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

Schmiezi · May 24, 2017 7:54 pm

JP wrote:
Okay, this article says a bit about how I feel toward Johnlock
http://nymag.com/scienceofus/2017/03/amatonormativity-everybody-should-be-coupled-up.html
Every time someone rants about "f*****g heteronormativity", especially in regard to TJLC, I want to yell "f*****g amatonormativity" back at him/her.
And another post, a bit long winded, showing that there are different views on importance of romantic love.
http://everydayfeminism.com/2016/04/amatonormativity-expectations/

The first article is quite interesting. What I find more interesting though is your urge to yell. But then, I already know your charming way and so I should refrain from commenting on it.

Just that: in this forum, nobody has called heteronormativity "fucking", so there surely is no need to tell us about your urge to yell at people on other social media.

JP · May 24, 2017 8:23 pm

Schmiezi, it might be just better for both of us to ignore each other.
You read things into my posts that are not there. I never wrote "in this forum".

SusiGo · May 24, 2017 8:40 pm

This is true, JP. But your sudden outburst comes over as slightly unwarranted in the light of the calm and civilised discussion in here.

besleybean · May 24, 2017 8:44 pm

I really see no problem with the post.

JP · May 24, 2017 9:04 pm

It was intended as a general expression of frustration over the tendency to see romantic relationships as somehow "better" of more valuable, and that love has to be necessarily romantic to be true. And about the whole bunch of people throwing the above-mentioned heteronormativity at the makers as an insult. Not in this forum, but all over the net.

SusiGo · May 24, 2017 9:11 pm

I see what you mean. But in order to be fair you should not just attack TJLCers but also the people who see the Watson marriage as the epitome of heterosexual married bliss. Or the members of the team who have called it a very British romance, a love story, etc.

Last edited by SusiGo (May 24, 2017 9:16 pm)

Schmiezi · May 24, 2017 9:41 pm

SusiGo wrote:
I see what you mean. But in order to be fair you should not just attack TJLCers but also the people who see the Watson marriage as the epitome of heterosexual married bliss. Or the members of the team who have called it a very British romance, a love story, etc.

Or those who see Irene Adler as Sherlock's love interest, as in, "He is a male, he MUST have fallen for her."

@JP: Ignoring other users just because I don't understand them and / or because I disagree with them is not a very adult approach, don't you think? I prefer a more mature discussion culture.

JP · May 24, 2017 10:19 pm

Susi, you mean the love story between Mary and John or John and Sherlock?
I always saw the latter as a metaphor. They didn't say gay love story.
At work we were calling two of our male colleagues "an old couple", for the way they were always arguing, and nobody ever thought about it as anything near to seeing them as gay.

I don't really care about the kind of attraction between Irene and Sherlock. It was shown as very vague and open to interpretation, and it being one way or another doesn't really affect the whole story. Did any viewers called one of those possibilities should be cannon? If the marriage of Mary and John was a bliss or not: it was in the text.

Schmiezi, I don't have a problem with someone disagreeing with me. I have a problem with you interpreting things into my posts that are not there and your passive-aggressive reactions my posts seem to cause. Quote: What I find more interesting though is your urge to yell. But then, I already know your charming way and so I should refrain from commenting on it.

Last edited by JP (May 24, 2017 10:55 pm)

Schmiezi · May 25, 2017 5:44 am

JP wrote:
I don't really care about the kind of attraction between Irene and Sherlock. It was shown as very vague and open to interpretation, and it being one way or another doesn't really affect the whole story. Did any viewers called one of those possibilities should be cannon? If the marriage of Mary and John was a bliss or not: it was in the text.

[/b]

Well, I remember that people wrote here in this thread that Sherlock's attraction to Irene would be proof against Johnlock and there are interpretations of the Canon story that support this idea. I don't agree with it but one could say it is in the text as well.

BTW, I don't interpret your posts like that on purpose to annoy you. I just tell you how they make me feel.

besleybean · May 25, 2017 5:47 am

Serious question to staff: should we be telling each other how their posts make us feel?
I wouldn't normally dare.
I still haven't seen any yelling.

Liberty · May 25, 2017 6:00 am

Mod note: Can I just say, lets all not get too personal about each other's posts? It's so, so easy to give or take offence on the internet (I speak as somebody who has inadvertently caused it - and no doubt inadvertently taken it as well!). We have such a nice forum for discussion here. As you were .

besleybean · May 25, 2017 6:03 am

I can't imagine you ever offending anybody.
But anyway, thank you for replying: I really see little point in the ..'.but that offends me' line of argument.
I am always concerned it's a way of controlling free speech- and you all know how I love that!

Schmiezi · May 25, 2017 6:20 am

Liberty wrote:
Mod note: Can I just say, lets all not get too personal about each other's posts? It's so, so easy to give or take offence on the internet (I speak as somebody who has inadvertently caused it - and no doubt inadvertently taken it as well!). We have such a nice forum for discussion here. As you were .

Sorry. I always become a bit angry when I see the peace of the forum in danger, like when people say they want to yell swear words at Johnlockers.

So when I see posts like that, I comment on that. If it then turns out the post was not intended that way, that's fine. Finding that out is exactly why I would never ignore a post that rubs me the wrong way but mention it. That way, the one who posted it can make themselves clear.

BUT back to the topic: I still wonder about something we have discussed a long time ago, and reading the article brought back the question for me.

Sorry for elaborating a bit. We have collected tons of material to show how romantic tropes are used on Sherlock and John. Now the first article says we see people as a couple because of "amonormativity". So I wonder about other shows where characters that are not a couple are shipped. Are there also so many romantic tropes used? Meaning, do people also see romantic couples without anything that could be interpreted as hints?

