Sherlock Holmes: Game of Slash
Actually, that reminds me of a thing I've meant to address for a while, so I shall do so now.
Dear Non-Media Fen Genre Authors:
I love a number of you, I really do, but please stop claiming that your use of the term slash to mean "any non-canonical pairing" is "the original definition." It is not. The original definition of the term was "any same-sex, non-canonical pairing." Modern slash fandom, as a very, very loose community, relies on the "same-sex" part of the equation to define itself, though there are definitely members of said community who are as commited to the "non-canonical" part, and a mostly separate and smaller community that feels "non-canonical" trumps "same-sex." Part of the reason for this shift in the generally accepted definition is that it is much easier to determine what "same-sex" means, but "non-canonical," particularly in a fandom based on an ongoing source, is much more difficult. Another part of the reason is that there are, finally, overt examples of same-sex relationships showing up in various sources, but the vast majority of fans of said pairings in said sources are also fans of covert same-sex relationships in those same fandoms and others, so calling all such pairings "slash" has just become a means of simplifying, really.
At any rate, particularly if the only reason you're making the "original definition of slash" argument is in an attempt to act as an outside authority and distance yourself from those "deviant" slash fans, all you are doing is showing your ass. Please don't do it.
Love,
Me
P.S. Also please do not take this as an excuse to lecture me on any aspect of media fandom, slash or otherwise. I'm afraid I will be forced to ban you with prejudice if you do.
Anyway, moving on, we caught the new Sherlock Holmes movie this weekend. We had all been looking forward to it, and I'd say we all mostly enjoyed it, but I'm afraid a very, very spoilery event early in the movie did, in fact, spoil the whole thing for me. Also, the business with Mycroft's mobility-impaired, tremor-prone servant was not funny, speaking of ass-showing. Still, this movie had some of the prettiest guns any of us had ever seen, the whole thing was basically Sherlock and John's Excellent Honeymoon Adventure, and Moriarty's ongoing obsession with telling Sherlock how very much he was going to destroy John played out as nothing so much as Moriarty's jealousy over their relationship. So if you're in it for the Holmes/Watson, this is the movie for you. I was glad that Mary got to continue to be kickass, and rather put off by how much the actress who played Simza looked like a brunette version of Kelly Reilly. If you're only going to feature two female characters for any length of time, I would suggest making sure they don't have uncannily similar bone structure, unless you mean them to be related or overt doppelgangers.
And I can't remember all of the previews we got, but I do remember the preview for The Dark Knight Rises, last of the current Batfranchise, mostly because of the collective "Well, huh" that went up from the audience when it was done.
SIL (trying to be optimistic): Well, there were a lot of shots of Tom, even if you couldn't tell who he was. And there was that nice shot of JGL, and the one of Marion Cotillard.
Yours Truly (the glass is half empty and there's a crack in the bottom): Yeah, but we already saw that movie. It was better.
Actually, it was funny how very much Bane there was in the preview, and how little Christian Bale, in or out of the suit. If you didn't know the story, you'd think Bane the protagonist and Batman the number one enforcer of the corrupt regime (yes, well). Could the marketing department actually be concerned that CB's reputation might be on a downslide? And of course Tom Hardy's currency has gained a hell of a lot of value over the past year.
BUT, to make up for that likely disappointment, we also got the preview for MEN IN BLACK 3. OMG SO EXCITED. Haters to the left. No, seriously, I don't want to hear a word about how anyone hates this franchise or its leads. Go say it in your own space. In this space, J and K rule. If it makes anyone feel better, I also kind of want to see Rock of Ages, which looks to be most of my teenagerhood encapsulated, hair bands and all, so now you know my taste is suspect and can dismiss it with equanimity. I will just point out that it appears to be a movie making the second-best use of Tom Cruise (the first-best being leaving him out altogether), which is as an outrageously ridiculous character actor who should be cast specifically in a part the audience is meant to mock.
Huh, I appear to be feeling rather pugnacious, even for me. I blame the ongoing sick, and apologize for the prickliness, though none of the opinions.
