Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site brl-tgr.ARPA
Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!cmcl2!seismo!brl-tgr!stratton
From: stratton@brl-tgr.ARPA (Sue Stratton )
Newsgroups: net.books
Subject: Re: Sherlock Holmes Pastiches
Message-ID: <9922@brl-tgr.ARPA>
Date: Fri, 12-Apr-85 13:19:57 EST
Article-I.D.: brl-tgr.9922
Posted: Fri Apr 12 13:19:57 1985
Date-Received: Mon, 15-Apr-85 03:34:37 EST
References: <644@ahutb.UUCP>
Organization: Ballistic Research Lab
Lines: 50


> 
>      I'd say avoid this one, but the only people who are likely to even run
> across this book are the completists (like myself) who will buy it no matter
> *how* bad it is.
> 
> 					Evelyn C. Leeper
> 					...ihnp4!ahutb!ecl


I recognized myself in that last paragraph there, and decided to post.

I suppose I'm pretty tolerant of most Holmes pastiches, not only due to the
normal Sherlockian's thirst for tales featuring the great detective (should
I have capitalized that?), but also because I was introduced to the Conan
Doyle stories though two non-canonical sources (Nicholas Meyer's "7%" and
the 1939 Rathbone/Bruce "Hound" film, which was released for a brief run
(I think Buster Keaton's "Sherlock Jr." was also on the bill) in Charlotte,NC
theatres about the same time "7%" came out in paperback).

In any event, I agree that there is a problem with many/most Holmes pastiches,
and I'm not just referring to the use of historical figures (something that
doesn't bother me too much; the involvement of an historical figure at least
provides "Watson" with a plausible excuse for having withheld the manuscript
from publication, leaving it instead to rot in some attic until "found" by
someone in our day).  No, I think I could stand almost any plot twist if
only the authors wouldn't insist on what I call "sentimentalizing."

You know the kind of thing I mean--having Holmes refer to "the woman," only
with regretful, romantic overtones that Doyle's Holmes wouldn't have used
(or that Doyle's Watson would have been too delicate to record); having Holmes
shower Watson with appreciation for the latter's faithful service, rather 
than relying on the tacit understanding that seemed to exist between the two
in the originals; or--perhaps this is the worst--endowing Watson with a
"past," or with some extraordinary skill or secret (as if to prove him a
worthy companion for Holmes, a condition I have to admit the Rathbone/Bruce 
films don't meet), forgetting that it is Watson's very "ordinariness" that
made/makes him the perfect foil for Holmes.  And has anyone else noticed that
the Holmes of the pastiches almost always tends to be better-read (i.e., more
learned in a wide variety of subjects) than the Holmes of the Canon?  

Question, then: who can recommend Holmes pastiches that are somewhat more
faithful to the originals than some of the ones that have recently been
criticized on this net?  Just last week a fellow netter recommended (by mail)
one called "The Giant Rat of Sumatra."  I've not found it yet, but in the
meantime I'm re-reading my Canon!

Thanks,
Karen Wilson