Tuesday, September 17, 2013

My favorite quote from a recent podcast . .

that pretty well covers the caliber of the content is. . .

Reapersun: Well, I need to admit that I’m a really disgusting fan, and I got into it based on BBC–
Curly: There’s nothing wrong with that.
Reapersun: I still haven’t read all the stories.
Curly: That’s okay.
Liz: There’s a lot of them — it’s not like you were just going to sit and suddenly read thousands and thousands of pages, so…
(and since 'Sherlock' has been out for almost four years, why would you read the stories anyway?)

There was an agenda to this podcast, but it was not Sherlock Holmes.

On another note;

It also kinda amazes me that someone can hate 'Elementary' so much, yet give this type of podcast as much relevance as he does. There is tongue-in-cheek, there is irreverence, there is humor and there is inappropriate, Canonically speaking.

And still another note;

And the man trying to get all control of Holmes away from Doyle's estate collects Sherlockian porn, and he is considered a highly respectable Sherlockian. Sherlock Holmes has done well enough over all these years.

Don't know what to think about that one.


  1. In fairness to the Baker Street Babes, some of the Babes like "Elementary" and are, if they are criticizing the show, quick to point out they are not dissing the fans. As a group that was dismissed as TV show fans and actor groupies by "Elite Devotees", they know what it's like to be disrespected. Which is why it is so hard to understand why a Sherlockian blogger and defender of the Babes could think that insulting fans of "Elementary" is fair game. It is one thing not to like a particular Sherlockian offering, it is quite another to say, as was written on September 8, "Victorian London, 221B Baker Street, the familiar characters -- all those await the fan of the Downey movies who makes the transition to Doyle. And even though BBC Sherlock is set in the modern day, reading A Study in Scarlet will seem fairly familiar after watching A Study in Pink. Afghanistan, pills, cabman. But putting one's self in the place of a CBS Elementary fan who had no previous exposure to Sherlock Holmes . . . what are they going to find in the Doyle stories that reminds them of the TV show they've grown to love? Joan Watson is nowhere to be found. Ditto Clyde the turtle. Mrs. Hudson isn't nearly as bright or interesting. Likewise Inspector Gregson." Once again, in this blogger's view, "Elementary" fans do not have the mental wear-with-all to make the transition from TV to Canon, while Downey fans will not be confused by the lack of explosions, gun battles, martial arts fisticuffs and naked Mycroft and "Sherlock" fans puzzled by the lack of Molly Hooper and Donovan and why isn't Mrs. Hudson and Mycroft in every story? Where are the lesbian dominatrix and television children's show actor master criminal? In his attempt to portray "Elementary" as bad Sherlock Holmes, the best he can do is slander the viewers and distort the facts (for example, calling "Elementary's" transsexual, Mensa IQed, Greek interpreter Ms. Hudson not "as bright or interesting" as the Canonical one.)

    1. Mr. O'Leary writes: "As a group that was dismissed as TV show fans and actor groupies by "Elite Devotees""

      It might be worth pointing out that the article to which he alludes was written by one specific elite devotee and was critical of one specific individual. If other elite devotees have expressed similar criticism of fans of a TV show or of an actor, I am not aware of them. Except, perhaps, Mr. O'Leary's friend at Sherlock Peoria, who wrote in a 2010 column "Can a Sherlockian, recognizable as such to us old-school Sherlockians, evolve out of such a primordial ooze of entertainment as the one we now find ourselves in? I wonder."

      Mr. O'Leary continues: "they know what it's like to be disrespected." It's much more complicated than that. Ask yourself why a vast network of thousands of fans would be reduced to vapors by the brief comments of an aging and now rather marginal Sherlockian? Read Ms. Manente's essay in the BSJ, presented and published well before the appearance of Prof. Shreffler's elite devotee article, and I think you will see the deep vein of insecurity that runs through her work: don't hate us because we're young and use social media; don't dismiss us because we pursue a new way of being Sherlockians; and so on. Since then it's been an unbroken stream of efforts to show that the Baker Street Babes really are smart (read their blogs about the book they are compiling), really are serious (read their own comments about how well-informed they were in the "Watson" panel they recently held). All of this in response to a single retired guy who dashed off a short critical comment in a fairly obscure magazine? I think it's more complicated than that. The "elite devotee" notion hit a nerve -- but the nerve was already nervous...

    2. I'm not sure what you are taking exception to in my statements, Ms. Piper. I seem to remember with the arrival of "Sherlock" and "Cumbermainia" (for want of a better term) the dismissive attitude that could be described as "elitism" in some corners of the Sherlockian world. I use the term "Elite Devotee" in quotes and capitals not to reference one Sherlockian's opinion, but a not-uncommon attitude. The original "elite devotee" was in 1988. As the editorial introduction to "The Elite Devotee Redux" in "The Saturday Review of Literature" put it; "At that time, Jeremy Brett fandom threatened to overwhelm more traditional forms of Sherlockian sensibility..." This is what I meant: there is a core of traditionalists who see the arrival of new Sherlockians via a TV show (or anything not the Canon), whether it be Granada or BBC's "Sherlock" akin to the fans--the screaming hordes--at the newly named JFK airport for the arrival of The Beatles in 1964. (Who knows, perhaps there were Sherlockians who felt the same way about new arrivals via the Rathbone/Bruce films of the 1940's?) This is perhaps what Ms. Manente was insecure about, her reception by a group with a long history of scholarship and tradition, not one retired guy, to the Sherlockian fold via a popular TV show. I really think were are in agreement. I used short hand. Sorry if I wasn't clear.

      It is heartening to realize that the Babes have been accepted by a majority of Sherlockians (I hope). You're right, they have showed they are smart and serious and well-informed. I happen to think the same can be said for "Elementary" fans. Yet one blogger who champions the Babes feels that because he doesn't like a television show, he can insult the fans. It is this type of elitist attitude that he decries in others, he reserves for himself in regards to his bête noire. The fact that commentators to his blog who share his dislike for the show but are silent when insults of the intelligence or mental stability of its fans are expressed display that Sherlockian elitism is alive and well.

    3. Thanks for your considered reply to my note. We are indeed in agreement. I perhaps leaped too quickly to the assumption that any mention of an "elite devotee" was a reference to Prof. Shreffler's latest essay, especially since the original seems to have produced no controversy at all, and since Sherlock Peoria persists in using the phrase as a snide jab.

      I only wish that I had the time to watch shows such as "Elementary" and "Sherlock" to see what all the fuss is about. Or, perhaps I'm better off not knowing!



    4. All the fuss is about having fun with the Canon.

      Thanks again for stopping by.

    5. Thanks to you, Barbara, and to John for hosting and actually posting my opinions. Others are not so open or generous. "Having fun with the Canon", yes.

  2. This comment has been removed by the author.

    1. I am not implying the the BSB's do not like 'Elementary' and if they don't that is OK.
      They have a strong presence in the Sherlockian community and most of it is good.

      I had three points, which I guess I didn't make.
      One being; Was that particular podcast what is now being consider high Sherlockian scholarship and worth discussing as Sherlockians.
      I thought the podcast was disgusting as viewed as a Sherlockian topic. Hope no young fans follow it.
      It had an entirely un-Sherlockian agenda. The Babes have had some very good topics, but that was not one of them.
      My second point was, how can a certain blogger and his following continue to slam 'Elementary" (of course he can, it's a free country) as being un-Sherlockian,in the way he does, yet say conversations like that podcast are relevant discussions in respect to Doyle and his work. He can hate the show, but being rude about it and it's fans is another thing. (Again, of course he can say it how ever he wants, it's a free country)
      They of course can make any decisions they want about content. We don't have to listen, but if we except that as relevant Sherlockian discussion it is our bad.
      We each draw our own Sherlockian boundaries that we don't like crossed. It is all about keeping a certain decorum in all posts and discussions.

      Third point, and not a very big one. I think it strange that a 'highly respectable Sherlockian' finds Sherlockian Porn collectible.

      Prof. Shreffler did not even come into my points. I have dealt with him when he was in St Louis, and very seldom do I consider him in any Sherlockian conversation.

      Thanks guys for stopping by and making a good discussion