It Was a Piteous Business [BLAN]

"The Adventure of the Blanched Soldier" is bogus.  Not only was it not written by Sherlock Holmes, but I’ll argue that it is a completely made up tale.

For decades, Holmes had dismissed Watson’s colorful way of writing his series of tales.   Sherlock Holmes was a clinical writer.  The Distinction between the Ashes of the Various Tobaccos.  The Variety of the Human Ear.  The tracing of footsteps, with some remarks upon the uses of plaster of Paris as a preserver of impresses.  The Polyphonic Motets of Lassus.  The influence of a trade upon the form of the hand.  We are expected to believe that the writer of such monographs, some of which were said by experts to be the last word upon the subject, is now a chronicler of detective stories?  Pfft.

“The Blanched Soldier” was published in 1926.  By this time, Holmes was at least twenty years into his retirement on the Sussex Downs.  It is very unlikely that at this stage in life, around the age of 70, he would start to record cases.

Plus, Holmes frequently credits Watson as a companion.  Could we believe that he would call Watson one “to whom the future is always a closed book”?  That seems too caustic for even Holmes.

And speaking of Watson, in BLAN Holmes says that “Watson was enabled to produce his meretricious finales… by concealing such links in the chain.”  Holmes does the exact same thing here by hiding his dermatologist friend until the big reveal at the end, not letting the reader in to the necessary facts of the case.  Sure Holmes has a flair for the dramatic in real life, but none of his writings show such a manner.

According to E.W. McGinley in The Firearms of Sherlock Holmes, “anyone hit in the shoulder by an elephant bullet should have lost his arm and a good part of his shoulder.”  The fact that Emsworth was barely injured by such a weapon seems preposterous.

This is an elephant bullet.  Emsworth had a small injury from it.  Riiiiiiight....

And doesn’t it seem just a little too convenient that Holmes has a dermatologist on call when he supposes that someone is suffering from leprosy?  And that Emsworth's disease could be misdiagnosed as leprosy after he had been to a leper colony?  Holmes is quick to dismiss coincidences in A Study in Scarlet, “The Speckled Band,” and “Silver Blaze,” but when Dr. Saunders chalks Emsworth’s diagnosis up to a coincidence, he just rolls with it.

And Dr. Saunders provides quite the happy ending here.  The Canon is full of adventures that don’t end in happy endings.  “The Greek Interpreter,” “The Five Orange Pips,” The Valley of Fear, and “The Dancing Men” just off the top of my head.  I’m sure we could brainstorm plenty more.  “The Blanched Soldier’s” fairy tale ending is just too much to accept.

But the final nail in the coffin for me is Holmes’s maxim that is shoehorned into the story: “That process starts upon the supposition that when you have eliminated all which is impossible, then whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth.”  Holmes’s further explanation that he has ruled out crime and insanity is pretty flimsy.  Based off of the scant evidence of James Dodd’s two fleeting glimpses of his friend and his minuscule knowledge of the family and surrounding area, leprosy is a significant conclusion to jump to.  Whoever the author of this story is, they wanted Holmes’s famous impossible/improbable phrase in here, whether it made sense or not.

We are expected to believe all of these things, but “The Blanched Soldier” falls very short of the quality of Sherlock Holmes adventure that we have come to expect.  To cover up for this, the author has tried to convince us that it was written by Holmes himself, which is nonsense.  You may as tell me that it was written by a failed ophthalmologist from Portsmouth.  That would be just as believable.

The Oaths and Secrets of This Brotherhood [REDC]

At the end of "The Red Circle," Holmes calls Emilia Lucca out of hiding and she sees that she is finally safe from Giuseppe Gorgiano of the Red Circle, a brotherhood allied to the old Carbonari.  Through Mrs. Lucca's backstory, we learn that the Red Circle was a society well-versed in blackmail, violence, and murder.

Inspector Gregson takes Mrs. Lucca to see his chief to check out her story, the American Pinkerton agent is satisfied that his prey is dead, Holmes and Watson head off to the opera, and everyone lives happily ever after.

Unless you were one of the nameless individuals terrorized by this society.

Holmes showed no interest in addressing this organization and their crimes.  One could imagine that they were a deep organizing power that pervaded society, made up of numerous and organized agents.  We've seen Holmes take on a force like this before, the Moriarty gang.

