BBC Sherlock Fan Forum - Serving Sherlockians since February 2012 » Sherlock's love for John

Marva · January 14, 2014 10:03 pm

There's nothing wrong in that.

Ozma · January 14, 2014 10:04 pm

Swanpride wrote:
They will never define the love, because they bascially write it like it is written in canon. Unless ACD suddenly comes to life again and says "They were a romantic pair after Mary died" or "Watson's only and true love was Mary Morstan", they will keep it ambigious. Because that's canon.

but also Moffat said 'this is a new version', and therefore they might even give Sherlock a love interest. Did Sherlock Holmes have a love interest in canon?

(not that I actually believe they will, mind)

Ozma · January 14, 2014 10:17 pm

Swanpride wrote:
When did he say that?

And no, Sherlock didn't have one...not even Irene Adler was a clear cut love interest. More someone who impressed him, and who might (might!) have shaken his resolve that romance is not for him. I really don't see the writers ignoring this very important character trait.

no, I don't see it either, and I'm sure he was trolling again, but yet....he's said it. In the BBC Q&A after the episode on Sunday night.

Ozma · January 14, 2014 10:20 pm

right here: http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b03pzpgy/live and scroll down.

It's a twitter question.

Ozma · January 14, 2014 10:22 pm

in fact, may I say that what they said is, 'We are open to anything'

Their words.

Ozma · January 14, 2014 10:30 pm

Swanpride wrote:
No writer allows the fans to nail him down - it's just a typical "You can ask, but we wont say" answer.

well, not really. Someone else asked if there will be a romance for Mycroft, and they said 'NO'.

What do we say about this?

silverblaze · January 14, 2014 10:53 pm

besleybean wrote:
I love your signature.

Idem dito. Reminds me of John Stewart Mill.

About the free interpretation, people always like different aspects of the show, one will like it for the relationships, another for the riddles, another for the thrills, and you see all those things on this forum.
Furthermore, some people like to create their own fiction, johnlock, slash or just canonfic, and that's great too, it enhances the enjoyment of the show.

However, that doesn't mean that the writers didn't have a certain intention with a scene or a piece of dialogue. Even when there is subtext, the subtext still means only one thing, and not two contradictory things at the same time.

For example, in the goodbye scene, Sherlock clearly hasn't been entirely honest with John about the nature of the mission. If you use your free interpretation and say that John in fact knew he was gonna die, you're wrong. He might have read something off Sherlock's face and suspected something, but he didn't really know. There is a right and a wrong way to interpret the scene.

Same for johnlock, they make it pretty obvious that John is straight and Sherlock not interested at all and they even said so in various interviews. Doesn't mean you cannot amuse yourself by imagining johnlock subtext in every scene, but if you think that's what the writers intended you're wrong.

Luckily most johnlockers don't take it so seriously.

Amy Airiel · January 14, 2014 10:56 pm

Marva wrote:
Amy, I've made a somewhat similar experience. I've been a johnlocker, but only in terms of fanfic etc. This is the first time I actually see it on screen. As I stated before somewhere: I would have bought it if Sherlock had confessed his (romantic) love at the airplane.

I would have, too. Totally. What for other people including me some time ago would have been weird and senseless; would have turned very plausible, even certainly beautiful. And painful, really painful, given that he was gonna leave forever.
I'm a romantic.

Mrs. Watson · January 14, 2014 11:16 pm

Amy Airiel wrote:
Marva wrote:
Amy, I've made a somewhat similar experience. I've been a johnlocker, but only in terms of fanfic etc. This is the first time I actually see it on screen. As I stated before somewhere: I would have bought it if Sherlock had confessed his (romantic) love at the airplane.
I would have, too. Totally. What for other people including me some time ago would have been weird and senseless; would have turned very plausible, even certainly beautiful. And painful, really painful, given that he was gonna leave forever.
I'm a romantic.

I agree. There are things that are a fact (i.e. John is straight, he likes women and see Sherlock only as a friend). So I'm not expecting them to become romantically involved, I know that it won't happen. But my point in this thread is that Sherlock loves John deeply and unconditionally. Is it romantic love? I don't know because I'm not sure Sherlock is able to feel romantic love.

If you had asked me in series 1 I would had said that I wasn't sure that Sherlock could love at all (any kind of love). In series 2 I would have said he could feel respect and that he cared deeply for John.

I have always been a Johnlocker but I was the 1st one to admit that it was only a fantasy and I couldn't see it in the show (well, except when John got jealous of Irene). But now? This entire series has been a testament to how much Sherlock loves John. John loves Sherlock too but only as a friend (a brother maybe), that's clear. Sherlock loves John above everything (even above his own freedom and even his own life). Call it whatever kind of love that you want but it's so big and so unconditional that it really makes me cry.

