This is a post I never imagined I would get to write, hoped but never imagined; I didn't believe it would ever happen. So, I'd been living a predictable, routine and slightly boring life for a while now, too long, living vicariously through books, films and TV. Not really sociable, but seeing my family every week, occasionally meeting friends and when I was feeling brave, going on dates. I pushed myself to attend work events, joining the social committee to make it easier. I encouraged myself to do what I love, to challenge myself. I joined the Creative Writing Club at work and entered the annual short story competition, winning a prize! I started yoga, perk of the job, which I've kept up. I went to the gym after work for a few months, another perk of the job, got injured, unrelated, and never went back. I found a far nicer way to spend my time... I was thankful usually when plans fell through, so nothing disrupted my safe comfortable life. I was always annoyed when a message popped up, when I had to disrupt my life for a few hours, change my habits for a bit, always expending too much effort, constantly second guessing myself. I never thought I'd have the time, energy and inclination to willingly and freely change anything even temporarily, let alone permanently. I thought I only had the capacity to live for myself, barely managing to hold down my job, crashing when I got home, even after my health improved following an operation. I thought I couldn't let anyone else in. But underneath it all, I knew I wasn't happy with my single status.
The photo that started it all, still my favourite photo of us
Already gone were the unattainable ideas of when I was younger: finding my one true pairing, a soulmate, Disney Princess style, instant at first sight, butterflies in the stomach, something that's all-encompassing, being swept off my feet, infatuated, where they occupy my every waking thought, heart leaping when I see them, the world disappearing when I’m with them, being told, to paraphrase Jane Austen, that I've "bewitched them body and soul" or a Brontë style passionate affair. But that’s overwhelming. I've felt that in my heady teenage years and it's not sustainable, not the ideal at all. Imagine living like that, trying to have a fully rounded life, hold down a job? I've had enough of feeling overwhelmed in life.It can feel overwhelming when you're alone together, but in a good way. Time can get away from you though! I need to prioritise food and sleep better... Now I know it doesn't have to be like that, loud and bold and conspicuous. It can be quieter, it's about them being a constant background thought, heart warming you when you see them, anticipation before you see them next, the world suddenly seems better, right, when you're with them. They become your favourite person, sharing each other's lives rather than being their everything. When I turned 42 recently, he got me a Douglas Adams-inspired birthday card, writing in it: "you have become my answer to life the universe and everything." He struck the right balance of funny, soppy and heartfelt, not overwhelming.
First Christmas together
Most people, love songs, romcoms and chicklit books focus on attraction, as if it's the most important thing. But there has to be more. I feel a whole mixture of emotions: relief that I have found someone who understands me or wants to understand me; safe, it's what every woman wants, to feel safe alongside attraction; supported, knowing I'm with someone who only wants what's best for me; accepted for who I am: clumsy, geeky and silly old me.
At a 40th birthday party: me as Sarah from Labyrinth
That's what everyone should look for and have in a partner: acceptance, safety and support. But everyone has an idea in their head of who they want to be with: what they look like, the job they do, their interests, experience and background. This can be due to things that have happened in the past, but are more likely to be high standards, intolerance, prejudice, ignorance, or an easy excuse not to even try. I was mostly the former and the latter. Dating apps have only made this worse: you can automatically filter people out and immediately dismiss people because they're not tall enough or too tall, too big or too skinny, don't earn enough, have a beard, don't have enough hair, have too many tattoos, are a gym fanatic, they smoke, they drink, they have typos in their profile, they don't provide a lot of information or their photos aren't good enough. I'm sad to say, I was guilty of all of that and more.
All dressed up for a wedding
I messaged someone throughout lockdown, for months. We really clicked, had a lot in common. Then when we could meet, there was no attraction. We were relaxed in each other's company, but we both knew nothing would happen. It was mutual thankfully. I had several dates with someone I really matched with, on all levels, the online chat was good, he was perfect on paper. But when I met him, again, there was nothing. I tried, I really did, too long probably. It led me to think there was something wrong with me, beyond the anxiety and confidence issues. It sent me back to therapy. I thought I could be on the spectrum, gay, aromantic, asexual, or that there was something deeply inherent in me that meant it was never going to happen for me. Underneath all that anxiety, I knew that was wrong though and I was also wrong that I wouldn't find someone; it would be sooner that I would ever have thought.
All dressed up for another wedding: rococo monster mash-themed
I've had people who I've been attracted to or have matched with that have treated me like a side note, an afterthought, an object, something to be picked up and put down as and when they liked, out of sight, out of mind. They kept me on edge, making me feel on edge around them. This meant not replying to my messages or talking to me for days, weeks or even months, acting like nothing was wrong with that, starting up a conversation again when it suited them, making me feel jealous. If you feel jealous, then they make you feel insecure. My man is a natural at making me feel secure; he does it without trying as that's just who he is. The few times I haven't, I've told him and he asks me why and what he can do to make sure it doesn't happen again. The others weren't really interested in me as a person, not even trying to get to know me, only concentrating on what I looked like, certain parts of me, not me as a whole. I've been mansplained to, decisions made without consulting me because "they know what's best for me", dismissed outright, cut off when they found out something that didn't match with their idea of me. That's what dating apps do: make you look for your ideal.
