bbakerb: (Default)
[personal profile] bbakerb
I'm sitting in a coffee shop and it's icy cold even INDOORS and just diagonally opposite is a man who either is Alastair Campbell or looks very very like him. AM TRYING NOT TO LOOK AT HIM, IT IS NOT A SOCIALLY OK THING TO DO, STARING, EVEN TO GLANCE MORE THAN ONCE DRAWS ATTENTION TO YOU a bit more than it should

I know no one watches it but my faaaavourite currently airing (apart from Misfits) show, Edwardian Farm, was on last night! They did Edwardian-style tin mining and copper scavenging and wassailed an apple tree! I know a lot of people find Ruth Goodman, one of the historical re-enacting presenters, irritating - but I think it's really NICE to have someone so keen and so clearly massively excited about living like an Edwardian. And there is one person called Peter and one called Alex and no I cannot prevent myself from slashing them, not when they wear such nice waistcoats and look like they're having so much FUN. Goddd what am I on

SPEAKING OF MISFITS: HOW IS IT SO GREAT, am talking about last week because otherwise I will forget to, and tonight there is more. I love that in the space of about a fortnight it has become a legitimate THING that PEOPLE ACTUALLY TALK ABOUT.

I love that they introduce a whole new character and then just kill him off. I loved Kelly being surly in the wedding dress, I really liked the way Nikki got tied into the story - I'd seen people commenting on the fact that she has a scar down the middle of her chest in the scene where she starts disrobing in front of Curtis, but hadn't made the connection to her heart problem. 

I spent most of the episode thinking 'Simon and Alisha are too happy, something's going to happen, something AWFUL,' because in Misfits-time two episodes is a long time to spend being blissfully happy. And ohh yes something happened. 

I'm not too sad about future!Simon's death - I think I do actually prefer present!Simon. Who is of course still around, YAY FOR THAT. idk, I like it when the outsidery character retains their outsider quality, I think they managed it with future!Simon but even so. 

And also the jumpsuits! They're the most Misfits-y when they're all in the jumpsuits. Future!Simon didn't wear an orange jumpsuit.

NOW FOR MERLIN: I was alas not made particularly happy by that last episode. There were some awesome things in it -

- MERLIN'S LITTLE FACE provides much joy
- EPIC MERLIN/LANCELOTNESS: in my head Merlin awkwardly flirted with Lancelot when Lancelot first showed up, and Lancelot is straight and so gently but kindly rebuffed him, and said 'it's ok, just BE WHO YOU ARE' and this is why they are EPIC BFFS.
- GWAINE'S AWESOME PESSIMISM, Gwaine in general just delights me

But overall I was unsatisfied. I just wish the writers would move the story on. I wish they tried to vary thing more than the only three plots they ever do: it's a rare episode indeed that isn't either 'a magical beast infiltrates the castle, Merlin has to kill it', 'there is a tournament', or (the rarest because it requires filming elsewhere than the castle) 'Arthur and/or Merlin have to retrieve a magical object from somewhere'.

And I am finally I think tired of there being no subtlety written into this show - what subtlety there is happens because of the acting. Like when Arthur's fighting his father in the eleventy-billionth episode-that-has-a-tournament, 'The Sorcerer's Shadow', which I liked quite a lot, there are shots of Bradley James's face which seem to show Arthur suddenly seeing his father in a totally new way - as bitter, aging, clinging to power, etc etc, and having right there a moment where he grows up a lot by deciding he has to preserve his father's sense of his own capability; I remember thinking 'oh wow there we go, that's some nice complex emotion being shown there' - that moment that everyone has when they realise their parents are getting older, or are vulnerable, or are flawed. But that wasn't written into the show - or the writers don't think it's interesting - which is shown by the fact that this moment (which could lead to a really interesting and more subtle dynamic) is almost immediately undone by that scene where Uther tells Arthur he knows Arthur let him win.

I STILL LOVE MERLIN, do not get me wrong here, this episode just left me not feeling the love so much

Sooo there is more Misfits tonight, and WHAT, what will happen? Every time you think you have a handle on what Misfits is trying to do, your expectations end up totally fucked.

Date: 2010-12-09 04:42 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile]
SO MANY THINGS TO RESPOND TO considering I've also just read the post before this one, so I am going to talk about that as well:

- Raffles sounds incredible? I think I have vaguely heard of the books but didn't really know anything about them, but maybe I should start to know things about them. Thank you for that notification. Gotta say, Raffles and Bunny are two extraordinarily silly names, is that ever addressed? Anyway wtf George Ives, I am currently--did I ever mention this, I can't remember--actually writing an essay on, basically, Holmes/Watson (and The Picture of Dorian Gray) within the context of late-Victorian homosexuality, and so I've had to read up on Ives and Carpenter and Symonds etc etc and right now I am REALLY INTERESTED in all of that. victorians~

- comments to that post say you haven't read Lucifer Box, so here I should say I STRONGLY RECOMMEND those books, okay, STRONGLY. Oh Mark Gatiss

- Misfits is still incredible! This is actually the first time an episode is going to be on while I am caught up enough to watch it on the right day, but unfortunately I am still in Leeds and we don't have E4. Going to 4OD that shit as soon as possible I guess. I am predictably as enamoured with future Simon as is, apparently, the rest of the internet, but mostly what I am trying to do is to, to get round in my own head that he and Simon are the same character, because they are, of course, obviously, and what is going to be SUPER INTERESTING/AWESOME is watching him become the thing we have already seen. It's one of those things where being spoiled works. Anyway I can't do good thoughts on this apparently, but I enjoyed your use of 'disrobing'.

- Merlin! I pretty much entirely agree with you. I enjoyed watching the finale but it didn't blow me away like it seems to have done a lot of people? I kind of came out of it thinking, 'I need things to change soon'. Like, at some point, okay, they need to do the Merlin-Arthur magic reveal, it NEEDS to happen, because that secrecy is no longer an interesting enough plot point and it has been strung out for too long and we know, we all know that eventually it has to come out, because we know how things end up. A bit like Misfits, in a way. We know that Arthur and Gwen end up together, we know (knew) that Morgana would turn 'bad', we know that Merlin will eventually use his powers to aid Arthur's rule etc etc. I understand that series have to adhere to some sort of status quo--well, they don't have to, but I understand why this series does--but also, things have to change, even if slowly. And they sure as hell could be more inventive within that status quo if they are going to stick to it for even longer.

- sub-point: did I mention that my other essay for January is possibly going to incorporate Merlin? lol forever. I'm doing Arthurian Literature and this essay we can explore any interpretation of the Arthurian myth, if we want to; basically I didn't really pay enough attention/can't remember enough of Malory so my plan at the moment is to talk as much about Merlin and Monty Python and the Holy Grail as I can possibly get away with, with as little reference to Malory etc as is acceptable. Something about interpretations of the myth being imbued with conscious or unconscious allusions to current morals and situations, I haven't quite worked it out yet tbh

- Oh and by the way, still watching The Private Life Of Sherlock Holmes, although I seem to be doing it in a million bursts of about ten minutes, because I never have long enough free to sit down and watch it properly. I quite like doing it like this though, a bit like episodes. I'm enjoying it! I'm not sure I've seen such an ~angry~ Watson before; he seems to be irritated and frustrated by Holmes quite a lot, which in a way is interesting, in terms of 'so why does he still hang out with him and do everything he says'. Also the bit where he produced his stethoscope from under his hat is literally the best thing I have ever seen. I've decided it's now my canon that Watson always has an stethoscope under his hat. I think Holmes also just rescued Watson's hat from the water. Basically I'm enjoying any sort of hat politics.

Date: 2010-12-09 08:36 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile]

- RAFFLES IS INCREDIBLE, I am coming to believe that the reason the stories aren't as well known as they were say fifty or sixty years ago - and the reason they haven't been adapted properly for TV since the 70s - is because it is no longer possible to IGNORE THE GAY. Bunny is called Bunny because it's his nickname from school - he's really called Harry Manders, not that you'd ever know it because Raffles is forever calling him 'dear rabbit' and other ridiculous things. But yes, it is insane that he's called Bunny. Raffles is called Raffles because it's his surname - he's really Arthur J. Raffles, icr what the J stands for. YOUR ESSAY sounds awesome - I was actually pimped into Raffles by [ profile] immoralilly because she was writing an essay about crime/homosexuality/Raffles icr exactly what but it sounded great, I'll ask her and see if it's at all relevant. ALL THOSE 1890s GAY VICTORIANS, it's got to be. The Raffles stories are all online because they're out of copyright, new Raffles books are expensive but there are cheap secondhand complete editions on amazon and abebooks.


