Hello Karthik, Balaji
Welcome to the group. We are here a group of totally devoted sherlockians, but
our other assignments and jobs keep us from actively contributing to this group.
And since we aren't many here and not all have something new to say the activity
level keeps low. But we are trying...we are trying.( Aren't we sumal, anand,
mihir, srifx?? Ashoke, kumar where art thou??).
Anyway again welcome and we look forward to hearing more of you.
Manraviel
PS: And Balaji I would definately try to check out your book.
Karthik Mahalingam <karthik.mahalingam@...> wrote:Hello,
I have recently joined this group. I am a resident of Bangalore. Haven't
seen too much activity on this group till now though.
Way to go Balaji...we need more enterprising authors like you. Where can I
pick up a copy of your book?
Any pointers on where one can find sherlock collectibles in Bangalore will
be appreciated.
Regards,
Karthik.
"I would have followed you, my Brother, my Captain, my King!!"
-----Boromir (FotR)
"When you have eliminated all which is impossible, then whatever remains,
however improbable, must be the truth"
-----Sherlock Holmes (BLAN)
Yahoo! India Matrimony: Find your partner online.Post your profile.
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> Balaji,a very warm welcome to you.I hope you contribute
> heavily.
Thanks! I will try my best to contribute!
=====
Balaji Narasimhan
Author, Sherlock Holmes: Solutions from the Sussex Downs
http://www.sherlock-holmes.com/balaji.htm
=====
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free, easy-to-use web site design software
http://sitebuilder.yahoo.com
Dear Holmesians,
Balaji,a very warm welcome to you.I hope you contribute
heavily .There seems to be a strong representation from Bangalore,you
chaps can get something going if you can set your mind to it.I am
from cannanore ,kerala but working in delhi now.so it rules me
out.see you and kep posting.No point in complaining that there is no
traffic on the society
sumal
Kartik,
> Where can I pick up a copy of your book?
You can follow the link in my signature. The page it leads to
has ordering information.
=====
Balaji Narasimhan
Author, Sherlock Holmes: Solutions from the Sussex Downs
http://www.sherlock-holmes.com/balaji.htm
=====
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free, easy-to-use web site design software
http://sitebuilder.yahoo.com
Hello,
I have recently joined this group. I am a resident of Bangalore. Haven't
seen too much activity on this group till now though.
Way to go Balaji...we need more enterprising authors like you. Where can I
pick up a copy of your book?
Any pointers on where one can find sherlock collectibles in Bangalore will
be appreciated.
Regards,
Karthik.
>
> =====
> Balaji Narasimhan
> Author, Sherlock Holmes: Solutions from the Sussex Downs
> http://www.sherlock-holmes.com/balaji.htm
> Good news. It is nice to know that some people in India
> are indeed celebrating Sherlock Holmes apart from
> internet afficianados like us who dont seem to be doing
> much apart from posting messages.
One solution is to encourage more face to face meetings. This
enhances the Net posting experience.
Maybe, if everybody mentions the city he is from, then people
from a particular city can meet, maybe once a month.
I'm from Bangalore. Maybe, if there are other members here from
Bangalore, we can meet up.
=====
Balaji Narasimhan
Author, Sherlock Holmes: Solutions from the Sussex Downs
http://www.sherlock-holmes.com/balaji.htm
=====
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free, easy-to-use web site design software
http://sitebuilder.yahoo.com
Good news. It is nice to know that some people in India
are indeed celebrating Sherlock Holmes apart from
internet afficianados like us who dont seem to be doing
much apart from posting messages.
-Anand
--- In sherlockholmessocietyofindia@..., sumalsn
<no_reply@y...> wrote:
> THE BAKER STREET TIMES
>
>
> Holmes celebrated by fans in remote Indian state at Sherlock Holmes
> festival
> 15 Mar 2002
>
> GAUHATI, India (AP) - Sherlock Holmes came alive in India's remote
> northeastern state of Mizoram when hundreds of admirers of The Great
> Detective assembled to celebrate his exploits.
>
>
>
>
> For decades, the Mizo tribespeople have been voracious Sherlock
> Holmes readers. "Sherlock Holmes is known to people in all the 700
> villages in my state," said P.L. Liandinga, a government social
> worker who has translated all of Arthur Conan Doyle's stories about
> Holmes into the Mizo language.
>
>
>
> "Wherever I go, even in the remotest of villages, people know me as
> the translator of the Holmes stories," said Liandinga, who was the
> host of the Sherlock Holmes festival at his home on Sunday.
>
> "We enacted a play on Doyle's 1890 short story, The Sign of Four. It
> was fun," Liandinga said Monday from Aizawl, the Mizoram capital.
>
> Mizoram is a predominantly Christian state that shares a border with
> Myanmar and Bangladesh. The state of 800,000 people has a literacy
> rate of more than 80 per cent - among the highest in India.
>
> Liandinga started translating Doyle's works in 1977.
>
> "The stories fascinated me right from my college days," he
> said. "Doyle's language is extremely good and the mystery element
> always baffled me."
THE BAKER STREET TIMES
Holmes celebrated by fans in remote Indian state at Sherlock Holmes
festival
15 Mar 2002
GAUHATI, India (AP) - Sherlock Holmes came alive in India's remote
northeastern state of Mizoram when hundreds of admirers of The Great
Detective assembled to celebrate his exploits.
For decades, the Mizo tribespeople have been voracious Sherlock
Holmes readers. "Sherlock Holmes is known to people in all the 700
villages in my state," said P.L. Liandinga, a government social
worker who has translated all of Arthur Conan Doyle's stories about
Holmes into the Mizo language.
"Wherever I go, even in the remotest of villages, people know me as
the translator of the Holmes stories," said Liandinga, who was the
host of the Sherlock Holmes festival at his home on Sunday.
"We enacted a play on Doyle's 1890 short story, The Sign of Four. It
was fun," Liandinga said Monday from Aizawl, the Mizoram capital.
Mizoram is a predominantly Christian state that shares a border with
Myanmar and Bangladesh. The state of 800,000 people has a literacy
rate of more than 80 per cent - among the highest in India.
Liandinga started translating Doyle's works in 1977.
"The stories fascinated me right from my college days," he
said. "Doyle's language is extremely good and the mystery element
always baffled me."
Hello Holmesians,
I have something very interesting for all you guys.Please visit
www.sherlock-holmes.co.uk/news/celebration.htm.
Please forward your comments on the society web page.
sumal
Dear Sherlockians,
There is something interesting I have for members of the
society.Please checkout http://www.sherlock-
holmes.co.uk/news/celeberation.htm.
FoRWARD YOUR COMMENTS .
sumal
Yes, Happy Diwali and a wonderful new year from this side of the country too.
Manraviel
anandpillai6 <anandpillai6@...> wrote:
Wishing a Happy Diwali to all members of the group.
-Anand
To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
sherlockholmessocietyofindia-unsubscribe@...
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
"I would have followed you, my Brother, my Captain, my King!!"
-----Boromir (FotR)
"When you have eliminated all which is impossible, then whatever remains,
however improbable, must be the truth"
-----Sherlock Holmes (BLAN)
Yahoo! India Matrimony: Find your partner online.Post your profile.
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Hi Sherlockians !!
I have been following our Digest with
considerable interest. However I would like to know if
anybody has a VHS/VCD/DVD of the Granada TV series of
Sherlock Holmes where Jeremy Brett played the masters
role.
Many Thanks,
Sachin
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
The New Yahoo! Shopping - with improved product search
http://shopping.yahoo.com
I seem to be making lots of spelling mistakes in my posts!
Errata
-------
In previous post,
Read 'once' as 'ones' and the sentence,
"One should also differentiate between spurts of creativity and with
that flow of creativity and ability to put ideas into language with
some of the great authors possessed to a great extent."
as
"One should also differentiate between spurts of creativity, with that
flow of creativity and ability to put ideas into language, which some
of the great authors possessed to a great extent."
Thanks
-Anand
--- In sherlockholmessocietyofindia@..., "anandpillai6"
<anandpillai6@y...> wrote:
> I often wonder at the prolific creativity of authors like
> ACD. The fact that Holmes as a character survives even a
> century after his creation is proof to the longevity of
> such creativity.
>
> I often feel that creativity has taken a back seat in this
> era. Personally I feel I could be more creative rather than
> spending time infront of the TV or lounging about, but it
> does not happen. One should also differentiate between
> spurts of creativity and with that flow of creativity and
> ability to put ideas into language with some of the great
> authors possessed to a great extent. I know people who possess
> this in spurts but not in everything they do.
