![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
damned_colonial posting in ![[community profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/community.png){kind=small}
queering_holmesSo, I know a handful of people here have been reading this book, and I figured at least one of us had probably better write a review, so here's mine :)
Graham Robb, "Strangers: Homosexual love in the nineteenth century", W. W. Norton & Co, 2004.
Amazon, Book Depository, Abebooks, Google Books (partial), Worldcat (public libraries)
"Strangers" is one of the best books I've read about gay history. It's more international in flavour, has more to say about lesbians (which is admittedly still not a whole lot), and is more optimistic than anything else of it's kind that I've read. Its tone is extremely readable, but there are extensive end-notes and what looks like a pretty comprehensive bibliography of works cited.
The book is divided into three parts. The first part talks about the legal and medical background and about the scandal of "outings". The second part talks about homosexual lives and homosexual subcultures in various places. The third part talks about gay literature and how homosexual people in the 19th century found reflections themselves in various texts.
In the chapter on the legal/judicial side of things, Robb looks at arrests, prosecutions, and convictions for buggery/indecency/etc... and then asks us to throw all that away, because there weren't all that many really, and it was far less important than you might think. He points out that we place undue emphasis on it because legal reports are such an easy source of information, but that the actual incidence of court cases was pretty minor relative to the population. Charts (in the appendix) show the number of convictions in the UK per 100k of population, from 1800 to 2000. The figures run around 1 conviction per 100k of population per year through the 19th century, then steadily grow through the 20th, peak around 16/100k/year in the mid 1950s, and are still hovering around 10/100k/year in 2000. That is, you were approximately 10 times as likely to be convicted of buggery or a related homosexual offense a decade ago as you were in the Victorian era. He points out that the Wilde trials belong more properly (culturally speaking) to the 20th century than the 19th.
Having more or less set aside the "easy" (but negative) sources of information in part 1, part 2 is a much more pleasant read. Lots of cute anecdotes, accounts of people's lives and relationships, excerpts from letters, etc. I found it kind of fluffily interesting but it didn't make me think much.
Part 3, talking about gay literature, will be of particular interest to Sherlock Holmes fans as it talks about how homosexual people, in the absence of explicit depictions of their type, will read for subtext. The first chapter of this section describes the more overt depictions of homosexuality (from moral tales to trashy porn) and then moves on to more subtle ones like the fairy tales of Hans Christian Andersen. The second chapter deals with Christianity and gay-friendly interpretations of the Bible. The third and final chapter is all about homosexual detectives. Starting with Poe's Auguste Dupin, moving on to Holmes (about whom there are several pages of subtextual analysis, ranging from the "worth a wound" scene to comments on the use of terms like "queer", "languid", and of course "earnest" in the Holmes canon) and then to early 20th century sleuths of a similar nature, he talks about how homosexuality -- dual nature, disguises, outsider-dom, the ability to discern other people's secrets -- is actually an integral part of the detective's character and role, and how similar themes emerge repeatedly even among authors who couldn't have read each other's work.
Also included among the plates in the book is Paget's engraving from SCAN, with the caption, "Sherlock Holmes disguised as 'a Nonconformist clergyman' and Irene Adler as 'a slim youth in an ulster'" -- elsewhere in the book Robb cites "nonconformist" as a Victorian euphemism for homosexual.
So, in summary: very readable, and what's more, pleasant to read (not just in style but in content). Plus, a fair bit of Holmes-specific material. Highly recommended.
Graham Robb, "Strangers: Homosexual love in the nineteenth century", W. W. Norton & Co, 2004.
Amazon, Book Depository, Abebooks, Google Books (partial), Worldcat (public libraries)
"Strangers" is one of the best books I've read about gay history. It's more international in flavour, has more to say about lesbians (which is admittedly still not a whole lot), and is more optimistic than anything else of it's kind that I've read. Its tone is extremely readable, but there are extensive end-notes and what looks like a pretty comprehensive bibliography of works cited.
The book is divided into three parts. The first part talks about the legal and medical background and about the scandal of "outings". The second part talks about homosexual lives and homosexual subcultures in various places. The third part talks about gay literature and how homosexual people in the 19th century found reflections themselves in various texts.
In the chapter on the legal/judicial side of things, Robb looks at arrests, prosecutions, and convictions for buggery/indecency/etc... and then asks us to throw all that away, because there weren't all that many really, and it was far less important than you might think. He points out that we place undue emphasis on it because legal reports are such an easy source of information, but that the actual incidence of court cases was pretty minor relative to the population. Charts (in the appendix) show the number of convictions in the UK per 100k of population, from 1800 to 2000. The figures run around 1 conviction per 100k of population per year through the 19th century, then steadily grow through the 20th, peak around 16/100k/year in the mid 1950s, and are still hovering around 10/100k/year in 2000. That is, you were approximately 10 times as likely to be convicted of buggery or a related homosexual offense a decade ago as you were in the Victorian era. He points out that the Wilde trials belong more properly (culturally speaking) to the 20th century than the 19th.
Having more or less set aside the "easy" (but negative) sources of information in part 1, part 2 is a much more pleasant read. Lots of cute anecdotes, accounts of people's lives and relationships, excerpts from letters, etc. I found it kind of fluffily interesting but it didn't make me think much.
