HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: credmond@watserv1.uwaterloo.ca (Chris Redmond)
Subject: Re: Where exactly is Baker St.?
Organization: University of Waterloo
Date: Wed, 27 Jan 1993 13:43:03 GMT

In article <106731@netnews.upenn.edu> batzel@work.seas.upenn.edu (John B. Batzel) writes:

>I have several maps, varying scales, of London circa 1850.  Could
>someone more astute than I tell me where Baker St. is in relation to
>Trafalgar Square?  I can find the square, Charing Cross, etc., but
>none of my maps make mention of Baker Street.  Perhaps it doesn't
>really exist?  

Baker Street certainly exists.  It is today a business district; in
Holmes's time it was a respectable middle-class area, becoming well
known because of the construction of Baker Street Station, a busy
stop for commuter trains.

From Trafalgar Square, go north along Regent Street to Oxford Street,
then west along Oxford Street for about the same distance, and you'll
be at the foot (southerly end) of Baker Street.  It extends north to
the Marylebone Road, just below Regent's Park.

In Holmes's day the thoroughfare now called Baker Street had several
names -- Baker Street, Upper Baker Street, York Place -- but the geography
hasn't changed much.  A further point of interest is that Madame Tussaud's
wax museum, one of London's most famous tourist sites, was formerly in
Baker Street; it's now just around the corner in the Marylebone Road.
("On Marylebone Road", as we North Americans would say.)

CAR

Newsgroups: alt.fan.holmes
From: misrael@csi.uottawa.ca (Mark Israel)
Subject: Re: Watson's intelligence
Organization: Dept. of Computer Science, University of Ottawa
Date: Mon, 25 Jan 93 06:15:11 GMT

In article <watson.727928486@space.sce.carleton.ca>, watson@sce.carleton.ca (Stephen Watson) writes:

> *What* comment in _Lion's_Mane_?  I just pulled down my Doubleday
> _Complete_S.H_ and can find nothing that would necessarily imply a
> lack of intelligence on Watson's part.  Rather, Holmes laments the
> lack of his faithful chronicler on this occasion.

   Oops, must be the "Blanched Soldier".  Holmes says he found Watson
useful partly because Watson was the sort of person who could never
foresee Holmes's actions.

   All my quotations are from memory, because all my Sherlock Holmes
books (yes, I have *lots* of them) are in a storage room back in 
Edmonton.  If I had foreseen the creation of this newsgroup, I would 
have brought them to Ottawa. :-(

misrael@csi.uottawa.ca			Mark Israel
Sunbeams brightly play, where Fancy's fair pavilion once is pight.
Newsgroups: alt.fan.holmes
From: dtgordon@unix1.tcd.ie (Jean-Luc Picard)
Subject: Re: Granada TV - New Series!
Organization: Trinity College, Dublin
Date: Thu, 28 Jan 1993 19:00:44 GMT

In <930028100047@ibm3090.bham.ac.uk> P.D.MONKS@UK.AC.BHAM (Peter Monks) writes:

>Last evening Granada TV began showing its new series of Sherlock Holmes with
>a two hour film entitled "The Last Vampyre" starring Jeremy Brett, Edward
>Hardwicke as Holmes and Watson.  The story was based on the canon's "The
>Sussex Vampire" albeit somewhat loosly based.

>I thought that Brett and Hardwicke were again superb in their portrayal of the
>greatest fictional characters of all time (my opinion).  The story was
>obviously enlarged greatly to spread it out to two hours worth of prime TV.

Agreed it really was excellent.

>Whilst I'm here I can point out to my knowledge that there is no
>Sherlock Holmes museum on Baker St (at least not when I last visited) but I
>could be (and hope I am) wrong.  Can I suggest that any visitors from the
>US undertake the Holmes guided walks provided by several reputable London
>Walks agencies which usually begin from Baker St Underground Station - call
>into any London Tourist Information Office for details.  If you can't
>find Baker St either use the underground (on their map it's easy to find) or
>look for Marylebone Road which intersects Baker St at Madame Tussauds
>waxworks and the London Planetarium.