>
> ACD was a kind of genius being a doctor, a writer, a swordsman,
> a boxer, a traveller, a spiritualist all rolled in one.
>
> How many of such people do you find now a days ? Mass marketing
> and the penetration of TV seems to have killed off creativity.
>
> Creativity is of course in the genes, but circumstances and
> once friends and lifestyle also influences it.
>
> I am interested in continuing this thread. Interested posters
> do join in and lend me a hand.
>
> rgds
>
> -Anand Pillai
I often wonder at the prolific creativity of authors like
ACD. The fact that Holmes as a character survives even a
century after his creation is proof to the longevity of
such creativity.
I often feel that creativity has taken a back seat in this
era. Personally I feel I could be more creative rather than
spending time infront of the TV or lounging about, but it
does not happen. One should also differentiate between
spurts of creativity and with that flow of creativity and
ability to put ideas into language with some of the great
authors possessed to a great extent. I know people who possess
this in spurts but not in everything they do.
ACD was a kind of genius being a doctor, a writer, a swordsman,
a boxer, a traveller, a spiritualist all rolled in one.
How many of such people do you find now a days ? Mass marketing
and the penetration of TV seems to have killed off creativity.
Creativity is of course in the genes, but circumstances and
once friends and lifestyle also influences it.
I am interested in continuing this thread. Interested posters
do join in and lend me a hand.
rgds
-Anand Pillai
If you read my mail, I also agree to this. What I have said in it
is that regional efforts have been there, but they have not been
popular outside the state or region they have been written in.
I have been a voracious reader all my life and if there was a
character like Holmes popular throughout India I would not have
missed him.
"Vyomkesh Bakshi" was popularised by the tele-serial in the same
name. I remember a few episodes of it way back in 1990s, while
I was in college. It was a decent enough attempt, though I wont
compare him with Holmes. And once Vyomkesh got married to one of
the characters in the story, the series became boring...
I gave Dr. R.K Narayan's "Malgudi Days" as example because I
think it is one work which is popular not only in his birthstate
but throughout India. Same can be said of Mowgli of Rudyard Kipling.
But of course all these are children's stories.
If one of the members in this group (assuming he/she has the
energy and the creativitiy to do so) to create very good Holmes
pastiches, I am willing to help him with money and energy to get it
published. May be even I can help him to do the artwork, I can sketch
a bit. Or give him original ideas of which I have a lot in my brain.
It is my own dream to do so once, to write a Holmes pastiche as
good as the one of the originals. I hope I shall be able to do it
sometime in the future.
-Anand
--- In sherlockholmessocietyofindia@..., Mihir Lochan
Saran <pbphpatna@v...> wrote:
>
>
>
> Dear Buddies,
> I want to highlight the attention of the group on the works of Late
Satyajiy Ray who had created an Indian version of Dupin/Sherlock
Holmes/Fr. Brown on the footsteps of Poe/Doyle/Chesterton . His
Character was called " FeluDa" who can be called the Indian version of
the Master. His (Felu's) cousin had played Watson. Ray wrote most his
stories in Bengali
> barring few exception which he did in English.
> And mind it Satyajit Ray was not the first person in Bengali
Literature to do that . Much before him Saradendu Bandhopadhaya had
created Byomkesh Bakshi who was more close to Holmes in his approach
and deduction. Bandhopadhaya wrote his stories in pre independence
era whereas Ray did it in post independence era .
> Satyajit Ray is widely known for his filmmaking in Bengali though
he made on famous film "Shatranj Ke Khilari " and two 13 episodes TV
Serials (directed by his son Sandip Ray) in Hindi.
> Satyajit Ray had inherited writing and publishing from his father
Sukmar Ray who had initiated to start a children magazine in Bengali
in early 20th century .This magazine was called DESH. DESH was equally
respected in early 20th cent publication as SARASWATI (published by
Acharya Chintamani Ghosh of Indian Press, Allahabad and was edited by
Acharya Dewedi ) and BALAK (published by Raibahadur Acharya Ramlochan
Saran of Pustak Bhandara of Laheriasarai near Darbhanga - now in Bihar
, then in undivided Bengal).
>
> I have learnt that somebody had tried to make an Indian SH in
Malayalam also . If somebody knows please enlighten us .
> - Mihir
> PATNA
>
>
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Dear Buddies,
I want to highlight the attention of the group on the works of Late Satyajiy Ray
who had created an Indian version of Dupin/Sherlock Holmes/Fr. Brown on the
footsteps of Poe/Doyle/Chesterton . His Character was called " FeluDa" who can
be called the Indian version of the Master. His (Felu's) cousin had played
Watson. Ray wrote most his stories in Bengali
barring few exception which he did in English.
And mind it Satyajit Ray was not the first person in Bengali Literature to do
that . Much before him Saradendu Bandhopadhaya had created Byomkesh Bakshi who
was more close to Holmes in his approach and deduction. Bandhopadhaya wrote his
stories in pre independence era whereas Ray did it in post independence era .
Satyajit Ray is widely known for his filmmaking in Bengali though he made on
famous film "Shatranj Ke Khilari " and two 13 episodes TV Serials (directed by
his son Sandip Ray) in Hindi.
Satyajit Ray had inherited writing and publishing from his father Sukmar Ray who
had initiated to start a children magazine in Bengali in early 20th century
.This magazine was called DESH. DESH was equally respected in early 20th cent
publication as SARASWATI (published by Acharya Chintamani Ghosh of Indian Press,
Allahabad and was edited by Acharya Dewedi ) and BALAK (published by Raibahadur
Acharya Ramlochan Saran of Pustak Bhandara of Laheriasarai near Darbhanga - now
in Bihar , then in undivided Bengal).
I have learnt that somebody had tried to make an Indian SH in Malayalam also .
If somebody knows please enlighten us .
- Mihir
PATNA
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
.
Can do a bit of marketing & typing ? YES !!!!!!!!
Then we need you
Please mail us at :futurecare703@...
______________________
You can surely find a way to earn
Please note, ONLY INDIANS NEED TO APPLY
You know that you are a true Holmesian if ...
o You plan to shift house and scan the advertisement mags
for addresses beginning with 221B, Baker Street.
o You are impressed with landladys who call themselves Mrs Hudson.
o You observe the number of steps leading from the ground floor
to the first floor on every occasion you climb the stairs.
o You make a mental note of this everytime.
o You deduce that that you are late for the rent by noticing two
overlapped fresh footprints of your landlord on your front door.
o You deduce that you were sleeping when he called by the cigar
ash that accumulated at your front door.
o You are asked to leave the house for practising indoor shooting
with a revolver.
o The fire brigage came twice to your house over false fire alarms,
when you were actually just smoking.
o Your coffee pot is permananently full.
o You keep a wax dummy of yourselves near the front window that
opens to the street.
o You make sure that this dummy has an access that is concealed
, reachable from your room behind the curtains.
o When you keep calling your roomate, Dr. Watson.
I made those up just now ;-)
-Anand
Hello Mark
Could you post the link of this article also?
Thanks
-Anand
--- In sherlockholmessocietyofindia@..., Doctor Watson
<watsonjh2002@y...> wrote:
>
> Speaking of Moriarty , I just came across this very interesting
article on the genetic factor in criminal behaviour from the point of
view of the canon.
>
>
>
> THE MORIARTY GENE
> by Richard L. Kellogg
>
> Social scientists have argued the nature-nurture debate for many
years, both in the popular press and professional literature. The
nature proponents argue that biological factors and genetic
composition explain much of human behavior. 'Those on the nurture side
contend that environmental factors, such as family, school, church and
community, are paramount in the development of behavior patterns. It
is also obvious that some traits, such as human intelligence, depend
upon a complex combination of both hereditary and environmental
influences.
> In attempting to determine the causes of criminal behavior, it is
relevant to examine the views held by Sherlock Holmes, the world's
first and greatest consulting detective. Reviewing his cases, it
should be possible to deduce his position on the nature-nurture debate
as regards criminality. Holmes's stance can then be compared to
contemporary perspectives on whether a person can be a "born criminal."
> Certainly the most famous criminal in the Holmes saga, Professor
James Moriarty is described in "The Final Problem" as the Napolean of
crime and the leader of the London underworld. Coming from a good
family and blessed with an excellent education, the evil Moriarty was
destined for a life of lawlessness. The professor showed early promise
of success in academia after writing a brilliant paper on the binomial
theorem. However, he was forced to resign his position in mathematics
at a small university due to persistent rumors of dire misbehavior.
