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.

From wikipedia: "The Internet Movie Database lists 89 movies with Tarzan in the title between 1918 and 2008."

So, a lot.

There were silent versions, the famous Weissmuller versions, Lex Barker's five RKO movies from the late forties to early fifties, the late fifties to mid-sixties version with Gordon Scott (which ran for six films) then Mike Henry continued that franchise up to '68, the Ron Ely TV series in the late sixties (two seasons but rerun constantly in to the seventies), Christopher Lambert's Greystoke in the 80s, two radio shows, stage versions. Several cartoon TV variations. There have been many many international variations on Tarzan too.

It's one of the most famous and long running adventure comics of all-time first with Hal Foster, then with Burne Hogarth and Russ Manning. The Kubert comic version is (in my opinion) one of the definitive treatments and one of the best comic runs of the 70s.

The original books have never been out of print.

Holmes has had ups and downs in his popularity too. The Holmes franchise had a weird little bump when it came into public domain and things like Murder by Decree and The 7 Percent Solution came out, but it was largely fallow until Jeremy Brett's version. And then again it was quiet until the RDJ movie version.

After the Disney animated movie, there were two direct-to-DVD sequels, and there was a spinoff animated TV show. There was a live action TV show as recently as 2003. And it's currently being worked up for a movie trilogy.

You're really underestimating the unceasing ubiquity of Tarzan-ness.

You're really underestimating the unceasing ubiquity of Tarzan-ness

I am. Because it's not in my face. Which is the entirety of my point. Sherlock Holmes has been in my face constantly since House started. The actual Tarzan name doesn't have the same common presence right now.

The Holmes franchise had a weird little bump when it came into public domain and things like Murder by Decree and The 7 Percent Solution came out, but it was largely fallow until Jeremy Brett's version. And then again it was quiet until the RDJ movie version.

I don't know about that. Two of my favorite Holmes based series started in 1990 (Douglas's Irene series, 9 books total) and 2002 (King's Holmes series, 10 books so far), which are well between Brett (~1985) and RDJ's Holmes (2010).

Disney had a Sherlock Holmes cartoon, too: [link]

Tarzan does have more current presence than a lot of stories from the Victorian period. And, like Holmes and Dracula, it's another story of a charismatic man with powers beyond that of the mainstream Victorian Englishman. I'm not sure we can include it with the Victorian lit, as the first Tarzan story was published in 1912. But it does look at a late-British Empire society through the eyes of someone who's both an outsider (due to where he was born) as well as a member (heir to Greystoke).

Holmes is a member of his society through birth and habit, but perhaps a bit of an outsider due to being the most unsociable man ever born (according to Watson). And Dracula is all outsider, foreign on every level. They all provide different views of the Empire, which they examine as they try to to fit in (Tarzan), solve its crime (Holmes), or infiltrate it (Dracula).

Aaaand this is all getting a bit astray from Sherlock. Sorry.

Actually, it does make me wonder. Now that the UK is fairly post-Emperial, does that make a difference with the Sherlock stories?

Tarzan does have more current presence than a lot of stories from the Victorian period

That's not the hardest bar to clear. I still maintain it's significantly less than Holmes or Dracula, and I haven't seen any information yet that challenges my PoV.

You know, having just watched it, wow, The Private Life of Sherlock Holmes appears to have influenced this take on Adler greatly during the second half of the episode.

And only vaguely to the topic (as in, only related because I was trying to figure out who Robert Stephens reminds me of--Paul McGann, for the record) as well as a cereal bowl here,

DAMN, Robert Stephens and Maggie Smith made one seriously good-looking kid. [link]

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.

That was my impression, too. I can't believe that Mycroft would just shrug and let her run off.

I also can't believe that if Mycroft meant to have her killed, he wouldn't have wanted some proof of death; if she'd escaped from Mycroft's death sentence, he'd have known about it. The only way I can believe that (a) she lived and he told John she didn't, and (b) Sherlock had any realistic chance of getting in a position to save her, is if Mycroft was behind it all.

There had to have been easier ways to convince the world she was dead, but it wouldn't have been as much fun.

Oh, and to the terrorism point, we're watching a show where the title character was willing to give up state secrets for his flatmate, where the flatmate killed for the title character when they'd barely met, and where the brother of the title character does all sorts of cheerfully dubious things for king and country, and where no one has hands that are especially clean.

Right, but mostly not offered as some sort of modern equivalent of canon. This Holmes is not Doyle's nor our the other characters, and we love that fact. Irene is no exception. She is not Doyle's Irene and does not impact us the same way Doyle's Irene impacted Victorian readers. Her being linked to terrorists is not even a rough equivalent to the original being a adventuress. The Victorian attitude towards adventuresses was much more ambivalent than the modern attitude towards terrorists. Do we even disagree on this?