Subtext Interpretation... What Do You See?

[Boton]

 

 

 I have this theory that John has never been really sure whether Sherlock is into women, men or nobody or both, and that he's always been the slightest bit worried against his better knowledge that Sherlock could in some way be in love with him. When he's drunk and arguably flirting during the game of "who am I", it's to me as if he's testing that theory - not a hundred percent intentionally, he's too inebriated for that, but on some half-conscious level only achieved by a lot of alcohol. And it goes straight over poor Sherlock's head, who I don't think has ever given the matter any thought at all.

 

Sherlock is just too clueless and uninterested where love is concerned to realize or care how the way he behaves around John could be (mis)interpreted. He doesn't know what is usually expected of a male best friend, what set of behaviors and expressions does and doesn't belong to that role, and I don't think he gives a damn, either. It's a huge step for him to have any kind of friend.

 

 

I think you're spot-on.  I think John is almost too aware of the world around him; he's too tuned into the social cues, and he knows Sherlock's behavior sometimes veers outside the norms for guy-buddy relationships.  And it would be natural for him to occasionally test to make sure that he's not misinterpreting something that's actually a pass Sherlock is making.

 

I think Sherlock doesn't give any of it a second thought.  He's not into John "that way;" if he were, he'd respond like he did to Irene.  He just treats John like John, and the heck with social conventions, which he probably can't be bothered to learn anyway.

 

On a related topic, I was watching Dr. Who this weekend, and I heard one of the characters say "I don't mind" in the same way that John did during the TSoT "knee touching" scene, and I think the phrase actually carries far less meaning that some people have ascribed to it.  It's a very subtle thing, but when I've seen people refer to that comment as proof of latent sexual interest between the two, they seem to be hearing "I don't mind" in the sense of "this isn't such a bad idea after all" or "my inhibitions are down, so I have to say I'm really not opposed to that."  When I heard it said on Dr. Who, it had the connotation of "man, I don't care," which would lend itself to an interpretation of John just meaning "I'm always so fussed about this kind of thing, but it's really nothing."  Or something like that.

[Arcadia]

On a related topic, I was watching Dr. Who this weekend, and I heard one of the characters say "I don't mind" in the same way that John did during the TSoT "knee touching" scene, and I think the phrase actually carries far less meaning that some people have ascribed to it. It's a very subtle thing, but when I've seen people refer to that comment as proof of latent sexual interest between the two, they seem to be hearing "I don't mind" in the sense of "this isn't such a bad idea after all" or "my inhibitions are down, so I have to say I'm really not opposed to that." When I heard it said on Dr. Who, it had the connotation of "man, I don't care," which would lend itself to an interpretation of John just meaning "I'm always so fussed about this kind of thing, but it's really nothing." Or something like that.

Which is how I heard "I don't mind" from day one; as "It's nothing to get worked up about." Imagine my shock when I learned other people were very much getting worked up about it! :D I can only assume that each of our life experiences have something to do with how we interpret something like that. There's nothing in my experience to suggest that one drunk man keeping himself from falling over by grabbing his equally drunk friend's knee means anything except that neither of them can hold their liquor. If John had been sober, though, I'm pretty sure I would have jumped to a different conclusion..... based on my experience. Which only goes so far. So in the end, we can't really know anything if we don't know what the creators intended, can we? Since they've had different experiences as well... Oh how I sometimes I wish I could catch one of them and peer into their little minds ....

[T.o.b.y]

 

On a related topic, I was watching Dr. Who this weekend, and I heard one of the characters say "I don't mind" in the same way that John did during the TSoT "knee touching" scene, and I think the phrase actually carries far less meaning that some people have ascribed to it. It's a very subtle thing, but when I've seen people refer to that comment as proof of latent sexual interest between the two, they seem to be hearing "I don't mind" in the sense of "this isn't such a bad idea after all" or "my inhibitions are down, so I have to say I'm really not opposed to that." When I heard it said on Dr. Who, it had the connotation of "man, I don't care," which would lend itself to an interpretation of John just meaning "I'm always so fussed about this kind of thing, but it's really nothing." Or something like that.

