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.
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 firstname.lastname@example.org or at email@example.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!