Patent date (it is always) 1895

 “Here is the foresight,” said he putting his finger upon the little disc and loop of the hat-securer. “They are never sold upon hats. If this man ordered one, it is a sign of a certain amount of foresight, since he went out of his way to take this precaution against the wind."

Way don't we ever discuss Dr. Watsons retirement

As I sat last night around our pool, umbrellaed drink at hand, contemplating my own retirement I began to think about discussions of Watson's retirement or lack there of. . . . (screeching sound of a needle on a record)
Wait, I have a 9 year old. She is not about to let me sit around a pool and relax with an umbrellaed drink.
Actually it was on my way to work this morning, contemplating my own retirement, that I had the thought.
We know a little about Holmes' retirement at or around 1904 to study his beloved bees. And that on occasion he would come out of retirement to work on a case.
And we have always accepted that LAST (around 1914) was Holmes' last case, or at least the last published.
By 1917 we are told that Holmes was long retired, making him about 63 years old. (Hey, wait, that's about how old I will be when I retire!)
Around 1903 we learn that Watson is remarried, and we hope has a family. But we will never know if indeed he did have a family. I don't believe he ever did for I think it would have been mentioned.

Did he stay in practice and continue writing, much like the beloved vet, James Herriot.
Did he celebrate his writing career or was it never the main focus of his life?
Or when not at home or at work did he retire to his club?
Like Doyle did he take up golf?
Or did he die shortly after LAST?

It could be argued that the preface to that series of stories could have been written or reedited by someone other than Watson. We know LAST probably wasn't written by him.
And if Watson wasn't going to write the last story, why would he write the preface the way he did?

The last sentence of the preface could suggest that he had died before the edition of combined stories was complete, "Several previous experiences which have lain long in my portfolio have been added to His Last Bow so as to complete the volume."

Had Watson rejoined his old service? Although probably to old for front line service he may have found away to once again serve, and something could have happened to him.

What became of Watson after LAST?

The Adventure of the Creeping Man.

This coming Friday I will once again have the pleasure of attending a meeting with the Chester Baskerville Society in Chester Ill.

One of the cases to be discussed on Friday will being The Adventure of the Creeping Man. And because I am not an illuminating source myself, I some times need to reread the source material to make sure I get most of the things I discuss straight.
And so I did with CREE.

Some of the richest material in the Canon can be found in the first couple of paragraphs. Especially as it pertains to the relationship between Holmes and Watson. Usually those first paragraphs are often my favorite parts of the story. I love Baker St. as the setting and the things that take place there. This also proves to be the case with the Creeping Man.

The story was published in 1923, and Watson states in the first paragraph; ". . .  twenty years ago agitated the university and were echoed . . ." and clearly stating in the next paragraph that in took place in Sept. of 1903. So we can accept the date.

Holmes was not quite 50 years old, and as Watson states, this was one of his last cases. His retirement was not far away.

We have often assumed by various references that Holmes and Watson did not see a lot of each other once Holmes moved to Sussex. Watson even suggests the the relationship between the two men was rather peculiar.

And when you read that line in the third paragraph of CREE, we should probably start wondering if Watson had started to tire of his role. Was the relationship starting to get strained between the two?
In the paragraph that follows, Watson does not describe how he sees himself in that role in a very good light.

Watson says;

"The relations between us in those latter days were peculiar. He was a man of habits, narrow and concentrated habits, and I had become one of them. As an institution I was like the violin, the shag tobacco, the old black pipe, the index books, and others perhaps less excusable. When it was a case of active work and a comrade was needed upon whose nerve he could place some reliance, my role was obvious. But apart from this I had uses. I was a whetstone for his mind. I stimulated him. He liked to think aloud in my presence. His remarks could hardly be said to be made to me—many of them would have been as appropriately addressed to his bedstead—but none the less, having formed the habit, it had become in some way helpful that I should register and interject. If I irritated him by a certain methodical slowness in my mentality, that irritation served only to make his own flame-like intuitions and impressions flash up the more vividly and swiftly. Such was my humble role in our alliance."

Such does not sound like a man who was thrilled to receive the message; "Come at once if convenient—if inconvenient come all the same. — S. H."
While to most Sherlockians this is one of our favorite quotes from the Canon, it can be suggested that Watson may not have been as excited as we would like to think it recieving it.

In the next paragraph Watson continues; "With a wave of his hand he indicated my old armchair, but otherwise for half an hour he gave no sign that he was aware of my presence."
We are not surprised by this behavior from Holmes, as we have come to expect this posture from Holmes, but one can sense some annoyance in Watsons tone at this dissmissal.
Watson doesn't seem to relish his role as much as we may have once believed.
Was he tired of being expected to come if inconvenient all the same?
Had his practice and his private life made coming if inconvenient difficult? (We know once again that Watson was married.)
Had his priorities changed?
Did he not require the stimulation of the chase as much as he once did?

The reasons are really not all that important to us unless we look at this growing distance between the two as a gradual cooling of the friendship that we as Sherlockians may not wish to consider.

I don't get the feeling in those first two paragraphs that the return to Baker St. was as comforting a ritual for Watson as it had once been.
Like his old armchair, had the relationship become worn and tattered?

A few paragraphs later, after Holmes as some what explained the case to him Watson says; "I sank back in my chair in some disappointment. Was it for so trivial a question as this that I had been summoned from my work?"

This does not sound like the response of a man who is once again excited to be involved with a case with his former room-mate. This does not sound like a man who has come with an open mind, who trusted that his friend would not waste his time.

And in the next line Holmes says; “The same old Watson!”. After all those years had Watson grown tired of being "The same old Watson!"?

