Sherlock, queerness and more fannish inability to be welcoming to queer perspectives

[rm]

One of the reasons I'm so intrigued by Sherlock, despite the complete disaster of the second episode (extra super major racism and script logic fail), is not, actually, because of the chemistry between John and Sherlock, despite the fact that it's fun to watch and a huge contributor to the show's mostly exceptional pacing.

That's right, despite enjoying it, I am not hovering on the edges of Sherlock fandom participation, because it's got the potential for some interesting slash writing.

There are two things that fundamentally appeal to me about the show:

1. Sherlock's brain. Fannish interpretation of Sherlock's brain. I'm not that smart, and I don't want to be that smart (the brain I have is challenging enough, thanks), but if intellectual orientations could be said to exist in the manner that sexual orientations do, the manner of the consequences of Sherlock's intellect are relevant to my interests and experience.

2. The queering of Sherlock. By which I do not mean that I see Sherlock as gay, bisexual, omnisexual or ace. I don't know. In fact, if the show presented me with a heterosexual Sherlock, and did so credibly, I could get on board with that too, without a problem, because it wouldn't make Sherlock any less queer in the literary sense. It's like the queering the villain trope (which the show also seems likely be signing up for in spades with Moriarty; and Mycroft's ambiguities are not insignificant in this regard either). Sherlock is to me a character who is queer in the way I am queer, regardless of his level of interest in sex or who he is attracted to in a physical or romantic way. There is an inherent "other" about him in regards to his instinctive presentation of whatever his sexuality may be, and it is recognized by people who see him, both in the audience and in the narrative. Even a theoretically heterosexual Sherlock is, in this presentation, still queered.

In attempting to read Sherlock fic on my own without recommendations, I have encountered a significant number of fics (clearly a majority, and far greater than in, say, Torchwood fandom, although it still happens there too, although to a lesser degree and is generally more frowned upon) not just warning for slash, but also warning for things like "M/M sex" and "boy kissing" right alongside things like incest and non-con.

To once again participate in full-disclosure: I have in the past warned for slash, because I was being ignorant, at times I was trying to be funny and failing, and at times because I was bowing to a fannish convention that was in frequent and accepted use when I first entered fandom in the late-90s.

HOWEVER, warning for slash is rude. It is hurtful to queer people in fandom. It is potentially harmful to young people who use fandom as a way to first examine their sexuality. And it's disrespectful to a source canon that is inherently queer, even if no characters in it are overtly (or perhaps even subtextually) LGBT.

I AM NOT ADVOCATING YOU NOT LABEL YOUR STORIES. Warnings have their place and are an accepted part of fandom etiquette for common PTSD triggers and content like incest, non-con, underage, and drug use.

I'm just advocating that Contents is an unoffensive and useful tool for the types of items some people search headers for looking for one type of story or interpretation over another. Warning in the case of slash and other queernesses indicates, DESPITE WHAT PEOPLE SEEM TO KEEP SAYING, a devaluing of queer identities and a desire to feel clever and scandalous.

And that warning for kissing crap, that boy kissing crap is particularly devaluing; look at how cute and twee and for our entertainment. Unless you're writing a high school AU, when I see boy kissing as a warning or label or anything? I DON'T READ YOUR STORY.

The whole situation is obnoxious.

And for the people who have been going "please write in this fandom" this is why I am currently not that motivated (see also: my lack of participation in the Covert Affairs fandom). The main Sherlock community does not seem like a place that's actually welcoming to actual queer perspectives and identities because of its moderation policies.

Any questions?

Comments

[spiderine.livejournal.com]

If you're ever looking for Sherlock recs, I have a few in my LJ and there's a good collection on delicious under various tags.

P.S. Thanks for what you said there about warning for queerness. I never understood why people give a pairing in a fic header (e.g., Sherlock/John) and then warn for M/M sexual behavior. If I'm reading a slash fic, I certainly hope there is M/M!

[thunderemerald.livejournal.com]

Just one question, in fact:

:: I do not mean that I see Sherlock as gay, bisexual, omnisexual or ace.

What does "ace" mean? I don't think I've ever seen that before.

And okay, okay, it's probably time that I sat myself down and watched this Sherlock thing...

[arielstarshadow.livejournal.com]

I don't read a lot of fanfiction, and when I do read it... huh. I don't think I even look at the "Warnings" at all. Warning for slash seems bizarre to me. Generally, the header info will tell you the characters that are being "paired" and so why the need to go beyond that? I mean, if the pairing says "Arthur/Eames" then hey, doesn't that pretty much say it all? Why on earth would there be a need to add some sort of "OMG this is about two guys having sex!" Or "Spike/Buffy/Angel" pretty much indicates you can expect threesome action, without having to add a "warning: threesome ahead!"

Your prior LJ post about "not getting it" (which, as you noticed, you're not alone in) - this is another of those things I don't get.

