Is it Homophobic to object to a popular fictional character being reinterpreted as a homosexual?

[el_bryanto]

Poll question: Is it Homophobic to object to a popular fictional character being reinterpreted as a homosexual?

This is in regards to that Sherlock Holmes thread - but I am curious to see what people think.

Bryant

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

1. 3 and 4 mean precisely the same thing. -nt

[el_bryanto]

4. It's hard to do gradations

I guess both are supposed to be on the fence - but 3 is intended to be on the fence thinking it is more likely homophobic and 4 is on the fence thinking it is more likely not homophobic? That's my intent at any rate, it might not have come off.

Bryant

[BurtWorm]

30. I suspect that you want to be forgiven for thinking it's wrong to 'reinterpret' Holmes as gay.

I don't know how else to interpret this poll. What's the real motivation behind it? Are you interested in how we feel about the idea of Holmes being gay or about how we feel about being offended by the idea that Holmes is gay? Why would you care how people feel about how other people feel about something?

[el_bryanto]

31. I don't want to be forgiven for anything

I'm comfortable with people not liking me very much.

I am interested in people. And I am curious how deep the feeling goes. Often times when you are in the middle of a discussion it's easy to get the impression that the orthodox view at DU is overwhelmingly strong. Sometimes when you take a poll, the anonymity of the poll shows something else.

Bryant

[BurtWorm]

39. To each his own, I suppose.

I'm just riffing on CPD's astute observation about the subtleties of your degrees of feeling there on the "sort of homophobic" side of the spectrum. It sure looks like you're trying to spread the concentration of "homophobics" around to keep the numbers lower. Maybe you should redo the poll in more black and white terms: Yes it's homophobic, no it's not homophobic, other. It seems to me you'd get a more accurate reading of the people's pulse that way. But that's just me, I guess, from one inveterate DU pollster to another.

[el_bryanto]

41. Why would it be more accurate?

Or what do you think it would show?

Bryant

[BurtWorm]

45. Well, if you want to know if people think something is homophobic, I say, ask it point blank

and let them answer in kind. Yes or no, up or down. Or other, and let the shades of gray come out in the comments. See what I mean?

[Jamastiene]

2. Yes, it is. n/t

[MercutioATC]

7. No more so than objecting to a male character being recast as a female is sexist.

[Hassin Bin Sober]

21. And no more than objecting to a white character being re-cast as black is racist.

(clue for you: it is)

[MercutioATC]

26. Actually, it's not.

A character is a created entity with a unique persona. Changing gender or race or sexual orientation changes that persona.

Objecting to that change is not inherently sexist or racist or homophobic.

[Hassin Bin Sober]

36. Do tell.

How does changing their race change their persona?

[MercutioATC]

38. You don't think a black Archie Bunker would change the persona of the character?

[Romulox]

42. Excellent example. George Jefferson was the black Archie Bunker, and his character was VERY

different because of it...

[Hassin Bin Sober]

47. No. Seeing as though All In The Family was adapted from a BBC show called Till Death Us Do Part.

OMG! You mean to say they brought the show over the big pond without changing his "persona"????

Not to mention they created a Black Archie Bunker in George Jefferson.

[el_bryanto]

49. Did it change the character when they did this?

First by making him American and then by making him black?

Or is your point that they did change that character and there was nothing wrong with it, so there should be nothing wrong with reinterpreting Sherlock Holmes?

Bryant

[MercutioATC]

50. And George Jefferson is NOT Archie Bunker.

Nor is "Till Death Do Us Part" "All in the Family".

I'm not talking about a similar character in a different production. I'm speaking of the SAME character in the SAME role.

All In the Family's Archie Bunker. Redone with a black Archie. You don't think that would change his character?

[Hassin Bin Sober]

58. You still haven't told me what this "persona" is you are so determined to protect.

One could very easily make a black Archie. Would some dialog have to change? Sure. But that's the case with any re-make - there are always going to be slight differences.

The question isn't would there be differences. The question is would you OBJECT? And why?


Also, one would hope you can find a more suitable analogy than All In The Family - a show that dealt specifically with racism (more white on black racism) and ignorance.


Maybe we should lessen any confusion and stick to a-sexual detectives for our analogies.