From that point on (except while drinking that "bottle of the famous vintage of which Holmes had spoken . . .") Watson keeps suggesting solutions that would allow him to escape as soon as possible.
He is not excited to be involved! 
Has Watson tired of 'The Game'?

Most Chronologies show only two more cases recorded by Watson after CREE. The next would be six years later, with the last one five years after that. And if we are good Sherlockians we might assume that one or two unknown ones still lie in that old tin box, but maybe not as many as we would like to believe.

None of us like to think of friendships drifting apart, and if we are honest, it really unsettles us if it happens to Holmes and Watson, even more so if it is not just because of distance.

Was it an attempt by Holmes to rekindle what once was?

What was their relationship like at the time of CREE?

Maybe I have read too much between the lines. But, hey! That's what playing the game is all about.

Another wonderful quote from this case would be; "It’s surely time that I disappeared into that little farm of my dreams." 

And I leave you with one thought; Did no one think to talk to the coachman earlier?
"The uproar had brought the sleepy and astonished coachman from his room above the stables. “I’m not surprised,” said he, shaking his head. “I’ve seen him at it before. I knew the dog would get him sooner or later.”"



But to leave on a happier note, here are two images that may make us imagine where Holmes and Watson stayed on this adventure. Possible locations for the Chequers.

Mr Holmes - a wonderful journey

I am a little surprised this film has received so little attention in the world of Sherlockiana. I found it a wonderful surprise.

Based on the book 'A Slight Trick of the Mind' by Mictch Cullin, the film explores the mentally diminished Holmes as he nears the end of his life, trying to remember his last case that sent him into retirement.

As Sherlockians most of us have images of Holmes later in life.
Most also would not like to think of him with his mind failing, retired and for the most part alone in Sussex.
Better that he go out with a bang on one last case, with the only reason it wasn't recorded was because Watson had preceded him on that final journey.

This film finds Holmes at 93 seeking solutions to slow down his dementia. He is often times a crusty old curmudgeon, most times rude and impatient with his long suffering housekeeper. He is however not without humor and the subtlety of that humor provides some of the best moments of the film.

The film opens with a wonderful train scene as Holmes returns from a war torn Japan where he was seeking another remedy for his affliction.

As his dementia advances Holmes is trying to document that last case before he can no longer remember it's conclusions at all. A task he is finding very difficult.

While in Japan he is also reminded of another encounter he had had with his hosts father many years before.

The plots of either of the two cases has to take the backseat to the wonderful portrayal of the elderly Holmes by Ian McKellen. Mckellen does an incredible job of showing a man who is at one time fearful of his condition yet resigned to its outcome. His character goes back a forth between a complete Holmes and one who gets lost due to his dementia and the fear that goes along with it.
He is hansome as the aged detective in the flash back scenes at times reminding one of Brett in his precious manner and subtle humor. His time as flashback Holmes is very elegant.

The times when McKellen's Holmes was commenting on Watson's writings was a treat and not an insult like a modern version of Holmes does now. There was a respect to what Watson had down and much of what we now know as iconic to Holmes is treated with humor. I loved the line, ". . . penny dreadfuls with elevated prose.” And,  “an embellishment of the illustrator”.

His time as aged Holmes with dementia shows glimpses of a character we could recognize as Holmes fading in to a man who is lost in his own body.
We see glimpses of his observation skills, while realizing at times he can not remember the names of the people around him.

The film ends with Holmes if not finding redemption, then perhaps at least finding solace.

Ian McKellen's Holmes should go down as one of he best Holmes portrayals on film.

Milo Parker as the young Roger, son of Holmes' housekeeper, totally nails his part as the inquisitive young man who eventually becomes the elder Holmes' side kick and companion in bees. His performance is spot on without any of the over acting we often see in kids performances. His part is not big, but it does leave a big impression.

Hiroyuki Sanada as Tamiki Umezaki again gives a very subtle yet substantial performance.
I first liked his work in Last Samurai and once again he does not disappoint. I ended up feeling very sorry for his character because neither resolution to his 'case' was a pleasant one.





The cinematography is fantastic, as is the costumes and sets.

The film however is not without flaws.

Laura Linney as Mrs. Munro is under used and we don't get to explore her character enough.
However, some of her characters interactions with Holmes were very telling about their relationship and really helped with the explanation of Holmes' character and her desire to leave his service.

The performance by Nicholas Rowe as 'Matinee Holmes' is overly melodramatic for a Holmes film filmed at roughly the same time as Rathbones reign as Holmes. Or perhaps I should say that the film in which Rowe played the Matinee Holmes of overly melodramatic . I would have to say that probably had more to do with the direction of the film than in Rowe's performance skills.

It was however fun to watch McKellen's Holmes observation of the film.

I had read a few IMDB reviews of the film where the reviewer complained hope how slow the film seemed. Matter of fact that was usually the only complaint. If you compared it to a Robert Downey Jr. Sherlock Holmes then yes, it would appear very slow.
But if you considered the subject matter that was being dealt with, it was far from slow.

Like I said earlier, this should rank among one of the better Sherlock Holmes films that does not deal with the Canon.

Even on my second viewing I am enjoying it as much as I did the first time. Rarely does a film compliment a book so well.

For these reasons and many more I can fairly give it'

Elementary S4E9 - 'Murder Ex Machina' - Falling into stride

This episode involves the murder of a Russian crime boss, a valet and the murders themselves.

This episode also suggests that at least for this year 'Elementary' as found itself a comfortable routine and is staying the course.

Although there are still at times hints of outlandish behavior from Miller's Holmes, for the most part it is kept in check.

The plot had some good turns in it, and the observation of some of the clues were Sherlockian like.

The side story involved Holmes' father getting in touch with Joan seeking her professional advice.
Joan deduces that there is more to it than that.

