I had a lot of feelings while reading the article assigned this week titled, “The Elite Devotee or How The Sherlock Fandom Is A Horrible Embarrassment To the Sherlockian World by Phillip Shreffler”. So I basically wrote my comments to some of his topics and just generally how I felt reading. Fair warning, I get a lil…passionate. Looking forward to discussing this article with everyone in class!

  • Seems like he wants to gatekeep Sherlock
  • Classist
  • “Before the world went all awry” ??
    • What do you mean there Shreffler? Careful now.
  • “The true Sherlockian devotee presents him- or herself as a gentleman or lady when representing Sherlockians publicly and, one hopes, at all other moments as well”
    • Umm you’re a fan. If you’re trying to copy him or change your own speech or how you dress, you’re a fan. Not whatever argument you’re trying to make with “devotee”. You can devote your energy to understanding him but the minute you start changing your own true behavior to be similar to another, ur a fan
  • “The devotee is a person of language, of words; the fan is more commonly a person of half-ideas, half-expressed. The devotee is comfortable in genteel, dignified Sherlockian surroundings; the fan (dare we suggest this?) is at home at a science-fiction convention.”
    • Omg he is shaming them LOOOL
  • “For the Sherlockian is devoted to the world where it is always 1895 and always 1934”
    • Well then this would exclude black people wouldn’t it? They wouldn’t fit the “look”..Feelin a lil offended again
  • Shreffler really makes his version of fandom look like a cult.
  • “Troubling, however, is the conflation of Sherlockians as established in the twentieth century with its present practice by those whose primary adherence to Holmes is through the BBC’s Sherlock television series and the kindred “I Believe in Sherlock” movement (slapping up signs to that effect willy-nilly in public places in the U.S. and Europe), commitment to both of which has flourished particularly on the Internet.”
    • Soo Shreffler is mad that people are starting to like Sherlock solely for the BBC version…But so what? He should be writing that he hopes watchers go back and read the Doyle version rather than shame them for how they’ve even been introduced to Sherlock whom I thought he regarded highly.
  • ““The uncomfortable relationship between fandom and academia,” Ms. Laredo asserts, “is personified in The Baker Street Journal…” In addition to the misuse of the word “personified,” this notion is a common neophyte’s error. The Grand Game of Sherlockians never sought academic approval and was never intended to be academically considered; it is a parody of scholarship and always has been–though many academics have indulged in it, including myself.”
    • WHAT??? WHATTTT. youuu hypocrite.
  • “ I am reminded that Twitter allows only for communication limited to 140 characters, hardly a medium for a complex idea–even for a single idea”
    • …………I don’t even know what to say; its like he’s shaming Twitter now because its popular but without substance by his standards? So take it somewhere else! Tumblr maybe?
  • “Yet it is impossible to imagine Smith–or any of the Baker Street Irregulars of an earlier and better day–uttering the lines above. Sherlockians ought to be a temple to wit and wisdom and grace of expression, not a potting shed on which is scrawled derogatory graffiti.”
    • IS HE SHAMING HER SPEECH???? This is not an effective way to make your point Shreffler. You messed up with this one (and by one I mean this entire piece)
  • “Once, The New York Times covered annual dinners of the Baker Street Irregulars not infrequently. Today this is far less likely to”
    • You know what, this sounds a lot like jealousy to meeee. Shreffler are you…jealous of Manente’s popularity?