Sherlock Holmes isn't Who You Think He is 

Please considering exploring "Sap/Resin, Fungus, Cheering, Viruses, Lethal Dose(s), Phoenix Summoning, Dinosaur Summoning, and Implosions" as potential magic systems

Hope any holidays you celebrated was amazing

How about H. Beam Piper, please?

He's also a major deadpan snarker, with an equally snarky sense of humor.

He also showed that he cared about those downtrodden on numerous occasions.

And his jokes are good as well. When I first read the stories I was surprised I can laugh at a joke written over a hundred years ago.

@@Ed13207 I absolutely love how snarky he can get at times.

@@Ed13207 Do you remember any of them?

That's sort of Batman's attitude. He has no legal jurisdiction. He's not a cop nor licensed detective. Yet he commonly assaults criminals, attacks them in their homes (I mean, lairs) and tries to get them convicted. But, according to the law, criminals have a right to face their accusers...and I do mean face. In one memorable comic, one criminal had only the Batman as his accuser not a common citizen. According to the law, he demanded that Batman reveal who he was. The Batman of course refused and the criminal walked. If Sherlock Holmes was just such an armed thug, then I don't feel the admiration that you clearly do.

no offense, but aren't you just repeating what was already said in the video word for word? and top comment no less, that's how youtube works I guess

Fr such a fjn little scene and conversation. I love how sassy and witty Holmes is sometimes

I've read through all of Arthur Conan Doyle's Sherlock homes works several times, and I've never seen anything like someone asking Holmes for a search warrant. He never showed up until some cop asked him to, or sometimes a private citizen, so he was always invited in. Most of what this guy is saying is kind of not accurate.

@@Hollylivengood It is actually in the Disappearance of Lady Frances Carfax

agreeeeed

I think the common image that Sherlock Holmes is a sociopath and misogynist is due to the series with Benedict Cumberbatch. But when I read the book, I didn't see that much. Doctors shouldn't bond with patients, why should he do that with his customers? Why do people expected that? But despite that he was actually very understanding with his customers and gentlemanly. There are several examples where he is actually not indifferent of people's sufferings.

@@somekindofflower2024 Nah, that image came from earlier adaptations.

@@somekindofflower2024 "Misogynist"? Clearly you haven't seen the series with Benedict. There is nothing misogynistic in that series, however that's not true more or less for the original Conan Doyle Books. Arthur Lived in the 1800's so it's not that strange really if there are some misogynism in it. What is Strange is that you haven't seen the series, clearly Cumberbatch version is one of the best interpretations of Sherlocks story.

@@gustaf3811 it is _quite_ good, but it is impossible to transpose a character to the 21st century without having to rewrite them somewhat. Holmes in the Doyle books is somewhat eccentric and doesn't care much for high society's standards of social graces, but he's still a gentleman, someone who loathes criminals and comforts the weak and downtrodden. Cumberbatch on the other hand is just as much about the sport of the thing, the high of solving crimes, the puzzles, but for him that's written as almost his only drive. Watson is much more of a moral compass than an audience insert. Doyle's Sherlock is a showboat. As much as he talks about disliking the attention, he is very pleased with himself at almost every moment, whereas Cumberbatch's Sherlock is a bit more dour and annoyed. And, y'know, the whole show goes to shit in later seasons, with half the episodes feeling like drug trips and Benedict yelling a lot and all the side characters are Batman villains. Jim Moriarty is a joke, Mary Watson is a Charlie's Angels superspy, don't get me started on whatever the fuck "Eurus" was.

_which ones? 👀_

@@radioactivepower600nanaspersec obviously BBC's Sherlock

@@radioactivepower600nanaspersec I collect old time radio shows; the Holmes broadcasts with Basil Rathbone and Nigel Bruce probably come closest to how the characters were written with those by Jim French Productions coming in a close second

God this was my exact issue with That Series I'm glad im not the only one

@@shinobi-no-bueno ah... those, forgot that even existed

that's from the same scene that is quoted as the proof that he has a heart in this video

@@robertbutchko4275 That's what I get for listening to the video while doing other things. ...Let's just claim I was reinforcing the point. Yes,that will do, nicely.

@@justinweber4977 All good! It definitely adds to it!

Also in the Devil's Foot I believe when Holmes and Watson accidentally get a dose of the drug and almost die, Holmes tells Watson that he couldn't do the work they do without him and how important he is to him, or something to that effect.

@@Jim-Mc I forgot about that story. Also, the ever trotted out quote "I am lost without my Boswell." And calling Watsons marriage "The only selfish thing" he had ever done.

