John was in love with Sherlock and he knows it

loudest-subtext-in-television:

leandraholmes:

After this season of Sherlock was concluded, it was quite apparent to most of us that Sherlock loves John in a way that exceeds mere friendship. Many people have already tackled that subject and listed all the clues for this fact. However, we rarely got an inside glimpse into John’s mind in any of the episodes – deliberately done so by the authors to keep us guessing. 

There was one little fact that struck me as odd, though. One ‘clue’ that makes me quite certain John (prior to the Fall) had feelings of a (nearly) romantic kind for Sherlock, and that he was aware of them despite his vehement denials (“I’m not gay”). 

Let’s look at this bit of dialogue between John and Mrs Hudson at the beginning of The Empty Hearse. 

MRS HUDSON: Oh, God. Is it serious?
JOHN: What? No. No, I’m not ill. I’ve, er, well, I’m … moving on.
MRS HUDSON: You’re emigrating.
JOHN: Nope. Er, no. I’ve, er … I’ve met someone.
MRS HUDSON: Oh, lovely!
JOHN: Yeah. We’re getting married … well, I’m gonna ask, anyway.
MRS HUDSON: So soon after Sherlock?
JOHN: Well, yes.
MRS HUDSON: What’s his name?
JOHN: It’s a woman.
MRS HUDSON: A woman?
JOHN: Yes, of course it’s a woman.
MRS HUDSON: You really have moved on, haven’t you?
JOHN: Mrs Hudson! How many times? Sherlock was not my boyfriend.
MRS HUDSON: Live and let live, that’s my motto.
JOHN: Listen to me. I am not gay!

That wording struck me as odd from the very beginning. Moving on, here, relates directly to the fact that John has started a new relationship. He doesn’t say he’s moved on from mourning and therefore can visit places that remind him of Sherlock again, he doesn’t move out of town or the country as Mrs Hudson first assumes, no, he’s moved on to a new partner with whom to share his life. One that is on the same level and of the same importance to him as Sherlock. 

You could argue that he immediately corrects Mrs Hudson by saying he’s not gay. I, personally, see that as sort of defence mechanism because John has recognised his error. He knows what his words sounded like, and he knows there is a reason for him using them instead of something else. He could have said “I’ve got news” or “There’s something I wanted to tell you”, but he directly starts with “I’m moving on.” 

Now, who else has used the exact same wording in the same episode?

LESTRADE: So, um, is it serious, you two?
MOLLY: Yeah! I’ve moved on!

Molly, after introducing her fiancé Tom, confirms that she has moved on. From what? Her unrequited crush on Sherlock. So why use those words, twice, in the same episode, in a context of introducing new relationships, when the premise is supposed to be a completely different one? Sure, it could be sloppy writing, but with Mark Gatiss’ usual attention to detail I very, very highly doubt it. 

So what can only be the point of this? Molly is a mirror for John, one that will allow the audience to automatically and directly read the intended meaning: she’s over Sherlock. She’s not in love with Sherlock anymore and has moved on to – to what exactly? A young man that dresses like Sherlock (or whom she made dress like that) who is a clear substitute for Sherlock. And a rather poor one as we find out later. 

Molly’s “I’ve moved on” furthermore doesn’t sound all that convincing, especially in the light of everyone staring at the obvious similarities between Tom and Sherlock, and every one in the room (plus the audience) is wondering whether she doesn’t just tell herself that. 

I’m not saying that I think Molly will still have a crush on Sherlock after this. I do believe Tom finally helped her get over it and move on, but at this point in the story she is still kidding herself. (Also, pay attention to how she assumes Sherlock is about to ask her out for dinner when he really just asks her to solve crimes with him, and look at her gaze and body language when Sherlock kisses her cheek. Completely and ultimately over someone looks different). 

So, if Molly is a mirror for John then this also means that John has, same as she, found himself a (poor) substitute for Sherlock. In fact, we get confirmation for this in His Last Vow when it becomes apparent that Mary is very similar to Sherlock and that this is ‘what he likes’. 

Furthermore, since Molly is John’s mirror, the end of her and Tom’s relationship also foreshadows the same for John and Mary. Though under which circumstances and when precisely remains to be seen. 

tl; dr: Molly serves as an obvious instrument to affirm John’s feelings for Sherlock to the audience because she uses the same words in the same context. Both new partners have similarities to Sherlock, one on the outside and the other on the inside. And both she and John are kidding themselves and are trying to deny this fact by trying to be extra convincing. 

Good analysis of John and Molly in The Empty Hearse.  I have been saying that John is aware of his feelings for Sherlock in series 3, so anyone who is doubtful on that angle might want to read this as well.  Also talks about some foreshadowing.

The fastidious ick of Charles Augustus Magnussen

professorfangirl:

image

Well now aren’t these two are a pair. No, really, I’ve been thinking a lot about identification and desire in this third series, and Magnussen’s like a slightly grotesque reflection of Sherlock. He’s in a strange opposition to Moriarty, almost like superego and id. (I’m not fond of Freud’s id/ego/superego theory, too schematic for me, but it does interesting work here. To review: id is base animal instinct, driven by the pleasure principle without restraint; ego is primary self, operating through the reality principle to make sense of the self-in-the-world; superego is civilization, the strictures of morals and manners.) In appearance Magnussen could hardly be farther from Moriarty:

image

image

In psychological function, too, they’re starkly differentiated: Moriarty raving in that padded oubliette is pure id, real bloody bottom-of-the-brain stuff, unfiltered by reason. (“Padded oubliette” is sublim8’s term, and it’s perfect for this grimy cell of the unconscious.) He’s fixed on the primal forces—fear, pain, death; mother, father, sex (the Woman)…and John. Love. The force that opposes Moriarty at the core of Sherlock’s being. When Jim tells him that heartbreak, loss, and death are “all good,” John in reality touches his face and calls to him. Reaching in through the purest animal need to live, John will always call Sherlock back to his life and his best self.

