I Hear of Sherlock Everywhere: Anastasia

Showing posts with label Anastasia. Show all posts

The Lying Detective — or, Wait, WHAT?

<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<div class="MsoNormal">
<h4 style="text-align: center;">
<span style="color: #231f20; mso-bidi-font-family: Calibri; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-latin;">"Of all ruins, that of a noble mind is the most deplorable." [DYIN] </span></h4>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi2rHpNHOxgQLiqKdVuEIouSDnNmvrO_aTmmgvEpgbnuIrsDgdMuMjVTKNG3ysy_li2n14LodjNSewSbzegk-2LLmncXK8SbfQ4cPgkWJimYU-8g_Dy0rHGclvTkYJna78FUIJOAQSR1v_a/s1600/Sherlock+-+Series+4+Sherlock+Mycroft+landscape.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="360" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi2rHpNHOxgQLiqKdVuEIouSDnNmvrO_aTmmgvEpgbnuIrsDgdMuMjVTKNG3ysy_li2n14LodjNSewSbzegk-2LLmncXK8SbfQ4cPgkWJimYU-8g_Dy0rHGclvTkYJna78FUIJOAQSR1v_a/s640/Sherlock+-+Series+4+Sherlock+Mycroft+landscape.jpg" width="640" /></a></div>
<i><span style="color: #231f20; mso-bidi-font-family: Calibri; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-latin;"><br /></span></i><span style="color: #231f20; mso-bidi-font-family: Calibri; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-latin;">[<b><i>Editor's Note:</i></b> this is the seventh in our series of reviews for Series 4 of Sherlock. There are <b>spoilers below</b>. Consider yourself forewarned.]</span><br />
<i><span style="color: #231f20; mso-bidi-font-family: Calibri; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-latin;"><br /></span></i>
<i><span style="color: #231f20; mso-bidi-font-family: Calibri; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-latin;">“We
often say it’s a show about a detective, not a detective show.”</span></i><span style="color: #231f20; mso-bidi-font-family: Calibri; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-latin;">
– <a href="http://www.vanityfair.com/hollywood/2015/12/sherlock-abominable-bride-interview" target="_blank">Mark Gatiss, Vanity Fair</a> </span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="background: white; color: #333333;"><i>“I worry that we’re sort of getting into a world where people
just want warm paste fed to them. Why can’t things be challenging?</i><span class="apple-converted-space"><i>” </i></span></span><span style="color: #231f20;">– </span><a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p03f3lzx" style="background-color: white;" target="_blank">Mark Gatiss, BBC</a></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span class="apple-converted-space"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span class="apple-converted-space"><span style="background: white; color: #333333;">The above quotes are from show runner Mark Gatiss in regards to complaints that “The
Abominable Bride” was too confusing, and it’s what I’m clinging to right now, because
I have to quite frankly admit that I have no idea what is going on. In fact, I’m
feeling a bit like the poor Sherlock Holmes in "The Hounds of Baskerville," wherein he was dosed with a mind-altering drug and <i>could not tell what was
real. </i>Moffat and Gatiss seem to have slipped us a bit of <i>radix pedis diaboli</i>,
and the ensuing fog is deeply disconcerting. <o:p></o:p></span></span><br />
<span class="apple-converted-space"><span style="background: white; color: #333333;"><br /></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span class="apple-converted-space"><span style="background: white; color: #333333;">That’s not necessarily a bad thing, though. I’m
fully on the side of Moffat and Gatiss in believing that television should not
be warm paste, and not knowing what the hell is going on is refreshing. It’s
challenging, and it’s exciting. <o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span class="apple-converted-space"><span style="background: white; color: #333333;"><br /></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span class="apple-converted-space"><span style="background: white; color: #333333;">In the previous episode of <i>Sherlock</i>, “The Six
Thatchers,” we saw reality and narrative structure break down, mostly because
(as far as we could tell) we saw it all from Sherlock’s perspective, and
something was very wrong with Sherlock. I speculated that the episode was
intentionally nonsensical, a reflection of Sherlock’s disintegrating state of
mind. In “The Lying Detective,” that theory seems to have been confirmed, as
Sherlock has indeed descended into the depths of a drug-fueled madness. <o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span class="apple-converted-space"><span style="background: white; color: #333333;"><br /></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span class="apple-converted-space"><span style="background: white; color: #333333;">And yet, that doesn’t seem to quite explain what’s
going on. After all, the story has shifted from the first-person of Sherlock’s
point of view – gone, for example, are his voiceovers from the last episode –
to the usual third person, <i>and it still doesn’t make any sense. </i>It’s
furthermore disconcerting because the very nature of Sherlock Holmes, the very
heart of what he stands for, is reason itself. The very premise of Sherlock
Holmes – as a person, as a character, as a set of stories – is that there’s an
inherent coherency and logic to the world ("This agency stands flat-footed on the ground." [SUSS]). Things make sense, and if you just
look at them in the right way and think everything through, the pieces will
fall into place. There’s always clues to read and signs to interpret, and by
the end, the crime is solved, order is restored, and Sherlock explains<i> </i>how
he does it. <o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span class="apple-converted-space"><span style="background: white; color: #333333;"><br /></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span class="apple-converted-space"><span style="background: white; color: #333333;">The same is usually true of <i>Sherlock </i>(well,
except for some questionable narrative choices in “The Empty Hearse”), which
has always, for the most part, had narrative coherency, consistency, and a
certain logic in its fictional reality. The viewer could know that a clue was
indeed a clue, that a hint or sign we saw had meaning, that a scene we saw <i>actually
happened. </i>If there was a narrative thread left untied, or a detail left unexplained,
there’s usually enough clues and possibilities to go on to construct one’s own
potential explanation. <o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span class="apple-converted-space"><span style="background: white; color: #333333;"><br /></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span class="apple-converted-space"><span style="background: white; color: #333333;">All that’s out the window this season. Since the previous episode, it’s been very difficult to tell what is going on, if any of it is
even real, and, most importantly, if any of it <i>means anything </i>in the
first place. The world of <i>Sherlock </i>has fundamentally transformed: it’s
gone from a world where questions have answers, clues lead to conclusions, words
have meaning, and signs refer to things, to a world where they….don’t. The
world in which a drop of water leads inevitably to the Niagara has
disintegrated, and the chain of reasoning that takes us there is broken.  <o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span class="apple-converted-space"><span style="background: white; color: #333333;"><br /></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span class="apple-converted-space"><span style="background: white; color: #333333;">In this world, the meanings of words are arbitrary
and unverifiable (as the semioticians would happily remind us). Any clue could
lead in any direction. Any word could mean anything. Mary’s “Go to Hell,” which
seemed so telling and obvious last episode, has (rather predictably, I must
admit) acquired an entirely different meaning of “go to Hell and back for John
Watson.” The iconic phrase from “His Last Bow,” “there’s an east wind
coming,” has suddenly turned into a reference to Sherlock’s long-lost sibling,
Sherrinford. Molly’s statement from last episode that John would rather have “anyone”
suddenly, nonsensically, morphs into the solution of who Culverton has murdered
– “anyone” and everyone, it seems. The game’s either on, or it’s afoot, or
both, but it’s impossible to tell which, and why. <o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span class="apple-converted-space"><span style="background: white; color: #333333;"><br /></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span class="apple-converted-space"><span style="background: white; color: #333333;">From the reasonable, logical world of Sherlock
Holmes, we seem to have gone to the very deconstruction of it. Deduction
has made way for the means of lesser men: it’s telling that for the second
episode in a row, Sherlock overwhelmingly eschews deductions and probability in
favor of trackers and listening devices. Cumberbatch’s monologues of
Sherlockian deduction are conspicuously absent from the narrative (a fact
that’s difficult to miss, since they’re such a highlight of the show). <o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span class="apple-converted-space"><span style="background: white; color: #333333;"><br /></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span class="apple-converted-space"><span style="background: white; color: #333333;">Sherlock Holmes isn’t going mad; rather, the very
foundation of his existence seems to be evaporating. <o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span class="apple-converted-space"><span style="background: white; color: #333333;"><br /></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span class="apple-converted-space"><span style="background: white; color: #333333;">To be quite frank, I’m not sure how I feel about
this. On an intellectual level, I quite enjoyed the episode. There is artistic
merit (and intellectual interest) in taking the world of Sherlock Holmes apart
at the seams and digging into its foundations, as Moffat and Gatiss have done. The
promotions for this season have claimed that “It’s not a game anymore,” and
perhaps that can be taken quite literally: it’s not a game anymore, because the
game is no longer afoot, or on. Moffat and Gatiss have not shied away from
stating that this is their darkest season yet, and it really is. The darkness creeps in as the very foundation
of the Sherlockian world – the guiding light of logic and reason, the coherency
of reality – is pulled out from under us, and we’re left stumbling. <o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span class="apple-converted-space"><span style="background: white; color: #333333;"><br /></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span class="apple-converted-space"><span style="background: white; color: #333333;">I loved the fact that the very foundations of the
fiction I have come to love were taken away, so that I had to question
everything I knew and watch actively rather than passively. Moffat and Gatiss
have suggested <i>Sherlock </i>isn’t about the cases, but about the characters
and their world (stating that it’s not a detective show, but a show about a
detective) and quite frankly, I can’t disagree. Granada’s already faithfully,
and practically to the letter, adapted most of the Canon – why do it again? <i>Sherlock
</i>has focused instead on exploring the very nature of the Sherlockian world
and the Canon, and for a mind that rebels at stagnation, it’s much more stimulating
to watch a show that rocks the foundations of a world we’ve come to love rather
than adapting it word-for-word.<o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span class="apple-converted-space"><span style="background: white; color: #333333;"><br /></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span class="apple-converted-space"><span style="background: white; color: #333333;">On the other hand, even with everything this
episode gives me to think about, I do miss the Holmes-Watson partnership, and I
recall with fond nostalgia seasons one and two, where there was mystery-solving
and the partnership of Holmes and Watson, where, though the world explode,
these two survive. The comfortable pattern of solving mysteries together and
then returning to 221B is familiar and missed. <o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span class="apple-converted-space"><span style="background: white; color: #333333;"><br /></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span class="apple-converted-space"><span style="background: white; color: #333333;">Admittedly, there are character moments that shine
through in this episode. Martin “I can do that with a blink” Freeman delivered
his usual BAFTA-worthy performance, but I found my heart breaking for Sherlock
Holmes, who, without his John Watson, is falling apart. Cumberbatch delivered a
heart wrenching performance of a seemingly emotionless man willing to go to Hell
and back for John Watson, and every nuance, every subtle emotion behind
Sherlock’s veneer, every tear skillfully shed by Freeman, tore at my
heartstrings. <o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span class="apple-converted-space"><span style="background: white; color: #333333;"><br /></span></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span class="apple-converted-space"><span style="background: white; color: #333333;">And yet…it wasn’t enough. There were moments of a
partnership I’ve grown to love, glimpses of the trials and tribulations of an
immortal friendship, but they were overshadowed by the narrative derring-do and
the meta-fictional deconstruction of literary reality. My mind, rebelling at
stagnation, was intrigued, but my heart yearned for the warmer, more poignant
episodes of the past. </span></span><br />
<span class="apple-converted-space"><span style="background: white; color: #333333;"><br /></span></span>
<span class="apple-converted-space"><span style="background: white; color: #333333;">Heart and mind: it’s a dilemma I’m sure Holmes is more
familiar with than he’d like to admit. </span></span><span style="background: white; color: #333333;"><o:p></o:p></span><br />
<span class="apple-converted-space"><span style="background: white; color: #333333;"><br /></span></span>
<span class="apple-converted-space"><span style="background: white; color: #333333;">--</span></span><br />
<span class="apple-converted-space"><span style="background: white; color: #333333;"><br /></span></span></div>
</div>

