Canon References In BBC Sherlock

[Bakerstreet Irregular]

I read an interesting statement in a book by a mystery writer, Rita May Brown. She has been writing books for years. Not all mysteries. But to get to the point, the comment she made that even justice is a form of revenge. I thought that quite interesting.

 

And yes, Magnussen poised a clear and present threat, at least from where I stand on the issue.

[T.o.b.y]

Does anybody know whether there is a case that "The Bloody Guardsman" is (or could be) based on? Because that one seemed so Doyle-ish, but I can't think of anything...

[softmachine]

^

I don't *think* so (but Watson made so many references to unrecorded cases i'm sure there's a few that have slipped me by!)

 

I will try to look through some of my reference books soon and see if I can find something....

[Arcadia]

 

Actually, if Sherlock's motive had been revenge I might have found his action easier to accept, for some reason. Not sure, haven't thought it thru, and probably doesn't make sense; but that was my first thought. As it is his actions are based on what might happen, Minority Report style.

But isn't it revenge to some extent?  Magnussen had already (in effect) killed Lord Smallwood, which must have been especially galling to Sherlock, since Lady Smallwood had hired him to protect her husband.  But Sherlock hates CAM even before Smallwood's death, and we're never told specifically why, but clearly there had been prior victims as well.  So there's all of that, plus the threat that he gleefully poses to Mary and John.

 

I think it's more than revenge. If it was only that, I wouldn't like it. Shooting Magnussen was a solution to an actual problem, how to stop this creep from manipulating entire governments to do his bidding. He posed a threat to more than a few individuals, and killing him was an effective way of putting a stop to that danger.

I read an interesting statement in a book by a mystery writer, Rita May Brown. She has been writing books for years. Not all mysteries. But to get to the point, the comment she made that even justice is a form of revenge. I thought that quite interesting.

Well, as usual with HLV, there's no hard evidence to support anything, and in this case in particular I confess to purely a gut reaction. Which is: no, I don't see revenge. Revenge to me implies retaliating, in kind, to an offense. To my knowledge CAM didn't shoot anyone in the head.

 

I do see vengeance, however, which is more like administering punishment for an offense -- which to my mind might be worse, because the punishment might exceed the offense. But if you believe vengeance is a synonym for justice (I don't), then yeah, justice could be a form of vengeance. (But revenge? Hm.)

 

I sort of thought that was the point of our judicial system; to prevent individuals from exacting whatever form of vengeance they see fit, and instead have a dispassionate state administer justice according to law. The judicial system doesn't operate perfectly, of course, but I, simply by nature, prefer it to the alternative. But I understand how the alternative can also seem like justice. I'm just uncomfortable that the entertainment media seems to laud vengeance by having our heroes carry it out, especially with no consequences. Which I think is what will happen in Sherlock; there will be no consequences for our hero beyond a few days thinking he was being sent to his death. Which, actually, could be a form of punishment, but not one, I suspect, most people would consider equal to the crime.

 

Was CAM a threat to the world's safety/autonomy/whatever? HLV never made the case that he was, imo. He was grotesque and disgusting, yes, but a global threat? I just didn't feel that in my bones. To me, it felt entirely personal; a threat to Sherlock's family, but not beyond.

 

But let's say I concede CAM was a threat to the world. I also concede that ISIS is a threat to the world. But does that mean it's okay for my next door neighbor to shoot HIS next door neighbor because that guy sends money to ISIS? Personally, I would prefer that my neighbor leave it to the authorities to deal with. And if the authorities can't or won't act, that's a shame, but at least my neighbor hasn't descended to the level of ISIS. And if my neighbor DOES descend to the level of ISIS (taking vengeance for real or perceived slights), then I would prefer not to descend with him by condoning his actions. I suppose that makes me rather sanctimonious, but I don't, I think, intend to be; rather, it's just how I wish the world would work. I acknowledge that reality is much messier. But I'm still uncomfortable with championing a messier approach to problems. But that's okay too; good fiction does make you uncomfortable; it challenges your preset notions and makes you consider them from new angles. And Sherlock is very good fiction, imo, so I end up here on this forum trying to understand and explain my responses to it.

