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.

Doing my best Steve Martin, "The new phone books are hear, the new phone books are here!"

Not really. But even better, the new

Watsonian just arrived along with two additional publications.

And to make it even better, I am a contributor in this issue.

Can't wait to start reading them.

Elementary S3E17 - 'T-Bone and the Iceman' - almost got across Thor Bridge

I think the thing that is bothering me the most about Elementary at the moment is that the plots are not keeping up to the back story of the characters. (Like another reviewer said, we don't watch Elementary for the plots.)

What I mean is; The plots or stories are becoming to repetitive in plot and criminal type, while it is doing a great job making back stories for Holmes and Watson.
(James comments made me rethink some of that back story stuff.)

Holmes is asked to help investigate the death of a young women found after a hit and run, and I guess another hit. Her body appears to be mummified. Which in it self seems to be the start of a good story.
Holmes deduces that her body appeared the way it did from exposure to a refrigerant.
The case then becomes who stole the refrigerant and why did they kill her.

It turns out the plot involved a cancer victim taking revenge against an estranged cousin who would not help him in his time of need.

My question about the plot is this; The cancer victim already got away with killing his cousin, why did he feel he needed to get rid of the body after it had already been accepted into the freezer program.
Now I was a little distracted near the end of this episode, so I may have missed that point and will try to watch the end again tonight to catch it.

James comments in my last episode post made me really think about how this show is attempting to fill in back story for both Holmes and Watson. While I don't always like the approach it takes, it is making a good case for itself.

We know Watson was, for what ever reason, estranged from any living relatives in his family.
Elementary explored that somewhat in this episode.

In this episode Holmes also commented on keeping at a  distance his kin, and Canonically we never see a close relationship between Holmes and what ever remaining family he has.

It will also be interesting to see Watson's dealings with her mother over the next season.

Another thing Elementary makes us do is to examine societies acceptance of Holmes' behavior as he is perceived by others in his own time. Would the image we all create of Holmes in our minds be out of place in Victorian times, or thought of as socially strange. Millers Holmes is often portrayed like that.

Looking at it through slightly more open eyes, I give this episode;

Elementary S3E6 - 'Terra Pericolosa' - What do you get when you have three Sherlock's in the same room?

I love maps. Who doesn't.
They promise adventure, hope, new places.
Old ones can offer adventure.

Think of how many tales we have watched or read that start with maps.

Looking at maps can bring back fond memories of past family trips.

New maps help us plan and dream about future adventures.



I have a favorite map of Nepal that still brings back great memories of a past trip.

In this episode Holmes Inc. gets involved with stolen maps and a murdered security guard. Which leads to another murder. Only one of the stolen maps is relevant to the rest of the case, which involves land boundaries from a previous century.  Of course there still is no honor among thieves, so almost everyone involved with the stolen map must die or is slated for death if Holmes does not solve the case first.

The case of the stolen map and its subsequent coping and re-coping is pretty could. It takes several good twists and turns and involves several interesting characters.
Although we didn't see very much of the leg work involved some good investigation was to be had, if not many good Sherlockianisms.
Ms. Hudson is mentioned but not seen.

Yes, the case was very strong in this one, but it was still more a story about the personalities involved and their relationship to each other and Holmes and Watson's jockeying for position as lead detective, with Watson failing so far. To give the episode a little credit, Watson's roll was much diminished and she was more of a sounding board than anything this week.

The bound seems to be growing between Kitty and Holmes, with Watson's help. And it is interesting to see Holmes' realization of the importance of this bound. And it is setting up for a good story line if something happens to that relationship.

Most of the important detective work was done by Sherlock in this one, with Kitty coming in second and Watson bringing up the rear. But even with that hierarchy, there were two too many Holmes'. Considering how we keep looking for more Holmes like characteristics having that search spread out over three characters will make the likelihood of that happening almost nonexistent.
This show does have the difficulty of finding enough for a convincing Watson to do and still remain relevant as a Boswell. You can't dumb him (her) down so much that he (she) just becomes the straight man to Millers Holmes. And yet it is not working as it is with everyone remaining as Holmes' almost equal.
Although Judd Law as only had to pull it off in two movies so far, his Watson worked. As has Freeman's in 'Sherlock'. Again, neither have had to do it over so many shows. But both have found away to play a smart Watson without over-shadowing Holmes' talents.

