A Collector’s Lot

[Hikari]

9 minutes ago, HerlockSholmes said:

😀 There’s also the fact that Hay-on-Wye is pretty small so even someone with zero navigational skills like me can find the bookshops. There are also a couple of small galleries, a few antique/bric-a-brac shops and a decent small market. Oh and a castle (well 2 actually but one is only really a mound.) 

Hay also has a claim to infamy for any true crime buff as it was the home of the Hay Poisoner Herbert Rowse Armstrong. He was played in a movie by the excellent Michael Kitchen (of Foyle’s War fame.) A local solicitor wrote a book a few years ago making a pretty decent case that he might have been wrongly convicted. Armstrong’s house is still there but slightly out of town so I haven’t gotten around to seeing it but his business premises are still there.

Sadly the amount of bookshops in Hay have halved over the last few years and while we were last there 2 were about to close and move their business online.We went into one shop at around 1.30pm and the owner said “you’re my first customer of the day!” You kind of feel guilty if there’s nothing that you want in the shop. I wonder what Hay will look like in 10 years time?

Well, I must posthaste to Hay-on-Wye and support the local bookselling establishments.

One of my sentimental favorite movies is 84 Charing Cross Road.  I'm gutted that the bookshop of the title is no more, and was defunct by 1970, six months before the author finally managed to visit London.  She'd been threatening to come over since the coronation of the Queen and, Life Happened to keep her away.  20 years passed.  Her correspondent Frank died and the business where he'd worked for 40 years folded.  Frank's widow would show Helene Hanff around the sights of London, something her husband had wanted to do since 1953.  The movie opens with Anne Bancroft standing in the deserted bookshop at 84, Charing Cross Road and the movie then unfolds as her reminiscences.  That scene was actually part of the sequel memoir, The Duchess of Bloomsbury Street, in which HH documented her long-delayed trip to London.  Artistic license was employed in the film of course.  It was either boarded up or had become an estate agent's or something.  In the movie, this random American lady wanders in off the street to survey the premises as if 1. anyone could just waltz in there and 2. it would be left looking as though the space had been vacated just a day or two before, with random stepladders and piles of discarded books and papers strewn about. 

No matter, I cried through the movie and the subsequent book, too.  Frank, a kind and gentle soul, a patron saint of antiquarian books was dead, cut down in his still-youthful 60s by the deprivations of the war and from waiting for this aggravating American correspondent to make good on her promise to come visit him.  And then the bookshop closed.  Wahh!

I hope there are still some used bookshops in Charing Cross, for the benefit of cash-poor but longing Americans who desperately want to see them, but who were in kindergarten when Marks and Co. closed. 1970 was a bad year.  The Beatles broke up; Janis Joplin OD'd (on my birthday, actually) . . and Marks and Co. went belly-up.  Not to mention Vietnam, the economy and gas prices!

[HerlockSholmes]

On 25/02/2018 at 2:55 PM, HerlockSholmes said:

More Holmes nerdiness. I’ve just found a 1932 Czech movie called ‘Lelicek In The Services Of Sherlock Holmes’ which I’ve just ordered👍 I’d never seen it listed anywhere.

It’s taken a while for this film to finally arrive after one copy disappeared in the post. So.....was is worth th;e wait?

Nope.

As I expected it was a lamentably poor attempt at humour with an annoying soundtrack. The actor that plays Holmes is reasonable looking for the part but that’s about it. Its a Czech movie which begins in Baker Street where Holmes has a kind of butler called James and a female who’s role isn’t explained. He’s completely Watson-less though. He speaks English with a heavy Czech (I assume) accent but when the ‘action’ moves to Spain he speaks Czech and the film uses subtitles.

The film really dragged on and I found myself clock-watching. I love old Holmes movies; even silent ones but this one enters the ‘Turkey’ list. Not as bad as The Hound Of London (but nothing is that bad) but not far off.

Collector’s only.👍

[Hikari]

On ‎3‎/‎22‎/‎2018 at 10:46 AM, HerlockSholmes said:

It’s taken a while for this film to finally arrive after one copy disappeared in the post. So.....was is worth th;e wait?

Nope.

As I expected it was a lamentably poor attempt at humour with an annoying soundtrack. The actor that plays Holmes is reasonable looking for the part but that’s about it. Its a Czech movie which begins in Baker Street where Holmes has a kind of butler called James and a female who’s role isn’t explained. He’s completely Watson-less though. He speaks English with a heavy Czech (I assume) accent but when the ‘action’ moves to Spain he speaks Czech and the film uses subtitles.

The film really dragged on and I found myself clock-watching. I love old Holmes movies; even silent ones but this one enters the ‘Turkey’ list. Not as bad as The Hound Of London (but nothing is that bad) but not far off.

Collector’s only.👍

Herlock,

Sorry that your latest acquisition was such a disappointment.  I guess one takes one's chances with Czech movies shot on a shoestring.

David Marcum recently sent me a picture of his library, or, as I like to think of it, the 'Diogenes Club West'.  It's a very high-toned man cave, this, though I sure wouldn't mind spending some time in it, either.  I think both of us could manage to spend days in here.  Actually this photo was taken in 2016 and David assures me that 'it's much bigger now.'  I suppose that there have to be many items in *this* collector's stash which he also found disappointing.  But hangs onto them nonetheless due to 'collector-itis' . . a very insidious condition.  Collectoritis compelled DM to buy all of the novels in the Mary Russell series by Laurie King . . despite the fact that he loathes, reviles and repudiates them utterly.  He claims that his proposed theory about the nonexistent mental competency of King's heroine allows him to now enjoy these novels without giving himself a stroke.  For my part, I don't see how dismissing the heroine as a lunatic makes the books more palatable if they weren't when she was allegedly sane.

The picture file is too large for me to post here, but if you message me your email addy, you wil get to see it and gnash your teeth with envy. 

[Carol the Dabbler]

2 hours ago, Hikari said:

Collectoritis compelled DM to buy all of the novels in the Mary Russell series by Laurie King . . despite the fact that he loathes, reviles and repudiates them utterly.  He claims that his proposed theory about the nonexistent mental competency of King's heroine allows him to now enjoy these novels without giving himself a stroke.  For my part, I don't see how dismissing the heroine as a lunatic makes the books more palatable if they weren't when she was allegedly sane.

