You know your "Sherlock" obsession is bad when...

[Carol the Dabbler]

(Or do I have a mind cottage? I think I do. Not a palace kind of person. More in favor of a cozy little habitat with a thatched roof and a flower garden full of old roses. Terribly cluttered and unorganized place, though.)

That sounds lovely. I think I have more of a Mind Magpie's Nest. 

 

Okay, I have a fanfiction rant that has nothing to do with any of the "locks" but rather these very young writers.  Now, bless their hearts for giving the writing a go, but often times it is so sloppy and so rushed that I do a mental face palm.

And it ain't just the young'uns doing that. I cannot understand why anyone would put in the effort to write a whole story, and then not check it over before putting it out there for all to see. I think my primary beef with such writers is this: They use "to" instead of "too" and "loose" instead of "lose" (and so on) -- and just because the spellchecker says everything's fine, they don't bother checking it themselves and/or asking a friend to proofread it. A spellchecker is just a first step, folks -- not a substitute for an actual proofreader! (And please don't get me started on autocorrect -- or autocomplete!)

 

T.o.b.y (and anyone else who is interested, of course!) try this one. I just finished it, and think it's the single best Sherlock fanfic I've read so far.

Thanks, Arcadia. I'll have to check that out.

[T.o.b.y]

 the whole concept of a homosexual Holmes is laughable

 

Laughable? Why? It's statistically less probable than the alternative, and also unlikely that Doyle had that in mind, simply because of the time and culture he lived in, but I don't see anything funny or ridiculous in the idea. It's a possibility, and there are valid arguments for it.

 

In my humble opinion, Sherlock Holmes' sexual orientation does not matter, because he does not have a love life. Why worry about with whom if you've already decided not at all? He could be straight, he could be gay, he could be asexual. We don't know, we never will know, it's not really any of our business, and it's not terribly important.

 

This reminds me of my mother. When I got the series 3 DVDs, she asked me how I liked them, naturally, and I said I particularly liked the episode with the wedding. Her eyes went wide. "What wedding?" I said, the wedding, naturally. John Watson and Mary Morstan. My mother goes: "But... I thought Sherlock and John were..." Bang! goes my head on the table.

 

Now, my mother has read almost all the original Sherlock Holmes novels and stories. She's read The Sign of the Four. She saw the first two seasons of Sherlock (minus the Reichenbach Fall). She likes the character, but she's not a fan. She does not concern herself with fan culture, she doesn't even know tumblr or fan fictions exist, does not follow anybody on twitter, in short, does not know or care about anybody else's interpretation of either the original or the BBC adaptation. She also has no reason to be particularly conscious about sexual orientation, is neither homophobic nor concerned about gay rights. It's a topic that just never took up much of her thoughts or attention. Still, from casual reading and viewing, she came away with the impression that Sherlock Holmes was gay, and, if not in a relationship, then at the very least in love with John Watson. And it wasn't wishful thinking, either, I don't think she cares any more than I do either way (she probably cares less).

 

The subtext is there. Very likely it was unintentional, but that does not make it non-existent, and I see nothing absurd in picking up on it.

 

I argue and have always argued that he is heterosexual but chooses celibacy and abstinence in favor of channeling all his energies into the work. 

 

Yes, that is my impression as well, at least for Benedict Cumberbatch's Sherlock. All I'm saying is I see no reason to laugh or shake my head at people who reason differently. There's no proof either way.

 

Why oh why is this such an issue, anyway? I'll never understand that. If anything is laughable about the matter, it's a fandom arguing over a character's sexual orientation for over a century, when that character probably never even had one single romantic relationship or sexual encounter and himself declares he does not care for that side of life.

 

Oh what the heck, it's fun though. And how much harm can we do. He's fictional, we can't hurt him, we can't invade his privacy. We can't insult Doyle either, because he's dead. Let the speculation go on until doomsday. Sherlock has long since resigned himself to being the subject of gossip: "People do little else".