It's such a strange knife's-edge we walk. On the one hand, it's good to point out "Hey, there's all kinds of sexuality, and gender isn't as black and white as we thought" and then on the other hand, as we continue to do that, I can't help but feel that we continue to perpetuate the "otherness" of those things, instead of simply accepting them as part of our natural world. I wish we could get to that point where the reason we draw attention to it isn't because we need to warn about it or draw attention to it because of societal issues, but just because we want to differentiate between this and that. I'm not saying this at all well.

Maybe... let's say we have ice cream. And it's really yummy, and lots of people like it, and it's vanilla-flavored (oh, the irony of vanilla now being used to describe "typical" but that's a digression I won't get into). And then there's this other ice cream, and it's strawberry flavored, and some people like that better, but right now, we're either "OMG SHOCK AND HORROR STRAWBERRY!!1eleventy-one!!!" or we're "DAMN RIGHT STRAWBERRY AND DON'T YOU FORGET IT!!eleventy-one!!1!1"

I keep waiting and hoping for the day when it's "Hey, there's strawberry, and vanilla, and mint chocolate chip, and blueberry. Hmmm...I like strawberry better, I'mma have some of that" or "Hmmm, I've never tried mint chocolate chip, let's give it a shot."

I don't know if that analogy in any way helped articulate what's in my head. I hope so.

[laughingacademy.livejournal.com]

There is an inherent "other" about him in regards to his instinctive presentation of whatever his sexuality may be, and it is recognized by people who see him, both in the audience and in the narrative. Even a theoretically heterosexual Sherlock is, in this presentation, still queered.

Bingo! One of the things I love about Cumberbatch!Holmes is that he's possibly the most "other" heroic character I've encountered who isn't an E.T., angel, or some form of A.I.

[airspaniel.livejournal.com]

I find that the moderation in the comm you linked is inconsistent across the board, and while I believe that they intend no malice toward anyone, this inconsistency and their unwillingness to open the comm to broader discussion makes it a sandbox that people are increasingly uncomfortable playing in. Also, there's sometimes an attitude of "well, it's my sandbox, and if you're bothered, then it's your problem and you should leave," which is unwelcoming at best and actively damaging at worst.

While the mods themselves have said they don't like it when people warn for slash in an unofficial capacity, they seem to think it's just a pet peeve that doesn't hurt anyone, and that newbies should be excused. Which is wrong. They also insist that all kinks be put in the warnings field, which is opening up a minefield all its own.

I write Sherlock fic, and I read it sometimes, but I dunno... I don't really feel like I'm part of the fandom at large, and I'm okay with this.

[sunhawk.livejournal.com]

I definitely agree about using more neutral header words than "warning" for slash, I've in the past used "Contains" for elements that I felt should be made known but were not socially negative.

I do remember the days when we warned for slash, either sarcastically or defensively when it was much more common to have other fans stumble upon our fics and make an unholy fuss about them, to try to create a situation where we could say "Look, we put the words 'WARNING - SLASH' in ten-foot, red font, if you read it anyway and got upset about the slash, it's your own fault!"

But the time for that has long since passed (thankfully) and it's ridiculous to "warn" for "boys kissing", etc. Also warning for slash when posting to slash-centric communities is redundant and silly.

[facetofcathy.livejournal.com]

(Hello, you don't know me, I read your journal on the Dreamwidth feed because I find your posts interesting.)

Your link to eumelia's post about SherlockBBC seems to indicate that you approve of the moderation of the comm. Are you missing a negative in there or am I confused?

[hoyland54.livejournal.com]

Not a fic writer (let's just ignore that one time...), so who knows what role I have in this discussion, but every time this comes up and everyone decides "Let's use 'contains' instead." I can't help but wonder if that's really doing anything, in the sense that unless one's 'contains' field includes heterosexuality, if applicable, one is still warning for slash/non-heterosexuality, even if the word 'warning' isn't attached to it. (Of course, if you never write anything depicting heterosexual relationships or sexual activity, you're obviously not going to be putting it in your 'contains' blank.) But perhaps everyone but me understands that we ought to put heterosexuality down as well.

I guess I'm saying I like the idea of 'contains' (at least as shorthand for 'things you may want to know in deciding whether to read this'), but wonder if perhaps sexual orientations just don't belong there to begin with.

[brilliant-snark.livejournal.com]

I haven't submitted any of my fic to the comms, partly because I tend to be wary of them in general, and partly because, well, I think my writing is only so-so at best. My ideas seem to always be done better by someone else. But that is neither here nor there... I agree with you (and so many others) on this issue, as related to ALL fandoms. I've long held that if you insist on "warning" for slash, you also must "warn" for het, which hardly anyone does. That said, either one would still be offensive to me as a "warning". Again, I think if you're in a queered fandom, or with the pairing clearly listed, there's no reason to point out "OMG, M/M IN HERE!". Contents may be a better option if you feel it's necessary to label it. But I really really really wish that we lived in a world where no one felt such a label would be necessary. *sigh*

But, NO, do not lump "M/M SEX!" (or even Het Sex) in with the warnings about non-con, torture, incest, etc. Argh.

