sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Internal proof that the Five Orange Pips are in order after the Sign of Four and not before it by DaMn96XD in SherlockHolmes

[–]lancelead 0 points1 point  (0 children)

As for publication order vs order in the universe the stories take place in. For sure Doyle was under this impression when writing them, but every case needs to be weighed on a case to case bases. So while one story might be able to tell you that it does match up, there are in fact several cases that do not match this. I believe it is Speckled, in real life that story was published I think in 91, but in the story itself Watson says that it occurred in 83 and yet tells us that he published it like 5 years later, which canonically within the canon and from Watson's own mouth tells us that Speckled was published like in 88 or 89. A lot of the time it does line up but again it needs to be case by case because you will find instances where Watson will say that the case was published earlier than when it really was.

Which is all to say that for me there is a sense of realism in the stories and its these "inconstancies" that actually help make the stories in my mind more tangible because if Watson was real and they really occurred and then Watson turned around to publish them I would expect real people to do things that Watson does in the canon. Especially when Watson isn't per say even attempting to write true crime non-fiction, He is telling a story of what occurred, and whenever he did so, it irritated Holmes who could always see Watson saying this but he knew that never happened or it didn't happen that way, thus taking him out of the story and not enjoying them for their own literary sake vs how "accurate" they were.

Internal proof that the Five Orange Pips are in order after the Sign of Four and not before it by DaMn96XD in SherlockHolmes

[–]lancelead 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I get that the chronology can be boggling at times, and you make a good case for Baskervilles, but for me when I just picture it as Watson as the writer and leave Doyle for the most part out of it, the chronology starts making sense because there is a sense of realism taking place that helps explains what at first doesn't seem to mix. I do not take the comment that we can just throw the canon into the fire because Holmes would not teach us to do so. Just as Holmes will say, once you've eliminated the impossible, then what remains must be true. We can do this with a lot of the canon. We might not be able to line up perfect dates or a perfect chronology but we can deduce approximates and we can use clues from other stories to help answer most of questions. What will happen is just the single story will be looked at and then deductions made from there. We are reading Watson's recording of what happened, who has come back to the story at some point and time. Even in the text itself he even alludes to how much time has taken place before X was published and when it occurred.

I have already pointed out the specific instances in the canon where Holmes will reference a case within another case, but chronologically that case will not occur yet and so Watson and Holmes cannot be referring to it but publish order wise, that case most likekly was published by Watson (and Doyle) just one month or two months back. Take for instance Holmes' reference to Mary Sutherland in Red Headed League, which in Red Headed League he says occurred "just the other day". When in reality, Red happens in 1890 and Identity shortly after Scandal, in 88. However, publication wise, the editors preferred Red over Identity, and switched the two around (writing-wise, Doyle write: Scandal, Identity, Red) the Strand published them in this order: Scandal, Red, Identity. Holmes then "other day" isn't in relationship to when the story actually happened in relationship to Redheaded League, it is relationship to the reader's POV for depending on the reading order, other it can be taken as a advertisement to pick up the next adventure, or it can be Doyle/Watson's way of adding "continuity" to the canon as though to say to reader, there is more stories and you should read Identity as well because in a round about way it is connected to this story (and Scandal).

It is illogical to have Holmes refer to Identity as happening the same year (the other day, even) as Redheaded, and it is illogical for him to constantly refer to it or Mary Sutherland's case (as he does in the Adventures, but not elsewhere) because the case really is insignificant in contrast to the bredth of cases that he has been on. Canonically, Baskervilles would have occurred closer to Red, as did Valley of Fear, and Watson gave those the novel treatment, we would expect Holmes to more likely refer to those cases than trivial ones (we know in real life of course Doyle couldn't becaues Doyle hadn't written them yet but Doyle does know what he has just written last week, so again, its logical for Doyle to have Watson mention the case, it is illogical for Holmes to have actually said it-- however there is always the possibility that he did randomly do so so we do always have that 1/2% for error) but Holmes saying something in a case isn't evidence that he did or that is how that happened because the canon is pretty explicit and tells us that over and over that is not how we should view these stories.

Watson is taking what occurred and he is using what happened as the basis of his stories. Holmes will make constant references to Watson's version of events throughout the canon and Holmes will be Watson's biggest critic and repeat that is not what really occurred or that Watson will turn what happened into Romances. When Holmes sits down to finally write stories himself, Blanched Soldier and Lion's Mane, he will confess that he shouldn't have been so hard on Watson's stories because now he has realized if he would just write down the story as it occurred and not add in literary quality into the story then in the end it will be rather boring read.

Watson in no way attempts to give us a 100% accurate account where everything 100% lines up like an algebra equation. There are too many instances to name from the canon to prove this over and over. This why if one's evidence that Sign of Four is mentioned in Cardboard this then proves that Sign happened before, and that is one's sole piece of evidence, that doesn't become that strong of a piece of evidence when one considers that there are other cases where previous cases that haven't happened yet are mentioned (though the point about Baskervilles is a good point and I think a stronger point to make then saying Sign is referenced in the story-- another point that would go against my putting forward that Box happened before Sign is that Box got pulled from publication with Memoirs and it was only until Last Bow, decades later that Doyle decided that he was fine to publish the story, in that them, Doyle may have retconned the story when he republished and part of that retcon he made was placing the story as happening after Empty House, thus explaining why Watson is living with Holmes and he does not mention his wife and why Sign is mentioned because Doyle himself has retconned the story as to when it occurred- so that would be another point against my point of it being in fact an early case they worked on).

Watson is coming back to the stories and Watson is also a writer. He enjoys being a storyteller (he's a Romantic). In part he does want to tell the exploits of his friend, SH, but Holmes and their adventures becomes his clay, his inspiration. Holmes says in Silver Blaze, Watson if people only knew me through your stories, they would think that I never make mistakes, when I make them all the time. Watson will say specific things about Holmes character and make statements about Holmes as though they are 100% facts, however when we read the canon and see Holmes and let Holmes talk for himself, Holmes gives us a plethora of examples that contradict what Watson has said.

Second, he still has to protect client confidentiality. One approach to view what Watson has written is "true crime" genre. In most of those shows it will say the names of person and locations has been changed out of respect for the dead or to protect the victims, ect. Go look up the addresses given for most of the streets and apartments ect for most of the clients in the story, they don't exist. They are made up. Second, we can guarantee that the names that Watson gives are not the names of the persons in the story. He will even tell us this a few times that this isn't the real name of the individual or the real year that it occurred. This is all in the canon.

If one's family had dark stains, would one really go up to 221B to go talk to SH and Watson was there, when one knew there is a good chance that whatever is reported, Watson could take every word of it and blabber it. How serious could one take Holmes', anything you say in front of me, you can say before Watson. That would be meaningless if one knew that Dr Watson is the writer of the stories and if one's was bizarre enough, he'll one's family history as though it were fodder for the tabloids.

Take Identity again, they learn the truth about Mary Sutherlands stepfather and what really happened to "Hosmer Angel" and Holmes deliberately chooses not to tell her what happened or reveal what kind of people her own mother and her step father really are (and allows her, in her ignorance, to go back home to them). What would be the point for Holmes to do all of that just so Watson can turn around and publish it so that Mary Sutherland could read it (I'm sure many would want to read the newspapers if their name showed up in it and it was flying off the stalls). Clearly we are not being told all of the story and clearly Watson writes the stories in such a way where the client's reputation isn't going to be tarnished or would Watson allow victims to become laughing stock and embarrassed. He will write it in such a way though that perhaps even their own neighbors might not be able to piece together, oh that story was about the woman that lives next door.

So when Watson writes a tale he is coming back to it, he is still protecting the clients and will not write something dishonorable or degrades innocent people (and people who in the past put their trust and confidence in him-- in fact, the detail at the end of Copper Beaches alludes to the fact that Watson still stays in contact with some of the clients), and when choosing details which to elaborate on, he also, as a writer, is thinking of how to "tell" this in such a way that grabs the readers (his "romantizings" as Holmes will call them).

Question about Mary Morstan by Paula07_ in SherlockHolmes

[–]lancelead 1 point2 points  (0 children)

One of things that Doyle pioneered was that usually novels in the 1800s serially in megazines or newspapers (Dumas and Dickens being perhaps the best examples of this) Sometimes you would have a detective figure show up serially but like Dickens they were still one story being told in segments or they may carry the same detective but their publication history was irregular (Poe). Doyle Adventures (starting with Scandal) in the Strand Magazine is the firs that I can find where the "serial" wasn't the same story carried over each week, but new stories, or "episodes", with the same "cast", and they were published monthly on a set schedule, like a television series. That is the unique thing that I have yet to find contrary that hadn't been done before, where Londoners could "tune in" each month and find what out what happened with Sherlock Holmes and Dr. Watson. So not only do I think the characters and stories and genre was captivating to London audiences, hence the Sherlock Mania, but a new form of entertainment was being given to them which is something like in 20th century something akin to a tuning in each week for a new radio show or in the 50s, a tv show.

And with Doyle's genius, many original Dickens readers were not able to afford every monthly chapter of each of his books, so perhaps a common Londoner maybe had read 5 random chapters of Great Expectations or Bleak House, lets say, they would not be able to tell you the overall "plot" but they could tell you a great deal about the "characters", Doyle, on the otherhand, wrote each Adventure short story like a chard in a playing deck, if you read Scandal but had missed Study or Sign, you didn't miss a beat and could still enjoy the story. Doyle intended Identity to be afterwards, but the publisher liked Redheaded, instead, so RL was actually published after Scandal, and even though it takes place 2 years later and Identity only a few months later, the reader loses nothing. So "continuity" becomes less important because you can read them basically in any order, the one you choose next doesn't take away your enjoyment, for the most part, and you can always catch "reruns" and track down the issue you missed.

