!rant: Sherlock, defending the faith

[xtricks]

I like the new Sherlock. I like several of the characters, at least two of the episodes were good and one was very good

Comments

[beesandbrews]

I've seen enough RL examples of the sort of behavior you're describing to say it's a people thing, and not a fandom thing exclusively. All it takes is an individual that is perceived as "special" to be a catalyst for excusing bad or morally reprehensible acts and actions.

Honest. People will turn themselves into pretzels over this. I have noticed it does seem to be somewhat generational. People who were raised with moral absolutes are less likely to indulge in excusing poor behavior than those raised with the relativism that seems to be prevalent in later generations.

[xtricks]

Kids these days! *shakes cane*

[bloodredroses1]

I too think it's a combo of 'kids these days' & people are just weird.

I haven't beem able to watch this version of Sherlock yet but this post reminds me kinda of Dexter. I really, really tried to watch that show but the whole premise just skeeved me out too badly. ME!?! The one who loves horror & true crime books/movies! I just don't understand it.

Morgan

[xtricks]

I never watched Dexter because of the premise. But a friend of mine told me that the first episode was good -- but it degenerated fairly quickly into 'kills bad people = hero' type stuff.

[spiderine]

In the past season or two he's been Spike-ified (see tvtropes.org). He's been slowly changed from a real psychopath who doesn't understand emotions and has an urgent need to kill people to a socially awkward guy who loved his wife and adopted children. Not officially changed, of course, but made more "likeable" and "accessible". Vomit.

[xtricks]

Sigh.

[verasteine]

Sherlock fandom, like many fandoms, but still, comes with some rather severe problems. I'd noticed this, too, and I find it equally disturbing (and hey, I'm a generation behind you, so it's not age!). The moral ambiguity can be fun for authors to tackle, but it's no good whitewashing it.

it's pretty clear, so far, that John follows Sherlock's lead, not the other way around.The thing that's struck me about the Sherlock/John balance is that it's not unlike the Jack/Ianto one. Jack had similar moral ambiguity, and Ianto had similar 'I'll follow you through heaven and hell, but I don't have to like it' tendencies. Remaking that into sunshine and roses doesn't work because the attraction and the point of the emotional balance between the characters is that ambiguity

[xtricks]

I think, I hope, part of it is the newness of the fandom but I wonder somtimes when a significant number of people's unfettered id (that squee! moment when you come up with teh bestest story evar!) involves pretty terrible things -- either the inability to see the bad with the good, or the desire to savage someone you're supposed to like for the entertainment value of their suffering.

Either that, or the Sherlock fandom is going to be one of those fandoms where the work is divided between chibi art and rape fic.

[verasteine]

Sherlock fandom has its good sides, but it also suffers from something I see in a lot of fandoms lately, and that's a lack of critical discussion. Critical discussion apparently harshes people's squee and is not welcome. And when the community doesn't hold itself to account for these things, and can't handle subject matter sensitively, is when it deteriorates. The good part of fandom, alas, does seem to be growing smaller, lately.

[xtricks]

Sigh. Even a healthy contingent of thoughtful fans didn't save the Torchwood fandom, which is painfully dividied now and no one wants to talk about meta at all because it too frequently degenerates into bashing (Gwen, RTD, Ianto, the old show, the new show etc).

I wonder if some of it is because there are few long, plotty, chewy Sherlock stories yet? Most are short bits that are various iterations of people hooking up.

[spiderine]

THANK YOU THANK YOU for saying this. I am so sick of how some fangirls do this. They fall in love with a delightfully nasty or amoral character but then have to completely woobify him because anyone they fall in love with can't be a truly bad person and just needs luuuuv. I love my nasty characters becaues they are nasty, dammit!

And by the way, excusing your luuuuv for antisocial behavior because he's Aspie/abuse/traumatized IS AN INSULT TO EVERY PERSON IN RL WHO HAS SUFFERED ABUSE OR TRAUMA OR IS ON THE ASPERGERS SPECTRUM. No, really. REALLY.

[xtricks]

Yeah, ... that whole idealizing of the victim kind of creeps me out. It pretty much denys that person the right (by letting them slide on the responsibilities) to be a person.

I've seen some H/C post trauma (or sometimes even minor illnesses like the flu) stories where the 'strong' partner literally starts carring around the victimized character like a baby.

Some people back button when they see rape or torture. I panic-backbutton when I see Jack carrying Ianto around like a baby because he's got the sniffles.

[spiderine]

I panic-backbutton when I see Jack carrying Ianto around like a baby because he's got the sniffles.

WHUT. Is that for real? Oh gods. DO NOT LINK ME I DON'T WANNA KNOW.

...I do remember, though, how back in the Triassic period of fandom some authors would write Blair Sandburg as tiny and fragile to Jim Ellison's caveman hulk. That made me vomit, and not in the rainbow way.

[xtricks]

Yes, that seems to be a requirement for all fandoms.

Because, big, hairy, or even 'normal' guys (whatever that might be) obviously could never bottom. D:

[darthhellokitty]

I have to admit, I love the show. I do like morally ambiguous characters, I'm certainly a fan of Dexter and House and other shows with main characters who are NOT GOOD PEOPLE. I've dived into this fandom (and the show) and found, amid an unbelievable amount of crap, some gems