I want to learn more about Sir. Arthur Conan Doyle, and part of that is I want to understand his views of spiritualism, in addition to how it was addressed in the Victorian era.
* All that I can find right now are listed. Still looking for the others.
"Sir Arthur's Works on Spiritualism
Twenty of Sir Arthur's over sixty books are about Spiritualism. They include:
Side note: There are many mythologies and beliefs through the years and just because His beliefs were not the same as others who believed in spiritual beings that cannot be proved and may not even exist (*cough*Christians*cough*) then he should not be mocked either. Spiritualism was/is yet another belief in the sea of beliefs and really, it is more then a little hypocritical for anyone to be getting their knickers in a twist and pointing at Sir Arthur Conan Doyle when they might belief in a spiritualistic thing/religious system too.
Reference for a queer interpretation of ACD canon - This is how a gay couple was depicted in a 1919 educational film about homosexuality. This is what a gay couple looked like in the opinion of progressive medical professionals in the time that Doyle was writing. And, as noted in his official biography, Doyle’s views on homosexuality were progressive for his time. Just posting it as a reference for people wondering whether Holmes and Watson could possibly be interpreted as a couple in their own time, or whether Doyle intended or knew such an interpretation to be possible. (Holmes stories were written by Doyle from 1887 to 1927. Following in-universe timelines, Holmes and Watson would be in their 60′s by 1919.)
We are before our time, and suffer the usual penalties.
Sir Arthur Conan Doyle, The Valley of Fear
Holmes about himself and Watson.
And Holmes and Watson are indeed in a relationship that will only be accepted a hundred years later and they suffer “the usual penalties”: they can’t be open about it, they have to hide, they could be in danger.
“Sherlock Holmes’s eyes glistened, his pale cheeks took a warmer hue, and his whole eager face shone with an inward light when the call for work reached him. Leaning forward in the cab, he listened intently to MacDonald’s short sketch of the problem which awaited us in Sussex.”
In addition to Dreamwidth, there is also Pillowfort.io (currently down for anti-hacking maintenance) and Wordpress.com
Wordpress has an easy import tool for those who need it to import data from Tumblr to a Wordpress site.
http://quickguide.tumblr.com/post/39780378703/backing-up-your-tumblr-blog-to-wordpress WARNING// The wordpress import tool only imports about 30g before it hits its limit when it comes to images and such. After which, the text may still be uploaded but the images are replaced with links that call back to tumblr and are thus, not really that useful. The only way to get around that is to have a paid wordpress membership (which many of us can not afford).
Another tool is Tumblrthree. This app lets you mass download artwork and gifs from any particular site. Great for backing up artwork from favorite artists, not so great for the text. But that isn't being targeted AS much as the art (Still being targeted, though. THhre are a few rated short fic that have been flagged, despite only being text) Nevertheless, I highly recommend it for backing up any and all art that you like
Reminder, we only have until December 16th until all of the art is DELETED off of tumblr.
Some artists are also already actively removing artwork and deleting their sites on their own, so it is best to grab it as soon as possible before the art is permanently lost to the either.
Artists and Artwork:
The glorious Merinda B has made a spreadsheet of Sherlockian Arists Patreons, kofi, twitter and other shops so we can know where to find them after the Tumblr exodus.
PLEASE! If you know of anyone not on this list, PLEASE feel free to suggest it so that they may be added. It would be nice to have this accessible on Sherlockian.net, and that is easy to do with an excel sheet so I will likely try to find a way to get this smoothly integrated into the website and then ask them if they can add it.
Here is a link to the google form for suggesting updates and adding artists to the spreadsheet
"..Ives noted that the Criterion Bar on Piccadilly Circus was 'a great center for inverts' until it closed in 1905 ."
The Inverted City: London and the Constitution of Homosexuality 1885-1914 Matt Cook https://qmro.qmul.ac.uk/jspui/handle/123456789/1620 Mentioned in the quoted article above is George Cecil Ives, who was an LGBT advocate in the Victorian Era, and lead the secret society 'Order of Chaeronea'... ... He was also a friend and cricket teammate to Sir. Arthur Conan Doyle.
There are many bars in England and surely Sir. Arthur Conan Doyle could have chosen any one to have Dr. Watson have that fateful meeting with Stamford... of all the bars that could have been used (or invented), he chose one which was popularly used by gay men.
"Sherlock Holmes was transformed when he was hot upon such a scent as this. Men who had only known the quiet thinker and logician of Baker Street would have failed to recognize him.
His face flushed and darkened. His brows were drawn into two hard black lines, while his eyes shone out from beneath them with a steely glitter. His face was bent downward, his shoulders bowed, his lips compressed, and the veins stood out like whipcord in his long, sinewy neck. His nostrils seemed to dilate with a purely animal lust for the chase, and his mind was so absolutely concentrated upon the matter before him that a question or remark fell unheeded upon his ears, or, at the most, only provoked a quick, impatient snarl in reply.
Swiftly and silently he made his way along the track which ran through the meadows, and so by way of the woods to the Boscombe Pool. It was damp, marshy ground, as is all that district, and there were marks of many feet, both upon the path and amid the short grass which bounded it on either side.
Sometimes Holmes would hurry on, sometimes stop dead, and once he made quite a little detour into the meadow. Lestrade and I walked behind him, the detective indifferent and contemptuous, while I watched my friend with the interest which sprang from the conviction that every one of his actions was directed towards a definite end."
-The Boscombe Valley Mystery by Sir Arthur Conan Doyle #BOSC #ACDcanon
---- ‘You know what Watson’s writing needs? A more detailed description of Holmes. There may be a reader out there who isn’t quite sure how to picture Holmes.’ -via astronbookfilms: https://astronbookfilms.tumblr.com/…/sherlock-holmes-was-tr… ----
LOL could Watson be more pornographic with his descriptions of Holmes? 😶😆😘
Starting to use this site so changing over to a more standard recognizable name. I am going to start trying to migrate all the posts I have made, as well as posts I have found remarkably useful, from Tumblr onto here.
