US fans - Sherlock Tonight

[Data Holmes]

All of that is true, which demonstrates that they can't be the same characters as the originals; their interactions with society would be completely different. Also, this show exaggerates these attributes to ensure that they are seen as damaged, rather than merely eccentric.

I would say you are correct but backwards...

The charecters are the same, it's society's interactions with them which are completely different, and that that interaction exaggerated their attributes being seen as damaged. Society today doesn't accept eccentricity. You are either part of the flock within it's own narrowly defined definition, or you are damaged and must be fixed... and if you refuse to accept that definition, or are not able to be "fixed", then you are something to be feared, reviled, shunned, mocked, ect.

Yesterdays Sherlock Holmes is today's High-functioning sociopath.

Yesterdays Ben Franklin, Thomas Edison, or Einstein is today's Aspergers or Autism "sufferer".

Yesterdays George Washington or Patton is today's "war loving" psychopath.


It isn't our classic charecters which have changed, it's our society that has... And this is why so many people love these classic charecters. It is because they weren't forced to live a homogenized, collective, almost Borg like existence to the societal "normal" that we have to now. We hold on to them, and are drawn to their inspired modern offshoots, because we long for that acceptance level, we long for that type of society again.

 

[Shatnertage]

I love it when a philosophical discussion breaks out while we're talking about TV.

No, really, I do. Makes me feel like I'm doing something more than...talking about TV.

 

[RJDiogenes]

^^ Sure. No reason why TV can't provoke the same discussions as any other art form.

It is bizarre that you think the same entity interacting with a different environment must be a completely different entity. Is the way you interact with a romantic partner the same way you interact with your boss at work? Is the way you behave in the workplace the same way you behaved at recess in fifth grade? If not, does that mean you're several completely different people? No. It means you're the same person but your behavior manifests differently in different contexts.

I'm not talking about putting on different faces for different situations (although some philosophies do hold that each individual is multiple people); I meant that in a "nature and nurture" way. Two clones growing up in completely different environments will be completely different people.

I would say you are correct but backwards...

The charecters are the same, it's society's interactions with them which are completely different, and that that interaction exaggerated their attributes being seen as damaged. Society today doesn't accept eccentricity. You are either part of the flock within it's own narrowly defined definition, or you are damaged and must be fixed... and if you refuse to accept that definition, or are not able to be "fixed", then you are something to be feared, reviled, shunned, mocked, ect.

Yesterdays Sherlock Holmes is today's High-functioning sociopath.

Yesterdays Ben Franklin, Thomas Edison, or Einstein is today's Aspergers or Autism "sufferer".

Yesterdays George Washington or Patton is today's "war loving" psychopath.


It isn't our classic charecters which have changed, it's our society that has... And this is why so many people love these classic charecters. It is because they weren't forced to live a homogenized, collective, almost Borg like existence to the societal "normal" that we have to now. We hold on to them, and are drawn to their inspired modern offshoots, because we long for that acceptance level, we long for that type of society again.

While I certainly agree with you about the homogenization of society, I don't think this is entirely correct (and I disagree with your characterizations of Washington and Franklin). People have always been more tolerant of eccentricity in fiction than in real life. Fiction has always served a cathartic function.

 

[Data Holmes]

While I certainly agree with you about the homogenization of society, I don't think this is entirely correct (and I disagree with your characterizations of Washington and Franklin).

Why don't you think it is correct? I have seen people describe both as such. I read a whole little article in a news mag recently where some shrink "analyzed" Franklin and said that he most likely suffered from some "High Level Autism". He said that it explained why he never kept a job for long, why he invented things, ect. This is the world we have come to, if you stand out it is because of a problem.

People have always been more tolerant of eccentricity in fiction than in real life. Fiction has always served a cathartic function.

Why is that. Better yet, it's a two part question. Why is it people are more tolerant of eccentricity in fictional charecters than in real life and why are so many fictional charecters eccentric.

