Good Sherlock Hunting by Kristen Mertz

Two years ago, at one of our meetings, Elaine told the group about a Sherlock conference that was being held in Switzerland and it is only $700 but the airfare it over $3000, there no way she could go. I said, no, no, no fly to London, visit there, take the train to Switzerland, make it a big trip. Rob said, “Of course Kristen would make it a whole thing.” Yes, that is exactly what I did. I made last year a WHOLE BIG THING.

On May 28th, I flew in to London and a friend of mine kindly took me around, navigating the whole London underground. I quite literally would have been lost without her. She planned everything for us and when she asked, “Is there anything you absolutely want to do?” I swiftly answered, “I have to see the Sherlock Museum and the Sherlock statue.” Everyone warned me not to expect a traditional Sherlock experience with the museum. They were right, but all my expectations of that statue were spot on, and the sun was shining on London that afternoon.

After running around London and Eastbourne for a few days, I flew to Switzerland for the Reichenbach Irregulars conference. I saw several Sherlockians on the bus ride up to the mountains in Leukerbad and was getting pretty excited. My first European conference! What was it going to be like. I quickly dumped my bags in my room and thought, where can I find some Sherlockians before the opening of the conference, so of course I headed for the bar.  Good deduction right? Of course, people were there and I got to meet a few people before the start.

I won’t go into all the details of the conference, but I will tell you if you ever get the chance to attend a European conference, just do it. It was wonderful. There were the presentations, a violin performance, wonderful food, a trip up to the Gemmi Pass and the hot springs! Of course, the best part was all the lovely company and chats with Sherlockians from around the world. We really do have the best people in our little Sherlock world.

I was going to go to Geneva after the conference, but was convinced by several that I absolutely had to visit Meiringen. I am so glad that I took their advice because the city was beautiful. I got to meet MORE wonderful Sherlockians and even hiked the Reichenbach falls. Of course, I had to visit the Sherlock Museum there as well and see yet another wonderful status of the master.  It apparently did not occur to me that perhaps I should have taken a selfie here sadly. Oh well, I guess I will have to go back!

July rolls around, I go to Tokyo. Now at this point, I remembered a conversation that I had at the Gemmi Pass with some members of the Japan Sherlock Holmes Club. We had a chat about me visiting my son in Japan in July that year as he was going to school for a semester there.  They asked what I was looking forward to and I of course said the food, the anime and all the things. They also told me there was a Sherlock status in Japan. I said, “I need to go see that.” Akane told me it was in Oiwake, pretty far from Yokohama where I would be staying, but that put the idea in my head. I mean, they have bullet trains right? I can get there.

There is a Tuesday that I have nothing planned, so I figure what the heck. I’m going to do it, I’m an going to find that statue. It’s only a few trains and a half hour walk. Of course, I am nervous, I kind of procrastinated and left the hotel a little late. I mean, I’m going by myself and my Japanese is limited to saying good morning and thank you and apologizing. I gathered up my courage and made my way to Tokyo station to buy my shinkansen ticket and then was on my way. (Side note, those bullet trains are so comfortable and quiet, you have no idea you are going 200 mph.) Another very cute local train ride later, I pull up my Google maps and start walking. It says a 30-minute walk, easy peasy, right? Not so, it was more of a 45-minute hike down a questionable road, through a rice farm by a volcano and through a residential area. When I was just about to give up hope, what do you know the crossroads and after I crossed that road, there were signs and one was a little Sherlock. I found it! 

Three Sherlock status in one year! What an accomplishment, but the last two pictures I took didn’t have me in them so do I have proof? Drats, I will have to redo those pictures at some point because Brad Keefauver has said that I should try to set a World Record for the most Sherlock status visited. Then Paul Thomas Miller asked me, wait, does this include plaques and memorials as well? Ah, dear readers, I do not know what I signed myself up for here. I shall have to think on it. Feel free to leave your advice in the comments. In the meantime, I will be looking for more statues and possibly plaques and/or busts to visit.

Chess Archives and Sherlock Holmes by Adam Presswood

Some blog posts are lengthy and academic, laden with research and statistics. Others are lengthy, but emotional and argumentative rather than academic. Still others are brief and more social in nature than anything else. This post really doesn’t fit well into any of those three categories. It’s just a chance for me to share an enthusiasm, one that was teased at the most recent in-person meeting of the Parallel Case of St. Louis.

The story up for discussion that day was "The Retired Colourman." The villain in that tale, Mr. Josiah Amberly, possesses several despicable qualities, but it is one of his seemingly more innocuous qualities that Holmes latches onto as evidence of Amberly’s poor character – his love for chess, which Holmes apparently views as the mark of all deceitful people the world over. "The Retired Colourman" is, of course, not the only one of Doyle’s stories in which chess and villainy are linked. In fact, Dr. Grimesby Roylott, the controlling and murderous stepfather in "The Speckled Band," was also a chess player. The reference in "Colourman," however, is the first one that really gave me pause.

