Moving House

I’m moving to http://starshipteapot.com/holmesian/ but this blog will remain active in case there are any problems with my new hosting.

The Case of the Left Handed Detective

Approximately 8 – 15% of the population is left handed, with more men than women being so. We are somewhat of a rare breed, but according to scientific research we also have many advantages.

At the beginning of ‘The Yellow Face’, Holmes finds that his prospective client has left his pipe. One of his conclusions is that the man is left handed, and in demonstration he refers to Watson’s pipe, why not his own? Whilst not in any means any proof, it did start to he ball rolling. Is Sherlock Holmes left handed, and knowing it is a heredity trait is Mycroft also?

There is a common belief that left handers are more intelligent or more creative than there right handed counter parts, and there is some evidence for this from the various studies people have done on the brain.

According to theory, right handed people process information in a linear sequence. One thread of thought must be complete before next whereas left handers use a visual simultaneous method where lots of threads are processed at the same time to their conclusion. In simpler terms – a right handed person can only process one piece of information at time, so theoretically thinks slower, whereas a left hander could process say four pieces of information at time.

It is all starting to sound a bit Holmes, Watson is often baffled by Holmes’ thought patten even when he has the same information he cannot see the reasoning – as a right hander he needs to complete one thread before the next can be processed and linked, Holmes being left handed has simultaneously thought of all the threads.

The theory further goes to state that right handed people look at a problem by breaking it down into all it’s pieces and analysing each piece, left handers look at the whole problem and solve it by using a patten (’synthesis’). Which is certainly something Holmes does, rather than take each piece of evidence individually he looks at all the evidence in context.

One piece of reasoning that stands out from the rest is that left handed people have a greater advantage in one on one combat sports, we know that Holmes is very skilled in various arts of one to one combat (fencing, boxing etc…) and if he is a leftie then he certainly has a great advantage over his opponents – the advantage of surprise.

David Richardson in his article titled ‘A Realistic 221b?‘ spent some time piecing together the likely arrangement of the famous sitting room using the canon and other sources. He speculates that Holmes actually sat on the left, meaning that the fireplace would be in easy reach for the left handed who happens to store things there.

… Holmes’ observation that Watson had gotten himself a bit muddy. In explaining this deduction, he remarks “… on the inside of your left shoe, just where the firelight strikes it …”. From this we deduce that Watson is sitting with the fireplace on his right. The next cue comes when Holmes hears the sound of the King’s carridge: ” ‘Yes’, he continued, glancing out the window … .” Thus, Holmes, who of course is sitting opposite Watson, is sitting by the window. These two cues put together serve to fix the relative orientations of the (front) window, Holmes, Watson, and the fireplace, which are reflected in our floorplan. (If 221B is on the east side of Baker Street, then the fireplace wall will be the northern wall. The suggestion in The Cardboard Box that the morning sun glares off the buildings opposite favors this overall orientation.

It’s an interesting area of speculation and I do believe that the Baker Street Journal has at least two references to people talking about Holmes’s handiness, this year I’m in a better financial situation so I might fork out the cash to purchase their CD-ROM.

First look at Dr Watson

I was on the right track with my thoughts that Downey Jr. was merely in disguise, today Just Jared has photographs up of Jude Law dressed as Dr Watson. Holmes is certainty looking a bit more dapper, just hope that RDJ has a shave

Holmes and Watson, their Family and Upbringing

Instead of talking about the new film, thought I’d post a few things that I’ve scribbled over the past couple of years, maybe at some point soon I’ll write about walking SIGN that I did with a friend last year.

A question was posed on a Holmes discussion group about what sort of upbringing that our two friends could have had, this was my response.

I subscribe to the belief that the Holmes family is not a rich one, typical middle-class. This is mostly based on the fact that both brothers work for a living and Sherlock can’t afford to rent on his own and probably has an income around the same as Watson’s when they first meet (11shillings, I’ve read).

Perhaps Mr Holmes was a teacher, who would raise his boys to be disciplined and instil in them a love of learning and books. Maybe a geography teacher, quick eye for detail and a passion for maps and place names. A proud man, with whom reputation matters greatly. Essentially quite hard to live with, but he loved his sons and his wife.

Mrs Holmes I see as being the more artistic, a painter or a musician. She was calm, loving and loyal to her husband, but essentially being a woman she had a typical female role within the household. Maybe this is why Sherlock doesn’t hold much thought for women, he watched his mother a wonderfully intelligent, witty and talented women reduced to merely a baby-making/support the man role. I don’t know how to word what I mean.

