Quotes from the Sherlock Holmes stories by Sir Arthur Conan Doyle “My mind rebels at stagnation. Give me problems, give me work, give me the most abstruse cryptogram, or the most intricate analysis, and I am in my own proper atmosphere. But I abhor the dull routine of existence. I crave for mental exaltation.”
Grimspound is a late Bronze Age settlement, situated on Dartmoor in Devon, England. It consists of a set of 24 hut circles surrounded by a low stone wall. The site was most likely used for farming and not defensive purposes. The name was first recorded by the Reverend Richard Polwhele in 1797; it was probably derived from the Anglo-Saxon god of war, Grim (more commonly known as Woden, or Odin). Grimspound is thought to have been the model for the Stone Age settlement in which Sherlock Holmes camped in The Hound of the Baskervilles.
I have been reading up on life in the Victorian era but can’t seem to figure out a few things about Holmes & Watson.
What social class would they have been considered? They have to flatshare at the beginning but the eating out, concerts, and Turkish baths indicate that they have extra money. Holmes seems to have money to dress well and buy all the materials for his chemical experiments. They have tons of paper.
What would have been the considerations around romantic attachments/marriage? Would it have been considered odd at the time that neither of them seem to be interested in getting married, at least until Watson is swept away… Would men of that era typically have discussed women/sex or was it not generally a topic of conversation? The nuances of close male friendship even in the current time period seem to elude me…
Watson and Mary seem to meet and get engaged very quickly, although the timeline for their actual marriage is confusing to me. Would an engagement typically happen so quickly? If Watson had broken the engagement, what would have happened?
All the Victorian novels I have read seem to have side-stepped the mundane.
Tagging some ACD writers in case they have time to provide any insight….
Well, this is based primarily off of my general Victorian-era novel reading, and not very much systematic study of the culture, so please correct me, better-informed writers; but I think Watson and Holmes are both middle class; most likely Watson lower-middle and Holmes upper-middle; neither firstborn sons, so neither have property, and both have to establish a career and work their way into a decent income; but they have some resources (violin, chemistry set) and some expectations of necessary luxuries (papers, tobacco), just as a penny-pinched middle class modern woman in her twenties might share an apartment, but still get Starbucks and have her hair done and get drinks with friends.
Also, eating out and dressing well weren’t confined to the higher classes; every working person, even the poorest children, bought meals at a pub or on the street when they didn’t have time to cook, while the middle class went to slightly nicer hotels or clubs if they could afford it; and dressing decently was considered a basic requirement for social respect; not stylishly, necessarily, but with clean, well-kept, tailored clothes, and a full outfit (coat, cravat, hat, etc.). It made the difference between life and death for the poorest; a decently-dressed beggar would be considered a respectable person fallen on hard times, and helped, while a beggar in rags would be thought of as degenerate. I think some of the concerts and Turkish bath episodes came a little later when they had money to spare from a successful case or two; and I still don’t think those were truly extravagant–more like a movie night or a pedicure, a smallish indulgence.
Middle and upper class Victorian men were expected to wait to marry until their careers were well-established, or their property developed, and they could support a family; so it wouldn’t be odd for the two of them not to be married, or looking, initially. Their focus on their work and the occasional night out was normal for young men just getting settled in the world. Later on Watson was a widower, so a lack of interest in women wouldn’t be suspicious; and Holmes’ general eccentricity would probably have prevented anyone wondering why he hadn’t married too much; he’s a sort of scientific ascetic, and the Victorian conception of sex and desire was not particularly compatible with rationality and mental focus. He might be expected to set courtship aside for science’s sake.
I think the amount of discussion of sex would depend on the breeding and morals of the individuals–there was a fair amount of bawdy material available for inspiration, but it wasn’t good manners to talk about sexual things casually, I believe; a philosophical discussion of morals or a medical question, maybe, but not simple sex talk; and discussing women of their own class would only occur if one of them had definite interest in one and needed advice or encouragement. That’s a reading of them individually, though, not a proscription; some men would idly discuss the beauty and income of all the women in their circle, and their flirtations with them; but it wasn’t thought to show high character.
