apple_pathways | This might count as petty, but...

Entry tags:

This might count as petty, but...

This is taken from

fail_fandomanon in a thread about "annoying fanon taken as canon":

Oh, in Sherlock fandom there's so much of that going on. A few examples:

- Sherlock being asexual.
- Sherlock being or having been a cocaine (or any drug) addict.
- Sherlock hating the way his own brain works ("too much noise" and the like; I blame wordstrings for this. She's very good writer, but I don't like her take on Sherlock, and I really don't like her take being accepted by large parts of fandom).
- Sherlock being a sociopath (yeah, I know he says so himself, but that doesn't make it true).
- Mycroft not really caring about his brother.

*forehead slap*

This is the Sherlock bit: anyone not interested, feel free to skip to the questions at the end!

First, I have to admit than I am a rabid Holmesian: not just the new BBC series, but the Arthur Conan Doyle novels and stories as well. (And several of the movies/tv series. And the BBC radio dramas. And various re-tellings/pastiches. Etc.) Therefore, a lot of my perceptions of the new series are most likely colored by the ACD canon, and the huge body of Holmes-related work that came before. HOWEVER:

1. "Sherlock being asexual."
Honestly, when I first read the thread title, I was tempted to respond "The notion in Sherlock fandom that Sherlock and John are most definitely a couple". On further thought, I realized I was overstating things a bit. It's true that a large portion of the fandom is interested in Sherlock/John slash. However, I don't think most fans actually believe they are or will be a couple in the series, or actually even care if that's the case or not. They just enjoy the idea of Sherlock and John as a couple, and I can't fault them for that: this is what fanfic is for.

As for Sherlock being asexual: it is pretty damn close to canon. No, he never comes out and says "I'm an asexual." He doesn't have a t-shirt or go to meetings. But he does pretty explicitly state that he's not interested in romantic relationships, and it's no big leap from there. Are other interpretations possible? Could he turn out to be gay/straight/bi? It's possible. But "Sherlock is asexual" is far from being pure fanon.

2. "Sherlock being or having been a cocaine (or any drug) addict."

This is most definitely canon. Look up the drugs bust scene on YouTube. If this doesn't meet the definition of canon, I don't know what to consider canon anymore.

3. "Sherlock hating the way his own brain works."

I'm pretty sure this a bleed over from the ACD canon, but I can see it easily transposed onto the BBC series (though I'm having trouble coming up with specific examples). No, it's true that Sherlock doesn't 'hate' the way his brain works: in fact, Sherlock thinks pretty highly of his own intellect in either canon. But to be honest, I don't think that what's being represented in fic (or in either canon) is Sherlock 'hating' the way his brain works; but he most certainly is tormented by his own genius.

4. "Sherlock being a sociopath (yeah, I know he says so himself, but that doesn't make it true)."

"I know he says so himself". Q.E.D.

No, I know: 'unreliable narrator', he could have been flippant, etc. etc. There's a million excuses to discount the veracity of his statement. BUT: there's also a lot to be argued for his complete candor. And he did say it without any obvious wink or nod, which makes this notion far from merely fanon. (I also wonder if there's some confusion as to what a 'sociopath' is?)

5. "Mycroft not really caring about his brother."

I have nothing to argue about this. It's canon that Mycroft 'cares' enough about his brother to spy on him and want to keep track of his movements. (Of course, that could have been a cover for his true reasons for wanting to spy on his brother, but anyway...)

What I do want to say is: where is this fanon? Granted, I've not been as deeply involved in the fandom as I once was, but most of the fic I've seen that deals with the Sherlock/Mycroft relationship portrays Mycroft caring much more than he shows in the series.

/end Sherlock-specific bit

All of this brings me to my topic for discussion: what is canon? How attached are you to the 'facts' of the media you enjoy? Do you like it when the source material mixes it up and plays with canon, or is a foolish consistency the hobgoblin of your little mind? (I know it is of mine...)

Where is the line between canon and fanon?

Also: Do you have bits of fanon you find annoying, or that you actually like better than canon?

As for my own personal favorite bit of fanon: see icon!

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

Merlin fanon:

#1 Merlin being an so noticeably taller than Arthur. He's only 1/2 inch taller. It's a little thing but it's just NOT TRUE. And it bugs me lol.

To be honest, that would irritate me as well! Petty gripes are always welcome here. :P

Hey, so you know how everyone in Doctor Who fandom ignores the fact that, according to the Eighth Doctor TV Miniseries, the Doctor is half-human?

It's a very good thing we're all ignoring it, because damn that was stupid.

I don't know why people get so worked up about fanon. If you don't agree with that characterization, write them differently. The Draco-in-leather-pants thing was kind of silly, but there are other interpretations out there.

