Blog #2: Semiotic Analysis

Although the first episode of the television series, “Sherlock,” was immediately introduced with a mysterious serial killer, I felt that the main point was the introduction of the characters, Watson and Sherlock. Introducing and building context for the main characters during the first episode is of course a likely agenda, however, it was the way that they were presented and shown that made it particularly very interesting to me.

It is very noticeable that Watson and Sherlock are very different from one another; the way they keep their living quarters, the way they talk, their mannerisms, interactions with people, etc. And although the audience is able to witness the strong differences between the two, their relationship seems very cohesive at the same time. Our textbook suggests that semiotics analysis is concerned with meaning in texts and that meaning stems from relationships.

Sherlock and Watson’s relationship is a semiotic system of opposition, but that is why their characters work so well with each other; their opposition brings meaning to the show, in which two sides of an argument, or view, is always challenged. Sherlock’s existence in the series would not matter if everyone always agreed with and accepted his point of view. “It is not content that determines meaning, but relations (Berger pg. 6).” The content of the episode—which would be the serial killer case—does not determine the meaning of the episode itself, it is the relationship between Sherlock and Watson that drives it. Berger also states on page 6 that, “concepts have meaning because of relations, and the basic relationship is oppositional.” If Sherlock and Watson did not have an oppositional relationship, in which one character always sided with the other and vice versa, then there would be no point to the show.

Another analysis that I would like to mention, would be the scene of Sherlock debating on taking the pill. In that moment, it seemed that Sherlock was battling with hyperreality. According to Peter Brooker (1999), hyperreality can be describbed as "an object, event, experience so reproduced replaces or is preferred to its original." Berger also states on page 15 that"simulations (such as Disneyland) become, ultimately, more important and more real for people than the reality they were designed to imitate." It is mentioned earlier in the episode that Sherlock tackles these cases for the sake of pure enjoyment and that he finds the challenge and risks exciting. When debating wether or not to take the pill, it seemed that the pill signified reality, in which Sherlock would either take his chance with reality or continue playing the game. The game itself was so enticing that Sherlock preferred to take a chance, rather than walk away, because in that moment the game was more real to him than any other case.