Horizon

YOU HAVE NEVER READ ANY OF THE SHERLOCK HOLMES STORIES?

A package from Amazon will be reaching you shortly.

Does that also mean that you have never seen the wonderful Basil Rathbone Sherlock Holmes films? I have access to all of them - even the weird Sherlock Holmes and the Secret Weapon

Does that also mean that you have never seen the wonderful Basil Rathbone Sherlock Holmes films?

I haven't even seen the crappy Basil Rathbone Sherlock Holmes films, if there are any. BTW, Rathbone ended up hating his most famous role, which he believed unfairly overshadowed his other cinematic work.

Hang tough, Alan. Holmes lurks on my wife's side of the bedroom and I sleep with an eye open to ensure the integrity of my bookshelves.

How can I dismiss a body of work without reading it? Remember those movies people insisted you see? Terms of Endearment? My Big Fat Greek Wedding? You get the idea.

First it's the Doyle, then it's Christie, and one day you wake up from your afternoon nap and you find a Michael Arlen novel on your lap.

There is nothing closet about my enjoyment of Sherlock Holmes. I even conform to the stereotype and pull out my collected edition in winter and read a couple of stories by an open fire (brandy and smoking jacket an optional extra). They are brain candy - short, entertaining and with a little puzzle to engage your thoughts. Try The Sign of Four first.

What I really love, though, is the adapatations. I have seen far, far too many versions of The Hound of the Baskervilles: it seems to be one of those curious tales which is capable of being re-interpreted according to the prevailing zeitgeist. There was a BBC version two years back which featured a rather poor Holmes (Richard Roxbrough, who was the Duke in Moulin Rouge) and an intelligent Watson (Ian Hart). Rereading the story afterwards, you realise that Holmes and Watson are active men in their early thirties and the image of them as older is a legacy first of the Rathbone movies (which made Watson the congenital idiot) and then of the Brett tv series (the first version to bring in the drug use from the stories).

Tangenting slightly, there is a tea van in the carpark of Hound Tor on Dartmoor called "Hound of the Basket Meals".

There is also a lovely line in Sherlockian fiction. Like Austen and Lewis Carroll, Conan Doyle is one of the few authors to have inspired literary fan fiction which has been published legally i.e. been accepted by a publishing house rather than circulated via fanzine or - more recently - the net. And Sherlockian fiction is great fun: Alan Moore toys with Sherlockian lore in The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen but denies us anything but a glimpse of the Great Detective himself.

The Game is afoot, Watson!

Fortunately, Gutenberg has a nice Sherlock collection.

Seriously, Alan, you've got to read Sherlock Holmes. If it's not enough that the stories are full of major cultural reference points and, dare I say it, fun to read, I think they're also an important source for some of Orwell's personal tastes -- a non-bombastic, non-Kipling version of manhood and self-reliance; the notion of finding glamour in irregular self-employment and in empiricism pursued at great personal cost; the importance of finding out the truth even when the authorities have nabbed the man they insist is guilty, etc. One way of putting it might be that the Sherlock Holmes and Raffles stories were the form in which Orwell allowed himself to enjoy the Oscar Wilde strain of romanticism. Wild extrapolation on my part of course but I'll give my reasons if you really want to hear them.

I'm enjoy Sherlock Holmes. The Rathbone films are not crappy, they are some of the finest B movies ever made. The A movies in the series are great. Hound of the Baskervilles is really great, if you like that sort of thing, which I do. Isherwood wrote a nice little essay on the stories in his 'Exhumations'. I would imagine though, that the best time to get into them is before you get too analytical about what you're reading though the prose has terrific moments. I plead no improving socio-political undertextual reasons for reading them though Holmes and Watson are totally fair men and enduring liteary heroes need that kind of trustworthiness and decency it seems. Biggles is similar like that. Doyle rattled them off but he was creating an Auden 'secondary world' as he hacked, a world you can--as Isherwood notes--relax into.
I was in the dreadful Sherlock Holmes pub in Northumberland Ave with some pals a couple of years ago--it lies at the bottom of a little street where ben Jonson grew up--and an American Tv crew were filming five people from the Sherlock Holmes Society on th next table. We earwagged and they *were* fans. Four men and one woman. I remember the woman was a top civil servant, very tweedy and was encyclopaedic about Holmes, really amusing. The Tv interviewer was pretty exasperated because none of them could actually say, clearly, why they were so nutty about Holmes. They also got very exercised about us smoking so near them, which, when you think of Holmes' smoking, was disapointing.

