Jump to content

Episode 1.1, "A Study In Pink"


Undead Medic

What did you think of "A Study In Pink?"  

87 members have voted

  1. 1. Add Your Vote here:

    • 10/10 Excellent
    • 9/10 Not Quite The Best, But Not Far Off.
    • 8/10 Certainly Worth Watching Again.
    • 7/10 Slightly Above The Norm.
    • 6/10 Average.
      0
    • 5/10 Slightly Sub-Par.
      0
    • 4/10 Decidedly Below Average.
      0
    • 3/10 Pretty Poor.
      0
    • 2/10 Bad.
      0
    • 1/10 Terrible.
      0


Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, bedelia1984 said:

I did wonder if Sherlock could be a child from her revenge affair. Though that's complicated by how much he looks like his father.😂

Though I think Mycroft looks even more like him.  Maybe Mummy is drawn to that look, even when she's just getting even?

1 hour ago, bedelia1984 said:

I can imagine Moriarty obsessing about someone from afar,  even stalking them, before meeting them, not sure why I think that about him.

Because he's creepy?  :naughty2:

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

49 minutes ago, Carol the Dabbler said:

Though I think Mycroft looks even more like him.  Maybe Mummy is drawn to that look, even when she's just getting even?

Because he's creepy?  :naughty2:

 Oh Yes!

Or maybe she got even with her husband's brother/cousin! I don't know enough about the Sherlock family tree to speculate further 😂

And before anyone says it, I do take note that this is Sherlock and not The Bold and The Beautiful.

 

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, bedelia1984 said:

There are aspects of The Final Problem that throw things off for me as well- like for how long were Mycroft and Moriarty doing their backroom deals? I would have quite liked a flashback scene to show what their true relationship was, as Mycroft is a slippery fish, too.

You mean the Xmas present? Need to look after the timing. But first what I've thought about reading this line was the BTS red herring scene with Jim and Myc at Bart's, shaking hands. Oh, imagine they would include that scene in TFP :D

Jim was lurking around also in TBB, as the wire-puller of Chan's business. So it's possible he's got annoyed by Sherlock spoiling his business. But still killing completely random people in a quite sophisticate way just to annoy Scotland Yard - that feels not enough Moriarty-ish for me.

Shut up, stupid brain! Yes, Mofftiss might have built the story by pulling notices with random ideas out of a hat. But it's not the point. Magic, remember? A whole that's more than the sum of it's parts? So SHUT THE BEEP UP and let me have fun! punish2.gif

  • Like 1
  • Haha 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

You tell it, JP! :D 

 

22 hours ago, Arcadia said:

Sounds like it's really getting to be time for that long overdue rewatch I keep promising myself. :smile: 

Somebody's organized a "watchalong!" Starts tomorrow. Info at http://finalproblem.tumblr.com/megawatchalong. Putting it here in case I forget to post it somewhere more useful.

15 hours ago, Carol the Dabbler said:

And the same thing again when they apparently combined seasons 4 and 5.  :(   Though I'd probably say they just didn't want to take the time -- which would probably have been considerable in each case, if they'd wanted to make things really click.

TFP does feel somewhat rushed, doesn't it? Like they had to revise it on the fly. Let's blame the actor's schedules again, shall we?

Maybe it's because I have no idea how the TV business works, but if it were me, I would have started writing the scripts as soon as I finished writing S3 … and have had plenty of time to polish them. But perhaps (successful) professional scriptwriters don't write unless they get paid first? (I know a few unsuccessful scriptwriters … they write all the time! :D )

13 hours ago, bedelia1984 said:

This was my take too, though I thought it went a bit further, and Moriarty developed almost a love/hate obsession with Sherlock as a playmate. There are some minor characteristics that Sherlock and Moriarty have in common, that I feel like they recognised in each other (e.g. that detached love of 'the game'), and there was something magnetic about that dynamic.

Well, there was that whole "you're me" dialog on the roof … that was my cue that they sensed they had something in common. I've never clearly defined to myself exactly what it is, though, except a certain darkness of the soul. Which Jim gives into, and Sherlock does not, or something like that.

