People tend to see in Holmes what they want to see, which is usually some reflection of themselves. So if I maintain that Holmes is a left-handed, non-Christian, misanthropic, untidy, scientific type with a propensity toward a broad scatter of eccentric hobbies and the accumulation of a wide range of useless information.... well, I would, wouldn't I? (Trout #22124 par. 1-2)

So "The Trout in the Milk" cheerfully launches us into the problem of finding the real truth in Sherlockiana. Is Sherlockian interpretation just a matter of opinion? Or are there, as philosophers Hirsch and Danto assert, true limitations on what can be considered a valid, let alone a correct, interpretation? ("Valid" means something plausible or justified by the available evidence; "correct" means justified, and true.)

Since Sherlockians worldwide take the sixty Sherlock Holmes tales of Sir Arthur Conan Doyle's invention to be great artwork, or even a "sacred canon", it is only natural that Sherlockian discussions of the canon frequently take on the characteristics of academic literary criticism, or of philosophical analyses about the interpretation of meaning in an artwork. Just as the philosophy of the "hermeneutic circle" style attempts to interpret a cultural text in terms of the parts giving meaning to the whole, and the whole giving meaning to the parts, Sherlockian interpretation of the canon reflects this back and forth analysis. Sherlockian interpretation, too, wrestles with the difficult question of just how big to draw that hermeneutic circle. Is the whole of the artwork just the canonical text? Does it or does it not include the author's intent, the cultural milieu at large, or even the mindset of the reader?

Like something out of E. D. Hirsch's nightmares, Sherlockians take authorial irrelevance to an extreme. Sherlockians practice the "Game" wherein they acknowledge Sir Arthur Conan Doyle as, not the creator of Holmes, but the Literary Agent of Dr. Watson, whom Doyle merely helped to publish his stories (or "chronicles") of Holmes's cases. Thus Doyle is theoretically eliminated from having any influence on the meaning of his works. But this by no means makes interpretation simpler for a Sherlockian, and arguments do rage over whether to allow Doyle back into the hermeneutic circle, in any case.

The Hounds of the Internet is one place where these arguments rage. The HOUNDS-L mailing list provides a forum for over 500 people to daily study and discuss the minutiae of Sherlock Holmes and his world, or "to keep green the memory of the Master" as they say. Not all Sherlockians are Hounds (being internet-challenged or -deprived), but all Hounds are Sherlockians to the core. The messages posted to the Hounds list are often highly literate, sometimes silly, and rarely bad-tempered. Despite debates and arguments that arise, Hounds as a whole are quite friendly, polite, and even playful. Discussion "threads", as they are called, weave and knot and unravel varied meanings with a surprising complexity. The occasional "off-topic" post, unrelated to Sherlock Holmes, is discouraged by the listowner and asked to untangle itself from the list promptly.

Innumerable topics invariably come up on the Hounds list. Discussions of religion particularly become quite involved, as Hounds vie to find the "definitive" evidence in the canon for what faith Sherlock Holmes may have practiced or believed, knowing perfectly well that there is no definitive evidence. As "The Lurking Man Upon the Moor" sums up, Holmes has been declared to be atheist, agnostic, Christian, Jewish, "Buddhist, transcendentalist, humanist, fatalist, naturist, pagan, or none of these" (#10543 par. 2). Watson's character has also been speculated in different threads. Ranging from his level of intelligence, to his number of wives, to his sexual experiences, and to the location of his army wound, Watson is a veritable landmine of mysteries to puzzle over for some solution. The canon is narrated by Watson himself, and therefore very few facts are available about him, since Watson did not take time to describe himself or consistently chronicle his own activities as he chronicled Holmes's. In the inevitable thread about Holmes's use of drugs--tobacco, cocaine, and morphine--Hounds obsessively scrutinize the canon either for signs of addiction, or for ways to disprove the idea that Holmes did not have complete control of his drug use. Finally, the listowner himself even regularly raises allegations of Holmes's criminal behavior (Drunken #19276), which others attempt to refute (Elsie #19312, Abbas #15991). All these topics, though run-of-the-mill for the Hounds, inspire lively debate.