I think I can understand that -- it's a matter of difference in expectations. For example, I have much stricter (not necessarily higher, just more specific) expectations for an episode of Sherlock than I do for a Sherlock fanfic.  So I can thoroughly enjoy fanfics that I would never accept as episodes.

I think most readers agree that the Mary Russell stories are basically fanfics (and blatant Mary Sues at that), but the first couple of novels are  (in my opinion) so canon-plausible that it's a disappointment when the author gradually wanders away from Holmes in order to spend more time with Russell.  That's my big problem with the series, but Mr. Marcum obviously has tighter expectations.

[HerlockSholmes]

I just got Garment Of Shadows btw. It was ‘remaindered’ in a local shop for £2. I’m unsure how many of them I don’t have. Maybe 2? But there are now 4 or 5 that I haven’t gotten around to reading. 

I might order DM’s volume 5 this week. 

[Hikari]

On ‎3‎/‎24‎/‎2018 at 12:47 PM, Carol the Dabbler said:

I think I can understand that -- it's a matter of difference in expectations. For example, I have much stricter (not necessarily higher, just more specific) expectations for an episode of Sherlock than I do for a Sherlock fanfic.  So I can thoroughly enjoy fanfics that I would never accept as episodes.

I think most readers agree that the Mary Russell stories are basically fanfics (and blatant Mary Sues at that), but the first couple of novels are  (in my opinion) so canon-plausible that it's a disappointment when the author gradually wanders away from Holmes in order to spend more time with Russell.  That's my big problem with the series, but Mr. Marcum obviously has tighter expectations.

Carol,

Your big problem with the MR - SH series is the same big problem that I have.  The first four books are outstanding . . even if #2 all about the murderous suffragette organization did get too over the top for my taste.  Made me wonder of Mofftiss had read 'A Monstrous Regiment of Women' before devising that particular strand in 'The Abominable Bride'.  I have read all 14 of the previously published Russell books (for my sins) . .#15 is due out this June.  'Island of the Mad' takes Holmes and Russell to Venice.  I will probably read it, though I grew so increasingly frustrated with the series from Book 5 onwards, that I have little anticipation in the prospect.  Apart from King's preoccupation with esoteric medieval Jewish history and theology . .which must be intensely personal for her, but most of which leaves a Gentile Sherlockian less than enthralled, Laurie's strong suit is her evocation of places.  Strictly as travelogue, these are smashing good reads.  If one plunges into one of these books subsequent to The Moor and expects to find Sherlock Holmes in it much, one is bound to be disappointed.  After devouring the first four books in short order, I hit a wall with #5, O, Jerusalem!  I tried and tried to read it at least as many times as I've given The Name of the Rose the old college try, but I gave up in defeat.  O, Jerusalem! was a Masada this reader could not breach.  Partly it was the very jarring device of this book being a flashback of events that transpired four years before the immediately preceding book that threw me.  Book 4 finds our gloriously age-mismatched spouses on Dartmoor, some 2 years into their marriage, pursuing the ghostly footprints of a gigantic hound (for Sherlock, again.)  The Moor is, in my opinion, the strongest entry into the series apart from the introductory book . . and actually, as I am currently revisiting The Beekeeper's Apprentice again, I am leaning toward favoring The Moor even better than I did the first time.  It really is Russell at her least grating.  The Hound of the Baskervilles isn't my favorite Holmes story by any means, but Laurie's homage to it has become my favorite one of hers. #5 takes us back in time four years, with Holmes going all Lawrence of Arabia with a 19-year-old Russell in tow.  I guess Holmes gets tortured, but I didn't make it that far.  Surely even a social nonconformist like Holmes would have shied at basically abducting a 19-year-old girl from her university and then travelling with her un-chaperoned for months on end in a plethora of unsavory situations in the Third World? 

I pressed on to #6, Justice Hall, only to be stymied again by several major characters being drawn directly from Book #5.  It was at this point that I took a long Hiatus of quite a few years from Laurie's series.  Just last year, I reconvened with Book 7, Locked Rooms, and struggled all the way to what I thought (or hoped, rather) was the end, The Murder of Mary Russell.  A collection of Russell short stories did not better dispose me to our heroine, either.  Out of the later run of Books 5 - 14, even though I staggered all the way to the bitter end, refraining from physically throwing the books at the wall as often as I wanted to (though I did toss one or two across the room at least once, I confess) . . I found only two of them enjoyable, and perhaps three more mostly readable.  The enjoyable ones were #8, The Game (in which our tediously precocious heroine and her elegant enigmatic hubby travel to India and meet Rudyard Kipling's Kim, all grown up) and #10, The Pirate King.  Not many people copped to enjoying #10.  It is both the briefest and the lightest of Laurie's collection.  Its brevity meant a smaller helping of Russell than we normally get.  On the downside, SH is well nigh invisible in this installment.  On the plus side, the Moroccan locations are evocatively drawn by Laurie and we find Russell's undercover identity for this story, as an assistant on a movie set, an infinitely more plausible gig for a 24-year-old woman with secretarial skills than we normally get.  She didn't have to learn a language on the boat over, swallow fire, juggle swords or bust anyone out of a medieval prison, for starters.  Plus, I have a fondness for Gilbert & Sullivan, particularly that operetta, as I saw it on the Great White Way in my impressionable youth.

#11, Dreaming Spies, was of personal interest to me owing to the Japanese setting.  Laurie once again did a fine job of creating an authentic sense of place, and in this case, I can vouch for the authenticity.  Too bad so much of the action was outlandish.  Holmes and Russell getting naked in the bath with the future Emperor of the Chrysanthemum Throne . . .who magically speaks nearly flawless English?  (Apparently Hirohito did spend some time at Oxford, but I doubt he was encouraged to converse freely in English with the natives.)  Book #14 presents us with an intriguing, if not very flattering or logical origin story for the beloved landlady of 221 Baker Street.  The highlight of that (quite windy) book were the brief scenes depicting young Mrs. Hudson's interactions with a teenage nascent consulting detective who had not yet hit upon his future career on a full-time basis.  Laurie's explanation for why Mrs. Hudson remains so devoted to Sherlock Holmes despite his constant unorthodox treatment of her rooms and sometimes, herself is rather ingenious . . but makes me feel ooky on behalf of both participants in this long-standing 'business relationship' they've got going.

