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

Liberty · December 11, 2016 11:53 am

Yes, my feeling is that official BBC releases are not spoilers. Setlock is normally a spoiler, because we're not intended to see it. The grey area for me is interviews and so on. They are official and contain information deliberately released by the interviewees. And then whether there's a difference between interviews in magazines and panels at comic cons, etc. For instance, I'm counting the names of the episodes as official releases, but the three words released at SDCC I'm not sure about - I thought they were definitely official, and published in the press, but now the topic has come up on this thread, I'm not so sure if they are in the same category! I wouldn't want somebody who has been carefully avoiding spoilers all year to suddenly come across one days before the episode airs! So maybe sticking to spoiler tags when in doubt would be best?

SusiGo · December 11, 2016 11:57 am

Indeed. But I would not put a warning on this thread which is one of the most popular on the board. And I am fine with regarding the trailers and episode titles not as spoilers. All the rest should be discussed in spoiler threads only until the episodes have aired.

Vhanja · December 11, 2016 12:08 pm

If I were to venture a guess, I think "I love you" is either:

1. Directed at Mycroft
2. Directed at Sherrinford (whom he's looking at and is about to shoot)

Liberty · December 11, 2016 12:15 pm

I wonder if it's worth tagging interview threads as spoilers, if the interview gives some hints? (Edit: I've remembered that we've always discussed interviews here, so maybe not). I've just realised that the "three words" are in a thread title, so I was maybe being a bit overcautious!

But maybe this thread http://sherlock.boardhost.com/viewtopic.php?id=5992 is a good one for general, spoilery discussion!

Last edited by Liberty (December 11, 2016 1:10 pm)

Liberty · December 11, 2016 12:24 pm

Vhanja wrote:
If I were to venture a guess, I think "I love you" is either:

1. Directed at Mycroft
2. Directed at Sherrinford (whom he's looking at and is about to shoot)

I just wanted to also suggest that "I love you" doesn't need to be directed at the person he is going to shoot, but could be directed at the person he is going to protect (by shooting somebody else).

Of course, we don't know if he's going to shoot anybody! But the trailer has insisted in waving a gun at us!

Liberty · December 16, 2016 9:45 pm

More of those questions from http://wmsscottholmes.tumblr.com/post/149143324929/if-tjlc-isnt-real . Yes, I will finish before the 1st January. I think I have most of them written up now.

• Why was the first image in Sherlock’s drug induced Victorian case solving mind palace simulation John’s eyes?
Sherlock gets into the state by reading John’s blog to remind himself of meeting John. Then the story is from John’s point of view at the beginning, much the way it is in ACD canon, and at the beginning of ASIP. (And also to fool us into thinking this is a separate adaptation).

• Why was Sherlock so angry at a woman being in his sitting room?
It could be a reference to the supposed misogynist view of Sherlock Holmes. The whole episode addresses Sherlock’s attitude to women, in various ways. (Also the woman is only of interest as a client, which is how Sherlock and John saw Mary after finding out about her past, and how Sherlock sees Mary presenting herself in TAB to get Watson’s attention. But I’m digressing!)

• Why did he refer to himself as John’s 'unsavoury companion of dubious morals’?
It’s kind of a lead-in to the reveal that it’s Mary, without actually revealing it by naming himself. I imagine it may be a reference to how Holmes was seen in Victorian times - he is also seen as this in modern times too. Also, he was pretending to deduce a client (temporarily hiding from John the fact that it was Mary).

• Why did he play John and 'Mary’’s waltz in his violin while they argued?
I don’t know, but there are a lot of references to the modern day in TAB. This is the piece he wrote for their wedding. Given the Victorian situation, the marriage doesn’t work quite so well (Mary resents being in the background, John doesn’t see her as an equal).

• Why did Molly call Sherlock John’s daddy?
She’s making fun of him, I think. She is quite bitter in this scene.
• Why did he talk to John when John had moved out of Baker Street months ago?I think because he does this in modern times too, talking to John when he isn’t there. But also the times could be confused in his mind palace - it jumps forward quickly.

• Why did the maid point out the problems in John and 'Mary’’s marriage?
The problems reflect the problems with women’s place in society which is a major theme in the story and also something that’s crucial to solving the mystery.

