Inspector Baynes

Sorry, slip of the eyeballs and brainworks. ASPD - Antisocial Personality Disorder, a 'lump' category into which both sociopathic and psychopathic disorders are generally grouped these days to avoid the difficulties of defining critical distinctions. Oh, sorry. I've come to find the issues and uses of reflection quite useful in daily life as well as filmography. But as with anything else, it's entirely a matter of personal preferences.

I believe this begins to get near the truth. We see Sherlock in many roles at many times in many circumstances and with a multitude of demeanors. He is, after all, human. And we need keep in mind Doyle used him as a vehicle to address many of the social issues and common thoughts of his time. Doyle also had a good grasp of the human condition. He shows Sherlock totally out of character, stuck on a singular idea, making completely erroneous deductions, and as a complete failure in spite of all his own mantras. (The Yellow Face.) He shows Sherlock at the height of his powers. (Pick several cases.) He also shows Sherlock in several other ways, consistently, throughout the cases. Doyle had a good grasp of the human condition, and displayed it deftly in and through his characters. Each adaptation of Sherlock is the product of the mind and interpretation of the adapter...just as it must always be. And just as each of us 'adapts Sherlock' to fit our own construction of who and what he is, and therefore, how he acts and interacts with the people and world around him. Few adapters have actually tried to show Sherlock as a VARIABLE person with a vacillating character and level of success. Perhaps this is why the Brett adaptation is somewhat more what many people think..and I personally feel a little closer to the Canonical depiction. Therefore, as adaptation after adaptation is trotted out, we learn to take something for what it is, rather than try to evaluate it against what it is not - unless we choose to set ourselves up as the 'arbiter of good or bad, acceptable or unacceptable.' (Which of course there is a tremendous human affinity for doing. After all, our own opinion is the most important, is it not?) I suspect most who take on an adaptation have done little serious study of the Canon themselves, or looked into the background of what and why Doyle was presenting what he was presenting. Thus the adaptation will always be incomplete - short of the effect and intent of the original. And the farther from the original we get in time, the farther from the "real" depiction we deliver for an increasing number of reasons. May we accept them all, review them all, draw conclusions regarding them all, and appreciate them all, for what each brings to the canvas that is the picture each intends to paint of the one the adapter believes to be 'Sherlock Holmes'.

Sir Douglas, I personally thought your thought worthy of great attention. Have you thought on your thought any further? We could well do with a thread or section on Doyle himself perhaps - a rather large arena of interest and knowledge I haven't found yet. (Not that it doesn't exist...my time is just somewhat limited as yet.)

If I may, a bit of resurrecting on this aging thread... I'm a member of a Scion society that's been going on for 43 years now, meeting monthly, discussing all things Sherlock, with a particular focus on the Canon. I've seen, I do believe, some folks here who acknowledge they are not all that familiar with the original Doylean stories of the Canon...but know Sherlock mostly from shows and movies. If one is not averse, since my club addresses a Canonical story each month and discusses it at our meetings, I'd be happy to toss up a few thoughts on the Story of the month and invite thoughts. In fact, if the Forum wished, someone could 'announce the story of the month' and the Forum participants could read/study it and bring their own thoughts on the story... dissect the events... discuss the characters... review the validity of Sherlocks supposed 'deductions'... throughout that month. The various characters in the stories who represent actual figures in British history could be discussed. The events depicted that actually tackle social issues of the times that were being addressed could be reviewed. The stories could be taken in "publication order", or alternatively in "chronological order" to see the maturing relationship of Holmes and Watson as the stories progress. Eventually Forum members would come to know the Canonical stories fairly well, if they were made a focus of interest for a time. There is also much written external to the Canon about the Canonical stories for review and discussion. I don't think there's a shortage of interest in Sherlock. Perhaps just a shortage of direction? Then again I don't know (yet) how much discussion has already been done on the original stories or from what angle. But if The Sound of the Baskervilles can continue to tackle them for 43 years with keen interest, and Sherlockians worldwide can continue to write about them, there must be something to them. I'll shut up now.

Hum. I could find the above interchange between @Carol the Dabblerand @besleybean mildly depressing, given one possible avenue relating to its its implications. So let me ask this minimal question to narrow the potential deductions a bit: What won't happen? More episodes being made? (My primary thought given the 'busy' comment) or a "maturing" into the canonical figures. Sadly, that need to 'mature' is a huge missed opportunity itself, lost from their very first meeting when the stage was initially set for Sherlock's character. I can only wonder why they chose to saddle him with such a pronounced ADSP. On the other hand, it really is just a matter of degree. True. It also does not confer an extensive awareness of ADSP, though in the timeframe of these events the medical profession is more aware of it than in "1895". Agreement. I look forward to it. One thing I've learned in my advanced years, is to receive and evaluate a thing for what it is, rather than for what it is not. In other words, I do not get all wrapped up in "what should be" or "what should have been" done with something. It is what it is, and to 'wish it to be otherwise' or to have 'expected it to be otherwise' merely results in disappointment and frustration. The source of every disappointment is an unfulfilled hope. The source of every frustration is an unfulfilled expectation. We therefore hold our expectations and hopes loosely. SO... perceiving, as I currently hold, a decision was made to present a Sherlock more emotionally compromised than Doyle's, and a Watson more tolerant than most human beings would be given the circumstances, I look forward to the progression of the series and the H/W relationship too. These two things I can also say too at present. 1. Thus far I'm appreciating the delivery of the roles by the participants. 2. I'm missing a little something in the 'scene settings'. I've come to anticipate some extremely clever uses of mirrors, reflections, etc. in British filmography...and particularly with BBC itself...from prior works. Far and away more imaginative than our American work, which has and overall more dull approach. But so far this element is a bit lacking. As a final comment here I did a bit more research on the ADSP issues - particularly the 'generally noted' attributes of the Sociopath vs. the Psychopath. I can concede that this Sherlock probably lives more closely in the Sociopathic realm, except for his predilection (so far) toward somewhat sadistic behaviors toward others. We'll see how all this plays out going forward.

