All Categories

303 A St. Patrick’s Day Blog Post for 2025

3/17/2025

I suppose that if one were to go looking for further proof that “Mondays Is a Hard Time” (See my last post for explanation.), I see that St. Patrick’s Day, the day on which we of Irish descent (and a LOT of those who aren’t) honor St. Patrick, the primary patron saint of Ireland, falls on a Monday this year and just PRIOR to the first day of my usual blog post “rotation,” which is every 2 weeks on Wednesday, Thursday, or Friday. So, even though it screws up my routine, it still seems appropriate for this man of some Irish decent to create a post for this day. I do have Irish ancestors on at least one side of my family tree (probably both) and I do like to recognize that by making some sort of appropriate commentary about St. Patrick’s Day each year to: 1.) acknowledge those roots and 2.) support any Irish traditions which might be appropriate for members of my family.

To be completely honest, probably MY favorite part of being Irish (other than being quite fond of Irish folk songs) is having “fish and chips” (which are actually English in origin, but ARE quite popular in Ireland) with a Guinness at a local Omaha pub known as “The Brazen Head” whenever the opportunity arises. See their logo below:

Now, according to their discussion of the history of this name, the original Brazen Head is a pub in Merchant's Quay, Dublin, built as a coaching inn in 1754, on the site of a merchant's dwelling dating back to at least 1613. It received a license to sell ale in 1661, and the first mention of it as an inn was in 1668. I, obviously, make occasional visits to its namesake in Omaha (where Bonnie is quite fond of their Ruben, as I also am), although I most commonly get fish and chips or a Boxty (which is a sort of potato pancake folded around various sorts of meat, cheese, and vegetable fillings, sort of like an omelet). I will admit, however, that I like just about everything on their menu, especially with a Guinness (which now makes a non-alcoholic version, which I also like). Other than its taste, which I DO enjoy, however, even regular Guinness Draught IS actually relatively low in alcohol as it clocks in at just 4.2% ABV, which is fairly low. That does NOT mean that I drink a lot of it, but I DO like it on occasion and I feel less guilty about having a glass of it than I might with other drinks.

Anyway, the local Brazen Head features a bar and other wooden decor hand-crafted in Ireland and shipped here for assembly, so it’s quite pleasant and ”feels "authentic, with a “neighborly,” atmosphere which makes me think of it as being like a true Irish “local,” which it probably isn’t in reality, but what do I know? Anyway, while I do generally avoid the St Paddy’s Day crowds, I do like to go to there fairly often, where I took this picture of a Guinness St. Patrick’s Day sign last year. I like “the black stuff,” so I include the sign below.

To me (not being especially religious), St. Paddy’s Day is a day about friendship and good times, so it seems an appropriate time to include this print of an old Irish proverb, as well.

I think that’s the true message of the day, and the idea that it should only apply to those of us with Irish roots, seems silly to me. The fact of the matter is that --

How can I say that? Well, it’s not just the cliché most people seem to think it is. After all, even Garfield seems to want to claim some Irish heritage on “the day” See below --

And, if THAT doesn’t convince you, consider this --

Well, setting Pepe to the side, on St. Patrick’s Day, the most appropriate thought may be --

I guess what I’m really trying to suggest is that St. Pat’s Day is, in the long run, a day to ignore our differences and treat everyone like we would a friend, so the image below may serve as a good summation of my thinking. It’s how I think about my friends, and I hope that, like me, you’re lucky enough to have family and friends to celebrate St. Patrick’s Day with, as well.

I plan to be back on my usual schedule in a couple of weeks with another of these posts. I hope that you’ll drop into my website along about then to see what I come up with to talk/write/think about then.

🖖🏼 LLAP,

Dr. B

0 Comments

302 Mondays is STILL a Hard Time!

3/5/2025

0 Comments

A while ago (August 2022, I think it was) I did a post which explained this title, so I won’t repeat that entire explanation. Suffice it to say that Monday seems to have the reputation of being “more difficult” than the other days of the week, and that Jim Davis is a frequent noter of that phenomenon in his cartoons about Garfield, the cat.

So, the first question, I suppose, should be “What”s wrong with Mondays?” To that I have to respond that, “I don’t really know!” It’s the day after the weekend, for what that’s worth. That means that it starts the “Work Week,” but, somehow, even when you’re retired (and, therefore, not actively working) there’s still just something hard about Monday, especially Monday morning. Even Ziggy understands:

It just seems as though it’s just a bit harder to get out of bed, on Mondays most of the time. Or, as Garfield put it --

Now Jon, Garfield’s “person,” seems to think that Mondays are “just another day.” He IS incorrect, of course, which is probably the point. In the strip below, we see Garfield, probably futilely, trying to get Jon to become aware of the true reality of Mondays, with, apparently, rather little effect. Of course that MIGHT be explained by the fact that ALL cats, Garfield being a better example than most, are smarter than their so-called “Masters,” as they usually get pampered for just doing whatever they please. That seems like a pretty good deal to me, but (not being a cat) I can’t make use of it. But, see below --

On the other hand, cats are NOT stupid. They are well aware that being pampered, even on Monday, probably requires actually getting up and acknowledging the existence of whoever wants to think of him/herself as being its “master/mistress.” I’ve never actually seen a cat take to drinking coffee, but Garfield IS frequently pictured as seeking such, and (based on my own morning desires, which tend to be especially strong on Mondays), the strip below does seem particularly appropriate for ANYONE/THING on that, particular day.

