Questions about Sherlock

[a fan of O.S.H]

Hello again.

 

as you may or may not know, i am a fan of the original Sherlock Holmes, but i am new to Sherlock.

 

today, i have a number of questions that would help us know Sherlock better.

 

these questions are about the character and how is he compared to the original Sherlock Holmes.

 

REMEMBER these questions are for Steven Moffat's Sherlock, NOT for Arthur Conan Doyle's Sherlock Holmes

 

and here we go:

 

1- what do you think of Sherlock ?

 

2- what do you think of Sherlock's relationship with Watson and how do you compare their relationship to 

the original ones ?

 

3- do you think that Sherlock believes in God ? 

 

4- how do you compare Sherlock to the rest of the adoptions of Sherlock Holmes ?

 

5- how do you compare Sherlock to the ORIGINAL Sherlock Holmes ?

 

Alright, these are the questions  and let the discussion begin.

 

 

[Bakerstreet Irregular]

1)I like the BBC interpretation of Doyle's Sherlock Holmes, a lot.

 

2)In some ways, I think this gives a truer representation of Dr. Watson then say, the Nigel Bruce of the 40's and 50's. In many  ways it is true to the original stories. Stalwart, brave, and loyal to Sherlock Holmes.

 

3)This hasn't been discussed in the series much, so it's hard to say at this point.

 

4)This is a modern interpretation, so it by definition has to be different. But they pay homage to Doyle and the canon in so many subtle and not so subtle ways. Almost every story in the canon is accessed in some ways and even some of the notes in the annotated Sherlock Holmes volumes.

 

5) This is a modern setting, so it can't be compared with the Victorian versions as such. But this Sherlock is very much a modern man as the original is. Using every bit of the latest modern technology he can get his hands on. He is a scientist, as the original is. He is frenetic like the original. A very close comparasin, In my opinion anyway.

[bborchar]

1. I think he's a great character, very nuanced.  Updated without feeling different.

 

2. It feels very real to me, which is something that isn't always achieved in buddy comedies where one partner is clearly the alpha in the relationship- especially Sherlock and John.  For one, you have to convince the audience that John would stay with Sherlock despite his misgivings...and they did that.

 

3. I doubt it.  He doesn't seem to believe in any authority except his own.

 

4. I like this one more than most I've seen.

 

5. I think it's done a great job of actually feeling like TOS without being exactly like them.

[aely]

1. I love the TV series and I like what they've done with the character. Having said that, as a person, Sherlock would still annoy the buggering hell out of me as he's such a stuck up, brainy git even while I would be finding reasons for him to get away with why he's like that.

 

2. If we go by what's on screen and not by wishful thinking, I would say John grounds Sherlock. He's his touchstone, the only connection to reality that Sherlock has found he can tolerate. That makes John a very special - even while he's a very human - man.

 

3. Only if it's convenient, or essential for a case. I don't think he has true belief in a higher power - as Irene Adler said "I think you’re damaged, delusional and believe in a higher power. In your case, it’s yourself."

 

4. I think as an adaptation, it remains very true to the spirit of Sherlock Holmes, more so than can be said of some others. That, coupled with its modern facelift, makes it stand out.

 

5. Can't comment as I've not read ACD. I actually have some books, I just don't have the time to read!

 

 

 

 

[T.o.b.y]

1.) He is my favorite fictional character. I particularly like the combination of genius and vulnerability and I think it's never been played better than by B.C.

 

2.) "We're not a couple!" "Yes, you are"... Was Irene right? Yes and no. They act like an "old married couple" (and that's where a lot of the humor of the show comes from) and there is obviously a huge amount of mutual trust and liking. But I am sure that there is no sexual or romantic side to their relationship. John is desperately trying to find a girl-friend. Sherlock thinks romance and desire are "dangerous" and "destructive", so if he was attracted to men (or just to John), he would not feel comfortable around him and certainly would not want to live with him. John is clearly bothered by other people's misconception of their friendship, while Sherlock seems to find it at most slightly amusing. Poor Irene, I'm sure she never had a real friend. The only human connection she knows about is sex, so of course she'd think that any two people who are close would be sleeping with each other.

 

3.) No. Frankly, I don't much care. Maybe Irene got that part right when she told him the higher power he believed in was himself.

 

4.) Never seen any other. Had a crush on SH since I read the stories as a teenager and don't like literary adaptations in general. I did not want my image of the great detective spoiled. I only agreed to watch "Sherlock" originally because somebody told me Martin Freeman was in it and I had really admired his performance in "The Office". I was never more pleasantly surprised...

