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]

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.

[msmoat.livejournal.com]

It's almost more of a visual tradition than a literary one
That's an interesting way to put it. And it might explain why I sometimes feel out of sync with certain aspects of fandom. *g* I mean, I think the lads are gorgeous, but my fascination with them stems from their characters and their relationship. Certainly there are a fair number of writers who just want to capture a visualization of the lads--whether that scene has any deeper meaning or not. Are short stories too short for character development? Well, maybe as they tend to be conceived of in fandom. So they use the shorthand of fanon. But there are plenty of older and longer stories that show a "cheap" Doyle and a "bastard" Doyle.

Hmm, and actually, if writers use fanon for shortcuts to characterization...well, that's part of what fandom is, in a way. Writers who are interested in exploring the characters on deep levels can do so more quickly in a story because they know the audience brings so much to the table themselves. In original fiction you'd have to set up the characterization to prepare the reader to be brought to a deep level inside the character; in fanfic you can go deeper more quickly. In the hands of a skilled writer, that kind of story can be immensely satisfing. If the writer, however, uses shortcuts that aren't substantiated, or thoughtful...well, that can be very frustrating.

[byslantedlight.livejournal.com]

Ah, there's that comment on "newer" fics, knew it was here somewhere... I do think that there are longer "new" fics out there, though I'd like to know what you mean by "new", still! I mean, this is a fandom that's thirty years old... *g* But I do think that there are an awful, awful lot of short old fics as well, in zines and on the circuits, and there are at least as many "old" stories that "lacked depth" as there are "new" ones (considering things proportionately rather than just by weight of numbers too).

Longer and shorter fics are definitely different in how they can explore characterisation, but I think there are alot of short fics (of any age) that do so very cleverly. It's quite the skill to do that in a shorter story, but I think there are many Pros writers who've achieved it, in both "new" and "old" stories. It can be just a moment, just a sentence, but it opens up a whole story, and makes you realise that yes they see Bodie and Doyle, not just a couple of generic tv cops.

[jgraeme2007.livejournal.com]

and makes you realise that yes they see Bodie and Doyle, not just a couple of generic tv cops.

I think that -- as evidenced by this discussion -- REALLY means "Ah, she sees them as I do -- correctly!"

Because, when a writer sees them in a way we don't agree with, we tend to think they've totally misread their characters. NO GRASP OF PSYCHOLOGY AT ALL, POOR THING. *g*

[byslantedlight.livejournal.com]

I think that -- as evidenced by this discussion -- REALLY means "Ah, she sees them as I do -- correctly!"
Well, no... or at least that's not what I meant! By "generic tv cops" I meant characters that are interchangable between fandoms - as in the CI5hq discussion about that fic of Jane's, where the blokes she called "Bodie and Doyle" could actually have been any action heroes, there didn't seem to me to be any part of their characterisation that matched what was in the eps - but I don't think it would have matched any particular fandom, it was really an original story into which the lads had been inserted (the sort of thing I think squeeful mentioned above).

And again that was kind of the point of my original question - it's interesting to me to hear about the different ways that people do think of the lads, whether I agree with them or not, and to hear about where that view comes from, what interpretation of what moments...