I’ve recently heard some compelling arguments that Mycroft has Asperger’s Syndrome and if this was the case he would be a difficult child to cope with as he would show much upset with any change around him, or a different routine. He would be difficult to interact with, but brilliant with anything requiring logic or technical thought (ie mathematics). I suspect that they saved up to send him away to a boarding school being at a loss with him – I’d imagine that the routines of boarding school appealed very much to Mycroft and he was able to cope quite well.

I’d imagine it would be very difficult for Sherlock, rarely seeing his elder brother and when he did he couldn’t quite interact with him. I suspect that he would have been one of those children who are fascinated with everything and wanting to know how everything works. Eventually I can see him and Mycroft getting on quite well from a purely intellectual POV – Mycroft finds someone to discuss maths, science and amuse with deductions and Sherlock learns to observe.

Sherlock is quite artistic, he acts and plays the violin so he probably formed an close attachment to his mother and had a respect for his father. Maybe they didn’t send Sherlock to boarding school (financial reasons) and he attended a grammar school. He’s intelligent so I can see him becoming very bored with his education and perhaps becoming a bit of a trouble maker which strained his relationship with his father. As he grew older he’d become more eccentric and soon became an embarrassment to his father.

[I've since revised this theory, I think perhaps that Sherlock showed signs of dyslexia. Dyslexia wasn't really something named and described until the 1870s so most likely Sherlock would have been labelled as 'slow' if he found difficultly with reading. Most likely he did go to a grammar school briefly but was sent away to the normal parish school where he became a bit of a trouble maker as he was bored and objected to being treated as a simpleton.]

Sherlock eventually follows his brother with a scholarship to either Oxford or Cambridge (I don’t know enough about either to make a comment). I think whatever happened between him and Victor turned sour, and unable to cope he dropped out or was sent down (he says he was only at university for two years). I can see the relationship with his father breaking down completely at this point, and was probably disowned.

I suspect that Mrs Holmes keeps an eye on her boys careers – especially Sherlock’s. Maybe she writes to him at Baker Street, following his accomplishments in the Strand – maybe that’s why he gets pissed at Watson’s ‘romanticising’ him? His mother does the ’she seemed like a lovely girl, and she seemed taken with you – perhaps you could see her again.’

As for Watson… well I suspect he had a interesting upbringing as he seemed to travel a bit when young (the thing about Australia).

I think his father was a doctor and a respected one – someone that young Watson would admire and aspire to be like. I suspect he was a tough man and had little room in his soul for ’soft’ actions – since I suspect Watson was quite a sensitive child I can see his father beating him for ‘weakness’ but Watson admiring his father would punish  himself more for his ‘weakness’.

Watson’s brother was probably less intelligent than him and privately resented John and his father which would cause a lot of family tension.

Mrs Watson would be a typical Scots woman (heh, I like the idea of Watson being a Scot) – warm, open hearted and full of love and praise for her children. I can see Mr Watson getting angry with her over her        indulgences, especially of young Watson – blaming her for encouraging his sensitive side. Maybe a young Watson once expressed a desire to become a writer, Mr Watson got angry but Mrs Watson encouraged him.

I think that something happened in Australia to dishearten Watson’s father and they returned to England where he became colder, perhaps their return to England is prompted by the death of Mrs Watson which sends Mr Watson into a dark cycle. I think that Watson is quite young at this point, maybe 9 or 10 and was greatly affected by his mothers death. His father tolerating no weakness wouldn’t exactly help poor Watson cope – as we have no idea how old his brother is, if we take him to be 4/5 years older perhaps he was sent back to England some time before and becomes an ‘angry young man’.

Mr Watson would probably send John away to a strict public school (where he would later meet Phelps) to learn how to ‘become a man’ and take care of himself. Which of course, Watson does and becomes a fine young man and remembering how much he admired his father he would decide to become a doctor – not to please his father mind, but because he wants to take care of people and help them.

I think something then happened between Mr Watson & John, some argument or huge disagreement which led to him being left alone in the world. This explains why upon his graduation from medical school he takes a job in the army – he doesn’t have the capital to start his own practice and because of what happened between his father and him he doesn’t expect to inherit his fathers practice.

Maybe John never made up with his father before his death and perhaps blamed himself. I think his father died soon after he moved in with Holmes because there are times in STUD where he seems quite depressed.   I think the relationship with his brother was strained but amiable.

I think his brother left the UK hence the line in STUD ‘no kith and kin’ but yet we find in SIGN that the watch has only recently come his way.Maybe the brother returned to Australia or elsewhere to ‘make his fortune’, which sadly never happened.

