In the context of the episode was meant to be somewhat witty and quite Holmesian, indeed. He’s not saying so much that he hates being right as he is expressing the fact that, were he wrong, someone would still be alive. Which you might have known, had you not decided to judge a book by it's proverbial cover.Also the trailer seems to suggest that Holmes found out Watson was a surgeon via Google -- but if you watch the episode, you'll see that this is just edited to look that way when the truth is that he googled something else entirely. That really is the trouble with taking things out of context, really.
There is also the business with Holmes actively and verbally conveying emotion, any emotion, which is OOC, imho.
.... Well you must think Benedict Cumberbatch’s rooftop tears terribly mangled the character.
But the truth is that no it isn't out of character at all. Holmes does actively convey and talk about his feelings all the time in the original canon, he’s melancholy, he’s reflective and he is disappointed and sometimes saddened by deaths.
Some examples include his conveying upset (an emotion!) when Watson is shot: : "You're not hurt, Watson? For God's sake, say that you are not hurt!"
It was worth a wound -- it was worth many wounds -- to know the depth of loyalty and love which lay behind that cold mask. The clear, hard eyes were dimmed for a moment, and the firm lips were shaking. For the one and only time I caught a glimpse of a great heart as well as of a great brain. All my years of humble but single-minded service culminated in that moment of revelation.
"It's nothing, Holmes. It's a mere scratch." He had ripped up my trousers with his pocket-knife.
"You are right," he cried with an immense sigh of relief. "It is quite superficial." His face set like flint as he glared at our prisoner, who was sitting up with a dazed face.
"By the Lord, it is as well for you. If you had killed Watson, you would not have got out of this room alive. Now, sir, what have you to say for yourself?"
~The Adventure of the Three Garridebs
and the somewhat famous ‘Rose Speech’ from Naval Treaty
"Thank you. I have no doubt I can get details from Forbes. The authorities are excellent at amassing facts, though they do not always use them to advantage. What a lovely thing a rose is!"
He walked past the couch to the open window, and held up the drooping stalk of a moss-rose, looking down at the dainty blend of crimson and green. It was a new phase of his character to me, for I had never before seen him show any keen interest in natural objects.
"There is nothing in which deduction is so necessary as in religion," said he, leaning with his back against the shutters. "It can be built up as an exact science by the reasoner. Our highest assurance of the goodness of Providence seems to me to rest in the flowers. All other things, our powers our desires, our food, are all really necessary for our existence in the first instance. But this rose is an extra. Its smell and its color are an embellishment of life, not a condition of it. It is only goodness which gives extras, and so I say again that we have much to hope from the flowers."
His emotions are certainly a bit unconventional, and Watson does explain that he doesn't seem to experience things quite the same way as everyone else, but to say he has no emotions is completely wrong.
Also, I don’t know if you noticed -- but this is a discussion about how completely misogynistic and racist a British journalist was regarding the casting of Lucy Liu as Watson, so I really don’t think your derailment of the topic to talk about your knee-jerk reaction to a trailer is all that relevant. I mean, it's an important subject, something far more important than the discussion of a fictional character, I think. This isn't a television community after all, or one about Sherlock Holmes. So if you want to talk about the article or Victoria Coren's internalised racism, then we can continue the discussion -- otherwise, I really don't think this is the time or the place.
Why would I want to "pick apart" Holmes with someone who can't look past the trailer of a pilot episode of a new series before deciding they've enough data to draw a conclusion? Holmes himself would be disappointed. I'm pointing out the error not only in your "analysis", but in your decision to chose this form to do it in.
and lol. Watson is saying for the 'one and only time he glimpsed that Holmes had a great heart, he isn't saying that, he grew one. Also, you can't, in one breath discredit Watson's account of Holmes and in the next cite it. Pick a position please.
Right, but if you think that Watson is unreliable than I could say that Holmes cries in his pillow every night, you just don't see it and you couldn't prove otherwise because everything we know of Holmes (with the exception of How Watson Learned the Trick the canon third person stories and those narrated by Holmes) we know from Watson.
By saying Watson isn't reliable and then later saying he is you're contradicting yourself and your own argument. Which doesn't surprise me all that much, considering your idea of critical thinking is forming an opinion based on a single line for a trailer.
Uh huh. So I'm asking you to find evidence that Holmes has no emotions whatsoever in one of the stories where he narrates or in one of the third person tales because otherwise, you're developed your own (incorrect) analysis of Holmes on the same perspective that you've discredited -- do you see why that doesn't make sense?
