As you can see above, the BBC published the report itself it on their own website.

Hang on... that report is dated after Sherlock 1st aired.

No it wouldn't, because we get the banter now and they both know they are not gay?!
Ha.

Last edited by besleybean (September 13, 2014 6:48 pm)

besleybean wrote:

Hang on... that report is dated after Sherlock 1st aired.

A bit more than one month only. While the research and discussion and decision making took place in the time they decided to produce S1.

Last edited by Harriet (September 13, 2014 6:54 pm)

The fact that BBC plans to include more gay representation and the fact that Sherlock is huge at the BBC at the moment doesn´t lead to the logic conclusion that Sherlock will be the vehicle they´ll use. They commission great new stuff all the time, and I´m excited for what´s to come. But how lame would it be, after years of denying, of being asked about the "gay thing" in every press conference, of calling it "the most imperishable male friendship" even in gay magazines to have them both be incidentially gay in the end? If it´s not the focus of interest, then why bother denying it for years? Imo this would directly contradict the "softly, softly"-approach, as it doesn´t introduce it naturally but as a huge nebulous mystery that needs solving. And if it´s meant to be a big plot device they wanted to keep secret, what kind of revelation would that be? "Okay, you got us, you were right all along and they do have the hots for each other.. but we almost fooled you, didn´t we? Who would have thought.. Surprise!!" 

nakahara wrote:

One more meta found on Archipelago Archaea, a Johnlock one - a very good one, IMHO:

http://archipelagoarchaea.tumblr.com/post/92690527288/eight-ways-in-which-a-heterosexual-person-might-have
 

Today, I have mostly+ been copying quotes from the Johnlock thread and putting them somewhere else.  I hope you don't mind. 

I said on the other thread: Sherlock isn't a typical straight person* (whatever that is!) - he's fully repressed when it comes to that side of things.   He thinks love is a defect, regardless of orientation.   I did initially take that conversation to mean that he was gay, but getting to know the character, I think it's just very Sherlockian.  His non-typical responses to the questions are typical for him.  He doesn't give much away, as a rule. 

*I said this because the author was showing how a typical straight person would react, to demonstrate that Sherlock is gay.  But I would argue that his non-typicality is not to do with his sexual orientation.  His expression (or repression) of sexuality is unusual, regardless. 
+Fast Show reference.  I have been drinking and am in a silly mood.  Sorry.

besleybean wrote:

Is this writer a qualified behaviouralist or something?

A qualified something, I think.  He/she grades papers.  (The link I took from the Johnlock thread was a reposting).

I think the flow chart is just a bit of fun, but still.   I wanted to disagree .

 

lil wrote:

The thing is...Mary would more than likely never have happened if Sherlock hadn't left...

Before TRF it had become increasingly clear John and Sherlock were a pair..with no room for anyone else..a couple as Irene said.
John was jealous of Irene and even Moriarty..and later Janine. Sherlock scared off all of Johns girlfriends...and John seemed quite prepared to continue putting his relationship with Sherlock before all others..and happy that way.

Mary took advantage of Sherlock being gone....once Mary is gone..do we really see anyone else being allowed into John and Sherlocks lives again...?

That leaves them ..as a couple of men who love each other..want to be together..need each other..live together...and with no room between them for anyone else..and are happy that way..for the foreseeable future.

Sex or no sex..they are a couple and they love each other..
In a society where everything seems to be sexualised..and sex can be as meaningless as having met someone ten minutes ago..and never seeing them again......John and Sherlocks relationship seems to be yet another zeitgeistist and disdainful comment @ modern life...a this is what a meaningful relationship should like....
Thats the core theme of the whole thing.

Johnlockers are just putting the cherry on the cake the writers already made...

There's nothing wrong with putting cherries on cakes.  I do it myself (believe in something that I feel isn't explicitly shown, but implied), just not in this case.

I agree with all you're saying, although I'm not sure about Sherlock and John's relationship being presented as what a relationship should be like.  It's so not.  I can find plenty of fault in it, but it happens to work OK for them, most of the time.  (Relationship Fault Number One: Lack of communication ). 
 

Liberty wrote:

nakahara wrote:

One more meta found on Archipelago Archaea, a Johnlock one - a very good one, IMHO:

http://archipelagoarchaea.tumblr.com/post/92690527288/eight-ways-in-which-a-heterosexual-person-might-have
 

Today, I have mostly+ been copying quotes from the Johnlock thread and putting them somewhere else.  I hope you don't mind. 

I said on the other thread: Sherlock isn't a typical straight person* (whatever that is!) - he's fully repressed when it comes to that side of things.   He thinks love is a defect, regardless of orientation.   I did initially take that conversation to mean that he was gay, but getting to know the character, I think it's just very Sherlockian.  His non-typical responses to the questions are typical for him.  He doesn't give much away, as a rule. 

