"Not The Machine He Used To Be"

Behold, the machine called Sherlock Holmes. His cold logic and objectivity have earned him comparisons to a living computer. His seeming infallibility just adds to the image, as he brings case after case to a successful conclusion, just as if he is running numbers through an equation. Even his best friend could not help but see the parallels.

When Holmes fails to notice Mary Morstan’s charms, Watson calls him "an automaton — a calculating machine." When describing the amazing fact that Holmes had any little admiration at all for Irene Adler, Watson refers to Holmes as "the most perfect reasoning and observing machine that the world has seen." And it doesn’t stop there.

Sherlockians have never minded this description of Holmes. It’s Canonical. It’s an established literary comparison for a man who is cool under pressure. And it works.

Something is happening to good old Sherlock, however, in modern fictional incarnations of the man. Sherlock Holmes is going from reasoning machine . . . to sex machine.

Sure, Holmes has been portrayed in compromising positions for years. In porno movies, in truly whacko pastiches, and in some almost-underground Sherlockiana. But there was always a wink and a nod among Sherlockians that let you know they weren’t taking such things seriously. It was like Rex Stout claiming Watson was a woman . . . an entertaining idea, but nobody really believed such stuff.

That we knew of.

With the advent of Jeremy Brett’s portrayal of Sherlock Holmes on PBS, a new breed of female Sherlockian began to emerge: a Sherlockian who was actually hot for Holmes’s body, and not ashamed to admit it.

Now, there might have been women lusting after Basil Rathbone. Some theater-goers may have even gazed longing at the folds of William Gillette’s dressing gown. But they were keeping it to themselves.

Suddenly, we’re not so lucky any more. One female fan was even so inspired by Jeremy Brett’s performance that she began writing a successful series of novels about Holmes meeting and marrying a girl half his age, then proceeding to actually perform his . . . ahem . . . marital duties on a regular basis.

Now, some long-time female Sherlockians will probably say this new Beefcake-boy Holmes is way overdue. After all, haven’t the guys been openly lusting after Irene Adler or Mrs. Neville St. Clair for years? But there’s a difference. Irene and the lady in the see-through nightie are minor characters. They both had quite involved relationships with men. Sherlock is another matter. He’s the emotionless observer. He’s the undistracted reasoning machine. Making him a sex object corrupts the whole concept. If you tried to make Irene Adler anything but a sex object, it could ruin her image (okay, an intelligent sex object, but a sex object none the less).

If a male sex object is needed, how about Watson? The fair sex was his department. He experienced women on three continents, probably including the one you currently live on. We are reasonably certain he had sex. He can still be Holmes’s chronicler and companion and be sleeping with anything in a bonnet. No problems there at all.

But Holmes?

Laurie King, the author of the above-mentioned series about the married Sherlock Holmes, began writing her tales before bothering to give the Sherlockian Canon a complete read-through. What would Holmes say about such an action?

"It is a capital mistake to theorize before you have all the evidence. It biases the judgment."

If Ms. King had read all of the evidence before proposing her theories, she might have seen a thing or two like: "as a lover he would have placed himself in a false position," or "Grit in a sensitive instrument, or a crack in one of his own high-power lenses, would not be more disturbing than a strong emotion in a nature such as his."

As we move into the next millennium, saddled with the next Beavis and Butthead as cultural heroes, we really need the intelligence and cool logic of Sherlock Holmes more than ever. And we need a clear vision of that Holmes, not one seen through romance-colored glasses. The world has plenty of romantic heroes, married heroes, and ripped-shirt Fabio look-alikes. Does it need Sherlock Holmes in such a role as well?

We lose something very important when Holmes goes romantic. It’s almost like he suddenly needs that logical genius, "John H. Watson, Crime Doctor," from the movie "Without A Clue" to help him out. Because if Sherlock Holmes isn’t going to act like Sherlock Holmes . . . well, somebody has to. And, personally, I’d rather it not be his wife.

(Printed in Plugs & Dottles, March 1998)