- MISFITS, light of my life, joy of my heart. It's the hardest thing in the world to show how one person turns into another who is actually the same, I worry there'll be some shortcut taken, but basically am in agreement that it will be SUPER INTERESTING to see how that goes down. I'm petty and paranoid and worry that being spoiled won't work, but then UNLIKE MERLIN the Misfits writers haven't yet taken us the wrong way.

- Merlin - I agree with you entirely, but then as you say you agree with me, it's a moebius strip apparently of thinking the same thing about Merlin. I think they want to drag out the status quo as long as they can, and it's become stupid that they're doing so - I think they think there'll be nothing to hang a show on if they have The Big Reveal, or if they change ANYTHING - but the only reason there IS a show is because we are all hanging off every episode desperately believing every time that something will change; if nothing ever DOES change through THIRTY-NINE EPISODES you're going to lose any belief you ever had at all.

- this your other essay is also amazing

- I actually rewatched it after you mentioned it! And then went round the internet looking for things people said about it. Billy Wilder the director said: "I should have been more daring. I have this theory. I wanted to have Holmes homosexual and not admitting it to anyone, including maybe even himself. The burden of keeping it secret was the reason he toke dope." and Mark Gatis wrote A DELIGHTFUL LITTLE ARTICLE about how inspiring it was to him.

watson in that film: yes, kind of hysterically angry - this is the incarnation in which I actually find it hardest to ship them despite what Billy Wilder says, it would just be so DIFFICULT for them both, it's kind of become a ridiculously sad film by the time you get to the end. (And I don't think he's as good a Watson as the actor playing Holmes is as Holmes, or maybe that's just the pain I feel regarding their relationship showing through, also I remember thinking that the Belgian woman was super irritating - if you are also thinking this I will say that her plot strand is resolved in a way that makes it massively better at the end) But yeah, why does Watson still hang out with him eh eh. AND THE HAT, I made a little note to myself when I saw that because apparently that's what I DO in order to cope with that sort of thing

being a creeper I just looked up your term dates SO YEAH it looks like you are nearly at the end of your term and it's probably totally insanely hectic, I HOPE IT IS ALL OK FOR YOU

Date: 2010-12-11 02:38 am (UTC)
From: [identity profile]
- Yeah well basically this sounds like the best thing ever. I actually got home from Leeds today, and I asked my dad if he had any of the Raffles books because they are the sort of thing he often produces from a corner of the house I didn't even know existed. He doesn't, but does remember reading them when he was younger, and looked them up to remind themselves more about them and was like, "narrated by his admirer and ex-fag? That is the best description of anything I have read in a while." Anyway in conclusion I found a copy of the first collection for 1p on Amazon so I thought I might as well get that! HOORAY

- Also I've now finished Private Life, about which the most important thing I probably have to say is that the bit where Watson produced a gun from a sporran was almost as good as the hat stethoscope. Does Watson just secrete equipment about his body?? I want this to be true.

But anyway, the other things, well ungh both of those links are really interesting, and the first one reminded me that I hadn't said how much I loved the inclusion of Holmes doing drugs/Watson being pissed off by it because that is one of my favourite elements of them and their characters ANYWAY, one of the few things in canon they seem to properly disagree about and one of the things in canon where you're like 'man holmes is really fucked up' instead of being distracted by all the other excitement. So yeah that.

