Offline
Liberty wrote:
Nakahara, Sherlock is a loved one. (Just not a lover ). And the things you mention (a sense of belonging, security and peace) don't strike me as overtly sexual (and it's got to be overtly sexual if the writers wanted us to see it). Those are things that we already know about his relationship with Sherlock and his attitude to danger - that's all established in the first episode. Mycroft confirms that it calms him, rather than stresses him. It's a twist on the idea of a traumatised soldier having nightmares after the war - in John's case he has those dreams because he's missing it (the characters confirm that). Sherlock fills that gap for him. (When you walk with Sherlock Holmes you see the battlefield ... You're not haunted by the war, Doctor Watson, you miss it).
Sherlock does not comes to John in his dream as some sort of a succubus or incubus, the phantom who makes you have intense erotic dreams, that´s true. OK, if tha´s your criteria about how such a dream should look like and if you see no significance in dreaming about the person while you are laying in your bed with another - and then waking up and dressing in the same blue stripped robe your "dream-person" frequently wore when you were together, then nothing would persuade you, I´m afraid.
Liberty wrote:
Post-TRF, I do think it's a flaw that John doesn't try to seek out anything else to replace that. But I think it's just because indulging that need caused him such pain - he lost Sherlock. However, it's not about what people think. He doesn't care what people think - he's loyal to Sherlock through TRF and beyond, regardless. He doesn't mind being associated with somebody thought to be a murderer and child abductor. He won't deny him. He's hardly going to plan to marry somebody just to cover up the fact that he's gay, in a world where it's fine to be gay.
And it does matter that it's fine to be gay in that world, if you're saying that the writers are trying to tell us that John is under such extreme pressure to hide his sexuality that he not only keeps it quiet for years but dates women and even marries a woman, just to hide from some disapproval that clearly doesn't exist in the story. If other people don't care about John's sexuality and John himself doesn't care what people think, then why on earth would he create a cover-up? We need to be given a reason why it would be imperative for him to deceive those women and live a lie, and we're not.
You seem to understand John´s need to live a boring middle-class life in terms of some extreme external pressure (like if an inquisition would hunt him if he didn´t confomt to that). But I was speaking about "soft", invisible kind of pressure that people don´t even realise because it was ingrained into them while they were children. I was speaking about:
Enculturation:
"Enculturation is the process where the culture that is currently established teaches an individual the accepted norms and values of the culture or society where the individual lives. The individual can become an accepted member and fulfill the needed functions and roles of the group. Most importantly the individual knows and establishes a context of boundaries and accepted behavior that dictates what is acceptable and not acceptable within the framework of that society. It teaches the individual their role within society as well as what is accepted behavior within that society and lifestyle"
Social control:
"Social norms can be enforced formally (e.g., through sanctions) or informally (e.g., through body language and non-verbal communication cues.) Because individuals often derive physical or psychological resources from group membership, groups are said to control discretionary stimuli; groups can withhold or give out more resources in response to members' adherence to group norms, effectively controlling member behavior through rewards and operant conditioning.[4] Social psychology research has found the more an individual values group-controlled resources or the more an individual sees group membership as central to his definition of self, the more likely he is to conform."
Group pressure:
This term applies to any direct or indirect social pressure that is exerted by a group on its individual members to influence their choices and may be rational argument, persuasion
And don´t tell me John isn´t influenced by any of those things. Everyone is, to some extent.
Offline
And please note this:
Sarah, the first of John´s more serious dates resembled him - she was blonde and sweet. In no time, he replaced her with dark haired, tall Jeanette, who had a prominent cheekbones and wore a dark coat:
You really see no funny hint in that that indicates how John´s tastes had changed?
Here are Sherlock´s parents. Note how they are dressed:
In your opinion it is just a coincidence that we have a married couple here - who are essentially dressed as Sherlock and John?
Why do authors include such things into their narrative?
Last edited by nakahara (September 17, 2014 8:23 am)
Offline
Yes, indeed. Why?
And Sherlock's parents being a "genius" and a "moron". Just saying.
