I am not sure how one blogger out there can continually. . .

complain about the membership requirements of the BSI and yet so readily almost pander to another group which states, ". . . are an all-female group of Sherlock Holmes fans dedicated to approaching the fandom from a female point of view, as well as engaging in fun, lively conversations about the canon, film and television adaptations of Arthur Conan Doyle’s work, and associated topics...

Now I am okay with the requirements that both societies have set. If you want to be in an all female group that doesn't allow males, well that's up to you.
But if you want to be a member of another group that also limits it's membership for what ever reasons it chooses, that's fine also.

If you don't like how either one does it, don't support them, or don't accept the invitation to join (or sent back your shilling, get the divorce).

If said bloggers goes along with the saying "all Sherlockiana is good Sherlockiana", well lets just say he would have half as many posts.

Once again the BSI is in someones crosshairs.

It always astounds me when a group that is so hated by a certain individual is always be taken to task by that same individual.

My family once had a friend, my brother's friend, who always liked to compare England to just about every place else, usually trying to get to my very English dad.
"Well England may have done this, but such-n-such did this, which seemed better than anything England could have done.."

I would never participate in these discussions cause I never could get the point, except maybe to make one's self look better. I always had more respect for the more humble people who didn't seem to need to make someone else look bad for them to look good.

A certain Illinois blogger is once again making noise about the BSI, and just like his constant complaint about 'Elementary' I have to think; "If you think so little of it, why do you spend so much time trying to pull it down or make it look bad?"

In the case of the BSI, why doesn't he just turn in his investiture and prove to everyone that he doesn't think it is so important. Or better yet, if you do like it, but want to change things. . .  GET INVOLVED!

Another non-inclusive society has also started taking aim at the BSI because they didn't agree with an editing decision.

Most of us realize that for whatever reason we will never get invited into the BSI. Sad, but true.
But most of also realize that that is because we are not all that great at writing a very scholarly paper.
Try as I may, I am not deft enough with the pen to make that leap.

Oh, well. He got his recognition, and I guess he thinks that puts him above the rest of us and that we may all think more about his opinion.

Well, Illinois is cold this winter, but what can you expect.

BSI and their journal are in hot water again.

Yea, here we go again.
The BSI is in hot water again. Or more specifically the Baker St. Journal.
That's because they didn't print a piece by Lyndsay Faye. And to be fair, she did write a very good piece.
But the Baker St. Babes didn't like the fact that the BSJ didn't publish it.
They gave it good reviews, matter-of-fact, a great review. They said she did a great job. But thought it too 'Timely'. And they have that right.


But I guess the Babes have become so self-absorbed that they think they should have a say in everything and that everyone should listen.

And because the BSJ didn't except this one piece, we go back to the name calling and insulting.
They are, "but apparently there are still ancient pockets filled with dinosaurs".

I bet Lyndsay won't give back her investiture into the BSI. Now that would really convince me she was serious about her stance.

I read her piece. I was very well written. And had some very worthy discussion points. But to compare Holmes behavior in CHAR to Weinsteins behavior is just silly. 

You can argue these points from a playing the game angle or from a 'let's just view this in its context' angle.

If you don't think the BSI should be held in such high regard, then why do you think it is so important to have your work published there?

Why do you need ancient dinosaurs to approve your work?

Most people like me wish we could write as well as Lyndsay and her crew. And a lot of those writers are already riding on the coat tales of someone else's creation. 

Give it a break.

Rest on your own laurels and don't worry about what the BSJ thinks. Even when they say nice things about you.

How do you feel about the Baker Street Irregulars?

No, not the ones in the Canon of Sherlock Holmes, but the ones based in New York.

To most new Sherlockians, if they have heard of them at all, the BSI is sort of the governing body of all things society-wise and scholarly in the American world of Sherlock Holmes. You are lead to believe, and not necessarily by them, that your society is not really a viable club unless it is recognized as a scion of the BSI.
All of us now know that we can have just as much fun with Holmes without such recognition.
The recognition doesn't really get your club anything other than maybe passing the knowledge of your existence onto other subscribers to their august journal. That possibility was more important before the advent of the world wide web. And to be fair, it did act as the conduit of information.

Probably to most serious Sherlockians (and you can decide what serious means) to be recognized and invited to join the BSI is almost akin to getting a PHD in Sherlock Holmes from an American Ivy League college (even if it is just an honorary degree). To be recognized by your peers as being knowledgeable and equal. Who doesn't at some times find that important.

At some point in most Sherlockians Sherlockian lives we hope that is an obtainable goal someday.

