On 10 Nov 2016 17:47, "Bruce Johnson" <xxxxxx@pharmacy.arizona.edu> wrote:
>
>
>> On Nov 10, 2016, at 5:47 AM, Timothy Collinson <xxxxxx@port.ac.uk> wrote:
>>
>> - forget rationale and just have a Sherlock Holmes in, say, the 900s (to give a fusty old fashioned atmosphere) and have done with it?!
>>
>> In terms of the actual adventure I'd not really decided between a solo-adventure for one detective or the PCs having access to/meeting such a character to help them out.
>>
>> But that also raises my third difficulty, and that is that once 'modern' forensic science comes along, much of the use of SH's abilities become redundant.
>
>
> Not necessarily, you might want to peruse the BBC series set in the modern day

Yes, love that series.  One of the few DVDs I own.  (Feared the worst before it came out but was so wrong).

>and, if you can get it, the US TV series ‘Elementary’ which both update the character >successfully to the modern era (imo).

Yes, mst check out Elementary.  Want to see that. But never been free-to-air over here.

>People complain because neither Benedict Cumberbatch or Jonny Lee Miller are Jeremy Brett, >but that’s irrelevant (again, IMO) The Brett ‘Sherlock’ is a nearly slavish homage to the original, >the others are no less true to the character. 

Well, Brett was truly brilliant but gree about others and I still have soft spot for Rathbone who was my 'first'.

>
> (Note also that Doyle’s Sherlock was himself on the cutting edge of forensic science of the day)

That's true.

>
> IMO the key to the ‘getting-around-the-tech’ issue in the story is either figure out the forensic >countermeasures of the criminal, or figure out the red herring nature of the forensic evidence. >“The killer’s DNA is on the murder weapon!” no it was planted by the real killer, no it IS that >person’s DNA but there’s an innocent explanation, the person has an unknown twin, as they were >adopted. etc. Electronic, video or audio evidence can be manipulated, or forged outright, etc. >Also, real-life forensic science is nothing whatsoever like it is on teevee. This will still apply in >the far future.
>
> The key to ‘being Sherlock’ is still (as it always has been) intense, obsessive attention to observation and detail, details that other miss or dismiss as irrelevant, and a laser-like focus on reason rather than emotion. Much of the Victorian Sherlock can be transplanted right into the present day, which is why the modern adaptations do well, I think.
>
> His methods may change, but the character is timeless and hardly subject to TL variations.

Hmmm, good thoughts.  Thank you.

tc