This journal is mostly public because most of it contains poetry, quotations, pictures, jokes, videos, and news (medical and otherwise). If you like what you see, you are welcome to drop by, anytime. I update frequently.
ACD was a very spiritual person, but not fixed in any particular religion (he was extremely interested in the paranormal and spiritualism, as opposed to any organized formal religion). In my opinion, the person who wrote that article is really stretching, to claim that the Holmes canon is all thinly veiled Christian allegory.
Obviously if it pleases any reader to see Christian overtones (or whatever strikes them) in the Holmes stories, that's entirely their business, but I think they were written strictly as entertainment and intriguing mysteries. And of course, we all know that ACD attempted to kill off Holmes because he had wearied of the character, and the adoring public (and his publisher) thankfully prevailed upon him to bring Holmes back.
Oh, well...different strokes for different folks, as they say.
I quite agree...it's amazing what meanings one can find if one goes looking...I've seen equally farfetched "analyses" (not Gospel-oriented, just farfetched in different ways) both of Doyle's SH stories and of other sources...
That's...odd. I mean I can see where one might draw some obvious parallels for the sake of using the stories as illustrations to teach moral or Biblical lessons, but one could do that with any work of literature (I've done it myself, using the Star Wars film series, for example, lol).
Holy Clues by Stephen Kendrick I did enjoy reading, simply because he's not trying to find something that's not there; the essay is simply a labor of love for both Christianity and Holmes, like a fanfiction is. His approach to Holmes.Bible parallels is totally different than whatever-this-is here. o.O
What nonsense. Evidently the one person quoted can't tell the difference between the large black dogs guarding the Assyrian and Greeks hells and the Christian Satan. Would he care to show a biblical text in which Satan is a dog?
Its as incredible as if you claimed that someone who spent their life writing about using logic to detect fraud and deceit believed in ghosts and fairies!
Just curious--are you obliquely referring to Doyle's interest in spiritualism in his later life? Or did someone claim he believed in ghosts and fairies?
The article strikes me as symbolic, a personal attempt to see meanings from the reviewer's perspective. This is normal behavior, it would appear to me. At least the writer seems to have read the great author at length, even if from his own perspective! Actually, I liked the review of the biographical and historical aspects of the article extremely well.
???? Ok, since I started reading the new annotated canon, I have come across equally farfetched stuff... But to claim that canon is littered with allusions... I can see certain parallels: for example the view that NAVA, FINA and EMPT are a trilogy, mirroring Christ's death and resurrection doesn't seem as far fetched to me, even though I did certainly not see it in my first read, and it seems unlikely that Doyle did it deliberately... But, if one takes the Sherlockian viewpoint (Watson wrote the stories - really!) than it is quite attractive to discover the subtle hints that Holmes foresaw his own death in NAVA (it IS set shortly before FINA)... ;) Of course, those parallels can be discovered in almost any work. It is not likely, I stress, that Doyle did it deliberately... He usually seemed to write those stories without much planning, and I do not think that he wanted to convey some religious message - it's just an interpretation. With all great works, there are numerous interpretations... For example, Kafka's "Der Prozess" (The Trial), no idea whether you know it... Some say it's anti-religious, some say it's Jewish, others believe it's Christian, then there's a theory that it is a criticism on society, or that Kafka foresaw the second world war and the terror of the Nazi regime... Most of those theories contradict each other, but there simply IS NO CORRECT one! Well, I guess the interpretation always depends on the interpreter, and if one does believe that all evil forces are linked to the devil, than it is probably a short way from a "hellish" hound (even though he does turn out to be a perfectly ordinary, living hound) to an agent of the devil... Still, I believe it is too much to say that it was done deliberately by Doyle himself, even subconsciously... Certainly, an author is influenced by various sources, even without noticing is, but one does not convey a message without noticing it! That doesn't happen! The view on such an opus as the Sherlock Holmes canon DOES depend on the reader to a greater deal than on the author - the simplest example is always the question whether Holmes and Watson had a homosexual relationship - sure, there are hints of it in the text, but we do not know for certain whether Doyle wanted to convey that impression, and no one should claim to KNOW if Doyle himself didn't really say so! Same here: if the reader/author of that book believes that Doyle's stories are veiled gospels, it's fine. But he should not claim that Doyle DEFINITELY did use gospels! That only causes people to reject his views because they are too strikt, rather than be able to see it as yet another (possibly interesting) interpretation...
No need to be sorry, 'twas an interesting perspective. Haven't read that work of Kafka's but have read a few of his other stories--it does not surprise me that it's been subject to different interpretations...his stories are ambiguous enough that they can be interpreted in different ways...
re: relationship: have you seen "Decoding the subtext"? There's an interpretation for you...
Yes, I have... Have saved it for future reading, just for my amusement... I still do prefer to view our boys' relationship as brotherly love, even though I seem to come around more and more really well done slash those days...
