I'm sure it is...but the Union Jack is a bit of political dynamite here in Scotland!

besleybean wrote:

I'm sure it is...but the Union Jack is a bit of political dynamite here in Scotland!

 
Ah yes. Makes sense. I think it's probably got to do with the fact that Sherlock is occasionally the British Secret Service or 'James Bond'... on a freelance basis... for Mycroft of course... all that leg work... ;)

nakahara wrote:

Little Weed wrote:

@nakahara I keep meaning to watch those. I must go find them.

Behold them and laugh! 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=murI8Hrlpck

 
I'm sorry that's too much... even for me... 

/brief off topic aside/

Coupling is bloody brilliant.  If you've never watched them you MUST!

Ho Yay wrote:

Whisky wrote:

These tropes... it's like somebody tells me, you have to learn the language to understand anything. And I'm feeling like: why? The show always made sense to me without knowing any tropes.

I'm not talking about male friendship as standards. I am talking about the kind of friendship we see in Sherlock. If we get stuck with a) and b), as in a) standard friendship an b) classical romance, there will never be anything groundbreaking happening in between, I quite agree.
 

People already know the trope language if they have seen TV with any romance in their lives, it's heteronormativity that blinds to the coding, there is an actual issue in society, you understand your native language even when you haven't studied grammar.
Representation that there is now is far from enough even if it's there and not as varied as it should, it's still an issue. Sherlock specifically would be the slow burn romance which defies all hetoronormative arguments that I've seen in this thread and others on why they don't look like a romantic couple. Just the fact that this arguments have been used here marks how much this kind of representation is needed. Plus if with this kind of coding this representation wasn't given it would reinforce the idea that those heteronormative arguments were right,
BBC doesn't have to stick to anything, but queerbaiting hurts people.
.

"Blinded by heteronormativity" is a very strong argument, because it can´t really be disproved until the final second of Sherlock, when either they did or did not become a couple. Everything speaking against them actually becoming an item could just be a trick to lure the heteronormative majority of viewers into having the surprise of their life and after that watching TV with different eyes. It´s just.. well, I don´t want to use such horribly misleading concepts like "balance of probability" in my arguments.. but to me the chance is very small that this is what they´re actually doing. Could be confirmation bias, could be me placing too much trust in Mark Gatiss´ sincere speeches (placing trust in Mark Gatiss seems like a horribly daring thing to do ).. could be just me not wanting Sherlock to have a lover who acts towards him like John does.. but. I have seen queer romances before and I noticed them when I saw them. I also saw the Guy Richie-adaptation of Sherlock Holmes, where we have the same "romance but not really romance, at least from John´s side", although those two leads don´t have the same explosive chemistry as BBC´s. I have seen romantic tropes, unusually deep caring and sacrificial behaviour and lingering looks between two people who were not really interested in becoming a couple (in some of the latest Marvel movies, I guess.. just as an example). I have seen Mofftiss toying around with all kinds of tropes in "Sherlock" and with romantic tension between the leads in Dr. Who. Hinting at gay romance is something I see a lot, it seems to be some kind of trend, for example in many Japanese shows or the promotion of boybands I stumbled across, and so on. So it seems very.. I don´t know, trusting? Daring?.. to me to be convinced of canon-Johnlock as endgame just because there are tropes we know from romances, unresolved sexual tension and all those assumptions and innuendo by other characters in the show. But as I said before, time will tell, and I fully understand that from the viewpoint of queer representation a more sincere approach would be much preferable..
 

Last edited by Zatoichi (January 29, 2016 7:43 am)

Vhanja wrote:

Harriet wrote:

But seriously, you didn't answer my question "what about the ones that are not in doubt for you?" yesterday, and not today. So I guess I will never learn .... I don't need a debate which ones and how many, but I'm curious how you deal with the ones you acknowledge yourself.

I did reply - I don't have the list in front of me, so I wouldn't know if any of them are not in doubt to me. But I wrote "some" because I prefer not to be too assertive and black-or-white in a debate about interpretations. 
 

So if some are not some, as you said, this appears to me like:
"There a no romantic tropes to be found in BBC Sherlock at all, but in case someone proves me wrong I can still claim I said some".

Since tropes are by definition either romantic or not and can't be transformed to "a little bit romantic" or "romantic if I feel them to be romantic".


 

Yes, saw it just this minute on http://johnlockedsoul.tumblr.com/post/138268984286/cupidford-happy-january-29th as a screenshot of John's Blog entry 

Or if you look at it from the date Sherlock Holmes met John Watson in canon (1881) it's 135 years

Wow, six years! Or is it more like four years in their time?  Anyway, nice anniversary . 

Zatoichi wrote:

Ho Yay wrote:

Whisky wrote:

These tropes... it's like somebody tells me, you have to learn the language to understand anything. And I'm feeling like: why? The show always made sense to me without knowing any tropes.

I'm not talking about male friendship as standards. I am talking about the kind of friendship we see in Sherlock. If we get stuck with a) and b), as in a) standard friendship an b) classical romance, there will never be anything groundbreaking happening in between, I quite agree.
 

People already know the trope language if they have seen TV with any romance in their lives, it's heteronormativity that blinds to the coding, there is an actual issue in society, you understand your native language even when you haven't studied grammar.
Representation that there is now is far from enough even if it's there and not as varied as it should, it's still an issue. Sherlock specifically would be the slow burn romance which defies all hetoronormative arguments that I've seen in this thread and others on why they don't look like a romantic couple. Just the fact that this arguments have been used here marks how much this kind of representation is needed. Plus if with this kind of coding this representation wasn't given it would reinforce the idea that those heteronormative arguments were right,
BBC doesn't have to stick to anything, but queerbaiting hurts people.
.

