BBC Sherlock disses real Sherlock Holmes

Orson Welles described Sherlock Holmes as a man who was never born and will never die. The current BBC series Sherlock is trying to kill the guy nevertheless. The real Sherlock invented by A. Conan Doyle was an English gentleman wish a single outstanding skill: He solved crimes that no one else could. He had a friend, John Watson, who wrote about his cases for the press in a time when fiction appeared regularly on the front pages of newspapers.

Generations of readers have enjoyed the exploits of Holmes, who seldom stooped to violence, even when dealing with violent criminals. Once Holmes solved a crime by clever deduction, he invariably called in the police. His favorite weapon was a loaded hunting crop. This was not a firearm, but a riding crop weighted with lead shot to make it more effective as a weapon. Holmes did not strike people with this weapon, however, instead using it to disarm assailants.

Doctor Watson did carry, on occasion, his army revolver, but he seldom discharged it. Instead, Watson carried the revolver when Holmes suspected there might be need of it. Holmes himself carried a cane or a hunting crop. While Watson had a revolver in his pocket during the Adventure of the Speckled Band, Holmes drove a poisonous snake away by flailing at it with his cane. Watson did not see the snake in the dark, so was unable to use his weapon.

My point is that Holmes seldom carried a gun and only once fired it at a man. In the Sign of Four, Holmes and Watson fired simultaneously at a pygmy who was about to shoot a poison dart at them. Holmes thus showed great reticence to take a human life, even when he was threatened himself.

Holmes also had great respect for women. Many of his clients were ladies who found themselves in need of his assistance to find a lost sweetheart or recover stolen letters. Gentlemen of those times had very lax morals and prostitution was rampant in London, but Holmes never used women in that way and showed only sympathy for them.

Watson fell in love and married. His wife was Mary Morstan, whose

face had neither regularity of feature nor beauty of complexion, but her expression was sweet and amiable, and her large blue eyes were singularly spiritual and sympathetic. In an experience of women which extends over many nations and three separate continents, I have never looked upon a face which gave a clearer promise of a refined and sensitive nature.

Holmes shared Watson's opinion of Mary, although he vowed never to marry, because emotion might cloud the reason that he prized above all other virtues.

Such was the original Holmes, his faithful friend Watson, and Watson's loving wife, Mary.

The producers of the current production seem intent on destroying every vestige of the original Holmes. Holmes is no longer a gentleman. He is rude and insensitive to the feelings of others, even his friend Watson. In the latest installment of this travesty, Holmes makes love to a woman in a ruse to gain access to her employer's office. Watson is shocked by his behavior, not because it is crude and disrespectful, but because it is so out of character.

The producers have prepared an even more shocking plot twist however. Mary Watson, instead of a loving wife, is actually an assassin for the CIA. Just after Holmes discovers her in ninja garb(!) about to murder a man, Mary levels a pistol at Holmes's chest. Holmes takes a step toward her, convinced that she would never assault a friend. She shoots him at point blank range, however, thus completing the most unlikely plot twist in the entire Holmes canon. But one more outrage is to follow.

In the climactic scene of the episode, Holmes draws a pistol and murders a man in cold blood. This action is not merely entirely contrary to the character of the original man, but stands as an insult to fans as well. We are fans of Holmes because he is brilliant, true, but we are also fans because he is good. Holmes spends his life fighting against criminals and protecting their would-be victims. He never raises his hand against a man except in self-defense. He risks his own life to save others. He is a devoted friend and thoroughly honorable.

What, then, are we to make of this new Holmes, thoroughly despicable, a rake, and a killer? This new fellow has very little of the old Holmes. He is hardly able to make an accurate deduction. He deduces that the female assassin is not Mary. He mistakenly assumes that she will not shoot him. This new Holmes, in addition to being immoral and craven, is incapable of solving any crime. Like James Bond, he seldom solves anything; he only kills the criminal in the final scene.

We do not recognize this detective as related to his namesake. The producers obviously think they are being clever. The fans of Sherlock Holmes deserve better.

The New Sherlock: Great Stars, but terrible plots

Sherlock Holmes is one of the most popular fictional characters ever created. He was first introduced by Sir Arthur Conan Doyle in the novel, A Study in Scarlet, in 1887. The first story was followed by many serialized adventures, many of which have been made into movies. Every mystery writer after Holmes has borrowed from the master. Today's tv programs rely on forensic science methods first introduced by Doyle.