Most of the time the quest for this goal is encouraged by older Sherlockians who found that to be a notable achievement to obtain. (Yes, some of them would of course have been members.)
Some people, usually the ones more suited to scholarly and written works, spend a lot of worthwhile effort trying to achieve that goal. Sometimes making it, and sometimes not.
Others hope that the recognition can come for some other form of Sherlockian contribution. (That is where the path would lay for yours truly).

As the years go by, for many, the interest in that lofty achievement wains. We no longer have the time or desire to continue that pursuit, or we don't really understand what it would take to get invited.

And than we realize we are having fun anyway.

I don't really have any problems with the BSI. If the people involved with it like it, find it important to them and it is maintaining the goals and standards they enjoy, I think it is great. Not every thing has to be for everyone.
I don't know the history of the BSI that well. I don't know if how it is now is the way Morley would have liked it. But it is no longer his to run, is it?
The BSI has to decide for itself if maintaining the way it is now is achieving it's goals or if they need to change.
Like many scion societies now, it may be having trouble keeping up in a more tech savvy world where clubs and organizational structures are different. But then again, it may not be having that problem.

Sure, I would love to be recognized by the BSI for something note worthy I do in the world of Sherlock Holmes (which is never going to be of the scholarly nature), after all, they are my more knowledgeable peers.
But, even though I give it a try every once in a while, to be honest, the Baker Street Journal is usually way over me head.
But then again, I enjoy just as much being recognized by The John W. Watson Society and by readers that follow this blog.

Should Oscars by important to actors?

The roll of the BSI has really changed in the last twenty years now that everyone can self-publish just about anything they want on Sherlock Holmes.

But why should the BSI change if it is working for them and those involved. They are after all not doing anything any different than some more modern groups. And the structure of the society may suit (most) of it's members just fine.
The level of that importance we must weigh for ourselves.
Will the Bakers Street Babes ever have a male member? And should they?

I'm Baaaaack! and not a moment to soon. . .

. . . . and will be catching up with Brad's summer reading list here shortly.
But in the mean time. . .

While posting on my Loghead blog page about one of my favorite summer beverages, The Shandy, I came across an unlikely Sherlockian connection.
I always love when I find some connection between Sherlock Holmes and beer, and have many times made that the theme of my presentations.

This time the connection comes from Mr. BSI himself ( no, not Brad ) Mr. Christopher Morley;

In a 1918 compendium of essays collected, appropriately enough, under the title Shandygaff, the American novelist and poet Christopher Morley wrote, "[It's] a very refreshing drink…commonly drunk by the lower classes in England, and by…newspaper men, journalists, and prizefighters."  source

And I fit perfectly into his described demographic.

It is quite common to order one in a pub in the UK and not get any raised eye-brows.

Over here in the US, my family has been responsible for teaching many bartenders our recipe.

There are several breweries over here in the US that now bottle a summer brew called the Shandy.

Cheers.

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?

Which one are you, where do you fit in?

As with anything, we usually categorize our place in what we do and the things we enjoy and hope are good at.

Whether it is a hobby, a skill or a job, we rank somewhere. It may be a self ranking, or it may be placed on us by someone else. We may place ourselves in the same place that other people place us, or we may place ourselves higher in rank or lower.

In sports we have different rankings by how big your school is, or by region. We also have amateur (who's lines are somewhat blurred) and professionals (who are sometimes beaten by armatures.)

Some groups or organizations have set up lists of standards that determine where we stand in certain rankings within said group.

Some groups just decide whether or not we are ready for whatever rankings they have determined qualify us to be part of their group, and may even change their system to exclude individuals.

There may be one group that participates in something you like that thinks you deserve a very high ranking in their eyes, while just around the corner another group participating in the same, may think you deserve lower.

Unless it is a mathematical equation deciding the ranking, it's mostly just a point of view.

But, none-the-less, we as humans participate voluntarily in some sort of ranking system whether we realize it or not.

Sherlockians have lots of rankings, and can usually be pretty vocal about it, especially if someones ranking system differs from their own. We rank our favorite stories. We rank chronologies. We rank what makes good scholarship and what makes bad. We even rank what counts as Sherlockian scholarship. Some of us can even get offended if the ones doing some of the rankings don't see our work fit to be included.

It's all a matter of context.

But let's play anyway and see where we set ourselves.

This is by no means anything more than fun and my opinion, which is apt to change whenever someone else presents a point I like better than my own.

For most Sherlockian observers, the highest Sherlockian or Holmesian ranking, or recognition, most would agree would be being accepted and invited to join a group like the Baker Street Irregulars. I think this would be especially true for anyone who has a more scholarly interest in the Canon of Sherlock Holmes.

