Practical Discussion of Sherlockian roots of Doctor Who: With Some Observations on "The Talons of Weng-Chiang" and other 'crossover' works: Part Two - 'I Hear of Sherlock Everywhere'

Tom Baker's performance in the 1982 BBC "Hound of the Baskervilles", although critically panned, was seen as many as merely an extension of the Doctor he portrayed in the "classic" Robert Holmes story, "The Talons of Weng Chiang". Much has been written on this supposed Sherlockian "Doctor Who" adventure, in particular I draw the reader's attention to the debate in "Celestial Toyroom - June 1994" between Andy Lane and Martin Wiggins. I will now lay down my own opinion. In "Talons", the Doctor brings Leela to Victorian London 1889, where a year after the Ripper was thought to be dead, women are still disappearing. What is happening at the Palace Theatre, and what part is the mysterious Li Hsen Chang playing in the business ? The Doctor and Leela decide to play Holmes and Watson. There is no sign of the real Holmes, he was presumably abroad working with Monsieur Dubuque of the Paris police and Fritz von Waldbaum, the well-known specialist of Danzig, as recorded by his faithful Boswell, Watson in "The Naval Treaty". Before, I go any further, I feel that I should state that I like “Talons..”, in fact it is my favourite Fourth Doctor story (narrowly followed by “City of Death”). However, to say that it is a Sherlockian pastiche is incorrect.

As Loyd Grossman always used to say on 'Through the Keyhole' - “Let’s look at the evidence”, Sherlock himself would tut at my theorising before I have data. It is true that the Doctor wears a deerstalker and Inverness cape; Litefoot’s housekeeper is indeed a Mrs. Hudson (maybe the sister-in-law of the saintly landlady of 221b); there is a murderous dwarf trying to kill the Doctor and his companions who is more than reminiscent of Tonga from “The Sign of Four” who tries to do the same to Holmes and Watson; as in “The Man With the Twisted Lip”, a visit to an Opium Den is deemed necessary; and finally there is the giant rat referred to by Sherlock in “The Sussex Vampire”, possibly in jest (but no sign of the Matilda Briggs). However, an equally important source drawn on by RH is the stories of Dr. Fu Manchu, with their gangs of murderous orientals led by a moustached leader. It also borrows from “The Phantom of the Opera” with its disfigured occupant of he cellar, a theme later to be reused in another “classic” RH story, “The Caves of Androzani”. There are also the supposedly typical Sherlockian aspects of foggy London streets, people hitching lifts on the back of cabs, and the sinister presence of Jack the Harlot Killer. Although all or most of these elements are in the Sherlockian canon, they do not occur as often as many people think, and occur equally in other literary works based in Victorian London, including Fu Manchu. 

What about Litefoot and Jago (who since my last essay have gained their own audio spin-off series), who as well as being a RH’ian double-act, are deemed by many as Watsons to the Doctor’s Sherlock Holmes ? Taking the more farcical suggestion first, Henry Gordon Jago (played by Christopher Benjamin who later appeared in Granada's 'The Priory School') is no Watson, he is much too foolish to fulfil this role, and he seems closer to Leonard Sachs, than the intelligent ex-military man of action. Therefore, Professor Litefoot seems to be the prime candidate for Watson. Both are ex-army doctors, both smoke, both question their companion, and both provide an air of normality against which proceedings can be measured. Litefoot shows himself to be a man of action as Sherlock describes Watson, by watching the theatre for Greel’s men rather than waiting for the Doctor, and through his audacious escape attempt via the dumb-waiter. However, Leela demonstrates similar behaviour when she follows Li Hsen Chang to his hiding place, and substitutes herself for one of the potential victims, and she also serves to question the Doctor’s methods and therefore forward the plot. If there is a Watson in “Talons”, I feel that Litefoot and Leela should share the laurels.

So, is the Doctor, Sherlock Holmes in “Talons”. My opinion is no. The deductions he makes are not impressive; smelling gin on a policeman’s breath and stating that he has had a drink, that Greel’s base was in Boot Court after Chang had pointed to the Doctor’s boot as his dying action, that the attacker must have been a midget to enter the house in a laundry basket, and finally that Jago and Litefoot had been gone for a long time as the fire had burnt out. These “deductions” are all “mere child’s play”, the truth of the matter is that the Doctor is playing Sherlock Holmes for his own amusement. We know that the Doctor is a Sherlockian as in “The Bodysnatchers”, his Eighth incarnation again travels to Victorian London, this time to buy a new copy of “The Strand Magazine”, as the one that he has, which contains “The Final Problem”, has a page missing. In fact this role-playing was the reason for the trip in order that the Doctor could indulge himself by playing both Sherlock to Victorians, and Henry Higgins to Leela. This is an example of the difference between “WHO” and a science-fiction programme such as “Star Trek:TNG”. When Data wishes to play Sherlock, he goes onto the holodeck, whereas when the Doctor wants to play Sherlock, he travels back to Victorian London. The Doctor’s play-acting fools Jago, and he encourages the pretence by his misplaced belief that the Doctor is or is a student or contemporary of Sherlock Holmes himself, who was by now known to the public through Watson’s account, “A Study In Scarlet”, and therefore was a master detective.

So, in conclusion, “Talons” is a superb piece of Victorian storytelling with elements from many Victorian novels, but mainly Fu Manchu and Sherlock Holmes. This means it does delight a Sherlockian, but is in no way a pastiche.

