138
AdAptAtion in the Age of MediA ConvergenCe
be modernized. And we nodded and drank our tea […] saying someone was
going to do that,” and that furthermore, “we were going to be cross” because
“[i]t should have been us!” 18 The account of Sherlock’s development given
in the companion book to the series, Sherlock Chronicles, makes clear the
competitive element: Gatiss is purported to have emailed Moffat in 2008
with the news that Guy Ritchie was to direct a “funky” modern Sherlock
Holmes film, and to have urged, “Let’s get the scripts in now!” 19
Kamilla Elliott’s “six concepts of adaptation,” which she elucidates with
reference to adaptations of Wuthering Heights, 20 is a useful framework
through which to examine these claims by the lead writers. What Moffat is
implying with his “utterly thrilled” and “It should have been us!” remarks is
akin to Elliott’s psychic concept of adaptation, where the assertion is made
that the adapter is uniquely qualified to convey the “spirit of the text” into
the new medium. 21 As Elliott goes on to point out, many critics “render the
spirit of a text synonymous with authorial intent,” and in Gatiss’ comments
about how modern the Holmes and Watson stories were at the time of their
first publication, and wanting to “blow away the Victorian fog” to get back
to how “Doyle thought of [the stories] himself,” there is the same assertion
of recapturing the spirit of Doyle’s original conception. 22 Finally, as Elliott
indicates, “Fidelity to the spirit of a text is almost always accompanied by
an insistence on the necessity of infidelity to its letter or form,” 23 and this is
true of Sherlock’s lead writers, who argue that modernizing Sherlock Homes
allows them to be more faithful, not only to Doyle’s characters, but to the
context in which he was writing.
There is also, in the presentation of Sherlock as an adaptation, an element of what Elliott calls “The Trumping Concept of Adaptation.” 24 Where
Elliott def ines this practice as “correcting a novel’s material historical
inaccuracies and its ideological ones,” 25 however, I have shown how
Sherlock’s lead writers have instead sought to trump the Guy Ritchie
adaptation (which turned out not to be set in modern times after all) and
older attempts at historically accurate adaptations, swathed in “Victorian
fog.”
18 Quoted in ibid., 13.
19 Quoted in ibid., 29.
20 Elliott, “Literary Film Adaptation,” 221.
21 Ibid. 222.
22 Quoted in Tribe, Sherlock Chronicles, 23–24.
23 Elliott, “Literary Film Adaptation,” 224.
24 Ibid. 237.
25 Ibid. 238.
AdAptAtion in the Age of MediA ConvergenCe
be modernized. And we nodded and drank our tea […] saying someone was
going to do that,” and that furthermore, “we were going to be cross” because
“[i]t should have been us!” 18 The account of Sherlock’s development given
in the companion book to the series, Sherlock Chronicles, makes clear the
competitive element: Gatiss is purported to have emailed Moffat in 2008
with the news that Guy Ritchie was to direct a “funky” modern Sherlock
Holmes film, and to have urged, “Let’s get the scripts in now!” 19
Kamilla Elliott’s “six concepts of adaptation,” which she elucidates with
reference to adaptations of Wuthering Heights, 20 is a useful framework
through which to examine these claims by the lead writers. What Moffat is
implying with his “utterly thrilled” and “It should have been us!” remarks is
akin to Elliott’s psychic concept of adaptation, where the assertion is made
that the adapter is uniquely qualified to convey the “spirit of the text” into
the new medium. 21 As Elliott goes on to point out, many critics “render the
spirit of a text synonymous with authorial intent,” and in Gatiss’ comments
about how modern the Holmes and Watson stories were at the time of their
first publication, and wanting to “blow away the Victorian fog” to get back
to how “Doyle thought of [the stories] himself,” there is the same assertion
of recapturing the spirit of Doyle’s original conception. 22 Finally, as Elliott
indicates, “Fidelity to the spirit of a text is almost always accompanied by
an insistence on the necessity of infidelity to its letter or form,” 23 and this is
true of Sherlock’s lead writers, who argue that modernizing Sherlock Homes
allows them to be more faithful, not only to Doyle’s characters, but to the
context in which he was writing.
There is also, in the presentation of Sherlock as an adaptation, an element of what Elliott calls “The Trumping Concept of Adaptation.” 24 Where
Elliott def ines this practice as “correcting a novel’s material historical
inaccuracies and its ideological ones,” 25 however, I have shown how
Sherlock’s lead writers have instead sought to trump the Guy Ritchie
adaptation (which turned out not to be set in modern times after all) and
older attempts at historically accurate adaptations, swathed in “Victorian
fog.”
18 Quoted in ibid., 13.
19 Quoted in ibid., 29.
20 Elliott, “Literary Film Adaptation,” 221.
21 Ibid. 222.
22 Quoted in Tribe, Sherlock Chronicles, 23–24.
23 Elliott, “Literary Film Adaptation,” 224.
24 Ibid. 237.
25 Ibid. 238.