Episode 3.2, "The Sign of Three"

[Carol the Dabbler]

I see the justice in them not having to be clear one way or the other. That attitude makes sense to me. On the other hand, I feel like I'm being jerked around; that I'm being told one thing but shown another, then being laughed at for being gullible, no matter what I choose to believe (or not believe). I like to laugh at the show, but I don't appreciate having the show-makers laughing at me, if you see what I mean.

 

*sigh* I hate being annoyed with Moftiss, when they've brought me such a beautiful present. But I also hate being played for a fool, and sometimes that's how I feel, and not just on this issue, either. I guess the solution is get a life and not think so much about Sherlock; but darn it, where's the fun in that? I'd rather just growl at Moftiss.

I'd rather get a life AND think about Sherlock    though as you point out, that seems to entail a good bit of growling. I agree, it does often feel like they're laughing at us. I appreciate a truly clever surprise as much as the next viewer, but they seem to equate "fooling" us with equivocating and/or being inconsistent, which I find far more annoying than clever. (I've never been a fan of April Fool "jokes" either.) 

 

I agree with Jess that if this got turned into some sort of homosexual thing I would have to stop watching.  That would ruin it for me.  These two characters do not need to be together that way.  Men can and do have totally platonic and deep friendships.  They have best friends of the same sex.

 

I don't think Sherlock is gay or has gay tendencies.  He's a bit of a drama queen, but I think by HLV he has gotten a lot of that former childishness out of his system.  John has helped him to grow up.

I agree with most of what you said (thus the Like), but would like to mention my own opinions in a couple of matters. If the show ever does explicitly state that Sherlock and John are romantically / sexually attracted to each other (which I do not expect to happen), I will have to see just how they go about it. If they come up with some organic way of revealing it and integrating it, it might work. On the other hand, if they choose to make it into even more of a smarmy giggle-fest, then I'm definitely with you.

 

Also, I do not equate "gay" with "childish" -- though that may have been an accidental juxtaposition on your part.

 

Now, I think it makes a huge amount of sense that John would have issues with being gay. He must be in his forties, so he definitely grew up in a time when it was much worse than nowadays, and he probably got first hand experience of exactly how bad you can have it with his sister (Harry won't be an alcoholic for nothing). Then, he was in the military, and you can't tell me the military has a totally unproblematic attitude towards homosexuality. Of course a man like John would yell "I am not gay" at anybody who will listen. Not that I think he is, by the way. I think he isn't. But it just fits his characterization that this is important to him.

I agree. Sexual self-identification seems to be very important to many men (whereas many women seem more willing to take things on something of a case-by-case basis). I know that some think that John "doth protest too much," and is therefore proven to be gay (whether he knows it or not) -- but to me that seems too convoluted to hold water. People simply do not like being "accused" of being something they're not.

 

[Arcadia]

 

Don't young adults have apartment mates any more?  If not, how do they afford the rent?

You either have to move in with the opposite sex or live with your parents. See that's why people assuming things is so RUDE! People have dirty minds. But if you live with the opposite sex, it will  also be assumed that you're sleeping together, but you don't have to prove you're heterosexual... So it really is a no win situation. That's the problem when everything is Sex sex sex all the time. Our societies are so perverted! No one can think about human relations without including sex in thought somewhere. I really don't get it. I'd prefer to meet people & get their actual story, versus fantasizing about what's going on in their lives.

 

My niece got around the problem by moving in with an openly gay man.

 

I don't know if anyone's ever assumed I'm gay, but I know they've assumed a lot of other things about me that aren't true, and yeh, it's annoying as heck. I don't know what can be done about it, though, it's human nature to put people into easy-to-understand slots, I think. Most people don't mean it unkindly, in my experience; they're just not thinking. I'm sure I do it too sometimes; probably more than I realize, much to my chagrin. I hope when I do that people call me on it, though.

[T.o.b.y]

I don't know if anyone's ever assumed I'm gay, but I know they've assumed a lot of other things about me that aren't true, and yeh, it's annoying as heck. I don't know what can be done about it, though, it's human nature to put people into easy-to-understand slots, I think. Most people don't mean it unkindly, in my experience; they're just not thinking. I'm sure I do it too sometimes; probably more than I realize, much to my chagrin. I hope when I do that people call me on it, though.

