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.
