Carol the Dabbler

Several articles have been mentioned (and I'm easily confused) -- so I'm not sure which one you're referring that has the links.

This may be irrelevant, but I just reread the second article that Enigma posted above. It's got a nice close-up shot of the inscription, and now I'm not so sure that the final "dot" isn't just a natural freckle in the stone. It's a bit further away from its letter than any of the others (even though that M is the widest letter of the bunch), plus it's right next to a cluster of smaller freckles.

And it's got its own thread already! Welcome, Frank, and please feel free to stick around. Even if you don't happen to be interested in Sherlock Holmes, we have a lot of miscellaneous topics that you may enjoy. I haven't read your book, of course (having only heard of it just now), but my current best guess is that the letters are the initials of a sentence. I'll admit that wouldn't shed much light on the meaning, though!

Came here to post some news and coincidentally happened upon that post, which I had completely forgotten about. Well, they're apparently back to considering a "bridge movie." Don't offhand recall where I heard about it, but here's the IMDb page. It's said to cover "Aragorn's quest to capture Gollum between The Hobbit and Fellowship of the Ring ... to keep the Ring's location [a secret] from Sauron," Philippa Boyens is listed among the writers, and so far, looks like they also have Andy Serkis onboard (as both Gollum and Director), plus Ian McKellen and Elijah Wood (yes, as Frodo) -- but no mention of Viggo Mortensen. They also say "The film explores Aragorn's early adventures as a ranger," so maybe they're hoping to avoid the dreaded Elrond-Legolas Syndrome, where a character looks older as you go back in time. Mortensen hasn't been in a Tolkien movie since 2003's Return of the King, and has meanwhile aged from his mid-40s to to his late 60s, a bit old to be playing a "young" Aragorn. I'd guess they're looking to cast a Mortensen-type actor who's somewhere around 30. As for the three actors listed, Serkis will doubtless be doing Gollum via motion-capture again, McKellen can simply forgo some of the aging makeup he used last time -- and I have absolutely no idea what Frodo would be doing in this story.

Then again, I recall when Brett was being compared to Rathbone. And presumably Rathbone started out being compared to somebody before that. But as you say, maybe in a few more years. Well, I could probably imagine it, but Moffat & Gatiss have been quite adamant that they would never recast either Cumberbatch or Freeman. If when you say "them" however you mean "somebody" in the relatively distant future -- who knows? I guess if the original show (hopefully as typified by the first couple of seasons) has made a sufficiently positive impression on the current younger generations, the concept might well outlive Cumberbatch & Co. So do I. Wasn't McKellen's Holmes struggling with the early stages of dementia? Barring the imminent development of a cure (yes, please!), I don't see how they could explain him being able to remember the case long enough to investigate it. Though -- hmm -- I'm pretty sure they "aged" him with makeup for that movie. If so, then perhaps (without the "old" makeup) they could do a prequel. He's only in his mid-80s and according to IMDb, currently has several projects lined up (including something called The Hunt for Gollum). Now that you mention it, so am I. (Though according to Wikipedia, "In 2000, Monica Dolan starred as Russell in a 4-part BBC Radio drama of The Beekeeper's Apprentice, with James Fox playing Holmes.") Apparently King is continuing to write the books (with the most recent one published just six months ago, in June 2025). A while back I did sort through several boxes of attic books, and now have one large boxful that I probably wouldn't mind giving away (but I want to look through once more, just to be sure), just need to grit my teeth and follow through. Then I can triage some more boxfuls. Fortunately I don't seem to be acquiring books very often nowadays (and I do hope that Alexander McCall Smith will wrap up his No. 1 Ladies' Detective Agency series pretty soon). My big quandary is finding a good home for the books that I don't keep. When Mom died, I took several boxes of perfectly good, interesting books to the local used-book chain, but they were interested in only two (!) of the newer books. The charity shops and the library book sales are a lot more open-minded, I think, but I wish I knew how many donated books they actually find new homes for -- vs. how many they umm, don't.

