Sherlock Holmes: The Case of the Bleeding Chandelier.

[Lavie Enrose]

I have been listening to some old radio shows that have been put on C.D. (www.radiospirits.com). One of the old radio shows is called, Sherlock Holmes: The Case of the Bleeding Chandelier which was first broadcast (live) on 6/13/1948. The show got me thinking about Sherlock Holmes, and his creator, Sir Arthur Conan Doyle.

Holmes, in the radio show, is very skeptical of a story of a chandelier in a castle that is said to bleed before a member of the family is going to die. He and Dr. Watson are summoned to the castle to investigate, and Holmes, of course, solves the mystery revealing the non-supernatural truth of the matter. From what I have read about Sir Arthur Conan Doyle (Randi, Penn & Teller), he was very much the opposite of the fictional Holmes.

Sir Arthur Conan Doyle seemed to believe in all kinds of supernatural things without much (if any) doubt. Listening to this old radio show reminded me of how different Sir Arthur Conan Doyle was from his creation, Sherlock Holmes.

[EdipisReks]

last weekend i sat down and read every Sherlock Holmes story Doyle wrote, and this also got me thinking about how Doyle was so different from his creation. however, remember that Watson is much more credulous than Holmes, so the stories might be more autobiographical than one would think.

[davidhorman]

IIRC, Doyle based Holmes on his medical mentor, whose name I forget. The BBC made a series of four programmes called Murder Rooms, fictionalised detective stories with Doyle and the mentor chappy as the main characters.

In the final episode young Doyle gets sucked into the world of spiritualism in pursuit of the ghost of his former girlfriend/fiancee, while mentor-bloke sticks with the sceptical line of inquiry, rescuing Doyle from death at the hands of a mad spiritualist, and denying him the chance to see his S.O. again.

David

[EdipisReks]

Originally posted by davidhorman
IIRC, Doyle based Holmes on his medical mentor, whose name I forget. The BBC made a series of four programmes called Murder Rooms, fictionalised detective stories with Doyle and the mentor chappy as the main characters.

In the final episode young Doyle gets sucked into the world of spiritualism in pursuit of the ghost of his former girlfriend/fiancee, while mentor-bloke sticks with the sceptical line of inquiry, rescuing Doyle from death at the hands of a mad spiritualist, and denying him the chance to see his S.O. again.

David

the doctor's name was Joseph Bell, and Murder Rooms was fantastic. in real life, Doyle became a spiritualist after the death of his son in WWI. i wonder if he was a creduloid before hand or if the death of his son was traumatic enough to drive him from rationality in one fell stroke.

[RonSceptic]

It's an interesting dichotomy. Most of the great Holmes stories were written before WW1, so the character was well established befor Doyles personal tragedy. It's interesting to note though that the later Holmes adventures were penned almost releuctantly by Doyle, in response to huge demand for more stories.

Doyle had tried to kill the character off once. As one critic remarked, Holmes may not have been killed at Reichenbach, but he was never the same man afterwards.

At a human level you can hardly castigate someone who has lost a son if they do try and cling to a straw, no matter how illustrious a writer they may be.

But why he would fall for the Cottingley Fairies sham is truly perplexing.:confused:

[Ladewig]

however, remember that Watson is much more credulous than Holmes, so the stories might be more autobiographical than one would think.


Well, if one ignores the movies and goes strictly by the books, Dr. Watson is quite the ladies man, having "an experience of women that extends over many nations and three separate continents." So if Doyle is writing autobiographically through Watson, he apparently thought himself to be quite the Mac Daddy.

[RonSceptic]

Originally posted by Ladewig


Well, if one ignores the movies and goes strictly by the books, Dr. Watson is quite the ladies man, having "an experience of women that extends over many nations and three separate continents." So if Doyle is writing autobiographically through Watson, he apparently thought himself to be quite the Mac Daddy.

I think many observers are influenced by Nigel Bruce's portrayal of Watson as a bumbling idiot (In the Basil Rathbone movies). The Watson of the books was never so, and is actualy pretty intelligent.

[Diamond]

Its true that Conan Doyle was certainly seriously affected by the death of his son in WW1, which explains his fascination of, and promotion of, spiritualists and channelers. On the other hand, what possessed him to validate the Cottingley Fairies is nothing more than monumental stupidity and wilful blindness to reality. Perhaps he was beguiled (as many people are today) with the fantastical claim because it was made by young girls Because little girls don't fib, do they?

In any case, Sherlock Holmes was a creation of genius, with obvious flaws that Watson would patiently help conceal. The world of Sherlock Holmes is a world of certainty, of fixed castes and class structures, of regularity and continuity. Holmes was not a skeptic per se but more a psychologist with an acute observational prowess that Watson, with his faith in strictly empirical observation could never hope to emulate.

[Clancie]

From Laedwig

Well, if one ignores the movies and goes strictly by the books, Dr. Watson is quite the ladies man, having "an experience of women that extends over many nations and three separate continents." So if Doyle is writing autobiographically through Watson, he apparently thought himself to be quite the Mac Daddy.
:rolleyes: Not that you're actually interested in what Doyle was really like, Laedwig, but here's a little bit from the NYTimes obit:

From NewYork Times

...For years Lady Doyle was his constant companion, accompanying him on all his travels. It was to her the dying novelist spoke his last words.

"You are wonderful," he said with a smile.

He died peacefully. Lady Doyle had nursed him through his illness to the end.

Adrian (his son) paid tribute to his celebrated father. He said: "He was a great man and a splendid father and he was loved--and was happy because he knew it--by all of us.

"My mother's and father's devotion to each other at all times was one of the most wonderful things I have ever known. She nursed him right through his illness to the end.

"His last words were to her, and they show just how much he thought of her. He simply smiled up at her and said, 'You are wonderful.' He was in too much pain to say a lot. His breathing was very bad, and what he said was during a brief flash of consciousness. I never have seen any one take anything more gamely in all my life. Even when we all knew he was suffering great pain he always managed during times when he was conscious to keep a smile on his face for us."

