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.
Monday, November 11, 2013
Friday, November 8, 2013
Elementary Season Two - Episode #7 - 'The Marchioness'
OK, I really liked about one minute and forty-five seconds of this episode.
The first minute, till Holmes spots Holmes.
And about the last forty-five seconds where Holmes and Holmes seem to be about to get beyond their problems and moving on.
Sadly to say, the rest of the episode really fell apart for me.
Sure, it was loosely based on SILV, but the story wasn't good enough or well written enough to make up for all the other flaws.
Sherlock acted the most immature he has so far, almost bringing tears to my eyes, and not tears of joy.
Any good detective work was over shadowed by the bouts of jealousy and moodiness coming from Sherlock.
Watson was well under her game on this one, lacking any real focus and strength.
And for me, I almost turned it off when we found out she went to bed with Mycroft.
The relationship had not been going on long enough for that to become a sub-plot in the show.
We are not really finding it to our liking the fact that Millers Sherlock will jump into bed with just about anyone, and to make that a trait also for Watson is taking it to far. Watson is suppose to be the moral compass of the pair.
I'm sorry, but that just did not work for me, and lowered her character a bit.
I like Rhys Ifans performance as Mycroft so far, but the story line they have him in is not holding up.
The whole thing with the finger prints in the tree was just the writers needing somewhere to put in some deductive work, because nothin' else was working.
Now we know why the dog didn't bark in the night, . . . he was embarrassed.
The Canonical connections were obvious and weak.
-Of course we had SILV
-We also had the use of Diogenes which I am pretty sure we all hoped would be put to better use than a restaurant.
-We also had Holmes using past clients to help him find out information
-Mycroft finding some one else to be the chef suggests Mycroft's un-energetic side.
I hope Buddy2Blogger comes up with some connections I missed.
I must be in a bad mood or something, because I really want to be hard on this episode, and I am doing my best not to sound like Snarky Tour Guide.
And don't even get me started on the body under the tree!!!
Out of five pipes, I can only fairly give it,
The first minute, till Holmes spots Holmes.
And about the last forty-five seconds where Holmes and Holmes seem to be about to get beyond their problems and moving on.
Sadly to say, the rest of the episode really fell apart for me.
Sure, it was loosely based on SILV, but the story wasn't good enough or well written enough to make up for all the other flaws.
Sherlock acted the most immature he has so far, almost bringing tears to my eyes, and not tears of joy.
Any good detective work was over shadowed by the bouts of jealousy and moodiness coming from Sherlock.
Watson was well under her game on this one, lacking any real focus and strength.
And for me, I almost turned it off when we found out she went to bed with Mycroft.
The relationship had not been going on long enough for that to become a sub-plot in the show.
We are not really finding it to our liking the fact that Millers Sherlock will jump into bed with just about anyone, and to make that a trait also for Watson is taking it to far. Watson is suppose to be the moral compass of the pair.
I'm sorry, but that just did not work for me, and lowered her character a bit.
I like Rhys Ifans performance as Mycroft so far, but the story line they have him in is not holding up.
The whole thing with the finger prints in the tree was just the writers needing somewhere to put in some deductive work, because nothin' else was working.
Now we know why the dog didn't bark in the night, . . . he was embarrassed.
The Canonical connections were obvious and weak.
-Of course we had SILV
-We also had the use of Diogenes which I am pretty sure we all hoped would be put to better use than a restaurant.
-We also had Holmes using past clients to help him find out information
-Mycroft finding some one else to be the chef suggests Mycroft's un-energetic side.
I hope Buddy2Blogger comes up with some connections I missed.
I must be in a bad mood or something, because I really want to be hard on this episode, and I am doing my best not to sound like Snarky Tour Guide.
And don't even get me started on the body under the tree!!!
Out of five pipes, I can only fairly give it,
Thursday, November 7, 2013
The Watsonian - review number two - 'A Long Afternoon: John Watson's Youth', by Robert S. Katz
Most of the time, when movies are made or books are written about historical facts, or people or events, a certain amount of license is taken to fill in details that may not be known about these facts, people or events.
