136
AdAptAtion in the Age of MediA ConvergenCe
the designers, editors, composers, and directors) with an overall auteurist,
authorial vision. 6
Furthermore, despite their status as successful writers in their own right,
and as co-creators of Sherlock, Moffat and Gatiss lack the autonomy of the
powerful US showrunner, or of the filmic auteur. For example, as Steve Tribe
explains, the series was conceived as consisting of 60-minute episodes,
but a BBC staffing change resulted in a request for the unusual format of
90-minute episodes. 7 Another aspect of the writers’ relative lack of power
is the (un)availability of Sherlock’s lead actors. Moffat and Thompson have
made no secret of the fact that the small number of episodes of Sherlock
is due in large part to the busy schedules of Benedict Cumberbatch and
Martin Freeman, whose Hollywood film careers have both taken off in
recent years. 8 Thompson even quotes Moffat as saying, in respect of the time
constraints placed on Sherlock by such factors, “no script is ever properly
finished – it’s just transmitted.” 9
Moffat, Gatiss, and the psychic concept of adaptation
On one level, then, Sherlock’s writers freely allude to their relative lack
of creative control, and present the show’s immense success as akin to
a happy accident. However, there is a second discourse, which runs in
contradiction to this, a discourse mostly constructed by Moffat, which
strongly suggests that he and Gatiss are uniquely qualif ied to adapt
Conan Doyle for the twenty-f irst century. This self-fashioning, as the
chapter will go on to explore, can easily shade into a slight impatience
or intolerance of anything but the lead writers’ own approved storylines
and interpretations.
In explaining this pattern, it is significant that Sherlock seemed at this
point to enjoy a symbiotic relationship with Doctor Who, the BBC’s other
flagship action drama. 10 In part, this could be because the characters of
6 Stephen Crofts refers to the way that in the “auterist critical enterprise, the author is impressionistically read off from thematic and/or stylistic properties in the film(s),” emphasizing the
way that, in a Foucauldian sense, the idea of a single auteur is constructed by the viewer or
critic. Crofts, “Authorship and Hollywood,” 313.
7 Tribe, Sherlock Chronicles, 61–64.
8 Mellor, “Sherlock: His Last Vow Q&A”; Tribe, Sherlock Chronicles, 81.
9 Quoted in Tribe, Sherlock Chronicles, 81.
10 There has even been persistent talk of a crossover project in which Sherlock would meet
the Doctor. See Hooton, “Doctor Who Sherlock Crossover.”
AdAptAtion in the Age of MediA ConvergenCe
the designers, editors, composers, and directors) with an overall auteurist,
authorial vision. 6
Furthermore, despite their status as successful writers in their own right,
and as co-creators of Sherlock, Moffat and Gatiss lack the autonomy of the
powerful US showrunner, or of the filmic auteur. For example, as Steve Tribe
explains, the series was conceived as consisting of 60-minute episodes,
but a BBC staffing change resulted in a request for the unusual format of
90-minute episodes. 7 Another aspect of the writers’ relative lack of power
is the (un)availability of Sherlock’s lead actors. Moffat and Thompson have
made no secret of the fact that the small number of episodes of Sherlock
is due in large part to the busy schedules of Benedict Cumberbatch and
Martin Freeman, whose Hollywood film careers have both taken off in
recent years. 8 Thompson even quotes Moffat as saying, in respect of the time
constraints placed on Sherlock by such factors, “no script is ever properly
finished – it’s just transmitted.” 9
Moffat, Gatiss, and the psychic concept of adaptation
On one level, then, Sherlock’s writers freely allude to their relative lack
of creative control, and present the show’s immense success as akin to
a happy accident. However, there is a second discourse, which runs in
contradiction to this, a discourse mostly constructed by Moffat, which
strongly suggests that he and Gatiss are uniquely qualif ied to adapt
Conan Doyle for the twenty-f irst century. This self-fashioning, as the
chapter will go on to explore, can easily shade into a slight impatience
or intolerance of anything but the lead writers’ own approved storylines
and interpretations.
In explaining this pattern, it is significant that Sherlock seemed at this
point to enjoy a symbiotic relationship with Doctor Who, the BBC’s other
flagship action drama. 10 In part, this could be because the characters of
6 Stephen Crofts refers to the way that in the “auterist critical enterprise, the author is impressionistically read off from thematic and/or stylistic properties in the film(s),” emphasizing the
way that, in a Foucauldian sense, the idea of a single auteur is constructed by the viewer or
critic. Crofts, “Authorship and Hollywood,” 313.
7 Tribe, Sherlock Chronicles, 61–64.
8 Mellor, “Sherlock: His Last Vow Q&A”; Tribe, Sherlock Chronicles, 81.
9 Quoted in Tribe, Sherlock Chronicles, 81.
10 There has even been persistent talk of a crossover project in which Sherlock would meet
the Doctor. See Hooton, “Doctor Who Sherlock Crossover.”