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

Side of Angels · July 20, 2014 2:08 am

Liberty wrote:
I almost succumbed tonight, but no ... . I am prepared to have my thoughts in disarray when I finally watch it, and I'm sure I'll be posting here about it!

Haha, my thoughts were definitely in disarray after I watched it. In fact, when I finally got my own Sherlock DVDs last week, I watched series 3 a second time rather than go back and start over again from the beginning. I have so much I want to say about it, but I just can't seem to get my thoughts to settle down enough to write coherently about it.

I confess that I thought there was something besides just friendship between Sherlock and John well before I watched the third series, but that just solidified it for me.

Mouse wrote:
My question is, why do people put so much time and analysis into supporting an opinion that can't be definitively proven until and unless it's actually written into the show?

Maybe I took too many literature and film classes in college, but I don't see anything unusual about people spending so much time on this. In my classes, we were taught to "read between the lines" when reading literature and watching movies, and to look for the subtext. We also had to support our interpretations, which is exactly what the meta authors are doing.

I only recently discovered the awesomeness of Sherlock, and in my limited time in the fandom, I've seen Johnlockers being asked to explain themselves time and time again. I've seen them called sick, twisted, and delusional (while I haven't seen them called such names on this forum, I have seen them questioned). That could also be why some people spend so much time defending their interpretations.

Last edited by Side of Angels (July 20, 2014 2:28 am)

Lue4028 · July 20, 2014 7:52 am

Liberty wrote:
I know John has qualities that Sherlock loves, but I don't really buy them as a couple with such a disparity in attractiveness.

Anyway, I do really like to see a romantic friendship. If we're all seeing what we want to see, then that's what I want to see and what I'm seeing.

*COUGH* *COUGH* *COUGH* Disparity in attractiveness? So much so they couldn't be a couple?! I'm... aghast. Geez, way to put it lightly. John is my idol, man. You really hurt my feelings.

A lovely light · July 20, 2014 7:55 am

Liberty wrote:
In the TV series, a major hurdle for me is that Sherlock is shown as so devastatingly attractive, whereas John is just a goodlooking guy. (2226 pages in the Benedict Cumberbatch picture thread on this forum, 104 pages in the Martin Freeman picture thread. It seems to be the same all over the interweb ). I know John has qualities that Sherlock loves, but I don't really buy them as a couple with such a disparity in attractiveness.

I liked all your posts here, some very interesting points. Apart from this part. Should be all relationship matched in attractivness or good-looking? Good looking can love only good looking? Ugly persons should be happy to get someone and have no chances to be loved by someone handsomer? Or should be this cliche only put over and over in TV? The hero must get someone who maches him in attractivness - is that so important for a relationship?

You might love someone actually for what (s)he is as a whole, not only for her/his looking. Even as a hero.

This reason should actually not even be taken in consideration why some people are or are not a couple. Just in my opinion.

Lue4028 · July 20, 2014 7:58 am

@ a lovely night. Thanks for saying that, I was too dumbstruck to say anything... I totally agree. That shouldn't be a criterion, it's a very superficial consideration. And it's depressing to think something like that could suffice as justification for why they wouldn't be a couple. How can you think about looks when it comes to John? He's such a beautifully constructed and complex character, and acted with such artistic prowess, I suspect it's deluded my perception of him. Now I think he's exceptionally attractive and comments like that really hurt XD

SusiGo wrote:
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.

I like that they're so stiff about it. The fact that they're holding back kind of makes it a big deal when they do talk about emotions or touch each other. It makes them more interesting and realistic. If they were open and less victorian, I don't think I'd be as interested in the show.

SusiGo wrote:
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

Of course it's a love story! Whoever says otherwise speaks nonsense.

