Here's an interesting take on pipe smoking and the new Sherlock Holmes movie in a new article by Ethan Brandt.
New Sherlock Holmes Makes Pipe Smoking Cool ... Again
New Sherlock Holmes Makes Pipe Smoking Cool ... Again
New Sherlock Holmes Makes Pipe Smoking Cool ... Again
- Thread starter admin
- Start date
SmokingPipes.com Updates
Watch for Updates Twice a Week
PipesMagazine Approved Sponsor
Site Sponsors
PipesMagazine Approved Sponsor
PipesMagazine Approved Sponsor
PipesMagazine Approved Sponsor
PipesMagazine Approved Sponsor
- Status
To be honest, this article irritates me a bit. Great men and figures in literature choose to smoke pipes because pipe smoking is great. Although these people have the charismatic power to endorse this activity, we pursue it for its intrinsic quality. The impression made here is of superficial and pretentious people, which we certainly are not. It bothers me that this article is displayed on the front page of such a serious and respectable site. I can't see whom this article benefits except for those who would exaggerate the impression made to support their claim that pipe smoking is a fad. We shouldn't advertise pipe smoking actively but provide interested people with advice and recommendations. But that's my opinion only.
.gif)
Very informative. I had a history professor that did research on Doyle and his idea of Holmes, and said most likely Holmes would have smoked either a church warden or a strait pipe. My prof said its because of the characters upfront and direct point of view, not to mention he tended to be quite brash when it came to talking to people. I miss my old prof he was a pipe smoker also, but passed a few years after I took his coarse. next bowl is for you Prof. Teech.
@lagavulin92:
Pipe smoking, along with a lot of other behaviours, is subject to the preconceptions of the society in which it's found. Yes, it has its intrinsic qualities, but to suggest that it happens in a vacuum is not realistic. Take coffee drinking, for example. Walk down a downtown street and count the number of Starbucks-type coffee cups on display. Just people walking along, sipping their lattes. Coffee wasn't invented recently, and yet thirty years ago, you would not have found one person walking with a cup of coffee. You might have seen them smoking a cigarette or a pipe, though.
Like it or not, smoking including pipe smoking has lost its socially-accepted state, particularly in countries with heavy-handed regulation like Canada where I live. Cigarette smokers are pitied as addicts, cigar smokers are tolerated because they probably have a lot of money and pipe smokers are filed under "old men who didn't give it up in the 70's".
I think that any action that works to change this is welcome. Kevin does great work at this site to show real people of all ages and both genders enjoying the hobby, and produces the Pipe Babes to really show what misconceptions they have. If it takes a Hollywood kick a la Lord of the Rings or Sherlock Holmes to reach a broader audience and at least get people thinking about pipe smoking, so be it.
I say this as a man who never gave pipe smoking much of a thought until I watched the Lord of the Rings movies and then headed for the Internet to see if anyone actually smoked pipes any more. Perhaps this article at PipesMagazine.com will be found by some person who Googled for "Sherlock Holmes pipe". To that reader, I say "Welcome, and feel free to stick around and join in."
Cheers!
Simon
Pipe smoking, along with a lot of other behaviours, is subject to the preconceptions of the society in which it's found. Yes, it has its intrinsic qualities, but to suggest that it happens in a vacuum is not realistic. Take coffee drinking, for example. Walk down a downtown street and count the number of Starbucks-type coffee cups on display. Just people walking along, sipping their lattes. Coffee wasn't invented recently, and yet thirty years ago, you would not have found one person walking with a cup of coffee. You might have seen them smoking a cigarette or a pipe, though.
Like it or not, smoking including pipe smoking has lost its socially-accepted state, particularly in countries with heavy-handed regulation like Canada where I live. Cigarette smokers are pitied as addicts, cigar smokers are tolerated because they probably have a lot of money and pipe smokers are filed under "old men who didn't give it up in the 70's".
I think that any action that works to change this is welcome. Kevin does great work at this site to show real people of all ages and both genders enjoying the hobby, and produces the Pipe Babes to really show what misconceptions they have. If it takes a Hollywood kick a la Lord of the Rings or Sherlock Holmes to reach a broader audience and at least get people thinking about pipe smoking, so be it.
