Baker Street Irregulars discussion
General
>
Old and New Sherlockians: What do you think?
date
newest »
newest »
Hmmm. I don't think Moffat fans should be referred to as Wholockians as he didn't create Doctor Who and isn't the only writer, he just happens to currently be the head writer. Wholockians should be fans of both Doctor Who and the BBC Sherlock. Moffat fans are usually referred to as 'The Moffia' I believe.
To be honest, I think the term Holmesian is becoming a little outdated since the BBC Sherlock. Nowadays, most people just refer to themselves as Sherlockians. However, I do believe you are right in saying Holmesian was originally the UK fans and Sherlockian was the American fans, but since the BBC Sherlock, it has all become extremely confusing.
The Moffia? I LOVE IT! You are right; that is much better.
I have been a Sherlockian for 8 years, and have called myself a Sherlockian ever since. The term "Sherlockian" is far older than BBC Sherlock, so I guess both the "old" fan and the "new" fan can use it.As for the source material, I still prefer the Canon (being a Canon fan myself). Don't get it wrong. I love good adaptations of Sherlock Holmes, among them are Jeremy Brett's Sherlock and Ben Cumberbatch's Sherlock. But even the BBC Sherlock makes so many allusions to the Canon that it'd be very much helpful if we read the Canon as well.
What troubles me, though, is when somebody takes an out-of-character Sherlock as source material, making him ignorant of the "real" Sherlock Holmes character. Some of my friends love the OOC Sherlock and it makes me want to scream out, "It's not the real 'Sherlock', guys, you should read."
But to make it clear again: I love BBC Sherlock. It's definitely one of the best adaptations and so far the most creative (but respectful to the Canon) version of Sherlock Holmes.
Viva Sherlockian!
I prefer the Canon too, myself. I first became a Sherlockian with the 2009 WB movie. I honestly thought I would like the movie more than the Canon, and that I would just be in WB fandom, but when I started reading the Canon I was so surprised by how much I honestly loved these Victorian stories from 100+ years ago. If I were trying to convince a BBC Sherlock fan to read the Canon I would probably say, "The jokes would be so much better!" Getting the allusions definitely makes it better in my opinion.
As someone who is a reader of Jane Austen, I see a lot of parallels in the two communities. I divide the readers, and writers, into three categories: the purists, who think that the Canon is sufficient, and that any writing ought to be confined to scholarly work; the traditionalists, who enjoy the Canon and think that pastiches are fine as long as they are faithful to Conan Doyle's work and to the character of Holmes; the free spirits, who think that anything goes. Of the three groups, the first two have most likely read the Canon; the third group is may or may not have read the Canon, or who come to the Canon after watching movies, reading pastiches etc.I think I'm in the second group. I have only seen one episode and parts of two other episodes of the current series. I don't think it hits the mark, but I concede that it's very popular.
J. wrote: "As someone who is a reader of Jane Austen, I see a lot of parallels in the two communities. I divide the readers, and writers, into three categories: the purists, who think that the Canon is suffic..."I also think of fans basically fitting into different groups, according to their preferences on how best to enjoy the thing they're into. This blog post divided it into "affirmational" and "transformational" fandom.
In "affirmational" fandom, the source material is re-stated, the author's purpose divined to the community's satisfaction, rules established on how the characters are and how the universe works, and cosplay &etc. occur. It all tends to coalesce toward a center concept; it's all about nailing down the details.
...
"Transformational" fandom, on the other hand, is all about laying hands upon the source and twisting it to the fans' own purposes, whether that is to fix a disappointing issue (a distinct lack of sex-having between two characters, of course, is a favorite issue to fix) in the source material, or using the source material to illustrate a point, or just to have a whale of a good time. It tends to spin outward into nutty chaos at the least provocation, and while there are majority opinions vs. minority opinions, it's largely a democracy of taste; everyone has their own shot at declaring what the source material means, and at radically re-interpreting it.
I would actually be in the transformational group.
