If my mind had anything to say about it - an essay

Which actor best portrays Sherlock Holmes? Stating the obvious, that depends on who you ask. And until science makes it possible for us to clone parts from all our favorites, it will probably always remain so. And even then, we would probably all pick different parts. (And we could let the BSB's have first pick of some of the left overs, if you know what I mean.)

On a recent post, James made a comment about Brett that I found rather interesting.

He said,"The problem with Brett is great performance calls attention to itself." and he added, and I am not sure if this was about his Brett comment, or all Sherlockian actors, "It is rare that I feel like I am watching Holmes. Most of the time I feel like I am watching an actor make interesting choices in how to interpret Doyle's character."

And as with many of James comments, it got me thinking. ( I know, . . but I'll be alright).

Our minds are such that when we read a book, any book, we form images of what is written. Whether it is dialog or scene description, some parts of what we have seen some where else starts filling in those descriptive words. Many sort of images form those pictures. Illustrations we have seen. Photos. Things we have experienced in the real world. Even if the book is a mundane mathematical book, well at least mundane to me (and usually way over my head), we form some picture in our mind as to how it would appear if it were presented to us, not in written form, but as if it were in front of us. Whether that math problem be displayed  on a caulk board, computer screen or tablet, or piece of paper, our mind picks some way to display it to form an image unlike how anyone else would display it and one we are comfortable and perhaps familiar with.

Surely, again maybe stating the obvious, the same should be said for Sherlock Holmes. 

For many of the early readers who first experienced Holmes from early illustrations by likes D.H.Friston or Sidney Paget, those drawing played a big part in how they saw Holmes.

For Americans we could also add F.D. Steele to that list of image makers.

And than along came actors portraying Holmes on stage and screen and for the next hundred plus years we have had many images to chose from. And depending on who you saw first, or who had the greatest impact or presence we all end up with 'our' image of Holmes.

And for the most part, no matter who we accept, none of them are quite perfect. Everyone one of them have something that is just not quite Holmes. Except, maybe, Brett. Just my opinion.

Let me explain, please.

My first Holmes was Rathbone, and still is one of my favorites. The only thing that spoils Rathbone for me, is the material he had to work with and the Watson they gave him. As with Brett, there probably is a big crowd of people out there that wishes, somewhere in time, that both Brett and Rathbone are being allowed to do a complete series of all the canonical stories, just the way they were written.

I have not seen all the Rathbone Holmes movies. Like James, I like my Holmes in Victorian England. So I have never been comfortable watching him chase Nazi's. I don't want Holmes, until very late in his life, to be driven around in a car.

But with that said, Rathbone had a strong enough presence for me to fill, for many years, my minds image of Holmes when I read the stories. And still competes with Brett, sometimes winning, for that roll still.

But Brett for me was the first actor that made me take a look at the kindness and humor that could be Sherlock Holmes. And his portrayal  even made me notice it more in the books, or at least chose to interpret it that way.

What I found interesting about James' comments, "The problem with Brett is great performance calls attention to itself.", is that I had never looked at it that way, and I can now see why he feels like that.

To say the least, Brett could at any time be reserved as Holmes or flamboyant, all within the same scene.

He could be mocking and uninterested. But behind it all, I always sensed a little twinkle in his eye, suggesting, as Holmes, he knew the effect he (Holmes) was having on people around him.

Addressing James' comment, I think Bretts performance of Holmes was one of the first times we saw a really animated Holmes. A Holmes personality that was acted out, and not just a personality described on a page.

I think in other actors we saw a possibility of that, but never a complete creation.

There have been other actors who I have enjoyed in Holmes shows or movies, but none of the others have taken over, for me, the image that plays when I read the books. And I think that is how a performance, portrayal or image should be judged. When you read the stories, who comes to mind? Is it a Paget or Steele drawing, or is it some actor? Or have you created someone completely yours?

RDJ, although a great actor, I don't think will form many peoples mental image of Holmes. (Although Law will probably be debated about as Watson, for good reason.)

Same goes for Jonny Lee Miller. As much as I am having fun with 'Elementary' and Playing the Game, Miller will never be Holmes.

We could also argue about how good Peter Cushing was for many years as Holmes..

