New Blog - Almost Holmes

My Holmes, Pons and other mystery fiction posts, as well as thoughts on writing, are going to be over at my new blog, Almost Holmes. I'm keeping this one up and will post some other thoughts. I'm trying to put together a series of posts on little known/unreleased Beach Boys tunes.

Meanwhile, I'll be posting every Monday morning over at Black Gate, bringing Holmes to the finest fantasy blog on the Net. Look for The Public Life of Sherlock Holmes there.

The Fat Man - A tv pilot you probably missed

The Fat Man was a popular radio series during the forties and fifties. The Fat Man was Brad Runyon, a very large private detective. The character was supposedly created by Dashiell Hammett, but his involvement is not just hard to pin down, it's almost ethereal. Presumably the title was a play on his 'The Thin Man.' While the radio show was no Johnny Dollar or Richard Diamond, it compares favorably with the Sam Spade and Philip Marlowe serials of the time.

J. Scott Smart played the title role, also starring in a 1951 movie adaptation that included Rock Hudson, Julie London and famed circus clown, Emmet Kelly.

In 1959, Screen Gems made a tv pilot  (click here to see it), The Fat Man: The Thirty Two Friends of Gina Lardelli. Robert Middleton did a fine job playing  a somewhat more dignified Runyon than the radio show persona. Tony Travis, his Archie Goodwin, would have made a pretty good Archie. A lovely young Rita Moreno also features.

This pilot holds up pretty well some fifty five years later, which is not the case for an awful lot of pilots from the era. The show has some Nero Wolfe in it, and I thought of William Conrad and Cannon while watching as well. Go ahead and give it a watch.

The Case of the Short Lived Holmes

Sy Weintraub, an American best known for a series of Tarzan films, paid a large sum of money to the Doyle Estate for rights to all sixty of the original Holmes stories by Sir Arthur. I’ve read that he was going to make anywhere between six and thirty films in the series. Ian Richardson was cast as Holmes and two films were quickly shot: The Sign of the Four and The Hound of the Baskervilles. The Hound was being filmed when the earth opened up beneath Weintraub’s production.

What we have here is one of the great examples of failing to do your homework. The stories were about to enter into the public domain in England in 1980. Granada Films announced a television series which would adapt all the Holmes stories and be distributed in America as well as England. Weintraub, realizing that he had paid a lot of money for essentially nothing and was going to lose the monopoly on his American market, joined forces with Doyle’s daughter, Dame Jean, and took Granada to court. The argument was that though many of the stories were in the public domain, because Holmes and Watson continued to feature in stories still under copyright protection, the two characters were still under copyright.

The Granada production was put on hold for about two years (which actually let them tighten things up and prepare for filming, resulting in a stronger series). Weintraub settled the matter out of court and put his Holmes series to rest. Richardson said that the settlement was for “an extraordinary sum of money - something like two million pounds - which was enough for Weintraub to cover his costs on both The Sign of Four and The Hound of the Baskervilles, and make a profit, too. And so he wrapped the project up.”

A third script, The Prince of Crime, had been written by Charles Pogue but it was consigned to limbo when Weintraub took his money and went home. It did resurface as Hands of a Murderer, starring Edward Woodward as a forgettable Holmes. Completely non-Canonical, it’s a Holmes vs. Moriarty duel. John Hillerman, playing Watson, was well-known from his recently ended stint as Magnum P.I.’s Higgins.

The two Richardson films debuted in the US on Home Box Office in November and December of 1983 and released directly to video the following year in the UK, airing quietly on television a few years later. Neither made any kind of splash, in the Holmes world or out.

Richardson was approached about replacing the ailing Peter Cushing in The Abbot’s Cry, a planned sequel to 1984’s The Masks of Death. However, nothing came of it, the film remained unmade and Richardson never played Holmes again. He did, however, star in the television series, Murder Rooms: The Dark Beginnings of Sherlock Holmes. Richardson played the real-life inspiration for Holmes, Dr. Joseph Bell, with Arthur Conan Doyle as his assistant.

To Richardson’s detriment, Weintraub refused to let the actor appear in Amadeus while the legal issues were ongoing. Thus, Jeffrey Jones was given Richardson’s role as Emperor Joseph II.

Had Granada not decided to take advantage of the copyright expiration, Richardson might well have made a dozen or more Holmes movies and be been remembered today as one of the finest portrayers of the great detective. He brought a controlled humor and a playful sense of pawkiness to the role. 

Who knows: with the legal difficulties, Granada might have simply abandoned their project and the world would never have seen Jeremy Brett, who is today regarded by many as the greatest Holmes. It had been over a decade since a Holmes tv series (Peter Cushing in 1968), then two financially sound projects arrived at the same time. Curious incidents, indeed.

Baker Street Essays #5 - The Illustrated Holmes edition

Baker Street Essays #5 is on the web. 'The Illustrated Holmes' (along with 'The Definitive Holmes)was the foundation essay for HolmesOnScreen.com.  If you have any interest in the drawings that accompanied the stories, you're gonna like this one.

Time to Fix the Electoral College

The method of awarding all of a state’s electoral votes to the winner of the popular vote in that state is a product of the American environment after the Revolutionary War. States, not the national government, were paramount.

As presently constituted, the Electoral College disenfranchises millions of Americans every four years. The institution of the Electoral College should be retained, but the method of allocating electoral votes should be revised to apportion them based upon the popular vote in each state. This issue is addressed below, based solely upon sources from the Constitutional Convention of 1787 itself.

A Union of States, Not a Federal Government

In the summer of 1787, some of America’s ablest men met in Philadelphia “to devise such further provisions as shall appear to them necessary to render the constitution of the Federal Government adequate to the exigencies of the Union.” Recognizing the precarious state of the Union, the attendees developed the United States Constitution, far exceeding their charter, which was merely to amend the existing Articles of Confederation.

 The Constitution was framed in an environment in which individual states were more powerful than the national government. The thirteen colonies had rebelled against Great Britain, securing their independence from the mother country. Successful, they entered “into a firm league of friendship with each other, for their common defense, the security of their liberties, and their mutual and general welfare…” Thus reads part of Article III of the Articles of Confederation, establishing the United States of America, the government of which was embodied in a single-chamber Congress made up of two-to-seven members from each state.

But this was not truly a federal government. There was no national executive, nor a national judiciary. Congress could not levy taxes: it had to requisition money from the states, which were not compelled to respond. Frequently, states simply chose not to provide funds to Congress. The states printed their own (often worthless) paper currencies, negotiated their own trade agreements, taxed each other’s commerce, declared war on the Indians and largely did whatever they wanted, ignoring the restrictions of the Articles as was convenient. It also required an all-but impossible unanimous vote of all thirteen states to amend the Articles, ensuring that the welfare of one would prevail over the good of all.

It is possible, from reading the notes of certain delegates to the Convention, to deduce that THE most significant concern facing the delegates was the striking of a balance between the fledgling national government and the established states. A new, federal form of government that stripped too much power from the states was in danger of not being ratified by nine of those very states, as was required by the proposed Constitution. And a government containing a strong executive would awaken still too-fresh memories of rule by a tyrannical monarchy.

So, a document was crafted, containing concessions and compromises that were necessary to gain the approval of both the delegates and also of the state ratifying conventions. Even Alexander Hamilton, who played a key role in the ratification of the Constitution[1] referred to it as “a bundle of compromises.”

Items that today seem hardly worth discussion were vitally important during the Constitutional Convention, such as navigational rights on American waterways and who could negotiate international treaties. These matters were indicative of the important role of states at the Convention. Those who supported ratification of the Constitution were dubbed ‘Federalists:’ Those who opposed, ‘Anti-Federalists.’ It was a contest between those who favored a central government and those who supported state’s rights.

It is true that factions also existed between small and large states, and northern and southern states. But these alliances could shift and change with the issue being discussed. Those who subscribed to federal and state perspectives remained constant in those views.

An ideological concern at the Convention was that of giving the uneducated, uninformed public the power to select the President. There was much debate over the how to elect the members of what became known as The House of Representatives. Roger Sherman of Connecticut said “The people should have as little to do as may be about government. They lack information and are constantly liable to be misled.” Elbridge Gerry of Massachusetts added “The evils we experience flow from an excess of democracy.”