Last edited by Lue4028 (July 20, 2014 8:21 am)

besleybean · July 20, 2014 8:08 am

Possibly we all speak from our own experiences.
The 1st Sherlock forum I belonged to was run by a guy who was vehemently anti Johnlock.
The last one, well I don't know the girl's personal views, but certatainly Johnlock was prominent on the forum.
I certainly get the feeling in the fandom in general, Johnlock is the majority view.
So I personally see no reason for Johnlockers to feel like any kind of persecuted minority and I can't say I've witnessed any behavour from anybody on here(or anywhere, actually), that should make them feel that way.
What I have witnessed in both the real and virtual world is 2 phenomena:
1. Heartfelt Johnlockers desperately trying to make their case
2. Another type who could be taken as trying to impose their agenda on the Gtisss-Moffatt product.
For me, the former is perfectly ok, but the latter isn't.

I have always said that I would have loved the team to make a full gay romp version of Sherlock.
But they didn't and I love it, just the way it is.
My question to Johnlockers is this:
Do you only watch the show because you think it either already is or will become Johnlock? Could you not enjoy it otherwise? Will you be disappointed if it finally ends without Sherlock and John ever getting together, or indeed,end up living apart?
I feel I'm in a win-win situation: I see no Johnlock and love the series.
But in the future, if Mark and Steven were to bow to BBC/fan perssure and go Johnlock. I would be thrilled.
But I do mentally prepare myself for the crushing disappointment of Johlockers, when it never does happen.
I almost feel like some kind of fandom zealot, who in fact wants to bring on the end times, just to reveal the truth!
If I ever met the team I would want to ask them to make some definitive statement...but then, people wouldn't believe them anyway. We know that for certain, because that's happening right now.
(Something I thought of overnight. Shows often joke/tease about a relationship between male-female leads. So I see no need for the gay comminity to feel persecuted if it's same sex leads.)

Last edited by besleybean (July 20, 2014 8:12 am)

Liberty · July 20, 2014 8:57 am

A lovely light wrote:
Liberty wrote:
In the TV series, a major hurdle for me is that Sherlock is shown as so devastatingly attractive, whereas John is just a goodlooking guy. (2226 pages in the Benedict Cumberbatch picture thread on this forum, 104 pages in the Martin Freeman picture thread. It seems to be the same all over the interweb ). I know John has qualities that Sherlock loves, but I don't really buy them as a couple with such a disparity in attractiveness.

I liked all your posts here, some very interesting points. Apart from this part. Should be all relationship matched in attractivness or good-looking? Good looking can love only good looking? Ugly persons should be happy to get someone and have no chances to be loved by someone handsomer? Or should be this cliche only put over and over in TV? The hero must get someone who maches him in attractivness - is that so important for a relationship?

You might love someone actually for what (s)he is as a whole, not only for her/his looking. Even as a hero.

This reason should actually not even be taken in consideration why some people are or are not a couple. Just in my opinion.

Attractiveness isn't just about physical appearance, though (there are other things involved, such as intelligence, personality, power, status, etc.) - it is about the whole. And I mentioned in another thread that they could have taken the same actors (Benedict and Martin) and made them equally attractive (so it's not just about how attractive the actors are). There seems to have been a decision to make Sherlock more attractive. Normally, I might think it was my personal preference, but the internet seems to have the same reaction. I suspect that a lot of Benedict's status as a sex god is due to Sherlock. The point is pushed further by making Irene Adler (who is supposed to be devastatingly attractive) fall for Sherlock. It's not just the actor's physical looks, but the way he's portrayed on the screen as a character. If they were meaning to set John and Sherlock up as lovers, then yes, I do think it would have made more sense to put them on a similar attractiveness level to begin with. But maybe they can change that as the series goes on.

This isn't the way that I think things should be, but just the way they are. (In real life too, to some extent).

I've no intention of insulting Martin Freeman - as I said, he's a good looking guy, and I love him as an actor! I also love John Watson as a character - but he's not as dazzling as Sherlock in the series.

Last edited by Liberty (July 20, 2014 9:14 am)

Lue4028 · July 20, 2014 9:24 am

If by attractiveness you meant all of those things, that decision makes a lot of sense as the function of Watson in cannon is to contrast with Sherlock's amazingness. Currently, they even go as far to call all characters that serve as contrast "Watsons". Hopefully I'm not stating the obvious. The show is very Sherlock-centric and glamorizing, but that's how the books are written- it's watson's romanticized perspective. I actually take notice of Watson's attractive characteristics, Sherlock practically lists them in a study in pink, nerves of steel, strong sense of morality, a life saver, dependable, caring... I could go on but not going to. Watson isn't a glamorized character, he's understated and humble, which makes him the perfect match for Sherlock.

