Episode 3.2, "The Sign of Three"

[Slithytove]

A piece of fiction which is not primarily concerned with a romantic relationship, but does feature a developing romance, doesn't have to be boring. It depends entirely on the quality and originality of the writing. In my opinion, the writing talent behind the creation of Sherlock is strong enough to produce a fresh and exciting storyline if they did decide to include a love story between their main characters - not that I think they ever will, for reasons already stated. Of course, it also requires brilliant acting, but I think we can take that for granted.

 

As for the idea that a character can't suddenly change his feelings about his own sexuality, without it seeming like a cheap trick....Well, it happens all the time in reality. People decide to stop denying aspects of themselves, or they discover new aspects they had not previously experienced. Sexual orientation isn't set in stone. I've already cited the example of my friend Anthony, who was so deeply in denial about his homosexuality that he was in a heterosexual marriage for several years, and had two kids, before coming out. He is now happily married to Rupert ( his ex-wife also remarried, I'm glad to say) and now speaks as if he finds the idea of sex with a woman unthinkable. For him, coming out as gay after years of denial wasn't a cheap soap opera twist, it was real life. It does happen.

 

There are also a great many people who indeed are not gay, but they are not straight either. Why shouldn't John be bisexual? In fact, why shouldn't Sherlock? Maybe he was attracted to both Irene and John. Why not? Human sexuality is vast and varied, not one-size-fits-all. You don't have to sign up for heterosexuality and never be allowed to change.

 

Above all, is there any reason why John couldn't be telling the truth when he says he is isn't gay, because he doesn't see himself as a man attracted to his own gender, but still be in love with Sherlock - just because Sherlock is Sherlock? Irene makes this point when she suggests that John as a straight man is, like herself as a gay woman, drawn to Sherlock. I find it very easy to believe that someone as unique as Sherlock - as brilliant and beautiful - could be charismatic enough to enchant people who do not normally identify as attracted to men.

 

I'm perfectly happy if Johnlock never becomes canon and Sherlock remains, as T.o.b.y. suggests, a complex, solitary character. I would be equally happy - though incredibly surprised! - if it was canon and the writers took us through all the passion and the chaos, the joys and the pain, of sex and love between two difficult, unpredictable and strong-willed people. It could be fascinating.... But it's never going to happen.

[Bakerstreet Irregular]

I agree that the people here on the Forum are mature and level headed and for the most part have little or no problem at all in accepting tthat being gay should never have become a problem. Mark Gatiss is openly gay and his partner has been on the show. You can't rule the heart and love is hardly if ever rational. Just ask the policeman who has to deal with the battered wife or girlfriend who suddenly decides that she must defend her abuser because she loves him. But any kind of sexual goings-on, at least in my mind, to keep a show like Sherlock interesting and vital, should be allowed to stay in the bedroom. As Toby has said, many times, we really don't need to be playing the peeping Toms or the after solved case voyeurs.

 

People also realize, I think, that headcanon also has a way of taking on a life of its own. People are going to develop an interpretation and that's fine. Unfortunately this particular version has been used in a way that is not loving nor respectful to the characters nor the show. Most if not all of us witnessed the video were a piece was used to hurt and publicly embarrass and humiliate not only an author but the cast as well.

 

I am not saying that people should not put their thoughts and feelings on a public forum. I enjoy reading and writing fan fiction and the world should be free to do the same. We just need to be aware that it can come back to bite us. Sadly and unfortunately.

[Arcadia]

I guess for me it comes down to ... it seems to me that terms like "attracted to", "drawn to", "enchanted by" have all become innuendo for "sexual desire for." (I'm not saying that's what you mean, Slithytove -- just in general usage, it seems to be getting that way). Several of us on this forum have said this already, but everything's become sexualized. I can't say I like someone without someone else assuming that means I want to jump in the sack with him/her. It hurts, because I'm not like that.

 

So in Sherlock, when John says "Yeah, you're my best friend," it bothers me when he's not taken at his word. That this simple declaration of love is not considered sufficient to describe his feelings for Sherlock. Because, yeah, anyone THAT close must have sexual tension between them.

 

To me that devalues friendship, relegates it to people who greet each other at the office. To be genuinely close to someone, these days, so often seems to mean that you lust after them. Some of my friendships are the most valued relationships I have; sex doesn't need to play a factor in them in order for me to feel that way, but the entertainment industry, at least, increasingly seems to be telling me I'm "wrong" for believing that. So, yeah, I bite back a bit, because that's not my life experience.