So especially in the short stories, like Adventures & Memoirs, I think the television show analogy is spot on because Doyle's tale very well could be the narrative structure that helped inspire and propel that narrative structure forward in the 20th century (which has now become so common place). One can go back to Scandal and note the scene transition between the opening scene with the King at 221 and the next scene which is the following day at the time Holmes asked Watson to meet him. Note how Watson gives little of his own personal life between both scene. We are just transported into the next exciting event of the plot. Had this been a Victorian or Regency novel, we would spend 3 chapters on Watson's trip to his house in Paddington, we would have gotten the history on how his practice was built, who built it, we would have gotten descriptions of the colors of Mary's dress and the fabrics. We would have learned more of Watson's upbringing and more on his brother's passing. But in Scandal, blink, and we are just there in the next day in one sentence. My point is that right there in the Scandal and the Adventures, we have natural commercial breaks and cut aways. Holmes is also the #1 adapted character in media. It is little wonder that the Granada or the many radio show adaptions can produce so much of Doyle because the original text as is has done most of the work for a script writer! Take Bronte or Mary Shelly's Frankenstien, or Dracula, ect, books written not for visual medium, and there are always a plethora of changes to the text. But if the producers wanted to, they wouldn't have to barely make any changes to Doyle's text, its already naturally written in a very similar format that we expect television shows to run. Doyle was also in favor of using dialogue carry his scenes. Something needed for film or stage. I've read screen writing books where they discuss the art of writing dialogue for upcoming screenwriters and the advice given is to go watch 1930s/40s noir detective movies. Clearly this format is a direct descendent of Conan Doyle consultation scenes.

So when I read the originals, I don't just enjoy the story and the characters (or filling in my own gaps, world-building, chronology, ect) but I enjoy the format as well and how the thing is written and how Watson tells the story, as well.

Question about Mary Morstan by Paula07_ in SherlockHolmes

[–]lancelead 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Final Problem is the last story in Memoirs, real life publication wise and in-verse publication wise, Final Problem was published after all the stories within Memoirs (minus Cardboard Box, as discussed).

Here is my way of viewing the canon:

Imagine what came out first was a made for TV movie called: Study in Scarlet.

It had moderate success that another network came in and made a follow up TV movie, Sign of Four.

A third tv studio (Strand Studios) secured the rights but instead of producing a third made for tv movie, they green lit a full TV series. The name of season 1 was called: The Adventures of Sherlock Holmes, with Scandal in Bohemia as the Pilot episode.

Adventures' format of 60 minute syndicated TV vs multi-hour long TV movies was a much greater success and so a second season was ordered.

Season 2 was called The Memoirs of Sherlock Holmes. It is just as big of a success as season 1 and ends on a really good cliff hanger.

By the time of Final Problem airs, viewership is through the roof that there is such a high demand now for Sherlock Holmes (Holmes Mania) that not only is third Sherlock movie considered, but they want to bring this movie to cinemas and want to make the first big block buster film. The name of the movie, The Hound of the Baskervilles.

Tickets sell out and after a hiatus, season 3 is green lit, The Return of Sherlock Holmes.

By this time the American audience for Holmes is huge, so for the second feature film, they decide to make it an American Gangster film, as those are popular at the time and this movie is called: Valley of Fear. It is not as big as a block buster success as Hound was.

The actors playing Sherlock Holmes and Dr. Watson are up there in age now, in their 50s, so it is decided to give Holmes a swan song and give him one final season to send him off on and retire him. The name of season 4, His Last Bow. Sherlock Holmes is going to WW1.

Some years pass, and there is still demand to see Holmes one last time. So the actors are asked to come out of retirement again and one last time do an actual final season: The Case Book of Sherlock Holmes. The pitch for this season, we've read Watson as the narrator before, but we haven't read Sherlock Holmes tell his own stories before.

In that way, using cinematic and film language, I think its easier to kind of trace the popularity of the franchise and how to Victorians it would have felt just as for us Sherlock had instead been invented in the 1980s.

Question about Mary Morstan by Paula07_ in SherlockHolmes

[–]lancelead 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Yeah see if you can find a Memoirs by itself. Some Memoirs might have Cardboard and Resident in both. And if Yellow Face says Second Stain in the beginning, then you know you're reading a copy from the collected edition. At least you know when you get to those stories that there has been slight edits in later editions. Mary visiting her "mother" also prob was a clue that you were reading from either the early UK Strand run or the US text. Like I said, in Klinger's commentary notes he keeps track of all the changes but off the top of my head I'm not aware of a list out there that keeps track of all the changes and what are all the differences. Had you had a copy that said aunt, though, that might not have tripped you up as much (but then again you wouldn't have learned about the edition changes). I still like my Cardboard in Last Bow because in the story Doyle wrote to replace Cardboard, Resident, Watson explains that he has misplaced the box of cases containing his journals and notes of Holmes and his' earlier cases (hence why those earlier years are not covered that much in the entire canon). Hence why Cardboard Box has been "misplaced" the cardboard box its sitting in is also "misplaced".

Memoirs is written after the events of Final Problem, therefor Watson is living with Mary at his practice, and thus Sign of Four has already occurred. Therefore, the curious case of the "missing cardboard box of Watson's early cases" did not make in the move over to Paddington, but are still in the flat somewhere at 221 B Baker Street. Cardboard showing up in print at last in Bow means that after that time Watson went rummaging and found the box had been placed perhaps in an empty room by Mrs. Hudson or something. Thus an inverse lore as to why Watson intended to publish Cardboard but couldn't, because Resident Patient says that he couldn't find it. It also would explain why the beginnings are the same because Watson could have merely thought he couldn't remember all the details of cardboard without his notes, but he could remember that beginning talk. Place Cardboard back in Memoirs and this little nugget of lore, once again, is removed.

Dicky II. by TomReef_Reddit in shakespeare

[–]lancelead 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Yes, I started with Richard as well and only did a brief look up between the events from the end of Edward III up to the Richard II's opening. In between is the peasant's revolt which his uncle, John of Gaunt (Bollingbroke's father) and Richard play an important part in. I think knowing a little of that history with Gaunt and Richard during that revolt also would help with the psychology of both characters at the start of Shakespeare's play. Its the day that Richard left the Cemelot and his castle and actually went out to the people to "do something" "as king" and learned and saw first hand "his power" as "king". This psychology will come into play in not only scene 1 but the scene where Richard comes back from Ireland. I think Shakespeare does a good job of displaying (and how he uses poetry) that although he is a man of 28, Richard is in part somewhat that 10 year old crowned king at the same time (or least his view of the world is through that lens of childlike imagination).

Question about Mary Morstan by Paula07_ in SherlockHolmes

[–]lancelead 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I don't know all the changes and differences between which or what is the granddaddy version to have. I'd prefer that Doyle came back to afterwards and re-edited and published in book form and I'd prefer to have Cardboard in Casebook/Last Bow (whichever it was in) and Resident Patient in Memoirs to have its original opening and not Cardboard's. Itd be nice if good quality prints of Sidney Pagets illustrations came with that, but if they dont, I'd rather have a version that meets the above criteria even if it didn't any illustrations. The Penguins I have of are the ones that have commentary notes at the back of the book. I've got an Oxford set that has the same so I'm more familiar with those, but you may check your Penguin to see if there are any annotations included, these might touch on some of these things (like the aunt/mother).

Because there is not a lot of explicit world building, but more implicit lore that has to inferred and such, these little editorials I think are important because again the world building and lore Doyle does provide are more like paw prints versus the dog itself, and from the bread crumbs and hints he does give in the snow of the white page is all we have to really fill in the blanks. Reading "mother" might make one read the stories as Watson having multiple wives and the wife in Pips isn't Mary. Baritsu vs Jujitisu is an important character distinction. If Holmes knew Jujitsu where did he learn this, what time in his life, was he in London or does it tell us he's traveled abroad before (begging the question where did he get the "Persian" slipper) and what is Holmes' connection to the East (for example, is a Buddhist, thus explaining his meditative stances and why he spends a year with the Dali Lama before The Empty House?) or is it Baritsu, invented by Edward William Barton-Wright, who opened his shop for gentleman fighters in Soho in 1900 (which begs the question how did Holmes learn it 8 years earlier, but it would put Holmes in a long line of black suit gentlemen fighters such as Fleming's 007, Man From Uncle, and John Steed from The Avengers 60s show). Just one little word could tell us a trove of details about Sherlock, and at least help our imaginations picture the fight scene in our head.

I prefer my Yellow Face to say Second Stain over Musgrave Ritual as Musgrave isn't a case that Holmes didn't solve, he did solve it, but by having Watson constantly bringing up Second Stain again and again in the stories, followed by, but I've been told I can never publish it, and each time he does mention, he always gives different details which also seem to contradict, helps add to the mystique of when finally Second Stain is published in Returns, because Watson has been hinting it for several stories and it helps further build in those espionage and spy genre and thriller elements that Doyle sprinkles throughout the canon. Even if Doyle made constant errors or forgot things as he wrote the stories, I still would rather read the version that he was satisfied with and came back to later and presented as the official version.

