|
|
From
The Surrey Shore . .
.
The Newsletter of the Hated Rivals on the Surrey Shore Vol. 2, No. 2, April 2003
****A Scion
Society for All Who Enjoy Sherlock Holmes in All His Manifestations!****
No, wait! Despite what some may
wish, your beloved Hated Rivals aren’t being run out of town on a rail.
We are heading out of Indy town, it’s true — although just up the road
to Noblesville once again — and, to be sure, a rail will play a
significant part in our next meeting. That’s because it revolves around the
railroad — and, more specifically, the Victorian railroad, as used on many an
occasion by Sherlock Holmes and Dr. Watson as they set off on yet another
adventure away from the familiar streets of London. And that’s why we’ll be
meeting at the Indiana Transportation Museum on Saturday, May 31, 2003, from
noon to 3:30 p.m., in friendly, neighboring Noblesville! The meeting will be
held across the street from the Museum, in Forest Park, as close to the Museum
as we can locate a table. (Look for Hated Rivals signs and people in
deerstalkers having way too much fun.) The meeting will include a talk
on the railway in Victorian England by our own Victorian expert, Bill Barton,
plus some special Sherlockian “train” music. After the meeting, we’ll be
entering the Museum for a short tour and a two-hour train ride to Atlanta, IN.
(The ride itself costs $8.50/person, including Museum admission. Those on a
budget may just attend the free meeting and skip the ride if they so desire.)
For directions and additional information, see the Coming Meetings section,
later in this newsletter.
In case you didn’t notice, we just want to point out the change in the date of the May meeting from the May 10 date previously announced in the last two newsletters to May 31. Our own intrepid VP, Russell, has been called to New Mexico and Arizona to investigate an intriguing case, requiring extensive time at Hopi, Navajo, and other Indian reservations. She is, therefore, unavailable on the original meeting date. As it just wouldn’t be a Hated Rivals meeting without her – and to avoid the local race weekend crowds on the weekend following her expected return – we’ve pushed the meeting date back to the end of the month. So if you marked May 10 on your calendar, cross it off and designate May 31 as the new Hated Rivals May Day for 2003. (And here’s hoping that the date change doesn’t set off any May Day distress calls from any of our loyal members and guests.) And in regard to the remaining meetings for the year, have no fear – we don’t expect the later date for the May meeting to affect the currently posted date for July.
***
It’s early May 2003 as I finish
up this issue of our From the Surrey Shore newsletter, a bit late this
time as a consequence of moving back the date of our May meeting (for reasons
noted above). But as most of the newsletter was composed during April, we
retain the April date in the masthead to maintain a bit of (we hope) comforting
continuity among our readers. Much can be said for keeping to continuity,
tradition, and comfort — provided such traits don’t become barriers to
necessary change. We are, after all, three (or two, depending on how you look
at it) years into the 21st century (even though we do honor
characters and a society of the late 19th/early 20th
centuries). Those who focus too much on traditions can sometimes get too
comfortable and become, instead, rigid and uninviting. Sherlockians and
Sherlockian scions are not at all excluded here, unfortunately. We are all
human and prone to err. That’s when we should strive to recall that Sherlock
Holmes himself, although one to maintain a number of traditions, was also a
very forward-looking individual, as was his creator, Sir Arthur Conan Doyle.
That’s where balance comes in.
As the Bible teaches, we should maintain a balance
in our lives among all that we do and pursue—to be moderate in all things; a
false balance is, after all, an abomination to the Lord (and to most people,
too, if we go too far overboard). Does that mean, however, that we should not
pursue whole-heartedly our passions — the Sherlockian hobby that we all share,
for example? Not at all. But it does mean that we want to try to avoid becoming
too obsessive about it, excluding or ignoring all else in our own lives (or in
others’ lives). After all, even Sherlockiana is just a hobby surrounding a
fictional character, enjoyable as it (and he) may be. As we pursue our hobby,
we should keep in mind what things are really important in life, holding
fast to those that are good and eschewing those that are not — for example,
dishonesty and duplicity, hubris and egotism, bigotry and discrimination,
extreme exclusivity and elitism, gossip and backbiting, and self-aggrandizement
and self-advancement at any cost (especially at the expense of others), among
all too many other similar traits. (And yes, even we Sherlockians, being
human, can be guilty of such faults at times.)
