Carol the Dabbler

Hmm, so it does. Now that he's looking the part of a no-longer-juvenile Sherlock, maybe it's time for Messrs. Moffat and Gatiss to present him and Martin Freeman with some motivation (which is to say, story ideas) to do more Sherlock.

Thanks, BBally! My first thought was "but didn't they already do that?" I mean, I've got the DVD -- but even though that apparently wasn't available till 2005, the movie was released in 1985 -- almost 40 years ago. So I guess they figure it's time for a remake.

Hello, Sherlock fan 223 -- and welcome to Sherlock Forum! If you've posted something, but then you don't see your post, don't worry. It's just that any new member's first few posts aren't visible until they've been approved by a staff member, which may take anywhere from a few minutes to a day or two. So there's no need to re-post. If your post still hasn't shown up after a couple of days, click the Contact Us link at the bottom of any page, and let us know what's going on. I like all of them (in some cases, it's "love to hate," of course), but my favorite has generally been John Watson. Well, Sherlock isn't an ordinary person, that's for sure! Various people have various theories, so I'm interested to know why you think he may have adhd or schizophrenia.

Thanks, J.P. -- I agree, nothing to hyperventilate about just yet. But it's a good sign that they (cast AND crew) keep making these noises, that nobody's saying it's over. They kinda need to see a story outline or three, Sue -- maybe a judiciously timed hint to your hubby would help? As that article mentioned, Mark Gatiss has talked about maybe doing a movie. While it'd be a kick to see Sherlock on the big screen, I suspect it just wouldn't be the same. They're used to doing it for the small screen, and we're used to seeing it there. Some things just don't translate well, and I'd hate to have proof that Sherlock is one of them. (Even worse, one failure would presumably kill the franchise.)

Hi there, Faline, and welcome to Sherlock Forum! You've come to the right place! The forum isn't nearly as lively as it was when there were new episodes every year or two, so you may need to be a bit patient while waiting for replies to your posts. But please feel free to reply to any threads that interest you and/or to create new threads. Not at all! Some of us do, some of us don't, and some are rather casual shippers. I'm partial to Molly Hooper / Greg Lestrade, but don't mind if other people are not. Welcome to the club! Some people loved all the episodes, but many of us became more and more disappointed as the show went on (sometimes to the point that they refused to watch the rest of the episodes). I personally loved series 1 and 2, but was less and less enthusiastic about the rest (though I did think The Abominable Bride was pretty cool). My theory is that the show's creators/producers/writers (Steven Moffat and Mark "Mycroft" Gatiss) tend to get bored after doing the same thing for a while, so they made the show more "interesting" and then went on to other things. However they were both huge Holmes fans as boys, so I suspect they'll be back eventually, and they've said that their Sherlock and John would become closer to Arthur Conan Doyle's original characters as they age. You're doing fine. But if you have any questions, feel free to post them (either on this thread or in the Help & Assistance subforum).

Hi, Sophie, and welcome to Sherlock Forum! Then you were born right around the time that Sherlock was first broadcast -- cool! When the show was first broadcast here in the US, I had never even heard of it, but sort of accidentally saw "Study in Pink" at a friend's house. We were immediately impressed and kept watching as each new episode came out. It was "Reichenbach Fall" that *really* hooked me, so that I went looking for a discussion forum and found this one. It'll presumably be along one of these years! I know some people have given up, but the co-creators (Steven Moffat and Mark "Mycroft" Gatiss) have been Holmes fans since they were boys. They seem to get bored after a while and need a change of pace, but sooner or later they'll get the Sherlock itch again. Well, Sherlock is apparently aromantic too, so you're a perfect match! As Caya mentioned, please feel free to post on any threads (old or new) that interest you. And/or start some new threads.

Cute, and you're right, that would presumably have been approved by the BBC censors -- though they would have had to modify that punch line for the American broadcast. (It's been OK to say "crap" on American broadcast TV for twenty-some years, but as far as I know "shit" is still forbidden.) I think there was one instance in I-don't-recall-which Sherlock episode where John exclaims "Shit!" -- clearly designed so that the entire scene could be omitted without harming the plot -- but that was in an early season, #2 I think, when the US broadcast was shorter than the UK one. In season 4, when the US broadcast included the entire thing, there were several instances where they simply muted the dialog for certain individual words.

And so I did, and I agree with you. It seems like a possible set-up for a story, but then it just draws to a close. Watson DID warn us, though, at the beginning of the story: ... meaning, apparently, no actual detective work.

I've read only one novel-length pastiche, namely The House of Silk by Anthony Horowitz. Even though it was very well written, and was apparently the first non-ACD Holmes story to be authorized by the Estate, I didn't care for it, mostly (I think) because what's at the heart of the plot is (as with drug addiction and mental illness in the Meyer novel) a very serious and worrisome matter, which could make for a good real-life exposé but doesn't strike me as suitable for entertainment purposes. This leads me to wonder: Did the subject matter of Scandal in Bohemia seem sensationalistic to the typical reader in its day? If so, then were Meyer and Horowitz basically meaning to create modern-day equivalents to the impact of the original Holmes stories?

