Subtext Interpretation... What Do You See?

[Bakerstreet Irregular]

 

So many things on "Sherlock" allow for multiple interpretations, and I think purposely so. Like Mary: Good, evil, neither? Maybe we'll never find out for sure, but there will always be enough material for everybody to make a case for their own theory.

 

   Oh and don't it just?  So many questions...and even if you don't like the answers given....or don't expect to really be given the real ones....as you said, T.o.b.y....it's all fine.

[Carol the Dabbler]

... In my eyes, what has happened so far is that the story of a friendship is being told in a manner usually reserved for romances, which causes people to think it is a romance.....

Well said, T.o.b.y.

 

One reason why I think it would be a mistake for Moftiss to ever reveal (or even hint very strongly) that Sherlock and John really are getting it on is that it would spoil the (non)romantic tension between them, kinda like the way Friends wasn't as interesting after Ross and Rachel got together (and especially after they turned Ross into a jerk, but that's another issue altogether).

 

[CumberCookieCrumble]

Wether he is gay/straight/bi etc does not matter to me.

 

The show is about Sherlock solving crimes, forgetting his pants and his faithful best friend blogging about it lol.

[Redbeard]

Back (briefly) to the "riot" question -- here's what Mycroft said:

 

...there is no prison in which we could incarcerate Sherlock without causing a riot on a daily basis.

 

I have always taken that to mean a riot within the prison, and now I see why -- if Mycroft were instead talking about public rioting, why would the choice of prison make any difference?

 

I can imagine Sherlock arguing with his fellow prisoners ("I know ash!") till they can't help punching him.  Alternatively, I can imagine him urging them to go on strike for laptops and comfortable furniture.

 

Absolutely, not to mention instigating feuds between the prisoners ("Do you really not know that your cigarettes were stolen by Bubba in cell block C?  Not to mention your best friend is really plotting with the cook to poison your bread tomorrow at lunch.  Stupid.")  And of course creating in-fighting amongst the guards themselves.  (Ah good morning Steven.  Do you know your wife was with the warden last night?  Again.  Ho Hum.")

 

So between prisoners attacking each other, guards attacking each other, and everyone attacking Sherlock, any prison he went to would be in a shambles within two days. 

[Pawse]

Wether he is gay/straight/bi etc does not matter to me.

 

The show is about Sherlock solving crimes, forgetting his pants and his faithful best friend blogging about it lol.

"... are you wearing any pants?"

"Nope."

*hysterical laughter*

[Bendydoodle Cantaloupe]

 

And speaking of Harry Watson; I would love to see her in series 4 - it's about time to get some family history and background for John.

Amen! Even though the first two series were told largely from John's point of view, we know hardly anything about his family. Are his parents still living? Is he on good terms with them? Does he have any other siblings? Of course, our ignorance could be defended as canon -- I don't recall hearing anything about Watson's family other than Holmes' deductions about his brother Harry -- and we've already had that.

 

I've always assumed that John's parents were dead or estranged, since if he was looking for a flat he would go to them, if not them Harry. But since he doesn't go to Harry, he's got nobody. And we know it's unlikely that he has any extended family.

[Arcadia]

Yeah, the implication to me was that Harry was all he had, since Mike Stamford didn't ask about anyone else. (Hey, I just made a deduction! )

[Caya]

But then why did Mary point out to Sherlock that no family from her side would be coming to the wedding in Sign? Orphan's lot or something like that iirc. If John was orphaned too, she would've worded that differently, I think.

[Bakerstreet Irregular]

In "The Study in Pink" Sherlock deduces from John's phone that he either has no extended family or one he's not close to. Only his estranged sister, Harry, cares enough to give him a phone. But even she can't be bothered to show up to a wedding, only friends. If any are relatives no one is saying.

[T.o.b.y]

Who exactly are all those people on John's side of the church, pray? According to Sherlock in "A Study in Pink", John does not have an extended family, Harry isn't there, and if any of the older couples are John and Harry's parents, we never find out. John also did not have many friends before series 3, that was something he and Sherlock had in common. Did he all of a sudden become terribly sociable after Sherlock "died"? That's a bit unlikely, isn't it?

[Bakerstreet Irregular]

They could be patients I suppose....loyal and grateful to the good doctor for his care. Doctors and nurses though that is pure speculation.

[T.o.b.y]

When last watching A Study in Pink, I noticed that there is, after all, one possible hint that Sherlock might be gay: Three people who have known him for a while (and, at least in one case, well) assume automatically on seeing them together that John is his boyfriend for no otherwise logical reason. There's Mrs Hudson - come on, would every landlady assume that two men who want to share a flat must automatically be a couple? I'd have thought flat-shares were as common in London as they are in large cities here where the rent is high. Then there's Angelo - again, why would he think first thing that Sherlock had a date when they walked in? Meeting with a client or a witness or similar would be a lot more likely, actually. And the third person is Mycroft. Of course, his "may we expect a happy announcement at the end of the week" is mostly just sarcasm and meant to rile John up, but still, it's kind of an odd first conclusion to jump to, unless he really had seen his brother with guys at some point.

 

My personal theory there, though, is that all those people fell for the old cliché of "a man who does not openly date must be gay", because people think it is more likely that a man would have sex with men than no sex at all (I wonder whether that assumption is correct, statistically speaking. I'll have to try and find some data )

 

I also think that when Sherlock says girlfriends are "not his area", he probably means romantic relationships are not his area, and because he is basically interested in women, he equals them with all that sentimental turmoil he's so desperately trying to avoid.

