Really terrific discussion boards are hard to come by. Most...
1) are too big to keep up with;
2) are too small to bother with;
3) boast a disturbingly high ratio of crazy-members;
4) have moderators who are perpetually on vacation;
5) are poorly designed;
6) are rarely on-topic;
Etc., etc. I could go on and on.
Luckily for Sherlock Holmes fans, however, there is a fantastic discussion board out there that does absolutely everything right: Holmesian.net. I have been a member there for a year now and I love everything about it: the characters, the design, the discussion topics. It's not too big and not too small; it's gorgeously and efficiently designed; there is fantastic in-depth discussion not just about the Holmes stories, but about Victorian England, Arthur Conan Doyle, and various film adaptations. What a joy to log on every morning and get my daily fix of Holmesian talk and trivia. A highly recommended site.
I can only think of one possible con: a huge majority of the members there love Jeremy Brett. I won't attempt to deny it: I am a huge Brett fan, so the Brett-centricity of the place doesn't bother me one bit. (I think I've just invented a new word!) And despite the Brett love, anybody is welcome there, regardless of who your favorite Holmes is. So it's really not even a con: just a little tiny caveat.
So hurry off to Holmesian and sign up, if you haven't already!
Very sincerely yours,
M
Friday, May 16, 2008
Saturday, May 10, 2008
A Particularly Peculiar Miniature Mystery
There are many mysteries in the Sherlock Holmes stories, but the greatest one is perhaps what was Holmes doing during the Great Hiatus? Everyone has their own theory to expound. Purists insist that Holmes was telling the truth when he told Watson that he had disappeared to Florence, traveled for two years in Tibet, and “spent some months in a research into the coal-tar derivatives, which I conducted in a laboratory at Montpellier, in the South of France.” Others are more skeptical. Some (most notably Nicholas Meyer, who explored the idea in The Seven-Per-Cent Solution) think that Holmes spent at least part of the Hiatus seeking a cure for his drug addiction. Others say that Holmes died at the Falls and that Moriarty took his place. Still others (well, an other, leastways; namely, Mark Bourne, in his story “The Case of the Detective’s Smile”) believe that Holmes visited Alice’s Wonderland and solved the case of the stolen tarts.
It is not within the purview of this essay to discuss the Great Hiatus in its entirety. Instead, I would prefer to focus our attention on one particularly peculiar miniature mystery within the Great Hiatus. It is a small point, but a suggestive one: and remember what the Master himself observed in TWIS: “It is, of course, a trifle, but there is nothing so important as trifles.”
The mystery is namely this: In EMPT, after he finishes explaining to Watson what he has been up to for the last three years, Holmes says, “I came over at once to London, called in my own person at Baker Street, threw Mrs. Hudson into violent hysterics, and found that Mycroft had preserved my rooms and my papers exactly as they had always been.”
What?
Upon reading that sentence, multiple questions arise in the mind of the reader, but the most puzzling one seems to me to be: why, if everyone was so sure that Holmes was dead, was his apartment never leased to someone else? I can think of only a few explanations for this discrepancy…
1) Mrs. Hudson was so grief-stricken over Holmes’s death that she could not bear to rent the rooms out to anyone else. This scenario is possible - but implausible. Although we know that Mrs. Hudson was very fond of Holmes (see DYIN), what good would come from her not renting out his rooms? (Unless...was Mrs. Hudson in love with Holmes? Was Holmes in love with Mrs. Hudson? Were they carrying on a clandestine affair under Watson's nose? "There we come into those realms of conjecture where the most logical mind may be at fault...")
2) Dr. Watson moved in. This too seems rather unlikely. In “The Final Problem” Watson has rooms bordering Mortimer Street in Westminster (“clambering over the wall which leads into Mortimer Street”); at the time of EMPT he is living in Kensington (“I retraced my steps to Kensington”). There is no indication that he moved back to his old bachelor pad in between. I think we can safely scrap this idea.
3) Mycroft moved in. This is perhaps less objectionable than the idea of Watson moving in, but it is still rather odd. Such a move would be extremely taxing for Mycroft, creature of habit that he was. And too, if Mycroft had moved in, you would think that Sherlock would have mentioned it to Watson. Instead, we hear: “Mycroft had preserved my rooms and my papers exactly as they had always been” and “Our old chambers had been left unchanged through the supervision of Mycroft Holmes and the immediate care of Mrs. Hudson.” If Mycroft had actually moved in, wouldn’t Sherlock have said so? How could he have lived in his brother's apartment without disturbing anything?
