Read about it here.
Thursday, January 23, 2014
Wednesday, January 22, 2014
And if you are in the mood for voting. . .
Parade magazine has a poll.
The results so far are a sign of the times and not Sherlockian knowledge I believe.
The results so far are a sign of the times and not Sherlockian knowledge I believe.
Why I am OK with the Natalie Dormer 'Moriarty'
Well, at least I can imagine a scenario where it can work.
While most Sherlockians would not suggest either of the present day incarnations of Moriarty as an accurate interpretation of a Canonical master criminal, I am actually more comfortable with the 'Elementary' version than the 'Sherlock' one.
And none of it has to do with how attractive Natalie Dormer is. (Well, not much of it anyway.)
The 'Jim' Moriarty as played by Andrew Scott in 'Sherlock' is way to out there for me. His character in my mind is more suited for a role as demented killer than a mastermind of a vast criminal network.
And Moriarty with a death wish (we don't really believe Moriarty went to the falls expecting to die, do we?), . . . nope, it just doesn't work. Not even a good take on Thor Bridge.
If Cumberbatch's Sherlock had wrestled with James (is it OK if I call you Jim?) on the edge of the roof and both went over ("I would gladly accept the former if the latter was a guarantee"), and then Sherlock was able to fake his death, then the outcome would have been more acceptable. Although I still don't think I would have been comfortable with that particular portrayal of Moriarty.
But my dislike of 'Jim' is not the reason we are here today.
It is Jamie Moriarty.
This Moriarty is a master criminal and an incredible artist. Canonical Moriarty was not only a master criminal, but also a professor at one time. Which suggests he had an outlet for his mental energy other than his criminal occupation or at least something that preceded his criminal activity. (RDJ's movies suggested this was still his cerebral outlet.)
I would think anyone as intelligent as Moriarty, Canonical and otherwise, would have a 'hobby' of some sort of a creative or intellectual kind.
We know that she is able to control a vast organization by references in several episode's. We she her still being able to control things while locked up.
But the key factor for her being able to work as this Moriarty is the way they are portraying Holmes in "Elementary'.
'Playing the Game' with 'Elementary' we have to accept that this Holmes is not quite as one dimensional about women as the Canonical Holmes is.
While most of the time it is suggested that his requirements in that area are more physical in nature than emotional, it has not been suggested that it is totally against his nature to not ever become emotionally attached.
And even in the episodes outlining the beginnings of the relationship it seems clear that the original attraction by Holmes was as much cerebral as physical. In other words he liked her for her brains before or as much as her body. The fact that he was eventually able to look at her otherwise suggests he finally found someone he thought to be his equal.
So here is where we have to buy into how smart 'Jamie' Moriarty really is.
At some point prior to their meeting, Holmes had started to interfere with Moriaty's grand schemes.
And while finding this annoying, she was also intrigued by the fact that someone was able thwart many of her plans. And not being of a nature (this seems a trait in master criminals) where just having him killed would be enough she chose to find out what made her advisory tick.
And what better way to understand his methods than to form a relationship. And what better way to know his whereabouts, than to be with him. Keep your friends close, keep your enemies closer.
And let's face it, most minions working for master criminals aren't of the type to have stimulating conversations with.
And once you have all you need to know about him, ( or maybe he has started to get too close to figuring out one of your plans ) what better way to devastate someone ( again, that is if you are a master criminal who enjoys toying with your victims more than killing them, ) than to break their heart.
And once he is on the road to recovery, and maybe starting to incommode her again, what does she do but return and cripple him again. At least for a while.
I am not of the mind, yet, where I think 'Elementary's' Moriarty actually has any emotional attachment to Holmes, other than on, maybe, some cerebral level. She still enjoys toying with him, keeping him just out of reach, knowing he will, sadly, still coming running to her when she needs him.
In every episode where we think he is ready to move on, the show ends with Holmes still attached in some way to his need for her. Sure, outwardly he seems to reject the effect she still has on him, but in his quieter moments he pulls out the correspondence.
