And while I have been delighted and really enjoying the stories, this introduction person makes me a bit twitchy.
For example, she says the following in the intro to the second volume:
"Watson was the ballast upon whose reassuring weight Holmes came to rely more and more as the gaslight era drew to a close. That was the basis of the partnership from March 1881 to August 1914, and those who suggest homosexuality, as they have of every other famous male team from Wyatt Earp and Doc Holliday to Batman and Robin, either are ignorant of the largely masculine character of late nineteenth-century English society or stubbornly refuse to accept Holmes's much-discussed misogyny at face value" (xii). Excuse me, Loren D. Estleman, I really do not understand what you're trying to say here. Okay, I understand the whole male friendship thing of 19th C england, male bonds were close, etc etc which Eve Kosofsky Sedgwick proved you wrong, thank you very much.
But what in all gods are you trying to say in the second part of your sentence? There are links between misogyny and homosexuality, but that's like drawing smoke out of the air--what links, exactly? So Holmes is misogynistic and this automatically makes him NOT gay? I really don't get it. If anyone one else gets it, lemme know.
In my understanding, people can think whatever they like, and Batman and Robin or Sherlock and John have as much possibility of having a homoerotic friendship as having a platonic friendship. People have deep friendshippy bonds no matter the state of 19th c fucking england, and they can be erotic or not. I'm going to return to this issue later on in length, but for now I'm done with my rant.