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 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)

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...
 

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.



 
 

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.

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?

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).

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

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.

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.