Janet Liu
Greg Watkins
Antonio Aguilar
June 5, 2017
When A Study in Scarlet was published in 1886, Sir Arthur Conan Doyle was simply
an odd doctor and Sherlock was just a funny name. Sixty stories and a few centuries later,
Sherlock Holmes, Doyles modern consulting detective, continues to inspire adaptation after
adaptation as the character passes from the pages of the Strand onto the film reel and the
television screen. Regardless of how many incarnations he has undergone, however, one fact
remains constant: Sherlock Holmes is as much of a fan favorite in 2017 as he was in 1890. Has
the Western taste for crime fiction, drama, mystery, and intrigue really remained constant across
centuries? Why did Sherlock capture the minds and hearts of readers in the late nineteenth
Sherlocks unique brand of intelligence has been identified by a number of sources, both
casual and academic, as a compelling reason why readers of Doyles work embraced Sherlocks
original incarnation. In his work on this subject, Michael Saler argues that Doyles Sherlock was
written into a world culturally primed to receive its first modern hero. Citing widespread
pessimism and disenchantment following the first world wars, Saler describes an England
hungry for alternate sources of spiritual sustenance in an era that had received the works of
Sigmund Freud and Friedrich Nietzsche; in other words, an era steeped in progress towards the
rational, where the Christian God could not find his place. In the midst of this cultural moment,
Saler argues, Doyle offered the world a character who used reason in a manner magical and
adventurous, rather than in a purely instrumental, stultifying fashion. Thus, Doyles Sherlock
achieved widespread cultural appeal by merit of his unique capability to re-enchant modernity.
The great detectives intelligence is indeed part and parcel of the character, but this
quality is not the driving force behind the popularity of his most recent incarnation, most
1
notably, Benedict Cumberbatchs Sherlock Holmes on BBCs popular television drama Sherlock.
Cumberbatchs Sherlock is no doubt intelligent; a Telegraph article with the proposed aim of
deducing how [Sherlock] became a global phenomenon mentions that adaptors of Holmes
have rarely tampered with [his intelligence] and cites the graphic language [Sherlock] has
developed to illustrate the deductive process as one of the shows keenest pleasures. But how
do proponents of this formula for success account for moments in the show when Cumberbatchs
Sherlock fails to deduce the answer? These moments increase markedly after the first season;
in the fourth, cases of failure occur with equal, if not greater frequency than cases of success.
Critics who fixate on Sherlocks intelligence miss a broader reason for his appeal, one that
Rather than present another drama centered on its protagonists infallible intellect,
Sherlocks storyline follows the detectives struggle to cultivate principles of positive morality in
a morally relativistic, atheists universe that parallels our own. Like Doyles Sherlock, BBCs
Sherlock is popular because his struggle is a response to a disenchanted audience searching for
alternative moralities in the wake of old ones. However, the alternative moralities that Sherlock
proposes are suited for a modern audience with new concerns, ones which are present in the
fabric of the work and exhibit the detectives anti-heroism, a quality he adapts in accordance to
accurately described and partly precipitated by Friedrich Nietzsche, who famously writes, God
2
is dead.And we have killed him. How shall we comfort ourselves, the murderers of all
murderers? (The Gay Science, 125). Nietzschean philosophy captures the alarming, yet
increasingly pervasive modern sentiment that moral notions of good and evil are not
sacrosanct, but subjective and subject to change. In Genealogy of Morals, Nietzsche outlines an
incriminating history of morality: the Christian God and his values of submission, patience,
and humility are fashioned by a subsection of the ruling class for the purpose of avenging
themselves against their stronger members, whom they can not otherwise dominate. Any
morality that devalues personal power and strength is the work of counterfeiters anxious to
turn the inoffensiveness of the weak man, even the cowardice[into] virtue itself (1.14).
