Last weekend I had a scion society meeting, and at this group everyone presents a paper on the month's story. Normally, I write up an essays to present that looks at some historical aspect or analyzes the text. This month, we were starting the Canon over again, so it was time to do A Study in Scarlet.
Luckily, I had recently written a piece about STUD called "A Study in Steadfast," in which I retell the events of STUD from the viewpoint of Watson's bullpup. It had been published in the latest issue of The Watsonian, and no one from this group was a subscriber to that journal, so I didn't feel like I was cheating by reusing the piece.
Once I had committed to use that piece, things felt weird. I realized that fiction isn't my preferred method of Sherlockian writing. Looking over most of my writing, it's either expository or persuasive. I could be arguing that Hattie Doran is one of the worst people in the Canon or that The Greek Interpreter is a piece of fiction that Watson made up. Maybe I'm speculating about Holmes's cousin Verner or doing a deep dive into who Charlie Peace was. Either way, I tend to stick to the non-fiction stuff and fiction pieces aren't my go-to writing style.
But when they are, I make things weird.
My write-up for STUD was telling a story though a dog's viewpoint. I rewrote the entire Canon under the pretext that Sherlock Holmes was actually a criminal. And I have a piece slated for The Sherlock Holmes Society of London Journal that imagines a Sherlockian society meeting that takes place in Hell.
Maybe I don't write fiction too much because I'm afraid of where my mind ends up. It's pretty twisted in here; it's time to get back out and research something.
Post a Comment