![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
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 It's something I didn't realize until now, but I automatically look at a piece of media the same way that I would a historical document.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.
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 It's something I didn't realize until now, but I automatically look at a piece of media the same way that I would a historical document.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.
Tags: