Sherlock and John

[doyle_fanatic]

Hey guys, I’ve just watched the film “A Scandal in Belgravia”. I really love Doyle’s detection stories but this BBC series makes me wonder about the relationship between Sherlock and Dr Watson. I mean, in the short story Sherlock calls Watson “his friend and colleague”. But in the film, it seems to be a bit more intense, don’t you think? It seems to be sort of a modern bromance. So, the question I can’t get out of my head is: What exactly is the nature of the relationship between Holmes and Watson – friendship or bromance?

[T.o.b.y]

Welcome to the forum! 

Have you seen the rest of the series yet? 

I agree that Sherlock and John have a pretty intense relationship here. And I do think that there are elements of romance in the story, especially if you think of the broader definition of that term. 

I never quite understood what a "bromance" is supposed to be exactly. 

In some ways, I think BBC's Sherlock and John are less than friends - more distant - and in other ways more. I don't see any sexual undertones but I get why some people do.

What's your opinion? 

[HerlockSholmes]

Hi DF,

If we are talking Doyle rather than the BBC series then there were definitely no undertones there. Indeed the subject would even have been seen as a fit subject for publication at the time. As for the BBC series I personally see no room for doubt. Apart from comic touches involving Mrs Hudson and the restaurant owner there’s no evidence of undertones. Until I joined this Forum I was unaware of the whole ‘johnlock’ thing. It appears to amount to wishful thinking on the part of some. I understand that certain comments were made by Moffatt (I believe) which led people down that path. 

‘The friendship, in some ways, echo Doyle’s characters. Two people become friends. One is fairly ordinary; the other is anything but. Mofftiss have certainly pushed it closer to breaking point and made it far more edgy. Holmes and Watson had disagreements but they were usually minor ones that occurred because Holmes was in a mood. 

‘So, in short, I see no undertones in the BBC series. It’s quite funny though if you watch the brilliant Granada series where you will see Holmes and Watson walking along the street arm in arm.❤️😂

[Boton]

Hi, DF!

There's a lot on this forum about the whole friendship/bromance/romance/sexual subtext, so dig in and give us some fresh opinions to consider!

I am like many of the people who have already replied: I saw absolutely no sexual undertones in the BBC series, and I was shocked when I got online and found that there were people who thought these undertones were not just there but obvious and intentional.

In general, I think we have developed a narrowing definition of masculinity and masculine friendship since ACD's days. Today, the notion that two men can be the most important people in each other's life (even equal to or above a wife) raises eyebrows that there must be "something more" going on. I find that needlessly restrictive, and I enjoy reading/watching intense male friendships without needing to look for sexuality to intensify it.

That said, if I had to believe that any incarnation of Sherlock and John were a romantic/sexual couple, it would be the ACD version. It's not that I think ACD intended that, or that there is any period-specific clue that points toward a relationship.  It is just that, in an era where one would have been extremely circumspect if one had a same-sex relationship, I find it easier to believe that one could have existed that perhaps John didn't see fit to put into his writings.

[Hikari]

2 hours ago, HerlockSholmes said:

If we are talking Doyle rather than the BBC series then there were definitely no undertones there. Indeed the subject would even have been seen as a fit subject for publication at the time.

You'd know better than me, Herl, as to whether there were any sort of 'lilac' fan fictions being written about Holmes & Watson in their time . . which is to say, the late Victorian/Edwardian era.  Given that Conan Doyle was a Roman Catholic and homosexuality was a crime warranting a prison sentence (just look what they did to Holmes's contemporary, Oscar Wilde . . ) I'm sure ACD never dreamt of any whiff of the love that dare not speak its name occurring in 221B.  For such a formal society as they were in those days, there were accepted modes of behavior between friends that are judged 'gay' now.  (and gay used to be a cheerful word available for everyone to use to mean 'happy, lighthearted, joyful'.  This very nice word has been appropriated, alas.  So we see Holmes & Watson on one of their many strolls through London, arm in arm and decked out like dandies.  Gentlemen of fashion were allowed, nay, expected, to be peacocks, without any assumptions being made about their sexual preferences based on their waistcoats or hats or if they took the arms of their male friends in the street & kept their shoes polished to a high gloss.  In our slovenly era, it's enough to get one labeled as gay just for taking good care of his clothes. 

What one did not do, even with one's most bosom friend is call him by his Christian name.  That would have been a shocking breach of the social code, such familiarity! 

We had a bit of that even in this country, but I'd say it pretty well went out with J.D. Salinger in the 1950s.  Familiar address between friends, especially close friends, is the norm.  It would feel off-putting to continually address one's best friend/roommate by his surname, unless it was some sort of private joke.  People who meet at boarding school or in the Army may have difficulty breaking this institutional habit . . it would have felt very natural to Watson.  And to my knowledge, the only person who gets away with using Holmes's singular first name is his brother.

1 hour ago, Boton said:

I am like many of the people who have already replied: I saw absolutely no sexual undertones in the BBC series, and I was shocked when I got online and found that there were people who thought these undertones were not just there but obvious and intentional.

In general, I think we have developed a narrowing definition of masculinity and masculine friendship since ACD's days. Today, the notion that two men can be the most important people in each other's life (even equal to or above a wife) raises eyebrows that there must be "something more" going on. I find that needlessly restrictive, and I enjoy reading/watching intense male friendships without needing to look for sexuality to intensify it.

I'm not sure if Moffat set out to write an introduction of our Baker Street flatmates with this kind of innuendo intentionally sewn into the fabric of it, but I can't help seeing hints of it there.  Just hints, mind you--the ravening viewership has taken a few crumbs of possibility and created a whole JohnLock universe.  There's the tete-a-tete at Angelo's bistro, of course that got the whole ship rolling out of the harbor, and Watson's rather forward curiosity about his not-yet-official flatmate's personal life.  Grilling Sherlock about whether he's got a significant other of either gender seems a bit overly personal to ask a bloke he's only known for a day or so, and considering where they are---on a stakeout to catch a serial killer.  John's getting-to-know-you chat seems rather intentionally calibrated here to introduce Sherlock Holmes as a sexually-nebulous figure right off the bat.  (Sherl's winking and John's lip-licking do not serve to clarify either of them as rigorously heterosexual in our very first interactions with them, exactly.)

It's interesting to consider, though, how these moments that could be interpreted as sexually-charged crop up in the very first episode, but that intensity is considerably scaled back in subsequent episodes in S1--when, if all I have read about this is true--ASiP was the last script shot in the first season.  Owing to futzing around with Doctor Who, Moffat's script was nowhere near finished, so they proceeded directly into Mark Gatiss's script for The Great Game, which shows Watson and Holmes as an already pretty-well-oiled investigative & domestic team, but in a much less intense fashion than viewers were primed for by the pilot.  I submit, therefore, that it's more than slightly likely that the writers were finding themselves influenced to a large degree by how well our FreeBatch got on on that elusive chemistry front . . which they had the benefit of seeing in action long before the viewers did, to later cook up their own theories.  Therefore, I think Moffat was dangling a sort of homoerotic thread before us in the first episode, and in subsequent episodes in seasons to come, all the writers where to some degree influenced by what the fans were saying about or demanding from, Sherlock.  This is a really meta show, whose chief point of reference swiftly ceased to be Conan Doyle and very quickly became . . Itself.  I mean, look at the very first nuggets we get from Mofftiss after their 2-year hiatus between Seasons 2 and 3 . .  a montage of Favorite Fan Theories, served up hot and fresh.  (I happen to like that montage very much, but it just goes to show that Mark Gatiss was trolling fan sites for inspiration when he probably would have been better served by turning off the Internet and picking up a book of Conan Doyle's Holmes stories instead.  I think the charges against them of 'queer-baiting' are somewhat justified because they did dangle some 'wink-wink-nudge-nudge' sorts of moments that seemed to promise one thing that they ultimately did not deliver on, to the mass disappointment bordering on rage of the JohnLock shippers, who seem to be legion.