Yet the wrong topic upsets the equilibrium of ordered harmony among the Hounds. What appears to draw the most fire on the list is any suggestion that homosexuality exists in the canon. If some Hounds posit that secondary characters in the canon may be homosexual, then discussion often escalates into controversy over defending or rejecting such a reading. Roughly, there are "purists" who defend the canon from reinterpretation, and there are revisionists who encourage any stimulating theories, a division not unlike the familiar polarization of literary critics. The Hounds that can remain neutral during these debates find it difficult to delicately remind the opponents that their argument is not a matter of life and death, or even personal honor. The homosexuality controversy essentially began with a 1988 paper wherein William P. Schweickert originated the idea that the characters John Scott Eccles and Aloysius Garcia in WIST are a gay couple (Rascally #4632 par. 1). When raised on the Hounds, this idea resulted in anger and in clearly off-topic diatribes about homosexuality as a sociopolitical issue. "Billy" responded to a comment that linked the perceived homosexuality with Freudian analysis.

To see a gay theme in it [the WIST story]--I don't see why it would be called an 'agenda'--hardly requires a Freudian, though. Freudians look at symbolism; the gay behaviour is, or isn't, demonstrated in the literal behaviour of the characters in the stories. (#4651 par. 2)

"Jefferson Hope" still insisted that the "literal behaviour" which is present is not necessary or sufficient evidence for homosexuality. "The story made sense to me long before anyone tried to make Eccles gay, he pointed out (#18848 par. 2)." A later thread contended that James Dodd and Godfrey Emsworth in BLAN are lovers (Greek #21808). Moreover, "The Grice Patersons" also found what she called "obvious" homosexual overtones in RESI:

Holmes studied the room and its contents... making several euphenistic [sic] references to homosexual rape. (It was, after all, the Victorian Era)... Like other rapes, this one was intended to assert power over the victim. It was meant to terrorize, punish and humiliate Blessington prior to his murder. (#12362 par. 2)

Considering the surprised reactions which other Hounds posted in response, these overtones were not at all obvious to everyone, including myself. From all these secondary characters, the homosexual reading can of course travel one step further. When the question is raised of whether Holmes and Watson are more than friends, the reaction on the Hounds list is substantially more mixed. Some Hounds are capable of friendly humor, as when "Colonel Warburton" and "Trelawney Hope" bandied about a joke on the implied sharing of a tooth-brush between Holmes and Watson (Trelawney #22116). Some Hounds are made uncomfortable by the topic. Others attempt to justify their personal views of Holmes and Watson's sexuality. "The Trout in the Milk" herself advocated that Holmes is asexual:

I put it to you that Holmes... had no preferences one way or the other. He did not have to impose self-control or celibacy upon himself, he was not "in the closet", he was not repressed, he was not yearning with unrequited love for Irene Adler or Mrs. Hudson (or Watson, or the bull-pup) or anyone else. He just didn't care. And if it didn't matter to him, why should it matter to us? (#22003 par. 4)

Perhaps not entirely incompatible with "The Trout"'s theory, David Adams suggested that at least an unconscious love affair existed.

I find it quite easy to believe that Holmes and Watson were 'in love' whether they had sex or not. Watson's libido insisted that he marry in order to satisfy it [so Holmes had less libido?], but even then his love for Holmes was such that he came when called and quickly moved back [into 221B Baker Street] with him when the marriage was over. Homosexual 'love' does not presupposed [sic] nor require homosexual 'sex' to be the same thing. (#21898 par. 2)

This complex range of interpretations suggests that, though the classic Sherlockian orthodoxy asserts that Holmes and Watson are heterosexual, there remains room for flexibility. The ambiguity may be due mainly to Holmes, who is so eccentric in every visible way in the canon, that he may be sexually unconventional as well. Whatever discouragement they receive, the suggestions of homosexuality do persist on the Hounds list, if only in humorous "AHEMual innuendos" about Holmes and Watson's bedroom behavior (Lady #5476). One common thread to these homosexual topics is that varied Hounds are accused of being unhealthily preoccupied with sex and Freudian theories.

Indeed, Hounds are divided between a deep skepticism and an intrigued respect toward Freud and the many modern modes of artistic interpretation and criticism, e.g. deconstruction, structuralism, post-structuralism, and semiotics (Grice #12362). There are sometimes tentative suggestions that the subtexts and subconscious can yield analyses of some validity, and conversely there are objections that Freud's ideas are misplaced when taken from psychology and applied to literature. "The Grice Patersons" spoofed what Freud would think of canonical instances of transvestitism, instances which Sherlockians unanimously agree are merely expedient disguises.

