Interesting Interview: Ray Riethmeier

December of 2023 was supposed to be the end of the Interesting Interview series.  I had hit the 100 mark and thought that would be a good place to wrap things up.  But then I got to sit with Ray and Becky Riethmeier at the BSI Luncheon in January, and they expressed their disappointment when I told them that I was hanging it up.  In fact, Ray is SO nice, that I couldn't tell him no when he asked me to continue the series.  (And if you've ever met Ray, you probably can't imagine saying no to such a great guy, either!)

Well, if I was going to keep these interviews chugging along, it seemed only natural that Ray become part of this series.  And let me tell you a little bit about him.  He is unfailingly likeable, which makes him a perfect fit for the Norwegian Explorers, a group that exudes a welcoming vibe like no other I've ever seen.  And have you seen the publications they put out?  You can thank Ray for a lot of that.  Every year, Ray has been part of the machinery that publishes their lovely annuals, and he is also one of the editors of the books that come out at every triennial conference. (Side note: the next one is coming up sooner than you think!)  I've personally never submitted anything to the Norwegian Explorers' annual, but after this interview I plan to just submit something so I can work with Ray!

How do you define the word “Sherlockian”?

A Sherlockian is somebody who has more than just a passing interest in Sherlock Holmes.  A Sherlockian is someone who is a fan of the characters and has integrated some part of the lore into their lives in a meaningful way.  It doesn’t have to be someone who has read the entire Canon numerous times (or even once), nor someone who can win the various trivia quizzes that so many of us fail miserably.  You can take it very seriously, or you can be in it for the fun, and either approach is valid.

How did you become a Sherlockian?

I often want to defend the more casual fans, because you can start anywhere and find yourself drawn into the Canon.  For instance, my Sherlockian story began in 1986 when I encountered the first issue of “The Cases of Sherlock Holmes” from Renegade Press at my local comic shop.  The painted cover attracted my attention, as I was always looking for something new and different.  These weren’t comic book adaptations of the canon; they were Doyle’s original stories copiously illustrated in moody black-and-white by Dan Day, and I immediately fell in love with the authentic Sherlock Holmes stories.  I had, of course, been familiar with Holmes from all the pop-culture references that make him nearly ubiquitous in society, and I had seen a few of the Rathbone films on TV, but once you actually read the original stories by Doyle, I don’t see how anyone can escape their allure.  There was no going back for me after that.

What is your profession and does that affect how you enjoy being a Sherlockian?

I am an attorney who works as an editor of law books, which I’ve done for almost 30 years now (schooled in Indiana, admitted to practice in New York, employed in Minnesota, where I work on Alabama laws).  On the side, I also edit, copyedit, and/or proofread fiction for a variety of publishers, mostly in the pulp fiction community.  As a result, I like to describe myself as “a nitpicker for fun and profit.”  I’m not sure why it took me so long to apply my editorial skills to Sherlock Holmes, but it’s been only the last few years in which I’ve started to work on Sherlockian titles, and I’ve been pleased to put together several anthologies for Belanger Books, including my most recent, The Consultations of Sherlock Holmes, which was released last summer.  I love being able to contribute to Sherlockiana in this way, and I hope that the books I help bring into the world are enjoyed by others.

What is your favorite canonical story?

That’s easy for me: I like “The Adventure of the Dancing Men” best.  It was the second story presented in Dan Day’s illustrated comic series, and so it was an early favorite of mine that has stuck with me ever since.  It also has what I think is the best “cozy” intro in the whole Canon, with Holmes making the “absurdly simple” deduction that Watson was not going to invest in South African securities.  Holmes didn’t really shine his best in the rest of the story, but I think that helped me appreciate him as less than the super-human thinking machine that we often expect him to be.  Holmes can be fallible, and I think that makes him even more appealing.

Who is a specific Sherlockian that you think others would find interesting?

My best friend in the Sherlock Holmes community is Tim Reich, a member of the Norwegian Explorers of Minnesota, my local scion society.  When I moved to Minnesota and discovered the group, Tim was one of the first people who really welcomed me, and his camaraderie helped me feel that I belonged there.  Over the years, we’ve collaborated on a number of projects together, including co-editing the Explorers’ Christmas Annual (which I now co-edit with Phil Bergem, another dear Sherlockian friend).  Tim was the one who convinced me to make my first pilgrimage to New York City for the BSI weekend in January 2018, and our long-suffering wives joined us for that adventure.  He’s just a great guy with a lot of enthusiasm for the Canon, and it can be infectious.  We also share interests in classic rock music and obscure pulp fiction characters.  In addition to our mutual Sherlockian hobby, folks also might enjoy talking to Tim about baseball and beer!

What subset of Sherlockiana really interests you?

Pastiches.  As much as I adore the original stories written by Arthur Conan Doyle, I like finding new perspectives on the character provided by other writers, particularly in stories that put Holmes and Watson in situations other than those that Doyle did already (and usually did better).  I am particularly drawn to those pastiches that take Holmes out of his usual comfort zone, either in new settings around the world, or crossing over with figures from history or literature, or even investigating true-crime mysteries from the Victorian era.  So long as Holmes remains true to his character, I’ll be happy.  But if he becomes a villain, or if he travels through time, or if he starts accepting applications from ghosts, then I’m out.

You have co-edited The Norwegian Explorers of Minnesota Christmas Annual for quite a few years.  What do you look for in submissions each year?

The Christmas Annual is a great venue for members of the Norwegian Explorers to share their ideas with the rest of us.  I work with Phil Bergem, my co-editor, to come up with a theme for the Annual each year, and then we ask folks to submit whatever strikes their fancy.  We get a lot of great submissions every year, and I’m pleased to note that the Annual has gotten bigger every year that Phil and I have been doing it.  So long as the submissions are related to Sherlock Holmes in some way, they don’t even need to relate to the selected topic (but most of them do).  We tend to include everything submitted, which can make for quite a varied end product.  If the contributor is enthusiastic enough to share his or her creativity with us, then that’s usually sufficient to merit a place in the next Christmas Annual!

As someone who has edited more than a few Sherlockian story anthologies, what advice can you give to writers out there working on their own pastiche and fan fictions?

Oh, wow.  That is such a broad question.  I guess my advice is to remember that, although there are a number of different ways to sort the Canon into a coherent chronology, that doesn’t give writers license to place their stories in any random year and expect them to work.  Your editor should be able to help you with the details and remove any pesky anachronisms, but if you have Watson living at Baker Street when he should be married, or if clients profess to know all about Holmes from the stories in The Strand before any had been published there, or if Holmes is still in London when he should be busy keeping his bees, then we’re going to have to make some more substantial changes!  I do enjoy catching those details when I start going through submissions for the books I edit, and I hope that the writers aren’t put out too much when I suggest ways to fix things.  My job is to make the writers look better, and if it all goes well, then nobody will be able to tell that I was even there.  Oh, and please don’t have our heroes address each other as “John” and “Sherlock.”  (Leave that for the TV productions!)

What book would you recommend to other Sherlockians?

I spent the last year re-reading the Canon as I received “Letters From Watson” in my email courtesy of the Substack online platform.  After I reread each story, I decided to finish off with a dip into D. Martin Dakin’s A Sherlock Holmes Commentary to see what he had to say about each story.  I found it to be an extremely rewarding experience viewing the Canon through his eyes.  But to stay more on what seems to be the focus of this interview, the single best pastiche I’ve read in the last few years is One Must Tell the Bees: Abraham Lincoln and the Final Education of Sherlock Holmes, written by J. Lawrence Matthews.  It takes a bold, alternative view of Holmes’s life story, but he never really contradicts anything Doyle wrote.  I look forward to whatever additional Holmes books Matthews gives us next!  He did contribute a related story to The Consultations of Sherlock Holmes, but I don’t want to get too cheeky by recommending one of my own books (unless I just did by mentioning it again).

Where do you see Sherlockiana in 5 or 10 years from now?

It’s certainly not dissipating, that’s for certain.  In 5 or 10 years, we’ll still be trying to figure out how many wives Watson had, where Holmes went to school, what Watson meant by mentioning his “bull pup,” and all your other favorite Canonical conundrums.  Nobody is ever going to have the single, definitive answer to any of these puzzles, and that might be what makes the Canon so enduring and endearing, that it contains such compelling additional mysteries that keep us thinking about the stories for so long.  That may have been Doyle’s true genius, leaving us with all of those unanswered questions that we could ponder long after he put down his pen.