I am not sure how one blogger out there can continually. . .

complain about the membership requirements of the BSI and yet so readily almost pander to another group which states, ". . . are an all-female group of Sherlock Holmes fans dedicated to approaching the fandom from a female point of view, as well as engaging in fun, lively conversations about the canon, film and television adaptations of Arthur Conan Doyle’s work, and associated topics...

Now I am okay with the requirements that both societies have set. If you want to be in an all female group that doesn't allow males, well that's up to you.
But if you want to be a member of another group that also limits it's membership for what ever reasons it chooses, that's fine also.

If you don't like how either one does it, don't support them, or don't accept the invitation to join (or sent back your shilling, get the divorce).

If said bloggers goes along with the saying "all Sherlockiana is good Sherlockiana", well lets just say he would have half as many posts.

Once again he is onto his favorite subject -The BSI

Come on Sherlock Peoria, give back your shilling, take off your armor and become the serf you claim you really are.

You are starting to sound like you did for the first eight years of Elementary, and a broken record.

To me it just makes you sound like you are wanting to fit in with what is popular at the moment.

If all Sherlockian is good Sherlockian, move on!

I just noticed this on one of my least favorite blogs. . . . .

"I don't go on much about being a member of the Baker Street Irregulars. I don't attach those three letters to my name in correspondence or Sherlockian resumes. And occasionally I bitch about the group's membership policy. All of this begins thirty years ago."

I think it is kind of funny that in his not going on much about being a member, he seems to almost always go on about being a member of a group that he doesn't even really like that much and is always complaining about.

Even, in his least blog post,  going on about not wanting much of the credit for helping change a membership policy while making a point of telling us how much credit he should get for that.

He doesn't occasionally go on about the groups membership policy, but instead does it fairly often.

Again I must ask, "if you don't want to be a positive force for change within the group, positive being the key word, give back your membership."

The Games Afloat. So we had name issues?

Way back in 1993 The Harpooners of the Sea Unicorn brought the first (two) Sherlockain conventions to the St Louis area.
We chose to call it The Games Afloat. Pretty original we thought. Captures the sense of Playing the Game.
We invited speakers from all the local societies, and then some.

But now we are being told we had naming issues. To quote  "which doesn't have the same name issues as its predecessors", referring to upcoming Holmes in the Heartland event. 

 Of course we had two conventions with that name, so I guess we suffered twice.

And this quote about namin issues comes from someone who claims to be a non-elitist Sherlockian.

We called it 'The Games Afloat' because we were holding the convention on a Victorian era Showboat called the Goldenrod.
Pretty cool idea, we thought. But I guess we did not understand that we could not use the term Afloat because the boat was tied to a dock. Apparently Afloat and floating doesn't mean the same thing.
But he goes on to say, (which, well, technically it was on a floating riverboat, but the boat didn't leave the dock, as I recall).  So, name police, what was the problem. 

So tell me again why The Games Afloat is a naming issue?

I guess we should have called it The Games tied to the dock. Or, If we were moving we would be the Games Afloat, but we are not convention. 

Perhaps if the boat had left the dock we could have had the first Sherlockian dress up on water skis!

Considering the Illinois name police is always calling out others who make distinctions reflecting on differences in Sherlock celebrations, if you didn't know the source you would be surprised.

Sometimes those who claim to be the least elitist are, well, perhaps the most.

Seven Samurai indeed.

Well that's what happens when us newbies (back then) try to fit in with the elite.

Call out the Sherlockian naming police. I think the headquarters are somewhere in Illinois.

Not sure why he couldn't just say he was looking forward to Holmes in the Heartland without finding issues with the other area conventions.

Oh, . . . maybe we didn't make a big enough deal about him.

Was it, and I quote from Brad, a ". . .male-dominated Sherlockian culture" back in the day?

Well, sure it was! Remember, 'back in the day' society was still very use to private clubs that catered to a certain audience.

Probably most, defiantly many would have been like the Diogenes Club, you hung out with those of like mind. If you loved fishing with a worm and cane pole, you probably would not join a fly-fishing group as it were.

Mostly male represented activities would be run mostly by males. Likewise, mostly female represented activities would be run by mostly females.

It wasn’t a matter of whether that was fair or not, it was just the way society was. And thankfully that is changing.

And since Holmes and Watson were, well, male, it would seem most likely that, well, males would form a club about them.

While there have probably always been men who have wanted to join a Jane Austin club, it is true that there have always been women who enjoyed the stories of Sherlock Holmes.

Put since, up till recently, society has usually separated the genders in clubbable situations; Sherlockians groups have mostly been male dominated by males.

But for at least as long as I have been a Sherlockian (the late 70’s) there have been very knowledgeable and active women in Sherlockian society. But still a limited number compared to now.

And that brings up two good points.

