A Doyle-thing to think about...

[byslantedlight.livejournal.com]

There's something I've been wondering for a while, off and on, every time I read a fic that reminds me of it, and I'd love to hear what other people think about this. Can anyone tell me:

What is it about canon Doyle that has made fanfic writers portray him as:

a) incredibly selfish

b) incredibly tight with money

I'm really really curious - anyone got any ideas? Are there particular moments that stand out, where he behaves like that? Why do they stand out? Or is it some more general thing? How many people would agree with that portrayal?

It's not that I can't see what might make an author write Doyle like this, it's just that I can't see why he's so often portrayed that way. Whatcha think?

Comments

[jgraeme2007.livejournal.com]

The incredible selfishness I don't get. I don't see that in canon.

The penny-pinching probably stems from Doyle's complaining about not getting pay raises, about his expense chits not being signed, worrying about his pension, fretting over losing money on the horsese, etc. I don't recall Bodie indicating concern over any of this. In fact, he seems amused and used to Doyle's complaints, indicating that he's heard it all before -- a lot.

I think many writers are influenced by other writers, particularly writers they admire, so if these themes popped up in the early writings of the fandom "greats," that might explain it.

[squeeful.livejournal.com]

All of which are completely reasonable worries for a person who's working in a hazardous job that doesn't pay exorbitantly in recessed economy with high unemployment and -- at least I always got the feel -- a likely working class background. He's got good reasons to be frugal.

This isn't aimed at you, but put a little more effort into your character quirks and background. If you're going to give them a trait, have a good idea why they act that way. Personalities don't form in a vacuum.

[byslantedlight.livejournal.com]

Be late to me own funeral, me... (as they say *g*)

so if these themes popped up in the early writings of the fandom "greats," that might explain it.
Well, yeah, that's fanon, innit - exactly what I was asking about! *g* But how does it originally come about - what are people seeing? Are lots of people seeing it, or are they all led on by that one famous story..? If there's more than one famous story along those lines, why?

See, all that "complaining" about the pay rises/expense chits etc I always take as general tongue-half-in-cheek to-be-expected whinging-about-the-job, the kind that everyone does, and the kind that we all expect to do. Hence Bodie's amusement - it's all part of what people are supposed to say about their work (at least over here). Oh, and I've just had a brilliant idea, I'm looking up what Kate Fox has to say in Watching the English (http://www.amazon.co.uk/Watching-English-Hidden-Rules-Behaviour/dp/0340818867) because I just remembered that not only did I buy myself a shiny new copy a couple of months ago, I've just last week unpacked it... Ha! Nothing under "complaining", but in the index under "Moans/moaning" are 54 entries, with an additional reference to the declaration "Typical!". And "work-place" gets 5 of those entries to itself, one being 3 pages long! Right, let's see...

Oh yeah, it's got a whole section to itself, starting thus:
"The rather less admirable English habit of constant moaning is another distinguishing feature of our workplace behaviour, and of our attitude to work. The principal rule in this context is that work is, almost by definition, something to be moaned about. There is a connection here with the Importance of Not Being Earnest rule, in that if you do not indulge in the customary convivial moaning about work, there is a danger that you will be seen as too keen and earnest, and labelled a 'sad geek', a sycophant 'suck' or a self-important 'pompous git'." (To which yes!)

Aha, and another bit, which is the whole rolling-of-eyes, amused-by-it, heard-it-all-before aspect of what I see the lads doing:
"In a way, 'Typical!' is a manifestation of what used to be called the English 'stiff upper lip': it is a complaint, but a complaint that also expresses a very English kind of grudging forebearance and restraint - a sort of grumpy, cynical stoicism."

To which yes! again - this is just what I see when I hear Doyle's so-called "complaints" about money etc, they're not real because he's also shown to be absolutely generous about things (like saying he'll pay for dinner in WTHCO, buying his round in SoTM etc). Ye gods I love Fox's book. I think I've recommended it to you before - well I do so again, and thrice so! *g*

In actual fact, we don't see Bodie buying a round, or offering to pay for dinner ever, but what interests me is the way that's glossed over by fanfic writers, and Doyle, the one we do see doing these things, gets the flak! Come to think of it - Doyle brings Bodie a "pressie" when he's on surveillance, and a sandwich (admittedly liver sausage!) too, but I don't think we ever see Bodie giving Doyle anything like that - oh, maybe the ice-creams in Blackout, and the drink in Stopover, although that's still after Doyle's first round - and yet this never seems to come up, Bodie is portrayed as the absolutely generous one!

