On IMDb there’s a report that one Andrea Plunket, furious over Downey and Law’s interviews playing up possible homoerotic subtext in the Sherlock Holmes canon, is threatening to withdraw sequel permissions if Guy Ritchie keeps this up.
Plunket comments, “It would be drastic, but I would withdraw permission for more films to be made if they feel that is a theme they wish to bring out in the future. I am not hostile to homosexuals, but I am to anyone who is not true to the spirit of the books.”
Dear Ms. Plunket: allow me to introduce you to the concept of shipping wars. Because you’ve just put your foot right into one of the longest ones in unofficial existence—one that is, in fact, over a century old at the time of this writing.
For those who’ve never heard of the phrase “shipping war”: this is fandom lingo for flamewars disagreements amongst fans about intimate relationships between fictional characters. Various opinions on character pairings—canon or not, bizarre or not, straight or not—are also referred to as “ships.” You may have heard of references to the Hermione/Harry ship and the Hermione/Ron ship in Harry Potter fandom; this is what that means.
While the narrative of Harry Potter is a very consistently established piece of character-building (complete with official retcons and an extremely devoted creator with years of world-building notes that rival Tolkien’s for Middle Earth’s), the Sherlock Holmes canon in comparison is quite a bizarre piece of work. You can find plenty of examples of Consistency/Schmonsistency, such as:
- Is Watson’s first name “John” or “James” and why does his wife Mary call him the latter in “The Man with the Twisted Lip”? Surely she knows his first name by now. Surely.
- Where does Watson exactly live? He’s got a bedroom at Baker Street since A Study in Scarlett and “A Scandal in Bohemia”, the first Holmes novelette and first Holmes story in the canon respectively. But he also seemingly refers to the Baker Street lodgings as belonging only to Holmes (“A Case of Identity”) and that was before he got engaged to be married in The Sign of Four. After the marriage ends and Holmes returns (long story), he’s back to housing in the Baker Street rooms, but also refers in several stories during this period to rooms in Queen Anne street, and that’s after he’s sold his practice and the house he lives in. Even after accounting for the jagged timeline that is the canon when considered in printed order.
- Watson refers to Holmes’ expressionless mask lifting “for the first time” when it’s happened twice in the canon (“Case of the Devil’s Foot”, “The Three Garridebs”). Something so earth-shattering, as he implies both times, you think he’d remember (especially if the relationship is just platonic).
- Holmes is melancholy during the canon, and is remembered mostly for that. But on the other hand, there are a number of occasions when Holmes is downright expressive, with eyes all a-twinkle and a grin on his face (numerous times, as in “The Man with the Twisted Lip”, “The Adventure of the Noble Bachelor”, “The Beryl Coronet”, and more), plus there was that time in The Hound of the Baskervilles when he was dancing with joy.
Really, the canon taken as a whole is such a mess that you could use any of it to support any ship you like. And if people can do it, they’ve done it. In spades. For over a hundred years.
Let’s take something less controversial (well, slightly less controversial), such as Watson’s marriage, which people generally can’t get around. Obviously you have Watson/Mary. But throughout the canon you have numerous ladies declaring their most-devoted love to Watson, the most explicit occurring all the way back in A Study in Scarlet. People have come up with alternate ships along what I’ll call the “straight” Watson line, including Watson/Ferrier (A Study in Scarlet), Watson/Morrison (“The Man with the Twisted Lip”), and even Watson/Hudson (as in Mrs. Hudson, the aging landlady of Baker Street). There’s much flamewarring recounting amongst fans of straight Watson of how many wives he had, coming up with anything from one to six. Add in attempts to count the affairs Watson may have had over the years (anywhere from one to possibly over twenty), and you have a lot of ships.
Thus there’s far from a consensus as to what the canon has to say, exactly, about Watson’s straight relationships, apart from that he was definitely married to Mary for some time.
