End of an era

Two things came to an end recently, the obvious one being Game of Thrones (GOT), but the other is no less significant. I'm lucky in that I've been born in a time where I've grown up with a few cultural constants in my life. My brothers were of the Star Wars generation, which at the time was a cultural revolution, no hyperbole involved. No one thought it could happen again, but it did. I was the Lord of the Rings generation, which was extended with The Hobbit films. I much prefer being in this generation as, for a start, they are far better written! They became another cultural touchpoint. But arguably, both of these franchises have been far surpassed by the MCU (Marvel Comic Universe) generation. I may have been an adult by that time, but comics hark back to childhoods and the geeks had by now inherited the earth, when they were sneered at with Star Wars. Now there is the Game of Thrones generation. It may be a TV series rather than a film series, and there are quite a few cultural constants of that kind which escaped the echo chamber of their audiences such as Doctor Who, Lost and 24, but it has had a far reaching impact, not Harry Potter level impact though, mainly because children can't watch it!

The Dark Hedges, Northern Ireland

Cultural constants, cultural phenomenons, cultural touchpoints, whatever you want to call them are important because they become the through-line of our lives. Cultural constants have to surpass their viewers, meaning even people, the general populous, who don't watch it or even engage with it know more than they want to about it. Today, they become memes. This may seem frivolous, but it means they have been taken out of context, while remaining an in-joke for those in the know, and they have become a wider phenomenon. When you literally grow up with something or it becomes the background to a major period in your life, your attachment to it is permanently embedded. There is a longer post in this.

Map of Westeros

Attachment to cultural constants mean it's all the more painful when they come to an end. When pop bands split up, young people sob in the streets because it's like a rug being pulled from under you, a rock has been taken away, the foundations removed that you had been unconsciously relying on. Even years afterwards, when you thought you had moved on from it all, you can still be affected by it. For instance, when Stephen Gately from Boyzone died, I was very emotional for days. I hadn't listened to one of their songs since I was a teenager when I listened to their albums on repeat, but with his death, it felt like a piece of my childhood had gone with him.

Jon Snow Pop! Vinyl figurine

The difference with Star Wars, the MCU and Game of Thrones is they will continue, in a different guise of course in the form of prequels, sequels with new characters, books, TV series and on to a new phase. Allowing the audience the time to theorise, to talk amongst themselves, to band together created a cultural juggernaut in Game of Thrones as it ensured they could experience something collectively, even if it's online. Online communities are powerful in creating an upswell in audience loyalty, just ask Supernatural fans. When that series comes to an end after 15 seasons next year, I'm sure I will have to release my feelings as the fans have become family, as well as the awesome cast.

The Evenstar pendant

Talking about releasing feelings, I was still at school when the first Lord of the Rings film came out and I was in the grip of crippling anxiety. I had a panic attack during the moment the hobbits were being sniffed out hiding under a tree. I take it as a blessing in disguise as it was my friend's birthday; I wouldn't have gone out of choice. I read the books, saw The Fellowship of the Ring at home on DVD and went to the cinema the next year to see The Two Towers as a hardcore fan and had no panic attack as I knew what was coming, even though it was darker. I wear the evenstar pendant every day to symbolise my proud geekdom. As one film came out every year at Christmas, it became tradition, adding to the affection of its audience. With The Hobbit films, that was continued and had an in-built fanbase, not least because there was a returning director and returning actors, screenwriters and crew. No wonder New Zealand has become such a popular destination; it feels like home to so many.

Hobbit house

However those trilogies only lasted 3 years each. The MCU films officially started in 2003 with the first Iron Man film and through 23 films have ended, that phase at least, with The Avengers: Endgame, spanning 16 years. This is a major period in anyone's life. The characters appeared in each other's films, all reuniting in The Avengers films and one Captain America film. This adds to the feeling of connection. It also spawns the need to see and know everything; the difference between one or two people staying after the credits of the first films to see tiny, often funny, inessential sequences, to the latter films where practically everyone stayed, was tremendous. What was even better were the through-lines throughout all the films: the in-jokes, continuity sequences, repeated quotes, background references and recurring minor characters. These rewarded loyal viewers. Two such characters got their own TV series: Agent Carter for Peggy and Agents of SHIELD for Phil Coulson, even bringing him back from the dead. The fan affinity for these people generated such a reaction, they created the environment where it was untenable if they weren't seen again. This habit was paramount in the Endgame finale with them going back in time to see the previous films from another angle, quite literally. It was like a greatest hits, a reunion concert and farewell tour all in one.

Stan Lee RIP

Everything has to end and we do have to say farewell, but that doesn't mean it's forever. As cultural institutions have such a big impact, they stay in memories and can be recalled for a nostalgia fix or by rewatching. But they won't be new. That is why when they return, decades after in Star Wars', Indiana Jones' and Doctor Who's cases, it is a big thing, unless they alienate their audience like George Lucas did with the remastering of the original Star Wars trilogy and the much maligned prequels and the terrible Crystal Skull Indy film. The Hobbit trilogy had its naysayers, but ultimately it was a success and didn't ruin the legacy of The Lord of the Rings. Game of Thrones has alienated at least some of its fans, which may impact the prequel series. To me, the GOT finale was satisfying though. They must have a soothsayer on their payroll, knowing what people would say about the final season and not only justify, but affectionately mock the shortcomings. It seemed to address all the criticisms the season and especially the penultimate episode incited, explaining Dany's actions, proving Arya's power, punishing Jon's weakness, validating Bran's status and even showing compassion to Ghost, while concluding the others' storylines. As Tyrion put it, “No one is very happy, which means it's a good compromise."

San Juan de Gaztelugatxe, Bakio

So, will something else come along to take over our lives and become another cultural phenomenon that we will forever remember? Never say never. They have been happening for as long as national communication has been capable. I'm sure Shakespeare had a major impact in his time, but if social media had existed, think how much further his reach would have been. Charles Dickens was the talk of the nation when his work was serialised in periodicals. But in the age of intangible, ephemeral communication, I wonder if today's cultural touchpoints will have as lasting an impact.

Bittersweet victory

This blog post has been 15 years in the making, almost half my lifetime. If you're thinking we didn't really have the internet and blogs back then, you'd be right. It's not that I've been writing this post since then, but the events detailed here have taken this long.

Trust me I'm a doctor

If you take two things from this post, morals if you will, they are these: never taken a doctor's word as gospel and the things you thought you knew change on you. This post will be of interest to anyone who feels disappointed, short-changed or unsure after an appointment with a doctor. I too often accepted a diagnosis from a doctor, even when it didn't feel right. I have a problem with authority figures, underneath I see them as humans, just as fallible as the rest of us, but I always quail before them. Carefully rehearsed speeches go out the window when I enter their office. So I quietly defy them in that I do my research afterwards and thank goodness for that or I wouldn't be where I am today. The registrar wrote me off yesterday; it was my last appointment with him and I'm now in the hands of the physios. In the nicest possible way, he hopes to never see me again and I couldn't agree more. My Mum got a bit teary as this has been years in coming and she praised me for sticking with it, holding my ground and forcing the doctors' hands. I just see it as coming down to a mixture of desperation and stubbornness, but there must have been some self-belief in there too. The victory is bittersweet for me because of the time it's taken, the toll it's taken and the things I've missed out on because of it. But finally, it's at an end. I'll take you down the only road I've ever been down.

One word of warning: I've always been open and honest about things, so here's me being open and honest about my health and if it helps one person either understand me or themselves better, then this post has done its job. So if you ever wondered about me, my clumsiness, vagueness and my anxiety, or your own clumsiness and dizziness, then read on.

