 |
| Gayle Lange Puhl Photo by Kelly Wilcox |
Showing posts with label 2010. Show all posts
Showing posts with label 2010. Show all posts
2011-08-18
2011-05-21
0007: THE BLUE CARBUNCLE
THE ORIGINAL TREE WORSHIPPERS OF ROCK COUNTY
DATE
Saturday, November 20, 2010
11:00 a.m.
LOCATION
Hedberg Public Library Public Meeting Room
MEMBERS PRESENT
Tom Drucker, Linda Fredell, Resa Haile, Bryan Pike, Gayle Lange Puhl, Victor Rufer.
CHARTER MEMBER
James Haile
REPORTS AND MISCELLANY
Gayle reported on the book Irregular Crises of the Late ’Forties edited by Jon L. Lellenberg (agent for the Conan Doyle estate in the U.S.) and shared the song, We Never Mention Aunt Clara. Sherlockian James Montgomery used to claim that his aunt Clara was Irene Adler.
Resa read “In Defense of Henry Baker’s Hat” by Greg Darak from The Baker Street Journal, Winter 2003.
STORY: THE ADVENTURE OF THE BLUE CARBUNCLE
Tom provided the quiz for this story, with first place going to Gayle, Victor and Linda tied for second, and Resa in third place.
Tom noted that because of the order we read the stories, with “A Case of Identity” and “The Blue Carbuncle” coming so close together, the similarities and contrasts became apparent, with the exits and how Holmes resolves the two stories differently. There is “a clatter on the stairs” in both cases. In both cases the miscreant is set free; in one case to continue to a bad end, but in the other with hope of reform.
Gayle said that if you read the entire Canon as it’s published, you see that Holmes changes. He recognizes people’s foibles more and more and has a more rounded character. Victor: “As I read the stories, I keep a list of the outcome. Holmes is more interested in justice than the letter of the law.” Bryan wasn’t sure he ever showed respect for the law. Victor agreed that “[w]hen Holmes has a choice, he prefers to mete out his own justice.” Tom commented on Gayle’s observation; in the early stories, Holmes was a Dupin character. The Post-Reichenbach stories are more sentimental.
Gayle didn't think Holmes would have forgiven James Windibank in “A Case of Identity.” Mary Sutherland’s emotions tangled up for possibly thirty years; it was unforgivable. In “The Abbey Grange,” Holmes said he would rather play tricks with the laws of England than with his own conscience. She thought he softens towards policemen. Bryan said Holmes didn't necessarily want to follow the law.
Tom noted the ending of “The Illustrious Client”: “. . .when an object is good and a client sufficiently illustrious, even the rigid British law becomes human and elastic. My friend has not yet stood in the dock.”
Regarding the brushing, or lack thereof, of Henry Baker’s hat, Gayle stated that the Victorian housewife had to be house proud: “The shining stair rails in The Sign of Four.” The middle class strove to be quite respectable and it was so easy to slip down the social ladder. Women worked very hard to keep up. Victor asked if anyone walking down the street would notice a dusty hat; it’s different if the hats are next to each other.
There was a discussion of hats and the different types of hats the Victorians would wear for different occasions.
Resa asked if the group thought James Ryder reformed. It was generally agreed that he was scared enough. There was some discussion of Watson’s marriages, including June Thomson’s Grace Dunbar theory. Bryan noted that Watson’s home life is mentioned very little. “He teases people. We kind of find clues. If he were real, his home life would come in . . . but it wouldn't be the focus.”
NEXT MEETING
NO STORY: SHOW AND TELL—January 22, 2011, 11 a.m.
There will be no meeting in February.
Minutes prepared by Resa Haile.
DATE
Saturday, November 20, 2010
11:00 a.m.
LOCATION
Hedberg Public Library Public Meeting Room
MEMBERS PRESENT
Tom Drucker, Linda Fredell, Resa Haile, Bryan Pike, Gayle Lange Puhl, Victor Rufer.
CHARTER MEMBER
James Haile
REPORTS AND MISCELLANY
Gayle reported on the book Irregular Crises of the Late ’Forties edited by Jon L. Lellenberg (agent for the Conan Doyle estate in the U.S.) and shared the song, We Never Mention Aunt Clara. Sherlockian James Montgomery used to claim that his aunt Clara was Irene Adler.
Resa read “In Defense of Henry Baker’s Hat” by Greg Darak from The Baker Street Journal, Winter 2003.
STORY: THE ADVENTURE OF THE BLUE CARBUNCLE
Tom provided the quiz for this story, with first place going to Gayle, Victor and Linda tied for second, and Resa in third place.
Tom noted that because of the order we read the stories, with “A Case of Identity” and “The Blue Carbuncle” coming so close together, the similarities and contrasts became apparent, with the exits and how Holmes resolves the two stories differently. There is “a clatter on the stairs” in both cases. In both cases the miscreant is set free; in one case to continue to a bad end, but in the other with hope of reform.
Gayle said that if you read the entire Canon as it’s published, you see that Holmes changes. He recognizes people’s foibles more and more and has a more rounded character. Victor: “As I read the stories, I keep a list of the outcome. Holmes is more interested in justice than the letter of the law.” Bryan wasn’t sure he ever showed respect for the law. Victor agreed that “[w]hen Holmes has a choice, he prefers to mete out his own justice.” Tom commented on Gayle’s observation; in the early stories, Holmes was a Dupin character. The Post-Reichenbach stories are more sentimental.
Gayle didn't think Holmes would have forgiven James Windibank in “A Case of Identity.” Mary Sutherland’s emotions tangled up for possibly thirty years; it was unforgivable. In “The Abbey Grange,” Holmes said he would rather play tricks with the laws of England than with his own conscience. She thought he softens towards policemen. Bryan said Holmes didn't necessarily want to follow the law.
Tom noted the ending of “The Illustrious Client”: “. . .when an object is good and a client sufficiently illustrious, even the rigid British law becomes human and elastic. My friend has not yet stood in the dock.”
Regarding the brushing, or lack thereof, of Henry Baker’s hat, Gayle stated that the Victorian housewife had to be house proud: “The shining stair rails in The Sign of Four.” The middle class strove to be quite respectable and it was so easy to slip down the social ladder. Women worked very hard to keep up. Victor asked if anyone walking down the street would notice a dusty hat; it’s different if the hats are next to each other.
There was a discussion of hats and the different types of hats the Victorians would wear for different occasions.
Resa asked if the group thought James Ryder reformed. It was generally agreed that he was scared enough. There was some discussion of Watson’s marriages, including June Thomson’s Grace Dunbar theory. Bryan noted that Watson’s home life is mentioned very little. “He teases people. We kind of find clues. If he were real, his home life would come in . . . but it wouldn't be the focus.”
NEXT MEETING
NO STORY: SHOW AND TELL—January 22, 2011, 11 a.m.
There will be no meeting in February.
Minutes prepared by Resa Haile.
2011-03-14
0006: THE SUSSEX VAMPIRE
THE ORIGINAL TREE WORSHIPPERS OF ROCK COUNTY
DATE
Saturday, October 30, 2010
11:00 a.m.
LOCATION
Hedberg Public Library Public Meeting Room
MEMBERS PRESENT
Ron Del Ciello, Tom Drucker, Linda Fredell, Resa Haile, Elaine Khan, Bryan Pike, Gayle Lange Puhl, Victor Rufer.
CHARTER MEMBER
James Haile
REPORTS AND MISCELLANY
Gayle reported on the latest meeting of the Criterion Bar Association of Chicago, for which she is the Solitary Typist. Steven Doyle, the author of Sherlock Holmes for Dummies, attended, and Gayle had the opportunity to talk with him and tell him about our group. She also acquired a copy of the play, Sherlock Holmes’ Last Case by David Stuart Davies, on CD. This is a one-man show in which Holmes, after the death of Watson, remembers his good friend and companion. Roger Llewellyn portrays the Great Detective. Gayle read the poems/songs “The Chase” and “Portraits” from Baker Street Ballads (1979) by Charles E. Lauterbach. In honour of the holiday, Gayle shared some information about The Annotated Dracula by Bram Stoker. The annotations are by Leslie Klinger, who treats the events in Dracula as historic fact.
Tom shared his photos of stained-glass windows portraying literary characters, including Mr. Holmes, from a library in St. Thomas College in Minnesota. (These stained-glass windows can be viewed here: http://www.stthomas.edu/libraries/about/history/stainedglass.html.) Tom also had information about Sherlockian Christmas cards that are available from the Sherlock Holmes Society of London.
Resa noted some recent additions to the Hedberg Public Library which may be of interest to Sherlockians, including DVDs of the Jeremy Brett (complete) and Douglas Wilmer (complete surviving episodes) television series; The Strange Return of Sherlock Holmes, the first book in a new series with Sherlock Holmes in the modern day, by Barry Grant; and (of peripheral interest, as the male lead is a detective who plays the violin and has one or two familiar vices) the latest of the Lady Julia Grey mystery series, Dark Road to Darjeeling by Deanna Raybourn.
Victor noted, as a point of local interest, that Parker Pen used to sponsor the Sherlock Holmes radio show with Basil Rathbone.
STORY: THE ADVENTURE OF THE SUSSEX VAMPIRE
Elaine provided the quiz for this story, with first place going to Ron, second to Gayle, and third to Tom.
Resa noted that this story, being later in the run, gives us an older Holmes and Watson, and that this is an interesting contrast. Gayle said she liked the line “No ghosts need apply.” She felt this expressed the rationalist Holmes, who would not believe in a supernatural agent, but she was also intrigued because of the American phrase “No Irish Need Apply,” used to discriminate against Irish immigrants seeking employment. Tom wondered if Doyle had heard the expression when he was in the United States.
Gayle said the solution was a Doylean twist. “All crime did not arise from the gutters of limehouse.” Bryan said he was talking to a “real-life CSI guy” last summer, who felt that any one among us could commit a crime. Tom noted, “One can also look at Jacky as a nascent homosexual” and one can wonder if this is Doyle’s comment on the nature of homosexual personality. Resa felt that Jacky’s relationship with his father was difficult; he wanted more affection than he got. Gayle thought maybe Jacky had been kept away from his father when Ferguson was traveling. Victor pointed out that there was at this time a separation by the culture of parent and child. They were sent off to school at a young age. Linda said it was traditional to get them connections (the old school tie). Resa noted that Ferguson and Watson were at school together. Gayle also noted Percy Phelps in “The Naval Treaty” “could call on Watson” because they knew each other from school.
She also agreed that “the homosexual aspect that Tom mentioned is quite valid. . . . Conan Doyle came at sex obliquely.” A friend of his, Sir Roger Casement, who was a homosexual, was arrested for treason. Doyle tried to save him from execution but failed. Gayle recently heard a television report that high and low sex drives may be determined by genes, and perhaps Holmes had a low sex drive. “ ‘If I’m not busy, if I’ve finished my chemical experiment, maybe I’ll think about it.’ ” Many people try to put Holmes and Watson together as a couple. “No one seems to be able to grasp the idea that two men can just be friends.”
Bryan said that it was common to share beds at this time. Gayle noted that the first chapter of Moby Dick has a character going to an inn and having to share a bed with a stranger. Linda pointed out this also helped because of the cold. Ron said that he’d toured the Milton House, and that it was common, not to rent a room, but to rent part of a room or a bed. There was some discussion about how things were different culturally in Italy and Germany and that the United States is considered a more puritanical country.
Resa also brought Skewed Sherlock by David L. Hammer and Violet Hunter to the group’s attention. In it, various stories are examined and it is argued that Holmes’ solutions were incorrect. In “The Adventure of the Sussex Vampire,” it is suggested that Mrs. Ferguson framed Jacky. Gayle objected to this, based on the wounding of Mrs. Ferguson’s own infant son. Ron suggested that a mother who was a vampire would have done that, and the story discussion ended in laughter.
SHERLOCK: TELEVISION SERIES
There was a discussion of the new Sherlock television series set in the twenty-first century, which stars Benedict Cumberbatch and Martin Freeman and is created by Stephen Moffat and Mark Gatiss.
Gayle felt that Sherlock “did magic with his cell phone.” Resa particularly liked the text messages appearing in the air within the scene rather than the unexciting close-up usually used. Gayle wondered why Lestrade needed Sherlock so much. Ron said Sherlock was not terribly likable. Bryan said Sherlock Holmes is portrayed in films as short with people. Not in the stories, Resa said. Bryan said it was a misinterpretation. Linda said she grew up with the Basil Rathbone films, and that he was that way. Gayle said when she thinks of Holmes, it is Basil Rathbone, but when she thinks of Watson, it is Edward Hardwicke. Her Moriarty is from the Granada series (Eric Porter). She thinks the new series portrays Sherlock’s mental processes well. (“What is it like in your tiny little minds?”)
Victor pointed out that Watson is wounded in Afghanistan in the original stories and also in the new series: “These people have been at war their entire existence.” He said that Afghanistan is “located in the middle of trade routes. Amazing they still exist; they are a warrior people. Their civil wars are as bad as anything else.”
Gayle noted some of the different psychological labels people have applied to Holmes. In the new series, someone calls him a “psychopath”; he describes himself as a “high-functioning sociopath”; some people have posited he has Asperger’s. Gayle thinks it is reasonable that someone thinking of other things would pay no attention to meals or social niceties.
Ron thought that Mycroft was too thin. Victor felt the television show changed Sherlock and Mycroft’s relationship to a more adversarial one. Gayle thought with the seven-year age gap (particularly in the Victorian era) and children being sent off to boarding school, that Sherlock and Mycroft would have been raised as two “only children.” Victor noted that London has more surveillance cameras than anywhere in the world and Mycroft has access to all of them.
Resa wondered if anyone else was disappointed in Sherlock not deducing the killer in “A Study in Pink,” although he had done so in the story, A Study in Scarlet. Gayle said it was the “invisible” killer like in the G.K. Chesterton story. Gayle was impressed with Martin Freeman as John Watson. She liked the scene in the Italian restaurant: “Look, I’m very flattered—” Resa noted that Sherlock seems to have enough money and not need a roommate for that purpose, so—is he lonely? Gayle said that Doctor Who was completely capable of zipping over the universe by himself, but he likes companionship, so it’s the same dynamic. Ron pointed out that “danger is addictive” for both Sherlock and John—John just got back from the war, but he misses it. Ron drew a parallel with the movie The Hurt Locker.
