Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
HerlockSholmes

Why Sherlock But Not Holmes?

Recommended Posts

Hi all.

This is just for my own curiosity and isn’t meant as a comment on other posters taste and it’s certainly not a criticism.

The vast majority of posters on here are primarily Sherlock fans (understandably as its a Sherlock Forum👍) There are probably only Hikari and myself who (whilst both loving Sherlock) are primarily fans of Doyle’s original Holmes. So my questions for posters are:

Have you read the Canon stories and just didn’t like them or equally didn’t like other movie, tv and radio versions of Sherlock Holmes?

Did you read them and just think they were ok but not really worth bothering with?

Or have you just never really gotten around to looking into them (busy life etc.)

Again, this is just me being curious🙂

 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A perfectly legitimate question, Herlock -- though you might want to reword the thread's title, 'cause I thought you meant what's wrong with the character.  Maybe Why don't you read the original stories, or something like that.  (As the creator of the thread, you can edit the title at any time.  Just click the Edit button on the first post and you'll have access to the title.)

Anyhow, my pre-BBC-Sherlock experience with the Holmes-verse consisted primarily of the Brett series, which I had watched on PBS but had never bought in any home-video format.  I liked the show very much and was always excited to see there were more on the way, but I was never what I would call a fan.  (At that point I had been an active fan of only one show, namely the original Star Trek, and I didn't expect lightning to strike twice.)

I had undoubtedly seen several of the Rathbone-Bruce movies, since my father was very fond of them (until he too discovered the Brett series).  And of course I was aware that all of the above was based on stories by one Arthur Conan Doyle, but I don't believe I had ever read any of them.  I was an avid reader, but in those days it was mostly non-fiction and a few fiction series, mostly mysteries (Lord Peter Wimsey and Nero Wolfe).  I had nothing against the Holmes stories, just had never gotten around to them.

I watched Study in Pink only because I was at a friend's house and she turned on the television.  I had in fact never heard of the show until about thirty seconds before it started.  I immediately took to it and intentionally watched the other two episodes.

Alex and I heard there would be a second series and read the Conan Doyle stories that they were (obviously, even to us) based on.  We were so eager to see the new episodes that we ordered the Region 2 DVD from the UK (and watched the show in February instead of waiting till PBS aired it in.May).  That was when I became an active fan.  I think it was watching Reichenbach that did it. I wanted to discuss it with other fans, and Google brought me here.

Since then I have read most of the original stories and enjoyed them, but I still would not consider myself hooked.  Sorry for the verbiage. I hope that answers your question at least!

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, HerlockSholmes said:

Hi all.

This is just for my own curiosity and isn’t meant as a comment on other posters taste and it’s certainly not a criticism.

The vast majority of posters on here are primarily Sherlock fans (understandably as its a Sherlock Forum👍) There are probably only Hikari and myself who (whilst both loving Sherlock) are primarily fans of Doyle’s original Holmes. So my questions for posters are:

Have you read the Canon stories and just didn’t like them or equally didn’t like other movie, tv and radio versions of Sherlock Holmes?

Did you read them and just think they were ok but not really worth bothering with?

Or have you just never really gotten around to looking into them (busy life etc.)

Again, this is just me being curious🙂

 

Well, Herl, your provocative title works as clickbait because it was the first thing that caught my eye this morning.  :)

I will put my hand up as someone who got hooked on BBC Sherlock and BC's creation of a 21st century Holmes, and then found the show as a springboard into delving into the literary characters as created by Sir Arthur Conan Doyle.  It is strange even to me to admit that, as a lifelong avid bookworm who read practically everything that wasn't nailed down that I didn't fall immediately into obsession with Sherlock Holmes upon first 'meeting' him via Hound and the Adventures in my middle school library, aged about 12.  I liked Hound and read the whole thing, and have an indelible memory of The Speckled Band, but at that time in my life, I didn't have further interest in reading on about the exploits of two Victorian gentlemen sitting around smoking pipes and drinking brandy.  Holmes and Watson did a lot more than that, but as a pre-teen girl I preferred reading about animals and stories featuring contemporary kids my age.  Even then, apart from dog stories, mysteries were my first choice in reading but I didn't find the Holmes stories particularly suspenseful.  I still don't think suspense was Conan Doyle's strong suit but I have come to appreciate other features of his style.