 

That doesn't mean that I object to sexual love where it exists. I just don't think every love has to be sexual love, or even romantic love.

 

And by the way, I'm not claiming that's what any of you are saying either; I'm just following my thoughts about this in a general way, using this forum as my platform. I think maybe I'd better shut up now.

[jesskayding]

Just because it's showing others are currently reading this thread, I would like advise. 

 

Ok, so I was setting up a date with this guy. The plan is to meet at my favorite coffee shop. My friends call me a coffee snob, because I love it and have a really good & trained palate when it comes to coffee.

 

Well in the beginning he made me feel that coffee was something he was really into, not only that he's a playwright & stand-up comedian, so it makes sense that he would be into coffee. Most performing & visual artists are. Well we are setting a time for our date, then I start to talk about how I can show him how I was taught to drink coffee & how I fell in love with drinking it black, because of this method. He was like Naaaaaah, I'll put my sugar & cream in mine thank you... I will NEVER be as passionate about coffee as you are. 

 

That really bothered me... the phrasing Never ( This coming from the mouth of a writer, he understands the gravity of words. ), it made me feel like:

1.) Why wouldn't he do that with me. Just let me show him a little demonstration.

2.) I felt like his comment inferred that he felt my love of coffee is silly & a little frivolous.

 

So now I want to cancel the date or have it somewhere else.

 

What do you all think? Am I being too sensitive?... I don't know.

 

[Bakerstreet Irregular]

 

So in Sherlock, when John says "Yeah, you're my best friend," it bothers me when he's not taken at his word. That this simple declaration of love is not considered sufficient to describe his feelings for Sherlock. Because, yeah, anyone THAT close must have sexual tension between them.

 

To me that devalues friendship, relegates it to people who greet each other at the office. To be genuinely close to someone, these days, so often seems to mean that you lust after them. Some of my friendships are the most valued relationships I have; sex doesn't need to play a factor in them in order for me to feel that way, but the entertainment industry, at least, increasingly seems to be telling me I'm "wrong" for believing that. So, yeah, I bite back a bit, because that's not my life experience.

 

  Exactly. I have friends that I have known for over 20 years and they still hug like it's mandatory not a free and warm feeling. In fact, I think in a way, in the realm of "Sherlock" John and Sherlock are a lot freer in expressing a close friendship and bonding then a lot of people in the same situation in the real world.

 

 

That really bothered me... the phrasing Never ( This coming from the mouth of a writer, he understands the gravity of words. ), it made me feel like:

1.) Why wouldn't he do that with me. Just let me show him a little demonstration.

2.) I felt like his comment inferred that he felt my love of coffee is silly & a little frivolous.

 

So now I want to cancel the date or have it somewhere else.

 

What do you all think? Am I being too sensitive?... I don't know.

 

  See? Case in point.

[jesskayding]

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 said exactly why I would stop watching. I implore you to read my post in it's entirety & you will see has nothing to do with gay bashing. I was really detailed & even mentioned had no problem with gay relationships on television. Also posted another comment about how the writers would really need to explain or pretty rewrite the entire show. I was detailed about that as well. I am not into politics when it comes to entertainment.

[jesskayding]

 

That really bothered me... the phrasing Never ( This coming from the mouth of a writer, he understands the gravity of words. ), it made me feel like:

1.) Why wouldn't he do that with me. Just let me show him a little demonstration.

2.) I felt like his comment inferred that he felt my love of coffee is silly & a little frivolous.

 

So now I want to cancel the date or have it somewhere else.

 

What do you all think? Am I being too sensitive?... I don't know.

 

  See? Case in point.

 

 

 

Case in point

[Carol the Dabbler]

Why couldn't John be gay?  Well, of course he could be.  Why couldn't he be bi?  Yes, he could be that.

 

But by the same token, why couldn't he be straight?  He seems to think he is, so who am I to argue?

 

[Arcadia]

Just because it's showing others are currently reading this thread, I would like advise. 

 

Ok, so I was setting up a date with this guy. The plan is to meet at my favorite coffee shop. My friends call me a coffee snob, because I love it and have a really good & trained palate when it comes to coffee.