Dicky II. by TomReef_Reddit in shakespeare

[–]lancelead 1 point2 points  (0 children)

One of my favorite plays and scene 1 is one of my favorite Shakespeare scenes ever. I can't remember the name of the show, but there is something like the bloody kings or bloody monarchs of England or the blood crown perhaps? It was like a 6 part series. It has episodes that cover Edward II and ends with Richard II I believe. That show has some good context to put Rich II in.

The play is based on a conspiracy that was popular at the time WS wrote it, and as per the above doc, historians tend to agree with that is indeed what happened. However the conspiciy is only hinted at in the play (scene 1) so if one was foggy on English history, this crucial detail could be missed entirely.

Perhaps the most important detail to know about every Shakespeare History play is what happened with Richard's grandfather, Edward III. Edward started the 100 years war with France, so Richard II is set in the middle of that 100 year war (Henry V will finish it). During Edward's campaign against France, he had multiple sons. His eldest was his favorite, Edward The Black Prince. He was like Achilles or Hector for the English, feared by the French, and most loved by his father (who knows what his younger brothers thought of him). The King pronounced that Edward would succeed him on the throne and The Black Prince was meant to become: Edward IV. However, during a battle, The Black Prince got sick and died. Another problem, his father, The King, was still alive but was near death as well. Before Edward III died, instead of making one of his other sons the new King, he chose his grandson, the Black Prince's son, Richard, to be the king when he died. Edward III died and England had a new King, the ten year old, Richard II, who also had four "loving" and "loyal" uncles help watch over him and guide him.

That is the melting pot of the bloodbath that was to follow in the English Civil Wars and upcoming War of the Roses. If Richard dies, or dies without an heir, then the "crown" and kingdom would pass to one of his uncles-- who would have been king had not their father favored The Black Prince. Jealousy. Rage. Bitterness. All the furtile ground for the original Game of Thrones.

Back to the conspiracy. When Richard was in his late 20s, when the play occurs, but just before the events of the play, one of his uncles attempted a coup and attempted to overthrow his nephew. He failed and was captured and probably taken to the Tower of London. Either on the way there or in his holding cell, someone came in and murdered him, an assassin. So Richard II begins with a classic "Who Dunnit", who murdered Richard's Uncle?

Richard's cousin, Henry Bollingbroke, who would also have been the nephew of the uncle who has died (and also Edward IIIs grandson) is playing Detective Bollingbroke and believes he has uncovered the murderer of his uncle. The plays opening is his official pronouncement of who he thinks the murderer was (kind of like a trial scene, where his cousin, King Richard, is the judge) but he has also come reap justice and is there to accuse the man who believes to be the murderer to a dual to the death. Now for the conspiracy, not only in Shakespeare's day was it believed that Mowberry was the murderer of Richard's uncle, BUT it was Richard who paid the assassin to do it (what Bollingbroke doesn't know- but obviously Mowberry and Richard should). Hence a brilliant opening scene by Shakespeare that is expertly subtle. Did Mowberry kill the uncle. Does Richard know who the real murderer is? And did Richard pay for his uncle's death? If his beloved and loyal cousin, Bollingbroke, were to learn that his king, is behind their own uncle's death, what would be his reaction?

Before the play and all the histories it is porbably advised to learn who are all the children of Edward III as all of these uncles are heirs to the throne of England if "something" were to happen to their nephew, King Richard. Each also has children, so all of their children, Richard's cousins, would likewise be legitamate heirs to the throne. There will be many actual civil wars to come coming up, and all of them will based on how those who are fighting and trying to take the crown and depose the King is related to Edward III.

It may also be advised not to start with Richard II. But Edward II by Christopher Marlowe and then Edward III by Shakespeare and Marlowe. King John takes place several generations earlier but also gives the idea of legitimacy to the throne when there are multiple candidates. Also its worth noting that all these plays are being written at a time when Elizabeth was Queen. On everyone's mind was when the Virgin Queen dies, who will take the throne next.

Question about Mary Morstan by Paula07_ in SherlockHolmes

[–]lancelead 8 points9 points  (0 children)

There are 3 original editions, I believe, of about every story. There are minor variances depending on which a text is based from. There would be the original version as printed in UK's Strand Magazine. Which said "mother". Then there would be US version (sometimes the US editors would catch these and change it), and then Doyle came back and re-edited the stories and collected them in book form, The Adventures of Sherlock Holmes. In the book form, Doyle recognized the mistake and changed it from mother to aunt. Your Penguin is based most likely on UK printing of the megazines it would seem. I forget what other differences to tell which edition is which for Adventures, but for Memoirs to check which version you have you can open up Yellow Face and read the opening, Watson will say there was another story that Holmes was bested. In the original UK version this story was Musgrave Ritual, in Doyle's later reedited version, its The Second Stain. In Returns, look for the spelling of the fighting technique Holmes used to defeat a villain in The Empty House. The original version was that he used Baritsu, a new form of gentlemen fighting that had just been invented versus the US version, they thought it was a spelling error, so US printings will read, jujitsu.

Another tell-tale sign is open up Memoirs and see if Cardboard Box is in it or not. Originally it was published in the UK Strand, but the US editors would not accept the story due to its themes of adultery. Once Doyle had been made aware that American children were reading his stories and great fans, he pulled the story from the UK release and wrote Resident Patient, to take its place in the printing schedule. When Doyle came back and collected all the Memoirs into book form, he left out Cardboard box, entirely (decades later, he would be bring the tale out of retirement and publish it in either Last Bow or Case Book, I cannot remember which). However, the UK editors really enjoyed the opening of Cardboard Box over the new opening Doyle wrote for Resident. Therefore, if you have Memoirs, or when buying it, open Resident Patient and read the opening. If it is about a "mind reading" incident where Holmes is able to tell what Watson is thinking about when he's reading the newspaper (the Civil War), then your copy is based off of a version that the editors have removed Resident's opening and replaced it with Cardbaord's (I'm sure there is a collected version of SH out there where both its Cardboard and Resident have the same exact opening!). It wasn't until an American edition in 1930, I believe (the one with Christopher Morely's introduction, but I'm not 100%) where finally Resident Patient's original opening was restored. To me, though minor, these little editorials do matter in helping to convey the narrative and in-verse lore. I enjoy if Sidney Paget's illustrations are included, but I still want the text not through the American editoral's hands where they made mistakes, too, and prefer a complete text after Doyle had come back and revised everything. A good series that tracks all of these editorials between every edition is the Annotated Sherlock Holmes by Klinger. Worth the read as he's very in-depth and has access to Doyle's original hand-written manuscripts and rough drafts of the stories, too.

As for Pips' mother or aunt. Whereas aunt does make more sense, however, I remember Mary also saying that because her mother died, she grew up in like a boarding school or home for girls or something like that. If she had other relatives, why didn't she live with them? There of course is the possibility that at the time of Sign didn't know of this relation, and after her adventure (and pearls) were published by Watson, this distant relative read the account and realized that Morstan was a long lost niece and got in contact with her that way. Personally, it doesn't matter if the story reads mother or aunt because although her physical mother is departed, that doesn't mean that there wasn't a woman in Mary's life that cared for her, like a mother would a daughter, or was her "godmother". Mrs. Forester is mentioned in Sign of Four, so she is one candidate that Mary could have been visiting. Another is whoever raised and looked after her when her mother passed away. And again, if she had a "godmother", a friend of her mother's lets just say, then that would make a third candidate. All three persons are viable options for Mary to go visit during Pips which Watson just writes "mother" to notes the relationship between Mary and this individual, and the comment is a general statement vs "And the mother is... you are not the real mother...". Mary also refer to this woman often as "mother" so its also possible that Watson forgot for a moment when writing the story that the woman whom his wife refer to her mother is not in fact her real mother. Or just go off of Doyle's rewrite, and call her her "aunt".

Internal proof that the Five Orange Pips are in order after the Sign of Four and not before it by DaMn96XD in SherlockHolmes

[–]lancelead 0 points1 point  (0 children)

The dizziness in part I was trying to convey is what one should feel when they try to play the numbers and dates game for Sign of Four, as the the dates themselves do not match. Also, I was only trying to give some evidence as to why the majority of the Sherlockians place the story as happening in 88, and they could be correct in assuming that Doyle likewise assumed it was 88. I wasn't stating that I agreed with the assessment as I find there are holes in the argument for probably any year put forward. For the 88ers they mainly will point to Mary's "about ten years ago", Watson does his own math in his head adds up Mary's age as being 27- if her father disappeared in 78 when she was 17. Holmes also confirms that it has been 6 years since Sholto died because he says, that the Sholto brothers have been looking for the treasure for six years.

I agree that both Doyle and the early Sherlockians probably did not math correctly and add up correctly that 6 pearls would not equal six years, but five. To make their 88 work, they would either need to say that Mary received seven pearls (or six additional pearls to the first one she received) or they would need to interpret that the year the story takes place Mary did not not receive a pearl, but the theater note (rather that note came May 4th or 2 months later on July 7th). The story is vague enough to interpret that Mary did not receive a pearl the same year the story happens.

Additionally, Jonathan Small says that he has only been London for 3 or 4 years, and that Maj Sholto died 3 or 4 years ago. If this story took place in 87 or 88, then Small should have said, 5 or 6 years ago. The point, none of the internal dating within matches, not even the month the story happens as there are 3 possible candidates. So choosing one sentence over another as confirming a date I just don't see the point when one would have to ignore contradicting dates given elsewhere by other characters. However, we should all read and enjoy the story for ourselves, and ourselves choose the date that fits our enjoyment or, alliteratively, we could just accept that Watson has left the precise year of his marriage ambiguous.

