#holmes speculates to himself that had he lived in the 1800s he may not have become an addict

[spocks-evil-godmother]

Rest in peace to me because I am vague blogging so forgive me everyone but sometimes I am so very obsessed with people's opinions about why Elementary is Bad in the year of our lord 2023.

The argument was that Elementary was bad as an adaptation for making it a procedural crime drama and for making Sherlock an addict, both of which "miss the point" of the ACD canon. (This person was very obviously a big Johnlock person as well which wouldn't matter except for the particular hill they decided to defend.) I can't disagree that procedural crime dramas are a function of modernity, and are certainly not the "point" of the Holmes canon. If you dislike procedurals on principle then I think that's that and there you have it—but considering that procedurals are a very common way to do mystery-writing now, and considering that to my knowledge there has never been a Holmes & Watson procedural before, I do think that it makes sense for a modern adaptation. Modern Holmes, modern storytelling convention, matchy matchy. But no, not the point and perhaps a valid complaint.

But disliking Sherlock as an addict is a VERY FUNNY ISSUE TO TAKE WHEN YOU ARE PUTTING BBC SHERLOCK ON A PEDESTAL. My number one complaint about season four of Sherlock (and I am being dead serious) was the relationship they presented between John, Sherlock, and drug use. Because the "point," I think, was that Sherlock Holmes is willing to escalate conflict, lie to his partner, and put his own life in jeopardy for the sake of the mystery, damn the consequences (and, for that matter, he trusts that his partner will accept being abused and still help him no matter what). And I get that ACD!Holmes would do anything for the mystery and he didn't always treat Watson well in the canon but I think if the "point" were that these two characters are locked in an immutably abusive and codependent relationship then these characters would not having the staying power that they do. I won't say that the episode was bad writing per se, but I felt like that was the nail in the coffin for BBC Sherlock as an adaptation for me. It was like, yes sir, we've always given Sherlock drugs to use recreationally as in canon, and when he starts to use them in unhealthy ways and they negatively impact his relationships, it doesn't need to be addressed to the audience as an issue because actually Sherlock Holmes is Too Smart to have a drug problem, he was tricking you the whole time, and you were stupid for worrying.

Which like. Okay. I don't think that's the point, and if it is, I don't want it. No thanks.

Compare with Elementary. And not saying it's perfect. Not saying anyone has to like it. But we are thinking about Sherlock Holmes in a modern setting. And the fact of the matter is, when ACD wrote Sherlock Holmes, we did not have the same amount of information on substance use or addiction that we do today. This isn't to say that people can't use substances recreationally and safely, whether they live in the late 1800s or in the modern era. But in ACD's time, the common understanding of chemical dependence was often attributed to moral failing rather than any other contributing factor. There was no such thing as chemical dependence. There were people strong enough to make good choices and people who weren't. And that's not to say they didn't notice, say, genetic predispositions. That tied into much of eugenicist thought at the time. "Ah, yes, the way to fix society is to get rid of those gross people who keep generating morally weak children. Then society will be great!" The way people thought about drug use had very little to do with medicine and a lot to do with self-reinforcing prejudices against class or race. The Sherlock Holmes written by Arthur Conan Doyle did not have an addiction, not because he was just amazing at maintaining a healthy and recreational relationship with his substances, but because deep down he's Too Good For That. Back then Good People didn't have addictions. He had vices, perhaps, or indulgences, or experiments. But Holmes couldn't have a problem with substance use because he was above having a problem with substance use.

So we are left with Holmes in the modern era. Like before, Holmes uses drugs recreationally. He enjoys them. They, as before, help him think and help him stay close to the mysteries he solves. But something else has changed. Now we know that there is no such thing as being Too Smart or Too Good to have an addiction. And so our modern Holmes has to contend with the fact that yes, he's not Too Smart to develop a dependency, he's not Too Smart to relapse, and he is not Too Smart to suffer the same kind of struggle that so many ordinary people have also suffered. It's very humbling. It is indeed painful for him to accept Joan as a sober companion in his life. It's something impossible to escape. And it is really, really fruitful as a character trait. The conversation he has with Joan in the season 3 episode "The Eternity Injection" still sticks with me:

Sherlock: If you must know, Watson, I've been feeling a little bit down of late. It's the process of maintaining my sobriety. It's repetitive. And it's relentless. And above all, it's tedious. When I left rehab, I... I accepted your influence, I committed to my recovery. And now, two years in, I find myself asking, "'is this it?"' My sobriety is simply a grind. It's just this leaky faucet that requires constant maintenance, and in return offers only not to drip.

Joan: You have your work, you have me. You're alive.

Sherlock: I've told myself that many times. So many times, it has become unmoored from all meaning. Odd. I used to imagine that a relapse would be the climax to some grand drama. Now I think that if I were to use drugs again, it would in fact be an anticlimax. It would be a surrender to the incessant drip, drip, drip of existence.

I love this scene. I love this conversation. And I love it as an adaptation because this is not a conclusion or moral that Arthur Conan Doyle could have written in his own time. This scene captures some of the knowledge we have now, and likely some of the hurts and harms of our era as well. However, it says something about these two famous characters: that Sherlock, whose mind aches for mysteries, is equally if not more challenged by the practical matter of living his life, and that Joan is with him in it. It's not dramatic. It's just a conversation in their living room.

I think that's sufficient.

Sherlock is a detective and an addict in Elementary. His addiction changes the way he thinks and acts forever. And in some regards, that makes him worse. And in other regards, that makes him the best he's ever been. No, Arthur Conan Doyle did not write a story about an addict. Elementary did. And the point is that he solved mysteries and helped people, the point was that he was an incredible detective, and the point was that he was human, only human.

rrrrrrr don't say weird things about my show kthxbai