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

besleybean · August 1, 2016 8:21 am

Yes and it's funny that he's happy to make the 'sex' joke about Philip and Sally...
I think he just thought it was a rather inappropriate thing of Molly to say and quite frankly I agree with him

nakahara · August 1, 2016 8:33 am

And now something different: "SheKnows" article concerning "The Great Debunking":

http://www.sheknows.com/entertainment/articles/1126849/sherlock-creators-told-fans-sherlock-john-not-gay

Hmm, some of this journalists summary makes me muse if a theory this blogger:

http://datmycroft.tumblr.com/post/148230483008/a-part-of-me-believes

http://datmycroft.tumblr.com/post/148123057313/like-i-am-just-so-fucking-tired-a-group-of-guys

proposes is not right and we, female, fans, simply aren´t the inteneded audience Mofftiss write their stories for?

Liberty · August 1, 2016 8:47 am

I'm just going to answer the Molly question and then have a read of that post! I agree, Besleybean, that it's inappropriate. And that's what's kind of funny about that scene! Sherlock is usually the inappropriate, rude one, but this time he reacts appropriately to Molly's inappropriateness. I don't see panic there, or even near panic. The expression to me looks like "Well, this is a bit of an awkward moment". To me, he looks more uncomfortable when he realises that he's implied Molly's a drunk!

Liberty · August 1, 2016 9:46 am

nakahara wrote:
And now something different: "SheKnows" article concerning "The Great Debunking":

http://www.sheknows.com/entertainment/articles/1126849/sherlock-creators-told-fans-sherlock-john-not-gay

Hmm, some of this journalists summary makes me muse if a theory this blogger:

http://datmycroft.tumblr.com/post/148230483008/a-part-of-me-believes

http://datmycroft.tumblr.com/post/148123057313/like-i-am-just-so-fucking-tired-a-group-of-guys

proposes is not right and we, female, fans, simply aren´t the inteneded audience Mofftiss write their stories for?

I'm sure they've said that they don't write for the fans (sorry, I don't have a quote at the moment), but for themselves. So yes, they are writing for middle-aged men.

I didn't get the feeling that the they thought the whole idea of Johnlock was "trivialising their important man-words". It seemed more that they had been talking specifically about something important, and people were somehow twisting that to say that they'd confirmed Sherlock was gay and that Johnlock was canon, when in fact the latter was something they'd denied. And it's true, I have to say, that there was a section of fandom taking everything they said about representation and saying it meant Johnlock. Even afterwards, there was the grumpy bi/camp gay thing, which we joked about on this forum, but which again was being taken as actual confirmation of Johnlock. Even the "slowly, gently" things, and Mark's "gently, gently" comment ages ago about how he they would like to see representation has been given as confirmation of Johnlock (even though, if people actually listened to them, they're describing something quite different to what people think they are doing with Johnlock). Seriously, they can't even on touch on the serious subject without this being the result. And if they try to explain, they're called lying liars who lie, even if they say they're not lying about this.

Shipping two non-gay characters - essentially slash fiction - isn't "representation" and it does kind of trivialise it. I think it can open minds, raise awareness, promote creativity (particularly in women), lead to communities and all sorts of good things, but it's not the same as representations of actual gay characters.

I realise that a lot of people are not just shipping them but believe it's going to happen in the show. But then, what they're doing is essentially accusing Moftiss of not representing, of having gay characters who the audience isn't told about (except through codes accessible to a select few). And Moftiss are not getting annoyed at them for "suggesting that Johnlock could become canon in S4", but for making everything they say about representation be pointless.

It's a whole can of worms really. I have sympathy for the people who are sad and disappointed, but I don't think Moftiss have ever claimed to be writing for the Johnlock community (or fans in general).

Last edited by Liberty (August 1, 2016 9:52 am)

besleybean · August 1, 2016 10:03 am

I know, I am really sorry and excuse me if this is 'blunt'.
But this is honest.
Really, they promised us nothing and owe us nothing.
Their vision and it's up to them how they present it.
Some of us have never expected anything and so aren't disappointed.
For me, the show is always what it has been.
I have always been criticised as patronising for feeling sorry for those expecting more.
But again, what are you supposed to do in trying to be honest?