Religions role in this clever ruse is to keep the remainder of humanity, the slaves, complicit
with their wretched masters moral scheme by virtue of rewards in the life to come. True
morality, Nietzsche asserts, teaches us to how live well in this life, and a morality based on
duplicity and self-denial is fundamentally incapable of accomplishing this. Thus, the philosopher
urges his audience to develop new positive values for themselves in the wake of the inevitable
Although BBCs Sherlock is a product of the modern era, the spirit of Sherlocks universe
certainly bears the mark of Nietzsches crisis of morality: the shows atheism and hostile
portrayal of traditional authority, along with its accusation of complicity on the part of the
public, represents as much. However, Sherlocks critique of the strength of high society could
3
Sherlocks characterization of a villain from its fourth season, Culverton Smith, captures
these conflicting qualities. Smith, an entrepreneur, philanthropist, and serial killer, thrives
under a combination of incompetence on the part of the authorities and elective ignorance on
the part of the people. In The Lying Detective, he boasts about his ability to go anywhere he
likes, referring to a certain hospital wing that he had sponsored and funded. They presented [the
keys] to me. There was a ceremony.The Home Secretary was there, Smith brags. Smith takes
advantage of his privilege to service his compulsion, insinuating that society itself shields him
from having to face the repercussions of his crime. Imagine if the Queen wanted to kill some
people, he explains, All that power, all that money, sweet little government, dancing
attendants...A whole country, just to keep her warm and fat. Money. Power. Fame. Some things
make you untouchable. God save the Queen! She could probably open a slaughterhouse and
wed all pay the entrance fee! At best, the authorities in Sherlock are incompetent; at their
worst, their opaque and vaguely sinister mode of operation invariably shields criminals at the
expense of their victims. But is Smiths example a critique of traditional moral authority, or a
blatant allusions to the atheistic spirit, which are clearly sympathetic to the irreverent modern
skeptic. When asked during the fourth season whether he would be a childs godfather, Sherlock,
without looking up from his phone, mutters, God is a ludicrous fiction dreamt up by
inadequates who abnegate all responsibility to an invisible magic friend. During the baptism,
Sherlocks attention is diverted to the ever-present phone, and its voice-recognition software
interrupts the ceremony in a uniquely millennial fashion when Apples Siri robotically chirps,
4
Sorry, I didnt catch that. However, Nietzsche firmly asserts that the slave morality can persist
in spite of atheism and survives the death of God in the form of the ascetic ideal, a form of
Nietzsche himself is often misread as being a nihilist, but in fact, he advocated for the
construction of a new positive morality out of the remains of the old one. The world is doomed
to undergo a catastrophe of nihilism, Nietzsche writes, but the strongest among us will be able to
posit an alternate moral code to live by, saving ourselves from inevitable moral despair. Thus, his
enduring query: How shall we comfort ourselves, the murderers of all murderers? Nietzsche
himself posits a version of positive morality in the character of the Ubermensch, or superman. In
an article published by Philosophy Now, Eva Cybulska characterizes the Nietzschean superman
as a being who is no longer a plaything in the hands of God or gods, but a master of his own
fate, a self-creator and a self-destroyer. He [will] not succumb to the herd mentality [or]
become a nonentity in some monstrous super-state. Released from the chains of tradition and
ideology, such an individual [is]... free to create new values with a sense of uniqueness and
counterbalance the destructive force of nihilism. In The Final Problem, Sherlock confronts the
caricature of a nihilist, Eurus, who toys with moral relativism and its logical conclusions in the
absence of any redemptive positive values. Good and bad are fairy tales, Eurus comments,
We have evolved to attach an emotional significance to what is nothing more than the survival
strategy of the pack animal...Good isnt really good, evil isnt really wrong.You are a prisoner
5
of your own meat. When her psychiatrist asks, Why arent you?, she replies, Im too clever.
To prove it, Eurus performs tests to demonstrate instances when strategizing around a largely
intuitive moral code appears to create a counter-intuitive result -- tests which almost always
involve homicide, filicide, or suicide. The show emphasizes that with Euruss moral vacuum
comes a blatant disregard for human life, one which ends in insanity and murderous tendencies.
It is against this modern backdrop of mistrust and vague moral despair that BBCs
Sherlock emerges as a character uniquely poised to confront the existential dilemma posed by its
universe and echoed by our society. It seems appropriate to reflect on Sherlock through the lens
of Nietzsches philosophy with that suspicion that the post-modern incarnation of the detective
may in fact be popular for his ability to identify and respond to the philosophers moral crisis.
