Offline
I think this is the right place for it. Thanks for posting, I will read it as soon as possible.
Offline
ukaunz wrote:
Does this belong here or in the other thread?
Since it's an academic paper I think it fits in either thread.
Offline
Do you want me to post in the other thread too?
Offline
ukaunz wrote:
Does this belong here or in the other thread?
Really interesting article, thanks for sharing! I've never thought of the similarities between Mrs/Mr. Hudson and John/Mary before, that was quite awesome. I don't think it is "purely physical" between John and Mary, more that she was the right person at the right time, when John needed and sought support, care, closeness and normalcy. Or so I see it.
She also makes a good point, that have been mentioned here recently, that John doesn't see all that we see. So his view on Sherlock would have to be slightly different then ours.
What I think is the problem with shippers of most fandoms is that due to the long hiatus between new work (for instance, a few years between each HP-book or each Sherlock season), the fandom has more time to analyze the work that has already been made than the creators had making them. Meaning, I think that fans often analyze stuff deeper and more than was ever intended, because they have the time to do so.
Having that said, I do not believe Johnlockers are "delusional" (as was said about Harry/Hermione-shippers). I believe the show is done in such a way that it's just as easy, and believable, to view them as a romantic pair as it is to view them as "just" friends. And that is the problem. And the challenge. And the fun.
Offline
I think it's a nice summary, but it's very one-sided, isn't it? For instance, it says that John "eschews women", even though there's no reason to think that he has (there's nothing really more to say about his relationships with women until Mary, and that's what we see). It says John is jealous in the Janine scenes, whereas the commentary has made it clear that he isn't (I know there's still a view that he may be, but there's no attempt here to present that side). It assumes that John is closeted, and I believe that's debated even between the Johnlock supporters (at least, so I gather from the discussion here). It says that "LGB and comfortable heterosexual" people want to see characters being incidentally LGB, charcter first and sexuality second, yet making their sexuality a mystery and a secret, to be gradually revealed, is the opposite of this, making their sexuality the point. It misses out the Sholto scene, which seems to show Sherlock being jealous of John's previous best friend (but not of Mary). (It does include the conversation before the wedding with Mrs Hudson, which puts Sherlock in the position of best friend, so I suppose that's some attempt to show an alternative view!).
I don't mean this to be criticism, especially when the author can't talk back! It's only the lack of balance that's the problem for me, not the article itself. As I said it's a nice summary of a a particular viewpoint and obviously not meant to be a consideration of the different sides of the argument.
Last edited by Liberty (June 1, 2015 1:49 pm)
Offline
I tend to disagree that Sherlock is not jealous of Mary. I think he is to a degree, but he sets it aside because he beleives she makes John happy and he wants John to be happy. You don't see it a lot but I think there are subtle shades of it here and there.
Offline
I think it has some very valuable points. I think we are shown that John seeks a relationship in the first two seasons, have a look at Anthea or Jeanette. Yet it doesn't work out. So it's safe to say that Mary wasn't the first attempt to begin with. I agree with Vhanja here that Mary was first and foremost in the right place at the right time. Maybe it's just the wrong attempt to have a look at connecting with the women we're presented so far at all, just as a thought.
I think what lots of fans feel is that Johnlock means being definitely decided about your own sexuality. It's being hetero, straight, bi, I think what we see here is much more complicated. So why abandon a development, why abandon a change in yourself just because it's not openly set up in the first five minutes? That's a bit too easy for me.
And I think we already broadly discussed the Janine scene, I don't see why we have to strictly abandon jealousy on Johns part because of the comment but cling to a version of Sherlock and Irene going for it and being completely smitten when the same commenter makes it clear that's simply not the case. Either I take it as bible or I don't.
And last not least, one could come up with four times as many examples where Sherlock is definitely not equated to a best friend but to the bride but that would take another lenghthy post.
Offline
That's part of what I mean about the article - It takes the view that John is closeted, rather than, say, that he's attracted to Sherlock rather than men in general, or that he's attracted to both men and women. I never see the show making a point of him "eschewing women". But I suppose it is just meant to be an individual opinion rather than an overview.
I don't think Moftiss have denied that there was something between Sherlock and Irene (or if they have, please do point me to it! It would be at odds with what they've said before), even if they're more vague than Benedict about what that something is. I quite like what Steven says here. (Paraphrasing - he has a tiny bit of a thing for the bad girl .... Sherlock disdains sex to get what he wants and Irene uses it - neither are really interested it, they think they've dealt with that and put it in a box, then wham!). I don't think anything has to be taken as "bible" but I think you can get a general feel from all the comments together. I don't think the writer is considering anything that doesn't fit.
Last edited by Liberty (June 1, 2015 7:17 pm)
Offline
Well, you can get a general feel from the comment or you can get a general feel from the show that is made and broadcasted with deliberate choices.
And I find the comment about the not included last scene of ASIB telling enough tbh.
Offline
The show is ambiguous, though (as the article shows!), so we're all getting different things from it.