'Bromance' is indeed a minefield.  The tendency is to stress the '--Mance' part rather than the 'Bro' part, turning a platonic bond into a sexual one.  I prefer the term, 'frères du guerre'--brothers-in-arms--to describe the true JohnLock bond.  If you are in the trenches together and it's do or die--when you will kill to save your friend and he will do the same for you--well, I don't think any sort of mere sexual relationship could be more intense that that.

[Boton]

Just hints, mind you--the ravening viewership has taken a few crumbs of possibility and created a whole JohnLock universe.  There's the tete-a-tete at Angelo's bistro, of course that got the whole ship rolling out of the harbor, and Watson's rather forward curiosity about his not-yet-official flatmate's personal life.  Grilling Sherlock about whether he's got a significant other of either gender seems a bit overly personal to ask a bloke he's only known for a day or so, and considering where they are---on a stakeout to catch a serial killer.  

...

 

I prefer the term, 'frères du guerre'--brothers-in-arms--to describe the true JohnLock bond.  If you are in the trenches together and it's do or die--when you will kill to save your friend and he will do the same for you--well, I don't think any sort of mere sexual relationship could be more intense that that.

 

 

I am probably incredibly naive, but the first time I saw the Angelo’s scene, before I got on the internet, I thought the conversation was very natural. It is unusual for two blokes in their 30s to share a flat, and you do want to figure out what you are getting into. So, you ask three questions: The first one is, “What do you do for a living,” which Sherlock and John both had answered. The last one is, “Are you going to keep dead bodies in the fridge,” which John probably should have gotten to.

 

The one in the middle is “Whose toothbrush is going to be in the bathroom, and how badly do I need a concealing bathrobe and a good pair of earplugs?” I think that’s what John was going for, and then they were both taken aback when somehow they each wanted to be OK with a gay flat mate, when neither guy was sending that signal.

 

Anyway, that’s what I believed until I got online and there was lip licking and sentences diagrammed to allow for attraction and bisexuality and all other stuff.

 

I like the brothers in arms term too, and I think Mycroft was alluding to that with “when you walk with Sherlock Holmes, you see the battlefield.”

 

Just as an aside, I think the brothers in arms effect is why you have so many of the last remaining survivors of the USS Arizona elect to be cremated and buried at sea on the ship with their brother sailors instead of in a plot next to wives and children.

 

 

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

 

 

[Hikari]

3 minutes ago, Boton said:

I am probably incredibly naive, but the first time I saw the Angelo’s scene, before I got on the internet, I thought the conversation was very natural. It is unusual for two blokes in their 30s to share a flat, and you do want to figure out what you are getting into. So, you ask three questions: The first one is, “What do you do for a living,” which Sherlock and John both had answered. The last one is, “Are you going to keep dead bodies in the fridge,” which John probably should have gotten to.

The wanting to know may be natural (it is) . . but I thought Moffat's phrasing of it was rather stilted, if not intentionally provocative, and the setting was a bit odd.   John doesn't ask his potential new flatmate, "Are you seeing anyone?" or "Do you have a partner?" , or even, "Is there anyone special in your life I should know about if I'm going to move in?"  He blurts out, "Do you have a girlfriend?"  followed immediately by "So you've got a boyfriend?" . . accompanied by an excessive amount of lip-licking . .which we have come to learn is just a personal tic of Martin's; he does it all the time, in chat telly interviews and etc.  But at the time we didn't know this, and so it comes across that the Doctor might be more personally invested in this question than just the average exchange of information.  Particularly as he's just been mistaken for Sherlock's date by the proprietor.  Watson is a battle-hardened, battle-scarred surgeon in his later 30s.  Are 'boyfriend/girlfriend' the most likely terms for him to use, even?

