The Newest Chronological Attempt?

Let's talk about chronology, shall we? Now, I know what you're thinking - "But, Historical Sherlock, haven't we been doing that all along?" Well, my lovelies, not every time. I occasionally take little side trips on these posts, but today it's all about the main theme here. There's a new chronology of The Canon, and we're going to examine it.

Paul Thomas Miller is a Holmesian from the U.K. I'm afraid I don't know a lot about him, but I do know he's an active member in our hobby. Recently he put out a book called Watson Does Not Lie, which is a chronology based on the idea that...well, here's what he says on the back of the book:

"I was told the creation of a Holmesian Chronology is practically a rite of passage. I was told once you have managed to make sense of the sixty stories you emerge a rookie no more. I was told it is a task that improves you and your understanding of The Canon.
I'm not so sure...
Too many chronologists resorted to claiming either Watson lied, or could not read his own notes. Such ideas are scandalous. I wanted a chronology built upon the idea of Watson's words as facts. Since I could not find one, I created one."

Let me say now that I think that anyone who attempts to do a full chronology of the cases is to be applauded. It is a daunting undertaking. One not to take lightly. I'm not sure, however, about it being a rite of passage. But, I'm not here to bury Caeser...just his work. Let's start, shall we?

Whenever I get a new chronology (and I'm past the 25-of-them mark) I turn to two cases in particular because of their rather blunt assertions about dates (from Watson) that are completely wrong. One is 'The Solitary Cyclist' (SOLI). In this story The Good Doctor tells us "On referring to my note-book for the year 1895, I find that it was upon Saturday, April 23rd, that we first heard of Miss Violet Smith." As anyone knows who has followed me or any other chronologist, April 23rd, 1895, was a Tuesday. As such, I was anxious to see how Mr. Miller solved this problem.

He tells us that he is "forced by my narrative to turn hypocrite." He accepts the fact that the story's events did take place on a Saturday, and that...now follow me here..."In his haste to put the stories together for The Strand's deadlines, [Watson] erred when reading his notes and compounded two dates." To his credit, though, he says in an earlier paragraph that "I must accuse Watson of misreading his own notes. Just this once. Only once." Well, I'm glad we got that settled.

The other story I look at it is 'The Man with the Twisted Lip' (TWIS). In it Watson tells us that it was Friday, June 19th, 1889. June 19th, 1889, was a Wednesday. Mr. Miller looks at the case and reminds us of this exchange between Watson and Isa Whitney:

"I say, Watson, what o'clock is it?"
"Nearly eleven."
"Of what day?"
"Of Friday, June 19th."
"Good heavens! I thought it was Wednesday. It is Wednesday. What d'you want to frighten a chap for?"

He goes on to justify this by saying that Watson was just trying to scare Isa by making the date wrong, and that Watson told "a rare white lie" and that he is "no natural liar." I was already not impressed.

But, in order to give it somewhat of a chance, I read it straight through. It's quite an easy read, but I found myself shaking my head an awful lot. I'll give you one more example of his type of logic, and then I'll give you my final thoughts.

'Wisteria Lodge' (WIST). This case gives most chronologists fits because Watson tells us it happened in March 1892. Anyone who is even the tiniest bit interested in Sherlockian chronology knows that from 1891 to 1894 Holmes was on his Great Hiatus. The world, including Watson, believed him dead at the bottom of Reichenbach Falls in Switzerland. How is this possible? Mr. Miller tells us that it did in fact happen when Watson says it did, and this is how:

"I'll wager Holmes and Mycroft used a hypnotist. Watson was hypnotised just before Holmes's return to make him think that living at 221b with Holmes was still the norm. He woke in his old room and the charade began. When it was times for Holmes to leave him again, Watson was hypnotised to forget the entire return."

Mr. Miller thinks that Holmes came back to work on a case, and then finds all kinds of "evidence" in the story to prove that he is right. It's doable, I think, since he wasn't dead, but the whole hypnotising thing? Sorry. It doesn't compute for me.

I will not say I'm not impressed by a few things. He does have dates that seem plausible, and he does go along with a number of others on some of the more acceptable timelines. But, Mr. Miller misses out on something huge. Something I've talked about before. It breaks down for me like this:

If you're going to write a chronology, you must look at every little detail in the stories. Mr. Miller does that (partially) but only when he needs further "proof" to back up his unusual dates for a case. Otherwise all he does is compare the stories on a thin level of weather reports and comparing dates with each other. He doesn't bother with any other details in the stories. He doesn't look at vernacular, or construction, or any other facet of Victorian London in order to find a correct date. This is an example of lazy chronology building, I'm afraid. If he wants his "rite of passage" and he believes this book gives him that, then more power to him. But, I will not look at this as a serious effort.

I said in my interview on I Hear of Sherlock Everywhere (at the 17:35 mark) that a thin chronology book is a problem. Mr. Miller's book is fairly thin. I was vexed by that when it arrived at my doorstep.

As a juxtaposition, in Mr. Miller's interview on that podcast (at the 40:30 mark and on for the next two minutes), he tells us that he has noticed something strange about these lines from 'A Case of Identity' (IDEN):

"The man sat huddled up in his chair, with his head sunk upon his breast, like one who is utterly crushed. Holmes stuck his feet up on the corner of the mantelpiece, and leaning back with his hands in his pockets, began talking, rather to himself, as it seemed, than to us."

