Where is everybody from?

[yrsa]

I live in Ohio, in the U.S.

 

We have the distinction of being the only state in America which can be spelled with the human body. And that's about all that distinguishes us!

 

I have learned, from watching "Househunters International" that the Swedish government provides free Swedish language education to all immigrants to Sweden. I guess we offer free English classes here, too, but they are not available in all areas.

 

Winters in Ohio can be severe, but nothing like where you are from. I would love to visit Sweden--in summer. Do you have a Midsummer's Eve party every year?

 

I was a fan of the TV show 'Bron/Broen'. It seemed that the Danes and Swedes could converse pretty easily with each other. Is this true?

Yeah evry are we celebrating midsummer

 

Skickat från min SM-G930F via Tapatalk

[yrsa]

So right now im reading the baskerville hound or baskervilles hund in Swedish and i wonder what u think about the book I have seen the series but I'm not done with the book get so please no spoilers on the end

 

Skickat från min SM-G930F via Tapatalk

[HerlockSholmes]

Hi yrsa,

 

In English it’s called The Hound Of The Baskervilles and it’s Conan Doyle’s most famous Holmes story and a classic. No spoilers here

[HerlockSholmes]

Yrsa,

 

I meant to say that I hope there is no howling dog outside while you are reading at night

[Carol the Dabbler]

Hound is my favorite of Doyle's four Holmes novels. I think that's partly because I am very fond of Watson, and he plays a large role in this story.

[Artemis]

Everyone kept pestering him for a new Holmes story but according to Doyle Holmes was dead so he wrote The Hound as a previously unpublished story. This meant that he didn’t need to ‘bring Holmes back to life.)

That's interesting, I never knew that. Why did he eventually resurrect Holmes when he could have written all his subsequent Holmes stories as "previously unpublished"? Was it purely public pressure? He held out for so long, I would have thought he could have stuck with it.

[HerlockSholmes]

 

Everyone kept pestering him for a new Holmes story but according to Doyle Holmes was dead so he wrote The Hound as a previously unpublished story. This meant that he didn’t need to ‘bring Holmes back to life.)

That's interesting, I never knew that. Why did he eventually resurrect Holmes when he could have written all his subsequent Holmes stories as "previously unpublished"? Was it purely public pressure? He held out for so long, I would have thought he could have stuck with it.

Public pressure came into it. The circulation of The Strand plummeted by over 100,000 when Holmes ‘died.’ Doyle said that he didn’t really want to write more but was pressured. He also must have thought about the money. He finally named a ridiculous figure and they bit his hand off! Doyle died a very wealthy man but he never achieved his ultimate dream of being seen as a great historical novelist like Sir Walter Scott. He’s remembered more than Scott though, which is ironic.

[HerlockSholmes]

Hound is my favorite of Doyle's four Holmes novels. I think that's partly because I am very fond of Watson, and he plays a large role in this story.

I agree Carol. He’s a bit of a star in this one.

[Hikari]

 

Hound is my favorite of Doyle's four Holmes novels. I think that's partly because I am very fond of Watson, and he plays a large role in this story.

I agree Carol. He’s a bit of a star in this one.

[HerlockSholmes]

 

 

 

Hound is my favorite of Doyle's four Holmes novels. I think that's partly because I am very fond of Watson, and he plays a large role in this story.

I agree Carol. He’s a bit of a star in this one.

[HerlockSholmes]

Just to add that he carried on writing Holmes stories up until 1927. After writing The Hound in 1901 he went on to write one more full length story and 33 short stories. 34 in 26 years! Just think how many more stories he could have written if he hadn’t have wasted his time messing around with spiritualism☹️

[J.P.]

Actually the "pressure" was the first time of (first) fandom showing it's dark side. I remember someone wrote people were wearing black badges and even yelled at him on the street demanding resurrection of SH (it's a bit like the Norbury hashtag on Twitter and the TJLC sh1tstorm in social media respectively) The same behaviour, different media.

[Hikari]

Actually the "pressure" was the first time of (first) fandom showing it's dark side. I remember someone wrote people were wearing black badges and even yelled at him on the street demanding resurrection of SH (it's a bit like the Norbury hashtag on Twitter and the TJLC sh1tstorm in social media respectively) The same behaviour, different media.

 

I think spittle and garbage were also aimed as projectiles at our author, but maybe I'm imagining that part.  I'm sure some little old ladies belted him with their handbags and said "How dare you!"

 

In the end, though he was to a large degree motivated by lucre, ACD also resurrected Sherlock Holmes because his beloved mother asked him (repeatedly) to do so.  And Arthur loved his Mum.

[HerlockSholmes]

Apparently one little old lady harangued him by shouting ‘ you brute!’ at him.

 

The Ma’am had told him not to kill off Holmes. Apparently in his diary for that day he simply wrote ‘killed Holmes.’

[HerlockSholmes]

Just a pointer to Doyle’s wealth (and I’m working from memory here). He contributed to a spiritualist publication called, I think ‘Light,’ or something like it. It’s been discovered that he contributed over £400,000 (possibly nearer to £500,000) ! I’m unsure of the comparisons with today’s cash but Doyle died in 1930! It would have been millions of pounds!

[Douglas]

Australia. 

[Hikari]

36 minutes ago, Douglas said:

Australia. 

Hi, Douglas,

Maybe we can distract ourselves from our pet losses by discussing another topic, and you are well-placed to offer your perspective, being from Down Under.

I am a fan of The Doctor Blake Mysteries and have bought all the seasons.  I was particularly captivated by Craig McLachlan's transformation into Doctor Blake, because Craig is such a very different sort of bloke.  The producers of the show almost refused to give him a reading for the part because of his body of work, "Neighbours"/Dr. Frank N. Furter, being deemed too lightweight and/or scandalous and also owing to his extraordinarily youthful appearance.  Craig is my age, 53, which is appropriate but out of character he does not LOOK his age, at least in the common mind.  More recently he's started to look it.

I'm sure you've heard of Craig's Troubles viz. the sexual harassment lawsuit he is now embroiled in, brought against him by three actresses from the Rocky Horror Show.  Further fuel to the fire was added by corroborating statements from three actresses who appeared on Doctor Blake.  Before discovering this show, I hadn't heard of Craig, but I now know that he is/was? a huge star in Australia and a quadruple threat . . acting, singing, dancing and songwriter/guitarist.

Any thoughts or updates?  It's hard to get much news Up Here.  My take is that Craig most likely is guilty of inappropriate touching/remarks toward these women . .  he likes the sheilas, obviously and he tends to be handsy . .even the buttoned down Doc Blake is always touching people.  I just hate to see a brilliant career derailed over such items as 'He tried to kiss me' and 'He made suggestive gestures with a banana."  This is the musical theatre, not an investment bank.  These girls willingly signed on to a bawdy musical sex comedy which calls for them to roll around in a bed with a large man wearing fishnet tights.  To be so prim and complain about some touching in this context seems to me like taking a dip in the ocean and then complaining that they got wet.  Have you got any news from the bush telegraph?

[Douglas]

19 hours ago, Hikari said:

Hi, Douglas,

Maybe we can distract ourselves from our pet losses by discussing another topic, and you are well-placed to offer your perspective, being from Down Under.

I am a fan of The Doctor Blake Mysteries and have bought all the seasons.  I was particularly captivated by Craig McLachlan's transformation into Doctor Blake, because Craig is such a very different sort of bloke.  The producers of the show almost refused to give him a reading for the part because of his body of work, "Neighbours"/Dr. Frank N. Furter, being deemed too lightweight and/or scandalous and also owing to his extraordinarily youthful appearance.  Craig is my age, 53, which is appropriate but out of character he does not LOOK his age, at least in the common mind.  More recently he's started to look it.

I'm sure you've heard of Craig's Troubles viz. the sexual harassment lawsuit he is now embroiled in, brought against him by three actresses from the Rocky Horror Show.  Further fuel to the fire was added by corroborating statements from three actresses who appeared on Doctor Blake.  Before discovering this show, I hadn't heard of Craig, but I now know that he is/was? a huge star in Australia and a quadruple threat . . acting, singing, dancing and songwriter/guitarist.

