It is pretty
safe to say that we have seen an explosion in the production of Sherlock Holmes
stories in recent years. The problem is that they are collectively referred to
as pastiche stories when many (most?) are nothing of the kind.
The series Britain's Secret Homes began last week and one of the many buildings featured was Stonyhurst - the Jesuit boarding school attended by Arthur Conan Doyle. The segment was presented by Anthony Horowitz.
It has been reported that both Mark Gatiss and Steven Moffat have stated that they would not continue to make Sherlock if they lost the services of either Benedict Cumberbatch or Martin Freeman. Is this an artistic decision or a commercial one?
The world of traditional Sherlockian scholarship essentially exists because of two things. Firstly the "game" whereby the stories are regarded as factual accounts and, secondly, the mistakes in those accounts.
Following on from my post re saturation I have been giving some thought as to why people, when creating their own pastiche works, sometimes go out of their way to change the formula. You only have to look at the Canon itself to see that this is (usually) a bad idea.