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

**Posted by nakahara** January 22, 2015 8:56 pm

I don´t want to sound negative or overly critical here, but there is one thing that bothers me if I regard the show as a Holmesian, a person who loves Sherlock Holmes in almost all adaptations – the impact this show had on the image of Sherlock as a character.

Previously, Sherlock was regarded as a character who was quirky but who possessed the useful knowledge which could help even you, the reader or a viewer, to develop some original methods of thinking:

http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/guest-blog/2011/10/04/lessons-from-sherlock-holmes-trust-in-the-facts-not-your-version-of-them/

http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/guest-blog/2011/08/23/lessons-from-sherlock-holmes-paying-attention-to-what-isnt-there/

http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/guest-blog/2011/09/27/lessons-from-sherlock-holmes-dont-decide-before-you-decide/

http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/guest-blog/2011/09/20/lessons-from-sherlock-holmes-breadth-of-knowledge-is-essential/

http://www.inspectorinsight.com/insight/lessons-from-the-master-of-deduction/

the man who could make you realise the power of your mind, the hero who despite being no avenger, was still honorable, brave and a loyal friend. The man who oozed competence, self-assurance and reliability.

Yet after the BBC Sherlock remodelled his image, what are the most common epithets people connect with Sherlock Holmes now?

Arse. Cock. A dick. Arsehole. Spineless manipulator and a liar. Dishonest and unreliable. Is not right in the head. Stupid. Too dumb to live. A monster. Manchild. Idiot. Twat. Mentally ill. Awful human being. Should be punched in the face, the bottle should be shattered against his head and he should be kneed in the dick (all the things I´ve read in the actual reviews and personal opinions on blogs regarding this show).

It doesn´t help that Moftiss too paint him with this brush, for example in their HLV commentary: horrible, cruel, vile, inhuman and cold, nasty, you should loath him, fascinatingly awful, terrible (did they try to create an encyclopedia of negative names for Sherlock? All those nasty epithets are used in less then 5 minutes of the commentary – I abhor to know what was in the rest of it.)

And what´s Benedict´s opinion on his role? „He is a machine and ruthless…“

Many people even describe the friendship of Sherlock to John as „toxic“. They mostly do it because they hate Johnlock, but they still closely base their opinion on what they actually saw in the Sherlock episodes.

And I´m like: what the hell, Moftiss? Was this what you wanted to achieve? To turn one of the most admirable characters into a piece of trash? To make one of the greatest literary friendships into something toxic? I thought you too were Sherlock´s fans! But this is obviously not so. Because this is not a mere artistic deconstruction of a famous literary character – it is an assassination of it. All of his good qualities were completely wiped out from the public perception of him – and so when Sherlock is described, people never remember that what he does actually saves lives or that his intellectual knowledge is something which could be useful and which should be held in some esteem. All they remember are his childish pranks, eyeball in his tea and entrails in his fridge.

You can see this contempt towards Sherlock also in the manner Sherlock is discussed between fans. Try to say something nasty about John Watson, who in many past adaptations was treated as a buffoon but whose reputation was wonderfully restored in BBC Sherlock, and people are all in arms, heatedly protecting John´s honour. Try to say something nasty about Mary and her fans eat you alive. But use most awful, most demeaning language towards Sherlock and it hardly raises an exebrow. The character who was assassinated and stripped of his positive qualities can be kicked around like a trashcan and nobody cares. Even when shot by the side character, people are able to shrug it off as something insignificant – why care about this unsympathetic psychopath, when his killer Mary is so much sweeter and likable?

I must admit that althrough I like BBC Sherlock, I´m dismayed that it was this show which created this unflattering, downright negative image of my favourite hero.

**Posted by Vhanja** January 22, 2015 9:14 pm

I feel that you have only dug out one side of the coin here. All you say here is true. But there are also equal amounts of positive sides said about BBC Sherlock. Benedict also says that he is undoubtedly a hero, he develops fantastically as a person throughout the series, showing great traits like self-sacrifice, love, caring and the ability to put others before himself and be the opposite of selfish.