Dear Non-Media Fen Genre Authors:
I love a number of you, I really do, but please stop claiming that your use of the term slash to mean "any non-canonical pairing" is "the original definition." It is not. The original definition of the term was "any same-sex, non-canonical pairing." Modern slash fandom, as a very, very loose community, relies on the "same-sex" part of the equation to define itself, though there are definitely members of said community who are as commited to the "non-canonical" part, and a mostly separate and smaller community that feels "non-canonical" trumps "same-sex." Part of the reason for this shift in the generally accepted definition is that it is much easier to determine what "same-sex" means, but "non-canonical," particularly in a fandom based on an ongoing source, is much more difficult. Another part of the reason is that there are, finally, overt examples of same-sex relationships showing up in various sources, but the vast majority of fans of said pairings in said sources are also fans of covert same-sex relationships in those same fandoms and others, so calling all such pairings "slash" has just become a means of simplifying, really.
At any rate, particularly if the only reason you're making the "original definition of slash" argument is in an attempt to act as an outside authority and distance yourself from those "deviant" slash fans, all you are doing is showing your ass. Please don't do it.
Love,
Me
P.S. Also please do not take this as an excuse to lecture me on any aspect of media fandom, slash or otherwise. I'm afraid I will be forced to ban you with prejudice if you do.
Anyway, moving on, we caught the new Sherlock Holmes movie this weekend. We had all been looking forward to it, and I'd say we all mostly enjoyed it, but I'm afraid a very, very spoilery event early in the movie did, in fact, spoil the whole thing for me. Also, the business with Mycroft's mobility-impaired, tremor-prone servant was not funny, speaking of ass-showing. Still, this movie had some of the prettiest guns any of us had ever seen, the whole thing was basically Sherlock and John's Excellent Honeymoon Adventure, and Moriarty's ongoing obsession with telling Sherlock how very much he was going to destroy John played out as nothing so much as Moriarty's jealousy over their relationship. So if you're in it for the Holmes/Watson, this is the movie for you. I was glad that Mary got to continue to be kickass, and rather put off by how much the actress who played Simza looked like a brunette version of Kelly Reilly. If you're only going to feature two female characters for any length of time, I would suggest making sure they don't have uncannily similar bone structure, unless you mean them to be related or overt doppelgangers.
And I can't remember all of the previews we got, but I do remember the preview for The Dark Knight Rises, last of the current Batfranchise, mostly because of the collective "Well, huh" that went up from the audience when it was done.
SIL (trying to be optimistic): Well, there were a lot of shots of Tom, even if you couldn't tell who he was. And there was that nice shot of JGL, and the one of Marion Cotillard.
Yours Truly (the glass is half empty and there's a crack in the bottom): Yeah, but we already saw that movie. It was better.
Actually, it was funny how very much Bane there was in the preview, and how little Christian Bale, in or out of the suit. If you didn't know the story, you'd think Bane the protagonist and Batman the number one enforcer of the corrupt regime (yes, well). Could the marketing department actually be concerned that CB's reputation might be on a downslide? And of course Tom Hardy's currency has gained a hell of a lot of value over the past year.
BUT, to make up for that likely disappointment, we also got the preview for MEN IN BLACK 3. OMG SO EXCITED. Haters to the left. No, seriously, I don't want to hear a word about how anyone hates this franchise or its leads. Go say it in your own space. In this space, J and K rule. If it makes anyone feel better, I also kind of want to see Rock of Ages, which looks to be most of my teenagerhood encapsulated, hair bands and all, so now you know my taste is suspect and can dismiss it with equanimity. I will just point out that it appears to be a movie making the second-best use of Tom Cruise (the first-best being leaving him out altogether), which is as an outrageously ridiculous character actor who should be cast specifically in a part the audience is meant to mock.
Huh, I appear to be feeling rather pugnacious, even for me. I blame the ongoing sick, and apologize for the prickliness, though none of the opinions.