Steady on...

[evilhippo]

This is one of those odd little browser-tab-closing posts, partly for my own benefit. There's a really excellent discussion on the myth of genius in Sherlock going on at the moment, which I am promising myself I won't get involved in (especially in regards to the semantics of morality/amorality, and authorial intention. Aaaaaargh I could set fire to authorial intention and then stomp on it, but not in a way that'd put the fire out). But, my inability to not be an obnoxious git on the topic aside, the discussions going on in the comments to this thread are a perfect example of why I really adore this fandom. It's a discussion with disagreements and no one has resorted to caps lock or Hitler. In fact, people on both sides of things are referencing other literary sources and it's pretty geektastic. I love people who can have a good discussion. (I also kind of like how everyone immediately piled on to the OP about how Sherlock was mostly not playing into the myth of genius (which I don't really buy, but I also thoroughly disagree with how the Sherlock-specific post made its point, and I think that's mostly what people were piling on about), but after that happened no one really got to shouting. The restraint... I mean, can this really be fandom?)

Then there's the fact that the original pilot is floating about in the ether out there. This article touches a bit on what's been eating at the back of my mind about it, but there's a part of me that wants to sit down and really delve into how the story evolved between the pilot and the first episode. This is the sort of thing I've always wanted to be able to look at, side-by-side. Editing and revision is such a beautiful tool for evolution. And this is so much why, if I finally get to be a writer, I'd like to write for television. Putting your idea out, working it over with a bunch of people, adding bits and figuring out what works, testing things out. (Additional point: I've been geeking out just a bit over Neil Gaiman's snippets of information on the process he's going through to finish his Doctor Who script. You can tell I'm not a real writer because I'm endlessly enthralled by the writing process.) Even on the other end of the spectrum, I think I'd enjoy having a semi-antagonistic relationship with the network over re-writes, too. It keeps people sharp.

I seem to be spending tomorrow at work, so that's all for now because, rather than sit here and rant about things, I'm going to go sit down with Hrunting and maybe finish something, or at least start something else. (Something I will hope won't be an essay.)

Comments

[apple-pathways.livejournal.com]

Ah, Sherlock Holmes as the Ubermensch, the genius who should be allowed to act without restraints from society.

What always amazes me about Holmes, at least in canon, is how incredibly, perfectly moral he is (at least within the bounds of his little literary world). He always answers to a higher calling, some absolute ideal of Justice that exists outside the formal laws of Scotland Yard. Any criminal we're led to feel any sympathy for is pardoned and set free. Any criminal who is caught and punished is painted as the perfect picture of evil and castigated to the maximum extent of the law.

At the end of each story, you're led to believe that each and every person has received their just desserts, and order is restored.

I think that's part of what I love so much about the stories: I want to live in that world!

[evilhippo.livejournal.com]

Ah-ha, there's the Nietzschian reference that's been lurking at the corners.

You've made that point much better than I could've. I think what trips a lot of people up (at least in regards to the discussion that was happening on the community there) is Sherlock's quasi-amoral approach to that morality. His black and white distinctions don't overlap perfectly with the conventional blacks and whites. I also think this kind of perfectly moral universe is impossible to uphold in a modern setting, or with modern writers (I don't think anyone writes that way anymore outside of children's stories--modern audiences don't seem to want to embrace that kind of black and white storytelling), which makes it doubly hard for the BBC series to really give Sherlock the definitive morality he has in the books (and, I guess, it's possible they don't want to, but I don't think an argument can be made for him being immoral in either context, even if he is occasionally a jerkface.) Maybe that's what was making me kind of uncomfortable with that argument--the Holmes I know from the books is incredibly moral in a very moral universe, and I'm projecting that back onto the series, kind of imperfectly. I don't think we've gotten any of those 'perfect picture of evil' characters, other than Moriarty (and whatever was going on in the Blind Banker, I think, was supposed to be complete evil, but it also made no sense most of the time, so I'm leaving that alone). I don't think the taxi driver was anything close to the picture of perfect evil--he was just a scared man who was talked into a very terrible way of dealing with his own mortality.

[apple-pathways.livejournal.com]

I think Law & Order comes close to that morality play storytelling. Except for the episodes where we're meant to feel "moral turmoil" over the case, and they intentionally leave things unresolved/resolved unsatisfactorily, the episodes tend to end with with the feeling that just the right amount of justice has been achived: the reprehensible murderers and rapists get the death penalty, and anyone who's shown to be even remotely sympathetic is given a deal that we're led to believe exactly matches their level of worthiness. (I love Law & Order; again, I'd like to live in a world where "justice" is a measurably achievable goal.)

I'm pretty sure the BBC series doesn't want to portray Holmes with the definitive morality he has in the books; they're much more interested in playing with the 'superman' archetype. I think we're meant to ask ourselves if Holmes's genius, and the way he uses it to benefit society, except him from having to conform to society's conventions and social niceties. I can't think of anything he's done that I would call exactly "immoral"--the only thing he did that really bothered me was the extra couple seconds he took before revealing how he knew the Vermeer was a fake. I was a bit outraged when I first saw it, and I just couldn't believe they were asking us to accept the way he risked the little boy's life in order to stroke his own ego and marvel over his own genius. But I think we're meant to believe that he just got caught up in the moment and the brilliance of the puzzle, and not view it as a conscience disregard for the child's well-being.

Also, the way he dragged out the solution to the TV host's death and let the old woman spend those extra hours as a hostage were really pretty callous and brutal. Of course, his choice served a greater good: it allowed him to do some research and get ahead of Moriarty, possibly saving future lives. It's hard to keep that in mind, though, when you picture that terrified woman waiting in agony.

That's probably the biggest difference between the stories and the BBC series: in Doyle's version, Holmes's judgment is presented as flawlessly moral, whereas the BBC series leaves room for debate (and leaves the audience feeling slightly unnerved at his callous choices).

You're right about Moriarty being perfectly evil; we've not been shown any bit of redemption in him yet. The fact that he twists regular, morally-balanced people to his evil purposes only makes him slimier. I'm pretty much in love with him. ;)

The taxi driver, I believe, is the least Doylian (is that a word?) character in the entire series. He's creepy and bad, but also sympathetic, and he's killed by Watson and we're not asked to feel any remorse. John and Sherlock giggle over his death! ACD would not approve. ;)