Read More

What are the chances of the Cassablanc-esque plane scene was actually John and sherlock saying goodbye to those deeper feelings? Because if they choose to keep Mary/baby around in Series 4, they can’t riddle that with johnlock subtext nearly as much. Is it possible that the plane was the acknowledgement that those feelings were there, and now its time to say goodbye to them? Thats the feeling I’m getting.

the-hedgehogs-have-the-tardis:

xistentialangst:

loudest-subtext-in-television-d:

Standard disclaimer of “this is just my reading” here…

If the series ended there, then maybe.  But it’s got two more series.  The Casablanca parallel is set up to nod to the audience that the romantic feelings are 1) present, and 2) mutual.  Sherlock’s plane turning around signifies that isn’t where the romantic story ends, that the writers intend to do something different.  I said this earlier:  They always do what they’ve seen done before, then add a twist or subvert it, and then take it a step further.  They didn’t parallel Casablanca just to copy Casablanca, that’s not their style.

Past that, it would be incredibly bizarre to build up to romantic feelings for the entire duration of the show thus far, and then quietly bury them.  I mean, there are no rules in storytelling, but balance of probability is that’s not what they’re going for:  it wouldn’t satisfy hardly anyone, it would be a very unusual story to tell, and since practically the only thing we can be assured of is that John and Sherlock are going to spend their lives together, it’d be an odd decision that two guys who used to have feelings for each other just sexlessly live together later in life.  It would be even weirder to set up things like Mary being as selfish as she is, and the Holmes parents as the only healthy relationship on the show as a mirror for Johnlock, if we’re going to be left with John and Mary.

I’m kind of surprised so many people think writing a baby — or anything — into the show means whelp, that’s it!  It doesn’t mean anything for any story, much less Sherlock.  Guys, Moriarty blew his brains out.  That’s what storytelling is:  you set up seemingly insurmountable obstacles so your characters can overcome them.  You don’t set up obstacles to just shackle your narrative onto a narrow path.

I know we’re all used to really mediocre shows outside of Sherlock, but these writers know what they’re doing when it comes to character development and planning.  Everything we saw in series 3 was prepped for in series 2, which was prepped for in series 1.  Moftiss care a lot about their adaptation and thought about it for years, they’re not just flailing around trying to keep a show on the air indefinitely without a goal in sight.  When someone is good at crafting stories, they will absolutely tear your heart out in the middle and make you wonder how anything will ever be okay again.  If it didn’t look like John was going to end up with Mary right now, if things didn’t look hopeless, it would be a considerably shittier show.

Refer back to the signposts and you’ll see this is absolutely consistent with a narrative arc for a romance, and not consistent with much else.  It’s taking this long because we’re not building up to a slapdash relationship, but a moving one.  It hurts because it’s being done well.

Very nicely put.

Loudest-Subtext, if my hopes are dashed in the end I’m blaming you. JK. Well sort of.

I think there’s a reading of the “What Is Johns Deal With Sholto?” that comes up with the answer “Daddy Issues!”- which leads me to think… Is there an abandonment there that he is utterly opposed to reenacting with his own child?

loriliesong:

earlgreytea68:

I actually had the same thought while I was watching. Not with the Sholto connection but just: It turns out Sherlock was the one with the happy family. Even through a wedding, we never see any of John’s. I do wonder if it makes him feel even more compelled to give the baby a “solid” family life. 

John is the dark horse in this series. We learn so much about Sherlock and his history but what about John? Loyal, caring, kind, protective, jumper-clad, dangerous John with his drive to fix people  and his problematic hero-worship of damaged men. We actually know little about him other than his medical and military background. Except in one scene here, where we have a window into his past and what a window it is. Back in Baker Street with Sherlock and Mary John is shown just how his life choices brought him to his current situation. He explodes “Why is it always MY FAULT!” That response often speaks to a history of abandonment or abuse, where a child is blamed for the problems of his parents and tries to fix them. He exhibits many of the co-dependent traits found in families with a history of alcoholism (Hi Harry!). People-pleasing, boundary issues, care-taking, difficulty with intimate communication (well, that could also be part of being British but John takes it to extremes), reactivity. So my take, for what it’s worth, is a father perhaps sometimes violent, with a history of alcoholism. Possibly military background; at any rate, someone John probably loved, feared, hated, and more than anything wanted to save.

John’s view on why Sherlock brought them all to his home for Christmas actually reinforces the image of a dysfunctional family for John. How bad does your family need to be to see Sherlock’s family as normal? Mummy Holmes is a genius eccentric (to say the least-Sherlock didn’t fall to far from that tree) and strikes me a a pretty scary lady if pushed, and she basically married John. I think Sherlock had a very strange childhood although he did know love.  But I really want to know the story of the missing child.

Random theory about Mummy and Sherlock Holmes:

So mum was a brilliant mathematician who gave it up to raise children, as was expected at the time.

What if she planned on going back to her career when Mycroft was in school, only to suddenly find herself pregnant with Sherlock.

Might she resent that, just a bit?