Subtext Interpretation... What Do You See?

[Arcadia]

I was reminded, with the recent death of Leonard Nimoy, of some of the canon back story of Star Trek.  Apparently, there's a Vulcan word, t'hy'la, which means "friend," "brother," or "lover."  Gene Roddenberry apparently said that Captain Kirk said that he hadn't heard of the multiple meanings, but he wouldn't be so foolish as to pick a sexual partner who only was interested every several years.  So, even back in the 1970s or so, we have an example of a creator baiting the fandom with subtext jokes about the relationship between the main characters and then having one of the characters vehemently deny it.   ;)

This is what I don't get! How do we get from Kirk saying he wouldn't pick a Vulcan sex partner (that seems pretty straightforward to me) to baiting fans with subtext jokes? I'm clearly missing something....

[Boton]

 

I was reminded, with the recent death of Leonard Nimoy, of some of the canon back story of Star Trek.  Apparently, there's a Vulcan word, t'hy'la, which means "friend," "brother," or "lover."  Gene Roddenberry apparently said that Captain Kirk said that he hadn't heard of the multiple meanings, but he wouldn't be so foolish as to pick a sexual partner who only was interested every several years.  So, even back in the 1970s or so, we have an example of a creator baiting the fandom with subtext jokes about the relationship between the main characters and then having one of the characters vehemently deny it.   ;)

This is what I don't get! How do we get from Kirk saying he wouldn't pick a Vulcan sex partner (that seems pretty straightforward to me) to baiting fans with subtext jokes? I'm clearly missing something....

 

 

I'm sorry; I wasn't clear.  Or I was only clear in my own mind, or something.

 

I was trying to say that Roddenberry had control of Star Trek, so the word t'hy'la was his creation.  He didn't have to put the meaning "lover" in there, which would imply that if Kirk and Spock were "t'hy'la," it might mean that they considered themselves lovers as much as it meant they considered themselves friends or brothers.  Roddenberry could have left the word, which he created, with entirely platonic meanings, but he didn't.  That fed the flames of the K/S community.

 

Then, to put words in a character's mouth that denies the relationship that canon subtext seems to suggest appears to me to be baiting a certain segment of the audience.  So, I feel like Roddenberry was implying that KIrk and Spock were close enough to be lovers, but that Kirk denied it, which allowed both sides of the fandom to have evidence in favor of their position.  

 

I was kind of saying that I see a bit of this with Moftiss.  I do think that, for the first couple of seasons, they felt that a S/J romantic relationship was ridiculous, that everyone should know that, and that they could get away with the jokes because "everyone" understood Holmes and Watson well enough to see that that should be funny.  I imagine they were at least somewhat surprised that people actually took the subtext as text rather than counterpoint.

 

I think two things happened in season 3.  First, I do think they did a little bit of fan service and had something in there for every ship, kind of the way I think Roddenberry was playing a bit with the Star Trek audience.  

 

But second, I think they pulled back on the S/J innuendo.  I know this is not a common opinion, but I think that season 3 showed less S/J subtext than other seasons.  John gets married.  Sherlock has a girlfriend, if only for a case.  This is the most overtly heterosexual position the show takes.  I think it's appropriate at that point for Moftiss to stake out a position on the guys' sexuality, and I think they did it in S3.  They certainly did it in interviews this year.

 

I understand Toby's point (or I think I'm reflecting it right) that TSoT had Sherlock in a position to mirror Mary in making a commitment to John, but I read that episode almost as blunting the Mary/John relationship so that she would be in parallel to Sherlock, rather than Sherlock being held up as a mirror of the bride.  I think Mary's relationship with John is as platonic as it is romantic in her commitment so that the viewers will recognize her as a Sherlock that John actually sleeps with.  That could allow the viewers to have an affinity for that character that they need in order to feel loyalty to her in HLV in spite of her actions.  Whether Moftiss succeeded in this is up for debate of course!

 

(That last paragraph probably doesn't make sense either, but I can try again after coffee!)

[Arcadia]

Thank you! That was more explanation than I deserved, but almost as much as I needed! :D  You da bomb.

What my feeble little brain didn't get was a connection between the word "t'hy'la" and Kirk and Spock. I realize they're "friends" but I always think of Kirk as captain first, friend second. Or something like that. Anyway, there's a line between them. But I get your point now, although I'm not convinced Roddenberry meant his remark the way it was taken. But then, I was never very involved in the Star Trek fandom beyond reading about it in sci fi magazines. And that was decades ago. Is it still on the air? :P
 

I think two things happened in season 3.  First, I do think they did a little bit of fan service and had something in there for every ship, kind of the way I think Roddenberry was playing a bit with the Star Trek audience.  

But second, I think they pulled back on the S/J innuendo.  I know this is not a common opinion, but I think that season 3 showed less S/J subtext than other seasons.  John gets married.  Sherlock has a girlfriend, if only for a case.  This is the most overtly heterosexual position the show takes.  I think it's appropriate at that point for Moftiss to stake out a position on the guys' sexuality, and I think they did it in S3.  They certainly did it in interviews this year.

I understand Toby's point (or I think I'm reflecting it right) that TSoT had Sherlock in a position to mirror Mary in making a commitment to John, but I read that episode almost as blunting the Mary/John relationship so that she would be in parallel to Sherlock, rather than Sherlock being held up as a mirror of the bride.  I think Mary's relationship with John is as platonic as it is romantic in her commitment so that the viewers will recognize her as a Sherlock that John actually sleeps with.  That could allow the viewers to have an affinity for that character that they need in order to feel loyalty to her in HLV in spite of her actions.  Whether Moftiss succeeded in this is up for debate of course!

