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.)

[goldvermilion87]

You're absolutely right. I wouldn't say that HOUN is brilliantly written, but I think it deserves a humble seat at the table of the classics.

Actually, (and don't get me wrong--I'm not in any way claiming to be as good or better than ACD) when I write Sherlock Holmes fanfiction, I'm thinking consciously that I sort of want to sound like Watson, but not really, because I don't like his writing. Again, I don't think I succeed, but I am not going to ACD for tips. :-P

[capt_facepalm]

Here I doff my humility cloak and try to express some thoughts:

Although I like to keep my fanfiction closer to canon than any other source, I like to think of my writing as the "reading between the lines" of canon. I want my stories to fit with characters, the canon, and real world history, therefore the details become very important.

Earlier, you mention “The Three Garridebs” where the only example of Holmes expressing his affection for his friend. I am not alone in interpreting this as the time this was expressed in writing . Not every detail of their lives was recorded and published in the Strand. And gaps in the canon form the playground for us fan-fictioneers

[goldvermilion87]

Two things

[capt_facepalm]

Your quote does not leave a lot of wiggle room. unless you consider why Watson would actually write that to his audience in the Strand. His motives must be considered as separate from those of ACD. (... this conversation has just switched to ultra-weird...) It is easy to forget that Watson is a writer, as well as a doctor and a crime-fighter. The same fudge-factor which excuses ACD's detail inconsistencies, namely the obscuring of names and dates to protect the yadda yadda yadda... can also be used to justify the lack of personal details in his other stories.

[goldvermilion87]

This is why in my burgeoning head-canon Watson doesn't exist at ALL and is merely the figment of imagination of the wife of a much older and nicer man named Sherlock Holmes who is not in fact the Sherlock Holmes of the story.

Yes, my head canon does whatever it wants.

[capt_facepalm]

Head canon are like that.

Mine says that Dr Doyle stole the stories from from a non-verbal, disassociative, severely crippled soldier in a veterans' hospital, whose only form of communication were the stories he wrote. Doyle published them as his own, without bothering to iron out the details.

[goldvermilion87]

You have awesome head canon, my friend.

Sort of messed up, but also awesome.

[capt_facepalm]

Oh, I am taking that as a compliment!
It's the nicest thing I've seen in a long time!

[goldvermilion87]

HAHAHAHA!

[goldvermilion87]

I realized that a more intelligent yes-I-do-have-a-degree-in-English way of saying my point two would be, Lord of the Rings feels like a discrete work of art. There is nothing there that is mere trappings, because all that it is is part of Tolkien's art. ACD's work does not feel like one work of art, so I am more than happy to mess with it.

[capt_facepalm]

Oh, and I do not consider myself a writer of any note.. just an opinionated fangirl with a bad case of ACD OCD!

[goldvermilion87]

Hehe.

You are a good writer, my OCD fangirl friend. :-)