On the Trail of Sherlock Holmes - from the Wall Street Journal

By Ralph Gardner Jr.

Teel James Glenn portrayed Sherlock Holmes at a gathering of The Priory Scholars of NYC. PHOTO: RALPH GARDNER JR./THE WALL STREET JOURNAl

I don’t believe I’d ever read any of Sir Arthur Conan Doyle’s Sherlock Holmes stories until the day before I attended a lunch held by The Priory Scholars of NYC, a Sherlock Holmes society, on July 16.

Nonetheless, several attendees who gathered at the Churchill Tavern on East 28th Street, where Winston Churchill’s wartime speeches were piped through the bathroom sound system, assured me I’m an honorary Sherlockian through my father.

The Priory Scholars is a scion society of the Baker Street Irregulars, an organization of Sherlock Holmes enthusiasts founded in 1934 by Christopher Morley, a journalist and novelist. And of which my father was a member.

Indeed, I remember my dad’s pride when he was asked, probably in the late 70s or early 80s, by Julian Wolff, the head of the group at the time, to recite the “Musgrave Ritual” from the Conan Doyle short story “The Adventure of the Musgrave Ritual.”

To this day, Dr. Wolff’s note, encased in a protective plastic sheath, sits on the shelf of my father’s library.

I also looked up the Baker Street Irregulars website and discovered my father seated in the front row of the BSI 1984 dinner. He was rocking a curved-stem pipe whose bowl he’d carved himself with the likeness of the great Holmes.

Not that I wouldn’t have been welcomed with open arms in any case. And not just because I was a member of the press. Even though that wasn’t held against me. Indeed, someone at my table promptly quoted Holmes to Watson in “The Adventure of the Six Napoleons”: “The press, Watson, is a most valuable institution, if you only know how to use it.”

ENLARGE

Warren Randall at a Priory Scholars of NYC lunch. PHOTO: RALPH GARDNER JR./THE WALL STREET JOURNAL

My sense was that the Priory Scholars of NYC was a highly inclusive, hyper companionable organization. Indeed, the group’s affection for “the canon,” the 56 Sherlock Holmes short stories and four novels written by Conan Doyle, only partially accounts for what brings people to its four-times-a-year meetings.

“The stories are fundamentally about friendship,” explained Christopher Zordan, a chemist and the group’s “Economics Master,” or treasurer. “Everybody likes that underlying theme.”

Added Robert Katz, a pathologist and Holmes lecturer, “There’s a big cluster of groups in the tri-state area. You could literally be going to some Sherlock Holmes event in the eastern half of the United States every weekend of the year if you felt like it.”

The work under discussion at the summer meeting was Conan Doyle’s “The Adventure of the Cardboard Box.” It’s a somewhat macabre tale that involves the arrival in the mail of a parcel containing two severed human ears.

I was taken by the economy of the language, which is apparently part of the Holmes canon’s appeal. “If you read other Victorian stories,” Mr. Zordan explained, “they’re very flowery. [The canon] feels like it was written recently. There’s a bit where Watson says, ‘And I blew his brains out.’”

The meeting was called to order with author Elizabeth Crowens reporting on the success of a book signing for her debut novel, “Silent Meridian,” a time-traveling work whose characters include Sir Arthur Conan Doyle.

Next came a series of witty toasts of which Holmes would have been proud. An appreciation for a good Burgundy or even a robust Bloody Mary also seems to attract students of the detective in the deerstalker cap.

“Drinking is a very popular sport among Sherlockians,” attested Judith Freeman, the Priory Scholars’ “Headmistress.”

Among the toast givers, with the help of a picture frame as a prop, were Chelsea Moquinand Finn Upham, young Brooklynites who host “Three Patch Podcast.” Ms. Moquin described it as “Get somebody very inebriated and try to tell one of the Arthur Conan Doyle stories.”

”

ENLARGE

Chelsea Moquin, left, and Finn Upham, hosts of a Sherlock Holmes podcast. PHOTO: RALPH GARDNER JR./THE WALL STREET JOURNAL

The picture frame was a reference to a portrait mentioned at the start of “The Adventure of the Cardboard Box.” “There’s been a lot of effort to bring together the younger crowd and the older crowd,” Ms. Moquin said.

After lunch was served the group got down to the serious business of the afternoon—starting with a quiz about the reading. “The women come in first more than the men,” reported Priory regular Marc Sawyer. And they did.

