30.06.2013 Views

The Case Study of Sherlock Holmes (2009) - Scholarly Commons ...

The Case Study of Sherlock Holmes (2009) - Scholarly Commons ...

The Case Study of Sherlock Holmes (2009) - Scholarly Commons ...

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

Create successful ePaper yourself

Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.

“embrace <strong>of</strong> fiction” (p. 606) and the product our “ironic imagination” (p. 606):<br />

“Rational adults [can] immerse themselves in imaginary worlds <strong>of</strong> mass culture without<br />

mistaking these worlds for reality” (Saler, 2003, p. 606). I will expand upon<br />

enchantment theory later in my research and will integrate this examination into an<br />

educated fan critique <strong>of</strong> Ritchie‟s <strong>2009</strong> movie.<br />

Cultivation analysis: Original product<br />

On my ethnographic fan journey, the most influential literary product I encountered was<br />

the original short stories: <strong>The</strong> Adventures <strong>of</strong> <strong>Sherlock</strong> <strong>Holmes</strong> and <strong>The</strong> Memoirs <strong>of</strong><br />

<strong>Sherlock</strong> <strong>Holmes</strong> (1892, 1894/2001a), <strong>The</strong> Return <strong>of</strong> <strong>Sherlock</strong> <strong>Holmes</strong> (1905/2005d),<br />

His Last Bow (1917/2005h) and <strong>The</strong> <strong>Case</strong>-book <strong>of</strong> <strong>Sherlock</strong> <strong>Holmes</strong> (1927/2005k). Due<br />

to the number <strong>of</strong> stories, 56 in total, I have compiled my cultivation analysis <strong>of</strong> them not<br />

in published or ethnographic order, but grouped together through imagery and<br />

ideological themes. As a new reader, I responded to the imagery <strong>of</strong> the <strong>Holmes</strong><br />

stereotype as well as his non-stereotypical attributes. Ideologically, Doyle‟s<br />

construction <strong>of</strong> friendship and loyalty bridged the historical divide between the reader,<br />

the text, and me. In terms <strong>of</strong> cultivation, these texts represent one <strong>of</strong> the earliest<br />

examples <strong>of</strong> mass serialisation. Doyle (as cited in Davies, 2007), a surprisingly shrewd<br />

marketer, devised that “a single character running through a series, if it only engaged<br />

the reader, would bind the reader to that magazine” (p. 9) and so “within six months . . .<br />

the main selling point <strong>of</strong> [<strong>The</strong> Strand Magazine] was the new <strong>Sherlock</strong> <strong>Holmes</strong><br />

adventure” (Davies, 2007, p. 9).<br />

Original product: Short story images<br />

Redmond (<strong>2009</strong>) finds “the image <strong>of</strong> <strong>Holmes</strong> that now lives in the public mind is much<br />

less subtle and complex than the one that lives in the pages <strong>of</strong> the Canon” (p. 46).<br />

However, I find that the stereotype is not necessarily false either. Doyle and Crowder<br />

(2010) described earlier the “common picture” (p. 10) <strong>of</strong> <strong>Sherlock</strong> <strong>Holmes</strong>. This may be<br />

something <strong>of</strong> a stick figure compared to Doyle‟s original creation. <strong>The</strong> “common<br />

picture” (Doyle & Crowder, 2010, p. 10) is a common portrait none the less. <strong>Holmes</strong>, in<br />

<strong>The</strong> Boscombe Valley Mystery (1891/2001d), describes himself and Watson as two<br />

“middle aged gentlemen” (Doyle, 2001d, 72). Watson however, describing <strong>Holmes</strong> in A<br />

Scandal <strong>of</strong> Bohemia (1891/2001b), prefers “tweed-suited and respectable” (Doyle,<br />

2001b, p. 13) choosing to conjure up the image <strong>of</strong> a man who “[lights] his pipe and<br />

[holds] his slippered feet to the cheerful blaze <strong>of</strong> the fire” (Doyle, 1904/2005g, p. 1182).<br />

47

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!