The Sherlockians! discussion

How much do you think people should stay true to the original canon? I'm thinking of modern adaptations like Elementary with John as a woman, as well as previous rumors that BBC Sherlock's John and Sherlock would be romantically involved. Is there a line that people can cross that will ruin the story, and if so what is it?

It's all a matter of personal taste really. I much prefer the original canon & Jeremy Brett as Holmes. However, I love Elementary & think that Johnny Lee Miller is far more exciting as Holmes than the dull & overrated Benedict Cumberbatch. Many people will disagree with me on these points. There are many incarnations of Holmes on screen & in book form to please every taste. If someone feels that a writer is crossing the line then they should avoid reading that story or watching that film/series, as I have decided to do after seeing the last weak episode of Sherlock in January.

Hi all, late to the party here. I actually don't mind if physical characteristics or relationships change - for example, if dr. Watson is female, it's still Dr. Watson as long as he/she acts, thinks, talks etc. like Dr. Watson. Preserving the CHARACTER of a person and not their appearance or gender identity is what is important to me. For example, in The House of Silk, a book that was approved by the Conan Doyle Estate, the author tried to 'go back' and change fundamental elements of Watson's character. It has been some time since I read it and I don't currently have the book at hand to reference it, but I remember feeling very irked because it did not FEEL like WATSON narrating the story. Another example would be the old tv series starring Ronald Howard. That Watson was a bumbling idiot, occasionally tough and smart but usually lagging behind Holmes, where I felt like, if not on the level with Holmes, he should at least be less of an affable fool.
So, in my opinion, if you keep the personality, you can be flexible with other things, so long as you stay true to the heart of the character.

@Bill and @AlltheThings

I agree that Jeremy Brett crafted the definitive Holmes. Viewing the entire series, which took place over the course of several years, it's hard to watch episodes where Brett was having serious health problems. BTW - there is a wonderful book, "Bending the Willow" by David Stuart Davies about the making of the series, from the initial plans to Brett's death.

I also agree that it's important to preserve character. Part of preserving character, IMHO, is keeping the stories set in the era - I read an essay once about Holmes being very much a man of the latter Victorian, early Edwardian era. In one of the stories Watson comments that Holmes, with his skill set, would have been burned at the stake centuries earlier. Having said that, I have liked a lot of Elementary, I think the chemistry between Miller and Liu is spot on. I was resistant to a female Watson, but she makes it work. And I'm not a fan of the Cumberbatch series.

And I do lament that "Nigel Brucification" of the Watson character - haven't read "The House of Silk" but I have seen too many bumbling Watsons in the wake of the Rathbone/Bruce films. IMHO, David Burke was the best Watson ever.

Hi - reviving this because it is discussed on a couple other Holmes groups and also because I have read several very good (and pretty bad) Sherlock Holmes pastiches lately.
I think if you are doing a modernization (Elementary or Sherlock) you get a little slack, but if you are writing a pastiche, you have to remember that you didn't create the characters or the universe and you didn't make the rules - if you can't abide by what Conan Doyle put down, just write your own Victorian detective novel, but if you stick characters named "Holmes" and "Watson" into it that aren't Doyle's your audience might feel cheated.