BBC Sherlock Fan Forum - Serving Sherlockians since February 2012 » Things that only make sense if Johnlock is subtext

Vhanja · February 12, 2015 1:53 pm

SusiGo wrote:
Yes, of course. I just would not equate a scene like the pool scene which is open to interpretation (and smutty stuff like the quotes thread) with the Vitruvian Man pic which is an actual detail of the show.

My point was more to show how greatly different you can view a scene depending on where you view it from. And what seems obvious through one filter might be just as obvious through a different filter.

Another example is the promo pics I posted myself in this thread. For me, the more-than-friendship is rather obvious to me in those pics. But I am quite convinced - as has been proven in this thread - that others can view the same pics and find it just as obvious that it has nothing to do with more-than-friendship.

Last edited by Vhanja (February 12, 2015 1:56 pm)

SolarSystem · February 12, 2015 2:13 pm

Vhanja wrote:
SusiGo wrote:
Yes, of course. I just would not equate a scene like the pool scene which is open to interpretation (and smutty stuff like the quotes thread) with the Vitruvian Man pic which is an actual detail of the show.
My point was more to show how greatly different you can view a scene depending on where you view it from. And what seems obvious through one filter might be just as obvious through a different filter.

Another example is the promo pics I posted myself in this thread. For me, the more-than-friendship is rather obvious to me in those pics. But I am quite convinced - as has been proven in this thread - that others can view the same pics and find it just as obvious that it has nothing to do with more-than-friendship.

But this might not just be true for a 'Johnlock filter' or 'non-Johnlock filter', we've had this in lots of other threads in the past. How we see and what we see in films, books, art in general is always determined by our background, our experience, our education, you name it. And it's good to keep this in mind when having discussions in a forum on the internet.
You've said it yourself: "...how greatly different you can view a scene depending on where you view it from" But what is the consequence then? In case of this thread, to just close the thread because it's no use talking about it because of our 'filters'? No, I think that even if it's true that we're all having our filters, it's still fascinating to read what everyone sees in certain scenes. And the challenge probably is to try and see certain things through the eyes of someone who's coming from a different place than oneself.

Vhanja · February 12, 2015 2:30 pm

Oh, yes, I'm not saying we shouldn't discuss and analyze. I love to do that myself, it's the main reason why I joined this forum in the first place.

But I think there is a difference between analyzing and having an interpretation and a view of the show, and to believe that my view must be the only correct view and must be what the writers are going for. And if they don't, then the writers are wrong.

I think it can be good to sometimes take a step back and be aware that the reason such-and-such analyzes is so clear and obviously the right one for us, is because of where we are coming from and what filter we are viewing the show through. And that for people with a different filter, it will be equally obvious for them that their interpretation is the right one, not ours.

I again fall back on what Martin said. My own take of his saying is that as long as it's all done for fun, I'm all on board, enjoying the ride to the fullest. But as soon as this becomes serious, meaning that our view is The One True View and we are just waiting for the writers to catch up, then I am no longer on board.

SusiGo · February 12, 2015 2:42 pm

Vhanja wrote:
But I think there is a difference between analyzing and having an interpretation and a view of the show, and to believe that my view must be the only correct view and must be what the writers are going for. And if they don't, then the writers are wrong.

I think it can be good to sometimes take a step back and be aware that the reason such-and-such analyzes is so clear and obviously the right one for us, is because of where we are coming from and what filter we are viewing the show through. And that for people with a different filter, it will be equally obvious for them that their interpretation is the right one, not ours.

I again fall back on what Martin said. My own take of his saying is that as long as it's all done for fun, I'm all on board, enjoying the ride to the fullest. But as soon as this becomes serious, meaning that our view is The One True View and we are just waiting for the writers to catch up, then I am no longer on board.

Do you really see this attitude on the forum? I do not. I see people discussing their various interpretations in a usually civilised and polite way. And I cannot remember anyone telling the writers what to do.

