Ho, Ho, HOLY CRAP!

This particular post is not going to be as long as usual. It's also not going to be about some weighty chronological issue. Instead, I thought I'd share something with you. Something that I saw for the first time on October 27 of this year. Something I still can't believe.

I was told a short time before this happened by fellow Sherlockian and chronologist Brad Keefauver that I was going to be receiving a package, and that if I thought really hard, I would know what it was. I had an idea, but I left it to The Fates. When the package arrived, I discovered that I was wrong. I remembered upon seeing the item our past conversation about it - a conversation that was a "one of these days" kind of thing. You don't wait too hard for much after those types of talks, but an unexpected resolution lay before me.

Brad had written the book he had talked about so often before! I was thrilled, both for him and the chronological community. Yes, I have lots of books on my shelves about the subject, but not a single one which gives you the opportunity to write your own timeline of the Sherlock Holmes cases with instructions. I was holding a proof copy of a fulfilled dream, and I couldn't have been happier. (The finished version is now available here.)

Like a true bookworm, friend, and colleague in our niche, I immediately sat down to read it from cover to cover. Inside I found that Brad had inscribed a personal message for me, and since it was just for me, I shall keep it that way. I also found on the same page that this was one of five "special" copies, so I am curious to know where the other four are. It will make for fun chit-chat with my fellow chronologists someday.

I got to thinking about Brad's other accomplishment that he unleashed on the unsuspecting crowd at 221B Con back in April. He had come up with a way to create your own chronology in a deck of cards form - sort of a flash chronology thing. No doubt this was in conjunction with the book he had spoken of, but my old man brain never put the two together. This hobby, like most, has a way of getting your creative blood flowing, and Brad's has been percolating like my grandma's old coffee pot. (You're welcome for that memory.)

I turned the page and saw acknowledgements. It may be a book lover thing, but I read these. Odd, I know, but if I have a book, it's because I'm interested in the subject matter, thus I am interested in where that matter came from and who might also be interested. In the list I saw no strangers and was thrilled to see the name of our patron saint, Helen Elizabeth Wilson. You can read more about her here.

And then I saw something which stopped me cold...

Now, I have been on this earth for 51 1/2 years. (Hey, at my age that half is just as important as when I was a kid.) In all of that time this has never happened before because no one ever had a reason to do so. "What was it?" you're screaming. 

Well, Brad had dedicated his beloved work to me.

Now, I am not a prideful man. I never make myself out to be more than I am, and you'll never ever find me calling myself the best at something, but this knocked me for a loop. Someone had dedicated a book to me. ME! A paunchy, midwestern, balding man with bad knees and a lowly government job. As unworthy as I feel about something like this, it still happened. 

Please know that I have no interest whatsoever in taking the spotlight away from Brad's accomplishment. This is monumental in and for our niche. In handing the power over to others to write their own chronology he has taken away any fears someone might have about doing so. The process is far more simplified, and a lot of the trepidation about facing sixty original cases and all they contain has been narrowed down into a more usable form. (He has also created a lot more work for me and my database. If even just half a dozen people decide to do this, my fingers will be busy for months processing and recording the information. I guess it's a good problem to have.)

So, I wanted to share this gift and honor that I received. It's the time of year when presents are on people's minds, and this was a whopper of one for me. The Brad and I don't hang out on the weekends together. We don't exchange meatloaf recipes or talk about our feelings. We've never even gone on a road trip together. What we do have, though, is a respect for each other in the hobby, and for each other's abilities and passion when it comes to Sherlockian chronology. We are friends, yes. Without a doubt. Always will be. But we're also two people trying to make this pariah subset more friendly and less scary. Yep, we'll get together on occasion and have a beer (or several) and discuss it until we can't go on, and hopefully will do that many more times. but we live quite far apart. (I can't even imagine what it would be like if we did live closer!) However, I never expected something like this. How can someone? Now I just hope I can continue to live up to it.

Thanks for taking this sleigh ride with me. (Okay, that was cheesy.) I love it so much when you make it down to the bottom. As we watch 2022 draw to a close, I'm looking forward to another fun and exciting year of bringing you my thoughts on this subject that I love so much. Be good, and remember that song about Santa watching everything you do. See you soon, and as always...thanks for reading.

Getting Picky. Or Critical. Or Obsessive.

I was asked my opinion about a particular chronology recently, and I gave it even though it wasn't wholly positive. As I began typing the email response, I started feeling kind of bad about not being a fan of the timeline. After all, this was a chronology of the Sherlock Holmes canon - an achievement not to be taken lightly. It begs respect just for the amount of time it took to put it together. And even if an author admits they weren't completely serious about their effort, it still took a lot of doing. But I do have opinions.

If you're a reader of The Sherlockian Chronologist Guild newsletter TIMELINE, then you'll know which one I'm talking about it. If you missed that particular edition somehow (and shame on you if you did), contact me, and I'll be happy to get it to you. But I'm a good sport, so I'll let you in on it now. The one in question was the chronology that appears in the back of The Mammoth Book of New Sherlock Holmes Adventures put out in 1997 and edited by Mike Ashley. This anthology collected pastiches by some fairly famous names, and I can remember reading and enjoying it back in the starting days of my venture into the hobby.

Appendix 1 is where the chronology is, and Mr. Ashley blends not only the pastiches in the book itself into his list, but also others from various sources. I couldn't find an example of a pastiche affecting the dating of one of the original sixty cases, but then again Mike doesn't really give us a lot of logic and reasoning behind his dates. (That also brings up another question - has any chronologist ever allowed the dating of a pastiche to affect the dating of an actual canonical piece? Hmm...)

My opinion was that I wasn't crazy about Ashley's attempt for three main reasons: 1. He doesn't list Cambridge as one of the possibilities of where Holmes attended university or college. This is a minor point, I know, but it seems like a valid one to me. 2. He doesn't give us much in the way of how and why he came up with his dates. This one really bugs me. If you're going to take the time to do all the work to make one of these, even partially, then why not show you're work. No, you don't have to. After all, it is yours and you may do with it as you wish, but I prefer when I get to find out the exact reasons for a date. 3. He offers only months and years - no specific dates. This goes along with No. 2. Again, I still appreciate the effort, and will still use it in my research. I'm not going to ignore someone's timeline just because it doesn't have actual dates. But, c'mon - this is chronology. There is a lot of information in the cases to help. Heck, Dr. Watson even gives us dates from time to time. Exact ones should be given when there's plenty to use to get it.

