This might count as petty, but...
May. 25th, 2011 10:34 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
apple_pathwaysThis is taken from ![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-community.gif)
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!
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!
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2011-05-27 01:58 pm (UTC)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.)
no subject
Date: 2011-05-27 02:51 pm (UTC)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