NotYourHousekeeperDear wrote:

sj4iy wrote:

True story:

My husband is a very easy-going, non-offensive guy that I met in college.  We started dating, and I quickly realized that one of his best friends was a HUGE primadonna that would get mad if he didn't get his way.  Since my husband (then-boyfriend) was a pretty big pushover, his friend ran the show, and there would be times that our plans would get scrapped because his friend wanted to do something else.  After this happened a bunch of times, I finally put my foot down and told my husband that I cared for him very much, but I was tired of playing second-fiddle to his friend (sound familiar?).  Well, my husband got the message and he informed his friend that he could still do things with him, but that it couldn't be the way it was before.

Basically, I see John as a pushover when it comes to Sherlock; John hasn't found the right woman that he's willing to put his foot down to Sherlock over...yet.  It doesn't mean that there's underlying sexual tension- it just means that Sherlock is his best friend whom he respects and admires so much that he's willing to put up with Sherlock running off his girlfriends...for now.  We'll see what happens as the show goes on, though.

 
Sherlock can be a primadonna but I think what John finds hard to resist is the sense of danger and excitement that life with Sherlock holds. I think it would be hard for anyone (man or woman) to compete with how this aspect of John's psyche clicks with Sherlock

That's definitely true...it's basically the age-old "man doesn't really want to grow up and be responsible" story.  Sherlock is sort of a Peter Pan character, which is attractive when you have nothing keeping you grounded.  But John won't always stay in that mind set.

Agreed Jacco. 

Watson gets married in "A Game of Shadows". They skipped it in the Granada series, I suppose because Edward Hardwicke was far too old to be a convincing bridegroom for Mary Morstan.
As for Holmes, I have no idea. 

SusiGo wrote:

Watson gets married in "A Game of Shadows". They skipped it in the Granada series, I suppose because Edward Hardwicke was far too old to be a convincing bridegroom for Mary Morstan.
As for Holmes, I have no idea. 

True, there were some hints though. And after all, in the canon the issue of Mrs. Watson is also somewhat problematic to say the least.

SusiGo wrote:

Swanpride wrote:

According to my DVD extras, the Granada series scipped the marriage mostly because they didn't want to deal with coming up for explanations why Watson just leaves his wife and work alone to wander of with Sherlock.
Interesting is the Russian series...not only does the marriage happen, but it is even a long-lasting one, with Mary Morstan still being alive when the series ended.

I can't help the feeling that after ACD decided to let Holmes return he did not know what to do with Mrs Watson and discreetly got rid of her. 

 
That was always how it felt to me, too...otherwise he would have written a proper death scene for her.

SusiGo wrote:

"

Jacco111 wrote:

This tread is in the 'canon' department, so let's go with the canon only shall we? Because whatever is going on in Sherlock, we can't take that as any evidence. It is just the personal preference from the people who are creating the show from a 21st century perspective. There have been all kinds of adaptations from Holmes getting married to Holmes getting frozen and woken up in the 22nd century. I think that in this tread we have to take only the canon into account. And as some people here already pointed out, there is no evidence in the canon for a romantic or even a sexual relationship.

May I quote the first post in this thread? 

"In Canon
In BBC
In Guy Ritche
In any other adaptations.

DIscuss, debate, support, refute Johnlock in all its forms. Have fun."

Just saying. 

Correct me if I'm wrong, it's been known to happen, but haven't there been discussions and speculation on the Holmes/Watson relationship from the very begining?  So even if we did just stick to "canon" there are still things that can be open to interpretation.
 

Well actually, we should take into account what the BBC Sherlock writers and actors have said and also what happens.
This is SO frustrating.
1.  Well we''ll all know by the time BBC Sherlock finishes whether anything happens between Sherlock and John and it isn't going to.
2.  I wouild be so grateful if somebody could help me out.
Elsewhere on the forum somebody kindly posted Ian Hallard's piece about Johnlock.
It is sitting on my desktop but I am just unable to copy and paste it.
If I have to type it all out I will.
Cos I just want to point to it everytime any of  you post and saylease read.

Being a writer myself I have learned that you never know how exactly people will interpret your stories and characters. Moreover, there is also intentional room for interpretation and this is definitely the case with "Sherlock". If they had not wanted any ambivalence regarding the Sherlock-John relationship they could easily have avoided this. 

besleybean, did you mean this?


"Yes, I find I learn more and more about the subculture as time goes on! To be fair, I didn't say anyone’s fantasies were wrong. People are very welcome to fantasise about whatever they like. No one is judging that - well not me anyway. I was querying the extent to which that fantasy, for some at least, seems to have developed into a belief, or in certain cases insistent demands, that it should become reality and appear in the show itself.
“Sherlock” itself plays with the idea that society is so unused to any kind of male friendship or intimacy that those around Sherlock and John often assume their relationship can only be motivated by sexual attraction. As Amanda says, why can’t their love for each other be friendship? Why impose a gay dynamic on two characters who, as clearly as we can tell, identify respectively as heterosexual and asexual?
Personally speaking, I’d love to see more well-rounded gay characters and well-written gay relationships depicted in drama, but that’s another story – and not this one, I’m afraid.
As you say, it's an interesting phenomenon."

     - Ian Hallard

SusiGo wrote:

If they had not wanted any ambivalence regarding the Sherlock-John relationship they could easily have avoided this. 

Exactly. In my opinion (and I'm freely quoting someone from tumblr here) the fantasies about Johnlock "are being purposefully fed by the creators". Mark and Steven (and Ian and Amanda and whoever else from the production team) can say to this whatever they like really, the evidence is there in the episodes. They could just have left all those innuendos out (like I said before), the show would still be great, nothing would be missing, a bromance would still be there.