"I am not hostile towards homosexuals, but..."

[eumelia]

I haven't seen Guy Ritchie's Sherlock Holmes yet, and I fully intend to.

As those of us who follow the media and enjoy movies know, there's been a huge amount of talk and play regarding the more homoerotic facets of the new movie.

I've only seen the trailers, and even there, despite Ms. Adler's fetching lingerie, the Slash Factor between Holmes and Watson is apparent.

RDJ and Jude Law have been playing up on that for promotional reasons.
It wouldn't surprise me if either of these men were queer, but for convenience sake and because Hollywood is a conservative corporate town, chose not to disclose this and had public heterosexual relationships.
Hollywood is not conductive for being out of the closet.

That's beside the point.

The point is, that slash is a way of interpreting text. Finding homoeroticism is the original Doyle books is so easy - Watson being divorced (or widowed) twice, Holmes not actually even appearing to be in a relationship, Ms. Adler being possibly the only woman that misogynist (if you contradict this by saying that Holmes is a misanthrope, I will be annoyed, if he were really such a misanthrope, he wouldn't tolerate Watson as much as he does... besides which, misanthropes are not immune to societal misogyny) considered intelligent enough to find human and interesting.

I hear Carole Nelson Douglas Irene Adler stories are worth reading, is this true?

Back to my point. Not every interpretation of the text is a good one, you have to be able to create a cohesive and essentially un-contradictory (in- ?) analysis and give good, clear examples and indications from the text that what you say is indeed supported by the words, images, metaphors, Synecdoche, etc.

I apologise for the Literary Lingo, there's more of it coming, please don't hold it against me! Thanks.

The Queering of Sherlock Holmes is about as out there, as Queering Star Trek, that is, it's bloody easy and people do it.
A lot.

But again, it's a reading that does travels along the weaving of the plot and focuses on the relationship between the two men, or rather, on the fact that Watson's admiration of Holmes has an erotic edge to it.

In the movie, which I have yet to see, because it isn't in fact the story as seen through Watson's eyes, but an action adventure movie in which we, the audience is sucked in via diegesis that we are shown and not told, which makes the queering both easier to see and easier to refute.
Why?
Because while there is a revealed text (i.e. what we see on the surface, the text itself) there is also subtext which contains hidden meanings which are more subtly revealed via interaction with the reader and the narrative as it goes along.

There is a reason why slashers call "Subtext", "Buttsex" (anagrams are teh awesome).

Thus, when Andrea Plunket who claims to hold the remaining US copyrights of Doyl'es estate is quoted:

"I hope this is just an example of Mr. Downey's black sense of humor. 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." She then added, "I am not hostile to homosexuals, but I am to anyone who is not true to the spirit of the books."

Emphasis mine.
Regarding RDJ's antics regarding the more-or-less obvious (I'll let you know when I see it) homoeroticism between Holmes and Watson, I call foul.
Foul, I say!
Because who the fuck are you, Ms. Plucket, to say what is and what isn't in "the spirit of the books"?
Being that, a) it's a movie! b) it's based on the books and isn't in fact telling a story Doyle wrote and c) there isn't, in fact, anything wrong with Watson and/or Holmes being Gay *gasp* Together!

Oh, and when you use the term "Homosexuals" when talking about gay and/or queer folk, it sounds as though you think we're sick, because that's the psychiatric term when speaking about the identity of many an LGBT.
It's also the term used by right wing conservatives who do their best to misname us as a group, under the guise of neutrality: "But you are attracted to your own sex, so you're homosexual".

So, yeah Ms. Plunket, it actually sounds like you kind of are hostile to the Homosexuals, deviant text manipulators that we are. The mere fact that you felt the need to defend your position pretty much gives away your homophobic ass.

Hopefully, I'll get to see both Sherlock Holmes (and Avatar) over the coming weeks.

Edited To Add: I now want an icon that says "Deviant Textual Manipulator". Alas, I have no skillz!

