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

Schmiezi · June 27, 2016 6:22 pm

That's an interesting thought, Vhanja.

besleybean · June 27, 2016 6:25 pm

I have read Canon, a number of times in some cases and yes, very interesting Nakahara...another woman linked with Sherlock.

Liberty · June 27, 2016 6:50 pm

I think Irene stands out as the possible romantic interest, because it's the story in which Holmes's thoughts on love/romance are given.

I agree that it could be read in different ways (the ACD story). I can see what Steven Moffat sees (he fancies her and he's covering that up).   Or I could see him as asexual, admiring Irene's cleverness. I could also see him as gay, but pretending he just isn't interested in love.

I think the Steven Moffat quotes give an idea of what he thinks, though, and what he's showing in BBC Sherlock.    He's talking about reading the stories as a child - I don't think his lying is so elaborate as to make that up.   I do think it's possible that his views on Sherlock could change (after all, they've been writing it for years now!).

Schmiezi, I do wonder if some of the ambiguity is down to either them not deciding on his orientation, not wanting to commit to it, or not wanting him to be shown as leaning a particular way ... he is supposed to not get involved in sex.   But I do think the TAB scene is fairly clear, so it looks as if they're moving away from that.   I know I keep saying it, but I do think that if they wanted to show him as gay, they would - they are happy to be open about it, and there's no reason not to be (it shouldn't be a plot point and a surprise reveal in this day and age) - it would only enhance the story.

Liberty · June 27, 2016 6:57 pm

Vhanja wrote:
I think it's interesting that two of the "villains" are flirting and using sexual language towards Sherlock - both Moriarty and Irene. And, in a more subtle (and creepy) way, so does Magnussen. I am wondering if they all do it because they sense that sexual advances - no matter from which gender - is a sure way to intimidate Sherlock and make him uncomfortable. Regular threats and insults doesn't work, but flirting does.

I find that interesting too. Sometimes Sherlock in particular is shown in a more typically "female" role in this sense (although John also gets to be a "damsel in distress"). I think you might be on to something with Sherlock being intimidated by sex (I think he maybe is, a little, but I'm not sure - he doesn't seem threatened by Kitty or Molly's advances). All of these people use a sexual approach with their targets, regardless of the target's sex, too. Traditionally, women are seen as using sex to seduce men, whereas men are seen as using sex to intimidate women (broad generalisation). This show seems to buck that trend.

nakahara · June 27, 2016 7:05 pm

Liberty wrote:
I think the Steven Moffat quotes give an idea of what he thinks, though, and what he's showing in BBC Sherlock. He's talking about reading the stories as a child - I don't think his lying is so elaborate as to make that up. I do think it's possible that his views on Sherlock could change (after all, they've been writing it for years now!).

Oh, I didn´t say he was lying. I just wanted to point out that Steven Moffat does the same thing here we Johnlockers do - interpret the actual text of the story according to his belief and his understanding of the character and his world.

And so if Steven is not denounced for that, we shouldn´t be either if we interpret the same opus as Johnlock.

Vhanja · June 27, 2016 7:06 pm

I thinkt hat sometimes sexual advances are done more for a show of power and dominance than for any sexual purpose. I think that is what the villains in this show are doing. Kitty and Molly wasn't really a serious threat to Sherlock (well, maybe he underestimated Kitty a bit). But even those who had no ulterior motives - like Molly and Janine - made Sherlock uncomfortable whenever they talked about sex.

I also find it interesting that Sherlock doesn't really seem intimidated nor uncomfortable my Moriarty's "flirting". He seems able to simply filter it out and focus on what Moriarty's true intentions are. He seems to have more difficulty doing that with Irene.

Which can be interpreted both ways - Irene could make him more uncomfortable because he is gay and thus less interested in or comfortable with her advances. Or it could mean that he is straight (bi) and more uncomfortable because he does become (unwillingly) affected. Sherlock doesn't seem to react the same towards Irene as he does towards Moriarty, even though they both challenge and fascinates him.

besleybean · June 27, 2016 7:07 pm

Well, regardless of any of our views on Canon: with all due respect, Mark and Steven write BBC Sherlock and nobody else. It is their vision and not ours.

