BBC Sherlock Fan Forum - Serving Sherlockians since February 2012 / Which are the 'Johnlock' moments from Canon ?

**Posted by Mattlocked** July 10, 2013 4:45 pm

Oh, I love this thread!
And Jacco, you sound like me half a year ago.

**Posted by nicbooful** July 10, 2013 5:06 pm

I shipped Johnlock at first because the writers made it so apparent it was there and their relationship is beautiful. Then I fell in love with Sherlolly and Johnlock had to take a back seat. I still see it though and threads like these are so much fun.

If I was dead set against it then I wouldn't read this thread, especially if I found it annoying. If a thread has 'spoiler' in the heading I can choose if I want to read on or stay away. The same goes for Johnlock threads. If you don't want to read about it then don't go any further. It's that simple.

This thread makes me giggle x

**Posted by Mattlocked** July 10, 2013 5:16 pm

Exactly, nicbooful.
I avoided Johnlock threads and pics at that time. I found it annoying. But I let the others have fun.
There are also other threads which I'm not very much interested in, so I simply don't have to go there, right?

**Posted by Be** July 10, 2013 5:25 pm

I don't see their relationship being homoerotic, but that doesn't mean I can't appreciate it in fanfiction which are written well. It is just fun to see the developing relationship and what the author invents. And if BBC Sherlock would go there in the future, I don't mind. Could even be a good idea to enhence acceptance in society.
I would prefer if they stay ambigious. More fun to debate.

**Posted by Davina** July 11, 2013 6:17 am

I'm still laughing at The Engineer's Thump!

**Posted by besleybean** **Online!** July 11, 2013 7:25 am

Oh that would have been a much better Conan Doyle story!

**Posted by Jacco111** July 11, 2013 11:36 am

tobeornot221b wrote:
Jacco111 wrote:
Sure, everyone can imagine Holmes and Watson being gay, or interpretate it that way. But I believe there is no reason to assume a homosexual relationship, so for me, it is nonsense and it kinda annoys me sometimes when I read interesting articles written by the creative and intelligent people here, and the ''Johnlock'' thing pops up.
IMHO it's not completely impossible to be intelligent and creative AND a Johnlocker at the same time...

Didn't say that, in a way, they are the most creative ;)

**Posted by Jacco111** July 11, 2013 11:37 am

Be wrote:
Jacco111 wrote:
Sure, everyone can imagine Holmes and Watson being gay, or interpretate it that way. But I believe there is no reason to assume a homosexual relationship, so for me, it is nonsense and it kinda annoys me sometimes when I read interesting articles written by the creative and intelligent people here, and the ''Johnlock'' thing pops up.

There is no reason to assume it? I am quite sure that many people would disagree with that, but anyway... You can see Sherlock being strong, vulnerable,manipulative, childish, a fighter, cute, dark, funny, neutral to sexuality or impressed by Irene. You can see him with John as a friend, a collegue, a pet-figure or a boy-friend if you want. There is evidence to prove it all.

You might consider that the writers themselves are the creative and intelligent people who play with the "Johnlock". And if you look without bias you can easily see that the "Johnlock" enthusiasts are highly creative and intelligent people.
And IMO one of the achievements of "Sherlock" is that it brings all these different fans together to talk about it from every angle.

I thought that we were talking about the Canon here? I think you should see Sherlock and the Conan-Doyle stories as two different things.

**Posted by Be** July 11, 2013 12:11 pm

Jacco111 wrote:
Be wrote:
Jacco111 wrote:
Sure, everyone can imagine Holmes and Watson being gay, or interpretate it that way. But I believe there is no reason to assume a homosexual relationship, so for me, it is nonsense and it kinda annoys me sometimes when I read interesting articles written by the creative and intelligent people here, and the ''Johnlock'' thing pops up.

There is no reason to assume it? I am quite sure that many people would disagree with that, but anyway... You can see Sherlock being strong, vulnerable,manipulative, childish, a fighter, cute, dark, funny, neutral to sexuality or impressed by Irene. You can see him with John as a friend, a collegue, a pet-figure or a boy-friend if you want. There is evidence to prove it all.

You might consider that the writers themselves are the creative and intelligent people who play with the "Johnlock". And if you look without bias you can easily see that the "Johnlock" enthusiasts are highly creative and intelligent people.
And IMO one of the achievements of "Sherlock" is that it brings all these different fans together to talk about it from every angle.
I thought that we were talking about the Canon here? I think you should see Sherlock and the Conan-Doyle stories as two different things.

Sure. BBC is true to canon in its own way. Somebody already posted a link to a website with many ambigious quotes from canon.
Holmes and Sherlock have in common that they see things from all kind of perspectives. They walk in the enemy's shoes (metaphorically speaking). So having an open mind is taking Holmes as a role model.
But if you prefer not to look through a "pink" pair of spectacles you don't have to. I think your opinion is totally justifiable and correct. But Holmes and Sherlock are always curious and they try new things to learn and experiment. They would look through it, IMO.

**Posted by besleybean** **Online!** July 11, 2013 12:14 pm

Or think it totally irrelevant to their work.

**Posted by Davina** July 11, 2013 12:15 pm

Why do we not have a Facebook 'like' button here?

**Posted by besleybean** **Online!** July 11, 2013 12:20 pm

Altho I do like a recent RL suggestion of a ' vomit' button, too! Tee Hee.
Other forums I'm on have a 'like' feature.

**Posted by Davina** July 11, 2013 12:37 pm

I would have a 'dislike' and a 'vomit' button.

**Posted by besleybean** **Online!** July 11, 2013 12:40 pm

And you have the power, my dear!

**Posted by nicbooful** July 11, 2013 1:13 pm

One of the beauties of literature is reading between the lines and interpreting it the way you see it. I'm currently trying to work my way through the original stories and cannot see the Johnlock element of it. It could be that ACD didn't ever intend it that way or he may have enjoyed putting in little moments that makes people stop and think. Either way, books are to be enjoyed and it is the mark of a truly talented writer when they are constantly speculated on and never fade from memory.

If people see Johnlock within the subtext then so what? Just because someone else doesn't see it shouldn't become an issue for them. I think it's wonderful thinking you know a book very well then someone else comes along and adds to it by making you think more about it. It's just a whole new level of appreciation for the author. (This is also what makes this updated show so brilliant because there are so many different ways it can be interpreted. It's not black and white.)

Can you imagine if Holmes and Watson were gay (or bi)? If they truly did love each other in that way then how beautiful, but tragic,that would be? They do spend their lives together and know they need each other but because of the restraints of society, at that time, never crossed into sexual relations.

I think this thread is wonderful xx

**Posted by besleybean** **Online!** July 11, 2013 1:24 pm

We can never really know the mind of ACD.
He certainly wrote the perfect bromance. Whether it was meant to be more, who knows? Possibly Watson only married cos he wanted children.
But we do have the benefit with BBC Sherlock: all writers, directors and actors are not only alive and well, but have given multiple interviews- which are there for posterity.
The writers have stated they did not write this as a gay love story, tho they have no problem with poeple seeing it that way.
Benedict has stated he believes both Canon Holmes and BBC Sherlock were in love with Irene.
When the BBC marry off John, which they will, it'll be interesting to see if it's really just because he wants companionship/children or anything else. In ACD's time, respectable people had to be married or celibate. BBC John does not have that problem. He can sleep with whomever he likes and as much as he likes. So if he were to marry, it would be an informed choice.
But we've already had plenty of indication that he enjoys relationships with women.

Last edited by besleybean (July 11, 2013 2:19 pm)

**Posted by Be** July 11, 2013 1:36 pm

In canon there are many vivid descriptions of Sherlock's physicality. His movements, posture, his face and many more.
I am not an expert in victorian literature but I read that in victorian times people restrained themselves from showing this amout of obvious admiration towards another person. More so if the person is of the same gender. Watson is not only attracted to Holmes because of his mind but somehow intrigued by his personality and appearance. I wonder whether Doyle was aware of this or if it was unconsciously done.

He adored his teacher Mr Bell. But the relationship of Holmes and Watson is obviously not the relationship of pupil and teacher. There are one or two examples when Watson even called Holmes "Master" in his mind. (in Baskerville I think was it when Watson was investigating on his own and was afraid whether he did a good job).

IMO there is room for interpretation.

**Posted by besleybean** **Online!** July 11, 2013 1:41 pm

Surely the example you cited is an exact case of a pupil-teacher relationship?!

**Posted by Be** July 11, 2013 1:52 pm

besleybean wrote:
Surely the example you cited is an exact case of a pupil-teacher relationship?!

Can be read that way. He wants to please Holmes and was so happy when he finally found him on the moor.

Can't say how the stories were interpreted originally. If one is interested one can investigate. I am sure there is secondary literature to be found.
Anybody out there who knows that?

**Posted by SusiGo** July 11, 2013 2:18 pm

I think the "gay discussion" is quite new and may have been started or at least re-fuelled by Guy Ritchie's films showing a Holmes who's more than just a bit annoyed at losing Watson to a woman and trying everything to keep him for himself (although there's something between him and Irene as well). And of course by Sherlock.

I don't think that ACD consciously created them as a homosexual couple. He had two gay friends, Oscar Wilde and Sir Roger Casement, who both met a tragic fate, and is said to have regarded homosexuality as a sort of illness. So I don't think it likely that he consciously created heroes "suffering" from this "deviation". On the other hand we have those hints or clues or whatever you may call them that have been quoted here or somewhere else like this one:

"One day in early spring he (Holmes) had so far relaxed as to go for a walk with me in the Park, where the first faint shoots of green were breaking out upon the elms, and the sticky spearheads of the chestnuts were just beginning to burst into their fivefold leaves. For two hours we rambled about together, in silence for the most part, as befits two men who know each other intimately."

Leaving any botanical suggestions aside, of course the word "intimate" has several meanings but today for many people at once the sexual connotation may come to mind. The same goes for "ejaculate". This may be another reason for the increased interest in the nature of their friendship.

And what is the conclusion of all this? ACD did not write them as homosexual but being a writer myself I know it sometimes happens that people find things in my books I didn't put in there consciously.

Last edited by SusiGo (July 11, 2013 2:19 pm)