Book Review: "The Adventure of the Speckled Band" (Doyle, 1892)

-->

“On glancing over my notes of the seventy odd cases in which I have during the last eight years studied the methods of my friend Sherlock Holmes, I find many tragic, some comic, a large number merely strange, but none commonplace…”

--Dr. John Watson, “The Adventure of the Speckled Band”

Leigh: Case of the Speckled BLAND, amirite? No, but I love this story. If I had to pick one of the short form ACD stories to be the definitive Sherlock Holmes adventure, this one would be it, I think. It has the complex mystery that the longer stories have but in a much more compact story. We get the background of the situation without having to sit through too much excess information and we still have a grasp on what's going on. We don't learn about the doctor's time in India more than he was there and then left, because we don't need it. We don't need to know why he killed someone, just that he did. I think this might be the best-written short form Sherlock Holmes adventure. ACD was really on form for this one.

But of course I have some questions and critiques. I wish there was a class that I could take called "Inheritance and allowances in Victorian era England" because everything I've learned about how much money people are allowed each year is from Sherlock Holmes novels and Downton Abbey. One might say that it is incomplete. I don't understand where the allowance comes from. I understand that their mother left it to them but where is it right now? Why can't they get all of it at once? Why does their money fluctuate with the market? If anyone can answer these questions for me, you get internet points. 

What's an allowance?

We have had a similar story to this one before. Not with the deadly snake or anything, but with the stepfather trying to con his stepdaughter out of money. The first was an actual con and this one was murder. What has changed so much in the past ~125 years to make mysteries less about just killing someone out of passion and killing them because of money? There are a lot of TV crime dramas that center around someone killing someone over their fortune but more often than not, it's for some other deranged reason. What has changed? Has the focus of the public/media changed or have the criminals changed? 

I feel like a four year old today, asking every question ever but my inquiring mind wants to know. 

So, Austin, why?

Austin: What? No I don't know anything about Victorian allowance systems. Even the allure of internet points isn't going to make me research that topic. I'll just wait until you have half a Woodchuck and you investigate it yourself.

Anywho, this story is so awesome. It's essentially a locked room mystery filled with insanity. What I loved about rereading this one is finding all of the humor in the story. The story begins with Holmes appearing at the end of Watson's bed while he was asleep. There's a great little bit with Holmes saying the only way to solve the case is for him and Watson to be in her room that night. She is a bit startled that he just proposed a rather indecent payment for the case. Then of course you have the constant reminder that the house contains a cheetah and a baboon.

It's wonderfully absurd. The story basically relies on it being absurd. If the original girl would just scream "Snake!" this whole thing would be over, but instead she screamed "Band!". All of this fits in a story where you have a criminal who would think of a plan like this to sneak a snake through a ventilator. Such a thing would be impossible to solve because it's insane. That's why this is my favorite Sherlock Holmes because he doesn't judge the insanity, only looks at the facts.

Oh shit! A band!

In fact, he basically solved it before he even got to the house in a wonderful bit of bragging at the end.

As for your pondering on the motive, I think you still see plenty of examples of both. Usually if something is this calculated and involving rare snakes, you have a better reason than hating the person. The amount of planning will last longer than the initial emotion of anger. Crimes of passion can happen so easily because we live in a world where anything can kill someone. Mysteries need a satisfying resolution due to their puzzle structure. Audiences will probably be unsatisfied with "I hated that guy" as a reason for the murder. Needs backstory and motive and blah blah blah. What it really needs is more swamp addlers.

Enough of your questionings over nitpicks. What makes this one of the best stories ever?

Leigh: I'm only nitpicky because I love it so much, like an overprotective mother.

For me, the best part of this whole story is when Holmes says that he was wrong and that he didn't come to the right conclusion in the first place. It's not often that the infallible man admits he was wrong. This whole story was another glimpse into the character of Sherlock Holmes that just adds more to the complex character that he is. Instead of being the usual cold person that he is, when the living twin is visibly upset, he is soothing and tries not to put her on edge any more than she already is. He tells her to get closer to the fire to get warmer, he gives her a good "there there" pat on the arm, and instead of showing off and patronizing her, he calmly explains how he figured out how she got there. He usually isn't this comforting towards women and often thinks that their bouts of emotion are silly but here he is different and kinder. Why is that, I don't know but I'll allow it.