Mattlocked · August 1, 2016 10:24 am

I'm not "expecting" anything, I see it already.
If it won't go any further I won't be disappointed. So no need to feel sorry for me, thank you.
I love that show and they can do whatever they want. And they will. That's why I love them, too.

nakahara · August 1, 2016 10:25 am

Liberty wrote:
I'm sure they've said that they don't write for the fans (sorry, I don't have a quote at the moment), but for themselves. So yes, they are writing for middle-aged men.

But why isn´t the show promoted more in that way, if that´s the case?
"We have two manly, manly, manly men as main characters! Car-chases! Explosions! Females fainting over John and Sherlock left and right! Our stone-faced protagonists are too tough for their shoes!"

Instead we have Sherlock making origami, parent issues, marriages, lovely dog being put down, lots of emotional stuff, strange feminist special, the woman turning murderer because she is do desperate that she will loose her husband and her marriage will collapse...

Excuse me, maybe I´m thinking in obsolete gender-stereotypes here... but is this really what the audience composed of middle-aged men wishes to see on screen? I have a hard time imagining this.

Liberty wrote:
Shipping two non-gay characters - essentially slash fiction - isn't "representation" and it does kind of trivialise it. I think it can open minds, raise awareness, promote creativity (particularly in women), lead to communities and all sorts of good things, but it's not the same as representations of actual gay characters.

Yet neither John or Sherlock wear a certificate that would confirm them being 100% straight (especially Sherlock´s sexuality is left ambivalent and I think it is the good idea to leave it at that). Shipping two ambivalently characterised characters is hardly "trivialisation". Especially when the creators think at the same time that loads of jokes about straight characters being mistaken for gay is hilariously funny. If anything, THAT´s what I would call trivialisation.

Also, it´s not fans who created the atmosphere of "hehe, I told you but you didn´t listen... and maybe I was lying all the time" here. The authors can hardly blame fans for theorising all the time and for trying to find clues in their statements, I agree with journalist here.

"You expected [TAB to be a stand alone] because we explicitly told you that. It just shows the power of lying … [an amusing Trump joke from Mark] … In fairness, I do say that I’m lying. And then I lie. And then people get cross. After the fact and I told you!"
Steven Moffat, San Diego ComiCon Sherlock Panel 2016

Last edited by nakahara (August 1, 2016 10:26 am)

besleybean · August 1, 2016 10:28 am

Gotta love our guys!

Vhanja · August 1, 2016 10:52 am

I agree with Liberty, very well put. I understand them very well why they think it’s trivializing, and I think the same. For some fans, no matter what they said, it was put into one of two categories: “Johnlock confirmed” (if it could in any way be interpreted as supporting Johnlock) or “they lie” (if it could in any way be interpreted as going against Johnlock).

Sometimes I got the feeling that these fans cared less about the show in it’s entirety, and what Moftiss were actually trying to say, than their own ship. BBC Sherlock is so much more than “will they or won’t they?”, and reducing both the show, the acting, the narrative and Moftiss’ interviews to a ship, is without a doubt trivializing to me. When everything they say or do within and without the show is interpreted only as Johnlock hint or lying, that is limiting the show and the effort of the cast and crew quite a lot.

Of course I don’t think every Johnlock shipper thinks like that (I’m on that ship myself). I get this impression more from some of the TJLC-supporters.

Liberty · August 1, 2016 11:15 am

I agree, Vhanja.   And I think the fact that's a same sex pairing almost obfuscates that.    Imagine another show where the main characters were opposite sex, or even an opposite sex ship in this show. But every time the writers said anything about women's rights and representation, people would say "Moftiss have confirmed Sherlolly!" (or whatever the ship was) and if they said it wasn't going to happen, "They're lying!".   It would be obvious then that the issue was being trivialised, and why the writers might be annoyed.