• Why did Sherlock say that he and John were 'together’ in sign language?
I’m afraid I don’t know any sign language! The subtitles say that Sherlock says John’s his guest, so I imagine it’s meant to be something along the lines of “He’s with me” (because it’s a private club). If he is actually saying that they are in a sexual relationship, then it’s maybe a little joke .

Liberty · December 16, 2016 9:48 pm

• Why did John say 'two old friends chewing the fat… Man to man’ so awkwardly?
I actually think Sherlock is the one who is more awkward in this scene. And this is Sherlock’s own mind palace portrayal of them. John appears to be actually looking for a more intimate conversation with Sherlock, and Sherlock seems to be deflecting it.

• Why did Sherlock say that the fairer sex was John’s department?
Because it is! Sherlock doesn’t date (as far as we know). And Sherlock is trying to deny any interest in the matter - he’s deflecting John’s questions.

• Why did mind palace!John question Sherlock about his sexual experience?
Because it’s an issue for real life Sherlock, even though he would deny it.

• Why did he show jealousy of Irene Adler?
He doesn’t. Watson is acting as a concerned friend in this scene.

• Why did he ask him why Sherlock needs to be alone?
Because he (or Sherlock’s projection of him) really is a concerned friend. This is something Sherlock chooses to do, but not something he’s completely happy with.

• Why did Sherlock keep referring to ghosts and the ghosts of his past etc?
This is another major theme of the episode.

• Why was mind palace!Moriarty so… sexual?
Because Moriarty has acted in a sexually predatory way in real life. And this is how Sherlock sees him.

• Why did Sherlock deliberately overdose before the tarmac?
This whole thing is very odd. Whenever he took the “overdose” it appeared to work in a very particular period of time - the few minutes during which he was flying back. It was not working on the tarmac, when he took the phone call from Mycroft, or when he left the plane and got in the car. So I’m still not quite sure what to make of it. I would say it was (a) a possible suicide bid, (b) trying to block out the pain or © actually trying to work on something using mind palace. The problem with (a) is that he bounced back without any treatment, so not apparently a serious attempt. And if the list exists, that suggests he wanted Mycroft to find it if he got into difficulties. I also wonder (given the timing and the abrupt way the overdose started and stopped), if he really did take it after the phone call - although it would be odd that he just happened to have drugs on him!

Liberty · December 18, 2016 8:16 am

• Why was he reading the story of how they met on John’s blog?
He says that he wanted to see himself through John’s eyes, as he’s so much cleverer.   He believes John’s opinion of him is better than his opinion of himself.   And at that time, it’s not clear if he knew whether he was going to see John again. He was going back to the beginning … remembering how they met. And that leads into the start of the Victorian mind palace part of TAB.

I think it’s also a reference to us always seeing Holmes through Watson’s eyes, in the original stories (well, not all of them, but usually). What’s interesting is that in this episode, we’re actually seeing John through Sherlock’s eyes.

• Why did Mycroft say 'do you really think anyone’s believing you?’ After Sherlock said he was reading it because he’s 'so much cleverer’ through John’s eyes?

Kind of an aside, but I think Sherlock’s comment is lovely! The John that Sherlock creates in his mind palace is a flattering version too - he sees John as intelligent and perceptive, and as honest and caring. I love this acknowledgment that he knows John’s opinion of him is a little inflated too, and that he tries to live it up to it. I also think it’s a nod to us seeing Holmes through canon Watson’s eyes. However, I don’t think Mycroft is referring to that, but to the “mind palace” (i.e. Mycroft suspects Sherlock has been using drugs).

• Why was real John and mind palace!John so angry at Sherlock about the drugs?
Partially taken from canon, I think, where John disapproves. Also possibly from TPLOSH. It’s also consistent with what we’ve seen before. Given that some of this is mind palace, it may also suggest that Sherlock feels guilty about the drugs too.

• Why did he say that he’s 'happy to play the fool’ for Sherlock and 'make him look clever’?
This has often been his role in adaptations (particularly Rathbone/Bruce, I think).

• Why did 'I thought that I was losing you. I thought perhaps we were neglecting each other’ 'well you were the one who moved out’ 'I was talking to Mary’ happen?
That’s kind of funny because Sherlock misinterpets. He tends to see himself as the centre of the universe and misses that John is talking to Mary, not him.