The relationship between Holmes and Kitty was interesting to watch this week, and is suggesting, at least to me, that something big is going to happen in that area. Will Kitty die? Is Joan going to leave the show? (I don't think that will happen.)

One thing that has been mentioned by another blogger is the fact that in most episodes the main criminal is introduced in the very beginning as a seemingly unimportant individual, who then turns out to be the real bad guy. Canonical quiz for today; Canonically, does that happen very often in the, well, Canon?

We heard nothing about Joan's trip to Denmark and saw nothing of the boy friend.

The turtle was just present briefly.

If the show continues in this way, it should be called the Three Holmes'.

For that reason I can only, for a good story, but too many Holmes' and lack of Canonical references;

The Watsonian - another review (discussion) #5 - "How the Speckled Band" Really Began" by Ann Margaret Lewis

Well, I am just going to have to read some of her books.
Although her little piece doesn't really add much scholarly, she sure can spin a yarn.
Very easy to read and a very comfortable Doyleian style.
Considering the purpose of the piece was to write a short piece based on an assigned phrase, she did a fantastic job.
Plausible and makes us think of Watson before Holmes.

Great work!

Another fine entry in the inaugural edition of The Watsonian.

Seven Degrees of Sherlock Holmes - #29 - The Watson's - Robert Duvall

I came to Robert Duvall as Watson and the film The Seven Percent Solution pretty late in my Sherlockain discoveries. For many years I didn't like the fact that it seened to be playing up on Sherlock's drug habit.
But I was lucky enough to attend Gillette to Brett III with Nicholas Meyer attending, and a showing of his film, and fell in love with it. And Robert Duvall did an outstanding job.

So, again, to celebrate the Watson's, we are doing Robert Duvall this week. We are, again, going to see if we can make a connection from the actor to Holmes along a path that does not include his roll as Watson.

Robert Duvall as had such a prolific career that I think there would be several paths to Holmes for him.
So I started in his early career.

Robert Duvall (seen here as Watson) - (1931)

took part in the 1962 film To Kill a Mockingbird 

which also featured Frank Overton (1918-1967)

who also took part in 1964's Fail Safe 

which featured a young Larry Hagman (1931-2012)

who played Sherlock Holmes in 1976's The Return of the World's Greatest Detective

So there you have it, there you are.

"Blood Is Thicker' - season 2 - episode 8 - a review.

Well, Elementary-wise, last weeks episode was just a bad dream and I woke up and real Elementary was back last night.
I also noticed this morning that several other blogs I follow have already posted comments about this weeks episode. I have not read them yet, but I am taking that as a good sign. (However, I am not expecting much from one of them.)

This episode opens with a body falling on top of a delivery truck, but not being found till later. Shade of BRUC in this canonical reference.

The murdered women turns out to be the estranged daughter, from a one-night-stand, of a dying billionaire.
She had been asked to come back into his life as a blood donor for the very sick man.

It is first assumed that she is his mistress, which is thought to be the reason for her death. That turns out not to be true, so Holmes and Watson have to find another motive for her death,

I found this to be a very good episode, with it's flaws about the same as usual; not enough deductive work by Holmes, Watson taking on to much of the detective roll, and although less in this episode, the animosity between the Holmes brother.

The strengths were better than the last few episodes.
The case had some very interesting twists and turns, and although the motive was a little disappointing, it did hold up OK.
I thought the clue about the paint chip splatters in the truck was good.
I though the missing tree on the balcony was a good clue.
It was good to see the childish jealousy gone in this episode, and a little hint at a better relationship between the Holmes brothers.
While I was a little disappointed last week that Diogenes was just going to be a restaurant, it seems there may be more to it than that. MI6 cover? Moriarty cover? ( I hope not.)
Holmes the younger still doesn't seem to trust his brothers motives, which the end of the episode would suggest may be a good thing. Something deeper is going on.

I was hoping the boy, in the beginning who liked new words, was going to have something to do with the story, but alas. . . . .

Canonical references I caught were;

- once again, single stick
- BRUC, with the body on the van
- Holmes down on the floor looking for clues
- comments about Mycroft's weight, indicting that he was once heavier
- using many contacts from past cases as help
- avoiding food when on a case
- his love of London (we often heard that London was where he was most comfortable
- Diogenes Club
- another possible reference to BRUC in that the criminal is taking care of the one suffering from the crime

(Come on buddy2blogger and James, help me out here.)

