Home
    - Create Journal
    - Update
    - Download

LiveJournal
    - News
    - Paid Accounts
    - Contributors

Customize
    - Customize Journal
    - Create Style
    - Edit Style

Find Users
    - Random!
    - By Region
    - By Interest
    - Search

Edit ...
    - Personal Info &
      Settings
    - Your Friends
    - Old Entries
    - Your Pictures
    - Your Password

Need Help?
    - Lost Password?
    - Freq. Asked
      Questions
    - Support Area

tiye (tiye) wrote in unfunny_fandom,
@ 2012-01-24 13:23:00

Current mood:

Gobsmacked

Multiple interpretations of canon? In MY fandom?
Warnings for homophobia with a side of sexism and probably various other -isms that I'm not entirely sure I have a name for! Also, massive amounts of jaw-droppingly over-the-top condescension.

Alexds1 is a fan of original recipe Sherlock Holmes, which is the only version that matters! Alexds1 has a problem with adaptations of literary works. And people who enjoy those adaptations. And people who view those adaptations as legitimate works in their own right. And people whose interpretations of creative works differ from Alexds1's. But Alexds1 especially has a problem with anyone who dares to speculate about Sherlock Holmes's sexuality, which is spelled out totally unambiguously in the original source material!

It doesn't take long for the pwnage to begin.

(Post a new comment)

tehrin
2012-01-24 11:02 pm UTC (link)

Like, Reichenbach was not even on their radar at all.

HOW DARE THEY FORGET REICHENBACH?! WON'T SOMEONE THINK OF REICHENBACH?!

Sherlock Holmes was written at a time when the media didn’t have the power to spoon feed you propaganda on how to feel emotionally fulfilled

Because no famous court cases or laws focused on oppressing "sexual deviants" or obscenity and (hehe "Chief Justice Cockburn")censorship laws that regulated the publication of erotic works (and other forms of literature including birth control pamphlets) to the underground. None at all! People could write what they wanted! And there was no such thing as the closet!

Alexds1 really needs to read more and get his/her head out of her homophobic ass instead of telling others not to read.

I do think he was written as asexual or too busy to actively pursue a relationship by Doyle, but he can also be interpreted him as a closeted homosexual. I enjoy both straight and slash (Holmes/Watson OTP!)fic.

And by god, oh-you-better-run's reply is beautiful.

(Reply to this)(Thread)

	tehrin 2012-01-24 11:04 pm UTC (link)
	others to read* (Reply to this)(Parent)

tehrin
2012-01-24 11:19 pm UTC (link)

And alexds1 responds to criticisms here with more assholery.

My family had to flee our native home of Disneyland during the Fun Pogrom of the 1990s. Our Jumpy House burned to the ground and I’ve avoided fun every since.

Seriously though, yes, shippers do annoy me this much and yes don’t worry, I’ve already unfollowed as many as I could without offending my core friend group. Half of the annoyance comes from not being able to escape it anyways, it’s always somewhere on my dash. The biggest problem I have with slash is the earnestness… if it were done in jest then I could get behind it. It’s fun to make fun of things, and the lack of seriousness is, in a way, a form of appreciation for the original subject matter. But shippers don’t make fun of things. What shippers do is rewrite something that functions and turn into personalized pornography. It is cutting down an entire tree to make a dildo, then getting angry that someone noticed. If that isn’t the pinnacle of disrespect, then I don’t know what is.

...

1) Holy antisemitism. I expected her/him to follow up with a blood libel joke.
2) So it's OK to make fun of homosexuality, but it's not okay to take it seriously and write erotica it?

I believe that paragraph accurately summarizes all that you need to know about Alexds1 and the foundation of which his/her opinions are truly based on.

