Wednesday, April 17, 2013

Sorry, Vincent. It's not always 1895 these days. But we're okay.

Occasionally, someone attributes a quote to me that I don't quite remember saying or writing, but if it sounds good, I'll claim it. This week, the quote was "It's not about the sixty stories any more." That's sounds like me, if you add the word "just" in there. Because it isn't just about the sixty original Sherlock Holmes stories any more. And when Joel Senter asked me to elucidate, my immediate reply was just, "it hasn't been about the sixty stories for a long time, really."

Let me actually explain myself this time, for Joel and everybody else, because I wanted to talk about fanon tonight. "Fanon" is a word I just learned this weekend, a word that perfectly describes something I've been into since day one as a Sherlockian.

We all know what Canon is, the holy texts that we all agree upon for our hobby's center. The complete Sherlock Holmes novels and short stories by Arthur Conan Doyle.

"Fanon" are those things we all know and agree upon that weren't written down by Doyle. Sherlock Holmes's birthday, for example. January 6th, right? That was data created by fans of Holmes, accepted by fans of Holmes, and used by fans of Holmes. Our Fanon. People who don't have a clue why Holmes's birthday is January 6 hold to that date and celebrate on it. Watson's middle name? A little less certain, but at this point I think "Hamish" will not get you into many arguments.

And that's just the fan aspect of Sherlock Holmes culture. The deerstalker, the calabash pipe, both brought to us by actors and yet the accepted icons of Sherlock Holmes. No one disputes those at all. Movies have contributed so much to the legend of Sherlock Holmes. Most of Moriarty's villainy has been added post-Canon in movies and television, as there is so damned little of it in the stories.

When I think about what non-Doyle writers have added to Holmes's legend, I have to enter into the realm of "headcanon,"another new word for me. Headcanon are things outside the original sixty that your brain has come to accept as a part of Holmes's legend. Headcanon varies from person to person, but I'll make an embarassing personal admission here: As much as I'm not a fan of Miss Mary Russell, but my brain seems to have given over to the King fans' claim that "After 1914, he's ours!" Mary Russell has become a part of my headcanon. Of course, my headcanon also thinks that Mary Russell is insane, but that's another matter.

Which brings me to the new Sherlocks, modern London and modern New York editions. No gaslight. Little fog. No 1895. The world hasn't exploded as Vincent Starrett's well known poem "221B" theorizes, but Holmes and Watson have moved on from Victorian London. Having been a reader of comic books and science fiction all my life, the idea of alternate universes fits right into my mindset, so accepting parallel worlds where Holmes is a modern is something I can slide right into, if the character of Holmes fits my personal image of him. (And if it doesn't, my sliding in takes a bit longer. Even with acceptance of Elementary as a parallel universe, my headcanon still thinks Jonny Lee Miller's character is a delusional Baker Street Irregular.)

Sherlock Holmes's legend has always encompassed more than just the sixty stories. Some of it, like deerstalkers and calabash pipes, are Fanon we accepted because it was with us from day one. The lore of Sherlock Holmes developed at a much slower rate in years past, because the delays of postal delivery and publishing schedules kept ideas from flitting between humans at anything but a snail's pace. The internet has ramped up the speed of the evolution of ideas to a previously unheard of pace, and as a result we're suddenly seeing ideas entering the mix without seeing the build-up to them or where they come from. The fandom coming in from the TV show Sherlock has an amazingly developed Fanon that  may seem totally alien to an old school fan who first encounters it, and yet it comes from the same place the Fanon of Morley and Starrett did: scarcity.

We can never get enough of Sherlock Holmes. Whether it's waiting for that sixty-first Doyle story that will never come, or waiting the long year or so between short seasons of Sherlock, all mighty fandoms come from a longing for something you can't have. People write stories, obsess over trivia, collect the furnishings of Sherlock's sitting room, and get together with those who share their love of Holmes. That part has never changed since day one, and will never change. It just might look a little different to the casual observer. But we're not casual observers. We're the followers of Sherlock Holmes.

"Here, though the world explode, these two survive," Vincent Starrett wrote in his classic poem. "And it is always eighteen ninety-five." But the world doesn't explode very often. Mostly it just changes. We change. Generations live in ways their grandparents could hardly imagine. And Sherlock Holmes changes with us. The Canon, those original sixty, will never change. But what we build on that foundation may look different from year to year. Even Starrett's phrase "always eighteen ninety-five" was more Fanon than Canon, more about his headcanon than the actual Canon. (Sometimes it was 1887, Vincent!) But that's okay, Starrett got to be a fan his way, we get to be a fan our way. The guy who was first in line at the cineplex doesn't get to decide which movie the rest of us see.

