STUD, Walking on hallowed ground - Brad's summer reading list - #12 - A Study in Scarlet (STUD), Chapter One.

I can't imagine what it would be like to read this story, again, for the first time. (Well at least till my mind finishes going the way it seems to be going.)
I don't even think STUD was in the first collection of Sherlock Holmes stories I read.

Does it carry as much weight for those who are introduced to him in book form first (does that happen anymore?) as it does to us 'scholars' (I use the term weakly in my case) and fans, those of use who have traveled to Baker St. more than once?

Let's face it, most introductions to Holmes and Watson now probably take place through television or movies and perhaps fan fiction and pastiche.

Many probably picked up the books during the hiatus between seasons of 'Sherlock' ( is that 'media made' break now going to be considered the 'Second, Third, Fourth Great Hiatus?), which is fine. I have watched many shows that have interested me enough to go and read more about the subject. But it means we are no longer introduced to Holmes without any prior knowledge of what is or is not to come.

And it doesn't seem the impact of this first chapter, the chapter where John Watson first meets Sherlock Holmes, had very much effect on the readers in 1887. The story was not a run away hit or an over night success. It was, however, a successful beginning. First published in 1887, it would take three more years for another story to take place, SIGN. Holmes popularity would not really take off until Watson's (Doyle's) association with the Strand Magazine in the form of short stories.

It probably wasn't till men and women started to meet and talk after several cases had been adapted to publication form that the importance of this meeting was heralded as a memorable moment.

While most Sherlockians achingly wait for a really good period adaption of this first meeting (there may have been one that I missed) to be put on film, the first readers of STUD did not realize how important this meeting was because they had no idea that such an intensive scrutiny of the chronology would follow. As far as they knew, this would be a 'one of'. They didn't know 60 cases would follow. Did we know Harry Potter would be so big when exploring the first book? Or James Bond?

It could probably be argued that this first chapter can never be read by anyone the first time and be judged fairly for that first reading anymore. Let's face it, it will indeed be rare for someone to discover Sherlock Holmes with out having met him somewhere else first.

I know I didn't.
I first met Holmes as played by Rathbone. And then again only many years later sitting in an old logging camp in Maine around the fire. But even then I knew Holmes and Watson pretty well before I read the book. And this most important introduction was not included.

Can we revel in the importance of this chapter without taking it as part of the whole?

I argue we can only do that after we know what the whole is, or at least most of the sixty stories.
It is in "Playing the Game" that the weight of this chapter really becomes important.
It is the starting point of all that follows. And what a great start it is.

But it is now hard to imagine this meeting for the first time. My head is already filled with all I know about the two men.
Benedict Cumberbatch's image is standing at the table in the laboratory ( I think he would have been great in a traditional meeting of the two). (And yes, I would have loved to see him do this chapter in a period correct presentation.)
Perhaps the best way we can look at this chapter now is as if it where the pilot episode of an upcoming TV show. Networks know they have to come up with something that really grabs our attention and makes us want to come back. Would this 'episode' have made you want to come back?

And even that isn't fair to readers past because we know, as with most pilots, that at least several more episode's are going to follow. Readers of STUD did not know if that was going to happen or not.

I think, if done as an episode to an upcoming season,  STUD carries enough dramatic weight to warrant visiting the new show again next week.
Did readers in 1887 become so intrigued by these two characters that they hoped 'the season' would continue with new 'episodes'? Was there fan speculation about what was going to happen next?
I don't know.
I don't believe it had the same bang as the first episode of, oh, so many years ago now,'Sherlock'.

I don't know that I agree with Brad's placing this chapter in June, I have to do more research on that.
Watson does give the impression when he says, "It is upon the 4th of March, as I have good reason to remember. . . .", that he had only been with Holmes for a few weeks or at the most a few months when he sits down to write what would be in chapter two. And when Watson is usually that specific, I tend to take him at his word.

No, I can't imagine reading this chapter, again, for the very first time and getting out of it what I do now.
But I am okay with that for the very same reason I don't recommend new readers reading the books in any annotated version for the first time; The discovery that is Holmes and Watson needs to come slowly and be enjoyed. It is only by going over and over these stories with what we learn from our own 'research' and the research of others that we begin to form a solid, for ourselves, image of these two.