Usually it is explained away as being done to add dramatic effect. And for the most part, we have come to expect that as normal. After all, if we only wanted the facts, and not to be entertained, we would watch more documentaries or sticking to non-fiction.
Some circles call it 'artistic license'.
This insertion of dramatic license to help fill out 'facts' quite often comes into play whenever Sherlockians Play the Game.
For, after all, if we are Playing the Game, when we explore the world of Holmes and Watson, we are stating, at least for a short period of time, that, in fact, Holmes and Watson are real. And that just like with any other 'historical' individuals, when facts are not known, we take a little dramatic license to fill them in.
This is most often done when writers create pastiches or novels (or screenplay's) about Holmes and Watson dramatizing events or times that Watson eluded to, but never wrote about.
The other time this is done is when a writer is trying to piece together tidbits of facts, like trying to piece together a puzzle, to create a clearer picture of an event or person. Example; We know a person visited town 'A', and then traveled to town 'L', and that took three days, and they stopped at least two nights and they traveled by train. Therefore, knowing the train traveled along this line, the others towns they could have stopped at, based on what we know, could be towns 'H' and 'K'. If the writer can come up with enough details, and facts and clues that make this a convincing possibility, then this new narrative sometimes becomes attached to the facts as common lore. As an example; We do not in fact know that John Watson's middle name is Hamish. But enough of a convincing argument has been suggested that in some circles, while Playing the Game, this has become attached to John Watson's biography. We do not know for sure when Holmes was born, but it has become commonly accept by many as 1854, because someone made a good case, derived from clues and hints, that this date was a very good possibility. And this to as become accepted by many as a real possibility.
The more clues the writer has and the less 'filling in the blanks' he has to do, the more credible his claim becomes. The more substantiated the facts and possibilities collected to add to the actual 'historical' facts, the more the new 'dramatization' is accepted, or at least considered with some relevance.
One of the only other things that can hinder the writer and his claims, even when just 'playing the game', is when the path he or she chooses to take Holmes or Watson down goes entirely somewhere the reader or reviewer does not want to see them go at all. Then the conclusions have very little chance of getting accepted.
And that brings us to the second article in the new The Watsonian I am going to 'review', 'A Long Afternoon; John H. Watson's Youth', by Robert S. Katz.
Mr. Katz wonderfully starts his piece off by reminding us how little we really do know about Holmes, and more importantly, for this publication, how even less we know about John H. Watson. And that how much we have come to 'know', is actually speculation. ( I know I have fallen into that pit before.)
Mr. Katz finely examines what few clues there are about Watson, and puts together a credible argument for his case about where Watson spent much of his youth.
Unfortunately Mr. Katz has very little to work with, so much of his case is built on speculation.
But he does an excellent job explaining his stance, taking us from the gold fields of Australia, to the coal mining counties in Pennsylvania. And along the way he explains what could be the reasons for Watson's share affinity for Henry Ward Beecher and Gen. Charles Gordon. I had once done a paper comparing the slavery issue as seen by Beecher and Gordon, so I found this part very resonant.
From the coal fields Mr. Katz eventually follows Watson's path The Twentieth Maine Regiment and it's involvement in the Battle of Gettysburg.
Although Mr. Katz builds a very strong, and appealing case, there are unfortunately, through no fault of his own, not enough 'facts' to work with, and most of his case, again unfortunately, is built on wonderful speculation. Even if we want it so, it doesn't mean it is. (Maybe a few mine companies that used English engineers or were owned by British companies.)
I liked the path he chose to explore for Watson's youth, and it makes for a compelling back story, and you can tell Mr. Katz did his homework, and, like the rest of us, he loves his subject.
It is a very well written piece, and done so in the best spirit of 'Playing the Game', so therefore I could not let myself give it any less than;
Usually it is explained away as being done to add dramatic effect. And for the most part, we have come to expect that as normal. After all, if we only wanted the facts, and not to be entertained, we would watch more documentaries or sticking to non-fiction.
