Subtext Interpretation... What Do You See?

[T.o.b.y]

And it has been mentioned before that a view fans believe that they have noticed Not-Anthea sporting a similar ring to Mycroft's. A secret club, organization, or the Diogenes now allows female members?

 

She wears a ring, in any case, as can be seen here:

 

 

Can't tell whether it looks anything like Mycroft's, though.

 

Maybe they're married to each other?  

 

I could just imagine Mycroft being widowed or divorced. I mean, he was young once. Maybe he had a relationship at some point. Who knows.

 

Although... Naw... remember Sherlock: "Not that you've ever spoken to a woman with short hair - or, you know, a woman." If Mycroft has any history in that area, at least his little brother doesn't know about it. And since Sherlock surely notices the ring, he must know why it's there (or think he knows), so I doubt it's got anything to do with any kind of a love life.

 

Of course, Mycroft could be gay. But I think if he had a partner, we'd know, and Sherlock would certainly know, and then it wouldn't make any kind of sense the way Sherlock points out his loneliness in The Empty Hearse.

 

[SherlockedCAMPer]

Government issued ring keeps seeming like a likely plausibility with Not-Anthea wearing one as well.

[Carol the Dabbler]

Could have a micro-chip in it, in case they ever get lost.  Wonder whether they're actually removable?

 

[Arcadia]

You mean they're stitched to their finger or something?

[Boton]

 

 

So, to address your question: I agree with you! In S3, it's obvious these two men love each other. We don't have to guess about that, they say it: “I want to be up there with the two people that I love and care about most in the world.” And: “Today you sit between … the two people who love you most in all this world.”

 

And I also agree with you that the term “in love” is not the right one to describe their relationship. In American English at least, that term is normally reserved for people who feel sexual desire for one another. The terms I would typically use to describe the love our boys have for one another are “friendship,” and “brotherhood.”

 

 

Totally agree.  I think Moftiss found themselves on the horns of a bit of a problem, and they solved it pretty admirably. They have a great respect for the ACD Holmes, so when they were modernizing the Holmes/Watson stories, they could update a number of things, like cell phones and texting and blogs.  But they couldn't really update the Holmes/Watson relationship without destroying the story.

 

In the Victorian era, men and women inhabited very different spheres.  So two people who were in the public sphere solving crimes and generally confronting danger were by definition going to both be male.  (Likewise, a drama that was set in the interior of a household would by definition be made up of women.)  Ironically, this division allowed for a lot more latitude as far as the depth of affection that same-sex partners could express for one another without it gaining a sexual connotation.  Of course, you would expect to always see Holmes and Watson together -- they worked together, they lived together, they went places together.  They were publicly a "couple" without the need for there to be a sexual connotation to it.  (And this leaves aside the fact that the Victorian era didn't have our particular notions of sexual identity as being important; sexual behavior was the only thing that was considered in that arena.)  Moftiss had to import a Victorian era relationship into our very sexual-orientation-aware era.

 

Anyway, this type of relationship survived in literature and film for decades as what I would think of as the classic "buddy picture."  You know -- the story of two soldiers who go into combat together and neither will leave the other behind.  The story of two cops who have each other's back both in the line of fire and in personal problems.  The "Lone Ranger and Tonto" pairings of the cowboys and Indians movies.  All of these are examples of male-male partnerships that involved a great deal of love, respect, loyalty, and friendship without introducing the idea of romantic attraction.

 

Somewhat sadly, I think, we've lost the idea that two people can have a very intense, bonded relationship without romance or attraction involved.  I think Moftiss knows this (I've even read comments to that effect from Moffatt) and they continually poke fun at the audience or with the audience by making our contemporary comments out loud:  "If you'll be needing two rooms," "Take my hand. -- Now everyone will talk," etc.  

 

But, IMHO, I see nothing in the Sherlock/John relationship that's sexual.  (Sorry, Johnlock shippers!)  I see the evolution of Sherlock as he essentially makes his very first friendship.  We know from TEH that the Holmes boys grew up a little isolated, such that by the time the parents introduced them to other kids for them to make friends, they found these kids beneath their own intellect.  Sherlock has obviously grown accustomed to being the odd man out in a big way; I just cringe every time I hear Donovan in S1 call him "freak."  Anyone who has ever been marginalized for their intelligence can feel the pain of that one.  And then here comes John.  He's the one that accepts Sherlock's talents of deduction instead of saying "piss off," as everyone else does. And Sherlock can make him better too -- he saw right into John and helped him drop the psychosomatic limp within the first episode.  That's a buddy pic relationship in the making.