I enjoyed the line from Holmes's father about Holmes' eating habits and the reason he eats.
The observations on the effects of street lighting on the color of cars was good.
That scene also showed Holmes' knowledge of his city, much like the Canonical Holmes does of London.

This is the second or third episode this season I believe where Joan is not in on the conclusion of the case. While Canonically Watson is present in most, he usually only takes the roll of observer and not fellow detective. Is this 'Elementary's' attempt to put more emphasis on Holmes skills as an individual and not a team.

It will be interesting some day if an annotated 'Elementary' is ever produced to see how many of the plot lines involve industrial espionage. The plot line is starting to get a little over used.

One good discussion point that could come out of this episode is how timely were the topics in the cases of the Canonical Sherlock Holmes. Doyleockian, would do you say?  We know some were definitely; submarines, international interests, etc.
Many of the topics in the cases on 'Elementary' can often seem to be covering things recently in the news. The remote control of cars computers was a topic not to long ago on one of the hour long news programs.

It was nice that there was at least one wild car ride to make the guest from 'Dukes of Hazard' feel at home. Although he was not in that scene.

As has been a problem with this show all along is how to bring in things we expect from a Holmes like character without out making it a costume drama involving deerstalkers and capes. And without making it seem a copy of other adaptations of Sherlock Holmes. Miller can obviously not be Brett and he has to also avoid coping things seen in 'Sherlock'. I think the show is getting better at it this year, but is still not quite there.

For all the above reasons, having still enjoyed the episode I can fairly give this one;

Elementary S4E7&8 - 'Miss Taken' and 'A Burden of Blood' - two reviews for the price of one, and about time.

Seasonal activities and the lack of time has kept me from blogging here as much as I would like lately.
Also, coming up with a review for the latest episode of 'Sherlock' (which I have yet to do, but will do soon) has made me want to avoid reviewing anything for a little while.

But last night I had the chance to relax and watch the two latest episodes of 'Elementary'.
Episode 7, 'Miss Taken' was about a murdered former FBI agent who was still investigating a missing persons case (and a couple others which prove to be irrelevant) several months after the missing person was found. What is left of the FBI agent is found in a wood chipper.
The missing person, Mina Davenport had escaped her captor several months earlier and Holmes and Watson need to find out why the retired agent is still investigating.
Side story has Watson, thanks to Gregson, discovering that a book has been written about Holmes and her, thinly disguised as fictional characters. She does however know her step-father wrote the book. She also discovers he will soon publish another.

This to me has been one of the better episodes of the whole run of the show. A big part of that has to do the the spot-on performance of Ally Ioannides as Mina/Cassie.
It turns out that she is not really the missing daughter named Mina but indeed a con-artist named Cassie who looks enough like the missing girl to convince the grieving parents that she is their daughter returned after ten years a captive.

Reviewing a photo of the ten year old Mina and the returned 'Mina' Holmes discovers that the ears of the two girls are not the same and that grown 'Mina' is an impostor. Ioannies is very convincing first as the returned daughter then as the con-artist murderer. Enough so that Millers Holmes has trouble in the end finding out the complete truth. I could see her as a returning character that 'Holmes' has trouble actually finding proof to convict. (Maybe see will come back as the next incarnation of Milverton?) The last exchange between Cassie and Holmes in the cell was really well done I thought.

Millers Holmes in this episode gets the closest I believe to what we will see in this show to a Canonical similar Holmes. His observations and habits are convincing and his treatment of the other characters is not without charm. The observation of the clues and Sherlockian quirks is also convincing. Watson although involved is much lower key in the actual investigation.

I also found the story line of the book being written about Holmes and Watson a good touch.
It was well done writing Watson as the offended one in the case of the books publication, with Joan commenting on how mad Holmes may be since he is such a private person.
It also served as a good commentary on who the Canonical Watson would sometimes 'flower' up the stories to make them more readable and not just a scientific observation.
My only problem with the story line (which may just go to show what I expect from the show) was with; Why and how Cassie found the real missing Mina?

Episode 8, 'The Burden of Blood' was also a very strong story. A young women is found murdered and is also found to be pregnant. First it is believed that her husband murdered her once he found out she was having an affair since he was unable to have children and the child could not be his.
Then we are led to believe that it may be her lover once he found out she was pregnant and that would cause him problems with his marriage.
We soon find out the murder victim is the daughter of a serial killer who is serving life in prison for his crimes.
Listening over and over again to the victims last phone call, Holmes soon learns who the actual criminal is.
Side story in this episode is Det. Bell's studying for his sergeants examine, which Holmes does not believe he really wants to do.
Again, in this episode, we see a Holmes played as Canonically close as we are likely to see, played by Miller.
The annoying quirks of the first few years have mostly, at least for the time being, disappeared (okay, except when it comes to Watson's love life or not) and 'Holmes' is a more focused individual. The story line twist and ending were well done and made for a good story, especially since we didn't want the victims brother to be the guilty party.
Canonically we see Holmes allowing Lestrade to take credit for solving cases, with Lestrade usually not making the connections of clues Holmes gives him. Here we saw Holmes, and Watson, helping Bell in such away that Bell solves a case and recognizes his own skills.
We find a Holmes more welling to accept friendships in these new episodes.

I enjoyed both of these episodes and watching them helped me figure out why I was having so much trouble coming up with a review of the newest 'Sherlock'.
So I give both these episodes;

What do you think?

Snooping out the best portrayal of Sherlock Holmes? Elementary!

There are two things I can't abide in a movie:

The first thing is that the dog must not die.

And the second thing is that the great detective Sherlock Holmes must not be played for laughs, and certainly not by some wooden-faced pretty boy without the wit to fill a thimble.

We had a vigorous debate on Facebook the other day on the best actor to play Holmes. Most readers picked Basil Rathbone, he of the aquiline nose.

