[ SECRET POST #2343 ]

[case]

⌈ Secret Post #2343 ⌋

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

01.


__________________________________________________



02.


__________________________________________________



03.


__________________________________________________



04.


__________________________________________________



05.


__________________________________________________



06.


__________________________________________________



07.


__________________________________________________



08.


__________________________________________________



09.


__________________________________________________



10.


__________________________________________________



11.
[not a repeat, was too big before]


__________________________________________________

















Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 03 pages, 055 secrets from Secret Submission Post #335.
Secrets Not Posted: [ 0 - broken links ], [ 1 - not!secrets ], [ 0 - not!fandom ], [ 0 - too big ], [ 0 - repeat ].
Current Secret Submissions Post: here.
Suggestions, comments, and concerns should go here.

Comments

[(Anonymous)]

It bothers me most with Sherlock because he's supposed to be the world's greatest detective, and as such, smarter than me. It bothers me in any show when we're told over and over again how incredibly brilliant and singularly clever the protagonist is, yet they can't seem to puzzle out the simplest mystery. I agree with the anon about Study in Pink being one of the worst - from the opening scenes it was clear it was a cab driver (who else would all these disparate people in need of a ride go with?) and watching it take Sherlock SO FREAKING LONG to have the idea dawn on him put a damper on the series for me.

If the show or film portrays its protagonist as smart but not Better Than Everyone, and gives him or her an engaging personality, I don't care how simple the mystery is, I enjoy the ride.

Of all the Sherlocks I've seen, only one episode of Elementary fooled me - like the OP, not because I'm especially smart, but because I've read and watched a hell of a lot of mysteries and know the rules. Even then I knew what the end result would be, I just couldn't see the trick until it was spelled out (it was the one with the woman with the flowers pushed in front of the train - very Jonathan Creek).

OP

[(Anonymous)]

Yeah this is pretty much what I meant. It's not really the stupidity of the plots that bugs me more the ''omg he is such a genius for knowing this''

Most other detectives surprise me a least once but these just never do.

[(Anonymous)]

... Have you read the originals? I ask because they're, ah, not the same. Some of the solutions might still be obvious to a modern reader, but the original Holmes was 'the world's greatest detective' for the most part because a) he could think outside society's clear strictures on who could be considered a criminal and who couldn't, b) in a world without even much of an idea of forensics he could use physical evidence at scenes to help him, c) he wasn't part of a police force that was still suffering the stigma of having failed to catch the Ripper and therefore garnering a reputation for inefficiency, and d) he could do the 'Sherlock scan' of looking at someone and telling minute details about them.

He was arrogant, yes, but the whole 'genius detective' thing is mostly in adaptations, for whom an avant-garde forensic ability and a lack of care for society's strictures don't quite mean the same thing. It all weights onto the 'Sherlock scan' part, which is essentially just a faster and more mobile forensics lab, so they need to try and ramp up his 'genius' attributes to compensate. The results can be ... hit and miss.