It seems to me that whether or not annotations are fiction (or incorporate fiction) depends on the intent of the author. However, if I understand the phrase "Sherlockian game" correctly, it seems to me it is still possible for an annotator to respect suspension of disbelief, and play a "Sherlockian game", while still having one's annotations convey real information that is not itself false or misleading or perhaps even fictional.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 26 Oct 14 | 01:37PM by Platypus.
My objection is that it is silly. This is just my intuitive feeling; I am sure, however, that if I devoted some time to thinking about it I could pinpoint precisely why it is silly.
One possible objection is that the editor/commentator is taking over the author's role, and injecting himself into the fiction itself, where many will feel he is not welcome ... or perhaps that his particular fictions not very good.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 26 Oct 14 | 03:17PM by Platypus.
Partly my negative reaction to the 'Sherlockian game" is merely emotional. It just turns me off. And it really turns me off when it is applied to fantastical works of the imagination like that of Lovecraft's and Bram Stoker's (Klinger annotated Stoker's Dracula). Interestingly, I don't believe Klinger plays the game in his annotations of the Sandman books.
I understand suspension of disbelief to mean being willing to take a story on its own terms. In other words one is willing to move outside of the reality we experience in this world and accept the reality presented in the story. The 'Sherlockian game' strikes me as the antithesis of this: it tries to make the story conform to our reality. It indicates to me a lack of imagination, an unwillingness to be open to different forms or concepts of reality.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 30 Oct 14 | 08:21AM by Ahab.