Steady on...

[evilhippo]

This is one of those odd little browser-tab-closing posts, partly for my own benefit. There's a really excellent discussion on the myth of genius in Sherlock going on at the moment, which I am promising myself I won't get involved in (especially in regards to the semantics of morality/amorality, and authorial intention. Aaaaaargh I could set fire

Comments

[apple_pathways]

I think Law & Order comes close to that morality play storytelling. Except for the episodes where we're meant to feel "moral turmoil" over the case, and they intentionally leave things unresolved/resolved unsatisfactorily, the episodes tend to end with with the feeling that just the right amount of justice has been achived: the reprehensible murderers and rapists get the death penalty, and anyone who's shown to be even remotely sympathetic is given a deal that we're led to believe exactly matches their level of worthiness. (I love Law & Order; again, I'd like to live in a world where "justice" is a measurably achievable goal.)

I'm pretty sure the BBC series doesn't want to portray Holmes with the definitive morality he has in the books; they're much more interested in playing with the 'superman' archetype. I think we're meant to ask ourselves if Holmes's genius, and the way he uses it to benefit society, except him from having to conform to society's conventions and social niceties. I can't think of anything he's done that I would call exactly "immoral"--the only thing he did that really bothered me was the extra couple seconds he took before revealing how he knew the Vermeer was a fake. I was a bit outraged when I first saw it, and I just couldn't believe they were asking us to accept the way he risked the little boy's life in order to stroke his own ego and marvel over his own genius. But I think we're meant to believe that he just got caught up in the moment and the brilliance of the puzzle, and not view it as a conscience disregard for the child's well-being.

Also, the way he dragged out the solution to the TV host's death and let the old woman spend those extra hours as a hostage were really pretty callous and brutal. Of course, his choice served a greater good: it allowed him to do some research and get ahead of Moriarty, possibly saving future lives. It's hard to keep that in mind, though, when you picture that terrified woman waiting in agony.

That's probably the biggest difference between the stories and the BBC series: in Doyle's version, Holmes's judgment is presented as flawlessly moral, whereas the BBC series leaves room for debate (and leaves the audience feeling slightly unnerved at his callous choices).

You're right about Moriarty being perfectly evil; we've not been shown any bit of redemption in him yet. The fact that he twists regular, morally-balanced people to his evil purposes only makes him slimier. I'm pretty much in love with him. ;)

The taxi driver, I believe, is the least Doylian (is that a word?) character in the entire series. He's creepy and bad, but also sympathetic, and he's killed by Watson and we're not asked to feel any remorse. John and Sherlock giggle over his death! ACD would not approve. ;)