Small Observations: Sherlock, Sherlock, and Airline Travel (the 31st of July, 2013)

In which I talk about three different small observational things. Warning: mild language used.

(Thought I would let you know before you start reading the actual words: I use words that are frowned upon in civilized classy culture. Specifically this would be the d-word (all of them) and the a-word (don’t know what those words are? Hooray! I deem you an innocent child who has not yet been exposed to the cruel world of the internet). I find that while writing this blog, I have put myself into this extraordinary position where I have complete and utter control over what I publish to the internet, so I shouldn’t be cussing. In any event, it’s also a rule from way back when I first started writing this blog, so it must mean I have a reasonable and powerful excuse as to why I’m using such *bad* words. Of course, my reasons will not be enough to justify that I’m using these words while trying to make a point, but I feel as if my explanations lack the (choose your favorite word) sincerity/power/strength/potency/persuasiveness if I don’t include these words. I guess I can only rationalize these words by saying I need them. I apologize in advance (and I also kind of don’t apologize, because I gave you a warning and I tried to explain myself and my word, if that’s not enough for you then I can’t do much for you). Stay classy, and happy reading!)

 

So I’ve been trying to eloquently put to words a few small observations I’ve had from the past few days. The day I got back from my vacation, I sat down to write about air travel since it was a small observation that has been on my mind (obviously). This was a week ago. I wrote approximately 300 words and I didn’t get anywhere.

 

There’s something about a blank Microsoft Word document that intimidates the heck out of me. I seem unable to conjure up a good thought while a blank white screen sits in front of me. I become paralyzed by the lack of ideas and all the good ones flee my mind. Even the half-decent ones go as well. I just cannot write when there is nothing on the screen to begin with.

 

This does seem like a ridiculous paradox, however. How will I ever write anything when there’s nothing on the screen? How am I able to write at the point in time if at some point I had a blank screen staring me down?

 

The answer is simple, ladies and gentlemen: audio recordings. I just took the good thoughts I had from speaking about some of my small observations. True, there was a blank document (the one I’m writing in now), but it’s sharing my laptop screen with my notes from my ramblings.

 

Even though I am eventually going to get to airline travel, I’m going to start with something entirely different.

 

Let’s talk about Sherlock, shall we?

 

If you haven’t heard about Sherlock, I’m sorry you’ve been missing out. I think it’s a great television show. Based on the works of Sir Arthur Conan Doyle, the show is a modern twist on the brilliant “consulting detective” Sherlock Holmes and his friend John Watson. Just to keep the record straight, this is the British television show starring Benedict Cumberbatch as Sherlock Holmes and Martin Freeman as John Watson. This isn’t anything new or original about the idea of Sherlock Holmes; in fact, to drive my point home, I’m going to find out an approximate number of Sherlock Holmes portrayals and remakes and things of that nature.

 

Let me just start by saying there is an entire Wikipedia page dedicated to the many adaptations of Sherlock Holmes. Along with this page, there is a Wikipedia page dedicated to the actors who have played Sherlock Holmes. If that doesn’t say something about how unoriginal and romanticized and Hollywood-ized and all other sorts of words detailing the insane amount of attention this one character has, then I hope the actual numbers will convince you.

 

Okay, I’m beyond the feeling of ridiculousness. We’re going to leave it at 100-plus adaptations of Sherlock Holmes in film/television (this is not including comic books, radio, stage, internet, or video games, among other categories) and 50-plus actors who have voiced/played the character of Sherlock Holmes (including an Alvin and the Chipmunks Sherlock-themed episode…?). One statement in the Wikipedia page about the adaptations of Sherlock Holmes said, “It has been estimated that Sherlock Holmes is the most prolific screen character in the history of cinema.”

 

Anyway, I was trying to make a point, with that point being BBC was not diving into some new and exotic idea that blew people away by the originality and creativity. I think what actually blew people away by this adaptation (if not people then just me) was the respect for the original works and how tight the script was and how the relationships and weaknesses and evolution of the characters were portrayed. I appreciate the subtle references to the original works (e.g. “A Study in Pink,” the first episode of Sherlock, was a reference to the first story that featured Sherlock Holmes, that being “A Study of Scarlet”; also “A Scandal in Belgravia,” the encounter of Holmes and Irene Adler, was a reference to “A Scandal in Bohemia,” which is one of my favorite Sherlock Holmes stories, by the way). I also appreciate how the creators kept true to the very general details of the characters. I wish I could say that better but I’d think it would be better to explain myself.

 

My most favorite example of this would be the meeting of Watson and Holmes. Of course, there are similarities between Irene Adler and Sherlock Holmes’ story (and there are very obvious differences between them, and you can figure those out for yourself as if they aren’t slapping you in the face for the entirety of that episode), but I particularly enjoyed the Watson-and-Holmes origin story more. That was the moment I said, “That’s it. This is a good adaptation of Sherlock Holmes and by-God I’m going to appreciate and enjoy this good adaptation of Sherlock Holmes until this river runs dry.”