One series that doesn't rely on Conan's detective--except for his name and a superficial resemblance to his methods--is the new BBC Sherlock starring Benedict Cumberbatch as the legendary sleuth. I recently watched the first episode, A Study in Pink, and came away feeling cheated, as if the writers of that show had pulled a sleight of hand trick.

In fact, they had. Cumberbatch's impersonation of Holmes is fine, and he makes some excellent deductions about a missing pink suitcase. But the deductions do not help him solve the crime. The criminal delivers himself into Holmes's hands by picking him up in a taxi from 221B Baker Street. The original Sherlock solves crimes. The modern Sherlock waits for the criminal to solve the crime.

The criminal in A Study in Pink is sufficiently creepy, and has a high opinion of his own intelligence, but he wouldn't have been a match for the original Sherlock. Cumberbund's Sherlock, however, nearly lets himself be murdered by the villain, who has killed others before. Sherlock is apparently about to drink poison to prove that he can outwit the murderer. The murderer places two pills on the table, one filled with a deadly poison, the other a harmless placebo.

There is a strong odor of deja vu about this scene. It's taken directly from the Princess Bride, where Vizzini is tricked into a guessing game by Dread Pirate Roberts. Vizzini never had a chance in the game because Roberts tricked him by putting poison into both goblets set before them. Roberts had gained an immunity to iocaine poison before suggesting the duel.

Such a denouement would be worthy of the original Sherlock, although he was probably too much of a gentleman not to give his opponent a sporting chance. But the modern Sherlock does not control the situation, the murderer does. Sherlock is supposedly tempted to take a pill, trusting in his superior intelligence to pick the harmless one. But this is something the original Sherlock would never have done. If that Sherlock found himself in a similar situation, he undoubtedly would have deduced which pill to take by its color, or its scent, or something equally scientific.

The modern Sherlock is apparently ready to gamble his life on a 50-50 bet. Even the most inveterate gambler would never take odds on that wager! He would be guided by the gambler's maxim, never bet more than you can afford to lose. Sherlock is saved by a deus ex machina, when Watson takes a risky shot with a pistol across the street, through 2 glass windows, and over Sherlock's shoulder. At least Watson is no idiot. He takes the risk, but relies on his marksmanship more than his luck.

The new Sherlock survives A Study in Pink thanks to Watson's skill with a pistol, not the detecting skills of the world's only consulting detective. The tv production relies on digital special effects to hold its audience, much like CSI and the other forensic investigation shows. The colors are lush and London is still London, but the plot is not nearly as clever as it would like us to believe.

The point was driven home again by the first episode of the current series, where Sherlock Holmes saves London from a terrorist attack. Once again, clever detection plays little role in solving the crime. Holmes appears to stumble on a subway car that is loaded with explosives.

"The bomb isn't in the train," he announces to Watson. "The train is the bomb."

It's a nice play on words, but entirely meaningless. Clearly the explosives have been placed in the train, else how did they get there. At this point the scriptwriter saves Sherlock and Watson with one of the hoariest plot devices of all time. The bomb in the train has a clock that can be seen ticking down to zero. Granted, the device of the heroine tied to the railroad tracks is older, but not by much. James Bond, who was like Sherlock Holmes except that he worked for the government and killed people, faced the ticking time-bomb in Goldfinger, 50 years ago this year. Earlier examples probably exist.

But the ticking time bomb with a digital display never existed. Why would a bomb have such a device, except in a movie? Who would need to read it, except a fictional detective about to be blown to bits? Modern bombers use radio signals from cell phones to detonate their devices, or other equally modern techniques. The modern Sherlock does not have to face such villains.

The modern Sherlock has a good excuse. His writers are being playful. They're playing with the legend. Blowing up parliament can be funny, you see. The modern Sherlock even plays a game with Watson, pretending that he doesn't know how to defuse the bomb. Then he flips a switch on the case and the clock stops.

"Bombs always have an off switch," he explains to Watson, who is just as irritated at him as the viewers should be.

Bombs don't have an off-switch, but televisions do. I wouldn't be surprised if Sherlock fans soon grew tired of a Sherlock Holmes who doesn't detect and a plot that holds no mysteries. There is a reason why most of the Sherlock Holmes movies are based on plots by Sir Arthur. He was the best.