Monthly Meeting Minutes - 16th July 2023

Date of Meeting: 16th July 2023

 

Location of Meeting:

The Sherloft, My House, Portsmouth, UK

 

Attendees:

"The Entire Canon" (Paul Thomas Miller)

 

Apologies:

None.

 

Motions:

"The Entire Canon" (Paul Thomas Miller) moved that we should move AOB to the start of the meeting so he could tell us all about his new book "Finding Sherlock Holmes" which is currently on Kickstarter. It is a comprehensive guide to all the locations in England which are mentioned in the Sherlock Holmes Canon. It covers more locations than any other similar work produced so far. It goes all the way from big locations like Baskerville hall down to small one's like the stone cutter's mentioned briefly in The Mazarin Stone. Aiming to be a genuinely useful guidebook, but still very much in the voice of "The Entire Canon" (Paul Thomas Miller) it is a work "The Entire Canon" (Paul Thomas Miller) is very proud to be bringing to the Holmesian community.

It can be found at http://kck.st/44kF8Ze

No one seconded the motion. "The Entire Canon" (Paul Thomas Miller) agreed that he would mention  it at the end of the meeting instead.

Presentation:

"The Entire Canon" (Paul Thomas Miller) presented the following long rambling and intentionally boring paper about horror movies and Sherlock Holmes:

Amicus  Portmanteau Horrors and Sherlock Holmes

 One of my favourite Holmesian past-times has to be ruining whatever my family are watching on telly by informing them which Holmes productions the actors have been in instead of letting them listen to the show. One of wife’s favourite things to watch is the set of seven portmanteau horror films produced by the Amicus Productions film company, between 1965 and 1974. As a result of this I have made a study of the actors of these films and the Holmesian links that they have. Here, I will confine this study to screen productions.

 For those not in the know, a portmanteau horror film is a single film consisting of several shorter films, usually with a connecting story linking the different segments together. The seven Amicus portmanteaus are:

 Dr. Terrors House of Horrors (1965) (hereafter TERR) in which a mysterious stranger in a train carriage shows his fellow travelers their potential supernatural futures.

Torture Garden (1967) (hereafter TORT) in which a mysterious side show owner shows some fairground goers  their potential supernatural futures.

The House that Dripped Blood (1971) (hereafter HOUS) in which an estate agent tells a police inspector the mysterious supernatural stories associated with a particular house.

Tales from the Crypt (1972) (hereafter CRYP) in which a mysterious stranger shows five people on a catacomb tour the supernatural story of their own deaths.

Asylum (1972) (hereafter ASYL) in which a psychiatrist is shown around a mysterious mental asylum being told the supernatural stories of the inmates.

The Vault of Horror (1973) (hereafter VAUL) in which five strangers meet in the basement of an office block and share the stories of their mysterious supernatural dreams with each other.

And, finally, From Beyond the Grave (1974) (hereafter BEYO) in which a mysterious antique shop owner sells people items which lead them into supernatural stories.

 I have also included three related films in my study:

 Tales That Witness Madness (Paramount, 1973) (hereafter WITN) is a clear pastiche of the Amicus portmanteaus. Like Asylum, this is based in a mysterious mental asylum where a psychiatrist learns the supernatural stories of the inmates.

The Uncanny (Rank Organisation, 1977) (hereafter UNCA) is another Amicus pastiche. In this one a mysterious writer tells his publisher supernatural stories about cats in an attempt to save the world from feline domination.

Finally, The Monster Club (Chips Productions, 1981) (MONS) is very much a parody of the Amicus films. A vampire invites a horror writer to a mysterious club for supernatural creatures and tells him the stories of some of the monsters found within.

 Starring in seven of these ten films, Peter Cushing was the obvious person to start with. He was Dr. Terror in TERR, Lancelot Canning in TORT, Philip in HOUS, Grimsdyke in CRYP, Smith in ASYL, the proprietor in BEYO and Wilbur in UNCA. Notably, in TERR, BEYO and UNCA he is the central character in the all-important connecting "framework" story. In Holmesian terms Cushing is an easy win. As well as playing Arthur Conan Doyle in the 1976 film The Great Houdini, he also played Sherlock Holmes in three separate productions: the Hammer production of The Hound of the Baskerville (1959), the second series of the British TV show Sherlock Holmes (1968) and Sherlock Holmes and the Masks of Death (1984).

In Sherlock Holmes and the Masks of Death Cushing was joined by Ray Milland in the role of "home secretary". He had joined Cushing before when he played Frank Richards - Cushing’s publisher - in UNCA. UNCA would also see Samantha Eggar in the role of Edina Hamilton (segment "Hollywood 1936"). Holmesians will be more familiar with her as Mary Morstan Watson in The Seven-Per-Cent Solution (1976), the same film which saw Charles Gray play Mycroft Holmes three years after his role as Nicholas in WITN's framework story. This was not the last time he played Mycoft - he reprised the role in three of the Jeremy Brett series (The Adventures of Sherlock Holmes (1984), The Return of Sherlock Holmes (1988) and The Memoirs of Sherlock Holmes (1994)) that are so adored by Sherlockians the world over. Elsewhere in the Adventures… series Jeremy Kemp took on the role of Dr Grimesby-Roylott. This is not his only Holmesian credential - he also played Baron Karl von Leinsdorf in The Seven-Per-Cent Solution. In the Amicus universe though, he is known for the character of Jerry Drake (segment "Creeping Vine") in TERR. In this segment Jerry Drake tries to assist a family being plagued by a killer plant. The mother of this family is Ann Rogers who is played by Ann Bell who Holmesians will instantly recognise as Peter Cushing’s Mary Morstan from his 1968 version of The Sign of Four as part of his Sherlock Holmes series.

Another episode from this series - Black Peter - gave us Jerold Wells in the role of Patrick Cairns. Just five years later he would hit the big screen in VAUL as "Waiter" (segment "Midnight Mess"). This segment is a fun one for Holmesians as it features Anna Massey who was married to Jeremy Brett for four years. She was also the daughter of Raymond Massey who had played Sherlock Holmes in 1931’s The Speckled Band. In VAUL Anna played Donna Rogers whose brother - Harold Rogers - is trying to kill her. Harold was played by Anna’s real life brother Daniel Massey. Holmesians will be more familiar with Daniel in his role of Trelawney Hope from "The Second Stain" episode of the Peter Cushing's 1968 Sherlock Holmes series or J. Neil Gibson from the Jeremy Brett version of "The Problem of Thor Bridge" from the 1991 series The Case-Book of Sherlock Holmes. A more villainous episode from this series was "The Illustrious Client" in which we saw Baron Gruner portrayed by Anthony Valentine. Ten years previously he had been just as scary in his performance from MONS as Mooney (segment "Vampire Story") a story which saw him hunting down the charater of "father" played by Richard Johnson. In 1991 Richard Johnson played Dr Watson to Charleton Heston’s Holmes in The Crucifer of Blood.

In 1965’s A Study in Terror the same role - Dr Watson - had been taken by Donald Houston, the same person who played Sam in the "Mr. Tiger" segment of WITN. The part of Fay in the same WITN segment was taken by Georgia Brown who has two memorable Holmesian roles: Frau Freud in The Seven-Per-Cent Solution and Rachel in the Peter Cushing Sherlock Holmes version of "The Musgrave Ritual". This was the same series that gave us the memorable performance of Christopher Carlos as Lucus in the episode Wisteria Lodge. Amicus fans will know Carlos better as Vrim from the Voodoo segment of TERR.

A similarly pivotal role in TERR was taken by Faith Kent who gave a scintillating performance as "Lady in Art Gallery" during the "Disembodied Hand" segment. Almost as good was her performance in Hands of a Murderer (1990) as Mrs. Husdon to Edward Woodward’s Holmes.

A similar star of TERR’s "Disembodied Hand" segment was Walter Sparrow who valiantly took on the part of "Second Ambulance Man". That’s right - the same Walter Sparrow who would, in 1985, play the part of Ethan Engel in Young Sherlock Holmes.