For her purposes she still needs the mental stimulus Holmes provides and is having more fun keeping him supposedly on a string. When that is no longer the case, this show may have it's own Reichenbach Fall.
I like the way 'Elementary's' 'The Woman' as still having an effect on Holmes. Canonically, it is suggested that the mark Irene left on Holmes was not something that disappeared at the end of the case. And although 'Elementary's' 'The Woman' turned out to be a criminal, her 'photograph' is still tucked inside Holmes desk drawer.
The plot line so far in 'Elementary' does not suggest Miller's Holmes is done with Moriarty yet. There is more to come.
And as long as it keeps going the way it is, and the baby doesn't really turn out to be Holmes', I think a lot can still credibly be done with this story arc.
"Elementary's' Moriarty is still proving to be a master mind, and at some point Holmes may yet have to have 'his' Reichenbach.
While most Sherlockians would not suggest either of the present day incarnations of Moriarty as an accurate interpretation of a Canonical master criminal, I am actually more comfortable with the 'Elementary' version than the 'Sherlock' one.
And none of it has to do with how attractive Natalie Dormer is. (Well, not much of it anyway.)
The 'Jim' Moriarty as played by Andrew Scott in 'Sherlock' is way to out there for me. His character in my mind is more suited for a role as demented killer than a mastermind of a vast criminal network.
And Moriarty with a death wish (we don't really believe Moriarty went to the falls expecting to die, do we?), . . . nope, it just doesn't work. Not even a good take on Thor Bridge.
If Cumberbatch's Sherlock had wrestled with James (is it OK if I call you Jim?) on the edge of the roof and both went over ("I would gladly accept the former if the latter was a guarantee"), and then Sherlock was able to fake his death, then the outcome would have been more acceptable. Although I still don't think I would have been comfortable with that particular portrayal of Moriarty.
But my dislike of 'Jim' is not the reason we are here today.
It is Jamie Moriarty.
This Moriarty is a master criminal and an incredible artist. Canonical Moriarty was not only a master criminal, but also a professor at one time. Which suggests he had an outlet for his mental energy other than his criminal occupation or at least something that preceded his criminal activity. (RDJ's movies suggested this was still his cerebral outlet.)
I would think anyone as intelligent as Moriarty, Canonical and otherwise, would have a 'hobby' of some sort of a creative or intellectual kind.
We know that she is able to control a vast organization by references in several episode's. We she her still being able to control things while locked up.
But the key factor for her being able to work as this Moriarty is the way they are portraying Holmes in "Elementary'.
'Playing the Game' with 'Elementary' we have to accept that this Holmes is not quite as one dimensional about women as the Canonical Holmes is.
While most of the time it is suggested that his requirements in that area are more physical in nature than emotional, it has not been suggested that it is totally against his nature to not ever become emotionally attached.
And even in the episodes outlining the beginnings of the relationship it seems clear that the original attraction by Holmes was as much cerebral as physical. In other words he liked her for her brains before or as much as her body. The fact that he was eventually able to look at her otherwise suggests he finally found someone he thought to be his equal.
So here is where we have to buy into how smart 'Jamie' Moriarty really is.
At some point prior to their meeting, Holmes had started to interfere with Moriaty's grand schemes.
And while finding this annoying, she was also intrigued by the fact that someone was able thwart many of her plans. And not being of a nature (this seems a trait in master criminals) where just having him killed would be enough she chose to find out what made her advisory tick.
And what better way to understand his methods than to form a relationship. And what better way to know his whereabouts, than to be with him. Keep your friends close, keep your enemies closer.
And let's face it, most minions working for master criminals aren't of the type to have stimulating conversations with.
And once you have all you need to know about him, ( or maybe he has started to get too close to figuring out one of your plans ) what better way to devastate someone ( again, that is if you are a master criminal who enjoys toying with your victims more than killing them, ) than to break their heart.
And once he is on the road to recovery, and maybe starting to incommode her again, what does she do but return and cripple him again. At least for a while.