***************

David Marcum's beef with the Mary Russell books is not their craftsmanship but really, their existence at all.  As a purist of the first order, he cannot accept any marriage for Holmes, at any time, under any circumstances.  He acknowledges only one Woman in Holmes's past that claims the honor which Russell claims for herself .. he's even happy to accord Sherlock a son with Adler calling himself Nero Wolfe.   I've never had an issue with Holmes finding a connubial companion for his later years--I like the idea of Sherlock married to someone.  Just not to her, Russell, whose self-regard knows no bounds.  I guess Russell became unpalatable to me once it became very clear, at least halfway into her series, that King's aim was not to create an improved female Watson for Sherlock Holmes, nor a 20th century miss to be a rival of the Woman for the affections of Sherlock Holmes, but to create a new and improved female version of Sherlock himself.  I still think it was very harsh to demote Russell to 'raving lunatic in asylum', as David has done.  That doesn't seem like it serves to make Laurie's fan fictions any more palatable, to my mind.

In regards to your use of the term 'Mary Sue', I reproduce these nuggets from the Fanlore.Org site for the benefit of other readers like me who was unfamiliar with this term.  I can honestly say until I discovered Laurie's heroine (and then, sometime later, BBC Sherlock, I had never dipped a toe into fan fiction before.

A Mary Sue is an original character in fan fiction, usually but not always female, who for one reason or another is deemed undesirable by fan critics.

A character may be judged Mary Sue if she is competent in too many areas wrg, is physically attractive, and/or is viewed as admirable by other sympathetic characters. Mary Sues are generally presumed to be idealized self-inserts rather than true characters, although they may actually be intended as point-of-view characters for the reader. In fan fiction, it is considered extremely gauche, or at least very immature, for an author to create characters based on him- or herself.

*******************

By this definition, my lands, yes, Mary Russell is the most blatant example of a Mary Sue that comes to mind.  She wouldn't be out of place in her own comic book series--which, if we can be honest, is what Laurie's series became pretty early on . . just one written entirely in words, with no pictures to break up the tediously precocious antics of our narrator protagonist.  I am a tiny bit deflated to realize that my theory about Russell being an idealized portrait of her creator ('a self-insert', down to Russell's need for glasses, out-of-the-ordinary height for a girl, long hair, et al) was cottoned onto by tons of people before me, though all my thoughts about Russell were independently arrived at.  I didn't even realize until recently what a controversial figure Russell is, and felt pretty uncharitable for fantasies of shoving her into the English Channel in a lockbox, shackled Houdini-style, just to see if Her Awesomeness could extricate herself from that perilous situation or might just spontaneously sprout gills.  I wouldn't put it past Russell to display a talent for breathing underwater without aid of an oxygen tank and that's the truth.  The woman can hit a gnat at 100 paces with a throwing dagger and she's almost blind.

Thank you for spurring me to look into this 'Mary Sue' phenomenon.  Until today, I thought David Marcum was merely displaying his unfamiliarity with Laurie King's flagship series when he referred to her as "Mary Sue Russell" in his short story, Descent into Madness.  One does not have to be a Friend of Mary Russell (a camp which assuredly does not include me) to know that her author gave her the birth name 'Mary Judith Russell'.  Now it dawns on me that David Marcum was being intentionally snarky.  Naughty!   Ms. King must be a good sport, at least partially, because he reports that she was initially tolerant of, even amused by, his blatant little anti-Russell fan fic.  Until she became less amused and cut off communications with him.  I myself probably would have cut him off at 'Mary Sue'. 

 

 

[Carol the Dabbler]

Hikari, I should probably mention that the definition of "Mary Sue" that you quoted may be a bit misleading.  The term does not automatically apply to every self-insertion character (which just about any writer of fiction has created at one time or another, including Doyle's John Watson).  It is not necessarily "considered extremely gauche, or at least very immature, for an author to create characters based on him- or herself."  I've read some well-regarded stories of that type, including the Dorothy & Myfanwy stories of early Trekdom.

You do seem to have latched onto the defining characteristic, though:  "Mary Sue" refers to a self-insertion character who is extraordinarily beautiful, intelligent, popular, and/or adept at just about everything.  She's so utterly amazing that the canon hero can't help but fall in love with her.  ("Mary Sue Russell"  *snort*)

Quote

The first four books are outstanding . . even if #2 all about the murderous suffragette organization did get too over the top for my taste.  Made me wonder of Mofftiss had read 'A Monstrous Regiment of Women' before devising that particular strand in 'The Abominable Bride'.

I cannot believe that they did not!  Please note that they quoted the book's title at the end of the episode (as one of the suggested titles for Watson's account of the incident).

Quote

David Marcum's beef with the Mary Russell books is not their craftsmanship but really, their existence at all.  As a purist of the first order, he cannot accept any marriage for Holmes, at any time, under any circumstances.  He acknowledges only one Woman in Holmes's past that claims the honor which Russell claims for herself .. he's even happy to accord Sherlock a son with Adler calling himself Nero Wolfe.

Yes, I've heard that claim.  I find a sexual relationship between Holmes and Adler far less plausible (and far less canonical) than the Holmes and Russell thing.  Methinks Marcum objects to Mary Russell for the same reason Johnlockers object to Mary Morstan -- he's jealous!

[Hikari]

11 hours ago, Carol the Dabbler said:

Hikari, I should probably mention that the definition of "Mary Sue" that you quoted may be a bit misleading.  The term does not automatically apply to every self-insertion character (which just about any writer of fiction has created at one time or another, including Doyle's John Watson).  It is not necessarily "considered extremely gauche, or at least very immature, for an author to create characters based on him- or herself."  I've read some well-regarded stories of that type, including the Dorothy & Myfanwy stories of early Trekdom.

You do seem to have latched onto the defining characteristic, though:  "Mary Sue" refers to a self-insertion character who is extraordinarily beautiful, intelligent, popular, and/or adept at just about everything.  She's so utterly amazing that the canon hero can't help but fall in love with her.  ("Mary Sue Russell"  *snort*)

I cannot believe that they did not!  Please note that they quoted the book's title at the end of the episode (as one of the suggested titles for Watson's account of the incident).

Yes, I've heard that claim.  I find a sexual relationship between Holmes and Adler far less plausible (and far less canonical) than the Holmes and Russell thing.  Methinks Marcum objects to Mary Russell for the same reason Johnlockers object to Mary Morstan -- he's jealous!

He wants Sherlock for himself, you mean?  Mr. Marcum is happily married.   And he's certainly no JohnLocker (Victorian variant).  That idea would be odious.

*****

Holmes's relationship and subsequent child by Irene Adler being Nero Wolfe is the 'theory' of American BSI Rex Stout . . a bit self-serving, since he was the creator of Nero Wolfe. (Mr. Stout also floated the very tongue-in-cheek theory that 'Watson Was a Woman' (namely, 'The' Woman) in a memorable address to the BSIs one year. )  Nero is a fan fiction/tribute, too.  He just so happens to be the correct age to have been conceived circa 1892ish and has a great deductive brain as well as the corpulent body frame allegedly inherited from his Uncle Mycroft.

Since Irene Adler is in the Canon, and Mary Russell is entirely an invention of Laurie King, calling MR 'more' Canonical than ACD's original character doesn't seem applicable to me.  I believe that an affaire de coeur between Holmes and Adler is eminently plausible--she was, after all, 'The' Woman, in ACD's own words.  There is no other contender in view in all of Canon, and so for generations ahead of Ms. King, romantics among Holmes's readership have snatched at this fragile and tantalizing reference by Conan Doyle that perhaps the Great Brain did form an emotional attachment to at least one other person than Watson.  It would have been a brief liaison, not a marriage or even a cohabitation, and she never would have interfered in his Work.  It is by no means proven, but plausible?  Definitely.

 I do accept that Russell has been welcomed into the Head-Canon of many (mostly femme) Holmes fans who exorcise their crush upon their fictional hero by rooting for this very exceptional and wildly age-inappropriate partner/spouse whom Laurie has created for him.  I myself enjoyed the conceit, "Sherlock Holmes, Married Man".  Still do, but as stated earlier, Russell has come to grate upon me like sand in my underwear.  That definition I listed above was lifted directly from the Fanlore.org website, so it wasn't me that came up with the 'gauche, immature, etc.' stuff.  Most authors do model their protagonists and/or events of their books after themselves and their own experiences to some degree.  The minute I saw a photo of Ms. King, Russell's function as a fictional stand-in for herself was obvious.  MR and LK have so much in common, apart from the era they live in and the fact that Laurie is not half-British.  My issue with her creation (and her by extension, fairly or not) is not that MR is an idealized portrait of herself--they say 'Write what you know', after all--but that Russell is just too idealized, to the point where it has become comical.  No matter what happens, Russell is always proven to be right in the end.  Right, and better than everyone else around her at every conceivable thing under the sun . . with Sherlock Holmes her only conceivable rival/better . . and she's creeping up on him fast.  Because she's still only 25 years old, 23 years and 15 books on, and he's 60-something, with rheumatism.  Russell was an inventive and winsome (for a brief while, while she still had a touch of youthful vulnerability) character but she ceased to be even remotely human-seeming a long time ago.  Writing a superhero comic isn't nearly as nuanced or demanding as writing a fully-fleshed out character with recognizable human flaws, who is more than occasionally wrong about things.  David Marcum has imposed the ultimate penalty on Russell for her uber-Mary Sue-ness in his short story which has Russell confined to an asylum after getting her family killed by her Mary Sue antics and then attempting suicide.  Even confronted by the evidence of what her Mary Sue-ness has wrought doesn't break Russell into anything resembling contrition or humility . . she takes refuge in insanity and proceeds to go about altering history (her journals) to reflect her preferred version of reality.

I think David got it a bit wrong . . .Russell thinks far too highly of herself to commit suicide, though she is personally responsible for the deaths of a number of other people, including her parents, her little brother and, as David says, her 'real' husband and two children.

In perusing the origin of the 'original' Mary Sue--a character created for a Star Trek fan fic in the 1970s--a parody--I see that 'Lt. Mary Sue' is 'the youngest Star Fleet officer ever' . . at 15-and-a-half years old.  And how old is Russell when she begins her saga with Sherlock Holmes in 1915?  Fifteen-and-a-half, naturally.  Now this makes me wonder if Russell isn't actually an elaborate double-blind by Laurie.  Perhaps she actually intended to, sneaky and yet blatantly, write such a textbook Mary Sue in the guise of historical thriller fiction, and see if observant readers would cotton on.  How could they not?  Thinking she could pull the wool over her readers' eyes for her own gratification would be a Mary Sue thing to do.  But if she intentionally created a Mary Sue, then her initial bemusement at David Marcum's little theory is more understandable to me.

[Hikari]

Just got a note from Mr. Marcum.  He says he's toying with the idea of putting his story about Russell on his blog just before Laurie launches the next installment of her series in June.

I'm reminded of the Marquise de Mertuil and the Vicomte de Valmont going at it hammer and tong in Dangerous Liaisons.  The Vicomte is launching the first salvo.  Since David's blog has a very marginal readership, and he himself doesn't visit there more than 3 or 4 times a year, I don't think this stunt will be damaging to Laurie.  I doubt she pays him any mind and his blog still less.  She is reportedly going to be busy with executive productrix responsibilities on the forthcoming Holmes - Russell TV series.  Which I will believe when I actually see some footage.   This project has been going to happen 'any day now' for . . .3 years?  4?  They certainly have plenty of material to draw from, with 15 books.  The idea may already be stale.  They should have done it 10 years ago before the books really started falling off the cliff quality-wise.

[Carol the Dabbler]

On 3/26/2018 at 8:43 PM, Carol the Dabbler said:

I find a sexual relationship between Holmes and Adler far less plausible (and far less canonical) than the Holmes and Russell thing.  Methinks Marcum objects to Mary Russell for the same reason Johnlockers object to Mary Morstan -- he's jealous!

