Alistair Duncan's Blog, page 79
September 11, 2012
Elementary Pilot - My verdict
In an earlier post (which you can see here) I talked about the CBS show Elementary and how I felt it could not lay claim to being a Sherlock Holmes adaptation when it had lost so much from the original. I concluded by asking whether all it was was a US based police procedural that happened to feature a consulting detective called Sherlock Holmes.
The response to my post was largely positive and this was mostly from people who'd seen the pilot where I had not. My publisher, at my request, put a link to my post on Facebook (which I'm not on) and reported back that while 75% agreed with my assessment 25% did not and had said, in not quite so many words, that I should keep my trap shut until I'd seen it. I was also told that some US based people on Facebook had interpreted my post as some kind of attack on the US itself. Now I've not seen these posts (and don't wish to) so cannot comment on how true that is but if it is true then it's absurd. A critical opinion of a programme is not an attack on the country that made it. If it was the US would need to look out as a lot of the negative opinions I've seen of the show have come from Americans.
Returning to the subject, I can now report that I've seen the pilot and in the words of JLM's Holmes I hate it when I'm right...(I may be paraphrasing slightly).
Now before the show's fans come hunting for me with pitchforks and flaming torches let me elaborate......
I thought it was a well paced episode and the script was good. The plot was, in my opinion, well thought out and the acting was good. In some areas I see parallels with Sherlock which, I suppose, was inevitable. But is it Holmes?
The answer to this is yes but only in the sense that medical series House is Holmes. There are hints - yes but, as I suspected and said, too much of the original, in my opinion, has been taken away (or changed) for it to stake any substantial claim on the source material.
If the BBC created a show set in Glasgow, with a millionaire who dressed up in a costume at night to save people from criminals and then called it Batman people would laugh even though said imaginary show would share elements in common with the tales of the caped crusader. This is, to a certain extent, what I feel we have here. A show with elements in common but more areas of difference.
Again, I state that I thought it was entertaining and would probably watch more of it. But its claim to being a Holmes adaptation is pushing it. A Holmes-style show set in the US is a better assessment. Plenty of you will disagree I'm sure and you are of course welcome to. However, one area where we can all agree (I suspect) is that Sherlock fans have nothing to fear from this show. Although it will run in parallel it will not eclipse Moffat/Gatiss' more canonical adaptation.
The response to my post was largely positive and this was mostly from people who'd seen the pilot where I had not. My publisher, at my request, put a link to my post on Facebook (which I'm not on) and reported back that while 75% agreed with my assessment 25% did not and had said, in not quite so many words, that I should keep my trap shut until I'd seen it. I was also told that some US based people on Facebook had interpreted my post as some kind of attack on the US itself. Now I've not seen these posts (and don't wish to) so cannot comment on how true that is but if it is true then it's absurd. A critical opinion of a programme is not an attack on the country that made it. If it was the US would need to look out as a lot of the negative opinions I've seen of the show have come from Americans.
Returning to the subject, I can now report that I've seen the pilot and in the words of JLM's Holmes I hate it when I'm right...(I may be paraphrasing slightly).
Now before the show's fans come hunting for me with pitchforks and flaming torches let me elaborate......
I thought it was a well paced episode and the script was good. The plot was, in my opinion, well thought out and the acting was good. In some areas I see parallels with Sherlock which, I suppose, was inevitable. But is it Holmes?
The answer to this is yes but only in the sense that medical series House is Holmes. There are hints - yes but, as I suspected and said, too much of the original, in my opinion, has been taken away (or changed) for it to stake any substantial claim on the source material.
If the BBC created a show set in Glasgow, with a millionaire who dressed up in a costume at night to save people from criminals and then called it Batman people would laugh even though said imaginary show would share elements in common with the tales of the caped crusader. This is, to a certain extent, what I feel we have here. A show with elements in common but more areas of difference.
Again, I state that I thought it was entertaining and would probably watch more of it. But its claim to being a Holmes adaptation is pushing it. A Holmes-style show set in the US is a better assessment. Plenty of you will disagree I'm sure and you are of course welcome to. However, one area where we can all agree (I suspect) is that Sherlock fans have nothing to fear from this show. Although it will run in parallel it will not eclipse Moffat/Gatiss' more canonical adaptation.
