Vhanja wrote:

The difference with stories like Ross/Rachel is that it's clear from very early on that they fancy each other, and they say it out loud to others. It's spoken in words from them both, and then stuff/misunderstandings/obstacles etc etc happens. 

Neither Sherlock nor John states that they are in love and/or romantically attracted to each other. Therefore, it is not clear whether or not their obstacles/misunderstandings/stuff "only" comes in the way of a deep friendship or a possible romantic relationship. 

Because the pain Sherlock clearly goes through with the wedding might just as well be because he misses his friend as it can be missing a possible romantic relationship. Same with John missing Sherlock at the start of HLV - it can be romantic love, where he's starting to realise he's made the wrong decision. Or it can be a combination of missing the excitement, the lifestyle and the life in general with Sherlock as a friend.

Both interpretations are possible, because of the way it's shot. However, I would say that in the majority of the stories where all these obstacles are in the way of a possible romantic relationship, the audience are told - clearly and without a doubt - that one or both are in love with the other. Because that is the starting point of "will they or won't they get through this and get together?"

We don't get that in Sherlock, and that is why I tend to fall towards it never happening. Because it doesn't seem to be built that way, story-wise. But, again, I can also see how it's easy to interpret it that way, it doesn't really take a lot of assumptions to do just that. Hence I'm wondering if it's - at least partly - deliberate, and, if so, why they would choose to make the series that way.

Just catching up, but I pretty much agree with all of this.  Susi, you mentioned Moriarty as an obstacle, but everything he does affects them as friends regardless - there's nothing with Moriarty which specifically prevents them dating.  At the end of TRF, they are physically separated either way.   And in an odd way, I actually see them become closer during TRF (although maybe that's because I'm seeing a friendship - maybe it's different  if you're seing somethign else).   But I agree with Vhanja: it really needs to be established that they fancy each other before the obstacles make sense. 
 

Of course, John (and perhaps Sherlock) could be bi. John dating women doens't mean he can't also fancy men. Same with Sherlock - I personally see a (involuntarily) sexual attraction of some sorts towards Irene from Sherlock, but that doesn't mean he can't also be attracted to men.

Vhanja wrote:

Of course, John (and perhaps Sherlock) could be bi. John dating women doens't mean he can't also fancy men. Same with Sherlock - I personally see a (involuntarily) sexual attraction of some sorts towards Irene from Sherlock, but that doesn't mean he can't also be attracted to men.

I think that's generally true, but I think that if they wanted us to see the characters as bisexual, then they'd tell us.    Perhaps have John date a guy or two, for instance.   Instead, they've actually had him deny it - I know he says he's not gay, but if you look at what he means, he's saying that he's not attracted to men (so not bi either).  It doesn't make sense if you assume he's saying he's not gay OR bi. 

I could believe in Sherlock being anything, really, because the attraction to Irene is so clearly a one-off (but it's still an attraction to a woman, and again, if they'd wanted to tell us that he was attracted to men, they could have done so). 
 

I thought it might be time to take TAB over here to discuss!   I had mentioned before, that if they were going to do Johnlock, this one-off Victorian special would be the place to do it.  However, it turned out not to be the stand-alone episode we were led to believe.  Instead, this is the same modern-day Sherlock, but 90% of the episode takes place in his mind!   I find this very exciting, but also from the point of view of Johnlock, if there was an episode where it could be shown even if it hasn't happened in the others, it's this one.   We could have seen what Sherlock really feels - and we wouldn't need subtext, just text.  But we didn't see Johnlock.   I don't think I needed confirmation that it's not happening after what Mark Gatiss said in Mumbai, but if I did, this would be it. 

What we did get was an interesting exploration of Sherlock's relationships with women, particularly in the "man to man" talk with his imaginary, particularly perceptive John.   In the conversation, Sherlock seems to be admitting to himself that he is attracted to women, and that he does have "impulses".  It ends with that brilliant "I made me".  I feel that it fits with everything we've been shown before - that he's a sexual, feeling, emotional being, who choses to suppress those feelings (and pays the price for doing so). 

