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.

Hum. I stand corrected. Digital search doesn't reveal it so I must have been colored by hearing it elsewhere in the past.

One would not be alone in seeing the connection. As Redmond notes in his book Lives Beyond Baker Street.. "King Edward VII, previously Albert Edward, Prince of Wales (1841–1910), was the oldest son of Queen Victoria and Albert, the Prince Consort. Although he became a dignified, popular, and successful king, particularly effective as “Edward the Peacemaker” in managing the squabbles among European nations, his reputation as Prince of Wales (heir to the throne) was for spendthrift luxury, gambling, and womanizing. Occasionally, as in the Tranby Croft scandal of 1891, he came close to serious trouble. His most prominent mistress was Lillie Langtry; there were numerous others, probably including the sensational actress Sarah Bernhardt. As host or guest at weekend house-parties he also had many opportunities for dalliance with society ladies. The Prince has been plausibly seen as the “illustrious client” who employs Holmes in the story of that title, and his career has echoes in the events of “A Scandal in Bohemia”. He succeeded to the throne on his mother’s death in January 1901; he was married to Princess Alexandra of Denmark, and their son George V succeeded him." Redmond, Christopher. Lives Beyond Baker Street (pp. 174-175). MX Publishing. Kindle Edition. Of Lillie, Redmond writes: "Lillie Langtry, born Emilie Charlotte Le Breton (1853–1929), is one of the chief candidates to be an original of Irene Adler, though she was an actress rather than a contralto. Adler’s birth in New Jersey slightly suggests Langtry’s birth in Jersey, Channel Islands; she was known as “the Jersey Lily”. Her 1874 marriage to landowner Edward Langtry did not interfere with her theatrical career, 1881–1883 and intermittently after that, or her relationships with gentlemen ranging from American playboy Frederick Gebhard to the Prince of Wales (later Edward VII). She later managed the Imperial Theatre in London, owned race-horses, provided her endorsement to soaps and other products, and divorced and remarried, this time to aristocrat Hugo de Bathe." Redmond, Christopher. Lives Beyond Baker Street (p. 250). MX Publishing. Kindle Edition. Doyle used many real-life personalities and dealt with many real-life social issues and events of the times in his stories. A review of such things is a fascinating walk into history.

So. My eyes deceived me. The tea leaves are put into an old China tea pot. Hot water from a new metal stove top type tea kettle is poured over the tea leaves in the old China tea pot. A 3rd vessel - one of the old China tea cups - already filled with liquid - is used to pour a slightly discolored liquid (presumably an oolong type tea of light characteristic) over the same old China tea pot just filled with hot water. So the tea cup has been filled in advance for the purposes of the demonstration being given. All is well in tea-ville.

Indeed. Some of the most fascinating are found in the 1939 classic Wizard of Oz to say nothing of those in The Ten Commandments. I do hope to get my 3rd watching done this weekend, and I'll snatch your suggestion of a search on 'Sherlock Goofs' into the bargain as well. Thanks for the idea.

Contention is a good thing sometimes. I'm going for a 3rd watch, never fear. My 'knowledge' comes from two observations and an assumption. The second observation was somewhat specifically looked for, because the incident caught my attention in the first viewing. However, I was still looking at larger detail and employed no stop-action intervention into the matter. The observations are that the liquid in the big pot with the spout she is pouring over the little tea steeper pot from is both hot, and clear. (Note the little one is a tea steeper pot, not a drinking cup...unless it doubles as both...certainly a possibility.) Also, it is the same bigger pot she uses to pour the same clear, hot liquid inside the little tea steeper pot from. Now...the little tea steeper pot is where tea leaves are put, then hot water poured over them...the lid keeping the heat in while it steeps until it's time to drink the results. Again, she both pours into, and over, the little steeper from the same bigger pot with the spout, as nearly as my eyes have processed the scene to this point. THAT SAID - I cannot confirm I see her put lea leaves into the little steeping pot in advance of pouring in the liquid from the bigger pot, which I perceived and assumed to be clear (hot) water. SO... a 3rd viewing with some stop-action intervention is called for to clarify the scene, and will be conducted soon as I'm only half-way through my 2nd viewing of 1.2 anyway. Backing up to review is enjoyable. It may show my assumptions about the little tea steeper pot are entirely wrong, which would be a happy event. I'd hate to think the scene is just not thought through as filmed. (I will have more to say about this episode afterward of course.)

Starting a thread on this for general discussion. Our club will be discussing it in our next meeting, so I'm dissecting it at present. Certainly the first paragraph of this story may serve as a great testament to the depiction of Sherlock Holmes Benedict Cumberbatch was given to portray in the BBC series some time ago.. -------- “WELL, MRS. WARREN, I cannot see that you have any particular cause for uneasiness, nor do I understand why I, whose time is of some value, should interfere in the matter. I really have other things to engage me.” So spoke Sherlock Holmes and turned back to the great scrapbook in which he was arranging and indexing some of his recent material. ------ How dismissive of him. Of course, the following paragraphs lead us to understand he had a basic outline of the seeming 'problem' at hand already--yet that hardly justifies his brusqueness. @Chronologist of this forum dates the story to 1901, (though he stands alone in that year), center of most of the 14 leading Chronologists who put it between about 1895 and 1903, with just one putting it early at 1887. Certainly Sherlock should have learned something about normal human compassion by now one would think. But, he IS Sherlock after all, and perhaps 'maturing' looks different for him than it does for others? Or is maturing even a possibility for him? More on this story later as I dissect some of its contents. p.s. - for those who may not know, the original Manuscript title for this one was The Adventure of the Bloomsbury Lodger, taken of course from one written comment, "the mysterious lodger of Bloomsbury," a phrase in the writing several paragraphs into Part II of the adventure. This would have been more in keeping with the titling of his earlier cases, but obviously others had different opinions about what would be 'catchy' by this time in Doyle's writing career, and The Red Circle is mentioned regularly throughout this Adventure. (It is also very likely an offshoot of a real organization...a point to be noted later.) First real question for those who may review this story: Which of the adaptations of Sherlock do you think best represents the Sherlock depicted in the Canon in this case?

OK. I will be happy to toss in a few thoughts. Moving some notes to "The Red Circle" under the Casebook area to start some chat there.

A side note on this particular comment: it's an intriguing one. I've just laid in some Poirot to do a little dabbling in that world. I'm aware of the name of course, and have seen parts of a couple episodes or movies with a certain David Suchet filling the role of the gent. Apparently there's quite a bit more of Poirot about than I've let myself become acquainted with - and I know there are a few battalions of Agatha Christie fans lurking about in various corners and crevasses of the world. I'm working my way through "Rivals of Sherlock Holmes", but several of those are nearly one-offs, and though entertaining, as I noted elsewhere I think, I prefer 'world builders' overall, in those genres I like to dwell in. It's time to expand a bit in the detective fiction genre.

Well. After so many pages of scintillating discussion on this particular episode, I find it difficult to add anything. I do find just one exceedingly trivial point I must check out in my next run through... In Soo Lin's 'demonstration' she talks about the tea pots being cured by pouring tea over them for countless years. Immediately after which she pours hot water over the one she's holding from the same hot water pot she just filled it from. What's that about? (Of course, my eyes may have deceived me. Surely no self-respecting film crew would allow such a mistake.)

This one happens to be a quote directly from Canon of course. So Sherlock is aware he has issues - which may exclude him from full psychopathy. The lines between the two are pretty blurred. So far there is only the one scene where he leans toward psychopathy in my mind, so I'm not settled on psychopathy yet. Yes, Mycroft surprises me - not the Mycroft of Canon at all, and certainly the "occassion" that takes him "off his rails" in the Series is an insufficient one to do so - again, according to "Canonical" reasoning. We are also, at least at this point, left a bit flat concerning his reasoning abilities, which exceed Sherlock's of course. I think the physical implementation is good. Sherlock was a boxer, expert single-stick player and swordsman. Again, things needed for 'his chosen profession.' It is accurate to portray Sherlock as a physically fit and well-skilled individual. "He was somewhat over 6 feet tall and extremely lean making him look taller." He also had a "strength of grip which was hardly expected" given his appearance, and in one case gives a rather remarkable demonstration of his physical strength. Just as a note though I'm sure you know, Sherlock never wears a deerstalker in Canon. That's a contrivance first seen with William Gillette's stage performance, and like so many adaptations, it 'stuck' with the consuming public. His hair is another matter. It is never mentioned in Canon, though many other of his attributes are. (I just did another search of every mention of 'hair' in the Canon to be sure my mind wasn't playing with me.) So the field is wide open regarding that. Oh, you open a huge field for discussion here. To be succinct, my personal view is it's not the bitterness, or the love, but the nature of the psychosis that drives both the result, and the extent, of the thing. Bitterness is neither paralytic nor motivational in and of itself. It just is. Love is neither vicious (motivational) nor paralytic in and of itself. We can look all around us in our own lives, and see the workings of both those (and much more) and the very different results they exhibit in behaviors - as well as degrees of those results. So it's not the existence of the 'thing' but the extent of the psychosis determining outcomes. To be honest it was one of the first things I noted, and pleasantly. (I found the soundtrack for the Jeremy Brett series pleasant as well, by the way.) Soundtrack is another area I give British productions higher marks in than our American ones - generally speaking. I would just like to close with this part. I agree with you many people relate to him, and to this sort of unfiltered personality. (Witness Donald Trump's charisma.) Inside each of us there is that little part that would just LOVE to say what we're really thinking. To just 'let it go and let it out.' There's a certain freedom in unloading on others. It is particularly seen in childhood. Most of us mature and develop a filter preventing such abuses. Fortunately Sherlock's is a mild case. There is an arena within which it can work and be tolerated, and he has found a niche within which it can function without too detrimental an impact. But it does need watching, and I think Scotland Yard does well to keep him engaged and right in their crosshairs! He is a wonder to observe, but as has been seen in others, this type can be very dangerous for society as well. The question for me became and remains why Doyle chose such a personality to depict his "most perfect reasoning machine" - but the result is a character far more 'memorable' than almost any other in the annals of crime fighting. Would he be nearly so interesting without his idiosyncrasies and character flaws? I highly doubt it.