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

glossing2, 2012-01-25 01:29 am UTC

risha, 2012-01-25 03:17 am UTC

cmdr_zoom, 2012-01-25 08:44 am UTC

ekaterinv, 2012-01-25 11:39 pm UTC

full_metal_ox, 2012-01-26 11:20 pm UTC

sailorcoruscant, 2012-01-27 04:45 am UTC

napalmnacey, 2012-01-25 06:55 am UTC

tehrin, 2012-01-25 07:07 am UTC

j_crew_guy, 2012-01-25 09:32 pm UTC

librarianmouse, 2012-01-26 03:26 am UTC

full_metal_ox, 2012-01-27 12:15 am UTC

cmdr_zoom, 2012-01-27 10:00 pm UTC

coffeebun, 2012-01-25 05:32 pm UTC

argylespy, 2012-01-27 03:23 am UTC

	life_on_mars 2012-01-25 10:41 am UTC (link)
	I do think he was written as asexual or too busy to actively pursue a relationship I'd always believed he was chaste by preference, simply because he felt any emotional involvements would get in the way of his logical and reasoning powers. And, as a friend of mine says, "Chastity is chastity, whether your thing is men, women or goats." (Reply to this)(Parent)

	spacelogic 2012-01-24 11:28 pm UTC (link)
	Somehow this reminds me of one time I saw a Star Trek fan ranting about how Kirk/Spock should never be written because Vulcans, being logical, would never have non-reproductive sex, and anyway homosexuality will be scientifically eliminated by the 23rd century. Queerness: invented in the 1970s, gone in a century or two, apparently. I guess we'd better enjoy it while it lasts. (Reply to this)

	phosfate 2012-01-24 11:40 pm UTC (link)
	"Honey, Alexds1 is out of bed again." "I'll put him back. C'mere you little monkey." (Reply to this)(Thread)

	napalmnacey 2012-01-25 06:56 am UTC (link)
	I've been watching Sherlock since 2010 and I still don't get your icon. (Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

sepiamagpie, 2012-01-25 08:28 am UTC

phosfate, 2012-01-25 03:30 pm UTC

full_metal_ox, 2012-01-26 11:27 pm UTC

phosfate, 2012-01-26 11:29 pm UTC

full_metal_ox, 2012-01-26 11:57 pm UTC

phosfate, 2012-01-27 12:00 am UTC

napalmnacey, 2012-01-25 05:55 pm UTC

puipui, 2012-01-26 01:36 am UTC

phosfate, 2012-01-26 02:11 am UTC

sepiamagpie, 2012-01-26 05:42 am UTC

puipui, 2012-01-26 09:54 am UTC

sepiamagpie, 2012-01-26 09:56 am UTC

phosfate, 2012-01-26 11:30 pm UTC

phosfate, 2012-01-25 03:27 pm UTC

napalmnacey, 2012-01-25 05:55 pm UTC

phosfate, 2012-01-25 05:57 pm UTC

amy_wolf
2012-01-25 01:04 am UTC (link)

So let me get this straight: is completely beside the point and bad and wrong, but Alexds1 was able to focus on Sherlock Holmes's sexuality long enough to come up with the absolutely definitive one and only answer to the question, and that answer happened to be something where you're not supposed to categorize him as straight, gay, bi, or aseuxal, but as a "perfectly rational man"?

And there is absolutely no room for interpretation with regards to his feelings for Watson or Irene Adler (who, despite being part of the original canon he loves so much is now only in it because network executives are so insistent on making women an important part of stories)?

And it's "almost tragic" that the fan community relies more on emotional impulses when enjoying a hobby than Sherlock Holmes does when solving crime?

(Reply to this)(Thread)

ekaterinv
2012-01-25 01:15 am UTC (link)

The weird thing about that (okay, one weird thing) is that Sherlock Holmes was written as tragic. Watson felt sorry for him. Partly Watson wanted Sherlock to get married, because Watson was so happy being married, he couldn't understand why anyone else would not be, if married to a good and intelligent person. But more legitimately, Watson felt sorry for Sherlock's inability to connect intimately with other human beings. And then there was that whole drug abuse thing.

