# data[].attributes.body
Using the ICED template if needed, write two to three sentences of elaboration (rationale) for each quote. The elaboration should explain how or why the quote shows the characteristic AND why that is memorable. Use ink and you can add color if you want.

# data[].attributes.body
This is an abbreviated version of the original to be used for this project only!

# data[].attributes.body
Find a quote from the stories we read in class that supports each characteristic. Write your quote (with citation) on the inside of each flap. At the bottom, cite which story the quote came from. Use ink and you can add color if you want.

# data[].attributes.body
Write one characterization from your Data Tree argument on each of the flaps of your flip chart. Use ink, and draw and color a corresponding picture or symbol.

# data[].attributes.body
A Scandal in Bohemia...7
The Red-Headed League...32
A Case of Identity...58
The Speckled Band...175

# data[].attributes.headline
YOU MUST WRITE DOWN AT LEAST 10 CLAIMS ON YOUR DATA TREE TO RECEIVE FULL CREDIT!

# data[].attributes.subject
YOU MUST WRITE DOWN AT LEAST 10 CLAIMS ON YOUR DATA TREE TO RECEIVE FULL CREDIT!

# data[].attributes.headline
YOUR ARGUMENT SHOULD FOLLOW THIS FORMAT!

# data[].attributes.subject
YOUR ARGUMENT SHOULD FOLLOW THIS FORMAT!

# data[].attributes.body
We love Sherlock Holmes because he is ___, ___, and ___. In other words, your argument should include three reasons why we love him. These reasons are going to be adjectives or character traits. You don't have to have the same argument as the rest of your group; change it to suit your own opinion on the subject.

# data[].attributes.body
After sharing, use the information from your data tree to help you formulate an argument. After doing some research, which characteristics of our detective do you think have had the most appeal to readers over the years?

# data[].attributes.body
Read the article INDEPENDENTLY AND SILENTLY. As you read, write down any important claims on your data tree (just use key words and phrases). The claims should answer the question: why do we love Sherlock Holmes? Remember, just the claims. The claims are the arguments and opinions of the author, not the evidence.

# data[].attributes.body
Medium-easy

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Obsession and Sherlock Holmes: Why The Two Go Hand In Hand

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
As you read this, filming on the third series of the BBC's runaway success, Sherlock, has begun. Cameras are rolling. Lights are set. Continuity errors have been checked. Costumes, makeup and hair will be primed. Martin Freeman has already inspired a thousand .gif sets on tumblr.

# data[].attributes.body
Make sure it includes three defend-able characteristics or adjectives. NOT FACTS. You can't say that "We love Sherlock Holmes because he is British, a detective, and smokes a pipe." These are all facts and you can't defend those. They are already true. Your argument should be based in opinion, and you're going to have to defend it with evidence, so make a good one!

# data[].attributes.body
Once you are done reading and collecting claims, Each member of the group shares his/her claims with the rest of the group. If you hear a good claim from one of your teammates, add it to your own data tree. Discuss and share what you've learned.

# data[].attributes.body
Each person in your group must read a different article. You decide yourselves who's going to read what. (Groups of 3 will only read 3 of the articles. This is fine!)

# data[].attributes.body
We watched this in class a while ago. The video is optional to re-watch. If you choose to watch it, make sure you have earbuds!

# data[].attributes.body
Hardest

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
More than 75 different actors have taken him on, making him the most portrayed character on film and television ever. Ian McKellen will be the latest to add his name to the roster, playing an elderly Sherlock Holmes in a film set in 1947. The BBC's Sherlock, starring Benedict Cumberbatch, is back on New Year's Day for a third season, and there are rumours of a third film in the Robert Downey Jr franchise.

We can't get enough of Sherlock Holmes. But why? On paper, Holmes is an unlikely hero. He is callous, arrogant, bad tempered, never has love affairs and shuns society. Sir Arthur Conan Doyle described his character as "a calculating machine". Perhaps this is his appeal - Holmes is not just a solver of mysteries, but a mystery himself.

Countless reinventions have played with every aspect of Holmes's character and world - costume, setting, time period, gender, sexuality - but one thing never changes: he is a scientist. His character is a mashup of every stereotype we have ever had about scientists - solitary, introverted, daring, reckless, slightly inhuman, cruel, obsessive, imaginative and brilliant.

The world he was originally created for was one obsessed with science. The Victorian era saw the birth of Charles Babbage's own "calculating machine", a forerunner of modern computers. Many early fictional detectives - Edgar Allan Poe's Dupin, Jacques Futrelle's "Thinking Machine" - were characters who prided themselves on their systematic, unemotional approach to solving mysteries.

Holmes, too, boasts of his lack of emotions - " I am a brain, Watson. The rest of me is a mere appendix" - and his ability to separate fact from theory. "I make a point of never having any prejudices," he tells Inspector Forrester in The Adventure of the Reigate Squires, "and of following docilely wherever fact may lead me." Like Babbage's Difference Engine, there is no personality involved, only the application of a method. "He was," says Watson, "the most perfect reasoning and observing machine that the world has seen."