I personally fanwank things all the time. I don't expect anyone else to go along with them, but it helps make plot holes make sense in my head. See: Morgana from Merlin.

Edited 2011-05-26 02:49 (UTC)

OMG, trying to argue about Doctor Who canon is like trying to argue about: the Bible. It's been around forever, there are many interpretations, and it's iffy what should or should not be included in the official canon! (And people are oddly zealous in their attachment to it...)

(But for what it's worth, YES, the Doctor being half human is just too stupid to acknowledge!)

I don't necessarily get worked up about fanon, but I do get a bit irked if a particular idea I'm not fond of is so wide-spread that it makes it difficult for me to find the fic I enjoy. For instance: I'm not a slash fan. I have and will read slash, and I've come across a lot of really well-written stories I've enjoyed. ~~I'm actually rather fond of Doctor/Rory slash~~. HOWEVER, it doesn't push my buttons the way it does for your average slash fan. Sherlock fandom is HUGE into slash: especially Sherlock/John slash. While I don't begrudge S/J fans their fic, it makes it hard for me to find the gen and het fic I enjoy.

So yeah, I know: cry me a river, right? :P

Haha, yeah, I get that it's frustrating when you're just not into a dominant pairing. Or even a dominant characterization-there's a tendency in slash pairings to make one character more feminized, at I hate that. But luckily I've mostly been involved in larger fandoms where even if I'm only into rarepairs or a certain sort of characterization, there's still a wealth of fic out there.

I've got to admit that-even though it's about 90% of what I read- slash doesn't really turn me on that often. I'm the sort that scrolls past the sex scene to get back to the plot, and PWP's don't hold my interest at all. But I'm interested in the characters and the relationships, so the buildup is awesome.

Canon is sort of tough to define. I tend to be a hard-liner, so nothing that isn't in the show itself counts (no asides in the DVD commentary, no writer tweets, no cut scenes), but that doesn't mean I don't like to play off of it when I'm writing/speculating/pontificating. I tend to cling like a madwoman to the "facts," but that's because the part I like most about fanfic (and fandom in general) is having to think around a certain set of rules. I have a tough time coming at fannish things and applying my own set of rules--it just doesn't feel right, though I know a lot of other people do it, and to good effect. (-:

I'm not sure how I feel about the source material mucking about with its own canon. It pretty much depends entirely on which source it is. Some shows are just built that way, where everything pretty much resets every week. And there are things like Doctor Who, that have been around forever, and kind of have to mess with canon in order to keep things going (though, with Doctor Who, most 'canon' is highly debatable ~~and the looms are totally canon~~). Usually, though, once something gets to the point that it's retconning its own canon, it's pretty much over the shark.

I think you get source material playing with the associated fanon a lot more often, and that's something I find really interesting. Some writers work in little winks and nods to the fandom (some even preempt fanon that way), and some go all-out to mix people up (and some seem to be annoyed at their fandom and go out of their way to rile them up, which is something I think is happening with one of the webcomics I follow).

I'm having a hard time coming up with specific bits of fanon that I particularly like or hate... there have always been one or two fics in a fandom that kind of supplant/supplement certain bits of characterization, or certain in-between events in the world. The more plausible fanon is, and the more it toys with the source material without breaking it, the more I like it. (I'm pretty fond of most of the fanon for Donovan and Molly, since I think they're unlikely to be explored as in-depth as fandom has in the series itself.)

The only fanon things that really annoy me are things where people bring tropes and presuppositions in to the source that have no basis there, and when the characters just become people's stock characters. This happened way more often in the anime fandoms I was in, though, and I think that might have had a lot to do with the younger fanbase. Nuance isn't a strong point in the teens.

*nods sympathetically*

Yes, looms: canon! ITA. :P (They're an interesting idea, and I wouldn't be upset if they worked them into the show.)

The discussion about canon that inspired this reminded of the arguments would-be philosophy major friends always wanted to have in college: "But how do you know the sky is blue?"

Because I get that there are alternate interpretations for a lot of this poster's so-called 'fanon' peeves: but why not go with the most obvious/accepted one that's most easily supported by the source material? (I feel the same way about Sherlock being asexual as you do about the Doctor being asexual. Well, not necessarily Sherlock in the new series, but definitely Holmes from the ACD canon...)

I, too, am a fan of rules. (Gee, who would have noticed?) So I think we agree pretty closely on our definitions of canon! While I do enjoy the occasional canon-breaking fic, mostly I want to see what writers are able to do within the universe the source material created, because as you said: if you change things up too much, it may as well be about any group of characters. I want to read Sherlock fic because I like the characters and the premise: if I want to read a Generic Buddy Cop story, I'll read a Generic Buddy Cop story.