We see how Holmes reacts to threats, no matter how serious they might be. Holmes does this by simply ignoring any threatening motions that the evil doctor presented by talking about the weather and flowers. This guy has killed people and at that point, was planning on doing it again and yet Holmes just sits calmly talking about crocuses. And then to show the audience that he can hold his own in any fight, he unbends an iron poker. I don't know if you've tried to bend an iron poker, but it's not easy. 

And finally, we see that Holmes has a different set of morals that he adheres to than the rest of us. If I had unintentionally caused someone's death, I would feel terrible and probably require years of therapy, even if the person I killed was a grade A jerk. Yet here, Holmes shows no remorse at all. He basically said, "Yeah, I killed that guy. What of it? You wanna fight about it?" He doesn't tell the coroner or the police what he did and doesn't feel the need to. He's alright with the country thinking that this guy died because he was playing with a dangerous snake. By the way, I'm all for exotic and interesting animals as pets but a cheetah, a baboon and a deadly snake all in one house? Wouldn't the police or something get involved? Or the RSPCA or something? Or were exotic animal laws different then than now? Someone should just make me a course on Victorian Era laws and how they differ from our modern ones. More internet points for anyone who does and even a pretend cookie!

Austin: This is the real character showcase for Holmes. It's all we love about him wrapped up in this story. Emotional, aloof, bizarre, bragging, imperfect, and a bit violent. Watson isn't overshadowed by any of this oddly enough. This is where he plays the role as the biographer very well. All of his questions and ponderings are never belittling because the story is so mysterious. This is one of the best paced Doyle stories where even with long monologues of information.

Perhaps it's because I have to run out the door to head to Chicago, but I think we've covered it. Of course on the drive I'll think of all the things more I wanted to say. 

The Spectacled Band

Instead, I'll plug what we're going to talk about soon. On Friday we'll finally tackle one of the billion adaptations of “The Hound of the Baskervilles". First up will be the 1959 version starring Peter Cushing (best known for his small part in Star Wars and playing "Dr. Who" in a couple of bad Dalek films.) This is available on Netflix Instant.

Next week we'll be covering the next Doyle story as usual. Then on Friday we'll be reviewing something I am very excited about. When Tom Baker was the star of Doctor Who in the 70s, there was a glorious golden period of the show when the writing and the style was top notch. In one beloved story, The Doctor changed his wardrobe and took on a Sherlockian case. So we'll be reviewing that awesome story called...."The Talons of Weng-Chiang"

Get excited.

And here's Leigh Montano with the final word.

Leigh: Why'sitalwayshavetobesnakes?

In-Class Movie: "Without a Clue" (1988)

“I have no doubt that I am very stupid, but I must confess that I am unable to follow you.”

Dr. John Watson, “The Adventure of the Blue Carbuncle”

Austin: When this movie started I had a blast because it was everything we were talking about in our blog. Holmes complains how it should be less about the mystery and more about the character. There are plenty of jokes about all the duo, the Strand and it even has its own ridiculous way to pronounce Lestrade. 

Without a Clue has an awesome concept for a movie. In Victorian times, there really is a Sherlock Holmes and Dr. John Watson solving crimes in London. The truth is that Watson (Ben Kingsley) is the true genius but he didn't want to discredit his doctor standing so in all of his stories he made up a character who made of all his deductions. The fame of Sherlock Holmes spiraled so he had to hire an out of work actor (Michael Caine) to play Sherlock on all of the cases while Watson continues to secretly solve all of them.

"As you can see here, this is a pipe."

It's a very fun premise and the two actors have a blast lying and yelling at each other. It becomes even more meta because since Watson is the author of the stories, he starts to have parallels to Arthur Conan Doyle in how he wants to kill off Sherlock because that's all people know him for.

Everything setting up the premise is a blast but then once the mystery starts, it is as if they ran out of cleverness. It becomes every other mystery that isn't handled with the most attention. All of the fun picks up again when the plot is able to be thrown out again and it can just be Holmes/Watson up against the bad guy. 

This is my second time watching this movie so I could be a little bit more judgmental towards the middle. What did you think? Did you have fun with it?

