Liberty wrote:

One thing I'm hoping for is that they'll have more Victorian sounding speech, that it will be very much set in it's time, rather than a modern Sherlock and John transplanted there.  I think this will be the case, judging by the changes in their hair and so on. 
 

I read an interview with Moffat where he said that the dialogue would be more gentlemen-y compared to modern Sherlock, so it seems it will be more Victorian. However, they also state that it's clearly still "their" Sherlock and John. So will be interesting to see how they balance that out!
 

Liberty wrote:

Benedict Cumberbatch not understanding his character?  Even if it's true, his interviews give us a clue as to how he's portraying him.  If that's his interpretation, then that's what we're seeing on screen, in his acting (if he's any good at his job!).  Yes, we're free to interpret, and bring our own prejudices (and as I said, other things such as cutting and editing are added to the mix), but I cans still see why actors would be get frustrated when people insist they are playing something different from what they're intending to play. 

And yet there´s an elegant solution to this problem.
Just tag any scene where he appears with the sign "Now Benedict is portraying intense sexual lust", "Now Benedict is portraying frigidity and coldness", "Now Benedict is portraying jealousy" etc., etc.
And bang! - the problem of subjective interpretation of the scenes is solved!
People will be surprised for a while, that´s obvious, some will even grumble that the art is not meant to be rigid in this way - but hey! It´s not as if Sherlock didn´t break some boundaries already. 
 

I honestly think that no matter what the actors say, the people will interpret the scenes their way. And I find it absolutely normal: even when looking at the same thing, every person usually sees something different - especially when it´s art. Because in my opinion, art invites such open interpretations quite willingly.

Of course, people should not blame the actors when their interpretations don´t match or force their views onto them. 

Frodo and Sam are actually an example very fitting for this thread, because they beautifully embody the portrayal of friendship which used some tropes you could consider romantic and yet never overstepped the line into "baiting".

Sam and Frodo risked their lives for each other, they often displayed closeness and intimacy of two beings dependent on each other and loyal to each other, facing the unspeakable horrors and only having each other to pull through... it would be easy to see them as pair.... (I´m sure many people even shipped them together...)

Yet we never had a scene of Gandalf or Legolas or Aragorn randomly commenting on them: "You two are a couple..."
Sam didn´t break into a yell: "I´m not gay!" every third minute or so...
When they drank ale in Bree, the waiter didn´t bring them a candle to make the scene more romantic....
They didn´t randomly stop in a wilderness to stand close to each other and to look deep into each other´s eyes meaningfully...
Gollum didn´t assure them that the other two hobbits he knows (because they live near his cave) are legally registered as a pair...
Frodo din´t destroy the fresco of Isildur in Rivendell by painting Sam´s head on it...
During Sam´s wedding to Rose, Frodo didn´t have a long, tiring speech about how he loves Sam and didn´t steal the light from Rose on that day....
Tolkien wrote this piece with Germanic legends and myths in mind. None of this legends was a semi gay saga called "The Private Life of Frodo"...  

 

I know you're joking, but seriously, it is a shame that in Tolkien's time, anything other than a friendship would have been illegal and shameful.  He couldn't have alluded to it even if he'd wanted to.  (Although, in the films, they do look into each other's eyes quite a bit!  And to modern readers/viewers, there's plenty of "subtext").   It's funny how people were free to write about loving friendships because of homophobia, in a way - the assumption that if there was anything "like that" going on, it would no longer be noble.    Whereas now, it's an automatic assumpton that two men who are close like that are a gay couple.  In some ways, Frodo and Sam seem to be less buttoned up than Sherlock and John. 

But anyway, that's not what I was talking about - I was meaning the actual romance of the friendship and the romantic tropes that go with that.   The first one mentioned in the article in the other thread was their meeting, the way they are destined to be together,. for instance.   Funnily enough, one of the most loving moments (although it's one sided) is in ASIB, where John lies to protect Sherlock at the end (after being behind him all the way throughout the episode). 

Last edited by Liberty (September 26, 2015 9:09 pm)

I think what this thread is supposed to be about is pure friendship of Sherlock and John.

Relevent to this discussion is an article I found about the definition of friendship from the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy...

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/friendship/

Yes, friendship is a certain kind of love of another person, but it isn't romantic love IMO.  Romantic love is rooted in sexual desire and friendship isn't.  Romantic love is "eros" and friendship is a love that is derived from what the Greeks described as "philia" - specifically the "philia" that attains a virtuous level.

Discussion about any sexual/romantic aspect between the two characters is probably better suited for the many shipping/Johnlock threads (that deal with certain fans' theories and interpretations of the "eros" between the characters) .   

My take on this thread is along the lines of "philia" aspects only (at least that is what I took from the moderators when they directed me to this thread when I was hunting for a non-Johnlock thread).

It would be interesting to look at John and Sherlock's relationship in the context of the Stanford article. 

How does it fit into the criteria of the definition of friendship (and I think it does very nicely). 

The three different characteristics of having a friendship are examined -

1) Mutual Caring
2) Intimacy
3) Shared Activity

In BBC Sherlock the shared activity came first, mutual caring came next and we are finally getting around to the intimacy aspect since the second series perhaps?

I would be very interested in furthering this discussion with other fans who believe that the core of the show is the friendship (not any sexual/romantic aspect) between Sherlock and John. 

Any takers???

-Val

Yitzock wrote:

Well romantic friendship is technically something that exists.  I remember I read a fic and one of the tags was "platonic romance." They were friends, they didn't have sex, and the only kisses were things like forehead kisses, which I think are all great.
I remember in another topic where there was the argument about romantic tropes, and I don't want to turn this in the debate because it's not the thread for it, but I think there's something to be said about potentially developing a friendship in a similar way you might develop a romance.  It goes to show how people underestimate friendship, but really it can be very close, like you might expect from a romantic relationship, or perhaps even more.  In some ways I think friendship is better, and if you develop this friendship in a storyline without downplaying it because it's not romance, then I think that proves just how good friendship is, how close a good friendship can be, how much someone could protect and trust their friend if they're so close.

Thanks, Yitzock!  I hope we don't have a debate here: I'm hoping we can talk about it while taking it as read that they are friends, not lovers (or potential lovers).   I understand that we have to justify that view over on the other thread, and although I'm starting to feel I have to justify it here too, hopefully, given the initial post, it's OK for us to assume that we're all seeing friendship.  I agree with you: I think that in Sherlock we're seeing the development of a relationship, and obviously there is going to be some crossover between the way that is portrayed and the way a development of a typical romance would be portrayed.   There's meeting, falling for each other, increasing closeness, misunderstandings, proof of love, etc., and all the tropes that go along with that.   For instance, in TRF, Sherlock tries to make out he's an unfeeling person, so that John will leave him, but it turns out that he just wants the best for John.  I don't know the name of this trope, but I've seen it in conventional romances.

One thing that I think the show captures very well, is the euphoria of finding one of those special friendships.  Particularly in ASIP: although John is kind of interested in the case, it's clear that the real focus of his interest is Sherlock.  I always find it striking that John is so protective of Sherlock right at the beginning, when Mycroft kidnaps him.  There's no doubt there - he aligns himself with Sherlock, based on gut feeling.    Sherlock is "the one" in friendship terms, right from the start.  (And I think that scene helps to show what Sherlock falls for in John). 

Yes, I think they do bounce off each other, and they're differences are more noticeable when they are together.  While you might not describe that as being "two peas in a pod," I still think it's good chemistry.  Sometimes bringing out each others' differences is good, too, and a sign of friendship.  If you're not friends and you have differences, there's no connection and you don't become closer.  But with friends the differences come out and they're not a problem.  Sometimes this is hard for me to grasp, since I've felt close with people who were more similar to me than their other friends were to them, and I felt sad because they seemed closer to them than they were to me...but that's a personal aside.

I have not read all of the article yet, but from what I've read so far, something I found interesting is the concept of three types: pleasre, utility, and virtue.  While I would agree with the writer that if you only are friends with someone because they are a source of pleasure or are useful to you that they are not really your friend and that you don't really love them, I do see the friendship of utility as being how a friendship can begin.  This is certainly the case with Sherlock and John.  They each wanted someone to flatshare with, as well as John needing excitement in his life (friendship of utility and pleasure could both be present here) and Sherlock needed an assistant, preferably not Anderson (utility, and perhaps a bit of pleasure of not having to work closely with Anderson, though he ended up liking John by the end of their first case together).
Over time I think their friendship develops into friendship of virtue, though perhaps depending on the moment they might not agree on the virtuousness of the other.  John doesn't always like the way Sherlock goes about things, which is normal in a friendship I guess, although this is happening on a different level because of the events of the show.  But even so, John sees the humanity in him and thinks hes brilliant.  This may not refer to virtue exactly, but we do know that John likes Sherlock for who he is.
Sherlock disagrees with John on some things, too, but he does say that John keeps him right, so obviously there's an appreciation of John's morals or virtues.

At this point in the development of the friendship, however, I think that it's harder to separate it into just one of those three categories, in a way.  A friend should make you happy, bring you joy or pleasure. I think this would be even more the case once you've gotten to the friendship of virtue stage.  As far as utility, that could be a lot of things.  Is company when you're lonely a use? Help with something that you both enjoy doing? I'd say John and Sherlock provide that for each other. And John's usefulness to Sherlock doesn't magically disappear once they become close friends.  Although of course Molly, despite her efforts, is not a perfect replacement as an assistant simply because she's not John, not just because of how useful she is, so I think that the utility part doesn't go away but it is no longer enough once you become closer. (Now, of course, we could examine the closeness, or lack thereof depending on your view, of Sherlock and Molly, but that's not the topic at hand)
I find that putting people in rigid categories will often ultimately fail, because we are more than that, and in that way I don't think you can completely separate those three categories that I mentioned, but if you have a good friendship the three of those might work together, or the previous two become overcome or overpowered by the third and therefore less important.

Yes, I would agree.  I'd say that those three categories are just one way of breaking it down.  Maybe it's not necessarily how it continues, but how it begins? I know I wrote a bunch already, but I'm still not sure whether that's totally accurate to what friendship is really like.  And from that part that I read, the actual connection is not quite coming through.  Once I get a chance to read more, maybe it will be discussed more.

I don't study philosophy, either, so I don't know much more than you do, I wager, if I know more than you at all.  That doesn't mean you can't discuss it, I don't think.

I think it will be difficult to discuss them just in relationship to the friendship there, though?  But if you think it can be done without getting into debate territory, then it's something I'd quite like to talk about. 

Oh, I'm not playing along, Val.  I genuinely think it's interesting and I love talking about the friendship aspect that is so often overlooked or interpreted in some other way.

Ah, that clarifies the virtue aspect.  I would agree it's hard to say whether we've seen it get that far at this point since, like you said, the story isn't over.  But I don't know whether it's only on its way.  Hard to say, and also hard to say whether it is the "noblest form of humanity." I don't know whether either of them are that pure or good.  They have killed to protect each other, after all.  But perhaps that is still very noble and human, even if it involves taking another human life "in exchange" for another.  They are willing to do things that are otherwise seen as wrong in order to protect each other.

Last edited by Yitzock (September 28, 2015 8:40 pm)