Alright, so I've been trying to come up with a way to help edit the abstract/paper we have to write.
And what I've learned is that I can't edit things.
So I kind of wrote my own. I definitely don't want to trample over what Katie and Kayela wrote, and in addition, what I wrote is definitely too long. Way too long. But maybe we can combine the two and hit a happy medium. I'm going to go ahead and post this verbose monstrosity, so that we can scavenge any parts we might like from it, and hack at it as the need presents itself.

"[(CNN)--The cardinal rule of a criminal detection was carved in stone more than a century ago.] It is a capital mistake to theorize before you have all the evidence,..It biases the judgement." -Sherlock Holmes

In Arthur Conan Doyle’s novel A Study in Scarlet, Doctor John Watson has just returned invalided from a tour of duty in Afghanistan. In BBC’s Sherlock, a show which modernizes the Sherlock Holmes stories, Doctor John Watson has just returned invalided from a tour of duty in Afghanistan. As they say, the more things change the more they stay the same. The differences—and similarities--between Victorian and modern times prompted Mark Gatiss and Steven Moffat, writers for the popular British show Doctor Who, to try their hands at adapting Sherlock Holmes to a modern setting. In our review we examine the pilot episode, “A Study in Pink,” written by Moffat and directed by Paul McGuigan. The episode stars Benedict Cumberbatch and Martin Freeman as Holmes and Watson, who recreate the characters faithfully, but manage to bring their own light to the roles.

Maybe that is the best way to sum up BBC’s Sherlock simply. The writers, as fans of the original stories, wanted the opportunity to forgo the trappings that come along with the mental image of Sherlock Holmes. They found that taking away gas lights and hansom cabs also helped strip away memories of a deerstalker clad Sherlock Holmes followed doggedly by a bumbling and rotund Doctor Watson. Modernizing the story also allowed the show to discuss themes that Sherlockians have been writing about for years. As an example, entire books have been written studying Holmes and Watson’s sexualities, but only in the BBC show can viewers find Sherlock and John awkwardly feeling out this territory over dinner. Put simply, the show uses the modern setting to discuss new themes and ideas, while simultaneously taking the characters back to their roots, and reminding us that the common misconceptions about Sherlock Holmes are just that—misconceptions.

On this account, we feel that the show succeeds in spades. Hearing that someone has decided to modernize the greatest detective of all time, the natural response from most people is skepticism. However, the show succeeds so well at what it does that people tend to forget their worries within the first few minutes. We find that the show more than lives up to its intentions, creating an expanded and in many ways purified world for the modern Sherlockian, and presenting characters and events that the audience finds more relatable than those in Victorian adaptations. The show is almost unexpectedly clever and engaging, well thought out and entertaining, and we think that modern audiences will love it.

The more things change, the more they stay the same, indeed. Although most people balked at the idea of a modernized Sherlock Holmes, the franchise has proved hugely successful and entertaining, bringing in newcomers and experienced Sherlockians alike. The show attempts to find a perfect balance between the new and the old, and succeeds beautifully. This just proves that, as Sherlock would have said over a hundred years ago, “It is a capital mistake to theorize before you have all the evidence,..It biases the judgement."