A quick engagement isn’t too surprising. Once a man had a career, any woman of his class with good sense and breeding could be chosen after a little time getting to know her, and his judgment go unquestioned, as long as he loved her; to me the more surprising part was that neither Mary nor Watson seems to have met one another’s friends or families, and she has no dowry to contribute. But both of them seem relatively unconnected in the world; and Holmes did meet her; and Watson doesn’t seem the kind of man to look for a wife to help his social standing or his finances, particularly; more likely to marry for love or pity.
If Watson had broken the engagement soon after he’d made it without a compelling reason, he’d have lost some social respect, and his own self-respect, if he left her without other resources or connections; but again, he seems fairly unconnected, Mary seems to have no one except her mother, and Holmes wouldn’t judge him, so the social repercussions for Watson, in this situation, would be very few.
As of this month, March 2017, “The Problem of Thor Bridge” is no longer under copyright in the United States.
The story was first published in the US 95 years ago in March 1922. 10 stories in the Sherlock Holmes canon remain protected by US copyright, and they will all have entered the public domain by the year 2022.
Not to be that person, but “Thor Bridge” is Watson recollecting a case which occurred much earlier in his and Holmes’ timeline. The actual case is thought to have taken place sometime around 1900. Definitely post “The Empty House”, but about 10 – 14 years prior to “The Lion’s Mane”, when Holmes and Watson were, sadly, most definitely no longer living together.
From “The Lion’s Mane” (considered the second last Holmes story chronologically):
It occurred after my withdrawal to my little Sussex home, when I had given myself up entirely to that soothing life of Nature for which I had so often yearned during the long years spent amid the gloom of London. At this period of my life the good Watson had passed almost beyond my ken. An occasional week-end visit was the most that I ever saw of him. Thus I must act as my own chronicler. (X)
And in ‘His Last Bow’ which takes place several years after “The Lion’s Mane”, it is clear that Watson and Holmes haven’t seen one another in years:
But you, Watson”—he stopped his work and took his old friend by the shoulders—“I’ve hardly seen you in the light yet. How have the years used you? You look the same blithe boy as ever.”
“I feel twenty years younger, Holmes. I have seldom felt so happy as when I got your wire asking me to meet you at Harwich with the car. But you, Holmes—you have changed very little—save for that horrible goatee.” (X)
This is where my own headcanon differs from ACDs, since mine allows for retirementlock.
I believe that by the time the last stories were written, the social climate had changed so much that ACD could never have allowed Holmes and Watson to live together, so he separated them perforce.
I don’t know if anyone here has read ‘Lark Rise to Candleford’ by Flora Thompson, but there is an interesting bit in it which I think refers. It’s set in the Holmes/Watson period and chronicles a young girl’s journey to adulthood. But one bit has always stuck in my mind. In her remote Oxfordshire village, people were only tangentially aware of the news: it was an agricultural area, and life was hard on ten shillings a week. But ‘big news’ did get through, and one of the ‘big news’ things that did was the Oscar Wilde trial of 1895 which introduced the concept of homosexuality to the general populace of her village. Immediately after this, the small cottage in her village inhabited by two old soldiers who’d served in the wars together, and then set up house together – perhaps as pals, perhaps as a pair, who knows – was vandalised and graffitied with homophobic slurs. (I can’t access my copy right now to check, so I’m not sure if there was physical violence as well.) Fortunately for them, common consensus of the village was against the perpetrators, and I don’t believe they were driven out.
But that this could happen says a lot about how attitudes changed from 1880 to 1930: if anything the world became less tolerant during the period ACD was writing, not more. Hell, ACD himself censored his own comments about his friend George Turnavine Budd because he thought they were too revealing about his crush. The writings of Havelock Ellis, Kraft-Ebbing and Freud over this period brought homosexuality out into the open, but in order to decriminalise and ‘allow’ it, they medicalised it, and they medicalised it as ‘other’ and ‘wrong’, so it became less, not more acceptable.
