Then why is he so stumped by what it is? It is the hat you wore the last time, then. Was it an ear hat then? Did you throw it at anyone? Could you work out back from front?
I watched the finale again and...well, the whole series is a very deliberate conceit. How do you write a character that is much more brilliant than you are? Use a series of coincidences, and strictly control the environment to get the answers he needs. I find it a bit clumsy, and don't dig the Sherlock the master consulting detective all that much. I think both their faces are well suited for the role. Martin is very everyman, but he can turn on the military with a snap of the heels. And Benedict looks suitably haughty, with the catlike shape of his eyes and ridic cheekbones. And they do well at acting both very emotional and also stiff upper lip.
I am not surprised the shippers are going crazy. They clearly complement each other in a way that makes the predisposed want to...well, it's a profound bond, isn't it? So very.
I'm not interested in the way my dash seems to be (really not in love with Moriarty or MorMor (could there be a MorMorMol? Hmmm....) very much--he's not a bad guy I can sink my teeth into.
He was only wearing the deerstalker when the picture got snapped because he'd plucked it off a hatrack as an impromptu disguise (they were passing through a wardrobe room for some reason? Something like that) but that picture became his public image. I can see being annoyed.
I find the fascination with Moran, who has never appeared on the show at all, trying in the extreme.
-t is me on the hat.
ita !, do you have the same problem with the original Doyle stories? It seems like it's inherent in the concept.
do you have the same problem with the original Doyle stories?
I don't find ACD as coy as Moffat and Gatiss. All of them are playing to their audience, to string them along in specific ways, but the harping on the woobie unclear-sexual cake and eating it too makes me roll my eyes much more.
I find the fascination with Moran, who has never appeared on the show at all, trying in the extreme.
AND ALL THE FANART.
I don't find ACD as coy as Moffat and Gatiss.
It may also be of use that Conan Doyle was probably much nearer Holmes' intellectual equal than Moffat & Co. are to their Sherlock.
How dare you cast aspersions on fandom's loves!
Just caught a rebroadcast of Sherlock. Unfortunately sound went out for first 11 minutes. I gather that opening goes:
1) Flashback: little boy sees father killed by enormous hound.
2) Grownup version tells story to Sherlock and Watson. Snarky banter with grownup(Henry) as straight man
3) Sound comes up and short version is Henry thought he had imagined it all until he saw houndprints. Sherlock enjoys second hand smoke and takes case because of use of word "Hound".
Did I miss anything important in opening? Maybe some good banter or a bit of Sherlock's past or John's past.
How dare you cast aspersions on fandom's loves!
I strew nasturtiums on impulse.
It seems to me that the original Holmes was not quite so rarified in the brainbox as Sherlock. And Conan Doyle possessed at least some of the skills that he used, having picked them up from a professor in med school. Holmes was more of a Raj or Leonard; Sherlock is a Sheldon.
Conan Doyle led a campaign to free an Indian immigrant who had been falsely accused of murder, exposing prejudiced and highly incompetent police work. Also, at least if you believe Watson, Holmes had a kind heart which he showed on occasion in spite of trying to conceal it - a kindness that he sometimes bestowed upon stranger, and not only on a few exceptional friends. Also on one or two occasions Holmes showed real horror at the crimes he exposed. Holmes may not have been neurotypical, but it would be hard to argue he was a sociopath either. (Not impossible, but any such argument would have to lean on Watson as being fooled by Holmes which of course he canonically was on occasion.)
