A Few Words About My Illustrious Friend...

There are certain people that come into your life that are unequalled. You find a kinship with them that seems to be automatic, and you look forward to the next time you’re both in the same space together. For me that has been an all too rare occurrence, but I did have those things with someone who just passed away. I’d like to express some thoughts.

When I was younger my mom worked for a popular chain store location in the “big” town near where I’m from. Everyone knew her. She was a local celebrity. We couldn’t go anywhere in the area without her running into someone she knew. I was always kind of thrilled with that, but in time I came to realize that people like her existed most everywhere. I wasn’t aware, though, that I had met another person like that in the late 90’s when I joined The Illustrious Clients of Indianapolis. There were so many great folks who greeted me, and I'm still friends with almost all of them, but we know that life causes paths to change and sometimes those paths are not on a return route. One of the folks who made an immense impression on me was the (then) President of the club, Donald E. Curtis. Known as ‘The Illustrious Client’, their leader was a kind and funny man with a smile that could only improve your day. Don was a Sherlockian celebrity – a Sher-lebrity as one of my friends once titled it. He was known all over the world for many things and had lived a life that was equivalent to that of Wilson, the next-door neighbor on Home Improvement. He had fascinating stories, great jokes, and could tell you about any meal he’d ever had. (I’ve never met another person with such a meal memory.)

What I’m getting at is that he was wonderful. I never knew a moment when he wasn’t. He didn’t really have an appreciation for chronology, so we never had in-depth conversations about it, but there were so many other things to discuss. Most of the time it was some aspect of the Sherlock Holmes hobby, but other times it was personal and private. He was an educated man with a sharp and quick wit, and laughing was very nearly always the end result of our time together.

Don died in November just a week or so after his 85th birthday. It hit all of us like a kick to the chest and was the kind of news that didn’t seem real. His family lost an incredible member, the world lost a humanitarian, the hobby lost a scholar, and we all lost a friend. Personally, I cried so much and so hard that I wore myself out physically and mentally. The last event to hurt me as much was the death of my father in 2007. Speaking of which – if I had not known and loved my own dad, Don would’ve been the kind of man I would’ve wanted in that role.

Don’s first wife was named Sharon. I didn’t know her especially well as she died just a couple of years after I joined The Clients, and I know she was dealing with health problems which kept her away from our meetings most of the time. By all accounts, she was a gracious lady with a huge heart and plenty of love to go around. I remember it was at her funeral that I called Don “Mr. Curtis” for the last time. He actually stopped me as I was leaving the service and told me I had to start calling him Don. From that day on I did. (On a side note, I found myself calling Don’s son Donald N. “Mr. Curtis” when I recently saw him. I guess I’ve still got that old habit idling in my brain somewhere. Don N. and I work for the same organization, and we see each other sometimes, but we get together at least once a year to imbibe on cigars, drinks, and steaks. We also consistently find something to laugh about, just like I did with his father.)

In 2004 Don E. re-married. Her name is Teresa, and she survives him. She is a wonderful, beautiful, and caring woman, and she and Don made a nearly perfect couple. There just aren’t enough positive adjectives to describe them. Teresa and I will be friends until we each say goodbye to this world for the last time. There will be lunches and dinners and the occasional text about how each other is doing, and I hope it’s always just like that.

I know this isn’t a post about chronology, but I had to write about this man and what he meant to me. He encouraged me to take the chronology baton and run with it when I told him that’s what I wanted to do. He welcomed me in as the new 'Illustrious Client' when he stepped down and I was elected in. He loved to tell people the story about me eating display pancakes in Baltimore, Maryland. (I’ll have to tell you about it someday. It was one of his favorites.) His affect on me was immeasurable, and I hate that he is gone. I will miss him for the rest of my life.

Thank you for reading.

After Much Contemplation...

Well, I have made a decision about my participation in the world of Sherlockian chronology: I'll stay, but...

I have been mentally struggling for some time now about sticking with it. I started all of this on this very day, November 27, back in 2011. As with anything, it can get tiring and tedious from time to time, but if you enjoy something those feelings have a tendency to pass. What happens to me is that I get into a pastime and let it consume me until I am no longer interested. Luckily, Sherlockian chronology has been a constantly changing topic, and as a result it never got stale. But, as I said last month, I have other things I want to pursue in my life, and have to find a way to not let Holmes take over again. He'll always be a part of my DNA, but he can't be a fulltime endeavor.

I have thought a lot about this, and spoken to some folks whose advice I trust, and it came down to whether or not I still love doing this. Well, I do, and I still feel like people want more from this subset of the larger Sherlockian world. I am honored that I get to help the cause in whatever small way I can and do, and I want to keep showing others this isn't the stuffy old boring subject it once seemed to be. I don't know yet if I'm going to stick to a strict schedule or just create when I have something to say, but that will be sorted out soon. I need to update my database, come up with some fresh ways of reporting chronology to the masses, and get back to researching.

Thanks to all of you who have contacted me about going forward. It really means a lot that you took the time to tell me how you feel. I've hit the reset button, and am ready to get back at it. There's more work to do. One thing will stay the same, though - my sign-off. So, as I've said for so many years now (and meant it every time)...thanks for reading.