 

I do think Sherlock was intensely sexually attracted to Irene, for reasons that I may write later.  Whether he acted on it or not is irrelevant to me; plenty of highly-sensually-aware people opt for temporary or long-term celibacy for a lot of reasons.  I also think that the John-Mary-Sherlock relationship gives clues that the John-Sherlock relationship is not one of sexual attraction.  Mary explicitly said that Sherlock can't fib to her like he can to John, and yet she has no problem setting the two up on crime-solving "dates" because they miss one another or conferring with Sherlock about how much weight John has gained.  I mean, it's one thing for her to have utter faith in her husband's sexual orientation and fidelity, but it would take some really uncommon squelching of human nature for her to continually throw her husband in the path of someone she thought was sexually attracted to him.  Plus, I truly read Sherlock's behavior throughout TSoT and HLV to be that of someone who really wants his friends to be happy.  He's decided that married life probably isn't for him, but that doesn't mean he doesn't want his friends' marriage to work.  Again, that says "buddy pic" rather than "rom com" to me.  YMMV.

[Arcadia]

I tried pressing the "like" button ten times, I guess this will have to do instead....

[Carol the Dabbler]

You mean they're stitched to their finger or something?

 

Or something.  Super-glued?  Not really rings, just genetically-engineered warts?

 

If (note the "if") they're government-issue rings, I doubt that they're strictly ornamental.  And if they serve a purpose, removability might be undesirable.

 

On the other hand, why worry about the baddies stealing Mycroft's ring if they could just as easily steal his finger?  (Yecch!)  So maybe in this case, a ring is just a ring.  Family heirloom or something.  Likewise not-Anthea's ring.

 

Or -- maybe the rings are to be used as a code.  Like if Mycroft is ever captured and forced to make one of those "see, he's still alive" videos, he can choose which finger to wear the ring on, as a signal.  (In which case "no ring" means "they confiscated it.")

 

[Bakerstreet Irregular]

Or they could be custom fitted so that they can't be taken off unless in dire straights where they have a coded  sequence to release them .

[T.o.b.y]

Totally agree.  I think Moftiss found themselves on the horns of a bit of a problem, and they solved it pretty admirably. They have a great respect for the ACD Holmes, so when they were modernizing the Holmes/Watson stories, they could update a number of things, like cell phones and texting and blogs.  But they couldn't really update the Holmes/Watson relationship without destroying the story.

 

In the Victorian era, men and women inhabited very different spheres.  So two people who were in the public sphere solving crimes and generally confronting danger were by definition going to both be male.  (Likewise, a drama that was set in the interior of a household would by definition be made up of women.)  Ironically, this division allowed for a lot more latitude as far as the depth of affection that same-sex partners could express for one another without it gaining a sexual connotation.  Of course, you would expect to always see Holmes and Watson together -- they worked together, they lived together, they went places together.  They were publicly a "couple" without the need for there to be a sexual connotation to it.  (And this leaves aside the fact that the Victorian era didn't have our particular notions of sexual identity as being important; sexual behavior was the only thing that was considered in that arena.)  Moftiss had to import a Victorian era relationship into our very sexual-orientation-aware era.

 

Anyway, this type of relationship survived in literature and film for decades as what I would think of as the classic "buddy picture."  You know -- the story of two soldiers who go into combat together and neither will leave the other behind.  The story of two cops who have each other's back both in the line of fire and in personal problems.  The "Lone Ranger and Tonto" pairings of the cowboys and Indians movies.  All of these are examples of male-male partnerships that involved a great deal of love, respect, loyalty, and friendship without introducing the idea of romantic attraction.

 

Somewhat sadly, I think, we've lost the idea that two people can have a very intense, bonded relationship without romance or attraction involved.  I think Moftiss knows this (I've even read comments to that effect from Moffatt) and they continually poke fun at the audience or with the audience by making our contemporary comments out loud:  "If you'll be needing two rooms," "Take my hand. -- Now everyone will talk," etc.  

 

But, IMHO, I see nothing in the Sherlock/John relationship that's sexual.  (Sorry, Johnlock shippers!)  I see the evolution of Sherlock as he essentially makes his very first friendship.  We know from TEH that the Holmes boys grew up a little isolated, such that by the time the parents introduced them to other kids for them to make friends, they found these kids beneath their own intellect.  Sherlock has obviously grown accustomed to being the odd man out in a big way; I just cringe every time I hear Donovan in S1 call him "freak."  Anyone who has ever been marginalized for their intelligence can feel the pain of that one.  And then here comes John.  He's the one that accepts Sherlock's talents of deduction instead of saying "piss off," as everyone else does. And Sherlock can make him better too -- he saw right into John and helped him drop the psychosomatic limp within the first episode.  That's a buddy pic relationship in the making.