 

... and that is part of why I absolutely love it when a fictional character doesn't fit into any slot. Like Sherlock. Sociopath? Not really. Normal? Not really either. Autistic? Doesn't fulfill enough criteria.  Gay? Who knows. Asexual? Not quite. Attracted to women then? Only Irene Adler so far, and she's far from ordinary, too.

 

Sherlock is just Sherlock. Another reason to love him. Sherlock, I love you. I know you don't care, just wanted to say it, you know...

 

 

[Arcadia]

.... I appreciate a truly clever surprise as much as the next viewer, but they seem to equate "fooling" us with equivocating and/or being inconsistent, which I find far more annoying than clever.

Precisely. It's cheating, and no one enjoys being cheated. Still ... must remind myself, it's a really wonderful show, it's a really wonderful show, it's a really wonderful show......

 

I know that some think that John "doth protest too much," and is therefore proven to be gay (whether he knows it or not) -- but to me that seems too convoluted to hold water. People simply do not like being "accused" of being something they're not.

Yes, let's at least do the man the courtesy of accepting him at his word. If he says he's not gay, that's the end of it, in my book. Beyond that point it's none of my business, anyway. (And yet I keep allowing myself to be lured into these conversations .... aghghghg, this show is ruining me!!! Must remind myself, it's a really wonderful show, it's a really wonderful show, it's a really wonderful show......)

[T.o.b.y]

There, we will have to agree to disagree. When I'm reading something that old, I prefer to be aware of the author's intent, and the sensibilities of the era s/he lived in, and not impose my modern sensibilities on it.

 

In general, I do too. But this is explicitly a modernized version of Sherlock. It's not (just) an adaptation, it's a modern transformation. And as such, I think it's genius, it really is, right down to the romance bit.

 

I've come to love the romance bit. I blame The Sign of Three for that (though I suspect I had a soft spot for it before). And I simply don't care any more whether it's a "bromance" of whether the "b" could be left out sooner or later. Whatever. It doesn't need a name. It's there and I like it, whatever it is, and I think it fits the original remarkably well. Seriously, who cares about Dr Watson's wives in the stories? Except for Miss Morstan, they don't even get names!

 

Mary is actually a huge improvement on the original character. The old Mary Morstan from "The Sign of the Four" is terribly boring, if you ask me. I've always suspected that either someone told Doyle he needed to write a love story in to make the book sell better, or he was concerned that people might "get ideas" about the men if he didn't invent women for them fast (Miss Adler came in the next story that he published after "The Sign of the Four"). Ms Abbington's Mary is so much more of a real person than the original.

 

P.S.: Apropos of nothing in particular: I don't believe in Watson's six wives, anyway. I think there were only two: Miss Morstan, and then another one in 1893, the same year that Holmes retired. Maybe being a detective just wasn't so much fun any more after he'd been "abandoned" again. (His choice of words, not mine!)

[jesskayding]

I think all the characters are a huge improvement on the originals. Maybe has to do, as others have previously mentioned on the forum, Doyle was in it strictly for the cash, the business of writing a story. Mark & Steve are doing it out of pure enjoyment.

[Carol the Dabbler]

Must remind myself, it's a really wonderful show, it's a really wonderful show, it's a really wonderful show......

... most of the time, most of the time, most of the time....

 

Doyle was in it strictly for the cash, the business of writing a story. Mark & Steve are doing it out of pure enjoyment.

I suspect that was a good bit of Doyle's motivation, yes -- not that there's anything wrong with that. We all have to earn a living, and he came up with some wonderful characters in the process.

 

By the way, I believe that Mr. Moffat generally goes by "Steven."  "Steve" would be Stephen Thompson.

 

[jesskayding]

Well ex- Kay - uuuuuuuuuuu - sssssss me. You & Mr. Moffat best friends or sumptin?

[Carol the Dabbler]

*ahem*  Not really!

 

It's just my inner INTP trying to keep everything neatly organized. 

 

[sfmpco]

 

Also, I do not equate "gay" with "childish" -- though that may have been an accidental juxtaposition on your part.

 

 

Definitely did not mean to link gay with childish.  Well, I never would in the first place, but I don't find Sherlock gay anyhow.  Childish at times, impulsive, sulky, morbid, OCD, lonely, ADHD... oh the labels could go on and on.

 

And yet John describes him as "most human, human being I have ever known."