 

Well in the beginning he made me feel that coffee was something he was really into, not only that he's a playwright & stand-up comedian, so it makes sense that he would be into coffee. Most performing & visual artists are. Well we are setting a time for our date, then I start to talk about how I can show him how I was taught to drink coffee & how I fell in love with drinking it black, because of this method. He was like Naaaaaah, I'll put my sugar & cream in mine thank you... I will NEVER be as passionate about coffee as you are. 

 

That really bothered me... the phrasing Never ( This coming from the mouth of a writer, he understands the gravity of words. ), it made me feel like:

1.) Why wouldn't he do that with me. Just let me show him a little demonstration.

2.) I felt like his comment inferred that he felt my love of coffee is silly & a little frivolous.

 

So now I want to cancel the date or have it somewhere else.

 

What do you all think? Am I being too sensitive?... I don't know.

Alas, I'm afraid all I have to offer is "go with your gut." That probably wouldn't be a deal changer for me, but I'm not you ... and only you know what kind of vibes you're getting from this guy. That's not very helpful of me, is it? But dating advice is definitely not one of my strong suites, I wouldn't listen to anything I have to say on the matter!

[Slithytove]

Why couldn't John be gay? Well, of course he could be. Why couldn't he be bi? Yes, he could be that.

 

But by the same token, why couldn't he be straight? He seems to think he is, so who am I to argue?

Of course. That John could be straight goes without saying. However, my comment was a response to the people who insist that he can't be gay because he says he isn't. I was just pointing out that some people have problems coming to terms with their sexuality, others haven't worked it out yet, and others are bi. And some just fall in love with one special person whom they love so much that gender ceases to matter. Sometimes the heart wants what it wants.

 

As for the right to argue.....Well, Sherlock keeps saying he's a sociopath but most of us don't take him at his word!

[jesskayding]

Arcadia, I did just that. I went with my gut.

[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 said exactly why I would stop watching. I implore you to read my post in it's entirety & you will see has nothing to do with gay bashing. I was really detailed & even mentioned had no problem with gay relationships on television. Also posted another comment about how the writers would really need to explain or pretty rewrite the entire show. I was detailed about that as well. I am not into politics when it comes to entertainment.

Certainly I wouldn't expect the people on this forum to be homophobic. I would be disappointed if my expectations were proved wrong.

 

I did read your post, and the other comments regarding the unacceptability of Johnlock becoming part of the show, and it does sadden me that anyone feels they would stop watching if it featured a gay relationship between John and Sherlock. Sometimes I feel we haven't made as much progress over the years as we like to imagine, when same-sex relationships are still regarded as more controversial than heterosexual ones, in mainstream culture.

 

There is absolutely no reason why a show that starts with a friendship between two apparently straight men cannot develop that relationship into a romance, without any need to apologise, explain, re-write or whatever. (Incidentally, I don't think Sherlock does appear to be particularly straight, but that's just my opinion.). One of the strengths of fiction is that it can be full of twists and turns and it can take us anywhere. If it is well done, it can surprise us and yet seem right, and not out of character.

 

Several people have said they object to sexuality being introduced into stories which do not originally contain it. In my opinion, it is such a significant part of people's lives that it would seem strange to wholly exclude it. That doesn't mean that the storylines have to be explicit. After all, we don't see any sexual activity between John and Mary - not even much kissing - but I think we can safely assume they are intimate with one another. I would be extremely surprised (to put it mildly!) if the show ever included explicit sexual behaviour between John and Sherlock. In the unlikely event of Johnlock becoming canon, the relationship between the two men needn't be any more graphic than the love between Mary and John.

 

I know that people will say that their main objection would be to the sexualisation of a platonic friendship. Maybe it wouldn't be to everyone's taste - storylines do go off at angles which we don't always like. (John forgiving Mary for harming Sherlock....need I say more? Still grinding my teeth over that one!). But, to be frank, I don't think people would be reacting so strongly if we were talking about a straight relationship.

 

If Sherlock became seriously involved with Janine or Molly or Irene, lots of viewers wouldn't like it because it interferes with their view of him as an asexual loner ( or, as far as we Johnlockers are concerned, a gay man in love with someone else) but how many people would stop watching? Really? If Sherlock Holmes in Elementary started sleeping with Joan Watson, a lot of people might say " Hey, Sherlock wouldn't do that" ( though it's made clear that this version of Holmes is sexually active) but would people turn off their tvs? Would the gut reaction against the relationship be so strong? To be honest, I doubt it.

