Echoing the Eccentric Genius – The Sherlock Holmes Paradigm in Contemporary Crime Series Inaugural-Dissertation zur Erlangung der Doktorwürde der Philologischen Fakultät der Albert-Ludwigs-Universität Freiburg i. Br. vorgelegt von Isabell Ewers aus Baden-Baden SS 2020 Erstgutachter/in: Frau Prof. Dr. Barbara Korte Zweitgutachter/in: Frau PD Dr. Nicole Falkenhayner Vorsitzende/r des Promotionsausschusses der Gemeinsamen Kommission der Philologischen und der Philosophischen Fakultät: Prof. Dr. Dietmar Neutatz Datum der Fachprüfung im Promotionsfach: 22.03.2021 Table of contents 0. Introduction 4-10 1. The creation and popularisation of the eccentric genius 1.1. Explaining the continuum of an ambivalent fascination 1.1.1. Eccentrics and geniuses: terminology, parallels and the question of definition 11-12 1.1.2. “Great men” or madmen? The eccentric genius in the eyes of the Victorians 13-21 1.1.3. A new working definition based on family resemblance: ten key features 22-31 1.2. Adapting the paradigm to the small screen 1.2.1. The ‘what’ and the ‘why’: a sociological turn of adaptation studies 32-41 1.2.2. The ‘how’: medium-specific codes and the potential of television series 41-48 2. The Sherlock Holmes stories by Arthur Conan Doyle 2.1. The (integrational) functions of an eccentric genius 2.1.1. The birth and background of the Sherlock Holmes paradigm 49-53 2.1.2. A genius put to use: Holmes’s profession and its attraction for society 53-69 2.1.3. Decadence, domestic life and mental state of a singular and other-worldly (?) genius 69-78 2.2. Holmes’s relation to others and himself 2.2.1. Attempts to overcome the distance between the eccentric genius and society 78-84 2.2.2. The role of Mycroft and Watson as (more than?) foils 84-94 2.2.3. A Victorian nightmare: Moriarty as the bad genius and eccentric villain 94-97 2.2.4. Holmes’s masculinity, Doyle’s female characters and Adler as “the (New?) Woman” 98-106 2.2.5. A canon across three decades: Is Holmes an eccentric or dynamic character? 106-109 1 3. Agatha Christie’s Poirot – a Belgian Holmes with “little grey cells” 3.1. From the 1990s to the 2010s: a dynamic series about a stable eccentric 110-115 3.2. Poirot’s (integrational) functions and appeal in an insecure, globalised world 3.2.1. The trademarks of an outsider: Poirot’s Belgian background and its cultural codes 116-119 3.2.2. Poirot’s profession and its negotiations of ethical boundaries 119-130 3.2.3. Poirot in private: the domestic life and eccentric pleasures of an ‘alien’ 130-132 3.3. Dealing with an eccentric genius: minor characters with major functions 3.3.1. Factors of the ambivalent relationship between Poirot and society 133-136 3.3.2. Captain Hastings, Chief Inspector Japp and Miss Lemon as foils? 137-140 3.3.3. The role of women and concepts of (metrosexual?) masculinity 141-148 4. Monk & The Mentalist – two US versions of Holmes 4.1. The US in the 21st century: social discourses reflected in popular culture 149-150 4.2. The (integrational) functions of the ‘defective detective’ & the ‘psychic’ 4.2.1. Getting at the (psychological) root: backgrounds and trademarks 151-157 4.2.2. More than a job: Monk’s/Jane’s profession and its ambiguous appeal to society 158-174 4.2.3. Rickover and Red John as modern Moriartys? 174-189 4.2.4. Between attraction and apprehension: Monk’s/Jane’s mental state 190-205 4.3. Bridging the gap between an eccentric genius and other people 4.3.1. The outsider and society: a relation of mutual ambivalence and need 205-215 4.3.2. The Mentalist’s Lisbon, Cho, Rigsby and Van Pelt as (more than?) foils 216-221 4.3.3. Monk’s Sharona and Natalie as female Watsons – a case of gendered genius? 221-226 4.3.4. New concepts of masculinity and the role of women 226-237 4.3.5. Pattern or progress: the potential of seriality for character perception and evolvement 237-245 2 5. Between ennui and Asperger’s – the present-day Sherlock (BBC) 5.1. The sociocultural context of 21st century Britain and its impact on the series 246-249 5.2. The (integrational) functions and allure of Sherlock today 5.2.1. Background and trademarks: an ironic update on first-name terms 250-253 5.2.2. Addictive, transgressive and natural: Sherlock’s (visualised) profession 253-263 5.2.3. Unlocking Sherlock: the domestic life and mental state of an other-worldly (?) being 264-269 5.3. Looking for context: the influence of minor characters on Sherlock 5.3.1. Factors of the mutual ambivalence and need between the genius and society 269-273 5.3.2. John and Mycroft as (more than?) foils 274-281 5.3.3. Bad genius and eccentric villain: the functions of a modern Moriarty 282-289 5.3.4. Gender roles and liminality as a basis for “new (wo)men”? 