Also I was intrigued by "In the final movie the closest Holmes comes is claiming to be gay to evade an request by Russian ballerina Madame Petrova that he father a child for her"--a) 'FATHER MY BALLET CHILD' was a mad/hilarious storyline, by the way, and b) surely it isn't? I mean, even absolutely putting to one side my general interest and inclination to look for homosexuality/asexuality/some kind of unusual sexuality in Holmes, even if I wasn't coming at it from that angle at all, surely that scene where he's like "Yes. You are being presumptious" is (as gatiss correctly flags up) much closer to any kind of confession. And it's not a confession, obviously, but I think even the casual viewer (today at least) would be like, oh, I guess we're supposed to assume he's gay or asexual or whatever. I was actually fairly surprised by how strongly it was suggested. So don't worry, Billy Wilder, we totally got that! Although then I guess there was all the stuff later about him being engaged to a woman?? Which really confused me, in the wake of that earlier confrontation scene, I couldn't tell if he was supposed to be lying or what.

And Gatiss is wonderful and his little article is everything I want from him and I'm delighted they've used a shot of Holmes having that bath to accompany it. (Also that Mark Gatiss's adaptation of HG Wells's The First Men in the Moon is out on DVD. is just not related to any other part of the article.) Plus, you know, nice to know that their "template" for Sherlock is a film in which he "effectively falls in love with" Watson, NICE TO KNOW THAT.

I also agree with you re Watson and Holmes in this incarnation--I definitely preferred this Holmes to this Watson, if that makes sense. Watson had to have quite a few episodes of Stupid Watson, which to be fair probably weren't entirely the actor's fault. "OH MY GOD HOLMES IT'S THE LOCH NESS MONSTER" "no watson, it isn't" etc. I did enjoy him being super-cheerful all the way through the ballet business at the beginning, though. But yeah, I really liked this Holmes, so--together and believable but in an understated sad sort of way. I think Gatiss has it right with "melancholy". And I like that, I think there is room in Holmes for a lot of interpretations, for a big damn hero like in the 2009 film, or for someone quite mentally unbalanced, or for somebody slightly more restrained and melancholy. okay I could talk about this for hours but it's 2.30, what the fuck, time for sleep, undoubtedly I'll ramble more about this in the near future.

Date: 2010-12-12 02:16 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile]
- YAY also your dad's reaction is brilliant. THINGS YOU CAN LOOK FORWARD TO: Bunny constantly talking about Raffles's smile, his hair, his head resting on pillows, his pajamas, his arms I mean what. Why is Bunny always there when Raffles is reclining in bed? (I will let you answer that one for yourself.)

(I actually have this pseudo-blackmail theory of how they start having sex - which is that the first time ever, or maybe the second or third time, that Raffles takes Bunny along on a burglary he pushes Bunny against a wall in a slightly dub-conny kind of way and gives him a blowjob as a way of saying 'you are just as incriminated as I am, this ensures that you can NEVER TELL anyone what I do'. and obviously Bunny's all 'but I'd never tell anyway, also I really like you can we do that again' SO YEAH the argument against this (or maybe FOR this, cannot even tell) is that there is quite a strong code in this era of crime fiction that Blackmailers Are Fair Game (like in that Holmes story where they break into the blackmailer's house, idk if you've read it but they decide it's morally justifiable to break the law and burgle him because the blackmailer is so odious - also Watson makes them masks out of black silk, which is an entertaining idea)

(oh lol I just looked it up online and skim-reread it, LOOK AT THIS THEN:

"You would not call me a marrying man, Watson?"
"No, indeed!"

brb lol forever

except noooo alas this means Watson doesn't think Holmes will ever pop the question to him! SADNESS)

BLACKMAIL IN THE 1890s: basically I think it's interesting the way blackmailers are treated in earlyish crime fiction, no one is lower on the moral ladder (that metaphor makes no sense), and obviously homosexuality and the fear of blackmail are inextricably linked

- TPLOSH (what an acronym): The drugs thing! I remember Gatiss and/or Moffat I think saying that they felt the drug thing had been overemphasised in Holmes adaptations - and I think they mean the occasional versions where the writers are like 'HOLMES IS A TOTAL JUNKIE' at the expense of 'Holmes is a detective who has adventures', I mean it's not his DEFINING feature - BUT BUT it is IMPORTANT, and I think it gets the right treatment in TPLOSH (I just wanted to type that again) TPLOSH TPLOSH - the idea that it's a functional thing for him

like - I had a doctor's appointment once where I was asked in a routine kind of way 'do you take any non-prescription medication?' and I was all 'idk...? What do you mean, do you mean buying ibuprofen but not asking a doctor first' and she said in a slight stage-whispery way 'RECREATIONAL DRUGS' - my point is I think that these two phrases don't necessarily mean the same thing and 'non-prescription medication' seems to cover Sherlock's/Holmes's drug use more neatly, or at least how he probably thinks of it.