Liberty · December 18, 2016 8:25 am

• Why were phrases such as 'the heart of the conspiracy’ and 'they are right, and we are wrong’ and 'the women we have disparaged and ignored’ used?
Because the episode is about women, particularly Sherlock’s relationship with women, as much as it’s about Moriarty, I think.

• Why did Sherlock say that John’s 'always right’?
This is mind palace, and it suggests to me that Sherlock may secretly think that John tends to be right (perhaps particularly about Sherlock needing a fix and so on)

• Why did John save Sherlock from Moriarty at the Reichenbach Falls?
Because he doesn’t get a chance to do that, either in TRF or in canon. In Sherlock’s mind, he corrects that.

• Why did Sherlock say that John is 'pretty damn smart’?
I’m not sure, but of course John is … and Sherlock acknowledges that in his mind palace earlier too (even if he doesn’t in real life). It’s also a joke - he’s smarter than he looks, pretty damn smart, suggesting he looks smart. It’s a compliment.

• Why did Moriarty say 'why don’t you two just elope for god’s sake?’
I do think there’s an element of Moriarty resenting being shut out of that partnership, and (because it’s mind palace) Sherlock sensing that.

• Why did 'actually, would you mind?’ 'Not at all’ happen straight after this?
It looks as if John is asking if Sherlock minds if he’s the one to push Moriarty off. (In canon, and in TRF, it’s Sherlock who gets rid of Moriarty while John is powerless to help. This time Sherlock lets him do it).

• Why did John kick Moriarty (Sherlock’s weakness) off the top of the waterfall?
He’s helping him deal with his fears and with the worse side of his nature, I think. (Or at least, Sherlock imagines him doing that. It’s John who keeps him right, after all).

Liberty · December 18, 2016 8:33 am

• Why did Sherlock throw his deerstalker (which represents his heterosexual public image) off the top of the waterfall?
Do we know that the deerstalker represents his “heterosexual” public image? He doesn’t seem to have a heterosexual public image, for one thing - there are plenty of hints that people often see him and John as a couple.

• Why did Sherlock look so happy falling this time?
He knows he will survive a fall. And he has mentally corrected TRF. And by waking up he is going back to John and everything.

I’m just speculating, but I think this is partly about Sherlock realising that “Moriarty” is always there in his head now, an aspect of himself, but that John protects him from that.

It might also be a little reference to ACD leaving things open for Sherlock to return after The Final Problem - no body (which I suppose, also left it kind of open for Moriarty to return, something Moftiss have played with).

• Why did he smile so softly at John when he woke up?
See above - he has resolved some things and solved the case. And mind palace John is lovely - he’s genuinely delighted to see the real John again!

• Why did Victorian!Sherlock say 'perhaps such things could come to pass’?
This is moving from modern day Sherlock being in his mind palace, imagining the Victorian one, to the Victorian Sherlock imagining the modern day one.

• Why does Victorian!Sherlock say that he’s 'a man out of his time’?
There’s a suggestion that this is the real Sherlock - that the modern Sherlock is mind palace, instead of the other way round. I think it’s also a reference to the enduring nature of Sherlock Holmes. He was ahead of his time when first conceived, and continues to be current.

And that's us up to date with those questions! I felt it was only fair to finish them and to commit myself before S4 airs!

OpalJade · December 22, 2016 3:17 pm

Here's my humble 2 cents.

While I agree with all of Liberty's well thought-out counter points to the Johnlock debate, I still believe that Johnlock will be end game.

I’ve read through most of the thread and the central argument seems to boil down to the difference between ‘loving’ and being ‘in love’ with the general agreement that some sort of physical element is needed for love to be considered romantic as opposed to platonic.

I’ve thought about this a lot and it’s hard to put into words exactly why I’m certain that Johnlock will happen. I have a science background and tend to prefer concrete facts to subjective interpretations and sub-text. ;)

With that being said, here are my top 3 reasons why I think John and Sherlock will be involved romantically. I've tried to place them in some sort of order that goes from the general to the more specific.

Reason #1: Quantity does matter. Throughout the first ten episodes we have been given many moments that could potentially be interpretedas Johnlock/romantic.But, as Liberty proved, each individual incident can be explained platonically/neutrally.Collectively, we are left with many moments that can be interpreted both ways--hence this debate!)