"We sat in silence for a moment. 'Well,' said Lestrade, 'I've seen you handle a good many cases, Mr Holmes, but I don't know that I ever knew a more workmanlike one than that. We're not jealous of you at Scotland Yard. No, sir, we are very proud of you, and if you come down to-morrow there's not a man, from the oldest inspector to the youngest constable, who wouldn't be glad to shake you by the hand.' 'Thank you!' said Holmes. 'Thank you!' and as he turned away it seemed to me that he was more nearly moved by the softer human emotions than I have ever seen him." (The Adventure of the Six Napoleons) In the original story manuscript it had Lestrade say "We are damned proud of you," But the ridiculously prudish editors of the Strand Magazine replaced "damned" with "very."

@@cha5 exactly this was what I was trying to quote but I forgot. Thank you, bro !

Moriarty actually is a character; he actually does appear in two stories; In the short story "The Adventure of the Final Problem", during a fight with Holmes above the Reichenbach Falls, Moriarty fell to his death. Moriarty also appears in The Valley of Fear

@@farpointgamingdirect also recommend watching a very old movie call young Sherlock. If tell you more about where Moriarty does up but better to let you deduce it.

@@farpointgamingdirect I meant that I don't remember him actually appearing in person before Watson, the narrator. Thanks for correcting me.

@@demonheart13 Young Sherlock Holmes isn’t a Doyle story. It was written for the movie. Moriarty’s origin from that film, has nothing to do with the actual character. Holmes didn’t come across him many times, and there were no stories about Holmes as a teenager, or college student.

i recommend watching a series named "moriarity the patroit" in which the protagonist is Moriarity himself which helps in batter understanding the character and intentons of Moriarty....

Not to mention that Jude Law was a great fit as Watson.

Yes absolutely!

I wish they'd make another of those, now that he's not tin-head any more. Also he's older, so they could set it in WW1 and have the "east wind" speech. Speaking of which, anybody seen that movie where he's really old in the late 1940's? Kept having flashbacks to post-bomb Hiroshima for ome reason.

@@worldcomicsreview354 I remember hearing that the problem is they don't have a script they're satisfied with.

RDJ was an AWFUL Holmes! Jeremy Brett nailed it, and no one will ever better him.

While he does have a heart, he started his business partly for the mental stimulation and largely for the praise of those whose intelligence he respects.

While it's not to say that Holmes doesn't care about justice or what's right, it's established that he primarily does it for the mental stimulation that comes with solving a case, as shown by how in The Sign a Four, he does cocaine to recapture some of that stimulation when he doesn't currently have a case.

Various times in the books Sherlock plays the violin simply for Watson

Yep. I do think modern adaptations are doing better at reexamining Watson and bringing back his competence. Someone apparently read the first story and went "Wait a minute, a DOCTOR who went to live with Holmes because he just got out of the ARMY after being WOUNDED IN ACTION?" Yeah, Holmes is considered to have the bigger brain, but Watson complements him with his own skills, and learns Holmes' methods pretty quickly, even if Holmes is usually able to pick up one or two things Watson misses.

The dry humor is often left out of adaptations and popular conception. But I've laughed out loud plenty of times reading Holmes.

@@wordforger Oki i

That’s so true, and I think this is what the movies with Robert Downey Jr. got right. Watson didn’t feel like an idiotic buffoon or like Sherlock’s own personal cheerleader that kisses up to him. They made sure to capture Watson’s independence/individuality, his skills as a doctor, and his ability to learn how to deduce like Holmes. He also doesn’t just put up with Sherlock’s BS, he confronts him when Sherlock has done something wrong, yet he still shows that he cares for Holmes’ well-being. Watson challenges him in the sort of brotherly “iron sharpens iron” sort of way. Meanwhile from what I recall from the BBC version, I don’t really get same vibe from their friendship. Not saying the show was all bad, it was actually really well done, but when it comes to that relationship between Sherlock and Watson, honestly it felt the actors were reverting back to their old roles as Doctor Strange and the Hobbit. 🤷🏽‍♀️

Oh yea I remember I heard abt this a few years ago!