But even up at these lofty heights can be found even more seemly hard to obtain heights. 

Here would be the purists, the ones who consider the works of Doyle and the study of Holmes only possible at a literary level. How the works hold up as literature. No 'Playing the game' for them. The books are all about the content and how it applies to Doyle. 

I don't think I know any of these. At a scholastic level, they are way above me. I dangle way to many participles and use way to many comas to travel in that rarefied air. My hat is off to them however. They keep the works pure and true and are a wonderful back bone to all of us who travel near by.

Just below them can possibly be found the Sherlockian/Doylean Purists.  These are the ones who have made there name in the world of Sherlock Holmes by Playing the Game. But playing the game only as far as facts that can be proven. No speculation. Just the facts, man, no filling in the blanks. 

Just below them could be the Sherlockians who are willing to speculate a little more about details not completely factual. This perhaps would be the most populace group. They would perhaps suggest that if we can find enough clues close enough to our theories then perhaps we must be right or it could be so. But to be on this level you must have a talent for presenting things in a scholarly manner. (Separating the wheat from the chaff as it were.)

This group would probably be the harshest on people who don't see eye to eye with them.

And of perhaps equal but different ranking are the Sherlockians who have found a scholarly why to explore the world of Sherlock Holmes in other media besides the books, yet are recognized as authorities, enough so as to get them invite to join the BSI or like minded group.

Also in this group would be those who have been recognized for contributing in some other why to the world of Sherlock Holmes or Doyle that sets them apart from others, i.e actors, politicians, etc.

At this point our ranks starting falling out of the ranks of groups like the BSI.

Next we find the group that aspires to make it to the BSI. These are the ones hoping some day to prove they have what it takes. They run scion societies. They start other scholarly groups. They organize major events.

They collect rooms full of books and memorabilia. ( I think many of us fall near this group, even if we won't admit it.  ??) They can be at it for years and still never make it. Many find their energy is well spent, eventually.

Just below this group would be probably the largest single group, (well at least till Benedict Cumberbatch came along) and that would be those who are really involved in the world of Doyle and Holmes, but on a more local level. They are content in the world they participate in and don't wish to achieve loftier heights, so to speak. Or know their own limitations. They enjoy Playing the Game for the games sake, in a social no-expectation atmosphere. 

They can even have their own levels within their groups. Some Playing the Game a little purer than others. Some willing to accept all things Holmesian, while others have their limits. Some are flamboyant in their participation, while others reserved. (I think I place myself mostly here.)

Next would be, perhaps, the group that is now being called 'fans'. The ones who have come along recently on the tails of the RDJ movies or the popularity of 'Sherlock'.  They are only in it for what their chosen source material suggests. Many, hopefully will move beyond this level and start realizing the real works of Holmes and Watson. But if they don't, that's OK also.

I must admit, I am not sure where I would place cos-play Sherlockians, I am to unfamiliar with them.

This is rather a simplified investigation of Sherlockian levels, and within each one, they can be broken down even more.

Let me know your thoughts and I may yet add more.

Whatever level you place yourself at, I hope you are having a lot of fun with it.

Tour de Hound - Chapter four - Snarky tour guides and lots of fun stuff.

It is a shame that our tour had to take a detour down Mean Street to find it's way back to Baker St., but even tour guides can have several bad days a month.

When I first read the Hound many (many, many) years ago I was unaware of scion societies and 'Playing the Game'.
How fun it would be to go back and read this story again for the first time and 'Play the Game' and look for clues and try to figure it out as we walk along with Holmes and Watson. That is one thing societies can offer new members. When I meet new Sherlockians I like to suggest they read the stories the first time without the aid of reference books like Barring-Gould and Klinger or even the fun book 'Sherlock Holmes for Dummies' (Hey, B.K., maybe that should be the hand book for us 'Elementary' fans!), suggesting that they try to look for clues and take in the tale without any outside influence. Sure they come up with lots of stuff many of us long time Sherlockians have already covered, but to see them discover it for the first time is such a trill. And, not as rarely as it might seem, they often come up with some new thoughts for us to consider.

The Hound abounds with discussion points and chapter four is no exception.
We find towards the end of the chapter that there were perhaps as many as 23 hotels near Charing Cross.
I don't know what the density is now a days, but I find that remarkable.
Discussion points; how many actual hotels were in that area, and what were some of the names, and are any still around. We now know Northumberland Hotel was, and is still there, and is the home of the Sherlock Holmes Pub. But what was the actual number and how many are there now.

