Provided someone is brave/foolhardy enough to take on the editing, I say go for it. I suspect everyone in this comm has been craving something similar for years ;). Holmes fandom has a long history of published books on this or that, and we can always pool our resources in terms of fannish rarities.
Would it be worth having a fannish rec-fest in the near future, or might it be better to avoid overlap so that we don't all end up writing about the same sad old topics? *coughSLURcough* There's plenty of Holmesian stuff out there, so it might be helpful to share sources of pr0n Holmesiana that others might find useful in addition to more historical piles-o-research? I'm thinking of things like journals, collections, commentaries, publishers, etc that might be useful if people wanted to refer back to earlier fandom.
Of course, many people wouldn't want to touch Holmesiana with a bargepole, but I think it is worthwhile to engage with existing fannish writing. One of the things that makes me grind my teeth is the argument that queer readings of the canon are necessarily shallow or naive. As someone who's read the stories top to bottom as well as many of the writings-on-the-writings, I say stuff that. From my POV, 'naive' is taking Holmes, Watson, or the writings out of their broader cultural setting in order to keep queer readings off the table. Where's the game in that? I call foul! ;) I can just hear the writers tutting now, saying that these people simply aren't aware of Holmes fandom/scholarship, and the many perfectly logical arguments against queer readings. To that, I reply 'Norbury' ;)
![[community profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/community.png){kind=small}
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
branchandroot
Come on, we were all thinking it ;)
Date: 2010-05-25 05:02 pm (UTC)Would it be worth having a fannish rec-fest in the near future, or might it be better to avoid overlap so that we don't all end up writing about the same sad old topics? *coughSLURcough* There's plenty of Holmesian stuff out there, so it might be helpful to share sources of
pr0nHolmesiana that others might find useful in addition to more historical piles-o-research? I'm thinking of things like journals, collections, commentaries, publishers, etc that might be useful if people wanted to refer back to earlier fandom.Of course, many people wouldn't want to touch Holmesiana with a bargepole, but I think it is worthwhile to engage with existing fannish writing. One of the things that makes me grind my teeth is the argument that queer readings of the canon are necessarily shallow or naive. As someone who's read the stories top to bottom as well as many of the writings-on-the-writings, I say stuff that. From my POV, 'naive' is taking Holmes, Watson, or the writings out of their broader cultural setting in order to keep queer readings off the table. Where's the game in that? I call foul! ;) I can just hear the writers tutting now, saying that these people simply aren't aware of Holmes fandom/scholarship, and the many perfectly logical arguments against queer readings. To that, I reply 'Norbury' ;)