History Headscratchers / SherlockHolmes

* In "The Adventure Of Shoscombe Old Place", Watson tells Holmes about how Sir Robert Norberton [[WhipItGood horsewhipped one Sam Brewer and nearly killed him.]] Watson says that Norberton "nearly ended up in Holmes's province" for that. Why was Sir Robert not arrested and charged for violently assaulting someone? Did he think ScrewTheRulesIHaveConnections and was allowed to do that because of his knighthood? I'd think Sir Robert ought to be spending several years in jail, not to mention being sued into bankruptcy by Sam Brewer.

*** "The Adventure Of The Speckled Band" opens with Watson explaining that the story happened several years before he actually published it, but he could only do so now due to Helen Stoner's early death. Presumably, Watson kept silent to avoid subjecting her to any more trauma. She was already in a bad way due to her stepfather's abuse and the stress she was under from her sister's death and the strange circumstances of it starting to repeat themselves.

** In one case, this is ''exactly'' what happened; Watson opens with an explanation that, due to the untimely death of the last innocent person connected with the case, he is no longer bound to secrecy.

** Holmes actually confronts Watson about his style of writing several times. Watson's concerned with writing a good story, and while Sherlockians/Holmesians prefer to believe what he recorded was accurate there's no reason why he wouldn't have embellished. The accounts Holmes crafts himself are much more scientific and instructional.

** In seriousness, likely because the "crown" is by that point a few broken and rusted scraps of metal and some old gems, there's really little actual evidence to prove it was the real medieval Crown of St. Edward beyond what's basically a nursery rhyme (in reality the medieval Crown is believed to have been melted down or sold by Cromwell's government). Holmes is ultimately speculating when he suggests it's the actual crown, and there's very little way of telling whether it actually is or not. Furthermore, a replacement crown had been created by that point, meaning that the old one wasn't required beyond being an object of historical interest, and a particularly ambitious lawyer could conceivably argue that there were potentially various loopholes regarding the length of time the "crown" had been missing and the various political and social changes that had occurred in the meantime (such as the Act of Union for one, which dissolved the English monarchy which claimed the old crown and replaced it with the British monarchy) that called the monarchy or state's ownership of the "crown" into question. The "legal troubles" were almost certainly various lawyers and historians going backwards and forwards about why the remains of the crown was/wasn't the historical crown of legend and did/didn't belong to the state, and the settlement was likely just the Royal Family and their representatives throwing their hands up and going "Fine, it's ultimately some broken old metal, just chuck us some money for appearance's sake and you can keep it if you really want it that badly."

** Ultimately, I think it's simply down to the fact that the InsufferableGenius is a popular character trope in recent years. Certain forms of characterization tend to become popular and widely disseminated (often because of a certain amount of FollowTheLeader) so they start being frequently used; see also, other currently successful and popular characters like [[Series/TheBigBangTheory Sheldon Cooper]], [[Series/DoctorWho The Doctor]], [[Film/IronMan Iron]] [[Film/TheAvengers Man]], etc. This has coincided with a spike in popularity of adaptations of Sherlock Holmes; since the two are both popular and tend to go well together (Sherlock Holmes is a genius, and can frequently be insufferable about it), people tend to use them. Ultimately, it's just a phase; people will get sick of it and want to see other takes on the character / trope as well, and later creators / actors who take on the character will want to put their own stamp on it to avoid simply being considered as ripping off Benedict Cumberbatch / Jonny Lee Miller / Robert Downey Jr. / whoever, so we'll start seeing different interpretations of Holmes.

** Ultimately, I think it's simply down to the fact that the InsufferableGenius is a popular character trope in recent years. Certain forms of characterization tend to become popular and widely disseminated (often because of a certain amount of FollowTheLeader) so they start being frequently used; see also, other currently successful and popular characters like [[Series/TheBigBangTheory Sheldon Cooper]], [[Series/DoctorWho The Doctor]], [[Film/IronMan Iron]] [[Fim/TheAvengers Man]], etc. This has coincided with a spike in popularity of adaptations of Sherlock Holmes; since the two are both popular and tend to go well together (Sherlock Holmes is a genius, and can frequently be insufferable about it), people tend to use them. Ultimately, it's just a phase; people will get sick of it and want to see other takes on the character / trope as well, and later creators / actors who take on the character will want to put their own stamp on it to avoid simply being considered as ripping off Benedict Cumberbatch / Jonny Lee Miller / Robert Downey Jr. / whoever, so we'll start seeing different interpretations of Holmes.

** In seriousness, likely because the "crown" is by that point a few broken and rusted scraps of metal and some old gems, there's really little actual evidence to prove it was the real medieval Crown of St. Edward beyond what's basically a nursery rhyme (in reality the medieval Crown is believed to have been melted down or sold by Cromwell's government) and Holmes is merely speculating when he suggests it's the actual crown, the monarchy had created a replacement crown by that point, and a particularly ambitious lawyer could conceivably argue that there were potentially various loopholes regarding the length of time the "crown" had been missing and the various political and social changes that had occurred in the meantime (such as the Act of Union for one, which dissolved the English monarchy which claimed the old crown and replaced it with the British monarchy) that called the monarchy or state's ownership of the "crown" into question. The "legal troubles" were almost certainly various lawyers and historians going backwards and forwards about why the remains of the crown was/wasn't the historical crown of legend and did/didn't belong to the state, and the settlement was likely just the Royal Family and their representatives throwing their hands up and going "Fine, it's ultimately some broken old metal, just chuck us some money for appearance's sake and you can keep it if you really want it that badly."

*** The fact that Holmes was a flawed and eccentric bohemian does ''not'' mean he was supposed to be seen as or actually was seen as unlikeable (any more than, say, [[Series/DoctorWho the Fourth Doctor]] was). People at the time reportedly mourned the "death" of Holmes to a degree where it was almost as if an actual person had died; this does not tally with the claim that they were supposed to or in fact did view him just as a complete jerk who just happened to be very good at solving crimes. The evidence strongly suggests that Victorian readers genuinely ''loved'' Holmes; the closest modern equivalent we have for how people reacted to Holmes's fictional death is probably how people reacted to the fictional death of ComicBook/{{Superman}}. While the latter might have been hype, it was also hype which got people celebrating a beloved icon of popular culture widely seen as reflecting some of the best of a generation's values -- which doesn't happen or work with a fictional character everyone widely agrees is actually kind of a dickhead who nobody would like. Suggesting Holmes was actually supposed to be read as an unlikeable character seems to be somewhat revisionist history, as it does not appear to supported either by the stories themselves -- wherein Holmes is consistently depicted as eccentric, rude and unorthodox but ultimately heroic, decent, charismatic, compassionate, possessing a clear (if not wholly Victorian) moral code and willing to do the right (if not always strictly lawful) thing -- or by the way contemporary readers reacted to them and him.

*** The fact that Holmes was a flawed and eccentric bohemian does ''not'' mean he was supposed to be seen as or actually was seen as unlikeable (any more than, say, [[Series/DoctorWho the Fourth Doctor]] was). People at the time reportedly mourned the "death" of Holmes to a degree where it was almost as if an actual person had died; this does not tally with the claim that they were supposed to or in fact did view him just as a complete jerk who just happened to be very good at solving crimes. The evidence strongly suggests that Victorian readers genuinely ''loved'' Holmes; the closest modern equivalent we have for how people reacted to Holmes's fictional death is probably how people reacted to the fictional death of ComicBook/{{Superman}}. While the latter might have been hype, it was also hype which got people celebrating a beloved icon of popular culture widely seen as reflecting some of the best of a generation's values -- which doesn't happen or work with a fictional character everyone widely agrees is actually kind of a dickhead who nobody would like. Suggesting Holmes was actually supposed to be read as an unlikeable character seems to be somewhat revisionist history, as it does not appear to supported either by the stories themselves -- wherein Holmes is consistently depicted as eccentric, rude and unorthodox but ultimately heroic, decent, charismatic, compassionate, possessing a clear (if not wholly Victorian) moral code and willing to do the right thing -- or by the way contemporary readers reacted to them and him.

*** The fact that Holmes was a flawed and eccentric bohemian does ''not'' mean he was supposed to be seen as or actually was seen as unlikeable (any more than, say, [[Series/DoctorWho the Fourth Doctor]] was). People at the time reportedly mourned the "death" of Holmes to a degree where it was almost as if an actual person had died; this does not tally with the claim that they were supposed to or in fact did view him just as a complete jerk who just happened to be very good at solving crimes. The evidence strongly suggests that Victorian readers genuinely ''loved'' Holmes; the closest modern equivalent we have for how people reacted to Holmes's fictional death is probably how people reacted to the fictional death of ComicBook/{{Superman}}. While the latter might have been hype, it was also hype which got people celebrating a beloved icon of popular culture widely seen as reflecting some of the best of a generation's values -- which doesn't happen or work with a fictional character everyone widely agrees is actually kind of a dickhead who nobody would like. Suggesting Holmes was actually supposed to be read as an unlikeable character seems to be somewhat revisionist history, as it does not appear to supported either by the stories themselves -- wherein Holmes is consistently depicted as eccentric, rude and unorthodox but ultimately heroic, decent, compassionate, possessing a clear moral code and willing to do the right thing -- or by the way contemporary readers reacted to them and him.

*** The fact that Holmes was a flawed and eccentric bohemian does ''not'' mean he was supposed to be seen as or actually was seen as unlikeable (any more than, say, [[Series/DoctorWho the Fourth Doctor]] was). People at the time reportedly mourned the "death" of Holmes to a degree where it was almost as if an actual person had died; this does not tally with the claim that they were supposed to or in fact did view him just as a complete jerk who just happened to be very good at solving crimes. The evidence strongly suggests that Victorian readers genuinely ''loved'' Holmes; the closest modern equivalent we have for how people reacted to Holmes's fictional death is probably how people reacted to the fictional death of ComicBook/{{Superman}}. While the latter might have been hype, it was also hype which got people celebrating a beloved icon of popular culture widely seen as reflecting some of the best of a generation's values -- which doesn't happen or work with a fictional character everyone widely agrees is actually kind of a dickhead who nobody would like. Suggesting Holmes was actually supposed to be read as an unlikeable character seems to be somewhat revisionist history, as it does not appear to supported either by the stories themselves -- wherein Holmes is consistently depicted as eccentric and unorthodox but ultimately heroic, decent, possessing a clear moral code and willing to do the right thing -- or by the way contemporary readers reacted to them and him.