Another discussion point; just today I got on google maps and tried to follow the route Sir Henry and Dr. Mortimer could have taken back to the Northtumberland using the streets Watson records.
Touching on Oxford and Regents and going through Charing Cross it would have been approximately two and one half miles. I have walked much of that, and you can really get a feel for the period.
(Simpson's on the Strand is only about a half a mile further, you have to go there for roast beef!)

Another great discussion point, and working for the post office something I find very interesting, is how reliable and often the post (mail) is delivered.
We are told that the letter to Sir Henry was posted the evening before from Charing Cross.
In most large cities in the US, if you post something the evening before it could possibly make local delivery the next day. But in Hound we are also told that the letter probably would have still found Sir Henry even if it had been sent out early the same morning. A few years ago that could have still happened in a small US post office for local delivery, but those days are gone.
Not to many years ago England still had twice or three time daily mail delivery, I don't know if they still do. But even three times a day would probably seem like poor service to many Victorian Londoners.
This wonderful piece in The New York Times explains the British Mail service at the time, suggesting the mail service happened sometimes twelve times a day. (I had one mail route I use to have to walk eight miles a day just to make the rounds once,. . let's see? . . times twelve. . . .?)
Just think about how many times Holmes uses the post in the Canon.

Again, this part of the Hound was not handled well in the Brett series. Again, also, it would be fun to see Cumberbatch and Freeman deliver the tale, even in modern times, as it is written in the Canon.

Let me know some discussion points you found interesting in Chapter Four.
And let's get together again for Chapter Five.

P.S. Sherlock Holmes did not carry 23 shillings around in his pocket (nor 56 for that matter), he asked Wilson for change.

Maybe we can stop by a pub between chapters and get our tour guide in a better frame of mind.

The Baker Street Journal

I am an off-again-on-again subscriber to the BSJ.
And, really, not through any fault of the Journal itself.
Most of the time I find, for me, the writings tend to be a little to academic for my interests. Again, more to do with my personality than the writings or writers themselves.
I have a rather short attention span when it comes to details and higher learning, and if there are more than a couple words with more than three syllables, I get a little over-whelmed.

With that said, however, there have been times when I have followed it faithfully, getting it in the mail for several years at a time.

I have just ended a dry spell where I have not received it for a while, and have just started to read my first issue of this year. (Pictured to the left, with an illustration by one of my favorites, F.D Steele on the cover.)

I was inspired to start getting it again when Alistair Duncan mentioned on his blog (one I follow) that an article by him would appear in the summer issue. So that was the first one I read. Titled, 'The Changing face of the Sherlockian.'

A very timely piece with all the discussion of late. Much along the same lines as my thoughts on the subject. Well informed and thoughtful. The piece was fun to read.

I have only read a couple other writings in this issue of the Journal so far, but plan on reading the rest today.

I always look forward to the cartoons and humor the most (what does that say about me).

And I am glad to see the Journal has not drawn any lines in the sand taking sides, one way or the other, in the ACD estate debate.

I also like the fact the the cover changes, it seems, a little each time now.

Baker Street Journal.

Here is a Collier's cover art of 'The Last Bow' and more of Steele's works.

I think we may have visited this theme before, but it is worth repeating. . . .

The Best Sherlock Holmes Stories

Sherlockians from around the world selected the best Sherlock Holmes stories in the largest and most comprehensive survey on the topic ever conducted.  Experts chose the top 12 short stories and ranked the four long tales.  My Baker Street Journal article provides a detailed analysis and the following results:

Ranking the Holmes Novels

Story	Points	Rating
1. The Hound of the Baskervilles (179)	880	100
2. The Sign of the Four (24)	602	68
3. A Study in Scarlet (23)	535	61
4. The Valley of Fear (17)	413	47

The Top 12 Holmes Short Stories

Story	Points	Rating
1. "The Speckled Band" (50)	1,713	100
2. "The Red-Headed League" (40)	1,668	97
3. "A Scandal in Bohemia" (37)	1,468	86
4. "Silver Blaze" (23)	1,332	78
5. "The Blue Carbuncle" (20)	1,282	75
6. "The Musgrave Ritual" (14)	1,013	59
7. "The Final Problem" (9)	880	51
8. "The Empty House" (2)	791	46
9. "The Dancing Men" (3)	766	45
10. "The Six Napoleons" (4)	715	42
11. "The Bruce-Partington Plans" (6)	696	41
12. "The Man with the Twisted Lip" (4)	463	27

Credit where credit is due.