Multifandom meta on a springboard of the Sherlock DVD commentaries

[petronia]

There is some proper nerdy conceptual stuff in there. Moffat and Gatiss talking about power balance in the Holmes-Watson relationship as a chain of command thing, for instance - ship's captain and ship's doctor (who overrules the captain on certain issues). Kirk and Bones. ...Aubrey and Maturin? One suddenly realizes this is its own instantiable class. Also, this made me ping that the BBC version of Dr. Watson is just like Bones with the ladies, although he probably doesn't hate the universe as much. It's not a usual thing, Bones's way with the ladies! I wonder. XD

Moffat really does state that Holmes is asexual,** and Eleven tends in that direction, although Ten doesn't. It finally crystallized for me today, reading a fic by dira on the topic of Jack Harkness and Aral Vorkosigan XD;; and thinking, what's interesting about this story is that Jack plays in it the same micro-role as his most effective macro-role in the Wmedia fanfictional multiverse i.e. vanishing mediator between the 1980s+ cultural mores/pressures that created slash and those of the Moffatian 50th century AD (as often happens, an object closer than it appears in the SF mirror)... So here you have Russell T. Davies, whose basic tendency (one of, at least) is to normalize - such that the companions are delicately delineated mundane archetypes with vivid mundane Earthbound support structures, and the Doctor himself is more human than he's ever been - and therefore his Gay Agenda(tm) is ppl who just happen to be, dotted here and there unremarked in the landscape; but subject to an unconscious normalcy bias nonetheless (m/m singles and couples, fewer f/f, trans and other nonexistent); whereas Moffat's basic tendency is to exceptionalize - Amy, at the point you meet her, is inherently special already - he is a het dude who on a really fundamental level does not see the world in a queer way or instinctively populate it with Muggle gays, but he will write characters whose sexuality are part and parcel of their extraordinariness: the omnisexual futurist (Jack and River), the asexual genius (the Doctor and Holmes); if he writes a trans or gender-fluid character in future I'd be less than surprised. Moffat's out in the double ring of the dartboard, IOW, where representation is a matter of pointing out that these options exist at all, rather than are not weird. But he's interested in them because they present as weird, to him.


** I suspect Gatiss is not ttly onboard, though he's careful to preserve a united front. XD; You can tell he picks and chooses which points to endorse outright in the commentary (and ahh debunks the whole Irene Adler romansu bit). Epigrammatically I'd say Moffat believes John is straight and Sherlock is asexual, and Gatiss believes John is bi and Sherlock is tsundere.

Comments

[sub_divided]

Huh. So Mofatt is coming from the same place as Mercedes Lackey, who (taking a page from the slash scene she'd come out of) made her main character an extra extra special gay man with Powers?

Also I'm kind of wondering why you think that Gatiss thinks that Sherlock is tsundere (which is hilarious btw).

[petronia]

(Weirdly enough this didn't get picked up by the LJ fandom newsletters, afaik, but Tom Ewing reblogged the middle section on Tumblr. XD;) Yeah, that's what I mean - the Mercedes Lackey place. Common wisdom nowadays being that kind of exceptionalism is damaging to the Cause, right, though at least Moffat isn't saying plain old ghei-ness is extra special by definition.

Dude, it's just the way he writes him. XD Surely I'm not the only one? I'm hanging out in the Chinese fandom, for perspective (which is always different from Wfen), so. Wfen keeps burbling about Holmes' DSM-IV diagnosis and what definition of asexuality he falls under. Cfen just wants to know seme/uke, man, like usual. XD

Also, I think you missed seeing a fill for you on drabble_trade. XDD

[sub_divided]

It's only fair, you quote his tumblr all the time XD.

Should I move this comment over there? I didn't see the LJ entry. (Just like I didn't see the drabble_trade fill... *hussles*)

I thought "sociopath discovers human side through the power of True Love," not "tsundere". Tsundere is more, like, hormonal bitchiness.