Mags wrote:

series (the first version to bring in the drug use from the stories).

Pedant's voice: doesn't Rathbone say at the end of Baskervilles (of the second one) 'Watson, bring me the needle?'

Doyle writes cocaine in the stories, as if its heroin.

Tangenting slightly, there is a tea van in the carpark of Hound Tor on Dartmoor called "Hound of the Basket Meals".

Down on Milvia Street in Berkeley there is a little hot dog stand called "Baskerville's Hot Dogs".

I fall on the side of being okay with Holmes. I'm not surprised it elicits such a fan reaction. There is a common element to anything that attracts real fans; I'm not quite sure what it is, but the Holmes stories have it. Probably something to do with that secondary world.

I do wonder if it's because the secondary worlds, whilst creating the illusion of completeness, contain inconsistancies and elusions, thus enabling hours of fun trying to resolve why Watson's wife has two names, just where he was shot etc.? Most of the fandoms I am either in or on the fringes of contain a subset of fans who are continuity focussed and who attempt to resolve the inconsistancies.

However, the majority of my fandoms are ones in which the secondary world contains potential: worlds in which all your assumptions can be overturned without causing the world to break down. So Conan Doyle leads us, via Watson, towards a set of assumptions and then overturns them with Holmes' solution to the crime. There's an encouragement of speculation.

Exactly. There are actually TWO Mrs Watsons. The first dies and the second is mentioned but once, IIRC. This secondary world, like most (Poirot, Marple, Biggles) isn't--as is sometimes lazily said--actually unchanging. The stories range from the 1880s up until the First War and Holmes retires to keep bees and so on--even writes a couple of the stories. Some are pretty dry and other's well anticipating Roger Corman. But the classic set-up--Holmes and Watson, Baker Street, a vistitor, some deduction, a smoke and then off to Paddington and a train to solve the case--is the one fans dig the most, which kind of bears out Robert Conquest's notion that people are generally conservative about the things they really know about.

Heh, I love how the 'c' word creates blowing tumbleweeds wherever the Berkeley-minded gather...

...thus enabling hours of fun trying to resolve why Watson's wife has two names, just where he was shot etc.?

There definitely are trivia-fans in any fan subculture, the ones who quote episode numbers and so forth. And some of them are just amateur literary critics, really. But I think most enjoy dressing up and pretending they're some admired character. By doing this they can feel like they've entered that alternate world which makes sense and is never mundane.

I've recently started rooting around in the anime genre. It's very hard to get reliable reviews of any anime because reviews are generally given by fans, and those fans like anime for its own sake. A show would have to be truly dreadful for anime fans in any numbers to speak badly of it. This is another difference between regular people and fans. Fans fetishize everything about what they love, good and bad.

Luckily I have found Boogiepop Phantom, so if I never see another anime again I don't mind.

There's also the strange intersection of fan subculture and hobbyist subcultures. I remember a long discussion a few years ago on alt.smokers.pipes about precisely what Sherlock's smoking habits were. Only conclusion I remember was that he had the nasty — if thrifty — habit of saving the dottle from each of his smokes and drying it overnight on the mantlepiece for his first smoke of the following day.

Thing is, similar discussions followed the smoking in Melville, Tolkien, and other authors, usually involving the same posters.

Some people simply enjoy analyzing things, it doesn't really matter what. There's no accounting for it beyond that.

But I think most enjoy dressing up and pretending they're some admired character. By doing this they can feel like they've entered that alternate world which makes sense and is never mundane.

and...