Which begs the question--if Moffat categorically did *not* want there to be unintended confusion as to the nature of Sherlock and John's relationship--why then does he construct their first 'social' interaction together (not counting the Lauriston Gardens crime scene as a social outing, though SH would)--exactly like a date?  This kind of information was not extracted in the flat, in the lab at Barts or out on the pavement, but in the context of a romantically-lit restaurant at night.  Of course neither was there for a 'date'--least of all Watson, who is as straight arrow as they come--but trying to 'interview' his maybe-flatmate about their living arrangements in that moment doesn't seem the most situationally-appropriate venue.  After all, they were lying in wait for a potential serial killer to appear at any moment (they hoped.)  

Doc Watson learned within 24 hours of meeting Sherlock Holmes that he wasn't interested in women . . though Sherlock did not say he wasn't interested in men.  What he said was 'I know it's fine.'  Don't you see Moffat weaving his little web a bit and rubbing his hands together at his own cleverness?  Stringing viewers along as to the exact nature of the bromance was going to keep things percolating.  Indeed, viewers who'd tuned in expressly to see some man love in Baker Street would have abandoned the show if Sherlock had come straight out and said, "And no, I'm not interested in men, either.  This topic is boring me, John."

What Dr. Watson could only guess at, after how many years of knowing Sherlock Holmes was when his birthday was.  He'd never asked.  Not once, only made a deduction.  (or guess, to you and me.)  Shouldn't flatmates know when each others' birthdays are, in case of loud drunken parties and such?

Mofftiss knew exactly what they were doing.  Now I have to go back to that dinner scene (in which Sherlock Holmes didn't even have a sip of water) and see if they snuck some bisexual lighting in there, too. 

[Boton]

I don’t disagree, Hikari. I’m just...annoyed, I guess, that my viewing of something as totally innocent can be seen with layers of meaning that I don’t necessarily see in the character.

Now, do I think Moftiss wanted to play with the are they/aren’t they dynamic? Yeah, probably. I think they were probably sitting around having a beer or six and someone said, “You know, we should make fun of the fact that most 21st century readers can read the ACD original as if the two were a gay couple.” (All the period-appropriate arm-in-arm stuff and the time or two you get “Watson ejaculated.”).




Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[Hikari]

1 hour ago, Boton said:

Now, do I think Moftiss wanted to play with the are they/aren’t they dynamic? Yeah, probably. I think they were probably sitting around having a beer or six and someone said, “You know, we should make fun of the fact that most 21st century readers can read the ACD original as if the two were a gay couple.” (All the period-appropriate arm-in-arm stuff and the time or two you get “Watson ejaculated.”).

I think it was several more than two, in print . . and many more in the field, as it were.  This is Three Continents, after all. 

Absolutely they were playing around with the are they/aren't they?  I guess the problem they ran into, and one of the reasons Martin Freeman said it just wasn't fun anymore, was that, for too many of the more vocal fans, playful innuendoes weren't enough and they felt that they'd been promised a torrid gay romance.  Of course they weren't promised any such thing.  I think the Victorian pair is a bit more cut-and-dried as far as there being any eros in the picture (a clue: no.) But there is another more chewy mystery  here for me.   Holmes and Watson have a unique friendship like no other in the annals of literature, but it is, seen through 21st century eyes, a rather arms-length, distant sort of affair, despite living so closely together and sharing many adventures.  It is not demonstrative.  It is sometimes barely visible.  And then you get a passage like 'It was worth a wound; it was worth many wounds  to know the depth of loyalty and love which lay behind that cold mask. The clear, hard eyes were dimmed for a moment, and the firm lips were shaking. For the one and only time I caught a glimpse of a great heart as well as of a great brain. All my years of humble but single-minded service culminated in that moment of revelation".  And later on on that same page Holmes tells the perpetrator, "If you'd killed Watson, you would not have left this room alive."--Which finally, in a very late story, answers definitively the burning question--"Does Holmes even like Watson that much, for all he seems to barely tolerate him at times?" It's one thing to call someone 'dear friend' sometimes quite flippantly . .it's another to let it be known to all and sundry that you would commit homicide to protect, or avenge, this person.