(and some seem to be annoyed at their fandom and go out of their way to rile them up, which is something I think is happening with one of the webcomics I follow).

Is this Homestuck?

Edited 2011-05-26 03:16 (UTC)

I'm torn between asserting that since the Doctor is THE LAST TIME LORD, OMG, looms have to be canon because that's the only way there can be more Time Lords eventually, but on the other hand: no one in their right mind is going to do that. ~~Until I write for Doctor Who.~~ So.

I think the poster's arguments are mostly a case of "Your fanon is not as right as my fanon." Because with Sherlock we have a grand total of, what, 4.5 hours of canon? And almost none of that is actual backstory... so there's not much source material to go to, unless you go to the source (which obviously we're not meant to do, since that's pretty much where 2 and 3 came from. Then again, 1 and 4 come from the show itself, so I'm inclined to diagnose this as a case of My Fanon is the Only Canon You Will Know.)

Actually... hmm... now you've got me thinking about the Buddy Cop trope. Where does something stop being Generic and become an interesting exploration of the source universe? (Which, of course, is all personal preference, but anyway... curiosity.) I'm thinking "Sherlock and John... AS COPS. WHO ARE FRIENDS WHO KICK ASS" would fall under the generic category, since it shoves S&J into that particular trope, whereas "Lestrade and Donovan were badass before Sherlock showed up and ruined everything by solving things before they got to kick down doors" would probably be interesting enough to be worth the buddy cop trope (since, for one, we don't have much of a template in canon already for Lestrade and Donovan, so we don't necessarily already know what'll happen).

(Also, yes, it's totally Homestuck. I'm starting to think that a significant percentage of my continuing interest in that comic is the interplay between Hussie and his fandom. It's kind of fascinating.)

I am still bummed that they killed of the other Time Lords! I want more Time Lords running around! If the LOOOOMS can make that happen for me, I am more than willing to back your campaign!

that's pretty much where 2 and 3 came from. Then again, 1 and 4 come from the show itself

#2 was pretty directly addressed on the show, too. They didn't specifically mention cocaine in the drugs bust scene, but there was a definite implication that Sherlock was a drug user. (Maybe the quibble comes from the difference in 'drug user' vs. 'drug addict'?)

Honestly, I think Sherlock and Watson plugged into the Generic Buddy Cop trope would make for an excellent fic! But that's just it: they still have to be Sherlock and Watson, otherwise what relation does it have to the show? (Sherlock kicking ass and taking names while Watson stands off the side and delivers caustic one-liners would be endlessly amusing.)

For me, I'm less attached to the particulars of the scene/setting/set-up of a show than I am to the particulars of characterization. Especially in a show like Sherlock, where the characters are the premise. As long as a story has the characters behaving as I imagine they would, I'm not too picky about what else the author changes.

Lestrade and Donovan as buddy cops would be pretty epic. I can imagine the fun times they had before Sherlock came along... :P

(Also, yes, it's totally Homestuck. I'm starting to think that a significant percentage of my continuing interest in that comic is the interplay between Hussie and his fandom. It's kind of fascinating.)

What, exactly, about the fandom for his show has got his knickers in a twist? Or do you think it's a case of him just enjoying toying with the fanbase for his own kicks?

Yeah, I kind of forgot about the drugs bust thing, though in my defense "addiction" is never really explicitly dealt with (except in the pilot, but I've already excluded that from my definition of canon. (-;) Then again... I suppose the addiction is implied on about the same level as the asexuality. (I should really re-watch Sherlock. It's been a while, and you can tell I'm getting rusty. ^_^)

I think Hussie's issues (if you can call them that) with the fandom basically boil down to their completely different interests re: the story he's telling. He seems to absolutely love the whole build a character up for a big fall/death gambit, he loves making things kind of twisty and dark, plus he is (or puts on a very effective air of being) just incorrigibly un-serious about everything (I'm pretty sure a good portion of this is a facade, because he can't be as un-serious as he seems about things and still maintain the level of plotting he pulls off. But I'm pretty sure he does revel in breaking people's hearts). Whereas the fans have really taken to his characters, and are (oh noes!) emotionally invested in them, and because of the (original, though since abandoned) interactive nature of the story, feel like they have some say in what happens to them. So they wig out when he kills someone, or ruins a relationship, or in some other way makes it so what everyone thought was going on wasn't actually going on. I don't think he particularly hates the fandom, but I think recently the expectations that he cater the story to them, rather than going where he wants to go with it, has kind of grinded on him a bit. Right now we're stuck in something akin to the second disc of Xenogears, where all the plot action is happening in summary by a character that already knows what's going to happen. He's definitely been aware of all the fandom flouncing and drama, and while I think it made him feel powerful at first, I think he's kind of had enough of it and is trying to hurry past the parts he knows people are going to be really upset about so he can get to the part he actually wants to write with as little strife as possible. In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if he came back later and wrote this part properly, but I also think it's more likely to come as part of the universe-reset that's been hinted at for the last few months.

