Inspector Baynes

Both observant and accurate, Emerald. Thank you for your post. Always good to be encouraged by the youthful among us. I confess I had quite forgotten about this Forum while doing a bit of an intense study on Gravity - what it really is and how it really works - nearly fruitlessly, I might add, since clearly, it's not yet well understood by any. Look forward to exchanging Sherlockian interests and asides with you.

Indeed. There are many pretty species. In fact, most all species, because they live consistent with what they know, and have choice about. In other words, they live consistent with their highest possible potential. Though I think @Van Buren Supernova has an intriguing idea about putting on fur to improve our appearance and it may have some merit from time to time, I'm not certain it's the right sort of remedy either. 🤪

Yes, you touch on several of the issues with this particular case. I'll get back to you 'soon' with some thoughts and comments. Life is at hand at the moment.

Terrific (in its current, not original meaning) input. I'll jot these down and see what I can find.

You are, of course, 'correct' on all points. That said, I'm of that kind of person who seemingly can 'never' find an excuse for being blunt and abrupt with people, regardless of my own circumstances. For me, life is not a matter of caring for, or giving reign to, the self... but what we do and how we treat others - at all times. So though I well see and note the subsequent statements about Holmes "at times", I also note an all too frequent tendency to be the stern, disciplined, and dare I say 'selfish' "Holmes"... the one most seem to focus on and certainly BBC Sherlock takes to excess. Thus the reason I address only the very first paragraph as a potential testament to the character presented by Cumberbatch (and a few others, I do believe.) It's very likely Red Circle is based on a very real organization. Doyle routinely dealt with such things in his writing. I will be bringing that out in more depth soon, but I want to do some independent research yet before I write it up. At my age, certainly agree. I find my resistance to the gnawing human intervention with peace more difficult each year now. Yet I do hope still not to let my guard down and be dismissive or rude and abrupt with people. Everyone has enough troubles of their own without my additions, I fear.

Thanks for the welcome. I did rather enjoy The Mentalist when I watched it, which I confess wasn't all the time. It had a certain charm to it. For some reason I was never drawn to go back and 'fill in all the gaps' or watch it first to last. Not sure why. It was certainly more palatable than House. Maybe if I give it another go... As I watch Columbo again, I'm finding I enjoy him less than I remembered. Of course, he's a 'reverse take' on the norm, since we know the whodunit from the beginning and we're watching him put the pieces together, knowing where he's going to end up. Takes a bit of the 'mystery' out of the mystery. And though I still like how he handled the character, that too gets a little old after awhile. Like reading serial books or watching Hallmark movies...cookie cutter. they're all the same. Oh well. They serve their purposes.

Hum. In the "for what it's worth' department--(Paul Harvey)--I've started watching Columbo from S1 E1. Not much depth to it, but I've always liked the bumbling genius. And I've not seen them all by far. More of a '1 person show' than many others have been too, which keeps the depth down a bit. Anyway, between BBC Sherlock and Columbo, those are my 2 'go to' shows for now. I could never get into House. He is almost as caustic as Judge Judy, and I don't like eating 'caustic' as a main meal. Between that and his psychoses, I chose to leave him to others.

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.

And I'll schedule a 4th. It's at the very beginning of the episode, so does not take long to encounter and evaluate.

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.

Yes. I'll deal with this, and remember it going forward. Tried to make the changes but destroyed the formatting in the process. Will tackle it again soon.

Another small item I can not help but find amusing as I dissect this case. (Several of these sorts of things occur through the Canon, some few of which are significant for establishing probable time of day and even dating of case. This particular one is just amusing.) Beginning of Part II of The Red Circle: "As we walked rapidly down Howe Street I glanced back at the building which we had left. There, dimly outlined at the top window, I could see the shadow of a head, a woman’s head, gazing tensely, rigidly, out into the night, waiting with breathless suspense for the renewal of that interrupted message." What a great deal Watson is able to discern from a "dimly outlined...shadow of a head." One wonders at what magic he could perform in a clearly visible setting. I can buy that PERHAPS he could distinguish it as a woman's head...though even hairdos are deceptive in the shadows. As to the rest, I am left astonished.

People see what they want to see. And we must not expect humanity to be other than it is. it is all a sign of our times, though it found its beginning a little earlier in history as is always the case. The way needs to be paved before something becomes mainstream. I once wrote a rather detailed essay to the BSJ regarding one author's book and some other related publications, regarding the "fact" Holmes was a Woman, and the obvious results of such a conclusion on the future. It was titled "The Decline and Demise of Sherlock Holmes and Dr. Watson." It was written almost 20 years ago, August 10, 2003. I still have the essay, and would post it here, but it is quite lengthy and detailed. I will link to it if I ever get my webpage set. The then Editor, Steven Rothman, refused to publish it because 'the author was dead and could not defend himself.' I had to respond: "But this is "playing the game" is it not? And most all the early authors who began the game are now dead? Do we then stop playing the game with regard to all their writings?" My response essay was still not published in BSJ. It seems the greater desire is always to pursue and support the sensational rather than the more probable. All this said, I've now finished Season 2 of the BBC presentation. Little more can be said given the extent of the excellent contributions over the last 52 pages. With one thing I definitely agree: "I will watch it again." There is much more to glean from future observation,

Indeed. It would be difficult to find social or political 'pretty' in any of human history, especially its present. Humankind is not a pretty species. Simply the most self-indulgent, grasping, specious one.

Fascinating. I'll need to look into this too.