Subtext Interpretation... What Do You See?

[J.P.]

Some of it is definitely intentional.

[Fantasy Lover]

Well, the subtext is definitely there. But not to be taken seriously. That's my take on it, and I have a lot of fun with it.

I don't consider it subtext, it's near text. Just look at the Sherlock is actually a girls name scene!

[J.P.]

Well, in that particular scene I don't see any subtext (or near-text) at all.

[Fantasy Lover]

He nearly said I love you! How is that subtext?

[J.P.]

Well, to me he made a joke to relieve the tension and make John laugh, because they both didn't really know what to say.

 

Sherlock said "I love you" very clearly at the wedding.

[Boton]

Well, to me he made a joke to relieve the tension and make John laugh, because they both didn't really know what to say.

 

Sherlock said "I love you" very clearly at the wedding.

 

That's the way I hear that scene too.  While I see the subtext that calls for an "I love you" on the tarmac, there isn't one forthcoming from either of them; there's a joke to relieve the tension.  I don't think we are supposed to see that scene as communicating that the pair of them are omitting an "I love you" that they want to say, but rather that the scene itself has structural parallels to romantic partings that are being played for a bit of comedic effect.

 

Clearly, the two men know how to say "I love you."  John did so when he asked Sherlock to be best man, and Sherlock reciprocated at the wedding.  I don't think there's anything going unsaid here that we need to take into account to further understand the relationship.

[Inge l-w]

Well, both of them dance around it a bit! Dr Watson says during the eyeball--tea scene: " And I want to be up there with the two people that I love and care about most in the world." And during his speech Sherlock mirrors it with :"In short the two people who love you most in all this world". Both of them are using Mary as a buffer.

And if Sherlock wanted to make a rather feeble joke in HLV, he wouldn't have started by saying "John, there's something I should say. I have meant to say always and then never have. Since it's unlikely we'll ever meet again, I might as well say it now" and it's said in a hesitant, stumbling fashion, not at all like his usual speed of delivery, and he does not look Dr Watson in the eye at this point. There is a small silence, and then he comes up with the absurd little line, perhaps to take Dr Watson's laughter and smiling face with him safely kept in his mind palace for his own purposes.

Nope, there's something there, especially since both of them behave awkwardly and admit that they can think of nothing to say, but then Sherlock goes and says it (whatever interpretation one wants to give it)!

[J.P.]

 

it's said in a hesitant, stumbling fashion, not at all like his usual speed of delivery

I have always seen it as a parallel to the Subway scene. Down there Sherlock sounds quite convincingly desperate.

But well, there is still the margin of uncertainty... Yeah, I see it now...

...even if to me the scene is one of the least loaded with any romantic/sexual/Johnlock subtext. Maybe because I'm too much occupied with a wish, one of them would break out of their britishness and give the other a hug - a normal bear-hug between two blocks, two human beings that will miss each other.

[Fantasy Lover]

 

 

it's said in a hesitant, stumbling fashion, not at all like his usual speed of delivery

I have always seen it as a parallel to the Subway scene. Down there Sherlock sounds quite convincingly desperate.

But well, there is still the margin of uncertainty... Yeah, I see it now...

...even if to me the scene is one of the least loaded with any romantic/sexual/Johnlock subtext. Maybe because I'm too much occupied with a wish, one of them would break out of their britishness and give the other a hug - a normal bear-hug between two blocks, two human beings that will miss each other.

Exept they're two blokes in love with each other!

[jadpdr]

I think, on this matter, as in much else in the series, there are deliberate misleading little snippets that can be interpreted several ways. They are messing with our minds, but each one can see what they want in the ambiguous scenes.

[Boton]

Here's my theory:  I don't think the subtext always gives us more information about our Sherlock and our John, but it sometimes gives general information about the background of Holmes and Watson.

 

Let's see if I can explain this in a way that's halfway clear, because I'm not sure that I can.  But let's take as an example the myriad times John has declared himself "not gay."  

 

To the modern eye, anyone reading ACD canon (or viewing Brett) would see Watson's affections for Holmes as potentially romantic.  Now, we know that they weren't intended to be that way in the Victorian era, but all of the fainting and crying and "Watson ejaculated" type language brings out the inner 12 year old in all of us and we see a romance there.  Heck, even if we aren't being immature, we can see a romance.

