?

Log in

26 August 2013 @ 11:41 am
post3

I know, I know, finally my Sherlock for a Day post! So I started my favorite day in London by going to the Sherlock Holmes Museum (see my post on that here). I then went off for a walk through Regents Park, it is literally a block away, you can see it from Sherlock's window. Take your time here as it is an exquisite park. They host plays here as well, Robert Sean Leonard was performing in "To Kill a Mockingbird" when I was there. Leonard is well known for his role in House, as Dr. Wilson. Word is Cumberbatch also performed here in the past, so heck, great acting at the least!

Read more here http://yourfriendelle.blogspot.com/2013/08/sherlock-for-day.html
 
 
13 August 2013 @ 04:47 pm
tumblr_mqbilqRyZq1qzmntco1_500


Though Comic Con was almost a month ago, it is still fresh and crisp in our minds. A month later and we are still talking, discussing, and fan-girl/boying about all the amazing moments that took place this year. Many of you already know about Tom Hiddleson arriving in full Loki gear, or the massive line for the Doctor Who panel, but I bet you didn't know about Chris, aka Sherlock. Chris, a Sherlock cosplayer was the talk of the town at this years Comic Con. Having discovered him on Tumblr from the massive reblogs of his photo, I had to get an interview with him. Below is his recount of Comic Con 2013.

Read more at http://yourfriendelle.blogspot.com
 
 
15 October 2011 @ 01:07 am


I'm a fanfiction writer, but I'm also an academic and I'm giving a paper in November
on the Sherlock Holmes fandom(s).

I'd love to have as much input from participants as possible, from as many
segments of the fandom as possible. Everyone is welcome.

If you'd like to take a few moments, the questions are here at my Journal:

http://gaedhal.livejournal.com/428477.html

Thanks for your kind indulgence.

Gaedhal
 
 
06 May 2011 @ 12:44 am
I just finished re-reading Subcutaneously, My Dear Watson by Jack Tracy and Jim Berkey (1978), a great book I picked up at a used book store back when I first discovered and devoured the Holmes canon about 13 years ago.

With BBC's Sherlock on my mind lately, re-reading this book brought up some interesting points about the portrayal of Holmes's use of drugs in screen adaptations and in particular the way it puts a new twist on the Sherlock version of the character simply due to the change in setting.

First, I must confess that it was drugs that originally got me into Sherlock Holmes in a serious wayCollapse )

Subcutaneously, My Dear Watson is about both Holmes's drug use specifically and cocaine use in Victorian Britain in general (with some US contextual info, too).

The most significant thing that I came away with this time - again, with Sherlock on my mind - was that in late 1800s Britain, it was perfectly legal to purchase, possess, and use cocaine. One could buy it in local shops without a prescription. It wasn't until after 1900 that restrictions started being put on cocaine and other potentially harmful or addictive substances. When you move the character forward in time, obviously this will bring up some issues.

Before moving on to screen adaptations, some other interesting tidbits from SubcutaneouslyCollapse )

Also, just so we're clear: Watson never approved of Holmes using cocaine, regardless of the fact that it wasn't illegal.

As for cocaine use in adaptations that are not SherlockCollapse )

With it's contemporary setting, the BBC's Sherlock has a problem (or at least an interesting issue) in that the legal status of and social attitudes towards cocaine are entirely different now than when Doyle first wrote about the Great Detective. Of course, this is also a problem for period adaptations and even the canon itself nowadays, as the setting may be Victorian, but the audience is always contemporary. Sherlock, however, has the added hitch that even the other fictional characters around Holmes will have those same modern attitudes and everyone is operating in a world with certain legal and social restrictions that did not exist in the 1880s.

It's implied (or more than implied in the un-aired pilot) that Sherlock used to be on drugs. This is counter to Tracey and Berkey's timeline, but a perfectly acceptable change considering that commercially-available cocaine existed for a hundred years before this version of Holmes was even born. It does, however, pose problems for fandom carrying notions about Holmes's past and Watson's role in all of this backwards from Sherlock into canon.

More significantly, the Sherlock of Sherlock using cocaine would be 1) illegal (or at least the purchase of it, I expect - I don't know what exactly the law currently states in the UK regarding possession or usage), 2) expensive, and 3) perceived entirely differently by the people around him (and the audience) than would have been the case for his canonical counterpart 100+ years previously.

This is what is most interesting to me in all of this: maintaining an original, Doyle-created character trait - the use of cocaine - becomes a new twist on the character when that character is picked up and dropped into a present-day setting.

The closest thing to a contemporary version of Holmes's cocaine habit - in as far as it would be perceived by other characters and the audience - is probably alcoholism, or at least excessive drinking. This drives us off into other directions, however, as Holmes is not canonically an alcoholic and alcohol abuse presents different symptoms than cocaine use and would surely have a different effect on a person's personality and lifestyle.

That was longer than I expected. Golly. Without any real concluding statements, I'll turn this over to the internet at large. Any thoughts on the matter? Any insights into how the portrayal of Holmes's drug use in screen adaptations has changed over the years (including outright omission)? Any ideas about what this means for Sherlock specifically and how audiences who may not be aware of either the canonical use of cocaine or of the historical context perceive those hints in "A Study in Pink?" I think that must have ramifications for both how the show chooses to include drug use (or doesn't) and how fandom processes and expands on this portrayal.
 
 
(Hey, mods--if this isn't allowed, I can take it down; just let me know!)

Okay, so I read A Study In Scarlet a few years back--2008--and I've only resumed reading through the canon in the past few months. Back when I started, I swear that I read somewhere a really convincing argument that said that Watson wasn't shot in the shoulder, but in the... well, to put it lightly, in the backside. I think the main points of the argument consisted of the changing location of the wound (that at first he was embarrassed/trying to be discreet and so said "shoulder" in Scarlet but perhaps forgot and then wrote "leg" in The Sign of Four) and the fact that his orderly had to sling him over the horse to transport him--something that wouldn't have made sense if he'd been shot in the shoulder, because he would've probably been able to sit upright, whereas he couldn't have if he'd gotten shot in the backside.

I've been trying to find that essay or whatever it was since, but no dice. It was possibly in the foreword of my book (the first volume of Barnes & Noble's edition of the novels and stories), but I didn't find it when I glanced through. I suppose it could be somewhere on the Internet, but I didn't have much luck when I searched for it. It has to be somewhere, because I know I'm not just making this up in my head!

So if anyone has any ideas about it or any other articles/essays, etc. on theories about Watson's bullet wound, I'd love to be pointed in whichever direction you could send me!
 
 
 
08 April 2011 @ 03:22 am

So, the only reference to Sherlock and Mycroft's mum in the BBC series is

Mycroft:  And you know how it always upset Mummy
Sherlock: I upset her?  Me?  It wasn't me that upset her, Mycroft
John: N-no wait.  Mummy?  Who's Mummy?
Sherlock:  Mother.  Our Mother.  This is my brother, Mycroft.

To me, that sounds clearly past tense.  It could be short for "used to upset" or "had upset" or "continuously upset" [and I'm currently resisting to name off all the possibilities is grammar-speak :-P] ... But if it were present tense it would be,  "and you know how it always upsets Mummy."  And Sherlock would say, "It isn't me who upsets her, Mycroft"

Right?

Only, I just assumed from the get-go that Sherlock and Mycroft's mum was dead before this started.  (In fact, it even sounds to me like the terrible Christmas dinners are a thing of the past, though I wouldn't fight really hard about that one.)  And now everyone has a pet theory about her... wouldn't it be awesome if she were played by Judi Dench, etc.  and I'm wondering if I'm just crazy....
 
 
24 February 2011 @ 04:15 pm
JAM!  
What's this thing about Watson and jam?I remember reading a comic(?)about it ages ago,and then last week I've saw this:

http://shaddicted.tumblr.com/post/3144898420/why-does-watson-like-so-much-when-sherlock-plays-the



P.S.:this comm is awesome.
 
 
30 January 2011 @ 08:50 am
This seemed to be the place to ask this, and the mods agreed, so here goes:

What is with the fanon about Anderson and dinosaurs?

I've been trying to dig this out for months. I didn't come to the fandom very late (a month or so after the first UK airing), but this trope was already well established. I looked up Jonathan Aris' filmography, and he didn't do Primeval or anything similar that I can tell. I also wasn't able to find a start to it in any comment threads in places like the kink meme (which to be fair I didn't read thoroughly, as that thing is MASSIVE.) Does anyone have any insight into the origins of this? I'm really curious.
 
 
29 January 2011 @ 06:32 pm
On the heels of the excellent Deducing Mrs. Hudson post on Baker Street Supper Club, I've been thinking about the family dynamics of the Holmes brothers.

In canon and the Granada adaptation, Mycroft and Sherlock blend respect for each other's intellectual powers with a mild amount of sibling rivalry. There is no mention of either parent; when the brothers insult each other, it is for their own merits (or lack thereof) - mostly Sherlock sniffing about Mycroft's indolence. And aside from their peculiarities, both brothers seem well socialized.

In BBC's Sherlock, on the other hand, the underlying dynamic is warped - as are both of the brothers.Collapse )
 
 
20 January 2011 @ 01:42 pm
Hello, fellow fans of Sherlock Holmes through the ages! Allow me to introduce myself and shwatchalongs, your brand new affiliate.

At shwatchalongs, we have been watching various incarnations of Sherlock Holmes since October 2010. Recently we have introduced weekly discussion posts to allow for more reflection and discussion about the films we watch. My name is morelindo and I am in charge of the discussions. I try to come up with a couple of questions to get the ball rolling, but people are free to bring up anything they feel is relevant to the film in question.

If this sounds like something you'd be interested in, have a look at what we've been talking about so far. Also, there is a schedule for the upcoming watchalongs for the rest of this month - and obviously there will be new schedules once we reach the ned of January.

We watch films on a Sunday night (GMT), the discussion posts go up on the Monday afterwards. There will be catch-up posts for The Private Life of Sherlock Holmes and Sherlock Holmes and the Case of the Silk Stocking in the next two weeks as well.

Discussion and watchalong posts are public, so if you'd like to join us in watching and/or discussing the films, you are most welcome. Even if you feel you're late to the party with a particular post, please feel free to share your opinion.

I hope to see some lively discussions both here and there!
 
 
Current Mood: excitedexcited