NetNews Usenet Archive 1993 #3/NN_1993_3.iso/spool/alt/fan/holmes/643

Internet Message Format | 1993-01-25 | 3.7 KB

Path: sparky!uunet!olivea!spool.mu.edu!torn!nott!cunews!watson
From: [e-mail] (Stephen Watson)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.holmes
Subject: Re: Watson's intelligence
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 25 Jan 93 17:08:27 GMT
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Sender: [e-mail] (News Administrator)
Organization: Carleton University
Lines: 69

[e-mail] (The_Doge) writes:

>In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Garth G. Groff) writes:
>>WATSON'S INTELLIGENCE

>>I think we must also consider that it
>>is Watson himself who is telling most of the stories, and
>>he is most interested in glorifying his friend Holmes rather
>>than immodestly tooting his own horn.
>>
>    I'll stand by my FAQ entry.  I think you'll find a consensus among
>most Sherlockians that the Canonical Watson was a fairly "normal" fellow by
>turn-of-the-century British standards.
>>I am extremely impressed with Edward Hardwick's Watson.  He
>>is anything but the bumbling fool of Nigel Bruce fame (or
>>Patrick Mcnee).  Hardwick finally is giving the character
>>a fair reading.
>>

Memory fails me on specifics here, but it seems to me that the Granada
TV scripts frequently place in Watson's mouth, lines which are either
not in the Canon, or were spoken (in the Canon) by others (even Holmes
himself), thus more than rehabilitating him from the slander of Nigel
Bruce's Bumbling Fool.

One example from _The_Blue_Carbuncle_: in the scene where Holmes is
attempting to get Breckenridge to tell him where the goose came from,
the Canon puts all the dialog as being between Holmes and the
goose-broker.  But in the Granada version, Holmes indicates that
Watson is his opponent in the wager.  Watson, after some brief initial
confusion as to what Holmes wants of him, joins in the deception most
capably (being a *little* slow on the uptake is, alas, a family trait
;-).  Can anyone think of more examples of this kind of thing?

(BTW I thought the Granada ending to this story rather weak: its not
at all clear how H & W spring Horner from jail, without admitting that
they had found - and then released - the culprit.  Mind you, the Canonical
ending is a bit weak, too.) (IMHO)

With reference to Garth Groff's comment above, it is true that my
illustrious ancestor was a humble, self-effacing man, far too modest
to give himself all the best lines, and so he does rather write
himself into the background.  It is unfortunate that Hollywood, always
over-simplifying things for the rabble, took advantage of this to cast
the poor man as a complete idiot.  Fortunately, family lore has
preserved the true story, and I am gratified to see that Granada (who
no doubt consulted with some of my English cousins) has restored his
reputation.

>    I'd agree with that.  I know many Sherlockians (including the outgoing
>editor of the BSJ) who can't stand Brett's Holmes but have nothing but praise

Really?  I *love* Brett's portrayal: he captures the man's essential
"thinness" and "angularity" (both of physique and mind).  We see
Holmes' intense energy in the chase, his sharp and anti-social edges,
his eccentricity, but also his capacity for deep compassion and
affection.  To me, the character rings true.

>for both of the actors who have portrayed Watson, so this would seem to be a
>widespread opinion.
>The_Doge

--
| Steve Watson a.k.a. [e-mail] === Carleton University, Ontario |
|  this->opinion = My.opinion;  assert (this->opinion != CarletonU.opinion);  |
"Somebody touched me / Making everything new / Burned through my life / Like a
 bolt from the blue / Somebody touched me / I know it was you" - Bruce Cockburn