4) Dr. Watson paid Mrs. Hudson not to rent the room out to anyone else. If Watson did this, he was certainly much more affected by the death of Holmes than he ever let on. Surely no sane man would pay his late friend’s rent just so nobody else could move into his old apartment. Remember, too, that Watson was never particularly wealthy: such a commitment would surely have put a great strain on his finances.
5) Mycroft paid Mrs. Hudson not to rent the room out to anyone else. Although Mycroft undoubtedly had access to more money than Watson (“hello, Chancellor of the Exchequer!”), how would Mycroft explain such a tactic to Mrs. Hudson without arousing her suspicions? Can you imagine such a conversation? "I want you to keep Sherlock's rooms just as they were because..." Because why? "Because I am devastated by his death, even though we rarely saw each other in life"? "Because I believe Sherlock's spirit would rest easier knowing his rooms are exactly as were upon his death"? "Because I think he might still be alive"? Did Mycroft confide in Mrs. Hudson? If so, why did they not tell Watson?
6) Mycroft paid an agent to live in Baker Street until his brother returned. This agent would have had to live in Baker Street for three years without touching any of Holmes's possessions - unless, of course, Mycroft or the agent took an inventory of all of Holmes's possessions before moving any new items in. The mind boggles at the difficulty of cataloging the syringes, the commonplace books, the various portraits of famous criminals... You would think that Mrs. Hudson would have noted such an effort. And as if getting the items out weren't difficult enough, remember that Mycroft or the agent would have had to move the agent's things out and Holmes's things in in the spring of 1894 before Sherlock's return, all without arousing Mrs. Hudson's suspicions. To sum, a possible explanation - but an exceedingly unlikely one.
7) Holmes and Watson had another roommate that Watson never wrote about, who continued to live in Baker Street during the Great Hiatus and kept Holmes's things in order. This is, oddly enough, perhaps the least objectionable theory of the seven (or one of the least objectionable, anyway). It explains a variety of difficulties rather nicely. Mrs. Hudson would not be suspicious if this person stayed in the rooms after Holmes’s supposed death. We need not worry over Watson’s sanity, or picture poor Mycroft trying to move in while not disturbing his brother’s (numerous) papers, or imagine the difficulty of an unknown agent cataloguing Holmes's possessions. If this theory is true, who is this mysterious person? How long did he or she live at Baker Street? What was his or her relationship to Holmes? Did he or she know that Holmes had survived the incident at Reichenbach?
“These are very deep waters…”
Which of the seven theories do you think is most probable? Is there a possible scenario that I missed entirely?
Until next time.
I remain,
Very sincerely yours,
M
It is not within the purview of this essay to discuss the Great Hiatus in its entirety. Instead, I would prefer to focus our attention on one particularly peculiar miniature mystery within the Great Hiatus. It is a small point, but a suggestive one: and remember what the Master himself observed in TWIS: “It is, of course, a trifle, but there is nothing so important as trifles.”
The mystery is namely this: In EMPT, after he finishes explaining to Watson what he has been up to for the last three years, Holmes says, “I came over at once to London, called in my own person at Baker Street, threw Mrs. Hudson into violent hysterics, and found that Mycroft had preserved my rooms and my papers exactly as they had always been.”
What?
Upon reading that sentence, multiple questions arise in the mind of the reader, but the most puzzling one seems to me to be: why, if everyone was so sure that Holmes was dead, was his apartment never leased to someone else? I can think of only a few explanations for this discrepancy…
1) Mrs. Hudson was so grief-stricken over Holmes’s death that she could not bear to rent the rooms out to anyone else. This scenario is possible - but implausible. Although we know that Mrs. Hudson was very fond of Holmes (see DYIN), what good would come from her not renting out his rooms? (Unless...was Mrs. Hudson in love with Holmes? Was Holmes in love with Mrs. Hudson? Were they carrying on a clandestine affair under Watson's nose? "There we come into those realms of conjecture where the most logical mind may be at fault...")
2) Dr. Watson moved in. This too seems rather unlikely. In “The Final Problem” Watson has rooms bordering Mortimer Street in Westminster (“clambering over the wall which leads into Mortimer Street”); at the time of EMPT he is living in Kensington (“I retraced my steps to Kensington”). There is no indication that he moved back to his old bachelor pad in between. I think we can safely scrap this idea.
