Since January 6th, the day which is said to be the birthday of Sherlock Holmes, has just passed; it occurred to me that I have previously commented on my fondness for the stories about him and on my membership in the Omaha Sherlockian Society, but I have never written a blog post about such things.
Now, I should probably explain that while it is quite true that I have considerable fondness for the Sherlock Holmes stories, but I am anything but the fanatic which has become the state of some people on the subject of anything related to Holmes and Watson. Those people refer to the collected “Holmesian” works as “The Canon,” or even “The Sacred Writings,” and they often claim it to be true that there is NO POSSIBLE DOUBT that that Conan Doyle guy was, in actuality, no more than a “literary agent” for Dr. John H. Watson, who is, without any conceivable doubt, the actual author of those stories. Just as “true” (at least to listen to them) is the “fact” that those stories are, in reality, the absolute TRUTH, although, on occasion, it has been necessary for Dr. Watson to, as the saying goes, “change some details to protect the innocent,” or something like that. Proper “Sherlockian Scholars” spend a good deal of time examining the information provided in the Canon, in order to reveal the “actual” details behind the stories. Such study includes: determining the exact location of various events (based on maps, railway timetables, etc.); the exact time of the events (demanding much study of the weather reports in newspapers. etc.); and studying all manner of other researchable data, to provide the required “proof” that these are NOT fictional stories made up by this Conan Doyle guy for the crass purpose of making money. It is generally accepted that, if they were “just fiction,” that would make these “sacred writings” just a form of “commercial trash” created by an author who was, therefore, some sort of lower form of life. No, it is widely accepted that Watson’s stories are, in fact, the absolute truth about the reported events, and were, in fact, written from notes taken at the time of the events, by Dr. John H. Watson, M.D., just as it is claimed within them.
Now, it does happen that sometimes (pretty often in my opinion) this “scholarship” does not seem to provide very much of what I was trained to accept, during my graduate studies, as evidence of true, scholarly merit, and much of it seems to be more along the lines of wishful thinking, suggestion, innuendo, and convenience. Of course, the fact that names, dates, places, and, occasionally, even actions, might have been changed, “for the purposes of privacy, discretion and morality,” is accepted by these “scholars” as having no bearing on the true nature of these writings, even when the researchable facts of weather, and the like clearly suggest that the established facts do not seem to correspond with the information stated in them.
(As a side note, I am reminded of many of the arguments posed in relation to the “Man from Stratford” controversy in the field of Shakespearian Studies, which, all too often seem similarly based, but that’s pretty far off the topic of this post.)
As an example of my Sherlockian point here, though: In the story called “His Last Bow,” in the collection of short stories also known by that title, it (that is Watson) says that Holmes was about 60 in 1914, when this story is set. Okay, that would suggest that he must have been born about 1854. But what’s the basis for Sherlock’s birthday being January 6?
As best I can determine from the information I have found, that notion appears to have come, pretty exclusively, from the statement of Christopher Morley, one of the founders of The Baker Street Irregulars (the first known and, probably, the biggest Holmes fan group).
It is said that in one of the early meetings, that Morley apparently just announced that Sherlock must have been born on the 12th day of Christmas (Jan. 6) because the Shakespeare play, Twelfth Night, is referenced twice in “The Canon.” And, as Edith Ann used to say, “That’s the truth,” so ,we should just accept it as valid. Now, I suppose that January 6 is as good a date as any, but I doubt that a Doctoral Dissertation Committee from any accredited university would accept that statement as being very strong evidence in support of that notion. In any case, most Sherlockians do tend to accept that date, and I suppose that it HAS as much validity as any other. And (not being a “fanatic”) what REAL difference does it make?
Much of the time, this sort of “Sherlockian scholarship” is referred to as “The Great Game.” I take this to imply that there are at least some people who are perfectly aware that this so-called scholarship is all in fun and that it has no real, scientifically-provable basis. There are people, however, who seem, at least to me, to take the “game” a bit too seriously for anyone’s good.
For me, this sort of thing seems all too much like a pleasant, if somewhat silly, activity which can be amusing, but really shouldn’t be taken very seriously. There do seem to be folks, however, who appear to have gone a bit over the top into some sort of Sherlockian-related obsession. It has recently come to my attention that some of those people have even gone so far as to insist that Holmes and Watson were actually involved in some sort of romantic (“non-straight”) relationship.