Have you ever felt dizzy with no apparent cause? Does vertigo plague your life that can't be put down to anything else? Do you get anxious for no particular reason? That's been my life ever since I was 16, when I started to have attacks of vertigo that came out of the blue, that incapacitated me so I can't lie down without making it worse, I can't walk in a straight line and I can only find one position when the room isn't spinning: half sitting and half lying down in a weird position. These attacks steadily got worse and more frequent. They lasted one or two days and knocked my energy for longer. A common misconception is that vertigo is the fear of heights, but that's acrophobia. Vertigo is one of the symptoms of acrophobia, like when you look down at the world far below and everything starts spinning, that's vertigo. It feels like a combination of being drunk without the good bits and the worst hangover of your life. Some car journeys, especially those along winding country roads, can feel like a rollercoaster. General day to day life is made harder, particularly with concentration levels and my energy is sapped quicker.

Vertigo

Over the years, I've been diagnosed with many different things, as the symptoms got worse. First a GP diagnosed me with labyrinthitis and was given tablets, but when I went to see a specialist, they told me it couldn't be labyrinthitis because the vertigo didn't last long enough. Then I got diagnosed with migraines, but the next specialist palmed me off with tablets which gave me distressing side effects. So I stopped taking them, plus I didn't think it was migraines as I didn't get headaches or any other symptoms apart from the vertigo. Then after a particularly bad bout, I was told it was Menieres and that there was nothing that could be done. I couldn't accept that and researched it. I'm stubborn and curious, a bad combination most of the time but not with this and it was just as well I am. One of the firm symptoms is hearing loss, so I went and got a hearing test. You can get a test done for free from Boots, but you have to pay for a copy of the results. So I went back to the doctor, again being referred by my GP and was told it couldn't be Menieres as I would have hearing loss if I was experiencing vertigo. My hearing is actually better than average and one good thing that has come out of this protracted diagnosis is I've discovered why I am so acutely sensitive to high pitched sounds like cutlery, because I hear it louder! The amount of doctors I've seen, pills I've taken and shouldn't have and diagnoses I've been given is depressing. Anyway, after a few simple balance tests last November, I received the diagnosis I had been waiting for: a correct diagnosis at last. I have vestibular damage to my right balance organ.

No one knows why it happened; it could've been a blow to the head, lack of blood flow or a virus, which is the most probable. But suddenly my life made sense, why I'm clumsy and am always bumping into things, why I can't walk in a straight line in the dark, why I have difficulty travelling and always get car sick. The attacks of vertigo over the years were the organ gradually degrading. It was a confusing but enlightening time for me. I was a gymnast, I've even got a certificate to prove I could do a cartwheel across a beam, so why did I suddenly have no balance? As the attacks of vertigo only happened once in a blue moon, I never connected the two until much later.

Blue moon

However after this epiphany moment, I received no more help; I just had to live with it. The only suggestion was to exercise, maybe do some martial arts. I exercise every day and I tried to do some martial arts, but it was impossible, because I couldn't balance. But like the passive, non-confrontational and introverted person I am, I let it slide and just carried on regardless. Until a heavy head cold knocked me sideways and I had to go on heavy duty motion sickness medication to even function. I wasn't going to take medication if I could help it, so I forced an appointment with a specialist and finally found a doctor who not only listened to me, but gave me time. He was as determined as I was to get to the bottom of it. From this point on, I couldn't fault Addenbrooke's Hospital or the NHS; they have been brilliant. After years of suffering, just living with it and getting on with things, I've finally been told the definitive cause, well, two causes: BPPV and a damaged balance organ on the right-hand side. The BPPV is easily fixed though.

BPPV stands for Benign Paroxysmal Positional Vertigo. It's basically where calcium deposits in the brain are dislodged and float around where they shouldn't be. The fix is a series of nauseating and mildly painful head manoeuvres to move them back. BPPV causes positional vertigo, which means vertigo if you look up or down, or hold your head in a certain way and if you roll over, or if you do anything with your head too quickly. It blighted my sleep as I toss and turn a lot in bed. So whenever I rolled over from left to right, I'd wake up or sleep more shallowly because of the vertigo. to be fair to the doctors, mine was very subtle and it's not surprising that they missed the eye movements that they look for by hanging my head over the edge of a bed.

They did quite a few tests, including an MRI of my head to rule out anything sinister, pumping my ears with water which was horrible, tracking my eye movements with funky knightrider glasses and balance tests. As for the damaged balance organ, it is very weak and may yet get worse, nothing is certain with this. I've lost 77% and it means I'm permanently off kilter and unbalanced. This may seem very very bad, but apparently like you can live with just one kidney or just one lung, you can live with just one balance organ. You just have to retrain your brain and reset your balance. So I'm seeing a physio and hopefully I will have my equilibrium back. My body grounding itself and my sight, they are as much balance organs as the balance organ. I know everyone gets motion sickness to some degree, anyone who has tried to navigate around their own house in the dark or rides rollercoasters for instance, knows what I'm talking about. My body gets royally confused and takes ages to reset itself. The symptoms may wear off for you after 10 minutes or so, but for me, it could be days. After long car journeys, I've lost a day before due to not being able to sleep because even with the light on, the room starts spinning the second I close my eyes and with no sleep, the next day is shot. Your balance comes from three things: your eyes and brain, your body and your balance organs. With one of them out of action, I only have my eyes and body. When either of those are compromised, I'm screwed. So if it's dark, if there's a disconnect between my body and eyes like when I'm travelling or even in crowds and everything is moving so fast around me, that's why I get the vertigo.

Here's a rollercoaster I can't believe I went on: the Dragon Khan at Portaventura, Barcelona

Lastly, I've written about this before, written about it on this blog before, but for the same amount of time as I've been living with vertigo, I've been living with anxiety and panic attacks. I always thought that the vertigo was a symptom of my anxiety and it can be. But it turns out, while it doesn't help as hyperventilation and irregular breathing can make your head swim, tense your body up and cause dizziness, the anxiety can also easily simply be a symptom of my balance problems. If the world feels off kilter, if you're permanently off balance, if you have no equilibrium, then of course you're going to feel anxious. And anything that exacerbates the symptoms would make you feel anxious, like public speaking when you have stand up for a while, often higher up than everyone else, like travelling and like socialising. I always thought that the anxiety caused my physical symptoms, racing heart rate, sweating and yes dizziness, but it seems too much of a coincidence as the anxiety and vertigo attacks started around the same time, that they are completely connected. My anxiety has a physical cause and if I can get my equilibrium back, maybe I can live anxiety-free. But that's a false hope as it's been too long and my body has got used to being anxious. If I get stressed or excited, by going on a rollercoaster for instance, which I wouldn't do anymore anyway because of my balance problems, but I would get the same symptoms as anxiety and it would bring on a panic attack as the increased adrenaline is now a signal that my body takes to induce a panic attack. So there are certain things I have to be careful of doing now. I even had to leave Centre Court at Wimbledon when I was there for the London 2012 Olympics because the excitement at just being at a place I had longed to go to ever since I was a kid became too much and it induced a panic attack. Stupid, right?