I love Benedict Cumberbatch as Sherlock, but wonder, and fear, if the writing, the time period, the slapstick, and the irreverence will only leave him represented as 'Sherlock' and not Sherlock Holmes. And since we will never see him in a period Holmes piece, we may never know. (And I love all his other work also, so as not to be seen as picking on 'Sherlock')

Time has probably eroded many great former Holmes actors from filling the modern viewers (readers) image of Holmes, and that is to bad.

But, for now, Brett forms most of my image.

James, who forms, for you, the image of Holmes? Is he any one actor or image you have seen, or is he wholly of your own creation? Which ever it is, I am sure it is great.

And thanks for making me think about it.

Tour de Hound - Chapter #13 - must have been wealthy and Holmes does some name dropping - and I'd love to know where they ate.

Clearing a few things up for Watson and setting the stage for the final curtain call.
Between the portraits and Mrs, Laura Lyon's, Holmes finally gets the last clues he needs to set the stage for catching Stapleton. (And why does everyone have so much sympathy for Mrs. Lyon's that they want to help her so much?)

It is kind of amazing how each time you read or re-read the Canon how you come up with other things you want to find out more about.

It never fails.

But a few other things first.

I loved the part where we imagine Holmes having to make do with clothes from Sir Henry and Watson to dine in proper attire that first evening, for him, at Bakerville Hall.
We picture Holmes as tall and lean, very angular. And most images drawn in the period would suggest he is near six-feet tall.
Most of us probably picture Watson a little shorter and more solidly built.
And Watson describes Sir Henry as, "The latter was a small, alert, dark-eyed man about thirty years of age, very sturdily built, with thick black eyebrows and a strong, pugnacious face."
But one must make do when the need arises. So what if the jacket is a little short at the sleeves or too much of your socks are showing.
After all, it is only the staff present and the hall is usually kind of dark anyway.

(Just add Holmes to this picture.)

And another point; How serious are we suppose to take the admonishment of Sir Henry and Watson by Holmes about how they handled the Seldon incident. Other than the sister, we probably all agree that no one is going to miss poor Seldon, but is Holmes serious about his condemnation of the two?

And we must also be aware of how quick a study Sir Henry is, for when Holmes started going on about the mishandling of the Seldon incident, Sir Henry borrowed from Barrymore's playbook and changed the subject real quick, "But how about the case?" asked the baronet.

And it is in the dining room that I am going to stay today.

Although related to a famous french artist, Watson "won't allow that (Holmes) knows anything of art." Although there are times when we see Holmes going out of his way to  appreciate works of art.

In the list of abilities Watson assigns to Holmes in STUD art is not mentioned.

1. Knowledge of Literature – nil.
2. Knowledge of Philosophy – nil.
3. Knowledge of Astronomy – nil.
4. Knowledge of Politics – Feeble.
5. Knowledge of Botany – Variable. Well up in belladonna, opium and poisons generally. Knows nothing of practical gardening.
6. Knowledge of Geology – Practical, but limited. Tells at a glance different soils from each other. After walks, has shown me splashes upon his trousers, and told me by their colour and consistence in what part of London he had received them.
7. Knowledge of Chemistry – Profound.
8. Knowledge of Anatomy – Accurate, but unsystematic.
9. Knowledge of Sensational Literature – Immense. He appears to know every detail of every horror perpetrated in the century.
10. Plays the violin well.
11. Is an expert singlestick player, boxer and swordsman.
12. Has a good practical knowledge of British law.

We can assume, perhaps that it just hadn't come up for consideration at this point, or Watson just didn't think it important to the narrative.

But in HOUN we see that Holmes has what appears to be a pretty good knowledge of art, or at least portraiture.

While dining in Baskerville Hall, Holmes questions Sir Henry about the Baskerville portraits hung around the room, commenting on two painters in the process, "That's a Kneller, I'll swear, that lady in the blue silk over yonder, and the stout gentleman with the wig ought to be a Reynolds."

What is interesting to note is that both of these mentioned artists, as I am sure authentic Sherlockain scholars have noted,  are real portrait artists, very famous in Britain.

Godfrey Kneller, eventually Sir Godfrey, was a German born artist that lived from 1646 - 1723.

(Which means he probably did not paint the picture of Hugo.)

He moved to England in 1676 and soon became the court painter for monarchs from Charles II to George I.

He also painted ten reigning European monarchs.