My Sherlockian Future...

As many of you know I have been a Sherlockian for almost three decades now. I found my favorite part of the hobby very early on, and I have never looked back. Sherlockian chronology is in my blood. In my DNA. I still get a little excited when a new timeline is found, and I love updating my database to accommodate the new version. But, I'm struggling with it all. Allow me to explain...

I wrote an article very similar to this for the Sherlockian Chronologist Guild newsletter TIMELINE. In it I said that I wasn't leaving The Game, but was considering backing off some. I have found myself interested in other things, and those other things take as much (or more) time to do/accomplish/research as this does. I don't feel like I have said everything that needs to be said about our subset of the greater Sherlockian world, but more and more players have arrived on the scene and are doing some amazing work for the cause. You're all in good hands. (I have always felt my "job" was merely to report on the intricacies of the dates themselves, and leave the deep work to better minds than mine. I'm like the accountant - I talk about how the numbers affect everything, while the Board members do the real work.)

Next month marks the anniversary of all of this. Back on November 27, 2011, this whole idea was born. I didn't know where it was going to go, nor have any idea of how big it would get, but I knew I wanted to talk about chronology. So, I started to...and I haven't shut up since. The database has grown to almost 60 of them, and I foresee more coming. I still want my computer to be where they arrive so I can put them with their kin, but if they don't I'll go out looking for them from time to time. What used to be an honor for a chosen few has now ballooned to dozens and dozens of others, and some of the places where timelines have been found has been quite surprising. Looking in the card files of Sherlockiana for chronologies is not as necessary anymore. New writers and thinkers of all types are getting into it. Should my database ever become totally public, I think everyone would be pleasantly shocked at where they've popped up.

I'm not leaving. Let me make that clear. I am merely reducing the visibility of what I do with my part of all of this. I will still update the database and continue to hunt for ever more elusive timelines out in the big scary world. I will still write about it for anyone or any publication that wants me to, and would happily still talk about it to any group that desires it. But, the major social media outlets are something I no longer want to deal with. (Brad Keefauver has put forth an interesting thought about how to continue to get my words out to everyone, and it's something I'm considering.) If what I do goes "underground" or whatever, then so be it. I think by now everyone knows that if they need something chronological that they can reach out to me and I'll help them out. If I don't have the data, I'll know who will, and can be a conduit. But, I am not interested in being a part of the social media quagmire.

So, basically it comes down to one month for me to make a decision. I like the idea of the anniversary being the limit, so I'm looking at that. I know I still owe you all Part 2 of the 'Cradboard Box' post from last month, but for now it's on hold. I'm sorry for doing that to you. (Really.) My brain will be consumed by this situation for the next 30 (or so) days, and I truly don't know what I'm going to do. I would like to hear your thoughts below, and if it's something deeper or more involved then you can contact me by email at historicalsherlock@gmail.com. Please come back and see me in November, and we'll find out what I've come up with. I'll see you then, and as always...thanks for reading.

My Discovery in The Cardboard Box (Part 1)

Please travel back with me to that July trip to St. Louis when I (and many others) attended Holmes on the Heartland. This successful gathering of the faithful had a lot of memorable moments, and on the back of said success, photos and Facebook posts and interviews and such have been prevalent and numerous. Again, kudos to Rob Nunn and those who helped him with it because it really was a thing of beauty to behold. Personally I was thrilled with my purchases and the number of chronologists in attendance. I talked about such in my blog post last month, but I didn't tell you everything. We're going to discuss something else I found that weekend in this and a follow-up entry. So, let's get started.

I apologize for the ruse caused by the title above. What I'm going to tell you about actually did come out of a cardboard box - just not that 'Cardboard Box' (CARD). Toward the end of the conference I became aware of several boxes full of Sherlockian stuff in the hallway outside of the room we were all in that was available to be gone through. I went out and zeroed in on a box no one else had their hands in. Most of it was titles I already had or didn't want or need, but at the bottom of the box were some stapled papers. Three stacks, actually. I grabbed them and held them to my breast like someone was going to try and wrestle them away from me. (I would say I ran away and found a private spot to caress and nuzzle them like Golem or something, but that may or may not be true.) The items were part of the collection of a now-deceased Sherlockian named Bob Ristau who belonged to the scion society The Notorious Canary-Trainers of Madison, WI. (Max Magee brought them. He also is in that group.) Bob's family donated the items so that they could find new homes among our ilk.

The picture above shows the cover of the one we're looking at this time, and it says: "Holmes and Paranoia" by David Hammer delivered (by Mrs. Hammer) at the Sherlock Holmes Workshop of July, 1985 Held in Madison, Wisconsin. I was aware of Mr. Hammer, but not the Workshop. The paper has an old yellowed, but not foxed, coloring, and the text appears to have been typed on a 1980's word processor typewriter as the letters aren't raised or bumpy on the back of the pages. The keys didn't strike the paper very hard, in other words. Regardless, as I flipped through it I came to page 5 and saw dates for canonical cases. I saw the word 'chronology'. I saw the word 'analysis'. The next thing I remember was being brought back around by a mustachioed doctor giving me brandy from a Gladstone bag. I wasn't sure what I had in my hands, but I was in. And distracted.