Yes, he looked good in tights. But he was best in tweeds, tromping around London, fighting evil with his mind.

So who is your favorite Holmes?

"Trying to judge the best Holmes is rather like trying to judge the best pizza," said Donald J. Terras, a retired professor of anthropology and leader of The Hounds of the Baskerville, a prominent group of Sherlockians.

"Tastes vary," said the head hound. "But there are certain traits, a certain quirkiness, that audiences expect from Holmes."

So for every Robert Downey Jr. playing Holmes as part Iron Man, part snarky Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel, there's a Basil Rathbone.

Or my personal favorite, Jeremy Brett, whose perfect Holmes can be found free, on the Internet, in the superb and faithful productions of Sir Arthur Conan Doyle's stories from Granada Television.

Earlier in his career, Brett sang a love song to the lovely Audrey Hepburn in "My Fair Lady." The tune was "On the Street Where You Live."

8

But as Holmes, Brett was brilliant, sarcastic and somewhat cruel. The series ran for years, story after story, the historical detail absolutely perfect, the manner, the distance between social classes. And Brett was exquisite.

It is in popular fiction where you can learn about a time and how the people were, and Brett's Sherlock takes you there.

And what of Benedict Cumberbatch, the Holmes on BBC in the role that made him an international star? I loved the series at first, especially for how it shows a brilliant man thinking out a problem, with written ideas, fragments and snatches of information floating around him.

I can't give up on Cumberbatch just yet, but his Holmes almost lost me when he got weepy at Dr. Watson's wedding. His eyes were wet.

Sherlock Homes does not cry.

Holmes may find fulfillment in battles with archcriminals and write the occasional monograph on jungle poisons or cigar ashes, but he doesn't get moist around the eyeballs.Holmes may play the violin, take his seven-per-cent solution to relieve his boredom, smoke like a fiend, ridicule lesser minds and deduce your intimate secrets from the scratches on your pocket watch, but he doesn't cry.

Holmes never cries. (Spoiler alert for the true Sherlockian: not even for "The Woman.")

The list of actors who've played Holmes is longer than a row of hansom cabs waiting outside Victoria station. But if, on your list of great Sherlockian performances, you mentioned said Roger Moore, then I prohibit you from reading any more of this column. Good day!

6

"Certainly Jeremy Brett was a breakout, in my opinion had the habits down right and the temperament, at least as I read the stories," said Terras. "Another contemporary Holmes is Cumberbatch, and he offers the necessary quirkiness."

"A lot of people are developing a renewed approval of the way Basil Rathbone portrayed Holmes. He had the kind of energy and physical grace that is necessary. And the temperament as well."

Most of us mention Rathbone, Brett and Cumberbatch , but Terras tossed out one I hadn't considered:

Peter Cushing, famous as Professor Van Helsing in the vampire movies, playing Holmes in "The Hound of the Baskervilles."

"That is my favorite 'Hound of the Baskervilles,' " said Terras. "The characters are similar. Holmes and Van Helsing are men of science. And Cushing's Sherlock Holmes has an edginess to it that the others do not have."

Some of you may know that I had a rather difficult childhood. Oh, we had plenty to eat. We were warm in the winter.

We were allowed only one TV program a week, and back in the day, WGN-TV ran Rathbone as the dashing Sherlock.But my mother would not let us watch TV or go near comic books. So I read everything I could grab, including detective stories, like the great child detective Encyclopedia Brown, and Sherlock Holmes.

Each movie was introduced by a wizened old man in a leather wing chair with a clipped English accent.

"The old man was Rathbone himself," said Terras.

Excellent! I almost cried.

Elementary, he didn't say.

"A number of us tried to find the old segments on WGN, but we weren't able. I think they might be gone now."

There is a new Holmes, appropriately titled "Mr. Holmes," starring the Gandalfian actor Ian McKellen, that is scheduled to hit theaters soon.

McKellen's Holmes lives in 1947 as a doddering 93-year-old, slowly losing his formidable memory. I read that he's tortured by an unsolved case that forced him into retirement 30 years before.

Holmes losing his mind? Feeble in the brain? That marvelously balanced instrument of logic and reason growing weak? Holy Reichenbach Falls!

McKellen is a great actor, and watching Holmes struggle to keep his faculties might be worse than being haunted by any dead movie dog since Old Yeller.

"The Ian McKellen version looks interesting," said Terras. "He might be able to pull it off."

I'll see it, because, well, I have no other choice. It's a Sherlock Holmes movie.

And if there's a dog in it, just do me a favor and put me out of my misery and tell me now:

Does the dog bark?

jskass@tribpub.com

Twitter @John_Kass

source

Elementart S3E24 - 'A Controlled Descent' - but how far will it go.

This episode opens with Holmes and Alfredo watching an old Abbott and Costello movie on the roof top of '221whatever'. It is an attempt to continue the 'now friendship instead of addict/sponsor' relationship.
It is an uncomfortabel time for both.

Shortly after leaving Holmes Alfredo goes missing.

Holmes' once partner in addiction Oscar has taken Alfredo to make Holmes find his sister who supposedly has gone missing also.

I turns out to be a ploy by Oscar to once again drag Holmes down to his level and return him to addiction. Olivia, Oscar's sister, is already dead from an overdose, which Oscar already knows.

Holmes is forced to revisit his old rehab center and a crack house, dragging him closer to his past.

The episode was interesting in a very dark way, and although the ending suggests Holmes gave in to the Siren call of heron, I have my doubts that that is what happened. Cliff hanger for sure.