So why did Holmes dismiss this organization?  Was it because Gorgiano was the only active member in London and they did not threaten Holmes's city?  I disagree with that.

In "The Six Napoleons," we hear of Pietro Venucci, one of the greatest cut-throats in London.  And according to Lestrade, Venucci is connected with the Mafia.

Most chronologists agree that SIXN takes place in 1900, but the dates for REDC are all over the map, ranging between 1893 and 1903, so SIXN would be, at most, a few years off from REDC.  And a few years would be plenty of time for a criminal organization to create a stronghold in London, especially after the hole left once Moriarty's organization crumpled in 1891.  So the dates work.

But the word "Mafia" is never mentioned in REDC, and it's cavalier to paint all Italian criminals with such a broad brush.

So let's look at the ORIGINAL texts.

Some changes were made to the manuscripts before they saw publication.  In REDC, "The Red Circle" was originally called "The Black Hand" and it's allegiant organization "the old Carbonari" was originally "the famous Camorra."  Both of these original names were true-to-life criminal organizations at the time.  In SIXN, Pietro Venucci was said to be from Florence.  But in the original text, he was from Naples.  The organization Watson called the Red Circle was also located in Naples.

I think we have at least enough evidence to argue that an Italian criminal organization was working in London around the turn of the century.  So why would Sherlock Holmes walk away from both of these cases without further investigation into the larger society connected to them?

Maybe he did, and for whatever reason those facts were withheld from us.  Maybe Holmes recognized that this organization spanned continents and wasn't one that he could address on his own.  Or maybe somebody made him an offer he couldn't refuse.

Interesting Interview: Susan Rice

Susan Rice is a cornerstone in Sherlockiana.  She created and oversaw one of the major societies for young people to enjoy Sherlock Holmes decades ago.  She was part of the first group of women to be inaugurated into the BSI in 1991.  She has overseen the William Gillette Memorial Luncheon during the birthday weekend for a looooong time.  She's put out more than a few books, articles, and writings that should be in all of our collections.  Oh, and she just might be the nicest Sherlockian I've ever met.  And that's setting the bar really high.  So even if we can't visit in person right now, we can spend some time with Susan as she gives us this month's Interesting Interview:

University of Minnesota symposium in 2013

How do you define the word “Sherlockian”?  
All those who love Sherlock Holmes, especially those who turn to the Canon. They can come from a television or movie Holmes, they can come from a pastiche or play or even a Classic Comic, but as an orthodox Sherlockian (my own description, used only by me) I feel they must read the original sixty stories.

How did you become a Sherlockian? 
Every Sherlockian is self-created. When she or he reads the first story in school or in a book picked up because they like the cover, something clicks in their minds and they immediately want more. My own story must be pretty typical. As a child I loved reading mysteries, so the Christmas when I'd just turned eleven or twelve (I can't remember for sure) I found The Complete Sherlock Holmes under the Christmas tree, I opened it and started reading "in Memoriam", the introduction by Christopher Morley, and became so entranced that I forgot the other packages that remained unopened. I had to be called back to consciousness by my parents and opened the rest of the presents, but as soon as breakfast was over I picked up the big volume and carried it up to my room to read. I've never stopped reading it.

What is your favorite canonical story? 
The Hound of the Baskervilles

Who is a specific Sherlockian that you think others would find interesting?   
At least a dozen remarkable people come to mind, but I have whittled them down to three, and all have passed beyond the Reichenbach now.

Ely Liebow was a man who combined  depth and scholarship and a wry sense of humor into an irresistible package. He was a true philosopher and a completely honorable person, and a long conversation with Ely was sheer pleasure. He wrote the definitive biography of Dr. Joseph Bell, the man Conan Doyle named as his model for Holmes.

Joe Fink was a student of the impossible. He wrote pieces on the worm unknown to science, the society of short people, Tapanuli mute opera, each of which he would deliver with a deadpan face and would look up startled when his audience became lost in guffaws. I've seen him take out a pencil and underline a sentence that was greeted with laughter, which doubled the giggles and left his listeners helpless. He was a very funny man.

Another funny Sherlockian with an antic sense of the absurd was Bill Rabe. He took the opportunity to eliminate from the English language certain words because they were overused or awkward, and his opinion was printed in hundreds of newspapers. He invented a silent record so those who craved a stop to the loud music had a genuine choice on jukeboxes. He was a brilliant jokester, and many of his crazy schemes continue long after his death.