One; How much of this surge in female Sherlockian popularity is because of how handsome Benedict Cumberbatch and Martin Freeman are and the fact that ‘Sherlock’ is set in modern times?  And how fashionable the coupling of these two is with this modern incarnation of that dynamic duo.

Second; how much of this new mass female participation will survive when the show comes to an end?

I am not against a group of men, or women, who chose to want to hang out in groups with only their own gender. And I also am okay with groups that want to remain exclusive. . . even if I don’t want to belong to any of them.

And I am equally glad of the contribution women make to the world of Sherlock Holmes.

But I think, in a while, when all the fascination over ‘Sherlock’ goes away we will see, once again, a decrease in female participation.

I do however hope that is not the case because they have so much to offer.

Now, actually running a Sherlock Holmes club. . . . . . ;)

SHIN -It is really the holiday season now! BRAD in the news with pictures!

For Sherlock Holmes fans, appeal is elementary

Braley Dodson
Journal Star reporter 

Follow @@braleydodson

Posted Dec. 19, 2015 at 7:09 PM
Updated Dec 19, 2015 at 7:12 PM 

PEORIA — For a fictional detective who lived in the 1800s, Sherlock Holmes still is very much alive. To his fans, anyway.

“Every generation has their Sherlock Holmes,” said Bradley Keefauver, creator of the blog Sherlock Peoria.

A small, adult crowd gathered Saturday afternoon for the Peoria Public Library’s Baker Street Bash to listen to Keefauver talk and answer questions on Sherlock Holmes lore, answer trivia questions and go on a scavenger hunt, among other activities.

“He is someone you can almost see existing,” said Keefauver, who wore a T-shirt advertising “Sure-lock and Watts-on Security and Electrical Consulting,” which depicted Holmes as a lock and his sidekick, John Watson, as a light bulb.

He said with Sir Arthur Conan Doyle’s characters in the public domain, a new novel starring the detective is released nearly every week. With multiple television shows, movies, novels and fanfictions, everyone has a different entry point into the Holmes universe.

“Each remake inspires new interest,” said Jamie Jones, branch manager of the McClure Branch.

“It keeps being brought back.”

The event was planned to tie in to the upcoming Christmas special of the BBC’s “Sherlock,” a contemporary interpretation.

Standing on a low stage, Jones asked the crowd for the address of Holmes and Watson. A quiet chorus of “221B Baker St.,” answered her, followed by a whispered, “that’s easy.” But her questions got harder until the crowd was partially stumped when she asked what Irene Adler’s measurements were from an episode of “Sherlock.” Finally, she awarded a newly released book on Mycroft Holmes to Curt Bier of East Peoria, who won the trivia contest.

Bier remembers becoming a fan after reading “The Hound of the Baskervilles” in junior high school.

“I’m glad they had an event like this,” he said, his new book, which he had previously planned to check out from the library, on his lap.

Jones said another Baker Street Bash, which could include a murder mystery, might be held when the new season of “Sherlock” is released.

Braley Dodson can be reached at 686-3196 and bdodson@pjstar.com. Follow her on Twitter @BraleyDodson.

Source 

Why I like Sherlock Peoria . . .

Really I do.

I don't very often agree with many of the things said there.
And sometimes, I admit, I am not smart enough to understand what is actually being said.
Many of the connections are elusive to me, and I often wonder how they pertain to the subject.

But, none-the-less, I faithfully follow the blog.
And, again I admit, sometimes I even find myself agreeing with some of it. (I fight that urge as much as possible.)

The author of the blog is knowledgeable on most things Sherlockian, and also has a wealth of knowledge about lots of shall we call it 'trivia' that he is able to weave into his Sherlockian discussions.

But what is most important about the blog is the fact that it makes me examine my feelings about some of the subjects it brings up, and where I stand on those things. And for the most part it makes me defend my Sherlockian convictions and test them and see where I stand in the end. (My opinion is not changed very often, but it is always good to look at another side of things.)

Now how much of the blog is firmly tongue-in-cheek and how much is pure. . . what ever, we may never know for sure. That is part of the allure of the blog (Yes Brad, you are alluring.)

So, Sherlock Peoria, thanks for making me a better, I hope, Sherlockian. (It even has its own 'label' on my Label list.)

(Are you going to have your summer reading list this year?)

What do you want to be called?

Sherlockian/Holmesian Brad has done his part, in a recent post, of rekindling the debates of "Are you a Sherlockian or a Holmesian" and "what should fans be called."
The source of this discussional rebirth can be found here.
The argument put forth in the blog he referred to actually has nothing to do with what any of us should be called, but rather which show, Elementary or Sherlock, the author preferred and his reasons for his choice.

Although I agreed with many of his points, I did contest his use of Sherlockians as the name used to describe fans of Sherlock.
If he had put forth the name before it was already being used I think it would have stuck.
But it has already been taken.