(That last paragraph probably doesn't make sense either, but I can try again after coffee!)

 
No, it made perfect sense. Although I haven't had enough coffee yet either, maybe it will make less sense when I'm more clear-headed. ?

I think my take on this is closer to yours than to Toby's. For example, I didn't read Sherlock as "devastated" by John's wedding; on the contrary, I think he was very accepting of it, and of Mary. I think for the first time he's realizing he doesn't really like being alone, but I don't think he's all broken up about it.

However, I think Toby's correct in that the show is still presented in such a way to see "Johnlock" interpretations without too much effort. Sherlock on the morning of the wedding, staring at John's empty chair and murmuring "into battle" as he goes to get dressed ... I don't think it's much of a leap to think that means Sherlock is longing for John's presence and dreading the marriage. My take is just far less dramatic ... I think he's acknowledging that his world is changing; and it's not the wedding he's dreading, it's his role in it. (There will be people!) But then I am not a very dramatic person to begin with, of course I would lean that way.
 
I agree they seem to be trying to tamp down the "Johnlock" innuendo. I also think they could do a far better job of it if they really wanted to squash it completely. They have to tread delicately though; some people would feel betrayed and used if it became obvious that the gay jokes were never anything but jokes. Enough people to hurt the show? I don't know, but I suspect they'd rather not find out.

 

And now I'm the one who's not sure she's making sense. Where's that coffee?

[Boton]

 

I think my take on this is closer to yours than to Toby's. For example, I didn't read Sherlock as "devastated" by John's wedding; on the contrary, I think he was very accepting of it, and of Mary. I think for the first time he's realizing he doesn't really like being alone, but I don't think he's all broken up about it.

 

However, I think Toby's correct in that the show is still presented in such a way to see "Johnlock" interpretations without too much effort. Sherlock on the morning of the wedding, staring at John's empty chair and murmuring "into battle" as he goes to get dressed ... I don't think it's much of a leap to think that means Sherlock is longing for John's presence and dreading the marriage. My take is just far less dramatic ... I think he's acknowledging that his world is changing; and it's not the wedding he's dreading, it's his role in it. (There will be people!) But then I am not a very dramatic person to begin with, of course I would lean that way.

 

 

 

I agree.  I never see TSoT as an example of Sherlock being devastated in the sense of this being a "break-up" of sorts, or of John choosing Mary over Sherlock.  I don't think Sherlock sees himself as vying for the spot that Mary occupies.  I do think that he is dreading the change that John's marriage could make in the friendship, in the sense that he knows that this is a permanent alteration in the dynamic.  I think that's what the removal of John's chair represents:  Not so much that Sherlock is missing a romantic partner in John, but that he realizes that John's move to live with Mary is now given the permanence of marriage, and John isn't coming back unless something very significant happens to his relationship with Mary.  

 

So, into battle.  And, as you say, the fact that Sherlock is going to have to be "on" all day long for John and Mary's wedding.  Heck, I think that would scare me a little, but I'm a pretty confirmed introvert.

[Inge l-w]

Are we going to keep moving this thing from one thread to the next?

Perfectly fine by me!

I do think that at least Mr. Gatiss has a vested interest in keeping things deliberately ambiguous, and I repeat my query:

a) Which one of the two gave the name Molly to the cute pathologist, and did they do so knowing that Victorian male brothels were known as Mollyhouses? You can find the evidence in Ronald Pearsall's Worm in the Bud.

b ) Which one suggested the motif of the swan for the alternative in the serviettes in SoT? Black swans are notorious same sex parents, mating with a female and stealing the eggs to bring up their family.

c) The whole SoT speech starts with a still childish Sherlock, who treats Archie on an equal footing : "I don't know, I'll ask one" and ends with the same person a full adult having gone through an accelerated puberty during his speech, what TOBY mentioned as watching whose marriage to whom exactly. The final look he gives John after the pregnancy deduction can only be described as wistful, but for whom (rather than what).

d) In TEH, the whole bonfire sequence and his actions are definitely suggestive of something more than friendly feelings. After all, the same Sherlock was perfectly willing to break his best friend's heart by jumping to his apparent death in The Fall and disappear for two years without once contacting him for ostensible security reasons.

e) IF Moriarty is alive and comes back in S4, and I don't believe he is from his appearance in Sherlock's mind palace scene in HLV, then the character of Vicky the maid in SoT is definitely the playful villain screwing up Sherlock's best-laid deductions by contradicting what the rest of the girls tell the detective, and Vicky is originally dressed in an all-leather red outfit, rather suggestive, on the whole.

They will continue playing this game, as they have done with Dr. Who, especially after they discovered its slightly different fan base, as both have declared in interviews. As Janine would have put it , "Just messing" with our heartstrings and our minds!

[Arcadia]

Are we going to keep moving this thing from one thread to the next?

Perfectly fine by me!

