New Post has been published on https://esonetwork.com/at-the-earths-core/
At The Earth's Core | Episode 360
Jim looks at a sci-fi favorite from 1976 – Edgar Rice Burrough’s “At The Earth’s Core,” starring Doug McClure, Peter Cushing, Caroline Munro, Cy Grant, Sean Lynch, Godfrey James and Bobby Parr. A mid 19th century expedition lands a scientist and a mining magnate into a world located 500 miles beneath the Earth;s surface. Find out more on this episode of MONSTER ATTACK!, The Podcast Dedicated To Old Monster Movies.
A doctor should always strive to keep up to date with the state of the medical world, though I'll give Watson some slack since he lives with Holmes.
I won't say Dr. Armstrong is completely off base. I do think Holmes does good more often than he doesn't and generally for good reasons. But there are one or two times where maybe he rushed into things a bit too fast and caused some distress.
Moriarty, the center of a continental spider's web of crime, the man who "killed" Holmes, and he thinks Dr. Armstrong is a match? That is a high compliment. And just a compliment, as I don't see it as an insult really.
Game respects game. Holmes finally becomes the recipient of the sort of sarcasm and smarm that he himself usually deals out to snobby clients and over-confident detectives. I guess Dr. Armstrong really is like Moriarty if he can match Holmes here.
I wonder how many times Watson has woken up horrified to find Holmes, blank expression on his face, holding a needle while in some drug-induced stupor? I don't know why this story specifically about a missing athlete has such great little nuggets of Holmes' addiction and Watson's feelings on it, but I'm glad for it.
I would've loved to see Holmes get the assistance of Toby, but I don't mind the appearance of another dog. Pompey is also a great name for him, very good.
I'm sure there's some legal explanation for this, but I want to know the justification. Why would marrying someone deprive you of an inheritance? I could maybe excuse it as sexism if it were a woman losing her inheritance, but that's not the case here. Or is this a Lord Mount-James specific situation and he would take away the inheritance if he found out Godfrey was married? Maybe that's it.
The ending to this one is very sweet. Usually I would prefer something more, maybe a final conversation with the original client, but here none of that is necessary. I'm glad they didn't try to go talk with Godfrey again, or circle back to Overton or Lord Mount-James. They got the explanation, and that's all they needed.
also random note but i FINALLY got around to watching Granada Holmes, and FINALLY seeing the canon story of A Scandal in Bohemia
i would like to join the Godfrey Norton Protection Society and also the Irene Norton (née Adler) Protection Society because what in God's fucking name are all these adaptations doing with her????? i have so many thoughts (all good re: Irene, ofc), but most of them summed up are -
do the people who adapt her character for other works not have a LICK of media literacy about them? at all? she writes Holmes a fucking letter EXPLAINING WHY SHE DID IT and they're like "mm yeah shes an evil vindictive seductress who would release these compromising pictures at the drop of a hat xoxo"
Honestly both of them are portrayed so badly in almost everything, so many people can't seem to stand the idea that Adler isn't a villain or the pawn of a villain or that she isn't interested in Holmes in that way and that she can choose for herself who she wants to be with and be in the right about him and him being a decent man who genuinely loves her. Godfrey has been killed off or else portrayed as an abuser (usually meaning she has to be rescued from him by Holmes, of course) in so many texts, or in one story I remember even though she supposedly loved him she still went behind his back to sleep with Holmes. One also had her killing him shortly after they were married too if I remember rightly. (Adler being an international spy and her and Moriarty being in love is a new one to me but if anything I found that even worse than most of the other portrayals of her.)
Then I come on here and see bullshit 'hot takes' about them in my tracked tags including "I am reeling from the fact that the gothic fiction tumblr fandom is currently elevating the shit out of Norton, a completely nothing background character in a Sherlock Holmes story, only because he MIGHT love his wife back. Anyway Irene Adler is a lesbian and Norton was her comphet crush she got divorced from" so stuff like that is always fun to see, not.
I mean there are a handful of stories that have portrayed one or both of them pretty well (though unfortunately most of those tend to be stories I don't otherwise like) but yeah, they're both portrayed really badly or else Godfrey just gets completely erased and ignored so, so often. The Granada episode was one of the very rare things that didn't do them a huge injustice.