But what do you prefer to be called? Our do you prefer not having to put a name on your 'hobby' at all.
I usually refer to my self as a Sherlockian when talking to people who may know what that means or at least likely to be able to figure it out.
When talking to folks who may require an explanation if I use Sherlockian, I usually just say I am a big 'follower' of Sherlock Holmes, what ever that means and I guess in many ways that to would require an explanation of its own.
I have probably even used the term 'fan' at times in more casual settings. (Please forgive me.)

So, what do you think of yourself as? And does it change depending on who you talk to depending on whether or not an explanation would be required.

Would you rather be called a 'fan' than be called 'Irregular'?

Which makes you bristle and which makes you hold your head high.

While we wait - our January reading list.

Well, 'Elementary' is on hiatus.
And 'Sherlock' is on an even longer hiatus
'A Slight Trick of the Mind' isn't due out for a while.
And RDJ and Jude Law still aren't sure when they will be at their third installment.

And till we get a report from the BSI weekend, we are left to our own devices.

So. . . until  'insert favorite Sherlock Holmes show here' comes back or  'Forever' changes it's name to 'Duncan Holmes, Highlander Sherlock Holmes' we will just have to make due with the Canon, or, of course, 'I hear of Sherlock Everywhere'. That doesn't sound so awful does it?

Here is our January reading list from the Canon, thanks to Baring-Gould and Brad.

REDC

VALL

ABBE

CHAR

BLAN

Put your feet up and enjoy.

In the news, for Brad

Sherlock vs. Elementary: Which Version of Sherlock Holmes Is Most Like Sir Arthur Conan Doyle’s?

By Chris King on Dec 15, 2014Posted in: Sherlock

There have been many interpretations of  Sherlock Holmes and Dr. Watson, the famous fictional crime fighting duo from the works written by Sir Arthur Conan Doyle, both on television and in the movies. Today, especially, there is the question of which 21st century Sherlock Holmes is your favorite on TV, whether it’s Elementary‘s Jonny Lee Miller, or do you prefer the performance of Benedict Cumberbatch, aka the busiest actor in the world, in BBC’s Sherlock. However, a more important and interesting question, despite whatever your preference may be, is which of these two versions of the infamous detective is the most like the traditional character of Conan Doyle’s books. Let’s compare the two series and find out.

Miller’s Sherlock is a more current version of the consulting detective. He is portrayed as a recovering drug addict and former consultant to Scotland Yard. He assists the NYPD by solving crimes, which do not relate to the stories by Conan Doyle. His indifference to police procedures often lead to conflict with Captain Thomas Gregson (Aidan Quinn), who in a way, is like the American version of Inspector Lestrade, and the two of them still remain mutually respectful of one another much, similar to the relationship between Sherlock and Lestrade in the BBC series. He is accompanied by Dr. Joan Watson (Lucy Liu), the American version of Dr. John Watson with a gender change; she is a former surgeon and was hired by Sherlock’s father to help Sherlock in his rehabilitation. They eventually began to work together on solving cases for the NYPD. The series also features Holmes’ ongoing conflict with his arch nemesis Jamie Moriarty/Irene Adler (both are played by two different people in the BBC series), the American, and female, version of James Moriarty, (Natalie Dormer). Supporting roles include Jon Michael Hill as Detective Marcus Bell and Rhys Ifans as Mycroft.

Cumberbatch’s Sherlock, however, is much closer to the one in Conan Doyle’s stories but with a modern twist. He is assisted by his flatmate and friend, Dr. John Watson (Martin Freeman), who has returned from military service in Afghanistan with the Royal Army Medical Corps. Metropolitan Police Service Detective Inspector Greg Lestrade (Rupert Graves) and others are, at first, keptical of Holmes, but over time, his remarkable intellect and powers of observation and deduction change their view of him. Sherlock also becomes a reluctant celebrity, with the press reporting on his cases and eccentric personal life, with both ordinary people and the British government asking for his help through Watson’s blog, which documents their adventures together like book Watson did with his many diaries.

Additionally, BBC’s Sherlock seems to be paying an homage of sorts to Conan Doyle’s novels like “Hound of the Baskervilles” and “A Study in Pink,”  and Holmes’ conflict with arch nemesis Jim Moriarty (Andrew Scott) is much more like the one in the books, where it’s a constant game of cat and mouse. Other characters include Una Stubbs as Mrs. Hudson, Holmes’ and Watsons’ landlady at 221B Baker Street (who does not appear in Elementary, and for the record, Miller’s version of Sherlock does not live at the infamous London address), and series co-creator Mark Gatiss stars as Mycroft.

Ultimately, both series are great shows that put their own modern stamp on the character of Sherlock Holmes. However, due to the more procedural elements of Elementary, BBC’s Sherlock can be seen as the 21st century series that most resembles Sir Arthur Conan Doyle’s original works.