Now, let’s look at ships involving straight Holmes. The most famous of these is Holmes/Adler, getting a lot of play in fanfiction pastiches written thereafter, and indeed, there’s a fair part of fandom that believes Holmes and Adler were the biological parents of Nero Wolfe (long, long story). However, Holmes/Adler gets shown in the canon exactly once. And even so, it’s not exactly what you might call an intimate relationship, or even a flirting one. Or even a relationship. And she’s married (not that this technically stops straight Watson, some of the fandom thinks, so would it stop Holmes?). In fact, he witnesses (in the official sense) her marriage to a lawyer.
Mind you, he takes her picture as his only reward from the king involved in that story, and that by itself (along with other possible cues, but that’s the strongest one) fuels hundreds of stories, books, essays, and radio/movie adaptations, all out of canon, and all not by either Doyle (Adrian Doyle wrote some pastiches, and they are so held in copyright, unlike the original stories).
There are other straight Holmes ships: Holmes/Hunter (“The Copper Beeches”, although this does technically get shot down in the same story), Holmes/Stoner (“The Speckled Band”), and others, sometimes crossing over into straight Watson ship land, prompting not so much shipping wars as twilight skirmishes on the isle of “Possibly You Are Stretching the Text a Little.”
Then there’s the most controversial kind of Holmes canon ship: the gay Holmes ships. Yes, plural; gay Watson not required except for Holmes/Watson—which, of these, has the most amount of possible support in-canon, although we’re gonna cover a disturbing detail in all that in a bit. There’s also Holmes/Trevor (“Adventure of the Gloria Scott”) and Holmes/Moriarty (there’s a certain amount of fascination between the two, and the events of “The Final Problem” reach such Ritchie-movie levels of nonsensical that it would almost be a mercy if the confusion were the result of Holmes and Moriarty getting all hot and bothered about each other).
Of course, gay Holmes ships face a tough problem: namely, “The Adventure of the Blanched Soldier”, wherein Doyle reaches the same heights of homophobia as the anti-Mormonism of A Study in Scarlet and the racism in The Sign of Four, Valley of Fear, and “The Adventure of the Three Gables” (the last somewhat mitigated by “The Adventure of the Yellow Face”, which does not actually involve those of East Asian descent).
However, as we’ve all seen in recent news history, just because you’re homophobic doesn’t mean you’re not homosexual; and it follows that just because you’re homophobic doesn’t mean you won’t subconsciously/accidentally/naively insert homoerotic context into your stories.
Some people like to “straighten” the Holmes/Watson ship with the alternate ship, Watson-is-a-woman/Holmes, and the alternate-alternate ship, Holmes-is-a-woman/Watson.
(Truly, there is an ecological niche here for the Holmes-is-a-woman/Watson-is-a-woman gay ship, but I haven’t seen one yet.)
If you want my opinion…. personally, I think the two strongest Holmes ships are either (a) he’s asexual (a very special class of ship indeed, possibly a deep submarine, given that people want to pair characters all the time; not to be confused with the very rare narcissistic ship), or (b) gay Holmes/Watson, because of the amount of canon text that can be brought to support it.
And frankly, don’t you think Holmes and Watson make a cute couple?
Picture copyright © gailf548. Creative Commons Attribution License.
Arachne Jericho writes about science fiction and fantasy, and other topics determined by 1d20, at Spontaneous ∂erivation. She also thinks waaay too much about Sherlock Holmes. She reviews at Tor.com on a semi-biweekly basis and thinks Hwatson is Hwat and very nearly canon.
*offers a packet of apostrophes, since they seem to have fallen off your ‘ships*
A great post, but one that sadly lacks some good juicy URLs where to find some of said fanfics. I’d google it, but fandoms are deep seas and it can take a long time to catch a fish worth eating (yay, metaphors).
Even when I was quite young (early teens) and lived in an utterly boring town without any open homosexuality to give me any particular insights whatsoever, there were times when the Holmes and Watson relationship raised my eyebrow. Just as you say, there’s plenty of fodder in the canon works that’s almost impossible to ignore.
