Holmes/Watson forward

Short shameful confession

Holmes and Watson, original poster children for slashy UST. And yes, I see the slash there. But... I cannot write it, and now I find that I cannot read it, either. Especially when it gets gooey. My ship there is friendship.

Carry on!
I keep wanting to do a little study of the strange occurrence of the mailing list over the fall. The holmesslash mailing list had been fairly quiet for ages. Years. Then last fall, it exploded. Sept 2006: 90 messages. March 2007: 1588 messages. Why? It's tailing off again now, but it's too late. Can't read it at all any more.
Tangential geekitude
This morning I discovered a free podcast of the 1940s New Adventures of Sherlock Homes radio show with Basil Rathbone and Nigel Bruce. My brother and I used to buy those on cassette.

(I can't read H/W slash either.)
Re: Tangential geekitude
I have Nigel Bruce issues, for the same reason that I have Laurie King issues. Watson smrt. We have had this discussion before, tho :)
Word. Every time I've tried reading Holmes slash I've quickly decided it was a bad idea. The only person who has even succeeded in writing a somewhat sexualized Holmes that I could believe in is Laurie King, and she manages it because she treads very, *very* lightly.
Lord, yes. The man is just too neurotic, you know? Which makes the gooey uber-romantic slash especially hard to take. Sigh.
*nods* It's not just the slash. One of my favorite Holmes pastiche writers, Larry Millett, turned me off in the end by trying to write a Holmes romance and completely botching it. Sherlock in Love by Sena Jeter Naslund is at least passable.
That's sitting on my to-be-read stack, btw. Might get to it next week. You have to understand that my to-be-read stack is about 10 feet high.
Mine is similarly long. :)

It's been a while since I read it, but I remember enjoying Sherlock in Love despite my skepticism, so I'd say it's definitely worth the read.
Holmes? GOOEY???????????

UST is great. I could even see some subtle, fade-to-black slashiness...but GOOEY??????????? Ick.

I don't usually come out strongly against any sort of shipper fic, but gooey!Holmes is just so...so...so...utterly wrong.

Actually, it's not the ship at all. I'm down with the slashiness of these two...it's piss-poor characterization that gets me. You know. Sort of like those fics where Giles talks like a Hallmark greeting card or Daniel Jackson is a weepy seven-year-old in a man's body.
This is probably just me, but I can't cope with Holmes and Watson using each other's first names.

Characterization and voice are the core of good fanfic. Take 'em and put 'em in AUs, send them to the moon, dress them up in period costume: if they talk and act like the characters, I can follow along. If all they are is dress-up dolls that look like the actors, I'm lost.

Holmes is a neurotic asexual brilliant drug addict! Dammit.
So with you, babe.

That's probably a big part of why it's taking me so damn long to write that B/G Jack the Ripper fic. Deciding what's the same and different about them in a different time and trying to be accurate about the murders...it's a time-consuming business. Plus I'm working lots of other Buffyverse characters in and I have to make them both right for the time and themselves. It's a hell of a challenge, but I love it!

And yes, Holmes is pretty thoroughly asexual. It's hard to imagine him having quite the same physical needs as others do.
I continue to drool in anticipation of the Jack fic, while being 100% behind your taking the time to do it right. (Can't throw stones there. I take ages to finish things sometimes.)
For some reason, the first time I read this, I read it as 'House and Wilson, etc etc'...

I can't think of why. *smirk*

(it makes a lot more sense now than it did earlier, although the same reasoning may apply. *ponders that*)
Yeah, I prefer House+Wilson to be UST-y not shippy as well. I love the tension between them, and I'm not sure I want to see it relieved in any way. Snark! I love the bickering!
What you said. Although I actually do read H/W but it always seems very much like an AU/non-canon to me.

The obstacle for me is that Watson can be quite mushy where women/sexual relations are concerned, and Holmes is one of the least-mushy characters in literary history, so it's hard for me to envision a sexual relationship there; it's oil and water. One of them would have to be in violation of (my interpretation of) their canon character in order for them to be in a sexual relationship. As you say, often it's Holmes written as too gooey, but then Watson being too brusque would also be non-canon for me....it's a quandiary (sp).

I still adore Holmes, after all these years. He was my first crush...well, him and the Professor from Gilligan's Island. I have a weakness for intellectually inclined men who turn out to be surprisingly effective in the real world. (I did manage to eventually land one of my very own, so that childhood crush business was on to something.)
Ah! I like this analysis. Watson-mush, okay. Holmes-mush, serious breach of character.

Did you fixate on written-Holmes (as I did) or on any particular Holmes portrayal? I glued myself to Jeremy Brett's Holmes as being the closest to the Holmes of the stories I had ever seen. It probably helped that the adaptations were so faithful/on-target/period.
I *loved* Jeremy Brett's work as Holmes...that said, I think I'm permanently tied to the original canon written Holmes, because that's what I read over and over as a kid. I imprinted like a little duckling.