18 hours ago, Hikari said:

He wants Sherlock for himself, you mean?  Mr. Marcum is happily married.   And he's certainly no JohnLocker

Sorry, what I meant was, maybe Marcum objects to Russell because he wants to keep Holmes available for Adler (analogous to the way Johnlockers object to Mary because they want to keep Sherlock available for John).

18 hours ago, Hikari said:

Holmes's relationship and subsequent child by Irene Adler being Nero Wolfe is the 'theory' of American BSI Rex Stout . . a bit self-serving, since he was the creator of Nero Wolfe.  [....]  Nero is a fan fiction/tribute, too.

I've heard that theory before, but had never heard that it originated with Stout, so I searched the internet and can find no reference to Stout as the theorist.  Some say the idea came from Baring-Gould.  It does seem to have been kicked around a good bit, so who knows?  If Stout ever did propose the idea, I suspect it was all in fun.  He does seem to have gotten some inspiration from Doyle (and what detective writer does not?), but his works do not actually strike me as fan fiction.

18 hours ago, Hikari said:

Since Irene Adler is in the Canon, and Mary Russell is entirely an invention of Laurie King, calling MR 'more' Canonical than ACD's original character doesn't seem applicable to me.  I believe that an affaire de coeur between Holmes and Adler is eminently plausible--she was, after all, 'The' Woman, in ACD's own words.  [....]  It would have been a brief liaison, not a marriage or even a cohabitation, and she never would have interfered in his Work.  It is by no means proven, but plausible?  Definitely.

I can't deny that it's possible.  A good case could presumably be made for it, by someone sufficiently motivated.  But "plausible" seems like a stretch to me.  The canonical Irene Adler was engaged to and subsequently married to another man, there is no record of any time when she and Holmes were alone together, and she left the country very shortly after they met.  All in all, it strikes me as a bit improbable.

Whereas with Russell, we are in unexplored territory -- there being no canonical record of Holmes's Sussex years other than a mention that they occurred.  Holmes could have done virtually anything with virtually anyone.  Perhaps "canonical" is too strong a term, but at least it does not (as with the Adler theory) go against canon.

18 hours ago, Hikari said:

In perusing the origin of the 'original' Mary Sue--a character created for a Star Trek fan fic in the 1970s--a parody--I see that 'Lt. Mary Sue' is 'the youngest Star Fleet officer ever' . . at 15-and-a-half years old.  And how old is Russell when she begins her saga with Sherlock Holmes in 1915?  Fifteen-and-a-half, naturally.  Now this makes me wonder if Russell isn't actually an elaborate double-blind by Laurie.  Perhaps she actually intended to, sneaky and yet blatantly, write such a textbook Mary Sue in the guise of historical thriller fiction, and see if observant readers would cotton on.  How could they not?

That's an intriguing theory.  I could see someone doing that for a few stories, but King has now written -- what is it, 18 or so full-length novels?  If it started as a joke, it's definitely gotten away from her by now.  Unless, of course, she's determined to carry on until people get the joke.  Hey, if that's it, you could do a big favor for all concerned by blowing the whistle right away!

18 hours ago, Hikari said:

Just got a note from Mr. Marcum.  He says he's toying with the idea of putting his story about Russell on his blog just before Laurie launches the next installment of her series in June.

Please let me know if/when he does that.  I'd be interested in seeing it.

 

 

[Hikari]

5 hours ago, Carol the Dabbler said:

Sorry, what I meant was, maybe Marcum objects to Russell because he wants to keep Holmes available for Adler (analogous to the way Johnlockers object to Mary because they want to keep Sherlock available for John).

I've heard that theory before, but had never heard that it originated with Stout, so I searched the internet and can find no reference to Stout as the theorist.  Some say the idea came from Baring-Gould.  It does seem to have been kicked around a good bit, so who knows?  If Stout ever did propose the idea, I suspect it was all in fun.  He does seem to have gotten some inspiration from Doyle (and what detective writer does not?), but his works do not actually strike me as fan fiction.

I can't deny that it's possible.  A good case could presumably be made for it, by someone sufficiently motivated.  But "plausible" seems like a stretch to me.  The canonical Irene Adler was engaged to and subsequently married to another man, there is no record of any time when she and Holmes were alone together, and she left the country very shortly after they met.  All in all, it strikes me as a bit improbable.

Whereas with Russell, we are in unexplored territory -- there being no canonical record of Holmes's Sussex years other than a mention that they occurred.  Holmes could have done virtually anything with virtually anyone.  Perhaps "canonical" is too strong a term, but at least it does not (as with the Adler theory) go against canon.

That's an intriguing theory.  I could see someone doing that for a few stories, but King has now written -- what is it, 18 or so full-length novels?  If it started as a joke, it's definitely gotten away from her by now.  Unless, of course, she's determined to carry on until people get the joke.  Hey, if that's it, you could do a big favor for all concerned by blowing the whistle right away!

Please let me know if/when he does that.  I'd be interested in seeing it.

 

 

Carol,

The proposed time for the Holmes-Adler liaison would be sometime during the three years that Sherlock was absent from London and ostensibly dead.  Miss Adler does indeed marry Mr. Godfrey Norton at the end of Scandal in Bohemia, some years prior to Holmes's hiatus.  Supporters of this theory are not suggesting that Irene was unfaithful to her husband with Holmes, but that Norton had since died and Holmes looked Adler up while on his peregrinations post-Reichenbach.  The favored location for this reunion is somewhere in France.  Whatever BBC Adler does for a living or conducts her personal life, Canon Adler is not a slut.  She's an artist.