Now, having said that, and knowing I may upset a few people with my thoughts, let me again reiterate that I still appreciate the work. The fact that this isn't easy is why there's so few chronologies. (Also, because people find chronology boring and unnecessary, but it just means we have to do more to change their minds.) When I write about this stuff, I access my database without going to just certain ones - I look at each of them. They're all worthy of my time, even if some aren't as impressive.

Most people have full dates for most of the cases. I know there are some where Watson is so unclear (whether intentionally or not) that getting only a month or season or year is all that's possible. I get that. Eight of my lists are month/season and year only. Another half dozen or so are a half-and-half or three-quarters mix, and most of the rest are 90/10. There are only a few which have exact dates for all (or almost all) cases. Each of these is important, regardless of precise dating or not. I still get excited when I find or receive a new one. Probably always will. But how do I feel about ones that aren't full-blown chronologies where every story is broken down completely and we're given total access to the compiler's thoughts? That's the purpose of this post.

Getting all of the information about someone's established date is a double-edged sword, I'm afraid. Let's take Ernest B. Zeisler's book Baker Street Chronology, for example. While a flagship in the chronological world, it reads a bit like an algebra textbook. It's very dry and wordy. His work on 'The Musgrave Ritual' (MUSG) goes on for over fifteen pages, and it's almost all about the mathematics of the shadow and height of the tree! It's tough to slog through, but at least he gives us every iota of an idea he had. Happily, most chronologies aren't as tough to traverse. This type of thing, though. is probably another part of what causes people not to want to do what we do. Yes, it can get boring, but it's also necessary for our journey.

Others give simple reasons that seem to ignore almost every other piece of evidence. This is fine, too, except that we have to qualify the evidence. What I mean is that we have to decide if only focusing on one way to get answers is acceptable. William S. Baring-Gould used the weather for a lot of his dating. Perfectly logical, but not solid and absolute. In a recently published chronological book (which I'll be talking about next month), the author points out they are "from midwestern America, where the weather can vary dramatically from one side of town to the others on some days" and so they find "weather an unreliable method for dating things." Makes sense to me, but almost makes me a little embarrassed that I used it so often in my meager attempt at a timeline.

Some use a combination of everything, which pleases me, but then they have to pick a side when the clues start to offset or contradict each other. Is this allowable? Well, it has to be. Watson's internal evidence can be infernal evidence because it's so maddening. People have no choice but to deny one clue over another in order to complete the task. So, is this the reason for some only coming up with general timelines and not explicit ones? Perhaps. And it's just one more thing to look at when it comes to my collection. Each author has reasons for their dates, but could those reasons be internal and external? Truly something to ponder.

This is another of those posts where I don't have a good ending point or solid conclusion. I'm thinking aloud, really, but sharing it with you so you can be just as goofy as I am with this stuff. It's really just another facet, however, of this whole niche of the hobby. Not everyone who has built their own timeline has given us all of what they used to do so. Maybe it was(n't) done because they weren't emotionally ready. Maybe some believed that they gave us at least something so what more could we possibly want. Or maybe it was because they weren't totally convinced by their answers due to the conflicting evidence (and maybe they plan to come back later and re-evaluate it). It's hard, or impossible, to say. It would require asking, and that may happen. I have toyed with the idea of interviewing all of the living chronologists and probing the important questions, but we'll see where that goes.

It's possible that those who don't (or didn't) never set out to do so in the first place. Wasn't what they had planned. After all, it isn't a necessary thing. We don't actually need an exact date for the cases. There's no score to obtain. And I do still find comfort in seeing that a particular case took place in a particular month or time of the year. It's a starting point for a conversation or article or further research. But when I compare timelines, I begin wondering about why one person has a full date, and another just says 'winter' or whatever. Suddenly, I'm in my squeaky old desk chair again opening a dozen tabs on my computer and diving into the obsession part of my brain. I start looking for an answer I know may not exist. In time I relax and remember that all chronology is good chronology, and about just how much I love what I get to do.

Again, we're at the end of another post. I'm writing this on Thanksgiving, so I'll get all sentimental and admit that I am thankful that you read these and thus make it all worth the time to do. I'll see you next month. Take care of yourselves, and as always...thanks for reading.

Seeking! Finding!! Celebrating!!! Then Conceding.

People who spend any amount of time around me know that I have an interest in the Shakespeare Authorship Question. (Yes, all capitalized because that's how much of a thing it is.) I have no dog in the hunt, and don't really care about the outcome, but the detective work used for it is just delicious. I have added several books to that bookshelf lately - some pro-Shakespeare, others not - and in time I will go back and forth between my beliefs on it. But we will not talk about it here. Shakespeare, yes, but not the controversy.

If you're anything like me, you have a section of your files for articles or columns or presentations you haven't put out in the world yet. Mine serves me well, and I try and keep it stocked with a myriad of subjects that would appeal to just about any Sherlockian situation should I be asked to contribute. Naturally, there are some chronologically based ones in there. However, when I looked into sending one to the wonderful TIMELINE - The Official Newsletter of the Sherlockian Chronologist Guild, it occurred to me that I didn't have one to offer. So, I set out to make one.

I did what I always do - leaned back and waited for inspiration. Nothing. Stared at my Sherlockian tomes for a spark. Nada. Had something to eat. (Okay, not for inspiration, but for pleasure.) While eating said food my mind somehow wondered into the realm of Shakespeare. I know people have tackled Holmes and Billy Shakes before, but had anybody done it from a chronological standpoint? "I don't know," I said to myself, rudely interrupting my lunch. "If so, it hasn't been too often." I decided that was what I was going to do. But, how?

I pondered it, came up with an idea, then set about putting into action. I would look at all the cases where there is a Shakespearean reference and see if the dates of those cases would correspond to anything Shakespearean happening in or around lower England that may have stuck in the mind of whoever mentioned it in the text, or that might have influenced Watson to add it to the story for flair.

I grabbed The New Good Old Index and made a list. Two dozen or so scribbles later and I had a basis for my project. I arranged them in a workable form, filtered them into a usable spreadsheet, and opened several new tabs on my computer. Jumping onto British Newspaper Archives, I brought it alongside my database with that cool screen splitting thing you can do and started making more notes. What I was looking for were any Shakespearean plays or fairs or celebrations or anything that would correspond to dates for the cases. And not just the consensus dates - all of them.

