Will Young Sherlock be faithful to Doyle's Sherlock?
Growing up, I was surrounded by British gardening and detective series such as the 80s Poirot with David Suchet as Hercule Poirot, Endeavour from the 2010s, and the 80s The Adventures of Sherlock Holmes with Jeremy Brett.
Episode after episode, they just kept rolling one after another. So, I have a specific emotional bond with British detective stories. It’s something in the dreich Highlands, Georgian architecture and the English countryside.
Regarding literature, as I mentioned in my Frankenstein review, I fancy Romanticism and Gothic literature. To that, I will add Victorian realism. Then, it is no wonder that a special place for me, alongside Agatha Christie, belongs to Sir Arthur Conan Doyle’s Sherlock Holmes.
Obviously, I watched Sherlock Holmes (2009 and 2011) with Robert Downey Jr. portraying the main character; I also watched the modern version of Sherlock with Benedict Cumberbatch, and I already mentioned Jeremy Brett’s Sherlock. How do they differ from one another? How well did they portray Conan Doyle’s Sherlock? And what can we expect from Young Sherlock starting tomorrow on Prime?
Sherlock Holmes from the Books and Stories
Sherlock Holmes, created by Sir Arthur Conan Doyle, is more complex than television sometimes tends to portray him. In the books and short stories, Sherlock is extremely rational and deductive, introverted, but not asocial. He is ironical, but not arrogant – maybe sometimes, but not as much as Robert Downey Jr.’s Sherlock.
Doyle’s Sherlock is well-read and educated. He has broad interests in various topics, especially music. He also respects his opponents who are intellectually on his level, such as Professor Moriarty; however, he doesn’t have patience for people intellectually ‘below’ him, for instance Lestrade from Scotland Yard.
As far as other emotions are concerned, Watson describes Sherlock as: “and for a moment I saw something in his eyes which was nearer to tenderness than I had ever seen. The next instant he was his masterful, practical self once more.” Watson tells us Sherlock isn’t the type of person who shows emotions easily, but that doesn’t mean he doesn’t have any.
Furthermore, Sherlock suppresses his emotions because he believes they block his rational thinking. However, he doesn’t hide his enthusiasm when he solves riddles, so to speak. In other words, he shows excitement when figuring out who the murderer is. For example, in The Adventure of the Bruce-Partington Plans, Watson describes him as: “I felt some reflection of his elation in my own mind, for I knew well that he would not depart so far from his usual austerity of demeanour unless there was good cause for exultation.”
Regarding physical appearance, Sherlock Holmes is described as tall and thin, and he knows martial arts. Although he is skilled in fighting, he is not depicted as a heroic figure.
Moreover, what was fresh in the late 19th-century crime genre was that one detective solved crimes using not only logic, but also natural sciences, which until then had never been seen before. This was a reaction to the Second Scientific Revolution. Said progress in science and technology evoked anxiety and awkwardness known as fin de siècle at the end of the 19th century. Decadentism is seen in the literature of that time, including The Adventures of Sherlock Holmes. It manifests itself in Sherlock’s analytical character, Bohemian lifestyle, and his emphasized boredom when not entertaining his mind with cases.
Which Sherlock Holmes Adaptation Is Most Faithful to the Books?
Here are three adaptations chosen for analysis: Granada’s The Adventures of Sherlock Holmes from the 80s, Guy Ritchie’s Sherlock Holmes (2009 and 2011), and BBC’s Sherlock from the 2010s. The reason I chose these three is that I watched them. Also, these three are commonly compared.
The 80s The Adventures of Sherlock Holmes is the most accurate to the books. Jeremy Brett portrayed Sherlock as intellectual, aristocratic, and a bit neurotic, as he is depicted in the books. Brett’s Sherlock is reserved regarding emotions, manic and depressed at times, just as he is in the books. Physically, the actor is tall and thin, just like Doyle’s. His manners and demeanour are almost identical to those in Doyle’s books. As far as the Victorian background is concerned, it is shown quite faithfully.
Sherlock Holmes (2009 and 2011) with Robert Downey Jr. is a typical Hollywood production. Sherlock is seen as charismatic and eccentric, almost like a genius; he is also portrayed as a violin virtuoso. He is chaotic and charming. Physically, he is more lean and not so tall. In fighting, he is quick and good at predicting opponents’ moves, but too prone to action, unlike in the books. Overall, he is resourceful and slick. Unlike Doyle’s, the 2009 Sherlock has his emotions emphasized; he is arrogant, sarcastic, and his humor is contemporary. A common trait with the books is that this Sherlock uses his knowledge of chemistry and other natural sciences to solve cases.
At times, Downey’s Sherlock appears dirty, as do his surroundings, which are foggy and smoggy. The Victorian ambience is somewhat emphasized in terms of hygiene and urban uncleanliness.
Moreover, BBC’s Sherlock with Benedict Cumberbatch is physically similar to the Sherlock from the books. In contrast to the 2009/2011 films and the 80s series, this Sherlock is set in the 21st century. In this series, he is depicted as a genius and a sociopath – he even says so himself. He is somewhat asocial and emotionally detached, unlike in the books and stories. What the books and this series have in common is Sherlock’s intellectual superiority; he is not shy about saying he is intellectually above everyone else. As well, Cumberbatch’s Sherlock uses science in solving crimes, but through 21st-century modern technology.
This BBC series highlights the psychological aspects of Sherlock’s mind games, in contrast to the action and resourcefulness in the 2009 film, and the moderation and credibility of the 80s series. So, Jeremy Brett’s adaptation is generally considered the most faithful to Conan Doyle’s books, for the reasons mentioned above.
What Could Be Problematic About the Young Sherlock?
The idea of a young Sherlock Holmes raises an interesting question: can a character defined by intellectual seriousness and emotional restraint function convincingly within a coming-of-age framework?
Doyle’s Sherlock is already formed when we meet him. He is disciplined, analytically rigid, emotionally guarded. His Bohemian habits and occasional melancholy are not youthful impulsiveness, but rather signs of fin de siècle detachment.
If Young Sherlock emphasizes trauma as the source of genius, it may modernize him, but also distance him from Doyle’s original conception. On the other hand, if the series explores the formation of his scientific mind within the context of late Victorian rationalism, it could enrich the canon rather than weaken it. What do you think of it?
Conclusion
Sherlock Holmes has survived more than a century not because he changes completely with each generation, but because each generation reshapes him according to its anxieties. Victorian rationalism, Hollywood spectacle, psychological modernism — each adaptation reveals more about its own time than about Baker Street.
The question, therefore, is not only whether Young Sherlock will be faithful to Doyle. The real question is: which part of Sherlock does our time choose to preserve?
And perhaps even more importantly: which adaptation gives us the most convincing Dr. Watson? Write in the comments.
More in-depth analysis and essays
#sherlockholmes #arthurconandoyle #detectivestory #crimenovel #victorianrealsm #victorianliterature #britishliterature #youngsherlock #prime
Sources:
Arthur Conan Doyle, The Adventures of Sherlock Holmes, Zagreb: Zagrebačka naklada, 2015
Zlatan Mrakužić, “Vatrometi dionizijskih godina. Kultura iracionalnosti i moderna znanost,” Popularna kultura 20. stoljeća. Izabrane teme, Zagreb: Srednja Europa, 2025