 

By HLV Sherlock has learned to have and lose friends (because he has lost part of his friendship with John due to John's marriage).  He has put himself twice on the line for John's life.  AND he shows himself to be so much more mature as a commander and chief in HLV.  No more mucking about after getting shot.  He takes control of that situation with an iron fist.   I'm not sure ASIP Sherlock would have been quite so commandeering.

[T.o.b.y]

... because he has lost part of his friendship with John due to John's marriage...

 

I disagree (I love to disagree with people, don't take it personally... I'm usually the most grateful for posts I can heartily disagree with...). I think Sherlock lost whatever he lost due to his own stupid idea of going through with Mycroft's "Lazarus" plan (if indeed it was Mycroft's plan and Sherlock didn't just blame it on him in an attempt to get back into John's good graces, but it sounds exactly like something Mycroft would come up with) and then running around the world on his own for two years while John mourned his death, and then returning with the expectation that they could continue right where they had stopped. No friendship in the world could survive such a major betrayal of someone's trust and loyalty without taking at least some damage, marriage or no marriage.

 

And I think Sherlock realizes this. It's part of what makes The Sign of Three so sad, even though it's on the surface of it a very funny, happy, light-hearted episode. "I cannot congratulate you on your choice of companion - actually, now I can". That sums it up. Sherlock admits that in many respects and in the case of The Fall in particular, he's been a lousy friend, and the only excuse he has to offer for that is that he's lousy at being a human being in general, or, as he puts it, "the most unpleasant, rude, ignorant and all-round obnoxious arsehole that anyone could possibly have the misfortune to meet." (http://arianedevere.livejournal.com/65379.html).

 

But Mary is supposed to be better. Mary is supposed to be the choice John can be congratulated on. "She wasn't supposed to be like that". Well, sorry, boys. Trust John to find himself a wife who is actually a bad-ass killer and who has kept him in the dark about her true identity and her past, her real name, even. So while at the end of The Sign of Three, Sherlock walks off into the dark alone, leaving John to his better choice while he quietly takes drugs and slays dragons, His Last Vow has Sherlock realize further that because John is John and will continue to make John-like choices, he'll continue to need him, as will Mary. So he can't die. So he comes back. Because it's not just John who has to protect Sherlock from himself, sometimes, it works the other way round, too. John, it seems, will always find a way to get himself in trouble. This does not make either Mary's or Sherlock's lie in any way John's fault, but it does mean he'll probably never find someone to be truly congratulated on, so the two nut cases he did find might as well just do their best with him and stick around. I like that concept.

 

 

[Arcadia]

Oh, T.o.b.y, as usual you manage to find the diamond in the coal mine. That was lovely, thanks.

[Slithytove]

I suspect I am a lot older than most of you, and remember a time when "the love that dare not speak its name" really didn't dare, for fear of prison, discrimination and/or physical violence. Since those days, I've seen the development of Pride, the tragedy (and cruel gay-baiting comments) of the AIDS era, the introduction of civil partnerships and the legalisation of same-sex marriage, and the general acceptance of LGBT people as equal members of society. So I feel sad when people say they would stop watching if Sherlock & John were in a gay relationship. For God's sake, why?

 

Yes, of course most people in same-sex friendships aren't romantically involved. Ditto opposite-sex friendships. Yes, most of us have had dimwits assume our same-sex friend is our lover - and the same sort of dimwits will make the same assumption about our opposite-sex friend. So what? Who cares?

 

The point is, a great many films and tv shows are based around a man and a woman who are friends/colleagues but might also be attracted to each other. The "will-they-won't-they" of sexual attraction and the powerful emotions generated by unspoken love are old and popular fictional tropes and they are used all the time. Sometimes the desire is hinted at but left unexpressed, and sometimes it is declared and the characters become lovers - but how many people stop watching a show because the male and female leads begin a relationship? Damn few, I suspect. Not so when the lead characters are the same sex. That is why I think Johnlock will never be canon, because a large sector of the audience would vanish overnight.

 

Personally, I don't care whether Johnlock ever becomes canon or not. The assumption that Holmes and Watson are gay or bisexual is nearly as old as the characters themselves, and it has always made sense to me that Holmes loved Watson even if the good doctor was never aware of it, but I am perfectly happy to interpret Sherlock's behaviour as a deeply-repressed love for John. Conversely, in the unlikely event that it ever became canon, I would be delighted that a gay relationship was at the heart of a show that wasn't all about gay relationships - that it could be about a happily married crime fighting duo that happens to consist of two men. That would be progress, in my opinion.

