BBC Sherlock Fan Forum - Serving Sherlockians since February 2012 » Johnlock: The Official Debate

besleybean · May 18, 2014 8:30 pm

And me.

silverblaze · May 18, 2014 9:15 pm

Nerdy intermezzo: may I please point out that being gay or straight is biologically determined and one cannot change it, no matter how cool a certain person is. (It's determined by the development of certain nuclei in the hypothalamus, which is regulated by stochastic factors in utero, I can look up the reference if anyone is keen.) He could, theoretically still be bi, though, being bi doesn't mean that one is attracted to men and women in a 50/50 ratio. As far as I understand, most people aren't.

About that 'ignoring the creator' type of analysis. I've seen at a few times, and frankly, I think it's a lot of bollocks (almost as bad as extreme constructivism). It has never made sense to me; a creator of an artwork has an intent, whether he or she pulls it off is irrelevant, the intent is still there. Of course that matters and of course that affects the way people experience it, sometimes it's even the most important factor, for example the way people make sense of abstract art.

Related to the show, whatever Moftiss intent is canon to me, and they've been pretty clear about this. If they change their minds and decide that it's a romantic relationship after all, I'll happily go along and that will then become my new canon.

Harriet · May 18, 2014 9:23 pm

Uhm, even more nerdy intermezzo: Theories about the origin of heterosexuality tend to change a lot. I would not be surprised if in 20 years new knowledge will turn everything around - once more.

SolarSystem · May 18, 2014 9:25 pm

silverblaze wrote:
About that 'ignoring the creator' type of analysis. I've seen at a few times, and frankly, I think it's a lot of bollocks (almost as bad as extreme constructivism). It has never made sense to me; a creator of an artwork has an intent, whether he or she pulls it off is irrelevant, the intent is still there. Of course that matters and of course that affects the way people experience it, sometimes it's even the most important factor, for example the way people make sense of abstract art.

I take the freedom to disagree. We've been over this in various other threads, and of course if you think that this approach is bollocks, that's your right.
I believe that the idea of art is that everyone can look at it, read it, listen to it and come up with his/her own ideas about it. Anything else would be very, very boring, IMO. Of course every artist has an intent, but I'm pretty sure that most artists love the idea that the people who look at their art, read their art, listen to their art get lots of different ideas about it.

Harriet · May 18, 2014 9:28 pm

SolarSystem wrote:
I take the freedom to disagree. We've been over this in various other threads, and of course if you think that this approach is bollocks, that's your right.
I believe that the idea of art is that everyone can look at it, read it, listen to it and come up with his/her own ideas about it. Anything else would be very, very boring, IMO. Of course every artist has an intent, but I'm pretty sure that most artists love the idea that the people who look at their art, read their art, listen to their art get lots of different ideas about it.

“It is very very touching when people are properly, creatively engaged in the show you are making. It genuinely is. And I say this about the other one (Doctor Who) too. There is no greater flattery than people not simply consuming it, but making more of their own. To look at a show and say ‘I think I’ve got that. I think I can do better than that. I think I could make something out of that.’, that is the beginning of becoming a creator yourself. So in a genuine, proper heartfelt way, I am saying that a fandom is the cradle of the next generation of creative people. That is fantastic. That is amazing. There is no bigger compliment. … There is a weird thing where you can’t really respond to it. You can’t really interact with that, because that’s the wrong way ‘round. Because it is not like we’re there to mark your work and say: ‘No, you’ve got that all wrong.’ That would be horrible and limiting. Eventually what happens with things like that is people make up their own stories their own versions, their own pornographic versions in many cases. Well, what wrong with it? […] Genuinely, all of that response is brilliant and even that, even that thing (porn) is extraordinary, that it has that response. People become creative. […] It’s not dismissiveness or not being pleased by it, It is just… you can’t interact with it. That’s not how it works.” - Steven Moffat answering the dreaded online/tumblr fandom question from the audience at #Applelock (via dudeufugly)

SolarSystem · May 18, 2014 9:29 pm

I knew Moffat would agree with me.

SusiGo · May 18, 2014 9:30 pm

And so do I. And I am talking from experience.

tonnaree · May 18, 2014 9:38 pm

silverblaze wrote:
About that 'ignoring the creator' type of analysis. I've seen at a few times, and frankly, I think it's a lot of bollocks (almost as bad as extreme constructivism). It has never made sense to me; a creator of an artwork has an intent, whether he or she pulls it off is irrelevant, the intent is still there. Of course that matters and of course that affects the way people experience it, sometimes it's even the most important factor, for example the way people make sense of abstract art.

Related to the show, whatever Moftiss intent is canon to me, and they've been pretty clear about this. If they change their minds and decide that it's a romantic relationship after all, I'll happily go along and that will then become my new canon.

Moffat has also flat out stated that he lies to us.

Just saying......................................

SusiGo · May 18, 2014 9:45 pm

I think you do not even have to rely on their words. We should take what we see and hear in the show as a basis. It is enough and the only reliable information we get. It is like reading a book. I always prefer to read the book to what the author or critics say about the book. The first source should be the work itself.