Written by Tiffany Chang (@TiffCLockhart), guest contributor to TVOvermind

[Photos via BBC & CBS]

Continued Summer reading list, with or without Brad

Brad's summer reading list ended in Aug. Technically summer ends near the end of Sept
I am sure he picked the end of Aug. because at least here in the midwest Aug. is usually the end of summer break for school kids. So it kinda makes since.

But just for the fun of it, and I know I am a little late, let's take our list till the end of Sept.
So, from Sherlock Peoria we get at least five more.
They are;
FIVE in 1887
SIGN in 1888
VEIL in 1896
ILLU in 1902 and
CREE in 1903

So, let the Games continue!

Brad's summer reading list number 21 - CROO - Victoria's Wars

"Oh, but the tattered web we weave."

It is not unusual to find in the Canon of Sherlock Holmes reference to men who have served in the military.

Matter of fact, that is how we first meet Watson. Watson introduces us to his world with an explanation of his time in service and how he comes to be in London.

In other stories Holmes is mentioned as deducing the appearance of a man by his military bearing.

And Watson's military 'bearing' is also mentioned in this story.

Most of the military adventures suggested in the Canon take place in far off exotic locations.

And if you think about it, it doesn't seem unusual.

During Victoria's reign the empire of Great Britain was at it largest and most extreme. It was the super  power that in just another fifty years would be taken over by the United States.
Britannia still ruled the waves, for better or worse.

Victoria's wars found British fighting men in conflicts all over the world; China, India and other Asian nations. Crimea, Russia, Afghanistan and many areas and countries in Africa. British service man fought in well over one hundred conflicts during Victoria's reign. (In a quick count I came up with 49 major battles. This count does not include small battles.)

Some great movies have come out of this time in British military history, "The Four Feathers", "Zulu" and "Zulu Dawn", among many others.
Most try to show the British soldier as brave and loyal and dependable. Fighting for Queen and country. We have come to expect that as the portrayal of the British soldier at this time.
Also at this time it was still common for officers to have purchased their commissions  This practice was not abolished till 1871.
The explanations behind the justification of purchased commissions is very interesting.

This does not however apply to our two protagonists in this story. Both start as humble soldiers, with one working his way up through the ranks. And with the outcome we find at the end of the case, maybe some of his methods were a little under-handed.


I would suggest that what is described in this story as the Siege at Bhurtee has some similarities to the actual Siege of Cawnpore. It is worth reading about.

Victoria's soldiers were involved in conflicts all over her realm and we should not find it unusual for some of those men to pop up in the Canon, good or bad.

One question: are there any Navy veterans mentioned in the Canon as part of any of the stories?
Not just nautical men, of which there are many, but actual British Navy veterans.

Okay, Brad, I am waiting for our next assignment.

Brad's summer reading list number 20 - CARD - I'm all ears.

It would be an interesting study in the Canon to find out how many of the villains who were sailors at one time were also alcoholics.
It seems to be a theme. But then again, what was a sailor suppose to do when in so many foreign ports.

First I would like to thank Brad for starting this summer project, it has been a fun way to re-read some of the stories and have some conversation.

And once again for me it is much of the other stuff in the story that gets my attention rather than the mystery.


The weather in London would appear to be much like the weather this year in late August here in the mid-west, very hot and in the nineties.

Within the first two paragraphs we learn a little bit about the appearance of Baker St. or at least one of it's neighbors, which may have suggested to some it's possible location. ". . . the glare of the sunlight upon the yellow brick. . ." I would imagine that most non-English Sherlockains imagining Baker St. would imagine a red brick facade.

We get the image later in the story of Lestrade being a rather dapper fellow, despite other words used to describe him, even within this story.

The images Mr. Paget gives us are of younger Holmes and Watsons, boater hats and derby's.
In the scene represented above, where the three crime stoppers are examining the ears, we learn, that awaiting Holmes arrival, the ears are inoffensively kept in an outhouse in the back of Miss. Cushing's yard.
Most of us imagine an outhouse as being something rural, at least here in America. A tiny little closet sized building with a crescent moon on the door, where one went to spend some quiet time contemplating an old sears catalog before putting it to further use.
And this image would not necessarily be inaccurate.
But in some cases the word outhouse could also suggest some other sort of building like a shed. Usually these small buildings built for other uses would more likely be called by a name suggesting there use; barn, shed, stable, well house and collectively they would be called out-buildings instead of outhouse.
What confuses the issue in this case is how it is differently referred to in this story.
Miss. Cushing first informs use that, "they are in the outhouse".
We then get Watson describing the building as a small shed.

