nakahara wrote:

Well, what I adressed in my thread was not exactly the writing of this show, but the general perception people have of Sherlock as a character after watching it. I personally have no problem with S3 as a whole, I liked all three seasons equally and I also like Sherlock´s portrayal as we see it on screen. I agree that this is probably the most interesting and original Sherlock we had in a long time.

Still, I speak of "assassination" of his character, because I see the increasing number of Sherlock´s descriptions as an arsehole, cock and similar epithets, found on blogs and reviews of the story and I am annoyed by the paradox that my favourite show had this influence on my favourite hero. If people title someone with the name of a human genital or intestine tract or describe his friendship as toxic, I cease to see anything positive in it - the word buries any growth, any complexity, any "grayness" the character had in the story and paints him as something negative

If I am reading your posts correctly (my apologies if I have misread them) then you still think that there is a possibility that Motfiss might have "assassinated" Sherlock as a character because of certain "fans" perceptions of how they view the character?

My response to that question is... a resounding "No!"  Definitely Moftiss are not responsible for some immature perceptions and carelessly thought out words some people choose to describe a character in their "fanfictions" or personal blogs. The creators/writers of the show aren't the ones who should be questioned as to assassinating Sherlock's character - it's the people who are using those types of words who are the ones assassinating the character! 

To seriously navel gaze about their so-called opinions and perceptions gives them undo weight IMO.

I think the vast majority of critics and fans of the series don't subscribe to those types of descriptors of Sherlock and view the character in a much more sophisticated light - seeing him as a complex person with positive and negative traits in equal abundance, who, in the capable hands of Moftiss, is presented in a highly entertaining, charismatic and intelligent manner.

-Val


 

"Sherlock Holmes is a great man, and I think one day—if we're very very lucky—he might even be a good one." -Inspector Lestrade, ASIP

That’s what the entire arc of the show is about: Sherlock’s transition from a great man, to a good one. The way I see it, Moffitson's objective with BBC Sherlock was not to create a show modeled after ACD's anthology format. It seems clearly to be to show the transition of Sherlock from a “great man” into a “good one” who has some appreciation for sentiment. Of course I'm not judging people who doesn't like this Sherlock's characterization which is a little outside the ACD's one. It's fiction and it's completely up to people whether they like it as a whole or part of it or whatever. But about Sherlock's characterization, what I think people miss is that Moffitson has simply brought the essence of canon Sherlock Holmes in their Story. What I mean is that they have given their Sherlock all the recognizable Sherlockian traits like unprecedented powers of obsevation and deduction; preference of a solitary life; aversion to and low opinion of sentiment and love; history of substance abuse etc. What they have done in Sherlock is that they have given Sherlock (also John) a specific backstory explaining why he has these traits which is gradually becoming more explicit. I longed to know more about canon Shelrock as a person, so I really appreciate Moffits focusing on fleshing out Sherlock's character throughout the show. Although our Sherlock is not the canon one it's really fun to deduce our Sherlock's character by observing how he leads his life and how he interacts with others. Understandably many people want Sherlock's characterization to be more like the canon and the show focused more on solving cases but Moffitson has sold me with their 'deduce our characters' format.

He still has time to evolve. From my perspective, Cumberbatch’s Sherlock is still a young Holmes. I believe Sherlock Holmes probably would have been a huge asshole in his youth. However, Ben’s Sherlock might become more mature in series as he gets older. In which case, he might become much closer to Jeremy Brett’s Sherlock Holmes in terms of personality. He would be cool, reserved, but no longer sociopathic. He may still be rude and inconsiderate but in much smaller doses.

Do you remember the first time you watched a "Study in Pink"? How we as viewers were kind of put into John´s shoes and felt such a sense of wonder as we watched Sherlock. Sherlock did many weird, confusing and seemingly nutty things during that episode, but "there was a method in this madness" and we witnessed again and again that Sherlock´s puzzling deeds had logical purpose, that he was actually very competent in his job and could procure a wonderful results in it? When John was gushing praises like: "fantastic!", "awesome!" at Sherlock´s deductions, didn´t you feel the same with him? Weren´t you in awe over this enigmatic man? I hope I was not the only one who felt that way. 

So, why is this character mostly described as "arsehole" (not by everybody and everytime - but these descriptions are abundant, you certainly saw them many times yourself)? Why do I see reactions like these concerning John´s and Sherlock´s friendship?

http://abundantlyqueer.tumblr.com/post/75683139007/i-will-say-this-for-sherlock-ive-been

Why are some fans percieving Sherlock´s character this way? is he really written as an asshole in this show? If not, where is that disconnect between people´s perception of him and the show? 