Harriet · May 18, 2014 9:47 pm

Voice of reason

SolarSystem · May 18, 2014 9:51 pm

SusiGo wrote:
I think you do not even have to rely on their words. We should take what we see and hear in the show as a basis. It is enough and the only reliable information we get. It is like reading a book. I always prefer to read the book to what the author or critics say about the book. The first source should be the work itself.

Actually, that's how I learned it in school, but then again, who cares about school...

SusiGo · May 18, 2014 9:54 pm

Of course one may have a look at other works of the creators like Mark Gatiss who wrote a trilogy about a bisexual spy. And whose favourite film is The Private Life of Sherlock Holmes. And who has written a very adult work of literature under an pen name.
But the great thing is that we do not have to but can look at what is on the screen.

Last edited by SusiGo (May 18, 2014 9:56 pm)

LoveIsAViciousMotivator · May 18, 2014 9:56 pm

That is very true, guys. =D

Except when people say this but then use certain quotes to justify their own intrepretation as fact and disregard others' intrepretations.

Are the writers' lying or not? XD

Last edited by LoveIsAViciousMotivator (May 18, 2014 9:59 pm)

Harriet · May 18, 2014 10:10 pm

Ah, as if the world was that simple...

LoveIsAViciousMotivator · May 18, 2014 11:19 pm

Harriet wrote:
Ah, as if the world was that simple...

Nope, sometimes, it never is. XDDD

So much simpler though when I just watch the show and use that rather than what the writers' and actors' say. XDDD

Last edited by LoveIsAViciousMotivator (May 18, 2014 11:21 pm)

besleybean · May 19, 2014 5:44 am

Well I actually appreciate the writers' craft and am always interested to see what they have to say about their work.
So many artists feel miunderstood and misrepresented, so I like to hear it from the horse's mouth.
I also feel it's being supportive to the Sherlock team, if you actually take note of what they say.
In fact, even abide by what they say.Because they've always said people are free to interpret their work how they like...but that is a totally separate issue to what the writers have said about how they've written it. In fact, let me rephrase that. If people jump onto Gatiss and Moffat saying they are ftree to interpret, then they also have to jump onto that part saying: but we didn't write it that way.
This is apart from the blindingly obvious: if there are 2 distinct views on a piece of work, then the writers' get the casting vote.
And as a side note: if folk are going to so much trouble to watch the unaired pilot of their DVDs, I would suggest they also bother to watch the commentaries(when provided) and certainly the extras: which provide useful infromation and after all, the team have gone to the trouble of making those, too!
They certainly do make many things clearer: I cite particualarly the S3 DVD, which covers ' The Fall' extensively.

Last edited by besleybean (May 19, 2014 6:10 am)

SusiGo · May 19, 2014 5:56 am

Of course it is interesting to see what the creators say and it would be disrespectful not to. For example if they talk about the actors's chemistry or their own love for ACD, etc. I am absolutely willing to believe every single word.
But the moment they talk about what is actually in the series one has to be very cautious. They do not want to give away anything which is understandable. And they confess that they are lying all the time (they say so in the extras of series 3, btw). So I would take everything they say about the contents and the direction of the show with a grain of salt.

besleybean · May 19, 2014 6:12 am

I could take that on wholeheartedly, if Ian hadn't posted his powerful piece in response to his witnessing Mark being bullied about Johnlock.
This for me, remains the final word on the subject.

Last edited by besleybean (May 19, 2014 6:13 am)

Zatoichi · May 19, 2014 6:57 am

SusiGo wrote:
But the moment they talk about what is actually in the series one has to be very cautious. They do not want to give away anything which is understandable. And they confess that they are lying all the time (they say so in the extras of series 3, btw). So I would take everything they say about the contents and the direction of the show with a grain of salt.

Oh yes, that´s true, lies and mixed messages all the time . They are certainly interested in keeping it open to interpretation, in order to reach as many viewers as possible and in order not to limit themselves. What would we discuss about if they presented just one final truth and one simple relationship without any ambiguities? I like it the way it is, even though for my personal taste they could cut back the Johnlock allusions a little. But seeing how they (the allusions) create interest and attract viewers I doubt they will.. I might be biased by the amount of time I spend on tumblr, but to me it seems they are the main attraction of the show.. The two Johnlock threads are by far the most active here (apart from the picture thread of course ), and the majority of fan art, fanfiction, meta etc revolves around Johnlock. So I suppose that´s the reason why there will never be a final word on the subject by anyone involved in creating and selling the show. They´ll keep on sending mixed messages.. at least that´s my prediction for the direction of the show, but I´ve been wrong before.

Harriet · May 19, 2014 7:13 am

LoveIsAViciousMotivator wrote:
Nope, sometimes, it never is. XDDD

So much simpler though when I just watch the show and use that rather than what the writers' and actors' say. XDDD

I don't like being laughed at like that. It's not a good discussion style, if you ask me.