The quiz was followed by a discussion of the work, described by someone as the “eeriest case in the canon.”

He sounded quite learned until it was pointed out to me that the gentleman was making a pun. Eeriest was spelled “ear-iest.”

Ralph Gardner Jr's father is center front with pipe.

Now here's one you can bank on. . .

The Eye

'Sherlock Holmes 3' Spoilers: Jude Law Pitched Time Travel Movie, Shut Down By Guy Ritchie

Story here.

Box office gold? Yea probably. Stylish? Yes it had a style all it's own. What do you think?

His Sherlock Holmes movies were stylish box office gold. So what a pity Guy Ritchie has turned into The Man From U.N.C.O.O.L.

By MATTHEW BOND FOR THE DAILY MAIL

PUBLISHED: 16:01 EST, 15 August 2015 | UPDATED: 16:01 EST, 15 August 2015

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/home/event/article-3198648/The-Man-U-N-C-L-E-Sherlock-Holmes-movies-stylish-box-office-gold-pity-Guy-Ritchie-turned-Man-U-N-C-O-O-L.html#ixzz3jBSX6CQq
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

The Man From U.N.C.L.E.         Cert: 12A   Time: 1hr 57mins             ★★★★★

These days, Guy Ritchie doesn’t make many films but I suppose when your last two have been Sherlock Holmes and its sequel, A Game Of Shadows – which collectively took more than $1 billion at the global box office – you don’t really have to. 

So there was a real sense of anticipation – occasion even – as I sat down to enjoy The Man From U.N.C.L.E., only his third film in the past six years.

Oh, the pent-up excitement. 

+6

The film starts well but things quickly go wrong when our American and Russian spies join forces against a shadowy organisation - sadly no longer called T.H.R.U.S.H. - that might just have got itself an atom bomb

I vividly remember almost purring with pleasure during the first Sherlock Holmes film, as the former Lock, Stock… and Snatch director came of Hollywood A-list age, coupling a stunning depiction of Victorian London with superb performances from his two leading men, Robert Downey Jr and Jude Law. Surely he’d be striking movie-making gold again?

The short answer, it quickly emerges as yet another much-loved television series from the Sixties is given a belated big-screen makeover, is no, he won’t. 

With Sherlock Holmes, virtually every creative decision Ritchie made turned out to be the right one. 

Here, by wretched contrast – apart from deciding to stick with the show’s original Cold War setting and to festoon the whole thing with lashings of fashionable Sixties cool à la Austin Powers – he barely gets anything right at all.

+6

The acting, the humour, the script… this is a film that falls miserably short right across the board. There is no chemistry between Henry Cavill and Armie Hammer, the latter handicapped by a dreadful Russian accent

The acting, the humour, the script… this is a film that falls miserably short right across the board. 

As a cult television series (Ian Fleming briefly played a small part in its original inception before his Bond producers pointed out the obvious clash of interest), The Man From U.N.C.L.E. turned its stars – Robert Vaughn as Napoleon Solo and David McCallum as Illya Kuryakin – into instantly recognised household names.

Five decades on and their big-screen counterparts, Henry Cavill and Armie Hammer – the former playing American and the latter Russian, while their Swedish-born leading lady, Alicia Vikander, plays German – discover the hard way that they don’t quite have what it takes to be considered as authentic leading men. 

Despite the distractingly kinetic camerawork, The Man From U.N.C.L.E. spends far too much time being… well, boring.

+6

Every creative decision Ritchie makes – apart from sticking with the show’s original Cold War setting and to festoon the whole thing with lashings of fashionable Sixties cool à la Austin Powers – is wrong

This is a film crying out for a charismatic someone – anyone! – to seize it by the scruff of the neck and shout ‘Watch me, I’m really good’, as Downey Jr did so memorably with Sherlock Holmes. But nobody does. 

The chemistry between Cavill and Hammer, the latter handicapped by a dreadful Russian accent, would struggle to light up a shoe box. 

To be fair, it does take a little while for this to become clear, with the film’s opening in the East Berlin of 1963 providing one of a modest handful of highlights. 

Cavill oozes an ersatz sophistication as Napoleon Solo, the handsome, suave, black-marketeer-turned-CIA agent who’s been sent through the Berlin Wall to get the daughter of ‘Hitler’s favourite rocket scientist’ back to the West. 

He eventually succeeds, with the help of a decent car chase and despite determined opposition from a short-tempered KGB heavy who is about to become very familiar.

