Baker Street Irregulars discussion

There are things that will make me personally not care for a pastiche/adaptation/what-have-you, but I wouldn't put a "should" on it. Not everything that has to do with Sherlock Holmes needs to be for me.

'Twohundred and twentyone Baker Streets' is an antology compiled to examine the alternate Holmes' and Watsons and the possibilities within the formula. Worth a read, if only to establish your own boundries.

My opinion is one that Doyle reportedly had or " American stage actor William Gillette, who wrote an immensely popular play about Holmes and asked permission to have Holmes get married in the drama."Doyle sent him a telegram back that said: 'You may marry him or murder him or do whatever you like with him,'"
( There's a long story behind this anecdote before Doyle wrote The Final Problem I believe)
Doyle was reported to be a liberal guy. If he had no problem with people changing Holmes, then I have no problem. Otherwise, it would be wrong to make changes if Doyle demanded that Holmes be left alone. But he didn't
But I like dramatic versions of Holmes rather than a series with too much comedy.

I like my Holmes to stay closer to what Doyle wrote. That is the character that I fell in love with. And that is what I like to read.

That being said though, if a writer wants to write a vastly different Holmes, more power to them. I won't be reading it.

Alexandra wrote: "The exception I'll make to this is when the characters or story are so far different you wonder if they're just using the names 'Holmes' and 'Watson' to generate more interest. "
I agree and feel the same about Star Trek. If you are going to get very far away from Holmes, then give the characters different names. (When they made changes to Superman, changing his costume and powers, the actress who played Lois Lane said then it isn't Superman and they should give him a different name.)

I think the only pastiche that I've read that strayed far from the original idea was Shadowfall: A Novel of Sherlock Holmes by Tracy Revels. I can't say that it strayed so much as it attempted to define Holmes origins, which Doyle did not address.

The book in itself was horrible. The author's ideas of Holmes origins as fey was totally off the mark.

One of only two pastiches that I've read that earned 1 STAR.

Two Hundred and Twenty-One Baker Streets is one of my favorite anthologies of all time, Holmesian or otherwise. There is one story in it, though, that flies so violently in the face of what I look for and need in Holmes stories that reading it literally made me sick to my stomach. And just thinking about it still makes me queasy, almost three year after reading it.

Rowan wrote: "Two Hundred and Twenty-One Baker Streets is one of my favorite anthologies of all time, Holmesian or otherwise. There is one story in it, though, that flies so violently in the face of what I look ..."

Have to admit, some stories and movies on Holmes have went so far away from Doyle's writings ( with Moriarty being innocent and so on) that I didn't enjoy them. Other movies have adjusted the story where it was fun.

My preference is for a valid representation of the original stories. Some of the episodes from the 1980s/'90s series starring Jeremy Brett were outstanding. In films, I thought "Murder By Decree" did a pretty good job. (And David Burke and James Mason were my two favorite Watsons.)
In modern versions, I think the problem is creating a 21st century equivalent of Holmes and also a modern-day translation of the tales. In the first case, I think Jonny Lee Miller does a very credible job, I don't like "Sherlock"/Cumberbatch at all. In terms of creating a modern-day equivalent of the tales, I don't think either show has been successful - I thought the Kitty Winter arc in "Elementary" was awful, and stopped watching "Sherlock" after S2.
Still - as negative I was toward the concept of a female Watson, I think Lucy Liu completely sells it.

Not sure where the line is between fan fiction and pastiche, except fan fiction i more likely to show up on someone's web site and a lot of pastiches get published.

My personal opinion is that the closer the writer keeps to Doyle's Holmes and to Doyle's writing style, better I like it. But - you can't argue with success. Years ago, a woman self published a racy sequel to Pride and Prejudice that became a runaway success - nothing like Jane Austen's writing, but people bought it. I didn't feel that there was anything particularly "Doylean" about "The Beekeeper's Apprentice" and didn't care for it all that much, but I am in the minority on that.

And having said that, I liked Elementary a lot and liked the female Watson and thought also that Miller and Liu had great chemistry.

I haven’t read too many pastiches, and of the ones I read, there weren’t really differences between Doyle’s Holmes and/or Watson and the pastiche’s, except Holmes in The Seven Per Cent Solution, and The Last Sherlock Holmes Story. However, It was intentional in both of them, as they were twists on the stories, in particular The Final Problem.

For films and tv, while there’s very few I actually don’t like - mainly A Study in Scarlet with Reginald Owen, Young Sherlock Holmes, the Peter Cook and Dudley Moore Hound of the Baskervilles, and Holmes and Watson with Will Ferrell - I generally am not a fan of the ones with older, fat, celibate, female and/or dumb Watsons. Also, my favorites are generally the ones where the stories are set in the correct period, or no later than the 30’s (i.e. the Wontner films).

Since there’s no really perfect version of the stories, I usually like them based on how much I like the combination of Holmes AND Watson, how much they stick to the timeline of the stories and characters (where the screenplay writer has obviously done his research), and the overall production, atmosphere, and entertainment value of the film or show. My favorites are mostly film, rather than tv versions.