Many years went by, and SH remained as an iconic image in the back of my mind, even without reading the original stories in full.   It is impossible to work in a library environment and not bump into the Great Detective in some form or other.  He adorns the genre stickers denoting our 'Mystery' fiction, for example . .and there have been so many rip-offs homages of/to him for all age groups.  In just about every library under the sun, one will find Sherlock Holmes shelved in the juvenile section, and, if one is lucky, he's down in the adult stacks as well.  For such an unabashed adult character with his high-level vocabulary and decidedly adult habits, Sherlock would seem to be an odd fit for the children's section--children's, not middle or high school.  We've got other classic literature titles by Conan Doyle's contemporaries in the kids' area like Treasure Island or Kim which are adventures featuring Victorian language and some bad adult behavior, but their chief protagonist is a child/young person.  Apart from some drive-bys by the Irregulars, the Holmes stories do not contain any children . . and a child protagonist(s) is one of the trademarks of children's books.  SH is a draw unto himself, and in my travels since in Sherlockiana, I have come to learn that just about *everyone* who calls him/herself a Sherlockian read him very early on and never stopped.  For a normally prodigious reader, I came to Sherlock Holmes quite late.  Sherlockians may  not be 'born' but they are made very early--10 years of age seems to be the average.  Guy Ritchie was 8 years old.  Makes me feel like a slacker, to be honest.

Then came 2011 and the game was afoot on the BBC.  In the end, what made me take the leap from Cumberfandom to the literary page was nothing high-toned at all:  My television died, and with it, my only DVD portal.  Fortunately, before that happened, I was able to view the entire Jeremy Brett series . . but when the screen went dark in my Wi-Fi-less abode, the only entertainment left to me was reading.  (I do have electricity, so I was not forced to read the Canon by candlelight.)  The other spur to my Holmes scholarship was some goading by a cyber-acquaintance who fancied himself a real Holmes expert and derided me for my paucity of knowledge.  He had enjoyed the BBC show for the first season but not thereafter, and made no bones about that.  I wasn't going to stand for being dismissed as a frivolous fangirl and so I took on his challenge to read the entire Canon.  I feel confident that I could go toe-to-toe with him in a pub quiz challenge now.  (Mischief Girl and Cavardossi will know who I am referring to.)

So, it took a busted TV and a dare to turn me into a Holmes scholar.  I wouldn't trade in those 14 TV-DVD-free months though because they brought me inestimable riches in the form of being continually delighted and occasionally frustrated by the brainchild of Sir Arthur.  I've met some others in this merry, rather off-kilter band of Sherlock Holmes disciples and really, I'm just a dilettante compared to them.  When I start wearing my deerstalker year-round, then I will know that I've reached the point of no return.  :)

I would encourage everybody to give Sherlock Holmes a go on the page.  You don't have to wait until your TV dies, either.  BBC Sherlock is to Sherlock Holmes like a Big Mac is to a filet minon.  Big Macs are tasty, and derived from the same basic ingredient, and they hit the spot when one is in the mood for them, but when one craves a grown-up meal that will take more time to chew and be more sustaining over time, the stories are where it's at/

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't know if I can answer your question because it doesn't really apply to me... I like the Doyle stories. Certainly don't consider them to be of high literary value, but like them. 

I received a paperback copy of "The Hound of the Baskervilles" for my 13th birthday and fell absolutely in love with Holmes. I proceeded to read most of the short stories and two of the other novels during my teens, the rest later as an adult.

I was never interested in watching any TV or movie adaptation before BBC Sherlock because I had a very specific image of Mr Holmes in my mind and I felt that seeing him portrayed differently would be a jarring experience. I didn't want to watch the BBC adaptation at first either, my (now) husband convinced me because it had Martin Freeman in it whose performance I had very much enjoyed in "The Office". He said it was a modern series inspired by the works of Doyle rather than an adaptation so I gave in and, well, I fell in love again but harder and became totally obsessed with the show. 

I think my husband kind of regrets ever having talked me into watching it... :D

 

  • Like 2
  • Haha 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Before I fell into that bottomless pit of the Sherlock fandom I actually knew only that Sherlock Holmes existed, was a super detective and was written by ACD. I never had any interest in detective stories, and even managed not to watch RDJ's version.

I only got to watch the show because it was mentioned in the DVD BHTS stuff from Hobbit. So as it surfaced on German TV, it tickled my curiosity. The rest is… you know.