Here's my rushed transcript, while we wait for the brilliant Arianne De Vere:

W: You know it's rare for us to sit together like this.
H: I should hope so.  It's murder on the knees.
W: Two old friends just talking.  Chewing the fat.  Man to man.
So ... a remarkable woman?
H: Who?
W: Lady Carmichael.
H: The fair sex is your department, Watson.  I'll take your word for it.
W: Well, you liked her.  "A woman of rare perception".
H: And admirably high arches.  I noticed them as soon as she stepped into the room.
W: She's far too good for him.
H: You think so?
W: No, you think so.  I could tell.
H: On the contrary, I have no view on the matter.
W: Yes, you have.
H: Marriage is not a subject upon which I dwell.
W: Oh, why not?
H: What's the matter with you this evening?
W: That watch that you're wearing, there's a photograph inside it.  I glimpsed it once.  I believe it is of Irene Adler.  
H: You didn't glimpse it.  You waited until I had fallen asleep and looked at it.
W: Yes, I did.
H: You seriously thought I wouldn't notice?
W: Irene Adler.
H: A formidable opponent.  A remarkable adventure.
W: A very nice photograph.
H: Why are you talking like this?
W: Why are YOU so determined to be alone?
H: Are you quite well, Watson?
W: Is it such a curious question?
H: From a Viennese alienist, no.  From a retired army surgeon, most certainly!
W: Holmes. Against absolutely no opposition whatsoever, I am your closest friend
H: I concede it.
W: I am currently attempting to have a perfectly normal conversation with you.
H: Please don't.
W: Why do you need to be alone?
H: If you are referring to romantic entanglement, Watson, which I rather fear you are, as I have often explained before, all emotion is abhorrent to me.  It is the grit in a sensitive instrument. The crack in the lens.
W: The crack in the lens. Yes.
H: Well, there you are, you see, I've said it all before.
W: No, I wrote all that.  You're quoting yourself from The Strand Magazine.
H: Well, exactly.
W: Those are my words, not yours!  That is the version of you that I present to the public.  The brain without a heart.  The calculating machine. I write all of that, Holmes, and the readers lap it up.  But I do not believe it.
H: Well, I've a good mind to write to your editor.
W: You are a living, breathing man.  You've lived a life.  You have a past.
H: A what?
W: Well, you must have had ...
H: Had what?
W: You know.
H: No.
W: Experiences.
H: Pass me your revolver.  I have a sudden need to use it.
W: Damn it, Holmes, you are flesh and blood, you have feelings, you have ... you must have ... impulses.
H: Dear Lord, I have never been so impatient to be attacked by a murderous ghost.
W: As your friend, as someone who worries about you ... what made you like this?
H: Oh, Watson. Nothing made me. I made me.   
(sound of a dog) Redbeard?

Yes, that's why I put in that last line, even though it's not quite part of the conversation.  Sherlock claims that he avoids relationships because he doesn't want to reduce his mental powers, and I think he kind of believes that to some extent (he certainly gets in trouble when he falls for Irene), but there also seems to be an element of not wanting to be hurt (as he was by Redbeard's death). 

Yes, he's uncomfortable, but I think what's interesting is that he's chosen to explore this himself - this is him, in his mind palace, questioning himself through his imagined Watson.  

Possibly it's a mixture of telling us (the audience) something, and the fact that he seems to have to understand women to be able to solve the case - so is questioning why he chooses not to get involved with them.

(I don't know if it really goes here, but Mycroft's comment about not getting involved comes across slightly differently, now that we know Mycroft knows about Mary's past.   I wondered if she was working with Mycroft to get rid of Magnussen, and that's why he warned Sherlock off Magnussen too.  But anyway, I wonder if the warning was particularly about Mary - he's already involved with John, after all.  It's also interesting that Mycroft's notebook has "Redbeard" in it the end.  But nothing to do with Johnlock so I'm straying off topic - sorry!).

Last edited by Liberty (January 3, 2016 10:46 am)

Do you see Mycroft's behaviour as teasing? I think it goes far deeper. IMO Redbeard is an important clue to everything Sherlock has become (or made himself into). At the beginning I was reluctant to see him as anything else than a dog but by now I tend to agree with metas seeing Redbeard the dog as a symbol for a person, probably another sibling. Mycroft does not tease Sherlock, he is deeply worried about him. And the fact that the name appears in the notebook is another hint. 

Not really Johnlock but it seemed important to me. 