Charles Pinckney of South Carolina said that election by the people was impracticable in South Carolina because the settlements were sparse. It was difficult to get voters together to cast their ballots.[2] He also said that, “The citizens will be free and equal but the States will be unequal, and their sovereignty will be degraded.” If some delegates felt that the people shouldn’t elect the House of Representatives, is it any surprise that they didn’t trust the fate of the Presidential election to the general population as well?

Multiple Proposals for Electing the President

The method of selecting the President was one of the final issues to be resolved and many proposals had been made over the course of the convention. Flaws were identified in each and the issue remained unresolved as the Convention moved towards its final days.

Selection by the National Legislature
On May 29, Edmund Randolph of Virginia unveiled what is now known as The Randolph Plan, which served as the framework for the Constitution. That same day, Charles Pinckney of South Carolina also introduced a plan of government (which was referred to a committee and not discussed). Both plans posited selection of the President by the National Legislature. William Paterson of New Jersey [3] and Oliver Ellsworth of Connecticut[4] also proposed election by the National Legislature

However, Elbridge Gerry of Massachusetts said that a President appointed by the National Legislature would show favor to those members who appointed him[5]. George Mason of Virginia agreed, arguing that a President elected by the Legislature could become complaisant to the Legislature in hopes of improving his chances of re-election.[6]

James Madison asserted that it would “agitate and divide” the Legislature, setting it against itself in battle over who should be President. It is inconceivable to us today to imagine the President directly selected by The US Congress, the US House of Representatives, or both, with no input from the people.

Selection by Election District Electors
On June 18, Alexander Hamilton of New York introduced a plan of government that would institute a President for life (sounds a bit like a monarchy). The states would be divided into Election Districts and delegates chosen by the Districts would elect the President. Hamilton’s radical plan, including the method of executive election, was ignored by the Convention.[7]

Selection by State-Designated Electors
Oliver Ellsworth proposed that the President be selected by delegates chosen by the state legislatures.[8] This is essentially a modified version of the Electoral College method. He apportioned the number of delegates based on state populations, but there was significant debate on the number of electors to be awarded to each state. It should be noted that it was state legislatures, not the people, which would select the delegates. 

Hugh Williamson[9] said that having electors choose the President would be expensive and troublesome. He then supported having the National Legislature pick the President, based on both ease and convenience.

Selection by State Governors
Elbridge Gerry of Massachusetts proposed that the President be selected by the state governors. However, Edmund Randolph of Virginia countered that the President would court the favor of the governors and their states. He also mentioned the cost and difficulty of bringing the governors to one place to select a President.[10]

Selection by State Legislatures
Madison spoke against appointment by the state legislatures, pointing out that times might arise when a majority of the state legislatures have a common purpose and select a President sympathetic to that purpose. The National Legislature would then be subservient to the state legislatures through the powers of the President.

Selection by the People
Paterson’s New Jersey Plan featured a weak executive. Supporter Roger Sherman said, “The Executive magistracy is nothing more than an institution for carrying the will of the legislature into effect. The person or persons ought to be appointed by and accountable to the Legislature only, which is the depository of the supreme will of the society.” Federalists lined up on the opposite side, arguing for some form of popular election which would vouchsafe the separation of powers among the branches. However, smaller states feared the larger states would dominate popular election and many (most) delegates felt that the populace weren’t ‘qualified’ to select the national executive. Direct election by citizens had few champions.

The Electoral College at Last
The Electoral College was devised as a compromise measure to get enough support to settle the issue. Election of the President was one of the final matters to be resolved before the delegates adjourned.

 The large states were pleased that the number of electors was based on population. Small states were satisfied that the House of Representatives would select the President if no candidate received a majority of electoral votes. Finally, the state legislatures were appeased by being given the right to choose the electors.

People, Not States, Should Elect the President

We are not citizens of a state. We are residents of a state: we are citizens of the United Stares of America. The strictures that bound the Founding Fathers are no longer applicable.  Due to the climate and practical realities of 1787, the government that was forged struck a balance between the Federal and state governments. That distinction is today an artificial one. William Patterson of New Jersey stated that the delegates met as the deputies of 13 independent, sovereign states, for federal purposes. He doubted that they could consolidate the states’ sovereignty and form one nation, annihilating the sovereignties of the states.[11] Common at the time, such a notion is completely unthinkable today. The United States of America is greater than the fifty-two individual states that make it up.

But the President is not elected by the people: the President is elected by the states. Has not America granted voting rights far beyond that granted by the Founding Fathers? Suffrage has long since been extended beyond white, male, property owners.

Yet, due to the exigencies of a time long passed, every four years, millions of voters are institutionally and systematically disenfranchised. In 2004, 5,509,826 voters in California cast their ballots for George Bush Those votes counted for nothing. That same year, in Ohio, 3,583,544 supporters of John Kerry should have just stayed home: their votes did not matter.

The Electoral College need not be abolished. However, state electoral votes should be awarded proportionate to the popular vote. Thus, all votes cast will count towards election of the President. This is in direct contrast to the current system, in which only the votes cast for the majority in a state count.

The Constitution is an enduring document, and its creators included a provision for future amendments as times dictated. But the meeting in Philadelphia did not produce a flawless document. For example, the Founding Fathers declared that the Senate should be chosen by the state legislatures. And so it was, until the 17^th Amendment, ratified in 1913, decreed that Senators would be elected directly by the people. 

And so it is that in 2016 and beyond, the States should no longer elect the President. Electoral ballots should be awarded based on the popular vote within a state, enfranchising American voters not only in name, but in voice.

The popular mantra of “If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it” cannot be followed here. It should not take a crisis similar to the election of 1800 to right a wrong and fix a flaw[12]. In 1824, Andrew Jackson received more popular votes, but John Quincy Adams carried the Electoral College. Rutherford B. Hayes (1876), Benjamin Harrison (1888) and George Bush (2000) received fewer popular votes but carried the Electoral College, frustrating the will of the people in favor of the states.

 In our increasingly apathetic society, those who fulfill their responsibility to vote should be rewarded, not disregarded.  

---

[1] Hamilton is credited with writing at least XX of the Federalist Papers. These were anonymous essays, published in newspapers, supporting and explaining the proposed Constitution. Hamilton, James Madison and John Jay wrote a total of XX essays. 

[2] Rufus King’s Notes for June 4

[3] Rufus King’s Notes for June 13

[4] James Madison’s Notes for June 25

[5] Robert Yates’ Notes for June 9

[6] Rufus King’s Notes for June 3

[7] James Madison’s Notes for June 18

[8] James Madison’s Notes for June 19

[9] William Pierce’s Notes for May

[10] Robert Yates’ Notes for June 9

[11] Robert Yates’ Notes for May 9

[12] In 1800, Aaron Burr, running as Thomas Jefferson’s Vice Presidential candidate, utilized a loophole in the Constitution and actually received the same number of electoral votes for President as Jefferson. It took 36 ballots to break the deadlock. Four years later, Aaron Burr shot and killed Alexander Hamilton, who was credited with carrying the election for Jefferson. The XII amendment to the Constitution addressed this flaw, specifying which offices candidates were vying for.

RIP Jerry Coleman - heck of an announcer

Jerry Coleman, who won four World Series rings with the NY Yankees and also served in both WW II and the Korean War, passed away. He was best known as the long time announcer for the San Diego Padres. He could certainly entertain. Here are ten Coleman-isms; the last one is his best known.

And Kansas City is at Chicago tonight, or is that Chicago at Kansas City? Well, no matter, Kansas City leads in the eighth, four to four.

Gaylord Perry and Willie McCovey should know each other like a book. They’ve been ex-teammates for years.

He slides into second with a stand-up double.

Benedict may not be hurt as much as he really is.

McCovey swings and misses, and it’s fouled back.

Rich Folkers is throwing up in the bullpen.

There’s a hard shot to LeMaster  - and he throws Madlock into the dugout.

Tony Gwynn, the fat batter behind Finley, is waiting.

George Hendrick simply lost that sun-blown pop up.

Winfield goes back to the wall. He hits his head on the wall and it rolls of! It’s rolling all the way back to second base! This is a terrible thing for the Padres!

The Solar Pons Gazette and an introductory essay

My sixth Solar Pons Gazette is online.

If you aren't familiar with Pons, who is the closest successor to Sherlock Holmes we will ever get, here's an essay from the first issue of The Gazette.

Why Solar Pons?

Why Solar Pons? What is it that attracts us to the 70-plus stories that August Derleth wrote featuring ‘The Sherlock Holmes of Praed Street?” Aren’t the Pons stories just imitations of Sir Arthur Conan Doyle’s most famous creation? Why read a copy when the original 56 short stories and 4 novels are readily available? And if one tires of the Sherlockian Canon, there are Holmes tales unnumbered written by other authors. Stories featuring Holmes and Watson are plentiful, so why bother with Solar Pons and Doctor Parker?

When deciding upon the style of the Solar Pons stories, Derleth immediately rejected parody, “that ridiculing imitation designed for laughter” and chose instead the less widely practiced form of the pastiche, which he decreed “fond and admiring.” This approach laid the foundation for Solar Pons’s success.

Thus, Pons is August Derleth’s own literary portrayal of Sherlock Holmes. Holmes is retired and London has changed when we meet Pons. An example that shows how adeptly Derleth managed these changes relates to automobiles. Pons uses them, but they are unobtrusive in the stories. The reader does not stop and consciously make the distinction that Pons is riding in a car, rather than in the classic horse-drawn carriage of Holmes’ prime. The atmosphere is the same: Similar to Holmes, but different. Variations on a theme.

Holmes was critical of the police: especially Scotland Yard. His general feeling was that they were tenacious, but plodding and unimaginative. He uses the term ‘imbecile’ more than once, and he tells Watson that (official) local assistance is either biased or worthless.

Pons is also frustrated with the official force, but he is less harsh than Holmes and generally speaks better of Inspector Jamison than Holmes does of Inspector Lestrade. The razor-sharp personality is blunted a bit. Variations on a theme.

Holmes has no use for the supernatural in his investigations. “This agency stands flat-footed upon the ground, and there it must remain. The world is big enough for us. No ghosts need apply,” he says. Though all of Pons’ recorded cases have conventional solutions (excluding the Derleth collaborations with Mack Reynolds), he is much more open to the possible existence of the supernatural.

 Pons says, “Ought we not to say, rather, we believe there are certain phenomena which science as yet has not correctly interpreted or explained?” Referring to clairaudience, he tells Parker, “Let us just say it goes against what we know of science at this point of development of man.” Pons and Holmes use similar methods of detection, but the former is willing to consider non-scientific possibilities. Variations on a theme.

Of course, some elements of the Pons stories do feature less individuality. In both sets of tales, the doctor (whether Parker or Watson) is an able, dedicated companion, trustworthy in any situation. He is always ready to abandon his practice (and sometimes desert his wife) to assist in an investigation. He attempts to emulate the detective’s methods, with poor results. And he is often slighted, if not outright insulted, by his more intelligent flat mate. Derleth gives us Dr. Lyndon Parker, a narrator and assistant we easily identify with Doyle’s Dr. John Watson.

The lodgings at 7B Praed Street include the comforts of 221B Baker Street. There is the mantle above the fireplace, the window overlooking the street, the detective’s chemical table, the violin; the reader summons up memories of Baker Street and transposes them onto Praed Street. Landladies Mrs. Johnson and Mrs. Hudson are nearly indistinguishable and Pons’ army of street urchins, the Praed Street Irregulars, are the contemporary equivalent of Holmes’ own Baker Street Irregulars. Derleth gives us a different version of Holmes, but with familiar elements sprinkled throughout. It is the Hollywood approach to movies: the same, only different.

A reading of the Solar Pons tales shows that he is clearly more than a carbon copy of Sherlock Holmes. There is much that we recognize in the Pons stories, but there is also much that is new. Derleth is a wonderful writer who masterfully blends these similarities and differences to create a vibrant character. Solar Pons sates our appetite for Sherlock Holmes by giving us a similar, but different flavor. Variations on a theme.

We think we want more Holmes. Why Solar Pons? Because August Derleth gives us what we really want: more than Holmes.