The many Mr. Holmes

It has always fascinated me that two of the most popular characters in popular fiction are Sherlock Holmes and Mr. Spock.  Both are idolized for their ability to perform logical analysis, yet this is a capacity every human being has, save for the mentally ill and the brain damaged.  It’s as if the world decided to embrace a superhero whose superpower was to distinguish right from left.

The character of Sherlock Holmes was created nearly 130 years ago in 1887 with the publication of A Study in Scarlet.  The next story, The Sign of Four, began the series in earnest and also displayed Arthur Conan Doyle’s incredible laziness as to details—he has Watson say he was shot in the shoulder during the Afghan campaign in A Study in Scarlet, but in the leg in the sequel.  Watson says Holmes knows nothing of philosophy, then later says Holmes discussed current philosophers like an expert.  The mistakes became more egregious when Doyle had resurrected Holmes after his attempt to kill him off failed, and he resigned himself to cranking out Holmes tales for the money.

There are currently two television series with Sherlock Holmes as a character, the CBS show Elementary with Johnny Lee Miller as Holmes and Lucy Liu as undoubtedly the most attractive Dr. Watson ever, and the BBC series Sherlock with Benedict Cumberbatch and Martin Freeman as Watson.  Both series have proven quite popular, and the BBC version has won several Emmy awards.  But how accurate to the original text are the remakes?

The quick answer is, not very.  In both series Holmes is portrayed as misanthropic, ill-mannered, curt, insulting, and contemptuous of nearly everyone.  In Elementary his addiction to cocaine has Holmes label himself as an addict; he comes into contact with Watson when she is hired to be his “sober companion.”  The BBC production has not focused on his drug use, but in several episodes Holmes refers to himself as “a high-functioning sociopath” (in one episode he makes this declaration immediately before he shoots someone on the head). 

A reading of the original canon reveals a completely different Holmes.  Yes, he is sometimes smug, but mostly at the incompetence of Scotland Yard’s Lestrade and not at his own superiority.  He is unfailingly polite, solicitous of his clients, and is able to extract information from strangers through flattery or subtle cajoling.  His drug use is only mentioned in passing, and then rather sparingly.

Are these differences wrought by those updating the series to reflect modern society?  Cocaine was legal and seen as medicinal in 1880’s London; would Holmes today indulge in an illegal narcotic today, as he does in Elementary, or would he find a more socially acceptable outlet for his addictive personality, as Holmes seems to do in Sherlock?  For the definitive discussion of Holmes’ drug use, see the wonderful film “The Seven Percent Solution” written by Nicholas Meyer.

Is Holmes abrasive personality in the two current TV shows a commentary that we live in a time that is far less civil than 1890’s London?  Is the Holmes of Elementary and Sherlock more flippant with insults because in these days being insulting is such socially acceptable behavior that Presidential candidates can trade venom that would give Don Rickles pause?  Only the showrunners can say how much they have deliberately altered the character to fit in with modern society.

Some of the changes made for the TV shows are obvious, Watson being a woman being one of the slightly more noticeable changes in Elementary (interestingly, there is no sexual subtext in Elementary while over on Sherlock everyone assumes Holmes and Watson are gay).  Other changes may be deliberate, while others may be due to an unfamiliarity with the original canon.  Over the years Holmes’ personality has steadily coarsened; Basil Rathbone’s portrayal was polite but icy, while Jeremy Brett (the definitive interpretation, I believe) was more aloof and detached than the fictive original.  Portrayals in individual movies have tended to use a Holmes that is a carbon copy of a carbon copy until little of the original is left except his logic and his inhumanity.

I have watched the four seasons of Elementary, but I am becoming increasingly tired of Johnny Lee Miller (a wonderful actor who should have received an Emmy nomination for his work by now) presenting Holmes as a series of tics and idiosyncrasies that increasingly bear little resemblance to the eminently civilized sleuth in the books.  Sherlock is one of the finest shows being produced, and count me among the frustrated that are unhappy that Cumberbatch and Freeman are so popular that this year they only had time to make a single episode.  Of course, if they made more episodes, the quality would diminish. 

Elementary and Sherlock have their place, but for a representation of Holmes closer to the original you have to stick with the Jeremy Brett version.  Sherlock showrunner Stephen Moffet is a genius, but his Holmes is increasingly similar to the central character on Doctor Who, another show he was the showrunner for.  Better yet, I am re-reading the original canon.  Doyle really was a masterful storyteller, and there is no substitute for going back to the original source.