Any thoughts or updates?  It's hard to get much news Up Here.  My take is that Craig most likely is guilty of inappropriate touching/remarks toward these women . .  he likes the sheilas, obviously and he tends to be handsy . .even the buttoned down Doc Blake is always touching people.  I just hate to see a brilliant career derailed over such items as 'He tried to kiss me' and 'He made suggestive gestures with a banana."  This is the musical theatre, not an investment bank.  These girls willingly signed on to a bawdy musical sex comedy which calls for them to roll around in a bed with a large man wearing fishnet tights.  To be so prim and complain about some touching in this context seems to me like taking a dip in the ocean and then complaining that they got wet.  Have you got any news from the bush telegraph?

Hi Hikari,

Thanks so much for this Post, and it's good to talk with you again: yes: as you say: it does make a good distraction from the loss of our pets.

I love your way with words, by the way! It gave me a good laugh: so thank you for this! 

Well, I've watched Craig and have been keeping a bit of his an eye on his career over the last 34 years, and also having listened to him in interviews: I would have to say that I personally don't believe that Craig would have touched these ladies inappropriately! He seems like a really nice and sincere bloke, and he also seems to be very professional in his work! And as you say: it does seem a bit much; for these ladies to be suddenly acting all Prim and Proper, after being in a Bawdy and Raunchy show like this!! 

Unfortunately, there hasn't been anymore news about Craig and these allegations, since these allegations first came to light: which does seem to be a bit strange!! I just hope that Craig has found himself a good Lawyer.

But,; having said all of this: please don't think that I condone any sort of sexual misconduct!! In fact: I condemn it!! Women should not have to be subject to any of this type of nonsense at all!! So if Craig is in fact guilty in accordance with what these ladies are saying, then yes, he should accept the consequences!

Take care.

Kindest Regards, always,

Douglas

 

[Hikari]

Hi, Douglas, and thanks for the reply.

Craig has launched a counter-suit and he does indeed have good legal representation because so far, the judge has ruled in his favor in all the pre-trial motions I have been able to find.  The defense for the women is basically using 'Everything and the kitchen sink' approach to bolster their case, including dredging up alleged incidents with women that happened 30, 40 years ago.  The judge has ruled those inadmissible.  Perhaps you haven't heard any more about it because it's been dismissed.

I need to clarify that the allegations against Craig involve verbal remarks, pantomimes with fruit, one or two of the women said 'He tried to kiss me', not that he succeeded.  This is all pretty sophomoric stuff.  The women have not accused him of actually having sex with them, asking for sex, grabbing any of their body parts or the R word.   I am probably biased on account of being one who wouldn't mind a snog from Craig McLachlan, but it feels like mountains out of molehills to me.  I get the feeling that these young women who were supporting players in a traveling theatre troupe are not very flush with cash and they banded together to target somebody who is in hopes of a payout.  Craig is high-spirited . . perhaps he was also high during these incidents.  But for these women to equate some backstage hijinks with sex crimes like rape makes me ill.  I don't condone what he did if he did it, but it seems to me that in the wake of #MeToo, we have lost all sense of proportion.  In the current climate it is now possible to destroy a man's life and career by saying, "He looked at me funny and I didn't like it."  

Whatever  happens in court, Craig is out of the Doctor Blake show, which is a shame, because Dr. Lucien Blake deserves to stand alongside Morse and Poirot and Sherlock Holmes as a unique detective of popular culture, and Craig created him.  You can find Craig singing several numbers on YouTube from his dressing room on set.  

P.S.  Craig's magistrate is a woman, btw, which I find very interesting.  One supposes that if there were indeed merit to the evidence for these allegations, she'd have been keen to make it stick, but so far she's shot down all of the defense's motions.  I think it is advantageous for Craig to have a female judge.   She is not part of the old boys' network, but so far she has not been impressed by the tales told by these young women.

[Carol the Dabbler]

2 hours ago, Hikari said:

I need to clarify that the allegations against Craig involve verbal remarks, pantomimes with fruit, one or two of the women said 'He tried to kiss me', not that he succeeded.  This is all pretty sophomoric stuff.  The women have not accused him of actually having sex with them, asking for sex, grabbing any of their body parts or the R word.  [....]  But for these women to equate some backstage hijinks with sex crimes like rape makes me ill.  I don't condone what he did if he did it, but it seems to me that in the wake of #MeToo, we have lost all sense of proportion.  In the current climate it is now possible to destroy a man's life and career by saying, "He looked at me funny and I didn't like it." 

I agree.  Used to be, a woman would just say "no, thank you," and not think any more about it.  Nowadays, it's "He made a suggestive gesture at me, and I want him punished."

Men on average have never been much good at joking around; from a woman's point of view they tend to overdo it.  It's just the way things are, and I don't see this as a matter for the courts unless a particular man goes way overboard and just won't stop.

[Hikari]

7 minutes ago, Carol the Dabbler said:

I agree.  Used to be, a woman would just say "no, thank you," and not think any more about it.  Nowadays, it's "He made a suggestive gesture at me, and I want him punished."

Men on average have never been much good at joking around; from a woman's point of view they tend to overdo it.  It's just the way things are, and I don't see this as a matter for the courts unless a particular man goes way overboard and just won't stop.

I suppose from the point of view of the defendants, CM meets the definition of 'a particular man who goes way overboard and just won't stop'.  But in the current atmosphere, bringing allegations of sexual misconduct is like shooting fish in a barrel.  I too want sexual predators outed and punished.  However, I guess I have a more stringent definition of sexual predator than is currently fashionable.  It also seems like the people who have been brought down by allegations of this misconduct are to a man, well, . . men.  And high-profile celebrities at that.  Because there's just not much remunerative value in bringing a lawsuit against a regular guy who works at Home Depot or somewhere.    And, if we *really* are going to put our money where our mouths are vis. sexual equality, we need to see some powerful women brought to account for their sexual harassment.  Fair's fair.  

I'm not sure these women are able to prove that Craig's objectionable behaviors were *him* or his character in the show.  Her Honor doesn't appear to think so, either.  

[Douglas]

To Hikari and Carol,

Gee you two ladies write well!! I'm really impressed; and I'm most sincere in that!!  Great stuff; keep up the great work! 

Yes, I've always liked Craig, and I really hope he comes out of all this; all right. 

Sadly, though (and I don't mean Craig, here); a lot of men do take liberties!! 

 

[Carol the Dabbler]

2 hours ago, Hikari said:

I too want sexual predators outed and punished.  However, I guess I have a more stringent definition of sexual predator than is currently fashionable.  It also seems like the people who have been brought down by allegations of this misconduct are to a man, well, . . men.  And high-profile celebrities at that.  Because there's just not much remunerative value in bringing a lawsuit against a regular guy who works at Home Depot or somewhere.    And, if we *really* are going to put our money where our mouths are vis. sexual equality, we need to see some powerful women brought to account for their sexual harassment.  Fair's fair. 

True enough.  But the flip side of what I said before (about men tending, from a woman's point of view, to overdo their kidding and flirting) is this:  A woman would be by nature less likely to commit sexual harassment, and even if she did, the man would be less likely to notice -- and even if he did, he'd be less likely to object.  Unfortunately if he did object, I suspect he'd be unlikely to say anything, for reasons analogous to those that kept abused women quiet for so long -- he'd be embarrassed to say that he wasn't "man enough" to enjoy it.

I agree though that if, for example, a female executive were making her subordinates pay for their promotions by having sex with her, she should be subject to the same laws as men.

[Hikari]

On 3/30/2019 at 6:21 PM, Carol the Dabbler said:

True enough.  But the flip side of what I said before (about men tending, from a woman's point of view, to overdo their kidding and flirting) is this:  A woman would be by nature less likely to commit sexual harassment, and even if she did, the man would be less likely to notice -- and even if he did, he'd be less likely to object.  Unfortunately if he did object, I suspect he'd be unlikely to say anything, for reasons analogous to those that kept abused women quiet for so long -- he'd be embarrassed to say that he wasn't "man enough" to enjoy it.

