If it is not about personal views, what is it that you are arguing about?

The Times correctly states that shippers generally (using Sherlock as an example) take a relationship in a piece of fiction and push it farther, or take it in a different direction, than is overtly depicted in the show. In addition to the column writer's own understanding of the show, in the case of Sherlock they have the creators' own unambiguous statements as to the relationship they intend to present as the basemark, and the equally unambiguous art and fiction in the fanwork world to refer to as to where these artists and writers have taken it. And that is what they presented, albeit in the very brief manner dictated by the format of the new column.

Last edited by REReader (March 3, 2015 7:46 pm)

Ah-chie wrote:

I read SusiGo's remark to say that she thought that the the way things were put by in the item showed they (the writers I assume) didn't get the show - I disagreed with her opinion.

Achie, I just think you didn't get her right here.

Re: "wholesale invention"

SusiGo wrote:

I think it means that Johnlock as a whole is nothing but an invention by fans having no basis whatsoever in the show itself. Which, frankly, shows to me that they no idea of the show itself. Even people outside the fandom have remarked on the chemistry between them. Or think of the famous Korean trailers. 

Sorry, Harriet, but I think I read her correctly. 

I addressed her stated opinion in her post about the item. I also opinioned about her remark about "chemistry". There was nothing in my post that was not directly related to her post and the topic in the NYT item.

Regardless of SusiGo's post, I still think I should be able to voice my opinion about something that is directly related to the topic at hand (shipping on the show as presented in the NYT item) especially when the thread starter didn't have any objections to the comments I made. 

There was nothing in my posts that were disrespectful of other's opinions or off topic. I just stated my personal opinion as best I could to add to the discussion. 

-Val
 

Just for clarification:

My words:
I think it means that Johnlock as a whole is nothing but an invention by fans having no basis whatsoever in the show itself. Which, frankly, shows to me that they have no idea of the show itself. 

My meaning:
The writer(s) of this article apparently do not know the show very well. If they did, they might say that they do not see Johnlock but not that it is a wholesale invention. The homoerotic subtext of the show has not only been discussed by lots of fans and various media, but also by academics (from various fields like gender or film studies) who in my experience usually do not waste their time on analysing wholesale inventions by crazy fans. This is all I wanted to say and nothing of it was directed against anyone on this board. 

 

Last edited by SusiGo (March 4, 2015 7:54 am)

Thanks, mrshouse, for both comments.

I'm on a little-screen device, so I will confine myself to two short comments just now:

1. Seeing as the (very short, OF NECESSITY, because of the format of the new feature) piece actually begins with the words "Part of the Internet’s beauty is the space it affords people to take an idea and run with it" (emphasis mine), it takes a very tortured reading to turn the piece into an attack on, rather than an explanation of, shipping.

Shipping has been a feature of fandom at least from the original Star Trek and possibly earlier--but Star Trek coincided with the beginning of widespread use of the photocopier, which allowed people to share their work easily; this sharing obviously exploded with the growth of the Internet. I brought the piece because it seemed interesting to me that The New York Times--an organ not given to squeeing--used Sherlock, rather than any other show, to exemplify the term.

2. "it's not right if the Johnlockers are inspected like lunatics." Neither the New York Times nor anyone here has done so. And I would add that it's not right that people who don't see eroticism in every instance of emotional closeness are inspected like lunatics, but a great many of you are showing that you have no hesitation in doing so, repeatedly and self-righteously. Please desist.

As an answer I would like to cite myself: Everybody has an opinion about this and must be free to voice it.
I seriously don't know where I ever have treated a non-johnlocker as lunatic in a self-righteous manner, you can prove me wrong if you find anything in my posts. As this gets quite impolite I will leave this thread now.

This is not what mrshouse wrote, but quite the opposite. She applied the word "lunatics" to the Johnlockers being inspected, not to the non-Johnlockers.

Indeed. There's the whole problem right there. 

