ext_144735 ([identity profile] hells-half-acre.livejournal.com) wrote in [personal profile] hells_half_acre 2012-06-22 11:30 pm (UTC)

Re: Part 1

Most of fandom(that I've seen) is more concerned with defining Sherlock with words; asexual, sociopath, manic, etc. whatever they feel fits...but I've never really been able to do that with him myself. I think he's just different, wildly different, but no definably(with labels) different. I don't think he'd like being labeled; he's already misunderstood enough. And I really like the angle you take; the idea that Sherlock is more-or-less normal, but with an extremely high intellect, which has transitioned him from normal to abnormal.

I find that most of SOCIETY is obsessed with labels...and I've never been able to do that. But yeah, I don't think Sherlock can be defined, and I think that's why he's such an intriguing character.

And as a sidenote: I'm also someone who has always been above-average my entire life (most noticeable when I was younger). So, yeah, a lot of my take on Sherlock is informed by how much I see myself in him - though, I'm no where near his level, of course.

I compartmentalize, and that happens a lot with my emotions, to the effect of feeling unfeeling.... I prefer to fake it, while Sherlock just doesn't care.

SAME! I know what the socially acceptable emotional responses are to things, and those are the ones that I display, whether or not I actually feel them.

It's why one of my favourite quotes is: "My heart is nothing more than an engine formed from the remnants of a dead star." (from Dresden Codak (http://dresdencodak.com/2006/05/17/anagoge-starring-tiny-carl-jung/)) Because it's technically true, but also gets across the message of what my emotional state is like.



Post a comment in response:

This account has disabled anonymous posting.
If you don't have an account you can create one now.
HTML doesn't work in the subject.
More info about formatting