Leigh: When I was watching this, I felt conflicted. The 7 year old part of me loved this movie because the 7 year old part of me loves pratfalls and America's Funniest Home Videos because what's not to like about a guy getting hit in the balls? But the Holmesian in me really didn't like it. About halfway through the movie, I think when Michael Caine was hanging by his coat, I realized that this was just a live action Scooby Doo movie.

That's what it felt like. It had the pretty girl, it had the handsome guy, it had the not so pretty girl, hell, there was even a dog. It was just a live action episode of Scooby Doo. And I think this is a bad thing. I really wish I had a friend who had a kid who was like 7 or 8 so I could sit them down and have them watch this movie and get their perspective. I think a younger audience would like this movie a lot more than the target audience of Holmesians and fans of Sherlock Holmes.

As for the story, I thought it was neat. After the season two finale of Sherlock, I had seen on the internet a theory that Sherlock Holmes was just a figment of Watson's imagination. I like how this movie took that concept and ran with it. The concept was neat and fun and there was a lot there but the mystery was a lot to be desired. We've seen this plot before with the only other non-Elementary movie we've reviewed. Is there only one plot allowed for Sherlock Holmes movie adaptations? Was there some law about this in England? (Oh, by the way, I loved the overt British Pride throughout the movie. It amused me.)

"Bloody hell, hadn't we already solved this one?"

Another thing I was disappointed about was the very limited use of Peter Cook. He is a comic genius and he was on screen for such a brief time and very few of his "jokes" were actually funny. Most of the jokes for the whole movie weren't really funny in my opinion. In fact, I got bored halfway through this movie. I started doing other things. 

List of things Leigh did while movie was playing:

1. Played a dumb game online

2. Messed with her knitting

3. Watched a YouTube video

4. Checked Twitter

5. Left the room out of boredom

6. Flew to the moon

I felt the exposition was too long, the middle third to be pointless and failed at making jokes, and the end to be a bit dumb. I mean, if I were in a room that was getting ready to explode and there was open water right next to me, instead of standing in a boat watching the explosion, I would've jumped in the water, but that's just me worrying about self preservation. 

Overall, I did have fun, especially if you include my other activities as part of this viewing experience. One thing that did interest me though was the roles that Caine and Kingsley had. They played Holmes and Watson, respectively...or did they?

Austin: So you're saying that you didn't like it...

No, you're right. The physical humor really doesn't work. Caine is a fantastic actor but he can only react so many times to a dog tackling him to the ground. Especially if it's edited in a way where he has to awkwardly stand there waiting for the dog to jump up on him. (Speaking of, the best goof in the movie is when Holmes is addressing the crowd for the first time and the stuttering guy has this extra behind him who is whispering all of his lines while clearly being in the frame.)

Most of the humor does not work in this movie and yet I still think that Michael Caine and Ben Kingsley were great. Kingsley announcing his new creation of "John Watson, the Crime Doctor" is done with such contained pride it always made me smile. I love watching these two because they are playing upon a few different characters in the canon. Kingsley is playing Watson who is truly Holmes and Doyle. Caine is playing Holmes but really is a Watson, but one of the bumbling incarnations.

To judge Kingsley as Holmes, I think he does a fine job. He is conscious about the fame because he wants the proper credit. I'm not sure if he wants to be famous, but he wants people to know how smart he is. Unlike other versions, he seems rather constrained in his intelligence. He can bring up observations that he's found but only if someone asks for it. I like his ability to sit perfectly still and ponder on the evidence. Reminds me a bit more of Hercule Poirot than Holmes, but it worked as a master detective.

Then you have Caine playing the caricature of Holmes who is very arrogant and a bit belittling. However since he doesn't have information to back it up, he can't be the one to brag the most. Yet him not being the one bragging makes Lestrade seem even more of a goof. Jeffrey Jones does a good job of that but they pretty much forgot about him for the second half of the film. Like Watson, Caine's Holmes does want to help out with the case as much as he can. He has to serve the purpose of "Oh this is obviously what's going on..." just so Watson/Holmes can say "No." He's dumb but always sincere. 

With Moriarty......he's just completely bland and it could have been any villain with ridiculous facial hair. The only plus from his presence was allowing Caine to scream in the fields about how he's in danger. I enjoyed that bit. Same with the Mrs. Hudson and Baker Street Irregulars, as expected, nothing too interesting.