Some success was had, and the spreadsheet was filling up. I was starting to get nervous about the size and scope of the thing. After just a few hours I knew I had reached the point where this was no longer a simple article but a major work. Chronologists spend a lot of time trying to date cases based on the standards, but others punch through the side of the box and venture out. They seek other means of inspiration. One tiny fragment of data can make a difference. An atom of information. An iota. A factlet! It was there I had gone. And it was there I was trapped against a mountain of detail that needed a larger home to store it in.

Matching the dates was easy. I was encouraged quickly by what I was finding. I added a column to my spreadsheet to allow for publication dates. Along with that, though, came two other thoughts - how long did it take Watson (or Holmes) to write it, and did the author throw in anything that didn't happen when the case happened, but was added for spice? In other words - did the writer, while writing, see an opportunity to add one of Shakespeare's lines, one that wasn't actually said during the original investigation?

My heart knew I had to stop. The project was growing. The monster was chewing through its chains. I had to step away and accept that the idea was too vast. Also, there was the potential that it wasn't going to accomplish anything new or change anyone's mind. The spreadsheet was saved, and the notes tucked away. For now. I resolved to ladle a different article from the soup that is my Sherlockian brain. I wrote it and sent it, and happily the powers that be liked it.

The other article being completed didn't mean time to sit back and breathe. This post needed to be written. I had a couple of ideas for it, but then I thought that perhaps a trip through what happened might be interesting. It would show just how far someone is willing to go to date the Sherlock Holmes cases. That one is thorough enough to do that detective's wall red string thing. That one is crazy enough to slog through late Victorian newspapers for one single piece of information. And knowing that it may just be that one out of the many wanted. And also knowing full well that it may not affect the dating at all. But it's done anyway.

In all of this, however, I did find one item I'm not sure I knew - Shakespeare is only mentioned by name in one case. In 'The Three Gables' (3GAB) Holmes asks Mary Maberley, "You don't happen to have a Raphael or a first folio Shakespeare without knowing it?" (No, first folio isn't capitalized.) I guess I never thought about. But live and learn.

I still think the idea is a solid one. I'll set it to the side and work on it from time to time. The goal, of course, is to find more evidence to support a date, or change one. As with most big projects, though, maybe someday.

Thank you once again for making it all the way down. I truly hope you didn't just come straight here to see me tell you how much I love it when you do. If so, go back! There's good stuff above! Again, my appreciation. I'll see you next month, and as always...thanks for reading.

Listening To My Lists' Listings

My life took a bit of turn not long ago, and in the ensuing consideration of how the changes will affect me I have started taking a long hard look at the things that interest me and wondering if they still mean something to me. This blog and my chronological database are among them. But the good news is that I still love this and have no plans to stop. Having said that, let's talk about some of the things I've been pondering.

Let me start this paragraph by saying that I am not thinking about changing anything on here. Well, maybe a few small things, but nothing major. I like the way this looks and works, and it would be silly to do anything drastic. But when I look at my spreadsheets, I start seeing possibilities. Shall we examine some of those? Good.

I get a lot of requests for information or lists or dates for certain cases, and I got one not long ago from my friend and eminent Sherlockian Steve Mason that required something I didn't actually have with my dates - days of the week. I was happy to add them to the chronologies he wanted and enjoyed doing it, but it made me think about doing it to the whole database. I have a vintage binder that contains calendars for every year of the life of Holmes (and a bit beyond) and it would not be a problem to do. (Yes, I can also access the calendars online, but it's more fun to do it from paper. Stacks of paper are always better.)

The next question is whether to include them on the Main Spreadsheet or have them as a separate one. As it stands, I have seven spreadsheets that categorize the data in many different ways, and I can easily imagine another half dozen. (I really like lists. Collecting facts or information or whatever is fun for me. And I know that puts me into an unregistered type of geekdom, but I yam what I yam.) The current ones are:

Main Spreadsheet - dates from each chronology/chronologist alphabetized by case (this is my go-to)
Case Spreadsheet - just the cases in the order the chronologist put them
Date Spreadsheet - the cases in date order
Monthly Spreadsheet - the cases in date order within their respective month
Yearly Spreadsheet - the cases in alphabetical order then date order within their respective years
Individual Date Spreadsheet - whenever someone has a date for just one case
Specifics Spreadsheet - the cases in alphabetical order but sorted by how specific the dating is

That last one has four categories:
Specific - an actual date
Less Specific - a date that specifies what part of a month (or the chronologist is not completely sure)
Even Less Specific - just a month or season
Unspecific - just a year or large range

The Date Spreadsheet presents some unique problems. I had to decide how to file seasons or years. Here's what I mean - if a chronologist just had a year, does it go before the other dates in that year or after? Same with a season. If someone says it was 'Summer 1889' for example, does it go before the other listings that have actual dates in that summer, or after? (These problems creep into some of the other spreadsheets, too.) It was easy to decide, though, that if two or more people had a case in 'March 1895' only, then those cases get alphabetized under that heading. There are other small considerations to be made, but nothing to spend time on here.

I have not kept all of these up as well as I should, but I do maintain the Main, Case, and Date ones every time a new chronology surfaces. My newly given increase in free time, though, will allow me to work on that. It will also allow me to put those other Spreadsheets into practice and see if they pan out. I can envision one for the aforementioned days of the week, and one for decisions made by various options like weather or marriages or whatever. (I have others written down somewhere, but you got me as to where. Old man brain.)

On days that find me thinking too hard about it, I start wondering whether or not this is all necessary or has a place. After all, people usually only want basic information, and while I'm happy to supply it, I always hope for someone to ask for something more. Still if it never happens, I get to enjoy talking about it on here to you wonderful folks, plus I get to keep working on my beloved lists. (This reminds me of a piece I read once about the different types of data the FBI keeps. It concerned an agent who gathered data about agriculture, specifically the nation's potato crops. He had been approached by a publication of some kind and asked for details about potatoes for an article. Apparently, this guy was beyond thrilled to help because no one ever asked him anything about what he did except those in the Bureau. I identify with him.) 

So, again, nothing will change here. If anything, finding new and unusual ways to look at the database will allow me to keep bringing you fresh ways of thinking about Sherlockian chronology. I'm certain that while updating I'll come up with other thoughts, and I'll have the time to see if they're worth doing. All of these are good things, especially since I still love this so much. If you'll remember a recent post on here, I told you that in time all of this will be on a website, or available on here somehow. Those will still happen, but not overnight. I ain't the most technologically savvy dude.

