Discussion: What makes Holmes Holmes?

[goldvermilion87]

Saw this interesting interview on PBS:  http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/masterpiece/sherlock/producers.html

All of it's interesting, but you have to select "True to the original" in which Moffat briefly states why he thinks it is true to the original.  (also "Embracing Technology' applies)  Here is my very sloppy transcript of the lines I'm interested in:

"

Comments

[capt_facepalm]

How important is the Edwardian-ness of Holmes to you?
Edwardian-ness, Victorian-ness, fog, Hansom cabs, and the complete avoidance of Deerstalker caps; they are all very important to me. However, they pale in comparison with the characters, which are, of course, the most important elements.

Does setting the stories in the present take anything away from them?
Situating them in the present does NOT take away the elements of setting, it REPLACES historical details with modern ones. Each have their charms. While Moffat's version could use more fog, the idea of Sherlock texting is priceless.

Moffat argues that he's preserving the spirit of the books by taking it out of the original trappings. What do you think about that idea in any fandom?In the case of Sherlock Holmes, Moffat and Gatiss have succeeded because they have transported the essence of the ACD creation (i.e. the characters and their interactions) to their modern adaptation

[goldvermilion87]

I like your answer.

Especially the part where you said ACD was a hack. I feel like he accidentally created a pair of genius characters. The end.

This is what I told my mom when she complained about the plot of Ep 1 of Sherlock. I said, "Mom, no one really cares what happened. We just care about Sherlock and John."

Like the Three Garridebs. NO ONE WOULD CARE except that Holmes for the first and last time actually admitted his affection for Watson (which honestly makes me as sad as it does happy...I mean POOR GUY, waiting SO LONG for those fifteen seconds of affection...)

And I am now being much meaner to Doyle than I really feel, but I had to rant for a second.

:-P

[goldvermilion87]

I think The Hound of the Baskervilles was written well. :-)

[capt_facepalm]

All right, I'll bite. Here is the exchange between Holmes and Watson from HOUN:

"What do you make of it?"

"It is very bewildering."

"It has certainly a character of its own. There are points of distinction about it. That change in the footprints, for example. What do you make of that?"

"Mortimer said that the man had walked on tiptoe down that portion of the alley."

"He only repeated what some fool had said at the inquest. Why should a man walk on tiptoe down the alley?"

"What then?"

"He was running, Watson--running desperately, running for his life, running until he burst his heart--and fell dead upon his face."

(When I am running for my life, I am not running on tiptoes. Either Sir Charles was a remarkable man, or ACD was a hack! But, I absolutely love the Hound of the Baskervilles. Not listing an English degree amongst my eclectic achievements, I cannot judge whether, linguistically, it was well-written or not. As a fan, I can say that the story was well-crafted and enjoyable to read.)

[dreamflower02]

How important is the Edwardian-ness of Holmes to you?

Hmmm...good question. To me, of course, there are parts of the period details that make up the charm and atmosphere of the original stories. That said, the character dyanamics and relationships are the most important part.

I've yet to see the modern adaptation, so I can't judge how well it's been accomplished. I would tend to see it as "fanfic" (as I do any adaptation from the original. I consider PJ's adaptation of LotR as a fanfic, albeit an "official" one.) And there is no reason such a thing cannot be done with respect to the essence of the original canon.

That said, it has to be realized that the Edwardian milieu of Conan Doyle was not just a "period" he researched, but a time in which he lived, and that part of his characterizations of Holmes and Watson and all the other characters were the attitudes and beliefs of that day. And many of those attitudes would not translate well to modern times

[goldvermilion87]

First, you MUST see the show. (If you want to know the super illegal ways to secretly find them online...I know those ways. I do own the DVDs, though

[goldvermilion87]

So...my weird, always a few miles behind brain just realized that I had a much better example for my why-modernizing-fixes-the-problem-of-reading-anachronistically. Moffat and Gatiss decide in Sherlock that they call each other Sherlock and John, not Holmes and Watson. To a modern person reading, with no background on the Victorian era, the fact that they call one another by their surnames could sound very odd--formal, perhaps, or just prissy. But it's actually a sign of familiarity, and by moderninzing it to Sherlock and John the idea Doyle wanted to get across is preserved. :-)

[goldvermilion87]

(It was brief for an English major. :-P)

[goldvermilion87]

(Also, better than Polonius.

"My liege and Madam, to expostulate what majesty is...why day is day and night is night and time is time, were not hing but to waste day, night and time. There fore, Since Brevity is the soul of wit, and tediousness the limbs and outward hinders. I will be brief. Your noble son is mad. Mad call I it, for to define true madness, what is it but to be in fact mad.")

I would go on, but you've got the idea, I'm sure. Hehe.