Indeed, that "Disembodied Hand" segment is littered with Holmesian stars. Michael Gough plays one of the main characters of the story - an artist named Eric Landor. Gough is famous enough in his own right, but to devotees of the great detective he will always be known as Russel Partridge from The Case of the Perfect Husband - an episode from the Ronald Howard 1950s series Sherlock Holmes. The star of the first episode from this series was Ursula Howells in the role of Joan (episode: "The Case of the Cunninham Heritage"). Ursula went on to appear in two of the Amicus films: TERR as Mrs. Deirdre Biddulph (segment "Werewolf") and TORT as Miss Maxine Chambers (segment "Mr. Steinway").

The Framework story of TORT heavily involves Michael Ripper. Despite being the barman in just about every British horror movie of the 60s and 70s, this is Rippers only appearance in the Amicus portmanteaus. Similarly, he only ever appeared once in a Holmesian role, that of Stanley Fluff in one episode of the kids' tv show The Baker Street Boys (1983) which centred more around the Baker Street Irregulars than Roger Ostime’s portrayal of Sherlock Holmes. Ripper’s co-star in the TORT framework story is Burgess Meredith - best know as one of the Batman villains from the 1960’s Adam West series. He appeared in twenty-one epsiodes as The Penguin. Less well remembered is the villain Egghead who only appeared in seven episodes. Egghead was a baddy with a big bald bonce who battled Batman with his big brains and bad egg puns. This role was played by Vincent Price.

Vincent Price is known to Holmesians as Professor Ratigan from Disney’s 1986 film The Great Mouse Detective. In the world of portmanteau horrors he is better known as Eramus - the vampire from the framework story of MONS. This framework story involves vampire Erasmus inviting horror author R. Chetwynd-Hayes to join him at the eponymous Monster Club. R. Chetwynd-Hayes is played by John Carradine, who Holmesians will know as Barryman, the butler (renamed from the canon’s original "Barrymore") from Basil Rathbone’s The Hound of the Baskervilles. The Henry Baskerville of this film was played by Richard Greene who also played Jason in the "Wish You Were Here" segment of CRYP and Lord Brompton in the episode "The Case of the Purloined Letter" from the 1970s series Sherlock Holmes and Doctor Watson which starred Geoffrey Whithead as Sherlock Holmes in a series which mostly rehashed stories from the old Ronald Howard series.

Another actor from the Geoffrey Whitehead series was Geoffrey Bayldon who played Morton Hadlock in "The Case of the Deadly Tower". This was not his only Holmesian role, he also played Sidney Johnson in the episode "The Bruce-Partington Plans" from Jeremy Brett’s The Return of Sherlock Holmes series. He had also had four roles in the portmanteau horrors. He was a psychiatrist in the "Shadmock Story" segment of MONS, Max in the segment "Mannikins of Horror" from ASYL, the guide from the framework story of CRYP and Theo Von Hartmann from the segment "The Cloak" in HOUS.

The main character from "The Cloak" section of HOUS was Paul, who was portrayed by Jon Pertwee. Jon Pertwee is most famous for two roles - the third Doctor in Doctor Who and Worzel Gummidge. In an episode of Worzel Gummidge Down Under from 1989 called "Elementary, My Dear Worty" the eponymous scarecrow investigates a crime by changing his head for a Sherlock Holmes head.

In HOUS, it is the dissapearnce of Pertwee’s character - Paul - which is the focus of the framework story, in which Det. Insp. Holloway is conducting the investigation. Holloway is played by John Bennett. This is not the only Dr Who/Sherlock Holmes connection he has, as he also worked with the forth Doctor on the Doctor Who story line “The Talons of Wen-Chiang”. Set in victorian London, Tom Baker’s doctor inexplicably goes around dressed as Sherlock Holmes for the entire six episode story. However, a more solid Holmesian connection for John Bennet can be found in 1991 when he played Dr. Sigmund Freud in the Christopher Lee film Sherlock Holmes and the Leading Lady.

Christopher Lee, like Peter Cushing, is another interesting person in this study. He appeared in significant parts for two of the Amicus films: In TERR he was Franklyn Marsh in the segment "Disembodied Hand" and in HOUS he was Reid in the segment "Sweets to the Sweet". In Holmesian terms he is far more accomplished. In Cushing’s 1959 The Hound of the Baskervilles he took the part of Sir Henry, in 1970s The Private Life of Sherlock Holmes he played Mycroft and he also played Sherlock Holmes himself in three movies: Sherlock Holmes and the Deadly Necklace (1962), Sherlock Holmes and the Leading Lady (1991) and Sherlock Holmes: Incident at Victoria Falls (1992).

Sherlock Holmes: Incident at Victoria Falls involves encounters with many famous figures of the day. Among them is King Edward who is portrayed by Joss Ackland - another multi-Holmes actor. Ackland can also be seen as Hon. Philip Green in "The Disappearance of Lady Frances Carfax" episode of Douglas Wilmer’s 1964 series Sherlock Holmes, the President in John Cleese’s The Strange Case of the End of Civilization as We Know It (1977) and Jephro Ruscastle in "The Copper Beeches" episode of Jeremy Brett’s The Adventures of Sherlock Holmes. However, he only ever took one role in the Amicus universe - that of Rogers in the"Waxworks" segment of HOUS. The proprietor of the Waxworks museum in question in this segment was played by Wolfe Morris who Holmesians will know as from his portrayal of "frenchman" in Gene Wilder’s 1975 film The Adventure of Sherlock Holmes' Smarter Brother. Another, equally significant character in this movie was Fred who was played by Tommy Godfrey. Tommy also had multiple roles in the Geoffrey Whitehead series Sherlock Holmes and Doctor Watson. He played Smith in the episodes "A Motive for Murder" and "The Case of Smith & Smythe" and Jack Driscoll in "The Case of the Luckless Gambler". He also had two roles in the Amicus Films: Landlord in VAUL and Mr. Jeffries  in BEYO.

BEYO also gave us Nyree Dawn Porter in the role of Susan Warren from the segment "The Elemental". This is the same Nyree Dawn Porter who played ann in HOUS’s "Sweets to the Sweet" and Lady Brackenstall in Douglas Wilmer’s Sherlock Holmes episode "The Abbey Grange". This Douglas Wilmer series had repeat appearances from Peter Madden as Inspector Lestrade. However when the series was recommissioned with Peter Cushing in the title role in 1968, he transformed into Bill McCarthy for "The Boscombe Valley Mystery" episode. He also managed to bag the role of Von Tirpitz in 1970’s The Private Life of Sherlock Holmes. Five years previously, though, he had wowed audiences as Caleb in the "Werewolf" segment of TERR. The "Vampire" segment of the same movie centred around Dr. Bob Carroll who was ably portrayed by Donald Sutherland just fourteen years before he would become known to Holmesians as Robert Lees in the Christopher Plummer movie Murder by Decree.

In 1965 Donald Sutherland had appeared in a one-off TV special called Terry-Thomas Says How Do You Do? Unsurprisiningly, this was hosted by Terry-Thomas. Eight years later Terry-Thomas would appear as neat-freak Arthur Critchit in the VAUL segment "The Neat Job". Another five years would pass before he reached the radar of Holmesians as Dr. Mortimer in the unwatchable 1978 classic The Hound of the Baskervilles which starred Peter Cook as a confusing interpretation of Sherlock. This film also gave us a Beryl Stapleton played by Joan Greenwood. The same Joan Greenwood who a year earlier had played Miss Malkin in the "London 1912" segment of UNCA. This segment also gave us Susan Penhaligon as Janet (Penhaligon would later be cast as Miss Derwent in Sherlock Holmes and the Masks of Death) and Simon Williams as Michael. Simon Williams will be recognised as Lord Robert St. Simon from Jeremy Brett’s "The Eligible Bachelor" in the series The Case-Book of Sherlock Holmes. In the epsiode "The Disappearance of Lady Francis Carfax" from the same series, the role of The Earl of Rufton was given to Michael Jayston who was already known to portmanteau fans as Brian from the "Mel" segment of WITN.

The only other actor from WITN who interests me is Leon Lissek who played Keoki in the "Luau" segment. I am sure the reader doesn’t need me to remind them of his performance as "stage door-keeper" in the Christopher Lee TV movie Sherlock Holmes and the Leading Lady. Christopher Lee followed this film up a year later with Sherlock Holmes: Incident at Victoria Falls in which Lord Roberts is played by Richard Todd who had previously treated us to his Walter in the "Frozen Fear" segment of ASYL. ASYL is also where many will have first encountered Barry Morse in his role as Bruno (segment "The Weird Tailor"). Morse got his Holmesian credentials from appearing as Carter Morstan in The Return of Sherlock Holmes. This was the Michael Pennington 1987 TV movie, not the Jeremy Brett Series.