> During the Holmes and Watson era, many educated Victorians were
convinced that personality characteristics are conveyed from one
generation to the next through the blood. The theory of the gene, the
distinct unit of heredity, was not developed until early in the
twentieth century. Using the scientific vocabulary of the present day,
Holmes would probably conclude that the nefarious Moriarty was endowed
with a "bad gene," or set of genes, which predisposed him toward a
life of crime.
> Although not in Moriarty's league as a major player in the field of
crime, the villainous Dr. Grimesby Roylott and his sordid exploits are
also of interest. In "The Adventure of the Speckled Band," Roylott
returns to his native England following a period of imprisonment for
murdering his butler in India. Helen Stoner, Roylott's stepdaughter,
fears for her own life after her twin sister meets a horrible and
puzzling death. When Helen turns to Holmes for assistance and
protection, there is a strong genetic factor in the chain of events.
She describes Roylott's ferocious outbursts of anger to the detective
and notes that "violence of temper approaching mania has been
hereditary in the men of the family." This assertion by his client,
readily accepted by Holmes, indicates that the wicked Dr. Roylott was
afflicted with a sex-linked trait caused by a gene located on the
sex-determining pair (the 23rd pair) of chromosomes in the nucleus.
The tendency toward uncontrollable violence is
> apparently sex-linked because only the males of the family were
affected by the trait.
> To show that criminal tendencies may be exhibited quite early in
human development, "The Adventure of the Copper Beeches" is quite
informative. In this investigation, Holmes evaluates the bizarre
antics of a six-year-old child in order to determine the character of
the child's father. To be more precise, the young boy is unusually
cruel and finds it entertaining to crush cockroaches with his slipper.
This sadistic form of amusement leads Holmes to believe that the child
inherited a violent disposition from his father, Jephro Rucastle. In
describing his cognitive processes to Dr. Watson, Holmes says, "I have
frequently gained my first real insight into the character of parents
by studying their children." This statement is a clear reference to
the concept of atavism, the exhibition by an individual of ancestral
characteristics.
> In "The Naval Treaty," we find that Holmes was an admirer of French
criminologist, Alphonse Bertillon (1853-1914). Bertillon developed a
system, which consists of a series of bodily measurements, to aid in
the identification of criminals. Experts in crime theorized that
dangerous criminals were evolutionary throwbacks who resembled
prehistoric man. Bertillon and his followers related criminal
predisposition to such features as large skulls, receding chins, long
arms, and big ears. His method of classification was gradually
replaced after 1900 by the new science of fingerprinting.
> The preceding illustrations make it evident that Sherlock Holmes, in
agreement with such contemporaries as Charles Darwin and Francis
Galton, favored the nature side of the nature-nurture controversy.
Perusal of the Holmes literature suggests that the great detective
often stresses the heritability of criminality, intelligence, and
emotional temperament.
> Perhaps the most fascinating aspect of the nature-nurture debate on
criminality is that it still continues at the present time. The best
example of this can be found in a provocative book titled "Crime and
Human Nature" (Simon and Schuster, 1985), which was written by two
Harvard professors, James Wilson and Richard Herrnstein. The authors,
in much the same way as Holmes, contend that some individuals are born
with constitutional factors which predispose them to certain types of
crime. While there may not be a single "crime gene" in the human body,
there are inherited traits which increase the probability of engaging
in criminal behavior.
> For example, Wilson and Herrnstein report that muscular young males
(perhaps those exposed to high levels of sex-related hormones before
birth) are much more aggressive and prone to violence than young
women. In addition, they find that criminals are significantly less
intelligent, on the basis of IQ scores, than the average person. Low
intelligence does not automatically create a criminal but it seems
that many criminals have below-average intelligence. As for the factor
of temperament, the authors feel that impulsiveness, a short attention
span, and the inability to delay gratification are traits present from
birth which predispose some individuals toward reckless and illegal
activities. Many of the conclusions reached by Wilson and Herrnstein
rely heavily upon statistical studies of criminality involving
identical twins, adopted children, and family relationships.
> It is rather amazing that modern researchers in the field of
criminology, such as Wilson and Herrnstein, are following the same
trails which intrigued Sherlock Holmes more than a century ago. To
discover the underlying causes of crime and to develop new techniques
for preventing it remain among the major challenges of our time.
Although we should not ignore poverty, racism, joblessness, and other
environmental factors which relate to crime, biological and genetic
factors may prove to be powerful predictors of criminal behavior. It
is hoped that genetic tendencies toward crime, if they do prove to
exist, can be modified by early intervention with such methods as
psychotherapy, classes in effective parenting, and improved preschool
education. Additional research on both genetic and environmental
factors is necessary if we are to prevent the emergence of criminals
like James Moriarty and Grimesby Roylott in future generations.
>
> ---------------------------------
>
>
>
> "I would have followed you, my Brother, my Captain, my King!!"
> -----Boromir (FotR)
>
> "When you have eliminated all which is impossible, then whatever
remains, however improbable, must be the truth"
> -----Sherlock Holmes (BLAN)
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Yahoo! India Matrimony: Find your partner online.Post your profile.
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Speaking of Moriarty , I just came across this very interesting article on the
genetic factor in criminal behaviour from the point of view of the canon.
THE MORIARTY GENE
by Richard L. Kellogg
Social scientists have argued the nature-nurture debate for many years, both in
the popular press and professional literature. The nature proponents argue that
biological factors and genetic composition explain much of human behavior.
'Those on the nurture side contend that environmental factors, such as family,
school, church and community, are paramount in the development of behavior
patterns. It is also obvious that some traits, such as human intelligence,
depend upon a complex combination of both hereditary and environmental
influences.
In attempting to determine the causes of criminal behavior, it is relevant to
examine the views held by Sherlock Holmes, the world's first and greatest
consulting detective. Reviewing his cases, it should be possible to deduce his
position on the nature-nurture debate as regards criminality. Holmes's stance
can then be compared to contemporary perspectives on whether a person can be a
"born criminal."
Certainly the most famous criminal in the Holmes saga, Professor James Moriarty
is described in "The Final Problem" as the Napolean of crime and the leader of
the London underworld. Coming from a good family and blessed with an excellent
education, the evil Moriarty was destined for a life of lawlessness. The
professor showed early promise of success in academia after writing a brilliant
paper on the binomial theorem. However, he was forced to resign his position in
mathematics at a small university due to persistent rumors of dire misbehavior.
During the Holmes and Watson era, many educated Victorians were convinced that
personality characteristics are conveyed from one generation to the next through
the blood. The theory of the gene, the distinct unit of heredity, was not
developed until early in the twentieth century. Using the scientific vocabulary
of the present day, Holmes would probably conclude that the nefarious Moriarty
was endowed with a "bad gene," or set of genes, which predisposed him toward a
life of crime.
Although not in Moriarty's league as a major player in the field of crime, the
villainous Dr. Grimesby Roylott and his sordid exploits are also of interest. In
"The Adventure of the Speckled Band," Roylott returns to his native England
following a period of imprisonment for murdering his butler in India. Helen
Stoner, Roylott's stepdaughter, fears for her own life after her twin sister
meets a horrible and puzzling death. When Helen turns to Holmes for assistance
and protection, there is a strong genetic factor in the chain of events. She
describes Roylott's ferocious outbursts of anger to the detective and notes that
"violence of temper approaching mania has been hereditary in the men of the
family." This assertion by his client, readily accepted by Holmes, indicates
that the wicked Dr. Roylott was afflicted with a sex-linked trait caused by a
gene located on the sex-determining pair (the 23rd pair) of chromosomes in the
nucleus. The tendency toward uncontrollable violence is
apparently sex-linked because only the males of the family were affected by the
trait.
To show that criminal tendencies may be exhibited quite early in human
development, "The Adventure of the Copper Beeches" is quite informative. In this
investigation, Holmes evaluates the bizarre antics of a six-year-old child in
order to determine the character of the child's father. To be more precise, the
young boy is unusually cruel and finds it entertaining to crush cockroaches with
his slipper. This sadistic form of amusement leads Holmes to believe that the
child inherited a violent disposition from his father, Jephro Rucastle. In
describing his cognitive processes to Dr. Watson, Holmes says, "I have
frequently gained my first real insight into the character of parents by
studying their children." This statement is a clear reference to the concept of
atavism, the exhibition by an individual of ancestral characteristics.