Me at Wimbledon Centre Court

My body has been doing a good job over the years of compensating, of living with the low grade nausea, of the world whirling around me. It never ceases to amaze me how adaptable the body is. But it also means I have many habits to break that I have built up over the years to cope with it all, some may be too ingrained to change, but we'll see. The physio has already identified a few bodily and posture problems. She has given me the exercises to reorientate myself, to allow my brain to get used to having only one balance organ. It's the only treatment. But she's also given me exercises to help realign my knees. I felt like a fraud in the gym at the hospital as there was a guy in there with an obvious brain injury just trying to get his limbs moving again, so I have him in mind the next time I feel too tired and want to shirk doing my exercises. I have a long body and short legs and I hunch over, not from being lazy, but because I'm trying to lower my centre of gravity to help me balance, or at least that's what I tell my Mum now after her years of nagging me to sit up straight! I also can't stand up for too long and when I do, I put my knees together for support, I even cycle like that. This has weakened my knees and I could start having problems in 10-15 years and even with my hips if I keep cycling the way I do. The impact that this has had on my body and mind is incredible. It will be interesting to see which things are genuine causes of anxiety and which are generated by the vertigo. It will be a journey of discovery, but one I'm more than happy to embark on. I'm determined to get over the anxiety if I can, to sit up straighter and to live my life more. Battling the balance problems took a lot of energy, so here's hoping I have more to play with! Most importantly, I have an answer, a reason and explanation for something that blighted my life for far too long and this bittersweet victory is all mine. I can change.

If any of this seems vaguely familiar to you, any of the symptoms, then read on.

BPPV symptoms

Does your Mum always tell you off for not sitting up straight? It may not be laziness, but because it isn't comfortable dizziness-wise. Having your head at a weird angle may help and you may be doing it unconsciously like I have.

Have you always thought you have low blood pressure, even though you've had it checked and it was fine? Do you find it difficult to stand up for too long, feel dizzy after standing or sitting up too quickly and get head rushes? This may be BPPV because sudden head movements or prolonged time with your head at a certain angle can cause dizziness. You can imagine what it was like working at a computer for me. My concentration was shot!

Did you used to be a heavy sleeper, turned into a shallow sleeper and then a very light sleeper? It could be down to rolling around, tossing and turning in bed at night. This might be due to stress sure, but it could also be rolling from right to left or left to right, depending on what side these damn crystals are at. I used to wake up with vertigo, with my covers off the bed or tangled up because of it.

Vestibular damage symptoms

Do you dislike travelling, not seeing new places or holidays, just because of the travelling part? Not for the usual reasons of the time it takes, airport angst, fear of flying, traffic jams, motorways and sea sickness? When the plane banks, does it feel like you're going to pass out? Can you not look out of the side windows of a car without feeling dizzy, even on the shortest of journeys? Do busy places make you feel anxious? Anything going at speed around you, whether it's when you're on a train or in a car or people walking fast around you, anything that confuses what speed you're actually moving at can bring it on.

Have you never particularly liked theme parks or rollercoasters? Going upside down is the worst thing you can do for balance and to disrupt BPPV as well, for obvious reasons.

Have you never liked, not enclosed places or due to claustrophobia, just places you can't get out of easily like planes, lifts and caves? Banking in planes makes me feel like I'm going to pass out. Lifts make me anxious. Caves are usually dark so see below.

Are you scared of the dark, or did you not get over your childhood fear of the dark until later in life? For me it was my 20s, was this why? No light means I have no means to orientate myself. The balance organ is the only thing you can rely on in the dark and mine is compromised.

Are you clumsy, always bumping into things, falling off curbs, up stairs...? Do you have to look straight ahead when walking, can you not look down or up or side to side? I can't count how many times I've injured myself or sprained my ankle because I haven't kept my head on an even keel, I've been looking at something up in the sky, behind or around me. Of course, again, bad things happen when you're not concentrating or concentrating on something other than walking, but you don't get dizzy generally.

Are you teetotal or near enough? I never really got into alcohol, apart from a brief misguided time as a 16-17 year old. Was it because the vertigo attacks were like being drunk, but without the nice bits? Why would I induce that, make it worse?

Question these symptoms and see what you come back with. You'd be surprised how many of us are wandering around with damaged vestibular organs and/or BPPV.

All shall fade: A Christmas holiday of farewells

Me and my nephews

Most things are ephemeral, everyone knows that. However it doesn't mean we're any the less sad when things come to an end. The knowledge that almost nothing ever lasts forever doesn't make saying goodbye any easier. Recently there have been several significant goodbyes for me. I really wished it could be Christmas every day this new year.

There are always goodbyes at Christmas. When family and friends get together, people that haven't seen each other for a while, especially in my case when some of the family live abroad, there will be hard goodbyes. Even though we had been on holiday together earlier in the year and the goodbye then was difficult and emotional, the goodbye at Christmas, actually on New Year's Eve, was worse. It should have been easier as they were back and forth visiting people and we didn't seen them as much as before. But you never get used to saying goodbye. It should never be a casual thing.

Christmas meal

Christmas always makes things seem more significant: it's the traditions, presents, decorations, family meals, but mostly the time off from everyday life. It may only be a few days in actual time, but in quality time, nothing beats Christmas; it makes everything seem deeper, more profound, loaded: heavy.

Back to the Future, good Christmas film and good use of the word "heavy"

As if saying goodbye to all that wasn't bad enough, what made it worse was seeing my nephews together, with two nieces on the way, two big meals with all 10 of us and a couple of evenings when it really felt like we were one big happy family again. It all made me look back in a nostalgic way. I can still remember being a little kid at big family gatherings, playing with my cousins, my aunts and uncles around. Now I'm one of those aunts. I never thought it would happen. I love being an Auntie, don't get me wrong, but I feel more like a kid than an auntie. I kept thinking of a song lyric: "If you close your eyes, does it almost feel like nothing's changed at all. And if you close your eyes, does it almost feel like you've been here before." Yes, but in a different role, or torn between two roles: a child and a grown-up.

I guess I just don't want anything to change. Yet it does anyway. Time marches on. Living is easy with eyes closed. So now, after sitting in the cinema last night, listening to Billy Boyd singing as the credits rolled, an era of my life came to an end. I know now how the Star Wars generation felt after Return of the Jedi, how they must have felt after Revenge of the Sith, except The Hobbit films were infinitely better and not a major disappointment. They also came nine years on and not 16 years on.

The moment that caused the panic attack

I know I lay greater significance on Lord of the Rings than it really deserves due to my emotional connection to it; it symbolises my progression after coming through mental illness as I had my worst panic attack while watching the Fellowship of the Ring in the cinema. The films came out during an impressionable time for me. I was seventeen, school had ended and my life was transforming around me, giving me independence, independence I couldn't handle; life was being forced upon me. It was all a great big scary adventure and I empathised with Frodo leaving his safe and comfortable existence and going out into the big dark world. Now the film series has come to an end, when I'm more secure. My life has changed radically from the first Lord of the Rings to the last Hobbit film. I believe I'm quite valid in mourning the end.

Boromir dies

It wasn't like after the last Lord of the Rings film; I was film savvy enough then to realise they would be making The Hobbit. But because of various rights battles, including between the movie studios New Line and MGM, Guillermo Del Toro bowing out and the time it takes to make a Tolkien/Peter Jackson masterpiece, it took longer than expected. But there was always the possibility.

Sitting in the cinema yesterday, it came upon me that this would almost definitely be the last time I would see a new Tolkien film in the cinema. Billy Boyd singing didn't help matters, bringing to mind THAT moment when he sang before, which inspired the title of this blog post and the soundtrack to Faramir's sacrificial charge. I cried in the cinema after Return of the King for Frodo when he sailed from the Grey Havens. I cried for the characters then. This time I cried for me. I cried for the end of an era. I cried for the film series I grew up alongside. I cried for the person I used to be and for the person I am today. I cried for the past. I cried for the future. I didn't weep. Tears were not even shed; I held them back, just. I wish I could have cried instead of crying inside. But I was in a public place and we had to get home. I just had a moment to myself, to mourn. The quality of the film itself ultimately didn't matter, though it was excellent, but like The Lord of the Rings, I preferred the more innocent first of the series; it was what it signified.