Maybe the best-kept secret of the Canon is, for all his loyalty and documentation of Holmes's adventures over decades, and the wounds and the personal sacrifices--Watson was not the one who loved his friend more.  He was the more outwardly demonstrative one . . but he had Others who claimed his time--wives, patients, other friends--for whom he would blithely leave Holmes alone for extended periods.  The Great Brain only expended that kind of emotional investment on one person and that one was, even above his own blood--'Friend Watson'.  Sherlock Holmes's level of feeling is therefore, perhaps strongest when he shows it least.

Really to me, this is the greater mystery than whether 21st century Watson wants to bat for both teams.

[Carol the Dabbler]

Hello, doyle_fanatic -- welcome to Sherlock Forum!  I'm looking forward to more of your posts!

A few random comments on all of the above:

For anyone not up on their Victorian definitions, "ejaculate" was in those days merely a synonym for "exclaim."  And people (including Watson) did quite a lot of ejaculating in ACD's stories.  Some of them presumably did what you're thinking as well, but not on-stage as it were.

Regarding the history of using mostly first names, I think Hikari is correct about the fifties.  It was a pretty gradual thing, though.  People who had grown up in earlier decades continued to call other adults by their surnames for quite a while.  And even the fifties generation might use surnames in the workplace.

Regarding the gay references (and possible gay references) in Sherlock, I'm reasonably certain that many of the them were intentional.  Please bear in mind that Moftiss are a couple of ACD fanboys from way back, and were already well-versed in other adaptations, analyses, fan writings, etc.  Apparently a number of people had already theorized that Holmes and Watson may have been a couple.  (As Boton said, who would have known at the time?)  I've also seen are-they-or-aren't-they analyses of the Brett series.  So I assume that their intentional references were just a playful nod to those theories.  Setting up their first stakeout in a date-like fashion was so that Angelo could mistake John for Sherlock's date.  I'm reasonably certain that to Moftiss it was all in fun, and that they were honestly taken aback by the charges of queerbaiting.

[Arcadia]

What Carol said!

More than once Moftiss have said they were just trying to get a laugh. Since I'm one of the people who laughed, I tend to believe them. (Yes, I know it's unpopular to believe anything Mofftiss says, but there I go again, swimming against the tide.... )

To answer your question more directly, doyle_fanatic ... I think during A Scandal in Belgravia, what we're seeing between Holmes and Watson is friendship. But that's simply my opinion. And welcome to the forum, great question!

[HerlockSholmes]

22 hours ago, Boton said:

I don’t disagree, Hikari. I’m just...annoyed, I guess, that my viewing of something as totally innocent can be seen with layers of meaning that I don’t necessarily see in the character.

Now, do I think Moftiss wanted to play with the are they/aren’t they dynamic? Yeah, probably. I think they were probably sitting around having a beer or six and someone said, “You know, we should make fun of the fact that most 21st century readers can read the ACD original as if the two were a gay couple.” (All the period-appropriate arm-in-arm stuff and the time or two you get “Watson ejaculated.”).




Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Hi Boton,

i have to agree. At most I think that it was Mofftiss playing around with the audience as Billy Wilder did in their favourite Holmes movie (and mine) The Private Life Of Sherlock Holmes.

I wonder when fans first got this ‘johnlock’ idea? If it was before the first episode was filmed I wonder if there was a hint of irritation from them (Mofftiss)? Maybe they thought ‘right, let’s have a bit of fun at their expense?’ 

I dont know...

[Arcadia]

I've read several times that it's an idea that's existed for ages. It's just more acceptable now to go "mainstream" with it.

I agree Moftiss just wanted to have fun with the idea. Worked for me, I still crack up when Mrs. Hudson keeps getting the wrong idea. But I'm old; I get the impression Johnlock is mostly popular with "youngsters" who think it's cool and edgy and pushing boundaries. My prediction for the week is that some day most of them will grow out of it. Yes, I know that's terribly condescending of me. I remain, however, unrepentant.  

