BBC Sherlock Fan Forum - Serving Sherlockians since February 2012.


You are not logged in. Would you like to login or register?



February 23, 2015 7:38 pm  #1


New York Times Magazine, 2/22/15

This is an odd one. The New York Times Magazine has had a total revision as of this past weekend, one result of which is the addition of about 50 pages of ads up front...but I digress. One of the new magazine features is a column titled "Search Results," where, I gather, they will talk about some aspect of internet life, and they chose to kick off the column with an explanation of "shipping." And the example they use is Johnlock: My Dear, Dear, Dear Watson

*blinks*


____________________

"Oh, you meant 'spectacularly ignorant' in a NICE way."
 

February 23, 2015 8:17 pm  #2


Re: New York Times Magazine, 2/22/15

Well, what better example of shipping could they use, if you think about it? 


-----------------------------------

I cannot live without brainwork. What else is there to live for? Stand at the window there. Was there ever such a dreary, dismal, unprofitable world? See how the yellow fog swirls down the street and drifts across the dun-coloured houses. What could be more hopelessly prosaic and material? What is the use of having powers, Doctor, when one has no field upon which to exert them?

 

February 28, 2015 4:22 pm  #3


Re: New York Times Magazine, 2/22/15

Hmm... looks like the media's catching up.


-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Series arc of Sherlock | Clues to #johnlock being endgame | My fav Sherlock blog
 

February 28, 2015 7:11 pm  #4


Re: New York Times Magazine, 2/22/15

REReader wrote:

This is an odd one. The New York Times Magazine has had a total revision as of this past weekend, one result of which is the addition of about 50 pages of ads up front...but I digress. One of the new magazine features is a column titled "Search Results," where, I gather, they will talk about some aspect of internet life, and they chose to kick off the column with an explanation of "shipping." And the example they use is Johnlock: My Dear, Dear, Dear Watson

*blinks*

*Blink* indeed!  This type of pandering isn't something I would expect from the NYT.  Really shows to me how far newspapers have fallen.

But still, thanks for posting this REReader.  
Although it isn't how I view the show at all, it is always good to be aware of how others see things.

توانا بود هر که دانا بود
"Your power comes from your knowledge"
- Ferdowsi

-Val


"The only shipping I know is shipping containers."
                                           -Benedict Cumberbatch
 

February 28, 2015 7:35 pm  #5


Re: New York Times Magazine, 2/22/15

I blinked as well, albeit for other reasons. I have no idea why a paper like the NYT should publish such a condescending article and why some media see the need to make sport of fanfics or fanart. Particularly in the case of "Sherlock" whose writers have expressly called themselves fanboys who are creatively adapting an existing canon and who have encouraged fanfic writers of today to become the scriptwriters of tomorrow. 
 


------------------------------
"To fake the death of one sibling may be regarded as a misfortune; to fake the death of both looks like carelessness." Oscar Wilde about Mycroft Holmes

"It is what it is says love." (Erich Fried)

“Enjoy the journey of life and not just the endgame. I’m also a great believer in treating others as you would like to be treated.” (Benedict Cumberbatch)



 
 

March 2, 2015 6:37 pm  #6


Re: New York Times Magazine, 2/22/15

I found the article more bemused than snarky--and I can certainly understand that coming from someone on the outside looking in. What gave rise to my blinking was their choice of fanart as illustration.

(I mean, I understand that fanart is visual, and this is a magazine--but I have problems with fanart as opposed to fanfiction, because while fanfiction is about the characters, it's a lot harder to separate the characters from the actors in fanart, so to me a lot of it goes beyond my personal line of acceptable.)

Last edited by REReader (March 2, 2015 6:37 pm)


____________________

"Oh, you meant 'spectacularly ignorant' in a NICE way."
     Thread Starter
 

March 2, 2015 6:45 pm  #7


Re: New York Times Magazine, 2/22/15

Well, media try again and again to elicit reactions by showing fanart. At least in this case they did not confront the actors with the pics. And they asked the artists for their permission which is not always done.

I just do not see the purpose behind the article. IMO they should either treat it in a serious fashion or not at all. 
 


------------------------------
"To fake the death of one sibling may be regarded as a misfortune; to fake the death of both looks like carelessness." Oscar Wilde about Mycroft Holmes

"It is what it is says love." (Erich Fried)

“Enjoy the journey of life and not just the endgame. I’m also a great believer in treating others as you would like to be treated.” (Benedict Cumberbatch)



 
 

March 2, 2015 6:51 pm  #8


Re: New York Times Magazine, 2/22/15

Well, as I said, this is the first of a new column, which apparently is to be one page, glanceable explanations of various internet phenomena, which means it's not going to go into anything in depth, it's just after defining. I just don't think fanart should be so front-and-center, although I understand intellectually why it is.