[petronia]

No no, it's fine! I check DW as often as LJ, it's just slower moving as I have fewer ppl.

Yeah, but this version of Sherlock is also hormonally bitchy. XDD (Or mildly bipolar, whatever.)

...I just noticed I can't edit the DW comment

[petronia]

Speaking of which, would you mind if I linked your Scott Pilgrim review on Tumblr? XD; I want to add my own thoughts without repeating the stuff we agree on, and the audience I want to talk to is there not here/LJ ("go watch Utena, damned nindie fans!").

Re: ...I just noticed I can't edit the DW comment

[sub_divided]

Go ahead!

I left out the stuff about Beck's genius in making Sex Bomb-omb sound good but not too good, and the alternate reality where unsigned Toronto indie bands are all excellent, sadness.

[sub_divided]

No, I commented on all of the fills that were for me! Which one are you talking about?

[petronia]

Haa yes, I see that you did. XD

[takadainmate.livejournal.com]

Okay, I'm just going to be over here laughing forever at the "Sherlock is tsundere" comment. XD

[petronia.livejournal.com]

I haven't gone looking for the Japanese fandom yet, but if it's half as populated or hilarious as the Chinese fandom... XD;

[canis-m.livejournal.com]

I also loled! Even if "asexual" and "tsundere" are not mutually exclusive.

It has been preying on me that you (seemed to?) present w/r/t Moff and RTD in value-neutral terms when imo it is not a value-neutral matter, I mean, if it comes down to "worldview in which queer = freakish" vs. "worldview in which queer != freakish"...uhh. There's the argument that all publicity is good publicity, but meanwhile every marginalized group ever righteously calls BS on white straight cis authors & similar for their (mis)representations...for instance (the exaggerated racial analogue) it strikes me as unhelpful for white dude authors to point out things like "Chinese ppl exist! They are intriguing and Oriental, requiring ~intriguing Oriental BGM~", though this may seem like news to them on account of Chinese ppl dwell in the outer reaches of their white dude dartboards, or something.

...Maybe all this goes without saying. I'm sorry if I'm being really dumb. Anyway AFAIC Moffat could use remedial work in How To Female Charas before he tries to fail at writing transgendered alien tentacle whatever.

[petronia.livejournal.com]

Well, considering the middle ep of this thing... XD (I wonder if the Beeb would have been inspired to do better if they knew this would be fansubbed and LOLed at by the entire Sinophonie within a week of first broadcast. Perhaps not; it couldn't have cost them to actually find 1x Chinese person in London to point out the obvious production errors.)

But yes, value neutral here, because I'm consciously separating my attempt to pin down what it is these ppl are doing, versus my judgment of whether or not they are doing good things. XD; In particular, Moffat's view isn't precisely "queer = freakish", because I doubt he's got the right definition of "queer" down! I think his view is "gay = normal but not me", and RTD's is "gay = normal, also me". Given the general tenor of RTD's characterization/plotlines/interviews I suspect asexuality (forex) is just as far out on his dartboard as on Moffat's, except Moffat is interested in poking at it because it's far out (and concurrently, not interested in "normal" gay ppl). Which was my original point of course. XD;

And yes, it's unhelpful for you/me/Fandom**, but I really do think asexuality (again forex) is on the cusp of any-sort-of-visibility-at-all in broader cultural terms? There's also the biggie, which swings it for me, which is that the conversation where this comes up in Moffat's actual script is beautifully nuanced (and acted). Not gonna lie, that was where I completely got on board with John Watson's character. There's no fail in the scene. Moffat, mind you, doesn't seem quite to know what he's written, but that's pretty endemic to the dude. XD I've come to the conclusion he really is one of The Clueless(tm), like JK Rowling. Or for that matter, Conan Doyle Hisself.


** And I'd argue Fandom, if the AVALANCHE of stories indicating an interest in working out the subtleties and implications of asexuality were any indication.

[canis-m.livejournal.com]

The middle ep was exactly what I was thinking of, yeah.