And yes, people are free to interpret the characters' sexual orientation how they like, and find "evidence" for it, but the writers have said that they show LGBT characters in X way, and they're not showing Sherlock or John's sexuality in X way, so what can you conclude? (Sherlock is an exception, because his sexuality is supposed to be a bit of a mystery one way or another, but John isn't).    It just seems that people aren't listening to them, are accusing them of saying something else, then get angry when they tell the truth.

When I said they were writing for middle-aged men, it was kind of a joke, because I meant they were writing for themselves (and they happen to be middle-aged men).   They have said they write for themselves and not for the audience.   But yes, the writing might be a little bit skewed towards what someone brought up in Britain on 70s TV with Doctor Who and Sherlock Holmes might like, because that's what they are.

Anyway, Moftiss have been quite clear that they're not lying over this. They say in the interview that they're not lying, and have tweeted to confirm it.   And it comes across as genuine - as did Mark's comments Mumbai.   It's something that they've told us before and they have stuck to it for all these years.   It feels different to their "lies".    But I think that because it doesn't fit with Johnlock, it's being dismissed (as Mark's heartfelt comments were).

Last edited by Liberty (August 1, 2016 11:43 am)

nakahara · August 1, 2016 11:33 am

Sorry, I´m not trying to disprove your points, I´m just pointing out that fans bear a brunt of blame here as if they were solely responsible for the situation that we have at hand. When it was a two-way street and Mofftiss contributed to the situation themselves by their conduct with fans over the years. And suddenly they are annoyed with that? My, my...

To your statement that Mofftiss have been clear they are not lying over this... what do you think about Steven Moffatt quote I cited earlier?

[b]"You expected [TAB to be a stand alone] because we explicitly told you that. It just shows the power of lying …[/b]

So they explicitly told us something and later they admitted they were lying.
And yet you expect from average fans - who do not dedicate their every minute analysing Mofftiss interviews for tone of voice, seriousness, etc and cross-examine them together to establish which one of them was truthful, which was not - to always know when they are being lied to and where they are being held for fools.

Regardless of various nasty individuals you can find among TJLC-ers, you could admit that Mofftiss contributed heavily to their fans confusion and so their annoyance is quite misguided now.

besleybean · August 1, 2016 11:37 am

I think one can understand annoyance all round...but that doesn't necessarily mean it's 'right'.
I think we all need to analyse our actions and words and judge wisely.
But if somebody has misunderstand something, they can't necessarily blame the creators.
After all, there my be people who did understand.
Might I even suggest that one may want to consider, why some didn't misunderstand.

Vhanja · August 1, 2016 11:58 am

I think some of the fans have misled themselves, by analyzing every little thing that happens in the show (including who drinks tea and who drinks coffee) to mean Johnlock.

It is of course true that some scenes are open to interpretation, and so Johnlock was in many cases an understandable interpretation. And when they say they lie all the time, that could also include lying about Johnlock.

However, even though Johnlock could be one alternative, that doesn’t mean it’s right to interpret everything they ever say or do within, and outside of, the show as Johnlock. When they’re trying to have a serious talk about gay representation in general, and all people are able to get out of it is “Johnlock confirmed!”. Scenes open to interpretation does not justify that kind of simplification of the show – and it certainly doesn’t justify any kind of anger towards Moftiss.

They made some scenes open to interpretation. And since some fans went quite overboard, interpreting everything and nothing as Johnlock, they went out and said that this particular interpretation won’t happen. Something they have been consistent about. (Someone on Tumblr said that if they didn’t intend to do Johnlock, they should’ve said so ages ago – well, they have, but it’s just been hand waved away with “they’re lying”). I really don’t see how this can justify any kind of anger towards Moftiss. Disappointment, sure. But anger? I fail to see that they’ve done anything to warrant that. They make their show as they’ve always intended, they state that Johnlock won’t happen as they’ve always stated – and then some fans think they are justified in their anger because Moftiss failed to make the show they way THEY want it to be?

I don’t get that, I really don’t.