Lola Red · February 12, 2015 2:43 pm

SolarSystem wrote:
But this might not just be true for a 'Johnlock filter' or 'non-Johnlock filter', we've had this in lots of other threads in the past. How we see and what we see in films, books, art in general is always determined by our background, our experience, our education, you name it. And it's good to keep this in mind when having discussions in a forum on the internet.
You've said it yourself: "...how greatly different you can view a scene depending on where you view it from" But what is the consequence then? In case of this thread, to just close the thread because it's no use talking about it because of our 'filters'? No, I think that even if it's true that we're all having our filters, it's still fascinating to read what everyone sees in certain scenes. And the challenge probably is to try and see certain things through the eyes of someone who's coming from a different place than oneself.

That last sentence is all-important. True, we all see the world trough our own pair of glasses, but if we choose do go into a discussion with someone, we have to be willing to abandon our own point of view, at least temporary, and allow ourselves to see the matter through someone else’s eyes. I think the unwillingness to do so is why discussions go out of hand or people feel their participation in a discussion is not welcome. Translated to this thread: Johnlockers name something that, in their opinion, only makes sense if Johnlock is intentional subtext in the show. Non-Johnlockers (?) and other Johnlockers alike can then try to make sense out of it under the assumption that Johnlock is not something that is happening in the show. If something is still unclear or does not make sense for someone, the discussion goes on from there.

I have not read the intention of this thread as to convince anyone of Johnlock or not, but as an invitation to discuss. This is why I find comments in the trend of “that does not convince me” or “look at the amount of things we can come up with, clearly no-one can doubt the Johnlock subtext any longer” a bit problematic, because they seem to miss the point of “does that thing still make sense without Johnlock?”. But than again, it would not be the first time I misinterpreted the purpose of a thread.

Last edited by Lola Red (February 12, 2015 2:54 pm)

SusiGo · February 12, 2015 3:06 pm

I see what you mean. However, if you have a look at the most popular threads, you will see that they are either dedicated to Johnlock or Benedict pictures or the character of Mary Morstan. There must be a reason for this, I suppose.
I sometimes get the feeling - and this is not meant offensively in any way - that Johnlockers keep presenting all sorts of analyses and interpretations (e.g. in the official debate) while the non-Johnlockers mainly react to them.
I sometimes wonder how we would spend the hiatus without Johnlock and Mary Morstan.

Last edited by SusiGo (February 12, 2015 3:11 pm)

lil · February 12, 2015 3:10 pm

I think any debate over the Johnlock issue is biased ish from the start....the one side have hundreds of thousands of words and metas and ambiguous pics from the show.....and the other has...well everyone ( from the show) says they are just friends...and Johns straight...which is always going to make things seem a bit skewered.

Lola Red · February 12, 2015 3:45 pm

SusiGo wrote:
I see what you mean. However, if you have a look at the most popular threads, you will see that they are either dedicated to Johnlock or Benedict pictures or the character of Mary Morstan. There must be a reason for this, I suppose.
I sometimes get the feeling - and this is not meant offensively in any way - that Johnlockers keep presenting all sorts of analyses and interpretations (e.g. in the official debate) while the non-Johnlockers mainly react to them.
I sometimes wonder how we would spend the hiatus without Johnlock and Mary Morstan.

Oh, I have no problem with Johnlock-appreciation threads or “let-me-convince-you-of-Johnlock” threads or their popularity. They are great fun (as are Ben or Mary related threads, I have recently started one of the later myself) and they do a great job in getting us through the long hiatuses. I just feel that not every thread has to inevitably become either one of them. This thread in particular seemed to me to have a slightly different purpose (but again, I might be wrong about that).

lil, I see what you are saying. I just want to add that it is always easier to find evidence for a popular theory than against it. Just look at the conspiracy theories (though Johnlock is not strictly speaking a conspiracy and the following theories have graver implications than the sexuality of two fictional characters) surrounding UFO’s or the deaths of John F. Kennedy or Marilyn Monroe. For every single theory you will find more evidence for it than against it, yet some of the theories are mutually exclusive. The official versions are usually the least elaborate (UFO’s have never been sighted, Kennedy was shot by Lee Harvey Oswald, Marilyn committed suicide), they require the least amount of evidence to sound plausible. The one with the alternative theory is always the one who has to bring the extra evidence to make it plausible; the “general public” just has to call him or her out on errors or holes in the theory.

