Before Don Libey posted his reply I had wrote this:
Interesting post. I had seen the website for 221B Cellars a few weeks ago which has the Conan Doyle Estate Ltd. seal of approval prominently displayed. "Suddenly the nice little Sherlock Holmes wine turned political." Did it really? I don't see this as a "I won't play Sun City" type of moral outrage. The politics in this case are in the eye of the perceiver. I see a small firm that wants to sell their Sherlock Holmes wine and who don't want to get entangled in a business-killing lawsuit to do it. I do not fault the bullied for yielding to the bully, if, in fact, this is the case. After all, larger entities have succumbed to the unsubtle blandishments of the Estate--publishing houses, television and movies studios--firms that can afford to spend years and millions to fight and don't.
Jacquelynn states as a supporter of Free Sherlock she won't be buying or drinking 221B Cellars wine. In such a case, who is being punished? The Estate or the small business? Is the imprint of Conan Doyle Ltd. to be cause to protest? Should we boycott BBC Sherlock when it airs and burn its DVDs? The same with "The New Annotated Sherlock Holmes"? Perhaps those actions would be the mark of a true rebel and an ideologically pure Free(Sherlock)dom fighter. I am not ready to damn 221B Cellars as those sucky 2%ers who don't "get it". Yes, we can indeed condemn the Estate's actions. But to condemn its victims or to paint a financially small business with a condescending “I can understand playing it safe--being a rebel isn't for everyone" brush, is to put oneself, I believe falsely, in a morally superior position.
I think Mr. Libey should not be faulted for doing what he thought was right.
I think Mr. Libey makes his case quite elegantly. He is someone who loves Holmes, loves wine, and respects Doyle's copyright. He was unaware of the Doyle Estate controversy. There may not even have been a public controversy at the time he got his license. He may have thought that having the seal of the Estate may have been good for business. Now the "Dark Mark" of the Estate brands someone or some company as being in league with Charles Augustus Milverton; the King blackmailer of all who would use Holmes. Thus, innocents such as 221B Cellars are made to suffer in the crucible of public opinion. (That is, the tiny crucible of Sherlockians who have heard of Free Sherlock.)
Thank you for your fairness and seeing the "bigger picture". It's refreshing to know that politics doesn't interfere with everyone's reasoning process.
I am amazed at how many people out there take advantage of Holmes, but had nothing to do with his creation, but complain when they don't have enough control. Thanks for stopping by Joanne.
Looks to be a serious commercial enterprise in the "brewing"!
ReplyDeleteB2B.
Before Don Libey posted his reply I had wrote this:
ReplyDeleteInteresting post. I had seen the website for 221B Cellars a few weeks ago which has the Conan Doyle Estate Ltd. seal of approval prominently displayed. "Suddenly the nice little Sherlock Holmes wine turned political." Did it really? I don't see this as a "I won't play Sun City" type of moral outrage. The politics in this case are in the eye of the perceiver. I see a small firm that wants to sell their Sherlock Holmes wine and who don't want to get entangled in a business-killing lawsuit to do it. I do not fault the bullied for yielding to the bully, if, in fact, this is the case. After all, larger entities have succumbed to the unsubtle blandishments of the Estate--publishing houses, television and movies studios--firms that can afford to spend years and millions to fight and don't.
Jacquelynn states as a supporter of Free Sherlock she won't be buying or drinking 221B Cellars wine. In such a case, who is being punished? The Estate or the small business? Is the imprint of Conan Doyle Ltd. to be cause to protest? Should we boycott BBC Sherlock when it airs and burn its DVDs? The same with "The New Annotated Sherlock Holmes"? Perhaps those actions would be the mark of a true rebel and an ideologically pure Free(Sherlock)dom fighter. I am not ready to damn 221B Cellars as those sucky 2%ers who don't "get it". Yes, we can indeed condemn the Estate's actions. But to condemn its victims or to paint a financially small business with a condescending “I can understand playing it safe--being a rebel isn't for everyone" brush, is to put oneself, I believe falsely, in a morally superior position.
I think Mr. Libey should not be faulted for doing what he thought was right.
I agree with you, you are a better wordsmith than I.
DeleteWhere is Mr. libel posted?
Found it, thanks.
DeleteI think Mr. Libey makes his case quite elegantly. He is someone who loves Holmes, loves wine, and respects Doyle's copyright. He was unaware of the Doyle Estate controversy. There may not even have been a public controversy at the time he got his license. He may have thought that having the seal of the Estate may have been good for business. Now the "Dark Mark" of the Estate brands someone or some company as being in league with Charles Augustus Milverton; the King blackmailer of all who would use Holmes. Thus, innocents such as 221B Cellars are made to suffer in the crucible of public opinion. (That is, the tiny crucible of Sherlockians who have heard of Free Sherlock.)
ReplyDeleteThank you for your fairness and seeing the "bigger picture". It's refreshing to know that politics doesn't interfere with everyone's reasoning process.
ReplyDeleteI am amazed at how many people out there take advantage of Holmes, but had nothing to do with his creation, but complain when they don't have enough control.
DeleteThanks for stopping by Joanne.