Thursday, August 30, 2018

Necessary Rationalizations: The Overall Chronology of Sherlock Holmes and Dr. Watson (along with the Truth About Mary Russell)

[The following initially appeared in a somewhat different form in
The Watsonian Vol 5, No. 1, 2017]

Not only do I read and collect all the traditional Canonical Holmes adventures that I can find – literally several thousand of them now – I chronologicize them. Along with being a devout Holmesian, I am a Sherlockian Chronologicist – and not just of the pitifully few sixty stories in the original Canon. While some agonize over where to put those stories, I’ve long since settled that question to my own satisfaction and moved on to fitting in all of those other adventures that are in my collection. Since the mid-1970’s, almost as soon as I read my first Canonical story, I’ve also sought out those others that are identified as pastiches, and to me they’re an equally important part of the story of the whole lives of Our Heroes, Sherlock Holmes and Dr. John H. Watson. It’s all like a rope, with The Canon as the wire core, and the pastiches as the many fibrous strands wound around it to provide exponentially more strength than it would have without them.

The first thing that one must remember as I explain my Chronology is that I play The Game with Deadly Seriousness. Holmes and Watson were historical figures, and these events happened. Having made that clear, we can now proceed.

CREATING A CHRONOLOGY OF THE ENTIRE LIFE OF SHERLOCK HOLMES

I’ve explained in other previous blog entries how I came to create my Chronology. For instance, see “Sherlock Holmes versus Jack the Ripper” . . .

http://17stepprogram.blogspot.com/2017/02/sherlock-holmes-versus-jack-ripper.html

. . . and also “Actually, That Wasn’t Watson” . . .

http://17stepprogram.blogspot.com/2017/03/actually-that-wasnt-watson-some-notes.html

I began constructing my Chronology in the mid-1990’s, almost by accident. I looked around one day and observed that I’d been collecting Holmes tales, both Canon and pastiche, since I was a child – buying them, Xeroxing them if I located them in a library, and later printing them off the internet when that came along, gathering them wherever and whenever I could find them . . . but not necessarily reading all of them. I just kept accumulating them. Instead of enjoying each of them like I should have, I was spending my time at 221b Baker Street by continually revisiting the same Canonical stories and a few of my favorite other tales, over and over again. That day, I decided to read everything that I’d accumulated over decades of collecting.

As I did so, I kept a small binder with me, containing useful maps and places to make notes. I began to organize the stories that I was reading by year, and by the time I’d read through all of my collection (what had at that point, anyway), I found that I’d constructed a very rough Chronology of not only The Canon, but all of those additional adventures as well. I was amazed at how well everything seemed to fit together, with Canonical stories providing the main fabric, and all the later threads woven into that Great Holmes Tapestry by those who came after The First Literary Agent, thus serving to augment and improve the bigger picture.

After subsequent re-readings – a never-ending joy over the last twenty-plus years – and numerous revisions of that original Chronology, I now have a living document of over 750 densely packed pages, organized within the framework of The Canon, systematizing and listing every traditional Holmes adventure that I own, each set in the correct time period, and broken down by book, chapter, page, and sometimes even paragraph into year and day and hour.

NECESSARY RATIONALIZATIONS


In the introduction to my book Sherlock Holmes – Tangled Skeins (2015), I explained this concept in greater depth: How all of the traditional Canonical Holmes adventures fit together as a whole, and how the pieces of each were then all pulled out from all the others when published as individual cases. Essentially, when Watson was preparing an isolated investigation for publication, he only selected the necessary threads for that particular narrative, leaving out whatever else was happening at the same time, in order to avoid confusion with other concurrent investigations. When reading a story, there may be a segment that occurs on a certain day that only takes five or ten minutes of conversation. The implication is that the present investigation, the subject of the current story, somehow fills the rest of that day to the exclusion of all else, and there is no explanation at all as to what else actually did happen during the rest of that time. In fact, several other matters were also taking place while the narrated story played out, but instead of complicating that single story chosen for the subject of his latest effort with extraneous information, Watson only related what mattered.

This is the first and most important rationalization that one must make when fitting together the puzzle that makes up all of the thousands of cases handled by Holmes and Watson, and not just the few sixty recorded Canonical cases and the Untold Cases – those about Giant Rats and Abernetty Tragedies – that are teasingly mentioned along the way. If those few were all that Holmes ever did, spread out over a career lasting several decades, one would find it much more difficult to argue the claim that he is the greatest detective of them all, and he himself would have been a very bored individual indeed. If those few cases were all that he ever had to do, it would be no wonder that he would have felt “like a racing engine, tearing itself to pieces because it is not connected up with the work for which it was built.”

Many extra-Canonical tales erroneously begin with the statement that Holmes is bored, and hasn’t had a case in days or weeks. When one sees the whole story, opening one’s mind to all of that other evidence besides what came to us by way of The First Literary Agent, it’s obvious that Holmes stayed quite busy, and if anything, he used himself up with that “constant hard work of a most exacting kind” to which Watson referred. Watson, too, stayed very active as well, and for a man of action such as he was, the constant adventure must have been as if an addict were receiving a steady supply of a very satisfying drug.

For the most part, the thousands of adventures that I’ve collected, read, and organized all fit together quite well, and serve to reinforce one another, with very little that needs to be adjusted. I say “adjusted” because, at times, occasional aspects of one story or another do not fit with the bigger picture. Sometimes it’s Watson’s fault, when he is simply incorrect when making a statement, either accidentally or intentionally. This happened in The Canon, so it’s not surprising that it would occur in the extra-Canonical tales as well. (For instance, despite its saying so, “Wisteria Lodge” did not occur in 1892, in the midst of The Great Hiatus.)

Elsewhere, the internal dating inconsistencies in both “The Red-Headed League” and The Sign of the Four must be explained satisfactorily, along with other sticking points that occur in The Canon, such as Watson referring to his recent marriage at the beginning of SCAN, which occurs before SIGN - he doesn’t even meet Mary Morstan until September 1888 during SIGN. And if HOUN really occurs in Autumn 1889, as implied, then how is Watson, who is certainly married to Mary by then, able to get away to Dartmoor for so long? One can’t just blame it upon a slip of The First Literary Agent’s pen.

At times, Watson intentionally obfuscates a name, place, or date – this is no surprise. At other times, various later editors of Watson’s papers, those bringing us new adventures after those Canonical tales initially presented through The First Literary Agent – also make mistakes, or even intentionally change things to promote their own agendas.

Sometimes an editor will simply have a minor error, such as indicating that Watson is still living in Baker Street after 1902 when he’s already moved to Queen Anne Street. Occasionally there are incorrect descriptions of the layout of 221 Baker Street, added when an ignorant editor is padding Watson’s notes without knowing the facts. Mention might be made of Watson being a well-published author in The Strand in the mid-1880’s, before he had ever been published at all, and before The Strand went into business in early 1891.

In each of these cases, my Chronology notes what is Incorrect about these statements in terms of the bigger picture. Some “editors” who have made mistakes with the stories that are chronologicized, either accidental or intentional, might not like it when I point these out, or perhaps when I move their story from a date which is specified in their effort to a completely different date because they have mis-identified the time when it occurred, placing it in a chronological spot in which it simply will not work.

As knowledge of my Chronology has become more widely known, a number of people have contacted me, either asking for me to simply provide it to them free of charge – “Hey, can you send me your Chronology?” – as if I would just do that, or asking that it be placed on-line or published. I do sometimes conduct research within it for various Sherlockians, in order to track down this or that date or story for them, but I don’t simply give the Chronology away. I do think of publishing it someday, but I’m wary of that for a few reasons. First, it’s an ever-improving and ever-changing document, and as soon as I draw a line under it by putting it in a book, it will immediately be out of date. But more importantly is the aforementioned fact that some editors might be peeved when they see something listed as Incorrect.

CORRECTING CONTRADICTIONS WITH THE GREAT HOLMES TAPESTRY

Many stories work fine on their own with only minor notes about incorrect aspects, or even with no annotations at all. Other adventures have bigger issues, in that much greater chunks of the narrative are in direct contradiction to all of that massive body of evidence as accumulated in the thousands of other stories that are in general agreement with one another. In these cases, where editors who have otherwise excellent works have chosen to color outside the lines, extra steps must be taken. One example of this has been previously discussed in my blog entry, "Actually, That Wasn't Watson", explaining the truth about the film Young Sherlock Holmes (1985):

http://17stepprogram.blogspot.com/2017/03/actually-that-wasnt-watson-some-notes.html

Some narratives are very well written and provide important information for the overall biographies of Holmes and Watson, but there are pieces of the whole of those works that simply cannot be accepted as is. In those cases, there is a choice: Throw out the whole baby with all of the bathwater and keep none of it, or keep just the part that is right and get rid of the part that is wrong. This is where rationalization becomes necessary. I always list those inconsistencies when reading a story and Chronologicizing it. Sometimes a part of a story will be so at odds with established Canon that it seems that it cannot be included at all – but I make it work if I can.

There are several examples of this. I refer to a few – The Last Sherlock Holmes Story and The Seven-Per-Cent Solution - in my previously mentioned essays in past blogs. For instance, the first two chapters of Michael Dibdin’s extremely controversial novel The Last Sherlock Holmes Story are perfectly fine, and are a part of Holmes’s massive battle against The Ripper. But the rest of the book is a scurrilous slander against Holmes, obviously so maliciously fictional that it must have been written at some later date, probably by a Moriarty, and awkwardly grafted onto Watson’s original notes in order to irretrievably damage Holmes’s reputation. I include the first two chapters of that book in The Chronology, but recommend that it be read no further.


