![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
I think I saw this article half a week ago, but I'm still spitting-nails mad that the Moff thinks society is so wonderfully accepting and non-disapproving nowadays that he has to make it clear that Holmes is DEFINITELY straight, not gay, and in conclusion cousins not attracted to Watson even if he somehow was. Oh really. That's so nice of you. Thank you, Moffat. I'm glad to know that in your view, everybody in this modern world except you (and Benedict Cumberbatch, of course) is completely non-judgmental of the gays!
It's so much worse, somehow, when they are evidently in some way trying. Moffat, for instance, appears from this quote to have given genuine thought to the Holmes/Watson relationship and to the appearance of Gay, and, while earnestly believing that he and society are joyously enlightened, concluded that Holmes and Watson couldn't be that kind of guys. He probably doesn't have the faintest inkling that there's anything wrong (or incongruous) in his protestations. A bit like Whedon's constant, earnest, annoyingly unconscious misogynyfails. (Cumberbatch's remarks, on the other hand, make it instantly clear that he's too clueless to even enter the Gay 101 lecture hall, being instead still lost in the Gender Essentialism Orientation Scavenger Hunt, located outside in the Girlyman Manlygirl Quadrangle.)
I'm still looking forward, though, with some mixed feelings, to the forthcoming episodes1. As Holmes fanfiction it's very good, and Cumberbatch's performance really impressed me, prompting mental comparison to Brett's (not that I'd place them on the same level) without seeming derivative. A time-period AU is one of the most delicate and easily-fucked-up forms of derivative work, in my view: the task of capturing the essence of characterization while stripping away most or all of the verbal expressions the characters use is beyond most fan writers. Time period or characterization usually falters, and in the end most of these AUs stand or fall according to how well they're able to distract you from that weak point. I was expecting something that would be fun enough to cover the inevitable gap. Instead I got some strikingly good characterization. Of course, the crime-solving-related plots were incredibly silly and contained some giant holes, but frankly, if they made sense it would be far less like ACD.
1. My personal 'hate the creator, hate the fanwork' function only cuts off all ability to enjoy when the creator has been an unmitigated asshole in such a way that no possible fanwank could explain their behavior as being in good faith.
It's so much worse, somehow, when they are evidently in some way trying. Moffat, for instance, appears from this quote to have given genuine thought to the Holmes/Watson relationship and to the appearance of Gay, and, while earnestly believing that he and society are joyously enlightened, concluded that Holmes and Watson couldn't be that kind of guys. He probably doesn't have the faintest inkling that there's anything wrong (or incongruous) in his protestations. A bit like Whedon's constant, earnest, annoyingly unconscious misogynyfails. (Cumberbatch's remarks, on the other hand, make it instantly clear that he's too clueless to even enter the Gay 101 lecture hall, being instead still lost in the Gender Essentialism Orientation Scavenger Hunt, located outside in the Girlyman Manlygirl Quadrangle.)
I'm still looking forward, though, with some mixed feelings, to the forthcoming episodes1. As Holmes fanfiction it's very good, and Cumberbatch's performance really impressed me, prompting mental comparison to Brett's (not that I'd place them on the same level) without seeming derivative. A time-period AU is one of the most delicate and easily-fucked-up forms of derivative work, in my view: the task of capturing the essence of characterization while stripping away most or all of the verbal expressions the characters use is beyond most fan writers. Time period or characterization usually falters, and in the end most of these AUs stand or fall according to how well they're able to distract you from that weak point. I was expecting something that would be fun enough to cover the inevitable gap. Instead I got some strikingly good characterization. Of course, the crime-solving-related plots were incredibly silly and contained some giant holes, but frankly, if they made sense it would be far less like ACD.
1. My personal 'hate the creator, hate the fanwork' function only cuts off all ability to enjoy when the creator has been an unmitigated asshole in such a way that no possible fanwank could explain their behavior as being in good faith.
(no subject)
Date: 1 Aug 2010 08:56 pm (UTC)Ahaha, that is awesome.
(no subject)
Date: 1 Aug 2010 09:16 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2 Aug 2010 08:51 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2 Aug 2010 08:56 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 1 Aug 2010 10:24 pm (UTC)*laughs*
SO TRUE. Thanks. M.
(no subject)
Date: 1 Aug 2010 10:40 pm (UTC)Yes this. Am now engaging Infinite Feminist Facepalm on his behalf.
(no subject)
Date: 1 Aug 2010 10:46 pm (UTC)