Interesting Interview: Sandra Little

One of the best things about doing Interesting Interview blog posts is getting to know someone better than I did before.  This week's interview with Sandra Little is a great example.  I've known them as a member of the John H. Watson Society and editor of their journal, The Watsonian (one of the best Sherlockian journals out there, in my opinion).  Because The Watsonian is such an inclusive publication, I figured they had always been the personification of open-mindedness in Sherlockiana, so I was surprised to find out that they started out as a strict traditionalist!

Sandra is a recipient of a Jan Stauber grant from The Beacon Society, has been a steady presence and presenter at 221B Con, given a talk at The Women of Sherlock Holmes conference in Dallas, been part of anthologies from Belanger Books and Doyle's Rotary Coffin as well as the new Sherlockian collection, When the Rose Speaks Its Name, and is a coordinator of Holmestice, a twice a year digital gift exchange between Sherlockians.  If all of that weren't enough, Sandra is a fellow educator, and during the busyness of the first weeks of school, took time out to share their views on Sherlockiana with us.  That's dedication to Sherlockiana!

How do you define the word “Sherlockian”?

I think everyone defines this differently. For me, it’s when you pass the point of no return. It is just too much of a part of your psyche, thoughts, social life…your soul…to just move on to something else. As specific terminology, I think people generally identify it with the Canon, but for me it is a level of fascination with any subset of Sherlock Holmes. (Even if you shift between variations, it all comes back to ACD.)

How did you become a Sherlockian?

I started the journey when I was 10 years old and found my grandfather’s copy of “A Treasury of Sherlock Holmes” (Hanover House, with an intro by Adrian Conan Doyle, compiled sometime in the mid 50s—for all you book nerds). It is now in sad, sorry shape and my ex almost threw it out twice. But I read that, and I was hooked. I not only read it over and over (I thought the stories it contained were the only ones that existed), but I wanted to transform them into plays and perform them. 

When I found out about societies, I immediately wanted to join—but I was 10 and stuck on Long Island and The City was a world a way and they kidnapped people there and injected them with heroin. As obsessed as I was (and I really was), I still wasn’t a true Sherlockian. Not yet. Though the seed had been planted. I know this because I eventually forgot about it for a while. 

But it all came back to me with the first RDJ movie, and by the time BBC Sherlock rolled around and I finally decided I wasn’t too much of a purist to try it out—which is kind of hilarious, that I was once a gatekeeper who thought “The 7 Percent Solution” was sacrilege— it hit me all at once. Now the 10-year-old me inside my head was gleefully yelling, “I knew it! I knew Rache was really Rachel!”, I was joining scions and I was creating my own content. It was a sort of homecoming. It was where I belonged.

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

I have had a lot of jobs before I settled back into my original field of education. I think it really does affect my areas of focus. Because I taught history, I cherish not only the preservation of the stories but also love to examine how our collective interpretation changes over time. I’ve also taught parts of the canon to adults working on their GED and rebuilding their lives, and they have shown me things I wouldn’t have given nearly enough thought to otherwise— like when an ex-con student pointed out how Holmes actually believed Horner was innocent, and how much that meant to her. It makes me want to share what I see as the real Holmes with other people. And I am sure that that is the teacher in me.

What is your favorite canonical story? 

It depends on my mood. I can absolutely say I prefer the short stories over the novels. Blue Carbuncle? Red-Headed League? Devil’s Foot? Dying Detective? I find myself drawn to stories that address key moments in the Holmes and Watson relationship more so than the quality of the mystery itself. (OK, points for SIGN, even if it is a novel, for having what I consider one of the saddest endings in all of literature.)

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

So many people! So many are well-known in certain circles, but not throughout fandom, and who I feel don’t get the attention they deserve. Milquetoast (the future of Sherlockian scholarship), Vulgarweed (my co-mod for the Holmestice project and a fearless and incredibly well-read fic writer), Jones (a fantastic artist and now a vital member of the Sherlock & Co team), all the staff who keep 221B Con (which may be nearing its final year) afloat… soooo many people who you might not see at your regular scion meetings, but who would amaze you with their contributions.