The Other Boscombe Valley Mystery
The Boscombe Valley Mystery is the fourth story in The Adventures of Sherlock Holmes. One aspect that has always aroused my curiosity is the Australian connection. Why did Conan Doyle have the roots of the story set in Australia? It is doubtful that it was purely because of the gold rush as there were others around the world at very much the same time. Did the occurrence of an Australian gold rush in Ballarat with its handy last two syllables determine the location or was there something else?
I have come to the conclusion that the Australian connection might well lie, at least in part, with Conan Doyle’s solicitor Alfred Charles Redshawe Williams. Williams, as I think I have shown in my book The Norwood Author, was born and raised in Australia and by 1891 was already firmly established, in England, as Conan Doyle’s solicitor.
In the early part of 1891, when the story was written, Conan Doyle would have had a good deal of business with Williams in connection with his move to South Norwood. Williams already resided in the vicinity at Upper Norwood. In my opinion it is perfectly possible that being in regular contact with the young Australian led to Conan Doyle thinking of Australia when penning the story. It is even possible that Williams was the model for young James McCarthy.
Too tenuous?
September 10, 2012
My thoughts on Moffatgate
Not strictly a Sherlockian post but hey ho...
So it seems that, a day or two ago, Steven Moffat decided to leave Twitter. Most sources I’ve seen (and I’ve not seen many) suggest that this was down to the level of abuse he was receiving. Now the subject of this abuse seems to be in some dispute. Some say it was from people proclaiming themselves feminists and who think that Moffat has been sexist via both Doctor Who and Sherlock. Other sources suggest it was abuse from people who simply dislike the way he has run Doctor Who.
Whichever it is is largely irrelevant. As far as I can tell, Steven Moffat has broken no laws while in charge of these two shows and until he does so he is entitled to run them how he likes (that’s why he’s called Showrunner you know). If you don’t like what he’s doing then don’t tune in. If the viewing figures drop things will surely change. Guess what though; the viewing figures do not appear to be dropping.
So we can quite safely conclude that a small but noisy minority has ruined things for the rest of us. It’s all too easy isn’t it to hurl abuse from behind the safety and anonymity of a screen and keyboard? There’s a word for this and I believe it is cowardice. If you wouldn’t say it to his face (and let’s face facts, most of these people would clam up in his presence) then don’t say it through any other medium.
To all those who profess to be pro-Moffat; you do no good by ranting on Twitter about these trolls. All you do is fan the flames. Just ignore them and show yourselves to be the normal self-controlled people I assume you to be.
September 4, 2012
How much can you deduct from Sherlock?
The launch of Elementary has the Sherlockian world talking. The programme has a virtual monopoly on the attention of Sherlockians due to the lack of any current competition. I have not seen it but I have noticed from Twitter that opinion is polarised.
This begs the question; exactly how much can you change of Sherlock’s world before your programme is nothing more than a crime drama that features someone by the name of Sherlock Holmes?
To my mind the core elements of the original stories are:
1. The lead characters are Sherlock Holmes and John Watson
2. Sherlock Holmes is a consulting detective with an amazing deductive faculty
3. John Watson is a former army doctor
4. The adventures are mostly set in London
5. The time period is Victorian
6. Holmes is an occasional user of cocaine and a heavy smoker
7. Sherlock Holmes lives at 221B Baker Street – where Watson occasionally also resides (between marriages)
There are probably some I’ve missed and you may not agree with all I’ve listed. However, if we take my list for the time being, how many of these items can you lose before a screen adaptation is no longer truly Holmes?
The ITV/Granada adaptation adheres to all seven.
The BBC’s Sherlock adheres to points 1,2,3,4 and 7 and is clearly still very much Sherlock Holmes.
The Warner Bros films adhere to 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and 7 with alcohol largely taking the place of the cocaine in point 6.
To the best of my knowledge Elementary only adheres to point 2. I freely admit I haven’t seen it and am relying on what I’ve read about it and heard from those who have seen it. However entertaining it is, if its grip on the source material is as weak as it seems is it really a Sherlock Holmes adaptation or just an US based crime series featuring a character called Sherlock Holmes with an intelligent but relatively ordinary partner?