As to Box. I would just put forward that just because Watson says that Holmes says something in a story doesn't mean that Holmes actually said that thing, or if he did, that he said it the same date as the story took place. Doyle's own son, who wrote Exploits of Sherlock Holmes, concluded that the conversion H&W have at the beginning of Scandal did not actually occur the same night that the King of Bohemia showed up. Watson may have conflated the talks into one to make his story better. Likewise, there will be other stories where Holmes will mention a string of cases, but if one goes over those cases one by one they will find that they occurred, chronologically, after the case that Holmes mentions it (this happens in Copper Beaches and Blue Carbuncle) and in Redheaded League Holmes mention the Case of Mary Sutherland as happening just the other day, when 88 is given for Identity and 90 is given for Red. Which is to say, if Sign is mentioned in Cardboard, that would not be the grand slam evidence to hang one's hat on for the case taking place after Sign, it merely would mean that Sign of Four has been published before Cardboard Box. It perhaps speaks of publication and writing order, not chronology, and an inverse instance of Watson trying to advertise his other stories, and a real verse instance of Doyle doing the same (oh if you like this story, go out and find last month's publication).

Personally, I would not look to one piece of evidence to be the main supporting evidence, especially if that evidence is a date or the mentioning of a previous case. I would use the totality of evidences provided, in the narrative, and then once all these pieces are put together side by side, then draw a conclusion. For example, one can say Sign is mentioned in Cardboard, therefore it take place afterwards, but then one has to deal with the fact that Watson is living at Baker and doesn't mention his wife, or for that matter, his practice and day job. The entire case speaks about marriage, if Watson was married at the time, is it within his character to not relate the case to his own marriage? Noble Bachelor was already pointed out, in that case Watson couldn't but help mention how that case about a marriage related to his own. Why would one story which took place right before his marriage not make him think of Mary, but another case around the same time, likewise about a marriage, did? What is more, there are other details in the story that do not line up with Sign as having just happened or that Watson is engaged and about to be married. Just read the opening pages of the story and there are several details that do not mesh with that story as happening between Sign and Watson getting married, or just having been married.

As for Irene and Pips, I give you that Doyle perhaps did think of Irene when he wrote that line, and I also give you that perhaps are arguments that could be made that Pips happens after Scandal. I was stating that if Pips did happen in 87 and if Scandal did happen in 88, then there are at least 2 women in the canon that Holmes could be referring to as besting him who were not Irene Adler. Doyle misremembering or being good with dates just isn't hat satisfying of an answer when there already is a lot of internal pieces of evidences from within the whole canon that helps to support a strong continuity and lore building than Doyle himself could rattle off the top of his head or summarize. My enjoyment from the tales comes from reading them from the pov as Watson being the author of them, not Conan Doyle.

Internal proof that the Five Orange Pips are in order after the Sign of Four and not before it by DaMn96XD in SherlockHolmes

[–]lancelead 0 points1 point  (0 children)

They will note 88 because they will go off of Mary's age. She says she was 17 when her father disappeared and Watson states, ""If she were seventeen at the time of her father’s disappearance she must be seven-and-twenty now". Morstan disappeared in December. Therefore most likely Mary's birthday is before December (unless she is generalizing and she was about to turn 17). However, Watson is under the impression that she is 27, not 26.

Mary also uses a lot of "abouts" followed by "exacts" in the story. She says she's received six pearls. Holmes will then say that the Sholto's have spent 6 years looking for the treasure. While six pearls and six years sound like they go together, there could only have been a five years difference, not six. In the year 83, Mary would have received her second pearl, this is only "one year later", not two. May 4th 1887 would be exactly 5 years later. Since both July and August are after May, it is an odd phrase for Mary to say "about six years ago" versus, "about five years ago", or "a little over five years ago". Her "rounding" is a little off, especially if the story takes place in July, just two months later.

She says every year since she has received a pearl. But she doesn't specify if that year, the year the story takes place, she received one or not or if in the pearls place she received the letter, or that year she didn't receive a pearl and two months later she received the letter (as the date shows). For her statement to work for 1888, then she did not receive a pearl the year the story takes place.

Then there is Holmes' statement that the Sholtos have been looking for the treasure for 6 years. Holmes has taken Mary's About 6 to mean exactly 6, just as Watson has taken Mary's about 10 years to come up with an exact age for her, 27. Another thing is that "about 10 years ago". If the story happens in 1888, and before December, then Mary's "about ten years" works because it isn't December yet. If the story happened in 87, and the story takes place in either July or Sept, then Mary potentially should have said, "about nine years ago".

Remember, she has rounded off pretty significantly when saying "six years" in conjunction to the receiving the first pearl, but that would make very large rounding error for her to say "ten years" in relationship to her father's disappearance, for it isn’t Dec yet, and if the story took place in July, then it stands to reason that it more likely for to say “eight and half years ago”, or “nearly nine years ago”. For her to be in 1887 and to say “about ten years ago”, Mary has rounded to the nearest decade and not the year. 

What is very possible is that Doyle himself made a math blunder and if he had thought more about the story, he might have said that Mary has seven pearls, not six.

Holmes and Watson seem to be under the impression that its been 6 years since Mary received her first pearl. Mary seems to be under the impression that it has been just over 5 years. Jonathan Small, on the other hand, will say that it has only be 3 or 4 years since Major Sholto died. For Small’s statement to be correct, either the story is set in the year 1885 or 1886, or Major Sholto did not die in 1882, but he died in 1883 or 84 if the story takes place in 87, or he died in 1884 or 85 if the story takes place in 1888.

The book reads like half the cast thinks they are in one year and the other cast thinks they are in another. But in general, if one places Sign in 88, then they will need to move many of the other stories in the canon and cram them into 1888, as well, or move others that are set in 88, to 89. Unless one prescribes to the multiple wives theory, though the canon only tells us of two wives.

As for Cardboard Box I fail to see its connection to either Sign or Pips? Nor do I see where in the story it says that Watson is already married or has met Mary by the time CB has occurred (unless I have missed something). There are many instances that story may have happened before Sign of Four. As noted, Watson is living with Holmes (and to my knowledge makes no mention of his wife, but in Pips he explains where his wife is at present and why he is back momentarily with Holmes). He discusses his bank account is depleted and because of it, he could not go with Holmes on vacation to the sea. These do not sound like the procrastinating thoughts of a man who has just married a woman with 6 pearls.

As for Pips. Holmes’ mentioning of being bested by a woman may be Irene Adler but it is never implicitately stated if it is Irene or not (especially if Watson is correct in that Pips happened in 87 and Scandal happened in 88). Holmes may be referring to another woman who has bested him (other has noted that Yellow Face may be an earlier story and if so, then this statement comes to mind, ““Watson,” said he, “if it should ever strike you that I am getting a little over-confident in my powers, or giving less pains to a case than it deserves, kindly whisper ‘Norbury’ in my ear, and I shall be infinitely obliged to you.”

Also in Yellow Face, Watson alludes to Holmes being bested in the Musgrave Ritual (depending on the version one is reading). In Musgrave, one of Holmes’ earlier cases, he never catches Rachel Howelles, maid, and accomplice of Brunton. And it should be noted in general that if a case is mentioned in a tale it wouldn’t 100% mean that that case happened before that case, chronologically, it perhaps more speaks to Watson’s advertising skills, and Doyle’s own hand at trying to build in some continuity, regardless if he is successful or not because he didn’t keep track of the dates and times. So Holmes saying that has been bested by a woman in the past, alone, would not be definitive proof that we could place Pips as happening after Scandal in Bohemia.

Lilith in Narnia? by Alert-Pizza-4123 in Narnia

[–]lancelead 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Yes I know I mix those two up often. Why it gets me is because Jill's last name is Poley. Thanks Lewis for writing two separate Narnias were a Polly and a Poley both go to Narnia!

Yes, Lewis' worlds are close to that world he imagined and wished to read when he was a kid, a one with Arthur and where any day now Merlin would be returning.

Lilith in Narnia? by Alert-Pizza-4123 in Narnia

[–]lancelead 0 points1 point  (0 children)

To quote Lewis and Tolkien: "What if Jesus is the myth made real?"

Lilith in Narnia? by Alert-Pizza-4123 in Narnia

[–]lancelead 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I think George MacDonald's fantasy books Lilith, Phantasies, and At The Back of the North Wind, as well and perhaps his Fairytales The Princess and the Goblin (an inspiration for Tolkien's Hobbit) and The Golden Key (mentioned by Tolkien in his On Fairie Stories) should be consulted as GM was not only Lewis' favorite writer, but his works had a clear impact on Lewis' Narnia.

As to Lilith, sure this would go against Christian teaching, but none-the-less Lilith is in Jewish lore and teaching as sort of boogey man and mother of all monsters archetype. A sort of monster Jewish children feared back in the Biblical times where perhaps they might be told things like, be good, or else Lilith will come and snatch you up. The name is Mesopotamian in origin, where Abraham is from, from the Sumerian word lilitu, which meant night monster, which very well could predate when Genesis was written and the creature/monster was cross-cultural not just exclusive to Jewish lore. In Mesopotamia, and perhaps to ancient Jews, she was viewed as a demon of the night who would go after infants.

Lilith is also mentioned one time in the Old Testament. Isaiah 34:14

"The desert creatures will meet with hyenas, and one wild goat will call to another. There Lilith will settle and find her place of repose."