Exactly. I went to watch the Wordsmiths' Artur Conan Doyle video on Nebula, as I was eager to see how they dealt with his idiosyncrasies, but was quite disapointed by the realization they chose to completely ignore his penchant for believing in the "supernatural". Maybe they thought it would taint the narrative of Doyle as a "real" Sherlock Holmes they seemed to want to so much to paint - but in my view aside from being disingenuous, the video ended up missing the opportunity to teach people a lesson: that no matter how smart and cultured we are, we'll be always subject to the same cognitive traps as the least endowed in that regard - and actually, in some sense, the more we know, the more we may find ways to rationalize fundamentaly wrong beliefs acquired from our prejudices and limited perspectives as the truth - paraphrasing the psychologist Michael Shermer. A shame, really. Cheers!

You can’t go two chapters into a Steven King book without him bringing that up

That is a very simplified version-Doyle was in mourning for a child. He based Holmes on a doctor he learned from in med school-who he admired. He became good friends with Houdini-they corresponded often. But he refused to give up hope for his lost loved ones. We really need to remember that a writer’s characters are not the writer.♥️✌️

Exactly!

Yeah, and beating a dead corpse with a stick just to see what happened was probably acceptable back then when even many children lived in horrible conditions with many being child labourers with no health benefits.

@@SSchithFoo beating a living corpse would have been worse, I´m sure.

I had a career as a monoclonal-antibody guy, and I loved thinking that the reagent to detect hemoglobin could have been an antibody or a mixture of antibodies, as found in the blood of an immunized or vaccinated animal. (More likely Holmes' reagent was interacting with the iron atoms in hemoglobin, but it COULD HAVE BEEN serum from an animal immunized with human hemoglobin.) One of the reasons Holmes was so popular was surely that he represented scientific optimism, the feeling of great hope that we were about to solve all of mankind's problems with new science. WW1 pretty much killed that hope, but it was great while it lasted.

Holmes also claims to read Watsons work and says he completely misrepresented what happened almost every time. Yet he constantly tells clients how much faith he has in Watson

@@lukesmith1818his main problem is that Watson tells the story while Holmes wants a series of textbooks

Same here.

Most Sherlock adaptations are terrible. And I believe the reason is pretty obvious: most modern whodunnits are equaly terrible. The thing with a good whodunnit is, you REALLY don't want the detectives to have much presence. Sure you need them to have personality, else they will be generic, but the more you tell us of them, the less time you have to focus on the mistery. And while some, namely Poirot, have a few more flaws and excentric bits to them, Sherlock was very much firmly the whodunnit stereotype, which should be obvious because he kinda was the character that popularized the genre to begin with. Modern writers are obsessed with having flawed characters, the dumb "believable" cliche. And don't get me wrong I enjoy characters being flawed, usually, but Sherlock didn't have any real notable flaws. He was a bit of a gary stu if you will. And that was equally good for his case, because he didn't matter to the story for the most part, he was just the vehicle for info to reach us so we could speculate and at the end of the book the arbiter that told us what our conclusions should have been. So of course we only really learned about his skills for the most part, because those are relevant to the tale, they tell us what info he can give us. I think the books go a bit too far in glorifying him at times, but that also gives us info on the cases, what other characters know about him informs us what actions they take because of that knowledge, which fuels our speculation, which is what matters in the end. But modern writers don't know how to cope with that. They want every series to be game of thrones, every character to be "deep and compelling", hell modern whodunnits often spend half their time talking about stuff outside the case itself. Sherlock is incompatible with modern writing trends. He is literally too good for their sinful worlds. So they add flaws to him based on what few stereotypes they can gather from a surface level reading. He is too perceptive? Then he has ADHD. Too good at what he does? Must be OCD. Too good at remaining impartial? Must be a sociopath. No way he's just good at his job. It's not like detectives train for that sort of thing or anything. He must have deep dark secrets. Because if not then he's boring. And god forbid our main character isn't the focus of their story.

Same, even the Dracula and lovegrove ones

@@thespanishinquisition4078 I disagree. He has many flaws and a number of them were elaborated here. Watson is highly concerned that cochise use will eventually destroy Holmes, the police and politicians have a rocky relationship with him, his landlady has issues with him, Holmes becomes depressed if not working a case or uncovering something that catches his interest, and often his clients find him to be off putting and deeply offensive, and sometimes he actually means to be. Holmes also has some issues regarding personal space, as is displayed after Watson marries and moves out. Further, Holmes can be seen to make mistakes, offend people deeply if unintentionally, make bad decisions or become frustrated if clues are not either forthcoming or lead in too many directions. He almost always gets his man, but Watson is the one who generally has to keep Holmes' clients pacified, a trait that Holmes actually comes to appreciate and later miss. I do agree that he is different from much of our modern fiction. He is realistic and approachable in his humanity. He is exasperating, enlightening, frustrating, maddening, and amusing. He has a great intellect, but he is merciless to men who mistreat women, admires and seeks the approval of his elder brother and Watson, and occasionally become fascinated by an "extra" such as the rose. Further, he develops something of a crush on Irene Adler after she bests him in the matter of the Bohemian prince. By comparison, many of our modern authors tack interchangeable characters to replaceable backdrops without giving any care to personality, setting, or flavor. Everything is according to a plodding methodical plot that generally develops around predictable points just as a soulless automaton, and many protagonists are Marys and Garys with only eventual villains hating main character.