(And I don't really get why "shipping" is where they started. Although the Times seems to have a strong attachment to Benedict--they've featured him in, what? 5 pieces? 6? in the past year,  not counting reviews.)


____________________

"Oh, you meant 'spectacularly ignorant' in a NICE way."
     Thread Starter
 

March 2, 2015 7:01 pm  #9


Re: New York Times Magazine, 2/22/15

Although the article looks to be "right" about terminology and such, I get a feeling of "wrong" reading it. Cannot say why, but it doesn't feel like an insider's view on fanfiction, and I am always amused about how it must look from the outside.
I wonder what's suddenly so "cool" about fanfiction and fanart. It was kind of hidden for many years, and now it's becoming a public phenomena... but why? Nothing did change - even the internet has been out there for a few years already.
I sometimes feel this is society trying to come to terms with stuff that's "in your face" in a way. Thinking Shades of Grey. (sorry to mention it again - but I really feel these things share a connection, at least in the eyes of media.) Fan stuff, shipping, writing sex and romance, it's popular suddenly. But in a weird way. And I really don't grasp why.
 

Last edited by Whisky (March 2, 2015 7:02 pm)


_____________________________________________________________

"It is what it is."

 

March 2, 2015 7:04 pm  #10


Re: New York Times Magazine, 2/22/15

Whisky wrote:

Cannot say why, but it doesn't feel like an insider's view on fanfiction, and I am always amused about how it must look from the outside. 

Yes, I immediately assumed it was written by someone who is outside the fanfiction world looking in. I would say it almost certainly was--or, if it was written by someon on the inside, it's someone who doesn't want their colleagues to know they are. (But probably it's an outside-looking-in writer.)


____________________

"Oh, you meant 'spectacularly ignorant' in a NICE way."
     Thread Starter
 

March 2, 2015 7:08 pm  #11


Re: New York Times Magazine, 2/22/15

Oh, a language question: I am not familiar with the term "wholesale invention", what does it imply?

Also, I didn't like this sentence:
"These fans wring meaning out of every lingering glance and anguished expression that crosses Cumberbatch’s impressively dimensioned face and superimpose their own dialogue atop these moments"
I think they try to be funny. But it makes me feel they don't want to seriously explain sth, but just want amusing column feed which will make people laugh.

Last edited by Whisky (March 2, 2015 7:12 pm)


_____________________________________________________________

"It is what it is."

 

March 2, 2015 7:20 pm  #12


Re: New York Times Magazine, 2/22/15

I think it means that Johnlock as a whole is nothing but an invention by fans having no basis whatsoever in the show itself. Which, frankly, shows to me that they no idea of the show itself. Even people outside the fandom have remarked on the chemistry between them. Or think of the famous Korean trailers. 

Last edited by SusiGo (March 2, 2015 7:21 pm)


------------------------------
"To fake the death of one sibling may be regarded as a misfortune; to fake the death of both looks like carelessness." Oscar Wilde about Mycroft Holmes

"It is what it is says love." (Erich Fried)

“Enjoy the journey of life and not just the endgame. I’m also a great believer in treating others as you would like to be treated.” (Benedict Cumberbatch)



 
 

March 2, 2015 7:24 pm  #13


Re: New York Times Magazine, 2/22/15

"Wholesale invention" means things made up in a large way. 

I don't think that the sentence you reference is pejorative or meant to be amusing, it's a fairly accurate description, only in a rather bemused tone--written like someone who sees it without really understanding it--especially when the rest of the sentence reads "amassing a trove of erotic imaginings that is in some respects more compelling than the canon, at least in the unpredictability of the plot twists." (bolding mine) 

Look, I don't think it's a wonderful article--for one thing, it's not long enough to be considered an actual article!--but it's interesting that the Times chose to start a column about internet culture with the subject of shipping and particularly about Johnlock shipping. I think it's a sign that a sub-universe that people thought was theirs alone is very, very visible to the rest of the world, and a good reminder that anything on the internet is available to literally anyone with a smartphone or access to a library, and not just to a private, friendly group of like-minded individuals.

