What does it mean that Sherlock Holmes can be read as both very masculine, but also - according to many, many fans - can come across as queer? Is he embodying a queer masculinity? And how queer (in any political or radical way) can Sherlock be if his gender performance dovetails with hegemonic (aka. white, Western, rational) masculinity?
I am using the phrase "queer masculinity" to mean a masculinity outside of heteronormative standards that has the potential to disrupt hegemonic heterosexual masculinity, which is the dominant variety depicted and celebrated in popular culture. However, I am applying the term to Sherlock hesitantly, as I am questioning the very capacity for a homonormative queerness to disrupt hegemonic masculinity beyond the issue of sexual preference. I argue that it's not enough to simply create a hegemonic homosexual masculinity. I see this being done in recent depictions of Sherlock Holmes, which allow for queer interpretations, but do nothing to challenge dominant ideas about masculinity.
Sherlock is queer (gay, asexual, bisexual, undeclared) without radical divergence from masculinity or the goals of the nation-state. He participates in hegemonic masculinity even despite his queer potential. He has a radical openness of sexuality, separating his masculinity from the crutch of a heterosexual performance, but in other aspects his masculinity is not a divergence.
We see this (limited) queer potential in the newest, most popular renditions of Sherlock Holmes. In the Warner Bros. versions, the queer subtext is largely enforced by the "paratext" of Robert Downey Jr. and (to a lesser extent) Jude Law (Essays on New Adaptations 37). In BBC's Sherlock, the characters must grapple with the sexual politics of the modern era. However, in both renditions, Watson assists the portrayals of masculinity by demonstrating his commitment to heterosexuality, limiting the deviance of the narratives. This is also arguably an attempt to protect their intimate bond from scrutiny. However, the boundaries won’t hold. In Sherlock and arguably in Sherlock Holmes, the possibility of a queer identity (although one that embodies a homonormativity arguably accessible by traditionally masculine white men) makes the entire homosocial bond suspect.
Homosocial bonds are a main feature of almost all renditions of Sherlock Holmes, as the relationship between Holmes and Watson is a perfect example of this sort of male intimacy. In fact, it this intimacy that Elizabeth Woleridge says draws many slash (gay) fan fiction writers to the pair, as she argues that the straight women who write slash fan fiction are attempting to engage with masculine intimacy (Fan Fiction and Fan Communities 100). The intimate homosocial bonds, not homosexuality per se, are the starting point and the defining feature. This can be seen in the pairing of Holmes and Watson, two men in an important and intimate relationship, and there is an easy shift from performing homosociality to homosexuality for an audience familiar with queer narratives.
Holmes and Watson are discursively "caught between the representational poles of homoeroticism," the deep end of homosocial bonds, "and homophobia" that urges them to move back towards heterosexuality (Essays on New Adaptations 17). This pattern and tension is repeatedly seen between other "buddy cop" pairings. When two men have displayed tight-knit friendship in popular culture, you see the similar strategies of strongly establishing heterosexuality through female love interests (Masculinities in Hollywood Cinema 196).
However, the defense against queerness is not strong enough. The possibilities implied by homosociality may overwhelm efforts to maintain an unquestioned association with a hegemonic straight masculinity. In the face of an intimate relationship between two men, popular culture no longer forces the assumption of a platonic bond, and so the possibility for another option emerges from the edges. Eve Kosofsky Sedgwick argues that while heterosexuality may be necessary in a patriarchal society, it does not necessarily require homophobia to function (just ask the Greeks!) and it could be possible to maintain dominant structures of masculinity while tolerating homosexuality (Between Men 6). Sherlock can occupy a queer masculinity and maintain his position as contributing to dominant masculinity. You can make space for queer masculinity in the narrative. In fact, in a story that is about a life-long homosocial bond and formulated through masculinity, a (limited, homonormative) queer masculinity can be read into the narrative with ease.
We see this (limited) queer potential in the newest, most popular renditions of Sherlock Holmes. In the Warner Bros. versions, the queer subtext is largely enforced by the "paratext" of Robert Downey Jr. and (to a lesser extent) Jude Law (Essays on New Adaptations 37). In BBC's Sherlock, the characters must grapple with the sexual politics of the modern era. However, in both renditions, Watson assists the portrayals of masculinity by demonstrating his commitment to heterosexuality, limiting the deviance of the narratives. This is also arguably an attempt to protect their intimate bond from scrutiny. However, the boundaries won’t hold. In Sherlock and arguably in Sherlock Holmes, the possibility of a queer identity (although one that embodies a homonormativity arguably accessible by traditionally masculine white men) makes the entire homosocial bond suspect.
