What would the modern Baker Street Irregulars look like?

The Canonical Baker Street Irregulars were described as Street Urchins by Dr. Watson, first appearing in STUD, and then again in SIGN. We assumed them to be perhaps homeless. And if not homeless, probably from a very poor household, lead my a single mother or unemployed or alcoholic father.
And although they to have become a little romanticized in the Canon of Sherlock Holmes, they actually represent one of the more grittier sides of Watson's story telling.
Poor, dirty, unkempt, probably seldom well fed and, again, probably for the most part homeless.
They probably did not have much of a future ahead of them, with petty crime and lowly employment the only path that lie in their future. Not without energy, they would do anything they could to increase their collection of pence; holding horses, running errands, helping with loads of goods or baggage. (source).
Some may have gone off to wars, to return better formed men. Some may have died in those same wars.
None are mentioned as women, although that could well have been the case. And if women, their lot in life was probably less pleasant to think about than that of the boys.
Most of them probably spent the biggest part of their lives within a few small blocks.
Again, probably most of us romanticised about Holmes' influence on them, even going so far as to hope Holmes was their way out of their sad lot. (Who does not hope Holmes or Watson sent Wiggins off to school somewhere?)
Must of us accept Wiggins as the leader of the Irregulars.
Many of us probably assume Billy the page ascended from those ranks and found cleaner employment and perhaps a life long career beyond the streets.
But truth be told, we don't really know much about the individuals or what ever became of them. London streets were dirty and harsh, with little future. And although we may fantasize about the London of Holmes era, it was for most a very hard time and a hard place to live in.

Visually, for me, one of the best representations of the above image is the Irregulars is as they appear in the film "Without a Clue". Although played in large part for laughs, I think the habits and dress come pretty close to accurate.

Jump forward some hundred plus years to the modern incarnations of Holmes, "Sherlock" and 'Elementary", and we find a different set of Irregulars, if we can even call them that at all.

In the Canonical Irregulars we see a gang or group of boys. Assuming for the most part that the individuals are the same in each story. And as with most gangs, new individuals would come and go for one reason or another with a central repeating core.

While we have a substantial image of the Canonical Irregulars, one has yet to form within the two television shows mentioned above.

When doing a google search for the Baker Street Irregulars you first get a description of the Canonical Irregulars, followed then by the incarnations that developed from the original. 

When searching for minor characters within the Canon Wiggins shows up as an Irregular.

As of yet, no minor characters have been described as such, in my observations, within "Sherlock" or "Elementary". (James or Buddy2blogger, I am counting on you guys to correct me if I am wrong.)

Individuals have stood out in individual episodes as resources that Holmes uses at times to find needed information, but to my knowledge, none have been children, and if they have been none have been part of a group or gang.

Most have been more along the line of Langdale Pike or past clients with a skill set usable to Holmes, which is very Canonical in nature, but not the same as the Irregulars.

So, with all this above space wasted so far, can the Irregulars be relevant to a modern Holmes, and what would they be like.

In this day and age, in a modern society, I don't believe wayward children would have access to things the way they did in Canonical Holmes' era. The streets are not filled out the same way with a mass of people all suffering the same lot. Unkempt youths would not be accepted in most of the places the stories in the modern era take place. They could not move around unnoticed, nor is information gathered in the same way. (Unless all the stories took place in a Walmart or something.) Hygiene and attire that was acceptable in Victorian times would no longer go unnoticed.

If most of cases involving "Sherlock" or :"Elementary" took place in slum districts run by gangs, the scenario of child Irregulars mixing with the masses would seem possible. 

But with most stories taking place in more high-tech or suburban areas, the likelihood of child Irregulars as repeating characters seems unlikely, especially if seen as a group.

Again, can a group of children in a modern take on the Canon be convincing as a group called "Irregulars" and if so, what would they be like?

Could they indeed be children?

They would have to be street smart.

They would have to be somewhat tech savvy.

They would have to be mobile.

They would have to be able to gain access to more upscale types of places.

Would the gang be led by someone more like 'Q' in the modern newer Bond movies? 

Women would have to be part of the new "Irregulars".

They probably would require more funding.

Martial art skills may be required. (Teen-age-Ninja Irregulars?)

If we assume that even most high tech or high-society crimes have their germination in seedier parts of towns, we could see child Irregulars as a possibility. But I don't know if that is the case or not.

Or, in this day and age, are the new "Irregulars" more likely to be gadgets?

Is the IPHONE (or like device) the new "Irregulars", with "google' being the new Wiggins, and all the hackers out there being the rest gang.

Or would "Sherlock" or "Elementary" now use the term "Irregulars" not as a group or gang as such, but a mental collective of individuals, some tech savvy and some street smart, all unknown to each other, with the term "Irregulars" only a personal description of his network?

Are "Irregulars" irrelevant in the modern era of Holmes? What do you think?

I may have been wrong about those two. . . .

Steven Moffat and Mark Gatiss.
There,. . . that didn't hurt to bad.

Although I have liked "Sherlock" from the first time I watched in while actually in England in 2010, happy to break the news upon my return at our local scion meeting. But I must admit, I had not jumped on the band wagon for Moffat and Gatiss as some others (who, as it now appears, were much wiser than I) had.
I did agree that the show was the best thing that ever happened to Holmes and Watson since Brett and Burke/Hardwicke.
But being generally not a science fiction fan, and specifically not interested in following  "Dr. Who", I was reluctant to give credit to "Dr Who" writers and actors. I'd had a bad experience back in the 1990's when Holmes and Who clashed at a banquet with Brett and I definitely did not want to see the two mixed again.
Surely those two were just involved in some little way, but the actual work on the series was done by others who actually had strong Sherlockian connections and knowledge.

