I guess all I'd say to this is that I pretty much agree with your assessment of Holmes and Watson in ACD canon. (I think your headcanon tends a bit toward the girly, which is to be expected as we are girls. It's something I'm always fighting all the time in my own writing...and actually, I had this ACK! I'm MORE GIRLY THAN I THINK I AM moment that I shared wtih everyone, because I think many of us were guilty in this specific case: http://goldvermilion87.livejournal.com/72341.html)
However, I think what you're saying is writing between the lines, not reading between them. Not only because I'd argue the things you mention just aren't there in the text--you're mostly saying this MUST be because really how could Watson stick with Holmes that long otherwise, etc.--but also because Holmes was, I believe, a sort of ideal for ACD. An ideally rational man. When I personally look at Sherlock Holmes, the man who is merely a great brain and the rest is mere appendix, I say HOW DEPRESSING! It's inhuman. But that was a philosophy in that era. (see George Bernard Shaw) There were men who wanted to be Sherlock Holmeses (though they wouldn't have phrased it that way) And Doyle was one of those men. That's why Watson could stick around--because Doyle would stick around.
Of course, I think writing between the lines is a great idea! That is why we write fanfiction. But I guess I've become more and more aware that I'm doing that, and I appreciate the BBC format where they've actually opened up the questions that ACD didn't ask (and that's the big thing for me--he NEVER asks. No matter how much you say, you can extrapolate from X that Holmes must have done Y, ACD never explicitly deals with Holmes's goodness or lack there of) and didn't care to ask about Holmes. Then I don't feel like I'm being a bad reader...because I partly feel that I am...if I try to force my own desire to have Holmes be less of a jerk in ACDs stuff.
I guess the other thing for me personally is that there is a lot of Victorian/Edwardian manners in ACDs stuff that I don't think a lot of us are understanding as manners and no more. Sherlock Holmes speaks quite politely most of the time because he is a Victorian gentleman. And all that "my dear chap" sort of thing is fairly meaningless common usage. It bugs me when I read Holmes fanfic that credits Holmes with the manners as if they are character traits, when they are just the trappings of the times. I loved seeing Sherlock now. In fact, I'd argue that they did not make him worse than he is in canon. They just strip away the Victorianism (can you tell that I cannot stand Victorianism? :-P Love the literature...think it was one of the worst eras of all time...) and give us Sherlock Holmes in a way we can't be confused about. In the same way that they have him using cutting edge technology just like in ACD's stuff, but we can recognize that it is, even if we don't know the history of science and technology in the Victorian era.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
branchandroot
Re: Continued...
Date: 2011-03-24 07:06 pm (UTC)However, I think what you're saying is writing between the lines, not reading between them. Not only because I'd argue the things you mention just aren't there in the text--you're mostly saying this MUST be because really how could Watson stick with Holmes that long otherwise, etc.--but also because Holmes was, I believe, a sort of ideal for ACD. An ideally rational man. When I personally look at Sherlock Holmes, the man who is merely a great brain and the rest is mere appendix, I say HOW DEPRESSING! It's inhuman. But that was a philosophy in that era. (see George Bernard Shaw) There were men who wanted to be Sherlock Holmeses (though they wouldn't have phrased it that way) And Doyle was one of those men. That's why Watson could stick around--because Doyle would stick around.
Of course, I think writing between the lines is a great idea! That is why we write fanfiction. But I guess I've become more and more aware that I'm doing that, and I appreciate the BBC format where they've actually opened up the questions that ACD didn't ask (and that's the big thing for me--he NEVER asks. No matter how much you say, you can extrapolate from X that Holmes must have done Y, ACD never explicitly deals with Holmes's goodness or lack there of) and didn't care to ask about Holmes. Then I don't feel like I'm being a bad reader...because I partly feel that I am...if I try to force my own desire to have Holmes be less of a jerk in ACDs stuff.
I guess the other thing for me personally is that there is a lot of Victorian/Edwardian manners in ACDs stuff that I don't think a lot of us are understanding as manners and no more. Sherlock Holmes speaks quite politely most of the time because he is a Victorian gentleman. And all that "my dear chap" sort of thing is fairly meaningless common usage. It bugs me when I read Holmes fanfic that credits Holmes with the manners as if they are character traits, when they are just the trappings of the times. I loved seeing Sherlock now. In fact, I'd argue that they did not make him worse than he is in canon. They just strip away the Victorianism (can you tell that I cannot stand Victorianism? :-P Love the literature...think it was one of the worst eras of all time...) and give us Sherlock Holmes in a way we can't be confused about. In the same way that they have him using cutting edge technology just like in ACD's stuff, but we can recognize that it is, even if we don't know the history of science and technology in the Victorian era.