This means that I am going to be reposting quite a few tumblr posts and articles that I found remarkably useful so as to save the articles and more easily cite authors. Particularly in case authors or Tumblr start deleting pages, and thus risk the loss of important analysis to the either.
Here is a list of LGBTQ+ Sherlockian novels. This is not a definitive list and I am always interested in hearing of and finding more. I have been asked to make this into a PDF and listing them here is part of helping to create one.
Without further ado;
Sherlock Holmes and John Watson: The Day They Met by Wendy C. Fries
In historical fiction it is important to be accurate and the only way to do so is to research the era. What is highly recommended by many writers is to write your story first. While writing your story, mark the parts that you’re not sure are correct and then do the research after you are done. This is to prevent you from doing unnecessary research that may not be relevant to your work. You want to spend your time wisely! Or you can just research as you go, it’s really whatever works for you since there isn’t a “wrong” way to research.
To begin, the Victorian era of the British history (and that of the British Empire) formally begins in 1837, which was the year Victoria became Queen and ends in 1901 – the year of her death. It was a long period of peace, prosperity, refined sensibilities and national self-confidence for Britain. Some scholars date the beginning of the period in terms of sensibilities and political concerns to the passage of the Reform Act 1832. [1]
Watson’s for Holmes “My dear Holmes”: 16 times “My companion”: over a hundred times (I’m refusing to count any further)
Holmes’s for Watson “My dear Watson”: 94 times “My dear boy”: two times (this means exactly what it sounds like) “My boy”: nine times “My dear doctor”: two times “My Watson”: three times
There is an awful lot of possessive pronouns here, if you start to think about it…
Could they appear more married if they tried??
('My companion' shows up at least 146 times in canon. I'm not sure how many times it happens between who and would have to check, but confident that their count of it being at least 100 times that Watson referred to Holmes is likely accurate.)
わたしここの"Night, old fellow."が好きです～。ホームズが「おやすみ」と言ってワトスンが「おやすみ、ホームズ」と応える、みたいな。名前は呼んでないけど日本語だとうまく該当する言葉が思い浮かばない…「おやすみ」「うん、おやすみー」とか、そんな感じもする（応答感
Old fellow does not appear as being used as a form of address anywhere in the Canon Sherlock Holmes stories. It is used when describing individuals that are old, but that is all. 'Old Chap' does appear, but only between casual acquaintances, like friends one would meet at the bar. Holmes and Watson also never refer to the other as 'Old Chap'.
In both Granada 'Old fellow' is used while Rathbone uses 'Old Chap'.
I am not sure if Granada ever uses the canon correct term of 'My Dear fellow'.
Holmes uses it for Watson more then the other way around, but Watson does use it a few times like in The Reigate Squire when consoling Holmes and asking him to take a rest.
It seems noticeable and significant to me that adaptions consistently soften the terms of endearment that Holmes and Watson canonically use for each other when speaking and referring to the other. Instead of possessive terms frequently used 'My ---', more formal words and terms of casual friendship are used instead.
Arthur Conan Doyle was acquainted with two of the most notorious and reviled homosexuals in Britain: Oscar Wilde and Roger Casement. Both men arguably have some influence on ACD’s Sherlock Holmes stories.
Arthur Conan Doyle became friends with Sir Roger Casement, a British Consul who reported on human rights abuses in the Congo. Doyle commented upon Casement’s character in his book The Crime of the Congo: “Personally, he is a man of the highest character, truthful, unselfish – one who is deeply respected by all who know him.” On June 24, 1910, Doyle invited Casement to join him and his wife Jean to dinner and to see his play The Speckled Band. Presumably unbeknownst to Doyle, later that evening Casement sought the company of male prostitutes, as recorded in Casement’s private journals, called the “Black Diaries.”
A few years later, Casement became involved with the Irish separatist movement. In April 1916, Casement was arrested for aiding in the “Easter Rising.” He was convicted of treason on irrefutable evidence.
ACD wrote a petition on Casement’s behalf to seek clemency, arguing Casement’s “abnormal physical and mental state” from serving in the Congo and Peru, where he contracted tropical fevers. The Foreign Office fought back. It had possession of Casement’s personal diaries, the so-called “Black Diaries,” which revealed Casement’s homosexuality and illegal acts with men and boys whom Casement generally paid for sex.
ACD was summoned to the Foreign Office. Doyle wrote after the meeting: “They told me [Casement’s] record for sexual offenses was bad and had a diary of his in proof of it. I had of course heard this before, but as no possible sexual offense could be as bad as suborning soldiers from their duty, I was not diverted from my purpose. Nonetheless, it is of course very sad, and an additional sign of mental disorder.”
It is fairly clear from this that ACD refused to peruse the Black Diaries when offered them. It was common knowledge that the Black Diaries described Casement hiring men and boys for sex, and ACD says he “heard this before.” If ACD had read them, here is an example of what Doyle would have seen :
JULY 28th. Hotel. £1.0. Splendid …Soft as silk big and full of life…wants awfully & likes very much.
9 THURSDAY. Magnificent young Cholo policeman passed with fine big one… Could see it plainly long and stiff…
For many years after Casement’s death his supporters claimed the Black Diaries were forgeries to discredit him, but recent forensic handwriting analysis confirms they are Casement’s own handwriting.
Casement was hanged for treason at Pentonville Prison on August 3, 1916 despite Arthur Conan Doyle’s public efforts to spare his life. ACD steadfastly supported Casement to the end, unlike many other public figures who shrank from association with the “notorious sodomite.”
In 1917, Arthur Conan Doyle published His Last Bow, or, The War Service of Sherlock Holmes, the last chronological Sherlock Holmes story. In HLB, Holmes is pulled from his beekeeping retirement at the Sussex cottage at the Prime Minister’s personal request. Holmes works undercover for the two years disguised as one “Altamont,” an Irish-American revolutionary who “graduated in an Irish secret society,” “a real bitter Irish-American…” Holmes foils an espionage plot by the German Von Bork by penetrating his spy network in his “Altamont” disguise. This is the story in which Holmes tells Watson that this may be their last meeting, and says, “Good old Watson! You are the one fixed point in a changing age. There’s an east wind coming all the same, such a wind as never blew on England yet.”
