![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
A while ago I posted some incidental thoughts on the so transparent as to be insulting yet perversely fulfilling BBC Sherlock. Today, Amy posted thoughts on the first episode which closely mirror my own. The only things I have to say in response are way too long for Tumblr's reply feature, so here we go with some more thoughts which I've been meaning to write...
What happens to crime fiction when there is no crime fiction genre?
I watch a lot of murder mysteries, and read significantly less (I don't have the patience for them in novel form), but I grew up on Nancy Drew and Encyclopedia Brown, and I've read a large chunk of Doyle's Sherlock stories. I've been watching Law & Orders and CSIs and Masterpiece Mystery!s and Castles for so long that they are pure brain candy: effortless, comforting, predictable; not mysteries. In Law & Order, it's always the actor that you recognize—the best parts get given to the bad guys. In Castle, it's always the second suspect/plot twist who gets put aside with the introduction of third, red herring suspect/plot twist. You can't solve them by watching intelligently, predictively—there are no clues to spot if only you pay attention. There are plot twists, new information, and then a confession.
But even on a bad actor-recognition day, you can figure out whodunnit—not because you can point to the dog that didn't bark, that one giveaway detail; not because you can follow the chain of reasoning and turn up a villain. You know just because you know, because you've seen a hundred mysteries and it's always the butler that did it.
That's Doyle's Sherlock. Not that there were no murder mysteries before him, but Sherlock is responsible for the formation of the genre as genre and whether or not you've read the source material, you've familiar with its impact, which is to say its tropes: key clues, interesting plot twists, creative and deductive investigator, big reveal, public confession. You're so familiar with them that you don't even need them: deduction is implied, now arrest the butler.
BBC's Sherlock is a lot of things, but clever crime fiction it is not. It talks pretty and unlike most crime fiction it does actually have some literal clues and logical deductions; you can solve it, if you want. But you don't need to—at least you don't actively need to, because you know the tropes so well that it's obviously the [cab driver] and well that was a short ... show ... wait why are they not arresting the [cab driver], why are the inspecting his [fare], how stupid is this Sherlock dude, has he not encountered his own damn canon?
And this is what gets me. How can you retell Sherlock in a world without Sherlock? Every underlying trope of the genre gets taken away, but the viewer remains innately aware of it. BBC's Sherlock is left to reinvent the wheel, to use deduction to follow clues to formulate rules that the viewer already knows, and the result is, as a murder mystery, pretty lackluster. The genre is full of lackluster, trite brain candy, but BBC Sherlock is labeled Sherlock and wraps itself up in the pretty bows of CG on-screen deduction and brilliant characterization: what would be an acceptable weakness anywhere else feels here like the viewer is smarter than the most brilliant man on earth.
I haven't watched the second season, but plan to. No spoilers for it, please.
What happens to crime fiction when there is no crime fiction genre?
I watch a lot of murder mysteries, and read significantly less (I don't have the patience for them in novel form), but I grew up on Nancy Drew and Encyclopedia Brown, and I've read a large chunk of Doyle's Sherlock stories. I've been watching Law & Orders and CSIs and Masterpiece Mystery!s and Castles for so long that they are pure brain candy: effortless, comforting, predictable; not mysteries. In Law & Order, it's always the actor that you recognize—the best parts get given to the bad guys. In Castle, it's always the second suspect/plot twist who gets put aside with the introduction of third, red herring suspect/plot twist. You can't solve them by watching intelligently, predictively—there are no clues to spot if only you pay attention. There are plot twists, new information, and then a confession.
But even on a bad actor-recognition day, you can figure out whodunnit—not because you can point to the dog that didn't bark, that one giveaway detail; not because you can follow the chain of reasoning and turn up a villain. You know just because you know, because you've seen a hundred mysteries and it's always the butler that did it.
That's Doyle's Sherlock. Not that there were no murder mysteries before him, but Sherlock is responsible for the formation of the genre as genre and whether or not you've read the source material, you've familiar with its impact, which is to say its tropes: key clues, interesting plot twists, creative and deductive investigator, big reveal, public confession. You're so familiar with them that you don't even need them: deduction is implied, now arrest the butler.
BBC's Sherlock is a lot of things, but clever crime fiction it is not. It talks pretty and unlike most crime fiction it does actually have some literal clues and logical deductions; you can solve it, if you want. But you don't need to—at least you don't actively need to, because you know the tropes so well that it's obviously the [cab driver] and well that was a short ... show ... wait why are they not arresting the [cab driver], why are the inspecting his [fare], how stupid is this Sherlock dude, has he not encountered his own damn canon?
And this is what gets me. How can you retell Sherlock in a world without Sherlock? Every underlying trope of the genre gets taken away, but the viewer remains innately aware of it. BBC's Sherlock is left to reinvent the wheel, to use deduction to follow clues to formulate rules that the viewer already knows, and the result is, as a murder mystery, pretty lackluster. The genre is full of lackluster, trite brain candy, but BBC Sherlock is labeled Sherlock and wraps itself up in the pretty bows of CG on-screen deduction and brilliant characterization: what would be an acceptable weakness anywhere else feels here like the viewer is smarter than the most brilliant man on earth.
I haven't watched the second season, but plan to. No spoilers for it, please.