The Lying Detective — or, Wait, WHAT?

"Of all ruins, that of a noble mind is the most deplorable." [DYIN] [ Editor's Note: this is the seventh in our series...

+ Read more »

by Anastasia Klimchynskaya

To Sherlock Critics Discerning and Undiscerning

<div class="tr_bq" dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<div style="text-align: left;">
<h4 style="text-align: center;">
"volumes of poetry" [ENGR]</h4>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiK5MiiQElT0O-kyda-am3YIyNWv6Un05KAjz2wR__njq9jHqQviefRzRzUwYfa7E3LjFNWjtYFPgCVdQMOi-BtN0pXSKULoPXJdvRol-w3kDXC78bTe7Y_fq16sKon2rmY-A5qy83JifYf/s1600/Sherlock+Series+3+Screening+BFI.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="466" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiK5MiiQElT0O-kyda-am3YIyNWv6Un05KAjz2wR__njq9jHqQviefRzRzUwYfa7E3LjFNWjtYFPgCVdQMOi-BtN0pXSKULoPXJdvRol-w3kDXC78bTe7Y_fq16sKon2rmY-A5qy83JifYf/s640/Sherlock+Series+3+Screening+BFI.jpg" width="640" /></a></div>
<br />
The influence of Edgar Allen Poe's Dupin on Sherlock Holmes has been much discussed; it is generally agreed that, though Holmes himself professes to be little inspired by Dupin, Poe was indeed an influence on Conan Doyle. Unhappy with this state of affairs, in 1915 critic Arthur Guiterman addressed a poem "To Sir Arthur Conan Doyle," placing into question the originality of his most famous creation: </div>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
Holmes is your hero of drama and serial;<br />
All of us know where you dug the material<br />
Whence he was moulded — ’tis almost a platitude;<br />
Yet your detective, in shameless ingratitude —<br />
Sherlock your sleuthhound with motives ulterior<br />
Sneers at Poe’s “Dupin” as “very inferior!”<br />
Labels Gaboriau’s clever “Lecoq”, indeed,<br />
Merely “a bungler”, a creature to mock, indeed!<br />
This, when your plots and your methods in story owe<br />
More than a trifle to Poe and Gaboriau,<br />
Sets all the Muses of Helicon sorrowing.<br />
Borrow, Sir Knight, but be decent in borrowing!</blockquote>
</div>
<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<span style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: "georgia" , serif; font-size: 14px;"><br />
</span> <br />
The gauntlet was thrown down, and Doyle, a gentleman, could do nothing but protect his honor, and so he responded - with pen rather than sword- by penning "To the Undiscerning Critic":</div>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
Sure there are times when one cries with acidity,<br />
“Where are the limits of human stupidity?”<br />
Here is a critic who says as a platitude<br />
That I am guilty because “in ingratitude<br />
Sherlock, the sleuth-hound, with motives ulterior,<br />
Sneers at Poe’s Dupin as very ‘inferior’.”<br />
Have you not learned, my esteemed commentator,<br />
That the created is not the creator?<br />
As the creator I’ve praised to satiety<br />
Poe’s Monsieur Dupin, his skill and variety,<br />
And have admitted that in my detective work<br />
I owe to my model a deal of selective work.<br />
But is it not on the verge of inanity<br />
To put down to me my creation’s crude vanity?<br />
He, the created, would scoff and would sneer,<br />
Where I, the creator, would bow and revere.<br />
So please grip this fact with your cerebral tentacle:<br />
The doll and its maker are never identical.</blockquote>
<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<br />
The last line, in particular, has been oft-quoted in discussions about the similarities between Doyle and his creation. <br />
<br />
<br />
Well, it sounds like a feud between another undiscerning critic and another Sherlock Holmes creator continues in verse. As you may be aware, there are a variety of opinions swirling around the Internet regarding Series 4 of <i>Sherlock</i>. And it seems no one is showing any restraint in sharing those opinions.<br />
<br />
In <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/tv-and-radio/2017/jan/03/sherlock-slowly-perversely-morphing-into-james-bond-benedict-cumberbatch">a recent Guardian article</a>, Ralph Jones threw down the gauntlet, lamenting that Sherlock Holmes is turning into James Bond, and Gatiss, not to be outdone by Doyle, similarly <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/tv-and-radio/2017/jan/04/to-an-undiscerning-critic-from-mark-gatiss">responded</a> to the accusation in verse, titling it "To an Undiscerning Critic (With Apologies to AC Doyle): <br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
Here is a critic who says with low blow<br />
Sherlock’s no brain-box but become double-O.<br />
Says the Baker St boy is no man of action –<br />
whilst ignoring the stories that could have put him in traction.<br />
<br />
The Solitary Cyclist sees boxing on show,<br />
The Gloria Scott and The Sign of the Fo’<br />
The Empty House too sees a mention, in time, of Mathews,<br />
who knocked out poor Sherlock’s canine.<br />
<br />
As for arts martial, there’s surely a clue<br />
in the misspelled wrestle Doyle called baritsu.<br />
In hurling Moriarty over the torrent<br />
did <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/tv-and-radio/sherlock">Sherlock</a> find violence strange and abhorrent?<br />
<br />
In shooting down pygmies and Hounds from hell<br />
Did Sherlock on Victorian niceties dwell?<br />
When Gruner’s men got him was Holmes quite compliant<br />
Or did he give good account for The Illustrious Client?<br />
<br />
There’s no need to invoke in yarns that still thrill,<br />
Her Majesty’s Secret Servant with licence to kill<br />
From Rathbone through Brett to Cumberbatch dandy<br />
With his fists Mr Holmes has always been handy.<br />
<br /></blockquote>
</div>
Then <i>The New York Times</i> <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/05/arts/television/sherlock-bbc-creator-responds-to-critic-in-verse-season-4.html?_r=0">joined in the fray</a>, penning its own summary-in-verse of the ongoing feud: <blockquote>
Mark Gatiss is a clever chap;<br />
He always has a line.<br />
So when a Guardian critic wrote<br />
To say all was not fine<br />
<br />
With Sherlock (who in Season 4<br />
Is rather keen on action;<br />
Dispatches villains and much more<br />
With the quickest of reaction)<br />
<br />
Mark G. thought it was time<br />
To offer reasons why<br />
— in perfect, scannèd rhyme —<br />
Sherlock’s really a tough guy.<br />
<br />
We’re worried, wrote the critic,<br />
That Sherlock is now James Bond.<br />
His mental feats are all we need;<br />
He shouldn’t go beyond.<br />
<br />
Not so! Mark G. replied,<br />
With a list of action tales:<br />
“The Solitary Cyclist” (with boxing on side),<br />
“The Sign of the Fo,” and much more that hails<br />
<br />
The detective as pretty fit:<br />
As quick with his fists as with his wit.<br />
Mr. Gatiss wrote with usual skill<br />
Of Sherlock’s sang-froid at the kill.<br />
<br />
Here Mr. Gatiss was rather kinder<br />
Than Sir Arthur Conan Doyle,<br />
Who in 1912 fired off a <a href="https://www.arthur-conan-doyle.com/index.php?title=To_An_Undiscerning_Critic">reminder<br />
</a>At one who critiqued his toil:<br />
“Sure there are times when one cries with acidity,<br />
‘Where are the limits of human stupidity?’”</blockquote>
<br />
<div>
Not to be outdone, Jones penned a rejoinder to Gatiss that smacked of the Rex Stout / Julian Wolff literary feud from the 1940s (see <a href="http://www.ihearofsherlock.com/2014/02/watson-actually-was-woman.html#.WHUTFvkrLb0" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">"Watson Actually Was a Woman"</a>). It was titled "<a href="http://www.shortlist.com/entertainment/tv/read-mark-gatiss-ralph-jones-poem-sherlock-bond-letter" target="_blank">The Second Letter</a>" and it appeared on Shortlist - complete with a puzzle to solve (how Sherlockian!):<br />
<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
Kind though it was for you to pen a reply,<br />
<br />
Swelling with righteousness I think that I<br />
Would like to respond to your words if I may<br />
But only because you so brightened my day.<br />
Alarming, beguiling, it couldn’t get better;<br />
Addressing a poem to <i><b>me</b></i> in a letter?<br />
<br />
Thank you, Mark Gatiss, but let me be frank:<br />
Sadly the content was a big load of<br />
Splendidly written but baffling verse;<br />
Speaking directly now, I will be terse.<br />
Fisticuffs, yes, Sherlock scuffles a bit;<br />
Clearly he’s a man who can dish out a hit.<br />
By paragraph four (you can pop back and read it),<br />
<br />
I’d said that his muscle is there should he need it.<br />
Holmes is unlike Bond in that he is mortal;<br />
<br />
It’s difficult not to explode in a chortle<br />
When he lands countless blows on a dude paid to kill.<br />
Simply and plainly: that is way too much skill.<br />
Is there some violence in Conan Doyle’s prose?<br />
<br />
Of course there is, as I think everyone knows.<br />
So when I beseech that you show some restraint<br />
I really don’t mean that the programme be quaint.<br />
<br />
I’m saying that Holmes and his love of a mystery<br />
Look terribly close to being BBC history.<br />
Enough on this point though, I think I might bore you.<br />
It’s time I unveiled the code I wrote for you.<br />
Why not go back and check the first word on each line?<br />
Using the title, tell me what you divine.</blockquote>
<div>
<br />
Did you catch Jones's code?<br />
<br /></div>
<div>
<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
Who knows what feat of metrical valor and poetic derring-do will come next? In the meantime, it is refreshing to know that old traditions are being kept alive.<br />
<br />
<i>Image credit: <a href="http://sherlockology.com/" target="_blank">Sherlockology</a></i><br />
--<br />
<br /></div>
<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<br /></div>
</div>
</div>