I think if you shook the Watson family tree you would find a long time of loyal men and women – all of them proud and involved in a respectable profession.

Sherlock Holmes or Charlie Chaplin?

I’m assuming that Holmes is in disguise in this picture, if not… I’m more worried than I was before.

This is from the movie site ‘Just Jared’ which has a few other pictures of Downey Jr in costume.

Lestrade is Cast

Digital Spy reports that Eddie Marsan is to be Inspector Lestrade in the Guy Ritchie film, again I’ve no idea who he is but his picture doesn’t remind me of the beloved ferret-faced detective but looks aren’t everything it comes down to acting

Hancock villain Eddie Marsan has been cast opposite Robert Downey Jr. in Sherlock Holmes.

Marsan will portray Inspector Lestrade, a Scotland Yard detective and ally of Holmes in Guy Ritchie’s revamped story of the Baker Street sleuth.

The actor, whose credits also include Happy-Go-Lucky, Miami Vice and Mission: Impossible III, said: “I’m doing Sherlock Holmes with Robert Downey Jr. I play Inspector Lestrade. Holmes describes him as a man with no imagination.”

Speaking to DS about how the movie will differ from previous incarnations, Marsan added: “Holmes and Watson are a lot younger, bohemian. It works. Reading the script, Robert Downey Jr. is just perfect for a modern-day Holmes. Also he’s a bit of totty, as well!”

Since I’ve been very negative about this film let me think of something positive… er…. oh, they decided to cast Holmes and Watson younger… which is good since they are fairly young in the stories. Seriously though, a combination of Guy Ritchie (a man who might just have inherited Ed Wood’s mantle) and Jude Law (wooden isn’t even close to his acting style) might bring in some money but this film is going the same way as ‘Revolver‘.

Now for something a little different… GAMES!

IGN have reported that the PC game ‘Sherlock Holmes: The Awakened’ has been remastered with a new 3rd person mode and other little tweaks. I’ve personally only ever played the old ‘Case Files of Sherlock Holmes’ games (which were awesome) and generally I’ve stayed away from the newer games (‘The Mystery of the Mummy’ was just awful) so I’ve never actually played this one.

Since its release in 2007, Sherlock Holmes: The Awakened has attracted a huge worldwide audience, earning high marks from reviewers and consumers alike. Regarded by many as one of the best uses of a license (earning GameSpot’s “Best Use of a License” award in 2007) – The Awakened is one of the key titles in the adventure genre is the past several years.

In the original game, players were immersed in the world of Sherlock Holmes through a first-person style of gameplay. While this was a seen by many as a fresh and new take on the genre, many fans felt the game could be improved by adding a more traditional and familiar third-person perspective. To better serve these fans of “classic” adventure games, Frogwares is now pleased to announce an updated version of The Awakened, offering a third-person gameplay mode.

To showcase this new version of Sherlock Holmes: The Awakened, Focus and Frogwares have today released a new video walkthrough of the game’s features. Narrated by Wael Amr, Director of Frogwares, this new video focuses on the game’s updates and changes, along with discussing the reasoning behind the gameplay changes.

Frogwares (their logo looks a lot like the Bullfrog [makers of 'Theme Hospital'] wonder if they’re connected), the company behind the game, did release my least favourite Holmes game but I have heard some good things about ‘The Awakened’ and ‘Sherlock Holmes vs Arsène Lupin’ (PC Gamer and PC Zone gave them reasonable marks, as did Gamespot). It seems they’ve also released one called ‘The Mystery of the Persian Carpet’, of which I’ve heard nothing about.

At some point I will review the Holmes games I’ve played, including the board game and card game.

Film has started, final cast confirmed

Final cast for Guy Ritchie’s film confirmed:

Sherlock Holmes – Robert Downey Jr.
Dr John Watson – Jude Law
Irene Adler – Rachel McAdams
Mary – Kelly Reilly (Watson’s ‘girl’)
Lord Blackwater – Mark Strong

Guy Ritchie has said that the movie will be faithful to the original stories, not quite sure how he can say that linked with the previous things he has said about the film. They got together yesterday at the London Freemason’s Hall to talk about the film.

Ritchie said he was a huge fan of the stories. “I really knew Sherlock Holmes from tape – I wasn’t a very good reader – and what I had imagined in my mind was not exactly what I’d seen previously on film.”

He added: “We’re trying to be as authentic as we can to the original Sherlock Holmes. We’ve tried to include a bit more Conan Doyle in it.”