 

[Boton]

25 minutes ago, Arcadia said:

I've read several times that it's an idea that's existed for ages. It's just more acceptable now to go "mainstream" with it.

I agree Moftiss just wanted to have fun with the idea. Worked for me, I still crack up when Mrs. Hudson keeps getting the wrong idea. But I'm old; I get the impression Johnlock is mostly popular with "youngsters" who think it's cool and edgy and pushing boundaries. My prediction for the week is that some day most of them will grow out of it. Yes, I know that's terribly condescending of me. I remain, however, unrepentant.  

 

I agree, Arcadia.  There's a piece out there from the 1940s, I believe, probably tongue-in-cheek but still instructive, called something like "John Watson was a Woman." The argument there is that the way ACD Watson behaves and the goings-on that he reports on are far more typical of a spouse than a bachelor roommate.

I do, however, think Johnlock is pretty popular with middle aged ladies as well, though.  Just today, I was reading through Tumblr (always a bad idea), and I came across one of my favorite fanfic writers who made a statement that I'll paraphrase here so it maybe better obscures their identity.  The statement was along the lines of: I don't pay any attention to MF saying he and BC didn't play their characters as lovers, because they obviously played them as homoromantic life partners with ambiguous sexualities.  This is from someone well into adulthood.

It's that kind of thing that frustrates me with Johnlock, even though I have learned to read those fics if I want the rest of the plot or to enjoy them as an AU. But it bothers me when fans say "I am going to totally discount everything that has been said by the writers and the actors, and many things that explicitly happen on-screen, that tends to disprove my theory," and then turn around and say "My theory is correct because look at all this subtext evidence I have for you."

Edited May 2, 2018 by Boton
Wrong word

[HerlockSholmes]

It’s a good job that Holmes didn’t try and solve crimes using such scanty or even non-existent evidence. He’d have made Lestrade look like a genius!

[J.P.]

Re Johnlock: My former contact with this kind of phenomenon came from LOTR, even though it was called slash back then. And it was quite… ehm… an eye opener.

I'm afraid that shipping in general is something that a part of media consumers do as naturally and automatically as breathing. I have that horror vision of people watching shows only to have some material for ships.
There seem to be people who would ship EVERYONE who cannot run away fast enough. Hansel with Gretel, Ahab with Moby Dick, Robin with Hood, Scooby with Doo and all the Avengers with Thanos (what an orgy it would be!). And the attraction of it is still a mystery to me.

[HerlockSholmes]

Shipping is a new term to me (apart from transporting items by ship of course👍) What does it mean exactly? I think I get the gist but I’d like to hear more.

i know J.P. It’s like explaining wi-if to your grandfather😃

[J.P.]

Does this help?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shipping_(fandom)

[Hikari]

15 hours ago, J.P. said:

Does this help?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shipping_(fandom)

Shipping, initially derived from the word relationship, is the desire by fans for two or more people, either real-life people or fictional characters (in film, literature, television etc.) to be in a relationship, romantic or otherwise. It is considered a general term for fans' emotional involvement with the ongoing development of a relationship in a work of fiction.

**********

Thanks, J.P.  That was very informative.  I've known what shipping means since 2011 (pre-Sherlock, I'd never heard of it), but I never really understood why it was called that.  Now I understand! . . .and I'm putting that on a T-shirt!

[Hikari]

19 hours ago, Boton said:

There's a piece out there from the 1940s, I believe, probably tongue-in-cheek but still instructive, called something like "John Watson was a Woman." The argument there is that the way ACD Watson behaves and the goings-on that he reports on are far more typical of a spouse than a bachelor roommate.