By putting on a dress in MAZA is Holmes finally exteriorizing his softer emotions? Or is Holmes identifying with his mother? Is the parasol Holmes carried used to shield himself from male or female sexuality--or both? And why did Holmes go to bed right after dressing in drag? In SCAN, when Irene wears trousers in public is she socializing her sexuality? What exactly is the nature of her sexuality anyway? Is she trying to be a father figure? Is she rejecting her mother? Then Jung would brush Freud out of the way and have fun analyzing the cross dresser as an archetype.... (#14354 par. 3)

"The Grice Patersons" clearly caricatures how Hounds view such psychological/symbological theories, but she does bring out the predominant impressions which some Hounds have of these interpretative methods--complex jargon and dubious mumbo-jumbo that are entirely beside the practical point. "The Greek Interpreter" defended these methods, lamenting the automatic implication that finding sexual tension in the canon is a sign of an overactive imagination.

As detective stories, which ask the reader to unravel meanings and clues, is it not possible that the Sherlock Holmes tales can embody more than one level of meaning, contain more than one mystery? After all, ACD [Arthur Conan Doyle] had a subconscious like the rest of us. (#20606 par. 4)

These deeper forays into the text do reveal surprising new meanings below the surface, but are these new meanings valid? Are they a part of the artwork, or only of the reader? "Sir Hugo" for one disputes such involved readings of texts. While an author may be doing things unconsciously in his work, to rely on such subtexts for the true meaning is shaky, for "it's rather hubristic to think that readers can plum [sic] the depth of an author's subconscious with any great accuracy. He dislikes how critics and readers appear to treat authors like "dunces who write in a trance and have no awareness of what they are doing" (#3445 par. 2-3). There are three books in Sherlockiana which are infamous for applying literary criticism and analysis of sexual imagery to the canon: Samuel Rosenberg's Naked is the Best Disguise, Christopher Redmond's In Bed with Sherlock Holmes, and Michael Atkinson's The Secret Marriage of Sherlock Holmes and Other Eccentric Readings. (All lurid titles, aren't they?) Atkinson's book, particularly, is an award-winning collection of essays on such topics as "Psychologizing the Text of A Study in Scarlet: Repression and the Textual Unconscious" (Susan #7116). Samuel Rosenberg's book becomes the butt of many a scathing commentary on the Hounds list, as does Freud himself. Yet the lambasting is often enough followed by a joke in Rosenberg's defense from those Hounds who delight in Rosenberg's audacity. So the tension between skeptics and revisionists continues, and will likely never be resolved.

Despite the practice of the Game, it is surprising how many times that Hounds call upon evidence of Doyle's intent as a validation for varied interpretations. The author still resides just within the border of the hermeneutic circle, it seems. A query about the CHAS adventure asked if Doyle perhaps had written so many law-breaking activities into the tale for the sake of trying Holmes and Watson on as criminals, as a nod to his brother-in-law, who created the popular gentleman burglar A. J. Raffles (Billy #16474). Explanations for the racism found in 3GAB come from evidence about Doyle's life experiences and personal attitudes to blacks (Lumber #17690, Aggie). "Altamont's Agent" too traced the meaning in a tale, not through Holmes or Watson, but through Doyle's personal identification with the poet Keats (#22668). Whatever the theory of the Game, authorial intent is still in practice in interpretation. This is intriguing because Sherlockians largely resent that in his later life Doyle devoted himself to the Spiritualist religion; a faith that appeared so completely at odds with the cool, rational science of Holmes. As long as the author's intent is irrelevant, Sherlockians can keep the "embarrassment" of Doyle's Spiritualism innocuously quarantined away from the canon. Yet if Doyle's intent still does matter, what implications must this have on the canon?

Sherlockian purists defend the canon from what they see as radical and outrageous interpretations arising out of the modern schools of criticism--deconstruction, structuralism, post-structuralism, Freudian analysis. Revisionists, on the other hand, save Sherlockiana from going stale and dying out. Other Sherlockians put themselves exactly in the middle, stating that neither side is wholly right. Perhaps the neutral response is best; if one cannot know the real truth, one can at least possess a relativism arising out of many possible truths.