Last edited by Lola Red (February 12, 2015 4:08 pm)

Vhanja · February 12, 2015 4:02 pm

SusiGo wrote:
Do you really see this attitude on the forum? I do not. I see people discussing their various interpretations in a usually civilised and polite way. And I cannot remember anyone telling the writers what to do.

No, I*m talking in general here. Not just this forum and not just Johnlock. I don't know if you were around when J.K.Rowling once and for all sunk the ship of Harry/Hermione. It was ugly.

SusiGo · February 12, 2015 4:32 pm

I was never in the HP fandom although I love the books and the films. Must have been before my time as a shipper.

Schmiezi · February 12, 2015 8:20 pm

I have just read everything on the thread I missed today and have to say that I am so happy to see that some real discussion started.

About the Vitruvian Man: This is what the TV tropes page calls fridge brilliance. You watch the episode, notice the pic of John's head on the Intruvian Man, watch the end credits, think about it on the way to the fridge afterwards and THEN you realise what it means.

In this case, I only now realised that Sherlock had to do many steps, like Solar mentioned already: Find the da Vinci picture, print it out, find a pic of John, cut out the head, glue the head onto the other pic, find a folder, put the pic into said folder ...

(Okay, this is not bringing the discussion forward because it has been mentioned before. I just found it incredibly well done when a TV show consists of many fridge brilliance cases.)

Last edited by Schmiezi (February 12, 2015 8:33 pm)

Gilly_sirl · February 15, 2015 2:10 am

Hi! I'll try to answer the invitation to interpret these "Things" as a non-Johnlocker.

Update:

1 What was it that Sherlock wanted to say on the tarmac?

It could have been a lot of things. How he faked his death? Why he did not let him (John) in on it? Tell John to take care of himself, something we know Sherlock would certainly hesitate to say and struggle with? ; that he doesn't trust Mary? Hey, and why not : that he is gay, without any indication that he (John) is the object of his desire? To me, there is such a world of possibilities, because Sherlock hides so much things from John, and the world in general! And "I love you"? Maybe, but it's not any more probable than those I mentioned above.

2 Why did the writers leave out the wedding ceremony?

Why shouldn't they? Maybe they don't like such scenes? What do YOU think it means?

3 Why can you barely ever seen Mary during the best man speech?

Because Sherlock is speaking, and immediately to his side is his best friend John. Sherlock is John's best man, he's making a speech for the groom. The bride is his friend, but by association, therefore there is no need for us to see her reactions.

4 What did Janine mean when she said, "I wish you weren’t ... whatever it is you are."

If she meant to say "gay", why didn't she say it? "Gay" is not such a taboo anymore that the writers could not have her say it. "Whatever it is" may be something more "uncommon" for her, like asexual, or maybe the lack of interest he showed in sex leaves her really at a loss for words as to how to qualify him.

5 The knee grab

A drunk man struggling to get up and leaning on the closest thing. "I don't mind"? A sincere answer to all those "you're gay" insinuations and comments from the people around them. He doesn't care anymore, because he knows... it doesn't matter.

6 The dialogue between John and Irene ("We are not a couple", "Yes, you are. "I am not gay", "Well, I am, look at us both" *John not arguing*)

First, it think Irene is being like Mrs Hudson and sundry bystanders here and project her impression of "coupledom" on John and Sherlock. Maybe it's John not wanting to argue? Of course he loves Sherlock and wants to protect him! Does that make him gay? I think this is the core of what I think about their relationship : can't two men, and two damaged, emotionally stunted men, develop a very intense relationship without it being romantic? Doesn't profound friendship exist?