This is another difference between regular people and fans. Fans fetishize everything about what they love, good and bad

Geez, do we have to rehearse the same hoary cliches and generalizations every time we have a posting about 'fans'?

I truly believe TV and the Internet skew perceptions. The majority of fans of anything are fascinated by the subject matter and enjoy it and may collect stuff but still possess their critical faculties (I'll happily tell you what Doctor Who stories are lousy-- there are a fair number) and don't dress up in costume. I say this as someone who has been a fan of a cult TV show for 20 years and have only worn a long scarf once (at Halloween)-- no matter how much fun that one time was...

Like Mags, I'm a huge fan of the Holmes stories, though I've never read Hound of the Baskervilles (I have read all the short stories and Study in Scarlet and Sign of Four). I've never found the puzzles in them particularly compelling--only "The Mystery of Silver Blaze" gave me that sudden thrill of revelation of 'holy cow, so that's how it happened'. Rather, it's more the trappings of the stories: the mood, the atmosphere, the process of investigation, the laconic character of Holmes and the surprising, if unlikely explanations. Occasionally Doyle changes things up and departs from the format-- my favourite of these is "Charles Augustus Milverton" where Holmes and Watson end up resorting to Raffles-esque theft--but mostly, to me, they're something that's both formulaic and yet infinitely diverse at the same time.

I actually liked the Richard Roxburgh / Ian Hart version of Hound of the Baskervilles, possibly because it was so iconoclastic in its portrayal of Holmes and Watson and their relationship. I think it's the only way you could break from the so-faithful-and-yet-not-really version with Jeremy Brett (which I love). Certainly it's better than the Canadian version with Matt Frewer and Jonathan Welsh!

I wonder if Alan A's noticed the fan phenomenon within academia?

I'm a real fan of David Hackett Fischer, frightening people off with an intense look whenever I talk about his observations on baby naming patterns. I was as miserable when C. Vann Woodward died a couple of years ago as I had been when Robert A. Heinlein passed away in 88. And I was utterly crushed to find out that my hero Jaroslav Pelikan had said misogynistic things to a friend-of-a-friend he'd had as a student at Yale.

I'd argue that this is something very similar to the fan phenomenon. It must be a bit rarer, though — I once contacted a postdoc about a paper he'd presented at a TSHA conference I'd missed, and he seemed both astoundished and flattered that anyone in the general public would want to read about the end of bilingual education in 1920's Texas. He did send me the paper, though, so my fanboyishness paid off.

There are certainly academic fanclubs, and (perhaps more often) academic hateclubs - but then, as the old saw has it, the passions are so fierce because the stakes are so low. I think David Hackett Fischer has more popular than academic appeal, however. I know that Albion's Seed is popular among the Anglosphere types, but it received some harsh treatment in scholarly circles (not having read it nor knowing anything much about the subject, I'll decline to comment either way).

Hmmm. I can't imagine what use the "Anglosphere" types would have with Fischer.

Albion's Seed has a lot of influence on those much-denigrated consumers of history, the reenactors and the genealogists. The popular appeal may well be what leads to the fan-like nature of it. It's one thing to have a favorable opinion of your colleague, it's quite another to have an opinion of someone who's attained the semidivine status of having published books when you have not.

Washington's Crossing has some favorable mention of reenactors in it as well. Apparently Fischer went out with a band of them one cold December morning in New Jersey, and found the experience to shed quite a lot of light on the difficulties involved in the movement of artillery to the battle of Trenton.

Hmmm. I can't imagine what use the "Anglosphere" types would have with Fischer.

I think it's because it reintroduces the British (including Irish) cultural core of the American national character, which some would argue has been obscured by too much focus on later waves of immigration and the cultural melting-pot.

I bit off-topic this, but as a student of the Second World War I imagine reenactment is a bit like oral history: potentially invaluable, but full of traps for the unwary ('learning' things which wouldn't in fact have happened, etc.)