Hmm, good question! Well, there are several published cases where the initial consultation enables him to see that the client is mistaken about certain aspects of the situation, thus saving him the time it might have taken to ferret out this information in the field. But I don't offhand recall any where he never leaves Baker Street, even though there may be some (especially considering that I haven't read all of them). As you mention though, he does say in A Study in Scarlet that "Now and again a case turns up which is a little more complex. Then I have to bustle about and see things with my own eyes." So, as Caya suggests, perhaps those complex cases are mostly the ones that Watson finds interesting enough to submit for publication. Each of those cases would clearly take more of his time, including travel, whereas he could presumably handle something like ten mere consultations per week when he's at home.

Yes, indeed, me too. Though I suspect the technique is actually far older than either.

Not sure I had even heard of that -- TV show? OK, it's an American production, streaming ( ), and I think they said it's from the same outfit that produced Elementary. They needed to make it distinctive, so this Watson is Black and apparently American. Holmes has died and Watson has returned to doctoring, but of course the mysteries seem to find him anyhow. Judging by the trailer on the show's IMDb page I'd say it's got possibilities -- a sense of humor at least. As for the others you mentioned, the Enola Holmes movies still seem to be unavailable on DVD, so I haven't seen them either, though I'd love to (having read and enjoyed all the novels). I've seen only a few bits of the Japanese series, which looked promising (I especially liked that Miss Sherlock's assistant was named Wato-san). A traditional series would seem to be against today's zeitgeist. Otherwise, though, it's about time for one, as it's been over 30 years (!) since the last Brett episode. As for Sherlock, I'd say give it another 5-10 years, and/or until Messrs Moffat & Gatiss get bored with what they've been doing and/or come up with a nifty new plot. Yeah, I guess they've already done Sherlock the Old Man (though Ian McKellen was only in his mid-70s then). I assume your bookshelves are actually 6 feet long but yeah, I hear you. I keep meaning to bring down some of my attic collection, but there just aren't that many shelves available. Meaning, as in your case, that something's gotta go! (Though I suppose there's room for a few more bookcases....)

Hey, Herlock, good to see you again! And I figured you'd have the longest list (by far)!

OK, so Dick Van Dyke has never played Sherlock Holmes -- but he did play very competent "consulting detectives" in his TV series Diagnosis: Murder (as a doctor) and his Murder 101 series of TV movies (as a criminology professor). Happy 100th birthday, Mr. Van Dyke!

AKA the Jeremy Brett version, and I agree! We also have the following on DVD: Sherlock (the BBC TV series) Elementary (another modern-day TV adaptation) all (I think) of the Basil Rathbone movies The Adventure of Sherlock Holmes' Smarter Brother (a comedy) with Gene Wilder as the titular younger brother Sigerson, and Douglas Wilmer (who had played Holmes on TV some years earlier) as Sherlock The Private Life of Sherlock Holmes and both Downey movies ... and quite possibly more that were hiding behind something else.

No argument there! But the best way to interpret the original story is to read it. Just need to free up half an hour or so.

Aw, shucks -- looks like I need to re-read the story! Will get back to you.

Please bear in mind that calling her an "adventuress" was the king's idea, and I don't offhand recall any supporting information in the story. Once he got over his infatuation with her and became engaged to a fellow royal, he realized that Irene had a photo with which she *could* blackmail him, though I don't recall him offering any evidence that she intended to do so. She told Holmes that she had no intention of blackmailing the king, she was merely using the photo as leverage to keep him from interfering with her life. The king strikes me as something of a paranoid control freak, so I'm more inclined to believe her than him. Each of them had presumably been attracted to the other at an earlier date -- presumably with her being impressed that he was royal, and him having seen her on stage and been impressed by her talent and her beauty. I rather imagine that he was something of a "stage-door Johnny"!