Last very random comment, this movie was scored by Henry Mancini who is famous for The Pink Panther and Breakfast at Tiffany's. Yet I know him best as the composer behind one of the greatest films of all time....The Great Mouse Detective. It's hysterical how much he repeated the themes for both of his quasi-Sherlock movies.

Henry Mancini being drawn to compose another score....on the harp.

Leigh, try to keep your disappointment with the movie to a minimum as you breakdown what you liked and didn't like about how they treated our beloved characters.

Leigh: I didn't hate it! I liked it, it just wasn't my favorite adaptation out there. I think my email sounded a lot more negative than I meant it to me. Please excuse that. My mouth was still hurting from the dentist. There were lots of things I did like about it.  I liked the concept and I loved the actors. I felt even the supporting actors did a great job. And when you have two greats like Michael Caine and Ben Kingsley, even if they're reading the telephone book (they still make those, right?) it's going to be good. Our lead actors did such a great job that it was believable. Michael Caine did a great job being a drunk womanizer, almost like he has played this role before, and Ben Kingsley is fantastic just standing still. When he was sitting on the train, thinking, you believe that he was actually thinking about a web of crimes that lead to a bigger criminal instead of just sitting and acting like he was thinking about these things. I think these actors saved this movie. The editing sure didn't help it.

What's it all about, Sherlock?

The expansion on the idea that Holmes is a figment of Watson's imagination works really well with these actors. You believe that Kingsley is smart enough to solve these cases and then even go so far as to set it up so that someone else looks as if they're solving them, although the British public must've been really dumb because Caine playing an actor playing Holmes was laughable. I wish that there were a couple of more moments like at the beginning when Caine asks the reporter about the windows on the front of the building. That is something that ACD's Holmes has said (or something similar) so it is easy for the audience to think that he is smart but the illusion is broken so quickly that I think it lost something. If Caine were smarter around others when he was pretending to be Holmes, I think it might've worked a little better. Instead of having someone act as if they're the greatest detective ever, we have someone who is bumbling his way through it and people are ignoring the mistakes. That's just not believable. Even Lestrade (by the way, I gagged every time they said "Lestaaade.") ignored Holmes' mistakes and you would think that he'd be the first to point them out, especially in the dynamic they created in this movie. 

How the movie switched the traditional Holmes/Watson roles was neat to me. Instead of a bumbling Watson, we have a bumbling Holmes. He really did act like the other Watson we've explored. He wasn't the brightest, he wasn't the most observant but he did try and he did care and he did want to help. Caine didn't just play a drunk who was getting paid to be someone, he played a character that wanted to learn so he could play his role better. I love the parallels that are made between Kingsley's Watson and Holmes/ACD. We have the fake death, we have the want to get rid of Holmes altogether (I would totally read a book called "Watson: Crime Doctor!") and we have that lack of modesty that Holmes is known for. Kingsley's Watson hated the fact that he had to apologize to Caine and it's something that the real Holmes wouldn't have done unless it was necessary. While the plot wasn't fantastic, the characters were incredibly well written and acted. But I'll watch either of them in anything...

Next time, we figure out just what that damn whistling is and yet again that it is wrong to trust step parents. One might think that ACD might have had father issues but that's a different blog entirely.

And now Austin Lugar with the final word.

Austin: Psalms!

Book Review: "The Adventure of the Blue Carbuncle" (Doyle, 1892)

“I am glad to have a friend with whom I can discuss my results. The matter is a perfectly trivial one” – he jerked his thumb in the direction of the old hat – “but there are points in connection with it which are not entirely devoid of interest and even of instruction.”

Sherlock Holmes, “The Adventure of the Blue Carbuncle”

Leigh: Carbuncle. Say it with me. Carbuncle. Caaarrrbuncle. This is a fun word.

Now that we have that out of the way, let's discuss the matter at hand.

