Here's another artlice from The Telegraph about the non-sexual relationship of John and Sherlock -

Is it really so hard to believe that two chaps can share a hearth, a hob and an interest in homicide without wanting to grapple like the cowboys in Brokeback Mountain? For with the new series of Sherlock comes fresh and tedious speculation that Holmes and Watson are more than just good friends. Yet it’s clear to any perspicacious observer that the two men are simply enjoying what our American friends might call “a bromance” – or the beautiful relationship that can exist between two heterosexual men who find each other’s company far more intoxicating than that of any woman’s.

The problem with the Stateside incarnation is that everyone is so neurotic about demonstrating their rampant heterosexuality they have to salivate over women in the manner of teen delinquents. I have long been convinced that the only reason Captain Kirk is portrayed as a Casanova is to deflect insinuations about his relationship with Spock.

Happily, the most splendid exemplars of male bonding in the English canon are far too dignified to behave in such a faux-macho manner. Doctor Who need not chase skirt with the Brigadier and you wouldn’t find George Bernard Shaw’s Professor Higgins and Colonel Pickering ogling the housemaids. The British bromance finds its origins in the camaraderie of boarding school, Oxbridge, military service, the Houses of Parliament and gentlemen’s clubs. It is all about loyalty, companionship and risking your life for one another should occasion demand it. The likes of Patrick O’Brian’s Captain Jack Aubrey and Dr Stephen Maturin show their affection with firearms, for it is only on the brink of death that emotion may be expressed. When Dr Watson is shot in The Adventure of the Three Garridebs he writes, “It was worth a wound; it was worth many wounds; to know the depth of loyalty and love which lay behind that cold mask.” Of course it was; would any chick show that depth?

The Great British brand of bromance is also, of course, about seeing even less of womankind than you would in a monk’s cell. Strangely, these restrictions don’t seem to put the native women off one jot. We see a man who doesn’t flirt as life’s greatest challenge. Only in Britain could the resolutely non-smouldering Merlin, Doctor Who, and Sherlock Holmes become national sex symbols.

I really like that the show steadfastly remains about their friendship.  Yes, they do utilise the "more than friends" aspect as a humourous point, as well as to show just how deep their feelings are for each other (seen by some who don't see the profoundity of the bonds of their friendship and just assume it has to be "something more"). 

For me the "perfect friendship" is enough on its own.  It doesn't need the added aspect of sexual attraction to make it any deeper.  And I like it that Mary was introduced as the one character who totally "got" what their friendship was all about right from the get-go - she never gave off any vibe of jealousy and only seemed to encourage their togetherness.  That was refreshing from a storytelling POV.

I hope they find more ways to explore this most perfect of friendships because that is what the Holmes/Watson legacy is built on IMO.

-Val

I think it's about how male friendships are shown are in Britain (as opposed to the US, which is a big influence over here).  It's interesting because how a male friendship is shown will tend to be very different to how a female friendship is shown - I don't think you'd usually expect quite the same buttoned up aspect with a female one. (There's a bit of a lack of female friendships in the show - which is fine, as that's not what the show's about).

I really like this interview from right back at Sherlock's launch, with Steven Moffat, Mark Ravenhill and Gavin Esler interviewing.  My transcript, so there could be mistakes:

MR: And I think that's what's so fascinating about the Watson/Holmes relationship.  Often in movies and TV, the buddy relationship (...) they're easier to know than the women around you.  So you retreat to your buddy.  But actually, Holmes and Watson ... Watson's never going to quite figure out who Holmes is.  So he .. here is an element of mystery about him, as well, as there is with the Doctor.  

GE:  How far is this a buddy movie?  I mean, it is about the relationship between these two men.

SM: You know I think the Sherlock Holmes stories have always been about the friendship.  I mean, the surface level is the detection, but what you fall in love with is these two impossible opposites who adore each other.  And it's a very male friendship in that they never sit down and ever, ever talk about it.  And there's only one instance in the entire canon of the show that comes to where Sherlock Holmes admits he likes Dr Watson, one occasion, when he thinks Dr Watson is about to die.  That's it!  A totally male friendship, you only say anything nice if someone is dead in front of you.  

GE: Where does the gay bit come in?  I mean are you playing with it?  Are you teasing the audience?

SM: Do you know what?  It doesn't really.   Even in that scene, what we're doing there is kind of dismissing it.  Who knows who Sherlock Holmes fancies?  I don't think he fancies anyone except himself.

GE: So, that's part of the mystery that Mark was talking about.  Is that how you saw it?

MR: Yeah, I think on one level it's not gay at all, and that scene brilliantly dismisses that.  And yet, as I said, it does play with this thing of normally the male-male relationship is you're with somebody more comfortable and more safe than females, who are strange and mysterious to straight men.  And yet, Dr Watson finds himself with this kind of elusive, changeable, mysterious person.  And in a lot of fiction, it's the female character.  So there is something about the male-female relationship, alongside the buddy thing, which makes it much more complex than most buddy-buddy relationships.

So it's not just the usual male friendship that we'd normally see in films, but there's that element of Sherlock being this unpredictable, romantic character that John is rather enthralled by.  And the friendship is very much centre stage, rather than taking a backseat to the mysteries.  Several years later, John still doesn't really understand Sherlock, but he's still fascinated by him, and their relationship is absolutely loving and loyal.  They do talk about it a little more than their Victorian counterparts, on rare occasions actually saying what they feel, but a lot of the time, it's banter.  On the surface, it's light-hearted and mildly insulting, but both of them know what's really being said. 

Last edited by Liberty (June 17, 2015 6:56 am)

Schmiezi wrote:

Um, that sounds pretty ironic to me. Are you sure it really supports the friendship-only theorie?

 
It doesn't sound ironic to me Schmiezi.  It seems to be written cleverly, with some humour, but earnest about presenting the arguments about the kind of friendship that John and Sherlock have all the same.

Re. Liberty's comment... Thanks for posting those remarks.  That seems to indicate that SM supports the homosocial friendship elements of the relationship of Watson and Holmes.  A deep and abiding bond of loyalty and loving friendship... the essence of the stories to be sure, to me!

-Val

Sherlock Holmes wrote:

Which scene are they even talking about here? ...

As the interview is "from right back at Sherlock's launch" I strongly suspect the scene in question is the one in Angelo's restaurant in A Study in Pink.
 

Ah okay, I get it now. The canon scene would be Three Garridebs, I presume?

Kittyhawk wrote:

Have you really never shared a flat, a room or a bed with a person without having sex with them? I have...

I have, too, ...and fell for them, which made being flatmates very uncomfortable :D

Of course there is friendship like that, many many of them, but what I think is needed for such a strong, always platonic friendship, is to keep anything out that would cross the border. To keep the possibilty out. Because as soon as there is a possibilty, it wants to be explored. Or that's what I think humans do because they are curious little beings.

And I can't deny that I see possibility in Sherlock - which doesn't mean it has to be fulfilled and turn into romantic love. But if it was a "stable" (platonic) friendship bond, I would guess there would be no ambiguity.

So if someone says "can be read both ways", I would already think there is a possibilty, otherwise they wouldn't see it. (BUT, that would be with a unbiased view. But can we ever exclude cultural imprint (is that the word?) / personal experience / education / expectiations we form / general world view... )

It's just - to me - very obvious that the writers of bbc sherlock add ambiguity on purpose, and therefore a platonic friendship is for me, in this series... at least questionable (which doesn't mean it cannot be). What I do see, is friendship, on which might or might not be added a romantic interest. In canon, I have to admit, I never saw ambiguity.

Something which always confuses me in these discussions about friendship and love: the greatest friendship in fiction is not a confined term, it just says something is great, it doesn't say something else cannot be. If we read it as inclusive term, the base of a romance and a good relationship can still be a great friendship.
I am not sure which definition you assume for the discussion, I haven't yet read the whole thread. Also "platonic" is a term referring to a certain kind of friendship, and it isn't automatically the opposite of romance, there are loads of other great / strong friendships that still don't have to be platonic. (I know you know that, I just wanted to direct awareness to it.)
 

Last edited by Whisky (June 18, 2015 11:30 am)

Ah-chie, sorry. I just tried to answer Kittyhawk :-) and took a peek into the first post in this thread which didn't feel that strict at all, especially as others have already mentioned the possibility of two different interpretations of the same scene. (and it's also possible to define something by saying what it is not). and as I said, what I do see easily and obvious, is friendship - so we are in the same boat there i suppose
the second part of my post was actually not about questioning the friendship in favour of romance, but to ask or to clarify what platonic friendship could mean. I find the term very difficult because the original meaning of "platonic" is very different to the way we might use that term today. and while I find it easy to see the greatest frienship in fiction, I find it more difficult to call it platonic, when platonic in the original meaning was strongly connected to the concept of love. I find myself struggling with the term, using it all over the place, but I'm not even sure I know what it means and means not. help appreciated :-)
re-reading, I think what you objected to is the romance part, not the love part, right? so platonic, in this case, means brotherly love without romance. okay :-)

let's discuss the pure friendship then :-)

 

Last edited by Whisky (June 18, 2015 10:00 pm)

The officical meaning (according to Collins dictionary) of platonic is "free from physical desire". Or, as Liberty says, no sex. And I don't think Sherlock and John in the show are having sex. Most of the time I don't even think they secretely want to (though I admit that the show is ambiguous, deliberately so. After all, this discussion is what keeps things interesting and the show alive.)

However, between John being annoyed with Sherlock much of the time and Sherlock (ab)using him (sorry, still not over the Underground scene and never will be) I'm wondering whether it really is such a great friendship...

There's an interesting bit on this recent video with an interview from Martin Freeman about John and Sherlock's friendship (starting at the 1:04 mark)...



Well said, Martin!
To me their friendship is an enduring relationship based on a respect for each other and I truly believe that they both do bring different things into their friendship and that is the essence of the show - the deep, non-sexual, love between these two characters.  It's not about the "boning"; it's about the bonding!

-Val
 

Last edited by Ah-chie (September 25, 2015 2:53 am)

Thanks for posting the lovely interview, Val! (Is it just me or does he seem a tiny bit exhausted about the topic?)