Lastly and least importantly, I lost a friend over Christmas: Miranda. Much has been said in criticism about this TV series and I would be the first to admit that the last ever episode wasn't the best. But I have stuck by her from the first hello, through the highs of the therapist episode right until her inevitable wedding. I empathised with all her social faux-pas, potent awkwardness and lack of confidence. In short, as with all Miranda's fans, I saw a lot of myself in her, especially in the struggle to be herself which it ultimately came down to. And despite the silliness, the unreality and flaws of the episode, it was seeing Miranda finally grow up a little, become more independent and gain some self-esteem that moved me. It was a lovely and lovingly crafted goodbye, with a nod to the viewers. So so long to Customer, Clive, Mike, Chris, Alison, the therapist, Charlie, Tilly, Penny, Stevie, Gary and Miranda. I for one will miss you.

Finally, to sum up, I'm turning to Doctor Who, which has been all shades of wrong recently, right from when Steven Moffat took over, especially in the way the latest Doctor is treating humanity; he used to see us as equals, sacrificing himself for Wilfred in the end; now he sees us as something to look down on, patronising and superior. Anyway, the Christmas episode got one thing right. Christmas should be treated like it's your last; a silent goodbye runs through the holiday, never spoken, until the last day of course. Christmas is special like that. Appreciate and spend time with your loved ones as you don't know what next Christmas will bring.

Well, all these goodbyes are in the spirit of Auld Lang Syne and it's an appropriate way to begin a new year. Here's to 2015 and to last goodbyes.

The many faces of Sherlock Holmes

Original Sherlock Holmes illustration

After seeing Elementary for the first time, I wasn't very impressed with it. It inspired me to write this blog post. However the recent rerun of Sherlock and a long hiatus until the next season has left a hole, a gaping void in my life which only Sherlock can fill. To bridge the gap between now and the time the third series airs on the 24th of November, I decided to watch Elementary to divert my attention; I know, but all this talk of Sherlock Holmes made me yearn for my Sherlock fix. I'm pleased I gave it another chance, though I may have been swayed by the stunning season finale, as it was more than diverting. Now I have a gap to fill again as I raced through the series, addicted you might say. So Elementary got me to thinking. There have been many permutations of Sherlock Holmes, what differentiates them? Where does Elementary fit in?

While nothing can compete with the triumvirate of Cumberbatch-Moffat-Freeman, Elementary holds its own. I reckon I simply saw a duff episode, which is unforgivable when you have a character like Sherlock Holmes to play with. Sherlock Holmes is a walking contradiction, a bunch of conflicting personality traits that shouldn't fit together but do. That is what makes him so fascinating, has made him a character for all time and someone who has inspired numerous adaptations.

Taken from my own perceptions of Sherlock Holmes, and those of my friend who is a big fan and wrote his undergraduate dissertation on the Arthur Conan Doyle books, here are Sherlock's key characteristics:

• Ridiculously intelligent and extremely observant 
• Ignorant about society and contemporary culture 
• Lacks social or people skills 
• No regard for convention, the law or any sort of rules. That's a lie, he knows they're there, but to paraphrase Captain Jack Sparrow "he likes to wave at them as he passes by" 
• Lacks sympathy and empathy for others 
• Logical rather than emotional: objective 
• Intense and can have distinct tunnel vision 
• Arrogant and ambitious 
• Loyal and chivalrous 
• Impatient 
• Addictive personality, specifically puzzles, but also substances. He turns to them when he doesn't have a case 
• Can look after himself, mentally and physically 
• Sharp sense of humour 

I can only comment on the Sherlock Holmes I have seen, so don't say I have missed out any; Sherlock Holmes is in the Guinness Book of World Records as the most portrayed movie character. I am so going to seek out Sherlock Hound by Hayao Miyazaki now. I hope it is like Dogtanian and the Three Muskehounds.

Dogtanian and the Three Muskehounds

There are also the series that clearly take inspiration from Sherlock Holmes, but never reference it: Due South (intelligent but naive about the world, likes to sniff things, consultant to the police (though he is a mountie) Ray Vecchio is his Watson and there's even an Irene Adler figure), Monk (ridiculously intelligent and perceptive, no social skills, consultant to the police (though he is a former police officer), the Watson figure is a woman and he loves puzzles), New Tricks (Go with me on this one. James Bolam, Dennis Waterman and Alun Armstrong represent different elements of Sherlock's character and Amanda Redman is their Watson. Plus they're kind of consultants, but former police officers), Death in Paradise (who is Ben Miller's Richard Poole but Sherlock Holmes? (incredibly British, extremely intelligent, tunnel vision, lacking in social skills, uses chemistry to solve cases, stubborn adherence to his suit and Camille is his Watson. Though the way he wraps up the cases is very Agatha Christie), Diagnosis Murder (the doctor link, the consultant aspect, the friends who help him, the Lestrade figure in Norman and his son the detective) and Jonathan Creek (who has a lack of social skills, a level of intelligence and focus that amazes everyone, the showmanship of his magician background and his (female) helper(s). There's also Psych (comedy) and Perception (starring Will from Will and Grace), even Dirk Gently (by Douglas Adams) none of which I have ever seen.

Let's start from the beginning where it all began with the books by Arthur Conan Doyle. This may turn out to be too long and indulgent, don't dismiss it as tl;dr (too long didn't read). GAAS (get an attention span!). I'll make it worth your while: great pictures including some attractive people, a fantastic video, interesting opinions, I guarantee you'll learn something and there's also a complete backtrack on Elementary, as you've no doubt already noticed.

The books by Arthur Conan Doyle (1887)

The book

I have read the books by Arthur Conan Doyle and I will read them again and again and probably again. I have them in my 'to read' pile on my floor, which is copiously covered with books. No surprise there. They are the TV tie-in versions with Sherlock's Benedict Cumberbatch and Martin Freeman on the cover. I know, I wouldn't buy them normally, but...

People think they know Sherlock Holmes and the stories, but through the TV and film adaptations, the original Sherlock Holmes has been diluted and exaggerated and trivialised. However all the tropes are there: the pipe, the deerstalker, the violin, the coat, the chemistry experiments, Watson, Lestrade, Moriarty, Mycroft... He never says "Elementary my dear Watson" though. I won't cover anything else as you know it all, you wouldn't be reading this otherwise.

My favourite quote from Arthur Conan Doyle's books is: "You see, but you do not observe. The distinction is clear" from A Scandal in Bohemia.

Doctor Who (1963-)

I can find nothing to suggest The Doctor or Doctor Who was inspired by Sherlock Holmes. The only tenuous clue I have is that Conan Doyle's inspiration for Sherlock Holmes was a doctor. None of the original Who creators mentioned it. However they did say in the official Doctor Who Magazine that The Master, The Doctor's archenemy, is "Professor Moriarty to The Doctor's Sherlock Holmes." There are frequent references to Sherlock Holmes throughout Doctor Who and he has even appeared in person a few times. The most recent reference to Sherlock Holmes is Matt Smith's disguise in "The Snowmen" episode, though that was probably a Moffat in-joke.

I can only comment on new Who, when it was resurrected in 2005 by Verity Lambert and Russell T. Davies; I was too young for even Sylvester McCoy, let alone the Doctors who came before. I believe I did see Paul McGann in Doctor Who, but it was before I was interested. Give me a break, I was 12 and yet to become the real fan of things and too old to see it with child-like wonderment. I was an old soul, I think I'm aging backwards instead of forwards, not physically unfortunately. I would like the Time Lord power of generation. So my first Doctor was Christopher Eccleston: fantastic, mercurial and slightly manic. But my Doctor will always be David Tennant. I cried buckets after his "I don't want to go" moment; I was devastated and inconsolable. Blinded by the brilliance of the programme, it is only until recently that I have noticed that Sherlock Holmes and The Doctor are kindred spirits.