Welcome Sarah. Observed your joining shortly after you arrived of course. Looking forward to all you care to share and bring. There are several writers aboard it appears, and some are also of an editorial bent. I'm new too... and somewhat of a lively bent, looking for meaningful exchanges over the Canon, all things Sherlock, related FanFic, adaptations and other related inspirations. Not adverse to Tolkien or other good, in depth fantasy, etc. I'm fond of 'world builders' perhaps - more so than one-offs. In any event, trusting we'll e-see much of you, your thoughts, endeavors and involvements.

Well. OK. Here are my first comments on this very old series. (And yes, I've taken a few minutes to review some of the earliest comments in this thread. The later comments seem to reflect perspectives following later additions to the series.) I agree with those who are 'into' the series. The adaptation to more current times, settings, etc. are well done. I also agree the leaps of logic as presented are stimulating, and the incorporation of elements of the Canon into the scenes are cleverly done, if completely different. The 'flavor' is there. My concern after the first 3 episodes is this particular Sherlock is far more self-centered and self-indulgent than the Canon's Sherlock. Yes, yes.. we know Sherlock is pretty conceited, and sometimes a little caustic. But he's not downright rude, continuously insulting, and overbearing as Cumberbatch's character is presented to be. From their initial meeting to the end of 1.3 there is nothing that would draw someone to him. His abuse of Watson in so many ways would not be tolerated by anyone having any self-respect - and it isn't just Watson that Sherlock abuses, but everyone around him. He seems to think they all exist just for his sole benefit and use (abuse). Psychologically, he is far more than the 'reasoning machine' - rather he is so self-centered he must take something to its conclusion just to salve his desire to be 'the best' (exemplified in his primary concern with whether he had 'guessed right' about the pill and beaten the cab-driver at the game) rather than being interested in and happy to have resolved the murders and ending the crime spree itself. This speaks of a severe psychosis, not intelligent reasoning. He is a troubled man. By this time in the Canon (and in fact from the very first meeting between he and Watson) there had been interchange between the two, establishing some form of link from which Watson understood a little more of his potential roommate. In this series, Sherlock just "assumes and dictates" according to his sole discretion and desire. So where I feel the Sherlock of Canon is a more believable and balanced person, the Sherlock of this series so far has indeed some significant psychopathic problems that need to be worked out or they will become increasingly problematic. (NOT the 'high-functioning Sociopath of the Canon, but indeed borderline psychopathic at a minimum. He needs to do a little research of his own. But we are rarely truly capable of identifying who and what we ourselves really are, much less care to actually do so.) We shall see what sort of effect Watson has on him as the series progresses. At this time I fear Sherlock's future is pretty grim without significant change. Watson's job helping Sherlock out of his self-destructive issues and problems is a far greater hill to climb than Sherlock's was/is in helping Watson over his minor difficulties. This is a far more troubled and dangerous Sherlock than Doyle gave us at his core. Such is my initial impression. The series presents "features of interest" as Sherlock would say. We'll see where it leads. NOTE: On to watching 1.2 again to add further detail to the opinion expressed above.

Whether you are chanting some of the quotes on top of your heads, or those in your pockets or others written on the bottoms of your shoes, any sharing of any kind will be a welcome event. To date this has been pretty much "The Silent Forum" save for a couple exceptions. Any signs of life will be gratefully observed and willingly handled. I may even drop a bomb or two just to see who is awake, and whether there are any able to diffuse them, who knows. Lively is as lively does, and I do try to be lively. Silence quite often results in incontrovertible conclusions as much as does noise. You can anticipate my first posting soon. In starting it, I've determined I will need to do a more 'blended' post expressing combinations of perspective to better explain, rather than singularly focusing on just one aspect of the production at a time. It's the combination at play in many cases that leads to the conclusion - 'the rest of the story' (Paul Harvey for the initiated) can be intertwined.

Yes indeed, in time. Possibly very soon. Hum. Intriguing. I hate to be repetitive, and like to give credit to those who expand my initial thinking - by the very "quote/reply" function you cite using above. Also to ask folks to 'elaborate' on their own thinking as you've already done with mine above as well. But there's merit in your thinking for sure. OK. I'll think on it and give it a go episode by episode. I may need to do multiple posts for each episode as I dissect them. There's the comparative to and extraction from Canon to address, and my 'opinions' on those. There's the logic and fallacy of the deductions to consider. The costuming, the acting, the scene setting, the interplay etc. A myriad angles to look at it from. And of course at the end of the day, it's all 'opinion' (in case anyone has read my other post on The Religion of Opinion and the power it has taken unto itself in this age in which we live). Anyone reading it knows I've been wearied by TRoO substantially. We'll give it a go.