 

I do think Sherlock was intensely sexually attracted to Irene, for reasons that I may write later.  Whether he acted on it or not is irrelevant to me; plenty of highly-sensually-aware people opt for temporary or long-term celibacy for a lot of reasons.  I also think that the John-Mary-Sherlock relationship gives clues that the John-Sherlock relationship is not one of sexual attraction.  Mary explicitly said that Sherlock can't fib to her like he can to John, and yet she has no problem setting the two up on crime-solving "dates" because they miss one another or conferring with Sherlock about how much weight John has gained.  I mean, it's one thing for her to have utter faith in her husband's sexual orientation and fidelity, but it would take some really uncommon squelching of human nature for her to continually throw her husband in the path of someone she thought was sexually attracted to him.  Plus, I truly read Sherlock's behavior throughout TSoT and HLV to be that of someone who really wants his friends to be happy.  He's decided that married life probably isn't for him, but that doesn't mean he doesn't want his friends' marriage to work.  Again, that says "buddy pic" rather than "rom com" to me.  YMMV.

 

Yes. Basically, I agree with you, and I think you express yourself remarkably well. Gosh, where did you learn to lay out your thoughts like that? I'm envious...

 

Anyway, before series 3, I'd have agreed 100% and more. And I love what you say about importing a Victorian era relationship into modern times. That's exactly the "problem" (if there is a problem, which I don't think).

 

But. But... oh dear, I'm not like you, I can't put it into words like this, especially since it's a gut feeling on my part objecting, not my reason.

 

Okay. But. But I have seen and loved plenty of "buddy stories". I adore Sam and Frodo, for example. I love Victorian novels, and, as you say, they are stock full of very close, very important, friendships between two men or two women. I love Anne and Diana from "Anne of Green Gables", as well. I guess the "friendship story" is "my thing", even more than the fully fledged "love story".

 

Now for the but. But here, I see something slightly different. Just slightly. No sex, I agree. No hints at anything sexual. But romance, yes. I see romance, and romance played up to a degree I'm not used to in this context, but very used to in the traditional love story. I certainly did not go looking for it, it just hit me as I was watching the last 3 episodes. I never noticed it before.

 

And I think that is deliberate. I think they're getting as close to a love story as they can without actually writing one. Why, I don't know. My guess is something to do with market research and wanting to keep as many viewers happy as possible. But even if that were true, I wouldn't mind. I think it's surprisingly beautifully done.

 

By now, I think the relationship between John and Sherlock defies definition. It's not really a romance, but it comes close. There's definitely no sex (although I must say, I do not blame anybody who read not-quite-so-innocent things into the stag night scenes). It's almost the "brothers-from-different-mothers" kind of buddy epic that I'm used to, but again, not quite. I mean, their friendship is an odd one. Just consider, going out for a drink, doing anything not work related together, is awkward for them. No, I don't think it's awkward because of any kind of attraction, don't get me wrong, I mean that in a way, they're more colleagues than friends. There's a certain distance between them, which makes for a lot of tension, which is unusual for "best friends", and which somehow, for my feeling at least, adds to the romance aspect. Best friends usually know they're best friends, they kind of take their mutual affection for granted. Not so Sherlock and John. Remember what a huge revelation it was for Sherlock to be asked to be best man.

 

Sorry if this is very long and incoherent, my brain is fried after a twelve-hour work day (not kidding).

 

Anyway. I love anything that defies definition, so no wonder I'm set on seeing that here as well.

 

[Bendydoodle Cantaloupe]

 

But, IMHO, I see nothing in the Sherlock/John relationship that's sexual.  (Sorry, Johnlock shippers!) 

 

No offense taken. I think that if Sherlock and John did get together together, it wouldn't be sexual at all. I think it'd just go on as normal -- they solve cases, John coaches Sherlock on social norms, and Sherlock just does Sherlocky things in his spare time.

 

 

 

I see the evolution of Sherlock as he essentially makes his very first friendship.  We know from TEH that the Holmes boys grew up a little isolated, such that by the time the parents introduced them to other kids for them to make friends, they found these kids beneath their own intellect.  Sherlock has obviously grown accustomed to being the odd man out in a big way; I just cringe every time I hear Donovan in S1 call him "freak."  Anyone who has ever been marginalized for their intelligence can feel the pain of that one.

 

Oh, yeah, that. The whole 'freak' thing. I can totally relate. But I think Donovan calls Sherlock that because she thinks he's pretty special, and she's envious of that. I mean, c'mon -- wouldn't you want to just be inherently that clever?

