Doctor Watson's Xanadu

 Long have Sherlockians puzzled and conjectured over Watson's marital situation, and the wife who is there, but not there, proposed to as "Mary Morstan" and never spoken of by name again. Such mysteries live on for years, decades even, in our minds . . . until some little thing, just one little innocent thing, triggers the answers that were there all along.

I have Max Magee to thank for this. During a recent film festival game of collecting four Sherlock Holmes movies to create a Sherlockian film festival, Max decided to make his film fest be:

1. Hound of the Baskervilles
2. Sherlock Gnomes
3. Xanadu
4. Heaven's Gate

The last two may seem plainly due to Max's roller skating fetish and his desire to make "Prince's Skating Club" from "The Adventure of the Red Circle" of Canonical importance. However the movie Heaven's Gate takes place in 1890, and features Ellen Watson, a Wyoming bordello manager who very well have been a cousin of Doctor Watson's should one remember certain authoritative treatises in The Baker Street Journal on Watson's American origins. But Xanadu, a 1980 musical filled with the fashion and music of the day?

Xanadu is the tale of a pretty blonde woman that skates into a man's life and inspires him to follow his creative dreams. And, it turns out she's a full on daughter-of-Zeus muse, who appears on Earth to with the sole purpose of doing that inspiration, something she's done throughout time.

So let's stop for a moment and think. John H. Watson met Sherlock Holmes in 1881, and worked with him for six years before he thought of writing and publishing his adventures with Holmes. No, that didn't happen until 1887. And what else happened to John Watson in 1887, according to so many notable Sherlockian chronologists?

He met a pretty blonde woman, whom even inspired Holmes as someone "who might have been most useful in such work as we have been doing."

There is a vision in the movie Xanadu of the muse Kira, in another era inspiring another artist four decades before. It makes it very easy to imagine yet another scene missing from the movie of Olivia Newton John in 1887, showing up in Baker Street with some pearls and a fever-dream of a case for Holmes and Watson. A pygmy with poison darts, a one-legged escaped prisoner, a treasure lost in a maritime (well, river maritime) battle . . . why wouldn't anyone start thinking of writing such things down?

But muses do not stay around forever, being magical creatures with a job to do. And after Watson seems to lose his writing spark in the mid 1890s, what is it that brings him back to taking pen in hand? 

"The good Watson had at that time deserted me for a wife, the only selfish action which I can recall in our association. I was alone."

Technically, one always has to wonder over those words "only selfish action," as Watson seems to have deserted Holmes for a wife twice. With a long gap in between which makes it hard to see as a gap in a single marriage to a normal woman in that era. But a muse, who would return to Mount Olympus and then one day return to inspire Watson again when the need seemed dire?

Mary Morstan . . . perhaps not the Terpsichore of Xanadu, but her sister who appears in the opening muse dance, Melpomene, whose name also features the double "M"s . . . the muse of tragedy. For isn't so much of Watson's work inspired tragedy? Murder, loss, love gone wrong?

Sherlockian chronologists have long watched Max Magee try to inspire Sherlockians to mix Back to the Future into the Sherlockian mythos somehow. Perhaps this time, however, he has hit upon the real vein of gold and the movie Xanadu finds ties to the Watson works that really do work . . .

Your Top Five Sherlock Holmes Movies

Before and after our weekly recording of The Watsonian Weekly podcast, Madeline Quinones, Heather Hinson and I always have some other Sherlockian gossip and chat that goes unrecorded. An occasionally there's some chat that might have been worth putting on the podcast. Tonight it just occurred to me to ask a simple question: "What are your top five Sherlock Holmes movies?"

Fifty years ago, there were nearly the smorgasbord of Sherlock Holmes movie choices we have today, and we've all had the pleasure of seeing the right movie at the right time in our lives, which might give a particular choice more meaning to us that to our friends. And there are generational favorites at this point, as well. The Great Mouse Detective would definitely be on the list of one Sherlockian we know, while another would point to The Seven-Per-Cent Solution . . . and neither of those made it to any of our top five lists.