In "The Naval Treaty," we find that Holmes was an admirer of French
criminologist, Alphonse Bertillon (1853-1914). Bertillon developed a system,
which consists of a series of bodily measurements, to aid in the identification
of criminals. Experts in crime theorized that dangerous criminals were
evolutionary throwbacks who resembled prehistoric man. Bertillon and his
followers related criminal predisposition to such features as large skulls,
receding chins, long arms, and big ears. His method of classification was
gradually replaced after 1900 by the new science of fingerprinting.
The preceding illustrations make it evident that Sherlock Holmes, in agreement
with such contemporaries as Charles Darwin and Francis Galton, favored the
nature side of the nature-nurture controversy. Perusal of the Holmes literature
suggests that the great detective often stresses the heritability of
criminality, intelligence, and emotional temperament.
Perhaps the most fascinating aspect of the nature-nurture debate on criminality
is that it still continues at the present time. The best example of this can be
found in a provocative book titled "Crime and Human Nature" (Simon and Schuster,
1985), which was written by two Harvard professors, James Wilson and Richard
Herrnstein. The authors, in much the same way as Holmes, contend that some
individuals are born with constitutional factors which predispose them to
certain types of crime. While there may not be a single "crime gene" in the
human body, there are inherited traits which increase the probability of
engaging in criminal behavior.
For example, Wilson and Herrnstein report that muscular young males (perhaps
those exposed to high levels of sex-related hormones before birth) are much more
aggressive and prone to violence than young women. In addition, they find that
criminals are significantly less intelligent, on the basis of IQ scores, than
the average person. Low intelligence does not automatically create a criminal
but it seems that many criminals have below-average intelligence. As for the
factor of temperament, the authors feel that impulsiveness, a short attention
span, and the inability to delay gratification are traits present from birth
which predispose some individuals toward reckless and illegal activities. Many
of the conclusions reached by Wilson and Herrnstein rely heavily upon
statistical studies of criminality involving identical twins, adopted children,
and family relationships.
It is rather amazing that modern researchers in the field of criminology, such
as Wilson and Herrnstein, are following the same trails which intrigued Sherlock
Holmes more than a century ago. To discover the underlying causes of crime and
to develop new techniques for preventing it remain among the major challenges of
our time. Although we should not ignore poverty, racism, joblessness, and other
environmental factors which relate to crime, biological and genetic factors may
prove to be powerful predictors of criminal behavior. It is hoped that genetic
tendencies toward crime, if they do prove to exist, can be modified by early
intervention with such methods as psychotherapy, classes in effective parenting,
and improved preschool education. Additional research on both genetic and
environmental factors is necessary if we are to prevent the emergence of
criminals like James Moriarty and Grimesby Roylott in future generations.
---------------------------------
"I would have followed you, my Brother, my Captain, my King!!"
-----Boromir (FotR)
"When you have eliminated all which is impossible, then whatever remains,
however improbable, must be the truth"
-----Sherlock Holmes (BLAN)
Yahoo! India Matrimony: Find your partner online.Post your profile.
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Yes, great stuff indeed Manraviel. While I want to debunk the
Holmes=Moriarty theory outright, keeping the debate alive adds to the
any reasons we still want to talk about THE man and his work. So, to
all conpiracy theorists... Keep 'em coming! That is so much more of
an incentive to be creative about a literary piece which has, in most
part, been over-analysed with the exception of Shakespeare :)
SriFX
-- In sherlockholmessocietyofindia@..., "anandpillai6"
<anandpillai6@y...> wrote:
> Classic stuff by Manraviel. I suggest that you publish it.
> It could be in your our own budgeoning new holmes site under the
title
> "Conspiracy Theory - Was Moriarty Holmes, 10 reasons to say No" !
>
> I think that we need to debunk the Holmes = Moriarty theory.
> I would like to believe in the existence of the classic
> detective and the classic criminal as two separate personalities
> ,rather than Dr.Jekyll and Mr. Hyde.
>
> It is interesting to note this "Dr Jekyll and Mr Hyde" coloring
> sugggestions of many famous personalities both fictional and real.
> It seems that literary figures take it upon themselves as a past
time
> to do this.Another one I can tell you is the suggestion that Jack
the
> Ripper was in fact an English Count, only that in this case the Hyde
> personality was dominant.
>
> Another one is of course on ACD himself, who has been accused
> of murder and persecution by vain conspiracy theorists.
>
> -Anand
>
> --- In
sherlockholmessocietyofindia@..., "watsonjh2002"
> <watsonjh2002@y...> wrote:
> > If it was 'P. G. Wodehouse' that gave this theory then I do not
think
> > that we can really take it all that seriously.
> >
> > As far as Sumal's points go:
> >
> > 1) Yes, Holmes did have a comfortable life but I do not think he
had
> > an expensive or extravagant lifestyle. He had a case in hand most
of
> > the times and though his clients were not quite well-to-do he
always
> > got a payment in some form. (Except perhaps 'the Three Gables'.
Do
> > correct me if I'm wrong). Also he has assisted the government
more
> > than once ('bruce-partington plans', 'His last bow') and I'm sure
he
> > got a sound reward for that even though it is not mentioned in
the
> > canon and also from the Duke in 'priory school'. I should think
that
> > Holmes saved enough money to live a comfortable life in Baker
street
> > (we should not forget that he shared the rent) and later for his
bee
> > farm. There are also many other cases that we do not know of (the
> > royal family of scandinavia, the french republic -"final problem")
> >
> > 2)ACD never said that 'Nobody' has seen Moriarty. Moriarty never
> > featured in any of the stories himself because Watson never met
him.
> > He held a mathematics chair and if I'm not completely off the
mark he
> > was a professor in the University. He was a well known person.
But,
> > the criminal aspect of Moriarty was known only to his minions,
Holmes
> > and later Watson. I believe that ACD never brought Moriarty face
to
> > face with out chronicler to keep a sense of mystery surrounding
his
> > personality. He is a mysterious and an enigmatic mastermind who
is
> > also the classic supervillain. Had Watson given us a one-on-one
> > description of Moriarty, there are chances that we might have had
a
> > different perception of the man. We might have considered him
either
> > superior or inferior to Holmes or other supervillaians that we
have
> > read or heard of. What makes him the perfect opposite or arch
nemesis
> > of Holmes is that we do not know anything else of his character
> > except that his mental faculties work on the same plane as of
Holmes.
> > We do not know of his other strengths or weaknesses and that's
what
> > makes us compare the two men only at the intellectual level.
> >
> > 3)No matter how vain Holmes was (was he or wasn't he?) of his
powers,
> > I believe he was also strong enough to admit that there was
another
> > person alive who could equal him. But I think he also revelled in
the
> > fact that this other person or Moriarty was working against the
law
> > or for the bad side. Being intellectually equal and opposite
Holmes
> > took it upon himself to rid the society of the Moriarty scum as
he
> > did not think that anybody else would be capable of it. I do not
> > think it is possible that he was referring to himself when he
> > describes him to watson. His exact words:
> > "I could not rest,Watson, I could not sit quite in my chair, if I
> > thought that such a man as Professor Moriarty were walking the
> > streets of London unchallenged" (final problem)
> > "I had at last met an antagonist who was my intellectual equal.
My
> > horror at his crimes was lost in my admiration at his skill"
(final
> > problem)
> > "Never have I risen to such height and never have I been so hard
> > pressed by an opponent" (final problem)
> > These statements I believe come from a man who regrets the whole
> > existence of a person like Moriarty.
> >
> >
> > And ANAND I fully agree with your points regarding Fred Porlock
and
> > the Greuz.
> >
> > But as far as the "Final Problem" goes, it is wholly possible
that
> > Holmes (assuming that he himself is Moriarty) double crossed
Moran
> > (which rhymes very well with Moron) and the other whatshisname
> > Parker. Moriarty and these two were the only ones (?) who had not
> > been apprehended by the police. And as per Holmes himself, it was
he
> > who was the key to the break up of Moriarty's gang. Now
> > Moriarty's 'business' had been flourishing for many a year. No
matter
> > how much Holmes tried he had not been able to put an end to it.
Again
> > assuming that Holmes=Moriarty, Holmes found a glitch in his
social
> > mask or his organisational order or something else and decided to
> > stop living a double life. He chose the life of Sherlock Holmes,
a
> > respected and admired detective over James Moriarty, a defamed
> > Professor with a criminal background. Holmes doublecrosses his
gang
> > by sending them to jail but does not succeed in doing so with
Moran
> > and Parker. There is no one waiting for him at Reichenbach falls
and
> > he frames the death of both his identities and withdaws
from 'active
> > life' so that those who suspect a link between the two
masterminds
> > may tend to forget it. POOF! He makes an appearance two years
later
> > and again becomes the subject of admiration in the Scotland Yard
by
> > solving the murder of Ronald Adair and in the meantime becomes
> > successful in nabbing Sebastian Moran: the only other person
capable
> > of blowing his cover when he tries to kill Holmes again from the
> > Camden House. The wax statue I think was good enough to fool
anybody
> > even Watson so I do not think that could have been a problem.
> >
> > This is just a theory and there is a major hole in it. Why did
not
> > Moran confess the involvement of Holmes in the criminal
organisation?
> > Was it because it would result in his own confession? (which does
not
> > make sense) Moran was only arrested for the murder of Ronald
Adair.
> > There is no indication that he had confessed his involvement with
> > Moriarty. Or was it because he himself was not sure that Holmes
and
> > Moriarty were the same?
> >
> > And some of my own small points negating the theory that Holmes
was
> > Moriarty.
> >
> > 1) Holmes was frequently found complaining about inactivity when
> > there were no cases at hand. During such periods he liberally
made
> > use of Cocaine. Now if a man lives two lives totally different in
> > character, actions, and morals then I do not think he would have
> > enough time to complain about too much time at hand.
> >
> > 2) Moriarty, we are made to believe, is a man who depends solely
on
> > his intellectual processes. He finds solutions of all his
problems by
> > thinking about them. In problems where thinking cannot be the
only
> > course to the solution, he makes his cronies like Moran and
Parker
> > do his dirty work. Holmes on the other hand, thinks, meditates
and
> > also runs around the city or even country if the situation called
for
> > it ('the sign of four', 'scandal in bohemia', 'man with the
twisted
> > lip', 'hound of baskervilles', 'priory school' etc etc)
> >
> > 3) No matter how good an actor is, he cannot keep up with his
> > pretense forever without even a glimpse of his real self. Watson
had
> > known Holmes for many years and never has he led us to believe
that
> > Holmes had ever shown even a hint of cruelty or criminal
behaviour.
> >
> > So as a last note of this horribly long narrative: I DO NOT
BELIEVE
> > THAT SHERLOCK HOLMES WAS IN FACT PROFESSOR JAMES MORIARTY HIMSELF
and
> > I hope I have given enough proof in theories to back this up.
> >
> > Manraviel
Dear Buddies,
I want to highlight the attention of the group on the works of Late Satyajiy Ray
who had created an Indian version of Dupin/Sherlock Holmes/Fr. Brown on the
footsteps of Poe/Doyle/Chesterton . His Character was called " FeluDa" who can
be called the Indian version of the Master. His (Felu's) cousin had played
Watson. Ray wrote most his stories in Bengali
barring few exception which he did in English.
And mind it Satyajit Ray was not the first person in Bengali Literature to do
that . Much before him Saradendu Bandhopadhaya had created Byomkesh Bakshi who
was more close to Holmes in his approach and deduction. Bandhopadhaya wrote his
stories in pre independence era whereas Ray did it in post independence era .
Satyajit Ray is widely known for his filmmaking in Bengali though he made on
famous film "Shatranj Ke Khilari " and two 13 episodes TV Serials (directed by
his son Sandip Ray) in Hindi.
Satyajit Ray had inherited writing and publishing from his father Sukmar Ray who
had initiated to start a children magazine in Bengali in early 20th century
.This magazine was called DESH. DESH was equally respected in early 20th cent
publication as SARASWATI (published by Acharya Chintamani Ghosh of Indian Press,
Allahabad and was edited by Acharya Dewedi ) and BALAK (published by Raibahadur
Acharya Ramlochan Saran of Pustak Bhandara of Laheriasarai near Darbhanga - now
in Bihar , then in undivided Bengal).
I have learnt that somebody had tried to make an Indian SH in Malayalam also .
If somebody knows please enlighten us .
- Mihir
PATNA
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Classic stuff by Manraviel. I suggest that you publish it.
It could be in your our own budgeoning new holmes site under the title
"Conspiracy Theory - Was Moriarty Holmes, 10 reasons to say No" !
I think that we need to debunk the Holmes = Moriarty theory.
I would like to believe in the existence of the classic
detective and the classic criminal as two separate personalities
,rather than Dr.Jekyll and Mr. Hyde.
It is interesting to note this "Dr Jekyll and Mr Hyde" coloring
sugggestions of many famous personalities both fictional and real.
It seems that literary figures take it upon themselves as a past time
to do this.Another one I can tell you is the suggestion that Jack the
Ripper was in fact an English Count, only that in this case the Hyde
personality was dominant.
Another one is of course on ACD himself, who has been accused
of murder and persecution by vain conspiracy theorists.
-Anand
--- In sherlockholmessocietyofindia@..., "watsonjh2002"
<watsonjh2002@y...> wrote:
> If it was 'P. G. Wodehouse' that gave this theory then I do not think
> that we can really take it all that seriously.
>
> As far as Sumal's points go:
>
> 1) Yes, Holmes did have a comfortable life but I do not think he had
> an expensive or extravagant lifestyle. He had a case in hand most of
> the times and though his clients were not quite well-to-do he always
> got a payment in some form. (Except perhaps 'the Three Gables'. Do
> correct me if I'm wrong). Also he has assisted the government more
> than once ('bruce-partington plans', 'His last bow') and I'm sure he
> got a sound reward for that even though it is not mentioned in the
> canon and also from the Duke in 'priory school'. I should think that
> Holmes saved enough money to live a comfortable life in Baker street
> (we should not forget that he shared the rent) and later for his bee
> farm. There are also many other cases that we do not know of (the
> royal family of scandinavia, the french republic -"final problem")
>
> 2)ACD never said that 'Nobody' has seen Moriarty. Moriarty never
> featured in any of the stories himself because Watson never met him.
> He held a mathematics chair and if I'm not completely off the mark he
> was a professor in the University. He was a well known person. But,
> the criminal aspect of Moriarty was known only to his minions, Holmes
> and later Watson. I believe that ACD never brought Moriarty face to
> face with out chronicler to keep a sense of mystery surrounding his
> personality. He is a mysterious and an enigmatic mastermind who is
> also the classic supervillain. Had Watson given us a one-on-one
> description of Moriarty, there are chances that we might have had a
> different perception of the man. We might have considered him either
> superior or inferior to Holmes or other supervillaians that we have
> read or heard of. What makes him the perfect opposite or arch nemesis
> of Holmes is that we do not know anything else of his character
> except that his mental faculties work on the same plane as of Holmes.
> We do not know of his other strengths or weaknesses and that's what
> makes us compare the two men only at the intellectual level.
>
> 3)No matter how vain Holmes was (was he or wasn't he?) of his powers,
> I believe he was also strong enough to admit that there was another
> person alive who could equal him. But I think he also revelled in the
> fact that this other person or Moriarty was working against the law
> or for the bad side. Being intellectually equal and opposite Holmes
> took it upon himself to rid the society of the Moriarty scum as he
> did not think that anybody else would be capable of it. I do not
> think it is possible that he was referring to himself when he
> describes him to watson. His exact words:
> "I could not rest,Watson, I could not sit quite in my chair, if I
> thought that such a man as Professor Moriarty were walking the
> streets of London unchallenged" (final problem)
> "I had at last met an antagonist who was my intellectual equal. My
> horror at his crimes was lost in my admiration at his skill" (final
> problem)
> "Never have I risen to such height and never have I been so hard
> pressed by an opponent" (final problem)
> These statements I believe come from a man who regrets the whole
> existence of a person like Moriarty.
>
>
> And ANAND I fully agree with your points regarding Fred Porlock and
> the Greuz.
>
> But as far as the "Final Problem" goes, it is wholly possible that
> Holmes (assuming that he himself is Moriarty) double crossed Moran
> (which rhymes very well with Moron) and the other whatshisname
> Parker. Moriarty and these two were the only ones (?) who had not
> been apprehended by the police. And as per Holmes himself, it was he
> who was the key to the break up of Moriarty's gang. Now
> Moriarty's 'business' had been flourishing for many a year. No matter
> how much Holmes tried he had not been able to put an end to it. Again
> assuming that Holmes=Moriarty, Holmes found a glitch in his social
> mask or his organisational order or something else and decided to
> stop living a double life. He chose the life of Sherlock Holmes, a
> respected and admired detective over James Moriarty, a defamed
> Professor with a criminal background. Holmes doublecrosses his gang
> by sending them to jail but does not succeed in doing so with Moran
> and Parker. There is no one waiting for him at Reichenbach falls and
> he frames the death of both his identities and withdaws from 'active
> life' so that those who suspect a link between the two masterminds
> may tend to forget it. POOF! He makes an appearance two years later
> and again becomes the subject of admiration in the Scotland Yard by
> solving the murder of Ronald Adair and in the meantime becomes
> successful in nabbing Sebastian Moran: the only other person capable
> of blowing his cover when he tries to kill Holmes again from the
> Camden House. The wax statue I think was good enough to fool anybody
> even Watson so I do not think that could have been a problem.
>
> This is just a theory and there is a major hole in it. Why did not
> Moran confess the involvement of Holmes in the criminal organisation?
> Was it because it would result in his own confession? (which does not
> make sense) Moran was only arrested for the murder of Ronald Adair.
> There is no indication that he had confessed his involvement with
> Moriarty. Or was it because he himself was not sure that Holmes and
> Moriarty were the same?
>
> And some of my own small points negating the theory that Holmes was
> Moriarty.
>
> 1) Holmes was frequently found complaining about inactivity when
> there were no cases at hand. During such periods he liberally made
> use of Cocaine. Now if a man lives two lives totally different in
> character, actions, and morals then I do not think he would have
> enough time to complain about too much time at hand.
>
> 2) Moriarty, we are made to believe, is a man who depends solely on
> his intellectual processes. He finds solutions of all his problems by
> thinking about them. In problems where thinking cannot be the only
> course to the solution, he makes his cronies like Moran and Parker
> do his dirty work. Holmes on the other hand, thinks, meditates and
> also runs around the city or even country if the situation called for
> it ('the sign of four', 'scandal in bohemia', 'man with the twisted
> lip', 'hound of baskervilles', 'priory school' etc etc)
>
> 3) No matter how good an actor is, he cannot keep up with his
> pretense forever without even a glimpse of his real self. Watson had
> known Holmes for many years and never has he led us to believe that
> Holmes had ever shown even a hint of cruelty or criminal behaviour.
>
> So as a last note of this horribly long narrative: I DO NOT BELIEVE
> THAT SHERLOCK HOLMES WAS IN FACT PROFESSOR JAMES MORIARTY HIMSELF and
> I hope I have given enough proof in theories to back this up.
>
> Manraviel
You bet I am.. just getting the content together. Stuff has also
piled up at work making me do homework.
SriFX
--- In sherlockholmessocietyofindia@..., "anandpillai6"
<anandpillai6@y...> wrote:
> Hello Sri
>
> I hope you are having ideas about designing the new website
> anyway :-)
>
> -Anand
>
> --- In sherlockholmessocietyofindia@..., Srifx
> <no_reply@y...> wrote:
> > Anand,
> > Wether at all your reasons are true or not for THIS society in
> > particular, you do raise some great issues in general.
> >
> > 1. I think lack of awareness plays a great role in the low
membership
> > of this society.
> > 2. Like all forums we may have avid readers of our postings but
few
> > contributors. So asking read-only members to resign may not be
fair.
> > 3. I think the detail to which the epics go leave little to
> > imagination and we have enough inspiration for storytelling. It
is
> > considered a mistake to deviate from the original story when it
is
> > being told by word of mouth through the generations. SO that
leaves
> > little in terms of improvisation. That could work both ways. It
could
> > spark imagination or kill it.
> > 4. For westerners, including the bible, there are not
many "stories"
> > that excite a listener or reader like our epics do. Hence ther is
> > always this thirst for some kind of stimulation which in turn
sprouts
> > great pieces of modern literature. (I use "modern" in a relative
> > sense).
> > 5. We Indians seem content with our epics and boy-meet-girl
escapades.
> > 6. Any pastiches of the epics is considered blashphemy against
> > religion and therefore a sensitive issue. Remember the
> > movie "Kalyoug" that was based on the Karna episode of the
> > Mahabharath and which recieved a hell of a lot of criticism.
> > More to come..
> > SriFX
> >
> > --- In
sherlockholmessocietyofindia@..., "anandpillai6"
> > <anandpillai6@y...> wrote:
> > > Actually there are certain basic hurdles in an Indian Sherlock
> > > Holmes Society. I have tried not to bring up those during the
> > > discussions, but these things have been at the back of my mind.
> > >
> > > The problems can be summarized as follows.
> > >
> > > o India does not have the tradition of a sleuth in its fiction
> > > anywhere, except some occasional efforts here and there by
> > > authors. Many of these are only regionally known and not well
> > > known throughout India.
> > >
> > > o Indians dont have the culture of the western cowboy or the
> > > active, intelligent detective who hunts down criminals in the
> > > society. Our attitude and hence our fiction has been more of
> > > a laidback kind, giving space to mythical heroes and gods
rather
> > > than actual fictional heroes.
> > >
> > > o The comic culture, which gave rise to many of these fictional
> > idols,
> > > is not widespread in India. I recall "Bahadur", from my
younger
> > > days, who is a Bengali hero I think. But our authors have not
> > taken
> > > the pains to create a character like Holmes or Hercule Poirot
or
> > > Perry Mason.
> > >
> > > o The Indian culture tends to discourage heroism of the
detective
> > > kind in its youth, traditionally. We are always happy to
leave it
> > > to the police, or at large, forget it altogether! This
accounts
> > > for the woeful lacking of investigative journalists and
private
> > > detectives in the country. When someone actually does
something
> > > truly outstanding in investigative journalism (Tehelka for
> > example),
> > > we hasten to trash them in mud.
> > >
> > > o We are eager followers of any icon but are not good creators
> > > of anything original in this area. I can count many great
> > fictional
> > > authors who excel in spy thrillers, war stories who are all
> > > Europeans or Americans. (Frederick Forsyth for example).
Sadly,
> > > no Indian.
> > >
> > > Of course you find Indians in "traditional" boy-meets-girl
sort
> > > of fiction or nostalgic stories, (Vikram Seth, Arundhati Roy).
> > > We are also pretty well-known in writing social pulp fiction,
> > > which are eager bedroom companions of the high society
> > > (Khuswant Singh, Shobha De), across the world!
> > >
> > > o The reason for this is that we are traditionally "peace
loving"
> > > people, who shall rather read a children story or Ramayana or
> > > Mahabharatha or some mythical tale rather than think up
stories
> > > involving hate, violence, crime, murder which are all
essentials
> > > of detective fiction. This is the reason India has produced
many
> > > well known child heroes (Mowgli, Swami (R.K Narayan)) but not
> > > too many fictional adult heroes.
> > >
> > > This is the main reason the response of Indians is lukewarm to
> > > societies like this. I knew this, but still I proposed the idea
> > since
> > > I dont think along these lines and hope to find similar people
here.
> > >
> > > I was never a buyer of the boy-meet-girl story or the
> > > social pulp stuff.
> > >
> > > I advice members who dont contribute to this society at least
> > > once in a month in form of original emails, to resign.
> > >
> > > -Anand
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --- In sherlockholmessocietyofindia@..., sumalsn
> > > <no_reply@y...> wrote:
> > > > hi,
> > > > It has been exciting times for this society as Anand has gone
> > ahead
> > > > with his idea.I have not been able to go to his site as there
> > seems
> > > > to be a glitch occurring frequently.Anand,whats happening.I
> > chanced
> > > > to see a wonder ful theory advanced by none other than Sir P
G
> > > > Wodehouse who says that Sherlock Holmes and Prof Moriarty
were
> > one
> > > > and the same.The reasons he has advanced in support of his
theory
> > are
> > > > as follows,
> > > > 1) the master's financial capacity ,his cases were from the
lower
> > > > strata of the society except certain exceptions but he had a
> > > > comfortable life.How?
> > > > 2)Nobody other than the Master himself has ever seen Prof
> > Moriarty.
> > > > How is it possible if he as a criminal mastermind running a
evil
> > > > empire.
> > > > 3) The Master himself considers Prof to be his intellectual
> > equal.Was
> > > > it because they are one and the same person?
> > > > members,I invite your comments
> > > > sumal
If it was 'P. G. Wodehouse' that gave this theory then I do not think
that we can really take it all that seriously.
As far as Sumal's points go:
1) Yes, Holmes did have a comfortable life but I do not think he had
an expensive or extravagant lifestyle. He had a case in hand most of
the times and though his clients were not quite well-to-do he always
got a payment in some form. (Except perhaps 'the Three Gables'. Do
correct me if I'm wrong). Also he has assisted the government more
than once ('bruce-partington plans', 'His last bow') and I'm sure he
got a sound reward for that even though it is not mentioned in the
canon and also from the Duke in 'priory school'. I should think that
Holmes saved enough money to live a comfortable life in Baker street
(we should not forget that he shared the rent) and later for his bee
farm. There are also many other cases that we do not know of (the
royal family of scandinavia, the french republic -"final problem")
2)ACD never said that 'Nobody' has seen Moriarty. Moriarty never
featured in any of the stories himself because Watson never met him.
He held a mathematics chair and if I'm not completely off the mark he
was a professor in the University. He was a well known person. But,
the criminal aspect of Moriarty was known only to his minions, Holmes
and later Watson. I believe that ACD never brought Moriarty face to
face with out chronicler to keep a sense of mystery surrounding his
personality. He is a mysterious and an enigmatic mastermind who is
also the classic supervillain. Had Watson given us a one-on-one
description of Moriarty, there are chances that we might have had a
different perception of the man. We might have considered him either
superior or inferior to Holmes or other supervillaians that we have
read or heard of. What makes him the perfect opposite or arch nemesis
of Holmes is that we do not know anything else of his character
except that his mental faculties work on the same plane as of Holmes.
We do not know of his other strengths or weaknesses and that's what
makes us compare the two men only at the intellectual level.
3)No matter how vain Holmes was (was he or wasn't he?) of his powers,
I believe he was also strong enough to admit that there was another
person alive who could equal him. But I think he also revelled in the
fact that this other person or Moriarty was working against the law
or for the bad side. Being intellectually equal and opposite Holmes
took it upon himself to rid the society of the Moriarty scum as he
did not think that anybody else would be capable of it. I do not
think it is possible that he was referring to himself when he
describes him to watson. His exact words:
"I could not rest,Watson, I could not sit quite in my chair, if I
thought that such a man as Professor Moriarty were walking the
streets of London unchallenged" (final problem)
"I had at last met an antagonist who was my intellectual equal. My
horror at his crimes was lost in my admiration at his skill" (final
problem)
"Never have I risen to such height and never have I been so hard
pressed by an opponent" (final problem)
These statements I believe come from a man who regrets the whole
existence of a person like Moriarty.
And ANAND I fully agree with your points regarding Fred Porlock and
the Greuz.
But as far as the "Final Problem" goes, it is wholly possible that
Holmes (assuming that he himself is Moriarty) double crossed Moran
(which rhymes very well with Moron) and the other whatshisname
Parker. Moriarty and these two were the only ones (?) who had not
been apprehended by the police. And as per Holmes himself, it was he
who was the key to the break up of Moriarty's gang. Now
Moriarty's 'business' had been flourishing for many a year. No matter
how much Holmes tried he had not been able to put an end to it. Again
assuming that Holmes=Moriarty, Holmes found a glitch in his social
mask or his organisational order or something else and decided to
stop living a double life. He chose the life of Sherlock Holmes, a
respected and admired detective over James Moriarty, a defamed
Professor with a criminal background. Holmes doublecrosses his gang
by sending them to jail but does not succeed in doing so with Moran
and Parker. There is no one waiting for him at Reichenbach falls and
he frames the death of both his identities and withdaws from 'active
life' so that those who suspect a link between the two masterminds
may tend to forget it. POOF! He makes an appearance two years later
and again becomes the subject of admiration in the Scotland Yard by
solving the murder of Ronald Adair and in the meantime becomes
successful in nabbing Sebastian Moran: the only other person capable
of blowing his cover when he tries to kill Holmes again from the
Camden House. The wax statue I think was good enough to fool anybody
even Watson so I do not think that could have been a problem.
This is just a theory and there is a major hole in it. Why did not
Moran confess the involvement of Holmes in the criminal organisation?
Was it because it would result in his own confession? (which does not
make sense) Moran was only arrested for the murder of Ronald Adair.
There is no indication that he had confessed his involvement with
Moriarty. Or was it because he himself was not sure that Holmes and
Moriarty were the same?
And some of my own small points negating the theory that Holmes was
Moriarty.
1) Holmes was frequently found complaining about inactivity when
there were no cases at hand. During such periods he liberally made
use of Cocaine. Now if a man lives two lives totally different in
character, actions, and morals then I do not think he would have
enough time to complain about too much time at hand.
2) Moriarty, we are made to believe, is a man who depends solely on
his intellectual processes. He finds solutions of all his problems by
thinking about them. In problems where thinking cannot be the only
course to the solution, he makes his cronies like Moran and Parker
do his dirty work. Holmes on the other hand, thinks, meditates and
also runs around the city or even country if the situation called for
it ('the sign of four', 'scandal in bohemia', 'man with the twisted
lip', 'hound of baskervilles', 'priory school' etc etc)
3) No matter how good an actor is, he cannot keep up with his
pretense forever without even a glimpse of his real self. Watson had
known Holmes for many years and never has he led us to believe that
Holmes had ever shown even a hint of cruelty or criminal behaviour.
So as a last note of this horribly long narrative: I DO NOT BELIEVE
THAT SHERLOCK HOLMES WAS IN FACT PROFESSOR JAMES MORIARTY HIMSELF and
I hope I have given enough proof in theories to back this up.
Manraviel
Hello Sri
I hope you are having ideas about designing the new website
anyway :-)
-Anand
--- In sherlockholmessocietyofindia@..., Srifx
<no_reply@y...> wrote:
> Anand,
> Wether at all your reasons are true or not for THIS society in
> particular, you do raise some great issues in general.
>
> 1. I think lack of awareness plays a great role in the low membership
> of this society.
> 2. Like all forums we may have avid readers of our postings but few
> contributors. So asking read-only members to resign may not be fair.
> 3. I think the detail to which the epics go leave little to
> imagination and we have enough inspiration for storytelling. It is
> considered a mistake to deviate from the original story when it is
> being told by word of mouth through the generations. SO that leaves
> little in terms of improvisation. That could work both ways. It could
> spark imagination or kill it.
> 4. For westerners, including the bible, there are not many "stories"
> that excite a listener or reader like our epics do. Hence ther is
> always this thirst for some kind of stimulation which in turn sprouts
> great pieces of modern literature. (I use "modern" in a relative
> sense).
> 5. We Indians seem content with our epics and boy-meet-girl escapades.
> 6. Any pastiches of the epics is considered blashphemy against
> religion and therefore a sensitive issue. Remember the
> movie "Kalyoug" that was based on the Karna episode of the
> Mahabharath and which recieved a hell of a lot of criticism.
> More to come..
> SriFX
>
> --- In sherlockholmessocietyofindia@..., "anandpillai6"
> <anandpillai6@y...> wrote:
> > Actually there are certain basic hurdles in an Indian Sherlock
> > Holmes Society. I have tried not to bring up those during the
> > discussions, but these things have been at the back of my mind.
> >
> > The problems can be summarized as follows.
> >
> > o India does not have the tradition of a sleuth in its fiction
> > anywhere, except some occasional efforts here and there by
> > authors. Many of these are only regionally known and not well
> > known throughout India.
> >
> > o Indians dont have the culture of the western cowboy or the
> > active, intelligent detective who hunts down criminals in the
> > society. Our attitude and hence our fiction has been more of
> > a laidback kind, giving space to mythical heroes and gods rather
> > than actual fictional heroes.
> >
> > o The comic culture, which gave rise to many of these fictional
> idols,
> > is not widespread in India. I recall "Bahadur", from my younger
> > days, who is a Bengali hero I think. But our authors have not
> taken
> > the pains to create a character like Holmes or Hercule Poirot or
> > Perry Mason.
> >
> > o The Indian culture tends to discourage heroism of the detective
> > kind in its youth, traditionally. We are always happy to leave it
> > to the police, or at large, forget it altogether! This accounts
> > for the woeful lacking of investigative journalists and private
> > detectives in the country. When someone actually does something
> > truly outstanding in investigative journalism (Tehelka for
> example),
> > we hasten to trash them in mud.
> >
> > o We are eager followers of any icon but are not good creators
> > of anything original in this area. I can count many great
> fictional
> > authors who excel in spy thrillers, war stories who are all
> > Europeans or Americans. (Frederick Forsyth for example). Sadly,
> > no Indian.
> >
> > Of course you find Indians in "traditional" boy-meets-girl sort
> > of fiction or nostalgic stories, (Vikram Seth, Arundhati Roy).
> > We are also pretty well-known in writing social pulp fiction,
> > which are eager bedroom companions of the high society
> > (Khuswant Singh, Shobha De), across the world!
