#stoker & holmes

[prokopetz]

Fact: The earliest reliably dated use of the phrase “fucked up” appears in the court records of a US Navy court-martial case from 1863; the way the phrase is used suggests that its meaning was already well known at the time, but this is the first known printed record of it that we can confidently put a date to.

Additional fact: Bram Stoker’s Dracula is set in 1897.

Conclusion: It would not anachronistic for your Dracula fanfic to have a character describe the Count as a fucked up old man.

[k-i-l-l-e-r-b-e-e-6-9]

ℭ𝔬𝔳𝔢𝔯 𝔞𝔯𝔱 (𝔡𝔢𝔱𝔞𝔦𝔩) 𝔟𝔶 𝔄𝔫𝔡𝔯𝔢𝔴 ℌ𝔬𝔩𝔪𝔢𝔰 𝔣𝔬𝔯 𝔇𝔯𝔞𝔠𝔲𝔩𝔞 𝔟𝔶 𝔅𝔯𝔞𝔪 𝔖𝔱𝔬𝔨𝔢𝔯 𝔓𝔢𝔫𝔤𝔲𝔦𝔫 𝔅𝔬𝔬𝔨𝔰 [ՏշՑօ], յգԴգ

[no-side-us]

This is a pretty tangential connection, but hear me out.

This painting, 'The Ballad of Lenore,' is based on the poem of the same name by Gottfried August Bürger:

and in that poem is where the line "the dead travel fast" comes from that Jonathan references. But that's plenty well-known.

Less well-known is the fact this was painted by the French artist Émile Jean-Horace Vernet, or just Horace Vernet.

And that's interesting because Sherlock Holmes revealed in the story The Greek Interpreter that he himself is related to a French artist named Vernet:

"To some extent," he answered, thoughtfully. "My ancestors were country squires, who appear to have led much the same life as is natural to their class. But, none the less, my turn that way is in my veins, and may have come with my grandmother, who was the sister of Vernet, the French artist. Art in the blood is liable to take the strangest forms."

And it has been speculated that the Vernet in question here is in fact Horace Vernet, if not his father Carle Vernet, or grandfather Claude-Joseph Vernet, both of whom were also French artists and painters.

Regardless of which Vernet he's talking about, he's still related to all of them. So I just think it's a pretty neat (albeit very tangential) in-universe connection between Jonathan Harker and Sherlock Holmes, two characters from very famous stories in the same era.

What's less tangential though is that Bram Stoker and Arthur Conan Doyle knew each other in real life, and were well acquainted. Here is a letter Doyle sent Stoker about how much he enjoyed Dracula:

Transcription:

Claremont Eastbourne Aug 20/97 My dear Bram Stoker I am sure that you will not think it an impertinence if I write to tell you how very much I have enjoyed reading Dracula. I think it is the very best story of diablerie which I have read for many years. It is really wonderful how with so much exciting interest over so long a book there is never an anticlimax. It holds you from the very start and grows more and more engrossing until it is quite painfully vivid. The old Professor is most excellent and so are the two girls. I congratulate you with all my heart for having written so fine a book. With all kindest remembrances to Mrs Bram Stoker and yourself Yours very truly A Conan Doyle.

And here is a link to an interview (that's too long for me to put here) that Stoker did with Doyle about his life and upcoming marriage, which he attended. The website itself has a lot of interesting information, if anyone wants to poke around.

So yeah, a cool connection between two interesting people, both in the real world and the world of fiction.

[kbaker1431]

I know I am not the only who makes up an entire fantasy world in their head, with multiple different story lines (I have multiple because I keep changing my mind over which is more dramatic), and mine involves a couple of fandoms including Hannibal (obviously), BBC Sherlock, Sandman, and Dracula and Daniel Craig 007 make a guest appearance when ever I feel like it.

I also have made up some characters, and have recently had to change the name of one of them for their own good, and I keep forgetting and find it weird, because I swapped their name with another made up character.

Do other people do that? Just change character names after a while to sound better or fit the story better? Please tell me others do.

I only changed their name so their partner could give them better nicknames.