I do think that at least Mr. Gatiss has a vested interest in keeping things deliberately ambiguous, and I repeat my query:

a) Which one of the two gave the name Molly to the cute pathologist, and did they do so knowing that Victorian male brothels were known as Mollyhouses? You can find the evidence in Ronald Pearsall's Worm in the Bud.

b ) Which one suggested the motif of the swan for the alternative in the serviettes in SoT? Black swans are notorious same sex parents, mating with a female and stealing the eggs to bring up their family.

c) The whole SoT speech starts with a still childish Sherlock, who treats Archie on an equal footing : "I don't know, I'll ask one" and ends with the same person a full adult having gone through an accelerated puberty during his speech, what TOBY mentioned as watching whose marriage to whom exactly. The final look he gives John after the pregnancy deduction can only be described as wistful, but for whom (rather than what).

d) In TEH, the whole bonfire sequence and his actions are definitely suggestive of something more than friendly feelings. After all, the same Sherlock was perfectly willing to break his best friend's heart by jumping to his apparent death in The Fall and disappear for two years without once contacting him for ostensible security reasons.

They will continue playing this game, as they have done with Dr. Who, especially after they discovered its slightly different fan base, as both have declared in interviews. As Janine would have put it , "Just messing" with our heartstrings and our minds!

 

Okay, I have some alternative interpretations, but I don't claim that mine are any more valid that anyone else's. Who knows what Moftiss thinks? Not me. But here's what I see:

 

a) I don't know, of course, but I can't think of any reason for it. That is, I don't see what point they would be making by naming a female character after a male brothel. What would it signify?

 

b ) According to Wikipedia (yes, I know, Wikipedia is always to be taken with grain of salt, but that's what I could find) only a fourth of the black swan population exhibits this behaviour. That means 75% of them don't ... so a black swan motif is no more of a reference to homosexuality than the Sydney Opera House, imo.

 

c) Of course he's wistful, the man who has declared himself his best friend is moving on to a new life. Who wouldn't be a bit wistful in that situation? Missing the comfort of the status quo is not the same thing as having a gay agenda, though, is it? Or maybe I'm missing your point, here. I don't see Sherlock growing up during the speech so much as finally revealing a little of his heart. He's always used immature behaviour to protect himself, but he's perfectly capable of acting like an adult when the situation requires.

 

d) Yeah, I know that's a popular interpretation (even CAM saw it that way!), I just don't agree. I think Sherlock would have reacted in precisely the same way if it were Lestrade or Mrs. Hudson or Molly in the fire. I'd even venture to say he would have reacted the same way even if it were a complete stranger in the fire. He may not be one of them, but he IS on the side of the angels. Nobody deserves death by fire, even a stranger. Even a foe.

 

So, that's my take, for what it's worth. I know, I must seem very dull and mainstream. :P Can't help it, it's the way I am!

[Inge l-w]

Thank you, Arcadia dear, it was a pretty comprehensive answer, but the whole SoT is full of innuendo. If you take into account his jealous reaction to Major Sholto having been the first in John's affections with Mary's "Oh, Sherlock, neither of us was the first... " In what, may one wonder, as well as his look towards John when Janine responds to his "Do you like solving crimes?" with "Do you have a vacancy?" , then there is his whole vehement denial to Mycroft about NOT getting involved (in what, one wonders) which support the double entendre subtext to the point of being blatant about it. His whole speech is a subtext declaration, and as for his vow, watch and listen carefully.

a) is a bit like Mycroft being M, it would signify that they started the whole concept with the specific intention of messing with their characters' sexuality. As for e), we shall have to wait and see, but it makes one feel that the creators are purposefully drawing their fan base on a figurative rack.

It has become a grab-bag of a show, where everyone can indulge their personal interpretation to their heart's content!

Black swans are telling! If one quarter of the entire human male population were homosexual, it would be no laughing matter, I should think!

[Shadow Dweller]

Loves fan-service without being graphic about it. Not that I reject the bit when according to Anderson's imagination, Sherlock and Jim faked their death and spend a jolly time laughing - kissing on top of Bart  :xmas3: 

[SherlockedCAMPer]

That was the Scottish lady not Anderson who thought Sherlock & Moriarty laughed & kissed on top of Bart's. But agreed on the fan service options that exist in the show

[Arcadia]

Thank you, Arcadia dear, it was a pretty comprehensive answer, but the whole SoT is full of innuendo. If you take into account his jealous reaction to Major Sholto having been the first in John's affections with Mary's "Oh, Sherlock, neither of us was the first... " In what, may one wonder, as well as his look towards John when Janine responds to his "Do you like solving crimes?" with "Do you have a vacancy?" , then there is his whole vehement denial to Mycroft about NOT getting involved (in what, one wonders) which support the double entendre subtext to the point of being blatant about it. His whole speech is a subtext declaration, and as for his vow, watch and listen carefully.

a) is a bit like Mycroft being M, it would signify that they started the whole concept with the specific intention of messing with their characters' sexuality. As for e), we shall have to wait and see, but it makes one feel that the creators are purposefully drawing their fan base on a figurative rack.

It has become a grab-bag of a show, where everyone can indulge their personal interpretation to their heart's content!

Black swans are telling! If one quarter of the entire human male population were homosexual, it would be no laughing matter, I should think!

 

Yes, but I'm just saying there's more than one way to interpret each of those things, and I don't think anyone except Moftiss can say for certain what the "correct" interpretation is. Actually, I'm not even sure Moftiss knows!

[jadpdr]

In this particular discussion, which involves strictly personal views, I have come to the personal conclusion that the creators ARE deliberately playing a double game with their characters. They may deny the undercurrents of same-sex attraction, but at the same time they fan the flames by giving the viewers ambiguous scenes open to dual interpretations. That look he threw John at the end of Sign of Three, is pure wistful longing, about whom or what is the point under discussion.