It is in this context that we can read any ACD that ‘separates’ or delegitimises Holmes and Watson as a pair, such as the ‘repudiation’ of the Turkish Baths in later stories as ‘expensive and relaxing’ (read decadent and feminising) compared to the ‘bracing English article’ (read ‘not at all gay: who, me?’ but manly and decorous). The later separation into Watson in Queen Anne Street and Holmes lonely in Sussex can also be read in the same way, as ACD’s penance for allowing them to be seen as too close: a gay unhappy ending.
It’s important, I think, not to forget that writers don’t write in a vacuum, and that ‘tempora mutantur et nos mutamur in illis’: times change, and we are changed in them. The ACD who wrote the latter stories had lived through all the changes, and he changed Holmes and Watson to make them acceptable in their time. Had he made them openly gay, they might, tragically, never have survived to be with us today.
So, to cut to the chase, I think it is perfectly legitimate to allow at least the possibility of retirementlock!
This is such important and historically relevant analysis. Remembering also that his friend Wilder ended up going to prison for several years because of the homosexual subtext in his books.
Wilde and Sir. Doyle were friends and it likely affected Dr. Doyle greatly. He would not want the same to happen to him and would have been uniquely aware of the political climate he was writing in.
I also think the point that @datmycroft is important about how their rooms at Baker Street-did not have a yard-. The books mention Dr. Watson talking about looking outside their window to a tree in their yard, but where they lived in London had absolutely no room for a yard.
We already know that Dr. Watson is mentioned as being an unreliable narrator and I think that the canon ‘slip’ is in there as a sort of wink that even though he was forced to write them as being apart, that does not necessarily mean that they were and they did not actually retire together. Their living together in a house is the only way in which there could be a yard for Dr. Watson to see a tree in.
It has been said several times that media does not happen in a vacuum and it is just as true back then as it is now. Media, politics and social structure have always been intertwined and it goes both ways. Just as Media affects culture, media is affected by culture and creators have to be aware of what fall out and reaction they may receive from their works.
This is going to sound terrible, you guys, but the way I always interpreted the canon was that John and Sherlock are in love, but they either separate due to the political climate of the time or personal reasons.
I think that because you can argue that Arthur Conan Doyle wrote Watson and Holmes as mirrors for him and a combination of several men he seemed to harbor feelings for, and because Doyle inevitably permanently separated from all of these men, it would actually make sense within the narrative for John and Sherlock to separate.
However, analyzing the details with the tree/yard and with a more optimistic eye is completely valid and arguable. Either way, I have always thought of the pair as desperately in love even when apart, as they do say things to each other like, “I have seldom felt so happy as when I got your wire asking me to meet you”. I think that if they did separate, it was politics and safety reasons rather than personal ones because of the fondness between them after all those years. It could also be possible that they didn’t live together, but visited each other more often Watson let on in his narration.
Just name dropping here, but also remember what happened to ACD’s friend Roger Casement in 1916 (whom Doyle had used as an inspiration for the character of Lord John Roxton in his 1912 novel The Lost World). Shortly after Casement was hanged for treason in 1916, ACD wrote His Last Bow (published 1917). During his trail, the Black Diaries were published, once again creating an atmosphere of heightened homophobia combined with political mistrust. Nevertheless, ACD started a petition to pardon Casement, which was unsuccessful.
This case shows that still at the beginning of the 20th century even alleged homosexuality could cause social and physical death of the person labelled – it wasn’t just about some homophobic slurs. Being identified as homosexual could – combined with other factors – lead to physical extinction of the person involved. And ACD was made repeatedly aware of this fact in his social circle. Keep that in mind when reading Holmes and Watson.
Growing up in a small town in Texas in the 60’s every one who was gay either moved out of town or married and went deep into the closet, just hooking up at the one secret gay bar in town or cruising in parks. No one was open unless they enjoyed unemployment and gay bashing. So as a kid reading about Watson getting married I just thought he was pretending to be straight so he and Holmes could avoid destruction.