To Sherlock Critics Discerning and Undiscerning

"volumes of poetry" [ENGR] The influence of Edgar Allen Poe's Dupin on Sherlock Holmes has been much discussed; it is g...

+ Read more »

by Anastasia Klimchynskaya

The Six Thatchers Requires a Leap of Faith

<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<div class="MsoNormal">
<h4 style="text-align: center;">
"There is nothing more deceptive than an obvious fact" [BOSC] </h4>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhf-cNNK2TlTZXymDUTzCsVEv0S3QZs_HsGRMyeNDrTcIXA_WNrUNJLPWPLOdgrBijGFtxQbuCbOHvI7yEVhKkAWaqHL2JW6cOGh8Ceqv9da_T_V3jxwKLc3Tacgmom9O3_F3ri9cd1A2xK/s1600/Sherlock+-+Series+4+Mycroft+Sherlock+John+landscape.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="360" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhf-cNNK2TlTZXymDUTzCsVEv0S3QZs_HsGRMyeNDrTcIXA_WNrUNJLPWPLOdgrBijGFtxQbuCbOHvI7yEVhKkAWaqHL2JW6cOGh8Ceqv9da_T_V3jxwKLc3Tacgmom9O3_F3ri9cd1A2xK/s640/Sherlock+-+Series+4+Mycroft+Sherlock+John+landscape.jpg" width="640" /></a></div>
<i><br /></i>
[<b><i>Editor's Note:</i></b> this is the third in a series of reviews we'll be sharing on Series 4 of <i>Sherlock</i>.]<i><br /></i>

<i>Sherlock </i>is like
an onion, and not just because it makes you cry. <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br />
It’s always made up of layers. Moffat and Gatiss are supreme
fanboys, and <i>Sherlock </i>is the story
into which they pour both their love and expertise of the original, meaning
that it’s always packed full of meaning on multiple levels. Each episode has a
superficial story (or several), but beneath the surface is always an
overarching plot, clues and red herrings pointing towards (or away from) said
larger plot, subtext, hidden allusions to the Canon, and Easter Eggs. <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br />
How much you enjoyed “The Six Thatchers” is entirely founded
on how much you believe Moffat and Gatiss know what they’re doing. It requires
an entirely un-Sherlockian thing: a leap of faith. Or perhaps a supremely
Sherlockian thing: the certainty, based on previous episodes, that they know
exactly what they’re doing. <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br />
<h3>
<b>SPOILERS AHEAD</b></h3>
That’s because, on the surface, “The Six Thatchers” a bit
lackluster. It skips disjointedly between Sherlock’s name being cleared of
Magnussen’s shooting, a comic interlude, the birth of Mary and John’s baby, and
its Christening in a hectic space of barely half an hour. Cases follow each
other at a similarly hectic pace, and one – an adaptation of "The Six Napoleons" – transforms suddenly into Mary’s backstory, which we finally
learn, and her seeming redemption (which is complicated by an after-credits
scene of Mary telling Sherlock to “go to Hell”). <o:p></o:p><br />
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
In a lot of ways, it’s also nonsensical. It starts with a
seeming flashback to “His Last Vow,” but the footage of it turns out to be
edited, belying the “previously on Sherlock” that the episode begins with. This
sets the stage for what’s to come: a story that should be taken with a grain of
salt, because it feels distinctly <i>off. </i> The layouts of 221B and the Watsons’ flat have
been reversed; the famous skull painting at 221B is distinctly different from
what it usually is and magically glowing. The flashbacks and flash-forwards are
seemingly random, as the story jumps from Sherlock’s point-of-view to John’s
unexpected reminiscences about a potential dalliance with a lady on the bus
(who, it seems, will turn out to be Culverton Smith’s daughter). [<b><i>Editor</i></b>: This is purely conjecture at this point, as we have not screened episodes 2 or 3.] Sherlock is obsessed with finding the Black Pearl of the Borgias, wanting to see
connections where none exist. It’s almost like reality and narrative structure
are falling apart.<o:p></o:p><br />
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
But the more you peel away the layers, the more you discover.
And what you discover can either make the story fall apart further and seem
nonsensical, or it can convince you that it’s indeed a layered tale, full of
hidden meanings, clues, and the seeds of a payoff that won’t become evident
until the end of the season. If you believe (or know) that Moffat and Gatiss
are knowledgeable fanboys, you’ll enjoy “The Six Thatchers,” with all the
possibilities it provides for taking a crack at being Sherlock Holmes and
trying to deduce the truth. If you don’t, then you won’t. <o:p></o:p><br />
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
But that’s always been the best thing about <i>Sherlock</i>: it’s a show that refuses to be
watched passively. Like the Canon, it’s a fiction where the ostensible story is
just the tip of a very large iceberg.<o:p></o:p><br />
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
The cinematography itself is also markedly different from
previous episodes: watery ripples overtake images on the screen, sound and
sight falls away at inopportune moments (such as when Sherlock hyper-focuses on
the Thatcher shrine), images double nonsensically and mirrors abound. It’s
almost as if the fabric of reality has been affected, and, more than that, compromised.
<o:p></o:p><br />
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Of course, one could chalk all that up to a writing flub on
Gatiss’ part, but it’s just as plausible that it was the intentional product of
writers, directors, and cinematographers working together to give the episode a
distinctively different feel. Which of these two options it is will likely
become evident in a week (two at most), so with the possibility that I will
stand entirely corrected, I’d like to suggest that this was an excellent
episode because it skillfully represents the deliberate breakdown of reality
and narrative structure. <o:p></o:p><br />
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
At a particular moment of the episode, a shattered bust of
Margaret Thatcher overlays Sherlock’s face, giving the sense that it is <i>Sherlock </i>that is being broken and
shattered, not the busts of a former prime minister. <o:p></o:p><br />
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
That moment may very well be the key to the episode. Nothing
is what it seems – in particular if it’s told from Sherlock’s point of view,
which is hardly trustworthy considering the number of times his senses and
sanity have been compromised lately. It’s hard to tell what is happening in
Sherlock’s mind and what isn’t: water imagery abounds, appearing at the most
unexpected of places to create almost a sense of drowning, and often
accompanying Sherlock’s voiceovers (which are another new, unexpected addition
to the show – suggesting, perhaps, that we’ve moved from John’s point of view
to Sherlock’s). The episode happens right after his drug overdose on the plane
(where we saw even Sherlock’s dreamed-up reality fracture every time Moriarty
appeared); it’s full of dream-like sequences (one featuring Sherlock’s dog,
Redbeard, which we first saw in his Mind Palace last season), he gets drugged
by Mary halfway through, and admits at the end that he’s been having recurring
dreams. <o:p></o:p><br />
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
This wouldn’t be the first or last time that <i>Sherlock </i>has misled the viewer in terms
of what’s real (the fake explanation sequences of “The Empty Hearse” come to
mind), and it’s entirely plausible that the disjointed, nonlinear structure of
this episode isn’t the failed product of a seasoned television writer and actor, but
rather an intentional reflection of either Sherlock’s state of mind, a
misleading narrative, or both. <o:p></o:p><br />
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
That’s the best part about <i>Sherlock</i>: in it, details contain multitudes, obvious facts are
deceptive, and trifles are the most important things. Of course, I could be
wrong about this complex castle of theories I’ve constructed, but the best part
is that I’ll know how well I took a leaf from Sherlock’s book and spun my
theories soon enough. <o:p></o:p></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal">
I can’t wait until next week, if only just to be proven
right. And that’s one hell of a cliffhanger. <o:p></o:p><br />
<br />
--<br />
<br /></div>
</div>