Resa noted that in the previous meeting, the group discussed adaptations differing substantially from the source material. “The Last Vampyre” is loosely based on “The Adventure of the Sussex Vampire” and “A Study in Pink” is loosely based on A Study in Scarlet. She asked if these were nonetheless faithful to the spirit of the characters? Answers focused on “A Study in Pink.”
Gayle said that if you wrote down Holmes’ attributes from the story and Sherlock’s from the television show, they would be pretty close; it was the trappings that were different. Ron said he had been skeptical about doing the characters in the modern era, but that it captured his concept of who Sherlock was and fleshed out a little more about Watson. But he was disappointed, because so much of the stories is the atmosphere of the era. Gayle said it (updating) had been done before with Basil Rathbone and Nigel Bruce.
There was some discussion of Watson and Nigel Bruce. Resa noted that, as commentators have pointed out, Bruce’s Watson is competent when Holmes isn't around. Bruce is also more versatile as an actor than people think. (She gave The Chocolate Soldier as an example and Gayle gave The Rains Came, in which Bruce is a villain.) Bryan said that Watson was stupid from his own perspective, not from an objective perspective. Watson is telling the story against himself.
NEXT MEETING
THE ADVENTURE OF THE BLUE CARBUNCLE—November 20, 2010, 11 a.m.
Minutes prepared by Resa Haile.
DATE
Saturday, October 30, 2010
11:00 a.m.
LOCATION
Hedberg Public Library Public Meeting Room
MEMBERS PRESENT
Ron Del Ciello, Tom Drucker, Linda Fredell, Resa Haile, Elaine Khan, Bryan Pike, Gayle Lange Puhl, Victor Rufer.
CHARTER MEMBER
James Haile
REPORTS AND MISCELLANY
Gayle reported on the latest meeting of the Criterion Bar Association of Chicago, for which she is the Solitary Typist. Steven Doyle, the author of Sherlock Holmes for Dummies, attended, and Gayle had the opportunity to talk with him and tell him about our group. She also acquired a copy of the play, Sherlock Holmes’ Last Case by David Stuart Davies, on CD. This is a one-man show in which Holmes, after the death of Watson, remembers his good friend and companion. Roger Llewellyn portrays the Great Detective. Gayle read the poems/songs “The Chase” and “Portraits” from Baker Street Ballads (1979) by Charles E. Lauterbach. In honour of the holiday, Gayle shared some information about The Annotated Dracula by Bram Stoker. The annotations are by Leslie Klinger, who treats the events in Dracula as historic fact.
Tom shared his photos of stained-glass windows portraying literary characters, including Mr. Holmes, from a library in St. Thomas College in Minnesota. (These stained-glass windows can be viewed here: http://www.stthomas.edu/libraries/about/history/stainedglass.html.) Tom also had information about Sherlockian Christmas cards that are available from the Sherlock Holmes Society of London.
Resa noted some recent additions to the Hedberg Public Library which may be of interest to Sherlockians, including DVDs of the Jeremy Brett (complete) and Douglas Wilmer (complete surviving episodes) television series; The Strange Return of Sherlock Holmes, the first book in a new series with Sherlock Holmes in the modern day, by Barry Grant; and (of peripheral interest, as the male lead is a detective who plays the violin and has one or two familiar vices) the latest of the Lady Julia Grey mystery series, Dark Road to Darjeeling by Deanna Raybourn.
Victor noted, as a point of local interest, that Parker Pen used to sponsor the Sherlock Holmes radio show with Basil Rathbone.
STORY: THE ADVENTURE OF THE SUSSEX VAMPIRE
Elaine provided the quiz for this story, with first place going to Ron, second to Gayle, and third to Tom.
Resa noted that this story, being later in the run, gives us an older Holmes and Watson, and that this is an interesting contrast. Gayle said she liked the line “No ghosts need apply.” She felt this expressed the rationalist Holmes, who would not believe in a supernatural agent, but she was also intrigued because of the American phrase “No Irish Need Apply,” used to discriminate against Irish immigrants seeking employment. Tom wondered if Doyle had heard the expression when he was in the United States.
Gayle said the solution was a Doylean twist. “All crime did not arise from the gutters of limehouse.” Bryan said he was talking to a “real-life CSI guy” last summer, who felt that any one among us could commit a crime. Tom noted, “One can also look at Jacky as a nascent homosexual” and one can wonder if this is Doyle’s comment on the nature of homosexual personality. Resa felt that Jacky’s relationship with his father was difficult; he wanted more affection than he got. Gayle thought maybe Jacky had been kept away from his father when Ferguson was traveling. Victor pointed out that there was at this time a separation by the culture of parent and child. They were sent off to school at a young age. Linda said it was traditional to get them connections (the old school tie). Resa noted that Ferguson and Watson were at school together. Gayle also noted Percy Phelps in “The Naval Treaty” “could call on Watson” because they knew each other from school.
She also agreed that “the homosexual aspect that Tom mentioned is quite valid. . . . Conan Doyle came at sex obliquely.” A friend of his, Sir Roger Casement, who was a homosexual, was arrested for treason. Doyle tried to save him from execution but failed. Gayle recently heard a television report that high and low sex drives may be determined by genes, and perhaps Holmes had a low sex drive. “ ‘If I’m not busy, if I’ve finished my chemical experiment, maybe I’ll think about it.’ ” Many people try to put Holmes and Watson together as a couple. “No one seems to be able to grasp the idea that two men can just be friends.”
Bryan said that it was common to share beds at this time. Gayle noted that the first chapter of Moby Dick has a character going to an inn and having to share a bed with a stranger. Linda pointed out this also helped because of the cold. Ron said that he’d toured the Milton House, and that it was common, not to rent a room, but to rent part of a room or a bed. There was some discussion about how things were different culturally in Italy and Germany and that the United States is considered a more puritanical country.
Resa also brought Skewed Sherlock by David L. Hammer and Violet Hunter to the group’s attention. In it, various stories are examined and it is argued that Holmes’ solutions were incorrect. In “The Adventure of the Sussex Vampire,” it is suggested that Mrs. Ferguson framed Jacky. Gayle objected to this, based on the wounding of Mrs. Ferguson’s own infant son. Ron suggested that a mother who was a vampire would have done that, and the story discussion ended in laughter.
SHERLOCK: TELEVISION SERIES
There was a discussion of the new Sherlock television series set in the twenty-first century, which stars Benedict Cumberbatch and Martin Freeman and is created by Stephen Moffat and Mark Gatiss.
Gayle felt that Sherlock “did magic with his cell phone.” Resa particularly liked the text messages appearing in the air within the scene rather than the unexciting close-up usually used. Gayle wondered why Lestrade needed Sherlock so much. Ron said Sherlock was not terribly likable. Bryan said Sherlock Holmes is portrayed in films as short with people. Not in the stories, Resa said. Bryan said it was a misinterpretation. Linda said she grew up with the Basil Rathbone films, and that he was that way. Gayle said when she thinks of Holmes, it is Basil Rathbone, but when she thinks of Watson, it is Edward Hardwicke. Her Moriarty is from the Granada series (Eric Porter). She thinks the new series portrays Sherlock’s mental processes well. (“What is it like in your tiny little minds?”)
Victor pointed out that Watson is wounded in Afghanistan in the original stories and also in the new series: “These people have been at war their entire existence.” He said that Afghanistan is “located in the middle of trade routes. Amazing they still exist; they are a warrior people. Their civil wars are as bad as anything else.”
Gayle noted some of the different psychological labels people have applied to Holmes. In the new series, someone calls him a “psychopath”; he describes himself as a “high-functioning sociopath”; some people have posited he has Asperger’s. Gayle thinks it is reasonable that someone thinking of other things would pay no attention to meals or social niceties.
Ron thought that Mycroft was too thin. Victor felt the television show changed Sherlock and Mycroft’s relationship to a more adversarial one. Gayle thought with the seven-year age gap (particularly in the Victorian era) and children being sent off to boarding school, that Sherlock and Mycroft would have been raised as two “only children.” Victor noted that London has more surveillance cameras than anywhere in the world and Mycroft has access to all of them.
Resa wondered if anyone else was disappointed in Sherlock not deducing the killer in “A Study in Pink,” although he had done so in the story, A Study in Scarlet. Gayle said it was the “invisible” killer like in the G.K. Chesterton story. Gayle was impressed with Martin Freeman as John Watson. She liked the scene in the Italian restaurant: “Look, I’m very flattered—” Resa noted that Sherlock seems to have enough money and not need a roommate for that purpose, so—is he lonely? Gayle said that Doctor Who was completely capable of zipping over the universe by himself, but he likes companionship, so it’s the same dynamic. Ron pointed out that “danger is addictive” for both Sherlock and John—John just got back from the war, but he misses it. Ron drew a parallel with the movie The Hurt Locker.
Resa noted that in the previous meeting, the group discussed adaptations differing substantially from the source material. “The Last Vampyre” is loosely based on “The Adventure of the Sussex Vampire” and “A Study in Pink” is loosely based on A Study in Scarlet. She asked if these were nonetheless faithful to the spirit of the characters? Answers focused on “A Study in Pink.”
Gayle said that if you wrote down Holmes’ attributes from the story and Sherlock’s from the television show, they would be pretty close; it was the trappings that were different. Ron said he had been skeptical about doing the characters in the modern era, but that it captured his concept of who Sherlock was and fleshed out a little more about Watson. But he was disappointed, because so much of the stories is the atmosphere of the era. Gayle said it (updating) had been done before with Basil Rathbone and Nigel Bruce.
There was some discussion of Watson and Nigel Bruce. Resa noted that, as commentators have pointed out, Bruce’s Watson is competent when Holmes isn't around. Bruce is also more versatile as an actor than people think. (She gave The Chocolate Soldier as an example and Gayle gave The Rains Came, in which Bruce is a villain.) Bryan said that Watson was stupid from his own perspective, not from an objective perspective. Watson is telling the story against himself.
NEXT MEETING
THE ADVENTURE OF THE BLUE CARBUNCLE—November 20, 2010, 11 a.m.
Minutes prepared by Resa Haile.
2010-11-06
Sherlock is in the House by Victor Rufer
It has been over one hundred years since Sir Arthur Conan Doyle brought Sherlock Holmes to life in A Study In Scarlet. He had no idea what he had created. Sherlock Holmes has gone on to be the most imitated character in the history of literature. I will be looking at one of today’s most popular TV shows, House M.D.
House M.D. debuted in 2004. The creators have said that the character of Dr. House is based on Holmes. We will start with a side-by-side comparison of the two characters. First, their names and the names of their friends are similar; we have Holmes and House, Watson and Wilson. Each can deduce a great deal by just looking at a person. Holmes was based on a doctor and House is a doctor. Holmes fights deadly criminals, whereas House fights deadly germs and diseases. Both use drugs: House uses Vicodin for leg pain and boredom; Holmes used cocaine to escape boredom. Both tend to call close associates by their last names. Holmes and House are both arrogant. In the times between cases House watches soaps and plays video games, Holmes reads the agony columns in the paper. Both tend to be lazy between cases; it seems to be an all or nothing kind of life. Each has one friend and roommate; to others they are aloof. Both live at 221B; we don't have a street for House but the connection is there. Music is another thing that these two have in common. Holmes plays the violin. House plays several instruments including the piano. House's staff could be compared to Holmes' Baker Street Irregulars; both groups seem to the grunt work. Lastly each use a cane, House because of his leg pain; Holmes' cane is part fashion, part self-defence.
Next we will see how the show’s creators have left the watcher clues that reinforce the Holmes/House link. In the first show, the patient being treated was Rebecca Adler. At the end of season two, House is shot by a deranged patient named Jack Moriarty. In season four, as part of a prank, House receives a book by Joseph Bell, the man who inspired Doyle, sent by Irene Adler. We later find out that Wilson really sent it. In another episode House receives a second edition Conan Doyle book. House's leg pain is similar to Watson's leg wound. House also makes reference to Wilson having been in Afghanistan at some time. This would link to Watson's service in Afghanistan.
What follows are quotes from Holmes himself that could apply to both men. From A Study in Scarlet: “I have a lot of special knowledge which I apply to the problem, and which facilitates matters wonderfully.” Holmes has his knowledge of crime and House has knowledge of medicine. From The Sign of Four, Holmes remarks “. . . three qualities necessary for the ideal detective . . . the power of observation and that of deduction . . . [and] knowledge.” Three factors that are well used in solving crimes or curing disease.
As much as the two are alike, there are some great differences. While both men are aloof, Holmes ignores those he feels are unimportant to the case at hand, he silently goes about his duties while tolerating others. House, on the other hand, seems to delight in tormenting his staff and, at times, his patients. House goes by the rule, after you eliminate all possibles, what's left is the truth. A fine idea, but, in the meantime, he tries cure after cure until the bulb comes on and the patient is snatched back from the brink and sent home cured. Holmes doesn't guess; he gets the facts and then gives his conclusions. Neither has time for romance. Holmes' distrust of women, plus his under estimation of Irene Adler, has led to his lack of interest in women. House is interested in women, but seems to try to drive them away.
There is no doubt that Greg House is forever linked to Sherlock Holmes. In upcoming shows, we will be looking for those clues that Holmes is alive and well in 2010.
House M.D. is not the only show that uses Holmes’ methods to solve crime, it is just the most obvious.
House M.D. debuted in 2004. The creators have said that the character of Dr. House is based on Holmes. We will start with a side-by-side comparison of the two characters. First, their names and the names of their friends are similar; we have Holmes and House, Watson and Wilson. Each can deduce a great deal by just looking at a person. Holmes was based on a doctor and House is a doctor. Holmes fights deadly criminals, whereas House fights deadly germs and diseases. Both use drugs: House uses Vicodin for leg pain and boredom; Holmes used cocaine to escape boredom. Both tend to call close associates by their last names. Holmes and House are both arrogant. In the times between cases House watches soaps and plays video games, Holmes reads the agony columns in the paper. Both tend to be lazy between cases; it seems to be an all or nothing kind of life. Each has one friend and roommate; to others they are aloof. Both live at 221B; we don't have a street for House but the connection is there. Music is another thing that these two have in common. Holmes plays the violin. House plays several instruments including the piano. House's staff could be compared to Holmes' Baker Street Irregulars; both groups seem to the grunt work. Lastly each use a cane, House because of his leg pain; Holmes' cane is part fashion, part self-defence.
Next we will see how the show’s creators have left the watcher clues that reinforce the Holmes/House link. In the first show, the patient being treated was Rebecca Adler. At the end of season two, House is shot by a deranged patient named Jack Moriarty. In season four, as part of a prank, House receives a book by Joseph Bell, the man who inspired Doyle, sent by Irene Adler. We later find out that Wilson really sent it. In another episode House receives a second edition Conan Doyle book. House's leg pain is similar to Watson's leg wound. House also makes reference to Wilson having been in Afghanistan at some time. This would link to Watson's service in Afghanistan.
What follows are quotes from Holmes himself that could apply to both men. From A Study in Scarlet: “I have a lot of special knowledge which I apply to the problem, and which facilitates matters wonderfully.” Holmes has his knowledge of crime and House has knowledge of medicine. From The Sign of Four, Holmes remarks “. . . three qualities necessary for the ideal detective . . . the power of observation and that of deduction . . . [and] knowledge.” Three factors that are well used in solving crimes or curing disease.
As much as the two are alike, there are some great differences. While both men are aloof, Holmes ignores those he feels are unimportant to the case at hand, he silently goes about his duties while tolerating others. House, on the other hand, seems to delight in tormenting his staff and, at times, his patients. House goes by the rule, after you eliminate all possibles, what's left is the truth. A fine idea, but, in the meantime, he tries cure after cure until the bulb comes on and the patient is snatched back from the brink and sent home cured. Holmes doesn't guess; he gets the facts and then gives his conclusions. Neither has time for romance. Holmes' distrust of women, plus his under estimation of Irene Adler, has led to his lack of interest in women. House is interested in women, but seems to try to drive them away.
There is no doubt that Greg House is forever linked to Sherlock Holmes. In upcoming shows, we will be looking for those clues that Holmes is alive and well in 2010.
House M.D. is not the only show that uses Holmes’ methods to solve crime, it is just the most obvious.
2010-10-06
0005: A CASE OF IDENTITY
THE ORIGINAL TREE WORSHIPPERS OF ROCK COUNTY
DATE
Saturday, September 25, 2010
11:00 a.m.
LOCATION
Hedberg Public Library Public Meeting Room
MEMBERS PRESENT
Vicki Clark, Tom Drucker, Resa Haile, Elaine Khan, Victor Rufer
CHARTER MEMBER
James Haile
PAPER
Victor presented his original paper, “Sherlock is in the House,” in which he compared and contrasted Sherlock Holmes and Greg House of House, M.D. Although there are many (and deliberate) similarities, Victor pointed out some important differences.
STORY: A CASE OF IDENTITY
Resa explained that when she scheduled the meeting, she looked in a copy of The Adventures for the next story to follow “A Scandal in Bohemia.” In this particular copy, it was “A Case of Identity,” but she later noticed that, in most editions, the next story is “The Red-Headed League.” This switching of the stories seems to follow the Oxford editions. Conan Doyle apparently wrote “Identity” to follow “Scandal” and the Strand editors, feeling that “League” was the stronger story, transposed the order. There are references to “Scandal” in “Identity,” and the stories show different sides of Holmes’ dealings with women. Up until this point, Doyle was telling the stories in order, but, at some point, he perhaps realized that it would be easier to have Watson on the spot, and he started to go back to adventures taking place during Watson’s bachelor days. He may have gotten the idea to do this because of the change in order first accomplished by the Strand.
The quiz was provided by Ron Del Ciello, who was unable to attend; Resa administered the quiz. Victor took first place, Elaine second, and Tom and Vicki tied for third.
DISCUSSION
The quiz ended with the discussion question: Was Holmes right in not telling Mary Sutherland the truth?
Vicki thought that Mary Sutherland’s heart might be pining for Hosmer Angel and it’s only fair for her to know that he’s not a real character. Elaine argued that it was Holmes’ professional responsibility to tell her and that this is a reason Holmes does not marry, because he looks down on the intelligence of people who are in love. She said it is true that when people are in love, their I.Q.s tend to go down, but they come back up in a couple of years. Looking down on the intelligence of people in love is one reason Holmes was beaten by Irene Adler. Holmes thinks that Windibank will end up on the gallows, but that will be “too late for Mary Sutherland. [When Windibank goes to the gallows] many people will have suffered.” Holmes doesn’t want to tell the truth because he thinks people in love will do stupid things. Victor said that not telling reinforced Victorian sexism. Windibank was exploiting these two women [mother and daughter]. “He’s Sherlock Holmes; he should be smart enough to come up with something.” Tom pointed out that women in this era were attending college, and many women were not willing to conform to traditional roles. Tom took the minority opinion that Holmes did the right thing because “we wouldn't have known he reads Hafiz and Horace and could compare the two.” He thought it was interesting to compare this to “The Blue Carbuncle,” a case in which Holmes also let the malefactor go. In that case, he believed the culprit could be redeemed. In most other cases, he believed the criminal acted with justification. “A Case of Identity” might be the only instance of Holmes letting someone go without these conditions. Resa thought maybe Holmes had more in store for Windibank than he was letting on, and also, that Holmes said if he told her, she would not believe him, but he didn’t actually say he wouldn’t tell her.
Victor said that he has been keeping a list of the stories and noting the outcomes; most don’t go to trial. Resa wondered what kind of a mother would do something like this to her daughter. Victor said she was subservient to her husband. There was some discussion about Miss Sutherland’s attractiveness with quotes from Watson by Tom and from Holmes by Resa leading to different views. There was also some discussion about Miss Sutherland’s nearsightedness and how this would effect her typing or, at least, the reading of the shorthand or copy she was typing from—and also the question of being nearsighted (at least now) meaning trouble seeing at a distance, not up close.
Elaine wondered what Windibank was doing with all the extra money Miss Sutherland brought into the household and whether he was involved with gambling, drinking, or other women. Vicki said, “Being a short story, not a word was wasted.” She liked the way it moved and the way the story unfolded and thought it was not predictable.
Resa read an online article relating to the story entitled “Inspector Baynes and the Impossible,” which led into discussion of how Holmes (standing or sitting) was able to put his feet onto the mantelpiece. Tom suggested it was a misreading of Dr. Watson’s handwriting, and that it should actually have been ottoman or whatever the appropriate word might be. The possibilities of a shorter mantelpiece, that it was actually meant to be a lower portion of the hearth, and that Holmes was practicing yoga were also suggested by members of our group. "Inspector Baynes and the Impossible" may be accessed at http://www.chattanoogan.com/articles/article_108399.asp.
There was some discussion of the recent television airing of The Sign of Four and its adherence to the original story (for the most part), and also to the ages of Holmes and Watson onscreen vs. in the stories, with screen versions skewing older.
NEXT MEETING
THE ADVENTURE OF THE SUSSEX VAMPIRE—October 30, 2010, 11 a.m.
Minutes prepared by Resa Haile.
DATE
Saturday, September 25, 2010
11:00 a.m.
LOCATION
Hedberg Public Library Public Meeting Room
MEMBERS PRESENT
Vicki Clark, Tom Drucker, Resa Haile, Elaine Khan, Victor Rufer
CHARTER MEMBER
James Haile
PAPER
Victor presented his original paper, “Sherlock is in the House,” in which he compared and contrasted Sherlock Holmes and Greg House of House, M.D. Although there are many (and deliberate) similarities, Victor pointed out some important differences.
STORY: A CASE OF IDENTITY
Resa explained that when she scheduled the meeting, she looked in a copy of The Adventures for the next story to follow “A Scandal in Bohemia.” In this particular copy, it was “A Case of Identity,” but she later noticed that, in most editions, the next story is “The Red-Headed League.” This switching of the stories seems to follow the Oxford editions. Conan Doyle apparently wrote “Identity” to follow “Scandal” and the Strand editors, feeling that “League” was the stronger story, transposed the order. There are references to “Scandal” in “Identity,” and the stories show different sides of Holmes’ dealings with women. Up until this point, Doyle was telling the stories in order, but, at some point, he perhaps realized that it would be easier to have Watson on the spot, and he started to go back to adventures taking place during Watson’s bachelor days. He may have gotten the idea to do this because of the change in order first accomplished by the Strand.
The quiz was provided by Ron Del Ciello, who was unable to attend; Resa administered the quiz. Victor took first place, Elaine second, and Tom and Vicki tied for third.
DISCUSSION
The quiz ended with the discussion question: Was Holmes right in not telling Mary Sutherland the truth?
Vicki thought that Mary Sutherland’s heart might be pining for Hosmer Angel and it’s only fair for her to know that he’s not a real character. Elaine argued that it was Holmes’ professional responsibility to tell her and that this is a reason Holmes does not marry, because he looks down on the intelligence of people who are in love. She said it is true that when people are in love, their I.Q.s tend to go down, but they come back up in a couple of years. Looking down on the intelligence of people in love is one reason Holmes was beaten by Irene Adler. Holmes thinks that Windibank will end up on the gallows, but that will be “too late for Mary Sutherland. [When Windibank goes to the gallows] many people will have suffered.” Holmes doesn’t want to tell the truth because he thinks people in love will do stupid things. Victor said that not telling reinforced Victorian sexism. Windibank was exploiting these two women [mother and daughter]. “He’s Sherlock Holmes; he should be smart enough to come up with something.” Tom pointed out that women in this era were attending college, and many women were not willing to conform to traditional roles. Tom took the minority opinion that Holmes did the right thing because “we wouldn't have known he reads Hafiz and Horace and could compare the two.” He thought it was interesting to compare this to “The Blue Carbuncle,” a case in which Holmes also let the malefactor go. In that case, he believed the culprit could be redeemed. In most other cases, he believed the criminal acted with justification. “A Case of Identity” might be the only instance of Holmes letting someone go without these conditions. Resa thought maybe Holmes had more in store for Windibank than he was letting on, and also, that Holmes said if he told her, she would not believe him, but he didn’t actually say he wouldn’t tell her.
Victor said that he has been keeping a list of the stories and noting the outcomes; most don’t go to trial. Resa wondered what kind of a mother would do something like this to her daughter. Victor said she was subservient to her husband. There was some discussion about Miss Sutherland’s attractiveness with quotes from Watson by Tom and from Holmes by Resa leading to different views. There was also some discussion about Miss Sutherland’s nearsightedness and how this would effect her typing or, at least, the reading of the shorthand or copy she was typing from—and also the question of being nearsighted (at least now) meaning trouble seeing at a distance, not up close.
Elaine wondered what Windibank was doing with all the extra money Miss Sutherland brought into the household and whether he was involved with gambling, drinking, or other women. Vicki said, “Being a short story, not a word was wasted.” She liked the way it moved and the way the story unfolded and thought it was not predictable.
Resa read an online article relating to the story entitled “Inspector Baynes and the Impossible,” which led into discussion of how Holmes (standing or sitting) was able to put his feet onto the mantelpiece. Tom suggested it was a misreading of Dr. Watson’s handwriting, and that it should actually have been ottoman or whatever the appropriate word might be. The possibilities of a shorter mantelpiece, that it was actually meant to be a lower portion of the hearth, and that Holmes was practicing yoga were also suggested by members of our group. "Inspector Baynes and the Impossible" may be accessed at http://www.chattanoogan.com/articles/article_108399.asp.
There was some discussion of the recent television airing of The Sign of Four and its adherence to the original story (for the most part), and also to the ages of Holmes and Watson onscreen vs. in the stories, with screen versions skewing older.
NEXT MEETING
THE ADVENTURE OF THE SUSSEX VAMPIRE—October 30, 2010, 11 a.m.
Minutes prepared by Resa Haile.
2010-09-20
0004: A SCANDAL IN BOHEMIA
THE ORIGINAL TREE WORSHIPPERS OF ROCK COUNTY
DATE
Saturday, August 28, 2010
11:00 a.m.
LOCATION
Hedberg Public Library Public Meeting Room
MEMBERS PRESENT
Vicki Clark, Ron Del Ciello, Linda Fredell, Resa Haile, Elaine Khan, Gayle Lange Puhl, John Richter, Jean Youmans
CHARTER MEMBER
James Haile
STORY: A SCANDAL IN BOHEMIA
Resa provided the quiz and Victor Rufer, who was unable to attend, nonetheless provided a crossword puzzle related to the story. Gayle answered the most questions correctly, but she abstained from prizes for the very good reason that she had provided them. Ron took first place, with Jean in second, and Elaine and Linda tied for third.
PAPERS AND OTHER READINGS
Gayle recently attended “The Spirits of Sherlock Holmes” conference in Minnesota, and she presented her report on the experience. Resa read her original paper, “Upon the Difference Between Admiration and Love: Some Remarks on Sherlock Holmes and Irene Adler” and also read a poem, “Watson’s Mournful Reveries” by Harlan L. Umansky, which appeared in the February 1997 issue of Ellery Queen’s Mystery Magazine. She read Victor’s notes on Holmes and Adler, as he was not present.
DISCUSSION
Jean said she found Holmes to be sexist and she was mad at him in this story. John asked if all men of the time weren’t sexist. Resa asked what specifically Jean found annoying. Jean said, “He underestimates. What irritates me is his cockiness.” Linda said, “He gave it away with the fire.” Gayle noted that “Conan Doyle was not a man who believed in suffragettes.” Resa noted that he did, however, work for reforms of the divorce laws, which were very unfair to women, and that one of his daughters was a suffragette. There was a discussion of the rights, or lack thereof, for women in the nineteenth century and how women many prostitutes were married women who had been thrown out by their husbands. Gayle pointed out that if a married woman wrote a book, the money went to her husband. Resa said that this was used by Carole Nelson Douglas in her series of books in which Irene Adler was the protagonist, as this had happened to Godfrey Norton’s mother.
