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

Schmiezi · December 28, 2016 8:12 pm

Or you believe him when he says he lies in interviews. :-)

nakahara · December 28, 2016 8:22 pm

Shani wrote:
I don't know how much more explicit you need the following exchange to be:

https://twitter.com/markgatiss/status/758594590844788736

1. They give an interview saying they are not and will never write Johnlock into the show.
2. Ardent TJLCers and Johnlock shippers get angry.
3. Mark tweets that the interview is a completely accurate representation of their attitude.
4. A fan tweets him a link to the Guardian interview to ask if that was accurate as well.
5. Mark responds 'No. Case in point. A garbled mistranslation of what I said.'

Therefore he knew he was being asked about Johnlock and he chose to say that Guardian interview was inaccurate about him loving TPLOSH because he thinks Holmes and Watson fall in love in it. In my opinion, you really have to show a special kind of wilful blindness if you interpret the exchange in any other way.

No, I don´t interpret the exange the other way - I simply think to refer to something as "a garbled mistranslation" is vague and does not serve as a real explanation. As you can see for yourself, it still leaves plenty of room for speculation.

But if Mark Gatiss was asked specifically: do you think Sherlock Holmes in TPLOSH loves Watson and he responded "No, I think he was in love with Elsa", that would remove any doubt.

So why not ask him directly? He responded to a fan willingly in the exchange you just posted, he can respond to another ask just as easily.

Vhanja · December 28, 2016 8:23 pm

Wanting Johnlock to happen or beliving in TJLC is all fine. But I get both sad and annoyed when it steps over the line of "If Johnlock doesn't happen then Moftiss are [insert negative description here]".

To me, that is a sign that the wish for Johnlock has gone too far and that those fans have lost some perspective of what this show is - it's an entertainment show. The writers have a plan and will write it as they wish.

Love it, like it, dislike it, hate it - it's all fine. But if you don't like it, just stop watching and go do something else. Don't start badmouthing the writers for not writing their show to suit your wishes and fantasies.

Last edited by Vhanja (December 28, 2016 8:30 pm)

Shani · December 28, 2016 8:26 pm

nakahara wrote:
Shani wrote:
I don't know how much more explicit you need the following exchange to be:

https://twitter.com/markgatiss/status/758594590844788736

1. They give an interview saying they are not and will never write Johnlock into the show.
2. Ardent TJLCers and Johnlock shippers get angry.
3. Mark tweets that the interview is a completely accurate representation of their attitude.
4. A fan tweets him a link to the Guardian interview to ask if that was accurate as well.
5. Mark responds 'No. Case in point. A garbled mistranslation of what I said.'

Therefore he knew he was being asked about Johnlock and he chose to say that Guardian interview was inaccurate about him loving TPLOSH because he thinks Holmes and Watson fall in love in it. In my opinion, you really have to show a special kind of wilful blindness if you interpret the exchange in any other way.
No, I don´t interpret the exange the other way - I simply think to refer to something as "a garbled mistranslation" is vague and does not serve as a real explanation. As you can see for yourself, it still leaves plenty of room for speculation.

But if Mark Gatiss was asked specifically: do you think Sherlock Holmes in TPLOSH loves Watson and he responded "No, I think he was in love with Elsa", that would remove any doubt.

So why not ask him directly? He responded to a fan willingly in the exchange you just posted, he can respond to another ask just as easily.

I don't feel the need to ask him directly. I think both he and Moffat have been perfectly clear and eloquent on the subject several times. Why would I irritate him by asking him to repeat a statement he's already made many times before?

Anyway it all becomes moot in 3 weeks' time anyway. TJLCers seem certain that Johnlock will be realised in this season. If it does, then I'll eat my words and it won't matter what I think anyway. However, if it doesn't I just hope nobody has the nerve to accuse them of 'queerbaiting' and promising to do something which they've always said would never happen.

ewige · December 28, 2016 8:36 pm

Vhanja wrote:
Wanting Johnlock to happen or beliving in TJLC is all fine. But I get both sad and annoyed when it steps over the line of "If Johnlock doesn't happen then Moftiss are [insert negative description here]".

To me, that is a signed that the wish for Johnlock has gone too far and that fans have lost some perspective of what this show is - it's an entertainment show. The writers have a plan and will write it as they wish.

Love it, like it, dislike it, hate it - it's all fine. But if you don't like it, just stop watching and go do something else. Don't start badmouthing the writers for not writing their show to suit your wishes and fantasies.

If it quacks like a duck and walks like a duck but turns out to be a party balloon in the end, I reserve the right to be disappointed with the zoo manager.