Sir Arthur during the latter part of his life presented an heroic and at the same time somewhat tragic figure. For the past few years he had devoted virtually all his time to the propagation of spiritism, and was recognized as one of the great leaders of the world in that belief.

Because of his association with this crusade which he himself characterized as an unpopular one, he gradually lost some of his old-time literary friends who saw no virtue in spiritism and were inclined to look upon him as an eccentric.

Sir Arthur was grieved because his friends could not see eye to eye with him, but he never wavered in his pursuit of the cause in which he believed.


http://www.nytimes.com/pages/obituaries/index.html

[Ladewig]

-Clancie
Not that you're actually interested in what Doyle was really like, Laedwig, but here's a little bit from the NYTimes obit:



I somewhat surprised that you believe that I have no interest in what Doyle was really like. Do you have any evidence of that assertion? I was just cracking wise about someone else's speculating about Doyle's writing through Watson.

Ladewig.

[Clancie]

Hi Laedwig,

I realize it was a wise-crack. I just dislike that kind of crack about a real person. You probably think I'm too serious, but I think real people deserve better.

And, it probably made even more a difference that I just read Doyle's obituary a couple of days ago and particularly remembered that his relationship with his wife and family was extremely touching.

I just think somebody could read a flippant comment and get a completely erroneous impression of Doyle based on it. I've seen it happen before, especially with kids, so I'm sure I'm just hyper-sensitive to it.

[Ersby]

Originally posted by Clancie
Hi Laedwig,

I realize it was a wise-crack. I just dislike that kind of crack about a real person. You probably think I'm too serious, but I think real people deserve better.


Kind of like what neofight said about Ian Rowland, then?

(Edited to add: I'm such a stirrer :D )

[Ladewig]

Hi Laedwig,

I realize it was a wise-crack. I just dislike that kind of crack about a real person. You probably think I'm too serious, but I think real people deserve better.

And, it probably made even more a difference that I just read Doyle's obituary a couple of days ago and particularly remembered that his relationship with his wife and family was extremely touching.

I just think somebody could read a flippant comment and get a completely erroneous impression of Doyle based on it. I've seen it happen before, especially with kids, so I'm sure I'm just hyper-sensitive to it.

Ah, I see. I figured that anyone with even the slightest knowledge of Sir ACD would know that the idea of him being that promiscuous (and bragging about it) is absurd - hence the humor. I take your point about people believing stupid things they read on the internet. I have great respect for Doyle's body of work.

On the other hand, I am still irked about seeing my name misspelled (twice).

[Clancie]

On the other hand, I am still irked about seeing my name misspelled (twice}
Ouch!
Ladewig
Ladewig
Ladewig

Okay...got it! :)

P.S. Ersby, you really are stirring the pot! What's next...Joni Evans :)?

But speaking of Ian...I actually did share with neo that practically the first thing Ian did at his lecture was to hold up the issue of People Magazine with the cover story contest for "Hottest Bachelor", lol.

Not only did he express disappointment in not being selected, but he asked the females in the audience to "write in his name and get your friends to do the same".

He even added the idea that he'd like to get American citizenship and "marrying an American" was a good way to do it that he was perfectly open to.

Joking? Sure. But there is "truth in jest". So...not to stir things up again, but just for the record, I don't think neo was off base at all in suggesting that he's an "available" bachelor who'd like to meet some equally available women while he's here! I don't think he could have made that any clearer than he did, lol! :D

[Ian Rowland]

Originally posted by Clancie

practically the first thing Ian did at his lecture was to hold up the issue of People Magazine with the cover story contest for "Hottest Bachelor", lol.

Not only did he express disappointment in not being selected, but he asked the females in the audience to "write in his name and get your friends to do the same".

He even added the idea that he'd like to get American citizenship and "marrying an American" was a good way to do it that he was perfectly open to.

Joking? Sure. But there is "truth in jest". So...not to stir things up again, but just for the record, I don't think neo was off base at all in suggesting that he's an "available" bachelor who'd like to meet some equally available women while he's here! I don't think he could have made that any clearer than he did, lol! :D
Yes, neo was off base, and so are you. It was a warm-up joke to entertain people while the video cameras obtained cutaway shots of the audience (I explained that this was what was going on). It wasn't meant to be taken seriously at any level, and I am amazed, given my blatantly jokey and light-hearted tone and manner at the time, that anyone could think otherwise. Maybe it's another of those Brit/American differences re sense of humour that one reads about from time to time.

[T'ai Chi]

Sir Arthur Conan Doyle was a genius in my opinion, and Sherlock Holmes is one of the most popular characters of all time, recognized all over the world.


From what I have read about Sir Arthur Conan Doyle (Randi, Penn & Teller), he was very much the opposite of the fictional Holmes.


From what I understand, neither Randi nor P&T were in touch with ACD, so they are going by 3rd, 4th, or worse, party information.

I personally believe ACD was mainly a little bit of Sherlock Holmes, and a little bit of Watson (and a little bit of some of the other characters).

There is an interesting book out about ACD's real life crime solving/investigation.

[BillHoyt]

Originally posted by T'ai Chi
From what I understand, neither Randi nor P&T were alive when he was alive, so they are going by 3rd, 4th, or worse, party information.
Tr'oll Chi,

What a marvelous topic that you raise, Tr'oll: what you understand. First, understand that the above inanity was brought to you by the fallacy of false authority. A rather bizarre one, too: "If you weren't alive then, you couldn't know." Then you combine that with some kind of thinly-veiled reference to some "party". What, and I wasn't invited?

But soft, what light through yonder pinhead breaks? It is the library, with great newspaper archives threatening to pour information into the tr'oll's head! Arise, foul tr'oll, and kill the envious library, that thou art less informed than she.

Dust off those archives and you will see, tr'oll, a great battle between Harry Houdini and Sir Arthur Conan Doyle. Documented in story after story. Documented in letters to the editor (from both Houdini and Doyle). And documented in collections of personal letters exchanged between the two of them.