Which is how I heard "I don't mind" from day one; as "It's nothing to get worked up about." Imagine my shock when I learned other people were very much getting worked up about it! :D I can only assume that each of our life experiences have something to do with how we interpret something like that. There's nothing in my experience to suggest that one drunk man keeping himself from falling over by grabbing his equally drunk friend's knee means anything except that neither of them can hold their liquor. If John had been sober, though, I'm pretty sure I would have jumped to a different conclusion..... based on my experience. Which only goes so far. So in the end, we can't really know anything if we don't know what the creators intended, can we? Since they've had different experiences as well... Oh how I sometimes I wish I could catch one of them and peer into their little minds ....

 

It would mean absolutely nothing if it happened unscripted in real life, agreed. In defense of those people who read a lot into it I'd just like to point out that a writer used up valuable minutes of screen time for that scene and put a certain amount of thought into writing that line and that whichever of the three who collaborated on that episode it was must have known full well how much people do talk and wonder about those characters. It's the context that makes the potential meaning.

 

 

[Arcadia]

And here I was thinking that the context (they're drunk) is what gives it the interpretation that I have! :D

 

I see what you mean, though, and if you're right, it leaves me in a much darker place, to whit: then why do they deny it? To me, it's much worse to deliberately include a gay subtext, then deny it exists. In that case I can completely understand the people who accuse them of gay-baiting. I'd rather not believe that, especially of Mark and Benedict, so I remain eternally hopeful of a different answer......

[T.o.b.y]

And here I was thinking that the context (they're drunk) is what gives it the interpretation that I have! :D

 

I see what you mean, though, and if you're right, it leaves me in a much darker place, to whit: then why do they deny it? To me, it's much worse to deliberately include a gay subtext, then deny it exists. In that case I can completely understand the people who accuse them of gay-baiting. I'd rather not believe that, especially of Mark and Benedict, so I remain eternally hopeful of a different answer......

 

I don't think anybody is deliberately "gay-baiting". Why should they, they have plenty of audience as it is. If they wanted the guys to be a couple, they'd write them that way and since they don't, I believe them when they say that's not what their concept is.

 

But they definitely play with subtext and with the audience's expectations and speculations. Just consider the airfield scene: "There's something I've been meaning to say" followed by "Sherlock is actually a girl's name" wouldn't be so effective a joke if John and / or the audience didn't have a fleeting misgiving that Sherlock is actually about to confess his being in love.

 

And if I'm not wildly overinterpreting, maybe they are really exploring just how complex and murky a unique a relationship between two extraordinary people can be and how in some friendships, there is an element of romance, of attraction even, without that leading to sex or being further explored in any way.

 

[J.P.]

Oh, I think The Infamous Subtext is deliberately conceived by the writers. But I see it like a running joke (with it's roots in the canon), plus Steven knows the shipping-mania from Dr Who, so they absolutely know what they do. But I never saw any evidence or even serious hints leading to our Subtext - I'm too much enamored with the theme of pure male Friendship.

 

On the other hand, the best joke in the series would be if they indeed end as a couple. With Mofftiss you never know. :D

[Arcadia]

This is true!!! :D

[Van Buren Supernova]

This is true!!! :D

Take it easy, Miss Wenceslas..! :lol:

[Inge l-w]

Watch it, you non-existent Supernova! (There has never been a Van Buren supernova in recorded astronomical observation). We may get our knuckles rapped by the moderators!

It is really interesting to see one's own ideas being so well expressed, by fellow members like TOBY and Boton. I did stress the importance of that feeble joke in the airfield.

Theoretically, anything can happen, as Mr Moffat is not particularly respectful of ACD conventions, but I hope Mr Gatiss and the actors themselves will rein in any of his flights of fancy in the direction mentioned above by J.P. To that end, I shall keep my fingers crossed.

[Boton]

Oh, I think The Infamous Subtext is deliberately conceived by the writers. But I see it like a running joke (with it's roots in the canon), plus Steven knows the shipping-mania from Dr Who, so they absolutely know what they do. But I never saw any evidence or even serious hints leading to our Subtext - I'm too much enamored with the theme of pure male Friendship.