The paper is about whether or not Holmes was paranoid, and how he may have simply made up Moriarty in his mind as a result of that paranoia. It heavily quotes an Encyclopedia Britannica article from 1966 called 'Paranoid Reactions'. It also talks about a paper called 'The Truth about Professor Moriarty' by one A. G. Macdonell (written for a publication titled The Incunabular Sherlock Holmes - published by the BSI in 1958.) That paper examined the string of failures Holmes had between 1887 and 1891, and what lead to his mental health deteriorating to the point of said paranoia. Hammer points out that "Macdonell does not adopt the Zeisler Chronology, which possesses an authority of its own." He (Hammer) notes that Macdonell skips some cases which were actually successes, and goes on to list all of the cases Zeisler place between '87 and '91 and rate them as failures or successes. He then lists what Holmes did or did not accomplish in those cases. Hammer draws heavily on Holmes's own words in showing that his (Holmes) delusions were being hinted at all along. He also mentions that the tall man pushing his way through the crowd at the train in LAST was just a regular dude trying to catch a train, but Holmes believed it was his imaginary arch enemy. (Or he was trying to convince Watson it was.)

As a chronologist this is exactly the kind of gold I hope to mine out of old boxes and the like. It offers nothing new to the chronolgical lists I have in my database, but it does represent another moment in the history of Sherlockian chronology...and that's just as important. I love having it, and I loved reading it. The cover page is handwritten, and not a copy. Using a flashlight and my fingertips, I clearly made out where you can see and feel the raised lettering on the back of the sheet (unlike the typed ones). In the upper right hand corner is the abbreviated word 'orig.' written lightly in pencil in what could...COULD...be the same hand. The other corner has a horizontal staple, and under it runs the vertical rusted mark of an old one which has been removed at some point (probably to make copies). On the back where the ends of the new staple meet you can see an almost unbroken like of rust where the old staple came together. It was obviously a longer one that the current one whose ends are quite far apart.

There's a little mystery here, though. On each page of the text, in the exact same spot, are little black marks. These are very likely from a copier, and were on the screen/glass of it and transferred to each page. I think this IS a copy, not the original. Now, the first page could be original, but I don't believe the rest of it is. This also raises the possibility that this wasn't produced on a word processor typewriter but a standard one, and explains why there's no back-of-the-page bumps. Again, regardless, it's a great find, and on that I am very happy to add to my collection.

I am just a sucker for a box full of free books, and what happened here is exactly why. I never know what's going to be in one, and I'm always very happy to go mining. Next month I'll be back to talk about the other finds, and I do hope you'll join me to see for yourself. Thank you for getting this far again. I'll see you soon, and as always...thanks for reading.

The Chronology of My (Famous?) Deerstalker

Lately my little corner of the Sherlockian chronology universe has been extra busy. I was honored to be mentioned in a couple of talks at the recent Holmes in the Heartland gathering in St. Louis. I got to be in the largest grouping of chronologists in one spot ever at said gathering, and also got to meet a long-time budding timeliner for the first time in person. Also at that fantastic amassing of the faithful, I found several photocopied items in the bottom of a box from a collection that had been donated for others to pick from and give new homes. Two of the pieces are very interesting, and I'm certain will be subjects of future blog posts. Plus, several more timelines have been found by those of this ilk, and the database keeps growing. It's been fun, and after a decade of doing this I love that I'm just as busy as ever.

For this entry, however, I'm not going to talk chronology. I can hear the collective groans, and I'm sorry, but I wanted to relate something to you that also happened at the St. Louis conference that took me down memory lane.

Between talks I was perusing the dealer's tables. I bought a number of items, but one in particular meant more than the others. It was a magazine - one that was originally a dollar, but had a small green sticker with '10' written on it. I recognized it immediately, and snatched it up as fast as I could. Then, I flipped to page 23. (That number - 23 - has also had some cool appearances in my life. Ask me about it sometime.) Page 23 has two photographs on it. One is large and one is small. The smaller one has the number '2' beside it, and that's an error according the notation that represents it. It should say '1' but no never mind. That smaller picture is of Luther Norris. He was a member of the BSI and was the founder of The Praed Street Irregulars and The Solar Pons Society.

On its own, the photo doesn't mean much. The reason it's important to me is because of something that happened twenty-five years ago. As a young Sherlockian I bought up everything. The vaccuum effect. We've all done it. I found a man many will recognize - Vinnie Brosnan. He had a catalog series called Sherlock in L.A. I spoke to him a few times. We referred to each other as Vinnie in L.A. and Vinnie in Indy. (That nickname privelege is one that is extended to very, very few, by the way.) One of the catalogs I owned had a page that featured three deerstalkers - Items #254, 255, and 256. I sent Vinnie a check for the amount of the asking price - $55 - and let him pick which one he'd send me. I received #255 in the mail soon after, but it was years before I realized how special it was. I was flipping through the same catalog some time later and was looking at a photo section on the middle pages of an auction many decades ago that featured some of the clothing Basil Rathbone wore in the Holmes movies. Luther Norris officiated, but I knew nothing about him. The photo of him that was in the catalog is the same one (above) from the magazine.

