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

nakahara · January 27, 2016 9:03 pm

Schmiezi wrote:
I've been thinking about this for quite a while now and about how to make a sound analysis that would prove that there is a romance going on and not just friendship.

What do you think of this:

To me, you would have to take a Sherlock episode and basically count how many codes for friendship there are and how many codes for romance there are.

Then you have to take a TV show with two characters that remained just friends at the end, like Next Gen's Data and Geordie. You have to take an episode that focuses on their relationship and also count the codes.

Then you have to select a show where two characters ended up as a couple after a slow burn romance, like X-files. Pick an episode from before they became a couple and count the codes.

Then you have to compare and see if Sherlock is more like Next Gen or X-Files.

Edit: Oh how I wish I had the time to do that.

I think it would be enough to analyse Jonny Lee Miller´s Sherlock next to Cumberbatch´s.
Why they behave so different around women if they are both straight. Why are there no gay jokes in Elementary.

Vhanja · January 27, 2016 9:05 pm

Ho Yay wrote:
I'm not giving interpretations as a fact, I am giving as a fact romantic coding, which are conventions that serve nothing else but to communicate romance. It's a language. If one doesn't understand the language because the gender of the objects has changed is heteronormativity. It's not about views, I described a reality bringing sources to prove that there is actual romantic coding and explained which the issue was quite in dept.

It's not as black and white as that:

- Some - probably many - romantic tropes are also viable as friendship tropes
- Some might not agree that all the romantic tropes attributed to the show are actually there

Therefore, it's not correct to say that the only reason for disagreeing is a heterenormative view.

Ho Yay · January 27, 2016 9:07 pm

If languages worked like that nobody would understand a thing.

nakahara · January 27, 2016 9:08 pm

Harriet wrote:
Liberty wrote:
But do you really need an analysis to prove that they're friends? You don't think it's obvious?

Your reply is out of context, I'm afraid. Everybody agrees they are friends, but that was not the point at that part of our discussion.

Sorry, but it´s not obvious to everybody that S and J are friends.
Some people claim that after HLV they cannot be friends anymore, because no friend would behave like John did to Sherlock in this episode.
So it´s not something people are convinced of 100%.

Harriet · January 27, 2016 9:08 pm

I asked you yesterday, Vhanja, now a good opportunity again:
How about the others, then? Some are, it seems, even to you.

Vhanja · January 27, 2016 9:10 pm

nakahara wrote:
And in this case, nude pic with somebody´s head on it would more probably bear a sexual meaning than any other.

And I disagree. That is to say - a Vitruvian Man with the head glued onto it doesn't have to be sexual. It doesn't even have to be more probable. It depends - again - on your expectations and what filter you view it through.

For instance - the soft smiles between Sherlock and John are shown a lot on Tumblr as proof of Sherlock and John's romantic love towards each other. For those seeing them as friends, the same soft smiles would be proof of their close friendship, or platonic love for each other.

Same with the Reichenback Fall scene, and "smarter then he looks". Could be a remark filled with the warmth of romantic love. Or with the warmth of platonic love. But whatever filter you view it through, one or the other would often be viewed as "obvious" for the one viewing it, confirming all along their own expectations.

Vhanja · January 27, 2016 9:11 pm

Ho Yay wrote:
If languages worked like that nobody would understand a thing.

Well, that is how language works. And also one reason for why there are so much misunderstandings and different viewpoints in general.

Harriet - I don't have the list in my head, so I wouldn't know.

Ho Yay · January 27, 2016 9:12 pm

If a tropes is:
-> romantic for straight couples.
-> platonic or romantic for non straight couples.
There is discrimination.

Ho Yay · January 27, 2016 9:13 pm

Vhanja wrote:
Ho Yay wrote:
If languages worked like that nobody would understand a thing.
Well, that is how language works. And also one reason for why there are so much misunderstandings and different viewpoints in general.

Harriet - I don't have the list in my head, so I wouldn't know.

No, usually the meaning for most words are set. Romantic coding for straight couples is pretty much set.

Vhanja · January 27, 2016 9:14 pm

Ho Yay wrote:
If a tropes is:
-> romantic for straight couples.
-> platonic or romantic for non straight couples.
There is discrimination.

But the tropes can be both platonic and romantic for either gender.

Harriet · January 27, 2016 9:14 pm

Vhanja wrote:
- Some - probably many - romantic tropes are also viable as friendship tropes
- Some might not agree that all the romantic tropes attributed to the show are actually there

Vhanja wrote:
Harriet - I don't have the list in my head, so I wouldn't know.

Oh, I thought you had an idea what you were talking of when you said it.
Or a general picture of remaining 30% or so...

Last edited by Harriet (January 27, 2016 9:15 pm)

Vhanja · January 27, 2016 9:15 pm

Ho Yay wrote:
No, usually the meaning for most words are set. Romantic coding for straight couples is pretty much set.

Are you saying you don't think there exists misunderstanding due to language and different interpretation of words and sentences?

Ho Yay · January 27, 2016 9:15 pm

Vhanja wrote:
Ho Yay wrote:
If a tropes is:
-> romantic for straight couples.
-> platonic or romantic for non straight couples.
There is discrimination.
But the tropes can be both platonic and romantic for either gender.

But they aren't and that's the reason why they are romantic tropes. That's the whole reason why they are studied.

Vhanja · January 27, 2016 9:17 pm

Well, when we end up on a level of "Yes, they are" and "No, they aren't", I don't think we will get much further, so perhaps we should stop there.

Ho Yay · January 27, 2016 9:17 pm

Vhanja wrote:
Ho Yay wrote:
No, usually the meaning for most words are set. Romantic coding for straight couples is pretty much set.
Are you saying you don't think there exists misunderstanding due to language and different interpretation of words and sentences?

There is, but not in such a measure that it is not possible to convey the wanted message on a routine basis.

Harriet · January 27, 2016 9:17 pm

Ho Yay wrote:
But they aren't and that's the reason why they are romantic tropes. That's the whole reason why they are studied.

One can actually study film making? You mean, at uni?

Last edited by Harriet (January 27, 2016 9:20 pm)

Harriet · January 27, 2016 9:18 pm

Vhanja wrote:
Well, when we end up on a level of "Yes, they are" and "No, they aren't", I don't think we will get much further, so perhaps we should stop there.

No, it doesn't have to be that complicated. How many percent do you guess are not in doubt?
Since you acknowledged "Some" and "not all".

Last edited by Harriet (January 27, 2016 9:19 pm)

Ho Yay · January 27, 2016 9:19 pm

Vhanja wrote:
Well, when we end up on a level of "Yes, they are" and "No, they aren't", I don't think we will get much further, so perhaps we should stop there.

If you want to stop stop, but I am not at the level of "They aren't", I gave an explanation.

Vhanja · January 27, 2016 9:20 pm

Interestingly enough, I seem to recall a debate on this forum where I said that the one true interpretation would be the one of the author/creator of a work. And got most of the forum against me because the point of art was subjective interpretation, and that no interpretation was more true than any other.

Oddly enough, this doesn't apply to Johnlock. Here, we are dealing with established Truthisms where - if you disagree - that leaves you open to jokes, sarcasm and told straight out that you are simply wrong and view it from a heteronormative view.

So much for an open debate.

nakahara · January 27, 2016 9:22 pm

Vhanja wrote:
nakahara wrote:
And in this case, nude pic with somebody´s head on it would more probably bear a sexual meaning than any other.
And I disagree. That is to say - a Vitruvian Man with the head glued onto it doesn't have to be sexual. It doesn't even have to be more probable. It depends - again - on your expectations and what filter you view it through.

For instance - the soft smiles between Sherlock and John are shown a lot on Tumblr as proof of Sherlock and John's romantic love towards each other. For those seeing them as friends, the same soft smiles would be proof of their close friendship, or platonic love for each other.

Same with the Reichenback Fall scene, and "smarter then he looks". Could be a remark filled with the warmth of romantic love. Or with the warmth of platonic love. But whatever filter you view it through, one or the other would often be viewed as "obvious" for the one viewing it, confirming all along their own expectations.

Once again, I take it for a sexual hint based on ballance of probability. Ballance of probability does not excludes other interpretations, still, it favours most probable explanations.
I go for sexual meaning because it´s being corroborated by the story of TSOT as a whole: Sherlock jealous of Sholto, Mary baiting him for it, Sherlock and John being almost photographed together as a pair, Sherlock´s speech and declaration of love to John (he uses the word "love" not "friendship" verbatim here) + Sherlock never ever glues Lestrade´s or Molly´s head on paper although they are his dear friends too, plus, he behaves very differently to them than to John although they like him, saved his life even, etc.
These romantic tropes in total corroborate my impression of romance here.

I could interpret John as Sherlock´s enemy based on HLV, but the rest of the story does not corroborate that impression. So the ballance of probability tells me John is Sherlock´s friend, not his foe.