I am not of the mind, yet, where I think 'Elementary's' Moriarty actually has any emotional attachment to Holmes, other than on, maybe, some cerebral level. She still enjoys toying with him, keeping him just out of reach, knowing he will, sadly, still coming running to her when she needs him.
In every episode where we think he is ready to move on, the show ends with Holmes still attached in some way to his need for her. Sure, outwardly he seems to reject the effect she still has on him, but in his quieter moments he pulls out the correspondence.
For her purposes she still needs the mental stimulus Holmes provides and is having more fun keeping him supposedly on a string. When that is no longer the case, this show may have it's own Reichenbach Fall.
I like the way 'Elementary's' 'The Woman' as still having an effect on Holmes. Canonically, it is suggested that the mark Irene left on Holmes was not something that disappeared at the end of the case. And although 'Elementary's' 'The Woman' turned out to be a criminal, her 'photograph' is still tucked inside Holmes desk drawer.
The plot line so far in 'Elementary' does not suggest Miller's Holmes is done with Moriarty yet. There is more to come.
And as long as it keeps going the way it is, and the baby doesn't really turn out to be Holmes', I think a lot can still credibly be done with this story arc.
"Elementary's' Moriarty is still proving to be a master mind, and at some point Holmes may yet have to have 'his' Reichenbach.
Tuesday, January 21, 2014
Seven Degrees of Sherlock Holmes - #36 - old movies again, Pamela Brown
Well, I am still on my Roger Livesay movie kick and catching up on his early films, so I am going to still go with his lead.
I am picking an actress who appeared in 'I Know Where I am Going' with him, but was not his co-star.
I was mesmerized by her presence in the film, and although only a small part, she left an impression.
I am also making a connection for her not involving Roger because, well, we just did his.
Pamela Brown (1917 - 1975), who died way to early
I am picking an actress who appeared in 'I Know Where I am Going' with him, but was not his co-star.
I was mesmerized by her presence in the film, and although only a small part, she left an impression.
I am also making a connection for her not involving Roger because, well, we just did his.
Pamela Brown (1917 - 1975), who died way to early
(this picture is of her in 'I Know Where I am Going)
was in the epic film 'Richard III' 1955
which also starred Sir John Gielgud (1904-2000)
and Ralph Richardson (1902-1983)
who worked together as Holmes and Watson in the 1950's on BBC radio
So, there you have it, there you are.
'Sherlock' season three - a review of 'The Empty Hearse'
I sat down over the last couple of days and watched the beginnings of season three, twice. I wanted to make sure I was able to give it a fair, in my opinion, assessment.
I think it is fair to say that both 'Elementary' and 'Sherlock' are now falling prey to the same problems. The lack of good deductive cases and a presentation of a modern Holmes that in all ways possible measures up to Doyle's creation.
While I believe 'Elementary' is coming by those problems honestly and is making a strong case for it's methods, I feel 'Sherlock' in some ways is enjoying the mockery it's methods are thriving on.
I feel at this point 'Elementay', of the two, if either indeed can claim the distinction, is being more faithful to Sherlockians than is 'Sherlock'.
Sunday's episode, 'The Empty Hearse', had, as we have come to expect from 'Sherlock', some moments of brilliance. But each one of those moments of brilliance has at least one matching moment of camp, slapstick or disappointment.
Arguably the Canonical references far out number ones placed in 'Elementary' (and if you want to see the best reviewed list of references check out Buddy2blogger's site.), and to be honest are probably played better.
But 'Sherlock', just as 'Elementary' is accused of, is now injecting those references seemly more to meet a quota than move the story along. (What is the required quota of references per episode?)
I thought Martin Freeman as John Watson did some of his best work yet in the show. I just loved his portrayal of the injured Watson when he first encountered Holmes again in the restaurant. He plays the 'everyman' very well.
But then the moment was spoiled with the almost comic way they had Holmes handling the situation and with the way they filmed the fisticuffs between the two.