Someone said that there is a certain age for certain stories and if you miss it you will never find those stories appealing. It's probably the case with me, because the only joy I have in fighting my way through the canon, is finding the bits used in the show.

For me it's Mofftiss' versions of the characters that attract me.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, Carol the Dabbler said:

A perfectly legitimate question, Herlock -- though you might want to reword the thread's title, 'cause I thought you meant what's wrong with the character.  Maybe Why don't you read the original stories, or something like that.  (As the creator of the thread, you can edit the title at any time.  Just click the Edit button on the first post and you'll have access to the title.)

Anyhow, my pre-BBC-Sherlock experience with the Holmes-verse consisted primarily of the Brett series, which I had watched on PBS but had never bought in any home-video format.  I liked the show very much and was always excited to see there were more on the way, but I was never what I would call a fan.  (At that point I had been an active fan of only one show, namely the original Star Trek, and I didn't expect lightning to strike twice.)

I had undoubtedly seen several of the Rathbone-Bruce movies, since my father was very fond of them (until he too discovered the Brett series).  And of course I was aware that all of the above was based on stories by one Arthur Conan Doyle, but I don't believe I had ever read any of them.  I was an avid reader, but in those days it was mostly non-fiction and a few fiction series, mostly mysteries (Lord Peter Wimsey and Nero Wolfe).  I had nothing against the Holmes stories, just had never gotten around to them.

I watched Study in Pink only because I was at a friend's house and she turned on the television.  I had in fact never heard of the show until about thirty seconds before it started.  I immediately took to it and intentionally watched the other two episodes.

Alex and I heard there would be a second series and read the Conan Doyle stories that they were (obviously, even to us) based on.  We were so eager to see the new episodes that we ordered the Region 2 DVD from the UK (and watched the show in February instead of waiting till PBS aired it in.May).  That was when I became an active fan.  I think it was watching Reichenbach that did it. I wanted to discuss it with other fans, and Google brought me here.

Since then I have read most of the original stories and enjoyed them, but I still would not consider myself hooked.  Sorry for the verbiage. I hope that answers your question at least!

Thanks for that Carol👍

‘Of course we cant all like the same things or become as keen as I am but it’s good to find out other opinions. At least you didn’t say the Doyle stories were terrible. 

I love Star Trek too by the way. I always felt that Spock and Kirk were Holmes split into two people😃

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Hikari said:

Well, Herl, your provocative title works as clickbait because it was the first thing that caught my eye this morning.  :)

I will put my hand up as someone who got hooked on BBC Sherlock and BC's creation of a 21st century Holmes, and then found the show as a springboard into delving into the literary characters as created by Sir Arthur Conan Doyle.  It is strange even to me to admit that, as a lifelong avid bookworm who read practically everything that wasn't nailed down that I didn't fall immediately into obsession with Sherlock Holmes upon first 'meeting' him via Hound and the Adventures in my middle school library, aged about 12.  I liked Hound and read the whole thing, and have an indelible memory of The Speckled Band, but at that time in my life, I didn't have further interest in reading on about the exploits of two Victorian gentlemen sitting around smoking pipes and drinking brandy.  Holmes and Watson did a lot more than that, but as a pre-teen girl I preferred reading about animals and stories featuring contemporary kids my age.  Even then, apart from dog stories, mysteries were my first choice in reading but I didn't find the Holmes stories particularly suspenseful.  I still don't think suspense was Conan Doyle's strong suit but I have come to appreciate other features of his style.

Many years went by, and SH remained as an iconic image in the back of my mind, even without reading the original stories in full.   It is impossible to work in a library environment and not bump into the Great Detective in some form or other.  He adorns the genre stickers denoting our 'Mystery' fiction, for example . .and there have been so many rip-offs homages of/to him for all age groups.  In just about every library under the sun, one will find Sherlock Holmes shelved in the juvenile section, and, if one is lucky, he's down in the adult stacks as well.  For such an unabashed adult character with his high-level vocabulary and decidedly adult habits, Sherlock would seem to be an odd fit for the children's section--children's, not middle or high school.  We've got other classic literature titles by Conan Doyle's contemporaries in the kids' area like Treasure Island or Kim which are adventures featuring Victorian language and some bad adult behavior, but their chief protagonist is a child/young person.  Apart from some drive-bys by the Irregulars, the Holmes stories do not contain any children . . and a child protagonist(s) is one of the trademarks of children's books.  SH is a draw unto himself, and in my travels since in Sherlockiana, I have come to learn that just about *everyone* who calls him/herself a Sherlockian read him very early on and never stopped.  For a normally prodigious reader, I came to Sherlock Holmes quite late.  Sherlockians may  not be 'born' but they are made very early--10 years of age seems to be the average.  Guy Ritchie was 8 years old.  Makes me feel like a slacker, to be honest.

