Brontodon

That is a fair assessment!

You are absolutely right about the effect of health insurance on medical costs. Insurance inserts itself between the consumer of services (the patient) and the provider of services (the doctors, hospitals, etc.). This distorts the normal economic relationship between consumers and providers. As you say, the consumer does not care about the cost of care because someone else is paying for it. This is counter to almost every other economic transaction there is. Since the consumer doesn't care, the provider can charge whatever it wants. The only limitation is now how much the insurance company is willing to pay, which leads to numerous mechanisms to control costs, such as copayments, coinsurance, allowable amounts, preferred provider organizations, HMOs and managed care networks, etc. Elementary, my dear Watson! 🙂

I remember the doctor coming to see me at home when I was a child. I also remember my mom paying him $5 or $10 for the visit -- and that wasn't a copayment!

Today is the 138th anniversary of the visit of the King of Bohemia to 221b Baker Street which touches off A Scandal in Bohemia. Watson writes: >> One night—it was on the twentieth of March, 1888—I was returning from a journey to a patient... <<

The character Gregory House in the TV show "House, M.D." is based in part on Sherlock Holmes. My wife and I are watching our way through this series and I noticed some very interesting Holmes references in the episode "Joy to the World" (season 5, episode 11). House receives as a Christmas gift a copy of the book "A Manual of the Operations of Surgery," by Joseph Bell, M.D. Bell, of course, was Arthur Conan Doyle's inspiration for the character of Sherlock Holmes. This is the real title of a book that Bell actually wrote. In the same episode Dr. Wilson also mentions a patient that House once fell for: a woman named Irene Adler. She had some sort of disease that House could not diagnose. She turned out to be fake, as it happens, but the Adler reference was delicious!

Happy to oblige: https://sherlock-holm.es/stories/pdf/a4/1-sided/scan.pdf

You should also watch the Granada version - it's very close to the story in many ways and it visualizes the story better than most It's one of my favorite episodes.

The King states that he was "mad – insane!" in his attraction to Miss Adler because "she was beautiful... bewitching... clever... daring. I was only Crown Prince then. I was young! I am but thirty now." The original story glosses over why Miss Adler wants to blackmail the King. In the Granada show, the King mentions that "there was once some talk of marriage" as the reason for the blackmail but Miss Adler "would not see that it was impossible." The tryst with Miss Adler took place 10 years before the Holmes story, so apparently she kept the photograph as a weapon to use against the King in the event he were to ever marry another woman, which is about to happen in the story. She threatens to send the photograph on the day the betrothal is publicly announced – I don't know how she knows about it ahead of time. She never denies planning to send the photograph as she had threatened, but in the note she leaves for Holmes she states that since she is now married to "a better man" than the King, she will keep the photograph "only to safeguard myself, and to preserve a weapon which will always secure me from any steps which [the King] might take in the future."

Now that's interesting. I had not known about the "gold digger" aspect of the definition -- I thought it referred to the adventure-seeking definition, which makes more sense in-story. Why would the King seek out an "adventuress" who was after his prestige and money? But I can understand his attraction to a woman who likes, and excels at, masculine-oriented pursuits such as marksmanship and horsemanship (as shown in the Granada version.) "What a queen she would have made!" he exclaims. Also, it would not be a good thing for a person to be "well-known" as a gold digger -- but to be famous for adventuring,is another thing entirely. it would be akin to being compared to Amelia Earhart or any of a number of male adventurre-seekers.

I'm thinking that Irene Adler wasn't as famous as the King made her out to be. He initially stated that he had "made the acquaintance of the well-known adventuress, Irene Adler. The name is no doubt familiar to you." Neither Holmes nor Watson recognizes the name, and Holmes has Watson "look her up in my index." So the King's adventuress was not as well-known as he thought she was, which could explain the "dubious and questionable" part of her memory. BTW, is "adventuress" a real occupation? How does one become one? Do they teach it at college or something? 😊

Actually, the King's visit is on March 20th, 1888. And it seems that the timeline is a bit of a mess, since March 20th was on a Tuesday in that year. "Next Monday," the day on which Irene Adler has threatened to send the incriminating photograph, would be six days in the future, but Holmes says "Oh, then we have three days yet." Now I know that Holmes had "one or two matters of importance to look into" at that point, but it seems he had five days in which to act. In the Granada TV series, Holmes said the matter must be concluded by Friday, because he wanted to see the Tchaikovsky concert on Friday, but that is not mentioned in the original story. (Incidentally, Tchaikovsky did conduct at St. James's Hall in London in March of 1888, so I appreciate the liberty Granada took with the story. It serves to ground Holmes in his time.) And now, since you bring up "the late" Irene Adler, one wonders why she is "of dubious and questionable memory."

In "A Scandal in Bohemia," why is it so important that Irene Adler and Godfrey Norton be married in such a hurry – specifically, by 12 noon? Why wouldn't the marriage "be legal" if it weren't performed by noon?

I have discovered a fascinating podcast that addresses many of the issues we're discussing here. It's called "The Jeremy Brett Sherlock Holmes Podcast," and it discusses the Granada TV series in great detail. It goes through each of the episodes, it has interviews with people involved in the production, and talks about all varieties of Sherlockiana. If you like Sherlock Holmes (and of course you do!), and particularly if you like the Granada TV series, I think you'll enjoy this podcast.

I have a new theory on why the scene from "A Study in Scarlet" was placed into the TV episode of "A Scandal in Bohemia." "Scandal" was the first episode of the TV series, just as "Scarlet" was the first episode in the Sherlock Holmes series. "Scarlet" was a full novel, and the TV producers elected to adapt one of the short stories first. The line I quoted as my favorite basically introduces the Holmes character to the audience, initially as to why he takes drugs, but more importantly, what he does for a living and why it's unique. I think that's why the TV producers put it into the first episode of the series -- to "introduce" Holmes to the audience and explain a little bit about why he is the way he is.