My biggest fear is that you, my lovely faithful, will get bored with my product here. I have made it a mission to try and help (or make) people understand that this small but important niche of a larger hobby is not only interesting, but fun. I have around 2,400 dates listed in my system, and even if you take out matching ones, it's still around 1,500. That's a lot of information to make sense of and it's a wonderful pool to get to drink from. And as long as new timelines come out, there will always be something fresh to report upon. And hopefully it never gets stale.

You know I always show my appreciation for you getting to the bottom here, and this time will be no different. I love it when you do. I'll see you next time, and as always...thanks for reading.

Just Part Of A Post...And The Rest Of It, Too

I'm going to cheat a little this month and only write part of a post. See, I already wrote the other part in March 2019. It was a piece for a very fine publication, and it happens to deal with a subject that we Sherlockians take very seriously - 'His Last Bow' (LAST). It is the only case in The Canon which is undoubtedly dated correctly in this very month, and it's a darn good yarn to boot. So, let's talk about it.

LAST falls on August 2, 1914, and no one says otherwise. The story is excellent, and it is the last case of all of the original sixty. It's holy ground. It's also where we get easily the saddest line said in The Canon - "Stand with me here upon the terrace, for it may be the last quiet talk that we shall ever have." Yep...gets me every time. 

But...

Holmes does say “it may be the last quiet talk,” but I’m troubled by something here: what about the conversation in the car? After all, it is a three-hour trip from the Harwich area to London in a modern car, thus longer then. What did they talk about? We know from numerous examples in The Canon that they would sit in complete silence on trips sometimes, but this isn’t like that at all. (There’s also the matter of the ride to the gabled house, but it was brief.) Holmes tells Von Bork that he will be going with he and Watson to Scotland Yard, and by the text it appears that would be happening in Watson’s Ford.

Now, I accept that the chat on the terrace was more intimate, and the one they would’ve had in the car would be less so because of the hogtied spy in the backseat, but they still would’ve talked. Maybe they caught a plane somewhere nearby and flew to London, but Holmes does say that Watson would be joining up with his old service and that London wouldn’t be out of his way. So, it still looks like it was a long car ride together.

Anyway, I thought I’d try my hand with at least part of what they discussed, but not for the entire trip. Here we go…

“Quite a night,” Holmes said, settling into his seat.

“I agree. But, you pulled it off with precision.”

“Watson, we’ve known each other for more than 30 years. When have I not?”

“Do you really want me to recall some of your less-than-impressive episodes?”

Holmes sat quietly for a moment and then cleared his throat. “So, tell me about this automobile of yours. Business must be good.”

“Why didn’t you ask me this when we were in here earlier?”

“I was too busy getting into character. And I didn’t wish to take you out of your roll. After all, the fate of the world may have depended on us getting our parts absolutely correct. Besides, I explained everything well enough, I believe.”

“Yes, Holmes,” Watson said wryly, “’just follow my lead’ was more than enough explanation.”

“So, what can you tell me about this model?”

“It truly is a marvel, isn’t it? The Americans really seem to have these motorcars down to a science. I find it a perfectly pleasant way of traversing England. Mrs. Watson truly loves it. Do you like it?”

“I wouldn’t use the word ‘like.’ It’s to be applauded.” Holmes turned to check on their passenger. Von Bork stared back at him coldly and spat on the floor.

“You don’t find it noisy or noxious?”

“It is both noisy and noxious,” Holmes said, turning forward again, “but the smell is certainly preferable to that of horse exhaust.”

Watson laughed. “I couldn’t agree more, old friend.”

“It is precisely this type of industrial achievement that makes retirement so wonderful. No one near my cottage has one of these contraptions yet, and hopefully won’t anytime soon. Should someone, however, I suppose I will just have to accept it as another example of progress.”

“I suppose I could rumble around on occasion to remind you of the advances of the world.”

Holmes shot a side glance at Watson. “The newspapers will suffice.”

“Speaking of the papers, you should know I still have a number of your cases left to publish. They may be a bit late and out of sequence, but hopefully no one will ever take the time to worry about such silliness as dates.”

“Do with them what you must. When I tried my hand at them I didn’t find it a pleasurable experience.”

“Oh, I thought they were quite good.”

“Well, they did help pay for more hives, so I’ll take solace in that.”

“It wouldn’t be Christian of me not to offer you a room tonight.”

“Nonsense. I’ve no desire to be an imposition. Claridge’s will suit me fine. Mycroft has arranged a car to take me there.”

“As you wish. How is he, anyway?”

“As well as a man his size can be. After your ill-timed publication about the Bruce-Partington submarine, he had to stay out of the public eye as much as possible. I must say, though, that you did an excellent job hiding the actual dates of the events. Still, he became more of a marked man than a government official usually is simply because of his involvement, not to mention his association with yours truly.”

“I meant no harm.”

“Understood by all. But, you asked. Now, if I may I’d like to rest for a bit. The last two years have culminated, and I am finally able to somewhat relax my mind.” Holmes turned to Von Bork once again. The German just stared silently out the window, no doubt trying to envision a plan to allow himself freed of certain incarceration.

“Have you your revolver, doctor?”

“Always,” Watson said with a smile and nod. “I shall do my best with these roads, old chap.

Sleep well.”

{much time passes}

“Here we are,” said the doctor.

The two men carefully removed the bound prisoner from the car and walked him to the arms of two strapping officers waiting at the entrance. Von Bork leered at Holmes and muttered under his breath.

“I beg your pardon?” Holmes asked, cupping his hand around an ear.

“The Benz is a far superior motorcar to this toy,” the German said through clenched teeth.

Holmes grinned and gave a half-hearted salute. He then turned to Watson and extended his hand.

“Well, thank you for the ride, old man. Do keep in touch from time to time, and my best to Mrs. Watson.”

“It was my pleasure, Holmes. Thank you for including me in tonight’s activities. Good for my old bones. We’ll talk again one day.”

“Perhaps. Tomorrow I’ll be heading home after cashing this most handsome cheque.”

“Where are you doing so?”

“Cox & Company.”

“Ah, yes. An excellent institution. I have an account there myself. Goodnight, Holmes.”

“Goodnight, old friend.”

“The Dangling Prussian!” Watson said, laughing heartily, as he drove away.