Sherlock Holmes was not supposed to be a role model.

Oh AND women were always an important part of the Sherlock stories. The Red-Headed League is the only one I can think of that didn't have a woman in a central role.

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

amy_wolf, 2012-01-25 01:23 am UTC

sandyclaws68, 2012-01-25 02:23 pm UTC

napalmnacey, 2012-01-25 05:57 pm UTC

phosfate, 2012-01-26 02:04 am UTC

tehrin, 2012-01-26 05:25 am UTC

full_metal_ox, 2012-01-26 11:32 pm UTC

theninth, 2012-01-27 03:37 am UTC

sandyclaws68, 2012-01-26 02:18 am UTC

tehrin, 2012-01-26 05:28 am UTC

cmdr_zoom, 2012-01-26 07:39 pm UTC

cmdr_zoom, 2012-01-25 05:47 pm UTC

ekaterinv, 2012-01-25 11:16 pm UTC

kumquat_of_doom, 2012-01-26 10:57 pm UTC

cmdr_zoom, 2012-01-27 03:38 am UTC

full_metal_ox, 2012-01-26 11:42 pm UTC

argylespy, 2012-01-27 03:31 am UTC

	tehrin 2012-01-25 07:16 am UTC (link)
	Alexs1 is also focusing on the slash and not complaining as much about straight fic. (Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

amy_wolf, 2012-01-25 10:25 pm UTC

phosfate, 2012-01-25 11:49 pm UTC

puipui, 2012-01-26 01:41 am UTC

ekaterinv, 2012-01-25 11:24 pm UTC

chikane, 2012-01-26 07:37 am UTC

	kumquat_of_doom 2012-01-25 01:12 am UTC (link)
	sigh Holmes/Watson OT Fuckin' P. (Reply to this)(Thread)

	napalmnacey 2012-01-25 06:58 am UTC (link)
	Pretty much. Though I wouldn't mind Adler coming by to play from time to time. (Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

kumquat_of_doom, 2012-01-25 09:02 pm UTC

	ladyvyola 2012-01-25 05:22 am UTC (link)
	Has anyone pointed Alexds1 towards Rex Stout's "Watson Was a Woman"? (Reply to this)(Thread)

	tiye 2012-01-25 05:39 pm UTC (link)
	Ooh, I don't think so (although someone on another community gleefully pointed out Arthur Conan Doyle's "marry him, murder him, or do anything you like to him" remark). (Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

ekaterinv, 2012-01-25 11:34 pm UTC

silrana, 2012-01-29 06:42 pm UTC

coffeebun
2012-01-25 09:34 am UTC (link)

Oh, that person.

Alexds1 also made a whole tumblr post about DC and how the people who were complaining about Starfire's personality change were a bunch of whiners who should just stop buying comics or just buy the ones they like because gosh guys who cares she's just a fictional character and complaining about it isn't going to change anything because who cares about superheroes anyway! (Oh, just realized that it was in wank report, huh.)

So before he's okay with Starfire going from an actual character to a walking sex doll and now he's upset because people are speculating on Sherlock's sexuality? Wow, cry more.

(Reply to this)(Thread)

	cmdr_zoom 2012-01-25 10:22 am UTC (link)
	ewwwww. (Reply to this)(Parent)

	kosaginolegion 2012-01-25 01:15 pm UTC (link)
	I was wondering what sort of icing ought to be put on this cake. Now I know. Ironic icing. (Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

full_metal_ox, 2012-01-26 11:53 pm UTC

	yattara 2012-01-25 02:38 pm UTC (link)
	Only because he doesn't want to fap over Holmes, just Kory. ... I am so going to get my ass kicked by her over this, aren't I? (Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

phosfate, 2012-01-25 03:29 pm UTC

yattara, 2012-01-27 10:35 am UTC

	tiye 2012-01-25 05:40 pm UTC (link)
	... Wow. (Reply to this)(Parent)

	ekaterinv 2012-01-25 11:29 pm UTC (link)
	Making women sex objects = peachy keen. Making him think about men's sexuality = ew gross stop thinking with your vaginas you whores! (Reply to this)(Parent)

misachan
2012-01-25 04:18 pm UTC (link)

