Monthly Meeting Minutes - 8th April 2021

  The Shingle of Southsea Holmesian Society

Monthly Meeting Minutes

Date of Meeting: 8th April 2021

 

Location of Meeting:

The Sherloft, My House, Portsmouth, UK

 

Attendees:

"The Entire Canon" (Paul Thomas Miller)

 

Apologies:

"The Entire Canon" (Paul Thomas Miller) apologised for his strange thumb.

 

The Toasts:

"The Entire Canon" (Paul Thomas Miller) provided the following pathetic toast to Alec Fairbairn:

Alec Fairbairn

Has been done in

But nevertheless

Ears to him.

  

Motions:

What's "The Entire Canon" (Paul Thomas Miller)  but a second hand e-motion..

 

Presentation:

"The Entire Canon" (Paul Thomas Miller) gave the following presentation on the topic of Mary Morstan and Kate Whitney:

Loveless Marriages in the Canon

By "The Entire Canon" (Paul Thomas Miller)

 

Over the years, much has been made of the opening scenes in The Boscombe Valley Mystery in which Mary seems keen to get Watson out of the way:

 

“What do you say, dear?” said my wife, looking across at me. “Will you go?”

“I really don't know what to say. I have a fairly long list at present.”

“Oh, Anstruther would do your work for you. You have been looking a little pale lately. I think that the change would do you good, and you are always so interested in Mr. Sherlock Holmes' cases.”

 

I have heard several different people on separate occasions remark that it seems Mary was so keen to see the back of Watson because she enjoyed “private consultations” with Anstruther.

This theory is understandable. By my reckoning (Watson Does Not Lie, Wildside Press), this story takes place in June 1889 - less than a year since Mary and John married in July 1888. (Other chronologies are available, but they all roughly confirm that Boscombe Valley took place soon after the wedding). For a newlywed, Mary has suspiciously little concern about being parted from her husband. Too, it seems unusual that (as far as we know) the marriage never bore children. These could be interpreted as signs indicative of a loveless marriage. Certainly, Mary seems very eager to get shot of John.

When coupled with the immediate references to the enigmatic Dr. Anstruther, the temptation has always been to leap to the conclusion that Mary was having an affair with him. But does this really make sense? After all, if Anstruther is performing his own duties and covering for Watson in the consulting room, that would leave him little time and energy to cover for Watson in the bedroom too.

It seems to me that commentators have, to date, overlooked the further clues in another of the adventures. This is another case in which Mary seems glad to see the back of Watson. It is also, by my reckoning, set in June 1889. This is the tale of The Man with the Twisted Lip.

The opening scene in itself seems to back up the Loveless Marriage Theory. Newlyweds, John and Mary are still up, late at night, displaying no great desire to go to bed together. A little later there is the infamous wrong-naming of John H. Watson by Mary: “…Or should you rather that I sent James off to bed?” I confess that I believe Dorothy L. Sayers has dealt with the truth of the James-Names Incident, but I mention it as Sayer’s may be wrong – it may be a display of Mary’s ambivalence toward her husband.

Further supporting evidence for the Loveless Marriage Theory can be found in  the opening of The Crooked Man. John Watson states that it was just “a few months after [their] marriage”. Mary had retired to bed, but John chose to stay downstairs until the small hours reading. It’s not typical honeymoon period behaviour.

 

But let us remove our attention from the domestic arrangements of the Watsons momentarily. Instead, let us consider the marriage of Kate and Isa Whitney. This is an equally suspicious marriage. Twisted Lip opens with a brief biography of Isa:

 

Isa Whitney, brother of the late Elias Whitney, D.D., Principal of the Theological College of St. George's, was much addicted to opium. The habit grew upon him, as I understand, from some foolish freak when he was at college; for having read De Quincey's description of his dreams and sensations, he had drenched his tobacco with laudanum in an attempt to produce the same effects. He found, as so many more have done, that the practice is easier to attain than to get rid of, and for many years he continued to be a slave to the drug, an object of mingled horror and pity to his friends and relatives.

