Interesting Interview: Lyndsay Faye

Lyndsay Faye is what the future of Sherlockiana looks like.

First things first, she knows her stuff.  If you listen to any interview or read any article she's ever written about Sherlock Holmes, it is clear that she has been steeped in the Canon for a long time and loves every bit of it.  Her first book, Dust and Shadow, is hands down the best pastiche I've ever read.  And I made the mistake of reading her collection of short stories, The Whole Art of Detection, while I was writing my book The Criminal Mastermind of Baker Street.  Talk about developing an inferiority complex!

But if you look at Lyndsay Faye, you don't see the stereotypical bibliophile.  She isn't tucked away in some dusty library or hunched over a desk.  This is a woman who has fun and is happy to share her fun with anyone around.  Have you seen the Baker Street Babes episode of Cake Boss?  Oh yeah, she was one of the founding members of the Baker Street Babes, a group of young female Sherlockians that brought a whole new energy to our hobby.

But she's not just a Sherlockian.  Her newest book, The Paragon Hotel, is a great trip to the 1920s that makes you feel every emotion her wonderfully written characters go through.  Jane Steele was a rip roaring reimagining of Jane Eyre.  And her Timothy Wilde trilogy puts you right in old New York for good and bad.  

Without further ado, March's Interesting Interview with Lyndsay Faye:

How do you define the word “Sherlockian”?

A Sherlockian is a person who says "I'm a Sherlockian!"  A Sherlockian is also a person who doesn't say "I'm a Sherlockian!" but collects all the Rathbone and Bruce films, or owns every season of House MD, or grew up on Sherlock Hound.  There are more Sherlockians in the world than even they are aware of!

How did you become a Sherlockian?

I read "The Adventure of the Speckled Band" when I was ten after I was done with all my Nancy Drew mysteries and my dad told me I should check it out.  He said if I didn't like that one, then skip it, I wouldn't be into the rest--well.  We can clearly see how that turned out.

What is your favorite canonical story?

This is always the worst question, ha.  I tend to go with "The Bruce-Partington Plans."  It has everything--Lestrade and Mycroft cameos, the future of Britain at stake, a killer mystery with a corpse on the roof of a train, Holmes saying to Watson, "I knew you would not shrink at the last."

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

It's a rare day when you meet a boring Sherlockian, so this is a rough one.  I would refer folks to m'colleague Dr. Ashley Polasek, who is the world's only PhD scholar in Sherlockiana.  Her degree is in comparative film studies as see through the lens (as it were) of Sherlock Holmes film adaptations.  If that's not interesting, then I don't know what is!  Plus she's marvelous and hilarious and kind.

(Editor's Note: You can my interview with Ashley Polasek HERE)

What subset of Sherlockiana really interests you?

Er, all of them?  Actually, it's much easier for me to answer this way: I am not a chronologist.  There are people who are remarkable at that sort of minutiae and I am not in their number.  In fact, I've written so many Sherlock Holmes pastiches at this point that an interest was expressed in wedging then into the chronology, and David Marcum (editor of the MX anthology series to benefit Undershaw and Stepping Stones) rolled up his sleeves and shoved and squeezed my twenty or so works into the Baring-Gould time frame.  It was extraordinary.  Watson and I are on squarely the same page--our dates are the biggest mystification of all.

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

It like to infuse my pastiches with a touch more of the sort of adherence to historical veracity that Dr. Watson wouldn't have been paying attention to, because he was living during the time period--he had no expectation of representing all of its facets, only the ones he saw or recognized or thought it appropriate to write about.  Whereas I'm stepping back in time thinking, what was it really like for the Baker Street Irregulars?  Were they starving before Sherlock Holmes came along?  What kind of terror were women really experiencing during the Ripper murders?  I have more of a responsibility now to widen the scope a bit.

Additionally, I love getting the little details right--this would have been a Turkish rug, her cuffs would have been trimmed with this sort of feather, that street led into a dingy little courtyard featuring a siren spitting water into the air.  That stuff is catnip for me.

How does Sherlock Holmes influence your non-Sherlockian writing?

In every way possible!  I'm fascinated by stories about loyalty and compassion and forgiveness and courage and self-sacrifice, and the canon is chock full of those things.  I love stories about permanent, undeniable friendships.  I want stories about people risking their lives for each other.  Both the people in the cases they encounter and Holmes and Watson themselves exemplify all those passions of mine.