[Janie]

I suspect I am a lot older than most of you, and remember a time when "the love that dare not speak its name" really didn't dare, for fear of prison, discrimination and/or physical violence. Since those days, I've seen the development of Pride, the tragedy (and cruel gay-baiting comments) of the AIDS era, the introduction of civil partnerships and the legalisation of same-sex marriage, and the general acceptance of LGBT people as equal members of society. So I feel sad when people say they would stop watching if Sherlock & John were in a gay relationship. For God's sake, why?

 

Yes, of course most people in same-sex friendships aren't romantically involved. Ditto opposite-sex friendships. Yes, most of us have had dimwits assume our same-sex friend is our lover - and the same sort of dimwits will make the same assumption about our opposite-sex friend. So what? Who cares?

 

The point is, a great many films and tv shows are based around a man and a woman who are friends/colleagues but might also be attracted to each other. The "will-they-won't-they" of sexual attraction and the powerful emotions generated by unspoken love are old and popular fictional tropes and they are used all the time. Sometimes the desire is hinted at but left unexpressed, and sometimes it is declared and the characters become lovers - but how many people stop watching a show because the male and female leads begin a relationship? Damn few, I suspect. Not so when the lead characters are the same sex. That is why I think Johnlock will never be canon, because a large sector of the audience would vanish overnight.

 

Personally, I don't care whether Johnlock ever becomes canon or not. The assumption that Holmes and Watson are gay or bisexual is nearly as old as the characters themselves, and it has always made sense to me that Holmes loved Watson even if the good doctor was never aware of it, but I am perfectly happy to interpret Sherlock's behaviour as a deeply-repressed love for John. Conversely, in the unlikely event that it ever became canon, I would be delighted that a gay relationship was at the heart of a show that wasn't all about gay relationships - that it could be about a happily married crime fighting duo that happens to consist of two men. That would be progress, in my opinion.

 

I don't think that any of us here has a problem with gay relationships on tv. The problem is that when there are two flatmates with the same sex, people automaticaly think they are gay even when they're not. If John and Sherlock had declared that they were gay right in the beginning and lived together as a couple, I think it would have been fine, at least for me. But I wouldn't like it if they did it now after John had said like thousand times that he wasn't gay and even got married to a woman. If he suddenly realized he was gay after all and fell in love with Sherlock who would suddenly find out that he loves John too more than just a friend... I don't know, it would look very cheap and for me it would degrade the show to a sappy soap opera.

[sfmpco]

No, Mrs. Hudson was right when she said "Marriage changes people."  It does and rightfully so.  So when I said that Sherlock lost part of his friendship with John when John got married, we see that happening in HLV.  At the start John hasn't heard from SH for a month... why hasn't John made contact?  If you hadn't heard from your best friend for a month, wouldn't you be making contact?  And SH didn't make contact even when John and Mary came back from their honeymoon although clearly he's been in contact with Mary "Mary and I think seven."  They are still best friends but their relationship has shifted, and Sherlock knows he doesn't fit in quite right anymore.  That was evident after his final deduction at the wedding dance.  John and Mary dance away together and he gives them one last smile like a blessing, and then comes to his senses and realizes he is alone in  room full of people, and he leaves.  

 

It isn't at all reasonable to expect John and Sherlock to maintain their level of friendship from before TRF.  John has moved on...literally... to be a couple with Mary.  It's a new type of best friendship that he didn't have before.  So... his friendship with Sherlock will take a back seat now to his marriage to Mary.  That's just the way it is, so that's what I mean by "loss."  That loss, however, is forcing Sherlock to grow, and one day when Mary is gone (from whatever), Sherlock's heart will have grown and matured enough to show the compassion and caring that John will so desperately need.  He may even have grown enough to be able to voice such sentiments.

[Bakerstreet Irregular]

Which he did in "The Adventure of The Empty House". One of the first things he does, well after scary Watson into a faint, he gives his condolences for Watson's recent bereavement. Supposedly Mary Watson's somehow no longer being with Watson hence Watson's quick recovery, his delight at the prospects of joining Holmes in a man hunt immediately and moving back in to 221b soon after.

[Carol the Dabbler]

... a great many films and tv shows are based around a man and a woman who are friends/colleagues but might also be attracted to each other. The "will-they-won't-they" of sexual attraction and the powerful emotions generated by unspoken love are old and popular fictional tropes and they are used all the time. Sometimes the desire is hinted at but left unexpressed, and sometimes it is declared and the characters become lovers - but how many people stop watching a show because the male and female leads begin a relationship? Damn few, I suspect.

