Friday, April 17, 2020
Monday, April 13, 2020
The Problem of Thor Bridge
The next meeting of the Harpooners of the Sea Unicorn, whether it be an attended meeting at our local meeting place or another online, the discussion will be about THOR.
I just reread the story and found it to be one of my favorites, again.
Much has been discussed over the years about THOR, including the condition that caused the victim to kill herself.
The line that jumped out at me in this reading was;
"I produced it from my hip-pocket, a short, handy, but very serviceable little weapon. "
Much discussion has been centered around the weapon or weapons Holmes and Watson may have carried, starting with the very first story when Watson said; '"I keep a bull pup."
Many agree that Watson probably also had a service revolver from his military days which probably would have been larger than the 'bull pup', (if you believe he meant a gun by that statement) and probably, in my opinion, not the one carried in THOR.
Below are a couple of links of other people thoughts on weapons in the Canon. Enjoy.
http://coastconfan.blogspot.com/2014/08/john-hamish-watson-md-or-mystery-of.html
https://simanaitissays.com/2015/05/15/firearms-of-the-holmesian-canon/
https://forums.gunboards.com/showthread.php?281503-Dr-Watson-s-quot-Service-Revolver-quot-in-Sherlock-Holmes-Books
Friday, April 10, 2020
Trusting Watson . . . . .
As I mentioned in the previous post, I had a discussion with another Facebooker and he made a comment about never really trusting Watson.
I found that pretty strange, especially, Playing the Game.
If you don't 'trust' Watson, at what point do you start in your study of the Canon.
That is not to say Watson, intentionally or unintentionally never made errors or mistakes.
But to not trust him, to me, almost makes Playing the Game pointless.
Because at that point you really can't believe anything in the Canon is a reliable place to start.
Not trusting Watson means; Can you really believe he was in Afghanistan and wounded while there?
You have to have somewhere to start, and for me, that is Watsons word.
So much is already questioned in the Canon for probability, possibility and reliability, but we have to hold somethings a true to have a point of reference.
One way I like to look at the Canon of Sherlock Holmes is kind of like looking at the stories written by James Herriot. The Yorkshire Vet how wrote the wonderful tales of his treating animals in Yorkshire from the late 30's through the 70's.
While we know names and places were changed in the books, and some dramatic license was taken to make the tales more readable, we know that the tales were based on his experiences.
We also know Watson changed names and dates and places to protect individuals within the cases.
We know that even Holmes thought his good friend often embellished the cases a little more than Holmes would have liked. But perhaps he had to do that to make it more readable for the masses.
But enough research has been done to show, also, how accurate much of Watsons writing really was.
Watson is known as the stalwart companion of the pair. And stalwart means reliable and loyal, and I would add the word trustworthy to his personality.
What do you think; Was Watson worth our trust?
I found that pretty strange, especially, Playing the Game.
If you don't 'trust' Watson, at what point do you start in your study of the Canon.
That is not to say Watson, intentionally or unintentionally never made errors or mistakes.
But to not trust him, to me, almost makes Playing the Game pointless.
Because at that point you really can't believe anything in the Canon is a reliable place to start.
Not trusting Watson means; Can you really believe he was in Afghanistan and wounded while there?
You have to have somewhere to start, and for me, that is Watsons word.
So much is already questioned in the Canon for probability, possibility and reliability, but we have to hold somethings a true to have a point of reference.
One way I like to look at the Canon of Sherlock Holmes is kind of like looking at the stories written by James Herriot. The Yorkshire Vet how wrote the wonderful tales of his treating animals in Yorkshire from the late 30's through the 70's.
While we know names and places were changed in the books, and some dramatic license was taken to make the tales more readable, we know that the tales were based on his experiences.
We also know Watson changed names and dates and places to protect individuals within the cases.
We know that even Holmes thought his good friend often embellished the cases a little more than Holmes would have liked. But perhaps he had to do that to make it more readable for the masses.
But enough research has been done to show, also, how accurate much of Watsons writing really was.
Watson is known as the stalwart companion of the pair. And stalwart means reliable and loyal, and I would add the word trustworthy to his personality.
What do you think; Was Watson worth our trust?
Started an interesting discussion with someone on Facebook yesterday.. . .
It was based on paper written by J.T. Crammond for a meeting of the Parallel Case of St Louis scion society.
Mr. Crammond's paper was titled 'Can we trust the Canon?' Of course it was done as Playing the Game.
While his paper is not the discussion here, someone falling the meeting on Facebook stated that 'he' never trusted Watson. His statement was, "John, I've always been of the opinion that you cannot trust Watson. However, I've never really considered it when it comes to The Canon itself."
To me that statement doesn't seem possible how can you, One; not trust Watson. Two; if you don't or do, how can you have either without the context of the Canon.
We went back and forth a little on this without him really backing up his comment, but in the end he suggested that a back and forth reply on Facebook was not the venue he wanted to explore the topic.
I look forward to him following it up somewhere else.
What are your thoughts? Do you 'trust' Watson?
I will fill in my thoughts latter in the day.
Let me know yours.
Mr. Crammond's paper was titled 'Can we trust the Canon?' Of course it was done as Playing the Game.
While his paper is not the discussion here, someone falling the meeting on Facebook stated that 'he' never trusted Watson. His statement was, "John, I've always been of the opinion that you cannot trust Watson. However, I've never really considered it when it comes to The Canon itself."
To me that statement doesn't seem possible how can you, One; not trust Watson. Two; if you don't or do, how can you have either without the context of the Canon.
We went back and forth a little on this without him really backing up his comment, but in the end he suggested that a back and forth reply on Facebook was not the venue he wanted to explore the topic.
I look forward to him following it up somewhere else.
What are your thoughts? Do you 'trust' Watson?
I will fill in my thoughts latter in the day.
Let me know yours.
Thursday, April 2, 2020
Well we made it, or first complete online meeting.
I think because we posted it on our facebook page we had a couple of really nasty and inappropriate people who showed up, who had nothing better to do with their time than cause problems.
Our host quickly cancelled our meeting and regrouped and sent out one by invitation only.
We had ten people at the 'meeting' about 3GAR.
I am looking forward to the next one.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)