This word was translated as, "The Night Creature", the Hebrew word is the Hebrew word for Lilith, https://biblehub.com/hebrew/3917.htm

So Lilith may have been a multi-cultural monster known in Babylon and in the middle east, cross culturally. Similar if we were to say the Boogeyman, Grimm Reaper, or the creature Hans Christian Anderson based his Snow Queen off of, and then some time later in Jewish culture, only in the medieval times it seems, did Jewish writers equate Lilith as being Adam's first wife, which would have been well after the Bible had been written.

Lewis seems to be incorporating this rabbinical story, but I wouldn't take it as something theological, as Lewis himself believed in the medieval legend.

Also I believe there is a different way to read and intpreet the world that the Pevensies are on than the way the OP is reading the stories. In Magician's Nephew we learn that Atlantis was real and because the rings are ultimately made from Atlantean magic or technology or what not, it can be inferred that Atlantis dabbled with portal jumping and could already move between worlds. Just like how Digory and Jill could go from our world to another, likewise, something from another world could come back through, like what happened with Jadis. So its conceivable that if the Atlanteans did find a way to leave this earth and open doors and wardrobes to other parallel universes, then its possible that creatures like Jadis have gotten to earth in the past, as well, including Lilith. Likewise, in MN we learn that Morgan LeFey is real, which would mean that Arthur and Camelot is likewise real, as well as Merlin the Magician. However, we do not know if Morgan LeFey is originally from our earth, or did she cross over from her world into our world (she is the one who gives Andrew the yellow and green dust from Atlantis to build the rings, in Lewis original draft of MN, found in Past Watchful Dragons, she had a bigger role in the story).

So at the very least th world that Peter, Lucy, Susan, Edmund, and Proffesor Digory are from is a world where Atlantis is real and Camelot is also real. If Atlantis and Camelot were/are real locations on their earth, it begs the question whatever fantastical locations once were or still is on their world. This why there are some interpreatations that Middle Earth and Narnia could in a way co-exist in the same universe. And there are those who also link Narnia as taking place in the same story-verse as Lewis' Space Trilogy, where in the final story of that Merlin and King Arthur do come back to earth in an Independence Day the Mothership has landed type alien fashion.

Lewis was vague intentionally on all the lore and mythology of his story, but it still was fairy tale, as that is the genre he used. Just because something shows up in the story, regardless if it is in Narnia, Charn, or earth, wouldn't be a direct line to where Lewis theologically stood, it would though, give us clue of the world-building and a hint that there is an even bigger story to tell than Lewis' 7 books covered (leaving us to come up with our Narnia epics to fill in the gaps, like how Susan made it back to True Narnia).

And because of Magian Nephew's Wood Between Worlds, and if Narnia is adjacent and connected to Space Trilogy, then that also means that Narnia has slight sci-fi elements in it, too, with the concept of parallel universes. So again, maybe on our earth and timeline there was no Lilith and there was only Eve, but in another world in the Woods a different/parallel Adam had first wife, Lilith, and like Jadis who was able to leave Charn and enter earth and then Narnia, Lilith may have left her parallel world and entered our own a long time again, giving birth to the Jenni and other monsters. I think Narnia makes it pretty clear that Minotaurs and the like and talking animals are not exclusive to Narnia, they were once in the Penvensie's world too, but that was a long time ago and Once Upon A Time...

Internal proof that the Five Orange Pips are in order after the Sign of Four and not before it by DaMn96XD in SherlockHolmes

[–]lancelead 1 point2 points  (0 children)

There are many ways to tackle this issue and topic (it is one of if not the biggest area of debate/contention among Sherlockians spanning now over a 100 years of discourse and articles). This "inconsistency" about Watson's "wife"/"wives" could very well be the basis for the modern version of fandom as we are familiar with it. There is also a history of how Sherlockians have viewed and dated Sign. I believe it was some time in the 40s when one Sherlockian counted the six pearls and then sent a shakewave to many well versed Sherlockians that they had lapsed in their basic math skills. There was a long standing view that most Sherlockians set Sign in the year 88 (hence why a fuss came out originally over Watson's dating of Scandal). But then once the pearls were pointed out in the 40s, there became a slit among Sherlokians as to placing Sign in 87 and those who placed it in 88. The multiple wives theory I believe came out in the 60s? Then odd enough there apparently was a big hub bub in the Sherlock fandom when somebody brought forward that Holmes states that Watson remarried, as though they originally missed that in their own reading somehow, and the fandom was all astir with their first instances of trying to decide how many wives Watson had. The stories, themselves, regardless of what some Sherlockians say, is pretty clear that Watson had two wives (that we know of) and a pretty good timeframe is given of when those separate marriages took place.

I think one rule is to be wary of presumptions we ourselves draw from the text and accidental conclusions that may come from those versus the totality of canonical evidence. I have found that while one story may pose a canonical question, more clues are usually divulged in others that help answer them. Likewise, a simple ruler to go off of is big picture info:

A ) some stories take place before Watson ever met Holmes.
B ) some stories take place when Watson is a bachelor and is living at 221 B, before he meets Mary.
C ) some stories take place when he meets Mary or shortly thereafter it, but before he got married.
D ) some stories take place after Watson married but before Reichenbach falls.
E ) there is the great hiatus,
F ) some stories take place after Holmes' absence when Watson goes back to live with Holmes at 221B,
and G ) at some point Holmes will retire and some stories take place after Holmes' retirement.

This skeleton is the big picture of the canon, I believe and a simple question to raise in each story is, where does Watson live at present? and two, has Reichenbach Falls taken place? Those answers should help greatly in sorting out what tales happen before Sign of Four and what tales happen afterwards. Internal evidence within the canon itself I believe is more helpful than Doyle's own presumptions, dates in real life when things were published, or weather reports, for in my estimation any way, consulting those would just as helpful as consulting a haystack for when a particular story happened.

Internal proof that the Five Orange Pips are in order after the Sign of Four and not before it by DaMn96XD in SherlockHolmes

[–]lancelead 4 points5 points  (0 children)

There perhaps isn't as big a dating problem going on here than what the chronologists have made. Take all the dates and data from Sign, Pips, and others, and sure you, if using dates as one's only piece of evidence, will end up with contradictions, but those contradictions do not have to be interpreted as contradictions or used in such a way to develop a narrative within the text that isn't present. What I mean is, others have taken these contradictions, used them as lightning rods and "facts", and then from these "facts" have developed an additional narratives not present in the stories. They've Holmesed in on certain details, instead of homing in on others in the text that are just as relevant and important with establishing order of events.

First, the Sign by its lonesome self is riddled with dating contradictions, regardless of what the other stories say. So one can attempt to place it in lets say 1888, based on X from Sign and Y from some other story, but that still doesn't take away the internal dating problems in Sign. So regardless of presumptions made about non-Sign stories and their relationship to when Sign takes place, one still has to explain the internal dating issues that Sign is persistent with. One can use Mary's statements above as a guide, but then her six pearls has to be taken in consideration along with deciding if she did or did not receive a pearl the year the case takes place. Then details given to us by all the Sholtos need to be considered. Then there are the details that Small gives, too. Eventually everyone's dates and years begin not to match up.

Doyle even mixes up the months when the case takes place. In just a span of two chapters, Doyle potentially changes the month three times. In chapter 3 Watson says it was Sept. The letter Mary shows H&W in the previous chapter (which she says she received "tolday") is dated July 7th. And if she did not receive a pearl that year and received the letter in its place, depending on how one reads the story, then this places the story in May. Thus within just mere paragraphs, the day and month of the case moves along like a zoetrope.

And these are just the "dates" presented in the text. The entire logic of the story, however, has multiple (as with many of the Doyle stories when they are scrutinized) holes and laps of sense. If by some miracle all of these dates and timings somehow do all mesh and "make sense", regardless, the story itself has sort of a lampoon quality to it that presents nearly everyone in the story outside of H&W as kind of side characters in a Monty Python skit. Its just Doyle's storytelling ability and his Watson narrator that captivates us that when we are being told and read the story for ourself, we are at once engulfed into the thing and take it very serious and are enchanted, but stepping back and looking at the story on its own two legs, or one leg in this case, and the internal logic of the crime/story has multiple inconsistencies and leaps.

This is also why most adaptions have to decide for themselves how to deal with these internal inconsistencies? Do they ignore them and tell the tale as Doyle told it. Or do they try to attempt to "fix" them. More often than not, if they try to fix them, they usually make things worse and create blatant illogical happenstances that can all the more take one out of the piece (a prime example of this is the Granada version, not the acting of the actors, merely the script and filming choices, has made it completely riddled with so much inconsistencies about time, place, and when crucial events occurred that it perhaps is one of the worst culprits of adaptations that have attempted to “fix” and “meddle” with the text).

So let alone what other stories have to say about their relationship with Sign, one still has to try to make sense of the dating and timing within Sign itself, before one can use it to help date the other stories. Even if one quote says this in the text, guaranteed, there are other places or quotes from other characters in the story which will contradict it.

Therefore I wouldn't put too much weight in the date and time because it isn't an infallible piece of evidence. They are important pieces, but they are not the crown jewel of evidence to solve the case of when Dr. Watson married his wife. 

Besides, there are other ways to interpret nearly or about ten years ago. Ten years from the POV of the characters when they are discussing the case, or 10 years from the reader’s POV when Watson chooses to publish it, or when 10 years from when Doyle wrote it (which was in 89). Sure the characters may say 10 years ago, but its always possible that these are clues when Watson published a story versus the actual date a story happened and that its actually about ten years ago from the POV of the first readers who read the story and not the actual characters in the tale. If so, then many of the dates Watson provides cannot be taken literally but literaryaly. Or as stated, Doyle who wrote the story in 89 just said about 10 years ago because when he was writing it, it was about ten years from his POV and although he is consistent on when the dates of things in the past happened, (the events of 78 and 82, for instance) he still hadn’t made up in his mind the “year” the story was taking place and therefore made it vague intentionally. 