The relationship between Sherlock and John has also been described as one of a kind, marvellous, fantastic, a very strong bond - Moffat even says it's the kind of friendship everyone wish they had.

And my opinion on the fans is completely the opposite - John and Mary gets slaundered for every little ting, while Sherlock's vices are hand-waved away as nothing.

So my point is: Your post is one-sided, because you can find one positive trait for each and every one of the negative ones you have listed. And THAT, in my mind, is what makes BBC Sherlock such a fascinating and intriguing character. If he was anything less of an arse, combined with being such a fantasticly loving character, he would also be less interesting to me. It's the dynamic and complexity that makes the character for me.

And when it comes to modern interpretations of Sherlock being more of an arse - well, House did that before Moftiss. (And before BBC Sherlock, House was the most interesting character I'd seen on screen in years).

Last edited by Vhanja (January 22, 2015 9:16 pm)

**Posted by nakahara** January 22, 2015 10:46 pm

Sorry, but your very post is the confirmation of what I said. Sherlock is not a character who has flaws like every human being - he has "vices". He is not a multifaceted character whose character traits can be problematic but are fascinating - he is an "arse". On the other hand, when John is overly angry and unjustified, he is not labeled by the demeaning epithet like this - in his case, people are able to see the facets of character and don´t overlook his positive side even when he does something dubious. And it bothers me that they cannot do the same thing where Sherlock is involved.

Mary gets slaudered because she shot Sherlock - which is not a small thing in my eyes, but of course, you can see it differently.

And I was not bothered by House, because, seriously, even if his character was based on Sherlock Holmes, his stories were not closely connected with the ACD canon like those in "Sherlock", so his negative portrayal dind´t influence the way in which the canonical Sherlock is percieved. Which cannot be said about this show, I´m afraid.

**Posted by Vhanja** January 22, 2015 11:18 pm

nakahara wrote:
Sherlock is not a character who has flaws like every human being - he has "vices". He is not a multifaceted character whose character traits can be problematic but are fascinating - he is an "arse".

Wow. It seems you ignore everything that doesn't fit the negative label you believe everybody else have about Sherlock. If that is how you interpret my post I don't think any more posts from me will make you see anything else than what you want to see.

Yes, I am annoyed. It's like I write "black and white makes a beautiful grey palette", and all you reply is "See, I told you! You DID say black!" And I suspect that is what you did with the rest of the people you mentioned in your first post as well. So I think it's best if I leave this thread.

Last edited by Vhanja (January 22, 2015 11:22 pm)

**Posted by Whisky** January 23, 2015 1:15 am

nakahara wrote:
the man who could make you realise the power of your mind, the hero who despite being no avenger, was still honorable, brave and a loyal friend. The man who oozed competence, self-assurance and reliability.

I can see this also in BBC adaptation. The interesting thing is, the hero and power thing, brave, honorable, I could see that before. I could also see loyal, but it was... a bit hidden. Like something I was sure it must be there, but not brought to light. The BBC series kind of brought the hidden stuff to daylight, that's how it felt for me. And there is also the "bad" stuff, of course there is. But it's balanced.

nakahara wrote:
On the other hand, when John is overly angry and unjustified, he is not labeled by the demeaning epithet like this - in his case, people are able to see the facets of character and don´t overlook his positive side even when he does something dubious. And it bothers me that they cannot do the same thing where Sherlock is involved.

I think that's a bit true. But I think the reason for that is in the very character that Sherlock has, not so much in the eye of the viewers or their judgement. I don't know how to describe this... I think genius has a tendency to play out black and white much easier than grey. They are easily brilliant, but along with that comes the other end of the scale. They have the average spectrum, but it hides a bit behind their extras... can I say it like this? For myself, I would say it like this: with John, I am used to look closely to all facets of character, because that is where John's deeper characterization comes from... if I look superficial, I will just see an average guy (in a way, I know John is not that average, but maybe you know what I want to hint at).
With Sherlock, I immediatly see the brilliance, the tantrums, the coldness but also the immense caring if he chooses to care. The extrems, the "black and white" are right there. The whole spectrum is just harder to see. It doesn't mean he hasn't got it. I think that in series three for example, lots of the in-between show. More than in series 1 and 2.
So yes, I would say I see Sherlock more in black and white colours than for example John. Or Mrs. Hudson. But then, that would also be true for Moriarty. Or Magnusson. Maybe even for Mary.
It doesn't mean a character is weakly written, imo. It's rather like the character can hardly be written... much different, to be still recognizable.
And it's maybe because extrems are the easy thing to see. It makes Sherlock fascinating for me (and a well-written character) that there is more to discover than just black and white.