HLB can be read on several levels, mainly as a patriotic story of World War I, but also as a tribute by ACD to his tragic friend Casement, the Irish revolutionary, giving him the heroic ending ACD would have far preferred. It is also noteworthy that Sherlock Holmes’ alter-ego in HLB, “Altamont,” was ADC’s father’s middle name (the artist Charles Altamont Doyle, 1832-1893), and as such suggests that ACD sympathized and even identified with Casement, and wasn’t afraid even after Casement’s execution for treason and notorious “outing” as a homosexual by publishing of the Black Diaries to create such an inference, for those who knew where to look.
It is true that ACD sought to “excuse” Casement’s homosexuality as an “illness.” ACD had the same attitude toward Oscar Wilde. ACD famously met Oscar Wilde in 1889 at a dinner party, which ADC referred to in his memoirs as “a golden evening.” Some have pointed out that Thaddeus Sholto in The Sign of Four (1890) appears inspired by Oscar Wilde, the most famous aesthete of his age, and who possessed the facial features and mannerism mentioned by ACD:
“Nature had given him a pendulous lip, and a too visible line of yellow and irregular teeth, which he strove feebly to conceal by constantly passing his hand over the lower part of his face. “… Pray step into my little sanctum. A small place, miss, but furnished to my own liking. An oasis of art in the howling desert of South London.” …We were all astonished by the appearance of the apartment into which he invited us… . The richest and glossiest of curtains and tapestries draped the walls, looped back here and there to expose some richly-mounted painting or Oriental vase… . A lamp in the fashion of a silver dove was hung from an almost invisible golden wire in the centre of the room.”
Oscar Wilde’s first public persecution over hints of homosexuality arose when The Picture of Dorian Gray was published in a magazine in 1890. Wilde was publicly condemned for its homoeroticism and decadence. When Dorian Gray was published as a novel, Wilde was forced to tone down the homoerotic elements.
ACD, a budding literary figure himself, could not have been unaware of the nature of the controversy concerning Wilde and Dorian Gray, yet he took the trouble to write to Wilde to praise Dorian Gray. Wilde wrote to ACD in reply, “I am really delighted that you think my treatment subtle and artistically good.”
In 1895, Oscar Wilde was convicted for gross indecency for homosexual acts (with prostitutes), and sentenced to two years hard labor in prison, which broken his health and sent him to an early grave. In his memoirs, ACD stated that Wilde’s homosexuality was “pathological” and that Wilde should have been put in a hospital rather than tried for homosexual acts. ACD remarked that on the last occasion he met Wilde, shortly before his trial, he thought him “mad.”
After Wilde’s death, during ACD’s spiritualist period, ACD invited a medium who claimed to be in contact with Oscar Wilde to ask Wilde to communicate with him, because “there are some things I should wish to say.”
In his relations, such as they were, with Roger Casement and Oscar Wilde, ACD displayed the most liberal view on homosexuality for Victorian times, attributing it to mental disorder, rather than moral depravity. ACD being a medical man may have given him a predisposition toward this view. (If ACD were living today I have no doubt that noble man would be as accepting as we would all wish. In his own life, ACD experienced the pain of not being able to fully be with the woman he loved and later married, but that is for another post perhaps.)
Casement and Wilde were the two most notorious and publicly vilified homosexuals of ACD’s times. Yet Doyle did not shrink from them, he offered these men his respect, empathy, and as to Casement, critical public support. Arguably, both men have the honor to have been immortalized in the Sherlock Holmes stories.
Finally, Mark Gatiss’ remarks that the Sherlock Victorian Special simply had to be set in 1895, the year of Oscar Wilde’s trial, may be more significant in light of the complexity of ACD’s involvement and attitudes toward these two men, who in their lives were disgraced for their sexual orientation.
one thing that’s always bothered me about most people’s depiction of Holmes’s usage of cocaine is that most people in Victorian England were only just beginning to realize how badly it affected people???
like tbh I feel like a better modern equivalent would just be Holmes dumping a five hour energy into his fifth cup of coffee while Watson, a trained medical professional, stares at him in horror
If we start on the well accepted premise that lack of a statement on one’s sexual preference means that all people are straight until they proclaim otherwise, then we have in canon, and in the majority of pastiche, several statements that Holmes was not straight.
Holmes states repeatedly that he has abandoned the corporal for the cerebral, it’s a choice he is proud of and not a natural part of his sexuality, he never says that he has no interest in sex or romance, just that he chooses not to indulge. This has always ruled out the asexual reading to me, as it was clearly a choice.
He states he has never ‘loved’ in reference to a romantic heterosexual marriage being discussed; “I have never loved, Watson, but if I did and if the woman I loved had met such an end, I might act even as our lawless lion-hunter has done.” Plus we must examine the accepted myth and be aware that in canon the relationship with Irene Adler is purely work based and insignificant, apart from the fact Holmes admires her intelligence. Holmes even remarks that ‘the fairer sex’ is not his area with the statement about Watson: ‘Watson, the fair sex is YOUR department’. It’s a negative statement, in fact the subject is ‘the fair sex is NOT my department’ [We even receive a clarification, a modernisation, of this in the Angelo’s scene in ASiP when Sherlock states clearly ‘girlfriend? No, not really my area’] These statements in canon have ruled out the heterosexual Holmes for me, as he addresses the issue clearly.
Billy Wilder added the pinnacle of Holmes clear statements, albeit non-verbal in the most part, in the pastiche TPLoSH, when a naked Madame Valadon clings seductively to Holmes in his bedroom, offering herself to him, and Holmes rejects her, is not aroused by her and clearly is using the encounter to investigate a mark on her hand as a clue.