The horse racing is another example of it all too - I'm never convinced that any of them have actually put money on a horse, it's more sort of banter and general interest, and Monday-morning-footballer sort of stuff - from the same place as "fantasy leagues" came from, but not really about the money and the prospect of gambling or winning big - at least in the lads' case, to me...

[sc-fossil.livejournal.com]

I don't understand stories where Doyle is selfish. He's exactly the opposite, and Bodie even mentions his caring too much. I find those stories OCC myself. It's the same with Doyle being so mean and nasty that he sets out to destroy Bodie over some slight. I don't buy it for a second.

Now the penny-pinching I can buy since he does gripe several times about money. I agree that people read it in a story, then write it in their own. That's how fanon ideas start and grow. Like Bodie being emotionless and cold, when he's the opposite plenty of times. He has his arrogant moments, but overall he's got a heart.

[jgraeme2007.livejournal.com]

Now the penny-pinching I can buy since he does gripe several times about money.

I see it, but I've never thought of it as serious enough to count as an actual character flaw. More as an amusing quirk. It seems to amuse Bodie, and I think his reactions are a good cue.

Of course the fun of all this is that the canon characters are just vague enough to allow for lots of room in writing.

[squeeful.livejournal.com]

I have some ideas, but few of them are flattering to fandom. After this, I shall stop writing accidental alliterations.

[byslantedlight.livejournal.com]

but few of them are flattering to fandom
So! Tell me anyway! My question was about something very specific, I'm not looking for answers that "flatter fandom" in any way at all! Go on, you know you want to... *g*

Love the icon, btw. And the alliteration...

[msmoat.livejournal.com]

I've never bought into either characterization. I can see a ruthless Doyle--including within the context of a relationship, even with Bodie--but under proper circumstances. I guess that's what frustrates about some of these fannish characterizations--they're so one-dimensional. Anyone, at certain times, can be incredibly selfish. Or tight with his/her money. Or incredibly self-sacrificing. Or generous. Can't Doyle show all of those things and still be in character? Wouldn't the characterization come in showing the reasons and motivations behind how he acts? That's how I like to see the lads--behaving like fully-rounded humans, under the circumstances that the story posits.

I do remember people used to talk about how "mean" Doyle is to Bodie in canon. (These conversations used to drive me crazy. *g*) They'd point to the start of "Wild Justice," where Doyle yelled at Bodie, rather than supporting him. And abandoned him at the track. Clearly, they said, Doyle was a selfish bastard there. I, um, saw it differently. *g*

[jgraeme2007.livejournal.com]

I can see a ruthless Doyle--including within the context of a relationship, even with Bodie--but under proper circumstances. I guess that's what frustrates about some of these fannish characterizations--they're so one-dimensional.

I've been thinking about that lately. Maybe it ties in with so many newer fics -- the majority? being short fics, vingettes almost. Maybe it's a simple matter of there not being room to delve deeply?

And I don't know that exploring the characters is really what attracts a lot of these writers to fandom. Sometimes I think part of the pleasure must come from simply putting the characters through their paces. It's almost more of a visual tradition than a literary one -- not that there isn't some amazing stuff written, but so much of it is focused on their looks, recapturing exactly how they look and how they sound -- and what they say and do is almost secondary.

That's my impression, anyway.

[byslantedlight.livejournal.com]

I can see a ruthless Doyle--including within the context of a relationship, even with Bodie--but under proper circumstances
Ooh, this interests me - now, where and why do you see the possibility of him being ruthless? What is it in the show, about his character, that gives that you that impression? *jumps on you to pin you down* *g* (And I can totally see it in some odd things too, but not to the extent that it's sometimes portrayed - in the Siren sequence, and Freezing, for example, and actually quite alot of Sebastian's writing, come to think of it.)