What does the future hold for The Baker Street Babes? 

We have no idea, and that's the best thing about the Babes!  We adore interviewing people, we plan on revamping the Daintiest Thing Under a Bonnet Charity Ball for wounded soldiers this year, you'll find us in force at SDCC and 221B Con--we always do a bit of a regroup in spring after the push of the BSI Weekend, so stay tuned!

What book would you recommend to other Sherlockians?

A non-Sherlockian book, you mean?  I am particularly in love with The Watchmaker of Filigree Street by Natasha Pulley.  It's a gorgeous, slowly-unraveling Victorian London mystery with a hefty dose of magic realism, which I adore.

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

There are going to have been a dozen fresh, brilliant takes on the canon, and those new adaptations are going to bring even more friends into the Sherlockian fold!  It's going to be amazing, and I can't wait to be a part of it.

It Is Introspective, and I Want to Introspect. [REDH]

The latest episode of The Three Patch Podcast featured a great segment this month, Queer Fandom Meets Scion Societies.  In it, Sherlockians Elinor and Jen were interviewed on their experiences with traditional societies and ACD fandom.  And, hoo boy, did they really cause some introspection...

I am coming at this as a white, middle-aged guy who is active in online traditional Sherlockiana as well as the head of a scion society, The Parallel Case of St. Louis.  And I'm going to try to not be that guy that says, "I have gay friends" or "It's that way because...".  No, this interview made me want to be better than that.

If you are a traditional Sherlockian and don't listen to The Three Patch podcast, I would recommend listening to this interview specifically.  It's only 30 minutes and very much worth it.  There was a lot that sparked an inner monologue for me, but I'm going to highlight just some of the comments from the interview and just give my take on it.  Because as a straight white man, I'm clearly qualified to discuss queer fandom. 

On the queer reading of the Holmes/Watson relationship:
Elinor: Just let me have this and I'll let you have your Irene Adler fantasies.

Slow clap for this response.  Anyone who wants to force feed the Holmes/Adler relationship to the masses has no place saying there's no relationship between Holmes and Watson.  There is NO NO NO evidence of a Holmes/Adler relationship and plenty to prove otherwise.  Sorry.  Irene Adler evokes strong emotions.

On Holmes being asexual:
Jen: I definitely think there are many more people that would be willing to accept that than they would a gay Holmes, but I think that many of the people in some of these groups would then rather not talk about it than look at it as a non-feature.  

I fall into this camp.  And not because I'm not interested in a gay romance between Holmes and Watson.  I'm not interested in any romance involving Sherlock Holmes.  That's not why I read these stories.  But that's what so great about the Canon.  There are so many ways to read it!  Some people want to look at weather patterns to try and create chronology, some want do argue the difference between inductive and deductive reasoning, and some see a romance story between two men.  None of these are my cup of tea, but you do you.

But this is where my introspection kicked in.  Am I welcoming enough to Sherlockians who are fans of queer-readings of the text?  Is my scion welcoming enough?  I like to think of myself as a big tent Sherlockian and there's room for everyone even if we don't see things the same way.  But I've also tried plenty of sub-Sherlockiana that wasn't for me, including queer-readings, weather patterns and inductive reasoning.  I don't want to be dismissive of a subset of Sherlockiana that doesn't interest me, but there's only have so much time in the day.  These were some of the clunky rhetorical questions bobbing around in my head the two times that I listened to this interview.  My takeaway from it was: whatever I do, do it better and err on the side of openness. 

Elinor: It can be really fun and valuable to get in touch with people who are in your region and sit down and talk with them about Sherlock Holmes...  Get involved and just give 'em a shot.

I think from the outside traditional Sherlockians can be stereotyped as old white men who dismiss fandom.  I'm not going to sit here and say that element doesn't exist.  But there are many other kinds of traditional Sherlockians out there as well.  This always reminds me of my absolute favorite line from Doctor Who:

There are going to be Sherlockians we get along with and those we don't.  My hope is that I can find more Sherlockians that I get along with, and go on my way without having a negative impact on those that I don't.  I haven't always been good at that, but as Holmes says, "We can but try."

Even though the interview ended on Elinor and Jen's positive notes about getting out there and meeting with traditional Sherlockians, the next segment, a recap of the hosts' experiences at PodCon, had the quote of the episode for me: "I can tell these are our people but no one was familiar."

Now, THAT is how I want people to view Sherlockians!  Come on in!

We Must Cast Round for Another Scent (HOUN)

I wonder if Watson ever had writer's block?

He had such a wealth of material to choose from, did the choices ever seem too much for him?  All of that great content just waiting to be shared with your readers!  Imagine if you're Sherlock Holmes' biographer, and the public is waiting for your next story.  It had better be a good one!  Show the people how smart or brave the great detective is, Watson!

No pressure.

On a MUCH smaller scale, I found myself facing the same dilemma this week.  I've agreed to write a short story for an upcoming Sherlock Holmes book for kids being published by Belanger Books.  I also have a student who is contributing a story.  I've been focusing all of my time helping her polish her work and haven't started mine at all.

Procrastinate much?

So yesterday, I sat down to start.  Now, this story has to be engaging and suitable for elementary school children, so there are some parameters to work with right away.  I had originally thought to do something with animals.  But not a "little girl lost her puppy and Sherlock Holmes helps her find it" type of story.  Those have been done plenty.  I was going to do something with Charles Jamrach’s Exotic Menagerie, a real life museum that existed in Victorian London.  I had a faint outline in my head, but once I started reading up on the place, I quickly realized that there are a lot more possibilities there than for just a kids book.  Plus, I didn't want to get too technical, and that would've taken a lot of exposition up front.  A good way to lose your young audience.

For whatever reason, I wanted to build my story around a true event.  So after a quick perusal of events that happened in London in the 1890's, I'd come up with a few ideas:

The first international hockey match
Baseball being introduced to London (It is spring training time after all...)
The beginning of the Proms concerts
The Oxford and Cambridge boat race

I ended up settling on another topic completely and I feel like my story is off to a good start after one day.  (Except I haven't come up with an ending yet.  I probably should've done that first...)

But then my lack of a solid topic carried over into today's blog post.  Should I talk about my planned book purchases, new podcasts I'm enjoying, excitement about a trip to The Mysterious Bookshop, thoughts on diversity in Sherlockiana, hopes for the next Holmes in the Heartland weekend?  I flirted with all of these topics and may return to one or two of them in due time, but didn't feel up to it today.  So here I am, blogging about not having a topic.

And that brings me back to Watson.

I picture him in one of two ways, mostly: action sidekick to the great detective or prodigious writer scratching away at his desk.  There are plenty of other versions of Watson out there: ladies man, billiards player, Chinese pottery expert.  But tonight, I'm going to emulate another Watson: laconic reader.  I'm off to dip into my current read and know that even the best writers had to have their off days, so some schlub rambling on the internet is allowed to as well.

Interesting Interview: Leslie Klinger

Leslie Klinger is the type of Sherlockian who is always working on some kind of project.  He has released SEVEN books in the past two years alone.  And these aren't flimsy volumes, either.  I got his "Classic American Crime Fiction of the 1920's" as a Christmas present, and I nearly gave myself a hernia picking it up! 

His writing and research has covered everything from Dracula and Frankenstein to wrongfully accused prisoners.  In the next two months, he has "In the Shadow of Agatha Christie: Classic Crime Fiction by Forgotten Female Writers: 1850-1917" and "Ghost Stories: Classic Tales of Horror and Suspense."

But this is a Sherlockian blog, so let's talk about why Leslie Klinger is one of the big names in Sherlockiana.

More than a decade ago, Klinger took up the mantle of Sherlockian Annotator and put out "The New Annotated Sherlock Holmes," a three volume set that picked up where the seminal Baring-Gould anthology left off so many decades ago.  And if that weren't enough minutiae for us, he then turned around and produced The Sherlock Holmes Reference Library, which went into even more specific detail of the 60 stories and their apocrypha.  Klinger was also awarded the Morley-Montgomery Award at this year's BSI Dinner for his article "The Origins of Sherlock Holmes: Crime Fiction before Conan Doyle."

Needless to say, Leslie Klinger is a busy man.  So it's a huge pleasure for him to take time and answer questions for us this month.  Settle in for some thoughts on our hobby from one of the most prominent Sherlockians of the current age.

How do you define the word “Sherlockian”?
There’s no litmus test for Sherlockians. If you say you’re one, you are! It’s an attitude, not a skill set.

How did you become a Sherlockian?
I was hooked by William Baring-Gould’s Annotated Sherlock Holmes—the footnotes revealed the 60+ years of scholarship and also made clear that there was a universe of amateur scholars out there. I immediately subscribed to the Baker Street Journal and later, when I moved to L.A., joined a local scion society.

What is your favorite canonical story?
The Blue Carbuncle, a perfect blend of sentiment, brilliant deductions, and the warm friendship of the Great Detective and the Good Doctor.

Who is a specific Sherlockian that you think others would find interesting?
Among living Sherlockians, certainly Peter Blau has more stories than anyone else. I’m also taken by fresh and interesting perspectives—let me recommend my young friend Lucy Kiefer! But I am blessed with so many long-time friends among the BSI that it’s hard to single out just one: Fromkin, Rice, Burke, Cameron, Rozan, Faye, Peck, Margolin, Hobbs, Dahlinger, Katz, Kean, Rothman, Fusco, Homer, Dirda, three Rosenblatts, and especially Neil Gaiman, Laurie King and Mike Whelan—all very dear to me. I shudder to think whom I’ve omitted!

What subset of Sherlockiana really interests you?
The scholarship, obviously. So many fascinating topics left to explore!

What things do you like to research related to Sherlock Holmes?
I’m especially interested in textual variations and the perplexing question of who made what changes. I’ve been privileged to read and write about many of the manuscripts and hope to explore more.

Your latest project, "Classic American Crime Fiction of the 1920's" is a treasure trove of the genre at it's beginnings. Did you find any trends in researching this that would interest Sherlockians in particular?
The annotations in that book are another demonstration, I hope, of the fruits of close reading. Quality books are mirrors of their times, and these 1920s classics are no exception. The treasures are in the details as well as the themes. Reading and re-reading the Canon always leads to fresh discoveries. Like “slow food,” slow reading is an entirely different experience than one’s first read of a story.

Another ongoing project you have is a series of books influenced by Sherlock Holmes Canon. The latest, "For the Sake of the Game," boasts a diverse list of authors. How do you recruit your writers for these books?
Lately, we’ve been turning away great writers who ask us if they can play in this particular sandbox! Recruiting has always been easy—Laurie and I ask our friends!

What book would you recommend to other Sherlockians?
You mean besides my own New Annotated Sherlock Holmes? I think the most overlooked book of scholarship is D. Martin Dakin’s A Sherlock Holmes Commentary. For more of my thoughts on this, see the pair of articles I did for the BSJ about the state of SH scholarship in 2002 and 2003. Another fine way to dive into the scholarship is the two-volume set that Laurie King and I co-edited for the BSI: The Grand Game: A Celebration of Sherlockian Scholarship.

Where do you see Sherlockiana in 5 or 10 years from now?
I see no risk that the candle is dimming. The quantity and quality of SH scholarship continues unabated, and I’m thrilled to see a growth of interest among the younger generations of readers. Though we’re wrapping up a Golden Age (with the end of the Downey films and Sherlock and Elementary), I expect that many of those who joined the ranks of Sherlockians strictly because of the films or TV shows will stay and become the venerable senior Sherlockians leading future generations.

Singularly Adapted to Our Needs [MISS]

I spent a lot of time this week meandering through different topics for tonight's post.

After listening to this week's episode of Trifles about Germans and Sherlock Holmes, I thought about doing a post on how Hans Gruber could be tied to the Canon.

Then I saw Dan Andriacco's post about the lineup for Holmes, Doyle & Friends, and figured I could do a love-fest for the names on that list.

This weekend I read a crazy book: "Adventures of Huckleberry Finn as Retold by Sherlock Holmes."  That was high on my list to talk about.

But a tweet by Howard Ostrom popped up this morning, and I found myself debating the merit of younger versions of the Canon.

Sherlock Holmes + Kids Reading.  Yeah, I have some opinions on that.

Some folks thought that kids should read the original Canon as is and revising it is pandering to the lowest common denominator.  An argument was also made that by reading the stories in their original form, kids would learn new vocabulary terms.  (Another person said that they thought the Canon shouldn't be taught in school because it isn't literature.  We agreed to disagree on that point.)

This year, The Beacon Society undertook an initiative to list many appropriate texts that educators can use to introduce Sherlock Holmes to students at any age.  Now, I don't think the people that I was tweeting back and forth with all day today were saying that kindergartners should sit down with the Doubleday and a dictionary and fend for themselves.  But is it wrong to expose kids to Holmes and Watson with some very light versions of the Canon? 

