....what? since when?

Guy Ritchie's plan to put a gay spin on the relationship of Sherlock Holmes and Dr.

[deeter1013]

it has LONG been known that Sherlock had homosexual tendencies.

[nikk]

i thought sherlock WAS gay. i thought it was out there. ill be seeing it.

[deeter1013]

nikk wrote:

i thought sherlock WAS gay. i thought it was out there. ill be seeing it.

LOL..he WAS gay, but I tried to word it in a way that would not send the bible thumpers into apoplexy!!

[RalphB]

deeter1013 wrote:

<quoted text>
LOL..he WAS gay, but I tried to word it in a way that would not send the bible thumpers into apoplexy!!

Just curious. I have read every Sherlock Holmes written by Doyle, and have not read any statement that clearly says Sherlock was gay. What leads you to believe he was, besides our tendency to read our own lives into those of fictional characters?

[fuzi]

Asking Michael Medved's opinion on this is akin to asking Joseph Goebbels' opinion on Jewish daycare centers.

[ScottyMatic]

RalphB wrote:

<quoted text>
Just curious. I have read every Sherlock Holmes written by Doyle, and have not read any statement that clearly says Sherlock was gay. What leads you to believe he was, besides our tendency to read our own lives into those of fictional characters?

"Women are never to be entirely trusted... not the best of them." --Sherlock Holmes, The Sign of the Four

Of course Doyle never wrote that Holmes was homosexual--it would have scandalized his stories and destroyed their popularity. However, that he so consistently portrays Holmes as unfailingly suspiscious and rude towards women, as being nearly inseperable from Watson--and almost completely dependent on him, and never ever ever having any -overt- romantic interest in anyone whatsoever, the door is left wide-open to speculation.

Doyle may not have intended to leave open the speculation that Holmes was homosexual, but whereas he easily could have quashed such speculation and did not do so, one must consider the possibility.

This would not be the first (or the hundredth) adaptation of the character which leans more overtly toward being gay.

"When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth." --Sherlock Holmes, The Sign of the Four.

[Roisia]

deeter1013 wrote:

it has LONG been known that Sherlock had homosexual tendencies.

It was elementary my dear deeter

[RalphB]

ScottyMatic wrote:

<quoted text>
"Women are never to be entirely trusted... not the best of them." --Sherlock Holmes, The Sign of the Four
Of course Doyle never wrote that Holmes was homosexual--it would have scandalized his stories and destroyed their popularity. However, that he so consistently portrays Holmes as unfailingly suspiscious and rude towards women, as being nearly inseperable from Watson--and almost completely dependent on him, and never ever ever having any -overt- romantic interest in anyone whatsoever, the door is left wide-open to speculation.
Doyle may not have intended to leave open the speculation that Holmes was homosexual, but whereas he easily could have quashed such speculation and did not do so, one must consider the possibility.
This would not be the first (or the hundredth) adaptation of the character which leans more overtly toward being gay.
"When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth." --Sherlock Holmes, The Sign of the Four.

Interesting, but hardly conclusive. There is just as much proof of his being asexual rather than homosexual. What is this tendency of ours (and I include myself in this) to take totally fictitious characters and make them gay? I do this sometimes myself, although I realize I shouldn't. Should we not just accept those characters as they were written? Much as we ask others to accept us, "just as we are"?

[RalphB]

ScottyMatic wrote:

<quoted text>
"Women are never to be entirely trusted... not the best of them." --Sherlock Holmes, The Sign of the Four

By the way, the same could be said of men.

[Cpetr13]

It could very well have been that Doyle never intended for holmes to have a sexual dimension, but he was too good a writer for that kind of superficiality in a main character. Nor would asexuality have occurred to him; it simply wasn't part of the culture.

You can point to Irene Adler a a case for his heterosexuality, but he never describes her in any detail other than her intelligence. Watson refers to her as "THE woman", but holmes doesn't.