Just think about the similarities between Sherlock Holmes and The Doctor in their personalities never mind the storyline. The Doctor loves us humans and Earth, that's why he keeps returning to our planet, that and the budget constraints! He loves a mystery, a puzzle and adores the thrill of the chase. He is a complete polyglot speaking many Earth and alien languages, though the TARDIS helps with that. He is capable of coldheartedness, but his companion (Watson) always brings him back from the brink. However he seems to love popular culture, an example being discussing space's version of Big Brother in the episode "Bad Wolf". I reckon the cultural references are to relate to their audience rather than a deliberate plan to contradict the character. His sonic screwdriver allows him to break into lots of places, so he's a habitual trespasser! He adheres to moral codes and principles, but not rules. He also has a great sense of humour, something I miss with the current Doctor. Hopefully the excellent Peter Capaldi will bring the fun back. He is intensely enthusiastic and throws himself into things. Lastly, he is fiercely intelligent and perceptive, often notices when things aren't quite right, such as in "Tooth and Claw". This picture is from that episode, but it is just an excuse to include a picture of a library:

"Tooth and Claw"

His companions are clearly his Watsons and they ground him, make him more human. In that case, Martha must be a traditional Watson, the ultimate Watson being a doctor, intelligent, loyal and strong, perhaps the strongest New Who companion. Enthusiastic, empathetic and resourceful Rose would be not only Watson, but also Irene: The Woman. Forthright, compassionate and intuitive Donna is his mate, his friend. If it wasn't for Donna, The Doctor wouldn't even be alive as shown in the episode Turn Left. Clara is still an unknown quantity, but she seems to be a Watson for all time(s). If I have to include Amy and the fabulous Rory, I'd say Amy is the later Watson, independent with a husband/wife and life away from Sherlock. But they still get embroiled in the adventures, with the partner along for the ride. The TARDIS could be his 221B, his Watson, Irene or Lestrade, she fulfils all those functions; I call the TARDIS she now after Neil Gaiman's fantastic episode The Doctor's Wife. He investigates, he solves problems, he gets into danger and out of it again. The stakes may be higher (the universe), the scope more expansive (all of time and space) and the storylines more bombastic, but he is essentially solving mysteries, right from the beginning of New Who with Rose. His enemies are numerous, but The Master as mentioned before is his Moriarty. His enemies also represent elements of his personality, for instance the Daleks are his cool detachment.

I have a theory about Sherlock Holmes, that no matter who plays him and in whatever form he appears in, the fundamental aspects of his character remain intact. This can also be said of The Doctor. Whenever he regenerates, he may change his form, his personality may be altered and he may seem different, but underneath it all, he is the same man. The same can be said for any of the Sherlock personages I will describe in this blog post, none have been so corrupted that he is no longer Sherlock Holmes.

I could write more about Doctor Who, wax lyrical about the character, his adventures, Rose and Rory, Russell T. Davies and Torchwood; I'm extremely geeky on the subject. But I'll spare you as I have made my point. I may not like Matt Smith's interpretation of The Doctor and I much preferred the Russell T. Davies era of Doctor Who, but I agree with this comment from Steven Moffat, though not his use of the word god: "I always think of The Doctor oddly enough, strangely enough, as more human. He's like an angel who aspires to be human, whereas Sherlock Holmes is a human being who aspires to be a god. He's rejecting the very things that the Doctor embraces. But they sort of meet in the middle, because neither succeeds in their aspirations."

Plus he loves books!

Jeremy Brett (1984-1994)

I must confess, I haven't seen very much of Jeremy Brett's Sherlock Holmes, but I initially based my opinion on Elementary on one episode! I have since reneged on my view of Elementary; I was overly harsh.

Jeremy Brett has played Sherlock Holmes in several different productions, 41 in total: The Adventures of Sherlock Holmes, The Sign of Four, The Return of Sherlock Holmes, The Hound of the Baskervilles, Mystery!, The Case-Book of Sherlock Holmes and The Memoirs of Sherlock Holmes.

Jeremy Brett and his Watson (David Burke)

He is the old school traditional Sherlock, as you can see from the picture. Brett was scrupulous about being faithful to the original stories, he extensively researched both Sherlock Holmes and Arthur Conan Doyle. He knew all about his subject, down to Sherlock's eating and drinking habits. He was obsessive about the role and it took over his life. If there's an incarnation of Sherlock Holmes that is a straight book to screen version, it's Jeremy Brett.

Basil the Great Mouse Detective (1986)

Any Disney fans out there will know where I'm coming from. Basil the Great Mouse Detective is an underrated masterpiece. It actually features Sherlock and Watson, but only briefly. Basil the mouse (clearly named after another great Sherlock: Basil Rathbone) lives in 221B Baker St. with Sherlock and Watson. He meets Dr. Dawson who becomes his personal biographer, there is a housekeeper called Mrs. Judson and a baddie named Professor Ratigan (his Moriarty). Basil has a pipe, plays the violin, uses chemistry to solve cases, loves disguises, can look after himself in a fight, has no social skills to speak of (Dawson is frequently shocked by his behaviour), there's a hound (but he's called Toby) and the films ends *SPOILER* with a fall. Don't worry, it's a Disney film, they wouldn't kill the hero (just their parents).

Dawson, Basil and a damsel in distress

Disney created an extremely affectionate tribute to Sherlock and a distinctly English one (the Queen features). However it isn't as clichéd as you may think, thanks in part to the excellent voice cast (Vincent Price among them) and the stories the film is based on: Basil of Baker St.

The darker aspects of Sherlock's nature are obviously hidden or excised, as it is a kid's film, but they have still kept the essential aspects so Basil still remains a true representation of Sherlock.

House (2004-2012)

House is an American TV show with American writers and a largely American cast (the gorgeous Jesse Spencer is Australian), but the Sherlock character is played by Hugh Laurie. The Hugh Laurie who has played Prince George in Blackadder, Wooster in Jeeves and Wooster and a very British cameo in Friends:

I could write an essay on Hugh Laurie, let alone about the hit TV series House. It is so obviously based on Sherlock Holmes. For a start, the man Sherlock Holmes was based on was a doctor, as I have mentioned before. House-Holmes, his friendship with Wilson-Watson, Cuddy-Irene/Lestrade and his addiction. He also lives in 221B and is played by a Brit, albeit with an American accent.

Gregory House has a conspicuously Holmesian personality: besides being incredulously intelligent and observant, he is socially inept almost misanthropic, abruptly honest, intense to the point of obsession (and sometimes beyond), loyal to the point of needy, cranky and impatient a famous curmudgeon, lazy when not on a case, egotistical and ambitious perhaps narcissistic, the list is almost complete. The only non-Holmesian attribute is his current awareness and love of popular culture: he adores soap operas. Conan Doyle's Sherlock liked to read the personal ads. His humour is especially Holmesian and British, sarcasm being the order of the day. Watson says of Sherlock: "There was a world of sarcasm in his voice as he spoke." Thank you to this guide for those attributes, as much as my own undying love for and knowledge of the show.

The intelligence House displays is also very Holmesian, he is a polyglot speaking several languages, he can concentrate on many things at once, frequently surprising people when they thought he wasn't listening, he adores music, playing the piano and guitar, organ and harmonica (because Laurie can play them) instead of the violin. He walks with a cane as he has a lame leg, but in Conan Doyle's books it is Watson with the leg injury.