And that's why I am enjoying Brad's reading suggestions so much. It makes me reread them and come up some thing I believe worthy of the discussion.

Thanks Brad.

Just in from Huff Post

Clay Farris Naff Become a fan 

Sherlock Holmes Versus God Almighty: Who Is More Real? The Multiverse Says Go With the Gumshoe

All stories are true.

On its face, this is a preposterous statement. By definition fiction is false. The tourists who for decades sought out 221B Baker Street in hopes of glimpsing Sherlock Holmes were barking up an imaginary tree after fictional prey: neither the address nor the sleuth existed. Since then, the address has come into existence as the Sherlock Holmes Museum and the story has been updated, but the man remains a myth. Benedict Cumberbatch only plays Holmes. There is no such person. The lawyer's familiar disclaimer, "Any resemblance to real persons, living or dead, is purely coincidental," guarantees it. Right?

Well, as physicist Sean Carroll likes to remind us, we live in a preposterous universe. If, as many cosmologists now argue, we occupy a dot in an endless multiverse, then all stories that can be true must be true. Somewhere out there, the real Sherlock pursues the real Moriarty. Somewhere out there Dudley Do-Right rescues Nell. Somewhere, Huck Finn and Jim really are drifting down the big river.

How can that be the case? As it appears, lots of ways. If the Totalitarian Principle holds, it cannot be otherwise. That principle of quantum mechanics, enunciated by Nobel laureate physicist Murray Gell-Mann, tells us "Everything not forbidden is compulsory."

In Our Mathematical Universe, physicist Max Tegmark points out that if the universe simply goes on forever, then just as a deck of cards endlessly shuffled and dealt will produce every possible hand, we must expect to find every possible combination of particles, including arrangements called Sherlock, Dudley, and Huck.

But Tegmark adds that the same result arrives if eternal inflation proves true. Inflation, the fantastically rapid swelling of the universe after the Big Bang, followed by a much slower local expansion, is the best explanation we have for the observable bubble around us. It, too, yields endless bubbles of every variety.

Brian Greene, in his book The Hidden Reality, concurs. Like Tegmark, he admits that multiverse ideas, though mathematically sound, are speculative. But Greene points with confidence to yet another route to everythingness: the Many Worlds understanding of quantum mechanics. In contrast to the multiverse, quantum weirdness is observable and undeniable. But explaining what goes on when a particle drops out of superposition has been, to say the least, a challenge.

Many Worlds is now the most widely accepted explanation -- among physicists, anyway. For the rest of us it is a jaw-dropping, "say whut, now?" kind of story. Quantum mechanics tells us that when a particle such as an electron decoheres out of the vagaries of superposition it could be anywhere -- though it is more likely to be "here" rather than "there."

Many Worlds tells us that what happens is the Universe, complete with a copy of you, me, and the electron, splits into many copies with outcomes proportional to the odds regarding "here" and "there." Most of the time you end up in the copy with high odds. Once in awhile you get a surprise. Seen from "above", everything happens. Including "fiction."

Well, not all fiction. Stories of the impossible -- say, Noah's flood or Harry Potter -- don't happen anywhere. Or do they? Tegmark and others encourage us to think about yet more universes, ones where the laws of physics themselves vary. Hah, you say. When pigs fly!

But why not? An endless multiverse need not have uniform laws. If the rules that govern the behavior of everything can take every possible form, then what's left on the forbidden list?

Mount your brooms! Bring on the flying pigs! Expecto Patronum!

Curiously, though, something is excluded. It comes not from science but from religion. That something is God. Traditional theism holds that God is supremely perfect in three ways: power, knowledge, and goodness.

A longstanding objection to this claim is the Problem of Evil. How, it asks, can a perfect being allow evil to exist? A body of apologetics devoted to staving off the Problem of Evil has followed, with answers that range from blaming Eve to disputing the existence of a best of all possible worlds.

In the teeth of an infinite multiverse, all these defenses collapse. A God who allows everything to happen makes no choices at all, and therefore cannot be a theistic God in any meaningful sense. At most, he can be a Creator, but that's hardly better. If all outcomes are realized, then there's no difference between a personal creator and an impersonal creative force.