When somebody has to say, “I don’t hate gays, but–” it usually means the opposite. This seems pretty much the same.
(Also, the irony here is that if she’s so intent on staying completely factual to the text, there are many more things to complain about beyond the possibility of Holmes/Watson scenes. I notice she isn’t complaining that Irene was made into a romantic interest despite the fact that it isn’t explicitly stated in the original texts. Ergo, it really is about the gays, and she really doesn’t like them.)
@toryx
You aren’t the only one. When I first read the two-volume collection at like, age 12, before ever having truly discovered slash fandom, I thought they might be a little “close.” Living together, sharing finances, the codependency… Well. You know.
I just posted a similar comment on a Holmes slash community, but Plunket’s proclaimed distaste for anything “not true to the spirit of the books” strikes me as more than a tad hypocritical. I mean, if she truly was that “committed” to letting only what ACD would have written get published/produced/performed, what about all those published pastiches where Holmes meets Dracula…or is a vampire…or does detective work with Oscar Wilde? Those aren’t exactly Canonical. Then again, they also aren’t current Hollywood releases. Hmmm…
@Brit Mandelo:
Totally agreed. All she needs to do is add, “But some of my best friends are gay!” and she’s got the homophobe-attempting-to-be-politically-correct impression down pat.
I’m not well read on the Holmes cannon, so I can’t directly comment on the presence or absence of homoerotic subtext in it. However, I am familiar with a number of other literary works that are often read as homoerotic, and it honestly bugs me. For some reason, modern readers have a dreadful time distinguishing between intimacy and eroticism.
I don’t know if it’s because we are so used to seeing any kind of closeness portrayed in the media as sexual, or if we lost the means to express friendship or affection without sex somewhere along the way. While sometimes the subtext is there (Dumbledore in the final Harry Potter book comes to mind), most of the time it’s an obvious misinterpretation of something else (Frodo and Sam in The Lord of the Rings being one of the more obvious misinterpretations).
For this reason, asserting eroticism of any kind without some pretty explicit reasons typically signals (to me, anyway) a weak understanding of human emotional range and relationship complexity. I’m not sure if that justifies Plunket’s reaction, but I can at least understand the frustration.
And I have to add this in response to some of the previous comments:
While it is common practice (often rightly so) to label anyone who says “I don’t hate gays, but–” or “But some of my best friends are gay!” as homophobic, shouldn’t that label be at *least* as applicable to those who see gay people where there aren’t any? To me, nothing says homophobe quite like saying “Such and such a celebrity / fictional character / public figure is totally gay, and must be gay, despite and perhaps even because of what they say…”
NormanM:
Absolutely not. That interpretation only makes sense if you regard homosexuality as an inherently bad thing. If you regard being gay as a neutral (or positive!) attribute, then seeing queerness where it doesn’t exist is just a matter of missing cues.
At worst, it might be an example of stereotyping – if, for example, one assumed that a character was gay because an interest in musical theater – but if there’s no judgment of the character based on that attribute, it’s not homophobia.
nolly,
Apologies. There were so many references to ‘ships in the article I ran out of apostrophes. I shall coat yours with chocolate and feed them to my next Holmes article.
pKp,
The Sherlock Holmes fandom is ancient, and thus quite a large percentage of its fanfiction/pastiches are committed to old-fashioned paper. Also, I think the Holmes fandom does a lot more essays than your average modern fandom (dating back all the way into the late 19th century). The fandom also counts amongst its members published authors, such as Neil Gaiman (whose exquisite “A Study in Emerald” is perfectly themed for both Holmes and Tor.com’s Cthulu Christmas).
Perhaps I’ll cover some of my favorite Holmes depictions in various media in another post. But that’s another post.
toryx,
Indeed. And also holding hands, walking arm in arm (though I understand that was more typical back in the olden days to do between platonic friends. I think…), ripping up pants with penknives…. (j/k, half-so anyways.)
Brit Mandelo and musichistorygeek,
My interpretation agrees with yours re: Ms. Plunket.