The Six Thatchers Requires a Leap of Faith

"There is nothing more deceptive than an obvious fact" [BOSC] [ Editor's Note: this is the third in a series of revie...

+ Read more »

by Anastasia Klimchynskaya

Sherlock Holmes and Doctor Watson in Moscow

<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<div class="MsoNormal">
<h4 style="text-align: center;">
"you and I will drive together to the Russian Embassy" [GOLD]</h4>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg3wbWDVkWUSa2MlmmjzobMUYNeZnmlwTR7uZju_59IePig3F7Dc1QOckDrX6pQlCCFfGkP0y6CM02Hs4HlrGE4JrMgDzHneuUAs4OWwQ7G8xBaf9pgj8W4vaotmz-djHgOBYcJVIf6Ytry/s1600/20140714_151109.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="480" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg3wbWDVkWUSa2MlmmjzobMUYNeZnmlwTR7uZju_59IePig3F7Dc1QOckDrX6pQlCCFfGkP0y6CM02Hs4HlrGE4JrMgDzHneuUAs4OWwQ7G8xBaf9pgj8W4vaotmz-djHgOBYcJVIf6Ytry/s640/20140714_151109.jpg" width="640" /></a></div>
<br />
In 2006, I Hear of Sherlock Everywhere <a href="http://www.ihearofsherlock.com/2006/11/was-in-city-in-russia-gold_20.html#.V45wKWgrI2x" target="_blank">reported on the plans to create astatue</a> of Sherlock Holmes and Doctor Watson (who are perennially popular in
Russia) in the Russian capital of Moscow. <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Having recently returned from a trip to Moscow, much of
which was filled with visits to various literary monuments—of which Moscow is
full—I thought it would not be out of place to report on the aforementioned
Holmes and Watson statue, which now graces the embankment in front of the
British Embassy. I visited the statue on my first trip to Moscow, two years
ago, trekking through the 80-degree Moscow heat to a secluded embankment in an
otherwise unremarkable district to find the statue in question, and I must say
that the experience is slightly magical.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Back when the statue was only planned, many different
locations were considered for it, with the Smolenskaya embankment (where the
embassy is located) finally chosen. Yet the figures of Holmes and Watson were
not based on Sidney Paget’s illustrations or Jeremy Brett’s depiction; rather,
they were in the form of Vitaly Solomin and Vasily Livanov, who incarnated
Holmes and Watson in an excellent and still-popular Soviet adaptation of the
Canon.</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
This is part of what makes the statue magical: this
cross-cultural connection. The Sherlock Holmes stories remain incredibly popular in Russian-speaking countries, while Livanov was
acknowledged to be the best incarnation of Sherlock Holmes by Queen Elizabeth
herself, and became an honorary Member of the Order of the British Empire. At
the unveiling of the statue in 2007, the actor himself noted this
cross-cultural connection:<br />
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
“Anyone can destroy a monument,” he said, drawing on a
cigarette. “But to unite two cultures, two nations, with one idea – that is not
something anyone can do.” <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
As the <a href="http://www.kp.ru/daily/23895/66683/">Russian newspaper <i>Komsomolskaya Pravda</i></a> reported,
Livanov seated himself on the bench between his bronze self and Doctor Watson
and warned those present:</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
“If you touch Doctor Watson’s notebook, all problems and mysteries will be explained. As for whoever touches my pipe…. That person will become embroiled in a criminal conspiracy.” </blockquote>
</div>
<br />Not having heard Livanov’s warning prior to my visit, it appears I have managed to both embroil myself in a criminal undertaking and solve any unexplained mystery, as I took a whiff of Holmes’ pipe and looked over Watson’s shoulder at his notebook:</div>
<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<br /><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg15cQuFgLL6PUXLAINYoyMgjzi5bfgeL6Hh8EHytHiQK9q5-uiAwOGBqK1mFQjSnhdKhQxafXELFsjPiZrS_zb8gLkRy8BVxevTWaITwFX1n61fOvLaJRkwab2ZnEp5ifeAzWnW9cO5c4_/s1600/20140714_151040.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="320" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg15cQuFgLL6PUXLAINYoyMgjzi5bfgeL6Hh8EHytHiQK9q5-uiAwOGBqK1mFQjSnhdKhQxafXELFsjPiZrS_zb8gLkRy8BVxevTWaITwFX1n61fOvLaJRkwab2ZnEp5ifeAzWnW9cO5c4_/s320/20140714_151040.jpg" width="240" /></a><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhvkhurW2izUcEdhrHNGUaWKmYFEgpn91OjEtGklXFDdShifNydi4q_j0M_tt0TZSTqzbP_gJMfnuHxu0VKGlwHbhTgLvHFN29Dvp0rB41398gCGbeXIp8soABobJ1t50l7sAzvFW8y3kN4/s1600/20140714_150957.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; font-size: 11pt; line-height: 16.5pt; margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="320" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhvkhurW2izUcEdhrHNGUaWKmYFEgpn91OjEtGklXFDdShifNydi4q_j0M_tt0TZSTqzbP_gJMfnuHxu0VKGlwHbhTgLvHFN29Dvp0rB41398gCGbeXIp8soABobJ1t50l7sAzvFW8y3kN4/s320/20140714_150957.jpg" width="240" /></a></div>
<br /><br /><br />Some information in this post was taken from the article about the unveiling of the statue; all translations into English were done by me. All photos by me. </div>
<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<br /></div>
<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
--</div>
<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<br /></div>

Sherlock Holmes and Doctor Watson in Moscow

"you and I will drive together to the Russian Embassy" [GOLD] In 2006, I Hear of Sherlock Everywhere reported on the plans...

