I know some of you aren’t Gleeks…

And you should be ashamed of yourselves!

Anyway, tonight was the premiere of the second half of the first season and we have basically reached Glee’s Empire Strikes Back. There is lots of strife, lots of woe, lots of drama and conflict, and, yes, lots of AWESOME. Mostly in the form of Jane Lynch’s Sue Sylvester.

Would you like proof? Three words.




p.s. Boo, WordPress for not letting me embed Hulu videos! D:

Glee + Rachel = WIN!

My friend Rachel, submitted an audition in Glee’s open casting call and I think she is AWESOME! You should totally go check her out and give her a gold star (we’re not exactly sure what the gold stars mean, but people seem to want them – and, of course, she deserves them!)!

ETA: I know Rachel was having some trouble with the website at work and, Claire, it sounds like the link may not be taking you where I’m expecting it to so here’s a screenshot of what her part of the page should look like (you have to scroll down a little, past the ad that automatically starts playing):

“The Adventure of the Speckled Band” Or, It’s my favorite, but I guess it’s not interesting?

“The Adventure of the Speckled Band” was first published in February of 1892. Apparently, there is actually very little dissension among the Scholars as to when this story takes place, though Baring-Gould disagrees when it comes to the date, believing it to have taken place on Friday, April 6 rather than Wednesday, April 4 of 1883. And what’s he basing that on? Why the weather, of course! Watson mentions it is a perfect day when he and Holmes head out to Stoke Moran and the weather reports state that ‘the sun shone for only two hours and two minutes’ on Wednesday, April 4 but that it ‘shone for nine hours and two minutes’ on April 6. (The sun also ‘shone for nine hours and eight minutes’ on the Monday, April 2, but Baring-Gould points out that it can’t have been a Monday, otherwise the repairs on the west wing would have started on a Saturday, something he finds unlikely.) (BG, 253)

Okay. Leslie has a note that I can’t really make heads or tails of – I mean, I understand what he’s talking about, but I’m not sure I’m grasping the significance of it all. Here it is, in its entirety (and it’s a doozy!), see if you fare any better (and if you do, explain it to me!):

There are revisionist theories respecting “The Speckled Band.” Several argue that Helen Stoner murdered Julia and Dr. Roylott, and probably her mother as well. Vivian Darkbloom, in the self-described “somewhat revisionist” essay “Holmes Is Where the Heart Is, or Tooth-Tooth, Tootsie,” suggests that Holmes murdered Dr. Roylott, to clear the way for an illicit liaison with Helen Stoner. Roylott’s behaviour, the essay contends, was not that of a murderer but of a man attempting to scare off a suitor. The essay appeared in the December 1976 issue of the Sherlockian journal Baker Street Miscellanea, and the editors reported that “the anagramatically pseudonymous Vivian Darkbloom has not seen fit to furnish us with any personal data, and considering the scandalously iconoclastic thrust of her principal thesis, we are not surprised. The author appears to be California-based, also engaged in medical studies, and a student of the works of Vladimir Nabakov as well as John H. Watson’s…” A character named “Vivian Darkbloom” appeared in Stanley Kubrick’s 1961 film version of Nabokov’s Lolita, for which Nabokov wrote the screenplay, and in “Vladimir Nabokov: In Tribute to Sherlock Holmes,” Andrew Page analyses references and images in Nabokov’s Lolita, The Defense, Pnin, The Real Life of Sebastian Knight, Despair, and Pale Fire that demonstrate the author’s familiarity with and affection for the Canon. (NA, 258)

I mean, I get that they think Nabokov was actually writing and submitting Holmes essays, but I’m not sure I get why it seems to be so significant. Am I missing something? Thoughts? Help?

The same note continues, though not about Nabokov, and tells us that Wayne B. Swift in his awesomely titled essay “On the Sinister Affair of the Darkbloom Paper,” suggests that the conclusions of the ‘”alleged person named Vivian Darkbloom,” pointing the finger of guilt at Helen Stoner and denouncing the published account as a Moriarty plot to discredit Holmes’ (NA, 258). So, after time off for two adventures, Moriarty returns to us! Sort of. But I like that the Holmesians can write essays about other people’s essays. Maybe meta is my ticket into the Irregulars!