Comments

[lilacsigil.livejournal.com]

Agreed - but apparently she doesn't own the copyright at all (let alone "partial rights", and has lost several court cases trying to prove it. Here's the wiki article (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sheldon_Reynolds) - I suspect she's just trying to associate her own name with Sherlock Holmes to improve her case, so you might want to take her name out of your post.

[eumelia.livejournal.com]

Okay... what an odd woman in that case. Will alter accordingly.

[antikythera.livejournal.com]

Yeah... as far as I knew, Sherlock Holmes was properly public domain, and not owned by anyone anymore.

[eumelia.livejournal.com]

Yep, me too, but I'm never surprised when intellectual property is suddenly owned by someone again.

[brewsternorth.livejournal.com]

I think I recall from the Holmes comms that all Holmes is now public domain in Europe, but that in the US there are still a couple of stories that are within US copyright. The estate hasn't really moved to make a claim on them, though.

[hemlock-sholes.livejournal.com]

Apparently the family of Conan Doyle still owns the remaining copyrights in the USA, not Plunket.

From: http://www.sherlockian.net/acd/copyright.html

In the United States, the only Sherlock Holmes remaining in copyright is The Case Book, which will enter the public domain between 2016 and 2023.

The American copyrights are owned by the Estate of Dame Jean Conan Doyle.

A recently created web site for "the Sir Arthur Conan Doyle Literary Estate" represents Andrea Plunket, the former wife of Sheldon Reynolds, producer of the 1954 television series starring Ronald Howard as Holmes. Reynolds controlled the copyrights in the 1950s. Plunket is proprietor of a guest house in Livingston Manor, New York. Her claims to rights in the Sherlock Holmes stories have been repeatedly rejected in U.S. federal court decisions (including Plunket v. Doyle, No. 99-11006, Southern District of New York, February 22, 2001; Pannonia Farms Inc. v. ReMax International and Jon Lellenberg, No. 01-1697, District of Columbia, March 21, 2005). She has also filed a claim to the name "Sherlock Holmes" as a United States trademark, and it too has been turned down.

[hemlock-sholes.livejournal.com]

How the wheel turns... I tried to get you interested in Douglas's Good Night, Mr. Holmes a few years ago :)

It's very good, despite the fact that I don't like Ms. Adler very much.

I also object to a homosexual relationship between Holmes and Watson, for the same reasons as I object to Kirk and Spock; it changes the nature of the work too much.

Take the show Moonlighting as an example: if David and Maddie(sp) had started out as a couple then it would completely change the character of the show.
Imagine that Law & Order's cops were a (romantic) couple instead of (professional) partners or that Aragorn were to follow Frodo out of love.

Some "ships" do change the spirit of the books/show/movie etc.

As another example - I would not mind so very much if Watson had a relationship with Marvin Morstan instead of Mary Morstan, but I would if she were cheating on Watson with Holmes!

Such ships are fine in fandom, but not in canon, because then you're extending/changing the canon.

[antikythera.livejournal.com]

But when the original work is in the public domain, everything is fandom. The only 'canon' is the original body of work by the original author. Everything else is just a fan interpretation. Don't like, don't watch!

I don't think there's anything wrong with a fan interpretation that 'changes' the 'spirit' of the thing, because every fan can choose which interpretations to incorporate into their own view.

[eumelia.livejournal.com]

This also assuming there is one "spirit" to the book or to a story and that the author is the one who decides what is and isn't "in the spirit".

[eumelia.livejournal.com]

Do we have "Good Night, Mr. Holmes"?

Fact: Your objection is an opinion.
Fact: Many who read the relationships between Kirk/Spock, Holmes/Watson and/or Frodo/Sam as having a sexual or romantic potential are not wrong. All the information is there for interpreting, for writing and for discussing.

Also, you're assuming some kind of unchangeable and an unalterable "spirit" or "core" to the story. Which, sorry, no, that doesn't happen. The reason I like Holmes isn't the reason you like Holmes (I don't like Holmes that much) - I much prefer Watson, as I can imagine myself as someones sidekick.

Out of all your examples David and Maddie are the only ones to actually become a couple in canon, why? Because they're a heterosexual pairing.
In Law & Order there have been very, very few heterosexual partners, L&O SVU have had that, and Law&CI and only in the past few years have they had in the original series a hetero pairing.