All things considered, my views tend to coincide with Inge's and Toby's, and I would never like to see Molly get hurt by Sherlock trying out a sexually oriented experiment, because to him it would be just that. And it would not be in character with the original, who the creators allegedly consider their teenage hero, who was unfailingly courteous and even chivalrous to women clients, starting with Mary Morstan and going on in The Copper Beeches, A Case of Identity, The Solitary Cyclist, The Speckled Band, the Sussex Vampire, Abbey Grange and The Double Stain. In the last two, especially, he protects them from the law, as well.

[Inge l-w]

Dear Arcadia, if Mr Moffat does not know, Mr Gatiss definitely does! As far back as Scandal, in the commentary, when Dr Watson is being taken to Battersea power station, Benedict tries to say that in the ensuing scene "you can see all John's love and affection, man love not any other kind" and Mr Gatiss jumps in with a "mov" comment and giggles, so Benedict tries on another tack, but Mr Gatiss undercuts that as well. It is a very good thing that in real life Benedict is seemingly not affected by such things and is a well-brought up gentleman who can distance himself from the role, because the co-creator's behaviour on this particular instance would have earned him a more or less well-aimed cross punch right in the face from this particular viewer!

Concerning point e) above, everyone must have noticed how Vicky uses Moriarty's other signature word for Sherlock: "Sorry, Sexy, some secrets have to stay secret". How can she call him that if they are using a chat room? Moriarty started the whole Great Game with "Hello, Sexy!" after all.

[jadpdr]

The idea of Moriarty is just plain scary!

And what was the big idea behind all those perfectly cut suits and a dramatic coat hiding those really tight shirts?

By the time of the Special Edition commentary, we can see both leading actors buttoned up to the neck, however. By mutual agreement or instinctive reaction to what has been going on around them all this time?

[Arcadia]

Dear Arcadia, if Mr Moffat does not know, Mr Gatiss definitely does! As far back as Scandal, in the commentary, when Dr Watson is being taken to Battersea power station, Benedict tries to say that in the ensuing scene "you can see all John's love and affection, man love not any other kind" and Mr Gatiss jumps in with a "mav" comment and giggles, so Benedict tries on another tack, but Mr Gatiss undercuts that as well. It is a very good thing that in real life Benedict is seemingly not affected by such things and is a well-brought up gentleman who can distance himself from the role, because the co-creator's behaviour on this particular instance would have earned him a more or less well-aimed cross punch right in the face from this particular viewer!

 

I had to go look that up! I don't see anything but Mr. Gatiss joking around as usual, but the transcripts from the commentaries aren't complete, maybe something got left out?

 

Here is the conversation in question (from Ariane Devere):

(As John, having just ranted about Mycroft having a power complex, is driven to Battersea Power Station)

Mark: “Power complex! Hard cut always works!”

Benedict (as we see the beautiful shot of the car pulling up inside the power station): “If Paul McGuigan doesn’t get an advertising campaign for Jaguar, I’ll stop doing the voiceovers for them.”

Sue: “A great location.”

Mark: “It’s a great scene, this [i.e. the conversation between John and Irene]. Got a round of applause yesterday.”

Benedict: “Rightly so. It’s an extraordinarily beautifully played and stunningly written scene. You get everything of John’s love – man love, not any other kind of love ...”

Mark: “‘Muv’. Let’s call it ‘muv’!”

Benedict: “It says everything about their relationship. It says what the bond is and the care is, and it’s everything that they don’t say to each other but he’s allowed to say, thinking that he’s not there. That’s where – as a romance – it’s an incredibly British affair. There’s an awful lot of beautifully understated subtlety and nuance to it.”

Lara: “It was wonderful as well ’cause it was also the moment where I think we [irene and John] bond as two characters.”

Benedict: “It’s stunningly shot. Look at the way it’s lit. It’s just beautiful.”

I love Ben's reference to this scene as "incredibly British." It's just occurred to me it was kind of mirrored in HLV, at the airport, when Sherlock says "There's something I always meant to say," and then he can't bring himself to say it. Two men who love each other (in whatever kind of love you choose to believe in) and they can't say it because they're soooo British! :D (Although, to be fair, most American men are like that too. Only less articulate. :P )

[J.P.]

 

I love Ben's reference to this scene as "incredibly British." It's just occurred to me it was kind of mirrored in HLV, at the airport, when Sherlock says "There's something I always meant to say," and then he can't bring himself to say it.

 

Hmmm... thanks for a new POV on that scene. I was always thinking it was one of Sherlock's little games he played on John, with the difference that the joke was not on John this time, but for him. But you are right, it could be as well that Sherlock was about to say something emotional and just couldn't. Still "to the best of times" sums it all pretty well though.

 

PS, John is as incapable of wording his feelings as Sherlock, if not worse.

[Arcadia]

Oh, I agree, I think John is definitely worse! Although he did finally come out and say "you're my best friend", bless him. It took him forever to get it out. One of my favorite scenes, that.

[J.P.]

And even then he expects Sherlock to find it out for himself - which is the last thing Sherlock is capable to do. :D

 

Actually John should know after... how many years?

 

PS: have to include that very-British-thing into consideration for the whole series. Something that doesn't pass the cultural borders without help. Thanks!

[Boton]

So, here's the thing I keep wondering about subtext.  And I realize my training is not in sociology, nor is it in lit or film crit, so I might be missing something, but here goes.

