*SPOILER ALERT* Having a rant here, basically - since I've just finished the new Holmes book, 'House of Silk, which was excellently written - apart from the ending, which descends into pretty grim 'gay villain' mode. It ends up (after an admittedly fascinating story) that a lot of powerful figures (MPs, Doctors, Aristocrats, Police) are using a gay brothel where they abuse underage boys - and will stop at nothing to prevent the truth emerging about their 'debased perversion', including murder and the torture/killing of a 13 yr old boy. Hmmm. I realise this sort of thing happens occasionally (in 1890 lol), but is it really likely that a whole host of high-ranking officials are not only gay - but paedophiles and murderers (with a link being implied) to boot? Also, the main complainant in the case is an effete, art-dealer with a weak constitution, who marries to spite his domineering mother and sister, and to act as a facade to cover up his homosexuality (and visiting of said pedo brothel). More dodgy stereotypes? Just done a bit of research on the author, Anthony Horowitz, and it seems he has a problem with political correctness preventing authors from using gays or blacks as villains. Hmmm. I don't personally have a problem with any group of ppl being villains in a book - as long as they are used as heroes too, in the same proportion (Holmes himself is arguably gay, altho this element is taken out of the story by marrying Dr. Watson off). Maybe I'm over-reacting here, but tbh, I can't see how he's got away with it, and it definitely seems to highlight a particularly negative view the author has of gays. Any thoughts??