First, in the assumption that the article treats Johnlockers as lunatics, which I cannot see it does and I have explained my reasoning on that several times. Second, in the assumption that anyone else on this thread has referred to Johnlockers as lunatics, directly or indirectly--I take a strong personal offense to that, and I have explained why more than once. Third, in the assumption that disagreeing with the notion that Johnlock exists in the show is the same thing as treating Johnlockers as lunatics; it is not.

And fourth and most specifically, in the assumption that it is perfectly fine to treat people who disagree with the view that Johnlock exists in the show (and I am personally offended by the term "non-Johnlocker") as lunatics or out of the mainstream, which has been done several times IN THIS VERY THREAD, both in attitude and in word.

In addition, I read mrshouse's comments--and all the other comments--quite carefully, but it is clear the favor has not been returned. It seems to me that a considerable number of people commenting on this post read neither The New York Times piece nor any of my responses at all, let alone carefully, since every actual fact I have mentioned has been totally ignored. 

And, since I have been asked, a few examples of instances in which people who do not share the Johnlock-within-the-show viewpoint have been treated as lunatics:

"I think it means that Johnlock as a whole is nothing but an invention by fans having no basis whatsoever in the show itself. Which, frankly, shows to me that they have no idea of the show itself." (emphasis mine)

"you don't have to search long for Johnlock hints when it's so widely acknowledged by unsuspicious individuals and institutions"

"The homoerotic subtext of the show has not only been discussed by lots of fans and various media but also by academics"

 --All of these accept and use as the underlying argument that if you do not see Johnlock in the show, you are a lunatic. Indeed, the entire quoted post from Academic Fangirl condescendingly posits that anyone in disagreement with the Johnlock-within-the-show viewpoint is unintelligent, uninformed, or homophobic. 

[An aside: And yet, here is an example of media attention that does not assume a homoerotic subtext to the show. If discussion of such in the media is proof that there IS a homoerotic subtext, then it must be that this piece is a proof that there is NOT a homoerotic subtext. Likewise, there is an enormous academic and fan-written trove of Sherlockiana, the vast majority of which is devoted to explaining minutiae of the ACD canon and has nothing whatsoever to do with homoeroticism.

Personally, this seems to me a totally irrelevant point either way, but if you want it one way you have to have it the other.]

And lastly:
"if you think a kiss shouldn't have happened in the tarmac scene, then you have no heart." 

Frankly, I'm thinking I should just ask Sherlock Holmes to delete the thread, since there seems to be more interest in bashing the view that the show is not inherently homoerotic than in discussing any of the implications of such a piece appearing in The New York Times, which I thought was interesting and significant, and an immense compliment to the reach of the show. There are dozens of Johnlock threads in which the Johnlock question could be argued out, and I have no interest in debating the matter. I have tried multiple times to move the discussion away from it, and I'm tired of it.

Last edited by REReader (March 4, 2015 4:12 pm)

SusiGo wrote:

It was you who posted the link to a thread dealing with Johnlock. Anyone is free to comment on it, Johnlocker or not. 
 

? I posted no links to any other threads. I posted one link to the premier piece in a new New York Times Magazine column, and that is the only link I posted in this thread.

And you know what? I don't like having my points ignored or misstated, but that's what I've been getting.

Last edited by REReader (March 4, 2015 4:19 pm)

Wow, I wanted to comment on the article but after reading the rest of the thread I am not sure if I still want to ...

Well, maybe it could be a "back to topic" post.

What I personally don't like about this article are these things:

1. I think that if you want to report about "shipping" you should mention the whole Kirk/Spock thing from the seventies. It might be the history teacher in me or the trekkie, but this is where it started in modern media times.

2. Mentioning Fawnlock was only necessary to influence the reader in believing that "shipping" is something weird I think.

3. It's way too superficial. Readers who knew that shipping exist learnt nothing new, readers who didn't know it didn't get a detailed idea of what it is.

So thanks for posting, interesting read, but rather bad journalism in my humble opinion.