also: addiction metaphors! in BBCverse, I think Moffat and Gatiss deal with the Sherlock drug thing by having it I think implicit that the detecting/deducing etc and the drugs parallel each other or substitute for each other, that kind of thing

BUT YEAH, the fact that Watson doesn't like Holmes using drugs and tells him so (and in original canon eventually persuades him not to) is one of the things that makes their relationship interesting, that actually they have this fundamental disagreement

a) BALLET CHILD, I love that this Watson apparently loves ballet, b) I think you are CORRECT ENTIRELY here - there is something about Holmes's private life that WATSON IS NOT ALLOWED TO KNOW FOR SURE, and that is much more unusual than 'a bachelor living with another bachelor for five years'. The idea that this is a Holmes and Watson who actually don't know everything about each other, this is INTERESTING and not usual at all

fuck you lj comment limit!

Date: 2010-12-12 02:17 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile]
I do think that THESE DAYS people are more used to the idea of homosexuality and non-standard sexualities and so find it easier to notice hints In That Direction - and Billy Wilder obvs had made films under the freaking Hays Code, he was practiced in insinuating things, in hinting things, but I think in 1970 the pendulum was probably swinging in the opposite direction to this which might be one reason why the film wasn't too well received Back Then. That and the hefty dose of silliness, Gatiss says it's the kind of thing you could only write out of love, LIKE FANFICTION IN A WAYthe scene where he says he was engaged: well hmm. He might be lying, I don't think that's what we're meant to assume - but I think you could read that scene as being about him thinking he liked these women romantically when actually it's more that he finds them interesting, and that anyone Holmes finds interesting is bound to be a criminal of some kind. He uses the word 'involved' I think - which can cover a lot. Mrs Valladon (and Irene Adler and presumably also the various women Holmes refers to) is a clever women who provides a kind of challenge and/or a puzzle for him and I think he can't tell the difference between that and an emotional attachment - or doesn't want to, or thinks that's better than the alternative.

I think he says the girl was the daughter of his violin teacher? Which would suggest to me that he was quite young, and so was she, and perhaps they had a bond that was more *soulmatey* than sexual, does that make sense? And the way he talks about it - it's almost as if it was nothing to do with him at all, 'the invitations were out, I was having a tailcoat made' - which yes it is the MELANCHOLY thing, but also perhaps that it wasn't entirely his idea/decision?


Stupid!Watson is something that I think happens because the writers/directors/producers/whatever think 'holmes is a strong character, he needs someone else very strongly characterised playing opposite him' and then they try to make him funny or ridiculous. When actually Martin Freeman as a kind of everyman!Watson works SO MUCH BETTER, I know people go on about how they like Watson to be competent and badass, and that is important, but I think Watson-as-audience-surrogate is more important - if we're not feeling, most of the time, the same way about Holmes that Watson is then the Watson isn't quite right. AND I think that Benelock Cumberholmes being actually quite off-putting makes this work terrifically well - in the first Sherlock episode you get convinced to like him at about the same rate that John does, and the same for the 2009 Guy Ritchie film - that you can understand why Jude Watson gets spectacularly annoyed by RDJ!Holmes - so I think TPLOSH-Watson works some of the time but there are these occasions where he's written to assume things that the audience are just never going to think of their own accord. I did like that Holmes called him 'John' when he was a valet! That was nice.

LASTLY: TPLOSH-Holmes is one Holmes you can really imagine going off to the South Downs to raise bees and be by himself - there's this sense in the film that Fair Play etc are dying and that Holmes doesn't particularly want to join in any more. And maybe he can't deal with Watson any more! Maybe the events of this film are the catalyst for his retirement and beekeeping. Maybe that's what's so sad, that it shows Holmes and Watson encountering the limits of their relationship. oh god I am making myself depressed now

Re: fuck you lj comment limit!

Date: 2010-12-14 12:32 am (UTC)
From: [identity profile]
- Can't believe it's taken us until the tail-end of mentions and discussions to discover the incredible abbreviation TPLOSH. Also the noise Watson's hat makes when it falls in the water.

