Sherlock - BBC [4]

all this stuff about Sherlock and Watson's sexuality is a modern fixation. Today you can't sneeze without somebody interpreting it as subconscious sexual perversion. In Victorian times middle class men lived in their all male clubs from birth to death. Women were denied education and therefore were probably unable to converse about politics and interesting topics, therefore they were relegated to romantic baby talk or what's for dinner conversations. its perfectly normal for them to have lived together as bachelors. Sherlock might have been a natural asexual with a total lack of interest in sex. Watson was probably a man happier free of the mundane domestic world, he seems to have had a deep romantic need for the drama and excitement of the criminal world and he in lived that world thanks to Sherlock.

I'd say that's true for the original. For Moffat and Gatiss version though.. I'd say the the ball is rather more up in the air. Although whether they'll go all the way with is of course another question, but they've definitely teased a whole lot more than the books.

I think Figg nailed Doyle's version: it simply wasn't something that would have crossed his mind. Moffat and Gatiss largely have done a great job of teasing about the issue for fun - it's when they try to dig into deeper psychological reasons of their love lives that they ruin it. They should just keep it totally tongue in cheek.

Yeah, I agree. Sexuality wasn't even a concept until Freud came along. They were all just behaviors, like butt scratching or nose picking, that most people did but some were more discrete about than others. If you check google ngram you'll see that the words homosexual and heterosexual don't even really exist before 1900 and don't take off until sometime around WWII.

The ancient Athenians were big on it though.

Bluebottle wrote:The ancient Athenians were big on it though.

I doubt they were much bigger on sex than any other culture, and of course every culture in every time has its own sexual norms and taboos. But it wasn't until Freud that some of the taboos started being defined as both abnormal and integral to individual identity. Over the course of the 2oth century that led directly to our current cultural tendency to identify by sexuality in the same way we identify by race (another arbitrary classification system)   Human sexuality is far more diverse and individual that any classification system, especially one that divides us all into 2 (or 3 or 4 or 5) categories, and especially when you look at other cultures and times. Or so I've heard...

Here, I think this shows what a short blip our current categories hold in the grand scheme of human history. Notice that the late 20th century categories are already declining, and transgender is on the rise.

https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=sexuality%2Cheterosexual%2Chomosexual%2Clesbian%2Cbisexual%2Ctransgender&year_start=1800&year_end=2008&corpus=15&smoothing=3&share=&direct_url=t1%3B%2Csexuality%3B%2Cc0%3B.t1%3B%2Cheterosexual%3B%2Cc0%3B.t1%3B%2Chomosexual%3B%2Cc0%3B.t1%3B%2Clesbian%3B%2Cc0%3B.t1%3B%2Cbisexual%3B%2Cc0%3B.t1%3B%2Ctransgender%3B%2Cc0

In Doctor Who, the above mentioned lesbian lizard and her ass-kicking ninja wife are the people/humanoids(?) which inspires Doyle to write about Sherlock and Watson. So people might find it more likely that G&M would make Sherlock gay.

Amarië wrote:In Doctor Who, the above mentioned lesbian lizard and her ass-kicking ninja wife are the people/humanoids(?) which inspires Doyle to write about Sherlock and Watson.

That's true, I'd forgotten (or suppressed) that. I guess a ninja Watson might be kind of interesting....

That reference regards Doyle (made in a prequel extra not in an episode) was more about delineating lines which were in danger of being blurred by over enthusiastic fans of both Who and Sherlock clamouring for a crossover special.

Moffat had to this point always stated that the problem was Sherlock exists as a fictional creation already inside the Who universe, so the two cant meet (but that goes back to the 4th Doctor and Sherlock references in Talons of Weng Chiang). Moffat not only includes that reference to Doyle in the prequel minisode, in the episode itself the Doctor dresses up as Sherlock and the GI calls him out on the basis Sherlock Holmes is fictional.
Moffat was just making it very clear for all concerned to shut up on the crossover talk.

David H wrote:

Bluebottle wrote:The ancient Athenians were big on it though.

I doubt they were much bigger on sex than any other culture, and of course every culture in every time has its own sexual norms and taboos. But it wasn't until Freud that some of the taboos started being defined as both abnormal and integral to individual identity. Over the course of the 2oth century that led directly to our current cultural tendency to identify by sexuality in the same way we identify by race (another arbitrary classification system)   Human sexuality is far more diverse and individual that any classification system, especially one that divides us all into 2 (or 3 or 4 or 5) categories, and especially when you look at other cultures and times. Or so I've heard...