I am glad to say that there is a Sherlock Holmes museum on Baker Street,
it's at 231 Baker street (I visited it once, last summer). It is just up
the road from 221b (Abbey Nat.) and is great. I would recomend any fans
of the Master to visit it. 
It is called the '221b Baker Street Museum'.
>Thanks for reading - any comments?   (I am open to e-mail from Sherlockians)

>Pete.

>P.S. Holmes must be rated highly over here to replace the excellent
>Inspector Morse on Wednesday evenings - we had the last ever Morse series
>finish last week.

>+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
>| Peter Monks                           Tel:       (UK) 021-414 4601    |
>| High Resolution Spectroscopy          Fax:       (UK) 021-414 4577    |
>| School of Physics & Space Research    Janet:     P.D.Monks@UK.AC.BHAM |
>| The University of Birmingham          Internet:  P.D.Monks@bham.ac.uk |
>| Edgbaston                             Starlink:  BHVAD::PDM           |
>| Birmingham B15 2TT                                                    |
>| UK                                                                    |
>+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
Newsgroups: alt.fan.holmes
From: jkimball@src.honeywell.com (John Kimball)
Subject: Re: Watson's intelligence
Organization: Honeywell Systems & Research Center
Date: Thu, 28 Jan 1993 13:25:56 GMT

I recently started re-reading the Canon in the publication order (from the
two-volume Doubleday edition, with the intro by Morley).  It seemed to me
that, througout the first volume, Watson appears to be a man of average (or
slightly above average) intelligence, in the company of an extraordinary
man.  As one would expect, over time Watson picks up the beginnings of
Holmes' skills; in the later stories, there are several situations where
the client is astounded by a deduction, but it is immediately obvious to
Watson ("You know my methods"), after his long association with Holmes.

However, after Holmes' "resurrection", in the stories of the second volume,
Watson no longer progresses; he even seems to regress, or else Holmes gets
more testy about Watson's relative slowness.  

Under the "it's fiction" assumption, perhaps Watson became more of a simple
foil as the freshness of the stories waned for Conan Doyle.  (In the
introduction to the last or the penultimate collection of stories, Conan
Doyle speaks rather disparagingly of Watson's relative competence.)

Under the "grand game" assumption, many of the stories published later
actually occurred in an interleaved fashion with the stories published
earlier, so the regression of Watson may be a meaningless byproduct of the
order in which the cases were selected for publication.  One would have to
examine the phenomenon in the light of one of the proposed chronologies.
Newsgroups: alt.fan.holmes
From: ggg9y@poe.acc.Virginia.EDU (Garth G. Groff)
Subject: Re: Watson's intelligence
Organization: University of Virginia
Date: Tue, 26 Jan 1993 21:00:10 GMT

BRETT AS HOLMES

I guess it's a matter of personal taste and our own
expectations that determines which Holmes we each
prefer.  I find Brett's Holmes to be one of the best
I have seen on film.  The usual standard for most of
us is Rathbone, who irritates me with his harsh 
treatment of Watson (I think he made a better villian).
Christopher Lee was unconvincing in the recent TV
movies (which were abominations, though I did enjoy
the historical personalities, however badly done).
I sure someone will disagree with me, but again, it is
a matter of personal taste.

~S
--
Garth (Haridas) Groff
"Not yet famous author"
ggg9y@poe.acc.virginia.EDU         Chant "Govinda Bohlo Hare"
Newsgroups: alt.fan.holmes
From: clavazzi@nyx.cs.du.edu (The_Doge)
Subject: Re: Watson's intelligence
X-Disclaimer: Nyx is a public access Unix system run by the University
	of Denver for the Denver community.  The University has neither
	control over nor responsibility for the opinions of users.
Organization: Nyx, Public Access Unix at U. of Denver Math/CS dept.
Date: Mon, 25 Jan 93 15:57:39 GMT