[urban-disco-bones]

🍿 H A M M E R H O R R O R 🍿

[atundratoadstool]

What do people mean by Watsonian and Doylist interpretations of Dracula?

"Watsonian" and "Doylist" are general terms in media analysis that allow one to specify the framework through which one is tackling a question: whether one is looking at a narrative conundrum through the lens of the author (Doylist) or in the context of the fictional world in which the narrative takes place (Watsonian).

The names derive from the Sherlock Holmes stories specifically. To offer an example as to how they might be used in that context, one could look to a moment in "The Man with the Twisted Lip" and note that John H. Watson's wife Mary calls him "James" despite his name being given as "John" elsewhere in the Sherlock Holmes canon. In this case, a Watsonian explanation for the inconsistency might be that Mary is using a nickname or a variant of his middle name (H could stand for Hamish, which is the vocative form of "James" in Scottish Gaelic). A Doylist explanation for the inconsistency might be that Arthur Conan Doyle failed to recollect the character's first name when writing the story.

In Dracula then, when people are referring to a Watsonian reading, they generally will be looking for an interpretation that makes sense in the world of Dracula (ex: explaining Lucy's inconsistent location/chronology in letters by assuming she's lying to comfort Mina). A Doylist explanation would look to interpretations involving Stoker (ex: explaining Lucy's inconsistent location/chronology in letters by assuming Stoker was not always great with dates.)

[mzannthropy]

Oh the joy of seeing men call each other "my dear fellow".

[mrhyde-mrseek]

Which actors would play SMS characters if it was a show (pt. 2)

Van Helsing: Bernard Cribbins (pretending he’s still alive)

Utterson: Ariyon Bakare

Poole: Ben Rimalower

Mycroft: Colin Jeavons (pretending he’s not retired)

(Man, he and Sherlock can’t get away from 1984 Sherlock Holmes, can they?)

Edmund: Orlando Bloom

Kemp: Tony Curran

Walton: Aidan Gallagher

[aspiringwarriorlibrarian]

I had seen posts saying that next month the las Sherlock Holmes works enter the public domain, you know if that is true or just something that misunderstood? It's hard to know sometimes.

Yup. Most of Sherlock Holmes went into the public domain in 1980 in the US, went private in 1996 and then back to public in 2000 due to Disney fuckery. The ten stories written after 1923 were still designated as under copyright, which has lead to a number of high profile cases, including a) the Conan Doyle estate claiming that Holmes and Watson weren't public domain (dismissed), b) the Conan Doyle estate suing the movie Mr. Holmes for depicting an older Sherlock (settled out of court), and c) the Conan Doyle estate suing the movie Enola Holmes for showing Sherlock respecting women (dismissed with prejudice).

However, since they aren't Disney, they can't actually change the copyright law for pre-1978 works, (95 years after the year of publication), so those stories have been quietly going back into the public domain one by one in the past few years. There's only two left and their copyrights expire in 2023. So yes, starting next year, all Sherlock Holmes works will be public domain.

[bi-bard]

Hey, does anyone remember the Stoker and Holmes books?

I read the third book when I was in school, not realizing that it was part of a series and I need to know if I was the only one who experienced the magic that was that universe

[silvermarmoset]

this is a half-brained thought but one that keeps coming up to me. does anyone else think framing ADHD as a disorder rather than a different way of processing information is a mistake? like i get that framing it as a disorder makes it easier to find treatment via insurance and that it helps give ADHD the dimensions of something innate and not a personal failing when you have to describe it to someone who doesn't have the same problems—but sometimes when I see it called a "disorder" I'm like, why does ADHD have to be considered divergent from the "norm"? in whose terms are these "norms" and these "divergences" set? in what circumstances does an ADHD mindset become a bad thing to have, why would we assume ADHD is a lesser or disabling thing to have when we barely have a word for its opposite? (the word "neurotypical" springs to mind, but "neurotypical" is just a way to frame "normal" without offense. Whose version of normal? I thought I was normal until people who could keep schedules and manage deadlines told me I wasn't.)