Last edited by REReader (March 2, 2015 7:29 pm)


____________________

"Oh, you meant 'spectacularly ignorant' in a NICE way."
     Thread Starter
 

March 2, 2015 8:42 pm  #14


Re: New York Times Magazine, 2/22/15

REReader, I don't really mind the article... that's not what I wanted to express. I just stumbled across the way that sentence was put. They're not exactly wrong with what they write, I agree.

Though I think Johnlock is a bit more than just some invention blown out of proportions, if only because it was already there way before Tumblr came along.

Yes, the internet is a public place. Let's never forget that, no matter how cosy it feels...

Last edited by Whisky (March 2, 2015 8:44 pm)


_____________________________________________________________

"It is what it is."

 

March 3, 2015 6:02 pm  #15


Re: New York Times Magazine, 2/22/15

REReader wrote:

"Wholesale invention" means things made up in a large way. 

I don't think that the sentence you reference is pejorative or meant to be amusing, it's a fairly accurate description, only in a rather bemused tone--written like someone who sees it without really understanding it--especially when the rest of the sentence reads "amassing a trove of erotic imaginings that is in some respects more compelling than the canon, at least in the unpredictability of the plot twists." (bolding mine) 

Look, I don't think it's a wonderful article--for one thing, it's not long enough to be considered an actual article!--but it's interesting that the Times chose to start a column about internet culture with the subject of shipping and particularly about Johnlock shipping. I think it's a sign that a sub-universe that people thought was theirs alone is very, very visible to the rest of the world, and a good reminder that anything on the internet is available to literally anyone with a smartphone or access to a library, and not just to a private, friendly group of like-minded individuals.

I didn't find anything in the item pejorative either REReader.

Perhaps the NYT is trying to attract non-traditional readers with this type of subject matter.  Newspapers are desperately searching for solutions to falling readerships so it could be they hope to tap into less conventional "eyes" - those who usually would gravitate towards tumblr, twitter or other online sources of material.  By doing something on shipping/fanart it might be their way of looking more in the internet cultural "loop" perhaps (because although fanfic has been around pre-internet, it is still something that became more prevasive since the internet expanded)?

SusiGo wrote:

I think it means that Johnlock as a whole is nothing but an invention by fans having no basis whatsoever in the show itself. Which, frankly, shows to me that they no idea of the show itself. Even people outside the fandom have remarked on the chemistry between them. Or think of the famous Korean trailers. 

Well, that certainly is one way of looking at it (as is your prerogative).

Does that go for non-Johnlock viewers as well - people like me, who don't see any Johnlock, that they also don't have any "idea of the show itself"?  Is there no room for both approaches within the context of enjoying the show?

As far as "chemistry" - I don't see what that has to do with Johnlock.  I see plenty of chemistry between the two characters.  I just happen to think that it is a chemistry that speaks of a deep love and abiding friendship between to men that doesn't include any sexual attraction (that is totally believeable to me in fiction and real life).  Does that mean I don't "get" the show at all (because I see Johnlock shipping to be a "wholesale invention" by certain viewers - and I am not saying that there is anything wrong with that, but IMO it is still an individual interpretation and nothing more)?

-Val

 
 


"The only shipping I know is shipping containers."
                                           -Benedict Cumberbatch
 

March 3, 2015 6:22 pm  #16


Re: New York Times Magazine, 2/22/15

About what Susi called chemistry, it's about all those people outside the fandom who see Johnlock without being influenced by fan discussions. Why do they - ordinary audience - see it?
Why do the Koreans create an official (!) TV trailer for the show that is Johnlock at its best?
(Why does even BBC3 ship Johnlock without getting calls from the headquarter to please stop their ads?)

So it was not intended as an exclusive remark, as you seem to worry, but as an observation that you don't have to search long for Johnlock hints when it's so widely acknowledged by unsuspicious individuals and institutions.


Eventually everyone will support Johnlock.   Independent OSAJ Affiliate

... but there may be some new players now. It’s okay. The East Wind takes us all in the end.
 

March 3, 2015 6:30 pm  #17


Re: New York Times Magazine, 2/22/15

I think the only thing that says is that we now live in a hyper-sexualized society, that sees sexual attraction in every loving relationship. 