 

If Isa had been a drug addict since his college days, why on Earth did a respectable lady such as Kate ever marry him? I find it difficult to imagine Isa - “with yellow, pasty face, drooping lids, and pin-point pupils, all huddled in a chair, the wreck and ruin of a noble man” – managing to woo anybody. Nor does he sound lucid enough to ever have considered marriage by his own volition.

There is only one explanation which makes sense to me – it is some sort of marriage of convenience. Kate would only choose such a husband if she wanted one who would not be around much. A husband who was generally too wasted to care what she got up to by herself. This in turn strongly suggests she married Isa with the intention of committing adultery. Isa provided Kate with a veneer of respectability while she carried on with someone else. The marriage was a disguise.

The next question, then, is what sort of extra-marital relationship requires such an elaborate disguise? Certainly not a relationship with an unmarried man. In this case, she’d simply marry the man she loved instead of Isa. A married man, then? Perhaps. But she could just as easily have been a kept mistress and remained single. In fact, this would probably have been easier. With both unmarried and married men ruled out, that leaves only women. And suddenly things seem to make sense.

While female homosexuality was not illegal in Victorian England it was still socially unacceptable. Open homosexuality for anyone at this time was unthinkable. To survive as a lesbian, Kate needed to hide her true self. By taking a husband, she could avert suspicion. By taking a drug-addled mess of a husband, she could avert unwanted physical attention too.

 

Which brings us back to Mary and John. Mary is “an old friend and school companion” of Kate. My theory is that Mary was also homosexual and that at some point during their long friendship Kate and Mary had fallen in love.

It will be remembered from The Sign of the Four that Mary was a young lady living happily single in the employ of the Forrester family. It was only when Watson came along that she showed any interest in marriage. Why? Did she spot the opportunity for her marriage of convenience?

There are three explanations I can provide for why Watson made an ideal sham-husband. All have some weight to back them up. All are tenable. I have no special preference for any of them. I invite you to take your pick:

 

1. Johnny “three-continents” Watson was a womaniser. He was only too happy to enter into the sham-marriage to provide himself with a veneer of respectability too. Mary recognised this and used it to her advantage. When they wed and John found Mary cold in the bedroom, he was not bothered as he had other fields to sow. Mary predicted this outcome.

2. John Watson and Sherlock Holmes were in a homosexual relationship. Mary recognised this and used it to her advantage. After their marriage, John would show no interest in Mary physically. Mary predicted this outcome.

3. John Watson was rubbish at seeing people’s motives. He was also easily fooled by a pretty face. Mary recognised this and used it to her advantage.  John was too obtuse and gentlemanly to question her endless “headaches” or feigned gynaecological problems once they were married. He was, however, satisfied with his well-run home and superficial relationship with his wife. Mary predicted this outcome.

 

You will note that at no point do I consider it possible that Watson knew Mary was intending this to be a marriage of convenience. The reason is simple – if he had been in on it, Mary would not have to construct elaborate ruses such as the one in Twisted Lip to get her Alone Time with Kate. What is possible is that some time subsequent to 1889, he became aware of the truth of the matter. If this is the case, it may explain some of the later occurrences in Watson’s married life.

It is well known that during the Great Hiatus Watson appeared to lose his wife – in The Empty House Watson states that Holmes “…had learned of [Watson’s] own sad bereavement, and his sympathy was shown in his manner rather than in his words.” This bereavement can only mean his wife - it is made clear in A Study in Scarlet that Watson “…had neither kith nor kin in England” so he had no other available bereavements.

Perhaps, though,  this bereavement was the death of the marriage rather than the wife. After all, it is never expressly stated that Mary died – just that Watson had suffered some significant loss. I would suggest that this was because in 1892 Watson became aware of Mary’s real reason for marrying him. This came as a dent to his pride and he immediately removed himself from the sham-family (shamily?) home. Unwisely, in my opinion, as it sounds like they had a perfect set up for both their needs.

