Holmes finds her clever and amusing, and admires that she defeated him (arguably with a head start, mind). No doubt there. Not seeing how this goes against my reading, which I've said has the truth somewhere in the grey zone of he said, she said.

Because you said that her dealing with terrorist in 21st century Sherlock gives the same emotional impact as the original story. I'd say not really the equivalent. By the end of the story in Doyle I don't think we have anything like the feeling we have for a demi-terrorist.

I would add that keeping taking the photo over jewels and referring to her ever afterword as 'The Woman' and dialing back on the misogyny shows a degree of respect that goes beyond amusement and admiration.

Sherlock and Dracula make for an interesting pairing. (I mean in a non-slashy way, this time, oddly enough.) One's all cold intellect, puzzle solving, working toward justice. The other's hot blood, desire, with animalistic overtones (changing into bats, growing fangs, etc.). Yet they both came from about the same time period, from the same country, and are continually being reworked for public consumption. And a lot of people are fans of both. (And, as mentioned above, there's even a Christopher Lee crossover connection.) Id and super ego?

Sherlock and Dracula make for an interesting pairing

Eh, I wasn't that captivated by the Sherlock Holmes vs. Dracula novel I read.

Because you said that her dealing with terrorist in 21st century Sherlock gives the same emotional impact as the original story. I'd say not really the equivalent. By the end of the story in Doyle I don't think we have anything like the feeling we have for a demi-terrorist.

I do think that, much like ACD Holmes and Watson were originally written as young men and the BBC series has tried to recapture the that feel for the audience and push away the cobwebs, the reinterpretation of Adler for modern audiences seems to try to recapture some of what the original readers would have read into the character in the portrayal.

Is what I said. If you want more specifics, what I'm referring to here is her position. In a day and age when a rock star's mistress can be the wife of the French leader, an affair with an opera singer doesn't have the impact that it did in the 1890s.

Oh, and once again, the end of the Doyle story in BBC occurs before, long before, the end of the actual story.

I wasn't that captivated by the Sherlock Holmes vs. Dracula novel I read.

There's a Holmes vs. Dracula novel? Of course there is. And Amazon's telling me there's a Sherlock Holmes vs. Zombies novel, too. [link]

I think I'll read House of Silk, first.

I don't think I'll bother with House of Silk, now that I've read the reviews and see that it places the death of Holmes at a date before His Last Bow, which is canon-canon and all.

That's worse that Supernatural tie-in novels getting Dean's eye color wrong.

Oh, and Plei, may I tag "you can be kind and still scheme. These are not mutually exclusive" ? Pretty please?

There's a Holmes vs. Dracula novel? Of course there is.

Yeah, and I found it kind of meh. Not enough Dracula for my tastes. But if I have to chose between Sherlock and Dracula, I'm going for the guy with the fangs. (Story of my life.)

Yes, yes you may.

One of the more interesting readings, by the way, that I've seen of the final scene and Mycroft's conversation with John in the cafe, is that part of the reason he's so certain she's actually dead is that he had a hand in putting her into that situation.

But it's had many many iterations and was almost constantly in play in movies/tv/comic strips/comic books for 80 years.

But they weren't revisited in the same way that Sherlock Holmes or Dracula is. The constant movies were essentially one franchise, though without the stricture we nerds apply today. Outside of that within my viewing lifetime, there's been one TV show, one live action movie, and one cartoon? And not that recently.

Not that it's not a well-visited trope. Just that it's not comparably visited. There's always a Dracula somewhere.