 

 

 

 And then here comes John.  He's the one that accepts Sherlock's talents of deduction instead of saying "piss off," as everyone else does. And Sherlock can make him better too -- he saw right into John and helped him drop the psychosomatic limp within the first episode.  That's a buddy pic relationship in the making.

 

And don't forget when John kills Jeff the cabbie for a man he just met hours before. Now there's a good way of making friends.

 

Okay, crappy jokes aside -- I feel that the limp is sort of a metaphor for how damaged John is until he meets Sherlock. The limp hinders John from doing everyday things (going up stairs) and keeps him from doing things to distract himself from his problems. In turn, he starts thinking negatively too much and filling himself up with self-pity ("Nothing happens to me.").

 

And then comes the lovely plot twist that is Sherlock Holmes (shut up, I know that's paraphrased from The Fault in Our Stars). Sherlock's a blazing fire that relights John and gives him a new lease on life. John stops hating himself because now there's something to do, places to go, a life to be lived. Thus, the limp is gone.

 

It also shows that maybe -- just maybe -- you'll meet someone who makes you wonder why you ever thought you were better off on your own.

[Carol the Dabbler]

By now, I think the relationship between John and Sherlock defies definition. It's not really a romance, but it comes close. There's definitely no sex (although I must say, I do not blame anybody who read not-quite-so-innocent things into the stag night scenes). It's almost the "brothers-from-different-mothers" kind of buddy epic that I'm used to, but again, not quite. I mean, their friendship is an odd one. Just consider, going out for a drink, doing anything not work related together, is awkward for them. No, I don't think it's awkward because of any kind of attraction, don't get me wrong, I mean that in a way, they're more colleagues than friends. There's a certain distance between them, which makes for a lot of tension, which is unusual for "best friends", and which somehow, for my feeling at least, adds to the romance aspect. Best friends usually know they're best friends, they kind of take their mutual affection for granted. Not so Sherlock and John. Remember what a huge revelation it was for Sherlock to be asked to be best man.

Oh, that's an excellent point! (And I certainly never thought of it that way.) They're sort of "best colleagues" or "steady partners" or something. That's probably one big reason why it feels like a romance, because of the tension, a la Ross and Rachel.

[Boton]

 

 

Yes. Basically, I agree with you, and I think you express yourself remarkably well. Gosh, where did you learn to lay out your thoughts like that? I'm envious...

 

Thanks, T.o.b.y!  To paraphrase HLV, "It's more or less my day job."  

[Arcadia]

Yes. Basically, I agree with you, and I think you express yourself remarkably well. Gosh, where did you learn to lay out your thoughts like that? I'm envious...

 

Anyway, before series 3, I'd have agreed 100% and more. And I love what you say about importing a Victorian era relationship into modern times. That's exactly the "problem" (if there is a problem, which I don't think).

 

But. But... oh dear, I'm not like you, I can't put it into words like this, especially since it's a gut feeling on my part objecting, not my reason.

 

Okay. But. But I have seen and loved plenty of "buddy stories". I adore Sam and Frodo, for example. I love Victorian novels, and, as you say, they are stock full of very close, very important, friendships between two men or two women. I love Anne and Diana from "Anne of Green Gables", as well. I guess the "friendship story" is "my thing", even more than the fully fledged "love story".

 

Now for the but. But here, I see something slightly different. Just slightly. No sex, I agree. No hints at anything sexual. But romance, yes. I see romance, and romance played up to a degree I'm not used to in this context, but very used to in the traditional love story. I certainly did not go looking for it, it just hit me as I was watching the last 3 episodes. I never noticed it before.

 

And I think that is deliberate. I think they're getting as close to a love story as they can without actually writing one. Why, I don't know. My guess is something to do with market research and wanting to keep as many viewers happy as possible. But even if that were true, I wouldn't mind. I think it's surprisingly beautifully done.

 

By now, I think the relationship between John and Sherlock defies definition. It's not really a romance, but it comes close. There's definitely no sex (although I must say, I do not blame anybody who read not-quite-so-innocent things into the stag night scenes). It's almost the "brothers-from-different-mothers" kind of buddy epic that I'm used to, but again, not quite. I mean, their friendship is an odd one. Just consider, going out for a drink, doing anything not work related together, is awkward for them. No, I don't think it's awkward because of any kind of attraction, don't get me wrong, I mean that in a way, they're more colleagues than friends. There's a certain distance between them, which makes for a lot of tension, which is unusual for "best friends", and which somehow, for my feeling at least, adds to the romance aspect. Best friends usually know they're best friends, they kind of take their mutual affection for granted. Not so Sherlock and John. Remember what a huge revelation it was for Sherlock to be asked to be best man.