Ah, the Wild Justice thing... I've got to admit, much as I adore that whole ep, Doyle seems to be acting as much out of character as Bodie is (which just turns to a whole other thing in my slashy brain *g*) - but that's the thing, to me it struck me as out of character, it sounds like these people saw it as in character with what they'd seen on the show before that... (Mind you, this all might have been from long ago too, when people were relying on the odd videod episode that was around, and long gaps between eps that were all out of order, so I guess there is that to consider too...)

[kiwisue.livejournal.com]

I think these two fanon characteristics come from different places.

"tight with money" I think of as a 'meme' that's travelled from some starting point writer to another - possibly without a lot of research into canon! There's something in the episodes to suggest he's concerned about money (the expenses chit, the raise) but there's also bits that seem to say the opposite, or at least that he doesn't mind spending when it's his turn, e.g. 'Hunter, Hunted':
DOYLE: No, this is on me.
BODIE: You paid last week.
DOYLE: All right, then, you pay.
which seems to me to be a little joke between them. Doyle doesn't insist on paying when Bodie reminds him he paid last time (but if someone was that careful with their cash, you'd think they'd be keeping very close track of who paid what and when).

So I guess I now want to know where this meme entered canon. Any ideas? I suspect Jane (but I always suspect Jane, so...).

The other, Doyle as 'selfish', I don't encounter as often. I wonder whether it's got as much to do with how readers interpret some stories ("how could Doyle treat Bodie that way") as it does with how the writers intended to portray him. Again, I'd be looking for examples, and trying to dig back into fandom history (but that's just me - please pass me a virtual trowel!). MFae does a Doyle who is often wrapped up in his own needs, maybe her fanwork is one of the places that came from.

[jgraeme2007.livejournal.com]

So I guess I now want to know where this meme entered canon. Any ideas? I suspect Jane (but I always suspect Jane, so...).

Nah. That would imply that Doyle wasn't perfect. I don't think Jane would settle for THAT.*g*

[byslantedlight.livejournal.com]

Yeah, I assume that most of this stuff is very meme-like (excellent description, btw!), and thus were fanons born... But yeah, excellent question (jolly good post all round! *g*) - where did it all start... I have this dream of putting up a list of zines/stories in chronological order at palelyloitering one day, so we can track that sort of thing, but then maybe I should concentrate on getting all the zines up/-to-date to start with!

As I said above, I do think that alot of the money-thing is actually tongue-cheek from Doyle, or at least just part of him being within the national character! I never thought twice about it, or took it seriously, until I realised that other people did!

And yeah, interpretation of stories is another thing too - and then how that might grow into another writer's story, and so on. And maybe the stories I'm thinking of where Doyle is portrayed quite selfishly were never meant to be about that (back to that authorial intent post I keep thinking generally about!) But Sebastian especially, for me, M.Fae, Kate Maclean (although she tends to flip things about to show you're not really seeing what you think you're seeing - ooh, the fic version of this conversation! *g*)

I don't think I remember a real selfish-Doyle Jane fic, although actually he's a bit like that in Unfinished Melody (which I really struggle with as a story, tbh!) Know what you mean about her tending to be the first suspect for so many things, though... *g*

[schnuffi.livejournal.com]

Selfish Doyle (if not in proper context cause sometimes you just have to be) is quite out of character for me. I simply can't see him putting his own well being over that of Bodie for example. Or hurting people because of being selfish.

As for the money pinching I have no idea really. Maybe because Bodie he never seems to have small money for the phone? I dunno. It's not a character part I associate with him anyway.

[byslantedlight.livejournal.com]

Yeah, I see tiny flashes of what might make someone think he was selfish now and then - so I can get where an author might bring it into a story, but not to the extent that some writers seem to. But then maybe it's just because there are so many stories, and I often read them end to end. Maybe it's just individual authors playing with an idea, but to me it seems as though I'm reading it alot... Hmmn!

[miwahni.livejournal.com]

Funny, I was pondering the 'selfish' angle this morning, and I came to the conclusion that he's not selfish as such, but can seem to be incredibly thoughtless at times. Like when he leaves Bodie to carry their bags upstairs.