Jeremy Brett, though, was responsible for many of the actors in this study. For example, Maurice Denham appeared as Reverend Merridew in "The Last Vampyre" episode of The Case-Book of Sherlock Holmes as well as Josiah Amberley in Douglas Wilmers "The Retired Colourman". In the world of Amicus he had already been Uncle Roger in the "Enoch" section of TORT.

TORT also gave us Fred in the "Terror Over Hollywood" segment, played by James Copeland who we will never forget after he performed as "guide" in The Private Life of Sherlock Holmes. You might know him better as Selris from the Doctor Who "Krotons" storyline in 1968/69. The fourth Doctor did not encounter the Krotons, but, as already stated, he did once dress up as Shelock Holmes and his actor, Tom Baker did protray Sherlock once in a TV series version of The Hound of the Baskervilles in 1982. In the Amicus universe Tom Baker was the tortured artist Moore in the VAUL segment "Drawn and Quartered". One of the villains of this segment is Lawrence Diltant, played by Denholm Elliott. This is not Denholm’s only Amicus role - he also played Charles in the "Method for Murder" segement of HOUS. More importantly, Denholm Elliott has had three screen roles in Holmesian productions: Stapleton in the Peter Cook version of The Hound of the Baskervilles, Dr. Mortimer in the Ian Richardson version of The Hound of the Baskervilles (1983) and the "English delegate" in The Strange Case of the End of Civilization as We Know It. This last was a TV film which featured John Cleese as the grandson of Sherlock Holmes. It also featured Maurice Kaufmann playing the role of Steve McGarrett. Kaufmann was also in the "Drawn and Quartered" segment of VAUL.

The VAUL segment "This Trick'll Kill You" also gave us a few Sherlockian links. The character Inez was played by Dawn Addams who had previously been Doreen Meredith in "The Case of the Careless Suffragette" episode of Ronald Howard’s series. In VAUL Inez attempted to steal the magic of a fakir played by Ishaq Bux. Bux was Jeremy Brett’s Lal Chowder in his 1987 version of The Sign of Four.

Other stars of VAUL include Erik Chitty who played "old waiter" in the "Midnight Mess" segment as well as Walter in Douglas Wilmer’s version of "The Bruce-Partington Plans".

Similarly, the "Bargain in Death" segment of VAUL gave us Edward Judd as Alex. Judd would go on to portray Barrymore in Ian Richardson’s The Hound of the Baskervilles. Ian Richardson might be better known for his portayal of Doyle’s mentor - Dr Joseph Bell - in the BBC TV series Murder Rooms: Mysteries of the Real Sherlock Holmes. One episode of this, in 2000, saw John Malcolm in his iconic role of "doctor in street". He had also once been given the part of Tangey in Jeremy Brett’s version of "The Naval Treaty" for The Adventures of Sherlock Holmes. In horror terms, though, he was known as Police Sergeant Martin from the framework story in HOUS.

This leaves just five actors to talk about.

 James Villiers was Lord Cantlemere in Jeremy Brett’s "Mazarin Stone" for The Memoirs of Sherlock Holmes, but was also George in the "Lucy Comes to Stay" segment of ASYL. George is brother to an unstable character called Barbara who is played by Charlotte Rampling. In 1976 Rampling would go on to play Irene Adler to Roger Moore’s Sherlock Holmes in Sherlock Holmes in New York.

Perhaps the strangest character in ASYL was Byron in the segment "Mannikins of Horror" who was played by Herbert Lom. Lom played his most famous character - police chief Dreyfus (of Pink Panther fame) - in a little known Czech film Sherlock Holmes V Pánském Klubu Aneb Komisar Dreyfus Zasahuje (which loosely translates as Sherlock Holmes in the Gentlemen's Club or Commissioner Dreyfus Intervenes). I can’t find anything out about this film, but it seems to me that Sherlock’s only involvement is in the title.

UNCA gave us Donald Pilon in the role of Mr. Blake (segment "Quebec Province 1975"). This is not the same Donald Pilon who was Geoffrey Whiteheads Dr Watson in Sherlock Holmes and Doctor Watson so he is entirely irrelevant to this study and I’d have done better not to mention him. However, Martin Boddey, who played the "husband" in CRYP’s "And All Through the House" segment, did once appear as Sam Merton in a 1951 BBC production of The Adventure of the Mazarin Stone. It was made as part of the For The Children series. Sadly no footage survives.

As you can see, then, there are many ways to annoy someone who is trying to watch one of these portmanteau horror films, which makes it a great hobby.

Any Other Business:

"The Entire Canon" (Paul Thomas Miller) spoke about his new book "Finding Sherlock Holmes" which is currently on Kickstarter. It is a comprehensive guide to all the locations in England which are mentioned in the Sherlock Holmes Canon. It covers more locations than any other similar work produced so far. It goes all the way from big locations like Baskerville hall down to small one's like the stone cutter's mentioned briefly in The Mazarin Stone. Aiming to be a genuinely useful guidebook, but still very much in the voice of "The Entire Canon" (Paul Thomas Miller) it is a work "The Entire Canon" (Paul Thomas Miller) is very proud to be bringing to the Holmesian community.

It can be found at http://kck.st/44kF8Ze

 

Monthly Meeting Minutes - 4th June 2023

 Date of Meeting: 4th June 2023

 

Location of Meeting:

The Sherloft, My House, Portsmouth, UK

 

Attendees:

"The Entire Canon" (Paul Thomas Miller)

 

Apologies:

What else could "The Entire Canon" (Paul Thomas Miller) be? All apologies.

 

Toast:

"The Entire Canon" (Paul Thomas Miller) provided the following toast to Sherlock Holmes:

Stick a trumpet up your bum.

Tape some geese to the sun.

Catch an egret having fun.

Sherlock Holmes is Number One.

Presentation:

"The Entire Canon" (Paul Thomas Miller) presented the following "fun" game:

Holmesian Cryptic Crossword.

The aim is to solve this cryptic crossword and then discover what links all of the answers.

You should find you can click on the image of the crossword grid to see it enbiggened and then you can print it off.

CLUES:

Across

5 Crook in lexicon Victor uses (7) 

7 Killer of two donkeys and Indiana (8) 

9 Savage midget plus one male, is terra firma queen (7,8) 

10 Low notes in El Minya Airport make ambassador's home (7) 

13 Head teacher leaves charting crucifix for train station (7,5) 

14 Faculty member for posers possibly (9) 

15 Aficionado Connor has mixed up issue inside (11) 

16 You'd be misguided to be lead up this way (6,4) 

17 Organisation of loud, brave, wide street (9) 

20 Roof wallops, we hear, is used to secure a letter (7-3) 

23 Egyptian city of Alex and Ria (10) 

24 Flower in coins for communities of monks (11) 

25 Ray erects mangled clerk (9) 

28 Heartless red letter day speech makes a scarlet parasite (3,5) 

29 Scuttle scuttle meat (7) 

30 Choose ninety-nine Ians to be eye specialists (9) 

31 Flipped artificial intelligence after broken bries for this cold region (7) 

32 Blair ires confused book lenders (9) 

36 Ancient Egyptian policeman twitch? (6) 

39 Bride in Malawi feeds horses (4) 

40 A little application before small bird in ease creates craving for food (8) 

42 Talk pig meat for Kent town (7) 

43 Emphasise electric coin (6) 

45 Drunken plod aims for qualifications (8) 

Down

1 Another country in Cyprus, Siam and Sweden (6) 

2 Find his list in confusion for those who believe existence is senseless (9) 

3 Friend and fiends establish reused writing material (10) 

4 Result of milking ponies? A harsh howl (6,6) 

6 Edward in sweeper chamber (7) 

8 Interrogation of angry assessment (5-11) 

11 Mr Swan nets spider homes (7) 

12 Rub back with French water for a writing desk (6) 

13 Rural lass troubled groin curtly (7,4) 

18 Clutched chlorine as performance-enhancing drug (7) 

19 Dad's herb alley (7) 

20 Sights for sight (10) 

21 Sound of walking twelve inch Saint episodes (9) 

22 Quote about Texan leader next to french train station for smoker (9) 

26 Confused chosen kit for a wide snout (5,4) 

27 Small container seen in photograph I always carry (5) 

31 Sounds like Susan is team hara-kiri (7) 

33 Furniture in gazebo. OK. Case closed (8) 

34 Mr Damon in gallium carpeting (7) 

35 Pelt line trench (6) 

37 Bee Gees hit upset Ed Garty (7) 

38 Disappear around right lacquer (7) 

41 Documents primate in present tense (6) 

44 Mixed up rock that floats (4)

Nobody at The Shingle of Southsea's meeting was able to complete the crossword or solve the mystery of what links all the answers. As such, we are throwing the competition open to all readers of The Shingle of Southsea's meeting minutes. The first person to send a correctly completed grid and the correct answer to dearbuck@outlook.com will be the proud winner of a voucher for some radishes and a severe ignoring, redeemable at their nearest Sherloft.

Any other business:

"The Entire Canon" (Paul Thomas Miller) requested that there be more cold beer at the next meeting as The Sherloft is unbearably hot at this time of year.

Monthly Meeting Minutes - 1st May 2023

Date of Meeting: 1st May 2023

 

Location of Meeting:

The Sherloft, My House, Portsmouth, UK

 

Attendees:

"The Entire Canon" (Paul Thomas Miller)

 

Apologies:

"The Entire Canon" (Paul Thomas Miller) confirmed he was present and refused to apologise.

 

Toast:

"The Entire Canon" (Paul Thomas Miller) provided the following toast to Watson's sexual prowess:

Some say Watson had one wife,

Some say he married six.

To be honest, we can't really tell:

Without clay there's no bricks.

However many wives he had,

We can all agree upon

The sexual prowess of our man - 

Of good old Three-Con-John.

Presentation:

"The Entire Canon" (Paul Thomas Miller) presented the following paper on Unstuck Watson Theory:

Unstuck Watson Theory

 

LISTEN:

John H. Watson has come unstuck in time.

Watson has gone to sleep a multiple widower and woken up on his first wedding day. He has walked through a door in 1903 and come out another one in 1881. He has gone back through that door to find himself in 1914. He has seen his birth and death many times, he says, and pays random visits to all the adventures in between...

Watson first came unstuck while the second Afghan war was in progress. Watson was an Assistant Surgeon in the war... There he was struck on the shoulder by a Jezail bullet, which shattered the bone and grazed the subclavian artery... This was when Watson first came unstuck in time. His attention began to swing grandly through the full arc of his life, passing into death, which was violet light... then Watson swung into life again, going backwards until he was in pre-birth, which was red light... then he swung into life again and stopped. He was a little boy taking a shower with his hairy father at the miners' camp in Ballarat...

 

The problems in Watson's testimony are myriad for those wish to establish a chronology of the adventures of Sherlock Holmes. However, a recent rereading of Slaughterhouse 5 by Kurt Vonnegut suggested to me a solution to many of these problems. Is it possible that, like Billy Pilgrim, Watson was "spastic in time" with "no control over where he is going next"?

In brief, for those unfamiliar with Billy Pilgrim - the central character of Kurt Vonnegut's Slaughterhouse 5 - he does not experience time the same way the rest of us do. Picture his life as the series of sounds taking place one after another on a vinyl record. Rather than passing through these events in order, Billy's consciousness jumps about from moment to moment, like a needle skipping about on the record at random. He replays snatches of his life over and over with no control over which part of his life he will experience next. [By no means does this explanation do justice to the work of Vonnegut. I urge you to stop reading this and go read his book if you haven't read it already.]

I once tried to create a Holmesian chronology which started from the premise that the facts Watson gave us in the Canon are all correct. The result was a book called "Watson Does Not Lie". It is a book which almost all Holmesian chronologists can agree is utter horse-shit. By taking Watson's word for everything, you end up with a chronology that involves many significant problems. But by reviewing these through the lens of Unstuck Watson Theory (hereafter U.W.T.) many of these problems may actually be resolved.

Before I proceed, I need to make one point very clear. In order for U.W.T. to be a viable explanation for Holmesian chronological issues, it is first necessary to establish that Billy Pilgrim was much better and keeping track of his life than Watson was. Despite finding the experience disorientating at times, Billy Pilgrim usually managed to keep the segments of his life coherent to more linear onlookers. Watson had a far more chaotic reaction to his Temporal Spasmodic Disorder. The confusion it caused him is what led to the confusion he created on the page.

Let us next examine some of the more famous chronological problems and how U.W.T. makes sense of them:

 

Multiple Marriages

The number of Watson's marriages is problematic for anyone who pays attention to the dates in the Canon. By my reckoning, Watson works out to have had at least six wives. Some of these marriages only lasted a few weeks. My explanations for this in Watson Does Not Lie were tenuous at best. However, it is difficult to make sense of the Canon if one tries to reduce the marriage count to just Mary Morstan and the mystery wife of 1903 ("January, 1903... The good Watson had at that time deserted me for a wife" - Sherlock Holmes, BLAN). If Mary was Watson's only pre-1903 wife, consider the following:

When Watson first shacks up with Holmes it seems clear that he has no wife. He describes himself as having "neither kith nor kin in England." (STUD)

John H. Watson and Mary Morstan become engaged at the end of SIGN. By my calculations, this is at the end of July 1888, and we are given every reason to believe that this is Watson's first marriage - no other wives are mentioned in the Canon.

However, in SCAN, which Watson states began on 20th March 1888, he says that he had drifted away from Holmes because of his marriage. This seems to suggest that Watson managed to marry Mary four months before he proposed to her.

But we know this can't be the case because in ENGR he refers to "the summer of ’89, not long after my marriage" suggesting that Watson actually married Mary in spring 1889.

U.W.T. immediately makes sense of this situation. When Watson states that he "had seen little of Holmes lately" because his "marriage had drifted us away from each other", this is because his consciousness had been passing through events sometime after spring 1889. Then, while "returning from a journey to a patient" he time-slipped to 20th March 1888 - a full year before he would get married and four months before he would meet his wife. From Watson's perspective this all made sense. It is only from our limited viewpoint that the dates seem confusing.

 

The Date of Wisteria Lodge

The Wisteria Lodge date is an infamous problem. FINA and EMPT make it clear that between 4th May 1891 and 1st April 1894 Holmes was on The Great Hiatus - that period of time when almost everyone believed Holmes was dead, but he was actually off having fun on a tour of Eurasia. However, Watson seems to explicitly state that Holmes travelled with him to Wisteria Lodge in 1892.

My previous explanation for this in "Watson Does Not Lie" is, frankly, ludicrous. But U.W.T. provides a much better answer. First, we need to consider where we get the date for this case from. What Watson actually states is:

"I find it recorded in my notebook that it was a bleak and windy day towards the end of March in the year 1892.  Holmes had received a telegram while we sat at our lunch, and he had scribbled a reply..."

Watson was relying on an entry he made in a diary when he wrote this story up in 1908. It seems obvious to me that the diary of a temporally unstuck individual might well be a chaotic book. Watson might well have been in March 1892 in his room, but as he travelled to the table to have lunch he could have time-slipped to any other date when Holmes was around. Watson sat down to lunch, and began idly writing in his diary. He could easily put the wrong date at the top of the page before realising he had time-slipped. He later returned to his diary to write up the day’s events, unaware he was jotting them down under the wrong date. Later, in 1908, Watson may well have found WIST recorded under that date, but it could have actually taken place any time during his life at 221b.

 

Knowledge of Moriarty in Valley of Fear

Most Holmesians are already aware of this chronological issue. In FINA, set in 1891, Watson is told for the first time about the existence and exploits of Professor James Moriarty. By the end of that tale, Moriarty is dead. However, in VALL Holmes, Watson and Inspector MacDonald discuss Moriarty in quite some detail. This would not be such a problem if VALL were not set in "the early days at the end of the '80's", several years before Watson had ever heard of the man.