Well, I've been able to watch Season 1 at last. It will be some time before I dissect them as some do. All I can say for now is I'm pleasantly surprised to see a few acting skills in Cumberbatch... something I had not anticipated given his more recent works. I wonder when he stagnated, exactly. Would be an interesting study. Freeman is Freeman, and there it is. I suggest the interplay between this Watson and Holmes is unique among the many depictions too, in some unique and intriguing ways.. That said, there are also enough references to the Canon tossed in to at least give it a 'flavor' of Doyle's work(s). I do find it interesting how they've somewhat imaginatively twisted them within the webs of the dialogue. Those not familiar with Doyle's works will be missing many of them of course...but that's as it should be with FanFic/adaptations. Oh that brings up a question the Tolkienists fight over, and are especially at one another's throats about again now, given this Rings of Power event. Is an adaptation "based on" the works of the author FanFic, or is it not... is it something else. As I always say though, I really don't care. From it all come those who come to the original from the copies...and the original is, in my personal opinion, always better...just because it's (often) truly original rather than a borrowed concept molded into another form. And THAT said, I do find these particular adaptations very imaginative indeed. I'm going to enjoy dissecting and writing on them over time from many different angles. p.s. - I do know I'm many years behind most all of you on this series, as I've been 'out of the game' for some time now. I'll watch all the series twice, and read all your comments before posting anything much further here. Perhaps then I'll have something of consequence and interest to add.

SHERLOCK HOLMES, THE RELIGION OF OPINION And The Joy Of Returning Home “I feel better now, and I will put the facts before you as shortly and yet as clearly as I can." Alexander Holder, (Beryl Coronet) A quick word on the three headings within the title above to begin. First, “Sherlock Holmes.” A name. Yet just to speak it brings images of calculation, reason, and clear thinking to mind—even to those for whom he exists only as a peripheral figure. For those who know him well it personifies and draws forth far more. Regarding him then, we require no further introduction or explanation to embark on the issue at hand. Next, “The Religion of Opinion (TRoO).” Is this a term familiar to us? Perhaps not. It is my own origination driven by sad reality, defining the behaviors (idolatries) of our world today. As with all others, “TRoO” has its ‘doctrinal statement.’ It reads: “This is my opinion. It is the only one there is. It may have little or no basis, but that’s irrelevant. If you differ, you’re wrong. Don’t give me facts or alternatives. You’re just wrong. You will agree with mine or you’re inadequate and deficient, and I’m happy to tell you so!” When one is held in the sway of TRoO’s doctrine, no reasoning, no avenue, no word or fact exists able to penetrate the adherent’s armor. “The Religion” is in place. The irresistible force and the immovable object have inseparably amalgamated as an impregnable, unassailable unit. Finally, “The Joy of Returning Home.” How is this connected? Well, we shall see how it ties in at the end. “Oh, my God!” I gasped. “What is it? What does it mean?” Watson, (Hound of the Baskervilles) Indeed. Where am I going with all this? Let’s plunge ahead. Some of you reading know this writer was for many years a member of The Sound of the Baskervilles. I’ll be bold enough to say a somewhat active and relatively studious one, with no desire for, or inkling, things would be otherwise. It took a great deal to move me away from the SOBs to take up other essential matters—and to be gone for quite a long time. The following years were devoted to study of Greek and Hebrew, editing in a lexicon of words for an in-depth language study tool, then providing recommendations for rendering the Greek in English for a new Bible translation. Training multiple groups here and abroad in use of the study tool mentioned above followed. Completing the above, more years passing with some authors’ works edited and a desire forty years delayed realized; to begin study of all the works of J.R.R. Tolkien in depth. We come to the issue (finally)! Through these last twenty and more years, in every arena, under every circumstance, everywhere, regardless of with whom—while watching the world unfold and interact around me, The Religion of Opinion has slowly but incontrovertibly become the sole tool being used to express and conduct human communication. Face to face. Email. Phone. News. Zoom. Social platforms (Facebook the worst). Forums. Interactions in religious spheres. Simple discussions regarding word definition, meaning and application—it does not matter. Our interaction as a species is characterized exclusively by The Religion of Opinion, as though some real power and effective result pertains thereto. No environment escapes the hysteria of ‘needing to be right’, and ‘having (forcing) everyone to agree with ME,’ regardless of facts. Facts aren’t even sought now, being irrelevant to the Doctrine. Thinking is kidnapped, chained, and hidden from view. “He had to seal his mouth on the subject, however, for to express an unorthodox opinion was a dangerous matter in those days,,,” Watson writing: (Study in Scarlet) We no longer ‘seal our mouths.’ The Religion of Opinion was limited in former days, constrained by truths, isolated to what were generally termed ‘fanatic’ or ‘deceived’ individuals, groups, or organizations. It was not the ‘rule’ by which most lived. We desperately need to learn again what has been lost. The Religion’s results are inherently dangerous; quite capable of sinking the world in catastrophe. The question before us; is thinking irretrievably lost, or can it be released from its bondage and reintegrated into people’s minds and lives. We used to understand ‘opinion’—what it was and what it could do—and we sought it out. We incorporated it into our being as a valuable part of learning, and so ultimately, right thinking. We were neither afraid of receiving it, nor fearful of sharing it. We were, in a word, more like Sherlock Holmes and his associates. “If you are unable to come I shall give you fuller details, and would esteem it a great kindness if you would favour me with your opinion.” Tobias Gregson: (Study in Scarlet) An opinion shared was a “great kindness.” something used for improvement and springing forward into greater understanding. Now it is Thor’s hammer under which we will suffer greatly should we disagree. Sherlock Holmes is, of course, the foremost antidote to The Religion of Opinion. No quick conclusions from him. No ‘digging in the heels’ in the face of evidence and fact. No refusal to listen, receive, and evaluate. He is possessed of a full understanding of both the meaning, and the value, of opinion (though perhaps not always as complimentary toward the one sharing as might be wished.) “Oh, you must not let me influence you in any way. I suggest that you go on your line and I on mine. We can compare notes afterwards, and each will supplement the other.” Sherlock to Lestrade, (Six Napoleans) “Not at all. I am glad to have a friend with whom I can discuss my results.” Sherlock to Watson, (Blue Carbuncle) Yet Holmes also does not hold any misconceptions about his species, and stays alert for the obvious, willing to give a nudge down the channels to improvement as needed. “You are right,” said Holmes demurely; “you do find it very hard to tackle the facts.” Holmes to Lestrade: (Boscomb Valley) I daresay my time with Mr. Holmes has been the bedrock holding me firm, the superstructure through which I maintained my involvements with others, and the sustenance from which I drew strength while observing the myriad events unfolding around me through these last few decades. He speaks truly; we are unwise to ignore his example and advice. Humanity may currently feel it wants to build the world based on the quagmire of opinion fed it daily from every direction, but its end will not be good for the species. Whence comes our assurance in this world, now and ever? “You are not quite in possession of the facts yet…” (Sign of Four) His quiet self-confident manner convinced me that he had already formed a theory which explained all the facts, (Study in Scarlet) “By the method of exclusion, I had arrived at this result, for no other hypothesis would meet the facts.” (Study in Scarlet) “It is the only hypothesis which covers the facts.” (Sign of Four) “It is a capital mistake to theorize before you have all the evidence. It biases the judgment.” (Study in Scarlet) The Religion of Opinion will have no involvements with evidence or facts. We come now to the last point noted at the beginning of this monograph—The Joy of Returning Home. My long journey and battle with The Religion of Opinion has been exhausting. I have remained steadfast in pursuit of bringing calm, peace, and reason to discussions everywhere, to the extent possible and often beyond. I have not bowed to The Religion of Opinion and its tenets regardless of pressure to adhere to the norms of our day in history. Indeed, returning to The Sound of the Baskervilles and the family comprising it brings great joy. It’s a return to a peaceful place of renewed involvements in needful things, and an expectation of appreciation for the mental and emotional gifts and pleasures provided unknowingly by others who grasp the true power, place and position of fact, theory, and most of all opinion, in this world. Those people who rightly know the spheres within which each concept corporately and severally revolves and applies, and how to assess and address them consistent with their proper venues and impacts within the universe. Here we can be mutually refreshed by discussion for discussion’s sake, empowered by reasoning observed by and benefiting all, and challenged to take the security, sanity, and proper perspective such involvements provide into a world desperately needing to ‘Think Like Sherlock.’ (This book, whose title I have employed, may have a different focus, yet one might hope it produces somewhat the same result nonetheless.) Holmes once said “Good old Watson! You are the one fixed point in a changing age.” There are those who say he is wrong; he is himself the ‘one fixed point’ for us all. I personally opine we can neither conceive of, nor relate to, Holmes without Watson, nor of them without the whole world they still revolve in and continue to stabilize so well for so many. Of the world of Sherlock Holmes, it cannot be said “the investment exceeds the reward.” The reward is too great to fathom. Lloyd R. Hedberg Jr. Inspector Baynes 12/20/2022