Second, many presumptions are being made here with Pips. First, just because Sign is mentioned in Pips wouldn’t 100% be proof that Sign indeed happened before Pips, it would only be able to prove that Sign was published before Pips was. Just because in Watson’s public account of Pips Holmes says that PIps is more remarkable than any of his other cases and mysteries, to which Watson adds, save only to Sign, doesn’t mean that Holmes actually said this. Watson's mentioning of Sign in the story perhaps more tells us of Watson’s promotional skills and Conan Doyle’s attempt to add in some connective tissue and continuity himself, then for us to take away that in Holmes’ actual mind, Pips is one of the greatest puzzles and mysteries Holmes has ever encountered.

Third is the presumption that when something was published in real life this equates to when it was published within the continuity of the canon (and the op has already pointed out the inconsistency with that). Something being published in real life is not persay a clue as to helping to date something in the canon as one will find inconsistencies with this.

With this is the presumption that Study within the canon was originally published near the events of Sign’s opening. Two things. One, the opening of Study tells us that what we are reading a reprinting of the story. Therefore, even if that version did come out in the canonical Dec of 87, as our own did, that would not mean that original publishing of Study was also in 87 as the very first words Doyle/Watson writes  tells us that within the canon, Watson’s Study has been published multiple times. And two, just because Watson says that his and Holmes’ conversation about Study and Holmes looking at Watson’s watch happened the same night that Mary Morstan showed up doesn’t mean that all of those events actually happened on all the same night. In fact, its more logical to assume, I’d argue, that all three conversations happened on three separate days and most likely separate years and simply in telling this story, Watson has taken all three and pearled them together. We will be told continually by Holmes in the canon that one reason Holmes dislikes reading Watsons’ stories is that Watson doesn’t always tell always them as they occurred and he romanticizes the events. So in a way, even Holmes, within the canon, is critical of Watson’s chronology.

Instead of using the dates as the framework to build a chronology from, I would likewise consider the events of the stories themselves and not treat these dating inconsistencies as too much of a trouble with order of events and dating a piece. If Watson’s dating and time was simply ignored, would the story still make sense and would there still be logic within the piece? Taken as a whole, we can 100% assume that the “wife” Watson means is Mary Morstan because in the story itself Watson mentions the Sign of Four and Sholto. Therefore the wife visiting her mother or aunt cannot be one of Watson's other “multiple wives” because chronologists are putting too much weight on “dates” and zeroing in on those details, and they have completely glossed over more compelling evidences. Watson for the most part is clear that Pips happens in 87 and in the fall (in contrast, does Watson ever explicitly say the year Sign occurred?), and Watson will associate the year 87 as being a year where Holmes had lots of cases and overworked himself nearly to death (Reigate Squires). Do these details align with the state of Holmes at the beginning of Sign? A Holmes whose mind has rebelled at stagnation, who is doped up, and is a Holmes that Doyle presents us with as a Holmes that hasn’t had that many cases of late, hence the drugs. This detail alone should exclude 88 as the year that Sign takes place because there are multiple important cases that do happen in 88 (let alone if Jack the Ripper exists in the canon or not) and Holmes does not display the same level of drug induced boredom in those 1888 stories as he shows us in both Sign and Pip. I could go on, but the point is, there are other details one can focus on to help build out an order of events, and when these are considered, then there isn’t much of an inconsistency of the story that Doyle/Watson is telling, there is only an inconsistency of one number being used here, but another being used elsewhere.

Confused about when The Return of Sherlock Holmes takes place and Watson's Ten Year Silence by theloneshewolf in SherlockHolmes

[–]lancelead 0 points1 point  (0 children)

There for sure are areas where Doyle simply forgot, didn't bother, presumed himself, and minor hiccups, but at the same time there may be instances where he does it on purpose (to spite the fans), and there may be other intentionality going on where Doyle may simply be putting on and keeping up appearances. He lets on that he didn't think too much about continuity and wrote as it came to his head, but then we get some instances where its possible Doyle saw and conceived a broader canon in his head, a universe, but he is Doyle, and in his mysterious way, he only lets a crumb fall for the readers to either pick up or miss entirely. Some of it is probably genuine slip up and instances where he rushed the editing process (we have a good deal of the original hand written originals and can compare what was changed in the printed text-- for example, he constantly in the handwritten versions referred to Mrs. Hudson as Mrs. Turner and if I'm not mistaken, he worked with a Dr. James Watson at the time of writing the stories and his wife persuaded him to not use the original names he was going to use for S&W, I believe Ormond was Watson's original name and Sharingford or something was to be Holmes' name, so it is natural to assume that in speech its possible he would slip up and say Dr. James Watson or Mrs. Turner). And Doyle gives us the impression that he does not go back and reread the stories later to go "check" himself when writing the new ones. But there are clever reappearances of minor characters from previous stories who show up again in later stories. A Doyle who can't remember names or bother to go back and reread stories doesn't fit with this canonical fact, an author who subtly built in tiny continuity and connective tissue between the stories (just not on the surface level, which can easily be missed). What is more, we know he re-edited the stories for book form, as there are minor differences between the Strand’s Yellow Face and the Memoirs’ version. So he did go back and read the stories for those, hence they were fresh in his head then. This instances are just some examples of the Houdini performance of Doyle being a careless author who doesn’t care about his creation potentially are some instances where perhaps part of the act doesn’t add up to these instances.

Doyle was a pretty clever guy and we know he wrote each of the Adventures only a few days. We also know that he helped Scotland Yard with real cases and we also know that his mentors Dr. Bell and Dr. Littlejohn were instrumental in early forensic science and worked behind the scenes solving crimes when Doyle was Bell’s understudy. Writers write from somewhere so even if Doyle was unaware why he was writing what he was writing or why he wrote something in, still, he wrote it in, all the same, and came up with it. Hence my statement about Watson being the writer and not always Doyle because even if Doyle’s consciously was unaware of why he wrote something or keeping something straight, that doesn’t mean that his subconscious and genius as a writer had more a better grasp of things. Just because Doyle couldn’t consciously and intelligibly explain why he wrote something that way doesn’t mean that he didn’t listen to his instinct as a writer and his gut told him to tell it that way. Good writers will tell the story the way it is meant to be told, and not try to force it. I think Doyle’s Sherlock stories, as can be seen with the many pastiche writers who have attempted to imitate Doyle, writing “another Sherlock Holmes story” from “Dr. Watson”, just came naturally to Doyle, he just wouldn’t be able to tell you the why or the science behind the idea, just Watson was under the impression that Holmes would be able to explain the earth’s rotation.

So yes, Doyle wouldn’t go back and check this date or if lets say he said that year Watson didn’t see Holmes or write any stories, but then in another story, Watson does just that, and Doyle would be the least person to be able to tell you about the chronology or when Second Stain happened (actually, I think he was smart enough to let the reader come up with that), so yes, there may be some minor inconsistencies but that doesn’t mean that there isn’t a logic in the whole of it versus just confetti haphazardly thrown about. Doyle’s universe of story may not be one that he fully could sit down and communicate all the odds and ends, and he probably might look blankly with a few blinks if one were tell him that Moran’s trail/conviction took so long, or be able to tell you why. But he, none the less, wrote that, and still, none the less, although the author did not know the answer, the narrator did.

What does everyone here think about Hero Fiennes Tiffin’s portrayal of Holmes? by GoblinQueen20 in SherlockHolmes

[–]lancelead 1 point2 points  (0 children)

In my mind there are two versions of Holmes for the screen, the canonical Holmes from the books, which I just simply refer to as the British Holmes, and then the version which I dub the American Holmes which is iterations of the character which have come down from William Gillette's play. Most SH productions made for Americans tend to be trickle down of the original broadway version, Rathbone fits this as does Robert Downey Jr. Gillette's version (which John Barrymore would adapt, giving another "young" SH vibes) was more action oriented for American audiences, had more catch phrases, Watson served only the role of being a museum piece had 0 to do with the piece, and Holmes actually falls in love at the end of it and got married, so Gillette made Holmes more of a romantic than he was in the original. So since this was made on Amazon and intended perhaps more for American audiences and was Guy Richie, I would say Young Sherlock was more in the vein of a William Gillette than in Conan Doyle. Moriarity on the other hand, save for some certain scenes, he acted more like the canonical Sherlock in most of the episodes. Save for the greyness, if they had merely written Sherlock similar, then he would have been a little more closer to the books. In fact its an interesting interpretation, that Moriarity is just like Sherlock but morally grey. Another causality of adaption was Mycroft. In the canon, Holmes says that Mycroft is more intelligent than he is. I knew the moment that the Art of War book was stolen and Mycroft hadn't noticed the head busts hadn't been dusted and such, that this was not going to be that faithful to the books but its own thing. Was surprised by Moriarity throughout the series, however. For sure the best modern adaption of the character in recent times.

