Subtext Interpretation... What Do You See?

[BlackButterfly]

Thats the very Q I was hoping people might have thoughts or ideas on.

The creative people talk about theee things at awards and Hay festival and such but there seems to be nothing much said otherwise.I know some artsy papers carried the wheel story.

Does anyone ask them.....at the con it was almost all the usual questions that have been asked and answered before....and theese kinds of things..the general viewer doesn't notice unless they observe and think...and the answers are always a bit..interpretational.

Why the painting of TRF on Sholtos wall...and Moriarty @ those pics up on Kittys wall...and Andersons john/sherlock kissing fan art on his fireshelf.....whats with the elephants everywhere and getting bigger until theres an actual live elephant in the freaking room..I know some of it but......your guess is as good as mine.

[BlackButterfly]

Thoughts on the subtext are that they couldn't sell a show that was like that to certain parts of the world from the start. So maybe they hide some of the story and sneak it into the subtext , a bit like a bomb on the underground subway , and they leave clues and hints that get bigger and bigger until they are right in your face ,like elephants, and then you watch people imagine the bomb going off and you laugh and laugh and laugh as everyone scrambles for the off switch....and say oh huh what isn't that all very...long ago.

Because by then it won't matter , the idea is planted in peoples head and you can't kill an idea and something something hiding in plain sight, we did tell/show you but did you listen/look. So it really doesn't matter if the bomb explodes or not because the show was a huge success and the people that paid for this - are entertained and laughing too and really don't care much either way cos all that political stuff with Elton John getting hitched and the first gay bishop and the judges and MPs-was so- a decade ago.

 

So the subtext story is different and....is very interesting..and hilarious.....but yes interpretational accordingly...I think one of the writers said - the haitus is very long so we like to give you things to look at...or maybe it was talk about.

[J.P.]

 

Why the painting of TRF on Sholtos wall...

 

Whatever it is - it's not Reichenbach. It's just a small waterfall.

 

 

Cannot check the rest right now.

[BlackButterfly]

http://artborghi.com/2013/08/25/water-please-frozen-not-shaken/

 

Actual photos from TRF .Look pretty close to me. Some paintings of TRF look just like that. I bought one similar as a touristy thing.

 

Pictues of sll the bridges above S@J in Kittys flat would be cool.

I can only see well enough to ID 3 of the bridges. :-)

 

kissing fan art - On Andersons fire shelf/mantle ?, direct centre , after TRF theory/explanation from Sherlock when he walks around around Anderson. Might be 2, theres definitely been about 5 elephants by now in just those 2 places.

[Boton]

Well, playing Devil's Advocate once again, but I don't think the subtext in Sherlock is meant to convey anything explicitly sexual between Sherlock and John, even to audiences in countries that would culturally have enormous problems with homosexuality.  (And, if you want to see how that's done, the Russian 2013 Sherlock Holmes is arguably the most heterosexual Holmes/Watson relationship ever.)

 

The reason I don't think our Sherlock is doing much more than some garden variety point-counterpoint and "puerile joke" kind of subtext is that Moffatt and Gatiss have never shied away from portraying homosexuality in a neutral to positive light, even on shows that get international distribution.  Dr. Who gained international popularity at roughly the same time as did Sherlock (about 2012, but a true Whovian should feel free to correct me), and it features multiple same sex relationships, including Jack Harkness as a hunky heroic pansexual and Madame Vastra/Jenny as a same-sex, cross-species relationship that is explicitly identified as the model Conan Doyle used for Sherlock Holmes and John Watson.  And there's Torchwood, which went even further into featuring Harkness.  

 

That's the long winded way of saying that I think that Moffatt as show-runner is not afraid of these kinds of characters and relationships and conversations, and if he were truly trying to say Sherlock and John have a sexual relationship, he'd actually say it.  I don't think he's so wedded to the Conan Doyle canon that he's above taking liberties if it's good storytelling or if he believes that's what Conan Doyle was driving at anyway. So, a lot of times, I think we're back to "sometimes a cigar is just a cigar."

[J.P.]

 

Actual photos from TRF .Look pretty close to me. Some paintings of TRF look just like that. I bought one similar as a touristy thing.

 

Not to me. It is just a waterfall. Yes, I also had the impression that it reminds of TRF once, but checked and put this idea aside. Could be an echo of Sherlock's fall that was about to repeat in the next episode? Maybe. What was your interpretation, Black Butterfly?