*I said this because the author was showing how a typical straight person would react, to demonstrate that Sherlock is gay.  But I would argue that his non-typicality is not to do with his sexual orientation.  His expression (or repression) of sexuality is unusual, regardless. 
+Fast Show reference.  I have been drinking and am in a silly mood.  Sorry.

Of course, the above-mentioned meta was partly a joke, so no surprise here. 

As to Sherlock´s distrust towards women and love, he does explain himself eloquently in the Canon ("The Sign of Four"):"What a very attractive woman!" I exclaimed, turning to my companion.He had lit his pipe again and was leaning back with drooping eyelids. "Is she?" he said languidly; "I did not observe.""You really are an automaton -- a calculating machine," I cried. "There is something positively inhuman in you at times."He smiled gently."It is of the first importance," he cried, "not to allow your judgment to be biased by personal qualities. A client is to me a mere unit, a factor in a problem. The emotional qualities are antagonistic to clear reasoning. I assure you that the most winning woman I ever knew was hanged for poisoning three little children for their insurance-money, and the most repellent man of my acquaintance is a philanthropist who has spent nearly a quarter of a million upon the London poor."
And later:"Miss Morstan has done me the honour to accept me as a husband in prospective."He gave a most dismal groan."I feared as much," said he. "I really cannot congratulate you."I was a little hurt."Have you any reason to be dissatisfied with my choice?" I asked."Not at all. I think she is one of the most charming young ladies I ever met and might have been most useful in such work as we have been doing. She had a decided genius that way witness the way in which she preserved that Agra plan from ali the other papers of her father. But love is an emotional thing, and whatever is emotional is opposed to that true cold reason which I place above all things. I should never marry myself, lest I bias my judgment."
It seems canon Sherlock has issues with women because he met some non-flattering examples of their sex. And yet he met with even more nasty examples of males throught his career - this doesn´t prevent him from wanting to share their company.

He coldly denounces emotion - yet he has no problem to live with a highly emotional and sensitive John Watson. In the same book he gently cares about John and plays some soft melody on his violin to lull John into sleep when John is exausted.

He also ensures that he has no women´s company when he wants to dwell somewhere:

My old friend, Colonel Hayter, who had come under my professional care in Afghanistan, had now taken a house near Reigate in Surrey and had frequently asked me to come down to him upon a visit. On the last occasion he had remarked that if my friend would only come with me he would be glad to extend his hospitality to him also. A little diplomacy was needed, but when Holmes understood that the establishment was a bachelor one, and that he would be allowed the fullest freedom, he fell in with my plans and a week after our return from Lyons we were under the colonel's roof. ("The Reigate Squires")

He never feels anything romantic towards any woman - in "Three Garridebs" he professes his deep concern about John when John is injured and his guard around him slips.

Not sure about John Watson, but the canonical Sherlock certainly seems like a gay to me.

And not only people on this forum see it that way. I own this anthology written way before BBC Sherlock was filmed:

http://www.amazon.com/The-New-Adventures-Sherlock-Holmes/dp/0881844357

The book includes one funny little short story about how John Watson, a married man, actually lives with his friend Sherlock Holmes. Why did the author of the story saw it that way? Because the canon gave him/her those vibes, that´s why. 

The BBC Sherlock is not only based on the canonical one, he is even more awkward and distrustful towards women and treats them strangely, reacting almost with fear when they profess their attraction to him. This picture is a joke but as all jokes, it has a kernell of the truth in it:

http://33.media.tumblr.com/ac5e4eeb6732778ac3d243ee5c948629/tumblr_mqklknRhYv1r2zpefo4_1280.png

In my eyes BBC Sherlock is probably even more gay than the canonical one was.

But that doesn´t mean you must see the things the same way, of course. 

 

Liberty wrote:

I said on the other thread: Sherlock isn't a typical straight person* (whatever that is!) - he's fully repressed when it comes to that side of things.   He thinks love is a defect, regardless of orientation.   I did initially take that conversation to mean that he was gay, but getting to know the character, I think it's just very Sherlockian.  His non-typical responses to the questions are typical for him.  He doesn't give much away, as a rule. 

Yes, and I think it´s is a huge part of his appeal and one (if not the) main reason for the character´s fame. Him remaining a mystery and slightly aloof from the people surrounding him, him thinking of love and emotion as grit in a sensitive instrument is what makes his connection with Watson so touching and his rare outbursts of emotion so compelling. He is attractive yet inapproachable, very physical and emotional yet absolutely cerebral at the same time. If you take the tension between those poles away, if you solve the puzzle and make him a gay guy in a loving relationship it might have some different appeal, too, if it´s well done, but a huge part of the fascination will be gone imo.
(Unresolved tension is a vicious motivator.. no wonder people want to hook him up with someone since decades ^^.)