Then came 2011 and the game was afoot on the BBC.  In the end, what made me take the leap from Cumberfandom to the literary page was nothing high-toned at all:  My television died, and with it, my only DVD portal.  Fortunately, before that happened, I was able to view the entire Jeremy Brett series . . but when the screen went dark in my Wi-Fi-less abode, the only entertainment left to me was reading.  (I do have electricity, so I was not forced to read the Canon by candlelight.)  The other spur to my Holmes scholarship was some goading by a cyber-acquaintance who fancied himself a real Holmes expert and derided me for my paucity of knowledge.  He had enjoyed the BBC show for the first season but not thereafter, and made no bones about that.  I wasn't going to stand for being dismissed as a frivolous fangirl and so I took on his challenge to read the entire Canon.  I feel confident that I could go toe-to-toe with him in a pub quiz challenge now.  (Mischief Girl and Cavardossi will know who I am referring to.)

So, it took a busted TV and a dare to turn me into a Holmes scholar.  I wouldn't trade in those 14 TV-DVD-free months though because they brought me inestimable riches in the form of being continually delighted and occasionally frustrated by the brainchild of Sir Arthur.  I've met some others in this merry, rather off-kilter band of Sherlock Holmes disciples and really, I'm just a dilettante compared to them.  When I start wearing my deerstalker year-round, then I will know that I've reached the point of no return.  :)

I would encourage everybody to give Sherlock Holmes a go on the page.  You don't have to wait until your TV dies, either.  BBC Sherlock is to Sherlock Holmes like a Big Mac is to a filet minon.  Big Macs are tasty, and derived from the same basic ingredient, and they hit the spot when one is in the mood for them, but when one craves a grown-up meal that will take more time to chew and be more sustaining over time, the stories are where it's at/

Whatever route that you took and whatever unfortunate technological twists of fate occurred you got there in the end Hikari. Your knowledge is even more impressive considering that you only read the Canon for the first time 7 years ago. I can picture you in fingerless gloves, huddled over a candle , reading Holmes whilst tucking into a bowl of gruel.😃 I’ve had hardships myself of course. Last week my butler took 2 days off! You and I may be the only ones who agree with your ‘filet mignon’ analogy though👍

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, T.o.b.y said:

I don't know if I can answer your question because it doesn't really apply to me... I like the Doyle stories. Certainly don't consider them to be of high literary value, but like them. 

I received a paperback copy of "The Hound of the Baskervilles" for my 13th birthday and fell absolutely in love with Holmes. I proceeded to read most of the short stories and two of the other novels during my teens, the rest later as an adult.

I was never interested in watching any TV or movie adaptation before BBC Sherlock because I had a very specific image of Mr Holmes in my mind and I felt that seeing him portrayed differently would be a jarring experience. I didn't want to watch the BBC adaptation at first either, my (now) husband convinced me because it had Martin Freeman in it whose performance I had very much enjoyed in "The Office". He said it was a modern series inspired by the works of Doyle rather than an adaptation so I gave in and, well, I fell in love again but harder and became totally obsessed with the show. 

I think my husband kind of regrets ever having talked me into watching it... :D

 

Thanks for the reply T.o.b.y

its an interesting point that you made about getting a fixed idea of Holmes from reading The Canon then being concerned about seeing different portrayals. Personally I love watching different versions even though there a few awful ones.

i don’t mind you saying that you don’t consider them of high literary value at all but.......

‘I do think that we have to give credit for creating the most enduring and popular character in all of literature👍

Personally I think the stories are a work of inestimable genius. Some might say that I’m slightly biased though😃

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, J.P. said:

Before I fell into that bottomless pit of the Sherlock fandom I actually knew only that Sherlock Holmes existed, was a super detective and was written by ACD. I never had any interest in detective stories, and even managed not to watch RDJ's version.

I only got to watch the show because it was mentioned in the DVD BHTS stuff from Hobbit. So as it surfaced on German TV, it tickled my curiosity. The rest is… you know.