7 The mentioning of Sherlock tutoring John how to dance

Do you think Sherlock would shut up about something like that? In a lot of ways, he's like a child who wants to be praised, and he thought that was a reason to brag. Sherlock says he loves to dance. John might have brought up the need to learn some basic steps and Sherlock being his usual know-it-all, insisted on showing him. I can see the scene : Sherlock, being rather clueless as to how it could be interpreted, John, being very reluctant, but thinking, "who else am I going to ask?" (too proud to ask Mrs Hudson, I guess).

So, that was the point of view of a non-Johnlock-er.

Ah-chie · February 15, 2015 2:06 pm

Thank you Gilly-sirl! Ditto from me with everything you said.

From another non-Johnlocker -

Val

Schmiezi · February 15, 2015 5:07 pm

Please let me start with saying that I liked reading your very detailed post, gilly. Analysings like yours are the reason I opened this thread.

I don't agree with everything you wrote down and would like to comment on some of the points, anyway.

Gilly_sirl wrote:
7 The mentioning of Sherlock tutoring John how to dance
Do you think Sherlock would shut up about something like that? In a lot of ways, he's like a child who wants to be praised, and he thought that was a reason to brag. Sherlock says he loves to dance. John might have brought up the need to learn some basic steps and Sherlock being his usual know-it-all, insisted on showing him. I can see the scene : Sherlock, being rather clueless as to how it could be interpreted, John, being very reluctant, but thinking, "who else am I going to ask?" (too proud to ask Mrs Hudson, I guess).

I agree with your view of Sherlock's character. What I had in mind, though, was a question about film-making, not about character traits. I mean, why did the writers decide to mention the fact that Sherlock taught John how to dance? They could easily have said nothing about it at all, claiming John knew how to dance or he visited dancing classes or whatever.
Everybody who does ballroom dancing knows that dancing a slow waltz can be a very intimate activity. So why did the writers decide to bring it up? In my mind it could be because they want to hint at a certain romantic atmosphere. (This situation comes up in several films, Dirty Dancing and Footlose, and always lead to a "boy gets girl" situation.)
(By the way, does someome know a film or TV show where one character teaches another how to dance and they DON'T end up as a couple???)

Gilly_sirl wrote:
2 Why did the writers leave out the wedding ceremony?
Why shouldn't they? Maybe they don't like such scenes? What do YOU think it means?

Well, let me elaborate a little here. There are scenes that are so typical for demonstrating romance on TV or in the movies that they are called "tropes". You see those tropes and know that the producers want to show you romance. That are tropes like showing two people who banter a lot, and later they will realise that they only bantered because they were in love with each other. Or two people fight outside and it starts to rain and they end up kissing in the rain.
(See here for more: http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/LoveTropes)

I feel like the writers avoid using all kinds of romantic tropes when it comes to John and Mary. Maybe because they want to hint at the fact that they are showing some kind of romance, but not the one between John and Mary. Well, a wedding ceremony is one of the most romantic things in the world. Leaving out that moment confirms that intention to me.
(So does not showing the bride during the best man speech, BTW. IMO it would have been very easy to include her in most of the frames just to remind the audience of who is the married couple. Yet, the frames were chosen in a (complicated) way to exclude her.)

Gilly_sirl wrote:
6 The dialogue between John and Irene ("We are not a couple", "Yes, you are. "I am not gay", "Well, I am, look at us both" *John not arguing*)
First, it think Irene is being like Mrs Hudson and sundry bystanders here and project her impression of "coupledom" on John and Sherlock. Maybe it's John not wanting to argue? Of course he loves Sherlock and wants to protect him! Does that make him gay? I think this is the core of what I think about their relationship : can't two men, and two damaged, emotionally stunted men, develop a very intense relationship without it being romantic? Doesn't profound friendship exist?

