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

besleybean · August 1, 2014 9:53 am

Nobody makes anybody post
If you want to do, if you don't don't.
Noone is made to be a martyr.
If you don't want to visit the thread, don't.

tonnaree · August 1, 2014 11:54 am

I believe in the reality of Johnlock and will promot it aggressively for all the day sof my life.
So let it be written - so let it be done.

*crawls back to corner*

SusiGo · August 1, 2014 1:56 pm

besleybean wrote:
Nobody makes anybody post
If you want to do, if you don't don't.
Noone is made to be a martyr.
If you don't want to visit the thread, don't.

Did anyone mention martyrs? I just remarked that it is a bit tiring to reinvent the wheel when there are already so many pro and con arguments to read.

tykobrian · August 1, 2014 2:40 pm

Hey now let's not argue among ourselves. We were having very engaging and intelligent discussion so far. And in the end we all are fans of the show aren't we?

Anyways, I've been thinking about the situation where some believe in johnlock and others don't/ can't see it. "The showrunners have planned to put the leads together from the start and the show is basically a slow-burn romance story told like an adventure story with the big reveal in the end" - the theory kinda has a conspiracy feel to it doesn't it?

Interestingly, the show itself features some characters who can be called conspiracy theorists:

ASIB:
> All the clients who swore their family’s remains were tampered with.
> The guy whose comic book characters suddenly started coming to life
> The lady who was convinced she was being sent threatening coded messeges

THoB:
> Henry knight;
> The girl who supposedly had a glowing rabbit which vanished.

TEH:
Anderson

And it looks like no matter how disbelieving it seemed, each and every characters' theories turned out to be true. Now what can we deduce from that? Could this be a hint from the showrunners or just coincidence. And we know what Mycroft thinks about coincidences!

Last edited by tykobrian (August 1, 2014 2:43 pm)

Kenogami · August 1, 2014 2:44 pm

Mattlocked wrote:
Kenogami wrote:
Because, everyone say that Moftiss are lying, that we don't know what to expect in the series, and for me all the evidences of johnlock seems too obvious to be a real thing.
This you have to explain. You don't see it, but all the evidences seem too obvious?
You mean, that's why it can't be true and is nothing more than a running gag?
I don't understand.

Kenogami wrote:
I am not against John and Sherlock being a couple. But I don't think it will happen in the series.

We all don't know if it "will" happen, but I think it "could". Then again... somehow it already does.

That's what I meant when I said sorry for my english... I just don't have all the vocabulary to explain myself clearly. So I can see things that I don't see . (Thanks Google translate to help me remember words that I have forgotten and to write them correctly...)

What I meant when I said the I see things that I don't see. It's because I read metas about all the Johnlock thing. So when I come back at the scene, I'm like : " ok, I know now why you are saying that, I can see/imagine/understand what you mean. But I don't agree. I don't feel the Johnlock there."

I did some cinema courses. (It was a long time ago and it was an optional course. It was just the basics and cinema history, I do not claim to be an expert... I'm a scientist...) I know some of the basics of interpretation and analysis of the cinematography, images, plans... And I still don't agree with the johnlock moments people see or feel in that scene.

I know that in this debate, we just repeate ourselfs. And no I didn't read all the 111 pages on this forum. Like I said I'm familiar with this "debate" not necessarly this exact subject on this exact forum. I read from page 85, and people here seems open minded and civilized. I chose to write here.

When I said "give me some example", it's not that I don't know any example, but I am not able to write a complete and complexe meta about all the Johnlock scenes/images/plan/light/and so on...
So lets start with 2 examples: the scene in Angelo's restaurant in A Study in Pink and the bar scenes in The sing of 3 ( the thing with the cylinder...).

So the restaurant scene:
Johnlockers are saying: one of the first hints of an interest from John, because John lick his lips, ask Sherlock about his love life, and the kind of answer Sherlock give. (I know I simplify things)