This theory is fan-made and not supported by Conan Doyle as such . . neither did he deny the possibility outright (by killing her off, for example).  He simply never mentions her again.  But there is that tantalizing reference to 'The' Woman, with which Watson opens the very first entry in The Adventures.  Whatever else she was or became later, Irene held a special, singular place in the mind palace of the Great Detective.  Mr. Marcum would have objected to a series of books that purported to be about Holmes and Adler's romance and/or marriage, too, on the grounds that Sherlock Holmes is simply not wired up for long-term domesticity with female persons, or cultivation of romance as a long-term proposition. But perhaps even Holmes was susceptible to one torrid weekend in the south of France, if under the influence of enough absinthe.  I favor slightly more time than a one-night stand, but nothing longer than a few weeks.  SH was too restless and also engaged on important top secret work for Brother Mycroft that took him away.  *If* Adler found herself with child later on, she would have not insinuated herself into Holmes life and work and made demands upon him for support.  If Nero Wolfe is the progeny of Sherlock Holmes, then perhaps Mycroft intervened and arranged an adoption with a lovely childless couple who later emigrated to New York City.  Dr. Watson was not exactly a reliable narrator, was he, leaving many details out and changing names, dates, locations, et. al for his own purposes.  Had Holmes retained a relationship/contact with Adler in any form after the case of ASiB was closed, Watson would have a number of reasons to keep it classified.  Not the least of which, perhaps, was more than a tinge of jealousy.  The green-eyed monster peeks out right at the top of his narrative, when he refers to her as 'Irene Adler, of dubious and questionable memory'.  He seems to have a change of heart as he goes on, painting a picture of an admirable and resourceful woman whose mind was the match for Holmes's, and on at least two occasions, its better.  That's why Watson's jealous . . not because he views Adler as a romantic rival for Sherlock, but because she is definitely an intellectual rival for himself,  in the position of Holmes confidante.

I will consult with Mr. Marcum and see what he says about the origin of this theory.

The Friends of Mary Russell, a passionate and vocal group, have said "After 1914, he's ours" . . and it's true: after events of 'His Last Bow', set in 1914, Conan Doyle relinquished Holmes to the realm of the fan fiction writers.  There are a few stories that post-date the publication of HLB, but chronologically, that was Holmes's last documented case.  By Literary Agent Prime, anyhow.  Arthur was content to leave his signature creation to a very long pastoral retirement with the bees, but Holmes's fans certainly have never been content to leave him there.   I like the idea of a married Holmes, very much.  I just don't like his fictional 'wife'.

[Carol the Dabbler]

1 hour ago, Hikari said:

This theory is fan-made and not supported by Conan Doyle as such . . neither did he deny the possibility outright (by killing her off, for example).

 

1 hour ago, Hikari said:

[Watson] refers to her as 'Irene Adler, of dubious and questionable memory'.

But doesn't that phrase (being analogous to "of sainted memory," etc.) imply that Adler was dead, at least by the time Watson wrote up that account?  In any case, the Adler theory takes advantage of one gap in canon, namely the Great Hiatus, while the Russell tale takes advantage of another, namely Holmes's retirement.  Neither was blessed by ACD, so I'd say they're on equal footing.

1 hour ago, Hikari said:

Dr. Watson was not exactly a reliable narrator, was he, leaving many details out and changing names, dates, locations, et. al for his own purposes.

Quite true, by the good doctor's own admission.  In addition, I suspect that Holmes did not necessarily share every tidbit with him, especially as might regard any *ahem* personal matters.

 

1 hour ago, Hikari said:

... there is that tantalizing reference to 'The' Woman, with which Watson opens the very first entry in The Adventures.  Whatever else she was or became later, Irene held a special, singular place in the mind palace of the Great Detective.

I've always taken that as a homage to her wit, seeing as how, as you mention, she was able to fool him -- twice!

[Hikari]

Carol, (and anyone else who has been following our discussion),

David Marcum hasn't updated his blog recently (like, since November), but here is the link to his Mary Russell 'apologia', Descent into Madness.   I've shared it on the forum in another thread but that was one of my first posts last fall and you may have missed it.  DM had cojones enough to send this to Laurie R. King.   She was amused, or at least tolerant of his take on her heroine . . for a while.  Then it started getting published in The Watsonian and places like that and gained traction.  Apparently, a lot more people hate Russell than I'd realized.  Until 6 months ago, I thought I was almost alone in feeling antagonistic toward her.  Laurie's had a very good run with Russell.  Russell has gotten her inducted into the BSIs and made her several millions of dollars, I should think.  I have discovered that Sherlockian scholarship generally doesn't pay much, if anything, except for an elite handful of authors like King & Anthony Horowitz.  For all the rest, it's a passionate labor of love.  I'm not sure even Laurie herself would identify as a Sherlockian scholar.  Sherlock Holmes isn't her primary preoccupation and sometimes, not even a distant second.  She has created a new area of literary endeavor, Russellolgy.  She does have her many handmaidens.  (If a man actually copped to liking, much less reading the Russell books in their entirety, I'd be very surprised.  Russell elevates being a feminist mouthpiece/icon to rarefied heights.

This is not Mr. Marcum's best work of short fiction.  It's a bit choppy, perfunctory and full of agenda.  He is a polished prose stylist in his other works.  I'm not sure he ever intended this story for publication or to be seen by other eyes than his and King's.  It has the feeling of a mental exercise and that's essentially what it began as, at any rate.

Despite not having fondness for Russell, I respectfully disagree with Mr. Marcum that his scenario is the best way to Deal With Her.  I'd much prefer Russell simply simmer down and stop being such a Mary Sue.  She does have her good qualities, but the trouble is, she is all too aware of them.  Turning over a new leaf of humility is not up to her; it's her author's call, and I don't see LK mellowing Russell out at this stage.  Perhaps the screenwriters-to-be for the proposed TV series will endeavor to humanize Russell and make her more vulnerable and likeable.  I should think there would be a modifying influence on Russell's Mary Sueness in a live action version, because they are going to have to be writing for the 100% human actress that will have to embody this paragon.  Some small slippage of the unrelenting perfection can only be expected and, in this quarter, fervently hoped for.