Unfortunately (at least in MY book!), NOT ALL COFFEE IS CREATED EQUAL! Yes, while I do support the idea of DEI, (although apparently unlike the current Administration) I do NOT support ignoring actual qualifications; like understanding what the job is, how it should/needs to be done, and considering how changing things might actually be a BAD idea, before just “diving in” and blindly firing people and terminating programs to “save money” which you are, legally required to spend on those programs. They WERE created through LAWS, after all, and the EXECUTIVE BRANCH is sworn to execute, not empowered to MAKE (or just ignore), such.

Still, there are SOME Mondays where even coffee doesn’t SOLVE the problems of the day, but seem to just contribute to it. I confess that I tend to strongly agree with Garfield on this point. Coffee, CAN be terrible. Not too often, thank goodness, but it CAN happen. When it happens on a Monday, it’s REALLY a disaster.

This suggests to me the idea that since it seems to have become quite popular (in some circles) for the U.S. (or at least the various states) to just revise the time standard to allow: choosing to use STANDARD (Greenwich-based) time year-round; switch to full-time “DAYLIGHT SAVING TIME;” or (possibly) continue to change times as we have been doing since 1918, when Daylight Saving Time was introduced as an energy conservation effort for WWI. (Apparently it had NOTHING to do with farmers and the harvest, etc, no matter what the mythology says.) In any event, if we should be able to alter the time standard for our convenience, why not just abolish Mondays, while we’re at it? As Garfield suggests, it shouldn’t be all that hard, we do it with other stuff. Why not just RETURN IT?

Or, if that seems to be too radical an approach, why don’t we take advantage of modern technology and let our “devices” just handle it for us. It really shouldn’t be too hard a program to write, should it? Garfield has even done the work of figuring out a simple way to accomplish this.

I’ll bet that the guys at APPLE® could figure out how to install this as a “feature” in their next OS. Then the other guys could copy it.

That might not suit everyone, however. I’ve heard it suggested that a truly significant percentage of US Federal government programs, as well as a huge number of state government and business programs, rely on programming which was (AND STILL IS) written in the COBOL computer language in the 1960s. This is (apparently), partly because it would be difficult and expensive to rewrite ALL THIS STUFF, and, partly, because the current system still actually works pretty well, as long as you handle the language it was written in properly. There’s also the fact that many of the machines RUNNING those programs (in businesses as well as the US government) have not been replaced and (with appropriate maintenance) continue to do their jobs quite satisfactorily.

Now, according to information from The Poynter Institute (which agrees with other sources I have encountered):
1.) Government databases may code someone as 150 years old for reasons peculiar to the large and complex Social Security database.;
2.) Improper payments are a longstanding concern for the Social Security agency, though they represent a small share of all payments (Reported as less than 1%.);
3.) All those “150 year old” Social Security recipients are listed as such because, when the exact date of their birth wasn’t known.
(NOTE: I suspect that even the government knows that people don’t live for 150 years, but I could be wrong, I suppose.)

My understanding, which could well be incorrect, is that the use of May 20, 1874 MIGHT have been used as a “default date” for the version of COBOL, which the SS database is written in. This IS disputed, and I’m in no better position to evaluate this (seemingly plausible) possibility, than I am to argue about the notion that “42” is the the answer to the ultimate question of life, the universe and everything, because (according to some people) Douglas Adams had enough early exposure to programming languages that he MIGHT have been inspired by the fact that, in the ASCII (computer) Language, 42 is an * or “Wildcard." Thus, the possibility exists that when Adams had the “greatest computer ever built” asked what the meaning of life, the universe and everything is, it literally stated (in ITS language) that “Life is what you make it.”

Since it seems unlikely that the “DOGE” guys (let alone their “leaders”) have much background in COBOL (it’s not popular these days, except in “legacy” systems), it seems perfectly reasonable that incorrect conclusions based on inadequate knowledge are likely to have occurred. And THAT wasn’t even on a MONDAY!

I’m with Garfield, in relation to MOST Mondays, however, except that “Antiques Roadshow” (both the British original AND the US version) are usually on PBS that evening around here. It remains true that Mondays are usually NOT my favorite days. There really are times when I wish that Garfield could just put up the sign he posts below and we could be done with them.

That doesn’t really seem very likely to happen, however, so I guess we’ll just have to make like B.C. sometimes and just survive. Know what I mean. Mondays CAN be hard, but some can be more than just that. See below --

Well, if the “Mondays” don’t get me, I shall return on St. Patrick’s Day, which happens to fall on a Monday this year. I guess that THAT, proves that there is SOME hope, even for Mondays. I hope you’ll be back, too. I enjoy thinking that I’m actually talking to people.

🖖🏼 LLAP,

Dr. B

0 Comments

301 Critics, and Why I Don't Much Care for Them

2/20/2025

0 Comments

I suspect that most of my readers (assuming that I have any) know that I think of myself as being a “Theatre Person” by training, vocation, and (since I am now retired) preference. Yes, I do have other interests, but theatre, drama, and their relation, movies, are among my greatest interests, with literature (of several varieties), various of the visual arts, and some forms of music, ranking not far behind. I like to think that I am capable of enjoying a wide range of artistic forms, but I don’t consider myself to be a “Critic.” If I had to put a label on my position (which I don’t really like to do), I suppose that it would have to be a “Reviewer.”