This is a very interesting topic. Being a fan of Sherlock since I was very young my first exposure to him was Doyle’s Cannon. To me that is and will always bee the Sherlock Holmes I cling to. That being said I am very open minded about new material. I love the Current movies and feel that Robert Downey Jr portraying him as a more man of action is very fitting the character. In the new series Sherlock I think the acting for the characters is spot on, and while they have taken liberties with story and plot it isn’t a slap in the face to Doyle and he might even be proud of the show. I do tend to be harsher or more critical of everything that comes out because it will never be as good as Doyle’s work but again, I try to be open minded and enjoy the book, movie, and show for what it is. So in simplest terms, I feel I fit slightly in between being a purest, and a traditionalist.
Matt from Always1895 had a link to this very provocative article by Nicholas Meyer. Honestly, I think it is weird that the guy who wrote the Seven Percent Solution, a pastiche turned movie concerning Sherlock's cocaine addiction (which was a bit controversial at the time), would be bemoaning the changing nature of Sherlockian fandom.I have been thinking about this article, and this paperThe Validation of the Internet Fandom: Bridging the Gap Between Traditional Fandom and the Age of Tumblr by Kristina Manente, because I find myself between them. When I read one, I think about how the other is right. Forgive me if I am now going to be writing a meandering response with logical inconsistencies that no one even cares about reading. Just thinking out loud.
Mostly, my problem with Meyer's article is its nostalgia. Nostalgia's always a problem when remembering the past. Whenever someone starts talking about the good old days I wonder about the shit parts they forget. I think he just wants me off his lawn, haha. If he's a purist that's fine, as he says he's not a fan of Basil Rathbone. But if it's something that would have bothered him 70 years ago it's not really something he can blame on kids these days. His complaint about a postliterate age... I would say that instead of postliterate age it is a proliferate age, where the nonsense of idiots (or just people who do things and think things differently) are getting more attention than you think they should, and yes they are getting more of it than they would in past decades.
My main problem with Manente's paper is the assumption that Sherlock BBC fandom is Sherlock Holmes fandom. It is not. There are some people who love BBC who will not care about the Canon, and vice versa. I'm like, you like Frasier, that's great... doesn't mean you like Cheers. Stop insisting you like Cheers if you only like Frasier.
rant rant rant
I think this is a quite astute commentary from Meyer: "Which brings us to the dilemma of Holmes in a postliterate age, and the larger question of how one adapts literature for the movies, for an audience that has never read the original."I think of the young lady who read "Pride and Prejudice" after seeing the Ehle/Firth movie and was let down because there was no jumping-into-the-pond scene. For some time, many people who have adapted classics have promoted the notion that a good film, pastiche, TV program would encourage the reader to pick up the original. I do wonder whether, in what Meyer calls the "postliterate age" that's realistic.
I would not, however, put Zefferelli's "Romeo and Juliet" as a film that pandered to a young audience - it simply cast age appropriate actors. In other respects, it was very faithful.
janetility.com
Any adaption good or bad that leads anyone back to the canon or a deep love for Sherlock Holmes is a success in my book. I don't like a lot of adaptations yet even some of those cause people to go seek out the original stories for themselves. In the end we choose which ones we enjoy and which ones we do not. Old or young, good or bad an introduction to Holmes has to start somewhere. While I wish the first impression of him to always be a good one, I am always more concerned with the lasting impression that one may/will eventually come to.
I agree that if the adaptation draws readers into the Canon, and moreover encourages an appreciation of the Canon, then, ultimately, it's a positive. However, I wonder whether some of the adaptations are so far from the mark that they raise expectations or encourage assumptions that are not fulfilled when they do go back to the Canon.My own feeling is that I did not create Holmes. Conan Doyle created Holmes, and in doing so created a character that is one of the most unique and specific physical and psychological profiles in literature. That is integral to what makes him Holmes. If you deviate too far from that, he may be an interesting character named "Sherlock" but without the link to the literary Holmes. And - speaking only for myself here - if there is no Doylean foundation, what's the point?
Well said J, I could not agree more on all points you've mentioned. Extremely valid concerns I think most of us have. I'm trying to be optimistic. ;)J. wrote: "I agree that if the adaptation draws readers into the Canon, and moreover encourages an appreciation of the Canon, then, ultimately, it's a positive. However, I wonder whether some of the adaptatio..."