[sfmpco]

As he said in the Pilot episode, "The brain's what counts.  Everything else is just transport." (although his brain won't function properly if he doesn't put enough fuel in his system to run it! Speculation is that John's influence got him to eat more regularly and that by S2 Sherlock had put on just a few more pounds).  Nevertheless, and i say this without trying to be cheeky, he's still a man and he still has a penis.  And he does watch porn on John's laptop.

[Boton]

Okay, I have a fanfiction rant that has nothing to do with any of the "locks" but rather these very young writers.  Now, bless their hearts for giving the writing a go, but often times it is so sloppy and so rushed that I do a mental face palm.  I realize they aren't skilled, experienced writers, but they sometimes act as if they've never read a book or had basic English grammar.  I was writing better than that when I was 13!  Never once in my life have I changed character points of view by saying something like:  JOHN'S POV and then switching back a few paragraphs (actually, they almost never write paragraphs) to SHERLOCK'S POV.  Sorry, but that's just lazy.  Some can't be bothered to use quotation marks, and it's hard to follow when a character is speaking or not.  Poor spelling, common grammatical errors.  I just want to reach through the computer and shake them a bit and say "Fix it before you publish it!"

 

Okay, I'm done ranting.

 

It bothers me when a young writer puts in the summary something like, "Sorry, I know this is crap because I didn't run spell check and I wrote it during math class," followed by 1,100 increasingly less helpful tags that start out with things like "Sherlock/John" and "Episode spoiler" and work their way down to "barrettes," "ice lollies," and "stop me before I tag again."

 

Seriously, write your little hearts out during math class.  Just don't admit it and exercise some restraint.

[joanneta1]

OK, for the sake of argument, the whole concept of ANY sexual connection to ANYONE is laughable because of the character' s traits, which none of us invented, but rather ACD. The towering intellect goes hand in hand with some measure of vanity, utter self-composure, complete self-confidence, an inherent inability to let anyone get closer than arm's length,( indeed Dr. Watson says in the Three Garridebs that when he got wounded it was the only instance of Holmes showing even a scintilla of sentiment), his utter dedication to what he has created and ferociously protects even to breaking the law when his logic demands it, so does anyone picture him as anything but a Thinking Machine? The creation of SFX Van Dusen is the closest any of his rivals comes to reflecting that iron self-control, of mind over matter as it were. Or does anyone feel that at a time when the Wilde case was at its height (1895, as it so happens, coinciding with Holmes' s best detective work, according to the author) a person like ACD would have risked bringing his creation even close to a whiff of personal scandal of any sort? Especially since at the time it was illegal to be homosexual but not to take opium, cocaine or morphine, all of which he dabbles in to show that he has command over them as well, since he drops the drugs the moment he gets an interesting case. One may safely say that apart from work, his only real weakness is smoking.

[Boton]

OK, for the sake of argument, the whole concept of ANY sexual connection to ANYONE is laughable because of the character' s traits, which none of us invented, but rather ACD. The towering intellect goes hand in hand with some measure of vanity, utter self-composure, complete self-confidence, an inherent inability to let anyone get closer than arm's length,( indeed Dr. Watson says in the Three Garridebs that when he got wounded it was the only instance of Holmes showing even a scintilla of sentiment), his utter dedication to what he has created and ferociously protects even to breaking the law when his logic demands it, so does anyone picture him as anything but a Thinking Machine? The creation of SFX Van Dusen is the closest any of his rivals comes to reflecting that iron self-control, of mind over matter as it were. Or does anyone feel that at a time when the Wilde case was at its height (1895, as it so happens, coinciding with Holmes' s best detective work, according to the author) a person like ACD would have risked bringing his creation even close to a whiff of personal scandal of any sort? Especially since at the time it was illegal to be homosexual but not to take opium, cocaine or morphine, all of which he dabbles in to show that he has command over them as well, since he drops the drugs the moment he gets an interesting case. One may safely say that apart from work, his only real weakness is smoking.

