Sherlock Holmes pastiches, literary and televised

[pen_and_umbra]

"I am an omnivorous reader with a strangely retentive memory for trifles."

So said Sherlock Holmes in The Adventure of the Lion's Mane. Me, I can't claim to have a good memory, but I'm most certainly both a reader and strangely retentive at times. And, as anyone could tell you, a fan of Sherlock Holmes

Comments

[axmxz]

I used to be a fan of Holmes, but then it sort of went away. Had Doyle left him a reclusive chem grad student who didn't care whether the earth orbited the sun or the other way around - a bit of an idiot savant - I'd have been his biggest fan ever. But with every story, Holmes turned into more and more of a Sue. Knows everything about everything, speaks every language, always comes out on top... drug use seems to have no adverse effect on him, poisons don't take him, he can kick anyone's ass... everyone worships him... golly, does he have midnight-black hair of spun silk as well? Is he secretly of royal birth? Maybe there's a star-shaped birthmark on his skiny ass... And everytime he opens his mouth, wank comes out. It's like he never speak *with* anyone, just *at* them

[pen_and_umbra]

I think that my enduring love for Holmes stems more from growing up with the canon stories (I've read them every couple of years since I was nine), rather than from sheer literary merit. Goodness knows Conan Doyle was no literary thespian vocab-wise, and some of the content of His Last Bow and Case Book are kind of bizarre and not in an engaging way. But I do love the Victorian age in all its glory (Oscar W., love you) and the bizarre, antisocial omniscience of Holmes, as much of a Sue as it makes him -- because he's not a superhuman, just inhuman, if that makes sense?

(And yes, he's a walking wank machine. But I love that in a character. A flaw of mine, and also what makes me love antiheroes like Gregory House of House, MD and, well, Snape.)

I must check out The Red Thumb-mark (by R. Austin Freeman, right?)! I'm always in the mood for new amateur whatever-cum-detectives, even if The Alienist sort of burned me out on the genre.

[axmxz]

Yep yep, R. Austin Freeman it is

[pen_and_umbra]

he seems to do everything in his head, which not only isn't worthy of a man of science but also not very useful in court.

See, I'm not bothered by that -- rather, that's why I love them so. I watch my share of procedural police shows, from CSI to all manner of German cop shows, and that's my fill of such "but will this hold in court?" yarns. These pure whodunits, from Conan Doyle to Christie and Chandler, are my first love; all I really want to know is who did it and how, not what happens to him in the aftermath or how a bloody thumbprint would've been processed in the 1890s.

To make a possibly meretricious comparison, it's the theoretical vs. applied maths question: while applied is more varied and indeed fascinating (and where I make my living), it's the theoretical side that will always hold my heart. The pure mystery, not the nuts and bolts of proving it at the assizes. Does that make sense?

Holmes' wanking seems to be a whole lot more gratuitous.It's indeed that, and I'm the last person to subscribe 100% to the "Snape =

[ter369]

I'm odd in that I've loved a variety of performances, from Nicol Williamson (druggie!childhoodissues!Holmes) to Robert Stephens (burstingwithasecret!Holmes), and Jeremy Brett (gentleman!Holmes) to Nicolas Rowe (buddinggenius!Holmes).

The key in each of these, and others I've liked (Rathbone, thegame'safoot!Holmes) is that the script or the actor focused on a particular quality in Holmes to drive his behavior, instead of attempting a laundry list of quirks and posing.

Rupert Everett didn't work at all, unless snide!Holmes calls to certain viewers. It's as if he were an Edwardian character called Sherlock Holmes, but I couldn't connect him to any detective skills that grew out of the man Holmes is on the page. He was the least convincing as a detective. That talent is far more important than revealing a spin on the inner motivations of the man.

[pen_and_umbra]

[T]he script or the actor focused on a particular quality in Holmes to drive his behavior, instead of attempting a laundry list of quirks and posing.

A very, very good way of putting it and yes, all these portraits are different aspects of Holmes (Conan Doyle was not one to insist on consistent characterisation, after all).

Rupert Everett's characterisation seemed more a caricature than anything else. Edgier for the sake of an edge, rather than reflecting the admirable qualities of the man. I mean, that Holmes didn't strike me as the type to ever say things like, "Crime is common. Logic is rare. Therefore it is upon the logic rather than upon the crime that you should dwell", y'know?

[bronzelionel]

Brett can't be surpassed. Brett and Burke? Sweetest blessing of a merciful God.
I can't see Fry as a good Holmes: quite possible I've just been polluted by Gosford Park. Laurie as Watson? Too lanky! Having seen House and Laurie as a serious character: him as Holmes, Fry as Watson?

[pen_and_umbra]

Brett and Burke? Sweetest blessing of a merciful God.

A world of yes.

[Laurie] as Holmes, Fry as Watson?

Hee, GMTA. I was actually thinking of the same thing today as I was making tortellini -- before House, I wouldn't have thought Hugh could pull it off, but he most certainly could. And Fry has showed his sidekick prowess as Jeeves (though, arguably, Jeeves isn't really a sidekick but an éminence grise). On the other hand, I was sold on Fry's ability to do drama after Wilde and he'd certainly understand the condition of being a man of extra-ordinary brain. So really, it could work either way.

[prof_pangaea]

You should also try out Mitch Cullin's A Slight Trick of the Mind -- while it's not precisely Holmes, Cullin uses Holmes so well... anyway, I could go on and on about that book because I thought it was a great work, but I know a lot of people wo just wanted to read a Sherlock Holmes story who hated it. However, I have an interest in Holmes: the symbol as well as Holmes: the character, and I thought it was pretty amazing.

Re: Caleb Carr -- After reading The Alienist I was fairly sure I would never pick up another book by him again, but then I thought I should probably make an exception for The Itialian Secretary... at least until I read the delightfully wanktastic interview he gave to The Age recently, in which he said things like: "Kreizler was invented quite consciously as a character who could solve all the crimes Holmes couldn't, in which there's little or no physical evidence and no apparent motive - the product of aberrant criminal psychology." And of course we can't forget this tidbit:

Carr isn't one to conceal his anger.

[pen_and_umbra]

I kinda liked The Alienist initially, but it was one of those books where the irritation grew up on me during the reading process -- especially since I have no patience for that sort of masturbatory psychobabble. Plus, the book really does fall apart at the end... The Italian Secretary was an impulse buy at the bookstore and while I sort of enjoyed it also halfway through, the ending still fell apart and then there was that afterword, which was really wanky in a very special way (a sycophantic interviewer waxing poetic about a Holmes-Kreizler meet-up and Carr making pleased noises). Eh. But I did find it better written than The Alienist.

It does seem The Private Life of S.H. is on my list of things to see; yours is the second rec and OMG GAYEST HOLMES EVER really sealed it. ;) Will also look into A Slight Trick of the Mind.

Ian Hart really was rather good, as the sort of a no-nonsense Watson who really had no patience for Holmes's mindgames. Too bad he got paired up with that awful American woman in Silk Stocking.

[kremlindusk]

Sweet god, I loved that show. It's still on the Biography channel from time to time, but I hardly ever catch it on.

[pen_and_umbra]

I've heard of the series but alas, it's never made into our shores. Instead, we got Matlock. WTF?