EDIT: I don't actually see that much difference between Sherlock's reactions to either Irene or Jim in his face-to-face dealings with them, though he does stammer with Irene and have those misty looks about her. Plus the team put her in an episode which was described as being dealing with Sherlock and love.

Last edited by besleybean (June 27, 2016 7:10 pm)

nakahara · June 27, 2016 7:26 pm

besleybean wrote:
Well, regardless of any of our views on Canon: with all due respect, Mark and Steven write BBC Sherlock and nobody else. It is their vision and not ours.

I don´t follow their interviews so rigorously but I believe they have never acted in this high-and-mighty fashion, like they are possessors of the Holmes character and everything connected with him. They emphasised they are just the fanboys of Doyle, not much different from the other fans.

besleybean · June 27, 2016 7:29 pm

I am sorry if I wasn't clear....
It is not high and mighty to have your own vision, it is your right.
They make their TV show how they want, showing the vision they have and not the vision we want.

Liberty · June 27, 2016 7:43 pm

nakahara wrote:
Liberty wrote:
I think the Steven Moffat quotes give an idea of what he thinks, though, and what he's showing in BBC Sherlock. He's talking about reading the stories as a child - I don't think his lying is so elaborate as to make that up. I do think it's possible that his views on Sherlock could change (after all, they've been writing it for years now!).
Oh, I didn´t say he was lying. I just wanted to point out that Steven Moffat does the same thing here we Johnlockers do - interpret the actual text of the story according to his belief and his understanding of the character and his world.

And so if Steven is not denounced for that, we shouldn´t be either if we interpret the same opus as Johnlock.

Very true, and I'm not saying that he has a particular insight into ACD's intentions .. only that he has an insight into his own!

besleybean · June 27, 2016 7:44 pm

My point entirely.

nakahara · June 27, 2016 7:45 pm

So you are actually saying, besley, Mofftiss are free to interpret Doyle´s text - the work of another author - in any way they want, sometimes in a way directly contradicting his words (see the Irene quote I have emphasised in my earlier post).

But we, other fans, are not allowed to interpret their own work in a similar way at all.

One group of fans is somehow privileged to have an artistic freedom to read things their way, but the same right is denied to another group of fans. Sad, really.

Last edited by nakahara (June 27, 2016 7:46 pm)

besleybean · June 27, 2016 7:49 pm

Well they are free to and do in some ways, but in other ways they keep very close to the text, as I see it.
No, we are all allowed to interpret anyone's work any way we like...but we cannot necessarily claim our vision matches theirs.

Vhanja · June 27, 2016 8:21 pm

I don't see anyone saying fans aren't "allowed" to interpret? Of course they are. What we do, which is equivalent to what Moftiss is doing, is write fanfics. And I have never seen anyone on this board who says fans shouldn't do that.

besleybean · June 27, 2016 8:22 pm

For me, that is exactly what fan art/fic/vids should do.

Mothonthemantel · June 28, 2016 3:53 pm

Very interesting posts about ACD and the letters Nakahara and Susie thanks . I am reminded of the documentary made about M.R. James by M.Gatiss and the speculation made about James's sexuality and the type of not acting on desires and suppression of what Victorians and especially religeous ones viewed as immoral.

KOnAN83 · June 28, 2016 5:57 pm

See, the way I take it as yeah, they're the best of friends no matter what. However, in this adaptation of Sir Aurthur Conan Doyal's Sherlock is that it's obvious that they're in love..more Sherlock than John. When John states that he is not gay to Irene Adler she replies with "Well, I am." but we all know she was in love with Sherlock the dilated pupils, checking of the pulse. Was it ever known that John wasn't checked of these things? John(whether it's Martin or John himself) has looked at Sherlocks lips as he was talking. Also, John has gotten defensive when states that "I am not gay" but nor is the matter of him being 'bi' or sexually open to a romantic feeling with Sherlock has been denied. Sure, he might have feelings for women and maybe Sherlock has been the first guy he actually takes interest romantically. The main reason I believe that Stephen and Mark are adding this little experiment into their Sherlock is because, Stephen and Mark have been working together for a while(Dr. Who) So, eventually they have a bond. Mark Gatiss is married to Ian Hallard(who appears in the 'Reichenbach Fall) adding a romance to Sherlock and John is logical. It's more acceptable to this modern take as oppose to the victorian era. Benedict and Martin has even agreed that if there was ever a "kissing scene" they'd do it. Not only does part of the fandom agree with it, but the characters of the cast has even shipped it before we ever did(Mrs. Hudson)