British (including Irish)

Not much of what's considered "Irish" by romantic Celtophiles here applies. But I do think I've seen mention of various Scots-Irish/Appalachian in Brooks and Reynolods lately. Not the core of the book, in any sense.

reenactment is a bit like oral history

I think that there's a world of difference between a historian familiar with the entire corpus who marches up a muddy riverbank at night and writes a book, and a reinactor familiar only with popular legend who marches up the same riverbank and writes a book. Hopefully the former book would be improved by that march.

Geez, do we have to rehearse the same hoary cliches and generalizations every time we have a posting about 'fans'?

Sorry, Graeme, this is based largely on my own experience, not on internet and TV. But I certainly didn't mean to imply that said fans are stupid.

The majority of fans of anything are fascinated by the subject matter and enjoy it and may collect stuff but still possess their critical faculties.

I suppose the problem with anime is that fans get so used to the stupid elements of the genre (which as always overwhelm many movies/series but by no means all), that they are able to appreciate things that would probably repell anyone not thoroughly versed in the genre. Hence, I know people who agree with me that Boogiepop Phantom is a sublime work of art, but who also like shows that appear to me totally wretched.

Is this a degradation of "critical faculties"? I'd argue that it actually is, if by that you mean the ability to be a good critic. I think I've seen some amount of this in most true fans, though probably not generally so pronounced.

That's how it seems to me. I'm not out to offend anyone.

I think that there's a world of difference between a historian familiar with the entire corpus who marches up a muddy riverbank at night and writes a book, and a reinactor familiar only with popular legend who marches up the same riverbank and writes a book. Hopefully the former book would be improved by that march.

Certainly, though don't underestimate the ability of historians familiar with the entire corpus to jump to absurd conclusions. I'm thinking somewhat of Stephen Ambrose, who started off writing pretty solid books but by the end was so enamoured of the Greatest Generation (and I think his role as self-appointed chronicler to the GG) hat he would swallow any old nonsense told to him.

I'm not out to offend anyone.

Then what on Earth are you doing on the Internet?

Anything I say about fandom is based on 20+ years in Doctor Who fandom, the first 12 or so based purely in Real World interaction, plus a decade or so with other fandoms and writing MA papers on fan/text interaction. The idea that "most enjoy dressing up and pretending they're some admired character", and that there is a fetishistic - and by implication non-critical - core to fan interaction with the text simply doesn't bear out in actual experience. For every fan who gets married dressed as Tom Baker's Doctor, there are dozens getting married without even a hint of their obsession. Of course there are the anal obsessives, and the 'trying too hard to be wacky' types, but you get them in any large social group regardless of whether the shared element is love of a tv series, love of an author's canon or all working for the same company.

Mags, can you explain to us what it is about certain things that attracts fans while other things don't?

Ah, but other things do, just the fannish, obsessessive relationship is not expressed in the same way or through the same social group behaviour. There is a broad similarity of text/fan interaction in a fan of Doctor Who and one of Jane Austen: both will return to the texts repeatedly, seeking either additional meaning or comforting familarity. Both will think about the text and seek out additional information about either its context or its production in order to aid understanding. But the same is true of that person reading "inside soaps" in order to discover more about what is going to happen in Eastenders this week, or buying a fanzine at the footy ground on Saturday.

There is a strong element of desire for familiarity (which can indeed become conservative*). A soap, for example, provides familiar character-types running through familiar-but-slightly-different plotlines. Which is no different to Austen's heroine's stories, or Holmes' adventures. Insert your own 'opium for the masses' comment here (certainly there are similarities between fannish and religious behaviour).

There are long essays on why some texts have more visible fans/fandoms: on a purely personal level, I think it has to do with the underlying cultural assumptions of the text and the extent to which the fan can negotiate personal meaning from it. So John Grisham doesn't get big conventions held to praise him and his work, but Terry Pratchett does.

(There's an element of jeuvenile crush involved as well - the thrill of loving something/someone without fear of personal rejection but that is a long subject for this spot).

*I've had curious arguments with Doctor Who fans barely old enough to remember the last season in the late 80s yet who are far more conservative in their desires for the new series than us old lags.

