A Collector’s Lot

[HerlockSholmes]

In the case of computers:

 “when you eliminate the impossible.......something else impossible pops up to take its place!”

~Herlock Sholmes~ Sherlock Forum 10th April 2018😀

[Arcadia]

Yah, the new forum is very weird about pasting text. Several times I've pasted something in and thought it didn't work, only to realize later it had .... but as dark text on my dark background. Other times it pastes just fine, or not at all. I haven't detected a pattern yet.

[HerlockSholmes]

10 minutes ago, Arcadia said:

Yah, the new forum is very weird about pasting text. Several times I've pasted something in and thought it didn't work, only to realize later it had .... but as dark text on my dark background. Other times it pastes just fine, or not at all. I haven't detected a pattern yet.

Witchcraft!

Didnt happen with pens😀

[HerlockSholmes]

On 04/04/2018 at 5:40 PM, Hikari said:

P.S. Herl,

I've given it some thought, about my 'payment' for your book.

I find Mr. Jeremy Brett pretty winsome in his deerstalker.  You might consider doing that for me, unless you have another idea. 

Like you, I find Mr. Brett's portrayal of SH nearly pitch-perfect in every particular.

Hi Hikari, I’ll be starting your portrait in the next 2 or 3 days. I have a picture to work from.

Ive just completed David Marcum’s Solar Pons stories and, as expected, they are superb. I’ll be commenting on his blog tomorrow.

When we mentioned the possibility of a story with both Holmes and Pons little did we know that he has already done it. Though not in the way that I expected. At the end of the collection there’s a Holmes story, narrated by Watson of course. DM very nicely explains all.

Holmes has another brother in Yorkshire called Sherrinford. He has sons called Bancroft and Siger (Holmes’ nephews.) Bancroft ends up working with Mycroft but he changes his surname to Pons to avoid accusations of nepotism (something the British Empire invented I think😀) Siger wants to become a detective so Holmes takes him under his wing. He changes his name to Solar Pons. We also find out the Watson knows that Holmes had a son with Irene Adler. Adler’s third  husband was called Vukcic which loosely translates as ‘little wolf.’ And there we have the clue, though not mentioned explicitly, that Holmes and Adler’s son was Nero Wolfe. Great stuff.

And I’ve had The Reminiscences Of Solar Pons delivered today so I have one Pons and seven Holmes to read👍

[Hikari]

Just now, HerlockSholmes said:

ve just completed David Marcum’s Solar Pons stories and, as expected, they are superb. I’ll be commenting on his blog tomorrow.

Be sure to tell him that you are 'my' Herlock Sholmes.  I wonder if I get some kind of consideration from Mr. Marcum for introducing another disciple.

David is huge on continuity and integrity of the Great Holmes Tapestry as he calls it.  He hates dangling threads that don't mesh.  So the young John Watson in 'Young Sherlock Holmes'  is actually SH's younger cousin, a lad called Verner, who wound up buying Dr. Watson's medical practice in Kensington.  Though why he's calling himself 'John Watson' circa 1870 is a puzzlement.  I'm sure that David's explanations for the 'why' of certain things make impeccable sense in the context of that world.  Personally I reject the idea of a third Holmes brother.  ACD was pushing it by creating 2 super-geniuses in the same family to start with, and the relationship of Mycroft and Sherlock is so intensely bonded--competitive but loving at bottom--I think they grew up together, just the two of them.  Where a 'baby', baby brother would fit in, I'm not sure.  Sherlock has all the hallmarks of the youngest of the family and I'm content to leave him in that position.

I would, however, support a third sibling who was a boy rather than a psychotic little girl called 'East Wind'.  

As an aside, watching TV this morning I heard all about the plans for the 'Harry & MeghanWeddingPalooza" coverage planned by at least one of the major American TV networks, but I'm sure they will all be there.  Of course, Harry's wedding won't be televised like William's; the international press will be lurking outside though . . all bloody day, which for us over here will start at approximately 4AM.    I'll apologize in advance if this will be profoundly annoying, but we haven't had an American actress marry into royalty since Grace Kelly married Prince Rainier in 1953.  To say that we are excited is an understatement.    I'm glad for Harry.  Fingers crossed that this marriage doesn't go the way of his dad's and his Uncle Andrew's.  Meghan is no Duchess Kate, so I hope your nation will forgive any faux pas she will make.  There will be many.  She will be hugging the Queen in no time, if she hasn't already. 

[HerlockSholmes]

13 hours ago, Hikari said:

Be sure to tell him that you are 'my' Herlock Sholmes.  I wonder if I get some kind of consideration from Mr. Marcum for introducing another disciple.

