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

besleybean · February 21, 2016 3:13 pm

Yes, sorry, I somehow missed this discussion.
But excuse me, I see absolutely nothing ambiguous about it.
Mark is perfectly clear to me.
This is the interview I've always harped on about.
I never understood it before, but after this, I am at a total loss how anybody could ever think Johnlock was or was going to be in the show.
Perhaps some folk will now understand my constant puzzlement on the topic.
This for me drew a line under the subject...as far as the show is concerned, of course.

Liberty · February 21, 2016 3:35 pm

Yes, I know, when I heard that interview, I thought that the whole thing was sorted once and for all! But it didn't really make much difference. I suppose it's just impossible to disprove.

besleybean · February 21, 2016 3:55 pm

I'm not sure I'm understanding the 'impossible to disprove'.

Liberty · February 21, 2016 4:49 pm

Well, the parallel that springs to mind is the atheism thing: it's really difficult to prove something like that doesn't exist! I think people genuinely see it there, to the extent that Mark's denial has to mean he's lying. (Now I'm thinking of Richard Dawkin's buses having "There's probably no Johnlock ... " signs!).

besleybean · February 21, 2016 5:05 pm

Chortle!
Well I expect people can and indeed will still put a spin on what Mark said...after all, I did try and bring his contribution to the debate once before...
But I can only say it's clear enough to me and endorsed what I always thought was the case.
It just made no sense to me:
why would a confident, openly gay man, living in 21s century UK, feel he had to hide characters' sexuality?
Further, they were taking their cue from Canon, where they don't come across as being in a relationship either!
But I am glad he has explained the gay joke thing, better than I ever could or indeed have.
Possibly the frustration of a lack of relationship is then what brings charges of liar and queer-baiter.
Untrue and unfair, as far as I'm concerned.
It was quite clear to me at least, that the cafe scene was saying Sherlock didn't do relationships..regardless of the gender.
Oh I also think Mark describes the Irene situation beautifully, again, better than I ever could or indeed have.
To me I also couldn't get why a gay writer had to carry the gay flag in everything he wrote: do women only write women, blacks only blacks?

Last edited by besleybean (February 21, 2016 5:06 pm)

mrshouse · February 21, 2016 5:18 pm

Well, until now there's no such thing as "no johnlock" signs on busses.
BUT what we do have is: we have pink hearts with the "you'll do" quote in a book shop for Valentines day, we have ads in the Metro imitating Sherlock and John searching each other, we have Johnlock in another London magazine (forgot which one) to be the top London couple beating a wedding kiss pic from William and Kate and so forth. It comes from somewhere.
@besley, I agree with your last statement. But that should also put to rest that real life couples are necessarily the best and most obvious choice on screen.

Last edited by mrshouse (February 21, 2016 5:19 pm)

besleybean · February 21, 2016 5:23 pm

I don't quite see the connection, that 's up to personal opinion.
Point is Amanda was cast, that's up to them and for me it works.
All of the things you were cited...were any of them sponsored by the BBC in general, or the team in particular?
As I said, my comments(and I think Mark was saying the same) are directed at the BBC show.
There will always be a place for fan art, fan fic and fan vids etc...I certainly don't have any problem with any of those.
I still have my own Johnlock fantasies.
But I like to separate fan contributions from the BBC's original version.

mrshouse · February 21, 2016 5:54 pm

Well, the connection is that gay people don't have to exclusively sell gay works of art and happy real life couples don't necessarily work the same way in a fictional story on screen. It's as simple as that.
I really envy you, that just everything works fine for you, you never doubt, you can fully support and enjoy just anything in this show. Astounding.

besleybean · February 21, 2016 6:08 pm

Really, astounding that somebody who loves a show is on a fan site for it?!
I don't agree with everything they do in the show and have always said so...several times
But I do recognise what they do is their vision and I wouldn't expect them to produce my vision.
But on my definition of critical mass(on the other thread), the scales are firmly tipped in favour of my loving what they are doing and really looking forward to seeing more of it.
Otherwise, I wouldn't be here.

Last edited by besleybean (February 21, 2016 6:08 pm)

besleybean · February 21, 2016 6:17 pm

Anyhow, sorry for the double post.
But we're currently watching a TV show about Paul and Peter, somehow I thought of this, which may add another dimension to the thread and discussion:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_and_Jonathan

nakahara · February 21, 2016 7:54 pm

That "post-mortem" interview was a bit abominable, but this part was quite interesting:

http://cupidford.tumblr.com/post/139620343700/do-you-know-i-would-say-is-that-you-know

SusiGo · February 21, 2016 7:55 pm

Yes, I liked that part, too.

besleybean · February 21, 2016 7:58 pm

Yes, as usual Mark and Steven just say it as it is...it's like the two guys in the pub thing; aw come on, you mean you really have...never, ever?
But I've seen the picture of that bird you carry about with you...
Are you a machine, man?!

mrshouse · February 21, 2016 8:04 pm

besleybean wrote:
Anyhow, sorry for the double post.
But we're currently watching a TV show about Paul and Peter, somehow I thought of this, which may add another dimension to the thread and discussion:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_and_Jonathan

Then Jonathan made a covenant with David, because he loved him as his own
soul.
1 Samuel 18.3

besleybean · February 21, 2016 8:05 pm

I thought the discussion of the nature of the relationship was interesting.

nakahara · February 21, 2016 8:09 pm

mrshouse wrote:
besleybean wrote:
Anyhow, sorry for the double post.
But we're currently watching a TV show about Paul and Peter, somehow I thought of this, which may add another dimension to the thread and discussion:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_and_Jonathan

Then Jonathan made a covenant with David, because he loved him as his own
soul.
1 Samuel 18.3

1 Samuel 18.1

Wa-jəhī, kə-challotō lə-daber ‛el-Šā‛ūl, wə-nefeš Jəhōnātān, niqəšərāh bə-nefeš Dāwid; waj-je‛ehāvehū Jəhōnātān, kə-nafəšō.

And it came to pass, when he had made an end of speaking unto Saul, that the soul of Jonathan was knit with the soul of David, and Jonathan loved him as his own soul.

besleybean · February 21, 2016 8:10 pm

They do use that flowery language...'soul' means nothing to me...but a nice thought, anyway.

nakahara · February 21, 2016 8:16 pm

"Nefesh" (soul), pronounced "nafs" in Arabic, is also used instead of "self"... so this can also mean "Jonathan loved him as himself".

besleybean · February 21, 2016 8:17 pm

Oh that doesn't sound quite so poetic, does it?

nakahara · February 21, 2016 8:22 pm

You think so?

Waj-jitəpaššeth Jəhōnātān, ‛et-ham-mə’īl ‛ašer ’ālājw, waj-jitənehū, lə-Dāwid; ū-madājw, wə-’ad-harəbō wə-’ad-qašətō wə-’ad-hagorō.

And Jonathan stripped himself of the robe that was upon him, and gave it to David, and his apparel, even to his sword, and to his bow, and to his girdle.

The depth of feelings makes it poetic, IMHO.