Sherlock Holmes and Sir Arthur Conan Doyle

I have never seen the TV series Sherlock before Thursday night when we watched it as a class, but I knew it was quite popular. I thought it was hilarious and very well done- they showed Sherlock’s sarcastic, smart-alec-y, very intelligent and observational side perfectly. Benedict Cumberbatch was perfectly cast for that role, as well as Martin Freeman as Dr.Watson. I didn’t expect each episode to be 90 minutes long, as long as a movie, though! But I hear that’s normal for UK TV shows.

            I have, however, seen the two movies that came out about Sherlock Holmes with Robert Downey Jr. and Jude Law. It was interesting to see the comparison of the more flirty and woman-loving Downey compared to the female apathy Cumberbatch showed. I don’t know which one would suit Sherlock more, because they’re both equally entertaining, but I have a feeling it’s Cumberbatch’s virgin version. Law’s Watson was a little more mature than Freeman’s version of Watson as well.

            I looked up fun facts about the author, Sir Arthur Conan Doyle, that might have been overlooked by presenters in class and I found a couple very interesting things.

            -He wasn’t knighted for his fictional work (Sherlock Holmes), but for his non-fiction pamphlet written about the Boer War. This took place in 1902 by King Edward VII.

            -Doyle was once on the same cricket team as JM Barrie, the author of Peter Pan.

            -He was friends with Dracula author, Bram Stoker, and was a classmate of Robert Louis Stevenson, author of Treasure Island, at the University of Edinburgh.

            -Doyle was close friends with Harry Houdini, though their friendship was strained due to differences in spiritual beliefs. Doyle believed in fairies, mediums, and ghosts, while Houdini did not and attempted to disprove these hoaxes his whole life. Here is a link to a small Drunk History video about this (warning: there is strong language):

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=POFaDJ5IJHg

            -The town in Switzerland that he used as the setting of Holmes’ death in his series made a statue of the famous detective in 1988 and named the square after Doyle himself.

            -Doyle was able to free a man wrongfully convicted in prison using his own time, money, and influence. The man, Oscar Slater, was released with a £6,000 compensation, which he did not share with Doyle.

            -Doyle died in his garden clutching a flower in one hand and his chest in the other. His final words were to his wife- “You are beautiful.”

Source: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/tvandradio/10561577/Arthur-Conan-Doyle-19-things-you-didnt-know.html

Drawing and Listening Leading to a Better Understanding

    

     Before our discussion in class I never really thought of the different tools I could use to interpret some go the readings we do for class. Never before have I drawn what I was  reading to help get a better picture of the setting that is being drawn out in my head in a story. Also I usually don't prefer to have things read out loud to me, such as audio books. Though this was a different case because the voices chose for each reading was very powerful and helped voiced the emotion in them. 

     There were very noticeable differences from reading “Kubla Khan” on my own and listening to someone read it. Some of these were the tone, setting, and even the plot. The tone is easily mistakes when you are reading something on your own because on your own you can just use a muted tone. Then when Benedict Cumberbatch read the the piece you can hear what emotion should be felt in certain places throughout the story, also while he is reading it you can her some music in the back ground. The music can also help you see the mood that is being set in that particular instance, especially when it will get louder or even get more distant. I felt when he read it I got a better understanding about what exactly was happening in the story and what the author was intending for the readers to see. 

     The story of “Ozymandias” was definitely better when read by Bryan Cranston. He has such a powerful voice that helps the reader or listener in this case get a better image of what is trying to be shown. He projects his voice very well while reading it. Especially in certain places when his voice will get louder or even when he will have longer pauses throughout the story for more of a dramatic effect. Another noticeable thing when he is reading are the drums being played in the background. I definitely got a much better understanding of what was trying to be said in the story after he read it, because when reading it on my own I thought it was very short and that there wasn't much going on. Then when listening I almost got goosebumps because his voice was so powerful and I felt like I could perfectly picture the sands being discussed and the idea of the lifeless things. 

     Overall I think the different tools of reading these kinds of story is beneficiary. Without them I don't feel that I would have quite gotten the full understanding of what was trying to be said in these two stories. 

The Nightmare by Henry Fuseli: Gothic theme during the Romanticism era

As a class, we discussed the Gothic theme quite extensively and were shown a picture of a painting (see above) called The Nightmare by Swiss-born English painter Henry Fuseli. Though it does represent the Gothic style, it's actually considered a Romanticist painting.

It was made in 1781 in London, England and was quite shocking to the public, though many knew he was an odd man who was interested in painting the supernatural and dream-like already. His audience wondered what happened to the popular themes that came about in paintings at the time- there was no moralizing subject, there was no historical significance in the scene, there was nothing from the Bible or literature in the painting, it was simply a result of Fuseli's imagination. This puzzled critics and visitors of the Royal Academy exhibition, where it hung, because they were expecting something from what we now call the Enlightenment, or the “Age of Reason,” but this is what they got.

The light Fuseli uses in the painting seems to emphasize the innocence and virtue of the woman (her white gown) and make the horse's eyes pop out even more, which creates a creepy vibe. The shadows and darkness enveloping the characters emphasizes this even more.

People believe this was Fuseli's interpretation of nightmares coming to life, and I'm sure no one can debate that. The creepy figure on the woman's chest is considered to be an incubus, which is “a type of spirit said to lie atop people in their sleep or even to have sexual intercourse with sleeping women.” Though the title seems to be a pun on the horse in the background (night mare, mare meaning horse), it has another meaning behind it. According to Samuel Johnson's A Dictionary of the English Language (1755), a “mare” or “mara” used to be defined as “a spirit that, in heathen mythology, was related to torment or to suffocate sleepers. A morbid oppression in the night resembling the pressure of weight upon the breast.” The horse wasn't there in the original painting, but was added as a final touch by Fuseli with no known reason, though it could be to surprise, shock, or horrify the crowd even more than they already were when looking at the evil spirit. There is a possibility he added it as a symbolic representation of the word “nightmare.”

Because of it's dark, mysterious features, it inspired many writers such as the poet Erasmus Darwin (Charles Darwin's grandfather), Mary Shelley, Edgar Allan Poe, and many others. It is now considered an icon and has been used several times in parodies and comedic drawings.

Source:http://smarthistory.khanacademy.org/henry-fuseli-the-nightmare-1781.html