There is also immense speculation on what kind of snake the speckled band actually is since, as Leslie pointed out earlier, its characteristics don’t match any that exist. Whichever kind of snake it was, it had to have several specific qualities:

  1. It was an Indian snake.
  2. Its fangs left two little dark punctures in its victims.
  3. In color it was yellow with brown specks.
  4. Its hiss is ‘gentle’ and ‘soothing, like that of a small jet of steam escaping from a tea-kettle.’
  5. It was perhaps three feet in length.
  6. Its bite caused death in 10 seconds (in the case of Dr. Roylott, at least [Julia lasted a bit longer] – this characteristic is often discarded, with scholars speculating that Roylott actually died of a heart attack before the snake ever bit him or that he was, in fact, still alive but in a catatonic state when Holmes and Watson found him].
  7. It has a ‘squat, diamond-shaped head.’
  8. It had a ‘puffed neck.’
  9. The snake is trained to return to Roylott’s room by a whistle.
  10. Roylott had trained it by using a saucer of milk as a reward.
  11. The snake has to be able to easily crawl down and then, the difficult part, back up a rope.

Leslie narrows these characteristics down to four: fast-acting venom, inclination to climb up and down a rope and to rear, its color and the shape of its head, and of Indian origins. Based on these, he lists all the possibilities that have ever been considered in a neat table. They are numerous, to say the least: Puff adder, River-jack viper, Russell’s viper, Saw-scaled viper, Temple viper, Krait, Cobra, Skink, Gila monster, Constrictor or choke snake, and Western Taipan (NA, 258). The Russell’s viper seems to meet the most of the necessary characteristics, but even it isn’t a perfect fit. My favorite explanation comes from Laurence Klauber who suggests that Roylott bred his own little monster – ‘a sinister combination of the Mexican Gila monster and the spectacled or Indian cobra [which would] unite the intelligence and agility of the lizard with the inimical disposition of the snake’ (BG, 266).

I’m afraid that despite this being one of my (and one of ACD’s and the readers’ of the Observer [BG, 262]) favorites, the annotations just weren’t inspiring me this week. Therefore, my miscellaneous thoughts [LET ME SHOW THEM TO YOU]!

  • ‘Scholars have delighted in the minutiae¬† of “The Speckled Band,” arguing over the identity of the “speckled band” (whose characteristics defy those known to science), whether Holmes again takes justice into his own hands or an accident occurs [Ooh, I like where we’re going already!], and the geographical sources of cheetahs and baboons’ (NA, 227).
  • ‘It was early in April, in the year ’83, that I woke one morning to find Sherlock Holmes standing, fully dressed, by the side of my bed’ (NA, 228). [How very Edward Cullen of you, Holmes! Keep an eye on him, Watson, and if he starts sparkling, well, you’re on your own, actually.]
  • Upon waking Watson in such a, let’s face it, creepy [And I say that lovingly, Holmes, but it is!] way, Holmes says ‘Very sorry to knock you up, Watson, […] but it’s the common lot this morning. Mrs. Hudson has been knocked up, she retorted upon me, and I on you.’ To which Watson responds, ‘What is it, then? A fire?’ (NA, 228) [Very orderly proceedings for a fire, Watson. Honestly, man, get your head in the game!]
  • James Edward Holroyd questions the urgency of Helen Stoner’s visit given the fact that Holmes took the time to get dressed, saying ‘…Why waste valuable minutes getting into his own clothes before rousing Watson? Why not have slipped on one of his many dressing gowns?’ (BG, 243) [I wonder if Holroyd has actually been paying attention because I wouldn’t call 1-3 dressing gowns ‘many.’]
  • Roger T. Clapp, in his essay ‘The Curious Problem of the Railway Timetables’ notes that ‘there is only one correct train time given in the entire Canon’ (NA, 230). [The Holmesians are very greedy with their details, as I’ve mentioned before, and have left virtually no stone unturned for us budding Irregulars. Though as far as combing through period editions of a Bradshaw and the ABC Railway Guide and cross-referencing them with every mention of train times in the entire Canon, I have to say ‘better him than me’!]

And I’m afraid that’s it! Tune in next week for “The Adventure of the Engineer’s Thumb.”

*Most of my notes, I think, come from the New Annotated simply because I find its format easier to work through and it is, therefore, the version that I’m reading first (I’m only reading the notes in the Baring-Gould). Much of the information is doubled up, but there is some that is unique to either volume, so if you see NA, that’s the Baring-Gould edition and BG is the New Annotated. No, I’m totally kidding – it’s the other way (the logical way) round.