I say this as a man who never gave pipe smoking much of a thought until I watched the Lord of the Rings movies and then headed for the Internet to see if anyone actually smoked pipes any more. Perhaps this article at PipesMagazine.com will be found by some person who Googled for "Sherlock Holmes pipe". To that reader, I say "Welcome, and feel free to stick around and join in."
Cheers!
Simon
@classicgeek:
Of course, our activity deserves to be put in a proper light, and I welcome advertisement, but not from us. There is a difference between posting an article referring to another positive newspaper article and blowing our own trumpets. Furthermore, I doubt how such an article could win outsiders. They either come with a very positive or a rather negative opinion on pipe smoking. Looking at the typical first-experience stories, you have the guided and the disappointed beginner. Should we advise beginners or promise them that they will look cool if they somehow manage to smoke a civilized pipe, on their own? The culture of pipe smoking should be more valuable than one's appearance while smoking. As for visitors with low opinions, they will remind us that "self-praise stinks". I believe a more substantial article on public perceptions is more appropriate than a "we know we're cool"-article.
Have a good day!
Of course, our activity deserves to be put in a proper light, and I welcome advertisement, but not from us. There is a difference between posting an article referring to another positive newspaper article and blowing our own trumpets. Furthermore, I doubt how such an article could win outsiders. They either come with a very positive or a rather negative opinion on pipe smoking. Looking at the typical first-experience stories, you have the guided and the disappointed beginner. Should we advise beginners or promise them that they will look cool if they somehow manage to smoke a civilized pipe, on their own? The culture of pipe smoking should be more valuable than one's appearance while smoking. As for visitors with low opinions, they will remind us that "self-praise stinks". I believe a more substantial article on public perceptions is more appropriate than a "we know we're cool"-article.
Have a good day!
I think any positive view of pipe smoking in the media, film or otherwise should be appreciated. Anything that contradicts the nanny state disinformation campaign that make any kind of tobacco use, including pipes, into being part and parcel to the worst mass murder in human history (and that is not hyperbole, their insane troll logic and bogus statistics actually make tobacco worse than the Nazis) should be appreciated. While I agree that a guy looking cool with a pipe may not launch a million dedicated pipe smokers, it reflects a positive image upon the hobby to outsiders and will inspire thinking people to do their own research. I believe that even if those thinking people don't choose to embrace the glory of PAD and TAD, they will come away with the idea that we are, in fact, pretty cool.
@lagavulin92
No offense, but if you interpreted the article as this publication fishing for people who want to be cool and telling them that pipe smoking would make them be cool, then you misinterpreted the article.
The article is for the Pipes Magazine audience. Only pipe smokers come to this site.
It was never intended to reel in "cool people" to convince them to be a pipe smoker.
I just thought it was interesting that Downey's portrayal of Holmes is so different, to the point that his character is not one that you would even expect to be smoking a pipe ... and there's one of the points of the article.
Who is the stereotypical pipe smoker?
There are many pipe smokers that are not the stereotypical pipe smoker, whatever, or whomever that is.
They're not all old men on a park bench, they are not all college professors. Some are leather-wearing Harley riders.
Superficiality and pretentiousness were certainly not intended, but the article was also not meant to be too serious.
It was supposed to be fun.
Thank you for saying that Pipes Magazine is a "serious and respectable site". I really do appreciate that, and it makes me feel good.
However, our mission goes beyond "serious and respectable".
There are many purposes to the content we produce and publish, which include to; inform, advise, provide news, support the hobby, and to entertain. This site is in the entertainment business without a a doubt. The micro-niche we target is obviously pipe smokers, but the broadest category we also fit into within the publishing world is "Men's Interest / Men's Entertainment".
When it comes to business, I am as serious as they come. However, I never take myself too seriously, and part of the enjoyment of life is to have fun every day.
I think you took the article too serious.
Ethan wrote it, but I titled and sub-titled it. I think the title and sub-title is what bothers you the most ... that pipe smoking is being referred to as being cool.
Hey man, I'm 48-years old, and I'm sure that what I think is cool is completely different than what a 22-year old thinks is cool.
"Cool" is relative. We don't have to get all bothered about it.
We have never, in any content ever published on this site, portrayed pipe smoking as a fad, so I'm not sure where you got that from.