Then again, these are the Naughties (now the Teens) and things have changed since the 80's.

Still, K/S invented slash as we know it in the 70's.
You can, if you want to, close you eyes and hold your ears and go "lalalalalalalalalalalalala" at readings, re-readings and writings that make you go "Ummmm, no", that doesn't make them any less valid, though I do encourage you to consider why so many women (queer or not) and gay men have their slash goggles on.
It's not so out there.
It's actually pretty standard these days, look, even RDJ is doing it.

[hemlock-sholes.livejournal.com]

We? I!
But I'm a lender :)

I don't disagree that you can have interpretations or readings that differ. Even without thinking about a romantic relationship, you can argue whether Holmes wants Watson around as a catalyst to his genius (favorable) or because he wants someone less smart around him (less favorable). Both options are possible within the text.

Could you use the canon, as written, to support a home-erotic flirting between Holmes and Watson? Perhaps. I don't see it, but I don't deny that it is possible.
However, a full blown relationship? Sorry, that is not supported by the Canon I know.

If you want a relationship between them, then either
(a) The relationship must take place after 1914 (the date of the last story) or
(b) Admit that you're changing canon.

Changing canon is not necessarily bad - The Princess Bride, for example, is much better as a movie than a book (in my opinion) because it drops much of the background.

I also admit, that since the movie is not a direct adaption of the books, and they have no intention of adapting them, and that Holmes is in the public domain, they have full right to write/rewrite Holmes as they please.

Re-reading this, before I post, I think there may be a dissonance between what we're talking about.
If you're talking about sexual tension, flirting, etc, then I don't think there's any distance between our opinions. If, however, you're talking about a full relationship and an adventure where Holmes will do something because he's trying to seduce Watson then I think they may as well make a generic detective/action movie because that is (in my opinion, of course) not what Holmes is about.

[eumelia.livejournal.com]

Part of what fandom does is expand the canon. Yes, the Sherlock stories are detective/adventure, the fics don't have to be.
The fics can be a quiet evening at 221B Baker.
The fics can be, perhaps, told from Holmes pov and maybe he isn't such a misanthropic bastard.

A portion of a fic can be the observation of Holmes smoking his pipe or playing the violin which Watson sees as an erotic seduction, Holmes may be doing it deliberately. This is a bringing to the surface certain cues and clues that are in the text and are interpreted erotically.

It doesn't have to be that way and a fic that incorporates those cues and expands them isn't misreading Holmes and Watson.

Personally speaking, any fic that is going full blown Holmes/Watson sexual dynamic and doesn't take into account that they are living in a time in which there are sodomy laws are in effect (Oscar Wilde was imprisoned only 15 years earlier!) then I'd be hard pressed to have any kind of suspense of disbelief.
But I don't see why, just because Doyle didn't write the relationship as sexual, that is can't be and how it negates what "Holmes is about".

[antikythera.livejournal.com]

Gotta say, from personal experience when I was a prudish young teen, I think there is some kind of burning desire to logically explain why one's opinion about slash is right and objective. ;) Some people grow up and realise that it's okay to just not like something in your fiction. Others continue to confuse opinion and fact for their whole lives.

[eumelia.livejournal.com]

I never consider an opinion objective ;)

Really, the type of discussion we have here is purely theoretical and is more about the degrees of how much eroticism, of any kind, you can stand in any given text.

Slash emerges, when there is a strong underlying dynamic that allows those thought to emerge. Between, say Spock and Kirk there is a very deep loving friendship. Personally, speaking, I don't see either of them becoming sexual with one another, for one Spock takes sex far too seriously for Kirk, but regardless of my own opinion, fact is they've been having an epic love affair for the past 4 decades.

I am not as savvy in Holmes fandom, but I would assume that slash as we know it (as it emerged in Trek) has affected Holmes fandom in much the same way.

What I would count as prejudicial is trying to claim to know the spirit of the books more than others.