All of theses are very good points. I honestly agree with @datmycroft that the line in ACD’s book Thor Bridge is a dead giveaway. Watson writes:
It was a wild morning in October, and I observed as I was dressing how the last remaining leaves were being whirled from the solitary plane tree which graces the yard behindour house. [x]
The place where they lived in 221B Baker Street was a town house with no back hard. Even back then the street that he chose for the fictional house was condensed and the buildings had no ability for yard.
It may look like upper Baker Street may have space, but there was a rail line that ran behind the houses. The only time in which Dr. Watson could have had a yard with Holmes is if they were in Sussex.
Sir. Doyle and Wilde were close friends.
Wilde’s books were used against him as evidence. In addition @isitandwonder point about Sir. Doyle’s friend Roger Casement being targeted for being homosexual, Sir. Doyle was uniquely aware of the issues of being homosexual and would have edited his books accordingly so as to protect himself.
Even with that, there was still a lot of subtextual romanticism in the books, and probably only the amount he thought he could get away with and still be safe. The cases were more important to write about then the underlying relationship yet somehow he still always emphasized Holmes and Watson’s dedication to each other. It is entirely plausible canon that Dr. Watson had retired with Holmes but both of them made sure to edit any writings so as to protect themselves.
What is it with Lion’s Mane? Some Sher!!oly was attacking me on Twitter, claiming that Holmes had a fling with Maudie? That proves that Sherlolly is canon & has the estate’s approval. The estate only approves of Het Holmes adaptations.
That isn’t true at all – The Adventure of the Lion’s Mane takes place when Holmes is in retirement, and Maud Bellamy is a young woman. The only thing Holmes says about her is that ‘Women have seldom been an attraction to me, for my brain has always governed my heart, but I could not look upon her perfect clear-cut face, with all the soft freshness of the downlands in her delicate colouring, without realizing that no young man would cross her path unscathed.’
He doesn’t say this to her, he doesn’t say anything else of the sort about her, and he certainly doesn’t have a fling with her. All he does is say that he’s not into women but that he can see that she’s pretty and that young (straight) men would like her. I’ve written about the fact that this reads as far more gay than straight (taking background information into account as well) for the second and fourth issues of @retiredbeekeepers’ Practical Handbook of Bee Culture if you’re interested, but honestly, I think it speaks pretty well for itself.
As to the rest of their argument, I have no idea what they think that has to do with Sherlolly, and they’re wrong about the Conan Doyle estate. There are two excellent posts on this subject, which you can read here and here. I want to reiterate, in particular, that all of the Sherlock Holmes stories have been in the public domain in the UK since 2009, so the estate couldn’t interfere with BBC Sherlock even if they wanted to, and even if Andrea Plunket ever did have any right to call the Holmesian shots (which she didn’t), she died last year.
In short: you can tell whoever you were arguing with that they were completely, embarrassingly wrong.
I remember the pointless fight lmao. The lengths people go to establish something absurd.
Plucket is who people are really talking about when they mention “The Estate” and heterosexuality. Plucket was NOT actually a part of the Estate. She simply claimed she was. She was a homophobe trying to get money and with her death it is unlikely such behavior will continue. I feel it is important to emphasize that
that Plunkett was nota descendant of Sir. Doyle and and to reiterate Vivahate’s point that Pluckett did not actually have legal ownership of Sir. Arthur Conan Doyle’s works. She just wish she did and too many people just let her get away with it so as to avoid the legal hassle of dealing with her. The REAL estate have generally been passive about the whole thing and have not come out as being against any kind of homosexual portrayal of Sherlock Holmes.
Also, Molly Hooper is an original character created and written by Mofftiss. She is property of BBC. While Sherlock Holmes is public , Molly Hooper most certainly is not. Writers need to be aware of that because anyone who writes about her absolutely can be sued by BBC for taking intellectual property if they try to sell or make money off of their work.
She is not Maud and most definitely not a part of the original ACD canon or public domain.
Any literature written and sold based off of Sherlock Holmes and possibly inspired by BBC needs to -not- include Molly for copyright reasons.
Sherlock Fandom Archive 