?

Log in

No account? Create an account

Previous Entry | Next Entry



Every age gets the Holmes it deserves.

Everything I know about the twenty-first century I learned from Sherlock (BBC, 2010):

*

All problems have solutions.

All solutions are rational.

Everything that is rational can be comprehended, analyzed, and discarded.

By you.

You know everything worth knowing.

You are the master of the universe.

*

Merit rises to the top. Raw intelligence, that's what matters.

You can't look for intelligence in the Metropolitan Police Force. Why even bother? The private sector is where insight is found. Trust the consultants.

The state is there to facilitate your work. And defuse bombs. And take the bodies to the morgue.

*

People respond to intelligence. They desire intelligence. They answer the text messages that intelligence sends. They fetch things for intelligence. They are willing to put up with the rudeness that occasionally accompanies intelligence. They ask intelligence out on dates.

Intelligence is sexy.

Intelligence is power.

*

It used to be that clients would show up on your doorstep with a story, a plea, a mystery. This used to be how the game started.

Now victims show up dead.

Easier that way, to assess their problems.

More efficient.

Besides, you'd rather text than talk.

*

Look at London. Bright lights, big city. It's beautiful.

The light is beautiful. The colors are beautiful. The clothes are beautiful. This whole show is beautiful.


*

London is safe. Clean. Well-lit. Seen through a plate of glass, a kaleidoscope of reflections.

*

This is a city of well-maintained classical buildings (distant past) and high-tech modernism (present and future).

No one of interest ever lived or worked in something built in the sixties, anyway.

*

Some people say London is a battlefield. You see it more as a playground.

*

Money is no object.

*

Buses and subways are for people whose time is less valuable than yours.

*

The vast majority of people in London are white. People who are not white are statistically more likely to be blood-thirsty, murdering villains. Or dead, victims themselves.

What? You're just counting. Numbers, hard numbers, that's what you want.

*

You just happen to be white.

*

Did that man just call his hostage a "stupid bitch?" Did he really? What right does anyone have to call any woman...

But, wait. He's a psychopathic murderer. That's how we know he's crazy.

Because no sane man would ever say that out loud.


*

Once, famously, a woman got the best of you.

Now, you get the best of the woman, every time.

Freak. Ha!

That was then, this is now.

*

Women protest that they don't want to take care of you, but they really do.

*

He taught me, rather than he learned me.

I was, not I were.

Hanged, instead of hung.

The man has killed his wife in a brutal stabbing, but what really rubs you wrong is his dialect.

Nothing like a death sentence to cure someone of being working class.

*

Homeless people, your "eyes and ears" around the city, emerge when they might be useful. Otherwise, they are invisible. Disinfect yourself after contact.

*

It doesn't help anyone to care.

*

Sometimes a disguise will gain you entry to an important place. Discard it as soon as possible. Don't even bother to keep up the pretense. You don't want anyone to mistake you for a working man.

*

On the other hand, people may assume you're gay. Don't worry. Don't protest. We won't go there.

*

Text flashes before you. Clues flash before you. Fast. Disorienting. Don't get distracted. The crucial details here are not factual, not for anyone except the master of the universe.

The key to this show, for lesser mortals, is character. Watch for Sherlock's expression. How does he feel about the situation at hand?

You spend a lot of time watching Sherlock's face.

Sometimes, you watch John watching Sherlock's face.

Funny how riveting a cold man's face is.


*

Selling drugs is dangerous; you can get out of your depth before you know it, in trouble, in debt, you'll kill your near-brother-in-law on the off-chance that you'll be able to sell something of his for a profit. Selling drugs leads to a life of crime.

Buying drugs and occasionally enjoying them, on the other hand, would be entirely fine. It would be interesting, actually. It would add to your mystique.

But of course, you're clean. Did everyone hear that? You're clean.

*

You are untouchable. Your friends are untouchable. The law exists to facilitate your investigations. When it's convenient.

