Sherlock Holmes

Well, nobody can accuse ACD of being very careful with getting his own facts right. Which is a little bit a shame, honestly, but I guess he liked Sherlock Holmes less than his actual readers. Nowadays no writer would get away with so much sloppiness. I guess that it's a really good thing that there are so many adaptations of the stories out there, because his ideas were often better than the execution.

I'm still working my way through the canon right now. So far, I've read three of the four novels (every one but Valley of Fear), most of Adventures, three of the stories in Memoirs, and "The Empty House" in Return. I admit it, the BBC show is really what inspired me to go all-out and read the whole thing. Luckily, I've had most of the books in my house since before I was born, since my Mom's such a huge Sherlockian.

I'd probably go out on a limb and call The Sign of Four my favorite novel in the canon, though Baskervilles is a close second. I like the urban focus and the international reach (the connection to the rebellions in India was a nice touch), and I love the pathos that Watson's marriage to Mary Morstan adds.

From what I've read so far, I'd have to call "The Speckled Band" my favorite short story. But give me a week or so to finish Memoirs, and that might change.

I also dabble a little bit in Sherlockian fanfiction. Getting invited to join the Baker Street Irregulars has always been a dream of mine, but I'd have to get one of my stories published first.

edited 2nd Aug '13 5:55:50 PM by TheMightyHeptagon

The Sign of the Four is definitely my favourite novel, followed by the Hound of the Baskervilles. I like The Sign of the Four more though, because there we really get all the information Holmes has, unlike in the Hound. A Study in Pink just has this incredible long (and boring) second half, and The Valley of Fear a very dissatisfying ending.

Of the short stories...well, there is "The Copper Beeches", "The Musgrave Ritual", "Charles August Milverton"...it's really quite a mix, some are really good but a lot of them end way too abrupt.

I assume you mean A Study in Scarlet, yes?

Yes...I obviously watch too much Sherlock. But really, there is so much from the original book in the episode.

Yeah, there really is. It was kind of fun to rewatch that episode after I'd gone out and read the book. I laughed my ass off when they got to the "RACHE" scene.

Anderson: "Rache". It's German for "revenge". She could be trying to tell us that—

Sherlock: Yes, thank you for your input.

(slams door)

Lestrade: She was writing "Rachel"?

Sherlock: No, she was writing an angry note in German. Of course she was writing "Rachel"!

edited 3rd Aug '13 6:49:20 PM by TheMightyHeptagon

It's more than that...the first meeting of Holmes and Watson, the murderer being a cabbie, having an aneurysm, the two pills, Holmes sending a message to lure the killer in, all this is in the original story, too. They mostly modernized everything, emphasised certain aspects and changed the motive. Even that the passenger in the cap is from California is a reference. And that's not even mentioning all the scenes which are based on other Sherlock Holmes stories - or later adaptations. Angelo for example is based on an old Basil Rathbone movie.

US judge rules Sherlock Holmes and Watson are in the public domain.

Wha-? So, they weren't before?

Not all of them...the American versions were published later than the English ones, plus, the former wife of Sheldon, who ones bought the rights in order to adapt the 1954 series laid claim on it and processed for years. Some of the arguments were really ridiculous. There were also tries to make Sherlock Holmes a trademark which would have meant, that the character would have never been in the public domain (copyright expires...trademarks don't, which is the reason why Tarzan is not and will never be in the public domain).

Let's just say it is a frustrating issue, and the recent victory is important to free Sherlock Holmes for everyone to use. Because, honestly, I really don't see why some people who had nothing to do with his creation or are the heirs of the author should be allowed to lay claim on him.

Huh. So, if he had become a trademark, where would that have left all the works that had already used/referenced him? Would they need to pay a fee or something before further distribution was possible?

Pretty much, yes. And remember that this only covers Holmes stories published up to 1923, so the details of the last few Conan Doyle-written stories are still copyrighted, even if the stories themselves take place earlier. Mention, oh, Watson's second wife, and you're liable for the usual license fees.

Well that sucks.

Does this means that if any adaptation or pastiche wants to add or mention anything from The Casebook of Sherlock Holmes has to get permission from the ACD state? I'm pretty sure there are already some works that do that, I don't know why it escalated to a court case in this instance.

If they want to sell it, yes.

I think this case reached actual litigation because both sides needed a test case to see where the law is interpreted, thus allowing either public domain use or eternal licensing fees. This has knock-on effects for a lot of other literature, especially works where the ownership is complicated.

Picked up Complete Sherlock Holmes, by Christopher Morley, and reading A Study in Scarlett.

I never knew that the whole thing was told through Watson's point of view. I thought it was more of a third person point of view. I love the way Sherlock is introduced.

I have to admit, I thought about reading the book for a long time, but only recently, after watching Sherlock, I really decided to read it.

So, I just posted this to WMG, and then I realized that WMG is a lousy place to get feedback. So. Here's a theory I've held for a while. (Highlight only if you've read Valley of Fear. The only things that'll make sense if you haven't are the spoilers.)

Porlock is Moriarty's sock puppet.

Firstly: Holmes' involvement at Birlstone worked purely in Moriarty's favor, and Moriarty, presumably keeping tabs on Baldwin and knowing that he's a clumsy sawn-off shotgun guy and also distinctly overdue, would know there was a high probability that Douglas survived.

Secondly: If Porlock is a real person living in mortal fear who has managed in some capacity to operate under Moriarty's nose, it's strange that he doesn't seem to know what a code is for. Would a Nazi spy trying to pass information on Operation Husky encrypt every word except "Sicily"? (Why would Holmes not realize this one himself? For roughly the same reason that Mycroft could only best Holmes at deduction via Holmes having a slight brain-fart, I imagine.)

Thirdly: By FINA, we and Holmes both know that Moriarty is a very accomplished forger. So, if a person who can assume any handwriting he wishes, and whom you have been battling on fronts uncounted, sends you an extremely vague taunt, how would you know the identity of the sender, much less the topic of the message? I say because it pleased him to assume Porlock's hand, thereby showing that he'd made Holmes complicit in the murder of Jack Douglas.

So, you know what, not even a tiny bit, not even a tiny bit, not even a tiny bit, and so forth until someone figures out how to fix the broadcast system. May the Fourth be with us.

edited 1st Apr '14 7:55:36 AM by DomaDoma

Ungh... The Valley of Fear is still the one novel that I haven't read. I really want to highlight that theory, but I can't.

All the more motivation to get up off my lazy ass and read it, I guess.

I've done it! It's taken forever but I finally read every Sherlock Holmes story!

Maybe I should have come here sooner, I could have commented on each individual story.

Have you read this one?

That one's adorable. For some reason, I just think of Holmes wanting to pat the disgruntled Watson condescendingly on the head at the end of it.

Hello, I’m looking for a certain trope page that had an essay that speculated Moriarty’s involvement in the early Sherlock stories.

The essay was called Moriarty was there, but I have trouble finding it on google, and basically argued in a classic story, the professor disguised himself as an old lady to mislead Holmes and Watson.

I can’t remember the trope page, I think it was hijacked by ganon but the oldest entry just mentioned most Sherlock Holmes essayists will argue that Moriarty had involvement in the old stories.

Does anyone here know what I’m talking about? I’d like to read that essay again.

Some quick searching has shown that "Moriarty Was There" was written by Robert Patrick in 1958. Thus far, that's all I've been able to find.

Thank you, do you have a link?

Unfortunately, I've only been able to find references to it, where it's listed in works-cited or indexes, or in lists of scholarly works about Sherlock Holmes. Haven't been able to find the article itself online.

Finally found the example I was looking for.

• Moriarty was there was an essay published by Doyle's Fandom trying to upgrade Moriarty from Break Out Villain to true Big Bad status for the Sherlock Holmes book series by doing a Revision about Holmes cases and arguing that Moriarty was there as a Greater Scope Villain for various BigBads cases: after all, canon has established him as a Diabolical Mastermind, with vast criminal resources that can be exploited by minor criminals by a fee. For example, the essay proposes that the criminal of the very first novel, A Study in Scarlet, after losing his Memento MacGuffin and recognizing he is Lured into a Trap by whoever put the ad in the paper to recover it (Holmes), then consulted Moriarty, who commissioned a Master of Disguise to pose as an elderly woman to get it (it worked!).

Sadly, no link.