Liberty wrote:

Well, quick example - the very first trope on the list is the Red String of Fate: Sherlock and John meeting because of saying the same thing to the same person.   Of course this could lead to a romance if that was being set up, but there's no need for it do so.   Sherlock and John's meeting was very close to the way they met in the original story.  Sherlock and John are clearly fated to be together, and the programme is about their relationship.  I don't see anything there that screams at me that this means it must be a romance rather than a friendship.   I understand that that's what people are saying it means, but I don't agree.  The writers are free to use romantic tropes to show aspects of the friendship if they want (or just for fun, or because they like them, etc.).  And I think it's important to keep in mind that they are trying to show a very special and unique friendship - not just any old friendship.

A ton of romantic tons are used, not just a couple. Some of which cannot be applied to friendship. You cannot take one by one and say "this could also apply to very important friendship" and if you cannot say this say "This can be applied to a friendship that is like romance".
And there is still the issue of discrimination because they are not usually used like that.

Last edited by Ho Yay (January 27, 2016 9:49 pm)

Ho Yay wrote:

And there is still the issue of discrimination because they are not usually used like that.

Oh, I guess now it's not discrimination here because the poor tropes are being mixed up not regarding any respective context 
 

Last edited by Harriet (January 27, 2016 9:53 pm)

Liberty wrote:

@Nakahara, no, I didn't say that .

 

Then you doesn´t exclude the chance that TSOT may have queer subtext?

To Vitruvian John: the amount of alcohol you can drink is usually determined by your weight, not by your photograph, or the picture of a renaissance man with your best friend´s head glued to it. How would a chemist like Sherlock not know that?

Sherlock - the story of a detective, his impulses and why he doesn't just elope with his special friend Dr. john Watson. A source of endless fascination since 1895 - and we know it's always 1895. 

I think I know where I'd place my money if I had the choice between "they are carefully crafting a love-story arc spanning the decades" and "they are milking the fascination with Sherlock's sexuality for their own benefit".. Not that I've ever gamble with them, I'm pretty sure they have "we always win whatever you do anyway" written in the rules of their game somewhere. That's not meant as criticizing them, it's their show and they can do whatever they want to be successful. And maybe I'm wrong, I almost wish I am when I read justified wishes for Johnlock as canon. But all the subtext and cinematographic hints and tropes mean nothing as long as main-text John stays stubbornly hetero and Sherlock just pines and pines for whatever, maybe just for John in his life, maybe even more.. make it explicit or take away the innuendo, that's how I am feeling about it at the moment. If I'm honest I'm thoroughly bored by the ambiguity I once enjoyed by now..

Last edited by Zatoichi (January 28, 2016 8:18 am)

Funnily enough, I thought TAB definitely cleared it up!  Then came here and found that not everybody saw it the same way.

Liberty wrote:

Funnily enough, I thought TAB definitely cleared it up!  Then came here and found that not everybody saw it the same way.

 
I still haven't seen the Special.. Somehow can't bring myself to it. So I don't know.. But they are definitely teased by Moriarty about the nature of their relationship.. Again. And he and his gun get very excited in Sherlock's presence.. Again. So they definitely don't seem to be done with this kind of innuendo quite yet..

John and Sherlock not being in a romantic arc in text and being it only in subtext is a presumption based on heteronormativity though.
What is happening on screen in text is consistent with it being a romantic arc.
John is not hetero on screen, it is a presumption. Him being bi is supported by everything on screen text and subtext since he has a romantic arc with a man and seems attracted to women, also many tropes are text not subtext.

Last edited by Ho Yay (January 28, 2016 8:34 am)

Zatoichi wrote:

Well, I'll be happy if John's bisexuality will someday be textually confirmed enough to be undeniable even for viewers with a heteronormative mindset. Because watching something coded in a way only queer viewers or scholars of cinematography can fully grasp is neither very satisfactory nor contributing to queer representation imo.

But the "code" is not that difficult to crack, is it? Plenty of fans who never before heard of Sherlock Holmes and just watched the series randomly noticed these Johnlocky vibes, without studying filmmaking and queer studies at the same time... people in this thread even complained about an "overdose" of these Johnlock fans.

They simply saw things that are mostly used in romantic movies to connect two leads as a romantic pair and read them as such. No special mental gymnastics was needed for that....

I have never followed love stories if I had the choice . 

@nakahara, it´s not difficult to pick up on the hints and innuendo and becoming a fan of it, quite the contrary.. but decoding "Sherlock" as actually being an epic romance (in which the love interest seems surprisingly okay with the hero almost sacrificing his life for his heteronormative spouse and other textual blows against everything I´d ever consider as "romantically promising") is another story.

Time will tell, that´s the good thing..

http://loudest-subtext-in-television.tumblr.com/post/88272799479/softly-softly-the-bbcs-2009-lgb-research
Thanks for that link, it was interesting. Still, for me, it's not definite.

"I will grant it’s always possible that Gatiss and Moffat were given not only the green light, but actual encouragement to make the gay Sherlock Holmes adaptation they obviously wanted to make, and they were just like, “Nah, we’re cool. But thanks.” Possible, however, does not equal strong, or even plausible."

That's the problem. I can totally see why the writers, the BBC, basically EVERYBODY wants it to be a proper romance. I'm just not sure it is. And I don't think it's that I just assume everybody is heterosexual until proven otherwise, as the meta also mentions, but it's more that I'm perfectly happy to think Sherlock is whatever, let's say gay, and John is bisexual, yeah, and still they might not end up in a relationship, and that would be fine for me. People love other people, on a platonic level. It's normal. Women love men that way. Women love women that way. Men love men that way, etc. etc.
If they want to do groundbreaking, they could just as well show how deep affection musn't always end with both people in bed. (I would find that really groundbreaking indeed.) Or they could go for the romance. Both ways would be great, imo.

Just why it has to be romance, as TJLC suggests, as the only possible outcome, is not so clear to me. Although I now see very well where their arguments are coming from. I just think not deciding will become damaging to the show, rather soon. Otherwise, right now, I would assume, they don't know either. Which, again, would be fine, if we agree that some people live beyond categories - maybe John and Sherlock are doing exactly that. Though then I wouldn't know if the BBC likes that as a concept, from what I've just read, because probably many viewers wouldn't get the message (I wouldn't. I don't, right now). And as I've just learned from that meta, the BBC is really eager to spread a message, to push limits.
 

Last edited by Whisky (January 28, 2016 5:16 pm)