The Problem of Thor Bridge

The next meeting of the Harpooners of the Sea Unicorn, whether it be an attended meeting at our local meeting place or another online, the discussion will be about THOR.

I just reread the story and found it to be one of my favorites, again.

Much has been discussed over the years about THOR, including the condition that caused the victim to kill herself.

The line that jumped out at me in this reading was;
 "I produced it from my hip-pocket, a short, handy, but very serviceable little weapon. "

Much discussion has been centered around the weapon or weapons Holmes and Watson may have carried, starting with the very first story when Watson said; '"I keep a bull pup."
Many agree that Watson probably also had a service revolver from his military days which probably would have been larger than the 'bull pup', (if you believe he meant a gun by that statement) and probably, in my opinion, not the one carried in THOR.

Below are a couple of links of other people thoughts on weapons in the Canon. Enjoy.




http://coastconfan.blogspot.com/2014/08/john-hamish-watson-md-or-mystery-of.html

https://simanaitissays.com/2015/05/15/firearms-of-the-holmesian-canon/

https://forums.gunboards.com/showthread.php?281503-Dr-Watson-s-quot-Service-Revolver-quot-in-Sherlock-Holmes-Books

Stay, finish your beer.

BLUE along with HOUND is one of my favorite stories from the Canon. For many reasons, but mostly for the atmosphere, and the congenial pace at which the story flows.
And, as a craft beer lover, the following scene is probably my favorite image from the story;
"In a quarter of an hour we were in Bloomsbury at the Alpha Inn, which is a small public-house at the corner of one of the streets which runs down into Holborn. Holmes pushed open the door of the private bar and ordered two glasses of beer from the ruddy-faced, white-aproned landlord. “Your beer should be excellent if it is as good as your geese,” said he. “My geese!” The man seemed surprised. “Yes. I was speaking only half an hour ago to Mr. Henry Baker, who was a member of your goose club.”
“Ah! yes, I see. But you see, sir, them’s not our geese.” “Indeed! Whose, then?” “Well, I got the two dozen from a salesman in Covent Garden.” “Indeed? I know some of them. Which was it?” “Breckinridge is his name.” “Ah! I don’t know him. Well, here’s your good health landlord, and prosperity to your house. Good-night.” "

Oh, please, oh, please! Stay and finish the pint together! Stay and talk about the season, the weather, Mrs. Watson. Anything, just stay for a little while!
Holmes and Watson together, out for a pint. A warm, snug pub. A jolly holiday atmosphere still hung in the air. London by gas light on a cold winters night. Who amongst us Sherlockians do not wish to be privy to such a moment in Canonical time. Outside of maybe sitting around the fire with the two of them at 221b, this for me would be my pick spot.

We don't very often get to see Holmes and Watson out for a social moment together in the Canon. Matter of fact I can't think of a time when we do. Those moments are suggested, or at least we imagine they are. There is always only the promise of such moments.

Even when we find the two in Baker St., any moments imagined as quietly social are soon interrupted by a case. The hint of a social interlude is always only suggested.

Even in BLUE where Watson drops by to wish Sherlock compliments of the season, the quiet moment of two friends getting together for no other reason than shared friendship never happens. Watson states that with the introduction to the tale; ". . .with the intention of wishing him the compliments of the season." "With the intention". It doesn't even seem the salutation was ever even made.

But back to the pub scene.
Pubs were not as we expect them today. Pubs were for the serving and drinking of beer. You would not find the menus we expect today. A lower class social club.
Well into the late 19th century beer was seen as safer than water to drink. And while most families had brewed beer in their own homes for that reason (of a much lower alcohol percentage than now), that trend had slowly disappeared until pubs became the place to drink or at least get your 'to go' jug.
The popularity of pubs grew partly out of the governments need to suppress the popularity of 'gin houses' and what was thought of as leading to ruination and degradation of the working classes.

Many pubs, including the Canonical Alpha Inn, were separated into two bar areas; the public bar, and a private bar (sometimes called snugs). We know Holmes and Watson went to the private bar because Watson states; "Holmes pushed open the door of the private bar and ordered two glasses of beer. . ."
The private bar would have been a section of the pub where someone could go who did not want to be seen by the other patrons; women, cops, priests, men on business, etc.
Many times they were separate rooms with separate doors (as it would appear the Alpha Inn was). Many just had glassed off areas that divided the two sections. Just areas for privacy and a little less noise.
Holmes probably used the private bar to have a discrete word with the landlord and not have to talk over the noise of the public bar. Maybe he didn't want to be recognized either.
Holmes and Watson, as mentioned above, used the private bar and ordered two glasses of beer.
We will never know if Holmes and Watson stayed and finished their beers for Watson suggests that they stayed only long enough to raise their glasses to wish the landlord good health.

I want them to have stayed long enough to talk about what had been going on in each others lives over however long it had been since they had seen each other. The private bar would have been the perfect place. At least I can imagine that Watson got in a few more sips of his brew while Holmes was involved with the landlord.
I want this scene to go on longer, in the spirit of the season.
But it was not meant to be. Instead they head off the to see Breckenridge where the atmosphere proves less than jovial.

No, in BLUE we are never going to 'see' Holmes and Watson share that moment of sociable companionship. No lingering over a pint.
Towards the end, once again, it almost happens; "If you will have the goodness to touch the bell, Doctor, we will begin another investigation, in which, also a bird will be the chief feature.”
But, alas, once again, we are ushered out of those comfortable digs without an invitation to stay just a bit longer.

I have had the pleasure of going to what is usually recognized as the location for the Alpha Inn, the Museum Tavern, for lunch when once in London. One more thing off of my Sherlockain bucket list.

What did Mrs. Watson have to say or Ode to Mary.

The world of Sherlock Holmes seems to be in rather a drought once again this time of year. TV episodes are either over or on hiatus for who really knows how long. And Sherlock Holmes 3 is or is not going into production this fall for a maybe release in 2017 or 2018. Pastiches are not getting my attention of late.

So what is a faithful Sherlockian to do but return to the Canon. 

I thought I would take a look at a case that takes place roughly around, well . . . . this time of year.

I have always had a crush on Mary Morstan (Watson) and have found it sad that usually screen Mary's get more time than the actual Mary did in the Canon. We learn of her personality in SIGN, and her background, but nothing, really, after that.

When Watson describes her this way; Miss Morstan entered the room with a firm step and an outward composure of manner. She was a blonde young lady, small, dainty, well gloved, and dressed in the most perfect taste. There was, however, a plainness and simplicity about her costume which bore with it a suggestion of limited means. The dress was a somber grayish beige, untrimmed and unbraided, and she wore a small turban of the same dull hue, relieved only by a suspicion of white feather in the side. Her face had neither regularity of feature nor beauty of complexion, but her expression was sweet and amiable, and her large blue eyes were singularly spiritual and sympathetic. In an experience of women which extends over many nations and three separate continents, I have never looked upon a face which gave a clearer promise of a refined and sensitive nature.

. .  how could we not hope this young woman would forever be in Watson's life?

We didn't care, yet, that it would upset the balance of the life at Baker St. (or did it?) and the recording of the cases, and leave us wondering what Holmes did without Watson. (I have yet to see any papers on what Watson did without Holmes. We knew Watson would be alright, while we worried about Holmes. )

But we really liked Mary. Mary was part of the everything British we loved about Watson.

But alas, it was not meant to be.

Sadly once Mary has married Watson she is only mentioned of three times and, sadly, actually makes only two appearances. And rather limited at that.

The Mary's of 'Sherlock' and the RDJ films get much more page time as spouse than the Canonical Mary. And in both of those cases Mary actually gets to participate in the adventures.

We know at some point Watson remarries, but she will not be Mary.

“What do you say, dear?” said my wife, looking across at me. “Will you go?’

“Oh, Anstruther would do your work for you. You have been looking a little pale

lately. I think that the change would do you good, and you are always so interested in Mr. Sherlock Holmes’s cases.”