The only meaningful relationship holmes has is with watson, and their relationship seems to be absolutely typical of closeted victorian men. Doyle eventually killed off Watson's wife so they could live together again.

Of course, ultimately, no fictional character need be anything beyond what it creator decides.

[ScottyMatic]

RalphB wrote:

<quoted text>
By the way, the same could be said of men.

...Yes, which was my point. Holmes DIDN'T say this about people in general, but about women. Okay, more of a case for him being a typical Elizabethan misogynist than being gay, but nevertheless, a curious statement. In the same story, Holmes says, "I assure you that the most winning woman I ever knew was hanged for poisoning three little children for their insurance-money, and the most repellant man of my acquaintance is a philanthropist who has spent nearly a quarter of a million upon the London poor."

Look at the character of the descriptive adjectives: "winning" woman. Opposite of "winning" is "losing." And then there's "repellant" man... the opposite of "repellant" is "attractive."

Rather than using opposed ajectives, as Doyle could easily have done and eliminated the skewed ambiguity, he instead used a curious juxtaposition of positive and negative adjectives which don't really match-up as opposites, though that's clearly what Holmes was implying.

The stories are full of subtle and strange allusions such as this in their peculiar phrasings.

[ScottyMatic]

RalphB wrote:

<quoted text>
Interesting, but hardly conclusive. There is just as much proof of his being asexual rather than homosexual. What is this tendency of ours (and I include myself in this) to take totally fictitious characters and make them gay? I do this sometimes myself, although I realize I shouldn't. Should we not just accept those characters as they were written? Much as we ask others to accept us, "just as we are"?

But wait a minute... it is in the very nature of fiction to leave certain things unwritten for the reader to presume; in doing so, employing their imagination to personalize the story in a way emotionally relevant to themselves. This has been commonplace in fiction --and even moreso in the short-story form-- since long before the first cowboy rode off into the first sunset. We are left, even encouraged, to presume that the cowboy slept under the stars that night, got up the next morning and had beans, bacon, and coffee for breakfast, and then set-off on some new adventure, are we not?

Fiction is not cut-and-dried. Case in point: At the end of the Wizard of Oz, does the Wizard leave Oz in a hot air baloon, or in an atomic powered rocket ship? Well, it depends on whether you are a devotee of the movie, or the original novel, respectively.

LGBT folks have long been pressed under the heels of societies which insist that NOBODY is really gay. And then along come Rosie and Ellen, elton John and Lance Bass, George Takei and Neil Patrick Harris... and we get to say, "Hey, whaddya know?"

As I say, if Doyle had written so much as one line about Holmes wrestling between his infallable logic and his desire for an attractive woman, then it would have dispelled any further whisperings. Instead, Doyle frequently went out of his way to illustrate how totally unaffected Holmes was by the potential charms of the opposite sex, while at the same time showing us that he would have given his life to save Watson without a moment's hesitation, and he even maintained a curious bond of appreciation and respect for his nemesis, professor Moriarty.

Frankly, I find the character much more interesting as a brilliant, single gay man in Elizabethan England, who knew above all that some things are best kept behind closed doors. Not unlike Oscar Wilde, who you will please note, was a personal friend of Sir Arthur Conan Doyle, had a wife and children, and was as queer as a three pound note, and was imprisoned for buggering the son of the Marquis of Queensbury. it was he who gave us the phrase, "The love which dare not speak it's name."

[RalphB]

ScottyMatic wrote:

<quoted text>
But wait a minute... it is in the very nature of fiction to leave certain things unwritten for the reader to presume; in doing so, employing their imagination to personalize the story in a way emotionally relevant to themselves.

This is all very true. However, the operative word is "presume". We presume Holmes to be gay, not because Doyle meant for him to be so, but because he was leaving it open for us to best enjoy the character. Therefore, Holmes is neither gay nor straight. It is fine to presume that he was gay, if it so enhances the experience of reading, but it cannot be, in fact, that he was gay (or straight). Oh yeah, and while we are having this conversation.......how many angels can dance on the head of a pin?:-)

[SFer]

That's a very astute observation.