[T.o.b.y]

Oh, the joys of multiquote... (It's really not that hard, once you get the hang of it, but it took me for ever to figure out).

 

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...

 

I am afraid I once said something like that myself... I seriously considered skipping A Scandal in Belgravia when the second season came out. I'm so glad I didn't! Meanwhile, I've come to trust the actors so much that I'd give almost any plot twist a chance (and then a second chance) before I'd decide to call it quits. Series 3 was so full of things I'd have loudly rejected on paper, but that I liked fine once I'd seen them a few times on screen.

 

As for the idea that a character can't suddenly change his feelings about his own sexuality, without it seeming like a cheap trick....Well, it happens all the time in reality. People decide to stop denying aspects of themselves, or they discover new aspects they had not previously experienced. Sexual orientation isn't set in stone.

 

No, it is not! Definitely not. And the issue is further complicated by cultural influences. How is a person to find out what he / she really wants, when his / her surroundings have certain expectations? When categories like "normal" / "straight" / "gay" are so firmly implanted in our minds? While people who are gay (or labeled as gay) are so often defined by that characteristic alone? It's hard!

 

People also realize, I think, that headcanon also has a way of taking on a life of its own. People are going to develop an interpretation and that's fine. Unfortunately this particular version has been used in a way that is not loving nor respectful to the characters nor the show.

 

Really? Wow, there must be even worse fan fiction out there than I've come across (and by now, I've seen some pretty, uh, bold work). I never noticed anything that was in any way nasty. Often, I do ask myself, how does one come up with this? But it's usually very loving (in more senses than one).

 

That doesn't mean that I object to sexual love where it exists. I just don't think every love has to be sexual love, or even romantic love.
 
And by the way, I'm not claiming that's what any of you are saying either; I'm just following my thoughts about this in a general way, using this forum as my platform. I think maybe I'd better shut up now.

 

No, don't. I like your thought process. Do please carry on. And I fully agree on what you say above about love and sex. It's kind of hard to understand why some people can't imagine love without sexual attraction, though. I mean, don't we all love our families? Nobody expects us to sleep or want to sleep with our parents or siblings (except maybe for Mr Freud, but he is dead and good riddance, if you ask me).

 

I would like to point out, though, that there is an "in between". There are friendships / relationships that are not really sexual but where physical attraction does lurk around the corner somewhere, and is never fully acknowledged nor completely ignored.

 

As for the right to argue.....Well, Sherlock keeps saying he's a sociopath but most of us don't take him at his word!

 

Very good point, I must say!

 

If Sherlock became seriously involved with Janine or Molly or Irene, lots of viewers wouldn't like it because it interferes with their view of him as an asexual loner ( or, as far as we Johnlockers are concerned, a gay man in love with someone else) but how many people would stop watching? Really? If Sherlock Holmes in Elementary started sleeping with Joan Watson, a lot of people might say " Hey, Sherlock wouldn't do that" ( though it's made clear that this version of Holmes is sexually active) but would people turn off their tvs? Would the gut reaction against the relationship be so strong? To be honest, I doubt it.

 

You are probably right. Often, the proclaimed acceptance of gay relationships is nothing more than the announcement of a willingness to try and be more accepting. People don't necessarily want to think it strange, but they still do. Heck, even I still do, probably. I know I turn around and stare after men holding hands in spite of myself. It's not normal to us, yet. But it will be. Some day. I hope.

[Slithytove]

I used to be very patronising about fan fiction until I started reading some of the Sherlock stuff on archiveofourown.org and realised some of it was very well written. Of course, it varies in quality - some people have more enthusiasm than talent - but some is very good indeed. Some is slash, some isn't, some is explicit and some isn't, and some stories take the boys into areas ACD never imagined. (Vampires? Angels? Werewolves?) Anyway, I've read very, very few stories - and I've read a lot - which I would consider to be written to demean the characters or hurt any of the people involved in the show.

 

If anything, the fault lies in the other direction. Many people who write Johnlock clearly adore both characters and tend to give Sherlock's character a sweetness and tenderness not found in the onscreen portrayal. I'd say that Sherlock does seem to be a man who hides his vulnerability under a facade of rudeness and indifference, but the fanfic Sherlock is sometimes a bit too tearful and a bit too lovey-dovey to be in character. Doesn't put me off - only bad writing does that - but it makes me smile, thinking "Somehow I can't imagine Sherlock being so nice...."