 

Well, I happen to feel that both ACD Holmes and Sherlock are both heterosexual but celibate.  (YMMV.)  I tend to think the interesting thing about Sherlock is that one can view him as a man who can become too consumed by things -- whether that's women, or drugs, or whatever -- and he has chosen to become celibate not because he doesn't feel the pull but because he feels it too strongly.

 

In the Victorian Holmes era, there is no reason that we would know for sure whether Holmes expressed himself sexually.  As you suggest, it wouldn't be mentioned.  And I read the canon as suggesting that he has avoided love and relationships, but nothing is said of sexual release.  A man in that position could make occasional use of a prostitute, could consort with "adventuresses" (Irene), or could have a "housekeeper," like he does at Sussex Downs, all under the guise of being a confirmed bachelor with little use for relationships.

 

You know you are addicted when....you spend this much time thinking about Sherlock Holmes's sex life.

[sfmpco]

OK, for the sake of argument, the whole concept of ANY sexual connection to ANYONE is laughable because of the character' s traits, which none of us invented, but rather ACD. The towering intellect goes hand in hand with some measure of vanity, utter self-composure, complete self-confidence, an inherent inability to let anyone get closer than arm's length,( indeed Dr. Watson says in the Three Garridebs that when he got wounded it was the only instance of Holmes showing even a scintilla of sentiment), his utter dedication to what he has created and ferociously protects even to breaking the law when his logic demands it, so does anyone picture him as anything but a Thinking Machine? The creation of SFX Van Dusen is the closest any of his rivals comes to reflecting that iron self-control, of mind over matter as it were. Or does anyone feel that at a time when the Wilde case was at its height (1895, as it so happens, coinciding with Holmes' s best detective work, according to the author) a person like ACD would have risked bringing his creation even close to a whiff of personal scandal of any sort? Especially since at the time it was illegal to be homosexual but not to take opium, cocaine or morphine, all of which he dabbles in to show that he has command over them as well, since he drops the drugs the moment he gets an interesting case. One may safely say that apart from work, his only real weakness is smoking.

 

In all fairness, however, we are not dealing with the ACD Holmes.  We are dealing with the Holmes created by Moffat and Gatiss.  He is a Holmes drawn from all the Holmes versions in movies and TV and print - all of which are considered canon for mining for SHERLOCK. Then you have the Moffat and Gatiss twist on it which itself becomes new canon.  The themes and banters about sexuality have been rife from the first episode.  So in a way, except for little references and asides to the original canon, this is an entirely new creature.

[joanneta1]

For the sake of argument once more, just so we talk about the series rather than the books, in an interview in July 2010 Steven Moffat actually replied to the commentator's question about a particular scene in the Study in Pink: "It is a very male friendship in that they never sit and ever, ever talk about it. Even in that scene, what we are doing is kind of dismissing it. Who the h

[Shadow Dweller]

 

OK, for the sake of argument, the whole concept of ANY sexual connection to ANYONE is laughable because of the character' s traits, which none of us invented, but rather ACD. The towering intellect goes hand in hand with some measure of vanity, utter self-composure, complete self-confidence, an inherent inability to let anyone get closer than arm's length,( indeed Dr. Watson says in the Three Garridebs that when he got wounded it was the only instance of Holmes showing even a scintilla of sentiment), his utter dedication to what he has created and ferociously protects even to breaking the law when his logic demands it, so does anyone picture him as anything but a Thinking Machine? The creation of SFX Van Dusen is the closest any of his rivals comes to reflecting that iron self-control, of mind over matter as it were. Or does anyone feel that at a time when the Wilde case was at its height (1895, as it so happens, coinciding with Holmes' s best detective work, according to the author) a person like ACD would have risked bringing his creation even close to a whiff of personal scandal of any sort? Especially since at the time it was illegal to be homosexual but not to take opium, cocaine or morphine, all of which he dabbles in to show that he has command over them as well, since he drops the drugs the moment he gets an interesting case. One may safely say that apart from work, his only real weakness is smoking.

