There were some strong reactions, many insightful, to the last post about the character of Dr. House. Some perspectives I had not considered. How could I consider them if I didn't have them? Maybe the most shocking was
WordJames' brilliant bit of deductive reasoning exposing the, now obvious, parallel between Dr. House and Sherlock Ho(l)mes. Wow! See why I'm happy to be back in xangadu? I would likely never have seen the connection on my own. Now it seems so obvious it's comical. It appears WordJames was able to apply the same objective needle to his own intellectual vein that Sherlock was able to bring to crime cases. I can almost hear WordJames saying,
Elementary, my dear Watson. To add to the intrigue, that famous phrase does not appear in any of the Conan Doyle stories, only later in Sherlock Holmes' films. Sir Arthur Conan Doyle does have Holmes say,
Exactly, my dear Watson, in three different stories. Imagine my surprise when another of my xangadu heroes,
rideuponthewindagain, referenced P.G. Wodehouse. It just so happens that P.G. Wodehouse was the first to use the phrase,
Elementary, my dear Watson, in Psmith Journalist in 1915. You could have knocked me over with a feather when I lined it all up and saw Wode
house, Dr.
House, his friend,
Dr. James
Wil
son, Sherlock
Ho(l)
mes and his friend
, Dr. John H.
Wat
son in the same light. According to rideuponthewindagain, Hugh Laurie, who plays Dr. House, also played the part of Bertie Wooster in the PBS series of Jeeves, written by P.G. Wodehouse. I love synchronicity.
Apart from and perhaps even because of the emotional responses to the personalities of Holmes and House, their drug abuse, superior intellect and, to many, offensive arrogance and acerbic nature they do make good dramatic characters. Their arrogance doesn't bother me because I don't think they really have an exaggerated sense of their own importance or abilities. They actually are brilliant. To my mind their ability to objectively and dispassionately admit when they are wrong is more important and admirable. I wish I could be as objective when I'm wrong, which is too often to my liking. Could be because I have an exaggerated sense of my own importance. Oh wait, who doesn't? Even if they can't admit it. It is also true that objectivity may appear quite cruel to someone in a more subjective state of mind. I do not enjoy or admire cruelty but am willing to attempt to understand what may cause it in human nature. How else am I expected to avoid it if I can't see it with some objectivity? Of course, I must see it in myself first before I will ever be able to understand it in another. This is not to excuse the behavior but rather to objectively, uncritically separate from it to study it scientifically, as it were. I'm sure my scientist friends will be able to understand the value of such an approach to human nature. I'm old. I can afford to be gracious. Thank you, each one, for your valuable opinions and insights.
Recent Comments