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.

(Read comments) - (Post a new comment)

	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 (link)
	I'd never seen that before, I love it! If all authors had that attitude, we would have less wank... and the world would not be nearly as funny, so I'm glad all authors don't have that attitude. Agatha Christie's philosophy was pretty much the same. When she adapted her own novels for the stage, she took a machete to them. (Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

	silrana 2012-01-29 06:42 pm UTC (link)
	Christie wasn't completely immune. She hated Peter Ustanov being cast for Poirot. In a later book, she had Ariadne Oliver, her self-insert, tearing her hair out while working with a playwright and snarking to Poirot, "How would you like it if someone stuck a black mustache on Superintendent Battle and said it was you?" (Reply to this)(Parent)

(Read comments) -