[sc-fossil.livejournal.com]

I consider that scene teasing. If you look at Doyle's face, he's got that snirk on it, and Bodie's doing the long-suffering look. Bodie could have said, "Oi! Carry your own bags, arsehole!" Right? That was a bit of fun to me, not thoughtlessness.

[byslantedlight.livejournal.com]

Yes, I think that scene is Doyle teasing Bodie as well - as if they have some long-running joke where Doyle leaves Bodie to do it all, whereas if it was something really important he never would. But Doyle definitely has a glint in his eye there, and Bodie rolls his eyes exactly as though he's going along with the joke! *g*

[shooting2kill.livejournal.com]

I've never understood the selfish aspect, either. (Sorry, just seen miwahni's comment and Bodie carrying the bags is a good example of *something* - taking him for granted? - and it also happens in another episode where Bodie ends up carrying more stuff from a car than Doyle, sorry, can't remember the name). Mind you, Doyle *does* bring Bodie a sandwich in one episode when Bodie's on surveillance - Slush Fund, I think.

The penny pinching angle *might* be from examples like the beginning of the episode where they think Cowley might be 'turning' (and they go for a run in a cemetery and meet 'plum') and Doyle is manoeuvred into buying a round for the chap who's leaving do it is and he says, seeming a bit fedup, 'and it's *my* round).

[jgraeme2007.livejournal.com]

Mind you, Doyle *does* bring Bodie a sandwich in one episode when Bodie's on surveillance - Slush Fund, I think.

He brings him a bottle, doesn't he? Which is actually a very nice little gift. And I think Bodie then offers him a leftover sandwich.

And the bags -- that could actually count as low level flirting, believe it or not.

[magenta-blue.livejournal.com]

Late to the party! And good discussion!

I don't see Doyle as either of those things (incredibly selfish or tight), I saw the things we were shown in canon as ways of making them human - everyone wants a payrise, expenses to be signed off, bemoans money in some way or another. He doesn't refuse to pay for a triple whisky, and I think on my round down the pub if someone suddenly upped their intake I would roll my eyes as well, in a 'here we go' type fashion, without thinking I was being tight!

Selfish... no, he is quite caring, and takes time to point things out to others (in oh what was it - Killer with a Long Arm maybe - pointing out that 'nobody is nobody!'). That is why him doing his job is so fascinating, he excels in his job, yet ultimately kills people (baddies!)...

That's not to say I dislike fics that can show him that way - some of Sebastian's reveal him as such, I think I am thinking of Siren, or perhaps November - it all depends on the back story, and how believeable the premise is I guess. If I can read AU's where Doyle is a mer-calf and Bodie a horse, I can handle a writer taking Doyle down a more selfish route than my particular fanon (is that right?) agrees with. (and can I just say, the mer-calf and horse fic was stumbled into - honest! I backed right out again pretty sharpish *g*)

Reading through this discussion, about using such traits as shorthand. I do like refering to canon in the fics I write, mainly because I like to think it gives anyone familiar (like we all are) a giggle/smile when it is spotted. The fic I am writing now for DIALJ has a little scene with Doyle quibbling giving Murphy back some money, but it's a tease, a laugh, not a serious diatribe about him being selfish. And then later he gives a grass a fiver... not written as a balance actually, but just 'cos I never saw the first bit as being tight so there was nothing to balance it from...

Interesting though where such ideas come from - it would be fab if everyone here today wrote what their particular fanon is with the characters and why, maybe that would shed some light on it!

[jgraeme2007.livejournal.com]

it would be fab if everyone here today wrote what their particular fanon is with the characters and why, maybe that would shed some light on it!

Sorry. Very ignorant about fannish stuff in general. What does that mean?

[paris7am.livejournal.com]

Sneaking in the back of the discussion here...

So many excellent and thought provoking ideas stated in this thread! I don't know that I can add much to them except to mention a few things the discussion jogged in my memory.

This is just an aside, but could some of Doyle's characterization be a facade added on from the public persona of Martin Shaw? There was that bit of rumour that he was stopping re-runs of the show because of royalties? I think that several of these rumours imply that MS is -eek, what are the words?!- confident in himself and in looking out for his own best interests? A bit separate from the others? I don't know - it's not as though Lewis Collin's persona was clean, either - maybe we see slippage there too! I'm dabbling in gossip and innuendo, which feels wrong, but there does seem to be a bias against MS that comes up in the press every so often. I think that the slippage is easy to do - so much of what we love about the characters *seems* to be ad libbing, or spontaneous interaction, which makes us feel as though it's part of *them* as well as part of the characters.

And inane example, #29 - the time when Bodie sends flowers and Doyle sends the telegram. Not so much an example of thriftiness as an example of styles, perhaps? The idea (particularly in the first episodes) that comes across in their attire - of Bodie as flamboyant, extravagant, posh? (possibly trying to camouflage things?) while Doyle is workmanlike, casual, (gorgeous!), up front and more serious. But how did I get into interpretation of character through fashion choice? What next? patterns in spent bullet casings? lol...

I know that I will keep this question in mind when I watch and read, now.

[byslantedlight.livejournal.com]

Oh do sneak in, the more the merrier! (I think I need that thread-unpacker that someone once posted a link to - can I find it now? No...!)

That's a good thought about MS, perhaps it is sometimes people conflating their opinion of the actor (being reluctant to give out autographs, and generally do the "celebrity" thing, for example) with the character... Whereas LC seems to have come across as ever-generous to his fans (though he's also talked about them in articles etc as something he doesn't really want to deal with, but that doesn't seem to have been picked up as much!)

The telegramme - I think telegrammes were actually kind of expensive back then, but I agree it's not at all the traditional way of apologising to a girlfriend! Then again, maybe that's why he did it - I always assume there was some sort of private joke behind that too, cos otherwise it's just a bit weird! Maybe I should ask about that on one of the lists?!

[hgdoghouse.livejournal.com]

For me the whole point of fannish writing is to play with whatever takes your fancy - apart from the obvious.

I remember that when we first saw the episode where D says 'I shall want that pen back' to a policeman (First Night?) there were people who took the comment seriously, rather than the irony I heard.
I love him whinging gently about his pension or a pay rise and B setting him up with C about asking for a pay rise in Purging.
D gives Morgan money under pretext of a poker debt Runner), brings B a bottle while he's on stakeout etc etc

The selfish D... I think he can be oblivious. Theret's that lovely bit in the pub (blanking on episode) where D's running through a case and goes 'I know I'm right ' and B says something to the effect of you always say that with such affectionate resignation. For me that's their relationship summed up - D being mildly irritating, B accepting, then spiking his orange juice with vodka - and D spotting it.

I agree that the whole carrying luggage thing is undoubtedly flirting, never occurred to me it could be taken any other way (but then I love it, so I admit I'm biased ).

I could make a good case for selfish B - e.g. calling in sick when he's supposed to be on obbo. duty, meaning D loses his hot date covering for him. B with a little twinkle in his eye the next morning and D looking bloody gorgeous in stubble, a blanket and grumpy mood. Cue for Seven dwarves joke and they're back to work.

I admit I'm way way behind on 'new' Pros writing but I can't say I've noticed too many mean/selfish D stories. But then I didn't like Rememption, not least because I didn't actually recognise either character as B and D, let alone believe by the end of it that they had any chance of happiness. All that unconvincing (to me) angst, and for what?

I suppose it boils down to a given author being able to persuade me of whatever angle on the characters they're choosing to take. I don't have to believe it outside the story, just within it.

I don't want my characters to be perfect - how dull - but I do expect a happy ending in fandom, and the belief the characters will be capable of maintaining a loving relationship. Otherwise, it's like life, and what's the point of that .

None of which answers the original question - though I'm not sure I really understand what it was.

[byslantedlight.livejournal.com]

Oh, for me that's the whole point too, that's just what I love about fandom! But I am curious about other people's interpretations of things, the way that they see them as opposed (sometimes) to the way that I see them. So really, I was just wondering if anyone saw Doyle's selfishness and meanness with money in the same strong way that some authors seem to have, and if they did what it was in particular that made them pull out those particular idiosyncracies in his character.