I think it's because we read, watch, and experience fictional charecters on an individual, personal defined level. We experience people within the context of society and it's defined level. This leads to descriptions like "he's a great person, but..." We can accept these people on an individual personal level, but when we have to identify them based on the social defined points that our society demands it falls apart. It's why the "nerd" and the "jock" have to pretend not to be friends, or why we even have definers like nerd, jock, geek, goth, prep... Society has taken over, rather than us controlling society.

As to why so many fictional charecters are so, I think it is because the field of "fiction" (books, tv, movies, ect) is one of the last which truly accepts and even promotes the really eccentric individuals in real life within it's ranks, and they end up channeling themselves and people they have met into their works.

That is why fiction provides a cathartic function, it allows us an escape form our society, from our social collective group think we must all follow for fear of being shunned by the rest of the members for "being different". We hide behind our walls and escape into fiction. We hide within our heads in the world of fantasy. We do this because the real world has become an oppressive socially dictated collective mindset of rules we are forced to follow because of our own fear of rejection from the very society we grow to hate with each passing oppressive day.


Hell, look at when people talk about star trek. When people say "it's a great future to work toward". Why is that, well they always answer, "it's because it's a world where people are accepted for who you are. Where it doesn't matter what you look like, where you came from, how you talk, all are accepted for who they are with out judgment." Roddenberry was an eccentric, he saw how the society was turning against the eccentrics. This was why I think he saw the ultimate "bad guys" trek as those which controlled people. The famous Kirk's "Your God is a lie!" moments. The loss of individual control to the collective of the Borg in TNG... Star Trek under GR was always about promotion of the individual over the collective.

 

[RJDiogenes]

Yeah, but people also complain about the characters and world of Star Trek being "too perfect." This is what led to Trek becoming more dumbed down as time went on, and ultimately being rebooted as a retarded video game movie.

I think you may be projecting too much of your own frustrations on the subject. Fiction is cathartic not just because it allows people to do things that they can't do in real life-- have a wonderful love affair, climb a mountain, explore an alien planet-- but because it allows them to do things they won't do in real life-- insult strangers, tell off the boss, kill their spouse. Controls on anti-social behavior are not what makes society oppressive. Given how the lowbrow revel in their so-called "political incorrectness," the reverse is more likely true.

As for Washington and Franklin, people say all kinds of stupid things. There was one nutjob who actually managed to publish a book stating that Shakespeare invented thinking. Washington was about as far from a war-monger and Franklin about as far from autistic as you can get.

 

[Data Holmes]

Yeah, but people also complain about the characters and world of Star Trek being "too perfect." This is what led to Trek becoming more dumbed down as time went on, and ultimately being rebooted as a retarded video game movie.

All in the name of being more socially accepted.

I think you may be projecting too much of your own frustrations on the subject.

I don't think so.

Fiction is cathartic not just because it allows people to do things that they can't do in real life-- have a wonderful love affair, climb a mountain, explore an alien planet-- but because it allows them to do things they won't do in real life-- insult strangers, tell off the boss, kill their spouse.

Well, aside for the killing of their spouse, what is the one thing that prevents a person from doing all of that? Fear. Actually, it's fear for everything except the alien planet but that is because our space program has been slashed into the bone in the name of it's unimportance to society as a whole.

People won't have the love affair because they fear what people will think if they found out. Climb a mountain, Fear because they live their lives being told they have a place and can't do anything else. Can't do instead of Can do.

Why don't people insult strangers, Fear that they will be seen as an asshole or that the stranger might be a "nut" who will try and kill them. Tell off the boss, fear that they will lose their job. A job that society says they are supposed to have in order to be a productive member of society.

Kill their spouse, is just wrong, but then the question becomes "why are they married in the first place?" Was it because she got pregnant and society demanded he marry her? Was it because he bowed to the society defined role that a man has to have family past a certain age? Was it because she was afraid of being seen as the old crazy woman because she didn't have a husband? Was it because she was afraid that she would never have kids and society says a woman is supposed to have a husband in order to have kids?

How many of our life's problems stem from chafing and conforming to society's dictates so that we "fit in" and not be seen as the "eccentric weirdo?"

Controls on anti-social behavior are not what makes society oppressive.

No, but they are the toll of an oppressive society.

Given how the lowbrow revel in their so-called "political incorrectness," the reverse is more likely true.

More like small bits of rebellion against the dictates of a now oppressive society.

As for Washington and Franklin, people say all kinds of stupid things. There was one nutjob who actually managed to publish a book stating that Shakespeare invented thinking. Washington was about as far from a war-monger and Franklin about as far from autistic as you can get.

It's society's stormtroopers attempts to tear them down and prevent their influence of rebellion against society's dictates, and reaffirm the the position that anyone who fits the eccentric mold suffers from a mental problem that needs to be treated so that they can be "normal".

 

[Owain Taggart]

I think what's significant is that back then, when the stories were written, that Autism wasn't even recognized. I think that perhaps, people back then just saw people like Holmes as eccentric people with difficult character, so I don't see it at all as being more tolerant. It's like trying to categorize something when the category doesn't even exist. Even the book I mentioned, The Unofficial Biography of Sherlock Holmes goes in depth about this. Modern medicine only makes it obvious that he had some form of autism. What makes Sherlock Holmes brilliant in general though, is that Conan Doyle was just writing from the point of view of his own century and just set out to create an interesting character with flaws, yet unbeknown to him, also created one of the best case studies, and considering he wrote the character based on Joseph Bell, one would have to assume that Joseph Bell was also autistic.

 

[RJDiogenes]

^^ Maybe so. Writers have always grasped character without there being a scientific investigation; that's why some conditions are named after classic fictional characters. I don't think the original Sherlock Holmes was unlikable or amoral, though.

Well, aside for the killing of their spouse, what is the one thing that prevents a person from doing all of that? Fear.

Not always.

People won't have the love affair because they fear what people will think if they found out.

Or they just don't have anybody and they want to fantasize about it.

Climb a mountain, Fear because they live their lives being told they have a place and can't do anything else. Can't do instead of Can do.

Or it's too much trouble, or they can't afford it, or they know the reality would not be as cool as the fantasy, or they are just physically incapable of it.

Why don't people insult strangers, Fear that they will be seen as an asshole or that the stranger might be a "nut" who will try and kill them.

Or they don't really want to hurt anybody's feelings in a moment of anger, so they control themselves as grownups should do.

Tell off the boss, fear that they will lose their job. A job that society says they are supposed to have in order to be a productive member of society.

Or they need the job to support themselves because that's also what grownups do.

Kill their spouse, is just wrong, but then the question becomes "why are they married in the first place?" Was it because she got pregnant and society demanded he marry her? Was it because he bowed to the society defined role that a man has to have family past a certain age? Was it because she was afraid of being seen as the old crazy woman because she didn't have a husband? Was it because she was afraid that she would never have kids and society says a woman is supposed to have a husband in order to have kids?

Or they love each other but get on each other's nerves sometimes.

How many of our life's problems stem from chafing and conforming to society's dictates so that we "fit in" and not be seen as the "eccentric weirdo?"

Many do. But many don't. There's a difference between expressing individuality and turning adolescent rebellion into an ideology. But there's nothing novel about this-- that's been the nature of society since there's been society.

 

[Christopher]

"The Great Game" by Mark Gatiss:

I like the idea of this version of Moriarty -- a consulting criminal just as Sherlock is a consulting detective, someone who designs crimes to derive the same satisfaction Holmes derives from solving them. It's a nice parallel, if a slightly obvious one. But good lord, the execution was ghastly. The actor was deeply unimpressive and that high-pitched voice and childish, sing-song delivery were just obnoxious. This took everything I disliked about John Simm's version of the Master from Doctor Who and turned it up to eleven. (Well, everything pre-"End of Time" that I disliked about him.)

And why didn't Sherlock and John immediately get out of the building as soon as they got the bomb off? That was stupid. If you're in the same room as an explosive device, you GET THE HELL OUT OF THERE. You don't assume you're safe just because it's lying on the floor a few feet away. They should've gotten far away from the building and called the police immediately. Having them stay there to set up the cliffhanger was just weak.