 

The subtext is really a function of the juxtapositioning of two different socially-constructed sets of behavior.  We are playing with the difference between behavior a culture expects of two male friends (and I think "male" is important here, because the behavior would be different for two females) and what it expects of a romantic couple.  The "subtext" occurs when the characters that present themselves as one thing start taking on the behavior of the other group.

 

To take a really obvious example, in SiP, we confront the fact that current culture expects that two adult, single men would probably not take flatmates -- single adult men typically live alone.  Romantic couples live together.  So, if Sherlock and John move in together with no explanation, we get subtext that they might be romantic.  Now, they solve that straight away by telling us that it's a financial arrangement, and then they play a bit with the potential for subtext by having the Angelo's conversation. But Holmes and Watson have to live together for at least some time for a Sherlock Holmes story to work, so they had to work through the cultural potential for subtext.

 

What I wonder, is how much of the subtext that we all love to discuss is a product of Moftiss's own culture, and how is it perceived, rightly or wrongly, by other cultures, even ones that seem to share a great deal in common with the British culture in which the show is immersed?

 

Example, for those of you who've put up with this so far:  You all know I love House.  Even though Hugh Laurie is British, the show is completely American in it's writing, setting, and the acting of the leads.  The show confronted the same subtext problems as did Sherlock, but I would argue that they negated the idea of House/Wilson as a couple by taking a very American attitude to it that I think is much more muted in something British like Sherlock.  And if I think I perceive a difference in British vs. American cultural expectations and subtext, what happens when Sherlock is watched by cultures that are much further removed from the British culture?  Does the cultural difference that creates subtext still exist, is it magnified, or is it diminished?

 

OK, [/nerd off].  Discuss.   :D  

[T.o.b.y]

 

 In TEH, the whole bonfire sequence and his actions are definitely suggestive of something more than friendly feelings. After all, the same Sherlock was perfectly willing to break his best friend's heart by jumping to his apparent death in The Fall and disappear for two years without once contacting him for ostensible security reasons.

 

d) Yeah, I know that's a popular interpretation (even CAM saw it that way!), I just don't agree. I think Sherlock would have reacted in precisely the same way if it were Lestrade or Mrs. Hudson or Molly in the fire. I'd even venture to say he would have reacted the same way even if it were a complete stranger in the fire. He may not be one of them, but he IS on the side of the angels. Nobody deserves death by fire, even a stranger. Even a foe.

 

I think so too, Arcadia. In fact, I would have reacted the same way as Sherlock emotionally, no matter whose life was in danger, even though I would probably have lacked the courage and abilities to act like him. But: From a fiction reader's / writer's point of view, this is a classic damsel in distress scene. And it is far from the first time John has had to step into that role. And the usual romantic convention is that the hero either is in love or falls in love with the damsel he rescues from distress. Now, of course there is no obligation whatsoever for a show to follow any kind of convention or tradition, and Sherlock gleefully defies a whole bunch of them all the time, which is another reason why I love the series. But they play with our (well, my and some other people's, not necessarily all our) expectations and preconceived ideas knowingly and intentionally. Which makes the subtext deliberate in my opinion. Which brings me back to it not being fair to tell people off for noticing it and using it as the basis for their interpretation, which might be wrong in the sens that they didn't fully "get" what the author was after, but is certainly not absurd or impossible based on what we are shown (regardless of what we are told).

 

 

It has become a grab-bag of a show, where everyone can indulge their personal interpretation to their heart's content!

 

...which is not necessarily a bad thing if you ask me. When you have a large and very diverse audience, you cannot keep everybody happy without a good deal of compromise and ambiguity. And it is fun, it keeps us on our toes and it keeps the discussions going. It's a detective series, there's nothing wrong with making the audience think and do a bit of their own deducing.

 

In this particular discussion, which involves strictly personal views, I have come to the personal conclusion that the creators ARE deliberately playing a double game with their characters. They may deny the undercurrents of same-sex attraction, but at the same time they fan the flames by giving the viewers ambiguous scenes open to dual interpretations.

 

That's exactly what I think. And again, I see nothing wrong with that. I find it amusing and I think it's pretty clever as far as storytelling goes. Gosh, I find it hard enough to write one story, only think how brilliant you have to be to write like three possible versions packed into one! The only thing that bothers me is that in interviews and commentaries, the writers keep claiming that there's nothing going on and people are just imagining things because they have dirty, one-track minds. And then I wonder, hm, do I? Am I delusional, crazy, is there something wrong with my brain? And then I watch the episodes again and go nah, this is way too much teasing way too often to be unintentional. Or is it? Gah, this series is going to break my poor little brain some day.

 

Benedict: “It says everything about their relationship. It says what the bond is and the care is, and it’s everything that they don’t say to each other but he’s allowed to say, thinking that he’s not there. That’s where – as a romance – it’s an incredibly British affair. (...)

 

Now I wish I listened to commentaries more often. He really said that? Well. So I'm not that insane. Because this is a F***ing romance for sure, and in my humble opinion, the often added "b" to the word is wholly unnecessary. It's a love story that employs all kinds of romantic motifs, and to be completely honest, I love it. To clarify: I do not think it has anything to do with sex or sexual longing. Not every romance is sexual. I guess that's where the main misunderstanding lies, we are so used to equate "romantic" with "erotic" that it totally confuses people when someone tries to do one without the other.