This begs the question; exactly how much can you change of Sherlock’s world before your programme is nothing more than a crime drama that features someone by the name of Sherlock Holmes?To my mind the core elements of the original stories are:
1. The lead characters are Sherlock Holmes and John Watson
2. Sherlock Holmes is a consulting detective with an amazing deductive faculty
3. John Watson is a former army doctor
4. The adventures are mostly set in London
5. The time period is Victorian
6. Holmes is an occasional user of cocaine and a heavy smoker
7. Sherlock Holmes lives at 221B Baker Street – where Watson occasionally also resides (between marriages)
There are probably some I’ve missed and you may not agree with all I’ve listed. However, if we take my list for the time being, how many of these items can you lose before a screen adaptation is no longer truly Holmes?
The ITV/Granada adaptation adheres to all seven.
The BBC’s Sherlock adheres to points 1,2,3,4 and 7 and is clearly still very much Sherlock Holmes.
The Warner Bros films adhere to 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and 7 with alcohol largely taking the place of the cocaine in point 6.
To the best of my knowledge Elementary only adheres to point 2. I freely admit I haven’t seen it and am relying on what I’ve read about it and heard from those who have seen it. However entertaining it is, if its grip on the source material is as weak as it seems is it really a Sherlock Holmes adaptation or just an US based crime series featuring a character called Sherlock Holmes with an intelligent but relatively ordinary partner?
August 30, 2012
Want to understand Sherlock? - Try understanding his creator
It is common knowledge that Sherlock Holmes has lots more fans than the man who created him. The world contains a considerable number of Sherlockians (be they traditional Sherlockians or Sherlock Sherlockians) who know everything there is to know about Sherlock Holmes and next to nothing about his creator.
It is therefore rather amusing (and a tad depressing) when you hear Sherlockians pondering questions concerning the Great Detective. Why did Holmes refuse a knighthood?, why did he use the spy name Altamont? and so on….
Holmes aka Altamont overpowers Von Bork in His Last BowThe work of most authors is, to a certain extent, biographical or auto-biographical. In other words their characters are almost always based, to some extent or other, on themselves or people they know. Sir Arthur’s youngest son – Adrian – suggested that Holmes’s personality was largely based on Conan Doyle and that, as we know, the method of deduction was based on a system he had seen demonstrated by his teacher Dr Joe Bell.
Holmes’s spy name of Altamont was drawn from the middle name of Conan Doyle’s father. Holmes’s refusal of a knighthood reflects Conan Doyle’s own frustration at having accepted one many years earlier largely due to the wishes of his family (he did not want to accept it).
The point I am trying to make is this. If you are a Sherlockian and you have a question about an aspect of Sherlock’s character or motivations, you would do well to start your search for an answer by looking at the life of his creator – the much overlooked Arthur Conan Doyle.
Arthur Conan Doyle in 1893 - the year of The Final Problem
It is therefore rather amusing (and a tad depressing) when you hear Sherlockians pondering questions concerning the Great Detective. Why did Holmes refuse a knighthood?, why did he use the spy name Altamont? and so on….
Holmes aka Altamont overpowers Von Bork in His Last BowThe work of most authors is, to a certain extent, biographical or auto-biographical. In other words their characters are almost always based, to some extent or other, on themselves or people they know. Sir Arthur’s youngest son – Adrian – suggested that Holmes’s personality was largely based on Conan Doyle and that, as we know, the method of deduction was based on a system he had seen demonstrated by his teacher Dr Joe Bell. Holmes’s spy name of Altamont was drawn from the middle name of Conan Doyle’s father. Holmes’s refusal of a knighthood reflects Conan Doyle’s own frustration at having accepted one many years earlier largely due to the wishes of his family (he did not want to accept it).
The point I am trying to make is this. If you are a Sherlockian and you have a question about an aspect of Sherlock’s character or motivations, you would do well to start your search for an answer by looking at the life of his creator – the much overlooked Arthur Conan Doyle.
Arthur Conan Doyle in 1893 - the year of The Final Problem
August 27, 2012
August 24, 2012
So we have the three words for Sherlock Series 3
After much speculation (my Twitter timeline was pretty much devoted to the subject such is my follower demographic) we now have the magic three words from the powers that be.....
