Thursday, June 18, 2026

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.

Tuesday, May 26, 2026

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."




Tuesday, May 19, 2026

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.

Saturday, May 16, 2026

A Sherlockian at True Crime Pottery Night

 It seems like whenever I get pulled into a trivia night, it seems to be as the wild card in the deck.

Usually, I avoid themed trivia nights, being a more "random info" sort of guy, but some of my friends from work needed a sub, and it wasn't just a trivia night -- it was a True Crime Pottery Night. Having not done a pottery night, which has been a common social outing for years now, and intrigued by the blood-spattered examples of what could be done, it seemed like an interesting diversion for an evening.

But here is the first dilemma with any sort of pottery-painting night -- first you have to pick an item to turn into your masterpiece. Themes abound on the shelves of a place like Art At The Bodega, across the river from Peoria. Highland cows, dragons, toadstools, and the like, scattered among the mugs, plates, planters, and more functional pieces. But something in a Sherlockian theme? 

Not all dogs can be a demon hound of the Baskervilles. (Missed opportunity, now that I think about it -- Watson's bull pup! They had young bulldogs!) Gasogenes, tantaluses, pipes, deerstalkers, cyanea capillata . . . nope . . . and what I thought was a snake turned out to be curled up primitive swan. A treasure chest looked more piratical than Agra. So I finally went with an object that wasn't just a plate, but still offered flat surfaces to create upon . . . a dresser that you could plant small plants in. A dresser from Bart's.

With that first problem solve and my compatriots joining me at the table to start painting, the true crime trivia began. 

"I'm afraid all of my true crime knowledge is well over a century old," I apologized, before things took off

We named our team "The Saints of Bloody Gulch Road," combining our employer with an actual road from a hotel we once stayed at for work. And round one started with a seeming mandatory Dahmer question, which most folks knew. Followed by our first mis-step, which was all my fault: "Name the platform where true crime rose to prominence in popular culture."

Well, it's podcasting, of course, a true crime podcaster (or someone who plays a true crime podcaster, if that character believes Sherlock Holmes Is Real), will immediately tell you. But, sadly, apparently the desired answer was "Netflix."

The very next question was right in my wheelhouse, however. So much in my wheelhouse that I rolled my eyes so hard they about left my head. "What city did Jack the Ripper commit his crimes in?"

"Do we get extra points if we can name all of the victims?" I asked. Sadly, no. 

Living in downstate Illinois, our state killer clown was easy to identify, but everyone in the room was from downstate Illinois. The name of the car OJ Simpson tried to escape in? If you lived through that year, Ford Broncos are etched in your mind. But then we got to the nitty gritty: The Zodiac Killer's unsolved clue. The BTK Killer's name. The state where some more recent murders that I never even heard of occurred. Ed Gein trivia. 

But thank goodness for the play "Arsenic and Old Lace," when it came to "What is the most common poison used in murders?" Well, arsenic had a play written about it and strychnine and cyanide don't, soooo arsenic? Correct!

No Palmer and Pritchard questions. No Jonathan Wild questions. Nothing about Oscar Slater.

It appears that a knowledgable Sherlockians can be a bit weak on a subject that a current day Sherlock Holmes might be well versed in -- no great surprise there, of course. My chemistry knowledge is probably worse. But such an evening, even dipping lightly into that topic as we did painting pottery, gives one pause to wonder how many true crime devotees possess a Holmes-level knowledge of the annals of crime?

We might want to add one or two of them to our social circles.

Friday, May 15, 2026

Pastiche, More Than Fanfic, Can Be A Battlefield

 A friend brought up the topic of folks vocally hating pastiche the other night, talking about fanfic as well, and it was interesting to me how close and yet how far apart the terms "pastiche" and "fanfic" can be. And why one fuels the flames a bit more than the other.

Fanfic, of course, is simply that fiction written by fans, both extending and deep-diving into some existing intellectual property with their own creations.  Pastiche, however, while often written by fans for the same reasons, can more easily tread on holy ground. A true pastiche is actually trying to replicate an experience anew, to catch a creator's voice and give us that one thing we so desire: That new tale the original creator did not tell. Fanfic so often is used to write stories from other mediums, so it raises less hackles. Pastiche dares to work in the same medium as the original, where direct comparison is possible and charges of blasphemy or fraud can be levied by the self-appointed judges of said works.

