BBC Sherlock Fan Forum - Serving Sherlockians since February 2012 » Did Moftiss „assassinate“ Sherlock as a character?

RavenMorganLeigh · May 27, 2015 10:08 pm

It seems to me, then-- that the answer to the original post is that Mofftiss did indeed "assasinate" the character of Sherlock Holmes. In other words, Mofftiss exaggerated (and invented) the worst traits associated with the character for comedic and dramatic value; to bring the character up-to-date- with today's Jerry Springer/Reality TV-Behavior-is-okay-world.

I think there must be a trend in scriptwriting that revolves around "not being too uppity/well mannered/polite/likeable in a traditional sense; that the quickest and most reliable way to win the attention of the audience is to cater to low-brow values by showing low-brow behavior. I call it "George Bush Syndrome" : People here in the US liked Bush and trusted him, because he didn't come off as more educated than they, that is to say, elititest. (Here in the US, there's a seious anti-intellectual bias) and with that comes a sneering attitude towards refined manner, etc, . We don't like or trust people who are "too polite", anymore. But, we'll sure criticize other people ( or fictional characters) for not being the souls of compassion, good manners, propriety, etc, ...when quite frankly, most of us have lost these qualities ourselves. The trick is, owning it-- as some on this thread have done; Sherlock behaving badly is actually more attractive to most , than if he were a "Petey Pureheart", because it turns him into someone we can (a) relate to, (b) feel superior to, (3) makes him more of an Antagonist, which creates the John=Good/Sherlock=Bad dichotomy; conflict is built in, and that's what creates drama.

Sorry, sorry-- somebody whack me over the head and tell me to stop rambling.... more coffee.... :-D

Last edited by RavenMorganLeigh (May 27, 2015 10:09 pm)

NatureNoHumansNo · May 27, 2015 10:29 pm

To me, the BBC Sherlock is certainly not Lowbrow, at least intellectually.

RavenMorganLeigh · May 27, 2015 11:07 pm

NatureNoHumansNo wrote:
To me, the BBC Sherlock is certainly not Lowbrow, at least intellectually.

Clarification: in relation to Canon. And my comment has more to do with behavior....

Last edited by RavenMorganLeigh (May 27, 2015 11:08 pm)

Liberty · May 28, 2015 7:01 am

I think it's quite balanced. There are lots of incidences of Sherlock acting altruistically. There is some good John/bad Sherlock but I think it switches over in S3 to the other way round (Sherlock comes across as a better person than John, in some ways - not that I want it to be a competition). I think they've made him a likeable character overall.

Kittyhawk · May 28, 2015 9:43 am

NatureNoHumansNo wrote:
....
But he's certainly blunt, uncaring and sometimes manupulative ( do you need exemples or do you prefer finding out by reading the canon?). Moreover, he's absolutly regardless of social status, and treat equally rich, noble or poor lads.
....

The latter is a distinct advantage in my book As for the examples - I wouldn't ask you to re-read and quote, but if you can think of certain stories (parts of stories/novels) where that becomes especially clear, it would save me a lot of time. Half-way through Study in Scarlet I have no problem whatsoever with Sherlock.

But then I haven't had a problem with Dr. House (at least in the first seasons), either...

Vhanja · May 28, 2015 10:47 am

They may have changed him from the canon, but to me it's not assassination at all. To me, it's an improvement. BBC Sherlock is to me the most interesting tv character I've seen in years.

NatureNoHumansNo · May 28, 2015 1:12 pm

Kittyhawk wrote:
NatureNoHumansNo wrote:
....
But he's certainly blunt, uncaring and sometimes manupulative ( do you need exemples or do you prefer finding out by reading the canon?). Moreover, he's absolutly regardless of social status, and treat equally rich, noble or poor lads.

The latter is a distinct advantage in my book

Yes, in my book too, as 21th century persons, but it might sounds quite rude for the victorian era. Although, this kind of behavior ( treating equally rich and poor) might partly explain the popular success of the character, end of 19th century being an era of social awareness rise.

Kittyhawk wrote:
As for the examples - I wouldn't ask you to re-read and quote, but if you can think of certain stories (parts of stories/novels) where that becomes especially clear, it would save me a lot of time. Half-way through Study in Scarlet I have no problem whatsoever with Sherlock.

Well, I havent time enough to search for exact quote ( I'm currently on lunch break ) and as the quote I know come to my mind in french, I would make huge mistakes if I tried to translate them ( crime of lese-ACD)
As far as I can remember, in a study in scarlet, Sherlock Holmes tests what he believes to be poison by feeding it to a dog. He's right, and the dog dies. That's not exactly " rude" but not exactly likeable either :D
In another novel Holmes accuses Watson's writing style of being "Purple Prose" ( this are the exact word) as disapproves of the sensationalistic tone of hiss stories.
In the Hound of the Baskerville, and worse, in the Dying detective, he tricks Badly Watson ( if you want to hate Holmes and feel sorry for Watson, read the dying detective! )
I'd say, above all, he's rather arrogant than really rude
He seems to enjoy baffling the police inspectors with his superior deductions, he hates when Watson compares him to other detective ( Dupin, Gaboriau) , he reacts haughtily when rich people try to buy him out ( in scandal in Bohemia and the illustrious client, for exemple) .