The author of 'Watson was a Woman' was Rex Stout, creator of Nero Wolfe--who, many Sherlockians (led by Mr. Stout himself) claim was the son of Sherlock Holmes and Irene Adler.  Nero, like his alleged pater, is a brilliant, reclusive consulting detective, who has a loyal second, called 'Archie' who narrates all his adventures.  Like his alleged Uncle Mycroft, he is very fat.

http://www.nerowolfe.org/pdf/stout/home_family/BSI/Watson_was_a_woman.pdf

This was a speech Stout delivered to the Baker Street Irregulars.  I think, to be read with tongue firmly in cheek.  Stout was one of the founding members of the BSIs (FDR was also a charter member), and in those early days, Sherlockiana could be approached with a sense of levity.  It seems that it has become a deadly serious business over the years . . considering that Amanda Abbington received *death threats* from rabid fans who didn't appreciate her character messing up the bromance in Baker Street.  But long before her, Conan Doyle was being assaulted on the streets of London for killing off Sherlock Holmes.  Perspective is hard to come by for some fans whose admiration for the Great Detective & his partner in bromance veers into obsessional.

Mr. Stout theorizes (while in a pawky humor) that Watson was not only a woman--but The Woman, in fact.  It works to a degree, though I doubt even a woman attempting to go incognito would insert so many references to 'her mustache'.  I like Irene Adler a lot better than I like Mary Russell, but I remain convinced in myself that Watson & Irene were two separate people.  Can 'Trans-Watson' be far behind?  Elementary has already given us a Trans-Hudson, so I suspect not.

19 hours ago, Boton said:

(quote from someone else    )I don't pay any attention to MF saying he and BC didn't play their characters as lovers, because they obviously played them as homoromantic life partners with ambiguous sexualities. 

 

I have my cache of entertaining JohnLock fan-vids and can play Let's Ship with the best of them, but it does remain strictly a game for me.  It's not 'obvious' at all that Sherl and John are 'homoerotic life partners of ambiguous sexualities' . . especially when denied vigorously by their writers and their actors.  There are moments that can be interpreted that way for humor, if one is inclined to read it that way, but it is by no means 'obvious'.  I see why Mofftiss and Martin get so frustrated.  Worse still, some shippers are determined, in the face of all documented facts to the contrary, to make the actors themselves into a IRL gay couple.  Denial is perhaps the most powerful force in the universe--it has the power to obliterate evidence like: girlfriends, wives & 2 children apiece, for starters.  What does a bloke have to do to prove he is heterosexual these days?  If a person can claim being black with one drop of genetics,  then apparently one frisky pseudo-gay scene played for laughs overrides whole families that exist because these guys are not actually gay.

[T.o.b.y]

20 hours ago, Arcadia said:

I've read several times that it's an idea that's existed for ages. It's just more acceptable now to go "mainstream" with it.

I agree Moftiss just wanted to have fun with the idea. Worked for me, I still crack up when Mrs. Hudson keeps getting the wrong idea. But I'm old; I get the impression Johnlock is mostly popular with "youngsters" who think it's cool and edgy and pushing boundaries. My prediction for the week is that some day most of them will grow out of it. Yes, I know that's terribly condescending of me. I remain, however, unrepentant.  

 

I doubt it's limited to young people or people who simply think it would be cool and edgy to have a gay Sherlock Holmes. 

The characters as played by Freeman and Cumberbatch have amazing chemistry and the show puts a lot of emphasis on their relationship. It's explored with way more drama and nuance than friendships or "brothers in arms" type of relationships usually are imo. 

I don't see it as unreasonable or far fetched for fans to imagine them as a couple or even to interpret what's on screen that way. And I do think that if one of them was a woman, hardly anybody would poo-poo the idea. 

For me, being eternally single and voluntarily celibate is an integral part of the Sherlock Holmes character. I don't want him paired off with anybody. But if he has to be, Watson is the obvious choice imo. I do find their relationship more interesting the way it is though. It's more unique. I like that. I like fictional relationships that defy definition. It is what it is. 

[Hikari]

1 hour ago, T.o.b.y said:

The characters as played by Freeman and Cumberbatch have amazing chemistry and the show puts a lot of emphasis on their relationship. It's explored with way more drama and nuance than friendships or "brothers in arms" type of relationships usually are imo. 