+6

The Man From U.N.C.L.E. is crying out for a charismatic someone – anyone! – to seize it by the neck and shout ‘Watch me, I’m really good’, as Downey Jr did with Sherlock Holmes. But nobody does

Yes, for once Gaby (Vikander) is safely back in West Berlin, American and Russian intelligence join forces to counter the considerable threat of a shadowy organisation based in Italy that might just have got itself an atom bomb. 

Fans of the original series may be disappointed, irritated even, to know that this shadowy organisation is no longer called T.H.R.U.S.H. But the important thing is that the larky libertine Solo and the seriously Soviet Kuryakin are now working on the same side.

It’s here that things quickly begin to go wrong. Each twist of the plot seems far too complicated, the explanations seem endless (as co-writer, Ritchie must share in the blame) and you keep finding yourself thinking things like: ‘Hang on a minute, isn’t that the plot from the latest Mission: Impossible film, or Kingsman, or Spy?’ Or quite possibly the next James Bond come to that.

Most of its problems are of its own making and serious enough that even a rare cameo from Hugh Grant as a senior British intelligence officer can’t help. 

+6

Only Elizabeth Debicki (above), so good as Jordan Baker in The Great Gatsby , stands out, playing the sort of sexually charged female villain Bond producers would surely have loved to get their hands on

Only Elizabeth Debicki, so good as the golf-playing Jordan Baker in The Great Gatsby, stands out, playing the sort of sexually charged female villain the current crop of Bond producers would surely have loved to get their hands on.

It’s the lack of spark, the lack of originality and, most of all, the lack of genuine humour that are the real problems here. Ritchie stamped his own mark on Sherlock Holmes; here he just reminds us how many times we’ve been down this now tired-looking path before.

Yes, there are still one or two stylish moments to admire – I enjoyed Solo’s rescue of Kuryakin from a particularly watery fate – but with punchline after punchline falling flat and the few chuckles there are coming from sexual innuendo that’s straight from James Bond, The Man From U.N.C.L.E. is one of the big disappointments of the summer and will surely struggle to secure the sequel it half-heartedly sets itself up for.

Source and credit.

Keep your fingers crossed. . . .

Could THIS Possibly Be The First Photo of Sherlock Holmes 3?

Story Here!

What do you think?

SFIFF: Conveying genius of Sherlock Holmes not so elementary

Photo: Photo Illus By Michael Ordona

Sherlock Holmes as played by Basil Rathbone (left), Robert Downey Jr., Benedict Cumberbatch and Sir Ian McKellen: Searching for genius.

Here’s the problem with Sherlock Holmes movies (and TV shows): There aren’t enough super-geniuses in the world.

To make Holmes work, writers, directors and actors must conjure a passable spark of genius, and that requires an equivalent level of megawatt brain power.

And it’s not just an intellectual problem; it’s a dramatic one. Great athlete? Just watch. Great musician? Just listen. Great intellect? Just … think?

“The Theory of Everything” won the Oscar for Eddie Redmayne’s transformative performance asStephen Hawking. It conveyed the tribulations of a marriage and the trials of an ALS sufferer, but the genius portion of the menu was skimped upon. We were told of, not blown away by, Hawking’s incredible breakthroughs.

The Robert Downey Jr.-Guy Ritchie Holmes movies are more about the actor’s charisma, the director’s technique and Sherlock-as-action-hero than puzzling along with the world’s greatest detective.

Even the Benedict Cumberbatch BBC series relies on cheat after cheat — he’s working on mysteries to which we’re not given all the clues he has. No knock on the excellent Cumberbatch, but TV’s “House” got away with that “I’ve got more info than you” trick because the quandaries were rooted in actual medicine.

Back when Basil Rathbone was sussing ’em out in “The Hound of the Baskervilles” (1939), super-sleuthing was new to viewers. Since then, we’ve become inured to TV procedurals (and “Scooby-Doo”) with mysteries always one fiber analysis away from being solved in 42 minutes plus commercials.

Not since the first two Hannibal Lecter movies, “Manhunter” and “The Silence of the Lambs,” has there been a recurring character that amazed with intelligence — even more so in Thomas Harris’ deeply researched and inventive source novels.

Now Sir Ian McKellen reunites with “Gods and Monsters” director Bill Condon in “Mr. Holmes,” receiving its U.S. premiere at the San Francisco International Film Festival on Saturday, April 25. McKellen’s casting implies an approach less about misanthropic quirks and fisticuffs than capturing the eye-twinkle of living thought.