So, without further adieu, here are the top five Sherlock Holmes movies of the Watsonian Weekly podcast crew:

Heather's Top Five:

• Young Sherlock Holmes
• The Private Life of Sherlock Holmes
• The Return of the World's Greatest Detective (Larry Hagman as Holmes)
• Sherlock Holmes (Robert Downey Junior as Holmes)
• Sherlock Holmes (and Dinosaurs)

Madeline's Top Five:

• Game of Shadows
• Without A Clue
• Murder By Decree
• Enola Holmes 2
• Her imagined unreleased pro-shot of the Ken Ludwig Moriarty premiere.

Brad's Top Five:

• The Private Life of Sherlock Holmes
• Holmes & Watson
• Sherlock Holmes in New York
• Sherlock Holmes (Downey)
• The Adventures of Sherlock Holmes (Rathbone)

There you have it. Make of it what you will. And, you know, there is a comment section below this for your own top five, should you feel so inclined! (And our comment moderator will try to remember to check the approved comment list this week to make sure they get added ... at some point.)

Holmes in the Heartland 2026: Sherlock Haunts!

 This weekend, I left my laptop at home.

Being on the committee for a weekend conference requires a little more attention than my usual "time to tippy-tap on the laptop" reporting as it goes, and this one definitely did. St. Louis's "Holmes in the Heartland 2026: Sherlock Haunts!" definitely deserved all of one's attention this past weekend.

I was weary when I arrived, having entertained a handful of out of town guests in Peoria the night before, which coincided with our monthly Thursday night library discussion group. That meant missing the screening of The Private Life of Sherlock Holmes in a theater near the conference, as well as the Friday morning maneuvers of the 221st Southumberland Waffleers, but sometimes Sherlockiana demands sacrifice.

The Cheshire hotel in St. Louis is a charming place, one that seems like it's been there a long time, but that works well with the "ye olde British" ambiance. Each room is dedicated to some literary figure, and upon check-in you get a bookmark with the name of your room, in addition to the usual number card folder. Mine was "William Makepeace Thackeray," 

One lucky raffle winner, Elaine Litzenich, won a special VIP attendee package, which included staying in the hotel's Sherlock Holmes suite, a custom name badge and lanyard, a choice door prize, private vendor shopping, and extra attention from the conference staff . . . though she was very sweet about that last part and did not demand too much of our service.

At 4:00 P.M. on Friday, early registration started, quickly followed by a lavish cocktail hour with such hearty and well-done hors d'oeurves that few needed to go to dinner after. The conference mascot, Boolock Holmes apparated for the first time at the Haunted Happy Hour, silently handing our spooky trivia for the crowd to test their table-mates with. (Boolock not pictured . . . yet.)

There was a little "Fox and Hound" pub in the main hotel, where many retired after cocktail hour for more chatting, and a good many of us overflowed across the hall onto the outdoor patio, as St. Louis was having a perfectly climated evening for our Friday night. A bag of kettle corn was discovered and passed around, and, well, it was just nice. Sherlockians are pleasant folk to spend time with, which is the real draw for these events.

The next day, folks were eager and ready to storm the upstairs conference room and vendors tables when 8:30 AM rolled around. The program didn't start until 9:30, but that hour was put to good use, especially by those who needed a little more sleep after the night before. Rob Nunn finally took the podium welcoming one and all and introducing the first speaker, noted book columnist Michael Dirda, who spoke on his Sherlockian path through life. Minnesota's own Julie McKuras came next, investigating what it was that must've haunted Sherlock Holmes himself throughout his life. After that firm foundation of a program start there was a 30 minute break to encourage more shopping with the vendors. (Holmes in the Heartland is nothing if not kind to its vendors!) After some door prizes were raffled off to bring everyone back to attention, comics sage Johanna Draper Carlson presented "Zombies, Vampires, and Monsters in Sherlock Holmes Comics," which was a wonderful update and array of the many appearances of Holmes in such comics. And after Johanna . . . a tough act to follow . . . came . . .