And of course this exchange in TWIS;

One night—it was in June, ’89—there came a ring to my bell, about the hour when a man gives his first yawn and glances at the clock. I sat up in my chair, and my wife laid her needle-work down in her lap and made a little face of disappointment.

“A patient!” said she. “You’ll have to go out.”

I groaned, for I was newly come back from a weary day. We heard the door open, a few hurried words, and then quick steps upon the linoleum. Our own door flew open, and a lady, clad in some dark coloured stuff, with a black veil, entered the room.

“You will excuse my calling so late,” she began, and then, suddenly losing her self-control, she ran forward, threw her arms about my wife’s neck, and sobbed upon her shoulder.

“Oh, I’m in such trouble!” she cried; “I do so want a little help.”

“Why,” said my wife, pulling up her veil, “it is Kate Whitney. How you startled me, Kate! I had not an idea who you were when you came in.”

“I didn’t know what to do, so I came straight to you.” That was always the way.

Folk who were in grief came to my wife like birds to a light-house.

“It was very sweet of you to come. Now, you must have some wine and water, and sit here comfortably and tell us all about it. Or should you rather that I sent James off to bed?”

Yet, if we are to accept that Mary died while Holmes was on hiatus, she was around for 18 cases after her engagement. Surely she could have been given more Canonical ‘screen time’!

She only gets about five lines in four years.

But like I said, I have always had a crush on Mary.

To me, she will always be ‘The Woman’ to my Watson.

Watson is with Holmes in Baker St. for only 18years and those years were split with Watson being with Mary for four years.

But, like I said, I have always had a crush on Mary.

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.

Is Sherlock Holmes a winter sport?

This may be question I should be asking myself more than anything since my output on this blog seems to have been somewhat lacking over this past summer.

Be that as it may, the question still seems to need to be asked; "Do we spend more time with Holmes in the cooler months than we do in the summer?"

If this were a question about beer I could easily explain my preference for one type over another as the seasons change.

The one summer, a couple of summers ago, when I found my Sherlockian output steady throughout the year was when Brad offered up the Sherlockian summer reading list.
I had a purpose, without even thinking about it, for continuing my Sherlockian reading through the warmer months.

But over all, I  believe my reading of Holmes usually drops off during the summer.
I am not sure why, but I have a couple of theories.
I find reading Holmes, for me, a very atmospheric pursuit. The mood has to be right, my surroundings have to be comfortable and I have to at least imagine that it would be nice sitting near a fireplace reading. And since I am more of a wine drinker in the winter than summer, a nice glass of a dry red doesn't hurt either.

The Canon of Sherlock Holmes of course is not with out it's stories set in a sweltering heat wave that neither Holmes nor Watson seems to relish. Several stories suggest that it is uncomfortable in Baker St. in a London summer.

But for the most part I imagine Holmes and Watson walking about their business always wearing some sort of a jacket (which is not unusual in England at that time all year round) and often times with an outer coat over it. And of course, always a hat.

I want my stories to not only have a briskness in adventure but also in temperature.
I want Holmes and Watson using the fire place in 221b and I want a chill wind blowing across Dartmoor. And let's not forget "a lonely hansom splashes through the rain. . .". Who wants to imagine it being all hot and humid and rainy when the hansom comes along?

In a real quick survey (the chronology you chose to use my differ slightly) of the Canon I found 27 stories took place between June and Sept.
We could argue what months should be included as the warmer months, but even adding May we only come up with 3 more stories in the Canon that could be placed in, for arguments sake, summer.
So, using this as the bases for my discussion, over half of the Canon takes place in 'cooler' months.
And that's good enough for me.

How about you, when do you get more of less involved with the Canon of Sherlock Holmes?

For many a newer Sherlockian their reading trends could be spurred by the time of year new video media is released. Most TV shows come out in the fall or early winter. And most big movies come out around Thanksgiving and Christmas ( not including what are known as summer block-busters. Both RDJ films came out in winter, but Mr. Holmes did come out in July but to not as big a release and it's premier was in Feb. 2015 with the DVD release coming in Nov. 2015).

But having been a Sherlockian for a very long time I have found these releases have not effected my reading habits.