 

In the spirit of full confession, I must admit to being a chess player myself. I’m not one of the greats, to be sure, but certainly a respectable competitor. I have a standing chess game once per month in Creve Coeur, and I have a chess coach in the Central West End. In fact, I met that chess coach during my eighteen-month externship at the World Chess Hall of Fame (WCHOF), the place where my love for all things Sherlock and for all things chess merged in a surprising way.

My chief responsibility at the WCHOF was to comb through old copies of Chess Life and Chess Review, as well as other similar magazines, and unearth curatorial material that could be used for exhibits. It was through this research that I discovered a live chess game played during the 1945 Pan-American Chess Congress in Los Angeles, an extravaganza which took place two years after the release of Basil Rathbone and Nigel Bruce’s Sherlock Holmes Faces Death, a film that utilizes that same type of live chess game as a solution to the mystery. Rathbone and Bruce actually visited the gala event and posed for photos.

It was also through my work with the WCHOF that I learned, courtesy of the November 1992 issue of Chess Life, of Nigel Bruce’s skill as a chess player. While he might have played the kindly, blundering old fool in the Rathbone films, the reality could not have been more different. The old boy was an avid member of the Hollywood Chess Club and the Herman Steiner Chess Club. Furthermore, Bruce competed in a number of tournaments himself in his day. If Holmes was correct in his assertion that a love for and proficiency at chess are the markers of a devious mind and untrustworthy character, then Bruce’s legacy as the simple-minded old sidekick is certainly in contrast with his true nature😊

Not to be overlooked is Rathbone himself, who not only played chess, but designed his own sets! In the spirit of sharing, and to keep my promise that this post would not be text-heavy or academic, I have included some unique photos combining my twin loves of the Baker Street duo and the “Game of Kings." Enjoy!

She Continues to be Dictated to by Men: A comparison between Violet Smith and Violet Carruthers from The Solitary Cyclist by Heather Hinson

There is a small list of women in the canon who break the mold of passive and demure to catch the attention of one Mr. Sherlock Holmes. Or at the very least their plights do. Usually because they come to him directly to enlist his help. Miss Violet Smith of "The Solitary Cyclist" is one such woman. Violet’s story is familiar, a single young woman harassed by men at every turn. But it wasn’t until Sherlock & Co’s modern adaptation of the story does the story become real.

(Spoiler alert for Sherlock & Co.'s version of The Solitary Cyclist in the following paragraphs)

In the podcast version, Violet is almost near the same; single young woman being harassed by men at every turn. In the second half of the podcast, Sherlock Holmes said something that caught my attention and made me want to delve into this comparison, “She continues to be dictated to by men.” 

In 1895 rights for women in the UK were few to none. A young woman would often go from being a daughter to a wife, handed over like property. It was the rare woman in literature that could stand up against being treated as currency by the men in her life. Even then, there wasn’t much a woman could do if those men chose to push the issue.  

In "The Adventure of the Solitary Cyclist" (SOLI), Miss Violet Smith is one of those women. With her father dead, Violet and her mother were left poor until a notice in the Times searching for them was spotted. Two men, Mr. Robert Carruthers and Mr. Woodley informed the women they were there on Violet’s uncle’s behalf to look in on them. 

In the podcast, Violet Carruthers is a young woman who lost her mom and lives with her father and brother. In both parts, Violet is engaged to be married, in the canon story SOLI, it is to a man by the name of Cyril Morton who has no other baring on the story, in the podcast, which I shall title TSC, it is to Zach Woodley, the person who takes care of her fan club and social medias.  In both stories Violet holds down a job, in SOLI it is a music teacher to Mr. Carruthers’ daughter, in TSC, she has an Only Fans account. In both stories, the character of Woodley is both creepy and determined to have what he wants.  

Both women are at the mercy of the men in their lives. There is a level of the unknown, threatening acts towards both Violets that leave these women unable to advocate for themselves. While Violet Smith’s father had passed, she was soon thrown in under the power of both Mr. Carruthers and Mr. Woodley all because her uncle, who had made it rich in South Africa, died without an heir. As there was no will, the money would go to his next of kin, his brother. Or rather, his niece, 

“Well, well, two of you came over. His reverence is our own home-made article. You had known Ralph Smith in South Africa. You had reason to believe he would not live long. You found out that his niece would inherit his fortune. How's that—eh?”

Carruthers nodded and Williamson swore.

“She was next-of-kin, no doubt, and you were aware that the old fellow would make no will.” (SOLI).

With women having no rights once they were married, their money becoming their husband’s, the original plan was for Carruthers and Woodley to woo and marry Violet Smith to gain control of the inheritance. Who would do the wooing was decided upon a game of cards. 

This woman’s life was decided upon by two strangers to her, playing cards to see who would have her. Upon meeting her, Woodley, who had won the game, tried his hand and was rejected. Carruthers, who had welcomed Violet into his house, had fallen for her and no longer wanted Woodley to have her. 

Again, Violet had no say in any of this. At this time, she didn’t even know she was an heiress. 

In TSC, Carruthers is Violet’s family. Her father and Bobby, her brother, who is unnaturally angry about the situation Violet has been placed in.  Violet’s mother is dead and the only people she has in her life are men. Farmers. So she’s used to listening to men. It’s never mentioned if she chose to start the Only Fans account but she does want to stop it.