In our scion, The Hated Rivals
on the Surrey Shore, we strive to maintain a balance between the traditional in
the Sherlockian field and the new and different. Change, after all, can be good
(if traumatic at times). And we try to remain open not only to all expressions
of the hobby, but also to all those people with an interest in it, whether that
interest is casual or (almost, but not to the point of obsession)
all-consuming. In short, we’re trying to become a scion for the 21st
century. Not all will like or possibly even agree with our approach as a valid
one. To such people, we say thanks for the opinion (assuming, of course, that
they make the effort to express it to us), and we wish you well in your own
pursuits. To those who agree with and like our approach, we say welcome — we
hope that you’ll be able to join us at some point. And if it appears that we’re
losing our balance, please let us know so that we can correct what can often
become quite a juggling feat. This scion is not about or for us (that is, your
humble officers). It’s for you.
Kudos, We Get Kudos . . .
We haven’t so far received a lot
of correspondence about our scion, and what we have received has been mixed
(including two pieces of hate mail from those who obviously don’t have a clue
as to what we’re doing here). So it was extremely refreshing — not to mention
gratifying — to receive a recent e-mail from Will Thomas, a correspondent in
Oklahoma who does understand our take on things Sherlockian. Our
attempts to meet as often as possible in actual Victorian locations, for
example, has resonated with Will, who states in his letter, “Your locales for
meetings show some imagination that is sorely lacking in some S'ian
organizations.” (For those new to the hobby, S’ian is a standard
Sherlockian abbreviation for scion.) Our kindly correspondent closed his
edifying missive as follows: “Good luck with your scion. I hope you
revolutionize Holmes societies. I think they rather need it to survive in the
twenty-first century.”
As generous as Will’s last comment
is, we aren’t expecting to revolutionize the hobby — we just hope to provide a
home for those who think about Sherlockiana in a way similar to how we do
(especially that it has room for everybody, of all Sherlockian tastes). But
with Sherlockians such Will (who has joined our scion as our first
“long-distance” member), who knows what we may manage to achieve? We welcome
him to the fold — as we do anyone else of similar mind. (And now on to the
“major” essay of the issue . . .)
What — Batman? Are you
kidding? He’s just a comic book character! How can you mention him in
the same sentence with Sherlock Holmes? Thus may be the reaction of those who
are ignorant not only of the current state of what was once known as the “comic
book” (because of its origins in humorously drawn cartoons collected in booklet
form), but also of the original nature of the Holmes stories. As tales
published in popular magazines, Doyle’s original Holmes stories were very much
the Victorian equivalent of the pulp sagas of the ’20s and ’ 30s as well as the
illustrated adventures presented in the “comic” books that followed. (Of
course, the Holmes’ tales were better written than most appearing in the pulps
or the comics of the late ’30s through the early ’60s — and sometimes beyond —
although Doyle himself did not consider Holmes the apex of his fictional
inventions but rather relegated his writings about the Great Detective to a
much lower rung on the literary ladder than his historical and other writings.
Doyle, in fact, preferred Professor Challenger — whose adventures were closer
to those written of by Jules Verne and H.G. Wells — over Holmes. And many of
Challenger’s fantastic excursions prefigured the type that appear most often
today in — you guessed it — comic books!)
