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.