The state itself is outdated. You have the world in your hand, on a mobile or a laptop. The new order is conflict-free and flexible.

*

Even when someone dies, it's not your fault.

People die, that's what they do.

Oh, sorry. Other people die. That's what they do.

*

You, on the other hand. You solve problems. Lestrade and Donovan and Dimmock have tried, but your methods have been tested in the open market, proved to be the best.

No problem is ever solved collaboratively. No assistance is helpful. No other types of intelligence are acknowledged.

There is no such thing as society, only individual problems, and individual problem solvers.

They should take your word as gospel.

*

People are taken hostage. Bombs are detonated. People are killed. A child's life is on the line. A roommate deals with loss. A woman grieves the man who would have married her. A man shakes in terror. A head sits in the refrigerator.

Their names and stories pass by too quickly to catch. None of them really matter, anyway. Only ninety minutes, total. Still two mysteries to go. Real problems are abstract, logical, and impersonal, unconnected to daily life, personal experience, local knowledge, or the vagaries of chance.

This is the great game. The one thing that matters in this game--

No, it's not that we win. We always win.

The one thing that really matters is that Sherlock Holmes might...

God, is that John?

He's got a vest! He's covered in explosives!


...the one thing that really matters...

Look at Sherlock Holmes' face. Watch carefully for any register of emotion. This is what we've been waiting for: a hint of anger, fear, or compassion. The show has been training you to do this for more than four hours, training you to search for the slightest sign of emotion in this man's face. You are riveted.

...the one thing that really matters is that Sherlock Holmes just might have a heart, after all.

Because that's what important. The master of the universe loves and suffers like the rest of us.

*

P.S. Thanks to [personal profile] rose71 for listening and, well, being [personal profile] rose71.

This entry was originally posted at http://magnetic-pole.dreamwidth.org/10039.html. It has comment count unavailablecomments.

Comments

( 53 comments — Leave a comment )
(Deleted comment)
magnetic_pole
Aug. 11th, 2010 01:56 am (UTC)
I think think it's surprising how much is similar and how well the adaptation works, on its own terms. It's as if the welfare state and the great social revolutions of the 20c (incomplete though they may be) never happened. M.
bethbethbeth
Aug. 11th, 2010 02:14 am (UTC)
Okay, so...I hate you. I actually love you, but I hate you for not allowing me to handwave any of this show away. *sigh*

(excellent meta. really excellent)


magnetic_pole
Aug. 11th, 2010 03:14 pm (UTC)
Maggie, a downer on livejournal since 2006. *wry smile*

As I was just saying to someone on DW, there's something almost diabolically clever about the way this series is constructed. M.
rexluscus
Aug. 11th, 2010 02:37 am (UTC)
This is all true! And it makes me realize that on some level, I've been watching this show with the hope (virtually unthinkable in ACD) that Sherlock will, at some point, fail.
magnetic_pole
Aug. 11th, 2010 03:16 pm (UTC)
That would be interesting!

D'you suppose they're looking for writers for the next season? *nudges*

One of my English professors in college had a friend who quit academia to write the X-files. That story's stuck with me for years. M.
(no subject) - rexluscus - Aug. 11th, 2010 06:48 pm (UTC) - Expand
rotaryphones
Aug. 11th, 2010 04:13 am (UTC)
I haven't been watching the show, but I love this meta, insightful and slightly bitter. (I mean that in a good way.) And you know, I don't think I need to watch the show to understand it. I'm already familiar with those tropes.
magnetic_pole
Aug. 11th, 2010 03:17 pm (UTC)
slightly bitter. (I mean that in a good way.)

Ah, you're a flister after my own heart, RP.

Thanks for giving this a read, especially if you're not invested in the show! M.

tarteaucitron
Aug. 11th, 2010 05:58 am (UTC)
this is uncomfortable and exciting reading.