I don't think this was a mystery. Sure, it was kinda a mystery and there are aspects of it that are definitely mystery-like but I don't think that this was a mystery worth our time let alone Sherlock Holmes'. Nothing was too spectacular except the hat that started it all off. I mean, the hat was extraordinary, wasn't it? Why else would we spend 1/3 of the story talking about this hat? I feel that the hat did serve some purpose, it showed the readers that Watson is learning something and while he might not be AS smart as Sherlock Holmes, he can definitely hold his own and that he is learning and growing as a character (character development? GASP!). But at the end of the hat discussion, I just felt like it was another scene for Holmes to show off his genius. Boy keeps talking to me about this "modesty" thing and how I need to be more modest (I don't know what he's talking about. I'm the most modest person in the world). I think that Holmes needs to learn some of this "modesty" that I keep hearing about. Am I reading too much into this hat scene though? If I am it's only because there isn't much else to talk about I think.

I was thinking of this story the other day and remembering it and being really excited to read it again. I had remembered the mystery to be more complex and the story to be more interesting. This time, all I got out of it really was that geese are funny and I don't think I'd ever be able to kill a goose. Also, why don't we eat geese anymore? Turkey and chicken and even duck are all menu items but geese is rarely seen. How come?

The audience is shown again that Holmes believes himself to be above the law because he let someone who was obviously in the wrong, go free. I think that this was a bad idea. Sure, the guy was scared about going to jail (or if you listened to the same version I did, "gail" because Americans are ignorant sometimes and don't know how to pronounce words that are spelled the British way) but it could've been a show. It could've been an act. It could've been a temporary feeling. Next time this guy is down on his luck or is presented with another opportunity to commit some fantastical crime involving fowl, he will probably take the chance and go for it. The situation just reminds me of Bubbles from the Wire (I've only seen through episode 4 of season 2, don't spoil anything for me.) He wants to well and be a better person but as soon as he is presented the opportunity, he folds and goes for it. Maybe the thief is the same way. Maybe Sherlock Holmes is wrong. Maybe I'm just anxious about going to the dentist tomorrow and I'm taking my anxiety out on a fictional character and a fictional situation. Who knows.

So what do you think? Am I just being grouchy? Was this actually a mystery? Was Sherlock Holmes wrong in letting that guy go?

Austin: Carbuncle, carbuncle, carbuncle! "What is this bread, my nephew? "Carb, uncle."

I enjoyed the hat sequence because it was worthless. I don't even agree with all of his findings. The man must be intelligence because the hat size is large? I feel modern science can debunk that but I have no intention of looking that up. Fine, I shall look it up. Okay, it seems to be rather true but there are too many qualifiers that it shouldn't be a major consideration.

Basically, this was another example of Watson walking in on Sherlock Holmes. It's just after the holiday season and this is how Sherlock lives his life when he doesn't have an audience. He solves little mysteries with the same amount of scrutiny as a murder. This would be a man who would marvel when the remote is lost in the apartment because he can analyze dust levels. This whole thing would have been a few milliseconds in his life, but he has to spend time explaining it.

Clearly the breakdown analysis is one of the major draws to this series. It's like people getting a Malcolm Gladwell bit of insight on a regular basis. It's trivia in crime solving that they can try to replicate at a dinner party until someone annoyingly pipes up "Oh I love reading The Strand!" 

But does it work as actual storytelling. I feel that it could be utilized better. They could have continued this into a thread of Watson just hanging out with Sherlock in his house solving little non-mysteries. Play up the anxiety of him or even look at Sherlock in the holidays. Instead, it jumped into another little mystery involving geese. This doesn't gel together into a full story with any sort of theme. It's just idea, idea, idea, SOLD.

The moral dilemma at the end feels just as isolating. What was this story trying to achieve? Yes, I would say it's mystery because you have a detective detecting. Was it trying to do anything else?

Also I'm sure you'll be fine at the dentist!

"I suppose that I am commuting a felony, but it is just possible that I am saving a soul."

Leigh: As someone who loves terrible jokes, I approve.

I totally didn't believe that about brain/head/smartness correlation. I thought it was some Victorian Era science that had since been disproved. Guess I was wrong! *The more you know!*

One of my all time favorite movies is WALL-E. I love this movie so much. I have tried to put into words how much I love this movie and I can't. I have also tried to explain why I love it so much, but all the comes out is a bunch of squeeing and raglebragle (a new word I just made up to describe the sounds I make.) If PIXAR decided to make a full length movie of WALL-E just rollin' around and picking things up and looking at them, I WOULD WATCH IT A MILLION TIMES, NO HYPERBOLE. I feel the same way about Holmes solving these mini-mystery deals. I could read hundreds of them and never get bored and I would love every minute of it, IF that was the purpose of the story. I feel that this story had bigger intentions than to just be a "Day in the Life of..." story. I like that we stumble upon Holmes doing what he does when he doesn't have anything pressing to do. I would also have liked for this to be just a bunch of little mysteries that didn't have any sort of connection that Watson and Holmes figured out while hanging out in the study one afternoon. This story though seemed to be that and a regular mystery and a moral dilemma all at the same time and I think it failed. Miserably. 

