BBC Sherlock Fan Forum - Serving Sherlockians since February 2012 » "Sorry there's no double room..."

Sherlock Holmes · August 8, 2012 1:03 am

Found this quite funny essay on Tumblr:

John’s stopped correcting people about their assumption that he and Sherlock are a couple. Why? Well, it doesn’t really matter what people think, particularly not in this case. They’re nowhere near home, these are people John will never see again, it doesn’t matter if they think Sherlock and John sleeping together. So why bother correcting this fellow? It’s pointless.

This is the first time we see John decide to stop correcting people on this point. And given that he starts to, as if by habit, and then changes his mind, this might be the first time he has ever made that decision.

This scene, obviously, comes after his frustrated “we’re not a couple!� to Irene Adler. He is exasperated that time around, exhausted and annoyed by the (likely constant) assumption. And Irene corrects him. Given the look on his face then, I think he took that correction to heart on some level. Because she was right: they are a couple, even if they aren’t a traditional one.

You can read this scene as an echo of that conversation, as an acknowledgement of Irene’s assessment of them. The truth of their relationship is too complicated to explain to a man who runs an Inn in Dartmoor and just handed over a room key. It’s not the kind of thing there’s any simple language for. John’s not about to sit down with a perfect stranger and explain the whole thing. So there’s really only one option: just smile and nod. Close enough.

But it’s slightly more complicated than that. As we know, John appears to have given up on dating at this point. He had a string of girlfriends Sherlock rhymes off in Scandal, but no more after that. It was too obvious that he couldn’t keep track of them, and that Sherlock was always his top priority anyway. The women weren’t so into that arrangement, as it turns out.

So he’s stopped. What made him do that? Was it his girlfriend dumping him for being such a good boyfriend to Sherlock? Or was it Irene’s honest and truthful assessment of them? He acknowledges that his life isn’t compatible with long-term relationships (except for one). He has, in effect, chosen Sherlock. So is it wrong that someone thinks they’re a couple? Not really. They are, exactly in the way Irene suggested they were. And John’s hesitation can be read as his acknowledgement of that.

The owner of the Inn is apologizing to John over the lack of a double bed in their room. What does this suggest? John tried to book a room. Not two rooms, one room. If he had led with, “I’d like to book two rooms,� and the owner said, “Sorry, I only have one available, but it’s got two beds in it,� he wouldn’t have assumed John and Sherlock were a couple in the first place, and he wouldn’t need to apologize for the twin beds. So John must have asked for one room, assuming a double bed. So John intended to share a double bed with Sherlock.

In sum: John has stopped dating, has stopped correcting the assumption that he and Sherlock are a couple, has arguably accepted that he is in fact in a long-term relationship with Sherlock, and books a room anticipating sharing a bed with him.

Wholocked · August 8, 2012 3:10 am

I think we're way beyond over-analysing now...lol

kazza474 · August 8, 2012 3:14 am

(Geez Boss, hope whoever owns this off Tumblr doesn't mind the copy & paste.)

Oh dear, a lot of assumptions & fact jumping there don't you think?
It's a classic example of 'wrapping a lie up in the truth'. I won't dissect the whole thing, but will point out a glaring assumption that 'makes' the writer's case for them.

"As we know, John appears to have given up on dating at this point." - He has? Nothing indicates that actually. Yep, rough trot over Xmas & all but he jumped into the meeting with the Head Shrink fast enough. The writer's suggestion of "So he’s stopped. What made him do that?" is purely their own conclusion based on what they believe may have happened 'off screen' because we never see or hear enough evidence to even hint at this being true. We watch one girlfriend dump him, that's all. This makes him a monk? I don't think so.
No, if we negate this assumption through lack of proof, as any valid argument must do, then the rest of it falls apart.

And good heavens, if you are only away for a short stay, why wouldn't 2 friends just share a double room? Does the writer not travel much? Many small cheap places will have 2 singles in a room; it's the basis of many a comedy skit !
Nope, there again, assumptions have been made based on what the writer wants to achieve.

