thoroughly looking forward to the movie and hopefully pulling out my old Holmes paperbacks to catch up beforehand. though personally, my favorite Holmes story is probably Neil Gaiman’s “A Study in Emerald,” crossing Conan Doyle’s mythos over with HP Lovecraft’s.

Conan Doyle’s former medical consulting rooms are next door but two and we started publishing a series of Sherlock Holmes graphic novels art: (I.N.J Culbard, adaptation: Ian Edginton)

Culbard and Edginton are currently working on Conan Doyle’s The Sign of The Four, but A Study in Scarlet will be out next Feb 2010. It joins The Hound of the Baskervilles which we published this year.

We have a mini-site where you can find out more about the series.

The books are published in the States by Sterling.

> “Not exactly… Don’t forget that Holmes was a former amateur boxer of sorts, and at least once waylaid a thug with his fists…”

That’s correct… It’s also clear, having seen a trailer for the upcoming movie with Robert Downey, that they’re not forgetting that bit of Holmes lore either.

Yeah, but Sherlock Hemlock rocks too… Happy 40th birthday Sesame Street! Now if they’d just bring back Hemlock, Mumford the Magician, Guy Smiley, Don Music (the guy who pounded his head on the piano keys), and Roosevelt Franklin. But I digress.

I guess Holmes is loosely based on Sir Bernard Spilsbury, though I’ve never read anything concrete on that, only light suggestions.

As to the fisticuffs, I will submit that Holmes topless in a boxing match seems a little much, but I will give the film a leeway there, I think Downey has the attitude right. But as to the original materials, it’s in those few sentences that you see there is a lot more going on physically. Doyle takes major fight scenes and compounds them into a few short phrases, which is pretty typical of action sequences written at that time. I just always saw them being grandiose in my mind, but only alluded to on the page.

Err, now I sound like I’m fighting with your opinion, but really I thought this write up was amazing.

I’m a bigger fan of Raffles and Bunny, the gentleman thief and his cowardly companion, written like Holmes, but not as popular. Though I think Raffles was in the latest League book…

As for the fisticuffs, i guess it comes to your definition of “slugfest”. Holmes knows his way around a fight, but I can’t think of a physical altercation involving Holmes that goes more than a couple of sentences. In “The adventure of Black Peter” he’s got to have Lestrade and Watson pull him out of a brawl w/ the title character.

I had not read Jon Rogers take. But his summation of Watson sounds perfectly rendered. I still stand by Holmes being a violent gentleman, doesn’t talk about the blood on his knuckles, just wipes it away slyly while pontificating another theory.

My own interest in all things Sherlock has awakened in the last half dozen years, and that seems to be the case with many others as well. I am always curious what is going on, zeitgeist wise, when such things happen in the popular culture. Like many fictional characters, I think there tends to be a “need” for them somehow in the culture, and they tend to arise (Superman-WWII, Jack Bauer-terrorists, etc.).

Personally, I have really enjoyed watching the Jeremy Brett/Granada Television Sherlock stories, and Brett has forever cemented himself as “the” Sherlock I see in my head whenever I read a story, whether from Doyle or someone else.

Thanks for the fun article.

It seems to be official, as both Robert Downey Jnr and Jude Law are featured in the intro.

Have actors ever been used in this way? Not sure, but it looks pretty cool.

Have you read Jon Rogers’ take on Holmes? “John Watson is a twenty-six year old combat hard-ass with mujhadeen shrapnel buried in his leg (or shoulder, depending on the story) [and a bad case of PTSD], not some foppish fuckwit with a bowler hat. Sherlock Holmes is your substance-abusing perpetual grad student solving cases for the London underworld/working class that the cops won’t touch. ”

Heh.

Also… is everyone really that up in arms over the upcoming Sherlock film? I have some faith in Guy Ritchie, especially now that he is free of Madonna. I’ve read all of the Sherlock short stories, almost everything except “Hounds” (I know, I know) and see no reason why a flashy action movie is in anyway disgraceful to the character.

From what I’ve seen of the previews, Downey Jr, seems to have a fairly confident grasp of the character. As for the ramped up action sequences, the original material is packed with action – but let’s face it, the Victorian era was not the place for long, drawn out, heavily described action sequences… it’s concerns were for the character nuances, the clues, and the mystery, so the action is often pushed off stage, and mentioned quickly. But there’s no doubt in mind that Mr. Holmes was a rowdy, violent, gentleman.

I think the film will be a hoot. And I think people would have been twice as upset to have some slow moving, overwrought melodrama.

Ancestor. A “descendant” is someone who comes after a particular individual.

Not exactly… Don’t forget that Holmes was a former amateur boxer of sorts, and at least once waylaid a thug with his fists…

But, an awesome, wonderful article.

Also, need I add that the picture at the top of this piece is NOT of Holmes, but of Sherlock Hemlock, the world’s greatest Muppet detective.

Also, the Legion of Dasterdly Cads is a fantastic name.