That was an interesting bit of trivia about the inconsistencies in Doyle's narrative vis John's wound. It serves to me as a touchstone that the writer has deeply studied his source material, which indicates a love for the narrative.
Which is my one quibble with this summary: Sherlock's stripped down character is not an enfeebling of the strength of the original's personality. It's more a statement on the simpler, less adorned manners of Londoners one hundred years on. One could see either Sherlock as a well-camoflaged "higher-functioning sociopath", but in the early 20th century, the game would have required more affability and pandering to fashion. But nowadays, when you see half the population wired into an iPod and texting on a cellphone, the sociopathology is itself a fashion.
Otherwise, I'm certain I could never have captured my own impressions of the show with equal precision.
no subject
Which is my one quibble with this summary: Sherlock's stripped down character is not an enfeebling of the strength of the original's personality. It's more a statement on the simpler, less adorned manners of Londoners one hundred years on. One could see either Sherlock as a well-camoflaged "higher-functioning sociopath", but in the early 20th century, the game would have required more affability and pandering to fashion. But nowadays, when you see half the population wired into an iPod and texting on a cellphone, the sociopathology is itself a fashion.
Otherwise, I'm certain I could never have captured my own impressions of the show with equal precision.