Sherlock and All-Human AUs

[snick_backup]

It occurs to me that, in broader entertainment culture, the equivalent of the all-human AU not only gets written once in a while, but turns out to be pretty darn good. I would not have said that Sherlock Holmes was a character that needed a present-day AU, but I was wrong.

I leave it to real Holmes fans to explain exactly how the new depiction re-examines the character. However, I like the way Moffat draws on modern psychology to help motivate and explain Sherlock's actions (although a cursory search hasn't explained to me what, exactly, the difference is between a psychopath and a sociopath). I'm also very interested in these suggestions of possible character growth. I don't even care whether Sherlock becomes "a good man," as Lestrade says, or fulfills Bonnie's prediction and ends up murdering out of sheer boredom. I expect I'll be interested either way.

My point, though, is that the radical re-imagining is adding something to the character. Similarly, I expect one could make some interesting points out of the even more radical medical AU, House, M.D. although I'm so long disenchanted with that show that I have trouble thinking what they would be.

So why am I enjoying these quite different takes on Sherlock Holmes when I have basically no patience for BtVS characters in other times and scenarios? I have a couple of ideas.

1. The writing. The first Sherlock episode, "A Study in Pink," is excellently written on every level - character, plot, dialogue, even the music. I've no doubt there are some decently-written BtVS radical AUs out there, but I haven't read any.

2. The purpose. Presumably Moffat has particular directions he wants Sherlock to go, and I would not be utterly shocked if they included honest-to-goodness on-screen John/Sherlock, but I'm pretty sure shippiness is not his first concern. Whereas all the radical AUs I've ever seen in Buffydom are Spike/Buffy, usually in some particular scenario I find either distasteful or boring. The point seems to be to extract them from Sunnydale and use them elsewhere, rather than to use the elsewhere to comment on them.

3. My distance from the source material. I don't actually like Sir Arthur Conan Doyle's stories much, and I haven't read any of them in years. I don't mind Moffat or David Shore playing with the concept because I didn't care much for it in the first place. OTOH, I am very specific in my love of Spike and Dawn and to a lesser extent Buffy, Giles, Anya, and the others. I am attached to specific events in their arcs. Generally (though not always), the fic that I've found most meaningfully explores the characters is the stuff that is most aware of canon, even when it deviates from it.

I'm trying to think of an example of an original work I liked that resulted in radical reinterpretations I also liked. At the moment, all I can think of is Shakespeare. I do like the Kevin Kline version of A Midsummer Night's Dream very much, but that's hardly a significant sample. This is where I hang my head and wish I were much better read.

Speaking of Sherlock, Abigail Nussbaum gets there first and says it better, as usual. I think I am slightly more optimistic than she is, although she raises some excellent concerns.

Comments

[bobthemole.livejournal.com]

The X-files fandom has a few extremely good historical-AU fics.

A Moment in the Sun reimagines Mulder and Scully as Joe DiMaggio and an unwed mother in the pre-Roe-vs-Wade era.

Paracelsus is set in Georgia at the end of the Civil War.

Hiraeth is set in 13th century North Wales.

The stories are melodramatic, but the historic detail is rich and the writing is good.

[snickfic]

I... might have to check those out, actually. However, I'd have the same situation with XF that I do with Sherlock Holmes - I've only seen a handful of XF eps across a bunch of seasons, in no kind of order. I know Scully and Mulder more as a collection of attributes than as characters participating in a particular set of events. This may mean I like the AUs better, though!

[elisi]

I think the main difference is that the updated Sherlock keeps the main characters intact - Sherlock is still a detective, Watson is a doctor etc. It's the world and the methods that's changed, not the characters as such.

Whereas an all-human Buffyverse AU must, by definition, strip the characters of their defining characteristics: Buffy can't be a Slayer, Spike can't be a vampire, Dawn can't be a Key - and of course the worlds stays pretty much the same, except without magic.

And that's why it so rarely works.