- I think that is a very good point about non-prescription medication vs recreational drugs, actually, like you have summed up perfectly there something that I think but that I hadn't really articulated to myself. It's such a functional thing, like he's doing it to stay at an acceptable level, rather than to ascend to a higher one, that made a lot more sense in my head hmm do you know what I mean. Like it's to keep him going--rather than accelerate him--when there's no case etc to do that for him. And yes it's really interesting that this is like (in canon) the one big thing Holmes and Watson seem to disagree about? Is there anything else that I can't think of? I remember a few references to Watson being like "oh holmes is a bit untidy it's a bit irritating" but I don't remember him ever really calling Holmes out on anything other than the drugs. And partly it's an instinctive medical-training reaction against something obviously bad for a person, but also it's Watson being spurred into an unusual degree of outspokenness out of, presumably, concern.

- "The idea that this is a Holmes and Watson who actually don't know everything about each other, this is INTERESTING and not usual at all" - yes that IS interesting, I hadn't thought of that. It's this weird paradox almost, in the books, where Watson and Holmes know each other inside out and Watson gets so accustomed to Holmes's weirdness, but on the other hand is still like "oh my god holmes HOW did you do that" on practically every case. Like you get used to/understand/solve bits of Holmes but never all of him. Somewhat self-indulgently I put the bit of the Three Garridebs where Watson gets shot etc etc into my essay, and actually what I thought was interesting and hadn't really thought about before is that he says seeing Holmes's love and loyalty towards him is a "revelation", because this is like the only time it happens and he seems almost surprised by it. Not surprised, but--you know, augh what am I trying to say. But again it's that thing of Watson not knowing as much about Holmes as Holmes probably knows about him. I think it would be interesting to argue that Holmes's canonical representation as asexual arises out of it being impossible, for Watson, to interpret a lack of interest in women in any other way. Or to reconcile 'any other way' with someone as upstanding and brave and important to him as Holmes is.

can't believe this doesn't fit hang on


Date: 2010-12-14 12:32 am (UTC)
From: [identity profile]
- oh god it is so much later than I thought it was, what else did I want to say, also "Watson-as-audience-surrogate is more important" is another good/interesting point (basically I'm just agreeing with you in a variety of ways, but that's okay, isn't it). And I think having Watson as an everyman ALSO makes it more interesting/significant/affecting when you get occasional flashes of Watson not being entirely normal either. I think this is done more in Sherlock than in canon or in other interpretations I've seen so far, it's certainly flagged up with Mycroft being like "you're addicted to war" or whatever, or with John in the same sentence understanding both that he's seen enough death and trouble to last a lifetime but that he wants more of it. It's that thing of, put anybody next to a madman and they look really sensible. Watson/John, I think, seems particularly normal because he hangs out with Holmes/Sherlock all the time. Normal by comparison. Which is still relatively normal, but you know.

- (sub-point re: "in the first Sherlock episode you get convinced to like him at about the same rate that John does", which is actually also true and I'd forgotten it. In fact, it took me an entire rewatch to realise how much I loved Sherlock, as opposed to Watson, who I initially came out of the series a bigger fan of. This is more a comment on immensely loving Watson rather than not liking Sherlock, I mean obvs I was deeply invested in both and also it was a surprise return of my 15-year-old crush on Freeman etc, but it wasn't until I saw the series a second time I was like WAIT. WAIT. I SEE NOW. EVERYBODY CAN'T DEAL WITH CUMBERHOLMES AND NOW I UNDERSTAND. Late to the partyyyyy)

- 'excitingly lengthy', like something out of a bad porn fic (maybe one of Mycroft's)
lol forever. We found an old Gatiss Doctor Who novel in the study today and the blurb was like 'blah blah blah, and what about the mysterious connection to a Civil War general?' WHY IS HE SO INTO THE CIVIL WAR. "I'm going to put it in porn, I'm going to put it in Doctor Who, I'M GOING TO PUT IT EVERYWHERE" spoilers for 2011's Sherlock: they investigate a murder in the civil war.