According to him, this means that Holmes had two prosthetic feet. Yep. Fake feet. Ones he removed and sat up on the mantelpiece. It reminded me of an illustration I saw in PUNCH magazine years ago, and kept because it looked so comfortable and funny. (Though Mr. Miller thinks the position impossible.)

I'll end my torture here and say that the hardest part to swallow about this chronology is the debate about Watson's wives. Yes, this is a major stumbling block for anyone wanting to find a proper timeline for these cases, but Mr. Miller decides to not let the dates fight each other, and accepts each as an accurate item. As such, he finds that Watson was married six times. Yep...six. I should've stopped when I found out that little tidbit, but I'm a sucker for this part of the hobby. Even when a book comes out that will serve no purpose other than to lessen the efforts of others.

Here's the link for my interview:
https://soundcloud.com/ihearofsherlock/episode-144-the-chronologies

Here's the link for his interview:
https://soundcloud.com/ihearofsherlock/watson-does-not-lie-doyles

I will also add this review by a friend of mine:
http://othersperhapslessexcusable.com/a-dim-vague-perception-of-the-truth-stud/?fbclid=IwAR2bZCmIhbL2QSYM3GS4X4T4pawg0VPxKgr1du0-Lp00zQpd6B0cCBrfqTg

I will happily put all of Mr. Miller's dates in my databases, and I will refer to them when the times comes. It doesn't matter if I agree with them or not, it's all about the debates and variations. His info will be a welcome edition, and I hope he does more with it as this is one of the few times people like me get to have our part of the community spotlighted...even if just for a moment.

I'll see you next month. I appreciate you stopping in, and as always...thanks for reading.

The Good Doctor Is In

There was a small incident on the Historical Sherlock Facebook Page on the first day of this month. Nothing controversial, just something not often found on the site - a heckler. Well, maybe not a heckler, but someone who decided what I did there was silly or pointless. I'd like to talk about it if I may.

I had made a Post about something I found in 'The Six Napoleons' (SIXN). It was really no different than many of the hundreds of others I've done, and stood out in no particular way. As usual, I looked for something from The Canon, dove into, and came up with an interesting tidbit. I tied Holmes and/or Watson into it, and shared it with the world. It's the standard, and one I hope isn't becoming stale. (If it does, please tell me.)

The post was about Pitt Street in Kingston. A short little street with absolutely nothing exceptional about it. However, I found a way to give it some life. Then I got this Comment...

I was a little taken aback as I thought everyone understood the premise of the Page. I pondered an answer, and then wrote this response...

I've blacked out the person's name so as to protect them (to a point, I guess), but the Comment and response is still there if you want to see them in raw form. Other folks got in on it calling what she was saying heresy. We're pretty serious about The Game, but we don't need or want someone calling us out on it.

I became a Sherlockian in 1997. Officially. I had been a Holmes fan from before that, but joined The Illustrious Clients of Indianapolis and have been with them ever since. I've enjoyed a generous speaking tour for the last decade, have been published in many different books, journals, and newsletters, and have assisted with chronological research on others. The chronology aspect of the hobby continues to be the part that holds my attention, and I'm pretty sure it always will. There's still so much to do with all of the information I have, and all of it that I don't yet have. It will keep me busy until death.

Playing The Game, or The Grand Game, has been around for the better part of a century, and we play it knowing that it's all tongue-in-cheek. Some play it with a seriousness I can appreciate, but will not attain, while for others it's something to do every once in a while. I fall more toward the serious side, but it's because of the research. I LOVE research. I also love Victorian London. I love Sherlock Holmes and The Canon and Watson and Lestrade and Adler and...you get the idea. It all comes together for me in a way that is unique in the hobby (the way I approach it, anyway.)

Basically, it comes down to this...
We in this hobby know Sherlock Holmes and Dr. John H. Watson are not real, and that the entire Canon is a work of fiction. It's true that some people around the planet don't know that, but it's a rare occasion anymore. We find ourselves in love with the stories and the characters for different reasons. Some love the social aspect of it all, some the partnership between The Amazing Two, some the Victorian era part, and some the historical part of it.

When an author writes anything set in an actual time period from our planet in our history it's bound to contain some things that are true. I've written several pastiches and did research on streets and hansom cab numbers and police officer uniforms, and all just to make sure I had them right. Arthur Conan Doyle (later Sir) had the advantage of being right in the middle of the time period he was writing about. His insights were invaluable. My personal enjoyment of the Holmes stories are the details in those stories. I am perfectly happy tracking down info about any little thing contained in them, and have plenty to research for as long as I possibly can.

The great thing is that so many other people have done the same thing for a long time. We rip these cases apart and put it all under our own magnifying glass. But, it's all done for fun. Some make money from Holmes and Watson, but that's not what I'm in it for. Research makes me happy, and if I get to do it on some of the greatest stories ever told featuring the greatest detective of all time who lived at the most famous address in the history of literature, well, I'd call all of those huge bonuses.

I love what I do, and so do a lot of other people who do similar work. No therapy need apply.

Thank you for getting this far. I wouldn't call this a rant, but more of a defense against those who (for some reason) think people like me are so deluded we forget about reality. Well, I can't speak for others, but I don't. This is a work of love for me, and even if I didn't have a single reader, I'd still do it.

I'll see you in about a week for the next post, and I promise it will be about chronology. I'll see you then, and as always...thanks for reading.