MAsters of the universe?
147
stories to producing a type of adaptation that Anne Jamison calls “pro-fic”:
professionally produced derivative works. 50 Hence, as Judith May Fathallah
notes, Moffat is “stressing his own fannishness as a credential” yet on the
other hand, “dismissing fannish desire as trivial and over-invested” when it
constitutes a response to his and Gatiss’ own derivative works. 51 For Melissa
A. Click and Nettie Brock, in behaving this way Gatiss and Moffat “serve to
uphold the familiar power imbalance between industry and audience.” 52
In a sense, it is as if the lead writers regard Sherlock fans as a lesser breed
precisely because they may favor the modern adaptation over the Conan
Doyle originals, because modern fans may identify as “Sherlocked” – fans
of the television series primarily – rather than “Sherlockian,” fans of
the Conan Doyle canon. 53 As Moffat said in an early interview, part of
the show is the creators “constantly wanting to say, ‘Have you any idea
how good this is? How good Doyle is? How good these characters are?’” 54
It is as if the approved response to enjoying episodes of Sherlock is to
return to Conan Doyle’s stories, not to engage with any of the characters
or situations in a creatively open-ended way. Moffat is again invoking
the “psychic model” where only he and Gatiss, the expert interpreters,
are authorized to communicate Conan Doyle’s talents, achievements,
and intentions by adapting them into something else. Yet at the same
time, there is also an element in this statement of Moffat endorsing the
fidelity imperative, where screen adaptation provides a conduit back to
the (implicitly superior) original. 55
To complicate the picture further, Sherlock contains elements of Elliott’s
“De(re)composing Concept of Adaptation […] a (de)composite of textual and
filmic signs merging in audience consciousness together with other cultural
narratives.” 56 We have seen one aspect of this in the way that episode titles
reference Conan Doyle’s story titles, but the key point here is that there is
no direct adaptation of any one of the source texts. Instead, each 90-minute
episode contains elements of several Canonical Sherlock Holmes adventures.
For example, “His Last Vow” contains references to, and appropriations of,
“His Last Bow,” “The Adventure of Charles Augustus Milverton,” and “The
Man with the Twisted Lip,” among others.
50 Jamison, Fic, 3.
51 Fathallah, Fanfiction and the Author, 51
52 Click and Brock, “Marking the Line,” 125
53 See Stieva, “We solve crimes,” 242.
54 “Unlocking Sherlock.”
55 See Elliott, “Literary Film Adaptation,” 220; Murray, The Adaptation Industry, 8.
56 Elliott, “Literary Film Adaptation,” 233.
147
stories to producing a type of adaptation that Anne Jamison calls “pro-fic”:
professionally produced derivative works. 50 Hence, as Judith May Fathallah
notes, Moffat is “stressing his own fannishness as a credential” yet on the
other hand, “dismissing fannish desire as trivial and over-invested” when it
constitutes a response to his and Gatiss’ own derivative works. 51 For Melissa
A. Click and Nettie Brock, in behaving this way Gatiss and Moffat “serve to
uphold the familiar power imbalance between industry and audience.” 52
In a sense, it is as if the lead writers regard Sherlock fans as a lesser breed
precisely because they may favor the modern adaptation over the Conan
Doyle originals, because modern fans may identify as “Sherlocked” – fans
of the television series primarily – rather than “Sherlockian,” fans of
the Conan Doyle canon. 53 As Moffat said in an early interview, part of
the show is the creators “constantly wanting to say, ‘Have you any idea
how good this is? How good Doyle is? How good these characters are?’” 54
It is as if the approved response to enjoying episodes of Sherlock is to
return to Conan Doyle’s stories, not to engage with any of the characters
or situations in a creatively open-ended way. Moffat is again invoking
the “psychic model” where only he and Gatiss, the expert interpreters,
are authorized to communicate Conan Doyle’s talents, achievements,
and intentions by adapting them into something else. Yet at the same
time, there is also an element in this statement of Moffat endorsing the
fidelity imperative, where screen adaptation provides a conduit back to
the (implicitly superior) original. 55
To complicate the picture further, Sherlock contains elements of Elliott’s
“De(re)composing Concept of Adaptation […] a (de)composite of textual and
filmic signs merging in audience consciousness together with other cultural
narratives.” 56 We have seen one aspect of this in the way that episode titles
reference Conan Doyle’s story titles, but the key point here is that there is
no direct adaptation of any one of the source texts. Instead, each 90-minute
episode contains elements of several Canonical Sherlock Holmes adventures.
For example, “His Last Vow” contains references to, and appropriations of,
“His Last Bow,” “The Adventure of Charles Augustus Milverton,” and “The
Man with the Twisted Lip,” among others.
50 Jamison, Fic, 3.
51 Fathallah, Fanfiction and the Author, 51
52 Click and Brock, “Marking the Line,” 125
53 See Stieva, “We solve crimes,” 242.
54 “Unlocking Sherlock.”
55 See Elliott, “Literary Film Adaptation,” 220; Murray, The Adaptation Industry, 8.
56 Elliott, “Literary Film Adaptation,” 233.