Review: Doctor Strange

For those of you who do not know the strange tale of the good Doctor, Dr. Stephen Strange starts out as a neurosurgeon, but is really Tony Stark with a medical degree. In this case, he's Benedict Cumberbatch, with an ego greater than Tony Stark could have ever imagined. In short, he's very much like a real surgeon. When his hands are destroyed, he literally goes to the ends of the earth to fix his hands. He'll even consider magic.

And then he goes down the rabbit hole.

In every Marvel film....and comic book, really... there are dark reflections of the heroes that serve as the enemy. Red Skull is the evil, twisted reflection of a patriot, etc etc. In this case, the dark reflection on Strange is brought to you by Mads Mikkelsen, who has played every villainous psychopath from Casino Royale to Hannibal Lecter. In this case, Mads' character, Kaecilius, literally uses some of Strange's lines. So, yes, dark reflection achieved. Kaecilius thinks he's found the secret to immortality, even though he's really opening a portal to hell.

For those fans of Dr. Strange, yes, Dormammu appears.

Normally, one expects a Marvel origin movie to follow a specific pattern. It starts with the inciting incident. In the case of Tony Stark, it is an incident in Afghanistan, getting shrapnel into his chest, forcing him to become Iron Man. In the case of Captain America, it's "I want to sign up and be a superhero." Or more precisely a soldier. And he is given these powers. From there it is usually quite easy to chart the pattern from act one to act 2, to act 3. Act 2 typically consists of exploring powers. Or getting the hang of powers. Or, in the case of Captain America, it was being allowed to use his powers. 

However, in the case of Dr Stephen Strange you have a slightly new variation. They have more or less tossed out the graph and the paint by numbers feature of the script writing and have replaced it with somewhat more seamless action. While you do have the standard "Tony Stark as Doctor" element to the beginning of Strange's career after act 1 and and his training begins it is somewhat more difficult to see where act 2 and act 3 split. it was almost  seamless.

One of the standout features of this film was the final battle. It had more of the elements of the first Iron Man than anything else. Remember how Tony Stark took out Obidiah Stane through a combination of outwitting  him and technological know how? In this case, with Dr strange, it is more a matter of Poker. He utilizes the biggest toy in his toolbox and users it in a way I honestly didn't see coming. I figured that we would have had a standard knock down drag out, with fisticuffs between our hero and Mads Mickelson, playing the psycho du jour; however, what we got was a showdown that you would have expected to come at the pinnacle of a trilogy. It should have been the final fight for an epic 3 movie deal. And it was very well executed. I honestly did not see it coming. And it was all at the end of the day well and good.

In regards to the Ancient One, being played explicitly by Tilda Swinton, it is an element that is thankfully not over utilized: the mentor. The Ancient One comes on the screen, does the part assigned, and then leaves. While Swinton has a good resonating voice for the part, I would have still preferred that the part have been played by Jackie Chan, especially when we get to the martial arts, where I could clearly see where the stunt double came into play. She served her purpose, and that's about it. 

Baron Mordo is serving the part of Sinestro, the best of the bunch who turns into something else.  No, he is not the villain of this piece, but there's enough of an origin story here to make him one of the best developed villains of the Marvel universe since Loki. 

Speaking of Loki, come back tomorrow for my spoiler filed analysis of Doctor Strange, and how it will impact the rest of the MCU.

At this point I must take note of the other actor in the movie: the CGI. The special effects in Dr Strange rival anything I believe I have seen on the screen in quite some time. You will note from the various and sundry trailers that they do some wild and wooly things to the landscape, and the scenery in general. What you have seen in the trailers thus far does not even begin to capture exactly how much is on the screen. Not to mention it doesn't even capture how well it was executed. For example, I have never seen anyone with the ability to turn all of New York City into an MC Escher painting and make it look halfway believable or realistic. You ain't seen nothing yet. There is an Astral projection fight, where a defibrillator comes into play in a way I didn't see coming. The cloak of levitation has a personality, and they didn't make it into a faithful dog, or something like that. 

And last, but not least, there's Doctor Strange himself, played relatively flawlessly by everyone's favorite know it all, Benedict Cumberbatch. He is, for once, NOT playing an invincible, unstoppable badass. He has to build up to badass, but even then, he gets his head handed to him. It's nice to see him vulnerable for once.

All in all, I think it was one of the better Marvel films. Civil War was awesome, making up for the lackluster Ant-Man. And Doctor Strange did not disappoint.

Anyway, go see it, one way or another.