 

 

I agree, and I think that's all there is to the motivation of the creators.  I think they think the idea of any Holmes and Watson having a romantic relationship is absolutely preposterous, so they keep throwing in these jokes where other people misunderstand (including the audience), and the "punch line," so to speak, is that this is Holmes and Watson: of course they aren't a couple.  What a ridiculous idea.  

 

What I don't really understand is why so many people (it appears) want to see the pair as a romantic couple on the show.  (I understand fan fiction; that's a different thing.  People sometimes want to see the boys with tentacles, so seeing them as a couple is fairly tame.)  Sexual and romantic attraction is so specific; just because the two of them are best friends and get along famously doesn't mean they fancy each other.  

 

I can totally buy that theirs is the primary relationship for each of them (and someone like Mary has to be content working into that framework, not trying to replace Sherlock for John, for example), but I just never see sexual or romantic attraction.  Even when the two of them are saying things (often for comedic effect; see above) that can be interpreted or misinterpreted as romantic or sexual innuendo, I never can manage to see behaviors that indicate attraction between the two.  I can see love, loyalty, and the willingness to lay down their lives for each other, but I can never see sex and romance.

[T.o.b.y]

What I don't really understand is why so many people (it appears) want to see the pair as a romantic couple on the show.  (I understand fan fiction; that's a different thing.  People sometimes want to see the boys with tentacles, so seeing them as a couple is fairly tame.)  Sexual and romantic attraction is so specific; just because the two of them are best friends and get along famously doesn't mean they fancy each other. 

 

Well, it's the One True Pairing thing, I suppose. Some people (myself included) can get very, very emotionally invested in a (potential) pairing, and really, really, really want it to happen (I have skipped to the last chapter of novels to find out if "my" couple was going to come true and dropped the book if not, knowing that the disappointment would cancel out the enjoyment of the story). We've been tought by our previous experiences as an audience that "true love" is always expressed through sex (in some form, in the more innocent works it's mostly kissing) and that the person you marry and / or sleep with is the one you have the most meaningful and important relationship with. Of course none of this is really true, but it's such a fundamental rule in (most mainstream) fiction that the habit of wanting the one and only "proper" way for two people to be togther is hard to shake.

 

I totally get the wish, I just don't share it. Although I've come to a point where the details don't really matter to me. If the show decided to go in that direction (which it won't), I would no longer protest, I think, my reaction would be probably "okay - whatever it takes to keep them together"...

 

Another factor might be that there's definitely a portion of "shippers" (albeit a small one) who would primarily like to see it happen for the purpose of gay representation. For some "minority groups", it's just not enough to see "their" team represented by a secondary character or couple who appear in one episode just so the showrunners can say "hey, we're totally inclusive". To quote an honest trailer I saw the other day: "If you get confused, don't worry - the hero is still the straight white guy". :lol: I myself would jump for joy at a proper hero in a big popular TV series who was gay (even better if it was a woman, because I think that's a lot less accepted by society at large right now), but I don't really want Sherlock Holmes to be the one. First of all because in my eyes, it's essential to the character that he doesn't want any kind of intimate relationship with anybody, and secondly because it would be kind of unfair to poor old Doyle, who I am pretty sure would be horrified if he knew.

 

There's plenty more reasons I bet, but these are the two I could think of off the top of my head. It's never going to happen anyway, so I think we can all lie back and relax. I feel a bit sorry for everybody who really wishes for this. It must be very frustrating.

 

[Inge l-w]

Dear TOBY, from your mouth to the creators' ears!

They have taken this concept about as far as they could stretch it! It's about time for the slingshot effect to come into play and restore balance to the Holmes universe!

[Van Buren Supernova]

Watch it, you non-existent Supernova! (There has never been a Van Buren supernova in recorded astronomical observation). We may get our knuckles rapped by the moderators!

Not too worry.. axe, flame thrower, I had it XD

And she is too busy to notice..for now :lol:

 

Back to subtext.. maybe I'm an optimist, because I believe we will never see Johnlock happens in the hand of Moffiss..

[Arcadia]

Oh, I noticed, I was just feeling benevolent at the time. Don't worry, it will pass.....

[T.o.b.y]

Back to subtext.. maybe I'm an optimist, because I believe we will never see Johnlock happens in the hand of Moffiss..