[MercutioATC]

59. I've given you a reason why it's not inherently homophobic (character integrity).

Can you give me a reason why it inherently is?

[Sebastian Doyle]

74. Didn't they try that in the 1990's?

Seems like there was a show on CBS for about 5 minutes that had a Black family living in the Bunkers' old house and the lead character was very much a "Black Archie". I don't remember whether or not they had a "White George Jefferson" to go along with him.

[Starry Messenger]

3. Yes, very.

[Occulus]

73. In that case, Starbuck's gender switch for the new Galactica was sexist.

I don't think it is; it introduced fascinating possibilities for the character and the storyline. I guess I'd have to see how the character in question is portrayed by the writers before I can make a decision on whether re-interpreting a character as white instead of black, female instead of male, gay instead of straight, etc., is in fact racist, sexist, or homophobic.

I see such a change as itself morally neutral; it's the way the character is written that counts.

[Starry Messenger]

75. Mmm.

Did a lot of people object to that on the grounds that it totally changed the character? I saw some sexist criticism about that change (*cough*Dirk Benedict*cough*). I think the topic under discussion here was the nature of the objection, not changing the character's gender, race or sexual orientation...

[joeybee12]

5. Well, since you say "re-interpret" when the character was interpreted already

as being gay...many over the years have noted the homosexual undertones, so yes, it is homophobic, as is the OP.

[el_bryanto]

6. Ah - to make it clear - you are saying I am homophobic? n/t

[joeybee12]

8. The post is...

as for you, I don't know you, but I question why you phrased the question that way.

And on edit, would you ask, is it racist to object to all-black performances of some of Shakespeare's plays?

[el_bryanto]

9. Not really parallel

How would I have phrased this question without it being homophobic? Or is there a way to ask this question without being homophobic?

[joeybee12]

10. IMHO, one instance of a homphobic comment or action does not

make one a homophobic, just careless.

And, would you ask about the Shakespeare plays?

[el_bryanto]

12. Well if there were a major debate on that issue I suppose I would

Here's why the two circumstances are not similar.

If you are making a version of Romeo and Juliet with all black actors - that's, in a way, the point of doing it. To show that the themes and ideas of Romeo and Juliet are universal, that they apply to all races or creeds. By the same token if you or anybody wanted to do a Gay Sherlock Holmes movie, I think that would be fine. That said Gay Sherlock Holmes would be, by its nature, a niche product. I don't believe you could do, at this time, a gay Sherlock Holmes and win mass market appeal. Subtext is fine (although I think we read a lot of that in from our perspective), but openly gay would limit the movies appeal.

The issue with holmes is two fold. One, they obviously are doing it to appeal to a mass market - like I said above, making him openly gay would limit it's appeal to a mass market. So as a business decision, they are better of leaving it in the subtext realm.

The other is that this movie is likely to be the definitive Holmes for a while. Yes he's in the public domain and yes there are dozens of other versions I can get. I can see an argument being made that Sherlock Holmes is an interesting / complicated character already without making him gay.

Bryant

[Hassin Bin Sober]

20. Your OP doesn't discuss the business or mass-marketing side of the issue.

Yet that seems the only argument you are making here????

[el_bryanto]

24. There's another argument to be made - something to do with definitive version

But upon reflection it doesn't apply as well to Sherlock Holmes.

Bryant

[Hassin Bin Sober]

23. Sherlock Holmes is an interesting / complicated character already without making him Black or Latino

See how that works for you? Let me know.

[el_bryanto]

25. Yep - that's pretty much the same thing

Again taking a Sherlock like character and moving him to another context might be very interesting and it might be very dull and pedantic. Who knows? But it would clearly be something else - you would have to spend a certain amount of your limited time dealing with the fact that he's now Latino or Black, otherwise what's the point of doing it?

Bryant

[petronius]

85. That's not really the same thing - having a black actor play a character is not

the same as imbuing the character with a 'black experience.' More generally, changing the character's backstory is very different from changing the person playing the character. An example that comes to mind is Much Ado About Nothing (1993) - I doubt that Shakespeare conceived of Don Pedro as black, but having Denzel Washington play the part had no essential change on the character.