A definitive proof of Sherlocks morality as being the reason for his popularity is beyond
the scope of this paper, which can only firmly disprove that BBC Sherlocks popularity is limited
to his intelligence. However, this discussion can and will evaluate whether Sherlocks morality is
a viable source for his popularity by assessing whether it warrants a postmodern audiences
following. As of now, it is unclear whether Sherlocks brand of moral relativism, not to mention
his solution, is characteristic of the Ubermensch (who accepted and transcended nihilism), or the
slave (who is destined for nihilism). If Sherlock responds to the moral crisis in a slavish way,
then either the twenty-first century is still in thrall with the slave morality, or Sherlocks morality
In light of this goal, the sections that follow continue to elucidate and evaluate Sherlocks
morality by tracking the titular characters development in the course of the shows fourth
season. Certain episodes are referenced in order to place events within the chronology of
6
Sherlocks story arc. For readers unfamiliar with the fourth season, they are as follow: His Last
Vow (episode 1), The Lying Detective (episode 2), and The Final Problem (epsiode 3).
removed from Doyles original superhuman, heroic conception of the detective. BBCs
his intelligence. The next two sections demonstrate that BBCs Sherlock is more anti-hero than
detective, a demonstration which clears the way for a re-evaluation of his popularity by
definitively disproving that postmodern Sherlocks intelligence is what makes him popular. The
Holmes as antiheroic. However, it is clear that Sherlocks cast of protagonists are at the very
least atypical characters, often reappraised from their literary roles into culturally deviant,
adorable dog, is also described as a brilliant hacker who incurred legal penalties for
compromising the Pentagons security system. Awkward Dr. Hooper performs autopsies at St.
Bartholomews morgue; Mary Morstan, mother and wife, is a retired super-agent with a
terrifying skill set. Dr. John Watson, who functioned as Doyles literary everyman, is
diagnosed with post-traumatic stress disorder, and, of course, the detective himself is a high
7
elements that associate Sherlock with darkness: the cover of the fourth seasons disc case
features the detective hunched in a blackened, bombed-out version of 221B Baker Street. A skull
and a soot-covered violin lie among the wreckage, which frames a frowning, brooding Sherlock.
Even the scowl on his face is set in deep shadow. Mrs. Hudson, whose transformation is second
only to that of Sherlocks, deserves particular mention. In BBCs modern retelling, the innocuous
landlady, who embodied the epitome of domesticity in Doyles stories, becomes the quick-witted
ex-wife of a drug dealer, a woman as clever and sharp as the detective himself. With handcuffs
in the salad drawer and an Aston Martin at her beck and call, she lovingly mixes artifacts of anti
heroism into common everyday living, a quality that never fails to endear Mrs. Hudson and her
Thus, the qualities that BBCs Sherlock assumes in place of Doyles older ones are
protagonist marked by frailties and moral complexity that render him more human than the
traditional hero. The Antihero typically lacks traditional heroic qualities like conviction, courage,
these flaws, the Antihero is revealed to be at core decent, albeit misguided and sometimes
misunderstood.
and demanding, impulsive and irritable. His bursts of temper are fueled by arrogant impatience
and frequently accompanied by cold dismissiveness. Sherlocks brusque behavior in front of his
clients often provide the best examples of this bad behavior. Whereas the literary Sherlock treats
8
his clients with a certain level of Victorian decency, BBCs Sherlock frequently uses his
intelligence to bully and insult them, reserving his most humiliating and insensitive comments
for unfortunate clients who manage to insult his intelligence. In His Last Vow, Sherlock lashes
out against a man who suggests that the detectives deductions are simple. His wife left him
because his breath stinks and he likes to wear her lingerie, Sherlock loudly announces in
retaliation, before dismissing the client. Sherlocks flaw, as Eaton put it, is born of arrogance
and a strictly self-centered view of the world, one which, in fact, interferes with his ability to
solve his problems. Thus, the shows enhancement of Sherlocks anti-heroism is accompanied by
Although Doyles Sherlock was not infallible, the intent of Doyles short stories, as
Watson himself once described, was to showcase Holmess often uncanny intelligence and
deductive capacity. However, Sherlock is more interested in the effect of the detectives failure
to make adequate or appropriate use of his logical facility. In The Last Vow, Sherlock, no doubt
good-heartedly, nevertheless brashly swears the eponymous vow to protect Mary, Johns wife,
from an assassin intent on killing her. I will keep you safe, Sherlock insists, But it has to be in
London. Its my city; I know the turf. Come home and everything will be alright. I promise you.
However, Sherlocks arrogance interferes with his ability to keep his vow. When
Sherlock and Mary confront Norbury, the villain of episode one, she trains a gun on the pair and
suggests that Sherlock allow her to escape peacefully. Mary is furious, but wisely declines to
charge the armed woman. Sherlock, however, refuses to surrender and engages in a traditional
battle of wits with Norbury, risking both his, and more importantly, Marys life in the process.
9
Dissecting the minutiae of her appearance, Sherlock rips into Norburys private life, casually
extracting and commenting on painful and humiliating details. Sherlock, dont, Mary warns,
but Sherlock continues to demean the woman, despite its being unreasonable that he should have
expected to achieve more than the usual transient satisfaction of retaliation from the brutal
examination. Angry and past sensibility, Norbury fires at Sherlock; Mary intercepts the bullet.
Ironically, it is in London that Mary is killed: not, in fact, by her assassin, but as an unintentional
Even though Sherlocks definition of good remains under construction in His Last
Vow, it is nevertheless clear that his flaws are not good in the moral sense -- they clearly
III. So, who loves you? Im assuming its not a long list. (Mycroft Holmes, The Final Problem)
imperfections, as Eaton describes, which offer glimpses into an anti-heros humanity and render
him sympathetic. In this sense, the de-emphasis of Sherlocks intelligence, much as it represents
a character flaw, also serves to underscore the detectives relatability and precipitate the
necessity of a moral maturation that he, much like his postmodern audience, is slated to undergo.
unnecessary, and the intricacies of his reasoning, rather than contributing to a heroic or
superhuman quality, are deployed as richly humanizing comic relief. When Mary asks Sherlock
how he found her in His Last Vow, he replies, Mary, no human action is ever truly random. An
10
human psychology and the known disposition of any given individual can reduce the number of
variables considerably. I myself know fifty-eight techniques to refine the array of seemingly
infinite possibilities down to just a few feasible variables. Mary nods grimly. But theyre really
difficult, so instead I just stuck a tracer on the inside of [your] memory stick. Even Mary laughs.
In the fourth season, common sense and forethought often prevail over Sherlocks logic.
In other moments, Sherlocks mental capacity is not only overqualified, but outright
limited by its lack of a practical or emotional dimension. In yet another scene from His Last
Vow, Sherlock, appearing to address John in his typical didactic, dismissive fashion, explains,
Watson, to you, the world remains an impenetrable mystery, whereas to me it is an open book.
Hard logic versus romantic whimsy. That is your choice. However, the camera reveals that
Holmes is actually speaking to Johns infant daughter, demanding that she refrain from throwing
her rattle to the ground. Naturally, Rosie cant help but throw the toy again, this time into the
detectives face. By poking fun at the detectives misapplied methods, which in fact resemble
romantic whimsy in the wrong context, Sherlock invites its audience to recognize what the
detective himself does not yet understand: that despite his self-assurance, logic is nevertheless
limited when it comes to comprehending the worlds mysteries. But once again, although the
scene represents a minor mishap rather than a success, Sherlocks character doesnt suffer from
its newly realized limits; rather, the detectives flaws humanize his character.