Having got the “Sherlockian-Whovian masterwork” out of the way, I wish to move on to “All Consuming Fire”, a New Adventure featuring the Seventh Doctor, Benny, Ace, Sherlock, and Watson, penned by Andy Lane. Since the original version of this essay, Big Finish have released an audio adaptation, featuring McCoy and Aldred, alongside BF's Benny, Lisa Bowerman, and their Holmes & Watson, Nicholas 'Voice of the Daleks' Briggs and Richard Earl. In his review of “ACF”, in Celestial Toyroom, Martin J. Kennaugh states that he finds the book to be a Sherlock Holmes novel, where a rather bizarre individual - known as the Doctor - consults the master detective, and later becomes a more prominent character than Sherlock or Watson. I agree with the majority of this statement, the Doctor is only a supporting character for a few chapters in a truly Sherlockian tale, before monopolising the action himself, aided by the trusty Watson and Benny (to whom Watson “takes a shine”), whilst Sherlock all but disappears from the novel. Therefore, in my opinion, it is a “Doctor Who” novel with Watson, and to a lesser degree, Sherlock as supporting players. The characterisation is good, with Watson breaking out of the “old duffer” image propagated by Nigel Bruce and then by others who followed his example. With his fondness for young ladies, his infatuation with Benny seems in character, and he is given plenty of chance to prove his “man of action” label. Sherlock is only sketchily drawn, but he does solve the theft of books from the library of St. John the Beheaded, which is one of the most bizarre in its execution of Sherlock’s career. He is, as I have stated above, forgotten for the rest of the book, with Watson providing the necessary “daring-do” and comment. The lack of involvement of Sherlock did initially alienate me towards this novel, but having listened to Guy Adams' audio adaptation, feel that this was somewhat re-balanced in the adaptation. (I did miss my favourite quote from Watson in relation to Ms. Summerfield though !) In conclusion I did however, enjoy “ACF”, and do recommend it, particularly the first few chapters.

Sherlock and Watson reappear in “Happy Endings” by Paul Cornell; to attend Bernice’s wedding, but between “ACF” and “Happy Endings”, according to the cover picture, Sherlock has “regenerated” from a Rathbone/Cushing resemblance to a Jeremy Brett look. Sherlock gets to investigate a mystery with Roz Forrester, Watson continues to lust after Benny, whilst the Doctor labels Sherlock “borderline psychotic”. However my main memory of the book a few years after reading it, save Sherlock being confused by 2010 satellite dishes, are two 'Bona' Silurians, Jacquilian and (his friend) Sanki.

Moving on to another Virgin WHO novel, “Evolution” by John Peel, in which the Fourth Doctor (in Inverness cape) and Sarah-Jane team up with a young surgeon from a whaling ship, Arthur Conan-Doyle, and a young Kipling. Written at a similar time to “ACF”, this book ties in well, but rather bizarrely suggests that the Doctor may have been the model for both Sherlock and Challenger (so how can he have worked with Sherlock in “ACF”). Reading this book, it becomes obvious that Peel is trying too hard with his in-jokes. Almost every bizarre element of Sherlockian cases are present in the adventure, but the hound roaming the moor is the final nail in the coffin. In my opinion, the Fourth Doctor does nothing remotely Sherlockian to inspire the character. I hated this book, and recommend it to no one.  [See 'Jago & Litefoot 7.1: The Monstrous Menagerie' for an example of how to do a 'meeting Conan Doyle' adventure]

Just released at the time of my previous essay was “The Adventure of the Diogenes Damsel”, a 'Professor Bernice Summerfield' audio, which featured the 27th century archaelogist teaming up with Sherlock's brother, Mycroft (the year being 1893, Sherlock is “playing dead”), following being snatched from her home time and her son, Peter. Benny becomes 'Watson' to Mycroft's 'Sherlock' whilst they investigate crimes which all seem associated with the number seven. Jim Smith's script is peppered with references to the Sherlockian Canon, other Victorian literature, other BF audios, and a number of Virgin 'New Adventures', in particular the previously discussed “All Consuming Fire”, the manuscript of which allows Mycroft to deduce Benny's identity. This is highly recommended, showing Mr. Peel how you make Sherlockian references that provoke chuckles of recognition, rather than sighs of annoyance.

With Steven Moffat at the helm during the Eleventh Doctor era, it is not surprising that he introduced a Victorian detective as a recurring character. However, this 'Great Detective' was a female Silurian, who investigated strange occurences with her maid/wife, Jenny, initially in “A Good Man Goes to War” (where she eats Jack the Ripper), and then in two prequels to the 2012 Christmas Special. It is these prequels that I intend to briefly examine - “The Great Detective” and “Vastra Investigates”, in which Vastra and Jenny are joined by Sontaran, Strax. The focus is on the Eleventh Doctor refusing to assist them given his recent loss of Amy & Rory. In the latter, Vastra comes closest to being Sherlockian, even dealing with Inspector Gregson (who would return in the Twelfth Doctor's first story, “Deep Breath”), the Scotland Yarder that they send when Lestrade is busy. All the cliches are there - the foggy streets, gas-lamps, hansom cabs – but I for one am enjoying it. This is built on by “The Snowmen”, “The Crimson Horror”, and to a lesser extent, “Deep Breath”. In my view it will be a shame if the Paternoster Gang are never seen again.

So, Sherlock and the Doctor do seem to be closely linked, sharing many common characteristics. However, crossovers have been of varying success, and the apparently most obvious and most effective one, “The Talons of Weng Chiang” used other elements to strengthen the Sherlockian elements. Both characters are immortal, and will continue to have their adventures in print, and as I hoped in the conclusion of my orginal essay, a continuing future on television.