If we are waiting for a verbal pronouncement from Holmes that he is gay, well canon could not provide that to us due to the laws and social constraints at the time it was penned. Neither could most pastiche, as it was either prior to changes in laws on homosexuality or the Conan Doyle Estate had restrictions on the ‘image’ [their trademark of Holmes] Thus we must read and comprehend what Holmes did tell us about this area of his identity, but in a society that deems that being ‘presumed’ queer is an insult, then we have outrage when anyone is presumed queer without there being an official proclamation from the source. In canon, Holmes did not have any sexual or romantic entanglements with females. The same for pastiche.
We did get the failed attempt by Billy Wilder to proclaim Holmes as homosexual but it failed to make it’s statement clear to a straight audience, who were never going to see the nuances, due to the Estate’s restrictions at the time. In the 1980′s Granada made the most faithful to canon adaptation which ironically is very gay, as is canon, but a straight culture will overlook all of the tropes and clues to this. Without any clear direction to see a same sex love affair, society will continue to keep the blinders on.
Taking a step backwards in the Richie movies, Hollywood standards are brought into play, and the trope of the bromance can be played, just brushing the surface of homosexuality but then making sure an attractive woman is inserted into play. Elementary went in a different direction, from opening scenes of Holmes we are TOLD, nay screamed at, that he is straight [he has a female prostitute] and they make Moriarty female so they can give him a love affair from his past. But then we have the hybrid that is BBC Sherlock. The glint of hope that maybe the het culture would get that proclamation from Holmes, but it too was dashed.
Holmes on screen does not kiss women romantically or sexually. Some women do attempt to kiss him, with no response, but it’s rare to see any kiss scene for Holmes. Has everyone picked up on this? The character does not evoke a reading as sexually interested in women, he never has, no matter who is at the helm of the writing.
There may be a fake kiss for a case.
And in BBC Sherlock, as they sink to a new low, we have a gratuitous kiss for sherlolly fans thrown in as an Anderson’s Mind Palace theory [the ridiculousness of that statement speaks volumes: the ‘foil’, the character shown to be the opposite of Sherlock in intellect, has a vision of a Molly kiss]
[*As this needs to be emphasized: The kiss was in Anderson’smind. The kiss between Sherlock and Molly never actually happened. The words forced to be spoken in season 4 were just that, forced words. Words that are made to be spoken by gun-point do not make them true. When a gun is pointing, it forces for anything to be said purely for the sake of getting out of danger. Whether or not they are true or not. What emphasizes the fact that what was said was not actually meant or true was the fact that one of the writers of the how, Moffat, said afterwards that Molly had slept with someone else and ‘got over it’. As horribly misogynistic as that statement was, it still showed how the writers of the show did not intend for the forced words to be true or heartfelt. It was something that was only said to prevent someone from being killed.]
[An aside: This is pure titillation to keep the het ship alive. Molly in the show was inserted and used then abused. How anyone can think that outrage about the writing of Molly Hooper’s character and role is misogynistic I do not know]
Yet the gay is always there. The jokes, the parodies, the gay icon, the questions. It follows the character no matter where. Undercurrents, subtext, the ghosts that haunt, the final problem.
There was a saying in TJLC segment of fandom; gay or trash. That statement arose from the realisation that without confirmed johnlock in the show, the arc of the story would have no direction, it would be unfinished, and sadly would show cruel manipulation of viewers expectations.
I know that most casual viewers were oblivious to the gay romantic tropes; a blindness learned and enforced for centuries. But some casual viewers did see it and desired a happy John and Sherlock resolution, other casuals thought the usual bromance was in play, and as they do not view this practice as queer baiting they were all fine with it.
But the real travesty of not only BBC Sherlock but of all pastiche since homosexual laws have been changed, since gay marriage became legal in Britain, is that we still do not have a true depiction of Sherlock Holmes and John Watson’s relationship as it was in the pages of canon.
There is a reason that homosexuality has followed these characters around for over 130 years, it’s not going to go away, because it really is what it is, and that is gay.
History tried to het the story by removing Watson from pastiche in the early days, just focus on Holmes, but John never abandons his Sherlock, and so he returned, albeit in a limited role, mainly as a fool, a side-kick, until TPLOSH started the revitalisation and Granada completed it. The momentum built with the Russian Holmes and with Richie-verse, albeit in the latter it was the bromance/queer baiting that alerted the audience to the relationship. And it could have climaxed with BBC Sherlock, but the writers underplayed their hand, going there with a homosexual Sherlock but pulling out before the deed was done, and resorting to sacrificing John Watson on the altar of heteronormativity.
This practice needs to stop. For many reasons, but here are a few;
End the dashed hopes of people, both straight and queer, who have followed this story for years in the hope of a true resolution
Put an end to queer baiting and instead give a representation by two iconic British characters in a same sex monogamous love affair/marriage
Provide a depiction, a resolute and positive image, of intelligent, brave, masculine, men in an epic romance. One that will be noticed worldwide
Stop giving fodder via queer baiting to homophobic, queerphobic, people. If the LGBTQ community are shown a glimmer of hope, we are attracted by it, we invest. When we then realise that we were baited it causes pain, but also makes us vulnerable to our enemies. Stop throwing us under the bus
Holmes and Watson should have a mainstream pastiche as a happy married couple. They stayed together, albeit on and off in canon [well a fake death and drug use does not help] for longer than most straight married couples
Society is not bereft of representation of male friendship on our screens so please rest assured there is no gaping need to fill that hole
Allow kids to grow up with various role models. One such role model sorely in need of representation is action hero, super intelligent men in stable, loving same sex relationships
Because it’s arguably the strongest evidence that Doyle was bi. In terms of TJLC, the novel addresses the counterargument that Johnlock can’t have been Doyle’s intention because he was straight. In fact, I’d argue that the novel supports the fact that Doyle based Holmes at least in part off his crush.
So How Does It Do That?
That’s the clever part.