 

John brings all of this backstory baggage with him to Sherlock, but this portrayal of John Watson isn't gay.  And isn't gay-for-Sherlock.  But he has the cultural baggage, so there's a bit of a joke there that you always expect John to behave like the historic Watson and be very romantic about Holmes's exploits, but this John is simply not going to be that way.  I think the joke is a compare and contrast between Victorian Watson and modern John.  (It will be interesting to see if John behaves differently in the Christmas special, but I hope he doesn't.  I do expect there to be a throw-away line about what people assume about the relationship, though.)

 

So, I don't always take the subtext to be providing information about the characters on our screen, but I do sometimes take it as a reminder of what the "Holmes" and "Watson" templates of the characters really are.  If that makes any sense?

 

 

 

Exept they're two blokes in love with each other! 

 

And I respectfully disagree, although I see your point.  But to me, the tarmac scene didn't necessarily need to end with a spoken or unspoken "I love you."  I thought Sherlock was warming up to say something along the lines of "Your friendship has meant a great deal to me, and I'll always be grateful for having you as a best friend."  And then he was too British to even get that much out, so he turned it into a joke.  I would have trouble with that kind of confession too, so I don't know that it has to be a confession of love that was suppressed, just a strong emotion.

[Fantasy Lover]

Let's see if I can explain this in a way that's halfway clear, because I'm not sure that I can. But let's take as an example the myriad times John has declared himself "not gay."

 

And I respectfully disagree, although I see your point. But to me, the tarmac scene didn't necessarily need to end with a spoken or unspoken "I love you." I thought Sherlock was warming up to say something along the lines of "Your friendship has meant a great deal to me, and I'll always be grateful for having you as a best friend." And then he was too British to even get that much out, so he turned it into a joke. I would have trouble with that kind of confession too, so I don't know that it has to be a confession of love that was suppressed, just a strong emotion.

1. not gay =/= straight

You've got: bisexual, pansexual, demisexual and asexual

 

2. I have to disagree with your thought about Sherlock and the friendship thing

[Boton]

Absolutely let's agree that everyone has their own interpretation of the friendship thing at the tarmac.

 

As far as "not gay" not being equivalent to "straight," you are right, of course.  But it isn't just that John says that he's not gay, with some linguistic wiggle room that indicates that he might be bisexual or might be at a point on the Kinsey scale at which he would make an exception for Sherlock.

 

For me, every time I hear John say he's not gay, it is in a context in which he is saying that he can't be interested in Sherlock because he's not interested in men.  I never hear a circumstance in which he's trying to allow an exception of some sort for Sherlock or present himself as "not gay" when in fact he would be intrigued by a same-sex attraction to Sherlock.  I hear John saying that he's not gay, and that any attraction to Sherlock would be ruled out by his overall lack of sexual/romantic interest in men, regardless of whether the man in question were Sherlock.  YMMV, of course. 

[Fantasy Lover]

As far as "not gay" not being equivalent to "straight," you are right, of course. But it isn't just that John says that he's not gay, with some linguistic wiggle room that indicates that he might be bisexual or might be at a point on the Kinsey scale at which he would make an exception for Sherlock.

 

For me, every time I hear John say he's not gay, it is in a context in which he is saying that he can't be interested in Sherlock because he's not interested in men. I never hear a circumstance in which he's trying to allow an exception of some sort for Sherlock or present himself as "not gay" when in fact he would be intrigued by a same-sex attraction to Sherlock. I hear John saying that he's not gay, and that any attraction to Sherlock would be ruled out by his overall lack of sexual/romantic interest in men, regardless of whether the man in question were Sherlock. YMMV, of course.

He is interested in men though, I think John and Sholto an affair in the army. Because Mary said 'neither of us where the first, you know' at TSOT, she might be lying though. Then there was the stag party; there was the whole international reputation scene. It just felt like a conversation two people would have before having sex, I might be reading to much into this. Exept the "who am I" game was really flirtatious, and I'm sure they would had sex if Tessa hadn't interrupt them

[T.o.b.y]

Here's my theory:  I don't think the subtext always gives us more information about our Sherlock and our John, but it sometimes gives general information about the background of Holmes and Watson.

 

Let's see if I can explain this in a way that's halfway clear, because I'm not sure that I can.  But let's take as an example the myriad times John has declared himself "not gay."  

 

To the modern eye, anyone reading ACD canon (or viewing Brett) would see Watson's affections for Holmes as potentially romantic.  Now, we know that they weren't intended to be that way in the Victorian era, but all of the fainting and crying and "Watson ejaculated" type language brings out the inner 12 year old in all of us and we see a romance there.  Heck, even if we aren't being immature, we can see a romance.

 

John brings all of this backstory baggage with him to Sherlock, but this portrayal of John Watson isn't gay.  And isn't gay-for-Sherlock.  But he has the cultural baggage, so there's a bit of a joke there that you always expect John to behave like the historic Watson and be very romantic about Holmes's exploits, but this John is simply not going to be that way.  I think the joke is a compare and contrast between Victorian Watson and modern John.  (It will be interesting to see if John behaves differently in the Christmas special, but I hope he doesn't.  I do expect there to be a throw-away line about what people assume about the relationship, though.)

 

So, I don't always take the subtext to be providing information about the characters on our screen, but I do sometimes take it as a reminder of what the "Holmes" and "Watson" templates of the characters really are.  If that makes any sense?

 

YES! Once again, you manage to finally express something I have been flailing around for like a gazillion posts to get across and somehow couldn't find the words for. Thanks, Boton!

 

And I think John will never, ever be like the Watson whom I laughingly shook my head at while reading and affectionately called "such a girl" sometimes (how could I, btw? I'm supposed to be a feminist! :lol:).

 

Exept they're two blokes in love with each other! 

 

And I respectfully disagree, although I see your point.  But to me, the tarmac scene didn't necessarily need to end with a spoken or unspoken "I love you."  I thought Sherlock was warming up to say something along the lines of "Your friendship has meant a great deal to me, and I'll always be grateful for having you as a best friend."  And then he was too British to even get that much out, so he turned it into a joke.  I would have trouble with that kind of confession too, so I don't know that it has to be a confession of love that was suppressed, just a strong emotion.

 

The joke relies heavily on the expectation, though, that something (embarrassingly) romantic is going to come out of Sherlock's mouth. It's mostly a joke on the audience, of course, but it only works in-universe if John too, at least for just a split second, shares this expectation. I love how he holds his breath as if thinking "oh shit, Sherlock, what's coming now" and I think he's so relieved and reassured when it turns out to be only one of his friend's silly quips. I think that moment is one of the most touching ones on the show. Sherlock really knows John very well. It's as if he's saying "oh, come on, my friend, I know better than to be a melodramatic fool at a moment like this, I know how much you hate it."

 

Personally, I do have this suspicion that John has from the beginning a little nagging fear in the back of his mind that Sherlock might be in love with him. Not that he really believes that, but since Mrs Hudson, Mycroft and practically anyone who meets them used to assume they were a couple and it's so unclear what Sherlock's romantic / sexual desires are (if he has any at all), he's probably had moments where he's wondered whether they are right.

 

I think John is actually much more conflicted and unsure about his relationship with Sherlock than vice versa. For Sherlock, it just seems to be the straight-forward, innocent, intense, loving affection we have for our best friends as children. John isn't a "distraction" in the way that a girlfriend would be, he's no threat to The Work and he doesn't throw him off kilter and draw the blood away from his brain the way Irene does.

[Arcadia]

 

 

To the modern eye, anyone reading ACD canon (or viewing Brett) would see Watson's affections for Holmes as potentially romantic.  Now, we know that they weren't intended to be that way in the Victorian era, but all of the fainting and crying and "Watson ejaculated" type language brings out the inner 12 year old in all of us and we see a romance there.  Heck, even if we aren't being immature, we can see a romance.

Am I the only one who doesn't? I haven't read the whole "canon" but I haven't seen anything that provokes that reaction in me. I've very mindful of the era in which it was written, for one thing, I try not to force modern interpretations where they weren't intended. Am I the only one?

 

I like your take on the subtext, it makes absolute sense to me.

[Inge l-w]

Dear Arcadia, no, you most certainly are not the only one! As I have mentioned elsewhere, I was brought up in the English language through crime novels, Erle Stanley Gardner's Perry Mason and ACD's collected works being the first, because of their comparatively easy vocabulary. I have read the whole so many times in twenty-five years after I was introduced to The Adventures at the age of twelve, that I know bits by heart. Never once did I detect anything in them except Sherlock's quirkiness (puzzle solver/drama queen), and Dr Watson's sheepdog admiration/adulation of the master's sheer brilliance. That is what's missing from S3, by the way: Holmes's masterfulness, what with all the silly sitcom situations and build-up of emotions! Sometimes, I wish would do a number on the creators for imposing their playfulness on the fans!