When I first re-read this passage I was reminded of a story my mother use to share with us about her upbringing.
She grew up in a small town in Yorkshire, Selby, the the late 20's early 30's.
She had five sister and three brothers. And they all lived in a small row house of six units, each two separated by an alley.
My mom would describe how, as a young child, she would have to walk at night with just a candle back to the outhouse before bed.
Made even worse if the dirty old man next-door was out in the alley having a smoke.
The description and the way she told the story always made it should as if the small outhouse was about thirty yards away.
When I visited the home several years ago the alley-ways were yet to be boarded up so I could investigate this little outhouse.
I found the outhouse to still be standing, probably now used as a shed, built solid of brick, but no more than twenty feet from the back door. Right in the corner of the neighboring yards brick wall and the high brick wall of the church behind the house. The outhouse actually seemed to be joined to the two intersecting brick walls.
Paget's drawing shows the three crime fighters looking at the ears while up against a brick wall, suggesting that that is either the side of the outhouse/shed or a tall brick wall.
So the outhouse in this story could have either been used for relief, so to speak, or have been a shed.
Or it could have been both, with one attached to the other.

P.S. I did a little further research into my mom's outhouse experience and she said that although it was outside, it was indeed a flush toilet. Who would have thought?

Now I have used my fair share of outhouse's over the years. All in rural settings and most involved with camping. I have even built one which we use at our cabin.

But one thing we forget in our modern reading of these tales is that it was not uncommon for most houses, rural and urban to still not have indoor plumbing. It is hard for us to imagine someone like Miss. Cushing, with all her layers of clothes marching out back to an house. it wasn't until the mid to late 1800's that indoor plumbing started to become more common.
Miss Cushing probably had other methods of transport for the unpleasantness's which probably involved the under paid help.

Has anyone ever investigated the flushing systems in Baker St.?

With that in mind I would like to pass on a little outhouse wisdom . . . .

NORW - Brad's summer reading list #17 - no bones about it.

The first image to come to mind for me when re-reading this tale was; Where is Watson at the time he put pen to paper to record this story of Sherlock Holmes?
He probably would have been in his fifties.
Was he still with Holmes? Was he married?
The publication date of this story is 1903. It is believed Watson was once again married in 1902. So it would seem he was happily sequestered in his home study when he recorded it.

Holmes at the time of this tale is recently back from his great hiatus. Watson has moved back in to Baker St., at Holmes' request. Holmes is however bored with the lack work for his singular talents. At one point he remarks how London once was the European capital of high crime, and he longs for those more active days.
It would be interesting, if records had been kept, to compare crime statistics for major European cities at this time.

Holmes has trouble hiding his glee when McFarlane shows up with what seems to be a case worthy of Holmes' abilities.
The following line reminds one of a small child trying to restrain his emotions after receiving good news; “Arrest you!” said Holmes. “This is really most grati—most interesting. On what charge do you expect to be arrested?”

As this summers reading has suggested (as does Bill Cochrans book), Holmes appears to have come back from his travels a much more easily satisfied man.

Another incident on the first few pages of the story that I found interesting was how Holmes offered an asthmatic a cigarette.  Although definitely a no-no now a days, in Holmes time was it thought a cigarette would help ones breathing.   The following advertisements may suggest that that was indeed the case.  (And Watson doesn't admonish Holmes in any way for this suggestion.)

(But don't give it to kids under six.)

(see Cubeb)

              

The mystery itself is good, with a very good plot along with very good detective work. Lestrade is, as always, Lestrade.

And once again we get a fine example of how far forensics had or had no come at this time in Holmes life.

It is not uncommon in modern forensic science for the police to determine the types of bones found at a site by DNA, bone measurement and probably any number of other ways to tell one bone from another.

And it also is the case with the examination of the blood samples. It doesn't appear that there was a method yet that could determine the nature of the blood.

There were probably many naturalist in Europe at the time of this story that could identify different types of bones, but it doesn't seem to be the police forces practice to involve experts from other fields yet.

Watson may have been able to help, but he did not visit the bone site during the story.

I would have been a little worried about starting a fire in the house, but, after all, it was a fairly modern villa so probably it met up to some better fire standards than . .  let's say. . . something built during. . . Victorian times.

So. next time you are feeling under the weather. . . .

But make mine a Guinness!

STUD - Brad's summer reading list - #12a - a look at the date - Once more this hallowed path we walk.

I am looking forward to Sherlock Peoria's take on STUD and I hope we get it today.
Brad is very involved with some other topics at the moment so I am not sure if that will happen or not.

When Brad several weeks ago posted his reading list he suggested that he believed the case, or at least the part concerning the meeting of Holmes and Watson,  to have taken place the weekend of July 16th, 1881.

But on further reading I can't say I agree with that. But I am looking forward to his explanation.

I noticed Baring-Gould placed the date for the case of STUD in March of 1881, probably because Watson says March 4th.. I have not read his reasons yet, nor have I looked at any other chronologies.