Some circles call it 'artistic license'.
This insertion of dramatic license to help fill out 'facts' quite often comes into play whenever Sherlockians Play the Game.
For, after all, if we are Playing the Game, when we explore the world of Holmes and Watson, we are stating, at least for a short period of time, that, in fact, Holmes and Watson are real. And that just like with any other 'historical' individuals, when facts are not known, we take a little dramatic license to fill them in.
This is most often done when writers create pastiches or novels (or screenplay's) about Holmes and Watson dramatizing events or times that Watson eluded to, but never wrote about.
The other time this is done is when a writer is trying to piece together tidbits of facts, like trying to piece together a puzzle, to create a clearer picture of an event or person. Example; We know a person visited town 'A', and then traveled to town 'L', and that took three days, and they stopped at least two nights and they traveled by train. Therefore, knowing the train traveled along this line, the others towns they could have stopped at, based on what we know, could be towns 'H' and 'K'. If the writer can come up with enough details, and facts and clues that make this a convincing possibility, then this new narrative sometimes becomes attached to the facts as common lore. As an example; We do not in fact know that John Watson's middle name is Hamish. But enough of a convincing argument has been suggested that in some circles, while Playing the Game, this has become attached to John Watson's biography. We do not know for sure when Holmes was born, but it has become commonly accept by many as 1854, because someone made a good case, derived from clues and hints, that this date was a very good possibility. And this to as become accepted by many as a real possibility.
The more clues the writer has and the less 'filling in the blanks' he has to do, the more credible his claim becomes. The more substantiated the facts and possibilities collected to add to the actual 'historical' facts, the more the new 'dramatization' is accepted, or at least considered with some relevance.
One of the only other things that can hinder the writer and his claims, even when just 'playing the game', is when the path he or she chooses to take Holmes or Watson down goes entirely somewhere the reader or reviewer does not want to see them go at all. Then the conclusions have very little chance of getting accepted.
And that brings us to the second article in the new The Watsonian I am going to 'review', 'A Long Afternoon; John H. Watson's Youth', by Robert S. Katz.
Mr. Katz wonderfully starts his piece off by reminding us how little we really do know about Holmes, and more importantly, for this publication, how even less we know about John H. Watson. And that how much we have come to 'know', is actually speculation. ( I know I have fallen into that pit before.)
Mr. Katz finely examines what few clues there are about Watson, and puts together a credible argument for his case about where Watson spent much of his youth.
Unfortunately Mr. Katz has very little to work with, so much of his case is built on speculation.
But he does an excellent job explaining his stance, taking us from the gold fields of Australia, to the coal mining counties in Pennsylvania. And along the way he explains what could be the reasons for Watson's share affinity for Henry Ward Beecher and Gen. Charles Gordon. I had once done a paper comparing the slavery issue as seen by Beecher and Gordon, so I found this part very resonant.
From the coal fields Mr. Katz eventually follows Watson's path The Twentieth Maine Regiment and it's involvement in the Battle of Gettysburg.
Although Mr. Katz builds a very strong, and appealing case, there are unfortunately, through no fault of his own, not enough 'facts' to work with, and most of his case, again unfortunately, is built on wonderful speculation. Even if we want it so, it doesn't mean it is. (Maybe a few mine companies that used English engineers or were owned by British companies.)
I liked the path he chose to explore for Watson's youth, and it makes for a compelling back story, and you can tell Mr. Katz did his homework, and, like the rest of us, he loves his subject.
It is a very well written piece, and done so in the best spirit of 'Playing the Game', so therefore I could not let myself give it any less than;
out of a possible five.
These first two articles have set a high bar for the rest of us.
Wednesday, November 6, 2013
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
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.
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!
Look for the first review later today.
Again, good job all.