What subset of Sherlockiana really interests you? 

What I find myself drawn to are the countless adaptations of the original work and how one can get to who Sherlock Holmes and John Watson are at their very core. How far can we journey from the original premise and still see Holmes there? Can we change time periods, gender, race, profession…and still keep his Holmesness? I think so, and the process fascinates me. I also love collecting things from Victorian and Edwardian times, like books, coins, postcards, medicines, and pocket-watches. 

How has being editor of The Watsonian affected how you enjoy this hobby?

Working on The Watsonian serves as a constant reminder of how broad this fandom is, and I always do my best to represent people from all corners of it. I see how it is evolving and evergreen. And I see how much it means to all sorts of people. I feel an obligation to make sure everyone has a voice and the torch gets passed on. So, it has made me a much more involved contributor to the immortality of Holmes and Watson, and I’m very proud of that.

Whether it is your involvement on the Sherlock & Co discord or your role as an Archive of Our Own author, you are on the cutting edge of "new" when it comes to Sherlockiana.  What argument would you make to a more traditional Sherlockian to check out interpretations of the Canon that might stray from what they are used to?

Well, I thank you for that positive assessment, but the true cutting edge folks are the ones out there right now creating their own webcomics, and I haven’t even begun to scratch the surface of that content!

First, I’d probably say to read what you enjoy reading. Not everyone wants to play in the Holmes Adaptation Sandbox, and that's fine. They can go have fun on the slide. But…if they should become curious about what’s on offer lately, I’d remind them that trying something new in no way detracts from their old favourites. They’ll always be there waiting any time someone wants them. 

I’ll just circle back to what I mentioned earlier: I was a hardcore traditionalist when I first encountered the Canon. I didn’t like anyone messing with it. Then, I eventually realised just how often people didn’t use canonical Holmes as their starting point when flinging mud at new adaptations. They’d watch RDJ and say things like, “My Holmes is no action hero!” Holmes: who lost his left canine at Charring Cross, sent Woodley home in a cart in a “delicious” bar brawl, and, according to McMurdo, wasted his true gifts as a boxer. They were using their own uniquely-cultivated perception of Holmes. People shouldn’t fault anyone who does this; we all do it. Holmes is ridiculously projectable.

You also can’t go around saying, “I hate a modern Holmes,” but love Rathbone. Holmes was always cutting edge, of his time or ahead of it, with his fingerprints and his uncontaminated crime scenes and monographs on the behaviour of pets. And he was a contemporary figure without a trace of wistful nostalgia. So, to do modern updates actually makes sense. Different generations want different things out of the guy, and the miracle is… he always delivers. We have needed a wartime hero, a cynical challenger of the status quo, a neurodivergent champion, and Holmes took it all on with ease because, in Canon, all these things are already there. If that theoretical Sherlockian talked to enough people who enjoy that new something, they would find that a surprising number (to that Sherlockian, at least) are Canon-literate and can point out precisely where any idea came from, using Doyle’s written words. 

And that…is fun.

Artwork by tsukihasnolife

What book would you recommend to other Sherlockians?

“A Study in Brimstone” by G S Denning. It manages to be so canon and so not canon at the same time. Yes, it is bonkers, but in a way that truly meshes with the original and shows a great deal of scholarship and attention to detail. And it’s really funny. (And also my book, “Astrakhan, I Perceive”— once I finish it up and get me a publisher…)

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

Every time a new form of Sherlock Holmes comes to the fore, a new group of fans discover the canon. Perhaps ten years is a little too soon for a new version to grab hold of the collective consciousness, as it is something of a generational pattern? In five years, we will likely still have Sherlock & Co doing their thing and hopefully going strong; we will probably have a nice and profitable Cumberbatch/Freeman Reunion Christmas Special within ten; and someone better give the rapidly expanding queer wing of the fandom a mainstream Johnlock ASAP.

Interesting Interview: Jessica Schilling & Eric Scace

Here's another first for the Interesting Interview series: a 2 for 1 special!  Jessica Schilling and Eric Scace are a couple who are not only great folks, but great Sherlockians to boot.  Jessica Schilling won the Baker Street Journal's Morley-Montgomery Award in 2020 and was invested into the BSI this January.  Eric Scace won the Morley-Montgomery Award this year and was tapped to give a fascinating talk at the Minnesota conference last month.

Both participants are super cool, and I was lucky to get to spend time talking to Eric in Minneapolis.  Seeing Eric and Jessica together during that conference was like seeing a personification of yin and yang; they have such standout personalities but if you see them together it's clear what a strong unit they are.  You'll see that Jessica and Eric bring a great energy to Sherlockiana, and the future looks bright with both of them in it!

How do you define the word “Sherlockian”?

Jessica: I’d say that anyone who’s fascinated enough by the Canon — or by the scholarship or community that surrounds it — has earned the moniker just on that fascination alone! One of the best things about this little alternate reality of ours is that it’s something people can approach from so many different angles. Literary scholar? Write a paper. Wannabe consulting detective yourself? Go deduce the dates or locations of some of the cases! Film buff? Dive into all the different ways Holmes and Watson have been depicted over the years. There really is something for everyone here.

Eric: What she said! Other observers have pointed out that most collectors need a focus; few can be the vacuum-it-all omnivore that John Bennett Shaw was. Most Sherlockians have focii for their attentions (physical or otherwise) — and for the types of events (if any) in which they prefer to participate. A attribute of the world of Sherlockians is acceptance — which, unfortunately, appears all too scarce in other spaces. The pervasive willingness to share what one knows or has with others in our community is similarly so welcome.

How did you become a Sherlockian?

Jessica: I’ve got both Eric’s good influence and my own stubbornness to blame for this one! When he and I first met, we were splitting the difference between Boston and Boulder and I’d go visit whenever I had the chance. At some point I’d asked about his plans for the weekend, and he replied “I’m going to a fancy black-tie Sherlock Holmes party” — and when I said something about wishing I could grab a last-minute flight, explained that the annual Speckled Band meeting was (at the time) a men-only affair. That felt like enough of a challenge that I had to dive back into the stories again and refresh my memory! I’d enjoyed reading them as a child, but returning as a “grown-up” cast the mysteries, and Holmes’ deductive powers, in a whole new light. And from there I was hooked. (And lucky enough to be in the inaugural class of women in the Speckled Band a few years later!)

Eric: In a spell of sick days home from school, my parents directed my attentions to the Heritage edition of the Canon off a bookshelf. Being a linear reader, I began with the introductory material of Vincent Starrett and Edgar W Smith. My introduction was thus backwards: I learned of the BSI and Writings about the Writings before reading the Writings themselves. But I hardly considered myself a Sherlockian — just a happy reader (and re-reader and re-re-…). Later Andy Peck enticed those of canonical bent to form a university scion society the met at Victoria Station. Whilst based in DC Peter Blau allowed my attendance at Red Circle events… but it wasn’t until the BSI conference at Harvard in this century that Richard Olken, John Constable, and many others in New England ensured I didn’t again escape back outside the Holmesian domain.

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

Jessica: I’ve done a lot of things for a living over the years — from music critic to magazine editor to web developer, and I’m currently helping manage (with Eric) the University of Colorado’s radio station — but the one professional activity that’s really made an imprint on how I’ve approached the Canon was my work as a journalist and newspaper designer. There are so many nuances of Victorian technology that quietly take a starring role in so many of the stories, and how Holmes uses the newspapers of his time to do his work has always been fascinating to me — whether that’s in the actual words being used, or in how they’re assembled and printed! Both my papers published in the Baker Street Journal have actually been deep dives into newspaper printing of the time and what it can teach us about the details of Holmes’ case work.

Eric: Similar to Jessica, my first job was in my local newspaper, as a compositor on a Linotype machine and other devices displacing the world of metal type. Much of my second of four professional careers involved data networking and the development of today’s global Internet. The role of Victorian newspapers and telegrams obvious Canonical curiosities — how did that actually work back then? One reads the Canon will new eyes for activities in the shadows and corners surrounding the participants in each story. 

What is your favorite canonical story?

Jessica: Maybe it’s a cliche — and it’s not got a journalism or printing tie-in at all — but like Holmes, I’m a bit smitten with Irene Adler. So I’ll have to go with SCAN.

Eric: I love Jessica's choice — and yet there are so many intriguing candidates. For me, perhaps VALL for the shear breadth of geography, characters, classic Holmesian prowess, the illustrations of Paget and Steele, and just some unforgettable dramatic lines: “I am Birdy Edwards.” for instance.

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

Jessica: If I’m allowed to call out a friend, I’d love to highlight Amanda Downs of The Norwegian Explorers of Minneapolis! She’s just an amazing human in general, but as a Sherlockian I’m always amazed by the way she’s able to bring people, ideas, and different aspects of our community together, whether that’s through her work as a visual artist (she’s the illustrator of the Sherlock Cat stories, in addition to many others!) or as someone who bridges beautifully the scholarly side and the “fandom” side of Sherlockiana. Plus, she’s an absolutely fantastic SPODE companion.

Eric: A great pleasure in any gathering of Sherlockians comes from discovering new friends whom one wishes lived nearby: people with whom one discusses not only Sherlockiana, but many other unrelated topics of mutual interest or curiosity. Three hours at table with such people feels shockingly short, and the parting wistful. Our mini-SPODE table of four with Amanda and PJ Doyle in New York was just such an event, an accidental and delightful pairing. The names of another half-dozen such encounters come readily to mind (you know who you are!)— it hardly seems feasible to pick just one individual.

What subset of Sherlockiana really interests you?

Jessica: I did a fair amount of research at university into the very early days of online fandom, and as such I’ve always been fascinated by the different ways in which people engage with the topics and communities they love. In the years that I’ve been lucky enough to attend Sherlockian events around the country, it’s been as much fun listening to talks or attending meetings as it has been to observe how people engage with this world and with each other. In a community where there’s everything from full-tilt “cons” to a peer-reviewed journal, seeing how people engage with the Sherlockian universe is almost as much fun as that universe itself!

Eric: Despite my many trips to England for work and pleasure, and Jessica’s five year London residency, neither of us have met anyone of Holmesian bent — which feels a bit like having missed half the fun. (We seek advice on this matter.) I’m always looking forward to the next intriguing thing, it seems.

Most relationships have little inside jokes or small points of contention.  Are there any Sherlockian items that have worked their way into your relationship?

Jessica: Other than the looming, leaning pile of Sherlockian books on either bedside table? Or the fact that we should probably own two copies of Les Klinger’s Annotated so we don’t have to fight over them? I mean … no. Not at all. We’re totally normal. Really.

Eric: Other than the race to read the BSJ first. Otherwise, normal. Mostly. Well, except for that time — no, never mind; that’s a story for which the world is not yet prepared.

Both of you have won the Morley-Montgomery Award for the best article to appear that year in The Baker Street Journal.  How did each of you decide on your topics and do you write solo or with the other one as part of the writing process? 

Jessica: We’re both pretty big nerds on our own favorite topics, but as former news people, I don’t think either of us can resist the allure of a good story. This winds up being the best of both worlds — we’ve each got an in-house critic and editor should we want one, but neither of us is offended if the other asks their work to be a surprise!

Eric: Definitely we write solo — Jessica’s writing voice stands head and shoulders above my plodding prose, as these words demonstrate. But as a work comes together with that “click” of formation of the cohesive whole, it’s fun to pass the completed material to the other to get that first reaction of an initial read-through. I did have a bit of fun reproducing at full size the newspapers discussed in Jessica’s articles — complete with the appropriate holes cut with short-bladed nail scissors in the instance of the découpé warning in HOUN.

What book would you recommend to other Sherlockians?

Jessica: This might sound like it’s out of left field, but I promise it isn’t: I’m going to recommend Don Norman’s The Design of Everyday Things. Just as Holmes is constantly reminding Watson to lean harder into his observational abilities, Don Norman — one of the pioneers of user experience design — looks at ordinary objects with an eye to truly understand and disassemble how their design helps or hinders their users. In fact, if it had been a field in his era, I’d maybe even suggest that our good detective might have retired into a UX practice rather than beehives … but that’s just a hunch.

Eric: Be forewarned should you follow her excellent recommendation: you will then see the world as full of typos and exquisitely poor design. As befits my plodding linear methodology, when introduced recently to a local young teenager enthralled by her first canonical readings, we gave her a copy of Les’ Annotated (which Les kindly inscribed to her).

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

Jessica: Barring any insider knowledge of an up-and-coming television franchise or film reimagining of our hero, my vote — or maybe, rather hope? — is that we continue to welcome more people, of more backgrounds, ages, races and interests, into this community both as we continue to stage more post-covid, in-person events and as we hopefully keep making get-togethers more accessible remotely. We’re all happy to be back meeting face-to-face again, but I think we’re all also aware of how many opportunities to meet others we had in the virtual space that might not have happened if it weren’t for those years of isolation! So, I’m rooting for the best of both worlds going forward.

Eric: That next surge of popular interest is likely not far off. There’s a study yet to be made of the potentially predictable periodicity of popular attention to the Master. We look forward to welcoming them and “their Sherlock".

He Didn't Like the Look of It [SHOS]

A recent trend on social media I've noticed is people posting about how much they dislike the BBC Sherlock series.  I posted my overall view of the series in 2018 after the show had wrapped.  While the show may not have held up well to certain fans of the Great Detective, I think it's important to give this show credit for it's cultural impact on Sherlockiana.

Benedict Cumberbatch is the Sherlock Holmes for a whole generation of Sherlockians.  

And I've got the numbers to back up this statement.  I gave talks to scion societies in Chicago and Dallas recently on an overview of the first 100 Interesting Interviews on this blog.  One of the questions I've asked everyone is "How did you become a Sherlockian?"  28% of people asked said they came to Sherlockiana through media interpretations.  And of those who answered that way, Basil Rathbone, Jeremy Brett, and Benedict Cumberbatch were the most cited names in that answer.  

So, whether you liked Sherlock, Benedict Cumberbatch is the Sherlock Holmes for a whole generation of Sherlockians, just like Rathbone and Brett before him.

Male, female, straight, LGBTQ, or any other identifier: that voice and that coat is Sherlock Holmes right now to America (and I'm sure may other countries as well, but I'm not going to claim that I'm an expert on other countries' take on Sherlock Holmes).  

So let's pull back on the Cumberbashing.  Because we all know that the latter episodes of Brett's series were very bad, but many people don't want to denigrate the man.  And heaven forbid someone badmouth the nonsense of Rathbone fighting Nazis and Nigel Bruce's idiotic sidekick role; people would start clutching their pearls.

If you were curious enough to click the link above, I stand by that assessment.  I don't have a fond opinion of Sherlock; to quote my parents, "I'm not mad, I'm just disappointed."  

But let's end this post on a positive note.  Another thing I loved about reviewing the first 100 Interesting Interviews was how great, friendly, lovely, etc. that Sherlockians are.  So we shouldn't lead with our dislike for certain things.  I'm not trying to gatekeep and tell anyone to keep their opinions to themselves or that their opinions don't matter, but why put out a negative image of ourselves online?  We are Sherlockians: we are amazing!  Let that shine through, because I promise that we can enjoy one another without being negative about things.