Let’s hope it does more to blow our minds than other recent Holmes boys did.

Source

For the record, Reverse Angle is a fan.

Michael Ordoña is a freelance writer in Los Angeles. E-mail: sadolphson@sfchronicle.com

What did they do for you?

Lets face it, ever since his very first appearance in Beeton's Christmas Annual, outside influences have been effecting our image of Sherlock Holmes.
Obviously for early readers of the Canon, the first illustrations first shaped how Holmes was perceived.
And the first time two readers of the Annual or the Strand got together to discuss aspects of the stories, discussion and 'higher Criticism' started to affect our thoughts and images of Sherlock Holmes.
It can probably be said that out of all the fictional characters out there, none have had more written about things that were not written about in the books.
So many of our discussions about the Canon are about filling in between Doyle's wonderful lines.
And if we are in anyway involved, whether in printed form or face to face, in discussions, we can't help but be influenced by that input. Some more so than others.
Many we totally disagree with, while others give us pause for thought and reflection, and, in the end, fill in some of the details of Holmes' character and personality.

I first became familiar with the printed Holmes in 1977 while spending September in an old fishing/hunting camp in the back woods of Maine. I was alone for a month with the nearest town a two mile lake crossing and a twenty one mile road drive away. There was no electricity, and looking back on it now fondly, I had to read what ever books I acquired in town by gas light.

Even though that was really my first meeting with Holmes, I still had images from the Rathbone movies to give the characters faces. Rathbone was of me fathers era, but his face had been in many adds and Sunday matinees of my youth.

I don't recall if by 1977 I had actually seen any his Holmes films, probably had in part, but I knew who he was and that he played Sherlock Holmes. For many years he was the face of Holmes for me and he still makes up part of it.
But he never actually made me think anymore about Holmes. His mannerisms never made me reflect on whether or not the Canonical Holmes would have been like that in anyway other than his image.
I must confess that at this point in my Canonical career I was unfamiliar with anything called 'higher criticism'.

In about 1988 I was introduced to Sherlockian discussion with the forming of a local scion society.
It was at these meetings I learned there was more to these stories than what was just between the two hard covers. There was actually filler material Doyle never wrote about, and probably never cared about, but that we find addictive.
And along the way, much of that filler material has shaped our perception of Holmes.
Even the material we choose to discard sometimes makes us examine the perception.

And that leads me to my point of this post.

In any way have the last three most talked about Holmes portrayals, Brett, Cumberbatch, Miller, affected in any way your images of the Canonical Holmes, or at least made you examine something a little differently?

Let's start with Brett.

Over the years Brett has become my favorite film portrayal of Holmes (especially his early years). It didn't start out that way. It took me a little while for that affection to grow. At first I thought the portrayal was a little to melodramatic and staged (which has been argued by others).
But eventually when taking the episodes in review with the Canon I really started liking his performance.
Eventually, through Brett, I came to appreciate the humor in Holmes.
Every once in a while the twinkle in his eye would show a little bit of the man in Holmes that was seldom glimpsed.
It will always be a shame that he never got to do all the stories.

While I still think Benedict Cumberbatch's 'Sherlock' is still the best thing to happen to the world of Sherlock Holmes in a very long time, his portrayal is the one I wrestle with the most.
While I find many aspects of his performance 'spot on' to an image I have of Holmes, many of the quirks the writers write in to his Holmes I find irritating. Irritating in a good way in that it makes me examine even more the foundations I have under my Holmes.
Unfortunately some of the irritating quirks have become the foundation that much of the 'fan' fanfare is based on.
But even that makes us examine our views, so is therefore a good thing.
While the latest generation of Sherlockians, old and young, are probably quite pleased with the time and setting of 'Sherlock', it could be argued that there are not many of the older generation Sherlockians who do not wish Mr. Cumberbatch would do Victorian era Holmes.
(Keep our fingers crossed for Christmas.)

Benedict's portrayal of Holmes was easy to embrace in the beginning, but probably provides less sustenance as it goes along.
So, while I love 'Sherlock', and the show has brought up much good discussion, I have found the show has done little to change or adjust my image of the Canonical Holmes. I think it even lacks the depth to make us even compare it very deeply to the Canonical Sherlock.
We can however imagine Benedict's 'Sherlock' in a deerstalker and Iverness cape.

