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

nakahara · February 22, 2016 8:34 pm

besleybean wrote:
It's of no concern.
I am just trying to clarify that ACD gave permission for other people to do those things with his character.
He hadn't done them himself.
Again separating Canon/BBC Sherlock from fan works or other versions.

And of what use is this separation of Canon from fan works? The original author had allowed fans to expand his work that way - what harm is there in fans building new worlds on his foundations?

besleybean · February 22, 2016 8:43 pm

No harm at all.
As long as they don't say they are mirroring BBC Sherlock.
This for me would be a misrepresentation,
But yes, on the world scale of events...no big deal.

Last edited by besleybean (February 22, 2016 8:44 pm)

ukaunz · February 22, 2016 8:44 pm

Moffat and Gatiss are also fans. They use canon in their work, but they also refer to other non-canon works. You never know what they will do with the characters in future episodes.

besleybean · February 22, 2016 8:45 pm

Of course we don't.
But I think they've made it perfectly clear they will not become a couple.

nakahara · February 22, 2016 8:52 pm

ukaunz wrote:
Moffat and Gatiss are also fans. They use canon in their work, but they also refer to other non-canon works. You never know what they will do with the characters in future episodes.

Yes, they often used Rathbone, TPLOSH, Granada and various other works to expand Sherlock Holmes universe... and they were deliberately ambiguous to enable various interpretations of their work...

So for me, there´s no use to strictly separate canon and fan-works... by this logic, we would be forced to condemn BBC version right away... Sherlock Holmes in modern London, what a blasphemy!

besleybean · February 22, 2016 8:55 pm

But the difference is, BBC Sherlock doesn't claim to be anything it isn't.
That for me is the difference with Johnlock.
If fans are claiming they have Johnlock in their work, because there is Johnlock in BBC Sherlock, I would think that was inaccurate.

nakahara · February 22, 2016 8:59 pm

besleybean wrote:
But the difference is, BBC Sherlock doesn't claim to be anything it isn't.
That for me is the difference with Johnlock.
If fans are claiming they have Johnlock in their work, because there is Johnlock in BBC Sherlock, I would think that was inaccurate.

BBC version has a deliberate ambiguity that enables the Johnlock interpretation. Mark himself admitted they put in there... so why is it a problem if fans want to center on this interpretation or read it like that?
I still cease to see why this should be a problem for anyone... you don´t see it there, that´s OK, but why deny the fun with source material to the others?

SusiGo · February 24, 2016 10:55 am

An interesting, well-balanced article:

http://news.yahoo.com/unpopular-opinion-sherlock-isnt-sexist-190000821.html

mrshouse · February 24, 2016 12:45 pm

Thank you for posting this, Susi. It is always interesting to hear from fans, who really got convinced by what they are given in the show. And a well appreciated reminder that we are in the middle of a story telling arc.

tonnaree · February 24, 2016 1:11 pm

SusiGo wrote:
An interesting, well-balanced article:

http://news.yahoo.com/unpopular-opinion-sherlock-isnt-sexist-190000821.html

I'm going to have this entire essay tattooed on my ass.

Liberty · February 24, 2016 3:17 pm

I don't know if it's well-balanced in terms of the Johnlock debate as the writer is quite open about seeing it from a Johnlock perspective. I agree that gay rights and women's rights are intertwined (very much so!), and that the writers don't seem to be queerbaiting. I'm not sure that TAB is really about the fandom, but I do think Moftiss are quite friendly towards the fandom (and that they do acknowledge us in their writing!).

Harriet · February 24, 2016 4:24 pm

I really liked this quote from it:

"The fans who author these analyses are trying to tell us to do what Sherlock does: observe, deduce, find the answer to the mystery. Many of them are authors themselves, or professionals in their respective fields."

So true.