Yes, I AM making a definite distinction here. I would maintain that a reviewer is one who makes an honest attempt at “experiencing” artistic works, and then may have an opinion as to whether, or not, that effort produced a satisfying experience, but never claims to have more than a PERSONAL opinion.

On the other hand, I would suggest that far too many people who claim to be, or are thought of as being, CRITICS would have us believe that what they provide is a good deal more than “just a personal opinion.” They would have us believe that it is a “scholarly evaluation” of the artistic merit and value of the art object under discussion. This, all too often in my experience, justifies (at least to them) their insistence that anyone who disagrees with them clearly lacks the taste, knowledge, and judgement to even HAVE a legitimate opinion. I think THAT point of view is just arrogant BS and I have no qualms about suggesting that they simply are proving that “bullies is bullies” in any field of endeavor, and that what they are actually saying is that THEY are insecure enough to insist that THEY (unlike the rest of us) are among the gifted few capable of having a true understanding of REAL ART.

I am reminded (yet again!) of that poor student who “reviewed” my production of Waiting for Godot for The Western Carolinian saying that it lacked the “proper” amount of “existential suffering” on the part of the two main characters, when the cast and I had CONSCIOUSLY CHOSEN to deemphasize that notion because we (the CREATOR’s of that PRODUCTION) felt that Beckett’s point was that their so-called “suffering” was stupid when they (like most of humanity) just had to take SOME action (that is, do SOMETHING to alter their situation) in order to get closer to achieving their stated desire. Yes, we felt that our Vladimir and Estragon did exactly what we believed Beckett wanted. They, like far too many people in the world, did nothing but idly sit, wait, and entertain themselves while waiting for some outside agency (Godot) to come along and solve all of their problems. We believed that since Beckett’s chosen French title of the play (it WAS written in French before Beckett translated it into English) could quite accurately be translated to “While Waiting for Godot” which suggested to us that the notion of “waiting” was probably Beckett’s major point. (It’s probably arrogant of me to suggest that I felt that the famous Ian McKellen-Patrick Stewart production of this play in London in 2009 seemed to support this concept, but it IS true. At least that’s what I got from seeing it.)

Now that poor student could have simply said that he didn’t enjoy the production and, while I might not like it, I would have had no reason (or right) to argue about that. I wouldn’t have been happy, but I would argue that it was his right to have (and express) his opinion. After all, there are lots of artistic works and/or performances which I don’t (haven’t) much enjoyed. I don’t say that they were bad, however, they just didn’t “do much for me, I didn’t care for them. No, what got me worked up about THIS critique was the writer’s suggestion that what we did was “WRONG.” You see, I am of the opinion that ART is NEVER WRONG. IT IS WHAT IT IS!

It can be something I don’t enjoy much, but that’s really just a matter of taste. I can think of some rather famous novels, plays, etc. which I didn’t much enjoy because I didn’t care for the author’s style, or the subject matter, or the work just didn’t excite/interest me, for example. I can happily go to an art museum and like some works and others not so much, even though someone obviously thought each of those works to be important/significant enough to display. The same is true of a lot of music. I like some “serious” music, but I also have liked (still do) some Broadway music, some rock/pop, some (especially “classic,” 1950-70’s) folk, much Irish music, and on, and on. Can I explain these feelings on some purely rational, “artistic” grounds? No! I just figure that I have the right to enjoy what I enjoy without having to explain myself, or justify my preferences to some “Expert/Critic” who thinks she/he has the right to tell me that “I’m wrong.” I don’t insist that anyone else conform to MY choices, why should I be limited to theirs? There ought to be room for us to have differences of opinion.

Anyway, I have found that there are, apparently, other people who tend to agree with me at least to the extent that they are amused/annoyed/whatever by the “critical mentality,” so I’ve found some cartoons which, to my mind, bear on that subject and I thought I’d include some of them in this post. Here’s an example from Academic Waltz of a “Critic/Professor” in action which I find quite enjoyable in its commentary on critics, as well as on poorly prepared teachers.

One of the (several) things I find annoying about critics, is their seeming insistence that it is necessary for them to “label” works of art. See the B.C. strip below:

The point here, I believe, is NOT having a category (although many “category titles” do annoy me), but the idea that someone felt the need to assign them, as if having a CATEGORY made any contribution to experiencing them. My guess is that this practice mostly allows these critics to create “scholarly” papers, convention presentations, etc. which are necessary for academic advancement. This silliness, of course, leads to inclusion in more common references, like dictionaries, web searches, and the like, as suggested above.

I think that the Thatababy strip below points out how silly this sort of thing can become: although I seriously doubt that it’s going to change anything much.

To move on, I confess that I have occasionally wondered how the guards (as opposed to the “artistic” staff who are seeking donations, notoriety, etc.) react to the “artistic eloquence” which one frequently encounters in museums from both “curators,” and from visitors who seem to wish to impress others with their knowledge, taste, and erudition. So, when I ran across this Non Sequitur strip a while back, I just had to save it for the proper occasion (which I think this is).

This reminds me of an experience I had while I was in Grad. School, on a Fellowship with the Indiana Theatre Company. While the company was on a Spring Break tour into the northeast, we got to spend a day in NYC (which I was NOT familiar with and had spent only a couple of days in on a trip with equally ignorant friends). I distinctly remember dashing (quite literally) through the Museum of Modern Art as Mr. Kinser (the faculty member, director and designer, who was with us on the trip, and knew NYC quite well) took us to see the original of Picasso’s Guernica, which was still resident there at that time. See below.