[diamondtook862.livejournal.com]

I think it could work, but people are often more interested in exploring romance than the dynamics of slayer/vampire when they are human (tall order).

I think this is my the best AU's are a different take on the Slayer/Vampire thing. At Your Service for example. Both characters are beautifully in-character and I think it's because they still have that role and power even if it means something different in their world.

[penny-lane-42.livejournal.com]

Good point.

[snickfic]

Whereas an all-human Buffyverse AU must, by definition, strip the characters of their defining characteristics: Buffy can't be a Slayer, Spike can't be a vampire, Dawn can't be a Key

Right. Buffy as a cop and Spike as a (misunderstood!) murderer is by no means an exact mapping.

I think in terms of distance from the source material, House is probably a better analogue to the all-human AU. This is where my weak memory of the original Holmes canon is letting me down - I wish I could make more specific comparisons here.

[diamondtook862.livejournal.com]

I've read a very good AU or two (not many in my taste-range), but the characters never feel quite like themselves. Changing worlds is different from changing time periods, maybe. Also, I think many AU's are superficial imports with character names and biographical details, but without the actual hearts of the characters.

Moffat managed to have the characters be the same (Watson was still a doctor, still had his war history, etc), and maybe that's because they actually have less backstory in the original. They are developed in the context of the cases. Also, I think you're right about us loving Spike and Buffy and Dawn (and the others) more and in more details. Broad brush strokes aren't enough for us.

Sometimes I read AU Spuffy when I'm sick of reading warped characterization in the Buffyverse and want to read it where at least it's supposed to be warped... (this is when I run out of fic recs and troll on my own).

[snickfic]

Changing worlds is different from changing time periods, maybe.

I suppose it depends on the time period, but it seems to me that there's the potential for equally radical differences either way. (In fact, I think that's where a lot of historical mainstream fiction - especially the 'genre' stuff, like mysteries and romances - often fail. The authors don't seem to realize that there's more to writing historically accurate characters than just dressing them in corsets or top hats.)

Actually, now I'd be rather interested to see an AU that keeps the Slayer/Vampire dynamic, but in some other time period. Hmm.

[penny-lane-42.livejournal.com]

I like this post. And agree with it. I sometimes enjoy AU All Human stuff, but I enjoy it the way I would an original fic--it never feels like the actual characters to me.

Thanks for the link, too; there's a lot of good food for thought there.

[snickfic]

You're welcome. Abigail Nussbaum is my single favorite movie/TV/lit critic. A person could spend days reading through her archives.

[penny-lane-42.livejournal.com]

And by "a person could" you really mean "Lauren now will." Clearly.

[snickfic]

Why, whatever do you mean? I never said any such thing.

[penny-lane-42.livejournal.com]

That comment paired with that icon is seriously the greatest thing ever.

[snickfic]

It isn't an icon I use very often, but it is absolutely necessary in Certain Circumstances.

[brutti-ma-buoni.livejournal.com]

I think there's also the factor the Holmes and Watson are so iconic, so chewed-over and multiply portrayed, that they have grown beyond the original canon. Having an AU is therefore a bit like having a 'modern day Oedipus story' or some other reuse of characters from established myth, where we know the character outlines but the detail has long since lapsed. That way, having them play with elements from (distant) canon is added fun, rather than tinkering with the 'sacred' text.

[snickfic]

I think you're right. In fact, that's the level at which I know Sherlock Holmes because it's been so long since I actually read any of the works. I just have a very vague memory of the stuff and then all these cultural associations.

[ladyofthelog.livejournal.com]

This, exactly.

[ladyofthelog.livejournal.com]

On a more personal note, I grew up watching both the Granada series with Jeremy Brett and the 1940s films with Basil Rathbone (which were adapted to a contemporary setting). The modern setting doesn't feel AU to me in the least, but this is, after all, #4 in the series of adaptations I've watched.

