As you well know, the purpose of Historical Sherlock is to give you glimpses of the world in which Sherlock Holmes, Dr. John Watson, and all of the other canonical folk lived. I always try and tie chronology into it somehow, but at times I am just talking about the Victorian world as they would have seen it. If I can fit Holmes and /or Watson and/or any of the person from The Canon into the picture, I do. I have a lot of fun doing it, and love even more the research that goes into it. I'm constantly finding something about their time that I never knew.
I like simple. I have a firm, pragmatic, realistic belief that everything can be broken down to a simplicity we don't often allow ourselves to enjoy. There's a quote (often misattributed and likely wrongly stated) that says, "If you can't explain it to a six-year old, you don't understand it yourself." I like that. I like just staying at the top layer of a finding and reporting it without having to try and place its cause and effect. If we were all honest about it, we would admit that we skip of sections of books that just seem to drone on and on. Our eyes are more naturally drawn to figures and names. I get bored trying to figure out what some page-long piece of text is trying to tell me using words that I sometimes have to look up. I want something more basic. Something easy to understand (for me and my readers). If someone wants to have a blog where they do get into those things, more power to them. I don't think they would get as many readers because people don't want to read uninteresting material.
Recently I was on a podcast called 'I Hear of Sherlock Everywhere' on which I was interviewed about chronology. (Link at the bottom.) One of the things we discussed was the possibility of a "group think" type of thing to get to the absolute bottom of the chronological barrel. Getting many minds together and coming at it from lots of different angles would finally decide if a timeline can be established for The Canon. If (when?) this happens it will be necessary to take a harder look at all aspects of life around 221b and add it into the problems and solutions so that we could say that a date is or isn't possible for a given case. It couldn't be simple. It would have to get more in depth, but possibly even sluggish on occasion.
I think Holmes probably would've thought this way, too. Quick, simple, and to the point seems like his style. Even when he has to sit for hours contemplating something he still manages to break it down into smaller pieces and then give a solution that is all too readily followed by everyone. That's attractive to me. (Drove Watson nuts.) It's a large part of what makes him the most famous detective of all time - logical solutions to complex problems. He also strikes me as a charts, graphs, and bullet points guy. Like me. Lists of things are right up my alley. They don't mess around with tedium, and get right to the point. You'll hear me discuss this on the podcast concerning a possible future book.
As promised, I'll put the link to the my recent podcast interview at the bottom here. (You'll have to copy and paste it. I can't seem to get the link button to work on here. Or, just go to the I Hear of Sherlock Everywhere site and look for Episode 144: The Chronologies of Sherlock Holmes.)
Next month we'll get back to a chronological-type post. See you then.
And as always...thanks for reading.