So, this evening I am going to go home and dust the pollen of my bookshelf, pick up a couple of bottles of a dry red and move my reading chair closer to the fire.

Arthur and George - Second Impressions . . . .

I have now watched the first two installments of 'Arthur and George' and am so far enjoying it very much.

Probably more so because it is not a Sherlockain adaptation, where I would be examining it on its Canonical merit.

This however I can sit back and enjoy as a fictional accounting of a real event in Doyle's life.


The lead actors are doing a good job and are believable in there roles.
The sets are still wonderful and it seems like great care was put into the production.
The portrayal of Doyle and his private life are interesting and make one want to go out and do more reading. And if I walk away from any show wanting to know more, I consider it a success.

I find the Sherlockian references when they come along add a little humour to the show. I especially liked George's sisters dialog with Doyle in the garden pertaining to footprints.

I am hoping to hear Doyleockians take on the show for it's faithfulness to Doyle and his thoughts on whether of not he thinks Edlaji was innocent or not.

Arthur and George, first impressions. . . .

I started watching the PBS mini-series last night "Arthur and George".

I must admit that I went into expecting to have to change the characters names, at least mentally, from Arthur and Alfred to Holmes and Watson.
I half expected the presentation to be another story about the great detective, just with different names.
I was pleasantly surprised that turned out not to be the case.

I am sure plenty of artistic license was taken with both the story and the individuals portrayed, but, unless you must have your historical dramas completly accurate, it didn't seem to detract from the entertainment value of the show.

Just like Holmes we all have an image of how Doyle should be portrayed. Unlike Holmes, we actually do know what Doyle looked like at the time this part of his life took place.

That however doesn't take away for the excellent job Martin Clunes is doing with the portrayal of Doyle. He is convincing as Doyle during this time period and is fun to watch without making the portrayal seem like an attempt at Holmes.

Although I have no idea what Alfred Wood looked like or how he was, I do feel Charles Edwards is doing well with the character and makes him very likeable

Arsher Ali is probably playing George a little less ethnically than the real Edalji's picture would suggest, but, so far, is doing a good job in the roll.

The sets, as always with a Masterpiece presentation, are excellent, as are the costumes.

A major compliment I can give the production is; If it were not for references within the show of Doyle being the creator of Sherlock Holmes you would forget there was a Sherlockian connection. And I see that as good if you were expecting a non-Sherlockian story. You forget, when allowed, about Holmes, and just sit back and enjoy the story.

Like many such shows, the recording of history and known facts does not allow for stories like this to be complelty accurate, which is a shame. It did however force the judical system of the time to be changed, and that is good.

I am looking forward to the other episodes.

Question about the Gloria Scott

A couple of days ago I posted about starting what I am calling "Mr. Fosters Opus". An in depth, I hope, research project into a Sherlockian topic I find interesting.

In that post I stated that if while doing my research I came up with a few unrelated discussion points I would post them as they came up.

So here goes. . .

Chronologically most all Sherlockians list GLOR as the first story in the Canon of Sherlock Holmes.
And it is true that it is the first 'case' Holmes was involved in where he actually believed he had found his calling. Taking place many years before he comes to know Watson, the story is basically about Holmes understanding the value of his skills and how he can apply them.

But if we are to actually look at this 'case' chronologically,  placing it at the beginning of any book where the stories are in some kind of, well, chronological order would be an error.

By placing it first we are forgetting that the discussion between Holmes and Watson takes place many years after Holmes travels with his friend Trevor for a summer break.

Going by a few of the introductory paragraphs we are led to believe Holmes and Watson have known each other for a while.

Do we bother to place other cases else where in the order because some other case is mentioned within?

We are completely, at least to my knowledge, forgetting the discussion about when this conversation took place around the fire that winters night.

Mr. Foster's Opus

Lacking the challenge Brad offered last summer and finding Elementary and Sherlock on hiatus I believe it is time for me to start a major research project or two that I have been putting off for several years, waiting for (which will never happen) a large chuck of time in which to do them.

To start on the project I am going to try to read at least one of the short stories each day, underlining what I am looking for in each story. I will save the novels till the end. (Other than the Hound, I have never been all that thrilled about having to go through the novels again. Maybe this will change my mind.)

Although I don't want to discuss at this time what the two researches are about, I am also hoping to come up with at least one other discussion point each day to post here.

The two research projects I hope will eventually end up here after publication in some august journal.

I hope you come along for the summer ride.

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?

I wonder. . .

TWIS - "At the foot of the stairs, however, she met this Lascar scoundrel of whom I have spoken, who thrust her back. . ."

Have you ever wondered what or whom a Lascar is?

Lascar found here.

February reading list - short for a short month.

BERY
MISS
ABBE

While we wait - our January reading list.

Well, 'Elementary' is on hiatus.
And 'Sherlock' is on an even longer hiatus
'A Slight Trick of the Mind' isn't due out for a while.
And RDJ and Jude Law still aren't sure when they will be at their third installment.

And till we get a report from the BSI weekend, we are left to our own devices.

So. . . until  'insert favorite Sherlock Holmes show here' comes back or  'Forever' changes it's name to 'Duncan Holmes, Highlander Sherlock Holmes' we will just have to make due with the Canon, or, of course, 'I hear of Sherlock Everywhere'. That doesn't sound so awful does it?

Here is our January reading list from the Canon, thanks to Baring-Gould and Brad.

REDC

VALL

ABBE

CHAR

BLAN

Put your feet up and enjoy.

'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, . . . .

How would you film 'The Adventure of the Gloria Scott"?

I don't know what made me start thinking about this. But since not all the stories have been filmed it is an interesting question.

Another thing that made me start thinking about it is the rumored appearance of Nicholas Rowe's (as matinee Sherlock)as and actor playing Sherlock Holmes in an up coming movie.

Would you film it with the lead actor telling the story in flash backs with a younger actor playing the younger Holmes.

Or would you use make-up to make the lead actor look older of younger at various times in the tale.

It would be interesting to see how film would handle a story like this.

And it is also interesting to note that the upcoming film I was talking about, 'A Slight Trick of the Mind' is now going to be called 'Mr. Holmes'.

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.

FIVE - a mini HOUN? A review of The Five Orange Pips for discussion.

If I could imagine for myself an evening sitting by a fire enjoying a book it would be just about as Watson describes it in the beginning of this tale.

"Sherlock sat moodily at one side of the fireplace cross-indexing his records of crime, while I at the other was deep in one of Clark Russell’s fine sea- stories until the howl of the gale from without seemed to blend with the text, and the splash of the rain to lengthen out into the long swash of the sea waves. "


What bibliophile amongst us does in at some time envision being able to just sit by gas lamp somewhere and enjoy a favorite beverage, a book and a fireplace. And to have Mother Nature giving sound effects while you read, WOW!
We sit and read in so many uncomfortable and uninviting places, and if we are lucky, sometimes we get to sit and read in ideal conditions.

And also learn a little bit about Watson's reading tastes when he has some free time, Clark Russell.

A nod to Watson or Doyle's love of travel and adventure perhaps. Or was this reading material a statement on Watson's concern for the common man?

We learn of at least six unwritten cases that we will never hear about.

Watson is still married but on his own again.

We learn of how many time Holmes considers that he was beaten and by whom (I am sure the number increase by one after this case.)


There are also some similarities to the HOUN.

Both involve men who came by unexpected inheritance.
Both involve events from someones past and carry over into other generations.
Both have outcomes that are not clearly established and are left in vague conclusion.
Both have the 'client' placed in danger, one with a said outcome.
Both have men who for a period of time are in mortal fear for their lives.

Did Holmes learn from this case the importance of needing to send Watson to keep an eye on Sir Henry. It would seem Sir Henry would have been a little more capable of taking care of himself then Mr. Openshaw would have been. Holmes in some way must of felt responsible for Openshaw's death.

We also once again see the fascination with American history by the literary agent and how he was up  on current affairs.

The story is a little (very) disappointing for it's swift conclusion with no clear ending.