This realization makes a paradox of the biblical claim "with God, all things are possible." If that dismays you, here are some comforting thoughts. Consider: if the more radical of multiverse scenarios is true, then somewhere must be a happy place called heaven where, the moment your earthly consciousness comes to an end, an identical copy of it will continue to exist. Sadly, however, the same must be true for an unpleasant place called hell.

Greater comfort, I think, is to be found in the realization that infinity is as problematic for science as it is for religion. Much as an infinitely perfect God leads to logical clashes with reality, an infinite multiverse bedevils attempts to apply tools such as probabilities to our understanding of the world. If everyone who buys a lottery ticket is a winner in some universe, why don't we all feel like winners? All those copies, including the one with the winning ticket, are genuinely us. What does it mean to hew to the average in an infinity of outcomes?

Of course, the world may be preposterous. Perhaps, like infinities, ultimate answers are unattainable or meaningless. But it's also possible that a more modest, elegant, and satisfying penultimate answer exists. The only way to know is to have faith in the future and to move ahead with an open-minded, rigorous search for as much of the truth as can be grasped -- the search we call science.

Credit where credit is due.

Big change at Gillette to Brett IV - but not a (to)big disappointment.

As word spreads today that the special guest, Mark Gatiss, will not be attending this years convention after all, I am sure we will hear some moans of disappointment, as we should. It would have been great fun to hear what he had to say and have had, perhaps a chance to meet him.

But with that said. . .

Don't let his inability to attend this year in anyway make you reconsider going.
The 'From Gillette to Brett' conventions are always great fun and the variety of speakers and guests always make it worth the drive.

I am still very much looking forward to it and hope to make new Sherlockian friends and catch up with old ones.

See ya there!

Where is on your Sherlock Holmes 'bucket list'?

Well?
Where would it be?
Reichenbach Falls?

Simpson's-on-the-Strand?

Dartmoor and the Hound?

Baker Street?

The Criterion (no longer as it appeared in Watson's day)?

Or, if you have a fear of flight, would you rather go somewhere closer to home like Holmes Peak in Oklahoma?

Where is on your Holmes 'bucket list'?

Brad's summer reading list #11 - Black Peter (BLAC) - Sherlockain pinterest

I love Black Peter! I don't know if that is akin to loving 'spotted dick' or what, but it is one of my favorites.
As well it should be.
It is the namesake story of the first scion I belonged (and still belong) to, The Harpooners of the Sea Unicorn. Taking a reference from BLAC and the building of missiles at then MacDonald Douglas in St. Charles. (We even had a fake harpoon the the most recent member to commit a Sherlockian faux pas had to carry throughout the meeting.)
Which meant we did a presentation on the story each year on the anniversary of our group.
So I have been over it a lot.
I even did a large painting of this F.D.S. illustration that we could hang at our meetings and events. It is one of my favorite F.D.S. illustrations.
So, needless to say, I have attended the inquiry into the death of Peter Carey many times.
But, like with most of the Canon, you can always walk away with something new.

And with the line; "I have never known my friend to be in better form, both mental and physical, than in the year ‘95. His increasing fame had brought with it an immense practice, and I should be guilty of an indiscretion if I were even to hint at the identity of some of the illustrious clients who crossed our humble threshold in Baker Street."
the date 1895 is firmly planted in the minds of readers as the date the will always be associated with Holmes and his time in Victorian history.

 ". . .  Here, though the world explode, these two survive,

And it is always eighteen ninety-five." V.S.

But arguably we would have to examine the four to six stories (depending on the chronology you follow) collected from 1895 in the canon to see how they hold up as favorites and to see if this was indeed Holmes at his best.

Several other years contain more documented cases. And none were actually published in 1895 to my knowledge.

1887, 88, and 89 all have many more documented cases than 1895.

But even with all that said, there are still some great things to explore in BLAC. Once again we find our adventure starting in Baker Street. Only Holmes and Watson are both present at the start of the case. And once again Scotland Yard is in need of Holmes' help.

Like so many we have been reviewing for Brad's summer reading list, the case again takes Holmes and Watson out of London to the more rural environs.