The caption that accompanied the photo said 'Luther Norris wearing Item #255', or something like that. (I lost the catalog to water damage many years ago, and haven't found one since, but what I wrote is close.) Years later I was at a meeting of The Illustrious Clients of Indianapolis and saw the above (unfamiliar to me) magazine on a table. I started thumbing through it and came across the photo. I talked to some of the senior members, and it was only then that I learned who Norris was and what he had done. I also pointed out that I was wearing the exact same deerstalker, and told the story to everyone that would listen. That's when I got my picture taken. (Yes, I was sporting earrings, too. That season has passed.) This photo is from the article I wrote for the newsletter for the club.

Now, I do not know if the hat actually belonged to Luther Norris, or if he was just wearing it that day. I have absolutely no way to know if he borrowed or owned it. That doesn't stop people from saying that I have the deerstalker that belonged to Luther Norris, however, and that makes some of the Solar Pons folk crazy. Either way, I am happy to still have it, but wear it less these days. It sits on a shelf in my living room - not because of its suspected provenance, but because it is my deerstalker and is still a wearable item of clothing. I do like having this little mystery attached to it, and hope I never find out the answer. It's more fun that way. (I would also like to say that it will go to someone when I pass. They don't know they're in my will, but I know they'll be thrilled to have the piece in the event of my demise.)

Adding to the line at the end of the previous paragraph, I would like to mention Pat Ward. A lot of us knew Pat. She was a wonderful person, and a great Sherlockian. I will only say that her passing was quick and she was surrounded by friends. I will always miss her, and know others will, too. Still, there is no way she would want any of us to not enjoy this hobby to the fullest. She knew the therapy in it, and the rest of us should follow suit. So, once again I express my appreciation of you and your loyalty. I'll see you next month, and as always...thanks for reading.

Monumentally Memorable (At Least I Hope)

In a few days I will be in St. Louis attending a gathering of fellow Sherlockians. It will be my first one in a while, and I'm looking forward to it because I get to see some folks I haven't for some time. There's also bound to be some titles I'll want to purchase, and maybe even a few pieces of ephemera. The whole thing sounds like it's going to be worth the not-so-long-drive from Indy to St. Lou. There is one aspect of the whole trip that is more attractive than anything else. Let's talk about that.

I gave my first paper outside of my (then) home society in 2010. If you need a refresher, take a look here. I am still very proud of the work I did on it, even though I had to retire it because of a silly error in the research. After that event I was thrilled and honored to get lots of requests to re-give that presentation, and later most of the other ones I would produce in the next decade. It was a good ride, and I was happy to have had the opportunity (and opportunities) to put a smile on people's faces, not to mention giving them things to think about and research on their own.

But, time and interests move on and change. It's all a journey, and it's one I did and still am enjoying. I have gotten to hear oh so many papers and watch a lot of presentations at gatherings from Minnesota to Maryland to Tennessee and lots of spots within that triangle. But, what I haven't heard (I don't think) is a paper that is completely about my favorite Sherlockian topic - chronology. The subject has been touched on, but as for a full-blown piece on chronology, it hasn't happened (that I recall). But, it's going to.

According to Sherlockian Chronologist Guild member Bruce Harris, there are going to be at least eight of we members of that group in St. Louis attending Holmes in the Heartland 2023. Put together by the inimitable Rob Nunn, it is a very packed and attractive program with lots of extra activities spread out over three days. The paper I want to hear is by Guild member Mike McSwiggin. It will be so great to hear another openly admitted chronologist talk about our subset. I simply can't wait to hear what he has to offer. Even if it sucks - which it won't! - I'm still in. (The reason why is the first line of the next paragraph.)

I have a saying that all chronology is good chronology. It's so much fun to read everything I can about it. More data equals more bricks in that chronological superstructure. It also equals a never-ending warehouse of content to draw from, and that means always having something to write about. When Mike gets up to speak I am going to be in my element. I will be drawn into what he has to offer. I won't be there to judge or rate, but to listen and learn. I hope he goes on for hours and hours, though I know it will all be over with way too fast.

Now, I'm not much on taking pictures at events. I even fail to do so with my own grandchildren. I'm just lousy about it, so don't expect many (if any). But, I will be there for the entire weekend of events and presentations, so someone might take some of me. Then I will return to the safety and solitude of my apartment back here in Indy to digest what I heard. (I will also try and get Mike to give me a copy of his piece.) I don't get excited about too much, and I don't know if I do about chronology, but I know it gets my blood flowing and my synapses firing.

To be honest, one of the things I'm also giddy with anticipation about is going back to the Gateway Arch. I've seen it during my travels while going past on I-70, but never actually visited it. The last time I was under its immenseness was about three decades ago. I doubt it has changed much, and I figure it will just stand there in perpetual silent indifference as we gawk up at it with phones in hand. Still, I want to go back.

When I was there so long ago, I took a picture with my mom's Disc camera (remember those?) that was said by everyone who saw it to be postcard-worthy. I still have it. Well, my mom does. Somewhere. However, I have since learned that every single human who ever went there with a camera took the exact same picture. It really is a good shot, but I'm no longer hoping to sell it to a collector for a large sum. That expectation fizzled when I saw the gozillion of them just like mine on Google Images. This time, I think, I'll just admire it.

