OpinionIf Sherlock Holmes was real, you could drive him crazy by doing random stuff
      – BorgClown, 2010-01-06 at 02:54:35   (11 comments)

On 2010-01-06 at 02:59:34, BorgClown wrote...
He was a kind of maniac who hanged on to causality. Imagine if people near him occasionally tied their shoe laces backwards, carried a copper spork or a used match, etc. The poor guy would need therapy after a while.
On 2010-01-06 at 16:13:55, Lee J Haywood wrote...
Hmm, I don't see it myself. Sherlock Holmes is a genius of observation and deductive reasoning. As such, he's able to focus on relevant information and discard peculiarities that are of no interest to his cases. Where did you get the idea for this opinion from?!
On 2010-01-06 at 21:24:23, BorgClown wrote...
I haven't read any of the stories, but he struck me as a mentally unstable fellow because he didn't got into a relation because he found women confusing, or he refused to learn (he even unlearns) anything not directly related to crime fighting. According to WP. One example of his prowess is based upon his observation of parallel scratches on a shoe. Even if we give him credit for knowing how different types of scratches can be distinguished, you could easily fake tiny evidence and purposely made him fail, undermining his confidence.
On 2010-01-06 at 22:11:53, Lee J Haywood wrote...
I'd guess that he'd be enough of a genius to work out that you were the criminal trying to deceive him, unless you were actually messing with him when someone else was guilty. You have to remember that in the Sherlock Holmes universe Arthur Conan Doyle is essentially the controlling god, capable of making Sherlock Holmes see through any ruse. So in one sense he could never be 'real', but if he were then you'd be imaginary. ☺ Oh, and I don't think he's unstable. If anything, he's probably autistic which would explain his problems socialising and his abrupt nature.
On 2010-01-07 at 01:28:39, Melchior wrote...
You can't have Deus ex Machina as a counter-argument :P
On 2010-01-07 at 05:15:56, BorgClown wrote...
@Lee J Haywood: And he was also a cocaine addict. He had his custom syringe to pass away the boring days.
On 2010-01-07 at 17:06:41, Lee J Haywood wrote...
Hmm, well who's to say that the use of drugs didn't help his intellect in some way? A small dose might be beneficial, whereas a large dose would dull the mind and senses. You cannot really criticise him too much for using cocaine when it is legal - in that context, it's hardly much worse than being a smoker when cigarettes are legal.
On 2010-01-07 at 17:38:55, Lee J Haywood wrote...
@BorgClown: Ah, I'd forgotten that there's an Sherlock Holmes movie. http://techdirt.com/articles/20091223/1120407488.shtml
On 2010-01-17 at 14:53:46, Thelevellers wrote...
Having watched said film last night (on my first proper 'first date' ever, oddly), this topic grabbed my interest. Sadly, I am less informed than anyone else in this debate! The film was good fun, and from that, and general vague knowledge, I would agree with the opinion. I intend to get around to reading the books soon(ish) however, so may return to disagree.
On 2010-01-17 at 18:23:03, Lee J Haywood wrote...
There are loads of Sherlock Holmes films you can watch, if you don't want to read the books. Wikipedia has good background information on the character. The first person I know who saw it didn't like it, the second said they'd been to see it twice. Must be a love it or hate it type of film.
On 2010-01-17 at 23:46:56, Bensci wrote...
Its true. He would try to assign meaning to everything and he'd be like wtf