What subset of Sherlockiana really interests you? 
As an orthodox Sherlockian (one devoted to the original adventures), I prefer to read and write about canonical matters. Starting from a canonical point, however, can take you far afield, so this is not limiting. I have studied and written on Victorian beekeeping, about the politics in Asia involving  Britain and Russia in the 1890s called the Great Game, and the battle for women's suffrage in turn-of-the-century London.

What things do you like to research related to Sherlock Holmes?  
Some of those are demonstrated above. As a feminist, who sincerely believes Holmes is a feminist, too, even in the Victorian Era, I have researched women's suffrage in England. I wondered why Holmes had retired from consulting detective at the age of 50 to become a beekeeper, so I did a lot of research on beekeeping and found it full of mysteries in that period (and some still unsolved today) and discovered it was the perfect second life for Holmes. That essay became so long that it was published as a book called A Compound of Excelsior.

A British society commissioned me to write a book about my favorite Sherlockian writer, Vincent Starrett -- it was called The Somnambulist and the Detective. One long piece in the BSJ was the result of a challenge from a fellow Holmesian who knew I was in the travel business and asked if I could look back in that field to trace Holmes's journey during the Great Hiatus, the three years (1891 - 1894) when he was absent from London.

You've been an active Sherlockian for over 50 years.  What are some of your fondest memories from along the way? 
My first scion society was the one we formed in 1969 with former students called The Trifling Monographs. I taught fifth grade at an independent school north of Detroit for seven years, and many former students came back for visits at the end of the school day. Somehow they developed a startling interest in Sherlock Holmes -- ahem, I don't know how that happened.

That scion was not long-lived; I moved to Greece in 1972, and within two years most of the kids were off to college. I first came to the New York City Holmesian birthday festivities in 1977 and haven't missed a year since. I can clearly remember meeting so many of my Sherlockian heroes like John Bennett Shaw, Bob Hahn, and Don Yates and conversing with a great sense of awe. Some years later I suddenly noticed people were treating me that way and it made me feel old. Now that I am old I take great delight in young Sherlockians who will carry the torch into the future.

Susan when she hosted her first Gillette Luncheon during the Birthday Weekend 

You were one of the leaders of the Young Sherlockian movement of the 70s and 80s.  What made you think to introduce Holmes to young people?
It's the perfect time -- eleven or twelve -- to discover the joys of the sixty tales. It was my time, but for proof, a fine Sherlockian named Christopher Redmond created a survey in the early 80s. He sent paper questionnaires by mail to 100 or so Sherlockians -- this was long before the computer era -- and the average age among adult Sherlockians for their first read of the Canon was (trumpet flourish) twelve!

What book would you recommend to other Sherlockians? 
That's an easy question: The Private Life of Sherlock Holmes by Vincent Starrett. It's a collection of pieces Starrett had published in various magazines, so it's not anything like a biography, but each piece is fascinating and offers new trains of thought.

Where do you see Sherlockiana in 5 or 10 years from now? 
The BSI and ASH will change very little, but the pastime will migrate online more and more. I truly believe that Sherlockians will continue to be intelligent and creative people who make up a delightful company and are the best of friends. Now that I'm old, I have perhaps fifty or sixty folks who have been good friends for more than forty years. That's a beautiful gift.

With Mickey at our last ASH Wednesday before the quarantine on February 5th

The Sherlock Holmes Coronavirus Survival Guide

Mark Chellew, President of the Sherlock Holmes Society of South Australia, created the following survival guide.  Enjoy!

There I Stayed for Some Time [STUD]

Meetings and conferences are getting canceled.  Certain staples are hard to find (I scoffed at the people hoarding hand sanitizer and toilet paper, but then I heard my library was closing for three weeks and I suddenly felt that panic).  Kids are being sent home from school and everyone's work is being disrupted.  I've been thinking about a way to address this new way of life we're looking at for at least the next few weeks, but kept coming up short.

