um... help? Or not. Not sure.

[tea_and_ink]

So, on the subject of Sherlock Holmes I think it might be part of my, um, training messing with my social eye, but I don't see this relationship as clearly homoerotic as loudly co-dependent. Not that it bothers me either way, it's just. Why can't I pin it down as boy on boy as easily as everone else seems to be so merrily tagging it?

This is a personal issues, of course, I think it has to do with how in my personal experience, gay men aren't as overtly slashy as they seem to be read on tv and by fandom, but then again, it may also have something to do with the different culture I'm immersed in at the moment. Though that particular gap will have to be addressed later, when I have the patience for it.

So, what gives? What was your experience in this respect?

Comments

[1grl-revolution.livejournal.com]

I thought they were co-dependent too. Have you read the books? What were they like in the books?

[penandnotebook]

I went back to a couple cases to answer this question, hence the delay.

In the books Watson strikes me more as a hero-worshiper than as someone in absolute need of the Sherlock factor in his life. Holmes seems to be a bit more dependent of Watson, but mostly because he is his only friend, a place that Watson has earned mostly due to his worshiping of Holmes and his attempts at imitating Holmes' techniques, which, if you think about it, is rather narcissistic of Mr Holmes.

I think the movie tried to play way up the gay angle and, in my opinion, it came out more as an old marriage, which is a dynamic that doesn't necessarily spell twu wov, yanno? And so, since they are not an actual old marriage, they come across (imho) more as co-dependent rather than interested in each other like that, not saying there isn't the possibility, if the fic is well written, just that it doesn't seem that obvious to me from what I saw.

[silver-spotted.livejournal.com]

I think co-dependent is often used as shorthand for slash, or is seen as indicative of slashyness vs friendship (not that simple friendship stops slashers)

that being said I haven't actually seen Sherlock Holmes yet :(

[penandnotebook]

I love how you offer these opinions that sound highly informed on the source material, only to then clarify that you are not actually familiar with said material.

It adds layers to the original thought.

Which I actually agree with. And man, if all slash relationships were, in reality, co-dependent relationships, hell if all romantic implications were actually about co-dependency, then we'd be so totally and absolutely screwed up FUBAR would need a higher gradation to explain it. Mostly though, I think it speaks to the collective fantasy of what romantic (either in terms of general interest or any given specific action) is, the example of Edward Cullen stalking Bella comes to mind, as I understand he broke into her house or something? and she thought this was the cutest thing ever (ahem, I'm not familiar with the source material here, either ::fist bumps you::), I'm torn on whether to find this vaguely worrying, or downright scary.

[silver-spotted.livejournal.com]

oh gosh yes, the way "romantic" relationships are portrayed in slash and in movies/books/television is creeepy (cf twilight which I also haven't seen/read, but also cf *everything* practically). And it really doesn't help that "subversive" slashfic perpetuates these tropes, nor that the desire to see any sort of intense emotional commitment between men makes co-dependency a short-form for love.