Joe wrote: "Any adaption good or bad that leads anyone back to the canon or a deep love for Sherlock Holmes is a success in my book...."Another example of this whole phenomenon is one near and dear to my heart - The Lord of the Rings. I've seen all the same divisions: the purists, horrified at what has been done with and to their beloved canon; the OMGLeggolas is so hot!!1! clan who wouldn't know Old Man Willow if they fell over him and are mainly attracted to the bright lights and pretty men; and every possible level in between. It's the OMG group that drives me into a curmudgeonly purist leaning, though I cautiously agree that the adaptations have led to some - some - new converts to the books, in both cases, and that is a wonderful thing. With both Holmes and LotR, though, my more cynical outlook is that a fair-sized proportion of those who went from adaptation to book were like those who made A Brief History of Time a bestseller: bought, started, floundered over language more challenging than expected, and never finished.
Of course, my cynicism might be arising in large part from the fact that I would almost rather the Mayans be right than have to face three movies based on The Hobbit.
On a different note, I wonder if the old guard of Sherlockians is as startled as some old guard Tolkien geeks were when suddenly the old beloved shared with a comparatively small group of aficionados was suddenly cracked wide open to the world at large.
Sorry if that was too rambly. :)
I come to this whole discussion with a different point of view: Shakespearean. The beauty of Shakespeare's plays is that they are so rich with detail, themes and characters that one can actually change the meaning of the play by what one chooses to emphasize. While the Canon of Sherlock Holmes is not a play, Doyle created a rich world and character that has many facets subsequent authors and directors can play with. The fact that you can make a movie like Robert Downey Jr.'s Sherlock Holmes and BBC's Sherlock, each taking different pieces of the canon and foregoing others is a positive reflection of Doyle's work rather than some sort of blasphemy. I guess I am really just agreeing with everyone above who says its a good thing if it gets people interested.
Baker Street Irregulars
Books mentioned in this topic
A Brief History of Time (other topics)The Hobbit, or There and Back Again (other topics)
Here's what one person thought:
Mattias: I think when I speak of “old” and “new” Sherlockians, it’s not an age thing, it’s more about the definition of a Sherlockian. The old definition was maybe just this theory-writing, not always academic, but that kind of Sherlockian. Someone who uses the original stories and works from them. As for the “new” Sherlockians, their original thing is the BBC show.
What does that mean for you? I take it to mean, that for "old" Sherlockians, the source material is the Canon and the supplementary material are movies and pastiches and TV shows and whatnot. For the "new" Sherlockians, their source material is the TV show, or movie, or a pastiche, and the supplementary material is the Canon. This isn't a value judgement; I don't think liking one fandom makes you better than a person who likes another. Well, it might be fun to argue (Star Wars v. Star Trek? Kirk v. Picard? 4 v. 10?FIGHT!), but in the end most people realize they like different things, and different strokes for different folks and all that.
Ardy: ...Also, she mentioned that there are changes in the meaning of the word “Sherlockian”. That’s something that I can definitely attest to as well. It used to be that a Sherlockian was somebody who played the Game, and also “Sherlockian” was the American expression and “Holmesian” the British word for the same thing. But recently, I’ve seen it used to mean that a Holmesian is a fan of the original stories and the Victorian world, and a Sherlockian is a fan of the BBC show. It does make sense but there’s a shift in meaning going on there, and I’m not sure where the words are getting pulled.
I like this. I am fine with Sherlock fans calling themselves Sherlockians and Canon fans being Holmesian. Or if not, something that would help define the two. What about Wholockian for Moffat fans? I think people get kinda... confused? If I were a BBC Sherlock fan, and someone is trying to get to get me to read Victorian mystery stories, I would be like "Wha? Why are you pushing this on me? I don't need that to be a Sherlock fan." And, if I were a Canon fan, and someone is trying to tell me they were the biggest Sherlock Holmes fan ever, I would be like, "Wha? There's like 100+ years worth of stuff. Have you read the Canon?" It's confusing because pastiche and canon both use the same names, for themselves and when they talk about different incarnations of the characters. If I were maker of the rules, I think I would decree that everyone will be called Sherlockians, the specifically canon fandom will be called Holmesians, and the specifically Sherlock BBC fandom will be called Wholockians. This I decree as ruler of the internet.