Doyle/Munro and Budd/Cullingworth
Doyle isn’t even trying to hide the fact that the novel is autobiographical. Like Doyle, the protagonist, Stark Munro, is an impoverished Scottish doctor just out of medical school. The other major character, James Cullingworth, is a brilliant but mad doctor. Like Doyle’s friend George Turnavine Budd, he is Munro’s friend and fellow rugby player from medical school. You can even find Doyle referring to Budd in his own memoirs as Cullingworth (chapter 4 of this).
Here’s what Budd looked like:
The plot of the story ostensibly centers around Munro/Doyle getting his medical practice started. Realistically, it’s an account of his falling-out with Cullingworth/Budd. Doyle seems…kind of obsessed with this guy. He can’t seem to stop talking about him, even to the detriment of the plot–he spends one entire letter just describing Cullingworth.
For example, he’ll be in a completely different city talking about a completely different mentally ill patient, and out of the blue: “Old Cullingworth has always had a very high opinion of lunatics for beginners. “ Nobody even asked???
OK, super obsessed.
Without even looking at the more gay telling quotes, it really does read like a fluffy love story, as Munro goes off to stay with Cullingworth and his wife and join his unconventional practice.
Cullingworth was the greatest genius that I have ever known.
And you would be swept along by his words, and would be carried every foot of the way with him, so that it would come as quite a shock to you when you suddenly fell back to earth again
He had a dash of the heroic in him…
Well, now, if, after all these illustrations, I have failed to give you some notion of the man, able, magnetic, unscrupulous, interesting, many-sided, I must despair of ever doing so.
“Come at once. I have urgent need of you. "CULLINGWORTH.” Of course, I shall go by the first train to-morrow.
Like.
It’s one of my many weaknesses, that, whether it’s a woman or a man, anything like a challenge sets me off.
He just.
By the way, an extraordinary card arrived from Cullingworth during my absence. “You are my man,” said he; “mind that I am to have you when I want you.” There was no date and no address, but the postmark was Bradfield in the north of England. Does it mean nothing? Or may it mean everything? We must wait and see.
Can’t.
Perhaps there is another Cullingworth behind the scenes—a softer, tenderer man, who can love and invite love. If there is, I have never got near him. And yet I may only have been tapping at the shell. Who knows? For that matter, it is likely enough that he has never got at the real Johnnie Munro.
Stop.
I am looking forward immensely to seeing him again, and I trust we won’t have any rows.
It is never slow if Cullingworth is about. He is one of those men who make a kind of magnetic atmosphere, so that you feel exhilarated and stimulated in their presence. His mind is so nimble and his thoughts so extravagant, that your own break away from their usual grooves, and surprise you by their activity.
I am much mistaken, however, if he has not fine strata in his nature. He is capable of rising to heights as well as of sinking to depths.
Even in Doyle’s memoirs:
In person he was about 5 ft. 9 in. in height, perfectly built, with a bulldog jaw, bloodshot deep-set eyes, overhanging brows, and yellowish hair as stiff as wire, which spurted up above his brows. He was a man born for trouble and adventure, unconventional in his designs and formidable in his powers of execution—a man of action with a big but incalculable brain guiding the action.
But, of course, it wouldn’t be a proper repressed Victorian love story without some audaciously gay quotes! The wonderful @yearofjohnlock has pointed out quite a few of these:
ACD on his letters: “some excisions are necessary; “
“I am looking forward immensely to seeing him again“ (”are you gonna see him again?”)
“When I woke next morning he was in my room, and a funny-looking object he was. His dressing-gown lay on a chair, and he was putting up a fifty-six pound dumb-bell, without a rag to cover him.“
a softer, tenderer man, who can love and invite love.
“ was, as you may imagine, all in a tingle to know what it was that he wanted with me. However, as he made no allusion to it, I did not care to ask, and, during our longish walk, we talked about indifferent matters. “
“Cullingworth waited until his wife had left the room, and then began to talk of the difficulty of getting any exercise now that he had to wait in all day in the hope of patients. This led us round to the ways in which a man might take his exercise indoors”
I was guarding with both hands for half a minute, and then was rushed clean off my legs and banged up against the door […] “look [Cullingworth], there’s not much boxing about this game.”
and I found:
Cullingworth came charging into the room in his dressing gown, however, and roused me effectually by putting his hands on the rail at the end of the bed, and throwing a somersault over it which brought his heels on to my pillow with a thud.
And the word “Bohemian” was also associated with homosexuality. What did we care, any one of the three of us, where we sat or how we lived, when youth throbbed hot in our veins, and our souls were all aflame with the possibilities of life? I still look upon those Bohemian evenings, in the bare room amid the smell of the cheese, as being among the happiest that I have known.
So What Happened?
Munro/Doyle frequently wrote to his mother, and he’d told her about Cullingworth/Budd. She thought he was crazy af and wanted her son to stay away from him; Doyle was like “No, Mom! He’s a great boyfriend!”
Shortly thereafter, Cullingworth starts being alternately pissy and pretending nothing is wrong whenever he’s around Munro, and eventually just throws him out. At the time, Munro just thinks he’s crazy.
Cullingworth promises to send Munro some money, which Munro definitely needs (he’s 100% broke). But instead, Munro gets a letter from him saying that Cullingworth read one of his mom’s letters that he tore up and left behind. Cullingworth took offense at how the letters disparaged him. Munro later reasons that Cullingworth must have actually been reading all his mom’s letters since he arrived, since he’d never left and torn-up letters. Cullingworth even sends a guy to spy on Munro later; Munro kicks him out pretty fast.
Munro is pretty ticked. The rest of the story alternates between explaining how he gets his practice going and comments along the lines of “Ha! Cullingworth thinks he can cut me off? Guess who’s the successful doctor now?” and “Didn’t he even read my letters to my mom saying how much I love trust him?”
He finally writes:
Well, I wrote him a little note…I said that his letter had been a source of gratification to me, as it removed the only cause for disagreement between my mother and myself. She had always thought him a blackguard, and I had always defended him; but I was forced now to confess that she had been right from the beginning.
