150
AdAptAtion in the Age of MediA ConvergenCe
over viewers, almost to the point of mild sadism: 67 “You don’t know what’s
going on there [with Moriarty’s apparent return]. You don’t know what’s
going on there. We know what’s going on there but we’re not telling you…
for bloody ages! [laughter]. It must be hell watching this show.” 68 In the same
reply, he jokes sarcastically that “I’ve always given this grand commitment
to telling the truth,” making it plain that, like Moriarty, even his supposedly
straightforward answers are calculated to deceive, or else may be subject
to complete revision without notice.
The political rhetoric of Sherlock’s lead writers
Is such behavior, on the part of the lead writers, political? Well, it certainly
calls for what I will argue are political presentational techniques. British
politics since Margaret Thatcher, according to several commentators, has
been, in part, a story of the growing influence of the Prime Minister’s Press
Secretary and his various media advisers (see Jones 1999; Rawnsley 2001; Cohen 2004). This influence reached its peak in the early years of the New Labour
government of 1997–2010. How might New Labour’s spin be connected with
Sherlock’s lead writers, beyond the adoption of similar rhetorical methods of
impression management? I will leave aside the obvious fact that Mark Gatiss
played New Labour architect Peter Mandelson in a comedy drama about the
aftermath of the 2010 UK general election, Coalition. Instead, I suggest that it
is in the repeated assertion of control of an overarching narrative against a
backdrop of other, overwhelmingly powerful global forces that the significant
parallel between “New Sherlock Holmes” and “New Labour” really lies.
Now, clearly, Moffat and Gatiss are far more important to Sherlock’s
success than mere Press Secretaries or “spin doctors.” Both Moffat and Gatiss
are lead writers and co-creators, and one is also an actor in the show. Yet, for
example, there is something of the politician’s technique of foregrounding
family in an attempt to communicate a certain down-to-earth honesty in
Moffat’s public use of his own family and friends. 69 Moffat commented
directly on the casting of Cumberbatch and Freeman’s family (as discussed
in this chapter’s introduction) at the BBC Q&A: “Why look elsewhere? The
67 As Click and Brock also note, Moffat “revels in” and “becomes giddy” at these moments of
withholding key information from fans. Click and Brock, “Marking the Line,” 123.
68 Mellor, “Sherlock: His Last Vow Q&A.”
69 See, for example, Nick Jones on Blair’s use of his family in personal publicity to communicate
an impression of transparent normality and trustworthiness. Jones, Sultans of Spin, 22, 44,
AdAptAtion in the Age of MediA ConvergenCe
over viewers, almost to the point of mild sadism: 67 “You don’t know what’s
going on there [with Moriarty’s apparent return]. You don’t know what’s
going on there. We know what’s going on there but we’re not telling you…
for bloody ages! [laughter]. It must be hell watching this show.” 68 In the same
reply, he jokes sarcastically that “I’ve always given this grand commitment
to telling the truth,” making it plain that, like Moriarty, even his supposedly
straightforward answers are calculated to deceive, or else may be subject
to complete revision without notice.
The political rhetoric of Sherlock’s lead writers
Is such behavior, on the part of the lead writers, political? Well, it certainly
calls for what I will argue are political presentational techniques. British
politics since Margaret Thatcher, according to several commentators, has
been, in part, a story of the growing influence of the Prime Minister’s Press
Secretary and his various media advisers (see Jones 1999; Rawnsley 2001; Cohen 2004). This influence reached its peak in the early years of the New Labour
government of 1997–2010. How might New Labour’s spin be connected with
Sherlock’s lead writers, beyond the adoption of similar rhetorical methods of
impression management? I will leave aside the obvious fact that Mark Gatiss
played New Labour architect Peter Mandelson in a comedy drama about the
aftermath of the 2010 UK general election, Coalition. Instead, I suggest that it
is in the repeated assertion of control of an overarching narrative against a
backdrop of other, overwhelmingly powerful global forces that the significant
parallel between “New Sherlock Holmes” and “New Labour” really lies.
Now, clearly, Moffat and Gatiss are far more important to Sherlock’s
success than mere Press Secretaries or “spin doctors.” Both Moffat and Gatiss
are lead writers and co-creators, and one is also an actor in the show. Yet, for
example, there is something of the politician’s technique of foregrounding
family in an attempt to communicate a certain down-to-earth honesty in
Moffat’s public use of his own family and friends. 69 Moffat commented
directly on the casting of Cumberbatch and Freeman’s family (as discussed
in this chapter’s introduction) at the BBC Q&A: “Why look elsewhere? The
67 As Click and Brock also note, Moffat “revels in” and “becomes giddy” at these moments of
withholding key information from fans. Click and Brock, “Marking the Line,” 123.
68 Mellor, “Sherlock: His Last Vow Q&A.”
69 See, for example, Nick Jones on Blair’s use of his family in personal publicity to communicate
an impression of transparent normality and trustworthiness. Jones, Sultans of Spin, 22, 44,