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.
No comments:
Post a Comment