134
AdAptAtion in the Age of MediA ConvergenCe
appearances as Sherlock and Mycroft’s parents. In addition, this was the first
series to feature a final villain who was not Jim Moriarty. Gatiss and Moffat
chose a media magnate, Charles Augustus Magnussen, as their designated
super-villain, a character based on a blackmailer in the Conan Doyle stories,
Charles Augustus Milverton. Such a modernizing character adaptation
was bound to attract interest for its topicality, especially given the recently
concluded Leveson Inquiry, set up by the British government to investigate
the ethics and practices of the British press. To underline this connection,
Magnussen is first seen on screen giving evidence in front of some kind of
official inquiry. Indeed, at the time of the show’s airing, criminal trials of
senior News International figures were still ongoing. Finally, discussion in
Q&A sessions after the premieres of the series’ three episodes often returned
to the subject of Sherlock’s international success, the fan responses that it
has inspired, and the logistics of filming. Again, Moffat and Gatiss have had
sometimes surprising and controversial views on the series’ fans, reflected
both in post-show discussions and discernible in the program itself.
Given the increasing visibility of Gatiss and Moffat as public figures, then,
as interest in Sherlock spilled over into press and fan interest in the making
of Sherlock, this chapter raises the question of whether Sherlock itself had
developed a political position, and whether its two lead writers acted as political
agents, as well as cultural agents, in the positions they publicly took up at this
point in the show’s history. In brief, I intend to explore whether the attitude of
anti-media populism in Sherlock series two and three is taken up in a politically
cohesive way. In order to do this, I begin by defining more closely Gatiss and
Moffat’s status as Sherlock co-creators and lead writers; I will then analyze in
more detail two aspects of series three, which attracted press attention for their
political overtones, and will compare these with the show’s use of the reporter
Kitty Reilly in series two. The chapter then considers Sherlock’s treatment
of its fans, both within the show itself and in the lead writers’ comments.
Drawing on these two strands – politics and the fandom – I go on to argue that
what connects the lead writers’ reaction on these issues is a need to control
Sherlock’s central “story,” and not to have that storytelling function challenged
or contested by either fans or journalists. It is this insistence on “framing the
narrative,” I conclude, that ultimately most reflects the politics of the period.
Showrunners versus lead writers
To begin, it may be useful to specify the role of Gatiss and Moffat in Sherlock’s
creative process. The two men are frequently referred to in press and online
AdAptAtion in the Age of MediA ConvergenCe
appearances as Sherlock and Mycroft’s parents. In addition, this was the first
series to feature a final villain who was not Jim Moriarty. Gatiss and Moffat
chose a media magnate, Charles Augustus Magnussen, as their designated
super-villain, a character based on a blackmailer in the Conan Doyle stories,
Charles Augustus Milverton. Such a modernizing character adaptation
was bound to attract interest for its topicality, especially given the recently
concluded Leveson Inquiry, set up by the British government to investigate
the ethics and practices of the British press. To underline this connection,
Magnussen is first seen on screen giving evidence in front of some kind of
official inquiry. Indeed, at the time of the show’s airing, criminal trials of
senior News International figures were still ongoing. Finally, discussion in
Q&A sessions after the premieres of the series’ three episodes often returned
to the subject of Sherlock’s international success, the fan responses that it
has inspired, and the logistics of filming. Again, Moffat and Gatiss have had
sometimes surprising and controversial views on the series’ fans, reflected
both in post-show discussions and discernible in the program itself.
Given the increasing visibility of Gatiss and Moffat as public figures, then,
as interest in Sherlock spilled over into press and fan interest in the making
of Sherlock, this chapter raises the question of whether Sherlock itself had
developed a political position, and whether its two lead writers acted as political
agents, as well as cultural agents, in the positions they publicly took up at this
point in the show’s history. In brief, I intend to explore whether the attitude of
anti-media populism in Sherlock series two and three is taken up in a politically
cohesive way. In order to do this, I begin by defining more closely Gatiss and
Moffat’s status as Sherlock co-creators and lead writers; I will then analyze in
more detail two aspects of series three, which attracted press attention for their
political overtones, and will compare these with the show’s use of the reporter
Kitty Reilly in series two. The chapter then considers Sherlock’s treatment
of its fans, both within the show itself and in the lead writers’ comments.
Drawing on these two strands – politics and the fandom – I go on to argue that
what connects the lead writers’ reaction on these issues is a need to control
Sherlock’s central “story,” and not to have that storytelling function challenged
or contested by either fans or journalists. It is this insistence on “framing the
narrative,” I conclude, that ultimately most reflects the politics of the period.
Showrunners versus lead writers
To begin, it may be useful to specify the role of Gatiss and Moffat in Sherlock’s
creative process. The two men are frequently referred to in press and online