Crossover time, ye gods of television!

Now that Sherlock Holmes seems to have a pretty firm grip on television and many leaps and jumping of sharks have been made, it's probably time for one more special treat of the TV industry to occur: the crossover.

Applying the Sherlock-coloured glasses to everything as I do, it was impossible to see tonight's crossover of Family Guy into the world of The Simpsons without thinking of Sherlock Holmes finally meeting some of the other denizens of prime time. But who?

No, not "who" as in Dr. Who . . . that poses much the same problem as Sherlock Holmes meeting Dracula. They're from universes that function by completely different sets of rules. And Sherlock's universe does not allow the supernatural or inter-dimensional gateways. The Sussex vampire can never actually be a vampire (or some sort of lamprey-humanoid alien).

Personally, I'd love to see the BBC's Sherlock Holmes and Jim Moriarty run into DCI John Luther and Alice Morgan. Luther's Britain is a bit darker than Holmes's, but for a "lighter" Luther story it might just fit. With airtime for either Sherlock or Luther being such a very precious thing, I doubt that could ever happen . . . but on American TV, with seasons going on most of the year?

Heck, Elementary could practically become the new The New Scooby-Doo Movies with all the crime dramas on CBS to crossover with: CSI, NCIS, Criminal Minds, The Mentalist, Hawaii Five-O, Blue Bloods, Unforgettable . . . heck, you could just about throw The Good Wife in for good measure. Personally, I'd hope for a Joan Watson stop at the 2 Broke Girls cupcake shop. 

Elementary wouldn't even have to do full crossovers, having already established a penchant for having random ladies coming out of Mr. Elementary's bedroom in the morning. A simple pre-credit walk-on of shame every week could cover a lot of ground. And who's to say, at this point, that Mr. Elementary doesn't swing both ways? Double his pleasure, double our crossover fun!

While Sherlock Holmes crosses over with other fictions like mad in fanfics and more professional works all the time, and has since the 1890s, he still has to make the leap in the medium of television . . . unless we're counting YouTube as television at this point. (Who really knows there.)

Could this be the year? With a Christmas special on the other side of the pond and a need for something exciting on this side, who knows what's possible?

Mr.Elementary meets Shonda Rhimes.

With CBS's incarnation of a Sherlock Holmes character and its third season of Elementary starting so late this fall, it was bound to have an upstart rival or two coveting its time slot. But who would have expected that one such rival's very title would be practically be a glove-slap-across-the-face challenge to the show?

How To Get Away With Murder, which started at 9 P.M. Central this past Thursday, is the latest creation from Shonda Rhimes, a TV powerhouse responsible for such addicting dramas as Gray's Anatomy and Scandal. The latter show has, in a few short weeks of binge watching, beaten out the latest season of Dr. Who on my what-to-watch-first list. So I had to check it out, just to see what Mr. Elementary's new competition looked like.

Well, as is usually the case when a Sherlock is involved, the big challenge this time is going to be a professor: Professor Annalise Keating. The show's law school backdrop and Keating's tough way with the student might remind an older viewer of John Houseman's The Paper Chase back in the 1970s. Her relationship with the students, however, might remind a modern viewer a little bit of House. Add in the multiple tracks of interwoven secrets, agendas, and shocking dramatic turns that has served shows like Scandal so well, and you get TV that uses all of the current level of modern drama techniques to their best advantage.

Why couldn't somebody have hired Shondra Rhimes to do the first modern American TV attempt at Sherlock? Well, she was undoubtedly busy with her own projects, but had she taken the job, I'd bet we wouldn't have dallied with a female Watson and gone straight for a Sherlock Holmes with XX chromosomes, as her leads are typically strong, professional woman with a command presence -- just the sort of thing we'd look for in a lady Sherlock.

As How To Get Away With Murder now has a well-promoted head start on Elementary, we'll see if it can dent the show's junior year ratings. Professors have tried to push Sherlocks over the falls before and failed, but occasionally they do pull it off. It'll be interesting to see how it plays out this time around.

Wealthy, wealthy poor people.

We live in an age when income inequality seems to be an ever-growing issue. Yes, yes, there have always been the rich and the poor. And that subject is far too real-world for a Sherlock Holmes fan blog despite the rich-fan, poor-fan parts of our culture that we overlook in favor of the common playing field that fandom gives us.

And then there's the wealth of Sherlock Holmes we all share these days.

In this month of networks rolling out all their latest and greatest television shows, anyone who doesn't shun the video medium entirely is finding their time filling up with exciting new entertainment possibilities. I used to be pretty good at TV trivia . . . an expertise that ends exactly at the time three networks began to explode into first hundreds via cable, then thousands via the internet.

Publishing has had a similar explosion, going from major publishing houses to print-on-demand to e-books, making it practically impossible to keep up with all the Sherlock out there. In the time it takes you to read one book of Holmes pastiches, three more seem to be published, not counting all of the tales of Holmes that newly appear for internet readers every single day.

None of this is new data, none of this is blogworthy data. But here's what I wonder about it all, given current trends . . . . as the middle classes lose more buying ability will we see fewer collectors and a relatively smaller number of folks able to travel to the pricier events? There have always been some remarkable and notable Sherlockians who've been short on funds but making a big impact, and I have a feeling we'll be seeing a lot more of those.

Because, thanks to the internet, it's very easy to be rich in Sherlock Holmes these days, no matter how small one's budget for actual hardcover books.

Applause for an offstage acting afficionado.

One could make a comment upon Dr. Watson and Kitty Winter singlestick dueling on a public sidewalk this week, as the CBS is teasing in their next season of silliness, yes. But that time would probably be better spent in praise of someone who is actually accomplishing something. And who might be worthy of such celebration?

Anybody say "Howard Ostrom?"

"Sheercheek Holmes -- An All-too-Human History of Stage & Screen Variations on a Name" by Howard Ostrom and Ray Wilcockson showed up on No Place Like Holmes today. And if you were anxiously awaited Ross K. Foad's 400th video on that YouTube channel, Howard's latest addition, with the help of his sometime writing partner, will fill up that time nicely -- an Ostrom essay is nothing if not comprehensive, especially when he's got Ray Wilcockson backing him up.

Thirteen very full pages of people who are almost named Sherlock Holmes this time out, ranging from 1900 to 2012.  (True, their essay on African-American Holmeses ran 27 pages, but it had pictures!)

In an age when the young and trending Sherlock-ish fans are blowing us away with their energies and productivity, Howard Ostrom has been out on that same internet frontier, putting out fabulous pieces that would have been mail-away-for-it-monographs or beefy most-of-a-journal articles once upon a time, foregoing the solid archival safety of print for the ability to share with the most Sherlock Holmes fans possible. He is a generous fellow indeed, and Howard's drive for collecting all the thespian culprits in any of his endeavors puts his name up there with those completists like Hobbs and DeWaal.

While I'll never be able to get the image out of my head of Howard at the first 221B Con, driving the young girls wild with his rockstar exposing of Sherlockian high-tops beneath his Invernesse cloak, the inestimable Ostrom is showing off more brain than ankle these days, and one is always happy to see a young soul rising on more than just their physical charms.

So here's to the latest work by one of our best Sherlockians out there these days. Keep up the good work, Howard! (And Ray, too, who will hopefully forgive a bit of Ostromian bias.)

If it's September in Peoria, its time for the 2704!

The thirty-seventh annual 2704 banquet of Peoria's Hansoms of John Clayton took place tonight.

That sentence seems a bit arcane these days, in an era of Sherlock Holmes fans who don't always follow the old Sherlockian society model. Peoria's home Holmes club was named in tribute to the hansom cab driven by John Clayton, which Sherlock tracked down by its number, 2704, in The Hound of the Baskervilles, and one has to be pretty well-up on the Holmes Canon to recognize the name of Clayton and something of a trivia expert to know number 2704.

But the Hansoms continue, and the old traditions are still observed.

This year, we dined at Jonah's Seafood House, where the Hansoms last held the September banquet on September 25, 1999 . . . in the last century no less. Our last dinner there had sixteen in attendance spread across a couple of tables and a lot more disorganization (the ancient Clayton Ritual was performed at only one of the two tables), but this 2014 edition, with seven members in attendance was much more focused.

Table favors of Benedict Cumberbatch and Martin Freeman greeting us with a "Hello Hansom!" adorned every place setting and a classic club info brochure was brought out of retirement to give us a copy of the aforementioned Clayton Ritual for its responsive reading, led in good voice by Marla Serrine. A lively discussion of "The Adventure of the Devil's Foot" that began in the Oyster Bar sometime before dinner continued through the courses, some discussion of the yesterday's vote against Scottish independence took place, and intermingled in was the usual host of other topics.

Eventually, after the largest servings of bread pudding anyone had ever seen, Starrett's 221B was recited from memory by the good Carter, and we began to disperse, finding our varying ways home along the river, across it, and beyond.

It was generally agreed that our next meeting should be planned with more than a week's notice, but given that short lead-up, as well as the noticed absence of two of our members, whom we all wished better health to in days ahead, it was a pretty darn good time.

The mystery of Rotten Tomatoes.

After spending an idle hour or two in fanworld last night, I decided to take a look at what the pros were thinking these days.

One of my favorite sites is Rotten Tomatoes, where you can see an entire range of well-expressed opinions upon a movie or TV show by what we used to refer to respectfully as "critics." In a world where we've all started to value our opinions as highly as that of some fellow or the other who used to write for a major metropolitan daily or the other, a single critic no long holds much power. But an aggregated summation of a large group of them? Well, if nothing else, it can be a lot of fun.

And what do we find for our friend Sherlock Holmes?

The Emmy-award-winning Sherlock, season three, naturally gets a 97% positive rating among critics. Sherlock Holmes: A Game of Shadows barely stays "fresh" with 60%. And good old Elementary, season two, comes in at a 100% rating . . . what the Baskerville Hall? Everybody likes the show?

Checking out a classic, just for comparison, gives a bit of a clue. The Rathbone/Bruce adaptation of The Hound of the Baskervilles gets a prime 100% rating, yes, but it also carries the disclaimer "No consensus yet." Ten reviews is apparently not enough for consensus. It's poor younger sibling, The Scarlet Claw, fares even worse with a rating of "No score yet ..." as only two critics have weighed in on it.

But even The Scarlet Claw isn't at the bottom of the Rotten Tomatoes barrel. Track down the Peter Cook/Dudley Moore The Hound of the Baskervilles and you'll see a rating "No Reviews Yet ..."

Rotten Tomatoes is known for its tomato-based judgements of "Fresh" or "Rotten," based on whether or not 60% of the critics seemed to like a film or TV show, but what they don't really have a cute little icon for is the amount of interest a show generates. Rathbone's 1939 Hound can probably be forgiven for only generating 10 "professional" reviews on the modern internet. But behind, Elementary's season two 100%? A non-consensus-forming seven critics.

Season one of the show clocks in at 83% with forty-two critics -- the necessary requirements to get Elementary a "certified fresh." And since season two has only had its DVD on sale in America for about three weeks, perhaps it's still a little early to expect it to get consensus.

And while Sherlock was "Certified Fresh" in its third season with 97% by thirty-four critics (and a single negative view keeping it from a true 100%), seasons one and two of the show didn't get reviewed nearly as much. Season one got a 221B-step count of seventeen critics on board for its 100% (not enough critics to be "Certified Fresh") and season two barely made that same cut with twenty-three reviewers for its 100%.

The critic numbers for Sherlock have grown, probably because of its import status, while the home-grown Elementary could possibly be losing critic interest as it settles in for the long haul.

Who knows? But for those who like the statistical side of baseball, one of its strengths among the major sports, Rotten Tomatoes gives our on-screen entertainment some interesting numbers to play with.

Who's the god now, Who?

A nice editorial piece on reactions to the latest Dr. Who was passed along on the Twitter feed of a certain Baker Street Babe this week. Well, thought-out, well-written, and a perfect counterpoint to a brilliant Dr. Who commentary video that I bumbled into on YouTube last night called "It's time to retire Dr. Who."

Yes, yes, this is a Sherlock Holmes blog, but Dr. Who is running parallel to Holmes in some ways these days (sharing a writer, for one thing), and comparing and contrasting the two can be illuminating.

Dr. Who, for example, is one character on one show who has gone on for decades, played by different actors and written by different writers. And yet the shared delusion we try to maintain is that it's all part of one long continuity, one large entity of story.

Sherlock Holmes, on the other hand, is one character who has, for decades upon decades, been played by different actors and written by different writers, yet each incarnation inhabits its own little fictional universe in our minds and they don't have to share story arcs or lives at all.

(And Sebastian Moran seems to be completely different in every one of them.)

We have a Rathbone generation of Sherlockians, a Brett generation of Sherlockians, and now a Cumberbatch generation of Sherlockians, all of whom can happily reside in their own fandom if they like, without considering the others at all.

Dr. Who fans aren't so lucky. Whichever Doctor they are fans of is supposed to be the same Doctor as the ones they aren't fans of. Sure, the switch from David Burke to Edward Hardwicke mid-stream in the Jeremy Brett days went well enough, but can you image the reaction if Granada had taken their Victorian Baker Street set and suddenly moved Benedict Cumberbatch and Martin Freeman in, to take over that same series? And then two years later, Jonny Lee Miller and Lucy Liu took over from them?

There will always be those "my fandom, right or wrong" fans that stay brand loyal through all of the hard turns. Their very lifestyle is based around the fandom and ignoring the latest incarnation is almost like holding one's breath. And no one can argue with the angelic virtue of acceptance that makes for a handy stick to beat "the haters" with. Hating is bad, right? It's all good, right?

And there will always be the "yeah, it will never be as good as it was then" fans at the other end of the spectrum. Their nostalgia for a particular story experience at a particular time in their lives is their first love, a love that outshines all others. And true love remains true, in the face of all rivals, doesn't it? Can't argue with that.

Most of us mix and match and lie somewhere in between. And with Sherlock Holmes, we can wander in between worlds and pretty much ignore the ones we don't care for. (Unless, of course, we're drawn to its sheer wrongness like a moth to a hot light bulb. Ouch!) Dr. Who fans are not quite so lucky. The good, the bad, and the boring all comprise one long-televised being. At least until you step back far enough . . . .

If you get enough distance, all the Sherlock Holmeses can form into one great image, like those big pictures whose colors are based on gathered tiny pictures. He's not just one shape-shifting character zipping through time, space, and a few dimensions . . . Sherlock Holmes is a pan-dimensional being existing in multiple timelines at once. Stephen Moffat famously said, "the Doctor is like an angel aspiring to be human, and Sherlock is a man aspiring to be a god," but in the greater view of things, the Doctor is single being who became many over time, while Sherlock Holmes is a legion of beings who somehow form a single entity in our minds.

Not that I'm in any was biased . . . .