There are long essays on why some texts have more visible fans/fandoms: on a purely personal level, I think it has to do with the underlying cultural assumptions of the text and the extent to which the fan can negotiate personal meaning from it.

Thanks, Mags. I am hoping to come to a better understanding of fan culture because it was after all a big part of my adolescence. This seems to get to the heart of it.

I'm trying to understand exactly what your definition of "fan" is. I assume it is not a synonym for "enthusiast", but your attribution of fan behavior to everything (only that in some cases it's less visible), seems to come close to doing so.

In any case, I'm not too clear on what you mean by "personal meaning". What is it exactly that makes Grisham's work (I don't know it very well, except through one or two movies I wish I hadn't seen) different from your other examples? And actually, if you could maybe give me an example of the kind of underlying cultural assumptions you mean, that would be great, because that term is rather vague.

If you're looking for the definition of the fan/enthusiast border, try Henry Jenkin's seminal work 'Textual Poachers'. It's a tad out of date for contempory theory but it's the text on which most fan theory is built. (Another good one is 'Reading the Vampire Slayer', a collection of essays edited by Roz Kaveney, and Manchester University Press is bringing out a new set of essays on Doctor Who next year.)

Jenkins suggests
the difference between watching a series and becoming a fan lies in the intensity of their emotional and intellectual involvement
I would argue that a second factor is that 'fan' and 'fandom' has negative connotations in the media so many 'enthusiasts' would not call themselves fans, despite displaying fannish behaviour and attachment, because they do not see themselves as the media stereotype. There was a joke phrase in Buffy fandom in which people would say they were "focussed" rather than "fanatical" i.e. they were aware of the bad connotations of being a self-identified fan.

In terms of 'personal meaning', I mean that the viewer/reader sees the text as something from which they can derive comfort, or make sense of their own feelings through. To provide an example from my primary fandom: if you ask a Doctor Who fan why they like the series there will be many different reasons but one of the underlying themes is that the Doctor is an alien who accepts difference (unlike Trek's conformity to the Federation). That provides identity re-enforcement: it is OK to be yourself, even if that self does not conform, because Doctor Who suggests it is OK. Then, with the discovery of fandom, the fan finds a whole social world into which they can belong. Again, the religious origins of 'fanatic' should not be ignored. Many fandoms appear to be secular religions (complete with schisms and arguments about canon i.e. are the Doctor Who novels gnostic texts since some fans refuse to admit them to their canon?).

I'll take a look for some of those citations next time I'm at the library. I have to say, though, that if what defines a fan is the intensity of their emotional attachment to an aesthetic product, and if this intensity is due largely to personal and fairly idiosyncratic psychological desires for things like "identity re-enforcement", then I'm sorry, that still spells "bad critic" to me.

Again, there are degrees to this and obviously not all fans are the same or have the same motivations. But in my experience fans are not usually very reliable guides to their chosen fixations unless you yourself share their unusual level of enthusiasm. Star Trek fans, for instance, tend (note, this is not all of them, so let's leave the "S" word in its holster) to like Star Trek stuff even if said stuff is very bad. I cannot tell you how many Star Trek fans I met in high school and beyond who insisted that even the most awful of the Star Trek movies were good.

It wasn't lack of aesthetic sophistication that made them think this (although that was probably true in some cases), it was just that they were so happy to see anything Trek-related released that it hardly mattered how good it actually was. It was this aesthetically irrelevant, personal attraction to the Trek ethos (I think it's safe to presume) that got in the way of them being reliable guides to the quality of the various movies.

Conversely, the majority of fans I know are capable of criticising something: try reading somewhere like the yahoogroup 'Jade Pagoda' to see both ciritical engagement (i.e. cogent critiques), and less considered criticisms (the 'I didn't like it' response). I've noticed most critical fan reaction is based on one or another premise:
1. actual concepts of genre criticism (i.e. lit crit for novels)
2. faithfulness to the 'canon'.
The second response may be unhelpful, and is actually a bit tedious to read repeatedly, but it is still receiving the text in a non-passive sense.