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

Whisky · September 20, 2015 7:29 am

Well, the actual writing gives us this little part:
"We're not a couple" - "Yes you are" - "I am not gay"
and then the "Look at us both" and no further comment from John.
For me, that is definitely a "are they or aren't they" moment that's written in the script.

(Irene makes it clear that being attracted to Sherlock has nothing to do with gender. And basically, John doesn't argue this statement. So him or the writers clarifying he's straight is a rather useless point from this point on concerning his relationship to Sherlock.)

Last edited by Whisky (September 20, 2015 7:34 am)

Liberty · September 20, 2015 7:42 am

That's probably about the closest they get, but I still think it needs to be seen in the context of the rest of the show. Sherlock and John are a couple, and both John and Irene are fascinated by, and have fallen for Sherlock in their own ways. I do see a sexual connection between Sherlock and Irene, but I know many people don't, and it's probably mainly an emotionally-charged meeting of minds (she uses sex in her work, he's suppressed his sexuality). And of course, there's nothing to indicate that Sherlock and John are a couple in the sexual sense. (Irene is not saying that they might become a couple, or that John wants them to be a couple, but that they already are a couple). I don't think it's queerbaiting (although I can see why some people see it that way). (The only slightly bothersome thing is that they add a major lesbian character, but then have the main point of her story being that she falls for a man - not exactly queerbaiting, but maybe a bit of a wasted opportunity).

Last edited by Liberty (September 20, 2015 7:48 am)

Whisky · September 20, 2015 7:54 am

Liberty wrote:
(The only slightly bothersome thing is that they add a major lesbian character, but then have the main point of her story being that she falls for a man - not exactly queerbaiting, but maybe a bit of a wasted opportunity).

Yes, that's true. Although I think the idea here is mainly to make a point about Sherlock, nothing else.

Liberty · September 20, 2015 8:03 am

Whisky wrote:
Going back to where I came from, so as long as they end up in a relationship, BBC Sherlock stays clear of queerbaiting? (trying to understand...)

edited to add:
Actually, this term confuses me a bit. Of course, if there are romantic tropes, I would assume romance. No matter which gender the lead characters have. I would be just as pissed off as a heterosexual viewer if the obvious romantic tropes used for two male or two female characters of a show would lead nowhere. Imagination doesn't supply me with a quicker acceptance one way or another. I am confident it's not based on what I am used to, it's based on coding, as Ho Yay said.

I wanted to come back to this, because I think we're being told that if romantic tropes are used, it must mean that the characters are coming together in a traditional romance. I don't think that's the case. Here's the link posted a while ago.

Take the first one there. Red String of Fate: They meet because they say the same thing to the same person. TV tropes explains it as:
More than Love at First Sight, more than simply two Soulmates destined to be together, the Red String of Fate is some perceivable clue that identifies your destined True Love. The trope namer is an East Asian belief originating from Chinese legend called the Red String of Fate (akai ito or unmei no akai ito). The concept is that two people who are destined to be together are attached by an invisible red string bound from a male's thumb to a female's pinky finger (though nowadays it's become more common to show both parties attached at the pinky). But the Red String of Fate need not be a literal red string. It could be a timer counting down to alert you at the exact moment that you meet the perfect person for you. It could even be an unusually meaningful birthmark showing your destined’s name in their own handwriting. But whether magic or Magitek, whether you’re born with it or have to have it installed, whether it actively pulls you together or serves only as a passive identifier, the match it suggests for you is your True Love Because Destiny Says So.

So, they both say the same thing, so maybe they're fated to be together? Of course, they are. They're Holmes and Watson. The whole story is about the two of them and their relationship. They do get drawn together by fate and Mike Stamford. But that doesn't mean it has to develop into a conventional romance. What were the writers supposed to do? Change their meeting (they meet in the same way in the ACD story) just to avoid the possibility that people could see them as lovers? Or does this fated meeting work just as well if they're not lovers?