But as Conan Doyle well knew, no scientist, let alone a commercial literary character, could survive on cold, mechanical logic alone. The dogged, unimaginative fact collector - a role in which Doyle rather unkindly casts the whole professional police force - is not our only stereotype of scientists. Holmes is also a reclusive, eccentric bohemian, relying on intuition and mysterious flashes of insight.

"See the value of imagination," he tells Watson in Silver Blaze, having conjured a scene in his head and found evidence to justify it. "We imagined what might have happened, acted on the supposition, and find ourselves justified."

In The Red Headed League, he pauses mid-investigation to visit "violin land", where he "sat in the stalls wrapped in the most perfect happiness, gently waving his long, thin fingers in time to the music." He solves the puzzle of The Man with the Twisted Lip by spending a whole night sitting on a pile of pillows built up in "a sort of Eastern divan", smoking, "his eyes fixed vacantly upon the corner of the ceiling".

At other times, he abandons his cerebral methods altogether and opts for good old fashioned fisticuffs. "The next few minutes were delicious," he tells Watson in The Adventure of the Solitary Cyclist. "It was a straight left against a slogging ruffian." At other times, he claims to be "the most incurably lazy devil that ever stood in shoe leather".

In bringing together these seemingly contradictory characteristics, Holmes is a more realistic scientist, and human being, than any of his fictional rivals. He also lends himself well to adaptation - each new Holmes has a whole suite of personality traits to choose from. Some highlight the narcotics abuse, others the violin playing, some the cutting wit. Downey Jr focuses on his physicality, Jeremy Brett was quietly mysterious, Basil Rathbone outgoing. Cumberbatch's Holmes is brilliantly clever, to the point of madness. But they are all scientists, because what never changes is the method, and the goal.

As Holmes says in A Study in Scarlet, "There's the scarlet thread of murder running through the colourless skein of life, and our duty is to unravel it, and isolate it, and expose every inch of it."

That, perhaps, is at the heart of our fascination with Holmes, and with science. We are comforted by the thought that, however baffling the mystery, there is a solution to be found, and someone capable of finding it. It is reassuring that Holmes uses nothing more than logic, imagination and the occasional street urchin to solve problems, rather than implausible gadgets and superpowers. But our love of Holmes, like science, is tinged with apprehension. We're never quite sure how far he might go in the pursuit of truth.
Topics

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Sherlock Holmes is the archetypal scientist - brilliant but slightly scary | Sarah Day

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
More than 75 different actors have taken him on, making him the most portrayed character on film and television ever. Ian McKellen will be the latest to add his name to the roster, playing an elderly Sherlock Holmes in a film set in 1947.

# data[].attributes.body
Medium-hard

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
It doesn't take Sherlock Holmes to deduce why modernizing his character could be a totally disastrous idea.

Sir Arthur Conan Doyle's Sherlock Holmes is tailored to his times, so wresting him from his Victorian-era flat to a modern 221B Baker Street is a tall order. Not to mention that the larger-than-life personality has undergone numerous adaptations through the years-both good and bad, true to the canon and very loosely based on Doyle's character.

So when I first heard of Steven Moffat's BBC series, Sherlock, starring Benedict Cumberbatch as the hero and Martin Freeman as his estimable sidekick, Dr. Watson, I was skeptical of how well it would succeed at what it was trying to do. But if you've been watching the show, the only mystery is how we've gone this long without a Sherlock for our own time.

Perhaps the strength of Moffat's adaptation is how all-in he is for respecting the source material even within the context of a new millennium. There are liberties taken, certainly. (Sherlock's brother, Mycroft, and his nemesis, James Moriarty, both get more screen time than they ever did when Holmes was first making his way across the pages of The Strand magazine.) But offenses of extrapolation like this stretch back to the Basil Rathbone era of Sherlock adaptations. There are enough witty asides and references to Doyle's original stories to keep devoted purists ready to forgive that kind of thing.

The third season of the show wrapped up Sunday night, but the "novelty" of a Sherlock Holmes who shops at H&M still hasn't worn off. The show keeps impressing with the strength of its writing, cinematography and stellar performances. Cumberbatch and Freeman's chemistry is electric, and the same goes for the rest of the cast around them.

After the first episode, you get used to all the idiosyncrasies of the modernization while the freshness of the concept never gets boring. Watson keeps an avidly followed blog, Holmes' brain is regularly compared to a computer and the high-tech graphics and intercuts showing his thought process always come as a delight even if they're no longer a surprise.

Sherlock proves Holmes can fit into any era, from Doyle to current affairs. The modernization is fancy, stylish and cool but the most important point it makes is the character's timelessness as an archetype.

It may sound oddly specific, but if you think "immensely resourceful, intelligent, misanthropic detective with a sidekick," you have the template for other pop culture icons such as Batman and Dr. Gregory House. Doyle did it first (well, Poe did technically, but let's not mince words) and we've been updating this kind of character to fit our needs ever since.