 

I'm a bit worried that as time goes by and as fan reactions become more loud and, in some cases, obnoxious, they will come to mostly abandon the idea and just water the central relationship down to average buddies who do some crazy work together occasionally. It would still be fun to watch, probably, but there'd be something missing. For me, at least. After all, the Sherlock Holmes stories were never as remarkable for the cases as for the friendship.

 

Hmmm... thanks for a new POV on that scene. I was always thinking it was one of Sherlock's little games he played on John, with the difference that the joke was not on John this time, but for him. But you are right, it could be as well that Sherlock was about to say something emotional and just couldn't. Still "to the best of times" sums it all pretty well.

 

I don't think he really meant to say anything profound, I think he was simply making a joke to lighten the mood and make John laugh. But (another but): The joke only works because it seems perfectly plausible to the audience and John that there might be something.

 

So, here's the thing I keep wondering about subtext.  And I realize my training is not in sociology, nor is it in lit or film crit, so I might be missing something, but here goes.

 

The subtext is really a function of the juxtapositioning of two different socially-constructed sets of behavior.  We are playing with the difference between behavior a culture expects of two male friends (and I think "male" is important here, because the behavior would be different for two females) and what it expects of a romantic couple.  The "subtext" occurs when the characters that present themselves as one thing start taking on the behavior of the other group.

 

To take a really obvious example, in SiP, we confront the fact that current culture expects that two adult, single men would probably not take flatmates -- single adult men typically live alone.  Romantic couples live together.  So, if Sherlock and John move in together with no explanation, we get subtext that they might be romantic.  Now, they solve that straight away by telling us that it's a financial arrangement, and then they play a bit with the potential for subtext by having the Angelo's conversation. But Holmes and Watson have to live together for at least some time for a Sherlock Holmes story to work, so they had to work through the cultural potential for subtext.

 

What I wonder, is how much of the subtext that we all love to discuss is a product of Moftiss's own culture, and how is it perceived, rightly or wrongly, by other cultures, even ones that seem to share a great deal in common with the British culture in which the show is immersed?

 

Example, for those of you who've put up with this so far:  You all know I love House.  Even though Hugh Laurie is British, the show is completely American in it's writing, setting, and the acting of the leads.  The show confronted the same subtext problems as did Sherlock, but I would argue that they negated the idea of House/Wilson as a couple by taking a very American attitude to it that I think is much more muted in something British like Sherlock.  And if I think I perceive a difference in British vs. American cultural expectations and subtext, what happens when Sherlock is watched by cultures that are much further removed from the British culture?  Does the cultural difference that creates subtext still exist, is it magnified, or is it diminished?

 

OK, [/nerd off].  Discuss.   :D  

 

I am so sorry, but I have to admit I understand almost nothing of the above. I am afraid your big brain's thoughts went right over my poor average little head. Do you think you could break this down to my level? I'd love to discuss anything with you, only first I have to comprehend what the conversation is about...

[Boton]

 

 

 

So, here's the thing I keep wondering about subtext.  And I realize my training is not in sociology, nor is it in lit or film crit, so I might be missing something, but here goes.

 

The subtext is really a function of the juxtapositioning of two different socially-constructed sets of behavior.  We are playing with the difference between behavior a culture expects of two male friends (and I think "male" is important here, because the behavior would be different for two females) and what it expects of a romantic couple.  The "subtext" occurs when the characters that present themselves as one thing start taking on the behavior of the other group.

 

To take a really obvious example, in SiP, we confront the fact that current culture expects that two adult, single men would probably not take flatmates -- single adult men typically live alone.  Romantic couples live together.  So, if Sherlock and John move in together with no explanation, we get subtext that they might be romantic.  Now, they solve that straight away by telling us that it's a financial arrangement, and then they play a bit with the potential for subtext by having the Angelo's conversation. But Holmes and Watson have to live together for at least some time for a Sherlock Holmes story to work, so they had to work through the cultural potential for subtext.

 

What I wonder, is how much of the subtext that we all love to discuss is a product of Moftiss's own culture, and how is it perceived, rightly or wrongly, by other cultures, even ones that seem to share a great deal in common with the British culture in which the show is immersed?

 

Example, for those of you who've put up with this so far:  You all know I love House.  Even though Hugh Laurie is British, the show is completely American in it's writing, setting, and the acting of the leads.  The show confronted the same subtext problems as did Sherlock, but I would argue that they negated the idea of House/Wilson as a couple by taking a very American attitude to it that I think is much more muted in something British like Sherlock.  And if I think I perceive a difference in British vs. American cultural expectations and subtext, what happens when Sherlock is watched by cultures that are much further removed from the British culture?  Does the cultural difference that creates subtext still exist, is it magnified, or is it diminished?

 

OK, [/nerd off].  Discuss.   :D  

 

I am so sorry, but I have to admit I understand almost nothing of the above. I am afraid your big brain's thoughts went right over my poor average little head. Do you think you could break this down to my level? I'd love to discuss anything with you, only first I have to comprehend what the conversation is about...

 

 

Again, I should never post before coffee.  Let's try this again!  

 

"Subtext" isn't an absolute.  We get subtext when the behavior of a character or characters runs contrary to what they say about themselves or what is said about them.

 

To take a totally made-up example to make it really obvious and ridiculous, if John says, "I'm totally not gay!" at the same time he reaches over for Sherlock's hand and caresses his cheek, there is subtext there that John is actually sexually attracted to Sherlock.  His behavior is different than what he says.

