Weekend Quote: Courage

{hosted by Lemon Tree at Half-Filled Attic}

As before, when grappling with other forces of nature, he could find in himself all sorts of courage except the courage to run away.

- Joseph Conrad, Within the Tides

I was a bit turned off by the depressing, first short story in Within the Tides--that is to say, after finishing it, I haven't yet got any further along in the book.  However, I love the above quote, spoken by the protagonist.  It reminds me of a quote from another author of sea stories:

“I will have no man in my boat," said Starbuck, "who is not afraid of a whale." By this, he seemed to mean, not only that the most reliable and useful courage was that which arises from the fair estimation of the encountered peril, but that an utterly fearless man is a far more dangerous comrade than a coward.

- Herman Melville, Moby-Dick

And how striking Starbuck's quote is!  How unlike Captain Ahab, who is confident he is afraid of nothing, least of all a whale.  Isn't he afraid, though?  Is Ahab, in fact, too cowardly to "run away" from Moby-Dick?

Third literary connection: what about Sherlock Holmes (book or TV)?  Did it take courage, or cowardice, to "run away" after Reichenbach? 

Personally, I think there are times when the smartest thing to do is to distance yourself from a bad situation, one you have no ability to change.  It takes courage to give it up, but more importantly, it takes courage to accept the sting to your pride.  It's not always possible (unfortunately) to be a hero.

Read More

A geek's rite of passage + Day 11: A photo of you taken recently

Does Sherlock cosplay count?


And my sister Emiko has a Watson "jumper".  WE MUST COLLABORATE.

Also, today I opened up a savings account all by my lonesome.  I feel so grown-up now.  XD

Read More

'No one will ever convince me that you told me a lie.'

{Reichenbach SPOILER ALERT}

Wow.

Everything came full circle--almost.  Except now Watson believes Sherlock is who he says he is.  I didn't want it to end.  It was heartbreaking, though. . .he didn't die the hero's death of the book.  Well, he did, but nobody knew (maybe Mycroft?  Molly?) and only Watson believed.  But the rest of society thinks Sherlock dies a psycho serial killer and everything else Moriarty was.   The part where Sherlock shouts "You're insane"--one of the few moments when he sounds like a real person, when he sees where cunning can go too far.  He has admitted to fighting on the side of good and now he knows the fundamental differences between Moriarty and himself.

I'm still confused about Moriarty though--was there really no code?  I must say, it always sounded very unlikely.  If so, however, then Moriarty becomes no greater than the cabbie in A Study in Pink--just someone wanting to prove they're smarter than Sherlock Holmes.  (Moriarty is probably the biggest disappointment of this new Sherlock series--he lacks the gravitas of being a respectable math professor and comes across more as a whining, cringing Gollum instead.)

And, it would mean that one of Sherlock's weaknesses is taking things too seriously.  But I would say it can also be his strength.  If he really considered every crime to be just a puzzle, he wouldn't care a bit about the people involved, as I think he does, deep down.  He wouldn't do what he did in the end if lives didn't matter to him.

Now, of course, there's the opposing argument--what if he were going to die?  What if he wasn't going to fake his death?  Would he still have followed through with it?  That's one thing the book left no doubts about--Holmes himself believed it was the end, and he had no backup plans.  I guess in this case you just have to decide whether you're John or Sally.  Is Sherlock a hero?  Is he what he appears to be, or is he only what you believe him to be?  Can you know for sure, either way? (Excuse me if I'm getting too analytical here, but I love agonizing over ambiguous storylines and characters).




So.  "Totally erroneous conclusions" or not--I pretty much subscribe to the idea that the body is a cadaver from the hospital, placed on the sidewalk by Molly, and I'm inclined agree with some other viewers that Holmes fell into a moving vehicle.  I do think he actually fell a certain distance--it's possible it was a mannequin, but there wasn't anywhere on the hospital rooftop to store one, unless it was inflatable.  O_o  Besides, I don't think that would be very convincing.  Most probably, there's some psychological factor involved--Watson was expecting to see what he thought was going to happen, so as long as he saw Sherlock falling, he didn't need to actually see Sherlock hit the pavement.  In other words, I think it's the moment where Sherlock is halfway down that the substitution is made--Watson's mind fills in the blanks, and a few seconds later, there's a body on the ground.

Thoughts? 