Now, I accept as a fact that these are fictional characters invented by an author who was raised and educated in Roman Catholic schools, was married (twice), and had several children. Given the time frame involved, while homosexuality did, certainly, exist and was known of (if not discussed in “polite society), it still seems unlikely that such a relationship would have been intended to be made a significant characteristic of such an author’s creative efforts. Nonetheless, this notion has been suggested, and it has even been the object of some “scholarship.” When I encountered this assertion, not long ago, I took a brief look at a small sample of the “evidence” and discussion cited and I would like to, briefly, offer my comments on what I found (VERY quickly and with no real attempt to be what I would call scholarly).
In his article, The Adventure of the Candlelit Dinner, Harrison Kitteridge says, “I was of course aware that queer reading of Arthur Conan Doyle’s stories sprang up almost immediately, and could see clearly the subtext of the ‘confirmed bachelor’ who had an ‘aversion to women’ in Holmes.” This notion struck me as plausible, if unconvincing, but perhaps because of my background in the theatre, I was immediately reminded of the character Henry Higgins in Shaw’s play, Pygmalion, who says that HE is “a confirmed old bachelor, and likely to remain so.” This statement is also used in My Fair Lady, the musical adaptation of Shaw’s play. The implication clearly seems to be that Higgins (and therefore Sherlock) MUST be queer because of their status as “confirmed bachelors.” This struck me as pretty questionable, at best.
At the initial meeting of Higgins and Pickering, Pickering says that he has just come from India to meet Higgins, a fellow student of language(s). On the same occasion, Higgins says that he was about to go to India to meet Pickering. (Note: In the play, Pickering says that he was residing at the Carlton Hotel, and Higgins immediately proposes that Pickering come to see him at his town house to discuss their common interests, while in the musical, Higgins promptly invites Pickering to stay with him at 27-A Wimpole Street [an ACTUAL address], which certainly sounds like it was intended to represent the address of Higgins’ town house.) Now, one could easily suggest that Higgins’ town house was a place, not completely unlike 221b Baker St., except that 221b is clearly said to be “rooms,” with a resident landlady and staff, where living space and board is provided, for a bachelor or (as in the stories) usually two. This isn’t the same as in Higgins’ case, where he is represented as having an established “town house,” which would have been quite common for a member of the gentrified class (even a bachelor) at the time.
It may be worth noting that I have been unable to find any specific reference that Pickering ever actually LIVES with Higgins in the play while, in the musical, he, apparently, promptly moves in to stay with Higgins (which, at least in the musical, clearly appears to be a self-contained residence.) In any event, it is true that Pickering is around a good deal while the “experiment” with Eliza is underway, in both cases.
Still, while Pickering DOES agree to stay with Higgins (in the musical), given that it is mere minutes (possibly seconds) after they have met by chance under the portico of St. Paul’s Church near Covent Garden Theatre because it’s raining, it strikes me as unlikely that this can be construed as clearly having some sort of “romantic” basis, unless one accepts the “love at first sight” scenario, which seems improbable in this case, at least to me. I WILL accept that one COULD argue that such a relationship COULD develop but, as Shaw was consulted regarding the idea of having Eliza return to Higgins at the end of My Fair Lady, and approved of it (or at least allowed it), certainly suggests that Shaw did not intend to suggest a queer relationship here, at least obviously.
There even seem to be some who would suggest that the fact that Holmes and Watson both, on occasion, refer to the other as “My Dear,” as in “My Dear Watson” suggests something of a romantic relationship. To this notion, I say “Hogwash!” Anyone who has ever actually had an apartment-mate, let alone a roommate, understands that something of a rather intimate relationship is quickly formed, derived simply from the close living conditions. To suggest that “romantic relations” are, necessarily, implied strikes me as ridiculous. It is also a fact that it was quite common, during the period involved, to refer to friends with more intimate terms than are most commonly used today. It might also be noted that the rise of email and mass (usually advertising) mailings in more recent times seems to have had something of a devastating effect on the sending of written letters. I know from my own experience that this, apparently now archaic, form quite commonly used the salutation of “My Dear Sir,” (or Madam), in most impersonal correspondence, while “Dear Mr.” (or Miss) and the recipient’s name (often just the last name) was pretty standard practice in letters of a somewhat more personal, but not necessarily intimate, nature. It IS also true that personal correspondence was often begun with “Dear (first name),”. The use of the term, “Dear” should, I believe, seem quite less than intimate to anyone familiar with the habit of the time and a good deal later, as well.
