"Yummy" nails it - and probably not for the food 

Very good point, Harriet. Nobody can declare themselves free from such internalised prejudices, restricted views, etc. This is absolutely normal. But one should accept that they exist and try to deal with them. So if something may be an indication of gay attraction or not, why go (or even fight) for the heteronormative explanation instead of trying to embrace the other one? 
 

Harriet wrote:

What really makes me wonder in this debate - why it should be such an annoyance for someone being challenged for internalised heteronormativity?

I do believe nobody here can honestly claim she/he is 100% free of internalised racism, sexism, heteronormativity and the like (insert here). It's simply the way we grew up, if we like it or not.
And we can only benefit from accepting this and our own parts of the problem, and try to listen, get more aware and change things.

I can only speak for myself (hopefully others will answer too!), but the "annoyance" is that it's just not the case that heteronormativy is behind it.  (Well, that and the fact that the term is linked to homophobia - it's pretty much like being continually accused of being homophobic).   As I've said before, yes, heteronormativity is a problem, no, it's not the reason I don't think we're being shown Johnlock.   It's frustrating when every reason we give for what we think we're being shown is countered by "heteronormativity", regardless of whether the reason has anything to do with that. 

It's not a case of trying to go for the "heteronormative" view.   Nothing concrete has actually happened as far as the "romance" has concerned.  Over years, Sherlock hasn't confessed to anyone that he feels anything other than platonic love (even to himself in his mind palace), and John hasn't either.  Over the years, they haven't kissed, they haven't tried to kiss and been rebuffed, (they're even shown as attracted to women but never men) - these are all decisions the writers have made about what to show us.   On top of that, the writers and actors seem pretty clear that they're friends, not lovers. 

That's the surface story anyway, and I know people who see Johnlock would argue that it's subtext.   But subtext is very open to interpretation.   There has been nothing concrete to discount the friendship.   If the writers have written Johnlock, then it's hidden (and from what they've said and written, I don't feel they would want to hide a gay romance) and coded.   And yes, of course you could be right, and the writers have just chosen to show a romance in this way.    But what I'm trying to get across is that it's not as if we're weighing up two equal things - this scene in which they're shown as lovers, versus this scene in which they are shown as friends (and trying to pick a heteronormative view or otherwise).   They are clearly shown as friends, but never clearly shown as lovers. 

Last edited by Liberty (February 1, 2016 10:16 pm)

The thing is you're right... they're not shown as lovers but they have reached the absolute pinnacle of their friendship as we currently stand (with some wiggle room for regression due to Mary and the events of HLV) Whether it's nonlocking or Johnlocking the biggest question is where do we go from here... and none of us have the answers we can just look at the evidence as we see it... however, my proviso is that some people who beleive there is a subtext (of varying degrees and not all are shippers) are writers, actors, lighting techs, producers, composers, editors, camera techs. Lots of essays regarding Johnlock are speculative and that's fun but some subtext essays are just analysis of the facts presented from that particular persons professional viewpoint taking into account the fact that they have just as much training and experience as our writers etc etc...

Hope that comes across as ok.

Little Weed wrote:

The thing is you're right... they're not shown as lovers but they have reached the absolute pinnacle of their friendship as we currently stand (with some wiggle room for regression due to Mary and the events of HLV) Whether it's nonlocking or Johnlocking the biggest question is where do we go from here... and none of us have the answers we can just look at the evidence as we see it... however, my proviso is that some people who beleive there is a subtext (of varying degrees and not all are shippers) are writers, actors, lighting techs, producers, composers, editors, camera techs. Lots of essays regarding Johnlock are speculative and that's fun but some subtext essays are just analysis of the facts presented from that particular persons professional viewpoint taking into account the fact that they have just as much training and experience as our writers etc etc...

Hope that comes across as ok.