Someone said that there is a certain age for certain stories and if you miss it you will never find those stories appealing. It's probably the case with me, because the only joy I have in fighting my way through the canon, is finding the bits used in the show.

For me it's Mofftiss' versions of the characters that attract me.

Thanks for that J.P.

You just never got bitten by the bug👍 

It could be true that if you had read the Canon when you were younger you ‘may’ have been interested but then again you may not have. I guess that they just don’t resonate with all and that can be said about any piece of literature, tv show or movie franchise.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As you would all probably expect I read the Doyle stories as a teenager after seeing the Rathbone/Bruce movies. As soon as I finished them I went back to A Study In Scarlet and read them again so I guess that you could say that I was hooked. My love for them never left me but I then became interested in The Whitechapel Murders and the search for the identity of Jack The Ripper and so Holmes took a bit of a back seat except for when Holmes crossed swords with the Ripper in fiction. Later on my interest began to grow again after reading  “Sherlock Holmes Of Baker Street: by William Baring-Gould which is a biography of Sherlock Holmes. This got me interested in the idea of Holmes being a real person. I found myself collecting which can be an expensive disease even if you avoid the big money items (which I do.) I got a book about Holmes in the movies and on tv and set myself the task of getting everything that I could. I have most things that are available from silent movies to foreign versions to cartoons (yes, I will be getting Sherlock Gnomes eventually.) Postcards, autographs, film posters it goes on and on. And all from one story written in 1886 by a struggling doctor and writer in Southsea, England (a place that I visited recently just to see a blue plaque!)

Im also grateful to Moftiss for creating this great series and bringing people together that otherwise would never have met. It allows me to be able to come online and tell people on here that they’re not pronouncing ‘tomato’ correctly😃

whether modern or traditional we know that the game is still afoot. 

I can hear footsteps on the stairs. I think that Mrs Hudson is bringing up a client......

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, HerlockSholmes said:

I always felt that Spock and Kirk were Holmes split into two people.

Me too!  Well, sort of.  Not canon Holmes in my case, but when comparing BBC Sherlock and John to characters from the original Trek (or the reboot), here's what I get:

Sherlock: Spock's logic: Kirk's occasional smart-ass attitude.

John: Kirk's military background and readiness to fight for the underdog; McCoy's medical background and sympathetic bedside manner.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Carol the Dabbler said:

Me too!  Well, sort of.  Not canon Holmes in my case, but when comparing BBC Sherlock and John to characters from the original Trek (or the reboot), here's what I get:

Sherlock: Spock's logic: Kirk's occasional smart-ass attitude.

John: Kirk's military background and readiness to fight for the underdog; McCoy's medical background and sympathetic bedside manner.

I think you’ve got that just about right Carol👍

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
50 minutes ago, HerlockSholmes said:

Whatever route that you took and whatever unfortunate technological twists of fate occurred you got there in the end Hikari. Your knowledge is even more impressive considering that you only read the Canon for the first time 7 years ago. I can picture you in fingerless gloves, huddled over a candle , reading Holmes whilst tucking into a bowl of gruel.😃 I’ve had hardships myself of course. Last week my butler took 2 days off! You and I may be the only ones who agree with your ‘filet mignon’ analogy though👍

You may have misunderstood me or perhaps you were paying me the compliment of saying I can't be over 21?  :)  I was 12 or 13 when I first encountered the Great Detective in print (The Great Mouse Detective doesn't count, I don't think.)  My full acquaintance with Mr. Holmes is a lot more recent.  My TV puked sometime around Valentine's Day last year (one remembers the tragedies of one's life with more precision than the happy moments, I find . .), so this towering example of Sherlockian erudition you see before you today was compiled commencing in March 2017 til now.  At the time of the commencement I was . . somewhere over 30 . .like over the rainbow over.

Bet that's even more impressive, huh?  When my little fancies strike me, they tend to take over and I really hit them hard, until I'm onto the next fad.  But SH isn't a fad; he's here in the Mind Palace to stay.  I've even considered taking up the violin in his honor.   

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, Carol the Dabbler said:

Me too!  Well, sort of.  Not canon Holmes in my case, but when comparing BBC Sherlock and John to characters from the original Trek (or the reboot), here's what I get:

Sherlock: Spock's logic: Kirk's occasional smart-ass attitude.

John: Kirk's military background and readiness to fight for the underdog; McCoy's medical background and sympathetic bedside manner.

One could also make the case that Bones and Kirk also split the salient features of Dr. Watson into two people.