And again, as mentioned in the last review, the story involves nautical intrigue. And, as also mentioned, another wealthy man who got his gains from nefarious acts while on board a boat. Although we never actually meet Peter Carey, alive or dead, he has to rank up there with the best of the bad guys in the Canon for temper, strength and loathsomeness.

Repeating myself, once again we get some insight into Watson's knowledge of nautical terms and ship board life. It is never mentioned in any of the stories that Watson actually carries a note book with him, In many television and film adaptations we sometimes see Watson making notes at the end of the day, and there are a few Canonical references to back that up. But most of Watson's writings are done from memory, even his note taking. But to get the nautical references so accurate one most have some experience with boats, like the literary agent Doyle did. Or Watson was using a lot of artistic license.

Most of Holmes investigations take place from the confines of Baker St. with the aid of the newspapers and information he can gather from Baker St. The crime scene gives up little that Holmes does not already know.

Again we are teased in this tale of cases we will never read about; The sudden death of Cardinal Tusca and the Wilson the notorious canary-trainer. Oh, how we have speculated about those, especially Wilson, imagining how he could train canaries to commit crimes. Amazing! 

We get to meet Stanley Hopkins and find that he is not all that different the Lestrade other than he know Holmes does something different from the police but really can't get a hold of what that is.

And why was the elder Neligan, then Holmes and Watson, going to Norway. I mean the younger Neligan got the securities back, at least the ones that were left.  Well I guess in July Norway could be nice. Unless the original Neligan is not dead? What's up with that!

I did a presentation once about the difference in Whale and seal harpoons and the individuality of each type of hunt. We have had presentation on the design of steam trawlers, which was the Sea Unicorn. Terms and trades that were so common at the time, but unknown or unfamiliar to us now.

And very few tales have as much atmosphere as BLAC. First of course we have 221b Baker St.                                                                         We have a train ride.                                                                                             We have high adventure on the high sea.                                                     Mansion of dark happenings                                                                           A very grotesque crime scene (more on that in a minute).                   Interesting little room called 'the cabin'.                                                       Holmes and Watson about to embark on another adventure.

Now back to the point about grotesque. I have noticed with the re-reading of our summer reading list that the word grotesque has appeared several times, and not always in places where I would expect it. To me, the death of Peter Carey and the means by which it was carried out, would appear to have been very grotesque. At least me modern use in films and books. But seldom does Watson use the term as we would now. And for good reason. While I usually associated the word with horrible images in horror or action movies, which does apply, that is not the only use or original use of the word. And for a quick reference to the history of use of the word I will quote wikipedia; "    Since at least the 18th century (in French and German as well as English), grotesque has come to be used as a general adjective for the strange, fantastic, ugly, incongruous, unpleasant, or disgusting, and thus is often used to describe weird shapes and distorted forms such as Halloween masks. In art, performance, and literature, grotesque, however, may also refer to something that simultaneously invokes in an audience a feeling of uncomfortable bizarreness as well as empathic pity. More specifically, the grotesque forms on Gothic buildings, when not used as drain-spouts, should not be called gargoyles, but rather referred to simply as grotesques, or chimeras."

And several other sources have referenced about the same.

'Sherlock' Benedict Cumberbatch walking in with the harpoon

was indeed grotesque, as is the bug on our windshield. But several of the times Watson has used the word I questioned it's placement and, as in the case of BLAC, I questioned why it wasn't used there. But now we know.    

So, yea, I really like BLAC. It gives those of us who enjoy  what is now the history part of the stories a lot to think about.]

And that can never be wrong.        

Although it did lack beer.                    

On the trail of Sherlock Holmes , and leading up to today's summer reading list. . . .

The Sherlock Holmes trail. . .

Brad's summer reading list - #10 - Gloria Scott (GLOR) - Not a luxury cruise at all.

There are several good points worth discussing in GLOR.

The one point picked up most of all, usually, is the information that is provided about a younger Sherlock Holmes and his time before Baker St. His college years.
We learn of his studies, or lack there of.
We learn of his interest in the martial skills of boxing and fencing.
We learn that indeed Sherlock did form a friendship, again with a person very much not like himself, and seemingly very much like Watson. (Read Brad's take on this relationship at Sherlock Peoria.)
And we also learn that Sherlock was in tune with the feelings of this friend when we realize that he shorten his vacation because he felt his presences seemed to put a burden on the young master of the house.

