[ SECRET POST #2503 ]

[case]

⌈ Secret Post #2503 ⌋

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

01.


__________________________________________________



02.


__________________________________________________



03.


__________________________________________________



04.


__________________________________________________



05.


__________________________________________________



06.


__________________________________________________



07.


__________________________________________________



08.


__________________________________________________



09.


__________________________________________________



10.


__________________________________________________



11.


__________________________________________________



12.


__________________________________________________



13.



__________________________________________________



14.


__________________________________________________



15.
















Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 05 pages, 105 secrets from Secret Submission Post #358.
Secrets Not Posted: [ 0 - broken links ], [ 0 - not!secrets ], [ 0 - not!fandom ], [ 0 - too big ], [ 0 - repeat ].
Current Secret Submissions Post: here.
Suggestions, comments, and concerns should go here.

Comments

[(Anonymous)]

Really? I always thought that this was the opposite way around: something that got lost in translation to visual mediums. The stories themselves allow Watson to use his own narrative voice to articulate what he found so fascinating and impressive about Holmes's deductions. TV and movies need to shuffle things around and figure out how to convey these things through action without being explicit, since they don't have narration.

[khronos_keeper]

Personally, I found the visual mediums only failed in that they actually haven't found a person who's awesome in the way that Holmes is awesome (i.e. being able to present something so that it sounds like you're being given a key to the world rather than some guy sound like a ponce).

The way I've always seen Holmes, is he's that guy who was able to silently write and solve an entire math theory on a chalkboard in a classroom, and then have everyone stand up and applause when he was done.

I think it's just hard for people to be able to convey that kind of expertise without making it seem like he's a douche. And I mean, that's where the textual medium gets it right, in that I totally know what he's talking about, and I think every one else does too-- it's just hard to get someone to accurately represent it on TV or movies, because as far as I know, they haven't gotten a deductive genius to play Holmes.

[dreemyweird]

While I think it's true that nobody managed to portray Holmes the way you described him (and I largely agree with this interpretation), I've seen a few versions who didn't look/sound like dicks. The Soviet Holmes, for one, is very agreeable in this regard, and so are Richardson!Holmes and Howard!Holmes. (oh, and Ronald Howard might just come very close to your awesome maths-loving version).

[khronos_keeper]

Thanks very much for the Holmes reccs! I actually haven't seen Richardson or Howard, so now I'm intrigued to see how they portrayed him. Right now I'm wading through Johnny Lee Miller, who is a great actor (omg THOSE EYES) and a good AU!Sherlock Holmes, but definitely not "Sherlock Holmes".

But you're also right that it does come down to interpretation-- some people read him with a stronger dash of douchebaggery than I do.

[(Anonymous)]

Howard!Holmes is rather nice. He really has fun during investigations or just playing pranks on Watson who's a sensible one and also the one carrying a revolver. Livanov!Holmes just such a great friend, he's calm and a bit escentric. I haven't seen Richardson!Holmes, you reminded me 😃

[dreemyweird]

It probably goes both ways. Visual media do not have the narrative opportunities, the original text cannot show things the way visual media do.

But then I don't really think that any of them suffer from these shortcomings. I've never seen a screen adaptation that would measure to the literary original, but I assume that's because it wasn't made, not because the genre is somehow inherently worse. [Maybe it also has something to do with the fact that the original is a work of a single author, while the adaptations have dozens, sometimes hundreds of people working at once].