But then, like an articulate knight in shining armor, Bill Mason sent an email to the Welcome Holmes listserv that encapsulated what so many of us are feeling.  I wanted to share this with everyone who reads this blog and may not subscribe to that email list because, well, it's just perfect:


Well, by now, this pandemic has had its effect on each and every one of us, including in the enjoyment of our Sherlockian activities.  In Nashville, we have cancelled our regular meeting of the Nashville Scholars this Saturday, and the weekly gatherings of the Fresh Rashers of Nashville have been suspended until further notice.  Holmes, Doyle and Friends in Dayton has been called off because all the restaurants and bars in Ohio have been closed by the governor--and Sherlockians cannot gather without food and alcohol, or at least I have never heard of such a thing.  Notices from around the country about cancelled scion meetings seem to come every day or so.  

This is all to be expected, I suppose, under the circumstances.  But all such crises have a finite duration, and--hopefully--other events later in the year will still be convened.

Sherlock Holmes, though, will endure, as he always has--he who was never born and so can never die.  And Sherlockians, thanks to such blog sites as WelcomeHolmes and literally dozens of others most of us have bookmarked, will continue to play The Game.  Most of you are on other forms of social media (I am not), and I suspect you have been active there.  In fact, as we control our personal social interactions for a few weeks, our virtual contacts may increase.  Our Sherlockian family also will endure.  

I have never believed (and current circumstances will not change my opinion) that electronic communication, as wonderful as it can be, will ever adequately substitute for face-to-face, personal interaction in the Sherlockian world.  But it is comforting to know that all of you are out there, and I imagine each of you sitting in an armchair beside a fireplace as the elements beat against the bow window, literally and figuratively, just as Holmes and Watson did at 221B Baker Street.  And I also like to think of each of you as being safe and well and as anxious to answer the call that "the game is afoot!" as I am.

Wishing each of you the very best.

Interesting Interview: Monica Schmidt

If you've been to a Sherlockian event in the past five years, you've probably seen (or had a drink with) Monica Schmidt.  Not content with staying home in Iowa, Monica makes her way to as many get-togethers as she can.  I've seen her give a few talks (one on book collecting vs. hoarding that made everyone in the room a little nervous) and love when her name pops up in the Baker Street Journal.  Monica is a tornado of Sherlockian energy and to meet her is to be swept up in it.  So hang on, because here comes the tornado now!

How do you define the word “Sherlockian”?
I’ve been a fan of Sherlock Holmes for more than 30 years and have enjoyed hundreds of different interpretations of the character in various forms of media.  For me, the term Sherlockian refers to a particular breed of Sherlock Holmes fan:  a student of the Canon whose knowledge is beyond the basic narrative of the stories and engages in the Great Game (which is an exercise in which we critically examine the original texts and make sense of the inconsistencies contained within, how it intersects with the real world, etc.).  Based on that definition, I didn't become a "Sherlockian" until my mid/late-teens.

I recognize my definition may not be a popular one because it is a narrower in scope than some would prefer.  However, I don’t see the term fan as a pejorative, and in fact, embrace it.  I am a fan of lots of things ranging from sports teams (Green Bay Packers), to book series (Harry Potter), to movies (I attend several film festivals annually), and TV shows (especially the BBC sci-fi show, Doctor Who).  Fan is a general term for an enthusiast, whereas Sherlockian is a very specific type of fan (kind of like all thumbs are fingers, but not all fingers are thumbs).  For many years, I avoided self-applying the term Whovian, (the Doctor Who equivalent of Sherlockian) and referred to myself as a Doctor Who Fan because term/title Whovian implies a level of knowledge surrounding the character and the various facets of the Whoniverse (which extends far beyond the original and new TV series) that I didn’t possess until six or seven years ago. 

A different, and perhaps more provocative, question might be “What does it mean to you to be a Sherlockian?”  And in answering that question, I think it means being part of a long-standing scholarly literary community and tradition that has united people from all demographics in their love of the friendship between the great detective and his Boswell.

How did you become a Sherlockian?
I’ve told the story of how I became a Sherlock Holmes fan many times before:  I was introduced to the character through a made-for-TV movie that aired in January 1987:   The Return of Sherlock Holmes.  My mother made me go to bed midway through the movie (I was 5 ½, after all), but I never forgot the classic pop-culture signifiers of Sherlock Holmes shown in the film.  A year or two later, I came across an abridged children’s edition of The Mysteries of Sherlock Holmes on my brother’s bookshelf, which I read over and over again. And then in 1991, I came across Jeremy Brett’s Sherlock Holmes on cable’s A&E. That is when I got really hooked as a fan of the character (and of Jeremy Brett’s portrayal).

