A Summary of Sorts

More than slightly ambiguous title aside, this first section will, as always be a summary. This time, a summary of Arthur Conan Doyle's, The Adventure of the Blue Carbuncle. The curtain opens on a chorus line of hopefuls--no wait, wrong thing sorry. The story begins with Holmes already in the midst of a case, sort of. An aqua thence of his, a concierge at a local hotel, witness several ruffians grouping around a man on his way home several nights earlier. As the concierge approached to see what was going on, both the ruffians (a word seriously underused in casual conversation) and the seemingly innocent man fled; leaving only a hat and an uncooked goose behind. These are what the good-willed concierge brought to Mr. Sherlock Holmes, in an attempt to determine the rightful owner. Now that you understand the basic premise- which I assume, based on the fact that you can obviously read seeing as you got this far- I will skip ahead to the conclusion: the "witness" was actually the thief and he had simply put the diamond in the wrong goose's throat. There, all clear now right? Oh, what's that? You actually know less now than you did before? Well maybe you should just read the stories instead of relying on my summaries. Sorry, that was uncalled for. I have no way of knowing if you did or didn't read the story ahead of time;it's wrong of me to assume. That being said, if you haven't already read the story, go and read it. It's not half bad...it is however, also not half good.  Compliment-ception!!!

Side-note: I recently discovered how to use the italics feature on the app I use to do these blog posts, so that's pretty great.

Now comes the promised ambiguous portion of the post. The part where I ramble on and on, somehow tying it into the works of Sir Arthur Conan Doyle's writings in the end. Or is it? Maybe I'll surprise you today reader. Maybe I prepared a special message ahead of time for this very moment. I didn't, I'm just saying I could have. I guess that just shows you how much I care: this much. I realize you can't see my hand gestures as I type this, but rest assured that my hands are so far apart right now; representing the seemingly endless capacity of my cares.

Hey remember a few minutes ago when you read that that last part was the promised ambinguous section of the post? Well I lied, it's this part. Haha I got you good. Just kidding it wasn't even supposed to be funny, it just worked out that way. Happy-coincidences aside, I will now discuss the importance of modern re-imaginings of older things, like Sherlock Holmes, in relation to their lasting popularity. That was a mouthful wasn't it; Hey-oh! If that didn't get a chuckle out of you in don't know what will. Just kidding I do, but (spoilers) I'm saving that for the ending. Ok, so back to the meat of the post: how much of a role does the re-introduction of a classic through a more modern medium, such as TV, play in that classics longevity? I believe it is nessesary to present classics in a new light to the new generations. Not because the new version is better, but because without it, the new fans would likely have never discovered it. If a person who watches a lot of TV but doesn't read sees the BBC's Sherlock, they might just love it so much that they go out and buy a copy of The Adventures Of Sherlock Holmes. These re-.imaginings shouldn't be viewed as replacements, simply the gateway drug to a vast and wonderful world of literature.

Ok, now that that's over with, the promised chuckle-inducing ending. What do you call a elephant mixed with a rhino: 'el-if-i-no. I mean seriously how can you not laugh at that? 

Additionally, I used an unprecedented amount of dashes on this post, I do not know why-it just happened that way I guess. See what I did there?