The wrong assumptions this writer puts so many holes in this essay that I refer to ones like this as Swiss Cheese.
Definitely a funny essay Boss.

hypergreenfrog · August 8, 2012 7:13 am

That is an interesting essay, and well written.
I agree with the writer that Irene's speech probably made John rethink his attitude a bit, maybe even stopped him getting annoyed at the frequent references to them being a couple.

Yet, regarding the observations about "Hounds", I agree with Kazza that they are quite far fetched:
- They didn't book ahead, so probably John just asked if they had any spare rooms at all. We know nothing that would suggest otherwise.
- Sherlock sent John the picture of the therapist, he wouldn't have done that if he knew that John had decided to give up dating for a while (and we can trust Sherlock would know about that, even if John had not actually told him ).

I have never mentioned this anywhere, because it's not relevant at all, but I actually found that scene with the landlord of the inn slightly ridiculous. Here is a man who is in a gay relationship himself - of all people, he should know that even in the 21st century not every gay couple feels comfortable being addressed as such in public, and that quite a few people still take offense at being mistaken for being gay. Why would he boldly address two men walking into his inn (seperately) as a couple?

kazza474 · August 8, 2012 7:37 am

hypergreenfrog wrote:
I have never mentioned this anywhere, because it's not relevant at all, but I actually found that scene with the landlord of the inn slightly ridiculous. Here is a man who is in a gay relationship himself - of all people, he should know that even in the 21st century not every gay couple feels comfortable being addressed as such in public, and that quite a few people still take offense at being mistaken for being gay. Why would he boldly address two men walking into his inn (seperately) as a couple?

So very true. Especially in their industry, with so many different cultures moving through tourist areas you simply do not take liberties with any customer like that.

However it IS well within the comic spin that Mark Gatiss puts on this subject not only in his writing but in his day to day conversations from what I see. He uses the 'the best defence is attack' method whereby you jump in with the joke AND punchline before anyone else has the chance.

Davina · August 8, 2012 8:59 pm

It is also somewhat of an echo of Mrs. Hudson's comment about there being another bedroom, 'If you'll be needing two'. A bit of a running joke I feel.

Mattlocked · August 8, 2012 9:06 pm

Yeah, the whole thing is a running gag.

Morton · August 12, 2012 9:18 pm

The gag also continues with Henry Knight and Sherlock in the wood -
speaking of Dr Frankland

SHERLOCK: He knew your father.
HENRY: Yeah.
SHERLOCK: But he works at Baskerville. Didn’t your dad have a problem with that?
HENRY: Well, mates are mates, aren’t they? I mean, look at you and John
(Sherlock reacts).
SHERLOCK: What about us?
HENRY: Well, I mean, he’s a pretty straightforward bloke, and you ...
(Glancing back at Sherlock, Henry decides not to go there.)

veecee · August 13, 2012 12:28 am

But I think in that conversation the joke is that Henry either can't find the right word to describe Sherlock or that he doesn't want to insult him by calling him "weird" or something equivalent.. I don't think he's implying at all that they are a couple. He's just talking about them being mates (friends).

Sentimental Pulse · August 26, 2012 12:37 am

My opinion is that John's craving and need for the danger and excitement Sherlock brings is the primary driving force in his life and as such this is the one relationship for which he will defer and endure all other things including the gay rumors and Sherlock's insufferable intrusive nature. I think it is true that by this point in their association John realizes that people will assume they are a gay couple. So it makes sense to me that he accepts that as a necessary evil he has to tolerate and endure so he probably does not care anymore about correcting people because he is secure in his own sexuality and people will think what they want regardless. A 30 year old bachelor fresh from a grueling military campaign is quite likely to sample a number of different candies in the box before settling on one. So i think the serial dating reinforces Watson's normal male heterosexuality, it does not call it into question. Banging a different bird each week is not as exciting as tracking down serial killers but it is probably just as much fun .

ancientsgate · August 26, 2012 4:10 am

Sherlock Holmes wrote:
Found this quite funny essay on Tumblr:
In sum: John has stopped dating, has stopped correcting the assumption that he and Sherlock are a couple, has arguably accepted that he is in fact in a long-term relationship with Sherlock, and books a room anticipating sharing a bed with him.[/i]

I don't know who wrote that essay, but I do like the way they think.