I will happily point out that I had this piece published in The Newspapers - An Irregular Journal of Sherlockiana which is the periodical put out by The Sherlockians of Baltimore. It is truly one of the best things to read in our hobby, and I wholeheartedly suggest you get on their mailing list. You can find information about the group here.

I would also like to say that when I use the term Sherlockian it is meant to represent all Holmes devotees - Sherlockians, Watsonians, Doyleans, Johnlock-ers, anyone.

So, there you go. This is one of those little things that's bugged me since the first time I read it. I had to write it just to satisfy my own need, but I think it's pretty good. (It also makes perfect sense to me.) I hope you don't think it unjust to not talk about chronology, but I wanted to (once again) pay homage to the unquestioned LAST case for Our Heroes. Next time we'll tackle chronology once more, and the next time, and the next time, and so on.

It's so good of you to make it all the way down here. I'll see you next month. Please take care of yourself, and as always...thanks for reading.

Chronology And Danger Go Hand-In-Hand

Well, it's July, and that means it's time to talk chronology. Okay, any month can be time to talk chronology. So, let's do that because a new attempt at a Sherlockian timeline has been published and it needs to be examined. I got this book and took the time to sit down and read it cover-to-cover. No kidding. It's not tightly packed text, but it's still 124 pages of work, and I found it interesting - interesting enough to be featured in this month's blog post.

Let me start by saying that I was intrigued by the notion to lose the shackles that bind up the vast majority of timelines - Watson's wives, The Great Hiatus, who was living at 221b and when. Bruce Harris did this and tells us such in the Introduction to his new book It's Not Always 1895 - A Sherlock Holmes Chronology. One of the things that has drew me to Brad Keefauver's chronology is that he thought outside of the box. Some of his dates are cleverly deduced, though I don't always agree with him. You can see his landmark work here. Others have unique findings in theirs, but none truly disregard the above major events in the lives of Sherlock Holmes and/or Dr. John H. Watson. Bruce falls into the 'unusual thinking' category.

The first thing I did was to go to his listing of dates in the back to see if anything stuck out. Several did. I saw four cases dated within the heavily accepted dates of The Great Hiatus, and I saw A Study in Scarlet (STUD) placed in 1884 instead of the very popular 1881 or 1882. (I had already been alerted to this one, so I'd prepared myself.) These told me I was either in for a fascinating ride or was about to read the ravings of a man who was a bit meshuga. Happily, I found both. I won't give away too much of his timeline because I want you to read it yourself. But know that it's quite interesting. And a little maddening.

So, if I'm not going to spend the whole post talking about Bruce's book, what am I going to talk about, you ask? Well, the reason I was so taken by his ideas was because it made me think about something in a (possibly) new way - how much should we actually trust about Watson's word? Confirmation bias is a real problem when it comes to work like this and is often the enemy of a chronologist as it causes them to have to get themselves out of corners with outlandish theories and explanations. They're trapped by their own stubbornness. The freedom to move around and explore is gone. But what if we tried making a timeline by throwing off everything we know and generally accept to do it? And if we do, where do we begin to ignore, and how much?

When Helen Elizabeth Wilson published her paper 'The Life Of Sherlock Holmes' in October 1898 in The Cornell Magazine, she made the first known attempt at any kind of a chronological structure. Whether she was the first actual Sherlockian scholar on this planet is mildly debatable, but the fact that she was the first to look at chronology puts her in a rarified room. Even back then she recognized that Watson's marriages were a sticking point. But she didn't dismiss it. Bruce does for the most part, and it may be a dangerous road to travel. (And a fun one.)

Those first chronologists had the joy of full discovery and lack of containment when it came to putting dates to the stories. After that it got harder. By improving things, they got worse (sort of). People began realizing there were things that would make the job tough, and as such I have over 40 timelines in my database. But what do we ignore? Everything? Or just the things we don't want to deal with? Do we start by deciding that Holmes and Watson weren't even their names and that they were actually Merle and Judy Stratfordshiresworth from Newark? No, we can't. To say that even the base information is bad negates reading them in the first place. So, we have a starting point. What about London, and Baker Street? London cannot be debated. It takes a lot of the romance out of it all if it is. Baker Street causes no problems, but the address certainly has. Still, we have the major players, the city, and the street. Good.

Now, what then? How about the basic period of time? Chronologists may not agree on much, but none dare leave the established 1870s-to-August 2, 1914, range. After that I'm not sure where to go. Each detail of The Canon has been squeezed to death trying to prove or disprove its actual existence in the cases. Secondary players, clothing, pipes, library, furniture, flat layout - all questioned. Stepping outside we have problems with streets, towns, countries, buildings, newspapers, businesses, weather, and what blind typesetter made Watson's calendars for him. I wrote once about looking at what roll crocuses played in dating stories. William S. Baring-Gould uses them to help date 'The Empty House' (EMPT) but completely ignores them in 'The Speckled Band' (SPEC). (Confirmation bias, again?) So where does it end?

Bruce tells us right up front that we should worry a lot less about the big problems, and I agree. But we have to stop the lack of worrying somewhere. I am not a fan of saying that Watson misread his own handwriting, or the typesetter made an error. These are easy. And happily, they don't come up often. But if we do this once or twice, why don't we other times? Why not all the time? What if Watson was wrong about every single date in The Canon and all the back-and-forth is meaningless because of it? Maybe when a date actually jives with the evidence in the story it's merely a happy accident. Perhaps he just got lucky or decided to actually try and make a legitimate attempt at correctness that day. It's a tough call.

I love, love, love the idea of starting with a blank sheet and seeing what can be created. Many have done it, and yet always seem to end up in the same eraser marks and scribbled out lines on their page. Still, it's an exciting thought. But you have to establish what you are and are not going to use. If you don't, your project may turn out no better than dozens of others. It's that kind of commonness that makes people read the first chapter of a chronology and then shelve it. Or get that glassy-eyed look at gatherings when trying to be polite after we start rambling about dates.

What I'm getting at is that we have to be careful about how much we're willing to accept when attempting to date one, several, or all of the original 60. I am not downplaying Bruce's timeline in any way - I was really taken with it. And even though some dates made my brain twitch, I still respected his logic. I really was truly impressed by his work, and I intend to read it more times just so I can get a refresher on that childlike innocence of looking at that proverbial blank page. I dare say he changed my mind about some of the stodginess this part of the hobby deals with. My mind is a little freer to venture out and see what can be accomplished. And for that I thank him.

