But Sherlock didn't abstained from violence either.

Harriet wrote:

Mary made her living by killing even innocents.

 
We don't know who she killed. We don't know anything about her former "jobs".

But this thread is probably not the right place for this discussion (again).

I don't know if Magnussen is exactly innocent (he deliberately drove people to their deaths, and tortured people), and we also don't really know if Mary was paid to kill him (she had her own reasons for doing so).  We don't know about her other targets (yet!) and whether they were innocent or not (but not very coincidentally the one target we DO know about is the one that Sherlock kills).

I'm getting lost with where it fits into the Johnlock debate, though!   I suppose in the sense that Mary and Sherlock have some similarities, so it makes sense that John would be drawn to both ... however, I don't think he suspected Mary would be a killer (or even that Sherlock would?).   I think he probably sensed that she wasn't an ordinary girl, that there was something edgier and "up for it" about her. 
 

Last edited by Liberty (January 23, 2016 11:29 am)

I don't think there was anything new in the video, was there?   For me, the most ambiguous point is the conversation with Irene.  But all of it has to be weighed against that fact that we never do see it actually happen in the show (and of course, that the people involved say it isn't happening too). 

I also don't believe in queerbaiting, besley. So I'm not vile either, I hope ... 

Last edited by Harriet (January 23, 2016 1:33 pm)

I don't like the queerbaiting thing, but the question at the heart of it is good.
Why do the writers not just acknowledge some people think Sherlock and John are gay but haha wrong , like in the scene with the innkeeper in HOTB , but also write scenes that say that there is truth to it , like the scene at Battersea with Irene .( And others )
Irene definatly means John likes Sherlock in the way She likes Sherlock , which is for sure not just friends.

Why do they imply real feelings not just mistakes on the audience's part unless they intend to do something with it in regards to the overreaching plot.

Something is going to happen

Last edited by Mothonthemantel (January 23, 2016 2:35 pm)

I feel the same. Making the show clearly non-Johnlock would have been easy. Yet they didn't.

mrshouse wrote:

To say Johnlockers see either Johnlock or queerbaiting doesn't sit right with me. I think it's not that simple. We see a subtextual romantic story arc. Even some non -shippers see things open to interpretation. To continue to show the relationship open and a bit ambiguous might on the long run result in queerbaiting.

Just to clarify .. I was talking about the argument in the video linked earlier.  It's one I've seen before, but I don't assume that all Johnlockers see it that way.  And yes, I'm not a shipper (at least in the sense of thinking that's what we're being shown in the show.  I'm all for shipping them in fanfiction, etc!).

The funny thing about TAB was that I thought it was very non-Johnlock!    I mean, here we are in Sherlock's imagination, where it would be completely safe for him to "get off" with John if he wanted to ... but he doesn't get anywhere near it.  Plus there's the greenhouse conversation.  Just shows how open to individual interpretation things are!  

Anyway, Moth, about your question.   I think some of what we see is because the writers are trying to show an unusual relationship - this isn't in any way your usual buddy relationship.   It's a love relationship, which although it isn't sexual (in my opinion) has elements that are very similar to romantic relationships - courtship, tension, mystery, unquestioning devotion, etc.  Sherlock isn't so much John's mate at the beginning, but a mesmerising and elusive figure whom John is almost addicted to. 

I do think what Irene says is ambiguous, but I don't think she actually believes they are a couple in the sense of being in a sexual relationship.   However, what they have definitely has elements of a romantic or marriage type relationship, with Sherlock again in that elusive role, but John almost in a traditionally female wife-type role (caring for Sherlock, etc.).  

I think it's a fascinating portrayal of a unique friendship, and I think there's a powerful and, as I mentioned, almost addictive attraction between them, but I don't see anything sexual in it.  I think it's made fairly clear that that's not part of their relationship. 

Liberty: Many people regard TAB as very much about Sherlock coming to terms with question of love and sexuality. The whole episode is only marginally about a case. Sherlock and John sitting in a glasshouse (!) talking about sexual impulses, Sherlock imagining an ideal world with John and without Mary, the sexually charged conversations with Moriarty, the Reichenbach scene fix-it … and the gentleman who wrote my sig seems to share this view. 

Last edited by SusiGo (January 23, 2016 9:38 pm)

All the arguments about it being the 21st century and if they wanted gay characters they'd do it already are all very well but the don't tally up with people's real life tortures and experiences about being queer.

Here's a very real life non queer anaology
Sherlock KNOWS that being gay is fine...

I KNOW when I'm on high ropes course that the harness is 100% safe and I cannot possibly fall to my death.

BUT

Sherlock still has doubts and feelings. Which he keeps in a box evidently.

And I still have doubts about that harness... I'm quite happy to let a bunch of 11 year olds do it instead and sob in front of them in fear rather than step out onto the first beam.

My rational mind knows it's ok but my heart?