Martin Freeman had several other wonderful scenes through out the episode, and although the writers let down his character a bit, Freeman was spot on.
However. . . the relationship between Holmes and Watson has almost become comical in it's co-dependency.
While Holmes chastised Mycroft for allowing him to suffer under the Serbs hands for so long, Holmes as played in 'Sherlock', has no problem putting Watson through emotionally the same treatment over and over.
And Watson has no problem each time with going back for more.
It almost became sickening to watch how many times 'Sherlock's' Holmes required gratification from Watson while being only minimally sincere with his own feelings towards Watson.
Bill Cochran in his wonderful book about the 'Great Hiatus' suggested that Holmes returned to Baker Street after his big fall more a complete man; more in control, kinder, less critical and more introspective.
The Holmes of 'Sherlock', if anything, came back with a bigger ego, less compassionate, less understanding and perhaps even relishing more in his sociopathic tendencies.
He requires help from Molly and Lestrade but it is clear, they also are very co-dependant on the relationships. We expect it from Lestrade because his career depends on it, but Molly is definitely co-dependent. (And at least they are not shying away from that.)
The case, as is the case sometimes in 'Elementary', was unimportant to what he episode was really about. And I think we expected that. But unfortunately the resolution of the 'Great Hiatus' was more of let down the the solution of the case. (I still am not clear on it was done, or why Watson didn't need to know.)
More so in this episode than all the others for me, the Holmes that Benedict Cumberbatch is suppose to portray seems to be almost a mockery of the treats and habits Sherlockians are so fond of.
The episode with his parents was appalling.
The conversation over the 'Operation' game board was an intended mockery and childish.
'Elementary' has become a show about Sherlock's and Watson's back story, at least for the time being.
"Sherlock' was expected to be a show about a brilliant detective in the modern era, and while the promise is still there, 'The Empty Hearse' came no where near meeting that promise.
I have to admit I am probably a little denser than many reviewers of the show, and probably miss a lot of the hidden meanings. And not being a Dr Who fan, I am not familiar with the style of Moffet and Catiss. And although I once praised them for their seeming sincerity towards the show they are also very much missing the mark in the sincerity department with 'The Empty Hearse'.
'Elementary' was criticized for the relationship between Holmes and Mycroft, but the relationship between the brothers in 'Sherlock' to me is even more dysfunctional. While we are always being told Mycroft is the smarter of the two it is not being shown in actual deductive work. Yes he is more controlling, but smarter. . .?
Most of the time watching this episode, especially when Sherlock was interacting with others, and definitely when interacting with Mycroft, I felt I was watching a 'Mad' magazine version of Sherlock Holmes.
I was hoping Watson would deck Holmes again in the subway car. That scene, setting up Watson, knowing the bomb could be shut down, having called the police, all played to Sherlock's ego and not to his return from the brink.
It was very disappointing when Holmes would go into his Volcan mind melt routine. I think these were suppose to infer that he was deep in thought while deducing a clue of some kind. Way over done this time.
I am sure, or at least hope, many of the things I found missing in the episode will be explained in upcoming shows. We will see.
There were however many things I liked about the episode.
As stated earlier, Martin Freeman's performance as Watson.
So far I very much like Amanda Abbington as Mary Morstan.
I was surprised I found the references to 'fandom' a nice nod to the loyal 'fan-atics' while not really taking their input all that seriously. Although Anderson was a little over done. I really liked the scene where all the 'fan-atics' learn Holmes is alive. A good nod to all the societies that play the game. Even to the one who wear the hats. ( I loved the gals line about thinking they shouldn't wear the hats!)
I loved some of the lines Mrs. Hudson got to deliver.
I also loved most of the tit-for-tat over the hat.
Many bloggers have often stated that it is unfair to compare 'Sherlock' and 'Elementary' to each other.
I have never thought that the case, and with 'The Empty Hearse' I find those comparisons very relevant.
Some of the Canonical references I came up with, (and go look at Buddy2blogges list while you are at it.)