Or do people use wods like "arsehole" and "dick" because there are no suitable words to describe character of this complexity in an easy way and so people opt for this as a kind of "shortcut"?

Or is it because people like dichotomies and because they already cast John into the role of a positive character, they must put Sherlock into a darker shade? Is this why they are so bent on Sherlock´s punishment?

Concerning Sherlock´s development, Sherlock certainly evolved in the show already, so aren´t names like "dick" and "arsehole" a bit "dated" now? What exactly should I understand under the title "a good man" into which Sherlock should finally evolve? Like, isn´t he already "good" enough? Which of his characteristics should be changed for him to be finally worthy of that epiteth? And how to make him "a good man" and not loose his provocativeness and outrageous originality, which makes him interesting as a character?

I hope it writers don´t plan something heavy-handed, like remodelling him into an entirely "normal" man. That would be a shame, like in that story about a man who saw stork for the first time and wondered what a stange "pigeon" that is. So he cut a piece of stork´s long beak and his long legs, cut away pieces of his tail and wings and when a mutilated stork lay helplessly in front of him, he clapped his hands in delight and said: "Wonderful! You finally resemble a proper bird!"

I really, really hope this is not a fate that writers have in store for Sherlock.

Specifically, they wanted to show them meeting...which has rarely been done in film/stage/TV adaptations.

Last edited by besleybean (January 24, 2015 11:23 pm)

You pose some interesting questions, that can't be answered easily.. as they are so multi-faceted and complex. They would almost require a scientific psychological research about different people reacting to different aspects of a piece of art.. ^^ So here's my incoherent musings about them..

First I'd like to agree with Ah-chie in that those reactions say more about the fans than about the writing.

But then there's also the team that emphasizes Sherlock's nastiness and cruelty in interviews lately.. and I confess it confuses me. I'm at a loss as to why they paint him as ruthless machine that's also endearing because it's incomplete as a human being.. Paraphrasing here, but pretty much the words Benedict used. Maybe this is the backstory they thought up for him, maybe that's why they feel he needs penance on the one hand and human growth on the other. That's where it doesn't fit with my concept of ACD Holmes, who I think was an eccentric but pretty complete human being.. It's fine if Sherlock develops into this character, but personally I would have preferred not to delve into his childhood traumata and self-loathing. Well, that aside I think it's only natural that a part of the audience picks up more on the one aspect of his personaliy and one on the other.. He's an arse for some and a sad gay baby penguin for others, you find things that support both those readings in the show. Sherlock is written to polarize, and he does. I'm not sure if that's a flaw in writing or genius in writing.. If you want a strictly positive public image of Sherlock Holmes it's probably the first, if you want to create a TV smash hit it's probably the latter.

I think BBC Sherlock is a massively clever, deeply feeling and loving man...
They did good for me.

Exactly.  Sherlock is not finished yet and we are watching his progress.

I certainly don't consider BBC Sherlock a hero...I feel he is a deeply flawed man...maybe more so than Canon Holmes...
But I love him despite these faults.

First of all, I think that every time there is a new adaptation of a canonical character, such as Sherlock Holmes, there are basically three ways for the writers to go:
a. you "honor" the original character and just wants him to be carefully transferred from paper to other medium (film, usually) - Granada productions
b. you "use" character to lure the public and to create something to your liking - RDJ Sherlock, JLM Elementary.
c. you enter in the dialogue with the original text, you ask yourself questions you give your interpretation. BBC Sherlock

I find the a strategy boring, the b strategy indifferent and the c strategy creative, if risky. Every beloved book has a group of hard-core admirers who are mainly interested in the adaptations sticking as faithfully to the original (and their personal idea of the original) as possible. They can probably accept easier the b strategy than the c one, because the b is not threatenig the canon, as the c is.

Why is Sherlock such a stellar success, while Elementary is not? Acting, procuction values etc. apart, it is because it does more than just taking the characters and using them for a new format. It explores the canon and gives a new - arguably subjective, arguably agressive - interpretation of it. The very fact it stirs such violent emotions is the proof of its creative power. Is there something controversial about Brett's interpretation? More than this is there something NEW in Brett interpretation, something we didn't already know about Holmes from ACD canon?