|
|
From
The Surrey Shore . .
.
The Newsletter of the Hated Rivals on the Surrey Shore Vol. 2, No. 1, February 2003
****A Scion
Society for All Who Enjoy Sherlock Holmes in All His Manifestations!****
Oh, wait. That’s not quite
right. We don’t become aristocrats. We’re going to visit an
Aristocrat! Aristocrat Pub & Restaurant, that is. Yes, that’s right: The
first-ever dinner meeting of the Hated Rivals on the Surrey Shore is planned
for Saturday evening, March 8, 2003, at the Aristocrat Pub & Restaurant, at
5212 N. College Ave., in Central (uptown) Indianapolis! As the restaurant
doesn’t accept reservations on Saturdays, and the expected wait for a table for
a small party is about 20 minutes, per the friendly folks at Aristocrat, we’re
planning on meeting there at 7 p.m. to request a table and expecting to be
seated around 7:30 p.m. Before (and during) dinner, we’ll engage in some lively
Sherlockian/Victorian discussion (topics to be announced at the meeting), and
following dinner, we plan to stay on for the Celtic stylings of the band Hog
Eye Navvy, which plays starting at 9 p.m. (Note: Staying for the band
isn’t a requirement to attend the meeting.) So that we know how many to request
a table for, we do ask that you contact us by letter or via e-mail by Friday
evening, March 7. You can also leave a phone message at 317-572-3032 until 6
p.m. that Friday as well. We especially need your RSVP if you prefer to arrive
closer to our expected seating time rather than wait along with your humble
scion officers. (We won’t take offense — we promise!)
***
Welcome to the first newsletter
of 2003 for the Hated Rivals on the Surrey Shore, Indianapolis’ youngest
(staring our second year now) and only independent Sherlockian society — and,
to our current knowledge, the only one locally that welcomes the enjoyment and
study of Sherlock Holmes in all his various manifestations in popular
culture, from comics to movies, from historical to speculative fiction, and
just about anything else. (As long as it doesn’t get too stuffy or
overly highbrow — the goal is to have fun and enjoy ourselves while
appreciating the premiere detective of Victorian popular fiction, as well as
the age that inspired him and his adventures.) If you’re just joining us,
greetings! If you’ve been on board for some part of the past year, welcome
back! We have a varied — and, we think, enjoyable — set of meetings planned for
2003, and we hope that you’ll consider joining us at any that pique your
interest. You don’t need to be a scholar of the Holmes stories nor of the
period to commune with the Hated Rivals — plenty of other groups are available
locally and elsewhere if that’s your inclination. Your focus doesn’t even need
to center solely around Holmes or his creator, Sir, Arthur Conan Doyle. (Many
of us enjoy the works of other Victorian authors, too — your humble
correspondent is especially fond of H.G. Wells’ scientific romances and Jules
Verne’s voyages extraordinaire.) Although our main focus is on
the Master Sleuth of Baker Street, we have no problem if he shares the
spotlight with other detectives (or genres) in Victorian and Edwardian fiction
in your own affections. (Our scion does, after all, take its name from the
title given by Holmes to a detective he considered his rival, although the
exploits of said sleuth, Mr. Barker, are sadly limited to the pages of only one
story.) Our focus is on having fun — and if a bit of light scholarship takes
place in the process, we’re not going to be overly displeased.
So read on and perhaps you’ll
learn something that you didn’t know about Sherlock Holmes, the Victorian era,
and the whole Holmes phenomenon in general. For more information about our
scion and its philosophy, feel free to scan past newsletters on our Web site,
at the Web address listed at the end of this newsletter (or, if you’re not
connected to the Internet, send us a SASE and we’ll send you a sampling of our
past newsletters). And please consider joining us here on the Surrey Shore
(which, in an astounding feat of neo-Victorian engineering, we’ve managed to
transplant right here to Indianapolis and its suburbs), either at our next
meeting or at any of those listed in the “Coming Meetings” section, later in
this newsletter.
Okay, now for the latest
controversy! (And for an expanded version of the following essay, check the
Publications page on our Web site. Hmmm, wonder how many brickbats we’ll get
about this one?)
