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

[byslantedlight.livejournal.com]

Well, I can see one of the lads acting selfishly etc for a reason, if the author's set it up properly. Kate Maclean's stories I read with a part of my head going "but why is (lad) being such a bastard to (other lad), that's just not..." and then she does her clever flip-y thing, and you see that he wasn't really, it just looked as though he was when you only saw one viewpoint on the issue in question. So that works for me. And actually it was re-reading a Kate Maclean story that got me thinking about this! But then in alot of Sebastian's stories, for example, she seems to have pulled out various selfish-Doyle characteristics which grate on me slightly and when I think about them (once I've emerged from the fab story!) make me wonder what it is she, for example, sees in Doyle to make that pretty much his dominant characteristic. I think the difference between the stories is that whereas KM's characterisation has the selfishness as the sort of temporary thing that we all go through - and that I do see occasionally but temporarily in the eps, S's characterisation makes it seem much more innate to the character - he's like that deep down, and will always be so. And that I don't buy.

Then again, maybe part of it is my interpretation of the stories too, as someone above suggested... *g*

just what the writer feels like writing regardless of the canon evidence to the contrary
That sounds quite strange to me - as though people aren't actually writing the fandom at all, they're writing original fic and putting the lads' names on it. Which I have seen, and actually asked about on ci5hq too. Still bemused about the idea though! Why?

[sc-fossil.livejournal.com]

just what the writer feels like writing regardless of the canon evidence to the contrary
That sounds quite strange to me - as though people aren't actually writing the fandom at all, they're writing original fic and putting the lads' names on it. Which I have seen, and actually asked about on ci5hq too. Still bemused about the idea though! Why?

And this is exactly how I feel the author you mentioned writes! We'll agree to disagree on this one. I see nothing canon in KM's stories, but OCs wearing our lads' tags. I dislike her characters. I don't see a come-back from that sort of abuse, but then I wouldn't accept (and haven't!) from my own partner, so I can't translate that into my fictional characters accepting it either, especially a man. Women unfortunately tend to make excuses for abuse. (Most) men do not. And just taking a wild guess, perhaps a reader has to have a good resolution to even survive that kind of story. It's way too painful to have the ending that could possibly be more "realistic" after being tormented by someone who supposedly loves you.

It's extremely hard to read without taking our own experiences and prejudices into a story. At least it is for me! I'm really a simple gal. What I won't accept in RL, I won't let my character accept either. I suppose need to partition my brain like a hard drive. *snirk*

[jgraeme2007.livejournal.com]

I see nothing canon in KM's stories, but OCs wearing our lads' tags. I dislike her characters. I don't see a come-back from that sort of abuse, but then I wouldn't accept (and haven't!) from my own partner, so I can't translate that into my fictional characters accepting it either, especially a man.

Not to get into another discussion of Redemption (or maybe you were thinking of another fic?), but I do want to point out that the supposed "abuse" was mostly Bodie's perception of what was going on -- and NOT what was going on.

But that's one of the things I was saying earlier. Whether we feel an author's portrayal of the characters acurately captures them is based on whether she sees them as we do. I mean there are so many (apparently) popular authors out there who write a Doyle and Bodie I just cannot for the life of me recognize.

Personally, I view that as poor characterization, but I've learned from my experiences in Pros that there's no such thing really. It's all subjective based on how people view the episodes. (Not that I really believe this, but I've learned to shut up about it.) So I think KM did a masterful job, and you think she got it wrong, and we're both right and we can live happily ever after picking and choosing who and what we read.

Which is the delightful thing about fandom. In the world of original fiction, we'd all be writing scathing reviews and posting them on the net. *g*

[jgraeme2007.livejournal.com]

That sounds quite strange to me - as though people aren't actually writing the fandom at all, they're writing original fic and putting the lads' names on it. Which I have seen, and actually asked about on ci5hq too. Still bemused about the idea though! Why?

But that's my view -- or was (I admit I'm a little more tolerant now)-- of AU. I can't divorce myself from the idea that CI5 is intrinisic to who these guys are, and once you make them regency bucks into S/M...they no longer fit my concept of D&B. They are, IMHO, such a product of their era and machismo cop culture.

And I know that's my own little hang up. A subjective thing. But in a way fan fic is so totally about stroking one's kinks, that subjective seems as good a way to view as any.