But I didn’t become a Sherlockian until the mid-90’s.  One of my junior high teachers, Mrs. Patricia Cox, saw me lugging around a copy of the Canon and suggested I use a search engine on the Internet to research Swamp Adders and Tapanuli fever.  When I couldn’t find much information beyond a couple of small entries from obscure scholars and links to the Sherlock Holmes stories, Mrs. Cox introduced me to the concept of the Grand Game and how Sherlockians have sought to engage in scholarly research, trying to make sense of the minutiae in the Canon and explain away the inconsistencies and other facets of the stories.  This is what started me down the rabbit hole and, on the path, to becoming a Sherlockian.

What is your favorite canonical story?
The Sign of Four is my favorite.  It’s the story I was obsessed with as a teen, in part because I was trying to make sense of Holmes’s use of cocaine/morphine for recreational purposes while observing my eldest brother struggle with his addiction to similar substances.  My desire to make sense of Holmes’s use (and consequently, my brother’s use) forced me to go beyond the story and understand the Victorian cultural attitude towards cocaine use compared to the modern American view.  I also happened to really like the story.

But there is a special place in my heart for “The Red-Headed League,” “The Blue Carbuncle,” and “The Speckled Band,” as those were the short stories to which I was first exposed as a child.

Who is a specific Sherlockian that you think others would find interesting?
While scouring Wikipedia a while back, I came across Richard H. Hoffmann, BSI (1952, The Beryl Coronet).  He was a rather high-profile psychiatrist who treated several notable people for alcohol addiction, which is my specialty within the realm of mental health counseling.

Julie McKuras, BSI, ASH (who is also a Sherlockian I find incredibly interesting) did the vast majority of the heavy lifting on a biographical section on the website of the Vincent Starrett founded Sherlockian society, The Hounds of the Baskerville (sic).   If you look through the members section and click the links to the biographical entries, you’ll find a British diplomat whose name appeared in Hitler’s Black Book (W.H. Gallienne), the co-inventor of the polygraph test (Leonarde Keeler), a famous magician (Jay Marshall), and a rather notable author and poet (T.S. Eliot).  You’ll also find bio blurbs of some great Sherlockians both past and present on the site.

What subset of Sherlockiana really interests you?
Different Sherlockian scions and societies have a large variety of traditions and I am fascinated by learning the history of how they engage with Sherlockiana.  Some groups meet once annually, some once (or more) monthly, and one meets only every four years on leap day!  Some groups meet at libraries while others have elaborately planned dinners with menus that haven’t changed in decades.  Some groups really study their Canon and for others, the Canon almost seems like an afterthought.  To me, the how’s and why’s are truly fascinating, as it helps a younger Sherlockian like me gain an understanding and appreciation for those who came before me. 

As someone who goes to more Sherlockian events than most, what would be your sales pitch for someone who is on the fence about attending an event?
When you first start out engaging in the more social aspects of the hobby, it can feel incredibly intimidating. You walk into a room filled with people who have known each other for many years and you’re the new person who knows no one; you're a little scared and worried about how you will be perceived.  But, go anyway!  Sherlockians tend to be some of the most welcoming and nicest people.  And the vast majority are very interested in embracing new people to the hobby.

Take an opportunity to introduce yourself.  Ask people questions and listen intently to their answers.  Be humble, as you are on their turf and are there to learn if it is a good fit for you.  If, after attending, you decide that particular group’s style doesn’t mesh with you, that’s totally okay.

Sherlockiana is a lot like the rest of life:  you’re not always going to like or fit well with every group you encounter.  I encourage you to not give up and to continue your search for groups or events that fit you.  For example, I attended 221b Con a couple of years ago, which is more of a sci-fi convention style, fandom-focused event with a bit of traditional Sherlockiana in the mix.  It’s a wonderful event and I had a lot of fun, but it’s just not my preferred way to engage with Sherlock Holmes.  But that doesn’t mean others should not go and enjoy.