Meanwhile, if you're interested in ego-maniacal super geniuses, you can preorder Murphy's Law of Vampires here. It's the sequel to my Dragon Award Nominated Novel Honor At Stake.

And, while you're waiting for that, you might want to try Codename: UnSub.

Movie night: Sherlock Holmes and the Secret Weapon

From 1942, starring the usual suspects, Rathbone and Bruce again.

Anyway, if you haven't already, you might want to pick up Honor at Stake. 
Preferably before the sequel comes out.

#SDCC Update on Marvel's Defenders, and Movie night: Pursuit to Algiers

Sand Diego Comic Con is up, and Marvel is showing off all of their new shows as they build up to The Defenders. I have the full article here, at the Catholic Geeks, along with my analysis of where they could be going.

But, for today's viewing pleasure, I give you Basil Rathbone as Sherlock Holmes in Pursuit to Algiers (1945)

Yes, I know I'm using these a lot, but I'm told people enjoy them, and it's hard finding whole films on YouTube.

By the way, please remember that MONDAY IS THE LAST DAY TO VOTE FOR THE DRAGON AWARDS.  Thank you. And, honestly, if you haven't voted for the Dragon Award nominees yet, why not? Clear here to nominate, or click here for my suggested nominees.

Movie Night: Sherlock Holmes In Washington

Enjoy.

And, honestly, if you haven't voted for the Dragon Award nominees yet, why not? Clear here to nominate, or click here for my suggested nominees.

Movie night: Pearl of Death

Yes, another Ratherbone as Sherlock Holmes, in Pearl of Death (1944).  If you're familiar with the original story, you might get some amusement from this.

At LibertyCon, still. Will be there a while. This should be interesting.

And if you haven't done the Dragon Awards yet, why haven't you? Clear here to nominate, or click here for my suggested nominees.

Movie night: TERROR BY NIGHT (1946)

Sherlock Holmes on a train. Enjoy.

Free movies, aren't they great?

Also, I looked for a patriotic film on YouTube. Like Yankee Doodle Dandy, but it didn't quite work out that way.

Movie night: Sherlock Holmes The Spider Woman

Yup. We've got another one. Because it's Basil Rathbone. Just run with it.

Movie night: Dressed to Kill

YouTube. Because who needs NetFlix? :)

No, this is not the Brian DePalma film with Michael Caine. I could never get into that one, and believe me, I tried.

No, this is the 1946 Sherlock Holmes film with the one, the only, Basil Rathbone.

Yes, Nigel Bruce as Watson is actually NOT the best Watson, but keep in mind, he was the first one to give Watson a purpose on film. And yes, there were other Holmes film before this. Don't ask. Don't even think about it.

Doctor Strange and the Suicide Squad

So, two trailers came out in the past few days.

#1: Suicide Squad

To start with, I'm really tired of the paranoid view of Superman. They've obviously decided to stuff this DCU filled with backstory -- as we have career criminals with history here -- but they didn't decide to just jump to the part where Superman can be trusted already and move along? I know the Injustice alternate universe where Superman is the villain is popular right now, but does it have to seep into everything? Also, if Superman had decided to take out the President, these guys wouldn't have been able to stop him. Thank you. Have a nice day.

I keep hearing that Joker is not the villain of the piece. He's not a big part of the movie. Funny, since he seems to get larger and larger roles in these trailers. Am I missing something? The best interpretation I've heard (assuming that the film people aren't straight out lying to us) is that Joker is just thriving in the chaos in the wake of the actual bad guys.

I still have serious problems with Will Smith as Deadshot. Consider for a moment that Floyd Lawton, Deadshot, became the best shooter on the planet after he had accidentally shot and killed his brother. Deadshot is both simultaneously proficient as hell, with deep suicidal tendencies, kept alive only by the fact that he has a daughter. Do they look like they have any intention at all of having Will Smith playing a role of any more depth than, well, Will Smith?

Once more, Harley Quinn is obviously and evidently stealing this entire trailer, and probably the movie. We've already seen that there will be a ton of backstory on her, including her origins. Hence the heavy Joker presence. In short, this should probably be "Harley and the Suicide Squad" more than anything else. Which makes me wonder why they bothered getting a big name for Deadshot rather than ... anyone else?

Think about it a moment, when The Magnificent Seven came out, most of the actors (at least 5/7) were Big Names, the equivalent of Will Smith today. They had careers, and were easily identifiable. These folks? Margot Robie was big in Wolf of Wall Street, there's Will Smith, and Jared Leto.  Other than that? Not a whole hell of a lot of people I can pick out of a lineup. Jai Courtney I know from three films. Viola Davis will probably not be a big part of the film, on par with the voice on the phone for Mission Impossible.

The rest? Eh.

And, also, has anyone else noticed that this is sooooo much lighter in tone than the first trailer? It's like someone decided "Hmmm, dark didn't work out well for us with Batman versus Superman, maybe we should lighten up the tone a little bit, and make it look more like Guardians of the Galaxy."

But I've noticed that they still haven't explained who the enemy is in this one. If it's not the Joker, then what the hell is going on, exactly?

This one has me mildly tempted to see it. Mildly.

#2: Doctor Strange

Okay, now listen here, Marvel, you get one more origin story.  This is it. I am really, really tired of them otherwise.

For those of you who are wondering what the hell is going on here, Doctor Steven Strange is a surgeon, and like all surgeons, an arrogant narcissistic bastard. When he has his hands ruined in an accident, he goes off to seek ways to repair his hands, going to far flung Tibet to find the mystical Ancient One, a wise old man who has mastered the mystic arts.  The Ancient One has decided that Doctor Strange will be his replacement, and trains him in the ways of sorcery. In so doing, the Ancient One snubs another student, Baron Mordo, who becomes Strange's enemy in order to get the power he feels is rightfully his.

If you didn't get any of that from the teaser, don't worry, neither did I, and I knew all of this in advance. If you're not a fan, you didn't understand it at all.

While I appreciate that they're trying to convey the full weight and power of the forces we're dealing with in the teaser, could they have done something other than use effects and imagery out of Inception? I hated that film (it was boring. I gave up on it.)

Right now, I'm not even entirely certain I like Cumberbatch's American accent, but it may grow on me.

And for the love of God, what the Hell did they do to the Ancient One? Did they think that Mister Miagi was too cliche, so they turned the little old Chinese man with phenomenal cosmic power into a "gender ambiguous" bald Caucasian woman? I'm with John C. Wright on this, I am not amused.

Other than that ... there's not a whole hell of a lot of stuff going on in this teaser. The imagery is okay, so they have the look down. And there's so very little here. There are before and after pictures of Doctor Strange, going from the top of the world to the bottom of the trash heap. There are special effects out of Inception, some halfway decent reflections of Lost Horizon, but aside from that, there's so little "there" there.

As Wright notes, the imagery fits. The look is generally good. But damn it, pretend there is a plot when you make a teaser. And when you have something that you're going to experiment with a classical character, don't make that experiment front and center of your trailer.

There is no action in the teaser. None. Look at it. It's all character, and Cumberbatch can probably pull it off without breathing hard.

Sigh ... maybe I'll calm down with the first full trailer. Or if Tilda Swinton is only ten minutes of the movie. Which would be nice, because I'm really, really bone-tired of origin stories. Please stop. Maybe then, if this "Ancient One" is in only a few minutes of the film, it'll be more tolerable.

If you're wondering why I'm so down on origin stories, tell me if you've heard this one:

Arrogant, unrepentant genius is also a pure schmuck. After he is injured in a way that alters his life forever, he goes out and seeks ways to fix himself, and in so doing, finds a power and an ability that makes him into a superhero.

Riddle me this, Batman, is that Iron Man or Doctor Strange? The answer is: Both. It's not the exact same story, but the character arcs as so similar, I'm not 100% certain I want to see it in full yet again. I'll happily take his origin in flashbacks. You know, like they do on Arrow. Or Daredevil. Or Jessica Jones.

In short, please make what we see in the teaser be the first 10-20 minutes of the film, and not the first 40-50.

But you know what? I'm not impressed. I'm underwhelmed. Wake me when we get a real trailer.

TONIGHT ON THE CATHOLIC GEEK: LIVE WITH ANN MARGARET LEWIS.

We Built That Network on BlogTalkRadio

If you don't know who AML is ... you must be new here.

Ann is the author of Murder in the Vatican: The Church Mysters of Sherlock Holmes, as well as The Watson Chronicles. She's worked for DC comics, written books on Star Wars, a registered soprano, and generally awesome. She is also one of the founding members of the Catholic Writer's Guild.

On Sunday's show, we will discuss the various flavors of Sherlock on television, DC Comics (their TV shows, and their upcoming films), and the Catholic Writer's Guild Conference Live!

#TBT Flashback Blog: Interview with Ann Margaret Lewis on Murder in the Vatican

Yes, I know it's not Thursday yet, but, well, shut up. It fit the schedule.

In April of 2011, I interviewed the awesome Ann Lewis for the release of her book Murder in the Vatican.

Since then, I am proud, and blessed, to call Ann my friend.

Anyway, I will probably be meeting her as this blog goes live, as I will be in the Catholic Writer's Guild Conference this week. No, I'm not staying away from home. It's only New Jersey.

Also, this Sunday, at 7PM, EST, the awesome, amazing, and wonderful Ann Margaret Lewis will be my guest on The Catholic Geek. And then we're going to have a party.

* * * *

After yesterday's guest blog by the very generous author of Murder in the Vatican, Ann Margaret Lewis, you didn't think things could get better, did you?

Well, they did.

Today, Ann Margaret Lewis has willingly submitted to questions from the A Pius Man blog.

You will notice that some of the questions are numbered differently.  These are questions that came with the press packet that I believed readers of this blog might be interested in.

The questions I came up with are plainly numbered, with no additional lettering ... you'll see what I mean.

So, if you just want to skip to those quesitons I asked, you can ....

Here we go.

MarvelEvent Talks Black Panther and Inhumans

Help, I can't keep up anymore.

Over at The American Journal, I did an entire article about the Marvel movie release schedule.

Some preliminary thoughts: One, I'm very happy that they've started releasing more than two films a year. They needed to up their game. And I think they just bitch-smacked DC into next Tuesday.

2) It's not that they thought this through enough to include the Inhumans and Captain Marvel (Carol Danvers) as they both tie the larger Marvel Cosmic universe to the Earthbound Marvel universe. And since Avengers 3 is going to have Thanos (see previous posts) tying them together will help.

However ... Would it have killed them to have a black Widow Movie? I know I'm not the only one who wants it.

3) It seems that, yes, despite what I said the other day, there will be a Civil War element to Captain America 3. However, the only real similarity to the premise is the title, and that there will be legislation about superheroes. It will be a global law, however, not just American. So, guess what, we're going to have Civil War without, well, a civil war. Since the "World Council" in Avengers and Cap 2 seem to be at odds with superheroes, I can't imagine that their successors will be too happy with them.

Does anyone realize that this will put Captain America at odds with the United Nations? Muahaha.

4) Black Panther has been announced. I like the character, and it should be interesting. Supposedly, he might be added to the team in Age of Ultron, but we'll see.

5) To no one's surprise, Avengers 3 is title The Infinity War. And it will be awesome.

 And I have this suspicion that it will include everyone.

6) Despite previous reports, Benedict Cumberbatch has not been confirmed as Dr. Strange.  I just want him on screen so he and Robert Downey Jr. can be on the same screen at the same time.

7) Again, according to the schedule, 2018 will have Avengers: Infinity War Part 1, THEN Captain Marvel, THEN Inhumans, and in 2019, the end of the Infinity War.  Does anyone else think the 2018 movies may all happen at the same time? Or perhaps conclude at the same time?  Just a thought.

For the schedule proper, again, check it out at American Journal.

Month in Review, December, 2011

Well, that was a fun year, huh?  In fact, 2011 was so fun, let's just do it over again, and skip 2012, so we can wake up and election season will be over.

Oh well, can't have everything.

December was a bit of a mixed bag, and the year wasn't all bad. With luck, 2012 will be better. Apparently, after my rampage through Stumbleupon.com, making my November blog traffic spike through the roof, I retained nearly a thousand new visitors, who knew?

Then again, I had some aid in this from a strange and unexpected source -- actually, about three or four different times.

To start with, my tale Coyote Christmas, a Story by Twitter, was a strange success, viewed by over a hundred readers in the first month, and that's without having to post it all over the internet.  Even Coyote Christmas: the full story, written in standard prose, took in a goodly number of readers.  Who knows, I might have stolen someone's title without knowing it -- that would explain why I had a lot of readers looking for "the author of Coyote Christmas" in search terms.

You can never underestimate the power of a good death trap.

I had some nice music blogs, mostly because of a recent discovery on my part: Lindsey Stirling, and her epic violin. Seriously, this woman was awesome.  Not to mention that her Celtic Christmas was beautiful. And her rendition of Silent Night, it worked ... so, yes, I was probably saved by Christmas, and tripping over Madam Stirling.

Though there was one good thing in 2011 I wouldn't change at all, my new Self Defense column (which you can see reviewed for all of 2011 right here). And my Catholic column -- which is even newer.

And this year, well, I have a few tricks up my sleeve. Not many, but I'm working on it.

Catholic review. The war on Christmas, Kim Jong-il, Sherlock Holmes, and the WBC

I've had an interesting little month. Because I have a new job....

On Examiner.com, I'm now their Catholic columnist.

Yes, I write on self defense and on Catholicism. I'm a strange, strange man.

However, it shouldn't be too much of a surprise. After all, many of my articles on this blog acted as articles for the Examiner column.

In fact, my first column was one of my first articles from this past Lent.  Catholic cannibals: Explaining the eucharist. Yes, Catholics are cannibals. Live with it. :)

If you are a long term reader, you might remember that I was allowed an interview with Murder in the Vatican author Ann Margaret Lewis.  It is now a four part article on Examiner.com -- mainly because Examiner doesn't like long columns. In fact, you can start the Interview right here.  Parts two, three and four are attached.  As is my Review of Murder in the Vatican.

There was also an Interview with "Infinite Space Infinite God II" editor Karina Fabian.  That was only a II part article.  The Review of "Infinite Space Infinite God II," one part only

And there were a few other articles that readers of this blog might know.
Mr. Phelps, David Koresh called, he wants to chat;... 
Fred Phelps, you are disavowed. 
“You're going to Hell.... Not.” I'm Catholic, not Dante 
Japan, and the Christian vlogger - 2011 Catholic... 

Then there was some new material. I wanted to explain December 8th, feast of the immaculate conception, to "normal" people.  Also, I wanted to explain why they were Rewriting the Catholic mass -- yes, they are, and they did.

Last week, there was an odd thing of North Korea versus Christmas. -- and then Kim Jong-il died. Huh.

And then, The war on Christmas came to New Jersey. I can't make this stuff up

Fulton Sheen, New York saint? Yes, New York might have a saint buried in the city limits. Who knew?

I'll see you all again tomorrow. We're not done yet

The Guest Blog Index -- "Catholic fiction"

This is going to look like a strange post.  But I like things to be organized.  I try not to buy history books unless I go to the index and see if they have certain topics.

For example, there is a recent biography of a Protestant minister involved in the Valkyrie plot to assassinate Hitler .... you may have seen the movie ... I went and looked in the index for Pope Pius XII.  And I found him!  I flipped to the page....

And the minister "met with an aide to Pope Pius XII for a meeting."  That's it?  That's all you had to say?  You don't know anything else?  Thanks, I'm not buying you, you stupid book....

Yes, I think of books in terms of anthropomorphized entities.  If you didn't know I was weird before, You do now.

But, our guest blogs have been some of our most popular thus far.  The only series to outdo them have been the Snarky Theology series, and the blogs beating up on the Phelps Family.

So, my mild OCD has kicked in, and I'm going to do a little sorting.

Review: Murder in the Vatican, the Church Mysteries of Sherlock Homes.

After a guest blog from author Ann Margaret Lewis, and the interview with her, it's now time for my review of her book. 

Which you can find here


I wanted to hold off on this for the end, to make certain that there would be no influence on her one way or another.  The same ground rules will apply next week for Infinite Space, Infinite God II editor Karina Fabian, who will also submit a guest blog, and be subjected to an interview.

Now, on with the review....

When I was thirteen, I started reading through the collected stories of Sherlock Holmes. I made it about halfway through. I had been stopped dead by "The Adventure of the Gloria Scott"—the one and only time Holmes was the narrator.  I wasn't the only one who had a problem with that story. Another author of the day, G.K. Chesterton, said that the Gloria Scott showed why Watson was relevant: because Holmes was an awful storyteller.

Since then, I have been critical of anything about Sherlock Holmes written after the death of Arthur Conan Doyle. Some stories went wildly off track. Others were riddled with so many anachronisms it was painful. Of the vast quantity of Holmes-related material published, my family of readers owns only a fraction.

When Robert Downey Jr. starred in Sherlock Holmes, I crossed my fingers and hoped it didn't suck … instead, I got a checklist of what they did right.

When Doctor Who scribe and show runner Steven Moffat created a show called Sherlock, I also crossed my fingers. It was surprisingly awesome.

Then I heard about Murder in the Vatican. The Church Mysteries of Sherlock Holmes on the newsletter for the Catholic Writers Organization. It had an interesting premise: author Ann Margaret Lewis takes Watson's offhand references of Holmes working on cases for the Pope, or involving religious figures, and turns them into entire stories.

I experienced the same feeling of dread. How off would the narration be? Would someone try converting Holmes? How lost would a detective from Victorian, Anglican England be in Catholic Rome? How many different ways were there to screw this up?

I stopped worrying when I read the first sentence. And, oh my God, this book is awesome! I loved this book...

Lewis caught the voice of Dr. John Watson as though she had taken it, trapped in a bottle, and used it to refill her pen into as she wrote. I liked the voice. I liked Watson, the doctor, trying to diagnose an ailing Leo XIII (85 at the time of the events of the first story). I like the brief sketch of the political situation between the Vatican and Italy. I even enjoy Watson's discomfort at the Pope slipping into “The Royal We” when he speaks of himself as the Pope.

Even the artwork was as though it had been lifted from issues of The Strand magazine.

Someone had fun here, and it shows.

Thankfully, there is no overt attempt to convert Holmes, evangelize or proselytize him. There is only enough theology in the entire novel that explains to the casual reader exactly what the heck the Pope is doing. The closest the book comes to exposing Holmes to theology is a page-long sequence that ends with Leo saying, “Perhaps you should spend some of your inactive time pondering that conundrum [of Jesus] instead of indulging in whatever narcotic it is with which you choose to entertain yourself.”

That is the best zinger I've ever seen a character use on Holmes regarding his drug use. Even the most secular person I know can appreciate a page of theology for one of the better one-liners I've ever seen.

Also, the little things were entertaining for a nerd like me. For example, the casual mention of John Cardinal Newman, referred to as “a recent convert.” The political situation at the time is given just enough of a sketch to explain what's going on, but nothing obtrusive; history nerds like me can be satisfied, but you don't have to have a degree in it to comprehend what's going on.

There are truly parts where the novel seems to merge all the best qualities of Sherlock Holmes with those of G.K. Chesterton's Fr. Brown short stories ...

At this point, I must make a small confession. I write these reviews as I read the book. There is plenty of backtracking, to fill the blanks, and rewrite it as the book goes. I wrote the Father Brown line when I finished the first tale. In fact, the interview questions I sent to Ann Margaret Lewis were written before I even received a review copy of the book.

I then read “The Vatican Cameos,” and discover a Deacon, named Brown …

I swear I didn't see that coming

The first story in this collection is "The Death of Cardinal Tosca."

In this memorable year '95 a curious and incongruous succession of cases had engaged his attention, ranging from his famous investigation of the sudden death of Cardinal Tosca -- an inquiry which was carried out by him at the express desire of His Holiness the Pope . . . .
—Dr. John H. Watson, “The Adventure of Black Peter”

Imagine Sherlock Holmes on vacation … if you see that vacation turning out like an episode of Murder, She Wrote, with a body hitting the floor at some point, you pretty much have the setup. It has a poison pen letter, with real poison, some Masons, references to two different cases in the space of two paragraphs, and a Papal commando raid with a real pontiff. This story is so delightfully odd and over-the-top, but still preserves as much reality as any other Holmes tale. I enjoyed every moment of it. And I can't argue with any story where the pope gets most of the amusing one-liners.

Heck, even the murderer gets in a good line. When confronted, our first killer sneers. “Let me guess. You're going to explain, to the amazement of your friends, how I did the deed?” Holmes replies, “I've already told them that. It would be old news. They already know you blundered badly.”

I think the story concludes on a nice, solid note. As Holmes tells Watson, “[Leo XIII] is genuinely pious. He is also imperious, but in a most endearing way.”

Watson merely replies, “Yes, well. I'm used to that.”

Let's see Martin Freeman deliver that line with subtlety and dry wit.

"I was exceedingly preoccupied by that little affair of the Vatican cameos, and in my anxiety to oblige the Pope I lost touch with several interesting English cases."
—Sherlock Holmes, The Hound of the Baskervilles

The second tale, "The Vatican Cameos," is a bit of a flashback episode to when Holmes first met the Pope. Leo XIII has sent a collection of cameos to Queen Victoria. The cameos are secured tightly in the box they're delivered in, but upon their arrival in London, the box is empty. The Queen has a simple solution: send Sherlock Holmes. Watson is busy with a medical emergency, so he wasn't around.

When Watson asks Sherlock about the incident, Holmes says, quite clearly “Watson, I am incapable of spinning a tale in the way you do. The narrative would read like a scientific treatise.”

Madam Lewis certainly read "The Adventure of the Gloria Scott," as well as the others.

So, there is only one person left who can narrate this tale … the Pope himself. This was the story that truly showed that the author did her research, assembling little details of Leo XIII's interests and hobbies and putting them together into a rich, vibrant character. He is shown here as witty, humorous, and bright.

The byplay between Leo XIII and Holmes in this story was marvelously entertaining. The Pope is shown to be about as smart as Watson … maybe a little smarter. When Holmes first meets the Pontiff, and rattles off conclusions in his usual rapid-fire manner, the Pope takes a minute, and deduces how Holmes came to most of them. Not all, but most. Making Leo this smart only serves to make Holmes as impressive as he should be—yes, everyone else may be smart, but Holmes is smarter.

Also, having Leo XIII using Thomas Aquinas to talk with Holmes of reason and science … it works for me.

And the scene with Holmes, the Pope, and the gunman was fun, too.

"You know that I am preoccupied with this case of the two Coptic Patriarchs, which should come to a head to-day."
Sherlock Holmes, “The Retired Colourman”

"The Second Coptic Patriarch": The third and final tale is from yet another throwaway line of Arthur Conan Doyle's.

In this case, a former criminal comes to Holmes to solicit his services; the priest who converted him away from his life of crime is in jail for murder. A bookstore owner has been murdered with a book (“The Rule of Oliver Cromwell--weighty subject, no doubt,” Holmes quips), and the priest will only say that the victim was dead when he arrived. It's almost Sherlock Holmes meets Alfred Hitchcock ... I didn't know someone could do I Confess like this. It's a fun little read, and possibly the most traditional of the Holmes stories -- it's a good tale. From the perspective of the overall book, it's a perfect cap to the character arc.

Now, after reading Murder in the Vatican, I think I'm going to go back and finish the Sherlock Holmes series -- and keep Murder in the Vatican handy, so I can read them all in chronological order.

Ann Lewis said that the book was "meant to be fun and lift your heart for a short time. I had a blast writing it, and I hope you have a blast reading it."

Mission accomplished.

Frankly, between Cumberbatch, RDJ, or Elementary, if you had to live with only one expansion of Holmes works, you buy Ann Lewis. Period.

Interview with "Murder in the Vatican" author Ann Margaret Lewis.

After yesterday's guest blog by the very generous author of Murder in the Vatican, Ann Margaret Lewis, you didn't think things could get better, did you? 

Well, they did. 

Today, Ann Margaret Lewis has willingly submitted to questions from the A Pius Man blog.

You will notice that some of the questions are numbered differently.  These are questions that came with the press packet that I believed readers of this blog might be interested in. 

The questions I came up with are plainly numbered, with no additional lettering ... you'll see what I mean.

So, if you just want to skip to those questions I asked, you can ....

Click here for the interview

We here at the A Pius Man blog would like to thank Madam Lewis for her time.  Murder in the Vatican can purchased through the publisher, wessexpress.com. It is also carried on ignatius.com and Amazon.  If readers have more questions, Ann can be reached by email via her web site: http://www.holmeschurchmysteries.com/.

Guest Blog: Murder in the Vatican Author Ann Margaret Lewis.

Welcome to the blog for my novel A Pius Man.

The Good News: No Snarky Theology this week.  After Communion, Lent, Sex, and Evolution, I'm taking a break.

The Even Better News: Today, we have a guest blog from Murder in the Vatican author Ann Margaret Lewis.

Since Murder in the Vatican deals with tales from the Sherlock Holmes canon that involve Holmes working with Leo XIII, I asked if she could blog about history in fiction, religious historical character in fiction, or "something like that".   As you can see, I was very helpful about picking out a topic for her.

The below was the result.

For the record, I have not doctored or altered her text in any way.  In fact, the only "edit" I made was that I asked that she insert some hyperlink footnotes to some of her statements.

And, here we go.

Snarky Theology 4: "Things that go boink in the night." Catholicism on Sex and Gays

This one may have slightly less snark.  We'll see how it turns out.

I hear from a lot of people that the Catholic Church is obsessed with sex.  I usually hear this from people who aren't Catholic, or Catholics who haven't been to church since they left their parents' basement.  I've been going to church every Sunday for about 20 years.  That's approximately a 1300 masses, with holy days ... and I'm adding this note at 2:30 in the morning, so don't nitpick my math ....

In all 1300 masses, I don't think I've never heard the priest talk about sex unless there was a reading that involved adultery, or someone begetting someone else.

This month, I turn 29. I believe I am one of the few male beings on the planet, and maybe the only person in New York City, who is deliberately a virgin.

I put special emphasis on deliberately, since being one involuntarily is not really that impressive for a nerd of my caliber. I've been given the option, and I have expressly said no.  I don't think this is a gloating matter, and I don't mean it to be "Haha, I'm more virtuous than you," I mean it more in the context of "Whew, I dodged a bullet."