[jesskayding]

 

 

 

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 said exactly why I would stop watching. I implore you to read my post in it's entirety & you will see has nothing to do with gay bashing. I was really detailed & even mentioned had no problem with gay relationships on television. Also posted another comment about how the writers would really need to explain or pretty rewrite the entire show. I was detailed about that as well. I am not into politics when it comes to entertainment.

Certainly I wouldn't expect the people on this forum to be homophobic. I would be disappointed if my expectations were proved wrong.

 

I did read your post, and the other comments regarding the unacceptability of Johnlock becoming part of the show, and it does sadden me that anyone feels they would stop watching if it featured a gay relationship between John and Sherlock. Sometimes I feel we haven't made as much progress over the years as we like to imagine, when same-sex relationships are still regarded as more controversial than heterosexual ones, in mainstream culture.

 

There is absolutely no reason why a show that starts with a friendship between two apparently straight men cannot develop that relationship into a romance, without any need to apologise, explain, re-write or whatever. (Incidentally, I don't think Sherlock does appear to be particularly straight, but that's just my opinion.). One of the strengths of fiction is that it can be full of twists and turns and it can take us anywhere. If it is well done, it can surprise us and yet seem right, and not out of character.

 

Several people have said they object to sexuality being introduced into stories which do not originally contain it. In my opinion, it is such a significant part of people's lives that it would seem strange to wholly exclude it. That doesn't mean that the storylines have to be explicit. After all, we don't see any sexual activity between John and Mary - not even much kissing - but I think we can safely assume they are intimate with one another. I would be extremely surprised (to put it mildly!) if the show ever included explicit sexual behaviour between John and Sherlock. In the unlikely event of Johnlock becoming canon, the relationship between the two men needn't be any more graphic than the love between Mary and John.

 

I know that people will say that their main objection would be to the sexualisation of a platonic friendship. Maybe it wouldn't be to everyone's taste - storylines do go off at angles which we don't always like. (John forgiving Mary for harming Sherlock....need I say more? Still grinding my teeth over that one!). But, to be frank, I don't think people would be reacting so strongly if we were talking about a straight relationship.

 

If Sherlock became seriously involved with Janine or Molly or Irene, lots of viewers wouldn't like it because it interferes with their view of him as an asexual loner ( or, as far as we Johnlockers are concerned, a gay man in love with someone else) but how many people would stop watching? Really? If Sherlock Holmes in Elementary started sleeping with Joan Watson, a lot of people might say " Hey, Sherlock wouldn't do that" ( though it's made clear that this version of Holmes is sexually active) but would people turn off their tvs? Would the gut reaction against the relationship be so strong? To be honest, I doubt it.

 

And just so all can be clear... I would be just as upset if friends on a television show, started off gay then decided to be straight. The story then becomes about the sexuality of the characters & takes from the story. Also I believed I "liked" a post of Carol's, where she commented on the inappropriateness of speculating on heterosexual relationships as well.

 

I love Sherlock because of the Drama & the platonic friendship of John & Sherlock, doing that drastically changes & in my opinion ruins my show. I've also expressed complete disgust with the idea of putting Sherlock & Molly together.

[jesskayding]

And I'm saying this here & now.. If Sherlock & Molly end up in a serious relationship, uhm yes I would stop watching. I would completely hate that. I feel it wouldn't fit Sherlock @ all.

[Arcadia]

Nobody expects us to sleep or want to sleep with our parents or siblings (except maybe for Mr Freud, but he is dead and good riddance, if you ask me).

Agreed!

I would like to point out, though, that there is an "in between". There are friendships / relationships that are not really sexual but where physical attraction does lurk around the corner somewhere, and is never fully acknowledged nor completely ignored.

Sometimes stuff just comes down to life experiences, I think. I've never knowingly encountered the kind of relationship you describe (why would I? Most people don't share their inner selves with complete strangers like me.  ) -- but now that I've read your comment, it makes sense to me that such situations would exist. It's just harder for me to wrap my head around because I don't have the experience to base it on, I have to rely on imagination. And I'm afraid my imagination is better at puzzling out what color a unicorn's eyes would be than it is at puzzling out human nature. (I imagine a unicorn's eyes would be glasz colored .... guess what? When you "bing" glasz to find out how it's spelled, you also get photos of Benedict Cumberbatch..... squeee!)