It's as if the welfare state and the great social revolutions of the 20c (incomplete though they may be) never happened.

absolutely. and it's a betrayal of everything i'm invested in to find him charming, and watch for his little flickers of vulnerability like that's what really matters.

on the other hand, isn't there something awesome about a tv programme that can knowingly make you compromise yourself to such an extent?
magnetic_pole
Aug. 11th, 2010 03:19 pm (UTC)
absolutely. and it's a betrayal of everything i'm invested in to find him charming, and watch for his little flickers of vulnerability like that's what really matters.

Ah, see, tarte, I flail and foam and write and write, and you get it in fewer than thirty words. *smooch* Thanks for reading. M.
snegurochka_lee
Aug. 11th, 2010 01:01 pm (UTC)
Haven't seen the show, but I love the format of this, as well as its observations. And I love your brain. :)
magnetic_pole
Aug. 11th, 2010 03:21 pm (UTC)
Thanks for giving this a read, then!

You know how sometimes you're reading something or watching something and you think "This is how we learn to be proper late capitalist subjects?" Yup. M.
westernredcedar
Aug. 11th, 2010 04:38 pm (UTC)
Fascinating, Maggie, and so accurate it's scary.
I find it distressing that the writers believe the modern audience is too judgmental to face a "hero" who is a drug addict, yet assume we are more than willing to overlook his sexism, egotism, classism, and general hatred of mankind.
Heck, I've really been enjoying the show, so I've been doing all of that myself...
One thing I find really interesting though, is that in education currently all the talk about "the future" has centered around how collaboration and community is starting to be the driving force in major change and discovery- scientific, medical, etc. That makes me think that this show and those like it (House comes to mind) are the last gasp and death rattle of the mighty individual over the collective. Who knows?
Thanks for sharing all of these thoughts, m'dear. It will be interesting to see what they do with the series as it continues.
*hug*
magnetic_pole
Aug. 13th, 2010 04:49 am (UTC)
Interesting! Gah, Cedar, I hate to be such a cynic these days, but I do see the contemporary emphasis on collaboration (late sixties-populism plus cyber-frontierism) as something that will quickly be co-opted or diluted. (Like CNN providing half-hearted coverage of limited event, then asking for *your* opinion! And footage, if you have any.) But prove me wrong, world!

The better half has been giving me "I told you so" looks on this issue for days now. I don't know, can I just not watch mainstream t.v.? How do you deal with this? M.
(no subject) - westernredcedar - Aug. 13th, 2010 06:10 am (UTC) - Expand
(no subject) - magnetic_pole - Aug. 14th, 2010 03:10 pm (UTC) - Expand
topaz_eyes
Aug. 11th, 2010 05:12 pm (UTC)
I haven't watched the show, and don't intend to, because I figured it'd go something like this. :-\ I'm not surprised Moffat would do such an accurate adaptation. From his Doctor Who, his work is about nostalgia, with all its underlying assumptions, sexism, classism, etc.
magnetic_pole
Aug. 13th, 2010 04:43 am (UTC)
. From his Doctor Who, his work is about nostalgia, with all its underlying assumptions, sexism, classism, etc.

Ah, topaz, I wish I'd talked to you beforehand! I know nothing of the DW universe, though a friend just recently told me about the differences between Russell T. Davies' (sp?) episodes and Moffat's, which helped explain a lot about the Sherlock series. *is sad*

On a related note, I thought as I watched was that Sherlock seemed very American, aspirational and impressed by its own coolness, where I've always seen British t.v. as more realistic or self-effacing and humorous.

In any case, thanks for reading! M.
(no subject) - topaz_eyes - Aug. 13th, 2010 04:43 pm (UTC) - Expand
(no subject) - magnetic_pole - Aug. 14th, 2010 02:45 pm (UTC) - Expand
(no subject) - topaz_eyes - Aug. 14th, 2010 05:20 pm (UTC) - Expand
(no subject) - rose71 - Aug. 15th, 2010 05:39 am (UTC) - Expand
poisontaster
Aug. 12th, 2010 04:37 pm (UTC)
This was linking on my flist; hope you don't mind me joining in.