 

There are roses on the wallpaper in Sholto's room. Does it mean Sholto is gay too? Maybe John's previous love interest? (have read this too, someplace)

 

 

What I don't get: Why do people SO DESPERATELY WANT two men who are friends (or not even that), to be gay and a pair? I know the Yaoi concept from elsewhere, and while I can accept that I don't understand it in context of the foreign cultural background, it always puzzles me what the heck is it doing in the so called western culture - what's so attractive/interesting about this?

[BlackButterfly]

I view Sherlock like fans view Dr Who. The same writers. They put in many many easter eggs and fun things to find..and clues...I thought the very few things I have mentioned were well known by people..they are right there on screen and they are funny or interesting and meaningful and the obvious ones were tweeted under #Sherlock quite a long time ago .I thought you guys maybe had talked about in another thread -some of this -the millenium wheel thing is from TBB years ago.

Theres sa whole lot of stuff that isn't even S@J stuff idk why people zoom in on a sex thing?.I really didn't expect to have a pics or it didn't happen thing begin.

 

And yes two versions Moffat has written pre Sherlock of Holmes@Watson were gay women -in Who and in Jeckyl.

I have said the surface story is as is as canon is canon.

The subtext is more controversial because obviously a lot of people do get a gay vibe from it with the flags and 57 other things - doesn't surprise me at all considering the cast and crew included it in most of their other stuff.

 

 

If I have broken protocol I apologise. I read it was polite to reply when people quote you or ask Questions about what you have said.

I seem to be too nerdy a fan.....

[Boton]

I seem to be too nerdy a fan.....

 

There is no such thing.  

[J.P.]

The bomb for me was red-blue-white. The UK flag. Or the French flag. Russian flag. USA flag. Or the flag of my city. Or the corporate identity colors of my workplace.

 

 

Moriarty @ those pics up on Kittys wall...and Andersons john/sherlock kissing fan art on his fireshelf

 

Don't see anything of it, actually.

[T.o.b.y]

That's the long winded way of saying that I think that Moffatt as show-runner is not afraid of these kinds of characters and relationships and conversations, and if he were truly trying to say Sherlock and John have a sexual relationship, he'd actually say it. 

 

That's my main argument "against". There is just no rational argument in my eyes for keeping two characters apart for so long whom you as a writer think should be together. Even if one wanted to write a long, drawn-out romance based on the concept of star-crossed lovers who somehow can never be together (which I hate, by the way), by this time there would at least have been some proof of mutual attraction and longing.

 

 

What I don't get: Why do people SO DESPERATELY WANT two men who are friends (or not even that), to be gay and a pair? I know the Yaoi concept from elsewhere, and while I can accept that I don't understand it in context of the foreign cultural background, it always puzzles me what the heck is it doing in the so called western culture - what's so attractive/interesting about this?

 

I have no idea. But I'll admit that I myself don't mind a good gay romance at all - to put it mildly. I've never "shipped" two characters who weren't written as in love with each other, but there is a reason for the kind of suggestions that youtube keeps throwing at me based on my viewing history... (To clarify, I am not talking about porn here. Not that there's anything wrong with porn per se, but I'm more into romance. Too bad youtube can't really tell the difference... it's pretty embarrassing if someone is looking over my shoulder when I open the window.)

 

I can't speak for other people, but for myself, I think I can give you a few reasons. The following is long-winded and personal, so probably boring. Feel free to ignore.

 

 - First of all, I grew up at a turning point. When I was little, homosexuality was still formally illegal in my country, even though the law had not been acted on in decades. My parents' generation still featured many people who lived double lives, and I knew some of those - one I knew really well and I saw what it meant for his family. For my own age group, the politically correct attitude was already "okay, cool", but "gay" was still used as an insult at my school. Then, one of my nearest and dearest friends is gay, and since we were often thought to be a couple, I've had my share of hate and discrimination without any of the fun of actually having a love affair. We lived out in the middle of nowhere, there weren't any other gay kids around (or they were all in the closet) and the only gay couple on television were Willow and her girlfriend on Buffy. Oh my god, we adored Buffy (not just for that, of course). Representation! It's not a big deal nowadays to have a gay couple in a film or TV series (it's becoming almost obligatory like including other minorities), but for us then and there, it was a big deal, something special and wonderful, and it just never lost it's "wow" effect for me. I'm still at the point where I want more representation, more acceptance, more welcome. Even if it's not me directly who is represented! But still. It's a topic close to my heart. And I would be thrilled if there was a really great iconic character in fiction who was gay. Not someone known for being the "token gay guy" on a show, but a real hero who is super cool and great and popular and just also happens to be gay.