The only remotely charitable alternative interpretation is that she worships hard at the altar of Hadler.
NormanM,
I think “homoeroticism” is a poor phrase, because “homoerotic” is too often used to refer to homosexual relationship portrayals that aren’t erotic, but rather romantic in the sense that “straight” relationships are often portrayed.
Lots of people can’t help seeing a male/female relationship as romantic rather than platonic, especially if it’s close. I don’t see why it would be troublesome for the same being applied to close male/male or female/female relationships.
broundy,
I agree entirely.
When analyzing any work of fiction (especially under a microscope of this power), it is important to interpret the ‘ships in the context of the time and culture presented. If you look at other fiction from nineteenth century Britain, close friendships between men are not uncommon, and indeed the words used to describe those relationships would make them unambiguously gay if they were written in twenty-first century America. Our current homophobic cultural bias means that any two men who are not belittling each other (or indeed attempting to kill each other) must be gay.
On the subject of canon consistency, remember that Conan Doyle did not intend to write a multi-part serial; each story or block of short stories was written as an individual unit, based primarily on the desire to make some money. It is well known that Conan Doyle killed off Holmes because he wanted to stop writing about him, but was eventually persuaded to resurrect him by fan clamor (and money). Clearly he was not keeping a large computer-aided database of information to maintain any consistency, quite the opposite, and it shows in things like Watson not remembering from one story to the next whether the bullet that got him out of the army hit him in the leg or the shoulder!
I have been a fan of the stories since I was a boy, and I very much enjoyed Jeremy Brett’s Holmes, as it fit my vision of canon. I really don’t know what to think about the new movie, and probably won’t until it comes out in video.
Perhaps Ms. Plunket should also become familiar with the term ‘bromance’. Though the Holmes-Watson relationship predates the term by 100+ years, it is one of the great ‘bromances’ in the history of literature.
The Frodo and Sam example is easy to mistake for homo-eroticism as a lot of real gay erotica has a D/s theme. Frodo and Sam’s relationship was based completely on D/s, though not sexual, it came from the total submission of the lower-classes to the upper-class that was the societal model of Great Britain at the time.
The Holmes/Watson relationship was D/s too, with Holmes’ intelectual domination of the supposedly less gifted Watson. Though the bits of Doyles’ writing I like the most is when Holmes’ made a mistake. I could always see the public schoolboy (private school) in him asking to get spanked for his mistake.
You wouldn’t believe how much homo-erotic BDSM there was going on in repressed Victorian Britain (Check Wikipedia for Eyre Coote for a prime example.), but that was the nature of society at the time. With a complete deference to the aristocracy, Victorian society was completely D/s in nature. So any other sphere, like sexuality, was automatically D/s in nature to reflect the encompassing society.
It does have the interesting effect that in retrospect almost every relationship in Victorian fiction appears to be sexual in nature as the only modern relationships to have D/s themes nowadays are almost all explicitly sexual (good for us and societal progress! huzza!). So the only Victorian relationships to appear to be non-sexual are those between explicitly socially equal men.
She is a complete homophobe though, who can’t handle the fact that people always reinterpret literature in new and interesting ways. Especially through the prism of contemporary society.
Ms. Plunket’s position is laughable at best. She controls no rights whatsoever. This has been the ruling of numerous courts.
My own particular view of the matter is the “asexual” ship: Holmes was simply too occupied with other matters to bother with that sort of thing. It has struck me as possible that he might have occasionally visited an establishment where he could find momentary satisfaction, but it never really seems to be on his agenda. I’m not one who has imagined him in pairings with Hunter or Bellamy (nor even Adler). His friendship with Dr. Watson ranks as one of the greatest partnerships of all time, but then as now, no sexual element need be implied.
JWezy,
You know, I don’t agree that seeing a homoesexual interpretation means that one is homophobic. But I am biased.
Yes, I know that Doyle didn’t want/care about being consistent. I think that made the canon way more fun, because fans can come up with the most amusing workarounds in an attempt to make everything line up properly. And then they fight about it.
I just love that.
scifidavid,
I think Ms. Plunket is a bit too stiff to even admit that male friends can hug. So “bromance” is probably waaaay out of her consideration. (There seem to me to be more than a couple wires crossed there.)
Akheloios,
Reinterpretation is the spice of fandom.
And somehow… rampant BDSM back in the Victorian days makes so much sense.
Leslie S. Klinger,
I certainly hope she controls no rights, but I’ve heard interesting variations on the rights of visual media versus the rights of text with respect to Sherlock Holmes. I have no idea which is the right one, save that some of Adrian Doyle’s pastiches were written post-1923, and definitely would carry on today even if we were only considering the Berne convention on copyright.
Since Adrian Doyle is a Doyle, that might be considered to be sufficient cause to keep certain Sir Arthur Conan Doyle copyrights active.
But I don’t know for sure.
Pastiches certainly are under the copyright of their writers. But the Holmes character himself is not.
Oh copyright law.
Keep in mind that we aren’t talking about copyright law, but about trademarks. The characters in Arthur Conan Doyle’s novels are trademarked by an organization for which Ms Plunket is a representative. (I believe this to be just as immoral as infinite copyrights, but that is beside the point.)
The clincher for me as to Ms Plunket’s homophobia is her characterization of Downey’s remarks as an example of his “dark” humor. I assure you, there is nothing “dark” in joking, imagining, or fantasizing that two men who have an intimate relationship may also have an erotic one.
arachnejericho,
I agree that the problem of seeing romantic (and primarily sexual) relationships that don’t exist is prevalent with all sorts of relationships. My specific complaint regarding male/male and female/female relationships was more one of opportunity and context than essence. I see this inability to see more nuance than romance and sex as a broad problem, and certainly not limited to the current topic.
broundy,
My own impression is that the problem with homophobia is an inappropriate judgmentalism, rather than just the fact that someone dislikes a facet of another’s identity or disagrees with another’s choices. In my experience, assuming someone is gay is usually expressed with phrases like “There’s nothing wrong with being gay, so they should just come out” or “Why won’t he just admit it?” (I’ve actually heard that last one in reference to a former American Idol contestant). From the perspective of unfairly judging people, I really fail to see the difference between these statements and “I don’t hate gays, but–“, so to me its all the same whether you are openly attacking homosexuality or pretending to support it.
kenneth,
Good point on trademarks there. And the “black humor.”
NormanM,
If Holmes and Watson were real people, then sure, then there is some consideration to be made for their feelings, and how interpreting their life on message boards may be getting too much in on their business.
But they’re fictional characters. And fiction has two sides to it: the writer, and the reader. Interpretation is a necessary evil in order for the characters to “live” at all. And they’re fictional characters.
(Mind you, I’m very used to fellow members of my fandom needing to be reminded of this.)
As for homophobia in society in general: waaaay off-topic for this thread.
By the by, my further thoughts on the “seeing homosexual interpretations where there weren’t intended to be any means you’re giving into homosexual stereotypes and thus are really homophobic” point of view sometimes expressed by folks:
No, that really makes no sense. The Holmes canon is structured, such as it is, that interpretation can be very free with it. Trust me: I’ve read enough essays and pastiches to know how tight and how loose interpretation can go, and not fall into stereotypes. The Holmes canon is the one of the very last things you can consider solid when looked at from a continuity perspective, intentional or not.
Plus the people I know who write slash (and the people I was only aquainted with, and the people whom I’ve only ever read their work, across multiple fandoms) tend to be very serious and decidedly not homophobic. Many times what they write is not, what TV Tropes refers to and what I think some people may be thinking of, “Camp Gay”. They treat the subject seriously, in a way that mainstream may not, especially in the Holmes fandom, because they take the characters seriously. They engage in the text.
If you haven’t read much of that stuff, you can’t really support an opinion one way or the other about the slash stuff in the Holmes fandom, or even the slash that occurs in fandoms in general.