In article <1993Jan25.131546.109@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU> ggg9y@poe.acc.Virginia.EDU (Garth G. Groff) writes:
>WATSON'S INTELLIGENCE
>
>I too must protest.  While Watson is no genius, he must be
>of above average intelligence to have become a surgeon.
>Holmes himself pays him the complement of saying that while
>Watson is not a conductor of light himself, he has the 
>ability to bring out the light of other minds (or words to
>that effect--sorry, but I don't have the canon here to look
>up the exact quote).
	I believe it is (roughly) "while you are not yourself a conductor of
light you are often the cause of illumination in others".  Which may simply
mean that Watson usually asked the right questions.

>I think we must also consider that it
>is Watson himself who is telling most of the stories, and 
>he is most interested in glorifying his friend Holmes rather
>than immodestly tooting his own horn. 
>
	And, stepping outside the Grand Game for a moment, it's fairly obvious
that Doyle intended Watson to be the figure with whom the audience would
identify, with Holmes as the eccentric genius (the is especially pronounced
in "Sign of Four", IMHO).
	I'll stand by my FAQ entry.  I think you'll find a consensus among
most Sherlockians that the Canonical Watson was a fairly "normal" fellow by
turn-of-the-century British standards.
>I am extremely impressed with Edward Hardwick's Watson.  He
>is anything but the bumbling fool of Nigel Bruce fame (or
>Patrick Mcnee).  Hardwick finally is giving the character
>a fair reading.
>
	I'd agree with that.  I know many Sherlockians (including the outgoing
editor of the BSJ) who can't stand Brett's Holmes but have nothing but praise
for both of the actors who have portrayed Watson, so this would seem to be a
widespread opinion.

The_Doge
Newsgroups: alt.fan.holmes
From: ggg9y@poe.acc.Virginia.EDU (Garth G. Groff)
Subject: Re: Watson's intelligence
Organization: University of Virginia
Date: Mon, 25 Jan 1993 13:15:46 GMT

WATSON'S INTELLIGENCE

I too must protest.  While Watson is no genius, he must be
of above average intelligence to have become a surgeon.
Holmes himself pays him the complement of saying that while
Watson is not a conductor of light himself, he has the 
ability to bring out the light of other minds (or words to
that effect--sorry, but I don't have the canon here to look
up the exact quote).  I think we must also consider that it
is Watson himself who is telling most of the stories, and 
he is most interested in glorifying his friend Holmes rather
than immodestly tooting his own horn. 

I am extremely impressed with Edward Hardwick's Watson.  He
is anything but the bumbling fool of Nigel Bruce fame (or
Patrick Mcnee).  Hardwick finally is giving the character
a fair reading.

~S
--
Garth (Haridas) Groff
"Not yet famous author"
ggg9y@poe.acc.virginia.EDU         Chant "Govinda Bohlo Hare"
From: ewadams@netcom.com (Ernest Adams)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.holmes
Subject: Re: The New, Improved, F.A.Q. List!
Date: 22 Jan 93 08:43:49 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest)

The new FAQ says that the Irregulars did not admit women "until very
recently." Have they definitely changed this deplorable policy? When
did it happen? Who was the first female Irregular?

If true, I'm very glad to hear it.
Newsgroups: alt.fan.holmes
From: lchoqu%asylum.cs.utah.edu@cs.utah.edu (Lee Choquette)
Subject: Re: Object of our desires
Date: 22 Jan 93 19:45:24 MST
Organization: University of Utah Computer Science

In article <1993Jan22.075718.1@jaguar.uofs.edu> ddc1@jaguar.uofs.edu writes:
 > 	What's all this Sherlock stuff...isn't this the John newsgroup?
 > 	(i'm serious about this)
 > 
 > Dave D. Cawley

