![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Chronology
Nov. 20th, 2014 02:36 pmI’ve seen some arguments that BBC Sherlock is a “younger” or “less experienced” Holmes, and this explains some of the personality differences from canon.
This irritates me, because it’s demonstrably untrue.
Mark Gatiss has said that the characters in Sherlock are “the same age of the actors, given or taken a few years”. In 2010, Benedict Cumberbatch was 34 and Martin Freeman was 38. Lestrade says he’s known Sherlock for five years; Sherlock may have met him because he was already working as a detective or he may have started detective work shortly after meeting Lestrade. So he has at least four years of experience, probably more, assuming you don’t count Carl Powers’ death as the start of his career.
Now for canon. I’m doing Holmesian chronology; pray for me.
Holmes and Watson met in January 1881, when Watson at first mistakes him for a university student. John Watson graduated with a degree in medicine in 1878. Holmes (in disguise, but a disguise he would have needed to maintain for a long period of time) is described as sixty in August 1914.
The most well-accepted estimate of their birthdates (see William S. Baring-Gould, Christopher Morley, etc.) is that Holmes was born on January 6th 1854, and Watson on August 7th 1852. Therefore in January 1881 they were 27 and 28 respectively (personally I think this is a bit old). Whatever estimate you use, they certainly cannot have been older than 30.
In The Gloria Scott, Holmes says he spent two years at university, and in The Musgrave Ritual that he spent four years after that with “too abundant leisure time,” so although he was working as a detective for that time he didn’t have many clients. Musgrave is the third of the cases he had from fellow-students, and possibly the third professional case he had entirely.
So, in A Study in Scarlet Holmes is in his mid to late twenties. It’s definitely less than ten years since his first case, and even if we stretch things as far as they can go it’s no more than four years since his practice began to pick up. Watson is only slightly older. In The Final Problem (1891) they’re in their mid to late thirties.
Back to the BBC: the first two seasons of BBC Sherlock take place over the course of between 18 months and 2 years, which you’d think wouldn’t be enough time for major chronological problems, but unfortunately is. John’s blog disagrees with onscreen evidence. However, we can assume that Sherlock was about 35 and John 39.
Therefore, Sherlock in A Study in Pink is not younger than Holmes in a Study in Scarlet; he’s actually much older. By their respective Falls, they are about the same age, but canonically Holmes and Watson have had eight years more of a relationship than the BBC decided to give them. The only BBC character who is appreciably younger than their canon equivalent is James Moriarty.
Therefore, any perceived flaws in BBC Sherlock’s personality, decision-making ability, or emotional maturity cannot be put down to his age.
***
***
Tangential to the previous: dating for The Gloria Scott and The Musgrave Ritual:
According to internal evidence, The Gloria Scott took place both while Holmes was at university (before he met Watson) and 30 years after 1855. Both cannot be true.
What seems most likely is that Watson changed the date of Armitage’s arrest to protect his identity, so the 1855 date is wrong. The easiest assumption, and the one that fits best with Holmes’ apparent personal timeline, is that he simply altered it by ten years from 1845, and the actual year of the case was 1875. Holmes says he spent two years at university, and met Musgrave again four years later, so the Musgrave Ritual happened in 1879 or ‘80.
This irritates me, because it’s demonstrably untrue.
Mark Gatiss has said that the characters in Sherlock are “the same age of the actors, given or taken a few years”. In 2010, Benedict Cumberbatch was 34 and Martin Freeman was 38. Lestrade says he’s known Sherlock for five years; Sherlock may have met him because he was already working as a detective or he may have started detective work shortly after meeting Lestrade. So he has at least four years of experience, probably more, assuming you don’t count Carl Powers’ death as the start of his career.
Now for canon. I’m doing Holmesian chronology; pray for me.
Holmes and Watson met in January 1881, when Watson at first mistakes him for a university student. John Watson graduated with a degree in medicine in 1878. Holmes (in disguise, but a disguise he would have needed to maintain for a long period of time) is described as sixty in August 1914.
The most well-accepted estimate of their birthdates (see William S. Baring-Gould, Christopher Morley, etc.) is that Holmes was born on January 6th 1854, and Watson on August 7th 1852. Therefore in January 1881 they were 27 and 28 respectively (personally I think this is a bit old). Whatever estimate you use, they certainly cannot have been older than 30.
In The Gloria Scott, Holmes says he spent two years at university, and in The Musgrave Ritual that he spent four years after that with “too abundant leisure time,” so although he was working as a detective for that time he didn’t have many clients. Musgrave is the third of the cases he had from fellow-students, and possibly the third professional case he had entirely.
So, in A Study in Scarlet Holmes is in his mid to late twenties. It’s definitely less than ten years since his first case, and even if we stretch things as far as they can go it’s no more than four years since his practice began to pick up. Watson is only slightly older. In The Final Problem (1891) they’re in their mid to late thirties.
Back to the BBC: the first two seasons of BBC Sherlock take place over the course of between 18 months and 2 years, which you’d think wouldn’t be enough time for major chronological problems, but unfortunately is. John’s blog disagrees with onscreen evidence. However, we can assume that Sherlock was about 35 and John 39.
Therefore, Sherlock in A Study in Pink is not younger than Holmes in a Study in Scarlet; he’s actually much older. By their respective Falls, they are about the same age, but canonically Holmes and Watson have had eight years more of a relationship than the BBC decided to give them. The only BBC character who is appreciably younger than their canon equivalent is James Moriarty.
Therefore, any perceived flaws in BBC Sherlock’s personality, decision-making ability, or emotional maturity cannot be put down to his age.
***
neverrwhere replied to your post:I’ve seen some arguments that BBC Sherlock is a…
Everyone always forgets how *young* Holmes is in the early stories, mostly I assume due the fact he’s always so much older in every film adaptation, but also because no one can imagine him as anything but a mature experienced man.
We have this image of him as all suave and emotionless, but in his first scene he’s literally jumping up and down because he just discovered a better hemoglobin test and it's so exciting, hi random stranger look isn’t this cool?
#and watson just looks at him and goes ...you're hilarious i want to live with you
#and watson just looks at him and goes ...you're hilarious i want to live with you
***
Tangential to the previous: dating for The Gloria Scott and The Musgrave Ritual:
According to internal evidence, The Gloria Scott took place both while Holmes was at university (before he met Watson) and 30 years after 1855. Both cannot be true.
What seems most likely is that Watson changed the date of Armitage’s arrest to protect his identity, so the 1855 date is wrong. The easiest assumption, and the one that fits best with Holmes’ apparent personal timeline, is that he simply altered it by ten years from 1845, and the actual year of the case was 1875. Holmes says he spent two years at university, and met Musgrave again four years later, so the Musgrave Ritual happened in 1879 or ‘80.