I've been a Holmes fangirl for a lot of my life; I adore mysteries and I started reading Doyle's stories when I was a wee young thing. But, the older I get, the less this kind of narrative impresses me and, though I dutifully downloaded the episodes, as a Holmes fangirl, I have yet to watch them and I think you brilliantly pin why I'm so hesitant/loathe to actually sit down and watch it and, concurrently, why I'm so ambivalent about SO MUCH media that's being put out these days. Thank you for writing this.
magnetic_pole
Aug. 13th, 2010 04:36 am (UTC)
I've been a Holmes fangirl for a lot of my life; I adore mysteries and I started reading Doyle's stories when I was a wee young thing. But, the older I get, the less this kind of narrative impresses me

*nods* That's true for me, as well. I have a lot of nostalgia and affection for this particular character and grew up reading and watching mysteries alongside my parents. I got a vague sense of Sherlock from publicity beforehand--and, indeed, my partner warned me not to watch it, I was sure to be annoyed--but the bottom line is that I still enjoy spending time with him.

There are a lot of pitfalls to recreating Holmes, but there are also dozens of subsequent riffs on the basic formula of brilliant-detective-and-admiring-partner-in-crime, many of which deal with race, class, gender, and the limitations of white male subjectivity. It think that's why this version struck me as so ideologically charged, even as it tried to sneak under the radar as a mere modernization of canon.

And yes, you're absolutely right about this kind of narrative not being unique. Sadly.

On the issue of watching it: the first and third episodes are good television, in the sense that they're well-pace and plotted, clever and engaging. If you do watch, let me know what you thought? Maggie
laceymcbain
Aug. 13th, 2010 04:15 am (UTC)
sherlock thoughts
Thank you for an interesting set of insights on the new show. I've only watched the first two, but I did enjoy them. I do sometimes think that we've been brought up to appreciate white men being smart and appearing to rail against the system they're very much a part of. I grew up on books and TV that put men front and centre, and although I appreciate strong female characters, I seem to settle into a comfort zone with male leads. I know what to expect, and I know what pushes my buttons - that touch of emotion and humanity in a maladjusted man. It's a disquieting realization.

You've given me much to consider.
magnetic_pole
Aug. 13th, 2010 04:54 am (UTC)
Re: sherlock thoughts
I seem to settle into a comfort zone with male leads. I know what to expect, and I know what pushes my buttons - that touch of emotion and humanity in a maladjusted man. It's a disquieting realization.

*nods* That's it exactly! And it's such a cultural phenomenon right now. (In slash, as well as in the mainstream media.)

For what it's worth, the last episode is good television in the sense that it's well-paced and plotted, clever and emotionally engaging. I just felt like my world view had been chewed up and discarded at the end. (How that for a recommendation?) Thanks for your thoughts! Maggie
Re: sherlock thoughts - auroramama - Aug. 14th, 2010 03:13 am (UTC) - Expand
Re: sherlock thoughts - harborshore - Aug. 17th, 2010 10:05 am (UTC) - Expand
Re: sherlock thoughts - auroramama - Aug. 17th, 2010 03:26 pm (UTC) - Expand
islandsmoke
Aug. 13th, 2010 02:32 pm (UTC)
I've never been a Holmes fan. Not anti-Holmes, or anything, just never enjoyed the books or movies much. Though I did like the recent movie, because it entertained me immensely.

And I don't watch much tv. As in, I go for months without turning it on. So I haven't seen the series.

Um, what was I commenting on?

Oh, yes.

People respond to intelligence. They desire intelligence. They answer the text messages that intelligence sends. They fetch things for intelligence. They are willing to put up with the rudeness that occasionally accompanies intelligence. They ask intelligence out on dates.

I have found this to be utterly false. At least, for the majority of people I seem to come in contact with. While it may be true for me and my friends, I have found that it is not true for a (seeming) majority of everyday, working class people. And everyday, working class people are the majority. After all, by definition, half the population is below median intelligence, and I have found that a significant number of those people are suspicious and resentful of people who are brighter.