But let's look at what we know.
We know Watson took his degree in 1878.
Which left him plenty of time to get trained by the army and arrive in In Candahar (his spelling) in time for the Battle of Maiwand.
The Battle of Maiwand took place on the 27th of July 1881.
So, after the great effort by Murray, Watson was sent to Peshawar, where he 'rallied' to the point of being able to get around and do some walking.
At this point he contracted 'enteric' fever.

Watson only states that 'for months'  he despaired for his life, giving no actually length of time for his recovery.
That 'for months' can be taken several ways.

The easiest way out would to be to argue that what Watson actually meant was 'four' months, and the 'for' was just a mis-print. But like I said, that's the easy way out.

But let's look at a possible time for his recovery. I am not a doctor nor have I played one on TV, so most of this is just speculation.

After his shoulder injury he would probably be up walking long before the actual wound hailed.
So let's say about a month after being shoot Watson contracted that dreaded "curse of our Indian possessions".

At which point he was sent back to England.

So I guess at this point we have to decide what for us would be a reasonable time for "for months"
One modern estimation of how long typhoid fever will last without treatment is " a month or more".

Another states about two to four weeks.

We do however have to accept that Watson was in a somewhat debilitated state and was therefore weakened in constitution.

But given that, even if we give this period of time five months before he was finally sent home, that makes his arrival, after a month of travel,  December when he returns to Portsmouth.

He was obviously well on his way to recovery once he arrived for he than "gravitated" to London, and no mention of time spent in hospital once in London is mentioned.

He next states that he then spends some time in a private hotel in the Strand.

Again we have to decide what Watson means by his description of "some time". Do we assume "some time" is longer or shorter than "for months".

We know he had nine months to make a decision on his situation, but we also know he didn't wait that long.

However, if he did indeed wait almost nine months and we are using our earlier argument of his recovery and travel taking about six months, that wold place him meeting Holmes in August or September.

But it is Watson's statement "It was upon the 4th of March, as I have good reason to remember. . ." that throws, for me, off the argument that this first chapter took place in July. Unless you want to argue that the relationship took more that a few months to develop to the point of this narration, and that would take us into March of 1882.

Watson also states that it was only for the week or so that they had no callers, and not for several months.

So if we are to accept that this first chapter of STUD took place in July of 1881 or we accept that it took until March of 1882 for Watson to write "It was upon the 4th of March. . .", which means it took them almost a year to get to the point were Watson would know of Holmes' occupation.

And I don't accept that.
If we lengthen the time of Watson's recovery and assume that he took almost all of his allotted nine months before he realized he needed new 'digs' then we must put the line "It was upon the 4th or March. .. " in 1882. And I don't accept that either. That would mean Watson's recovery took almost two years or it took Holmes and Watson a very long time to get to know each others habits.

Watson is very specific on two important dates, three if you need to count the year he got his degree.
First the Battle of Maiwand, which we know took place in July of 1880.
Second is the line "4th of March".

Remember we are only arguing when the first chapter takes place, the meeting of Holmes and Watson.
If we accept Brad's Holmes and Watson meetings in July of 1881 we have to place the line "4th of March" in 1882, unless you believe Watson did  not mean the 4th of March.
Baring-Gould argues that STUD, the actual case took place in March of 1881, from Friday the 4th to Monday the 7th. He does not argue that they met in March.

If we except that the case took place in March of 1881 we have to also accept that they met a few weeks or so before March 4th, which would be late January or early February.

If you except July of 1881 as the date for the first chapter, one year after Watson's injury, you have to accept March of 1882 as the date of STUD. And neither Brad nor Baring-Gould place any cases in their chronologies of the Canon in 1882.

If you also accept July of 81 as the year and month of their meeting and you accept 1881 as the year of STUD than the date March 4th means nothing.
And I don't buy that.

Where Watson is for the most part specific, and he is three times in this story, we should accept that.
Later in chapter two we have a discussion between Holmes and Watson that could only take place between two individuals that do not yet know each other very well, which also helps place the first chapter before 1882.

The conversation is the one where Holmes finally explains his occupation to Watson and also Watson gets his first real education in Holmes' method. And at one point in this discourse Watson, to himself, states ' "This fellow is very clever, " I said to myself, "but he is certainly very conceited."

The only way I see that you could accept that this first chapter took place in July is to discard the 4th or March completely.

I am, however, going to take Watson at his word.

STUD, Walking on hallowed ground - Brad's summer reading list - #12 - A Study in Scarlet (STUD), Chapter One.

I can't imagine what it would be like to read this story, again, for the first time. (Well at least till my mind finishes going the way it seems to be going.)
I don't even think STUD was in the first collection of Sherlock Holmes stories I read.

