I am so fascinated by the way s1 frames Sherlock’s ability to act and uses it as evidence in favor of the (canonically inaccurate) reading of his character as a “high-functioning sociopath.”
This kind of thing is all over the show, taking things Holmes has always done but tweaking the context so it makes you form a completely inaccurate read on him unless you’re really paying attention. Like no one thinks Ben is a sociopath for being able to play all those emotions on a dime, but they make you worry about it for Sherlock. There are so many ways that it seems like the show takes the pop culture conception of Sherlock Holmes and turns up the notch on it to highlight how absurd the conclusions are. And they don’t just do it for Sherlock’s character.
People seem to be misunderstanding this as me saying the writers have it wrong. That isn’t what I’m saying. Even as it stands, the show is about disproving this surface level reading of Sherlock’s character. What I’m saying is that the specific ways they accomplish that seem to be pointed commentary at the way some Holmes fans only pick up on some of his actions, deliberately misunderstand the rest, and deem him a cold, unfeeling machine. I think they’re doing it on purpose.
yes, very much so! the show is the meta, and it's constantly asking the viewer to see both the watsonian layer and the doylist layer, if those are the right terms here. to enter into the world of the story, the way you normally do when you watch a tv show, BUT ALSO to take that step back and think about it as a constructed story, and as a commentary on the story and the character.
what's the line in asip, "i was hoping you'd go a bit deeper".