Even the BBC version seemed to care about people at the end

As of this January 1st, the estate will no longer have grounds to say that. The remainder of the Holmes stories enter the public domain in 2023.

@@Zephyr_Zeitgeist Yeah. It was the last kick at the can for the Doyle estate.

@@DavidJoh It's so petty.

@@Zephyr_Zeitgeist fantastic to know this. Perhaps we’ll see some revival in interest in Holmes and his world as he fully enters PD.

@@Matthew-kg8nl pretty sure pd will only destroy his universe. I don't see how old does anything but make the family less money.

I also thought like that about Holmes. Well,my theory was that he used to be a nice person in his youth,who could be regarded as too intelligent for his age and time and was bullied by his peers,who had powerful criminal connections.So,to get back at them, Holmes began to use his talents for crime fighting purposes.

Try reading "The 7 Percent Solution".

The latter ones are probably neurodivergent lol

Pls do not call it "Asperger's". Just say autism. For the love of gods, just say autism. I hate the word "Asperger's" so much. It implies that there are the "weird and unfunctional autistic people" and the "better and superior people with Asperger's" which is just wrong, false, and further deepens the hate that autism and autistic people get, stereotyping us as some sick people who can't be functional members of society. (Not to mention the doctor's, Hans Asperger's involvement with Nazi Germany....)

Funny Thing is iam Asperger and hyperempathic. ITS more complicated, Like i feel but with the braun,Not the heart

Same! I have autism and ADHD, and Sherlock has always been one of the most relatable characters I've come across!

Another neurodivergent person seconding this, lol, we stan an AUdhd king with depressive symptoms

This empathetic part and aspect of Sherlock Holmes was protected by copyright for a long time, it only ended in 2023 when the rest of the copyright expired.

For the author of the most intelligent detective in fiction, he was sure a bit dumb

If I recall, Doyle started to actively believe in spiritual beings and afterlife after his son and his brother passwed away. He went into depression and I guess this belief helped him to cope with it.

Well, why not? We stick a toorh under our pillows for one to this day, after all

Hey, it's not the only crazy thing people believed back then...

They're real and will probably ruin your life and you'll go, ah, just some bad luck. Just a coincidence. Not you personally, I mean. But considering you don't believe you're likely to trip over one not looking.

@I Exactly! Trying to modernize Holmes story-by-story all too often leads to convoluted messes. To instead focus on integrating the most significant elements of the series into today's standards of serial storytelling was utter brilliance. Especially because some of those elements (especially those which make the mysteries engaging) elevate it as a crime drama. Most of the series aired while I was in high school, so I usually watched it with my parents. We all have different areas of specific knowledge (e.g. my mom knows psychology and anatomy, my dad knows a lot about transit systems and show business, I know absurd amounts about animals, and so on.) and we would often speculate during commercial breaks about details we noticed, and more often than not, the details were correct and addressed in realistic ways. An equally impressive contrast to many other crime dramas is how there will be named speaking roles that end up being red herrings. So many shows of this nature telegraph the solution to their case preemptively because they don't want to higher rates for more side characters than are absolutely necessary so it's very obvious who's actually involved. (And because I don't get enough opportunities to talk about how fantastic the show is allow me to shout some general praises into the internet void: NYC's population actually looks like NYC's population! A male and female lead have a deep and dynamic interpersonal relationship that's explored thoroughly and not forced to have romantic tension! The show includes long-term consequences of the characters' actions! The intro has a sweet Rube-Goldberg machine! There's a turtle!)

The most amazing thing is that the show always had Holmes talk about how he deduces stuff and he often seeks experts to add on to his knowledge and to help out on cases whereas the series Sherlock basically gave up after season 2 (a huge clue that the writers wrote themselves into a corner was the fact that they couldn't explain how Sherlock faked his own death) and then seasons 3 and 4 basically went full tilt on "Sherlock is magic". It was sad how fast that show devolved out of its potential (considering they had years between the seasons and only 3 episodes per season, the writers had ample time to come up with deduction explanations but weirdly didn't). Uh, I'm rambling. Basically Elementary was a great show that didn't lose its quality throughout its run whereas Sherlock had a great start but unfortunately floundered after series 2.