I am just a bit confused about the negative feedback you mentioned. Because I've heard from some friends who have read the books that they find the BBC Sherlock in many ways recognizable. Well, that again can mean both (the good and the bad), but it tells me that BBC hasn't completely failed in building a "typical" Sherlock Holmes. Even with all the extras and changes.
I would agree though that BBC Sherlock has huge influence on the perception of Sherlock Holmes as character, and that care with his characterization wouldn't go amiss. But I don't think they've done any damage so far. They've brought Sherlock Holmes into discussion again, made him come alive again, and that, for me, is a good thing. And as it's only one adaptation of many, they cannot destroy the "ultimate" Sherlock Holmes, because that hasn't been there in the first place (except maybe the canon, but I'm not sure I would have liked an absolutely canonical Sherlock better than the BBC one).

**Posted by mrshouse** January 23, 2015 10:10 am

Rereading parts of canon right now, that's true, actually, that we are close to his character. But I don't think that was the question to be discussed here. I think what nakahara wanted to point out is, if in the progression especially of S3 Sherlock is shown and valued as an overly bad character who deserves to be treated equally bad and deserves to be punished, injured, sent away, all for the greater good of his friends.

**Posted by Eggsalted** January 23, 2015 3:44 pm

When I first started watching Sherlock, I was admittedly a tiny bit indignant- I can see where nakahara's coming from about the ..disrespect? Loss of dignity? that came with the series compared to previous compositions of SH. It seems that SH has transformed from an unreachable, public-assisting independent with coping mechanisms to Mofftiss' childish, addicted social recluse who just repels people. I too sometimes think the more negative points of his character are exaggerated in Sherlock.

However! That being said, there is a good reason they played them up so much. Moftiss wasn't writing a detective series like SH, but a story about the detective. Most importantly, his relationships with people. They're trying to humanize him and make his flaws, vices, fears and loves extremely apparent. Anything you might hate about Holmes has been magnified and put into practice with characters who have very close relationships with him. You wouldn't see Holmes tearing 'smitten Molly Hooper' apart, but you do read about him slamming NSY, insulting clients and making everyone look like fools. Nobody admonishes Holmes in ACD's books for assholish behaviour, but there is a huge backlash from the people that surround Sherlock.

Sherlock is held to a standard in this modern setting, unfortunately. He's not allowed to get away with what Holmes would, because there are people telling him that things can't be done/said the way he wants to. They labeled him a dick, because there are expectations of him not to be one. Holmes can be a statuesque ideal of a misunderstood, insurmountable character, but Sherlock is presented as a complicated human being who is still growing. The leaps of logic and brilliance are still the same, but Sherlock is so set in our universe that John can yell at him (but not Holmes) "Oi what the hell! You can't say that! Do it again and I'll smack you!"

**Posted by mrshouse** January 23, 2015 3:59 pm

So it is mainly a question of proportions and the time setting? I'm not sure about that, I think what bothers a bit is that his flaws are beautifully exotic in S1&2 and mainly loathsome and very much to be punished in S3 when at the same time he starts to see them and more important overcome them for the love of others around him.

**Posted by Eggsalted** January 23, 2015 4:37 pm

Yes it does seem like the consequences of his 'flaws' have gotten more aggresive as the series progresses. And yeah he has certainly developed as a character to finally show that he truly does care. Even though it sucks that he has to suffer so much to do so.