A quote from the Guardian about Robert Downey Jr. makes me both happy and slightly sceptical.

The actor, now a proper action movie lead after the success of Iron Man, joked that he was “clearly going to do it better” than anyone before him. He said he was not that familiar with Sherlock Holmes before accepting the part. “The more I read about him, the more overwhelmed I was by the weight of it and the amount of people who will be watching to see if it’s gotten right.”

And since you all know that I believe that Holmes & Watson are a OTP (one true pairing) this quote made me smile.

the film will explore the “co-dependency” and genuine love between Holmes and Watson. The only reticence yesterday was over what Holmes will wear – the deerstalker is out but lips are sealed about what is in.

(Incidentally, I don’t believe Watson was gay or had any sexual feelings towards Holmes but I do believe that Holmes was homosexual and may have had sexual feelings towards Watson that he ignored and kept hidden [except for the sulking about Watson's marriage])

The dinosaurs of scholarship…

The other day I posted on the Hounds-L discussion list about Holmes getting a love interest in the film, Christopher Redmond replied (yes the guy who’s big on self-promotion in his own books and considers any suggestion of ambiguity concerning Holmes’s sexuality as ‘pornography’) with

Some of us (old, married, but far from blind) would consider this to be GOOD news.

I don’t understand what on earth he means by this comment… anyone? I replied with my stock answer about how Irene Adler’s character has become much maligned by lot of suggestions that after all that protecting herself from an ex-lover she’s willing to dump her new husband for a man who spent the last few days trying to trick her.

At some point I really must post a review of his book ‘A Sherlock Holmes Handbook‘, it says some interesting things (I discovered that according to him I’m a pornographer) and it’s full of him referring to his own work as “for an interesting take on this, <insert book name here> by Christopher Redmond is recommended.” or to himself…

Listing the unpublished cases in The Tin Dispatch Box (1965), Christopher Redmond defined them as “any criminal investigation or professional business in which Holmes was involved or took a particular contemporary interest.

‘A Sherlock Holmes Handbook’ by Christopher Redmond, chapter II ‘Characters and Adventures: The Unpublished Cases’, p45. (c) 1993.

I suppose to write a proper review that isn’t me just giggling over his self-references I’d actually have to finish reading the book properly, I’ve been dipping in and out reading relevant sections as I’ve seen the need or interest to.

It’s a somewhat useful book I think and it’s been a cornerstone of a the published Holmesian scholarship for a long time now but he’s rather scathing view on those of us who play ‘The Game’ rather than do dry scholarly discussion about Conan Doyle’s literacy techniques does rather make me cringe.

In his chapter ‘A Spreading Influence’ he blames ‘The Game’ players for the reason why the subject of Sherlock Holmes has had very little attention in the hallowed halls of academia

Only in very recent years have serious literary presses published works about Sherlock Holmes, or serious literary journals made room for articles about him. Much of the difficulty of course that Sherlockian ’scholars’ make playful assumptions about the historic existence of Holmes, Watson, and their associates, pretending to analyse history rather than literature.

‘A Sherlock Holmes Handbook’ by Christopher Redmond, chapter IX ‘A Spreading Influence: Academic Scholarship’, p217-218. (c) 1993.

I’m very sorry Mr Redmond but I studied English Literature at school and spending many hours writing about the authors intentions and the techniques they used to convey, suggest and whatnot eventually sucked all the fun out of a good book.

The blame isn’t solely rested on us Game players though, he also blames snobbery in academic circles for the little literary criticism and discussion the books have received. I’m more inclined to believe that the reason there is so little literary discussion is because for the majority of us Holmes is a hobby, a fun thing to get together with like-minded friends and discuss… to me it’s more fun to talk about how Holmes was never evicted by Mrs Hudson than to sit around talking about Doyle’s writing technique!

I like to write my Holmesian scholarship in both ways, you can get a lot out of studying as a ‘Game Scholar’ as you can a literary one. I’m currently working on an article to ask the question why the Holmesian community is so against a serious discussion about possible homosexuality within the Canon. In order to write this article I’m having to look at things from both ‘The Game’ side of the spectrum and the literary – it’s the only way and if I was only looking at Doyle’s literary techniques I would have limited myself and been unable to look at the historical context. Another one I’m working on asks the question was Holmes dyslexic, and this is a purely ‘Game’ piece of scholarship – if I was a pure literary scholar, it’s something I would have never even thought about and I bet if all Holmesian scholarship was literary we’d have run out of new things to say a century ago.

