If it had been one of the "unnecessary" things that Sherlock didn't know, I could go with it. But it was really more of a human nature thing that should come in super handy when solving crime.

Perhaps it could have been filmed in a way where I wasn't slightly boggled no one got there earlier, but the way it was? The dude's supposed to be smarter than me. And I knew right away. Still love it though.

And this was my first Sherlock experience of any sort. Hadn't read the books, hadn't seen any of the adaptations. Well, I saw Data playing on the Holodeck in a Star Trek once.

Why are we whitefonting? They aired US and ... are they drama or procedural?

They aren't cable so they fit better here than in Cable Drama.

Yeah, it is NAFDA fair-game.

This is the show that eated my brane. I am continually started at the huge range of readings of Sherlock. Less true with John: he's the character I want to draw sparkly hearts around, but he is fairly straight-forward. Of course, that variety is in keeping with the variety of re-interpretations since Doyle's day.

That this is your first Holmes is fascinating to me, and makes me want to ask you all sorts of questions (a nice way of saying "poke your brain with a stick"), but, really, at this point--and until I go back to the Doyle, which I never finished--they do stand separate from the others. It's interesting to see how elements are brought forward, but I don't expect things to conform to canon, particularly.

Wait, I had a point. Ah, yes: especially given the "Dumbass!" of the first episodes, one can support more of those readings than is true with most characters, which makes me want to go back and watch it all again and pick it apart more and take notes (Really, my brain? This is what we're fixating on?)

I've been thinking, as well, that the line between "that which would be useful in the solving of crimes" and "useless knowledge" would be incredibly hard to pin down, even without centuries-old supernovae.

(a nice way of saying "poke your brain with a stick")

Feel free.

I have grabbed A Study in Scarlet to read but haven't read it yet. And I have the Downey Jr / Law dvd from Netflix but, um, haven't watched it yet. So it's still the only Sherlock I've experienced.

I love John in this series - he's so much better than most of them. I would have to reread to see if the Doctor Watson in the books is as bumbling as the filmed versions make him out to be. Of course, in the books he is telling the story - so he may consider himself to be bumbling in comparison with Holmes but that doesn't mean that anyone else should.

Watson is not bumbling in the books. He's not as smart as Holmes, but no one is.

A bumbling Watson is one of my pet peeves. Watson is the point of view of the intelligent reader; Holmes is brilliant in contrast.

The man was a warzone surgeon, such men aren't normally bumblers.

I agree. That's something that the recent movie (as well as House, if we're reading broadly) did really well, although I think the series' Watson may win at BAMF over all others. Apparently, we are anti-bumbling-sidekick, as a general ethos (looking at Doctor Who supports this generalization: they've consistently had the new companions and allies be competent. Well, as long as we don't look at Torchwood.)

Cass, what did you think of Moriarty? I assume that the name was familiar from the beginning, just from a general knowledge PoV, but, was he in the ballpark of what you expected, going in?

Moriarty's name was somehow familiar to me but I knew ~nothing~ going in and had no expectations.

His youth didn't bother me. It is the age of the geek and he stayed techno-based enough for that to work for me.

It was a little odd that he was nebulously evil and so fixated on his game with Sherlock but then Sherlock was pretty fixated on solving crimes for the police who treated him with mostly disdain. So it balanced. Accept one, accept the other.

I did like him playing with Sherlock in the lab scene in Great Game. He was evil, but I dug him.