U.W.T. makes sense of this. It is fair to assume that Holmes knew about Watson’s condition. Either Holmes would have been told by Watson or Holmes would have deduced it. In that light, Holmes’s opening gambit in this conversation is not at all remarkable. He says: "You have heard me speak of Professor Moriarty?" Rather than confirming a past conversation Holmes had had, Holmes was finding out from Watson whether his consciousness had passed through a later moment when he had revealed all. All of Watson's knowledge of Moriarty comes, not from a moment before FINA, but from his consciousness having already been through FINA before time-skipping its way back to VALL. Long before he arrived at Birlstone Manor, Watson had already experienced the later events which would lead to Moriarty’s death at the Reichenbach Falls. So it goes.

 

The Wrong Day

The start date of The Solitary Cyclist case is given in Watson’s introduction: “On referring to my note-book for the year 1895 I find that it was upon Saturday, the 23rd of April, that we first heard of Miss Violet Smith.” The problem is that 23rd April 1895 was a Tuesday, not a Saturday.

Again, U.W.T. makes sense of this. Watson may well have started off on a Saturday, 23rd of April. Perhaps in 1892 or 1898. It was there that he went on his adventure with Violet Smith. Then he time-slipped to some date in 1895. Picking up his notebook for that year, he wrote down the details of the story, failing to record the actual year it took place. Watson, then, is perfectly correct when he states that the details were found in his 1895 notebook under the date "Saturday, the 23rd of April". What he omits is that the events never took place in 1895 - that is just the year his consciousness happened to be when he wrote it down.

 

Dating REDH

The Red-Headed League can be dated to 27 June 1890 via the newspaper Jabez Wilson shows Holmes. However Watson says he called upon Holmes "one day in the autumn". Now we can see that Watson probably set off to visit Holmes in autumn but time-slipped on the way and arrived in summer.

 

The Wrong Day Again

In TWIS, Watson claims that 19th June 1889 was a Friday, when if fact it was Wednesday. He is talking to Isa Whitney at the time, who picks Watson up on the error. For a man who frequently time-slips, we can see how he could easily make this mistake.

 

I submit, then, that U.W.T. is not only a possible explanation of the chronological 'mistakes' we find in the Canon, it is the best available theory to explain them.

 

Watson licked his lips, thought a while, inquired at last: ‘Why me?’

‘That is a very Earthling question to ask, Dr Watson. Why you? Why us for that matter? Why anything? Because this moment simply is. Have you ever seen bugs trapped in amber?’

‘Yes. There was one in the mouthpiece of Grant Munro’s pipe.’

Any other business:

"The Entire Canon" (Paul Thomas Miller) requested that people send him their Sherlockian Selfies for use in an upcoming Shingle of Southsea video. No one replied.

Monthly Meeting Minutes - 15th April 2023

Date of Meeting: 15th April 2023

Location of Meeting:

The Sherloft, My House, Portsmouth, UK

Attendees:

None

 

Apologies:

"The Entire Canon" (Paul Thomas Miller) sent his apologies for not attending as he was busy at 221bCon in Atlanta.

Monthly Meeting Minutes - 12th March 2023

Date of Meeting: 12th March 2023

 

Location of Meeting:

The Sherloft, My House, Portsmouth, UK

 

Attendees:

"The Entire Canon" (Paul Thomas Miller)

 

Apologies:

No.

 

Motions:

"The Entire Canon" (Paul Thomas Miller) moved for the removal of face-masks at meetings. No one seconded.

Presentation:

"The Entire Canon" (Paul Thomas Miller) presented the following paper on Holmes's heritage:

Sami Holmes

On a recent visit to Tromsø in northern Norway, I was fortunate enough to visit the nearby Sami Arctic Reindeer experience which is run by the indigenous Sami (sometimes Sámi or Saami) people of the region. It was a great day out and was very educational. But the thing which I was really struck by was an elderly Sami gentleman who was dressed in traditional Sami clothing. It was not the colourful gákti tunic which caught my eye, but the reindeer fur hat he was wearing. The hat was worn leather out and fur in. Possessing two large, cosy looking earflaps, which he had tied together above the hat, it looked remarkably like a deerstalker adapted for arctic conditions. When he brought a pipe to his lips, I was thrust upon an inevitable train of thought. Could this be the “ear-flapped travelling-cap” Watson spoke of in “Silver Blaze”? A little research shows that variations of this style of hat were common among the Sami people, though usually they seem to have been less bulky.

 

Three Sami women

 

Immediately I began to think of that passage from “The Empty House” where Holmes recounts his adventures during the Great Hiatus:

“You may have read of the remarkable explorations of a Norwegian named Sigerson, but I am sure that it never occurred to you that you were receiving news of your friend.”

Notably, Holmes didn’t say he was posing as a Norwegian. He merely said that when Watson was reading about the Norwegian, he was reading about Holmes. Was Holmes admitting his true ancestry then? Having looked at the evidence I believe there is a good case for suggesting that his true heritage was from the Sami people of northern Norway. (I should note here that the Sami inhabit not just northern Norway, but also the north of Finland and Sweden and the Russian Kola Peninsula. However, as will become clear, I am drawn to the notion that Holmes was one of the north Norway Sami people. Indeed, this is the most likely as about half of all Sami live in Norway.)

It is well known that Holmes was cagey with Watson about his family history. He never really gave a lot away. The most we learn comes from the introductory section of “The Greek Interpretter”:

“My ancestors were country squires, who appear to have led much the same life as is natural to their class.”

This is incredibly vague. Perhaps this is deliberate. While it immediately conjures up images of landed gentlefolk in rural England, could it not also refer to the Sami going about their routine business in the countryside of northern Norway?

Certainly, this is possible, but I must next ask myself why, if it were true, Holmes would wish to keep his Sami heritage secret. The simple answer is persecution. I’m not going to go into great detail because I fear I will not do the subject justice. However, in short, like many indigenous peoples across the globe, the Sami have suffered a great deal of discrimination and abuse at the hands of the dominant cultures who have invaded their lands. While things have improved for them in recent years, the “Norwegianization” of the Sami people which was active government policy from the 1850s through to the 1980s attempted to destroy the Sami and their way of life. To avoid any prejudice which might follow him, Holmes may have chosen not to be up front about his Sami roots.

Accepting, then, the possibility of a Sami Holmes, I sought further evidence in The Canon to support the hypothesis. For starters there is the name Holmes gave himself when he reverted to his Norwegian persona – Sigerson. It was my Norwegian friend Chris Aarnes Bakkane who first drew my attention to the fact that Sigerson is not a Norwegian name. As a Norwegian, Holmes knew this. So why would he choose an incorrect name? It must have further meaning for him. Siger is actually a Swedish name meaning a military victory. By calling himself Sigerson, Holmes is suggesting that he is the child of a military victory. Could he be subtly referring to the invasion of Sami lands by the Norse people? That is, his “SHerlock Holmes” persona was born out of the victimisation of his Sami ancestors by the Norse people?

The fact that Holmes chose to be Norwegian in “The Empty House” is telling enough, but it should be noted that at the end of “Black Peter” Holmes announces that he is leaving the country to go “somewhere in  Norway”. While there is some tying up of loose ends to do there from the case, this is very unusual behaviour for Holmes. He normally would send a few telegrams and let someone else do the donkey-work. This exceptional trip may be seen as evidence of Holmes seizing an opportunity to return home for a while.

Further ties to the Sami regions can be seen by the frequent help Holmes offers to Scandanavian royalty. This comes up in The Noble Batchelor, A Scandal in Bohemia and The Final Problem. Could his ties to this monarchy have been diplomatically motivated? Was Holmes attepting to alter policy towards the Sami people in a quid pro quo manner?

Holmes’s dressing gown has drawn much attention from Holmesian scholars in the past due to its colour changing properties. In “The Man with the Twisted Lip” it was blue. In “The Blue Carbuncle” is was purple. And in “The Bruce-Partington Plans” it was mouse-coloured. This seems excessive for a dressing gown. But what if Watson was mistaken. What if these were actually three different gákti – the robe like garments traditionally worn by the Sami people. These come in a variety of colours including reds, blues and medium-browns which could easily match up with the colours of robe Watson recorded. At those times of day when English gentlemen would relax in their dressing-gowns, what could be more natural for Sami Holmes than to relax in the traditional garments of his home.

