JNinSoCal wrote:

This is simply adorable!

Sometimes, we forget how gay the Unaired Pilot was; you can almost hear "Bella Notte" in the back-ground.

"Bella notte..."

That is one of the cutest things I've seen for awhile. Love John's puppy eyes in the last pic.

Sorry I first posted this in the wrong thread (official Johnlock guide), but as my personal view it rather fits here. Stupid me reading several threads at the same time and replying on the wrong one.

To Johnlock or not to Johnlock... well I have been thinking about this question for a while, and I am still busy reading all the contributions on this thread, trying to make up my mind. It seems the way how people view the relationship between Sherlock and John depends very much on how you define friendship and love. The boundaries between these two are somewhat blurred and what we see in the show can be read in different ways. Actually that is one of the reasons why I find it so fascinating, it keeps me thinking and does not offer a plain and simple answer to our question. In my books, love does not neccessarily require a sexual relationship, therefore I don't actually care if Sherlock and John will ever get physical or if they have already doneit, they might or might not but it is not the crucial element that defines how I see their relationship. But of course that is just my opinion, and everyone who defines love in a different way might disagree and tell me that sex is a crucial element and then go on to argue whether this element is there or not, while I would say that I can see it occasionally but don't really care about it that much. Prove me they have sex and I'd say fine, it is love. Prove me there is no sexual attraction at all and I'd still say they love each other.
Just my two cents.

Anyway, I would like to thank everyone who has contributed here and collected all the little bits and pieces. Makes an interesting read for Johnlockers as well as Non-Johnlockers.

That's true. It's possible we're arguing different angles of the same thing. I was really hard headed about the nature of John and Sherlock relationship being platonic. But honestly, it's really hard to tell. I watched this and got super confused. 
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tiNN0yZTsZU
I think Diva raises a good point in that if the relationship is sexual or not sexual, they still love each other. Which is the point. The ambiguity is just a ploy to draw attention to that.
Marshmellow soft insides... I resent that. (ahem, in a joking way) Sherlock may not be sociopathic but he is dangerous. If it were up to me I'd give him honorary sociopath status.
 

Last edited by Lue4028 (July 19, 2014 7:10 am)

And lets keep in mind why he gets dangerous. Like, whom did he kill Magnussen for?

I have moved a debate from the "John in S4" thread here. I would like to keep on discussing, but it would have been off topic over there. This is what my post is about:

Mouse wrote:

Schmiezi wrote:

What bothers me here, Mouse, is something that was written in several other treads before. Sorry for repeating it, but I'm still waiting for a satisfying response ...
What I mean is, "Johnlockers" come up with loads of character metas and screen shots and analysises of backgroung music and illuminations to proof their point, or at least to stress what they mean. They interpret the show with the same methods for text interpretation you learn at university.
I am still waiting for a non-Johnlocker to show me equally well researched material to proof their point.

Well, I doubt you'll be satisfied with my response, but here goes...meaning no disrespect to johnlockers (who are, I believe, entitled to their point of view), as a non-johnlocker I could easily give you plenty of examples of material that I feel would support the point of view of the non-johnlockers. But I won't bother because 1) a johnlocker probably wouldn't interpret them that way, and 2) a johnlocker could probably respond, scene for scene, with examples they feel would support their own view. But the key words here are feel and support, which are not the same as fact and prove.

Johnlockers are naturally going to dig for evidence that support what they wish were true because neither book canon nor show canon support it. I can't speak for ACD himself, but I did see a filmed interview with his son where the son, Adrian (executor of ACD's literary estate), said straight out that the notion that Holmes and Watson were gay was "nonsense." Moffat and Gatiss, the creators of the show, have said straight out that Sherlock and John love each other, "just not in a sexual way."

To me, that's about as definitive proof as you can get. Until those three people say otherwise, I don't see why I shouldn't take them at face value. Wanting something to be true doesn't change the facts. And who knows - Moffat and Gatiss may change it at some point. But until they do, I'm going to take them at their word that the affection and caring between the two men is non-romantic.

And as a side note: I don't know what the actors were told to do while filming, or what was left for them to choose to do on their own, but I do know this...I love my husband madly, and if someone looked at a wedding photo of us and disputed my feelings for him based on the fact that my head was tilted at an X angle instead of a Y angle, I would probably ask them what they were smoking - and if if they didn't have anything better to do!

All right, here is what has been on my mind since reading it:

Mouse wrote:

Well, I doubt you'll be satisfied with my response, but here goes...meaning no disrespect to johnlockers (who are, I believe, entitled to their point of view)

Well, thank you.

Mouse wrote:

as a non-johnlocker I could easily give you plenty of examples of material that I feel would support the point of view of the non-johnlockers. But I won't bother because 1) a johnlocker probably wouldn't interpret them that way, and 2) a johnlocker could probably respond, scene for scene, with examples they feel would support their own view. But the key words here are feel and support, which are not the same as fact and prove.

Wow. Sorry, but I'm still not sure how I feel about that part. It reminded me of my pupils, who say "I know the answer but I don't want to tell you" when they didn't learn for the exam.
I asked for examples because I am really interested in which that would be, and you respond by saying you won't bother because I would not ... what? Understand? Be too ignorant to aknowledge them?
Besides, well-founded interpretations are never just about "feel" and "support", but should always include "fact" and "prove", or at least an explanation why the interpreter sees "proof" in a scene. Again, I have seen that coming from Johnlockers, but never from non-Johnlockers.

Mouse wrote:

Johnlockers are naturally going to dig for evidence that support what they wish were true because neither book canon nor show canon support it.

Naturally.

Yes, that was sarcasm. I don't really know how to respond to that. Because after saying that you don't bother to give examples of material, you insinuate Johnlockers to draw on wishful thinking. Looking at tons of metas about the show, considering how much time so many people put into their analysises, that statement feels very unfair.

Mouse wrote:

Moffat and Gatiss, the creators of the show, have said straight out that Sherlock and John love each other, "just not in a sexual way."

To me, that's about as definitive proof as you can get.

Why do you think Johnlock is simply about sex? Besides, that quote is often used by Johnlockers, because they have said straight out that John and Sherlock love each other.

Mouse wrote:

Until those three people say otherwise, I don't see why I shouldn't take them at face value

Well, because they use to lie in interviews and enjoy it a lot? Just saying, they are probably the worst people to be taken at face value.

As I said before - I am not really interested in his tweets. He is not a spokesman for the show as far as I know (a show in which even the spokespeople are known to tell lies to keep people on their toes and not spoil the fun). As far as I know his tweet was connected to people getting angry and insulting about Mary being included as a character and not to Johnlockers in general. Please correct me if I am wrong.

And another thing - I try to judge from what I see and hear in the show (and maybe from what I read in John's blog because it is officially approved). 

Last edited by SusiGo (July 19, 2014 7:03 pm)

I'm not too interested in Ian's Twitter contribution to the debate either. It's his private opinion in a special context that should be taken seriously but not be generalized.

Last edited by Harriet (July 19, 2014 7:18 pm)

This is one of the most beautiful things about "Sherlock" I have read for a long time. I do not agree with every single word but regarding her conclusions I can only say "yes, this is profoundly true". And btw, she does not even mention the word "sex".

http://anigrrrl2.tumblr.com/post/91952557716/if-its-not-a-love-story-then-what-is-it

Oh yes, this is a wonderful post. I like the analysis a lot. And it is not only not about sex, but also not about hating Mary either. It focuses on John and Sherlock and comes to a comprehensible conclusion.

As for the bromance - I think this applies to a close loving non-sexual relationship between two men, correct? Like e.g. the Holmes/Watson relationship in the Ritchie films? Men who are physically easygoing and relaxed when being with each other? Hugging each other, sleeping with their heads on the other's shoulders. Fine. So far I can follow.

But this is exactly what we do not get in "Sherlock". We get two men who are repressed in many ways, have difficulties in dealing with emotions, are reticent about touching each other, are not relaxed with people alluding to their sexuality, have mental health problems. So what I see is two men loving each other but not able to deal with it in a mature way. Who have a long way to go and have to learn how to deal with their feelings. And this is what I would love to see in the show. 

Last edited by SusiGo (July 19, 2014 8:03 pm)