"..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? 😶😆😘
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
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.
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
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.
(Commentary by Crow: I prefer for this blog to stay as strictly focused on ACD meta as possible. Unfortunately that can not be entirely the case as there are many useful metas about the original Canon stories that are also interwoven with bbc commentary. Please forgive their addition, as their notes regarding ACD Canon itself are useful.)
London and the Culture of Homosexuality – Masterpost
I am reading this book at the moment – London and the Culture of Homosexuality, 1885-1914 by Matt Cook. First off, it’s brilliant and everyone should read it. Identifying as “gay” or “homosexual” was quite complicated during this era and Cook spends a lot of time discussing the idea of sexuality and sexual identity in London during these years. I’m just through the first chapter but have learned many things already:
1) Empty train cars (railway carriages) were quite popular spots for gay men to rendezvous and do the do 2) A gay man was often referred to as a “Molly” and a “Molly House” was a place where gay men could socialise together 3) A famous case involving two men (Ernest Boulton and Frederick Park) who were accused of homosexual activity and charged with “conspiring and inciting persons to commit an unnatural offence” was brought to court to great public spectacle. During their trial, one of the men (Park) GREW A MOUSTACHE to try to conform to the era’s expectations of masculinity (many men who were identified as gay were clean shaven).
You’re right, John, it isn’t. We’re all very familiar with the sort of cringe-worthy yet sweetly honest scene in TEH where Sherlock and John have this little exchange (and thanks again to Ariane DeVere’s transcripts):
SHERLOCK: See you’ve shaved it off, then. JOHN: Yeah. Wasn’t working for me. SHERLOCK: Mm, I’m glad. JOHN: What, you didn’t like it? SHERLOCK (smiling): No. I prefer my doctors clean-shaven. JOHN: That’s not a sentence you hear every day!
Sherlock outs himself as a gay man to John. John is surprised and focuses on the sentence rather than the meaning, the format instead of the content, as the viewer is supposed to do too. Let’s back up a bit. Obviously BBC Sherlock Holmes was not created out of thin air in the 21st century – the original character was created in 1887 during the late-Victorian era. At this time it was against the law - a criminal act - to engage in homosexual activity and men who had sex and/or “improper” relationships with other men were under constant threat of being arrested and prosecuted in court, with some even sentenced to hard labour in prison. During this time, however, many men who identified as homosexual (which in itself was a complicated concept and meant different things to different men) started to find unique ways to identify each other: for solidarity, friendship, support, sex.
I made another post talking about London and the Culture of Homosexuality, 1885-1914 by Matt Cook, which is an incredible resource on queer history and culture at this time (though focuses exclusively on male homosexuality). In the book, Cook talks about various ways that men were stereotyped as homosexual: being effeminate, being a (confirmed) bachelor, a theatregoer, a dandy, wearing scent, living a “bohemian” lifestyle.
Oscar Wilde was called a bohemian repeatedly, in the press and elsewhere, during his trials. Who else was called a bohemian…oh. Sherlock Holmes was called a bohemian… by Watson himself. Here’s the quote, from A Scandal in Bohemia, published four years before Wilde’s trials:
“My marriage had drifted us away from each other. My own complete happiness, and the home-centred interests which rise up around the man who first finds himself master of his own establishment, were sufficient to absorb all my attention, while Holmes, who loathed every form of society with his whole Bohemian soul, remained in our lodgings at Baker Street, buried among his old books, and alternating from week to week between cocaine and ambition…” Curious that you’re so happy in your marriage, Watson, yet you still refer to 221B as “our lodgings”. But I digress. We have a juxtaposition in the text: supposedly happy, hetero-married John Watson, master of his domain, describing confirmed bachelor Sherlock Holmes’ apparent depression, alone and gay in Baker Street, but clearly preferring that over the social and sexual demands of a homophobic society. For as much as he’s trying to draw the line between himself and Holmes here, Watson immediately drops everything to go out on another case with Holmes. Of course, this “bohemian” signifier is used in the story featuring Irene Adler, a woman who appears in the BBC modern verison in ASiB, an episode which focuses heavily on sex and sexual identity.