I'm with Val on Johnlock. While I, personally, read and enjoy well-written, fairly characterized fanfiction that does ship John and Sherlock, I see those as AUs--valid in themselves, but not the show's universe. In the show itself, I have to say that I do not see the tiniest bit of sexual attraction, nor do I in the ACD stories and books (which I have been reading and rereading for over 40 years)--but then, I also have seen several deep, loving, life-long friendships in real life that have no hint of sexual attraction, so I have no trouble seeing that sort of relationship in the ACD canon or the show. *shrug*

Last edited by REReader (March 3, 2015 6:33 pm)


____________________

"Oh, you meant 'spectacularly ignorant' in a NICE way."
     Thread Starter
 

March 3, 2015 6:36 pm  #18


Re: New York Times Magazine, 2/22/15

Nobody asks you personally to see Johnlock, because this is not what Susi's comment was about.
But you could acknowledge that it is seen by far more people than just a few fans.


Eventually everyone will support Johnlock.   Independent OSAJ Affiliate

... but there may be some new players now. It’s okay. The East Wind takes us all in the end.
 

March 3, 2015 6:57 pm  #19


Re: New York Times Magazine, 2/22/15

I don't mean this in an insulting way, but in a literal one, so please take it thusly: Did you actually read my comment? Because I believe I said outright that I read and enjoy well-written, in character Johnlock, which is several steps beyond acknowledging that people see it, and I have no problem with that.

I would hope, however, that any fair-minded person would acknowledge that while the possibility of any number of relationships exists, the exploration of a sexual and/or romantic relationship between these two characters exists in its own fictional universe, parallel to that of the books or the show. Every fictional universe deserves to be taken on its own terms, and to demand (fairly) that fanfiction that ships Holmes and Watson (or Sherlock and John) be taken seriously on its own terms means that people take the existing fictions be taken seriously on THEIR own terms. And while we cannot question ACD, the creators of BBC Sherlock--Moffat, Gatiss, Cumberbatch, Freeman, et al--all agree that there is NO sexual relationship between Sherlock and John. Again, this does not mean that fiction exploring what would happen if the bromance became a romance is not valid, because it is. But insisting it exists in the show is every bit as disrespectful of the show as insisting it cannot reasonably exist in fanfiction would be to the writers of those works. You cannot have it both ways.

Last edited by REReader (March 3, 2015 6:58 pm)


____________________

"Oh, you meant 'spectacularly ignorant' in a NICE way."
     Thread Starter
 

March 3, 2015 7:09 pm  #20


Re: New York Times Magazine, 2/22/15

Harriet wrote:

About what Susi called chemistry, it's about all those people outside the fandom who see Johnlock without being influenced by fan discussions. Why do they - ordinary audience - see it?
Why do the Koreans create an official (!) TV trailer for the show that is Johnlock at its best?
(Why does even BBC3 ship Johnlock without getting calls from the headquarter to please stop their ads?)

So it was not intended as an exclusive remark, as you seem to worry, but as an observation that you don't have to search long for Johnlock hints when it's so widely acknowledged by unsuspicious individuals and institutions.

I can't answer specifically why someone sees something that I don't see.  They see it because they do.  Just like I don't see it because I do. 

Perhaps it is, as REReader alluded to in her remarks, a sign of a hyper-sexualised society that sees sexual attraction in every loving relationship. 

Ben himself mentioned this in the interview with Keira K. (the one with the Q&A on Yahoo).  When the question came up about his "bromance" with a friend of his, Ben's reaction was exactly how I feel about the shippers of the show - "He's a friend, people, get over it.  What is this thing that every male friend has to be romance... I adore, adore him... "

If others want to see Sherlock and John's relationship as a romance - that's fine, but it doesn't mean it is that is the only way to see things - at least not for me.  I really don't care a fig if others see it differently than I do. 

And it doesn't mean I don't understand the show or that I am not sophisticated enough to catch all the nuances.  Or that I don't understand tropes or don't know how to read subtext.  I understand a lot about TV storylelling and I am quite capable of catching all sorts of subtext.  I just don't see any concrete evidence of Johnlock overtly or subtextually on the show.

I see two fabulous friends (as I did when I read the books so long ago), who love each other deeply and would go to the ends of the earth for each other.  That isn't romance - it's the very definition of friendship to me. 

I have to believe that there are some others that see it that way too (like REReader and myself on this board), so for every example that you have listed as folks who see Johnlock there are probably just as many in the "ordinary audience" that who don't see it.  Don't their interpretations count just as much?

I am as firm about my ideas as you are no doubt.  That's fine.

I will continue to enjoy the show in my own way and hope to share the things we do have in common on this board.

-Val



 
 


"The only shipping I know is shipping containers."
                                           -Benedict Cumberbatch
 

Board footera

 

Powered by Boardhost. Create a Free Forum