> >
> > o The reason for this is that we are traditionally "peace loving"
> > people, who shall rather read a children story or Ramayana or
> > Mahabharatha or some mythical tale rather than think up stories
> > involving hate, violence, crime, murder which are all essentials
> > of detective fiction. This is the reason India has produced many
> > well known child heroes (Mowgli, Swami (R.K Narayan)) but not
> > too many fictional adult heroes.
> >
> > This is the main reason the response of Indians is lukewarm to
> > societies like this. I knew this, but still I proposed the idea
> since
> > I dont think along these lines and hope to find similar people here.
> >
> > I was never a buyer of the boy-meet-girl story or the
> > social pulp stuff.
> >
> > I advice members who dont contribute to this society at least
> > once in a month in form of original emails, to resign.
> >
> > -Anand
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > --- In sherlockholmessocietyofindia@..., sumalsn
> > <no_reply@y...> wrote:
> > > hi,
> > > It has been exciting times for this society as Anand has gone
> ahead
> > > with his idea.I have not been able to go to his site as there
> seems
> > > to be a glitch occurring frequently.Anand,whats happening.I
> chanced
> > > to see a wonder ful theory advanced by none other than Sir P G
> > > Wodehouse who says that Sherlock Holmes and Prof Moriarty were
> one
> > > and the same.The reasons he has advanced in support of his theory
> are
> > > as follows,
> > > 1) the master's financial capacity ,his cases were from the lower
> > > strata of the society except certain exceptions but he had a
> > > comfortable life.How?
> > > 2)Nobody other than the Master himself has ever seen Prof
> Moriarty.
> > > How is it possible if he as a criminal mastermind running a evil
> > > empire.
> > > 3) The Master himself considers Prof to be his intellectual
> equal.Was
> > > it because they are one and the same person?
> > > members,I invite your comments
> > > sumal
Anand,
Wether at all your reasons are true or not for THIS society in
particular, you do raise some great issues in general.
1. I think lack of awareness plays a great role in the low membership
of this society.
2. Like all forums we may have avid readers of our postings but few
contributors. So asking read-only members to resign may not be fair.
3. I think the detail to which the epics go leave little to
imagination and we have enough inspiration for storytelling. It is
considered a mistake to deviate from the original story when it is
being told by word of mouth through the generations. SO that leaves
little in terms of improvisation. That could work both ways. It could
spark imagination or kill it.
4. For westerners, including the bible, there are not many "stories"
that excite a listener or reader like our epics do. Hence ther is
always this thirst for some kind of stimulation which in turn sprouts
great pieces of modern literature. (I use "modern" in a relative
sense).
5. We Indians seem content with our epics and boy-meet-girl escapades.
6. Any pastiches of the epics is considered blashphemy against
religion and therefore a sensitive issue. Remember the
movie "Kalyoug" that was based on the Karna episode of the
Mahabharath and which recieved a hell of a lot of criticism.
More to come..
SriFX
--- In sherlockholmessocietyofindia@..., "anandpillai6"
<anandpillai6@y...> wrote:
> Actually there are certain basic hurdles in an Indian Sherlock
> Holmes Society. I have tried not to bring up those during the
> discussions, but these things have been at the back of my mind.
>
> The problems can be summarized as follows.
>
> o India does not have the tradition of a sleuth in its fiction
> anywhere, except some occasional efforts here and there by
> authors. Many of these are only regionally known and not well
> known throughout India.
>
> o Indians dont have the culture of the western cowboy or the
> active, intelligent detective who hunts down criminals in the
> society. Our attitude and hence our fiction has been more of
> a laidback kind, giving space to mythical heroes and gods rather
> than actual fictional heroes.
>
> o The comic culture, which gave rise to many of these fictional
idols,
> is not widespread in India. I recall "Bahadur", from my younger
> days, who is a Bengali hero I think. But our authors have not
taken
> the pains to create a character like Holmes or Hercule Poirot or
> Perry Mason.
>
> o The Indian culture tends to discourage heroism of the detective
> kind in its youth, traditionally. We are always happy to leave it
> to the police, or at large, forget it altogether! This accounts
> for the woeful lacking of investigative journalists and private
> detectives in the country. When someone actually does something
> truly outstanding in investigative journalism (Tehelka for
example),
> we hasten to trash them in mud.
>
> o We are eager followers of any icon but are not good creators
> of anything original in this area. I can count many great
fictional
> authors who excel in spy thrillers, war stories who are all
> Europeans or Americans. (Frederick Forsyth for example). Sadly,
> no Indian.
>
> Of course you find Indians in "traditional" boy-meets-girl sort
> of fiction or nostalgic stories, (Vikram Seth, Arundhati Roy).
> We are also pretty well-known in writing social pulp fiction,
> which are eager bedroom companions of the high society
> (Khuswant Singh, Shobha De), across the world!
>
> o The reason for this is that we are traditionally "peace loving"
> people, who shall rather read a children story or Ramayana or
> Mahabharatha or some mythical tale rather than think up stories
> involving hate, violence, crime, murder which are all essentials
> of detective fiction. This is the reason India has produced many
> well known child heroes (Mowgli, Swami (R.K Narayan)) but not
> too many fictional adult heroes.
>
> This is the main reason the response of Indians is lukewarm to
> societies like this. I knew this, but still I proposed the idea
since
> I dont think along these lines and hope to find similar people here.
>
> I was never a buyer of the boy-meet-girl story or the
> social pulp stuff.
>
> I advice members who dont contribute to this society at least
> once in a month in form of original emails, to resign.
>
> -Anand
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> --- In sherlockholmessocietyofindia@..., sumalsn
> <no_reply@y...> wrote:
> > hi,
> > It has been exciting times for this society as Anand has gone
ahead
> > with his idea.I have not been able to go to his site as there
seems
> > to be a glitch occurring frequently.Anand,whats happening.I
chanced
> > to see a wonder ful theory advanced by none other than Sir P G
> > Wodehouse who says that Sherlock Holmes and Prof Moriarty were
one
> > and the same.The reasons he has advanced in support of his theory
are
> > as follows,
> > 1) the master's financial capacity ,his cases were from the lower
> > strata of the society except certain exceptions but he had a
> > comfortable life.How?
> > 2)Nobody other than the Master himself has ever seen Prof
Moriarty.
> > How is it possible if he as a criminal mastermind running a evil
> > empire.
> > 3) The Master himself considers Prof to be his intellectual
equal.Was
> > it because they are one and the same person?
> > members,I invite your comments
> > sumal
This is a fanciful suggestion I think. If Sherlock Holmes
was Moriarty himself, how do we explain the biography of the latter?
Holmes never work as a mathematics professor anywhere. He
did not give lectures on mathematics or write "Dynamics
of an Asteroid".
Holmes though had comfortable living, did not possess
any items of luxury which Moriarty did (Remember the reference
to the painting in "Valley of Fear", the Greuz?).
If Holmes was Moriarty, Fred Porlock need not have written
the cryptogram to him, since he would have known the story
all along. In such a case, the story "Valley of Fear" collapses,
since Holmes had no need to solve the crime, but would have
known most of the facts involving Ted Baldwin.
In such a case Holmes is the ultimate devil himself, since
he took Watson with him for a cruise to Europe in the "Final
Problem" trying to escape from himself? What is the point of
this enourmous double cross?
The final nail on the coffin is here. If Holmes was Moriarty,
Colonel Moran would have identified him anywhere, but he does
not, in the story of the Empty House. Instead he tries to kill
him by firing the air gun at his dummy wax statue, from the
Camden house window. When Holmes comes face to face with him
after he is caught, he cannot control his anger.
The idea is fanciful for sure. If P.G Wodehouse proposed this,
clearly he has not read the entire canon. We should ask him
to do so.
-Anand
--- In sherlockholmessocietyofindia@..., sumalsn
<no_reply@y...> wrote:
> hi,
> It has been exciting times for this society as Anand has gone ahead
> with his idea.I have not been able to go to his site as there seems
> to be a glitch occurring frequently.Anand,whats happening.I chanced
> to see a wonder ful theory advanced by none other than Sir P G
> Wodehouse who says that Sherlock Holmes and Prof Moriarty were one
> and the same.The reasons he has advanced in support of his theory are
> as follows,
> 1) the master's financial capacity ,his cases were from the lower
> strata of the society except certain exceptions but he had a
> comfortable life.How?
> 2)Nobody other than the Master himself has ever seen Prof Moriarty.
> How is it possible if he as a criminal mastermind running a evil
> empire.
> 3) The Master himself considers Prof to be his intellectual equal.Was
> it because they are one and the same person?
> members,I invite your comments
> sumal
Offline 
Send Email