"Blinded by heteronormativity" is a very strong argument, because it can´t really be disproved until the final second of Sherlock, when either they did or did not become a couple. Everything speaking against them actually becoming an item could just be a trick to lure the heteronormative majority of viewers into having the surprise of their life and after that watching TV with different eyes. It´s just.. well, I don´t want to use such horribly misleading concepts like "balance of probability" in my arguments.. but to me the chance is very small that this is what they´re actually doing. Could be confirmation bias, could be me placing too much trust in Mark Gatiss´ sincere speeches (placing trust in Mark Gatiss seems like a horribly daring thing to do ).. could be just me not wanting Sherlock to have a lover who acts towards him like John does.. but. I have seen queer romances before and I noticed them when I saw them. I also saw the Guy Richie-adaptation of Sherlock Holmes, where we have the same "romance but not really romance, at least from John´s side", although those two leads don´t have the same explosive chemistry as BBC´s. I have seen romantic tropes, unusually deep caring and sacrificial behaviour and lingering looks between two people who were not really interested in becoming a couple (in some of the latest Marvel movies, I guess.. just as an example). I have seen Mofftiss toying around with all kinds of tropes in "Sherlock" and with romantic tension between the leads in Dr. Who. Hinting at gay romance is something I see a lot, it seems to be some kind of trend, for example in many Japanese shows or the promotion of boybands I stumbled across, and so on. So it seems very.. I don´t know, trusting? Daring?.. to me to be convinced of canon-Johnlock as endgame just because there are tropes we know from romances, unresolved sexual tension and all those assumptions and innuendo by other characters in the show. But as I said before, time will tell, and I fully understand that from the viewpoint of queer representation a more sincere approach would be much preferable..
 

I think even if I have repeted it like 10 times the argument it is not understood very well.
Waiting to see what happens at the end doesn't change anything.
There is coding that is consistently used to indicate romance for female-male couples and that is proved by the fact that it is actually known as such, even studied as such, but it's a language everybody unconsciously knows because it has been talked to us since we were children, more or less depending on how frequent romance made it in what we consumed.
It is rare for romantic coding not to result in romance and it is mainly due to 1) bad writing, since expectation of the consumer are not aligned with what happens 2) some stories have triangles in which romantic coding is equally used on more than one person, so one has to go, this is not Sherlock's case, where the coding is concentrated on Sherlock and John 3) some romantic false leads get a bit of romantic coding, along with "this person is nasty" coding 4) some couples come along with "it's not serious" coding, so they might flirt, share something and then move on with their lives, which is not Sherlock's case when it all has being coded has very serious. (Probably this is not a complete list, just what comes to my mind right now.)
The existence of this romantic coding is relation to TV standards is proved.
It ends up in a romance -> The writing is consistent.
It doesn't end up in a romance -> the coding has been misused and since we know that Moffat and Gatiss are not five and they have put even some trope with the exact name of the trope (not just romantic ones, even others, it seems like they have read studies about it, maybe the wikia), we can say that they put them there intentionally, so it would be romance baiting and queerbaiting, which is worse that romance baiting because it actually hurts a marginalized group, rather than make for poorly written material.
Since the coding is there:
If one sees it -> One's mindset free from heteronormativity enough to see it.
If one doesn't see it -> heteronormativity is blocking from seing it or one has consumed very little romance in media to be acquainted with a language that is taught to viewers since childhood.
The fact that queerbaiting is being usually done only makes things worse.

Some gay romances are more easily visible than others because not all romances have the same progression. Sherlock has a progression that heteronormativity blocks from seeing and that's why it is really important that it is not queerbaiting, because it would reinforce the fact that this progression, thought coded as a romance, for queer couples is ok not to be perceived as a romance. Instead of creating equality in the language of coding you create discrimination. Instead of making things better you make things actually worse than they were before.

Doctor Who doesn't generally use much romantic coding, except with Rose, which actually gets to be with the doctor in her alternate universe, River, which actually gets to be married to the doctor for many years (and they lived happily ever after) and for brief love triangles, highly comedic. It is known that the Doctor cannot be with anyone, everyone expectations are aligned with the fact that all his romances are eventually going to terminate on screen.

Between Sherlock and Molly there is no romantic coding except for unrequited love.
Kisses are not romantic coding just because they are kisses. there was one awkward kiss on the chick to say thank you and a kiss imagined by the "idiot" among the characters, which says a lot about how much that kiss was probable.
It is consistently shown that Sherlock doesn't think of her much at he start and, even after they get friends and spend a day together, he doesn't work well with her and keeps calling her John, talking to John. Molly has also little screen time, many casual viewers may even not remember her name.
Saving does not equal romance. It's what about happens. The first time John saves Sherlock there are long stares, suggestive movements of the mouth and an invitation to dinner. When John saves Sherlock in TAB again there are stares, flirting and Moriarty even remarks on it, they keep flirting and throw him off a cliff. They get established as a couple.
Molly has instead a little little bit of romantic coding with Lestrade, both have little screen time. They are probably going for a "pair the spares" trope.

One should count all the previsous coding and context even in the interpretation of scenes in which they are talking without using the most obvious romantic tropes. If you have already being shown they are in love repeatedly you keep it as background, one doesn't just question whether two people are in love everytime they talk just because they are not doing anything particular or because even if it looks romantic it could mean something else. Couples and especially future romantic couples just speak normally like everybody else when they have to say things.


 

Last edited by Ho Yay (January 29, 2016 3:19 pm)