Failure, which engenders the aforementioned humility and humanity, is not afforded to
Sherlocks villains, who, despite their moral depravity, meticulously cultivate the aura of
heroism. Its not about hatred, or revenge, Smith, the serial killer, explains. Im not a dark
person. Killing human beings...Its just makes me incredibly happy. Smith believes that the
11
very worst thing you can do to your friends is to be open and emotionally vulnerable. If you
tell them [your secret], he muses, and they decide theyd rather not know, you cant take it
back... Once youve opened your heart, you cant close it again. However, in a universe
characterized by moral relativism, it is paramount that a character confronts his own moral
Moreover, it is the very quality of anti-heroism itself that enables Sherlock to respond to
Sherlock may be self-centered and arrogant, but these qualities occasionally put him in
opposition to social authority, and, by consequence, its aforementioned sinister and suspect
qualities. During a Top Secret meeting with Mycrofts colleagues, Sherlock telegraphs his
disregard for the governments secrecy and formality by tweeting on his phone and provoking a
physical scuffle with his brother. Distracted by a plate of ginger nuts, the young man presents a
sharp contrast to the panel of prudish officers when he sucks cookie crumbs off his fingers,
behavior that mocks their sober setting. Moreover, Sherlocks rude impulsivity allows him to
voice frustrations and concerns that his audience may share: when Mycroft uses the
takes the opportunity to trace a particular route for the intrusive helicopter: F-k off, it reads.
When high-ranking members of the British government demonstrate their ability to doctor
security footage, adding that this is the version anyone we want to will see, it is Sherlock who
12
Even after Sherlock matures a bit beyond arrogance, his status as a cultural deviant
nevertheless keeps him at odds with what is typical, a quality that renders him immune to
societys elective ignorance, which protects Culverton Smith. In The Lying Detective, Sherlock
realizes that Smith is a serial killer when he experiences a drug-induced hallucination in the
middle of a busy street. Dazed and tripping, he stumbles down the road, literally opposing the
flow of traffic, a circumstance that emphasizes the extent of the detectives alienation. What
would otherwise be a flaw is also a trait that enables Sherlock to observe what nobody else
character is in fact shared by BBCs conception of Sherlocks archnemesis, Jim Moriarty, who is
equally atheistic, irreverent, and cool. I wrote a version of the Nativity where I was a child,
Moriarty muses on Christmas Day, The Hungry Donkey. It was a bit gory. But if youre
gonna put a baby in a manger, youre asking for trouble. In another anti-authorial moment that
parallels Sherlocks Top Secret meeting scene, Moriarty, arriving at the site of a rendezvous
with a high-ranking official, descends from a black helicopter dressed in a fitted black suit, his
hair gelled and slicked back. Big G! he yells at the stern official who greets him. Big G means
governor, he explains. Street speak. Im a bit down with the kids, you know. Im relatable that
way. Thus, it can not be BBC Sherlocks youthful rebelliousness alone that endears him to an
audience.
Neither can it be the acute mental facility championed by Doyles Sherlock. Aside from
13
appropriation of the detectives once-signature trait also make it highly unlikely that intelligence
alone truly endears him to the shows audience. For instance, Eurus, the nihilist, is described as
an era-defining genius beyond Newton who is somehow aware of truths beyond the normal
scope, a description that resembles one which Watson may have used to characterize Doyles
Sherlock. However, Eurus is a criminally insane murderess. Moreover, when she describes how
she remember[s] everything, every single thing, since she just needs a big enough hard
drive, the show is alluding to another one of literary Sherlocks memorable lines about saving
space in his brain for important facts, as if memory were a storage device with limited capacity.