[snickfic]

It occurs to me that Sherlock is to the original work what the new Bond movies are to Ian Fleming's novels. I get the feeling that Moffat is being a bit more playful in the way he updates to a modern setting, though.

[(Anonymous)]

The goal in these sort of things is to extract the essence of the original and fill it out with filler. After that's done, one hopes the filler is good enough to continue the story in and of itself. The essential ingredients of a Sherlock Holmes story are

1. Sherlock Holmes. He is slovenly, physically fit, excessively private, brimming with addictions, and overly dramatic. Most importantly, he is a consulting detective.
2. John Watson. He is a former soldier and womanizer, now a doctor, successful but not passionate about his work. He is usually married and occasionally has overspending problems. His character is mostly a prosaic blank slate to provide contrast.
3. Some mysteries. These ranged in the original stories from events so flimsily-connected by evidence that the police didn't recognize the crime to "baffling" murders to crimes that people brought to Holmes because they wanted them kept private OHNOBLACKMAIL.

The perception of Sherlock has changed over time. His logical and unempathetical approach to life seems to have been a virtue when the stories were written. Now it's a disorder. (I think New Sherlock's protest is him clinging to a last vestige of denial because those two terms really are the same.) Also, his addictions were not terrible, unconquerable problems in the stories (he just stops taking cocaine and heroin one day). At the time, for instance, cocaine was available in medicine for babies and nothing about withdrawal or physical addiction were known. The modern characterization is very similar to the original; the context has changed to make the effect startlingly different.

Watson needs strong writers to bring him to life. He really is just the narrator of the stories, and I think the fact that Conan Doyle mistook key details about him (such as his name--sometimes John and sometimes James) throughout the run of the stories supports that. In the past on screen he has been portrayed as bumbling and a sort of sidekick. The current Watson seems to be hanging out with Holmes either because he has a crush on him or because he has an adrenaline addiction. I don't really want to see the character go either of those directions, but there it is.

There were no serial killers in the original works. I really liked the first story line, especially the build-up and blatant foreshadowing: "I'm going to talk to you, and then you'll kill yourself." The second one was all Sensational. This is in the tradition of the original mysteries as well; they are usually my least favorite. I have not seen the last one, but I must mention that Moriarty was in only one of the original stories. It was a good one, but I think Moriarty is overdone in modern adaptations.

Sherlock is more of what they call a "reimagining" than an AU. Any little hints from the original stories are more novel than appealing, and a series cannot survive on being novel. I think they must quickly move away from the original series and try to make a separate body of work, keeping the essence of the original, if the series is to survive, otherwise it's going to get real annoying real fast.

--Ariel

[(Anonymous)]

I think at this point I'm expected to add

tl;dr

Also, it is very unfair of the Capture to put umlauts and accent graves over every character. I have not memorized the entire character list.

[snickfic]

That is further incentive for you to, ahem, sign in.

[snickfic]

See, this is why you should be writing about this, instead of me. You actually know stuff!

I didn't realize Watson was a womanizer in the stories. That explains things a bit in the new version.

the context has changed to make the effect startlingly different.

Yes. I think that way of using new context to change the effect is one of the things I find interesting about the show (and other adaptations of old works).

I really liked the first story line, especially the build-up and blatant foreshadowing: "I'm going to talk to you, and then you'll kill yourself."

Yes. Yes yes yes! I so rarely care about the actual mystery in these things, so I found that very satisfying.

Sherlock is more of what they call a "reimagining" than an AU.

In fanfic, 'AU' has a couple of different meanings. A canon AU is one like I think you're thinking of, where one difference affects the whole story, butterfly effect fashion. But there's another AU which just lifts certain characters and elements and plops them in a whole new situation. In Buffy fandom this usually involves removing all the supernatural elements. Especially popular are fics where Buffy and Spike are in high school. House would probably be a better analogy than the new Sherlock show - there you've got Holmes and Watson, sort of, but in an entirely different context that soon wears away most of the resemblance that was there to begin with.