P. S.  It was pretty awesome to hear Sherlock playing Bach's G minor Adagio while waiting for Moriarty. 

Read More

Monday at home

• REICHENBACH FALL TONIGHT.  YES.
• I got a letter of acceptance from the IT--I'm officially a pre-computer-science major this fall.  Gratitude and mixed feelings.
• Spring quarter ends in 2 1/2 weeks.  Another dose of mixed feelings.
• Field trip to Mt Rainier in 1 1/2 weeks.
• It's almost time to get down to the nitty-gritty of publishing my poetry book.  O_O  You know, if I can tolerate the agonies of applying for university, I can most certainly do as much for my book.  Ah, the dread...

Read More

Sherlock S2: Hounds of Baskerville

Sufficiently creepy! 

Not altogether what I expected, but a great improvement (yes, I said that) on the Baskerville story.  I love how it kept you guessing until the end.  And it was sci-fi!  We need more sci-fi. 

The little pieces of original-story references and Victorian dialogue were fun.  "How on earth did you know that?" 

Overall, this episode felt WAY TOO SHORT.  Looking forward to The Reichenbach Fall--sort of.  It looks like a real tearjerker.  :(

Read More

Short Stories vs Novels

© Georgie Sharp
If written well, both are equally awesome.  I can't say I prefer one over the other--I've read some short stories with better characters and more depth than a novel, and some novels with plots more riveting than a short story.

However.  At this point in my life, I'm feeling nostalgic for my bookish life of ten years ago, when I devoured the Sherlock Holmes short stories and began writing short stories of my own (with a frightful attempt at the Victorian style).  I'm less and less willing to read books longer than 200 pages.  Maybe because I've never completed writing a story longer than 200 pages.  Maybe my attention span is simply shrinking (actually, that is very true).

What about you?  Do you have a preference?  And if you prefer novels, what could an author do to write short stories better?

Read More

C'est moi

When I do my homework, as planned.

Read More

Sherlock + Facts I will know forever, ii

1. Berlioz was a music critic
2. Uruguay became totally independent in 1828.
3. Domingo Faustino Sarmiento was known for his progressive policies.
4. TBA
5. TBA
6. TBA
7. TBA
8. TBA
9. TBA
10. TBA

No, I don't know why I'm telling you this.   It's just kind of fun, you know, making lists of stuff you missed on tests.

* * *

Been rewatching Sherlock BBC (season 1).  I like it even better this time around...21st century setting, fantastic music, wonderfully choppy dialogue, and Benedict Cumberbatch.  You can see him thinking.  You can see it in his face.  That's chiefly how he reminds me of Jeremy Brett.  Cumberbatch, of course, plays Holmes much like he was in A Study in Scarlet.  There's a brilliant balance between genius and childishness, especially at the ending of "Study in Pink".  He can't resist the temptation of proving himself right or, at least, of proving he's insusceptible to the killer's best spiel.

Anyway.  Yes, he's eccentric.  But I like his eccentricity.  If he weren't a stoic, he'd have a hard time being himself--people make fun of him as it is.  Obviously, not a good idea to be quite so stoic as Sherlock.  Still, I relate to him because he is himself and he is different than everybody else and he doesn't let it bother him.  That takes a lot of guts. 

Read More

It's still January 6th where I live...

...so HAPPY BIRTHDAY Sherlock Holmes!

Read More

First Hobbit. Now SHERLOCK!

NEW TRAILER:




+ a few more at Sherlockology's YouTube Channel.

It looks possibly even better than Season 1! 

Read More

"The work is its own reward."

I love that quote.  It is really how I see writing.  It's the one place (or one of the few) where I don't feel awkward or inept. 

* * *

Speaking of Holmes, there's a new SH book called The House of Silk by Anthony Horowitz.  I requested it from the library...hope it's good!  I've read a good number of Holmes pastiches; in fact, I recently tried Death Cloud which is a take on Holmes's childhood.  Content-wise it seemed fine, but I got bored and didn't finish it. 

Right now, I'm reading through "Worth and Choice", by KCS on FanFiction.Net.  It begins with Holmes living on Montague Street, then depicts his meeting with Watson and moving to Baker Street.  Not only that, it's written in journal form, very witty and extremely hilarious. Perhaps a trifle too snarky for Sherlock Holmes, but it's one of the best pastiches I've ever read.  :)

Read More

Blogging from school, ep. 3

I usually begin these posts with a description of the morning's weather.  ;)  Today, I'll make it brief and (not so) witty:  fog.