I guess the question of "whose dartboard is it anyway?" and where [MarginalizedGroup] resides on it is what I was fumbling at...in broader cultural context at the moment I suppose asexuality is far out on most (sexual) people's dartboards, and therefore any visibility is better than none, although the fact sort of sticks in my craw. The scene in question was ttly on the money, though, yeah. Big props to the actors for that.

In the long view though it is not helpful to have a preponderance of Moff-style characterizations in which non-normative sexuality is associated heavily with Difference!! okay if I can't shake my fist at Moff for something I will never settle down. XD;;

if the AVALANCHE of stories

Recs pls if you've got 'em XDD

[petronia.livejournal.com]

There's also an aspect of this particular series that play into all this, which is that it's FANFICTION - in the sense that it's partially a conversation with an existing fandom. So to be scrupulously fair, Moffat-Gatiss's intent is not to use asexuality to exoticize Sherlock, but - as with their treatment of his drug habit - they're making an attempt to correct fanon. Conan Doyle used both asexuality and drugs to exoticize Holmes; the latter-day fandom sensationalized the latter and "wiped" the former by giving him romances (with Irene on-screen and Watson in aca-fan treatises), which if you accept asexuality as a valid queer orientation is... basically kind of terrible, isn't it... and Moffat-Gatiss are bringing it back to fundamentals which leads to -- what?

Similarly, to be scrupulously fair, I should give a shout out to RTD's furries. XD His loving, hetero-normative, nucleic-family all-part-of-Little-Space-Britain furries, bawling.

[canis-m.livejournal.com]

Which leads to a million fanfictions that get it right, I guess? I mean the latter-day aca-fan slashers weren't all wrong about H/W, rather they were only half right i.e. they got the romance part but not the asexual part. So I suppose one has to give Moff-Gat credit for pointing the way to Truth finally at a juncture when fandom was primed for it ahaha.

Wait what furries--oh, the episode with Ten and kittens? Gridlock? I--I'd forgotten...

[petronia.livejournal.com]

You forgot an episode with furries in? XD I know it was season 3 but still...

I don't know what Sherlock fics you've read! I could turn up dozens. (It kind of ranges from "dude is ttly asexual" to "mutatis mutandis, the new version of I'm Not Gay But I Love You" to "SCIENCE".)

[canis-m.livejournal.com]

In my defense the cat people in Who are not all that catty i.e. not furry enough. XD;

I've only read what was recced in this post (http://asexual-fandom.dreamwidth.org/7184.html)! so not many. But I am pretty invested in more-or-less asexual Sherlock in the sense that gaynormatively cock-loving homosex versions do not ring true.

[petronia.livejournal.com]

Back from lunch - sorry, I got flip and portmanteau-tastic when we're trying for precision and unpacking, in this conversation. XD There are way more asexuals (spectrum, not all self-identified as such - I don't, precisely, but obviously I have some skin in this game XD) in Fandom As A Whole than anyone's seen fit to headcount, no? It's like that one poll where it turned out the majority self-IDed as queer, and you (well, I) thought Yeah, actually I knew that. Without knowing that I knew that. My other first-week epigram for this fandom was "asexuals writing stories about asexuals"... that is, I suspect this version of Sherlock Holmes has become a sort of lightning rod for feelings and reactions fanficcers cannot project onto any other character in a remotely IC manner (which doesn't mean they stay IC with Holmes, to get back to your point). Even Spock, because the antisocial traits don't come into play there. Frankly, if AVEN deals with the stunning combo of asexuality + antisocial tendencies anywhere... but I've been hesitant to delve.