+ Read more »

by Anastasia Klimchynskaya

Meta, Meta, Meta — An Abominable Bride Review

<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<div class="MsoNormal">
<h4 style="text-align: center;">
"'Data! data! data!' he cried impatiently. I can't make bricks without clay." [COPP] </h4>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh3KS8d6_qp7E0U7SUt-Mo67PKDamo4TbHG2FrxBF0m2dUnA_pO0gIiOjg-davRzEjpIpN6bAhN6oTbdGjnUE3JQlVWlY_lXUwmWprk2SZdBn0bd7GIkqhgF3Tg95C1u_gLGbTS8wA2wLtz/s1600/ABOM+-+promo.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="358" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh3KS8d6_qp7E0U7SUt-Mo67PKDamo4TbHG2FrxBF0m2dUnA_pO0gIiOjg-davRzEjpIpN6bAhN6oTbdGjnUE3JQlVWlY_lXUwmWprk2SZdBn0bd7GIkqhgF3Tg95C1u_gLGbTS8wA2wLtz/s640/ABOM+-+promo.jpg" width="640" /></a></div>
<br />
Perhaps that quote should be updated to read: "I can't make bricks without self-referentiality!"<br />
<br />
On Friday, the BBC’s / MASTERPIECE's <i><a amzn-ps-bm-asin="B004132HZS" class="amzn_ps_bm_tl" data-amzn-link-id="1e039301753b84f9ca2d5c52c905f204" data-amzn-ps-bm-keyword="Sherlock" href="http://www.amazon.com/Sherlock-Season-1-Benedict-Cumberbatch/dp/B004132HZS/ref=as_li_bk_tl/?tag=thebakerstree-20&linkId=1e039301753b84f9ca2d5c52c905f204&linkCode=ktl" id="amznPsBmLink_3742266" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">Sherlock</a><img alt="" border="0" height="0" id="amznPsBmPixel_3742266" src="https://ir-na.amazon-adsystem.com/e/ir?source=bk&t=thebakerstree-20&bm-id=default&l=ktl&linkId=1e039301753b84f9ca2d5c52c905f204&_cb=1451976613995" style="border: none !important; height: 0px !important; margin: 0px !important; padding: 0px !important; width: 0px !important;" width="0" />
</i>brought to our screens something that it had never done before: Sherlock
Holmes set in the Victorian period. <i><a amzn-ps-bm-asin="B013JBJ7EG" class="amzn_ps_bm_tl" data-amzn-link-id="884b33b85179792c9e83da3e0996b7f3" data-amzn-ps-bm-keyword="The Abominable Bride" href="http://www.amazon.com/Sherlock-Abominable-Bride-Benedict-Cumberbatch/dp/B013JBJ7EG/ref=as_li_bk_tl/?tag=thebakerstree-20&linkId=884b33b85179792c9e83da3e0996b7f3&linkCode=ktl" id="amznPsBmLink_2975311" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">The Abominable Bride</a><img alt="" border="0" height="0" id="amznPsBmPixel_2975311" src="https://ir-na.amazon-adsystem.com/e/ir?source=bk&t=thebakerstree-20&bm-id=default&l=ktl&linkId=884b33b85179792c9e83da3e0996b7f3&_cb=1451976606799" style="border: none !important; height: 0px !important; margin: 0px !important; padding: 0px !important; width: 0px !important;" width="0" /></i>, which eschews <i>Sherlock</i>’s usual modern day setting to
create a period, produced, as far as I can tell, a spectrum of responses as
widely varied as Holmes's mood. On the one hand, it garnered praise for its
atmospheric depiction of fin-de-siecle London, its phenomenal acting and
cinematography, and its intriguing meta-commentary; on the other, it drew
criticism for its complex (or, as some claimed, convoluted) plot, its “self-indulgent”
self-referentiality, and its seeming historical inaccuracies. <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
On this spectrum of responses, I fall much closer to the
former than the latter. In fact, I think <i>The Abominable Bride</i> is one of the
best episodes <i>Sherlock </i>has ever
produced, and yes, I have observations, facts, and deductions to prove it. In
fact, it seems to me that much of the disappointment surrounding the episode
has to do with the fact that it is not a faithful-enough recreation of the Canon
now that the show is <i>finally </i>set in a
Canonically accurate period. To which I say: that was never the promise, the
premise, or the idea. <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<i>The Abominable Bride</i> might be might be set among the fog
and gas lamps of London, but it never makes a claim to being Victorian. It is
not about the armchair detective with a curved pipe, but the man behind the
myth; it may be set in 1895, but it makes no claim to being a rendition of Doyle’s
– or, if one prefers, Watson’s – writings. Instead, it is a look at the penning
of those writings, and the assumptions that we have gathered around both the
text and its time period. <i>The Abominable Bride</i> does not claim to be Canonical, but rather a look behind the scenes at the creation of the Canon.<br />
<o:p></o:p><br />
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
This, to me, is made obvious by the many wonderful and
giddily funny arguments between Watson and Sherlock about his real and
fictional selves – and the difference between them. “Emotion is the crack in
the lens, the grit in the instrument,” Holmes recites, alluding to the famous
opening lines of “A Scandal in Bohemia,” only to have Watson throw back at him:
“I wrote that! Don’t quote me at me!”<br />
<br />
In the beginning, Watson encounters a
newspaper vendor selling the latest issue of <i>The Strand </i>and inquires how well “The Blue Carbuncle” is doing. Allusions
are numerous to Sidney Paget’s illustrations, and the way they have created an
image of Sherlock Holmes in the public eye - much like Paget’s illustrations
have solidified the deerstalker-wearing detective in our cultural imagination (“You’re
the detective. Wear the damn hat,” Watson says). Sherlock Holmes, as we deduce, is a
clever literary construction of Watson, who loyally and patiently immortalizes
his friend. What we’re watching, therefore, is not the Canon, but the “reality”
behind it. <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Which is not an entirely inaccurate way to approach the
Canon: how many times has John Watson stumped readers with the chronology of
the adventures? How many hours have we spent unraveling the mysteries behind
his inaccurate records? How many times has Holmes accused Watson of “romanticizing”
the science of detection? The Canon is a certain version of Sherlock Holmes,
one largely tinged with a sense of historical nostalgia, creating an
atmospheric illusion. <i>The Abominable Bride</i> does not claim to be that
illusion. It may be atmospheric in its gorgeous depictions of historical
London, but as a narrative, it draws away the veil and shows how that illusion
is constructed. <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Speaking of illusions, this episode is full of them. It
beings with a quick flashback over the key events of the past three seasons, after
which the date rolls back to 1895 with a tantalizing “Alternatively…” At first,
it seems like just another case, that of Emilia Ricoletti, who apparently commits
suicide by blowing her brains out, then returns from the dead to commit a
murder.<br />
<br />
About halfway through the episode, however, it becomes intriguingly
obvious that Emilia Ricoletti’s case bears a striking resemblance to that of
Moriarty, who, last we checked, was apparently back from the dead…And just as
the import of that resemblance surfaces, Sherlock wakes up on the plane on
which he’d left at the end of <a amzn-ps-bm-asin="B00E3UN44W" class="amzn_ps_bm_tl" data-amzn-link-id="f12958e3ea8b38b2ca203c86198830ba" data-amzn-ps-bm-keyword="sherlock season 3" href="http://www.amazon.com/Sherlock-Season-Original-UK-Version/dp/B00E3UN44W/ref=as_li_bk_tl/?tag=thebakerstree-20&linkId=f12958e3ea8b38b2ca203c86198830ba&linkCode=ktl" id="amznPsBmLink_5928527" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">Series 3</a><img alt="" border="0" height="0" id="amznPsBmPixel_5928527" src="https://ir-na.amazon-adsystem.com/e/ir?source=bk&t=thebakerstree-20&bm-id=default&l=ktl&linkId=f12958e3ea8b38b2ca203c86198830ba&_cb=1451976593988" style="border: none !important; height: 0px !important; margin: 0px !important; padding: 0px !important; width: 0px !important;" width="0" />, and it turns out that the entire
escapade into the Victorian period had been an elaborate trip into his mind
palace in order to solve the mystery of Moriarty. <o:p></o:p><br />
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
The two cases thus intertwine, as the similarity of their <i>modus operandi </i>sheds light on the
cliffhanger season three left us with: could Moriarty be alive? Mycroft seems
to think so, but Sherlock leaves us with a pretty definite “No.” But <i>Sherlock </i>is also adept at misdirection,
so that “no” could very well be a cleverly disguised “yes.” Who knows? <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
But what’s more interesting about the intertwining of
Victoriana with the modern day is that they’re both a reflection upon the myth
of Sherlock Holmes. Thus, the investigation of Emilia Ricoletti’s
murder-suicide slowly transforms into something more meaningful: a look at the
role of women in both the Victorian era and the Canon, and therefore the
premises upon which our illusions of Victoriana rest.<br />
<br />
Suddenly, as Holmes and
Watson discover that the murders under investigation were attempts by women to
escape from abusive husbands, all the other seemingly one-off, irreverent
interactions with women earlier in the episode fall into place as a poignant
sort of commentary. Mrs. Hudson does nothing but make tea, the giddy maid who
makes Watson breakfast is late because she was reading the latest story, and it’s
funny until you realize how true it is that their existence is reduced to a “function”
of the plot. In the meantime, Mary gets to stay at home and do nothing while
Watson and Holmes have adventures, and Molly Hooper is forced to dress as a man
in order to pursue a career, a striking contrast to the no-nonsense lives we’ve
gotten used to seeing these women lead. <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br />
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
It has always been the story of Holmes and Watson, but their
story could not be told without the women who surround them. And as Holmes and
Watson discover the underground hideaway of the suffragettes (though one does
wonder how exactly they’re supposed to win the vote for women by standing
around underground and chanting), Holmes makes an impassioned speech about
the invisible half of society, hiding in plain sight, one that must be made
visible. In reality, that means giving them the vote and the power of speech – and
questioning our romanticizing of 1895, that era of fog and gas lamps and no
votes for women. In fiction, that means recognizing, and including, the richly
developed female characters that have always been part of the Holmes and Watson
story.<br />
<br />
<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
At the same time, in the midst of that impassioned speech, Moriarty
returns, disguised as the Bride. The last time Moriarty appeared in the flesh, he
was on a mission to destroy the very idea of Sherlock Holmes with a dastardly
plot to make everyone believe that Sherlock was a fake. When he returns this time,
therefore, he is once again a challenge to the myth of Sherlock Holmes that
we’ve fallen in love with, and another reminder of the nature of that myth. Thus,
the episode ends with a confrontation between Holmes and Moriarty at the Reichenbach Falls that looks like it’s taken directly from a Paget
illustration. It’s a moment that made me catch my breath – this might be
Sherlock’s mind palace, but Moriarty is the “virus in the code,” the crack in
the lens, the one ultimate threat to Sherlock as a person and as a myth. <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
And yet, just at the moment when it appears that Holmes is about to fall into those perilous waters at Moriarty’s hand, good old Watson
uncanonically appears. But this isn’t the Canon, or “The Final Problem,” it’s <i>Sherlock. </i>If this episode has been about
the creation of the myth of Sherlock Holmes by Watson, then in this ultimate
moment – the one where Moriarty is about to destroy Holmes – it is fitting that
Watson is the one that appears to rescue his friend. Just as Watson
immortalized Holmes for posterity through his writings, including “The Final
Problem,” where he once again rescues his name from vile rumors, here he
appears to metaphorically save Holmes from his arch nemesis: not a professor of
mathematics, but madness and obscurity. <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
And so, when Watson and Holmes work side by side to throw
Moriarty off that cliff, they are also working side by side to save the myth of
Sherlock Holmes. “I always return from the fall,” Sherlock says before jumping
off that fateful cliff – because Watson is always there to pen another from the
innumerable cases in his tin dispatch box, but also because series like <i>Sherlock </i>will always retell that myth. Holmes
and Watson work side by side to construct a legend, and they do it so aptly
that we must continually retell and ponder it. <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Two men who never lived and so can never die, indeed. How very near they seem.<o:p></o:p></div>
<br />
--<br />
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
</div>