How has your profession as a mental health counselor influenced how you read the Canon? What things do you like to research related to Sherlock Holmes?  
My core understanding of the Canon stems from a time well before I was a mental health counselor, so my professional training didn’t really start influencing interpretation of the stories until a few years ago.  During BSI weekend in 2014, I had a late-night conversation with Jim Cox in which I was lamenting that so many laymen had weighed in regarding Sherlock Holmes’s use of cocaine and whether he was or was not an addict, and no one had really bothered to consult the clinical criteria.  Jim suggested that I write such an essay…and I thought, “Why not?”

That is when I started to examine the Canon through a more clinical lens.  Clinically and ethically, I am not allowed to twist facts to suit theories – I am limited in my ability to diagnose by what I can support from either the patient or reliable collaborative information (ex:  things Holmes says or Watson observes).  Therefore, I examine the text and look for passages that support, or do not support the various criteria of a diagnosis without any pre-conceived notions about the diagnostic conclusions.  So, this is why, after examining the text, I learned Holmes meets DSM-5 diagnostic criteria for Cocaine Use Disorder, Severe and Watson does not meet the criteria for Problem Gambling Disorder.

Dorothy L. Sayers once wrote that the game "must be played as solemnly as a county cricket match at Lord's; the slightest touch of extravagance or burlesque ruins the atmosphere.”  I’ve tried to embrace that philosophy, taking my Canonical scholarship seriously, but also welcoming dissenters and counterarguments with open arms, because that allows the conversation (and scholarship/critical thinking) to continue.

What book would you recommend to other Sherlockians?
I’m going to cheat a little on this one:  I would recommend the Stephen Fry narrated audiobook of the Complete Sherlock Holmes.  There’s something very soothing and comforting about his narration. I would also happily listen to Stephen Fry read names and numbers out of a phone book because I so very much love the sound of his voice.  And anybody who thinks audiobooks are cheating when it comes to reading needs to check their premises – it’s different than the act of reading a book, but different does not necessarily mean bad.

Where do you see Sherlockiana in 5 or 10 years from now?
Just as every era has the film or television Holmes that it needs, I imagine the Sherlockian community will continue to evolve to be a reflection of its time.  Scholarship will continue and present us with new and creative theories about the stories and characters viewed from angles not yet considered.  More pastiches, parodies, and homages will be published as the last few stories enter public domain.  And with the emergence of a more participatory culture of fan-engagement, I anticipate there will be an even greater shift toward that direction (fanfic, fan art, costuming/cosplay, etc.) than we saw with BBC Sherlock when we have the next big wave of Sherlock Holmes-related media.

Despite that shift, I think there will still be plenty of room for traditional methods of engaging with the material and the literature. Ultimately, at the core of all of this activity will remain the Canon and the emphasis on the wonderful and unique friendship between its protagonists that is reflected on a daily basis in the Sherlockian community.     

This Fellow Jones [SIGN]

Sherlock Holmes and pop culture and been mixing in my mind lately.  But since I'm forty years old, it's not current pop culture; it's Indiana Jones. 

Hear me out on this.  I think the Indiana Jones franchise has eerie parallels to BBC's Sherlock.

We've been threatened with a fifth installment of the Indiana Jones movies for years, and no one I know wants another one.
Pointless articles keep popping up on Facebook about a fifth season of Sherlock even though it's not going to happen and no one I know wants another one.

And the hats.  Those iconic hats.

Both have had big names step away from the franchises, saying they are moving on to other projects.  Cumberbatch, Ford, Moffatt, Speilberg...

Both franchises' charismatic leads took the world by storm and were instantly copied by other studios.

There are some fantastic adventures in the first three go-rounds of each.

Both franchises really should have ended after their third installments while things were still good.

Each franchise invented a new family member for the fourth installment that took the overall arc of the franchise pretty far off the tracks.  Eurus Holmes may as well have been one the Crystal Skull aliens for all she had to do with the first three seasons of Sherlock.

Both franchises had offshoots that left a lot of people wondering if it was necessary (Sherlock's Victorian special and the Young Indiana Jones TV series).

And finally, I refuse to recognize the fourth installment of either franchise.  My headcanon ends with Moriarty on billboards and Indy riding off into the sunset with his dad.

Thanks for hearing me out on this.  It's important information to share with the world.

************************************************************************

P.S.  After writing this, I learned that young Indiana Jones went to a seance with Arthur Conan Doyle before sailing to America on the Titanic.  This is a book I think I need to read: