4 ms·

I feel like this article is revisionism. The author is making a wild assumption that no male, no matter the circumstances was presented with having issues or tr

I feel like this article is revisionism. The author is making a wild assumption that no male, no matter the circumstances was presented with having issues or trauma in victorian literature. Being nice and sympathetic is also not a concept which was only discovered recently. The article just throws in key words like mental health to make it sound relevant for today. Maybe the only interesting part is that drug use was considered (barely) socially acceptable and holmes was still respectable. Note that he wasn't an alcoholic. Shout out to the bbc adaptation which does a fantastic and hilarious job of portraying holmes as an erratic drug addict.

niemandhier 11mo ago
Britain was a very repressed culture at the time and for a long time after this. An Englishman’s proverbial “stiff upper lip” came to be a cliche for a reason. “Boarding school syndrome” would be the term coined for the emotional damage that was an educational ideal for a long while. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boarding_school#Psychological_issues https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boarding_school#Psychological_...
- mosura 11mo ago
  Yet the UK was most successful when led by people from that system.
  - FridayoLeary 11mo ago
    Was? The old boys network and class still plays a big role in UK politics. I'm convinced that the behaviour of Boris Johnson and even Starmer is incomprehensible without that unspoken element. Is it a bad thing? perhaps. Is it a recipe for disaster? I would say the historical evidence is pretty clear that no, not really. It worth pointing out that the US where class is much less important is more successful. In my head Holmes is descended from minor nobility while Watson is solidly upper middle class. Now, Labours envy based attacks on the private schools that gave them all their advantages in life helps nobody. It won't matter to rich kids and is just a barrier to success for middle class kids. When you consider the quality of state education, at least there should be some educated people to run the country, even if it's a bad system. Ot but hogwarts is a great parody of the British boarding school system. A drafty, dangerous castle full of dangerous animals, homicidal, abusive and incompetent teachers, serious injuries are a fact of life and complacent staff. Add in the most incompetent and negligent headmaster in all literature, who hardly does anything throughout the series and thinks that soul sucking demons are an acceptable security measure to protect his students and runs the school as his personal domain. Throw in class based bullying in the student body and you have everything. I always found it striking that the most hatable character in the series is a school inspector (Umbridge).
    - mosura 11mo ago
      Starmer or Reeves boarded? The boarding is the point.
      - FridayoLeary 11mo ago
        I reject that. It's the network that's more important. I always found the concept of boarding school odd but that's neither here nor there.
        mosura 11mo ago
        No the whole experience makes or breaks people, which is the idea. It is like failing fast for people. It looks cruel but in the long run is more honest. That is not to say the networks from exclusive day schools do not help, they do.
        zozbot234 11mo ago
        It's actually a terrible idea. You're giving the people who "fail fast" no real incentives to fix themselves up and try again, and the people who "succeed" no incentives to do even better in the future. Even aside from how cruel it obviously looks, it's really a recipe for pervasive incompetence and a failed society.
        mosura 11mo ago
        There is no fix yourself and try again. Again the Brits had their biggest empire when led by this caste of people, which is why their boarding schools get so much overseas business today. To paint that as incompetence or a failed society is wishful thinking - they were the peak of what they could be.
        lazide 11mo ago
        I think you are fundamentally misunderstanding the system. It’s one and done. The system doesn’t care.
  - amanaplanacanal 11mo ago
    Only if you think a large empire is the epitome of success. People have a tendency to look at the cruelest warriors of history and think that is success. Alexander the Great, Julius Caesar or Napoleon are not something to emulate. They were successful by causing horrific pain to a lot of people.
    - mosura 11mo ago
      Pure misandrist nonsense. You could have picked Hitler or Stalin to at least have half a point. Napoleon spread enlightenment values that benefitted generations that came after. Julius Caesar took civilization across a continent. Deng Xiaoping was leader during Tianenmen Square but brought more people out of poverty than anyone else in history. Being great means being able to do some things others do not like because the resulting upside is better for everyone.
      - amanaplanacanal 11mo ago
        Sounds to me more like the winners writing the history. In other words, bullshit.
        mosura 10mo ago
        Napoleon or Julius Caesar won? One was exiled, the other assassinated. They were in no position to write history.
    - FridayoLeary 11mo ago
      Success and greatness of historical figures do not mean they were moral heroes although people would like you to believe otherwise. King Example XIV of the 15th century might have been a really good guy but he never did anything so nobody knows or cares about him. His half brother and uncle killed him and invaded and subjugated 6 neighbouring states but was less bad then everyone else at the time so he's great and successful instead of a villain. I don't think there are rules, but i think anyone who generally advances progress instead of reversing it is considered great. Genghis Khan as far as i know didn't so he isn't. Julius Caesar did so he is.
GJim 11mo ago
> a fantastic and hilarious job of portraying holmes as an erratic drug addict. Except in Conan Doyle's books, Holmes was a user of cocaine, not an addict. This desire to portray Holmes as a drug addict says far more about our own times.
- lazide 11mo ago
  Where do you draw the line between user and addict? He was definitely not holding together his life by any traditional measure.
  - GJim 11mo ago
    Tell me you haven't read the books without telling me you haven't read them!
    - lazide 11mo ago
      Read them all. Multiple times. Mind actually using words to form useful sentences? He of course insisted he wasn’t an addict - like all addicts do - but he always went back that I remember - like all addicts do. And he used it to cope with not having any interesting problems and the misery of life. He was enabled by Watson and his brother, and mostly supported in the elements of normal social functioning by them. Where we draw the line between addict and not is quite subjective in these situations eh?
- leejoramo 11mo ago
  Regardless of if we consider Holmes a drug addict, abuser or merely a controlled user, it is clear from the stories that Watson was very concerned as both a Friend and Medical expert, that Holmes is damaging his mental faculties
ompogUe 11mo ago
Subtle, but the very last line of 1939's "Hounds of the Baskervilles" is "Oh, Watson - the needle!".

