Subtext Interpretation... What Do You See?

[Bakerstreet Irregular]

  Maybe in stead of "bromance" something like heterobonding would be more suitable? Just throwing it out there.

 

  Anyway, I Googled "heterosexual life partner" and it does mean two people of the same sex who live together without any involvment in any sexual intimacy with each other of any sort.

[T.o.b.y]

No offense, but given the alternatives I'm reading here I might even begin to use "bromance" myself... Although I still do not understand why simply "friends" or "best friends" is not enough. Maybe Carol is right that Facebook has devalued that word.

 

So, what am I supposed to call my relationship with another woman whom I have known all my life and dearly love without having sex? "Sistermance" sounds terrible!

 

 

[Bakerstreet Irregular]

I think for the female equivalent it's "Girl friend"  or Sistah.

[Caya]

I don't think "friend" or "best friend" is quite sufficient to denote such a relationship - "friend" is too generic (this kind of relationship is definitely closer; Mike is John's friend, Sherlock is way more than that) and technically speaking, you can only have one best friend while you could have several bros/sis (isn't that a band or something?). When we were in our teens, our nerd group adopted the Darkovan bredu/breda when referring to that kind of close friendship, for lack of a better term. "Bromance" perhaps isn't optimal but better than nothing, I think, at least until someone coins a better one that's generally accepted.

[T.o.b.y]

What we now call friends I guess are the "acquaintances" of older days and our "heterosexual life partners" or "bros" or whatever are the old-time "intimate friends". I love the term "intimate friend" (among other reasons because it denotes a bit of tenderness) but am fully aware that it would cause a lot of misunderstanding if I used it in today's context.

[Bakerstreet Irregular]

Yes, unfortunately the word "intimate" is going to be interpreted as being sexual. Especially in the minds of many Americans. I don't know how other countries look at it. But here in the US I have stopped watching the so called "comedy" shows because for the most part they are sexcentric. I don't know why it is that Hollywood has to believe that "sex sells" but I for one am fed up with it.

 

 

[Carol the Dabbler]

The old words have changed, but of course that's the history of language.  The flip side is that new words arise.

 

I'm trying to think of other words from fiction.  Well, there's "blood brother," which may be an authentic American Indian term, but was certainly popularized by the Western movies.  But nowadays, it could just as easily be taken more literally, to mean a genetic brother (analogously to "blood relative").

 

In the days of early Trek fandom, there was some use of "water brother" from Heinlein's novel Stranger in a Strange Land.  But even then, the term had been devalued and was often applied to people one knew only through correspondence -- like today's "close internet friends."

 

As for the term "bosom buddy" -- I fear that's beyond salvage!

 

[T.o.b.y]

I don't know why it is that Hollywood has to believe that "sex sells" but I for one am fed up with it.

 

Well, it does sell. Always has, I suppose, it's just presented in a more and more explicit and crude manner.

 

I've got to admit I very much appreciate a little sex appeal on the part of fictional characters. I do think Sherlock is hot (and I can't imagine the writers and costume and make-up artists didn't intend him to be so) and I loved watching the tension between Sherlock and Irene in Scandal. They were great. It's just that sex, like romance, has been shown so very often in so many forms that it is hard to find something to say about it that isn't stale.

 

I think writers often make the mistake of showing too much and leaving too little to the imagination.

I really, really liked the idea of Irene putting on his lovely coat over her naked body - that was a lot sexier to watch than if they had shown those two actually touching.

[Bakerstreet Irregular]

Oh don't get me wrong. I think Sherlock is the hottest thing on two legs. It's just I think American TV makes it way to blatant and in your face. Maybe I'm just jaded that way and that's why I like British tv so well. The writing is sparkling. The wit, even if its kind of sexy, it isn't crude, rude. I find it handled way better on Brit tv, then I do American.

[T.o.b.y]

Not having much access to either British or American TV, I may not be capable of a qualified opinion here (and that has never stopped me from giving one), but I am dead sure both countries get a lot better stuff than we do where I live. German TV is atrocious and they dub everything that isn't home made, even though most Germans understand English pretty well.

 

There have been some great American series... like Mad Men. That had a generous amount of sex and handled it very nicely. Unfortunately, I took offense when some stupid writer sent Peggy to bed with that old alcoholic and stopped watching.

 

The British accent is of course a lot classier, so dialogue automatically sounds more sophisticated when spoken by British actors...

[Bakerstreet Irregular]

I guess that's what bugs me the most. Why can't you just have a good show, good plots and well acted without having people jumping into bed or having affairs, or what ever. If they think that's all there is to life, theirs must be pretty darn boring, or they are all nymphomaniacs.