So, I guess in short, what kind of mesmerizes me is that he has this fandom that cropped up largely because he started out writing what amounted to a choose-your-own adventure story, taking suggestions on the forums, so people feel like the characters are partially theirs in the first place, even though it's been more than a year since anyone besides him has contributed anything more than fanart to the story. The whole thing is kind of a fanworks chimera that's now piloted entirely by the original creator.

Canon is the stuff I like. If I don't like it, I toss it. ;)

I'm pretty lackadaisical toward canon but I tend to stay VERY far away from fandom arguments. My brother and his friend are HUGE nuts for the Transformers and it drives me bonkers. It's supposed to be entertainment.

One of the keys for me is going /forward/. If it's a prequel, I'm not usually interested, unless it stands alone. It's the reason I'm so deeply into the Farscape comics right now. The creator of the series is behind them and they're continuing the storyline where the live action ended.

What that might entail when the COMIC ends someday, I don't know.

Canon is the stuff I like. If I don't like it, I toss it. ;)

But, but...RULES! CANON! ~~FOOLISH CONSISTENCY IS THE HOBGOBLIN OF MY LITTLE MIND!~~

*sigh* You make things sound so simple!

I tend to enjoy a lot of 'prequel' fics, but I can't think of any major canon prequels I've particularly enjoyed. It's hard to tell a new story about characters/situations you already know the outcome for. (I'm determined now to find some that worked...I have a feeling it will take someone much more knowledgable than me, however.)

NOOOO, I do not do fandom arguments! That's why you see me taking interesting posts/ideas from outside communities and transporting them here, where I know I can have intelligent discussions with people who won't call me names and compare me to a Nazi for showing a disinclination toward their favorite pairing!

Canon is simple in my world. It all goes into the Idea Drawer anyway, to be yanked out and considered when I need it. >:>

Jim Butcher's 'Welcome to the Jungle' comic was cool. It takes place before the rest of his books. But when Fringe did a flashback episode I just skipped it. I don't want to watch Young Olivia and Young Peter - I like them who they are NOW. It can make me so irritating. :D

Wahoo! I like your strategy, I get a broader view of geek world and don't have to jump into the mire on my own. :D

I am happy to be your tour guide to the broader geek world! :D

My favorite fanon for Doctor Who is that the "great man, a hero to many" that River kills is Jesus. *nods*

I agree with

switchbladesis, that thing about the Doctor being half-human is too stupid for words. I think one of the 8th Doctor novels said he used the Chameleon Arch to fool the Master, but I might be wrong.

Since it's never explicitly stated in ACD's stories or Sherlock, I wouldn't say that Sherlock being asexual is precisely canon, but there are plenty of things that suggest it. Personally I don't think he is, but that he just doesn't act on whatever sexual urges he may have, the same way he's always ignoring his hunger or exhaustion. Besides, sex means he'd have to interact with people, which he doesn't like to do. Not to say that he can't be asexual, or that people who think he is are wrong, of course.

...Actually, most of these "annoying fanons" I would say at least have a basis in canon. Though I've always been a bit skeptical about the "sociopath" line...for one, I don't think there's such a thing as a "high-functioning" sociopath, and I'm also not sure that Sherlock is one at all. Maybe it's Moffat not knowing what a sociopath is, maybe it's Sherlock's way of making excuses or keeping people at a distance, I don't know.

I'm a total stickler for rules. I don't care what they are, but once you make them, stick to them, or at least give me a reasonable excuse for why they change. Which is why Moffat's Doctor Who makes me want to pull out my hair sometimes - it goes against all the rules! The Christmas special for example...many, many times the Doctor has said that you can't go back in someone's personal timeline and change things. Yet this entire episode is about that! ARGH.

It took me typing this out to realize I don't actually have a strict rule for what's canon. I guess as far as pastiches, deleted scenes, word from The Powers That Be goes and other things that are iffy on being canon, as long as it doesn't contradict canon, it depends on if I like it? I don't know, I've never really thought about it. This is a very interesting question!

My favorite fanon for Doctor Who is that the "great man, a hero to many" that River kills is Jesus. *nods*

Consider me firmly aboard this crazy train!