The original House cast

He lives for finding out the mystery illness of his patients, solving the puzzle rather than healing the patient. In the early series, he didn't even like meeting his patients. Wilson says in one episode "Some doctors have the Messiah complex, they need to save the world. You've got the Rubiks complex, you need to solve the puzzle." However he won't take on cases he doesn't find interesting, something that is also true of Sherlock and other versions I will cover later like Patrick Jane.

House is a logical manipulator, sadistically playing games with his colleagues, a real prankster. He also lies to his patients to achieve his own ends: the series tagline is "Everybody lies". He attempts romance; he had one long-term relationship and there's his love interest in the series Lisa Cuddy, well... let's just say that relationship was fraught. She's as much a Lestrade as an Irene Adler, particularly as she's his boss, the dean of medicine, for much of the series. He frequently flouts the law: breaking and entering, trespassing and dalliances with prostitutes (one of his vices when he's bored, the same as in Elementary). He adheres to no moral mode of conduct, or any medical laws of ethics I know, a constant bugbear of Lisa Cuddy's who enables him most of the time anyway. In fact, House is very philosophical and likes to debate such matters.

His friendship with Wilson is central to the series. Wilson voluntarily sticks by the incorrigible House, with a few break-ups, especially after he ran over Wilson's foot. But they always come back to each other. The addiction to Vicodin is a major plotline in the early seasons of the show, but tellingly and true to Sherlock's character, House says, "I do not have a pain management problem, I have a pain problem." ("Occam's Razor") Wilson is clearly House's Watson, but apart from the occasional advice, it is House's team which helps solve the cases.

Other Holmesian references are Jack Moriarty who shoots House in a season finale and Wilson makes references to Irene Adler when describing one of House's love interests. Lastly the series finale is straight out of Sherlock, but with a House twist.

Sorry, one more picture; I just love this one of Wilson and House; it sums up their relationship:

House and Wilson

The Mentalist (2008)

The Mentalist is also American with an American cast, but the Holmes character is played by Simon Baker, an Aussie with British characteristics. This one might not seem so obvious. The mentalist of the title is Patrick Jane (played by the unbelievably handsome Australian actor Simon Baker). He is a police consultant, like Holmes, who lives for solving crimes, mostly grisly murders. His arch enemy is Red John, who killed his wife and young daughter; Red John is Jane's Moriarty. He works closely with cop Teresa Lisbon, the Watson character and there are a number of Lestrades. Lisbon puts up with Jane, just as Watson puts up with Holmes and Wilson with House, with a sort of reluctant wonderment, frequently affronted but always loyal. Plus, he closes cases.

Jane is a former con man, a supposed "psychic". He uses his mentalist (think Derren Brown) tricks to help the police solve cases, such as cold reading (mind reading). Particular Holmesian traits are the memory palace and checking peoples' pulses by way of their wrist as they talk to see if they're lying, a potent moment in Sherlock in A Scandal in Belgravia. His powers of deduction through observation are reminiscent of Holmes. His con man past gives him a connection to the underworld just as Sherlock has his Baker St. Irregulars.

Patrick Jane

Patrick Jane is a cool puzzler. He has no friends, other than those he works with, and no social life. He is obsessed with finding and exacting revenge on Red John. Conan Doyle's Sherlock is theatrical; he loves donning disguises. Patrick Jane also has a flair for theatrics, invariably from his fairground and con man past, especially in the denouements.

He manipulates and plays games with his colleagues. He also tricks the suspects in the case, much like House and in Elementary. Subtly getting his own way all the time, Jane breaks laws in minor and major ways; he has broken people out of prison, hired burglars to break into houses and sets traps for suspects that are akin to... entrapment. He annoys his superiors thanks to the way he treats people, suspects and victims alike. He is a character full of light and shade, haunted by the death of his family, but capable of childish humour and meditative contentment.

Like House and Holmes, he solves the puzzle not the case. He doesn't like to get involved with people, he doesn't even like to be thanked. One notable exception is a case in the recent season about the disappearance of a child; Sherlock has an affinity with children.

Jane loves the simpler and finer things in life such as music, nature and the open air. He doesn't know much about contemporary culture. The only non-Holmesian trait is an aversion to violence. Plus Jane drinks tea whenever possible, a conspicuous link to the character's British roots?

Sherlock Holmes and A Game of Shadows (2009 and 2011)

I won't dwell too much on Robert Downey, Jr. and Jude Law as Holmes and Watson. Though you can below as they are very easy on the eyes:

The handsome Sherlock and Watson

Guy Ritchie has created a cockney wideboy of a Sherlock Holmes. This Sherlock is a playful child who loves tricks and games. He is the most physical of Sherlocks, a bit of a bruiser. This is something implied in the books, but never overtly described. In the first film, there is a scene where he's boxing. He also takes down a whole roomful of baddies after describing exactly how he's going to do it. This also happens in Sherlock.

Robert Downey Jr. plays variations on the same part across Tony Stark/Iron Man and Sherlock Holmes. They are both exceedingly intelligent after all with... difficult personalities. He is an incredible actor, with a huge range, but with Holmes and Stark there are quite a few similarities: the addiction, the bromance (Stark and Jarvis), the obsessive workaholic. The list is longer than you think. The love of music is there, the untidiness, Irene Adler (a miscast Rachel McAdams), Moriarty, Mycroft, the Reichenbach Fall, the Baker St. Irregulars, Mrs. Hudson, the experiments...

However this adaptation is about Watson and Holmes; thanks to Jude Law's and Robert Downey Jr's chemistry what we get is a wonderful bromance.

Sherlock (2010-)

I can write about Sherlock forever and a day, and get carried away talking about Benedict Cumberbatch. Sherlock is difficult to describe as there is so much to it, despite there being only 6 episodes. There are also so many good pictures out there, but this one sums the show up and Cumberbatch's Sherlock:

He is a child, petty and spoilt and a slave to his perceptive powers. He's given to sulking, to impetuosity and to sheer laziness. He has no social skills and the main role of Watson is to humanise Sherlock, bring him up on his faults, make him more like us, a better person. At least, he tries...

As Caitlin Moran has said in a Times article that Sherlock is "fast, dark and insanely charismatic - he kicked the door in, off its hinges, and didn't stop for the next 90 minutes... There was a definite rock-star element to this Holmes." Incidentally Moran is the one who described Cumberbatch's powerful, lilting, glorious voice as being "like a jaguar hiding in a cello". Like Caitlin Moran's writing, this adaptation is endlessly quotable. In the last episode alone we had: "death frisbee" (the deerstalker), "not our division" (Lestrade) and the heartbreakingly delivered final speech from Watson; you can't listen to it without crying, it concisely sums up what Sherlock means to Watson.

If previous Sherlock Holmes productions have been all about him, Sherlock is a two-hander, especially in the second season. There is the bromance between Sherlock and Watson, where Martin Freeman quietly steals the scene from under Cumberbatch's more showy performance. There is also the Moriarty-Sherlock relationship, exemplified by the tea scene in the second season finale.

Watson's faith in Sherlock is absolute, which reoccurs across all embodiments. Even when all others doubt him. We may have different actors, different time periods and different technology, but the relationship between Sherlock and Watson is just the same, unlike Elementary. Sherlock has elements of all the previous manifestations and more: the irascibility of House, the fun of Downey Jr., the tricks of Patrick Jane. However in Sherlock he is more cerebral than them, a serial oneupman, a brooding almost gothic-style Sherlock. Moffat and Gatiss like to play around with the legend, with the Holmesian clichés: the deerstalker, the hound of the Baskervilles, Reichenbach... One of Conan Doyle's most famous Sherlock lines is given almost as a throwaway: "How often have I said to you that when you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth?" The Sign of Four, it is a repeated comment throughout the books. The cigarette ash even gets a reference (Elementary as well), the scientific experiments, the Baker St. Irregulars (Elementary too) which is called the homeless network in Sherlock. The last season finale plays on the legend of Holmes himself, deconstructing the myth to reveal the man, addressing the cloak of unbelievability that surrounds Sherlock Holmes.