While I claim no great expertise, my slight knowledge from Downton Abbey and some casual study of the owners of the Biltmore Estate, and reading about the life style of people of some means during the period under consideration (late 1800’s to early 1900’s), including “the Canon,” suggests that members of the gentry (gentle-persons), commonly lived a life of reasonable luxury and pleasure, pursuing pretty much whatever interests they wished. Especially since, much of the time, they were supported by their “estates,” so they didn’t commonly have employment in business.
Thus their activities might include simply hanging about in their clubs, gambling in casinos, traveling, engaging in archeological activities (excavating King Tut’s tomb, for example), pursuing a wide variety of “academic” interests which might well include raising horses to race, the study of languages (or of crime and criminals), etc. And, in fact, lengthy “visits” to friends’ town homes, and/or “country estates were quite commonplace among this class, even among the “gentry” in the United States. For example, The Biltmore Estate (with which I have some personal familiarity) was the “country place” of George Washington Vanderbilt II, one of the members of the Vanderbilt family, and was opened in 1895, the period of concern here. It had 35 bedrooms for “family and guests,” although George and his wife only had one child, which suggests to me that visitors were expected to come, and to stay for a while, as rooms were also available for the guests’ servants (in the servant's quarters, of course)!
It is also an established fact that, at this time, among the monied class in Britain (and in the US, for all that) having guests make lengthy visits to one’s “Country House” (Highclere Castle, for example) or, for more rural-living folks, to spend “the season” visiting a friend, or relative at their “Town House” was really not all that uncommon. Higgins can’t be especially poverty-stricken when he has a fully-staffed town home (Mrs. Pearce, et al.) and his mother has her own place (which appears in the play, musical, and movie). There’s also the fact that Higgins can get tickets to the opening day at Ascot in the musical; (although similar events to, those are portrayed in the musical as happening during one of Henry’s mother’s “at homes” in the play) AND they go to an undefined ball in the play (offstage) which becomes an onstage reception for the Transylvanian royal family, in the musical and movie.
Considering these facts, I see no clear implication of “queerness” in having members of such a class (even relatively poor members of it) choosing to “room” together. (NOTE: It IS clearly established prior to their first meeting that neither Sherlock, nor Watson, are particularly wealthy, since they are BOTH seeking rooms at a reasonable price to share, but they do seem to be educated and, while perhaps minor members, would be considered to be “gentry.”) It seems to me that, generally speaking, however, the life of the “gentry” was a good deal like what would today be called a “vacation,” and (in the case of Higgins and Pickering) they have a common interest (and develop a major experiment/project together). It seems quite reasonable that they might choose to live together, if only to participate in this “study.” We, the audience/reader, have no way of knowing if Pickering contributed something for his “room and board” for at least some of the “experiment’s” time frame, because Shaw didn’t choose to tell us anything about such matters, after the initial meeting. I’d guess that he didn’t think it was of any importance to advancing the plot, so it was irrelevant. The play, after all, as well as the musical, isn’t about Pickering and Higgins, it’s mostly about Eliza, with them present as a necessity of the story!
Somehow, if one understands the behavior of the social class involved during the period, the assumption that Higgins and Pickering MUST be gay seems at least misplaced, if not downright presumptuous. I would suggest that the same is true of Sherlock and Watson.
I also remember running across a reference during my “research,” implying that Jack and Algernon, the leading, male, characters in Wilde’s The Importance of Being Earnest seem to be such good friends that they must be gay, as well, especially since their author, Oscar Wilde, was widely believed to be homo, or, possibly bi-sexual. Again, drawing on my theatre background, I found this interesting, since the entire play about them is focused on their machinations in order to become married to the women of their choice, as anyone who has actually read the play could tell you. There is, once again, the implication that two males are incapable of being really good friends unless there is a sexual component to their relationship; a notion I have not seen advanced between two females as often, but I suspect probably shows up at times. I find this insistence that ALL human relationships can be correctly assumed to be primarily sexual, to be quite discouraging, if not appalling!