********

I deduce that Mr. Marcum will never be inducted into the ranks of the BSIs so long as Ms. King and her ally/bestie Leslie Klinger draw breath.  David is not nearly fawning enough, and much too disputatious toward sacred cows.  (He readily admits using Mr. Klinger's magnum opus, The New Annotated Sherlock Holmes, as book shelf filler but not actually reading it.)  Oddly, for such a traditionalist as he is, he proclaims himself Bored by hashing over the same 60 stories over and over.  He has dedicated his life to creating new adventures for Sherlock Holmes.  I told him if he thinks hashing over 56 stories and four full length novels gets dull, 13 Mofftiss screenplays get played out even faster!  He is still associating with me even though he knows I've defiled my mind palace with BBC Sherlock.

http://www.sherlock-holmes.com/Marcum_Descent.html

[Hikari]

1 hour ago, Carol the Dabbler said:

But doesn't that phrase (being analogous to "of sainted memory," etc.) imply that Adler was dead, at least by the time Watson wrote up that account?  In any case, the Adler theory takes advantage of one gap in canon, namely the Great Hiatus, while the Russell tale takes advantage of another, namely Holmes's retirement.  Neither was blessed by ACD, so I'd say they're on equal footing.

Yes, it does.  I assume this means that Adler was dead by the time Dr. Watson came to write up his account of the Bohemia matter.  Like Mary Morstan, she seems to have perished quite young, with or without complications from childbirth being the cause.   ACD didn't seem remotely interested in providing explanations when he killed off beloved wives/partners in his stories.  Charitably, I will say he glossed over such incidents rather than be painfully reminded of the lingering death of his own Touie.  Maybe that's why Watson barely ever mentions that he has a wife, whether she be one of three or one of one or living or dead.  It makes him seem curiously cold and uninvolved in his own life, but that was just Arthur, rushing to get to the action without paying a sop to domestic melodrama.

Another possible reading is more metaphorical . . . not that Irene has necessarily shuffled off this mortal coil at the time the Doc is writing this down, but that this is his own personal remembrance of her.  Has all the hallmarks of a jealous spouse when given that reading.  Presumably, Sherlock Holmes has a much different recollection of the Woman, and Watson is aware of this.  Not the Doctor's most shining humanitarian moment, this little dig at Adler.  The Woman is most likely dead and she's still getting to Watson for having penetrated Sherlock Holmes's calculated defenses in a way that he, Watson, never could or did.  Watson seems to regard Adler very much the same way that Paul, George & Ringo looked upon Yoko Ono.  Sherlock Holmes probably felt the same about Mrs. Watson--the salient difference is, while Holmes verbally disparaged the state of matrimony and 'Womankind' as a species (to wind his flatmate up, I am certain) . .at no point does he ever disparage actual women he knows.  (Insults to Mrs. Hudson are his love language and do not count.)  SH is visibly devastated when Watson announces his intention to marry Miss Morstan, but he's only distraught at the leaving part . . . he has only complimentary things to say about Mary herself.  In fact, had the Watsons just moved into Baker Street, he would have been a whole lot happier.  But that would have been . . .singular . .and Watson opted for the conventional course of moving out of his bachelor digs with his slovenly bachelor roommate into a proper house with his new bride.

Holmes's retirement to Sussex and the bees is Canonical, though it's true that pastiches abound about this period because it's so sparsely populated by 'facts'.  Sherlock narrates The Lion's Mane, in which he had already retired to the Downs, and he describes his little patch of bucolic heaven for us.  And then there are two mysterious deaths and the Game's afoot again.  This story and a number of others predate "His Last Bow" in action, though not necessarily in publication.  Watson (via the Literary Agent) skipped blithely around in time, penning cases as they took his fancy, with no regard for chronological order.  This is mighty confusing to a first-time reader, who expects the stories to unfold in that normal fashion.  A Scandal in Bohemia appears as the very first story after Conan Doyle's first two serialized novels, and is purported to have taken place in 1889 or even 1890, after Watson's marriage, when the partnership had already been established for almost a decade.  Coming into story #1 in the Strand, moreover one that features a beautiful young Woman and a wedding . . one might expect the younger versions of Holmes and Watson.  One would be misled by the Doctor's penchant for continually scrambling the timeline.  David Marcum puts all the pastiches he edits into chronological order in each of the volumes he compiles, which I appreciate.  Doing the mental gymnastics required to try and figure out when a particular case is happening in the ACD Canon is exhausting.

[HerlockSholmes]

Hi Hikari, 

I just thought that I’d let you know that I’m working my way through David Marcum’s blog. I’ve read all of this years entries. His enthusiasm for all things Holmes (and Pons) leaps out at you. He obviously knows his subject too. I wonder if he’s ever considered publishing his entire chronology of Holmes cases? I’m certain that collectors would snap it up. It might also serve as a ‘guide to Holmes Pastiches.’ I could be wrong Hikari but I don’t know of a ‘guide to pastiches’ like the ones available for movies, tv and radio? There might be a gap in the market there?  I read your comments too by the way.I assume though ( Herlock the Caveman again😀) that even though I’ve bookmarked the link that you gave me so that I can locate it easily this doesn’t mean that his next post will appear? I haven’t a clue how these things work. Can you enlighten me please?

I just began ‘A Garment Of Shadows,’ But I’ve realised that there are still earlier books that I’ve yet to read. To be honest, I find it difficult to work up the necessary enthusiasm. I lost my way after around 3 or 4 books. In ‘A Garment Of Shadows’ Holmes and Russell are separated at the beginning just as they were at the beginning of the last one that I started (and never finished.) Is this always the case? As you know, the reason that many people criticise the four Holmes novels is that they lose interest during the large chunks where Holmes is absent from the plot. I feel the same about the Mary Russell books. I know that she is the main character but for me, and I think that you feel the same (but please correct me If im wrong [I’ve been wrong before....June 14th 1987 I think it was😀]) whenever Holmes is in a story he has to be the main character. Mary Russell on her own doesn’t interest me much I’m afraid. Anyway, even if I do decide to begin a Russell book it will be cast aside if your generous gift arrives.

That reminds me, I must have a look on eBay and see if there are any Pons books for sale that I would need to sell a kidney for to buy.👍

[HerlockSholmes]

Hikari, my book arrived today. Thank you👍

I’ve  also ordered The Reminiscenses Of Solar Pons from eBay for £8.

Start thinking of a subject for a portrait🙂

[Carol the Dabbler]

On 3/28/2018 at 11:57 AM, Hikari said:

David Marcum hasn't updated his blog recently (like, since November), but here is the link to his Mary Russell 'apologia', Descent into Madness.