Kirk, for the warm, personable Extraverted people skills, and the eye for the ladies, along with his human frailties like impulsivity, temper and .. eye for the ladies. 

McCoy, for the medical knowledge and the unfortunate luck in marriage.   Bones's sense of sarcastic humor is closer to Holmes's, though.  He's pretty good at loyalty.

I've always figured that Bones and Spock don't get along so well because they are both competing for the slot of #1 Bestie to the charismatic Captain.  Bones resents Spock a bit because he, Bones, was friends with Jim first, and he can't compete with the whole brain quandrant thing.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm starting to think the forum has it in for me, this is the second time tonight I've discovered that a post of mine has disappeared. I spent a lot of time laboring over my reply, too. 3-4 minutes, at least! Phooey.

Well, I shall try to remember what I said, which was something along the lines of … my experience is pretty close to Carol's, except that I had a long fling with anime in between Star Trek and Sherlock. And I guess I've always liked Holmes … I remember looking forward to watching the Rathbone movies on TV when I was a kid, and I loved the first few seasons of the Brett series. And I've seen and enjoyed tons of other adaptations. But I don't remember going stark raving bonkers over any of them the way I did when Benedict Cumberbatch whipped that damned scarf off his neck in Scandal in Belgravia.  :drool: Why this series hit me as hard as it did I have no idea, but there it is … I was hooked.

As to the books … I'm fairly sure I read (or tried to read) a couple of the short stories when I was a kid, probably when I was too young to really grasp the Victorian prose. And I've read a couple of the novels and a fair smattering of the short stories since falling down the rabbit hole. But they don't grip me. It's more like research than pleasure reading, I'm afraid.

To be honest, I've never been much of a mystery fan. I've always been more of a fantasy/sci fi type of gal, and in my mind "Sherlock" fits far more into that category than it does into the mystery/detective genre. And I identify with the character as played by Cumberbatch in a way that I haven't with any other portrayals.

So it's not that I dislike the books, or other adaptations, or whatever … I just like "Sherlock" more, in a more special way. That's all.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think it's very true that there's a critical age or life stage for "meeting" fictional characters for the first time so that you'll get the most out of the experience and form a lasting attachment. Sherlock Holmes came into my life at a time when I was just old enough to appreciate a murder mystery but still enough of a child to be scared of monsters. Not that I believed in them, really, but I had an overactive imagination and was (am) a very fearful person anyway. Holmes sailed in and brought light and reason, but he also took my fears seriously, so to speak. He advocated courage, thus acknowledging that courage was necessary. And the Hound may not have been a supernatural phenomenon but the villain that created it was real and did have to be stopped. It was just a perfect story for coming out of childhood and discovering the big bad world without being too discouraging. 

Then later, when I first saw the BBC series, I was in my 20s, not much younger than pilot Sherlock, trying to find my direction in life, and the updated Sherlock Holmes really fit my updated person. 

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I suppose that luck could enter into it as it could for anything. If your first experience of reading a Holmes story was one that you weren’t too keen on then you would be unlikely to explore further. If fate had led you to begin with a different story instead and it turned out to be one that you really liked it might have led you to explore more?

Additionally of course someone in their twenties might be more likely to identify with a modern young Benedict than a middle-aged, Victorian Brett. 

Something has to ‘grab’ us from the start to have a chance of becoming a lasting interest unless of course you dismiss initially then revisit by chance at a later date.

You mention The Hound T.o.b.y. This was the first Holmes that I saw on tv (with Rathbone and Bruce) and one of the attractions was that it was a bit like being allowed to watch a scary horror movie for the first time. Perhaps I saw it as a sign that I was no longer a child (even though I was.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've often wondered if I had encountered Lord of the Rings as an adult, instead of as a child, if I would have had the passion for it that I do. I've gone back and read some of my other childhood favorites and wondered why I thought they were so great; Wind in the Willows comes to mind. But there's others that I love just as much now as I did then, so who knows? I used to wish I could (selectively) lose my memory so I could encounter LOTR again for the first time, but as a young adult so I could appreciate the subtleties more. But who knows if I actually would?

Anyway, I bring that in because I suspect I feel the way about LOTR that some of you feel for ACD Holmes. And I enjoy the filmed versions, but nothing will ever transcend the written one, for me. So I get where you're coming from Herl, even if my passion is directed elsewhere. 