Ozma · January 14, 2014 11:23 pm

Mrs. Watson wrote:
But now? This entire series has been a testament to how much Sherlock loves John. John loves Sherlock too but only as a friend (a brother maybe), that's clear. Sherlock loves John above everything (even above his own freedom and even his own life). Call it whatever kind of love that you want but it's so big and so unconditional that it really makes me cry.

As I said, I am on the fence - I'm not a Johnlocker, but not opposed to any development.

But this- I really agree with this. And this is why when I left the screening I was feeling really distraught and like I really wanted to give Sherlock a big hug.

Edgeucated · January 14, 2014 11:27 pm

Mrs. Watson wrote:
Amy Airiel wrote:
Marva wrote:
Amy, I've made a somewhat similar experience. I've been a johnlocker, but only in terms of fanfic etc. This is the first time I actually see it on screen. As I stated before somewhere: I would have bought it if Sherlock had confessed his (romantic) love at the airplane.
I would have, too. Totally. What for other people including me some time ago would have been weird and senseless; would have turned very plausible, even certainly beautiful. And painful, really painful, given that he was gonna leave forever.
I'm a romantic.
I agree. There are things that are a fact (i.e. John is straight, he likes women and see Sherlock only as a friend). So I'm not expecting them to become romantically involved, I know that it won't happen. But my point in this thread is that Sherlock loves John deeply and unconditionally. Is it romantic love? I don't know because I'm not sure Sherlock is able to feel romantic love.

If you had asked me in series 1 I would had said that I wasn't sure that Sherlock could love at all (any kind of love). In series 2 I would have said he could feel respect and that he cared deeply for John.

I have always been a Johnlocker but I was the 1st one to admit that it was only a fantasy and I couldn't see it in the show (well, except when John got jealous of Irene). But now? This entire series has been a testament to how much Sherlock loves John. John loves Sherlock too but only as a friend (a brother maybe), that's clear. Sherlock loves John above everything (even above his own freedom and even his own life). Call it whatever kind of love that you want but it's so big and so unconditional that it really makes me cry.

This.Not Johnlocker,but this 100%.Love doesn't have to be about sex all the time.

Last edited by Edgeucated (January 14, 2014 11:28 pm)

shezza · January 14, 2014 11:30 pm

Yes, it's quite moving how someone like Sherlock utterly adores John.

Ozma · January 14, 2014 11:31 pm

Who would have thought.

The Doctor · January 15, 2014 3:03 am

Mirthxx wrote:
When Sherlock said don't go in my bedroom - I thought it was because the chair was in there.

I have to admit this was (only) my third red hering ever to get me in the Sherlock-verse too!

NotYourHousekeeperDear · January 15, 2014 5:18 am

My latest theory is that bromance is the new romance. I really love how two episodes of this season were spent repairing and developing John and Sherlock's relationship, and then the pay off in HLV, where we see finally, sherlock being able to freely admit John is his best friend and his raison d'être .
Looking back on seasons 1 and 2 now, I realise how the writers couldn't really go much further with the Johnlock thing- how many more "I'm not gay" jokes could they do? So instead they actually built something more real and poignant, actually a lot better than a romantic entanglement, which as we know from other Tv shows can not be sustained long term without some release of sexual tension.

SolarSystem · January 15, 2014 6:19 am

besleybean wrote:
Well it's not a quiz show.
It is Mark and Steven's vision of the Sherlock Holmes stories.

Yep. And up to a certain point this vision leaves space for interpretation. In my opinion they are very clever, because they rather show us certain things instead of having Sherlock or John actually say it out loud. In Series 3 they worked with looks quite a lot, even more than they did in Series 1 & 2. And some of those looks spoke volumes - at least to me. If it worked differently for other people, that's totally fine.
I just would really appreciate it if we all could grant each other the freedom of interpretation and of reading between the lines. And if someone thinks that there's nothing to read between the lines, fine. I'll still do it if I think that there is something to read.

Schmiezi · January 15, 2014 7:27 am

SolarSystem wrote:
besleybean wrote:
Well it's not a quiz show.
It is Mark and Steven's vision of the Sherlock Holmes stories.
Yep. And up to a certain point this vision leaves space for interpretation. In my opinion they are very clever, because they rather show us certain things instead of having Sherlock or John actually say it out loud. In Series 3 they worked with looks quite a lot, even more than they did in Series 1 & 2. And some of those looks spoke volumes - at least to me. If it worked differently for other people, that's totally fine.
I just would really appreciate it if we all could grant each other the freedom of interpretation and of reading between the lines. And if someone thinks that there's nothing to read between the lines, fine. I'll still do it if I think that there is something to read.

