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

Harriet · November 14, 2015 10:30 pm

Little reminder: this thread is about Johnlock in ACD canon as well, and the essay is an analysis of the text.

SusiGo · November 14, 2015 10:36 pm

Shakespeare is not here to answer questions either and yet we interpret his works.

besleybean · November 14, 2015 10:40 pm

But modern directors and actors are interviewed.

SusiGo · November 14, 2015 10:43 pm

My post was about Canon, not BBC Sherlock.

And if we took everything at face value, this thread would be superfluous. And half the forum with it. We could stop speculating and interpreting and just wait for the next episode or read what the makers tell us. Quite boring, if you ask me.

Last edited by SusiGo (November 14, 2015 10:44 pm)

Harriet · November 14, 2015 10:50 pm

Johnlock in ACD canon - interesting observations in this essay. Sherlock finds men attractive, John both women and men, most of all Sherlock. Text evidence quite convincingly given.

besleybean · November 14, 2015 10:53 pm

I think there is a difference between(on the one hand) speculation about what may happen, characters we may see, story lines that unfold etc...and then interpreting past episodes, characters etc.
Not that there is anything wrong with either of those.
Personally I have a list of things I'd love to ask Mark and Steven about...possibly other people have whole files!
Anyhow, I think there is such richness in the episodes, there is plenty to discuss.

Harriet · November 14, 2015 11:00 pm

I think we tried to explain what exactly we were talking about and why, didn't we? ¯\_(ツ)_/

EDIT:

I think Susi and me tried to explain what exactly we were talking about and why, didn't we? ¯\_(ツ)_/

Last edited by Harriet (November 14, 2015 11:17 pm)

besleybean · November 14, 2015 11:10 pm

Indeed we did.

tonnaree · November 14, 2015 11:38 pm

All art is open to interpretation regardless of whether the artist is still living or not.

besleybean · November 15, 2015 8:21 am

It certainly is.
But it would strike me as odd if somebody was to claim they were seeing something that the artisit directly states isn't there.
Fanfic/art/vids etc are fine.
But they are the maker's own interpretation and not a mirror image of the original.
Also(though I actually can't think of any at the moment), there are documented cases of original artists hating the way their work has been interpreted: I'm thinking of books/plays made into films etc.
This is the very reason many writers choose to stay away from any productions of their work. They may accept the new interpretation as valid, but it is not their interpretation.
Famously ACD said he didn't care what people did with The Canon.
Again, fine.
But the new work does not become his Canon, only that of the interpreter.
I do think all of this raises interesting philosophic questions.
Once an author has created characters, set in a particular world with certain life experiences...
Do those characters then come to life and others are free to claim them?

Last edited by besleybean (November 15, 2015 8:22 am)

Liberty · November 15, 2015 8:36 am

I've never argued against seeing them as gay in canon: I think it's open to interpretation.   But I think the writer is missing something here - that ACD gives his descriptions of people through Watson (and sometimes Holmes).   If he wants us to think of a character as physically appealing, then usually its going to be Watson (or occasionally Holmes) who tells us.   And usually, what we're being given is a description of the person's attractiveness rather than Holmes' or Watson's reaction to it.

I understand that the writer has kept it precise by doing a word search for "handsome", etc.   But I think it misses some of the meaning.

Take ASIB: we're told that Holmes doesn't notice Irene's looks and only repeats what other people have said about her.   But what he says when he first see her is "I only caught a glimpse of her at the moment, but she was a lovely woman, with a face that a man might die for".

Then we're told that Holmes describes Godfrey Norton as "dark, handsome and dashing". But this time he hasn't seen him, despite what the writer says: this is how other people describe him. And that desciption helps him identify the "remarkably handsome man, dark, aquiline, and moustached-evidently the man of whom I had heard".

So actually, instead of a single description of Irene's attractiveness, repeating what others say, and two first hand accounts of Norton's, it's actually one hearsay and one first-hand account for both. . Watson describes Irene as beautiful, but I actually think Holmes' description is more powerful (a face that a man might die for).   And of course he keeps her photograph!    (I don't think any of this has to mean that he's sexually attracted to her, but I don't see at all that he's drawn to Norton rather than Irene, as the article suggests).

Last edited by Liberty (November 15, 2015 8:44 am)

besleybean · November 15, 2015 8:45 am

Well it's possible that ACD just fancied a flight of fantasy...
But I have to reiterate that biographies show: ACD was a man of his time.
He felt sorry for gay men, as he thought they were ill..
He still had a sense of justice, which is why he defended that gay man...but he thought homosexuality was a disease, as listed such by the W.H.O.

Watson would presumably at least have to be bi...unless it was a childless marriage.
But they did portray him as a ladies man...and why would he comment on Holmes' lack of interest in women? Surely it was meant as a contrast to himself.

Plus, any of us can see somebody as generally being considered attractive, but it doesn't mean they do anything for us personally.
Particularly in literature, description is so important, for us to get an overall image of a character.

Last edited by besleybean (November 15, 2015 8:51 am)

SusiGo · November 30, 2015 7:45 pm

I just found another little gem:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EknkpPvvPWk

besleybean · November 30, 2015 7:58 pm

Ha ha!
This reminds me. I had a thought, the other day.
You know in drama, when someone is shown missing their partner/love of their life, whatever you want to call them...the classic scene is the individual waking in the morning, rolling over in bed, glancing at the empty space beside them and sighing longingly.
When Sherlock is missing John, he stares at the chair. In fact that chair is so much how he sees John, he actually removes it from his sight. Though we don't know where he puts it.
Okay when John is missing Sherlock, he is shown in bed(next to the love of his life, or at least his wife and he thinks mother of his child)...but there is no romantic music(like for Irene) or soft focus images of a happy, smiling couple.
What does he miss? He misses the adrenalin and action of 'the battle field'(as Mycroft termed it) and is indeed shown wanting Sherlock's battle call.

Last edited by besleybean (November 30, 2015 7:59 pm)

Harriet · November 30, 2015 8:43 pm

SusiGo wrote:
I just found another little gem:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EknkpPvvPWk

Well, uhm, yessss!

SusiGo · December 4, 2015 8:31 am

May I present the 1991 novel "A Scandal in Belgravia" to you? I bet our dear authors know about that. Not a SH adaptation, but still :

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Scandal_in_Belgravia_(book)

Lilythiell · December 4, 2015 8:37 am

Saw someone talking about it on Tumblr. Ordered it -naturally- and am now waiting for it to arrive (in about 20 days, takes forever from another continent). Fancy a review, later on ?

SusiGo · December 4, 2015 8:39 am

Yes, I ordered a copy as well. Sounds like a good read.

nakahara · December 4, 2015 8:41 am

SusiGo wrote:
May I present the 1991 novel "A Scandal in Belgravia" to you? I bet our dear authors know about that. Not a SH adaptation, but still :

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Scandal_in_Belgravia_(book)

Wow, interesting!
And as we already know, universe is rarely so lazy....

ukaunz · December 4, 2015 11:46 am

So I'm posting this here too, because apparently Sherlock and John like wood-cock
http://slashscribe.tumblr.com/post/134497337731/threefootroo-wait-wait-wait-i-bought-this-book