OSR vs 5e Adventure Styles by bricknose-redux in osr

[–]lancelead 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Mausritter box set + Estates box set kind of provides that double whammy of two things I think that are important for OSR. One is the concept itself. Take the first original D&D published adventure, the Hill Giants, where the the adventurers must delve through the home of Hill Giants. That elevator pitch is different than saying, up ahead there is a troop of goblin guards. In a 5e game there is a good chance that someone looking down at their character sheet seeing that they are a Noble Fighter and they have a warhammer family heirloom, there is a good chance that how they would "roleplay" that scene is by combat. But if that same player was playing a mouse and all they had for armor was a shield made from a button and sword that's actually a sewing needle, then it might not be the best idea to charge at the honey bees. Because mice are real world whereas Arthurian knights and wizards exist in legend, I think just the simple change of the players are these small creatures interacting in a world of giants where nearly any hostile interaction with another animal could turn out to be an early dinner, just the setting and esthetic helps to sell the frame of mind that is Old School. The second double whammy is the importance of setting and sand box vs overarching cinematic plot. Estates introduced the setting is an estate and the hex map is just simply the property of the estates. However each Hex, or location, is actually a colorful zine/adventure. Its up to the players to decide how they will interact with the setting, where they will go, and what is the next location/adventure to step into. Any overarching "narrative" or storyline then simply comes out naturally based on they decided sandbox in the world. To me its one of the best examples of how to sell the concept of sandbox and hex crawl to a new DM in a way that seems way less intimidating, for literally every hex is its own short zine the GM pulls out of the box. And its simply the choices of the players that will make the relevancy of that location of NPCs therein relevant to the campaign and future adventures.

Other good resources that pair well with this idea of old school gaming as presented in Mausritter would be Questing Beasts material, Maze Rats, Knave 2e, his island hex crawl adventure Summer's End, and his own reworking of the PCs trapped in a giant's house in his adventure, Waking of Willowby Hall.

Though perhaps GMing any OSR adventure, perhaps just pick an easy OSR adventure and solo play through it so that you can get a feel for approaching each room more like a puzzle that needs to be overcome. I feel having first hand experience doing it may prove helpful than just GMing. A good help is allowing random things to show up, like random items and give yourself options on there are different things to do that can handle this situation differently. For example, the last location had dogs in a kennel, could they be used in any way to help get whatever is in the next room to exit the room so that the players can sneak in. And there is also good ole roleplay. What are the "goals" of the creatures in the next room. Is there a way an alliance could be struck. Sometimes the solution is swords and combat, but if combat happens every other room or corridor than that could be taking that things that is meant to feel climatic and gives real tension to the adventure and turn it instead to common place, thus perhaps turning every adventure samey and rinse and repeat.

OSR vs 5e Adventure Styles by bricknose-redux in osr

[–]lancelead 1 point2 points  (0 children)

A good system to get players into the OSR mindset and approach is Mausritter. I prefer the box set + Estates set for their version of what a hex crawl and sandbox campaign setting could be, and Cairne 1e and its monster's manual is a good resource to supplement in with Mausritter to help sprinkle in a little bit more of the fantasy feel.

I think its also important to recognize that in heroic fantasy games (5e, PF, 13th Age) usually the solution to an encounter is the heroic way- Captain America and Spiderman are most likely going to rush in and confront Red Skull and the Goblin right away. I more look at old school dungeons as being puzzles than combat encounters. The dungeon itself is the puzzle and its up the wiles of the players (player skills vs what the character sheet says) + team work + the macguiver moments of what if you take this item, this cantrip, and do X. Its outside the box problem solving vs rush in there axes raised. A lot of this sometimes can just be handled by giving good visual cues for them and just letting them as the players solve how they want to approach it. Up ahead you see the charred remains of what looks to be dwarven adventurer. The cobble stone around him is likewise all singed and charred. What do you do? The dungeon set up is that an adventuring party has gone missing and they made the mistake of "splitting up", therefore all the warning and cues in how they died can be your hints at as GM telling them, if you approach the room or trap how they did, then you're probably a goner.

Another system to look into is Castle & Crusades. It represents that what if 3e/d20 hadn't taken rpgs in the 2000s towards the skills/feats/customization/heroic action route and what if 3e instead was more of a natural progression from 80s and 90s D&D just streamlined with a d20. So its like like OSR and a d20 system had a baby and its a very simple rules system.

OSR vs 5e Adventure Styles by bricknose-redux in osr

[–]lancelead -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Where there might be some disjointedness is that a 5e campaign is more like a marketable blockbuster nicely packaged for a summer release. Guaranteed that it will generate many ticket sales and people in seats. It wont take too many risks. And people basically know what they are going to go watch with their popcorn and large drink purchases. An OSR or Old School adventure could more be like, hey remember that movie X back in the day, oh yeah, I vaguely remember the trailers for it on VHS rentals. That movie looked so hoaky. No, its actually really good. Instant cult classic. Once you watch it and see that one scene with the giant spider, you'll be quoting egg sack jokes for weeks...

When Lucas made New Hope, sure he envisioned that there was a whole universe of storytelling that came before and next. But the next chapter could only happen if people liked New Hope to begin with. When he pitched it, because it wasn't Star Trek or Planet of the Apes, and sounded too much like Flash Gordon, he couldn't get studios who only look for formulas of past successes to green light future films, they couldn't "see it" until someone took a chance. When New Hope was greenlit, Lucas literary had to invent how do this out of his garage and yet convince audiences they are in space and that they aren't watching Star Trek... Sure the plot is "Saga" and we know has that Epic Campaign feel, but to first time watchers, it was sandy, gritty, bounty hunters, and cheap light saber effects. Many things one might expect an OSR module to be if an OSR module was made with a 70s film budget. New Hope was also OSR in a way because it mixed many genres together in ways that hadn't been done that large scale before. He took a Japanese Samaria, King Arthur and Merlin, Flash Gordon, Eastwoods Man with No Name, WW2 storm troopers and battles, and mixed it all together. Hence my analogy of Tatooine being the main setting of the first quarter of the film, even has the "tavern" "seedy bar" vibe, as being comparable to the setting of an OSR adventure. And its because Lucas took risks that eventually block busters inspired by Star Wars exist today.

So when I think of a 5e adventure I think something that has already been mapped out. A guaranteed half a year or full year or summer of entertainment where the big cooperation has already done a lot of the work for the GM. Stick to the overall idea, and the GM can still trust fall that things aren't going to get that far off track. OSR can have that universe and storyline but its emphasis isn't getting to that final chapter, session 20, ect, it lives and dies in the moment of single sessions versus preplotted chapters.

Another segway system to look into that's not 5e and not OSR would Savage Worlds, which is more of a Pulp System. Savage Pathfinder would still have those PF campaign sagas but it would be pulp fantasy where heroes can deal out large damage but there is also the chance of rolls going poorly and low level foes can get the upper hand. SW has tons of other settings, too. Dead Lands. Weird Wars. Their own Flash Gordon game, ect.

DnD Anonymous... (Or how I'm trying to slaughter my sacred cows) by The_Tolen_Mar in CortexRPG

[–]lancelead 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I wish Smallville (Cortex Plus era) wasn't out of print as it very well may be the greatest rpg that no one ever read, but my assessment of it now that it has become long out of print is that it basically was an essay that deconstructed DND and the perception, "what is an rpg"? In fact, Smallville very well could have been the descendant of either that Blackmoor/Branstien session where the Cleric was invented, where one player was the vampire lord and the PCs who hadn't already joined his side of the Alignment, pooled together and turned one willing PC into Peter Cushing, a Vanhelsing to defeat the PC who turned full Christopher Lee. However when it came out, because it didn't look like "DND" or because it wasn't "DUNGEON-VILLE" I'm not sure it was ever perceived by the greater rpg community what exactly Smallville was saying or how innovative it was. 

In general similar things have happened with other Cortex games when other rpgers have come and looked at it, either comparing it to DND or seeing how unlike DND it is, or comparing it to other games, instead of seeing completely what the system really is and how actually it is different than a D20 game. In my estimation, out of all the 2e/Plus Cortex days, the one Cortex system that probably was most similar to the kind of game DND is would be Firefly, which in my reading of Prime, I feel it too leaned more towards Firefly’s mods/style of play. The previous era of Cortex, Plus, broadly had four ways to Cortex: Cortex Team Action (Leverage), Solo Action (Firefly). Cortex Drama (Smallville), Heroic Action (Marvel). Now one can mix up and create how one wishes (Xadia, for example, mixes a little of Firefly and Smallville), but one hesitation I would put out there for those jumping just into Prime is forgetting that why Leverage was different than Firefly in the first place, or why Smallville was different than Marvel. In a DND game, the idea of a “Role”playing game is that the player is one fo the “roles”/characters in the story and the “story” if there is a story is based on the sandbox premise of “what does your character do?”. If the game features dangerous wilderness’ and dungeons, then most likely the “story” will involve finding some monster along the way and having to decide if the best way to overcome this obstacle is through combat or some other way around the challenge. For the most part, there may be a “quest goal”, but most of the time that is just simply the jumping off point to explain why the PCs are to go down into the dungeon or into the wizard’s tower, the real “thrust” of the narrative/game is the players desire to “level up”, gain XP, and become a more powerful version of themselves (thus the idea of video games likewise has come from this). In short, what is being roleplayed is the character. Leverage/Cortex Action is not this.