Ron said he thought that Holmes’ plan was less than stellar. “Irene Adler’s a pretty smart lady. Who’s gonna fall for a [plumber’s] rocket and red paint?” He said he enjoys the stories, but not necessarily for the plot as much as for the “characterization, the atmosphere.”
Resa said it was interesting how the descriptions of the yellow fog seemed so romantic, but that the fog was yellow because of the high sulfur content. Gayle said she was reading a book called Lost on Planet China, which talked about the pollution problems there (among other things). Elaine, who is from China originally, offered some first-hand observations on this.
John observed that the stories were absolutely straightforward about Holmes’ cocaine use. Resa noted it was not illegal at the time. Gayle said there was a theory that Holmes had been introduced to it by his dentist after his left canine was knocked out in Charing Cross Station.
Vicki said the story was “definitely Holmes.” She liked the ending, which she thought was unexpected. “Sir Arthur Conan Doyle had me until the very end. . . . I’ve seen it before, but reading the story really intensified it.”
Elaine had some thoughts on the story. She said that Holmes had the idea the King would do something worse if he didn't take the case. Irene Adler was warned about Holmes and Adler and Norton already planned to leave, so she had some preparation. The strangers on the street and everything Holmes set up with the weird things happening, one would believe on the spot, but then would wonder (as Adler did). Elaine felt that Adler did research on Holmes when she was warned about him. Since she was an actress herself, she knew all the tricks. “Sherlock can pretend with costume and disguise, but so can she. She is smart.” Unlike the previous two stories, this one mentioned money. Sherlock Holmes had a little arrogance towards the King. Elaine felt the King was “kinder than perceived.” It was not that easy for a King to marry someone at a lower level; he had to deal with the whole country. It would have been easy for someone in his position to have her killed, but he chose to go to Sherlock Holmes instead.
Gayle wondered if this might be the earliest intimation of Moriarty. Did he see her on the dark side because she was an adventuress and warn her about Holmes? (This was a new theory that Gayle thought of on the spot, and a very interesting one.) Resa mentioned that their were two schools of thought on what “the late Irene Adler” meant: either that she was dead at the time Watson records this adventure or that she was no longer Irene Adler because she was now Irene Norton. Resa preferred the second theory but had also read a theory that the King had caught up with Irene at last. If he did so, she added, perhaps he used Moriarty as his “consulting criminal.”
There was some discussion of the new Sherlock Holmes series and the longevity of Holmes. Gayle noted, “Conan Doyle underestimated Holmes as much as Holmes underestimated Irene Adler.”
NEXT MEETING
A CASE OF IDENTITY—September 25, 2010, 11 a.m.
Minutes prepared by Resa Haile.
DATE
Saturday, August 28, 2010
11:00 a.m.
LOCATION
Hedberg Public Library Public Meeting Room
MEMBERS PRESENT
Vicki Clark, Ron Del Ciello, Linda Fredell, Resa Haile, Elaine Khan, Gayle Lange Puhl, John Richter, Jean Youmans
CHARTER MEMBER
James Haile
STORY: A SCANDAL IN BOHEMIA
Resa provided the quiz and Victor Rufer, who was unable to attend, nonetheless provided a crossword puzzle related to the story. Gayle answered the most questions correctly, but she abstained from prizes for the very good reason that she had provided them. Ron took first place, with Jean in second, and Elaine and Linda tied for third.
PAPERS AND OTHER READINGS
Gayle recently attended “The Spirits of Sherlock Holmes” conference in Minnesota, and she presented her report on the experience. Resa read her original paper, “Upon the Difference Between Admiration and Love: Some Remarks on Sherlock Holmes and Irene Adler” and also read a poem, “Watson’s Mournful Reveries” by Harlan L. Umansky, which appeared in the February 1997 issue of Ellery Queen’s Mystery Magazine. She read Victor’s notes on Holmes and Adler, as he was not present.
DISCUSSION
Jean said she found Holmes to be sexist and she was mad at him in this story. John asked if all men of the time weren’t sexist. Resa asked what specifically Jean found annoying. Jean said, “He underestimates. What irritates me is his cockiness.” Linda said, “He gave it away with the fire.” Gayle noted that “Conan Doyle was not a man who believed in suffragettes.” Resa noted that he did, however, work for reforms of the divorce laws, which were very unfair to women, and that one of his daughters was a suffragette. There was a discussion of the rights, or lack thereof, for women in the nineteenth century and how women many prostitutes were married women who had been thrown out by their husbands. Gayle pointed out that if a married woman wrote a book, the money went to her husband. Resa said that this was used by Carole Nelson Douglas in her series of books in which Irene Adler was the protagonist, as this had happened to Godfrey Norton’s mother.
Ron said he thought that Holmes’ plan was less than stellar. “Irene Adler’s a pretty smart lady. Who’s gonna fall for a [plumber’s] rocket and red paint?” He said he enjoys the stories, but not necessarily for the plot as much as for the “characterization, the atmosphere.”
Resa said it was interesting how the descriptions of the yellow fog seemed so romantic, but that the fog was yellow because of the high sulfur content. Gayle said she was reading a book called Lost on Planet China, which talked about the pollution problems there (among other things). Elaine, who is from China originally, offered some first-hand observations on this.
John observed that the stories were absolutely straightforward about Holmes’ cocaine use. Resa noted it was not illegal at the time. Gayle said there was a theory that Holmes had been introduced to it by his dentist after his left canine was knocked out in Charing Cross Station.
Vicki said the story was “definitely Holmes.” She liked the ending, which she thought was unexpected. “Sir Arthur Conan Doyle had me until the very end. . . . I’ve seen it before, but reading the story really intensified it.”
Elaine had some thoughts on the story. She said that Holmes had the idea the King would do something worse if he didn't take the case. Irene Adler was warned about Holmes and Adler and Norton already planned to leave, so she had some preparation. The strangers on the street and everything Holmes set up with the weird things happening, one would believe on the spot, but then would wonder (as Adler did). Elaine felt that Adler did research on Holmes when she was warned about him. Since she was an actress herself, she knew all the tricks. “Sherlock can pretend with costume and disguise, but so can she. She is smart.” Unlike the previous two stories, this one mentioned money. Sherlock Holmes had a little arrogance towards the King. Elaine felt the King was “kinder than perceived.” It was not that easy for a King to marry someone at a lower level; he had to deal with the whole country. It would have been easy for someone in his position to have her killed, but he chose to go to Sherlock Holmes instead.
Gayle wondered if this might be the earliest intimation of Moriarty. Did he see her on the dark side because she was an adventuress and warn her about Holmes? (This was a new theory that Gayle thought of on the spot, and a very interesting one.) Resa mentioned that their were two schools of thought on what “the late Irene Adler” meant: either that she was dead at the time Watson records this adventure or that she was no longer Irene Adler because she was now Irene Norton. Resa preferred the second theory but had also read a theory that the King had caught up with Irene at last. If he did so, she added, perhaps he used Moriarty as his “consulting criminal.”
There was some discussion of the new Sherlock Holmes series and the longevity of Holmes. Gayle noted, “Conan Doyle underestimated Holmes as much as Holmes underestimated Irene Adler.”
NEXT MEETING
A CASE OF IDENTITY—September 25, 2010, 11 a.m.
Minutes prepared by Resa Haile.
2010-09-17
Holmes Underestimated Adler by Victor Rufer
THE WOMAN outsmarted Holmes because he underestimated her, the same way most men of that time did. She was not the villain, poor choices, yes; she did what she had to to protect herself. England had a queen that the people trusted to run a country, yet barely trusted the average woman to run a household. One can but wonder where we would be if women were seen as equals from the start. 2010-09-15
Why Can Irene Adler Beat Sherlock Holmes? by Elaine Yao Khan
*Sherlock Holmes probably underestimated his adversary; he never takes Irene seriously as his adversary.
Let us look at his attitude towards the case.
At first, he laughed “it is quite a pretty little problem” and was pretty sure he could handle it without any difficulty. What he wanted is “Then, as to money?” and then “And for present expenses?” He is kind of looking down upon the King, as well as the case. He simply thought he could easily earn a large sum of money.
Later, he said he had hope and then promised the King: “I trust that we shall soon have some good news for you.”
In the end, when Holmes heard that Irene and her husband had left before Holmes, Watson, and the King arrived, he got shocked. “ ‘What!’ Sherlock Holmes staggered back, white with chagrin and surprise. ‘Do you mean that she has left England?’ ”
Sherlock Holmes was overconfident. Of course he has been overconfident in any case he had. However, Even Homer sometimes nods.
*How did Sherlock Holmes lose in this case?
1. He ignored the King’s warning.
Here are the King’s comments on her:
“You do not know her, but she has a soul of steel . . . and the mind of the most resolute of men.” And “there are no lengths to which she would not go—none.”
When they found out they had no way to get Irene and the picture, the King said to Holmes, “Did I not tell you how quick and resolute she was?" I think because he did not think the King was smart, so he did not take the king’s warning seriously.
In his mind, he thinks the King’s scared from his being less intelligent, and Sherlock himself has no problem of intelligence.
2. He ignored his situation and women’s ability and wisdom, especially Irene’s occupation.
He himself is very good at disguising and gets information; he probably never thought a woman could do the same thing to him!
He forgot his occupation and fame have been exposed in public. Once somebody is in those circumstances, I mean, becomes famous to all, it is easy for other people to recognize and take measures ahead to prevent him.
The possibilities for Irene to beat Holmes
Firstly, of course, she is smart. From the reason she keeps the picture and the way she hid the picture, which so many robbers and burglars failed to find, we can easily infer she is a smart woman.
Secondly, she had enough preparation for the burglars, those who waylaid her, etc., and, knew the King would do more right before his marriage. Let us not forget the fact: it is she, Irene who threatens the King by using the picture as a weapon! If she’s not confident about her ability to beat the King, she would have given up long time ago. After all, who would like to be disturbed by burglars and robbers as often as it could be?
Thirdly, she wrote very clearly in her letter to all that she had been warned against Holmes months ago. “I had been told that if the King employed an agent it would certainly be you. And your address had been given me.” I’m sure she did the research about the style of Sherlock Holmes in handling cases. There is a saying in ancient Chinese: Knowing the enemy and yourself, you can fight a hundred battles and win them all. That is why when she and her husband found out that the most formidable Sherlock Holmes had been involved, they chose to leave. Facing powerful nemeses, the best thing to do now is to quit. That is another Chinese strategy. They did not take any risk of staying there waiting for Sherlock Holmes to beat them.
Fourthly, her new husband, the lawyer Norton, had pushed her into leaving England as soon as possible. Even though the story does not tell us directly about this, we can infer from the scene that Sherlock Holmes viewed through the window, and their rush to the church, as well as Sherlock Holmes becoming the witness of their marriage accidentally. Sherlock Holmes just simply takes this event as an interesting experience and enjoys it, but he forgets to ask why. Why do they need to marry in such a hurry??? He was aware that “it looked like the pair might take an immediate departure.” But how soon? From the hurry of their marriage, I can see they were going to leave that night or early the next morning. Time is success! He and the King just missed by several hours.
Fifthly, Sherlock Holmes was careless and he disguised himself two times in front of Irene closely. That is a danger to be recognized. One time he dressed like an unemployed hostler, and, the second time as a clergyman. He is so good at the disguising to Dr. Watson, who thinks that “[t]he stage lost a fine actor.” However, he forgot that Irene herself is an actress and knows all the tricks. The most wonderful part in this story is when Irene said goodnight to Sherlock Holmes under disguised costume, casual and elegant.
At the end of the story, Sherlock Holmes asked for Irene’s photo as a reward; I think he is doing self-examination. The photo is a reminder. Irene changed his attitude towards women. Dr. Watson writes, “He used to make merry over the cleverness of women, but I have not heard him do it of late.”
Let us look at his attitude towards the case.
At first, he laughed “it is quite a pretty little problem” and was pretty sure he could handle it without any difficulty. What he wanted is “Then, as to money?” and then “And for present expenses?” He is kind of looking down upon the King, as well as the case. He simply thought he could easily earn a large sum of money.
Later, he said he had hope and then promised the King: “I trust that we shall soon have some good news for you.”
In the end, when Holmes heard that Irene and her husband had left before Holmes, Watson, and the King arrived, he got shocked. “ ‘What!’ Sherlock Holmes staggered back, white with chagrin and surprise. ‘Do you mean that she has left England?’ ”
Sherlock Holmes was overconfident. Of course he has been overconfident in any case he had. However, Even Homer sometimes nods.
*How did Sherlock Holmes lose in this case?
1. He ignored the King’s warning.
Here are the King’s comments on her:
“You do not know her, but she has a soul of steel . . . and the mind of the most resolute of men.” And “there are no lengths to which she would not go—none.”
When they found out they had no way to get Irene and the picture, the King said to Holmes, “Did I not tell you how quick and resolute she was?" I think because he did not think the King was smart, so he did not take the king’s warning seriously.
In his mind, he thinks the King’s scared from his being less intelligent, and Sherlock himself has no problem of intelligence.
2. He ignored his situation and women’s ability and wisdom, especially Irene’s occupation.
He himself is very good at disguising and gets information; he probably never thought a woman could do the same thing to him!
He forgot his occupation and fame have been exposed in public. Once somebody is in those circumstances, I mean, becomes famous to all, it is easy for other people to recognize and take measures ahead to prevent him.
The possibilities for Irene to beat Holmes
Firstly, of course, she is smart. From the reason she keeps the picture and the way she hid the picture, which so many robbers and burglars failed to find, we can easily infer she is a smart woman.
Secondly, she had enough preparation for the burglars, those who waylaid her, etc., and, knew the King would do more right before his marriage. Let us not forget the fact: it is she, Irene who threatens the King by using the picture as a weapon! If she’s not confident about her ability to beat the King, she would have given up long time ago. After all, who would like to be disturbed by burglars and robbers as often as it could be?
Thirdly, she wrote very clearly in her letter to all that she had been warned against Holmes months ago. “I had been told that if the King employed an agent it would certainly be you. And your address had been given me.” I’m sure she did the research about the style of Sherlock Holmes in handling cases. There is a saying in ancient Chinese: Knowing the enemy and yourself, you can fight a hundred battles and win them all. That is why when she and her husband found out that the most formidable Sherlock Holmes had been involved, they chose to leave. Facing powerful nemeses, the best thing to do now is to quit. That is another Chinese strategy. They did not take any risk of staying there waiting for Sherlock Holmes to beat them.