Out for a nature walk
Knowing that you feel safe and secure with them, that you can be vulnerable and honest with them, that you can be yourself with them, that's the ideal. I like myself when I'm with him, I like to think I'm my best self with him. The weird thing is and I'm extremely upset to say, I would have swiped left on my new man: he is tall, even taller than my tallest brother; he is big; he has a mohican; he drinks, but not to excess; he spells things wrong; and worst of all, he doesn't read books! That would have been a dealbreaker in itself. He does get most of my references though and I get most of his, even if he doesn't think much of The Lord of the Rings... yet. We've introduced each other to the things we love: him My Little Pony: Friendship is Magic, me: nature and wildlife. We've found new things we love together: Apothecary Diaries. I like to think one of his geeky t-shirts would have caught my eye, or his TV and film watching habits would have piqued my interest, or he would have included a funny quote that made me laugh. But no, that's wishful thinking.
Introducing him to my favourite film The Princess Bride in the best way possible, at the cinema!
It's what the tick boxes, algorithms and swiping lead you to become: someone who is quick to judge, all surface level and based on appearances. I would have missed out one of the most kind and considerate, cheeky and geeky, sensitive and emotionally aware, warm and tactile, supportive and encouraging, fun and funny, patient and understanding men I have ever met. I've been looking for someone like him all my life, without ever believing he existed. But in the end, he was literally around the corner from me!
Weekend away for a gig
When the right person comes along, for them you will want to give up your time, your evenings, your weekends, sleep, your Mum's Sunday roast! You will want to just be with them, even if it's only to watch anime on the sofa. You will make time for them when there is seemingly none, a few precious stolen moments between other things. You will have to become better at organising, logistics and herding cats, trying to fit him, family, friends, work commitments and chores into your plans, while trying to compromise as little as possible. You will not only welcome their messages, but reply as soon as you can and not agonise over it, you make sure to leave a reaction to show you've seen their message if you don't have the time to reply. Their friends will become your friends. You will do things that will normally cause anxiety like last-minute plans, going to new places, doing new things, trying new food, meeting new people, playing dress-up and wearing high heels, going to two weddings when you barely know anyone there, all because they want you to. When they need help, you will be there. And they will do the same for you. Everything will be easier because they're there right beside you. When you're used to doing things by yourself, you don't know how much easier it is when you have someone else, someone to consult, someone to help, someone to share things with. Family and friends can fill some of that role, but it's not the same.
At Cambridge Pride with one of his friends, now my friend too
You rediscover yourself, learn new things about yourself. Things you thought you knew about yourself you will find are wrong. You always have to fill the silences, that you're boring otherwise. But just being with someone not saying anything now says a lot. You don't like being hugged or touched and you need your personal space. Not with them, all you want to do is hold their hand, stay near them, be as close to them as possible. You've never particularly liked kissing. But it turns out with the right person, you can't get enough. Trying new things always causes you debilitating anxiety. Not when someone is there to encourage you and will you on. You have to always be in control and prepared. Not if you're with someone, outside your family, you trust and can rely on. You always have to hide parts of yourself. Not when someone understands you, wants to know you, the whole of you. You're too insecure, too clingy, too needy, too anxious, too much. For some people yes, for the people that count, for the person that matters, never. You're not enough. You are when you find your person. Of course, it might just be him! If I was with someone else, it mightn't be like this.
First photo as a couple
The touch thing deserves more unpacking. Instead of feeling intrusive, claustrophobic and possessive as it has in the past, with him it feels right. I used to edge away, end it early and escape from it as soon as possible. But with him it feels natural, no need to ask for consent. His hand in mine is grounding for me, searching each other out as we walk or sit together. Slipping in and out of it as needed, not taking offence when we don't want to. His arm around my waist is reassuring, letting me know he's there for me, happy to be a couple in public. His touch is comforting, arousing and encouraging, sometimes all at the same time! I never thought I'd be in a hand-holding couple, but it all depends on what kind of relationship you have, how comfortable you are with each other.
I feel safe in his arms
It helps that this happened over time, getting to know someone over weeks and months rather than online dating like I'd been trying before. I could see how they treated people, learn what they valued in life, how they viewed the world. So, we knew we got along, had things in common, liked each other, more than liked each other, missed each other, cared about each other, did things for each other and just wanted to be around each other. It developed so easily, gradually and naturally. It's the ideal: friends to being a couple. We're lucky as we work together, so we can see each other every day, have lunch together. But it also means we wanted to be sure, not wanting to make things awkward at work, not wanting to ruin a friendship, taking longer to get together than probably necessary. But it was worth taking the risk, at some point that's what it comes down to: the courage to make that step.
Me helping dye my man's hair, purple obviously!
Surprisingly, it was me that crossed that line first, but unbeknownst to me, he had prepared to do the same, but circumstances had got in the way. I'm happier than I've ever been, a contented sort of happiness, more self-assured, more settled in myself. My family have noticed and commented on it. It hasn't been anxiety-free; I don't know which new things will trigger me. But the right person won't find it too much, won't find you too much, won't try to change you, fix you, make you someone you're not. They won't turn away when they see your vulnerable side, won't be scared off by your more difficult side, won't be turned off by your messier side. They will accept you, encourage you and allow you to be yourself. I am more myself with him and his friends than I've been in years. You will change, not because they want you to, but just from their influence. You will want to, for yourself. You will finally dye your hair purple like you've always longed to do!
Becca dyeing my hair
Despite all the self-analysis I've done over the years, all the therapies and experiences I've had, it's still a mystery why this is happening now, why this is the right time. I am a person who is usually never sure about anything, living in the realms of possibilities, what ifs and if onlys. I can be swayed and influenced, gullible and impressionable, more sure of other people's opinions and ideas than my own. But I'm sure about him, that this feels right. This is amazing to me, not just because I am usually an unsure person; it's because I don't find it easy to trust people. Read my posts about when I was bullied at school to find out why. What I've learned through all this is to believe in actions not words. Believe what people show themselves to be, not who they say they are.
Our pub quiz team, what we did on our first date
Right from the beginning, I trusted him, from first conversation, from first offer of help, from first time alone together. His actions showed what a wonderful person he is. I never like being alone with someone I don't know very well, sometimes with people I do know! But I trusted him implicitly from the beginning; right to my very core, I knew I was safe with him, physically and emotionally. Just through being the open, emotionally aware and sensitive person he is, he let me know he accepted me for me. If there was anything wrong, we would talk it through. Most importantly, he wouldn't just leave, cut me off, abandon me (a complex I have) seemingly for one problem, one argument, one thing he discovered about me that didn't fit with his idea of me. All these things have happened to me and still cause me anxiety, but I've got better with it since my most recent therapy sessions. It stopped me from getting close to people, making friends and of course having relationships. The therapy obviously worked and maybe that is why now is the right time because not only do I have new friends, not only do I fit in with his community of people, but also, I have him.
Me last minute storytelling at The Elm Tree
He knows what he's doing; while not quite balancing me out, he complements me. Although he knows not to compliment me too much; I never believe it! He has enough experience of anxiety to be empathetic, but not as much as me, though most people wouldn't! He knows what to do to help me, support me, boost my mood. He knows how to make me laugh, how to turn me on, how to reassure me. He knows when to hold me and when to leave me be: too much touch can feel restrictive, especially when feeling stressed, anxious or panicky. All this he does without even having a conversation about it, let alone being told. This may be learnt through time being around me, but he has figured this all out by himself, or it's just who he is as a person. He puts others before himself, shows up for people, wants to do the best by people. It makes him a great boyfriend. One of my friends who proofread this for me says it's "the loveliest love letter I have ever read". We have been together as an official couple a year now and started using the L word after 7 months together, though we've known each other for more than 2 years and were friends for 6 months before we got together. I'm so lucky to have found him.
Encouraged to do so by my boyfriend
I do get flashes of wanting to go back to my simpler, easier and less busy life, especially when the anxiety hits, when I see my book piles, TV recordings and to-do lists stack up. Romantic books and films hold less interest for me now I know what real love feels like; the storylines, characters and drama don't ring true anymore, not what I want from love. That helps with my to read and watch lists! I'm lucky in how easy it is between us, how easy it has been to fall in love. I was ready to say it before him. I have battles within myself sometimes. But when I'm with him, I know he's worth any complications. I don't know where we're going, how long this is going to last. But I'm going to enjoy it, remain in the present, not think too far ahead. I know what I want my future to hold though. Him. I just want to hold him. I will hold onto him for as long as he'll let me.
Recreating that first photo a year later, at the work Christmas party
After seeing Elementaryfor 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).
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)
Houseis 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.
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."
"Smell is the most powerful trigger to the memory there is. A certain flower, or a, a whiff of smoke can bring up experiences long forgotten. Books smell musty and, and, and rich. The knowledge gained from a computer is a... it, uh, it has no... no texture, no, no context. It's, it's there and then it's gone. If it's to last, then, then the getting of knowledge should be, uh, tangible, it should be, um, smelly." Rupert Giles, Buffy the Vampire Slayer.
.jpeg)