If, for any reason, you find yourself on the program at the very last minute, a mere eleven days before a conference, let us all hope you also find yourself merely being straight man to one of your most talented friends whom you've talked into filling a gap in the programming. Sherlockian and puppeteer Mary O'Reilly had done videos of her all-animal Sherlockian society for our annual Montague Street Incorrigibles meetings (one of which I appear in, with all the acting talent of a "Half in the Bag" host), but had never made her animal friends work a live audience before. Since Mary had already volunteered to play Boolock Holmes at the Haunted Happy Hour, it seemed perfect that Boolock could appear again with the animals.

Baskerville the hound, Buncle the goose, the Lion's Mane jellyfish, and Lucinda the swamp adder all appeared, so I could try to get them to talk about Sherlock Holmes, even if they had definite other ideas and tried to sell me fake carbuncles or get human members for their club. It was commented on, more than once, that I kept holding the microphone in front of the puppets when they spoke, but what I was actually doing was holding it in front of the "silent" Boolock, since ventriloquism is something anyone can do with a sheet over their head, and we needed that little assist for the act. But even when the microphone wasn't close, most of the animal voices pierced the ether of the conference room and kept the audience happy (and distracted, since we were the last bit before lunch and people were getting hungry).

Lunch was as excellent as the appetizers the night before, and I wish I had discovered dipping the grilled turky-and-gruyere sandwich in the tomato bisque sooner, as, WOW, was that good. I also piled my plate with arugula lettuce salad, defying the parasite gods that have been spreading fear amongst the fresh veg community this summer. 

Perhaps the most risky part of the program came next, as the sultry tones of podcast king Scott Monty could have easily relaxed the audience into a nice nap, but his survey of Sherlock Holmes in popular culture held the audience (and maybe even tweaked some a bit with his mentions of AI), and I noticed no snoozers. St. Louis Sherlockian Randy Getz followed Scott with an audio tour through the music and composers that appear in the Sherlock Holmes Canon and re-introduced us to many familiar tunes we might have forgotten. (Chopin's "Death March" especially sticks out in my memory, haven't possibly never known that trope of a dirge was Chopin's.) 

One last break for shopping the vendors' tables and we came to our final two acts, Ira Matetsky showing off the poetic side of Conan Doyle (his reading of "The Old Huntsman" was especially memorable), and Bob Sharfman showing off the Sherlockianity of Bob Sharfman. (I dunno, somehow it's just that and it just works.)  

Rob Nunn concluded the day's program and dismissed us for an hour to dress for the cocktail hour and banquet. Some of us are common sluggards who just wear what we were wearing all day, which is something one has to consider as an option in St. Louis in July, but banquet time is always an opportunity for those who like to raise their game for the evening. The Cheshire treated us right once again in the food department, and Scott Monty again took the microphone following a meal. But this time, Scott was stirring up interest in several auction items to raise money for the Beacon Society, and did a fine job of doing just that.

The after-dinner entertainment proper was "A Dinner Conversation with Conan Doyle," but spiritualist Maximillian P. Magee was overcome with the spirit of Sherlock Holmes who pushed Doyle aside to play host to several other spirits appearing out of the ether. Mary Sutherland, Agatha the maid, the King of Bohemia, and others, most of whom looked somewhat like Ashley Polasek or Curtis Armstrong but sounded quite different. It was quite the experience and I was overcome for a short time when it was over, retiring to my hotel room until the vapors passed, then returned to the Chesire's lobby area just outside the Fox and Hounds pub, where many a Sherlockian hung out to chat for the rest of the night.

It makes me tired just to think of how tired I was by that point, but morning came eventually, with elevatoring down to the parking basement to load the car up, a bit more lobby socializing, and then a trip to the Missouri History Museum for a look at the 1904 World's Fair, with its almost-ties to the world of Sherlock Holmes.  Sundays at Sherlockian weekends are usually the day when you see people slip away, bit by bit, from the early morning Sunday until sometime Monday. The line at the "Taste of Amighetti's" museum cafe seemed like my time to exit, as it seemed a bit understaffed to deal with an influx of Sherlockians, so I was well out of St. Louis and up the road by the time I would have eaten. And that was a very good thing, because an hour or so after alighting back home in Peoria, I was out for a much needed nap.