The script was fairly clever, and loaded with Holmes references. I liked the punny twist on "The Five Orange Pips," substituting the Greenwich radio time-calibration code known colloquially as the "pips." Plus "The Bruce-Partington Plans," a reference to Holmes's astronomical ignorance from A Study in Scarlet, and a passing allusion to Bohemia (as in "A Scandal in..."). Indeed, when he said the letter was from Bohemia and that the address was written in a woman's hand, I imagine that was a deliberate red herring on Gatiss's part to make the knowing viewer suspect Irene Adler's involvement.

I have a quibble with the deduction about the painting. I think that fake paintings have been exposed in that way before, by identifying some form of astronomical anachronism in the sky, but if the painting was made recently, why would it depict a supernova from the 1850s? Supernovae don't remain bright for anywhere near that long.

I think Sherlock as portrayed here may actually be a psychopath, in the technical sense. It doesn't really mean a crazed killer, it means someone who innately lacks empathy, who doesn't identify emotionally with people, who can learn to convey the facade of emotionalism if there's some reward in it for them, such as the pleasure of deceiving or manipulating people. Psychopaths aren't necessarily dangerous; they can learn to function normally and play by the social rules, and can even become quite successful in life, just without really having the same level of emotion and empathy that other people do. I suppose a sociopath -- as Sherlock described himself in the first episode -- could be much the same; I believe the key difference is that a psychopath is that way by nature, a sociopath by nurture (or lack thereof, rather).

 

[bigdaddy]

It ends with a cliffhanger!?!

There should be rules that you can't end a three episode season on a cliffhanger!

Or maybe that you should have more than three episodes a year.

 

[Bob The Skutter]

^Don't worry, you've only got about 20 months to wait for a new series.

 

[Christopher]

Well, I have a guess for how the cliffhanger will resolve. Or rather, a deduction. All the ingredients were set up right there.

Spoiler: My cliffhanger guess/deduction

Sherlock exchanges a look with John, and they communicate wordlessly. Sherlock fires at the bomb vest, and at the same moment, John leaps forward and knocks them both into the pool. The water protects them from the blast. When they emerge, there's no sign of Moriarty. Or else there's a body burned beyond recognition that the police are willing to conclude is Moriarty's.

 

[Data Holmes]

Well, I have a guess for how the cliffhanger will resolve. Or rather, a deduction. All the ingredients were set up right there.

Spoiler: My cliffhanger guess/deduction

Sherlock exchanges a look with John, and they communicate wordlessly. Sherlock fires at the bomb vest, and at the same moment, John leaps forward and knocks them both into the pool. The water protects them from the blast. When they emerge, there's no sign of Moriarty. Or else there's a body burned beyond recognition that the police are willing to conclude is Moriarty's.

Nice.

 

[Christopher]

^Well, we'll see...

 

[Owain Taggart]

Yeah, that's pretty much what I thought of as well, Christopher. Btw, almost didn't recognize you with that new avatar.

 

[Christopher]

Well, I've had the Over a Torrent Sea avatar up for an inordinate amount of time since my Trek novel for 2010 got shelved, and I didn't find anything else to replace it with. I got this avatar from a great webcomic I recently discovered, Dresden Codak. I just love the phrase "I will do Science to it."

My one problem with it is that out of the corner of my eye it looks like Marge Simpson.

 

[The Nth Doctor]

I got this avatar from a great webcomic I recently discovered, Dresden Codak. I just love the phrase "I will do Science to it."

I decided to check this webcomic out (simply because of the aforementioned quote) and I already love it (based on just the first handful or so strips). It's wonderfully bizarre complete with my kind of geekiness.

 

[Australis]

The Great Game was pretty good. Looking forward to much more of this. But they shouldn't have ended it on a cliffhanger.

 

[Data Holmes]

The Great Game was pretty good. Looking forward to much more of this. But they shouldn't have ended it on a cliffhanger.

Why, it was the end of season one. Seasons almost always end on cliffhangers.


Am I the only one who was suspecting that there isn't really a sniper in that building, but it's some remote controlled laser pointer?

 

[auntiehill]

^ Probably.

So, how long do we have to wait until the next season--6 months? A year?