 

Instead of explaining what happens in the book and what happens in the show like I was originally going to do, I’m just going to detail some of the similarities and differences. Some of the differences are going to be painfully obvious, but you’re just going to have to bear with me.

 

Both the story and the show have Watson and Holmes meet through a mutual colleague/associate. Both have Watson and Holmes meet in a scientific laboratory sort of setting. Both have Holmes making the deduction that Watson has returned from Afghanistan. Both has them meeting in a hospital.

 

In the show they meet in a hospital morgue and Holmes is solving a case (Question mark? I don’t really know what he’s doing. He’s using a pipette and looking into a microscope, but I’m pretty sure he doesn’t specifically say what he’s doing with the microscope or the pipette). In the book they meet in a hospital and Holmes is running a scientific experiment (from my recollection the experiment was to find a solution that would detect the presence of blood, but I read that story a very long time ago). There are cell phones involved in the show but not the story (duh). Also I’m pretty sure there’s no mention of an alcoholic brother in the story. Also I’m pretty sure Holmes comes off as less of a douchebag in the story than he does in the show.

 

Even though the paragraph about the differences is longer than the paragraph about the similarities, my differences are pickier than the similarities. In any event, the writers captured the essence of the original meeting in an updated version of said meeting.

 

The best way I can put this into words is that Sherlock (the TV show) updates the original works by adding a modern twist that doesn’t stray from the relationships and emotions of the characters themselves.

 

But I’m going to touch on the whole “Holmes is an absolute dick sometimes” aspect in the show. However, I can’t really apply blame solely on this particular TV show, because I have seen Sherlock Holmes portrayed as such in other adaptations. While reading the books and stories, I always found myself thinking that Holmes was a much happier character. In social media (movies and TV shows in particular) Sherlock tends to be depicted as an a*****e, plain and simple. He comes off as uncaring and almost emotionless and I never saw him that way in the books. The best example I can think of is “The Adventure of the Speckled Band” where he’s talking to Helen Stonor and he’s patient and caring. In fact, he observes she’s shaking and tells her to move closer to the fire to warm up. The only time Sherlock is cold to her during their first encounter is when he picks up that she’s hiding her stepfather’s strength (and rather abusive tendencies). And even in the books and stories, I would rather characterize Sherlock Holmes as “cold” rather than “dickish” because he cares about the other people involved which is why he acts the way he does.

 

In this particular TV show, I’ve seen Sherlock be “nice” to this minor character Molly Hooper (I really like her, she’s awkward and she attempts to be brutally honest and she really cares. I almost look up to her because I can really relate to her) but he has other objectives in mind. For example, he’ll compliment her hair so he can better solve a case (she works in the morgue and therefore has access to dead bodies). That’s not caring about her, that’s just being a dick.

 

In fact, Molly says something that drives home what I’m trying to say. I’ve only seen this episode once (as of right now), but I remember exactly what she says. In “A Scandal in Belgravia,” during the kind-of Christmas party, she says, “You always say such horrible things.”

 

And this is because the TV show version of Sherlock Holmes has the tragic character flaw of not being able to emphasize and sympathize with other human beings. He’s cold because he literally thinks that caring about people will not help him with solving a case. Technically he’s correct, but I never once believed this was how the Sherlock Holmes in the books and stories acted. I always thought he acted because he cared.

 

Obviously, this is not the only thing writers of television shows and movies cut out. In the stories, Holmes was a cocaine addict (they kind of touch on it in the first episode of the British show, but it turns out he’s just a cigarette kind of guy later on). I don’t see many television shows and movies where Holmes is portrayed as a cocaine addict (functioning or not). I’m perfectly fine with that because I felt kind of betrayed when I read that in the stories (mostly because Holmes is this brilliant detective and kind of the first fictional love of my life and I don’t want the fictional love of my life to be a cocaine addict).

 

Even though I’ve been complaining about it for many paragraphs, I kind of don’t have a problem with Holmes being portrayed as a dick in recent TV shows and movies. I really don’t. There are two main reasons for this: the public demand for it and the difficulty of staying true to the original.

 

I don’t know why, but film viewers of the present enjoy a guy who’s filled with tragic flaws. It’s why the liar-revealed scenario happens so often in movies and TV shows �" a lie is a fairly simple flaw that is so easy to portray on the big screen. The dramatic irony plus the stereotypical actions of the characters involved plus the climax of the lie being revealed equals an overused plot that people still flock to see in theatres. Naturally, an uncaring dick of a guy who learns to appreciate and love and care for others is a character who is widely used in a variety of media.

 

Perhaps I’ve been too harsh on poor Sherlock. Perhaps my disgust with seeing the same character development over and over again overshadows the absolute necessity of said character development within this TV show.

 

Along with this, I think it’s a lot more difficult to bring a cheerful and brilliant detective to life. A dickish detective is funny and compelling and has character flaws. A cheerful detective would require the viewer to actively look for those character flaws. We want characters that will adapt and evolve. It just so happens that the Sherlock Holmes who is an a*****e fits what we want better than the bright and happy Sherlock.

 

This was my first small observation. The next one also pertains to Sherlock.

 

At the moment, there are only six episodes. They are 90 minutes long. This is a total of 540 minutes, or nine hours of Sherlock-ness.

 

Confession time: I cried at the end of the final episode of the second season (the sixth episode, if you will). I literally spent a week watching these episodes, fitting them in whenever I could (because I was actually quite busy last week (just kidding I’m just too lazy to turn on the TV sometimes and also we had a friend of the family over doing construction so I couldn’t hear anything)). I believe I cried at the end not just because of the emotional attachment I had to these specific portrayals of the characters, but also because I have a history with the characters in general. I grew up reading Sherlock Holmes, his story and legend, and because of that history, I began the show already attached to those characters. Although there are more episodes (and thus more hours) of other TV shows I’ve grown to love, namely Doctor Who and Lost, I was already more attached to Sherlock. Granted, I have cried because of Lost (and I’ve come close in Doctor Who, because damn that show is sad sometimes) but it took a lesser investment of my time with Sherlock.

 

However, I don’t find it odd I cried because of this TV show, even though I only have nine hours to fall in love. We can observe this phenomenon of crying due to fictional characters every day in our theatres or living rooms. We fall in love with characters after only spending mere hours sometimes. It doesn’t even matter whether we spend five minutes or five seasons with these people �" we get to know how clever, how brilliant, how brave and caring, how wonderful and beautiful these people are. We get to know their thoughts and beliefs. We know their strengths and weaknesses. We want them to accomplish so much and achieve greatness, yet sometimes that doesn’t happen and it doesn’t feel like that’s fair.

 

We care enough to put it on Facebook, enough to talk about it and buy the movies and TV shows and re watch them again and again. I don’t think it’s weird to cry about the show Sherlock, because people cry because of books and movies and TV shows, because these characters become a part of our lives and steal us away to an island or the T.A.R.D.I.S. or 221 Baker St. And you never thought it was possible to care so much about a person who is so real but so imaginary.

 

And I know Benedict Cumberbatch is an actor playing Sherlock Holmes. And I knew he wasn’t in any real danger. And even though I knew it wasn’t real, it was as real as it could possibly be. That’s the beautiful thing about film: It can enchant us and change us and make us love imaginary things that are also real.

 

My third and final small observation is about airline travel (obviously). I’ve wanted to write about this since I got back from vacation because I took a plane there and something really odd happened: I really dreaded getting on a plane.

 

I’ve loved air travel since before I can remember. It’s always been fun and exciting and adventurous. I would wake up the morning of a plane trip and jump up and down with glee. I loved leaving early and standing in line and talking to the airline people (because I would never see them again). I loved the turbulence and the take-offs and the landings (still do). I guess that was the innocence of a child, because now I wake up and I roll my eyes. I would rather drive there than fly.

 

This is a tragedy, not just for me but for everyone around me. Fewer and fewer people find the bright side to flying on an airplane. We don’t fly out of love anymore, but out of sheer necessity. We tend to automatically hate everything about the flight: the passengers, the standing in line, the security, the take-offs and landings and everything in between. Although air travel was originally portrayed as this fun and exciting thing, now it’s portrayed as an efficient means of travel. We’ve all missed the point of air travel for quite a while now: We’re supposed to love it, not tolerate it.

 

There are things everyone involved could do to change the dread we all feel due to traveling via air, but I believe the one group of people that could change the most are, of course, the passengers. It’s a matter of changing our perspective.

 

In other words, I want to bring excitement back to the world of air travel by reminding us (all four of us, dear readers) of the single most amazing thing I could ever remind anyone: the beauty of human connections.

 

It’s a basic human instinct to make these human connections, even if it’s as simple as a television show and the characters aren’t technically real (see what I did there?). Through airline travel, the people on these flights are flying to the same place at the exact same time. We’re connected even though we’re planning on going to different places and doing different activities. At some point by necessity or convenience or both or neither, we both booked this flight. Collectively, we made the exact same decision.

 

Why is nobody enthralled by this? You are connected to these other people by this small thing, namely an airplane trip. Even if you never got to see their faces, you are both connected by that one moment, that collective decision.

 

Airline travel should be made fun again. I attempted by trying to make the deep-and-thoughtful argument about basic human instincts. If that doesn’t make it exciting for you, perhaps I should remind you that your obsessive complaining is what makes airline travel awful. Smile a little more, be a little patient, bring a book with you and sit down. The trip is only as fun as you make it.

 

Stay classy, readers.

Author's Note

Let me know.