Offline
Coincidence. It just sort of... happened.
Offline
Hi, just passing by so I'll be brief:
Each and every single heterosexual romantic relationship in the show so far is messed up (abusive, cheating, ending in tragedy) except for Mr. and Mrs. Homes who "coincidentally" is a mirror for John and Sherlock.
Last edited by tykobrian (September 17, 2014 9:46 am)
Offline
There is something else that we shouldn't forget, but I suppose this will open another topic within this debate yet again (although we've been over this several times in the past as well):
If one of our two boys were a woman, we wouldn't be having this discussion, at least not to this extent. Even if one of them were dating people of the same sex, we wouldn't doubt that there is something going on between the two of them, because all of a sudden the way they look at each other, the pain and loss they feel when the other one is not around would be so obvious.
Offline
True, Solar. And do not get me started on all the films and novels about couples whose friendship slowly turns into something else. Or the classic motive of people realising they love each other only after they have lost each other.
Offline
Very good point, Solar.
Take this movie, for example:
Two people have a few conversations (three or four in five years) and no racy scenes between them, just the opposite (they date another people) - and suddenly they end up together as a pair.
But that´s allright because the couple in question is formed between a man and a woman.
Last edited by nakahara (September 17, 2014 10:37 am)
Offline
Two unhappy people meet..instantly connect..become inseparable..turn their lives around..their friends think they're perfect together..and then are tragically seperated..one grieves...if only he said something maybe....and then just as he is about to move on....there was Sherlock yes..but now Mary theres you....a passionate love song swells..and at that exact moment.. SH returns..
Then the Casablanca/bodyguard airport departure...
Series three began and ended with the two biggest romantic cliches ever.....the writers did this deliberately...just the way they had to have Mary in situ before SH returned...JW falling for someone else wasn't feasible while he was with SH...
Last edited by lil (September 17, 2014 11:58 am)
Offline
lil wrote:
Two unhappy people meet..instantly connect..become inseparable..turn their lives around..their friends think they're perfect together..and then are tragically seperated..one grieves...if only he said something maybe....and then just as he is about to move on....there was Sherlock yes..but now Mary theres you....a passionate love song swells..and at that exact moment.. SH returns..
Then the Casablanca/bodyguard airport departure...
Series three began and ended with the two biggest romantic cliches ever.....the writers did this deliberately...just the way they had to have Mary in situ before SH returned...JW falling for someone else wasn't feasible while he was with SH...
Good observation, I agree.
Offline
Pagecatching finished. You’re right that the only possible difference between people who think J and S are in love with each other and who think they are not is detecting sexual interest between them. I mean I think we all agree that both of them deeply care for the other and have a strong bond.
So how do people portray sexual interest in television? I mean I’m not talking about just putting a hot boy and a hot girl on screen. Although doing only that will make some people start rooting for them. What I mean is until a possible couple unambiguously “does it” on screen the authors use some writing and filming techniques to show the audience that they have sexual and romantic interest and their pairing will be sooo much better than any other relationship they are (if) in now. Some of these examples are rather tropey and a cliché while others do happen in real life. I’m no expert in writing or filming so I’m expressing my opinion as an audience who has seen these things happen in the books and the screen. And surprise surprise, each of these are applicable for John and Sherlock:
1.Well I suppose the first and foremost is, how the scenes between the possible couple are romanticized using the storytelling, filming, acting and even the score.
2.Slip of the tongue: the possible pair accidentally lets on hints to their attraction for the other.
3.Showing jealousy and contempt when the other is in a relationship.
4.The pair’s not-yet-romantic relationship and devotion to one another is always -and sometimes suspiciously unnecessarily so- shown to be far more genuine and deep than their existing romantic lives.
5.How the two are shown to be made for each other. You know things like how miserable they were before they met but meeting the other completely turned their life around and/or how only in the presence of the other can s/he be themselves.
6.Presence of an obstacle – something that is stopping two people from unambiguously expressing their romantic interest for the other. It could be a misunderstanding, societal pressure (different race, religion etc.) or being in a committed relationship.
7.Infatuation/obsession with the other.
8.Using romantic relationships to get over the other, you know the rebound thing. (I wish people stopped doing this both in fiction and in reality.)
9.(I’ve only seen this happening in Sherlock) Other established romantic pairs are used as a stand-in for the pair in question. And it's not only the Holmes parents. There are other romantic pairs used as stand ins in the show.
I'm typing from my phone so sorry I couldn't elaborate on these points at this moment. Meanwhile anyone wanna have a go? Also how do you think sexual interest is portrayed in literature/screen in a slow burn romance story?
Last edited by tykobrian (September 17, 2014 1:28 pm)
Offline
I have really nothing to add, tykobrian. This sums it up quite nicely.
Offline
I really love that list, tykobrian. I guess we could elaborate on all of those points you've mentioned, but to me they mostly are self-explanatory.
Just take the first one: Their very first encounter, the way in which Sherlock is scanning John, the way in which they show us John handing his phone over to Sherlock. Then in 221B, look how proud Sherlock is when presenting the flat to John, listen closely to how his voice is slightly changing when he asks John to accompany him on the case (let's face it: He's asking him out on their first date), see how happy he reacts when John tells him how amazing Sherlock's deduction of John was... then the two of them at Angelo's, the lighting, the place itself, predestined for an intimate date - here the set designers easily could have decided for a more clinical design, without candles, intimacy and such an unusual and flashy lighting.
Shall I go on?
Offline
Yes, please, I could listen to you for hours.
Offline
..well, then let's continue with the end of ASiP, when it becomes so obvious (to me at least) that these two will be inseparable for the rest of their days. Listen to them laughing and giggling together at a crime scene, right after John has killed a man because he thought Sherlock's life was in danger, the life of a man he has only known for 24 hours, but it's the two of them against the rest of the world already. How they basically ride into the sunset together at the very end of the episode, how the camera stays with them and even gives them to us in slow-motion, how the camera is savouring this moment right after Sherlock has asked John out for dinner once again...
Offline
SolarSystem wrote:
I really love that list, tykobrian. I guess we could elaborate on all of those points you've mentioned, but to me they mostly are self-explanatory.
Just take the first one: Their very first encounter, the way in which Sherlock is scanning John, the way in which they show us John handing his phone over to Sherlock. Then in 221B, look how proud Sherlock is when presenting the flat to John, listen closely to how his voice is slightly changing when he asks John to accompany him on the case (let's face it: He's asking him out on their first date), see how happy he reacts when John tells him how amazing Sherlock's deduction of John was... then the two of them at Angelo's, the lighting, the place itself, predestined for an intimate date - here the set designers easily could have decided for a more clinical design, without candles, intimacy and such an unusual and flashy lighting.
Shall I go on?
Good point. They could've just had them go to a chip shop. Maybe the one where Sherlock helped hang shelves...........................
Offline
By the way, have you ever had a closer look at how many scenes are lighted? There is an abundance of purple light - in Baker Street (outside), in front of Angelo's, in the ambulance in HLV, and many more. I once did some screenshots.
Last edited by SusiGo (September 17, 2014 3:49 pm)
Offline
Well however the delusional shippers see it, people who are actually playing John and Sherlock like Mr. freeman here has firmly stated that whatever those two have is simply platonic. Watch and enjoy:
* link of the full video
So there you have it, class. P-L-A-T-O-N-I-C!
EDIT: why can't i put two gifs side by side??
Last edited by tykobrian (September 17, 2014 4:30 pm)
Offline
Personally, I really don't appreciate being refered to as delusional. No need for name calling.
Offline
It's not personally directed abuse.
If you don't feel the hat fits, you don't have to wear it..
But I have to say, it's sometimes very difficult to express an idea and not cause offence.
If you really believe something is delusional, can you not say so?
EDIT: I've just checked the definition...seems perfectly acceptable to me.
Last edited by besleybean (September 17, 2014 5:11 pm)