As you can see, things continue to stay exciting here in the world of Sherlockian chronology. Well, maybe not exciting. How about interesting? Yeah...interesting. We'll see what next time delivers for me to discuss with you. I'll see you soon, and as always...thanks for reading.

Kramer Had The Right Idea

One of the great things about having others interested in the same subset of a large hobby is the ability to bounce ideas off of one another. You want to make sure you're not stepping on anyone's toes with a thought or project, and often the level of knowledge about your chosen subject can be added to. All of these things can make a niche a comfortable place, and worth fighting for even if it is the least popular of said hobby. Such is the case with revisiting an email from last November, and what the result will now be.

It was the 20th of November in the year 2021. I had been considering some way to bring all of the chronological goodness to the world that would ease the effort made by those to reach out to we chronologists for data and dates. An email to fellow Sherlockian Brad Keefauver gave me the impetus I needed to get me moving in the right direction, but not necessarily in a motivational speech kind of way. It was more of a 'this is what I did and here's what worked and what didn't' kind of message. 

It was truly my intention to act on what we had discussed, but time and life get in the way of so much. It would have to wait. Fast forward to the current time, though, and you'll find me looking at the email again and putting brain to paper to get it all going. Basically, it all comes down to this: I am going to put all of the information I have gathered in one location that will be accessible by anyone and everyone for their chronological needs. Yes, the database I have is available for requests for whatever someone needs, but they have to get it when I can get it to them. I am good about answering as quickly as possible, but I hate making someone wait "until I get off work" for an answer. A one-stop-shop location would fix that.

What it comes down to now is how to present it. The email I referred to above talks about the negative aspects of a website, and I admit that it relieves me a bit as I am not the most technologically gifted person you'd ever meet. A blog, however, would do just fine. Blogs I can do. Blogs I have done. The big question is in what format to offer it. This has been troubling me for the last month or so, but I have a list of thoughts to peck at.

I love collecting chronologies - it's my thing. The database is now up to 41 of them, and I know more are coming or will be found. I still find that fun and exciting even after a decade of global searching. I like talking about my collection, and I still enjoy opening up the spreadsheets and just looking at them to see what I can see. It's no different than re-reading a book for the tenth time - it's what I do, and people seem to like having the information available to them even if they don't want to talk chronology at parties. (I know my place and I'm good with it.)

This blog continues to go strong, and I think having the lists here would be the most beneficial as others wouldn't have to go somewhere separate to get what they need. However, a stand-alone site would cause one not to have to go around other things to get to the good stuff, so I'm not sure how it's going to happen yet. I want this to be easy and accessible. No headaches for them and heartaches for me.

The main reason for all of this is that as I get older my life is allowing me to be able to pursue other interests. I have started a YouTube channel (which you can see here), and it will take up a considerable amount of my free time as I plan on devoting as much energy to it as I have (and still will) this. I love doing both and get to start each day knowing they each bring happiness to others. 

I now have to wonder about how much to pile onto this new chronological venture. While having an unlimited amount of space offered to us via the interwebs is great, I have to be careful not to make it an unworkable site. It's useless if it's confusing, and like I said before technology isn't my forte. Luckily, I have people who can help me, and they can be assured I will be asking questions. Did I mention that it is one of the great things about having others interested in the same subset of a large hobby? Well, it is.

So, on to the next thing, the next level. I've said many times that what I have collected and amassed is no magic trick - anyone can do it. I'm just lucky enough to be the yutz who has put it all in one place so it can be given to you. And that will continue for as long as I have the ability. I'll see you next month, and as always...thanks for reading.

A Plethora Of Plentitude!

When one considers the rarity of a chronology of Sherlock Holmes it's hard to see how all of a sudden a handful of them can pop up at one time. And yet, it happens. At least it did to me earlier this month. That means you become the beneficiary in the tale of how it all came to pass. So, settle in and get comfy while I thrill you with the tale of the timelines.

Everyone knows that when you're in a small circle of folk who have a shared interest that they tend to pass information around between each other. And it's always incredible to me when a member of our beloved Sherlockian Chronologist Guild sends an email about a piece of the niche I didn't even know existed. I'll bet it happens in our small group a few times a month. And it happened a few weeks ago when I was perusing an edition of our newsletter TIMELINE.

In the back of each is a running timeline (of its own) of chronological occurrences throughout Sherlockian history. I love reading and seeing what is added every month because I love this subset of the main hobby and history and lists. One of the additions, it seems, was about foreign editions of Sherlockian chronological works, and my brain immediately went into "gotta have them" mode. So, I started looking. Within a couple of days I had found a copy of Sherlock Holmes Chronologisch: Ein Wort zum Geleit written by Nino Erne and published in Hamburg, Germany, in 1967. (I called it rare on the Facebook Post where I announced I had obtained it, but I don't really know if  rare is accurate.)

I recalled when I got a French chronology some years ago and about how tough it was to translate the entire thing. Now I had two books, and in a language I didn't know. But I was committed and sit down one night to begin. I started with the Introduction, naturally, and it was there I discovered that translating the books wouldn't be necessary - they were just the stories themselves. The chronology was listed in the front of each volume, and it didn't take much to figure out the cases and the dates (which were months only). Really got lucky there!

Turns out the volumes only contain the short stories and not the novels. I didn't really understand why, but if that's what it was then so be it. Still, I had another partial original chronology. What I didn't have, though, were the other foreign editions in that list I saw. Brad Keefauver had sent me a more comprehensive listing with a bit more info, and I put my mind to seeking them out. In the course of my searching, though, I found two more chronologies.

The first one was on a blog called Jujubes and Aspirins. The post itself was dated in December 2010. It's actually just a reading chronology. "I continue in my quest to find the optimal order in which to read the Sherlock Holmes stories," it says. The week before the author had posted a reading order based on the collections (Memoirs, Casebook, etc.) themselves: "The order you would read them if you were to do them by chronology of the characters' lives rather than chronology of publishing." This is certainly what we are all going for, but there was no other context to help determine how that was, well, determined.

The idea of a standard chronological list with which to give others so they can perform the same task of reading the cases in a basic chronological order has been much on the minds of a few Sherlockians lately, so maybe they can take a look at the list here and see if it will work for them. I would be very interested to see how it holds up. Unfortunately, this pseudo-chronology has no dates - it's only about a reading order. Still, it gets included. Perhaps it's even a new type of timeline. More thought needs to be done on my part for such a classification, however.