But what I was trying explain was why this unflattering, downright negative image of Sherlock was allowed to ?tarnish the original's reputation. Nobody before Mofftiss would want to treat Holmes so horribly, make him out to be a pariah and enable him to be so hate-able by those people nakahara mentioned. All the Holmeses before this probably were assholes, but it was Dr Watson-filtered. So I think since Watson almost hero-worshipped him, it doesn't make people automatically scream that he's a dick. But Mofftiss stripped everything away so it's like a behind-the-scenes look where his insults, stubbornness and excitement at manipulation is laid bare.

I still ask myself sometimes when I watch Sherlock: "Is that what Holmes would have done?" I'm still undecided but I love them both anyway

**Posted by SusiGo** January 23, 2015 5:15 pm

Tbh, I am not really happy with the title of this thread. Of course critical discussion is fine but this is quite harsh IMO.

For one thing - this is the 21st century in which language and perception of human behaviour have changed. And I do perceive a an enormous gap between how people (the team especially) talk about Sherlock and how he is presented in the show.

Everyone who has watched series 3 knows that Sherlock is capable of introspection, of regret, of saying sorry, of selfless behaviour, of sacrifice. Maybe more so than in Canon. Therefore I think that the negative perception is mainly due to what the creators say and not what is there on the screen. Moreoever, the creators have always said that they want to show a development and what I see is a definite development towards becoming a more human and loving person.

Because this is the 21st century we employ standards we probably would not use for a 19th century character. Which explains at least some of the reactions regarding Sherlock's character.

And tbh, I love this Sherlock far more than any other adaptation, Canon included. Because he is allowed to be weak and flawed and struggling. To me this Sherlock seems far more human than the one we get in Canon. But this is just my personal opinion.

**Posted by besleybean** January 23, 2015 5:44 pm

Well said, Susi.

**Posted by A lovely light** January 23, 2015 6:21 pm

I met in my life some very very bright kids, some probably with very high IQ. All had problems with social adaptation. This is very normal as long as someone is still young as the society, especailly the young ones, doesn't like the extremes but the middle. In everything. More to that they understand a lot of things about the world too early but they cannot cope with them emotionally. This is why genial poeple might consider that emotions are very bad, their sensibility is too much exposed to the real world while the innocence of the normal kids protect them till they are able (more or less) to cope with it.

We have in this show two Sherlock: the real one, which Shelock thinks is not needed by themself and by the others, and the Sherlock -image he projects by himself. This image is the cold / machine one about the creators of the shows and Benedict speak (and here was my problem i have with these interviews, as i said before, as it distort the perception of the real Sherlock). We get to see more layers in S3 -while i don't like how quickly is shown the change in his character in S3 , i cannot deny that he is shown very human. As he denyed himself to deal with this part of personality, no wonder that his mistakes are bigger now when he cannot disguise anymore than the mistakes in S1 and S2.

I see S3 as a transition of a young Sherlock to a mature Sherlock, a transition brought by his friendship with John and the danger to lose it after the fall. In all trilogies or series with such kind of middle we tend to think that the middle is not very good, as it confuses us too much. If the series Sherlock really has lost it, i will decide after S4.

**Posted by besleybean** January 23, 2015 7:06 pm

I know similar themes keep coming up in different threads.
But it is very difficult for those like me, who hold S3 as their favourite...I really don't see what's wrong with it or why people don't like it.
Best cliffhanger ever.

Last edited by besleybean (January 23, 2015 7:06 pm)

**Posted by A lovely light** January 23, 2015 7:33 pm

I love the cliffhanger and i also am i between the few who loves Mary as a character (who is more a "shadow" than a straightforward villain like Moriarty, so much more potential). I don't love the switch off in episode 1, that they killed so quick Magnussen (he scares me much more than 10 Moriarty and was for me a more believable villain, so much most potential here). I don't like how quick Sherlock changes -- it is more like let's get quick over it and move to the real deal. I don't like the time they lost on TEH over the theories of how the fall was done, i would have loved more the interaction between Sherlock and John and a gradual process of forgiveness - it made John's feelings as not important. I might change my opinion after S4 if S4 is good coordinated with S3 and explains it.