Well, I promised you a second blog post this month, and I have delivered. In my younger blogger days these posts used to give me anxiety. Now I can sit down and whip one out in an evening. I still enjoy writing them, and hope you will continue to enjoy reading them. I'll be back next month with something else to peruse, so make sure to stop by again. Take care of yourself, and as always...thanks for reading.

Not As Many Errors As Watson, But...

I go book shopping a lot. That won't come as a surprise to any of you that know me personally, but it's true. I really enjoy the hunt, and the find even more. Not long ago I discovered a book store just south of my city here that I wasn't aware of. It's a big place, and I have no explanation for not knowing it existed. Once I found out, though, I made a beeline for their front door. I had some luck in adding another few dozen titles to my already groaning shelves, but one item in particular is worthy of a blog post. So, here we are. Let's get to it.

I stopped buying every single thing I could find that had a Sherlockian or canonical connection years ago. I only do so now if it's something unique (at least to me). This book was not in the section it should've been in, but languishing on an empty shelf on the other side of the room. I can only surmise someone else must've picked it up out of curiosity, and then culled it out when buying time came. Regardless, I got it. And here it is:

The name on the price sticker is not the name of the shop. In fact, the place on said sticker had recently went out of business, so my guess is this is part of a buyout of inventory. Still, I have never minded stickers and creases and writing and such. It all adds to its history and character. But, what makes me want to talk about this piece are some of the things I found inside. Shall we?

Published in 1975, the 'Note To The Student' Forward says that it is merely an aid "to understanding and appreciating" the Holmes short stories. Of the three paragraphs in the 'Note', the third one states: "This effort does not pretend to be a work of "Sherlockian" scholarship; in such a brief work it is impossible to go into the various theories concerning such things as Holmes' parentage and education, Watson's wives, the dating of the cases, etc." Disappointment right up front for me, but it is understandable. Still, there's other things to talk about. Like on page 12...

There's a list on pages 12 - 15 of the J. F. Christ abbreviations for the cases. It says: "The abbreviations adopted by the Baker Street Journal (the first four letters of the title) will be used throughout this book." Right away we know this is not accurate. Scanning the list reveals six errors:
CASE for 'A Case of Identity' (should be IDEN)
MANW for 'The Man with the Twisted Lip' (should be TWIS)
ENGI for 'The Engineer's Thumb' (should be ENGR)

CHAR for 'Charles Augustus Milverton' (should be CHAS)
DISA for 'The Disappearance of Lady Frances Carfax' (should be LADY)
HISL for 'His Last Bow' (should be LAST)
They really stuck with that 'first four letters' thing, but the question is where they got that idea. It's true that most of them are like that, so I can understand seeing a few and then extending that logic to all of them. The curious thing is that the authors use the correct CHAS on page 19, but then return to CHAR on page 26 and for the rest of the book. (And R and S aren't next to each other on the keyboard. I know - I looked.)

On page 3 I noticed that the black-armband-in-mourning-for-Holmes story is once again perpetuated. This has never been proven, but I hope people keep up the research because the idea had to have started somewhere. Page 4 has a short explanation about the 60 original cases being referred to as 'Canon'. (Their capitalization and italicization.) It's followed by: "(Stories not considered to be Doyle's are termed apocryphal.)" Again, this isn't necessarily correct. Then on page 15 there's a curious paragraph about disguises. It says: "With the exception of Watson, all of the principal characters try their hands at disguise (Holmes, twice)." My immediate thought went to Mrs. Hudson. I don't remember her doing so, but maybe they don't consider her a 'principal character'. Still, this doesn't ring as true to me.

Pages 17 and 18 hold two pleasant surprises. A parallel is noticed between 'The Red-Headed League' (REDH) and 'The Stockbroker's Clerk' (STOC). This adds some credence to the work done for this. The other thing was about the most dangerous men in London. It's mentioned that "[T]he third remains forever anonymous." I never thought about this! Moriarty and Moran are 1st and 2nd, and John Clay is 4th, but is #3 ever talked about? I have to look more into this.

Page 21 holds another error when referring to the different monographs that Holmes penned. It says one of them was about the 114 different varieties of tobacco ash. We all know that should be 140, but at least they get the rest of the monograph subjects right.

On pages 25 and 51 there's talk of the Moriarty brothers both being named James. I know it's only a theory that there was a third brother, and that he was also given the same name, but I don't know when that theory was first put out. So, it's possible they couldn't have put it in, anyway. And on page 43 the Baker Street Irregulars are discussed. We're told about the genesis of the name for the detective's loyal street urchins, but it extends to include "the celebrated stag society" that adopted the title. Oh how times have changed.

Page 71 tackles the controversy with 'The Second Stain' (SECO) and how the one Watson talks about in 'The Naval Treaty' (NAVA)is not the one he published. It also lists what some of the differences are. The fact that "this is the only case Watson mentions in an earlier story that he later decided to write about" is a very impressive catch.

The last things to note are on pages 19, 47, and 76. Now, please understand that I don't want you to think I am trashing this publication. I'm not. It has some great information. It's just that the mistakes are rough. Still, it's full of wonderful information, and lots of work was done to get the greater part of it right. I applaud the effort. But, even though we're told the dating of the cases wouldn't be in the pages...it is. A little.