Whisky · August 1, 2016 12:30 pm

As soon as I encounter anything BBC Sherlock nowadays, Johnlock feels big, in your face, everywhere at once. I found it exciting and interesting until recently, but find myself wondering if maybe I'd feel more comfortable behind the fence, to watch it from the outside. It feels like walking down a tunnel with only two exits, Johnlock yes, Johnlock no. It starts to feel very boring.

I cannot imagine how much more omnipresent it must feel for the Sherlock team. Often their interviews struggle not to get reduced to this topic because of questions that push them there. I don't need their answers. What I see in the series and make of it is enough for me. I'm still interested in their opinions on gay issues, in their characterization of John and Sherlock, etc. But there also lies the difficulty - what is what? Where is the line between fiction and real life? Between what's happening in my head (our heads/ the heads of fans) and important issues out there.

But in general, it feels to me like digging deeper into the Johnlock question is loosing joy of what's there. (...probably that's also why I don't enjoy this thread very much anymore because it also contains this ambiguity).

But I'm disappointed that the writers get tangled up in this topic and don't seem able to cut themselves clear out of it. Maybe they missed the right moment. Maybe they enjoyed the lying prop one time too many. But by now, I agree with the posted article, it starts hurting the show and their work. I disagree that they should stop talking about it. They just shouldn't use it as means for suspense anymore, and I think that is what they try to do now... but it's not working apparently? The line between "fun johnlocking" and real agenda (topics like gay characters in tv, queerbaiting, etc., the serious discussion) has been blurry for a long time now, if it has ever been there (though I guess it must have been there, for some fans johnlock without reading interviews, and some engage with the writers opinions without shipping anything...)

I find it frustrating that someone in the best possible situation (meaning Gatiss and Moffat here) cannot turn the discussion around to a serious, honest, convincing statement. I mean, I am confused myself. And don't find it funny anymore, since recently.

I think it's not even about writing for the fans or not. I think the main reason they say a no to Johnock is because they cannot seperate it anymore from other discussions. (I don't want to say it's not a no, just that they suddenly have a need to say it so loud.) I just think they could do better. I don't mean that in a judging way. More in an encouraging way. The way they phrase things. I agree with everyone who said it's not fair to blame only the fans.

Because, after all, in my own heart and mind, John and Sherlock can be anything, everything, nothing. In my head they can do whatever I want them to. Enough for me :-)

But, on the real life side of the Johnlock discussion, I'm getting lost. Intentions, reactions, agenda or not, fun or queerbaiting, ... I'm like "I quit following this, it could have been interesting but arrrrgh". I cannot make sense of it, never being sure what is being said now and stands as valid statement, and what is just talk. And I don't mind Johnlock being taken serious. I don't mind people reading something into it. But there is like a lack of acknowledgement, I don't feel confidence vibes from the writers. Like they know what they want to show, to say, to do, not concerning Sherlock as series, but concerning topics like gay characters, gay relationships, etc.

And I was thinking for a long time, no it's perfectly fine, if they say one thing and do another. But I find myself dissatisfied. I feel like things don't add up. Which doesn't mean I want to see Johnlock happening. But what I really would like to see is confidence when you talk about sensible topics. There is a place to joke, and a place to speak seriously. And if no one can tell that apart anymore, it's not really worth much.

(edited to add some more text which my computer refused to send...)

Last edited by Whisky (August 1, 2016 1:12 pm)

nakahara · August 1, 2016 12:58 pm

Whisky wrote:
I don't need their answers. What I see in the series and make of it is enough for me. I'm still interested in their opinions on gay issues, in their characterization of John and Sherlock, etc.

This is the healthiest approach to the problem, I think.

nakahara · August 1, 2016 1:02 pm

Vhanja wrote:
Scenes open to interpretation does not justify that kind of simplification of the show – and it certainly doesn’t justify any kind of anger towards Moftiss.

I really don’t see how this can justify any kind of anger towards Moftiss. Disappointment, sure. But anger?

I mostly agree with other points you made above but... Where do you see anger all of sudden? I think we were discussing things pretty peacefully here?

Journalist who wrote this:

didn´t write her article in anger either, I believe.

Vhanja · August 1, 2016 1:09 pm

I think there have been several posts where people have talked about fans being angry, so I got the impression everyone agreed that this is what some fans feel.

