MAsters of the universe?
153
rhetoric was therefore to present a narrative of transformation to cover up
this capitulation to global capital. 78
In Rawnsley’s analysis of the downfall of Peter Mandelson, he writes
that “[s]o long as everyone involved subscribed to an agreed ‘truth’ about
events – however true or not this ‘truth’ was – then they could spin their
way to safety,” and calls Campbell and Mandelson the “two great storytellers
of New Labour.” 79 While, again, it would be crass to draw exact parallels
between Moffat’s abrasive, Campbellian (or Tuckeresque) public persona
and Gatiss’ smoother, more Mandelsonian manner, the idea of an agreed
“truth” about events in Sherlock – whether or not this truth turns out to be
true – is a suggestive one. As Gatiss has smilingly yet tellingly remarked to a
Newsbeat reporter, “I’ve become a politician […] Sherlock has made me one.” 80
Conclusion
Why should the lead writers place such a strange, simultaneous emphasis
on rejecting press stories and fan stories while indicating the correct “line
to take” 81 about what happens in Sherlock? Put another way, why do they
write a series in which powerful, manipulative news corporations are not to
be trusted, while outside the series, grassroots activity which challenges the
hegemony of Gatiss and Moffat’s version of Sherlock is not to be tolerated?
I suggest that control of the narrative, holding the secrets of the story yet
to be revealed, are all that Sherlock’s lead writers truly have of their own.
This is why they guard it so jealously, withholding information but then
telling us how we should feel about that information’s absence, controlling
what is and is not valid speculation (that Moriarty may be alive, yes; that
Moriarty, Sherlock, and/or John are gay or bisexual, no). To borrow once
again from Elliott’s categories, Gatiss and Moffat can only lay claim to their
own “decomposed composite” of Conan Doyle and Sherlock, to its unique
redistribution of the elements of the source text. 82
As we have seen, aside from story, Gatiss and Moffat have few of the
conveniences and privileges of the showrunner in US television. They
do not own the source material, even though the Sherlock branding
78 Ibid., 8.
79 Rawnsley, Servants of the People, 444.
80 Jamieson, “Benedict Cumberbatch’s Sherlock goes back to 1895.”
81 See Rawnsley, Servants of the People, 444.
82 Elliott, “Literary Film Adaptation,” 233.
153
rhetoric was therefore to present a narrative of transformation to cover up
this capitulation to global capital. 78
In Rawnsley’s analysis of the downfall of Peter Mandelson, he writes
that “[s]o long as everyone involved subscribed to an agreed ‘truth’ about
events – however true or not this ‘truth’ was – then they could spin their
way to safety,” and calls Campbell and Mandelson the “two great storytellers
of New Labour.” 79 While, again, it would be crass to draw exact parallels
between Moffat’s abrasive, Campbellian (or Tuckeresque) public persona
and Gatiss’ smoother, more Mandelsonian manner, the idea of an agreed
“truth” about events in Sherlock – whether or not this truth turns out to be
true – is a suggestive one. As Gatiss has smilingly yet tellingly remarked to a
Newsbeat reporter, “I’ve become a politician […] Sherlock has made me one.” 80
Conclusion
Why should the lead writers place such a strange, simultaneous emphasis
on rejecting press stories and fan stories while indicating the correct “line
to take” 81 about what happens in Sherlock? Put another way, why do they
write a series in which powerful, manipulative news corporations are not to
be trusted, while outside the series, grassroots activity which challenges the
hegemony of Gatiss and Moffat’s version of Sherlock is not to be tolerated?
I suggest that control of the narrative, holding the secrets of the story yet
to be revealed, are all that Sherlock’s lead writers truly have of their own.
This is why they guard it so jealously, withholding information but then
telling us how we should feel about that information’s absence, controlling
what is and is not valid speculation (that Moriarty may be alive, yes; that
Moriarty, Sherlock, and/or John are gay or bisexual, no). To borrow once
again from Elliott’s categories, Gatiss and Moffat can only lay claim to their
own “decomposed composite” of Conan Doyle and Sherlock, to its unique
redistribution of the elements of the source text. 82
As we have seen, aside from story, Gatiss and Moffat have few of the
conveniences and privileges of the showrunner in US television. They
do not own the source material, even though the Sherlock branding
78 Ibid., 8.
79 Rawnsley, Servants of the People, 444.
80 Jamieson, “Benedict Cumberbatch’s Sherlock goes back to 1895.”
81 See Rawnsley, Servants of the People, 444.
82 Elliott, “Literary Film Adaptation,” 233.