That was a mind-blowing experience! I should note that the original (what I actually SAW) IS in Black and White, like this reproduction, BUT it IS 11 ft 5 inches tall and 25 ft 6 inches wide. It’s BIG! I was with a couple of others, following “Wild Bill” Kinser (No, we didn’t call him that to his face) through the building, when we rushed around a corner and THERE IT WAS! I will admit that I had to sit down for a minute. It was breathtaking. I don’t know that I have ever had as strong a reaction to encountering any work of art before, or since. I can’t explain it. I don’t even want to try. But I remember that I had so strong an emotional response that it became physical. Since that time, that has been my touchstone regarding art of ANY sort. How does it make me FEEL? Do I truly RESPOND to it? That’s how I judge art. I’m not suggesting that I completely understand what (or how) that response happens, or even exactly what form it will take, but if I don’t HAVE A RESPONSE to a work, it’s just not “my sort of thing.”

That’s probably why I get very frustrated with people, especially TEACHERS (at ANY level) who seem to think that every educated person should recognize and accept the judgement of “those of the ‘HIGHEST’ standards of discrimination” as KNOWING what is “good” and what isn’t. I probably didn’t always succeed in this myself, as a teacher, but I did always TRY to avoid passing judgement on my students’ opinions regarding works. If (when) I had to review/or grade their work, I tried to judge it mostly on the basis of: was it clearly expressed?; was it clearly explained?; did it consider the established facts (facts are NOT subject to opinion) regarding the work; the times in which it was created; what we know about why it was created; what was the state of the world at that point; and so on? I tried to avoid demanding a justification of their opinion, but I hoped to be able to understand that opinion, as well as their point of view, AND to be able to grasp any relevant facts, whether I agreed with their opinion, or not.

I think Charles Schulz hit my notion pretty much on the head when he created this Peanuts strip a long time ago:

I suspect that I think that anyone who argues with Patty is almost certainly factually incorrect. I have serious doubts that ANY author would write, edit, and publish a story without SOME desire for some sort of acclaim or recognition as well. I also suppose that it’s fairly obvious that I am particularly frustrated by ART Critics (although literary critics CAN approach being just as annoying to me). I admit that’s something of a prejudice, but it’s what I am. If you disagree, that’s your right. I won’t try to change you, I’ll just state that I have a different opinion, and I won’t even try to argue that I’m right and you’re wrong, except for me.

Now I admit that I’ve never actually seen a work like the one presented in the Break of Day comic (below) in an art museum, but I’d really like to watch people respond to something like it sometime. I think it would be quite interesting.

I think that I would also very much like to run across a situation like this one which WUMO published about a year ago. I found it quite funny because it suggests, to me, how much the “critics” have captured the “Art world” that even those who want to create and present works seem to feel obligated to use “Critical Jargon” to convince other that their works have some value, interest or importance.

Personally, I think that if something causes you to have an actual, real, honest response, then it is of value to you and it does NOT matter what the “experts” say. Their opinions are (or SHOULD be) irrelevant to you, unless the only value you grant to art works is that you can sell them, in which case, I just plain pity you. Yes, I admit to enjoying what I would call well-written commercial “schlock” novels and stories. If they give me pleasure, why should you care? I’ve read a fair many “great works” that I have found to be pretty boring, so I don’t suspect I’m ever going to reread them, the way I often have with “lesser” works which I have enjoyed. That’s also true of plays, music, etc.

Well, I’ve probably beaten this idea hard enough. I’d love to hear other people’s opinions regarding critics and criticism, so drop me a line if I’ve gotten to you. While I’m waiting, I plan to try to think about other stuff which interests me enough to distract me from the depression caused by what some of our laughable “leaders” call “REALITY.”

Assuming that I do so (and that I’m not deported for ideas unfriendly to those laughable “leaders’” egos) I’ll be back in a couple of weeks with something else.

🖖🏼 LLAP,

Dr. B

0 Comments

300 Racism and other bad stuff in Literature, Art, and Life!

2/5/2025

0 Comments

Shakespeare (and other artists, especially writers,) seem to be criticized quite often these days because of their”racist” attitudes, references, etc. I confess that I just don’t understand this. That’s not to say that I support racism (or other forms of prejudice), but that I would suggest that varieties of this behavior have been a part of our “civilization” for a long time and that it’s probably time that we recognized and acknowledged that fact. That MIGHT give us the incentive to actually DO something about it. I should also note that I have no reason to believe that similar attitudes and behaviors haven’t been common in most (perhaps ALL) human civilizations. It’s just that I know a bit more about what is called Western Civilization, so I can talk about it with some degree of knowledge.

Now, Western Civilization, in most folks’ minds I think, starts with the Greeks, although there ARE any number of civilizations which preceded them. Given what we know about them, it seems reasonable to suggest that they had enough problems to have lots of wars, among themselves, as well as with others. However, I think that it’s fairly accurate to say that they were, essentially, of a fairly common ethnic and religious background, at least among those who counted. Non-Greeks, of course, were just slaves, or other sforeigners, so THEY didn’t really count as “people,” in any case.