I would guess the upcoming "Mullings" would fit here as well then maybe, since they will be strictly 'commentary' on the cases...they won't be written as Watson's thougts. (Though I may end up doing a few of those as well over time.)

Let me know where you feel things like this best fit. As I go through the next year and more, I'll be doing "Mullings on the Master's Works" - one each month. There will be a 'short version' to be included perhaps in my Scion Club's monthly newsletter, and a "long version" - the thorough presentation of my 'personal mullings' on the case.

Indeed, many speculations are available, aren't there..! Perhaps in revealing the name, they needed to seek permission from the Inn's Keeper, who asked for the Inn and his true name to be kept strictly out of the business, for example. The wonderful thing about speculation is it has few limitations, other than some small possibility of 'reasonability'.

My CONFESSIONS UPON THE ADVENTURE OF THE YELLOW FACE Dr. John H. Watson, M.D. It has been fully three days now since I completed and sent for publication, under title of ”The Adventure of the Yellow Face,” a sketch of the peculiar events transpiring at Norbury which eventually brought Mr. Grant Munro to the door of my friend Mr. Sherlock Holmes in search of aid. I must confess even now, upon this fourth morning following, I am still unsettled in mind about the entire affair, and my friend’s most unnatural and unsatisfactory handling of it. Holmes is without question in possession of considerable exceptional talents, a broad and admirable knowledge within his sphere, and a singular devotion to his pursuit of facts and solutions. I suppose I must acknowledge I have come to expect seeing these displayed in full measure routinely and regardless of circumstance, once he has decided to pursue a problem brought to him. It is this same knowledge of his nature and capabilities giving me such surprise and discomfiture at his shortcomings with this case. Wishing to put this from my mind and eliminate the distasteful sentiments regarding it altogether, I have determined to lay my thoughts and displeasures out upon paper, and thus divest myself of the matter entirely. Both this writing and these notes upon the case shall then be buried forever away in the hope they, and my unhealthy burden over the matter, may never see light of day again. It was upon the Monday of the week. The day was most glorious, and I purposed to take a walk in the park, having no intention of wasting it holed up within our rooms. I ventured to ask my friend if he should care to join me, though I knew of his reluctance to take exercise without purpose. I thought it would be far preferable to the alternative he might choose in my absence, as he had been some time without a case. The state of frustration and depression still his frequent companion during such times was becoming increasingly evident as he resorted to his seven percent solution. He had spent the morning fidgeting at various interests, clearly unable to find some occupation he felt to be a satisfactory use of his time. “All right then, Watson,” he cried to my surprise, tossing his hands into the air. “No doubt I shall suffer your indignations in some fashion, should I refuse” he said, and began gathering his things. “Thank you”, I replied. “I shall enjoy your company. And it should be far better for you, I’m sure, than continuing to writhe around in your misery as you are here in these rooms.” It was about two when we stepped out, and after our time in the park, nearly five upon our return to the lodgings. Following so pleasant a time, I must say I was taken aback at Holmes’ most reproachful look and stinging comments toward me when the pageboy advised we had missed a visitor. It was unusual of him too, as the lad was still within hearing range, and my friend had always been most cautious to avoid our infrequent disagreements being overheard in the past. Holmes’ reproach also included the first among the most unusual series of inaccurate and untimely conclusions I have ever seen and should ever hope to see from him. “And this looks, from the man’s impatience, as if it were of importance,” said he with some little passion. Such a declaration, unsupported as it yet was by facts or evidence, caught my attention. Often the most obviously impatient, agitated, and distraught seekers for Holmes’ services had made their way to our door, only to find their cases rejected as containing the most commonplace and easily resolved problems—the merest flights of fancy—he concluding they did not deserve his attentions or involvement, and from which he seemed to take some small measure of amusement due to their evident level of concern. There followed then these most remarkable inaccuracies from the first of his examinations into the situation—his observations upon the pipe left behind by the as yet unknown Mr. Grant Munro. Holmes first declared the man to be left-handed, as “he has been in the habit of lighting his pipe at lamps and gas-jets,” and the char was to be seen entirely upon the right side. Holmes reasoned we use our most normal hand in holding the pipe while lighting, and such “has long been held to be so.” Yet I am afraid I must conclude otherwise. The right-handed man is most likely to hold the lamp in his normal, or stronger, hand the more easily to control it. The weaker hand holds the pipe, which is lighter and easier to handle. Thus, the char from the lamp on the right side of the pipe would indicate the owner to be right-handed. In addition, lighting at gas-jets, commonly found upon the walls and stairways in the home, would entirely be dependent upon which sides one may have their gas laid in and which direction the lamps are approached from. The same circumstances attend the gas-jets found outside the home. This normally provides for char on both sides of the pipe, regardless of which might be the “normal hand” of the owner. As we were both smokers of the pipe, having our own evidence first-hand, I found such a conclusion on his part to be unsettling. I might myself have as well concluded the owner used the pipe in just one setting—in a consistent location, where only one lamp or jet was readily available and always used—or he was one-handed, having lost his right through some misfortune, and so only the left remained. There are other possibilities. Then, said he, the man was “muscular” and with “an excellent set of teeth”, as the pipe’s amber had been bitten through. Yet it is well known any set of muscles worked to the exclusion of others may develop such a strength as to be inconsistent with the rest of the physique. Such is common with many a person who is a grinder of the teeth out of nervous habit. A strength of jaw most sufficient to bite through amber will develop, without the person being otherwise muscular; and the teeth in such a case would almost certainly be damaged to some degree, rather than in excellent condition. That the visitor must have the characteristics Holmes deduced was entirely unusual of him, and, I felt, unworthy of his talents—worse than his blunder concluding the owner to be left-handed. I had just determined to challenge him upon these matters but was forestalled by Mr. Munro’s arrival. These, however, were followed by even more fantastic events. Although, as I recorded in my sketch for the publisher, my friend appeared to listen intently to our visitor’s statement as he spoke, Holmes’ questions immediately following the narrative revealed otherwise. “Could you swear this was a man’s face which you saw at the window?” Holmes asked. Yet Mr. Munro had already clearly indicated he could tell nothing from it. He repeated as much again upon the question. Why would my friend need to extract such repetition from the man? “How long is it since your wife asked you for a hundred pounds,” he asked? Mr. Munro had already declared “six weeks past” to be the time. How had Holmes missed it? And as so often happens upon such questioning, a much less precise “about two months” was the reply. Such a change from precision to vaguery could serve only to bring mud into the waters. It seemed to me the question was entirely without necessity or merit. “And yet she had a certificate of death. You say you saw it,” Holmes stated regarding her first husband. This was, perhaps, the most instructive and important of Munro’s statements, but my friend entirely missed the importance of it, both when made during Munro’s presentation and now again as Holmes asked him to validate it. There was no mention of a similar certificate for the daughter, who had clearly been identified to exist as well. How did Holmes fail to seize hold of this, and pursue it? I purposed to question it myself, but Holmes moved promptly to send Mr. Munro out, return to check upon the house again, and report back. The opportunity passed. These cumulative events caused me no small concern, and to conclude things might be amiss. It did not take long, however, for my unease to grow into distress. Holmes only rarely shared his thoughts about a case, with me or with anyone, before he had most, if not all, the facts in hand, and most frequently the solution as well. He had a certain penchant for the dramatic and enjoyed contriving the manner of delivery for his revelations. Yet at this time, when his comments upon the case brought me to ask if he had already some theory, my friend unfolded what he called a “provisional one”; a most bizarre and implausible speculation, built upon an unfounded conclusion; “her first husband was alive and in the cottage.” Some of the difficulties upon his statement must be exposed now, if I am to unburden myself of this unfortunate business. It was clear to me from his questioning of Mr. Munro, and the recitation of his following “provisional theory,” he was solely focused upon just one line of reasoning. Mr. John Hebron, Effie Munro’s first husband, must be in the cottage in spite of the certificate of death. The result was his fantastic construction of either “hateful qualities” or “some loathsome disease” to effect the necessary separation of the two, and Effie’s relocation from America, all the while never acknowledging, explaining, or resolving the existence of the death certificate which had so clearly been seen by Mr. Munro. With so strong a contradiction, so abundant a number of other possibilities, and no facts at hand serving to add clarity for the problem, I could not understand his abnormal focus on just one immediate and possible conclusion, from which all else must flow. I could not agree he held it just as a provisional theory—a possibility in his mind. He was set. Resolute. And most unfortunately, it formed the unshakable foundation stone from which all events in the case unfolded, first to last. Yet it was entirely contrary to his normal insistence and cautions never to draw conclusions in advance of facts. Another evidence of his departure from form was his off-hand remark regarding the photograph Effie Munroe had taken to the occupant. It “had probably been demanded from her.” While my own powers of deduction are no doubt of small merit, I cannot see how Holmes can have come to such a thought. The photograph was only some three months previously done, as Mr. Munro had advised. How would the unwanted visitor have known of it? Were we to think Mrs. Munro herself had told them? And if so, with what possible reason or hope? Could she dare to think they, who had not been satisfied with her previous bribe of a hundred pounds according to Holmes’ theory, might yet be satisfied by the addition of such a trifle? I could hardly convince myself then, nor can I now, she would have mentioned it to them. So, as she undoubtedly knew with what joy Mr. Munro had given it to her, should we not rather think it would take an even greater joy for her to part with it, to the possible detriment of her relationship with her new husband, and so pursue additional theories along those lines, since the visitor could not have known of its existence otherwise? And further, if the new visitor was there with intent to cause some mischief or grief, why would they not have done so upon Mr. Munro’s first rush into the house, rather than allowing themselves to be willingly, as it would seem, hurried out the back door and into the woods to be hidden? Would this not have been the best time to seize their opportunity for mischief, seeing there was little or no progress in further efforts at extortion from Effie? No. No. There were too many problems with my friend’s theory. There were too many facts yet to probe, regardless of the definitive, almost challenging manner with which he presented it. Never before had I heard him begin with “How else can we explain it…”, even in those few times he had shared his thoughts with me in advance of his solution. Just as Mr. Munro had said he’d “framed theory after theory,” the Holmes I knew would have been doing the same, awaiting evidence and facts to unfold in support or disproval of each one. Even the opportunity to ask Mr. Munro of his own theories was not taken, though Holmes had often asked others (and myself) for their thoughts as a check upon his own. Thus, when my friend asked after my thoughts upon his imaginings, for such I must call them, I responded somewhat curtly, “It is all surmise.” I hoped my brevity and candor might shake him from his unusual posture. There was some hope in his reply - “But at least it covers all the facts. When new facts come to our knowledge…it will be time…to reconsider it.” Unfortunately, the end did not bear out such hope. No further facts were pursued, and no further possibilities considered. Even obvious questions readily at hand were not brought. Could Mr. Munro tell us the height to which the unsettling figure seemed to rise above the bottom of the window, which might help in determining the occupant’s size? Did he recall other things he had seen in the room when he plunged in, to help Holmes in identifying the occupant, or at least whether it was man or woman, or even child? Did the figure appear to stand at the window, or to sit? Did it move? If it had indeed been a full-grown male such as Effie Munro’s former husband, could he have so easily been “quickly snatched from the window”? So many thoughts unanswered, yet needing to be determined. At the last, when we finally traveled to Norbury, Mr. Sherlock Holmes made what I must consider to be his biggest mistake of all. Though he held the theory we were involved with a blackmailer at the best; when he could have brought the matter fully within his grasp by further first-hand investigation; when he could have verified his theory, or rebuilt it based upon new evidence; when he could have resolved a crime for which there may have been some reason for proper legal involvement and an arrest; at this one critical juncture of time my friend relinquished all authority and involvement in the matter, and simply stood aside. All decision about the course of action to take was given entirely over to Mr. Grant Munro himself—the very man among us who was in the worst possible position and worst mental and emotional state to be entrusted with considering a possible course of action. He charged forth in a headlong rush and with total abandonment of caution and threw himself into the most unthinkable dangers, Holmes and myself plunging in behind with just as little thought and caution. Death could easily have been the result for us all. I confess, to this day I do not know what led to Sherlock Holmes’ imbalance in the course of this case. I shall never be able to reconcile for myself his total departure from all he held dear about his singular talents and his chosen profession—what caused him to lose sight of solving problems for problems’ sake, and of gathering facts without drawing conclusions until the inevitable and incontrovertible solution is at hand—those cherished beliefs ever his sole objective and his tour de force. I can only hope there is no repeat of these same disparities in his future. He must ever be in command if the world is to benefit from his talents. My friend’s final request to me—that I whisper ‘Norbury’ in his ear as his clue he is in need to reconsider—was the singular joyous moment in the affair at its end, and continues to provide me with hope for my hope to this day. While I may not be responsible for my friend’s attitudes, decisions and actions, I cannot but confess to having been sorely disappointed by his performance and dismayed at his failure, while at the same time believing if I had at some point chosen different words or methods to challenge his theory, or had I intruded more forcefully upon the course of the investigation and insisted upon seeking alternatives, I might have somehow prevented this most unfortunate of failures among all his cases. Yet I can be elated the matter was not a serious one, and the combined failures of the three of us, Holmes, Munro, and myself, had no worse a result than they did. I attempted, in writing “The Adventure of the Yellow Face” for the public, to present it in such a light as might provide some justification, and some small joy, in including it among his published cases, yet still reveal the deficiencies to which even he, the most masterful reasoning machine I’ve ever known, has been at least on this one occasion subject, in hope it be kindly received and do him no harm, while still serving as a warning to us all. If even he who is possessed of such abundant and strong powers can so badly fail and fall, what of the rest of us? Yet it was what it has been, and so, it seems, shall it ever be. He continues to this day and remains the world’s only consulting detective. Note To The Reader: The manuscript whose contents are presented here was found in the remains of an old building in London, England. It has been passed through generations of members within the family, a copy finally being presented me for review. It is provided with permission and in respect, knowing the great love - almost reverence - held by so many for both the detective Sherlock Holmes, and his chronicler, Dr. John H. Watson, M.D. These facts should be known. Lloyd R. Hedberg Jr. (Inspector Baynes) 8/2/2010 Rev. 12/14/2022 Note: this is likely a bit long to post directly to the forum. I've not 'won the day' with the website yet so I can upload it there and just link to it. Moderators, feel free to eliminate if unfitting. Meanwhile, if OK, what do you think of Watson's take and difficulties with Holmes's handling of the case? Inspector Baynes.

Jumping on this most appropriate thread to include current "Compliments of the Season" to all who visit here. And following on @Carol the Dabbler comments regarding the Alpha Inn, perhaps it's worthwhile to someone see Klinger's comments on the issue: "Christopher Morley expresses the view that “the Alpha Inn” was the Museum Tavern. The other candidate is the “Plough” at the corner of Museum and Little Russell Streets, put forward on the tenuous grounds that Alpha is the largest star in the constellation of the Plough. Regardless of the choice, it is pleasant to think of Sherlock Holmes visiting these pubs in his pre-detective years. With his rooms in Montague Street (mentioned in “The Musgrave Ritual”), the Museum Tavern was less than two blocks away from Holmes’s first London lodgings." He continues: "David L. Hammer suggests, in For the Sake of the Game, that Watson concealed the name of the pub, which surely would not have suffered from publicity, out of sheer habit. British ale predates the Roman conquest of England, and British ale houses (pubs) were conducting their businesses before the Norman conquest. A neologism of the Victorian age, the “pub” (short for “public house”), an outgrowth of the coach-houses and taverns and inns necessitated by horse-powered travel, with its frequent stops, flourished even after the advent of the railways. In 1869, there were 118,602 licensed premises (almost twice as many as today)." (Doyle, Arthur Conan. The New Annotated Sherlock Holmes: The Complete Short Stories: The Adventures of Sherlock Holmes and The Memoirs of Sherlock Holmes (Non-Slipcased Edition) (Vol. 1) (The Annotated Books): 0 (pp. 411-412). W. W. Norton & Company. Kindle Edition.) So if we think there are 'a lot' of places to imbibe today, we can be appreciative of the apparent tremendous reduction in their count. An interesting speculation is why alcohol has always been such an attraction for the species.