13 hours ago, bedelia1984 said:

I'm never sure about Moriarty whether he became interested in Sherlock from the beginning, just based on hearing about him (and then maybe that case about the boy with the trainers, did we know whether that was him? 

Yeah, it was Moriarty. And somehow he knew that Sherlock had been interested in the case at the time. 

1 hour ago, J.P. said:


Jim was lurking around also in TBB, as the wire-puller of Chan's business. So it's possible he's got annoyed by Sherlock spoiling his business.

Doesn't he say something to that effect in TGG? He tells Sherlock to "back off" or else. And then a few minutes later Jim decides to kill him anyway, because Sherlock's getting in his way, or something.

Quote

But still killing completely random people in a quite sophisticate way just to annoy Scotland Yard - that feels not enough Moriarty-ish for me.

What I have always thought is that Moriarty is simply, irrevocably, stark-raving mad. And fascinated by death. A serial killer, essentially … they don't need a reason, do they? That's one of the many things that makes them so scary.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, J.P. said:

Magic, remember? A whole that's more than the sum of it's parts? So SHUT THE BEEP UP and let me have fun! punish2.gif

Damn straight!  :D

2 hours ago, Arcadia said:

That looks really well organized.  And gotta love the name of their chat room:

The Giant Chat of Sumatra

2 hours ago, Arcadia said:

... if it were me, I would have started writing the scripts as soon as I finished writing S3 … and have had plenty of time to polish them. But perhaps (successful) professional scriptwriters don't write unless they get paid first?

Maybe.  But I get the impression that Mr. Moffat doesn't write until he's eyeball to eyeball with a deadline.  (Sort of like my own system, so I can't really criticize him for that.)

2 hours ago, Arcadia said:

Let's blame the actor's schedules again, shall we?

Why not?  It's what the Moftisses do. :P

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, J.P. said:

You mean the Xmas present? Need to look after the timing. But first what I've thought about reading this line was the BTS red herring scene with Jim and Myc at Bart's, shaking hands. Oh, imagine they would include that scene in TFP :D

Jim was lurking around also in TBB, as the wire-puller of Chan's business. So it's possible he's got annoyed by Sherlock spoiling his business. But still killing completely random people in a quite sophisticate way just to annoy Scotland Yard - that feels not enough Moriarty-ish for me.

Shut up, stupid brain! Yes, Mofftiss might have built the story by pulling notices with random ideas out of a hat. But it's not the point. Magic, remember? A whole that's more than the sum of it's parts? So SHUT THE BEEP UP and let me have fun! punish2.gif

Oh wow, if that scene was ever filmed, it would be so amazing to see it! I just think their chemistry would be so incredible (the actors and the characters).

I'm just the same, I always want there to be a reason that will make sense of everything, even Moriarty. Thinking he knew about Sherlock and Carl Powers instantly makes me think, but how and why and for what reason and how far back does it go? Frankly it's so exhausting I might need a Christmas sherry to recover from all the mental gymnastics.🤣

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 hours ago, J.P. said:

Well, Jim killed Karl and kept the "weapon" aka poisoned shoes. The question is - did he also know about a boy who tried to convince the police about the importance of this fact.

At the time Carl was killed, you mean? (I accidentally typed "Carol" … gah! It was a mistake, Ms. Dabbler, honest!)

Because at some point he knew it was Sherlock, obviously, or he wouldn't have used the shoes as bait. If he didn't know about Sherlock's interest at the time of the murder, it would be interesting to know how he worked it out later.

However, I always took the Carl Powers story as another instance of poetic license … as an indication that Sherlock and Jim were somehow linked (by the fates, by karma, something) from the very start, and their eventual death struggle was written in the stars. :smile: There's a whiff of fatalism hovering over Sherlock at times, don't you think?

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, Arcadia said:

...However, I always took the Carl Powers story as another instance of poetic license … as an indication that Sherlock and Jim were somehow linked (by the fates, by karma, something) from the very start, and their eventual death struggle was written in the stars. :smile: There's a whiff of fatalism hovering over Sherlock at times, don't you think?

I agree about the fatalism, which to me is most pronounced by the time they introduce Eurus, which kicks up the nods to the ancient greeks more than a notch. To me, Moriarty and Sherlock are like old enemies from past lives. It's interesting to think what they must all have been like at that age, (the Carl Powers time) taking into account Eurus was already institutionalised and  Mycroft probably as imperious as ever.

Perhaps, as a criminal, Moriarty was from the start a particular kind of deranged mixed with devious that only Sherlock could understand and identify. Maybe, also, if we're allowed to fill in the backstory, having lost a hyper intelligent, criminally inclined sister, Sherlock might have started to subconsciously seek ingenius criminals elsewhere, whilst on some level really looking for her? (I know, it's giving them too much credit for planning!)

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

Further discussion of "the Christmas visit" has been moved to the "Final Problem" thread, beginning with the December 30 (2018) posts.

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 years later...

Well.  OK.  Here are my first comments on this very old series.  (And yes, I've taken a few minutes to review some of the earliest comments in this thread. The later comments seem to reflect perspectives following later additions to the series.)

I agree with those who are 'into' the series.  The adaptation to more current times, settings, etc. are well done.
I also agree the leaps of logic as presented are stimulating, and the incorporation of elements of the Canon into the scenes are cleverly done, if completely different.  The 'flavor' is there.

My concern after the first 3 episodes is this particular Sherlock is far more self-centered and self-indulgent than the Canon's Sherlock. 

Yes, yes.. we know Sherlock is pretty conceited, and sometimes a little caustic.  But he's not downright rude, continuously insulting, and overbearing as Cumberbatch's character is presented to be. 

From their initial meeting to the end of 1.3 there is nothing that would draw someone to him.  His abuse of Watson in so many ways would not be tolerated by anyone having any self-respect - and it isn't just Watson that Sherlock abuses, but everyone around him.  He seems to think they all exist just for his sole benefit and use (abuse).

Psychologically, he is far more than the 'reasoning machine' - rather he is so self-centered he must take something to its conclusion just to salve his desire to be 'the best' (exemplified in his primary concern with whether he had 'guessed right' about the pill and beaten the cab-driver at the game) rather than being interested in and happy to have resolved the murders and ending the crime spree itself.  

This speaks of a severe psychosis, not intelligent reasoning. He is a troubled man.

By this time in the Canon (and in fact from the very first meeting between he and Watson) there had been interchange between the two, establishing some form of link from which Watson understood a little more of his potential roommate.

In this series, Sherlock just "assumes and dictates" according to his sole discretion and desire. 

So where I feel the Sherlock of Canon is a more believable and balanced person, the Sherlock of this series so far has indeed some significant psychopathic problems that need to be worked out or they will become increasingly problematic. (NOT the 'high-functioning Sociopath of the Canon, but indeed borderline psychopathic at a minimum.  He needs to do a little research of his own. But we are rarely truly capable of identifying who and what we ourselves really are, much less care to actually do so.)

We shall see what sort of effect Watson has on him as the series progresses. At this time I fear Sherlock's future is pretty grim without significant change.  Watson's job helping Sherlock out of his self-destructive issues and problems is a far greater hill to climb than Sherlock's was/is in helping Watson over his minor difficulties.

This is a far more troubled and dangerous Sherlock than Doyle gave us at his core.

Such is my initial impression.  The series presents "features of interest" as Sherlock would say.  We'll see where it leads.

 NOTE:  On to watching 1.2 again to add further detail to the opinion expressed above.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Inspector Baynes said:

... it isn't just Watson that Sherlock abuses, but everyone around him.  He seems to think they all exist just for his sole benefit and use....

That's the basis of the sociopathic personality.  Apparently such a person physically lacks the empathy section of the brain, so they're not capable of understanding what another person is feeling, and therefore they may not fully recognize that other people do have feelings.  I've known a few people who are actually like that.  They can learn to fake normal behavior pretty well, but in the end it's still all about them.

4 hours ago, Inspector Baynes said:

... the Sherlock of this series so far has indeed some significant psychopathic problems that need to be worked out or will become increasingly problematic.

I'm tempted to ask "but then what would they base future episodes on?" -- but that's not really fair.

4 hours ago, Inspector Baynes said:

We shall see what sort of effect Watson has on him as the series progresses. At this time I fear Sherlock's future is pretty grim without significant change.  Watson's job helping Sherlock out of his self-destructive issues and problems is a far greater hill to climb than Sherlock's was/is in helping Watson over his minor difficulties.

And John is only human, after all.  A medical degree does not confer super powers.

I'd say you've put your finger on some problematic areas.  I don't want to spoil the subsequent seasons for you, but it'll be interesting to see what you make of them.

One other point, though -- Moffat and Gatiss have said several times that this version of Sherlock is sort of a prequel to the canon, and that by the end of series 4, Sherlock and John have matured into the canon characters.  So I'm hoping they do some more episodes eventually.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I know you think it won't.  And I must admit that I really don't know -- but it wouldn't surprise me if they eventually had another episode or three, with them actually solving crimes together.  (Nor would it surprise me if they don't.)

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I just thought it was a missed opportunity, after we lost Una...

I mean they still could-

but they are just all far too busy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hum.  I could find the above interchange between @Carol the Dabblerand @besleybean mildly depressing, given one possible avenue relating to its its implications.

So let me ask this minimal question to narrow the potential deductions a bit:

5 hours ago, besleybean said:

but I really don't think it will happen.

What won't happen?  More episodes being made?  (My primary thought given the 'busy' comment) or a "maturing" into the canonical figures. 

Sadly, that need to 'mature' is a huge missed opportunity itself, lost from their very first meeting when the stage was initially set for Sherlock's character.  I can only wonder why they chose to saddle him with such a pronounced ADSP. 

On the other hand, it really is just a matter of degree.

 

8 hours ago, Carol the Dabbler said:

A medical degree does not confer super powers.

True.  It also does not confer an extensive awareness of ADSP, though in the timeframe of these events the medical profession is more aware of it than in "1895". 
 

8 hours ago, Carol the Dabbler said:

but it'll be interesting to see what you make of them.

Agreement. I look forward to it.
One thing I've learned in my advanced years, is to receive and evaluate a thing for what it is, rather than for what it is not. 
In other words, I do not get all wrapped up in "what should be" or "what should have been" done with something.  It is what it is, and to 'wish it to be otherwise' or to have 'expected it to be otherwise' merely results in disappointment and frustration.

The source of every disappointment is an unfulfilled hope.
The source of every frustration is an unfulfilled expectation.

We therefore hold our expectations and hopes loosely.

SO... perceiving, as I currently hold, a decision was made to present a Sherlock more emotionally compromised than Doyle's, and a Watson more tolerant than most human beings would be given the circumstances, I look forward to the progression of the series and the H/W relationship too. 

These two things I can also say too at present.
1.  Thus far I'm appreciating the delivery of the roles by the participants.
2.  I'm missing a little something in the 'scene settings'.  I've come to anticipate some extremely clever uses of mirrors, reflections, etc. in British filmography...and particularly with BBC itself...from prior works. Far and away more imaginative than our American work, which has and overall more dull approach.  But so far this element is a bit lacking.

As a final comment here I did a bit more research on the ADSP issues - particularly the 'generally noted' attributes of the Sociopath vs. the Psychopath.  I can concede that this Sherlock probably lives more closely in the Sociopathic realm, except for his predilection (so far) toward somewhat sadistic behaviors toward others.

We'll see how all this plays out going forward.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Inspector Baynes said:

What won't happen?

Sorry for the accidental ambiguity.  Bev is sure that we've seen the last of Sherlock, and I'm not sure.

5 hours ago, Inspector Baynes said:

Sadly, that need to 'mature' is a huge missed opportunity itself, lost from their very first meeting....

Sherlock does change over the course of the four series to date.   I'll be interested to hear whether you think that what he's gained is maturity.

5 hours ago, Inspector Baynes said:

[A medical degree] does not confer an extensive awareness of ADSP, though in the timeframe of these events the medical profession is more aware of it than in "1895".

I don't think it's a spoiler to say that this John is aware that Sherlock may have Asperger's syndrome, though that's not his specialty.  (Based your other comments, I assume that the A in ADSP stands for either that or autism.)

6 hours ago, Inspector Baynes said:

We therefore hold our expectations and hopes loosely.

Yet we do hold them, don't we?  Otherwise neither drama nor comedy nor poetry would work.

6 hours ago, Inspector Baynes said:

I've come to anticipate some extremely clever uses of mirrors, reflections, etc. in British filmography...and particularly with BBC itself...from prior works.

You and Arcadia need to discuss that next time she's online!  I'm personally not generally too keen on clever mirror shots, as I often find them confusing and/or distracting.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, Carol the Dabbler said:

ADSP

Sorry, slip of the eyeballs and brainworks.  ASPD - Antisocial Personality Disorder, a 'lump' category into which both sociopathic and psychopathic disorders are generally grouped these days to avoid the difficulties of defining critical distinctions.
 

25 minutes ago, Carol the Dabbler said:

as I often find them confusing and/or distracting.

Oh, sorry.  I've come to find the issues and uses of reflection quite useful in daily life as well as filmography. But as with anything else, it's entirely a matter of personal preferences.

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Inspector Baynes said:

ASPD - Antisocial Personality Disorder, a 'lump' category into which both sociopathic and psychopathic disorders are generally grouped....

Thanks!  I did come across that full term recently, but if they used the abbreviation I didn't remember it.  The reason I couldn't find it with Google is probably that a] the same four letters have a LOT of different uses, and b] I was assuming that the A stood for either autism or Asperger's.

Anyhow -- there are a couple of throwaway lines later on in the show, one where John mentions Asperger's as a possibility in Sherlock's case, and one where Sherlock refers to himself as "a high-functioning sociopath."  But that's two different things, and you were talking about the second one, not (as I thought) the first one.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 12/28/2022 at 5:58 AM, Inspector Baynes said:

Well.  OK.  Here are my first comments on this very old series.  (And yes, I've taken a few minutes to review some of the earliest comments in this thread. The later comments seem to reflect perspectives following later additions to the series.)

Watch out for spoiler, at some point, we assumed everyone had seen every episode because we did, so we talked about everything, intentionally or not.

On 12/28/2022 at 5:58 AM, Inspector Baynes said:


I agree with those who are 'into' the series.  The adaptation to more current times, settings, etc. are well done.
I also agree the leaps of logic as presented are stimulating, and the incorporation of elements of the Canon into the scenes are cleverly done, if completely different.  The 'flavor' is there.

My concern after the first 3 episodes is this particular Sherlock is far more self-centered and self-indulgent than the Canon's Sherlock. 


I agree with you, but let me add something. Personally, I think many people are drawn to this adaptation because of how personal Sherlock is. Ironically, many relate to him, yes, to this rude, arrogant, clueless, borderline socially inept character.


A little scene I remember well is the look exchanges between Lestrade and John when Sherlock talks about the sentimental value of Rachel. I could very well imagine myself not considering that while immersed in solving or doing something.


It was not my time when earlier adaptations took place, and I didn't have access to watch those long after or even now. Hercule Poirot was more of my detective, so I approached this series with almost a blank slate, except knowing that he is supposed to wear deerstalker and have sleek hair. ☺️


Which brings me to the question what do you think of the character's physical implementation in this series? 

I like that Cumberbatch's Sherlock is athletic and agile because I wouldn't know that by looking at previous portrayals. I didn't know that Sherlock is capable of many things other than brain stuff. Like Carol's said, I think he is supposed to be the younger version with all his immature qualities, which is imo, nicely done with him crashing around while being excited.


Other important questions in relation to this episode:


- What do you think about the soundtrack? I have to admit it plays a big role for me.


- Does Mycroft surprise you? His presence, demeanor, and the way he doesn't look like 'usual' Mycroft?


- John's psychosomatic limping, his PTSD, and both bother's deduction about what is missing in his life? They said he missed the war, the danger. I'd say he misses a purpose. This is why this series works for me because it goes many ways and keeps me thinking.
The same thing can be said about Jeff. It could take the smallest reason for someone to justify their despicable actions. Brain aneurysms are not rare; we might even have them without knowing. But he has a purpose. When push comes to shove, strangers' lives don't matter. Psychopathy, yes. But I can easily see that he lived his life 'normally' before going on a killing spree for monetary gain.


So is bitterness really paralytic, and is love really a more vicious motivator? As an avid watcher of true crime, I think Sherlock has a good point here, although bitterness could also be deadly.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 hours ago, Carol the Dabbler said:

"a high-functioning sociopath."

This one happens to be a quote directly from Canon of course. So Sherlock is aware he has issues - which may exclude him from full psychopathy. The lines between the two are pretty blurred.  So far there is only the one scene where he leans toward psychopathy in my mind, so I'm not settled on psychopathy yet.

 

6 hours ago, Van Buren Supernova said:

Does Mycroft surprise you? His presence, demeanor, and the way he doesn't look like 'usual' Mycroft?

 

Yes, Mycroft surprises me - not the Mycroft of Canon at all, and certainly the "occassion" that takes him "off his rails" in the Series is an insufficient one to do so - again, according to "Canonical" reasoning.  We are also, at least at this point, left a bit flat concerning his reasoning abilities, which exceed Sherlock's of course.

6 hours ago, Van Buren Supernova said:

Which brings me to the question what do you think of the character's physical implementation in this series? 

I think the physical implementation is good.  Sherlock was a boxer, expert single-stick player and swordsman. Again, things needed for 'his chosen profession.'  It is accurate to portray Sherlock as a physically fit and well-skilled individual.  "He was somewhat over 6 feet tall and extremely lean making him look taller.He also had a "strength of grip which was hardly expected" given his appearance, and in one case gives a rather remarkable demonstration of his physical strength.
 

6 hours ago, Van Buren Supernova said:

knowing that he is supposed to wear deerstalker and have sleek hair.

Just as a note though I'm sure you know, Sherlock never wears a deerstalker in Canon. That's a contrivance first seen with William Gillette's stage performance, and like so many adaptations, it 'stuck' with the consuming public. His hair is another matter. It is never mentioned in Canon, though many other of his attributes are.  (I just did another search of every mention of 'hair' in the Canon to be sure my mind wasn't playing with me.) So the field is wide open regarding that.
 

6 hours ago, Van Buren Supernova said:


So is bitterness really paralytic, and is love really a more vicious motivator?

Oh, you open a huge field for discussion here. To be succinct, my personal view is it's not the bitterness, or the love, but the nature of the psychosis that drives both the result, and the extent, of the thing.  Bitterness is neither paralytic nor motivational in and of itself.  It just is.  Love is neither vicious (motivational) nor paralytic in and of itself.  We can look all around us in our own lives, and see the workings of both those (and much more) and the very different results they exhibit in behaviors - as well as degrees of those results.  So it's not the existence of the 'thing' but the extent of the psychosis determining outcomes.  

6 hours ago, Van Buren Supernova said:

What do you think about the soundtrack?

To be honest it was one of the first things I noted, and pleasantly.  (I found the soundtrack for the Jeremy Brett series pleasant as well, by the way.) Soundtrack is another area I give British productions higher marks in than our American ones - generally speaking. 

 

6 hours ago, Van Buren Supernova said:

I think many people are drawn to this adaptation because of how personal Sherlock is. Ironically, many relate to him, yes, to this rude, arrogant, clueless, borderline socially inept character.

I would just like to close with this part.  I agree with you many people relate to him, and to this sort of unfiltered personality.  (Witness Donald Trump's charisma.)

Inside each of us there is that little part that would just LOVE to say what we're really thinking.  To just 'let it go and let it out.'  There's a certain freedom in unloading on others. It is particularly seen in childhood. Most of us mature and develop a filter preventing such abuses.  

Fortunately Sherlock's is a mild case. There is an arena within which it can work and be tolerated, and he has found a niche within which it can function without too detrimental an impact.  But it does need watching, and I think Scotland Yard does well to keep him engaged and right in their crosshairs!  He is a wonder to observe, but as has been seen in others, this type can be very dangerous for society as well.

The question for me became and remains why Doyle chose such a personality to depict his "most perfect reasoning machine" - but the result is a character far more 'memorable' than almost any other in the annals of crime fighting.  Would he be nearly so interesting without his idiosyncrasies and character flaws?  I highly doubt it.

  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, Van Buren Supernova said:

Hercule Poirot was more of my detective

A side note on this particular comment:  it's an intriguing one.

I've just laid in some Poirot to do a little dabbling in that world.  I'm aware of the name of course, and have seen parts of a couple episodes or movies with a certain David Suchet filling the role of the gent.  

Apparently there's quite a bit more of Poirot about than I've let myself become acquainted with - and I know there are a few battalions of Agatha Christie fans lurking about in various corners and crevasses of the world. 

I'm working my way through "Rivals of Sherlock Holmes", but several of those are nearly one-offs, and though entertaining, as I noted elsewhere I think, I prefer 'world builders' overall, in those genres I like to dwell in.

It's time to expand a bit in the detective fiction genre.   

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 12/29/2022 at 2:00 AM, Van Buren Supernova said:

John's psychosomatic limping, his PTSD, and both bother's deduction about what is missing in his life? They said he missed the war, the danger. I'd say he misses a purpose.

I agree!  He wasn't shooting people in the war, he was saving lives every day.  Then they told him he wasn't useful any more, so just go home.

On 12/29/2022 at 8:01 AM, Inspector Baynes said:

"a high-functioning sociopath" happens to be a quote directly from Canon of course.

Really?  I've never come across that one -- what story is it from, and who says it, about whom?  You'll hear that quote pretty often here, because it's used in a Series 3 episode.

On 12/29/2022 at 8:01 AM, Inspector Baynes said:

not the Mycroft of Canon at all,

Regarding his (lack of) weight -- I'm not sure you've seen any of these episodes yet, but they make some little jokes about him being on a diet.

On 12/29/2022 at 8:01 AM, Inspector Baynes said:

Inside each of us there is that little part that would just LOVE to say what we're really thinking.

Oh, good heavens, yes!!!  So when Sherlock does that, it's such a great release of our usual safeguards that it's hilarious.

On 12/29/2022 at 8:01 AM, Inspector Baynes said:

The question for me became and remains why Doyle chose such a personality to depict his "most perfect reasoning machine" - but the result is a character far more 'memorable' than almost any other in the annals of crime fighting. 

Which may answer your question.  Absolute perfection is boring.

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 12/29/2022 at 12:31 PM, Inspector Baynes said:

It's time to expand a bit in the detective fiction genre.   

I don't think you've mentioned Rex Stout's Nero Wolfe stories -- a mid-20th-century American series that occupies a niche about halfway between cosy and hard-boiled.  The corpus is somewhat larger than ACD's Holmes: 33 novels and 41 shorter pieces.

The format is similar -- a first-person narrative by the detective's assistant, in this case Archie Goodwin, who is a licensed PI in his own right and acts as Wolfe's legman, because the boss is a lazy 300-pound genius, somewhat reminiscent of Mycroft Holmes.

 

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Who's Online   0 Members, 0 Anonymous, 29 Guests (See full list)

    • There are no registered users currently online
×
×
  • Create New...

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.