Homosocial bonds are a main feature of almost all renditions of Sherlock Holmes, as the relationship between Holmes and Watson is a perfect example of this sort of male intimacy. In fact, it this intimacy that Elizabeth Woleridge says draws many slash (gay) fan fiction writers to the pair, as she argues that the straight women who write slash fan fiction are attempting to engage with masculine intimacy (Fan Fiction and Fan Communities 100). The intimate homosocial bonds, not homosexuality per se, are the starting point and the defining feature. This can be seen in the pairing of Holmes and Watson, two men in an important and intimate relationship, and there is an easy shift from performing homosociality to homosexuality for an audience familiar with queer narratives.
Holmes and Watson are discursively "caught between the representational poles of homoeroticism," the deep end of homosocial bonds, "and homophobia" that urges them to move back towards heterosexuality (Essays on New Adaptations 17). This pattern and tension is repeatedly seen between other "buddy cop" pairings. When two men have displayed tight-knit friendship in popular culture, you see the similar strategies of strongly establishing heterosexuality through female love interests (Masculinities in Hollywood Cinema 196).
However, the defense against queerness is not strong enough. The possibilities implied by homosociality may overwhelm efforts to maintain an unquestioned association with a hegemonic straight masculinity. In the face of an intimate relationship between two men, popular culture no longer forces the assumption of a platonic bond, and so the possibility for another option emerges from the edges. Eve Kosofsky Sedgwick argues that while heterosexuality may be necessary in a patriarchal society, it does not necessarily require homophobia to function (just ask the Greeks!) and it could be possible to maintain dominant structures of masculinity while tolerating homosexuality (Between Men 6). Sherlock can occupy a queer masculinity and maintain his position as contributing to dominant masculinity. You can make space for queer masculinity in the narrative. In fact, in a story that is about a life-long homosocial bond and formulated through masculinity, a (limited, homonormative) queer masculinity can be read into the narrative with ease.
Contemporary Cases to Consider:
Queer Frameworks for Viewing in Sherlock Holmes and Sherlock Holmes: A Game of Shadows
In an interview promoting the first movie, Roberty Downey Jr. offered what must be the most quoted line in the entire marketing campaign: "We're two men who happen to be roommates, wrestle a lot and share a bed." Later, in an interview with David Letterman, Robert Downey Jr. is offered a moment to recant or clarify and he continues to play into the idea that there may be something a little gay about the relationship between Holmes and Watson. Both he and Jude Law highlight the relationship between the two lead characters as the main driver of both Warner Bros. movies, although they focus on the homosocial aspects of the bond rather than the homosexual.
No one involved in the films ever says that this is a gay romance, but coverage of the movies featured the term "bromance" very heavily. Although Robert attempted to move past the trivialization of their relationship through that term, it was clear that mainstream media could not acceptably articulate the homosocial (and potentially homsexual) relationship between Holmes and Watson without reference to "bromance." The challenge of communicating intimacy between men is made clear in the limits of articulating this relationship, whether it is interpreted platonically or romantically. However, despite difficulties, there remained a clear sense that these homosocial movies could be read with room for homosexuality.
Supporting/Refuting a Queer Reading in Sherlock
In an interview after his won a BAFTA, Martin Freeman openly called Sherlock the "gayest story in the history of television," going on to say that, "we all saw it as a love story."Although other promotional appearances and interviews - especially with the creators Steven Moffat and Mark Gatiss - have refuted the claim that Sherlock and John are in a gay romantic relationship, no one has rejected the point that Sherlock is a show about the relationship between Holmes and Watson (Essays on New Adaptations 15). The homosocial can be accepted openly, although the homosexual remains subtext.
Supporting/Refuting a Queer Reading in Sherlock
In an interview after his won a BAFTA, Martin Freeman openly called Sherlock the "gayest story in the history of television," going on to say that, "we all saw it as a love story."Although other promotional appearances and interviews - especially with the creators Steven Moffat and Mark Gatiss - have refuted the claim that Sherlock and John are in a gay romantic relationship, no one has rejected the point that Sherlock is a show about the relationship between Holmes and Watson (Essays on New Adaptations 15). The homosocial can be accepted openly, although the homosexual remains subtext.
Sherlock is arguably the 'official' context where the sexual relationship between Sherlock and John is most prominent and a queer reading most accessible. Sherlock’s two most important, personal interactions - with John and his arch-nemesis Moriarty - are arguably rather homoerotic. Other characters constantly assume a romantic relationship between Holmes and Watson because they often occupy the role of intimate romantic figures in each other's lives, while Moriarty is re-imagined as a rather bent supervillain (Essays on New Adaptations 13). However, there is a always barrier to enacting a queer sexuality.
John maintains his heterosexuality on a constant basis by continually reminding people that “We’re not a couple” and “I’m not actually gay.” When Irene Adler assumes a more-than-platonic connection between the two men, John is insistent that she is wrong, although he leaves Sherlock’s sexuality in question in the process. Although the people around them, from Mrs. Hudson to country innkeepers, will suggest that their relationship is romantic, John insists differently.
However, John’s position as flatmate, partner, constant companion, and the object of long looks will bring up questions for many viewers. John appears to be the only one Sherlock enjoys being around and both John and Sherlock seem to be uncomfortable whenever the other demonstrates closeness with a woman. John arguably seems threatened by Irene Adler’s presence, while Sherlock heavily interferes with John’s attempts to form romantic relationships. The evidence is not conclusive, but their relationship certainly can be read as having homoerotic components. John’s role in the narrative is arguably to maintain a distance from these elements by denying a relationship and dating women (Essays on New Adaptations 18). Maintaining heterosexual credibility is a gesture towards protecting the traditional hegemonic masculinity of Sherlock Holmes. However, it is a difficult task, and one that Sherlock himself does not assist with. John's efforts arguably fall short.
John maintains his heterosexuality on a constant basis by continually reminding people that “We’re not a couple” and “I’m not actually gay.” When Irene Adler assumes a more-than-platonic connection between the two men, John is insistent that she is wrong, although he leaves Sherlock’s sexuality in question in the process. Although the people around them, from Mrs. Hudson to country innkeepers, will suggest that their relationship is romantic, John insists differently.
 |
| http://sugarcoatedimperfection.tumblr.com |
Moriarty does not need such barriers, as he can present a (sexual) threat to Sherlock and should, and it is Sherlock’s position as the hero that provides the barrier. Brilliant but morally corrupt, Moriarty represents the man that Sherlock could be, and the threat that Sherlock could become like Moriarty if he forgot the values of Queen and country. If Sherlock got too wrapped up in the mystery, the game of it, and forgot about the human cost and legal ramifications. Therefore, the fact that Moriarty - an arguably feminized man - is a threat to Sherlock’s sexuality actually extends the moral threat present. “Every fairy tale needs a good old fashioned villain,” and there is a long tradition of queer villains. So, Moriarty’s play at sexual advances becomes an extension of his role as the man influencing the darker parts of Sherlock’s nature. Moriarty's deviance is sexual and criminal, and he potentially hopes to contaminate Sherlock with both. That is quite a threat.
The relationship between Sherlock and Moriarty is arguably sexualized and represents the threat of a queer sexuality. The first time we are introduced to Moriarty, he is puts on an act of closeted homosexuality for Sherlock’s benefit and offers him his phone number. He therefore begins his official association with the detective through a sexual advance, although Sherlock does not know that from the start. Through a victim, Moriarty greets Sherlock with “Hey Sexy,” and his codename for Sherlock to Irene Adler was “The Virgin.” Sherlock engages in similarly sexualized descriptions, as in the trial for Moriarty he says that he thought that he and Moriarty had “a special something” in a sarcastic remark to the prosecutor. When they meet in the flesh, Moriarty asks, essentially, “Is that a gun in your pocket, or are you just pleased to see me?” and Sherlock replies with, “Both.” Part of their relationship is based on playing with markers of homosexuality (not totally unlike his relationship to John). Directly expressing sexuality this within the narrative would arguably be too much for the threshold of appropriate (aka homonormative) queer masculinity. This can't be allowed. Watson again acts as a help-meet against the threats to Sherlock's masculinity in his actions as Sherlock's conscience and the force that puts distance between Holmes and Moriarty. Moriarty acknowledges this by targeting John as a way to get to Sherlock in both season finales.
Sherlock's heterosexuality cannot hold. It is propped up in service to his masculinity, but with homonormativity as a growing possibility for middle and upper class white gay men, no amounts of "I'm not gay!" protests can 'protect' Sherlock Holmes from queer readings and possibilities. The strategy must change and so Sherlock forefronts the challenges of sexuality, offering John as the defender of hegemonic, heterosexual masculinity and Moriarty as a deviant masculinity full of queer implications. Arguably the show also demonstrates that we have reached a critical threshold where an audience will no longer ignore a potential queer reading of the text and must be addressed directly, as is done constantly throughout the show (Essays on New Adaptations 21).
In addressing Sherlock's queer possibilities in this way, the creators arguably attempt to salvage an older envisioning of Sherlock. In doing so, they cannot hope to quash queerness, but they remain loyal to hegemonic masculinity through homonationalism. Sherlock Holmes is arguably then portraying a queer hegemonic masculinity. Queerness can be co-opted by hegemonic masculinity, and in this way Sherlock's position as a heroic, phallologocentric ideal is never truly threatened. Sherlock remains throughout most versions from 1887 to 2012, a "hero of reason and formidable pillar of masculine power" (Victorian Sleuth to Modern Hero 282). Despite the changing eras and new context of complex sexualities in the public square, Sherlock Holmes can remain as (hegemonically) masculine as ever.
The relationship between Sherlock and Moriarty is arguably sexualized and represents the threat of a queer sexuality. The first time we are introduced to Moriarty, he is puts on an act of closeted homosexuality for Sherlock’s benefit and offers him his phone number. He therefore begins his official association with the detective through a sexual advance, although Sherlock does not know that from the start. Through a victim, Moriarty greets Sherlock with “Hey Sexy,” and his codename for Sherlock to Irene Adler was “The Virgin.” Sherlock engages in similarly sexualized descriptions, as in the trial for Moriarty he says that he thought that he and Moriarty had “a special something” in a sarcastic remark to the prosecutor. When they meet in the flesh, Moriarty asks, essentially, “Is that a gun in your pocket, or are you just pleased to see me?” and Sherlock replies with, “Both.” Part of their relationship is based on playing with markers of homosexuality (not totally unlike his relationship to John). Directly expressing sexuality this within the narrative would arguably be too much for the threshold of appropriate (aka homonormative) queer masculinity. This can't be allowed. Watson again acts as a help-meet against the threats to Sherlock's masculinity in his actions as Sherlock's conscience and the force that puts distance between Holmes and Moriarty. Moriarty acknowledges this by targeting John as a way to get to Sherlock in both season finales.
Sherlock's heterosexuality cannot hold. It is propped up in service to his masculinity, but with homonormativity as a growing possibility for middle and upper class white gay men, no amounts of "I'm not gay!" protests can 'protect' Sherlock Holmes from queer readings and possibilities. The strategy must change and so Sherlock forefronts the challenges of sexuality, offering John as the defender of hegemonic, heterosexual masculinity and Moriarty as a deviant masculinity full of queer implications. Arguably the show also demonstrates that we have reached a critical threshold where an audience will no longer ignore a potential queer reading of the text and must be addressed directly, as is done constantly throughout the show (Essays on New Adaptations 21).
In addressing Sherlock's queer possibilities in this way, the creators arguably attempt to salvage an older envisioning of Sherlock. In doing so, they cannot hope to quash queerness, but they remain loyal to hegemonic masculinity through homonationalism. Sherlock Holmes is arguably then portraying a queer hegemonic masculinity. Queerness can be co-opted by hegemonic masculinity, and in this way Sherlock's position as a heroic, phallologocentric ideal is never truly threatened. Sherlock remains throughout most versions from 1887 to 2012, a "hero of reason and formidable pillar of masculine power" (Victorian Sleuth to Modern Hero 282). Despite the changing eras and new context of complex sexualities in the public square, Sherlock Holmes can remain as (hegemonically) masculine as ever.
No comments:
Post a Comment