When John ask Sherlock about his love life, I don't feel the interest of John in terms of a possible relationship but just an interest in the person he has in front of him.
I will explain with my own experience of sharing an appartment/flat. I know it's not "scientific" or a real analysis but I don't know how to explain it otherwise in english... In the 6 years, I have been in university I had at least 15 different flatmates/person I was sharing with or coloc (as we say here). I know it's a lot of people! (It is because of how some programs/courses are made, it is alternig between studies and work, so four months in class, four months working, four in class... all year long. The work part is often in an other city, so people don't keep their appartment, they're going fom place to place) Some I knew, some I found on the internet. The ones I knew I didn't asked a lot of questions conserning their lives/love life because I already knew it. But the ones I found on the internet, I asked them a lot of things. And yes if they had a boyfriend/girlfriend. Because I wanted to know if I would wake up one morning with a complete stranger in my kitchen (or even if there would be a lot of different strangers in my kitchen, at different mornings...). I did't had an ounce of interest in them in a relationship point of view. But I wanted to know who I was living with.
Let's remember that John just met Sherlock. So I don't think it's a strange thing to discuss when you go live with a complete stranger. So, John start with the classic "Do you have a girlfriend?" Sherlock answer is "not my area". I would ask the exact same thing that John did: " a boyfriend?" I don't feel an interest of John here (for a potential relationship with Sherlock, I mean). I feel like he just want to know Sherlock a little bit more. I feel that John just want to know if he would wake up and find a stranger in his kitchen (and if it will be male or female).
The kind of answer Sherlock gives to John provokes an embarassing moment. Sherlock does not have a lot of friend and you know from the beginning that he don't know how to interact with people (the first scenes with Molly and the meeting with John). So Sherlock directly assumes that John is interested in him (because why would someone ask him this) and gives him the "I'm married to my work", and he wants to be sure that from the beginning John is not interested and won't be, because Sherlock isn't.
The answer of Sherlock is cold and detached (as I felt). The embarassment is there, John posture is stiff, and he lick his lips. I totally don't see that as an ounce of sexual/relationship interest but just embarassment from the situation or the discussion. It's just the impression of having gone too far to fast in the conversation. So, for me, no Johnlock here...

(I'm so writing a novel... sorry for that....)

The Sing of 3: the cylinder thing... it will be short (if someone want further explanation just ask)
As a scientist... this is more a scientist joke to drink in a cylinder/erlenmeyer/beaker than a reference to a penis...
Short explanation: Sherlock never expected to have a firend (and even less, a best frient) who would invite him to his wedding and made him his best man. And partying dosen't seem to be his cup of tea. So how do you prepare a party to a friend when you never prepare a party?!? And you don't really know how to prepare a good one, and never really cared in the past?? You do something you are good at : an experiment! With John as the subject.
A cylinder is more precise than a beaker. It seems that Sherlock doesn't want to be drunk so he calculate how much to drink in how many time and in how many bars. Calculating how many pints would not have been enoughs "scientific" ... so he calculate a precise amount... and to have a precise amount : the cylinder...
So, still no Johnlock in there...

I think everyone can interpret things how they want to. I am just annoyed that when I think that I have found an interesting website to read metas, I just look like I am the fool in the place, because I don't feel the Johnlock. And it seems like there is no place for a good analysis of the show without talking in 3/4 of Johnlock (in a relationship/sexual kind of way). I feel sometimes that I am just kicked out of the "fandom".

besleybean · August 1, 2014 2:51 pm

As a non-Johnlocker it's just something I've learned to live with.
I think we are definitely the minority in the fandom.
But I just get on with it...

tonnaree · August 1, 2014 3:04 pm

In the Angelo's dinner scene I found Sherlock's responses a little more telling than John's questions.

He says girlfriends are "not his area." He doesn't say that boyfriends or relationships are not his area, just that he doesn't have one.

Not to mention that Shelock thinks that John is coming on to him and Sherlock is the most observant person in the world. I believe he can sense something in John's approach that even John himself is not totally aware of.

This may be overly simple but that's what I see.

A lovely light · August 1, 2014 3:12 pm

I have told already that i am not a Johnlocker not only in this subject and i have not the feeling that i was kicked out.

But i aso think in a discussion is important when people brings their own arguments not only require from the other side.

None of us works in BBC or is the writer of the show, so no one knows really the truth, we should accept that. Till the show will end, we might not know for sure what the intentions of the producers were. We may speculate, but everybody should take their own speculations with a pinch of salt.

Kenogami, i will be happy to read further your interpretation.

besleybean · August 1, 2014 3:17 pm

The writers have stated in interview they did not write it as Johnlock and read my signature from Mark's husband!
I can send you the full quote.

tykobrian · August 1, 2014 3:42 pm

About the conversation in Angellos:

I personally see it as John propositioning sherlock. The explanation is rather long so I hope you don't mind.

Well first of all I should mention that the I think the way John was propositioning Sherlock seems to be his way of hitting on people. This has been demonstrated when he was propositioning Anthea, Mycroft's assistant while being escorted to his flat.If you can remember that scene you'll remember to how John goes about doing it: he says something innocuous, then something considerably more pointed while still allowing for plausible deniability:

“Do you get any free time?” He waits for a positive or negative signal. As soon as he gets the negative signal, he drops it altogether. Neither John nor Anthea ever says anything about dating or sex, and neither proclaims their sexual orientation. Then again at the very end John again tries to hit on Athea by reminding her that they had met before. Again there is no sexual hints like liplicking or anything but I think in both cases no one doubts that John was indeed hitting on Anthea. No one says, “Oh, you’re reading too much into it, John didn’t mean that.”