Does it carry as much weight for those who are introduced to him in book form first (does that happen anymore?) as it does to us 'scholars' (I use the term weakly in my case) and fans, those of use who have traveled to Baker St. more than once?

Let's face it, most introductions to Holmes and Watson now probably take place through television or movies and perhaps fan fiction and pastiche.

Many probably picked up the books during the hiatus between seasons of 'Sherlock' ( is that 'media made' break now going to be considered the 'Second, Third, Fourth Great Hiatus?), which is fine. I have watched many shows that have interested me enough to go and read more about the subject. But it means we are no longer introduced to Holmes without any prior knowledge of what is or is not to come.

And it doesn't seem the impact of this first chapter, the chapter where John Watson first meets Sherlock Holmes, had very much effect on the readers in 1887. The story was not a run away hit or an over night success. It was, however, a successful beginning. First published in 1887, it would take three more years for another story to take place, SIGN. Holmes popularity would not really take off until Watson's (Doyle's) association with the Strand Magazine in the form of short stories.

It probably wasn't till men and women started to meet and talk after several cases had been adapted to publication form that the importance of this meeting was heralded as a memorable moment.

While most Sherlockians achingly wait for a really good period adaption of this first meeting (there may have been one that I missed) to be put on film, the first readers of STUD did not realize how important this meeting was because they had no idea that such an intensive scrutiny of the chronology would follow. As far as they knew, this would be a 'one of'. They didn't know 60 cases would follow. Did we know Harry Potter would be so big when exploring the first book? Or James Bond?

It could probably be argued that this first chapter can never be read by anyone the first time and be judged fairly for that first reading anymore. Let's face it, it will indeed be rare for someone to discover Sherlock Holmes with out having met him somewhere else first.

I know I didn't.
I first met Holmes as played by Rathbone. And then again only many years later sitting in an old logging camp in Maine around the fire. But even then I knew Holmes and Watson pretty well before I read the book. And this most important introduction was not included.

Can we revel in the importance of this chapter without taking it as part of the whole?

I argue we can only do that after we know what the whole is, or at least most of the sixty stories.
It is in "Playing the Game" that the weight of this chapter really becomes important.
It is the starting point of all that follows. And what a great start it is.

But it is now hard to imagine this meeting for the first time. My head is already filled with all I know about the two men.
Benedict Cumberbatch's image is standing at the table in the laboratory ( I think he would have been great in a traditional meeting of the two). (And yes, I would have loved to see him do this chapter in a period correct presentation.)
Perhaps the best way we can look at this chapter now is as if it where the pilot episode of an upcoming TV show. Networks know they have to come up with something that really grabs our attention and makes us want to come back. Would this 'episode' have made you want to come back?

And even that isn't fair to readers past because we know, as with most pilots, that at least several more episode's are going to follow. Readers of STUD did not know if that was going to happen or not.

I think, if done as an episode to an upcoming season,  STUD carries enough dramatic weight to warrant visiting the new show again next week.
Did readers in 1887 become so intrigued by these two characters that they hoped 'the season' would continue with new 'episodes'? Was there fan speculation about what was going to happen next?
I don't know.
I don't believe it had the same bang as the first episode of, oh, so many years ago now,'Sherlock'.

I don't know that I agree with Brad's placing this chapter in June, I have to do more research on that.
Watson does give the impression when he says, "It is upon the 4th of March, as I have good reason to remember. . . .", that he had only been with Holmes for a few weeks or at the most a few months when he sits down to write what would be in chapter two. And when Watson is usually that specific, I tend to take him at his word.

No, I can't imagine reading this chapter, again, for the very first time and getting out of it what I do now.
But I am okay with that for the very same reason I don't recommend new readers reading the books in any annotated version for the first time; The discovery that is Holmes and Watson needs to come slowly and be enjoyed. It is only by going over and over these stories with what we learn from our own 'research' and the research of others that we begin to form a solid, for ourselves, image of these two.

And that's why I am enjoying Brad's reading suggestions so much. It makes me reread them and come up some thing I believe worthy of the discussion.

Thanks Brad.

Brad's summer reading list #11 - Black Peter (BLAC) - Sherlockain pinterest

I love Black Peter! I don't know if that is akin to loving 'spotted dick' or what, but it is one of my favorites.
As well it should be.
It is the namesake story of the first scion I belonged (and still belong) to, The Harpooners of the Sea Unicorn. Taking a reference from BLAC and the building of missiles at then MacDonald Douglas in St. Charles. (We even had a fake harpoon the the most recent member to commit a Sherlockian faux pas had to carry throughout the meeting.)
Which meant we did a presentation on the story each year on the anniversary of our group.
So I have been over it a lot.
I even did a large painting of this F.D.S. illustration that we could hang at our meetings and events. It is one of my favorite F.D.S. illustrations.
So, needless to say, I have attended the inquiry into the death of Peter Carey many times.
But, like with most of the Canon, you can always walk away with something new.