- Mycroft hating field work
- Suggested Holmes would have made a good criminal
- London as a cesspool of crime
- BLUE with the deduction on the hat
- monographs (and I loved Mrs. Hudson's comments about that)
- monkey glands
- step dad keeping step daughter for her money
- returning to Watson in disguise
and of course all the other regular nods to his behavior.
This would have been a great April Fools episode.
I can, based on my expectations of 'Sherlock' only fairly give this episode;
I think it is fair to say that both 'Elementary' and 'Sherlock' are now falling prey to the same problems. The lack of good deductive cases and a presentation of a modern Holmes that in all ways possible measures up to Doyle's creation.
While I believe 'Elementary' is coming by those problems honestly and is making a strong case for it's methods, I feel 'Sherlock' in some ways is enjoying the mockery it's methods are thriving on.
I feel at this point 'Elementay', of the two, if either indeed can claim the distinction, is being more faithful to Sherlockians than is 'Sherlock'.
Sunday's episode, 'The Empty Hearse', had, as we have come to expect from 'Sherlock', some moments of brilliance. But each one of those moments of brilliance has at least one matching moment of camp, slapstick or disappointment.
Arguably the Canonical references far out number ones placed in 'Elementary' (and if you want to see the best reviewed list of references check out Buddy2blogger's site.), and to be honest are probably played better.
But 'Sherlock', just as 'Elementary' is accused of, is now injecting those references seemly more to meet a quota than move the story along. (What is the required quota of references per episode?)
I thought Martin Freeman as John Watson did some of his best work yet in the show. I just loved his portrayal of the injured Watson when he first encountered Holmes again in the restaurant. He plays the 'everyman' very well.
But then the moment was spoiled with the almost comic way they had Holmes handling the situation and with the way they filmed the fisticuffs between the two.
Martin Freeman had several other wonderful scenes through out the episode, and although the writers let down his character a bit, Freeman was spot on.
However. . . the relationship between Holmes and Watson has almost become comical in it's co-dependency.
While Holmes chastised Mycroft for allowing him to suffer under the Serbs hands for so long, Holmes as played in 'Sherlock', has no problem putting Watson through emotionally the same treatment over and over.
And Watson has no problem each time with going back for more.
It almost became sickening to watch how many times 'Sherlock's' Holmes required gratification from Watson while being only minimally sincere with his own feelings towards Watson.
Bill Cochran in his wonderful book about the 'Great Hiatus' suggested that Holmes returned to Baker Street after his big fall more a complete man; more in control, kinder, less critical and more introspective.
The Holmes of 'Sherlock', if anything, came back with a bigger ego, less compassionate, less understanding and perhaps even relishing more in his sociopathic tendencies.
He requires help from Molly and Lestrade but it is clear, they also are very co-dependant on the relationships. We expect it from Lestrade because his career depends on it, but Molly is definitely co-dependent. (And at least they are not shying away from that.)
The case, as is the case sometimes in 'Elementary', was unimportant to what he episode was really about. And I think we expected that. But unfortunately the resolution of the 'Great Hiatus' was more of let down the the solution of the case. (I still am not clear on it was done, or why Watson didn't need to know.)
More so in this episode than all the others for me, the Holmes that Benedict Cumberbatch is suppose to portray seems to be almost a mockery of the treats and habits Sherlockians are so fond of.
The episode with his parents was appalling.
The conversation over the 'Operation' game board was an intended mockery and childish.
'Elementary' has become a show about Sherlock's and Watson's back story, at least for the time being.
"Sherlock' was expected to be a show about a brilliant detective in the modern era, and while the promise is still there, 'The Empty Hearse' came no where near meeting that promise.
I have to admit I am probably a little denser than many reviewers of the show, and probably miss a lot of the hidden meanings. And not being a Dr Who fan, I am not familiar with the style of Moffet and Catiss. And although I once praised them for their seeming sincerity towards the show they are also very much missing the mark in the sincerity department with 'The Empty Hearse'.