Last edited by Lue4028 (July 20, 2014 9:55 am)

SolarSystem · July 20, 2014 9:49 am

Side of Angels wrote:
Liberty wrote:
My question is, why do people put so much time and analysis into supporting an opinion that can't be definitively proven until and unless it's actually written into the show?

Maybe I took too many literature and film classes in college, but I don't see anything unusual about people spending so much time on this. In my classes, we were taught to "read between the lines" when reading literature and watching movies, and to look for the subtext. We also had to support our interpretations, which is exactly what the meta authors are doing.

Exactly. That's exactly what I was taught in film and literature classes in university, and I absolutely love the fact that in this fandom there are so many people who try do exactly this: to read between the lines while also taking into account what is clearly presented to them in the show in terms of dialogue, gestures, lighting, props and so forth.
Everyone can do this, Johnlockers and non-Johnlockers alike. It is indeed an interesting phenomenon that apparently almost only Johnlockers seem to analyse the show in such an elaborate way. But let's face it, if they didn't do it like that and just said "Johnlock exists on the show, full stop", non-Johnlockers would certainly ask them to present some proof - even more so than they already do, although Johnlockers try to give proof all the time.

Lue4028 · July 20, 2014 10:09 am

It seems like it would be hard to use things like lighting/props to argue against Johnlock, imo. I think the anti-johnlock argument revolves around "there is no evidence" rather than "evidence that shows Johnlock doesn't exist".
I personally hate lit classes because analysis like that is part interpretation, and it always felt like twisting the truth to me. Reading between the lines is fun only if the writer actually put something there for you to find, again, imo. I'm mean, the lengths johnlock analysis goes to, makes you wonder if the creators really went to those lengths themselves.

Liberty · July 20, 2014 10:16 am

Lue4028 wrote:
If by attractiveness you meant all of those things, that decision makes a lot of sense as the function of Watson in cannon is to contrast with Sherlock's amazingness. Currently, they even go as far to call all characters that serve as contrast "Watsons". Hopefully I'm not stating the obvious. The show is very Sherlock-centric and glamorizing, but that's how the books are written- it's watson's romanticized perspective. I actually take notice of Watson's attractive characteristics, Sherlock practically lists them in a study in pink, nerves of steel, strong sense of morality, a life saver, dependable, caring... I could go on but I'm probably embarassing myself.

Yes, I agree about the contrast - I said something about that earlier. We seem to need John to "show" us Sherlock. I love your idea about Watson's romanticised perspective. I think that's so true. So how do other characters see them? Some characters see them as a couple, so looks-wise, they're not so different that it wouldn't seem likely. But in general, I think we see people falling for Sherlock in a way that they don't fall for John (Irene, Molly ... I think even LeStrade has a bit of a non-sexual thing for Sherlock). We're being sold Sherlock as a sex symbol (and are buying it).

I agree about John having qualities that Sherlock admires/wants (he's very brave and courageous, loyal, etc.). They share a fascination with death and danger. But there is a level at which they don't connect - Sherlock points out that John's mind is average, ordinary (I don't think it is, but Sherlock is on a different level), even boring. Sherlock is always explaining. And another thing that disturbs me a little (if they are in a relationship) is how much Sherlock keeps John in the dark. I know this is for the purpose of the story. It would be boring to see Sherlock's point of view all the time, and we need to be floundering in the dark like John, trying to work it all out. I found it really striking in ASiB, that John is left to worry about Sherlock, while Sherlock lies to him by omission throughout most of the story. Not to say that you couldn't have a relationship like that - just that it's another thing that makes it feel unequal. (And this may be resolved in Series 3, which I haven't seen ... but then I don't know how well the stories will work if Sherlock never keeps information from John?).