And in cases you don't believe in Moose Cheese.

I enjoyed seeing Margaret Colin in the show. If you remember, she once played Watson in 1987's The Return of Sherlock Holmes (she was Jane Watson)

Although I can't give it. . .

. . . because Holmes didn't do enough of the work.

However, I won't give it . .  

because I though it better than usual

So I am giving it. . . 

because of the stronger story, less bickering and the Mycroft twist at the end.

Cheers!

Seven Degrees of Sherlock Holmes - #28 - another tribute to the inaugural edition of the Watsonian

Once again, as a tribute to the new Watsonian and The John H Watson Society, we will be taking a look at actors who played Watson, but see if we can make a Sherlockian connection by some other route other than their role as Watson.

Again, the two that follow turned out to be easier than I was expecting, but I shouldn't have been surprised.

I started with David Burke, not expecting to be done so quickly.

David Burke, one of my favorite Watson's  (1934)

had an early appearance in a Sherlockian presentation when he appeared in The BBC's  BERY in 1965 starring Douglas Wilmer ( 1920) as Holmes . . 

Well, that was short and sweet.

So, it was on to Edward Hardwicke, again a favorite in the role of Watson

Edward Hardwicke (1932 - sadly only 2011)

participated in 2001's Enigma 

(A little trivia about Enigma;)

The film was produced by Mick Jagger of the Rolling Stones. Jagger makes a cameo appearance as an RAF officer at a dance. He also lent the film's design department a four-rotor Enigma encoding machine he owned to ensure the historical accuracy of one of the props. The festivities around the London premiere of the film are shown in the 2001 documentary Being Mick. (source Wikipedia)

which featured the very lovely Kate Winslet (whom we have already connected with), but more importantly for our purposes, Nicholas Rowe (1966)

who played Sherlock Holmes in 1985's Young Sherlock Holmes

We made quick work of that one.

So, there you have it, there you are.

The Watsonian - Review number four - 'Doctor Watson, Detective?' - by Dan Andriacco

I must admit, I was almost quality of theorizing "before (I) had all the evidence." I was jumping to conclusions, expecting to give Dan my first 'bad' 'review'. Neither the word 'bad' nor 'review' would be entirely correct. Just because I don't agree, doesn't make it bad. And just because I read it and say something about it, probably doesn't constitute a review.

Just my opinions in an effort to foster discussion.

Let's just say I almost started out expecting to give less then my so far usual five pipes.

Part of that comes from liking the place I have Watson firmly planted in.
He is the most British of the duo. Stalwart, loyal, brave, head strong, tenacious, a little naive, to trusting and the rock that is everything English.
The moral compass.
I don't think he is dumb by any means. And while I agree he could be very observant, I think he would have fallen more into the Lestrade detective category than the Holmes one.
Watson is the reason I read the books
But, while I agree there would be no Holmes without Watson. I also believe there would be no Watson without Holmes. No Stanley without Livingston. No Laurel without Hardy. No Lone Rancher without Tonto.
I was afraid Mr. Andriacco was going to try to convince me otherwise.

I follow Dan's blog and have read some of his works, so I knew he loves his subject and is a very capable writer.

He had all the right arrows in his quiver.

He seemed to have all his ducks in a row at the beginning of his piece. He seemed to be leading up to some grand argument that if we only listened to what Holmes and he  had to say about Watson, we would have to agree with him about Watson's abilities as a detective.

I really didn't want to go any further, but I was hoping to find a flaw in what I though his argument would be.

He even quoted, several times, HOUN.
My favorite.
Sure, I to think Watson did a pretty good job in HOUN. But HOUN was pretty fairly about following one clue to the next. Not really figuring something out as a theory and then developing it into a case. Holmes as always been about finding a theory or two on what he knows or hears, then eliminating the theories that don't fit the facts.

I had to force myself to go on.

And I am glad I did.

Dan turned a corner and started to remind me how good Watson was at observing. Seeing things. Maybe not the same way Holmes did, but in his own way, he didn't miss much. Well, I guess you kinda have to be to be a doctor or a writer, or biographer. I just said as much about Watson in my last review, stating how much he says in so few words. Maybe more like an artist, who are also great observers.
He never did argue that he thought Watson would also be a great detective. His stance was that Watson was also good as an observer.