See, as a dyed-in-the-wool slasher, I know that I wear my rose-colored slashy glasses 24/7; I can use my very vivid imagination to "see" things that aren't there, twisting things around to suit myself, in order to take me to my happy place and keep me there. I consider that harmless fun-- I realize that some others think people like me are ridiculous, but it's too damned bad. My Happy Place has S/J in one room, TYVM, in twin beds, or one bed, I don't care if one of the guys is on the floor with his pillow and blanket-- they just need to be in one room, lol.

I've always wondered, though-- that scene by the fire in the pub that evening was so cringe-worthy, Sherlock was so awful to John, where do you suppose they each slept after that? I can imagine the cold silence between them in that one room, for sure. But that's off topic here, I realize.

ancientsgate · August 26, 2012 4:13 am

Sentimental Pulse wrote:
....i think the serial dating reinforces Watson's normal male heterosexuality.....

Ooops. I'm sure you didn't mean to imply that homosexuality is ABnormal, right?

Mattlocked · August 26, 2012 10:07 am

ancientsgate wrote:
Sentimental Pulse wrote:
....i think the serial dating reinforces Watson's normal male heterosexuality.....
Ooops. I'm sure you didn't mean to imply that homosexuality is ABnormal, right?

Come on, you know who you just quoted/asked?

Sentimental Pulse · August 26, 2012 12:47 pm

ancientsgate wrote:
Sentimental Pulse wrote:
....i think the serial dating reinforces Watson's normal male heterosexuality.....
Ooops. I'm sure you didn't mean to imply that homosexuality is ABnormal, right?

Of course not. I am a transsexual woman. If anyone is sensitive to the concept of "normal" it is me. I am a normal heterosexual woman as opposed to a normal homosexual woman.

Davina · August 26, 2012 12:48 pm

'Normal' as in stereotypical.

Sentimental Pulse · August 26, 2012 1:02 pm

Davina wrote:
'Normal' as in stereotypical.

Precisely,Davina, thanks . I should have used that word. I meant to say that Watson's actions were typical of a 30 year old single heterosexual male. If he was blowing off multiple girlfriends by going out drinking or playing golf with his buddy or buddies, there would be no gay inference. Unfortunately I have dated many of these men (:

Davina · August 26, 2012 1:10 pm

Sorry.! Giggle 'blowing off'...lol it means farting here! Mind you that might be why he's not had much success recently!

ancientsgate · August 26, 2012 4:25 pm

Sentimental Pulse wrote:
ancientsgate wrote:
Sentimental Pulse wrote:
....i think the serial dating reinforces Watson's normal male heterosexuality.....
Ooops. I'm sure you didn't mean to imply that homosexuality is ABnormal, right?
Of course not. I am a transsexual woman. If anyone is sensitive to the concept of "normal" it is me. I am a normal heterosexual woman as opposed to a normal homosexual woman.

Normal is a setting on a dryer. Just sayin'. *g*

Sentimental Pulse · August 26, 2012 4:34 pm

ancientsgate wrote:
Sentimental Pulse wrote:
ancientsgate wrote:

Ooops. I'm sure you didn't mean to imply that homosexuality is ABnormal, right?
Of course not. I am a transsexual woman. If anyone is sensitive to the concept of "normal" it is me. I am a normal heterosexual woman as opposed to a normal homosexual woman.
Normal is a setting on a dryer. Just sayin'. *g*

My own personality is more like high heat

Davina · August 26, 2012 4:52 pm

Burnt to a crisp? Lol. Just asking