Listen As One May [STUD]

It seems like I'll never run out of podcasts to talk about on this blog!  I did a roundup of them back in 2017 and had a big ol' list of them this summer.  And here I am again talking about them!  I know podcasts aren't for everyone, but here we are, seven months into Covid and still separated from most of our Sherlockian friends.  It won't completely fill the hole left by cancelled conferences and no more in-person meetings, but a good podcast can go a long way to scratch that itch we have to talk about the Canon.

The first one didn't know better and had me on as a guest in their latest episode.  From Adler to Amberley is a recap/discussion style show that's working their way through the short stories of the Canon in publication order (hence Adler to Amberley).  It's hosted by Karl Coppack with rotating guests and Jon Rees filling in any needed factual information.  

From Adler to Amberley is part of the Rippercast podcast, which is a blessing and a curse for it.  The production of the show is phenomenal, and Karl and Jon are old hands at running a show so this definitely doesn't suffer from new podcast syndrome, where the hosts are finding their way.  These guys have done thousands of different shows, obviously on Jack the Ripper, but they also do another show on European football.  The curse of it is that From Adler to Amberley is under the Rippercast banner, so it's not easy to find on Itunes or whatever podcatcher you use.  

But it's definitely worth hunting down.  First of all, these guys are British!  And we all know that the British accent makes everything 82% more enjoyable.  Karl has a relaxed and enjoyable approach to the show where it's a conversation, but he definitely wants to get the guest's opinion on the story of the week.  Past guests have included Les Klinger and Bonnie MacBird from this side of the pond, and a slew of fun and interesting Brits that I was unfamiliar with, but immediately enjoyed.  

One of the strong points here is Karl's interaction with the guests.  It's not a direct dive into the story, there's plenty of getting-to-know-you chit chat that is actually pretty fascinating.  Listening to Karl and and Trevor Downey talk about literature and short stories before getting down to discussing The Noble Bachelor was a specific highlight.

Plus, they always end the show with what story the guest does NOT like, and I think I was the first one to actually not say The Mazarin Stone.  I will fight anyone who says there's a story worse than The Veiled Lodger!

Another new podcast is However Improbable, which is brand new.  You can listen now and get in on the ground floor, so when everyone else is coming around to this delightful show in a year or two, you can be a Sherlockian hipster and say, "I was listening before everyone else knew about it."

A couple things about However Improbable make it an interesting addition to the Sherlockian podcast world.  First of all, they are doing the stories in chronological order instead of publication order, and each story has multiple episodes.  The first episode is a different reader reading the story to you, and we all know how great these stories are, and However Improbable is purposely trying to find diverse voices to read the stories, a nice change of pace for sure.  

But the real strength comes in the second episode for each story.  Hosts Marissa and Sarah have a two-person book club.  Recaps are nice, but most of us know these stories, and the reader episodes make sure everyone knows the ins and outs of the story.  So no recap here, just two friends talking about what they liked, didn't like, the friendship between Holmes and Watson, and how these stories hold up over a hundred years later.

So far, However Improbable has only done one story, A Study in Scarlet, so I'm admittedly using a small sample size here, but Marissa and Sarah's conversation was absolutely delightful, and I found myself wanting to spend more time with them.  Don't think I won't try and recruit them to log in to an upcoming Parallel Case of St. Louis zoom session!

Interesting Interview: Julie McKuras

There are some people in the world who just bring a smile to your face when you hear their names.  I would bet that Julie McKuras is one of those names for almost anyone in the Sherlockian world.  To know Julie is to know a wonderful person.  She is knowledgeable, active, determined, and welcoming.  I don't remember the first time I met Julie, because she's the type of person who automatically makes you feel like you've known her forever.  

When lockdown started earlier this year, Julie was probably the Sherlockian that I emailed back-and-forth with the most.  I was working on different projects, and she is always welcoming with her knowledge.  But simple queries turned into 2020's equivalent of long, rambling conversations: long, rambling emails between us.  We talked of books, scions, and Sherlockiana, but also of our kids, her grandkids, work, retirement, our spouses, and all sorts of other things.  What I'm trying to say here is Julie McKuras is delightful in any medium!