They are very careful to modernise Holmes, to bring him bang up-to-date. Even the Robert Downey Jr Holmes is modernised, using hints of steampunk to represent the industrial advancements of the Victorian age Sherlock belongs to. There is Watson's blog instead of writing Holmes' memoirs or biography, the frequent use of mobile phones and computers, even texts as a visual device, there's Holmes' three-patch-problem instead of his pipe, the show is completely littered with them. The way they display Sherlock's mind, the mind palace for example, is brilliant.

You can find some great pictures, memes and screencaps, especially on Pinterest. Here is my "I am Sherlocked" board. But you cannot do better than the programme itself. So here's a great video, which also happens to sum the show up. It's not the sheet bit, sorry:

Then there's the episodes, there are only 6 of them so far so we can run through them. In the first season we had:

A Study in Pink which bears direct comparison to A Study in Scarlet. It keeps the word RACHE (revenge, but in Pink it's for Rachel) scrawled by the murder victim, the two pills plot device (surely The Princess Bride took this device and then Sherlock referenced The Princess Bride? My favourite film could hold the key to understanding it!) and the aneurysm of the killer. There is a lost phone instead of a ring, Sherlock analyses John's phone instead of his pocket watch and as a first episode it's immaculate. Caitlin Moran is right, it comes out all guns blazing. There's no hint of any lack of confidence, apt as we're talking about Sherlock Holmes.

The Blind Banker is probably the weakest of all Sherlock episodes. It's an amalgamation of The Valley of Fear (book references), The Adventure of the Dancing Men (pictorial messages) and The Sign of Four (murder in a locked room accessible by climbing through a window and a killer with small feet). The story doesn't get going until about halfway through so it doesn't have the same impact, but it's hard to follow such a pilot.

The Great Game takes inspiration from many of Conan Doyle's stories. It features the first appearance of Moriarty, a storming performance from Andrew Scott and a truly compelling plot. Moffat and Gatiss really like to play games with their audience and adore complex storylines; Matt Smith's tenure as The Doctor is a case in point. It is fine in small doses such as here, but anything longer and they may lose their audience, such as which arguably began to happen in Doctor Who.

In the second series, elements of Sherlock's character are played upon:

A Scandal in Belgravia is again directly taken from a Conan Doyle story, in fact all of the second season episodes are taken from the most famous Sherlock Holmes stories. In this case, it's A Scandal in Bohemia. However there are references to many other cases. The death investigated is a reference to The Boscombe Valley Mystery. Here we have the first and only appearance so far of Irene Adler; I'm sure she'll be back, especially as (Guy of Gisborne's sister from BBC's Robin Hood) Lara Pulver did such a good performance. Modernisms include the camera phone instead of actual photos as the blackmail article. Sherlock's sexuality is challenged in this episode, especially by Irene Adler.

The Hounds of Baskerville is a slight derivation on The Hound of the Baskervilles. The word hound itself becomes extremely important to the story. It is a conspiracy story of which all representations of Sherlock are fascinated. Being Human's Russell Tovey gives the best guest performance of the entire series of a man slowly going insane, haunted by his past. In case you were wondering, the harpoon moment has precedent; it's from The Adventure of Black Peter. Sherlock's lack of emotion is challenged, particularly his fear or lack of it.

The Reichenbach Fall references the title of the biggest Sherlock story: The Final Problem. The meaning of Reichenbach is explored, literally in terms of the word and metaphorically. Richard Brook (a literal translation of reichenbach) is the instigator of the fall, the painting of the Reichenbach waterfall features at the beginning and becomes the symbol of the case that made him, again a literal as well as metaphorical fall. Cumberbatch's own character John Harrison in the fabulous Star Trek: Into Darkness owes a few favours to Sherlock and this episode, especially the storyline: doing anything to save his crew. Molly, whose unrequited love of Sherlock has been one of the programme's highlights, finally gets her moment. We just won't find out until November the 24th. Sherlock as a person is completely taken apart, by Moriarty.

Sherlock's coat

As a last comment, there is so much hype out there about Sherlock, about Cumberbatch and about the bromance between Sherlock and Watson. Seriously, do not go on tumblr; there are so many memes. The fandom has been going crazy, comparing Sherlock to an otter and Watson to a hedgehog, odes to Sherlock's coat and fan fiction, fan videos and Photoshop. They have even been playing on the fact that Martin Freeman is Bilbo Baggins and Cumberbatch is Smaug the dragon in The Hobbit (Tolkien is another of my geeky obsessions). Not to mention how seemingly the entire western hemisphere is trying to work out *SPOILER* how Sherlock is still alive, driven into a frenzy by Moffat's taunting comment that there is one small thing that's out of character we've all missed that signifies how he did it. It may be too soon to say, but it has started to take away from the show itself and as a result Sherlock Holmes. Everyone has gone into paroxysms of delight over the teaser trailer shown after the recent rerun of season 2: Watson has a moustache! How can season 3 live up to the hype?

So forget all of that, forget that Cumberbatch is now global property, forget that Moffat is simultaneously running two of the biggest shows Britain has ever produced, forget that Freeman is now part of one of the most famous film trilogies of all time. Forget that there are those who hope that Sherlock and Watson declare their love for each other, forget that there are those who hope Sherlock and Molly get together, forget that there may have been homoerotic undertones to Moriarty's interest in Sherlock. Forget all of that, but don't forget that Sherlock Holmes is not a god, not an alien and not a legend; he is just a man underneath it all.

He is relatable as a person; another quote which is of particular meaning to me is: "My mind is like a racing engine, tearing itself to pieces because it is not connected up with the work for which it was built." The Man with the Twisted Lip.

Elementary (2012-)

I have completely changed my view of Elementary, after seeing more than one episode; never judge a book by its cover and never judge a TV series on one episode, especially if it's the pilot as they tend to go all out budget, plot and action-wise. The same can be said of season finales, which may have affected my judgement of Elementary somewhat. Johnny Lee Miller makes the part his own, but what he is doing in such a production I don't know. Especially after, in a weird link, he had just finished acting with Benedict Cumberbatch, star of Sherlock, as Frankenstein and the Monster, alternately, in Danny Boyle's recent stage production. How can he compare with Benedict's lauded performance? Miller is an underrated actor who hasn't lived up to his early heady heyday of Trainspotting (he was also pretty good as the male lead in Mansfield Park and with Robert Carlyle again in Plunkett and Macleane). His is an interesting interpretation, and a gutsy one. It may be an American show, but his performance is pure British: subtle, cerebral and like House, despite the long speeches, saying more with a look than a word. However there is a distinct lack of chemistry, humour and fun. They do like to play with the Sherlock tropes (like Sherlock); he torches his violin in one scene (probably because Johnny Lee Miller can't play it, unlike Cumberbatch). He talks through the case at people, to a phrenology head rather than a skull, and has epiphanies, in much the same way Sherlock and House do. He breaks the law in the same way as other Sherlocks as well, breaking and entering (well, not quite), entrapment and so on. But there is something missing: atmosphere.