Maybe I should write a proper review, one that asks the question are Christopher Redmond’s views holding back Holmesian discussion? If people like Redmond continually dismiss a large area of untapped resources and insist on pure literary discussion then I fear that the Holmesian discussion will eventually die out as it’s main fanbase drop off the mortal coil and younger ones become too disenchanted by the dinosaurs of scholarship to step in with new and interesting areas of though.

I’d love to post my response to Barbara Roden’s essay on Hounds-L and kick start a modern discussion on the topic but I know that just because I raised the issue of homosexuality it won’t even be given serious consideration, I imagine there will be a little head patting, smiles and “awww, silly girl.” comments but no one will actually engage me in a discussion about it.

Perhaps the day will come or maybe I’ll continue to sit quietly on the outside.

Holmes gets a love interest

One of the annoyance of being part of the Holmesian world is the belief that Sherlock Holmes had a thing for Irene Adler. He didn’t, in fact Watson tells us many times in SCAN that we should read the story of Holmes being bettered as Holmes making a mistake due to his prejudices, not as a love story.

I mention this now because the Hollywood Reporter have reported that Rachel McAdams is set to star as Sherlock Holmes’s love interest Irene Adler in Guy Rich-Tea’s new film. Lionel Wigram (the writer) I don’t think has read a Holmes book, he’s obviously sore about not getting to do a James Bond story and has decided to try it another way. The latest rumour about a female role character was being played by Sienna Millar, so I don’t know if this is the rumour put to bed or if Millar is also going to star in the film in as yet unannounced female role.

Rachel McAdams will star opposite Robert Downey Jr. in “Sherlock Holmes,” a reimagining of Sir Arthur Conan Doyle’s supersleuth that Guy Ritchie is directing for Warner Bros. and Village Roadshow.

The movie, which will begin shooting next month, takes its cue from a forthcoming comic book that producer Lionel Wigram wrote as a selling tool for a new take on the classic character. The concept sees Holmes as more adventurous and less stuffy than previous screen incarnations and mines more obscure character traits.

Downey will play Holmes while Mark Strong (“RocknRolla”) plays the main villain, Blackwood. Jude Law is portraying Holmes’ colleague Watson.

McAdams plays Holmes’ enigmatic love interest, Irene Adler, a character who appeared in Doyle’s 1891 “A Scandal in Bohemia.” While the character only appeared in that one story, McAdams’ personage would return for any possible sequel.

Producing the film are Joel Silver, Wigram, Susan Downey and Dan Lin.

I’m sick to death of this stereotype, Holmes did not love Irene Alder and she did not love him. How do I know this? Let me quote you the part on Irene Alder from my response to Barbara Roden’s article about Holmes and women:

Watson tells us in no certain manner that Holmes was not attracted or interested in a sexual relationship with Irene Alder. In fact Holmes only meets Miss Alder twice in the story and both times very much disguised, his time spent alone with her was short and he was pretending to be an unconscious/concussed clergyman. Whilst I don’t dispute that his brain could have been thinking “Wow, she’s attractive.”, I do dispute that he fell madly in love with her and spent the rest of his life pinning after her. We do a lot of disservice to poor Irene. We paint her as a woman only too keen to leave her new husband to embark upon a frantic love affair with a man who was paid to essentially retrieve a photograph by any means necessary. Holmes first did a reconnaissance to find out more about the enigmatic opera singer that so troubles the King of Bohemia, he hears from his sources that Irene Alder is a ‘lovely woman’ (note he does not say she is a lovely woman) and that there is a man in her life (which Holmes describes in detail to the listening Watson). Practically knocking him for six, Irene marries her solicitor and to remember the occasion Holmes decides to keep the sovereign she gave him. He does this because it was completely unexpected, he hadn’t factored in the possibility of marriage.

Realising that time is short he devises an elaborate distraction to find out where she keeps the photograph (essentially, he deceives her), unfortunately during the deception Irene (who is a very clever woman) cottons onto the whole game and realises that she has been duped. At the end of the case, Holmes asks to keep her photograph – not for a keepsake to remind him of the lovely woman who captured his heart, but as a reminder not to underestimate anyone, let alone a woman, again.

Watson is not “protesting too much” , nor “trying to make things easier for his friend by warning off potentially amorous clients” with his famous opening. No, he is simply telling us not to look at Irene Alder as a love interest because the tale is not about that, the story is about how Sherlock Holmes underestimated a case and did not factor in all the elements essentially reminding us of that Sherlock Holmes is a human being and is not all powerful or all seeing.

(to read the rest of my response journey here)

I’d give my life savings for a decent Holmes adaptation.