True -- but they often do stop watching eventually, when the show goes downhill because that "will they or won't they" tension had been a key element of its appeal.  I personally like that bit of "are they or aren't they" humor and tension in Sherlock, though I'm reasonably certain that they're not.  Come to think of it, if I thought they really were sexually attracted to each other, I might find some of the humor to be in questionable taste, borderline gay-bashing.  Odd.

 

[Slithytove]

 

 

I suspect I am a lot older than most of you, and remember a time when "the love that dare not speak its name" really didn't dare, for fear of prison, discrimination and/or physical violence. Since those days, I've seen the development of Pride, the tragedy (and cruel gay-baiting comments) of the AIDS era, the introduction of civil partnerships and the legalisation of same-sex marriage, and the general acceptance of LGBT people as equal members of society. So I feel sad when people say they would stop watching if Sherlock & John were in a gay relationship. For God's sake, why?

 

Yes, of course most people in same-sex friendships aren't romantically involved. Ditto opposite-sex friendships. Yes, most of us have had dimwits assume our same-sex friend is our lover - and the same sort of dimwits will make the same assumption about our opposite-sex friend. So what? Who cares?

 

The point is, a great many films and tv shows are based around a man and a woman who are friends/colleagues but might also be attracted to each other. The "will-they-won't-they" of sexual attraction and the powerful emotions generated by unspoken love are old and popular fictional tropes and they are used all the time. Sometimes the desire is hinted at but left unexpressed, and sometimes it is declared and the characters become lovers - but how many people stop watching a show because the male and female leads begin a relationship? Damn few, I suspect. Not so when the lead characters are the same sex. That is why I think Johnlock will never be canon, because a large sector of the audience would vanish overnight.

 

Personally, I don't care whether Johnlock ever becomes canon or not. The assumption that Holmes and Watson are gay or bisexual is nearly as old as the characters themselves, and it has always made sense to me that Holmes loved Watson even if the good doctor was never aware of it, but I am perfectly happy to interpret Sherlock's behaviour as a deeply-repressed love for John. Conversely, in the unlikely event that it ever became canon, I would be delighted that a gay relationship was at the heart of a show that wasn't all about gay relationships - that it could be about a happily married crime fighting duo that happens to consist of two men. That would be progress, in my opinion.

I don't think that any of us here has a problem with gay relationships on tv. The problem is that when there are two flatmates with the same sex, people automaticaly think they are gay even when they're not. If John and Sherlock had declared that they were gay right in the beginning and lived together as a couple, I think it would have been fine, at least for me. But I wouldn't like it if they did it now after John had said like thousand times that he wasn't gay and even got married to a woman. If he suddenly realized he was gay after all and fell in love with Sherlock who would suddenly find out that he loves John too more than just a friend... I don't know, it would look very cheap and for me it would degrade the show to a sappy soap opera.

I think that flatmates of the opposite sex would face the same assumption, perhaps even more frequently than same-sex friends. Why would it be better if gay characters declared their orientation from the beginning? Why can't their relationships develop gradually over time like other people's? For a start, they might not be attracted to each other in the beginning. Or they might be unsure of the other person's feelings. Or one of them might have a stronger attraction than the other. Or one of them - or both - might be shy. Or might have unresolved issues about their sexuality - it does happen, even to adults who have been in different types of relationships.

 

There are a great many reasons why two people's relationship might develop gradually and I don't see anything cheap or soap-opera-ish about it. People can and do fall in love, over time, with their friends. It happens with men and women, so why not with two men? What is cheap about that?

[Slithytove]

 

... a great many films and tv shows are based around a man and a woman who are friends/colleagues but might also be attracted to each other. The "will-they-won't-they" of sexual attraction and the powerful emotions generated by unspoken love are old and popular fictional tropes and they are used all the time. Sometimes the desire is hinted at but left unexpressed, and sometimes it is declared and the characters become lovers - but how many people stop watching a show because the male and female leads begin a relationship? Damn few, I suspect.

True -- but they often do stop watching eventually, when the show goes downhill because that "will they or won't they" tension had been a key element of its appeal. I personally like that bit of "aUre they or aren't they" humor and tension in Sherlock, though I'm reasonably certain that they're not. Come to think of it, if I thought they really were sexually attracted to each other, I might find some of the humor to be in questionable taste, borderline gay-bashing. Odd.