They are:
rat, wedding, bow
We look forward to seeing you in due course chaps.
They are:
rat, wedding, bow
We look forward to seeing you in due course chaps.
August 23, 2012
The Swiss Booklet of the SHSL
Hot off the press and "modelled" by Carrie Chandler (the book's mastermind) we have the Sherlock Holmes Society of London's booklet to accompany this year's Swiss Pilgrimage.
August 20, 2012
Charles Altamont Doyle - the accidental hero
The life of Charles Altamont Doyle is one that, although tragic, we should be grateful for. He was the youngest of his generation and, it would appear, was a little spoilt and lazy. The Doyle family were carving out quite a reputation for themselves in London society so when Charles became (in the family's eyes) a risk to that reputation, it was decided to, effectively, exile him to Edinburgh.
Charles Doyle when Arthur was a very small boyThis was the first step on the road to the creation of Sherlock Holmes. If Charles had not been sent to Edinburgh he would not have met Mary Foley who was to become his wife and Arthur Conan Doyle would never have been born. However, this alone was not enough. Bored and frustrated by the job his family had arranged for him, Charles increasingly turned to drink. He was retired early and consistently spent more money than was coming in. It was a struggle for the highly capable Mary Doyle to keep the family off the streets. The financial straights that Charles Doyle's drinking caused led to Mary taking in a lodger.
This lodger was Dr Bryan Charles Waller. He was step two on the road to Sherlock Holmes. The young Arthur deeply resented Waller's presence and saw him as usurping his father's role as head of the family. In Arthur's eyes, if his father could not look after the family, it was his personal duty to do so. Of course he was not yet capable of doing so which added to his sense of impotence.
Young Arthur swiftly realised that money was the only thing that could keep the family out of the gutter so he put his own artistic leanings to one side and looked instead for a career that would bring in the necessary income. Perhaps ironically it was the lodger, Dr Waller, who suggested that Arthur seek a career in medicine. This was step three.
Arthur duly entered Edinburgh University to study medicine. It was during this time that he met Dr Joe Bell who later inspired the deductive traits of Holmes - step four.
The rest, as is often said, is history. However, it seems pretty unarguable that the failings of Charles Altamont Doyle are what led to the creation of Sherlock Holmes. A tragic figure who suffered from alcoholism, epilepsy and later dementia ultimately triggered the creation of the most self-controlled and logical character in literary history.
Charles Doyle - you suffered a lot. Some of it was through your own doing and some was not but you contributed to the creation of a character I love. For that I thank you.
Charles Doyle when Arthur was a very small boyThis was the first step on the road to the creation of Sherlock Holmes. If Charles had not been sent to Edinburgh he would not have met Mary Foley who was to become his wife and Arthur Conan Doyle would never have been born. However, this alone was not enough. Bored and frustrated by the job his family had arranged for him, Charles increasingly turned to drink. He was retired early and consistently spent more money than was coming in. It was a struggle for the highly capable Mary Doyle to keep the family off the streets. The financial straights that Charles Doyle's drinking caused led to Mary taking in a lodger.This lodger was Dr Bryan Charles Waller. He was step two on the road to Sherlock Holmes. The young Arthur deeply resented Waller's presence and saw him as usurping his father's role as head of the family. In Arthur's eyes, if his father could not look after the family, it was his personal duty to do so. Of course he was not yet capable of doing so which added to his sense of impotence.
Young Arthur swiftly realised that money was the only thing that could keep the family out of the gutter so he put his own artistic leanings to one side and looked instead for a career that would bring in the necessary income. Perhaps ironically it was the lodger, Dr Waller, who suggested that Arthur seek a career in medicine. This was step three.
Arthur duly entered Edinburgh University to study medicine. It was during this time that he met Dr Joe Bell who later inspired the deductive traits of Holmes - step four.
The rest, as is often said, is history. However, it seems pretty unarguable that the failings of Charles Altamont Doyle are what led to the creation of Sherlock Holmes. A tragic figure who suffered from alcoholism, epilepsy and later dementia ultimately triggered the creation of the most self-controlled and logical character in literary history.
Charles Doyle - you suffered a lot. Some of it was through your own doing and some was not but you contributed to the creation of a character I love. For that I thank you.