I see a bit too many flaws on it to actually call it a good adaptation, but I do think they put more effort in understanding who the characters truly were than the acclaimed BBC series

Herlock Sholmes is one of my favourite interpretations of the character

@@ultimate9056 Charles Hamilton? I've only read a couple, but they're good fun, so many quick-fire gags

Yes. His readings are brilliant

Herlock Sholmes and Wilson were also parody characters of Holmes and Watson who appeared in stories starring Arsene Lupin. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ars%C3%A8ne_Lupin_versus_Herlock_Sholmes

and then you learn he’s not actually stupid, he was intentionally misleading the protagonist to help him form his own deductive reasoning skills. i love sholmes so much

As far as abductive adaptations go, you could definitely do worse. To tell the veiwer that everything he says out loud is wrong, and that the stories in real life are published works in the game, and that THOSE are innaccurate was a bold move. Even still, he's eccentric, perfomative, forgetful and egotistical, yet amicable, wise, and most importantly, kind in his own way. When you first meet him, he seems like an ass who's absolutely lacking in empathy. Laughing off and forgetting that he implicated someone of murder, but as the case progresses, he seems much more keen in helping them find the truth own their own, his initial lack of empathy coming across more as his usual eccentricity. Later in the story, he gives advice on how he deals with being wrong, and what he chooses to believe in. He's kind and polite for the most part, offering to take our protagonists for dinner, and never skips and opportunity to laugh at the absurd, even if the absurdity comes from his own lips. And later flips back into laughing in a man's face for getting him to admit he did the wrong thing. Going through bouts of mainia and lethargy, playing his violin at strange hours, his messy habits. all his iconic features are there. So despite the game blatantly throwing out any semblance of Sholme's actaul lore in the books, it remains faithful in the strangest ways, down to his 7% solution of... caramel. (holograms notwithstanding)

We need this!

Moriarty?

That's the reason Moriarty was created though

Admiral Thrawn from Star Wars?

Col Landa from Inglorious Basterds came close.

Bravo! Glad to know another reader caught that.

In that story he also says something like if the roles were reversed between him and the murderer, he might've done the same.

I’m free falling down into your channel and fortunately the bottom is still far far away

This was what also cemented him in my mind. I bought it recently and it's honestly a better adaptation than most of these terrible shows for adults. You can at least justify changes with the fact it's for kids, it's sci-fi, and takes place almost 400 years later.

You reawoke something that I haven't thought about in nearly 20 years.

@@joshuabevins8244 There's a RU-vid Playlist with all the episodes. 😉

The guy apparently also had a real life superpower which Holmes also possessed: Telescopic Vision. Basically, in a time when professional medical examination was at its earlier stages, Dr. Bell could tell just how sick you were and deduce what sickness it was just by looking at you.

@@ellugerdelacruz2555 hell, i can do that! You only need to know biology and environment, including diet. It's literally no different than a car mechanic. They know every square inch, bolt and weld in a car. They know what to expect when one thing does or does not do something.

I also heard that some people think that guy might have been autistic, which I actually am.

@@Hy-Brasil Joseph Bell did that but from his office desk. Again, Telescopic Vision.

His anniversary was 2nd december!

me too

Why is that?

@@claudius3359 because if what he said were true, he wouldn't be helping catch criminals. Certainly not for free and without credit

@@Karuten626 Ah I see,good point!

Isn't that what stoicism is?

Not really, but a part of it.... Kinda. Stoicism is also minimalistic and abstaining from luxury, way more divorced from excessive emotional response, and a that which you can't control isn't worth worrying about mindset. I'm not against strong emotional responses, as long as you can justify it rationally.

Was looking for this comment completely agree that he seems to show many signs of autism as someone who has hyperfixated on autism and done a lot of research on it

I always got it from him. I confused that that isn't what just the most common take given how obvious the author made it. (By the I am too so I'm not just making shit up I actually know what it is)

@@kylienielsen6975 Well, given at the time of _Sir Arthur Conan Doyle_ people didn't know what Aʉtɨsm was, I can see people not getting it. But given that Holmes was based on a real person _Doyle_ knew, we see through Holmes, that clearly that person was, to a modern person, Aʉtɨstic.....

