What Geek Media Do You Refuse To Partake In?

Yeah I think this combined with a general late 2000s-era fad for "he's a jerk but he's right!" characters who were curiously almost always about well-educated white men about the same age as their showrunners (I wonder why) and a slightly earlier and less awful trend of "flawed detective" characters (who were more diverse), which might trace back to things like Homicide: Life on the Street (the TV series being fiction based on true crime, I note) and NYPD Blue, but really goes back further.

Honestly I think the worst of them was the BBC Sherlock in many ways because it was one of the most perfect cases of writers having near total contempt for their fans and also of people trying to write genius problem solving but who were totally disinterested in actually doing that. However I will leave that argument to Hbomberguy, who can explicate it infinitely better than me.
Yes, Sherlock is terrible for this. Elementary is a lot better in almost every way, not least in the portrayal of Holmes as someone who has actual mental health and substance use problems (his Watson starts out as a sober companion for him) and this makes a lot of his erratic behaviour more understandable, if not pardonable, depending.

Holmes in the original short stories and novels, in my opinion, is mainly coded as unconventional. He’s very clever and he knows it, and this makes him impatient with social conventions under many circumstances, sadly especially with his best friend, Some of the latter is narrative convention - the reason Watson doesn’t say, “just tell me the solution and show us how clever you are, you’re clearly gagging to” more often is that he’s not allowed to because the solution has to come at the end, and so we just have the sad spectacle of Holmes berating Watson for not seeing the obvious. This is still awful and shouldn’t be excused.

But with most other people, Holmes is perfectly polite and respectful. He knows how to behave and he knows how to elicit information from a client (by listening, House, you should try it some time), and he’s often more kind and respectful to servants, women, children etc. than other men around him who consider such people to be their social lessers. He almost never punches down, in other words. He saves his barbs for people who deserve it who are at least his social or professional equal. Lestrade etc often gets it in the neck because he opens with a clearly incorrect theory or “You’ll never solve this one, Mr Holmes” and even then Holmes usually is mild and restrained, at least initially.

I think Holmes’ cultural reputation (often seen in adaptations) is based on his core unconventionality and the fact that Watson is clearly very intimidated by his friend (which is very sad). So Watson goes on a lot about how Holmes is a bloodless icy calculating machine, when actually Holmes clearly has many emotions (not least love for Watson*) and expresses them all the time. These two factors then get translated in adaptations to “@$$hole who is unfortunately always right” which is a convenient power fantasy for many writers.

*Whether this is in any way romantic love is unclear, but it’s a valid interpretation, I think. Certainly neither of them ever express it as such, but it’s obvious that if Holmes was attracted to Watson, and knew that it wasn’t returned (Watson is married for most of the time they’re together), he would never say a word.
 
Last edited:

log in or register to remove this ad

Modern media depictions of Holmes tend to emphasize his more abrasive traits for whatever reason.
At some point (not sure if it's still true anymore) it was for copyright reasons, believe it or not. The wave of Holmes productions like Sherlock and Elementary came out in the wake of the earlier run of Holmes short stories leaving copyright, but the Conan Doyle estate insisted that the character's portrayal must match that of those early short stories, not the more rounded and less abrasive character depicted in the later stories written after Conan Doyle returned to the character later, as those, generally longer, stories were still under copyright.
 

They tried to do a "nice Sherlock" once and they got sued by Arthur Conan Doyle's estate over it; I imagine that the estate itself played a bit of a role in thinking about how to portray him

Edit: 🥷
 

They tried to do a "nice Sherlock" once and they got sued by Arthur Conan Doyle's estate over it; I imagine that the estate itself played a bit of a role in thinking about how to portray him

Edit: 🥷
Did they? I've never heard this about the estate. Which version was it? They seem fine with comical parody versions and so on (such as Holmes & Watson in 2018).

Did you mean the lawsuit about Enola Holmes (which does indeed have a nicer Holmes)? I see Netflix settled that. The lawsuit is nonsense, in my opinion - Holmes isn't particularly more pleasant or human in the last 12 stories (The Casebook of Sherlock Holmes, a distinctly mixed bag but one at least does show Holmes in retirement, and one has some pulp elements). It sounds more like a pathetic try-on.

(I think the Henry Cavill Holmes is a perfectly reasonable version of the character, though he's probably too strikingly good-looking. Mycroft is about half the size he should be, but then "thin Mycroft" is now the default, as seen with Christopher Lee, Mark Gatiss, Rhys Ifans etc.)
 

Did they? I've never heard this about the estate. Which version was it? They seem fine with comical parody versions and so on (such as Holmes & Watson in 2018).

Did you mean the lawsuit about Enola Holmes (which does indeed have a nicer Holmes)? I see Netflix settled that. The lawsuit is nonsense, in my opinion - Holmes isn't particularly more pleasant or human in the last 12 stories (The Casebook of Sherlock Holmes, a distinctly mixed bag but one at least does show Holmes in retirement, and one has some pulp elements). It sounds more like a pathetic try-on.
Yeah, it was the Enola Holmes suit. And the thing about lawsuits is that, in many ways, they are preventative measures moreso than punitive or restorative. Paramount and Fox aren't going to make character decisions if there's even a chance that the estate holders will sue them for it.
 

Yeah, it was the Enola Holmes suit. And the thing about lawsuits is that, in many ways, they are preventative measures moreso than punitive or restorative. Paramount and Fox aren't going to make character decisions if there's even a chance that the estate holders will sue them for it.
In which case it’s an awful and stupid thing of the estate to do, since they’re enforcing an unnecessarily unpleasant caricature of the character for which they’re responsible. Ah well, I guess in a few years we won’t have to worry about it since even The Casebook passes out of American copyright in 2027.
 

Yes, Sherlock is terrible for this. Elementary is a lot better in almost every way, not least in the portrayal of Holmes as someone who has actual mental health and substance use problems (his Watson starts out as a sober companion for him) and this makes a lot of his erratic behaviour more understandable, if not pardonable, depending.

Well, in Sherlock you have the issue that Holmes (and his sublings) are clearly intended to be neurodivergent (spelled out pretty clearly in his case, but its obvious with the others, too). You can argue how good a job they do of depicting that, but he's not intended to be read as a normal person.
 


Admittedly, the show isn't amazingly consistent with that. And being a small hospital doesn't really track with the number of mysterious cases that show up there. Oh well. Maybe they have the medical equivalent of the Hellmouth there?
2nd thought it’s this show, but played straight:
 

Remove ads

Top