'Elementary' was criticized for the relationship between Holmes and Mycroft, but the relationship between the brothers in 'Sherlock' to me is even more dysfunctional. While we are always being told Mycroft is the smarter of the two it is not being shown in actual deductive work. Yes he is more controlling, but smarter. . .?
Most of the time watching this episode, especially when Sherlock was interacting with others, and definitely when interacting with Mycroft, I felt I was watching a 'Mad' magazine version of Sherlock Holmes.
I was hoping Watson would deck Holmes again in the subway car. That scene, setting up Watson, knowing the bomb could be shut down, having called the police, all played to Sherlock's ego and not to his return from the brink.
It was very disappointing when Holmes would go into his Volcan mind melt routine. I think these were suppose to infer that he was deep in thought while deducing a clue of some kind. Way over done this time.
I am sure, or at least hope, many of the things I found missing in the episode will be explained in upcoming shows. We will see.
There were however many things I liked about the episode.
As stated earlier, Martin Freeman's performance as Watson.
So far I very much like Amanda Abbington as Mary Morstan.
I was surprised I found the references to 'fandom' a nice nod to the loyal 'fan-atics' while not really taking their input all that seriously. Although Anderson was a little over done. I really liked the scene where all the 'fan-atics' learn Holmes is alive. A good nod to all the societies that play the game. Even to the one who wear the hats. ( I loved the gals line about thinking they shouldn't wear the hats!)
I loved some of the lines Mrs. Hudson got to deliver.
I also loved most of the tit-for-tat over the hat.
Many bloggers have often stated that it is unfair to compare 'Sherlock' and 'Elementary' to each other.
I have never thought that the case, and with 'The Empty Hearse' I find those comparisons very relevant.
Some of the Canonical references I came up with, (and go look at Buddy2blogges list while you are at it.)
- Mycroft hating field work
- Suggested Holmes would have made a good criminal
- London as a cesspool of crime
- BLUE with the deduction on the hat
- monographs (and I loved Mrs. Hudson's comments about that)
- monkey glands
- step dad keeping step daughter for her money
- returning to Watson in disguise
and of course all the other regular nods to his behavior.
This would have been a great April Fools episode.
I can, based on my expectations of 'Sherlock' only fairly give this episode;
Oh, yea, I also found it a statement on this episode that a certain blogger who rails on 'Elementary' has as of yet commented on this episode more than just saying he is glad to have it back. ?????
Friday, January 17, 2014
Thursday, January 16, 2014
As Sherlock Peoria pointed out - Russell Johnson of Gilligan's Island passed away today.
But not without leaving a Sherlockian connection.
Russell David Johnson 1924 - 2014.
Russell David Johnson 1924 - 2014.
Is 'fandom' the next four letter word?
Being a 'fan' about something has been around for a long time.
And it never had, really, any bad connotations to go with it, to my knowledge. Well, at least not till recently.
Matter of fact, I never felt bad admitting that is was a fan of John Denver music (although I was careful to chose my audience).
But it seems in this age of cos-play and 'Sherlock' the word 'fan' and by extension 'fandom' has almost taken a meaning that I am not sure I would like to have tagged on me.
Many of the recent comments having to do with Season Three of 'Sherlock' have been about how the show seems to have caved to the whims of it's 'fans', and, for the most part, what I have read about this has not been good. (Note, the show caved to fans of Sherlock, and not fans of Sherlock Holmes, or, in other words, Sherlockains.)
While a new visitor was in our house the other day he was commenting on how many books we have. And we started to discuss how many Holmes related books I had. "Yea," I said. "I'm a fan of Sherlock Holmes."
I didn't, in my own house, feel embarrassed with that term.
Now that's fine in my house, but I am not sure I want to be lumped in with 'fans' in general. And definitely not 'fandom'.
When we have been interviewed by our local papers concerning our scion society over the years, we have usually taken a little umbrage when we are described as 'fans'. We always wanted to be called something that seemingly had more scholarly connotations. (Although for the likes of me I don't know what that would be, especially if you knew our group.)