If Doyle were alive and writing tales of Sherlock
Holmes today, I firmly believe that at least some of them could very well
appear in the form of the graphic novel that today’s “comic” books have largely
become. (And, in truth, some of the best of Holmes’ appearances in graphic
formats involve tales that are actually better written than a few of Doyle’s
own lesser offerings.) After all, Doyle originally penned The Mazarin Stone
as a play, converting it to story format only after its failure as a theatrical
presentation, showing his willingness to work in media other than the short
story or novel. Considering the state of the “comic” book today, Doyle would
likely have deemed that format as fitting a venue for the adventures of the
Master Sleuth of Baker Street as he did The Strand or Beeton’s
Christmas Annual or any other period magazine in which the Holmes saga
appeared. (Those who look down their noses at “comic books” as “beneath” them
merely show not only their ignorance of the state of today’s graphic novels but
also betray an appalling bigotry that is, in our humble opinion, quite
unbecoming a true Sherlockian. Oh, and before anyone considers writing a poison
pen letter, this doesn’t apply to those who merely don’t like
comic books — after all, we all have different tastes — only to those who put
down other Sherlockians who do.)
But, then, the purpose of this
mini-essay is not to defend the “comic” book/graphic novel as a “valid”
literary format (as those with any true perspective on popular culture know
that it is). It’s to discuss the ties that exist between Sherlock Holmes and
what some even consider his 20th century counterpart, the Batman
(also known, quite legitimately, as the Dark Knight Detective). Those whose
concept of the Caped Crusader of Gotham City is based on the character’s
far-fetched comic exploits of the ’50s or the campy TV series of the ’60s don’t
know the “real” Batman — at least the character as he’s portrayed today. (Even
the movies of the past couple decades miss the mark, although they’re closer to
the modern take on the hero than were earlier attempts.) Need I remind anyone
how Holmes himself was billed as “the Original Caped Crusader” in ads for A
Study in Terror — an attempt to cash in on the popularity of the TV show at
the time? Besides being one of the many ties between the two characters, that’s
a good lesson in not judging the merits of any fictional character based on how
he’s portrayed on TV or in the movies rather than going to the original
material. Would we want anyone to judge the literary merits of Sherlock Holmes
based on his portrayal in, for example, the recent Case of Evil movie?
(See past issues of this newsletter for a review of that dog, which should have
done nothing in the night time — or any other time, for that matter.)
So how exactly do the characters
of Sherlock Holmes and Batman relate to one another? Primarily in the fact that
Batman was modeled largely on Holmes. And no, I’m not talking about the “cape”
or anything along those lines — nor am I suggesting that Holmes ever roamed the
streets of London dressed as a gigantic bat. (At least not that we know of.
There are, still, all those untold tales of Watson’s . . . ) No, that would be
another near contemporary of Holmes, Spring-Heeled Jack. But in the character’s
traits as a detective, the model of Batman’s creators was none other
than Sherlock Holmes. Other influences were, of course, in play in creating the
Batman mythos, chief among them Zorro, from which the Caped Crusader picked up
the mask, cape, and modus operandi as a dark avenger of the night, which was
how Batman’s creator, Bob Kane, envisioned his creation — and how the character
was portrayed in his first appearances in Detective Comics and Batman
in the late ’30s and early ’40s. (It wasn’t until the appearance of Robin as
Batman’s sidekick that the stories began to “lighten up,” which eventually led
to Batman fighting aliens and other bizarre creatures during the ’50s and,
ultimately, to the farcical TV series of the ’60s.) But Kane was mainly an
artist and needed a writer to collaborate with him on Batman’s adventures.
Not to Point a Finger, But .
. .
Enter Bill Finger. It was Finger who, in his scripts
for the comics, decided that Batman should also be a detective. As a fan of the
Master Sleuth of Baker Street, Finger drew on his knowledge of Holmes’
scientific detection methods to round out Batman’s abilities as a sleuth. Just
as Doyle used the cutting edge methods of scientific detection of his day in
the Holmes stories, so did Finger portray Batman as a scientific detective
using methods beyond those of the police of the mid-20th century.
