You know that feeling if you just wrote loads and then your computer crashes?
So, short version because I'm fed up with my computer:

I think Sam and Frodo have a very different relationship. They are a good example for loving friendship I think. (I know plenty LotR fans and none of them sees them other than loving friends. Surprised there are other opinions. Really wonder why fans are so crazy about shipping and pairings. They will pair anyone if they get the chance. No offense, just stating something I see.)

Yes, Sam and Frodo look at each other, but they don't eat each other with their eyes. They don't discuss their sexuality and love interests over dinner. They don't use humour to cover up feelings. They are never envious (think of Sam and Rosie: Frodo is nothing but happy about them. Now look at John when he sees Sherlock and Janine. There's a big difference.).

It's loving, yes, but it's devoted on Sam's part. I cannot see John that way. Also Sam and Frodo have a mission, and Frodo can't do it on his own. Sam is the supporting part, and willingly so, because he secretly suspects that Frodo will need him one day.
John and Sherlock can work independent, but they want to work together, simply because they enjoy it. They are independent people choosing each other. It's not the kind of devotion I see in Sam. It's very different imo.

I think friendship is a lot about liking the other person, because you have something in common, because you have fun together, can rely on each other, all this.

With Sherlock and John, I see mostly interest. They are both intrigued. And that's before they know they can rely on each other. TRF shows very much that this kind of trust isn't what their relationship is based on. Also I never see them be truly happy for the other one. Sherlock tries on John's wedding, but there is still tension (thinking about the Mycroft phone call, and getting involved). John doesn't look thrilled about Janine or Irene, and Sherlock tries to ruin every other date John goes on. Friends wouldn't do that. They would wait at home and ask about the date, how it went, and they would maybe make a mocking comment about how they will see less of the other one. But they wouldn't step in the way.
At the wedding I see for the first time Sherlock acting as a loving friend. He let's Mary and John be, doesn't get in the way, does lots of nice things for them. If I only saw TSoT, I maybe wouldn't suspect any romantic interest.
 

Last edited by Whisky (September 27, 2015 2:11 pm)

I'm sorry your computer crashed, Whisky!  Such a pain when that happens, and you can never remember exactly what you'd written!

Oh yes, I agree, completely different stories, different characters and different relationships (and Sam plays a servant type role which wouldn't fit into a modern, non-fantasy setting).   But there's something rather lovely about Sam and Frodo: Sam in particular.  There's plenty to be going on with in the books and films if people want to see it as more than platonic.  I believe it's a common pairing (now probably overtaken by Bilbo/Thorin in the Tolkien fandom).    But I'm not trying to make a case for that.  I don't see sexual attraction between either Frodo/Sam or Sherlock/John.   But I do see romantic elements in both friendships, so used Frodo/Sam as an example in response to Ho Yay's question. 

(To be honest, I think ruining dates is exactly the sort of thing Sherlock would do!  It's not sexual jealousy - it's arrogance, self-centredness, wanting to be the focus, and lack of interest in anything he doesn't find worthy (I do love the character, honestly!).   Why does John have to bother with that stuff when they could be doing something much more interesting together?   I think he'd be just the same if John was female, or the dates were men.   It's telling when he comes back at the beginning of TEH and excepts John to just be there ready to pick up where they left off.   He doesn't seem to ask or wonder about John's life much outside of their relationship.  Anyway, maybe all that's more about their relationship, and would be better in the friendship thread...).

Liberty: But the fact that John does put up with it, and what is more, seems to stop dating completely after Jeanette, is quite telling, isn't it? He only has a drink with Louise Mortimer because Sherlock tells him to do so. So why should he accept all this if Sherlock's behaviour was just arrogant, self-centred, and bored?

I think most of Sherlock's behaviour comes from hiding his feelings but having them all the same. (Think of his rude behaviour towards Molly at Christmas which follows upon her remark about him complaining about John leaving him for the holidays. IMO this is his not very clever way of dealing with complicated feelings.)

 

Thank you for explaining this but I never said that Molly is occupying his mind at this point. I just stated that his cruel behaviour might be caused by her mentioning that he complained about John leaving him alone:

From ArianeDeVere:

MOLLY: And John. I hear you’re off to your sister’s, is that right? 
JOHN: Yeah. 
MOLLY: Sherlock was complaining. 
(Sherlock raises his eyebrows indignantly. Molly corrects herself.) 
MOLLY: ... saying. 
(Nearby, Lestrade has been running Sherlock’s comment through his mind, and his face slowly becomes a picture of exasperation when he seems to realise that it’s probably true.) 
JOHN: First time ever, she’s cleaned up her act. She’s off the booze. 
SHERLOCK: Nope. 
JOHN: Shut up, Sherlock. 
SHERLOCK: I see you’ve got a new boyfriend, Molly, and you’re serious about him. 