Sherlock loves puzzles, it's a compulsion, he loves proving he's superior to everyone else and shows off, in more or less subtle ways. This Sherlock is downcast and deadbeat, morose and depressed. There's no light in him, no spark. Sherlock is haunted, tormented by his own mind, but he has a lot of light and shade. Johnny Lee Miller's Sherlock is all shade. He's as shaded as a shady thing in Shadeville... You get my drift. He is broken, full of rage and anger. He's prone to sudden outbursts of violence. He is a rough Sherlock covered with tattoos (hidden meanings or just Miller's?) and wearing trampy clothes; no suits or long smart coats for this Sherlock.

Miller's Sherlock has all the essential elements: no social skills, abrupt and intense, obsessive to the point of forgetting to eat and sleep, tic-ridden and tunnel-visioned. They really show the impact of Sherlock's nature on his body: hooded eyes with dark bags underneath, pallid skin, everyone tells him he looks terrible, aches and pains, hunched back and then at the end after solving the case, falling instantly asleep exhausted. He admits that his mind causes him pain. He is real, a living breathing Sherlock Holmes. He just seems like someone you could meet in real life, more so than other Sherlocks. Previous incarnations of Sherlock, those mentioned above, they are superhuman in comparison, never seeming to need sleep or food, recovering immediately. Although they appear to have given this Sherlock superhuman powers of prediction. Sherlock can predict human behaviour, but the scoreline of a baseball game? It's a touch too far, unless he has been taking tips from Dynamo. Sherlock only has 3 episodes a season, there's only 2 hours to play with in a film and Elementary has a lot of space with 24 episodes to a season, so they have the luxury of time.

The latest Sherlock and Watson (nice socks)

Sherlock has always been superior to every other person in the room, except perhaps if it contains Moriarty or Mycroft. This Sherlock appears deferential and he isn't doing it for effect. He seems to be a hired consultant to the police, instead of helping them out to sate his own needs and desires. He's working for them instead of with them, unlike Sherlock and House he's not deigning to grace them with his presence. He has a whole different attitude. Something has broken him, he doesn't have the same superiority complex anymore. I expect this will change after the events of the first season finale... He's still doing it for the love of it, and is realising that Watson loves it too.

The relationship between Watson and Sherlock is wrong, interesting, but still wrong. Taking out the fact that Watson is now a woman; an interesting idea and not something I'm against, but only if it's done right which it is in adaptations I've already mentioned later; the dynamic is off. She's been appointed to him, they didn't meet by chance and become flatmates and friends, like all other interpretations covered here. Again, changing elements of the story is not bad, but it means Watson is no longer there because she/he wants to be. That changes later, she chooses to stay. But the dynamic has already been set; it is only through time with him rather than from the first meeting that she makes her decision, not straight off. This changes essential characteristics of Watson as well as Sherlock. However I do like the increased role of Watson; they're actually using her medical expertise, she's there as his sober companion to keep him on the straight and narrow and she's helping with finding clues, so much so that Sherlock takes her on as an apprentice; he calls them partners, not equals mind you, no one could be the equal of Sherlock, but they are more of a duo than every other Sherlock I know. She's more involved than even Martin Freeman's Watson. She wasn't in the army and has no injury, but she is scarred. There's a good line that's stuck in my memory. Sherlock: "I was the one who listened last night, and I heard someone who was willing to accommodate the difficult process of a difficult person for the greater good. It’s a rare quality, in my experience. I may even listen to you again in the future. Not your sobriety twaddle, of course. Just your thoughts on cases." Elementary is not about Sherlock or even Sherlock and Watson, it's about Watson.

Sherlock is undergoing treatment for his addiction, the reason for Watson's presence. Sherlock only succumbs to his addiction when he is distressed, hasn't got a case or is at the height of a case to help him think. It's not a permanent fixture in his life. He's a functional addict. Any treatment he undergoes is concerned help from Watson, Mycroft or Mrs. Hudson. He has instigated his treatment in Elementary. This would never happen as it is difficult, nigh on impossible, for Sherlock to admit he is wrong, as well as House and Patrick Jane. Seeing a Sherlock with emotions and feelings seems distinctly American to me. It is a stereotype, but he should have a stiff upper lip. You cannot Americanise Sherlock without losing something fundamental from his character. Miller's playing him with an English accent, British humour (sarcastic, I love it!) and frequent references to London, but the writing is American. Before you say "But House and The Mentalist are American", I have already addressed that. Like Downey Jr, this is a physical Sherlock. There's a bit of nudity too, Miller has a great torso. Some more of that Cumberbatch, please! Though the no sheet Sherlock scene in Buckingham Palace was very... ahem.

You're welcome

Lastly, with Watson being a woman, they have added a romantic dimension. Sherlock is not interested in women that way, never has been, not even Irene Adler. Though they have made their relationship in Elementary explicit. It leads to a wonderful speech: "She eclipses and predominates the whole of her gender. She is The Woman." When Sherlock says it in A Scandal in Bohemia, he uses the word sex instead of gender. He may not even be interested in Watson in Elementary that way, but it is the elephant in the room; it has to be addressed and was in the first episode I saw. In the same episode, he propositioned a woman, who happened to be played by Lisa Edelstein, Lisa Cuddy from House, which I have already covered. After seeing the pilot episode, it was even more obvious. The first meeting between Watson and Sherlock involved a prostitute and Sherlock declaring his undying love for Watson. Maybe they're taking inspiration from House. It shocked Watson so much she dropped her bag on the floor, spilling her belongings everywhere. This allowed Sherlock to analyse her, which was perhaps his intention? Saying he had fallen in love with Watson at first sight was part of one of this Sherlock's memory techniques; he was watching an episode of some soap opera and repeating a speech he had just heard, word for word. However it made Watson look at Sherlock in a romantic way, she couldn't help it, no one could if someone had just said a speech like that to them. Sexual tension between Watson and Sherlock? It's just plain wrong. I know that the tumblrsphere likes to do that with Sherlock, creating a romance between Freeman and Cumberbatch, and Mark Gatiss and Steven Moffat play up to that in the scripts, but it isn't there. Sherlock and Watson's relationship is a deep friendship, the kind forged in the trenches, it's romantic in a platonic way.

A Sherlock interested in sex? Sherlock maintains he's above normal human emotions, he doesn't submit to fear, love or even lust. By doing so, they have fundamentally changed the character of Sherlock. Like House and The Mentalist, they should have changed his name and used Sherlock as inspiration, instead of creating an adaptation set in America and the contemporary world. Miller's Sherlock is a modern-day Sherlock, a combination of House and Sherlock, irascible, sarcastic and manipulative, with a sense of physicality we haven't quite seen before. I sound like I didn't enjoy Elementary, I did. I really did. But it cannot be compared to any other Sherlock Holmes adaptation, which is a good thing. Irene Adler's story especially is a doozy, she's played by Natalie Dormer who's fantastic in the part. Elementary takes Sherlock Holmes to somewhere it has never been before. It may seem radical, revolutionary even; I can see the Holmes scholars up in arms. But to me it was perfect. It was one of those things that clicked into place and you're sitting there thinking, why has that never been thought of before? It's so simple yet so right.

There is room for all different adaptations of Sherlock Holmes, you can't go wrong with a character like Sherlock. Some people love Holmes for the detective stories. Moriarty says to Sherlock in Elementary, you like the puzzle, I like the game. This suggests that Dr. Gregory House and Patrick Jane are their own worst enemies as they like both. I like Sherlock Holmes stories because I find him fascinating, possibly because I see in him elements of myself. Not his brilliance, I'm nowhere near arrogant enough to believe that, but, to quote Elementary: "Every task, every interaction, no matter how seemingly banal, has the potential to contain multitudes. I live my life alert to this possibility."