We'll let you have a little Sherlock fling, but then we expect you to come back to the HP old ladies in the end, hear?
I'm a total Holmes canon whore (mind-boggling sexism and imperialism and all). I started reading the stories as a kid, in this book we had, called "The Junior Sherlock Holmes" or something like that -- illustrated versions. Since then, I've watched various film versions, but the only ones I've liked have been the Jeremy Brett series; for me, he's the definitive Holmes.
Haven't seen Elementary yet, not being much of a Lucy Liu fan. The modern BBC version just pisses me off -- total race and gender fail. There's perhaps some excuse for such viewpoints in the original (or, if "excuse" is the wrong word, then at least I can understand how Doyle wasn't able to see outside his own cultural position. But there's no excuse for it in 2000-whatever.) Also, I don't think Cumberbatch's autistic Holmes (as he said in an interview someplace) makes any sense, since Holmes's entire "deductive" method depends on his being able
( ... )
I want to like the modern BBC version, because it is clever, but totally aside from the not-insignificant fail (and the funny thing is, canon Holmes, while a product of his time, was incredibly progressive on issues of race, gender, and class for his era), I just don't buy the relationships between any of the characters - for me, the writing renders them all quite plastic and superficial, simply a source for one-liners, and if you don't buy into a Holmes-Watson core relationship at the very least, the show really falls apart as a nasty mess. Plus, as you say, it doesn't make a lot of sense to pathologize Holmes the way they have, and strikes me as symptomatic of the modern rush to classify any introversion or obsession as Aspergers/autism. (Honestly, I like the show a bit more than it seems; it's because I think there's so much they did well that I seem to have so much to say on where I feel they fell short
( ... )
he more I think Edward Hardwicke is a largely unsung genius in that show Good point. Watson is hard to pull off, given his canon position as the sidekick who has to be the recipient of exposition. But he's not dim in canon, and I like when he's given some depth in film interpretations.
incredibly progressive on issues of race, gender, and class for his era "Incredibly" in the sense of "surprising," definitely. But not in the sense of "extremely." Despite fics like "The Yellow Face" and some strong female characters like Violet (don't remember her last name; from "Copper Beeches") and Irene Adler, I think the originals are still very problematic. Still, Doyle is an interesting man -- embodies the best and the worst of that type of upper-class male chivalry. I think he would have been fun to talk to (even about fairies /g/).
symptomatic of the modern rush to classify any introversion or obsession as Aspergers/autism. Yes! I see this a lot.
I want that Mrs. Hudson story. Start today, please.
Yes, the "progressive" values of canon Holmes certainly don't stand up to modern scrutiny; it's not a modern "incredibly", rather a contextually qualified one. But it is almost universally the case that Holmes sympathizes with, and has more praise for, the powerless rather than the powerful of his society, to the point of (mildly) perverting the course of justice in their favor. It can fairly be said that sort of upper-class male chivalry is a bit paternalistic, but he also takes it rather further than was common in his era; Holmes's attitudes are not, I think, conventional in his society, though certainly the product of his society. ("The Yellow Face", in particular, was edited by American publishers to make it more palatable to American readers - I'm not sure how late into the 20th century the edit stood, but I think quite some time. And, gosh, that story had such tremendous opportunity to go screechingly, unbearably off the rails... I heaved a sigh of relief when it didn't
( ... )
Also, I don't think Cumberbatch's autistic Holmes (as he said in an interview someplace) makes any sense, since Holmes's entire "deductive" method depends on his being able to read the tiny social behavior cues that people "on the spectrum" have trouble with. Sorry to intrude on an educated literary discussion - which I can't contribute to - but as someone "on the spectrum" I can say that this does not disqualify anyone from reading other people's behaviours. I'm as quilty as Hagrid of misreading signals that are aimed at me, but I have been known to be very sensitive to other people's nuances (maybe because I see through the society convensions to a point of ignoring them). I'm not saying that it's always like that, and I'm not saying that I represent everyone on the spectrum, and maybe I'm even misdiagnosed, but what I am saying is that sometimes not being able to see what everybody else sees as default makes one see other things clearer. Take Luna, for example. I don't know if what I said here is even relevant to the series (and I
( ... )
I'm a total Holmes canon whore (mind-boggling sexism and imperialism and all). I started reading the stories as a kid, in this book we had, called "The Junior Sherlock Holmes" or something like that -- illustrated versions. Since then, I've watched various film versions, but the only ones I've liked have been the Jeremy Brett series; for me, he's the definitive Holmes.
Haven't seen Elementary yet, not being much of a Lucy Liu fan. The modern BBC version just pisses me off -- total race and gender fail. There's perhaps some excuse for such viewpoints in the original (or, if "excuse" is the wrong word, then at least I can understand how Doyle wasn't able to see outside his own cultural position. But there's no excuse for it in 2000-whatever.) Also, I don't think Cumberbatch's autistic Holmes (as he said in an interview someplace) makes any sense, since Holmes's entire "deductive" method depends on his being able ( ... )
Reply
Reply
Good point. Watson is hard to pull off, given his canon position as the sidekick who has to be the recipient of exposition. But he's not dim in canon, and I like when he's given some depth in film interpretations.
incredibly progressive on issues of race, gender, and class for his era
"Incredibly" in the sense of "surprising," definitely. But not in the sense of "extremely." Despite fics like "The Yellow Face" and some strong female characters like Violet (don't remember her last name; from "Copper Beeches") and Irene Adler, I think the originals are still very problematic. Still, Doyle is an interesting man -- embodies the best and the worst of that type of upper-class male chivalry. I think he would have been fun to talk to (even about fairies /g/).
symptomatic of the modern rush to classify any introversion or obsession as Aspergers/autism.
Yes! I see this a lot.
I want that Mrs. Hudson story. Start today, please.
Reply
Reply
Reply
Leave a comment