With all the attention being given to the upcoming showing of series three, I sat down and watched Moffat and Gatiss in "Unlocking Sherlock" the other night.
I sort of expected those two to sit down and explain in some convoluted why the theories they had about how Holmes could fit into the modern era, but to find out others were actually doing most of the grunt work.

I was, as it turns out, pleasantly surprised that that was not the case.

Instead I found myself watching two very sincere people who were very much in love with Holmes and Watson and had the knowledge base to do the work they do. Add to that all the others interviewed in the show and you had an excellent view of all that goes in to it.
"Unlocking Sherlock" elevated the show "Sherlock" even more for me. These guys know what they are talking about.
Sure, there are still things I find fault with on the show (my wife says that's just my nature), but now I at least look at those with a different perspective.

Good work gentlemen.

So I happily give "Unlocking Sherlock"

Admitting one error in perception, I hope this doesn't mean I will soon be agreeing with Brad!

Trivia; What is Watson holding in his hands?

Any thoughts?

Just in. . .

Sherlock Holmes Is in the Public Domain, American Judge Rules

By JENNIFER SCHUESSLER

December 27, 2013, 10:16 am

Associated PressSherlock Holmes as portrayed by Frederic Dorr Steele.

In the more than 125 years since he first appeared, Sherlock Holmes has popped up everywhere from fan fiction set in outer space to screen adaptations like CBS’s “Elementary,” set in contemporary Manhattan. But now, following a legal ruling, the deerstalker-wearing detective is headed to another destination: the public domain.

A federal judge has issued a declarative judgment stating that Holmes, Watson, 221B Baker Street, the dastardly Professor Moriarty and other elements included in the 50 Holmes works Arthur Conan Doyle published before Jan. 1, 1923, are no longer covered by United States copyright law and can be freely used by creators without paying any licensing fee to the Conan Doyle estate.

The ruling came in response to a civil complaint filed in February by Leslie S. Klinger, the editor of the three-volume, nearly 3,000-page “The Complete Annotated Sherlock Holmes” and a number of other Holmes-related books. The complaint stemmed from “In the Company of Sherlock Holmes,” a collection of new Holmes stories written by different authors and edited by Mr. Klinger and Laurie R. King, herself the author of a mystery series featuring Mary Russell, Holmes’s wife.

Mr. Klinger and Ms. King had paid a $5,000 licensing fee for a previous Holmes-inspired collection. But in the complaint, Mr. Klinger said that the publisher of “In the Company of Sherlock Holmes,” Pegasus Books, had declined to go forward after receiving a letter from the Conan Doyle Estate Ltd., a business entity organized in Britain, suggesting the estate would prevent the new book from being sold by Amazon, Barnes & Noble and “similar retailers” unless it received another fee.

Associated PressArthur Conan Doyle

Chief Judge Rubén Castillo of the United States District Court of the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division, rejected the estate’s claim that the characters and the basic Holmes story line themselves remain under copyright, since they were not truly completed until Conan Doyle stopped writing. The judge did caution, however, that elements introduced in the 10 stories published after 1923 — such as the fact that Watson played rugby for Blackheath — remain protected.

In a telephone interview, Mr. Klinger said he planned to go forward with “In the Company of Sherlock Holmes,” which he said carefully avoids any post-1923 elements. He also praised the ruling for opened the way to other creators, many of whom had paid licensing fees to the estate but rallied to Mr. Klinger’s cause under the Twitter hashtag #FreeSherlock.

“Sherlock Holmes belongs to the world, and this ruling clearly establishes that,” he said. “People want to celebrate Holmes and Watson, and now they can do that without fear.”

Benjamin Allison, a lawyer for the Conan Doyle estate, said it was exploring an appeal but asserted that the ruling did not imperil any existing licensing agreements or the estate’s separate claims under trademark law.

Mr. Allison also reiterated the estate’s claim that the “highly delineated” Holmes and Watson characters depend on elements introduced in the post-1923 stories, which remain protected.

“Those stories are set at a variety of points in Sherlock’s fictional life, not just the end of his life,” he said. “They develop the two men’s characters in ways that almost any use of the characters depends on.”

Source

Speaking of BLUE

EBAY

Well done Mr. Monty

Should be your new Blue Carbuncle tradition.

Happy Blue Car Buckle Day!

Had never heard of this place before. . . .

Baker St. Studios

But I like the card.

Blackwood and Holmes together again,. . . . sort of. . .

The Imitation Game

Holiday Seven Degrees of Sherlock Holmes - #34 - Jimmy Stewart

Once again sticking with Holiday themed movies and actors, I get to do one of my favorite all time actors, and war hero, Jimmy Stewart. Who of course starred in the wonderful movie, "It's a Wonderful Life" (1946).

So here goes.

Jimmy Stewart (1908 - 1997)

had one of his first screen credits in a film called "The Murder Man" (1935)

which also featured Lionel Atwill (1885 - 1946)

who's name, if you look closely, can be seen on this poster for 1939's "Hound of the Baskervilles"

He played Dr. Mortimer.

Lionel Atwill had appeared a least two other times previous with Basil Rathbone in other movies.

He was also with Rathbone in "Sherlock Holmes and the Secret Weapon."

Jimmy Stewart's connection came real early in his career.

Compliments of the Season!