IMO the whole TAB episode is a Freudian dreamscape. I do not think that the above dialogue proves that Sherlock is attracted to women but that he is so desperate to avoid talking about his feelings and sexual impulses that he would prefer being shot or a meeting a murderous ghost to John's psychoanalytical questions. 
We know from HLV that Moriarty represents his deepest fears/traumas/repressed emotions. And this very Moriarty tells him he slept in his bed, eats Sherlock's body symbolised by dust motes, comes to him as a veiled bride. 
If Sherlock were attracted to women, why not have a woman represent all this? 

There is a progression with Moriarty in his mind: In HoB we see him representing Sherlock's fear in general. In HLV he symbolises his deep-buried fears of being hurt, of being vulnerable to emotion/heartbreark/loss. And in TAB there is another element, here he represents Sherlock's fear of his physical impulses, impulses which in 1895 would have been criminal and probably abhorrent to a man like John Watson (thinks Sherlock, does not have to be the truth). 

 

I think there has always been something a bit sexual in Moriarty's approach to Sherlock.  I don't understand how a woman could play that part - it's meant to be Moriarty - the point of solving the Ricoletti case was to solve the Moriarty case. 

But when Sherlock's thinking about relationships (with Watson), it's women he gives as examples.   I don't think this is about defining his sexuality - it doesn't necessarily exclude men.  But again, the examples given are women (Irene Adler and his imaginary Lady Carmichael). 

I think the main point (as far as Johnlock goes), is that this is in his imagination - anything could happen, even if he was reluctant/scared in real life.  If he did want to take things further with John, then I think that would have had to come out in this episode.  And yet, we see pretty much the same thing we see the rest of the time - the deep friendship (but with a slightly idealised John, I thought, which I found touching).
 

For me, that dialogue cemented the fact that it was the loss of his dog that made him shut down on emotions and "sentiment". You seem him being very clearly uncomfortable talking about him in relationships - and when he is in that mindset, his first thought when hearing a dog in the distance is "Redbeard?" To me, the connection is obvious.

There is also another scene that many felt was Johnlock-y in TAB - namely Moriarty's line "Oh, why don't you two just elope already!" Which I reckon is Victorian for: "Get a room!" (As I understand it, elope means to run off and get married).

However, I view that remark as the same as John's outburst in ASiB ("If you're looking for baby names...".). It's a type of jealousy born of being left out when you think you should be the one getting the attention and being part of the "team", so to speak. I think it says more about Moriarty's feelings in the situation than it says about Sherlock and John. (Just as John's remark says more about him than it proves there actually being romantical or sexual emotions from Sherlock to Irene).

 

From the very begining Moriarty's contact with Sherlock has been aggressively sexual.  His first words to Sherlock, through the captive woman in TGG, are Hello Sexy.

His actions in the MP from TAB are even more overtly sexual.  For god's sake he practically has oral sex with a revolver!       Just saying.

I believe that one reason for having the MP be 90% in the Victorian era is because Sherlock still feels that there is great danger in admitting his desires for John.  He's so afraid that he puts himself in a place where there are excellent reasons for suppressing those desires.  This is also how I read the discussion in the greenhouse. Part of him wants John to push him, to demand the truth, but he's still  so frightened he can't allow himself to let down all his walls.

I have much more to explore but my husband just made waffles.  *giggle*

We're not shown any attraction to John in the mind palace, though.  During the conversation about romance/sex, the two people mentioned are women.  Sherlock tries to dismiss his feelings, but it's clear they are there - this is the really perceptive version of Watson, who sees through him.  He's clearly not uncomfortable in that way about his relationship with John.  The conversation clearly isn't about his feelings for John but about his own alone-ness that he created.  The conversation seems to completely dismiss Johnlock (not that that's the point of it, but it happens).   He does actually "go deep" and confront his feelings in this episode, but Johnlock just isn't there. 

And there would have been so much opportunity - people have mentioned the Oscar Wilde trial, and there was the scenes in TPLOSH - it would have been the perfect time to address it, if it existed.  In some ways, the Victorian setting would be perfect, because as you say, Tonnarree, it would give Sherlock (and John) a reason to be guarded - one which doesn't exist in the modern Sherlock setting. 

But they didn't go there.   And I come back to thinking about TPLOSH and how relatively open that was about Holmes' unrequited love for Watson, and how Billy Wilder wished he'd been able to be more explicit than that, and I just can't believe that they'd make this series even more repressed and hidden. Especially not in Sherlock's mind palace, when we finally see John there!