This might count as petty, but...

[apple_pathways]

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!

Comments

[apple-pathways.livejournal.com]

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!

[roh-wyn.livejournal.com]

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.

[apple-pathways.livejournal.com]

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

[roh-wyn.livejournal.com]

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? ;)

[apple-pathways.livejournal.com]

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.

[ladylovelace.livejournal.com]

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).

[apple-pathways.livejournal.com]

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.