Please note that in several other discussions, many people commented on the fact that of course profound friendship exists, but that romantic interest does not rule out profound friendship. If you want to discuss this, you could bring it up here, for example:
http://sherlock.boardhost.com/viewtopic.php?id=6003 or
http://sherlock.boardhost.com/viewtopic.php?id=3657
Here in this thread, we try to argue on the base of what is shown on screen and how it can be interpreted, not if there should be Johnlock or not.

Again, thank you for your post. It gave me a lot to think about.

Liberty · February 15, 2015 5:40 pm

I'm actually really puzzled that people expect the wedding ceremony to be have been the focus of TSOT, or even to be seen. What would it add to the story? What do you think you're missing? What would it have to do with Sherlock? Unless they were going to add something into the actual ceremony, like a murder mystery, it doesn't make any sense to make us sit through it . The focus on the best man's speech and that does make sense - it's about Sherlock and John, and there's a murder story woven into it.

The same goes for showing Mary during the speech - it's not about Mary, is it?

I do think there are definitely Johnlock references and nods in the show, and possibly Janine's comment is one of them. It's definitely ambiguous. But she doesn't seem to think he's gay - at the wedding there's no hint that she's helping him look for partners in the way that he's helping her look. She seems to know that he's not interested (in either sex). I also wonder if she'd really have wanted to have sex with him if she was sure he was gay. My guess is that it just really does mean the way he is - he doesn't do sex and "relationships" (except a fake one for a work-related reason!).

Liberty · February 15, 2015 5:50 pm

SusiGo wrote:
I see what you mean. However, if you have a look at the most popular threads, you will see that they are either dedicated to Johnlock or Benedict pictures or the character of Mary Morstan. There must be a reason for this, I suppose.
I sometimes get the feeling - and this is not meant offensively in any way - that Johnlockers keep presenting all sorts of analyses and interpretations (e.g. in the official debate) while the non-Johnlockers mainly react to them.
I sometimes wonder how we would spend the hiatus without Johnlock and Mary Morstan.

I think that's true. I think it's mostly because if you don't see Johnlock there, you're not looking for bits that don't show it, if you know what I mean.   It's not like I could post a lot of examples of scenes where they're not showing attraction to each other - it wouldn't really make sense.   And it's difficult to prove that something isn't there.

Over in the other thread I did try to give an interpretation of a scene with screenshots when I was asked to do so - it got no reaction whatsoever! .

I suppose Johnlock and Mary are the two overarching "mysteries" at the moment, and two quite emotive areas for some reason - I think you're right that we'd be a bit lost without them during the hiatus!   Especially if nothing is resolved in the special.

Ah-chie · February 15, 2015 5:59 pm

Schmiezi,

You asked "By the way, does someome know a film or TV show where one character teaches another how to dance and they DON'T end up as a couple???"

Well, I can think of two right off the top of my head - Six Dance Lessons in Six Weeks and Shall We Dance. And there is the fact that perhaps the writers of Sherlock wanted to avoid a rather cliched approach to the use of dance in the story. Maybe they wanted to take a fresh approach and use a bit of humour in the process. I look upon the whole dancing bit as their (meaning the writers) sense of humour showing.

You go on to say "I feel like the writers avoid using all kinds of romantic tropes when it comes to John and Mary. Maybe because they want to hint at the fact that they are showing some kind of romance, but not the one between John and Mary. Well, a wedding ceremony is one of the most romantic things in the world. Leaving out that moment confirms that intention to me.
(So does not showing the bride during the best man speech, BTW. IMO it would have been very easy to include her in most of the frames just to remind the audience of who is the married couple. Yet, the frames were chosen in a (complicated) way to exclude her.)"

I think gilly's explanation for more emphasis being on John and Sherlock in a visual sense (because Mary isn't excluded entirely from the head table shots) makes total story sense and cinematography sense if the writers/directors want to show a great friendship between the two main characters.