Ok now let's talk about the Angelo's scene.

Angellos:

So far John had got totally-not-so-subtle indication from two (Mrs. Hudson, Angello) people that Sherlock might be interested in men. And also both times Sherlock said or done nothing to refute it. When Angello thinks that John is Sherlock's date he says that he's not - which he isn't. But then again he doesn't say things like "I'm not interested in men" or "don't be absurd!". Maybe because he doen't want to shut down the possibility?

Anyways, as soon as Angelo's away, John starts to figure out Sherlock’s orientation, even though as far as John knows, he’s probably interested in men. He starts with something innocuous, just like he did with Anthea. And just like he did with Anthea, he quickly moves on to something considerably more pointed while still allowing plausible deniability: “…girlfriends, boyfriends…” Sherlock says that’s dull.

Trying to narrow it down and looking for a signal John asks, "You don’t have a girlfriend, then?"
"Girlfriend? No. Not really my area," Sherlock says.

This gets John’s (and mine too) attention. He looks very slightly pleased and goes in for the kill. “Oh right. Do you have a boyfriend then?” But then the signals get a bit muddier: Sherlock casts John an unreadable look, and John hurriedly adds, “Which is fine, by the way.” Sherlock says, “I know it’s fine.”

Well, at this point I thought when taken in contrast to Sherlock’s statement on "girlfriends", that sounded like a confirmation of homosexuality. So back to positive signals for John! And John agrees. Smiling, he asks, “So you’ve got a boyfriend?” “No,” Sherlock says immediately. “Right, okay,” John says, with a bit of a nervous laugh and smile. John licks his lips and Sherlock narrows his eyes! John continues, “You’re unattached! Like me! Fine. Good.” Seriously I was looking at my screen with a raised eyebrow when this transpired. Because this is an incredibly odd thing for a heterosexual man to say to a man who, by all accounts, is assumed to be gay by some of his acquaintances (who incidentally refuse to be convinced otherwise!), appears to have just denied being heterosexual, and has allowed two people to believe John is his boyfriend. This is the point where even a non-homophobic person would politely note his heterosexuality.

But what does John do? John makes clear he’s single. John says it’s good that they’re both single. That is the behavior of a man interested in men. It is the simplest, clearest reading, and doesn’t have to explain away anything. To read heterosexuality alone into John’s orientation requires explaining away quite a lot.

And it is so blatantly a come-on that even Sherlock picks up on it, Sherlock who couldn't realize that Molly was hitting on him at the morgue! “John, um ... I think you should know that I consider myself married to my work, and while I’m flattered by your interest, I’m really not looking for any ...”

Upon hearing this, this is truly the point, the absolute point, where a heterosexual man would just say he’s not into men. It’s unambiguous, and it’s the least awkward thing John could say now. And as far as I can remember John is never terribly awkward over the entirety of the show. He’s rather direct, really. Yet he just goes back to the plausible deniability he left open earlier: “No. I’m not asking. No. I’m just saying: it’s all fine.” "Good," Sherlock says. "Thank you." Having received an unambiguous negative signal, John immediately drops the topic altogether, just like he did with Anthea.

So there you go. This conversation was way more loaded than John’s conversation with Anthea, and more romance is suggested by the camera and setting and context. It’s also an incredibly odd choice on the part of the writers to leave interest in the same sex open for both characters from the first episode if we’re to believe they’re heterosexual/ asexual. If the writers merely wanted to make a joke of people thinking John and Sherlock are a couple, they don’t need to have John and Sherlock be confused about each other’s sexuality. Note that even in ASiB John asks Mrs. Hudson if Sherlock "ever had girlfreind, boyfriend or relationship" Perhaps it would be funnier if we got to watch Sherlock deny it to other people too, but we never do. Even if the writers just wanted this one conversation to go as awkwardly as possible, John and Sherlock don’t need to be forever confused about one another’s orientations after living together for years. And that's why from the pilot I thought something was definitely up. And then throughout the series I've got more consistent readings that both are romantically interested in each other but confused if the other returns the feelings.

SusiGo · August 1, 2014 3:54 pm

Wonderful analysis of the Angelo scene. Love it.

besleybean · August 1, 2014 3:57 pm

Though we have moved on somewhat since then,.,..
Do people think John only married Mary because he thought Sherlock wasn't interested in him?

