a little salty
Nov. 20th, 2004 01:12 amQuite a good day. Resolved a fairly straightforward query and learned something new, did some QAing and factchecking and spellchecking and comma-inserting on some standard texts and helpdesk documents that are being formulated. It's definitely a blessing to have my iPod to listen to while I'm working. Speeds up the afternoon a lot.
The Christmas lights in Winchester were on this evening -- went on around 3.30pm, I think, though they weren't very obvious at that point, but by five o'clock when I was leaving work, night had fallen, and they were very cheering indeed. The tree itself looked splendid. Oh, all right, so I have a sentimental streak. Bah.
My turn to do supper; beef stirfry with broccoli and mushrooms and peppers and spring onions, with oyster sauce (didn't have much in bottle) and garlic and soy sauce. Slightly overestimated the amount of soy sauce, or rather, forgot that I was using a fairly genuine brand (from a local health store) rather than Supermarket Bland, and it came out a little salty, but generally pretty good. It was Friday night, anyhow. Something strong was called for.
Current bit of writing has taken an interesting turn. One character is evincing much stronger feudal feelings of responsibility than I'd expected. Interesting. I like this.
---
VISITOR: It will be not unknown to you, Mr. Holmes, that for some time there has been -- shall we say -- disagreement between Mr. Gladstone and Her Gracious Majesty, Queen Victoria. I have here a diplomatic communication in Her Majesty's own hand, sent to Mr. Gladstone on December 15, 1886. You are empowered to read it. (Hands important-looking document to Holmes.)
WATSON: These are deep waters, Holmes.
HOLMES: Her Majesty, I perceive, was not amused.
VISITOR: She was indeed (hesitates) somewhat vexed. (Then suddenly amazed) But how could you possibly know --
HOLMES: Her Majesty has twice underlined the word "bastard." And she has placed three exclamation points following her instructions as to what Mr. Gladstone should do with the Naval Treaty involving a certain foreign power. Surely our inference is obvious.
-- The Conk-Singleton Papers, John Dickson Carr
The Christmas lights in Winchester were on this evening -- went on around 3.30pm, I think, though they weren't very obvious at that point, but by five o'clock when I was leaving work, night had fallen, and they were very cheering indeed. The tree itself looked splendid. Oh, all right, so I have a sentimental streak. Bah.
My turn to do supper; beef stirfry with broccoli and mushrooms and peppers and spring onions, with oyster sauce (didn't have much in bottle) and garlic and soy sauce. Slightly overestimated the amount of soy sauce, or rather, forgot that I was using a fairly genuine brand (from a local health store) rather than Supermarket Bland, and it came out a little salty, but generally pretty good. It was Friday night, anyhow. Something strong was called for.
Current bit of writing has taken an interesting turn. One character is evincing much stronger feudal feelings of responsibility than I'd expected. Interesting. I like this.
---
VISITOR: It will be not unknown to you, Mr. Holmes, that for some time there has been -- shall we say -- disagreement between Mr. Gladstone and Her Gracious Majesty, Queen Victoria. I have here a diplomatic communication in Her Majesty's own hand, sent to Mr. Gladstone on December 15, 1886. You are empowered to read it. (Hands important-looking document to Holmes.)
WATSON: These are deep waters, Holmes.
HOLMES: Her Majesty, I perceive, was not amused.
VISITOR: She was indeed (hesitates) somewhat vexed. (Then suddenly amazed) But how could you possibly know --
HOLMES: Her Majesty has twice underlined the word "bastard." And she has placed three exclamation points following her instructions as to what Mr. Gladstone should do with the Naval Treaty involving a certain foreign power. Surely our inference is obvious.
-- The Conk-Singleton Papers, John Dickson Carr
no subject
Date: 2004-11-21 05:24 am (UTC)I envy your ability to make edible stir-fry.
(abandons all attempts and restraint and squees all over the quote like the rabid Watsonian she is)
"Do you mean to say," I enquired, "that you have been arriving at your unusual knowledge of my history and activities by a conscious and deliberate exercise of logic?"
"You understand at last," said Sigerson.
"It was not," I continued, "an involuntary psychic event, but instead conclusions arrived at through minute observation and purposeful reasoning?"
"Just so," said Sigerson.
"How amazing!" I cried. "Why didn't you simply ask me? I would have confided in you."
Journal of a Ghurka Physician, Captain Daniel M. Pinkwater
no subject
Date: 2004-11-21 07:50 pm (UTC)My first Holmes was read at the age of seven, madam, and I am a longtime fan of the greatest enthusiasm, the greatest devotion, and the greatest packrattiness.
Mercy, but I've missed this style!
Date: 2004-11-22 03:19 am (UTC)Re: Mercy, but I've missed this style!
Date: 2004-11-22 08:57 am (UTC)(bows)
I fear that my stage adaptations never went further than acting out The Mazarin Stone with my dolls at the age of 7 or 8, but I assure you that my enthusiasm was as deeply rooted as your own.
Incidentally, might you have seen Onmyouji or Onmyouji II? There is a certain harmless enjoyment to be gained from comparing Holmes and Watson to Seimei and Hiromasa, I find.
Re: Mercy, but I've missed this style!
Date: 2004-11-22 07:05 pm (UTC)(but is tickled by the Mercy! next to the Kanzeon icon)
Re: Mercy, but I've missed this style!
Date: 2004-11-22 07:24 pm (UTC)We even had an "Hiromasa, you're brilliant!" moment of realisation spurred by innocent comment of clueless friend, in the second movie. ;)
Re: Mercy, but I've missed this style!
Date: 2004-11-24 06:37 pm (UTC)Re: Mercy, but I've missed this style!
Date: 2004-11-24 09:33 pm (UTC)(The earlier Jeremy Brett episodes were very good, but the later ones were rather variable; though, to be fair, they were also the weaker or less-televisual stories and were padded out to episode length, which diluted the story itself.)
Re: Mercy, but I've missed this style!
Date: 2004-11-25 06:58 am (UTC)No, this was, uh (goes upstairs to check) 'The New Adventures of Sherlock Holmes,' filmed in France in '54, with Ronald Howard as Holmes. I suspect this Watson (?) of being the originator of the fanon pugnacious jaw. The episode we watched was 'The Case of Harry Crocker,' who was an escape artist, and Holmes spent the whole ep trying to get Crocker away from Lestrade long enough to figure out the escaping-from-a-basket-trick. Cute as hell.
It was worth a wound--it was worth many wounds--to know the depth of loyalty and love which lay behind that cold mask... He had ripped up my trousers with his pocket knife.
(can't decide whether to squee, melt, or die laughing)
Re: Mercy, but I've missed this style!
Date: 2004-11-25 09:23 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-11-22 06:40 pm (UTC)I do believe that even Watson might have noticed that, had he been reading over the great one's shoulder... (I'll go over here and giggle now.)
Glad the iPod is bein' good to ya!
no subject
Date: 2004-11-22 07:27 pm (UTC)