When I write about Jack and Ianto's relationship in Torchwood, I have an underlying assumption that I go with and when I read something that goes against my own view of the pairing I will think it's not quite right, down right wrong or anything like that and explain why.
That doesn't mean you (rhetorical) have to accept my explanation, but it also doesn't mean I have to accept your claim that their dynamic is dew drops on rose petals when I see is as rose petals and thorns.

[http://users.livejournal.com/_yggdrasil/]

Re: the homophobia of Hollywood. A friend of mine used to be a caterer in LA and she was regularly rubbing elbows with celebrities. Recently she started spilling to me stories - who was awesome, who was an asshole, and so forth. I'm not naming names because if these people want to safeguard their sexuality to protect their careers, I respect that and the shitty rules they have to play by. But she told me about one faaaaamous leading man of our parent's generation who totally had a thing for the menfolk (he always requested an 18-22ish guy as his assistant, among others things). Another time, she catered a party thrown by two actors who you probably know as the really macho leading men who are always blowing shit up, and the entertainment was male strippers. It freaked out my friend's assistant a bit because these actors have made their career as the Macho Hero Leading Man, which in most people's eyes automatically translates to straight.

Someone recently argued in my lj that I was being silly when I said it pissed me off that queer people can't play themselves in movies. He said sexuality doesn't determine how good of an actor you are and why can't straight people play queer people? But that's not the point - Hollywood is still so stuck in the dark ages that people who don't fit its idea of the norm still fear coming out because of how it might affect their careers.

[eumelia.livejournal.com]

I know of one big macho actor, because when I was in the states I happened to get acquainted with someone who worked on the set of a movie and she was gossiping.

Gotta say, that particular actor, really not surprised. Then again, I'm hardly ever surprised when an actor or actress come out as some kind of gay.

As I wrote, Hollywood is a big conservative corporate town - you have to lay low when it comes to your personal life so that the persona you portray for the media is believable and thus the more parts you get to act in. It's awful.

[http://users.livejournal.com/_yggdrasil/]

Yet it's totally believable when a straight actors plays a queer person, or a wizard, or a cowboy, or an alien.

[eumelia.livejournal.com]

On the contrary! It's like, they're really going out there and acting something utterly foreign to them... unlike being an alien.

[http://users.livejournal.com/_yggdrasil/]

And gotta say, I love Neil Patrick Harris and his super straight-man roles, even after he came out. It was like, fuck you, I'm still an awesome actor and can still sell a role. Duh. I still laugh my ass off at his work in the Harold and Kumar movies.

[eumelia.livejournal.com]

I <3 NPH as well.

I don't think I've seen him in a "gay" role. Unlike other gay actors who are then type cast - like Rupert Everett! He's either "The Gay BFF" or "Man with period costume".

[starlady38.livejournal.com]

It's a great movie. On all counts.

So, yeah Ms. Plunket, it actually sounds like you kind of are hostile to the Homosexuals, deviant text manipulators that we are. The mere fact that you felt the need to defend your position pretty much gives away your homophobic ass.

You're so right. Someone else on my reading page linked to her bilge the other day and I couldn't even bring myself to read it, since her copyright claims are highly dubious and her ideas about the books make me wonder if she's ever actually read them.

...Aw, damn, I don't have my awesome Holmes & Watson icons on LJ. Well, have the fandom one instead.

[eumelia.livejournal.com]

She sounds like an odd woman on all counts, which possibly isn't a fair thing to judge, but man, that "I'm not a bigot, but here's something bigoted" is just too rich.
I am unable to let crap like that slide.

I don't have Sherlock Holmes icons either (yet!), so I'll use my fandom one as well :D

[danamaree.livejournal.com]

I is sad Mel :(, one of my favourite authors (Lynn Flewelling) who has written a few books with gay characters is like 'Their love is the purity of friendship' which yeah, I can get that personally. But still I'm a little disappointed.

[eumelia.livejournal.com]

I'd be hard pressed to say that Sherlock is even capable of love as we know it!

Regardless, yeah I'm always sad and perturbed when authors have this clear cut view on a work. It's like, oh those silly fans do not know of what they speak!