 

 - From a writer's perspective (I am not a real writer of course, but I write for fun and I dream up stories all day long if I have the time), it is intriguing to have two lovers who are the same gender, because you can ignore gender stereotypes. You can write a relationship that's just about two individual people.

 

 - If we're talking specifically about straight women's fascination with gay men, I think there's a general longing on our part for men to be more like us. To show more feeling, to be more romantic, more caring, more communicative. Watching / reading about two men in love with no female partner to take on the "sweet" part of the romance, you necessarily get more of that, because love always involves a certain amount of softness and emotional turmoil. I think it gives women the opportunity to explore a side of men they don't usually get to see much. (I'm not saying gay guys can't be tough. It's just that you can't write a romance without romance.)

 

 

As to why people so desperately want two characters to be in love, I don't know, but I know the feeling. It's not limited to characters of the same gender, though, it's just the basis for romances - and Jane Austen novels, which I wouldn't call romances exactly but which are about relationships first and foremost. If you're not like Emma Woodhouse - not able to get really emotionally invested in two people getting together - then those books are probably not very compelling to you. But if you are like me, then even after the hundredth re-read, you hang over the pages biting your lip until finally, finally, Darcy and Elizabeth, Fanny and Edmund, Catherine and Henry or Anne and Captain Wentworth are united. I have no idea why. It just is that way, and if it wasn't, then an entire genre would be dead.

 

I do feel a little the same about Sherlock and John, but I don't want them to have sex or become actual boyfriends. I just don't think it's that kind of love story. It would also be too simple and profane an explanation for why they hang around each other. I would find it boring and dull, probably.

 

If I have broken protocol I apologise. I read it was polite to reply when people quote you or ask Questions about what you have said.

 

I don't think we have any kind of protocol... And as long as you're not actively insulting people, I don't think you have any politeness issues to worry about.

[Arcadia]

Thoughts on the subtext are that they couldn't sell a show that was like that to certain parts of the world from the start. So maybe they hide some of the story and sneak it into the subtext , a bit like a bomb on the underground subway , and they leave clues and hints that get bigger and bigger until they are right in your face ,like elephants, and then you watch people imagine the bomb going off and you laugh and laugh and laugh as everyone scrambles for the off switch....and say oh huh what isn't that all very...long ago.....

Okay, I see your point ... they don't want to depict something that might get the show banned in some places? There could be something to that. If nothing else, it makes economic sense.

 

However, there's this:

 

That's the long winded way of saying that I think that Moffatt as show-runner is not afraid of these kinds of characters and relationships and conversations, and if he were truly trying to say Sherlock and John have a sexual relationship, he'd actually say it.  I don't think he's so wedded to the Conan Doyle canon that he's above taking liberties if it's good storytelling or if he believes that's what Conan Doyle was driving at anyway. So, a lot of times, I think we're back to "sometimes a cigar is just a cigar."

 

... and I guess it comes down to ... Boton's take just feels more believable to me. The reason being, it's just more decent and honest of Moftiss and gang to be the way Boton describes, than to imagine they are stuffing their stories full of subtext and then denying it exists. That's the only real sticking point for me ... if the subtext is real, and it means what you say it means, it's time for them to man up and admit it. Or at least, not outright deny it, as Moffat, Gatiss and Cumberbatch have all done. That's the part that gives me the willies; I'd have to completely rethink my opinion of those three, especially BC.

 

If I have broken protocol I apologise. I read it was polite to reply when people quote you or ask Questions about what you have said.

I seem to be too nerdy a fan.....

No, no, you're fine!!! You've been very civil and you have nothing to apologize for! It's just a prickly issue, I think we all get a little sensitive in one way or another. It's a healthy discussion to have, imo, as long as we remember our opinions are just that. I think everyone's done that so far. We don't have to agree on everything, anyway (where the heck would be the fun in that? )

 

Anyway, I hope you don't feel like you're being pressured to stop airing your views .... you've just fallen into a nest of people who love to argue! Carry on!

[J.P.]

Want a gay love story? Watch Jeffrey.

 

Here is Anderson's fireplace. Where is a fanart piece?

 

[SherlockedCAMPer]

 

Anyway, I hope you don't feel like you're being pressured to stop airing your views .... you've just fallen into a nest of people who love to argue! Carry on!