Agreed. Detective work is his special interest, which is why it’s so all-consuming for him. His struggles with organization and with conforming to the social conventions of the time also fit with the idea he might be Autistic. Autistic people are also disproportionately likely to become addicted to drugs due to the hardships many Autistic people experience in their lives. Arthur Conan Doyle could not have known what Autism is, but I think he accidentally created an Autistic character. I suspect part of the reason Holmes always wants other characters to see him as merely a brain is because his brain is exceptional, while he struggles in all other areas. He doesn’t want to make himself vulnerable to the manipulation or negative judgment of others. Watson, however, he can trust, because Watson is his friend. Watson loves Holmes, the person, and Holmes loves him back.

His brother is autistic, "Mycroft has his rails and he runs on them."

12:22 spoilers for disco: kim leaning over harry, oof

it seems kim and harry split aspects of sherlock and watson in a different combination. kim is more stoic, calculated. harry is a machine, can tell with his eyes how many people walked a path in a flurry of footprints, even that one had a slight limp. kim has his few passions and rebellious side, speeding and listening to intense music while doing so, a dream to become a pilot.

Specifically if you're running an intelligence build, with Composer leveled very high. ( also we should pick up "Regular law official" to throw points into "Physical Attunement" and "Suggestion" )

100%

Idk this character, but BBC Sherlock is terrible. They go for the generic idea of Sherlock people who never read the books have rather than the actual character. Big disappointment

Typical Aspie if ever there were one

As an autist, I can say he definitely would.

Well... yeah. Pretty sure the majority of gifted people are neurodivergent.

@@johnathanmonsen6567 they built different

​@@johnathanmonsen6567 as a former gifted kid, can confirm

Its happened you just enlightened my perception about MYSELF. This is ridiculous 😀. Also im not a master in English, i can barely express myself but the facts you explained here.... Im 40. Im struggling for years about things i cant explain. The "lack of" empathy... But under the mask im hypersensitive as s*t, the brutal honesty, sometimes "robotic" behavior, obsession, overthinking, everything most be logical... Wow. I must sleep to this revelation. Huh

@@texxstalker That's awesome! It's never too late to discover things about yourself. I'd recommend you conduct further research; you can really understand your mind so much better with more information on ASD and related disorders! (Stray away from Autism Speaks, however-they are NOT who you want to learn from unless you want nothing but misinformation lmao)

absolutely 100%. I find it annoying when people act like there's something fundamentally wrong and inhuman with the character. There's nothing to 'fix' here. His affect is different but he very clearly cares about things. Although I don't think one can truly diagnose a fictional character I think autism is a very fair comparison (in terms of how there is a distance between how the narration views and tries to explain his actions through a normative 'neurotypical' perspective, and his actual behaviour) and it's one I personally relate to as well. And also with you on the asexuality read, although you can of course argue many ways for that one. I think it impacted me a lot growing up as an ace person too.

from my knowledge, that title is quite recent,not from Doyle

Is really a sociapath? Nowadays people tend give that label to anyone that looks like an asshole.

"High-functioning Sociopath" is from the contemporary show. Within the confines of the books, his temperament is far more nebulous, and such an unjust epithet is never ascribed to the man.

I read him as autistic. But he does seem antissocial to a degree

Fun fact. His name comes from the Arsène Lupin book series. Where his maker Maurice Leblanc tried to use the original character and nearly got sued because of it. So he went back just shifted some letters around and now boom you got that thing.

I kinda interpret Sholmes as"What if (original) Holmes' facade was his emotional side instead of his intelectual one" furthermore it think this is likely a change that ocurred in raising Iris, since in the artbook extras it implies that he was a lot colder 16 years pre-canon.

What a man (or women or anything else) of great taste ! It is quite rare to find someone who likes this universe !

@@francois-marienys4471 (man) And thank you! I actually see Derek Landy everytime he does a tour. One of the perks of living in Ireland!

Probably.

I think he actually meant that Sherlock is the product of Doyle, the creative mind behind the figure.

Most people agree with you, but I think Brett dreadfully over acted in this role--very ham-fisted.

The thriller Eric Ambler was the first to successfully produce spy-novels and international-crime-novels about ordinary people, non-supermen, without super-gadgets or big-budget government backing, getting into trouble over their heads. It seems so obvious an innovation now, but before Ambler, detectives were almost always supermen like Holmes or James Bond (although Bond himself didn't get created until later). Other masters of the thriller-genre all acknowledged this: John LeCarre, Alan Furst, Graham Greene, and even Alfred Hitchcock called Eric Ambler the source.