Sorry, have to quote individually. Frightened of Multiquote.

 

I agree that sometimes the vigour goes out of a narrative when the sexual t.ension is resolved. Not always, though. With good writers and good actors - and I think we can agree Sherlock's got both - a passionate relationship at the heart of a story can add depth and richness.

 

Never going to happen, though. Too many of the audience won't accept it, when the lovers are both men, particularly iconic men such as Holmes & Watson.

[T.o.b.y]

I suspect I am a lot older than most of you, and remember a time when "the love that dare not speak its name" really didn't dare, for fear of prison, discrimination and/or physical violence. Since those days, I've seen the development of Pride, the tragedy (and cruel gay-baiting comments) of the AIDS era, the introduction of civil partnerships and the legalisation of same-sex marriage, and the general acceptance of LGBT people as equal members of society. So I feel sad when people say they would stop watching if Sherlock & John were in a gay relationship. For God's sake, why?

 

I'm sorry, I can't tell you why. I wonder about the same thing, actually. I mean, I don't want them to become a regular couple myself, I don't want Sherlock Holmes in any kind of a regular romantic relationship with anybody because I feel it would be terribly opposed to the concept of his character, but I doubt I'd stop watching the series if they hooked him up with someone. It would depend a lot on how that was written and acted.

 

My only real objection to making the boys a fully-fledged pair of lovers is that somehow that would make it all too simple. I like the way their relationship doesn't really fit in any category. It's... whatever. Best friends. With a twist. Of something. It's pretty tempestuous whatever it is. Romantic at times, yeah. Or at least almost. I don't know. I don't want a definite answer. I love things in fiction that are unique, that you can't explain with one word or sentence. I like having to look closely, to analyze, speculate, interpret. I don't usually look for general statements in books or films (for example, I still maintain that "Brokeback Mountain" was not a film about being gay, but about two men who were unable to be happy because of the way they were raised and the way their minds worked, and I also don't think "Juno" was trying to make a statement about teen pregnancies in general, or a pro-life statement, or whatever.)

 

No, Mrs. Hudson was right when she said "Marriage changes people."  It does and rightfully so.  So when I said that Sherlock lost part of his friendship with John when John got married, we see that happening in HLV.  At the start John hasn't heard from SH for a month... why hasn't John made contact?

 

Who knows? Well, I guess first he was away on his honeymoon. And then when he came back, there was probably a lot to catch up with at work, and I doubt Sherlock approached him in any way, seeing as he was busy taking drugs "for a case", and if John caught wind of that too soon, the fun would be over. Come to think of it, Sherlock might even have avoided contact, not returned calls, etc, although I still maintain that at least part of him wanted to be found in the drug den, and be scolded and fussed over by John and Molly and everybody. I mean, why else say hello to John when he came there?

 

Never going to happen, though. Too many of the audience won't accept it, when the lovers are both men, particularly iconic men such as Holmes & Watson.

 

*Sigh* I'm afraid you're right. Somehow, "gay" still reads as an insult to a depressing number of people out there (just listen to kids on an average playground). And even those who think they "have no problem with it" (that in itself is kind of a problematic statement), are in general far from amused if you suggest somebody might be gay whom they don't know explicitly as a "gay person".

 

We could definitely use more and more diverse portrayals of gay relationships in the media. I'm just not sure I want these two characters, of all those out there, to fight that battle, especially if it'd be at the cost of what they have at present. It's a bit like I don't feel the need for Irene Adler to represent feminist ideals. I guess I'd rather see some changes in real life, the stories will follow that eventually... Some day.

[Slithytove]

I agree that the subtle aspects of John and Sherlock's relationship are intriguing, and I'm personally happy with the way it's treated at the moment - open to interpretation, complex and interesting, with the occasional hint that there might be more to the friendship than is ever expressed by either man. I'm just saddened by some of the reactions to the whole idea of Johnlock, to the extent of some rejecting the programme altogether if the characters were in a gay relationship. In some ways it seems to be true that it is " always 1895", at least where anything other than vanilla heterosexuality is concerned.

[T.o.b.y]

 

No, Mrs. Hudson was right when she said "Marriage changes people."  It does and rightfully so.  So when I said that Sherlock lost part of his friendship with John when John got married, we see that happening in HLV.  At the start John hasn't heard from SH for a month... why hasn't John made contact?