[T.o.b.y]

I guess that's what bugs me the most. Why can't you just have a good show, good plots and well acted without having people jumping into bed or having affairs, or what ever. If they think that's all there is to life, theirs must be pretty darn boring, or they are all nymphomaniacs.

 

I think Sherlock would whole-heartedly agree with you: DULL!

 

 

[aely]

Hi people, not been around much (places to go people to see) but this has become a very interesting discussion. I have a few things to add.

 

Shipping and slash: I think some of the motivation to 'ship' male characters together is the desire for something more risqué, an alternative to the norm if you like, as many fans don't relate to the standard norm in many things and also as a reflection of the true diversity of attraction. Of course a huge chunk of it is just because some people like the idea of 2 attractive men together. Some of it is down to on screen chemistry and all - In Star Trek: Voyager one canon romance was between Paris and Torres, but the chemistry between them was quite flat and insipid at times and they kind of crucified Torres' character to make her fit in with the perceived 'ideal' whereas Tom Paris's relationship with Harry Kim was obviously massively important to them both, right from the get go, whether you chose to see it as just a deep friendship (as intended) or wanted to read something else into it.

 

Sherlock has that ambiguity - obviously John and Sherlock are important to each other, almost opposite sides of the same coin,  but for those who want to read more into that relationship, it isn't a huge step to take. I dabble on both sides of the equation.

 

 

they might express that as "I ship Johnlock" (unless Aely is around, in which case she would whack them with Irene's riding crop for daring to moosh the names together so disrespectfully).

 

Too true, even if you ARE a shipper, I don't see any reason to deprive a character of their own name in order to turn them into some insipid reflection of themselves that only exists in relation to the other person...

 

 

Overall, I think less is more. It's better to leave things to the imagination rather than have them shoved in our faces - it's more fun that way.

 

 

As for using other literary descriptions for friendships, I like that. I'm a big Darkover fan so it made me smile to see someone using Breda/Bredu.

 

More recently, and something that 2 of my friends use, is the term Parabatai from the Cassandra Clare novels. According to the Shadowhunter wiki Parabatai is a pair of Nephilim warriors who fight together and are closer than siblings, regardless of their gender. They are partners who would lay down their life for the other. Shadowhunters are also forbidden from falling in love with their parabatai (which fits my 2 friends as they are both asexual).

 

There is also an Irish term Anam Cara which literally means "soul friend" though it is often interpreted as "soul mate" which I think devalues it somewhat. Taken as it was originally meant, an Anam Cara can be anyone; blood relative, lover, spiritual guide - all that is required is a deep connection with another person and that doesn't have to be physical.

 

 

 

“Real friendship or love is not manufactured or achieved by an act of will or intention. Friendship is always an act of recognition.”

- from Anam Cara by John O'Donohue. Don't you think that fits Sherlock and John?

[Bakerstreet Irregular]

I do love the term Anam Cara, and yes it does fit, perfectly. Welcome back, aely!

 

  Sherlock's name also comes from the Irish meaning "bright hair".

[T.o.b.y]

Really? That's almost poetic. What does "Mycroft" mean - tight-lipped smile of not being amused?

[Bakerstreet Irregular]

According to what I could find on the internet, Mycroft as a Christian...or first name....is very rare...the most notable being Mycroft Holmes of Doyle fame.

 

 But the word, Mype....and adding the word "croft"  means the functioning of water on a small enclosed farm. So, in Mycroft Holmes's case it could mean something like...."still waters run deep" and in his case.....very deep indeed. No one can tell by looking at the surface of him just what is going on in the deepest heart of that man.

[T.o.b.y]

He has a heart? You sure?

 

... Just kidding. No, you're right, still waters run deep fits that character perfectly, much better than "the ice man".

[T.o.b.y]

 

I don't see any reason to deprive a character of their own name in order to turn them into some insipid reflection of themselves that only exists in relation to the other person...

 

Oh, thank you. Those mashups of names grate even more on me than the merging of two beautiful words - "romance" and "brothers" - into one at best indifferent expression.

 

And it does sound terribly disrespectful. For some reason, the characters I see on the TV show inspire a lot more awe in me than those I read about in the old stories. I have little trouble laughing (though fondly) at Holmes and Dr Watson and over-interpreting their words and actions, but for some reason I find it a lot harder to take liberties with Sherlock and John or Molly or whoever. They seem so real...