[canis-m.livejournal.com]

Maybe fandom really is on the cusp of the post-sexual movement? XD; With Sherlock as lightning rod, yeah. I've felt pretty post-slash for...ever, really, and lately (this is related in my head) have done lots of wangsting re: the gratuitous/unjustified sexing of characters, period, w/r/t not just forex Hanamotocest ;_; but staples like GyouTai--for a strong-OTPer this is no joke! I mean, if intimate domestic partnership is as moe as anything (which it is), and if representations of asexual characters are rare 'n' precious (which they are) then why be a force for evil one of the dominant paradigm oppressors again, sticking sex where it don't need to be stuck uwaaaaagh (especially when I too have an oar in the water, so to speak, although I too don't precisely self-identify) and so forth. I had a post in the works trying to justify my terrible agenda on the grounds that it's all about the quest for some ideal impossible imagined form of uberlove that is vast and contains all subforms. /eyeroll The usual navel-searching.

[petronia.livejournal.com]

Weeeeell IDK do asexuals-in-Fandom want their sex stories to be taken away from them for their own representative good? Not the impression I get. XD I suppose I don't see it as all that different from insert any other setup that one knows could never happen in canon. (Which is 90% of everything, although not 90% of everything you write.) If you just don't see it but are feeling pressured to see it, that's a whole other story.

To be honest, the Greater Holmesian Whatever makes me grok the segment of DW fans who prefer Moffat's take on DW because it got rid of RTD's shippy melodrama, because DW is "supposed" to be about adventures and not angst-and-ships. I got onboard with RTD so I see the shippy melodrama as a free lunch on top of the core thing, which may not even be meaty enough for me otherwise. But with the GHW I hear that little voice, yanno, that sounds like my pre-pubertal self, saying To heck with all this mushy nonsense, this shiz isn't supposed to be about feelings. &diesalot; I can't do the Victorian stuff because the angst is requisite, and it seems like way more trouble than the protags would tolerate in-character. Meanwhile modern AU is modern and AU and I'm Sufficiently Entertained(tm), I guess. XD

I will start you a List B of stories in which Sherlock is a cat, or explicitly compared to one. XDD (And, as someone or other pointed out, John is the sort of person who types long blog entries with two fingers... about his cat.)

[canis-m.livejournal.com]

asexuals-in-Fandom want their sex stories to be taken away from them

No, no, it's not that...idk, maybe this is another instance of my klaxons false-alarming. But I feel bad for contributing to an existing overwhelming imbalance? You said above that it was kind of terrible for fandom segments to erase Holmes's canonical asexuality, and I agree--that's what I'm talking about! But w/r/t less clear-cut cases. Characters that aren't explicitly canonically asexual, but implicitly or plausibly so.

It's not a matter of feeling pressured to see what I'm not seeing--more like the voices of all the anti-shippers in all fandoms who ever said things like "Why can't it be a beautiful platonic relationship? Why you gotta add sex?" are starting to haunt me. XD; Obv it's self-defeating to grab hold of canons/characters that aren't especially sexual, or likely aren't sexual in certain ways, or are ~ambiguous~, and then sexualize them according to one's interpretation/impulse/agenda/whatever, and then feel like not only a pervert but also somehow an AGENT OF OPPRESSION for doing it, because sexual culture is the dominant culture--but that is how I roll, I guess. Can probably self-absolve by writing self-imposed penance fic about epic devoted asexual romance. -_-

To heck with all this mushy nonsense, this shiz isn't supposed to be about feelings

Aaaahaha I never had that voice, even as a kid; it's always about feelings XD;;--when I read Holmes the moment that stood out with burning clarity was the scene (idek which story!) where Watson gets shot and Holmes freaks out all "For God's sake say you are not hurt!" and Watson thinks about how it's all been worth it because now he knows Holmes really does care, finally. &alsodies; Didn't register in sexual or romantic way at the time but it did register as the big honking emotional climax of a relationship arc, so. H/W slash with actual sex in was never quite convincing, but until lately I couldn't have pinpointed why; now I can pinpoint.

Anyway "adventures" vs. "shippy melodrama" comes down to plot vs. character imo (character relationships being subsumed under the latter)? It's not that I've ever disliked adventures--let alone resented the very presence of adventures, as anti-shippers seem to resent the presence of romance--but they don't stick; I forget them. As a kid I watched Who for the charisma of the Doctor's character as much as anything, and read Holmes for Holmes likewise.