The biggest difference between BBC Sherlock and all my other passions is this is the first time I've really made a connection with "the fandom." I did a little bit with anime, but that was pre-internet and I'm an introvert, so it didn't go very far. A couple conventions and some newsletter typing. And frankly, compared to some people I suspect I'm not that deep into the Sherlock fandom. I don't make memes for example (how do those people find the time!!!!!!!) So there's a little more sense of comradeship, but I'll bet if I compared my love for Sherlock to, say, my love for Captain Harlock, the degree of affection probably isn't that different. I just have more opportunity to indulge now, due to the internet. Not sure if that's a blessing or a curse …. I do spend a fair amount of time here … :rolleyes:

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, Arcadia said:

I've often wondered if I had encountered Lord of the Rings as an adult, instead of as a child, if I would have had the passion for it that I do. I've gone back and read some of my other childhood favorites and wondered why I thought they were so great; Wind in the Willows comes to mind. But there's others that I love just as much now as I did then, so who knows? I used to wish I could (selectively) lose my memory so I could encounter LOTR again for the first time, but as a young adult so I could appreciate the subtleties more. But who knows if I actually would?

Anyway, I bring that in because I suspect I feel the way about LOTR that some of you feel for ACD Holmes. And I enjoy the filmed versions, but nothing will ever transcend the written one, for me. So I get where you're coming from Herl, even if my passion is directed elsewhere. 

The biggest difference between BBC Sherlock and all my other passions is this is the first time I've really made a connection with "the fandom." I did a little bit with anime, but that was pre-internet and I'm an introvert, so it didn't go very far. A couple conventions and some newsletter typing. And frankly, compared to some people I suspect I'm not that deep into the Sherlock fandom. I don't make memes for example (how do those people find the time!!!!!!!) So there's a little more sense of comradeship, but I'll bet if I compared my love for Sherlock to, say, my love for Captain Harlock, the degree of affection probably isn't that different. I just have more opportunity to indulge now, due to the internet. Not sure if that's a blessing or a curse …. I do spend a fair amount of time here … :rolleyes:

Its an interesting point Arcadia. I also read The Lord Of The Rings (followed by The Hobbit) as a teenager and loved it immediately (as I still do.) For many of my younger years, as far as reading went, it was Sci-fi and fantasy which I came to via TLOTR. Through Tolkien I came to Moorcock who was a particular favourite. I no longer read sci-fi or fantasy but every few years I re-read TLOTR and its never a chore. I’m perhaps due another read but there is so much on my ‘to read’ list.

There are many suggestions as to why Holmes has resonated so deeply over the years. The element of ‘boys own’ adventure, The hansom rides through gaslit streets. The characters of course. But mainly, I think, it’s because deep down we would all love to be cleverer than everyone else. So brilliant that we never had any doubts that we were correct. So brilliant that the police relied on us to solve their difficult cases for them. And we love a hero 0f course. Most of us have them.....they just don’t all exist.......not that I’d suggest that Holmes never existed of course.👍

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/10/2018 at 6:14 PM, HerlockSholmes said:

Hi all.

This is just for my own curiosity and isn’t meant as a comment on other posters taste and it’s certainly not a criticism.

The vast majority of posters on here are primarily Sherlock fans (understandably as its a Sherlock Forum👍) There are probably only Hikari and myself who (whilst both loving Sherlock) are primarily fans of Doyle’s original Holmes. So my questions for posters are:

Have you read the Canon stories and just didn’t like them or equally didn’t like other movie, tv and radio versions of Sherlock Holmes?

Did you read them and just think they were ok but not really worth bothering with?

Or have you just never really gotten around to looking into them (busy life etc.)

Again, this is just me being curious🙂

 

I have read A Study in Scarlet and liked it OK.  I read it only after watching the first 3 seasons.  It obviously didn't grab my attention enough to entice me to keep reading the other stories, but I didn't dislike it.  I may take a stab at all of the stories at some point.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sitty!  You're back!!!  :welcome:

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi @Carol the Dabbler  !!  I'm going to try to be around more.  So far Sherlock is my only TV show/fandom to not disappoint me this year.  😆

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So there's the positive side of hiatus!  :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If a ‘hiatus’ was good enough for Holmes......😃

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

  • Who's Online   0 Members, 0 Anonymous, 4 Guests (See full list)

    There are no registered users currently online

×

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of UseWe have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.Privacy PolicyGuidelines.