Totally of topic, have you seen this new BBC modern!Sherlock Holmes series? If so, what do you think of it?
Hehe, I've seen both the movie and the series... ;)
While the movie had some good scenes, I still feel that Holmes was miscast, and the whole Irene Adler plot was just... Well...
The series is definitely much better! I was sceptical at first, due to the trailer and what I've heard, but I just took the plunge and watched it, and much to my surprise, it was (almost) amazing! It is, of course, AU, since it does take place today, but I believe they did a good job transfering it... While Holmes is not exactly the Holmes of the Victorian times, I do like how they tried to convey the impression of his excentricity today - which is, in my opinion, much more difficult, since you see all sorts of people on daily basis. There's also the undercurrent of sadness I always felt in the stories, and which is very important to me (maybe that's why I enjoy the Granada series and the BBC radio adaptations so much). Also, he is acceptable looks-wise - I do somewhat object to his hair style, but he is clean-shaven, has the primness of dress and the stature, plus the penetrating gaze. I believe I saw some Brettish influence in his acting, as well, but he makes a convincing new Sherlock. Since this first episode is basically STUD, he is still a little over the top (indeed rather cool, and rather harsh on the Yarders), and rather young - but then again, Holmes WAS rather young, and only the interpretations tended to age him considerably... This is also the first episode I've so far seen where they did include the "beating a corpse with a stick" for real. It would be possible to criticize this Sherlock's treatment of women - it is rather harsh and not chivalrous, but I can see what the producers and actor thought: He is rather handsome, and interesting, but doesn't want a relationship, so he rather pushes the women away... I understand that, because women today are certainly much more selfconfident and straightforward than at Victorian times - it was not proper, back then... This lack of Victorian etiquette is, I believe the main reason for most of the changes they made. I do find it strange that they are calling each other by the first name (John and Sherlock, rather than Holmes and Watson), but even that can be explained by the familiarity the omitting of Mr represented in Victorian times - similarily, the first names are familiarity today.
There are also some nice nods towards canon, both jokingly and real.
- WARNING SPOILERS for first episode (don't read if you think of watching it after all)- the case itself in the first episode is based on STUD, but they took the "Rache(l)" deduction and just took the other way - not RACHE, but indeed, Rachel! :D And in one scene, one knowing canon suspects Holmes is taking cocaine, but he isn't! - END SPOILERS -
They also included Mycroft, and very effectively so... That's just how I imagined Mycroft today to be. And Watson... I think they did a very good job with him. He is definitely NOT a stupid fool, and there is both his amazement at Sherlock and his annoyance at his attics... I'm missing the moustache, but aside from that, Watson's characterization is - considering it's an AU - spot on! As for the much talked about slashiness of this series: I can see why people think that, but all the same, I find it possible to overlook it. And, considering that homosexual relationships are more common today, I even understand why they included that as the impression of Holmes and Watson's surroundings... I will probably post a very detailed review in my journal today...
What did you hear you didn't like, maybe I can elaborate on that more?
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Comments
ACD was a very spiritual person, but not fixed in any particular religion (he was extremely interested in the paranormal and spiritualism, as opposed to any organized formal religion). In my opinion, the person who wrote that article is really stretching, to claim that the Holmes canon is all thinly veiled Christian allegory.
Obviously if it pleases any reader to see Christian overtones (or whatever strikes them) in the Holmes stories, that's entirely their business, but I think they were written strictly as entertainment and intriguing mysteries. And of course, we all know that ACD attempted to kill off Holmes because he had wearied of the character, and the adoring public (and his publisher) thankfully prevailed upon him to bring Holmes back.
Oh, well...different strokes for different folks, as they say.
Edited 2010-07-28 12:25 am (UTC)
Holy Clues by Stephen Kendrick I did enjoy reading, simply because he's not trying to find something that's not there; the essay is simply a labor of love for both Christianity and Holmes, like a fanfiction is. His approach to Holmes.Bible parallels is totally different than whatever-this-is here. o.O
Thanks for the reading recommendation; shall have to check out "Holy Clues" :)
Its as incredible as if you claimed that someone who spent their life writing about using logic to detect fraud and deceit believed in ghosts and fairies!
Edited 2010-07-28 03:02 am (UTC)
But then...your comment above--you mean that life can be as difficult to believe as art? or that Doyle changed his beliefs in later life, rather?
Edited 2010-07-28 09:17 pm (UTC)
My reponse
Actually, I liked the review of the biographical and historical aspects of the article extremely well.
Re: My reponse
I'm curious, how did you come by my entry, if I may ask? :)
I can see certain parallels: for example the view that NAVA, FINA and EMPT are a trilogy, mirroring Christ's death and resurrection doesn't seem as far fetched to me, even though I did certainly not see it in my first read, and it seems unlikely that Doyle did it deliberately... But, if one takes the Sherlockian viewpoint (Watson wrote the stories - really!) than it is quite attractive to discover the subtle hints that Holmes foresaw his own death in NAVA (it IS set shortly before FINA)... ;)
Of course, those parallels can be discovered in almost any work.
It is not likely, I stress, that Doyle did it deliberately... He usually seemed to write those stories without much planning, and I do not think that he wanted to convey some religious message - it's just an interpretation.
With all great works, there are numerous interpretations... For example, Kafka's "Der Prozess" (The Trial), no idea whether you know it... Some say it's anti-religious, some say it's Jewish, others believe it's Christian, then there's a theory that it is a criticism on society, or that Kafka foresaw the second world war and the terror of the Nazi regime... Most of those theories contradict each other, but there simply IS NO CORRECT one!
Well, I guess the interpretation always depends on the interpreter, and if one does believe that all evil forces are linked to the devil, than it is probably a short way from a "hellish" hound (even though he does turn out to be a perfectly ordinary, living hound) to an agent of the devil... Still, I believe it is too much to say that it was done deliberately by Doyle himself, even subconsciously... Certainly, an author is influenced by various sources, even without noticing is, but one does not convey a message without noticing it! That doesn't happen!
The view on such an opus as the Sherlock Holmes canon DOES depend on the reader to a greater deal than on the author - the simplest example is always the question whether Holmes and Watson had a homosexual relationship - sure, there are hints of it in the text, but we do not know for certain whether Doyle wanted to convey that impression, and no one should claim to KNOW if Doyle himself didn't really say so!
Same here: if the reader/author of that book believes that Doyle's stories are veiled gospels, it's fine. But he should not claim that Doyle DEFINITELY did use gospels! That only causes people to reject his views because they are too strikt, rather than be able to see it as yet another (possibly interesting) interpretation...
LOL. Sorry about that long comment... ;)
re: relationship: have you seen "Decoding the subtext"? There's an interpretation for you...
Totally of topic, have you seen this new BBC modern!Sherlock Holmes series? If so, what do you think of it?
No, haven't seen the new BBC series...doubt I'd enjoy it, from what I've heard; I've not even seen the 2009 SH movie.
What abt you? Have you seen the new BBC series? If so, what did you think of it?
While the movie had some good scenes, I still feel that Holmes was miscast, and the whole Irene Adler plot was just... Well...
The series is definitely much better! I was sceptical at first, due to the trailer and what I've heard, but I just took the plunge and watched it, and much to my surprise, it was (almost) amazing! It is, of course, AU, since it does take place today, but I believe they did a good job transfering it...
While Holmes is not exactly the Holmes of the Victorian times, I do like how they tried to convey the impression of his excentricity today - which is, in my opinion, much more difficult, since you see all sorts of people on daily basis. There's also the undercurrent of sadness I always felt in the stories, and which is very important to me (maybe that's why I enjoy the Granada series and the BBC radio adaptations so much). Also, he is acceptable looks-wise - I do somewhat object to his hair style, but he is clean-shaven, has the primness of dress and the stature, plus the penetrating gaze. I believe I saw some Brettish influence in his acting, as well, but he makes a convincing new Sherlock. Since this first episode is basically STUD, he is still a little over the top (indeed rather cool, and rather harsh on the Yarders), and rather young - but then again, Holmes WAS rather young, and only the interpretations tended to age him considerably... This is also the first episode I've so far seen where they did include the "beating a corpse with a stick" for real.
It would be possible to criticize this Sherlock's treatment of women - it is rather harsh and not chivalrous, but I can see what the producers and actor thought: He is rather handsome, and interesting, but doesn't want a relationship, so he rather pushes the women away... I understand that, because women today are certainly much more selfconfident and straightforward than at Victorian times - it was not proper, back then...
This lack of Victorian etiquette is, I believe the main reason for most of the changes they made.
I do find it strange that they are calling each other by the first name (John and Sherlock, rather than Holmes and Watson), but even that can be explained by the familiarity the omitting of Mr represented in Victorian times - similarily, the first names are familiarity today.
There are also some nice nods towards canon, both jokingly and real.
- WARNING SPOILERS for first episode (don't read if you think of watching it after all)-
the case itself in the first episode is based on STUD, but they took the "Rache(l)" deduction and just took the other way - not RACHE, but indeed, Rachel! :D And in one scene, one knowing canon suspects Holmes is taking cocaine, but he isn't!
- END SPOILERS -
They also included Mycroft, and very effectively so... That's just how I imagined Mycroft today to be.
And Watson... I think they did a very good job with him. He is definitely NOT a stupid fool, and there is both his amazement at Sherlock and his annoyance at his attics... I'm missing the moustache, but aside from that, Watson's characterization is - considering it's an AU - spot on!
As for the much talked about slashiness of this series: I can see why people think that, but all the same, I find it possible to overlook it. And, considering that homosexual relationships are more common today, I even understand why they included that as the impression of Holmes and Watson's surroundings...
I will probably post a very detailed review in my journal today...
What did you hear you didn't like, maybe I can elaborate on that more?