For me, it’s the volume and frequency of these ambiguous moments that becomes data unto itself. Why are there so many? Why are we even arguing about this? It’s not the first time we’ve seen a show with a close friendship between two men (goodness, the amount of cop shows/movies!) but have we ever debated to this extent whether there’s something more?

Personally, I see few moments that I would purely label Johnlock--just two in fact-- but two is enough for me to extrapolate that the entire show is a slow-burn romance, showing a shift from friendship to more.

(Maybe all these layered moments is what falling in love looks like. ;))

Reason #2: We’ve been told it’s a romance!

BBC Sherlock has all the elements of a classic romantic fairytale: A dragon slayer, A ‘damsel in distress’, an old-fashioned villain, revenge, multiple hurdles, and a "love conquers all" moral.

Each role was conveniently listed and labelled by the writers.
Mycroft tells us Sherlock is the “dragon slayer”.
Magnussen informs us that John is ‘the damsel in distress’.
Moriarty states that he is the ‘old fashioned villain.’

All the parts are there: I have no choice but to conclude it’s a romance!

And interestingly enough, there is a character in ACD canon who makes the same conclusion based on the same facts. She’s obviously NOT talking Watson and Holmes (she’s in fact referring to Watson and Mary Morstan), but the essence of the message is the same; When all the elements of a classical romantic fairy tale are there, you can infer that maybe it is a romance.

From ACD canon The Sign of Four:

“It is a romance!” cried Mrs.Forrester. “An injured lady (damsel in distress), half a million in treasure, a black cannibal, and a wooden-legged ruffian. They take the place of the conventional dragon or wicked earl (old fashioned villain).

Makes me grin every time I think the writers so cleverly and blatantly told us this is a romance… even going as far as using the same reasoning as a character from canon. I love their wit!

Reason #3: The conversation that follows the accidental “knee grope” in TSoT.
Note: it’s not the fact that John touched Sherlock on the knee, it’s what was said about it that makes it evidence for Johnlock (ie. evidence that there is a possibility of physical attraction).

To me this scene would’ve been considered platonic had it gone this way: John slips and holds himself up on Sherlock’s knee and says “Whoa! Christ, sorry--I slipped.” To which Sherlock might’ve responded “Obviously you slipped, you’re drunk John.”

But this is what happened instead:
John slips and holds himself up on Sherlock’s knee, pauses, looks at his hand, and announces,"I don't mind" to which Sherlock replies “Anytime.”

Yes, this could simply be John realizing that he doesn't mind physical contact with his best friend (just like the hug at the wedding later on). But it’s the fact that “knee touching” is one of the stages of courtship behaviour in humans (in fish, it’s poking the little circle just above the mandible). This particular courtship behaviour means: we’re done with the courtship dance, and now I would like to know if I have permission to touch you in “that” context. A ‘yes’ or ‘no’ answer is required.

Now, I’m not saying that John was planning this, and was coming on to Sherlock all along. It’s an accident BUT the fact that when it happens, John pauses, looks at his hand on Sherlock’s knee, recognizes that in a different context, this might be considered “making a move” and realizes that he doesn’t mind touching Sherlock in that context (inhibitions are down due to the alcohol).And, OMG, John actually blurts out his realization; “I don’t mind”. And, OMG, Sherlock replies “Anytime.” (Meaning: Yes, you have permission to touch me in that context, anytime you want).

Plus, when you think about it, the entire time they were playing the game, it looked liked they were flirting (courtship dance) ie. prolonged eye contact, feet position, etc… (look up body language and flirting if more evidence is needed.)