[Van Buren Supernova]

Subtext...

 

 

Nevermind.

I had said what I want to say a while back

#platonicexists

[T.o.b.y]

#platonicexists

 

Is that an actual twitter hashtag? :D

 

 

[Boswell]

I was never a JohnLocker (never thought I’d even use the term-ever!) but I did notice in TEH that John, in a close-up shot, does not shake his head vehemently but, rather strangely, nods when he tells Mrs. Hudson that Sherlock was not his boyfriend (Apologies if this has been raised before). I noticed it particularly because it recalled to me the observation I’ve read that often when people lie they shake their heads even as they say “yes” or nod their heads when saying “no”-the physical (real) response contradicting the verbal lie. I am quite sure John’s nod was totally intentional on the part of the writers.

It may be that I’m spending far too much time on forums like these, and it certainly feels as though my brain is getting washed in all this JohnLock froth. When I originally watched the episodes, there was no gay subtext jumping out at me–I found the actual gay jokes an annoying & puerile digression–but all the meta I’ve since read sounds like a convincing set of ‘deductions’ made by viewers based on what the writers deliberately chose to put on screen. Those deductions do make for interesting reading. Some of it is even quite touching, I have to say. I now think that the writers are playing a double game, wanting one set of viewers (actual or potential johnlockers) to see something very different from what the other set of viewers would. I also see now that the writers deliberately chose to devote all of Series 3 to this JohnLock theory (starting with the inexplicable line "I don't care HOW you did it, I want to know WHY"), which is why everything else about Sherlock Holmes–the original literary character as generations of fans have known him–took a backseat in series 3. And therefore I’m keeping my expectations of Series 4 very very low.

 

Even in the canon I seem to see such hints: the stories Doyle wrote after having had to resurrect Holmes on public demand appear to contain more familiarity and ‘intimacy’ (in the language of the time) than the ones before. In “The Empty House”, for example, Holmes takes Watson’s hand/wrist/arm, or vice versa, so often you can’t help noticing. In “Charles Augustus Milverton”, similar physicality is described when Holmes and Watson hide behind a curtain. In several stories before "The Final Problem", Doyle does describe Holmes’ physical features, particularly his hands and eyes, but the only mention of physical contact that I recall is when Mary Morstan holds Watson’s wrist ("Sign of the Four"). The conclusion I am led to is that readers of that era also had JohnLockers in their midst, and their demands were persistent enough for Doyle to humour them as Mofftiss are doing now with the TV audience.

Maybe Series 4 will also be one long soap opera/romcom ending in the duo getting married.

 

And I will heal myself by rewatching "Mr. Holmes". 

[Fantasy Lover]

 

 

I also see now that the writers deliberately chose to devote all of Series 3 to this JohnLock theory (starting with the inexplicable line "I don't care HOW you did it, I want to know WHY")

 

Maybe Series 4 will also be one long soap opera/romcom ending in the duo getting married.

It's the Johnlock Conspiracy, not theory. Also, I would love to have a Johnlock wedding

[J.P.]

Well, maybe it's the makers' way to serve us 2-in-1 kind of show. Or x-in-1, dependent on different interpretations you can find in it.

 

The nodding thing. That's interesting, because if it's hard to fake a body language, so most probably it was deliberately ...or maybe the subtext belongs to Martin? :P

 

Talking about deliberately - it is really hard to know, because sometimes little details are important, and sometimes not. You have the sqash ball, and you have the dog figure on Sherlock's shelf, or the infamous Ugly Duckling mission on Mycroft's computer. The later two are accidental, at least it's what I was told.

[Boton]

 

He is interested in men though, I think John and Sholto an affair in the army. Because Mary said 'neither of us where the first, you know' at TSOT, she might be lying though. Then there was the stag party; there was the whole international reputation scene. It just felt like a conversation two people would have before having sex, I might be reading to much into this. Exept the "who am I" game was really flirtatious, and I'm sure they would had sex if Tessa hadn't interrupt them

 

Sent from my SM-T110 using Tapatalk

 

 

I have never seen the romantic connection between John and Sholto, myself.  So, I assumed that Mary meant that she was not John's first girlfriend and Sherlock should not expect to be John's first best friend/man he admired.  