Sheesh, ya'know, I wasn't alive then either, but somehow I know that Doyle "believed in the genuineness of spirit mediums who levitate tables and themselves, float trumpets, produce visible spirits of the dead, exude ectoplasm through their noses, and so on."[1] Ah, yes, you have to add that nitwit author to the list of those who've only got "party information." Also, the nitwit editor of the Sunday Express who wrote the headline "Is Conan Doyle Mad?" shortly after publication of Doyle's second pro-spiritualism book.[2]

Party on, dude, I think you may have one or two brain cells left. Gotta get 'em all.

Cheers,

[1] Frazier, A Mind at Play. Skeptical Inquirer March/April 1998.
[2] Harwood, Book Review: The Gullibility of Conan Doyle. Skeptical Inquirer, March/ April 2002.

[SteveGrenard]

Doyle freely acknowledged (in writing) Dr. Joseph Bell was the real person upon which he based his fictional Holmes. Bell is credited as a pioneer, if not founder of forensic pathology and what we know today as forensics or crime scene investigation.

[BillHoyt]

Originally posted by SteveGrenard
Doyle freely acknowledged (in writing) Dr. Joseph Bell was the real person upon which he based his fictional Holmes.

Really? What's your source for this?

Cheers,

[dharlow]

Keep in mind the context of some of the dupes for which Doyle feel for. While it is very easy for us to look at the fairy pictures now and laugh, those were a fairly sophisticated form of deception at that time, when photography was still relatively new. Even experts, while not acknowledging genuineness, did seem to take them seriously with regards to scrutinizing them.

Amusingly, Doyle pulled off a similar deception of his own at a Society of American Magicians' Banquet, in which he showed a film clip from the unreleased "Lost World" movie. They were completely baffled and had no idea what it was they were watching. Some even did entertain the notion that Doyle had psychically obtained the images from the past. Nowadays, we'd look at that footage and laugh if asked to take it seriously.

Many of the mediums/psychics who may have fooled Doyle were far more skilled than skeptic literature (which is often based on atrocious research) give them credit for. Doyle may well have been wrong in his interpretations of the phenomena he witnessed, but he was no idiot.

[T'ai Chi]

Originally posted by BillHoyt

Tr'oll Chi,
Tr'oll..
..tr'oll's head!
...foul tr'oll
..I think you may have one or two brain cells left.


At first, when I read your reply Bill, I was :D. Then I was :). Then, as I read on, I was :p. Soon though, I was :confused:, and shortly thereafter :(. It soon worsened into :mad:. However, since it was one of your typical posts, I was quickly :rolleyes:, and :roll: because I realized you were simply :cry:. Therefore, I will :rub:.

Sure, it is clear that one could fairly say that ACD was very much the opposite of Sherlock Holmes, but, probably only in terms of Spiritualism, and not in any other facet of his life.

[SteveGrenard]

Yes: Really. Hoyt. If you were a Sherlock Holmes fan you would know this. There are innumerable sources, mostly from bios of Doyle. Here's a few. Do more research if you want yourself, there really is no doubt about this.

(Actually last week there was a lengthy programon Discovery on Bell, Doyle and his model for Holmes. The program covered that Doyle wrote in the press that Bell was his model for Holmes. This publicity was not welcomed by Bell as he was a quiet worker who preferred anonymity. Doyle's Holmes, on the other hand, had millions of readers worldwide.)

"Literary scholars generally agree that the main inspiration for the character of Sherlock Holmes was Dr. Joseph Bell, Conan Doyle’s professor of clinical surgery at Edinburgh University. A distinguished physician and educator, Bell was personal surgeon to Queen Victoria whenever she was in Scotland and honorary surgeon to Edward VII. Bell published several important medical textbooks as well as numerous journal articles, and for twenty-three years served as editor of the Edinburgh Medical Journal. As Martin Booth points out in his biography of Conan Doyle, The Doctor and the Detective, Bell was one of the most popular professors at the university and his lectures were usually packed." Anthony Bruno author of "All About Sherlock Holmes" (snipped from online text which can be found at: http://www.crimelibrary.com/gangsters_outlaws/cops_others/sherlock_holmes/2.html?sect=18


Proof that Joseph Bell was the pioneer in forensics and crime scene investigation is the creation of the Joseph Bell Center for Forensic Statistics and Legal Reasoning. Press release and info follows snipped from their website (given below)

The Joseph Bell Centre for Forensic Statistics and Legal Reasoning has been set up to evaluate, present and interpret evidence. The Centre draws on skills in statistics, law and artifical intelligence from the University of Edinburgh, Glasgow Caledonian University and the Lothian and Borders Police Force. Researchers from Australia, Belgium, England and the United States are collaborating with the Scottish researchers.

Dr Joseph Bell was a professor of Medicine at the University of Edinburgh, when he encountered Arthur Conan Doyle, the future author of the Sherlock Holmes stories. Bell was the man who inspired the character of Sherlock Holmes and shared many qualities with the famous detective.

Amongst other issues, the Joseph Bell Centre will investigate:

Defining and describing legal procedures for building a case based on evidence;
Identifying and applying mathematically acceptable techniques for interpreting and drawing conclusions from forensic evidence;
Determining the validity of conclusions drawn from analogous data or from a particular data sample;
Investigating the possibility of a common source for several samples of forensic significance;
Investigating existing guidelines for lawyers in areas where stochastic scientific evidence is prevalent, such as medical negligence and environmental issues;
Identifying and analysing risk factors as part of the European anti-fraud initiative;
Representing and implementing all the above on a computer in an accessible format;
Investigating the use of computers in legal practice;
Developing legal decision support systems.