David is huge on continuity and integrity of the Great Holmes Tapestry as he calls it.  He hates dangling threads that don't mesh.  So the young John Watson in 'Young Sherlock Holmes'  is actually SH's younger cousin, a lad called Verner, who wound up buying Dr. Watson's medical practice in Kensington.  Though why he's calling himself 'John Watson' circa 1870 is a puzzlement.  I'm sure that David's explanations for the 'why' of certain things make impeccable sense in the context of that world.  Personally I reject the idea of a third Holmes brother.  ACD was pushing it by creating 2 super-geniuses in the same family to start with, and the relationship of Mycroft and Sherlock is so intensely bonded--competitive but loving at bottom--I think they grew up together, just the two of them.  Where a 'baby', baby brother would fit in, I'm not sure.  Sherlock has all the hallmarks of the youngest of the family and I'm content to leave him in that position.

I would, however, support a third sibling who was a boy rather than a psychotic little girl called 'East Wind'.  

As an aside, watching TV this morning I heard all about the plans for the 'Harry & MeghanWeddingPalooza" coverage planned by at least one of the major American TV networks, but I'm sure they will all be there.  Of course, Harry's wedding won't be televised like William's; the international press will be lurking outside though . . all bloody day, which for us over here will start at approximately 4AM.    I'll apologize in advance if this will be profoundly annoying, but we haven't had an American actress marry into royalty since Grace Kelly married Prince Rainier in 1953.  To say that we are excited is an understatement.    I'm glad for Harry.  Fingers crossed that this marriage doesn't go the way of his dad's and his Uncle Andrew's.  Meghan is no Duchess Kate, so I hope your nation will forgive any faux pas she will make.  There will be many.  She will be hugging the Queen in no time, if she hasn't already. 

Hi Hikari,

Ive just sent David a post via his papersofsherlockholmes email. I mentioned you of course👍

There might even be more excitement in The States than there is here. It seems that the wedding will be a much smaller affair that of William and Kate? I’m sure that Meghan will be a success. She’s already very popular even though she’s removed Harry’s ‘eligible batchelor’ tag. It would be great if she high-fived her Maj.

[HerlockSholmes]

By the way Hikari I’m just about to begin I,Ripper.

[Hikari]

2 hours ago, HerlockSholmes said:

Hi Hikari,

Ive just sent David a post via his papersofsherlockholmes email. I mentioned you of course👍

There might even be more excitement in The States than there is here. It seems that the wedding will be a much smaller affair that of William and Kate? I’m sure that Meghan will be a success. She’s already very popular even though she’s removed Harry’s ‘eligible batchelor’ tag. It would be great if she high-fived her Maj.

You're asking me if Harry's wedding will be a smaller affair?  You're on the ground there; what's the word on the street?

I assume (always dangerous) that owing to Harry not being the future heir to the Crown, except in the event of an apocalyptic tragedy befalling William's entire family that his wedding would not be the state affair accorded to Wills and to his dad.  Not to mention his extremely unconventional choice in bride (biracial, divorced, actress--and American), and the smaller venue (relative to Westminster Abbey) which they will be in.  My memory is hazy, but I don't think Andrew's wedding to Sarah Ferguson was televised here.  We saw enough photos for it to seem like it, though.

Meghan has been baptized into the Anglican faith so I assume that upon her marriage to a prince of the Crown that she will also become a British citizen.  Harry's close enough in the line of succession to make him a top tier royal . .it would look bad if his wife had not pledged her allegiance to Britain . . otherwise Meghan might be a Trump sleeper agent, you know. 

She is fortunate that as Harry's wife, she will have more freedom from rigid protocols than Kate does . . .Kate will one day be Queen consort and so her life is much more strictly proscribed.  Meghan is going to have a great deal of adjustment to make, acclimating to British culture (and weather, tradition, history, the works).  Coming from a life of Hollywood celebrity (on a modest scale; I've never watched Suits, which was, I gather, actually filmed in Canada) to being a royal princess (in the popular mind anyway, if not in *actual* title) is a bit of a 180.  A performance background will be very useful in working photo ops and official events as a royal, though.  Catherine had the benefit of a privileged upbringing to prepare her for her future life in the Royal family--she's a commoner but her dad is a multimillionaire who could purchase for his children the same kind of public school (your sense) education and experiences the Princes would have received.  So Kate's been to all the best schools, learned deportment and horseback riding and social dancing and how to dress and how to walk and how to behave impeccably in swanky situations.  Meghan has had to earn her own wealth and didn't have a privileged childhood, so there will be a learning curve for her.  But she has a head start on *acting* like a princess until she gets the hang of all the minefields.  Actors are very quick studies.  I'm glad to hear that she is popular there.  She will be a real 21st century princess as a biracial woman--shortly to become the majority population worldwide.  I was afraid the comments about her would tend toward nasty/racist . . but so great is Harry's popularity that his bride is somewhat insulated from haters.  

Though I gather that the Office of Protocol had to inform Meghan that it is simply Not Done for royals to sign autographs when they make public appearances.   So my plea to your nation is simply: Please be kind.  She's from Hollywood--what does she know?  That's what they do there.

Harry is a great favorite here.  Both of Diana's boys are.  If you think we are flipping for Harry's nuptials, you should see the spectacle when Wills and Kate come Stateside.  The furor gets embarrassing . . !  Harry is great pals with Michelle Obama . . Wills and Kate and George met President Obama and Harry has to be content with meeting with the First Lady.  The Obamas are not invited to his wedding though.  The Trumps certainly are not invited.  That meet with Melania . . .soooo awkward.  But I bet she thinks he's as adorable as we all do.  It's just hat the Botox in her face does not really allow for a wide array of expressions.  Or any expressions.

[Carol the Dabbler]

23 hours ago, Arcadia said:

Yah, the new forum is very weird about pasting text. Several times I've pasted something in and thought it didn't work, only to realize later it had .... but as dark text on my dark background. Other times it pastes just fine, or not at all. I haven't detected a pattern yet.

The old forum did something similar at times, and in that case it seemed to depend on what site one was copying *from*.  The copied text would at first be invisible unless copied into plain-text mode, and would be followed by a link "for more info," which I would of course delete.  Odd that you're noticing it now, whereas I noticed it then -- maybe because you're working with a dark background and I'm working with a light one.

20 hours ago, HerlockSholmes said:

Adler’s third  husband was called Vukcic which loosely translates as ‘little wolf.’ And there we have the clue, though not mentioned explicitly, that Holmes and Adler’s son was Nero Wolfe.

In the Wolfe stories, the detective's oldest, best (and perhaps only real) friend is one Marko Vukcic (think I have that name right).  Sounds like according to the stories you mention, Marko is literally Nero's brother or cousin or something.  Wolfe does say they "were boys together."

18 hours ago, Hikari said:

Personally I reject the idea of a third Holmes brother.  ACD was pushing it by creating 2 super-geniuses in the same family to start with, and the relationship of Mycroft and Sherlock is so intensely bonded--competitive but loving at bottom--I think they grew up together, just the two of them.  Where a 'baby', baby brother would fit in, I'm not sure.  Sherlock has all the hallmarks of the youngest of the family and I'm content to leave him in that position.

Oh, no problems there!   As I recall, the fannish-canon third brother is actually the eldest.  His existence is not mentioned in Watson's accounts, but it's the simplest way to explain why Mycroft (as the apparent eldest son) isn't back home tending to the family estate.

[HerlockSholmes]

1 hour ago, Carol the Dabbler said:

In the Wolfe stories, the detective's oldest, best (and perhaps only real) friend is one Marko Vukcic (think I have that name right).  Sounds like according to the stories you mention, Marko is literally Nero's brother or cousin or something.  Wolfe does say they "were boys together."

I was wondering how to quote properly but that was easy😃

Ive never read any Wolfe but I’ve seen a very few of the tv show with Maury Chaykin (he was brilliant) and I’ve listened to some old radio shows. Sidney Greenstreet was Wolfe in one of them. 

‘One day I’ll get around to the books.

[Hikari]

1 hour ago, Carol the Dabbler said:

As I recall, the fannish-canon third brother is actually the eldest.  His existence is not mentioned in Watson's accounts, but it's the simplest way to explain why Mycroft (as the apparent eldest son) isn't back home tending to the family estate.

My riposte to the fannish-cannoners is to say, Cockney-style, "Mycroft Holmes, a middle child?  Don't make me larf!!"

I mean, Mycroft just oozes Eldest Brother Know It All . . to the 1000th degree.  Ordinary oldest brothers are bossy and know-it-all enough. 

The Holmeses were country squires, with an estate (called 'Mycroft' incidentally, further cementing Myc's position as eldest and heir) . .but over time they became genteel-poor and had to sell off their land holdings, effectively leaving them without a family estate which had probably been in place since William the Conqueror.

So, what does an heir without anything to inherit who has a taste for indolence and fine living but no religious inclinations to propel him into the Church, nor any inclinations whatsoever toward physical activity, which a military career would require do, after a brilliant, mold-breaking, though decidedly misanthropic academic sojourn at Oxford?  Why, politics, of course.  Or, more specifically, Her Majesty's (secret) Service.

Meanwhile, Little Brother, in typical Youngest form said "I Gotta Be Me!" and forged his own way in his invented profession of consulting detective.  Sherlock never finished university, leaving after a couple of years.  Beyond the fact that he was Bored out of his wits, having mastered the entire undergraduate chemistry syllabus via self-study by the time he was 14 . . he got sick and tired of being told, "You have big shoes to fill, young man.  Your brother was one of the most brilliant scholars in the history of this university, dating back to the year 1100."

And that is the real reason Sherlock left Oxford early.  He hates being reminded that he's not the smart one.

[Carol the Dabbler]

I assume that's another of the fannish accounts?  Most of it sounds as plausible as the version I summarized, though I will quibble with one point:

On 4/12/2018 at 4:48 PM, Hikari said:

My riposte to the fannish-cannoners is to say, Cockney-style, "Mycroft Holmes, a middle child?  Don't make me larf!!"

I mean, Mycroft just oozes Eldest Brother Know It All . . to the 1000th degree.  Ordinary oldest brothers are bossy and know-it-all enough. 

I agree with regard to the Gatiss Mycroft, but I believe that the Canon Mycroft could be read as a middle kid -- partly because he appears so briefly that it's hard to say anything really definitive about him

 

[HerlockSholmes]

13 hours ago, Carol the Dabbler said:

I assume that's another of the fannish accounts?  Most of it sounds as plausible as the version I summarized, though I will quibble with one point:

I agree with regard to the Gatiss Mycroft, but I believe that the Canon Mycroft could be read as a middle kid -- partly because he appears so briefly that it's hard to say anything really definitive about him

 

It’s one of the few (very few👍) disappointing things in the Canon that Mycroft turns up about as often as Donald Trump does at a Mexican barbecue! In the Solar Pons stories Bancroft regularly appears though.

[Hikari]

13 hours ago, Carol the Dabbler said:

I assume that's another of the fannish accounts?  Most of it sounds as plausible as the version I summarized, though I will quibble with one point:

I agree with regard to the Gatiss Mycroft, but I believe that the Canon Mycroft could be read as a middle kid -- partly because he appears so briefly that it's hard to say anything really definitive about him

 

Hmm,  odd.  I thought I posted a lengthy reply to your comment, Carol and it's disappeared.  May be user error but I was sure I hit 'Submit'.  This isn't the first time this has happened.

*****

From what I know of birth order dynamics, a subject that has always fascinated me--how birth order influences personality, thought patterns and traits through life and how it can be a predictor of one's future talents and levels of success later in life--there is no way in which Mycroft Holmes projects the traits of a middle child, even in the small snippets ACD gave us.  It's true that middle-borns very often tend to be the diplomats in the family, mediating between sides or, put another way, playing both ends against the middle--honing skills that make them excel in politics, as strategists and diplomats.  Think of that classic cinematic study in family dynamics, The Lion in Winter, in which the three sons of Henry II present textbook exemplars of the Firstborn, the Middle Child and the Youngest.  Geoff, the middle child who is blatantly not favored by either parent, nor even considered as a candidate for heir has the best brains in the family and knows how to exploit them for intrigue to benefit himself.  We could say that Mycroft exploits his brains for the benefit of the Crown rather than of himself personally--he certainly has these skills in spades.  But what he also has in spades is that unshakeable self-belief that comes from an absolute certainty in his prime position--in birth, in brains, in terms of current influence--Big Myc has the confidence of the First all over.  Most of the men who rise to the very highest echelons of government (as he has undoubtedly done, though that's a well-kept secret) have in common being a firstborn or only son.  This describes all 45 of our POTUSes to date.  Not sure if it holds for Prime Ministers of the United Kingdom, but monarchial rule certainly favors the First. 

The Firstborn is not always the best . . . history contradicts that plenty.  QEII's father was a case in point.  But Sherlock Holmes unreservedly calls his brother the better man.  I just think Big Myc exudes Eldestness . . but I might be biased toward him because I'm one, too.  As are you, I believe?

[HerlockSholmes]

“The Firstborn is not always the best . .“

As the oldest of three sons I have to disagree Hikari😃

[Carol the Dabbler]

6 hours ago, Hikari said:

Hmm,  odd.  I thought I posted a lengthy reply to your comment, Carol and it's disappeared.  May be user error but I was sure I hit 'Submit'.  This isn't the first time this has happened.

If my experience is anything to go by (maybe I'm just clumsy), merely hitting Submit is not always adequate.  I've sometimes hit Submit three or four times before it finally changed to Saving.  I think that's mostly happened on my phone, but possibly now and then on my laptop as well (where the balky touchpad may be the culprit).

6 hours ago, Hikari said:

We could say that Mycroft exploits his brains for the benefit of the Crown rather than of himself personally--he certainly has these skills in spades.  But what he also has in spades is that unshakeable self-belief that comes from an absolute certainty in his prime position--in birth, in brains, in terms of current influence--Big Myc has the confidence of the First all over.

In canon?  Guess I'll have to read those bits again.  (No quarrel where MG's Mycroft is concerned, though!)

6 hours ago, Hikari said:

...monarchial rule certainly favors the First. 

But that's not based on ability -- it's the law (or tradition, or whatever) that the eldest son (or eldest daughter if there are no sons whatsoever) gets the throne.  (I think there have been recent attempts to make that rule gender-neutral -- dunno if they've gotten anywhere with it.)

And yup, I'm also the eldest (I have two younger brothers).

[Arcadia]

As the baby of my family I feel obliged to point out that it's the youngest who's always the best, having benefitted from years of parents experimenting on the older siblings, until they find the most ideal method of child-rearing.

[Hikari]

On ‎4‎/‎14‎/‎2018 at 10:20 PM, Carol the Dabbler said:

But that's not based on ability -- it's the law (or tradition, or whatever) that the eldest son (or eldest daughter if there are no sons whatsoever) gets the throne.  (I think there have been recent attempts to make that rule gender-neutral -- dunno if they've gotten anywhere with it.)

Right--not on ability, but on an accident of birth--if one believes birth order to be accident.  That's what I meant by 'the first not always being the best'--oftentimes firstborn heirs to crowns are rife with physical and mental deformities, insanity, laziness, cowardice, etc. and have other temperamental qualities that make them unsuitable to rule.  Britain would probably look very different today QE2's Uncle Edward had not abdicated his crown for Mrs. Simpson, thereby making the way for his younger brother--a true patriot and man of courage disguised behind a speech impediment and his second-born status to become King. 

The line of succession is now gender-neutral, I understand.  This will not be tested in the generation to come, as Wills and Kate produced a boy first (to the relief of many traditionalists, I am sure.)  But if George could not ascend for some reason, Charlotte could become Queen by constitutional law.  She looks just like her Nanny, the Queen.  If Prince George has a daughter first, then the Princess Royal would become Queen.  Unless--they change their mind again . . ?

[Carol the Dabbler]

8 hours ago, Arcadia said:

As the baby of my family I feel obliged to point out that it's the youngest who's always the best, having benefitted from years of parents experimenting on the older siblings, until they find the most ideal method of child-rearing.

I assume what you meant to say was, they've become so exhausted and discouraged by their failed attempts to mold the older siblings into perfect little models of themselves that they've finally given up -- and pretty much let the baby raise him/herself.

[Arcadia]

Close enough. Either way, I'm clearly the crowning achievement of their union. 

[Hikari]

13 hours ago, Carol the Dabbler said:

I assume what you meant to say was, they've become so exhausted and discouraged by their failed attempts to mold the older siblings into perfect little models of themselves that they've finally given up -- and pretty much let the baby raise him/herself.

Or let the older kids raise him/her, you mean. 

My parents did not often exploit my status and force me to be Little Mother, but my first baby-sitting jobs, starting from age 11 on were my own sisters.  I am four years older than the next one and seven years older than the youngest, with one in the middle of them.  I am the least close to my youngest sister owing to the fact that I had left the house pretty much full-time while she was still in middle school.  Compared to the rest of us, and particularly me, this kid had a very lax enforcement of rules for her conduct.  On one memorable occasion (at least the only one I was privy to), she told my mother to (Anglo-Saxon expletive) off.

My mother has never said that word in her life.  She wouldn't say poo if her mouth was full of it.  I was utterly aghast--and more still after my mom did absolutely nothing in response.  Had I said that word, my friends, within 50 feet of either parent (out loud, anyway), I might still be alive to be writing to you all but I would at the very least be drinking my food out of a straw.  To say that there was a wide disparity in 'Acceptable' on the spectrum of my sibs and me would be an understatement.

Fat lot of good that parental hardline did me--I'm still not President of these United States! 

[Arcadia]

My siblings say all the time that I got away with murder, but I swear, it wasn't me!

[HerlockSholmes]

I’ve just added the signatures of 2 more actors that played Holmes to my collection. Geoffrey Whitehead and Tom Baker👍

[Carol the Dabbler]

Is there anything Holmes-related that you do *not* collect? 

[Sheerluck]

Tom Baker. Nice crossover there.