[/cynical rant]

Not that that has anything to do with 'Sherlock'.
magnetic_pole
Aug. 14th, 2010 02:53 pm (UTC)
I'm a bit astonished at the naive view of intelligence that the creators have taken with this show--in an era of emotional intelligence and wikipedia and crowd-sourcing and pluralist world views, do we really believe one person has all the answers simply on account of a rather vague "intelligence?" It's silly. The only reason why "intelligence" is so important in this show is that it's a fetishized (and largely empty) quality that distinguishes Holmes from the rest of the cast. /my own cynical rant

Funny how certain people's "intelligence" is more valuable than others.

I don't watch much t.v., either. (Don't have a set, actually.) Sadly, I manage to lose all that extra time surfing the internet! M.
(no subject) - frenchcinephile - Sep. 24th, 2010 04:23 am (UTC) - Expand
calicokat
Aug. 13th, 2010 03:34 pm (UTC)
Although I enjoy Sherlock and am in the fandom, and I certainly didn't sum it up as eloquently as you, my short response was:

</i>

I will say that Moffat's left it very open that Sherlock's probably homosexual, his comment was John isn't his type.
magnetic_pole
Aug. 14th, 2010 02:58 pm (UTC)
*laughs* We did watch him hail cabs and sit in cabs an awful lot, didn't we?

I actually really liked that restaurant scene in the first episode, where the issue of sexuality seemed to be left open. But after the subsequent episodes...I feel as if you can't make (possible) queerness a running joke without demonstrating that someone will actually be allowed to be queer on the show, which didn't seem to be the case here. It's not funny to joke as if everything's fine if it's not really fine, I guess. Maggie
(no subject) - paxluvfelicitas - Aug. 22nd, 2010 09:57 am (UTC) - Expand
(no subject) - magnetic_pole - Aug. 24th, 2010 02:58 am (UTC) - Expand
(no subject) - zanzando - Oct. 18th, 2010 08:35 pm (UTC) - Expand
auroramama
Aug. 14th, 2010 03:14 am (UTC)
Just to say, like everyone else, that you're a creator of art.
magnetic_pole
Aug. 14th, 2010 02:58 pm (UTC)
Thanks for reading! Maggie
flame_fall
Aug. 14th, 2010 05:18 am (UTC)
THIS.

This pins down exactly the vague sense of discomfort I have sometimes watching the episodes. How even though Sherlock uses a cellphone and takes a cab there's something very not "modern" about him at all. There's still something very Victorian - a very privileged and aloof way of looking at things - that shows through in his actions. A sort of unquestioned "I'm the exception to every rule" that grates me a lot.

Also, like someone else mentioned - eccentric characters railing against the system would be more effective if they deviate from the white/male/straight pattern.
magnetic_pole
Aug. 14th, 2010 03:05 pm (UTC)
How even though Sherlock uses a cellphone and takes a cab there's something very not "modern" about him at all...A sort of unquestioned "I'm the exception to every rule" that grates me a lot.

*nods* So it's important to update the technology, but the racism and misogyny are an indispensable part of the package? And not just part of the package, but qualities that the viewer has to be coerced into acknowledging and accepting, in order to have any involvement in the emotional arc of the show at all?

Thanks for reading! Maggie
rose71
Aug. 15th, 2010 05:28 am (UTC)
Thanks for writing this, and I'm glad to hear our conversation helped to spark your thoughts. *hugs* So, I've now watched ep 1 and the first half of ep 2 (and planning to watch the rest soon). Very compelling, slick, disturbing--exactly what I expected from your description.

What brilliant and scary insights about SH & neoliberalism! As another commenter aptly put it, "Thatcherism wins." After reading this powerful meta and all the insightful comments, I doubt I can add anything that hasn't been said. (ETA: I nonetheless appear to have written an extremely long comment. But half of it is about Doctor Who. Sorry.)