(the above was signed by)

Staff of the Joseph Bell Centre for Forensic Statistics and Legal Reasoning

Dr. John Zeleznikow, Director;

Mr. Michael Bromby, Research Fellow, Division of Law, Glasgow Caledonian University;

Dr. David Lucy, Research Fellow, Department of Mathematics and Statistics, University of Edinburgh;

Dr. Jeroen Keppens, Research Fellow, Artificial Intelligence Applications Institute, University of Edinburgh;

Dr. Colin Aitken, Chairman, Committee of Management, Principal Investigator, Department of Mathematics and Statistics, University of Edinburgh;

Professor Zenon Bankowski, Principal Investigator, Law School, University of Edinburgh

Mr. John Kingston, Principal Investigator, Artificial Intelligence Applications Institute, University of Edinburgh;

Mrs. Patricia McKellar, Principal Investigator, Division of Law, Glasgow Caledonian University;

Mrs. Moira MacMillan, Principal Investigator, Division of Law, Glasgow Caledonian University;

Mr. Burkhard Schaefer; Principal Investigator, Law School, University of Edinburgh;

Ms. Wendy Robertson, Administrator, Joseph Bell Centre for Forensic Statistics and Legal Reasoning, Law School, University of Edinburgh, Old College, South Bridge, Edinburgh, EH8 9YL, Scotland, UK, Phone: 44-131-650 9704 (part-time); Fax: 44-131-650 650 6317

(from their website at: http://www.cfslr.ed.ac.uk/about.htm)

[CFLarsen]

Steve,

You haven't answered the question: What is your source that "Doyle freely acknowledged (in writing) Dr. Joseph Bell was the real person upon which he based his fictional Holmes"?

You have pointed out that "Literary scholars generally agree that the main inspiration for the character of Sherlock Holmes was Dr. Joseph Bell". Yes, we all know that.

But where does Doyle write it himself? That was your claim. "Freely", no less.

[BillHoyt]

Originally posted by SteveGrenard
Yes: Really. Hoyt. If you were a Sherlock Holmes fan you would know this. There are innumerable sources, mostly from bios of Doyle. Here's a few. Do more research if you want yourself, there really is no doubt about this.

(Actually last week there was a lengthy programon Discovery on Bell, Doyle and his model for Holmes. The program covered that Doyle wrote in the press that Bell was his model for Holmes. This publicity was not welcomed by Bell as he was a quiet worker who preferred anonymity. Doyle's Holmes, on the other hand, had millions of readers worldwide.)

"Literary scholars generally agree that the main inspiration for the character of Sherlock Holmes was Dr. Joseph Bell, Conan Doyle’s professor of clinical surgery at Edinburgh University. A distinguished physician and educator, Bell was personal surgeon to Queen Victoria whenever she was in Scotland and honorary surgeon to Edward VII. Bell published several important medical textbooks as well as numerous journal articles, and for twenty-three years served as editor of the Edinburgh Medical Journal. As Martin Booth points out in his biography of Conan Doyle, The Doctor and the Detective, Bell was one of the most popular professors at the university and his lectures were usually packed." Anthony Bruno author of "All About Sherlock Holmes" (snipped from online text which can be found at: http://www.crimelibrary.com/gangsters_outlaws/cops_others/sherlock_holmes/2.html?sect=18


Proof that Joseph Bell was the pioneer in forensics and crime scene investigation is the creation of the Joseph Bell Center for Forensic Statistics and Legal Reasoning. Press release and info follows snipped from their website (given below)

The Joseph Bell Centre for Forensic Statistics and Legal Reasoning has been set up to evaluate, present and interpret evidence. The Centre draws on skills in statistics, law and artifical intelligence from the University of Edinburgh, Glasgow Caledonian University and the Lothian and Borders Police Force. Researchers from Australia, Belgium, England and the United States are collaborating with the Scottish researchers.

Dr Joseph Bell was a professor of Medicine at the University of Edinburgh, when he encountered Arthur Conan Doyle, the future author of the Sherlock Holmes stories. Bell was the man who inspired the character of Sherlock Holmes and shared many qualities with the famous detective.

Amongst other issues, the Joseph Bell Centre will investigate:

Defining and describing legal procedures for building a case based on evidence;
Identifying and applying mathematically acceptable techniques for interpreting and drawing conclusions from forensic evidence;
Determining the validity of conclusions drawn from analogous data or from a particular data sample;
Investigating the possibility of a common source for several samples of forensic significance;
Investigating existing guidelines for lawyers in areas where stochastic scientific evidence is prevalent, such as medical negligence and environmental issues;
Identifying and analysing risk factors as part of the European anti-fraud initiative;
Representing and implementing all the above on a computer in an accessible format;
Investigating the use of computers in legal practice;
Developing legal decision support systems.


(the above was signed by)

Staff of the Joseph Bell Centre for Forensic Statistics and Legal Reasoning

Dr. John Zeleznikow, Director;

Mr. Michael Bromby, Research Fellow, Division of Law, Glasgow Caledonian University;

Dr. David Lucy, Research Fellow, Department of Mathematics and Statistics, University of Edinburgh;

Dr. Jeroen Keppens, Research Fellow, Artificial Intelligence Applications Institute, University of Edinburgh;

Dr. Colin Aitken, Chairman, Committee of Management, Principal Investigator, Department of Mathematics and Statistics, University of Edinburgh;

Professor Zenon Bankowski, Principal Investigator, Law School, University of Edinburgh

Mr. John Kingston, Principal Investigator, Artificial Intelligence Applications Institute, University of Edinburgh;

Mrs. Patricia McKellar, Principal Investigator, Division of Law, Glasgow Caledonian University;

Mrs. Moira MacMillan, Principal Investigator, Division of Law, Glasgow Caledonian University;

Mr. Burkhard Schaefer; Principal Investigator, Law School, University of Edinburgh;

Ms. Wendy Robertson, Administrator, Joseph Bell Centre for Forensic Statistics and Legal Reasoning, Law School, University of Edinburgh, Old College, South Bridge, Edinburgh, EH8 9YL, Scotland, UK, Phone: 44-131-650 9704 (part-time); Fax: 44-131-650 650 6317

(from their website at: http://www.cfslr.ed.ac.uk/about.htm)

Steve,

You did it again. I asked for your source that Doyle had acknowledged in writing that Bell was his model. I did not ask about Bell. I already knew. I did not ask about the general agreement among literary scholars. I already knew. That "general agreement" line of Bruno's should also be a tip-off to you. Why should they "generally agree" if Doyle has written that Bell was his model. Those scholars holding out from the general agreement would be generally stupid, would they not?