Canonically there were a few good observations and readings of clues, and the dark nature of addiction made for an interesting story.
We do not know the struggle the Canonical Holmes went through, if any, for his dependence on cocain. The inclusion of his addiction will always be an interesting part of the Canon and we will never know for sure why it became part of Sherlock Holmes back story. Millers Holmes is portraying the addiction as a defining part of Holmes personality, and a much more controling influence than is Canonically suggested (which should make for good Canonical discussion.)


Toward the end of this season 'Elementary' has found a balance it lacked for most of the first two seasons and part of the third. Where fetishise and quirks had become the norm for Millers Holmes, we now see a more balanced individual. Even if he is not as Sherlock Holmes like as we would, well, like. That should be the goal for season four. It makes for good discussion try to come up with how that could happen.

And for once, in this episode, there were no murders.

I am hopeful that the cliff hanger is something other than his return to addiction, that's just in my nature. The cliffhanger is also bringing Holmes father over for a visit.

Canonically we could suggest the heron den was a refernce to TWIS.

I did find the episode interesting, but once again because of the lack of Sherlock Holmes traits (habits,etc.) in Millers Holmes I can only fairly give it;

I do however think the show is on an upward swing.

What do you think. . . .?

Not all that long ago I asked the question; Was Sherlock Holmes a social animal?

And Sandra had an interesting point; "There are times I feel Watson is a rather classic Unreliable Narrator, but in this case I think Holmes is deceiving him about how lonely he is without him during retirement by making himself into a retroactive social swimmer."

Was Sherlock Holmes a lonely old man in his retirement? Was he more sociable than we sometimes believe? Does Watson leave out key information to our understanding Holmes?

And of course, we are 'Playing the Game' here.

And on that note; Would Sherlock Holmes be as popular as he is today if Watson (Doyle) had given us lots more information about him?

S3E18 - 'The View from Olympus' - taking on the gods?

With the exception of the 'sex blanket' I enjoyed the opening of this episode. The repartee between Holmes and Watson, the mention of previous cases was well done and well played.
We know the show is going to try to shock us with references to Holmes sexual habits, so we are no longer surprised or shocked when it does.

But, at least this time the romp in the sex blanket served a purpose other than well . . . .

We have also come to accept 'Elementary' as another police procedural, with perhaps just a little more to offer, because it has to at least at some point attempt to make some reference to its source. (Was Brett's Holmes a procedural? Is Poirot a procedural?) A show, this show, can only focus on Holmes methods for so long before it becomes repetitive. Had 'Elementary' reach that point yet, showing Holmes methods? Probably not.

But 'Holmes' can only throw himself on the floor so many times. And after a certain point we have to just accept that Holmes has great observation skills. Even, if we think about it, watching Brett, it was not about the methods that kept us involved, it was the fact that the show adhered closely to the Canon and  more importantly, it was Brett's portrayal of Holmes idiosyncrasies that set the tone that modern adaptation are having to measure up to.
Even the popularity of 'Sherlock' can in great part be attributed to Benedict Cumberbatch's portrayal of Holmes more unusual habits and manners.

Unfortunately for 'Elementary', to most Sherlockians,  the Holmes that comes out of Miller's portrayal is not as likable as the Holmes we all have pictured in our minds. Most of us come away feeling we are watching a Holmes that is much more dysfunctional than our image from the Canon. Even when watching 'Sherlock', Holmes almost comes off as an enjoyable caricature of Holmes. In Elementary we are forced, if we accept the show in the first place, to examine if not the darker side of Holmes' personality, at least parts we may not normally think about.

That doesn't mean Canonically that there is no value in the show.

I do not claim to be an expert on anything, much less an expert on all the Canonical discussion centered around 'Sherlock'. But I would argue that 'Sherlock' has generated less conversation about Holmes personality and back story than 'Elementary'. For the most part it seems most of the conversation about Sherlock's personality in 'Sherlock' centers almost entirely around his sexuality and whether or not he is a psychopath or sociopath. 'Sherlock' is fun, but it does not make me want to examine Holmes.

'Elementary' has created a deeper, darker Holmes than we see in the Canon. Something that a visual media can afford to do, and has the time to cover.

And that is what I got most out of this episode.

Once again, although topical and timely, the mystery is not all that important and shows several errors.
It does make a good social statement and the couple of times Holmes comments on the access companies have to our personal information are very well done.

The real story this week is once again about Holmes' growing as an individual and the influences his past has had on his present.

Canonically we get very few references of how others perceive Sherlock, especially his anti-social behavior (which is probably not quite as acute as either Elementary or Sherlock's portray). For the most part Stamford is the only one that gives us much insight to how Holmes may appear to others less accepting than Watson;
 “It is not easy to express the inexpressible,” he answered with a laugh. “Holmes is a little too scientific for my tastes—it approaches to cold bloodedness. I could imagine his giving a friend a little pinch of the latest vegetable alkaloid, not out of malevolence, you understand, but simply out of a spirit of inquiry in order to have an accurate idea of the effects. To do him justice, I think that he would take it himself with the same readiness. He appears to have a passion for definite and exact knowledge.” and “You mustn’t blame me if you don’t get on with him,” he said; “I know nothing more of him than I have learned from meeting him occasionally in the laboratory. You proposed this arrangement, so you must not hold me responsible.” and a couple more.

In this episode of 'Elementary', Holmes is asked to father a child with one of the irregular Irregulars. A women Holmes as worked with before and who in the past has been mutually agreeable to an uncommitted relationship.
Between her own desires and Holmes' fathers interference (he wants a heir to the family name) she asks Holmes to offer his 'issue' in the production of an offspring.
This forces Holmes into distraction and personal insight.
This on its own would be rather a dumb side story to an already weak plot.
But, it offers us as viewers some insight into the inner turmoil into the life of someone who has such an active mind. a mind feels he has very little control over it at times.
We get glimpse's of this at times in the Canon when Holmes is without work or something to stimulate his mind, but the Canon soon finds something to occupy Holmes. Is the 'brown study' and reference to his office color or state of mind? (Don't answer that, it's a joke.)