Since it's never explicitly stated in ACD's stories or Sherlock, I wouldn't say that Sherlock being asexual is precisely canon, but there are plenty of things that suggest it.

So few things actually are explicityly stated, but you're right: if Moffat and Gatiss decided to make Sherlock a pansexual playboy in secret, they have room to do so. As for the ACD canon: asexuality didn't exist as an identity when he was writing it, so I wouldn't expect any explicit statements--but Watson's observations, and Holmes's behavior, are easily extrapolated to 'asexual'. I don't know: I'm not particularly attached to the identity, but for my own part, I don't enjoy the idea of Holmes in any sort of romantic relationship!

Sociopath may not be exactly right, but I can see where they were going with the line: Sherlock doesn't experience human emotions/empathy the same way other people do. Putting himself in other people's shoes is an intellectual, rather than an emotional exercise. He may not be a certifiable sociopath, but I can see the convenience of that description.

As for Doctor Who breaking canon: I've had to give up on expecting them to follow the rules. And it's not just Moffat that's done it: remember "you can't travel between parallel worlds" (despite the half dozen times they did it), and "Rose is gone forever, no, PSYCH, she's back!"?

I'm able to view things like pastiches and different versions of movies/series as outside canon. Certain franchises, especially in sci-fi, have a shit TON of 'extra' source material, and it would be impossible to try to incorporate it all into a consistent canon.

There are a number of things from ACD canon that people take for granted because of certain writers who shall not be named, but are incredibly popular and honestly, write pretty good historical romance. But they could just change the names to Leo and Harry and call it original :/

I have an odd example of this, actually, and it sets me apart from the rest of the fandom because I'm the only one who likes it. (Get ready for a reasonably long and possibly boring explanation).

See, the movie X-Men Origins: Wolverine doesn't really have any relationship with any comic prior to it, except the one it was based on, which was almost entirely regarded as professional fanon. I can see why, because it was poorly executed. The movie gets even more dismissed because Wolverine is just not that tall. (He's 5'3" canonically, if anyone cares).

But the thing is, the actual storyline of the movie makes a whole bunch of sense. It makes a great deal more sense than a lot of other things, explains a largely unexplained rivalry with Sabretooth (they're brothers. This upset the slashers no end because eww, incest. Personally, I think it kind of makes the whole thing better because it is at least 100% more messed up, but w/e). It just... explains things better. Basically everyone else thinks its an awful explanation.

TL;DR - Wolverine fandom is messed up and kind of blinded by shiny things.

But they could just change the names to Leo and Harry and call it original :/

I see this all over all different fandoms and it drives me nuts. Fanfic may be stylishly written, but if the characters are so removed from the originals that you might as well just be writing a new story, then what is the point?!

Yeah, the Leo and Harry problem crops up in every fandom. Sometimes I'm amazed that people can be so good at dialogue, plotting, and pacing and just so terribly crap at characterization.

There are a number of things from ACD canon that people take for granted

What sort of things?

See, comics fandom seems to be another one of those that's just monumentally intimidating! So much to take into account, and very few people who will have actually read/seen everything available.

He was 5'3"? Really? That's actually pretty cool.

I'm not actually all that surprised - building an original fiction audience is hard, and I see a lot of people who should be flogging their work to publishers slapping character names on it and calling it AU, because as noted, it's hard to do it the other way (or actually, it's not as hard as you'd think, but that's how perception goes).

The thing that annoys me most is the odd perception that Holmes has difficulty expressing himself. The one consistent feature of his characterisation is that he is exceptionally eloquent. I can go for choking in the face of saying something really important, but failing to be able to ask for the salt is kind of beyond the pale. Holmes talks. It's getting him to shut up that's the trick.

Comics fandom is terrifying, especially as it is mostly populated by 13-year-old boys who aren't used to being out-reasoned and tend to call anything they don't like 'gay' as though this is in some way a bad thing. I got chewed out once by a mob of irate teenagers for suggesting that Tony Stark may have had it off with a few boys in his time, since he's not exactly picky. So mostly I lurk on the slash comms, which sadly limits me to Captain America/Iron Man, but at least they're nice people. In some parts, it's acceptable to cherrypick what is and is not canon (and have actual debates about it), but it's a bit like arguing with a hardcore LotR fan - they have decided on their interpretation and there is no other possible way.

Wolverine is very short. Hugh Jackman not so much, hence the controversy. Kind of like short, brown-eyed Sherlock Holmes, you know? Because these characters are only made interesting by their physical appearance :/

The thing that annoys me most is the odd perception that Holmes has difficulty expressing himself.

Yeah, I've noticed this crop up in fic! I think in some instances it's just writers molding the character along the lines of their favorite slash trope: the tongue-tied lover who just can't express himself in front of the man he loves. But no, you're right: Holmes is both eloquent and verbose, and not a man to mince words. If he has something to say, he'll say it, and he'll say it clearly.

In other instances, I think it's just pulled out as a plot device. (I hate those sorts of plots: the ones that would tumble like a house of cards if Character A just took the time to talk to Character B.)

I don't think I would make it in comics fandom. :P

Physical traits of certain characters are most definitely important: Sherlock has to be a tall, lanky sort of man. If he doesn't work if he's short and pudgy.

OMG, this comes up every three seconds or so in the LotR fandom, and I've already ranted about this before: http://roh-wyn.livejournal.com/41147.html

I think, as with Doctor Who, when canon is pretty extensive, there are more arguments about what you can reasonably extrapolate from canon. And more arguments about what canon really is. There's also a lot more canon, and if certain writers are very prolific and become very big in their ransoms, they have more of a say in determining the metes and bounds of canon. This bothers me. :(

My one rule of thumb? Subtext is never the same as canon. Ever. ;)

I like your description of canon as a rubber band: I think that's a very useful metaphor.

My one rule of thumb? Subtext is never the same as canon. Ever. ;)

I suppose. Of course, then if you come right down to it, there's very little other than names, dates, places, etc. that can really be considered "canon". Even those can be thrown right out the window, in certain cases, if you bring in the "unreliable narrator" argument to insist that the character who provided the names and dates was lying or had an ulterior motive.

When it comes to fanfic and canon, I'm willing to let people do what they like. I generally prefer fic that stays canon-friendly. (Unless it's porn, in which case: porn logic shall apply as always!) But if people want to write fic that conveniently ignores major tenets of canon, they're welcome to it!

What bothers me is when authors (or an entire fandom) get so attached to their personal version of fanon, they start to make things unpleasant for people who don't subscribe to their theory: like the poster I quoted in my entry.

There's a big movement in Sherlock fandom to 'woobify' Sherlock and erase any hints of darkness/unpleasantness from his character. (And naturally, John has to be there to comfort and protect him.) So you get the "But why does everyone insist he's asexual?" whining. First of all: everyone does not insist that. A large portion of the fandom are Sherlock/John shippers. Second of all: because Sherlock makes statements and exhibits behaviors that can be accurately described as asexual! Is it the only interpretation? No. But it is a canon-friendly interpretation, so quit your bitching!

Sorry. Apparently I am more attached to this character than I thought!

I have no argument viz. people writing whatever they want. Fanfic is supposed to be fun, after all. I'd also never suggest that canon-friendly fic os somehow better, even if it's my preference.

My point is more that if canon exists at all, if it has any inherent value, you can't subvert it and still attempt to fit your work within the "canon-friendly" umbrella. Subtext may suggest your view, of course, but that doesn't make subtext canon, especially if that subtext is later nullified by actual canonical events.

Subtext may suggest your view, of course, but that doesn't make subtext canon, especially if that subtext is later nullified by actual canonical events.

Do you have an example of what you mean? I just wonder if we're talking at cross-purposes.

I mean: I consider "Sherlock is asexual" to be a canon-friendly concept, because while it's never explicitly stated that he is, you'll certainly find a lot more canonical evidence for him being ace than you would for him being gay or even heterosexual. Instances of Holmes finding someone attractive, mentioning past romantic relationships, or expressing any sort of romantic or sexual interest in anyone? Zero. Mentions of his lack of romantic interest, demonstrated disinterest in the opposite (and same) sex, or outright denial of a desire for any sort of romantic or sexual relationship? Plentiful. So, is the position canon-friendly, even though fans are just drawing conclusions from the subtext?

In any case, I don't think I disagree with you: I'm just confused! :P

Edited 2011-05-27 00:39 (UTC)

Actually, I think we're talking about essentially the same thing. I wasn't speaking with specific reference to your point about Sherlock, but I think the analogy still applies.

I'd say that much of the Sherlock/John shipping is prompting by subtext (and on the show, the allusions don't even pretend to be subtle, lol). But I'd say that it's much more reasonable to assume Sherlock is asexual, because canon suggests that more clearly than it suggests a relationship with John. Now, if S2 gives us a scene where Sherlock actually says "I'm asexual," then that would be a case where the mountain of subtext in favor of Sherlock/John would be negated by the one canonical statement. (I've never gotten the impression that Sherlock is the classic "unreliable narrator", fwiw, so his actual words carry a lot of canonical weight, IMO).

Do I make more sense now? ;)

You know, I get what you're saying: I think we're on the same page.

Sherlock's sexuality is definitely a manner of fanon, even though I would still argue that my position is more adequately supported by the canon! (Stubborn I am: VERY stubborn!)

However, I am well aware that I could be wrong, and in the case of the BBC series, canon could easily come along to bite me in the ass.

I don't see Sherlock as unreliable narrator, either: he's not the sort to lie for personal reasons, out of embarrassment or to protect his privacy. If he lies, he lies for a purpose.

I consider "Sherlock is asexual" to be a canon-friendly concept, because while it's never explicitly stated that he is, you'll certainly find a lot more canonical evidence for him being ace than you would for him being gay or even heterosexual.

I think this depends hugely on the adaptation you're talking about, and how well you think you can judge a person's sexuality based on what they do in public (I mean, I look and act straight, and even make statements that would lead one to believe I was straight and sexually experienced. But none of this is true).

Your point is well-taken. I myself am constantly assumed to be a lesbian. I'm not sure what exactly it is I'm doing that gives people that impression, but hey: if it's not a man I'm interested in dating making the assumption, I have no problem with it!

But we're talking about a fictional character: one who is written and acted out by other people. While Moffat or Gatiss or Cumberbatch or ACD may not have had any specific intentions with regards to Sherlock's sexuality, if they did, they'd have to convey those intentions through what the character says and does, and we as the audience would have to make our own interpretations based on that. Yes, Sherlock could be straight, or bi, or gay; it could be that those who wrote and acted out the character did not intend for him to have any particular sexuality at all. But, based on what he's said and done, in Doyle's stories and on the BBC series, I think you can make a solid, canon-based argument for him being asexual, whereas I don't think you could make as strong an argument for him being straight, gay, or bi.

In my humble opinion Fanfiction should, first and foremost, enrich the timeline of the universe, not divide opinion about intricate technical details and relationships.

I am a big fan of Star Trek which as I expect everyone knows has a timeline spanning hundreds of years on screen and thousands of years off-screen. Canon is taken very seriously by a large proportion of the fans. Only certain fanon even warrants discussion in some circles.

For example, it is never stated in canon what NCC (or ICC in the fully canon Mirror universe) stands for in starship registration numbers. The most common theory is "Naval Construction Contract" and "Imperial Construction Contract". I love it. Some people just won't have it.

Then there's the countless continuity errors - lines of dialogue or even selected whole episodes are officially non-canon. However, Star Trek fanon really comes into its own here; there is a great website called Canon Fodder which is full of essays on fan theories which aim to reconcile the continuity errors with canon, preserving both.

I generally steer clear of AU fanfiction in Doctor Who (although I have enjoyed one or two stories & silly ones just for fun). It's selfish of me, but I don't like to invest time in something which is completely at odds with onscreen events or relationships (e.g., Doctor and Amy in love - although that's still better than the Doctor and Rose in love... which IS more or less canon... grrr let's not go there!)

In everything I write, I never even consider violating canon. I agree canon is difficult to define in the Doctor Who universe, but I never include anything as an overall theme which could be contradicted very easily in future episodes of the TV show. Of course, if the story is such that the status quo is restored, that's fine but it's easier for me to write short, character-driven scenes which could slot in anywhere between episodes. In one of my unfinished stories, I had the 4th Doctor meet Amy, but they never exchanged names, and 11 wasn't there to meet his past self. While I feel that this worked, anything more and it would have risked violating established canon or alienating those readers whose fanon beliefs are so strong they dismiss your versions of the characters out of hand. Something which does irritate me is the ever-present risk of NuWho-only fans accusing you of getting things wrong when you reference classic series events or relationships which are fully canon but not widely known or have not been mentioned in the new series - NuWho fanon may have filled a gap which wasn't even there!

The new JJ Abrams Star Trek film series has opened up a can of worms in that universe, because it's essentially a whole AU which IS canon and runs parallel with the "Prime" timeline. It's explained away with time travel as usual.

/ramble.
I should stop making these anonymous comments. I'm sure it's antisocial.

I should stop making these anonymous comments. I'm sure it's antisocial.

It is, in no way, antisocial! (I have no idea why LJ screens your comments by default, though: I unscreen them when I reply.) I know who you are, and invited you to comment here, and really: I welcome any and all reasonable discussion of opinions! So anyway, yes: please do keep commenting. I like well-thought out replies.

I think, in the course of discussing the issue here, I have decided that I don't really care that much what other people want to define as canon vs. fanon so long as they're content to abide by their own rules and not insist that others follow suit. Discussing what can and should be considered canon can be interesting, but in the end, when you write fanfic you're going to end up playing by your own set of rules.

In short, I just get irritated when people start bitching that their own personal fanon be considered canon for everyone else. (Or, in the case of the person I quoted above, when people start insisting that things that are pretty damn canon were just made up by the fans!)

Star Trek is another biggie, and I'm quite sure its fans have their reputation for studious adherence to canon and continuity. ;) Honestly, I think if I had ever gotten into Star Trek, I'd be right there along with them, pondering out the plot holes between series and continuity errors from earlier vs. later episodes.

As for Who: I haven't seen much of the original run of the show, so I try to keep that in mind whenever I think someone is "breakin canon" with their story. There's a lot I don't know, and will never know, so I tend to stick to my own sandbox and write what I know and like. (I haven't written any Who stories in forever! I gotta get on that...)

And speaking of YOUR story: damnit, I forgot to get back to you about that! I PROMISE I will get on that this weekend! My apologies: sometimes if I don't get to something right away, it slips my mind.

Every time I make a comment referencing bees somebody asks me why that is a piece of fanon that has taken hold. Every single time. And quite frankly BBC Sherlock could have no affinity for bees... but every time I'm like... dude just read the wikipedia on Sherlock Holmes, would you?

I don't understand the constant reference to the limp... I'm not saying psychosomatic injuries can't recur. I'm sure they can but people rarely mention that it's disturbing or odd when John picks up the cane... but if he he needs it, it means he's in a terrible head place... and I feel like that should be addressed if he's using it post Study in Pink.

dude just read the wikipedia on Sherlock Holmes, would you?

IKR?! I mean, I understand that the BBC series and the ACD stories are two separate canons, and you could absolutely enjoy one without giving a toss about the other, but: aren't they even curious? A good portion of the fandom incorporates facts from Doyle's stories into their work, so you'd think people would want at least a cursory knowledge of the original canon, just to enhance their own fandom experience. *sigh*

I am aware there's a lot of argument/drama/discussion re: the limp, but I'll confess that I don't know the exact nature of it. I know there's a lot of armchair psychologizing going on about the psychosomatic nature of the limp: whether it's actually portrayed accurately. To be honest, I think it was rather clumsily-handled on the show, and I'm quite willing to outright dismiss it and pretend it never happened. I fondly remember Watson's "old war wound" that would act up whenever the weather was bad, and all the time he used to spend stretched out by the fire. *sigh*

I know I'm way too open-minded about... life in general, but I enjoy canony fic and blatantly uncanonical fic. Either's fine as long as it's written well. Sometimes one is in the mood for one or the other. (Generally canon if you've fallen in love with the actual canon all over again, random-ness when you're bored and looking for a good read and can't be arsed to trek to the library.)

I DO share the annoyance with "ascended fanon," stuff that is taken for, misunderstood as, or commonly adopted as canon when IT'S NOT. Keep it straight, people. Harry Potter was my biggest fanon blackhole, and there were tropes and interpretations that every online fan had to know about whether they made any freakin' sense or not, and that fans of the books who had never ventured into fandom find completely baffling when they encounter them. All the "obvious" slash subtext, evil!Dumbledore, Lupin's myriad scars, Snape as a sex god. Generally speaking. Obviously a handful of people come up with one of these on their one. My mother-in-law and the Snape-as-a-sex-god thing, for instance.

Still, look, if any canon gets big enough there will be inconsistencies (and if it's any good it will get big enough. Or it's so small that do one really gave a damn, and inconsistencies again.) And while I wouldn't go so far as to say there's always legitimate room for disagreement, still, people do legitimately rationalize the disjoints in canon according to the goggles that make it sensible and interesting to them. Different fans will use different emphases, different blinders, as naturally as breathing. And you know what? If you care more about other people having the "wrong" rationalization than you do about enjoying what makes your rationalization works, then I think you need to find another canon, because clearly you aren't getting as much fun out of this one as you think you are.

Wow, that was something like a rant! My apologies. I had no idea I had that much to say on the topic. (Your lab rat skills, they are impressive.)

It's definitely the "ascended fanon" that I have a problem with--that stuff that makes you say, 'Wait, what show/movie/book are you watching/reading?'--as I so often fall on the wrong side of it. I don't have any big issues with people making up their own fanon, or writing in an AU, or the sort of 'pull any two (or three) names out of a hat'-style shipping that runs rampant in fandom--but when fanon becomes so pervasive and widely-accepted that it starts to take over the fandom, I find it intensely annoying.

I love inspiring people to rant! That's why I have the tag: I am a social scientist by nature, and what people think and why they think it is endlessly fascinating to me. I suppose my dream is one day to become the Margaret Mead of fandom! :P

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

This might count as petty, but...

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject