Research Frenzy: Mystery Appeal

I remember a few years ago there was a big mystery box fad on E-bay.  People would bid up assorted boxes of junk.  In the Buffy the Vampire Slayer fandom*, there were several people who were known dealers of randomly assorted Buffy merch, including props, sideshow figures, and autographs.  I never ordered one of those for a number of reasons, but it was interesting to see how much they would go for.  Use to, you could search E-bay for mystery boxes and it would come up with hundreds of general ones as well as the four or five Buffy ones that were generally on there.  For the purpose of this post, I searched E-bay today to see how those are going now, and there are only 33 on the whole website.  Buying and selling random assortments of junk on E-bay is clearly not in vogue.

But that isn't to say that mystery boxes themselves are any less popular.  I just attended Dragon Con last weekend, and I can't tell you how commonly dealers there featured mystery boxes and grab bags on their tables.  Five dollar Chinese takeout boxes stuffed with rings, pins, earings, and hairbows.  Ten dollar boxes filled with old TV guides, pins, and refrigerator magnets.  Mystery boxes are a reality of cons.  Sometimes they're a good deal, and you can get some really neat stuff in there, and sometimes you get stuck with a box of old TV guides you have to either throw away or carry back to your room.  I'm clearly not bitter about that at all.

The reality of mystery boxes at cons is that they're generally filled with things that don't sell fast and that you probably wouldn't buy if they were sitting on the table.  Overstocked merchandise.  The dealer's buyers remorse package.  I've certainly purchased good mystery boxes from crafters, and I wouldn't doubt a box from a snack vendor might be enjoyable.  After my box of old TV guides, though, I'm very skeptical about the whole con mystery box experience.

Traditional mystery boxes have a cousin.  SUBSCRIPTION BOXES.  A plethora of companies offer to send an assortment of goods related to a topic.  The quality of these boxes are as diverse as their content.  Previously, I was a recurring customer of LOOTCRATE, which is a geek themed box of pop culture related items every month.  Sometimes I'd get a T-shirt, or some Funko toys, usually there'd be some candy in there and some stickers.  It's fun to get a box of random junk in the mail, everybody loves opening things.

I cancelled my subscription a while ago, because it occurred to me that I would rather pick out $20 worth of stuff that I actually wanted every month than have a randomly selected assortment of items with a retail value of $40.  I'm generally a better shopper than other people.

And then this happened.

Look at that little Groot funko figure (AND HOW MUCH IT'S GOING FOR ONLINE) and you'll see why I had some second thoughts.  I mean, back when I was getting LOOTCRATE regularly, I could E-Bay most of the stuff in the box and then I'd end up with a neat t-shirt or something and the box would mostly pay for itself.  Lots of the items they put in these things would make fine gifts for kids or friends, so the regifting possibilities are endless.  So, I'm going to give that a second shot, I'll post how that turns out this month later (or maybe I won't).  Regardless, I've renewed my subscription.

That got me thinking about whether there were other subscription services like Lootcrate.  

The video above will give you a pretty good idea of how the Loot Crate compares to other nerd subscription services.  There are also horror subscription boxes, like the Box of Dread.  The dude in these Box of Dread unboxing videos is pretty cool, I don't know what it is about him, whether it's his assortment of horror collectibles in the background or his enjoyment of mystery items, I don't know.  He's just very amusing to watch.  Maybe it's his inflection when he says phrases like "trophy heads."

Not all subscription box services are related to fandom at all.  There are mystery boxes for every lifestyle.  It could just be that I'm a huge nerd and I don't understand other people's mentalities on receiving random boxes of junk, but not all of these are created equally.  If you've read many of my past posts when I've gone way off topic, you'll know that when I start getting interested in a topic like this, I REALLY get interested and just research constantly.  I want to see people receiving awesome stuff they're very excited about.  I also want to see total trail wrecks.  AND THERE ARE SOME DOOZIES.  I'll post a playlist of those a little later.

That's what I've been researching this week.  Let me know in the comments if you're into subscription boxes and mystery boxes, and what your experience has been.  Maybe you have some favorites you'd like me to try, or some cautionary tales.

*A Fandom is like a fan kingdom, it includes all people who are fans of a property and all of its derivative works (like fan fiction, fan art, tumblr blogs, etc).

Day three... Why Pit Bulls?

I'm the sort of person that when I find a problem, I have to chew on it for a little while.  I'm still not over the idea that 58,000 people feel so strongly about a dog that mauled a little boy that they'd go like a Facebook page set up for the dog and not the child.  I can understand dog lovers wanting mercy for the 2.7 million animals put down every year due to overpopulation.  This dog would not be my priority to save when so many animals that have never caused anyone harm are destined to die.  When a story like this really catches my attention, I run down every lead I can find to get at the truth. 

In this case, I'm talking about the much maligned pit bulls. There are advocacy groups on both sides that make unbiased information virtually impossible to find by clogging up Google searches and setting up dozens of web pages that either sugar coat the situation or try to frighten the browser with anecdotes.

It's very difficult to find reasonable explanations as to why 5% of the US dog population is caught up in 78% of last year's dog bite fatalities, and why sometimes when bad things happen, people rally around dogs rather than pitying the families involved.

I'm not a strong believer in the Dog Whisperer, Cesar Millan, but I'm quickly becoming somewhat hard pressed for answers.  He defends pit bulls, and is quick to point out that the dogs that bite him the most frequently are chihuahuas.  That statement is inherently flawed, because the dog's temperament has very little to do with its fatality rates.

 The chihuahua is what Eddie Izzard would call a  "small yapper type dog."  I tried to find some actual evidence that a chihuahua has ever been involved in a dog bite fatality.  There is at least one Wikianswers post that says it happened one time, but then I couldn't find a credible news source or any real life statistics that show a chihuahua has ever killed a person.  There are plenty of news stories about a person being bitten or even viciously attacked by chihuahuas, but I think a dog that small has a very difficult time killing even a small person.  It'd be like someone coming after you trying to drown you with only a teaspoon of water.  It's allegedly possible, but it's probably pretty difficult.

I did find a couple of news stories about small dogs killing infants, including a Jack Russell terrier killing a baby, which is horrible.  It is possible for things like this to happen, especially to a newborn left unattended.  As I mentioned in another post, newborns are 370 times more likely to die of dog bite related injuries than adults.  Infants are very easy for an animal to kill.  In fact, I was able to find instances of babies being killed by ferrets.  Leaving a baby alone with any animal is not a good idea.  It's difficult to find statistics on things like how many babies have ever been killed by dogs weighing less than 20 pounds, or how many people have ever been killed by ferrets.  Those sorts of things don't happen often enough that people think to keep statistics on them.  Most of the headlines I found about ferrets or small dogs killing babies were a few years old.  Instances resulting in death are infrequent.

Going back to what Cesar Millan said about the number of times he was bitten by chihuahuas, that might be an indication of aggression.  Indeed, pit bulls perform well in tests that determine aggression.  But aggression is not necessarily an indicator of whether the dog will cause a fatality, as you will see in this case.  The family owned the dog for eight years without ever having a problem, and suddenly the dog killed their two year old son.  An aggression test was given to the dog after the incident, and the dog passed.  Here's another dog, this dog was adopted 24 hours before he attacked his owner.  This is a dog that passed temperament tests very soon before being involved in an incident.  That indicates to me that there's more to fatalities than simple aggression.  Notably though not damningly, both of these dogs were pit bulls.

In one of my previous posts, I mentioned that 78% of all dog bite fatalities last year were from pit bulls or pit bull mixes, but why?  Let's look at exactly what a pit bull is.  The Wikipedia says that pit bull is a generic term based on physical characteristics.  The wikipedia even goes on to say that the same pit bull can be registered in two different breed organizations as two different breeds of dog, the Pit Bull Terrier and the Staffordshire Bull Terrier.  When is a pit bull not a pit bull?  Apparently while it's also a pit bull.  There's also the breed called American Staffordshire Bull Terrier, which is apparently also a pit bull.  The wikipedia lumps in mixes of those three breeds as pit bulls.