I did read about the "missing" scene, and I thought it fitted well with the rest (and with the interview I linked to, for instance). It certainly didn't discount Sherlock and Irene being smitten - if they weren't, then why did they both make those mistakes? I liked the idea of Sherlock being naked and Irene in disguise the last time we see them together (it was Irene naked and Sherlock in the disguise the first time), and Irene wearing Sherlock's clothes yet again! (after the iconic coat and dressing gown). And Irene cross-dresses in the original story too, of course. Of course they are interested in each other in some way - he rescues her, he keeps her phone, she comes into his mind, etc. (and there's the other deleted scene where she sends him a rose).
Last edited by Liberty (June 1, 2015 8:03 pm)
Offline
The thing is, it might fit with the two being somehow interested but for me it doesn't fit with having a hot night to finally give into physical attraction. Not a bit. Mistakes? S3 is full of mistakes from Sherlock's behalf. Who are they for then? And considering the dresses: what to make of John at the beginning of HLV clearly mirroring Sherlock with his gown? The matching tuxedos? The phone metaphor was already applied in the very first meeting and repeated for example at St. Barts with John having to grab it for Sherlock. Sorry, for me there's interest maybe, but nothing definitive.
Offline
I don't think Moftiss have ever claimed that Sherlock and Irene actually had sex (and personally, I think he is too determined to keep control to do it). The final scene doesn't rule it out, though, and Benedict seems to say that he plays Sherlock as having a sexual attraction to Irene (which in his headcanon includes actual sex).
I don't think there's any question that Sherlock loves John, and I don't think he loves Irene, but the particular mistake he makes for Irene is solving the code for her without thinking through the implications. The mistake she makes is the code for her phone. And the phone is interesting - it's not something she uses as a phone at all, but as data storage - she calls it her "protection" and Sherlock calls it her "heart" (and she gives both to Sherlock).
The point about the clothes is that you see that final scene is that I think you see the missing scene as negating everything which went before - it means they weren't interested in each other after all. I don't think that's true at all, and I think that if it was, it would also negate the story of that episode. It also doesn't make sense when Sherlock has come to rescue Irene, at great personal risk. (And that's what's so funny about his comment - it's so obvious that he is interested, and they both know it).
Last edited by Liberty (June 1, 2015 8:56 pm)
Offline
Butbutbut.... We apply metaphors to the one but not to the other I feel.
Offline
Just as an aside - volumes have been written about the phone/heart metaphor but not with regard to Irene.
Offline
" Careful"
Offline
Article was very convincing but agree there wasn't a lot of balance/counterpointing or new things we haven't read about somewhere on the web before.
@the heart/phone metaphor that works so well.
@Irene always texting SH who never answers until the goodbye and then John hearing the -not dead text-arrive and seeing SH want to keep the phone .
Is John perhaps to realise Sherlock does have interest in matters of the heart and think Irene gave her heart to Sherlock...and that maybe Sherlock was interested in taking/keeping it...but then SH ..just put it in the drawer when John couldn't see.So Irenes case / phone / heart - gave John the wrong idea about SH/IA and Sherlocks sexuality.
@In TSOT John gives Sherlock his phone...and begs him to pick a case any case and get him out of here. Well! Obvious.
Why not the laptop...easier...more logical.....
@Also in HLV John shouting at SH ...you could have called me ...and SH Is a bit back@you John..interesting they are..idk keeping phone / hearts distant /cut off from each other ? Is it a kind of why didn't you tell me / show me your heart before the wedding argument ?
And yet Mary and Sherlock are texting...idk what to make of that.
Random but a tjlc thought I had..a disguise is always a self portrait...so the waiter ...hmmm Sherlock is just...waiting on John?
Last edited by lil (June 2, 2015 3:48 am)
Offline
Some very interesting thoughts, lil, especially about the row in HLV and the waiter disguise.
Offline
mrshouse wrote:
Butbutbut.... We apply metaphors to the one but not to the other I feel.
If you mean the phone, it's just that it's made explicit with Irene - Sherlock himself uses the metaphor out loud: "this is your heart". And it's his name that opens her heart. I think it's fairly clear, but I don't think it necessarily means that all phones are hearts.
For one thing, this isn't Irene's actual mobile phone. Not in the sense that we use phones to communicate with people. It's not something she texts with, but something she uses to keep things locked away, for her protection.
She does have an actual mobile phone which she uses to text Sherlock, but it doesn't have the same meaning. That's what other people's phones are - quite personal and with some meaning maybe (see Sherlock's deduction about John's), but replaceable and serve a different purpose - they're not their "hearts". I don't think it's made explicit that phones in general mean that at all. Not saying it's not there, but that's why I see the metaphor with Irene's "phone" rather than the others.
Offline
Not quite sure what to make of it. It's either a huge coincidence that every phone interaction in all episodes fits the John / Sherlock heart narrative..or ..it's intelligent...and...it's planned...the universe is rarely so lazy etc
Have been attempting to think of where it doesn't fit - and have ended up remembering in THOB - where John locks himself in a cage and Sherlock calls him and Johns all Sherlock you've got to get me out of here...which again....fits neatly! And also the incident where Mary - lies and fakes the Cath phone call....huh...it's getting uncanny now.
#thesmokingphone.
Offline
True, the phones are quite symbolic in the whole series, starting with Moftiss turning Watson's watch into John's phone in ASiB. The pink phone, Irene's phone, Sherlock throwing his away on the roof, Sherlock directing Mary to Leinster Gardens via phone, the ambulance calls = saving his life several times ...