I don't think this is queerbaiting either.

Whisky · September 20, 2015 8:17 am

Yes, but that would be about the general set-up and setting, and I agree with you. Holmes and Watson belong together, of course they have to meet, to be a couple in whatever sense. Of course they are made for each other, and all that.

But the romantic tropes that appear later in the story, they don't really fall into that category, do they. It's emphazised, and not merely there because of course it has to be there because of the original story, the expectations, whatever.

I mean, if only Johnlockers would see it, people who expect to see it. But I get the impression that's not the case. Especially when people who weren't looking for Johnlock suddenly start to ask the "are they, aren't they" question.

Last edited by Whisky (September 20, 2015 8:18 am)

Liberty · September 20, 2015 8:40 am

I could go through them all, but it would take a while and be quite boring to read! I think they fall into different categories, and quite a few come under the references to them being a couple, which come up several times.

The next one is "meet cute": Sherlock deduces things about John, and winks cutely.   Again the deduction is taken from the ACD story, but changed a little for modern times.   I don't agree that this scene is "rife with awkwardness, embarrassment, and sometimes outright hostility". And should they really have left the meeting scene out?

Then there's "rescue romance": John saves Sherlock's life when he's about to take the pill. Yes, this is kind of romantic, but not sexual. I think there's a number of things going on there - it shows John's fierce defence of Sherlock, even after not knowing him long, that he's not afraid to do something like that, that Sherlock recognises and approves of that, and so on.   I also think that although it's very tense and dark on first watching there's an element of humour in Sherlock trying to use his massive intellect to play mind games with the killer, whereas John just shoots him. And there's the aspect of Sherlock covering for the murder when he realises who did it.   There's quite a lot to it, and I think it would have been a shame to leave it out just because it also happens in romances.

"Samaritan Relationship Starter".   Now I don't even agree that this is the right trope. "So Alice and Bob don't know each other yet, or Alice regards Bob with either indifference or dislike. But then, she witnesses him committing — or becomes the recipient of — some single act of kindness (rescuing someone from bullies, stopping to help someone with errands, etc.) that makes her think "maybe he's not so bad after all"". I think that Sherlock and John have a connection right from the beginning. Antisocial Sherlock is happy to have John live with him, and he recruits him for a case when he normally works alone. I do not see any indifference or dislike - far from it.   (Kind of amused that John killing somebody shows that "he's not so bad after all", though!).

The next couple are references to them being a couple, which I've talked about earlier. Those references are quite blatant, and obviously, not only Johnlockers see them. (When I'm thinking about stuff only Johnlockers see, it's more stuff like the meaning in a look and so on - things that are difficult to pin down). I could go on through the rest: but anyway, I'm hope I'm managing to make the point that these things don't automatically lead to a conventional romance.   There is bound to be some crossover, when you're showing two people who have a very special relationship which is central to the show.

Last edited by Liberty (September 20, 2015 8:43 am)

Ho Yay · September 26, 2015 1:16 am

Liberty wrote:
I could go through them all, but it would take a while and be quite boring to read! I think they fall into different categories, and quite a few come under the references to them being a couple, which come up several times.

The next one is "meet cute": Sherlock deduces things about John, and winks cutely.   Again the deduction is taken from the ACD story, but changed a little for modern times.   I don't agree that this scene is "rife with awkwardness, embarrassment, and sometimes outright hostility". And should they really have left the meeting scene out?

Then there's "rescue romance": John saves Sherlock's life when he's about to take the pill. Yes, this is kind of romantic, but not sexual. I think there's a number of things going on there - it shows John's fierce defence of Sherlock, even after not knowing him long, that he's not afraid to do something like that, that Sherlock recognises and approves of that, and so on.   I also think that although it's very tense and dark on first watching there's an element of humour in Sherlock trying to use his massive intellect to play mind games with the killer, whereas John just shoots him. And there's the aspect of Sherlock covering for the murder when he realises who did it.   There's quite a lot to it, and I think it would have been a shame to leave it out just because it also happens in romances.