niemandhier 11mo ago

Britain was a very repressed culture at the time and for a long time after this. An Englishman’s proverbial “stiff upper lip” came to be a cliche for a reason. “Boarding school syndrome” would be the term coined for the emotional damage that was an educational ideal for a long while. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boarding_school#Psychological_issues https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boarding_school#Psychological_...

mosura 11mo ago
Yet the UK was most successful when led by people from that system.
- FridayoLeary 11mo ago
  Was? The old boys network and class still plays a big role in UK politics. I'm convinced that the behaviour of Boris Johnson and even Starmer is incomprehensible without that unspoken element. Is it a bad thing? perhaps. Is it a recipe for disaster? I would say the historical evidence is pretty clear that no, not really. It worth pointing out that the US where class is much less important is more successful. In my head Holmes is descended from minor nobility while Watson is solidly upper middle class. Now, Labours envy based attacks on the private schools that gave them all their advantages in life helps nobody. It won't matter to rich kids and is just a barrier to success for middle class kids. When you consider the quality of state education, at least there should be some educated people to run the country, even if it's a bad system. Ot but hogwarts is a great parody of the British boarding school system. A drafty, dangerous castle full of dangerous animals, homicidal, abusive and incompetent teachers, serious injuries are a fact of life and complacent staff. Add in the most incompetent and negligent headmaster in all literature, who hardly does anything throughout the series and thinks that soul sucking demons are an acceptable security measure to protect his students and runs the school as his personal domain. Throw in class based bullying in the student body and you have everything. I always found it striking that the most hatable character in the series is a school inspector (Umbridge).
  - mosura 11mo ago
    Starmer or Reeves boarded? The boarding is the point.
    - FridayoLeary 11mo ago
      I reject that. It's the network that's more important. I always found the concept of boarding school odd but that's neither here nor there.
      - mosura 11mo ago
        No the whole experience makes or breaks people, which is the idea. It is like failing fast for people. It looks cruel but in the long run is more honest. That is not to say the networks from exclusive day schools do not help, they do.
        zozbot234 11mo ago
        It's actually a terrible idea. You're giving the people who "fail fast" no real incentives to fix themselves up and try again, and the people who "succeed" no incentives to do even better in the future. Even aside from how cruel it obviously looks, it's really a recipe for pervasive incompetence and a failed society.
        mosura 11mo ago
        There is no fix yourself and try again. Again the Brits had their biggest empire when led by this caste of people, which is why their boarding schools get so much overseas business today. To paint that as incompetence or a failed society is wishful thinking - they were the peak of what they could be.
        lazide 11mo ago
        I think you are fundamentally misunderstanding the system. It’s one and done. The system doesn’t care.
- amanaplanacanal 11mo ago
  Only if you think a large empire is the epitome of success. People have a tendency to look at the cruelest warriors of history and think that is success. Alexander the Great, Julius Caesar or Napoleon are not something to emulate. They were successful by causing horrific pain to a lot of people.
  - mosura 11mo ago
    Pure misandrist nonsense. You could have picked Hitler or Stalin to at least have half a point. Napoleon spread enlightenment values that benefitted generations that came after. Julius Caesar took civilization across a continent. Deng Xiaoping was leader during Tianenmen Square but brought more people out of poverty than anyone else in history. Being great means being able to do some things others do not like because the resulting upside is better for everyone.
    - amanaplanacanal 11mo ago
      Sounds to me more like the winners writing the history. In other words, bullshit.
      - mosura 10mo ago
        Napoleon or Julius Caesar won? One was exiled, the other assassinated. They were in no position to write history.
  - FridayoLeary 11mo ago
    Success and greatness of historical figures do not mean they were moral heroes although people would like you to believe otherwise. King Example XIV of the 15th century might have been a really good guy but he never did anything so nobody knows or cares about him. His half brother and uncle killed him and invaded and subjugated 6 neighbouring states but was less bad then everyone else at the time so he's great and successful instead of a villain. I don't think there are rules, but i think anyone who generally advances progress instead of reversing it is considered great. Genghis Khan as far as i know didn't so he isn't. Julius Caesar did so he is.

GJim 11mo ago

> a fantastic and hilarious job of portraying holmes as an erratic drug addict. Except in Conan Doyle's books, Holmes was a user of cocaine, not an addict. This desire to portray Holmes as a drug addict says far more about our own times.

lazide 11mo ago
Where do you draw the line between user and addict? He was definitely not holding together his life by any traditional measure.
- GJim 11mo ago
  Tell me you haven't read the books without telling me you haven't read them!
  - lazide 11mo ago
    Read them all. Multiple times. Mind actually using words to form useful sentences? He of course insisted he wasn’t an addict - like all addicts do - but he always went back that I remember - like all addicts do. And he used it to cope with not having any interesting problems and the misery of life. He was enabled by Watson and his brother, and mostly supported in the elements of normal social functioning by them. Where we draw the line between addict and not is quite subjective in these situations eh?
leejoramo 11mo ago
Regardless of if we consider Holmes a drug addict, abuser or merely a controlled user, it is clear from the stories that Watson was very concerned as both a Friend and Medical expert, that Holmes is damaging his mental faculties

ompogUe 11mo ago

Subtle, but the very last line of 1939's "Hounds of the Baskervilles" is "Oh, Watson - the needle!".