A few random comments:
Even though the race and gender problems are less overt in ep 1, I noticed how the show immediately gets us on Sherlock's side, at the expense of women characters. In Sherlock's very first scene, we watch him rejecting the woman (at Bart's hospital) who tries to ask him out on a date, and we're supposed to find it funny that he makes her FETCH HIM COFFEE instead of taking her hint about going out for coffee. (Full disclosure: I did find it funny, but I hated myself. Ah, fandom...) In some ways, it's also a joke at the expense of his sexual coldness and social cluelessness (ahaha, unintentional pun about SH and clues), but not really. Because we--unlike that poor hapless woman--are allowed to follow him around and get vicariously close to him, through our identification with Watson and our constant attention to Holmes's face. (Of course, I love what you said about being trained to watch his face!) And, as you and other commenters have pointed out, something similar happens with Donovan--we're led on to dismiss her dismissal of Holmes as a "freak," because he's our hero. And, if she had her way, we (like Watson) would never even try to get close to him. So much for Donovan!

After reading your meta, I'm curious about whether you actually think that the original stories are LESS full of fail. You seem to imply that here:
It used to be that clients would show up on your doorstep with a story, a plea, a mystery. This used to be how the game started. Now victims show up dead. (Great point, by the way!)
And I'm also drawing this from some of your other points--Sherlock's not using work-class disguise, his insistence on being "clean" of drugs, etc. Now, obviously, the original stories are steeped in the race/class/gender prejudices of their time--and are clearly promoting the free market of freelancers against government agencies. Yet I do feel that the original stories had some more complex and conflicting messages, much more so than Moffat's Sherlock, which is a remarkably seamless union of form and ideology.

Notice that I am using this opportunity to point the finger at Moffat again! I know I've already bent your ear about Doctor Who, but now I keep thinking even more about the massive genderfail--and incredibly clever narrative structures--of Moffat's episodes. I know this is a complete tangent that won't even interest you, but, anyway... Moffat's first episodes of DW (as a guest writer during the first RT Davies series) were a gorgeously written two-part story set in the London Blitz. I can't speak highly enough of the witty dialogue and suspenseful plot. But all the emotion comes from historical nostalgia for Britain's Finest Hour, and in the meantime the relationships between the three main characters (Rose Tyler, the Doctor, and Jack Harkness) are reduced to a conventional heterosexual love triangle with two alpha-males competing for a female object. This is SUCH a change from episodes by RT Davies and other writers, where Rose has very strong agency, and where Jack's bisexuality/queerness is central to his characterization.

And (connecting my random Who rant back to your meta), I'm going to pick up on your wonderful, funny comments about 1960s buildings and public transportation. So, the very first episode of RTD's Who starts with Rose leaving her 1960s-era housing estate (or is it 1970s? you'll have to tell me) and taking public transportation to work. None of this in Moffat's Who, obviously. (Subliminal message: watch Doctor Who... watch Doctor Who...)



Edited at 2010-08-15 05:50 am (UTC)
topaz_eyes
Aug. 15th, 2010 05:21 pm (UTC)
To be fair, a lot of the emotion in "The Empty Child/The Doctor Dances" comes from the line "Just this once, Rose, everybody lives!" I can't help but feel for the Doctor, knowing his recent past. But maybe that's how Moffat gets away with it. Viewers get so swept up in the feel-good hero-saves-the-day that they don't notice the fail. (I think "Girl in the Fireplace" is Moffat's definitive statement of what he believes Doctor Who is about. How I wish it were "Blink," which is by far his least fail-y.)

This is SUCH a change from episodes by RT Davies and other writers, where Rose has very strong agency, and where Jack's bisexuality/queerness is central to his characterization.

I wish RTD had the guts to polish Moffat's episodes, as he did almost everyone else's. Where Moffat excels in clever plots, RTD is a master of characterization.