"Samaritan Relationship Starter".   Now I don't even agree that this is the right trope. "So Alice and Bob don't know each other yet, or Alice regards Bob with either indifference or dislike. But then, she witnesses him committing — or becomes the recipient of — some single act of kindness (rescuing someone from bullies, stopping to help someone with errands, etc.) that makes her think "maybe he's not so bad after all"". I think that Sherlock and John have a connection right from the beginning. Antisocial Sherlock is happy to have John live with him, and he recruits him for a case when he normally works alone. I do not see any indifference or dislike - far from it.   (Kind of amused that John killing somebody shows that "he's not so bad after all", though!).

The next couple are references to them being a couple, which I've talked about earlier. Those references are quite blatant, and obviously, not only Johnlockers see them. (When I'm thinking about stuff only Johnlockers see, it's more stuff like the meaning in a look and so on - things that are difficult to pin down). I could go on through the rest: but anyway, I'm hope I'm managing to make the point that these things don't automatically lead to a conventional romance.   There is bound to be some crossover, when you're showing two people who have a very special relationship which is central to the show.

But they are still romantic tropes, TV code is TV code and reality is reality. There's not reason why they shouldn't be romantic when they are in all other cases when used massively and the sexual element doesn't define romance. Most romantic tropes are not sexual tropes.
A writer can't use all the code of another type of relationship and think that people won't think it's the kind of relationship the code belongs to. They gave us no reason whatsoever inside the show to doubt the code. If I hadn't got internet access I'd believe everyone thought they where a romantic endgame.
Why, of all the couple on TV, this one had to be the only couple in which a massive use of romantic tropes doesn't mean a romance?

They could have met, but did it have to be so cute with the wink and John saying Sherlock was charming during the meeting on his blog?
Did Sherlock have to invite John to dinner (which with irene is a metaphor for sex) after he was saved and so damn impressed?
Did Stamford have to say "You're the second person who says that to me today" (same thing said, same day, fate) (Not really relevant, but fun fact, the actor has put cupid with his face above Sherlock and John as his twitter profile picture)

Not relevant as well, but I've got a meta on the red string of fate if anyone is intersted (not really related to this), it's some just random speculation, nothing I take too seriously:
http://bug-catcher-in-viridian-forest.tumblr.com/post/128473413016/sherlock-tv-series-theory-sherlocks-red

As for the queerbating, the queerbaiting it's a fact if it's not a romance, because a large number of queer people have been baited and at this point it has nothing to do with what the writers think it's they are doing, because anyone can think something they are doing is right, but people can still get hurt. The large number of baited get to say if they have been baited and hurt.
They also know that people are convinced it's a romance and they fuel it. They have been told, they could have stopped anytime, especially in series 3, they put more and more.

I've updated the heteronormativity meta with more content. I've put more romantic/sexual content under the friend argument (the first one). It's all mixed with the content that was there before. There are many GIFS and pictures.
http://bug-catcher-in-viridian-forest.tumblr.com/post/128518826221/sherlock-tv-series-heteronormativity-caught
for those interested in the sexual content only it's mainly under the:
- Unresolved sexual tension trope (which also refers to content under the held gaze trope)
- Sexual priming section.
But there have been additions under more than one trope because I tried to put as much content as possible under tropes. And some other sections have been added.

Liberty · September 26, 2015 7:36 am

My apologies, I didn't realise you were the writer of that meta! It's great to be able to talk to you in person, so to speak .

Why not use romantic tropes? Their relationship definitely has romantic elements. I think the writers have been clear that the show is as much (if not more) about the development of their relationship as it is about the cases.

Here's the "red string of fate" line from the original story:
"That's a strange thing," remarked my companion; "you are the second man to-day that has used that expression to me."
No, they didn't have to put that in ASIP, but why not? An awful lot of ASIP is direct references to A Study in Scarlet. If ACD set up that fated meeting well, then why not use it?

I don't watch lots of TV (or look out for tropes!), so I don't know how much these tropes are generally used outside of conventional romances - I'd guess it's not often, as you don't see many friendships like Sherlock and John's. The film Thelma and Louise springs to mind - a loving friendship with strong romantic elements (and some ambiguity) and romantic tropes used to show that.

Ho Yay · September 26, 2015 11:09 am

They shouldn't use them because everyone (not counting heteronormativity for queer couples) is going to understand it is a romance because tropes are codes, build their expectations, being disappointed after that. Queer people that are underrepresented and not represente almost al all in shows like this as leads will be not only disappointed but socially hurt because media influences real life.

Interpreting romantic tropes as friendship with romantic elements is the interpretations that needs a leap to make. The obvious interpretation of romantic tropes is romance.

I don't know about thelma and louise, never seen it, for all I know it could be queerbaiting as well.

Vhanja · September 26, 2015 11:17 am

I haven't seen any meta on it (haven't look either), but I wonder how many - if any - romantic tropes are found between Frodo and Sam in LotR.

SusiGo · September 26, 2015 11:17 am

I find these arguments very interesting and I agree with them. False leads that may lead to hurt and disappointment are not acceptable. Because you have to ask why they are employed. For fun? This would not be good.

Last edited by SusiGo (September 26, 2015 11:17 am)

nakahara · September 26, 2015 11:17 am

Ho Yay, I absolutely love your posts and metas.

SusiGo · September 26, 2015 11:52 am

This sums up my thoughts very well:

http://trained-cormorant.tumblr.com/post/129907235083/beejohnlocked-you-know-what-i-find-incredible

Liberty · September 26, 2015 2:15 pm

Vhanja wrote:
I haven't seen any meta on it (haven't look either), but I wonder how many - if any - romantic tropes are found between Frodo and Sam in LotR.

Oh, definitely! It's not the same sort of relationship as Sherlock and John's but it's a good example of a friendship with romantic elements. (How about mild-mannered Sam fighting Shelob to protect damsel-in-distress Frodo? Sam's "false love interest" being side-lined for Frodo's sake? Or many other romantic moments: my favourite in the films is the scene where Frodo saves Sam from drowning which I always have to watch with hankies at the ready!). I think the romantic tropes work very well for a friendship which goes beyond the mates/buddies relationship to being the most important person in each other's life.

It's years since I've seen Thelma and Louise, but it's a film about two friends who become the centre of each other's lives. There is a scene where one of the women kills somebody for the sake of the other. And the final scene is hugely romantic

They go to their deaths together, preceded by a kiss

   As I say, it's years since I've seen it and I can't remember exactly: there's probably enough ambiguity for people to see a lesbian relationship if they wanted to, but it's never followed through.

Whether any of these are queerbaiting (putting in romantic tropes to attract queer viewers/readers), I don't know. I suspect not with Tolkien. And with Moftiss, they could just write a gay story if they wanted (no need for coded hints and tropes), so I don't think that's a factor.

Now if they took out all the romantic tropes (the meeting from the ACD story, John saving Sherlock, etc.) it would be a different story and a completely different sort of friendship.

mrshouse · September 26, 2015 3:00 pm

SusiGo wrote:
This sums up my thoughts very well:

http://trained-cormorant.tumblr.com/post/129907235083/beejohnlocked-you-know-what-i-find-incredible

Oh, Susi.... That hurt indeed...

Ho Yay · September 26, 2015 7:15 pm

nakahara wrote:
Ho Yay, I absolutely love your posts and metas.