Barbara wrote: "Not sure where the line is between fan fiction and pastiche, except fan fiction i more likely to show up on someone's web site and a lot of pastiches get published.

My personal opinion is that th..."

Yes, for me, adhering to the characters of Holmes and Watson is the most important aspect of any pastiche. In a way, I find Watson's voice more important than Holmes', and an excessively dim Watson is perhaps my biggest pet peeve. The original stories are in Watson's voice, and disturbing that relationship with the reader and ignoring that narrative style is problematic.

Ironically, two of the most successful pastiches I read recently were Sherlock Holmes vs. Dracula and Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Holmes. Although the stories were supernatural in nature, the Victorian gaslight setting and affection between Holmes and Watson was pitch perfect. I admit I liked the Holmes/Dracula book better than the original Dracula!

I've read a couple of Laurie King's mysteries. I keep reading them, so I can't quite pan them. Some scenes I really, really love and stay with me. But the arrogant narrative voice (obviously not Holmes) and the style of the mystery is so different than Doyle, I admit I have an ambivalent relationship with the series.

I think very few modern authors capture Doyle's style of writing a mystery, which isn't talked about as much. Doyle obviously didn't write flawless puzzle mysteries like Agatha Christie, but I find even his secondary characters very memorable, and I admire his relatively tight plots, with few subplots and red herrings. I kind of wish more pastiches embraced that, but maybe it's unfashionable.

The Holmes vs Dracula novels and ones faced off against Hyde and others are next on my list of Holmes pastiches to read. I think there’s also a Holmes War of the Worlds one.

Bruce wrote: "The Holmes vs Dracula novels and ones faced off against Hyde and others are next on my list of Holmes pastiches to read. I think there’s also a Holmes War of the Worlds one."

I think you'll enjoy them! In some ways, the "mystery" is seeing what is the tipping point for the rationalist Holmes to realize that the improbable that is not possible is supernatural. These are the reviews I wrote for the two I read.

https://www.goodreads.com/review/show...

https://www.goodreads.com/review/show...

Bruce said: I think very few modern authors capture Doyle's style of writing a mystery, which isn't talked about as much.

This nails a lot of it for me. On another thread about top pastiches, I listed 10, a mix of novels and short stories that I thought were the best I read (obviously I haven't read them all - there must be 100s!) One reason I liked these was not just that they were good stories, but the writers did a good job of imitating Doyle's style. For me, a good pastiche is not just about using someone else's characters, it's about writing in the same style.

I saw a header recently that read something like - Pastiche or Fan Fiction or Whatever You Want To Call it.

I think there is a distinct difference between pastiche and fan fiction, though a work may incorporate both. Fan fiction is simply a new story that uses another author's fictional characters and background. I was once told that "50 Shade of Grey" began as an "adult" tale involving the characters in the "Twilight" series. A pastiche not only uses another author's characters, but attempts to mimic that author's writing style. I have read a great many new Sherlock Holmes tales, mostly short stories, but very few that I would call pastiche.

Barbara wrote: "Bruce said: I think very few modern authors capture Doyle's style of writing a mystery, which isn't talked about as much.

This nails a lot of it for me. On another thread about top pastiches, I ..."
try house of silk

Since "current media" includes everything, not just books, I gave "Enola Holmes" a try and didn't like it much. I thought it was a cute Victorian show, but it wasn't ever sold on the Holmes connection and the thing is - if you are just using the name Sherlock Holmes (or Mr. Darcy or Clark Kent) as bait to get their following to read or watch but are not faithful to the reason they read or watch, what's the point?

Mary wrote: "...but I find even his secondary characters very memorable..."

I think this is an important point. One thing I admire in a lot of the Canon (as well as in Jane Austen's work) is how well-defined even the minor characters are: Henry Baker, Old Frankland, Jacky Ferguson, Joseph Harrison get very little time on stage, and yet you get a very thorough portrait of who they are.

Patrick wrote: "Barbara wrote: "Bruce said: I think very few modern authors capture Doyle's style of writing a mystery, which isn't talked about as much.

This nails a lot of it for me. On another thread about t..."

try the house of silk he writes just like doyle..even better

Patrick wrote: "Barbara wrote: "Bruce said: I think very few modern authors capture Doyle's style of writing a mystery, which isn't talked about as much.

This nails a lot of it for me. On another thread about t..."

try house of silk he writes just like doyle or even better

I will try to get The House of Silk - heard some good things about it. One book that was a big disappointment for me was The Italian Secretary. It didn't come off sounding like Doyle, and I thought the plot was weak. I wasn't the biggest fan of Caleb Carr's "The Alienist" but thought it was way better than "The Italian Secretary."

What do you all think about the Mycroft and Holmes books by Kareem Abdul Jabbar and Anna Waterhouse? I’m on my third book now and enjoying them more than I thought I would. Especially birdcage I thought was well put together and I like getting a better look at Mycroft and his exasperation with a young just starting out Sherlock is pretty funny and realistic.

I've read very few pastiches because I tend to be a sponge, and I'm a pastiche writer myself. The Strange Case of Eliza Doolittle is a Holmes/Higgins/Hyde pastiche, and the critics have noted how much the voice sounds like Watson. My second novel, The Strange Case of the Dutch Painter, is set for Jan. 2022. Oh, by the way, I have a Goodreads giveaway going on right now.
(Once I've finished the third book, I expect to catch up on pastiches.)

Barbara wrote: "Since "current media" includes everything, not just books, I gave "Enola Holmes" a try and didn't like it much. I thought it was a cute Victorian show, but it wasn't ever sold on the Holmes connect..."

Enola Holmes was fun, but it wasn't Holmes.

sounds interesting!

I haven't gotten around to the Abdul Jabbar books yet.
I like the idea of a novel length Holmes pastiche but overall have found that the short stories I read are more successful at getting down Conan Doyle's style than the full length novels have been. I was able to get my hands on a few of the MX Publishing anthologies and some of the stories in them were very good, very authentic sounding.

still for me the best holmes novel is THE HOUSE OF SILK BY ANTHONY HOROWITZ,,,he writes better than doyle

Can't speak for any actual published pastiches, but for fanfiction I know I like to manipulate the characters very much. There's always going to be a core of holmes and watson, but sometimes they can be a touch more conniving or light hearted if the fanfiction needs them to be.
for published material, things that will change the public perception (ie not people searching online for specific holmesian fanfiction) I think the characters can change but only in certain ways. For example, straying too far into the Holmes has a girlfriend category seems to be blatant disrespect for Arthur Conan Doyle. However, some traits, like Holmes's potential to be a criminal when need be, or Watson's military background, have the potential to be exploited in meaningful ways that enhance the original cannon, rather than defile it

I reiterate what I had stated earlier - that a pastiche is an attempt to write in the original author's style, which, IMHO, means that you keep the characters faithful to the original author's depiction.
Fan fiction seems to give itself more latitude - certainly in content - and while I don't take issue with that, I don't see the point of radically changing another author's character. Too great a change and it's just a guy who happens to be named "Sherlock Holmes", not Doyle's "Sherlock Holmes", and if it isn't Doyle's creation, I'm not sure what the appeal is.

and i still say THE HOUSE OF SILK by ANTHINY HORWITZ is the best and he writes even better than conan doyle

J. wrote: "I reiterate what I had stated earlier - that a pastiche is an attempt to write in the original author's style, which, IMHO, means that you keep the characters faithful to the original author's depi..."

I agree. If it's not the character that you recognize, the one that the author created - if its so different that it's practically another character, what's the point? Just using the popularity of Holmes and Watson's names to hook people into something that's totally different doesn't play fair IMHO. In the world of Jane Austen there are tons of "re imaginings", especially with "Pride and Prejudice" - the ones that tweak the events of the plot but keep the faith with the characters of Lizzie and Darcy work best.

Patrick wrote: "and i still say THE HOUSE OF SILK by ANTHINY HORWITZ is the best and he writes even better than conan doyle"
For Holmes to be Holmes, he must have a great intellect and use violence only as last resort or self defense. Have a sense of humor, but not be silly. Respect women and others. He must love justice. He must have certain traits more than anything else. Same goes for Watson.
A female Watson can be okay as long as it's Watson inside.



At firstI thought having a female Watson was going to far. Now I feel

Patrick wrote: "and i still say THE HOUSE OF SILK by ANTHINY HORWITZ is the best and he writes even better than conan doyle"

I personally didn't care for The House of Silk, but tastes differ. I think he did a pretty good job though of getting Conan Doyle's style down, and as others have said, that's the point of a pastiche - not to write better than Conan Doyle but to write just like Conan Doyle.

Demetrius wrote: "
For Holmes to be Holmes..." He must love justice"

One interesting thing about Holmes is that even though he has a solid knowledge of British law, he is often called upon to make a distinction between what is legal and what is just. You see it in Blue Carbuncle, Abbey Grange, Charles Augustus Milverton.

very true!!

J. wrote: "Demetrius wrote: "
For Holmes to be Holmes..." He must love justice"

One interesting thing about Holmes is that even though he has a solid knowledge of British law, he is often called upon to ma..."

In The Devil's Foot, too.

I picked up a book recently called "A Study in Crimson", which put Holmes and Watson in the year 1942. It made me think about how much the era is an important component of pastiche writing - that to keep Holmes in the late 19th and early 20th century is critical to a good pastiche
William Baring-Gould wrote an essay "What Is It We Love About Sherlock Holmes" (may not be verbatim) and wrote that one of the things we love is the time in which he lived. I agree - Holmes is very much a man of his era and to take him out of it just doesn't ring true.
(I actually didn't finish "A Study in Crimson" - found it too jarring, though it was well written.)