The trouble with deductions--off on a totally different topic, here--is that you cannot know whether they are correct or not without walking up to your subject and asking them some very extraordinary and irritating questions.  Sherlock Holmes's rudeness, which so jarred on Watson's nerves in Ch. 1 of The Sign of Four, seems to me to be a kind of naive callousness.  It came from a raw, abrupt, irrepressible search for the answer to a problem, which, in Holmes's brain, presents itself as a puzzle first and a personal matter second.  There is an almost Spock-like (to tie Star Trek into it!)...an almost Spock-like lack of emotion in Holmes's deductions.  He obtains brilliance but, unbeknownst to himself, pays for it dearly.  Their viewpoints were first broadened and then limited, incredibly limited, by logic.

But I make a point of saying Holmes is almost like Spock.  There is at least one important difference; and that is, Holmes has an imagination.  Spock has very little.  Holmes's vivid imagination, which Lestrade & co. so often scorned, actually assists him in his logic.  It's what makes him take up the bizarre and seemingly trivial cases, and we get epic quotes like:

You will remember, Watson, how the dreadful business of the Abernetty family was first brought to my notice by the depth which the parsley had sunk into the butter upon a hot day.

And, apart from that, his imagination helps keep him human. 

On a similar note, there are indeed people who emphasize the "machine" side of Holmes, people who even consider him to have an android-like way of thinking.  But if that were so, I don't think he would have dueled Moriarty.  I think if Holmes were really all that cold-blooded, he would have let Moriarty continue to commit crimes in order that he (Holmes) would have something to solve.

Well, I'm going to go read Kafka and drink coffee now.  ;)  Also have an essay to write this afternoon. 

Speaking of school, we had our first history test yesterday.  I think I have Vladimir I's biography totally memorized now...

Read More

SHERLOCK 2...Hounds of the Baskerville!

First Footage from Sherlock Season 2

"Oh, they're probably paw prints.  Could be anything there, or nothing."  <3

I have a feeling I'll be re-watching this a billion times.  Until the next trailer...  

Read More

Book tag! {part 7}

07. What fictional character are you (secretly) in love with?

Er, I don't think it gets any more un-secret.  Really.  And I'm not just talking about actors' portrayals, however excellent they certainly are.  No, I'm talking about the original character, the eccentric tobacco-smoker with the grey eyes, "hawk-like nose", and receding hairline.  The detective who is as unromantic as "the fifth proposition of Euclid".  Who knows nothing about the Solar System and everything about poisons.  Who could make a fortune with his brain power, but who will gladly fight crime for nothing.  Who now lives in the Sussex Downs, beekeeping.  IMHO, no Darcys or Thorntons can hold a candle to this guy.  ;)  Time for some picspam!


















[All images are in the public domain and are from Camden House.] 

He may also be the most quotable character in fiction.

Now the skilful workman is very careful indeed as to what he takes into his brain attic. He will have nothing but the tools which may help him in doing his work, but of these he has a large assortment, and all in the most perfect order. It is a mistake to think that that little room has elastic walls and can distend to any extent. Depend upon it there comes a time when for every addition of knowledge you forget something that you knew before. It is of the highest importance, therefore, not to have useless facts elbowing out the useful ones.

My mind rebels at stagnation. 

It is of the first importance not to allow your judgment to be biased by personal qualities.

I never make exceptions. An exception disproves the rule.

Life is infinitely stranger than anything which the mind of man could invent. We would not dare to conceive the things which are really mere commonplaces of existence. If we could fly out of that window hand in hand, hover over this great city, gently remove the roofs, and peep in at the queer things which are going on, the strange coincidences, the plannings, the cross-purposes, the wonderful chains of events, working through generations, and leading to the most outre results, it would make all fiction with its conventionalities and foreseen conclusions most stale and unprofitable.

08. The last book you acquired, and how (begged, bought, borrowed?)
09. Your current read, your last read and the book you’ll read next.
10. What author do you own the most books by and why?
11. Do you own multiple copies of any book? What are they? Why do you have multiple copies?
12. Book borrowing – do you use the library? Do you prefer to try before you buy? What about lending your books to friends? Are you a good borrower, do you remember to return books?
13. Do you reread a lot? Why (not)? Name a book you have reread many times.
14. What is the best book you’ve read in the past year?
15. Do you recommend books to other people? If you could force everyone you know to read one book, what would it be?
16. Adaptation: What book would you most like to see made into a film? Do you like to read the book first or see the film? Any books you have read after seeing the film version?
17. What is the most difficult book you’ve ever read?
18. Your favourite book series & your favourite book out of that series
19. Your favourite picture, junior fiction and Young Adult books
20. Least favourite plot device employed by way too many books you actually enjoyed otherwise
21. A book you thought you wouldn’t like but ended up loving
22. Your "comfort" book
23. Favourite book cover including a picture!
24. Favourite fictional relationship (romantic, friendship, familial)
25. Most annoying character ever
26. Most quotable novel or 5 of your favourite quotes from any books.
27. Any five books from your "to be read" stack. What makes you select a book for your “to be read” stack?
28. Some firsts: First book you remember loving/being obsessed with. First book that made you cry. First book you gave to someone else as a gift.
29. Saddest character death OR best/most satisfying character death (or both!)
30. The End: do you prefer everything tied up or to be able to 'make up your own mind'? What is the worst ending to a book you have read? And the best? (careful, spoiler tags!)