**Posted by lil** January 23, 2015 8:43 pm

I think there is something in what Nakahara has posted and had similar thoughts myself last summer after getting into a conversation with several young teenagers about Sherlock.
Their ideas of Sherlock are pretty much all formed from BBC Sherlock and much of what they had to say was at odds with what I would consider the typical Holmes legacy...for example Holmes as a master of disguise....is now - hilariousy crap disguises...Holmes being skilled at self defence..sword ,riding crop ,boxing ,baritsu etc....and being strong enough to bend that steel poker...also doesn't seem compatible...and being the second cleverest man in England admired and respected.....well hmmm.
Just looking down wikipage of SH skills and knowledge and comparing it to the Mofftiss vers. you can see so many things that seem dubious for the bbc SH.
I wonder if perhaps they (MGT) assumed everyone just knows all this and the true Holmes legacy so they have played with it and teased for fun and laughs.
IDK on the one hand it's funny and yet on the other , people who don't know the cannon....are forming perhaps a lesser idea of the great man.
On the positive side...there were things being admired and attributed...his hacking of text messages ...and use of computers and the internet....scorn of the press...people being media driven idiots...disdain for politics/gov/police etc...
Ultimately it's a bit of a double edged sword and my hope is that keeping Holmes in the lime light so to speak and especially drawing in the younger generation does call more people back to interest in the original and for sure will help keep Holmes alive for another century....perhaps the all publicity is good publicity cliche applies here...the literate and truly interested will discover the truth...after getting over the BC is so hot! thing...(yeah ok never gonna happen)...and the rest don't really matter @will move onto the next media trend.

**Posted by nakahara** January 23, 2015 8:51 pm

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.

And what I find especially puzzling is that those "genital" descriptions are only used in regards with Sherlock. Moriarty, CAM, Mary or other not-quite-white characters have their dark sides but they are never titled this way. Many people have negative view on Mary, for example, but I have yet to see the meta or fanfiction where similar rude words would be used in connection with her.

So why only Sherlock? Especially, as it was mentioned in one of the posts above, he can have genuine problems with social adaptation as a genius. Shouldn´t this be seen as a cause for sympathy with his plight - not as the reason for his "punishment" from the hands of more "normal" people?

**Posted by REReader** January 23, 2015 8:54 pm

ACD's Holmes did things that in that Victorian era were outrageous and scorn-inducing, although many--perhaps most--of them gain our admiration today (hobnobbing with those far below his social standing, being dismissive to the well-born, cutting through or ignoring social niceties to get to the facts more quickly, and on and on). We have different standards of behavior today, and Moftiss had and have to push a lot further in Sherlock's behavior to provoke a similar response from people living now. And then, just as ACD did with his genuinely shocking creation, they let us see that at bottom the character is a genius with a passion for truth and his own standards of justice--an even more difficult trick now than it was then. To my mind they bring off the trick beautifully--their Sherlock is every bit as outrageous as the original, with a very similar personality; I think that had ACD's Holmes grown up in today's society, this is very like what he would be like, and that the team's creation--writers and actors alike--is a excellent tribute to a brilliant creation.

Last edited by REReader (January 23, 2015 8:55 pm)

**Posted by lil** January 23, 2015 9:08 pm

I agree@the name calling Nakahara .... ironic considering the way bullies and bullying people for being different has been treated on the show......

**Posted by nakahara** January 23, 2015 9:26 pm

Thank you, lil - and thank you also for your observation of how Sherlock seemingly lost his positive qualities and skills in the mind of young generation. That´s what I was generally aiming at.

**Posted by nakahara** January 23, 2015 10:57 pm

I also want to point out, how for many people Sherlock was still not punished enough in S3. After everything he had done for John in S3, they demand he would be punished some more in S4 - and more harshly:

http://wellthengameover.tumblr.com/post/108651029967/do-you-think-there-will-ever-come-a-time-when-john

It´s incredible what a negative image he has in their eyes.