But for me the story once again is in the surroundings and not the case.
And with most stories I like to chose some thing within the 'stage props' to focus on.

It is quite evident that Watson (Doyle) was very up on his knowledge of nautical terms and meanings.
We know Watson took at least one long sea voyage, We also know Doyle served on a ship as ships doctor.
And we know both men were astute observers and would have picked up a good deal more knowledge than most.
Several cases of Holmes involve adventures that took place aboard ship, or at least required long sea voyages at one point or another.
The one thing that jumped out for we on the re-reading of GLOR was the words 'picking my salt meat out of the harness cask'. More specifically 'harness cask'.
That's not a phrase you are going to hear on a modern cruise ship, that's for sure.
Imagine if you will, in your work environment, having each meal during your working hours being placed in a large tub in the middle of the work room floor. And it is from this tub you get your food. Most often hard biscuits and salted meat. Then imagine if you will doing this for two years or longer. And said food would not have been in a zip-lock bag. No nice igloo cooler.

The image to the left shows the ships cooper 'coopering' the harness cask.

A ships coopers job was maintaining the barrels used on a ship.

What warrants thinking about here is the conditions of sailors at this time in history. It was a very hard life, with much risk to the individual.

This cask would have been lashed down in some way to prevent it moving or spilling in rough seas.
And there would have been a very specialized knot or hitch for holding that barrel down.

Check out this wonderful book about knots and see how many are no longer used. (and rope is made out of different materials now, so many of these knots are no longer usable. Nylon and hemp do not react the same way, so can not be used in all cases the same way.)

Like the food served to the crew, water would have been obtained the same way, a mutual barrel.

Coopers, like so many other jobs casually described in the Canon are jobs that either no longer exist or are at least rare.

One interesting bit of research I did once, based on a Canonical reference, was how Holmes was able to describe peoples occupations by what they were wearing. A butcher say would wear a different type of apron than say a baker. A sail maker would wear a different type of glove compared to a press operator.

How many modern occupations now a days are recognizable by clothes or uniforms. Some still, but not as many. (Some time, when sitting in a bar at happy hour, make a game with a friend out of trying to figure out what people do by how they are dressed.)

Another interesting thing about the words 'harness-cask' is to wonder how many of our modern terms will be around in fifty or a hundred years. How many readers of our modern mysteries will know the a word, say, like eight track or CD.

Most of us Sherlockians would love to decorate a room in our homes to look like 221b Baker St. with what to us are antiques, but to Watson would have been modern conveniences and decor.

So much about the research into the Canon becomes more than just finding out facts, it becomes a history lesson. And in doing that research for ourselves, we preserve a little bit of knowledge for the next generation.

One other point I would like you to consider is; How many of the wealthy men involved in the cases of Sherlock Holmes gained there wealth after or being involved in some crime?

Seven Degrees of Sherlock Holmes - #57 - Shemp Howard

Known mostly for being a Stooge, Shemp Howard did have a solo career for a while.

Shemp Howard ( 1895-1955)

Starred in 1944's "Crazy Knights"

which also featured boxer/actor Maxie Rosenbloom (1907-1976)

who was also in the film from 1937 called "Nothing Sacred"

which featured Fredric March (1897-1975)

who took part in "Mary of Scotland" (1936)

in which John Carradine (1906-1988) was also featured

and we already know of John Carradine's for his appearance in 1939's "Hound of the Baskervilles"

In honor of the Chester Baskerville Society, and also to Brad's earlier post.

Popeye: 10 things you never knew

Popeye first appeared 85 years ago, in a comic strip by the cartoonist Elzie Segar. Here are 10 unexpected facts about everyone's favourite one-eyed sailor

Three views of the famous cartoon character Popeye Photo: ALAMY/EVERETT COLLECTION/REX

By Rebecca Hawkes

5:03PM BST 01 Jul 2014

10 Comments

1. Popeye and Olive Oyl were real people

Well, they were based on real people. When Elzie Segar introduced Popeye in a 1929 comic strip, he drew his inspiration for the sailor from a character from his hometown of Chester, Illinois – a one-eyed man named Frank 'Rocky' Fiegal. Fiegal, who shared Popeye's fondness for fighting and pipe-smoking, was apparently rather flattered by his link to the cartoon: when he died in 1947, his gravestone was inscribed with the words "inspiration for Popeye." Olive Oyl was based on another of Segar's neighbours – a very tall, slim woman named Dora Paskel, who usually wore her hair in a bun.