The Oxford dictionary says "adventuress" is a dated term for "a woman who seeks social or financial advancement by dishonest or unscrupulouos methods." So the king assumes (perhaps correctly) that Irene's attentions to him were prompted by a hope of financial or social gain, which may or may not have been her actual motive. Funny thing, though -- he's worried sick that if anyone finds out about their prior relationship (whatever it may have been), it'll ruin his chances of marrying a proper lady -- which to me sounds an awful lot like HE is the one looking to gain social prestige (or at least avoid losing it). I'm pretty sure that Watson's "dubious and questionable" designation of Irene is meant as a gently worded synonym for "disreputable," and may well have been based largely on the king's (rather self-serving) attitude. Odd, though, that her name wasn't familiar to Holmes, who seems to stay informed on the cultural scene -- doesn't the story say that she is (or was) a well-known opera singer?

That's odd -- let me check my book again. Hmm, you're quite correct. Wonder how I managed to misread that? OK, now I can refer you back to my comment on Arthur "Continuity" Doyle! Watson doesn't elaborate, though he does make that statement twice. I have three guesses: 1) Watson is a typical Victorian in that he considers anyone in show business to be "questionable," and/or 2) he suspects (thus "dubious and questionable" rather than anything more specific) that Irene's relationship with the king may have been of a carnal nature (note: it's been a while since I read the whole store, but I'm pretty sure that was never specified), and/or 3) he knows something that he ain't telling. ADDED: If you don't mind a real-world guess, maybe Doyle's publisher insisted on that phrase -- presumably for "morality" reasons analogous to why one Brett episode ended with the rather gratuitous accidental drowning of the thief, whereas in the original story she had merely disappeared.

I used to know that -- near as I recall, there was actually some sort of law. Hang on, will have a look. OK, according to William Baring-Gould's Annotated Sherlock Holmes, Volume I, page 360: By English law, a marriage once had to be solemnized before noon. But in May, 1886 -- almost two years before Watson's date for the "Scandal" -- the legal period had been extended from 8:00 A.M. to 3:00 P.M. Surely Godfrey Norton, as a lawyer, should have known this. The story begins with the King's visit to Holmes on the 20th of March, 1887 -- actually a bit less than *one* year after May of 1886, but after, nonetheless. But even though the fictional lawyer "should have known," the commentary does not take into account the rather lax habits of Sir Arthur "Continuity" Doyle, who reportedly staked his reputation on his historical novels, and thought of his Holmes stories as merely a source of income. If the change in laws hadn't affected him personally, he could well have remained completely unaware of it, thus writing the story under the assumption that the prior law was still in effect. Or if you prefer a more "in universe" explanation, you could assume that Watson -- who had clearly waited till after the death of Irene Adler before publishing the story (he refers to her, at the beginning and again at the end, as "the late") -- had in the interim simply misremembered what year the events had occurred.

Hmm, I don't offhand recall even knowing that it HAD a name! Lemme look it up -- OK, it's ... but even though that sounds vaguely familiar, if I had been asked which story it appeared in, I would've had no idea.

What were some of the questions -- if you happen to recall?

sted just now · IP I agree, if it were already a sure thing, we'd have heard something definitive from somebody "official." But Moffat & Gatiss used to say that they'd like to revisit the boys when they're at a more typical age for Holmes adaptations, in their 50s or 60s (sorry, don't recall the exact quote). Well, Freeman is now 54 and Cumberbatch is 49 -- so I wouldn't be at all surprised to hear some good news within ten years or so. That also depends, of course, on M&G getting at least one good, strong plot idea.

Apparently, yes. Someone with a MOD badge on their account says it's been verified and approved. He's already given some interesting replies.

Oh, it's a real place alright, and just about everybody's got one!

Took me a while too!

Hadn't thought of autocorrect, but you're right, that sign wasn't hand-written, it was printed on a computer -- apparently by someone who doesn't proofread the results and/or isn't fluent in English.

Oh, good -- I wasn't fantasizing then, merely over-generalizing. Thanks!