Same here, Boss. I ship them as more of a bromance for the canon and the show. But I'm not averse to a little bit of Johnlock now and then. The fact remains that they do love each other, however you want to interpret it 

I haven't read the canon since I was about 13 (on my to do list to revist!) but I have to say I think the sexual tension between John and Sherlock in the BBC series is undeniable. I remember watching A Study in Pink for the first time and just thinking how revolutionary it was.  They are like Scully and Mulder, Bones and Booth- if they were different genders no one would even question the obvious sexual tension

CarlPowers wrote:

I understand going overboard on some things.   Just look at this message board in general.    So for those who want their imaginations to take flight in Johnlockia,  I say go for it.


For me,  it's only something to have fun with.   The canon and the best dramatic interpretations of Sherlock over the years underscore the unspoken unconditional love that is a perfect friendship.   It's extremely gratifying to see it.   The unspokenness itself is intoxicating to watch.  It's a popular core theme throughout literature and cinema,  but rarely is it captured as cleverly as with the ACD stories,  and the BBC Sherlock interpretation in particular.

When I say "overboard", I mean the people who send nasty emails, tweets or messages to actors or actresses because they feel that they are coming "between" their characters and things of that nature.  Just chatting about it on a message board isn't overboard at all.

Last edited by sj4iy (September 29, 2013 4:14 am)

I love the idea that Johnlock was written as a bromance in the bbc version however I do have a few issues with the'evidence' presented above both in the canon and in the bbc version.

As someone who has lived a little bit of life and is also a psychologist by trade I have to say that being married is unfortunately not evidence of much.  This is perhaps even more true in ACD's time when men of a certain age and class were expected to marry.  You really have to have a bit of inside knowledge into what the marriage was like and although I haven't read the books for ages, I don't remember there being much discussion of what happened in Watson's bedroom in the canon!

I think Sherlock's apparent lack of interest in relationships with women could be argued as being more telling, especially as it would have been less typical of the time.

In terms the BBC series, certainly what Mark and Steven have said could be argued to be the best evidence of Johnlock purely being bromance.  There is another layer of the actor's interpetations of the script to be taken into account though and hasn't Martin Freeman said something in support of the sexual tension between the two characters?

Well Mark and Steven could have written "a gay romp" but that wouldn't be very interesting would it?  Getting the two romantic leads actually together pretty much kills the chemistry of the unresolved sexual tension.  So I see your point, but not necessarily agree with you here.
One of the things I love about BBC Sherlock is that he never feels obliged like John to deny that he is gay.  He just is who is- and yes, I think that is progress!

What do you mean about Sally's hostility?  I thought she just got annoyed with him coming in and basically being smarter than the police.  Are there other theories about that?
I have to say I do love the fact that Johnlock is ambiguous enough to have a proper debate on it.  I think I'm the opposite of Auden in that I would rather not know who is actually shagging who- I prefer speculating- knowing for sure takes out all the fun!

I wouldn't quite say I watch the show for it, anymore than I would say I watch it for Benedict's amazing cheekbones,  but I have enjoyed that aspect of it yes.  I sincerely hope they build on the loving friendship between Sherlock and John in the next season too- from what I have read spoiler wise, I think they will.

That's interesting about Sally.  Have you seen Luther?- she reminds me a lot of Erin Gray who has a similar relationship with Luther, who like Sherlock  is a maverick.  Anyway, subject for another/ previous thread I suppose.

I think they clearly do love each other, but in a friendship/bromance kind of way, and this is how I've always seen their relationship in the canon as well as on screen.

I like the teasing about them possibly being a couple (in a romantic way) and I think people are completely entitled to fantasise about them being lovers.
I just don't like it when those people start taking things too seriously and start hating on others because they don't share their point of view, for example those people pouring hate on Amanda Abbington (or Steven Moffat or Mark Gatiss) upon hearing that Amanda would join the show as Mary Morstan. Let's face it, it's childish, hurtful and utterly disgraceful.

Otherwise, people have been speculating about those two men for 125 years, and I have no problem with that. A lot of it is due to Conan Doyle being clearly unspecific about Sherlock Holmes's sexuality, which is largely owed to the fact that Holmes is mainly interested in solving the puzzles presented to him and has little time and energy left for other "distractions". Watson is being portrayed as a bit of a womaniser, having an experience of women that stretches over three continents, and then there are all those speculations about how many wives he actually had.
Two men sharing lodgings was not uncommon in the Victorian ages and it also was quite normal at that time to address another person by using the phrase "my dear". To us who read those stories now  more than 100 years later, those things have quite a different ring.

What in my eyes is unquestionable though, is that those two men clearly hold a lot of love for each other, which is shown in Watson's utter loyalty to Holmes, and there also are a few scenes in the canon where it becomes quite clear how much Holmes enjoys and appreciates the company of "his" John Watson.
This has been beautifully translated to BBC's Sherlock. I think Moffat and Gatiss have done an outstanding job there. Before I got to see their interpretation of Holmes and Watson I had all but given up on ever liking any modern adaptation of the Sherlock Holmes stories.

But this is only my point of view, the beauty of fiction is, that it is always open to interpretation, and people are well invited to make use of it, as has been done in countless novels, stories, paintings and films. Conan Doyle being so unspecific about quite a few things (which I think is mainly due to him being very slapdash with his stories) is one of the many reasons why the myth still lives on until today.

besleybean wrote:

On every Sherlock forum I've belonged to, I have argued that Sally shows an irrational bigotry towards Sherlock.  This came to something of a climax in Reichenbach.

I find nothing irrational about her behavior at all.  She is upset that a man without any police training has simply waltzed into Scotland Yard and has started solving their cases for them.  Instead of getting promotions and raises, she is watching Sherlock get all of the accolades.  It's not irrational, and he's never made a secret of his hatred of her.  I have worked with a man very, very much like Sherlock IRL...he was a contractor, extremely intelligent, and very off-puttish.  When you work with someone like that, you can feel sympathy for anyone who has to work with that type of person.
 

besleybean wrote:

Apologies, OT here.
But Sally's prime concern should be society being protected from criminals, which is exactly what Sherlock does.

She's right not to trust Sherlock...he doesn't have to follow rules, he goes off on his own and does things that can mess up a conviction.  Sherlock doesn't always do the smart thing- like letting Irene Adler get the best of him, or trying to lure Moriarty out with classified missile plans.  Even Sherlock thinks that the only thing that separates him from the criminal classes is because he chooses not to be a criminal (he only learns that this isn't true in TRF).  But Sherlock isn't infallible, even if he might choose to think so- and even if others might choose to see him that way.  And he's definitely not above reproach.  It's easy for us as the audience to romanticize a character like Sherlock who is dark and dangerous, but working with someone like that when lives are on the line requires a different mindset.

Last edited by sj4iy (September 29, 2013 2:42 pm)