Miller's Holmes decides not to participate in the production because he does not wish upon anyone else the troubles he wrestles with to control his over active mind. It seems he does not consider it a gift, but more a burden.

Canonically what I got out of this mostly was; What would Holmes have been like without Watson? What were his personal struggles when consumed by boredom or inactivity? What would the Canonical Holmes perhaps have been reduced to if not for an influence like Watson? Did Holmes' personality change after the great hiatus?

We hear very little about Holmes' early life in the Canon. Just a couple of nods here and there. Nothing about his father, and very little about his mother. We know the relationship with Mycroft does not come across as one of affection, but more as one of mutual respect for each others mental skills.

'Elementary' bravely keeps examining a troubled relationship between father and son.

Very few of us are ever going to really love Miller's Holmes. We probably do not hopefully imagine him someday wearing a deerstalker and portraying a more period Holmes. Buy he does make us explore sides of Holmes we don't normally go to deep into.

Sherlock Holmes would never be a popular today if the stories had not been written as short stories, not allowing for much detail. 'Playing the Game' would not be any fun if Doyle had told us everything. Speculation is the back-bone of Canonical discussion.
Miller's Holmes is one view of that discussion. Where we find absurd written debate acceptable Canonical discussion, we should also find 'Elementary' as such.

Although I found several good discussion points, once again it lack Canonical references and an okay plot, but I can only fairly give it;

Elementary S3E13 - 'Hemlock' - something just doesn't taste right.

Sherlock is not happy. Matter of fact he is bored. I guess he hasn't been keeping up with all the news lately about how being bored can be a good thing and that boredom can get the creative juices flowing. Experiments have been done recently about taking away teens smart phones and connection for at least part of the day, and most have found the experience stimulating.
Child behaviorists even suggest a little boredom is good for kids. The study of boredom was never listed as one of Holmes' pursuits.

And in Elementary, when Sherlock is bored he doesn't turn to the Canonical crutch but rather the irritating habit of, well, being irritating.

Boredom is one of a couple of Canonical references at the beginning of this episode. Another good one was the reference to old case files. We also get a reference, later in the show to Mrs. Hudson and we also see him getting on the floor while investigating a crime scene.

The case involved a women showing up at the flat looking for her missing husband. It was not unusual for the man and wife not see each other for a few days at a time, but it is unusual that they don't at least talk. At this point I was hoping the story would be an modern adaptation of TWIS, but it did not end up going that way.
The husband turned out to be a recently unemployed lawyer, who had started earning money buying other people's debts at a low price and then collecting on the debts. At some point during his new career he had a change of heart and started to forgive the debts upsetting an important lawyer (from his old firm) who had hoped to gain from a property purchase of someone who could not make good on a debt. This lawyer murdered the husband.

Once again, the case was nothing new. It did however have a few good twists, and made for an interesting watch.
Joan, thankfully, at least for another episode, has taken a little bit of an investigative backseat to Holmes' deductions and insight.

The episode was mainly about boredom. Holmes' bored with no interesting cases, which shows itself in the form of turtle painting, single stick practice, multiple sex partners and harassing Joan again about her love life.

It was also a bit about Joan's boredom with the relationship she finds herself in and the fact that Holmes suggest Joan is not really interested in a long term relationship.

Unusually, the episode didn't dive into the oft used crutch of using Holmes' old drug habit. Instead we find Holmes doing all sorts of other things to deal with the lack of a good criminal case, and we as the audience are finally saved by the missing husband from the banality of some of the bad habits the show falls into.

Canonically we can examine Holmes' methods for dealing with his boredom; cocaine, music, bee's, etc. And which of these seemed to serve the purpose the best. Was this boredom something that followed him through out his career or did the great hiatus put that more into prospective. We find Holmes accepting the solitary life as he retired to Sussex. Was the an acceptance or a desire?

Probably the most interesting thing about this episode was the tease it gave for next week and the probability of Watson moving back in with Holmes.
Canonically we can examine to whose benefit it was, latter in their relationship, for the agreement to once again share 'digs'. Did Holmes suggest Watson move back after the death of any number of his wives? Was it a situation Holmes preferred over living alone? Did the Canonical Holmes suffer as much from the absence of a 'flat' mate.

The episode in no way came up to the level of the last few weeks. It did however control itself when it seemed to be heading into a ditch returning to some of the shows bad habits.

So this week I give it a solid;

S3E7 - 'The Adventure of the Nutmeg Concoction' - Nutmeg and sour milk - Review catch up time.

While preparing lunch or dinner, Joan has a client stop by. The client is looking for her sister who disappeared five years earlier, and the police and the FBI are once again clueless. Joan continues to make the meal.
Joan takes the case.
Kitty stops by and without permission informs Holmes of Joan's new case.
Holmes is bored from lack of work and wishes to 'help' Joan with her investigation.

Getting the client was actually about the only work Joan accomplished this episode.

The disappearance of the missing girl and several other victims involved a crime scene clean-up guy who no longer felt he was being paid enough by the cops to clean up crime scenes, so instead retires and starts working for the people who make the mess.

The case was interesting and the plot well done. It had a few twist and turns that made it watchable.

Holmes is still unable to leave Joan's love life alone, and although irritating throughout, in the end he did make Joan examine the types of relationships she gets involved in. This theme was also examined in the RDJ and Jude Law films.

Although cranky throughout the episode, Holmes is at least on top of his game coming up with some good clues and deductions. And for a change the first person that may have turned out to be the bad guy did not turn out to be the bad guy in the end.

