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!