The reason I am asking is because I think there are two aspects on amonormativity in the media: the first is the audience wishing for people to become couples and hence seeing couple where there are none.

The second aspect is that show writers fall for amonormativity and subconsciously use stylistic devices like romantic tropes even when they don't intend the characters become a couple - or that show writers feel the need to write that way to attract more viewers.

And one question in general, is amonormativity a bad thing?

besleybean · May 25, 2017 6:27 am

To answer your last point and to try and not be too cliched. Well it is what it is.
True for many, I suppose.
But it does irritate some who don't necessarily feel that way.
Point is some characters are presented and do indeed end up that way and some aren't.
The Sherlock team have made it clear there is no link between John and Sherlock for them, in their work.
At least some of them seem to think there is a connection between Sherlock and Irene: I don't like it, but I have to accept their view.
Some even see it in Canon, which I also don't like...ACD isn't around to answer that one.
But the connection between John and Mary is clear.

Last edited by besleybean (May 25, 2017 6:27 am)

Schmiezi · May 25, 2017 6:31 am

besleybean wrote:
The Sherlock team have made it clear there is no link between John and Sherlock for them, in their work.

This is exact what I would like to discuss in relation to the article JP posted (and not nessessary in Relation to what I believe myself). Could it be that Mofftiss fell for amonormativity when using all those romantic tropes on Sherlock and John? Or to put it broarder: do writers fall for amonormativity just like viewers do?

(If amonormativity exists, that is.)

Vhanja · May 25, 2017 9:06 am

I personally think that amonormativity is a bad thing. It's what makes Hollywood shoehorn uninteresting and irrelevant relationships in any movie - no matter the subject or overall narrative - because they feel it "needs" to be there. That viewers won't be interested in watching a whole movie unless there is some kind of romance crammed into it.

They even did it in the Hobbit, one of the most beloved children's books of our time. It's about adventure and cameraderie across different cultures, and they force in a love triangle between a dwarf and two elves. I find it ridiculous.

So no, I'm not too fond of that way of thinking, especially not from the movie makers.

Whether or not Moftiss deliberately or not, was influenced by it is hard to say. But I do think it's fascinating that any book/movie/tv-series that show a close friendship between two people, will always end up with loads of fans shipping them (especially if they are of the same sex).

And that is where I blame amonormativity. In TV/movies, a man and a woman would only need to look at each other for two seconds before viewers know they will end up kissing before the show is over. Close friendships is impossible and if a man and a woman show any sign of that, they will without a doubt end up together (there's even a whole movie on that theme alone).

I don't want that type of thinking, or writing, to bleed over into same sex relationships too.

JP · May 25, 2017 11:07 am

Schmiezi wrote:
I wonder about other shows where characters that are not a couple are shipped. Are there also so many romantic tropes used? Meaning, do people also see romantic couples without anything that could be interpreted as hints?

Yes. LOTR ships included probably EVERY possible pairings. Aragorn/Boromir and Frodo/Sam seemed the most popular, but I think I remember Boromir/Legolas and some hobbit/human or hobbit/elf ones too. What I don't remember, is whether there were any male/female ships. Didn't read much of them - as you might guess it's not really my cup of tea, so I'm not an expert. What really stunned me - why do (probably) heterosexual women find shipping male characters so attractive. BTW, are there any female ships from Sherlock? Or popular male/female ones?

JP · May 25, 2017 11:15 am

Vhanja wrote:
Whether or not Moftiss deliberately or not, was influenced by it is hard to say. But I do think it's fascinating that any book/movie/tv-series that show a close friendship between two people, will always end up with loads of fans shipping them (especially if they are of the same sex).
(…) I don't want that type of thinking, or writing, to bleed over into same sex relationships too.

This!
It seems to me that people think a non-romantic, or even worse, a non-sexual relationship is inferior or not "complete", that the only true love is the one that ends in bed.

Schmiezi · May 25, 2017 11:31 am

JP wrote:
Schmiezi wrote:
I wonder about other shows where characters that are not a couple are shipped. Are there also so many romantic tropes used? Meaning, do people also see romantic couples without anything that could be interpreted as hints?
Yes. LOTR ships included probably EVERY possible pairings. Aragorn/Boromir and Frodo/Sam seemed the most popular, but I think I remember Boromir/Legolas and some hobbit/human or hobbit/elf ones too.

They are shipped, of course. I meant, are there also romantic tropes used, are there camera angles you usually only do when showing lovers, was there lightning hinting at the ship?

Because when you look for Johnlock, you can find all that. You can dismiss rhe importance of it or simply not believe in the ship, but it is true that certain tropes are used, certain props are used etc. Can you also find it for the common ships of LOTR?

JP wrote:
What I don't remember, is whether there were any male/female ships. Didn't read much of them - as you might guess it's not really my cup of tea, so I'm not an expert.

Irene/Molly is a ship I remember seeing fics about, and of course Sherlolly. They are not my cup of tea, so I cannot tell you more about it.

JP wrote:
What really stunned me - why do (probably) heterosexual women find shipping male characters so attractive. BTW, are there any female ships from Sherlock? Or popular male/female ones?

I can only speak for myself. I don't ship them because they are men, I ship them because their souls fit so perfectly together, regardless of their gender. This is how I find my love in real life too.

JP · May 25, 2017 12:07 pm

Hints in LOTR: one could surely say it about Frodo and Sam. But the others? You probably have to watch for yourself, I'm the last person on Earth that would notice special camera angles used for lovers.