Date: 2010-12-16 12:01 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile]
I have been trying and trying to resist replying AGAIN, have been in non-work time concentrating on fic exchange assignments - I missed Edwardian Farm last night! they might have had an orgy or made a steampunk rocket to the moon, I will never know! unless I watch it on iplayer, I haven't talked about Misfits! I won't even be able to watch it tonight! - I was telling myself I'd update when I'd sent the first of my assignments in, but no, that's no good, because the second thing's deadline is creeping up -


MOSTLY I want to say that I think you're closer than I was when you say It's this weird paradox almost, in the books, where Watson and Holmes know each other inside out and Watson gets so accustomed to Holmes's weirdness, but on the other hand is still like "oh my god holmes HOW did you do that" on practically every case. and the stuff about the Three Garridebs - because now I'm tending towards disagreeing with what I said before, to the extent of thinking that the depiction you get in most adaptations (of the two of them being bff, in each other's pockets all the time) is almost more fanonical than stated canon - but really long-established fanon that's accepted by everyone and every adaptation - except perhaps people who write fic based on the original canon, I've seen some fic there that's much more along the lines of 'even after a long time they barely know each other'.

how can I say this in a less 'oh god what is that I am writing' way? HNNNg idk. ALSO I think it is inevitable that in the minds of the reader(s)/fan(s) every gentle and loving moment that happens across the entire canon gets collapsed together in your memory which makes the whole thing seem much more concentrated, makes you forget there's got to be some kind of development going on over the years.

Like you get used to/understand/solve bits of Holmes but never all of him. <---- I REALLY LIKE THAT

- where you say: it took me an entire rewatch to realise how much I loved Sherlock - I think this must have happened to everyone and they've just forgotten it! I remember a good few reactions to the first episode that were all 'I'm definitely a Watson girl to begin with'. I find it difficult to rewatch things - I tend to watch small bits, and I don't think I rewatched any until I was literally in the middle of writing things - but I suddenly thought, 'Cumberbatch is wonderful, omg, when did that happen?' Because it had crept up on me - I really strongly remember in the first episode finding Cumberholmes quite offputting, and thinking, 'well Martin Freeman is the best Watson there's ever been, no doubt about that, I enjoy this Cumberfellow but I must say I remain to be totally convinced' - icr the rest of the *cumberjourney* but you get the idea, very clever of you Moffat, Gatiss, A++++

- regarding CIVIL WAR YET AGAIN: he could easily do it with Doctor Who! - unless he'd just decided 'ok victorians work for me, am just gonna go with that for the forseeable future'


Date: 2010-12-17 11:17 am (UTC)
From: [identity profile]
allow me to say yet more: basically! This thing where we assume that because they live with each other they know everything about each other - obviously this CAN'T be the case, because of the things you mention - but also the other way round, like Watson clearly doesn't automatically tell Holmes everything about his life. I'm thinking of the business with the gold watch here, as it happens in canon - Watson has never told Holmes that he had a brother, or anything about him, and Holmes (I assume) hasn't bothered to work it out until that moment right there. And in the BBC one, John doesn't correct Sherlock re: Harry for some time - the same 'none of your business' attitude he displays to Mycroft, maybe? but it gets broken through because of their inexorable attraction to each other

Date: 2010-12-12 03:44 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile]
rereading this thread makes me lol, here we are flinging GIANT COMMENTS at each other

I have added a new tag in honour of this, it is 'excitingly lengthy comments'. am laughing slightly at 'excitingly lengthy', like something out of a bad porn fic (maybe one of Mycroft's)

Date: 2010-12-10 12:41 am (UTC)
From: [identity profile]
I have NO TIME in my frantic life of new employment to respond adequately to anything, but can I just say that this entry & the previous one are MADE OF AMAZING. Oh, Merlin, I totally loled irl while reading that.

Date: 2010-12-10 06:35 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile]
IT'S OKAY, all I want is for EVERYONE to know about the Raffles stories because they really are incredible if you like that sort of thing. AND WHO DOESN'T.


bbakerb: (Default)

April 2011

     1 2
345 6789

Most Popular Tags

Style Credit

Expand Cut Tags

No cut tags
Page generated Sep. 20th, 2017 05:53 am
Powered by Dreamwidth Studios