![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
eumeliaI 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:
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!
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!