 

 

 

Argue??? We're adults here (mostly), we don't have arguments, we discuss & have discussions with some being very extremely full of passion & emotion ;)

[Arcadia]

 

That's the long winded way of saying that I think that Moffatt as show-runner is not afraid of these kinds of characters and relationships and conversations, and if he were truly trying to say Sherlock and John have a sexual relationship, he'd actually say it.

 

That's my main argument "against". There is just no rational argument in my eyes for keeping two characters apart for so long whom you as a writer think should be together. Even if one wanted to write a long, drawn-out romance based on the concept of star-crossed lovers who somehow can never be together (which I hate, by the way), by this time there would at least have been some proof of mutual attraction and longing.

 

Yes, I agree. Although I think Butterfly is saying the proof IS there, if we would just accept it.

 

- If we're talking specifically about straight women's fascination with gay men, I think there's a general longing on our part for men to be more like us. To show more feeling, to be more romantic, more caring, more communicative. Watching / reading about two men in love with no female partner to take on the "sweet" part of the romance, you necessarily get more of that, because love always involves a certain amount of softness and emotional turmoil. I think it gives women the opportunity to explore a side of men they don't usually get to see much. (I'm not saying gay guys can't be tough. It's just that you can't write a romance without romance.)

I've never seen anyone try to explain that before! But this makes sense to me. I for one am far more attracted to "sensitive" men than I am to "macho" men; if I were into this "shipping" thing, maybe I'd be writing about gay romances too.

[Arcadia]

 

Anyway, I hope you don't feel like you're being pressured to stop airing your views .... you've just fallen into a nest of people who love to argue! Carry on!

 

 

Argue??? We're adults here (mostly), we don't have arguments, we discuss & have discussions with some being very extremely full of passion & emotion ;)

 

I'd argue that point but I'm too reserved for such things. :D

[BlackButterfly]

Thank you . Thats all fine then .Phew!

 

I will mention a simple one of the reasons I think the subtext is sexual but theres quite a few others I won't blah you with it.

 

Molly crushes on Sherlock so lipstick , Sherlock doesn't like it so she washes it off saying " it wasn't working for me " Sherlock still doesn't like it.Then Molly gets into a relationship with Jim (maybe to make SH jealous?) and they have a Glee night.But turns out Jim was a psycopath and killed himself on Barts roof. HuH Molly gets over him.She meets Tom and he is nothing like Sherlock and they are having lots of sex! Toms cool but huh meat dagger.

 

John has the moustache Sherlock doesn't like it, so off with it ,saying to SH " it wasn't working for me " Sherlock- likes it .John had a date with Sarah but Sherlock and John have a Bond night but turns out Sherlock was a sociopath and killed himself off Barts roof.

HuH. John gets over Sherlock and meets Mary who is nothing like Sherlock and they are having lots of sex ! Marys cool but huh.Assasin.

 

So I tried to keep it simple but maybe you see what I mean.How many coincidences ,and then is Jim gay idk ,Johns not gay idk , bicycles anyone? Ok maybe they faked deaths but gist , all those rainbows when Molly says about the sex , why film it like that through glass?, and ok it's different for Molly she's a girl and Sherlocks not ...but then the Sherlocks a girls name.Just like Harry was Harriet all along.

Basically Molly and John are the same and they both get over Sherlock by having lots of sex with someone not at all like Sherlock.So.Over. It.

Really doesn't mean they might fancy Sherlock that way.nope.

 

And by the way , I don't prefer them to be that way or the other , for me it's never going to make a difference to any of the stories.

 

The more fun stuff is like are ALL the flowers and plants on Sherlocks grave poisonous or just some. IDK? But lol Who left those.

Did John really enter that pin number for Sherlocks card .cos if so .ASIB becomes hilarious.But wait. Not quite.They messed that up.

Wallpaper. ?huh? Arwel W J mentions it a few times for various things..OK I'll look.

Birds.Irenes bedroom is that a bird of paradise..apropos...Mrs Hudders oh look those pet house birds maybe idk but birds.Mary ? Parrots and a butterfly..well ok she changed..into a Parrot..does she parrot peolple...yes she does.

 

And TRF painting. Standing right behind the wall it's on is Sherlock saying-you and I are similar I think we know when to die....etc..wouldn't do that to John would we.-Sholto opens door.

Ok Sherlock died at Barts not TRF so wrong? OR is that Sholtos fall.

