So...fandom...

[charliesmum]

I get so confused by people in a 'fandom' at times, I really do.

Not the fanfics, or the slash, or the weird pairings or anything like that. I'm cool with that.

What gets me is the weird tendency to find fault with the people who actually created the world/characters they're fandoming in in the first place.

I read this interview with Stephen Moffat on the Guardian that was posted on the SherlockBBC comm on LJ, and it was mildly interesting; he spoke to the rabidness that is John/Sherlock, and to people's speculation that Sherlock is gay/asexual etc, and basically said he is neither gay nor asexual, he's just not interested in sex because it's distracting.

Which is fine. But people went mad, accusing him of being homophobic, or unfair to asexual people. Also he's anti-women; something I've seen on Doctor Who comms, too. (That's something I suppose we could save as a discussion for another day. I get what people say as far as his female characters, but I don't know I fully agree)

Anyway...most of the time the feeling I get is people getting upset because he doesn't agree with them about Sherlock's sexuality. While I think Sherlock/Watson is toats the original slash pairing, I never once for a moment though Doyle or Moffat or Gatis every planned for them to be actually gay.

Does that make slashing them any less fun? No. That's the whole point of it. It isn't canon, but it could be and that is the sandbox in which slash writers can play.

Moffatt and Gatis wrote this Sherlock. It is their right to characterise him any way they want. Heck, it's within their rights to get annoyed at the alternate characterisation of them in fandom, but I get they look at it more in bemusement than horror. They get people do it.

The little 'why do they think I'm gay' digs that were in the recent series did not feel to me like an attack. It felt to me like a fun little nod to the fandom who slashes.

I don't know why people try to vilify the people who brought them such pleasure in the first place. Just enjoy the show, discuss the ending (and seriously, what? Wow.) and write your fanfiction the way you want without expecting the real writers to come to you and say 'Wow. You are so right. You've made the character so much better than I, a professional television writer with several hit shows to my credit ever could. I am going with your vision from now on.'

And as for the whole 'it would be nice if he made Sherlock asexual because asexuals would love to have a role model on tv' thing. Yes, it would, but Sherlock wasn't written to be asexual. Don't get upset that he's not advocating it when he never meant to be in the first place. Yes it would be nice to see that in a story. It's just not happening here.

Comments

[novel_machinist]

I think that a lot of it has to do with age and experience. A lot of fandom finds it difficult to connect to others outside of their group. And they lack the outside experiences (due to age or whatever) to really be secure and comfortable. Their hearts are probably in the right place, but they just don't have the wherewithal to pull a lot off. When they see other things, they get threatened.

This is just based off my own fandom. One of the most famous/popular pairings involves a married man in his mid to late 30s. They don't have the ability to write the ending of a 10+ year marriage and his new gay sex life so they just write off the wife in horrible ways. But when anyone threatens this ship they tend to go off. They just don't have the ability to do it. It's a fun thing to read when done well, though.

[pinguthegreek.livejournal.com]

Oh good. Someone talking sense.. Thank you!

[rayvyn2k.livejournal.com]

Disclaimer: I haven't seen season 2 yet.

The biggest outcry from those of my acquaintance who have seen it is about the Scandal in Bohemia based episode because of the dumbing down of Irene Adler. In canon, she is the only person to have beaten SH, and apparently, that was changed in the new series so Sherlock could rescue her.

The other thing I've read from other Sherlock fans is their objection to Moffat calling Sherlock a 'psychopath' over and over. Sherlock Holmes is NOT psychopathic. There has been speculation over the years that he may be manic depressive or have Asperger's.

In my little group, those were the main objections to Moffat's writing and comments.

[charliesmum.livejournal.com]

Regarding his use of 'psychopath' I basically gave him the benefit of the doubt and assumed he used 'psychopath' because it was easier than explaining the difference to the reporter; or he was just using the wrong word because he was tired and made a mistake, or the writer changed the word he used because he thought it would make it clearer to the audience. In canon, in the real script he said 'sociopath' and 'asberger's' and that's what I would go with as canon and what Mofatt's characterisation is, not something written in the Guardian.

That being said, it's his bloody character, and Sherlock is fictional. He's only Asberger's if the writers decide that he's Asberger's. If the writer wants to call him a psycopath, that's his right because he wrote the character. We can be free to never watch the show again or, yes, bitch about it on forums, but it's still his character to do with has he pleases.

Also...Irene Adler in the original story saw through Holme's disguise, just as the new one did. Any objection I might have about New Irene is her association with Moriarity and the fact she was actually using the information to extort money, whereas the real Irene was making sure she didn't get hurt by people more powerful than she.

Sherlock would totally have gotten the photo back from Original Irene except for the fact she got married, he knew she got married, and he basically deduced that she wasn't going to be an issue. (And she told him as much).

As for the rescue thing - I'll wait until you see it, and then we can discuss it. I didn't mind that, but I'd be interested to see what you thought.

[charliesmum.livejournal.com]

LOL! I know.

I mean, some of the arguments I've seen make some sort of sense on an intellectual level, as an amusing argument. The thing I heard was 'all his famles are looking for men/want to get married.' etc, and that was their big purpose.

Now I don't disagree that he tends to write women as mothers/wives, but how does that take away from the woman? Women who want to be mothers/wives are somehow not as feminist as those who don't? Seriously? Cause if that's the case, I missed that memo.

Besides, if that's the kind of woman Moffat writes, it's probably because it's the kind of woman he can write well. I don't think that makes him a woman-hater at all. And even if he is a bit primative in his thinking, I don't care.

If Moffatt isn't a completely enlightened being, I'm cool with that, because I enjoy his work, and that's all he's obligated to me for. Good stories.

Hops off soapbox.

[pairika.livejournal.com]

I've always found rabid fandoms sort of perplexing. I mean, why do stuff like that once it's not fun? Why identify so much with your own opinions that you impose them on SOMEONE ELSE'S creation?

I dunno, maybe it's just lazy. Creativity by proxy. If ya have that much trouble with their characters, then make up your own!