Being a part of the group putting on a conference (the Parallel Case of St. Louis, which I'm kind of "the neighbor who drops in now and then" membership-wise), one tends to hear all of the little squeaks in the machinery of the event and see all of the dings in the paint-job, but when all is said and done, we can mark "Holmes in the Heartland 2026: Sherlock Haunts!" as one in the "wins" column for this year. Getting together with Sherlockian friends is the important part, and one to be enjoyed whenever we're lucky enough to find ourselves immersed in a weekend like this one.

Sherlockiana, the Serious, the Silly, and the Self-Actualized

 “Earnest people are often people who habitually look on the serious side of things that have no serious side.”  — Van Wyck Brooks, literary critic

There are folks in our hobby of Sherlockiana that love a footnote. Maybe their high school English teacher was especially comely on the day term papers were explained and their youthful hormones gave the lesson a bump. I dunno. Me, I don't need them unless they're their to make fun of footnotes. One early article I had in The Baker Street Journal did so with completely fake footnotes in it, as the editor asked for footnotes. Because I'm here to play.

A lot of people are here to play too, but their game has more rules than mine. And then there are the people who aren't here to play, those who write about the real lives of the real people who've been touched by a Sherlock Holmes. They get a pass. But I still think they could do without footnotes. End notes are fine, unless you're Baring-Gould or Les Klinger annotating something we've all, hopefully read once already in its raw state.

The point I'm getting at here isn't that one way or the other is wrong. We're all earnest people, we enthusiasts of the Great Detective (a.k.a. "fans," but some of the earnest are so earnest they'd rather not choose that as their . . . you know, we might want to put "fan," "afficionado," "enthusiast," etc. on name badges like they do with pronouns, so people can get their chosen noun). Where was I? Oh, yes, earnest. We're all earnest, dedicated folk, even those of us who are earnestly silly.

How silly is Sherlock Holmes, all in all? A character from an old mystery story who became iconic for detectivery?

Well, he's not serious enough for the bottom tier of Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs. He isn't food, water, or shelter serious. And he doesn't provide us safety, as in the next tier up. But them it gets a bit serious.

The middle tier of Maslow is the "Love and Belonging" tier. Sherlock Holmes gets us friendship, chosen family, and . . . for a few, I have heard, but not specifically, nor am I naming suspects . . . sex. But, sticking with friendship, that's kind of serious, kind of important. And something we should consider in our approach to Sherlock Holmes. Being a friend is more seriously a part of Sherlock Holmes than writing a pastiche or doing research, I think, unless you're doing those for a friend.

Level up from the friendship tier and you come to "self-esteem." A lot of us get self-esteem from our Sherlockian adventures, and if you try to tell me the desire for a BSI shilling isn't about self-esteem, I might wonder about you a bit. Sherlockiana has some friendly audiences for toast, presentations, writings, and ways to build up your self-esteem as you build your skills. I occasionally get asked to speak in non-Sherlockian venues, and any compliments I get on that ability are built on what this hobby gave me. So while not as serious as friendships, self-esteem can be a serious part of the hobby as well.

So, top of this perhaps arguable pyramid, self-actualization. I love the little graphic on Wikipedia because its top tier is crammed with "morality, creativity, spontaneity, problem solving, lack of prejudice, acceptance of facts." In other words, "Sherlock Holmes."

Am I being silly? Or self-actualized enough to see Sherlock Holmes for the top of our aspirational pyramid, which is the serious side of a silly fictional character? 

There are a lot of reasons we're in this lovely little Sherlockian hobby. The very silly ones. The very serious ones. And the Sherlock Holmes ones.

So I guess you can have your footnotes. (Especially you chronologists.)