"It is a question of cubic capacity"

I would love to read a Day in the Life of story about Holmes waking up, reading the paper, doing some drugs, reading the mail, trying to figure out who at the last piece of cake and who didn't refill the ice cube tray. I would read that story. This one I just feel like something is missing. Some sort of bigger meaning. If the guy Holmes let go free at the end turned out to be a future arch nemesis, that would be interesting! But as it stands now, I feel like we have a book version of an Elementary episode. THERE I SAID IT!

What say you, Lugar?

Austin: I have often said that Pixar needs to simmer down with these adorable Toy Story shorts and make five minute WALL-E stories that have similar plots to Curious George books. "WALL-E Goes to the Jungle", "WALL-E goes to Grand Canyon", "WALL-E Takes a Bath". Just let him be awesome and explore stuff.

I don't know if this failed as miserably at an Elementary level, but this wasn't one of the best. This was Doyle filler. Which is strange because maybe he just needed a bit of a recharge. Next week is possibly my favorite Sherlock Holmes story so it's not like he's out of ideas this early on. I think he's experimenting with what can be done with this story. I think you can use the whole "early days of mysteries" as a great excuse. Non-genre fiction enjoys to meander and describe a house for 10 pages possibly being a metaphor or just showcasing its captivating prose. Either way, nothing happened.

What I'm saying is, there isn't a typical mystery structure in place. I bet Doyle would say he is still writing "fiction" not "mysteries" because it doesn't have that genre. I'm not saying that one is better than the other, but nowadays if Harry Bosch is pondering about a hat for a third of the book you know for a fact it will be a major part in its resolution. This story isn't thematically satisfying but I'm not going to get angry about that. I'll save that for further down the line.

Ultimately, my major articulate criticism is the same rationale to politely ignoring the racist statements said during family holidays "It's okay; they're old." If you think that is an improper way to judge older material, that's what the comment section is for! I assume.

Anwho, the poll results are in and on Thursday Leigh and I will be discussing the 1988 comedy Without a Clue starring Michael Caine and Ben Kingsley. It's a very funny twist on the Sherlock/Watson relationship. So rent that sucker and play along. 

And here's Leigh Montano with the final word.

Leigh: Carbuncle!

A General Update and Reader's Choice

As you might remember, Austin and I are taking a break while we regroup, reformat and relax after the latest debacle with Elementary. For those wondering, yes we are still going to continue the blog, it's just going to be a bit different than before. Instead of taking time out of our busy lives and yours by rehashing the same complaints over and over again, we are going to change things up. We are still going to read and discuss a classic Sherlock Holmes/Arthur Conan Doyle story every week. Since there are a lot of other of cinematic Sherlock Holmes adaptations out there, we decided to try and tackle some of those instead of complaining about Elementary.

Your reward, loyal reader, is to help us decide which movie to discuss first!

We have a classic Holmes adaptation starring Basil Rathbone who we have already seen once in Dressed to Kill. This time Mr. Holmes goes to Washington! The plot might sound familiar to those who are diehard Holmesians.

Next choice is a bit of a different take. Ben Kingsley and Michael Caine star in Without a Clue. Two beloved actors in a one off that turns the idea of Holmes on its head.

And your final choice is a blockbuster hit starring that dreamboat Robert Downey, Jr. (I can use dreamboat, right? This is still relevant lingo, right? I haven't gotten all of my slang from the Brady Bunch, I don't know what you're talking about.)

Those are your choices! If you have another idea of what we should review or something we should look at in the future, please leave us a comment! We've opened up a whole new world of possibilities and nothing is too weird or strange for us! (On our list includes animated television shows, movies, non-canonical stories, everything!)





So take your pick and let us know what you think!

