I don't care much for the original stories, and was surprised that I find this version really intriguing.
Well, to me it seems this Sherlock is driven - quite the opposite of placid, as you said.
He often acts mean and selfish - sometimes I can say, well, he does it to people who deserve it,
sometimes I could just go    . (Which is also kind of fun, I admit.)
But this creates a wonderful contrast to enhance the delicate and caring moments.
And I think his anger fits are probably more driven than calculated.
I like this radical character, yes. In all the funny and also tragic aspects.

The arses I know from real life are all less bearable to me. Even they hardly reach Sherlock's level.
Maybe also because Sherlock to me often seems stuck in some emotional preschool level.

One of the things that I love about this version is how, for me, it is truer to how I read ACD's characters than any other version (I always thought they were both younger men, for some reason).  Film and TV interpretations of Sherlock Holmes always seemed watered down to me. This Sherlock is cold, arrogant, childish, well-mannered, twitchy, and funny in a way that has me saying, 'Yes! This is really, finally *him*, the Sherlock Holmes from the books!' Even the modern twists, 3 patch problems and the way others assume that they are a couple sexually as well as emotionally, are 'in character' to me ( I love John's indignant reaction to a paper's use of the old phrase, 'confirmed bachelor', to suggest it).
Anyway, Moftiss have said part of the point of stripping away the Victoriana was to bring the characters alive for the viewer. I think they suceeded brilliantly, for me these incarnations are very real and authentic.
Someone's going to tick me off for referring to them as a 'couple emotionally', aren't they? Ah well. 

I am currently reading the original stories (I had read only a few short stories before, but now I am taking it a lot more seriously, one by one), and I can partly agree to what you are saying, saturnR.
He does come across as kinder, offering a kind word and a warm welcome to his clients, never shouting at them or insulting them outright. He also appears more aware of the lives and needs of others around him, especially Watson. He frequently asks him whether he has patients to tend to, never expecting him to be available at all hours.

Now, the things Kazza has pointed out are of course true. The Sherlock Holmes we meet in ACD's stories is an older man, who has obviously learnt from experience, and knows how to treat people. He is still quite a show off, but not in a scary, offensive way, always ready to explain how he arrived at his conclusions. He is also a man of the 19th Century, where personal insults were considered to be a lot worse than today, and manners and social behavioural code were followed almost obsessively. Surely, he would have lost most of his clients, and maybe even ended up in court himself if he had treated them the way BBC Sherlock treats the likes of Henry or even Mrs. Hudson.

Nonetheless, I do feel that Moftiss decided to exaggerate this arrogance and socially awkward behaviour beyond what was necessary for modern viewers. If you watch the Pilot, you will see that he is slightly different in it, speaking in a slower, more every-day voice and language, and generally behaving a little less "weird". I don't know the reasons behind the change (anyone?), but they obviously went with a brasher, even less patient Sherlock in the final version. For me, it is a slight departure from the original, but it works.

He is a rough diamond in Sherlock. He needs to have some edges knocked off and this is gradually happening. He is a 'work in progress' at the moment moving towards being closer to the original but he will never be exactly the same as this is a modern Sherlock Holmes for our time, not a 'Victorian' version that would be anachronistic and he would still appear weird but for a different reason.

Well, I think you have a point, Saturn. Reading the canon I also wondered why Moftiss made our Sherlock so much "ruder".
I kinda want to agree with all of what's been said here before, you are all such a bunch of lovely and intelligent people.
The age aspect has to be taken into consideration - younger Sherlock; less mature - and the fact that Holmes was already very eccentric for Victorian times and that nowadays we just might be used to "a bit more eccentric".
But the important thing is that it just works really well for the TV show like this and I wouldn't want our Sherlock to be any different. Less "arsemanship" (funny word) would mean less fun, less John-judging-Sherlock's-behaviour and less... well, eccentricity.

I agree the modern Sherlock has some old fashioned ideas and can be polite, kind and considerate to John. He laughs with John, nobody else. To others who diss him first he retaliates with biting deductions. Also at Christmas, which I think he finds artificial, he goes off on one is rude to Molly and apologises very formally and with warm sincerity. We see a change as he gets a little older and becomes more aware of social skills, thanks to John's coaching, but he's still got some maturing to do yet before he is able to as our Sherlock Admin puts it can turn the tap on and off under duress.