 

Who knows? Well, I guess first he was away on his honeymoon. And then when he came back, there was probably a lot to catch up with at work, and I doubt Sherlock approached him in any way, seeing as he was busy taking drugs "for a case", and if John caught wind of that too soon, the fun would be over. Come to think of it, Sherlock might even have avoided contact, not returned calls, etc, although I still maintain that at least part of him wanted to be found in the drug den, and be scolded and fussed over by John and Molly and everybody. I mean, why else say hello to John when he came there?

 

Quoting myself, yay! But it just occurred to me that there could be more to this, so here I go on babbling (forgive, long hard day and this is how I unwind...):

 

One of the examples for why I don't think "best friends" quite describes John and Sherlock, is that I can't really imagine either of them contacting the other without a specific reason, usually case-related. Now, I don't need a reason to call my best friend, or to want to meet her. I just like her voice and her company, and I miss her sometimes, and that's all fine and good. I used to think men in general had a problem with this, but my husband and his mates will just chat or visit each other for no specific reason as well, even if they might not openly say "I missed you" or something like that. Can you imagine John just calling Sherlock and asking what's up? Can you imagine them going out for a drink on a regular basis? Meeting just to see each other? I can't. While they were still living together, of course they must have spent a lot of time in each other's company, but the only real interaction they had seems to have been while solving crimes. I can also easily imagine Sherlock being quite brusque and forbidding when he doesn't feel like talking or so much as recognizing the other person in the room, and something tells me John might have learned to leave him alone unless his company is specifically asked for. So if Sherlock didn't text him with some insane demand after he returned with Mary, it's not surprising John didn't go to any great lengths to see him. He probably assumed he wasn't wanted or needed. Sherlock just strikes me as that kind of person.

 

(Yeah, I know John assumed nothing at all, because he doesn't really exist. But F*** that. He exists to me, as do Sherlock and all of them )

 

 

 

I agree that the subtle aspects of John and Sherlock's relationship are intriguing, and I'm personally happy with the way it's treated at the moment - open to interpretation, complex and interesting, with the occasional hint that there might be more to the friendship than is ever expressed by either man. I'm just saddened by some of the reactions to the whole idea of Johnlock, to the extent of some rejecting the programme altogether if the characters were in a gay relationship. In some ways it seems to be true that it is " always 1895", at least where anything other than vanilla heterosexuality is concerned.

 

Yeah, but it is slowly getting better and better. I think. I hope...

[Janie]

 

 

 

I suspect I am a lot older than most of you, and remember a time when "the love that dare not speak its name" really didn't dare, for fear of prison, discrimination and/or physical violence. Since those days, I've seen the development of Pride, the tragedy (and cruel gay-baiting comments) of the AIDS era, the introduction of civil partnerships and the legalisation of same-sex marriage, and the general acceptance of LGBT people as equal members of society. So I feel sad when people say they would stop watching if Sherlock & John were in a gay relationship. For God's sake, why?

 

Yes, of course most people in same-sex friendships aren't romantically involved. Ditto opposite-sex friendships. Yes, most of us have had dimwits assume our same-sex friend is our lover - and the same sort of dimwits will make the same assumption about our opposite-sex friend. So what? Who cares?

 

The point is, a great many films and tv shows are based around a man and a woman who are friends/colleagues but might also be attracted to each other. The "will-they-won't-they" of sexual attraction and the powerful emotions generated by unspoken love are old and popular fictional tropes and they are used all the time. Sometimes the desire is hinted at but left unexpressed, and sometimes it is declared and the characters become lovers - but how many people stop watching a show because the male and female leads begin a relationship? Damn few, I suspect. Not so when the lead characters are the same sex. That is why I think Johnlock will never be canon, because a large sector of the audience would vanish overnight.

 

Personally, I don't care whether Johnlock ever becomes canon or not. The assumption that Holmes and Watson are gay or bisexual is nearly as old as the characters themselves, and it has always made sense to me that Holmes loved Watson even if the good doctor was never aware of it, but I am perfectly happy to interpret Sherlock's behaviour as a deeply-repressed love for John. Conversely, in the unlikely event that it ever became canon, I would be delighted that a gay relationship was at the heart of a show that wasn't all about gay relationships - that it could be about a happily married crime fighting duo that happens to consist of two men. That would be progress, in my opinion.