I do credit Watson because he isn't a real person and thus it stands to reason that, considering his function is narrator, he conveys what the author wanted the audience to see.
You said "Holmes actively and verbally conveying emotion, any emotion, [is] OOC, imho."
And, since you're saying that we can't use Watson as a source of information regarding Holmes, I'm asking you to point me in the direction of proof. Because I disagree -- and I pointed to a glimpse Watson believes he got of Holmes' great heart because it seemed most poignant. But happiness, sadness, excitement etc are still emotions and he conveys those all the time.
And also the "House" discussion did have something to do with the initial article because it was spawned from talk of two male leads vs male/female leads in modern adaptations of Holmes -- it wasn't just someone flouncing in and announcing they didn't like Elementary based on the trailer.
There is also the business with Holmes actively and verbally conveying emotion, any emotion, which is OOC, imho.
.... Well you must think Benedict Cumberbatch’s rooftop tears terribly mangled the character.
But the truth is that no it isn't out of character at all. Holmes does actively convey and talk about his feelings all the time in the original canon, he’s melancholy, he’s reflective and he is disappointed and sometimes saddened by deaths.
Some examples include his conveying upset (an emotion!) when Watson is shot: :
"You're not hurt, Watson? For God's sake, say that you are not hurt!"
It was worth a wound -- it was worth many wounds -- to know the depth of loyalty and love which lay behind that cold mask. The clear, hard eyes were dimmed for a moment, and the firm lips were shaking. For the one and only time I caught a glimpse of a great heart as well as of a great brain. All my years of humble but single-minded service culminated in that moment of revelation.
"It's nothing, Holmes. It's a mere scratch."
He had ripped up my trousers with his pocket-knife.
"You are right," he cried with an immense sigh of relief. "It is quite superficial." His face set like flint as he glared at our prisoner, who was sitting up with a dazed face.
"By the Lord, it is as well for you. If you had killed Watson, you would not have got out of this room alive. Now, sir, what have you to say for yourself?"
~The Adventure of the Three Garridebs
and the somewhat famous ‘Rose Speech’ from Naval Treaty
"Thank you. I have no doubt I can get details from Forbes. The authorities are excellent at amassing facts, though they do not always use them to advantage. What a lovely thing a rose is!"
He walked past the couch to the open window, and held up the drooping stalk of a moss-rose, looking down at the dainty blend of crimson and green. It was a new phase of his character to me, for I had never before seen him show any keen interest in natural objects.
"There is nothing in which deduction is so necessary as in religion," said he, leaning with his back against the shutters. "It can be built up as an exact science by the reasoner. Our highest assurance of the goodness of Providence seems to me to rest in the flowers. All other things, our powers our desires, our food, are all really necessary for our existence in the first instance. But this rose is an extra. Its smell and its color are an embellishment of life, not a condition of it. It is only goodness which gives extras, and so I say again that we have much to hope from the flowers."
His emotions are certainly a bit unconventional, and Watson does explain that he doesn't seem to experience things quite the same way as everyone else, but to say he has no emotions is completely wrong.
Also, I don’t know if you noticed -- but this is a discussion about how completely misogynistic and racist a British journalist was regarding the casting of Lucy Liu as Watson, so I really don’t think your derailment of the topic to talk about your knee-jerk reaction to a trailer is all that relevant. I mean, it's an important subject, something far more important than the discussion of a fictional character, I think. This isn't a television community after all, or one about Sherlock Holmes. So if you want to talk about the article or Victoria Coren's internalised racism, then we can continue the discussion -- otherwise, I really don't think this is the time or the place.
Reply
(The comment has been removed)
and lol. Watson is saying for the 'one and only time he glimpsed that Holmes had a great heart, he isn't saying that, he grew one. Also, you can't, in one breath discredit Watson's account of Holmes and in the next cite it. Pick a position please.
Reply
(The comment has been removed)
By saying Watson isn't reliable and then later saying he is you're contradicting yourself and your own argument. Which doesn't surprise me all that much, considering your idea of critical thinking is forming an opinion based on a single line for a trailer.
Reply
(The comment has been removed)
I do credit Watson because he isn't a real person and thus it stands to reason that, considering his function is narrator, he conveys what the author wanted the audience to see.
Reply
(The comment has been removed)
And, since you're saying that we can't use Watson as a source of information regarding Holmes, I'm asking you to point me in the direction of proof. Because I disagree -- and I pointed to a glimpse Watson believes he got of Holmes' great heart because it seemed most poignant. But happiness, sadness, excitement etc are still emotions and he conveys those all the time.
Reply
Reply
(The comment has been removed)
Reply
Leave a comment