The other one I found was actually on a SHERLOCK site called Sherlock Forum. I was kind of surprised to see a timeline for the original cases on there, but the author had really done their homework and come up with a decent, though unusual in places, chronology. They had gone through each case methodically and came up with dates for each. It's an impressive job. You can see the page(s) here. I've spoken (electronically) to the author and I didn't get the impression she was interested in being a part of the Guild world but felt more that it was just a thing she did. I get that. Still, kudos to her.

I had to make a choice this month for my topic since I had more than one to choose from. I still need to do one about Mr. Keefauver's Sherlockian Chronology Sorting Deck, but there was a small yet interesting development about it in our last TIMELINE newsletter, and I kind of want to see where it goes from there. The other option I looked at was a report about the book by Bruce Harris called Anticipations in D. Martin Dakin's A Sherlock Holmes Commentary. I've read it several times and have some thoughts on it. But they will have to wait their turn as the three chronologies that came my way this month won first place. (These are good "problems" to have, by the way.)

As you can see, the world of Sherlockian chronology can get really exciting at times. (Did I sell that? Did you buy it?) Okay, not really exciting, but still fun and interesting. It amazes me when I find a timeline online that's been sitting there for a decade and was somehow missed by me during one of my many searches for just such a thing. It gives me hope and fuel. If there's more out there I'll find them. It's what I do.

Thanks for getting to the end again. It pleases me that you do. I'll see you next month with one of the two choices above, or maybe even a new one! Take care, and as always...thanks for reading.

It's Easy 'Til It Ain't

Inspiration can come from anywhere, and that's exactly what happened to me and gave me the idea for this post. I was talking to a fellow chronologist about his partial timeline of the cases of Sherlock Holmes, and the bulk of what you're about to read came to me in a flash during that conversation. It's something I had probably realized before, but never put into a structured thought. Well, now I will. It's time to categorize the different types of Sherlockian chronological timelines.

One quiet evening I pulled out a monograph by J. C. O'Leary titled "Some Observations Upon The Early Writings Of John Watson, MD, 1887 - 1894" to enjoy again. (It's always good to brush up on the works of others.) At the end of that awesome paper I found he had a partial timeline listed. I was immediately embarrassed that I didn't have it in my database. I had others like it, and his was just as worthy to be included. So, I contacted him and asked for his permission to add it. He said yes, and it became entry Number 37.

Now, Mr. O'Leary's list only includes twenty-six of the cases, but that is all he meant to include. He set out to cover just those cases. It's partial but complete. And it made me look at my collection a bit differently. There are six lists that I have asterisked (might not be a word) as "Incomplete chronology." But that's not actually a fair asterisking (possibly not a word, either). J. C.'s isn't "incomplete" - it's completely complete for what he set out to do. So, his becomes a partial (or as Brad Keefauver likes to call them - mini) chronology. I have two others that have cases listed as "Not decided" because they're mentioned in the chronological work, but the dates for them are, well, not decided. Technically these are "complete" even though they don't have dates for all of the original sixty cases. Thus, I need to be more certain about what divides the types. I need to update my filing system.

Questions have been asked lately about The Sherlockian Chronologist Guild coming up with a standard chronology for other Sherlockians to use for reference. I love the idea of being able to create that so people can use it, and for the Guild to have a place next the other "standard" chronology of William S. Baring-Gould. The problem is that it isn't that easy. There's so much indecision and/or division in the timelines that it's almost impossible to shape them into one viable thing. It is kind of possible to have a consensus about dates (Les Klinger did it some years ago and I updated it a couple of years after that), but often we're talking about a consensus of few people out of three dozen agreeing (or almost agreeing) on dates. It's not stable, and it's unfair to call it a consensus. As Mr. Keefauver says... 

[T]he Canon is divided into parts: "Common Consensus Stories" (those with just one or two outliers on date), "Divided Consensus Stories" (those with a split that is basically two or three dates), and "No Consensus Stories."

At the latest 221B Con in Atlanta, GA, Brad introduced a clever way for the layperson to create their own timeline using the mostly-agreed-upon parts of The Canon and then filtering in the uncertain parts. It's fun, and I hope it spawns an actual chronology from one of the participants. (We'll discuss it further in a future post.) Perhaps, though, it will show others that there's almost nothing easy about constructing one of these things. That's why there's so few of them. And often the text is so dry to read that people will buy the book just to have it in their collection, or because they know the author and are just being kind, but never actually get through it.

So, what kinds of classifications are we talking about? It looks like there are four different types:

1. Full chronology - someone has went through the entire sixty original stories and placed a date on each one.

2. Partial (or mini) - only a part of the sixty have been chosen to date. Someone chose to focus only on a specific time range or set of circumstances.

3. Incomplete - for whatever reason a full timeline wasn't finished even though that was the goal.

4. Undecided - all of the cases are represented but some have dates that just can't be nailed down and are left as "undecided" even though the person tried.

Of all thirty-seven that I have, only two full ones have a specific date for every case, and only one partial and one incomplete are that way. All others have at least one ambiguous date like 'Spring 1888' or 'A January between 1883 - 1887'.

If I wanted to get really picky I could add:

5. True - one that tells us the logic and reasoning behind one's findings and is just about chronology.

6. Extended - one that has the logic and reasoning but is also a clearinghouse for all sorts of canonical problems.

7. Unrevealed - one doesn't tell us any of the logic at all, just dates.

8. Imitation - uses other people's dates entirely, or almost entirely, to create a timeline.

I discussed types #5 through #8 in a blog post in November 2017. You can read that here.

And though it doesn't actually count as a chronology, there is also:

9. Individual date - a lot of people have written great papers in which they discern the date for just one story, possibly more. 

I don't know, however, where to draw the line between individual dates and a timeline. Is two a partial? I'll have to think about that one. 

In connection with #9 I can even envision something like:

10. Associated (or Linked or Bracketed or Combined) - when a paper is about finding the date for one case, but it directly affects changing or dating another, and then those are discussed, as well.

It brings me a lot of satisfaction when I get asked about a specific set of cases that someone is working on for a paper or presentation. People will ask about the 'Watson's marriages' cases, or the ones featuring murder, or the Lestrade appearances. There are so many options, and all are possible and accepted. I'm really waiting for a request for information that is as offhanded as the idea I came up with back in 2016 in my talk 'Misadventures In Chronology' in Minneapolis. It uses the dining table at 221b. See, sometimes the table in the illustrations has sharp corners, and other times it has rounded ones. Unless the residents owned both and changed them up on occasion then it seems that those cases - sharp vs. rounded - represent distinct, individual timelines. (I still think it's pretty clever, but I appear to be very alone with that opinion. Woe is me.)

