[ SECRET POST #3304 ]

[case]

⌈ Secret Post #3304 ⌋

Warning: Some secrets are NOT worksafe and may contain SPOILERS.

01.


__________________________________________________



02.
[Law & Order SVU]


__________________________________________________



03.
[Leonardo DiCaprio]


__________________________________________________



04.
(Penny Dreadful: Caliban/John Clare)


__________________________________________________



05.
[Star Wars]


__________________________________________________



06.
[Kumail Nanjiani, The X-Files]


__________________________________________________



07.
[Shin Megami Tensei X Fire Emblem]


__________________________________________________



08.
[Love Live!]


__________________________________________________



09.
[Severus Snape and the Marauders]


__________________________________________________



10.
[Sherlock Holmes]


__________________________________________________



11.
[Making a Murderer, Dean Strang and Jerry Buting]


__________________________________________________



12.
[Colony]















Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 02 pages, 027 secrets from Secret Submission Post #472.
Secrets Not Posted: [ 0 - broken links ], [ 0 - not!secrets ], [ 0 - not!fandom ], [ 0 - too big ], [ 1 - repeat ].
Current Secret Submissions Post: here.
Suggestions, comments, and concerns should go here.

Comments

[fscom]

10. http://i.imgur.com/sLhtXzF.jpg
[Sherlock Holmes]

[(Anonymous)]

tbh sherlock doesn't appeal to me as a character at all. Kills my suspension of disbelief. I prefer adaptations that make him fallible.

[(Anonymous)]

He is fallible

Just not in the shippy, sexy, or woobie way that fandom likes

[(Anonymous)]

Must be nice to be able to completely dismiss someone's opinion like that before even hearing it.

[(Anonymous)]

NA

Nah, I kind of agree with the AYRT. Sherlock is fallible, but he's definitely not arriving in fandom on a ready-to-ship or ready-to-woobify silver platter, so fandom often changes him to be that way, which I imagine is irritating to people who enjoy the character as-is.

[(Anonymous)]

But he's fallible in canon as well. Irene Adler is maybe his most memorable defeat, but he was also incorrect in "The Adventure of the Yellow Face" and at the end of it, there's this quote:

"Watson, if it should ever strike you that I am getting a little overconfident in my powers, or giving less pains to a case than it deserves, kindly whisper 'Norbuary' in my ear, and I shall be infinitely obliged to you."

[(Anonymous)]

Full disclosure, I only ever read one of the short stories a long, long time ago because I found the character insufferable.

[(Anonymous)]

... oh. That's a pretty big judgement to make based off a single story, but different strokes, I guess. I suspect if you actually read more of the stories, you'd get a more complete picture of Sherlock Holmes as a character.

[(Anonymous)]

lol

[(Anonymous)]

/all the facepalms

[deird1]

Christie nicked Poirot's "chocolate box" from Doyle? Heh. Cool.

[(Anonymous)]

awwww the solution to that one was just so cute and good and nice...

[(Anonymous)]

Nuts to your suspension of disbelief.

[(Anonymous)]

You haven't actually read of the ACD stories, have you?

[(Anonymous)]

To be fair, canon Holmes could be quite emotional - we see him variously furious, delighted, ashamed, snippy, apologetic, terrified, homicidal, smug, compassionate, amused, touched and several other things over the course of the stories. It was sociable that he usually wasn't, and sentimental was usually a bit of a reach as well.

+1000

[(Anonymous)]

Not sure where people are getting the impression that ACD!Holmes is an unemotional robot, because he really isn't. He's just not a fluffy schmoopy type when it comes to expressing his emotions.

Re: +1000

[(Anonymous)]

I don't think anyone in this thread has the misguided impression that Holmes is an unemotional robot.

[annethecatdetective]

I'm kind of insulted by those adaptations, tbh. First of all, canon Holmes is capable of great depths of human emotion and caring. He isn't ruled by them, he doesn't always express them well, and he is certainly not always comfortable with having strong emotions, definitely dislikes the idea of ever being ruled by them, but a close reading shows that he does have feelings-- *and* he does have intellectual failures. He 'loses' to Mycroft, to Adler, and to his own standards for himself-- and he has personal failures due to his inability to correctly predict the emotional reactions of others, which may not affect his professional work, but which do affect him and those around him.

When people change him as the secret states, it's always to make him more "normal", in a way that says to me that the author would consider me *abnormal*, or even 'not human'.

I don't just find Sherlock Holmes believable, I find him RELATABLE. I might not be a super genius or anything, but I know what it's like to get lost in a mental world to the exclusion of noticing my physical needs. I know what it's like to fumble something with a friend because I don't guess at their emotional reactions. I know what it's like to be uncomfortable with the depth of my own feelings and to be seen as not having those feelings at all by others. And I want to read about a character who has all that going on succeeding at something and being seen as brilliant and well worth knowing/loving despite those faults.

[(Anonymous)]

Well said. I, too, am annoyed with the suggestion that Holmes (as he's written in canon) isn't relatable unless his personality is altered. How have the stories remained so popular since their publication if they didn't speak to people on some level? Holmes is brilliant, but he's not infallible or superhuman, just well above average in a specific area: solving crimes. I don't see the point of making an adaptation that tries to downplay his abilities. That's a different story with a different character, not Sherlock Holmes.

[(Anonymous)]

First of all, canon Holmes is capable of great depths of human emotion and caring.

This. One thing I think a lot of people forget is that cases aren't just intellectual stimulation to Holmes (though they are most definitely that as well). Holmes is also deeply passionate about justice and the protection of innocents, even violently so at times (see The Master Blackmailer for one of the more spectacular examples). In fact, the reason he's a detective at all is because his only friend in college got into trouble (Adventure of the Gloria Scott), and the man who told him he should put his talents to more concrete use died as a consequence of an old injustice. His talent for deduction, which before had been mostly a game to him, seems to have become something he wanted to use to protect people after that.

Holmes was always one of my heroes as a kid, for a great many reasons, and his passion and compassion not least of all.

[(Anonymous)]

Yes. All of this.

This is a huge part of what makes Holmes a great character.

[(Anonymous)]

true.
but I'm also insulted if they make him into a super genius asshole like a stripped-down House, because he has to be a power fantasy for people who want to be assholes who get away with everything- when Sherlock Holmes actually tries to be less of one, sometimes.

It's making him into a vehicle for people who never had the same problems he had.

[(Anonymous)]

I hate the "high functioning sociopath" nonsense Sherlock pulls. It's just awful on so many levels.

Sidney Paget FTW!

[(Anonymous)]

And also I agree with everything you said.

But Paget!!!1! <333

[(Anonymous)]

I haven't read all the stories (I think I've read about 7 or 8 stories), but I actually get the feeling most adaptations skew way in the opposite direction of what you're complaining about here. The Sherlock in the books seems private / introverted and brainy and nerdy, but still warm and personable and happy to teach or explain when needed. He isn't maybe what I'd call emotional or exuberant (in casual settings, he has a pretty calm demeanor), but I would say he's overall cheerful i.e. not entirely unemotional either. He's definitely what people would call an odd duck with striking abilities, and "nice and eccentric" is how I would describe him rather than "brilliant and unemotional" (although those aren't inaccurate, either).