[browneyedgirl65.livejournal.com]

"Sherlock's brain. Fannish interpretation of Sherlock's brain. I'm not that smart, and I don't want to be that smart (the brain I have is challenging enough, thanks), but if intellectual orientations could be said to exist in the manner that sexual orientations do, the manner of the consequences of Sherlock's intellect are relevant to my interests and experience."

Dammit. I've always thought along these lines, too, but you've distilled it beautifully here. And as you say in the following point to that, it's one of the ways in which his character is queered, whether or not he's presented as straight, bi, or gay...

In which I try to get the mental gears rotating again.

[pingback-bot.livejournal.com]

User kskryptonian referenced to your post from In which I try to get the mental gears rotating again. (http://kskryptonian.livejournal.com/35005.html) saying: [...] s started as a comment to  on her wonderful post about labels and Sherlock the series [...]

[xtricks.livejournal.com]

Hm. While I agree that treating one sexuality as needing a special warning, I also try and keep in mind that the idea of moving queer content notification out of teh warning title to somewhere else is less than a year old. Among other things, it's interesting to see how the idea does and doesn't spread through fandoms.

I also think the Sherlock fandom is ... fairly immature in a variety of ways. I'm waiting to see if it grows up.

And also, wtf *was* with that second episode? It was horrible.

ETA: oh, this is a great story 'Just Human' http://wafflestories.livejournal.com/3968.html
and it's a dr who/sherlock xover

[eumelia.livejournal.com]

Thank you!

[darthhellokitty.livejournal.com]

Yeah, the whole "boy kissing" and warning for slash business is ridiculous.

You can always leave aside the whole posting-in-a-community thing, and just post in your own LJ and alert the newsletter. They just ask for title, pairing, rating, and series.

[ladyofthelog.livejournal.com]

This post is awesomesauce.

I have so many thoughts about sherlockbbc, which can mostly be summed up by FYI asexy_sherlock IS QUEER FRIENDLY <3

[kel-reiley.livejournal.com]

1. OMG could you be my sherlock brain twin? i am so counting on you to find more fic that i'll like, b/c so far the only one that actually worked for me was the one you rec'd by out_there (the whore of babylon...)

as much as i like john watson, especially in this particular incarnation b/c i LOVE the actor, he's not the one that interests me... he's not the one i "identify" with, for lack of a better word

not that i am anywhere NEAR sherlock's intellect, but i think i understand the world better from his POV than john's or any of the other characters, and i've yet to find a fic that explores that in a way that works for me

i am literally craving a fic that will elaborate on his drug use, his childhood/teen years, his life and relationships before john as compared to him after he meets john - but so far the ones i've found portray him just a touch too far removed from humanity, and i don't read him as a sociopath no matter what they've said in canon

so... yeah, WHERE IS THE FIC FOR ME?

also, the warnings - i've been noticing it, too, and god i just don't have the energy to do this fight again after torchwood and merlin :( which is absolutely awful of me, b/c i have the choice to engage or not and others do not get that choice b/c THIS IS THEIR LIVES

can someone set up a torchwoodhouse for sherlock fic?

[lefaym.livejournal.com]

There is an inherent "other" about him in regards to his instinctive presentation of whatever his sexuality may be, and it is recognized by people who see him, both in the audience and in the narrative. Even a theoretically heterosexual Sherlock is, in this presentation, still queered.

Thank you for saying this. It means a lot to me for a whole heap of weird-ass personal reasons.

Sherlock Holmes (in general) was the first fandom that I really got into independent of Torchwood. That is, I got into Merlin and White Collar earlier/around the same time, but that was me following Torchfen who had migrated there. As such, the fic I tended to read and the discussions I tended to have about those shows were all generally informed by the queer sensibility that permeates much of Torchwood fandom (which isn't to say that this is true of those fandoms in general -- just the corners that I hang out in). Sherlock Holmes fandom, on the other hand, was very much still dominated by assumptions that the people reading and writing fic were straight women (even though that wasn't actually TRUE), and... I don't know, it was just missing a certain undercurrent of queer perspectives that had always been a staple of my fandom experience.

Again, it's not that those perspectives don't exist in the fandom -- just that they didn't have the currency that I would have expected. Also, this community on Dreamwidth hasn't been particularly active lately, but it's worth checking out: http://queering-holmes.dreamwidth.org/

ETA: Not that I'm saying that Torchwood fandom was perfect or anything (far from it), just that there was a noticable difference in terms of queer sensibility.

[teleens-journal.livejournal.com]

I'm currently corresponding with one of the mods over there, explaining in very small words (with an overhead projector) precisely why allowing people to warn for slash is so full of fail. I'll let you know how it goes if you'd like.

[cleverthylacine]

...people still warn for slash? omg FAAAAAIIIILLLLL

I do warn for explicit sexual content because I don't rate and I'm not going to until they come up with a rating system that isn't ageist. Not because I think sex is bad, but because I think people should know before they click on a link in a public place, be that work or the bus or the doctor's office or the library, whether or not there is liable to be sex in it.