I can’t see no other purpose to this scene than to show us that when their inhibitions are downthere is romance lurking just below the surface.(Alcohol is a good solvent afterall. ;) )

In conclusion, despite the fact that some of the moments between John and Sherlock might be explained as a “unique friendship bond”, the three reasons above leave me no choice but to conclude that Sherlock is a beautiful, moving, slow burning romance. <3

~~~***~~~.

Last edited by OpalJade (December 22, 2016 3:30 pm)

SusiGo · December 22, 2016 3:47 pm

Thank you so very much, OpalJade. You summed up what I have been thinking for years and found difficult to express. It is the fact that a) we discuss it in detail at all and b) the sheer amount of situations that can be interpreted in a Johnlock way.

Balance of probability, as Mycroft likes to say.

And another point - the moments that are most often interpreted as romantic/sexual subtext are NOT the so-called "gay jokes" (I hate the word) but the situations that are sad, wistful, heartbreaking.

Mothonthemantel · December 22, 2016 4:11 pm

Most excellent summation and most enjoyable to read One really does need to make rather a huge effort to come up with what other story they might be telling at this point .

SusiGo · December 22, 2016 4:18 pm

Indeed. And being an avid meta reader I must say I have not read ANY coherent and well-founded theory about the show as a whole that excludes Johnlock. It is the glue that ties everything together, the red thread woven through the whole story arc. There are excellent posts about single features, e.g. medical explanations of the shot and such, but as for the theories about the narration as such and the development of the characters there is nothing comparable to the best Johnlock metas. My humble opinion after years of study.

Vhanja · December 22, 2016 4:25 pm

As I see it, we don't need metas about there not being Johnlock. Johnlockers are the ones who have something "to prove", as it were.

I would love if it happened, but still feel that whatever signs there are in the show are too few and too subtle. Too open for interpretation. That's why I fear that if it happens, it will blindside the casual viewers who never saw it coming. That's not a good way to make a tv show.

What worries me now, is that there seem to be quite a few fans who are dead certain that Johnlock will happen in S4. It's not that they wish for it, hope for it or believe it will happen - they know it will happen. I fear for the outcry if it doesn't happen, and hope we don't get another round of bile thrown at Moftiss.

Liberty · December 22, 2016 4:32 pm

I don't think there really is the volume though. Going through those questions was interesting, partly because I was often struggling to see any Johnlock interpretation at all. So it wasn't as if there were lots of lots of ambiguous points after all. There are definitely some ambiguous parts, but much, much fewer than the article I linked to proposed. I agree that it makes more sense to pick out particular points, OpalJade. And I think they all have to be looked at in context, in terms of the bigger picture that is being shown.

I agree about the fairytale elements. To me this comes across as Sherlock secretly imagining himself as a fairytale hero (perhaps not even consciously). This plays out not just with John but with Irene, when he sees her as a damsel in distress, and later dramatically rescues her, in a swashbuckling manner! (I also have a pet theory about why Mycroft leads Sherlock in that direction, but that's OT!).

The knee grope - yes, there could have been an alternative conversation that was more non-Johnlock. But there could also have been an alternative conversation that was more the other way - in fact, this doesn't really go anywhere. There's not even a meaningful look, really. They seem quite relaxed about it, in the way they would be if just friends, rather than trying to control desires for each other. There's no embarrassment afterwards, no apparent consideration by either of them that this is an admission of desire, or the start of something, no changes to plans, no acknowledgement, nothing.

Mothonthemantel · December 22, 2016 4:55 pm

Vhanja Surprised to see you say that there might still be people that have not heard about Johnlock or seen some of the many comedy skits and be blindsided by it. It seems to be everywhere and arise in all the interviews with the cast and etc.

SusiGo · December 22, 2016 4:57 pm

Yes. Just think of the Norwegian parodies that respectful towards Johnlock and completely disrespectful of everything else.

Mothonthemantel · December 22, 2016 5:18 pm

I love those!
Also on the #Twitter. Practically one in four tweets and OMG the pics.

Liberty · December 22, 2016 5:30 pm

Just my personal feeling, but I think there's a couple of reasons for the lack of non-Johnlock metas. First is that I think it's partly cultural - there seems to be a sort of community around the idea of Johnlock that supports it, and the ideas feed off each other. I'm not in any way saying this is a bad thing! In fact, I'm a bit envious - I would kind of like to be a "believer" and be part of it all! But I just don't believe it, so I'm on the outside looking in!

I think the other reason, is that it's not really worth writing about - if there's nothing to see, then what would you write about? All the parts where you don't see Johnlock? I can imagine that if I believed and wanted to show Sherlolly existed, it would be really good fun watching all the scenes, looking for clues, writing up explanations of what was under the surface and so on. But a non-Sherlolly piece wouldn't have much to say beyond "she obviously fancies him, but he's not interested". There's no need for any more, as it's there in front of your face.