Because it's never been just about the sixty stories. Without human beings to react to them, be entertained by them, and be inspired to spin new things out of them, they're just 566 sheets of paper with ink on them, sitting on a shelf.


27 comments:

  1. What? You mean Vincent wasn't an elite devotee? The horror!

    ReplyDelete
  2. What a wonderful essay. Well said!

    ReplyDelete
  3. And yet there's something quietly decent about the small bible-study group that gets together every blue moon to drink tea and ponder the sacred text -- as opposed to, say, the reenactor loons in the Philippines who actually nail a guy to a cross every Good Friday.

    There's insanity and there's INSANITY...

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Interestingly enough, those insane guys have always been with us, in every Sherlock Holmes group I ever belonged to. But you say "quietly decent," and I say "quite boring." Sherlock comes to us from an entertainment medium, after all.

      Delete
  4. Well, I blame my academic surroundings, but I'll always stick up for the scholarly approach.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I'm with you, David. Of course, I'm heavily influenced by academia, too.

      I'll read an occasional pastiche. I'm even in the process of writing one. And I like BBC's Sherlock. But after reading about 221Bcon, I know expressions of fandom like that are not my style.

      Give me a bottle of wine, a like-minded introvert, and an evening to discuss the characters' psychology (Victorian or modern), and I'm a happy Sherlockian.

      One of the reasons I like Holmes is that I feel a kinship with some aspects of his character. I'm pretty sure he would be the quieter sort of "fan" (if he could even be described as a "fan" of anything), yet I don't think he's "quite boring."

      Delete
    2. At a convention, people go to discussions lead by a few people on different topics. The people leading the discussions have done research to support their points and now present their findings. Questions are asked, points debated. Aren't the only differences between a convention and a small gathering numbers, costumes, and volume?

      Delete
    3. Katie, when I've read Brad's blog posts about 221Bcon, I've seen mentions of (1) women in bunny suits (re: Bluebell in Sherlock's "The Hounds of Baskerville" no doubt) and one person dressed as a "mind palace," (2) lots of women dressed provocatively as Irene Adler, (3) dealers who carry steampunk gear, and (4) people crawling around on the floor at the "Invisible Tigress Speakeasy" after balloons with trivia questions, desperately trying to win a spot on a podcast. Admittedly, those were probably not the main highlights of the convention, but they were part of the atmosphere. Not your typical literary symposium. And, personally, just not my cup of tea.

      Delete
    4. Perhaps my posts focused more upon the icing than the cake, Melissa, but never fear, cake was there, as Katie pointed out. The discussions at 221B Con were just as thoughtful as what happens at a Sherlock Holmes symposium with a smaller crowd. Don't judge a cake by its icing.

      My apologies for focusing on the icing, but I do like good icing.

      Delete
    5. Not so much judging the cake. Just can't get past the icing. I'm hypoglycemic.

      Delete
  5. That guy did have one hell of a first name, though!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Hmm. New blogging strategy: start putting potential readers' names in the titles.

      Delete
  6. I think the Doyle Estate has just found its closing argument!

    It may be true that the writings about the writings and the attendant actives of Sherlockians were the progenitors of a fandom's "fanon" and "headcanon", but that doesn't mean that every tidbit of Sherlockiana gets rolled into a giant sugar ball to be sucked on until one overdoses on a sugar high. Sherlockians know that the calabash was added by William Gillette; that Holmes' "earflapped travelling cap" in "Silver Blaze" may indeed be a deerstalker because Doyle had seen Paget's illustrations too; that Hamish has currency because of Dorothy L. Sayers' brilliance. The Sherlock Holmes fan doesn't know that--they may have never heard of Sayers or Gillette or knew the Paget was the name of the artist who drew those old-timey pictures. That's part of some nebulous myth. "When the legend becomes fact, print the legend." Who shot Liberty Valance? By your lights, who cares? It's all good.

    Now don't get me wrong. I enjoy a good pastiche or parody, be it on the page or screen. There is nothing wrong with having fun with Holmes and Watson, but at the end of the day fanon are not facts and headcanon is not Canon. I know there is a difference because I'm a Sherlockian. I don't mean to sound elite. I'm just a guy who owes my allegiance to the words and genius to Arthur Conan Doyle. It really does begin and end there.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Wait a minute . . . are you the real James O'Leary, champion of CBS's Elementary? I suspect an imposter has infiltrated Sherlock Peoria's comment section!