I love both of them, cos Adler is not a villain - she might well commit certain crimes sometimes for various reasons including maybe even just because it amuses her but she's not an actual criminal, she's not a villain and she's not being manipulated by a villain, she's not a terrible person, but she is unorthodox and probably someone who many people would regard at least with suspicion if not outright hostility, because she's an 'adventuress'. She's the kind of person many men then might want as their mistress but never as their wife. But Godfrey is a respectable sort of man but he knows all this about her and he still loves her and he is prepared to not only marry her but also apparently uproot his entire life to try to protect her from one of her ex-lovers, a man who almost certainly has far more wealth and power and influence than both of them.
A Scandal in Bohemia does interest me not only because of them but also because it puts Holmes on totally the wrong side initially; it has him behaving actually really dishonourably towards a woman who behaves with nothing but kindness towards him and it's only by the end of it he truly realises he is on the wrong side and that Adler was a victim not a villain. (I do still love the idea that does fit in the canon that it was Moriarty who warned Adler about Holmes after he had been approached himself by the king to get the photograph back but had refused to help him. I do love the thought of Moriarty too being captivated by her, just as Holmes is, in a way that's not remotely romantic or sexual, and in this Moriarty was the one who was on the right side while Holmes was in the wrong.)
I would love to have something which has Irene (or her and Godfrey preferably) interacting with Moriarty in a positive way - not her being his pawn or victim or 'love interest' (*barfs*) or being Moriarty herself (also not with her outwitting Moriarty because he's portrayed as a sort of 'bumbling idiot' almost) but as with everything it seems for this to exist I have to write it myself.
Bauhaus. 1919-1933, Texts by Godfrey Worsdale, James Beighton, Christian Wolsdorff, and Annie O'Donnell, MIMA – Middlesbrough Institute of Modern Art, Middlesbrough, 2007 [Exhibition: November 23, 2007 – February 17, 2008, organised in co-operation with Bauhaus-Archiv Berlin, Kupferstichkabinett Berlin, and Tate, London] [Art Books & Ephemera]. Feat works by Josef Albers, Lyonel Feininger, Wassily Kandinsky, Paul Klee, László Moholy-Nagy, Lucia Moholy among others
this has been done before + there are probably another hundred movies that fall under this but i just think these are a funny collection for the first three i could think of
This story was published in 1904, so that would make this story take place around 1897 or '96, give or take a year because of how vague Watson is. Regardless, for people making timelines (who are braver than most), I imagine statements like this are either incredibly frustrating in pinning down an exact date, or a sweet reprieve because there's more freedom to pin it where you want.
I never considered it before, but maybe one of the reasons Watson moved back in with Holmes in Baker Street was to make sure he didn't fall back into his addiction. I like the idea that Watson is constantly helping Holmes through it in the background of all these adventures.
From what little I remember this is a missing persons case, so I'm not quite sure how that's more appropriate for Holmes than the police. Hopkins was probably just swamped with work and knew Holmes would be able to solve whatever was going on.
Cyril Overton is fun, a real gentle giant sort of character. I can also relate to Holmes' reaction and subsequent lack of sports knowledge. Although I feel he should be somewhat familiar if only in regards to the possibility of it pertaining to a case, but I guess that's what this story is for.
Ah, writing impressions. I remember doing those as a kid, taking my dad's notepad and finding some tax thing I was too young to care about. I'm surprised it took so long for it to appear in these stories.
Usually when a character says they are the only family someone has got, it's a sentimental line, and I'm not sure it works the other way. Funny, though. Anyways, I doubt Lord Mount-James is involved in Godfrey's disappearance, at least not directly. It just seems like too much effort for someone like him.
I'm not going to go through all the cases so far to see whether that's true. But Watson's not wrong, so far there's very little to go off. I hope it's related to rugby though, as I was disappointed at how Watson didn't talk about it at all in today's letter. I want to see him gush about it, reveal his favorite teams, players, use specific terminology, etc. Just utterly surprise Holmes with his sports knowledge. Hopefully in the next letter.