I wonder whether there are people among non-johnlockers who are used to formally analyzing literature. I'd like to know their opinion on the romantic tropes and romantic mirrors used in the show.

I also think that Mark sees himself first an foremost as a writer in his interactions with fans. Steven said in his speech at the Oxford Union that he specifically wanted to be called a writer. So their commitment to the fans is to write without upsetting the laws of storytelling. Their commitment not to lie or cheat belongs only to their spouses

Schmiezi · December 28, 2016 8:40 pm

ewige wrote:
I wonder whether there are people among non-johnlockers who are used to formally analyzing literature. I'd like to know their opinion on the romantic tropes and romantic mirrors used in the show.

I am waiting for an answer to that for years now.

nakahara · December 28, 2016 8:42 pm

Shani wrote:
I don't feel the need to ask him directly. I think both he and Moffat have been perfectly clear and eloquent on the subject several times. Why would I irritate him by asking him to repeat a statement he's already made many times before?

Anyway it all becomes moot in 3 weeks' time anyway. TJLCers seem certain that Johnlock will be realised in this season. If it does, then I'll eat my words and it won't matter what I think anyway. However, if it doesn't I just hope nobody has the nerve to accuse them of 'queerbaiting' and promising to do something which they've always said would never happen.

Well, my original post was a reply to JP who wished to hear Mark´s real opinion on the matter.
My reply was: there are means to do that so why don´t you ask him directly?

I don´t get your problem with this, tbh. If people have doubts, it´s normal to ask (and the author is always available). If things are already clear for you, then good for you.

And I don´t say this as a TJLCer or a Johnlock shipper, just as a person who thinks the arguments about Mark´s opinions are bit beside the point - when we have twitter at hand and people interested in his opinions can ask him about them anytime.

Vhanja · December 28, 2016 8:44 pm

But not everyone agrees that it quacks like a duck and walks like a duck. A great portion of the fans see the party balloon. I will have to say that I see much more signs of it being a party balloon than a duck, and so will not be surprised if it turns out to be what I've seen all along.

So as I see it:

- Their friendship is clear for all to see
- Some scenes can be interpreted as being romantic, however the shows works just fine if you interpret it as "just" friends. Meaning that both interpretations are valid.
- The writers have stated consistently for years that the romantic interpretation is not what will happen

So, no, I don't think anyone has the right to write/say their negativity to Moftiss for them doing what they've said for years they will do (or saying for years they won't do, to be more correct). If that is what happens.

I think a big part of the problem is that once we decide upon a way to view the show, we - both consciously and unconsciously - interpret the show through that filter. And so everything can easily be analyzed to fit whatever narrative we want to see, or believe we are seeing. I've seen that done with Harry Potter and now here with Sherlock.

Last edited by Vhanja (December 28, 2016 8:45 pm)

ewige · December 28, 2016 9:04 pm

The confession scene in THOB is the most obvious I can think of at the moment.

There are two gay inn keepers confessing to feeding a giant dog.
One is short and blond, the other one larger and darker.

Behind them Sherlock and John are standing, right in front of two mirrors hanging on the wall.

Mirrors (as a storytelling device) are a way to tell readers/viewers something about the main characters thru the minor ones.
So what's the not-gay interpretation here? That John and Sherlock are opening an inn in the near future?

Just one example, mind, of it quacking like a duck.

Last edited by ewige (December 28, 2016 9:07 pm)

Vhanja · December 28, 2016 9:15 pm

To me, that's an example of what I call over-analyzing. I don't think there is any more meaning behind it than it being a gay joke, and the mirror is just there for decoration.

But if you want to run with that thought, there is also just as much about these characters that doesn't mirror Sherlock and John - the blonde one is easy and outspoken about being in a gay relationship, John is very keen on telling people he isn't gay. The dark-haired one is slightly chubby (opposite to Sherlock being tall and lanky) and seems in general to be a friendly person on the surface, but a bit sinister underneath, which is again polar opposite to Sherlock - who is very unfriendly on the surface, but very loving underneath.

And if you want to see how the scene is framed, Sherlock and John are not standing next to their supposed mirrors.

To me, this is a good example of reading a scene through a particular filter.

Last edited by Vhanja (December 28, 2016 9:16 pm)

Liberty · December 28, 2016 9:35 pm

Schmiezi wrote:
ewige wrote:
I wonder whether there are people among non-johnlockers who are used to formally analyzing literature. I'd like to know their opinion on the romantic tropes and romantic mirrors used in the show.
I am waiting for an answer to that for years now.

