This Sherlock? Or Doyle's as well?
First of all, 'Posse?' Passé
Cordelia ,'Potential'
Natter 67: Overriding Vetoes
Off-topic discussion. Wanna talk about corsets, nail polish, duct tape, or physics? This is the place. Detailed discussion of any current-season TV must be whitefonted.
Typo Boy - Oct 24, 2010 5:41:08 pm PDT #1662 of 30001
Calli: My people have a saying. A man who trusts can never be betrayed, only mistaken.Avon: Life expectancy among your people must be extremely short.
Steph L. - Oct 24, 2010 5:43:10 pm PDT #1663 of 30001
I look more rad than Lutheranism
This Sherlock? Or Doyle's as well?
I believe I read some people saying that Doyle's written Sherlock qualifies as well. I don't remember 100%, though, so I wouldn't swear to it. And I've never read the original stories, so I have no opinion on that.
But this one, and the movie with RDJ as well? I can definitely see it.
§ ita § - Oct 24, 2010 5:46:43 pm PDT #1664 of 30001
Well not canonically, no, but this is transformative fiction.
Why would you see him as asexual and not just as someone not having sex? Is it really that rare (and I'm asking myself that question) to have a protagonist who doesn't express anything sexual during the story that one would assume it's an orientation and not just a period of not caring?
eta: Wait, isn't there an Adler kiss in the 2009 movie?
Steph L. - Oct 24, 2010 5:49:52 pm PDT #1665 of 30001
I look more rad than Lutheranism
Well, one concrete moment was the exchange when Watson asked Holmes if he had a girlfriend, and Holmes said "Not really my area." And from the dialogue that followed, Holmes established fairly well that he was NOT implying that he's gay.
Amy - Oct 24, 2010 5:52:01 pm PDT #1666 of 30001
Because books.
But this one, and the movie with RDJ as well? I can definitely see it.
I can easily see Doyle's original Holmes as asexual. I haven't seen the PBS one, but the Richie movie, and RDJ's portrayal? Was sexual innunendo all over the place, for me anyway.
Steph L. - Oct 24, 2010 5:52:05 pm PDT #1667 of 30001
I look more rad than Lutheranism
eta: Wait, isn't there an Adler kiss in the 2009 movie?
Some asexual people do engage in sexual/sensual activities with a partner from time to time. A kiss doesn't mean that he's not asexual.
And it's not possible to say for certain that he IS asexual, of course. It's not been explicitly stated in canon. But it's fairly interesting to see how it plays out.
t edit
RDJ's portrayal? Was sexual innunendo all over the place, for me anyway.
Asexual doesn't mean that that person doesn't engage in sexual innuendo. It doesn't mean neutered.
§ ita § - Oct 24, 2010 5:52:12 pm PDT #1668 of 30001
Well not canonically, no, but this is transformative fiction.
That's the TV show, right? Not the movie? I can buy it for the show, but the one fic I read (because Fay podded it) had it as something he just hadn't turned his not inconsiderable attention to yet, if memory serves.
I don't see him as particularly asexual in the movie, though, and the actor certainly didn't.
§ ita § - Oct 24, 2010 5:52:38 pm PDT #1669 of 30001
Well not canonically, no, but this is transformative fiction.
A kiss doesn't mean that he's not asexual.
But what says he is?
Steph L. - Oct 24, 2010 5:54:17 pm PDT #1670 of 30001
I look more rad than Lutheranism
A kiss doesn't mean that he's not asexual.
But what says he is?
Movie, or TV? The dialogue I quoted from the TV series is fairly strong, in my opinion.
Steph L. - Oct 24, 2010 5:56:43 pm PDT #1671 of 30001
I look more rad than Lutheranism
A kiss doesn't mean that he's not asexual.
But what says he is?
And if you mean the movie, there's really nothing either way. I'm just commenting on things I've read elsewhere and on the fact that I find those things interesting.