And to me it supports my feelings that the whole show is about the "profound friendship" of Sherlock and John so why not focus on them in the best man speech? The scene works wonderfully an demonsration of their pure, intense friendship and I don't see any real reason to presuppose that only Johnlock has to explain the form the scene takes.

Your initial question (or statement really) was that certain scenes could only be made sense of if Johnlock is present in a subtextual way. Yes, romance can include a deep and abiding friendship - I don't think anyone can argue that premise in theory, but that isn't what is being debated here I think. What Gilly (and I) are saying is that the scenes that have been selected can be explained and do make total sense even though folks like us see no Johnlock in them. They are simply a demonstration of a profound friendship - and not of a romantic vein at all.

-Val

nakahara · February 15, 2015 6:22 pm

There´s one scene in the show that genuinely puzzles me. It´s the moment when Sherlock and John are visiting Baker Street for the first time and Mrs. Hudson sais: "There´s other bedroom upstairs Dr. Watson, if you wish for two bedrooms." John, astonished, replies: "Of course we´ll be needing two bedrooms,", but Sherlock, as always, is silent on the matter and doesn´t seem bothered at all.

To me the dialogue in this scene indicates that Sherlock originally bargained only for one bedroom with Mrs. Hudson. It is very strange that he didn´t mention anything to John before Mrs. Hudson offered to lent them second bedroom. Was he prepared to share it? Or how do you understand the scene?

Vhanja · February 15, 2015 6:27 pm

nakahara wrote:
There´s one scene in the show that genuinely puzzles me. It´s the moment when Sherlock and John are visiting Baker Street for the first time and Mrs. Hudson sais: "There´s other bedroom upstairs Dr. Watson, if you wish for two bedrooms." John, astonished, replies: "Of course we´ll be needing two bedrooms,", but Sherlock, as always, is silent on the matter and doesn´t seem bothered at all.

To me the dialogue in this scene indicates that Sherlock originally bargained only for one bedroom with Mrs. Hudson. It is very strange that he didn´t mention anything to John before Mrs. Hudson offered to lent them second bedroom. Was he prepared to share it? Or how do you understand the scene?

This is a point in general that many Johnlockers bring up. There are several people who think Sherlock and John are together. John always denies it, Sherlock says nothing. In the Angelo scene in ASiP, Sherlock contradicts just about everything Angelo says ("I cleared his name a bit". "You did go to prison"). Right until Angelo says "I'll get a candle for your date, more romantic" - and Sherlock says nothing.

Of course, I personally think that the reason Sherlock never replies to any of this is because I think he zones it out. In HLV he did say that he zones out most of the things Mrs. Hudson says. To him, it's boring and irrelevant, so he just ignores it. Or so I think.

Ah-chie · February 15, 2015 6:32 pm

nakahara wrote:
There´s one scene in the show that genuinely puzzles me. It´s the moment when Sherlock and John are visiting Baker Street for the first time and Mrs. Hudson sais: "There´s other bedroom upstairs Dr. Watson, if you wish for two bedrooms." John, astonished, replies: "Of course we´ll be needing two bedrooms,", but Sherlock, as always, is silent on the matter and doesn´t seem bothered at all.

To me the dialogue in this scene indicates that Sherlock originally bargained only for one bedroom with Mrs. Hudson. It is very strange that he didn´t mention anything to John before Mrs. Hudson offered to lent them second bedroom. Was he prepared to share it? Or how do you understand the scene?

I took Sherlock's silence on the matter to be because he isn't concerned with such matters in any regard. It doesn't clutter up his mind (not worth his time responding to Hudders because John had already said something). It doesn't indicate anything to me other than the fact that Sherlock ignores a lot of extranious conversations.

According to the layout plan that I have seen of the apartment the upstairs bedroom came with the apartment. Mrs. Hudson was merely informing John of that fact (and because she had mistakeningly thought that they might also be gay she included the fact that maybe they didn't need it?).

-Val