TL;DR alskjdlaskjdflk looking forward to kitty!Sherlock.

[petronia.livejournal.com]

I just got a newsletter email. Did you know there's a Hollywood remake of Let The Right One In coming out? o_O; /OT

"Why do you have to add sex to everything" anti-shippers: for such a long time this particular gambit was taken (and not unrightly, in most instances) as the surface you scratch to find rampant homophobia, no? = = I mean, would be nice if that were no longer the case, but. Really there was correlation because you had loads of "pure" homosocial friendships and very little cross-gender friendship/love in the same mold. I have to admit that many of your favorite canons defeat my mental ability to add sex to things. XD;

The Three Garridebs, because everyone says that! XD; (No, seriously, everyone says that, about the emotional climax. Moffat and Gatiss did. In the commentaries.) I have no childhood memory of said bit at all, bawling. Possibly I never read it, or it dissolved into my subconscious - given that, unlike a lot of ppl seemingly, I never remotely doubted that Holmes cared about Watson in the first place. After the Guy Ritchie movie came out I was talking to a flister (a droller?) who had just started reading the books, who said that she thought the relationship was terribly unequal and she didn't see what Holmes got out of it, and I was startled, completely. Like I was being asked to explain something so obvious I'd never given it any thought.

...I'm studiously avoiding talking about myself when I meta about this fandom, on account of not wanting to sound like a crazy person, but it's pretty difficult. XD;;

[canis-m.livejournal.com]

Ja, I've seen a trailer even. Expecting badness.

Just because homophobes have asked "Why you gotta add sex" for the wrong reasons doesn't make it an invalid question, and it's never been limited to teh ghei--I mean, Mulder/Scully? Sometimes it's just shipwars (people subjectively not feeling the pairing, not wanting a damn romance in that particular case, or whatever combination of factors)...thank goodness acknowledging the asexual spectrum exposes romantic vs. platonic as a false binary!! Even though it's easy to fall back into binary thinking...tl;dr again; one wants to avoid being sex-negative while being asex-positive. Somehow. Ahaha my canons--the thing is it's not that I set out to be deliberately contrarily perverse, I just...follow my nose, weeping.

Not surprised everyone says it. XD; I don't think I'd doubted that Holmes cared--I don't remember that being a question--the point was more that Watson had had doubts, even if the reader hadn't, and his doubts had been laid to rest in this cathartic way. It's such a universal condition of relationships: having moments of being unsure whether the other person cares as much as you do, or as much as you hope they do, even if you have a pretty good idea most of the time. Arguably Watson's a little thick for doubting XD but it's still a moving scene. M-maybe you really didn't read that one. XD;;

As for sounding crazy, I don't think you should be obliged to self-censor for yr first and best fandom!

[petronia.livejournal.com]

I don't, at all - "fanfiction" is my catch-all term for "story based on a preexisting narrative, that was not written by that same person, and that is not meant to be a simple reproduction of said narrative in a different medium" (I think it is pretty rare that something like the Trek reboot is not written by someone who is a fan, so the etymology holds up XD). It's more a writerly classification to me than anything: when you're writing fanfic, you have a set of tools and challenges, and when you're making up all your characters (and story and world, possibly), you have a different set of tools and challenges. Of course, a given fanfic can be agreed upon to be an extension of canon, or to form its own canon.

To me the Trek reboot is clearly a fanfic from the writerly perspective: it's an alternate universe story! The two TTSS adaptations are more blurry. The BBC series feels like a straight adaptation, whereas the movie actually feels a lot like fanfic of the book (a mood piece, and a "remix". I mean that Christmas party scene).

[petronia.livejournal.com]

...And yes, asexual and tsundere are precisely non- mutually exclusive. XD AS PROVEN BY FACT this formulation is funnier than saying Moffat (IMO) thinks Holmes is aromantic but Gatiss doesn't.