[jesskayding]

[T.o.b.y]

Sometimes stuff just comes down to life experiences, I think. I've never knowingly encountered the kind of relationship you describe (why would I? Most people don't share their inner selves with complete strangers like me.  ) -- but now that I've read your comment, it makes sense to me that such situations would exist.

 

Well, I've been in that kind of relationship. Saying anything further here would be a bit too personal, but I know it influences the way I see characters in books and films. I know I look at Sherlock and John and go, hey, I've been there. Just like with Molly, I've been there, too (but who hasn't?). I bet our experiences influence us much, much more in our interpretations than we might be aware. They are probably the main reason why we can all look at the same scenes and come away with completely different conclusions.

 

I'd just like to add that it's far from an unpleasant experience, and that there are some tensions between people that it is neither wise nor beneficial to resolve.

 

 

[Slithytove]

 

Nobody expects us to sleep or want to sleep with our parents or siblings (except maybe for Mr Freud, but he is dead and good riddance, if you ask me).

Agreed!

I would like to point out, though, that there is an "in between". There are friendships / relationships that are not really sexual but where physical attraction does lurk around the corner somewhere, and is never fully acknowledged nor completely ignored.

Sometimes stuff just comes down to life experiences, I think. I've never knowingly encountered the kind of relationship you describe (why would I? Most people don't share their inner selves with complete strangers like me. ) -- but now that I've read your comment, it makes sense to me that such situations would exist. It's just harder for me to wrap my head around because I don't have the experience to base it on, I have to rely on imagination. And I'm afraid my imagination is better at puzzling out what color a unicorn's eyes would be than it is at puzzling out human nature. (I imagine a unicorn's eyes would be glasz colored .... guess what? When you "bing" glasz to find out how it's spelled, you also get photos of Benedict Cumberbatch..... squeee!)

That's what fiction is for - to let us make an imaginative leap into other people's heads. Most of us won't ever get to live the same physical and/ or emotional experiences undergone by fictional characters, but that's exactly why they are so interesting.

 

For example, few of us (none, I hope) are likely to commit murder but we can still follow the emotional turmoil of Raskolnikov in "Crime and Punishment". We're unlikely to be loved by an arrogant, wealthy aristocrat but we can share the experience in "Pride and Prejudice". And that's just a couple of examples from the classics.....Modern literature, and modern drama, teems with stories which invite us to jump inside the hearts and minds of people we'll never be, doing things we'll never do. You're right, human nature is a puzzle - and fiction is one of the keys for unlocking that puzzle.

 

In my own case, I don't find it hard to imagine the reasons why people fall in love with very unlikely partners. I find it much more difficult to understand the reasons why you might carry on loving someone who has badly hurt another person you care about, which is why I struggle with John in HLV. To me, that plot development is much harder to take than the idea that John and Sherlock ( or Sherlock and Molly or whatever) are lovers. Not going to stop watching, though - it is exactly the unpredictability, the sense that the story could go anywhere, that keeps me hooked. If you want predictability, I suggest Downton Abbey. I could write those plot developments long before they happen!

[Slithytove]

And I'm saying this here & now.. If Sherlock & Molly end up in a serious relationship, uhm yes I would stop watching. I would completely hate that. I feel it wouldn't fit Sherlock @ all.

So, basically, John can have sex (with a woman) but Sherlock can't? Poor boy.

[T.o.b.y]

In my own case, I don't find it hard to imagine the reasons why people fall in love with very unlikely partners. I find it much more difficult to understand the reasons why you might carry on loving someone who has badly hurt another person you care about, which is why I struggle with John in HLV. To me, that plot development is much harder to take than the idea that John and Sherlock ( or Sherlock and Molly or whatever) are lovers.

 

Well, I mean, John (kind of) forgave Sherlock for The Fall. And that was a horrible, terrible thing to do to your best friend - to any friend, really. So John seems to have quite a capacity for - I won't call if forgiveness, exactly. Because I don't have the impression that he's really truly forgiven Sherlock. He's just... moved on. And he does the same with Mary. With her, he even admits he's still "pissed off". He just wants to give their relationship a chance to survive. I don't even believe the reasons for that are entirely unselfish. Say what you will, but I think John really, really loves Mary. I think she's a dream come true for him, and he's simply not willing to let that dream go, even after it's been partly shattered.

