Jump to content

Episode 2.3, "The Reichenbach Fall"


Undead Medic

What Did You Think Of "The Reichenbach Fall?"  

125 members have voted

  1. 1. Add Your Vote Here:

    • 10/10 Excellent
    • 9/10 Not Quite The Best, But Not Far Off.
    • 8/10 Certainly Worth Watching Again.
    • 7/10 Slightly Above The Norm.
      0
    • 6/10 Average.
      0
    • 5/10 Slightly Sub-Par.
      0
    • 4/10 Decidedly Below Average.
      0
    • 3/10 Pretty Poor.
      0
    • 2/10 Bad.
    • 1/10 Terrible.
      0


Recommended Posts

I’m reluctant to disagree with a scholar like you, but wasn’t Watson the woman, not Holmes? At least according to Rex Stout.

Also, I need to put on the mod hat for a moment and ask that you please take care in using terms like „decline“ when it comes to other people’s interpretations of the canon. This is and has always been an equal opportunity forum when it comes to theories, and if someone reads Sherlock as being in a relationship with whoever, more power to them really. Feel free to disagree but keep the tone respectful, please.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, Caya said:

but wasn’t Watson the woman, not Holmes?

The book in view is Ms. Holmes of Baker Street, 1989, by Bradley and Sarjeant.   It's true Rex Stout presented at the BSI Annual Dinner, January 1941, his paper/thesis "Watson Was A Woman", published in the Saturday Review of Literature on 1 March 1941 and in Pofiles By Gaslight in 1944.  Julian Wolff provided a historic rebuttal to that one. 

I've simply done the same with the postulates and deductions made for Ms. Holmes of Baker StreetI, evaluating and disassembling them.  That's 'playing the game'.

I'm not quite sure I see an issue with the title "Decline and Demise of Sherlock Holmes and Dr. Watson", but I'll give it some serious thought.  The work could simply be changed to "A Book Review On Ms. Holmes of Baker Street."

Thanks for pointing it out.

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, Caya said:

... please take care in using terms like „decline“ when it comes to other people’s interpretations of the canon

Thanks, Caya.  Unless I'm overlooking another instance of the word, this is a very borderline case, since he used the word "decline" only once, in quoting the title of a twenty-year-old article, and we don't know the tone of the article itself -- though admittedly he was the author of that article.  But this is a good opportunity to state the forum's policy:

Members are free to state their own opinions, as long as they are stated as opinions (e.g., "it seems to me...."), and as long as no name calling is involved (e.g., "only an idiot would say....").

Added:  You and I 'cross posted', Inspector (i.e., at the same time).  Without reading your essay, it's not clear to me just how you meant the word "decline.". So there may not actually be an issue.  And you're certainly free to say whatever you want, however you want to say it, on your own blog.

 

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

41 minutes ago, Carol the Dabbler said:

Members are free to state their own opinions, as long as they are stated as opinions (e.g., "it seems to me...."), and as long as no name calling is involved (e.g., "only an idiot would say....").

Exactly. 
As I point out in my article with regard to Rex Stout's Watson Was A Woman,
    "Much ink in opposition and support was to follow Mr. Stout’s declaration, Julian Wolff’s historic rebuttal ultimately being printed together with Stout’s in Profiles by Gaslight.  Others entered the fray on both sides as the years passed."

It's about dealing with the content and context of the article, (or book in this case), not about dealing with the authors of the same.

The question: Do the contentions, facts, text and pictures made/used by the authors actually support what they say they do?  I.e. are the deductions and conclusions sound?  Or is it possible they are being misinterpreted or misrepresented, taken out of context or viewed from a framework that isn't the only one possible, etc. etc.  


This is why my final conclusion regarding the book is that it's worth the read, so we know what is being said, evaluate it for ourselves, and learn.  The "Decline and Demise" comes from stepping away from that form of pure analysis, inspection and logic which define the Holmes and Watson we know.

My sections are the "introduction",  "Facts That Are Fiction", "Reinterpreting the Interpretations", "Re-drawing the Pictures" (since they use the artists pictures to 'prove' some of their points), "The Truth About the Truth", and "In Conclusion". 

As a part of my conclusion, after addressing directly many of their 'proofs', I say this:
   "Close examination suggests the whole reads rather more as though the authors first chose an idea to espouse--perhaps a purposely contentious one--and proceeded to find text and pictures to give support to the position, though they only appear to do so on the surface.
    Whether this is the case or not, I leave to them…and to you; but as we well know, “it is a capital offense to theorize in advance of the facts” (Sherlock Holmes: Second Stain).
"


ADDED NOTE: 
    I can add too, pondering this whole thing, I am encouraged to give the article another thorough review and revision to insure its integrity as a deliverer of analysis and evaluation, and not a statement of contention.
    Just as Wolff and Stout disagreed with the analysis, so I disagree with the messrs. Bradley and Sarjeant on their analysis and deductions. That's what I want to be sure comes across.  If the title is in the way of that as well, the title needs to go.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Who's Online   0 Members, 0 Anonymous, 43 Guests (See full list)

    • There are no registered users currently online
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of UseWe have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.Privacy PolicyGuidelines.