Medved really creeps me out. He's just as homophobic as any of the other rightwing nuts but he has this really creepy way of couching it in terms of solicitude.

fuzi wrote:

Asking Michael Medved's opinion on this is akin to asking Joseph Goebbels' opinion on Jewish daycare centers.

[ScottyMatic]

RalphB wrote:

<quoted text>
This is all very true. However, the operative word is "presume". We presume Holmes to be gay, not because Doyle meant for him to be so, but because he was leaving it open for us to best enjoy the character. Therefore, Holmes is neither gay nor straight. It is fine to presume that he was gay, if it so enhances the experience of reading, but it cannot be, in fact, that he was gay (or straight). Oh yeah, and while we are having this conversation.......how many angels can dance on the head of a pin?:-)

RalphB wrote:

<quoted text>
This is all very true. However, the operative word is "presume". We presume Holmes to be gay, not because Doyle meant for him to be so, but because he was leaving it open for us to best enjoy the character. Therefore, Holmes is neither gay nor straight. It is fine to presume that he was gay, if it so enhances the experience of reading, but it cannot be, in fact, that he was gay (or straight). Oh yeah, and while we are having this conversation.......how many angels can dance on the head of a pin?:-)

No, it's not a presumption that I'm talking about. Holmes is not explicitly gay in doyle's stories. However, a more asexual human being has never been portrayed in fiction.

What I'm talking about is the portrayal of Holmes in adaptations which were NOT penned by Doyle... most notably, "The Private Life of Sherlock Holmes," The 1970 Billy Wilder film. Holmes and Watson are tastefully portrayed as a discreet gay couple. And this characterization is not inconsistent with the original character as written by Doyle. It is merely a more detailed interpretation of the character with regard to his private life.

So, in some later adaptations, Holmes IS gay. But it's not how many angels on the pin, it's whether the Wizard left in a balloon or a rocket ship. It's fiction that transpires in a flexible and nebulous imaginary world.

The point is that in keeping with the Doyle's original Holmes cannon, we can be sure that holmes didn't have heterosexual relationships, but it is not a contradiction of Doyle to suggest that Holmes could be gay.

Your assertion was that LGBT people want to make every character gay, from Harry Potter to Mr. Spock--CONTRARY to their explicitly heterosexual characterizations. I would say that this is not what is happening with the Holmes/gay question. This possibility is not inconsistent with the original character at all.

[deeter1013]

ScottyMatic wrote:

<quoted text>
<quoted text>
No, it's not a presumption that I'm talking about. Holmes is not explicitly gay in doyle's stories. However, a more asexual human being has never been portrayed in fiction.
What I'm talking about is the portrayal of Holmes in adaptations which were NOT penned by Doyle... most notably, "The Private Life of Sherlock Holmes," The 1970 Billy Wilder film. Holmes and Watson are tastefully portrayed as a discreet gay couple. And this characterization is not inconsistent with the original character as written by Doyle. It is merely a more detailed interpretation of the character with regard to his private life.
So, in some later adaptations, Holmes IS gay. But it's not how many angels on the pin, it's whether the Wizard left in a balloon or a rocket ship. It's fiction that transpires in a flexible and nebulous imaginary world.
The point is that in keeping with the Doyle's original Holmes cannon, we can be sure that holmes didn't have heterosexual relationships, but it is not a contradiction of Doyle to suggest that Holmes could be gay.
Your assertion was that LGBT people want to make every character gay, from Harry Potter to Mr. Spock--CONTRARY to their explicitly heterosexual characterizations. I would say that this is not what is happening with the Holmes/gay question. This possibility is not inconsistent with the original character at all.

I feel smarter just from reading your posts!!..LOL

look forward to more!