I think I've tended to see the various examples that people have given as general joking and teasing between them - whether it's something like Doyle asking for his pen back, or rolling his eyes when Bodie cons him into buying a treble whisky rather than a double, or whatever - and just what people do as well. Of course he moans about his pension being cancelled, and expenses not being paid, and of course Bodie moans about their payrise being overdue, it's what (Brits?) expect to do, isn't it?! (And there's a fab book by Kate Fox called "Watching the English" which goes into all this stuff too, and I was tickled to recognise everything she wrote about, and wincing especially at all the stuff that I did!) I've not taken these at all as money-pinching on Doyle's part, but it sounds like some people have, and that's interesting to me...

Of course my question might actually come more from my own interpretation of the stories that I'm thinking about too, as someone said above, although to me they seem fairly definite in their characterisations! And it's not at all the "new" stories that I'm thinking of, either. (I'm actually quite curious about that idea of Josh's myself, cos I don't see how you can make such a simple distinction - what happens when "old" writers write fic now, what do they become then?!)

I tend to think of fandom and the Pros stories that make it up as a sort of spiderweb - there's all sorts of threads that I can go along, and stretch out just so far with, and they meet with other threads/ideas/interpretations that I can see, and all work together to make stories - the web. But where other people's ideas and interpretations are a bit more different, or further away from what I see, the holes in the web get bigger and bigger until I can't quite get myself around them and believe the story anymore. They're still there, and they're a perfectly good part of the fandom story-web, and just as valuable in holding it up and keeping it together, they're just not ones that I can get to from my part of the web! But now and then I get the urge to ask how it all works, and see if I can step out to those further-away threads! If that makes any sense at all... *g*

As you say, I just have to be convinced within the story that I'm reading - if I can see where a characterisation came from, then that's okay, but when I can't I stumble in the reading. And you really did answer my question, you know, from your own pov, which is just what I was looking for - and you picked some great examples too, which I totally agree with... Oh, and yes I can totally see Doyle as mildly irritating in his not-letting-go thing, but then Bodie too, in a different way, in his not-turning-up-for-obbo thing. So thank you! *g*

[hgdoghouse.livejournal.com]

I've noticed that there don't seem to be many negative Bodie stories around, particuarly not written by B fans *g* - yes, he can be a sweetheart but bloody hard going at times when he closes off. There's a lot going under that surface froth, whereas Doyle lets us in more to the murkier side.

Like you, I've always thought Pros has a very English sense of humour. Though at least they don't talk about the weather...

I don't really 'get' Josh's old writer/new writer distinction. My fandom's divided into stories I like/love/don't bother finishing/loathe/wish I'd had the idea etc etc. My favourite authors sometimes have the cheek to write stories I don't like... Authors I don't like occasionally have a wonderful idea which they totally fail to develop to my satisfaction... *g*

There again, I don't think I'm ever going to have a historical view of Pros fandom. Though come to think of it, I don't think of people just starting to write Pros as 'new' just whether I enjoy the result.

From the pov of a very old writer thinking about writing Pros again I think my perspective has changed to the degree that because it's so much easier actually to see the episodes, thanks to the DVDs, that I have various episode-based ideas I'd like to play with, if they're not too much hard work on the action/adventure front. When I first started the idea of an organisation like CI5 was enough to make me break out - I still loathe the idea of it in theory, but can let it slide more.

I'm not so bothered by how thick Cowley is in some of the episodes.
I had this ridiculous hangup about not being able to write them as a committed pair until after the various women had vanished from their lives - certainly post Involvement. Now I think I'll be able to play with whatever episode takes my fancy and not worry about the 'running order'so much - unless, of couse, it suits a story idea.

I like the spider web analogy - it works for me too. Some stories go places I can't follow, and yet they're as much a part of the fandom as the 'best' cannonical driven story.

Do other people have stuff like that which affects what sort of story they can, or want to, write?

Sorry, rambling to avoid going out in the freezing cold.