Kitty once again out Watson's Watson, or should I say out Holmes' Watson, for it seems we are into a three detective TV show. Watson has almost been put back into a more Watson-like role this season. That I would suggest will change once again by the end of the season. I can not see Kitty staying on as such a strong character, which does not bode well for Kitty. Joan's involvement has really taken a turn this season that can not last in it's current form.
Matter of fact, Joan never really gets too mad with Holmes taking over her case and although involved in some of the discussions, I can not think of one clue that she found this week, which is kind of surprising since for a while we were complaining that she was becoming to Holmes like.
Kitty actually did the work on 'the case of the old boyfriend'. Joan's involvement was more along the line of the erroneous Watson of 'Hound'.

New 'Irregular' 'The Nose', played by John Horton, was my favorite participant in this episode.

Clyde was absent, but Mrs. Hudson made a brief appearance.

Some Holmes like references;
Irregulars
Mrs. Hudson
Holmes being foul tempered when bored

Although I found the rehashing of Holmes' involvement with Joan's love life at the beginning a little tiresome, it did take a turn that suggested something along the lines of sincerity. The case was good, as was the investigation and deductions. I did enjoy this episode more than most. For that reason I give it;

Which brings us to the Canonical discussion of the episode; Since Watson's wives only make (other than in one story) brief appearances, some times without their name being mentioned, in the Canon, is Millers Holmes observation of Watson's relationship a fair and accurate one? Was Watson, who had relationships on several continents, suited for a long term partnership or was he suited for a more casual love life?

'Elementary' S3E4 - 'Bella' - a review unresolved

While 'bleeding' himself, Sherlock and Kitty get a late evening visitor in the form of computer software expert Edwin Burstein.
Burstein as had a very important new piece of AI (Artificial Intelligence) software stolen and his business will be ruined if the thief is not caught and the program returned.
Although reluctant at first, Holmes takes the case. Seemly more to prove AI is impossible, rather than to solve the case. Intending to leave most of the leg work to Watson and Winter. (He can not completely keep his hands out of it however.)

The actual original case in this story turns out to be very unimportant, for Holmes quickly resolves it (allowing, once again, the criminal to remain free) and makes sure the stolen copy is destroyed. (Apparently industrial espionage is not very high on Holmes crime list.)

When bringing the good news to Edwin, Holmes and associates find Edwin dead from a seizure, seemly brought on by Bella the AI program on the computer. Is Bella the murderer? Holmes does not think so.

Holmes and Irregular Mason deduce, during a very annoying session of very loud music review, that the a virus as been placed on Bella by it being introduced hidden between tracks on a heavy metal CD.

Holmes suggests that the virus has been placed there by an anti-AI Professor named Pike, who believes Artificial Intelligence will eventually destroy mankind.

Unfortunately one of the professors proteges takes the fall, not very convincingly, (would Kitty do this for Holmes?)(and surely the NYPD could disprove her story!) for the crime and Holmes has to result to a bluff to try to prove that Pike was the one actually responsible.
Pike seems very formidable in his confrontation with Holmes.
We are left believing Holmes was unable to go through with the bluff.

The plot was unconvincing in how the protege, such a seemly weak individual, was able to find and follow, then steal and replace the Heavy Metal Cd. We are left to assume that she may have gone about it the same way as Raffles (which really seems highly unlikely). But, where along the way was the way-laying taking place?
Is this plot line going to suggest that Pike has a network of followers (much like Moriarty) who are able to do his bidding and who will willingly go to jail for him?

Although the episode still allowed itself some room to include moments of unnecessary quirkiness, it was not over done. The leach bit in the beginning served no purpose, and the time could have been better used.

Most of the plot actually still dealt with relationships and personalities as they reflect on Holmes.
And, nicely, the story was allowed to focus on that and much of it used the relationship between the computer and Holmes to show that.


Although I don't usually like an unresolved story, especially since next weeks preview did not suggest the story would be continued, I think it worked well with the exploration of this part of Holmes personality. Is Prof. Pike going to end up being one of the few who have beaten Holmes (beaten four times, three by men). The closing scene did suggest Holmes had however come up with a clue, from Bella, or that he had had a personal revelation about how to solve the crime.

The episode also took a step closer to explaining the path of the relationship between Holmes and Watson. Canonically it would be suggested that at times Watson must have wondered about his roll in the relationship with Holmes. It is a Canonically good discussion point to wonder how the relationship with Watson may or may not have changed Holmes. We see suggestions of this change every week in the show. How would that be reflected in the Canon?

Kitty, to my mind, is proving to be unnecessary to the stories, and I hope her character develops a little more soon. At the moment she is serving as little more than a go-fer and someone who is just taking lines away from the Watson character

Joan, now not living with Holmes, gives the show a chance to explore Holmes' life without Watson living at the faux 221b. We will have to just wait and see if we agree with how Holmes handles it.
Will something happen in Denmark to her new love? And will Holmes be involved with the investigation? Holmes likes the guy, Watson likes the guy. Something is going to happen, right?

Another reviewer suggests that it is unfortunate that 'Elementary' is unable to come up with a plot line that does not include murder. As we Canonically know, many of Holmes' cases did not include a death. Are the writers capable of coming up with a plot that does no require someone to die?

Several good Canonical references were present;

A client coming to Holmes after a recommendation from a previous client.
Holmes taking a case for no fee because it interests him.
Holmes being a thinking, logic machine, not allowing emotions to make his decisions.
Not being hired by the police force, so therefore, not required to turn in a criminal.
Holmes and Watson not sharing 'Baker St. (We can't use Watson moving out because of a relationship because she moved out before then to get her own 'space')
Spending many hours on a case without stopping to take a break.
Irregulars, (who's numbers have vastly increased these last few weeks).
Holmes' knowledge of important world wide criminals.
(And there is one big one that I just can not remember this morning!)