Let me start by saying that in the back is a section called 'Topics For Further Study'. Now, these look like actual titles you can buy, but I did some looking online and wasn't able to come up with any of them as individual publications. The way they're listed, though, makes it look like they are separate. (Too bad, too, because Watson's Marriages and Watson's Dating of Cases sound interesting.)

Page 19 has a paragraph about my beloved chronology with: "Chronologically, CASE suceeds [sic] SCAN by a few months because Watson had not yet seen the handsome gold snuffbox (Did Holmes sniff?) sent by the King of Bohemia as a token of gratitude for Holmes' services." (CASE is supposed to mean IDEN, as previously mentioned, and SCAN is 'A Scandal in Bohemia'.)

On page 47 there is the following concerning NAVA: "MARRIAGE: Watson dates this story the July after his marriage. Critics are agreed that he refers to his first marriage with Mary Morstan whom he met during SIGN." Now, if you're not a student of the canon you might read that as saying Watson married Mary Morstan (from The Sign of [the] Four) more than once. What it means, of course, is that the authors knew that there was a possibility The Good Doctor was married more than once. (I don't think he was, but I know a lot of people do.)

Finally, on page 76, we get talk of Doyle's "inaccuracies and inconsistencies" in 'The Bruce-Partington Plans' (BRUC). It says: "He had no eye for factual details - something that is obvious in light of his careless dating of cases, which has caused difficulties for hundreds of would-be Sherlockian chronologists." Hundreds? I doubt that many folks have dreamt of being a timeliner. Good thing, too. I only have so much time to devote to the database I've got! Those three times are all we get when it comes to my journey here, but I'll take it. I will point out, however, that the date problem in 'Wisteria Lodge' (WIST) with 1892 is nowhere to be found. I would've thought that one might have garnered a couple of words. Oh, well.

So, those are my thoughts about this booklet. It really is quite a thing with all of the information it collected and presents. Quite impressive, actually. I wonder, though, what other books they looked at to get said info, because I really doubt they read all of the cases and gathered it all that way. It's possible, of course, with a crew of people, but it doesn't seem likely to be the only place they got their stuff from. No matter. We're at the bottom again, and that is the important thing. I'll see you here again later this month (because I missed June somehow and will write two for July). Looking forward to it, and as always...thanks for reading.

It's A Bird! It's A Plane! It's...It's...I Have No Idea!

I came across a piece of film (again) on YouTube the other day which reminded me of something I once had considered doing a presentation about somewhere someday. But, seeing as how I haven't been asked to do that in quite some time, I am thinking that my presentation days may be over. In order to bring you this interesting bit of footage, I'll have to do it here, and I'm just as good with that. This isn't truly a chronological post, but I think it's okay to have these every once in a while to show the depths I'll go to investigate Victorian London. So, get your popcorn and blankie ready, and settle in for a bit of a mystery (to me).

I am going to bring it up one last time, and that's it - this would've been so much better as a talk with video at a conference. It involves a moving object in a really old section of footage of Victorian London. Regardless, I think I can do it justice here. The first thing I'm going to do is give you a link to the film and let you enjoy it. The part I'm referring to is almost always in a montage of other films of London at the time, so I'll tell you exactly where to look. (Sorry about the music.)

Some sources say this was shot near Trafalgar Square. Others by the Bank of England, which does seem to be in the background. Either way, it's very cool to watch these and get an actual visual idea of the things Holmes and Watson would have seen on a walk. The clip in question starts at 2:42. The "mystery" makes its appearance at 3:36 and disappears behind traffic at 3:39. (Don't skip ahead, now. Enjoy it all.) 

Old London Street Scenes (1903) | BFI - YouTube

Now, some titles list the nearly 2 1/2 minute part I'm talking about as 1903 (like this one). Others 1898. I did a bit or research some years back for a Facebook post, which you can see here, and I can tell you that the obvious two-row "garden seating" on the omnibuses was used until well after the turn of the century. That doesn't really help us. One thing that can is the appearance of an automobile at 3:44 (that really comes into view ten seconds later). It looks an awful lot to me like one of these, and if so it helps the 1898 date a bit. And the fact that it's the only one in this flicker show section means they weren't prevalent yet, so early days for them rings pretty true.

So, what am I looking at? This is a shot of the clip just before the thing makes its appearance.

At the 3:36 mark something comes into frame moving along the street from left to right. Now, I have watched this over and over and over and I cannot for the life of me figure out what this thing is. I know what it could be, but I can't get my brain to agree with my logic. (That seems wrong somehow.) I've went through many versions of this, and can't find one clear enough to be able to tell. Even the enhanced and colorized ones don't make it better. And the fact that you can't make out detail is why I can't put a name to it. But, let's examine the object.

There's no really good shot, but here are a few in sequence:

The facts: In the first cropped image it looks like it has legs. Could it be a dog, or a pony, or a small person/child on a pony or mule? In the second it looks more structured - like it has sections. Perhaps it's a small cart. If so, what's driving/pulling it? In the third, it looks like it has a horse or pony head, but since it's behind the man in the omnibus we can tell. In the last one I've used a black line to show where the approximate end of the carriage in front of it would be, and you can see that the shape of the thing looks very squared-off.