Then you blather on about Bell. And give us another blizzard of citations about Bell, followed by a blizzard of signatory names. In that entire blizzard there is not a bit of evidence to be found concerning the question.

Once again, Steve, what was your source for the claim that Doyle acknowledged, in writing, that Bell was his model for Holmes?

Cheers,

[BillHoyt]

Originally posted by T'ai Chi
Sure, it is clear that one could fairly say that ACD was very much the opposite of Sherlock Holmes, but, probably only in terms of Spiritualism, and not in any other facet of his life.

Tr'oll,

So, of course, the fact that Penn, Teller, Randi, Martin Gardner and Massimo were not alive while Doyle was alive was irrelevant. Have you got that kitty litter? I think you'll soon need another sandbox to play in.

[Clancie]

Bill,

Funny how you call other people "Trolls" when you yourself so obviously have no interest in knowledge or intelligent exchange of ideas. The only apparent reason you post as far as I can tell is to insult people, which I personally find repellent.

Steve correctly said that Joseph Bell is acknowledged as the prototype for Holmes. He provided sources for this, yet you insist on ridiculing him because he didn't show you where Doyle said it himself. This is just stupid nitpicking and harrassment--which certainly is consistent with your general approach to any topic.

Here's a quote from "Conan Doyle, Portrait of an Artist", by Julian Symons referenced below:

http://www.diogenes-club.com/joebell.htm

"Conan Doyle always said the model for these deductive skills was Dr. Joseph Bell, surgeon at Edinburgh Infirmary, and one of the professors at Edinburgh University when Conan Doyle was a medical student."
There's also this:

"For those who have not made-up their minds, it might be useful if they read Sir Arthur Conan Doyle's Autobiography, Memories and Adventures. They will undoubtedly come away with the notion that Sherlock Holmes resembles in many ways Dr. Joseph Bell,

http://www.sherlockholmesonline.org/SherlockHolmes/

Or this quote from the autobiography...



Conan Doyle was much impressed by this (Holmes often performs similar feats). He says in his autobiography:

"The most notable of the characters whom I met was one Joseph Bell ... He was a very skilful surgeon, but his strong point was diagnosis, not only of disease, but of occupation and character ... [As his outpatient clerk] I had ample chance of studying his methods and of noticing that he often learned more of the patient by a few quick glances than I had done by my questions.... He would sit in his receiving room ... and diagnose people ... before they had even opened their mouths. He would tell them their symptoms, and even give them details of their past life...."(3)

Dr Bell maintained an interest in his literary alter ego and wrote a foreword for one of the Holmes books.

http://www.studentbmj.com/back_issues/0499/data/0499r5.htm


If you knew more yourself, Bill, or had any genuine interest in finding things out, I think you'd argue with and insult others much less (maybe even...not at all!)

But learning and discussing ideas wouldn't be nearly as much fun for you as pretentiously criticizing and mocking others, would it?
:rolleyes:

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by Clancie
Steve correctly said that Joseph Bell is acknowledged as the prototype for Holmes. He provided sources for this, yet you insist on ridiculing him because he didn't show you where Doyle said it himself. This is just stupid nitpicking and harrassment--which certainly is consistent with your general approach to any topic.

It is only nitpicking when you are not doing it, eh? It's not the same thing, when you are involved? Classic Clancieism...

Here is what Steve said:

"Doyle freely acknowledged (in writing) Dr. Joseph Bell was the real person upon which he based his fictional Holmes."

Now, there is some debate among Sherlock Holmes-"scholars" about this issue. It hasn't been settled at all. Therefore, if Steve has knowledge of where Doyle said "freely" who the model for SH was, it would be settled.

Not the most important issue in the world, I grant you that. But if Steve points to evidence, he should show it. He often refers to evidence that he knows of, but far too often, he is not able to provide it.

On this board, evidence is demanded. You, of all people, should have realized that by now.

Originally posted by Clancie
Here's a quote from "Conan Doyle, Portrait of an Artist", by Julian Symons referenced below:
...
There's also this:
...
Or this quote from the autobiography...

None supports Steve's claim. Nobody is arguing that people believe Doyle used Bell as a model.

Originally posted by Clancie
If you knew more yourself, Bill, or had any genuine interest in finding things out, I think you'd argue with and insult others much less (maybe even...not at all!)

Why are you the only one who can determine people's motives around here? Even when people explain what they meant, you still claim to know better.

Originally posted by Clancie
But learning and discussing ideas wouldn't be nearly as much fun for you as pretentiously criticizing and mocking others, would it? :rolleyes:

Hey, if you want to learn and discuss JE, go right ahead... :D

[Pyrrho]

I swear, some of you folks could turn a discussion about daisies into a flame war. :rolleyes:

Anyway, regarding Doyle, it is unfair and unreasonable to assume that an author shares attributes of characters in their literary creations. Agatha Christie wasn't a murderer; Stephen King isn't a monster; Hemingway wasn't Nick Adams; Arthur Conan Doyle wasn't Sherlock Holmes or Dr. Watson.

[BillHoyt]

Originally posted by Clancie
Steve correctly said that Joseph Bell is acknowledged as the prototype for Holmes. He provided sources for this, yet you insist on ridiculing him because he didn't show you where Doyle said it himself. This is just stupid nitpicking and harrassment--which certainly is consistent with your general approach to any topic.
Clancie,

I simply asked Steve for his source, did I not? You and he both arrogantly assume that I need an education about Doyle. I simply asked him for his source, thusly:
Really? What's your source for this?
Steve immediately launched into a blatherfest, none of which answered my question. I wanted and continue to want a source demonstrating Doyle acknowledged, in writing, that Bell was his model for Holmes.

Now, to respond into your own blatherfest...
Here's a quote from "Conan Doyle, Portrait of an Artist", by Julian Symons referenced below:
This does not provide anything on the claim of Doyle's written acknowledgement of Bell as model for Holmes.