Well, homosexuality has at least been frowned upon as long as we've had Christianity at the forefront of western culture. While it was comparably favored by the ancient Athenians.

My mysterious hint 1 for what I think may happen in series 4- Janine.

Not related to the BBC show, but does anyone know about any decent adaptations of The Valley of Fear that's actually worth a watch? This is one of my favourite Holmes stories, but I've not seen that many adaptations of it. Any ideas?

{{{Had a look about Ringo, and it seems for some reason its been rarely adapted, despite being one of the best in my view, even Brett in his extensive run as Holmes never covered it. According to wiki there is only a silent film version and a couple of dodgy sounding adaptations under completely different names, with the most promising sounding actually being the last film version made in 1984, which is animated with Peter O' Toole as the voice of Holmes.
Its also been again loosely sounding adapted for tv in 1954 and that sit for tv and film.

There is a BBC radio 4 adaptation of it from 2003 as well which wiki doesn't list, so might be other sout there somewhere.}}}

Thanks, Petty! I agree with you, definitely one of the best in my view as well, and it is so damn annoying that an adaptation with Brett was never made. One day, perhaps

Pettytyrant101 wrote:{{{Had a look about Ringo, and it seems for some reason its been rarely adapted, despite being one of the best in my view, even Brett in his extensive run as Holmes never covered it. According to wiki there is only a silent film version and a couple of dodgy sounding adaptations under completely different names, with the most promising sounding actually being the last film version made in 1984, which is animated with Peter O' Toole as the voice of Holmes.
Its also been again loosely sounding adapted for tv in 1954 and that sit for tv and film.

There is a BBC radio 4 adaptation of it from 2003 as well which wiki doesn't list, so might be other sout there somewhere.}}}

It likely hasn't and won't be adapted by any American companies because of the way it casts aspersions on Mormonism. Not that Americans feel protective of Mormons (they don't) but it's a possible source of conflict that hasn't been dredged up as yet, and people are uncertain of the consequences/backlash.

Oh THAT story! Yeah it's a bit awkward. {{{FWIW I actually do feel protective of Mormons, along with other friends, neighbors and relatives.}}}

Edit: Wait. The Mormon one is "Study in Scarlet" isn't it? "Valley of Fear" is the coal miners. It's been so long since I've read them they're running together. I think I need to google before I comment anymore...

{{ But the general American public is rather indifferent to Mormonism. These days if you bash gays, blacks, etc you'll have things thrown at you; but say something about Mormons and you'll be greeted with a sort of perplexed silence. Nobody feels defined by their stance on Mormonism, hence nobody is sure how to react to attacks on it. Unless of course you're Mormon. }}

{{{That's probably more of a regional distinction then. There's a lot of love for our Jehovah's Witnesses around here too. They do a lot of good in the community. I understand there's less love elsewhere.}}}

{{ sort of seen as nice overdressed guys on bikes who nobody has time to start a conversation with. }}

{{{Ah, the missionary uniform Speaking of which, I wonder how Lorient Avandi is doing? Shouldn't his mission be up by now?}}

I just checked. He last posted in April 2014, just before going on mission to Columbus OH. So his 2 years should be up in a month, give or take. I wonder if he'll check back in when he's gotten a chance to watch BOFA. I wish there was a way we could warn him....

I was just thinking about Lorient the other day but I was away from my computer when I did and couldn't check when his last post had been. Fingers crossed he comes back here and tells us what he thinks of BOFA.

Every Mormon I've ever met has been nice, but around here them and the JWs are generally seen as kind of weird and the missionary stuff is regarded as intrusive and annoying by most people I know. I have respect for it and will do my best to speak with missionaries politely (sometimes we see them from other denominations too), but I still can't wrap my mind around the JW blood transfusion thing.

Eldorion wrote: but I still can't wrap my mind around the JW blood transfusion thing.

I won't try to justify it, but for myself I tend to lump the blood thing in with religious vows of celibacy and vegetarianism, or for that matter parents who choose not to vaccinate their children, or vegans who are clearly suffering from malnutrition. I often find I enjoy talking to people of principle, even if I don't always share the principles.

Around here there's not really an active community of Friends, so many anti-war people have joined the Jehovah's Witnesses instead and may not be so vocal on other points of JW doctrine as elsewhere.