Tuesday, November 5, 2013
I missed this one - Nigel Davenport died Oct 25 2013
Seven Degrees of Sherlock Holmes - #27- a tribute to the inaugural edition of the Watsonian
I thought it might be fun, to celebrate the John H. Watson Society and the first edition of their publication The Watsonian, to disregard any direct connection actors have to their roll as Dr. Watson, and make a connection to Holmes excluding those rolls. I other words, can actors who portrayed Watson be connected to Holmes as if they never took those parts.
So I though we should start with the Watson that, for good or bad, all other Watson's seem to now be compared to in some way. Whether you liked his portrayal as Watson or not, he was a well respected character actor, well loved thespian and WWI vet. For someone who is some times described as the 'Not Watson' of all Watson's, he sure left his Holmesian mark, and got to act along side some of the greatest actors in showbiz.
I love the guy, if not his Watson.
So here goes.
Nigel Bruce (1895-1953)
.jpg)
So I though we should start with the Watson that, for good or bad, all other Watson's seem to now be compared to in some way. Whether you liked his portrayal as Watson or not, he was a well respected character actor, well loved thespian and WWI vet. For someone who is some times described as the 'Not Watson' of all Watson's, he sure left his Holmesian mark, and got to act along side some of the greatest actors in showbiz.
I love the guy, if not his Watson.
So here goes.
Nigel Bruce (1895-1953)
starred in a little film called The Scarlet Pimpernal in 1934
which also starred Leslie Howard (1893-1943)
who is one of my favorite all time actors, and this is the way I wanted to go with the Seven Degree connection, but. . . . I found a shorter connection, so went with. . .
Also starring in that great film was another great actor, Raymond Massey (1896-1983)
who played Sherlock Holmes in the 1931 film, The Speckled Band
As it turns out, whether I had gone with Leslie Howard or Raymond Massey, there are just so many film and theater connections to Holmes.
So, even if Nigel Bruce had never played Watson, he would still have had many connections to Holmes.
A little trivia about one of the actors who starred in The Voice of Terror (if I had used the Leslie Howard connection).
Actor Reginald Denny;
He served as an observer/gunner in World War I in the Royal Flying Corps,[1] and in the 1920's he performed as a stunt pilot. In the early 1930s, Denny became interested in radio controlled model planes. He and his business partners formed Reginald Denny Industriesand opened a model plane shop in 1934 known as Reginald Denny Hobby Shops.
He bought a plane design from Walter Righter in 1938 and began marketing it as the "Dennyplane", and a model engine called the "Dennymite".[2] In 1940, Denny and his partners won a US Army contract for their radio-controlled target drone, the OQ-2 Radioplane. They manufactured nearly fifteen thousand drones for the US Army during World War II. The company was purchased by Northrop in 1952.[3]
Marilyn Monroe was discovered working as an assembler at Radioplane. A photographer assigned by Denny's friend, Army publicist (and future US President) Capt. Ronald Reagan, took several shots and persuaded her to work as a model, which was the beginning of her career.
Source, wikipedia
Reginald Denny also took part in the 1922 film, Sherlock Holmes.
So that saves me from having to do a Marilyn Monroe connection.
So, there you have it, there you are.
Monday, November 4, 2013
Which one are you, where do you fit in?
As with anything, we usually categorize our place in what we do and the things we enjoy and hope are good at.
Whether it is a hobby, a skill or a job, we rank somewhere. It may be a self ranking, or it may be placed on us by someone else. We may place ourselves in the same place that other people place us, or we may place ourselves higher in rank or lower.
In sports we have different rankings by how big your school is, or by region. We also have amateur (who's lines are somewhat blurred) and professionals (who are sometimes beaten by armatures.)
Some groups or organizations have set up lists of standards that determine where we stand in certain rankings within said group.
Some groups just decide whether or not we are ready for whatever rankings they have determined qualify us to be part of their group, and may even change their system to exclude individuals.
There may be one group that participates in something you like that thinks you deserve a very high ranking in their eyes, while just around the corner another group participating in the same, may think you deserve lower.
Unless it is a mathematical equation deciding the ranking, it's mostly just a point of view.