The Canon is written at approximately a high school reading level.  As a fifth grade teacher, I want my kids to know about Holmes.  There's no way in hell I would expect them to wade through Victorian literature at their age.  Even my highest readers would get bogged down with some of the outdated terms.  Do they really need to know the difference between a hansom, growler, four-wheeler and a dog-cart?  Just call it a cab or a carriage and get on with the story.

An valid argument was made that these stories are full of great vocabulary for kids to learn.  I agree with that, but also don't want them to miss the forest for the trees.  If a kid is spending time looking up word after word, the genius of these stories is going to be lost on them; instead they're reading a choppy tale that is teaching them what "moor" means. 

So many people are quick to make decisions about how "kids these days" need to be taught without taking into account all of the micro-decisions that educators make when developing lessons.  (I can do a WHOLE LOT of expounding on the "kids these days" sentiment, but will spare you.)

A friend of mine that teaches in Missouri is also a fifth grade teacher and loves doing mysteries with his class.  When his students read Holmes, they use an adapted version to learn about the framework of the mystery genre.

Shannon Carlisle in Tennessee also uses younger versions of the Holmes stories in her fourth grade classroom.  But her focus is to teach deductive reasoning and decision making skills.

Both of these educators are using texts that are at their students' levels and their kids are getting a great education from it.  Nothing is being dumbed down for these kids.  The focus of these lessons isn't to expand students' vocabulary or teach them to decipher unfamiliar phrases, but to teach genre conventions or critical thinking. 

Would it be great if we could also teach kids to look up unfamiliar words along the way? Absolutely.  But you must prioritize what's important.  And quite frankly, teaching outdated words and phrases is nice sometimes, but it's never going to be high on my priority list.  My number one priority is getting kids to fall in love with books.

We Sherlockians are a literary bunch, and I'm going to assume that we are all pretty strong readers.  That statistically means that most of us were pretty strong readers as kids.  We are blessed.  Whether it was a teacher, family member, librarian, or other angel here on Earth, someone introduced us to The Great Detective.  We picked up our first story, and there was no looking back!  We are the chosen ones.

And not every person who reads a Sherlock Holmes story is going to become a Sherlockian.  But I hope that every person who reads a Sherlock Holmes story walks away with a pleasant memory of their time spent in the pages.  And if we need to adapt the original stories so that kids can enjoy them, then let's do it!

Because if a kid isn't enjoying what they're reading, how can we help them grow into adults that love to read?

Here He Is, Sending Out Messages (REDC)

I still remember the sound of that America Online modem screeching, followed by the "You've Got Mail!" announcement when I was 12.  The internet and email had come into my life. 

These were pretty formative years: discussion boards, websites, chat rooms.  But looking back, the biggest impact of that service was email.  I could communicate quickly with anyone.  No more waiting weeks for a pen pal to write back.  Yeah, this email thing would catch on, I was sure of it.

In the days before email, the predominant form of communication between Sherlockians (so I'm told) was letter writing.  In fact, one of my favorite Sherlockian books is "'Dear Starrett-' 'Dear Briggs-'" a collection of correspondence between two influential members of our hobby.  Reading that book is like getting to sit at a table and listen to two men who know their stuff and are curious about the other's opinion have a legendary conversation.  

Now, in no way do I consider myself to be anywhere near these men's caliber.  But last week, I found myself enjoying the modern day equivalent of the back and forth between those two men.  I got to enjoy the sheer pleasure of two different ongoing, rambling email conversations with some of my favorite Sherlockians, Brad Keefauver and Bill Mason.  

I would assume most of us have our Sherlockian emails that get fired back and forth, but the majority of them are specific to topics and once the topic is completed, the discussion ends.  Lord knows I have plenty of those in my inbox as well.  "Are you coming to the meeting?"  "What is the status of this project?"  "Do you know where I can find ___?"  Those are all well and good, but how often do we get to have conversations that meander from topic to topic?

Bill and I started out conversing about his weekend in New York, which led to travel plans, blog posts, politics, events in Nashville and St. Louis, and other things.  If you know Bill, you know what a gracious and friendly guy he is, and his emails are just as pleasant.  Plus, I hear his great southern accent whenever I read his stuff.  I'm really looking forward to reading his new book, "A Holmes by Any Other Name," and hearing his voice in my head.  (Oooh, what if he recorded it as an audio book?!?!?)

Keefauver was one of the first Sherlockian friends I made when I ventured outside of my bookshelf and started engaging with other people on the internet and at functions.  Although he and I only live two hours apart, we don't see each other as often as I'd like.  I assume that's because I'm taking my daughter to ballet class and he's watching Holmes and Watson.... again.  And again.  And again.  If you know either of us, we ramble, so I can't even begin to list the topics we went over.  

Now, would either of these interactions have happened without email?  I can't say because I wasn't doing too much letter writing in my pre-teen days and don't today.  I can tell you that even if they would had, they would've taken a different approach.  Firing off a one or two sentence email is nothing to us, but writing down so few lines, slipping it an envelope, and using postage for it?  Doubtful.

So, another goal I'm going to set for myself is to let my friendly email correspondence be more of a conversation instead of a Q&A session.  Although time and distance don't always allow us to converse as much with Sherlockians around the country and world that we would like to, we have the means right here at our fingertips.  Long rambling messages, short queries, whatever.  

Just as long as they don't look like this: 

Interesting Interview: Curtis Armstrong

If you only know Curtis Armstrong as the guy from Revenge of the Nerds or Moonlighting, you are missing out on so much more!  Curtis is an ardent Sherlockian from an early age and his devotion to this hobby of ours is still going strong decades later.  In 2017, his memoir "Revenge of the Nerd: Or... The Singular Adventures of the Man Who Would Be Booger" came out, and to many Sherlockians' delight contained all kinds of great tidbits about his interest in the Great Detective.  (Sure, there were stories about Tom Cruise, Bruce Willis, and John Cusack, but the selling point is Sherlock Holmes, right?)  Invested into The Baker Street Irregulars in 2006 as "An Actor and a Rare One," Curtis' wears his love for Sherlock Holmes and other Sherlockians on his sleeve.  I think you are in for a real treat with this month's answers...

How did you become a Sherlockian?
In a manner of speaking, I became a Sherlockian the moment my father put his copy of the stories in my hands. That was 1964 or 1965. But my path to the "organized" Sherlockian world began a few years later. In 1969, my Civics teacher, Barry Lepler, commented on the fact that I was carrying a copy of the Sherlock Holmes stories with me every day in school. My obsession was obvious and he asked if I'd ever heard of William Baring Gould's Annotated Sherlock Holmes. He had gotten a copy for joining the Book of the Month Club a year before. Would I be interested?

I had no idea what I was letting myself in for, but said yes. He then said the book could be mine for $5.00, which was what he paid for his subscription!  That seemed reasonable. I brought in my $5.00 and he handed me what was, in many ways, the key to my future.

It was through Baring Gould that I discovered the existence of The Baker Street Irregulars and The Baker Street Journal. I would never have dreamed that such things existed!  Obviously, my first move would be to join The Baker Street Irregulars.  But even a cursory reading of the history of the organization showed that was unlikely, even if the group still existed, and I wasn't sure it did.  The Baker Street Journal was another matter, though. I subscribed immediately, and it was in the first or second issue that I saw the announcement, in the Scion Society section, that a new Sherlock Holmes society had been founded specifically for young Sherlockians--and that it was based in Cranbrook Gardens, Bloomfield Hills, Michigan, which was about twenty minutes drive from my house.

The founder of this group was Susan Rice, now legendary in the Sherlockian world, but then a young teacher at the Kingsford School in Bloomfield Hills. The group was co-ed, unlike the Irregulars at that time, and consisted mainly of her students.  We would meet at her apartment: discuss the stories, attend plays, have dinners occasionally, including one at my home at which we were honored by the presence of  the Detroit Amateur Mendicant Society founder Bob Harris, who arrived with a Tantalus and Gasogene (which we were encouraged to sample) and who sat telling stories about the old days with famed Irregulars like "Kit."  Even Susan, far more educated in this lore than we, didn't realize at first he was talking about Christopher Morley.  Jupiter descended that night!

Though I dabbled in scion groups in the following decades (The Greek Interpreters of East Lansing and The Non-Canonical Calabashes of Los Angeles) my youthful fantasy of induction in The Baker Street Irregulars seemed as far away as ever.  Until I received an unexpected invitation to attend the weekend from Susan in 2002.  My induction a few years later was the most unexpected and thrilling moments of my life.

What is your favorite canonical story?
"Favorite Canonical story?"  Unanswerable.  This answer changes regularly.  I'll say "Silver Blaze".  No, wait. "Bruce Partington Plans." No, hang on....

Who is a specific Sherlockian that you think others would find interesting?
 If we are speaking of a Sherlockian not yet inducted, I would say Ashley Polasek. A scholar, writer, editor, teacher and Medieval swordswoman. She has a PhD in Sherlock Holmes adaptions and has spoken on Sherlockian subjects internationally. She was the editor of my second book, on P.G. Wodehouse, called "A Plum Assignment," co-written by Elliott Milstein. Also co-editor of the Los Angeles symposium book, Sherlock Holmes: Behind The Canoncial Screen. She's also funny and knows her single malts.  What more can you ask for?

What subset of Sherlockiana really interests you?
I'm not that interested in films or plays, or cosplay. That feels too much like what I do for a living. I'm a hardcore bibliophile, so it used to be collecting. I have a large collection of Sherlockiana including first editions, Strand magazines, Doyle letters and an extensive collection of books, letters and inscribed copies of books by first generation Irregulars.  That hobby got a little rich for my blood, though. I still collect the new books by BSI Press and Wessex Press and independently published work, but the the earlier stuff has just gotten too expensive. I consider my collection basically frozen. Now I collect Washington Irving. I love him as much as Doyle and he's more reasonably priced! 

What things do you like to research related to Sherlock Holmes?
I don't really research anything!  I don't write that often on the subject.  I like to think of myself more as an enthusiast. I am lost in admiration for the people I know for whom research is an important part of their Sherlockian experience, but it's just not really in my wheel house. I've been invited to give talks on Holmes often but it is always related in some way to what I do:  Holmes and theatre, actors, film, that sort of thing.  Sometimes when I'm preparing a talk there is some research involved but it's really not what I enjoy. I just like to read the stories and talk about them, when I do, from my own perspective.  I wish I were a scholar, but I'm not.

Is there a Sherlockian role that you would really enjoy playing on stage or screen?
I've been asked this question a lot.  Honestly, no. I don't see myself in any Canonical character.  Maybe Nathan Garrideb. Years ago, the actor/director Heather MacDonald wrote a Sherlock Holmes play and arranged a backers reading of it in New York. She asked me to play Billy the page. I was 28. I played him like Terry Kilburn in "The Adventures of Sherlock Holmes."  My one Sherlock Holmes credit.

Although not Sherlockian, last year, you released the book "A Plum Assignment: Discourses on P. G. Wodehouse and His World" with Elliot Milstein.  Why do you think there is such a crossover between fans of Wodehouse and fans of The Great Detective?
A good question.  I don't know.  I think it may be because Wodehouse was such a fan of Doyle's that he sort of bubbled over with enthusiasm for him and that sort of thing is infectious. It was there in everything, from throwaways like referring to three-pipe problems, or quoting lines from the stories that are recognizable.  Comparing aunts to Professor Moriarty, that sort of thing. Inside things that readers like.  The plot of "Indiscretions of Archie" borrows pretty substantially from "The Adventure of the Speckled Band."  Also, there is a cult quality to Wodehouse readers that is very similar to Doyle readers.

What book would you recommend to other Sherlockians?
I assume you mean a Sherlockian-related book.  I'd recommend something by Vincent Starrett or Chris Morley.  Not "The Private Life of Sherlock Holmes" or "Sherlock Holmes and Dr Watson: A Textbook of Friendship", but one of their Sherlock-adjacent, less well-known books.  Starrett's "Penny Wise and Book Foolish" or Morley's "Powder of Sympathy." If you can find them.

Where do you see Sherlockiana in 5 or 10 years from now?
Who could've predicted ten years ago where Sherlockiana is today?  Fortunately, Sherlockiana is no longer the domain of all-white-male bookishness.  I relish the changes and have been disappointed and kind of appalled at the reactions of some Sherlockians of my generation to what the Irregulars in particular has become.  Women, POC and the young are the future of societies like ours and we should embrace them.  They are no threat to us, they're like o-negative blood transfusions, universal and life-giving. If we've learned nothing else from Tom Stix's day, we've learned that Sherlockian whiskey-and-sodality has no gender. The future of Sherlockiana looks bright to me.