Watson is very head strong, we see it many times. Times when he wants to rush into action, when something more subtle is required. With a temperament like that, I argue, he would not be able to see the smaller nuance's of a situation. In this way he would be more Lestrade like.
His form of detection would take the more plodding path, with great energy when the blood hound was nearer it's pray. Action more than thought. And that is way he was so valuable to Holmes.
While not completely opposites, they were near enough to attract.

And gosh darn it! That's the way I want my Watson.

Thanks Dan for not trying to destroy my image.

I liked the way Dan brought his conclusions together towards the end of his piece, coming to, I think, the same conclusions I have about Watson, (although he said it a lot better than I could.)

Holmes wouldn't have the patience's to chronicle his cases in a way people outside the detective field would want to read. Watson the observer, not detective, does. Watson is more the artist of observation, while Holmes is the scientist.

But they are both equally important to the team. Being equal doesn't mean being the same. Jesse Owens and Mary Lou Retton are both equally great athletes, but they are not the same.

It is one of the things I think the new TV show 'Elementary' is going to eventually have trouble balancing; making Watson Holmes' equal.

Dan, thanks for making me sit up and take notice, and then allowing me to settle back down into my comfortable chair.

Glad I was able to still light up

 pipes.

The Watsonian - A Review number 3 - All about down memory lane.

When someone writes a reminiscence it has to do one of two things for me, I either need to be taken down a path that makes me remember something similar or it needs to be something so different from my experiences that I  am 'Wowed!'

We are all like that. Something takes us back to hopefully pleasant memories that we want to relive. (They can also take us back to pleases we don't want to revisit, but I don't think this is the forum for that. We will stay with the pleasant path.)

A favorite place we visited or spent time at. A person that lift an indelible mark on our lives.
Or if it is the Wow! factor, it has to leave me with a feeling that they have just told me an extraordinary tale that I can't imagine in my experience.

I enjoy the Sherlock Holmes stories because of the atmosphere Watson (Doyle) creates in his short but descriptive proses. He can say so much with so few words. I like the images of the moors, or the stately homes, or the fog shrouded streets of London. I am not in it for the mysteries. Give me the atmoshpere.

And that is what Ron Lies did in his remembrance of his discovery of Sherlock Holmes in his Watsonian piece, 'A Love Story'.

He sent me on a pleasant trip back to when I first really discovered Holmes and Watson.

Mine was in a place of pleasant isolation, without phones or electricity, the nearest town some twenty plus miles away requiring a boat ride.

Rathbone and Bruce's Holmes and Watson were of my fathers generation, and I of course knew of them, but had not yet discovered the real Holmes and Watson. It was kinda like the time I met John Denver. Sure, I knew his music, and liked his stuff. But it really came into focus when I met him and could finally put a personal experience to the music.

I am going to save the whole story (well both of them actually, Holmes and Denver)  for another time, but will say that books would turn out to be my only form of evening entertainment for several weeks. (No, I was not in prison.) And one of the books would turn out to be Sherlock Holmes, thirteen stories. I knew they were (duh) set in London, my father's home town, and much of the rest of England (where the rest of my family comes from) and I wanted to read something that celebrated my English heritage.

Ron took me back to my discovery of that book, and then on to the books that followed. Many have great stories of their own and how I came across them.

Like him, I still have them, and many are very worn and have been replaced with newer copies. I have copies I will make notes in, and copies just for the collection. Most I have read. Some are still on the pile to be read.

My two copy Double Day, my second Sherlock Holmes books, is very tattered and much loved and holds a proud place on my bookshelves.

I am very glad I came across Holmes first in books. Most people now a days probably have some other introduction. But I hope they eventually make it to the books, because no matter what else has come along, so far, they are really what has kept this love affair going for most of use.

So Ron, thanks for taking me back to that old logging camp in Maine and. . . wait I am giving to much away!

Thanks for the memories Ron.

The Watsonian - a review of 'Watson in the Twenty-first Century', by Linnea Dodson

Well, I guess saying it is a review is all wrong. Although I am going to say what I like and don't like about it, I am really trying to start a discussion and not just give my opinions. I hear them all day.

Like I said in the earlier post, I am going to 'review' each chapter and hope to get others thoughts on them also.

So, here goes.

The one I want to talk about today appears on page twenty-seven in the first edition of The Watsonian.