It seems like Munro/Doyle is completely over it and hates Cullingworth/Budd. And yet…that’s not how he ends the story.
I never thought I should have seen Cullingworth again, but fate has brought us together. I have always had a kindly feeling for him, though I feel that he used me atrociously. Often I have wondered whether, if I were placed before him, I should take him by the throat or by the hand.
Cullingworth eventually moves to South America (the real-life Budd died shortly thereafter), and Munro decides:
I wish him luck, and have a kindly feeling towards him, and yet I distrust him from the bottom of my heart, and shall be just as pleased to know that the Atlantic rolls between us.
From the memoirs:
My mother had greatly resented my association with Cullingworth. Her family pride had been aroused…though my wanderings had left me rather too Bohemian…. But I liked Cullingworth and even now I can’t help liking him—and I admired his strong qualities and enjoyed his company and the extraordinary situations which arose from any association with him.
He was a remarkable man and narrowly escaped being a great one.
The queer reading? Doyle had a crush on this brilliant, larger-than-life man, and he tried to put it past him when Budd’s lunacy finally crashed down on him. Except he couldn’t move on, not yet.
Yet Holmes’s energy and habits are a far better match for George Budd than for Joseph Bell.
Bell was a 40-something professor with a limp. But Budd was a young man with bursts of furious energy and a tendency to obsess over creating some brilliant piece of research, like Holmes. Budd is much closer to the “trained bloodhound picking up a scent” with “energy and sagacity”
In fact, a lot of the aspects of Sherlock Holmes match the Stark Munro letters closely.
@yearofjohnlock summarizes this admirably:
Cullingworth and Sherlock Holmes are known for:
boxing
sitting with feet up on chair
referred to as geniuses
lives in a flat above a grocer’s shop with - mrs. hudson and C’s wife described physically exactly the same – who bring them tea and are skeptical about their over enthusiasm but very sweet, though they are mean to her. he notes importantly that this old woman smokes.
tons of useless* facts which the POV writer mocks (John/Munro/ACD)
shouting, bursts of excitement to interrupt long silences
described as a hero by writer for jumping off a building to save a friend
written from the point of view of med student
long time absence between writing medical professional and the genius then return
didn’t drink much but did very powerful drugs
described by Doyle as “queer” constantly
theorised to have a hidden tender side though he does not show it
“a kitchen, a bedroom, a sitting-room, and a fourth room“, the sitting room has just two chairs facing one another, as he does not get many visitors
wears a dressing gown around the flat
“Come at once. I have urgent need of you. -Cullingworth.”
“when a man smiles with his lips and not with his eyes“
Moffatiss say it’s always 1895 but this is the only thing Doyle published in 1895
So Holmes must be at least partially based on Budd.
Timing
There are no Sherlock Holmes stories published in 1895. Instead, we have a handful of short works and The Stark Munro Letters.
Doyle got tired of Holmes and killed him off in 1893.Two years later, he wrote a novel explaining how he was totally over his med school crush, the one who inspired Sherlock Holmes.
Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm.
*sips tea suspiciously*
If I hypothetically had a crush on someone and hypothetically wrote a self-insert fic where we solved crimes together, then hypothetically I would want our inspired characters to get together.
And if there were a hypothetical TV adaptation of my story in a time when our characters could hypothetically get together without Victorian stigma, I would totally go for it.
“So, I wrote this a bit cheekily last night, but now I want to expand on it with some actual facts. I see a lot of people saying, “Oh, back in the 19th century, Sherlock and John couldn’t openly be together.” And that’s true, but what’s at the heart of that sentiment is this one, “Arthur Conan Doyle couldn’t have written them openly together, because the general public would assume he was encouraging homosexuality, perhaps was even homosexual himself, and that would have been dangerous.” Here’s why.
In 1885, the British Parliament enacted section 11 of the he Criminal Law Amendment Act 1885, known as the Labouchere Amendment which prohibited gross indecency between males. It thus became possible to prosecute homosexuals for engaging in sexual acts where buggery or attempted buggery could not be proven. Note that they didn’t have to actually catch you in the act, they just had to suspect that you did it. During this time period, many notable men were prosecuted with disastrous results; Lord Arthur Chilton committed suicide after being implicated in Boulton and Park trial involving two transvestites and Oscar Wilde was sentences to prison and hard labour after being found guilty.
Was there still a homosexual culture in England at the time? Yes, it was around this time that the movement began to flourish, with clandestine gatherings preceding the opening of the first gay pub, The Cave of the Golden Calf in 1912. There was even the beginnings of gay erotica and publishing, but it was still very much subversive and not opening distributed among the public.
The opposite of who Arthur Conan Doyle was; Sherlock Holmes increased subscriptions to The Strand magazine by 30,000. While Oscar Wilde, if not embraced, accepted, the consequences of his actions, Arthur Conan Doyle was not in a position to do that. He received a knighthood in 1902, he was involved in political campaigns and other civic work throughout his lifetime, and he had 5 children to support. He was not in a position to risk what an accusation of buggery would bring.
So, when you look at the situation, Arthur Conan Doyle was unable to go any farther than he had with Holmes and Watson in his original stories. Even if he wanted to. Even if he tried to fill it with as much subtext as possible, he would always have to be mindful of what would happen if he went to far.
This is why this argument bothers me so much. Were Sherlock Holmes in John Watson explicitly in a romantic relationship in the original stories? No, and no one is arguing that they were. Are we intended to imply, with the clues that were safe to include given the environment at the time, that it’s a possibility? That’s up to you to decide. But demanding that the only way a relationship could be legitimate is if it had been clearly stated by Arthur Conan Doyle is frustrating because it’s imposing today’s standards on a time period where they do not fit”
The anon mentions a Conan Doyle Estate, but the one they are talking about is actually a false estate run by a homophobic woman who did not have any rightful legal claim to the copyrights of the Sherlock Holmes books.
There is not one “Estate” in Sir. Arthur Conan Doyle’s name... but two. Due to both of them using Sir Arthur’s name, the distinction can be difficult, particularly when articles discussing them do not specify clearly as to which ‘estate’ the article is about. One of the estates is run by indirect descendants and family members of the late Sir. Arthur, and the other one was run by a woman who went by the name of Andrea Plunket.
The Conan Doyle Estate, run by family members of Sir Arthur, have legal ownership over any copyright regarding the books.
The Conan Doyle Literary estate, which was run by Andrea Plunket, did NOT own copyright as what copyright she did have was reaquired by Dame Jean Doyle and the Conan Doyle Estate.
The fact that Andrea Plunket no longer legally own copyright over the books did not stop her from continuing to run her literary estate and use it to try to threaten to sue anyone who made adaptations, including Ritchie, and try to get as much money as possible out of anyone who was willing to pay. Usually when the cases actually go through court, the Literary Estate loses as their tangled web of false claims of ownership slowly unravel. Court cases are, however, long and expensive and unfortunately all too often people had been willing to simply pay whatever fee the false estate is demanding so as to keep them off their backs. This has the unfortunate side effect of also giving the so-called “Literary Estate” more money so as go after creators of other adaptations.
In addition to harassing creators of Sherlock Holmes adaptations, Andrea Plunket had, at one point in time, also attempted to sue the REAL Conan Doyle Estate.
“Andrea Plunket was Sheldon Reynold’s wife, and after they became divorced in 1990, she fought to maintain ownership of the copyrights to Conan Doyle’s works. Her claims were rejected in court, but Plunket continued to operate as though she owned the copyrights anyway. This eventually resulted in a lawsuit by the Doyle family—or, Conan Doyle Estate Ltd.—which Plunket lost. However, she has not paid the Doyle heirs any damages—in fact, she went back to court to plead that she is not financially capable of paying the $135,000 [$185,000 in other sources] sum.
The court agrees, though the matter of her finances are wrought with oddity, as Ms. Plunket was once a millionaire. She reportedly gave upher entire fortune in the 80ies after her run as Claus von Bulow’s mistress, who was famously acquitted of poisoning his own wife with insulin. Plunket has stated in some interviews that seeing such a horrendous act committed in the name of money left a bad taste in her mouth. She has said in others that she never thought von Bulow was guilty. The Doyle heirs claim that Plunket is hiding the true extent of her fortunes. Plunket claims that she is merely the steward of her current business, a B&B called Pannonia Farms. Who knows. ”
She was ordered to pay Dame Jean Doyle after the whole sordid affair, but being the penny pincher scam artists she is, Plunket claimed to not have the money and avoided paying. This has widely been regarded as a lie as Andrea Plunket was a very wealthy women.
“ Reynolds contacted the Baskervilles Investments Ltd, only to find out that the company was held by a receiver, Mr William G. Mackey, appointed by the Royal Bank of Scotland. And Mr Mackey wanted to sell the complete Conan Doyle literary estate. So Sheldon Reynolds didn't walk away from the meeting with just a license to make a new TV series, but he decided to buy the whole estate. However, he didn't have any money. But his wife Andrea had. Or rather her mother, who had inherited a fortune from her late husband, an heir of Pfizer chemicals.
For the next few years, Sheldon and Andrea Reynolds - together with her parents - ruled over the Sherlock Holmes copyright, until it ran out, fifty years after the death of Sir Arthur Conan Doyle. A new copyright act had by then come into use in the US, which made it possible for Conan Doyle's only surviving child, Dame Jean Conan Doyle, to get the copyright back for some stories that were still in US copyright. “
Any and all remaining copyright is the legal property of the Conan Doyle Estate, NOT the Literary Estate.
Twitter account of the false Conan Doyle Literary Estate.
Twitter account of the actual Conan Doyle Estate.
LGBT impact:
There had been articles in the past of ‘the estate’ threatening to sue creators of Sherlock Holmes adaptations should those adaptations dare to show Sherlock Holmes as being gay. The person behind those suits was Andrea Plunket with the literary estate, NOT the actual Conan Doyle Estate.
As far as I am aware, the ACTUAL Conan Doyle Estate is NOT against LGBT representation in Sherlock Holmes adaptations. That was Andrea Plunket. Andrea Plunket also passed away
“...A certain Guy Ritchie film made a big smash at the box office, and shortly after, the film’s star—Robert Downey Jr.—appeared on Letterman to talk about the movie and dropped the words “butch homosexual”. This, admit waxing poetic about the Holmes and Watson “bromance”.
Cue Andrea Plunket.
She actually went on record, threatening to withdraw permission for the sequel’s creation if ”that is a theme they [the creators] wish to bring out in the future.” Her full statement is actually pretty cutting, and looks like it belongs inside a dripping speech bubble. Dripping with homophobia, that is.
“I hope this is just an example of Mr. Downey’s black sense of humour. 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’s careful to tack on the disclaimer: “I am not hostile to homosexuals, but I am to anyone who is not true to the spirit of the books.”
Funny thing is, according to a Warner Bro.’s spokesperson, neither Ms. Plunket nor the Doyle heirs were paid any money for the movie’s creation. The Conan Doyle Estate Ltd. is capable of placing their official trademark approval on Sherlock Holmes projects, but since all the stories are out of copyright in the U.K. and Canada, it doesn’t seem like they have too much ground to stand on if they want to go head-to-head with a Hollywood studio to collect royalties on their common-law claims. Of course, the production of Sherlock Holmes artwork is one thing; claiming to own the copyrights is another, hence the aggressive legal action against Andrea Plunket.”
Main Point: It was Andrea Plunket who was Homophobic, not the Conan Doyle Estate, and Andrea Plunket has since passed away so whatever copyright problem there may be with showing LGBT representation, however weak, is no longer an issue.
Adaptations, Lawsuits and the real Conan Doyle Estate
While the false Literary Estate does not own legal copyright over the books, the real Conan Doyle Estate does still retain copyright over some of the books in the United States. It should be noted that there had been a problem with the Doyle Estate using the copyright they owned to the fullest extent possible and to the detriment of the fandom. They had often sued creators and adopters in spite of the fact that the books should have no longer been subject to copyright law as they should have been expired. The persistent lawsuits by the real estate were not for any homophobic purposes, but because they were getting money for adaptations made.
This continuing issue of lawsuits had lead to the case of a lawyer who also happened to be a Sherlockian, Klinger, finally saying enough was enough and fighting to free Sherlock from the grip of copyright.
It is because of Klinger that all but the last ten books have been confirmed as being free for the public to create adaptations from without fear of lawsuit.
There is a website regarding his efforts and the overall fight to help keep Sherlock Holmes free for the fandom to be able to adapt and enjoy here: free-sherlock.com
Please consider following and supporting Free-Sherlock so as to help keep Sherlock Holmes within the public space.
The following graphics display the copyright issues for only in the United States. The copyright for ALL Sherlock Holmes books in the UK and Canada have since expired.
While this line is often quoted as showing how Sir Arthur did not care about how Sherlock Holmes was portrayed, it should be noted that this quote only came after William Gillette pressed Sir. Arthur on the matter. Initially Arthur Conan Doyle stipulated that Sherlock Holmes should not be portrayed as being romantically interested in a woman. He did not give Sherlock Holmes a female love interest and preferred that it remained so (reminder that Irene Adler was in love with and married someone else. She had no romantic interests with Holmes.)
“Gillette read Conan Doyle’s script and asked permission to revise it. The author agreed, stipulating only that there be no love interest.”
Keep in mind that at the time that the telegram was written it was inconceivable that Holmes would even have the opportunity to ever marry a man. The possibility of Holmes having a male love interest is not something that would have -ever- been written about, spoken of, or suggested because of the anti-lgbt culture engrained throughout society at the time. The co-dependant partnership of Holmes and Watson was the closest that could be achieved when it came to M/M ‘Love’ interest. A male male relationship would NOT be referred to as a ‘love interest’. Dr. Watson could only ever be referred to as Holmes’ ‘partner’ and ‘friend’. Any reference to ‘love interests’ dealt with women by default and Sir Arthur had stated his disapproval of Holmes having a relationship with a woman.
This point is also significant as it is further evidence regarding how it is adaptations that try to show Holmes as being with a woman that have to bend the stories to do so, not the ones that show Holmes as having other inclinations. It is the -straight- adaptations that deviate more from the canon stories and have to break canon to try to push heteronormativity.
Sir Arthur Conan Doyle had written about having a preference that Holmes remained single and alone or living with Dr. John Watson then being romantically interested in a women.
Sherlock Holmes also had no romantic interest in Irene.
In fact, Sherlock Holmes oversaw Irene Adler's marriage with Godfrey Norton and was highly amused by it.
Sherlock Holmes helping Irene Adler marry Godfrey Norton.
He was absolutely pleased as punch about the whole thing and went home to 221B to laugh and tell Dr. Watson all about it.
Another quote often referenced is “Daintiest thing under a bonnet”. This was relayed to Watson by Holmes before he had ever seen Adler himself. It was not reflective of Holmes’ personal opinion, but rather the description and views of other men regarding the person that they were looking for.
Irene Adler was never viewed in a romantic way by Holmes himself, nor she to him. He was assigned on the case to get a photograph for the King of Bohemia, during which she outmaneuvered Holmes while being able to escape with her new husband whom she was in love with and had recently wed.
In addition to Watson stating in the first few lines of that story that Holmes felt no kind of love for Irene Adler, in the Victorian era it was standard to end letters with 'Truly yours'. This was a regularly used form of respect in business letters. It is not reflective of any kind of romantic interest, but rather respectful closure of that time. Much in the same way that 'respectfully' and 'regards' are used today. http://www.victorianpassage.com/…/the_correct_thing_in_good…
Irene Adler was one of the most respected women out of the stories because she outwitted Holmes.
She was an upstanding woman who was respected and a lesson to Holmes to not underestimate the intelligence of women. Her picture was kept as that reminder.
Pop culture and other people have had a habit of inventing a relationship between Sherlock Holmes and Irene Adler that did not exist in the original stories.
In fact Sir. Arthur Conan Doyle himself had previously stated that he did not wish Sherlock Holmes to be in a relationship with a woman: “Gillette read Conan Doyle’s script and asked permission to revise it. The author agreed, stipulating only that there be NO love interest.” -via the Shakespeare Festival of Utah University
Instead Irene Adler was respected as an intellectual and was example of how a woman can be respected as an equal without any sexual connotations surrounding or behind it.
*The attached images are images of original illustrations from the Strand Magazine where the Sherlock Holmes stories were originally published.
There will likely be few if any posts regarding that particular adaptation. My main intent is to discuss the LGBT content of the stories and Canon itself.
This video is being shared for purely one reason:
BBC Sherlock does NOT reflect the original stories or characterizations of the Sherlock Holmes books.
There are several aspects of the following video that I do not agree with. The primary one being that it is the characterization of Sherlock Holmes that was supposed to be the focus of the series, not the cases, which makes his argument on that front moot. That being said, there are enough other valid points that are made in this video which has made it worth sharing and watching.
This is particularly true when it comes to Irene Adler, how she was portrayed in the books, and how that particular televised adaptation dealt with the character with its rewriting of her.
While the title may be aggressive, the video itself is very thoroughly researched and has several interesting points that are well worth noting.
Part 6, John Watson 55:11 (There are many parts of this section which I disagree with, but the fact that Dr. Watson directs how readers and viewers see and interpret Sherlock Holmes is an important point.)
The chapters of the video that are relevant to this page are parts 2-4, and parts 6-10.
Side note: while other parts are more relevant to this page, some attention should be paid to part 11. The creator of this video is a bit overdramatic in making his point, but that said, there is a difference that should be recognized in how the creators of this particular show treat their audience and fandom when compared to the fan-creator relationships of other shows.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