Fourthly, her new husband, the lawyer Norton, had pushed her into leaving England as soon as possible. Even though the story does not tell us directly about this, we can infer from the scene that Sherlock Holmes viewed through the window, and their rush to the church, as well as Sherlock Holmes becoming the witness of their marriage accidentally. Sherlock Holmes just simply takes this event as an interesting experience and enjoys it, but he forgets to ask why. Why do they need to marry in such a hurry??? He was aware that “it looked like the pair might take an immediate departure.” But how soon? From the hurry of their marriage, I can see they were going to leave that night or early the next morning. Time is success! He and the King just missed by several hours.
Fifthly, Sherlock Holmes was careless and he disguised himself two times in front of Irene closely. That is a danger to be recognized. One time he dressed like an unemployed hostler, and, the second time as a clergyman. He is so good at the disguising to Dr. Watson, who thinks that “[t]he stage lost a fine actor.” However, he forgot that Irene herself is an actress and knows all the tricks. The most wonderful part in this story is when Irene said goodnight to Sherlock Holmes under disguised costume, casual and elegant.
Upon the Distinction Between Admiration and Love: Some Remarks on Sherlock Holmes and Irene Adler by Resa Haile
“To Sherlock Holmes she is always the woman.”
A Scandal in Bohemia has one of the classic first lines in literature, right up there with “Call me Ishmael,” and “It is a truth universally acknowledged, that a single man in possession of a good fortune must be in want of a wife.”
Sherlock Holmes, a single man in possession of the wits to make his fortune, did not believe himself in want or need of a wife. But what were his feelings about the woman, Irene Adler?
According to Watson, Holmes felt no “emotion akin to love for her.” It might with justification be asserted that Watson is not always the best deducer of what Holmes is thinking or feeling, and Holmes is not that forthcoming with his feelings on all occasions. Perhaps it is good for business for him to be thought of as just an “observing and reasoning machine”; perhaps it is safer; there are, however, numerous moments in Watson’s chronicles that show Holmes’ emotions.
This is not, however, the same as saying Holmes was in love with Adler or even had a deep emotional investment in her. Putting aside such speculations, which have been well mined by many writers, as to Holmes’ having known Adler before or becoming involved with her later, let us examine the story at hand.
Although Holmes describes Irene Adler as having “a face that a man might die for,” it is open to debate whether he is that man. He certainly is untroubled by her marriage. The King of Bohemia cannot believe that she loves Godfrey Norton, but Holmes hopes she does because it will aid him in achieving his objective.
When he is wished a good-night by a familiar voice he has recently heard (although altered, probably deepened, as she is in the guise of a slim youth), Holmes cannot quite identify it. Is he off his game here? Or has he begun to feel himself on the wrong side of the case and decided to let the lady go? As an opera singer, Adler (now Norton) could be expected to have vocal control that might even fool Mr. Sherlock Holmes in a brief greeting without its reflecting badly on Holmes’ abilities or his intentions towards his client.
Holmes clearly enjoys working on this case. He enjoys disguising himself and misleading people. Even those who know him, like Dr. Watson and Athelney Jones, are often unable to recognise him, so Adler’s ability to penetrate his disguise, however belatedly, would be likely to impress him. Adler had been warned about Holmes, but, when her suspicions were awakened, she still had to change her outfit and arrive at 221B so close behind Holmes and Watson that they had not yet entered the building. (One suspects her of changing in the carriage on the way.) This quick-change ability is perhaps another by-product of her stage training, and yet another reason for Holmes to admire her once he receives the letter which gives him all this information.
For, offhand remarks regarding her looks aside, Holmes’ true admiration for Irene Norton, née Adler begins when, after arriving at her house and finding her flown with the photograph, he reads the letter. It is at this point that Holmes discovers many things to admire about Mrs. Norton.
She saw through his disguise.
She disguised herself with impressive speed.
Her disguise fooled him.
Finally, she has shown mercy to the King who, at least according to her letter (and her point of view), doesn’t deserve it.
Whether it was a moment of regret that he could not get to know such an admirable woman better or merely the desire for a memento of the adventure—and one which (an added bonus) might bother the King—that led Holmes to ask him for Irene’s photograph, Dr. Watson would never be able to tell us. Only Holmes knows. But I imagine him, after reading Watson’s account of the case, lecturing the good doctor for putting too much romance into it. Watson then, of course, objects that he clearly stated Holmes did not feel “any emotion akin to love for Irene Adler,” that “[a]ll emotions. . . were abhorrent to his cold, precise, but admirably balanced mind,” that “as a lover, he would have placed himself in a false position.”
“But you have laid so much emphasis on this,” Holmes retorts, “as to cause the reader to wonder if you are, like the lady in The Murder of Gonzago, protesting too much. I fear these rumours will dog my steps for quite some time.”
A Scandal in Bohemia has one of the classic first lines in literature, right up there with “Call me Ishmael,” and “It is a truth universally acknowledged, that a single man in possession of a good fortune must be in want of a wife.”
Sherlock Holmes, a single man in possession of the wits to make his fortune, did not believe himself in want or need of a wife. But what were his feelings about the woman, Irene Adler?
According to Watson, Holmes felt no “emotion akin to love for her.” It might with justification be asserted that Watson is not always the best deducer of what Holmes is thinking or feeling, and Holmes is not that forthcoming with his feelings on all occasions. Perhaps it is good for business for him to be thought of as just an “observing and reasoning machine”; perhaps it is safer; there are, however, numerous moments in Watson’s chronicles that show Holmes’ emotions.
This is not, however, the same as saying Holmes was in love with Adler or even had a deep emotional investment in her. Putting aside such speculations, which have been well mined by many writers, as to Holmes’ having known Adler before or becoming involved with her later, let us examine the story at hand.
Although Holmes describes Irene Adler as having “a face that a man might die for,” it is open to debate whether he is that man. He certainly is untroubled by her marriage. The King of Bohemia cannot believe that she loves Godfrey Norton, but Holmes hopes she does because it will aid him in achieving his objective.
When he is wished a good-night by a familiar voice he has recently heard (although altered, probably deepened, as she is in the guise of a slim youth), Holmes cannot quite identify it. Is he off his game here? Or has he begun to feel himself on the wrong side of the case and decided to let the lady go? As an opera singer, Adler (now Norton) could be expected to have vocal control that might even fool Mr. Sherlock Holmes in a brief greeting without its reflecting badly on Holmes’ abilities or his intentions towards his client.
Holmes clearly enjoys working on this case. He enjoys disguising himself and misleading people. Even those who know him, like Dr. Watson and Athelney Jones, are often unable to recognise him, so Adler’s ability to penetrate his disguise, however belatedly, would be likely to impress him. Adler had been warned about Holmes, but, when her suspicions were awakened, she still had to change her outfit and arrive at 221B so close behind Holmes and Watson that they had not yet entered the building. (One suspects her of changing in the carriage on the way.) This quick-change ability is perhaps another by-product of her stage training, and yet another reason for Holmes to admire her once he receives the letter which gives him all this information.
For, offhand remarks regarding her looks aside, Holmes’ true admiration for Irene Norton, née Adler begins when, after arriving at her house and finding her flown with the photograph, he reads the letter. It is at this point that Holmes discovers many things to admire about Mrs. Norton.
She saw through his disguise.
She disguised herself with impressive speed.
Her disguise fooled him.
Finally, she has shown mercy to the King who, at least according to her letter (and her point of view), doesn’t deserve it.
Whether it was a moment of regret that he could not get to know such an admirable woman better or merely the desire for a memento of the adventure—and one which (an added bonus) might bother the King—that led Holmes to ask him for Irene’s photograph, Dr. Watson would never be able to tell us. Only Holmes knows. But I imagine him, after reading Watson’s account of the case, lecturing the good doctor for putting too much romance into it. Watson then, of course, objects that he clearly stated Holmes did not feel “any emotion akin to love for Irene Adler,” that “[a]ll emotions. . . were abhorrent to his cold, precise, but admirably balanced mind,” that “as a lover, he would have placed himself in a false position.”
“But you have laid so much emphasis on this,” Holmes retorts, “as to cause the reader to wonder if you are, like the lady in The Murder of Gonzago, protesting too much. I fear these rumours will dog my steps for quite some time.”
2010-09-13
A Spirited Conference by Gayle Lange Puhl
 |
| Statuettes that made up part of the exhibit of "Spirits of Sherlock Holmes" at the Elmer L. Anderson Library at the University of Minnesota in Minneapolis |
“The Spirits of Sherlock Holmes”, a conference held at the Elmer L. Anderson Library of the University of Minnesota in Minneapolis was held from August 6-8, 2010. It was presented by The Norwegian Explorers, the Friends of the Sherlock Holmes Collections and the University of Minnesota Libraries.
The Norwegian Explorers of Minnesota, Inc. is a non-profit organization interested and dedicated to the appreciation and advancement of Sherlock Holmes and his world. In a grey world they help keep the memories of all things Sherlockian forever green.
The Friends of the Sherlock Holmes Collections is a non-profit group dedicated to the maintenance and growth of the Collections held by the University of Minnesota. Those consist of rare Sherlockian books, papers and other items. The Collections are held in a subterranean vault 85 feet under the Anderson Library on University grounds. They make up the largest grouping of Sherlock Holmes-related reference material in the United States.
The University of Minnesota Libraries houses, maintains and cares for the Collections. Timothy Johnson is the E. W. McDiarmid Curator of the Sherlock Holmes Collections and Curator of the Special Collections and Rare Books of the University.
I arrived in Minneapolis on August 4. I stayed at the home of Karen Murdock, ASH, a member of the Norwegian Explorers and Sherlockian author. In fact, the book she edited, “Sherlock Alive”, came out at the conference. It is the collected Sherlockian references of Vincent Starrett, a founding member of the Baker Street Irregulars, from his Chicago Tribune column “Books Alive” from 1942 to1967.
On August 5 Karen drove me to the Elmer L. Anderson Library where I met Timothy Johnson. We inspected the display set out in the exhibit space. It was devoted to Holmes and ranged from stuffed animals and dolls of Holmes and Dr. Watson thru menus and mugs to early writings about the Sherlockian world to an Inverness cape and two deerstalker hats. In the background a tape made up of music from the various movies and television shows about the Great Detective, interspersed with poems and dramatic readings, played softly.
Tim, the Curator of the Collections, took me down the special elevator to tour the vault. It was very exciting for a life-long Sherlockian like me. Long rows of shelves, filled with file boxes and stacks of things like board games and other items, stretched off into the distance. Later I spent time in the Reading Room going over the letters I had exchanged with John Bennett Shaw in the 1960s and ‘70s. His personal library of over 15,000 items had been obtained by the University of Minnesota in 1993. I was interested to discover that not all the letters I had sent him in his lifetime were in the Collections’ files. Things are still being discovered.
The conference opened at 11:00 am on Friday, August 6, at the Library. 110 people had signed up for the three day celebration of Sherlock Holmes and his time. Their ages ranged from late seventies to a Norwegian Explorer just nine years old and entering the fourth grade.
A presentation was given by Ray Betzner, BSI, on Vincent Starrett, legendary Sherlockian who had written the first widely-popular full-length book about Holmes and his world, “The Private Life of Sherlock Holmes”. Starrett had gone on to help found the Baker Street Irregulars which meets in New York City and the Hounds of the Baskerville (sic) of Chicago.
Timothy Johnson, Neil McCaw, Catherine Cooke, BSI, ASH, and Peggy Perdue, MBt. spoke on the current activities of the various collections of which they are in charge. Tim Johnson talked about the Sherlock Holmes Collection of the U of Minn. Neil McCaw is the Academic Director of the Arthur Conan Doyle Collection, Lancelyn Green Bequest of Portsmouth, Great Britain. He told of the traveling exhibit he placed in Japan earlier this year. Catherine Cooke is a decorated Baker Street Irregular and Curator of the Marylebone Public Library of Westminster, London, only a couple of blocks away from Baker Street. She also belongs to the Adventuresses of Sherlock Holmes and the Sherlock Holmes Society of London. Peggy Perdue is a decorated member of the Bootmakers of Toronto and Curator of the Arthur Conan Doyle Collection at the Toronto Public Library in Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
The final talk of the day was given by Steven Rothman, BSI and editor of the Baker Street Journal since 2000. His paper was on Christopher Morley, the founder of the Baker Street Irregulars in 1934, and his work as editor of The Saturday Review of Literature as it related to Doyle, Holmes and the Irregulars.
Vendors had their wares for sale at tables along the walls of the conference room. They included Steven Doyle, publisher of the Baker Street Journal and author of “Sherlock Holmes for Dummies”. Christopher Roden of the Calabash Press was selling copies of the newly-reissued “Bending the Willow”, the story of Jeremy Brett and his part as Holmes in the Granada television series frequently shown on public TV. George Vanderburgh of the Battered Silicon Dispatch Box was selling copies of Karen Murdock’s new book, “Sherlock Alive”. She was thrilled at all the requests for autographed copies.
On Saturday, August 7, Gideon Hill, MD and a member of the Baker Street Irregulars and the Sons of the Copper Beeches in Pennsylvania gave the talk “Vintage and Spirited”. It was a tongue-in-cheek discussion of Dr. Watson’s supposed alcoholism.
Russell Merritt, BSI and a semi-retired Professor of Film Studies at the University of California-Berkeley gave an illustrated talk on Sherlock Holmes and the Silent Cinema, with stills from the original movies, many now lost.
After lunch, there was a formal debate between Jon L. Lellenberg, a decorated member of the BSI and co-editor of “Arthur Conan Doyle: A Life in Letters” and author/editor of 8 volumes of BSI Archival History and Richard J. Sveum, MD , BSI and President of the Friends of the Sherlock Holmes Collections. Dr. Sveum held the position that Sherlockian scholarship began with “Studies in the Literature of Sherlock Holmes” by Mgr. Ronald Knox, a Fellow of Trinity College, Oxford, in 1912. Mr. Lellenberg contended that there had been earlier mentions of Holmes and his methods in the press before the 1912 paper was read to groups of college students before publication. Neither man gave up a foot of ground. The members of the audience were left to make up their own minds on the subject.