Continued Summer reading list, with or without Brad

Brad's summer reading list ended in Aug. Technically summer ends near the end of Sept
I am sure he picked the end of Aug. because at least here in the midwest Aug. is usually the end of summer break for school kids. So it kinda makes since.

But just for the fun of it, and I know I am a little late, let's take our list till the end of Sept.
So, from Sherlock Peoria we get at least five more.
They are;
FIVE in 1887
SIGN in 1888
VEIL in 1896
ILLU in 1902 and
CREE in 1903

So, let the Games continue!

'Playing the Game' - What have I gotten myself into?

In my last post where I reviewed the G2B4 weekend I seemed to have put my foot in it with at least a couple of people.
And now I hope I can defend myself somewhat.

I made the comment, "I came away realizing there is a big difference between Playing the Game for Sherlock, and Playing the Game for Sherlock Holmes, and that it seems unlikely the two shall meet."

And I now seem in need of explaining myself. And, after all, that is what this blog is all about.

I had made that comment in regard to my review of Kristina Manente's talk about fandom for the wonderful 'Sherlock'.

And I still stand by my comment, and think as the most popular fan sites would suggest, it is not hard to get the impression.

First I guess I should explain what 'Playing the Game' means to me.
In it's most broad sense, for me 'Playing the Game' is two fold.
First would be examining the stories as written by Doyle and trying to find clues related to real world experiences. This, to some, would be the  most pure form of 'Playing the Game', researching Doyle's work and coming up with the why's and where-fores of Doyle's material, taken it so far as to even examine Doyle's life. 
This could even take the form of researching the history of things and objects in the Canon. This approach, history of items and things, I do a lot in my presentations. 
I recognize the study of Doyle and his other works as being a very scholarly approach, and one that I am not all that suited for.

The second part for me would probably be the most common, and that is, taking the stories as if Dr. John Watson actually wrote them and that they are true, at least for the time in which you participate in the hobby. I participate in this one a lot at the various groups I attend.

The Canonical Sherlock Holmes is also the way I 'Play the Game' whenever I view or listen to some adaptation of Sherlock Holmes.

And to me, or at least for me, a Sherlockian is someone who pursues Holmes in some manner close to this.

And then we have the problem of 'Sherlock'.
To even have 'Sherlock' in a Sherlockain conversation to some is totally ludicrous in the first place because it is not a work written by Doyle. And you have to give them that.

But we have 'Sherlock' and it is a wonderful show and since it is so popular it is hard not to get caught up with it and 'Play the Game'.

And it is here that my earlier comments are aimed.

For me, 'Playing the Game' with the show is looking for Canonical references and contemplating the characters as portrayed on the show, Canonically.
Just as an example; One point of discussion I would have, 'Playing the Game', would be; Would the Canonical Holmes show up at an appointment with the Queen is just a bed sheet.? (You can come up with your own answer for that one.)
Can you take your version of the Canonical Holmes and make him fit into the Holmes portrayed in 'Sherlock'? Is he still being Sherlock Holmes? 
For me, I think the show is spot on in some areas and way off the mark in others.
This is 'Playing the Game' as a Sherlockian, in my view, if you are willing to let yourself leave the Canon in the first place. One of those lines we draw to make it fit into our way of thinking.

It seems to me, on the most popular 'Fan' sites I have seen, 'Playing the Game' with 'Sherlock' does not require the original stories to be present. Some fans have even stated that they have not read the Canon at all or at least not all of them.
'Playing the Game' with 'Sherlock' seems more about trying to figure out where the story is going to go nest and whether or not Holmes and Watson are or should be lovers. Is Moriarty going to come back? Or will Sherlock once again have a relationship with someone.

Don't get me wrong, if that is how you enjoy the show, Great! But is it 'Playing the Game' as a Sherlockian or are you 'Playing at the Game' with 'Sherlock'. They aren't the same, and often times I think this is where the confusion lays. 

I realize that choosing to view 'Playing the Game' this way is based on personal bias and comfort zones. I am okay with that.

My real point is I still believe there is a blurred line between both camps that is often still misinterpreted and doesn't play well for some folks.

