Ana-Lia Marinelli

Prof. Arroyo

English 696

Paper #1

Stephen Moffat’s Sherlock and Why Aristotle was Right about Plot.

It is remarkable that Aristotle’s definition of a good plot is still valid in today’s narratives. From literature to television, one can apply his theory to understand why some stories work better than others. Particularly the television series Sherlock, by Steven Moffat, is a good example to analyze these elements, since some of the episodes are more successful than others. These inconsistences in plot are present throughout the series, but a comparison of the first season’s effective first episode, A Study in Pink, and the not so brilliant second episode, The Blind Banker will suffice to demonstrate how Aristotle’s concepts could have aided the writer of the latter in building a better structure. First, it is necessary to establish some background.

Aristotle describes tragedy’s components in order of importance: plot, character, reasoning, diction, music, and spectacle, stating that plot is the most significant of all. For Aristotle “plot is the origin, […] the soul of the tragedy” (Norton 93). The action (and not the character) following a logical order of beginning, elaboration, and dramatic resolution moves the story along and is the structure that brings all of the other elements together to make for a successful story. For a plot to be unified it does not have to show absolutely everything that happens to a single person, but a selection of significant action and its parts (scenes). If a certain part would not make a difference in the story if it were removed, then it is not part of the whole and should be taken out. This applies to episodic tragedies which Aristotle defines as a “plot in which there is neither probability nor necessity that the episodes follow one another” even saying that these come from inferior poets (bad writers) because they extend their pieces beyond the plot’s potential (Norton 96). This is significant when considering how common it is in today’s episodic television (competition-pieces) for plots to be extended for the purpose of ratings and sales.

This complete action has to have also “terrifying and pitiable incidents” which are best when they are not expected and seem random but are in fact the result of a well thought network of connections. There has to be a reversal and recognition, meaning finding out something about a friend or an enemy, and discovering a fortune or misfortune. Aristotle says that the finest kind is when reversal and recognition happen at the same time. It is important to highlight that Aristotle criticizes the deus ex machina type of recognition. This is the least artful for being a last minute external force or artifact introduced to resolve a problem that was impossible to resolve up to this point (OED). The best type of discovery or recognition is the one that is the result of probable incidents.

In Study in Pink each scene presents a piece of information about the action forming a well thought out network of connections that will come together as the plot progresses. Doctor Watson, Lestrade, and Sherlock are introduced in separate scenes. The montage connects them apparently at random, until all three come together to resolve the crime. What appeared casual is actually deliberate.

In her article Aristotle on Detective Fiction, Dorothy Sayers equals tragedy to detective stories. Sayers remarks that in a detective story, the reversal of fortune or error could happen to a “wrongly suspected person, [who is] restored” in the resolution, or it could be the detective himself who makes several errors of reasoning before he finds the solution (Sayers 173). In A Study in Pink, Sherlock’s error in reasoning makes him mistake the passenger of a taxi cab for the killer. He realizes later when he figures out who the killer is, how close he had been to catching him.

This is the moment in which Holmes comes to the realization or his own mistake.

In turn, Watson too undergoes terrifying feats when Mycroft kidnaps him and warns him about Sherlock. Watson finds out later that Mycroft is Sherlock’s brother. This scene exemplifies Watson’s reversal and recognition of Mycroft’s role from enemy to family member. The element of good fortune and misfortune is also present when Watson realizes that he was actually safe when he had been kidnapped. One more layer of complexity arises when Sherlock reveals that Mycroft is not to be trusted, thus one more reversal from family to enemy takes place. The love and hate relationship between the brothers recurs throughout the series. This occurrence raises compassion and dread because of the brother against brother conflict (Norton 99).

Here, Dr. Watson realizes that his abductor and Sherlock are brothers.

The episode is resolved when, after making several errors in reasoning, Sherlock finally is able to reverse his luck, and figures out who the killer is by using the GPS on the victim’s cell phone. This is the result of the episode’s previous incidents and not a magical or unexpected turn.

In contrast, the episode The Blind Banker fails because it neglects to create a complex network of actions and focuses heavily in the development of the relationship and characters of Sherlock and Watson, and because the error in reasoning is resolved by a deus ex machina artifact. The story is not one that develops as a unit from scene to scene, but new elements are introduced without warning. Aristotle says: “Impossible incidents that are believable should be preferred to possible ones that are unbelievable” (Norton 111). There is a scene in which Sherlock and Watson are having lunch across the street from the store where the criminals run their clandestine business. The store also happens to be exactly next door to the missing girl’s apartment. Sherlock breaks into the apartment, but the killer is inside and almost chokes him to death. Lucky for Holmes, the killer unexpectedly decides to leave before he completes his task. They conveniently find the co-worker’s note and follow that lead. Even though these incidents are possible they are unlikely and thus, the suspension of disbelief is broken. This is the writer’s intervention to save the plot with an artifact that is not the result of previous actions.

Like Aristotle says, character and spectacle alone do not make a good story. Sherlock’s impeccable cinematographic style as well as clever on-screen effects, well developed characters, and the on camera chemistry of the actors (perhaps the new “art of delivery)” are undeniably pleasing, but when the action is not well thought through, the moral function is lost, perhaps yielding to a kind of entertainment that is an inferior form of art.

This image shows the on screen effect of people’s thoughts.

This image shows Sherlock Holmes’ mental process when assessing people.


Works Cited

"Deus Ex Machina, N." : Oxford English Dictionary. N.p., n.d. Web. 19 Sept. 2014.

Kistler, Alan. "All the Shout-Outs and References You Missed in the Sherlock Premiere | WIRED." Wired.com. Conde Nast Digital, 18 Jan. 0014. Web. 21 Sept. 2014.

Leitch, Vincent B. "Aristotle." The Norton Anthology of Theory and Criticism. New York: W.W. Norton, 2010. N. pag. Print.

Moffat, Steven. Sherlock/A Study in Pink. 25 July 2010. Television.

Sayers, Dorothy L. "Aristotle on Detective Fiction." The Philosophy of Sherlock Holmes. By Philip Tallon and David Baggett. Lexington: U of Kentucky, 2012. 167-79. Print.

"SHERLOCKED: Professor Moriarty: Out of the Shadows, Part 1." SHERLOCKED: Professor Moriarty: Out of the Shadows, Part 1. N.p., 24 Feb. 2013. Web. 21 Sept. 2014.

Thistlethwaite, Felicity. "Sherlock's Alive! Season Three Trailer Reveals Detective LIVES after Terrifying Roof Fall." Mail Online. Associated Newspapers, 24 Nov. 2013. Web. 21 Sept. 2014.

Thompson, Steven. Sherlock/The Blind Banker. 1 Aug. 2010. Television.