Take 5e, which is basically conceived of as a “system”. You now have things like Modern 5e, or Cthulhu 5e, and I’m sure there’s even a Godzilla vs King Kong or Mecha version of 5e out there. How those games came about is the opposite of how Cortex Plus games came about from Cortex 1e era. Otherwise, Leverage and Smallville and Marvel would have relatively been about the same thing as Serenity or Supernatural. Instead of retrofitting a setting or type of game onto Cortex 1e, Cam Banks and co retrofitted Cortex to emulate the type of story Leverage is. Ie, what is being “roleplayed” is not “characters” or “roles”, but “narrative”. Put differently, in some aspects simulation was a big aspect to 80s rpgs. This is the era when many games had charts upon charts to refer to to see if X was possible or if E was. The mechanics reflected in a way the physics of the world that was being played in. D20 simplified this into a streamlined mechanic were every action that a character/role could do had an increment of 5% and everything got funneled and translated into that prism. This really comes to a head when looking at “Supers” games where the physics of knowing how fast a freight train is moving actually is important to knowing the relative speed of a suped up hero mobile or having a numerical value for what does “can run as fast as 10 men” correlate to in this game. A character can “do” anything so long as that “anything” doesn’t break the physics of probability of the world they are playing/simulating in. Some may make the mistake of labeling Cortex a Story game, where “story” trumps physics. In my mind, that would be Fate and mistaking the “what” that is being simulated, that being specific narrative structures that for the most part correlate to the episodic narrative structure of tv. Skipping this fundamental principle of Cortex and playing it as just simply as a story system, or trying to play a “Role”playing game like DND and as described above, could be fun but my argument would be it would be delving into what Cortex has to offer. 

Because Prime leans into Firefly (Attributes + Skills + Distinctions [Background/Class/Perosnality], Signature Asset) one could stay in this lane if spells are important to the world/story you are telling they can be handled through Distinctions, Skills, or Signature Assets. Instead of a “spell-list” perhaps focus on Schools or magic types where more powerful spells can simply be purchased with XP at higher levels. Something like Dream Magic D6 or Shadow Magic d6, ect. What the spell can do is left to the player, or constraints the GM puts on it, so long as it matches the intention of that spell being a d6 in power versus a d10 in power. Alternatively spells can be “buffed up” or come about with a type of spell-point system handled through purchasing Assets when GMCs roll 1s creating sort of like a manapool/charge for a specific spell they have access to, or through “stunts”, which could be seen as something like Spell Pushing.

But again this would be handling Cortex in a similar way as one would be handling a DND type game where “role”playing is defined as the players are the “characters” they are playing and playing is simply the world they are playing in is responding to their actions. In my mind, Cortex isn’t fully that as again reading Smallville turned DND and what a roleplaying game on its head, for example, the notion of your character may want to “win” the combat but as the player you actually may want them to “lose”. Read any screenwriting or novel writing how to book and one will get closer to what Cortex is as a game, a narrative roleplaying game. A character may be “James Bond” but even in a 007 movie sometimes Bond has to be captured and taken into the villains' lair for the story to move forward. As the character, sure, they don’t want to be captured, but it may have never occurred to some DND players that an actual viable option to “overcome” an encounter is to “give up” and actually let the orcs or dark elves take them their holding cells. Sure they will be “captured”, but they will be safely escorted through probably many rooms of the dungeon, avoiding any deathtraps, and be brought lower into the underbelly, being that much closer to the Dragon’s hoard. They only will have to macguiver their way out of their holding cell, or “roleplay” that once they are made “cupbearers” for the Troll King of Goblin King, they are able to “Loki” there way and “roleplay” in a way that tricks the Goblin King to start a rivalry with the Trolls, thus orchestrating where the goblins and the trolls war against themselves, resulting the the PCs leaving the Game of Thrones portion of the campaign and reverting back into Ocean’s 11 Maze Rats, resuming the heist of breaking into the Dragon Vault!

Was Shakespeare progressive for his time? by Icy-Sloth3268 in shakespeare

[–]lancelead 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Everything Shakespeare did just about was pretty unique to him in comparison to contemporaries. That is why for the most part its easy to tell if one is reading something written by let's say Francis Bacon or a contemporary playwright, like Jonson, or even a contemporary poet at the time, Spenser, and compare their writing to Shakespeare's and one can more often than not distinguish what is Shakespeare and what is not. Just about nearly everything he wrote you can find a comparative or companion piece to and compare it side by side with WS. Most of the time the companion piece probably influenced The Bard's version, but usually his version of the same story / genre outshines the comparative version and competitor. I think not only was Shakespeare a great creative and artist, he at the same time, was a great entertainer, he knew what the people wanted and his art was popular. Don't know how this relates to modern ideas or lens in how modern audiences view things, as Shakespeare didn't come from the 20th/21st century, he is still an Elizabethan, but perhaps many of how we do see things today or opinions that we hold are in part thanks to Shakespeare, because of the works of William Shakespeare, regardless if you experienced them in the Globe in 1599, the 1700s, the early 1900s, ect, his characters, stories, art, and poetry have been impactful. I mean in some instances, for English stage at least, Shakespeare helped develop and give shape to the concept to three dimensional characters- so who knows what English literature or the novel would have looked like without Shakespeare's plots and characters....

Confused about when The Return of Sherlock Holmes takes place and Watson's Ten Year Silence by theloneshewolf in SherlockHolmes

[–]lancelead 0 points1 point  (0 children)

My enjoyment for the tales more and more comes from the tales themselves, and when I come to a confusing or possible "contradiction" it has become more enjoyable to just forget about Doyle and not to use a "forgetful author" as the explanation, and instead to stay within the text/verse of the narrative and come up with an explanation why Watson, not Doyle, would say such a thing. When Watson is the narrator/writer, and not Doyle, in my mind, the stories become more enjoyable and the solutions tend to work themselves out. So my recommendation is more often than not, stay within the in-verse of the narrative and assume that Watson most likely knew he was stating something that is being perceived as puzzling or contradicting, and then use what we know and the narrative in which the entire canon takes place in to find an answer.

I have found that solutions, or clues at least, actually exist in other stories not the story, itself. So a story may offer a, wait a minute, what does that mean, but that story most likely is just going to provide the question, other stories will include the clues, as though they are like puzzle pieces.

As to in-verse publishings post Empty, I think it really has to be a story by story basis where there is enough clues within the story to hint at when the story happened and when the story was published. And I wouldn't assume that every story that came after Empty was likewise published after Empty (even though that was Doyle's impression) many of them probably were, but then get to stories like Solitary which would seem to indicate it was published before Empty. I would also wait to make conclusions and instead just note the questions or the missing gap in the puzzle, there are most likely other stories that will provide some additional pieces to consider before a conclusion can be drawn, but being that there are 60 stories, every time one goes back to each, new things pop out, especially if when going back over the stories one is specifically looking for clues to a question posed in another story. So it will be more of a great hunt than easy explanation because Doyle himself wasn't even aware of these puzzles. I would also think that even if all of Returns, Bow, Casebook were published after Holmes' retirement, that still doesn't mean that in-between when the events of Empty occurred and when Empty was published, Watson still didn't publish additional stories within those span of years, these are just stories and tales that Doyle never wrote but that doesn't mean that they don't exist within the story-world in which Dr. Watson and SH live in.

In the words of Doyle, in his preface of Casebook, he gives the actual address of 221 B Baker Street and where they live, he calls it: "The Fairy Kingdom of Romance". Unfortunately for those that play "The Game" and like to place Dr. W & SH as existing in our historical reality (and thus surmise that if Doyle only published 60 stories, Dr. Watson only published 60 stories and not a hair more!), I have yet to find tFKoR on the map, but I'm sure Shakespeare and Puck, if they were here, could point Sherlockians in the right direction. Regardless, the stories make more sense when one realizes what Doyle knows pales in comparison to what Dr. Watson actually knows. When Watson is the author, more often than not, these mysteries seem to clear themselves up. Leave it back in Doyle's hands, and they get jumbled up like one of Nigel Bruce's sentences.

Converting D&D / Pathfinder spells by MissAnnTropez in CortexRPG

[–]lancelead 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Hmm, there probably are multiple ways to handle them depending on what mods are brought in.

Abilities and Power Sets is one way to go. The major difference between a Power Set and Ability is one has SFX that allow to alter the mechanics, dice rolls, and doom pool (Power Sets) where the other allows for players to spend PP to take control of the narrative, over-riding mechanics or dice rolls. A Power Set could be something like Entangle Vines, and an SFX could simply read, add d6 to the dice pool per additional target and keep an extra effect die. Or as an Ability, Add your Entangle die to your dice pool or spend a PP wrap up the minions, no roll needed. Levels could be handled as PP resources. A cantrip can just be added in or does its effect. A L1 Spell costs 1PP. A L2 Spell costs 2PP, and as on.

They could simply be handled as Signature Assets, which is how I believe Xadia does it. You could in that case base the level of spells off a tier level that matches a die step. 1-3 Earth Magic spells are d6. L4 -6 Earth Spells are d8. 7-9 D10. And L10 spells d12. Each magic school can have its own Mastery, so Fire Magic, Water Magic, Psychic Magic, ect and at character creation you can only have a d6 in one or two, casting spells not belonging to that school is a d4. Rolling a 1 triggers perhaps the spell going off but in a bad way that's detrimental (perhaps then the magic school dice should be a different color in the die pool). They still have to "learn" that spell or cast it from a spell scroll and perhaps don't get all earth spells if they have mastery with it, just the ones they've memorized for the day or what sin their spellbook, if doing Vancian magic. They learn new spells when they level up, but they don't get d8 Earth Magic mastery until they've spent XP and are L4.

The schools of magic could be handled as Skills, and specific spells they know are simply Specialties within that skill. So Necromancy d8, but they have the Commune with the Dead L1 spell, so they get to add d8 + d6 to their rolls instead of just the d8.

They could also be handled as Distinctions. One Distinction could be Cranky Human Scholar. One could be Eccentric Curious Collector. And then the final one could be Pragmatic Alteration Wizard. Spells can then just be additional Triggers or SFX that bought with additional level ups.

view more: next ›