 

But part of the question is what impact culture has on our perception of subtext.  I live in a culture (the U.S., Midwest) in which straight men don't typically hold hands.  In the situation above, I would see John's actions as belonging to a romantic couple more than a straight pair of friends, because he is behaving contrary to my cultural expectations for him.  

 

But, if I lived in a culture in which straight men held hands and were physically affectionate, then all of the above would hang together.  There would be no homoerotic subtext, because my culture would say that straight men are physically affectionate, John's words would say he's straight, and, to my eyes, his actions would be those of a straight man.  Bingo -- no subtext, because how of how it is filtered through my own cultural expectations.

 

So, to my question.  I think that Sherlock is perhaps reflective of a more muted British culture that sometimes, to my American eyes, creates subtext where perhaps none was intended.  I think there are American cultural expectations of how straight male friends behave with one another that might not completely agree with the British perception.  I don't know that for sure.  I'm also pretty sure that Moftiss like to play with innuendo, so that makes things less clear.  But I'm wondering if they intended a certain level of homoerotic subtext to seep through, maybe partly as a joke, but they were surprised when Sherlock became an international hit and people brought their own cultural baggage to watching the show.  I wonder how different cultures interpret the information we're given on screen and how that impacts different viewers' perceptions of the Sherlock/John (or Sherlock & John) relationship.

 

(Man, I have really got to get out of my own head today!  Sorry, guys!)

[T.o.b.y]

 

"Subtext" isn't an absolute.  We get subtext when the behavior of a character or characters runs contrary to what they say about themselves or what is said about them.

 

Oh! Really? You know, I always thought subtext just meant something that is implied, "between the lines", so to speak, just not explicitly shown or expressed.

 

Has my English become that bad? Gosh.

 

I'll consult a dictionary. Hm, Merriam Webster says:

 

the implicit or metaphorical meaning (as of a literary text)

 

So I hope I'm not all wrong.

 

Anyway, you were saying that our different cultural background could lead us to see subtext, especially erotic subtext, where really none was intended, just because we have different standards when it comes to personal space, affectionate gestures, etc. That may very well be right. In my case, I don't think it's so much my cultural experience as my reading and viewing experience, I tend to extrapolate from one story to the next and just assume that in fiction, certain things have certain meanings.

 

I think I get what you were saying, though. A good example is modern readers response to Victorian literature without any background information about Victorian culture. On the one hand, back then, there was a lot you weren't allowed to say or write explicitly, so Victorian text is heavily coded and you have to read between the lines constantly. On the other hand, two male friends walking out arm in arm and calling each other my dear this and my dear that was considered perfectly normal, and the fact that it is explicitly mentioned / described basically proves that there was no sexual meaning attached to that behavior.

 

 

 

[Inge l-w]

Dear Boton, from a purely historical point of view, the Chinese and other Far Eastern cultures would have absolutely no problem in seeing this as a straightforward romance, Chinese opera especially has such depth and nuance because all characters were originally played by male actors. But their close neighbours, the Russians, would consider ANY same sex relationship, Platonic, intellectual or purely idealised as contemptible, and that attitude of offhandedness is actually seen in the Russian version of the stories. No double meanings, no suspect language. Our favourite leads might have ended up in a Gulag with their carryings-on, Sherlock's preening and vanity, John's repeated and not very convincing denials, and Mrs Hudson's running gag (which, to be fair to Mr Moffat, he said in the commentary to the Special Edition, was the last time, as it has been laid to rest).

Even in Georgian and early Victorian times, relations were much more open and not considered improper. Have a look at the whole dandy concept, the carryings-on of Benjamin Disraeli and the Count d'Orsay, both of whom were heterosexual, as opposed to the discreet behaviour of their mutual friend Bulwer-Lytton, who was carrying on affairs with other men behind his increasingly frustrated wife Rosina's back but behaved with punctilious correctness in public.

The whole thing became incredibly boring and strait-laced when endearing little Vicky fell for her German prince. Any ideas on how to lay waste to Saxe-Coburg, anyone? (just joking) ^_^

[Boton]

Yes, exactly, to both Toby and Inge l-w.  I think it's easier for me to think about the changes that have taken place since the Victorian era -- many times when reading ACD, I have to remind myself to get into a Victorian mindset so I'm not seeing terms of romantic endearment everywhere when there are none.

 

On the other hand, to agree with Inge l-w as well, I have noticed that the Russian Sherlock Holmes (2013) is very careful about creating no subtext between the two characters.  Not only does John Watson live in a completely separate room from Sherlock, but it seems very clear (to my non-Russian eyes) that they would rather establish Sherlock's interest in women than make him celibate They go quite out of their way to give him love scenes with Irene (which are very lovely).

 

On the other hand, I think American interpretations are very broad and obvious, especially when they want to play with why a guy would willingly give up sex.  In Elementary, I feel like there is an explanation given about why Sherlock isn't hitting on Joan, even though she is living with him (in the first season).  Normally, I think many American audiences would suspect that his disinterest in Joan might indicate that he's not interested in women, so the very first meeting with Sherlock has him having just finished up with female prostitutes who have chained him to some sort of frame.  Then he explains that he views sex as a necessary evil that clears his mind.  To me, this is a very broad way of establishing that this Sherlock is very hetero, and that his celibacy is a quirk but not an indication of homosexuality.  Having to spell it out like this is very, very different from the BBC Sherlock method of just making girlfriends "not my area" and moving on with it.

