Yes, I know what people say about books. And usually, I'm on their side. Green's The Fault in Our Stars is better than the film will ever manage to be. Not to mention Tolkien's LotR triology. I was about 11 when I read the books. That's why the films are NOTHING like the moving pictures I saw in my head.
However. There is one exception. Sherlock. I hope people are wrong and that there are actual people who are familiar with the originals, such as 'A Study in Scarlett' or 'The Hound of Baskevilles'. And even though I have to admit that his stories would make every screenwriter of NCIS jealous, there is still one thing which Doyle gets wrong. It's the way he writes Watson. His Watson is flat. He doesn't make much. His only purpose is to see (not to observe!) and to write.
I accept that there weren't many 'How to Write Good' manuals around in 1895. But one of the most basic things which even Doyle should have known about writing is that you really do not want to have any flat characters in your story. They just spoil the whole thing. You want proof?
Let's take 'A Study in Scarlett' vs 'A Study in Pink'. For me, without doubt, the BBC adaptation wins. Scarlet starts with Watson describing his situation in a rather fancy (read boring) manner. Doyle could have cut the first paragraphs down to a few sentences. After all, no one is reading Doyle's book because of Watson. And delivering what your readers are expecting to read is one of the most crucial facts about writing which everyone picking up a pen to put a story down should keep in mind. Additionally, a big part of the story focuses on Holmes' clever deductions to show that he is an extraordinary guy. But most of it does not add much to the actual story.
Now. Pink has those showing-Sherlock-is-nuts parts as well. Actually, they are present in the most authentic manner I've ever seen, keeping as close to the original as possible. And yet. The story feels completely different. Why? It's because of John. This John makes up his own mind. He may have less accurate (or more realistic) deduction skills, but he is not afraid to stand up against Sherlock whenever he thinks his friend is wrong. He's not afraid of an argument. He means business. At the same time, unlike Watson, he does not take himself too important.
Because of this, Doyle's Watson ends up being the guy with whom Holmes shares a flat and he becomes his mere audience, while Sherlock and John are not just flat mates but friends. Holmes does not really rely on Watson. Anyone else could fill that position just fine. On the contrary, Sherlock needs John just as much as John needs Sherlock. Sure, for different reasons. While Sherlock manages to add some content to John's life, John becomes some sort of Sherlock's moral compass keeping him 'human'. Otherwise, Sherlock's customers may hire a serial killer on him before Sherlock could actually finish the case... And even though Sherlock dose not care about what people are thinking about him, John's friendship matters to him. And, what's more, their friendship becomes one of his obvious weaknesses. It's so obvious that Moriarty uses it against him. This is why the BBC's 'Reichenbach Fall' is more touching than the original. Here, Sherlock is not fighting a villain or for his reputation. He is willing to die as a fraud if it means to save John and to ease his friend's pain. I'm not sure if Doyle had been able to say the same about his Sherlock Holmes.
Doyle's stories are about an extraordinary clever man solving extraordinary puzzles. Sherlock is about two extraordinary people having an extraordinary friendship. And when it comes to writing a good story, friendship always wins. Always.
No comments:
Post a Comment