^{Dora Paskel, believed to be the inspiration behind Olive Oyl (PICTURE: AP)}

2. He convinced American kids to eat spinach

As all Popeye fans know, whenever the sailor feels in need of some extra strength, he simply downs a tin of spinach, and instantly sprouts bulging biceps. During the Great Depression, a 33% increase in spinach consumption was widely attributed to the character's popularity and his famous fondness for the green stuff. Rather endearingly, spinach was also listed as the third favourite food of American children at the time (after turkey and icecream). However, the cartoon's link between spinach and rapidly expanding muscles actually had its roots in a scientific mistake: due to a misplaced decimal point in an 1870 medical journal, many people in the Thirties believed spinach held 10 times more iron than it really did.

3. He was the first cartoon character to get his very own statue...

...also thanks to the spinach. A full-colour Popeye statue was erected in Crystal City, Texas, in 1937, to celebrate the boost to the region's spinach-growing industry. Meanwhile, earlier this year, billionaire casino tycoon Steve Wynn paid $28 million for a statue of Popeye by the artist Jeff Koons.

4. He didn't always rely on spinach for a boost

In Segar's very early comics, Popeye gained his superhuman strength by patting the head of a magical creature called a whiffle hen. The whiffle hen – known in the comic strip as Bernice – granted good luck to anyone who rubbed her feathers. In one early storyline, Popeye is shot at a casino (presumably not one of Steve Wynn's), and uses Bernice's powers to regain his health.

5. He was originally just an extra

The very first time Popeye appears, in a 1929 newspaper comic strip called Thimble Theatre, he's a sidekick rather than a star. Popeye creator Elzie Segar's stories originally revolved around the lives of Olive Oyl and her extended family (including a brother known as Castor Oyl). However, when the Popeye character was introduced, he proved so popular, Segar was soon forced to make the strip all about him.

^{Bluto, Olive Oyl and Popeye, in one of the early cartoons (PICTURE: ALAMY)}

6. He turned the Empire State Building green

In 2004, the Empire State building was illuminated in green (as in, spinach-green) light to celebrate the 75th birthday of the famous cartoon character.

7. The voice of Popeye ended up marrying the voice of Olive Oyl

Popeye was first turned into a series of short animated films in 1933, with the character making his big-screen debut alongside another famous cartoon, Betty Boop. The films usually saw the sailor compete with the villainous Bluto for the affections of Olive Oyl – Popeye's capricious, usually angry, often unfaithful sweetheart (exactly why Olive Oyl inspired such devotion from one man, let alone two, remains a mystery). From 1935 onwards, Popeye was voiced by the actor Jack Mercer, who went on to voice the character for the next 40 years. Between 1938 and 1942, Mercer was also married to Margie Hynes, who provided the voice of Olive Oyl.

8. He gave us the word "wimp"

In the original Popeye comic strips, Segar introduced a cowardly, overweight, hamburger-loving character named J. Wellington Wimpy (reputedly based on one of Segar's former bosses). The character later inspired both the insult "a wimp", and the restaraunt chain, Wimpy's.

9. He has his own themepark

In 1980, Robert Altman released Popeye, a live-action film adaptation of the Popeye cartoons, which starred Robin Williams as the sailor in his first-ever big-screen role. The film was produced in Malta, and, after filming wrapped, the set was turned into a tourist attraction, known as Popeye Village. Visitors to Popeye Village can experience rides, shows, a Popeye museum, and, rather appropriately, a boat trip.

10. The famous Popeye themetune is based on Gilbert and Sullivan

The Popeye the Sailor Man tune, which accompanied the original cartoons, was composed by the Romanian-born US songwriter, Sammy Lerner. Impressively, it took him less than two hours to devise the song. The melody is loosely based on the opening lines of the "I am a Pirate King" song from Gilbert and Sullivan's 1880 operetta, The Pirates of Penzance.

Sherlock Peoria

Rather well done. . . .

Can be found here.




















The original.