 

:lol: While I would argue that we've already seen it for 9 episodes, just in a way that has nothing to do with sex and probably never will and that's just fine with me.

[Inge l-w]

Dear TOBY, you could not be more right! When Benedict made the cover of Time magazine in October 2013 there was the requisite interview. I unearthed the precious thing and re-read it, and right now, I could do with both the axe and the flame thrower Van Buren Supernova keeps just in case, and perhaps Irene's riding crop as well... He more or less told the interviewer, Jesse Dorris: "I knew I was in very safe hands with the creators, Mark Gatiss and Steven Moffat...Their update of Sir Arthur Conan Doyle's detective series-which replaces Victorian Gothicism with millennial dread, Holmes' icy yet almost demure decadence with a quasi-autistic, nicotine-addled quirk and Watson's gentlemanly idolatry with a mutually acknowledged, winking, anxious homoeroticism- won a devoted following on both sides of the Atlantic " etc. etc. etc.

I leave you to your own conclusions!

[Van Buren Supernova]

Oh, I noticed, I was just feeling benevolent at the time. Don't worry, it will pass.....

Yes please, don't get all nice and fuzzy, and make me worry XD

 

I could do with both the axe and the flame thrower Van Buren Supernova keeps just in case, and perhaps Irene's riding crop as well...

Actually I meant I had a taste of her axe and flame thrower.. what other weapons does she have..? :lol:

(Maybe I should run)

 

 

Back to subtext.. maybe I'm an optimist, because I believe we will never see Johnlock happens in the hand of Moffiss..

 

:lol: While I would argue that we've already seen it for 9 episodes, just in a way that has nothing to do with sex and probably never will and that's just fine with me.

 

In a way yes.

 

I think they will maintain the formula; people keep assuming they are couple, John does all he could to deny it, and Sherlock doesn't give a heck. 

 

That is actually more than fine for me, I love it.

[Arcadia]

 

I could do with both the axe and the flame thrower Van Buren Supernova keeps just in case, and perhaps Irene's riding crop as well...

Actually I meant I had a taste of her axe and flame thrower.. what other weapons does she have..? :lol:

(Maybe I should run)

 

I have a lightsaber and a spaceship, and I have been known to use them......

[Van Buren Supernova]

I believe I also had spaceship before....

[Inge l-w]

About the lightsaber I know! We were at sabers drawn over the slight matter of curls at one point!

Spaceship is a Klingon derelict Bird of Prey parked in Founders' Park in San Diego, California. Borrowed it from Admiral Kirk after he saved the whales and forgot to return it.

[Boton]

I almost hate to reopen this can of worms, but I think this is a very interesting article about the modern propensity to see intense friendships as "gay."  I think there's a point here that making a relationship into a romantic one effectively shuts off the special benefits that can be had from an intense platonic (philia) friendship.  

 

http://www.intellectualtakeout.org/blog/not-all-deep-friendships-are-gay

[J.P.]

Ah, the Abominable Subtext again! :D

Don't have time to read the link but I wholeheartedly agree with your second sentence. Especially in case of Sherlock.

[Inge l-w]

Yep! All fine and dandy, but is TJLC rearing its head yet again, or is Morirarty in his mind palace what they tend to call OTP?

[Boton]

Yep! All fine and dandy, but is TJLC rearing its head yet again, or is Morirarty in his mind palace what they tend to call OTP?

 

You know, I think they are using sexual subtext with mind-palace Moriarty, but I don't read the Sherlock and Moriarty interactions as an indication that either one is interested in or turned on by the other in real life. Further comment in spoiler box, just in case.

 

 

 

I think Moriarty represents sexuality and sensuality in general in TAB, which is something that truly does alarm Sherlock.  I don't think he fears an attraction to Moriarty so much as he fears the idea of literally "feeling" one's way through life.  Moriarty represents that; he fellates a gun barrel, for heaven's sake, which is the complete opposite approach to Sherlock trying to live by "caring is not an advantage." I think it's perfectly possible in TAB for Moriarty to be an intensely sexual creature that is a buried part of Sherlock's psyche without this being a statement on real life attraction or relationships.

 

[Carol the Dabbler]

So Moriarty represents Sherlock's Id?