I'm thinking about writing a Sherlock Holmes Pastiche and I have three questions. Do I have to use British terms and slang in the story like rooms, flat, or trousers instead of American terms like "his room", apartment, or pants? Do I have to emulate the mechanics of Doyle's writing like using the dialogue tag "said he" or "said I" instead of the modern way of writing dialogue tags like "he said" or "I said"? Can I change some aspect of the original personality dimensions of the main characters including Holmes and Watson? For instance, can I make Watson more sharp minded instead of the bungling buffoon he is often depicted as in the original canon? Also, can I make Holmes more well rounded and more able to express emotions in a healthy manner rather than have him behave as a cold and emotionless reasoning machine as depicted in the original canon? Lastly, Is it OK if I add additional characteristics or principles to the various aspects of Holmes' investigative techniques that are so exalted in the original canon? Thanks for your replies in advance.
Yes, yes, and YES! Now, as far as how you approach Holmes and Watson, there I say you have plenty of wiggle room to reimagine them. Btw, you're confusing the movies and tv series that have Watson as a bit of a buffoon. Doyle portrayed him as quite intelligent in his own way, and loyal, and with a streak of heroism. And yeah, you can employ more modern aspects of investigation to the story.
Yep, Nigel Bruce played Watson as a bumbler. Not so the original stories. Do whatever you like with the characters.
I don't know about the rest of your questions, but it seems to me that if you're making the setting British, you need to use British terms, and if you want to use American terms, it should be American. You could, of course, have an American narrator (Watson's American cousin!) and a British Holmes, but then you'll be switching terms between narration and different characters' dialogue.
Or you might take the approach of August Derleth, who created a Holmesian figure named Solar Pons and moved the timeline to the 1920s. This gave him the opportunity to change his characters and their world as much as he liked, but to still stay true to the plots that made Conan Doyle's stories so enchanting: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_Pons But if you're going to do a faithful pastiche, the more you follow Conan Doyle's characters, vocabulary, and atmosphere, the more successful it will be. The ultimate test would be to see if you can fool the reader into thinking, even for a moment, that he or she is reading something that Conan Doyle himself might have written. With any approach, it would behoove you to read the entire Holmes canon and absorb as much of it as possible; I sense that there are many stories and characters that are familiar to you only in the various screen adaptations, some of which are not close at all to the originals.
Although James Mason, in the movie Murder By Decree, somehow managed to combine in his performance the sharpness of Watson's original character with a trace of Nigel Bruce's bumbling charm. His Watson was a intelligent, sympathetic man who chose on occasion to present himself as a fuddy-duddy. That brilliant performance made him my favorite Watson, with Edward Hardwicke a close second. And I don't care what anybody else thinks. Jeremy Brett is still the definitive Holmes. Sorry, Mssrs. Cumberbatch, Downey, Rathbone, Plummer, et al, but Jeremy nailed it good.
Thank you all for the replies. Actually, I meant to say that Watson was portrayed as a bungling buffoon on TV and the movies, not in the original canon. I read somewhere online that the biggest mistake a writer can make when writing a Sherlock Holmes pastiche is to try to emulate Doyle's writing style and author's voice, although I can probably do it. You're right. Every since my obsession and love for the Sherlock Holmes stories, I have never read any of the original stories in print; the only exposure I had was with the TV, movie, and Old Time Radio adaptations. I'm going to read as much of the original canon as possible.
I would agree with that only to the extent that writer takes a great gamble when doing so, and that failure becomes far more conspicuous than if the writer had chosen another voice and style. It's really like working without a net. Nicholas Meyer probably came closest with his books The Seven Percent Solution and The West End Horror, and even he slipped up here and there. Derleth avoided that by changing characters. Laurie R. King avoided that by inventing a new character (Mary Russell) to narrate the stories. Either approach is perfectly valid and may suit your aims.
On rereading this, I feel a little sorry that I gave such short shrift to Sir Ian McKellen's masterful performance in Mr. Holmes. But then, he wasn't portraying the canonical Holmes of Baker Street, but the ninety-year-old Holmes who's struggling with dementia. If you haven't seen this underrated film, I think you'll find that you have a treat in store for you.
I'm thinking of incorporating DNA analysis/evidence into the pastiche, but I'm also thinking that this would be misplacing the technique as DNA analysis/evidence didn't exist in Victorian times.