There's also this:
Which speaks of "coming away with the impression". Still nothing about the claim of Doyle's written acknowledgement of Bell as model for Holmes.
Or this quote from the autobiography...
Wherein Doyle says he clerked for Bell and admired the man. Still nothing on the claim of Doyle's written acknowledgement.
If you knew more yourself, Bill, or had any genuine interest in finding things out, I think you'd argue with and insult others much less (maybe even...not at all!)

But learning and discussing ideas wouldn't be nearly as much fun for you as pretentiously criticizing and mocking others, would it?
:rolleyes:
I have a genuine interest in finding things out. I am genuinely interested in knowing about this written acknowledgement. I simply asked about it. Now both you and Steve are either confused about what Doyle's written acknowledgement means or can't find proof for this claim or are simply intellectually dishonest. Do you want to learn, Clancie? If so, then why are you not in search of the answer? Why do you post red herrings?

[Clancie]

Posted by BillHoyt

This does not provide anything on the claim of Doyle's written acknowledgement of Bell as model for Holmes.

Just curious, Bill. Since there is very widespread agreement that Bell was, at least in part, an important model for Holmes, why is it so important to you to have Steve fo dig up some succinct written statement from Doyle himself (especially since, unlike the ACD scholars, you are apparently unwilling to read his autobiography and figure out his meaning for yourself).

Maybe Steve was just remembering the words of the author of the Conan Doyle bio which I quoted for you above, Bill. Here it is again: "Conan Doyle always said the model for these deductive skills was Dr. Joseph Bell". In which case, the author of this book is the one you should be challenging, if you have some conviction of your own that he is in error.

Seriouly, it is widely acknowledged that Bell was an inspiration for Holmes. So...other than being a "ridicule opportunity" for you...why the heck do ACD's exact words on the subject matter in the least?

[CFLarsen]

Clancie,

The point is that Steve has claimed to know where Doyle wrote "freely" of this.

The point is not whether anybody has read ACD's autobiography or not. Have you? Did you find Steve's reference?

Stay focused, please.

[Garrette]

Clancie,

I have to side with Bill on this. {The earth moves, the sun explodes: all now stand back because the weighty opinion of the mighty Garrette is about to be made clear}

If you are correct in that is/was Steve's meaning, then it would end with a simple clarification from Steve, e.g., "I meant the things he was recorded as saying by author X".

Or even, "Hmmm.....I'm apparently remembering incorrectly. I thought there was something written by Doyle but I can't find it."

Or "It's written in this document I'm linking to now."

Any would be fine and end the discussion.

There is nothing unreasonable in Bill's question or persistence.

[SteveGrenard]

I will give you the source. Doyle published a letter in the Strand magazine naming Bell as the model for Holmes.

Where did I get this from?

This was documented in a Disocvery Production on Joseph Bell which has been on the air the last few weeks at least in NYC. I am sure there are many of your "friends" Hoyt in this area who are sitting back who know this but prefer not to cross paths because you, Larsen and Ed Dittus are protected patrons of this board who the moderators are sworn to defend regardess of whether you are trolling or not.

And to Pyrrho. ?? If Doyle fancied himself anyone in his Holmes stories it would have been the bumbling Doctor Watson, not Holmes.

Your comments are off the mark because we are talking about Doyle using Bell as a roll model for Holmes, and not himself.

Let's get to the real reason Larsen and Hoyt have their panties all twisted over this. They prefer to denigrate and vilify anything Doyle has done because at the end of his life he embraced spiritualism and fell for that Cottingley Fairy story. (http://www.ash-tree.bc.ca/ACDFAIRIES.html

[Garrette]

Oh, for pity's sake, Steve,

no one is denigrating Doyle. People have expressed respect for his works. I personally, am a huge fan of the Holmes stories, but think Doyle was very gullible in later life, though I have not explored it in depth.

The question from Bill was about your source. That's it. End of story.

The martyr complex only works when you're being murdered, not pitied.

[Garrette]

Oh, and Steve,

one more question, please, which--just to be perfectly clear--I am asking out of curiosity, not as an attack {which such clarification I will not make again}

Do you have any of the specifics of which volume and issue of Strand Magazine? A quotation from the letter, perhaps?

It would be interesting to read.

---

One final point, which has already been mentioned in this thread:

The Watson of the stories is not "bumbling" in the slightest. He is thin (as opposed to the generally overweight portrayals) and intelligent. He is simply not up to Holmes' caliber. Perhaps you should read the stories more closely.

[Pyrrho]

Originally posted by SteveGrenard
I will give you the source. Doyle published a letter in the Strand magazine naming Bell as the model for Holmes.

Where did I get this from?

This was documented in a Disocvery Production on Joseph Bell which has been on the air the last few weeks at least in NYC. I am sure there are many of your "friends" Hoyt in this area who are sitting back who know this but prefer not to cross paths because you, Larsen and Ed Dittus are protected patrons of this board who the moderators are sworn to defend regardess of whether you are trolling or not.

For the record, I have sworn no such oath.

And to Pyrrho. ?? If Doyle fancied himself anyone in his Holmes stories it would have been the bumbling Doctor Watson, not Holmes.

Your comments are off the mark because we are talking about Doyle using Bell as a roll model for Holmes, and not himself.

I wouldn't say that Watson was at all bumbling; he wasn't on the same level as Holmes, but the Watson character as Doyle wrote him wasn't a bumbler. Moviemakers ruined the character, as I'm sure you'd agree. I'll have to defer to you on whether or not Doyle fancied himself as Watson. I agree that Doyle used Dr. Bell as a role model for Holmes. Still, unless writing nonfiction, a writer is not his characters.

Let's get to the real reason Larsen and Hoyt have their panties all twisted over this. They prefer to denigrate and vilify anything Doyle has done because at the end of his life he embraced spiritualism and fell for that Cottingley Fairy story. (http://www.ash-tree.bc.ca/ACDFAIRIES.html

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by SteveGrenard
I will give you the source. Doyle published a letter in the Strand magazine naming Bell as the model for Holmes.