Either way, what is the reason that we shouldn't "advertise" pipe smoking?
How did you interpret anything we do here as some kind of hard-core, hard-sell drug pusher tactic?
But then you revised this a little bit to say ...
The good news is that there has never before in history been so many excellent pipes and tobaccos to choose from, and the other good news is that the pipe smoker market has been growing for the past few years.
We have a 38% increase in pipe smokers in the U.S. over the last 7 years, according to the survey results from the Center for Disease Control.
It would be bad news if it had been going in the opposite direction.
Less pipe smokers means less support for all the makers of pipes and tobaccos, which will then result in less choices for us.
But let's not "advertise" pipe smoking. Let's keep it a secret.
I don't get it.
No offense, but if you interpreted the article as this publication fishing for people who want to be cool and telling them that pipe smoking would make them be cool, then you misinterpreted the article.
The article is for the Pipes Magazine audience. Only pipe smokers come to this site.
It was never intended to reel in "cool people" to convince them to be a pipe smoker.
I just thought it was interesting that Downey's portrayal of Holmes is so different, to the point that his character is not one that you would even expect to be smoking a pipe ... and there's one of the points of the article.
Who is the stereotypical pipe smoker?
There are many pipe smokers that are not the stereotypical pipe smoker, whatever, or whomever that is.
They're not all old men on a park bench, they are not all college professors. Some are leather-wearing Harley riders.
Superficiality and pretentiousness were certainly not intended, but the article was also not meant to be too serious.
It was supposed to be fun.
Thank you for saying that Pipes Magazine is a "serious and respectable site". I really do appreciate that, and it makes me feel good.
However, our mission goes beyond "serious and respectable".
There are many purposes to the content we produce and publish, which include to; inform, advise, provide news, support the hobby, and to entertain. This site is in the entertainment business without a a doubt. The micro-niche we target is obviously pipe smokers, but the broadest category we also fit into within the publishing world is "Men's Interest / Men's Entertainment".
When it comes to business, I am as serious as they come. However, I never take myself too seriously, and part of the enjoyment of life is to have fun every day.
I think you took the article too serious.
Ethan wrote it, but I titled and sub-titled it. I think the title and sub-title is what bothers you the most ... that pipe smoking is being referred to as being cool.
Hey man, I'm 48-years old, and I'm sure that what I think is cool is completely different than what a 22-year old thinks is cool.
"Cool" is relative. We don't have to get all bothered about it.
We have never, in any content ever published on this site, portrayed pipe smoking as a fad, so I'm not sure where you got that from.
Who is "we"? Are you speaking for all pipe smokers? Are you representing this publication?
Either way, what is the reason that we shouldn't "advertise" pipe smoking?
How did you interpret anything we do here as some kind of hard-core, hard-sell drug pusher tactic?
But then you revised this a little bit to say ...
Ok, so now "advertising" pipe smoking is ok, "but not from us". Again, who is "us" and who put you in charge of "us"?
The good news is that there has never before in history been so many excellent pipes and tobaccos to choose from, and the other good news is that the pipe smoker market has been growing for the past few years.
We have a 38% increase in pipe smokers in the U.S. over the last 7 years, according to the survey results from the Center for Disease Control.
It would be bad news if it had been going in the opposite direction.
Less pipe smokers means less support for all the makers of pipes and tobaccos, which will then result in less choices for us.
But let's not "advertise" pipe smoking. Let's keep it a secret.
I don't get it.
Hey, guys. Thanks for all of the positive and constructive comments.
As to your concerns, lagavulin92, I think there is a bit of a misunderstanding. I was not and am not attempting to portray the pipe smoking community as vain and superficial. Rather, I was homing in on the fact that everything has a reputation, an image. The issue at hand concerning this rendition of Sherlock Holmes is how it changes that image.
I was not attempting to say that "pipe smokers are so cool that we don't even need to be told we're cool". After all, the choice of the word "cool" did come from another article, one written in a New York Times blog. Since you said it was okay to link to other articles, this should satisfy your criterion. Additionally, as was discussed in the piece, "cool" has a different meaning in this sense than everyday usage. That is, in fact, what the latter half of the article discusses.