 

In all fairness, however, we are not dealing with the ACD Holmes.  We are dealing with the Holmes created by Moffat and Gatiss.  He is a Holmes drawn from all the Holmes versions in movies and TV and print - all of which are considered canon for mining for SHERLOCK. Then you have the Moffat and Gatiss twist on it which itself becomes new canon.  The themes and banters about sexuality have been rife from the first episode.  So in a way, except for little references and asides to the original canon, this is an entirely new creature.

 

 

Modern viewers did not like too-perfect characters, they want something that they can relate with. They also want to be entertained and in order to attract & secure as much audience as possible, some divergence from the same old, same old canon is to be expected.

 

My obsession to SHERLOCK is bad when I begin to actually pay enough attention to read the undercurrent of a story and not just switch my brain off in order to take it at face value  :lol:

[sfmpco]

For the sake of argument once more, just so we talk about the series rather than the books, in an interview in July 2010 Steven Moffat actually replied to the commentator's question about a particular scene in the Study in Pink: "It is a very male friendship in that they never sit and ever, ever talk about it. Even in that scene, what we are doing is kind of dismissing it. Who the h

[Carol the Dabbler]

Why oh why is this such an issue, anyway? I'll never understand that. If anything is laughable about the matter, it's a fandom arguing over a character's sexual orientation for over a century, when that character probably never even had one single romantic relationship or sexual encounter and himself declares he does not care for that side of life.

Well, someone posts an opinion regarding Sherlock's sexuality, and you post a full-screen rebuttal -- I'd say you're just as qualified as anyone else to answer that question. ;)

 

... Moffat can be quite flippant and obtuse about his own version of Sherlock.

May I borrow that point for the ongoing discussion of whether John is / is not an adrenaline junkie?  :D

 

[sfmpco]

 

Why oh why is this such an issue, anyway? I'll never understand that. If anything is laughable about the matter, it's a fandom arguing over a character's sexual orientation for over a century, when that character probably never even had one single romantic relationship or sexual encounter and himself declares he does not care for that side of life.

Well, someone posts an opinion regarding Sherlock's sexuality, and you post a full-screen rebuttal -- I'd say you're just as qualified as anyone else to answer that question. ;)

 

... Moffat can be quite flippant and obtuse about his own version of Sherlock.

May I borrow that point for the ongoing discussion of whether John is / is not an adrenaline junkie?  :D

 

 

But of course he's an adrenaline junkie.  They both are!  The only difference is that John isn't ADHD.

[T.o.b.y]

 

Why oh why is this such an issue, anyway? I'll never understand that. If anything is laughable about the matter, it's a fandom arguing over a character's sexual orientation for over a century, when that character probably never even had one single romantic relationship or sexual encounter and himself declares he does not care for that side of life.

Well, someone posts an opinion regarding Sherlock's sexuality, and you post a full-screen rebuttal -- I'd say you're just as qualified as anyone else to answer that question. ;)

 

Touché, Carol...

 

In this case, though, it's not so much my Sherlock-obsession talking as my ongoing concern with the way in which we (and yes, I do mean we, myself included) think about homosexuality. I read the word "laughable" in the same context as "gay", and that presses a little button in my brain, and out comes the steam, even if the original comment was not meant to be in any way disrespectful (I know it wasn't).

 

Besides, I babble at length about anything... Brevity is not something I excel at, it seems.

[Arcadia]

Another great discussion, which I came to late because I was busily commenting on the "is John an adrenaline addict" conversation, and everyone's said everything I would have said, so I'm not going to add much (okay, down girls, I can hear your sighs of relief, you know!!! ), except for this thought:

 

 

I argue and have always argued that he is heterosexual but chooses celibacy and abstinence in favor of channeling all his energies into the work.