Another famous tale that provides both the same problem and the same solution is Nicholas Meyer’s The Seven-Per-Cent Solution, in which the beginning and end of the book are quite opposed to established Canonical Fact.


For The Chronology, I leave out Chapters 1 and 2, as well as parts of Chapters 4 and 17, so that the correct meat of the case, Holmes and Watson’s trip to Vienna and their meeting with Sigmund Freud, is represented, but those parts exonerating Professor Moriarty as a harmless and persecuted old man, as well as the segments incorrectly giving Holmes a damaged history to explain this persecution, are rightly ignored. (No doubt, these portions were also written and appended onto the manuscript by someone trying to rescue the evil Professor’s reputation.) Additionally, the end of the book, implying that The Great Hiatus is false, must be ignored.

There are some others of this necessary rationalization. One is Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Holmes by Loren D. Estleman (1979).


One would think that this book would be lumped in and thrown away with so many other completely fictional Holmes stories that have The Master fighting Dracula or ghosts or brain-eating aliens or zombie fungi. But there are many pieces of this story that are actually salvageable for the purposes of my Chronology.

For the most part, this tale can stand unaltered. However, there are certain segments at the end, wherein Dr. Jekyll actually changes physically into Mr. Hyde (as he does in the frankly fictionalized version by Robert Louis Stevenson) that just didn’t happen. In fact, during Holmes’s true investigation, Jekyll does take some sort of personality-altering drug that causes him to indulge in criminal activities and show homicidal personality traits, but there is not a magical physical alteration taking place into a whole different person. I note that someone at a later date altered Watson’s manuscript – First Literary Agent Doyle, perhaps? – in order to make it into a more supernatural tale. If one follows Holmes’s dictum – “No ghosts need apply.” – then anything in a narrative that implies that there is a real ghost or monster can be ascribed to some later editor with a need to alter and spoil the story with such aspects, fulfilling a personal agenda over the truth of the actual events.

Another editor with his own agenda is Peter Tremayne, (a pseudonym of Peter Berresford Ellis,) who has brought a number of Holmesian adventures to the public’s attention, such as “The Specter of Tullyfane Abbey”, “The Kidnapping of Mycroft Holmes”, “The Affray at the Kildare Street Club”, and “The Siren of Sennen Cove”. But along the way, he has felt the need to alter Watson’s original manuscripts by foisting in heavy-handed and repeated assertions that Holmes, Watson, Mrs. Hudson, and nearly everyone involved in the Sherlockian world are Irish, contrary to all accumulated evidence. According to Tremayne, Holmes and Mycroft attended university in Ireland. Mycroft works for the Irish government, etc. The list goes on and on. Apparently it’s very important to Tremayne that Our Heroes be Irish, in spite of all conflicting evidence. The stories are too good just to ignore because of these incorrect additions. Therefore, when reading them and examining them for inclusion in the Chronology, each is annotated with the notation that these Irish assertions are Incorrect.

One of the greatest rationalizations that occurred in order to make some really well-written but fundamentally incorrect works fit within the Sherlockian Chronological Universe relates to those adventures narrated by Mary Russell, brought forth by way of her own literary agent, Laurie R. King.

RATIONALIZING MARY RUSSELL

In 1994, I first read The Beekeeper’s Apprentice (1994) by Laurie R. King, which tells how fifteen-year-old Mary Russell meets the retired Sherlock Holmes on the Sussex Downs.


Although I had a few overall quibbles with the story, I was greatly impressed. The teacher/apprentice father/daughter relationship in the book was masterfully done. This, I thought, is the kind of Sherlock Holmes novel for which I'd been waiting, as well as a truly an enlightening volume of Sherlockian history. But then the next book, A Monstrous Regiment of Women (1995) veered into an uncomfortable (at best) romantic relationship wherein Holmes, by then nearing seventy, and the girl barely out of her teens professed their romantic love for one another before marrying.


I continued to buy the Russell books as they appeared – Always a collector! – but I couldn’t bring myself to read them because of that pesky romance and subsequent Holmes-Russell marriage. Although I do not doubt that Holmes has it in him to have a romantic relationship – I am a Baring-Gould disciple, (a “Baring-Gouldist” if you will,) agreeing with the Irene Adler/Montenegro/Nero Wolfe theories, and also realizing that Holmes was human, after all, no matter how much he tried to suppress his emotions – I do not think that Holmes felt that way about Mary Russell.

I eventually realized how to rationalize away my problems with Mary Russell’s narratives, allowing me to read all the other Russell books with much greater enjoyment. (They are really well-written books!) I shared my theory with some Sherlockian friends, and they agreed that is was quite plausible. In October 2009, I mustered up the courage to pass along my theory to Ms. King in a series of emails. She was gracious, tolerant, and – I think – amused. While she obviously did not agree with me, she did seem to be pleased that someone was playing The Game with her books.

She went on to post my comments on her website on October 28, 2009. (Sadly, after being there for a long time, the page seems to have vanished.) The responses from the friends of Mary Russell about my theory were not nearly as gracious, tolerant, or amused, and not at all surprising either. In fact, many of the comments were immediate, virulent, and scathing. After all, these are the folks who claim that “After 1914, he’s ours.” Russell’s defenders are quite passionate. I should have known better than to poke that particular Beekeeper’s nest.

In 2011, my own first book, The Papers of Sherlock Holmes, was published, relating some of Holmes and Watson’s adventures as discovered in one of Watson’s lost journals. The book’s publication allowed me to take the next step and track down the truth, determining the specifics of Russell’s terrible delusions. The following narrative, “Descent Into Madness”, confirms my initial theory about Mary Russell, serving as something of a patch, allowing other Sherlockians who have not previously been able to enjoy the Russell stories to now do so. For others, it may simply be an amusing aside (in the same way that Rex Stout asserted that “Watson Was a Woman”), while to a few it might even cause some blood-stirring gritting-of-the-teeth.

In 2012, at the time of the publication of the Russell book Garment of Shadows, my good Sherlockian friends Carolyn and (the late and much-missed) Joel Senter put the story up on their Classic Specialties website, where it’s remained ever since.

Not long after, it was reviewed by my friend, noted Sherlockian Roger Johnson, BSI, in “The District Messenger” (No.328, 22 December, 2012), his newsletter at the time for The Sherlock Holmes Society of London. Roger stated:

Mr. Marcum recognises the high quality of the popular novels by Laurie King that began with The Beekeeper’s Apprentice, but like many of us he rejects the notion that Miss Russell was married to Sherlock Holmes. “Descent into Madness” offers a neat solution to our problem, and it’s a good story in its own right.

http://www.sherlock-holmes.org.uk/pdf/DM328.pdf

Around that same time, Steve Rothman, BSI and editor of The Baker Street Journal, told me that “I am currently reading for review Garment of Shadows and – now and then – your idea creeps into my head.” Another member of the BSI who wishes to remain nameless - after I asked if I could name him - emailed me on December 2, 2012, stating: "I lost patience with Mary Russell quite some time ago . . . I congratulate you on doing something constructive and interesting with the same sentiments!"

So now, after living on the Senter's website Classic Specialties for several years, and having been previously published in The Watsonian, I present in my own blog the truth about Mary Russell: “Descent Into Madness” Hopefully, Ms. King is still feeling gracious, tolerant, and amused that The Game is still being played with her work . . . .


The doctor leaned back in his chair and regarded the old – the very old – man across from him. “Do you wish to see her?”

The old man shook his head and shifted slightly in his seat. The doctor knew that the gentleman was in his mid-eighties, at least, but he sat with the coiled energy and tension of someone in his prime. “I don’t think that would be wise at all, do you?”

“I tend to agree, Mr. Holmes,” said the doctor. “Still, I wanted to make the offer, due to the fact that you have known her for so long.”

“Since 1915,” replied Holmes. “We met when she was still in her teens.”

“1915,” said the doctor. “During the last time that we squabbled with the Jerrys.”

Holmes nodded. It seemed so long ago, those days of “The Great War.” And yet, it also seemed that no time had passed at all. Of course, it had. Poor Watson, gone nearly ten years. And now, in the early summer of 1939, Germany was again pushing Europe toward a war that no one but themselves wanted.

With a shake of his head, Holmes drew his thoughts back to the present, and the bleak room, and the doctor facing him across the wide desk. “Can you tell me what happened to her?”

“Certainly,” said the doctor, glancing at the file before him. “Let’s see. Mary Sue Russell. Born in 1900.” He flipped two or three pages. “When did you lose touch with her?”

“For the most part, in the late nineteen-twenties. It had been obvious for quite a while that her feelings for me had become . . . rather obsessive, and finally I thought that it would be better to sever all relations with her.”

“How did this obsession manifest itself?” asked the doctor, picking up a pen.

The doctor’s action did not go unnoticed by Holmes, but he decided that perfect frankness was the only way to proceed through this distasteful mess. “I first met Mary Russell in the spring of 1915. At that time, she was living with her aunt near my Sussex home. She was still recovering from the car accident that had killed her family. I did not realize at the time how fragile this had left her mental state.