Additionally, people come to different hobbies/activities in different ways and for different reasons. There are many people who might have not taken up the pipe if it weren't for seeing Hugh Hefner or Basil Rathbone or Albert Einstein with a pipe. The same very well might be true for this new Sherlock Holmes.
I understand you point of view, but I think that how we are perceived in the community is very important. Typically, pipe smokers don't like to be lumped in with cigarette smokers, and that is a distinction that they actively work towards. That fact that pipe smokers are not all professors lounging in easy chairs with a monocle and a glass of port is equally important.
Anyway, I think there was something lost in translation between the two of us. I hope that I have managed to clarify.
Cheers,
Ethan
As to your concerns, lagavulin92, I think there is a bit of a misunderstanding. I was not and am not attempting to portray the pipe smoking community as vain and superficial. Rather, I was homing in on the fact that everything has a reputation, an image. The issue at hand concerning this rendition of Sherlock Holmes is how it changes that image.
I was not attempting to say that "pipe smokers are so cool that we don't even need to be told we're cool". After all, the choice of the word "cool" did come from another article, one written in a New York Times blog. Since you said it was okay to link to other articles, this should satisfy your criterion. Additionally, as was discussed in the piece, "cool" has a different meaning in this sense than everyday usage. That is, in fact, what the latter half of the article discusses.
Additionally, people come to different hobbies/activities in different ways and for different reasons. There are many people who might have not taken up the pipe if it weren't for seeing Hugh Hefner or Basil Rathbone or Albert Einstein with a pipe. The same very well might be true for this new Sherlock Holmes.
I understand you point of view, but I think that how we are perceived in the community is very important. Typically, pipe smokers don't like to be lumped in with cigarette smokers, and that is a distinction that they actively work towards. That fact that pipe smokers are not all professors lounging in easy chairs with a monocle and a glass of port is equally important.
Anyway, I think there was something lost in translation between the two of us. I hope that I have managed to clarify.
Cheers,
Ethan
But I WANT a monocle! :rofl:
Thanks Ethan. It was a good article. The fact that it's provoking thought means it was successful.
Thanks Ethan. It was a good article. The fact that it's provoking thought means it was successful.
It has long been a goal of mine to buy a monocle and a top hat, walk into a pub, and loudly yell, "Barkeep! Your finest brandy!"
Mostly just to see the reaction.
Sounds like me. Most of my pipes are straight. I dont have a churchwarden yet, but i desperately want one
My opinion is that yes some people may start smoking a pipe only to be "cool", but some of those people may stick with it. And as far as I'm concerned if gets more people into this hobby thats what matters
Alright, time to get more precise. Maybe I'm a bit paranoid and too concerned about the perception from external people who don't view our activity favourably. Ethan, I appreciate your work and don't question your intent behind this article, but I'm worried about the range on interpretations open for this article, which is lacking in the amount of substance typical for most articles posted here.
I believe the best that can be done to defend and convince about pipe smoking is to demonstrate that pipe smokers can think thoroughly about this activity and its charms and aren't mindless imitators. This ability is not exclusive property of the academia and WWII veterans, but anyone willing to appreciate the joys of pipe smoking. An article on properties and uses of various kinds of leafs strongly suggests that we care about what we put in our pipes and what we are smoking, and we do. An article about whether "we are cool" may strongly suggest that we care to make pipe smoking "the next fad", and we certainly don't. Of course, you would never think of pipe smoking as a farce, but opponents of smoking often do that. A small digression on pipe materials during the period of the series' plot would have remedied that scarceness of information.
As for the definition of “us”, it shouldn’t be too hard to guess that I meant the readership of this online magazine that enjoys and contributes to it. Many articles, including this one, are written by us, after all. I’m not “in charge” of anything, but simply making my voice (maybe too) loud for setting the ideal of a minimal content standard.
I’ve seen the movie a while ago and love how pipe smoking is advertised and suggested by neutral outsiders, and every now and then cool movie characters will advertise pipe smoking again, but I wouldn’t push it. Let the power of suggestion in these movies work. At the end of the day, I hope some will agree that the homepage should have shown a better version of the article.
I believe the best that can be done to defend and convince about pipe smoking is to demonstrate that pipe smokers can think thoroughly about this activity and its charms and aren't mindless imitators. This ability is not exclusive property of the academia and WWII veterans, but anyone willing to appreciate the joys of pipe smoking. An article on properties and uses of various kinds of leafs strongly suggests that we care about what we put in our pipes and what we are smoking, and we do. An article about whether "we are cool" may strongly suggest that we care to make pipe smoking "the next fad", and we certainly don't. Of course, you would never think of pipe smoking as a farce, but opponents of smoking often do that. A small digression on pipe materials during the period of the series' plot would have remedied that scarceness of information.
As for the definition of “us”, it shouldn’t be too hard to guess that I meant the readership of this online magazine that enjoys and contributes to it. Many articles, including this one, are written by us, after all. I’m not “in charge” of anything, but simply making my voice (maybe too) loud for setting the ideal of a minimal content standard.
I’ve seen the movie a while ago and love how pipe smoking is advertised and suggested by neutral outsiders, and every now and then cool movie characters will advertise pipe smoking again, but I wouldn’t push it. Let the power of suggestion in these movies work. At the end of the day, I hope some will agree that the homepage should have shown a better version of the article.
I think this is a good discussion and I agree that the article sheds some new light on something we've already agreed upon as being "cool" (for lack of a better word).
There may be those who try a pipe because of Robert Downy Jr., but the poseurs won't stick with it and maybe we'll get some legitimate members into our fold.
But I also think lagavulin made an excellent point when he wrote "The culture of pipe smoking should be more valuable than one's appearance while smoking." Using pipe shows as an example, there seems to have been an uptick in recent years in the appearance of costumes (kilts, tweeds and bowlers, deerstalkers) with the pipe as seemingly just another prop. And though I agree with 'the more the merrier' when it comes to our hobby, I do not take seriously those who are just doing it as an excuse to play 'dress-up'.
I've mentioned this before and taken heat for it, but I just don't want our hobby to be cheapened by becoming a fad.
There may be those who try a pipe because of Robert Downy Jr., but the poseurs won't stick with it and maybe we'll get some legitimate members into our fold.
But I also think lagavulin made an excellent point when he wrote "The culture of pipe smoking should be more valuable than one's appearance while smoking." Using pipe shows as an example, there seems to have been an uptick in recent years in the appearance of costumes (kilts, tweeds and bowlers, deerstalkers) with the pipe as seemingly just another prop. And though I agree with 'the more the merrier' when it comes to our hobby, I do not take seriously those who are just doing it as an excuse to play 'dress-up'.
I've mentioned this before and taken heat for it, but I just don't want our hobby to be cheapened by becoming a fad.
Crikeys Moses - here we go again, the plum in the mouth dicussion as to coolness, keeping up appearances, the old private school tie aka class distinction aka superiority complex, not to mention suggestions of "props" to support some sort assumed persona generally higher than one's actual social standing, appropriate & inappropriate smoking attire.
Pfft, I want to know the guts of it, cut to the chase, how many choof on a pipe simply because they're ADDICTED to nicotine?
My only interest is finding nicotine in a blend I like the taste of and can therefore smoke voraciously, for no other reason than to get my "hit" and save $'s in the process. If I collected pipes to clean, restore and set aside without using them, then and only then could I consider it a hobby per se.
The second I light up and use them, I consider myself an addict, nothing more, nothing less.
Pfft, I want to know the guts of it, cut to the chase, how many choof on a pipe simply because they're ADDICTED to nicotine?
My only interest is finding nicotine in a blend I like the taste of and can therefore smoke voraciously, for no other reason than to get my "hit" and save $'s in the process. If I collected pipes to clean, restore and set aside without using them, then and only then could I consider it a hobby per se.
The second I light up and use them, I consider myself an addict, nothing more, nothing less.
An excellent question, aussielass. I'm not sure if anyone has had the guts to ask it before.
Personally, I don't smoke pipe tobacco for the nicotine. In fact, I seek out blends with as low a nicotine level as possible (virginias w/ latakia and orientals, no burley). I just don't like the buzz.
I've been smoking a pipe since 1988 and can go days, even weeks without lighting up.
Personally, I don't smoke pipe tobacco for the nicotine. In fact, I seek out blends with as low a nicotine level as possible (virginias w/ latakia and orientals, no burley). I just don't like the buzz.
I've been smoking a pipe since 1988 and can go days, even weeks without lighting up.
- Status