 

Why would I find revenge easier to stomach than vengeance? I don't know. I'm not even sure I would. Maybe it has to do with "authority" -- someone who enacts vengeance is presuming to have the authority to administer justice? But they actually don't. Whereas revenge seems more honest to me, perhaps? Because it's taken without assuming one as the authority to exact it????? I really am not sure, as I started out by saying, it was just a gut reaction.

[T.o.b.y]

I sort of thought that was the point of our judicial system; to prevent individuals from exacting whatever form of vengeance they see fit, and instead have a dispassionate state administer justice according to law. The judicial system doesn't operate perfectly, of course, but I, simply by nature, prefer it to the alternative. But I understand how the alternative can also seem like justice. I'm just uncomfortable that the entertainment media seems to laud vengeance by having our heroes carry it out, especially with no consequences.

 

But in this case, it's not necessarily the (modern) entertainment industry, it's the old, original character of Sherlock Holmes who believed himself above and beyond the law that applied to ordinary mortals, and who for some reason felt entitled to deal with those the law couldn't reach the way he saw fit. I'm not saying I agree with that, or that I think it's admirable or anything, but it's kind of what the character is, in part, about. It's also part of the reason why Holmes has to be "a perfect reasoning machine", why he has to keep himself distant from most human loves and hates. "I should never marry lest I bias my judgement". He wasn't about vengeance. His ideal was to be rational, logical, just. And he never asked to be a hero, either. He was made one.

 

 

 

 

Was CAM a threat to the world's safety/autonomy/whatever? HLV never made the case that he was, imo. He was grotesque and disgusting, yes, but a global threat? I just didn't feel that in my bones. To me, it felt entirely personal; a threat to Sherlock's family, but not beyond.

 

Well, the episode began with an investigation concerning Magnussen's influence over the prime minister. Magnussen asked "the British prime minister?", in a way that implied he had a say in other prime ministers' affairs, too. Then at Baker St, he claims the united Kingdom is "petri dish to the Western world", and that if something works there, he tries it in a "real country". All this does not sound as if he was contented to concern himself with personal matters only. Then towards the end, when he is flicking John's face, he brags that "this is what I do to entire countries".

 

Granted, none of this is proof. But you've got to ask yourself why it was written into the script.

 

[Arcadia]

But in this case, it's not necessarily the (modern) entertainment industry, it's the old, original character of Sherlock Holmes who believed himself above and beyond the law that applied to ordinary mortals, and who for some reason felt entitled to deal with those the law couldn't reach the way he saw fit. I'm not saying I agree with that, or that I think it's admirable or anything, but it's kind of what the character is, in part, about. It's also part of the reason why Holmes has to be "a perfect reasoning machine", why he has to keep himself distant from most human loves and hates. "I should never marry lest I bias my judgement". He wasn't about vengeance. His ideal was to be rational, logical, just. And he never asked to be a hero, either. He was made one.

 

 

Was CAM a threat to the world's safety/autonomy/whatever? HLV never made the case that he was, imo. He was grotesque and disgusting, yes, but a global threat? I just didn't feel that in my bones. To me, it felt entirely personal; a threat to Sherlock's family, but not beyond.

Well, the episode began with an investigation concerning Magnussen's influence over the prime minister. Magnussen asked "the British prime minister?", in a way that implied he had a say in other prime ministers' affairs, too. Then at Baker St, he claims the united Kingdom is "petri dish to the Western world", and that if something works there, he tries it in a "real country". All this does not sound as if he was contented to concern himself with personal matters only. Then towards the end, when he is flicking John's face, he brags that "this is what I do to entire countries".

 

Granted, none of this is proof. But you've got to ask yourself why it was written into the script.

 

Well, "our" Sherlock insisted he wasn't a hero either, but he's still portrayed as one. I can't speak to the original stories, though, as I haven't read many. But to be honest, I don't see that it matters, unless Moftiss were copying them word for word. I know they often cite "canon" to explain things, but since they also deviate from "canon" whenever they feel like it, I don't think much of that as a defence. These new stories are Moftiss' own, original creations, and as such they bear full responsibility for the content, methinks.