So, if someone has an affinity for and an image of a particular character, it wouldn't necessarily be bigoted (although it could be) to object to a profound change in that character's character. However, I would think it bigoted to object to a particular actor on the basis of orientation or race, in situations where the character was essentially unchanged...

[BurtWorm]

32. Exactly.

Well said.

:applause:

[Romulox]

43. The OP is homophobic for even asking the question? "WOOOOOOLFFFFFF!" nt

[Blasphemer]

11. It depends on the particulars of the reinterpretation and the objections

In the case of the Sherlock Holmes objection, I believe homophobia was at play. It IS possible for someone to make an objection to a reinterpretation based on a preference for a cinematic version of a work to be true to the original. If someone writes a book and they make a character's sexual orientation an important part of their characterization and motivations, then I could see there being an objection to changes (whether straight to gay or gay to straight), particularly if it is the first, or likely to be the only, cinematic version of a work. When it comes to works that have been done to death on both stage and screen, I can't see any reason to object to artistic reinterpretation, no matter how divergent from the original.

[AngryAmish]

13. Such as Alexander the Great being reinterpreted as homosexual?

oh, wait a minute...

[el_bryanto]

14. I think there's the benefit of distance there. n/t

[Lilith Velkor]

67. Other benefit: ATG is not a fictional character.

[Iggo]

15. Wate of time. Bullshit.

[el_bryanto]

16. Thank you for your participation. n/t

[Iggo]

18. Oh dear. I missed the point, didn't I?

:rofl: :hide:

[donheld]

60. Wate of time - my favorite activity

[Iggo]

65. It's my 'S' key, man, I swear!

I totally know how to spell 'waste'...honest!

(ETA: For what it's worth, I misread the OP, completely missing the "object to" part.)

[CTyankee]

17. I think it is. I can't see where there would be an objection to such a reinterpretation

simply in terms of sexuality. As a matter of fact, I can see where such a reinterpretation could be a fascinating part of the character's story, might open up new channels of understanding why the character acts in certain instances. If nothing more, it is a very creative way of imagining a character's motivation and feelings...

[La Lioness Priyanka]

19. whats the objection? i suspect in your case it is homophobic

[Lautremont]

22. He's the least romantic or sexual character of all time.

It would, or should, have absolutely no impact. If you had him making eyes at every passing bootblack and chimneysweep, that would be objectionable, because it would be changing a real fundamental aspect of his character, just as it would if he was straight and suddenly chasing after scullery maids and charwomen. So anyway, on the premise that he'd still be a detective and not a playboy, I have no objection to changing his sexuality. I hope that doesn't sound like one of those homophobes who say shit like "I don't care what they do as long as I don't gotta see it." I certainly don't mean it that way.

[Hassin Bin Sober]

33. You hit the nail on the head.

No one made SH in to a leering child recruiting predator.

As far as I know, this whole tempest in a tea pot created by the homophobic non-copyright holder, and defended by her homophobic pals here at DU, is over a mere joke made by Robert Downy Jr. on a talk show.

The makers of the film didn't even have to make SH gay. All the defenders of the "Sherlock Holmes Straight Faith" needed was an off-the-cuff joke by an actor before they went in to "I'm not a homophobe BUT" mode.

[Romulox]

44. I think this makes an important point: Holmes is asexual. Tarting him up

for the tweener crowd is distasteful to me, regardless of which sexuality is imputed to this largely asexual character.

[Brickbat]

52. Totally agree -- in fact, his asexuality is an interesting point in many of the stories, and is a

major plot point in "A Scandal in Bohemia."

[timtom]

64. Best answer yet.

Different examples might be, for example, a re-casting of Siegfried (Ring des Nibelungens) as African-American OR gay OR Hispanic.

These are not intrinsic to the character.

It matters not if Dumbledore is gay or not. Dumbledore is Dumbledore. Unless, of course, it is intrinsic to the plot. Such and such happens BECAUSE Dumbledore is gay.

[Confusious]

77. I second the post.......eom

[stray cat]

27. Do homosexuals like being told they are misguided and are heterosexual?

[el_bryanto]

29. I would guess that they don't n/t

[Nye Bevan]

28. Not necessarily

You don't have to be a homophobe to object to this:

http://ukjarry.blogspot.com/2009/02/223-viz-sherlock-homo.html

[lunatica]

34. I don't think it matters one way or the other

The character isn't about sex. It's about the ability to be a great detective.