 

Sorry if this is very long and incoherent, my brain is fried after a twelve-hour work day (not kidding).

 

Anyway. I love anything that defies definition, so no wonder I'm set on seeing that here as well.

You know what this made me think of? This...

 

 

Who sees a vase first? Who sees two faces first? Once you know both images are there, how long does it take you to see the other one? Most people see one or the other right away. A few see both at once. Some find it easy to see it both ways, and some struggle to see it both ways. And probably there's some who don't see it either way.

 

I don't remember, if I ever knew, the psychological explanation for this, but I always found it intriguing, how different people have different perceptions of the same thing. Here's a harder one....

Which end of the cat is facing towards you; the head or the tail? Can you make it turn around? Is it an act of will, or do you just suddenly see it the other way?

 

Cool, huh?

[SherlockedCAMPer]

I see both images both ways easily.  The first 1 I've seen so many times that I see both directions at the same time. The cat was a new one so it took a little longer but I've seen similar images.

[Arcadia]

Yeah, I noticed the same thing .... I hadn't seen the cat before, so it was harder for me to find the illusion. I'm wondering if that's a factor, too ... familiarity with the image?

[Arcadia]

Here's another classic; is she spinning clockwise, or counterclockwise?

[T.o.b.y]

Oooh, I love pictures like that. Okay, I see the faces first, then the vase, and then I go back and forth pretty quickly. I see the cat facing me, but I find it quite easy to make it turn around. The only thing my brain can't do, it seems, is make the dancer go counter-clockwise. I only see clockwise. Now, I wonder why that is and what all this says about my silly old grey matter...

[Arcadia]

I don't know. I saw her going counter-clockwise first, then I got her going clockwise, and now I can't get her back!

 

I want to say it's got something to do with left-brain/right-brain stuff, but my right brain is probably making that up.

[T.o.b.y]

I can make her shadow go counter-clockwise, if I only look at that. But not the dancer herself. Strange!

[SherlockedCAMPer]

It took me a bit but I got the counter clockwise going after the clockwise. I was able to get her face to flip first then the lower leg then finally the raised leg. I love optical illusions.

[Shadow Dweller]

I wonder... does Sherlock ever realize that Moriarty had been lulling him into complacency with the Carl Powers case, a string of human-bombs incident and the royal scandal? It seems that there is a method in 'Jim's madness' after all. 

[Bakerstreet Irregular]

Complacency?  I'm not sure I see it quite that way. Yes, Moriarty was bored and had learned enough about Sherlock to know that he got bored too. That Sherlock's mind needed stimulation. But it was Moriarty that got bored with the game first. He killed an innocent blind woman and almost a dozen other people for no reason. He woke the sleeping giant within Sherlock's psyche. Sherlock, for all his claims of being a sociopath loved the game for the game's sake. But start killing people for no reason?  Not so much. Hurt people and he would become the hunter and the dangerous man.

[sittything]

Complacency?  I'm not sure I see it quite that way. Yes, Moriarty was bored and had learned enough about Sherlock to know that he got bored too. That Sherlock's mind needed stimulation. But it was Moriarty that got bored with the game first. He killed an innocent blind woman and almost a dozen other people for no reason. He woke the sleeping giant within Sherlock's psyche. Sherlock, for all his claims of being a sociopath loved the game for the game's sake. But start killing people for no reason?  Not so much. Hurt people and he would become the hunter and the dangerous man.

 

Sherlock the dragon slayer. 

[Carol the Dabbler]

I wonder... does Sherlock ever realize that Moriarty had been lulling him into complacency with the Carl Powers case, a string of human-bombs incident and the royal scandal? It seems that there is a method in 'Jim's madness' after all. 

 

Hmm -- so you think perhaps Moriarty was testing Sherlock's ability level, then making The Game slightly too easy for him, just to lull him into thinking that he had the upper hand?  That would be a good strategy, and might well have worked if Sherlock hadn't been pulling roughly the same thing on Moriarty.

 

Maybe Sherlock realized that, but I suspect that it didn't really matter to him, because he knew (or at least believed) that he was actually the one in control all along.  Hopefully he was right, and will not be blindsided by Moriarty in a future episode!

[Bendydoodle Cantaloupe]

But Moriarty's unpredictable. When he shot himself on the rooftop, Sherlock never saw it coming. Although Sherlock did prepare quite a few different plans to fake his own death, he didn't anticipate Moriarty's suicide.

 

Perhaps Moriarty knew Sherlock didn't know. Maybe he thought that if he faked his death, Sherlock would die for real. So one thought the other was dead dead, when in fact both of them may be still alive!