But, yeah, the debate here has been mostly civil, which I am really grateful for.

Whisky · August 1, 2016 1:21 pm

What I find difficult is to name the disappointment.
For me, it's not aimed at the show at all. I don't mind where we are going, I'm going there too until I'm not.
It's not the show itself. It's the way the writers handle things nowadays. I find them interesting, I like the things they do, they are people who have something to say. Except recently, it feels to me like they don't know what to say anymore.
And that is what makes me feel disappointed. Like I have a certain faith in them handling certain topics in a good way. Now I'm doubting if they do. They struggle so much, but why? Fear of fan backlash?
And the lying... what for? To keep things secret? I don't know. If I don't want to know something, I don't go looking for it. Why they have to tell lies to keep things a surprise is beyond me. For the fun of it, yes... I cannot judge that though.
I cannot grasp the concept of making the show ambiguous (in terms of Johnlock) and then not being able to handle the upcoming questions in a confident manner. Assuming the show is ambiguos. Which it must be in some way, if this thread is still going strong.

Last edited by Whisky (August 1, 2016 1:23 pm)

Liberty · August 1, 2016 1:25 pm

Yes, they kind of lied about TAB, because it was meant to look like a Victorian adaptation to start with and then we were meant to pick on the clues that there was something else going on. But it wasn't a big lie about something important, and what was said, wasn't actually far off the mark - that it wouldn't be part of the series of three, that it would be in it's own bubble (a mind palace bubble!), etc.   I remember Steven talking about Moriarty ages ago and saying that of course he was dead, but it was in a jokey kind of way, and ages down the line we still don't know for sure!   The way he said it makes it a not-quite lie, or rather an amibiguous statement.   Does it mean "Of course he's dead, so obviously not coming back", or does it mean "Of course we showed you him dying, wait till you see how we get him out of that one!"?.

I'm not saying that it's easy to spot the lies. I don't think it is until after the fact. It's maybe easier to spot things that could be lies (like the Moriarty thing). But the statements about Johnlock are different. There's none of that jokiness and it's said in the context of a serious subject.    I'm not talking about analysing expressions and or anything difficult or fancy. I had no doubt watching the Mark at Mumbai interview that he was telling the truth.   I don't understand people seeing him as lying there.

But to be honest, what I've seen has not been people looking at context or anything like that. It has been a plain divide - if it's not Johnlock, it's a lie.   There has been nothing about the possibility that the things said that people thought supported Johnlock were lies. I personally don't think they were - I think they were misinterpreted.   But it's completely one-sided.

And even the metas and articles out there fit this pattern. People keep referring to them as analysis. Now, I'm not familiar with literary analysis and criticism and I know it's quite different to what I'm used to. But people aren't taking, for instance, a queer reading of the show. They (sorry to keep lumping people into a group, but you know what I mean - the "everything is Johnlock" people on tumblr) say that they are analysing and looking for clues, but what I see is not what I would call an analysis. It's not balanced, there's no consideration of alternate readings, and in fact everything that could possibly, by a leap of faith, by fitted to a Johnlock reading is accepted as fact.   (You know the sort of thing I mean. Coffee = straight, tea = gay, milk = time until relationship - oh, I can't remember).

I've got to say that (a) I'm not really talking about the people here on this forum and (b) I think it's absolutely fine to do this - I don't have any issue with it, and I could see how it could be fun and engaging, and give a different level of interest in the show. I'm just saying, because in the end TJLC, and all those metas by clearly highly intelligent, thoughtful, articulate people are not objective analysis, at least not in the way I would think of it. I would call it presenting an argument, maybe, often skilfully done. TJLC is the fandom's creation, rather than Moftiss's creation.

Last edited by Liberty (August 1, 2016 1:30 pm)

Vhanja · August 1, 2016 1:25 pm

I think they've explained the lying quite well. It really wouldn't be much fun if they gave a lot of spoilers and didn't let us enjoy the ride to the fullest. I know I would've had a far less enjoyable watch of TAB if I already knew it was part of the show proper.