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.)

In the show's defense, they have said that their concept for it was that these guys are about 20 years away from being the platonic ideal of Sherlock Holmes and John Watson. They're not done baking yet. Of course, I also think Sherlock is more of an Aspie than a sociopath, but I will admit that I am fundamentally an apologist for the show (albeit not a blind one).

I agree with you that Sherlock is not a sociopath. I'm not quite as sure about Aspie, but then again I don't know that much about Aspergers. I know one high functioning Aspergers patient who is *very* socially successful, very able to charm people and make lots of friends.

I do have a theory/fanficcy idea that Sherlock and Mycroft were deliberately raised to be thinking machines/sociopaths . Whoever was trying this (their mother?) came much closer with Mycroft, which is why he functions well in government. I'm not sure Mycroft is a true sociopath either. He seems to truly care for Sherlock. (Yes, I know gave him away to Moriarity, but perhaps did not expect him to ever get away to use the knowledge.) On the other hand he seems to have no problem with torture and secret labs that violate medical ethics - so he is not *that* far from true sociopath even if he is not quite that.