Can the Shaw seminar come back without Shaw?

 A year ago this past April, the Baker Street Irregulars hosted their Canonical Conclave of Scion Societies in Indianapolis, an event intended to inspire. A lot of the Sherlock Holmes societies represented came away with renewed energies, and personally, I came away with an idea. I shared it with a couple of people at that event, who were enthusiastic for it, but ideas are easy. Fleshing them out is the real trick. So let's talk about that idea.

From 1977 to 1993, that grand Sherlockian John Bennett Shaw hosted weekend conferences all over the country, wonderful things during a time when there was no internet to connect us, no Google search to bring Sherlockians together. Most of us knew what we knew, initially, from the Baring-Gould Annotated Sherlock Holmes and its section on the Baker Street Irregulars. Going to one of Shaw's university based weekends was like finding a supercharger for a Sherlock Holmes fans and plugging yourself into it.

The idea of putting together a new Shaw weekend was intriguing, especially to a couple of fellows who had been in Peoria in 1979, when Shaw's planned Bradley University workshop was cancelled only a month before. (And nobody told a very angry Jack Tracy, who arrived in town thinking it was still happening.) The fiftieth anniversary of that Peoria failure is coming up, to the day, on July 20th, 2029. Peoria's still a decent enough place, with a pretty good airport, and accomodations enough, so the idea of trying to make up for that failure. (The local scion had only been in existence for two years. The local university didn't really know the circles to publicize it in either. And me, I had barely been out of college three months and hadn't met any Sherlockians in Peoria yet.)

Great idea on paper, sure. But how do you have a John Bennett Shaw workshop without John Bennett Shaw? It's not like we have Shaw tribute bands playing his hits. And a full on themed symposium about the Santa Fe collector is more Norwegian Explorer turf at this point, as they've done it before. Truly recreating a John Bennett Shaw workshop isn't about talking about Shaw. It's doing what he would have done, and doing it for the year and the world you were doing it in, and not 1979.

So what did a basic Shaw outline look like?

Friday evening was Shaw's opening talk, "Sherlock Holmes, Then and Now," an overview of Holmes history and the fandom, complete with poetry, important quotes, and stories. After that introduction, we'd all watch They Might Be Giants. Remember that video was only coming about when those took place and the chance to see a modern movie that loved Sherlock Holmes that much was rare. A new version of a Shaw workshop might pick something more current, but still a joy for all.

There might be a slide show of Shaw's collection first thing the next morning, where you could just be amazed at all the things Sherlock Holmes has inspired. The great thing about this is that Shaw's collection still exists, and is even greater now. A similar presentation is possible.

And, oh, we were quiz people back then, and John Bennett Shaw loved to test us with one of his particularly devilish quizzes. A timed quiz on a particular story might follow the first presentation, with another, on a second story later in the weekend. There were some good prizes and young minds often took the wins. Do we like to take tests now, fifty years later? Are we so competitive? You tell me. I'll pass.

Other speakers would come next, depending upon the particular workshop, but the topics tried to cover the important bases: Conan Doyle, parody and pastiche, cocaine, Afghanistan, Dorothy Rowe Shaw's miniature Baker Street, writing a Sherlockian paper, London, and more. Rare short films and cartoons would be shown as well. Shaw would often wind things up after dinner with a talk about the B.S.I. and Sherlockian societies, with stories and sing-alongs.

Sunday morning there might be a final quiz, winners of the short fiction contest announced (prompts were given of Friday evening and short-short stories had to be turned in by 5 PM Saturday), with prizes for the winners. The program of talks and short films continues into Sunday afternoon. You got a full weekend's worth from John Bennett Shaw, more like 221B Con length than most Sherlockian weekends these days.

If you consider what John Bennett Shaw's roadshow brought to so many cities in that long-ago decade, it was basically a full Sherlockian experience, covering everything that was the hobby at that time. We didn't have fanfic back in the 1980s, but if we had there would have been a talk on that. There might have been some short anime films, or other non-American rarities. In 2029, the full Sherlockian experience will be fifty years larger than it was in 1979. Television shows, audio mediums, comics, and commercial pastiches have grown exponentially. Sherlockian journals and newsletters rose and fell. Could you even cover the Sherlockian world as thoroughly as Shaw did in a single weekend now?

We aren't nearly as starved for Sherlockian content as we were back then, and do we have a John Bennett Shaw? Like the old saying says, you can't go home again. But you can move forward with hopes for a new place that's pretty great. The Shaw model, that Johnny Appleseed way of displaying the best of the hobby he loved so much to inspire others, is still useful. All of our current weekend conferences and events are the descendents of those Shaw weekends, after all. The big difference with Shaw was that he didn't settle in a single town and repeat the weekend -- he kept spreading the word.

Something to think about. And by the by . . . weren't some of you other regions hoping to try the Canonical Conclave thing? "Just asking," as those most irritating of trolls say. But you don't see me committing to putting a Shaw weekend on just yet, so I won't push. But we're always curious about what the years ahead will bring, so let's keep our eyes on that horizon.

Napoleon Bust of Crime Gathers Dust

 So, yeah, this will only make sense to . . . oh, wait, it's nonsense!

Editor's Note: It was not a club mix of "Itsy Bitsy Spider."

What Makes A Sherlock Holmes? (2026 reflection)

 Over the years, I've come to discover than any adaptation of Sherlock Holmes, and whether I like it or not, really keys in on the actor and their choices/direction in portraying the character. Scripts can rise or fall, but there's something in the man himself who must no by off-key when playing along with my inner music that is what Sherlock Holmes means to me. The fascinating thing is that I have liked so many widely differing personality of the character.

Rathbone, Cushing, Stephens, and Attwell all come down on my "liked" list, and if you look at them chronologically, you can see Holmes start to change with the times. While his origins in literature are that of a young professional, starting a career of his own as something of a prodigy, adaptations soon started to want to make him an older man, with the wisdom of a classic male authority figure. Robert Stephens from The Private Life of Sherlock Holmes was the first glimmer we had of a Sherlock Holmes who might not be "all that," as Stephens's Holmes points out himself, claiming Watson has over-hyped him in the stories.

Then, of course, came The Seven Per Cent Solution and the idea that for all his gifts, Sherlock Holmes could also be burdened with a drug addiction, a childhood trauma, and deep flaws to somehow balance out his genius. Those themes seemed to come up more and more as Holmes started to be portrayed younger and younger. Benedict Cumberbatch seemed to catch the most perfect and palatable mix of wonder and weirdo, so different from Basil Rathobone and yet popular enough to catch the attention of a generation, just as Rathbone did.

Harry Attwell's Sherlock on the podcast adaptation Sherlock & Co. has become another favorite, starting as a familiar echo of Cumberbatch, but then evolving into something new and yet oh, so Sherlock. Attwell's Holmes is almost childlike at times, silly, but also imperious and commanding at other times because he knows the truth and is acting upon that thing he knows he is not wrong about. That is a fine line for an actor, to hit that part of Holmes and not come off as a complete asshole. (I won't name the actors that I didn't think made that leap, because your mileage may vary.)

There's a steel rod at the core of a Sherlock Holmes that must be there, I think. There are softer, malleable parts around that core that can be molded for a particular adaption, but without that core, I don't think a Sherlock can fully succeed. We never got to see enough of the non-hallucinatory Robert Carlyle version of Sherlock Holmes in CBS's Watson to 100% say that core wasn't there, but one has to wonder how he would have developed in another season had the show not been cancelled.

While we all have our likes and dislikes among our Sherlocks, there must be threads that run through all of the varieties of Sherlock Holmes that we each choose as favorites despite their differences. Those keys for opening the door to 221B Baker Street are what make for any great Sherlock Holmes portrayal when they work for more of us than not, keys that can not only unlock doors, but be played in a new tune that we'll love to hear.

And on Sherlock Holmes will go.