And with the line; "I have never known my friend to be in better form, both mental and physical, than in the year ‘95. His increasing fame had brought with it an immense practice, and I should be guilty of an indiscretion if I were even to hint at the identity of some of the illustrious clients who crossed our humble threshold in Baker Street."
the date 1895 is firmly planted in the minds of readers as the date the will always be associated with Holmes and his time in Victorian history.

 ". . .  Here, though the world explode, these two survive,

And it is always eighteen ninety-five." V.S.

But arguably we would have to examine the four to six stories (depending on the chronology you follow) collected from 1895 in the canon to see how they hold up as favorites and to see if this was indeed Holmes at his best.

Several other years contain more documented cases. And none were actually published in 1895 to my knowledge.

1887, 88, and 89 all have many more documented cases than 1895.

But even with all that said, there are still some great things to explore in BLAC. Once again we find our adventure starting in Baker Street. Only Holmes and Watson are both present at the start of the case. And once again Scotland Yard is in need of Holmes' help.

Like so many we have been reviewing for Brad's summer reading list, the case again takes Holmes and Watson out of London to the more rural environs.

And again, as mentioned in the last review, the story involves nautical intrigue. And, as also mentioned, another wealthy man who got his gains from nefarious acts while on board a boat. Although we never actually meet Peter Carey, alive or dead, he has to rank up there with the best of the bad guys in the Canon for temper, strength and loathsomeness.

Repeating myself, once again we get some insight into Watson's knowledge of nautical terms and ship board life. It is never mentioned in any of the stories that Watson actually carries a note book with him, In many television and film adaptations we sometimes see Watson making notes at the end of the day, and there are a few Canonical references to back that up. But most of Watson's writings are done from memory, even his note taking. But to get the nautical references so accurate one most have some experience with boats, like the literary agent Doyle did. Or Watson was using a lot of artistic license.

Most of Holmes investigations take place from the confines of Baker St. with the aid of the newspapers and information he can gather from Baker St. The crime scene gives up little that Holmes does not already know.

Again we are teased in this tale of cases we will never read about; The sudden death of Cardinal Tusca and the Wilson the notorious canary-trainer. Oh, how we have speculated about those, especially Wilson, imagining how he could train canaries to commit crimes. Amazing! 

We get to meet Stanley Hopkins and find that he is not all that different the Lestrade other than he know Holmes does something different from the police but really can't get a hold of what that is.

And why was the elder Neligan, then Holmes and Watson, going to Norway. I mean the younger Neligan got the securities back, at least the ones that were left.  Well I guess in July Norway could be nice. Unless the original Neligan is not dead? What's up with that!

I did a presentation once about the difference in Whale and seal harpoons and the individuality of each type of hunt. We have had presentation on the design of steam trawlers, which was the Sea Unicorn. Terms and trades that were so common at the time, but unknown or unfamiliar to us now.

And very few tales have as much atmosphere as BLAC. First of course we have 221b Baker St.                                                                         We have a train ride.                                                                                             We have high adventure on the high sea.                                                     Mansion of dark happenings                                                                           A very grotesque crime scene (more on that in a minute).                   Interesting little room called 'the cabin'.                                                       Holmes and Watson about to embark on another adventure.

Now back to the point about grotesque. I have noticed with the re-reading of our summer reading list that the word grotesque has appeared several times, and not always in places where I would expect it. To me, the death of Peter Carey and the means by which it was carried out, would appear to have been very grotesque. At least me modern use in films and books. But seldom does Watson use the term as we would now. And for good reason. While I usually associated the word with horrible images in horror or action movies, which does apply, that is not the only use or original use of the word. And for a quick reference to the history of use of the word I will quote wikipedia; "    Since at least the 18th century (in French and German as well as English), grotesque has come to be used as a general adjective for the strange, fantastic, ugly, incongruous, unpleasant, or disgusting, and thus is often used to describe weird shapes and distorted forms such as Halloween masks. In art, performance, and literature, grotesque, however, may also refer to something that simultaneously invokes in an audience a feeling of uncomfortable bizarreness as well as empathic pity. More specifically, the grotesque forms on Gothic buildings, when not used as drain-spouts, should not be called gargoyles, but rather referred to simply as grotesques, or chimeras."

And several other sources have referenced about the same.

'Sherlock' Benedict Cumberbatch walking in with the harpoon

was indeed grotesque, as is the bug on our windshield. But several of the times Watson has used the word I questioned it's placement and, as in the case of BLAC, I questioned why it wasn't used there. But now we know.    

So, yea, I really like BLAC. It gives those of us who enjoy  what is now the history part of the stories a lot to think about.]

And that can never be wrong.        

Although it did lack beer.