i talk too much

[derien]

I never shut up.

I talked way too much in someone else's journal, today, sucking the life from the conversation.
Quick summary:
1) Victorian homoeroticism (Watson/Holmes, Bracy/Gedge), and certain LOTR pairings (Legolas/Gimli, Merry/Pippin) rule. (I didn't say that Legolas/Aragon shippers can bite my lilywhite, but... That's just wrong. And not in a good way.)
2) I'm a spaz.

We went to Bean's and got some good stuff - 40% employee discount is cool. Today was cooking day for eor - he did about seven hours in front of the hot stove. I did laundry and groceries.

Now much to do before sleeping - packing and lunch makings for hiking tomorrow.

Comments

Re: Gay Holmes, part two

[daegaer.livejournal.com]

The first part is mainly a presentation of Robb's argument about Holmes, these two paragraphs are my opinion on that argument and on the "author's intent" argument - a large part of the literary work of Biblical Studies and Classics, for example, aims at learning how to separate out layers in a text, see what the various writers and editors are saying and how they argue with or modify the views of earlier writers. If it's possible to have a good degree of certainty about what a long-dead writer in a totally different language is doing with their text, it's possible to do it with a far more recent text where there are so many other texts to cross-check it with.

I don't think we can say with 100% accuracy that we absolutely know Doyle wrote Holmes as a gay man - but I'm happy to say that the burden of evidence points that way. Being able to ask Doyle (or any writer, including living ones) for an opinion wouldn't help either - would the Doyle who great admired Wilde give the same answer as the Doyle holding the telegram about his son's death iin the trenches or the Doyle obsessed with spiritualism of the 1920s? Authors change their minds about their own work, or just plain forget, or don't have their research material handy and so blather - but texts can be checke by themselves and must be, for they are what we have when the author is gone. (My favourite example of an author's opinion contradicting their own text is C J Cherryh's view of one of the characters, Dr Jordan Warrick, in her book Cyteen - she has said several times what a bad father this character is, how he'd be horrible to his son(s) lives and careers, what an all-round nasty person he is, caring only for his own work and professional reputation. Yet the character sacrifices his freedom and his personal reputation to save his partner and 17 year old foster son (who have no legal rights and could even be legally killed - I'll say no more if you haven't read it) and his own 17 year old son son, who is being framed for murder. There's quite a difference there! And his genuine love for all three of these people is underlined in the book, yet Cherryh thinks otherwise!)