Where did I get this from?

This was documented in a Disocvery Production on Joseph Bell which has been on the air the last few weeks at least in NYC.

Thank you. Why was that so difficult? All we need is for other people to corroborate this.

Originally posted by SteveGrenard
I am sure there are many of your "friends" Hoyt in this area who are sitting back who know this but prefer not to cross paths because you, Larsen and Ed Dittus are protected patrons of this board who the moderators are sworn to defend regardess of whether you are trolling or not.

Do you think it possible for your paranoia to stay out of this? This isn't The Great Conspiracy To Silence Steve Grenard, you know...

Originally posted by SteveGrenard
Let's get to the real reason Larsen and Hoyt have their panties all twisted over this. They prefer to denigrate and vilify anything Doyle has done because at the end of his life he embraced spiritualism and fell for that Cottingley Fairy story. (http://www.ash-tree.bc.ca/ACDFAIRIES.html

Stay focused, Steve. You made a claim. So far, you have given a source, yet unverified.

[BillHoyt]

Originally posted by Clancie


Just curious, Bill. Since there is very widespread agreement that Bell was, at least in part, an important model for Holmes, why is it so important to you to have Steve fo dig up some succinct written statement from Doyle himself (especially since, unlike the ACD scholars, you are apparently unwilling to read his autobiography and figure out his meaning for yourself).

Maybe Steve was just remembering the words of the author of the Conan Doyle bio which I quoted for you above, Bill. Here it is again: "Conan Doyle always said the model for these deductive skills was Dr. Joseph Bell". In which case, the author of this book is the one you should be challenging, if you have some conviction of your own that he is in error.

Seriouly, it is widely acknowledged that Bell was an inspiration for Holmes. So...other than being a "ridicule opportunity" for you...why the heck do ACD's exact words on the subject matter in the least?
Subject/motive shift, Clancie. I want to know. Where did Doyle write this?

Cheers,

[SteveGrenard]

I have written to Doyle's biographer Chris Roden and the ACD Society for the precise reference or citation regarding Doyle's written exposure of Bell as the role model for Holmes. I answered the question, twice now. This was cited in a Discovery Channel production on Bell. It was called Sherlock Holmes: The True Story (subtitled:The Real Sherlock Holmes.) If Larsen, Hoyt, Pyrrho, Garrette etc are so very interested in this they should research it further themselves. I have answered the question. At this point the thread is becoming a vehicle to harass me yet again. Add it to the pile and keep digging yourseves a deeper and deeper hole from which to climb out of. It provides the evidence that the real trolls here are Larsen and Hoyt.

Insofar as vilifying Doyle's life, this has been the the objective of CSICOP, Randi and all who follow them. It is a matter of record as well. They do this because of the motivations previously ascribed.

Roden's ACD bio can be found online here:

http://www.ash-tree.bc.ca/acdsbio.html

It burns the collective aasses of pseudoskeptics and cynics whenever anybody with any credibility becomes seriously interested in anything paranormal. This is patently obvious.
Doyle is such a target.

[BillHoyt]

Originally posted by SteveGrenard
I will give you the source. Doyle published a letter in the Strand magazine naming Bell as the model for Holmes.

Where did I get this from?

This was documented in a Disocvery Production on Joseph Bell which has been on the air the last few weeks at least in NYC. I am sure there are many of your "friends" Hoyt in this area who are sitting back who know this but prefer not to cross paths because you, Larsen and Ed Dittus are protected patrons of this board who the moderators are sworn to defend regardess of whether you are trolling or not.

And to Pyrrho. ?? If Doyle fancied himself anyone in his Holmes stories it would have been the bumbling Doctor Watson, not Holmes.

Your comments are off the mark because we are talking about Doyle using Bell as a roll model for Holmes, and not himself.

Let's get to the real reason Larsen and Hoyt have their panties all twisted over this. They prefer to denigrate and vilify anything Doyle has done because at the end of his life he embraced spiritualism and fell for that Cottingley Fairy story. (http://www.ash-tree.bc.ca/ACDFAIRIES.html
Steve,

Strand magazine via the Discovery Channel. Great. That episode is running at 1:00 pm today. I'll tape it.

Cheers,

[Pyrrho]

Bell may have been a major inspiration for Holmes, but not the only inspiration. For example, Edgar Allan Poe's character, C. Auguste Dupin, a detective whose methods were quite similar to those used by Holmes. Dupin is actually scoffed at by Holmes in "A Study in Scarlet". Kind of funny, really. Doyle certainly had a sense of humor.

Compare these Poe stories to your typical Holmes adventure:

http://www.geocities.com/nuelow/ficpoemysteries.html

[BillHoyt]

Originally posted by SteveGrenard
If Larsen, Hoyt, Pyrrho, Garrette etc are so very interested in this they should research it further themselves.
Count on it.
I have answered the question.
One wonders at the blatherfests in between.
At this point the thread is becoming a vehicle to harass me yet again. Add it to the pile and keep digging yourseves a deeper and deeper hole from which to climb out of. It provides the evidence that the real trolls here are Larsen and Hoyt.
Pyrrho, into action, sir! It is your sworn duty to protect me!
Insofar as vilifying Doyle's life, this has been the the objective of CSICOP, Randi and all who follow them. It is a matter of record as well. They do this because of the motivations previously ascribed.
...
It burns the collective aasses of pseudoskeptics and cynics whenever anybody with any credibility becomes seriously interested in anything paranormal. This is patently obvious.
Doyle is such a target.
Villify Doyle? Burnt butts? Wow, Steve! I, for one, was saddened to read how an author who created such a marvelous character as Holmes was so sadly lacking in critical thinking skills himself. Until recently, I lived across the river from Gillette's Castle, where I spent many hours pouring over the memorabilia of William Gillette, the man who brought Holmes to life on the American stage. I've watched every Holmes or Moriarity episode from Star Trek TNG four or five times (at least). I read Doyle's books with gusto and zeal as a teenager.

