SusiGo wrote:

I simply cannot imagine why they should do the same Billy Wilder did forty years ago - showing a "desperately unspoken" unrequited love. There is no challenge in repeating what Wilder did before (and deeply regretted by his own admission). 

Definitely not!  That's one reason I don't think that's what's happening in the series.  I think they would either correct that (i.e. make them openly gay, etc.) or not go down that route at all.  I'm pretty certain that they wouldn't want to make either of them closeted.

@ ancientsgate I know ACD didn't write any scenes where they got together, but that was a different time and place.   They could have been meant to be together without it being explicit.   However, when I read it (I haven't read all the stories), I can see Sherlock as gay and celibate, or kind of neutral, but I don't see them as lovers (I know that other people do).  

I don't think they've made Sherlock pine for John in the series, the way he does in Private Life.   I just don't think it's sexual love that we're seeing.  And again, I think that partly might come from a child's eye view of the couple - wouldn't you want Sherlock as a best friend as a child?  And of course, we see Sherlock being jealous, in quite a childish way, of John's previous best friend.  And John knowing instinctively that Sherlock wouldn't be jealous with Mary (John's lover), but would be jealous of Sholto (John's best friend).   Now, I completely agree that TSOT is about John and Sherlock's relationship (rather than a romance between John and Mary - it's clearly not that), but I think that aspect in particular sets out the nature of their relationship.  

It's the pregnancy that rams it home to Sherlock that there's a world of adult relationships that he's not part of - I really don't like the line about John and Mary parenting him, but it's one of the many things that bring up the rather childlike way the writers have chosen to portray Sherlock here.   I don't think his love for John is childish - it's love between two adult men that will continue into old age (and I don't think having best friends and loving friends is childish either - I'm just pointing out something I see in the show).  Another one is Sherlock's comment about John going on a date - isn't that what they do together?   It's almost a childlike perspective.   I suppose it comes partly from Sherlock suppressing his sexuality, and being a little disappointed that it's an issue for John.  I don't think sex even enters into their relationship - it's the two of them against the world. 

Last edited by Liberty (February 5, 2015 8:00 am)

When it comes to the childlike perspective, that is another one of the instances where it's not either/or for me. I read this amazing meta analyzing Sherlock that I felt head over heels for, and where the writer argues for Sherlock not having learned how to deal with emotions in an adult way. Which shows in his temper tantrums and epic sulks, which are the way five year olds deal with emotions.

That doesn't mean his entire persona is "childlike", far from it. He is a grown man in all aspects, except for not having learned how to deal with and communicate to others his emotions in a mature way, and neither having learned how to deal with and consider other people's emotions in a mature way. But he's getting there, it's part of his development.

Vhanja wrote:

......That doesn't mean his entire persona is "childlike", far from it. He is a grown man in all aspects, except for not having learned how to deal with and communicate to others his emotions in a mature way, and neither having learned how to deal with and consider other people's emotions in a mature way. But he's getting there, it's part of his development.

I liked your description of him here, a grown man in all aspects except for how he deals with others and with his own emotions. I've always thought he's just pretending to have no emotions, simply because he doesn't understand them. Also, they leave him bewildered and feeling different from how he thinks people usually are (not that he's any stranger to feeling different--  I imagine he has been different all his life, and he's known it), so he's just summarily decided that okay, well, I don't have normal emotions, and I'll tell everyone I'm a  high-functioning sociopath. Which he isn't; the writers have made that more than clear.

But yeah, peoplel can learn to understand themselves and grow, if they want to, and he can develop and mature. This is intriguing to think about, especially as it might impact his relationship with John.

But from what I can see, Sherlock seems to already know that John is "the one" for him, but John is the one who seems blind to it. "I'm NOT gay."  And he fusses and fumes at and over Sherlock like a mother hen, follows him around, eager to assist and support and make Sherlock's life easier, but, "I'm NOT gay!"

Interesting. Sorry, I know I'm babbling.
 

Well, that is interesting. As I read the abstract, it deals with Moriarty, not Sherlock/John?

Yeah, would be a very interesting read.

If the abstract is anything to go by, I think I'd struggle with the full text. 

My post was not so much about this paper as such. I mainly wanted to show that the subject is currently discussed in academic circles and that it is not restricted to the fandom itself. As there are various papers dealing with the homoerotic aspects of the show I assume that even though the creators have so often dismissed these elements they are there for quite a lot of people to see and interpret in their own ways. 

Thank you, lil. I will check it out.

This touches upon what has been discussed before, but it also brings in what's said in the show itself as a support:

http://cant-deny-the-johnlock-ship.tumblr.com/post/112724331606/just-sort-of-happened-one-of-the-ways-that

So now the question is: How consicious was the decision to frame his speech that way? 
 

From what I know about cinematographie, I'd say that it is impossible to do such a framing without intending to.

It works a bit like that: the director tells the cameraman how he wants the scene to be framed. Then the scene is recorded with stand-ins for the main actors. Then the director looks at the recorded scene. At that point McCarthy sees that Mary is not in the frame. And that is repeated with the next take and the next and the next.

I do not see how you can involuntarily leave out Mary the way it is done.

Last edited by Schmiezi (March 5, 2015 2:37 pm)