“Boys and Girls Together” was the title of the paper given by Evelyn Herzog, BSI and ASH. She told the history of the founding of the Adventuresses of Sherlock Holmes after they had been shut out of the Baker Street Irregulars because of their sex. Women were not admitted to the BSI until 1991 although the ASH had invited men as members several years before.
The attendees of the conference were then invited to walk to the nearby Wilson Library to view the Allen Mackler 221B Sitting Room permanent exhibit. Paul Martin, BSI and Jon Lellenberg, BSI shared remarks about their long-time friend, Sherlockian collector Allen Mackler of the Norwegian Explorers.
Saturday night a banquet was given for the conference goers at the Holiday Inn Metrodome. Brad Keefauver, BSI, ASH addressed the celebrants and an auction of Sherlockian items for the benefit of the Sherlock Holmes Collections was held with Peter Blau, BSI, ASH as auctioneer.
At 9:30 am at the Anderson Library on Sunday, August 8, the conference continued with Tim Reich’s paper, “Guy de Maupassant’s “Le Horla” and the Haunting of Sherlock Holmes”. It drew parallels between Holmes’ conduct during a certain period of time in the stories and the behavior of de Maupassant’s hero in the story “Le Horla”.
S. E. Dahlinger, a decorated Baker Street Irregular, a member of ASH and a Master Bootmaker of the Bootmakers of Toronto held to the theme of the conference with her paper entitled “Haunting Libraries in Search of a Guaranteed Medium”. She spoke of her search for information and photographs from the Sherlock Holmes Collections regarding actor William Gillette’s appearance in the silent movie made from his stage success “Sherlock Holmes”.
 |
| Gayle with the notorious Giant Rat of Sumatra |
The Sherlockian acting troupe The Red-Throated League of the Norwegian Explorers preformed an Edith Meiser radio script, “The Giant Rat of Sumatra” to close out the conference. Edith Meiser spent years in Hollywood writing for radio, including hundreds of Sherlock Holmes adventures for Basil Rathbone and Nigel Bruce. Her scripts are part of the Sherlock Holmes Collections. The performance was dedicated to the late Wayne Swift, BSI, who had the investiture The Giant Rat of Sumatra. A very large stuffed Rat Mr. Swift had made for himself and which was included in Mr. and Mrs. Swift’s donation to the Collections held pride of place in front of the microphones.
Most people went home that afternoon, but I stayed a few extra days. During that time I had dinner with Susan Rice, ASH, Mickey Fromkin, ASH, and Karen Murdock at a Nepali restaurant. We enjoyed yak dishes. Karen and I went to bookstores and I spent 3 more days at the Anderson Library Reading Room. I enjoyed seeing and handling many unusual items, including Vincent Starrett’s own copy of the “Beeton Christmas Annual”, the paperback magazine that published the first appearance of Sherlock Holmes in “A Study in Scarlet”. I read original copies of the Strand Magazine, which printed the Holmes short stories, and I leafed through some of the many scrapbooks John Bennett Shaw kept about all things Sherlockian. I particularly enjoyed the ones on Sherlockian-themed restaurants and Holmesian movies.
All in all, I had a wonderful time at the “Spirits of Sherlock Holmes” conference at the Elmer L. Anderson Library at the U of Minn. in Minneapolis. Their next one is in 2013 and I am already looking forward to it.
2010-08-26
0003: THE SIGN OF FOUR
THE ORIGINAL TREE WORSHIPPERS OF ROCK COUNTY
DATE
Saturday, July 24, 2010
11:00 a.m.
LOCATION
Hedberg Public Library Public Meeting Room
MEMBERS PRESENT
Linda Fredell, Resa Haile, Elaine Khan, Gayle Lange Puhl, John Richter, Victor Rufer
CHARTER MEMBER
James Haile
STORY: THE SIGN OF FOUR
Tom Drucker, although not present, sent his quiz, and Gayle provided the swag. Gayle and Resa tied for first place, followed by Linda and Elaine in second and third, respectively.
Gayle read her original paper, “The Jewels of the Agra Treasure or Honestly, Officer, The Box Was Empty When I Opened It.” Resa read “The Sign of Four as a Sign of the Times” by Susan McCloskey, which appeared in the Baker Street Journal of Autumn 2003.
Elaine thought there was a loophole in the story in that Jonathan Small could know so much. It was pointed out that he did have a spy among the servants, but she thought he was on the scene too quickly. Gayle thought he was probably nearby, making money by exhibiting Tonga, and was brought on the scene by a telegram.
Resa noted Holmes’ consideration of Watson and also suggested he has a life beyond Watson, as he must go somewhere to study and practice boxing, etc. Also, he seems able to make friendly acquaintances, as his name has the effect of gaining entry from both Sherman and McMurdo in this story. Gayle said she had a theory that Sherman was a groundskeeper at the Holmes estate when “Mister Sherlock” was growing up.
Victor said that this story shows how important the cases are to Holmes’ well-being; as Holmes says, “I cannot live without brainwork.” There was some discussion about Holmes’ emotional and intellectual life. Gayle thought he had had a disappointing romance in his youth. Elaine pointed out that Buddhist monks live a similarly celibate life, devoting themselves to other things that take the place of romantic concerns.
The meeting closed with a group recital of “221B” by Vincent Starrett.
NEXT MEETING
A SCANDAL IN BOHEMIA—August 28, 2010, 11 a.m.
Minutes prepared by Resa Haile.
DATE
Saturday, July 24, 2010
11:00 a.m.
LOCATION
Hedberg Public Library Public Meeting Room
MEMBERS PRESENT
Linda Fredell, Resa Haile, Elaine Khan, Gayle Lange Puhl, John Richter, Victor Rufer
CHARTER MEMBER
James Haile
STORY: THE SIGN OF FOUR
Tom Drucker, although not present, sent his quiz, and Gayle provided the swag. Gayle and Resa tied for first place, followed by Linda and Elaine in second and third, respectively.
Gayle read her original paper, “The Jewels of the Agra Treasure or Honestly, Officer, The Box Was Empty When I Opened It.” Resa read “The Sign of Four as a Sign of the Times” by Susan McCloskey, which appeared in the Baker Street Journal of Autumn 2003.
Elaine thought there was a loophole in the story in that Jonathan Small could know so much. It was pointed out that he did have a spy among the servants, but she thought he was on the scene too quickly. Gayle thought he was probably nearby, making money by exhibiting Tonga, and was brought on the scene by a telegram.
Resa noted Holmes’ consideration of Watson and also suggested he has a life beyond Watson, as he must go somewhere to study and practice boxing, etc. Also, he seems able to make friendly acquaintances, as his name has the effect of gaining entry from both Sherman and McMurdo in this story. Gayle said she had a theory that Sherman was a groundskeeper at the Holmes estate when “Mister Sherlock” was growing up.
Victor said that this story shows how important the cases are to Holmes’ well-being; as Holmes says, “I cannot live without brainwork.” There was some discussion about Holmes’ emotional and intellectual life. Gayle thought he had had a disappointing romance in his youth. Elaine pointed out that Buddhist monks live a similarly celibate life, devoting themselves to other things that take the place of romantic concerns.
The meeting closed with a group recital of “221B” by Vincent Starrett.
NEXT MEETING
A SCANDAL IN BOHEMIA—August 28, 2010, 11 a.m.
Minutes prepared by Resa Haile.
2010-08-02
"The Jewels of the Agra Treasure or Honestly, Officer, The Box Was Empty When I Opened It" by Gayle Lange Puhl
In “The Sign of Four” a box filled with jewels was sought by almost every major character in the novel. The Agra treasure consisted of 143 Diamonds, nearly 300 pearls, 97 emeralds, 170 rubies, 40 carbuncles, 210 sapphires, 61 agates, and beryls, onyxes, cat’s eyes, turquoises, and an unnumbered amount of other stones. They were probably all cut gems, except for the pearls.
The treasure was kept in a chest of Indian workmanship and of considerable weight. It had no key when the police recovered it from Jonathan Small. Dr. Watson had served in India during the Second Afghanistan War. He identified it as an example of Benares metal-work. Benares is a city in India situated on the holy river of the Ganges in the north-central part of the sub-continent. The chest had a thick and broad hasp, wrought in the image of a sitting Buddha. The box was massive, well-made and solid, clearly constructed to carry things of great price.
The walls, floor and lid of the container were two-third of an inch thick and made of iron. The actual size of the chest was not given. It was small enough that, while very heavy, Watson could carry it by himself.
This paper gives a short description of the four most valuable kinds of gems described by Small as being part of the Agra treasure contained in the box.
The “Great Mogul” diamond mentioned in the story actually existed. It was found in India in 1650 as a 787 carat rough stone. It was cut and described in 1665 as a high-crowned rose-cut stone. Its owner, Nadar Shah, King of Persia, was assassinated in 1747 and the stone disappeared. Some experts believe it may have been re-cut into either the Orlov Diamond of the Romanov Imperial Jewels or into the Koh-in-noor, now a part of the British Crown Jewels.
Diamonds were said in ancient times to assist the wearer’s stomach and brain. They were thought to strengthen the memory. Diamonds supposedly promoted purity, life, joy, innocence, repentance and honesty. The finest diamonds are a clear blue-white color but they can come in other hues, like yellow or pink.
Diamonds come from Africa, India, Russia, South America and even the United States.
Emeralds are a grass-green variety of beryl. They can be cut in rectangular, round, oval or square shapes. Some are shaped into cabochons. It is the birthstone of Taurus the Bull, April 20 to May 20. They are the gemstones of the 20th, 35th and 55th year of marriage. Ancient emeralds were found in Upper Egypt in 2000 B.C. They were highly prized by Alexander the Great and Cleopatra.
The Moguls, or rulers, of India inscribed sacred texts on large emeralds and wore them as talismans. For their size, emeralds can be more valuable than diamonds.
Emeralds supposedly had many virtues. They were used as antidotes to poison in the Middle Ages. The wearer of an emerald was said to gain wisdom, success in love and constancy of mind. Worn as an amulet, emeralds were thought to give good fortune, and symbolize rebirth and youth.
The Agra treasure emeralds could have come from the Urals, Africa or India itself.
Pearls come from mollusks like freshwater clams or saltwater oysters. They are formed by the mollusk coating a tiny bit of irritant like a grain of sand within the shell with mother-of-pearl, the substance the inner shell is made of. Irregularly-shaped pearls are called baroque pearls. Freshwater pearls have been found in the Mississippi River and in other freshwater creeks. Over a short period of time in the late 1800s three pearls were found in clams in Evansville, WI. Cultured freshwater pearls have been grown in the streams of Bavaria, Australia and the United States.
Man-made or cultured pearls have been made in China for over a thousand years. In the 1890s the Japanese began producing an improved cultured pearl.
Saltwater pearls are called Oriental pearls. They can be cultured or natural pearls. Natural pearls have been found in the Persian Gulf, the waters between India and Sri Lanka, Indonesia and the South Pacific. They have also been found in the ocean off Western Mexico.
Pearls can be cream-colored but also black, rose, gray, blue, yellow, lavender, green and mauve. Pearls are the birthstones of Gemini, May 21 to June 21. A pearl is said to symbolize love, success, and happiness. They are the gemstone for the 1st, 12th and 30th year of marriage.
Rubies are made of corundum, which produces both rubies and sapphires. Large, fine-quality rubies are rare and valuable. They may be cut into mixed-cut ovals or antique cushions if they are lighter-colored stones. Dark red rubies are made into cabochons or into beads. Only diamonds are harder gemstones.
The name ruby comes from the Latin “ruber” which means red. The best rubies are a deep, pure, vivid red. Gemologists must carefully tell the difference between pinkish, purplish or orangey red rubies and pink, purple or orange sapphires.
Rubies are the birthstone for Aries, March 21 to April 19. They supposedly signify primal energy, self-assertiveness, daring, initiative, enterprise and adventure.
During the Middle Ages, a ruby worn on the left hand was thought to bring its owner lands and titles, to bestow virtue and protect against seduction. They were thought to guarantee health, wealth, wisdom and success in love. Some people of India believed possessing a ruby would enable them to live in peace with their enemies.
Rubies are found in Afghanistan, Kenya, Madagascar, Burma, Sri Lanka and Thailand.
The Agra treasure box once held well over a thousand precious jewels. Yet it was more valuable when Dr. Watson and Mary Morstan discovered it was empty. With the gems gone the honest Doctor felt himself free of the taint of fortune hunting and allowed his love for Mary to express itself. Proverbs 31:10 says “Who can find a virtuous woman? For her price is far above rubies.” Watson agreed. After his declaration of devotion to the woman he loved was accepted, Watson wrote “Whoever had lost a treasure, I knew that night that I had gained one.”
The treasure was kept in a chest of Indian workmanship and of considerable weight. It had no key when the police recovered it from Jonathan Small. Dr. Watson had served in India during the Second Afghanistan War. He identified it as an example of Benares metal-work. Benares is a city in India situated on the holy river of the Ganges in the north-central part of the sub-continent. The chest had a thick and broad hasp, wrought in the image of a sitting Buddha. The box was massive, well-made and solid, clearly constructed to carry things of great price.
The walls, floor and lid of the container were two-third of an inch thick and made of iron. The actual size of the chest was not given. It was small enough that, while very heavy, Watson could carry it by himself.
This paper gives a short description of the four most valuable kinds of gems described by Small as being part of the Agra treasure contained in the box.
The “Great Mogul” diamond mentioned in the story actually existed. It was found in India in 1650 as a 787 carat rough stone. It was cut and described in 1665 as a high-crowned rose-cut stone. Its owner, Nadar Shah, King of Persia, was assassinated in 1747 and the stone disappeared. Some experts believe it may have been re-cut into either the Orlov Diamond of the Romanov Imperial Jewels or into the Koh-in-noor, now a part of the British Crown Jewels.
