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.