Thanks, Hikari.  I thought that piece was nicely done, despite the author sharing Ms. King's notion that Holmes is "old" (or in this case, "very" old).

[HerlockSholmes]

3 hours ago, HerlockSholmes said:

Hikari, my book arrived today. Thank you👍

I’ve  also ordered The Reminiscenses Of Solar Pons from eBay for £8.

Start thinking of a subject for a portrait🙂

I just read the first Pons story. An excellent tale where Solar Pons, his brother Bancroft and Dr Parker investigate the theft of Dr Watson’s tin despatch box. There’s also mention of an occasion in the past where Pons and Parker had been asked to assist Holmes and Watson (which is a bit of a coincidence as I’d been wondering today if David Marcum had ever considered writing a story involving Holmes and Pons?) There’s also a mention of Pons friendship with a certain Belgian detective living in Whitehaven Mansions! Inspector Japp even gets a mention. A great start to the collection.

[Hikari]

1 hour ago, Carol the Dabbler said:

Thanks, Hikari.  I thought that piece was nicely done, despite the author sharing Ms. King's notion that Holmes is "old" (or in this case, "very" old).

You don't subscribe to the notion that Sherlock Holmes did eventually die, then?  Even David takes Mr. Baring-Gould at his word that Holmes died peacefully on the Downs (literally), at the age of 103 . . in 1957.   David's story takes place about 20 years before this in 1938.  John Lescroart has Holmes pitching in with the Dunkirk evacuations in May 1940 . .when he would have been 86 years old--and he outworks all the younger men, including two teenagers. 

Sherlock can never die, in my opinion, so long as people keep writing new adventures for him.

[Hikari]

5 hours ago, HerlockSholmes said:

Hikari, my book arrived today. Thank you👍

I’ve  also ordered The Reminiscenses Of Solar Pons from eBay for £8.

Start thinking of a subject for a portrait🙂

Glad it's there safely.  Only wish it could have the author's autograph in it, but maybe one day.

I think you should think of a subject for a portrait--only you know what you're in the mood to draw.  If I choose the subject, maybe it won't be one you want to do.  I would very much like a Holmes study, but I don't want to get too specific and stifle you.  Do you work from photographs or from your own fertile imagination?  Let me know if you need more guidance.  I really do want to be surprised. 

[Hikari]

On ‎3‎/‎28‎/‎2018 at 4:55 PM, HerlockSholmes said:

just thought that I’d let you know that I’m working my way through David Marcum’s blog

Well, I suppose you can see why he only posts one entry every several months, then.  Each entry is monograph length and he must spend a week or more on it.

Last fall, I found his blog after going to the MX Publishing page to find out more about this New Adventures of Sherlock Holmes series I kept seeing popping up on Amazon.  David's blog was listed on the authors page.  My first entry was a response to his post on 'Young Sherlock Holmes', I think.  David and I are the same age (you're right in there with us, bruh) and we experienced that film at the same point in our lives.  When I saw it, I regretted that I wasn't 8 or 10 years younger and I really would have thought it was da bomb.  I liked it, but I had aged out of the target audience.  Kind of like some 15 years later, watching the Harry Potter films.  I bonded with the faculty and the parents rather than the young wizards because I was in the parental age group by then.

I was so persistently verbose on his blog, he ended up giving me his e-mail address just so I would save some bandwidth for other commentators . .rofl.  My actual hope is that he spotted a potential literary light for his pages and didn't want to lose me.  (rimshot.)   I was tickled when he answered me on the blog; never dreamt I'd become the correspondent of a bona fide Sherlockian author.   I was surprised by the paucity of both his own involvement in his blog and the very small number of commentators.  One would think, with his MX anthology now in its 10th volume that more people would have discovered David and his 17Step blog.  I didn't realize at that time just how insanely busy he is.  That's why I haven't started a blog, despite many people telling me I should . . I wouldn't have the time to nurture it.  Maybe someday.

There is precedent for a blog commentator becoming a contributor . . Thomas Turley has several comments on the blog that predated me, and now he's got at least two stories in David's books.  They were well-done, though not among my favorites.  I am aiming to be the next C.H. Dye, who penned that rollicking adventure 'A Christmas Goose' in the Yuletide volume.  Deanna Baran is also very consistently excellent--and these were two authors who had not been published before.

 

[Carol the Dabbler]

2 hours ago, Hikari said:

You don't subscribe to the notion that Sherlock Holmes did eventually die, then?  [....]

Sherlock can never die, in my opinion, so long as people keep writing new adventures for him.

I take no sides on that one!    Let's just call him "ageless," OK?

What I meant was, to assume that *any* person is "old" merely because they're in their 50's or 60's (as Mary Russell does) or "very old" in their 80's (as Marcum does) is overgeneralizing.  It depends on the person, and other than the mention of a cane, the Holmes described in Marcum's little story sounds like his usual canonical self.

[HerlockSholmes]

11 hours ago, Hikari said:

Glad it's there safely.  Only wish it could have the author's autograph in it, but maybe one day.

I think you should think of a subject for a portrait--only you know what you're in the mood to draw.  If I choose the subject, maybe it won't be one you want to do.  I would very much like a Holmes study, but I don't want to get too specific and stifle you.  Do you work from photographs or from your own fertile imagination?  Let me know if you need more guidance.  I really do want to be surprised. 

I work from photographs Hikari. No problem though I’ll come up with something. I’ll start it in the next week or so👍 With being a full-time carer I tend to take a while though. An hour here and an hour there.

[HerlockSholmes]

If any of you wonderful, generous Americans want to buy me an early birthday present you could drive over to Texas next month👍

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2018/03/30/conan-doyles-handwritten-manuscript-famous-sherlock-holmes-story/amp/

[Carol the Dabbler]

11 hours ago, HerlockSholmes said:

If any of you wonderful, generous Americans want to buy me an early birthday present you could drive over to Texas next month👍

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2018/03/30/conan-doyles-handwritten-manuscript-famous-sherlock-holmes-story/amp/

That article says that "The Dancing Men" is one of only two of Doyle's Holmes stories in which the client dies.  What is the other one?