He is also known for doing a series of painting called 'Kit-Cat' paintings. A series of paintings a certain size for members of the London Kit-Cat Club, a club of political and literary members wishng to further the cause of the Whig party at that time. The name of the club comes from the mutton pies made by and named after the owner of the tavern where they first met.

And on another Sherlockian note; The Kit-Cat later club moved to The Fountain Tavern on the Strand which would eventually become the site of Simpson's-on-the-Strand. (A Sherlockain must stop if you are in London.) 

The other painter mentioned, and seemingly not as nice, was Joshua Reynolds, also eventually Sir.

He was born in 1723 and died in 1792, which means he could not have painted the portrait of Hugo either.

His connection to Devon and the Hound is that he was born in Plympton, Devon, only about fifteen miles from Princeton.

He became one of the founders of the Royal Academy and first president, and used the threat of resigning from that position as a means to be appointed Principal Painter in Ordinary to the King.

A position he would come to hate and regret. 

 From Wiki, "Your Lordship congratulation on my succeeding Mr. Ramsay I take very kindly, but it is a most miserable office, it is reduced from two hundred to thirty-eight pounds per annum, the Kings Rat catcher I believe is a better place, and I am to be paid only a fourth part of what I have from other people, so that the Portraits of their Majesties are not likely to be better done now, than they used to be, I should be ruined if I was to paint them myself".

I think there are a couple of important things we can take from this knowledge. 

One is that Holmes was indeed very knowledgeable about art. And used that knowledge in his work, at least as far as portraits goes. (It is also interesting to note, that in 'Elementary' towards the end of the first season, they used this knowledge in the plot line.)

(The National Portrait Gallery in London is well worth a visit and the restaurant upstairs has a great view and a great High Tea.)

Secondly, it also, I think, attests to the connections and wealth the Baskervilles had attained.

Surely only people of certain status could afford painters with such busy schedules and probable high fees.

Thirdly, it seems that both artists were very 'clubable'  fellows which would put them right up Watson and Mycroft's alley.

And the fourth thing, which would make a great road trip, is where did Holmes, Watson and Lestrade eat before their big adventure? A tiny pub I hope, and is it still there?

Now it's time to go see what Snarky Tours has to say, although I won't be able to comment for I have been banned.

(source, wikipedia among others)

Tour de Hound - Chapter 8 - the missing page

Tensions must be running high on the moor.
Watson has everybody to worry about.
Sir Henry is worried about everyone but Watson, but mostly Beryl.
Beryl is worried about her brother.
Her brother is worried about his sisters interest in Sir Henry.
The Barrymore's are worried that what ever they are hiding may keep them from opening there pub someday.
Seldon is worried about finding food.
Dr. Mortimer is worried he may be sued for digging up skulls.
The Postmaster is worried his boss may find out about him not following directions.
Jack is worried he may have to get a real job.
The locals are worried about Seldon.
The warden is also worried about his job.

The only one that seems happy is Mr. Frankland.

That's a lot of tension.

So. why the break in narrative style at this point? Are the details we will find in this chapter that much harder to remember than the previous chapters?
Nothing unusual takes place. No great clues come along.
Watson's suspicions are elevated of all the suspects on our list, but no one new comes along to add to the list.
Sure Mr. Frankland is added to our list of characters, but he is pretty well dismissed as a suspect by the way Watson handles his involvement in the narrative.

The Barrymore's continue in their seemly deceptive ways, implying something sinister is going on, with the little light show by the window the only new incident in their list of digressions.

Stapleton continues in his "cool and unemotional' manner, but nothing new is attributed to him, other than his coldness to Sir Henry when Sir Henry shows interest in his sister.

So why the change in narrative style?

Why not continue the story the way he started?
Did something happen to his journal where this part of his notes had gone missing or been damaged?
If the letters contained something that his dairy may not have, there inclusion would be important. Or if the why something was worded or transcribed had to be replicated completely, it would make sense. But I don't get the impression that was the case.
So why change styles?

And is the missing page from his pile of letters of any import?

I haven't a clue at this point.

The moor itself still lacks any appeal to Watson. It continues to 'sink into one's sole' with a grim charm he says. You have to wonder if the supernatural implications resonate with Watson.
Even his descriptions of the stone pillars is in keeping with the legend.'In the middle of it rose two great stones, worn and sharpened at the upper end until they looked like the huge corroding fangs of some monstrous beast.". Or hounds?

Is this the calm before the storm, did we miss some detail that later may prove relevant?

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.