Although I am still not a big fan of Miller's portrayal of Holmes, last nights episode was a good story and had some strong Canonical references, and shows signs of growth and also suggested discussion-able points. I think that is going to be may gauge for this show now; Does this episode offer some good Canonical references and possible Canonical discussion points?

How does that work for you?

So, for that reason, I give this episode, . . . .

Another 'Elementary' consideration . . . . Do we like our Watson more deductively capable?

Once again, so far this season, 'Elementary' is not giving us very much Sherlockian to talk about or even consider. And that is not really likely to change very much. But be that as it may, let's get as much as we can out of it and 'Play the Game.'

"Elementary' still hasn't determined yet if Watson is going to be Holmes' equal and partner or biographer and sounding board.  I don't see the latter happening, do you?

Our question for today is; Would we like our Watson to be deductively as capable as Holmes? His equal in crime solving?
Would the relationship have worked that way Canonically?
Is that part of the bigger problem with 'Elementary'?

The most popular modern (in time period made or time period in which it is suggested it takes place) adaptations of Holmes have all given us strong Watson's, in their own way, without Watson being Holmes' deductive rival. I am of course talking about Brett's Holmes, RDJ's and 'Sherlock'.
Although not a fan of RDJ's portrayal of Holmes, I do however like very much Jude Law's take on Watson.

I also find Martin Freeman's take on Watson more appealing actually than I do Benedict Comberbatch's Holmes. Of all the modern takes (in time period when the stories take place), his so far is the best Watson.
And who can really argue about both the fine actors who played Watson next to Brett's Holmes, David Burke, and Edward Hardwicke.

But, as I think will prove out, a Watson who is close to Holmes equal in detection skills will not be acceptable Canonical lore. How many super heroes out there have 'partners'? How many police procedural's have lead detective's on equal footing with another officer?

Part of, and a very big part, of the allure of Holmes and Watson, and other duo teams, is the difference in skills and personalities.

One of my favorite new shows this year so far is 'Forever'. A very Holmes like lead character supported by, in their own way, very capable 'side kicks'. Side-kicks that have different, but just as relevant skills. Often times an individual who can ground them to the conventions of society.
It does however seem our theatrical adaptations of Holmes need more social grounding than the Canonical Holmes.
Every one of the three most recent adaptations suggest Holmes in one form or another needs a social handler. RDJ's certainly did, as does 'Sherlock's'. 'Elementary's' most definetly does, he just hasn't realized it yet.
We find the companionship less needy in the Canon than we do on the modern big screen.
Brett's Holmes does not seem to need that social crutch.

But what makes this pairing most interesting Canonically and theatrically (where it works) is that both man are very different, and each has 'skills' that benefit the relationship and not make it competitive.

It will be interesting to see how 'Elementary' handles it.

Sept. Reading list - VEIL - 'Like water for lions' - and early retirement.

Should VEIL be in a compilation of stories called 'Casebook of Sherlock Holmes'?

Probably not. There is no actual case really, is there?

Should it be in the Canon of Sherlock Holmes?
For sure!


Once again it is the treats we get in the first few paragraphs that make this story fun.

"When one considers that Mr. Sherlock Holmes was in active practice for twenty-three years, and that during seventeen of these I was allowed to cooperate with him and to keep notes of his doings, it will be clear that I have a mass of material at my command. The problem has always been not to find but to choose. There is the long row of year-books which fill a shelf, and there are the dispatch-cases filled with documents, a perfect quarry for the student not only of crime but of the social and official scandals of the late Victorian era. Concerning these latter, I may say that the writers of agonized letters, who beg that the honour of their families or the reputation of famous forebears may not be touched, have nothing to fear. The discretion and high sense of professional honour which have always distinguished my friend are still at work in the choice of these memoirs, and no confidence will be abused. I deprecate, however, in the strongest way the attempts which have been made lately to get at and to destroy these papers. The source of these outrages is known, and if they are repeated I have Mr. Holmes’s authority for saying that the whole story concerning the politician, the lighthouse, and the trained cormorant will be given to the public. There is at least one reader who will understand. "

Just the first sentence is enough to send any Sherlockian into Canonical ecstasy;
"When one considers that Mr. Sherlock Holmes was in active practice for twenty-three years, and that during seventeen of these I was allowed to cooperate with him and to keep notes of his doings, it will be clear that I have a mass of material at my command."

Just from this one sentence we learn that Holmes had done well enough at his chosen profession to be able to afford early retirement, sometime before the age of 60. (That is if we agree his birth year was around 1854.)

We learn that Watson was with him for much of this time for he states that he was allowed to cooperate with him for seventeen. (How can that be when they met in 1881 and had a case together in 1914? More like twenty-two years.)

We learn that there are many more that we will never hear about, and that some of these are still rather sensitive to certain individuals.

We often read (in pastiche form) of individuals finding a 'battered tin dispatch box' and recovering lost works of Watson's. In this introductory paragraph we learn that there were indeed "dispatch-cases", plural,  containing his writings.

We hear of the famous "trained cormorant" and the "politician" and "the lighthouse".

But for me the most interesting aspect for my imagination is wondering where Watson is at when he puts this story down on paper and how old he is? 
It was published in 1927. Watson and Holmes would have probably been in there seventies and both retired. 
Is Watson alone, or is he still married" Where is he living? How long has it been since he last met up with Holmes. 

Is he in a large estate, earned by his writings and practice? Our is he in a flat in London, or a home for retired service men? Is wife, number what-ever,  still alive?
What kind of desk is he seated at?

The story itself takes place at what would have been fifteen years into the working relationship between Holmes and Watson.

No, this cases shows us none of Holmes' talents which we live for in his tales, and really it offers more questions than it answers. And maybe that is the real case.