“Recognizing her unique mental talents, I reluctantly agreed to take her on as an apprentice, although I was far too old for such a task at that point, and of course I had reservations about training a female for the type of work in which I was engaged. I had trained several apprentices over the course of my career, but never a woman.

“Even then, I should have suspected something. She always seemed to be especially jealous of my friend, Dr. Watson. She would resent when he would occasionally participate in an investigation, and she sarcastically referred to him as ‘Uncle John’, never failing to point out some error on his part in an effort to elevate her standing with me. Of course, Watson and I saw right through that, but we put up with it in order to encourage her intellectual training.”

“The file states that she went to Oxford,” said the doctor.

“Yes, it was through my influence that she was admitted. I must admit that she had some difficulty settling down to her studies, and that at times she seemed to feel persecuted by the expectations of her teachers. However, she did finish, and she went on to aid me in some of my investigations.”

“I see that she was injured during the course of one of these . . . .”

“That is correct. We had laid a trap for the daughter of one of my old enemies who was manipulating events in order to exact revenge upon me. We were forced to spend quite a bit of time together then, both during the events of the case, and after, during Russell’s recovery. Perhaps the trauma of that wound, coming so soon after the death of her family, contributed somewhat to Russell’s later madness . . . .”

“Possibly,” replied the doctor. “However, it was a number of years between that incident and the lady’s current illness.”

“I suppose,” said Holmes. “Still, I blame myself for not seeing the signs earlier, and also for not distancing myself from her when she first appeared to be showing indications of attraction toward me. I never thought of her as more than a student, or at times, I suppose, as a daughter. Sadly, she became obsessed with the idea that there was a . . . romantic relationship between the two of us.”

“Yes, yes,” said the doctor. “It seems that the condition was repressed for a number of years, but after the recent tragedy, it has burst forth to consume her. She believes with great passion that she . . . that she is your wife.”

“Absurd!” replied Holmes. “I have tried throughout my life to separate emotions from the path of pure ratiocination, and I have failed on numerous occasions – in my old age I can freely admit that I am only a man, after all – but there was only one woman that I ever loved. I . . . even had a son with her.” His gaze lost focus for a second, and then sharpened again. With absolute firmness, he stated, “Russell was not a woman that I ever loved.”

“The patient has mentioned your son in some of her ravings,” stated the doctor. He consulted his notes. “She states that he was an artist whose life was ruined by drug addiction.”

“More evidence of her insanity,” replied Holmes. “My son lives in New York now, working as a consulting detective. He is very successful, and I am quite proud of him. He has never been either an artist or a user of drugs. He was born years before I even met Russell. After his mother, there was no one else. Certainly not . . . .” His voice trailed away.

“Nevertheless,” said the doctor, “she insists with great certainty that you and she were married in the early 1920’s.”

“Russell has always been able to insist upon certain erroneous facts quite adamantly,” said Holmes. “When we first met in 1915, I was sixty-one years old. By the time her obsession began to manifest itself, Russell was arguing that I was, in fact, only in my mid-fifties when we first met. This was in spite of the fact that she was quite aware of my correct age. Of course, she was trying to rationalize away our age difference, in order to make her imagined romantic relationship between the two of us somewhat more plausible.”

“And at what point did you realize her feelings?” asked the doctor.

“Sometime in the early 1920’s, when it became obvious that she was becoming much more possessive. By the end of the decade, her visits had extended to the point where they were becoming intrusive. It was my son who warned me first. While on a visit to my Sussex home, he had seen what I did not. Inexplicably, I had ignored the signs of her irrational feelings. When I finally realized what was happening, I confronted her and forced her to understand that her beliefs about . . . about the two of us were incorrect and would always be so. It was determined that all contact between us should end.”

“And that was your last encounter with her?”

“No, I saw her one more time. Apparently, after our parting, she had moved back to Oxford, and a year or so later, she married, a young scholar of the Talmud. When I next heard from her, in 1930, she was pregnant with her first child. She reached out to me because her aunt, a Mrs. Heregrove, had been murdered, and in her condition, she was not able to investigate. I solved the matter, but had no further dealings with her.”

“Did you know that she had a second child a year or so later?”

“No,” replied Holmes. “I was unaware of any of the other details regarding her past, until I was summoned today. Can you tell me the circumstances of how she ended up here?”

“Certainly,” replied the doctor. “In short, she was traveling with her husband and children in Germany a month or so ago, when they were accosted by Nazi soldiers. Miss Russell, who apparently refused to take her husband’s name, lost her temper and argued with the soldiers. The entire family was arrested and Miss Russell was separated from her husband and children. Three days later, Miss Russell was taken from the prison and transported to the German border, where she was released with no explanation. She tried to re-enter the country, but she was caught and once again expelled.

“She contacted the Foreign Office, who in turn determined that Miss Russell’s husband and children all died on the day of their arrest, supposedly due to an accident in the prison. Miss Russell blamed herself for the death of her family, and also began to tell whoever would listen that she was also responsible for the deaths of her parents and brother when she was in her teens. She then attempted to do an injury to herself. Having no remaining family, her few friends were forced to institutionalize her.

“Since she has been here, she has been having delusions that she and you, Mr. Holmes, were the ones who actually had a romantic relationship, marriage, and children, instead of her actual husband, whom she does not seem to remember. She completely denies the facts of her actual marriage, instead reverting to her earlier fascination and obsession for you.”

“And your prognosis?” asked Holmes.

“Based on the rapid deterioration of her condition since she has been here, I believe that the condition is irreversible.

“I see,” replied Holmes.

The two men sat silently for a moment, Holmes staring into the distance, and the doctor making notes, his pen scratching on the paper. Finally, Holmes pulled his focus back and spoke.

“I would like to set up a fund for her care,” he said.

“I understand,” said the doctor.

“I do not want to resume any contact with her, but I do feel some sort of responsibility for what has happened. Perhaps, if I had simply let her go on her way that day in 1915, her path would have led in a much different direction.”

The doctor nodded. “It will be arranged as you wish,” he said. He gestured toward a stack of journals at the side of his desk. “These are hers,” he said. “They refer to the events of some of the past investigations that the two of you shared. Do you wish to see them?”

Holmes stood, surprising the doctor with the quick energy that the old body displayed. Holmes leaned forward on his cane, as the doctor rose more slowly to his feet, his hand still resting on the stack of journals.

“No,” said Holmes. “I recall perfectly well the details of each of those cases, and it would be . . . unpleasant to see how Russell remembers them. Destroy them, or let Russell read them, for as long as she’s able.”

“Certainly,” said the doctor. “Thank you for coming in today. My secretary will see you out . . . . “

* * *

The nurse unlocked the door and stepped in. The room was harsh and sunny, and the sunlight through the barred windows cast stripes on the bright white tile floor. The woman seated in the chair, looking far older than her nearly-forty years, did not raise her eyes.

“I’ve brought you something, Miss Russell,” said the nurse, brightly. “It’s your notebooks. The ones with your stories in them. Doctor thought that you might enjoy reading them.”

She placed the journals on the table beside Russell. Initially, there was no reaction. Then, Russell’s pale right hand moved and lifted the cover of the topmost journal an inch or so before letting it fall shut. The sleeve of her gown slipped back, revealing a thin red scar, newly healed, running along her inner forearm from wrist to elbow.

“May I – ” Russell said, her voice raspy and dry. “May I,” she said again, “have a pen? I would like to add to these stories.”

The nurse thought for just a second, before replying. “I don’t see any harm in that, Miss Russell,” she said, pulling a pen from the pocket of her starched white apron. “Anything to keep you interested in the world around you, that’s what I think. Just you let us know if you need anything, my dear.”

The nurse turned and left the room. Russell heard the rasp of the lock, and then the slide of the view window at eye level in the door. She felt the nurse’s gaze on her for a moment, before the slide was shut, and she knew that she was again alone.

The journals told the story of her life. All the parts that were important to her, anyway. She knew that if she could just make someone understand, then she would be freed from this place and allowed to return to her husband. That was where she belonged. By the side of her husband, Sherlock Holmes.

She shifted toward the table, and leaned forward. She pulled one of the journals toward her and flipped it open. Starting to read, she remembered the events of long ago. But after only a page or two, she found a sentence that caused her distress. It referred to Sherlock Holmes as her teacher. She fumbled with the pen, awkwardly opening the cap and adjusting it in her hand. It felt odd at first, but her muscles soon remembered the correct way to hold it. She moved her arm and drew a shaky line through the word teacher. Then, with great care and effort, she wrote above it the word husband.

Soon it was easier to write, and before long she had finished altering the first journal. With more purpose, she began on the second, changing the long-ago facts to reflect her present descent into madness, a journey from which she would never return.


