Sherlocked: which interpretation of the great detective do you like the best?

 Today is Halloween, and what better time to write about Sherlock Holmes?



Sherlock made his literary debut in 1887, with the short story "A Study in Scarlet."  The author was Conan Doyle (later to become "Sir").  Tales appeared in print until 1927.  Mostly, the lore of Sherlock and Watson comes in the form of short stories, with only a smattering of novels, here and there, but oh those short stories captured the imagination of many throughout the 20th and 21st centuries. Dozens of plays, movies, and books have since been created, since the first publication of Doyle's detective's adventures, and absolutely everyone who has ever seen a film adaptation of Sherlock has their favorite actor who portrays him.  

It's kind of like who is your favorite James Bond?

Sean Connery, ye gods!

As for me? I have always been a purist about Sherlock Holmes, and while I love Basil Rathbone's interpretation, I would have to say that Jeremy Brett comes the closest to the spirit of Doyle's amateur detective.  My mother prefers Basil.  So did my father.  I like Basil as well, but I feel that the producers took too many liberties with the stories.  But as I said, I'm a purist.

Having stated that, I do enjoy watching Benedict Cumberbatch, and Martin Freeman, the latest interpretation of the dynamic duo.  But, then who wouldn't like watching these oh - so - attractive men?

😁


But, Dear Reader, would you be interested to know that Doyle's character inspired a lot the techniques of what eventually become forensic science? After all, when Doyle was first writing these stories, police were just beginning to realize that one could possibly identify criminals, using the shapes of ears, and later fingerprints.  But Sherlock used his magnifying glass to seek out different forms of proof, such as footprints, candles that shed no wax when and if they were moved, and the dog who didn't bark in the night. Today, we would call that circumstantial evidence, and yet there were the beginnings of forensic detection in those stories, which make the fictional detective so popular, over one hundred years after his first appearance.

There is a great documentary on this subject (Amazon) called "How Sherlock Changed the World"
if you're at all curious.  

As for myself, I try to watch some Sherlock at least every month or so, just to keep my hand in.  I love his use of logic, and his cold pragmatism--good vs. evil in the most interesting way.  Sherlock is not necessarily purely good, however, he is something of an enigma--an uneasy combination of the two.  And yet, there is something of the modern anti-hero in his character that strikes me as so terribly modern, which is why I believe his character still translates so well to the audience of the present. 

To put it succinctly, I shall celebrate this Halloween by watching "The Hound of the Baskervilles" with Jeremy Brett, and I will hope, Dear Reader, that you have a safe, happy, and spooky holiday!


And, what Halloween would be complete without this? :)



I believe in the Great Pumpkin, don't you?


Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Hey!! Its Cpt. Lingerie! The "yahoo" John Wilkes Booth: psychopath, murderer, and the Assassination of Abraham Lincoln. ONE

"It is a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing": propaganda and the 2024 election. Yeah, I'm gonna write about him again.

'Do You Deny then, Mr. Chivington, that you're a vicious psycho hose beast?' No sir, Mr. Congressman sir, I swear I didn't know there was anyone there! The tragic massacre at Sand Creek, 1864.