So what is it that draws us post-Victorians to keep repeating the Holmesian mythos with different actors and, now, time periods? It could be our hunger for a demigod walking among us. But, then again, that's the very thing that makes Holmes so compelling-far from being a god, his computerized brain and unmatched skill is paired with light sociopathy and problems with addiction. On the outside, he looks unredemptive-Sherlock's friends are forever fretting about how he'll come across to a public who doesn't know him like they do.

Because, for all his faults, he does have friends. And these are friends willing to look past the many things that make Sherlock a difficult person and see that he not only needs saving, but that he can be saved.

For all of Watson's constant help and kindness, Holmes does little to show his gratitude or appreciation. Cumberbatch, in particular, is a master at displaying the great detective's impatient and detached side. He doesn't engage in his cases for the sake of benevolence but because, without them, he would go insane. His brain needs constant stimulation.

The man is an anti-hero at best. Indeed, Moffatt's story arc involving Sherlock and Moriarty over seasons one and two seemed eerily familiar to anyone with even a passing knowledge of The Dark Knight. Like the Joker, Moriarty is keen on reminding Sherlock of how similar they both are. Moriarty creates the cases, Sherlock solves them, and they both do so with scientific precision. Their battle isn't to prove whether good or evil will prevail but, rather, who's the most ordinary, banal one, after all. Both of them aren't so different, just men in need of puzzles to solve.

Except, Sherlock is different.

At the center of the Holmes mythos is a beating and hidden sacrificial heart beneath a cold and icy exterior. Moffatt manages to hint at it in all the ways Doyle did: Holmes' affection for the brilliant Irene Adler, his loyalty to his landlady, Mrs. Hudson, the few moments where, through admission or action, his love for Watson becomes visible and, most apparently, his sacrificial death for his friends. This is why we like Sherlock. He reminds us of our own complexities. Not one of us is past the point of saving. We all need some friends to see that and, at times, bring it out in us.

The same goes for Batman and House too, just to round out the archetype.

Holmes keeps resurrecting in every sense of the word because he has a soul to bring back to life. Moriarty is wrong about him. We keep clamoring after Sherlock Holmes because we see just enough of ourselves in him to keep us around. He is a man supernatural in his talents, a pure think tank without much room for empathy. But it makes the moments where his heart beats as loudly as his thought processes that things get truly great.

Sherlock gets you interested because it modernizes Holmes so well, but you end up staying around because your old friend hasn't really changed or aged a day in over 100 years.

Like content like this? Go deeper with articles covering faith, culture, life, and more in each collectible issue of RELEVANT Magazine. Click here to subscribe.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
It doesn't take Sherlock Holmes to deduce why modernizing his character could be a totally disastrous idea. Sir Arthur Conan Doyle's Sherlock Holmes is tailored to his times, so wresting him from his Victorian-era flat to a modern 221B Baker Street is a tall order.

# data[].attributes.body
Easiest

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Sir Arthur Conan Doyle always wished to be known as a great author of historical novels. He never warmed to his own creation - Sherlock Holmes - as much as the reading public who loved this eccentric detective.

What is it about Sherlock Holmes which makes him such a great Character?

Analysis of Sherlock Holmes Character

Great self-confidence

Sherlock Holmes has great confidence in his abilities and capacities. This confidence doesn't come across as egotistic and proud. It is a confidence based on his undoubted abilities in his chosen profession of detective work.

It is perhaps a paradox that someone with so much confidence and belief in his deductive powers can at the same times have a humble modest approach, which doesn't need the praise of the world. There are numerous times, when he is happy to play down his role and give more (or all the ) credit to the police. To Holmes, the satisfaction comes not from worldly and financial reward, but, the satisfaction of solving a crime mystery. He is a true believer in crime detection. His work is his greatest reward. When he throws himself into a crime it is with the best motives.

The Outsider.

We always admire someone just outside the orthodox establishment. Because Holmes is not a real policemen he can do things outside the law. He is willing to bend the law in order to get a bigger prize. It is hard to criticise this approach when he is so successful in getting the bigger prize. At least once a detective notes 'I could never get away with your approach'. It is Holmes willingness to place his own personal safety at risk which we admire.

True Friend

Holmes is not the emotional type given to expressing his emotions. In fact he works hard to display a cold exterior. But, underneath his approach, we know Holmes is a steadfast friend to his Beloved Watson. He is also loyal and willing to sacrifice everything for clients who come to him and he is willing to take on their case.

The Eccentric.

Holmes is no dedicated follower of fashion. He sets his own way of life and appears content with or without society's approval. He is the long tradition of the English eccentric with his own foibles, genius and eccentricity.

A Great Judge of Character.

It seems Holmes can weigh up a person's life, personality and character from the flimsiest of external evidence. But, often he is proved right.

By far the best media representation of Sherlock Holmes is Jeremy Brett in the ITV series. He captures the mood and character of Holmes to perfection and with a considerable degree of flair.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Inspiring People: Why We Love Character of Sherlock Holmes

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Sir Arthur Conan Doyle always wished to be known as a great author of historical novels. He never warmed to his own creation - Sherlock Holmes - as much as the reading public who loved this eccentric detective. What is it about Sherlock Holmes which makes him such a great Character?