SusiGo · March 13, 2016 11:26 am

German Madame magazine, a well-known fashion mag, has been publishing interesting Sherlock articles for quite some time. The most recent articles states 10 wishes for series 4. I would like to quote no. 5:

5. Is Sherlock gay, asexual, a virgin?

Out with the truth! In series 1 all the homoerotic winks could still be regarded as a semi-funny running gag. (…)

But after three series with more and more explicit allusions (Mycroft, Mrs Hudson, Irene Adler, and Jim Moriarty, to name just a few), electrically charged looks, and veritable love declarations it is about time to let the cat out of the bag.

Sherlock loves his best friend John, he pledged eternal faithfulness at John’s wedding, and sacrificed his life for him. While being in a drugs delirium on his way to exile he fantasised about a happier life with John at his side: admittedly in another century but this John Watson is always at his side, describes him in his stories for Strand magazine as a cold reasoning machine but knows very well that Sherlock is all but that.

This John Watson saves Sherlock from one of the most important events of the original Holmes stories: during the showdown between the detective and James Moriarty at Reichenbachfall (…) he appears like a knight on a white horse and saves his Holmes saying “There are always two of us”.

The real John “Actually I do nothing but stare at Sherlock’s incredible lips” Watson could do well with some soul-searching.

Please note that this is a mainstream magazine from a country where Johnlock has never been widely popular, probably due to the stiff and formal dubbing of the show. Here is the full article:

http://www.madame.de/sherlock-season-4-716595.html

Last edited by SusiGo (March 13, 2016 11:27 am)

besleybean · March 13, 2016 1:22 pm

As ever, anybody is allowed a view and people can believe what they want.
But I read canon and watch the show/listen to/read/watch the team.
I tend to think they know more about their work than anybody else.

tonnaree · March 13, 2016 2:26 pm

I must sign this immediately!

mrshouse · March 13, 2016 2:32 pm

Thank you for posting this, Susi. It's really lovely.
I would not actually contradict that creators know their show. But this shows a very important point: that there might be differences between what is seen in the show by more than a couple of fans and what the creators tell us what we are supposed to see. It's interesting when the media jumps on this gap as well.

besleybean · March 13, 2016 2:38 pm

Well I guess people can't be expected to know about Mark and Steven borrowing the gay joke form TPLOSH and using it for their own purposes.

mrshouse · March 13, 2016 2:40 pm

The thing is that the"gay joke" is never laughed about by Sherlock and John. Not once.

besleybean · March 13, 2016 2:44 pm

I think John finds it a tad irritating and Sherlock totally irrelevant.
Actually they do laugh about it once: when John is telling his wife about Sherlock teaching him to dance behind closed curtains and Mrs Hudson walked in..

CORRECTION: actually, make that twice.
The first time is in the very first series, at the pool: Sherlock ripping John;s clothes off in a darkened swimming pool and John commenting that it'll make people talk.
Sherlock replies: people always do and they both laugh.

Last edited by besleybean (March 13, 2016 2:46 pm)

Vhanja · March 13, 2016 3:05 pm

I think it's interesting that it's brought up in mainstream media. It means, I think, that this is becoming a well-known idea and that (hopefully) Moftiss are well aware that how the show is written, acted and shot leaves it ambiguous to whether or not there is more than a platonic friendship there.

Then we can only speculate about why they decide to do the show that way. However, the way the show is done, I don't get the feeling they are building up to a romance. If they are, it's done in a way I've never seen before. It seems more as if they are leaving it open to interpretation - perhaps to create more talk? Debate? Make the show more interesting?

I know that often the creator of a work (movie/book) doesn't want to reveal their own intentions, because they want to leave it open to the audience to make their own decisions. A famous example is Titanic - did Rose just sleep and dream at the end, or did she die and was reunited with Jack and the other peopel who died on the ship? Cameron has said himself that he has his own view, but he won't share it because people should be allowed to make their own interpretations and come to their own conclusions.

I have a feeling that Moftiss might do the same. I have a feeling that when this show finally ends, it will end just as ambiguously as it has always been, with no clear answer to "Will they or won't they?"