Considering Euruss example, the inability for intellect to act as the basis for Sherlocks
popularity, along with the demand for a trait capable of turning the logician into a morally
But even if anti-heroism and its implications cannot fully account for Sherlocks
popularity, it is evident that Sherlock is only capable of engaging with moral questions absent
from Doyles work by rejecting a morally uncomplicated role for the detective. In the old stories,
Watson gleefully allows Holmes to describe any logical process by which hed arrived at a
infuriated that Sherlock managed to predict which therapist he would choose to see and at what
time. Rather, it is Mrs. Hudson who asks, How? Nevermind how, hes dying to tell us how,
John hisses, I want to know why. Underlying concerns for privacy and respect are evident,
In yet another case, Sherlock holds its flawed characters accountable, all logical
considerations aside, to interpersonal responsibility. When Sherlocks mother learns that Mycroft
14
Holmes had imprisoned his Eurus in a secure facility for the criminally insane, she exclaims,
Im not asking how you did it, idiot boy! Im asking, how could you? I was trying to be
kind, replies Mycroft. Kind? You told us that our daughter was dead! she continues,
Whatever she became, whatever she is now, Mycroft, she remains our daughter.you should
have done better, she accuses (The Final Problem). These underlying concerns become the
foundation for an alternative morality that Sherlock posits in place of the lack of moral guidance
explain his character concept and his appeal, particularly in the context of Nietzsches critique of
traditional forms of the good, but the prevalence of antiheroic qualities in the show, even
among its villains, suggest that it is nevertheless worthwhile to illuminate how Sherlock
As previously mentioned, Holmes is fallible, and his fall from grace in the fourth season
extends beyond inconsequential accidents. As if to punish him for his failure, the show subjects
its anti-hero to a program of physical, psychological, and emotional turmoil in the fourth season,
an agenda of suffering that forces him to confront the consequences of his mistakes. Following
the accident that kills Mary, Sherlock reappears in The Lying Detective wrapped in a bathrobe in
lieu of the customary suit. His pale, sunken cheeks are covered in stubble. Hands shaking, he
blinks wearily when a client requests assistance and appears to have lost control of his mental
15
faculties. Im at the bottom of a pit and Im still falling...Im a mess, Im in hell, Sherlock
confesses.
In addition to physical weakness, Sherlock confronts paranoia, guilt, hostility and grief in
The Lying Detective, so titled because no one believes Sherlock when he accuses Culverton
Smith of being a serial killer. Trembling and incredulous, even Sherlock begins to suspect
himself in a vulnerable moment and tries to stab Smith when the man mocks his incapacity. It is
Watson who grabs Sherlock and knocks the knife from his hand. Stop it! Stop it now! he yells,
driving him against a wall. Wake up! Is this a game to you? A bloody game? John pounds and
kicks him, while Sherlock lies passive, his saliva and blood dribbling onto the floor. Let [John]
do what he wants, Sherlock croaks as hes beaten, Hes entitled. I killed his wife. Yes you
did, John chokes. Thus, throughout the fourth season, Sherlock is psychically and visually
forced to suffer and confront his roughest demons: selfishness, arrogance, and their
consequences.
Suffering is not absent from Nietzsches philosophy either. In Will to Power, Nietzsche
writes, To those human beings who are of any concern to me I wish suffering, desolation,
sickness, ill-treatment, indignities I wish that they should not remain unfamiliar with
profound self-contempt, the torture of self-mistrust, the wretchedness of the vanquished: I have
no pity for them, because I wish them the only thing that can prove today whether one is worth
anything or not that one endures. Suffering is necessary in order to prove ones worth and
presumably to achieve a life worth living and lived well. Since this is also the aim of a good
moral code, Nietzsche may be suggesting that endurance of suffering is a critical part of the
16
journey towards creating a good morality; in fact, Nietzsches Ubermensch was someone who
necessarily endured if he was to confront and rise above the despair of nihilism.
Thus, the prevalence of suffering in Sherlock certainly makes sense through Nietzsche's
lens: by forcing the detective to confront the destruction of his prior notion of the good, he is
prepared, should he survive, to temper a better and stronger moral code in lieu of his old one. For
example, despite its being painful to watch, and no doubt to experience, Marys death impresses
a life-affirming and empathetic quality upon the detective, qualities which Sherlocks nihilistic,
dispassionate villains lack. When Sherlock deduces that his client is suicidal, he staggers after
her in spite of his drug-induced ennui, screaming, Stop! Wait! Your life is not your own. Keep
your hands off it!, an act of decidedly positive morality by the otherwise antiheroic figure. Life
affirmation is a quality that Nietzsche claims for his Ubermensch as well; moreover, in
Genealogy of Morals, living for the afterlife is a quality of the slave morality that Nietzsche finds
incredibly damning.