In my research into Sami culture I came across some interesting images associated with noaidi - something akin to a Sami version of a shaman. One of the common tools of the noaidi is a Sami drum. These drums are used by the noaidi to induce a trance like state and to predict the future. A kind of die would be placed upon the skin of the drum which is decorated with various symbols. The symbol upon which the die stopped held meaning about the future. The symbols seemed reminiscent of others encountered by Sherlock Holmes:

Sami drum decoration

These stick man images are very similar to the images used in the code of “The Dancing Men”. In that adventure Holmes was very quick to suggest that the stick figures held definite meanings. Could this have been because he had seen such figures hold definite meanings in his past?

One of our guides at Sami Arctic Reindeer even spoke to us a little of the old Sami indigenous polytheistic religion. Specifically she told us about the many spirits they believe in, including one who protects each dwelling place. Compare this idea to Holmes’s statement in The Valley of Fear: “I'm a believer in the genius loci.” The genius loci is a very similar spirit from classical Roman religion.

 

At this point, Holmes’s Sami heritage seems indisputably evident. But I would even take my theory further and identify the specific type of community he came from. The Sami have traditionally pursued one of four livelihoods: sheep herding, reindeer herding, fur trapping or coastal fishing. I am convinced that Holmes’s heritage was in one of the fishing, or Sea Sami, communities. This would make sense for a Norwegian Sami - the fishing in this area is especially productive, although it is fair to note that the Mountain Sami of the region still do well with reindeer. Looking to The Canon, while there is little reference to deers, sheep or fur trapping in Holmes’s day-to-day speech, fishing comes up repeatedly.  For example, Holmes twice uses the metaphor of net fishing when speaking about catching Moriarty and his gang in “The Final Problem”:

“I have woven my net round him until now it is all ready to close.”

“It was a net from which it seemed to me a few hours ago that there was no possible escape.”

And again in “The Mazarin Stone”:

“I've cast my net and I have my fish.”

Holmes is keen to highlight the attractions of fishing at his friend’s home in “The Gloria Scott”:

“There was excellent wild-duck shooting in the fens, remarkably good fishing…”

The tool he reaches for in “The Musgrave Ritual” is of note:

“Then I took two lengths of a fishing-rod, which came to just six feet, and I went back with my client to where the elm had been.”

In “Shoscombe Old Place” Holmes seems much excited about one aspect of his journey to this manor house:

“Is there good fishing in that part of Berkshire?”

In the same adventure, Holmes proves his talent in this area:

“My companion seemed to have no further plans for the day, and we did actually use our fishing tackle in the mill-stream, with the result that we had a dish of trout for our supper.”

In “The Lion’s Mane” his first observation at the crime scene is that of fishermen going about their business:

“On the sea two or three fishing-boats were at no great distance.”

Indeed, might Holmes’s retirement to a coastal region not be considered telling in itself?

 

Here then, I rest my case. The evidence seems to me to be piled in favour of my assertion that Holmes was of north Norwegian Sea Sami heritage, which goes a long way to explaining his reluctance to speak about his ancestry with Watson.

Any other business:

As the previous day had been International Hug-A-Holmesian Day, "The Entire Canon" (Paul Thomas Miller) sat in the corner hugging himself for two hours. He did not cry very much.

Monthly Meeting Minutes - 23rd February 2023

 Date of Meeting: 23rd February 2023

 

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 leaving his paper until the last minute and therefore presenting a very rushed piece.

 

Motions:

"The Entire Canon" (Paul Thomas Miller) moved for all hostilities to cease immediately. Then "The Entire Canon" (Paul Thomas Miller) poked him in the eye.

Presentation:

"The Entire Canon" (Paul Thomas Miller) presented the following paper on putting the "Ho" in "Holmes":

How Did Holmes Really Make His Money? 

On a recent rereading of A Study in Scarlet, I was struck by Holmes’s selective secrecy when talking to Stamford. Holmes keeps his reason for being at St. Bart's hidden from the fellows around him, as we can see from Stamford’s comments to Watson:

“No—I have no idea what he intends to go in for. I believe he is well up in anatomy, and he is a first-class chemist; but, as far as I know, he has never taken out any systematic medical classes. His studies are very desultory and eccentric, but he has amassed a lot of out-of-the way knowledge which would astonish his professors.”

“Did you never ask him what he was going in for?” I asked.

“No; he is not a man that it is easy to draw out...”

And yet, Holmes is not very secretive about other issues, such as the state of his finances:

“He was bemoaning himself this morning because he could not get someone to go halves with him in some nice rooms which he had found, and which were too much for his purse.”

This seems to be around the wrong way. The young men at St. Bart's could reasonably be expected to discuss what they were studying and experimenting on, whereas such personal information as your financial situation would be forthcoming only to very close chums. We can surmise then that Holmes was fairly close to Stamford, to have been discussing the state of his purse. Which makes his reluctance to talk about what he is studying all the more puzzling.

From here I began to consider the experiment Stamford had witnessed Holmes conducting:

“When it comes to beating the subjects in the dissecting-rooms with a stick, it is certainly taking rather a bizarre shape.”

“Beating the subjects!”

“Yes, to verify how far bruises may be produced after death. I saw him at it with my own eyes.”

Stamford has already painted a picture of Holmes as someone who is usually cagey about his studies. Why then did he break this silence and offer this implausible explanation on this occassion? I suspect it’s because he wanted to divert Stamford from the truth. Stamford had walked in on something he wasn’t supposed to see and was given a quickly conjured lie to cover Holmes’s true motives. What was Holmes doing, then? My suggestion is that Holmes was, in reality, practicing his spanking technique.

Naturally, my next question had to be: why was he practicing his spanking technique? The immediate and obvious response was that Holmes was honing his skills as a BDSM Dom. Clearly Holmes was offering niche male prostitute services. This was not something he could be open about in Victorian society, so we immediately come to understand why Stamford and the others at St. Bart's were left in the dark about Holmes’s studies.

At this point I should make my thoughts clear: I’m not suggesting that Holmes didn’t work as a consulting detective, I am suggesting that he supplemented his income with his sex work. Clearly, his work with Scotland Yard was above board. I also believe the adventures Watson had with Holmes all took place as described. But these adventures never really seemed to generate the money Holmes had accumulated by the end of his career. This is because the real money came from the sex work Holmes supplemented his income with.

So now we know what Holmes was really up to at St. Bart's – he was honing his BDSM skills. No doubt, had we been able to see him studying, we would have seen him researching human pleasure receptors and the nervous system. The dissecting rooms would have served him well for bodies on which he could practice all manner of bondage and sadomasochistic techniques. Certainly, in a medical institution, he could have gathered valuable information about human anatomy that might have been difficult to come by elsewhere. All of these skills would lead to Holmes becoming one of the most well-paid Dom sex workers in London.

 

There is some further evidence in A Study in Scarlet to support this theory. Once Watson and Holmes were living together, Watson began watching and recording Holmes’s behaviour. Some of his observations are rather telling:

Sometimes he spent his day at the chemical laboratory, sometimes in the dissecting-rooms, and occasionally in long walks, which appeared to take him into the lowest portions of the City.

Now we can see the reason for his visits to “the lowest portions of the City”. He was learning from the existing sex workers of Whitechapel, Limehouse and similar areas.

Watson also notices that Holmes “…was possessed of extraordinary delicacy of touch…”. No doubt this delicate touch was useful for someone who wanted to be able to tease, titillate and torture their submissive clients.

Perhaps the most telling passage is found towards the end of chapter two:

…I found that he had many acquaintances, and those in the most different classes of society. There was one little sallow rat-faced, dark-eyed fellow who was introduced to me as Mr. Lestrade, and who came three or four times in a single week. One morning a young girl called, fashionably dressed, and stayed for half an hour or more. The same afternoon brought a grey-headed, seedy visitor, looking like a Jew pedlar, who appeared to me to be much excited, and who was closely followed by a slipshod elderly woman. On another occasion an old white-haired gentleman had an interview with my companion; and on another a railway porter in his velveteen uniform. When any of these nondescript individuals put in an appearance, Sherlock Holmes used to beg for the use of the sitting-room, and I would retire to my bed-room. He always apologized to me for putting me to this inconvenience. “I have to use this room as a place of business,” he said, “and these people are my clients.” Again I had an opportunity of asking him a point blank question, and again my delicacy prevented me from forcing another man to confide in me. I imagined at the time that he had some strong reason for not alluding to it, but he soon dispelled the idea by coming round to the subject of his own accord.

