Thursday, July 18, 2013


There is so much good 'Sherlock Holmes' art out there right now, and I love exploring it for new stuff.
I do consider myself fairly open minded when viewing most of it, but it always makes me wonder why ( I really do have my own opinion on why) 'artists', especially talented ones, feel the need to make Holmes and Watson lovers? Why is it so important to make them gay? Now I don't care whether Holmes and Watson would or would not have been gay, it is really a none issue (plus, I have them firmly non-gay in my mind), or should be a none issue. But for me, it really detracts from wanting to see other work by the same 'artist'. They have so much rich Sherlockian material to work with, surely they could come up with better ideas.

Just my thoughts.


This is an example, in my opinion, of a good one.

And this one is kinda fun. . . .


  1. Of course, those illustrations are not of Sherlock Holmes, but of Robert Downey Jr., Jude Law and Benedict Cumberbatch. Just like most of Frederick Dorr Steele's illustrations of Holmes were depictions of William Gillette. As the memory of Gillette has faded from public consciousness, his illustrations have become more Holmes than the man playing him. Because of the homo-platonic nature of Moffat's Holmes and Watson, fans of "Sherlock", influenced probably by Shōnen-ai / Yaoi manga, have picked up on this, neotenized the pair and emphasized the fantasy relationship. While Sidney Paget used his brother Walter as a model for Holmes, Walter was not a public personality (not like Gillette, Downey, Rathbone, and Cumberbatch) so his drawings strike me as a truer depiction of Holmes. The day that someone looks at a drawing of Downey, Cumberbatch or Miller and say "That's Sherlock Holmes" as apposed to "That's the guy who plays Sherlock Holmes", that will be the day that the Canon is dead and unread and Sir Arthur Conan Doyle the answer to a particularly tough trivia question.

  2. That's a little bleak.
    Each generation will have their face of Holmes and Watson, it's the one you can up with when you read the stories that will be the most real for any individual.

    Thanks for stopping by..

  3. Well, I'm sure you've seen the internet meme of Lucy Liu with the caption "This is not what Watson looks like", underneath a picture of Martin Freeman captioned "This is what Watson looks like", then the words "Please stop." Obviously the meme-ist does not know who Holmes and Watson are, who created them, and why they are important. There is nothing wrong with holding an actor's portrayal in high esteem, nor imagining them when reading the stories, but there does seem to be a group that think Cumberbatch and Freeman are Sherlock and John (not Holmes and Watson) and the Canon is the dim and distant source for the Easter Eggs in the show. I'm sure that there were Rathbone and Bruce fans who never read the original stories, but we live in a less literate age than even thirty years ago when the Granada series was on, and to me it feels like there is more than one degree of separation in the minds of some fans between the Canon and "Sherlock". I hope I'm wrong.

    1. I agree with you for the most part.

      My favorite of course were Paget and Steele for original art.
      But I like also to see the new stuff on the new adaptions.
      I to hope Downey does not (and I don't think he will) become the new face of Holmes, and I think the crush on Comberbatch will wain, and in twenty years or so, there will be another face.
      But for those of us who read all the works, Paget and Steele will live on.

  4. Have to snag the Cumberbatch pic, you mind?

  5. Nah, just give credit to the link I displayed.

    Ran across this cartoon. Seems to complement your post.

    1. Is complement the right word I wonder:)