wytchcroft (![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
wytchcroft) wrote2009-01-19 12:21 pm
wytchcroft) wrote2009-01-19 12:21 pm
some more notes on Florizel/Holmes (mainly literary)
more notes redrafted:
Livanov as Holmes in disguise Oleg Dal sans costume sans disguise
And so, some questioning thoughts; regarding the comparisons of Florizel and Holmes...
Philosophers and moralists both - as I have mentioned, there is a direct comparison between the Prince letting the villain Rolles go free and Holmes doing the same with Dr Sterndale. It would seem they are agents of their own power - a higher power perhaps... Holmes is, after all, resurrected, and though Florizel waves the comparison aside, Rolles nevertheless asks if Florizel will permit him to 'touch his hand’ (the hem of his garment?).
Florizel's advice, sending the man to Australia (as Holmes allows Sterndale to return to the African bush) is almost biblical in its wording.
(There is a linked issue here about disguise/recognition which i shall return to...and leads ultimately to Gandalf in LOTR).
(I cannot help but wonder if Father Brown sprang into the mind of Chesterton after this...)
.....
But the question for today is a simple one.
To quote the opening of The Suicide Club; (an astonishing correlative to given notions of Victoriana, and prescient indeed)
"Listen," said the young man, "this is the age of conveniences, and I have to tell you of the last perfection of the sort. We have affairs in different places; and hence railways were invented. Railways separated us infallibly from our friends; and so telegraphs were invented that we might communicate speedily at great distances. Even in hotels we have lifts to spare us the climb of some hundred steps. Now, we that know that life is only a stage to play the fool upon..."
Indeed such an echo of Shakespeare is redolent of existential crises - the void behind the glittering humour of Stevenson's Florizel tales, but a void that demands the birth of just such a proto-existential agent as the Prince (and indeed Holmes too).
Victorian literature is often an intriguing mix of the rational and the religious* the friction between these two oppositions was a mighty source of inspiration.
But my wonderings are primarily these; do readers/viewers consider these views to be also those of the Prince? It would be easy to dismiss - but Stevenson's retreat to a 'primitive' island begs the question.
And as for Holmes... of course the man would be lost without the telegraph!! It would be very easy to make the case that were he alive today then Baker Street would be a web-site and help would be summoned by an e-mail etc. Holmes was all for scientific advancement and a being of his age..
(Note: albeit a chivalric age; as Stevenson points out at the very beginning of The Suicide Club.
Interestingly both Florizel and Holmes are allowed to lie through their teeth, a serious sin in Victorian times, but they can do so only when in disguise.)
... or was he? At some indefinable point, it seems to me that Holmes came to represent a nostalgic mourning for a lost time, the youth of the author and his readers? The lost Victorian Empire? Was this backwards looking a natural part of Holmes resurrection, or simply the aging of the author, perhaps the loss of his wife? Did it take place after Reichenbach or after WW1... I am curious. Certainly those stories that immediately followed the canon, those stories by Doyle's son and Dickinson-Carr have this as their core.
And finally - are any of these issues seen on the screen when the adventures of Florizel and Holmes are recreated
*Rational and Religious - I use these words in the lose sense of their dictionary meaning - I am not making a personal judgement on either CONCEPT.
previous notes here:.
Livanov as Holmes in disguise Oleg Dal sans costume sans disguise
And so, some questioning thoughts; regarding the comparisons of Florizel and Holmes...
Philosophers and moralists both - as I have mentioned, there is a direct comparison between the Prince letting the villain Rolles go free and Holmes doing the same with Dr Sterndale. It would seem they are agents of their own power - a higher power perhaps... Holmes is, after all, resurrected, and though Florizel waves the comparison aside, Rolles nevertheless asks if Florizel will permit him to 'touch his hand’ (the hem of his garment?).
Florizel's advice, sending the man to Australia (as Holmes allows Sterndale to return to the African bush) is almost biblical in its wording.
(There is a linked issue here about disguise/recognition which i shall return to...and leads ultimately to Gandalf in LOTR).
(I cannot help but wonder if Father Brown sprang into the mind of Chesterton after this...)
.....
But the question for today is a simple one.
To quote the opening of The Suicide Club; (an astonishing correlative to given notions of Victoriana, and prescient indeed)
"Listen," said the young man, "this is the age of conveniences, and I have to tell you of the last perfection of the sort. We have affairs in different places; and hence railways were invented. Railways separated us infallibly from our friends; and so telegraphs were invented that we might communicate speedily at great distances. Even in hotels we have lifts to spare us the climb of some hundred steps. Now, we that know that life is only a stage to play the fool upon..."
Indeed such an echo of Shakespeare is redolent of existential crises - the void behind the glittering humour of Stevenson's Florizel tales, but a void that demands the birth of just such a proto-existential agent as the Prince (and indeed Holmes too).
Victorian literature is often an intriguing mix of the rational and the religious* the friction between these two oppositions was a mighty source of inspiration.
But my wonderings are primarily these; do readers/viewers consider these views to be also those of the Prince? It would be easy to dismiss - but Stevenson's retreat to a 'primitive' island begs the question.
And as for Holmes... of course the man would be lost without the telegraph!! It would be very easy to make the case that were he alive today then Baker Street would be a web-site and help would be summoned by an e-mail etc. Holmes was all for scientific advancement and a being of his age..