Meta, Meta, Meta — An Abominable Bride Review

"'Data! data! data!' he cried impatiently. I can't make bricks without clay." [COPP] Perhaps that quote should...

+ Read more »

by Anastasia Klimchynskaya

Book Review: It's Not Elementary: The Mistakes of Sherlock Holmes by Noah Axler

<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<h4 style="text-align: center;">
"I am much mistaken..." [VALL]</h4>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjoeVEHNRA-3r0y-8WoikKPyA_o4QAOqNa2bFoXIsZ7srSNfBoyNE5DTF_7bL3D2XHtsJsjhihOOvwHtmJVko-PRQPffyK7HCyBa_Qx8tIAHCuenF_MTgv5EZH1x1A7hUMsorgMXf6QvS2L/s1600/valley_of_fear_05.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img alt="Sherlock Holmes looks into things with his magnifying glass" border="0" height="326" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjoeVEHNRA-3r0y-8WoikKPyA_o4QAOqNa2bFoXIsZ7srSNfBoyNE5DTF_7bL3D2XHtsJsjhihOOvwHtmJVko-PRQPffyK7HCyBa_Qx8tIAHCuenF_MTgv5EZH1x1A7hUMsorgMXf6QvS2L/s1600/valley_of_fear_05.jpg" title="Investigating in The Valley of Fear" width="640" /></a></div>
<br />
It is a truth universally acknowledged that Sherlock Holmes is not infallible. Formidable though he is, and exemplary as his feats of deduction are, there are those occasions upon which he was outwitted - from the time he matched wits with Irene Adler to the unfortunate turns of fate in "The Five Orange Pips" and the villains that got away  in the affair of the Greek Interpreter. Even the defeat of the great Moriarty required Holmes to fake his death for three years.<br />
<br />
However, according to Noah Axler in <i><b>It' s Not Elementary: The Mistakes of Sherlock Holmes</b></i>, (<a href="http://amzn.to/1kjqdRM" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">Amazon</a> | <a href="http://amzn.to/1qTJ378" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">Amazon UK</a>) the Great Detective was even more fallible than we previously suspected. Making his way through the cases chronicled in <i>The Adventures of Sherlock Holmes</i>, Axler takes a closer look at their events, pointing out mistakes and faults of reasoning committed by Holmes - and providing a perceptive and well thought-out monograph.<br />
<br />
Naturally, many of the "mistakes" Holmes makes in these stories could be attributed, by quickly refusing to <a href="http://bakerstreetjournal.com/grandgamev1.html" target="_blank">play the Game</a>, to the inconsistencies of a Sir Arthur Conan Doyle rushing to meet a deadline. No self-respecting Sherlockian, however, would willingly cease playing the Game, and thus this book, which in itself plays the Game formidably, becomes a fascinating examination of the many mistakes Holmes may very well have made.<br />
<br />
For example, Axler demands why it is that Holmes did not warn Miss Sutherland about the potential danger posed by her stepfather, who would go to such extreme lengths to prevent her from marrying, in "A Case of Identity." He wonders about the discrepancies in "A Scandal in Bohemia" (how is it that Irene Adler knows of the King's wedding, though it has not been announced? How does Holmes know of it? How is it that Irene Adler's marriage, which requires arrangements and a licence, is able to take place at such short notice - and why, if she is now happily married, does she feel the need to flee England?). He points to the logistical difficulties of "The Red-Headed League" (something so simple as - if Clay is tunnelling to the bank, how does he dispose of the soil?)<br />
<br />
In short, Axler performs excellent detective work - reading the stories with attention to details, interrogating the smallest discrepancies, asking a variety of perceptive questions, and - most importantly - applying Holmes' methods of thinking. Collecting evidence and drawing on the science of deduction, Axler proposes intriguing solutions for a number of discrepancies while admitting of the impossibility of explaining away certain questionable turns of events. Though the language of the monograph is often simplistic, with many of the deductions phrased as if this were a primer in logic, the effect remains that of an engaging text.<br />
<br />
It's Not Elementary is available as <a href="http://amzn.to/1jNWHnj" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">a Kindle book on Amazon</a> for the incredibly low price of $1.99.<br />
<br />
--<br />
<iframe frameborder="0" marginheight="0" marginwidth="0" scrolling="no" src="//ws-na.amazon-adsystem.com/widgets/q?ServiceVersion=20070822&OneJS=1&Operation=GetAdHtml&MarketPlace=US&source=ac&ref=qf_sp_asin_til&ad_type=product_link&tracking_id=thebakerstree-20&marketplace=amazon&region=US&placement=B00HH1UEH4&asins=B00HH1UEH4&linkId=WC2LTU7HYXIFPGWI&show_border=false&link_opens_in_new_window=true" style="height: 240px; width: 120px;">
</iframe>   <iframe frameborder="0" marginheight="0" marginwidth="0" scrolling="no" src="http://rcm-eu.amazon-adsystem.com/e/cm?t=thebakstrblo-21&o=2&p=8&l=as1&asins=B00HH1UEH4&ref=qf_sp_asin_til&fc1=000000&IS2=1&lt1=_blank&m=amazon&lc1=0000FF&bc1=FFFFFF&bg1=FFFFFF&f=ifr" style="height: 240px; width: 120px;"></iframe>

</div>

Book Review: It's Not Elementary: The Mistakes of Sherlock Holmes by Noah Axler

"I am much mistaken..." [VALL] It is a truth universally acknowledged that Sherlock Holmes is not infallible. Formidable tho...

+ Read more »

by Anastasia Klimchynskaya

The "Pulp-ification" of Sherlock Holmes

<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<h4 style="text-align: center;">
"sensational literature" [FIVE]</h4>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh97DL9QcKUefIVfqrOszjCDueRYp0PI5wHp_O62XASDIt3dGQmS82utQPwlGZahkahU7JhDMGAbVEejLZA3nWZN8nZb_RFfvrQNvN0gGkXCuPGmSu6fJc8wp_6a2efrUcJoMW7XzVkYkqo/s1600/The+Valley+of+Fear+pulp+edition.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img alt="The Valley of Fear - pulp edition" border="0" height="640" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh97DL9QcKUefIVfqrOszjCDueRYp0PI5wHp_O62XASDIt3dGQmS82utQPwlGZahkahU7JhDMGAbVEejLZA3nWZN8nZb_RFfvrQNvN0gGkXCuPGmSu6fJc8wp_6a2efrUcJoMW7XzVkYkqo/s1600/The+Valley+of+Fear+pulp+edition.jpg" title="Here's a Bodymaster who means business! The Valley of Fear, pulp fiction edition." width="396" /></a></div>
<br />
Those of our readers who collect various editions of the Canon may be interested in a new imprint/series, entited <a href="http://www.pulptheclassics.com/">Pulp! the Classics!</a> and published by Oldcastle Books.<br />
<br />
Pulp! the Classics is exactly what it sounds like: the re-publication of classic works of literature with new, pulp covers. The original text remains intact -it is only the cover and the blurb that they have "pulp-ified."  Of course, many of the titles chosen for this transformation - from Dickens to Shakespeare - were already considered to be, if not "pulp" fiction, then at the very least popular fiction in their day and age, despite their prestigious status as classics in our time. Nonetheless, it is an intriguing collection.<br />
<br />
Thus far, the imprint has only published one Sherlock Holmes title - <i>The Hound of the Baskervilles, </i>with, it seems, no intention of touching upon other works of Sherlock Holmes.The choice is, perhaps, not original,<br />
given detective fiction's history as pulp fiction in the 20th century; nevertheless, for those who collect various editions of the Canon, this would form an interesting counterpart to the more expensive and prestigious editions, such as<a href="http://www.eastonpress.com/Books/prod/BDD/THE-HOUND-OF-THE-BASKERVILLES_2871.aspx"> this version</a> of <i>The Hound of the Baskervilles </i>from Easton Press, which has recently come to my attention as a particularly exemplary cause to make the credit card bill of yours truly weep.<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj0p78h0TuRlGbJp6wGqoi4NAq-4hTf_UMXfF5hJM4ZZ2yUiJ_phv4LKGRsaP11BBJDpkpLf0Bd6XtvehJ9PQQiv2o-50vMcF9UJpytqGC1FtilVZlcRBoVCIBPaKtKwiQF-HLEvUTwQfGf/s1600/The+Hound+of+the+Baskervilles+Easton+Press.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img alt="The Hound of the Baskervilles, Easton Press edition" border="0" height="640" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj0p78h0TuRlGbJp6wGqoi4NAq-4hTf_UMXfF5hJM4ZZ2yUiJ_phv4LKGRsaP11BBJDpkpLf0Bd6XtvehJ9PQQiv2o-50vMcF9UJpytqGC1FtilVZlcRBoVCIBPaKtKwiQF-HLEvUTwQfGf/s1600/The+Hound+of+the+Baskervilles+Easton+Press.jpg" title="The lavishly produced Easton Press version of The Hound of the Baskervilles" width="640" /></a></div>
<br />
<br />
Additionally, Oldcastle Books has pulp-ified a number of Victorian titles, from <i>The Picture of Dorian Gray </i>to Dickens and <i>Tess of the D'Urbervilles - </i>providing interesting possibilities for collectors not only of Sherlock Holmes, but of Victorian literature in general.<br />
<br />
One also cannot help but notice the striking resemblance between the pulp cover of the Sherlock Holmes novel and some old posters of Basil Rathbone films, which I present for your comparison:<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjnXkghxUn4iIyPz3QL8yF4O1EOArOUUlI8lFDwulIlRdWnT9_Q1NM1boxnggeiPR2SekHjAk8YNtQEJaeuDoXxKCISpPy3Z8kqQuieNfIzwJ8g_x_Mxr_5VkiX8eDU_nENAheGvBSyzUcJ/s1600/houndofthebaskervillesposter.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img alt="Poster, 1939 Hound of the Baskervilles" border="0" height="640" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjnXkghxUn4iIyPz3QL8yF4O1EOArOUUlI8lFDwulIlRdWnT9_Q1NM1boxnggeiPR2SekHjAk8YNtQEJaeuDoXxKCISpPy3Z8kqQuieNfIzwJ8g_x_Mxr_5VkiX8eDU_nENAheGvBSyzUcJ/s1600/houndofthebaskervillesposter.jpg" title="A pulpy poster for the 1939 version of The Hound of the Baskervilles with Basil Rathbone" width="476" /></a></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="http://www.oldcastlebooks.co.uk/images/large/9781843441229large.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img alt="Hound of the Baskervilles gets pulp-ified" border="0" height="640" src="http://www.oldcastlebooks.co.uk/images/large/9781843441229large.jpg" title="Cover for a pulp fiction version of a classic Sherlock Holmes story, The Hound of the Baskservilles" width="399" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Add caption</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<br />
While not an entirely new effort - in 2009 <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/books/2009/aug/13/sherlock-holmes-pulp-drag" target="_blank">Hard Case Crime repackaged <i>The Valley of Fear</i></a> similarly, in an attempt to reach readers who avoided classic books. Is this enough to consider adding one to your collection? <br />
--<br />
<br /></div>

The "Pulp-ification" of Sherlock Holmes

"sensational literature" [FIVE] Those of our readers who collect various editions of the Canon may be interested in a new im...

+ Read more »

by Anastasia Klimchynskaya

A Brief Introduction to Sherlockian Societies

<h4 style="text-align: center;">
<span style="text-align: start;">"Every form of society..." [SCAN] </span></h4>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEifrxc8De46Py5TcoS38g_0RNvxQhIa6MYvwwLVl41IIJkstPUUmJuglU2_EoQ0qsfATbA5iZ5ntFKaZbP9pBwUHMhd-vWyMY2sif6hk6-SpP5omtTJSkcLuX9V42e71drbvlFyJbPKl8A-/s1600/bsidinner.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="418" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEifrxc8De46Py5TcoS38g_0RNvxQhIa6MYvwwLVl41IIJkstPUUmJuglU2_EoQ0qsfATbA5iZ5ntFKaZbP9pBwUHMhd-vWyMY2sif6hk6-SpP5omtTJSkcLuX9V42e71drbvlFyJbPKl8A-/s1600/bsidinner.jpg" width="640" /></a></div>
<br />
There's a piece of lore handed down in the Sherlockian community that states that all one needs for a Sherlock Holmes society is two Sherlockians, a copy of the Canon, and a bottle. In a pinch, one can do without one of the Sherlockians.<br />
<br />
I must, respectfully, disagree. In my view, it is the bottle, rather than the other Sherlockian, that could be dispensed with. The simple reason is this: the love of a story, a character, a world, demands to be shared. Every Sherlockian has his or her own unique journey in discovering the Canon, and those personal experiences are difficult to share. But the ensuing love of a world and its people is a love that demands to be shared. <br />
<br />
The world of Sherlock Holmes is no different - it is a world that begs to be lived in and shared, and it is, the world over, in the form of Sherlockian societies.The most famous and prestigious of these is the Baker Street Irregulars - dating from 1934, it is ancient, revered, and by-invitation-only. But, if you have no such invitation, there are a number of "scion" societies the world over which have no such barriers to membership, and thus many ways to join the Sherlockian community of scholarship and celebration. <br />
<br />
We have a short listing of societies with websites on <a href="http://www.ihearofsherlock.com/p/resources.html" target="_blank">our Resources page</a>; but the most comprehensive<a href="http://www.sherlocktron.com/three.pdf"> list of societies</a> can be found at <a href="http://sherlocktron.net/">Sherlocktron</a>. And the <a href="http://www.sherlockiancalendar.com/">Sherlockian Calendar</a> keeps a running tally of events.<br />
<br />
If you seek to share your love of Sherlock Holmes and John Watson, then joining is as simple a matter as finding the society closest to you (they are organized by place in alphabetical order) and contacting the appropriate person listed. Of note: a very few societies are still male-only, but the vast majority are more inclusive. Lest you stumble upon one for which you do not meet the criteria, it is my experience that you will be directed to a society you can join. Joining is usually as simple as expressing interest and being added to a mailing list of events and society news (though several societies do have dues). I must also add that, in my experience, at the meetings of such societies, both Sherlockians and bottles occur in copious quantities, and copies of the Canon are also rarely dispensed with. Furthermore, unlike our idol, who loathes every form of society with his whole Bohemian soul, Sherlockians are sociable creatures, always happy in the company of other like-minded aficionados. <br />
<br />
I have had the good fortune to belong to a number of Sherlockian societies - the <a href="http://www.criterionbar.org/" target="_blank">Criterion Bar Association</a> in Chicago, while I completed my studies in that beautiful city, and the <a href="http://www.sshf.com/" target="_blank">Sherlock Holmes Society of France</a>, for the year that I lived in Paris. Both of these societies offered companionship, dialogue, and a myriad ways to bring Sherlock Holmes to life. I hope my details below of the various events I've engaged with give a taste of what exactly it is that Sherlockian societies do, and that these descriptions encourage those readers who have not joined a Sherlockian society yet to seek one out if time and location permits. <br />
<br />
My experience with the Criterion Bar Association was mostly that of meeting regularly with other members (somewhere around every two or three months) at a respectable restaurant; this was a time to mingle, feast, and discuss the Canon. However, each meeting would not be complete without a more intellectual component, for to be a Sherlockian means to be infinitely curious and constantly willing to fill that brain-attic with new facts both useful and useless. As such, each meeting, in addition to the quizzes, prizes, and conversation, involved a lecture (and discussion afterwards) of a  a particular topic relating to Sherlock Holmes or the Victorian period. (The ones that come to mind personally are a lecture on Aristotle's philosophy of friendship as it applies to Holmes and Watson, a lecture on indexing, and one on Victorian gardens). It is difficult to share that feeling of connectedness that comes from being gathered together to delve so deeply and intellectually into the same world, and even more difficult to describe that profound emotion each Sherlockian doubtless feels when we all rise, at the end of each meeting, to read the famous Vincent Starrett poem "221B" and toast the Detective. <br />
<br />
However, many Sherlockian society events range beyond an intellectual gathering. In my time with the Sherlock Holmes Society of France,  I have also had a chance to experience the stories in a way that one might call "first-hand." Joined by a number of other Holmesians, I dined at the Hotel du Louvre, where Holmes caught a spy in "The Bruce-Partington Plans" and toasted Conan Doyle in the hotel where he spent his second wedding night. The highlight of my year, of course, was the yearly Holmesian Christmas Dinner at the Gare de Lyon, the Parisian train station through which Holmes must have passed in order to reach Switzerland from London. Each experience was a little bit of living the Canon, made more meaningful by the company I shared it with. <br />
<br />
I hope that these (rather personal, I admit) reminiscences give at least a taste of the variety, creativity, and joy of the Sherlockian community the world over. If you are not yet a member of a Sherlockian society, I urge you to join. You will not regret the friends you will make, or the way that the activities and companionship will bring the Canon to life. And, should you be interested in a more detailed history of Sherlockian societies, <a href="http://www.sherlockian.net/celebrating">Sherlockian.net</a> offers an engaging summary. <br />
<br />
<div>
--</div>
<div>
<br /></div>

