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.