The relating of our BBC John and Sherlock is much more loose and modern in sensibility, because they are of our time.  I suspect that most of the BBC Sherlock viewers who ship this Baker Street duo as a closeted gay romance as its raison d'etre, and not the way  more casual shippers like me do, queuing up saucy fan-vids on YouTube to pass a boring afternoon at work--are not actually versed in Canon, if they've read any.  For viewers like this, the duo portrayed on 21st century TV by FreeBatch and the duo created on the page by Sir Arthur Conan Doyle are two separate and distinct entities that, besides being set in different time periods, don't have much at all to do with each other.  Hence, our modern pair can be as gay as they like, play at James Bond, Sherlock can have a psychotic little sister, Jim Moriarty can look and act like Andrew Scott & a host of other AU scenarios.  Una Stubbs' Mrs. Hudson is just about the only character who retains her integrity between versions, to my mind.  Otherwise, the BBC show cherry-picks some of the more memorable elements of the stories while crafting something completely new.  And the creators were free to do that, since all Sherlock material now exists in the public domain.  The fact that ACD might be rolling over in his grave is of no concern to anybody affiliated with BBC Sherlock.

For viewers who are versed in Sherlock Holmes & Watson's original form, the show that started with great promise as a crackerjack modern homage to Conan Doyle's creations was ultimately disappointing because Mofftiss veered completely off Conan Doyle's script and created their own Whovian/Bondian/Pythonesque/Clockwork Orange/Marvel universe that didn't resemble the original at all.  And they were free to do it.  But some of us just can't Go There in accepting JohnLock enthusiastically as a gay romance because it's so contrary to the spirit of the original. 

Anyone who thinks that there isn't any nuance, chemistry, drama or genuine feeling to be had in Conan Doyle's Victorian pairing needs to read the stories.  One has to dig a little sometimes and read between the lines, because little is explicitly telegraphed to the reader in the way that is available instantly in a visual medium.  I suppose Conan Doyle left it largely up to his readership to interpret the interpersonal dynamics of this singular friendship, couched as it was in Victorian terms.  Old films depicting the Victorian pair of Baker Street often err in playing it far too stodgy.  On the page, Holmes and Watson have wit, comedy arising from domestic and situational chaos, genuine regard for each other, drama . . it just doesn't go as big and splashy as we've become accustomed to.

[Hikari]

I'm frustrated . . . there was a YouTube video that was quite brilliant at editing together the parallel lives of Holmes & Watson between modern day and 'The Abominable Bride' as depicted by our FreeBatch.  Can't find it anywhere--wonder if the creator took it down.  I can't remember the theme song she used but it ends with a quote from Vincent Starrett.

“But there can be no grave for Sherlock Holmes and Doctor Watson...Shall they not always live in Baker Street? Are they not there this moment, as one writes? Outside, the hansoms rattle through the rain, and Moriarty plans his latest devilry. Within, the sea-coal flames upon the hearth and Holmes and Watson take their well-won case...So they still live for all that love them well; in a romantic chamber of the heart, in a nostalgic country of the mind, where it is always 1895.”
― Vincent Starrett, The Private Life Of Sherlock Holmes    

[Boton]

On 5/4/2018 at 8:53 AM, Hikari said:

“But there can be no grave for Sherlock Holmes and Doctor Watson...Shall they not always live in Baker Street? Are they not there this moment, as one writes? Outside, the hansoms rattle through the rain, and Moriarty plans his latest devilry. Within, the sea-coal flames upon the hearth and Holmes and Watson take their well-won case...So they still live for all that love them well; in a romantic chamber of the heart, in a nostalgic country of the mind, where it is always 1895.”
― Vincent Starrett, The Private Life Of Sherlock Holmes    

I did like the way that Moftiss modernized this speech in the form of Mary's "Baker Street Boys" ending monologue.