Have you ever wondered what
historians of the far, distant future may conclude about Sherlock Holmes and
the entire Sherlockian phenomena, long after the knowledge of exactly who and
what Sherlock Holmes was has passed from memory? (Okay, that’s unlikely ever to
happen, we know — but let’s just suppose, for the sake of argument, that such a
disaster does come to pass, perhaps following some as-yet unforeseen future
holocaust, and that archaeologists a thousand years from now come across fragments
not only of the writings themselves, but the writings about the writings. And
even bits of the writings about the writings about the writings.) What would
such future scholars deduce from the clues left behind about the individual
known as “Sherlock Holmes” and those who venerated him? Some, of course, would
probably decide that Holmes was merely a fictional character (remember — we’re
just supposing here, so no cries of “blasphemy,” okay?) and that Sherlockians
were simply devotees of a harmless hobby focusing on him. I would venture to
guess, however, that others might attribute much more to what they find (in
absence of a codex or key to prove otherwise) and could even conclude that
Holmes, far from being fictional, was a very real, historical character — one
who was worshipped by his followers and thus the founder (or focus) of a great
religion . . . a cult of Sherlock Holmes, so to speak.
Ridiculous, you say? Perhaps.
But look at how modern archeologists and historians sometimes view the great
(and not-so-great) religious movements of the past, whether real or (possibly)
imagined. In spite of the abundance of texts of the New Testament bearing
witness to his historicity, there are scholars today who believe that Jesus
Christ was a fictional character. Conversely, few question that the Greeks and
Romans worshipped many gods, based mainly on references in a handful of
scattered texts, few completely intact. Well, of course, there are the great
temples and statues devoted to the Greek gods to prove that they were
worshipped by the unsophisticated intellects of the ancients. Just as today,
there are to be found in many places around the world statues of Sherlock
Holmes in proximity to those of actual historical persons as well as
representations of the ancient gods of the Greeks and Romans . . . So who
really is to say that, as proposed herein, Holmes at some point in the dim
future could not be looked upon as just another ancient god or founder of a
religious movement, worshipped by the relatively unsophisticated intellects of
the 19th through 21st centuries? (Those with a proven
gift of prophecy or a working time machine who can, without any doubt, refute
this proposition are more than welcome to come forth with their knowledge.)
What are the clues that may lead
our future historians to pontificate about the newly discovered Cult of
Sherlock Holmes? Even considering only fragmentary evidence remains by then,
one can find more than abundant references in the writings about the writings
to the “Canon,” as Sherlockians often dub the original Holmes stories. As most
of you know, a canon is a body of scripture — of religious writings that
are deemed authoritative by the followers of that religion. (True, the term
does have other meanings, but this is its main one. The books of the Bible are
considered the Canon of scripture by the vast majority of the Christian church,
just as other religions have their own canons.) Writings that fall outside the
canon of a religion’s scriptures are considered noncanonical — a term
sometimes applied to various Holmes pastiches and other writings that aren’t
considered “authoritative” by the Sherlockian community as a whole. So would
our hypothetical future historians be all that amiss in interpreting
Sherlockian writings referring to “the Canon” as indicative that we viewed the
original Holmes stories as holy scripture that we venerated — even worshipped?
Perhaps. If not for other, similar indications . . .
In many of the writings, Sherlockians refer to
Holmes as “the Master.” Of course, we’re referring to Holmes as the Master
Detective or Master Sleuth, and not as the master of a religious movement. And
yet, going only by such fragments, would future historians again be amiss in
considering such references in a similar vein to those in the Bible referring
to Jesus as “Master” or of the many religious sects that grant such a title to
the leader (or guru) of their movement? Remember again that these scholars
would be going by whatever remains of our existing books (not much, considering
the quality of today’s paper and binding materials) and other such ephemera.
(And remember those statues of Holmes and the plaques honoring his exploits
placed in so many places around the world by various scions.) On further
examining the remains of the Sherlockian hobby, they could conclude that we
even had our own elite priesthood in the Baker Street Irregulars (limited at
least initially to 60, a “holy” number chosen to match the exact number of
“canonical” stories). And in examining other writings about the writings, they
could even conclude that the Sherlockian religion consisted of many different
sects, or churches, in the different scions scattered around the world. Some of
these “denominations,” they could deduce, considered themselves “orthodox”
Sherlockians who condemned what they considered “heresies,” or Sherlockian
interests that diverged too much from what they considered orthodoxy. (Not so
much of a stretch in my mind, considering that I know of at least one scion
writer who routinely condemned in his own writings any form of Sherlockiana
that fell outside his own interests — and all who practiced it — as
“unorthodox” and thus, by extension, undeserving of the name “Sherlockian.” And
he was probably not the only one who thought — or wrote — that way.)
And let’s not forget again not only those statues of Holmes in various locations (such as the one that we described in the October 2002 issue of this newsletter, which you can read on our Web site), but also all the Holmes figures — pewter miniatures, dolls, action figures, and what not — that various people have sold over the years. What are these but idols — handmade representations of our “god” or of the “holy” founder of our “cult”? (I recall a religious group with which I was once affiliated that tried to go to so many pains to make sure that the children in the group didn’t confuse veneration of the founder and president of that ministry with actual worship, fearing they’d come to the wrong conclusion that the minister was, in fact, a manifestation of God. And then they turned around and offered miniature bronze statues of the man for sale to the group’s followers — in effect, creating “idols” of him.) When future archeologists dig up the statues of Buddha, Kali, Bast, Zeus, and other religious leaders or deities, can they truly be blamed if, after uncovering statues and statuettes of a deerstalker-clad man smoking a curved pipe, they conclude that he, too, was a holy figure, worshipped by the cult of Sherlockiana — especially given all the circumstantial evidence found in the remnant fragments of the writings? I think not.
Thus is how religions — or
misinterpretations that lead to “uncovering” religions — may someday be born.
And now, before any of you take up the cry of true believers of ages past and
cry for this “heretic” to be burned at the stake for such “blasphemy,” let me
reassure you that this has been but a bit of bemused speculation, born in a
bout of word play while considering some of the terms we Sherlockians often
bandy about, often without a great deal of thought as to what others outside
the hobby may think of us as we use them. But let it also be a form of mild
reproof to those in the hobby who take Sherlockiana far too seriously than they
should. This is, after all, a hobby — a source of fun, amusement, and diversion
and not anything pertaining to life and/or godliness. So before you take pen to
paper to condemn someone else in the hobby for doing things differently from
you or enjoying an aspect of Sherlock Holmes that holds no appeal to you, stop
and think twice about it. Are you about to become one of those who may someday
be considered in the eyes of our far-future descendants a religious “fanatic” —
a “grand inquisitor,” out to burn at the stake yet another “heretic” in defense
of the Holy Cult of Sherlock Holmes? (Who, you? Naaaaaaaw!)
And thus comes to a close yet another provocative,
scintillating Letter from Barker. (And if this is how we start out the year,
just think how it all may end? Heaven forbid!) Too heavy for you? (If not, look
for an expanded version on the Articles page of our Web site.) And just keep in
mind that, on the Surrey Shore, the tongue is often planted firmly in cheek.
And if it’s not being just a bit too cheeky, here’s hoping that we’ll be
seeing you at a future meeting of the Hated Rivals on the Surrey Shore!
(Just remember to leave the thumb screws and red-hot pokers at home.) Till
then, I remain ever yours . . .
—C. Barker,
Esq.
***
A hardy group of Hated Rivals,
both new faces and veterans, braved the cold and snow to trek to Noblesville
for a warming Victorian Tea at the Hamilton County Historical Society’s Jail
Museum, on the town square. The assembled Rivals viewed several videos in the
living room of the Victorian house while the tea was steeping in the kitchen.
Then everyone adjoined to said kitchen for a variety of teas (and coffees for
the nontea drinkers), scones, crumpets, clotted cream and myriad jams and
preserves, plus miniature cream-cheese-and-cumber sandwiches. The food and
drink was plentiful, and Rivals new and old enjoyed the ample fare, as well as
a series of lively and engaging conversations, interrupted occasionally by a
bit of Rivals business and several Canonical toasts. The conversation ranged
from possibilities for future Rivals meetings to the history of tea and teas
(as well as the relative relationship of coffee and other treats) during the
Victorian era. So engrossing was the exchange, in fact, that those in
attendance barely had time to take the full tour of the house and attached jail
(which had, in its time, contained such villains that even the likes of
Professor Moriarty or Colonel Moran might hesitate to share a cell with some of
them). The remainder of the videos thus had to be set aside for a future
gathering, as the Rivals departed into the snowy outdoors, tummies full and new
friends made – another successful gathering of the Hated Rivals on the Surrey
Shore!
***
In “A Scandal in Bohemia,”
Holmes takes one of his many disguises described by Watson in the Holmes
stories — that of a “nonconformist clergyman.” But not everyone who reads the
original story may realize that “nonconformist” was not the name of a
particular denomination or sect in England at the time. In fact, the term nonconformist
referred equally to any Protestant church or denomination beyond that of the
established Anglican Church of England. The term dissenters was also
sometimes used to describe such churches, although this term was more correctly
applied to the older denominations, such as Baptist, that were considered “Old
Dissent.” Nonconformist churches included the Congregationalists, Wesleyan
Methodists, Primitive Methodists, Plymouth Brethren, the Catholic Apostolic
Church (something quite different from the Roman Catholic Church), the
Salvation Army, and many others — even the unorthodox denominations such as the
Unitarians, who denied the standard Christian tenant of the Trinity. So exactly
what brand of nonconformist clergyman did Holmes portray in “Scandal”? As
Watson doesn’t give us more information, we cannot, of course, determine the
answer. (Although despite one topic in this issue’s Letter from Barker, we feel
relatively safe in venturing that Holmes wasn’t ordaining himself in the
First Church of Sherlock Holmes, a denomination that even the nonconformists
would find, well . . . nonconformist.)
***
I Hear of Sherlock
Everywhere!
Apple Tree Theatre, of Highland Park, Illinois, will
be presenting a theatrical adaptation of The Sign of the Four this
coming summer. The play is slated to run from June 18th through July
20th. For ticket and other information, you can call the box office
at 847-432-4335, or check out the theater’s Web site at
www.appletreetheatre.com. Group rates are available for parties of 10 or more.
Professor Moriarty made a brief cameo appearance on
the January 12th episode of the Fox Network’s Futurama adult
animated series (by the creators of The Simpsons). In a parody of the
two Star Trek: The Next Generation episodes that featured a
holodeck-based Professor Moriarty, a “holo-shed” accident loosed not only
Moriarty, but Jack the Ripper, Attila the Hun (or Genghis Khan – it was
difficult to tell), and a chainsaw-wielding “Evil Lincoln” on the Futurama
regulars. The Professor’s appearance was brief, however, as a hull breech
quickly sucked the holocharacters-come-to-life out into space.
Speaking of animation, the animated series Sherlock
Holmes in the 21st Century, described in the April 2002
newsletter, has moved to the Fox Network’s Sunday morning lineup at the dismal
hour of 7 a.m. To compensate, Fox is showing two of the half-hour episodes in a
row. So set your VCRs if you don’t mind all the futuristic twists to these
(very loose) adaptations of the original Holmes tales.
PBS’s Masterpiece Theatre ran a new version
of Hound of the Baskervilles on Sunday, January 19. I managed to catch
only the first hour (and taped the rest, although I’ve not had time yet to view
it), so didn’t catch the actors’ names, who produced it, or any other details.
Based on the first hour, however, I’m not in a rush to catch the rest. Although
it followed the story to a point, it began deviating quite radically by the
time Watson reached Dartmoor, pulling bits from other stories (Watson relaying
Holmes’ comment about the supernatural from “Sussex Vampire” and his list of
Holmes’ areas of knowledge from A Study in Scarlet) and
even from other movies (a séance scene obviously lifted from the Rathbone Hound).
Neither were any of the characters at all likeable as portrayed by these
actors, including Holmes and even Watson. (Oddly, the most likable portrayal
during the first hour was that of Stapleton! And speaking of Stapleton, the
actor chosen for that role looked far more like Holmes as portrayed in Padgett’s
illustrations than did the actor playing Holmes, who was more reminiscent of
Nicole Williamson or Matt Frewer in appearance.) All these characters have been
better portrayed in most of the other film versions of the Hound (excepting, of
course, William Shatner as Stapleton and the entire Dudley Moore version). And
why another version of Hound at all, considering that it’s probably the
most-filmed Holmes story in history? Why not one of many of the tales that have
rarely or never seen the light of celluloid (or digital tape nowadays)?
Certainly most would require padding to stretch out to film-length, but if the
producers were going to deviate so from the original tale anyway, why not at
least pick one of the lesser-exposed stories as a basis? (According to our own
Suzanne Snyder, the second hour was even worse, with a costumed Christmas ball
and a hound whose “head was
grotesquely large, with jaws like a crocodile, and the whole thing looked more
like a warthog on the rampage than it did a mastiff.”) Ah well – at least it
wasn’t quite as bad as the near-dreadful Case of Evil (see last
newsletter for a review). Or . . . was it?
Earlier the same day as the Masterpiece Hound,
I happened to catch a film adaptation of The Cater Street Hangman, the
first of the Inspector Pitt mysteries written by Anne Perry, starring Eoin
McCarthy as Inspector Pitt and Keeley Hawles as Charlotte Ellison (later Mrs.
Pitt). The 1998 film ran on the A&E cable channel. Unfortunately, I didn’t
manage to get the movie on tape, as I didn’t discover that it was on until just
a minute or so before it started (barely in time to locate the channel).
Fortunately, the video is available for sale for $29.95 on A&E’s Web site
(at www.aande.com) — and again, thanks go to Suzanne Snyder for discovering the
movie’s info on the A&E site. I found the film quite well done, and would
recommend it to anyone with an interest in Victorian mysteries (just as I’d
recommend the entire series of novels by Perry which are set about the same
time that Holmes was in business). If you find it listed again, don’t miss it.
Those with an interest in the geography of the
Holmes stories — and in late Victorian London in particular — will find a great
resource in Alan Godfrey Maps. This England-based mapmaker offers exact reproductions
of Ordnance Survey Maps of England, Wales, Scotland, and Ireland from the 1860s
through the early 20th century. Most of the maps cover an area of
about a mile and a half square, although a series of larger-scale maps also is
available. London is well-represented, with at least one map of every area of
the city and its environs. Most London areas have three maps available: one
from the late 1860s to early 1870s, one for 1893-94, and one for 1913-14.
Nearly every area has an 1893-4 map available, which would be the period of
most interest to Sherlockians. The maps cost £2.10 each (with a minimum
overseas order of £5), plus 20% postage and handling to the U.S. For current
lists of maps and other information, you can visit the Godfrey Web site at www.alangodfreymaps.co.uk.
To order, send credit card information and the catalog numbers and years of the
maps that you want to Alan Godfrey Maps, Prospect Business Park, Leadgate,
Consett, DH8 7PW, England; phone: (01207) 583388; fax: (01207) 583399. (I own a
number of these maps and they are really beautiful — detailed down to
the individual buildings, streets, and other details. They also include a brief
text description of the area that the map covers, as well as a listing of some
of the area’s residents from that period. Highly recommended!)
From
our e-mail correspondence comes the following item for those of you with a few
extra pounds to spend: The “Sherlock Holmes” ring, designed by Scott Bond, BSI,
and manufactured
by Herff Jones, Inc., features Holmes’ portrait on the top, 221B on one side, and 1895
on the other. The ring is available in a men’s or a daintier ladies’ (smaller)
version. The Classic ring is made with White Ultrium; rings are optionally
available in 10, 14 or 18 carat gold.
Prices
are as follows:
Ladies’ Ring Men’s Ring
Classic $179 $179
10K
White or Yellow Gold $240 $281
14K
White or Yellow Gold $259 $323
18K
Yellow Gold $307 $409
Prices
include shipping and handling for a continental USA delivery; state sales tax
is additional. All other locations, must add $20 for additional shipping costs.
Rings are individually made. Approximate delivery time is 8 weeks. Ordering Instructions: All payments must be by
credit card: Visa, MasterCard, American Express, or Discover/Novus; No cash or
check payments acceptable. All orders must be signed and mailed to Mr. James
Saunders, BSI, PO Box 9052, Astoria, NY 11103-0903. You ring size must be
included. For a printout of the order form, including a size guide, you can
send a SASE to this newsletter, at the address at the end of the last page; for
an electronic version, send an e-mail request to us. You can also contact the
seller directly for a form. (Ed Note: Just don’t ask your fellow Sherlockians to kiss your
ring — just think what those future historians might come up with from that
sort of practice!)
***
Coming Meetings!
Following is the schedule for
all our remaining meetings for 2003. Check our Web site or our Indianapolis
Star Web page for updates. In the meantime, set these dates aside to join
the Hated Rivals at any of the following soirées:
A Night at Aristocrat!
Saturday, March 8, 2003,
from 7 to 9 p.m. (and beyond!)
The Aristocrat Pub &
Restaurant
5212 N. College Ave, in
Indianapolis, Indiana
Directions
and Details: The
restaurant is on North College Avenue, just north of 52nd Street, on
the west side of the road. Parking is available on the street in front of the
restaurant and on its north side. Activities include dinner and great
fellowship, a short business meeting, Canonical toasts, Sherlockian/Victorian
discussions, and the Celtic music of Hog Eye Navvy. For additional information
and directions, call the restaurant at 317-283-7388, or contact us at one of
the addresses at the end of this newsletter.
and . . . (see the flyer on
the reverse side for more details) . . .
Saturday,
May 10: The
“Train-ing” of Sherlock Holmes; Saturday, July 12: A Barker Birthday!; Saturday,
September 13: A Canonical Cookout; Saturday, November 8: Mayhem,
Menace, and Moriarty!
For
more information, contact us c/o Bill Barton, P.O. Box 26290, Indianapolis, IN
46226-0290; or Mimi DeMore, P.O. Box 482, Fishers, IN 46038. E-mail us at
postmaster@surrey-shore.freeservers.com or at ladymolly@hotmail.com. (And don’t
forget to venture online to check out our Hated Rivals Web site at
http://surrey-shore.freeservers.com or our Indy Star Web page at
http://community.indystar.com/928/ for recent updates.) See you again back on
the ol’ Surrey Shore, where the game’s always afoot!