 

5.) In many ways, BBC's modern Sherlock is an improvement on the Conan Doyle character. He's not quite so invincible, more flawed, more interesting, more complex. Also, the original is clearly a "good man" and a hero, while in this version he is still struggling with these issues. We meet him at an earlier stage in his development. I expect that, if the show continues, the creators will make Sherlock become more and more like the literary Holmes. Pity, really... Although I would like to see that weird tenderness evolve that Holmes shows in the stories sometimes. I am sure the actor could pull that off really well. It'd be difficult, though, to show Holmes lulling Watson to sleep with his violin on TV without making the "I want them to be in love" people go totally berserk.

 

[Carol the Dabbler]

Poor Irene, I'm sure she never had a real friend. The only human connection she knows about is sex, so of course she'd think that any two people who are close would be sleeping with each other.

 

Very good point.  Poor Irene.  I also pity Jim Moriarty for similar reasons.  Even Sherlock has at least one real friend (and presumably has noticed by now that he has more).

 

I only agreed to watch "Sherlock" originally because somebody told me Martin Freeman was in it and I had really admired his performance in "The Office". I was never more pleasantly surprised...

 

... whereas I only got around to seeing The Office because I had really admired Martin Freeman's performance in Sherlock.  But neither of us was disappointed!

 

... I would like to see that weird tenderness evolve that Holmes shows in the stories sometimes. I am sure the actor could pull that off really well. It'd be difficult, though, to show Holmes lulling Watson to sleep with his violin on TV without making the "I want them to be in love" people go totally berserk.

 

I agree on all of those subpoints.  They could probably evoke a similar mood (without quite so much subtext) in other ways, such as by having Sherlock do anything for John for a change.  (John's reaction should be priceless!)

 

[T.o.b.y]

 

Very good point.  Poor Irene.  I also pity Jim Moriarty for similar reasons.  Even Sherlock has at least one real friend (and presumably has noticed by now that he has more).

 

Wow, you are certainly on the side of the angels... I could not find it in my heart to pity Moriarty, even if I tried. He just seems like pure evil to me - and totally happy with being that way (I love the thieving magpie scene!)

[Carol the Dabbler]

Maybe Jim is happy, but it seems to me like "distracted" is about the best he can do.  And as you said about Irene, I doubt that he's ever had a real friend, which is why I pity him.

 

OK, I know there are some magpie references, at least Moriarty's wax seal on the envelopes in the kidnapping subplot of "Reichenbach."  But I'm not sure what you mean by "the thieving magpie scene."

 

And congratulations on your tenth post!  Your new posts will no longer need to be approved by a staff member, they'll just go straight onto the forum.

 

[T.o.b.y]

OK, I know there are some magpie references, at least Moriarty's wax seal on the envelopes in the kidnapping subplot of "Reichenbach."  But I'm not sure what you mean by "the thieving magpie scene."

 

Oh, sorry. I mean the scene where he breaks into the Tower of London and is found dressed up as king ("no rush..."). The music playing there is Rossini's "The Thieving Magpie"

 

[Bakerstreet Irregular]

 

The music playing there is Rossini's "The Thieving Magpie"

 

Got to love Moffat and Gatiss's attention to detail. Right down to the songs and music chosen for any one scene. Brilliant.

[Janie]

1) I think he's a very interesting and complex character. Though, I wouldn't want to live with someone like him.

2) I like their relationship in BBC Sherlock better than in the original stories. In the books, Watson was there just for admiring Sherlock and writing about him. The modern version of Watson is a man of action. He tries to humanize Sherlock and certainly has some influence on him. On the other side, Watson is a soldier, he needs some action. And with Sherlock, he's had more than enough of it. 

3) I don't think so. He seems to believe only in himself.

 

4) Well, I can compare it only to Guy Ritchie version. I haven't seen any other adaptation yet. But I think that BBC Sherlock is much much much better. Better acting, better writing, better music. 

5)

5.) In many ways, BBC's modern Sherlock is an improvement on the Conan Doyle character. He's not quite so invincible, more flawed, more interesting, more complex. Also, the original is clearly a "good man" and a hero, while in this version he is still struggling with these issues. We meet him at an earlier stage in his development. I expect that, if the show continues, the creators will make Sherlock become more and more like the literary Holmes. Pity, really... Although I would like to see that weird tenderness evolve that Holmes shows in the stories sometimes. I am sure the actor could pull that off really well. It'd be difficult, though, to show Holmes lulling Watson to sleep with his violin on TV without making the "I want them to be in love" people go totally berserk.

Totally agree. 

[T.o.b.y]

 

"2) I like their relationship in BBC Sherlock better than in the original stories. In the books, Watson was there just for admiring Sherlock and writing about him. The modern version of Watson is a man of action. He tries to humanize Sherlock and certainly has some influence on him. On the other side, Watson is a soldier, he needs some action. And with Sherlock, he's had more than enough of it."

 

 

I used to think that about the literary Watson as well. But as I re-read the stories, I realize there is more to him even in the original source. He is already a danger seeker there, very brave, very much a man of action. He saves Holmes' life several times and tries to persuade him to smoke less and stop taking drugs. And in the stories, he is very obviously the only real friend Holmes has and very, very important to him. We constantly "hear" Holmes say "my Watson" / "my dear Watson" / "my dear fellow" / "good old Watson" and it's not just a figure of speech in his case. Holmes is crushed when Watson marries and when he gets shot in "The 3 Garridebs", Holmes takes it very much to heart.

 

So in the original, Watson serves to show Holmes' human side, to redeem him from being just a logic machine. Also, Holmes' attitude towards Watson shows how lonely and isolated the "great man" is in general. I still don't think there's supposed to be anything romantic in all this, it's just a really great friendship (and friendships tend to be more stable than romances).

 

What I think is interesting is, that while on the show Sherlock seems to take John's loyalty and companionship pretty much for granted and never pauses to consider that John may need anything he himself can dispense with, the Holmes of the CD stories is pretty considerate where his friend is concerned and very much aware that Watson is not in the best state of health and might need rest or food or just an encouraging word or two.

 

I like how Freeman's version of Watson is a lot less sentimental than the original and not quite so ready to put up with anything Sherlock says or does to him.

[Carol the Dabbler]

Oh, sorry. I mean the scene where he breaks into the Tower of London and is found dressed up as king ("no rush..."). The music playing there is Rossini's "The Thieving Magpie"

 

Thanks!  And the magpie theme may continue into S3:

 

 

Hartswood's official photo for S3E2 was Sherlock's placecard for a wedding dinner -- and the design on the card looks more like magpies than the stereotypical doves.

 

 

 

Wonder what that may mean?

 

[Carol the Dabbler]

In the books, Watson was there just for admiring Sherlock and writing about him. The modern version of Watson is a man of action. He tries to humanize Sherlock and certainly has some influence on him. On the other side, Watson is a soldier, he needs some action. And with Sherlock, he's had more than enough of it.

 

I used to think that about the literary Watson as well. But as I re-read the stories, I realize there is more to him even in the original source. He is already a danger seeker there, very brave, very much a man of action. He saves Holmes' life several times and tries to persuade him to smoke less and stop taking drugs. And in the stories, he is very obviously the only real friend Holmes has and very, very important to him.

 

I think it's important to bear in mind that Watson is the narrator of the ACD stories.  Even when he clearly exhibits bravery, he doesn't relate it with much fuss, which makes it easy to overlook his contributions.  But it's probably not so much lack of bravery as simple modesty.

 

[Bakerstreet Irregular]

I was thinking swallows, but the coloration of the birds, especially the white the brackets the upper bird's lower wing does look magpieish.

[Janie]

 

I used to think that about the literary Watson as well. But as I re-read the stories, I realize there is more to him even in the original source. He is already a danger seeker there, very brave, very much a man of action. He saves Holmes' life several times and tries to persuade him to smoke less and stop taking drugs. And in the stories, he is very obviously the only real friend Holmes has and very, very important to him.

 

I think it's important to bear in mind that Watson is the narrator of the ACD stories.  Even when he clearly exhibits bravery, he doesn't relate it with much fuss, which makes it easy to overlook his contributions.  But it's probably not so much lack of bravery as simple modesty.

 

 

Well, I still haven't read all the ACD stories and it will take me a while to finish it. But you're probably right, Carol. Watson is the narrator so logically it is more about Sherlock than about him. Or maybe I focus more on Sherlock than on Watson

[T.o.b.y]

Yeah, you're right about the problem of being the narrator. That always makes it hard to characterize somebody. If you want to find out what Watson is (probably) like, you can focus on what Holmes says about him. He actually comments on him pretty often, points out his habits, his motivations, even goes so far as to read his mind on one occasion.

 

Now, if we assume Holmes is always right (following the Holmesian rules of nature), we can be pretty confident that the picture he paints of Watson is accurate and so can characterize Watson indirectly.

[Carol the Dabbler]

I was thinking swallows, but the coloration of the birds, especially the white the brackets the upper bird's lower wing does look magpieish.

 

Frankly, it doesn't look exactly like anything in my RSPB Pocket Guide to British Birds^*.

 

^* A handy little book which I recommend to anyone who's traveling to the UK, or who simply wants to know what the birds referred to in British novels look like, without bothering to turn on their computer.  Note, however, that there seems to be a new edition as of 2012.

 

[T.o.b.y]

This obviously has nothing to do with birds, changing the subject again, sorry.

 

You know who Holmes and Watson (in the original stories) remind me of a lot? Eugene Wrayburn and Mortimer Lightwood in Dickens' "Our Mutual Friend". Especially the way Holmes talks (to Watson), his humor, his irony, his assumed lack of emotional depth, even his physicality is very reminiscent of Eugene. And the way in which, in the TV version, John acts as Sherlock's moral anchor while Sherlock seems pretty uncertain of his own ethics is very Mortimer-like.

 

The main difference between the two friendships is, that in Dickens it is actually Eugene who finds love and gets married while Mortimer is left to a rather lonely life as a permanent bachelor after having helped with bringing the marriage about.

[T.o.b.y]

This is in response to the 2nd question (again... I think I could write volumes just on this one topic and probably have already repeated myself a lot here):

 

One difference (to date) between the main characters' interaction in writing versus on the screen in the BBC adaptation is that the original Watson, when Holmes does anything nice (happens from time to time...) is simply gratified. Our modern Sherlock, on the other hand, is so oblivious of anybody's needs but his own that when he does appear to want to do John any small favor, John has no idea what to make of it and is slightly embarrassed. Which, for example, leads him to drink horrible over-sweetened coffee that was meant to be drugged into the bargain. Every time I see him taking that cup I want to yell at him: you sucker! 

[Carol the Dabbler]

You're right, Sherlock does seem to realize that John is touched by any slight kindness on his part (and/or feels obligated to offer positive reinforcement) -- and uses that knowledge to pull John's strings.  He does a similar thing at the end of "Scandal in Belgravia," when he uses the word "Please" to effectively demand that John give him Irene's phone.

 

I guess that raises a related question: does Sherlock deliberately refrain from being nice too often, so as not to devalue his currency?

 

[T.o.b.y]

Who knows? I wouldn't think he'd have to make an effort to refrain from being nice, not-nice seems to be his normal state...

[Carol the Dabbler]

OK, so perhaps he simply doesn't bother to be nice unless he wants something really important from John (or Molly or whoever).

 

[T.o.b.y]

OK, so perhaps he simply doesn't bother to be nice unless he wants something really important from John (or Molly or whoever).

 

Yes, that is what I think, too. Especially when it comes to Molly. With her, Sherlock usually hides behind the "I am autistic and have no clue what you are trying to get at" facade, until he wants something. Then he'll come out and flirt and this is such an unexpected pleasure for her that she does whatever he wants. He must enjoy her reactions for their own sake, though. You'd have to be made of stone for real to not be touched by that fluttery shy happiness. (And btw, I think Molly is a perfect incarnation of the classic Victorian heroine - a much-maligned figure I dearly love).

 

Another thing about John: He's usually seen as the one who humanizes Sherlock, who stands for heart while Sherlock is brain. But actually, John is just as emotionally repressed as his friend. He won't even open up to his own therapist! I think he actually likes Sherlock's unsociable manner, he's more comfortable with that than he would be with somebody "nice".

 

 

[Carol the Dabbler]

I suspect that having a therapist wasn't John's idea, but perhaps a requirement for receiving his Army pension.  So of course Ella's personal questions feel intrusive, and he's reluctant to reply in any detail.  He's merely going through the motions with her.

 

By contrast, he does open up a bit with Mike Stamford.  Even though they don't seem to have been really close friends, at least Mike is a familiar face from the old days, so his interest feels like (and presumably is) genuine concern.

 

So I don't think John is repressed, he just doesn't like it when strangers (e.g., Ella and Mycroft) try to meddle in his personal affairs.