Later, in 1903, at the outset of The Blanched Soldier Holmes states that “Watson had at that time deserted me for a wife…”

This might make sense if, in 1903, it became convenient for Mary and John to resume their charade. Maybe rumours had begun to circulate about one or both of them and this is why Watson chose to relocate to his sham-wife’s abode, leaving Holmes alone. (Additionally, if John and Sherlock had been in a romantic relationship, this abandonment might well explain Holmes’s strange early retirement. It may have been heartbreak which led to his solitude in Sussex. However, I don't insist upon it.)

 

For now, let us return to the opening scene of Twisted Lip. It suddenly takes on a different light. Kate arrives at the Watsons’ home apparently distraught that her husband is out on one of his benders. Why would she be distraught? He does this all the time. And she knew that when she married him. She is, of course, pretending. A short conversation later, Watson has been convinced to go across town to fetch Isa Whitney home. Better still, he has been convinced he came up with the idea himself by the clever manipulative language of his wife and her friend. Kate and Mary had planned this all along, of course. They expected to get a few hours alone out of it. Imagine how delighted they would have been when they discovered Watson would not be coming home that night at all. The only reason we are told about Watson’s retrieval of Isa here, is because it led on, by chance, to him encountering Holmes mid-case. It is perfectly conceivable that this was no isolated incident. I can fully imagine Kate turning up on their doorstep for this purpose many times over the next three years.

There we have the truth of it, then: the Watson marriage was a loveless marriage of convenience used by Kate Whitney and Mary Watson to deflect attention from their secret homosexual true-love relationship. It is also likely, that John Watson was independently using the marriage as a screen for his own extra-marital activities.

Monthly Meeting Minutes - 1st March 2021

 The Shingle of Southsea Holmesian Society

Monthly Meeting Minutes

Date of Meeting: 1st March 2021

 

Location of Meeting:

The Sherloft, My House, Portsmouth, UK

 

Attendees:

"The Entire Canon" (Paul Thomas Miller)

A photograph of Richard Krisciunas turned face down in the corner of the room.

 

Apologies:

"The Entire Canon" (Paul Thomas Miller) apologised for bringing a photograph of Richard Krisciunas to the meeting.

 

The Toasts:

"The Entire Canon" (Paul Thomas Miller) provided the following feeble toast to Butler Brunton:

Butler Brunton

Butler Brunton

Pulled a stunt on

Reg Musgrave.

What a knave.

  

Motions:

"The Entire Canon" (Paul Thomas Miller)  tried to get a Mexican wave going but it didn't catch on.

 

Presentation:

"The Entire Canon" (Paul Thomas Miller) gave the following presentation on the topic of Mrs. Hudson:

What Do We Know About Mrs. Hudson?

By Paul Thomas Miller

A dear Holmesian friend of mine recently said that the only thing we know about Mrs. Hudson from the Canon is her last name. This made me want to investigate if this were true. He was wrong, of course, as he so often is. But he can’t be blamed for that. He is an American.

She is only mentioned by name in fourteen of the sixty Canonical stories. But she is also referred to as “the landlady” in The Five Orange Pips. (We may be sure that the landlady of FIVE is Mrs. Hudson, as the story takes place in the September between July 1887 and July 1888 when her name is given in NAVA and SIGN.)

Immediately, I can point out that we also know that she got married at some point, from the salutation commonly used for her: “Mrs.” In turn, this also indicates her age: between 1823 and 1929 a girl in Britain could not marry until she was at least 12 years old. Mrs. Hudson, then, was at least 12 when she was first referred to as “Mrs. Hudson”. By my reckoning this was in April 1883, in the case of The Speckled Band. Therefore, Mrs. Hudson was born sometime before April 1871.

Her first mention by Watson comes in the second story he wrote up – The Sign of the Four. In the first – A Study in Scarlet – she is not referred to by name at all. In fact, it would take some trouble to prove beyond doubt that “the landlady”, who gets four mentions in that story, is Mrs. Hudson. It is perfectly feasible that the building exchanged ownership between Holmes and Watson moving in in early 1881 and Mrs. Hudson getting a namecheck in April 1883. We cannot learn anything, then, from the stories which predate the events of The Speckled Band.

