Log in

No account? Create an account
Previous Entry Share Next Entry
A last word on 'Sherlock'
I do not object to Gattis, Moffat and Thompson writing fan fiction (or sharecropping, if you prefer.) I could hardly do so when I write fan fiction myself.

What I do object to is them writing the type of fan fiction where the names are the same but the characters differ markedly from the originals. This is not 'filing the numbers off' - this is cynically using an already dedicated fan base to sell fiction where the characters have no resemblance to the originals but the names. It is a marketing ploy to make money, and only that. It is certainly not written for love of the characters when their versions are so different. This kind of fan fiction is frowned on by its readers - Cumberbatch's cheekbones are no excuse for letting this pass.

  • 1

Sherlock is as much mine as theirs. I've lived with in for nigh on thirty years. I am allowed to care about what they do to the characters.

I am waiting, with some trepidation, for la_marquise_de_'s reaction to last night's The Musketeers (apart from the photography which I think no one will disagree was spectacular.) I liked it a lot, and thought that if you have to reimagine something, this is the way to do it. However, she is not just a long-term fan of Dumas and the musketeers (and Aramis!) but an expert (and an historian, though this is not her period) who has co-authored a book on the subject and whose own novels show a certain Dumasian sensibility...

I taped it and am very much looking forward to evil cardinals and henchmen.

I'm looking forward to that too! We've recorded the program but probably won't get around to watching it for a couple of days.

This doesn't bother me too much - maybe because I'm not immersed enough in the cannon to really spot it (but strangely I do get unaccountably annoyed by the fact that all the original books have been re-released with Cumberbatch and Freeman on the covers.)

However, in a not-unrelated vein, I do find myself getting irritated with Moffat's continuing campaign to re-write all of Doctor Who history to suit himself. It feels a bit disrespectful somehow. I know it's something all DW show-runners do to an extent, but Moffat seems to be particularly obvious about it.

Re-writing Dr Who (which is a collaborative effort often retconned) is one thing, but to suggest (nay, state) that their ridiculous retcons are what Conan Doyle actually intended -- with a blatant lack of understanding of context, not to mention plain grammatical words -- annoys me exceedingly. (Though if I was invested in 'Who' I would probably be just as annoyed as you are.)

  • 1