SusiGo · August 1, 2014 4:08 pm

I never thought that. And I never said John is gay. I said he is attracted to women and to Sherlock.

As for the marriage - Sherlock was not not interested in John, he was dead. This is not quite the same. And we can only wonder if John would have married Mary if Sherlock had been alive.

besleybean · August 1, 2014 4:10 pm

John married Mary after Sherlock was back.

tykobrian · August 1, 2014 4:20 pm

@besleybean The showrunners saying johnlock is not there intention actually proves nothing. As far as I know johnlock is a huge spoiler which the showrunners have planned to slowly bring to the surface. And I think it's perfectly believable thinking how much we have been lied to by them already! Like how were told before season 3, by Moffat, that Sherlock’s iciness couldn’t be melted, and then we get a Sherlock so "human" that it threw the fandom off-kilter; he was a wedding planner and wrote a best man speech that moved people to tears. We were told we weren’t getting Moriarty and then he appreas in HLV. We were told Mary doesn’t come between John and Sherlock, and we were given Mary shooting Sherlock and threatening to kill him, and a Sherlock who sacrificed himself so John and Mary could be together.

Anyways since you mentioned Gatiss I might add I found it interesting that from time to time in interviews he mentions that they used the Film The Private Life of Sherlock Holmes, a greatly admired by both him and Moffat as the template for Sherlock. Incidentally, Billy Wilder wanted to make Homes gay in his film.

besleybean · August 1, 2014 4:21 pm

We'll see.

Liberty · August 1, 2014 5:43 pm

I was posting in another thread and it just made me think of a possible argument for Johnlock: LeStrade/Sherlock is such a lovely perfect bromance that maybe we don't need another one (which means John/Sherlock has to be a romance!). No, I'm kidding. I still haven't made my mind up .

Kenogami wrote:
That's what I meant when I said sorry for my english... I just don't have all the vocabulary to explain myself clearly. So I can see things that I don't see . (Thanks Google translate to help me remember words that I have forgotten and to write them correctly...)

What I meant when I said the I see things that I don't see. It's because I read metas about all the Johnlock thing. So when I come back at the scene, I'm like : " ok, I know now why you are saying that, I can see/imagine/understand what you mean. But I don't agree. I don't feel the Johnlock there."

I did some cinema courses. (It was a long time ago and it was an optional course. It was just the basics and cinema history, I do not claim to be an expert... I'm a scientist...) I know some of the basics of interpretation and analysis of the cinematography, images, plans... And I still don't agree with the johnlock moments people see or feel in that scene.

I would love to hear more about your interpretation of the cinematography, etc. I'd be interested to get another view on this.

I think I know what you mean about seeing things there. I've tried reading some of the other stuff on the internet too, and while I can see some of the things there, I feel like there are things that are ambiguous that some of the writers won't allow to be ambiguous. It feels like they're being presented as fact. It's complicated because (a) Sherlock and John do have a special relationship, and (b) love each other and (c) are an obvious, known "slash" couple, and a lot of the stuff could be just reflecting that rather than trying to show sexual attraction.

Schmiezi · August 2, 2014 5:29 am

Kenogami wrote:
And it seems like there is no place for a good analysis of the show without talking in 3/4 of Johnlock (in a relationship/sexual kind of way). I feel sometimes that I am just kicked out of the "fandom".

Funny enough, as a Johnlocker I am complaining about the same thing. I would love to read a good meta that comes to the comclusion that it is friendship only, but am yet to find one. If you should ever stumble over one, please post it here.

besleybean · August 2, 2014 6:02 am

Do you mean they are having sex now, they are going to, or what?

Mattlocked · August 2, 2014 8:06 am

Schmiezi wrote:
Kenogami wrote:
And it seems like there is no place for a good analysis of the show without talking in 3/4 of Johnlock (in a relationship/sexual kind of way). I feel sometimes that I am just kicked out of the "fandom".

Funny enough, as a Johnlocker I am complaining about the same thing. I would love to read a good meta that comes to the comclusion that it is friendship only, but am yet to find one. If you should ever stumble over one, please post it here.

Well, Kenogami just posted a small "meta" why it is only friendship for her, which I find really great btw. I agree with you, Schmiezi, more of this would be nice indeed.

besleybeen wrote:
Do you mean they are having sex now, they are going to, or what?

I don't understand why you ask that question here and now, but may I remind you that Johnlock isn't all and only about sex.
Let's call it not friendship, but romance. Which, and I hope you agree with me here, is a difference.