People with ADHD get distracted, can't stick to one subject, and lose track of time: thus, a disorder. People with ADHD can also work with several ideas at once, draw info from multiple sources and combine this info into a new concept, daydream or focus so intensely they can creatively work on projects for hours without checking the clock. These are the same traits, just set in different situations: one is disordered because it doesn't stick to a certain framework (and who put that framework there?), while the other is full of strengths and creative value. I don't really see why ADHD would be considered a disorder unless the order it deviates from is so rigid it doesn't allow for multiple approaches, different strengths and weaknesses.

idk, just seems to me that framing ADHD as a "disorder" assumes that its undiagnosed opposite—the "neurotypical" way of doing things—is somehow normal: when it's just different, a different work style for a different person, and a workstyle that happens to be conducive to today's production-oriented, hustle-oriented culture. What turns ADHD from a simple trait to a disorder is that it doesn't function in a way that's compatible with today's workflow, not any actual problem with an ADHD person's mind.

from where I'm sitting, ADHD looks like just another way of processing life, with pros and cons, in the same way some people are quiet and some people are loud, or some people can't help getting up at dawn and I just happen to work better at night. It's not a disorder, it just is.

(disclaimer: I have no background in psych and these are just my own personal wonderings)

[itwasnotahamster]

Bram Stoker's Dracula | 1979 Cover Artist: Andrew Holmes | Penguin Books | Edit: @itwasnotahamster | Photo: Steve

[sherlockholmesbracket]

Mina Holmes from the "Stoker & Holmes" book series

Niece of Sherlock Holmes, reluctantly involved in the family business, Mina Holmes!

[metrogeek]

@metrogeek

[roseunspindle]

The Clockwork Scarab

[iratesherlock]

* THE SHERLOCKIAN / ENGLISH / 350 PAGES / 2010

— The main protagonists are Sir Arthur Conan Doyle and Bram Stoker in the first half of the story. — The main protagonists are Harold White and Sarah Lindsay in the second half of the story. — Written by Graham Moore and published by Twelve. — Rated: Three stars.

The Sherlockian is one of the books I was hesitant to include here as it’s not technically an adaptation of Sherlock Holmes but a fictional story about Sir Arthur Conan Doyle. I inevitably decided I needed to write a review on this book, if not to share it, then to manically describe the hilarity of Arthur Conan Doyle and Bram Stoker solving a murder together. There is an actual plotline, but I spent the entire book not caring about the reveal of the diary mystery but on Arthur and Bram doing the weirdest things together—cross-dressing, getting drunk, brotherly bonding, going undercover, you name it. The best part? Graham Moore understood how Arthur should act, and I spent the entire book wanting to wrap my hands around his neck, and if that isn’t great characterization, then I don’t know what is. Though I have a lot of respect for Graham Moore after reading this book, it was nice to read something where the author seemed to have genuine knowledge about the subject—and enjoyed it. It is easy to tell when an author doesn’t know much or, for some reason, has a vehement hatred of the content they’re writing about (in this case, Graham Moore seemed to care about Sherlockian lore). I have read a lot of fun cozy mysteries based on Sherlock Holmes, and it always breaks my heart to feel like the author thinks I’m weird or a freak for my interest. I spent this entire book so excited to see all the obscure facts, and regardless of how boring this book got at times, I enjoyed it. [spoiler start] I also respect Moore for having a male and female protagonist and not having them end up together or even kiss! Honestly, I despise romance in my books unless it’s written well, and whenever two characters don’t end up romantically involved? My little aromantic heart flutters. Sarah is well written, and I didn’t experience the normal “this man has never met a woman” I usually get from books. [spoiler end] I don’t remember much of the story through the second set of main characters (Harold and Sarah); I just know that I got embarrassed about how nerdy Harold was because he felt too much like me. Except I wouldn’t wear a deerstalker cap through every life event, my roommate said I would have spent it complaining about how the deerstalker is never directly mentioned, but that’s not important. I think Harold’s reaction to the reveal was incorrect, but I think I’m built different, and we would not have the same opinion on events. Genuinely, the best part of this book is Bram and Arthur trying to solve murders; I feel like regardless of if you care about the overarching plot, you just need to read it so you can experience what I had to. I gave this book three stars overall, but I would lightly recommend it just for the amount of Sherlock Holmes knowledge and tidbits it has scattered throughout the book.