A Brief Introduction to Sherlockian Societies

"Every form of society..." [SCAN] There's a piece of lore handed down in the Sherlockian community that states that all ...

+ Read more »

by Anastasia Klimchynskaya

New Russian Sherlock Holmes TV Show - A Review

<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<h4 style="text-align: center;">
"He is a Russian. His name I will not tell." [GOLD]</h4>
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiOMCVo6w9w4NEITTzsMUF4JXOhHp80Yxrr9SVntUSeJWIwWzKubTH8xIoBOk3qK_r2jkY8n-xeIE0DtDtF1K_D2FwUQm394_b3Z39Csc1P9Uf4s0zZU4qf2dTHm3gV_JyWW_aT5vKRZ9SA/s1600/Igor+Petrenko+as+Sherlock+Holmes.PNG" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="348" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiOMCVo6w9w4NEITTzsMUF4JXOhHp80Yxrr9SVntUSeJWIwWzKubTH8xIoBOk3qK_r2jkY8n-xeIE0DtDtF1K_D2FwUQm394_b3Z39Csc1P9Uf4s0zZU4qf2dTHm3gV_JyWW_aT5vKRZ9SA/s640/Igor+Petrenko+as+Sherlock+Holmes.PNG" width="640" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Igor Petrenko as Sherlock Holmes</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<br />
Though Sherlock Holmes adaptations have never been lacking in this world, there seems to have been a particularly great upsurge of them in the past handful of years.They need hardly be named - Guy Ritchie's <i>Sherlock Holmes</i> films, the BBC's <i>Sherlock</i>, and CBS' <i>Elementary</i> are all of recent and not-so-lamented memory. To be added to that list is a new Russian adaptation, titled quite simply and eponymously <i>Sherlock Holmes</i>. The series <a href="http://russia.tv/video/show/brand_id/17605/episode_id/698444/video_id/698444/" target="_blank">aired recently</a>; I have so far caught the first couple of episodes (both two-parters that run for 90-minutes). There is hardly the space here for a lengthy review, but, with my ability to watch the series in my native Russian language, I feel that I must be the messenger that provides however short a review.<br />
<br />
It is not a surprise to see another adaptation of Holmes in the Russian language: Holmes is a popular figure in Russia and the nations of the former Soviet Union. Along with the characters of Dumas and Stevenson, he is one of those heroic figures whose stories every child has read and whose adventures have been incarnated in excellent film adaptations. Unfortunately, this particular version is below the mark of the greatest adaptations of the Canon, past and present.<br />
<br />
Each episode begins with great fidelity to the Canon, in the form of a recitation by Watson of lengthy paragraphs from the relevant stories. As such, the first episode begins with the  first few paragraphs of <i>A Study in Scarlet, </i>then throws the viewer straight into the action, with a murder - forcing our noble doctor to meet the great detective over a different kind of corpse than the one Holmes was canonically beating when introduced to Watson by Stamford. The first episode adapts "The Adventure of Black Peter," mixed with a much watered-down case of blackmail a la "The Adventure of Charles Augustus Milverton" (though unfortunately without the eponymous character). The second appears to be more original, but contains hints of "The Naval Treaty." Both plots are, unfortunately, rather sub-par.In the first, the mystery ranges from too convoluted to be interesting to too exact an adaptation of the canonical mystery to be interesting;  the second is not even a mystery itself but rather a complex political machination of which Holmes is the victim (and in which, to my great disappointment, the great Irene Adler is reduced to a bargaining chip in order to manipulate Holmes).<br />
<br />
Here's a trailer of the series:<br />
<br />
<center>
<iframe allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="315" src="//www.youtube.com/embed/UFY9rw4Iji8" width="560"></iframe></center>
<br />
As for the characters themselves: this version of Holmes seems to have taken after the recent trend of shedding Holmes of his austerity, to portray him as young, frenzied, idiosyncratic, and deeply flawed. However, one gets the sense that, in this version, he is perhaps too flawed. One of the great fascinations of Holmes' character has always been his flaws, but in this case, it is difficult to perceive the venerable figure of the detective through those flaws.  He fails to be taken seriously by the police on a number of accounts, gets blackmailed, kidnapped, and buoyed about by political machinations, has no fighting prowess to speak of (one remembers that Holmes is canonically an expert boxer), and requires Watson's constant assistance (and rescue).  Certainly, he also has the deductive and analytical qualities of the great detective, but there the similarity seems to end.<br />
<br />
In sharp contrast to Holmes, this version of Watson is a magnificent portrayal. No longer does he occupy the backstage: rather than being either chronicler or simple foil for Holmes, he is a character in his own right, and perhaps even a more heroic one than Holmes himself. He is a man of many talents: the expert fighter that Holmes is not (allowing him to come to Holmes' aid on numerous occasions), brave, loyal, resourceful, and also  possessing all that worldly skill that Holmes seems to lack. He is the perfect partner to the detective.<br />
<br />
The series also possesses a number of other charms. Mostly, they are in the form of the friendship between Holmes and Watson. It is this warm camaraderie that they share from their earliest days that is perhaps one of the greatest draws of the stories, and here the Russian series does not disappoint. Our two protagonists hit off their friendship quickly, with Watson almost instantly willing to plunge into danger for Holmes' sake and serve as his partner in crime (or the hunting down of crime). There's also a few charming references to previous adaptations,  from Holmes' decision to use Basil Rathbone as a fake name during an investigation, to Holmes and Watson's friendly "boxing match" at the beginning of their acquaintance (an obvious allusion to the Soviet adaptation). There's the portrayal of Mrs. Hudson -  who, rather than an elderly, motherly figure,is a youthful beauty whose relationship with Holmes is more than intriguing. And, finally, there is humor - I often found myself laughing out loud during several well-acted scenes dispersed amid the less-impressive plot.<br />
<br />
I have yet to decide whether I will watch the entire series through to its conclusion: there are certainly pros and cons to this adaptation, and the warm connection between Holmes and Watson is certainly a compelling draw. There are, however, adaptations that are much more clever and fresh with what they do than this one.<br />
<br />
--<br />
</div>