The Complete Sherlock Holmes question

It doesn't NEED to be re-invented. It's already cerebral and brilliant enough. That isn't to say though, that re-imaginings and re-writings aren't fun. They are quite interesting, as a matter of fact. But the original will always be the best for me. :)

No. I don't like the modernisation that's been undertaken by television productions either. Conan Doyle wrote a canon of work that is now recognised as a classical work, that is good enough.

I find it curious that no one thinks to rewrite a piece by Mozart or re-invent a sculpture by Michaelangelo, why are the rules different for litereature?

Nope! Already totally awesome.

I agree with Eliza, it doesn't need to be reinvented, but great fun for everyone - if it's done with style and panache.

No, he doesn't "need" to be re-invented.
He works perfectly in the context Conan Doyle wrote him in, and he created an archetype with it. Any and all re-invention can only be a shadow of the original experience.

That said, it can be fun seeing alternative takes on this persona when done respectfully.

Well, since he's already perfect, re-invention would only make him less amazing.

And I totally agree with Peter. People wouldn't mess with classical music or art, but they ruin great literature. I heard that someone is planning to rewrite all of Dickens so that it's all set in modern times. Which is exactly what they've done to Sherlock Holmes on television!

https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/5...

Here is what happens when you start messing around with perfection. You get a series where Lestrade is the hero.

I much prefer Jeremy Bretts adaptations to eiter elementary or sherlock, but I do watch sherlock.