My butt is not burnt. Neither are the collective butts of skeptics. I persist and will persist in the fight against the growing darkness. The credulity of Doyle. The return of magical thinking. The attempts to crumble rationality and to usher in a new Dark Age. The only things burning here are the torches of rational thinkers who hope to re-kindle the Enlightenment and to chase out the imagined demons.

Cheers,

[Pyrrho]

Originally posted by BillHoyt

Pyrrho, into action, sir! It is your sworn duty to protect me!

Bite me.

[BillHoyt]

Originally posted by Pyrrho

Bite me.

I'll neuralyze myself so I don't remember you just wrote that, Py... uh...
What was I saying?

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by SteveGrenard
I have written to Doyle's biographer Chris Roden and the ACD Society for the precise reference or citation regarding Doyle's written exposure of Bell as the role model for Holmes. I answered the question, twice now. This was cited in a Discovery Channel production on Bell. It was called The Real Sherlock Holmes.

We still need verification and corroboration, Steve.

Originally posted by SteveGrenard
If Larsen, Hoyt, Pyrrho, Garrette etc are so very interested in this they should research it further themselves. I have answered the question. At this point the thread is becoming a vehicle to harass me yet again. Add it to the pile and keep digging yourseves a deeper and deeper hole from which to climb out of. It provides the evidence that the real trolls here are Larsen and Hoyt.

No, it only provides evidence that you have a peculiar perception of what "evidence" is.

Originally posted by SteveGrenard
Insofar as vilifying Doyle's life, this has been the the objective of CSICOP, Randi and all who follow them. It is a matter of record as well. They do this because of the motivations previously ascribed.

"Vilifying"? The guy fell for a hoax, Steve. Nobody is doing this for any other reason than to get to the truth. Do you have a problem with that, Steve?

I can't speak for others, but I don't "follow" CSICOP, Randi or anyone else.

Originally posted by SteveGrenard
Roden's ACD bio can be found online here:

http://www.ash-tree.bc.ca/acdsbio.html

Have you read this bio? Have you read the Strand article?

Originally posted by SteveGrenard
It burns the collective aasses of pseudoskeptics and cynics whenever anybody with any credibility becomes seriously interested in anything paranormal. This is patently obvious.
Doyle is such a target.

Appeal to popularity. "Credibility" has nothing to do with it. Only evidence counts.

Nobody's derrieres are inflamed in any way. That Doyle can be fooled only serves as evidence that we all can be. Even you (which you have proved so often before).

[Pyrrho]

Originally posted by BillHoyt
I'll neuralyze myself so I don't remember you just wrote that, Py... uh...
What was I saying?
You were saying that you're really a very nice guy, and you'll never say anything corrosive about anyone ever again.

[BillHoyt]

Originally posted by Pyrrho

You were saying that you're really a very nice guy, and you'll never say anything corrosive about anyone ever again.

Oh yeah, we were talking about ACD, weren't we? ACD is shorthand for acid?
Hmm.

Cheers,

[Pyrrho]

Originally posted by BillHoyt
Oh yeah, we were talking about ACD, weren't we? ACD is shorthand for acid?
Hmm.

Cheers,
I was thinking more along the lines of base insults. Now don't be a lyer. ;)

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by Pyrrho
Bite me.

In your burnt butt? :D

[SteveGrenard]

Christopher Roden, a Doyle biographer and principal (founder) of the ACD Society wrote me back regarding Doyle's written statements that Bell was his model for Sherlock Holmes. Unfortunately he didn't say much; the Discovery program: Sherlock Holmes:The True Story which airs today in 45 mins EST and again I believe again on 10/18 goes into greater detail.
So insofar as "is in writng" is concerned, an autobiography definitely qualifies as Doyle having made that statement.
As a Holmes fan I did read this book but it was a long time ago.

What is particularly strange about this is how the pseudoskeptics have the termerity to question an author's own confession as to what or how he was inspired to create a character. As if they were inside his head at the time and know better than he did. It is really the height of folly and causes me and others to seriously question their agenda and their own motives which are, as demonstrated in their criticism of Doyle, to label Doyle a credulous fool. In fact I think I have seen that somewhere above. He was anything but and I am afraid the cynics will just have to live with that and move on.

For those that didn't hit the link on the fairy story, it may be of interest to go back and read that piece to the end as well. It is Randi and CSICOP's attachment to the fairy story that form THEIR entire repetoire of knowledge on Doyle.




---------------------------------------------------
It's all clearly written in Conan Doyle's autobiography, MEMORIES AND ADVENTURES (1923)

Regards,
Christopher
---------------------------------------

[CFLarsen]

Steve,

If it is "all clearly written in Conan Doyle's autobiography" from 1923, then what are people discussing? Why is this such a big deal, then?

[BillHoyt]

Originally posted by SteveGrenard
What is particularly strange about this is how the pseudoskeptics have the termerity to question an author's own confession as to what or how he was inspired to create a character. As if they were inside his head at the time and know better than he did. It is really the height of folly and causes me and others to seriously question their agenda and their own motives which are, as demonstrated in their criticism of Doyle, to label Doyle a credulous fool. In fact I think I have seen that somewhere above. He was anything but and I am afraid the cynics will just have to live with that and move on.

Steve,

I asked you for a source, Steve. That was all. Cut the crap.

[T'ai Chi]

Also, according to http://www.sherlockholmesonline.org/SherlockHolmes/index.htm something I thought was interesting:


Conan Doyle dedicated The Adventures of Sherlock Holmes to Dr. Bell, who gave credit to the author for Sherlock Holmes's genius. "You are yourself Sherlock Holmes and well you know it," he wrote him.

[Jeff Corey]

Hot darn, am I glad I wasn't involved in all the bitch slappin'.

[T'ai Chi]

Originally posted by Jeff Corey
Hot darn, am I glad I wasn't involved in all the bitch slappin'.

Aww, but it is so fun!!

:j1:
:con2:
:rm: