Whisky wrote:

Oh, okay. Not on this board, because obviously, I haven't got a clue who is lgbt and who isn't, in here.

I wanted to emphasize that I don't believe that we jump to the conclusions that are closest to our own experiences by default. many do. not all.

I see. So I take it that when you were talking about lgbt friendshippers, they were rather imaginary people.

Whisky wrote:

Harriet wrote:

But it might be interesting to listen to lgbt Johnlockers' ideas since we have them around.
 

 
Indeed. or to lgbt friendshippers ideas, if we want to stay open minded.

I said that lgbt Johnlockers who are actually here are worth being listened to.

You then suggested it might be unfair to exclude lgbt friendshippers from our thoughts.

So I ask: Do you know any of them to be here, or are they just imaginary?

Because in such discussions I rather listen to what actual people have to say.

And if the lgbt friendshippers don't exist, how can they feel excluded?
 

Actually, I have no idea what you feel excluded for? Or feel that you don't count anyway?
What I felt was that you were not so interested in lgbt Johnlocker experiences as long as we don't talk about the others, too. Which others, I asked. And got no satisfying reply.

This is not really my place and may not be necessary anyway.
But just in case anybody didn't know, or in my case had forgotten.
We essentially have three main 'Johnlock' threads on the forum.One Johnlock, one non-Johnlock and then this one which is both.
People may also hold personal preferences as to which thy prefer to post on, or may post on(well certainly in some cases) two out of the three.
I personally prefer to post on here.
But as a non-Johnlocker, you do that knowing you are in the minority. That is all I will say on the matter for now!
 

I find this "minority" argument a bit bizarre, tbh.
It can always happen that you have a theory that most of the people don´t agree with or it´s not how they see the show. But that doesn´t mean you are not free to spread your opinions freely and as frequently as you like.
In "Sherlock´s Addiction" thread, I posted my theories that Sherlock could be absolutely clean there on board of the plane and that his visions in MP border on self-loathing. Most people disagree, but that does not mean that I am "harmed" by their disagreement somehow or forced to "convert" to their opinions. I´m still as free as always. We post our opinions solely for ourselves, not for the "parties" here anyway.

It's hard to write relationships after they get together and keep the tension as high as before. It is a known story writing problem for which have been created all sorts of tropes with struggles to keep things interesting after people get together, but the couple is not happy with these tropes. So the unresolved sexual tension trope is dragged for years. It's not realistic, but it's a model that has worked since ever and has made viewers satisfied. I'd love if some exceptional writer manage to solve this problem, but they should really solve it and keep the tension as high,and the viewers as happy. The above mentioned struggle tropes, which even if they have some realism often don't deliver satisfaction in the viewer and cause a feeling of discomfort instead, especially for shippers.

As I already said, expecting for sure something as big as a kiss to understand there is a romantic arc before they actually get together, rather than the language of tropes and coding that has always sufficed for other couples is an involuntary discrimination of what one expects of similar things. It is a possibility that the writers might use kiss before they get together but it's not even a probable trope.
In the case of Sherlock specifically, with all the heteronormativity and often various degrees of homophobia in a good part of the fanbase, they would hardly go for the kiss before completely developing the journey to a relationship. They will probably gradually use heavier and heavier contact (for example I think they will dance together before the kiss, because them dancing has been forwarded by many things already happened) so that a larger number of people will be aligned with what is happening despite having being blind to the previous romantic coding. They would want people to enjoy the development of the romance, not to be shocked by it, even if the shock is caused by something that is wrong in society. They would want heteronormative lenses to fall, not to shake them off the viewers' eyes.
But right now we are in the middle of the story and probably of the romantic arc, so the romantic coding is heavy, but not the visual contact.

The problem with other interpretations is that if they are not a romantic couple the show cannot escape the fact that it has queerbaited, which is a practice that goes against the lgbt community and reinforces hetoronormativity in fiction and real life. And whether or not there would be queerbaiting is not up for debate, because
1) a large number of queer people have being baited (not necessarily all, because there are heteronormative queer people because they have grown in a very heteronormative enviroment and because not all queer people are interested in romances on TV or aware of how they function, probably because they were not socialized with TV romances, for example because they were assigned males during childhood).
2) there has being romantic coding objective in relation to TV standards. Romantic coding is a language universally spoken by the viewers, it doesn't exist in real life and can only be used to communicate romance. One or two of romantic tropes with friendship acting might be used for friendship, a ton of romantic tropes together, some of which has no relation to friendship whatsoever, cannot be used to describe friendship.
3) the writers are perfectly aware of what romantic coding is and of how the fandom has reacted to it and the coding has only got heavier.
 

Last edited by Ho Yay (January 27, 2016 12:39 pm)

I'd like to sign all of this, too.
What you're saying, Ho Yay, reminds me a lot of "The X-Files". They kept the tension high for years and years between Scully and Mulder. And I suppose because we are talking about a female/male-relationship here, the audience was easily convinced from very early on that it would have to end in a romance - which it did. (We've had this before, but I'm still convinced that if either John or Sherlock were a woman, this whole Johnlock debate wouldn't exist, because people would accept the romance just the way they did with "The X-Files")
There was a kiss thrown in somewhere in the middle of the show, but after that it all returned to the unresolved tension between Scully and Mulder. This worked wonderfully, but I'm sure the tension would have been almost the same even without the kiss.

I also like your idea of Sherlock and John gradually having heavier and heavier contact... the two of them dancing together makes perfect sense.
 

Last edited by SolarSystem (January 27, 2016 1:35 pm)

I find Ho Yays analysis very plausible. That's not it.
But if you don't pick up on the romantic coding, it's still possible to see it different.
Which makes agree to disagree the only option, really.
I can see the romance has evidence, e.g. Ho Yays arguments are strong imo.
But for pure interpretation it's different - e.g. some see the scene at Angelo's s highly suggestive
and loaded, and I don't. But interpretations aren't analysis.
Sadly I don't find as much meta on friendship evidence, because,
as you said, the majority johnlocks the hell out of things.

I'm glad you mention the unresolved sexual tension as problematic.
If it's a romance, this is what really bugs me - how things are proceeding.
I feel that in many series, the romantic couple is obvious early on. Still
they spend time on anything else so the romance doesn't proceed too quickly.
I personally just don't think it makes a good romance that way.

And Moftiss have confessed they focus on the detective not the cases.
I really liked TAB, okay make that LOVED it, but the case is once more just
means to an end, and yet the romance you mention doesn't proceed - or,
yes, it does, in tiny tiny tiny steps... I'm honestly curious: are you satisfied the
way it is?

edited: so basically what tonnaree just said ;-) minus the understanding, on my part

@Liberty: I agree with you, and thank you for the Outlander example. I also think they still develop despite the established relationship.

Last edited by Whisky (January 27, 2016 2:02 pm)

LOL

And Whisky, agree to disagree is always a good option.  Lively but polite discourse is what we strive for here after all.