BBC Sherlock Fan Forum - Serving Sherlockians since February 2012.
- Davina
- Moderator
Offline 
- From: The Only Way is Essex UK
- Registered: February 9, 2012
- Posts: 9,714
Re: Sherlock's arsemanship
Of course I agree with your final comments although this would apply nowadays in most 'developed' countries (trying hard to avoid stereotypical terminology here) it is not true in very many parts of the world where disability and infirmity are still regarded as either a punishment from God or the result of witchcraft.
I agree that society's attitude towards those with disabilities has certainly improved greatly since Victorian and Edwardian times and indeed far more recently than that, when such people were invariably locked away in institutions.
Perhaps what we are looking for here is a tolerance and appreciation of 'the different' without expecting everyone to operate within a narrow band of 'normal' parameters.
Of course medication and therapy for certain conditions (for want of a better word) is both desirable and in many cases absolutely necessary. However society as a whole gains from the 'different', the 'unusual' and the 'challenging'.
A useful discussion to help sort out what we really think.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Don't make people into heroes John. Heroes don't exist and if they did I wouldn't be one of them.
- Sam
- John's Army
Offline
- From: California
- Registered: September 6, 2012
- Posts: 336
Re: Sherlock's arsemanship
All good points from everyone.
Another thing is that pharmaceutical companies are rolling in the money and push medication and everyone just to make more money. Which is so so sad.
Yup, many/most of the "greats" in our history had some sort of mental "abnormality". But really, they are not abnormalities because EVERYONE has something "wrong" with them! Tis what it means to be human.
Again, a lot of it has to do with money, not just society, when prescribing meds that a person doesn't really need...
Last edited by Sam (September 25, 2012 8:28 pm)
----------------------------------------------------------------
SH: "Brilliant, Anderson."
Anderson: "Really?"
SH: "Yes. Brilliant impression of an idiot."
- besleybean
- Threatened Knighthood
Offline
- From: Carnoustie, Angus, Scotland.
- Registered: October 4, 2012
- Posts: 21,328
Re: Sherlock's arsemanship
Is this Sherlock and drugs? Just think he was bored and experimented.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
- SherlocklivesinOH
- Mycroft's Contact
Offline
- Registered: January 12, 2014
- Posts: 526
Re: Sherlock's arsemanship
sherlockskitty wrote:
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.
There are times in canon (and the Brett series) when what Holmes is saying is pretty socially inappropriate for the time, but we really want to applaud him because he's standing up, either to a villain, or to someone who has behaved badly believing that position brings entitlement (like when he tells the King of Bohemia that Irene is superior to him, or tells the rich American Senator how awful it was of him to try to turn his nanny into his mistress).
And in the Brett series, his performance when the Speckled Band villain invades Baker Street is utterly amazing. Watson later tells the client how amazing Holmes was!
Now, Holmes can be blunt, and even unkind, when pointing out how Watson has failed to make deductions like he does. And sometimes, Watson stands up to him about this. He stands up to him about the cocaine, too, but it comes off as caring.
The first Watson of the Brett series, David Burke, was very hero-worshipy and acted really upset if Holmes criticized him, while Hardwicke was closer to being an equal partner who called Holmes out on some of his more dangerous stunts.
I definitely think there is more love and tenderness in the boys' relationship in canon and the Brett series. They spend time together when they're not on a case, doing very "date-like" things.
And their most violent tendencies come out when they're protecting each other from villains, not towards each other.
And except for Mary, there are no other potential significant others who distract them from each other.