It’s a strange thing, but when people re-interpret various texts (not just the Holmes canon) to have straight romantic subtext, or implicitly (or even explicitly) sexual, they aren’t accused of being straight-phobic. Same principle applies the other way, as far as I’m concerned. It would be rather prejudiced to assume that it doesn’t.
Furthermore, every day, mainstream media becomes less and less “Camp Gay” (just witness the changes that occurred in Will and Grace over the years). And I wouldn’t say that the characters as portrayed in the New Movie are Camp Gay, either. Quite the opposite. And the teasing of Hwatson fans that Ritchie and, say, Coules engage in is far more tactful than not—especially where Holmes is concerned.
*shrug* I’m bi and read far and wide into the fretful sea that is the last 100 years of Holmes fandom thoughts and meanderings. I think I have a good grasp on this stuff; although I admit I can always learn more.
Those hats are totally getting it on.
Also, to add to Akheloios @@@@@ 12’s observation that “The Holmes/Watson relationship was D/s too, with Holmes’ intelectual domination of the supposedly less gifted Watson”:
Actually, one of my favorite aspects of their relationship is when the tables turn and Holmes needs Watson: to ground him, to have someone to talk to, and (my personal favorite) to be a doctor. (How I love the Jeremy Brett “The Illustrious Client” and “The Dying Detective.” Even that moment in “The Solitary Cyclist.” Rawr. If only they’d done the pants and the penknife! [Good slash story title!])
But I think fascination with their relationship endures partially because it does turn both ways: neither is a match for the other in his own realm — for Holmes, the intellectual; for Watson, the practical — and both need to live in the other’s on occasion. I realize that’s oversimplified, because when I think of Watson I like to start with the fact that he’s a doctor and Holmes likes him, so there’s got to be someone at home upstairs. Still, it works for me as a theory.
rosetaylor12,
Your message has a spam link in it. I think, despite your comment seeming on topic, that you’re spamming.
thumbelinablues,
Agree entirely. :)
Bert Coules, who directed a very superb BBC radio adaptation of all the Holmes stories—I’d rate it even higher on the Holmes/Watson friendship exploration than the Granada TV series, and that’s a high bar indeed—once said that Holmes and Watson both needed each other. Watson needs Holmes because he would be bored out of his skull otherwise; he wants adventure, and Holmes is an excellent conduit for that. Holmes, on the other hand, has a hard time being human, and Watson supports him on that level.
Coules also commented that a Holmes story needn’t be a good detective story, but a good story about a detective. I tend to agree with him, although I think there’s a limit to that….
For the Baker Street Irregulars publication, Rex Stout once analyzed canon to prove that Watson was a woman. In return, someone analyzed canon and came up with “Nuts to Rex Stout.” So you *can* use canon to prove *anything.*
I love this lady!!!!!!!!!! Also …~~~Plunket can just go suck it and crawl into some hole. She is such a joke!
Funny you should mention it: after reading Rex Stout’s “Watson was a woman” essay and skimming the Holmes equivalent: “Ms. Holmes of Baker Street”, for some time now I’ve had the idea of writing a gender-bended Holmes and Watson pastiche (oh go on then, fanfic) in which both women cross-dress in order to go out and solve crimes. Although I hadn’t decided whether it would turn out “shippy” or not…
I have to say – this entire piece and commentary make me laugh. After reading a few thousand Harry-Hermione, Harry-Rob and Harry-Draco shipping articles on HP websites a few years ago, I am profoundly unsurprised to hear that this trend is well established (and long established) in SH land. Go for it. I’m in the Holmes-is-so-drugged–out-to-be-asexual camp, but don’t let that stop the speculation. R
I suppose you can make a post on anything but this all seems pretty silly to me. However, the idea that they subtext homoerotic in the new movie makes me less likely to want to go see it.
mysteryfan,
I’d read the Stout essay, but not the one refuting him. I’ve also read an essay that refutes Stout, in favor of Holmes being the woman instead.
TheMadButterfly,
We aims to please.
