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

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. 
 

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. 
 

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)

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)

"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)

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

 
 

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)

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)