We did have quite a big discussion about it - I think it was a few months ago! HoYay had a big list of tropes over here:
http://bug-catcher-in-viridian-forest.tumblr.com/post/128518826221/sherlock-tv-series-heteronormativity-caught

I personally think that in the end, they could just show Sherlock fancying John and vice versa, as they do with Molly fancying Sherlock. There's no reason it should be hidden just because it's a same sex rather than an opposite sex couple.

ewige · December 28, 2016 9:38 pm

Vhanja wrote:
To me, that's an example of what I call over-analyzing. I don't think there is any more meaning behind it than it being a gay joke, and the mirror is just there for decoration.

But if you want to run with that thought, there is also just as much about these characters that doesn't mirror Sherlock and John - the blonde one is easy and outspoken about being in a gay relationship, John is very keen on telling people he isn't gay. The dark-haired one is slightly chubby (opposite to Sherlock being tall and lanky) and seems in general to be a friendly person on the surface, but a bit sinister underneath, which is again polar opposite to Sherlock - who is very unfriendly on the surface, but very loving underneath.

And if you want to see how the scene is framed, Sherlock and John are not standing next to their supposed mirrors.

To me, this is a good example of reading a scene through a particular filter.

There are too many of such coincedences to discount them as meaningless. What about Irene and Kate, getting ready for the battle while Sherlock and his "colleague" are getting ready too? The scenes are chopped and thrown in together. Aren't we supposed to gain new insights from this parallel?

I've watched shows with heavy slasher followings but never got to really believe in those pairings before (while being way more outspoken about them than about johnlock, including cospay, cons and whatnot, so it's not like I didn't feel invested in finding the clues). None of them had the amount of director's work and storytelling devices going for them like in Sherlock. So if I'm overanalyzing now, how come I couldn't do that for the other shows? Because there was no evidence there as opposed to here.

Also, just as an aside: if the show ends without a definitive johnlock finale, I definitely won't shake my fist at Moftiss. Firstly, because I like pining more than ER But also because I hope Moftiss will find the ending that makes sense and it's their show anyway. However, if they choose to end the show as though none of the johnlock was ever hinted at throughout the series, I will pass judgement about their writing prowess and also share it with other people. After all, I tell everybody who wants to listen that I hated Hesse's Glasperlenspiel in original after having been enchanted by the novel's beautiful translation as a child. Why shouldn't Moftiss get the same treatment? I won't hate them as people, just frown upon their writing, you know ;)

Last edited by ewige (December 28, 2016 9:39 pm)

Schmiezi · December 28, 2016 9:44 pm

Liberty wrote:
Schmiezi wrote:
ewige wrote:
I wonder whether there are people among non-johnlockers who are used to formally analyzing literature. I'd like to know their opinion on the romantic tropes and romantic mirrors used in the show.
I am waiting for an answer to that for years now.
We did have quite a big discussion about it - I think it was a few months ago! HoYay had a big list of tropes over here:
http://bug-catcher-in-viridian-forest.tumblr.com/post/128518826221/sherlock-tv-series-heteronormativity-caught

I personally think that in the end, they could just show Sherlock fancying John and vice versa, as they do with Molly fancying Sherlock. There's no reason it should be hidden just because it's a same sex rather than an opposite sex couple.

What I meant is: take the mirrors for example. Their use in the show is interesting and worth analyzing. Yet, only Johnlockers seem to write about it.

ewige · December 28, 2016 9:48 pm

Liberty wrote:
Schmiezi wrote:
ewige wrote:
I wonder whether there are people among non-johnlockers who are used to formally analyzing literature. I'd like to know their opinion on the romantic tropes and romantic mirrors used in the show.
I am waiting for an answer to that for years now.
We did have quite a big discussion about it - I think it was a few months ago! HoYay had a big list of tropes over here:
http://bug-catcher-in-viridian-forest.tumblr.com/post/128518826221/sherlock-tv-series-heteronormativity-caught

I personally think that in the end, they could just show Sherlock fancying John and vice versa, as they do with Molly fancying Sherlock. There's no reason it should be hidden just because it's a same sex rather than an opposite sex couple.

Yeah, I remember that.

Fancying each other is always the first step There are also mirrors showing them growing old happily together, like Sherlock's parents.

Mirrors are just a part of it anyway. Do we agree that John and Sherlock's relationship is the main arc of the story? Then what's more to tell than more of the same, more of their adventures if it's just friendship? Mind, I love their bond and enjoy reading G-rated gen adventure stories about the two. However, every arc needs a climax and a resolution and John and Sherlock continuing being friends doesn't take us any further along the story arc in several years.

