There is absolutely no reason why this could not have been shown as a full on gay relationship.,
They chose not to.
Susi: you are right to a certain extent,
But the biography i just read said that ACD's notes indictae he thought homosexuality was not a sin but an illness and there fore the unfortunates should be pitied.

Last edited by besleybean (June 7, 2014 4:15 pm)

besleybean wrote:

There is absolutely no reason why this could not have been shown as a full on gay relationship.,
They chose not to.

Something like a story arc? We all know the love stories in which the lovers hate or ignore each other at the beginning, are with someone else, think they are good friends but nothing more, are tragically separated - had they been in a relationship from the beginning a lot of storytelling potential would be lost. 

besleybean wrote:

There is absolutely no reason why this could not have been shown as a full on gay relationship.,They chose not to.

Who, the BBC people?  There was no reason to make Sherlock and John gay (there still isn't, IMO), and as far as the TV execs are concerned, they wouldn't "go there" in a show that they want everyone (not just a bunch of women) to watch. Most men would NEVER sit down and watch a show where a major theme was a gay pairing, unless their GF or wife made them. lol  Ratings rule the day, and a "gay" show wouldn't garner the kind of ratings (ie, profits) that BBC would like to see. I think they could write a couple of minor characters in a gay romance, and that would be socially acceptable to the broad TV audience, but Sherlock and John are the center of the show; to make them gay and actually show their relationship..... well, I'd like to think that that'd fly, but I really doubt it.

Susi: you are right to a certain extent, But the biography i just read said that ACD's notes indictae he thought homosexuality was not a sin but an illness and therefore the unfortunates should be pitied.

He was a product of his times; the pity thing was what caring, compassionate people put forth as their view on the "problem". Homosexuality as an illness was considered a fact in psychological circles until maybe 20-30 years ago. It was thought that it could be cured with talk therapy, aversion therapy, medications, etc. Plus of course many people also believed (probably still do) that it's a perversion. It wasn't long ago that the last states struck down their anti-sodomy laws here in the US.  And yes, I *know* we're not talking about the US, I'm just sayin'.

besleybean wrote:

You are right, Susi, but not for this series,.
The word does not cause me to raise an eyebrow.
Why would it?

Really?  In common literature or conversation, you wouldn't think ejaculating a comment to be an odd use of words? I sure would. I can see it used for humorous purposes-- that would actually be funny, in the right circumstances. But standing at a cocktail party, holding a martini in one hand and a pig-in-a-blanket in the other, and hearing someone say, "Yes, I heard him and Todd on the golf course just last week, ejaculating about that same subject,"  I'd do a spit take. *shrug*
 

Not using it myself does not mean I would raise an eyebrow if somebody else did.
EDIT: so Harriet, one can produce any theory they like out of the ether and not have to provide evidence, becasue of course evidence would be hidden so as not to shame the family....most convenient.
Would you be happy to tell ACD's family your theory?
Or even Mark and Steven?
I would never want to misrepresent the work and views of a top writer who I love.

Last edited by besleybean (June 7, 2014 4:36 pm)

besleybean wrote:

Not using it myself does not mean I would raise an eyebrow if somebody else did.

You have a lot more self-control than I do, apparently.
 

I am an English woman who lives in Scotland.
I wasn't the one to wander from the point.

Last edited by besleybean (June 7, 2014 4:38 pm)

Sorry to chime in here but the term "ejaculated" is found in many books written around the same period as the original Holmes works where we would now used "exclaimed".
I remember sniggering, along with my classmates at this phrase in several of the classics we studied; it could be that at that time it wasn't used in the sense that it now is, so there was no double meaning then - I don't know, but it was certainly a widely used phrase.

As well as I'm sure it is found in medical books of those days.

So. No need to say more.