 

I will concede that the "who am I" game was flirtatious, but I don't think it was necessarily heading to sex.  I do think that sometimes people flirt with people that they don't have a sexual interest in; in fact, I think it's more likely that you will flirt with someone you know is not interested in you and that you are not interested in, because it's safe and fun.  I guess I might be projecting my own behavior onto Sherlock, but that's probably what I would do when intoxicated (not that I'd know this for sure; nope, no way..... :P ).

 

ETA quote from T.o.b.y.

 

 

Personally, I do have this suspicion that John has from the beginning a little nagging fear in the back of his mind that Sherlock might be in love with him. Not that he really believes that, but since Mrs Hudson, Mycroft and practically anyone who meets them used to assume they were a couple and it's so unclear what Sherlock's romantic / sexual desires are (if he has any at all), he's probably had moments where he's wondered whether they are right.

 

I think John is actually much more conflicted and unsure about his relationship with Sherlock than vice versa. For Sherlock, it just seems to be the straight-forward, innocent, intense, loving affection we have for our best friends as children. John isn't a "distraction" in the way that a girlfriend would be, he's no threat to The Work and he doesn't throw him off kilter and draw the blood away from his brain the way Irene does.

 

I agree, and I think John is always a little worried about Sherlock's behavior because Sherlock just doesn't care how he's perceived, and that has implications for poor John and his public persona.  After all, poor John would like to get a date with a woman sometime this century, and the entire media and public see him running around with Sherlock Holmes -- and Sherlock gets called "boffin," while John gets "confirmed bachelor!"  I think John probably suspects Sherlock can't behave wholly platonically not because he's interested, but because he doesn't really understand the ways in which his behavior can be construed as romantic.  I also agree with you that if Sherlock thought either John's feelings or his own were any threat to The Work, he'd have dropped John like a hot rock by the end of TBB.  John's very presence is almost proof that this Sherlock doesn't have romantic feelings.  (I reserve my right to occasionally think ACD/Brett Holmes is toying with Watson a bit, however!)

[Van Buren Supernova]

 

 

#platonicexists

 

Is that an actual twitter hashtag? :D

I don't know actually XD, never use Twitter.

It seems like correct formula though from #sherlocklives, probably the only twitter handle I know. And #mortiartyisreal.

Somethinggggg like that.

 

 

Mary meant that she was not John's first girlfriend and Sherlock should not expect to be John's first best friend/man he admired.

 

 

 

I do think that sometimes people flirt with people that they don't have a sexual interest in; in fact, I think it's more likely that you will flirt with someone you know is not interested in you and that you are not interested in, because it's safe and fun.  

 

T.O.B.Y:

 

I think John is actually much more conflicted and unsure about his relationship with Sherlock than vice versa. For Sherlock, it just seems to be the straight-forward, innocent, intense, loving affection we have for our best friends as children. John isn't a "distraction" in the way that a girlfriend would be, he's no threat to The Work and he doesn't throw him off kilter and draw the blood away from his brain the way Irene does.

 

 

Boton:

I agree, and I think John is always a little worried about Sherlock's behavior because Sherlock just doesn't care how he's perceived, and that has implications for poor John and his public persona.  After all, poor John would like to get a date with a woman sometime this century, and the entire media and public see him running around with Sherlock Holmes -- and Sherlock gets called "boffin," while John gets "confirmed bachelor!"  I think John probably suspects Sherlock can't behave wholly platonically not because he's interested, but because he doesn't really understand the ways in which his behavior can be construed as romantic.  I also agree with you that if Sherlock thought either John's feelings or his own were any threat to The Work, he'd have dropped John like a hot rock by the end of TBB.  John's very presence is almost proof that this Sherlock doesn't have romantic feelings.  

Thank you both for reading my mind and express it the way I never could. Perfect.

[Inge l-w]

Dear Aurelie, a Johnloc wedding on BBC One is out of the question, it would compromise almost a century of tradition, never mind that Graham Greene wrote a play about A.J. Raffles and Bunny Manders as a romantic pair, involving Oscar Wilde and Lord Alfred Douglas at the same time as Sir Hugh Greene, his younger brother, was the Governor General of BBC!

But if you are looking for one in fan fiction, then in Ao3 you have Letters from Sussex by sussexbound and The Other Game series by Ozymanreis, but please heed the tags!