[PVnRT]

35. If it's (Holmes' sexuality) done for cheapjack shock value, no

However, there has been plenty of interpretation of Holmes' character suggesting he might be gay, whether Doyle intended it that way or not. To introduce that tension in that way, rather than trying to show how "edgy" they are, does not detract from the story, and to object to that does smack of bigotry.

[DevonRex]

37. Definitely homophobic. Fictional characters are fair game to be

interpreted in LOTS of different ways. To raise an objection to a homosexual interpretation simply because it IS a homosexual interpretation is very obviously homophobic.

That woman would have a conniption fit if she knew how I interpret Romeo and Juliet. And I would dearly LOVE to see that play done as I see it, and as I think Shakespeare intended it.

[howard112211]

55. Just out of curiousity...

...how do you interpret Romeo and Juliet?

I have only superficial knowledge of the story from that movie with Leonardo Di Caprio (never actually read the play), but it appeared to
me to be a rather simple plot with not much ground for deep analysis and interpretation. But then again, I'm not much of a literature person, probably doing the play wrong.

[Confusious]

78. I am always wary of people

Who say they know how someone who lived 500 years ago meant something.

Just as I am wary of fundies who say this is a christian country, even though the founders were all very very wary of religion, and even stated in the peace treaty with Tripoli that the United States was in no way founded on the christian religion.

[Chan790]

40. I need an "other" option.

It really depends on the motivation of the objection. I say that as a writer, admittedly-a-mediocre-writer, but at-least-partially a working writer nonetheless. Mostly screenplay.

If the objection is motivated by some issue with the newly-found gayness of the character that you would not have if the character had been altered in some other way, then yes, clearly it is based in homophobia.

If the objection is motivated by conceptual-integrity, then probably not...I would seriously flip the f*ck out if some asshatted director fundamentally-altered a character of my creation in even the most-minute way. I created the character exactly how I wanted them to be...if I wanted her to be black, I'd have written her as being black. If I wanted him to be gay, I'd have written him as gay. If I wanted him to be a her, I'd have made him female. If I wanted them to drink gin-and-tonic instead of martinis, I think I'd have written that.

I'm a hardliner honestly, I don't care about the "artistic interpretation" of the producer or director or cast...I visually-imagine every line of my scripts in lush descriptive details as I write it because I want it filmed exactly how I wrote it. I read every word aloud and act them out because as i write them I am precise and a bit of a creative-fascist down to seconds of blocking, details of staging and set-dressing. If I wanted it different, I'd have written it differently.

[Blasphemer]

86. I find the writer vs. director authorship in filmmaking is very interesting

I took a film class and the the standard belief seems to be that the director is the primary author of the film. So, no matter how descriptive and exact a screenwriter is in creating her or his work, the director is accepted to have carte blanche artistic license. I would imagine that this is the reason why certain writers become writers/directors. I would think that a screenwriter who has a very particular vision would find it impossible to hand it over to a director who may completely reinterpret their work. The tiniest change in direction can completely alter the meaning of a scene or a character's motivation.

[galledgoblin]

46. somewhat likely/ almost certainly.

if personality changes of a character are completely inconsistent and offensive, then I can see why readers would object, but just changing the gender or sex that the character is attracted to does not fit that criteria.

[VMI Dem]

48. Yes.

It is.

[Brickbat]

51. Is it homophobic to reinterpret a popular gay fictional character as straight?

:shrug:

[WeDidIt]

53. I voted Definitely Homophobic

I would not have had I not been informed the asshole in question did not hold the copyright.

Since the character is in the public domain now, anybody can do anything they want with the character and nobody has any right to complain about it.

[Lars39]

54. No more *wrong* than it was for Laurie R. King to write a wife into

her interpretation and continuation of the Sherlock Holmes story.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

56. Might be homophobic or might not be homophobic.

I think it may be reasonable to object to somebody rewriting your character in anyway whatsoever. If a character is written as specifically heterosexual, or even specifically asexual, I can see how the original creator might object to changing that character to homosexual without being homophobic. Same with any other character trait.

That said, I'd also imagine that many times those objections are based on homophobia. Few would object to adding a heterosexual romance to an otherwise asexual character. Although every now and then somebody will take a story with no sex in it what so ever, make a movie about it where they tack on a romance subplot just to increase box office draw, and cheapen the story in the process.

As far as this latest Sherlock Holmes deal, this woman is a nut and doesn't have legal authority to block homosexual portrayals of Holmes, I doubt she'd have objections to a heterosexual portrayal of the character, and thus would be homophobic.

[cali]

57. I actually wanted to mull this over before responding

Ultimately, I think it's definitely homophobic. There are definitely people who become so obsessed with a literary character that any deviation from that character as written is considered heresy, but I still think that it's homophobic to object to portraying Holmes as gay.

[howard112211]

63. As for the "obsessed with literary" part...

go to a Star Trek convention and dress up like Mr. Spock, but wear a "Star Fleet medic" uniform instead of "Star Fleet science" and try to get out alive...

or in case you are a woman, take Janeway and wear "astrophysics". Same thing...

[JackRiddler]

61. Is it insane that anyone has the power to stop you from doing so?

Intellectual Property is Cultural Theft:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=7403280&mesg_id=7403280

[el_bryanto]

62. Yeah I don't really agree with that

I think that Britain has some insane copyright laws and that eventually characters should pass into the public domain, but if I create a character I think I should own it while I'm alive.

Bryant

[Nikki Stone1]

66. Considering that Holmes never had a woman in his life and hung out with Watson all the time

it's not much of a stretch.

[Confusious]

76. I don't know, but I get the feeling that

The stories were about more then who he was sleeping with. Just a feeling.

[ismnotwasm]

68. Yes

Who the fuck cares? Especially in a character like Sherlock Holmes, whose sexuality adds a little flavor to the role and makes it more interesting. It's certainly not the primary focus.

Maybe we should object more about the 7% solution? "Quick Watson, the Needle". Bad influence on the kiddies.

[bridgit]

69. No. What it is in no small measure is an admission on the part of the community...

that they are themselves subject - as is the case with many - to the fates of Eddie Murphy insofar as not being able to table universally viable characters and story-lines


Me? I'm reserving comment until I see Nathan Lane as Moby Dick

[closeupready]

70. No, not necessarily.

n/t

[fishwax]

71. Yes n/t

[Lilith Velkor]

72. Homoerotic reinterpretation has practically become a genre in itself

What's amazing is that it's mostly done by (and for) women and girls.

As they say at fanfiction.net - if you don't like slash, don't read it. In my experience, the degree to which one objects to it correlates to the degree one is homophobic.

[treestar]

79. Not necessarily, but it would be hard to defend the position that the

character could never be gay in many cases. It is fiction.

Maybe Romeo and Juliet. They were straight.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

80. Romeo and Julie were also young

:)

who knows maybe in 10 years juliet could have come out :)

[Ohio Joe]

81. Yes, it is - nt

[gleaner]

82. Chose "not necessarily" ...

If it is a character that has been around for a long time, a lot of people are already familiar with s/he. There would be a fear that changing the character too much would alienate the existing audience. Like making Mom on "Happy Days" a drug dealer instead of a comfortable housewife. For that we have Nancy on Weeds.;)

[applegrove]

83. From what I've read Sherlock Holmes is not the most romantic of people. He gets his kicks by

deducing things. That is his relationship to the world. I know the current movie takes alot of licence in this regard. If I do see it - I'll be taking it with a grain of salt.

[omega minimo]

84. How can you ask -- or anyone answer -- that question with ZERO INFORMATION?

:crazy:

How does reinforcing people's assumptions help anything?

[rebecca_herman]

87. I don't think it is homophobic

Personally, if I was a huge fan of a character, I would hope an adaptation would potray that character faithfully. If they are oirginally written as heterosexual, I think they should be portrayed as heterosexual. If they are originally written as homosexual, I think they should continue to be portrayed as homosexual.

It could POTENTIALLY be for homophobic reasons, but on it's own, I don't think it is homophobic. I would generally assume it to not be homophobic unless there was some special indication otherwise. Suppose I enjoy a book that features a strong female character who I enjoy reading about. In a film adaptation, the screenplay writer decides to make that character male. If I would prefer the character stay female as I feel it is more true to the story does that make me sexist against males?