell me what their unifying theory is, it is literally just another way of saying “If you don’t think the show is about this, then what do you think it’s about?” (And the answer can’t be “the cases” because that answer doesn’t address the bigger story in progress that connects the cases.)"

Full post here: http://wimpytentacle.co.vu/post/107965703724/before-tjlc-we-didnt-have-a-unifying-theory-and

Well written and on point I think

It was definitely worth reading.

About posting it on the other thread: I am not sure that posting it there will change the usual "It won't happen" comments. But still, I'd like to see people ignoring the good points made by the meta.

Aw, I wanted you to post it in the other thread.  
It was sure to cause mischief.  


Or am I not aloud to encourage mischief now that I'm a mod?

Last edited by tonnaree (January 13, 2015 12:47 pm)

I think you are perfectly able to find your own subjects for discussion. 

And please remember that this is a strictly pro-Johnlock thread. We have got the debate and the greatest friendship thread for dissenting opinions. 

Let me think. It cannot be that difficult to find a straight interpretation. Ah, now I have got it. Later, when she knows him better and talks about never having had sex with him, she says "I know what kind of man you are." Which means that … oops. 

SusiGo wrote:

I think you are perfectly able to find your own subjects for discussion. 

And please remember that this is a strictly pro-Johnlock thread. We have got the debate and the greatest friendship thread for dissenting opinions. 

I know, SusiGo, and I didn´t mean to intrude the fun - just as a member of "the other thread" say that the contribution would be welcome and not at all ignored.

That´s all - intruder off!