Despite these similarities, the alternative morality that comes out of Sherlocks suffering
does not entirely parallel that which Nietzsche envisioned for his Ubermensch, perhaps because
Ubermenschs positive qualities. Rather, Sherlocks maturation, along with its life-affirming
quality, also involves a growing consciousness of the self in the context of others, an evolution
beyond that which Nietzsche envisioned for either the superman or the slave. Your own death
is something that happens to everybody else.Once its over, its not you wholl miss it,
Sherlock warns his client, Your life is not your own. Keep your hands off it.
17
Thus, it is within the context of empathy, suffering, and an acknowledgement of mutual
codependence that Sherlock achieves its moral victory: a perspective that accepts weakness
without devaluing individual well-being. When Sherlock, weak and vulnerable, is left alone with
Smith after being beaten and rejected by John, he stutters, I want you to kill me. Smith is only
too happy to acquiesce and moves to suffocate the detective on the hospital bed. How do you
feel? Smith suddenly asks. Sherlock, who had once been prone to gambling away his life and
health for any inconsequential cause, replies, Ifeel scared. He seems perturbed by his own
answer. Scared of dying. I dont want to die. Sherlock begins sobbing, his voice garbled and
choked, I dont want to die. It is not until Sherlock is reduced to a shadow of his former
superhuman self that he understands not only the value of another mans life, but of his own as
well.
the fallibility of the self-in-isolation. His alternative morality is fashioned on this tenet of
imperfection, upon which rests codependence and socio-communal support. Sherlock illustrates
the rich interplay between these complementary qualities in the scene from The Lying Detective
which marks his reconciliation with John. After John saves Sherlock from Smith, he confesses
bitterly, She was wrong about me, referring to his departed wife: [Mary] thought Id rescue
you or something. But I didnt. Not until she told me to. And thats how that works, thats what
youre missing. She taught me to be the man she already thought I was.Im not that guy. I
never could be. But thats the point, he sobs, Thats the whole point. Sherlock embraces him,
rubs his back, clasps a firm hand on his neck. He shelters John with his body. Its okay, the
detective murmurs. Its not okay, John insists. No, Sherlock admits, But it is what it is.
18
It is what it is, a principle that becomes the pairs mantra, is critical of the perfectibility
of the self-in-isolation. Its not a pleasant thought, John, but I have the terrible feeling from time
to time that we might all just be human, Sherlock states, dryly. Even you? John asks. No.
Even you, he replies. In His Last Vow, John made Mary a better wife; in turn, Mary makes John
a better husband. John made Sherlock a better friend, and Sherlock offers John the grace of
cannot be arrived at through an understanding of the self, however thorough. Instead, the self
must be perfected in relation to others, and indeed, it is the socio-communal structure that is
responsible for cultivating all that is morally righteous in Sherlock, namely loyalty, love,
and resignation: however, as both Nietzsche and now Sherlock posit, resignation does not
invariably prescribe a descent into nihilism, but a chance to relinquish an outdated way of being
Sherlock Holmes is an appropriate hero for the twenty-first century. When he came to
BBC from Arthur Conan Doyle, he slipped perfectly into the information age, where he became
a representation of the twenty-first centurys preoccupation with logic and data, daring to
characterize something as elusive as intuition as data processed too fast for the conscious mind
to comprehend. If you could attenuate to every strand of quivering data, the future would be
entirely calculable. As inevitable as mathematics, Sherlock states in His Last Vow. As our
scientific capability continues to advance, the world seems like even less of a mystery than it did
19
in the twentieth century, and Sherlocks spirit is in tune with our conviction that its remaining
secrets simply represent yet-to-be surmounted limits of our human ability. There is nothing
And yet -- we are tired of rationalizing a world without moral sense: a world that seems
to make less sense with each increasing rationalization. Sherlock both experiences and
personifies this tendency. When the detective hears The Merchant of Samarra, a story about a
man who fails to outwit his predestined death, he is uncomfortable with its conclusion despite his
future. His frustration represents our own persistent source of modern moral discomfort: our
desire to understand and master our world simultaneously presents us with troubling ethical