Read More

Sherlock Holmes in Middle Earth!

No, seriously; click here and here.

He could play Bard, but I have a feeling he'll be Smaug--so excited!!!

Read More

¡Watson!

{Upside-down exclamation marks.  They make exclamations much more exclamatory.}


I had a wonderfully geeky, Sherlock Holmes moment today.  In music class, we're in the Romantic era; and we just learned about the composer Berlioz, who wrote this famous symphony.  In a nutshell, it's about an angsty guy who has a crush on a girl, poisons himself with opium, but lives to dream about dancing, decapitation, and witches.  {Macabre much?  Methinks the Romantics could've used some Owl City...}

Anyhow, the girl's musical motif (theme) is called the idée fixe, and one of the lecture points was that idée fixe was a medical term.  The professor didn't explain it; but immediately, some "Sherlockian alarm" went off in my head; and I got super excited because I've watched Watson's explanation of idée fixe, some dozen times at least (within the full-length episode, lol).  I didn't jump up, waving my hand in the air, but I sure felt like it.  Yet another instance of how Sherlock Holmes and friends can aid you in the Real World!  ;)

Read More

Group read (short): Sherlock Holmes

Am hosting a group read for Sherlock Holmes:  "The Final Problem", at my other blog.  Check out this post for particulars.  I'd love it if you joined in!  : )

Read More

SHERLOCK: review of ep. 3

Episode III:  The Great Game

My overall rating:  3.5 out of 5 stars

Moriarty, enigmatic and invisible, sets up a series of crimes; and he dares Sherlock to solve them against the clock.  If Sherlock fails, innocent people will be murdered; if he succeeds, he will find himself the next victim.

 

Just as it sounds, this was the darkest, grittiest episode.  It's not like the majority of the original books, where Sherlock is dealing with eccentrics or one-time criminals--here, he's fighting a very sick, 21st century serial-killer.  The episode is greatly one long, nerve-wracking story; there's not much (if any) violence shown, but the implied violence is very frightening. Needless to say, it's not something I'd rewatch any time soon, and I wouldn't recommend it for everyone.  [As an aside, it just so happened that we could hear the wind whistling around the roof outside, as we watched this episode; and eventually the power went out.  We had to finish the episode the next day or two.  Talk about a cliffhanger and a 4D movie...'twas creepy!] 

Another problem I have with this episode is the pacing.  This is Season 1 (Season 2 is to be filmed this year), but already it seems as if the filmmakers wanted to make this third episode really big scale.  The result?  The multiple mysteries/subplots were rather confusing, and the appearance of Moriarty came way too soon--that should have waited until a later season.  And again, for only being ep. 3, it was really dark and depressing.  I just hope that there will be some "private consulting detective" mysteries in Season 2; because that's the biggest Holmesian thing missing in this series.

The portrayal of Moriarty was also disappointing.  One of the brilliant things about the books was that Moriarty was an elderly, respectable-looking, genius math prof; and for 37 year-old Holmes to defeat this kind of opponent is the ultimate brainiac battle in classic fiction.  However, this contemporary Moriarty is very, very different; and the final confrontation is a bit anti-climactic.

And finally, we have the cliffhanger.  Yes, this last episode ends on a cliffhanger; so if you decide to skip this episode, I don't think you will miss out on anything.  ;)

Despite these negatives, I did give it 3.5 stars.  For one thing, Moriarty is clearly portrayed as the evil person he is, not some glamorous villain, or a "misunderstood guy with a painful past".  Secondly, Cumberbatch's Holmes is a strong as ever.  He's tough and unemotional; but, as he tells Watson, this is the only way he can stay concentrated.  If he lets his feelings distract him, they overcome him and he can't solve the case.  Notwithstanding, you can tell that he is affected by the horrible things that happen, which shows that he isn't just a machine underneath.  

In summary, BBC's "Sherlock" is a pretty good miniseries for a modernization--surprisingly good.  It does have several flaws--mainly, modern morals (i.e. lack thereof) and occasional bad language.  However, the dedicated, crime-fighting heroism of Conan Doyle's books is strongly present, even in the 21st century; and Sherlock Holmes (though perhaps a bit too eccentric) is still the same Sherlock Holmes.  For an older audience, I think it's a series worth watching.  :)

Read More

SHERLOCK: review of ep. 2

See this post for review of the first episode. :)

 

Episode II:  The Blind Banker

My overall rating:  4 out of 5 stars

Since the conclusion of A Study in Pink, John Watson's life would appear to be returning to the norm--he gets a job and meets "Sarah", a nice young lady who seems to like him, too.  But he'll need his crime-fighting skills again, as Sherlock's current case--involving a murder and cryptic graffiti--leads John, Sherlock, and Sarah into a complicated plot, of which the "Blind Banker" case is only the beginning.

This episode received low ratings, but I thought it was pretty good.  Music, sets, and cinematography were quite good as usual; and I liked Holmes better than I did in the first ep...he wasn't quite so weird.  Also, there was a good balance between drama and humor; and I loved the reference to The Valley of Fear, when Holmes and Watson are solving the book cipher.  Watson and Sarah's date--planned and attended by Holmes--was hilarious.  And neither Sarah nor Soo Lin (the other female protagonist) were annoying, which was a relief. 

There were a couple of things I didn't like, such as the random swordfight at the beginning (what was that about?), and the final climax/ending.  And the jade hairpin and secretary subplot seemed contrived and unbelievable.  Moments like that just remind you that it's a TV show.  :P

I guess I didn't mention some of the other recurring characters in my first review--Mrs Hudson, Lestrade, and Mycroft.  Overall, they were ok, but I much prefer them in the Jeremy Brett series.  They just weren't quite right in this one--Mrs Hudson was too modern, Lestrade too irritable, and Mycroft too snarky...they went for the "sibling rivalry" thing in this script.  Again, I prefer the Brett series's version, where Mycroft and Sherlock team up on certain cases, joke around a bit, and still have a mutual respect for each other's talents.

Read More

Young Sherlock: The Mystery of the Manor House

*Not to be confused with Young Sherlock Holmes

Young Sherlock:  The Mystery of the Manor House

4.5 out of 5 stars


The Plot: Upon returning from school, 16 year-old Sherlock Holmes finds his family absent and himself chased away from his own home, the Manor House. He soon learns that the Turnbulls, a middle-aged couple, now live there; but they aren't who they seem to be. Bored by his life at Aunt Rachel's, Sherlock sets about investigating a strange series of incidents, somehow connected to the Turnbulls; and he begins to uncover a very clever but desperate plot.

Thoughts: This series is definitely underrated. Granted, the cinematography is dated, the pace is a tad slow, and the plot isn't exactly action-packed; but if you're a "die-hard" Holmesian, it's well worth watching. I really enjoyed it and was actually sad to see it end.

I was curious about the script and characters, since Holmes's youth is subject to interpretation; and I thought the story was entertaining, if very unlikely. The other characters were interesting, too: Aunt Rachel, flip-flopping between good intentions and selfishness; her Dickensian brother, Gideon; Charity, Sherlock's smug cousin; and the eccentric local doctor, who wears an Amadeus wig. :P And while there's no 221b Baker Street, you can tell where Sherlock fits in and where he doesn't. The kitchen and the doctor's office--which seems to be in a constant state of uproar--are where he's really at home; and he's obviously a bit hurt at being exiled from the Manor House, sinister though it's become.

But in this series, Sherlock isn't very angsty, romantic, or rude. He's mostly just awkward, eccentric, and self-confident (which is a more preferable portrayal, in my opinion). Guy Henry is very well-cast in the role; he's tall (probably taller than anybody else) and plays the part quite charismatically.

There are nine 30-minute episodes total. My sister and I agreed that the first half was a trifle boring--mostly introducing characters and suspense--but the second half was very good. The episodes where Sherlock and John (the doctor's son) break into the Manor House were especially hilarious and suspenseful. There's even an impromptu swordfight, which was way cool and not too stagey. The conclusion of the mystery was extremely far-fetched, but certainly interesting.

Content-wise, it was pretty clean (probably PG rated)...some creepy stuff and a little bad language, but not a ton. One person dies from an overdose of anesthetic, but it is unintentional. I wouldn't necessarily recommend this series for kids, because it's slow and can be tricky to understand, in a "blink and you miss it" kind of way. But I recommend it if you don't mind the slower pace and are looking for a fun and unique Holmesian series. :)

Read More