From the 1883 case of the Speckled Band, we learn that Mrs. Hudson is a live-in landlady. She answered the door to Helen Stoner at 7am on 5th April. So we know her address – 221 Baker Street. We also see that she acts as a housekeeper for her tenants as she lights their fire for them after answering the door.

It is evident from many of the stories that Mrs. Hudson provides food and refreshments for her tenants. In the Naval Treaty in 1887 she brings in tea and coffee and this continues through to the Mazarin Stone in 1903 when Holmes asks her to send up dinner for two. Her culinary ability is discussed here and there – most notably in the The Naval Treaty when Holmes claims “Her cuisine is a little limited, but she has as good an idea of breakfast as a Scotch-woman.” That her limited cuisine was good is confirmed in Black Peter when Watson says “…we sat down together to the excellent breakfast which Mrs. Hudson had prepared…”

Holmes was a master of weighing up the available evidence and identifying the most probable explanation. Therefore, when he said in The Five Orange Pips that a caller braving a storm was more likely “to be some crony of the landlady's” than a client for him, Holmes had good reason to believe this was the case. So, Mrs. Hudson must have received a decent number of visitors of her own. And they were visiting as friends (or “cronies” as Holmes colourfully put it). Thus we can deduce that Mrs. Hudson was a popular, outgoing sort of person.

In The Sign of the Four, Mrs. Hudson is dismayed when her house is invaded by the Baker Street Irregulars. I have always read this believing her concern is that they may make her house dirty. I was quite prepared to report here that Mrs. Hudson is house-proud. But this is by no means clear. In fact, given the mess Holmes reportedly created (see the opening paragraphs of The Musgrave Ritual), it seems Mrs. Hudson was quite able to tolerate mess… for a price. Perhaps she was merely shocked by the boys’ chaotic entrance. Or maybe she feared they had criminal intent. But all this is conjecture and of no use to the project in hand.

Later in The Sign of the Four we find that Mrs. Hudson displays some concern about the well-being of Holmes. In chapter nine, when Watson enquires after Holmes, Hudson expresses her concern for his health as he has spent the day pacing up and down, talking to himself. And there are other such displays of concern for him elsewhere in the Canon. In the Dying Detective, for example, she is upset at Holmes’s apparent serious illness, which reduces her to trembling and weeping outside his room. In the same story Watson says he knew “how genuine was her regard for him”. Then we are told in The Empty House how she kept his rooms for him while he was on The Great Hiatus, taking the rent from brother Mycroft. Personally, I believe she knew Holmes was alive – but this is conjecture and has no place here. But such pains represent her regard for Holmes, either way. And later in the same story she beams at Holmes and Watson when they return together to 221b.  So we know something of her relationship with Holmes – she was fond of him.

The opening paragraphs of the Dying Detective, set in 1889, provide us with the most vivid image we get of Mrs. Hudson. We see more of her personality and speech in these few hundred words that all through the rest of the Canon. It is Watson’s opinion that she is a “long-suffering woman”, as she has had to tolerate Holmes’s unusual habits for so long. But that is just Watson’s opinion – it is not necessarily a true reflection of her feelings. What is more interesting is that Watson states “...his payments were princely. I have no doubt that the house might have been purchased at the price which Holmes paid for his rooms during the years that I was with him.” Watson was “with him” from 1881 to 1903, barring the Great Hiatus.  So, we can also say that, at latest, Mrs. Hudson was probably comfortably off by 1903. Sadly, without an insight into how she spent her money, we cannot know this.

In The Empty House we get a great indication of her personality. She is willing, at Holmes’s request, to crawl about the sitting room of 221b moving an effigy of Holmes which was serving as a target for bullets. Make no mistake, Mrs. Hudson is a courageous, active and hardy woman.

Finally, I feel I should mention two myths that have popped up over the years about Mrs. Hudson.

First, “Mrs. Hudson’s Christian name is Martha”. This comes from His Last Bow, in which Holmes has placed an agent called Martha in Von Bork’s house. She acts as Von Bork’s housekeeper. It has been suggested that this is Mrs. Hudson. While there is no proof that she is not Mrs. Hudson, the fact that Watson does not seem to recognise her is suggestive. Certainly there is no proof that she is Mrs. Hudson. It is all surmise.