In our Sherlockian circles we still go by 'Sherlockians'. And I guess, when not in such august circles I do say 'fan', but wish I didn't have to. (Again, looking for the perfect word.)
A fan at one time use to be described as it is in Wiki, 'A fan, sometimes also called aficionado or supporter, is a person who is enthusiastically devoted to something, such as a band, a sports team or entertainer'
And that doesn't seem so bad. (Except the word 'fan' kinda lumps us in with Trekkies and followers of Dr. Who.)
But unfortunately 'fan' in many instances is now more related to 'fanatic'.
I guess before long we will have to do like soccer has done and keep calling the well behaved lovers of the sport 'fans', while calling the bad examples of fans 'hooligans'.
So, when I reach the point of becoming a 'Sherlockian' hooligan please let me know. (And no, I am not, yet, using Sherlockian hooligan to describe Brad.)
For now I am going to invent a word to describe us, and I hope it catches on.
The new word will be 'ENDEV', a concocted word from 'enthusiastically devoted'.
So when asked way I have so many Sherlock Holmes related books I will from now on just say, "Because I am endev to Sherlock Holmes."
I guess if we were devotee's, we would now be endevee's
Please help me popularize this new word so we can all move away from being 'fans'.
Fans are people who wave flags and banners and wear team logos on their clothes.. None of us do that, . . . right?
And it never had, really, any bad connotations to go with it, to my knowledge. Well, at least not till recently.
Matter of fact, I never felt bad admitting that is was a fan of John Denver music (although I was careful to chose my audience).
But it seems in this age of cos-play and 'Sherlock' the word 'fan' and by extension 'fandom' has almost taken a meaning that I am not sure I would like to have tagged on me.
Many of the recent comments having to do with Season Three of 'Sherlock' have been about how the show seems to have caved to the whims of it's 'fans', and, for the most part, what I have read about this has not been good. (Note, the show caved to fans of Sherlock, and not fans of Sherlock Holmes, or, in other words, Sherlockains.)
While a new visitor was in our house the other day he was commenting on how many books we have. And we started to discuss how many Holmes related books I had. "Yea," I said. "I'm a fan of Sherlock Holmes."
I didn't, in my own house, feel embarrassed with that term.
Now that's fine in my house, but I am not sure I want to be lumped in with 'fans' in general. And definitely not 'fandom'.
When we have been interviewed by our local papers concerning our scion society over the years, we have usually taken a little umbrage when we are described as 'fans'. We always wanted to be called something that seemingly had more scholarly connotations. (Although for the likes of me I don't know what that would be, especially if you knew our group.)
In our Sherlockian circles we still go by 'Sherlockians'. And I guess, when not in such august circles I do say 'fan', but wish I didn't have to. (Again, looking for the perfect word.)
A fan at one time use to be described as it is in Wiki, 'A fan, sometimes also called aficionado or supporter, is a person who is enthusiastically devoted to something, such as a band, a sports team or entertainer'
And that doesn't seem so bad. (Except the word 'fan' kinda lumps us in with Trekkies and followers of Dr. Who.)
But unfortunately 'fan' in many instances is now more related to 'fanatic'.
I guess before long we will have to do like soccer has done and keep calling the well behaved lovers of the sport 'fans', while calling the bad examples of fans 'hooligans'.
So, when I reach the point of becoming a 'Sherlockian' hooligan please let me know. (And no, I am not, yet, using Sherlockian hooligan to describe Brad.)
For now I am going to invent a word to describe us, and I hope it catches on.
The new word will be 'ENDEV', a concocted word from 'enthusiastically devoted'.
So when asked way I have so many Sherlock Holmes related books I will from now on just say, "Because I am endev to Sherlock Holmes."
I guess if we were devotee's, we would now be endevee's
Please help me popularize this new word so we can all move away from being 'fans'.
Fans are people who wave flags and banners and wear team logos on their clothes.. None of us do that, . . . right?
(NO. . . . this is not me.)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)