My reasons for avoiding sex are numerous. For starters, I'm not married.  I have personal reasons (I've met too many people where sex has taken normal people with slight personality quirks, and turned them into full-on neurotic messes). I have practical reasons (my parents are both in the medical field, and I ask far too many questions when I'm at a microbiology conference--did you know that there are 25 difference STDs, 50 with varying mutations, and that condoms have an 85% failure rate against pregnancies, and viruses are many, many times smaller than a sperm cell? Oy!)

Also: I've got this strange notion from my philosophy and my faith that has said that, “Sex should be the perfect union of two people, so that they are linked biologically, psychosomatically, psychologically, and spiritually, making them one.  You don't do that with just anybody.”

Hey, I warned you I was a romantic sap. You should expect some of this tripe every so often.

But this is just me. What about the Church of Rome?

Oh, yeah, apologetics.

My last, "philosophical / religion" position, is the same position of the Catholic Church, which isn't half as obsessed with sex as the average American. To expand on that original premise, sex should be such a perfect union, only undertaken by two people in a committed relationship. And, sex should also fulfill all of its natural functions.  I briefly covered this topic before.

Thus, the Roman Catholic Church is the only one where sex is a sacrament.... Something blessed by Christ that gives god’s grace

Yes, you read that right. You get married, you are supposed to have sex. Children should be an end result, but timing is everything, isn't it? There are usually enough signs and portents in the average hormone cycle that self control is the best method of birth control available.

For the record: sterility doesn't really enter into the equation. The married couple having sex is doing everything right, it's just a matter of equipment failure.

And now you know everything about the Church's, um, position on sex … Tab A goes into Slot B.  The Church doesn't care where else it stops on the way, it doesn't care if whips, chains, exhibitionism, or anything else is involved, as long as the end result adds up to Tab A in Slot B.  It doesn't matter how it starts, it matters where you finish. 

And, personally, not only do I not care, I don't want to know.

In sum: sex that has no possibility of procreation is considered a deliberate violation of the natural order of things, and hence considered a sin.  Save sex for marriage, and after that, knock yourself out.  Have fun. Thank you, the end, goodbye ....

What? You mean I missed something?

Coming soon to A Pius Man: Catholic FAQs, Feedback, etc.

Since I have the next few weeks of blogs scheduled, and the blogs written, I thought I would give you a preview of what's to come.

February 22: "But what is he when he's at Home? Other Novel Ideas" -- Basically, for anyone who loses track of all the various and sundry projects I'm working on, this is a comprehensive list.  No, it's not just A Pius Man.

March 7: Catholic Cannibals: Snarky Theology -- Lent starts the week of March 7th, so I thought I would start by kicking the explanations into full gear.  I'm starting with WHY I have no intention of trying to actively convert anyone.  Why?  Because in my Church, we eat people.  Involves CS Lewis and Lewis Carroll.

March 14: Snarky Theology: FAQs about Lent.  Pretty much everything it says.  If Catholics shouldn't eat meat on Fridays of Lent, what about fish? Do fish grow on trees now?  Why do we fast?  I am taking questions as of now.  So if you have them, now's the time to ask them.

March 21: Snarky Theology: Evolution, Who knows and Who cares... Some people believe creationism.  Some believe in evolution uber alles.  I believe that it really doesn't matter.

March 28: Jesus Freaks Scare Me -- They do, they really do.

April 4:  This entire week will be dedicated to  Murder at the Vatican, the Church Mysteries of Sherlock Holmes.We will have a guest blog from the author, a brief Q&A session, and my review.



April 11: This week shall appear much the same as April 4th, only the book is Infinite Space, Infinite God II.

April 18: Extremists, Atheists, and Jesus Freaks-- being fair and mentally unbalanced, I want to play whack-a-mole with a few anti-theists.   Paging Mr. Dawkins ...

This last project may or may not happen.  For Easter week (April 25), I have considered a week of "Evil religions, From Islam to Christianity" .... as usual, it's not what you think it is.  These blogs I have yet to write up, but I would like to the "Evil Religions" posts the whole week.  We'll see.  There's Islam, Christianity, Judaism.... though I may be able to break it down regionally.  We'll see.  Why everything you know about the evils of religion is wrong.

Keep in mind, these blogs may be interrupted by stupid news from the Vatican, or by breaking news by a publishing industry outpost.  If I get a contract with a publisher, this schedule might be a little thrown off, due to my dancing in the streets.

However, I would like to ask, once again, for any questions you may have.  Or, since I'm currently taking suggestions, does anyone have any articles you would like me to write up?  Anything you'd like me to comment on, or make fun of, or get my utterly sideways viewpoint on it.  There's no pressure, I have enough blogs to last me a while, but input is always appreciated.