Another possibility is a velocipede. If that's the case, where's the rider? It doesn't appear to be a woman in a dress as we can see parts of the thing that don't really look bicycle-ish. Heck, at the 3:37 mark it almost looks like whatever it is has two "riders." And if it is a two-wheeled conveyance, then the rider is sitting very far forward, and not back closer to the middle where a seat might be.

This is like the equivalent of a Victorian Bigfoot film - grainy and mysterious. Too bad it wasn't shot in hi-def or 4K. I really don't know what it is. Whatever it might be, it moves along very smoothly. That's part of the oddity of it. It would be easier to say this is moving along a track, but there isn't one. I will accept, though, that I might be missing a very obvious solution, and will gladly hear what it is from someone else. I ain't proud. I'll admit when I get something wrong or am dumbfounded for an answer. For the record, don't come at me with talk about a time traveler or something like that. You don't get to rent any space in my head with such nonsense. If that is the case, then why is the whole world not coming to a grinding halt to marvel, point, and/or horror at this foreign interloper. Anyway, I truly do want to know what you think. This has bothered me for many years. Let me know in any way you can - in the Comments below, by email, or using smoke signals. Whatever.

Well, you've got to see into my aging brain once more. I don't mind bringing you these little oddities from time to time because an answer would be nice. I still have one big puzzle that appears in 'The Resident Patient' (RESI) that I will keep to myself. It's my white whale. My ultimate prize. My relentless obsession. If I make it to my death bed and haven't solved it yet, then I'll tell you. Until then it's all mine.

As May comes to an end and we look at another half a year almost gone, I replay that old tape of me thanking you for enjoying my words here. You cannot imagine how much it means. And at a time in my life when I have considered walking away from the Sherlockian community (for various reasons), your loyalty to this blog keeps me coming back. My heartfelt appreciation never wanes. We'll talk again soon. Take care of yourselves, and as always...thanks for reading.

Consensus Constriction Considerations

This world has so much to offer us on a daily, heck hourly, basis that we often don't have time to get too bogged down in the unimportant stuff. Pleasures and hobbies and pastimes and fun...they all get 'backburner-ed' so that we can find out which celebrity recently changed their hairstyle, or what city has had the latest incident of violence. It's a constant flood of information, and it can get overwhelming. Thus, we find ourselves needing the little escapes more often (even with the irony of not having time to pursue them). This hobby, Sherlockian chronology, remains a place where I go to get away from all the headlines and controversy. But, it ain't all cartoons and puppies here, either.

When Brad Keefauver was in town last month, and we did lunch, one of the topics I touched on was whether or not to include a "new" kind of chronology - one that's been around for a while. I wrote about it once here. See, the timelines that I have come in a number of different forms. There's the stodgy old book form that people avoid because it just isn't any fun to read. There's the list form which doesn't really give us any clues as to why the chronologist chose the way they did. There's also calendar ones, partial ones, and ones that are just reading orders (that don't usually contain dates). In previous posts I've talked about what constitutes a "new" chronology, or how many changes will cause one to be considered such. But, there's one I haven't really given much thought to include.

The question is whether or not a consensus timeline is a valid chronology. When Les Klinger made his in the Autumn 2014 Baker Street Journal (BSJ), he was using fifteen lists. When I took up the charge to re-visit the information, I was using twenty-eight. Well, I now have forty-five of them, which could potentially mean that some of the dates are going to change again. Granted, not all of the timelines will help, but I still have enough to affect the data significantly.

This brings up two questions: again - how many changes constitute a new chronology, and do I make a new consensus list every time I get another one? The follow-up snag is that if I do make a new timeline when I add more chronologies to the database, then I will continue to add them on a constant basis. Also, what if I were to do a version starting with the first two chronologies ever constructed? And then when the third one came about...and the fourth? See the problem? In time I could stretch the number to 100 timelines. And, it will all be acceptable because what's being produced is still adherent to the chronological problem. It's enough to make my hair fall out...again!

Now, having said all of that, I'd like to express some thoughts. Recently I've been looking at the world around me a bit differently. I'm making changes to my perception of some things, and using clearer eyes to see what they actually mean to me. But, as deep as that seems, one thing that hasn't changed is the unique challenge of this subset of our larger hobby. It's unique because there aren't too many characters in literary history who have had every move they ever made scrutinized to death. And if it isn't bad enough that we do that, then you've got those people (like me) who want to scrutinize when they did it.

However, it isn't so much 'when' for me, but how others interpret that 'when'. I truly enjoy getting a new chronology and adding it to the spreadsheets. I still go searching for them in odd places because that's where I've found a lot of them. And when a fresh one gets added, I start the process of comparing it to the others, and looking for anomalies or problems. There are certain cases I go right to and see what the date is because they will help me get a decent idea of the timeliner's mindset. I don't spend much time worrying about my dates for a case anymore, but I spend a lot of it on that of others. I will pick up the proverbial pen from time to time and give it a whirl again, but my days as an active chronology maker are likely gone.

