I've recently watched a few episodes of Sherlock, the BBC modern remake of Sherlock Holmes and my opinion is mixed. Not exactly what NPR has called "the best version of Holmes and Dr. Watson I've ever seen," (for the record that would probably go to the Soviet version which was oddly ahead of anything else) and is a pretty decent series overall but one of the oddest qualities is the title character, Sherlock Holmes.
His personality is completely different from that of the books, and in the worst possible way. Despite the original Holmes's reserved eccentricity, the new Holmes comes off as a egoistical prick and as one reviewer noted, "feels genuinely nasty."
The new Holmes's scorn probably outdoes that of Dr. House, and unlike House is not done jokingly or sardonically, it's done with what seems like a true yearning for maliciousness.
It's a useful analogy, Dr. House, who was also partially inspired by Holmes, is eccentric in his methods but is at worst cynical and never really possess a big ego. The new Sherlock unabashedly does both but while House is almost universally hated by his peers, Holmes is graciously tolerated. What's odd is House is given a reason for his character, a difficult life and having to cope with what he sees as useless niceties of society which impede his ability to solve problems. The only thing that would seem to validate Holmes's character is constant abuse by haranguing idiots.
It's worth noting how oddly untrue all this is to the original, even the explosions-dodging, slow-motion-fighting Robert Downy Jr. Holmes seem more akin to the spirit of the original. As the original Holmes was not a narcissistic jerk he was also an outsider which, although is there, seems downplayed especially with his lack of a drug addiction and everyone's seeming tolerance if not love of him. Indeed, even Holmes's brother seems to validate his narcissism, in the original his brother was a lazier but more perceptive version of him who did odd jobs for the British government. In the remake his brother is the opposite, a ruthless head of police who is more applied but much less perceptive than his younger brother.
As the different reviewer suggested:
But, as much as they behave differently, you could argue they are the same basic character moulded by different social pressures. The Holmes of the books is reserved and contained. As much as he's a forward-looking man of science, he's a product of Victorian England. His purpose is genuinely to do good work.
Moffat and Gatiss' Sherlock is more openly egotistical and selfish - which you could argue he would be, born and raised in the late 20th century - the era of rudeness, self-promotion and 'being real'.
As people like Ross Douthat
have mentioned, there seems to be an increase in narcissism among America's youth which surly is similar in London. The problem thus lies with Holmes's acerbic attitude which seems to reflect Chris Hedges's observation that "Sadism dominates the culture."
However there's a huge problem with all this. Holmes was not meant to be a reflection of Victorian society and culture, he was in many ways rebelling against it. As the NPR review notes
...lasting mythic heroes tend to emerge during periods of psychosocial tumult when old values are being threatened by new ones. Holmes came to life in 1887, during the waning years of a Victorian era in which everything from the traditional social order to the belief in God was being subverted.
Thus it's saddening that the new version of Holmes is almost no Sherlock Holmes at all.