Sholto/Sherlock did something terrible in the past , TRF/deaths crows , they both feel really guilty about it, both have people that hated them for it, both have people that want to kill them , both antisocial , but both making an effort to be at Johns Wedding.

(1 think ) So maybe Sholto , like Sherlock , hurt John in some way too , thus guilt , and that's why he made the effort to come to the wedding and thats why he really opened the door.

Sherlock and Sholto -can make so many the sames.

Can you get that from one painting....easily and much more.

[J.P.]

It's not parrots on Marry's wallpaper - it's pheasants.

[Arcadia]

Oi. You're right, that's a lot.

 

Bicycle? I'm almost afraid to ask :D but how is riding a bicycle subtext for "Hey, I'm gay." (In which case my brother-in-law has LOTS of 'splaining to do! :lol: )

[BlackButterfly]

J P. Could possibly be pheasants they have a bit of a tail and theres the shooting thing so match.

But they are yellow and blue which seems more parrot cols.Though that might look brown and red to you lol.

 

Pink Roses on Sholtos wall you say, maybe they mean something?

[BlackButterfly]

Lol@arcadia. Trick cyclist . psychiatrist.

Bicycle . Bisexual.

[Van Buren Supernova]

Bicycle? I'm almost afraid to ask :D but how is riding a bicycle subtext for "Hey, I'm gay." (In which case my brother-in-law has LOTS of 'splaining to do! :lol: )

Me too. And my mom. And so many people that I know. :lol:

 

I second/third/forth/fifth? to all who say that you are fine here, it's no fun when we agree on everything.

 

For me, I just see them as platonic and happy with that.

 

I don't mind to be convinced otherwise at all but so far almost all sound like making something out of nothing to me.

However, I do like the Reichenbach piece, although more for showdown foreshadowing.

 

Also, I doubt that ability of the writers to put in so many hidden details even Moffiss. They seem more like the type who would just put it out there for this scenario.

 

As for acceptance, the world is much more open-minded now when it comes to individual. It's easier to reach an audience whose country is not so acceptive than using subtext.

[Arcadia]

Lol@arcadia. Trick cyclist . psychiatrist.

Bicycle . Bisexual.

Reaching, Butterfly, reaching! :lol:

[BlackButterfly]

Hello TY.

lots of people saying it's very platonic :-)

May I perhaps ask them a Q.

Setting platonic canon aside , and meeting this SH for the first time in Pink ,what makes you think Sherlock isn't gay?

 

Briefly in s01 we see him think his new friend John asked him on a date and brush him off with the dedicated to my work. Then everyone that knows Sherlock treats him as gay.

In TBB he sort of suggests a date after all but gets sort of turned down.

When Jim from IT enters , again Sherlock thinks correctly - gay hitting on me.

When the genius criminal reveal happens we learn , maybe some heart for John and not so busy at work....so uh gay right?

In s02 So far Sherlock has shown no interest in women sexually at all even when they are obviously attracted to him. By the end we learn the genius criminal has based his whole big game on Sherlock being willing to sacrifice himself for John.Which he is.

So still gay?

In 03 Sherlock begs for forgiveness , rushes into a fire and does his best to make everything up to John . Being best man planning the wedding flowers bridesmaids teaching his friend John to dance etc he has almost given up the work he loves to make his friend happy, well unless John wants a case.At the wedding he acts a lot like aa bride and then leaves early after deducing they wont need him about any more. Shortly after that he writes a catty blog about his friends sex holiday and turns up high in a drugs den.

Jumping to the end , once again , Sherlock forvies his friends wife of shooting him , attempts to fix his friends marriage and then kills a man giving eveything up to keep them all safe.

Finally before before going off to die he tells John , to the best of times ,with john I assume , and yes I'm a bit of a girl I always have been. HuH Still gay then?

How do you read Sherlock as anything but gay not dating cos work , and oh in love with best friend without making an assumption before you even met him.

 

Thats amused me :-)

[Arcadia]

The primary reason I think Sherlock isn't gay is because Moffat and Cumberbatch have said he isn't. Up until then I was willing to entertain the possibility that he might be, even though I don't see it, myself.

[Shadow Dweller]

This discussion is exactly like about Moriarty's nickname for Sherlock -The Virgin. Some people choose to put it in romance/sexual content while the others think that it denoted Sherlock's inexperience in the cloak and dagger matters. Given that no clear official evidence available so far about the real meaning then all those assumption points more to how each of our mind's works.