David Smallberg <das@ucla-cs.ARPA> <das> (09/04/84)
...
Certain fictional universes spawn collections of devotees who decide on
the canonical works which define the universe, and then spend countless
hours filling in background and explaining inconsistencies in the Canon.
TV and movies have inspired Star {Wars,Trek} fans, and sf & fantasy books
inspire most others (e.g. Tolkien scholars).
The earliest I can think of is the Sherlock Holmes world, with at least
80 years of debates about where Watson's bullet wound really is and the like.
My question is, are the Sherlockians the earliest such group?David Smallberg <das@ucla-cs.ARPA> <das> (09/04/84)
...
Certain fictional universes spawn collections of devotees who decide on
the canonical works which define the universe, and then spend countless
hours filling in background and explaining inconsistencies in the Canon.
TV and movies have inspired Star {Wars,Trek} fans, and sf & fantasy books
inspire most others (e.g. Tolkien scholars).
The earliest I can think of is the Sherlock Holmes world, with at least
80 years of debates about where Watson's bullet wound really is and the like.
My question is, are the Sherlockians the earliest such group?
-- David Smallberg, das@ucla-cs.ARPA, {ihnp4,ucbvax}!ucla-cs!dasdas@ucla-cs.UUCP (09/05/84)
...
Let me clarify my question about whether Sherlock Holmes inspired the
first Canon. I'm talking about works which the fans KNOW are fictional, but
which they pretend is real when they pursue their hobby. This is meant to
exclude mythology and/including (depending on your beliefs) the Bible,
which are/were either believed to be true or studied for cultural, historical,
or literary reasons, but without a pretense that the stories really happened
as described.
-- David Smallberg, das@ucla-cs.ARPA, {ihnp4,ucbvax}!ucla-cs!dasminow@decvax.UUCP (09/06/84)
One could say (perhaps cynically) that bible interpretation predates Sherlock Holmes disputations by several thousand years. Martin Minow decvax!minow
west@sdcsla.UUCP (Larry West) (09/06/84)
In article <1055@ucla-cs.ARPA> David Smallberg <das@ucla-cs.ARPA> <das> writes: >... > Certain fictional universes spawn collections of devotees who decide on >the canonical works which define the universe, and then spend countless >hours filling in background and explaining inconsistencies in the Canon. >TV and movies have inspired Star {Wars,Trek} fans, and sf & fantasy books >inspire most others (e.g. Tolkien scholars). > The earliest I can think of is the Sherlock Holmes world, with at least >80 years of debates about where Watson's bullet wound really is and the like. >My question is, are the Sherlockians the earliest such group? Well, there is always the Judaeo-Christian-Muslim-Mormon tradition... -- Larry West, UC San Diego -- decvax!ittvax!dcdwest!sdcsvax!sdcsla!west -- ucbvax!sdcsvax!sdcsla!west -- west@NPRDC -- -- Larry West, UC San Diego, Institute for Cognitive Science -- decvax!ittvax!dcdwest!sdcsvax!sdcsla!west -- ucbvax!sdcsvax!sdcsla!west -- west@NPRDC {{ NOT: <sdcsla!west@NPRDC> [aarg!] }}
rch@brunix.UUCP (Rich Yampell) (09/07/84)
It seems to me that a much earlier (I hesitate to say 'eariliest') such group would be those who choose as their canonical works the sundry books of the Bible. (Sorry to step on anyones' toes out their, but in the absence of hard facts, the biblical "universe" must be considered fictional. "Faith" is simply not equivolent to "truth") -- Rich Yampell
ayers@convex.UUCP (09/17/84)
Fictional? Holmes FICTIONAL?????!!!!!!! blues, II (Quick Watson, the needle!)
moriarty@fluke.UUCP (Jeff Meyer) (09/20/84)
>Fictional? > >Holmes FICTIONAL?????!!!!!!! > > > > blues, II > (Quick Watson, the needle!) Fictional? Me, FICTIONAL??????!!!!!!! PS. The end quote of the blues' note is from the first Basil Rathbone / Nigel Bruce Holmes/Watson movie. It is the last line in the movie, and I'm always amazed that it got by the censors; it seems obvious that Holmes is refering to his cocaine addiction (which, according to the canon, he had given up by the time of "The Hound of the Baskervilles", upon which the movie was based). "But I guess I'm just stating the very obvious (shutup! shutup!...)" Moriarty, aka Jeff Meyer John Fluke Mfg. Co., Inc. UUCP: {cornell,decvax,ihnp4,sdcsvax,tektronix,utcsrgv}!uw-beaver \ {allegra,gatech!sb1,hplabs!lbl-csam,decwrl!sun,ssc-vax} -- !fluke!moriarty ARPA: fluke!moriarty@uw-beaver.ARPA
cw@vaxwaller.UUCP (Carl Weidling) (09/20/84)
The idea of a canon implies a series of books around a central character, setting, theme or whatever. The first person I know of to do that was James Fenimore Cooper with his books about Natty Bumpo,"The Last of the Mohicans","The Deerslayer", etc. Whether a society of devotees was ever formed or not I don't know, but I gather he was pretty popular in the 19th century so I wouldn't be surprised if some group weren't formed. Regards, Carl Weidling
rick@uwmacc.UUCP (Rick Keir) (09/23/84)
Jeff (moriarty) was wondering how, at the end of the Basil Rathbone
version of "Hound of the Baskervilles", the closing line
"Come, Watson, the needle" (or "Quick,...") got past the censors,
since it obviously referred to Holmes' use of cocaine.
My memory is that it didn't (for very long) and that this is why
HOTB was not shown for many years -- I saw it for the 1st time
in 1980, and I saw every other Basil Rathbone Sherlock Holmes film
repeated ad nauseum years earlier on TV in Chicago.
Does anyone know whether the film actually was suppressed or not?
By the way, before people begin suggesting that this discussion
belongs in net.tv or net.movies, let me point out that it's part
of the discussion of literary canons, for which SH stories certainly
qualify. I agree that the SF stuff should be in its own group
(which I read also).
--
Rick Keir -- MicroComputer Information Center, MACC
{allegra, ihnp4, seismo}!uwvax!uwmacc!rick
1210 West Dayton St/U Wisconsin Madison/Mad WI 53706
"No, this is getting hit on the head lessons in here."
"What a stupid concept!"ayers@convex.UUCP (09/25/84)
No, the film was not suppressed, but the last line was clipped out for many years. In fact, you can still run across showings of the "censored" film on local stations... blues, II (Drink yourself bulletproof)