Moving forward a bit, we get to the Romans. They were, I think, also of a, more or less, common religion and ethnicity, and they also had a good deal of desire for “stuff” which was actually owned by “others,” who had different gods and (perhaps more obviously) different racial and ethnic characteristics. I don’t believe that I’m really pushing things to suggest that “those” folk were commonly viewed as “inferior,” not quite fully “proper” as “real” people. I mean, Jews, Arabs, Egyptians, etc., weren’t really “people,” but they were useful, so they were tolerated, as long as they didn’t cause any trouble.

Of course, when that sect of weirdos known as “Christians” started causing trouble for the Emperor, something had to be done to “put them in their place.” I suspect that we all have at least heard something about that. What we might not have considered, however, is that this might be said to have set a pattern for the future.

Now, Christianity did, eventually, become the dominant religion in “Western” culture, and that culture, over time, was largely dominated by people of what is (broadly) called Caucasian ethnicity (which was subject to various nationalistic sub-divisions). However, it seems reasonable to me to suggest that that broad, Caucasian/Christian, culture did became the dominating culture of “Western Civilization.”

The overall culture was not especially unified, but there were similarities throughout it. Skin color was, most often, some variation of what came to be called “white,” although it had (and has) a lot of different tints and shades. Basic notions related to religion, were most often mixed in with the dominant governmental/political concept (hereditary aristocracy) and were, more or less, based on ideas reinforced by Christianity.

Of course, there were a good many differences, especially in what being a Christian meant, but it can be said that a fairly dominant culture emerged throughout the “West” and it tried to spread further east until the rise of Islam stopped it. It remained true, however, that Europe, generally, considered itself to be Christian and what we now call “White,” but deep divisions along somewhat nationalistic lines would develop, and these would become even more pronounced as Christianity dissolved into numerous sects, branches, denominations, etc., with each convinced that it was the “right and proper” form. Still, even with these divisions, there WAS a sort of Aristocratic/Caucasian/Euro/Christian culture which dominated the West for a long while and some would suggest is still quite strong.

When this general cultural group felt the need/desire to expand and gain more lands, more wealth, etc., they tended to do it in two, distinct ways: one was to try to take it away from their neighbors; the other was to go out and get it in the rest of the world. Now, while the first method WAS used, the second one had several advantages. European neighbors were, generally, about equally well armed, but the “savages” out there in the “big world” generally were NOT. And, one COULD always take along a few priests, so that you could claim that you were really “spreading the Christian Word,” not just engaging in conquest for the sake of wealth and power.

It IS (I think) worth noting that even before the Muslims ended the Byzantine Empire (after the sputtering Crusades), the Middle East was, largely, left alone for a long time and that European influence in the Far East didn’t amount to much for a long time. Even when they attempted influence there, much later, it was quite weak because the Asians had gunpowder long before the Europeans, and strong armies, and SHORT supply lines, which the Europeans did NOT have in that part of the world.

But, those “heathens” in the Americas and in much of Africa didn’t have much military power (at least against guns, cannons, and European armies), but they had land, mineral wealth and the ability to be put to work. And, of course they didn’t worship the “true” god and, besides, they were funny-looking with their “colored” skin, odd languages, etc. THEREFORE, they didn’t really count, so “REAL people” could do pretty much what they wanted with and to them, taking their lands, property, and even making them slaves. After all, it’s what “people” had been doing to such “creatures” for centuries. Slavery is even discussed in the Bible, so it can’t be against God. Certainly not when it only involves dealing with, essentially, farm animals.

And so, those who were not of European cultural extraction, racially Caucasian, and didn’t lived in the “Christian” tradition, simply weren’t considered to be “people.” They were, at best, just “property.” If they had any legal existence, it was only because they could be bought and sold (even, occasionally, set free!), but they couldn’t possibly be construed as actually being PEOPLE. This attitude, of course, was the pattern of relations with Africans, but also was applied to the indigenous peoples throughout the Americas. The fact that many of these groups had had well-established civilizations in place for a long time had no validity as far as they could see, since they weren’t like “Western” Civilization.

Then, after many years of the exploitation of those lands and peoples, along came what came to be called The Enlightenment, which would (eventually) lead to what is referred to as the Romantic Era. Then, quite abruptly, there were folks suggesting that those “creatures” were supposed to be considered as people(?). You know what I mean, that all that “… all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness” stuff might apply to THEM, not just to ”Westerners.” Some even suggested that governments were supposed to come from all of the people, not just from a heredity-based, aristocratic, European, Caucasian, Christian, elite class.

And so, the racial/religious/cultural wars were on. This led to all kinds of trouble. We (in the US) even fought a war about it. Actually, we fought more than one, as the Civil War was, to my way of thinking, largely just a continuation of the earlier one against England. The fact that the slaves were, legally, made free, after the Civil War, however, didn’t really solve much, though. Words on paper don’t really do that, even if we might wish they did. So, we (the United States) have been struggling since 1865 to try to deal with the attitudes which justified, created and maintained slavery, and they are still not resolved. I’d go so far as to suggest that the basics of the problem haven’t even, really, changed. We STILL haven’t more than begun to accept, or actually establish, a racially, religiously, and culturally mixed society.

It shouldn’t really be necessary to point out the fact that every identifiable group of immigrants who came to this country (most of whom were, in fact, Caucasian, European, and Christian in their heritage, were discriminated against by those “Americans” of an earlier group who felt threatened by these “unworthy” newcomers, but most have suppressed that. Too many of us seem to have forgotten the prejudice against Irish, German, Italian, Polish, Asian, Jewish, etc., immigrants, throughout the 19th and early 20th Centuries, and the practice continues, just with other targets. Did you ever wonder why “Hibernian Societies,” “Sons of Italy,” “German-American Societies,” “Hillel Societies, “Anti-Defamation Leagues,” etc. were created? Many of them were formed because of the prejudice against specific groups on the part of earlier immigrant groups as well as a desire to celebrate a specific national heritage. It has continued with Vietnamese “refugees” who came to this country after the Vietnam conflict, folks from Afghanistan after that conflict, and now includes Americans from outside the US (to our south) fleeing various problems, Ukrainians, and so on.

Of course, the solution to this is really quite simple. We just have to grant ALL people the same basic rights and privileges of citizenship and things would probably work out pretty quickly. That’s easy to write, but hard to achieve, as it goes against centuries of practice (discussed above) that “THOSE OTHERS” aren’t really people. They aren’t like “us” and we don’t want to accept what we perceive as the reduction of OUR power which spreading those rights and privileges that much thinner would mean because then WE (The “GOOD,” European/Caucasian/Christian, preferably MALE folks) MIGHTN’T BE THE ONES ON TOP! Over the centuries they’ve gotten used to being the ones who formed the “elite” class (the REAL “citizens”). Of course, the VAST majority of them would NEVER have been a part of the “ruling elite” a couple of hundred years ago, so what is being perpetuated is, in reality, just a variation of Medieval practice.

But that’s not to say that some attempts haven’t been made to create a better society. Personally, I can remember (and/or have studied) a good number of ideas which were going to “solve” these problems along the way. White women were “given” the right to vote, because that wouldn’t really change things too much (especially since it was assumed that they would vote the way their husbands told them to). The all-male) military was racially integrated, which some said was going to destroy it, but that didn’t seem to happen, as things developed, (and we did needed the person power). And, more recently, we allowed females to be actual “members” of it, which doesn’t seem to have caused all that much damage either, in spite of what some say.

Earlier, we (sort of) racially integrated the public schools, which led to a huge increase in non-public ones, which were allowed to continue to discriminate, so the result of that was diminished. Then, we transported school kids across town on busses to make sure the schools were racially integrated, which just tended to break up cohesion within neighborhoods and make it harder for kids to have any real contact outside of school, so they only actually saw each other in a “controlled” setting. Now, some folks want to spend tax monies to support private, even religious-based, schools, to preserve “the right of parental choice,” in direct conflict with the First Amendment.

We claim to have abolished “red-lining,” in real estate, but I’m unconvinced that it’s not still out there (just a bit more undercover), as it seems to still be a fairly common practice. Look around, neighborhoods across the country are still often largely separated along racial, class, religious, and ethnic lines, just not “officially.” Now, many of the same sorts of difficulties have spread to affect the LGBTQ+ community, as well, and we say that we are going to solve those challenges,, but we haven’t yet done so with the older ones.

But to get back to my topic, one of the trends in the last few years has been to ban speech and/or books which use “bad” words, especially in relation to race, gender, and ethnicity. One of my favorite examples is the frequent demand that Huckleberry Finn be removed from library shelves and schools, apparently because one of the characters, who is “African-American” is referred to as “Nigger Jim.” Now, I don’t much approve of the “N-word,” but I’m not afraid of it. The book was published in the mid-1880’s (so it was after the Civil War), but it is clearly set in a time before slavery was abolished, as the character, Jim, is a runaway slave trying to get free and earn enough money to purchase the freedom of his wife and family.

Today, we don’t think that the “N-word” is acceptable in “polite,” conversation, but one doesn’t have to be much of a linguistic historian to know that it was used quite commonly during the period of this book’s historical setting, certainly by less than well educated people (which would include Huck, the narrator). Does the fact that it’s outdated mean that we have to erase it because it isn’t as “polite” as we say it should be? If so, we probably should consider that we might have to eliminate a good deal of the Holy Bible, a lot of Shakespeare’s works (and a GREAT deal of other literature). AND quite a large percentage of the “greatest” art in Western history is at least a bit risqué. Actually, sculpture might not be affected quite so much since various Popes had a lot of MALE statues’ genitalia removed to try to make them more “acceptable.” (Funny how nude FEMALES were Okay, though.)

Shakespeare, as an example of a “great” author, has many, not-always-very-polite, sexual and/or other references in his plays and poetry. His Othello, of course, must be racist since there is much made of that character’s “blackness.” I think that that character’s race may be the key to understanding his “otherness,” of course, and I believe that it is Shakespeare’s major point in this play. It seems obvious to me that Will was pointing out the stupidity of the idea that the leaders of Venice purposely CHOSE this “outsider” as their military commander, but apparently felt that that shouldn’t be taken to suggest that they actually felt he was worthy of being a part of their society. The idea that Desdemona (one of their own) might find HIM to be worthy of her affection, is absurd to them. After all, he’s NOT one of “US.” And similar sorts of comments could be made about the ideas expressed in many works of literature. I won’t belabor my point with additional examples. Certainly anyone who has actually read (and understood) more than a few books can come up with examples which would be meaningful to them.

I would suggest however, that the real problem isn’t limited to the WORDS we use, it’s that we, as a society, have chosen (are choosing) to say one thing, but practice something quite different. We SAY we believe in the ideals of equality, fairness, etc., but far too many wish to maintain their own importance through suppressing anything which expresses the conflict between our ideals and our behaviors. Then they call that “freedom of expression.” You see, words CAN both affect one’s attitude and reflect it. But, if we accept that humans aren’t perfect and that some of us would like to try “… to form a more perfect union….”, I would suggest that we have a greater chance of success by admitting, accepting, and understanding that we have been less than perfect in the past, than by trying to pretend that “it never happened.”

Wouldn’t it make better sense to let the past be the past, understand that we (and our ancestors) weren’t perfect, and resolve to try to do better? By the way, it may be worth pointing out that our collective past was never truly all that Christian (given the actual behavior of many groups), nor truly European (given that we are NOT discussing Europeans, but Americans), and (given the provable facts of DNA) wasn’t, in a great many cases, all that exclusively Caucasian, either.

I really do NOT believe that censoring schools, libraries, museums, books, radio and TV, even the internet, is going to solve ANY of our problems and will probably create more. I do believe that there ARE materials which may not be appropriate for some (especially young children’s) ears and eyes, but trying to just eliminate them from LEGAL human knowledge is not the solution. I doubt that it’s even possible, as you would have to erase ALL knowledge of these ideas existence. (Think about what THAT implies! Has anyone read Bradbury’s Fahrenheit 451?) WE’ve tried, but legal restrictions didn’t stop alcohol use (and abuse), haven’t eliminated pornography, or prostitution, or “unapproved” religions, races, etc. How many folks remember (probably when they were in Junior High or High School) trading copies of Playboy, swapping raunchy comic books, sneaking “Racy” records into the house, and/or sneaking into “forbidden” movies? Then, I suspect it became playing “naughty" video games, and/or exchanging web sites, etc. which parents might not approve. Given the facts of human history, it seems unlikely that censorship and prohibition are any more likely to work now, than they did then.

Personally, I think that our society would be healthier if we all got over ourselves and actually made some efforts to move in the direction of creating a better, healthier, more equal society. The fact is that we do know a good deal about how to do that. Listening to the people who have actually studied the problem and giving their ideas some honest effort, might well be a productive start.

We aren’t going to get much improvement by venerating past. Taking some simple actions might help. Don’t buy products from companies which don’t support your ideals. (Boycotts DO work.) Get out and meet people of other races, religions, etc. and actually talk WITH them. Pay attention to facts, not what politicians SAY, what they DO. Insist on “justice for ALL.” Write a letter to the editor of your local newspaper (you ARE a subscriber, aren’t you?) demanding that our “leaders” treat ALL fairly. Write letters to your political representatives expressing your opinions, demonstrate at their offices and public meetings, then use your vote to back up your ideals! Basically, just make some simple efforts to change things for the better, rather than just letting power cluster with the “elite” in the forlorn belief that THEY will “take care of us?” After all, we MIGHT not care for what they end up doing TO us, and I’ve seen little evidence that “trickle-down” ANYTHING has caused any real improvements (and I’ve been watching since the 1980’s).

🖖🏼 LLAP,

Dr. B

P.S. I just wanted to point out that this is “officially” my three hundredth post on this blog. I don’t wish to suggest that this is of any real IMPORTANCE (it’s not!), but I didn’t expect that I’d still be making fairly regular posts this long when I started in September of 2014. I suppose that I’ll keep on writing them, as I do enjoy it, although I sometimes wonder if anyone but me ever reads my mental meanderings. Mostly, I suppose, I write them because I want to keep my brain working and I keep thinking up stuff to think about. I expect to be back in a couple of weeks.
RSB

0 Comments

299 English is a funny Language!

1/22/2025

0 Comments

I suppose that it’s fairly obvious to anyone who has read more than a few of these posts that I am frequently amused by the foibles of the English language and the many ways it is used and misused. In any event, I have decided to devote another one of them to this sort of thing. If that disturbs you, I’m sorry, but there’s no one MAKING you read my blather, so, I’m going to go ahead. Here goes.

As I see it, there are a lot of ways to find humor in English. For one thing, people have, over the centuries, applied various words to deal with what they, apparently, considered to be problems. For some reason, this seems to have been frequent when finding specific words for the names of groups of specific types of animals. A group of owls, for example, is a Parliament; Lapwings form a Deceit; woodpeckers a Descent; larks an Exaltation; Ravens a Constable; Lions, a Pride; hyenas, a Cackle; otters, a Raft; and so on. The one I find the most amusing is that a group of crows is called a “Murder,” which, I think, leads one to the obvious question posed by Skylar in this Shoe cartoon I ran across.

Perhaps not an earth-shaking sort of question, but perfectly reasonable (and also amusing, at least to me).

It’s probably because I am male, that I am somewhat sensitive to this, next, sort of humor. In spite of all of my exposure to literature of many sorts and some (not very well developed) skills as an actor, I confess to being something of a stereotypical American male in not being all that comfortable in expressing the “softer” emotions. This, as the Zits cartoon below suggests, does not seem to be anything approaching much of a challenge for the stereotypical American female, or, at least it isn’t perceived as being much of a problem for that branch of the species. The MALE, however, rightly, or wrongly, is usually portrayed as indicated, and my own experience would tend more towards supporting that belief than disputing it.

This MAY be a bit of an exaggeration, but I think that there are a good many males who don’t think of themselves as being much more skilled in this area of language than Jeremy seems to be. In other words, not good at all.

I suspect that even those males whom we think of as being quite skilled in this area MIGHT not be all that successful 100% of the time, as is suggested in this cartoon I ran across a while back.

One COULD suggest, I suppose, that at least SOME of the difficulty lies in the fact that words can (and do) change their meanings over time, so that, especially when the language is spoken, confusion (sometimes leading to humor) can occur. This seems most likely to occur in the spoken word because many (most?) people are not all that well versed in correct articulation and pronunciation, so there are a good many cases where words are confused simply because they are sloppily pronounced. An example of this sort of thing which I notice pretty frequently is what I call the “Cavalry/Calvary conundrum.” Yes, the words are, in fact, spelled very similarly, and the pronunciation is (reasonably) similar, as well. BUT, it isn’t the same. The fact is that, “Cavalry is, traditionally, a form of horse-mounted military unit.” On the other hand, “Calvary is a geographic location near Jerusalem associated with the crucifixion of Jesus.” Thus, wishing that there had been a unit of Roman Cavalry which had revolted against the orders to crucify Jesus on Calvary, makes some sort of sense, but wishing that a unit of Calvary would conquer Cavalry really does not make any real sense in ANY language!

There is, of course, the form of linguistic humor which one occasionally encounters where a group of letters form words which make some sort of sense when read normally, but can also be read in reverse to form an identical one. This is know as a “palindrome.” I am especially ford of THIS one: “My friend just got a PhD on the history of palindromes. We now call him Dr. Awkward.” Check it out, it works! Other examples include: Never a foot too far, even.; Red roses run no risk, sir, on Nurse’s order.; He lived as a devil, eh?; Ned, I am a maiden.; Now, sir, a war is won!; Dennis and Edna sinned.; Step on no pets!. There are certainly a lot more possibilities, but I’ll quit with these. (Thank the Lord, the reader thought.)

There are other possibilities for “playing” with language, of course. Here are a couple of B.C. cartoons which I enjoyed that do just that:

Of course, these take advantage of using words from various sorts of “jargon.” Now, “jargon” is the proper name for a specific technical language (the specialized terminology associated with a particular field or area of activity). And the humor in these cases seems to come from applying it somewhere else. Understanding how it works, however, doesn’t make it any less funny, at least to me.

Of course, being a theatre person, especially one who has been involved with several productions of Sheridan’s play, The Rivals, I can’t even touch on any discussion of language humor without mentioning the “malapropism.” This, of course, “… is the wrong use of a word that sounds similar to the correct one, resulting in a funny or nonsensical sentence.” It derives its name from one of the characters in Sheridan’s The Rivals, Mrs. Malaprop, who uses this form of humor (which she does NOT realize she is doing) constantly throughout the play, which is a major aspect of the comedy in the work.

In any event. the term has caught on for this sort of thing, as I was reminded a while back by this Frank and Ernest comic:

Yes, the language we call English can be the basis of a good deal of humor (which is NOT unique to it, as humor is common in ALL languages, I believe). Which brings up my final point. (Are you glad I’m about through?)

While not, specifically referring just to English, I admit that I was quite taken by the image shown below which I ran across at some point after “emojis” started to become common. I confess that it did make me wonder if the modern emphasis on “advanced technology” was really a demonstration of PROGRESS as opposed to what some might think of as regression to a more primitive state. I won’t pretend to be smart enough to have an adequate response to that notion, but I do think it might be worth some consideration.

It does give one pause, doesn't it? There seems to be more truth here than one would have imagined. Of course, the Egyptians were pretty advanced in many ways, but I thought that most of us (it WAS true in my case I know) were taught that we had advanced far beyond their “primitive” level. I guess that just MIGHT be another popular belief which doesn’t necessarily hold up.

No matter how one deals with these questions, though, I confess that I’m glad that I have achieved at least SOME mastery of the mysteries of English. I won’t go so far as to claim anything approaching real MASTERY, but I manage to get along reasonably well, which suggests to me that I should thank my parents and teachers for their assistance in assisting me to acquire whatever knowledge I have of the only language in which I claim to have any sort of fluency . I think this cartoon from The Family Circus expresses that idea pretty well.

Well, I suspect that I’ll continue to mull this over some, but I probably won’t come up with much of anything particularly profound to say about it, so I’ll quit now. I do expect, however, that I’ll be back in another couple of weeks getting my brain scrambled thinking about something else. Maybe you’ll be back, too. In the meantime, as the Romans are said to have said, “Illegitimi non carborundum.” Note: My mother taught me (not always successfully) to be polite in my language usage, so you’ll have to find your own translation of that phrase.

It also might be worth considering that if “pro” is the opposite of “con,” does that mean that Congress is the opposite of progress? Think about it!

🖖🏼 LLAP,

Dr. B

0 Comments

298 Happy Birthday Sherlock Holmes!

1/8/2025

0 Comments

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:

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.

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.

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

0 Comments

<<Previous

303 A St. Patrick’s Day Blog Post for 2025

302 Mondays is STILL a Hard Time!

301 Critics, and Why I Don't Much Care for Them

300 Racism and other bad stuff in Literature, Art, and Life!

299 English is a funny Language!

298 Happy Birthday Sherlock Holmes!

Archives

Categories