There are several parts of this paragraph which now appear in a different light.

Watson speaks of visitors from “…different classes of society…” suggesting that he found some of Holmes’s clients suspiciously different from the norm. Following this he mentions a “…grey-headed, seedy visitor… who appeared to me to be much excited…” That word “seedy” suddenly makes more sense. As does the fact that he is “excited”. One would expect someone consulting a detective to be distraught, “excited” makes far more sense for a submissive visiting their favourite dom.

The need for Holmes to use the large airy sitting room to conduct his business also makes more sense to me now. Holmes very clearly states “I have to use this room as a place of business… and these people are my clients.” If all Holmes was doing (as he later claimed) was having a chat with them, why did he “have to use” so much space? Whereas a sex-worker with an exotic repertoire might well find all that room useful as a makeshift dungeon.

I think Watson might actually have had some suspicions. He says: “my delicacy prevented me from forcing another man to confide in me”. All he is talking about is Holmes’s occupation. In normal human interaction this is not considered a delicate question. Indeed, it is often one of the first things we ask each other when we are getting to know new people. It is as if Watson is subconsciously aware of the potential delicacy in asking this particular person such a question.

Again, to be clear, I don’t think ALL of Holmes’s clients were for his sex-work, but I’m convinced at least SOME of them were. Certainly, I feel we can trust that Lestrade was only there for the consulting detective. But that porter in velveteen or the fashionably dressed young lady could easily have been there for more kinky reasons.

 

All of the above information came from the period during which Watson was snooping into Holmes’s business. Holmes must have become aware of this and would surely have wanted to divert Watson’s attention elsewhere. It is notable that around this time, Holmes voluntarily “outed” himself to Watson as a consulting detective. He even unnecessarily took Watson along to investigate the “The Lauriston Garden Mystery”. No doubt, this was a distraction technique. By showing Watson his hobby of detective work, he avoided scandalising the young Victorian doctor with his true profession, that of a high-class niche sex-worker.

While Holmes and Watson became very close friends, I don’t believe Holmes ever confided his true vocation. Indeed, it was possibly because he wanted to keep his sex-worker status secret that he went on to embark upon so many adventures with Watson.

 

I have really only considered the evidence found in A Study In Scarlet in composing this paper. I feel certain supporting evidence could probably be found in many of the other adventures Watson recorded, but I have yet to track it down. I will remark, though, that one example does occur to me. Much later in their friendship, Holmes and Watson were involved in the business of “His Last Bow”. This ends with the capture of Von Bork – the German agent:

The German lay upon the sofa sleeping stertorously with a strap round his upper arms and another round his legs.

Holmes certainly seems to have known how to quickly and effectively place another person in a state of bondage…

Any other business:

"The Entire Canon" (Paul Thomas Miller) asked if anyone would like to accompany him the 221BCon in April. No one wants to accompany "The Entire Canon" (Paul Thomas Miller) to 221BCon in April. 

Monthly Meeting Minutes - 24th January 2023

Date of Meeting: 24th January 2023

 

Location of Meeting:

The Sherloft, My House, Portsmouth, UK

 

Attendees:

"The Entire Canon" (Paul Thomas Miller)

 

Apologies:

"The Entire Canon" (Paul Thomas Miller) is sorry he ever ever started this obsession.

 

Motions:

"The Entire Canon" (Paul Thomas Miller) gave a condescending wave of his hand to indicate he was happy to proceed.

Presentation:

"The Entire Canon" (Paul Thomas Miller) presented the following paper on why Holmes is so boring:

What Does It Mean to be a Consulting Detective? 

 

The way Sherlock Holmes conducted the majority of his work seems to have been forgotten by the general public. Even some scholars of The Great Detective seem to ignore his bread-and-butter work. People have asked, for example, how Holmes funded his lifestyle when his investigations seem to take so long and he frequently accepts no payment for his services. Others have asked how Holmes could possibly fit in the many cases which Watson frequently suggests he undertook. 

For example: “…I have notes of many hundreds of cases…” (SECO), “…a travel-worn and battered tin dispatch-box… crammed with papers, nearly all of which are records of cases…” (THOR), “…I have a mass of material at my command…” (VEIL). 

When cases such as The Hound of the Baskervilles seem to have taken several weeks to solve, it seems unlikely that Watson could amass very much in the way of records during the “seventeen [years Watson] was allowed to cooperate with [Holmes] and to keep notes of his doings” (VEIL). 

 

This, of course, neglects the bread-and-butter work Holmes performed. Indeed, before Watson arrived on the scene, Holmes was far more like his brother Mycroft – a sedentary character, processing data and returning his verdict. Remember those first days in Baker Street when Watson was still trying to figure out what Holmes’s occupation was: 

 

During the first week or so we had no callers, and I had begun to think that my companion was as friendless a man as I was myself. Presently, however, I found that he had many acquaintances, and those in the most different classes of society. There was one little sallow rat-faced, dark-eyed fellow who was introduced to me as Mr. Lestrade, and who came three or four times in a single week. One morning a young girl called, fashionably dressed, and stayed for half an hour or more. The same afternoon brought a grey-headed, seedy visitor, looking like a Jew pedlar, who appeared to me to be much excited, and who was closely followed by a slipshod elderly woman. On another occasion an old white-haired gentleman had an interview with my companion; and on another a railway porter in his velveteen uniform. When any of these nondescript individuals put in an appearance, Sherlock Holmes used to beg for the use of the sitting-room, and I would retire to my bed-room. He always apologized to me for putting me to this inconvenience. "I have to use this room as a place of business," he said, "and these people are my clients." (STUD) 

 

Finally, Holmes confesses that he is “a consulting detective”. And it seems odd to me that, while most Holmesians can state this fact confidently, many seem to forget what it actually means. Policemen, private detectives and the general public DO come to him with their problems and mysteries. However, in most cases he does not run around investigating and solving the cases which are brought to him. He states this very clearly:  

 

"I listen to their story, they listen to my comments, and then I pocket my fee." (STUD) 

 

This is Holmes’s main source of income: short consultations for which he pockets a fee. He could certainly fit in a good many of these consultations per day, and it may well have proved highly profitable for him. Indeed, until Watson arrived on the scene, this was his preferred method of working. This can be seen by his admission that he can’t solve all cases without leaving his room – that occasionally he is forced to get out and seek data himself: 

 

“Now and again a case turns up which is a little more complex. Then I have to bustle about and see things with my own eyes. You see I have a lot of special knowledge which I apply to the problem, and which facilitates matters wonderfully.” (STUD) 

 

It is clear from his wording that these active cases are the exception. Far more frequently, we can infer, he can solve the whole matter from his chair. 

 

Most of our evidence for this early consulting detective work comes from one account – A Study in Scarlet. There is scant information about Holmes’s doings before this case. This is largely due to A Study in Scarlet being the adventure in which Holmes met his biographer – Dr John H. Watson. There are only two cases in The Canon which precede STUD. These are ‘The Gloria Scott’ and ‘The Musgrave Ritual’. 

 

‘The Gloria Scott’ is not tremendously salient to this discussion as it is set before Sherlock Holmes became a detective. Indeed, it isn’t really a “case” at all, Holmes just happened to be at hand when some mysterious events took place and was then summoned back by a friend who needed him. However, his actions in the case are indicative of how he would later conduct himself when he set up in business. All we see him do in terms of detective work is consider the evidence placed before him and give his findings. There is no running about, examining the scene of the crime or setting traps. He is, in essence, merely consulted. 

 

‘The Musgrave Ritual’, however, is a different kettle of fish. Holmes is very active in this case. Here, he travels to the site of the mystery where he performs physical investigations to arrive at a solution. However, upon examining the text it can be seen that Musgrave never expected Holmes to take such an active role. After seeing the Musgrave Ritual itself and determining that is was essentially a treasure map, Holmes has to seek Reginald Musgrave’s permission to visit his home: “…with your permission we will take the first train down to Sussex, and go a little more deeply into the matter upon the spot.” Indeed, all that Musgrave ever asked of Holmes was that he try to throw some light upon what he considered to be an inexplicable business. It seems, that even early on in his career, Holmes was aiming for the role of a consulting detective rather than a private investigator, and that his clients were aware of this. 

