Television with a Capital T

First HSC exam down! Six more to go!

The Area of Study paper was pretty good - I was hoping there wouldn't be any 'belonging to place', and there wasn't! Not 100% happy with the essay I churned out - but nothing I can do about that now.

I'm studying for Module A at the moment and some of the quotes I'm memorising resonate quite interestingly with something I was thinking about the other day.

Fay Weldon's Letters to Alice introduces the concept of 'Literature with a Capital L' - books that she believes constitute great literature, ie her own personal canon.

As every Module A student who does LTA undoubtedly knows, we take Aunt Fay's views with a pinch of salt. I'm not a Fay Weldon fan, I think her arrogant, condescending and find the way she describes Australia and Australians offensive, but I do agree with some of her points about the purpose of books:

• “The books... do not threaten the reader in any way; they do not suggest that he or she should reflect, let alone change. But then, of course, being so safe, they defeat themselves, they can never enlighten. And because they don't enlighten, they are unimportant.”

• “The good builders, the really good builders, carry a vision out of the real world and transpose it into the City of Invention, and refresh and enlighten the reader, so that on his, or her, return to reality, that reality itself is changed, however minutely.”

There's nothing wrong with reading for entertainment but I do think that ultimately, every novel needs to have some sort of message. Even if that message is resoundingly simple. Otherwise, what's the point?

What I was thinking the other day was - this idea applies to other forms of media as well. Specifically, television. Leaving aside all those bogan reality shows for the moment - if something is to be considered a Good TV Show it needs to have an underlying message that teaches or improves viewers in some way. Right? I think we can all agree with that.

My question is: What does BBC Sherlock teach us?

If Guild is reading this I know that she is groaning. Thinking that my hatred of Steven Moffat is overpowering my view of what I previously considered to be one of the best shows on television.

I'm not denying that BBC Sherlock is very entertaining. The cinematography is amazing. The acting is terrific. The dialogue is sharp and funny.

But seriously - what are we meant to be learning from this show?

Leaving aside the racist, misogynistic and homophobic undertones I can honestly say that I have learned nothing of value from watching Sherlock. If anything some of its messages are hypocritical and problematic.

BBC Sherlock teaches us not to be judgemental of others! It does this through the humanisation of Sherlock and John's acceptance of him. Poor Sherlock, everyone calls him a freak - but look! He does have feelings! He just needs someone like John to understand him. So don't judge people like Sherlock okay?

How can this be the message of the show when Sherlock himself is seen as constantly and consistently judgemental towards others?

I can see the counterargument forming right now - "But John is teaching him not to be!"

No he is not! Sure, every now and then John will throw in a "Bit not good!" but for the most part, Sherlock's derogatory attitude and outbursts towards others are framed in a way to get the audience to agree with him and laugh along at the victims of these comments.

And sure, it's funny to see Sherlock verbally disembowel the people who bullied him when he was in uni and continue to act condescendingly towards him. That's fine. But when that is put on the same level as his humiliating and slut-shaming a woman of colour at her place of work, or continuously making ableist comments to someone who is quite literally just doing the job they're paid to do - that's a problem.

I know, I know, here come the PC police - my point is that these comments are framed as okay, Sherlock is never taken to account for them and the audience is positioned to find them perfectly acceptable.

So if 'don't be judgemental' is meant to be the message of BBC Sherlock, then they failed miserably and X-Men did a much better job of it already.

Seriously - what's BBC Sherlock teaching us? The value of justice? It's hard to root for a hero who drugs his best friend - who happens to be a war vet with previously established PTSD - and makes him hallucinate. All without his consent. And who tortures people for information without the slightest hesitation. (there's nothing wrong with an anti-hero but more on this in later posts).

I literally cannot think of a single thing I have learned from this show.

And it shouldn't be hard! I can literally state right now the, incredibly basic, values and attitudes I've gathered from other programs.

The Walking Dead  - in anarchy and disaster, while it's important to do what you need to to survive and protect your family, you need to preserve your moral integrity.

Breaking Bad - engaging in an immoral activity, even for all seemingly justifiable reasons, will end up corrupting you and harming innocent people. You need to take the blame for your actions.

Once Upon A Time - family, love and faith are important. Fight for what you believe in. Everyone deserves a second chance. Your past actions should not dictate what you do in the future. That's four right there and counting for a show considered far less 'wholesome' than BBC Sherlock.

Heck, let's take a look at Elementary - another modern appropriation of Sherlock Holmes.

- With support and friendship a man can overcome past bad habits and addictions (unlike BBC!Sherlock, Elementary!Sherlock is not a world-class jerk... and on occasions where he acts like one, he is swiftly taken to account for it).

- Mistakes that have bad consequences will have ongoing effects on you - but you can overcome these and continue to do good in the world.

One of the absolute most basic messages of Elementary (and Once Upon A Time, and what should be a basic underlying message of every TV show in this day and age) -  women and men are equal! I'm not going to break out the feminism here and now but Sherlock's treatment of women is ridiculous. Also, I can't think of a single episode that passes the Bechdel test, except perhaps ASIB, but that doesn't count because can you say most horrific depiction of a classic female character in the history of modern adaptation.


SO BASICALLY WHAT I AM SAYING IS:

If Literature with a Capital L exists, so does Television with a Capital T.

As far as I'm concerned BBC Sherlock, for all its sparkling cinematic brilliance, is not Television with a Capital T.

I'm not afraid of admitting I'm wrong, so if anyone reading this can deliver me one message that BBC Sherlock offers - one thing from this show that enhanced them as a viewer - I might just change my mind.

(...come at me module english exam... come at me... *raises fists weakly*)