ladybusiness | (Reply)

From:

When I wrote a post about Moffat and Cumberbatch's 'they're not gay' comments made to journalists after the first series, I had someone comment that the program's canonical presentation of Sherlock as an asexual character was much more valuable. I've pretty much been waiting for Moffat to tell everyone that he didn't intend to create Sherlock as asexual either since that comment because...well, if he was deliberately drawn as asexual Moffat would have mentioned it. He comments on everything, because I guess he believes in the sole defining power of the creator, so I was pretty sure after those comments that the program was presenting him as totally straight, just too busy for any kind of attraction.

But like you, I totally don't get how anyone can say 'definitely straight' from a reading of the original stories. His sexuality is almost never commented on, so it could be anything, surely. Unless the creators of Sherlock adaptations define his sexuality in their adaptation, they are also leaving the door open for all kinds of interpretations. To go and squash those interpretations outside of the media you've created just seems so wrong to me for a number of reasons, but most importantly why does a creator need to do that unless a.) they're a total control freak who can't handle anyone else seeing their vision of things differently, or b.) there's some internalised prejudice going on there. Why does anyone need to make sure viewers know their character isn't gay?