Why does it always seem to be men who want to talk about John Holmes?  :-)
  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
   . . . . Lee Choquette . . . . . . The nice thing about standards  . . . .
  . . . .lchoqu@cs.utah.edu . . . .  is there are so many to choose from. .
 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Andrew Tannenbaum . . .
Newsgroups: alt.fan.holmes
From: watson@sce.carleton.ca (Stephen Watson)
Subject: Re: Watson's intelligence
Organization: Carleton University
Date: Mon, 25 Jan 1993 02:21:26 GMT

misrael@csi.uottawa.ca (Mark Israel) writes:

>In article <1993Jan21.024726.5616@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu>, clavazzi@nyx.cs.du.edu (The_Doge) writes:

>> Q:        How about Watson?  Was he really a[s] big a fool as he's often made out 
>> to be in movies?
>> A:        Not even close.  The real Watson (as revealed in the Canon) was a 
>> solid, dependable, middle-class Englishman.  Not overly imaginative, of 
>> average intelligence [...]

>   Below average, I fear.  See the last paragraph of Conan Doyle's preface to

Base calumny!  How dare you insult my illustrious forebear so!  The
honour of my family is impugned!

>_The Casebook of Sherlock Holmes_, and Holmes's comment on Watson in "The Lion's
>Mane".

*What* comment in _Lion's_Mane_?  I just pulled down my Doubleday
_Complete_S.H_ and can find nothing that would necessarily imply a
lack of intelligence on Watson's part.  Rather, Holmes laments the
lack of his faithful chronicler on this occasion.

As for the _Case_Book_ preface, it's not included in my edition, so I
cannot answer such slurs and innuendos as it may contain.

>   Not *quite* as stupid as Nigel Bruce's portrayal, of course.  (One of Nigel
>Bruce's favourite jokes was to say in a thick Watson voice:  "People sometimes
>ask me if I'm, er, English.  Well, the truth is, if I were any more English,
>I couldn't talk!")

>   And I never guessed the solution to any of the stories before it was 
>presented.  Did anyone else here manage to do that (if you can even *remember*
>the first time you read the Canon)?

As a matter of family pride, I always tried.  Unfortunately, the
stories aren't usually set up in the style of a puzzle for the reader.
Holmes frequently keeps his crucial clues to himself until the last
minute - often until after the miscreant is safe in the hands of the
Yard.  I think I may have come close a few times, but mostly using
"literary" judgements (e.g. pick the culprit most likely to make the
end interesting) rather than actual clues.

>misrael@csi.uottawa.ca			Mark Israel
             ^^^^^^^
Aha!  That explains this scurrilous attack on the sacred memory of my
ancestor!  What else would one expect from a denizen of that
kindergarten at the downstream end of the Canal!

Combatively,
Steve
--
| Steve Watson a.k.a. watson@sce.carleton.ca === Carleton University, Ontario |
|  this->opinion = My.opinion;  assert (this->opinion != CarletonU.opinion);  |
"Somebody touched me / Making everything new / Burned through my life / Like a
 bolt from the blue / Somebody touched me / I know it was you" - Bruce Cockburn
Newsgroups: alt.fan.holmes
From: clavazzi@nyx.cs.du.edu (The_Doge)
Subject: Re: Watson's intelligence
X-Disclaimer: Nyx is a public access Unix system run by the University
	of Denver for the Denver community.  The University has neither
	control over nor responsibility for the opinions of users.
Organization: Nyx, Public Access Unix at U. of Denver Math/CS dept.
Date: Fri, 29 Jan 93 01:51:51 GMT

In article <1993Jan26.183137.244@nmsu.edu> pfeiffer@nmsu.edu (Joe Pfeiffer) writes:
>In article <1993Jan25.155739.3247@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu> clavazzi@nyx.cs.du.edu (The_Doge) writes:
>
>	   I'd agree with that.  I know many Sherlockians (including the outgoing
>   editor of the BSJ) who can't stand Brett's Holmes but have nothing but praise
>   for both of the actors who have portrayed Watson, so this would seem to be a
>   widespread opinion.
>
>I haven't heard this before (of course, my only contact with this
>whole world is right here in this newsgroup...) -- what are the
>objections to Brett?  Which other Holmes is preferred?  In my nearly
>uneducated opinion, Brett is exactly the Holmes I picture when reading
>Doyle...
>
	Well.....I'm not unhappy with Brett's portrayal myself, but the
complaints I've heard from those who are go something like this:  Brett has
taken all of Holmes' eccentricities and pushed them to absurd extremes.  He
also overplays Holmes' superiority and rudeness while ignoring his equally
Canonical compassion and humanity.  Phil Shreffler (the outgoing editor of the
BSJ) has often commented that Brett's Holmes is a throroughly unpleasant
person, which the Holmes revealed in the Canon usually is not.
	As I say, I don't completely agree with this assessment (although I
have occasionally felt Brett overdoes some of his odd body language), but a
number of Sherlockians apparently do.  How many, I have no idea.
The_Doge
ObQuote:	"Mediocrity knows nothing higher than itself, but talent
		instantly recognizes genius."
			-- "Valley of Fear", Ch. 1

Newsgroups: alt.fan.holmes
From: clavazzi@nyx.cs.du.edu (The_Doge)
Subject: My favorite Holmes
Organization: Nyx, Public Access Unix @ U. of Denver Math/CS dept.
Date: Fri, 29 Jan 93 04:41:18 GMT


        A poster recently asked which actor was the "best" Holmes on film
in the opinion of the assembled multitudes of Sherlockians on the net.
While not claiming my own opinion as authoritative, I will say that I've
seen a fair number of thespians take on the role of the world's foremost
consulting detective on stage and screen, and have devised my own short list
of best efforts in this regard.  For good or ill, here it is.
        This list is in no particular order, by the way.....
1)      Basil Rathbone, especially in "The Adventures of Sherlock Holmes"
(1939) and "The Hound of the Baskervilles" (1939).  His profile and manner
are evocative of the Canonical Holmes, and Rathbone was certainly a fine
actor is general.  Alas, with the exception of the two films I just
mentioned, he was saddled with generally moronic scripts and the annoying
buffonery of Nigel Bruce, The World's Worst Watson.
2)      John Neville in "A Study in Terror" (1965).  The film, while non-
Canonical (Holmes vs. Jack the Ripper) has great sets and atmosphere and
sticks pretty closely to the facts of the Ripper murders.  Neville is a
young Holmes, near the beginning of his career; bright, witty, incisive.
He's well-matched by Donald Houston as a sympathetic Watson.  The obvious
camaraderie between the two is a joy to behold.
3)      Ian Richardson in "The Hound of the Baskervilles" (1983) and "The
Sign of Four" (1983).  These appear to be either made-for-TV movies or TV
mini-series from Britain (can't tell which).  Richardson lacks the physical
stature of some screen Sherlocks, but radiates the necessary intellectual
power and wit.  His relationship with his Watson(s) (Donald Churchill and
David Healy, respectively) is warm and believable.  The films aren't bad
either.
4)      Michael Pennington in "The Return of Sherlock Holmes" (1987), a
made-for-TV movie and failed series pilot.  The story line was about as
non-Canonical as you could get, having Holmes frozen and then thawed out in
1987 by Waston's great-grand-daughter, but Pennington has all the physical
and vocal requirements for a solid screen Holmes.  The fact that he's a
Shakespearean actor of some experience doesn't hurt, either.
        Well, those are my top four.  Any thoughts from the rest of you?
 
The_Doge

Newsgroups: alt.fan.holmes
From: magnus@thep.lu.se (Magnus Olsson)
Subject: Re: Watson's intelligence
Organization: Theoretical Physics, Lund University, Sweden
Date: Tue, 26 Jan 1993 11:53:13 GMT

In article <C1G5HJ.8IG@mentor.cc.purdue.edu> lambert@sage.cc.purdue.edu (Doug Lambert) writes:
>In Granada's _The_Norwood_Builder_, Holmes says to his new client
>something to the effect that ". . . other than the fact that you are a
>solicitor, you are a batchelor, you are a Freemason, and you are an asthmatic
>I know nothing about you."  The man then looks around in confusion, and
>WATSON explains, after a brief pause to work it out for himself, "From
>your large sheaf of papers, your unkempt appearance, your watch fob, and
>your labored, irregular breathing."  These may not be the exact quotes--
>I don't have my VCR handy, but they're close enough.
>
>I think that translating Sherlock Holmes from print to screen REQUIRES
>that Watson be portrayed as fairly intelligent

Unless, of course, you want to portray him as a total buffoon, and make
him a _comical_ contrast to Holmes - which is, of course, to stray
pretty far from the Canon.

>simply because the
>character is less transparent to the audience--that is, in the books
>Watson is the lens through which we view Holmes, while on the screen
>he is more of an adjunct to Holmes, although he still asks the important
>questions.  Having a stupid Watson on the screen distracts from the plot
>and from the character Holmes.

My personal opinion is that if Watson were made to say on the screen
exactly the things he says in the stories, he'd perhaps not seem very
stupid, but very dull - mainly becuase almost all the good lines would
be said by Holmes. Of course, this is because Watson is the
first-person narrator of the stories, but not in the TV series.  In
the stories, Watson couldn't really put a lot of good lines and clever
resoning in his own mouth without seeming totally self-centered, could
he? 

I'm not particularly disturbed by Watson getting to explain Holmes'
reasoning in some places - it seems as if in most of these situation,
Watson has had a chance to discuss the case with Holmes (it's IMHO a
small deviation from the Canon to let Watson and Holmes discuss the
case before the final confrontation rather than after it). In other
situations, one could explain Watsons "increased intelligence" in the
TV series by the fact that after working with Holmes for so many
years, he'd probably be able to follow Holmes' reasoning pretty well.
The fact that this doesn't quite agree with the Canon could be
explained by Watson's modesty (as an author) coupled to his sense for
dramatic contrast. 

              Magnus Olsson                | \e+      /_
    Department of Theoretical Physics      |  \  Z   / q
        University of Lund, Sweden         |   >----<           
 magnus@thep.lu.se, thepmo@seldc52.bitnet  |  /      \===== g
PGP key available via finger or on request | /e-      \q
From: batzel@work.seas.upenn.edu (John B. Batzel)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.holmes
Subject: Where exactly is Baker St.?
Date: 27 Jan 93 02:28:14 GMT
Organization: University of Pennsylvania


I have several maps, varying scales, of London circa 1850.  Could
someone more astute than I tell me where Baker St. is in relation to
Trafalgar Square?  I can find the square, Charing Cross, etc., but
none of my maps make mention of Baker Street.  Perhaps it doesn't
really exist?  I could swear it does -- something about 111 Baker St.
being proposed as an actual site for Holmes because 221b does not
exist, I believe.  At any rate, tell me where it is, or where it was
written to be?  Thanks.

JBB
Newsgroups: alt.fan.holmes
From: jkimball@src.honeywell.com (John Kimball)
Subject: Re: Where exactly is Baker St.?
Organization: Honeywell Systems & Research Center
Date: Thu, 28 Jan 1993 13:33:50 GMT

In article <1993Jan27.141850.2219@msus1.msus.edu> g00023@TIGGER.STCLOUD.MSUS.EDU writes:
>Isn't it also true that there is a Holmes museum of sorts on Baker
>Street under the fictional address of "221b?"  Someone mentioned this
>to me a while ago.  Is there any truth to it?  I'll be in Great
>Britain in June, and I would like to visit the museum when during my
>stay in London..

I was in London in September and decided to walk to the only address there
I know by heart; I was pleasantly surprised to find that 221B now
actually exists -- sort of -- and more or less at the right location.  You
shouldn't have much trouble finding it, it's in the right block.  It's a
fairly small facility, but it has a re-creation of the sitting room and
Holmes' and Watson's bedrooms.  The entrance fee is a bit steep -- 5
pounds.  I did enjoy the visit, but I'd be interested in how it compares to
other re-creations of the sitting room.  (There is also a memorabilia shop
across the street from it.)