Ronald Howard's Final Problem

 Sometimes, even a complete fool can point you to facts you never saw where there . . .

I don't know if you listen to a podcast called Sherlock Holmes Is Real, being the sort of Sherlockian with a level of intelligence that are the typical readers of this blog, but their latest episode "The Footage of the Tyrant's Daughter," called my attention to something I had never realized before. And maybe you hadn't noticed it either.

I was never a tremendous fan of the Ronald Howard TV series, Sherlock Holmes, that ran from October 16, 1954 to October 17, 1955, with thirty-nine half-hour episodes. The show was as much comedy as drama, with Watson and Lestrade played for laughs, as well as a lot of Holmes's clients. Like all shows of the time, there wasn't much continuity, and Sherlock Holmes featured more original scripts than adaptations and a whole lot of pretending France was England.

The final episode The Case of the Tyrant's Daughter was the focus of the Sherlock Holmes Is Real "experts" this week, and I think there was something that they missed completely as they became distracted by the show's end credits and some lower case letters there. And that was that they were dealing with the final time that viewers saw Ronald Howard's version of Sherlock Holmes.

One might even say it was that Holmes's "Final Problem."

For the very last time TV audiences saw that Sherlock Holmes, he was sitting looking sick to his stomach after accidentally drinking tea mixed with a rare Egyptian poison.

He has poisoned himself, and the last thing we see on screen, the last image from the whole TV run of the show is Watson's panic.

Was this season cliffhanger, which was never resolved, this Sherlock's "Final Problem?" Was "The Case of the Tyrant's Daughter" secretly the "Dying Detective," only this time he really dies?

Perhaps the tone of the show was just wacky enough that audiences took Holmes's self-poisoning as just another comic riff to get Watson over-excited, but Holmes doesn't seem to be faking internal issues from the poison. There's not Professor Moriarty in this TV series. No arch-villain other than Sherlock Holmes himself, who seems to have done himself in. With no second season to rectify matters, Sherlock Holmes leaves us like this year's CBS Watson -- with the thought that the main character may now just be dead, and no official assurance that things were otherwise.

I hope the folks on the Sherlock Holmes Is Real podcast take up this issue, though I shudder to think what nonsense they'll be coming up with to pile on it. But I do have to thank them for pointing out Sherlock Holmes's self-poisoning end to that series, which I certainly hadn't noticed before.

Sherlockian Writings: Our Limits

 I stumbled across an old letter from 2010 in some cleaning this morning, in which a Sherlockian friend was writing to me about some recent doings and what they enjoyed about it all. I'm going to keep them anonymous, but something written fit so well into some other current thoughts I've had that I have to quote them here, from their thoughts sixteen years ago:

"It seems that we drift more and more into BSI history, tributes to Sherlockians, bibliographic inventorying, collection analysis, library overviews, etc. All of that is fine and interesting, but I perceive that there is less and less of the old-fashioned Sherlockian 'scholarship' and the whimsical fun that makes it all worthwhile."

The fine Sherlockian scholar who wrote those words was quite right about that drift . . . the last few Sherlockian books I've purchased fall completely into those "drift" categories. I've even written a Sherlockian history book myself, as has my friend who wrote those words. And there are very good reasons for that . . . if you're a writer and you love writing about Sherlock Holmes and all the fruit falling from that great tree, and you keep writing, you tend to wind up in places you never thought you'd go. Because eventually, walking around the same part of that orchard gets so familiar that you want to branch out.

Just before discovering the letter I mentioned, I sent the draft of another issue of Sherlockian Chronology Timelines off to associate editor Rob Nunn for his pre-publication scrutiny. Now in our sixth year of filling a mostly-monthly newsletter with chronology articles, I'm starting to wonder if we've hit the outer limits of that topic. It the opening editorial, I even started to cross a line that most seem hesitant to cross.

The "old-fashioned Sherlockian 'scholarship' and whimsical fun" in the quote above is that great old game of working from the premise that Watson's records of Sherlock Holmes are real historical works. Sherlockian chronology has its feet firmly planted in that chosen delusion. But if we start to use our own historical calendar, and the notion that Watson was publishing his stories in the Strand Magazine, with the assistance of a literary agent named Conan Doyle, suddenly Conan Doyle's personal history comes into play. 

Is that out of bounds in playing the game? Off limits? Is pairing Watson and Doyle together, even without changing facts in Doyle's life, disrespectful to the latter author? Or to Watson himself, in suggesting that Conan Doyle had to rewrite so much of Watson's words that he got the writing credit?

Those rare listeners to the Watsonian Weekly podcast know that an occasional feature of the podcast over the years has been "The Literary Agent's Ten Percent" where Conan Doyle's history and Watson's history intertwine, so they know I'm definite not afraid to go there. Not many do, though, choosing to stay either on the "fact" side of writing or the "fancy" side of writing. 

The limits in our Sherlockian hobby are completely based on your personal choices. A specific editor or publisher might have different limits, but in a hobby where so many have just written and privately published for their friends from day one, you can definitely do what you want to do. And your own version of "the fun that makes it all worthwhile" is yours to choose as well.

Just try to clean up after yourself, which is what I have to get back to doing!

Cleaning Up A Sherlockian Life Spent In Paper

 After having a few Sherlockian friends at the house a while back, I have a very tidy Sherlock Holmes room. Call it a library, call it a study, call it a personal archive, it's the room where this little hobby took up residence from the day we moved into this house. And it took a bit of cleaning to prep for guests.

Cleaning, at this point in our house, typically involves moving things from the location being made to look presentable to a location whose door will be closed to visitors, or basement storage. Which means, when the guests have left, one is left with a room that has a lot of odd things in it, things that don't really fit in with the rest but, for whatever reason, seem like they can't be thrown away or donated to some charity. And so much of those things, at this point, are paper.

Not books. Books fit on shelves. Books are easy.

Letters. Newsletters. Pamphlets. Flyers. Monographs. Quizzes. Presentations that were handed out on paper before or after they were spoken. And every bit of it, about Sherlock Holmes.

The literal paper trail of a life as a Sherlock Holmes fan well spent. History, one might say.

But does all history need to be preserved? When a guy named Tom Simpson wrote a quiz on "The Lion's Mane" for the March 1979 meeting of a Peoria, Illinois scion society and another person who didn't put their name on the quiz paper scored a 72 out of 80 questions . . . does that need to be placed in a library archive and preserved for all eternity? Or even scanned and kept somewhere digitally?

So much of the joy of Sherlockiana is the doing. Concocting a quiz on "The Lion's Mane" is much more fun than taking a quiz on "The Lion's Mane," and future Sherlockians should have that joy. If there was ever only one quiz on "The Lion's Mane" that we kept passing around, in all Sherlockian venues, whenever the tale came up, what a dull place the world would be!

Because here's the hard question about culture, history, and humans that becomes more pertinent in the later years of one's life: Does everything need to be preserved? Sometimes we aren't losing a thing -- we're gaining the opportunity for some future person to do a thing. Because doing that thing is fun. And maybe, without hurting anyone's feelings here, that earlier version of a thing might not have been the best attempt at it. That's life. Each generation replaces the last and takes up a mantle that has been patched, re-sewn, darned, replaced in places, and wears it anew.

 So what do we do with all of the by-products of a Sherlockian life? How much is just waste that needs to be disposed of? How much should be handed off to the next generation?

Tough questions, but ones that must be dealt with.

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.)