Vhanja · December 28, 2016 9:56 pm

ewige wrote:
There are too many of such coincedences to discount them as meaningless. What about Irene and Kate, getting ready for the battle while Sherlock and his "colleague" are getting ready too? The scenes are chopped and thrown in together. Aren't we supposed to gain new insights from this parallel?

I've watched shows with heavy slasher followings but never got to really believe in those pairings before (while being way more outspoken about them than about johnlock, including cospay, cons and whatnot, so it's not like I didn't feel invested in finding the clues). None of them had the amount of director's work and storytelling devices going for them like in Sherlock. So if I'm overanalyzing now, how come I couldn't do that for the other shows? Because there was no evidence there as opposed to here.

Also, just as an aside: if the show ends without a definitive johnlock finale, I definitely won't shake my fist at Moftiss. Firstly, because I like pining more than ER But also because I hope Moftiss will find the ending that makes sense and it's their show anyway. However, if they choose to end the show as though none of the johnlock was ever hinted at throughout the series, I will pass judgement about their writing prowess and also share it with other people. After all, I tell everybody who wants to listen that I hated Hesse's Glasperlenspiel in original after having been enchanted by the novel's beautiful translation as a child. Why shouldn't Moftiss get the same treatment? I won't hate them as people, just frown upon their writing, you know ;)

Some probably have some meanings, but not necessarily Johnlock-y
Some are probably uintended, but seen due to the before-mentioned filters
Some might be deliberately made ambigious

I personally have never seen a show or a movie where two people's romantic interest can only be spotted through freeze-framing to see who is standing beside which mirror, what lights are used in which scene and who is drinking tea or coffee when.

Sherlock is well-written, but it's mainstream tv. It's not David Lynch. Having two people being romantically interested in each other would usually be much easier to spot than this. Harry Potter is a good example - a romantic interest between Ron and Hermione that is hinted at from the very first movie/book, when they were still pre-teens. But it's easy for everyone to see, even if just hinted at.

I see very little of that between Sherlock and John. However, I do see that they are portraying a very close and storng friendship, a type of friendship that runs deeper than the average "my mate at the pub" kind of friendship. And so do show that, to show how important these two are to each other, they use tropes and scenes that are also sometimes used romantically.

However, even when I can see that, I still don't see them going for a relationship. I do see that it's valid to interpret the two of them having deeper feelings towards each other than "just" friendship, but I don't see much in the narrative that points in that direction for the show.

And, yes, I would also prefer if they ended in the same ambigious way the show has always been, so that the ending too could be open for interpretation. But if they not, I am certainly not going to join the ones with pitchforks outside Mark's twitter account.

I really like Martin's take on Johnlock - he said that he didn't mind that as long as it was done for fun and not becoming "stalinistic". And he said something that I thought summed it up very well: "Some are not really fans of the show anymore, they are fans of the show that goes on inside their own heads."

I think the dark side of fandom is the sense of entitlement some fans get.

Vhanja · December 28, 2016 10:01 pm

ewige wrote:
.Do we agree that John and Sherlock's relationship is the main arc of the story? Then what's more to tell than more of the same, more of their adventures if it's just friendship? Mind, I love their bond and enjoy reading G-rated gen adventure stories about the two. However, every arc needs a climax and a resolution and John and Sherlock continuing being friends doesn't take us any further along the story arc in several years.

I am not sure if you are involved in the S4-thread, so not sure if I should write anything from that in here. So I'll put it in spoiler tags just to be sure:

The next step in their relationship is enstragement (and, I will imagine, followed by reconciliation), and Mofitiss have mentioned several times that there will be a proper climax in S4. So it will be very interesting to see what that entails.

JP · December 28, 2016 10:04 pm

A side note about Twitter. Of course you can ask. I did many times. Getting answers is another thing though. I think with almost 700K of followers he surely gets spammed as hell. I doubt he even has time to read his TL completely. It's hard enough to get answers from Arwel or Danny.

ewige · December 28, 2016 10:11 pm

Vhanja,
I don't know how that could top TRF's fallout. That was the ultimate test for their friendship. A story arc's climax needs to be something grander. If Moftiss will find such a thing while telling a story about a friendship, I'll definitely tip my hat to them.

Vhanja · December 28, 2016 10:13 pm

I have several ideas in my mind of how they could do that, but we will just have to wait and see.

ewige · December 28, 2016 10:45 pm

I have a great idea for a counter-johnlock meta! Find a book or a movie or even a finished TV show with a similar number of romantic tropes, mirrors etc. in regard to any two characters, that's not culminated as a romantic story (doesn't need to have a happy ending, tho) and was in fact a story about their friendship all along.

Last edited by ewige (December 28, 2016 10:46 pm)