Diamonds were said in ancient times to assist the wearer’s stomach and brain. They were thought to strengthen the memory. Diamonds supposedly promoted purity, life, joy, innocence, repentance and honesty. The finest diamonds are a clear blue-white color but they can come in other hues, like yellow or pink.
Diamonds come from Africa, India, Russia, South America and even the United States.
Emeralds are a grass-green variety of beryl. They can be cut in rectangular, round, oval or square shapes. Some are shaped into cabochons. It is the birthstone of Taurus the Bull, April 20 to May 20. They are the gemstones of the 20th, 35th and 55th year of marriage. Ancient emeralds were found in Upper Egypt in 2000 B.C. They were highly prized by Alexander the Great and Cleopatra.
The Moguls, or rulers, of India inscribed sacred texts on large emeralds and wore them as talismans. For their size, emeralds can be more valuable than diamonds.
Emeralds supposedly had many virtues. They were used as antidotes to poison in the Middle Ages. The wearer of an emerald was said to gain wisdom, success in love and constancy of mind. Worn as an amulet, emeralds were thought to give good fortune, and symbolize rebirth and youth.
The Agra treasure emeralds could have come from the Urals, Africa or India itself.
Pearls come from mollusks like freshwater clams or saltwater oysters. They are formed by the mollusk coating a tiny bit of irritant like a grain of sand within the shell with mother-of-pearl, the substance the inner shell is made of. Irregularly-shaped pearls are called baroque pearls. Freshwater pearls have been found in the Mississippi River and in other freshwater creeks. Over a short period of time in the late 1800s three pearls were found in clams in Evansville, WI. Cultured freshwater pearls have been grown in the streams of Bavaria, Australia and the United States.
Man-made or cultured pearls have been made in China for over a thousand years. In the 1890s the Japanese began producing an improved cultured pearl.
Saltwater pearls are called Oriental pearls. They can be cultured or natural pearls. Natural pearls have been found in the Persian Gulf, the waters between India and Sri Lanka, Indonesia and the South Pacific. They have also been found in the ocean off Western Mexico.
Pearls can be cream-colored but also black, rose, gray, blue, yellow, lavender, green and mauve. Pearls are the birthstones of Gemini, May 21 to June 21. A pearl is said to symbolize love, success, and happiness. They are the gemstone for the 1st, 12th and 30th year of marriage.
Rubies are made of corundum, which produces both rubies and sapphires. Large, fine-quality rubies are rare and valuable. They may be cut into mixed-cut ovals or antique cushions if they are lighter-colored stones. Dark red rubies are made into cabochons or into beads. Only diamonds are harder gemstones.
The name ruby comes from the Latin “ruber” which means red. The best rubies are a deep, pure, vivid red. Gemologists must carefully tell the difference between pinkish, purplish or orangey red rubies and pink, purple or orange sapphires.
Rubies are the birthstone for Aries, March 21 to April 19. They supposedly signify primal energy, self-assertiveness, daring, initiative, enterprise and adventure.
During the Middle Ages, a ruby worn on the left hand was thought to bring its owner lands and titles, to bestow virtue and protect against seduction. They were thought to guarantee health, wealth, wisdom and success in love. Some people of India believed possessing a ruby would enable them to live in peace with their enemies.
Rubies are found in Afghanistan, Kenya, Madagascar, Burma, Sri Lanka and Thailand.
The Agra treasure box once held well over a thousand precious jewels. Yet it was more valuable when Dr. Watson and Mary Morstan discovered it was empty. With the gems gone the honest Doctor felt himself free of the taint of fortune hunting and allowed his love for Mary to express itself. Proverbs 31:10 says “Who can find a virtuous woman? For her price is far above rubies.” Watson agreed. After his declaration of devotion to the woman he loved was accepted, Watson wrote “Whoever had lost a treasure, I knew that night that I had gained one.”
2010-07-23
0002: A STUDY IN SCARLET
DATE
Saturday, June 26, 2010
11:00 a.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Ron Del Ciello, Tom Drucker, Resa Haile, Elaine Khan, Gayle Lange Puhl, Victor Rufer.
CHARTER MEMBER
James Haile.
NEW BUSINESS
Resa noted that our new blog is up. Tom talked about the importance of maintaining a paper presence as well as an electronic presence, submitting some papers to university libraries, etc. There was a discussion of the group putting together some type of publication; Gayle suggested once or twice a year. Everyone agreed this was a good idea. Gayle presented a quiz on A Study in Scarlet and Tom supplied the prizes in the form of books which related in some way to the Holmes stories, including a book about Boswell and the reminiscences of a French detective. Victor presented his paper, First Impressions, detailing how Holmes is viewed through the eyes of Stamford, Watson, and Victor himself.
(This paper is available for view on the blog and on the Facebook page: http://www.facebook.com/home.php?#!/pages/The-Original-Tree-Worshippers-of-Rock-County/121545477857624?v=app_2347471856&ref=sgm.)
(This paper is available for view on the blog and on the Facebook page: http://www.facebook.com/home.php?#!/pages/The-Original-Tree-Worshippers-of-Rock-County/121545477857624?v=app_2347471856&ref=sgm.)
STORY DISCUSSION: A STUDY IN SCARLET
This is the first of the four Holmes novels by Sir Arthur Conan Doyle, the first Sherlock Holmes story ever, and the story in which the significant first meeting of Sherlock Holmes and Dr. Watson takes place.
Ron brought up the question of whether there could be bruising after death, with which Holmes was experimenting before the story begins (as Stamford explains to Watson). Gayle noted that this was also used in the series Murder Rooms, which features Dr. Joseph Bell and Arthur Conan Doyle as the detectives. Elaine noted that she Googled about Conan Doyle and the Mormons and found that he had apologized for his portrayal of them but that sometimes religious fervor leads to these cult situations, which is close to what is in the story. There was a lively discussion of Mormonism and polygamy, as portrayed in the story and in reality, with input from everyone. Tom pointed out that Sherlock Holmes evolves from his first appearance, when his character is similar to Poe’s Dupin or to Badger from The Wind in the Willows, to a more emotional, full character, that he becomes a different kind of personality. Resa noted that Holmes sort of “wooed” Watson, playing on his curiosity.
NEXT MEETING
The Sign of Four (a.k.a. The Sign of the Four)
Minutes prepared by Resa Haile.
2010-07-20
First Impressions by Victor Rufer
In A Study in Scarlet, we meet Holmes and Watson for the first time. I'm going to look into the first impressions of Holmes by three people: Watson's friend Stamford, Watson, and myself. I will start with Stamford.
Stamford sees Holmes as being too scientific. I believe this means that Holmes needs proof before he accepts anything as fact. He has a passion for definite and exact knowledge. To gain this knowledge Holmes sacrifices social interaction and is seen as cold and bizarre. Such as the beating of the bodies at the medical school. This side of Holmes is seen by the casual observer and shows none of the depth of Holmes. Watson is next and we go deeper into Holmes.
Watson sees Holmes as a mystery after what Stamford tells him and what he sees when meeting Holmes. Watson goes as far as making a list of the areas of study Holmes is expert in. This shows strong showings in Chemistry, Sensational literature. A grasp of British law. A very weak showing in popular culture and common facts not related to Holmes’ interest. When asked about this Holmes said the brain has limited space and should not be filled with useless items. Holmes’ powers of observation and deduction are the most baffling. The case of the messenger that Holmes deduces is a marine from a partial tattoo seen from a second story window and across a city street is an example. It seems no matter how many times Watson sees such things he still is amazed. Holmes, in fact, adds to the air of mystery by being vague as to his line of work. Watson is aware of Holmes' mood swings, revealed by the way he plays the violin. In general Watson is confused by Holmes and at the same time in awe.
Lastly, I will give my impression. I think that the key to understanding Sherlock Holmes is to understand that Holmes lives in his own world and we are only allowed to visit. His belief that the brain has limited storage space causes him to pick and choose the facts that he retains. By doing this, he chooses to not care about everyday events and data. People see this lack of common knowledge as being cold and distant. Holmes sees others as lesser beings; he helps them not because he is civic minded but there is a puzzle to solve. He is compelled to solve the problem; the harder the problem the more alive he is. Holmes will use whatever means he needs to get the answer; when he used the puppy to prove his theory raises a question. Would he have used it if the dog had been healthy? Holmes puts up with the general public because they bring him the problems that feed this need to be mentally active. I believe that his mood swings are connected to his case load. Watson completes Holmes; Watson becomes Holmes’ common side, a guide in a society that Holmes chooses to ignore until needed.
Stamford sees Holmes as being too scientific. I believe this means that Holmes needs proof before he accepts anything as fact. He has a passion for definite and exact knowledge. To gain this knowledge Holmes sacrifices social interaction and is seen as cold and bizarre. Such as the beating of the bodies at the medical school. This side of Holmes is seen by the casual observer and shows none of the depth of Holmes. Watson is next and we go deeper into Holmes.
Watson sees Holmes as a mystery after what Stamford tells him and what he sees when meeting Holmes. Watson goes as far as making a list of the areas of study Holmes is expert in. This shows strong showings in Chemistry, Sensational literature. A grasp of British law. A very weak showing in popular culture and common facts not related to Holmes’ interest. When asked about this Holmes said the brain has limited space and should not be filled with useless items. Holmes’ powers of observation and deduction are the most baffling. The case of the messenger that Holmes deduces is a marine from a partial tattoo seen from a second story window and across a city street is an example. It seems no matter how many times Watson sees such things he still is amazed. Holmes, in fact, adds to the air of mystery by being vague as to his line of work. Watson is aware of Holmes' mood swings, revealed by the way he plays the violin. In general Watson is confused by Holmes and at the same time in awe.
Lastly, I will give my impression. I think that the key to understanding Sherlock Holmes is to understand that Holmes lives in his own world and we are only allowed to visit. His belief that the brain has limited storage space causes him to pick and choose the facts that he retains. By doing this, he chooses to not care about everyday events and data. People see this lack of common knowledge as being cold and distant. Holmes sees others as lesser beings; he helps them not because he is civic minded but there is a puzzle to solve. He is compelled to solve the problem; the harder the problem the more alive he is. Holmes will use whatever means he needs to get the answer; when he used the puppy to prove his theory raises a question. Would he have used it if the dog had been healthy? Holmes puts up with the general public because they bring him the problems that feed this need to be mentally active. I believe that his mood swings are connected to his case load. Watson completes Holmes; Watson becomes Holmes’ common side, a guide in a society that Holmes chooses to ignore until needed.
2010-07-08
The Original Tree Worshippers of Rock County: June Meeting
Our discussion of A Study in Scarlet on Saturday, June 26, was very successful, with a lively discussion of the American and British aspects of the case, the accuracy or inaccuracy of the depiction of Mormonism, religious freedom and responsibility in society, and, of course, the beginning of the Holmes and Watson relationship.
2010-06-21
A Short Guide to Sherlock Holmes on Screen by Gayle Lange Puhl
Every audience gets the Holmes movie of its time. William Gillette was the first big Sherlock Holmes stage star. His audiences in 1899 wanted melodrama with a love interest and that is what they got. Eille Norwood was the first big silent movie Holmes. He made 47 movies, each about 25 minutes long. He was a favorite of Sir Arthur Conan Doyle and his movies had action and lots of disguises. Holmes and Watson really came into their own when the movies got a voice. Arthur Wontner was an English actor who made 5 movies in Great Britain in the 1930s. More than any other actor, he looked the most like Sherlock Holmes.
Except for Gillette, all those movies had been filmed in “the present day” which was frankly a lot cheaper than presenting the movies in the “Victorian era”. There were still Victorian elements in each movie, mostly embodied in Holmes and Watson’s dress and attitude toward crime and women. Basil Rathbone’s HOUND OF THE BASKERVILLES and ADVENTURES OF SHERLOCK HOLMES movies were the first in a long time to be filmed in the correct historic period. When Universal Studios made its series of 12 films with Rathbone and Nigel Bruce, in order to hold the public’s interest and keep Holmes relevant to the real world (they were out to make money, after all) the scenes were updated to current times (the 1940s). Holmes was pitted against Nazis for the first 3 movies, as any good Englishman would be at the beginning of World War II. Widely distributed in cinemas and later on television, those performances became the norm for decades.
Various Sherlock Holmes radio shows broadcasted world-wide for decades. Television rose in popularity in the ’fifties and ’sixties and Holmes TV series were aired in several countries. Two starred Ronald Howard and Peter Cushing. These were usually set in Victorian times and centered, like the radio plays, more on action with a large dollop of deduction in every episode.
In 1970 the interest in Holmes and Watson was great enough for the famous Hollywood director Billy Wilder to make the film THE PRIVATE LIFE OF SHERLOCK HOLMES.
A "Jack the Ripper vs. Sherlock Holmes" film, A STUDY IN TERROR, was made in 1965. Another, "MURDER BY DECREE',came out in 1979. They emphasized horror and in each Sherlock Holmes was more physical than one might expect. A broad comedy called “WITHOUT A CLUE” was made in 1988. In the ten years between 1984 -1994 British Television gave us Jeremy Brett and the high standards of the Granada studios. Widely seen throughout the world, those episodes set the standard of fidelity to the original stories.
Ever since the first big BATMAN movie, big blockbusters with loads of action and computer-generated effects have made the most money in the movie theaters. LORD OF THE RINGS, HARRY POTTER, IRONMAN and SPIDERMAN are examples. They made the most money because audiences raised on video games and fast action wanted those kinds of movies. When someone realized at last that Holmes and Watson had great possibilities (plus the added advantage of being ‘literary’) it was inevitable that the producers would decide to go big, use computers, and put Holmes in the Victoria era again. Robert Downing, Jr. is a big movie name. He got the big movie treatment and audiences got the kind of big special-effects movie they had come to expect.
I had never seen a Guy Richie movie before SHERLOCK HOLMES. Robert Downing, Jr. was not my idea of Holmes physically, looking nothing like Basil Rathbone, Peter Cushing or Jeremy Brett. He didn’t fit the written description by Doyle either. But the man can act. His Holmes, researched with the help of an eminent Sherlockian, Les Klinger, is grittier and more active than the previous portrayals. The movie displayed Holmes’ cold mind, yet showed him vulnerable and human. Watson’s loyalty is understandable.