Like I have said before, I think 'Sherlock' is the best thing to happen to Holmes in a very long time and as really opened up the world of Holmes and Watson to many more folks. And you can be both, a Fan and a Sherlockian.

This is only my opinion, and I respect yours. After all, I am also someone who 'Plays the Game' with 'Elementary'.

Brad's summer reading list number 20 - CARD - I'm all ears.

It would be an interesting study in the Canon to find out how many of the villains who were sailors at one time were also alcoholics.
It seems to be a theme. But then again, what was a sailor suppose to do when in so many foreign ports.

First I would like to thank Brad for starting this summer project, it has been a fun way to re-read some of the stories and have some conversation.

And once again for me it is much of the other stuff in the story that gets my attention rather than the mystery.


The weather in London would appear to be much like the weather this year in late August here in the mid-west, very hot and in the nineties.

Within the first two paragraphs we learn a little bit about the appearance of Baker St. or at least one of it's neighbors, which may have suggested to some it's possible location. ". . . the glare of the sunlight upon the yellow brick. . ." I would imagine that most non-English Sherlockains imagining Baker St. would imagine a red brick facade.

We get the image later in the story of Lestrade being a rather dapper fellow, despite other words used to describe him, even within this story.

The images Mr. Paget gives us are of younger Holmes and Watsons, boater hats and derby's.
In the scene represented above, where the three crime stoppers are examining the ears, we learn, that awaiting Holmes arrival, the ears are inoffensively kept in an outhouse in the back of Miss. Cushing's yard.
Most of us imagine an outhouse as being something rural, at least here in America. A tiny little closet sized building with a crescent moon on the door, where one went to spend some quiet time contemplating an old sears catalog before putting it to further use.
And this image would not necessarily be inaccurate.
But in some cases the word outhouse could also suggest some other sort of building like a shed. Usually these small buildings built for other uses would more likely be called by a name suggesting there use; barn, shed, stable, well house and collectively they would be called out-buildings instead of outhouse.
What confuses the issue in this case is how it is differently referred to in this story.
Miss. Cushing first informs use that, "they are in the outhouse".
We then get Watson describing the building as a small shed.

When I first re-read this passage I was reminded of a story my mother use to share with us about her upbringing.
She grew up in a small town in Yorkshire, Selby, the the late 20's early 30's.
She had five sister and three brothers. And they all lived in a small row house of six units, each two separated by an alley.
My mom would describe how, as a young child, she would have to walk at night with just a candle back to the outhouse before bed.
Made even worse if the dirty old man next-door was out in the alley having a smoke.
The description and the way she told the story always made it should as if the small outhouse was about thirty yards away.
When I visited the home several years ago the alley-ways were yet to be boarded up so I could investigate this little outhouse.
I found the outhouse to still be standing, probably now used as a shed, built solid of brick, but no more than twenty feet from the back door. Right in the corner of the neighboring yards brick wall and the high brick wall of the church behind the house. The outhouse actually seemed to be joined to the two intersecting brick walls.
Paget's drawing shows the three crime fighters looking at the ears while up against a brick wall, suggesting that that is either the side of the outhouse/shed or a tall brick wall.
So the outhouse in this story could have either been used for relief, so to speak, or have been a shed.
Or it could have been both, with one attached to the other.

P.S. I did a little further research into my mom's outhouse experience and she said that although it was outside, it was indeed a flush toilet. Who would have thought?

Now I have used my fair share of outhouse's over the years. All in rural settings and most involved with camping. I have even built one which we use at our cabin.

But one thing we forget in our modern reading of these tales is that it was not uncommon for most houses, rural and urban to still not have indoor plumbing. It is hard for us to imagine someone like Miss. Cushing, with all her layers of clothes marching out back to an house. it wasn't until the mid to late 1800's that indoor plumbing started to become more common.
Miss Cushing probably had other methods of transport for the unpleasantness's which probably involved the under paid help.

Has anyone ever investigated the flushing systems in Baker St.?

With that in mind I would like to pass on a little outhouse wisdom . . . .