 

I agree CAM said those things, but I have no sense of what his influence in the world actually was. The results of his machinations (that we were witness to) were suicide and disgrace, not slavery, starvation and anarchy. Personal tragedies, not global ones. But I suspect you're right; we were supposed to believe he was a danger to the moral order of the universe. I'm just saying Moftiss didn't sufficiently make that case against him; to me. (But I don't count!)

[T.o.b.y]

 

Well, "our" Sherlock insisted he wasn't a hero either, but he's still portrayed as one. I can't speak to the original stories, though, as I haven't read many. But to be honest, I don't see that it matters, unless Moftiss were copying them word for word. I know they often cite "canon" to explain things, but since they also deviate from "canon" whenever they feel like it, I don't think much of that as a defence. These new stories are Moftiss' own, original creations, and as such they bear full responsibility for the content, methinks.

 

Yes... of course they do (or should). But I don't know, I wouldn't like the series half as much if they didn't try so hard to capture the spirit of the original. And fundamentally changing Sherlock Holmes' character is a different can of worms than rearranging a criminal plot or substituting the pipe for nicotine patches.

 

Besides, Sherlock may be a hero, to his friends at least, but I never got the impression that he's held up as a shining example to anybody. We're not asked to emulate him at all. We're supposed to marvel and wonder and admire and shake our heads, but I really don't think the idea is to try and be like him.

 

 

I agree CAM said those things, but I have no sense of what his influence in the world actually was. The results of his machinations (that we were witness to) were suicide and disgrace, not slavery, starvation and anarchy. Personal tragedies, not global ones. But I suspect you're right; we were supposed to believe he was a danger to the moral order of the universe. I'm just saying Moftiss didn't sufficiently make that case against him; to me. (But I don't count!)

 

'Course you count, silly.

 

Come to think of it, where's the big proof that Moriarty poses such a threat to England at large?

 

[Carol the Dabbler]

I'm puzzled.  Did Sherlock (or some other character) say that CAM actually posed a global threat?  If not, then I don't understand why this question seems to have taken on such importance here.  I'd frankly be just as frightened of someone who was taking potshots at random individuals as of someone who was some sort of threat to a whole country.  And I'd consider them just as "worthy" of being stopped.

 

(And I certainly don't agree with Mycroft's assessment, that CAM is relatively harmless because he's never threatened anyone important!)

 

[Bakerstreet Irregular]

When CAM was flicking John's face, he boasted how he could do this to whole countries. He had the British Government over a barrel and no one could touch him. He could force a peer of the realm commit suicide. If he could do that to one country how many more did he have under his thumb? How many more people could he murder the way he killed Lord Smallwood? So yeah, I would think that he very clearly posed a global threat.

[Arcadia]

....... But I don't know, I wouldn't like the series half as much if they didn't try so hard to capture the spirit of the original. And fundamentally changing Sherlock Holmes' character is a different can of worms than rearranging a criminal plot or substituting the pipe for nicotine patches.

Well, that's a good point. I certainly would've hated it if Peter Jackson had made Frodo a bamf action hero, and made Sam his adoring female love interest. Ugh! But as I said, having not read all the stories, I can't speak to that issue very coherently; except to say that in the 2 books I did read, I didn't get the impression at all that the Doyle Holmes thought he was above the law. I should try to read more, I guess.

 

Besides, Sherlock may be a hero, to his friends at least, but I never got the impression that he's held up as a shining example to anybody. We're not asked to emulate him at all. We're supposed to marvel and wonder and admire and shake our heads, but I really don't think the idea is to try and be like him.

I'll bet HE thinks we should, though! (Why can't people just think! Wait, that was the cabbie..... )

 

'Course you count, silly.

Not to Moftiss, I don't!!! Obviously I count to myself or I wouldn't be here babbling away as if I actually know something.

Come to think of it, where's the big proof that Moriarty poses such a threat to England at large?

Blew up sections of London. Put bombs on British citizens. Broke into the Tower of London. Opened the gates to whatever prison that was. And a third thing, uh...... drat, my brain. There was a third thing, anyway. Um, and then there was some reason for that flight of the dead, I'm not sure what that scheme was unless Jim was helping terrorists blow up airlines or something? Good thing he offed himself, saved Sherlock the trouble!

[Arcadia]

I'm puzzled.  Did Sherlock (or some other character) say that CAM actually posed a global threat?  If not, then I don't understand why this question seems to have taken on such importance here.  I'd frankly be just as frightened of someone who was taking potshots at random individuals as of someone who was some sort of threat to a whole country.  And I'd consider them just as "worthy" of being stopped.

 

(And I certainly don't agree with Mycroft's assessment, that CAM is relatively harmless because he's never threatened anyone important!)

Well, I believe that particular conversation started here.... 

 

I think it's more than revenge. If it was only that, I wouldn't like it. Shooting Magnussen was a solution to an actual problem, how to stop this creep from manipulating entire governments to do his bidding. He posed a threat to more than a few individuals, and killing him was an effective way of putting a stop to that danger.

....and I was responding, at least in part, to that. But I agree with you, simple blackmail of anyone is enough reason to put this creep away for good. It's the manner of putting him away that I'm (still) having issues with, not the reasons for it.

 

But to answer your precise question (did someone say CAM was a global threat...)

When CAM was flicking John's face, he boasted how he could do this to whole countries. He had the British Government over a barrel and no one could touch him. He could force a peer of the realm commit suicide. If he could do that to one country how many more did he have under his thumb? How many more people could he murder the way he killed Lord Smallwood? So yeah, I would think that he very clearly posed a global threat.

Yeah. That.

[T.o.b.y]

 

....... But I don't know, I wouldn't like the series half as much if they didn't try so hard to capture the spirit of the original. And fundamentally changing Sherlock Holmes' character is a different can of worms than rearranging a criminal plot or substituting the pipe for nicotine patches.

Well, that's a good point. I certainly would've hated it if Peter Jackson had made Frodo a bamf action hero, and made Sam his adoring female love interest. Ugh! But as I said, having not read all the stories, I can't speak to that issue very coherently; except to say that in the 2 books I did read, I didn't get the impression at all that the Doyle Holmes thought he was above the law. I should try to read more, I guess.

 

 

Well, he's not very consistently portrayed. I think you can tell Doyle just saw him as a convenient way of making a quick buck. Maybe what I think of as "the real Sherlock Holmes" is just what I want him to be like, not what he was actually written like... I would certainly not put that past my brain! But if so, then Moffat and Gatiss and all the rest of them must want something very similar.

 

 

[Carol the Dabbler]

... having not read all the stories, I can't speak to that issue very coherently; except to say that in the 2 books I did read, I didn't get the impression at all that the Doyle Holmes thought he was above the law. I should try to read more, I guess.

 

Try "Charles Augustus Milverton" (the inspiration for "His Last Vow," obviously) and "The Abbey Grange."  In each story, Holmes intentionally flouts the law in a murder case.

 

[T.o.b.y]

 

... having not read all the stories, I can't speak to that issue very coherently; except to say that in the 2 books I did read, I didn't get the impression at all that the Doyle Holmes thought he was above the law. I should try to read more, I guess.

 

Try "Charles Augustus Milverton" (the inspiration for "His Last Vow," obviously) and "The Abbey Grange."  In each story, Holmes intentionally flouts the law in a murder case.

 

 

"The Devil's Foot" is a good example, too (and I love that story!)

 

[Arcadia]

Okay, okay, I obviously read the wrong 2 books!! :D I'm guessing Doyle became a better writer as he went along, maybe I'll find more to love in the later volumes. I was going through them in chronological order before I quit.

[T.o.b.y]

Okay, okay, I obviously read the wrong 2 books!! :D I'm guessing Doyle became a better writer as he went along, maybe I'll find more to love in the later volumes.

 

I don't think so... In my opinion, the Sherlock Holmes stories vary in quality a lot right until the end. Some are brilliant and some are awful. And if you ask me, Doyle was never a truly good writer.

 

I think we had a thread somewhere with recommendations / favorites from the original collection. Maybe check that out? If you feel like it?

 

I still maintain that it is in no way necessary to have any knowledge of or liking for the original to enjoy and discuss the modern BBC version. It stands extremely well on its own. Just, I am so glad that they added this extra layer of canon commentary and interpretation for people like me to be delighted with.

[Arcadia]

Nah, I'd rather just keep progressing in chronological order (for some reason known only to the left side of my brain) and take the good with the bad.

 

I keep referring to Lord of the Rings -- I guess because I know it the way some of you all seem to know the Sherlock Holmes stories. At any rate, I think I get a bigger kick out of the LOTR movies because I catch the little references that less insanely obsessed fans miss. So yeah, I get it!

[Carol the Dabbler]

I'm re-reading LotR right now, and am noticing a lot of details that I remember from the movies but did not realize at the time were incredibly authentic.  So yeah, I kinda see what you mean.  (Then there are all those other scenes....)

 

[Arcadia]

Many of the Faramir scenes made me cringe, he's my favorite character in the book and they really changed him for the movie. *sigh*

[Carol the Dabbler]

Oh dear, I really like Faramir in the movies.  Don't tell me I'm gonna be disappointed when I get to that part of the books? 

 

 

 

[Arcadia]

No, I suspect you'll like him even better in the book. Also he doesn't disappear from the story that suddenly.

[T.o.b.y]

While looking for information on something else concerning The Hounds of Baskerville, I found out that "Fletcher", the name of the young man who does "the monster walks for the tourists" may be based on this gentleman here:

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bertram_Fletcher_Robinson

[Carol the Dabbler]

Thanks, T.o.b.y -- surely Moftiss would have heard of Mr. Robinson, so that's a good guess.

 

 

 

In July 1900, Robinson and the creator of Sherlock Holmes, (Sir) Arthur Conan Doyle, 'cemented' their friendship while aboard a passenger ship that was travelling to Southampton from Cape Town. The following year, Robinson told Doyle legends of ghostly hounds, recounted the supernatural tale of Squire Richard Cabell III^[12] and showed him around grimly atmospheric Dartmoor. The pair had previously agreed to co-author a Devon-based story but in the end, their collaboration led only to Doyle's celebrated novel, The Hound of the Baskervilles.^[13] Robinson also contributed an idea to the plot of a Sherlock Holmes short-story entitled The Adventure of the Norwood Builder, which was first published in Collier's Weekly on 31 October 1903.^[14]

 

[Boton]

Like so many, watching Sherlock has inspired me to read the ACD canon.  I was reading "The Musgrave Ritual" a couple of nights ago and almost fell out of bed laughing when I stumbled on the inspiration for the famous "shooting up Smilie while bored" scene:

 

"I have always held, too, that pistol practice should be distinctly an open-air pastime; and when Holmes, in one of his queer humors, would sit in an arm-chair with his hair-trigger and a hundred Boxer cartridges, and proceed to adorn the opposite wall with a patriotic V. R. done in bullet-pocks, I felt strongly that neither the atmosphere nor the appearance of our room was improved by it."

 

Poor Watson is so nonplussed.  And for a moment, I just saw my mental Holmes (who looks nothing like Sherlock) sitting there in his dressing gown, shouting, "bored!" every time he shoots.  

[T.o.b.y]

I was just lazily browsing around my Complete Sherlock Holmes (good thing about working in shifts: You get random days off to lie around in bed and drink coffee and do nothing), and I noticed this line by Watson:

 

"All my years of humble but single-minded service culminated in that moment of revelation."

 

And it made me think of Sherlock comparing himself to Sholto in The Sign of Three as John's "commanding officer". Because it is true. One of the reasons why I don't think "best friends" is quite the right word for these two is that their relationship isn't really an equal one. In the original version especially, there's a clear hierarchy between them, with Holmes being indeed very much the commanding officer. And while Freeman's John is a lot more assertive than Doyle's Dr Watson, I think they still preserved that very nicely on Sherlock. In many ways, Sherlock and John are more really good colleagues or "brothers in arms" than friends.

 

That's very far from a bad thing. Being part of a good team at an interesting job is one of the most satisfying experiences life has to offer, in my opinion.