It can probably be said without much argument
that 'Elementary' is the most criticized and controversial of the new main stream interpretations of Sherlock Holmes. And not without good cause.
But I think it can also be argued that it offers the most in Canonical discussion since Brett for the real (you can decide what is real) Sherlockian.
Although much of what is portrayed in 'Elementary' we find if not disgusting at least offensive to our image of Holmes, it has been brave enough to force us to examine aspects of Holmes life that we often don't want to think about, or that we have neatly put away some where safe (for me that would be the constant reference to his drug habit). The show dares us to think about the dark side of Sherlock's personality. And sometimes we don't like what it makes use think about. I have respect for the show in that it makes me want to think about the Canon. Miller's Holmes has added some depth to my Sherlock.
While much of Miller's portrayal makes me examine the Canonical Holmes, he will never be the image of Sherlock Holmes for me. I can't imagine him in a deerstalker or Iverness cape.

It would be fun, and educational, and maybe impossible to have a class of students. all with little knowledge of Holmes and have them all read a few of the same stories and without conversation between themselves, then write down their images of Holmes. Everyone I imagine would be slightly or greatly different.

It could probably be argued that Robert Downey Jr. should be added to this discussion, but, for me, his films, although fun, would not stand up to this discussion unless we were talking about portrayals of John Watson.






I must admit here that what ever conclusions I have come up with from any of these portrayals have been helped along in some cases by discussions with learned (and some not so) Sherlockians.

Have any of these modern portrayals had any effect on your interpretations of Holmes, good or bad?  Are there others that have?

What's your favorite Sherlockian accoutrement? Or how many favorites do you have?

As Sherlockians we are always ready and willing to point out all the things non-Sherloclian's associate with Sherlock Holmes; the deerstalker, the curved pipe and the Iverness cape, amongst other things. And no matter how many times we state the fact that, "Holmes did not use any of those!", they still remain iconic images of the great detective. And that's okay. Just because it doesn't say he did use them, it doesn't mean he couldn't have. And all three have made him the recognizable image he is today.
Even the most august Sherlockian journals and blogs don't mind using those symbols as representation in or on their pages. It's hard to fight a myth you help perpetrate.

The most recent popular adaptations of the stories, the RDJ movies, Sherlock and Elementary have for the most part not embraced the use of these symbols as stereotypical accoutrements of the great detective. Sherlock is the only one so far to find a way to incorporate them into it's show, but in a very subtle way. They use an over sized coat as a faux representation of the Iverness (it could be argued), and the deerstalker has been used as a comical prop.

And let's face it, even though, to show our Sherlockian knowledge, we are quick to point out they where not used, most of us are pretty comfortable with the image they suggest.

But that is not why we are here today.

My question to you is, like stated in the title; "What is your favorite Sherlockian accoutrement?"
If you had one thing you could chose to put in your home, your Sherlockian room, what would it be?
Would in be the knife in the mantle or the slipper next to it?
Would it be the Gasogene?
Our would you have an extra space built in your garage for a Hansom Cab?
Would you have Mrs. Hudson polished coffee service on your side board?
Or Watsons comfortable chair?
I might chose one of the walking sticks or the fenders around the fireplace.
Most of us can not afford to replicate an entire room from 221b, and many of us who do have an item from that time period may have come by it by luck or accident (I have a bulls-eye lantern I just love).

So the question remains; "What would be the first thing you would chose to fill that space?"

And the poll says. . .

I posted a link to a poll a few weeks back, and here is how it stands as of now. I guess it all depends on how you found Holmes. Not surprised by B.C., but am by RDJ.

I am surprised Brett is not a little further up. Generations using computers I guess.

So who's the best Sherlock of all time? (Poll Closed)

Benedict Cumberbatch 48.28%  

 

Robert Downey Jr. 44.9%  

 

Jeremy Brett 4.4%  

 

Jonny Lee Miller 1.28%  

 

Basil Rathbone 0.7%  

 

Other: 0.21%  

 

Peter Cushing 0.15%  

 

Nicol Williamson 0%  

 

Kinda of an interesting take on a couple of movies both actors were in.. . .

Here,.

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.

Fashion tips. . .

Here. . .

Per James' suggestion - a good read.

Holmes, 2.0

I once did a Sherlockain convention presentation on 'Single in a non-Sherlockian World'. It's no so lonely out there now.

Check out some of her other Sherlock Holmes stuff.