My favorite part of all this is that the ACD canon is 95% first person stories written by an unreliable narrator (at the very least Watson fudges names toward protect identities, after all.) Let's look at this from a Watsonian POV: if there WAS a sexual relationshkp between the two of them, would Watson in a million years write about it? Especially since this is around the same time Oscar Wilde's going on trial?

(Reply to this)(Thread)

luxshine, 2012-01-25 09:18 pm UTC

phosfate, 2012-01-25 11:48 pm UTC

misachan, 2012-01-26 02:43 am UTC

phosfate, 2012-01-26 03:29 pm UTC

luxshine, 2012-01-26 06:33 pm UTC

undomielregina, 2012-01-26 02:14 am UTC

janegraddell
2012-01-25 11:05 pm UTC (link)

What a pretentious ass. Even better, a pretentious ass who thinks they have the final word on discussion about Holmes' sexuality, and has yet somehow managed to remain ignorant of the piles of scholarship written about Holmes and Watson over the last century. Oh-you-better-run's rebuttal was awesome, with sources and everything.

I have no Sherlock Holmes icons, but I do have a Nero Wolfe/Archie Goodwin icon. Because there's clearly no subtext at all there, either. ~~Even if I ship Archie/Saul.~~

(Reply to this)

keleri
2012-01-26 12:52 am UTC (link)

I had been following Alexds for a while since they are the author of the webcomic The Meek (which is pretty good! ... although the behavior of the author makes me wonder) but this was pretty much the last straw for me. My doubts began when they defended Doug TenNapel and his awful homophobic views, then were further confirmed by that Starfire post... and now this bullshit. Worse, the otherwise cool lady Coelasquid reblogged Alexds's in an agreeing fashion, so I feel a little betrayed by some of my webcomic idols this month. (I'm still following Coela, though.)

(Reply to this)(Thread)

keleri, 2012-01-26 01:05 am UTC

coffeebun, 2012-01-26 02:19 am UTC

elektra3
2012-01-26 03:49 am UTC (link)

Yes, there's absolutely no way to interpret Holmes' feelings for Watson as anything other than totally, 100%, without-a-sliver-of-a-doubt platonic. You can read absolutely nothing into his freakout in "Three Garridebs," or his hilariously passive-aggressive "congratulations" at the end of "Sign of Four" when Watson tells him that he's getting married. There is nothing remotely suggestive about his comment that he's "lost without [his] Boswell," or how he refers to the Baker Street apartment as "our rooms" years after Watson moves out. There is absolutely no discernible subtext in how he refers to Watson as an "ideal helpmate" in "Blanched Soldier," or how shortly after that he jokingly-but-not-really complains about how Watson "deserted [him] for a wife," or how he generally cannot shut up about his BFF despite the fact that Watson is Sir Not-Appearing-In-This-Story. Clearly, the slashers are all just frothing lunatics who are pulling slashy subtext out of thin air.

I'm glad we've cleared this up!

(Reply to this)(Thread)

rosehiptea, 2012-01-26 09:51 am UTC

	tehrin 2012-01-26 04:45 am UTC (link)
	OK WHY HASN'T ANYONE POSTED THIS YET?! "GAY WATSON! How many blasted Watsons can there be?" Original Watsons Comic Here We're falling down on the job, guys. :( (Reply to this)(Thread)

And now with GIP -

tehrin, 2012-01-26 05:10 am UTC

Re: And now with GIP -

tiye, 2012-01-26 06:20 am UTC

Re: And now with GIP -

tehrin, 2012-01-26 06:41 am UTC

Privacy Policy - COPPA
Legal Disclaimer - Site Map