But, none-the-less, we as humans participate voluntarily in some sort of ranking system whether we realize it or not.
Sherlockians have lots of rankings, and can usually be pretty vocal about it, especially if someones ranking system differs from their own. We rank our favorite stories. We rank chronologies. We rank what makes good scholarship and what makes bad. We even rank what counts as Sherlockian scholarship. Some of us can even get offended if the ones doing some of the rankings don't see our work fit to be included.
It's all a matter of context.
But let's play anyway and see where we set ourselves.
This is by no means anything more than fun and my opinion, which is apt to change whenever someone else presents a point I like better than my own.
For most Sherlockian observers, the highest Sherlockian or Holmesian ranking, or recognition, most would agree would be being accepted and invited to join a group like the Baker Street Irregulars. I think this would be especially true for anyone who has a more scholarly interest in the Canon of Sherlock Holmes.
But even up at these lofty heights can be found even more seemly hard to obtain heights.
Here would be the purists, the ones who consider the works of Doyle and the study of Holmes only possible at a literary level. How the works hold up as literature. No 'Playing the game' for them. The books are all about the content and how it applies to Doyle.
I don't think I know any of these. At a scholastic level, they are way above me. I dangle way to many participles and use way to many comas to travel in that rarefied air. My hat is off to them however. They keep the works pure and true and are a wonderful back bone to all of us who travel near by.
Just below them can possibly be found the Sherlockian/Doylean Purists. These are the ones who have made there name in the world of Sherlock Holmes by Playing the Game. But playing the game only as far as facts that can be proven. No speculation. Just the facts, man, no filling in the blanks.
Just below them could be the Sherlockians who are willing to speculate a little more about details not completely factual. This perhaps would be the most populace group. They would perhaps suggest that if we can find enough clues close enough to our theories then perhaps we must be right or it could be so. But to be on this level you must have a talent for presenting things in a scholarly manner. (Separating the wheat from the chaff as it were.)
This group would probably be the harshest on people who don't see eye to eye with them.
And of perhaps equal but different ranking are the Sherlockians who have found a scholarly why to explore the world of Sherlock Holmes in other media besides the books, yet are recognized as authorities, enough so as to get them invite to join the BSI or like minded group.
Also in this group would be those who have been recognized for contributing in some other why to the world of Sherlock Holmes or Doyle that sets them apart from others, i.e actors, politicians, etc.
At this point our ranks starting falling out of the ranks of groups like the BSI.
Next we find the group that aspires to make it to the BSI. These are the ones hoping some day to prove they have what it takes. They run scion societies. They start other scholarly groups. They organize major events.
They collect rooms full of books and memorabilia. ( I think many of us fall near this group, even if we won't admit it. ??) They can be at it for years and still never make it. Many find their energy is well spent, eventually.
Just below this group would be probably the largest single group, (well at least till Benedict Cumberbatch came along) and that would be those who are really involved in the world of Doyle and Holmes, but on a more local level. They are content in the world they participate in and don't wish to achieve loftier heights, so to speak. Or know their own limitations. They enjoy Playing the Game for the games sake, in a social no-expectation atmosphere.
They can even have their own levels within their groups. Some Playing the Game a little purer than others. Some willing to accept all things Holmesian, while others have their limits. Some are flamboyant in their participation, while others reserved. (I think I place myself mostly here.)
Next would be, perhaps, the group that is now being called 'fans'. The ones who have come along recently on the tails of the RDJ movies or the popularity of 'Sherlock'. They are only in it for what their chosen source material suggests. Many, hopefully will move beyond this level and start realizing the real works of Holmes and Watson. But if they don't, that's OK also.
I must admit, I am not sure where I would place cos-play Sherlockians, I am to unfamiliar with them.
This is rather a simplified investigation of Sherlockian levels, and within each one, they can be broken down even more.
Let me know your thoughts and I may yet add more.
Whatever level you place yourself at, I hope you are having a lot of fun with it.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)