I recently read a piece on Julie from 2005 that compared her to John Bennett Shaw: "People like Julie and John fool you, even when you know better.  They seem to just be kicking back and having fun, even when they're working, organizing, and generally getting a lot more done than most people around them."  Fifteen years later, that still holds true.  Julie has been president of the Norwegian Explorers of Minnesota, cornerstone of the University of Minnesota Sherlock Holmes Collections, coordinator of their conferences, editor of the collections newsletter, and speaker at a million different conferences.  Get ready for the interview equivalent of a big ol' hug.  Here's Julie!

How do you define the word “Sherlockian”?

I think of a Sherlockian as someone who’s become so involved with Sherlock Holmes and his world that it’s become integrated into their own lives. When people become acquainted with scion societies, online groups, or conferences they meet others who share that interest and suddenly one has an exponential reason to study Holmes.

It always strikes me that Christopher Morley’s book Sherlock Holmes and Dr. Watson is subtitled A Textbook of Friendship. With everything Morley knew about the Canon and the Irregulars he chose friendship as a vital part of his title. Every year my husband Mike comments that we got more and more cards from people we’d met through Sherlockian events and now consider close friends. I think that’s an important aspect of this. People accept you.

How did you become a Sherlockian?

I was 11 or 12 when I watched the Basil Rathbone movies on late night television. I hadn’t read the stories at that point and was either too young or too taken by the character of Holmes to realize how often those films weren’t set in the proper locale or time period. What mattered was that Holmes was smart and used his intelligence to set the world to rights whether it was solving the mystery of the Hound of the Baskervilles or defeating Nazis. It was a great lesson that one person could make a difference. I was already a rather voracious reader of mysteries like the series with Nancy Drew and Donna Parker to name a few and the Rathbone movies were my gateway to the original Holmes stories.

My entry to organized Sherlockiana came during parent teacher conferences when one of my daughter’s teachers had a display of mystery stories to be read in the class. I mentioned to him that I’d always loved Holmes and he asked if I was a member of the Norwegian Explorers. I had no idea what he was talking about so he explained that was the local Holmes society. One week later I was in a bookstore and saw the brochure for the group. I joined immediately and will always be glad that I did. I’ve been a member of the Explorers since 1993 and belong to several other scions as well.

What is your favorite canonical story?

“The Blue Carbuncle.” It’s the only story in the Canon with a reference to Christmas, “the season of forgiveness.” It conveys the simple and heartfelt wish that Watson had to extend the compliments of the season to his friend and goes on to give us a look at Holmes and his sense of justice.

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

Edith Meiser. Her collection of correspondence, radio scripts, articles, and recordings are held in the Sherlock Holmes Collections at the University of Minnesota. I’ve done a lot of research about her for our newsletter and for several presentations. Her interest in Holmes began when she was a seasick child on an Atlantic crossing and read the stories as a distraction. She became an actress but when she saw the end for vaudeville she focused on a new medium, radio. She pitched the idea for a Holmes radio program, wrote the scripts, and found sponsors. In addition to Holmes she worked on a number of other radio programs, continued to act on stage and in film, wrote a mystery novel, and was a union official. Meiser was multi-talented, confident and brilliant and deserves our appreciation for helping to break the glass ceiling for women in the Sherlockian universe.

I can’t pick out one particular living Sherlockian who’s more interesting than another. The people I admire each have something specific that makes them interesting, be it their knowledge, their expertise, their accomplishments, or their personalities. If I name one, I leave out others who mean so much to me. You all know who you are.

 

What subset of Sherlockiana really interests you?

The people.

I’ve been editing the newsletter forthe University of Minnesota’s Sherlock Holmes Collections for 21 years. When I became editor I focused on the fact that the Holmes Collections was comprised of varied donations but often we didn’t know the background of those items. What I hoped to accomplish was to compile a history of sorts. It’s been a continual process of learning how much I don’t know about the people who have contributed to our shared interest. I start to write about a book or essay but end up engrossed in learning about the author.

As part of that research I went to the online BSI dinner photos to see if some of the authors were at the dinners because I wanted to know what they looked like. But I ended up even further down the rabbit hole by wondering “who are the other people in the photos?” The BSI Trust website indicated that no formal identification of the attendees was done for many of the dinners so I volunteered and started on that project. Edgar W. Smith had typed lists of the men who attended but not where they were seated. Julian Wolff had handwritten seating charts but only with last names and people often switched seats or I had a bit of trouble reading his handwriting. Add to that the fact that some men who were there had apparently left before the photo was taken. Quite a few of the men were easily identifiable while others were guests for only one or two dinners.  

Correctly identifying those dinner attendees involved research using various newspapers, genealogy sites, writing to people who were at the dinners, and even contacting a few descendants of the attendees for verification. Randall Stock and I came up with a format that indicated what resources were used. I’ve now completed the dinner keys for 1950 – 1971. I’ve never heard from anyone who said they looked at or utilized these new dinner keys - they’re posted on the Baker Street Irregulars Trust website - but I’m still glad I did it. I’d like to think these names aren’t lost to our history.

I’ve also worked on compiling biographies of the members of the Hounds of the Baskerville (sic) utilizing the same tools as I did for the dinner photos.

I find the backgrounds of the people involved in the Sherlockian movement really remarkable. In looking at those from the earlier days, so often what we knew about them was only related to Sherlock Holmes but they had lives outside of that shared interest. It’s been instructive to discover more about them and how long they were involved. I love knowing how different they were in other aspects of their lives but were equal in the fellowship relating to Holmes. They played a part in the Sherlockian world and I certainly don’t mean that’s restricted only to Irregulars. Multiply that by every person in every scion society or group of friends who find a certain London detective a life-long journey.

They paved the way for the people who came after them and continue to do so. I hope each generation does the same.

 

What things do you like to research related to Sherlock Holmes?

You mean there’s something that isn’t worthy of research?

I’ve become increasingly interested in the women who appear in the Canon and how they’re portrayed, and the women who contributed to our literature at a time when many were denied membership in the BSI and scions.

As a frequent traveler, how has that influenced your interest in Sherlock Holmes?

I love the title of Dr. Seuss’s book Oh the Places You’ll Go!  It’s so full of promise and resonates with me because Sherlock Holmes certainly opened the door to visiting some fabulous places and meeting people I otherwise wouldn’t have met.

I feel really fortunate that I’ve had the opportunity to travel to different conferences from Los Angeles to New York and points in between, Toronto, Prague, Florence, several Swiss locales, London, Denmark, and the Sherlock Holmes Society of London Baltic Cruise.  I think at each and everyone one of these I’ve met people who interested and inspired me.

So often we hear about the Sherlock Holmes Collections at the University of Minnesota.  How would you describe these collections to a Sherlockian that's never been to the university before?

It all started with University of Minnesota Librarian E. W. “Mac” McDiarmid, one of the five co-founders of the Norwegian Explorers, who wanted Holmes represented at the library. It began with the 1974 purchase of the James Iraldi collection. It grew from there with the additions, in no particular order, of the collections from John Bennett Shaw, Philip Hench, Edith Meiser, William Baring-Gould, Frederic Dorr Steele, Howard Haycraft, David Hammer, Vincent Starrett, Jennie Paton and so many more. 

There are books, periodicals, foreign language publications, scion society newsletters and files, notebooks, recordings, correspondence, advertisements, posters, photos, games, pins, bookmarks, paper weights, pens, wallpaper, wine bottles; the list goes on and on. The University website indicates the Collections hold over 60,000 items but I think that’s too conservative. 

The Holmes Collections are massive and stored about 90 feet underground in the temperature and humidity controlled secured vaults of the Elmer L. Andersen Library. It’s not accessible to the public but researchers can request items for review. You can check out the Holmes Collections at  https://www.lib.umn.edu/holmes

The website gives information about other Collections as well.

Curator Tim Johnson has worked on making parts of the Collections visually available on UMedia at https://umedia.lib.umn.edu/ . Just type Sherlock Holmes to search what’s been posted. You’ll have an opportunity to see artwork and other ephemera.

One thing I appreciate about it is there’s everything there from the last Czarina of Russia’s personal Sherlock Holmes books and four copies of the 1887 Beeton’s Christmas Annuals to playing cards and little scraps of paper with cartoons. The Collections represent what a big role Holmes has played in both the literary world and popular culture.

Another noteworthy aspect is the part the University and the Holmes Collections plays in co-sponsoring of thetriennial conferences with the Norwegian Explorers and the Friends of the Sherlock Holmes Collections. I’ve worked on all of the conferences since 1998 and it’s been a wonderful working relationship. We generally gather 100-150 people from throughout the U.S. as well as foreign countries.

What book would you recommend to other Sherlockians?

The Annotated Sherlock Holmes by William Baring-Gould. I’d always found it a valuable resource but when I began working with Dick Sveum, Tim Johnson and Gary Thaden on the 2019 Baker Street Journal Christmas Annual about Baring-Gould I learned so much about him and what it took to produce this massive work. To have made it through the mine field of publishers, research, writing, and Adrian Conan Doyle while maintaining an incredibly busy professional and personal life is something that’s difficult to imagine. It’s continued to inspire researchers. 

The second part of why I’d recommend this book is that I’ve had the opportunity to read his correspondence that’s held at the University of Minnesota and at the New York Historical Society. In all the speeches he wrote and his letters I read, no matter what the subject was, he was unfailingly polite and often self-deprecating. He was quick to admit any mistakes he made and treated his correspondents with respect.  I learned more about him through the lens of his daughter when I met with her. 

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

We’ve certainly seen the interest in Holmes wax and wane over the years. There’s always been that “scarlet thread…running through the colourless skein of life.” Perhaps that thread has taken different forms, inspired by a variety of books, films, plays, or people, but it’s never disappeared. I’d like to think that in the next 5 or 10 years we’ll see more to inspire people to read the Canon, more to write about it, and more to include in teaching and outreach. The manner in which any of this happens might change but I think it will continue.

I don’t think that everyone has to take the same approach to how they view Holmes; there’s something for everyone and that’s what makes the whole study of Holmes so interesting. Mine is a more traditional view but that’s what works for me. I always think back to a membership brochure that the Norwegian Explorers designed some years ago. It had 10 questions to determine your knowledge of Holmes. If you got all 10 right, great! You’re an expert and belong in the group. If you got zero correct, great! We can tell you’re really interested, join us!

I like that big tent approach. Come on in because you never know what can happen. There should be room for everyone and it shouldn’t be necessary to insist we all have to look at things the same way. Be kind. This doesn’t have to be a competition.

There is Moriarty Himself [FINA]

This month's Crew of the Barque Lone Star zoom meeting had Steve Doyle talking about Professor Moriarty.  At one point, he brought up all of the revisionist theories around the professor that seemed to start around the 1970's and haven't seemed to go away yet.

I'm all for having fun theories (I am the guy who wrote a whole book about Sherlock Holmes being a criminal mastermind, after all...), but when those theories start carrying weight, we should probably pump the brakes or else we will get "Martha" Hudson or Adlock as something that people just presume is canon.  

One of the Moriarty theories that have always irked me is the whole "Moriarty was made up" idea.  I know very well that FINA has a lot of plot holes in it, but the idea that Moriarty was a complete fabrication holds up even less than the source material.  This theory makes all of EMPT false.  And what about the train that raced after Holmes and Watson across the continent or the news story about fire being set to Baker Street in FINA?  MacDonald's conversation about the professor in VALL?  This theory creates too many questions throughout a lot of the Canon.

One thing that people like to point out is that Watson never sees Moriarty.  He only hears about him through Holmes.  Whether it's the meeting in Baker Street, the confrontation at Reichenbach, or description of the criminal empire, all of Watson's information is second hand.  Even the physical description came from Holmes:

"He is extremely tall and thin, his forehead domes out in a white curve, and his two eyes are deeply sunken in his head. He is clean-shaven, pale, and ascetic looking, retaining something of the professor in his features. His shoulders are rounded from much study, and his face protrudes forward, and is forever slowly oscillating from side to side in a curiously reptilian fashion. He peered at me with great curiosity in his puckered eyes."

But actually, Watson DOES see Moriarty twice.  Once as their train is leaving London and again as he walks back to the Englicsher Hof.  Of course, Watson doesn't say, "I saw Moriarty at the train station," or, "Moriarty stalked up the path to the falls," but we do get these descriptions:

"Glancing back, I saw a tall man pushing his way furiously through the crowd, and waving his hand as if he desired to have the train stopped."

and

"Along this [trail] a man was, I remember, walking very rapidly.  I could see his black figure clearly outlined against the green behind him. I noted him, and the energy with which he walked but he passed from my mind again as I hurried on upon my errand."

These men are later identified as Moriarty by Holmes.  

If we give the "Moriarty was fake" theory any credence, we are supposed to accept a coincidence that a man that met Holmes's description of the professor was angrily trying to stop a train right as Watson looked out the window and ANOTHER similar man just so happened to be heading to the same spot that Watson had vacated in Switzerland?  

That's the thing with retroactive conspiracy theories, we are supposed to be suspect of the source material but believe the new theory and all of its inconsistencies.

No thanks.  Watson may be feeding us a line here and there, but I enjoy it.  I'll take the doctor at his word.

Interesting Interview: Mike Ranieri

This month marks the four year anniversary of the podcast I Grok Sherlock.  This month's interviewee, Mike Ranieri, and his co-host Geordie have talked us through STUD, SIGN, The Adventures, and the Memoirs, just wrapping up season 2 with an EPIC three part episode on The Final Problem, with special guest Peggy Perdue.  Mike is also Meyers for the Bootmakers of Toronto, graphic designer, and a 20-year veteran of the theater.  

All of these bring an interesting viewpoint to the show.  Mike and Geordie take their listeners through the story, but a major part of each episode focuses on the media representations related to the story being discussed.  And it's not just well-know versions, these guys go back into any and all radio versions, and some stuff only die-hards will remember.  So  let's get to know Mike Ranieri, one of Canada's prolific Sherlockians.

How do you define the word “Sherlockian"?

Primarily, someone who enjoys the character of Sherlock Holmes from the stories of Sir Arthur Conan Doyle. Although, perhaps this could be referred to as “just” a fan of Sherlock Holmes and Sherlockian (or Holmesian) should be considered as something deeper?

Most Sherlockians love to read and reread, and even study, the canon. They are interested in the minutiae of each story and want to learning about Holmes’ creator. And many enjoy the wider Sherlock Holmes materials such as the plethora of pastiches and parodies, radio, TV, films, comic books, video games, etc.

Many are collectors of books and memorabilia. Some write scholarly papers and they are also often fans of mystery and detective fiction in general, including an interest in the Victorian era. And many will connect with other Sherlockians and join one of the numerous Sherlock Holmes societies (clubs) that exist in their area and around the world—and there they’ll play “The Great Game,” the defence of Sherlock Holmes as a real person!

Sherlockian is like “Trekkie” (the Star Trek equivalent), If you’re not too strict about the term, there’s a lot of room to move within the space, and I’m fine with that.

How did you become a Sherlockian?

Well, that relates to your first question as to how you define Sherlockian. I’ve been a fan of the character since I can remember. My first exposure was from cartoons—Daffy Duck, Mr. Magoo, Popeye, The Muppets. Then, of course, I watched the Basil Rathbone films on TV. In junior high school I read the stories for the first time when I purchased a series of novels from Ballantine books with beautiful cover illustrations by Dick Anderson. And in school I directed, wrote, starred in, and videotaped a parody, "The Son of Sherlock Holmes."

I became a formal Sherlockian many years later when I joined the Bootmakers of Toronto.

I was scheduled to direct a Sherlock Holmes play in October of 2013 for an amateur theatre company. I wanted to ensure the show’s success with good attendance. So, I thought I would contact any and all Sherlock Holmes related groups in the Toronto area. I discovered that the Bootmakers were the premier group. I knew if I just showed up at a meeting close to the performance date and announced my show, I might not be very successful as I was a stranger. So, I came to all the meetings starting at the beginning of the year. When the date of the shows arrived many of the Bootmakers attended and we even had a Talk-Back evening after one of the shows where I introduced the Bootmakers in the audience and they help answer questions about Sherlock Holmes and Conan Doyle. After that, I just continued to come to the meetings and the next year I became a member.

What is your favorite canonical story?

I can’t narrow it down to just one. Even though it is the least “investigative” of most of the stories I like “The Final Problem” (and its sequel “The Empty House”) for the pure adventure and drama and the introduction of Holmes’ ultimate nemesis, Professor Moriarty. I also really like “The Adventure of Wisteria Lodge,” in which we are introduced to a police detective, Inspector Baynes, who rivals Holmes deductive skills.

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

Mark Jones. I met Mark on my first BSI Weekend—great guy and very knowledgeable. He lives in the City of York, U.K., one of my favourite places when I traveled to England on vacation a number of years ago.

Mark is an educator. He studied and taught the history of the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries. He has written several books on television, film and literature and has contributed articles to The Baker Street Journal, Canadian Holmes, The Serpentine Muse and numerous blogs.

Mark is the co-host of the excellent Doings of Doyle podcast which delves into the different works by Sir Arthur Conan Doyle, exploring their themes and meanings and connections to Doyle's life and writing.

What subset of Sherlockiana really interests you?

As a graphic designer I’m very interested in Sherlockian art and illustration. As a thespian (or theatre lover) I enjoy reading and directing (when possible) Sherlockian plays.

I’m also a fan and reader of the Ellery Queen series, Lew Archer series, Sam Spade, Philip Marlow and James Bond novels.

What things do you like to research related to Sherlock Holmes?

I’m pretty new to this whole business and feel very unworthy of this interview as I have done relatively little in the area—my journey has only begun.

The amount of literature on Sherlock Holmes is quite overwhelming. It is surprising to me that people continue to try and write on this subject. Truly everything seems to have been done. If you think you may have an original idea don’t search too deeply because you will be disappointed. Perhaps that is too negative. I guess the idea is that even if it has been done before no one can do it the way “you” will do it—your voice is unique and only you can put your personal “spin” on the subject.

My thing is humour. I’m sorry to say that though there is much parody in the literature—and in fact the first non-canonical works were parody—the actual humour leaves something to be desired. And I do understand that humour has changed and is a product of the times—I mean just look at the what passes for humor in today’s film and TV—some of it is excellent and unique but most of it is just bad (as an aficionado of TV comedy I could talk at length on this).

My first published humour piece is in Chris Redmond’s Sherlock Holmes is Like: “World’s Greatest.” I’ve written a few parody songs and sketches which I’ve performed for the Bootmakers, one which is a short unpublish parody call Sherlock Noir.

How has your time as Meyers for the Bootmakers influenced how you view Sherlockiana?

I’ve become more aware of the larger world-wide community and how it presents itself. Having to schedule and orchestrate story meetings and book speakers I’m very interested in “what make a successful meeting.” There are numerous components to consider: diversity of content and speakers, effective presentations and the use of PowerPoint and video, timing, venue, format, etc. And now, with COVID, the whole online component is extremely important.

What goes into the making of an average episode of "I Grok Sherlock"?

About a week or two in advance we reread the story and then do as much research as possible, including listening and watching all the radio, TV and film adaptations.

This entitles searching though the commentary and annotated tomes, the main ones being: The Annotated Sherlock Holmes by William Baring Gould, The New Annotated Sherlock Holmes by Leslie S. Klinger, Sherlock Holmes For Dummies by Steven Doyle and David A. Crowder (an excellent resource that is sometime overlooked because of the title), The Encyclopedia Sherlokiana by Jack Tracy, The Elementary Sherlock Holmes published by Portico, The Sherlock Holmes Book published by DK, Sherlock Holmes Handbook by Christopher Redmond, About Sixty edited by Christopher Redmond, Holmes of the Movies by David Stuart Davies, Sherlock Holmes on Screen by Alan Barnes, Sherlock Holmes on Screens Volumes 1 and 2 by Howard Ostrom.

Of course, there are the journal archives from the BSI, London Society and Canadian Holmes Toronto, but those aren’t very accessible. (These archives need to be digitized and put up online. Yes, I am aware that some of this has been done and some is in the works but there are many issues that are still being, let’s say, “debated.”) And then, of course, I have access to one of the greatest Arthur Conan Doyle Collections at the Toronto Reference Library.

Most of the radio and TV adaptations can be found online from various places, i.e. archive.org and YouTube.com. All the Rathbone films on YouTube, as is the Granada Jeremy Brett series, and what I don’t have in my own DVD collection I can get from different streaming services.

What book would you recommend to other Sherlockians?

Included with the many that I have mentioned above, hands down, it has to be From Holmes to Sherlock by Mattias Bostrom. This is a very informative and fun read of the entire Sherlockian milieu from its beginnings to present day. Other books that I would recommend after reading the canon would be the Sherlock Holmes The Published Apocrypha edited by Jack Tracy and/or The Uncollected Sherlock Holmes complied by Richard Lancelyn Green and, one of the best pastiches, The Exploits of Sherlock Holmes by Conan Doyle’s son, Adrian Conan Doyle and John Dickson Carr.

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

I think Sherlock Holmes as a character will continue to capture the imagination and grow and adapt with society. 

There are the constant ebbs and flows of interest and disinterest. Fortunately (or unfortunate depending on how you look at it) new generations have short memories and primarily prefer modern or the most recent stories eschewing the old—remakes and remakes of remakes will continue ad infinitum. It will be interesting to see if creators can come up with something new amongst the plethora of female Holmes’s and Watsons, their many brothers and sisters, wives, sons and daughters, relatives and supporting characters, modern-day, sci-fi and animal Holmes’s, etc. Perhaps we could use a few more ethnically diverse Holmes’s. But Sherlock Holmes remains because he is the template for the ultimate detective, and the mystery detective story will always be with us.