God, I'm late for work. I hope I haven't made too many mistakes, as I did it all from mémory
I'll try to make a more detailled reply, let me know If you wish.

tonnaree · May 28, 2015 1:17 pm

From my observations even when Sherlock is at his most rude he's still quite "highbrow."

NatureNoHumansNo · May 28, 2015 8:44 pm

Vhanja wrote:
They may have changed him from the canon, but to me it's not assassination at all. To me, it's an improvement. BBC Sherlock is to me the most interesting tv character I've seen in years.

"Not being an assassination" doesn't mean being better than the original to me. You mean improvement to what? to the canon or to other adaptations?
IMO, it's a good, clever, and unique adaptation, which is already huge.

RavenMorganLeigh · May 28, 2015 9:18 pm

Maybe the word "assasination" isn't the most optimal way to describe this? I think the term may be too loaded; I took it to mean, "blackening the charcter of Sherlock Holmes." Bringing him down from Icon-Hood and making him more "real", by bringing him down to mainstream-audience-levels. I mean, let's just face it-- being a bit of a toff and being all posh seems pretentious to most of us, and may actually come accross as condescending, even if the person is that way because of upbringing...

NatureNoHumansNo · May 28, 2015 9:40 pm

I must say I don't really get your point, because the BBC Holmes doesn't look to me as a bumpkin or a moron. He's rude and arrogant, yes, but in a quite posh way, and certainly seems pretentious and condescending (little brain of yours, lower the IQ of the whole street....)
What kind of behavior would you expect, exactly?

RavenMorganLeigh · May 28, 2015 9:47 pm

NatureNoHumansNo wrote:
I must say I don't really get your point, because the BBC Holmes doesn't look to me as a bumpkin or a moron. He's rude and arrogant, yes, but in a quite posh way, and certainly seems pretentious and condescending (little brain of yours, lower the IQ of the whole street....)
What kind of behavior would you expect, exactly?

Huh? Never said that Sherlock was a "bumpkin" or "moron", and wasn't trying to insinuate that--nor was I saying that people today are "bumpkins" or "morons", either. :-) What I was saying is that they way we looked at people of the upper crust has changed from the way we viewed them 100+ years ago.

And, when referring to Anderson, I tend to gice Sherlock a pass. :-D

Last edited by RavenMorganLeigh (May 28, 2015 9:48 pm)

Sherlock Holmes · May 28, 2015 10:50 pm

If Sherlock was a complete dick then we wouldn't all be sat here talking about him, so he must certainly have some redeemable qualities (and not just John Watson).

REReader · May 29, 2015 1:05 am

We get plenty of clues that Sherlock is not so self-involved as he pretends, or perhaps as he'd like to think of himself as being. Judging from the number of people who "owe" him favors, Sherlock clearly takes any number of cases that help people that aren't high profile, or are necessarily terribly intriguing, but because they help people--he just does it quietly. It really doesn't seem as though there was any major puzzle involved in saving Angelo from a murder conviction, for example--and he didn't even solve a crime for the owner of the fish-and-chips shop, he helped him put up shelves, just the sort of thing he likes to pretend he sniffs at as being "boring." And before anyone says he does these things so that people will owe him favors, he could hardly have known that a burglar would get of jail and open a restaurant!

tonnaree · May 29, 2015 1:42 am

I still giggle madly when Sherlock says he helped him put up some shelves.

Kittyhawk · May 29, 2015 10:10 am

RavenMorganLeigh wrote:
...... People here in the US liked Bush and trusted him, because he didn't come off as more educated than they, that is to say, elititest. (Here in the US, there's a seious anti-intellectual bias) .....

But that sounds like the exact opposite of Sherlock Holmes who says out loud "most people are idiots" and more personal variations thereof at every opportunity. The redeeming feature is that he does not go into an offended sulk when John calls him an idiot in return (at the end of ASiP).

Tonnaree, what do you think this page is about: http://www.instant-handyman.com/handyman-services/shelving-london/ ? I think Sherlock intended the literal meaning, just as in THoB when he "talks to a man about a dog"... (and DIY would make for a much more interesting story to read - Sherlock having sex exists in all possible variations, but I've never read anything about Sherlock and power tools. Or even just Sherlock squinting at a spirit level, trying to decide whether the bubble really is in the very center...).

Sherlock Holmes · May 29, 2015 10:47 am

I always assumed he was being sarcastic when he said "helped him put up some shelves" and that he actually did help him with a case.

tonnaree · May 29, 2015 12:10 pm

My headcanon is much more entertaining and I'm sticking with it.

REReader · May 29, 2015 3:11 pm

After our look at Sherlock's father, I could visualize him as not being very handy around the house--which I imagined as leading to young Sherlock figuring out how to do things that he wanted done, like putting up bookshelves, by himself.

Harriet · May 29, 2015 3:30 pm

tonnaree, so is mine