daasgrrl

I seem to be completely blocked on writing fic - believe me, I've been trying - which I put down to all my uni assessments in first semester being comprised entirely of "writing", as opposed to "essays". You might think they'd be much the same thing, but no. I write essays pretty much the same way I do mathematics - all logic, no emotion. Whereas even "literary reportage" requires a certain amount of colour and style, which I apparently stash in a completely separate, and relatively underdeveloped, area of my brain. It's clearly exhausted from all the effort. Hence, I suspect, the recent desire to write meta *g*

Anyway, so frozen_delight posted some interesting thoughts on the widespread use of the pairing name "Johnlock". If I interpret correctly, she sees this term as implicitly diminishing Sherlock's character - in that it combines half his name with all of John's - but further feels its increasing popularity has gone hand in hand with the actual diminishment of Sherlock's character in fic. I don't read much fic in this pairing, and I don't know whether it's a reasonable assertion to make, but it was interesting. I have Intense Feelings about pairing names in general, and threatened her with a long ramble, so here it is.

( Read more... )

But it appears that with the rise of smushnames, the old jostling for pairing "dominance" has disappeared, or at least the rules have changed. Perhaps relative dominance is now established by how much of each character's name is used, or by how recognisable each component is, as well as by which comes first. Or perhaps it's become mostly about aesthetics. By the rule of "sounding good", Johnlock has the clear advantage. It has a nicer ring to it than Sherjohn (which makes me think of Robin Hood), or JoLock (which is more balanced, but sounds like either a proprietory dance step or a South African security device). Pleasant-sounding as Johnlock is, surely there exist theoretical alternatives - if the Marvel fandom can come up with the equal-opportunity "Science Bros" for Stark and Banner (notice how I instinctively position Stark before Banner), a fandom capable of tuna!lock ought to be able to see them and raise. I suspect, however, that most people concerned are perfectly happy with Johnlock. But does the general support for that term imply anything about the pairing itself?

frozen_delight contends that it does - that the most widely adopted pairing names reflect, or even shape, the dynamics of the relationship as seen by the fandom. By this measure, she notes that Johnlock appears to give John greater prominence in the relationship overall. It also implies that John is "complete" within himself, and Sherlock somehow "lacking". But in the greater context I still feel strongly that Sherlock remains the strongest, most central character to the show. He IS the show - that's why the suffix "-lock" is widely used to denote that something belongs to the Sherlock fandom in the first place. So does shortening Sherlock's name somehow diminish the strength of his individual character, like Samson and his hair? I'm not convinced that it does, but I'll concede that the possibility is there. Because names carry significance and power, however "obvious" they seem, or how you might claim to have derived them.