 

Anyway.  Yes.  Yes.  To what you both said.

 

Edited to add:

 

Toby:  I think your English and your definition of subtext are fine.  I just also think that metaphorical or unstated information is always "culturally mediated," or filtered through a person's culture.  Metaphors are not absolute, even if there are certain common metaphors that appear in nearly all cultures.  Or something like that.  Anyway, I think you're right, but I was just taking the idea in a bit of a different direction.

[Inge l-w]

In TEH, the whole bonfire sequence and his actions are definitely suggestive of something more than friendly feelings. After all, the same Sherlock was perfectly willing to break his best friend's heart by jumping to his apparent death in The Fall and disappear for two years without once contacting him for ostensible security reasons.

d) Yeah, I know that's a popular interpretation (even CAM saw it that way!), I just don't agree. I think Sherlock would have reacted in precisely the same way if it were Lestrade or Mrs. Hudson or Molly in the fire. I'd even venture to say he would have reacted the same way even if it were a complete stranger in the fire. He may not be one of them, but he IS on the side of the angels. Nobody deserves death by fire, even a stranger. Even a foe.

I think so too, Arcadia. In fact, I would have reacted the same way as Sherlock emotionally, no matter whose life was in danger, even though I would probably have lacked the courage and abilities to act like him. But: From a fiction reader's / writer's point of view, this is a classic damsel in distress scene. And it is far from the first time John has had to step into that role. And the usual romantic convention is that the hero either is in love or falls in love with the damsel he rescues from distress. Now, of course there is no obligation whatsoever for a show to follow any kind of convention or tradition, and Sherlock gleefully defies a whole bunch of them all the time, which is another reason why I love the series. But they play with our (well, my and some other people's, not necessarily all our) expectations and preconceived ideas knowingly and intentionally. Which makes the subtext deliberate in my opinion. Which brings me back to it not being fair to tell people off for noticing it and using it as the basis for their interpretation, which might be wrong in the sens that they didn't fully "get" what the author was after, but is certainly not absurd or impossible based on what we are shown (regardless of what we are told).
 

 

It has become a grab-bag of a show, where everyone can indulge their personal interpretation to their heart's content!

...which is not necessarily a bad thing if you ask me. When you have a large and very diverse audience, you cannot keep everybody happy without a good deal of compromise and ambiguity. And it is fun, it keeps us on our toes and it keeps the discussions going. It's a detective series, there's nothing wrong with making the audience think and do a bit of their own deducing.

 

In this particular discussion, which involves strictly personal views, I have come to the personal conclusion that the creators ARE deliberately playing a double game with their characters. They may deny the undercurrents of same-sex attraction, but at the same time they fan the flames by giving the viewers ambiguous scenes open to dual interpretations.

That's exactly what I think. And again, I see nothing wrong with that. I find it amusing and I think it's pretty clever as far as storytelling goes. Gosh, I find it hard enough to write one story, only think how brilliant you have to be to write like three possible versions packed into one! The only thing that bothers me is that in interviews and commentaries, the writers keep claiming that there's nothing going on and people are just imagining things because they have dirty, one-track minds. And then I wonder, hm, do I? Am I delusional, crazy, is there something wrong with my brain? And then I watch the episodes again and go nah, this is way too much teasing way too often to be unintentional. Or is it? Gah, this series is going to break my poor little brain some day.

 

Benedict: “It says everything about their relationship. It says what the bond is and the care is, and it’s everything that they don’t say to each other but he’s allowed to say, thinking that he’s not there. That’s where – as a romance – it’s an incredibly British affair. (...)

Now I wish I listened to commentaries more often. He really said that? Well. So I'm not that insane. Because this is a F***ing romance for sure, and in my humble opinion, the often added "b" to the word is wholly unnecessary. It's a love story that employs all kinds of romantic motifs, and to be completely honest, I love it. To clarify: I do not think it has anything to do with sex or sexual longing. Not every romance is sexual. I guess that's where the main misunderstanding lies, we are so used to equate "romantic" with "erotic" that it totally confuses people when someone tries to do one without the other.

I'm a bit worried that as time goes by and as fan reactions become more loud and, in some cases, obnoxious, they will come to mostly abandon the idea and just water the central relationship down to average buddies who do some crazy work together occasionally. It would still be fun to watch, probably, but there'd be something missing. For me, at least. After all, the Sherlock Holmes stories were never as remarkable for the cases as for the friendship.

Dear fellow members,
OK, so I am using the quote text on this one, to repeat that Sherlock's behaviour in TEH changes dramatically from the moment he and Mary discuss the text. He throws her a suspicious look, and then goes into overdrive immediately! He does not know at that point WHAT it is all about. He gets a text about things hotting up, which is not what a Dane would say, but Moriarty might. He goes into as near a panic attack as the one in Hounds, only this time fueled by his fear for his friend's safety (denotation and interpretation of the word left to each of us to muse over). It is only AFTER they reach the churchyard that he puts the whole thing together, skids the motorcycle in his haste and rushes headlong into the bonfire.
And I repeat my query about Vicky in SoT : if they were in a forum for ghost-dating women or a chatroom thereof, WHY would she call him " Sexy", Moriarty's signature word for Sherlock?

[Arcadia]

Yes, of course. But I still think he would have done the exact same thing if the message had said "Save Molly Hooper".

 

and

 

Because she was flirting with him.