289-304 5.3.5. Eccentric or dynamic: the effect of seriality on Sherlock’s character 305-306 6. Conclusion 307-310 7. Notes 311-312 8. Works cited 8.1. Primary sources 313-314 8.2. Secondary sources 314-323 Appendix: Zusammenfassung auf Deutsch 324-327 3 0. Introduction Sherlock Holmes represents an archetype whose genius and eccentricity made him famous around the world and inspired countless other detectives that are based on him, thus creating a Sherlock Holmes paradigm. While Holmes is undoubtedly based on C. Auguste Dupin, the brilliant detective created by Edgar Allan Poe, it was Arthur Conan Doyle who then developed the round, complex and distinctive personality of Sherlock Holmes and thereby shaped the genre of crime fiction and the persona of the private detective in such a profound way. Moreover, Holmes epitomizes the concepts of genius and eccentricity, which are already marked by a long cultural history, and helped to firmly establish them in popular culture. But what is it about Holmes that sets him apart from other characters and can explain the public’s enduring fascination with him? In this study, it will be shown how numerous elements of the paradigm are still present in many contemporary television crime series, such as the two British series Agatha Christie’s Poirot (1989 – 2013) and Sherlock (2010 – present) as well as the two US series Monk (2002 – 2009) and The Mentalist (2008 – 2015). I will illustrate that the crucial factors of this continuum through time, space and different media are Holmes’s genius and eccentricity in their manifold manifestations. The aim is to verify Holmes as the embodiment of the continuing ambivalence of this label: On the one hand, it offers an outlet for individuality in an age of standardisation and a promise of salvation in troubled times. On the other hand, it comes at the price of being considered an outsider by not conforming to social conventions and traditional gender roles or even of being branded as mentally ill. It will equally be examined how these labels are popularised via the character of Holmes in a way that makes him recognisable despite the changes that are bound to occur in any adaptation process. The seriality of Doyle’s stories as well as the TV shows will be of particular significance as they provide the platform to show both patterns and progress of these eccentric geniuses. It cannot be denied that there is already a considerable amount of academic research on various aspects of Holmes’s character. In addition, several publications deal with cinematic realisations of Holmes, such as Sherlock Holmes on Screen: The Complete Film and TV History (2011) by Steven Moffat, co-creator of the series Sherlock. It is also this BBC series that is particularly discussed, for example, in Sherlock and Transmedia Fandom: Essays on the BBC Series (2012) by Louisa Stein. Yet there seems to be no publication to investigate this paradigm in a wider scope, including other TV series that are not just ‘direct’ adaptations (like it is clearly the case with Sherlock), but series that only the analysis discloses as a part of the paradigm (Poirot, Monk or The Mentalist). Hence, my study will not just point out how the protagonists of those series are ascribable to the archetypical sleuth, but reveal the process of updating, re-contextualisation and remediation of the paradigm’s pivotal character traits: genius and eccentricity. 4 There are numerous publications about these two concepts which often combine them with other topics or focus on a particular aspect. Noteworthy examples are Darrin McMahon’s Divine Fury: A History of Genius (2013) which traces the figure’s journey from the ancient world to today and looks at its connection to the divine or Victoria Carroll’s Science and Eccentricity (2008) which discusses the definition and early combination of the two aspects to create the type of the eccentric genius as a scientist. Other works deal with the concept of genius, gender and a specific literary period such as Andrew Elfenbein’s Romantic Genius. The Prehistory of a Homosexual Role (1999). On a broader scale, David Weeks’s extensive empirical study Eccentrics (1995) has to be mentioned as a means to establish concrete criteria of this term, but it focuses on real-life eccentrics and not fictional characters. By contrast, Julia Köhne’s Geniekult in Geisteswissenschaften und Literaturen um 1900 und seine filmischen Adaptionen (2014) compares the image of the genius around the turn of the century with cinematic adaptations even if most of the analysed films – like A Beautiful Mind (2001) – are based on real-life events.