Secondly, “Mrs. Hudson is Scottish.” This conclusion is drawn from a comment in The Naval Treaty. Holmes says of her: “Her cuisine is a little limited, but she has as good an idea of breakfast as a Scotch-woman.” Over the history of Holmesiana several people have extrapolated a Scottish heritage from Holmes’s statement. But this is unjustified. Holmes is making a comparison to a “Scotch-woman”. This would make little sense if Hudson actually was a “Scotch-woman”. If anything, this statement is more indicative that she is not a “Scotch-woman”. And this is backed up by the few instances of her speech that we find in the Canon. She is never reported as having an unusual accent. Her vocabulary is always standard English, too. Again, none of this is conclusive either way, but the weight of evidence seems to be on the side of an English heritage.

In summary then, here is what we do know about Mrs. Hudson:

1. She was born prior to April 1871.

2. By April 1883, she went by the name of Mrs. Hudson. (First name unknown)

3. She married a man named Mr. Hudson prior to April 1883.

4. From April 1883 to Summer 1903 she resided at 221 Baker Street, and was occupied as a landlady and housekeeper.

5. Her culinary ability was limited but good.

6. She was popular and outgoing.

7. She was fond of Sherlock Holmes.

8. She could have been financially comfortable by 1903.

9. She was courageous.

So, while it may be nit-picking of the highest order to suggest any of this is useful information, it does at least prove an American wrong: we do know more from the Canon about Mrs. Hudson than just her surname.

Monthly Meeting Minutes - 11th February 2021

The Shingle of Southsea Holmesian Society

Monthly Meeting Minutes

For the first time, The Shingle of Southsea attempted to hold an online Zoom meeting, to reduce the COVID-19 risks raised by meeting in person. The meeting was recorded and can be seen here:

However, for traditionalists, the written minutes are still provided here:

Date of Meeting: 11th February 2021

 

Location of Meeting:

The Sherloft, My House, Portsmouth, UK

And Zoom on the internet.

 

Attendees:

"The Entire Canon" (Paul Thomas Miller)

 

Apologies:

There were no apologies.

 

The Toasts:

"The Entire Canon" (Paul Thomas Miller) provided the following toast to Langdale Pike:

Langdale Pike

Raise a glass to Langdale Pike

A strange and languid gossip type

Whose knowledge attracts Holmes attention

But, Canonically, gets just one mention.

 

 

Motions:

"The Entire Canon" (Paul Thomas Miller)  moved that we elect a new chairman.

The motion was not seconded.

 

Presentation:

"The Entire Canon" (Paul Thomas Miller) gave the following presentation on the topic of Sherlock Holmes’s attitudes towards women:

 

Holmes’s Attitude to Women

By Paul Thomas Miller

 

It is often remarked that Holmes had a poor attitude towards women. It is just as often counter-remarked that his attitude was not as bad as Watson reported. But when we consider that the Canon spans a period of about forty years between The Adventure of the Gloria Scott and His Last Bow, I wondered whether there was evidence of Holmes’s attitude changing over time.

The primary difficulty in examining this is one of Holmesian Chronology. Sherlockians have long argued over the dates of cases. I will use my attempt to make sense of the dates – Watson Does Not Lie, Wildside Press. (It would be interesting, at a later date, to note whether other chronologies give a steadier evolution of Holmes’s attitudes.)

 

In A Study in Scarlet, we get the first hint of Holmes’s opinion of women in chapter five when he exclaims “We were the old women to be so taken in.” The suggestion here is that old women are foolish. Of course it is debatable whether it is age, gender or the combination of both which render a person foolish, but taken at face value, this opinion from March 1881 already indicates Holmes’s poor opinion of women.

This attitude continues over the next seven years.

In February 1884, in Beryl Coronet, he suggests that women in love become irrational and that this explains the willingness of Mary Holder to betray her uncle: “I have no doubt that she loved you, but there are women in whom the love of a lover extinguishes all other”. Holmes specifies that this is something that women are capable of. Not men, who he seems to have a higher regard for.