 

I don't know if it's my love for the original (where I don't care for Miss Morstan at all, so probably no), or the amazing chemistry between the actors, but I do feel that John and Mary are "meant to be". They just have this quality, found (I think) only in fiction, where two people simply belong together, against all odds if need be. They just belong. This does not mean I expect or even necessarily want them to last for ever, but it does mean that I'll take a lot of getting back and staying together without blinking an eyelash.

 

 

[Arcadia]

That's what fiction is for - to let us make an imaginative leap into other people's heads. Most of us won't ever get to live the same physical and/ or emotional experiences undergone by fictional characters, but that's exactly why they are so interesting.

I think I'm going to have to admit to being rather shallow and self-centered, as I tend to prefer fiction that I can relate to my experience of human nature, rather than choosing fiction that portrays characters in a way that doesn't feel real to me. But I see your point. In my own defense -- I think if I had more time to read I might broaden my scope a bit. As it is I can barely fit in a book a month for my reading club. (I suppose I could get off this forum and go read a book instead.... )

 

For all it's fantastical elements, the characters in Sherlock -- especially Sherlock himself -- seem terribly real to me. Testament to the actors, I suppose! Whereas the average sitcom I can't even watch for five minutes, because it all seems so fake.

[Slithytove]

But does Sherlock, in any of his incarnations from Victorian days to modern times, relate to your experience of human nature?  I doubt that there are many people around who act, and interact with others, in the peculiar way that he does.  And there are even less people around who are like Moriarty, thank God....To be honest, I think a lot of characters in the original books acted in a way that strained credulity to the very limit, and the same applies to all subsequent versions, but you can enjoy them because they are so preposterous, even though the humanity they portray is very far from being realistic.

 

To be honest, I don't really see the point of always watching films and reading books that don't challenge our understanding of human nature.  If all the characters think as we think, feel as we feel and act as we act, what's the point?  Yes, sometimes it's nice to read/watch a piece of fiction and think, "Yeah, me too" but it's also good to imaginatively live other people's lives which are far from our own.  For example, a lot of people (though not me, in this instance) are fascinated by Hannibal Lector, though it's unlikely that the desire to kill and eat people accords with their personal experiences of human nature.  To take an even more extreme example, "Watership Down" was a bestseller but its readership didn't consist of rabbits...

[Slithytove]

 

In my own case, I don't find it hard to imagine the reasons why people fall in love with very unlikely partners. I find it much more difficult to understand the reasons why you might carry on loving someone who has badly hurt another person you care about, which is why I struggle with John in HLV. To me, that plot development is much harder to take than the idea that John and Sherlock ( or Sherlock and Molly or whatever) are lovers.

 

Well, I mean, John (kind of) forgave Sherlock for The Fall. And that was a horrible, terrible thing to do to your best friend - to any friend, really. So John seems to have quite a capacity for - I won't call if forgiveness, exactly. Because I don't have the impression that he's really truly forgiven Sherlock. He's just... moved on. And he does the same with Mary. With her, he even admits he's still "pissed off". He just wants to give their relationship a chance to survive. I don't even believe the reasons for that are entirely unselfish. Say what you will, but I think John really, really loves Mary. I think she's a dream come true for him, and he's simply not willing to let that dream go, even after it's been partly shattered.

 

I don't know if it's my love for the original (where I don't care for Miss Morstan at all, so probably no), or the amazing chemistry between the actors, but I do feel that John and Mary are "meant to be". They just have this quality, found (I think) only in fiction, where two people simply belong together, against all odds if need be. They just belong. This does not mean I expect or even necessarily want them to last for ever, but it does mean that I'll take a lot of getting back and staying together without blinking an eyelash.

 

 

Can't help feeling that John is storing up mental health issues, and possibly physical ones too, with all this repressed anger.  How long can you keep moving on and trying to ignore your own feelings?

 

I have to say that, although I agree that the Fall was a horrible, terrible thing to do, I think that shooting someone and leaving them to die in agony is more horrible and more terrible.  And I can't help feeling that John and Sherlock are "meant to be" - from Sherlock's perspective, at least.

 

Sorry, something seems to have gone wrong with "Quote", here....