Anyway, back to the moustaches.
Being “bohemian” was just one way to identify men who were considered to be homosexual. Another was being clean-shaven. A man who was placed on trial for homosexual activity grew a moustache so as to conform to contemporary standards of heterosexual masculinity. As Cook says, “…though certainly not a definitive indication of sexual deviance, [being clean shaven] was a commonly noted feature of defendants in cases of gross indecency between men” and almost always reported in the press. He continues: “Facial hair functioned as a symbol of masculinity and respectability during…the late-Victorian ‘beard-boom.’ Those without it were associated with fashion, bohemiansim, and an avant-garde - but also possibly worse” – being a homosexual. George Ives, a friend of Oscar Wilde’s and a gay man, shaved off his moustache on Wilde’s advice once he set himself up in the West End as an independent bachelor and decided to pursue sexual and emotional relationships with other men. For Sherlock Holmes to be clean shaven at the end of the 19th century would definitely have signified something to the average reader who was at least slightly familiar with masculine culture in London.
Here’s some of the many Sherlock Holmes we’ve seen over the years: All clean shaven (photo from x). What does John Watson usually look like?
MOUSTACHED TO THE NTH DEGREE. I can’t think of a Watson in any adaptation who is clean-shaven…except for our BBC John. (But do help me out if I’ve missed one).
In The Abominable Bride, Sherlock is clean shaven as usual, and John has a moustache, but setlock photos suggested that John has some scenes sans moustache (unless this was due to Martin just not having it on yet – we’ll have to wait and see).
The symbolism of facial hair and having it/not having it was a significant indicator of sexual preference during the era when Sherlock Holmes was at the height of his glory in late-Victorian London. Curiously, it’s also become a focus in the modern adaptation as well. To return to that scene in TEH, Sherlock admits to John that he doesn’t like his appearance with a moustache (he doesn’t like John altering his appearance to change aspects of himself), and John admits it wasn’t working for him (can only keep up altered appearances for so long). Interestingly, he asks Sherlock to confirm “you didn’t like it”. John grew it when he thought Sherlock was dead and became engaged to a woman.
Sherlock plainly says he prefers his doctors clean-shaven. To the modern ear, this sounds weird and means nothing, really. To the late-Victorian ear, this would be nearly tantamount to saying that you prefer gay men, or that you yourself might be gay, according to popular contemporary trends and beliefs.
A clean-shaven John, especially one that does this
I’ve made some more progress on the book I’m currently obsessed with, London and the Culture of Homosexuality, 1885-1914by Matt Cook, and have made a couple posts about it here and here. Now I have my next longer meta brewing (!!)…but in the meantime, here are some updates:
(if you’re not keen to see more posts like this, I’ll tag everything related to this book “london and the culture of homosexuality” so you can avoid it if you like)
1) The Sins of the Cities of the Plain was a pornographic (homosexual) novel published in 1881. It follows the memoirs of a young male prostitute, JohnJack Saul, who is “paid to set down his experiences by a client“, who just happens to provide an address in Baker Street, which was really the address of a friend called WilliamSherlock Scott Holmes Potter. The book talks about doing the do in Belgravia and picking up men in Regent’s Park, as well as the joys of having sex with guardsmen/soldiers. It did not mess around: one of the chapters is literally called “The Same Old Story: Arses Preferred to C*nts”. So. It was pretty gay.
2) The Criterion Bar on Piccadilly Circus attracted all kinds of men, including guardsmen, for meetings of a more intimate nature. According to Cook’s research, it was considered to have “a subcultural reputation for homosexual activity” and was a “great centre for inverts”, according to some 19th century contemporaries. (“Invert” was another derogatory term for homosexual.) I’m sure there’s no need to remind you that this is where John Watson and Mike Stamford meet up before Stamford introduces Watson to the love of his life Holmes.
3) Turkish baths were considered to be very gay (many other homosocial spaces developed similar reputations).
4) Articles in popular fashion magazines like Modern Man “bemoaned the damage done to the fashion for buttonholes by [Oscar] Wilde’s penchant for green carnations”.
This, in an article titled: “Judging a Man by His Button Hole.”
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