Loving something so much you want to try to replicate it, make something like it all your own, is really the next level in being a fan. It's also the exact opposite of that other next level of being a fan -- the sort of love where you want to put your beloved text in a box, protect it, and keep it a sacred and special part of your life. And with two next levels of the same fandom, we suddenly have the sheepmen and the cattlemen of the Old West, ready to go to war.

Both sides have their point. Creativity and the freedom to explore the world that exists in a great work is a grand concept. Trying to recreate, to inspire that feeling we felt before, is a basic human urge. And we have seen those who seem to succeed. Yet all creativity has its failures, and Frankensteining parts of a great beauty into a monster can also bring the villagers with torches. While most try to be kind and not call out the uglier specimens wandering into our fandom village, there will be those, through choice or habit, just have to be a little too honest. 

I've been on both sides of this great divide in fandom, and after decades of being a Sherlock Holmes fan, I've learned there are no winners in fighting that fight. (And some other fights.) Sherlockiana is not that big a pond, and sometimes we have to accept that the opposite of our opinion exists in this big tent, to mix my metaphors. The divide is not a chasm, there is no real canyon that separate us from the other side. Just a spectrum of fans in between us and our opposite numbers, sharing our views to a degree and their views to a degree, friends who can bridge that gap and occasionally call us out when we might be verging upon unkind or treat our wounds when we're cut to the quick by a sharp comment.

And few things bring out the cutting comments more than a new attempt to make new Sherlock Holmes, be it TV, movies, or that story you wrote last week. The best wisdom that exists in this internet age has long been "never read the comments." Being careful where you swing your own sharp objects, however, is a wisdom that goes back to when humans first used tools, so maybe we need to give that one even more consideration.

Walp, this palaver went a lot of places I didn't expect, so I'll step away for now. Take care out there.



Sunday, May 10, 2026

Sherlockian Periodicals: The Baker Street Chronicle

  

The Baker Street Chronicle 

Duration: July 1981 to July 1985, twenty-three issues, four years
Frequency: Bimonthly
Editor: Pattie Brunner
Club Affiliation: See below

Sometimes things happen in the Sherlockian world in reaction to other things in the Sherlockian world. Clubs splinter off from other clubs. Articles are written in reaction to other articles. And in some cases, journals come out of dissatifaction from other journals. Such was the case of The Baker Street Chronicle, originally called John Clayton's Underground Newspaper, its first issue announcing that it was being published in reaction to the silence of The Morning Post, the newsletter of St. Louis's Noble Bachelors. Of course, this sort of rambunctiousness caused all sorts of friction in St. Louis, but it also produced a really fun little journal that appeared more often than most. With art by Jeff Huddlestone (a great Sherlockian artist of the day) and articles by regulars like Kelvin Jones and Brad Keefauver, The Baker Street Chronicle was a fun journal that made attempts at graphic design few would attempt with a typewriter, border tape, and paste. If I'm going to get sentimental about any Sherlockian period, its going to be the early 1980s, so I'm not the most objective where this one is concerned -- a great, fun journal of its time!

Sherlockian Periodicals: The Air-Gun

  

The Air-Gun

Duration: January 1985 to May 1991, seventeen issues, six years
Frequency: Monthly
Editor:Wally Conger
Club Affiliation: The Blind German Mechanics of Monrovia, CA

Here's a slim little number that was especially fun. Irreverent, arcane, with a touch of anarchy, yet as perfectly written and edited as one would hope from someone who made his living in the writing trade. Wally wrote about all the current Sherlockian bits like many another newsletter of the day, but he did it in a way that's still fascinating to read, even now. The Air-Gun featured articles some of the usual prolific writers of the day, but it was mostly the editor's baby and he did make it interesting. The ongoing series, "Sherlock's Secret War," spotlighted the very strange secret's behind the Canon, involving Holmes and the Illuminati, Holmes and things Lovecraftian, Holmes and all sorts of Things with a capital T. Wally also had a habit of pulling interesting quotes from his correspondence -- stuff that would get you tut-tutted on any internet chat for bashing Brett or the BSI in these non-1980s times. (But in reading these old issues one gets reminded that our current Sherlockian gripes have been with us a lot longer than anyone thinks about.)

There's the Sherlockian mainstream, and then there are those bits of the hobby that are the wild frontiers of the borderlands and beyond, which is where  The Air-Gun set up shop during its run.