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.)