It's not the continuity I'm thinking of. Fanwanking probably began with Sherlock Holmes. (Where was Watson injured in Afghanistan, anyway? And how many times was he married?) It's getting a sense of the characters. Holmes is off screen during more than half of Hound.

Yeah, but... that doesn't make the story any less enjoyable. If you've never heard of Sherlock Holmes, I suppose it would be an issue, but that seems unlikely to me.

Sorry; it's really not important and I don't intend to second-guess you, especially since I don't know what kind of discussion you're planning. I'm just in the mood to ask idle questions.

I feel like I *know* Holmes through simple cultural osmosis, and because I've read those Carol Nelson Douglas novels, as well as Laurie King's series. I picked Hound simply because it's always seemed to me like one of the more famous stories/novellas, and I was a little ashamed that I'd enjoyed the take-offs without ever reading the original.

But reading some of the other stories is a great idea. Especially "A Scandal in Bohemia".

I feel like I *know* Holmes through simple cultural osmosis,

You know a lot about Sherlock Holmes. You know he says things like, "You see but you do not observe." But, to grasp wildly at an analogy, it's like reading the fanfic without ever seeing the show. I'm afraid I have trouble reading the take-offs, because they never quite ring true for me.

What I'd like to discuss is how so many of the conventions of the modern detective novel and television show are created by Conan Doyle. I'd also like to talk about the continuing tension between science and superstition in the stories. And I don't think you can talk about Holmes without talking about the relationship between Holmes and Watson and the narrative function of an "everyman" narrator like Watson. (Yes, there is Holmes/Watson slash. It's not the the earliest, certainly. The earliest slash is probably Gilgamesh and Enkidu. It is, however, a continuing theme in Holmes literature.)

I think reading some of the short stories are a great idea. When are the discussions supposed to start?

If we're adding 4 short stories to the mix, we may want to extend the reading period accordingly. And we still haven't decided whether we're going to break down the selections. Ginger, is there any particular order that we should read the short stories? Maybe if we read them in tandem we can talk about some of the short stories as we build up to the HotB discussion.

I've read those Carol Nelson Douglas novels, as well as Laurie King's series

I'm an old Holmes fan and I've read the above books, and I'm not persuaded Laurie King has a good grasp of Holmes' character. Though her take on Watson is nice. A couple of the original stories might be a good rounder-outer (see the brand new word!).

Gosh, we could do hours of chats on the various "fanfic" non-Conan Doyle Holmes stories out there. Stephen King did one that's very nifty.

Ginger, do you want me to put up the additional stories you chose with the HotB? or is the format you found them in acceptable?

What I'd like to discuss is how so many of the conventions of the modern detective novel and television show are created by Conan Doyle. I'd also like to talk about the continuing tension between science and superstition in the stories. And I don't think you can talk about Holmes without talking about the relationship between Holmes and Watson and the narrative function of an "everyman" narrator like Watson.

Oh, Ginger, I'm so glad you're leading the discussion. Um, in the sense that I know practically nothing about these things and would love to read about them, but still.

It will be the first Holmes I read in English, without the mediation of translation. Also, I've never read (or, um, heard of) any of the Holmes-world books by any writer who is not Conan-Doyle.

I have no comments about the thiming. I never took part in such discussions before, so I don't reallyknow how these things go along. So I'll go with whatever you guys say.

I've never read (or, um, heard of) any of the Holmes-world books by any writer who is not Conan-Doyle.

Gosh, there are probably dozens. I did a whole research thing for someone a while back listing just the books I have. Some are crap, of course--but still published!--and some are pretty darned good. My favorite sub-genre are the Holmes-Dracula books. Loren Estleman did a fairly straight-forward combination of standard Holmes and Stoker's Dracula ( Sherlock Holmes and the Sanguinary Count ), and Fred Saberhagen did a couple that fit into a series of his. The best one of those is The Holmes-Dracula File.