©David Marcum 2018 – All Rights Reserved

WORKS REFERENCED
• The Seven-Per-Cent Solution, Nicholas Meyer, 1974
• The Last Sherlock Holmes Story, Michael Dibdin
• Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Holmes, Loren D. Estleman, 1979
• The Beekeeper’s Apprentice, Laurie R. King, 1994
• A Monstrous Regiment of Women, Laurie R. King, 1995
• Various Stories, Peter Tremayne (Pseudonym of Peter Berresford Ellis)
• Sherlock Holmes – Tangled Skeins, David Marcum, 2015
• "Sherlock Holmes versus Jack the Ripper" and “November, 1888”, David Marcum, The Watsonian, Fall 2015, Vol.3, No.2
• “Actually, That Wasn’t Watson”, David Marcum, The Watsonian, Fall 2016, Vol.4, No.2


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

David Marcum plays The Game with deadly seriousness. He first discovered Sherlock Holmes in 1975 at the age of ten, and since that time, he has collected, read, and chronologicized literally thousands of traditional Holmes pastiches in the form of novels, short stories, radio and television episodes, movies and scripts, comics, fan-fiction, and unpublished manuscripts. He is the author of over sixty Sherlockian pastiches, some published in anthologies and magazines such as The Strand, and others collected in his own books, The Papers of Sherlock Holmes, Sherlock Holmes and A Quantity of Debt, and Sherlock Holmes – Tangled Skeins. He has edited over fifty books, including several dozen traditional Sherlockian anthologies, such as the ongoing series The MX Book of New Sherlock Holmes Stories, which he created in 2015. This collection is now up to 21 volumes, with several more in preparation. He was responsible for bringing back August Derleth’s Solar Pons for a new generation, first with his collection of authorized Pons stories, The Papers of Solar Pons, and then by editing the reissued authorized versions of the original Pons books. He is now doing the same for the adventures of Dr. Thorndyke. He has contributed numerous essays to various publications, and is a member of a number of Sherlockian groups and Scions. He is a licensed Civil Engineer, living in Tennessee with his wife and son. His irregular Sherlockian blog, A Seventeen Step Program, addresses various topics related to his favorite book friends (as his son used to call them when he was small), and can be found at http://17stepprogram.blogspot.com/ Since the age of nineteen, he has worn a deerstalker as his regular-and-only hat. In 2013, he and his deerstalker were finally able make his first trip-of-a-lifetime Holmes Pilgrimage to England, with return Pilgrimages in 2015 and 2016, where you may have spotted him. If you ever run into him and his deerstalker out and about, feel free to say hello!

His Amazon Author Page can be found at:

https://www.amazon.com/kindle-dbs/entity/author/B00K1IKA92?_encoding=UTF8&node=283155&offset=0&pageSize=12&searchAlias=stripbooks&sort=author-sidecar-rank&page=1&langFilter=default#formatSelectorHeader

and at MX Publishing:

https://mxpublishing.com/search?type=product&q=marcum&fbclid=IwAR12tH4SUvE9nmEnnuqeI5GC7Tv69-NagPgmAZlxcz0vr2Ihza5_6jP-fXM

Wednesday, July 4, 2018

Automobiles in Sherlock Holmes Films

[A version of this essay originally appeared in "The Proceedings of the Pondicherry Lodge", the newsletter of The Sherlock Holmes Society of India, Volume 3, Issue 1, June 1, 2017]

It was once a long-held belief that no Sherlock Holmes film was set in the correct Victorian or Edwardian period until 1939’s The Hound of the Baskervilles with Basil Rathbone as Holmes and Nigel Bruce as Watson. This idea was disproven with the discovery and release of the “lost” William Gillette film, Sherlock Holmes (1916). Rediscovered in 1914 and subsequently restored, this masterpiece had scenes showing Holmes and company in correct clothing, as well as making use of proper horse-drawn conveyances:


However, other Holmes films produced in the early decades of the Twentieth Century did, in fact, update the settings so that the stories didn’t seem to take place in the times in which they were originally set. This wasn’t an intentional or smugly clever effort on the part of those long-ago film-makers to “update” Holmes by bringing his adventures kicking and screaming into their “modern” times. Rather, they were simply making films on tight budgets that didn’t allow for such extras and fripperies such as Victorian-period costumes and settings. Their thinking was certainly, “What would adding these aspects do to enhance the story?” Many of those early films were only a generation or so away from when the original adventures were set, so perhaps it wasn’t too jarring for audiences of that time to see them placed in contemporary settings.

But . . . a number of those early films did include the regular use of automobiles. Did that go unnoticed by film-goers of the time, who were also willing to ignore modern-day clothing in their Holmes films? Or did seeing a car in a tale that was clearly set in the late 1800’s throw them out of the story, even for just a moment?

Automobiles in The Canon

Although there have been quite a few traditional pastiches set around the beginning of the 1900’s that make use of the automobile in a correct and proper way (such as the radio show “The Adventure of the Horseless Carriage" starring Tom Conway, February 24th, 1947), the only Canonical story to mention a car is “His Last Bow”, published in September 1917, in the midst of World War I. Watson is the driver, arriving with a disguised Holmes at Von Bork’s Essex estate on 2nd August, 1914. The evil German watches them arrive . . . .

He was just in time to see the lights of a small car come to a halt at the gate. A passenger sprang out of it and advanced swiftly towards him, while the chauffeur, a heavily built, elderly man with a gray moustache, settled down like one who resigns himself to a long vigil.

Later, following his defeat, Von Bork is unwillingly placed into that same vehicle:

After a short, final struggle he was hoisted, still bound hand and foot, into the spare seat of the little car. His precious valise was wedged in beside him.

A bit earlier, Watson mentions the car to Holmes, giving no indication of its make or model, or whether it’s his own or one that has been leased for the occasion:

“I feel twenty years younger, Holmes. I have seldom felt so happy as when I got your wire asking me to meet you at Harwich with the car.”

I’m no automobile expert – to me they’re useful devices to get from here to there, and as long as they work correctly and have a way for me to listen to my favorite music, I’m satisfied. But there are people who love cars, and some of them are Holmesians, and they have no doubt spent a great deal of time thinking about just what kind of car it is that Watson would have driven on this most urgent of missions. A quick glance through some of my go-to reference materials – Baring-Gould’s The Annotated Sherlock Holmes, both versions of Klinger’s annotated editions, and the notes in The Oxford Sherlock Holmes – doesn’t show that anyone has ever felt that the question of Watson’s car was worth addressing. No doubt there is some research about it somewhere – in an old issue of The Baker Street Journal or The Sherlock Holmes Society of London Journal, perhaps? – that answers the question definitively, but for right now, the fact stands that this car in “His Last Bow”, whatever type that it was, is the only automobile to appear in The Canon.

In his autobiography Memories and Adventures (1924), Sir Arthur Conan Doyle, the first Literary Agent, commented obliquely on the use of automobiles in connection to Sherlock Holmes when referring in general to the filming of the Holmes stories, and specifically of his enjoyment of the silent films starring Eille Norwood. Doyle writes:

My only criticism of the films is that they introduce telephones, motor cars, and other luxuries of which the Victorian Holmes never dreamed.


Perhaps Sir Arthur is forgetting that the telephone was regularly used in The Canon, having been mentioned in The Sign of the Four, “The Man With the Twisted Lip”, “The Illustrious Client”, “The Blanched Soldier”, “The Three Garridebs”, and “The Retired Colourman”.

Here’s an illustration of Holmes using the telephone, by Howard K. Elcock from “The Three Garridebs” (The Strand Magazine, January 1925):


But alas, there doesn't seem to be an original illustration of Watson’s car from “His Last Bow”.

And Now . . . The Cars!

[Author’s Note: For illustrative purposes, I’m including example screen-shots with the following discussion, but these are not necessarily the only or the best of these to be found. Part of the fun will be for the reader to examine the films mentioned. Also provided are some – but not all – YouTube links for a few of the represented films, but viewing these films on DVD is recommended in order to provide much better clarity. YouTube links were verified at the time of posting, but those things come and go . . . .]

A quick examination of some of the pre-1939 Holmes films shows that there were numerous times that automobiles appeared. For example, in The Man with the Twisted Lip (1921) . . .

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HM27uaF31CU

. . . one of many silent films starring Eille Norwood, there are several shots of automobiles in establishing shots of London, sometimes alongside horse-vehicles:



The same is true in the next year’s Sherlock Holmes (1922) with screen legend John Barrymore . . . .

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mt_tFWp3bmg





Here’s one of my favorite quick location shots from the Barrymore film, showing vehicles passing quickly back and for the in front of New Scotland Yard, on the Embankment across from Westminster Pier:


As an aside, here’s a photo of Holmes and Watson going into New Scotland yard at some undated visit in the late1880’s or mid-1890’s . . .


. . . and here is me and my deerstalker at New Scotland Yard on one of my many visits there - this time in September 2016, on my third (so far) Holmes Pilgrimage:



But I digress.

Holmes and Automobiles in the Sound Age

As Holmes films entered the sound age, standard operating procedure was maintained in that no attempts would be made to place the films in the period in which the stories had been originally set. The Speckled Band (1931), starring Raymond Massey, incorporated a vast amount of additional material from Doyle’s later play version of the story, which had premiered at the Adelphi Theatre in the spring of 1910. In addition to the events of this most famous of adventures, there was an extensive story grafted on relating to various characters and events at Stoke Moran.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vwMpJ8_wpr8&t=2404s

Also included in the Massey film is a most jarring introduction to Sherlock Holmes, whom we meet when Watson arrives at 101 (?!?) Baker Street, where Holmes employs a staff of frantically typing secretaries, apparently transcribing dictation through headphones while other modernistic (for the times) machines help Holmes keep track of the details of every criminal case and the whereabouts of every criminal at any given date. (One has to wonder what Literary Agent Doyle, who had died a year earlier, would have thought about this if he didn’t like the idea of telephones and automobiles!)

Although much of the action of this film takes place in Baker Street or at Stoke Moran, there is a scene with an automobile, indicating that the devices in Holmes’s “office” aren’t the only modern aspects of this film:


Next up is Clive Brook, who played Our Hero in the first Holmes film with sound, The Return of Sherlock Holmes (1929). This film still exists, but it’s held at the U.S. Library of Congress. More easily seen is Brook’s subsequent effort, Sherlock Holmes (1932).

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iBqhRsTempY&list=PL4NotralLFJMecej0ZSzSKLRH7Hbhkx8r

Again, one should not be surprised to see a motorized vehicle make an appearance:


Then there is A Study in Scarlet (1933) starring a heavy-set Reginald Owen as Holmes, after he had played Watson to Clive Brook’s Holmes in the previous year’s Sherlock Holmes. This film has nothing to do with the original Holmes adventure, which was set in 1881 and first published in 1887. That one relates Holmes and Watson's first meeting. Rather, this story a variation on the "Ten Little Indians" theme that would later be copied by Agatha Christie in And Then There Were None (1939). (She gets all the credit - but Holmes did it first!)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ot5CmymbIoo

The opening shot of the film, establishing the initial action at Victoria Station, involves a passing vehicle, showing that events are taking place in a contemporary setting:


The next Holmes for the 1930’s was Britain’s Arthur Wontner, a personal favorite of mine, if only because he looked like Holmes, straight out of The Strand Magazine. He starred in five Holmes films: The Sleeping Cardinal (1931), The Sign of Four (1932), The Missing Rembrandt (1932, considered a “lost” film, so someone should please find it), The Triumph of Sherlock Holmes (1935), and Silver Blaze (or U.S. title Murder at the Baskervilles 1937). Here’s a link to the latter film:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S3JeaVqzSvI&t=2300s

Of course, there were automobiles involved:



Basil Rathbone, Sherlock Holmes, and Cars

This brings us to one of the greatest Holmes portrayals of all time, Basil Rathbone – although sadly he was saddled with the well-meaning Boobus Britannicus Nigel Bruce as Watson. They both starred in two 1939 films from Twentieth-Century Fox that made every effort to place Holmes in the correct Victorian setting, in terms of both costume and vehicles, The Hound of the Baskervilles . . .

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1rQU6ty9LvA

. . . and The Adventures of Sherlock Holmes . . .

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W5Xcen4Go0E

As mentioned, it was long believed that these were the first to show Holmes in the correct period, before it was determined that the 1916 Gillette film had already done so. Still, placing Holmes in the 1880’s was a wise choice, as by 1939, fifty years after the actual events had occurred, there was a considerable timespan between the true events of The Hound and when the tale was being filmed.

Sadly, after the second offering, The Adventure of Sherlock Holmes, there were to be no more Holmes films from this studio, although Rathbone and Bruce did continue in the roles on radio, portraying Holmes and Watson in adventures that were still set in the correct time period. This continued even as they began making new Holmes films at Universal, which were not set in the correct time period.

The twelve Universal films, from 1942 to 1946, all feature Holmes in modern settings, initially involved in plots related to World War II, and then in more general 1940’s stories. The first three of these Universal films, Sherlock Holmes and the Voice of Terror (1942), Sherlock Holmes and the Secret Weapon (1942), and Sherlock Holmes in Washington (1943), are clearly set in World War II – there’s no possible way that they could be taking place at any other time with their aspects of modern warfare, such as radio broadcasts, bombsights, and microphotography. I’ve explained elsewhere that, in fact, these first three Universal films weren’t Sherlock Holmes adventures at all, but rather Solar Pons adventures, with Pons’s name changed to Holmes in order to avoid confusion with modern audiences.

Holmes, in his nineties during World War II, was only marginally involved in the war effort, and when Hollywood wanted to show England’s Greatest Hero fighting Nazis, they had no choice but to pivot to the adventures of Solar Pons, a relative of Holmes who was active in the British War effort. (This is explained in greater detail in an entry of this blog, specifically titled “Basil Rathbone’s Solar Pons Films”:

http://17stepprogram.blogspot.com/2016/11/basil-rathbones-solar-pons-films.html

The final nine films that Rathbone filmed for Universal were, in fact, based on Watson’s original notes, related to cases that did occur during World War I or immediately afterwards. Although they seemed to be set in the 1940’s in terms of clothing and automobiles shown, it must be remembered that the true underlying cases took place much earlier, and had only been dressed up by the filmmakers to be seemingly set in contemporary times.

After Rathbone

After Rathbone’s films, Holmes seemed to be ignored for a time. Except for a couple of television pilots in the late 1940’s and 1950’s, the next film effort was the curious Sherlock Holmes and the Deadly Necklace (1962), starring Christopher Lee, the first of several times that he would play Holmes (as well as Mycroft and Sir Henry Baskerville, the only man to have played all three parts.)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=miGKmVc3Ihg

Oddly, this film, which was made by an international conglomerate, removed the original vocal tracks, including Lee’s, and dubbed them right back in again with different actors. This film, which seems to indicate that the story is set in the 1880’s, includes a variation on the events of The Valley of Fear. In spite of the attempts to look as if it’s in period, however, it inexplicably uses automobiles, as seen in various shots, such as on a dock or in passing on a street, and outside Baker Street when Watson is retrieving his bag from his car, and later when an ambulance is called:





As mentioned, the intervening period between Rathbone and Lee had contained a couple of television pilots, one in 1949 (The Speckled Band starring Alan Napier, who also played Alfred from the 1960’s Batman television show) . . .

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3SoFr_j3aok

. . . and another with John Longdon as Holmes, The Man Who Disappeared (1951), based closely upon “The Man With the Twisted Lip”.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FD9NOnjRT3I

Each of these is set in the correct period, but what is fun to notice about The Man Who Disappeared takes place around 7:18 to 7:326 of the film. At that point, Holmes has been following a man, with various scenes of horse-drawn carriages interspersed into the immediate action. At the scene in question, Holmes sees his prey go into a building located with Tower Bridge clearly in the background. And while we watch Holmes’s quarry unlock a door, there are numerous modern vehicles - cars and trucks - passing back and forth over the bridge. Carelessness on the part of the film makers? Probably. It’s not the only time that such a thing will happen.


More Recent Examples

One of the most revered versions of Holmes on film is the Granada series, starring Jeremy Brett. The producers went to a great deal of effort to make this one of the most authentically well-produced Holmes shows ever. However, accidents do occur. In the closing moments of The Dancing Men (1984), during Watson’s final voice-over, there is a shot of the house of Ridling Thorpe Manor, in Norfolk. (Actually, it’s Leighton Hall in Lancashire.) Between approximately 52:30 and 52:59 of the complete episode, just after Holmes says, “How absurdly simple,” we watch men approaching a carriage from the manor’s doorway. They climb into it. The camera pulls back, showing the carriage, the men, the house . . . and in the top left corner, a busy modern road, with fast-moving cars and trucks traveling across it, reminiscent of the vehicles we saw on Tower Bridge in 1951’s The Man Who Disappeared.


Once seen, it cannot be unseen.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-g8iw7ZOYfs

A glance at a map shows that Leighton Hall, where this scene was filmed, faces the southeast, and that the road behind it and to the northwest is possibly Storrs Lane or Red Bridge Lane, near the Leighton Moss Nature Reserve and the Silverdale train station. (Clearly, someone in the area needs to do some field research, and it isn’t quite convenient for me to do so just at the moment, but I’ll go over there and do it if I have to.)

The Granada series did include an automobile that could have rightly been in a Canonical story, even if it wasn’t specifically mentioned in the original text. Granada’s The Problem of Thor Bridge shows The Gold King, Neil Gibson, tooling around in a vehicle that is appropriate for the time in which the adventure took place, October 1900. (Knowing nothing about cars, I can't say for sure, but someone knows . . . .)

https://www.dailymotion.com/video/x13o0dy


In skipping to the Granada series, I neglected to mention a few other Holmes efforts that were thankfully and carefully set in the correct time period. From 1954-1955, Ronald Howard starred as Holmes . . .

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lEk6aElkfT4

and in the 1960’s, the BBC did an excellent job in in two different series starring Douglas Wilmer (1964-1965), whose episodes are sadly not currently represented on YouTube, and Peter Cushing (1968):

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uDF430yEQ-s

Prior to Cushing's television Holmes, he played the Great Detective in the first color Holmes film, Hammer's The Hound of the Baskervilles(1959) Curiously, Cushing would make a second version of The Hound during the 1968 television show. And later, he would star again as Holmes in 1984's The Masks of Death:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m58-uS1CJVc

Although the film indicates that it's set in 1926, this is clearly a mistake, as the narrative, with Holmes and Watson still in Baker Street, must actually occur at the turn of the century. Here's a photo of Holmes and Watson arriving at a train station in a car. (And thanks to George Mann, who pointed out that I had originally missed this one!)


For the most part, Holmes has continued to be presented in the correct settings ever since. There have been some exceptions, such as two films and a cartoon series wherein Holmes was revived in modern times, awkwardly dealing with being in our present and his future: The Return of Sherlock Holmes (1987) starring Michael Pennington . . .

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jsOy5X6mDl0

. . . 1994 Baker Street: Sherlock Holmes Returns (1993) with Anthony Higgins . . .

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dFcoK75Riq4

and Sherlock Holmes in the 22nd Century:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dxmoOUsZzOs&list=PL0ACFBC09C84127E7

There have been films wherein a person with a mental illness believes that he is Sherlock Holmes in modern times: They Might Be Giants (1971) with George C. Scott (not for free on YouTube)and The Return of the World’s Greatest Detective (1976) with Larry Hagman:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ETr-j3yLV9g

Additionally, there have been some modern versions wildly set in some Alternate Universe, wherein Holmes is portrayed both as a rude sociopathic murderer or as a tattooed New York-dwelling drug addict. These all have modern day appurtenances grafted onto them, but that would be expected, since they are all modern day simulacrums, and have nothing to do with the true Sherlock Holmes.

The future . . . .

As of right now, the film version of Sherlock Holmes has to pin its hopes on the promise of a possible third offering starring Robert Downey, Jr. as the consulting detective. The first two Downey films, while treading into some absurdities in tone – Holmes as a sloppy alcoholic who drinks embalming fluid, for instance – are at least set in the correct time period, and even if Mr. Downey doesn’t look like Holmes, he is in good company, as a great many previous portrayers didn’t resemble Our Hero either. While the Downey films (produced in 2009 and 2011) have been criticized for being too action packed, in many cases they actually show events that were previously only described on the pages of The Canon and “off stage” – for instance, bare-knuckle boxing.

To conclude this essay, I’ll point out that the second Downey film, A Game of Shadows (2011), has a scene that, while criticized by some as being too Steampunk, does relate to this essay. Early on, Holmes and Watson travel to Watson’s make-shift bachelor party in some sort of steam-powered automobile. While it seems a little out of place for the late 1880’s, the film makers do attempt to make it look as if it’s part of the that world, unlike so many of those earlier films that made no effort at all, making do with contemporary cars instead of hansom cabs and growlers. I appreciate that they made the effort.



My question still stands: Were movie watchers of yesteryear thrown out of the story, even if just for a moment, when a contemporary (to them) vehicle appeared on the screen, which would not have been correctly included in a true Canonical adaptation, or did they accept it, from their position in time so much closer to the true Holmesian Era?

We may never know.


©David Marcum 2018 – All Rights Reserved


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

David Marcum plays The Game with deadly seriousness. He first discovered Sherlock Holmes in 1975 at the age of ten, and since that time, he has collected, read, and chronologicized literally thousands of traditional Holmes pastiches in the form of novels, short stories, radio and television episodes, movies and scripts, comics, fan-fiction, and unpublished manuscripts. He is the author of over sixty Sherlockian pastiches, some published in anthologies and magazines such as The Strand, and others collected in his own books, The Papers of Sherlock Holmes, Sherlock Holmes and A Quantity of Debt, and Sherlock Holmes – Tangled Skeins. He has edited over fifty books, including several dozen traditional Sherlockian anthologies, such as the ongoing series The MX Book of New Sherlock Holmes Stories, which he created in 2015. This collection is now up to 21 volumes, with several more in preparation. He was responsible for bringing back August Derleth’s Solar Pons for a new generation, first with his collection of authorized Pons stories, The Papers of Solar Pons, and then by editing the reissued authorized versions of the original Pons books. He is now doing the same for the adventures of Dr. Thorndyke. He has contributed numerous essays to various publications, and is a member of a number of Sherlockian groups and Scions. He is a licensed Civil Engineer, living in Tennessee with his wife and son. His irregular Sherlockian blog, A Seventeen Step Program, addresses various topics related to his favorite book friends (as his son used to call them when he was small), and can be found at http://17stepprogram.blogspot.com/ Since the age of nineteen, he has worn a deerstalker as his regular-and-only hat. In 2013, he and his deerstalker were finally able make his first trip-of-a-lifetime Holmes Pilgrimage to England, with return Pilgrimages in 2015 and 2016, where you may have spotted him. If you ever run into him and his deerstalker out and about, feel free to say hello!

His Amazon Author Page can be found at:

https://www.amazon.com/kindle-dbs/entity/author/B00K1IKA92?_encoding=UTF8&node=283155&offset=0&pageSize=12&searchAlias=stripbooks&sort=author-sidecar-rank&page=1&langFilter=default#formatSelectorHeader

and at MX Publishing:

https://mxpublishing.com/search?type=product&q=marcum&fbclid=IwAR12tH4SUvE9nmEnnuqeI5GC7Tv69-NagPgmAZlxcz0vr2Ihza5_6jP-fXM

Sunday, June 10, 2018

Sherlock Holmes and John Atkinson Grimshaw: The Perfect Holmesian Book Covers

[A version of the following was originally published in the "Proceedings of the Pondicherry Lodge", the official journal of The Sherlock Holmes Society of India (Vol. 5, Issue 2, December 1, 2017), edited by Jayantika Ganguly, BSI]. Also updated a little bit on April 18th, 2021

Sherlock Holmes is one of the most recognizable figures on the planet. Just the sight of his profile, or those objects associated with him – a deerstalker, a magnifying glass, or a pipe – is enough to immediately suggest detective, even to those unlucky or unwise people who have never enjoyed his actual adventures. Even someone who knows nothing about Holmes recognizes what he stands for. And those who know a little bit more are instantly reminded of other aspects of The World of Holmes: The presence and participation of Dr. Watson in Holmes’s investigations, for instance, or Holmes’s brilliance, and his constant ability to see what isn’t apparent to others.

Holmes has been successfully represented many times by actors such as Arthur Wontner, Basil Rathbone, and Douglas Wilmer, men whose noble visages help to reinforce Holmes’s influence in the world.


And of course, Holmes was first represented in the original publications by artists such as Sidney Paget, who showed us the exact way that Holmes looked. (And Paget would certainly have known how to accurately illustrate Holmes’s appearance, living in England during the 1890’s as he did, and with his illustrations requiring approval from those men who actually knew Holmes, both Dr. Watson and the first Literary Agent, Conan Doyle, during that time when many of the initial narratives were first being published in The Strand.)


After Paget, there have been other illustrators, such as the contemporary Frederic Dorr Steele, who unfortunately chose to present Holmes with the appearance of actor William Gillette.


In the many years since Paget and Steele illustrated some of the original Canonical tales, other artists have tried their hand at presenting Holmes. Many have failed, while others have done incredible work. One of the masters is Phil Cornell, whose presentation of Holmes and Watson is spot-on accurate. Likewise, a number of actors have portrayed Holmes – some doing a fine job, while others have unfortunately been absolutely terrible.

However, the efforts of these actors and artists, both good and bad, all add to The Great Holmes Tapestry to some greater or lesser extent, continuing to promote awareness of Holmes into each new year. Usually their representations include some aspect that reminds us of Holmes. The deerstalker may not make an appearance, but the magnifying glass might, or even various characteristics of Holmes’s personality will be included, and that will be enough to suggest a whole range of associated images and emotions.

One of the most important aspects of Holmesiana is the sense of time and place in which The Master was in active practice – the latter Victorian and early Edwardian eras, in the London of the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. It was a time when the Industrial Revolution had changed England in ways that would have been unimaginable to those of just a few previous generations. That setting has become as unforgettable as Holmes is himself. Islands of gaslight and thick fogs, dark streets and muffled shapes passing by, moving from darkness to the pooled illumination under a streetlamp, and then back again into the mysterious London nights. The thought of Sherlock Holmes immediately brings such a place to mind.

And no painter captured this better, and has been more associated with that period, than John Atkinson Grimshaw.


The Victorian Painter of Light

Grimshaw was born in 1836 in Leeds, England. At around twenty years of age, he married his cousin, and then settled into the life of a railway clerk, while he spent his free time exploring his interest in painting. In 1860, he quit his job – the dismay of his parents – and devoted himself to becoming a full-time painter. It wasn’t a mistake – he had a successful exhibition just two years later.

As his skills improved, he began to focus on a specific style of paintings. Although he produced portraits, interiors, and even illustrations of fairies, he is best known for his incredible depictions of twilight or nighttime scenes, often illuminated by moonlight or gas streetlamps, with the light taking on an incredibly life-like appearance. Often there is a sheen of dampness, as if from the atmospheric fog or a recent rain.

Grimshaw was ahead of his time in the use of modern technology. Like the later realistic painter Norman Rockwell – another favorite of mine – who used photographs of models in order to provide images from which to work, Grimshaw made use of a camera obscura to project an image onto the canvas, from which he would then paint his various realistic subjects. Sometimes he would even paint over photographs. This helps to explain why so many of Grimshaw’s paintings are of the same settings over and over again – specific city streets and country lanes and docks – with each having repeated perspectives, but still having variations from painting to painting in both light and condition.

Grimshaw lived worked in several locations throughout his career, including Leeds and London’s Chelsea district, and he was acquainted with a number of contemporary artists who admired his unique style. He was quite successful for a number of years, and at times very prolific, sometimes producing a painting every week. Yet much of his life remains an enigma. Unlike other famous painters, he kept no letters or journals. Instead, he simply continued to hone his craft, making a living as a professional painter for over thirty years, until his death from tuberculosis in 1893.

A great deal of his work can be found at this invaluable website, John Atkinson Grimshaw – The Complete Works:

https://www.johnatkinsongrimshaw.org/the-complete-works.html

Several of his children became painters, and his son Arthur produced works that were very similar to his father’s in terms of style and content. Interest in Grimshaw has waxed and waned over the years since his death, and there have been several exhibitions of his work. There are at least two books related to Grimshaw’s paintings, as well as a number of recent e-book titles, but none are complete or satisfying. In fact, some of these have inexplicably chosen to present a number of Grimshaw’s paintings in black-and-white, rather than using color plates to display the man’s incredible skill when painting light. This is like having a favorite food from which the flavor has been removed, leaving only the structure.

Having collected and read literally thousands of the adventures of Sherlock Holmes since I was a boy in the mid-1970’s, I can state that – so far – I haven’t seen any indication that Atkinson Grimshaw’s path crossed that of Sherlock Holmes, either casually, or in the case of Grimshaw specifically needing assistance from the age’s greatest detective. However, I’m keeping my eyes open, and it’s entirely possible that in the future, one of Holmes’s investigations in which Grimshaw is somehow involved may very well turn up. Indeed, as I haven’t yet gone through all of the various Watsonian notes and manuscripts that I obtained during one of my Holmes Pilgrimages to London, something could be discovered any day . . . .

Perfectly Atmospheric Book Covers

In recent decades, Grimshaw’s works have been the go-to painting to be used as book covers when the wish is to invoke the Victorian era, both in mysteries and other more general classic literature. A number of volumes of Sherlock Holmes stories, both original Canon and newer pastiche collections, have featured Grimshaw paintings. Curiously, a number of the paintings used for Holmes books have been scenes from Leeds or Liverpool, rather than London, that city most associated with Sherlock Holmes.

This change of location doesn’t seem to matter. Grimshaw’s mysterious lighting, with shadowed figures moving in and out of the gaslight while hansom cabs containing dark occupants rattle by, invokes powerful feelings of intrigue and even danger, no matter which city is shown. The people portrayed in Grimshaw’s paintings are never identifiable – their faces shadowed or unknown as they walk toward or away from us. No painter better conveys the sense of mystery needed on the cover of a Sherlock Holmes book.

What follows is an examination of some Grimshaw covers . . . .

An important book in my collection is that incredible volume, The Mammoth Book of New Sherlock Holmes Stories (1997) edited by Mike Ashley. It contained a plethora of new Holmes adventures, and they were arranged chronologically, something that was so pleasing to me that I’ve continued to follow that pattern while editing the various volumes of The MX Book of New Sherlock Holmes Stories, and also the anthologies Holmes Away From Home,Sherlock Holmes: Before Baker Street, and an upcoming volume of Canonical Sequels.

This is how the initial version looked, featuring a detail from one of the many variations that Grimshaw painted of the Liverpool Docks:


A few years later, the book was reissued, this time with a different Grimshaw painting, a portion of Grimshaw’s “Reflections on the Thames, Westminster” (1880):


Here’s how the original painting looks:


You’ll see this one again in a bit. It, like several others are used more than once.

In 1981, Peter Haining edited a collection of apocryphal Holmes items. The initial edition, which I snapped up at the time, featured a Paget drawing of Holmes and Watson, and there have been other versions since, such as one with a Jeremy Brett cover, but a 1995 edition had Grimshaw’s “Humber Dockside, Hull” (1881) on the cover:


My father, not knowing that I already had the previous first version, bought me the second as a Christmas gift, and it’s one of my treasures. I don’t have room in my vast Holmes collection to have multiple versions of a lot of different books, but in this case, I’m very glad to have both copies of this book.

As I continued to collect, I saw that there were other Holmes covers that made use of Grimshaw’s excellent and atmospheric works. In 1996, Wordsworth produced a three-volume hardcover set of the complete Canon, as taken from the original Strand versions of the stories. These books, individually called The Adventures of Sherlock Holmes, The Return of Sherlock Holmes, and The Casebook of Sherlock Holmes, each featured Grimshaw paintings: “On the Thames, Barnes” ()1886); “St. Anne’s Square, Manchester” (Date unknown); and “Liverpool from Wapping” (1875), respectively:


It was with these three specific volumes in mind that I must use Grimshaw as the cover artist for the ongoing series The MX Book of New Sherlock Holmes Stories. And after all, considering that he’s my favorite painter, and that his works capture The World of Holmes so well, was there any other choice?

As I’ve related elsewhere, in early 2015, I awoke early from a dream in which I’d edited a book of new Sherlock Holmes adventures. If I’d gone back to sleep, the idea would likely have vanished. But I got up, looked around at my Holmes collection, and realized that I was acquainted with a number of Sherlockian authors. I admired many others, and if I contacted a number of them, surely some would write new stories. I initially conceived the book as a push-back against a specific modern television show that has terribly misappropriated the good name of Sherlock Holmes and tried to present him as a murderous sociopath. But in addition to that aspect of the anthologies, it was also decided that the book could support another good cause, with author royalties going to the Stepping Stones School at Undershaw in Hindhead, England, one of Sir Arthur Conan Doyle’s former homes.

As word about the book spread, it became more and more popular, and numerous authors wanted to join the party. What I’d initially envisioned as a single volume, probably paperback, and containing about two dozen stories, quickly became two hardcover volumes, and then three. In the end, the three-volume set contained sixty-three new Holmes stories, the largest assemblage of its kind ever. After its release in October 2015, a number of other people still wanted to participate. With the hard decisions having already been made in terms of formatting and production, it was easy to continue. Currently, the series is up to ten very hefty volumes, with Parts XI and XII already in preparation for 2018, and no end in sight. The books have raised over $30,000 for the school, and there are always new and talented Sherlockian authors joining the more-than-one-hundred-thirty already in the fold.

I originally knew that I wanted a Grimshaw painting for the cover, much like on that original Mammoth collection and the three-volume set of The Canon. By the time the first book had grown to two volumes – but not yet three – I was ready to share my idea. Before his tragic passing, MX’s talented cover artist was Bob Gibson. In mid-2015, I sent him an email with my initial sketches of how I’d envisioned the covers of Parts I and II, as made with Grimshaw paintings that I’d opened with Microsoft Paint before awkwardly sketching in Holmes:


. . . and . . .


I wanted Holmes to be a prominently displayed but still shadowy figure, in that same way other figures were represented in Grimshaw paintings. He would be observing, and would only be distinguishable from the rest by his representative deerstalker.

Bob’s finished versions looked like this, along with the third volume that had eventually joined the first two:


All told, there have now been 30 volumes, some constructed by Bob, and most by amazing cover artist Brian Belanger, who took over the cover duties after Bob’s death. In each case, I initially pick a Grimshaw painting that speaks to me, and seems appropriately Holmesian. Then I locate Holmes in the correct spot, as well as settling any other questions that need to be decided, such as which detail of the painting to use, and whether to put a Star of Bethlehem in the Christmas cover, and so on. Then the finished product is revealed:


For the record, the paintings used for the MX volumes are:

• Part I: 1881-1889 – “London, View of Heath Street by Night” (1882)
• Part II: 1890-1995 – “Reflection on the Thames, Westminster” (1880)
• Part III: 1896-1929 – “Shipping on the Clyde” (1881)
• Part IV: 2016 Annual – “Park Lane, Leeds” (1882)
• Part V: Christmas Adventures – “The Old Hall Under Moonlight” (1882)
• Part VI: 2017 Annual – “Old Chelsea” (1893)
• Part VII: Eliminate the Impossible 1880-1891 – “The Haunted House” (1874)
• Part VIII: Eliminate the Impossible 1892-1905 – “A Wet Road by Moonlight” (1872)
• Part IX: 2018 Annual (1879-1895)“A Moonlit Lane” (1874)
• Part X: 2018 Annual (1896-1916) “Briggate, Leeds” (Last Quarter of the Nineteenth Century)
• Part XI: Some Untold Cases (1880-1891) “Scarborough Yew Court” (1874)
• Part XII: Some Untold Cases (1894-1902) “The Figure at the Gate” (1881)
• Part XIII: 2019 Annual (1881-1890) “St Anne's Square, Manchester” (Date Unknown)
• Part XIV: 2019 Annual (1891-1897) “Boar Lane, Leeds” (1881)
• Part XV: 2019 Annual (1898-1917) “Full Moon behind Cirrus Cloud from the Roundhay Park Castle Battlements” (1872)
• Part XVI: Whatever Remains . . . Must Be the Truth (1881-1890) “Blackman Street London" (1885)
• Part XVII: Whatever Remains . . . Must Be the Truth (1891-1898) “Liverpool From Wapping” (1875)
• Part XVIII: Whatever Remains . . . Must Be the Truth (1899-1925) “Whitby Harbor by Moonlight” (1870)
• Part XIX: 2020 Annual (1882-1890) “London, Pall Mall, and Saint James Street” (1880)
• Part XX: 2020 Annual (1891-1897) “The Turn of the Road” (Date Unknown)
• Part XXI: 2020 Annual (1898-1923) “Wharfedale” (Date Unknown)
• Part XXII: Some More Untold Cases (1877-1887) “Humber Docks, Hull” (1884)
• Part XXIII: Some More Untold Cases (1888-1894) “A Manor House in Autumn” (Date Unknown)
• Part XXIV: Some More Untold Cases (1895-1903) “Canny Glasgow” (1887)
• Part XXV: 2021 Annual (1881-1888) “Moonlight on the Lake, Roundhay Park, Leeds” (Date Unknown)
• Part XXVI: 2021 Annual (1889-1897) “Woman on a Patch by a Cottage” (Date Unknown)
• Part XXVII: 2021 Annual (1898-1928) “The Turn of the Road” (Date Unknown)
• Part XXVIII: More Christmas Adventures (1869-1888) “Lovers at the Gate” (Date Unknown)
• Part XXIX: More Christmas Adventures (1889-1896) “Waiting” (Date Unknown)
• Part XXX: More Christmas Adventures (1897-1928) “November Moonlight” (Date Unknown)

The next MX books are already in preparation: Part XXXI (and Parts XXXII and XXXIII too?)- the 2022 Annual in May 2022. I don't know what Grimshaw covers that I'll pick next, but luckily there are a great many to choose from.
In the case of the most recent volumes, Parts, XXVIII, XXIX, and XXX, More Christmas Adventures, the original Grimshaw paintings were given Christmas alterations by way of snow and shading - in addition to the addition of Holmes's silhouette - by cover artist Brian Belanger to make them more seasonal.
For instance, "Lovers at the Gate" became Part XXVIII:


"Waiting" became Part XXIX:


. . . and "November Moonlight" became Part XXX:



Other Holmes Covers by Grimshaw

There are many other instances of Grimshaw covers on Holmes books to consider. For example, in 2001, the two Dr. Mortimer books by Gerard Williams, Dr. Mortimer and the Aldgate Mystery and Dr. Mortimer and the Barking Man Mystery, were published. The second of these had one of the many variations of Grimshaw’s “Heath Street, Hampstead”:


A third book in the series, Dr. Mortimer and the Carved Head, using “Park Row, Leeds” (1882) was promised for publication, but it never actually appeared:


For a bit more about this book, see a different entry from my semi-Irregular blog, A Seventeen Step Program, specifically “Still Waiting . . . . (Some unpublished or lost pastiches that are out there . . . somewhere)”

http://17stepprogram.blogspot.com/2016/02/still-waiting-some-unpublished-or-lost.html

As late as 2008, I was still contacting the publisher regarding The Carved Head Mystery, and at that time, I was told that the author had become ill, and that the book never appeared. If any readers of this essay know Gerard Williams or his family, please reach out to them and urge them to release this long-missing third Dr. Mortimer novel.

Possibly the first Grimshaw cover I ever saw on a Holmes book (or anywhere) was when I purchased the hardcover version of Michael Hardwick’s Sherlock Holmes: My Live and Crimes when it came out brand new in hardcover in 1984, while I was still in college. It used Grimshaw’s “St. Paul’s from Ludgate Circus” (1885):


Other examples of Grimshaw Holmes covers that I’ve collected over the years include those excellent volumes by Donald Thomas, such as The Secret Cases of Sherlock Holmes (1997), which uses another variant detail of a dock scene:


. . . Sherlock Holmes and the Running Noose (U.S. Title: Sherlock Holmes and the Voice from the Crypt, 2001), again using “Reflections on the Thames, Westminster” . . .


. . . The Execution of Sherlock Holmes (2007), using nearly the same image as Hardwick’s Sherlock Holmes: My Life and Crimes, but with a Holmes silhouette in the background . . .


. . . Sherlock Holmes and the King’s Evil (2009), continuing to use Holmes’s silhouette, and featuring a piece of one of the many paintings that had a figure, often a girl, walking away in the distance . . .


. . . and finally, again with the silhouette, Sherlock Holmes and the Ghosts of Bly (2010), with its atypical Grimshaw painting, “The Lady of Shalott” (1878).


Sherlockian pasticheur June Thomson used a Grimshaw painting for the 2001 U.S. edition of her 1995 biographical study, Holmes and Watson. In this case, it’s from one of the many similar paintings he did of Heath Street in Hampstead, north of London:


Sherlockian author extraordinaire Mark Mower has worked a Grimshaw into the cover his A Farewell to Baker Street, (2015), also using “Old Chelsea”:


And the use of Grimshaw’s paintings has continued to the present, with details appearing on the covers of Ray Ziemecki’s four Holmes books:

The Escapades of Sherlock Holmes – “Autumn Morning”
Sherlock Holmes: Gone in the Fog – “View of Heath Street by Night” (1882)
Holmes and Watson: Twilight Years – “The Sere and Yellow Leaf” (1879)
The Adventure of the Treasure From the Dark Streets – “Liverpool Quay by Moonlight” (1887)


Lyndsay Faye chose “The Broomielaw Glasgow” (1886) for her excellent collection of Holmes short stories, The Whole Art of Detection (2017):


Although it isn't confirmed at the time of this writing, it appears that another Grimshaw dock painting, this time quite shaded, is the cover of Lyndsay Faye's 2021 collection Observations by Gaslight:

And Grimshaw even shows up on covers of the actual Canon:


I’m sure that there are many other Holmes books with Grimshaw paintings, but I’m not aware of them . . . yet.

Non-Holmes Grimshaw Covers

It should be noted that Grimshaw’s paintings aren’t used exclusively for Holmes books. Anne Perry’s novels, set in the same period and featuring Inspector Thomas Pitt and his wife Charlotte, and also her other series about William Monk, occasionally appear with a Grimshaw cover to set the scene. For example, there is the Pitt novel Southhampton Row (2002), which also uses “Reflections on the Thames, Westminster” . . .


. . . and the Monk novel Execution Dock (2009), with a variation of one of Grimshaw’s many dockside scenes:


I'd like to point out that Inspector Pitt functions in the world of Holmes, and thus captures my interest, as revealed in the story, “The Baker Street Amateur” by author waiting4morning:

https://www.fanfiction.net/s/372454/1/The-Baker-Street-Amateur

Although I don't own them and haven't read them, there are several novels by David Pirie that feature Dr. Joseph Bell and a young Arthur Conan Doyle solving mysteries:


There are many other volumes that make use of Grimshaw’s atmospheric paintings to set the scene and convey a mood about the book, such as Anne Brontë’s The Tenant of Wildfell Hall (1848) . . .


. . . and M.R. James Collected Ghost Stories . . .


. . . and Robert Louis Stevenson’s Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde (1886) . . .


. . . and Henry James’ The Turn of the Screw (1898) . . .


. . . and M.V. Hughes A London Child of the 1870’s (1934):


. . . and finally Charles Dickens’ unfinished novel The Mystery of Edwin Drood (1870), which might have been one of the greatest mysteries of them all:


Here’s my own personal copy of Edwin Drood, with a completely different Grimshaw cover:


In conclusion . . . .

This is only a scant survey of the works of Grimshaw when used on book covers, and I have no doubt that many other examples can be found, both of Holmes and non-Holmes volumes. (I’ll probably find another in my collection as soon as I end this essay.) What all of these have in common is that the authors, editors, or graphic artists involved have each recognized that the paintings of John Atkinson Grimshaw are invaluable in conveying the atmosphere and mood of the Victorian era, and that putting a Grimshaw painting on the cover will instantly tell the reader something of what to expect inside.

And when presenting a volume of Holmes adventures, using a Grimshaw painting to successfully set the scene and the mood is quite simply . . . Elementary.



©David Marcum 2018 – All Rights Reserved

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

David Marcum plays The Game with deadly seriousness. He first discovered Sherlock Holmes in 1975 at the age of ten, and since that time, he has collected, read, and chronologicized literally thousands of traditional Holmes pastiches in the form of novels, short stories, radio and television episodes, movies and scripts, comics, fan-fiction, and unpublished manuscripts. He is the author of over sixty Sherlockian pastiches, some published in anthologies and magazines such as The Strand, and others collected in his own books, The Papers of Sherlock Holmes, Sherlock Holmes and A Quantity of Debt, and Sherlock Holmes – Tangled Skeins. He has edited over fifty books, including several dozen traditional Sherlockian anthologies, such as the ongoing series The MX Book of New Sherlock Holmes Stories, which he created in 2015. This collection is now up to 21 volumes, with several more in preparation. He was responsible for bringing back August Derleth’s Solar Pons for a new generation, first with his collection of authorized Pons stories, The Papers of Solar Pons, and then by editing the reissued authorized versions of the original Pons books. He is now doing the same for the adventures of Dr. Thorndyke. He has contributed numerous essays to various publications, and is a member of a number of Sherlockian groups and Scions. He is a licensed Civil Engineer, living in Tennessee with his wife and son. His irregular Sherlockian blog, A Seventeen Step Program, addresses various topics related to his favorite book friends (as his son used to call them when he was small), and can be found at http://17stepprogram.blogspot.com/ Since the age of nineteen, he has worn a deerstalker as his regular-and-only hat. In 2013, he and his deerstalker were finally able make his first trip-of-a-lifetime Holmes Pilgrimage to England, with return Pilgrimages in 2015 and 2016, where you may have spotted him. If you ever run into him and his deerstalker out and about, feel free to say hello!

His Amazon Author Page can be found at:

https://www.amazon.com/kindle-dbs/entity/author/B00K1IKA92?_encoding=UTF8&node=283155&offset=0&pageSize=12&searchAlias=stripbooks&sort=author-sidecar-rank&page=1&langFilter=default#formatSelectorHeader

and at MX Publishing:

https://mxpublishing.com/search?type=product&q=marcum&fbclid=IwAR12tH4SUvE9nmEnnuqeI5GC7Tv69-NagPgmAZlxcz0vr2Ihza5_6jP-fXM