3) Mycroft moved in. This is perhaps less objectionable than the idea of Watson moving in, but it is still rather odd. Such a move would be extremely taxing for Mycroft, creature of habit that he was. And too, if Mycroft had moved in, you would think that Sherlock would have mentioned it to Watson. Instead, we hear: “Mycroft had preserved my rooms and my papers exactly as they had always been” and “Our old chambers had been left unchanged through the supervision of Mycroft Holmes and the immediate care of Mrs. Hudson.” If Mycroft had actually moved in, wouldn’t Sherlock have said so? How could he have lived in his brother's apartment without disturbing anything?
4) Dr. Watson paid Mrs. Hudson not to rent the room out to anyone else. If Watson did this, he was certainly much more affected by the death of Holmes than he ever let on. Surely no sane man would pay his late friend’s rent just so nobody else could move into his old apartment. Remember, too, that Watson was never particularly wealthy: such a commitment would surely have put a great strain on his finances.
5) Mycroft paid Mrs. Hudson not to rent the room out to anyone else. Although Mycroft undoubtedly had access to more money than Watson (“hello, Chancellor of the Exchequer!”), how would Mycroft explain such a tactic to Mrs. Hudson without arousing her suspicions? Can you imagine such a conversation? "I want you to keep Sherlock's rooms just as they were because..." Because why? "Because I am devastated by his death, even though we rarely saw each other in life"? "Because I believe Sherlock's spirit would rest easier knowing his rooms are exactly as were upon his death"? "Because I think he might still be alive"? Did Mycroft confide in Mrs. Hudson? If so, why did they not tell Watson?
6) Mycroft paid an agent to live in Baker Street until his brother returned. This agent would have had to live in Baker Street for three years without touching any of Holmes's possessions - unless, of course, Mycroft or the agent took an inventory of all of Holmes's possessions before moving any new items in. The mind boggles at the difficulty of cataloging the syringes, the commonplace books, the various portraits of famous criminals... You would think that Mrs. Hudson would have noted such an effort. And as if getting the items out weren't difficult enough, remember that Mycroft or the agent would have had to move the agent's things out and Holmes's things in in the spring of 1894 before Sherlock's return, all without arousing Mrs. Hudson's suspicions. To sum, a possible explanation - but an exceedingly unlikely one.
7) Holmes and Watson had another roommate that Watson never wrote about, who continued to live in Baker Street during the Great Hiatus and kept Holmes's things in order. This is, oddly enough, perhaps the least objectionable theory of the seven (or one of the least objectionable, anyway). It explains a variety of difficulties rather nicely. Mrs. Hudson would not be suspicious if this person stayed in the rooms after Holmes’s supposed death. We need not worry over Watson’s sanity, or picture poor Mycroft trying to move in while not disturbing his brother’s (numerous) papers, or imagine the difficulty of an unknown agent cataloguing Holmes's possessions. If this theory is true, who is this mysterious person? How long did he or she live at Baker Street? What was his or her relationship to Holmes? Did he or she know that Holmes had survived the incident at Reichenbach?
“These are very deep waters…”
Which of the seven theories do you think is most probable? Is there a possible scenario that I missed entirely?
Until next time.
I remain,
Very sincerely yours,
M
Friday, May 02, 2008
The Sound of the Master's Voice
In the Canon, Doyle mentions several times that Holmes has a high voice. I never understood what exactly that meant until I found this free audio version of the Sherlock Holmes stories. The reader is (sadly) anonymous, but his renditions of the stories are fantastic. His voice for Holmes is cold and biting and aristocratic, and it gets quite high. Suddenly I understood exactly what Doyle was driving at in his description of his protagonist's voice. The Sadly Anonymous Reader also brings a great deal of nuance to all the characters, including Watson. This is a first-rate adaptation and well-worth downloading. Take a listen!
My more observant readers might be wondering why, in my last entry, I did not address several other important Canonical factors when arriving at Holmes's birth-year - such as the fact that Holmes met Musgrave four years before MUSG, or that Watson once claimed that Holmes had been in practice for twenty-three years. I have been considering the question as well and intend to address it sometime in the future - but suffice it to say till then, I still think there is still enough evidence to place Holmes's birth-date in 1860 or 1861.
M.
My more observant readers might be wondering why, in my last entry, I did not address several other important Canonical factors when arriving at Holmes's birth-year - such as the fact that Holmes met Musgrave four years before MUSG, or that Watson once claimed that Holmes had been in practice for twenty-three years. I have been considering the question as well and intend to address it sometime in the future - but suffice it to say till then, I still think there is still enough evidence to place Holmes's birth-date in 1860 or 1861.
M.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)