(Subliminal message: watch Doctor Who... watch Doctor Who...)

*joins in the subliminal whispering*
(no subject) - rose71 - Aug. 18th, 2010 04:02 am (UTC) - Expand
(no subject) - topaz_eyes - Aug. 18th, 2010 04:40 pm (UTC) - Expand
(no subject) - magnetic_pole - Aug. 28th, 2010 03:36 am (UTC) - Expand
halfdreaming
May. 12th, 2011 07:57 pm (UTC)
So, here far after the fact via rec, but felt the need to comment.
On one hand- YES, a thousand times yes, thank you for articulating the EPIC FAIL I kept feeling, espc. during episode two during which I was actually composing mental letters to Moffat detailing the many ways in which he fails at life, and no really, that's still bloody racism. (A rose by any other name...yeah.) As a fan of Dr. Who as well, I particularly feel a great deal of resentment for the culpability of the writers. Imagine if Joss Whedon (OK, would be radically different show, but still) or Aaron Sorkin had written the script. Would have been a totally different world and, I think, a much more interesting one. (And the way this Sherlock is portrayed, he might even agree, so long as he himself isn't personally inconvenienced, of course.)

And you caught far more of the message behind the world building than I did. I got enough of it to snark about neolibralism until my roommate hit me with a pillow, but you've caught far more of the detail. And are more articulate about it, although I'll blame that partially on Finals burnout. So yes, EXCELLENT job pinpointing the various problematic issues in this show. Will be bookmarking this.

That said- Sherlock. The man is an asshole. Really and truly, by both choice and nature. But, and here's the big thing, the reason I watch this show and cheer for him despite his flaws- I know people like this. Not this extreme, not exactly, but enough. Hell, I've been the super-smart, socially oblivious kid enough times to feel the sting when Donovan calls him a Freak. I know people with Autism-spectrum disorders, Torrets, Bipolar who are highly intelligent, socially awkward people and get treated like a particularly smelly little dog who can nonetheless do a few cool tricks. And some of those people have seen that, decided that they can either be an asshole or a doormat and have chosen to be offensively defensive. No, that's not an excuse for playing Russian Roulette with people's lives, but god do I love seeing Sherlock get some praise for once. I'd still love to smack him upside the head and all, but I do sympathize and identify with him all the same. He actually reminds me really strongly of a kid I used to know with Aspergers- asshole personality and all.

Finally- while I realize the fandom likes to pair Sherlock and John, and the show itself does nothing to discourage this, Holmes is still a non-sexual character. And for the small group of asexual people out there, that's nice to see, even if it does come wrapped in shiny, shiny neoliberal packaging.
(on a side note, I've had these annoying Fountainhead flashbacks ever since I saw the show. Now I know why.)
oboetheres
Jun. 20th, 2011 06:43 pm (UTC)
I hope you don't mind me commenting this late.

Very interesting and thought provoking meta, thank you for that! It's helped me think about how my own upbringing and experiences shape my perception of many things in Sherlock and other shows I enjoy.
soukup.dreamwidth.org
Jun. 11th, 2012 12:30 pm (UTC)
I have no real knowledge of Sherlock Holmes beyond having read a few of the books, but oh, I love this. This feels like something Ayn Rand would write if she did a whole lot of cocaine and then played lasertag for a while. By which I mean that I love this, and thank you for writing it. I think I'll always see Holmes through this lens now.
chironstar
Jun. 13th, 2012 02:31 pm (UTC)
I first saw this over on DW, and I just want to thank you again for this amazing piece of work! You speak the truth so eloquently, my friend, I'm bookmarking this on both LJ and DW! ♥
(Deleted comment)
atheist_cheese
Dec. 10th, 2013 07:15 am (UTC)
What a peculiar, near deluded perspective for someone living in a society to take. I suppose it's easy to harbour such disdain when living supported in the very mediocrity you scorn. It's a comfortable position from which to craft a superiority complex
( 53 comments — Leave a comment )