      Delete
    2. Claiming that "The Sherlock Holmes fan doesn't know that--they may have never heard of Sayers or Gillette or knew the Paget was the name of the artist who drew those old-timey pictures" is singularly misguided, reductive, and frankly factually wrong. Some of them don't. Some of them do. One of the fangirls commenting on the recent Dirda article in her tumblr reblog of the Baker Street Babes' post offhandedly (and correctly) identified Rex Stout as the father of the "Watson Was a Woman" parody. Please do your research. ;)

      Delete
    3. "Claiming that 'The Sherlock Holmes fan doesn't know that--they may have never heard of Sayers or Gillette or knew the Paget was the name of the artist who drew those old-timey pictures' is singularly misguided, reductive, and frankly factually wrong. Some of them don't. Some of them do." Exactly so. I should have qualified my statement. I, indeed, should have said "some". It is, however, true that some fans of "Elementary" or "Sherlock" are unfamiliar with the Canon, or only slightly familiar with it and have no interest in being more familiar with it. Their interest begin and end with the show and the actors in it. That's fine. I'm sure such was the case with some fans of the Rathbone/Bruce series in the '40's. Fans and Sherlockians are like squares and rectangles, their definitions are different but overlap. Some are one or the other or both. Nothing wrong with that. But there is a difference between the two. I disagree with Brad's closing remark: "Because it's never been just about the sixty stories. Without human beings to react to them, be entertained by them, and be inspired to spin new things out of them, they're just 566 sheets of paper with ink on them, sitting on a shelf." It's always been about the stories, because without them, human beings would have nothing to react to. If Doyle wasn't a brilliant writer, then they would be just paper sitting on a shelf rarely read. If Doyle didn't create characters that live and breathe, then the reader would not give them life (headcanon) outside the page. It always comes back to Doyle and the Canon for the Sherlockian. For the fan there is Sherlock Holmes in whatever incarnation they enjoy and that's enough. That's not to say I'm making a judgment on the worth of a fan or Sherlockian, I'm noting the difference.

      Delete
    4. "It's always been about the stories, because without them, human beings would have nothing to react to. If Doyle wasn't a brilliant writer, then they would be just paper sitting on a shelf rarely read." That's very nicely said, and I applaud it. :)

      Delete
  7. "...my headcanon still thinks Jonny Lee Miller's character is a delusional Baker Street Irregular" - Good one!

    B2B.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. And Downey the Younger is actually dirty, diminutive Wiggins, who has replaced the dead Holmes as the Master of Baker Street. Watson, needing the money from new stories, lets it slide...

      Delete
    2. I'll buy that . . . except maybe for Downey's age. But given his dark glasses, maybe Barker from the Surrey Shore would do instead of Wiggins in your thesis.

      Delete
  8. Regarding fandom and cons I'm with David and Melissa. Much as I've enjoyed your reports from 221B-con, I'll never go to a greater fan gathering myself. I may be a fan of various books/films/TV series, but I prefer to be so rather solitary or only connecting via the internet. I never feel really comfortable in big crowds anyway and *big crowds of fans* make me shudder. Here's the reason why:

    http://www.dailydot.com/society/fandomwank-10-best-drama-stories-anniversary/

    I've been present (online) for seven out of these ten, not as a participant, thank god, but as an observer and thus approach fandom with caution.

    ReplyDelete
  9. When you say "present" for the fan wank, you mean in the "reading on the internet" sense, don't you? I don't want to dispute anyone's right to be solitary and crowd-shy, but I would suggest that people behave a little better in person than they do on the web. I would also like to add that Sherlock Holmes fans are lovely folk, with a handful of utter bastards thrown in, and have been that way since I've walked among them. The Sherlock Holmes fans of 221B Con proved to be just the same as the fans I've been dealing with from day one in this hobby, which is the point I've been trying to make here. We're not Harry Potter fans -- our guy is science and logic based, which does rein us in a bit.

    ReplyDelete
  10. I mean present as in participating in the fandom when it happened, even being acquainted (online) with a few of the actual HP/LOTR participants - whom I hope to never meet in person.

    ReplyDelete
  11. I admit to loving the term "headcanon," since it fits in rather nicely with my Swiftian suspicion that fannish interest (in most things) is often more hormonal than intellectual...

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Since Sherlockians are by definition fans of Sherlock Holmes (genius, boxer, spy, ninja), does that mean you're admitting that your interest in him is testicular in nature? ;)

      Delete
    2. Alas, since Holmes went all Walmart on us in 2009, I've had zero interest in him, testicular or otherwise.

      Well, that's not quite true. He was barely on my radar long before that. There was a slight rekindling of interest when I was inducted into the BSI, but that good will was snuffed out by the huge success of the Guy Ritchie abomination.

      Ever since, have been catching up on Twain, James, Faulkner and any other greats who somehow managed to evade my critical perusal when I was in grad school. With time running out now that I'm in my 50s, I must indeed make haste to get in as much of the good stuff as possible.

      So, no more Holmes unless it's a reread of Doyle himself when the mood hits me.

      Delete