 
 
Why oh why is this such an issue, anyway?

 
Because Moftiss built it into the show by promising the BBC they'd have a "sexy" Sherlock Holmes???  And boy howdy, do they.  In that sense, this show oozes sex, I don't find it that surprising that speculation about the one doing the oozing will follow.  Besides, sexual orientation is a "hot topic" these days, you might say Sherlock is doing its civic duty by getting people to talk more openly about it!

[Carol the Dabbler]

But of course he's an adrenaline junkie.  They both are!  The only difference is that John isn't ADHD.

Ya wanna step outside and say that?  :P

[Arcadia]

I'll be your second.

[sfmpco]

Meet you outside.  Sherlock is ADHD, John isn't.  

[joanneta1]

Right! Sorry to have sparked off a rather lively discussion. It all comes from an early experience of both Sherlock and Raffles stories, and then stumbling onto Graham Greene's play about Raffles and Bunny and seeing two of my four favourite characters come crashing down into the whole Wilde debacle and a homosexual relationship. Apart from that, another personal second-hand experience was my tutor frankly admitting to a one-off "session " with his doctoral thesis supervisor in order to get more favourable treatment when time came to have his dissertation presented. I have nothing against same-sex relationships in real life, but in my favourite fictional characters, my preferences are firmly "normal" as long as this word has any meaning left to it. So, I was rather relieved to see Magnussen's appraisal of Sherlock read "Porn preferences: normal", which also means that Mr. Moffat has not deviated from his original statement up to now.

Talking about ACD stories, the best bit of fan fiction is in French. Anyone who can read French should grab a copy of Maurice Leblanc's

"Arsene Lupin contre Herlock Sholmes" , as well as the last story in "Arsene Lupin Gentleman Cambrioleur" where they first meet. As Arcadia noted elsewhere, it's a hoot!

[sfmpco]

Finally watched 12 YEARS A SLAVE tonight.  Another BC film ticked off my list.

[Tunguska]

To go back to the original topic: I measured bone ash content in an experiment that I'm writing up right now and my mind keeps going "Ash. I know ash...!". Yes, thank you, brain, very helpful, I'll put that in the discussion section.

[T.o.b.y]

You know your Sherlock obsession is bad when you are really annoyed that this thread has been generating error messages for the last then minutes, and you cannot give up trying to write something in it, because damn, not going to let technology tell me what to do, you know?

[Boton]

To go back to the original topic: I measured bone ash content in an experiment that I'm writing up right now and my mind keeps going "Ash. I know ash...!". Yes, thank you, brain, very helpful, I'll put that in the discussion section.

 

You totally need to to put that in a footnote.  I love reading academic articles that have a few "Easter Egg" footnotes:

 

1 "I know ash; don't say I don't!" Holmes, S., "The Sign of Three," Hartswood Films, 2014.

[Tunguska]

 

To go back to the original topic: I measured bone ash content in an experiment that I'm writing up right now and my mind keeps going "Ash. I know ash...!". Yes, thank you, brain, very helpful, I'll put that in the discussion section.

You totally need to to put that in a footnote. I love reading academic articles that have a few "Easter Egg" footnotes:

 

1 "I know ash; don't say I don't!" Holmes, S., "The Sign of Three," Hartswood Films, 2014.

I'm already innocently quoting another author named Sherlock so I'm afraid my co-authors will start to get suspicious at some point, lol!

[Carol the Dabbler]

Meet you outside.  Sherlock is ADHD, John isn't.  

 

Hey, no argument there!  :D

[joanneta1]

Today I realised that incessant talking about the series may have personal repercussions, when my much younger first cousin (born 1984, that is a whole different kettle of fish) posted his new profile on Facebook and I found nothing peculiar about it! Truth to tell, he has had a beard since entering university, but all the same...