 

I don't care either way (apart from an embarrassed feeling that "none of this is any of my business and I don't really want to know"), I think this is one of the few topics on which I am pretty much unbiased by any personal preference (although, some day, I do want to see a main character in a TV series be gay, without that being the basis of his or her characterization or what the show is "about". But I can wait. It's not a big deal.)

[Arcadia]

That would be my take on it as well ... he's doesn't have women, ergo he must be gay. I think that's the "joke" Moftiss have referred to? I guess, I don't know, I've never understood why anyone would make that assumption, to be honest. There can be a lot of reasons to not be in a relationship.

[Bakerstreet Irregular]

I can speak from personal experience here.  I am not gay.....I have been propositioned by both men and women and really. No attraction to either one. I can and do admire men...and sometimes a woman....but sexually?  Not so much....but...because I am seen with more women then men, I have been labeled as being gay. From Maine to Idaho.

 

These people see Sherlock but not socially. He is probably seen with the likes of Lestrade and maybe more male clients then women...he shows up at Angelo's with a man..ordering supper...ergo it must be a date and confirmation that yeah...Sherlock Holmes must be gay.  But no, it doesn't necessarily follow in fact.

 

Even Gatiss and Moffat have said more then once that's it's just a joke and no, Sherlock isn't gay and I''m buying it. Been there, done that.

[T.o.b.y]

That would be my take on it as well ... he's doesn't have women, ergo he must be gay. I think that's the "joke" Moftiss have referred to? I guess, I don't know, I've never understood why anyone would make that assumption, to be honest. There can be a lot of reasons to not be in a relationship.

 

It seems a lot of people just cannot imagine a man not having an active sex life. It's just part of the male stereotype.

 

What makes this traditionally a bit more complicated is that only a few decades ago, if you were gay, there was no choice other than to either pretend you weren't interested in relationships at all, or that you had a love interest of the opposite sex. My family tree is full of "confirmed bachelors" and "old maids", who, in retrospect, there is every reason to believe did have partners, only they had to pretend they were something else.

 

Mrs Hudson might be old enough to still think along those lines, and Mycroft might be old-fashioned and conservative enough, but why Angelo buys into it, I dunno.

[Arcadia]

A lot of people think that way because that's how they were raised to think, and have never questioned it. Maybe Angelo's one of those?

 

Some people thought my brother was gay because he chose to live a rather monk-like existence, but in fact he was quite fond of ladies ... he just felt awkward approaching them, for one thing, and he was dedicated to his cause, for another. And he was kind of old-fashioned in his view of women, I think -- he didn't like them to be the least bit "forward," which ruled out a lot of American women by the time he was of marrying age. And he didn't believe in sex out of wedlock, either; that would've been dishonorable. But mostly it was the cause ... it mattered more to him than anything else. And no, I'm not going to tell you what his cause was! (No, not a detective!)

[Carol the Dabbler]

Who exactly are all those people on John's side of the church, pray? According to Sherlock in "A Study in Pink", John does not have an extended family, Harry isn't there, and if any of the older couples are John and Harry's parents, we never find out. John also did not have many friends before series 3, that was something he and Sherlock had in common. Did he all of a sudden become terribly sociable after Sherlock "died"? That's a bit unlikely, isn't it?

They could be patients I suppose....loyal and grateful to the good doctor for his care. Doctors and nurses though that is pure speculation.

 

 

There was one of John's cousins mentioned, the one who ended up seated by "the bogs"(restrooms).  At least, she was somebody's cousin, and I don't think Mary has any that she'll admit to.  Other than that, it seemed like mostly friends and associates on both sides.  Maybe as Fox says, doctors and nurses that he's worked with.

 

But Mike Stamford wasn't there, and apparently neither was Bill Murray (the army nurse who saved John's life in Afghanistan).  So who were all those people?

 

[Carol the Dabbler]

Mrs Hudson might be old enough to still think along those lines, and Mycroft might be old-fashioned and conservative enough, but why Angelo buys into it, I dunno.

 

Angelo strikes me as a confirmed romantic.   

[Bakerstreet Irregular]

Angelo is an old softy, as far as I can see. I guess it's better to see Sherlock walking about with a live person even a male then the skull.  Sherlock did say he liked to go out, but the skull did nothing but draw to much attention.

[Arcadia]

Surely he was in jest? About going out with a skull, I mean, not about it drawing attention .... oh dear, now people will say he's a necrophiliac....

[Bakerstreet Irregular]

Well, he did say it, to a complete stranger who just happened to be his new flat mate...and this is Sherlock we're talking about.  And no no, not a necrophiliac...that would have required the whole dead body not just an old skull.

[Arcadia]

Well, he's got all those parts, there must have been a whole dead body at one point!

Does anybody have a rational explanation why Sherlock would've had a bag full of thumbs? And where he would have gotten them? Do they routinely chop off thumbs at the morgue?

[Bakerstreet Irregular]

Bet he wasn't walking around London with it though.  If people saw him on the street with a skull they probably thought he was practicing up for Hamlet.

[Bakerstreet Irregular]

Molly could have supplied them, obviously. I suppose if they were homeless people, or John and Jane Does, nobody is going to complain if they had body parts go missing. A whole head?

 

But I suppose he could be using the thumbs from both genders, he could be trying to see if he could deduce certain aspects of the whole by certain parts of the body. Then there is the study of thumbprints, but that's pretty standard I would think.

 

I found this article on line. In one part it does state that finger prints can give clues to a person's regional origin of birth.

 

 

  http://medind.nic.in/jal/t11/i2/jalt11i2p138.pdf

[Carol the Dabbler]

I suspect the thumbs were one of those throwaway bits that Moftiss delight in -- like "the turn-ups on his jeans."  They like being able to hint at some brilliant deduction without actually having to write it!