KOnAN83 · June 28, 2016 6:02 pm

besleybean wrote:
But yes, tweeting Mark that he'd better not marry off John or they'll...whatever to him Stupid actually,,let's just call it for what it is.Oh and shames the whole fandom.
Before I go any further, I will make one request. If people are not clear what I'm saying or they need clarification, can you please ask.
I've read all of the contributions above and some of them are not entirely clear to me.
I think language is a problem. If people don't use the right words or...whatever it is, some of the posts above seem to be giving mixed messages to me...tho maybe that's entirely appropriate for this thread. Ha! Anyhow.
The Canon

1. ACD. He's dead, so we can't ask him. I'm also unaware of anything he particularly wrote about his characters or their story.
2. Victorian Mores. Yes you have to be aware of background, context and culture. I've never paid that close attention to all of this, but I gather Holmes and Watson are based on real people that Doyler admired.
3.Evidence. We can only make judgements on what is there, not what we either hope or imagine is there. In this case. Doyle's words.
So where does this leave us? Holmes is never shown to have been in any kind of romantic relationship. Watson marries.

BBC Sherlock

1. Current. Here we have the advantage over the Canon. It's happening now. Plus, we live in a multi media world, so we have articles/interviews/Q&As/tweets constantly at our fingtips or in front of our very eyes.
2.Evidence. Same as above. We can only judge on what actually does happen in the series and the dialogue that is actually spoken. Body language and looks are not totally irrelevant, but they can be so liable to personal interpretation, better stick to the facts. Oh and do not use the writers' saying: people are free to interpret the show how they like, without also including the other part of that quote, that they did not write it as a gay relationship.
3. Divide your genres. We are blessed with fan art/fiction/videos and photoshop etc. Do not confuse these with either The Canon or BBC Sherlock. Evertbody is also free to have their own fantasies. Again, do not confuse what you hope for or imagine is happening, with what really is.
So where does this leave us? Mark and Steven are on record as saying they recognised the Canon as the perfect portrayal of a beautiful, loving male friendship.
They wanted to be true to this in their interpretation.
My personal belief: bromance( a loving male freindship)is the most perfect thing. To try and force it into something sexual, is somehow saying it is not good enough and is frankly demeaning.
I love homo-erotica, but that is not what BBC Sherlock is.

Wait...Aurthur Conan Doyle's Sherlock, Sherlock did have an romantic interest, was even married. Irene Adler, but Moriarty kills her.

KOnAN83 · June 28, 2016 6:10 pm

NotYourHousekeeperDear wrote:
I love the idea that Johnlock was written as a bromance in the bbc version however I do have a few issues with the'evidence' presented above both in the canon and in the bbc version.

As someone who has lived a little bit of life and is also a psychologist by trade I have to say that being married is unfortunately not evidence of much. This is perhaps even more true in ACD's time when men of a certain age and class were expected to marry. You really have to have a bit of inside knowledge into what the marriage was like and although I haven't read the books for ages, I don't remember there being much discussion of what happened in Watson's bedroom in the canon!

I think Sherlock's apparent lack of interest in relationships with women could be argued as being more telling, especially as it would have been less typical of the time.

In terms the BBC series, certainly what Mark and Steven have said could be argued to be the best evidence of Johnlock purely being bromance. There is another layer of the actor's interpetations of the script to be taken into account though and hasn't Martin Freeman said something in support of the sexual tension between the two characters?

Yes!! Finally someone has brought up an issue I've had for a while now but non of my friends can explain. John's bedroom, in "Scandal In Belgravia" Mrs. Hudson shouts from the kitchen, her head is in direction from either John's bedroom(upstairs) or Sherlock's bedroom, she exclaims "Boys, you've got another one!" Nothing in the sentence itself but, the indication of the head movement. Either rooms, what exactly is going on in there? Why would there need to be a reason for them to be in either room, alone, enclosed, together?

GimmeCat · June 28, 2016 6:12 pm

KOnAN83 wrote:
Benedict and Martin has even agreed that if there was ever a "kissing scene" they'd do it.

Where is this?