Thanks!
Shamelesse self-advertising alert , you can find the most interesting stuff here http://bug-catcher-in-viridian-forest.tumblr.com/sherlock

Liberty wrote:
Vhanja wrote:
I haven't seen any meta on it (haven't look either), but I wonder how many - if any - romantic tropes are found between Frodo and Sam in LotR.
Oh, definitely! It's not the same sort of relationship as Sherlock and John's but it's a good example of a friendship with romantic elements. (How about mild-mannered Sam fighting Shelob to protect damsel-in-distress Frodo? Sam's "false love interest" being side-lined for Frodo's sake?   Or many other romantic moments: my favourite in the films is the scene where Frodo saves Sam from drowning which I always have to watch with hankies at the ready!). I think the romantic tropes work very well for a friendship which goes beyond the mates/buddies relationship to being the most important person in each other's life.

It's years since I've seen Thelma and Louise, but it's a film about two friends who become the centre of each other's lives. There is a scene where one of the women kills somebody for the sake of the other. And the final scene is hugely romantic
They go to their deaths together, preceded by a kiss
   As I say, it's years since I've seen it and I can't remember exactly: there's probably enough ambiguity for people to see a lesbian relationship if they wanted to, but it's never followed through.

Whether any of these are queerbaiting (putting in romantic tropes to attract queer viewers/readers), I don't know. I suspect not with Tolkien. And with Moftiss, they could just write a gay story if they wanted (no need for coded hints and tropes), so I don't think that's a factor.

Now if they took out all the romantic tropes (the meeting from the ACD story, John saving Sherlock, etc.) it would be a different story and a completely different sort of friendship.

If in Thelma and Louise there is enough ambiguity for queers to identify with and it's not followed thorught then it's queerbaiting.

I don't remember Frodo-Sam relationship well, I last saw it in my teens when I was pretty much heteronormative, but I don't remember such massive use of romantic tropes as in Sherlock, especially the tension.

Some times romantic tropes are used in same-sex friendship and is queerbaiting, especially because they are used in this way in same-sex couples mostly (or almost only?). It's a discrimination. In het couples romantic trope mean romance, in nonhet couple romantic tropes mean friendship with romantic elements. Same rules should apply to het and nonhet couples.
Queerbaiting as afflicted TV and movies for years, there are loads of same-sex couples coded with romantic tropes, but it's exactly this discrimination that needs to stop.

In Sherlock case the use of romantic conding is massive and the cinematography is extremely romantic and brings tension, probably more massive than with most nonhet couples that DIDN'T end up together and with most het couples that DID end up together.
Of course if you removed all that it wouldn't be the same kind of friendship, because they wouldn't be coded as romantically in love.

But who sais they are not making them queer? Until now everything points to a future romance. It seems like they wanted to do it and they are doing it.
The only denials inside the show were made with romantic tropes and cinematography that raises the tension, like in slow burn romances.
Creators have confirmed multiple times not to believe what they say because they lie (here one meta about it http://tykobrian.tumblr.com/post/113564405972/moffits-embodiment-of-truth-or-lying-liars, I don't know when it was last updated).

nakahara · September 26, 2015 7:33 pm

Thank you for that tumblr site, Ho Yay!

Liberty · September 26, 2015 8:41 pm

Sadly, what all this means is that it's impossible to show a romantic friendship on screen any more (without it being labelled as queerbaiting if it's a same sex couple) ... or even to allow any ambiguity, or different interpretations. I do think there is still a way to go in representation of different sexualities and identities (can you think of anything at all that shows a nice, positive SM relationship as incidental, and not "the point", for instance? What about a mainstream show with a trans character where it's not an issue?) even though things are improving. Hopefully we can have better representation of minority groups and be able to show the romance in friendships, without having to have them develop into a different kind of relationship.