I agree though that if, for example, a female executive were making her subordinates pay for their promotions by having sex with her, she should be subject to the same laws as men.

There was that 1990s movie, Disclosure, starring Michael Douglas & Demi Moore as his man-eating boss that first opened the woman-on-man harassment dialogue, goodness, 25 years before #MeToo.  I liked parts of the movie a lot but it suffered from 1. having Michael Douglas as the male lead . . I don't know about any other women here but MD has never been a sexually desirable target for me, and 2.  tried to mash together sexual politics with . . very primitive virtual reality technology and it just didn't really work.  It was kind of like an attempt at a '90s update of Hitchcock set in the PACNW and just not terribly good Hitch . .but I digress . . 

My issue with the current whistleblowing climate is two-fold . . 1.  Not all infractions are created equal.  2.  When it comes to sexual misdeeds, an allegation seems as good as proof.  For generations, victims of real brutal sexual assaults have been afraid to come forward and report a crime because the ones who did were victimized all over again by a system that called them liars or else loose women who were asking for it and hence, complicit in their own assaults.  Now the pendulum has swung the other way completely and it's enough to try someone in the kangaroo court of public opinion and throw away the key by announcing on Twitter that X 'made a sexually suggestive remark to me at a party in 1987.'  Done and dusted, that man's toast.  

While systematic and pervasive threats of unwanted sexual attentions are nothing that anyone should stay quiet about, guys (let's just say guys for now, since so far it has just been guys) are all being tarred with the Harvey Weinstein brush and that is hardly fair.  Once upon a time, there was such a thing as an innocuous joke or kidding around, but now in the #MeToo era, there can not be any more innocuous kidding around.  Nada.  No mas.  Not ever.  Because one can just never tell the magnitude of the psychic trauma that can be inflicted upon a young woman by having a banana waved at her from *across the room*.  That kind of thing could require years' worth of very expensive therapy.

In the case of Craig McLachlan, 41/2 years elapsed between the alleged incidents during a 2014 tour of the Rocky Horror Show and the involved women actually filing a lawsuit in January of 2018.   The plaintiffs did not seek any legal remedy for their assertion that they had been violated by Mr. McLachlan, nor did they start using terms like 'sexual predator', oddly enough, until Craig's post-Rocky Horror Show project, the Dr. Blake Mysteries, was well-established and highly received, making Mr. McLachlan an even more high-profile and wealthier star in Australia than when the alleged incidents took place.  One cannot help but be skeptical as to the timing, no?  

[Carol the Dabbler]

6 hours ago, Hikari said:

My issue with the current whistleblowing climate is two-fold . . 1.  Not all infractions are created equal.  2.  When it comes to sexual misdeeds, an allegation seems as good as proof.  For generations, victims of real brutal sexual assaults have been afraid to come forward and report a crime because the ones who did were victimized all over again by a system that called them liars or else loose women who were asking for it and hence, complicit in their own assaults.  Now the pendulum has swung the other way completely and it's enough to try someone in the kangaroo court of public opinion and throw away the key by announcing on Twitter that X 'made a sexually suggestive remark to me at a party in 1987.'  Done and dusted, that man's toast.  

While systematic and pervasive threats of unwanted sexual attentions are nothing that anyone should stay quiet about, guys (let's just say guys for now, since so far it has just been guys) are all being tarred with the Harvey Weinstein brush and that is hardly fair.  Once upon a time, there was such a thing as an innocuous joke or kidding around, but now in the #MeToo era, there can not be any more innocuous kidding around.  Nada.  No mas.  Not ever.  Because one can just never tell the magnitude of the psychic trauma that can be inflicted upon a young woman by having a banana waved at her from *across the room*.  That kind of thing could require years' worth of very expensive therapy.

I agree with you.  I'm also concerned that the current mania will seem ridiculous to a lot more people than just you and me, to the point that we'll be right back to 1950, when all such accusations tended to be pooh-poohed.  A somewhat happy medium would be much more effective in the long run.