For the Americans out there, enjoy your holiday! And to those who aren't American, I hope you have a good week, too! We'll be back next week with The Adventure of the Blue Carbuncle to get us in the Christmas Spirit and then we'll have reader's choice!

In-Class Movie: "One Way to Get Off" (S01E07)

It was difficult to refuse any of Sherlock Holmes’ requests, for they were always so exceedingly definite, and put forward with such a quiet air of mastery.'"

--John Watson, “The Man with the Twisted Lip”

Austin: Screw it; we're talking about it. We made a conscious effort to not talk about BBC's Sherlock when we started about this blog because we want to review Elementary on its own, not comparison.

Now it's time to compare them.

Really I don't need to pick Sherlock; I could pick Breaking Bad or Fringe or any show that focuses on a crime while really focusing on the characters. I'm picking Sherlock simply because we run a blog about Sherlock Holmes.

Tonight's Elementary was dull. Very dull. From Act I we knew Sherlock was right, we never suspected Gregson being corrupt and the case was standard fare for every other show on CBS.

This week I rewatched Sherlock Season One because I'm in Texas taking care of my grandparents and my Memaw has been wanting to see it. So we watch it every morning (at 7AM...). Since she can't see too well, the stories are a bit hard to follow as they jump quickly between locations, rely on faces and artistically blend scenes. Yet she loves it. Why?

Because there are characters at the heart of every scene. Watson is a full character who is intrigued by the exciting lifestyle but still can be practical. Lestrade doubts Sherlock but what he's saying would be the right answer in every other show. Every scene moves the story forward (Except in “The Blind Banker”) but they are all unique because characters respond organically off each other. The scenes are sparkling with dialog full of wit and warmth, not dry interactions of meaningless information. They are able to tell a story visually, not just put the camera is the same damn spot each time. I actually enjoy rewatching an episode instead of hating watching the first pass!

What is Elementary? Characters only serve a dull function and will only move forward if the show demands it, not if the characters have earned anything. This very, very much includes the new characters of the week. I'm catching up with Fringe Season Four and I'm so impressed by how emotional and nuanced can be about stories that started 40 minutes ago.

I'm about to pull the plug on this show. The "steps forward" with the Irene plotline was insulting and nothing mattered for the rest of the hour.

Bring me back Leigh or we need to bury this show and reformat the blog.

Leigh: After I read your email, I couldn’t help but remember a demonstration from one of my favorite high school teachers. He taught a variety of classes but this demonstration was in Economics. You made it sound like this episode of Elementary was among the worst yet (I’ll get to my opinion in a minute) so after the fantastic episode of a few weeks ago and the steady decrease in quality, I was reminded of the Dead Cat Bounce.  People who follow stocks or the stock market might know this term but for those who don’t, it is when a stock that is falling fast in price suddenly goes up before it crashes completely because the saying goes, “Even dead cats bounce.” To make sure that our class understood this theory, our professor took a baby doll that had been part of a student’s presentation (for what, I couldn’t tell you) and held it above his head and dropped it. It bounced and the image worked because to this day I remember this demonstration.

I think that is what we have experienced with Elementary to this point. It was going nowhere fast, had a great week then continued to spiral out of control.  The Dead Cat Bounce.

We’ve both been trying hard not to mention BBC’s Sherlock and it’s really hard not to especially since 1, this is a Sherlock Holmes oriented blog and 2, it is such a FANTASTIC adaptation. My boyfriend, who is lovingly referred to as Boy, mentioned wanting to watch season two since he still hasn’t seen it and it is now available on Netflix. Without hesitation I volunteered to watch it with him. I’ve probably seen these episodes four or five times each yet I STILL want to watch them again.  To prevent myself from going on and on about Sherlock, I’ll just say I agree with you.

The characters were a mess in this episode. Gregson didn’t even seem like the same character. He went from a cool, relaxed cop to one that doesn’t put up with crap from anyone and doesn’t trust anyone either. We went from having Lenny Briscoe to having Mike Logan. Sometimes having Detective Logan is a good thing, especially when you want to intimidate perps but when you’re trying to figure out a case, you want Lenny Briscoe (RIP Jerry Orbach).