Still, I don't know where I stand on consensus versions. Yes, it would give me another opportunity (excuse?) to dig into my files, and make me better at my "craft." And, yes, doing that would benefit my work here and make all of you and the greater Sherlockian chronology world a little more learned. I just don't know if I think it's a true chronology. The work is noble, but it's only being done by someone who is putting the information together - they're not actually coming up with dates using research and The Canon. It would simply be an attempt at finding another way to put the data into a usable or enjoyable form.

On the other hand, it would be using the dates of those who have done the work, and getting the world one step closer to that elusive definitive timeline that so many want. It would be honoring the work that's already been done. But, isn't that what the Chronologist Guild and pages like this do anyway? Is one more way of looking at the lists advancing the cause?

I have other thoughts on the subject for my journey here, but I don't want to prattle on for too long. Rest assured that every idea like this spawns many others, and it ensures that I'll have plenty to write about in the future. Sherlockian chronology is, in itself, a fun mystery to pursue. But, working on said mystery by dissecting it is even more fun. At least for me. And I'll keep going until I can't.

Thank you once more for making it to the end. My love and admiration for your fortitude knows no bounds. I'll see you next month, and as always...thanks for reading.

People Actually Read These Posts? Cool!

I always shy away from giving people advice. I do not feel qualified to give it, and I live in fear of what could happen to them if that advice turns out to be bad. I doubt my front door could withstand someone trying to break through it angrily with an axe. So I stay away from suggesting anything. But, I will mention something in the hopes it inspires someone. And that's exactly what happened recently, even though what I said was from almost five years ago. Let me explain...

In July 2018 I had a post on here where I talked about how too many chronologists constructed their work using only beginning dates for the cases in The Canon. The reason for my gripe was twofold: if all we got was the opening date then we were being robbed of the information regarding the duration, but more so not seeing the work done to determine the length of the case. Again, the logic for the finding is everything! And that includes all of the work done on the duration (unless it's a one day case). The other problem is what I mentioned in that post - "the starting date is the most important, but what's missing could potentially affect other stories." And it all comes back to what I said at the start of this post because it actually occurred! And changed things!!

Bruce Harris is becoming a powerhouse in the chronology field. His book It's Not Always 1895, from just last year, was a new and interesting take on writing a chronology without shackles. Throwing off the chains allowed him to come up with some pretty unusual and unique dates, but I find a lot of them hard to argue with. I read that book cover-to-cover the day I got it, and did the same with this new one - The Duration Debate.

I am flattered by the fact that Bruce told me that I was the inspiration for this new venture. That post from 2018 was the clincher. I enjoy that so much because I always want others to find something in my little journey here that they can use to go on their own adventure of discovery. I've said that so many times. I'm not producing Hemingway-type writing, nor Hawking-level intelligence on here, but I want people to find a spark in something and go with it. There's so much more work to be done.

Now, Bruce's first book was excellent, and he put a lot of work into it. I happily recorded it in my database, but did so with the disappointment of having only beginning dates. Bruce took up the challenge to go back and correct this, thus the adjunct to the first work with the second. I got to modify my files, but so did Mr. Harris. Seems that upon working on the case durations, some of his findings had to me moved about a bit. It was only three cases that were affected, but in my last blog post I talked about how changing one date can have repercussions on others. (I won't give away what cases or how they were adjusted, though. If you want to know, you'll have to buy Bruce's book[s].)

A further question arose when I was modifying his list - how many changes to a chronology make it a new one? William S. Baring-Gould gave it two shots, and the results were vastly different. In this situation, though, I didn't feel that three adjustments rated having a new version. But, where is that line? Are there other factors to consider? I'm certain we'll explore that in another post one day.

I'm writing this just after the annual Holmes, Doyle, & Friends conference in Dayton. Brad Keefauver and I had lunch on his way back through town after attending and whilst heading home, and we talked about all sorts of stuff. And, as you can imagine, Sherlockian chronology wasn't going to escape us. One of the things we discussed was the newsletter for The Sherlockian Chronologist Guild. TIMELINE is our record of doings and sayings and thinkings. It is meant for everyone. There are over two dozen folks on the mailing list now, and we would really like to see contributions from some (or all) of you. Or anyone! But...

It doesn't have to be scholarship or anything like that. It can be a thought, or an idea, or a cartoon, or a snippet of something you've found in an old newsletter or journal from some long gone society. It can be anything chronology related. It's all about fun and enjoyment. If you have an old copy of some chronological work, let's see it. If a trifle in a case catches your eye and you just have to say something about it, sing out. If you disagree with a date for one of the sixty, say so. This organization, just like any other, is all about the people who support it and enjoy it. So, make your voice heard. (Heck, you can even do it anonymously if you want. We don't care.) If you're not on the mailing list, let me know that you wish to be and I'll make it happen. Or, you can send things to my email at historicalsherlock@gmail.com and I'll see that it makes it into the next edition. Please contribute - it's all about having a good time with this.

Well, there's articles to be written, chronologies to wedge into the database, and work of all other sorts to be done. One day I'll stop telling you how much I love it when you get all the way to the bottom of these posts, but that ain't today! I'll see you next month, and as always...thanks for reading.