Then in the Autumn of 1886 he gives us his rant about female inscrutability in The Second Stain: “And yet the motives of women are so inscrutable… How can you build on such a quicksand? Their most trivial action may mean volumes, or their most extraordinary conduct may depend upon a hairpin or a curling-tongs.” The implication is clear – women are irrational and silly.

One would expect his attitude to have been modified sooner as in 1887, during The Five orange Pips he confesses “I have been beaten… once by a woman.” Surely they cannot all be so irrational if one is capable of besting Holmes. “No man lives or has ever lived who has brought the same amount of study and of natural talent to the detection of crime which I have done,” said Holmes on 4^th March 1881. And yet his ability wasn’t enough to stop this unknown woman. As we will see, he still had a poor opinion of women in 1888, but perhaps some groundwork had already been done to enable the change that was about to come.

The case which is supposed to indicate a change in Holmes’s attitudes is A Scandal in Bohemia, which took place in March 1888. He begins the case with his old attitude. There is a suggestion that women are untrustworthy – “Women are naturally secretive, and they like to do their own secreting.” And another nod towards female irrationality – “When a woman thinks that her house is on fire, her instinct is at once to rush to the thing which she values most.” He is specific regarding gender here. Presumably he believes men would do something more intelligent, like try to put out the blaze. But by the time Watson writes this story up in 1891, Irene Adler had succeeded in making a difference to the potential misogyny Holmes fostered – “He used to make merry over the cleverness of women, but I have not heard him do it of late.”

So, if we trust Watson, we should expect that after the Adler case (and certainly by 1891) Holmes no longer casts doubt on female intelligence. To some extent this is true.

He still thinks they are untrustworthy. Consider his warning to Watson four months later in The Sign of the Four: ““I would not tell them too much,” said Holmes. “Women are never to be entirely trusted,—not the best of them.”” But trustworthiness and cleverness are very different things. In fact, the implied sneakiness of women would require a certain intelligence. And Holmes’s opinion on potential female intelligence is confirmed at the end of the case when he demonstrates a high regard for Mary Morstan: “I think she is one of the most charming young ladies I ever met, and might have been most useful in such work as we have been doing. She had a decided genius that way…” Note, there is no hint of “in spite of being a woman”.

In The Twisted Lip, Holmes confesses that women are worth listening to when, on 15 June 1889 he states: “I have seen too much not to know that the impression of a woman may be more valuable than the conclusion of an analytical reasoner.” But this is a bit of a back-handed complement – he accepts Mrs. St. Clair may have a valid point, but not because she can think well – it’s just instinct. It is as if Holmes has modified his thoughts on female intelligence, but not wholeheartedly.

And by 1890, he seems to have returned to its pre-Adler stance when he decides Mary Sutherland is too irrational to be told the truth about Hosmer Angel in A Case of Identity: “If I tell her she will not believe me. You may remember the old Persian saying, ‘There is danger for him who taketh the tiger cub, and danger also for whoso snatches a delusion from a woman.’ There is as much sense in Hafiz as in Horace, and as much knowledge of the world.” This hardly matches up with the change in attitude Watson reported a year later. In fact, this seems to be directly making “merry over the cleverness of women”.

My personal thought is that Holmes actually just had a poor opinion of Mary Sutherland – not all women - and expressed it with a poor choice of words.  After all, consider the high opinion he had of Violet Hunter in The Copper Beeches which took place one year later: “You seem to me to have acted all through this matter like a very brave and sensible girl, Miss Hunter. Do you think that you could perform one more feat? I should not ask it of you if I did not think you a quite exceptional woman.” Holmes isn’t entirely reformed in this statement – his use of “girl” is patronizing and “exceptional” suggests normal women wouldn’t be this smart. But, he doesn’t have that attitude of “all women are irrational” that the Hafiz quote suggests.

There are two suspicious comments made by Watson subsequent to the events of A Scandal in Bohemia which we must also consider. In The Dying Detective, published 1913, Watson claims “…he had a remarkable gentleness and courtesy in his dealings with women. He disliked and distrusted the sex, but he was always a chivalrous opponent.” And in The Greek Interpreter, published 1893 Watson references Holmes’s “aversion to women.” These comments do not claim that Holmes still thinks women are less intelligent, but that he dislikes women.