inquiries and consequences, and logic, despite being a harbinger of those dilemmas, is an
insufficient tool for addressing them. From How should we conduct mechanized warfare? to
labeled?, our capabilities increasingly lead to places lacking not only moral sense, but moral
catastrophe, but something that must be confronted and conquered every moment of every day,
which each new advance, with each step forward. Sherlock, the master of logic, is incapable of
offering an answer to the merchants problem and writes an alternate story instead, one in which
he goes to a different city and successfully escapes death. Maybe we are just a little bit
Besides, the tendency to interpret the world as a series of ones and zeros seems to either
eviscerate questions of morality altogether or suggest that they have a correct answer; both are
20
premises that Sherlock explores and rejects. Sherlocks villains, often mighty and economically
well-off, nevertheless suffer from a dispassionate disconnection with reality, which manifests
itself as a tendency to interpret the universe in terms of gains and losses, correct and incorrect,
black and white. On the other hand, Sherlocks cast of antiheroes may be protagonists by merit
of the plot, but they derive moral sympathy from their shades of gray. Mycroft, a government
official and law-abiding man, is for all intents and purposes a protagonist, but he too is accused
of unfeelingness when he prefers to hijack the machinery of the state to look after [Sherlock]
rather than reach out and give him a call. Love and human connection is messy, illogical, and
imperfect, and Sherlock suggests that there is wisdom to embracing this view in relation to
ourselves and our universe. It is what it is represents the only way to transcend our moral
The answer to the question posed in Setting and Exigence, as to whether Sherlock is a
slave or an Ubermensch, is neither. He fails to fit either mold. Like the slave, Sherlock is
flawed and triumphs because he is flawed, but Sherlock stops short of claiming flaws as features
of the good. Instead of defending their moral high ground, Sherlocks antiheroes claim moral
ambiguity, and in so doing they transcend their moral imperfection. However, Sherlocks
transcendence does not represent a transformation into the Ubermensch. What Sherlock
ultimately derives from his experience, and impresses upon his audience, is not a lesson on the
importance of individual strength, suffering, or power, but the value of a strength derived from
interpersonal love and codependence. This is a strength that authorities and villains of
Sherlocks upper class cannot access by merit of their having to live according to a normative
and ultimately flawed version of the good, which, with its emphasis on maximizing individual
21
strength, might, and power, rather resembles the Ubermenschs positive morality. Nietzsche may
have detected a note of self-denial in the villainization of the rich and powerful, but Sherlock
asserts, rightly so, that the burden of being impeccable presents a bigger threat to the well-being
of the self. Perhaps the show is witnessing a new moment in the genealogy of morality: a
movement away from flawlessness and toward a vision of the self made stronger in association
with another.
Thus, Sherlock speaks to an audience eager to invite fallibility back into their lives, not as
a means of condoning it, but in order to acknowledge its place in reality. The impulse is closely
tied to themes of disenchantment with numbers, logic, and reasoning. Why does everything
have to be understandable? John asks in The Lying Detective, Why cant some things just be
unacceptable? And we can just say that. Ultimately, Sherlocks rejection of moral absolutism
and capable of growth, capable of relinquishing outdated ways of being and living for better,
more promising ones in a refreshing cycle of innovation and evolution capable of keeping pace
with human progress. The result: a vision of moral relativism enshrined in an antihero
Works Cited
<https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/sum2017/entries/nietzsche/>.
22
Cybulska, Eva. "Nietzsches bermensch: A Hero of Our Time?" Philosophy Now: A Magazine
Eaton, A.W. Rough Heroes of the New Hollywood. Revue Internationale De Philosophie, vol.
Nietzsche, Friedrich Wilhelm, 1844-1900. The Gay Science; with a Prelude in Rhymes and an
Popova, Maria. "Friedrich Nietzsche on Why a Fulfilling Life Requires Embracing Rather than
The Six Thatchers. Sherlock. Writ. Mark Gatiss. Dir. Rachel Talalay. BBC, 2017. MP4 video.
9 May. 2017.
The Lying Detective. Sherlock. Writ. Steven Moffat. Dir. Nick Hurran. BBC, 2017. MP4
23
The Final Problem. Sherlock. Writ. Steven Moffat, Mark Gatiss. Dir. Benjamin Caron. BBC,
24