Absolutely. I don't see (and didn't see in the past) the fuss some people make about the "right" and the "wrong" interpretation of the show.

First, I think that if Moftiss wanted us to see it in only one "right" way, they would have been able to write it in a way that left no space for interpretation.

Second, why does it matter to people if someone chooses the "wrong" interpreation and is happy with it? It's not like the International Interpretation Police will come for an arrest.

Ozma · January 15, 2014 7:54 am

Schmiezi wrote:
SolarSystem wrote:
besleybean wrote:
Well it's not a quiz show.
It is Mark and Steven's vision of the Sherlock Holmes stories.
Yep. And up to a certain point this vision leaves space for interpretation. In my opinion they are very clever, because they rather show us certain things instead of having Sherlock or John actually say it out loud. In Series 3 they worked with looks quite a lot, even more than they did in Series 1 & 2. And some of those looks spoke volumes - at least to me. If it worked differently for other people, that's totally fine.
I just would really appreciate it if we all could grant each other the freedom of interpretation and of reading between the lines. And if someone thinks that there's nothing to read between the lines, fine. I'll still do it if I think that there is something to read.
Absolutely. I don't see (and didn't see in the past) the fuss some people make about the "right" and the "wrong" interpretation of the show.

First, I think that if Moftiss wanted us to see it in only one "right" way, they would have been able to write it in a way that left no space for interpretation.

Second, why does it matter to people if someone chooses the "wrong" interpreation and is happy with it? It's not like the International Interpretation Police will come for an arrest.

AGREED.

On the Mofftsiss point too - it would have been very easy for them not to leave anything for interpretation. Thank God they are not like that, though - it's half of their brilliance.

Marva · January 15, 2014 8:28 am

Ozma wrote:
Schmiezi wrote:
SolarSystem wrote:

Yep. And up to a certain point this vision leaves space for interpretation. In my opinion they are very clever, because they rather show us certain things instead of having Sherlock or John actually say it out loud. In Series 3 they worked with looks quite a lot, even more than they did in Series 1 & 2. And some of those looks spoke volumes - at least to me. If it worked differently for other people, that's totally fine.
I just would really appreciate it if we all could grant each other the freedom of interpretation and of reading between the lines. And if someone thinks that there's nothing to read between the lines, fine. I'll still do it if I think that there is something to read.
Absolutely. I don't see (and didn't see in the past) the fuss some people make about the "right" and the "wrong" interpretation of the show.

First, I think that if Moftiss wanted us to see it in only one "right" way, they would have been able to write it in a way that left no space for interpretation.

Second, why does it matter to people if someone chooses the "wrong" interpreation and is happy with it? It's not like the International Interpretation Police will come for an arrest.
AGREED.

On the Mofftsiss point too - it would have been very easy for them not to leave anything for interpretation. Thank God they are not like that, though - it's half of their brilliance.

I want to add the acting of Ben and Martin here, too. Most of the subtext is not in the script (therefore it's subtext, it is not said directly), but in the way they look at each other. I really wonder what both of them actually (!) think of Sherlock's and John's relationship. I don't care what they say in interviews ("deep friendship, nothing else"), because obviously, if things were that easy, they wouldn't act as they do. I am not indicating that Ben and Martin are secretly working towards a slash relationship. But they must be aware of the aparent ambiguity.

SolarSystem · January 15, 2014 9:55 am

Marva wrote:
I want to add the acting of Ben and Martin here, too. Most of the subtext is not in the script (therefore it's subtext, it is not said directly), but in the way they look at each other. I really wonder what both of them actually (!) think of Sherlock's and John's relationship. I don't care what they say in interviews ("deep friendship, nothing else"), because obviously, if things were that easy, they wouldn't act as they do. I am not indicating that Ben and Martin are secretly working towards a slash relationship. But they must be aware of the aparent ambiguity.

I agree, I'd just like to add that a lot of subtext is indeed in the scripts. Just think about the empty armchairs...! The picture would even work without Sherlock or John staring at them, it wouldn't work as heartbreakingly, but it still would work.
Apart from that, interviews.... well, what is said in interviews might add another perspective. But you have to remember that most 'normal' viewers don't even read those interviews, all they have to go on is what is shown to them in the episodes. I said this in another thread a while ago, this is the nature of art. It's done by an artist and then he/she hands it over to an audience, a reader, the visitors of museums and so forth. At this point the artist is out of the picture. And all the audience has to go on is the work of art.