These methods would evolve in time to include the use of DNA analysis and Cray
supercomputers as part of the Gotham sleuth’s arsenal against crime. (Holmes,
of course, worked far too early to employ computers and similar hardware in his
crusade against evil. Had Charles Babbage’s analytical engine ever gone into
production, however, Doyle might very well have added it to Holmes
crime-fighting tools.) Finger also made Batman a master of disguise — yet
another homage to the Great Detective upon whom he modeled his additions to the
Bat mythos. (Although I daresay that Holmes’ digs at 221B were probably much homier
than the Bat Cave.)
Later contributors to the Batman saga further heightened the character’s abilities as a detective. (In fact, to one of his greatest foes, the Moriarty-like Ra’s Al Ghul, Batman came to be known simply as The Detective.) Unfortunately, the silliness of the Batman of the ’50s and ’60s detracted a great deal from the seriousness of the character’s origins — so much so that many Sherlockians could only cringe at any and all comparisons between the two characters during that period (the aforementioned “Caped Crusader” reference, for example). Fortunately, in the ’70s (and even more so in the ’80s and ’90s), Batman’s writers returned the character to his origins as a Grim Avenger of the Night — one who also happened to be the current world’s greatest detective. Those Sherlockians willing to give the hero of Gotham City a second look could be far more comfortable in a character that not only was a detective on a par with Baker Street’s finest, but whose stories were now written for more sophisticated readers — and, at their best, rivaled even some of Doyle’s own. (And if one wanted to push the envelope a bit, comparisons of the many “continuity” changes in Batman’s history could easily be compared to the seemingly abundant errors made by Watson in relating many of Holmes’ adventures. Mrs. Turner, anyone?)
Later Batman writers, in fact,
not only paid homage to the character’s roots as a Sherlockian-type sleuth but
even let the two meet, both on-stage and off. In the landmark Detective
Comics #600, for one example, Holmes made a cameo appearance at the end of
the story to help Batman solve the tale’s mystery. (Thanks to the effects of
royal jelly, Holmes appeared not to have aged at all by the mid-1980s.) In Gotham
By Gaslight, an “Elseworlds” prestige-format story in which Batman began
his career in the late Victorian era, he was said to have learned all his
skills as a sleuth from a certain (albeit unnamed) London detective. (Hmmm, now
I wonder who that could have been? Oh, of course — Sexton Blake! Not.)
So, as those with eyes to see should realize, the
ties that link together the Dark Knight Detective of Gotham to the Master
Sleuth of Baker Street are not all that tenuous after all. Which, of course,
leads me to wonder . . . What if it had been Batman whose adventures had
appeared first and not those of Sherlock Holmes? What if Doyle had been
influenced by Kane’s and Finger’s character and not vice versa? Picture, just
for the moment, the young Sherlock Holmes contemplating how he could use his unique
gifts not only as a profession but to benefit his fellow man. As he considered
his options late one night in his flat in Montague Street, imagine that a
wayward bat came crashing through a window (undoubtedly a disoriented vampire
bat who’d feasted on a victim intoxicated on absinthe or laudanum). What if
Holmes, as Bruce Wayne would half a century later, were to take this event as
an omen . . . a sign that he should become a creature of the night to strike
fear into the hearts of London’s criminal population? What, then, if Holmes had
become . . . The Batman of London? Of course, he would then be joined by
Watson, the Boy Wonder, a thought that staggers the mind. So, no, let’s not
even go there after all. Let’s instead be thankful that it was Batman who was
influenced by Sherlock Holmes and not the other way around. Amen?
Well, on that thought, it’s time to go. Here’s
hoping that we’ll be seeing you at a future meeting of the Hated Rivals
on the Surrey Shore! (Batarangs are, of course, optional.) Till then, I remain,
as always, ever yours . . .
—C. Barker,
Esq.
***
It was a dark and stormy night —
literally — as the Hated Rivals on the Surrey Shore gathered for our first-ever
dinner meeting at the Aristocrat Pub & Restaurant on North College Avenue
in Indianapolis. But a first-class downpour did nothing to dampen the spirits
of those scion members, old and new, who met for a filling dinner and rousing
discussions of things Sherlockian and otherwise. Once inside the pub, we did
have to endure an unexpectedly longer wait to be seated than we’d been told
earlier. (Perhaps a royal entourage had taken up more seating than usual or a
secret meeting of scoundrels and scalawags refused to relinquish their table .
. . I did seem to hear the name “Milverton” mentioned in disparaging tones . .
.) But nevertheless, your unflappable Rivals managed to turn the situation into
an additional opportunity for some fine Sherlockian fellowship (although a few
cramped muscles were definitely “a-foot” before we finally claimed our
well-deserved seats). Settling in, we enjoyed a variety of the pub’s fare, as
well as just enough of its libations to amply loosen the tongue for the
discussions to come. We covered far too wide a range of topics to describe
here, but among them was a quick recap of the history of our scion, as well as
some of our past experiences in the hobby, mainly for the benefit of our newest
members. We closed the “formal” part of the meeting with Canonical toasts to
the Master Sleuth, Sherlock Holmes himself, as well as to our namesake, his
Hated Rival on the Surrey Shore, Barker. We then settled in to listen to the
excellent Celtic music of Hog Eye Navvy (albeit still punctuating the lyrical
strains with our own lively conversation). As the music wore down for the night
(or the band took a break — with the pub so packed, it was difficult to tell),
we closed the book on yet another successful meeting of the Hated Rivals on the
Surrey Shore.
***
At our last meeting, as you can
read in the preceding section, the Hated Rivals enjoyed the music of the local
Celtic band, Hog Eye Navvy. But don’t think that the band can’t spell “Navy” or
is just using a cute variation on the term for novelty’s sake (as in
Beatles/Beetles and other famous names in ’60s British music). In case you’re
not aware, in Victorian England, navvy was what one called the common
laborers who worked on Britain’s growing railway system during Victoria’s
reign. The term originally came into use on the British canal system, where it
was a shortened form of the word navigator, given to laborers who worked
the canals. (In the 18th century, the artificial waterways built to
make British rivers navigable were dubbed navigations, a term also
applied to Britain’s cross-country canals.) As the railways began to stretch
across Britain in the 19th century, the kingdom’s canal system —
once its primary means of transporting goods from city to city — became less
important, and the railways finally took over the day-to-day task of commerce
within the British Isles. The title navigator transferred to the
itinerant railway worker, and the gangs of often unruly laborers became known
as navvies, an abbreviation that first appeared in print in the 1830s.
The navvies were key in making sure that the railways reached every city or
town of importance, from Scotland’s highlands to the South Downs of Sussex.
Later in the century, any laborer working on any construction project came to
be known as a navvy — and the term became so associated with excavation
that
the first mechanical digging machine to come into use in the 1870s became known
as a steam navvy.
***
I Hear of Sherlock
Everywhere!
In a recent episode of the WB TV’s Angel
series (a spin-off from Buffy the Vampire Slayer), Angelus, the evil
alter ego of the series’ title character, was referred to as the “vampire
Moriarty.” If you consider the relatively young average age of the typical WB
viewer, and the fact that the reference was given only in passing, it’s a
testament to how universally known not only Sherlock Holmes is, but his
nemesis as well. (Those who may want to catch the episode in reruns this summer
should check for TV guide blurbs about the series that mention Angelus. It was
the second or third of those episodes.)
Moriarty isn’t the only Victorian villain to grace
the airwaves recently. Jack the Ripper (or at least a modern wannabe) was
featured on an April episode of Fox TV’s John Doe series (mentioned a
few newsletters ago). Doe was called in as a consultant on a murder in which
the victim was mutilated and a kidney removed. (It was later sent to Doe in a
box with a letter signed “J.T.R.”) Unfortunately, after being struck by
lightning, Doe had temporarily lost his phenomenal knowledge and abilities,
leaving it up to a supporting character to deduce that the killer was a Ripper
imitator. Apparently, the scriptwriters, too, were struck by lightning,
resulting in faulty memories or an inability to process facts – or at least
weren’t paying attention to detail – as several aspects of the original Ripper
case, as described on the show, were incredibly wrong. (Catherine Eddowes, for
example, who was actually the fourth of the Ripper’s known victims, was
described as the first victim.) As even the most novice of Ripperologists could
have provided correct information on Saucy Jack’s victims (as could dozens of
books available on the Ripper), such sloppiness in an otherwise well-crafted
show is totally inexcusable. (Probably another indication that the show isn’t
expected to return next season.) If you missed the episode and want to catch it
in reruns (despite the errors), look for a TV guide blurb describing Doe
getting struck by lightning. (Or catch the previews if you decide to follow the
show for whatever time it has remaining. Even with such mistakes, it’s still
better than most standard TV fare these days.)
Holmes has been active recently in the world of
comics (arrgghh! — that word again!). Moonstone Books has released a paperback
compilation of two black-and-white Holmes graphic mini-series: Scarlet In
Gaslight (Holmes vs. Dracula) and A Case of Blind Fear (Holmes vs.
the Invisible Man) under the title Sherlock Holmes Mysteries, Volume 1.
This is the first time that the two mini-series have been collected into a
single volume, which is much handier than keeping track of all the individual
issues from so long ago. The $18.95 book is available at all specialty comic
book stores and can also be ordered from regular bookstores and through
Internet dealers such as Amazon.com and Barnes & Noble. And a Sherlockian
reference also appeared in the latest issue of Moonstone’s Kolchak, the
Night Stalker, prestige-format comic, Lambs to the Slaughter
($6.95). Kolchak asks a homeless man whether he’s seen anything unusual in the
vicinity recently. The man answers that he did see “a giant rat, probably from
Sumatra.”
Not Sherlockian, but set in the 1890s (in England
and elsewhere), is Image Comics’ new series, Mythstalkers ($2.95). It
involves a band of cryptozoologist/adventurers seeking out the unknown. Like
most such series these days, it’s printed on high-quality paper, resulting in
crisp, brilliant colors that are light years away from the faded tones on the
pulp stock that comics used to be printed on. Two issues of the monthly have appeared
so far by early May. And Ruse, the CrossGen comic starring the
Sherlockian-like detective Simon Archard in an otherworldly Victorian age,
continues strong, even after its original writer departed. It now has two
paperback compilations of the first 12 issues available (Enter the Detective
and The Silent Partner, $15.95 each), with a third (Criminal Intent)
due in July. With its strong writing and excellent, realistic art, it’s highly
recommended for all Sherlockians who can appreciate the genre. Issue 19 was
just released at the end of April; as a “Key Issue” it’s a self-contained story
that serves as a very good “jumping on” point for those new to the series.
(And, for Sherlockians, the story exudes faint echoes of The Creeping Man.)
Check specialty comic book stores for both titles.
Watch your local theaters this July for the movie
version of Alan Moore’s alternate Victorian Age adventure, The League of
Extraordinary Gentlemen, scheduled for a July 11 release nationwide. The
movie is loosely based on the graphic novel series published by Wildstorm
Comics, a division of DC. Starring as Allan Quatermain is the original 007
himself, Sean Connery. Peta Wilson is Mina Murray (nee Harker), with
Jason Flemyng as Dr. Jekyll/Mr. Hyde, Tony Curran as the Invisible Man, and
Naseeruddin Shah as Captain Nemo. Added to the comic’s cast of characters are
Stuart Townsend as Dorian Gray and Shane West as (and we’re not making this
up!) Detective Tom Sawyer. (The producers apparently felt that an American
character was necessary to attract the U.S. audiences. As if Connery’s presence
wasn’t enough.) Also on the cast roster is Richard Roxburg as Mycroft Holmes
(aka M of the British Secret Service) for the Sherlockian connection. (Sadly,
Sherlock apparently isn’t in the movie — or at least isn’t credited. No word
either on Moriarty, who was actually M in the first comic series, replaced by
Mycroft at the end.) For more advance information, you can check out the
Internet Movie Database’s entry on the movie on the Web at http://us.imdb.com/Title?0311429.
You can view a trailer for the movie on the site and read/join any of several
discussion threads about it. (Caution: Some of the latter are R-rated.)
One of the discussion threads (Spoiler Alert: Read no further if you
don’t want the ending revealed!) even claims that, in the end, Mycroft turns
out to be the villain of the film! (Another disputes that, so we hope that the
first is in error.) As for the plot, the comic series has apparently served
merely as the basis for the movie, so having read the series itself shouldn’t
spoil the movie. (Dorian Gray and Tom Sawyer seem to join Quartermain and Mina
as the main characters, relegating Nemo, Jekyll/Hyde, and the Invisible Man to
supporting roles, if the cast listing is correct.) Should be fun, even if it
turns out to be another case where a movie fails to live up to its source
material. (Issue 5 of the graphic series [Caution: R-rated — not
for youngsters!) is just out and includes a reference in its text tour guide to
various “sightings” of “the late” Sherlock Holmes, a la modern
postmortem Elvis sightings; also slated for a July release is a book describing
the Victorian background of all the literary and other period references in the
first series. More on that next newsletter.)
London By Night (White Wolf, $19.95) is a Victorian
supplement for White Wolf’s Vampire: The Masquerade role-playing
game. It follows on the company’s Victorian Vampire and Victorian
Companion supplements for the game. Although the first two had little actual
information on the Victorian Age itself, focusing more on the main game’s
vampire clans during that period, the London supplement does have a few
sections describing the city during the Victorian era — although it, too,
centers primarily on vampiric activity during London’s Victorian days. Whereas
the first two Victorian supplements are of interest only to those who play the
main game, London By Night may prove of at least some use for those
interested in integrating vampires into a Victorian role-playing campaign. And
for Sherlockians, Holmes does rate at least a short block of text in the book
as Victorian London’s greatest detective, setting up the possibility of yet
another Holmes vs. Dracula clash.
***
Coming Meetings!
Following are our remaining meetings
for 2003. (Check our Web site or our Indianapolis Star Web page for
updates.) So set these dates aside to join the Hated Rivals at the following
soirées:
The Train-ing of Sherlock
Holmes!
Saturday, May 31, 2003, from
noon to 3:30 p.m.
The Indiana Transport Museum
In Forest Park, Noblesville,
Indiana
Directions
and Details: Take
I-69 to S.R. 37 and turn left on S.R. 32 into Noblesville; turn right on Cicero
Rd., just past the river, and left on Park Dr., at the golf course, and on to
the Museum (about a mile on the left). Parking is available across the street
just to the southeast of the Museum itself. We’ll be meeting in the park across
from the Museum, so look for Hated Rivals signs. Among the program’s highlights are the
presentation of a paper on the railway in Victorian England, Sherlockian train
music, a tour of the Museum, and, of course, a train ride, lasting from 1:30 to
3:30 p.m. (The meeting itself is free, but the train ride and Museum entry cost
$8.50/person. You don’t need to ride the train or even enter the Museum,
however, to attend the meeting.) For additional information and directions,
call the museum at 317-773-6000, or contact us at one of the addresses (e-mail
or snail mail) below. You can also check out the Museum’s Web site at www.itm.org
for additional details, including an interactive map of the surrounding area.
And mark your calendar for
these great upcoming meetings . . .
Saturday, July 12: A Barker Birthday!; Saturday,
September 13: A Canonical Cookout; Saturday, November 8: Mayhem,
Menace, and Moriarty!
For
more information, contact us at P.O. Box 26290, Indianapolis, IN 46226-0290; or
send us e-mail at postmaster@surrey-shore.freeservers.com or at
rivalrussell@hotmail.com. (And don’t forget to venture online to check out the
Hated Rivals On the Surrey Shore 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 in two months back on the ol’ Surrey Shore,
where the game’s always afoot!