I've added nothing... can't get to a blank page... can't figure out how to eliminate the 'stuff' they have on the facing page. But i'll tackle it again over the next couple days with a little more time. I'm sure it's clear as mud and I just need a shower to eliminate some residue. once i find the key to the kingdom it'll probably be a 'head-slapper.' K thx. Plan to. Will be good to see how they 'settle into' their roles as well. I can't say I've been all that enthralled by Cumberbatch's acting skills in other things he's done, but he's not without his charm. Will be interesting to see how he handles this. But he's certainly not a Tom Cruise, from whom I'm still seeking any vestige of an acting skill whatsoever (in spite of his mysterious popularity.) And I trust they're well past displaying Watson as a bumbling dotard or simple dullard. Hardwicke & Burke took the portrayal well down the road to a closer sketch. Guess I'll know soon.

Well. These arrive tonight, and I'll get started as time permits. I'm still finding WordPress deucedly difficult. It's almost like a client of some kind is needed simplifying the 'how to.' "Blank page, thanks. insert a banner. Insert a text box. Upload a document. Save." Boom, done. Where in the world is the easy interface within WordPress to simply put a page together. Lacks an intuitive component altogether. I must be missing something but have very little time to sort it out. Anyway, I'll still get you the writing document somehow soon.

It's only about 3 pages of 'basic critical issues' to help a writer along, mostly dealing with the fundamentals of word crafting, not the broader issues of "editing" needing attention. I could (and should) also include a brief list of some few of those broader issues...they are the ones that often take the more time, and are more apt to get authors into realms where they really don't want their works to go. Any help an author gives an editor through crafting good writing from the start reduces time cleaning up the basics so the story itself can be improved and the broader editorial issues can be addressed. The help the writer gives the editor at the beginning is far outweighed by the extended help the editor can return to the author at the end (which is really the point of editing.) I'll tweak it up a bit and make it available somehow. I've developed it specifically to give to each new author I might work with, and anyone else who may care. (Eventually I will post it to my new Website too. @Cayamade remarks that excited me to set one up again, but I'm currently struggling with how to use WordPress. It is not the most intuitively obvious tool I've ever engaged with! There must be something fundamental I'm misunderstanding.) I'll be happy to share, and I've seen this section though not crept into its crevices yet. I'd like to form my own conclusions first, then enjoy others' perspectives into the mix. Ah life. It has no shortage of pleasures.

Indeed 'tis true. But we have this description of Inspector Baynes to contend with: "The country detective was a stout, puffy, red man, whose face was only redeemed from grossness by two extraordinarily bright eyes, almost hidden behind the heavy creases of cheek and brow." And again: "His fat, red face wreathed itself in smiles and his small eyes glittered..." (Doyle, Arthur Conan. The Complete Sherlock Holmes: with an introduction from Robert Ryan (p. 1581). Simon & Schuster UK. Kindle Edition.) Though his clothing is never spoken to, I felt the new avatar's wee fellow looked a little more 'stout and puffy' with a 'fat' face (though redness is indiscernible) than the scrawny avatar formerly used. We shall perhaps just assume he's dressed for an evening affair at concert or something. He is the only detective in canon Holmes never speaks a 'negative word' about and compliments multiple times. At one point Sherlock even seeks to prevent him from making a mistake in his investigation, though Baynes' clever moves ultimately result in the denouement of the case. "Holmes laid his hand upon the inspector’s shoulder. 'You will rise high in your profession. You have instinct and intuition,' said he."

yep that was one of his 'backhanded compliments.' yep I thought this one looked even more 'inspectory' ('inspectorish' 'inspector-like').

Yes, I've seen quite the references to this. Not having watched it yet, I'll need to do so. (To date, Jeremy Brett is my preferred Sherlock. His handling of the character exceeds most, and of course his 41 episodes were more closely related to Canon than most as well.)

Yes, in a way. The "reduction in involvements" referred to the Greek and Hebrew languages and related work. I have always been, and will always be, invested in 'language', continually working to improve my skills, particularly in the written form. We are losing our grasp of precision in writing. My 'involvement' in those language issues has been replaced now with providing editing services for 3 more authors on their current books. I've given them the foundations they need now through editing of their introductions and early chapters, so they can finish the rest of their work and get the books back to me when done. There'll be a lot to do there yet before they're ready to publish. (Editing is a lot more than just the word smithing and overcoming the usual predilections for the 'meaningless that' and the 'useless do' and so many other common writing errors. I've developed a little 'writing basics document' for them to use as they progress.) Once the books are back I can address the heavier stuff of editing. Anyway, I'm all about language.

Indeed. He was the only 'police' or 'inspector' type Sherlock outright complimented... though he did give Lestrade and Gregson a few backhanded attaboy's.

Well, Hello to all. About time for the 'Not So Formal Introduction' perhaps. I am Inspector Baynes, and Inspector Baynes means me. (A play on Tolkien and Gandalf of course.). Many years ago I discovered Sherlock Holmes. My sister had tried to introduce me to him, but well...that was my sister. One day shopping, I saw a Baring-Gould "Annotated" set, and thought 'anything worth annotating should also be worth reading.' Of course, I was hooked. Soon thereafter, I discovered The Sound Of The Baskervilles, a Scion Society in Seattle, WA. I went. I joined. I developed their first Website and served as their "Webmaster" for some time. I also wrote several essays and a poem on various aspects of the Canon which were published in our Beaten's Christmas Annual publication, the Shoso Inn Bulletin in Japan, and one at least that I recall in Canada, the Stormy Petrels group's I believe. (It seems there were others, but my memory fails.) The day came when I needed to suspend activities with them and pursue several intense years of study, provide a great deal of training, and do a bit of translation work--mostly from the Greek but a little work in Hebrew--for a new Bible translation. (I am not a fluent Greek and/or Hebrew person, but have an incredible set of lexicons and sufficient understanding of the workings of the languages, to review others' work in them and edit/make alternative recommendations.) In more recent history, Tolkien captured my attention as I reduced my involvements with the languages. I'd wanted to pursue all his writings for many years, but delayed the blessings. My shelves are currently "Tolkien Stuffed", with almost everything he and his son Christopher have written and published, and a good number of works "about the works" as well. But now, it's time to "come back home" to Doyle and Sherlock. This love has never left me. So...I've just rejoined the Sound of the Baskervilles, and found this forum. (Much to your dismay it may be..!!) Fair warning. I am a lively sort that likes to 'be involved' so you never know what corner you'll find me peeking around, or what crevice I may be poking into. I gave a large part of my Sherlockian Library over to the Club's lending library when I left...especially the 'older works' hard for people to find (and afford)...so I'm rebuilding some of that as needed now. In any event, the Canon is my first love, and I'll likely focus more there than anywhere. But I am not a 'Canonical Nerd' or 'Purist', so if FanFic is your thing bless you. I'll likely not have read it, but will be happy to. Best of Sherlocking to you all.