[sc-fossil.livejournal.com]

Do other people have stuff like that which affects what sort of story they can, or want to, write?

I think I'm going off topic answering HG here from my own perspective.

I don't have enough sense to let stories that have already been written and considered the basis of Pros fanfic to affect my writing. And I'm sure there are plenty of people who wish it did! *beg*

I'm all the "write what you want" kind of gal. I'm also quite open to any sort of comments about a story, positive or negative, so I work both sides of that fence. One can comment on a story and not disparage the author personally, even when and if said author feels it is a "personal attack". I also think being new to a specific fandom but not to fandom in general gives a writer a different take. If that one little story of mine that wasn't taken quite well by a gal had been my third ever instead of my third in Pros, I might have run away and never written again. As it was, I just shrugged off the quite interesting LOC and wrote six more stories. But then I always said I was a b$%ch. :)

[shooting2kill.livejournal.com]

Coming back over here, 'cos I hate that concertina-ing effect.....

So many interesting comments have been made, amongst which: Paris, you linked Doyle's persona to MS which I think is spot on 'cos I'm always confusing the two.

And loads of people have commented that Bodie carrying Doyle's bags is a form of flirting - which it probably is - but why it is always that way round? (I suppose it's also a long-standing joke and Bodie doing all the humping lies at the heart of it?)

And slantedlight, you've managed to express what I was trying to articulate:

Bodie seems to look after Doyle in a physical way, and Doyle looks after Bodie's health and well-being... oh, urrrrrgh, it's the old coming-home-to-the-wife thing! Nooooooo! But gosh, I wonder if it is, a bit...

That's *exactly* what I was thinking....as in Not a very civil, Civil Servant when three of them are queuing in the fish 'n chip shop and Doyle automatically hands Bodies his share as if it was the most natural thing in the world - to nurture and look after him; while on the other hand I can see Bodie being the big, glowering, butch protector of Doyle... but if I don't stop here I think I run the risk of beginning to slide down the slippery slope of the 'feminization of Doyle' debate.

And can we have a new page, please?

[squeeful.livejournal.com]

Bodie seems to look after Doyle in a physical way, and Doyle looks after Bodie's health and well-being... oh, urrrrrgh, it's the old coming-home-to-the-wife thing! Nooooooo! But gosh, I wonder if it is, a bit...

That's *exactly* what I was thinking....as in Not a very civil, Civil Servant when three of them are queuing in the fish 'n chip shop and Doyle automatically hands Bodies his share as if it was the most natural thing in the world - to nurture and look after him; while on the other hand I can see Bodie being the big, glowering, butch protector of Doyle... but if I don't stop here I think I run the risk of beginning to slide down the slippery slope of the 'feminization of Doyle' debate.

Ah, and there you have to be very very careful otherwise you run into something else prevalent in fandom: misogyny. (Yes, women can be misogynistic.) Doyle may be the more physically and emotionally nurturing one but that a) does not make him the weepy wifey or b) is not intrinsically a bad thing. The feminine is not evil. Just be careful not to slide either way into weepiness nor eliminate entirely more "feminine" characteristics.

I click on the "track this post" link and then every reply ends up in my inbox. Means I have a lot of mail to read, but I don't miss anything.

[bistokidsfan77.livejournal.com]

*crawls out from the mire to participate once again*

I always felt that there was a certain gestault involved in fanfic - you can't help being influenced by what you read. And, there's no new eps to draw from (such a pity!).

That being said, I see what the previous posters are saying - all good points.

I happen to try very hard *not* to use other folk's version of the character - and make him as canon as possible. The show was slashy enough for me, in text and sub-text, to extrapolate. I leave it to my readers to decide if my Doyle works or not for them. I've not done enough Pros fic to be any type of expert by any means. Strictly amachoor, ladies and gents :D

Wonderful thread!

[byslantedlight.livejournal.com]

I've been wondering how everything is with you - nice to see you again! And just by-the-by, I do hope that your flist contains this little post (http://community.livejournal.com/discoveredinalj/) and that you might have time for it to interest you... *g*

Glad you liked the thread - aren't people interesting! And they all interpret that canon differently! *g*