Waverleysteps,
Holmes-is-a-woman and Watson-is-a-woman is, I think, an idea with fun potential, whether shippy or not.
RobMRobM,
We aims to be mirthful about fandom conflict, no matter how ancient its history!
johntheirishmongol,
Well, I would think that my first Holmes post was a good shot across the bow as to my general attitude towards Holmes in general. Which is to say: I love Sherlock Holmes, am seriously read up on the canon in ways that more serious Sherlockians do not expect from someone so blasè, but I especially love the fandom in all its chaos—it’s a blast to look at the various ways people react to and think about Sherlock Holmes.
Feel free not to watch the movie, and feel free not to read my stuff. There’s a reason I’ll never be offered a membership in the Irregulars, and I’ll drink to that.
Fandom often goes too far for my taste. You can make all the comments you want. Give me the freedom to post opposing views. Why is it you can post yours but anyone who dissents cannot? Answer me that one, obi-wan.
@johntheirishmogul
She never said you couldn’t post your opinion. Obviously, since both of your comments are in the thread, you can. You dismissed her piece as silly, she has every right to respond to that.
I’m not a SH shipper in any real sense of the word (I sail in HP waters), but I can see Holmes/Watson and Holmes-as-asexual, or some combination thereof. It’s a very open canon, and the love/sex lives of the characters are very interpretable. And, frankly, it’s fanfic, not a dissertation for a Victorian Literature PhD, and we can do whatever the hell we damn please. Plenty of room on the interwebs for everyone.
@johntheirishmongol
Not sure what you’re getting at here–I’m the moderator and I haven’t zapped any of your comments. Perhaps you’re previewing and not hitting the final “Post” button?
johntheirishmogul,
I don’t have moderator permissions (nor do I want them; with great power, etc). For the spam comment that disappeared, I just pointed it out and Torie or another moderator took care of it.
You have nothing to fear from me, except maybe gentle mockery, rebuttal, and continuing to write humorous Holmes posts. My bosses (which include Torie) approve what goes through, or else it isn’t posted. This has always been the case.
omega_n,
Thank you. And I’m pretty sure even dissertations have fun with the canon. It’s difficult not to!
I don’t mind anyone thinking my posts silly, but I know they can be irritating for some people to read, so I generally warn them about that. Saves wear and tear all around.
toriea,
*admires the loving mallet of moderation*
I always favored Mycroft Holmes, the more cerebral gourmand and brother of Sherlock whom he would occasionally consult, as the father of Nero Wolfe.
Qtip6,
Madler, perhaps? I like it.
Sadly I can’t help thinking that poor old Holmes wouldn’t really cope in a romantic relationship, but I do think that he and Watson would indeed be a very cute couple!!
I applaud Andrea Plunket for speaking up and sticking up for the spirit of the original Holmes stories. There can be little doubt to anyone with sense that Conan Doyle did not put any kind of homoerotic subtext to any of his stories. It’s a shame that nowadays NO two males in any piece of fiction who are friends can escape the pitiable clutches of slash/ship fans; those little nightcrawlers are everywhere, invading every type of fandom, even those devoted to cartoons (and I’m not talking anime, I’m talking about shows like Fairly Odd Parents and Foster’s Home For Imaginary Friends). These ‘crawlers aren’t actually fans of any kind of fiction or art – they’re just fans of unlikely male-on-male couplings. Once the illicit thrill involving one unlikely fictional pairing dies, they creep around to find another. Often, the ‘crawlers aren’t gay; they’re women with sexual issues. In any case they’re pretty obnoxious. It’s great that Ms. Plunket has spoken against such a violation of the Holmes canon, thus risking being pelted with the usual tired “homophobe” label. The Holmes series is worthy of such defense.
ultraviolet128,
I agree with you. ^.^
Cookie Kitty,
Ah. I suppose someone had to “represent” for Ms. Plunket, even if they could only do so by being a troll. My dear, you can go feed from someone else’s trough, but you aren’t getting anything else from me.