I agree, Little Weed. I have said before that I really do not see much room for development if they do not go with a romantic relationship. 
And I really love your other argument - I have studied literature and how to interpret works of art. I also know a bit about writing and how to develop characters and relationships, how to create narrative arcs, etc. And this is the knowledge I (and many others) apply to the show and which leads them to these conclusions. 

I thought Harriets lip licking link very funny .
Maybe Sherlock studied those kinds of things , he probably did , because he interpreted it on John as desire too.

I love how Sherlock narrows his eyes slightly when John licks his lips... He definitely notices!

See this is where my viewpoint differs.
Tension, what tension?
It's like we speak different languages or watch different shows or something.I see no tension, in the Johnlock sense.
I see two close friends(one of them pretty extraordinary)and their roller coaster life during amazing adventures.
A couple of times on here I've seen people say things like: we can't keep the status quo, there has to be progress.
But why?
Personally I'm happy with the status quo.
Why can't they just go on surviving more scrapes together.
In real life, if you are getting your adrenaline kick , knocking about with your bestie...when do you think: oh we can't keep this status quo, there has to be progress?
I just don't think it happens.
I believe John will think: I love this guy and I want it to go on and on- exactly as it is.



 

Last edited by besleybean (February 2, 2016 6:32 am)

nakahara wrote:

Hmm, the writers you keep mentioning cite TPLOSH as one of their greatest inspiration for this modern version of Sherlock. If I remember correctly, that movie was one of the few which portrayed Sherlock as openly gay... and yet BBC Sherlock can´t be gay, because...? (Why choose TPLOSH as a main source of inspiration, out of hundreds of adaptations, if they never meant to portray Sherlock similarily?)

Because look at what they've said about TPLOSH - a "desparately unspoken" love.  Sherlock is gay and in love with John ... John appears to be straight, but is certainly not accepting of homosexuality.  And Billy Wilder said that he wished he could have been more explicit.   If Moftiss love the film, do you think that in the modern day, with the BBC behind it, they would be less explicit than Billy Wilder was?   We know that they would happily show same sex relationships, openly. 

If they'd really wanted to recreate TPLOSH (and although they love it, and its influence is obvious at times, I don't think they wanted a remake - Sherlock in particular seems to me to be a different character), they'd have had to find a way to adapt it to the modern day - John's homophobia in TPLOSH is of its time, and he has reason to be worried about being thought of as gay.   This wouldn't work in the modern day, not because there's no homophobia, but because it's homophobia rather than homosexuality that's disapproved of.   Yes, they could still make a pining Sherlock, but sexuality would not be the issue that it was then.  Sherlock would be in a position more similar to Molly, where her attraction is acknowledged, and not reciprocated, but not disapproved of. 

Anyway, TLDR, Moftiss were free to make the show in a way that Billy Wilder wasn't.   And yet they haven't chosen to openly show Johnlock.


(By "explicit" I mean the opposite of "implicit"  - there out in the open to see, rather than hidden and having to be inferred.  Just clarifying because I've used the word before and I think people thought I was talking about "explicit" sex scenes!)

Yes, I agree. And slow-burn romances are a common genre, something we have been seen in heterosexual love stories for decades. There are not many films and books starting with a fulfilled romantic relationship because it makes such good narrative material. 

And as you say, Little Weed, they had to include the fall and the marriage and other elements if they wanted to stay true to these canonical elements. So where would be the fun and the suspense if they had jumped into bed at the end of ASiP? 

As for TPLoSH: I think in BBC Sherlock they have kept the "desperately unspoken" element (so far). In the absence of blatant social homophobia they chose different impediments for the relationship: Sherlock's emotional and psychological issues, John's need to present himself again and again as "not gay" (yet never as "straight"), his experience with his sister's problems, the influence of his military life, and - last not least - the whole Moriarty business. We do not know what would have happened without the fall - John had stopped dating women after Jeanette, their domestic life seemed perfect. So the fall served as a major interruption to their lives together and, at the same time, brought women back into the picture. Which is clever storytelling, if you ask me. 

Last edited by SusiGo (February 2, 2016 8:33 am)