Watson is not a rose.

What’s in a name?

I had reason to contemplate this today, following a recent mention of  an old comic book called “Baker Street” that featured a Sherlock Holmes character named “Sharon.” Sharon’s last name was Ford, not Holmes, but it put me in mind of Shirley Holmes, and that’s when things took off.

Gender-bending Holmes and Watson has always had one very big problem. Unless you have two women named “Sherlock” and “John,” they’re not the real Sherlock Holmes and Dr. John H. Watson. Not because they’re women. I’d love to see two women named Sherlock Holmes and John Watson. But it’s the names, you see. After a hundred and more years of Sherlock-clones, a real Sherlock requires the brand name.

We’ve seen Sherman Holmes, Sherrinford Holmes, Sheridan Haynes, Solar Pons, etc., etc., etc., and some of them have been better Sherlocks than most characters bearing the One True Name in non-Doyle books. But without that name, “Sherlock Holmes,” they just can’t be Sherlock Holmes.

Setting Sherlock and John in the modern day was a master’s trick by Moffat and Gatiss, to be sure, but what was the very first thing that they did right, atop the long, long list of things they did so very right? They called the modern day duo Sherlock Holmes and John H. Watson.  They planted that flag in the twenty-first century soil and went, “We claim these fellows as the one true Sherlock and John.” And many of us felt that.

Whatever your feelings are about Lucy Liu in the new American series, Joan Watson can and will never be the one true John H. Watson in our minds, sad to say. Not because she’s female. Because she’s Joan. Had they named Jonny Lee Miller’s character “Sherman Holmes,” would we think for even a second he was our Sherlock? Not a chance.

Sherman Holmes is a pastiche character from the outset. And so is Joan Watson, I’m afraid. Names are important.

The calendar pages turn, and within a week everyone can quit going, “Quit pre-judging ‘Elementary’ before it comes out!” We’ll all have seen it, and we will all have judged. But Joan Watson will still be Joan Watson, and not John, when you come down to it.

Too bad, too.

The new kid in town.

Yes, even Action Sherlock is in love with the new

cut-out "Sherlock" figures from Chris Schweizer at

croganadventures.blogspot.com

Get them while they're hot!

Holmes enters the arena.

Time to pull back and look at the big picture surrounding the upcoming Sherlockalypse called “Elementary.” While it’s easy to pick at details of the upcoming CBS series, the true problem roaring at us like a runaway steam locomotive is this: American television kills what it loves. And it tends to severely maim that which it doesn’t love, as well.

And Sherlock Holmes has entered that arena. The lions are coming, and here's what they look like.

If “Elementary” is a fan favorite, but doesn’t get ratings, it dies an early death, leaving plot threads hanging and fans in mourning. And that is a happy ending in TV land.

If “Elementary” is a ratings success and a popular favorite, things go from bad to worse. Think of all the TV non-sitcom shows you’ve seen that held together for a long and happy run. Show-runners, the creative heart of a TV show, leave, and things fall apart. (Think “Moonlighting.”) A major actor or actress can leave the show, and we wind up seeing something like Holmes replacing Watson, two years in. If the lead actor gains enough power and becomes lazy and egotistical, his character might develop more and more personality traits of the actor himself. (And we get Sher-onny Lee Hol-ler.)

And then there’s the inevitable shark-jumping. If square one of “Elementary” involves giving Holmes a previously-unhead-of father and a sober companion, what will we see five years from now? His twin sister? A Holmesmobile? Sherlock’s secret powers of telepathy revealed?

The arena of American television is a little like a mutant-filled, post-apocalypse landscape, where anything can pop up . . . and just might. I’ve taken a little heat for being so pessimistic about American TV’s take on a British favorite, but this isn’t my first TV series rodeo. I’ve always admired the BBC’s ability to tell a story on television in whatever number of episodes it took, without running a good idea into the ground. And I’ve also see MacGyver go from MIT genius work to A-Team level silliness on the American network TV side of things.

And now our friend Sherlock Holmes has entered that arena. Forgive me if I’m gritting my teeth for a bit until he makes it out in one piece.

Abs of Sherlock.

