But what the heck does it have to do with Sherlock Holmes?
Well, nothing really, I thought. As cool as it it, it's like Harry Potter -- we have to draw our own connections, which Sherlockians have been doing with non-Sherlockian things they love for nearly a century now. But, boy, was I wrong . . . and kind of stupid. It was staring me in the face all along.
Thankfully, Twitter and one of my favorite Three Patch Podcasters, Caroline, got me on track this morning with this tweet:
Oh, yeah . . . Alexander Hamilton Garrideb . . . he's in the Canon.
Suddenly, John Garrideb, Counsellor at Law, con artist, and attempted Watson-murderer, takes on a whole new cache. We can adapt his brief tale of Alexander Hamilton Garrideb's rise in real estate and wheat commodities into a wonderful musical rap number.
John Garrideb, a.k.a. Killer Evans, a.k.a.James Winter, a.k.a Morecroft, suddenly becomes the coolest villain in the Canon, because he actually must have been an Alexander Hamilton fan to use that name on his created Garrideb character. And what the heck, his name was freakin' MORECROFT, a combo of Mycroft and Moriarty that was the original shipping name . . . what, a shipping name for Mycroft and Moriarty in the actual Doyle Canon? The universe explodes!
And "James Winter" is a pretty cool name as well, no pun intended. "Winter is coming." Whoa.
I don't know who got "Three Garridebs" in Chris Redmond's About Sixty, but if they didn't jump on this guy as the coolest Canonical dude ever, they missed a bet.
And Evans/Winter/Garrideb/Morecroft, the rapping/shipping American, almost brought down the full emotional wrath of Sherlock Holmes for putting a bullet in Watson, one of those "almosts" in the Doyle Canon that we'd all secretly liked to have seen take a dark turn just to see what Holmes was capable of, beyond just smacking him in the head with a pistol.
So, Hamilton . . . we do get these occasional surges in Sherlockian fandom that seem unrelated at first. But you have to be very careful before declaring their complete lack of connection, because you may be missing something very obvious . . . like an Alexander Hamilton fan right in one of your favorite Sherlock Holmes stories.
(And on a day like today in American politics, we need all the distractions that such a wonderful character can bring!)
"...in the actual Doyle Canon..." How nice for you to acknowledge the "Doyle Canon" as one of the many varied and equal Sherlock Holmes canons out there for fans to choose from. Can you imagine that "Doyle Canon" actually having any relevance to today's world and today's Sherlock fandom? "MORECROFT, a combo of Mycroft and Moriarty that was the original shipping name . . . what, a shipping name for Mycroft and Moriarty in the actual Doyle Canon? The universe explodes! And "James Winter" is a pretty cool name as well, no pun intended. "Winter is coming." Whoa.... like an Alexander Hamilton fan right in one of your favorite Sherlock Holmes stories." What will that Doyle guy think of next?
ReplyDeleteOkay, James, I haven't been reading your comments for a year or so after you became so reliably sarcastic and unpleasant. Now that all of social media has taken on Trumpian tones and it's become our everyday world anyway, I thought I'd check one out. Now I'm kind of wondering at this point: how old are you? You have the vim and vigor of quite a young fellow of the internet. Just curious.
DeleteMy dear fellow, we are indeed contemporaries and probably have more in common than you may assume. If I have a youthful internet appearance, that is due in no small part to yourself. If one is to take on Brad Keefauver in the arena of virtual reality, one needs to bring their A game. If I have been "so reliably sarcastic and unpleasant"--though I may refer to it as "sharp and biting"--it is only in an effort to give as good as one gets. You should take that as a complement as that is how it is given. I can indeed imagine us sharing a libation in the corner of some Sherlockian gathering passionately disguising various views of our shared hobby and leaving at the end of the night, at least on my part, intellectually stimulated and in the warm glow of Holmesian good fellowship. (But please do not read a modern-day "ship" into such sentiments.) As I have said in other corners of the web, I respect your role as an iconoclast, but when the iconoclastic shovel digs too deep into the muck and tosses the effluent indiscriminately, there needs to be a voice to cry the "gardyloo".
ReplyDeleteHere’s the thing: I don’t really want to “take on” anyone. Yes, I react very strongly to TV shows, institutions, and ideas. But going adversarial with individuals? Not really something I care to do. The impulse is there, yes, especially when someone is a bit trollish online, but our ongoing challenge as human beings is to try to be a bit better than our impulses. And we each have to be our own gatekeepers on that. Expressing our own honest reactions can be tricky and collateral damage sometimes does occur. But fighting someone for “slinging shit,” as you apparently have thought I’ve done doesn’t make things better. All you can do is present your side and hope you did it well enough that the other person understands. And apologize where needed. Sorry if I wrote anything to make you feel “sharp and biting” was necessary.
DeleteWhat a bizarre reply. 1) You post your opinions in a public space. Either you want dialog or you want to hear the sound of your own voice. You can post diverse opinions from others in your comment section or you can create an echo chamber where only views like yours are seen. Up to you and it is your privilege. 2) You have used the work "hate" in relation to your feelings about Elementary before the first episode was aired. That's fine. But in those early days of '12, '13 and '14 you constantly insulted people who liked the show by referring to them as monkey, lemmings, zombies and "ele-mentals". That is not fine. So do I think that action is crap? Yes. "I react very strongly to TV shows, institutions, and ideas"; passion is a fine thing. "But going adversarial with individuals? Not really something I care to do." But you have gone adversarial with a group, Elementary fans and unprovoked by them, and the occasional individual who have written a blog post that you disagree with (May 29, 2013). As someone who "liking things that suck", in your opinion, feels slighted by being dehumanized for that, by you, without provocation, is unbecoming of a fellow Sherlockian and a fellow human. However, I don't take that personally, but see it as an opportunity to engage in that friendly disputation that Sherlockians engage. 3) Given that you feel that your comment section is not the place to engage in discussion and given that I don't think you should be given a pass when you step over the line in your public forum, I feel that it is appropriate to respond in kind in a Sherlockian public space, the Sherlock Holmes Google+ community; our modern BSJ Letters to the Editor, and let fellow Sherlockians view the controversy. If you find that "trollish", well, so be it. As I said, I can readily envision us sitting down over drinks and have a stimulating conversation, and, for my part, being friends. I like you. I enjoy your writing. Your hate of Elementary, for whatever reasons, as you hated it before it could be critiqued on its own merits, is yours to do with as you please. Insulting others for liking it is wrong.
DeleteWhether this reply is published, I thank you for this opportunity for direct discourse. The Sherlockian world is small, and seemingly getting smaller by the day. All the best
Time to let it go, James. I really don't like Elementary on its own merits. Many of us don't. But instead of arguing the show's good qualities, you've long seemed intent on making a case as to why I am either faking that opinion or decided five years ago that I was going to hold that judgement no matter what I saw over the run of the show. I've actually warmed to Elementary, despite its high non-Sherlockian level of its world. My initial comments about Elementary's audience was not directed at individuals as, early on, it actually seemed impossible to me that it had Sherlockians in its fan audience. Have I been insulting Elementary fans lately? I hope not. Did you start this comment thread by mocking other parts of fandom on a blog that had nothing to do with Elementary? Yes, you did. Read my comments on the Sherlock world as you care to, and I shall do the same with yours. But personally, I'm trying to be nicer about it. You might want to work on that rather than justifying a grudge.
DeleteI have argued the show's good, and Sherlockian, qualities in various posts at IHOSE. "My initial comments about Elementary's audience was not directed at individuals as, early on, it actually seemed impossible to me that it had Sherlockians in its fan audience." I'm not sure what that means--as long as you insulted Elementary fans as a group and not as individuals that's okay? Would the example be as long as you didn't disparage Dr. King personally, but just the group he belonged to, no harm no foul? Or that the fans of Elementary are not--cannot--be Sherlockians and thus fair game? I'm sure that's not what you mean. But I don't know what you do mean. Also: "Did you start this comment thread by mocking other parts of fandom on a blog that had nothing to do with Elementary? Yes, you did." I'm not sure what you're referring to here, so I would be grateful for more specificity.
DeleteI have no grudge. I have the right to express my opinion of your public opinion in a Sherlockian forum, which has been a tradition of this fandom for eighty years.
This isn't the BSJ letters page, sad to say, and even there the editor has the right not to print your letter. Anyway, I apologize for anything I might have done to offend you or any other fan of Elementary, and I shall try not to do it again. Try, at least. For now, however, I'm done, and I wish you well in your writings for other venues.
DeleteP.S. That's "discussing" not "disguising".
ReplyDelete