[The Golem]

Hey, people, it's a work of fiction. It stands on its own regardless of the intentions of the author. Baring a definite statement in the narrative, if it works best for you, as it does for me, to understand Holmes and Watson as lovers, then that's what I take away from multiple readings.

If someone else sees a different conclusion, they're welcome to their interpretation. It's not like trying to figure out if Edward II of England was gay.

"When you have eliminated the impossible, what ever remains, no matter how improbable, must be the truth."

At the Sign of the Four
Arthur Conan Doyle

[ScottyMatic]

deeter1013 wrote:

<quoted text>
I feel smarter just from reading your posts!!..LOL
look forward to more!

That's so sweet! Thanks!

Actually, I do prefer the stories in which the principal character is never identified as explicitly gay or straight....And such characters are so few and far between that Sherlock Holmes practically leaps from the page.

It was said by Sir Arthur Conan Doyle that Holmes was based upon a one Dr. Joseph Bell, who was a teacher Doyle had known, whose explanations of observation and deduction made a profound impression on the author. But Doyle was also friends with Oscar Wilde, as I mentioned earlier in this thread, and Wilde was not exactly inhibited about his notable homosexual affairs. Doyle and Wilde read one anothers' works, and shared comments and critiques.

I don't think it's so unlikely that Doyle found Wilde's brilliance and complex private life deliciously intriguing, and wanted to weave that intrigue into his characterizaiton of Holmes.

In the BBC Sherlock Holmes Mysteries, starring (gay) Jeremy Brett in the title role, Holmes is just as sexually disinterested, but the actor clearly had a different feel for the character to the portrayals of Basil Rathbone and other actors who had brought the world's greatest consulting detective to life. Brett, I think, played holmes as --every bit-- as asexual as the original literary character, but as a gay man disinterested in romance, rather than a straight man disinterested in romance. It's a subtle difference, but I thought his portrayal gave considerable depth to the character.

And if you're a fan of the TV show "House," you might be interested to note that Dr. House enjoys several subtle references to Sherlock Holmes, including his apartment number.

If I ever get to visit London, I'm going to buy a droopbowl meerschaum pipe, and smoke it wearing a deerstalker hat whilst standing on the street in front of 221B Baker Street. If a horsedrawn cab should happen by, I'll hire it.

Surely, adventure awaits.

[ScottyMatic]

The Golem wrote:

Hey, people, it's a work of fiction. It stands on its own regardless of the intentions of the author. Baring a definite statement in the narrative, if it works best for you, as it does for me, to understand Holmes and Watson as lovers, then that's what I take away from multiple readings.
If someone else sees a different conclusion, they're welcome to their interpretation. It's not like trying to figure out if Edward II of England was gay.
"When you have eliminated the impossible, what ever remains, no matter how improbable, must be the truth."
At the Sign of the Four
Arthur Conan Doyle

"If you were asked to prove that two and two made four, you might find some difficulty, and yet you are quite sure of the fact." --Sherlock Holmes, A Study in Scarlett.

Incidentally, I think the evidence on Edward II is fairly solid....Just as is the evidence for U.S. President James Buchannan. And King James. And Rock Hudson. And Elanor Roosevelt. And Alexander the Great. And on and on and on. I figure that one in ten of the great famous people, leaders, and celebrities we revere were sexually "non-traditional." Perhaps Jesus. Almost certainly Judas Iscariot, don't you think?

So why not poor Sherlock? In my readings of all the stories and books, the one thing I could not reconcile was his confidence, if one presumed that he had no intimate personal companion. Perhaps we were meant to believe that he was superhuman, immune from the basic drives which define all other humans. But I prefer to notice that the things not written are as illuminating as the words on the page.

[ScottyMatic]

And, in case I hadn't mentioned it, I saw the theater trailer for this film, and I wouldn't miss it for the world.

With Mr. Depp and Mr. Law, I'll be well entertained regardless of plot, direction, cinematography, or other considerations.

They're both such nicely sexy and intelligent actors. Yumm.