I grew up reading the Holmes stories and have been working my way through House more recently, but I think I missed the Moriarty in House- who is he?
Holmes had something of a cocaine habit in the stories, but I don’t recall it being quite as bad as House’s vicodin problem in the show.
To sorta answer what the Op may be getting at- No, the Holmes of canon wasn’t the douchebag asshole currently portrayed in two TV shows.
Eccentric, perhaps annoying but not a asshole.
Doyle aslo made Holmes appear to be smarter than he really was due to the fact he was surrounded by drooling incompetents. Watson exists mainly to exclaim how brilliant Holmes is, and Inspector Lestrade is actually slightly dumber than Inspector Clouseau.
Contrast this to Nero Wolfe, who has Archie Goodwin- who can & has solved mysteries on his own, and Inspector Cramer- who Nero admits is better at solving 90% of the murders in NYC (and even has his own book)
There are points in several stories where, after he makes one of his surprise deductions about a person’s occupation or personal life, he explains the clues he’s observed and that person – Watson, prospective client, or whomever – will say that it’s obviously simple or that they thought he’d done something clever before they heard how he came to his conclusions.
If I recall correctly, in one Sherlock Holmes story, Holmes uses a handgun to riddle the wall of his apartment with bullet holes, trying to spell out words with the bullet holes.
Yeah. Quirky doesn’t really cover it. When Cumberbatch’s Sherlock explains that he’s a high-functioning sociopath … it works because it’s true, we just never thought of Sherlock in those terms, before. High-functioning sociopath describes House, too, really.
Which doesn’t change the fact that they’re both compelling and attractive characters. It explains the attraction, actually.
I’m not sure if he ever spelled out words, but he had no trouble in shooting the wall to make the initials of Queen Victoria.
(Were all the neighbors deaf???)
I don’t think ‘sociopath’ fits. Holmes (in the books at least) had a fairly conventional moral code for his time and place, and he certainly wasn’t an amoral person in the sense that we often mean by ‘sociopath’. He had issues with interpersonal relations and affections, which isn’t quite the same thing.
Holmes also got along extremely well with people… when he wanted to. One of his techniques was to charm any ladies involved in a case into telling him everything they knew. But he viewed such interactions merely as another means of solving cases, and didn’t pursue human company for its own sake like most sane humans do.
The model for Columbo was not Sherlock Holmes, but Porfiry Petrovich from Dostoyevsky’s Crime and Punishment. He originated the trope of the tenacious detective who wears the criminal down through psychological pressure.
Asimov wrote a pre-Columbo mystery with a detective who had some similarity to Columbo, by the way - A Whiff of Death, aka The Death Dealers is the book.
Some of the Holmes stories are adventures, not really mysteries. Take “The Adventure of Charles Augustus Milverton.” There isn’t any question of who, or what, or how: there isn’t any “solution” to be revealed. The story simply follows Holmes and Watson as they take action to oppose the bad guy.
There is also the lovely surprise ending to “The Adventure of the Yellow Face,” which most definitely is a mystery, and which has a very definite solution. But further deponent saith not!
I’m as much of a fan as anyone, and I wouldn’t say that Holmes is presented as negatively eccentric, nor do his questions annoy the reader so much as some of the hapless characters he deals with. However, the characterization of his “empiricism” is crudely colored by romantic notions of “science,” that really come out of 19th century positivism. I don’t think most real scientists–even back then–would make proclamations with the kind of imperiousness that Holmes would, from the results of one set of observations. Real scientists are more cautious.
Interesting, thanks 
The French film Les Diaboliques (released in 1955, and thus predating the earliest appearance of Columbo) features a detective character who seems very Columbo-esque. I know that film critics have noted the resemblance, although I don’t know if there’s any evidence that Columbo was directly inspired by this movie (or the novel it was based on).
Are you up to the end of the 2nd season yet? I’ll spoiler just in case…
Jack Moriarty is the man who shot House in “No Reason”, the 2nd season finale.
Oh, OK. I did watch the second season, but I watch it while cooking dinner or otherwise multi-tasking, so I don’t catch every detail.
What, something went out of copyright? How did that happen?
Sociopathy is not the same thing as amorality. Sociopaths can sometimes have a very tight adherence to law and order (for other people). As far as Holmes goes, at various times, he acts purely as a law unto himself. He seduced a woman to get info and another time let a guilty man walk because he (Holmes) judged the man was justified. He has no qualms or even second thoughts about it.
Holmes has affection for Watson and Mrs. Hudson - but only on his own indiosyncratic terms (and, incidentally, the show Sherlock’s treatment of Mrs. Hudson is the best possible explanation for why she puts up with it). Holmes isn’t above using his friends shamelessly when it suits his plans.
He’s a Victorian gentleman, and the product of a Victorian author, but his adherence for behavior of Victorian gentlemen is more notable in the breach. Conan Doyle wouldn’t have judged Holmes to be a sociopath (the term wasn’t in use, then, of course,) but in retrospect, Cumberbatch’s take on the character feels spot on.
I do quite like Robert Downey Jr., of course, and Jude Law is my favorite Watson. People like Holmes because he’s dangerous. “Still not boring!” as House would say. I think Law’s modern, menacing and flawed Watson, as well as Freeman’s adrenaline junkie Watson, make a lot more sense as well.
And he did say, “high-functioning” after all.
Ah, you’re right, initials, not words.
Homes isn’t a sociopath, he’s just obsessive. All that matters to him is the case as an intellectual problem.
There is an illuminating exchange between Homes and Watson at the beginning of The Sign of Four. Watson, to test Holmes, gives him a watch to examine and see if he can deduce anything about the owner. Holmes immediately figures out that the watch belonged to Watson’s older brother. Holmes looks the watch over, and then, completely forgetting that he is talking about Watson’s brother, says
“He was a man of untidy habits - very careless and untidy. He was left with good prospects, but he threw them away. He lived for a long time in poverty, with occasional short outbursts of prosperity. Finally, taking to drink, he died. That is all that I can deduce.”
IOW ‘I can tell at a glance that your brother was a wastrel and a drunk.’ And Holmes isn’t beeing mean - it just doesn’t occur to him that Watson’s feelings might be at stake.
Homes like to have Watson around, because [ul][li]Watson is the strong arm man, who carries the gun.[/li][li]Watson is a doctor, and sometimes they need a doctor right on the scene.[/li][li]Holmes like to show off, and Watson is not stupid and therefore his admiration is worth having.[/ul][/li]
Regards,
Shodan