So, as you can tell, this isn't just a cute little subset of a larger phenomenon - it's a demanding, worrisome, and studious endeavor. It takes time to pin down a date on a case that defies all efforts to do so. You have to decide what you are and are not going to ignore - wives, weather, past case references. Or you have to figure out what actual historical figure Holmes and/or Watson were trying to protect by hiding their identity. Frustration will set in when you try and determine if Watson simply misread his own handwriting, or if a snag was a typesetter's fault. You'll also find yourself reading cases with conflicting information, so you'll have to pick a side. And when you've finally got it all figured out you also have to make sure it fits into Holmes's 23-year career span, and then shoehorn Watson's 17-year partnership into that.

Perhaps it can be wrapped up best by a master in the literary field. Take it away, sir!

“You can approach the act...with nervousness, excitement, hopefulness, or even despair - the sense that you can never completely put on the page what's in your mind and heart. You can come to the act with your fists clenched and your eyes narrowed, ready to kick ass and take down names. You can come to it because you want a girl to marry you or because you want to change the world. Come to it any way but lightly. Let me say it again: you must not come lightly to the blank page.” 

Stephen King in On Writing: A Memoir of the Craft  

I really enjoy our time together. It's a pleasure to bring you my little rambles and rantings. I'll see you next month, and as always...thanks for reading.

Writing Words On The Page

You know how sometimes a thought or idea can just live in your brain and you have completely forgotten how it got in there? Yep, me too. And that's where we start our journey today. See, at least a decade ago I either read or heard or overheard (or something) a theory about a character in The Canon that appears in a handful of cases and is mentioned by name in three of them. That name is where the problem lies. Let's see what materializes.

What I heard all those years ago was the thought that Billy the page had the name Billy because all pages at the time were called that. Again, I don't know where it was that I got this information, and I also fear that someone else has already tackled this, but I've never let that stop me before. And since I am unaware of a previous piece about this, it falls on me to do my own fresh research. So, that's what I did. (Heck, it might even be in one of the books I have on my shelves. Wouldn't that be embarrassing?)

I started by simply typing the phrase 'Billy the page' into all my favorite search engines. I headed over to Google Books, then British Newspaper Archive, then HaithiTrust, then the Internet Archive. (There were a few other minor stops, but those are the biggies.) The number of times it was mentioned, especially in relation to the William Gillette play character, was somewhat large. I had to refine my searches and narrow my focus. (I also found out some of the search engines have disappointing 'refining' abilities.) In the interest of thoroughness, I made sure to try variations and other spellings like 'Billy the pageboy' or 'page-boy' and amassed a pretty impressive list (which I culled down to get rid of repeats and save space).

In order to prove or disprove this theory I looked up the top ten boys names in Victorian England and tried to find examples of them being used in the 'Billy' way. Here's what I found:

1. John (of course) - very few examples of 'John the page' or any variation like 'pageboy'
2. William - lots of 'William the page(boy) [we'll come back to this one]
3. James - very few
4. George - very few
5. Charles - not a single find
6. Joseph - a few
7. Frank - nothing
8. Robert - a few
9. Edward - just one
10. Henry - a couple

This seemed to help my case. I had wondered if pages used their real names, and it seems some may have, but not many. However, the case for Billy gets stronger. Keep reading.

We know that in The Canon we have Billy by name, but we also have "the page-boy" and "the boy in buttons" and I found examples of all of these in my research. Here are some others:

"Billy the pageboy"
"the boy in buttons, or page, whose name was Billy"
"William, our boy in buttons"
"...my mulatto servant, named Billy..."
"The "noble savage" running wild in his "native woods" is a much more interesting subject of civilization than Billy the washer-woman's boy, especially when entering our family as William the boy in buttons."

Sermons Out Of Church from 1875

Then it took a bit of a turn:

"the page, Billy Buttons"
"Billy Buttons the page"
"Buttons the page"
"...ending with the Mogul seizing the Buttons, or page boy, and..."

So, how did we get to 'Billy Buttons'? Well, I haven't uncovered that yet, and I'm not absolutely certain it will do anything for this theory, but I can tell you that the phrase was fairly common in Victorian England. It was a character in a few pieces of fiction and plays and was also the name of a type of bulbous flower. The 'Billy buttons' (Craspedia globosa) is a plant native to Australia. This definition from an 1898 book called Bygone Devonshire explains the connection: "Billy buttons - the burrs are stuck by boys down their coat fronts to give them the appearance of a page or man in buttons." This is upheld by dictionaries, as well.

What I didn't find in all of this, however, was a single instance where anyone or any publication said that 'Billy' is the name used by all page(boy)s in a generic way. I did find an English court case from the 1830's where the Judge (arguing against the alleged alias of a boy criminal named Billy) actually says the following: "...do you not allow that children are sometimes called Billy?"

Where does all this tell us? Well, nothing, actually. It proves nothing. I would love to have something stronger than all of this to help tilt the decision one way or the other, but it doesn't seem to exist (at least not that I've found). I think, though, that the chronological evidence about 'the page' from The Canon may help a bit.

We know a boy servant of some kind appeared in ten cases, and three more where he's mentioned by name - 'The Valley of Fear (VALL), 'The Mazarin Stone' (MAZA), and 'Thor Bridge' (THOR). VALL is predominantly agreed to be in either January 1888 or 1889, THOR is mostly decided to be around 1900, and MAZA is almost universally placed in 1903. So, was it the same kid from 1889 to 1903? Well, in MAZA, Billy is referred to as "the young but very wise and tactful page" If that's the case, and MAZA is in 1903, then we can't be talking about the same boy. (Two chronologists - Gavin Brend and Ian McQueen both use this problem to partially help their belief that VALL was in 1899 or 1900.) Basically, thinking that it's the same page for all of those cases is not really logical, nor is the idea that each one that worked there had the same birth name, though that is more likely.

I'll leave it up to you. If someone has tackled this before, let me know. I'm interested to learn. Still, even though I couldn't prove it, I still like the idea that pages were predominantly called 'Billy' and weren't necessarily actually named 'Billy'. But until more proof one way or the other reveals itself, I'm going with it. I'll see you next month, and as always...thanks for reading.