Part 3, talking about gay literature, will be of particular interest to Sherlock Holmes fans as it talks about how homosexual people, in the absence of explicit depictions of their type, will read for subtext. The first chapter of this section describes the more overt depictions of homosexuality (from moral tales to trashy porn) and then moves on to more subtle ones like the fairy tales of Hans Christian Andersen. The second chapter deals with Christianity and gay-friendly interpretations of the Bible. The third and final chapter is all about homosexual detectives. Starting with Poe's Auguste Dupin, moving on to Holmes (about whom there are several pages of subtextual analysis, ranging from the "worth a wound" scene to comments on the use of terms like "queer", "languid", and of course "earnest" in the Holmes canon) and then to early 20th century sleuths of a similar nature, he talks about how homosexuality -- dual nature, disguises, outsider-dom, the ability to discern other people's secrets -- is actually an integral part of the detective's character and role, and how similar themes emerge repeatedly even among authors who couldn't have read each other's work.
Also included among the plates in the book is Paget's engraving from SCAN, with the caption, "Sherlock Holmes disguised as 'a Nonconformist clergyman' and Irene Adler as 'a slim youth in an ulster'" -- elsewhere in the book Robb cites "nonconformist" as a Victorian euphemism for homosexual.
So, in summary: very readable, and what's more, pleasant to read (not just in style but in content). Plus, a fair bit of Holmes-specific material. Highly recommended.
no subject
Date: 2010-05-05 05:55 am (UTC)When he writes "Everyone already knows, instinctively, that Holmes is a homosexual," I went Noooo because now the crowds of people who vehemently disagree aren't going to read the analysis itself. But I suppose they wouldn't be reading this book in the first place.
no subject
Date: 2010-05-05 05:55 am (UTC)Does anyone have a negative review/opinion it? I always like to compare the negative and positive reviews for a source, I find it give the best feel for how I personally might enjoy it.
no subject
Date: 2010-05-05 06:03 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2010-05-05 08:39 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2010-05-06 09:09 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2010-05-06 07:39 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2010-05-05 08:56 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2010-05-05 11:20 am (UTC)This made me go a little bit o.O
Has anyone else encountered this usage? It does make sense if you were looking for euphemisms, but given the number of times that I've encountered the term in its "straight" usage in Victorian texts, I'd be inclined to think when it came to that engraving that sometimes a clergyman is just a clergyman.
The other thing that niggled me about this book--and I've only looked at the Google books version--was a passing reference to J. Edgar Hoover having been a crossdresser. This is a fairly groundless rumor that no reputable historian really entertains, so I have to admit that it made me a little uneasy about what the standard of research might be for the rest of the volume.
no subject
Date: 2010-05-05 03:09 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2010-05-05 03:13 pm (UTC)Anglo-Catholicism has lots of associations with queerness in a British context. Nonconformity? Not so much.
no subject
Date: 2010-05-05 05:39 pm (UTC)No endnotes referring to where he sourced those particular euphemisms, though he gives notes for some that follow ("it smells of garlic here" = "there are lesbians around", heh).
Even without a citation, I'm tempted to believe that "non-conformist" was used as a euphemism for homosexuality, because it's just so obvious. Not conforming. Not one of the majority/accepted/state-approved group. And it has the benefit of being discreet. I can *totally* hear it in my head. (Yeah, I know this is not strong evidence. I'm just saying that it has the ring of truth for me, for whatever that's worth.)
As for SCAN and the Paget illustration... I don't think I'm going out on a limb to say that Holme's reaction to Adler -- the woman, the only one who has ever affected him -- and the fact that she just happens to crossdress are, well, suggestive. Especially in light of much more explicitly queer texts like A rebours that were popular in aesthetic/decadent circles at the time, and which included multiple encounters between queer male characters and boyish women. (I haven't read A rebours but Cook's "London and the culture of homosexuality" has a longish section on it and its connection to Dorian Gray.) It's hard to read "aesthetic guy attracted to boyish woman" and not make those connections.
So if you start from "Holme's fascination with the boyish Adler is a bit queer", the "non-conformist" seems to me like a subtle little nudge in that direction too. Not like a big red flag waving saying CHECK OUT TEH GAY, but a gentle, discreet reference to a euphemism one might have heard used in polite company to refer to people who were "that way".
After all, there's no strong story reason for Holmes to choose that disguise. He just needed something that would gain Adler's sympathy. He could just as well have used the elderly bookseller disguise he used in EMPT, for instance.
no subject
Date: 2010-05-05 01:47 pm (UTC)Also, *very* interesting to hear that subtext and literary dog-whistling was known about before "slash" was a verb or noun to do with writing.
no subject
Date: 2010-05-05 07:37 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2010-05-05 08:15 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2010-05-05 09:57 pm (UTC)Thank you so much for your detailed reviews of books such as this- makes it so much easier to find good reading material without having to slog through the hundreds of books that are just painful.
no subject
Date: 2010-05-06 02:10 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2010-05-06 01:54 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2010-05-06 02:09 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2010-05-06 12:09 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2010-05-06 07:25 am (UTC)Did I read this book differently?
Date: 2010-06-12 09:07 pm (UTC)I understood Robb to be saying that Dupin and Holmes are *intentionally* written as homosexuals, with the evidence present as subtext -- coded, inexplicit. For both characters, their homosexuality is a "Purloined Letter" -- the secret that is in plain sight, if you only look.
I took Robb also to be saying that both Poe and Doyle, more-or-less straight men, were fascinated to meet homosexuals and try to understand their superpower: gaydar. Dupin and Poe's detective abilities are the textual transformation of gaydar. Holmes tells Watson, "You see, but you do not observe"; gaydar is the type specimen of this kind of observation.