It is the one called "Watson in the Twenty-first Century", by Linnea Dodson.

Dodson first starts out by comparing the Canonical Watson to the decades long performance by Nigel Bruce as Dr. Watson.

I thought her tone on comparing the differences between the two really set the tone for her piece. Where she described, in my opinion, the Canonical Watson as an articulate, intelligent man, and by comparison a bumbling inarticulate shadow of Watson in Bruce's performance, or as she said it best, "loyal as a dog, but also about as intelligent."

And she suggests Bruce's performance inspired the image of Watson throughout the rest of the twentieth century. Her arguments on this point are strong, even discounting the portrayals of Burk and Hardwicke as not being able to over-shadow the 'damage' done by the Watson as portrayed by Bruce.

This would probably be the only argument I have with her article.

While stating, and which may be true, that Bruce's performance still may have suggested the appearance and behavior of Watson in both Young Sherlock Holmes and The Great Mouse Detective, both of which were produced early in Granada's run, I don't think either of them had the Holmesian clout to carry the image created by Bruce through to the end of the twentieth century. The Great Mouse Detective, a fun film, was basically a remake of a Rathbone/Bruce film, with the two main characters now just living in the basement.
(Remember, they even had Rathbone's voice in the movie.)

I think by the end of the 1980's both Edward Hardwicke and David Burke had set the new standard for Watson portrayals, and are now the ones to be compared two.
To many of my fathers generation, who were not Sherlockains, it could be argued that Linnea's point would hold true.  But I think both Burke's and Hardwicke's portrayals were so low key and deftly handled that they made a much large impression than she may think.

After this, Ms. Dodson moves on examine Watson as played by Jude Law, Martin Freeman and Lucy Liu.
And for the rest of her piece, I think she is spot-on.

Her examination of Jude Law's Watson as 'arguably the closest to the original' would hardly find many dissenters, stating that while placed in more of a steam punk action film, Watson remains an active medical man, has a love life, and a publishing career. As she so aptly points out, 'Laws Watson is, in fact, the only modern Watson to have any kind of personal success outside is relationship with Holmes.'.
This is sort of the way I felt about it, but she was able to put it into words where I couldn't.
She doesn't fail to point out the darker sides of Watson's life in Law's performance either.

After Jude Law, she moves on to Martin Freeman's performance in Sherlock.
Not being as big a fan of Sherlock as many are, mainly because of the writing, I was surprised at how much more I appreciated Freeman's Watson after reading Ms. Dodson's piece. I always though he was a good choice for Watson, but her insight and observations made, for me, his performance even better.
Again not being a big fan of Moffat and Gatiss, I am glad she pointed out an observation they made that can really put into context modern adaptions of Holmes. They 'pointed out that Doyle was not writing historical mysteries but modern-day adventures for his readers.' We all realize that, when we think about it, but sometimes must be reminded to view them as such.

We next visit the set of Elementary and Lucy Liu as Watson.
Again, Ms. Dodson gets beneath the discussions of Elementary not being really about Sherlock Holmes and that it is not very Canonical, and really examines Liu's performance as a viable portrayal. And although I feel Ms. Dodson finds this Watson the least Canonical, she does give a fair assessment of the performance.

I get the impression that she appreciated Law's performance more than the rest, but really had a lot of respect for Martin and Liu. Without even stating whether or not she actually liked Sherlock, Elementary or the RDJ  movies, she was able to examine the performances objectively, the same being true for Nigel Bruce.

I really enjoy her article and came away with many new insights and many affirmations of things I believe about cinematic Watson's.
She made a strong case, and was very respectful of her subject. Or, comparing it to what one reviewer said about Rod Stewart's book, it makes to want to sit in a pub with her, have a pint and talk about it.

Thanks Linnea Dodson.

In my now world recognized rating scale, I give her

out of a possible five.

Well done! You made me want to read more. Really good writing. Thanks.

I have received my copy of the Watsonian

When it first arrived I wanted to rush outside and do my best Steve Martin and yell "The new phone books are here, the new phone books are here!", but daughter and wife restrained me.

What a stellar first edition, content and container. I have started reading from the beginning and so far I am loving it. Well done publication staff!

So, over the next few days I am going to review each article in the book and tell you what I think or what I come up with.

Look for the first review later today.

Again, good job all.