Ho Yay · September 27, 2015 12:16 am

Liberty wrote:
Sadly, what all this means is that it's impossible to show a romantic friendship on screen any more (without it being labelled as queerbaiting if it's a same sex couple) ... or even to allow any ambiguity, or different interpretations. I do think there is still a way to go in representation of different sexualities and identities (can you think of anything at all that shows a nice, positive SM relationship as incidental, and not "the point", for instance? What about a mainstream show with a trans character where it's not an issue?) even though things are improving. Hopefully we can have better representation of minority groups and be able to show the romance in friendships, without having to have them develop into a different kind of relationship.

The only incidental queer representations that I know of in leads is in In the Flesh (which has being cancelled) and Doctor Who had a spin-off with a queer lead. Moffat's Doctor Who has many incidental queer character, though no lead in a same-sex romance. Also Moffat made recurring characters of a lesbian interspecies version of Sherlock and John that is married in victorian times.
Not that this would save Moffat from the queerbaiting if Sherlock doesn't evolve in a romance, that still happens even if after the accusations he decided to go on a queer up in his other show.
An iconic non het slow-burn romance is something the world has never had for all I know, and massively coding Sherlock has such and leaving it ambiguous for who knows what reason (it's not fun for shipper, it's painful for queer people, pleases homophobes, reinforces the idea that queer representation has discriminating rules, reinforces discrimination in heteronormative minds who think they are right discriminating, makes queer people believe they don't deserve the same rules) is the worst kind of queerbaiting, which in his ambiguity keeps queer people and romance people attached, but doesn't bother the rest of the world with queerness.

But what is a romantic friendship? romantic is romance, which can be a friendship and a romance, but it's still a romance.
One can have all the friendship one wants as long as its coded like a friendship. And it can be the closest of friendships as possible without being a romance as long as the same code applies to het and nonhet couples.
As it is it's discrimination.
A queer person shouldn't leave in a world where they know all romantic tropes can be used in a same sex couple and it will not be a romance because those tropes are only valid for het couples. Where they can only represented with getto rules different from hets.
If the ambiguity was so important they could have used for a hundred years romantic tropes with ambiguity for het couples, but they never did (if not in some rare exception maybe).
The whole point of the will they or will they not is not ambiguity, but that they almost always get together (and if they don't viewers will probably not be happy because they where emotionally attacched), it's not a real question in most cases, just a way to raise the interest for something that is going to happen.

Funny things about romantic tropes is that in reality they actually don't happen much nor in romance or in friendship. Many of them have been specifically created has codes for romance that had no meaning before, so the viewers could understand quickly that the couple was romantic, so friendship will never need to make use of romantic tropes. Friendship is never accused of queerbaiting and there is plenty of same-sex friendships in every show. If writers use romantic code for same-sex friendship and never use it for opposite-sex friendships they fully deserve the label of heteronormative and queerbaiting.

There are also many way to prepare a romance that doesn't end well, with using romantic tropes but another kind of mood. The important thing is that the viewer's expectations are aligned with what will happen, so that they will be satisfied. If the story doesn't end well the viewer must perceive it as such on a subconscious level and align themself to the story and be satisfied of the sad story.

Liberty · September 27, 2015 7:55 am

I am genuinely sorry that you and others see it as queerbaiting, and with all that you see that implying (pleasing homophobes, etc.). I don't think that's what's going on, but I suppose I can see why people do. I do think it's worth looking at interviews with the team to get an idea of their view, if you think that's what they're trying to do. I think they are very aware of and supportive of the idea of shipping the characters, but it's just not their vision for the show - at the present time, at least.

Romantic friendship - funnily enough, we're just talking about that over on the friendship thread, and I think the problem is finding a word that describes those romantic elements without including the concept of "eros" (as somebody mentioned over there), or sexual attraction. I don't think "romantic" has to include that (it's quite a broad word), but it's about how you use the word. For instance, Sam carrying Frodo feels romantic to me rather than friendly or companionable, even though I see it as a friendship rather than "a romance" (a friendship of a paritcular type and of it's time and class system and so on, but I don't see them wanting to become lovers - although I know plenty of people do, and I can see why they see it!).