More Sherlock Thoughts

[guanin]

I'm toying with the idea of writing meta for Sherlock, but I'm a little uncertain. Not that I wouldn't if I wanted to because I'm intimidated (although it is intimidating, because I feel like it's all been written before), but the Sherlock meta I've seen so far is written with this perspective that I've never seen before. It's much more literary. I was not a literature major. My degrees are in history. I'm a fiction writer and did fine in my literature classes, but I would have been miserable as a literature major because I'm not really into symbolism or elaborate metaphors. Seriously, if anyone sees that in my writing, I didn't do that. If the symbolism is super blunt, I'll probably get it, but if it's subtle, it will go right over my head. I'm not looking for that stuff.

The meta I write is about character arcs and motivations, interpreting them exactly as if they were real people. I don't treat them as symbols or mirrors or anything like that. I examine them in a completely straightforward way. Again, history major. I analyze fiction the exact, same way that I examine history. That's the methodology I like. It's why I was drawn to that field and not a different one. It's something I didn't realize until now, but I automatically look at a piece of media the same way that I would a historical document. That's just how my mind views things. Which is why I'm definitely not writing any meta about season 4, because the inconsistencies are so massive that it's clearly a forged document that some hack tried to pass off as the genuine article.

I don't know what I want to write yet, anyway. But I'm not going to be talking about elephants (I swear I've never seen a single elephant on this show, I don't notice this stuff) or metaphors or any of that stuff because it's not my wheelhouse. I wouldn't know what to do with that.

Comments

[aim_of_destiny]

i don't see why you shouldn't post any meta you come up with.

your perspective as a historian rather than a litcrit person is an asset, not a detriment. like you've said here, the litcrit people have been having a go at the series since its inception, why shouldn't you do the same? you almost certainly won't say the exact same thing again, because you're coming at it from another angle.

[guanin]

That's a good point. I need to stop being intimidated by the meta in this fandom.

++++

[jesse_the_k]

I'm here to say exactly this.

[myghostlights]

the inconsistencies are so massive that it's clearly a forged document that some hack tried to pass off as the genuine article.

Loved that hahahah
I’ve spent the past 2 years pretty much ignoring S4 ever existed and I’ve been happy doing so. So go ahead and write meta that disregards it, who cares.
Your insight is perfectly valid. No one needs to be a literature major to consume and understand media. There’s no one right way to analyze it.

[guanin]

Seriously, it's the historical equivalent of Le Morte d'Arthur. Although that one's probably better than season 4. It just screams "fake". I've watched it twice and regretted it both times.

I'm going to go ahead and write meta. I loved writing meta in my last fandom. We never got this metaphorical in that one.

[myghostlights]

You’re a champion for watching it twice hahah

[guanin]

Well, I deleted from my memory the first time around, so I wanted to reform an opinion when I joined the fandom. I'm not sure it was worth it. I could feel my mind crying.

[003_5]

i think it's good to analyse stuff from different perspectives and in different ways. if you want to write meta, go for it!

[guanin]

I'm going to do it. I'm going to rewatch the show and come up with something.

[sarahthecoat]

Definitely write your own meta from your own perspective! One of the things I think is awesome about the meta writing in Sherlock fandom, is how many different angles people are coming from, and all seeing different interesting things. Yeah, the narrative fragmented in S3, and wtf even was s4, but once I let go of the surface reading and my expectations, wow, it got interesting!! I also didn't do a ton of lit classes in school, I had never heard of character mirrors or queer coding, but it's been so interesting learning! That's why I call it "the new semester". (I also didn't study film making or lighting or visual composition or music, and fans have been writing meta about all those things too, from which I have learned so much!)

[guanin]

I'm coming up with some ideas. I guess I could analyze the show from a filmmaking perspective, too, since I worked in that field, but I like forgetting that this is fiction and not something that actually happened. I don't really know how to explain it. There are some things that I like analyzing how it was made, but when I'm really invested in the characters and seeing them as people, I don't like to do that. I have this faint recollection of analyzing the composition of the shots and how they are edited together in the past, but since I started writing Sherlock fic, I don't like to do that. When I write characters, I switch into my default, "treat them like they are real" mode, so now the source material is a historical document and not a piece of carefully constructed fiction. Even though I know it is, but I push that to the side. So I'm actively disregarding things that aren't part of the characters' world, like music and shot composition, because in history, that's the historian's bias and how they want the audience to view the information being presented. That's one of the first things you do in historical research. Identify the author's bias so you can examine the information in the most objective way possible (while acknowledging that true objectivity is impossible). Pretty much, I'm treating it like a documentary.

Which is the opposite of how you're supposed to analyze art, hence my crisis. But now that I wrote that, I'm actually leaning into it even more. I haven't done any proper historical research in a while and I miss it.

[sarahthecoat]

Well, there are loads of references to history, recent and not, in the show. The Thatcher era, the AIDS crisis, and of course 1895. A big chunk of what got explored in the run up to TAB was about oscar wilde, the trials, queer history, etc. I found it very interesting, not having gotten that in school. I do remember the reagan/thatcher years, and lost friends, but there's so much i didn't know too.

[guanin]

I've got to rewatch the series and watch out for those. Although I don't actually know anything about those time periods, to be honest. The only 19th century I know is Latin American and I skipped 20th century history altogether. I'm an ancient/medieval history person. British history is one of my favorites, but I stopped at 1815. Most of my research has been in the 15th and 16th centuries. I'm subscribed to some queer history podcasts but, again, I've only listened to the pre-19th century ones.

In my defense, this is the first time I've ever been a fan of something that started in the Victorian era. I never had to know anything about it before.

[sarahthecoat]

well, it will be fun to delve in, if you decide to!

[guanin]

I will. I should download at least one podcast right now. I keep being so lost while reading the ACD not even what tech they have when.