[ SECRET POST #3238 ]

[case]

⌈ Secret Post #3238 ⌋

Warning: Some secrets are NOT worksafe and may contain SPOILERS.

01.


__________________________________________________



02.


__________________________________________________



03.


__________________________________________________



04.


__________________________________________________



05.


__________________________________________________



06.


__________________________________________________



07.


__________________________________________________



08.









Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 02 pages, 043 secrets from Secret Submission Post #463.
Secrets Not Posted: [ 0 - broken links ], [ 0 - not!secrets ], [ 1 - not!fandom ], [ 0 - too big ], [ 0 - repeat ].
Current Secret Submissions Post: here.
Suggestions, comments, and concerns should go here.

Comments

[(Anonymous)]

You do know that when most BBC Sherlock fans argue about characterization, they're talking about the characterization of the BBC version specifically, right? Most of us don't regard characterization that's true of one Sherlock to be true of all Sherlocks. Ditto the Johns.

I, for example, regard ACD Holmes as asexual, while I regard Ritchie Holmes as pansexual, and BBC Sherlock as gay but sexually repressed. So if you come in and start arguing with me about Sherlock's characterization, that's completely cool, but I just hope you know that you're not arguing with me about ACD Holmes, or Granada Holmes, or any other Holmes except BBC Sherlock.

[(Anonymous)]

I'm sure there are reasonable fans like that, but I've seen BBC Sherlock fans who sadly aren't as clued in that their version of Holmes is far different than the ACD Sherlock Holmes.

[(Anonymous)]

Fair enough. I've encountered few to none of these people myself, but fandom is a big place, and having seen fans argue plenty of downright bizarre opinions in the past, I don't doubt that these people you speak of exist.

[(Anonymous)]

Some fans. Many are weirdly specific and unwilling to consider 19th century social mores in interpreting ACD canon.

[(Anonymous)]

nayrt - Yep. And I know exactly why they're unwilling or unable to consider the social context of the time period. I think it's fine if you love Holmes/Watson slash, but pretending like it's canonical... nah, sorry.

[(Anonymous)]

I don't believe that ACD intended any subtext (instead I play The Game, where they are real and Watson's Literary Agent doesn't know what they get up to behind a locked door), but the idea that "the social context of the time period" means no slashing is more than a little skewed...gay and bisexual men (many of them married) did exist in the 1890s.

[(Anonymous)]

Yes, but I'm not talking about the social context not allowing gay people to exist. I'm talking very specifically about how the social context makes it highly unlikely that 1) ACD was deliberately writing slash and 2) a literary publication was regularly publishing slash and marketing it to a mainstream audience.

[(Anonymous)]

Oh, indeed. Completely agree there, certainly as far as The Strand et al are concerned. Although there were some "alternative" literary publications with some decidedly decadent content and heavy hints of same-sex desire. Carefully coded of course.

[(Anonymous)]

Yes, and plenty of raunchy Victorian porn as well. But that wasn't for mainstream consumption nor was it sold as such, so I raise an eyebrow at people who think that ACD was somehow writing this slash fantasy for the general public. Wishful thinking, IMO.

[(Anonymous)]

Not to mention the fact that ACD is on record as saying he thought men who had relations with other men were sick.

[(Anonymous)]

Citation? Not that I doubt you, it would've been an attitude keeping with the times and his personality, I'm just wondering where he said it.

[(Anonymous)]

Memories and Adventures, (1924) ch 7 -specifically talking about Wilde.

[(Anonymous)]

NAYRT I think anon may have been referring more to the ease with which some fans envision Holmes and Watson carrying on their intimate relations.

It's not unrealistic to think two bachelors and close friends living together might be gay/bisexual and together (might, being the operative word). But it doesn't seem particularly realistic to me that they would conduct their relationship in the manner of modern day fifteen-year-olds, snogging and groping anytime they're out of immediate view. They would've had to have been a lot more careful than that. Which is a sad reality that many fans would undoubtedly rather not dwell on, but at the same time, by brushing that reality aside they're also (albeit unintentionally and in a small way) brushing aside a history of real and profound injustice and oppression. I can see how that would bother people.

[(Anonymous)]

SA Ah okay, that's not what they meant, never mind.

[(Anonymous)]

IA. I could buy well told Holmes/Watson slash, but not like that, no. There'd likely be all sorts of baggage about being homosexual in an age where that wasn't socially acceptable and it would've been far more clandestine than simply shutting the door before commencing the orgy.

[(Anonymous)]

Sure they did. But deep platonic friendships (that are often side eyed today, sadly), and plain flatshares were much more the norm.

[(Anonymous)]

Yes. I think this sort of context is exactly what some readers refuse to hear because it messes with their slashy headcanon. Why they need that justification, I don't know...

[(Anonymous)]

I hate when people use this argument. It's so unbelievably stupid.

Yes, of course gay and bi men existed back then. No fucking shit. They've always existed. But the social context meant they stayed behind closed doors. Gay romances weren't mainstream in the 1800s because it wasn't considered okay.

I mean, why do you think there's a whole fucking civil rights movement centered around LGBT people?

[(Anonymous)]

Not okay as in illegal and could result in a term of hard labour at her Majesty's pleasure and social ruin.

[(Anonymous)]

As I acknowledge and am perfectly well aware of. Nowhere do I say that they had to do anything else. I was only clarifying what the person I was replying to meant by "the social context" as mainstream Sherlockians (in places like the scion socs) are fond of using it to erase 19th century queer people altogether.

So less of the "unbelivelably stupid", if you don't mind. Read the whole thread.

[(Anonymous)]

typo, sorry

[(Anonymous)]

Ah, okay. Presuming that these people insist their interpretation of canon is accurate, I can see how that would be annoying. If their interpretation is meant to just be their headcanon, that's different, but a lot of people do have difficulty distinguishing between the two, I find.