Thanks for asking, Oudis -- it's been a while since this matter was discussed, and things may have changed in the interim. There's an existing thread [here] that covers this matter, but your best bet in this situation is probably to hot-link directly to the Amazon page. "Hot-link" means that the image will look like it's in your post on this forum, but it's actually still on the original site, with the forum providing a "window" to look at it. Note that It's traditionally considered impolite to hot-link to a small and/or non-commercial site, but when you're basically helping to advertise a large commercial site, it's generally fine. So you would simply right-click on the image you're wanting to use, select "Copy Image Link" (or your browser's equivalent) from the drop-down menu, then go to the spot in your post where you want the image to appear and "paste" (Ctrl/V). This will generally result in a thumbnail version of the image, which will temporarily enlarge to full size whenever someone clicks on it. If you have any further questions or that doesn't work for you, please post your difficulties here.

Hi, Oudis -- will get back to you on this thread fairly soon, but meanwhile have sent you a Private Message. Click on the envelope icon (which should currently have a small number superimposed on it, meaning how many PMs you have not yet opened) at the top-right of any forum page to see a drop-down list of all your current PMs, then click on the one you want to read.

Well, he wasn't putting much effort into it anyway! But there's nevertheless a good bit of continuity to the stories -- if there weren't, nobody would bother figuring out the best way to interpret things and/or writing "fix it" stories. I shall have to check that out, then! Even though it is, alas, not what "really" happened, since Doyle didn't write it. I'm not a big one for pastiches. I'll read the occasional fanfic online, and maybe check out some items from the library, but if it's not "the real Doyle," I don't generally spend money on it. The exception would be stories that don't even pretend to be canon, such as the Enola Holmes series and the Mary Russell series (though in my opinion the latter wanders off into "who cares" territory after a few volumes). Well, I could read it in my big fat annotated edition, just to see what I think. But I'd probably rather look for a good-quality trade paperback of just The Casebook. Then I'd have the whole canon in an easy-to-read format. Thanks for pointing that out! And perhaps by that time Irene had died. I suspect that if she were still living, Watson would not have named her (perhaps calling her simply "the woman").

I would love to read Watson's account of that case!!! I don't offhand recall "The Veiled Lodger." It's said to be in The Casebooks collection, which I don't see on my Holmes shelf. Apparently that volume of the BBC Books series was never published. The seven that I do have (Study, Sign, Hound, Adventures, Memoirs, Return, and Last Bow) are very good quality 5" x 8" (12.6 x 19.7 cm) trade paperbacks, sturdy and easy on the eyes. Apparently they didn't publish The Valley of Fear either, which explains why I have that from a different publisher (and not as nice a quality).

. Hmm, hadn't thought of that -- you may well be right. And Watson was never portrayed as perfect anyhow, so ACD's oversight was also quite understandable in-universe. If we assume that the "hereditary king" was not Franz Joseph, but rather someone else with a claim to the throne, then the story is believable just as told. But on further thought, it occurs to me that Watson tended to obscure the identities only of people he considered innocent or justified in their behavior (e.g., the anonymous woman who shot Milverton, but not Milverton himself). Even though he clearly didn't approve of Miss Adler (referring to her as "the late Irene Adler, of dubious and questionable memory"), he nevertheless waited to tell the tale until she was "the late," presumably out of respect for Holmes's admiration for her. Neither he nor Holmes had much respect for the King, however! So perhaps he felt justified in spilling the royal beans. It probably didn't do the King any great harm in any case, since his marriage with the Scandinavian princess was presumably well established by then, and the incriminating photograph was nowhere to be found, so he could easily claim that Watson's story was mere fabrication. As a real-world explanation, you may be quite correct. But for an in-universe explanation, I like this one even better.

You're quite welcome, Oudis! Well, we don't like people coming here to hawk their own wares unless they're clearly Sherlock Holmes related, and are reasonably priced (all of which is a judgement call, of course). But linking to information regarding what someone else is selling is OK, since it's often the best way to convey information on what's available. Of course we now know that's self-contradictory -- assuming that the Hainey and Tracy collections are legit. And if the estate is actually holding some stuff back as Tracy says, then nothing currently available is complete. Yes, I understand those tactile sensations, and the longevity factor as well. I much prefer either hardbound books or trade paperbacks. (For those not familiar with the latter term, they have the same insides as hardbacks -- page size, paper quality, print quality, the way the pages are fastened together -- but with a fairly sturdy paper cover. They tend to be nearly as durable as hardbacks but the price is often considerably lower.) If a book is available only as a cheap little mass-market paperback, I may buy it, but I'll stay on the lookout for a better-quality edition. In some instances, yes. But I've sometimes been disappointed with annotated editions even when I was looking for annotations. The Holmes stories were written long enough ago that daily life has changed, and the English language along with it. As you say, "the culture itself is gone; that’s why an annotated version might be a good idea." So I was hoping that the annotated Holmes I inherited from my father would explain some puzzling terminology -- but no. It's focussed almost entirely on interpretation of the stories (e.g., what year they took place). We may well still hear from some of our Holmes experts regarding all of the above, so please stay tuned!