Well, here I was thinking I had discovered some new, esoteric inconsistency in the Sherlock Holmes canon, and you've just shown me that it's been noticed and discussed on this very forum a dozen years ago! Anyway, I fall on the side of a dog that is just never mentioned again. "I keep a bull pup" would be a strange way of saying he owned a gun; owning a gun wouldn't be an impediment to being a good roommate (especially in Victorian London); and I don't even think that "bull pup" was a term for a specific firearm at the time -- such guns weren't developed until after 1900 and I don't think that terminology for them was used until much later. (And now, it's one word: "bullpup".) Watson also tells Holmes that one of his faults is that he is "extremely lazy," although that doesn't seem to be the Watson we know through all the stories.

When we first meet our heroes Holmes and Watson in "A Study in Scarlet," they are preparing to share rooms together in Baker Street. In one scene, they are sharing with each other their own personal qualities that might be annoying to a prospective roommate. The first thing that Watson tells Holmes about himself that he feels might qualify is that "I keep a bull pup." So where is this dog in the Sherlock Holmes canon, other than this single mention? I'm assuming Watson meant a dog (the modern definition of a bullpup is a type of firearm), and I don't see it mentioned anywhere else in any of the stories. Toby was a dog Holmes and Watson borrowed in "The Sign of the Four," and there's the Hound of the Baskervilles -- but I don't see a whole lot of dogs in the stories, and I don't see Watson's bull pup anywhere else ever again.

>> Of course, that passage may have been borrowed from some other Holmes story. << As far as I can tell, the name Tchaikovsky does not appear in any Holmes story by ACD. But I thought it was a nice touch by Granada. In fact, it shows a bit of arrogance on the part of Holmes -- he places the importance of the Tchaikovsky concert above that of his client's case, and he is certain that he can solve the case in the allotted time without yet having done a bit of investigation.

I have posted about a continuity error in the Granada TV series version of "A Scandal in Bohemia," and I have posted about the insertion into the episode of a Holmes monologue which originally appeared in the novel "The Sign of the Four." Now I'm posting about a line that was added in to the TV show that I don't believe comes from the original Holmes canon. Early in the episode, the King of Bohemia exits his interview with Holmes at Baker Street, having left a retainer of one thousand pounds for any expenses Holmes might incur in the investigation. Watson is thrilled about the possibility of dining at a fancy restaurant, and points out that the investigation must be completed by Friday ("We only have three days," he reminds Holmes.) Holmes responds, "Oh, it must be settled by Friday. The composer Tchaikovsky is conducting his own works at the St. James's hall -- no, no, no, it must be settled by Friday." Now, Tchaikovsky did conduct at St. James's in 1888, which dates this episode to that year -- but the original short story doesn't mention Tchaikovsky at all. In fact, I don't remember seeing it in any of the Holmes canon. I like that the producers of the TV show put this in -- it grounds Holmes in his time and place, and makes sense given his love of music -- but I don't think it's canonical. Here's the scene, at 20:55:

I can't agree with this! Ever heard of "The Lost World"?

What I like about the fact that the same concept is reiterated in a number of stories is that it reinforces the Holmes character, gives him continuity and personality. He's not just saying something once, but he returns to it each time the situation comes up, as a real person would. That, to me, is good character development.

It makes sense in the context of the story, as "the Four" are the four men who were to share in the division of the treasure.

I don't think he's only a "one-hit wonder" -- I just notice that when he makes his famous string of deductions that astounds his audience, very often he is basing his deductions on stereotypes. Certainly he draws on his vast knowledge in other areas when investigating and concluding. This may interest you: The Sign of the Four: "Eliminate all other factors, and the one which remains must be the truth." "How often have I said to you that when you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth?" The Adventure of the Beryl Coronet: "It is an old maxim of mine that when you have excluded the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth." The Adventure of the Bruce-Partington Plans: "We must fall back upon the old axiom that when all other contingencies fail, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth." The Adventure of the Blanched Soldier: "...when you have eliminated all which is impossible, then whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth."

I haven't noticed any other such irregularities so far. I do appreciate that the Granada series tries to adhere to the canon (which is why I find it puzzling that they moved the quote in question from "The Sign of the Four" to "A Scandal in Bohemia.") "Sherlock," on the other hand, likes to subvert expectations -- for example, the nature of Mary Morstan.

I suppose Holmes himself makes the judgement as to what is impossible versus merely improbable in a given situation. One thing I have noticed about his observations is that they rely heavily on stereotypes -- that a certain person in a certain occupation or situation will look or behave in a certain way. I guess this brings us back to the psychohistory discussion of a few months ago: >>while the individual man is an insoluble puzzle, in the aggregate he becomes a mathematical certainty. You can, for example, never foretell what any one man will do, but you can say with precision what an average number will be up to. Individuals vary, but percentages remain constant.<< So Holmes might find himself helpless if faced with a nonconformist. He was successful precisely because so many people he encountered were stereotypical.

Mine is from "The Sign of the Four": “My mind,” he said, “rebels at stagnation. Give me problems, give me work, give me the most abstruse cryptogram or the most intricate analysis, and I am in my own proper atmosphere. I can dispense then with artificial stimulants. But I abhor the dull routine of existence. I crave for mental exaltation. That is why I have chosen my own particular profession,—or rather created it, for I am the only one in the world.” Listen to Jeremy Brett deliver it here, at 5:25 (for some reason Granada put this scene into "A Scandal in Bohemia"):