Dr. Watson, by Jude Law, is more active than previous depictions but closer to the original as written by Doyle. Lulled by former producers’ decisions to “dumb down” Watson in order to emphasize Holmes’ brilliance, movie audiences forget that John H. Watson was a trained doctor and an experienced war veteran. He loved excitement and in the movie Holmes played on his almost physical need for it. Yet Watson was respectable enough to fall in love with Mary Morstan and yearn for a “normal” life of hearth and home, with a practice that would not be interrupted by gunfire, upsetting patients who might decide to switch to a more conventional physician.
The storyline played on the superstitions and interest in the paranormal that was rife during the time period of the movie. It also tied in to Doyle, who soon after the 1890s became the most famous Spiritualist of his generation. It also battered against Holmes’ rationality. If there was one man in the Empire who didn’t believe in spooks, it was Sherlock Holmes. And he could tell you why. Therefore he was the one man in the Empire who could defeat the fear and uncover the tricks.
Don’t take all your Holmes from the movies. The real Sherlock Holmes is in the written stories. Over the decades in the films, Holmes has come in all shapes and sizes. He has appeared as a calculating machine and an action hero. The important thing to remember is that he is the world’s greatest detective and Watson’s friend. As long as those two elements are present, any movie about Sherlock Holmes does his creator and his fans proud.
Except for Gillette, all those movies had been filmed in “the present day” which was frankly a lot cheaper than presenting the movies in the “Victorian era”. There were still Victorian elements in each movie, mostly embodied in Holmes and Watson’s dress and attitude toward crime and women. Basil Rathbone’s HOUND OF THE BASKERVILLES and ADVENTURES OF SHERLOCK HOLMES movies were the first in a long time to be filmed in the correct historic period. When Universal Studios made its series of 12 films with Rathbone and Nigel Bruce, in order to hold the public’s interest and keep Holmes relevant to the real world (they were out to make money, after all) the scenes were updated to current times (the 1940s). Holmes was pitted against Nazis for the first 3 movies, as any good Englishman would be at the beginning of World War II. Widely distributed in cinemas and later on television, those performances became the norm for decades.
Various Sherlock Holmes radio shows broadcasted world-wide for decades. Television rose in popularity in the ’fifties and ’sixties and Holmes TV series were aired in several countries. Two starred Ronald Howard and Peter Cushing. These were usually set in Victorian times and centered, like the radio plays, more on action with a large dollop of deduction in every episode.
In 1970 the interest in Holmes and Watson was great enough for the famous Hollywood director Billy Wilder to make the film THE PRIVATE LIFE OF SHERLOCK HOLMES.
A "Jack the Ripper vs. Sherlock Holmes" film, A STUDY IN TERROR, was made in 1965. Another, "MURDER BY DECREE',came out in 1979. They emphasized horror and in each Sherlock Holmes was more physical than one might expect. A broad comedy called “WITHOUT A CLUE” was made in 1988. In the ten years between 1984 -1994 British Television gave us Jeremy Brett and the high standards of the Granada studios. Widely seen throughout the world, those episodes set the standard of fidelity to the original stories.
Ever since the first big BATMAN movie, big blockbusters with loads of action and computer-generated effects have made the most money in the movie theaters. LORD OF THE RINGS, HARRY POTTER, IRONMAN and SPIDERMAN are examples. They made the most money because audiences raised on video games and fast action wanted those kinds of movies. When someone realized at last that Holmes and Watson had great possibilities (plus the added advantage of being ‘literary’) it was inevitable that the producers would decide to go big, use computers, and put Holmes in the Victoria era again. Robert Downing, Jr. is a big movie name. He got the big movie treatment and audiences got the kind of big special-effects movie they had come to expect.
I had never seen a Guy Richie movie before SHERLOCK HOLMES. Robert Downing, Jr. was not my idea of Holmes physically, looking nothing like Basil Rathbone, Peter Cushing or Jeremy Brett. He didn’t fit the written description by Doyle either. But the man can act. His Holmes, researched with the help of an eminent Sherlockian, Les Klinger, is grittier and more active than the previous portrayals. The movie displayed Holmes’ cold mind, yet showed him vulnerable and human. Watson’s loyalty is understandable.
Dr. Watson, by Jude Law, is more active than previous depictions but closer to the original as written by Doyle. Lulled by former producers’ decisions to “dumb down” Watson in order to emphasize Holmes’ brilliance, movie audiences forget that John H. Watson was a trained doctor and an experienced war veteran. He loved excitement and in the movie Holmes played on his almost physical need for it. Yet Watson was respectable enough to fall in love with Mary Morstan and yearn for a “normal” life of hearth and home, with a practice that would not be interrupted by gunfire, upsetting patients who might decide to switch to a more conventional physician.
The storyline played on the superstitions and interest in the paranormal that was rife during the time period of the movie. It also tied in to Doyle, who soon after the 1890s became the most famous Spiritualist of his generation. It also battered against Holmes’ rationality. If there was one man in the Empire who didn’t believe in spooks, it was Sherlock Holmes. And he could tell you why. Therefore he was the one man in the Empire who could defeat the fear and uncover the tricks.
Don’t take all your Holmes from the movies. The real Sherlock Holmes is in the written stories. Over the decades in the films, Holmes has come in all shapes and sizes. He has appeared as a calculating machine and an action hero. The important thing to remember is that he is the world’s greatest detective and Watson’s friend. As long as those two elements are present, any movie about Sherlock Holmes does his creator and his fans proud.
What is a Sherlockian? by Resa Haile
I am a Sherlockian. A Sherlockian is someone who studies the fifty-six short stories and four novels featuring Sherlock Holmes written by Sir Arthur Conan Doyle. These stories are known to Sherlockians (who are called “Holmesians” in Britain) as the Canon.
Because Conan Doyle wrote these very quickly and didn’t really consider them serious literature, there are certain seeming contradictions in the stories. Sherlockians strive mightily to come up with copious theories to reconcile these contradictions. This is something fans of television series now do on the Internet every day. In fact, Sherlock Holmes was the subject of what might qualify as fanfiction before there officially was fanfiction.
Because Dr. Watson, who narrated most of the stories, did not tell the cases in order, another Sherlockian activity is the creation of a chronology, or timeline, for the tales. A Sherlockian might look for clues to the date of the case, such as Watson’s reference to Queen Victoria’s Jubilee (an anniversary of her reign), and then try to figure out which Jubilee it was.
There is also great debate over the number of times Watson was married, with some Sherlockians positing as many as six (which would lead one to wonder if Holmes’s old friend was Bluebeard) and some only one (with a separation for health reasons). The identity of Watson’s second wife (if there was one) is another subject for speculation.
The spaces between the stories allow writers to create their own Sherlock Holmes stories as well. Sherlock Holmes has met Dracula and Oscar Wilde, and faced off against Jack the Ripper (a few too many times). He has been frozen and revived in modern times (in two television pilots and a cartoon series). He has traveled through time. Every year, new novels and short stories appear featuring Sherlock Holmes, various other characters from the Conan Doyle tales, and relatives of Sherlock’s that we never knew existed, along with Sherlockian theory and criticism.
Groups of Sherlockians get together to discuss the Canon and put forth theories. The main organization is the Baker Street Irregulars in New York, and there are various scion societies across the country.
Because Conan Doyle wrote these very quickly and didn’t really consider them serious literature, there are certain seeming contradictions in the stories. Sherlockians strive mightily to come up with copious theories to reconcile these contradictions. This is something fans of television series now do on the Internet every day. In fact, Sherlock Holmes was the subject of what might qualify as fanfiction before there officially was fanfiction.
Because Dr. Watson, who narrated most of the stories, did not tell the cases in order, another Sherlockian activity is the creation of a chronology, or timeline, for the tales. A Sherlockian might look for clues to the date of the case, such as Watson’s reference to Queen Victoria’s Jubilee (an anniversary of her reign), and then try to figure out which Jubilee it was.
There is also great debate over the number of times Watson was married, with some Sherlockians positing as many as six (which would lead one to wonder if Holmes’s old friend was Bluebeard) and some only one (with a separation for health reasons). The identity of Watson’s second wife (if there was one) is another subject for speculation.
The spaces between the stories allow writers to create their own Sherlock Holmes stories as well. Sherlock Holmes has met Dracula and Oscar Wilde, and faced off against Jack the Ripper (a few too many times). He has been frozen and revived in modern times (in two television pilots and a cartoon series). He has traveled through time. Every year, new novels and short stories appear featuring Sherlock Holmes, various other characters from the Conan Doyle tales, and relatives of Sherlock’s that we never knew existed, along with Sherlockian theory and criticism.
Groups of Sherlockians get together to discuss the Canon and put forth theories. The main organization is the Baker Street Irregulars in New York, and there are various scion societies across the country.
2010-05-25
0001: INAUGURAL MEETING OF THE ORIGINAL TREE WORSHIPPERS OF ROCK COUNTY
DATE
The inaugural meeting of The Original Tree Worshippers of Rock County was held at 10:30 a.m. on May 22, 2010 at the Hedberg Public Library Public Meeting Room in Janesville, Wisconsin.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Ron Del Ciello, Resa Haile, Elaine Khan, Gayle Lange Puhl, Victor Rufer, Katie Wilcox, Kelly Wilcox.
CHARTER MEMBER
James Haile (charter member).
PROCEEDINGS
At our first meeting, members introduced themselves and shared how they first became interested in the Master and some of the experiences they have had since.
Gayle shared some of her adventures with the Sherlockian community. She started reading the Canon at a young age and has known many Sherlockians. Recently, she received an Investiture from the Adventuresses of Sherlock Holmes (ASH): A Glass of Milk, which is a reference to “The Adventure of the Priory School.” Ron spoke of reading Vincent Starrett’s classic work The Private Life of Sherlock Holmes and William S. Baring-Gould’s annotated edition of the stories and how impressed he was at Baring-Gould’s attention to clues in the stories (such as the weather in England on a particular day) in his attempts to date the cases. He also told about meeting a gentleman in full dress (deerstalker and Inverness cape) waving to cars in Florida. Gayle noted there is a healthy Sherlockian community in Florida, including the Pleasant Places of Florida scion. Victor said that he has reread A Study in Scarlet twice within the last few days and is amazed by how many tangents he can get off on from that story and things that relate to the other stories and back again. Elaine discovered Holmes in translation when she was a teacher in China. Her favorite story is “The Adventure of the Speckled Band,” which was included in the textbooks. Resa shared her experience of getting hooked on Holmes in elementary school and moving back and forth between Doyle and pastiches. Kelly and Katie are just starting out. Kelly said she thought the first Sherlockian thing she’d seen was The Great Mouse Detective, which many agreed was a fine film. Katie particularly liked the recent movie with Robert Downey Jr. and Jude Law.
However we started out, we all came together to begin our new group and share our interest.
DISCUSSION OF FUTURE MEETINGS
There was discussion about how often the group should meet, what time, day of week, and what the focus should be. The name of The Original Tree Worshippers of Rock County was officially voted in, and future meetings will be once a month, initially, on a Saturday at 11 a.m.
A Study in Scarlet was selected as the first story to be discussed. Ron once wrote a paper about Holmes and Watson for a psychology class and will try to find it for the next meeting. Victor plans to write a short paper. Gayle will make up a quiz. Resa will check on aortic aneurysms.
Gayle played a short video interview with Adrian Conan Doyle. The group ended by taking photos to memorialize the first meeting and had cake in honor of Sir Arthur Conan Doyle’s 151st birthday.
Minutes prepared by Resa Haile.
The inaugural meeting of The Original Tree Worshippers of Rock County was held at 10:30 a.m. on May 22, 2010 at the Hedberg Public Library Public Meeting Room in Janesville, Wisconsin.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Ron Del Ciello, Resa Haile, Elaine Khan, Gayle Lange Puhl, Victor Rufer, Katie Wilcox, Kelly Wilcox.
CHARTER MEMBER
James Haile (charter member).
PROCEEDINGS
At our first meeting, members introduced themselves and shared how they first became interested in the Master and some of the experiences they have had since.
Gayle shared some of her adventures with the Sherlockian community. She started reading the Canon at a young age and has known many Sherlockians. Recently, she received an Investiture from the Adventuresses of Sherlock Holmes (ASH): A Glass of Milk, which is a reference to “The Adventure of the Priory School.” Ron spoke of reading Vincent Starrett’s classic work The Private Life of Sherlock Holmes and William S. Baring-Gould’s annotated edition of the stories and how impressed he was at Baring-Gould’s attention to clues in the stories (such as the weather in England on a particular day) in his attempts to date the cases. He also told about meeting a gentleman in full dress (deerstalker and Inverness cape) waving to cars in Florida. Gayle noted there is a healthy Sherlockian community in Florida, including the Pleasant Places of Florida scion. Victor said that he has reread A Study in Scarlet twice within the last few days and is amazed by how many tangents he can get off on from that story and things that relate to the other stories and back again. Elaine discovered Holmes in translation when she was a teacher in China. Her favorite story is “The Adventure of the Speckled Band,” which was included in the textbooks. Resa shared her experience of getting hooked on Holmes in elementary school and moving back and forth between Doyle and pastiches. Kelly and Katie are just starting out. Kelly said she thought the first Sherlockian thing she’d seen was The Great Mouse Detective, which many agreed was a fine film. Katie particularly liked the recent movie with Robert Downey Jr. and Jude Law.
However we started out, we all came together to begin our new group and share our interest.
DISCUSSION OF FUTURE MEETINGS
There was discussion about how often the group should meet, what time, day of week, and what the focus should be. The name of The Original Tree Worshippers of Rock County was officially voted in, and future meetings will be once a month, initially, on a Saturday at 11 a.m.
A Study in Scarlet was selected as the first story to be discussed. Ron once wrote a paper about Holmes and Watson for a psychology class and will try to find it for the next meeting. Victor plans to write a short paper. Gayle will make up a quiz. Resa will check on aortic aneurysms.
Gayle played a short video interview with Adrian Conan Doyle. The group ended by taking photos to memorialize the first meeting and had cake in honor of Sir Arthur Conan Doyle’s 151st birthday.
Minutes prepared by Resa Haile.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)