[ SECRET POST #2560 ]

[case]

⌈ Secret Post #2560 ⌋

Warning: Some secrets are NOT worksafe and may contain SPOILERS.

01.


__________________________________________________



02.


__________________________________________________



03.


__________________________________________________



04.


__________________________________________________



05.


__________________________________________________



06.


__________________________________________________



07.


__________________________________________________



08.


__________________________________________________



09.
















Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 03 pages, 052 secrets from Secret Submission Post #366.
Secrets Not Posted: [ 0 - broken links ], [ 0 - not!secrets ], [ 0 - not!fandom ], [ 0 - too big ], [ 1 - repeat ].
Current Secret Submissions Post: here.
Suggestions, comments, and concerns should go here.

Comments

[intrigueing]

Ah, I understand. I'd say that's a perfectly good reason to not like it, but a lot of (perhaps most) people come into SH fandom from the other direction -- first they see the adaptations, then they check out the stories. Or they read a couple stories once a long time ago, found them boring, and then rediscovered them after seeing an adaptation.

IMO, I don't really think (in these cases at least, not in all cases *thinks of Nigel Bruce*) being introduced to an erroneous view of the character has had a negative impact on the popular perception of Sherlock Holmes, especially when there's several different competing interpretations at the same time -- from everything I've seen, SH is now perceived as more fun and interesting than before, and from everything I've seen, new fans usually like canon Holmes too once they read the stories, but a lot of them wouldn't have given the stories a chance unless their attention was first grabbed by an adaptation that was more up their alley.

I mean, if I'm misinformed about the whole "erroneous introduction having a negative impact on the general perception of Holmes" thing, feel free to correct me, because that would piss me off, but I just haven't seen anything of the sort, while I've seen a lot of the opposite.

(btw, is Ripper Street any good? I'd never heard of it before and got kind of intrigued by that secret a few days ago bemoaning the fact that it was canceled).

[tweedisgood]

To an extent I agree, I'd rather people read the stories and get to know the characters, however they got there.
But (and this may be a function of too much time on tumblr) there *does* seem to be a lot of erroneous conflation of especially CumberHolmes with canon Holmes, such that a few people (who, I am glad to say, generated many detailed protests from canonites) were genuinely trying to argue that the Tube scene from TEH (I won't say more because spoilers) showed a "much less cruel" characterisation than DYIN Holmes, to which: hell, no. DYIN Holmes didn't make Watson think he was going to die too. And this bothers me.
Ripper Street: I did enjoy it and am bummed it has been cancelled (there are some hopes for a revival after widespread outrage). The dirt and all portrayal of working class London and the clothing (costume porn, I love it), sets and location (Victorian buildings in Dublin), the interesting and usually well-researched stories/cases. Sergeant Atherton's big red beard. These I loved. Less interested in soap opera love-lives, rather too much lovingly detailed violence against women (sadly probably authentic, though)and some of the dialogue is clunky. Matthew McFayden remains as wooden as he was in Spooks. Overall, I'd rather have it than not

[intrigueing]

Hmm...I know about those BBC fans who do a lot of conflation and keep trying to claim that BBC is ~so close to canon~, but I always kinda assumed they were a vocal fringe group rather than a large or influential portion of the fans or viewership. That's just my perception though -- I really started avoiding BBC fandom this past year or two. I guess I'll have to wait to see how much influence they have in the long run.

Thanks for the Ripper Street info -- I think I'll check it out :)