The way Watson describes Sherlock Holmes’ relationship with, and emotions towards Irene Adler is very interesting. Specifically, “It was not that he felt any emotion akin to love for Irene Adler. All emotions, and that one particularly, were abhorrent to his cold, precise, but admirably balanced mind.” (Doyle, 1). These lines serve a dual purpose, first this passage reads as Watson attempting to rationalize Sherlock’s relationship with Irene Adler. He takes great lengths to explain that Holmes could not possibly be in love with Irene, and as such leaves the door open for a potential relationship between the two male protagonists.
Second, by stating that Holmes find loving generally “abhorrent” it excuses him from not only heterosexual, but also homosexual love. Thus, the author refutes any potential homosexuality between Watson and Holmes and also reenforces the strict rules in which men are allowed to have relationships with one another.
We might also consider that this description plays into Sherlock’s broader character as generally weird or odd. It is not that Sherlock feels love, or any kind of heterosexual attraction to Irene Adler, but rather that he admires her from a professional perspective. Plainly, he thinks she has game.
Not only does this passage work to reaffirm, and development the character of Sherlock Holmes as an emotionless and odd but brilliant detective. It also strongly insists on maintaining the traditional bonds of male relationships, and friendships. Holmes and Watson cannot be together because Sherlock does not have the capacity for sexual desire. Not, interestingly, because both the male protagonists are heterosexual, but because one of them finds love, and emotions generally, disgusting. This is perhaps the most fascinating way that traditional bonds of homosocial desire have been enforced in our reading thus far. Not, because it is natural order, as Dracula claims, but rather because Holmes is not capable of feeling love.
I loved your reading of the homosocial desire present in Sherlock Holmes. It led me to question if Dorian can love too. Lord Henry claims Dorian, “will always be loved, and you will always be in love with love” (Wilde 44). So, does Dorian actually love Sibyl (evidently, we learn he did not through her death) or instead does he simply love the façade of naïve, superficial love? Is he capable of loving something besides himself? If Dorian is in love with love, one could argue he is in love with the benefits that a relationship brings to him. He is more interested in what Sibyl does for him. He loved the project potential he saw to show off Sibly to the world by making her a star.
I liked the rationale that you explained in your post as it sets a boundary not only on Holmes and Watson’s relationship, but on Holmes own sexuality. As we see in the story, there are multiple instance where we see a closeness between Holmes and Watson which could be depicted as a homosexual relationship if not for the boundary you have noted. We have seen a similar situation to this in other texts like Dracula, although Jonathon did have genuine love and sexual attraction for Mina. I wonder if Irene is being used as a tool to force the boundary of homosocial desire in this text.
I love your reading of Watson and Sherlock’s relationship. I feel that the claims you make could be beefed up by some Sedgwick quotes here and there, in addition to the text of “A Scandal in Bohemia”. Here I might push back and say that Holmes may be well capable of love, but Watson is painting it to be that Holmes is incapable. It’s important to keep in mind that the narrative comes from Watson’s perspective at the beginning. Overall, I feel that the homosocial desire ties across all of our texts and could 100% be a final paper. (since ik you’ve written abt it before ).
Great work,
JAY WALKER