[Bakerstreet Irregular]

 

They seem so real

 

  And this is why this is a fandom that has lasted for over 150 years. The people of Victorian times, even though we may find the stories kind of contrite now, loved them in print as much as we love this new interpretation. They believed in him and trusted him, just like the campaign that hit the world after "The Reichenbach Fall".  They have seemed so real that people have been writing actual letters to Sherlock Holmes, 221b, Baker Street, London for decades. My sister who is a very literal person with little imagination says that they should be real.

 

  This is just the Victorian Sherlock coming home to the 21st Century. We are the reincarnated Victorian fandom.

[T.o.b.y]

Then it is totally fitting that "our" Sherlock Holmes is darker, more acerbic, more "damaged and delusional" and a lot less polished and polite than the original one. I wonder why we love the "antihero" type so much better now than the shining figures that people used to look up to. Maybe because we find him not too good to be true based on our everyday experience.

[Bakerstreet Irregular]

   I have never seen "Sherlock" as a "antihero". He may be damaged but for me is still "the shining figure". He could have become just another drug addict, he did not. He could have become another Moriarty....he did not. He stands tall and keeps true to himself in all ways. He had good reasons for doing what he did, but he may also been some kind of agent for his government at least in the original....and not Mycroft. But in this version he and Mycroft may be working together to bring down Moriarty's net work. He is growing, becoming polished. It just takes time. But like Carol has said, it began in Season 2 and we will certainly see more of that maturing in Season 3.

[T.o.b.y]

Then maybe the "we" was out of place and should have been "I". I actually like him best in series 1 and I wish he did still take drugs. But it would be boring if he didn't evolve.

 

About seeing subtext: The last time I watched A Scandal in Belgravia it was just two days after having seen The Great Game and I really noticed how much the character (and the overall tone of the show) had changed. Sherlock looks a lot healthier, he's fattened out a bit and gives the impression of being more relaxed and actually grown younger in some ways. Now, I do know that the change in face and figure was probably due to the fact that the actor was about to play Mr Tietjens in Parades End (which, btw is another breathtaking bit of television), but I prefer to interpret it as a sign of how much good it did Sherlock to have found a friend and a home in Baker St. It might be holding a match to a barrel of powder to quote "happiness suits you - you've put on weight" in this context, but I can't resist the temptation.

[Bakerstreet Irregular]

Oh it did both Sherlock's Victorian and this modern version, a  world of good taking Watson as a room mate. They needed each other, but Sherlock needed Dr. John H. Watson more then Watson needed him.

[T.o.b.y]

Sherlock needed Dr. John H. Watson more then Watson needed him.

 

I'm not too sure about that. Could probably fill a discussion thread of it's own.

 

Might as well inflict my opinion on whosoever is reading here, that I think way too much has been made of the characters "needing each other". Sherlock is supposed to have gotten off drugs and into working for the police before he met John and he goes off on his own a lot (to Belarus, to wherever you can harpoon dead pigs, maybe even to Karachi). John has his occasional job opportunities and girl-friends and nights out with Stamford and trips to Ireland. We see them together all the time because the story is about their shared work, but they seem more like regular flat mates than a couple when it comes to how they live their life.

 

On the other hand, Sherlock might have never lived past episode one if somebody hadn't pulled a certain trigger at the right moment and John might still be limping around with his crutch. They certainly did each other a world of good, I just don't see a lot of co-dependence and I don't think John's life was empty and horrible all the time after he got over the first shock of Sherlock's death - I'm assuming he moved on and finally adjusted to civilian life until series 3 proves me wrong. As to Sherlock - the original Holmes seems to have had a lot of fun on his own after his supposed death and does not seem to have missed his chronicler much until he got back to London.

 

[Carol the Dabbler]

Thank you for pointing out that Sherlock and John are not actually joined at the hip! 

 

Those mashups of names grate even more on me than the merging of two beautiful words - "romance" and "brothers" - into one at best indifferent expression.

 

And it does sound terribly disrespectful. For some reason, the characters I see on the TV show inspire a lot more awe in me than those I read about in the old stories. I have little trouble laughing (though fondly) at Holmes and Dr Watson and over-interpreting their words and actions, but for some reason I find it a lot harder to take liberties with Sherlock and John or Molly or whoever. They seem so real...

 

That reminds me of a discussion in a recent private message.  The other person can quote her part if she likes, but I said that even though I enjoy reading fan fiction where Sherlock, John, et al., are described evocatively, I cannot write such vivid descriptions myself, because it'd feel like an invasion of privacy (whether Sherlock's & John's or Cumberbatch's & Freeman's, I'm not entirely certain).  It sounds silly, but I'd be embarrassed!