Let it not be said that Sherlock Peoria is fair and balanced, as certain lazy non-news-gathering networks like to tout themselves. Yesterday’s bit concerned the attractions of the female upper torso in the Sherlockian arena, so today let us discuss the lower male torso . . . because we’re always seeing that at Sherlock Holmes fan functions.

Okay, I’m lying. I don’t think I’ve ever seen an exposed male stomach at a Holmes meet-up, and I’ve been to a weekend symposium at a Tampa beach resort! (There’s a wasted location on bookworms, let me tell ya.) But that’s the past. In the future?

Well, look at the current set of Sherlock Holmeses. Robert Downey, Jr., stripped to the waist for bare-knuckle boxing. Benedict Cumberbatch is walking around with a sheet in “A Scandal in Belgravia.” And that new guy is already shirtless in the promo pics. What do they all have in common? The abs of Sherlock.

Did we ever concern ourselves with Jeremy Brett’s abdominal development? Basil Rathbone’s? Original Sidney Paget drawing Sherlock?

Of course not. Sherlock has been an old guy for most of his media time. But his revival has given him a youth and vigor that demands a decently controlled belly. The ladies like it, of course. And pretty soon the male of the Sherlockian species will, quite naturally, have to be concerned about his own washboard stomach as well. (Yeah, don’t think you can get away with playing Mycroft . . . have you noticed, he’s slimming down as well?)

Of course, as most actors learn eventually, there comes a time when you just should start keeping your shirt on. Even Downey, now 47, was pushing it a tad in his Holmes films. But a few sit-ups shouldn’t hurt any of us.

Get to it, lads. And “Abs of Sherlock” would make a great exercise video, if anyone wants to look into that.

Nerds and cleavage.

Well, it’s Saturday, so I’m going to take a little time off from my duties as prophet of the Sherlockalypse called “Elementary” (Hey, London! Protest that piece of film at your local American embassy!), and move to a simpler topic. Lizard-brain simple, in fact.

Gender issues among the Sherlockian species would make for a fascinating study. There are the obvious bits, like “no girls allowed” clubs and fans of the latest dreamy actor to play Holmes, and then there’s the part nobody talks about openly: nerds and cleavage.

The joy of any Sherlockian gathering is being surrounded by like minds and getting to live in a world, however briefly, where your odd obsession is the norm. But normal is not our reality – a greater share of Sherlockians would happily fit on the sitcom “Big Bang Theory” with no problem. We are the proto-Trekkies. We, in our XY form, are the beta male. We, despite the occasional literary pretension, are nerds.

Yeah, I know, speak for yourself, Keefauver. I am, so you can hang on to your delusions a little while longer, nerd-in-denial.

And how do you throw a boy nerd off his game? What’s the greatest kryptonite that even the most prominent Sherlockian male (and I can name names) falls prey to?

Cleavage. Decolletage. Them parts what’s legally exposed of a partly topless lady-woman. It’s hardwired into every straight man alive, even if they’ve either rigidly disciplined themselves to keep eye contact with the bearer of said adornments.

What does this have to do with Sherlock Holmes? Well, this: Ladies, follow the example of the Baker Street Babes and lead with your thoughts, your enthusiasm, your voices. I had a lot of respect for a certain rising star among the Holmes fan scene before I ever saw her gloriously descendent-of-Jabez-Wilson mane, so I know it wasn’t just her feminine charm that raised my opinion of her. On the other hand, another well-known female Sherlockian that I have since grown to respect was first presented to me in photos sent from a certain weekend with comments on her cleavage from a male Sherlockian. First impression? “Well, she’s just getting popular due to her looks.”

I know, I know, it is we men who are the bad guys on this. Women should be able to dress themselves up as they wish and still be judged fairly. And, hey, I’m not saying we shouldn’t have cleavage at our Sherlockian nerd fests. Great Watson, NO!  But ladies, think like Irene Adler and use your tools with care. Lead with the attributes you take the most pride in, and you’ll be sure that any attention you get is from what you think it is.

Nerds and cleavage. What are ya gonna do?

Well, if nothing else, use the topic to distract yourself from “Elementary” for a day or two.