 

In fact, ‘The Musgrave Ritual’ provides some evidence that by Watson’s time, Holmes was very much established not as a consultant. Near the start of the account, he says to the good doctor: “You see me now when my name has become known far and wide, and when I am generally recognized both by the public and by the official force as being a final court of appeal in doubtful cases.” Note he claims to be recognised as a “court of appeal”. That is, he is well known as someone who considers the facts presented to him and offers his advice, as opposed to someone who actively investigates and brings things to a conclusion. 

 

From what I can see, when I read A Study in Scarlet, the only reason Holmes became more interested in his occasional active cases was because Watson showed him that they could be good fun. His decision to visit the scene of the first murder is preceded by the business regarding ‘The Book of Life’. This was a magazine article which Holmes brought to the attention of Watson. Unaware that Holmes was the author of the piece, Watson pooh-poohed the notion that an observant man could tell a great deal about other people just by looking at them. After some discussion of the topic, the Lauriston Garden Mystery is brought to Holmes’s attention. His first reaction is to say he is unlikely to attend the scene of the crime because he is “…the most incurably lazy devil that ever stood in shoe leather…”. Suddenly he changes his mind and says he will go, but he insists that Watson should accompany him. Although it is not explicitly stated, this has always read to me as if Holmes was only prepared to actively investigate this case in order to prove a point to Watson. He wanted to show his companion the truth of his claims in ‘The Book of Life’. There follows a good deal of investigating, hunting, induction, abduction, deduction, trap setting, and fighting. By the end of all this activity Watson is forced to accept the truth of Holmes’s article. But it goes both ways: Holmes is forced to admit something too. He says that he “would not have missed the investigation for anything. There has been no better case within my recollection. Simple as it was, there were several most instructive points about it.” Or to put it more plainly – he had fun. It was Watson, then, who gave Holmes a reason to conduct the occasional active case. 

 

In The Canon we are mostly being given an insight into the rare cases -  those which Holmes embarked upon, not because they were his bread-and-butter work, but because he found them fun. The disguises and tricks of ‘A Scandal in Bohemia’, the trap setting of ‘The Red-Headed League’ and the fisticuffs and gunfire of ‘The Solitary Cyclist’ are all examples of cases Holmes took on so that he and Watson could have fun. 

 

That said, there are parts of The Canon which show Holmes performing his consultancy work. ‘A Case of Identity’, for example, is very much an account of a consulting detective at work. Holmes is given most of the evidence by Mary Sutherland, he sends telegrams to collect the remaining details and then he presents his solution (albeit to the wrong person). There is no activity on his part. He solves the case exactly how he told Watson he solves most crimes: “There is a strong family resemblance about misdeeds, and if you have all the details of a thousand at your finger ends, it is odd if you can't unravel the thousand and first,” (STUD). Compare this with what he says of Mary Sutherland’s problem: “…her little problem, which, by the way, is rather a trite one. You will find parallel cases, if you consult my index, in Andover in '77, and there was something of the sort at The Hague last year.” Indeed, Holmes’s work as a consultant is hinted at in many of the other Canonical accounts. Frequently the tales start with Holmes in a very passive role until events force him to take physical action. We see this, for example, in ‘The Five Orange Pips’, ‘The Copper Beeches’, ‘The Greek Interpreter’ and ‘The Dancing Men’. I am sure these are not the only examples. 

 

All this said, it is understandable that people forget what Holmes really did for a living. His consultancy work would generally have made for a very dull narrative: someone comes in, Holmes listens to their problem and then tells them the solution. Even Watson would have a hard time making an exciting read out of them. Indeed, Watson said in ‘Thor Bridge’, regarding the case notes to be found in his tin dispatch box: “Some, and not the least interesting, were complete failures…” In saying that the failures were not “the least interesting” he is also indicating that at least some of the cases were not interesting. In ‘The Veiled Lodger’ he admits to us that when picking which cases he would write up from the many in his notes “the problem has always been not to find but to choose.” Given that he had some amount of choice, it is hardly likely that Watson would choose the dull cases to write up. This is what leads us to an incorrect bias in our picture of Holmes at work. To summarise: 

 

1. The majority of Holmes’s work was consultancy work. A small amount of his work was active.
2. The consultancy work tended to be unexciting.
3. Watson only wrote about Holmes’s exciting work.
4. Therefore, Watson only wrote about the uncharacteristically active or exciting cases. 
5. Watson was Holmes’s sole biographer.
6. Therefore, the student of Holmesiana only has Watson’s account to judge Holmes by.
7. Therefore, the student of Holmesiana only has the uncharacteristically active or exciting cases as evidence of Holmes’s methods. 
8. Therefore, the student of Holmesiana comes to regard Holmes as a much more active detective than the passive consulting detective he really was. 

 

It is Holmes running across the moor to save a man from a demon dog that we are familiar with, not the unrecorded consultant charging a healthy fee for a brief conversation. But by neglecting his boring day-to-day work, we are remembering a fraction of the man as he really was. This is what leads us to forget exactly what Holmes meant when he called himself “a consulting detective”. 

 

The alert Holmesian will no doubt take issue with my claim above that Watson was Holmes’s sole biographer. Rightly so. ‘The Blanched Soldier’ and ‘The Lion’s Mane’ are, of course, auto-biographical accounts of Holmes’s adventures. ‘The Lion’s Mane’ could be discounted if one were so inclined – this is a story about Holmes in retirement. He was no longer a consulting detective when these events took place. However, in it we still see elements of Holmes operating as a consultant would. Most of his mystery solving is performed in this story by him being presented with evidence by other people and then weighing up what it means. True, he examines the body of McPherson and the scene of the mystery. But this is merely due to McPherson dying right in front of him – Holmes was already on scene; he didn’t travel there. He also travels to the Bellamy household, but when he gets there, he plays a passive role, simply listening to their testimony. To be fair, once the problem is solved, Holmes does become active again – he travels to the bathing pool and kills the Lion’s Mane jellyfish – but it is to be remembered that this menace had killed one of his friends, so a little more than usual personal involvement is understandable. 

 

‘Blanched Soldier’ too, contains a great deal of consulting detective work. Holmes explains his method at the end of his account and admits that he had come to his conclusions before he ever set foot outside 221b. The only reason he travelled to the Emsworth residence was because Colonel Emsworth proved such a barrier to everyone else. Holmes was compelled to deal with the man directly. 

 

Two other cases bear mention, as it is unclear who wrote them. ‘His Last Bow’ and ‘The Mazarin Stone’ are unusual in that they are written in the third person. My personal belief is that they were written by Watson, but he wrote them in this manner in order to make it clear that he was not present for many of the events and was forced to rely on Holmes and others filling in the gaps in his knowledge. ‘His Last Bow’ may be dismissed from consideration. Holmes was not working as a consulting detective during this adventure – he was called out of his retirement to work as a secret agent on behalf of his country. ‘Mazarin Stone’ is of more interest. We learn that Holmes was very active indeed in this case. He had been tailing his suspect in a variety of disguises for several days. As with other cases which Watson wrote up, this was one of the exceptions. In fact, if my theory that Watson is the author of this account is correct, it goes someway to demonstrating how boring most of Holmes’s other cases were. That is, he chose to write up a case which he had little direct involvement in, as opposed to the many dull cases he had witnessed at first hand. 

 

Of course, one then begins to wonder exactly why Watson kept so many notes about the dull cases. His tin dispatch-box was crammed with jottings about Holmes’s consultations – most of which, as we have seen, would have been utterly tedious. At some point he must have realised he would never use them. You might expect him to stop taking notes the moment he realised a client was bringing Holmes another quick-chat sort of a problem. But those in the Sherlockian community who have been bitten by the collector bug know how these things go. It can be difficult to let any piece of Sherlockiana escape you, no matter how low it is in quality. Watson was the first Sherlockian, and he seems to have been no different to the rest of us in his collecting mania.

 

(Addendum: The interested reader may wish to supplement this paper by listening to this episode of Trifles: https://www.sherlockholmespodcast.com/2023/01/episode-317-detective-by-any-other-name.html which coincidentally contradicts many of the claims I made here by highlighting other salient parts of The Canon.)

Any other business:

No one was left awake to raise any other business.