Add in that only 50 plus years ago most young people's idea of outrageous was Elvis music and jive dancing, not throwing missiles at policemen which is not rare in this last 25 years. Holmes was probably cutting edge as read by Victorian readers and no doubt by my grandmother bless her who thought a man on the moon was preposterous and was uncomfortable using public phone boxes. Times have changed.

Bravo on the whole of your post, but I especially want to comment on this part :

Smoggy_London_Air wrote:

................. Nowadays if a moderately young person doesn't want to get out and party people think there's something wrong with them, just as John thinks its peculiar at first that Sherlock has no boyfriend or girlfriend. His lack of one is a throwback to his days as a Victorian.

Absolutely explains much of what 'intrigues/baffles' a large section of the fandom. Just because he prefers his own company & just because he has no interest in sex it doesn't mean there is ANYTHING wrong with him at all!

With so many people trying to psychoanalyse these days, more commonly people cannot understand that some individuals LIKE to be alone for the most part. They think 'oh he must have some other disorder/affliction mentally or he's shying away because of some trauma'.
They cannot fathom that some people do NOT have sexual urges of any persuasion. Again, they believe there MUST be a reason for this.

'Modern medicine' or more precisely, modern psychiatric medicine has been grasped by the masses (via online sources & the media)  and used to 'explain' every trait that is not common in society.

To hell with the fact that maybe, JUST MAYBE these people are exquisite individuals who leave a unique mark on society.
At the rate this over-analysis & self diagnosis is going, there will NEVER be another Einstein, Da Vinci or the like. Because good old 'well meaning' society will have drugged them, labelled them & popped them into a 'support group' environment & killed any individuality they ever had.

Luckily, Sherlock Holmes is immune to this nonsense, his character is set & those who choose to preserve it, as Moftiss are doing are doing future generations a great service.

*steps off soap box*

well  I  think the writers wanted to SHOW  how  decisive and cunning Sherlock  can be--  In the cannon,  he DID offend,  sometimes,  but He always explained why.   In  the tv versions,  (All of them)  we the viewers get to see that.  I think that's the difference,  from page to screen.   And I like it.   I  do see SOME  differences,  but I can't really explain it  with   BBC SHERLOCK  since they don't really do a full canon story.   But with Jeremy Brett's versions,  I  did see a difference there.   Jeremy's portrayal of Holmes,  for instance in the BOSCOMBE VALLEY MYSTERY  and  THE MUSGRAVE RITUAL stories,  were just a bit  lighter in tone,  than the canon.

I agree also about the over medicating business. Not to say that some people don't need to take medication, of course they do, for themselves and for others. However, and this is a big however, the routine medicating of children from a very young age with Ritalin for hyperactivity is a practice of which I strongly disapprove. Impulsiveness and high levels of energy are not necessarily bad traits in a person. There are a tremendous number of extraordinary individuals who show these traits who do the most extraordinary things.

To be perfectly honest, extreme sports of all kinds would be nowhere without them and the great explorer and adventurer Sir Rannulph Fiennes is a prime example (his autobiography is entitled 'Mad, Bad and Dangerous to Know'). The creative arts would also be decimated without such individuals of genius who are different from the norm e.g Sylvia Plath, Tolstoy and Ernest Hemingway. Politics too have seen such extraordinary people; those who need little sleep, for instance, such as Sir Winston Churchill and Abraham Lincoln. Science also hs been littered with such folk e.g. Sir Isaac Newton.

Case made m'lud.

Last edited by Davina (September 24, 2012 7:08 am)

There will always be the 'haves' and the 'have nots' Hyper. There will always be the oppressed and the exalted. That is simply a part of nature, in all species.
Certainly, mankind has had to learn some things by trial and error. And yes, things done back a few centuries are now considered 'cruel' or horrid. But that was the best way they knew how to deal with things. I'm not saying they were right or wrong, they had not evolved medicine to a high enough degree to understand what we understand now. Recall also with those examples you gave that many other aspects of life then would these days be considered appalling.
So to compare then & now is really an apples & oranges scenario.

Psychiatric and Psychological practices these days COULD  be brilliant, but far too often they spend so much time & effort labelling people that they forget that they are people.
There are glimpses of brilliance where they get it right but moreover from my perspective, our species has been weakened mentally. Especially in the Western world. I'll leave it there.
JMHO