This is the first time he addresses Molly after she mentioned his complaint. It is - apart from the short remark about Harry - his immediate to reaction. He maybe uses similarities between her and Irene - the colour red, aspects of her body - to insult her but this is not the reason for his insults, just a means to express them. 
 

John Watson keeps him right.

Well, we have come a long way in this discussion. There have been times when Johnlockers had to defend themselves against the very arguments I have mentioned above - asexual, unfeeling, not Canon, BBC afraid of losing viewers. So I was quite glad to hear that Mark does not rule out a relationship due to all the above reasons. 

I have never said that there is anything wrong with being asexual but that IMO Sherlock is not asexual. That is all. I just stated an opinion and I really do not understand your vigorous reaction. 

I understand Mark's remarks as "he is not in a sexual/love/romantic whatever relationship because that would make him and his even partner more vulnerable than they are now." Because I think this is the only explanation that makes sense and it does not mean that the statuo quo may not change within the course of the narrative. Sherlock and John are not (yet) a couple in the common sense of the word. 

SusiGo wrote:

I have never said that there is anything wrong with being asexual but that IMO Sherlock is not asexual. That is all. I just stated an opinion and I really do not understand your vigorous reaction. 

I understand Mark's remarks as "he is not in a sexual/love/romantic whatever relationship because that would make him and his even partner more vulnerable than they are now." Because I think this is the only explanation that makes sense and it does not mean that the statuo quo may not change within the course of the narrative. Sherlock and John are not (yet) a couple in the common sense of the word. 

I wasn't referring to you at all - I was referring once again to what Mark says, and to the notion that, you mentioned, we Johnlockers had to face the issue of 'Sherlock is asexual' when questioned in regards to why we see Johnlock in the show. I know what you're saying - it's good that Mark isn't using the old excuse that Sherlock is asexual to explain why he doesn't have romantic relationships, because it means he isn't excluding the possibility of a future romantic relationship with John.

But to me, that's not at all what he's saying. To me, what he's clearly talking about romantic relationships, saying that Sherlock doesn't have them (because they can be used against him) as opposed to the other non-romantic relationships that he does have (John, Lestrade, etc).

And this is why I'm saying - isn't this ridiculous? Why can a relationship only be used against him if it's one which involves sex? Are romantic relationships more important, somehow? It sounds like old school stereotyped Hollywood 'hero and his damsel in distress' trope - and the funniest bit is that Mark's own show contradicts this - Moriarty wasted no time in using John to terrorise Sherlock. Heck, Magnussen's whole plan of attack was based on the fact that he could use John against Sherlock!! I wonder how does Mark explain that?

The more I think about it the less it makes sense in my head...

tonnaree wrote:

My own opinon, Sherlock is in a bit of denial.  He tries to maintain the air of "married to my work" and "alone protects me" even while John and his other few friends are used against him.  Perhaps he imagines it would be even worse if he and John were to be openly a couple.  Sherlock may use the "just my landlady, flatmate" etc as a shield.

but...how does it work? I mean, yes, I can totally see that - but I can also see that all his enemies have seen right through it from the get go? The first thing Moriarty does to 'introduce' himself to Sherlock is to kidnap John - not mrs Hudson (who would have been super easy to kidnap), John.

Magnussen based his whole strategy on using John against Sherlock by threatening to harm John. Not only that, but he sing songs to him 'look how you care about John Watson'.

I mean.. when has John not being Sherlock's partner protected him, or fooled the villains into thinking Sherlock doesn't care?

tonnaree wrote:

I'm not saying it works.  That's why I called it denial. 

And in Sherlock's defense, I don't think he was really aware of how important John was to him before Moriarty wrapped him in Semtex.  Or at least he did not acknowledge it.

No, definitely not. But what I mean is - Mark can say that, but we have proof that regardless of whether Sherlock is aware or not of how much John is important to him, his enemies catch him out straight away

(sorry I didn't mean that you think it works, I was just wondering why Sherlock would think it works )