Then we have Watson who I’m not sure went through all of the proper training to be a sober companion. Or at least she doesn’t listen to her own rules. The first episode Sherlock can’t be out of her sight and now she’s gone all day without even checking in with him. (Although I did laugh when Sherlock said that he had left urine in her room. That was amusing.) But that’s okay because Sherlock also didn’t follow the rules that the show has set up. First he’s all about solving cases and then he’s about finding facts. These are two different things especially when you get into moral grey areas like possibly corrupt police officers.

AND DON’T EVEN GET ME STARTED ON IRENE!

My biggest frustration (at the moment) is that there are so many other shows that are great examples of character development and mystery and plot and do everything we want in same amount of time. Sure, Sherlock is exceptional but even if we ignore it and just focus on other mystery/crime/dramas, there are others out there that know how to balance plot and character well. Elementary is somehow failing.

I don’t know what to tell ya, Austin. I tried. I was ready to come in and play good cop to your bad cop but half-hearted attempts at mysteries, characters that aren’t consistent with what has been presented to the audience and plot that is just boring, I don’t know how much more I can take.

Austin: This morning my Memaw watched Sherlock's "A Scandal in Belgravia." This is my favorite episode of that show as well as my favorite Steven Moffat script. I found so many more nuances about the state of caring and the vulnerabilities created from that. Such a rich episode that was a great showcase for Sherlock, Irene, Mycroft, Molly and in a smaller extent Watson.

There is love and care with those episodes. They want to make an entertaining and special 90 minutes of television. That is what's present in all of the shows I watch now. Doctor Who, Homeland, Downton Abbey, Breaking Bad, Mad Men, Treme, Game of Thrones, Fringe, Community, Justified, Happy Endings, 30 Rock, Parks and Recreation, Archer, It's Always Sunny in Philadelphia, The League, Childrens Hospital, NTSF:SD:SUV::, The Hour, Peep Show, Luther, Being Human, The Mindy Project, Don't Trust the B----- in Apartment 23, Last Resort, The Thick of It, Cougar Town, White Collar, Misfits, Spartacus, and yes, Sherlock.

I'm tired of watching a show that doesn't care about its viewers. You had Watson spend an entire episode learning nothing only to have Sherlock give the information for no reason, information that is clearly going to be reversed? Frak you, Elementary. This is a new age of television. Showrunners are subverting expectations with new structures and anticipating audiences reaction. 

Television is in a golden age right now as nuanced storytelling is thriving. There is still plenty of crap on the air and there is plenty of highly rated stuff that will be forgotten in a few years. Elementary will be a trivia question; people will be watching Sherlock for ages. The reasons why are incomparable. That said, I don't want to stop the blog. I spent yesterday searching the internet and on a full pass I found over 100 movies about the world's smartest detective. I say we should watch some of them! Maybe take a week off for Thanksgiving as we figure out what we want to cover first. Of course, The Great Mouse Detective must be high priority. What say you, Leigh? Shall we bury the dead cat?

Leigh: When I decided to make my trek into TV academia, I knew I was never going to be able to watch every episode of everything ever. It’s not possible. You did a thing where people suggested TV shows and you’d watch the first three episodes. I took this three-episode idea and now when starting a new show, if I finish the third episode and I’m not interested in it, I stop. I save time and I’m able to go start something new that I might like or I think might be useful later. We are well past the three-episode mark on Elementary and I have no interest in watching more. I will for the sake of other projects I have going on but I won’t enjoy it, dammit.

In our age of technology where feedback on tonight’s episode of what ever is instantaneous because of the Tweeter and the Bookface, writers and producers have no excuse to not know what audiences want. Sure, some shows are filmed in advance and have very few episodes so it’s harder to do that like with Sherlock and Downton Abbey, but Elementary doesn’t have that excuse. But I don’t think that the audience for Elementary cares. I think they’re happy with what they have. They’re fine with mystery of the week shows that give little to no plot development and wrap everything up in 40 minutes. They’re the same fans as NCIS and CSI and all their variations. The writers have found an audience. We aren’t that audience.

I absolutely love this blog. I love writing for it, I love finding dumb pictures, I love yelling at my TV about how bad something is, I love re-reading the Sherlock Holmes stories. I definitely don’t want to end it. We have thousands of adaptations out there from movies to TV shows to non-canonical books to even a ballet, if we can find it. As Calvin said to Hobbes, “It’s a magical world…Let’s go exploring!”

Let’s bury this dead cat.

Austin: Farewell!