I don't think that any of us here has a problem with gay relationships on tv. The problem is that when there are two flatmates with the same sex, people automaticaly think they are gay even when they're not. If John and Sherlock had declared that they were gay right in the beginning and lived together as a couple, I think it would have been fine, at least for me. But I wouldn't like it if they did it now after John had said like thousand times that he wasn't gay and even got married to a woman. If he suddenly realized he was gay after all and fell in love with Sherlock who would suddenly find out that he loves John too more than just a friend... I don't know, it would look very cheap and for me it would degrade the show to a sappy soap opera.

I think that flatmates of the opposite sex would face the same assumption, perhaps even more frequently than same-sex friends. Why would it be better if gay characters declared their orientation from the beginning? Why can't their relationships develop gradually over time like other people's? For a start, they might not be attracted to each other in the beginning. Or they might be unsure of the other person's feelings. Or one of them might have a stronger attraction than the other. Or one of them - or both - might be shy. Or might have unresolved issues about their sexuality - it does happen, even to adults who have been in different types of relationships.

 

There are a great many reasons why two people's relationship might develop gradually and I don't see anything cheap or soap-opera-ish about it. People can and do fall in love, over time, with their friends. It happens with men and women, so why not with two men? What is cheap about that?

Well, that's not exactly what I meant. I don't want Sherlock to become a show about romantic relationships. And it doesn't matter if it would be a relationship between two men or between a man and a woman. Yes I know that it is primarily about relationship between Sherlock and John and I love their friendship the way it is now. If they became a couple it would lose it's uniqueness and become boring.

[Arcadia]

.... Why would it be better if gay characters declared their orientation from the beginning? Why can't their relationships develop gradually over time like other people's?... People can and do fall in love, over time, with their friends. It happens with men and women, so why not with two men? What is cheap about that?

I don't think Janie is saying the relationship would be cheap; it's the scripts that would be cheap. Let's turn it around -- If one of the two flatmates of opposite sex kept saying "We're not a couple, because I'm gay" -- but eventually it turns out that character is actually straight, and the two fall in love -- wouldn't you feel the writers had pulled a bit of a cheap trick? That's sort of the way I feel about John & Sherlock ... John insists he's not gay. He's in a sexual relationship with a woman. If it turns out later he actually IS gay, to me I'm afraid it will just seem like another trick. Another chance for Moftiss to say "gotcha!"

 

I'm not one who would stop watching the show just because they were revealed to be gay, but I might stop watching if I feel like I'm being jerked around too often. (If you've seen "Lost', that's a good example of what I mean.) I suppose they could come up with a storyline where John gradually realizes he's been mistaken about his own sexuality all along, but I agree with Janie; that sounds like soap opera to me. Not sure I'd want to watch it.

 

BTW, I don't know the numbers, but I've seen where people say that if Sherlock becomes romantically involved with a woman they will quit watching the show. I don't find that to be a much better reason to stop watching, but...

[Janie]

 

.... Why would it be better if gay characters declared their orientation from the beginning? Why can't their relationships develop gradually over time like other people's?... People can and do fall in love, over time, with their friends. It happens with men and women, so why not with two men? What is cheap about that?

I don't think Janie is saying the relationship would be cheap; it's the scripts that would be cheap. Let's turn it around -- If one of the two flatmates of opposite sex kept saying "We're not a couple, because I'm gay" -- but eventually it turns out that character is actually straight, and the two fall in love -- wouldn't you feel the writers had pulled a bit of a cheap trick? That's sort of the way I feel about John & Sherlock ... John insists he's not gay. He's in a sexual relationship with a woman. If it turns out later he actually IS gay, to me I'm afraid it will just seem like another trick. Another chance for Moftiss to say "gotcha!"

 

I'm not one who would stop watching the show just because they were revealed to be gay, but I might stop watching if I feel like I'm being jerked around too often. (If you've seen "Lost', that's a good example of what I mean.) I suppose they could come up with a storyline where John gradually realizes he's been mistaken about his own sexuality all along, but I agree with Janie; that sounds like soap opera to me. Not sure I'd want to watch it.

Yes, exactly. Apart from my issues with Sherlock becoming a show about romantic relationships this would be my even bigger problem. The writers and the actors said several times that the characters were not gay. I know Mofftiss are liars but I really hope they didn't lie about this because I would take it as cheating on the audiance.