(Note: albeit a chivalric age; as Stevenson points out at the very beginning of The Suicide Club.
Interestingly both Florizel and Holmes are allowed to lie through their teeth, a serious sin in Victorian times, but they can do so only when in disguise.)
... or was he? At some indefinable point, it seems to me that Holmes came to represent a nostalgic mourning for a lost time, the youth of the author and his readers? The lost Victorian Empire? Was this backwards looking a natural part of Holmes resurrection, or simply the aging of the author, perhaps the loss of his wife? Did it take place after Reichenbach or after WW1... I am curious. Certainly those stories that immediately followed the canon, those stories by Doyle's son and Dickinson-Carr have this as their core.
And finally - are any of these issues seen on the screen when the adventures of Florizel and Holmes are recreated
*Rational and Religious - I use these words in the lose sense of their dictionary meaning - I am not making a personal judgement on either CONCEPT.
previous notes here:.
Oleg Da(h)l is in disguise
Here's Oleg Da(h)l is in disguise:
No-no! The artist's name was Viktor Yevgrafov but Moriarty's voice was Dahl's voice. Oleg Dahl recorded sound for the LenFilm's production.
By the way, he died in Kiev and his death's diagnosis was, say, curious. Precisely like John Bonham's one, if you know what I mean. That explaines why he died so young. :(
Re: Oleg Da(h)l is in disguise
as for Yevgrafov, his performance is very strange - almost like the sleeping man from Dr Caligari
btw
It is excellent:)
Yevgrafov/Dahl
Yes, very strange Moriarty...
no subject
i feel totally inadequate here
*giggles*
no subject
*Smiles coz it's always good to see ya!:):)*
no subject
no subject
and thanks for dropping in! hope you enjoyed the holidays:)
no subject
but thanks anyway
no subject
gah! i'm sorry to hear that!:(:(
- i hope you get well soon! :)
no subject
http://theultimatebootlegexperience.blogspot.com/2009/01/led-zeppelin-1979-08-04-knebworth-2-dvd.html
:)
no subject
no subject
no subject
no subject
http://svetlana0777.livejournal.com/1501.html?view=4317#t4317
it's so great:D
no subject
what's there? Florisel in English?
no subject
no, it's in Russian.
Oh well, i'm enjoying it anyway!:):)
no subject
no subject
alas:(
artist Perkins brings the portait of the Chairman
So, here is one fragment from YouTube (artist Perkins brings the picture/portait of the Chairman - to show for Prince Florizel) - if you have not this clip
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=72LUyKj23kM
Re: artist Perkins brings the portait of the Chairman
and i file as many links as i can.
of course i watch youtube and the other streaming sites -
in fact i am watching far more Russian programmes now than UK!!!
thank you for the clip:)
Re: artist Perkins brings the portait of the Chairman
I think you need in a Russian colleage in Manchester (or in London, at least), who could be to supply with DVDs. It would be simpler...
an expert? Xa Xa Xa! hardly - but an enthusiast, yes, surely:)
as for dvd supplies, yes it is a possibility i am considering...
Re: artist Perkins brings the portait of the Chairman
Re: and then there were none
no subject
I should say I am always impressed by your style and erudition!
no subject
*waves hat*
Thank you sir! :):)
BTW
Chesterton's queer trades - audio.
also - the book:
http://www.archive.org/search.php?query=the%20club%20of%20queer%20trades
Reviewed with description of Queer Trades stories.
Subject: A lively recording *****
In "The Club of Queer Trades" the detective, Rupert Grant, is a Sherlock Holmes-like private eye who investigates crimes and chases crooks with great self-assuredness in his powers of deduction. But he is always wrong. The hero of these stories is not Rupert, but his older brother, Basil Grant, a retired judge. In each case, Basil proves to Rupert hat there has been no crime and no crooks!
The stories are funny and entertaining and they are very well read by David Barnes. Many thanks for this excellent performance.///
no subject
well-said! I agree :)
Nic, it's very good/true fragmet you took (about railways, telegraphs etc as the instruments of life... and Suicide Club...)
But what do you mean when you say "a proto-existential agent"? i.e. as an Angel? Does he create the plot like an Universum?
no subject
I don't actually think Victorians had the correct terminology for such a thing - but certainly, to me, it would seem possible to class Florizel and Holmes as existential (in the general sense)... because their moral code is so personalised and their decision making is from moment to moment. Camus/Sartre etc are of course post WW2 - but there are many antecedents i feel.
Sherlock Holmes' Philosophy
So, here the term "a proto-existential agent" is used rather as a hero - a predecessor of Existencialism.
But in 19 century there was Kierkegaard (!), btw
I don't remember whether I said it before or not, but in the University I wrote one intermediate project: "Sherlock Holmes' Philosophy" - that threw down in shock the chair of Ethics, Aesthetics, Theory and History of Culture ;)
Shortly, in the work I demonstrated that Sherlock Holmes was a Positivist, Cognitivist, Philosopher of Life, Existencialist, Phenomenologist, Post-Positivist etc. Of course, the all is distinctive proportions ;)))
XaXaXa!!!
///So, here the term "a proto-existential agent" is used rather as a hero - a predecessor of Existencialism.///
yes:) that was my meaning.
no subject
However, where do I must to leave my comments? What the post in?
no subject
no subject
no subject