Fic: Wrong

[anon_j_anon]

Title: Wrong
Author: jAnon
Fandom: Sherlock BBC
Characters: DI Lestrade, Sherlock Holmes
Rating: PG-13
Disclaimer: I have not profited monetarily from this venture, nor do I claim original ownership of the characters and setting.
Summary: Watson has the advantage of seeing Sherlock at the height of his powers, but Lestrade-he knows with the certainty

Comments

[mazaher]

Oh, lovely! SH/JW!
The BBC show has not been on air here, but I've read some ff and can't wait to read your story.
On the spur of the moment, am I all wrong or this couple has a reverse intuition/intellect ratio in comparison to K/S? Here the leader is SH, the more intellectual of the two, and JW, the intuitive one, is the follower.
Sure, it is only one limited facet of a complex relationship between complex personalities, performing an array of roles according to the situation, and my description is quite rough. But I wonder if there isn't actually something to it.
Thank you!

[anon_j_anon]

actually, the focus is on DI Lestrade and Sherlock. I'm not following Conan Doyle's character dynamics here at all-- I think Doyle's version of Sherlock Holmes is asexual and Watson just follows society's conventions. The BBC production, however, offers different possibilities with their characterizations and interactions. I personally couldn't see their version of Watson as gay (it's the most popular pairing), but Sherlock certainly has an androgyny/bisexuality/homosexuality (I can't really decide which) to him. Lestrade, it's hard to tell, mostly because he doesn't get a lot of screen time. I don't really think of him as gay, but I don't think of him as straight, mostly I think of both of them as married to the job. I'm more interested in looking at the characters as representing certain ideas and ways of looking at the world (you already know this), and there's something of a K/S dynamic to them, but I don't want to fall into replicating it exactly. everything is in the works, and I don't want to overthink this. :D

[mazaher]

I was so very wrong. SH is again the intuitive-- the enthusiastical, sure-of-himself bright light leading on whoever cares to follow

[anon_j_anon]

Can you access megavideo.com where you are? All three episodes are up on that site. They're good quality, though megavideo has restrictions on how much you can watch, something like 72 minutes every 100 minutes. You just have to wait for half an hour or so before you can start watching again.

I realized the point about intuition why I tried (I've tried several times in my life) to apply Sherlock's method. And sure, I could deduce things if I knew where to look, but it was precisely the looking that I realized was Sherlock's genius

[mazaher]

I'll have to work on the megavideo search, as I only seem to get 2-3 minutes promo clips... But they are, to coin a phrase, fascinating. And tantalizing

[anon_j_anon]

here is the link that should lead to the megavideo clips. they're rarely labeled on the site hosting them as such, since they would be taken down. let me know if they work.

[mazaher]

Yes, it does! Thank you again! =D

[athens7]

Since you uploaded the new userpic, I wondered if you would ever post something Sherlock-related.
I'm a holmesian since I was 12, and the BBC series to me was like a refreshing breeze, as it offered a lot of possibilities for a new interpretation of SH. It's fascinating, because the scripts didn't just copy and paste the original stories in the 21st century: behind the operation there's a pretty complex rereading of the characters that goes deeper than the single episodes.
There are a couple of things that didn't work for me though: above all, the way Sherlock tortured the taxi driver at the end of the first episode. I think it was only at that point that I realized this was not Doyle's Holmes.

And it kinda puzzles me that Lestrade is so well-done, while in the third episode the dynamic between Sherlock and John felt like it was still in the trial-stage.
And I'm not totally sure that I liked Moriarty. But again, probably it's because I'm too attached to the books.

end of the (partially) unrelated rant < / >

Off to read now.

[anon_j_anon]

Oh, I think BBC's Sherlock is very different from Doyle's. And I've also been a Holmesian since a young age-- I used to devour mysteries when I was a child and it was only a matter of time before I found Sherlock Holmes (I think I was around 10 or 11, actually :D)

I like the fact that Lestrade and Sherlock's dynamic is so well done-- for me at least (as you're probably reading now) it left a lot to be imagined. As for Watson, I personally can't see him as gay... I don't know why. Possibly the same reason why I can't see Kirk/McCoy, or something. No, it doesn't have anything to do with the fact that they're both doctors (though it does bear some thinking about). As for Moriarty-- have you see the Russian miniseries adaptation? The Russian Moriarty for me was the scariest evil mastermind, possibly better than Doyle's Moriarty. This Moriarty was simply... strange. A bit out of the blue.

I hope you enjoy reading.

[athens7]

The fact is, ACD's Holmes, is a gentleman perfectly settled in the Victorian system: despite his occasional criticisms towards some social norms, he shares that code of values and never questions them at a deep level. His moral fiber is so strong that he has no issues with going over law when he thinks that it slows justice down.

When first watching the BBC series, I was looking for this Holmes and got disappointed because I couldn't found him. Reading the first chapters, I think you pinpointed exactly the reason: what lies between Sherlock and the criminals he chases is a bad day. That's all. He's not an elitist genius like his ancestor, he's just a sociopath, like -say- Hannibal Lecter, without ethics binding him. And this scares me, like a lot--- As for Watson, I personally can't see him as gay

[anon_j_anon]

re: ACD's Holmes-- exactly my opinion. With the BBC series, I read a few fictions and the implications of Sherlock as a sociopath are definitely addressed to a certain degree and acceptance of his problem is widespread, but I never felt they went deep enough. I've been thinking about this subject for a while anyway, so I thought I might write about it, to at least sort my own thoughts on the subject. I'm afraid that I'm not quite as scared as I should be, and I know why.

re: Watson-- I don't really understand slash fiction in general. I know I write it, but I always of that as something of a coincidence, K/S being a kind of epic pairing and all. There's so much of slash online and most of the time, I don't see the connection between the characters in the first place-- not that I think it's bad or anything-- to each their own. I think I just need... more. To work with, to read.

re: Russian Sherlock Holmes-- it's available on youtube. For example, an episode including Moriarty with English subtitles. It's bound to be online

[athens7]

re: slash fiction -- I completely agree. I'm very selective as well. In fact, now that I think of it, I read only K/S because yes, it all happens in the writer's head, but I still need something factual to relate to. I mean, I don't believe K/S to be canon, with all the subliminal messages and Roddenberry scattering veiled clues like a Templar, but at the same time I watch the series, the movies and say: yeah, it could be. I can see this happening. Gee, it's kinda hard to explain.

re: Jeremy Brett
that's too bad. Imho he was the greatest SH ever. Just watch these!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JX6a--uu6QM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1bCS4icTrH0&feature=related (with greek subs.. oh well)