Movie Malaise

Well, I was finally able to sleep through the night despite the summer heat. Pride month is almost over, and next weekend is July 4th. At work, my office will celebrate on July 2nd. I don't feel that happy about this 250th anniversary, and I'm short of money until my next paycheck. The short-term disability money while I was on leave was much less than my normal paycheck. Plus I had to reapply to make them cover the final couple of weeks. Anyway, because I was afraid I had cancer, I had previously signed up to get the "critical illness" coverage, and that benefit is just now kicking in. I should just be happy I have it in case I get any else later.

I saw Supergirl yesterday hoping it would be a fun romp like Superman in 2025, but I was disappointed. I had hoped that Gunn was finally allowing bright colors back into DC movies, but no, it's all dark browns and greys, desaturated and subdued. Kara doesn't even wear the Supergirl costume until late in the movie. I know, it's thematic, to show that she's depressed and traumatized, not feeling like a hero. But even if she's going to wear that brown coat and dark shirt most of the movie, at least let me see the colors of those clothes! Let me see vibrant, saturated colors with full sun! Look at the previous Superman movie that had bright colors everywhere despite dark plots; some fights even took place in daylight. It was fun! Or look at the recent Sheep Detectives, which was bright and cheery despite being a murder mystery; they did have a few gloomy scenes when necessary for night time; it was also for dark themes of grief, animal abuse, disillusionment, etc, but the rest of the time we could enjoy full saturation and daylight in the quaint Denbrook village. Please stop with this idea that dark themes require 100% grunge! I hate this movie and TV trend.

Baker Street Studies

I bought a bunch of Sherlockian books, but I still can't get the rare chronology books by H. W. Bell, and Ernest Bloomfield Zeisler. Even if I could afford those out of print books, I wouldn't spend that much money on them. After all, their information may be superseded by more modern books; I just wanted to hear their logic and know their sources. The Arthur Conan Doyle Encyclopedia provides their chronologies, but those are plain lists without the reasoning behind the dates. However, I was able to buy Baker Street Studies edited by H. W. Bell in 1934. It's one of many reprints by Otto Penzler's Sherlock Holmes Library, to keep Sherlockiana available to readers; check libraries and used bookstores for them. Baker Street Studies contains essays from other Sherlockians on various topics, but Bell does provide his own chronology of SIGN at the end. So I can at least get a taste of his opinions. He thinks that SIGN took place in 1887 too. This probably explains why Bell dates VALL to 1887 before the marriage, when most others place it in 1888. However, it looks like he believes in Watson having 3 wives per the Arthur Conan Doyle Encyclopedia above.

Speaking of VALL, I also discovered A. G. Macdonell's theory on "Mr. Moriarty" which relies on dating VALL to 1899. I've added that theory to my previous chronology post on VALL.

Moving on, the book features Dorothy Sayers's essay on "Holmes's College Career." It's odd that she attended Oxford, yet she argues for Cambridge. Also, she just assumes that we know technical terms like Triposes without explaining them. From context it can either mean the examinations that students take, or it can mean the course of study leading to a degree. Meanwhile, another Sherlockian Helen Simpson looks at Watson's medical career, pointing out the contradiction between his high M.D. degree and his deciding to become a lowly army doctor. (Watson could have stopped at an M.B. degree, if he just wanted to open a civil practice.) Simpson speculates that some scandal with a woman necessitated Watson to abandon his hospital career and leave the country. Personally I think that Watson wanted to be an army doctor all along and go to India. But he stayed in London to get the M.D. degree to please someone, like his father. When his father died, Watson decided to quit and enlist, not knowing that the Second Anglo-Afghan War would break out and cut short his army career.

Anyway I also need time to read the Angel of Crows book, which is Sherlock Wingfic that has been changed to different characters. There's never enough time for books.

Happy Juneteenth

Obama's presidential library is now open in Chicago, so that's nice. Meanwhile the FIFA games have been on TV, and even playing at movie theaters. I don't care about sports, though, and I'm surprised that any tourists still came here under this anti-immigrant regime.

I bought a Magic Bullet recently, and it did well making pudding, though I had to do two batches. It saves me having to do it by hand with a whisk or get out the electric mixer. On smoothies, it works fine with protein powder, but if I want to use ice or frozen fruit, I will have to thaw it and use plenty of fruit juice or other liquid to help the Bullet blend the solids.

I've started doing some core exercises to try to recover. I still get fleeting flashes of pain, plus irritation from seatbelts in my car. The summer heat also exhausts me easily.

Chronology part 15

Chronology of these short stories.

• VEIL - late in 1896
• THOR - Oct 4-5, 1896
• SUSS - Nov 19-21, 1896

VEIL was first published in January 1927, and, like in SPEC and FIVE, Watson spends the introduction calculating the years of Holmes's career. He says that Holmes was "in active practice for twenty-three years" while Watson was only involved in seventeen of those years. Which years does he mean? Certainly not May 1891 to April 1894, when Holmes faked his death. Holmes's first case was GLOR while he was still in university, but it's not much of a case. I think Watson only counts when Holmes moved to Montague Street and started working as a detective for money. Sherlockians typically work backward since Watson didn't give a definite date for Holmes in Montague Street. We know Holmes returned in 1894, and looking ahead to CREE, we know he retired in 1903. CREE is set in September 1903, "one of the very last cases handled by Holmes before his retirement from practice." 1903 minus 1894 is 9 years, so we just need 14 more years. 1891 minus 14 is 1877, a good date halfway between GLOR and MUSG.

Chronology part 14

Chronology of 1895.

• 3STU - spring, maybe May, 1895
• BLAC - July 3-12, 1895; Hopkins comes on the 10th, after Holmes attempted to spear a pig at the butcher's shop
• LADY - summer 1895 or 1896
• BRUC - 3rd week of November 1895

The famous Vincent Starrett 221B poem, full of nostalgia about bygone Victorian days, ends with the wish that "it's always 1895" for Holmes and Watson. I wonder if Starrett picked that year just for the rhyme, or if he really thinks that 1895 is when Holmes and Watson would be happiest at 221B. Why that year and not another? Anyway, it's time to finally tackle the cases occuring in 1895.

Chronology part 13

Chronology of these short stories.

• WIST - mid June 1894 to be near a different quarter-day.
• NORW - August 1894. Watson mentions having sold his Kensington practice to move back to Baker Street.
• GOLD - November 1894

WIST has an impossible date. Watson claims that the case happened at the end of March 1892, but Watson thought Holmes was dead from May 1891 to April 1894. He must have changed the date out of discretion, but not realised his mistake; he didn't proofread, and as always, he never corrects mistakes once they're published. We have to at least find a new year for the case, and there's a hint in NORW that the case takes place in 1894. NORW mentions "the case of the papers of ex-President Murillo," and WIST features Juan Murillo as a villainous dictator from a Central American country. "Don" is his title, not his name. Actually there are no presidential papers mentioned in the case, but the reference is similar to how Holmes sometimes refers to SCAN by talking about papers, instead of the photograph that the King of Bohemia wished to retreive. NORW was actually published in October 1903, and WIST wasn't published until August 1908. So it's a case of Doyle having an idea for a story, but changing the details when he actually writes the story later. In that way, it's similar to the 3 versions of SECO.