But the Wikipedia goes on to say "visual identification of mixed breed dogs is not recommended by the scholarly community."  WHAT DOES THAT MEAN?  Pit bull is a generic term for a dog with a certain appearance, but you're not suppose to use that term to describe the dog's appearance if you don't already know by some other means that the animal is a pit bull?  This is the dumbest academic argument I've ever read.

I've seen a lot of youtube comments that claim many dogs involved in fatalities reported by the media are not real pit bulls.  But what even is a real pit bull if we're talking about three fast and loose breeds of dogs and all mixed breeds that spring from them?  It's hard for me to buy the "that's not a real pit bull" argument when there isn't really a solid definition of what a pit bull is.  If pit bull isn't a breed of dog, it's a way a dog looks, why are we debating whether or not the animal should be considered a pit bull if it looks like a pit bull?  Does every dog involved in a fatality have to be AKC registered before we can consider the statistics involved relevant?


It's becoming clear to me now that passions are high on both sides of the argument, between people who feel strongly about dog bite fatalities (and luckily in Kevin Vincente's case, only very severe injuries) and people who see mentioning the breed of the dog involved in the case as an accusation of all dogs of that general amorphous shape (as pit bull is not a breed of dog).  That is an exhausting sentence, which reflects an exhausting situation.

On one end of this debate (that really shouldn't be much of a debate) are people like Millan, who believe that any dog can be rehabilitated.  Millan is not, by the way, without his detractors.  On the other end, there are people who believe pit bulls are universally vicious.  And on both sides of this argument there are the families of the victims, some of which were pit bull owners themselves.

After days of study, I'm beginning to believe there is no understanding, and that the pit bull is a mythological creature.

Regardless of what the truth about pit bulls is, I disagree with Millan on one important point.  I believe that because dogs are animals and not automatons, they can snap suddenly even with intense training.  I think it just happens.  I think dogs have thoughts and feelings, and for whatever reason, whether it's the dog's temperament or a tooth ache or a fit of jealous rage, sometimes dogs just flip out.  Sometimes it's a dog that has a rocky past, sometimes it's a dog that has never been mistreated and has always been a member of the family.

I've seen so many families in past news reports over the last few days in shock over what their own dog did, to themselves, to their children, or to a passer by.  These are trusted family dogs that just suddenly lose it.

Another layer to this problem, as I see it, is the tendency in dog owners, breeders, and people writing about dogs to believe all dogs of a certain breed have certain personality traits.  Let me give you an example, this is from the Wikipedia page for the Bedlington Terrier:

Their courage has been compared to a bulldog's, and some dogs have extinguished candles at the request of their owner. They are also known for their intelligence and tenacity when it comes to taking on vermin. Bedlingtons are quite fond of fighting, and are prone to jealousy when around other dogs. One dog would become so jealous when around other dogs that he would grab them by the throat and attempt to kill them. One man stated that "this dog was about fit to kill any other dog of his weight" and compared him to the fighting dogs used in dog fighting. They have also been used in pit fighting.
However, both the AKC and the ASPCA call the breed "mild" and "gentle" and recommends it as being good with children. PetFinder says the breed is soft in temperament, companionable, demonstrative, loyal, and a quiet housedog. Although the breed may chase small animals outside, it is accepting of them inside. Playful and cheerful, the breed can be high-strung and excitable, and is prone to being headstrong. The New Zealand Kennel Club warns against keeping them with dogs that have dominate personalities, "as once challenged they are terrifying fighters, despite their gentle appearance", but otherwise the breed is good with other dogs.

That grouping of information has the same kind of nonsensical vagueness and lack of cohesion as astrology.  The dog is both good with other dogs and terribly jealous and aggressive with other dogs.  It's mild and gentle but it can kill practically any other dogs in the same weight.

What this all makes me think is that we have a tendency to assign personality traits to dogs based on anecdotal evidence, and those personality traits become a fixture of how the animal is perceived even when the combined traits don't make any sense taken together, and any one dog is prone to vary wildly from the standard. Whole breeds of dogs are stereotyped and then when the dog doesn't act the way it's suppose to, he's a special snowflake. That explains some of the fear and also some of the romanticism involved in the ownership of any breed.

The conclusion I've come to is that I am opposed to BSL (breed specific legislation) not because I think pit bulls are universally safe, but because I know fits of extreme violence against people are rare in comparison to the number of pit bulls there are living in this country.  The American Humane Society is against it.  I've come to feel that dogs are like people in the respect that you can't generalize that all dogs of a certain type or breed are any certain way in terms of personality.  If pit bulls didn't exist, I think some of the bad pet owners who cause at least a few of the horrifying situations I've been made aware of over the last few days would go buy another big scary looking dog.  If it wasn't the pit bull, it might be the rottweiler, the doberman, or the boxer that would become the most common assailant.

Pit bulls are certainly more dangerous than chihuahuas, and I'm not in a hurry to rush out and buy one for a child under seven.  Regardless of whether you own a pit bull, you should know that chained dogs are involved in 25% of all dog bite incidents.  In fatal instances, 24% of the time the dogs were unrestrained and off their property.  These are things we know, if you have a fence that will hold your dog in and hold children out, your dog will be less likely to kill someone else's child.  Of fatal attacks, 92% are done by male dogs, 96% of which are not neutered.  If you neuter your dog it lowers the odds it will be involved in a fatality.  Where dogs are concerned, this is where the focus should be.

Most of the focus, however, should be on survivors like little Kevin Vincente, victims who've lost their lives, and families who pick up the pieces.

If you need to be reminded why people love dogs after all that, and if you've made it this far, I'm sure you will, here's a Youtube playlist.  These are videos of real life heroes who happen to be dogs, a few of which are pit bulls.

Update on Kevin, the victim in the dog bite incident.

Reports are saying the boy lost most of his teeth and is unable to open one of his eyes.  58,000 people have joined the Save Mickey group to support the dog.  Only 134 people have joined Unbiased Support for Kevin Vincente.  It's just so wrong to me that this dog has more people pulling for it than this great kid who is shown here hiding his face from the camera.  It breaks my heart.  No child should ever have to feel like that.

I don't care about the dog.  Put the dog in a rescue where he won't be exposed to children, and I won't care what you do with him.  Or euthanize him, it won't hurt my feelings. 

Whatever is done with the dog, somebody should do something for this kid.  Show this kid you love him, that the dog isn't more important than he is.  Show him he can go on like this, and that people will still love him no matter what he looks like.  He has no one here but his mother and his big brother, who is only a year older than him.  His grandma is in Guatemala, she can't come hug him and make him feel good. 

It's just so wrong that this kid has so much surgery ahead of him, and he'll have scars and damage the rest of his life, and people aren't showing him the same support they're showing the dog that disfigured him.  Ugh.  I just don't understand that.  I don't understand that people can raise thousands of dollars to defend a dog in court, and they're not doing as much as they could be doing to help this family pay its medical bills.  This kid is four, and people are resorting to name calling and trying to rally against the baby sitter who is at this point irrelevant.  The concern here should be about helping this kid and his mom.

Dog Bite Fever: Pit Bulls in the Media. The Animals. The owners. The Children.

I know I post all kinds of crazy things on here.  Today is no exception.  Apparently I like controversy, so I'm opening up a conversation with you about pit bulls.




Clearly this is a tragic situation.  The kid was very badly injured.

Some people think that the child is responsible for what happened, but the poor little guy is four.  Four year olds are not rational.  They're barely more than babies.  They learn a lot at that age, but they're also stubborn, willful little people who know a tiny amount of what they need to know to get by in life.  Bad things obviously happen to unattended four year olds.  But it's extremely easy to get distracted while preparing a snack, or the toddler could sneak off while you're in the bathroom.  And, let's face it, doggies are interesting for little people.  One minute, their just standing around, both of them minding their own business, the next the child's head is in the dog's mouth, and he's being shaken violently.  And this is a good kid, my kind of kid.  The kid that likes super heroes, especially Iron Man.  And now he's going to need surgery.

On the other side of this discussion are 50,000 people who have rallied to save the dog through a facebook page called "Save Mickey."  I looked for a Facebook group for people supporting the kid through his recovery and the series of plastic surgeries he will have to have, the one I found has only 130 supporters.  The dog was on a chain in its own yard.  Pit bulls are not an inherently bad breed of dog, though they are frequently mentioned in the media related to dog bite statistics and deaths.  They're big working class dogs, common in North America, and known for their stocky, muscular build.  I've known many pit bull owners over the years, none of whom has ever mentioned any incidents to me.  Anecdotally, one particular comrade of mine is a pit bull owner, and I know that animal to be a sweet creature.

But here are the facts:  Large breed dogs can do more damage than smaller dogs.  Don't believe me?  Look at lists of "dangerous dog breeds."  I'm not saying this particular list of breeds provides an accurate description of a dog's inherent temperament, but just looking at the dogs, what do they all have in common?  They're not small lap dogs.  The Chihuahua bites.  It can be mean spirited and rotten, right?  But it's not on this list, because it's a tiny little dog with a tiny little mouth that can't reach very far to bite you, and an adult human being can easily overpower it.  The dogs on this list, they're all big dogs.  It stands to reason that big dogs can do more damage to a person in a small amount of time even with a person resisting the damage than little dogs can do.  It's not because little dogs are better, or sweeter, or don't need to be socialized.

Pit bulls, along with other large breed dogs, have a lot of qualities that make an attack from them more dangerous.  They're muscular.  They have a lot of bite pressure.  They have a heavy body that can be used to knock people down, which is dangerous enough by itself when you're talking about an elderly person who can easily break a hip.  When a healthy person is prone, it's easier for an animal to get at the head and neck, which can lead to fatal attacks. 

Last year, there were 32 fatal dog attacks in the US.  By the same source, 78% of the animals involved were pit bulls or pit bull mixes.  Possible reasons for this:  they're large dogs that can do a lot of damage quickly, pit bulls are popular dogs in the US (with this source siting 5% or less of the US dog population), and it's not a breed so much as a fuzzy group of breeds, so it takes less genetic similarity to be considered a pit bull than it does for a dog to be considered (for example) a German Shepherd.  This source sites 56% of the fatalities last year as children under 7.  Sixty-one percent of these kids were four or younger, like Kevin.  Ninety-two percent of children who died in dog attacks last year were killed by pit bulls.

Here's a link to another dog bite fact sheet, but I'll go ahead and tell you what I found interesting from the statistics they've gathered as well.  92% of the animals involved (this list includes non lethal bites) are male dogs, 94% of which had not been neutered.  25% of the animals were chained.  Chains are not a good preventative measure against having your dog attack a child.  The insurance industry pays out over a billion dollars in damages because of this problem every  year.  Unattended newborns are 370 times more likely to be killed by a dog than an adult.  That is some really, really awful information there, and if you want to read the whole list, I encourage you to do it.

This source lists a resource for parents to teach their kids about safe dog handling, which is for kids from age 4-7.  We can't be sure that this would have prevented Kevin from having this problem, after all, he's four.  Kids at that age are very dangerous, not because they're bad or foolish, but because they're inexperienced and curious.

The dog fact sheet linked above has some suggestions for responsible pet ownership, and if you're a dog owner, I urge you to follow these directions.  Statistically, neutering your dog greatly reduces the risk of it biting a child.  Training and socialization are crucial elements of dog ownership.  Get your dog use to other dogs and people, and the world will be safer for it.  Good fences make good neighbors, keep your dog behind a fence.  Don't leave your dog on a chain.  Don't leave a baby alone with a dog.  Those are all really good suggestions.

I'd like to add, make yourself aware of animals living in your neighborhood, and assess yourself as a dog owner.  If you have a dog that shows aggression, please, take whatever steps are necessary to protect your neighbors.  Seriously.  Things are going to happen.  Knoxville has a map of places where dangerous dogs live, and it's because there are incidents.  I urge you to love the children who live in your neighborhood more than you love yourself or your dog.  There is absolutely no shame in doing the responsible thing in this situation, even if it is painful.

The point of all of this is not to disparage pit bulls or their owners (many of which are fine dogs owned by fine people), it is merely to provide relevant dog bite and fatality statistics and address the overwhelming majority of respondents to this case who rush to the aid of the dog to the exclusion of the child.  I've seen people expressing the concern that it's wrong to punish the dog for what it has done because it doesn't understand and isn't responsible for its actions.  Putting the dog down would not be a measure to punish the dog, it would be a measure to protect children who will eventually be exposed to the dog.  There is no malice or justice involved in this process, only a cautionary measure taken to prevent potential further incidents.  This is a dog that has killed another dog and injured a child severely.  I've heard people say there's no such thing as a bad dog, and maybe that's true, but I think there is such thing as a dangerous dog, and I think it's reasonable to say this particular dog has proven dangerous.  It should never be allowed near a child again.  If they can safely keep it penned at an animal sanctuary, good.  The safety of children should be the primary concern.

If you take nothing else away from having read this blog entry, remember that statistically, neutering your dog and keeping it behind a fence that will hold it rather than on a chain where children can walk up to it seems to dramatically decrease the odds that the dog will bite a child.  If everyone who keeps an unsupervised outdoor dog were to do these two things (neuter the dog and keep it behind a fence), I think dog related deaths would become much rarer.

If Kevin's story has touched you the way it touched me, or if you just feel like helping a kid in need, here are some ways you can help Kevin.  You can donate to his medical care fundraiser.   You can buy him some supplies for his hospital stay (things like Batman pajamas and tasty snacks to cheer him up) using his Amazon wish list.  Or, you could show support to the family by liking a Facebook page set up to support the child.  I chose to send the kid some oreos, some books, and a Superman cape, because he really is a super kid.

The case against Seaworld.

I've been pretty down lately.  I'm not sure how much of that is Wuthering Heights, how much is the reduction in calories consumed, and how much is the mild seasonal illness I'm experiencing.  Perhaps it's just a mood I'm in, or the weather.  All I know is I've been sad.  And my favored reaction to sadness is distraction.  This time, I'm going to read a book called "Death At SeaWorld."  I've been wanting to read it for a while.

Before I get too far into the reading process, some groundwork.

Hi, I'm Rochelle, and I'm anti-cap.

Captivity is wrong for orcas and dolphins.  They're too large for the tanks their kept in.  They're too intelligent to be happy in captivity.  They are sentient and self aware.  They're social animals that should not be separated from their families.  Imagine having to live with a simi random assortment of strangers.  They have cultures that SeaWorld either doesn't respect or doesn't understand.  Distinctive calls, eating habits, and hunting strategies, all disregarded.  Unimportant.

Their lives are greatly shortened.  Their families are broken apart.  They're forced to live with other whales they hate.

There are a hundred great reasons we shouldn't put orcas and dolphins in captivity and zero reasons it's a good idea to keep them in concrete tanks.

I love orcas.  I will almost certainly never see an orca.  And that's okay.  I don't want to see an orca that has to suffer pain and separation and an early death for me to see it.  I do not need to see one personally to know that they exist out in the ocean somewhere, and to care what happens to them.

Did you know that dolphins have names?  Not names like Takina or Flipper.  Names they came up with themselves.  Names human beings can't pronounce.  Let's study things like that.  Let's send boats out into the wild to record their calls.  Let's not take prisoners.

Did you know dolphins recognize their own faces in a mirror?  They pass the mirror test.  They recognize their own bodies.

Nonhuman persons.  We don't need space aliens, intelligent life is here.  It's in elephants, it's in orcas, it's in dolphins, it's in gorillas, and there are many others.

I'm not a vegetarian.  I know dolphins aren't special magical angels that are only good.  But I do believe it's wrong to eat people.  I do believe it's wrong to keep people against their will.

And so, for my next reading option, I'm reading "Death at SeaWorld."  I'm going into this experience with some background knowledge from various research I've done into orcas and dolphins as well as having seen Blackfish and paid attention to the news during the initial incidents.  More thoughts to come as I take in this particular work on the topic.

A Study in Lavender: Queering Sherlock Holmes

I like to judge a book by its cover.  This might be partly because all my life, people have been insisting I shouldn't, and partly because I am not Sherlock Holmes.  I cannot determine which books are "good" by smell, taste, or weight.  The only hope I have for judging books without having already read them* is by examining their exterior or asking someone else's opinion.

Based on the evidence at hand, I suspected A Study in Lavender:  Queering Sherlock Holmes was a "good book."  I reasoned it would have to be at the very least a relevant book.  Sherlock Holmes is an immortal literary character who overshadows all other famous detectives, real and fictional alike.  In recent times, there has been considerable debate about Sherlock's identity.

The BBC series Sherlock has struggled with this debate intensely.  To understand the problem, you need a working understanding of a phenomenon called queer-baiting.  The gist of it is that a depiction of a character implies LGBTQAI identification without actually intending to explicitly show or express the character's identity.  This practice is intended to attract the LGBTQAI audience without offending homophobic or transphobic sensibilities.  Basically, the practice exploits minorities for cash.  In the early days of the series, many people believed Sherlock identified as gay on the show.  That's certainly one easily accessible reading of the material.  The words in context certainly give viewers the impression that he could be.  But then Steven Moffat, showrunner of Sherlock, confirmed Sherlock is not gay, and that he had no intention of making this clear.  And the series continues to exploit that community to this day.  You can read more opinions about queer-baiting in fandom here and here.

This is an important problem because progress made today in media will affect what tomorrow's media looks like.  Groundbreaking moments like this impact what can happen later.  Queer-baiting makes no progress, it only gives the illusion of representation.  I wish we had more Gene Roddenbery types and fewer Steven Moffats.  I think pop culture needs more writers willing to "boldly go" rather than people who would prefer to capitalize on the status qua, and it certainly wouldn't hurt if actors took a stand as well.  Without an acts of sabotage by William Shatner and Nichelle Nichols' continued performance as Uhura, an iconic television moment would never have taken place.

But back to the reason I chose this book.  I hoped it would comment on BBC Sherlock.  Though it is an anthology of short stories rather than an academic piece, there was a preface that gave some information about the history of Sherlock Holmes and the queer community.

It is hard to fault a book centered on characters as old as Sherlock Holmes and Watson for being somewhat outdated, certainly considering the time that has passed since its publication.  The book states that BBC Sherlock "more or less flat out says Holmes is gay" which is unfortunately somewhat inaccurate.  BBC Sherlock is notorious for leaving this impression in the first series and then turning away from it in the first episode of the second one.

The rest of the background given is intriguing and gives good context for a working understanding of the series and its characters.

Here is an opinion I've reached having read this book:  A good mystery should be solvable with the clues the author has given you.  In my consumption of this book, I realized my enjoyment was greatly hinged on whether I could solve the case as Sherlock did.  There were stories in this anthology that were beautifully written with flawlessly constructed mystery plots, and then there were also a couple that I did not enjoy so much.

Some favorites contained within the anthology:
The Kidnapping of Alice Braddon by Katie Raynes
The Case of the Wounded Heart by Rajan Khanna
The Bride and the Bachelors By Vincent Kovar

I should also mention that many people enjoy an asexual reading of Sherlock Holmes, which is not represented in this particular work.



*Judging a book after you've read it is only marginally useful as you cannot then decide it was a waste of time and demand your time back, huffing about rip off authors.  The best I can do at that point is to warn others or promote the book to those who might enjoy it.  I think it's generally more useful on the individual level to judge the book beforehand.