Here is my source for these posting. Only one source and probably others have some other thoughts. http://www.sherlockpeoria.net/Who_is_Sherlock/SherlockTimeline.html
Not claiming to be the definitive source just a fun one.
He probably used Baring-Gould and I look forward to others thoughts.
If I had been paying attention to March's reading list I would have figured it out because Brad keeps Watson's impossible year of 1892 for WIST. Like the man himself, Brad's chronology is iconoclastic. "The Date Being---?" by Andrew Jay Peck and Leslie S. Klinger is invaluable. Published by Magico in 1996, it lists the dates of all the chronologies in print at that time. My favorite for many years, like Brad, was Ernest Zeisler's 1953 "Baker Street Chronology". Then I read John Weber's 2010 "Under A Darkling Sky", and now I have two favorites. It's published by The Battered Silicon Dispatch Box and I highly recommend it. If you want to check out some online chronologies there's: http://blog.smartmemes.com/2010/03/sherlock-holmes-a-complete-chronology/ http://web.archive.org/web/20050413094733/http://members.aol.com/mfrankland/chronology.htm I'm not a fan of Baring-Gould chronology. Given his incomplete knowledge of Doyle's play, "The Angels of Darkness", he gave Watson a wife before Mary Morstan and changed some dates he should have left alone (REDH, IDEN, TWIS 1887, for example). If he had lived another ten or fifteen years, he probably would have changed the dates of some of the cases in the "Annotated" based on new research.
There is no one chronology that I like the best. I think we are at the point where a thoughtful Sherlockian can "pick one from column A, one from column B" and make a chronology that most fits their sense of the Canon.
I will check out some of the other sources and throw a little variety into the mix. Our society has read the canon through several times and we always try a different approach; Baring-Gould, Oxford, Brett, publication, etc.
.jpg)
Which chronology are you using?
ReplyDeleteHere is my source for these posting.
DeleteOnly one source and probably others have some other thoughts.
http://www.sherlockpeoria.net/Who_is_Sherlock/SherlockTimeline.html
Not claiming to be the definitive source just a fun one.
He probably used Baring-Gould and I look forward to others thoughts.
If I had been paying attention to March's reading list I would have figured it out because Brad keeps Watson's impossible year of 1892 for WIST. Like the man himself, Brad's chronology is iconoclastic. "The Date Being---?" by Andrew Jay Peck and Leslie S. Klinger is invaluable. Published by Magico in 1996, it lists the dates of all the chronologies in print at that time. My favorite for many years, like Brad, was Ernest Zeisler's 1953 "Baker Street Chronology". Then I read John Weber's 2010 "Under A Darkling Sky", and now I have two favorites. It's published by The Battered Silicon Dispatch Box and I highly recommend it. If you want to check out some online chronologies there's:
ReplyDeletehttp://blog.smartmemes.com/2010/03/sherlock-holmes-a-complete-chronology/
http://web.archive.org/web/20050413094733/http://members.aol.com/mfrankland/chronology.htm
I'm not a fan of Baring-Gould chronology. Given his incomplete knowledge of Doyle's play, "The Angels of Darkness", he gave Watson a wife before Mary Morstan and changed some dates he should have left alone (REDH, IDEN, TWIS 1887, for example). If he had lived another ten or fifteen years, he probably would have changed the dates of some of the cases in the "Annotated" based on new research.
There is no one chronology that I like the best. I think we are at the point where a thoughtful Sherlockian can "pick one from column A, one from column B" and make a chronology that most fits their sense of the Canon.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI will check out some of the other sources and throw a little variety into the mix.
ReplyDeleteOur society has read the canon through several times and we always try a different approach; Baring-Gould, Oxford, Brett, publication, etc.