I refuse to pursue this any further. If people wish to believe that Holmes and Watson were gay, I really couldn’t care less. However, it will take considerably more in the way of actual evidence than I have yet encountered to suggest the “truth” of that assertion. I’m willing to accept that Sherlock was “born” on January 6 because “Why not?” I don’t accept the reasoning behind this choice as having any sort of real validity, but one date IS as good as another, when one is dealing with a fictional creation.
The local Sherlockian study group I belong to is known as the O.S.S. This is an image of our lapel pin badge:
Now, I should probably explain that while it is quite true that I have considerable fondness for the Sherlock Holmes stories, but I am anything but the fanatic which has become the state of some people on the subject of anything related to Holmes and Watson. Those people refer to the collected “Holmesian” works as “The Canon,” or even “The Sacred Writings,” and they often claim it to be true that there is NO POSSIBLE DOUBT that that Conan Doyle guy was, in actuality, no more than a “literary agent” for Dr. John H. Watson, who is, without any conceivable doubt, the actual author of those stories. Just as “true” (at least to listen to them) is the “fact” that those stories are, in reality, the absolute TRUTH, although, on occasion, it has been necessary for Dr. Watson to, as the saying goes, “change some details to protect the innocent,” or something like that. Proper “Sherlockian Scholars” spend a good deal of time examining the information provided in the Canon, in order to reveal the “actual” details behind the stories. Such study includes: determining the exact location of various events (based on maps, railway timetables, etc.); the exact time of the events (demanding much study of the weather reports in newspapers. etc.); and studying all manner of other researchable data, to provide the required “proof” that these are NOT fictional stories made up by this Conan Doyle guy for the crass purpose of making money. It is generally accepted that, if they were “just fiction,” that would make these “sacred writings” just a form of “commercial trash” created by an author who was, therefore, some sort of lower form of life. No, it is widely accepted that Watson’s stories are, in fact, the absolute truth about the reported events, and were, in fact, written from notes taken at the time of the events, by Dr. John H. Watson, M.D., just as it is claimed within them.
Now, it does happen that sometimes (pretty often in my opinion) this “scholarship” does not seem to provide very much of what I was trained to accept, during my graduate studies, as evidence of true, scholarly merit, and much of it seems to be more along the lines of wishful thinking, suggestion, innuendo, and convenience. Of course, the fact that names, dates, places, and, occasionally, even actions, might have been changed, “for the purposes of privacy, discretion and morality,” is accepted by these “scholars” as having no bearing on the true nature of these writings, even when the researchable facts of weather, and the like clearly suggest that the established facts do not seem to correspond with the information stated in them.
(As a side note, I am reminded of many of the arguments posed in relation to the “Man from Stratford” controversy in the field of Shakespearian Studies, which, all too often seem similarly based, but that’s pretty far off the topic of this post.)
As an example of my Sherlockian point here, though: In the story called “His Last Bow,” in the collection of short stories also known by that title, it (that is Watson) says that Holmes was about 60 in 1914, when this story is set. Okay, that would suggest that he must have been born about 1854. But what’s the basis for Sherlock’s birthday being January 6?
As best I can determine from the information I have found, that notion appears to have come, pretty exclusively, from the statement of Christopher Morley, one of the founders of The Baker Street Irregulars (the first known and, probably, the biggest Holmes fan group).
It is said that in one of the early meetings, that Morley apparently just announced that Sherlock must have been born on the 12th day of Christmas (Jan. 6) because the Shakespeare play, Twelfth Night, is referenced twice in “The Canon.” And, as Edith Ann used to say, “That’s the truth,” so ,we should just accept it as valid. Now, I suppose that January 6 is as good a date as any, but I doubt that a Doctoral Dissertation Committee from any accredited university would accept that statement as being very strong evidence in support of that notion. In any case, most Sherlockians do tend to accept that date, and I suppose that it HAS as much validity as any other. And (not being a “fanatic”) what REAL difference does it make?
Much of the time, this sort of “Sherlockian scholarship” is referred to as “The Great Game.” I take this to imply that there are at least some people who are perfectly aware that this so-called scholarship is all in fun and that it has no real, scientifically-provable basis. There are people, however, who seem, at least to me, to take the “game” a bit too seriously for anyone’s good.
For me, this sort of thing seems all too much like a pleasant, if somewhat silly, activity which can be amusing, but really shouldn’t be taken very seriously. There do seem to be folks, however, who appear to have gone a bit over the top into some sort of Sherlockian-related obsession. It has recently come to my attention that some of those people have even gone so far as to insist that Holmes and Watson were actually involved in some sort of romantic (“non-straight”) relationship.
Now, I accept as a fact that these are fictional characters invented by an author who was raised and educated in Roman Catholic schools, was married (twice), and had several children. Given the time frame involved, while homosexuality did, certainly, exist and was known of (if not discussed in “polite society), it still seems unlikely that such a relationship would have been intended to be made a significant characteristic of such an author’s creative efforts. Nonetheless, this notion has been suggested, and it has even been the object of some “scholarship.” When I encountered this assertion, not long ago, I took a brief look at a small sample of the “evidence” and discussion cited and I would like to, briefly, offer my comments on what I found (VERY quickly and with no real attempt to be what I would call scholarly).
In his article, The Adventure of the Candlelit Dinner, Harrison Kitteridge says, “I was of course aware that queer reading of Arthur Conan Doyle’s stories sprang up almost immediately, and could see clearly the subtext of the ‘confirmed bachelor’ who had an ‘aversion to women’ in Holmes.” This notion struck me as plausible, if unconvincing, but perhaps because of my background in the theatre, I was immediately reminded of the character Henry Higgins in Shaw’s play, Pygmalion, who says that HE is “a confirmed old bachelor, and likely to remain so.” This statement is also used in My Fair Lady, the musical adaptation of Shaw’s play. The implication clearly seems to be that Higgins (and therefore Sherlock) MUST be queer because of their status as “confirmed bachelors.” This struck me as pretty questionable, at best.
At the initial meeting of Higgins and Pickering, Pickering says that he has just come from India to meet Higgins, a fellow student of language(s). On the same occasion, Higgins says that he was about to go to India to meet Pickering. (Note: In the play, Pickering says that he was residing at the Carlton Hotel, and Higgins immediately proposes that Pickering come to see him at his town house to discuss their common interests, while in the musical, Higgins promptly invites Pickering to stay with him at 27-A Wimpole Street [an ACTUAL address], which certainly sounds like it was intended to represent the address of Higgins’ town house.) Now, one could easily suggest that Higgins’ town house was a place, not completely unlike 221b Baker St., except that 221b is clearly said to be “rooms,” with a resident landlady and staff, where living space and board is provided, for a bachelor or (as in the stories) usually two. This isn’t the same as in Higgins’ case, where he is represented as having an established “town house,” which would have been quite common for a member of the gentrified class (even a bachelor) at the time.
It may be worth noting that I have been unable to find any specific reference that Pickering ever actually LIVES with Higgins in the play while, in the musical, he, apparently, promptly moves in to stay with Higgins (which, at least in the musical, clearly appears to be a self-contained residence.) In any event, it is true that Pickering is around a good deal while the “experiment” with Eliza is underway, in both cases.
Still, while Pickering DOES agree to stay with Higgins (in the musical), given that it is mere minutes (possibly seconds) after they have met by chance under the portico of St. Paul’s Church near Covent Garden Theatre because it’s raining, it strikes me as unlikely that this can be construed as clearly having some sort of “romantic” basis, unless one accepts the “love at first sight” scenario, which seems improbable in this case, at least to me. I WILL accept that one COULD argue that such a relationship COULD develop but, as Shaw was consulted regarding the idea of having Eliza return to Higgins at the end of My Fair Lady, and approved of it (or at least allowed it), certainly suggests that Shaw did not intend to suggest a queer relationship here, at least obviously.
There even seem to be some who would suggest that the fact that Holmes and Watson both, on occasion, refer to the other as “My Dear,” as in “My Dear Watson” suggests something of a romantic relationship. To this notion, I say “Hogwash!” Anyone who has ever actually had an apartment-mate, let alone a roommate, understands that something of a rather intimate relationship is quickly formed, derived simply from the close living conditions. To suggest that “romantic relations” are, necessarily, implied strikes me as ridiculous. It is also a fact that it was quite common, during the period involved, to refer to friends with more intimate terms than are most commonly used today. It might also be noted that the rise of email and mass (usually advertising) mailings in more recent times seems to have had something of a devastating effect on the sending of written letters. I know from my own experience that this, apparently now archaic, form quite commonly used the salutation of “My Dear Sir,” (or Madam), in most impersonal correspondence, while “Dear Mr.” (or Miss) and the recipient’s name (often just the last name) was pretty standard practice in letters of a somewhat more personal, but not necessarily intimate, nature. It IS also true that personal correspondence was often begun with “Dear (first name),”. The use of the term, “Dear” should, I believe, seem quite less than intimate to anyone familiar with the habit of the time and a good deal later, as well.
While I claim no great expertise, my slight knowledge from Downton Abbey and some casual study of the owners of the Biltmore Estate, and reading about the life style of people of some means during the period under consideration (late 1800’s to early 1900’s), including “the Canon,” suggests that members of the gentry (gentle-persons), commonly lived a life of reasonable luxury and pleasure, pursuing pretty much whatever interests they wished. Especially since, much of the time, they were supported by their “estates,” so they didn’t commonly have employment in business.
Thus their activities might include simply hanging about in their clubs, gambling in casinos, traveling, engaging in archeological activities (excavating King Tut’s tomb, for example), pursuing a wide variety of “academic” interests which might well include raising horses to race, the study of languages (or of crime and criminals), etc. And, in fact, lengthy “visits” to friends’ town homes, and/or “country estates were quite commonplace among this class, even among the “gentry” in the United States. For example, The Biltmore Estate (with which I have some personal familiarity) was the “country place” of George Washington Vanderbilt II, one of the members of the Vanderbilt family, and was opened in 1895, the period of concern here. It had 35 bedrooms for “family and guests,” although George and his wife only had one child, which suggests to me that visitors were expected to come, and to stay for a while, as rooms were also available for the guests’ servants (in the servant's quarters, of course)!
It is also an established fact that, at this time, among the monied class in Britain (and in the US, for all that) having guests make lengthy visits to one’s “Country House” (Highclere Castle, for example) or, for more rural-living folks, to spend “the season” visiting a friend, or relative at their “Town House” was really not all that uncommon. Higgins can’t be especially poverty-stricken when he has a fully-staffed town home (Mrs. Pearce, et al.) and his mother has her own place (which appears in the play, musical, and movie). There’s also the fact that Higgins can get tickets to the opening day at Ascot in the musical; (although similar events to, those are portrayed in the musical as happening during one of Henry’s mother’s “at homes” in the play) AND they go to an undefined ball in the play (offstage) which becomes an onstage reception for the Transylvanian royal family, in the musical and movie.
Considering these facts, I see no clear implication of “queerness” in having members of such a class (even relatively poor members of it) choosing to “room” together. (NOTE: It IS clearly established prior to their first meeting that neither Sherlock, nor Watson, are particularly wealthy, since they are BOTH seeking rooms at a reasonable price to share, but they do seem to be educated and, while perhaps minor members, would be considered to be “gentry.”) It seems to me that, generally speaking, however, the life of the “gentry” was a good deal like what would today be called a “vacation,” and (in the case of Higgins and Pickering) they have a common interest (and develop a major experiment/project together). It seems quite reasonable that they might choose to live together, if only to participate in this “study.” We, the audience/reader, have no way of knowing if Pickering contributed something for his “room and board” for at least some of the “experiment’s” time frame, because Shaw didn’t choose to tell us anything about such matters, after the initial meeting. I’d guess that he didn’t think it was of any importance to advancing the plot, so it was irrelevant. The play, after all, as well as the musical, isn’t about Pickering and Higgins, it’s mostly about Eliza, with them present as a necessity of the story!
Somehow, if one understands the behavior of the social class involved during the period, the assumption that Higgins and Pickering MUST be gay seems at least misplaced, if not downright presumptuous. I would suggest that the same is true of Sherlock and Watson.
I also remember running across a reference during my “research,” implying that Jack and Algernon, the leading, male, characters in Wilde’s The Importance of Being Earnest seem to be such good friends that they must be gay, as well, especially since their author, Oscar Wilde, was widely believed to be homo, or, possibly bi-sexual. Again, drawing on my theatre background, I found this interesting, since the entire play about them is focused on their machinations in order to become married to the women of their choice, as anyone who has actually read the play could tell you. There is, once again, the implication that two males are incapable of being really good friends unless there is a sexual component to their relationship; a notion I have not seen advanced between two females as often, but I suspect probably shows up at times. I find this insistence that ALL human relationships can be correctly assumed to be primarily sexual, to be quite discouraging, if not appalling!
I refuse to pursue this any further. If people wish to believe that Holmes and Watson were gay, I really couldn’t care less. However, it will take considerably more in the way of actual evidence than I have yet encountered to suggest the “truth” of that assertion. I’m willing to accept that Sherlock was “born” on January 6 because “Why not?” I don’t accept the reasoning behind this choice as having any sort of real validity, but one date IS as good as another, when one is dealing with a fictional creation.
The local Sherlockian study group I belong to is known as the O.S.S. This is an image of our lapel pin badge:
The badge, itself, was designed by one of our members, and is patterned after the emblem of the Office of Strategic Services, the U.S. Intelligence service during WWII. The adopted name of the group is on the bottom, identifying our location, and the words at the top are in Latin, and translate to something like “Because of the Game,” which suggests that at least some of us recognize that this form of “fandom” IS a game, and not to be taken too seriously. I hope that the reason for the inclusion of the “magnifying glass” is obvious. I suppose that I should also point out that this group has been accepted as a “scion” society of The Baker Street Irregulars, which is considered to be something of an honor.
I will confess that when Maggi and I visited London in 2009, one of the places I wished to see was the Sherlock Holmes Museum, which is located at what is NOW 221b Baker Street, which was said to be Sherlock and Watson’s address. In fact, that address didn’t actually exist at the time of the stories’ writing, because Baker Street didn’t have numbers that high at the time. That’s not conjecture, it’s FACT! The street map has since been modified, so that one can, today, see recreations of the famous rooms, etc., at that address, and buy souvenirs at the gift shop next door (which I did!). This (fictional, but real, if that makes sense) location is now marked by a nice sign, which I bought an image of and which is reproduced below.
I will confess that when Maggi and I visited London in 2009, one of the places I wished to see was the Sherlock Holmes Museum, which is located at what is NOW 221b Baker Street, which was said to be Sherlock and Watson’s address. In fact, that address didn’t actually exist at the time of the stories’ writing, because Baker Street didn’t have numbers that high at the time. That’s not conjecture, it’s FACT! The street map has since been modified, so that one can, today, see recreations of the famous rooms, etc., at that address, and buy souvenirs at the gift shop next door (which I did!). This (fictional, but real, if that makes sense) location is now marked by a nice sign, which I bought an image of and which is reproduced below.
Such a sign, of course, would NEVER have existed during the time the stories were being written, as Sherlock never was known to engage in advertising his services. (A gentleman simply wouldn’t DO such a thing!) It was fun, however, to see the sign in front of the Sherlock Holmes Museum, which is located at the proper address on today’s Baker Street, and which I enjoyed a good deal.
In any case, while I am too trained in actual scholarship, to view much of what has been (and probably will be) written as acceptable scholarship, I do believe that “The Great Game” can be fun, and certainly is less harmful than a good many other things people do to pass the time. There MANY worse things to do than to wonder if the picture shown below might be similar to the “battered tin dispatch box” which Watson refers to in a number of his stories as holding his diaries in a bank vault.
In any case, while I am too trained in actual scholarship, to view much of what has been (and probably will be) written as acceptable scholarship, I do believe that “The Great Game” can be fun, and certainly is less harmful than a good many other things people do to pass the time. There MANY worse things to do than to wonder if the picture shown below might be similar to the “battered tin dispatch box” which Watson refers to in a number of his stories as holding his diaries in a bank vault.
Oh, the things we do to prevent boredom and to find excuses for social gatherings. We humans ARE a funny lot, aren’t we?
I’ll be back in a couple of weeks, if I can keep coming up with stuff to write about (which I probably can) as I enjoy believing that there may be some people who might find what I have to say is of some interest. Who knows? I might even be right!
🖖🏼 LLAP,
Dr. B
I’ll be back in a couple of weeks, if I can keep coming up with stuff to write about (which I probably can) as I enjoy believing that there may be some people who might find what I have to say is of some interest. Who knows? I might even be right!
🖖🏼 LLAP,
Dr. B
RSS Feed