I understand why Watson had these opinions of Holmes - he seems to disregard the wellbeing of women too easily. In The Golden Pince-Nez, we see Holmes in 1894 where Watson reports how Holmes easily manipulates women whenever he likes: “I may have remarked before that Holmes had, when he liked, a peculiarly ingratiating way with women, and that he very readily established terms of confidence with them.”

More shockingly, there is the maid in Charles Augustus Milverton, who Holmes gets engaged to despite having no intention of staying with her. But he knows she has another suitor who she will be consoled by. Holmes isn’t actually cruel to her, but he doesn’t dwell on irrelevant details in the middle of a case and it is his failure to express care that leads Watson to his opinion. But Holmes may well care, without taking the time to show Watson he does. While Watson based his opinions of Holmes on what he saw, he didn’t see everything. And with a person as superficially unemotional as Holmes, Watson stood no chance of seeing into his heart.

In fact in 1926 we get a much better idea of what is going on in Holmes’s head. Holmes gave us a direct insight in The Lion’s Mane: “Women have seldom been an attraction to me, for my brain has always governed my heart, but I could not look upon her perfect clear-cut face…” Women have seldom been an attraction to Holmes. Not never. The inference being that Holmes has been attracted to some women. This disproves many of Watson’s assumptions about Holmes disliking women. The truth is merely that Holmes was not open about liking women in the presence of Watson.

So did Holmes’s opinion of women change after Irene Adler bested him? I think so. Perhaps not openly enough for Watson to see it, but enough that he was more open to the intelligence of women. He even considered a heterosexual relationship a possibility in The Devil’s Foot in 1897: “I have never loved, Watson, but if I did and if the woman I loved had met such an end, I might act even as our lawless lion-hunter has done.”

 

Any Other Business:

"The Entire Canon" (Paul Thomas Miller) raised the issue of heating in The Sherloft again. There are no funds for heating.

Monthly Meeting Minutes – 13th January 2021

  The Shingle of Southsea Holmesian Society

Monthly Meeting Minutes

Date of Meeting: 13th January 2021

Location of Meeting:

The Sherloft, My House, Portsmouth, UK

Attendees:

"The Entire Canon" (Paul Thomas Miller)

Apologies:

I should think so.

Presentation:

The main presentation this week was by "The Entire Canon" (Paul Thomas Miller) who has made some startling discoveries about Holmes's last words.

Famous Last Words

by Paul Thomas Miller

I noticed recently that if you list the last word of every story in The Canon in publication order you get the following enigmatic paragraph:

Arca it woman sand world past star breakfast feature conscience existence evenings punishment success you ever you police service seas to-morrow Samuel print avenged trust known way presents turn estate justice pocket later window solution rise embassy day night door horrible plans speech act career place veil can possible taught it Holmes emerged dock hands shock yard told it age

Now, that does not seem terribly impressive, but I tried adding some punctuation convinced that this would produce a secret sixty-first story. Here's how it turned out:

"Arca it, woman!"

Sand-world past star-breakfast.

Feature conscience, existence evenings, punishment success.

You. Ever you.

Police service seas to-morrow.

Samuel print avenged.

Trust known way presents turn.

Estate justice; pocket later.

Window solution. Rise embassy.

Day, night, door. Horrible plans.

Speech act? Career-Place-Veil can!

Possible? Taught it.

Holmes emerged! Dock-hands shock yard. Told it age.

Nope. Still made no sense.
But then I tried shuffling the words up and I got a poem which is so deep I don't understand it. Proof, if it were needed that The Canon is a work of genius.

Acra Yard

(A hidden poem found by Paul Thomas Miller)

Embassy told police

"Trust punishment"...

Pocket woman emerged avenged.

It taught service.

You print "Shock!"

It hands justice.

You can dock.

Possible night past horrible day,

To-morrow ever presents evening's later way.

Rise star!

Turn seas!

Breakfast world!

Conscience speech:

Feature sand success.

Estate plans career window,

Place it, Samuel Holmes.

Act. Age.

Veil existence.

Acra Yard.

Advertisements:

Announcements:

I was recently approached by the psychic ghost of Silver Blaze and, through mutual consent, he is now my spirit guide. That means I am now the most powerful living psychic on Earth and to help me celebrate the psychic ghost of Silver Blaze told me to make these amazing Sherlock Holmes themed Fortune Telling Playing Cards:

I have just seven decks left for sale if anyone wants them. They are £15 + P&P. DM me on Twitter if you are interested:  https://twitter.com/BaronVonBork

Or you can go through eBay if you are in the UK: https://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/324477394440

Monthly Meeting Minutes – 4th December 2020

The Shingle of Southsea Holmesian Society

Monthly Meeting Minutes

 

Date of Meeting: 4th December 2020

 

Location of Meeting:

My House, Portsmouth, UK

 

Attendees:

"The Entire Canon" (Paul Thomas Miller)

 

Apologies:

Whoever came up with that Elf on the Shelf nonsense needs to apologise. My Facebook timeline is now flooded with stupid people’s “cute” photos of the “amazing” “creative” “ideas” “they came up with”.

 

Shingle of Southsea Games Night:

For Christmas 2020 we decided to replace the usual Shingle’s presentation with a games night. Brenda The Headless Mannequin was invited back to partake of the festivities and we took her silence as confirmation that she would be thrilled to attend.

 

Game One: Monotony

Played with a standard Monopoly board. The winner is the player who can resist rolling the dice for the longest period of time. Brenda won.

 

Game Two: Canonical Quiz

One of our members set the quiz, reproduced below. Printed copies were handed out to all attendees. The quiz consisted of 10 questions about the entire Canon.

1. What was the name of Colonel Barclay’s Aldershot Home?

2. In which story does Watson brandish an egg-spoon?

3. How many shotguns feature in the entire Canon?

4. There are twenty-three ejaculations in the Canon, but who ejaculates the most?

5. There were four women called Violet in the Canon, but only one woman had violet eyes. Who?

6. Where was Doctor Watson shot? His leg or his arm?

7. In how many stories does Holmes mention his little monograph on the ashes of 140 different varieties of pipe, cigar, and cigarette tobacco?

8. At the end of STOC, which edible plant does Mr. Pinner resemble?

9. In Wisteria Lodge, what are our own colours?

10. Which is the best story in the Canon?

 

The answers can be found at the very end of these minutes.

At our event Paul Thomas Miller (The Entire Canon) scored 100%, while Brenda left her page blank and scored 0%. Paul Thomas Miller (The Entire Canon) won.

 

Game Three: Wheel of Gravy

The traditional Sherlockian game of Wheel of Gravy has to be played at any serious Holmesian Festivities and ours was no exception. We used a standard wheel and beef gravy.

Brenda won.

 

Game Four: Name a Pub

A new Holmesian game! Players take it in turns to name a pub from the Canon until finally no one can think of any more.

Paul Thomas Miller (The Entire Canon) won when he pointed out that every single pub in the Canon is called The Chequers.

 

The scores were tied. Two all. The final game was a tie breaker.

 

Game Five: The 100m Holmes-Draw Dash

Contestants were required to run 100 meters while drawing a picture of Sherlock Holmes. Paul Thomas Miller (The Entire Canon) won by default when Brenda refused to run. Here is his winning picture:

 

The meeting was concluded by a return to The Sherloft for mulled wine and general praise for our victorious champion; Paul Thomas Miller (The Entire Canon). Sadly Brenda had to be ejected after making some spurious allegations about other members.

 

Here are the answers to the quiz:

1. Lachine

2. A Study in Scarlet

3. Two – one in STUD and one in VALL

4. Watson (12 times) [followed by Holmes(7), Tadpole Phelps (3) and Neville St. Clair (1)]

5. Miss Alice Turner (BOSC)

6. Neither. He was shot in Afghanistan and in Nathan Garrideb’s rooms.

7. Two – STUD and BOSC

8. An Arty Choke.

9. Green and white.

10. The Mazarin Stone.