Lue4028 · July 20, 2014 10:49 am

Haha yes, there's a ton of that going around. Everyone's in love with Sherlock. If you remember "I don't have friends, I only have one", that was actually a situation where the unequal balance shifted. There are times when Sherlock works really hard to win John back because he finds HIM atractive. S3E1 - you must watch. It's adorable. But I get what you're saying, Sherlock is "designed to be an object of desire" as JiNSoCal says. And he's a sociopath so it may feel like the love is directional and heavily one-sided. But I see it as equal. You have to account for the differences in character... and watch the end of season 3.
The keeping of information from John, I agree, that is a definate concern for their relationship- sexual or not sexual. And when Sherlock does that it really shows a gap between them that wouldn't normally be present in a romantic relationship. Sherlock is realy bad about this... to rather amusing extremes in cannon.

Last edited by Lue4028 (July 20, 2014 11:00 am)

tonnaree · July 20, 2014 11:57 am

SolarSystem wrote:
Side of Angels wrote:
Liberty wrote:
My question is, why do people put so much time and analysis into supporting an opinion that can't be definitively proven until and unless it's actually written into the show?

Maybe I took too many literature and film classes in college, but I don't see anything unusual about people spending so much time on this. In my classes, we were taught to "read between the lines" when reading literature and watching movies, and to look for the subtext. We also had to support our interpretations, which is exactly what the meta authors are doing.
Exactly. That's exactly what I was taught in film and literature classes in university, and I absolutely love the fact that in this fandom there are so many people who try do exactly this: to read between the lines while also taking into account what is clearly presented to them in the show in terms of dialogue, gestures, lighting, props and so forth.
Everyone can do this, Johnlockers and non-Johnlockers alike. It is indeed an interesting phenomenon that apparently almost only Johnlockers seem to analyse the show in such an elaborate way. But let's face it, if they didn't do it like that and just said "Johnlock exists on the show, full stop", non-Johnlockers would certainly ask them to present some proof - even more so than they already do, although Johnlockers try to give proof all the time.

As someone who spent three years of her life arguing about whether or not Darth Vader was REALLY Luke's father, I'd just like to add that IT'S FUN!!

Schmiezi · July 20, 2014 12:32 pm

tonnaree wrote:
SolarSystem wrote:
Side of Angels wrote:

Maybe I took too many literature and film classes in college, but I don't see anything unusual about people spending so much time on this. In my classes, we were taught to "read between the lines" when reading literature and watching movies, and to look for the subtext. We also had to support our interpretations, which is exactly what the meta authors are doing.
Exactly. That's exactly what I was taught in film and literature classes in university, and I absolutely love the fact that in this fandom there are so many people who try do exactly this: to read between the lines while also taking into account what is clearly presented to them in the show in terms of dialogue, gestures, lighting, props and so forth.
Everyone can do this, Johnlockers and non-Johnlockers alike. It is indeed an interesting phenomenon that apparently almost only Johnlockers seem to analyse the show in such an elaborate way. But let's face it, if they didn't do it like that and just said "Johnlock exists on the show, full stop", non-Johnlockers would certainly ask them to present some proof - even more so than they already do, although Johnlockers try to give proof all the time.

As someone who spent three years of her life arguing about whether or not Darth Vader was REALLY Luke's father, I'd just like to add that IT'S FUN!!

All of the above.

Furthermore, I love reading metas, analysises of the subtext, because it allows me to get a glimps of intelligent people thinking. There are so many very intelligently written metas out there it's amazing. As a German and English teacher, my heart swells when I see fans doing voluntarily what I can barely get my pupils to do: Sit down and spend time with a text (or TV show), search for stilistic devices, find subtle hints at what could be intended and put it into words.

Schmiezi · July 20, 2014 12:51 pm

besleybean wrote:
Do you only watch the show because you think it either already is or will become Johnlock? Could you not enjoy it otherwise? Will you be disappointed if it finally ends without Sherlock and John ever getting together, or indeed,end up living apart?

Those are interesting questions. To answer it, I must confess the full degree of my nerdiness.

I love Sherlock and John a lot. You know those pics on facebook, saying things like "Excuse me, I have to mourn over the death of a fictional character" or "Reblog this if you love a fictional character as much as your real friends"? That's me.
So yes, should the show end with Sherlock and John living apart, being lonely, I would be very disappointed. Not because I want to be right about Johnlock, but because I want to see the two of them happy. Even a happy end for John, with wife and children plus a lonesome Sherlock would leave me crying, I think.

The same reason is why I fell for the whole Johnlock idea. Long before I saw (subtle and not so subtle) evidence for Johnlock in the show, I've read fan fics. Those that ended up with both of them happy were usually Johnlock fics.
In my mind, I can see John and Sherlock complement each other in a way that would allow them to live a fulfilled life as a couple. They both have their wounds and their flaws, and they both did things to each other that would require a lot of healing before they could be at ease with being a couple. But that only makes me wish it for them more.
And as I personally think that physical contact is a wonderful thing, I wish for them to have it, too. With each other. And because I I have made good experiences with sex, I think it is a wonderful thing that both Sherlock and John deserve, too.

I understand the point of view of those who say that Sherlock is asexual. I don't want to insult asexual people, and I don't want to degrade asexuality. I am just explaining why to me, Johnlock with sex sounds like a real good idea.

SusiGo · July 20, 2014 1:06 pm

Just yes.

SusiGo · July 20, 2014 2:48 pm

One thing: I really do not like the qualitative distinction between love and friendship as if love was in any way inferior to friendship. Being a writer myself I have found that writing about love is in no way easier than writing about friendship.

tonnaree · July 20, 2014 3:43 pm

SusiGo wrote:
One thing: I really do not like the qualitative distinction between love and friendship as if love was in any way inferior to friendship. Being a writer myself I have found that writing about love is in no way easier than writing about friendship.

Thank you. My love for my best friend is not less or greater than my love for my husand. They are just slightly different.

SolarSystem · July 20, 2014 5:04 pm

Mouse wrote:
A good writer can write a great romance, but a great friendship? Only a great writer can pull that off.

I would hope that a great writer can pull off to show us two people who share a great romance and a great friendship both at the same time.
Gosh, why do we constantly have to talk about this friendship vs romance thing here? Does one really have to exclude the other? Does one have to be more special than the other? I just don't get this.

SusiGo · July 20, 2014 5:19 pm

Neither do I. And there is another thing:

There is one important difference between Canon and our series. Whereas Holmes in Canon does not change so very much over the years, Moftiss have always stressed that they regard their main characters as being in constant progress. That the show is about their journey and development. Now we have had the non-sexual close friendship in series 1 and 2 whilst living together in Baker Street. This is in accordance with Canon. And in series 3 we have them living apart and John getting and being married to a woman. This is also in accordance with Canon. So one could argue that in series 3 they will somehow live together again in 221b which is fine and in accordance with Canon.

But - this is not Canon. This is Moftiss. Does anybody really believe that they will return to the relationship from series 1 and 2 just like that after having endured all this? After having been put through more harrowing experiences than ACD ever thought of? Their relationship has changed profoundly and I am sure and confident that Moftiss will find new ways of exploring whatever is between them.

For me this also answers your last question, Mouse. Because there has to be change, development, exploring new ways of adaptation. Because IMO there is no way back. And it does not make me sad because it was good and now something new has to come.

Last edited by SusiGo (July 20, 2014 5:24 pm)

SusiGo · July 20, 2014 6:05 pm

I have never said they are not allowed to have a non-sexual relationship. What I have said is that then they would have written and filmed it in a different way IMO. And I am not talking about silly gay jokes. And I am not talking about sex, at least not all the time.
I am talking about a loving and exclusive relationship. This is btw what matters to me most - that there is only Sherlock and John and no one in between or on the side or wherever. I do not think that they can go back to what they had before. I think Sherlock is deeply unhappy without John. I think John has to learn (or has already learned) that Mary is not his other half. He saved Sherlock and Sherlock saved him and to me there is no way for anyone else in between.

Last edited by SusiGo (July 20, 2014 6:09 pm)