 “I didn’t want to do it anymore. Made plenty of money from it. Hence Maldvies ha...erm.. Didn’t love doing it.. and yeah. Did a new video and I said I was gonna quit,” (TSC).

In SOLI, Violet was stalked by a solitary cyclist, seemingly following her on her route from the train station to her home and back. Between the cyclist and the unwanted attentions of Woodley, Violet planned to quit her position as a music teacher.

Immediately after quitting her Only Fans in TSC, Violet began receiving hateful emails and comments. They found her Tik Tok and began sending her images of the exterior of her house, doxing her. All culminating in being followed by a solitary cyclist on her rides. 

In both stories, the cyclist hides his features but it is discovered after that they were there to protect instead of to threaten. In both stories it is Robert Carruthers who is the cyclist, employer and admirer in one, brother in the other. 

The story of Violet, both in 1895 and 2024, is tragic because both women are unable to just live their lives as they wish. It is Smith’s biggest wish to marry Morton and become a wife to the man she chooses. It is Carruthers biggest wish to become a mother. She is actively trying for it. And that’s the rub because for both women, these choices are taken from them, Smith is kidnapped and forced to marry Woodley. Carruthers is drugged, first with birth control pills, then with mifepristone to force an abortion because if she becomes a mother, she can’t keep up the lifestyle Woodley has become accustomed to. In both cases Woodley pressed his will onto Violet for money. He wants it, Violet has it so therefore, he needs to control Violet.  

“He asked me if I would marry the girl myself and give him a share. I said I would willingly do so, but that she would not have me. He said, ‘Let us get her married first, and after a week or two she may see things a bit different.” (SOLI)

“She’s seen the error of her ways. I’m pretty sure, this outburst from her fans- cos they’re fans at the end of the day. […] Mhm. But what I’m saying is. This has put her back on track. No more babies- for a bit anyway. Back to being in front of the camera. No one is gonna spend 50 quid a month watching some pregnant girl, are they” (TSC)

Both Violets are married under false pretenses, Smith, very unwillingly and unconscious, forced by a defrocked minister. Carruthers, coerced and under the misapprehension that her fiancé would keep her safe from her upset “fans.” In the end it was all about the money Violet had. Money that, as her husband, Woodley could then control. 

All her life both versions of Violet were led by men. And while we know what happened to Violet Smith, discovering her inheritance and marrying her true fiancé, Cyril Morton, and living a happy life, we never know what happens to Violet Carruthers. It is only after her marriage to Woodley that she discovers what was done to her. She could have the entire wedding annulled. But would she?  

“SHERLOCK: We help Violet but she continues to be dictated to by men. Which begs the question...why help at all? If she’s just going to repeat the behavior, continue with the problematic lifestyle… then why bother?

WATSON What, the camgirl stuff? Is that problematic?

SHERLOCK Not really. But being with Zach is.” (TSC)

In the podcast, Sherlock doesn’t seem to think so. But that was before her brother spilled everything to her at the reception hall. Before he shot her husband. So, if Violet’s life is dictated to by men and if, indeed she is trapped in this behavior, it comes down to which of the men in her life will she be dictated to by?

The Holiday by Elaine Lintzenich

Welcome March! Hopefully, spring will arrive on time!

I was so entranced with the idea of Holmes swimming after we discussed "The Lion's Mane" that a report on other times Holmes had the opportunity of swimming would be of interest. Alas! He may have had opportunities but, unless he did so during the Hiatus, nothing comes to light in Watson's chronicles. If someone runs across such a reference, please let me know.

What did come to light, searching through my Sherlockian ephemera ,was an issue of The Parallelogram from 1999. My name was listed as an attendee at that month's meeting. Holy Cow! I am celebrating my Silver Anniversary as a Sherlockian!   So now I continue rummaging through the past quarter century and I came across a short pastiche, condensed from a longer story. This was written for a Holmes Under the Arch conference.  I still liked it and hope you do, too.

 

                                           THE HOLIDAY

I had been associated with Sherlock Holmes for nearly two years when an even occurred that inspired me to hurl down a gauntlet, so to speak. My Aunt Hannah wrote to tell me of a death in the family and expressed a desire to see me. As Holmes was, at that time, engaged in a problem in Malta, I decided to slip away without leaving a clue as to my whereabouts..

I checked the train schedules to Edinburgh, packed my valise, my medical bag and fishing pole, and simply dashed off a note to Holmes saying I was taking a holiday. I left my note with Mrs. Hudson and started my journey north.

My Aunt Hannah was glad to see me, so I settled in comfortably for a fortnight's visit. On the third day of my sojourn, I returned from an invigorating walk to find my aunt pouring tea for the noon meal. Holding a cup while she poured was Sherlock Holmes.

"My dear Watson, you look very surprised."

"I rather suppose I do. Obviously you've met my Aunt Hannah."

"A reasonable deduction."

"John, " said Hannah, "do shut your mouth and sit down. Your friend said you might be expecting him, but he wasn't sure. Have a scone each of you while I dish up the stew."

It was amazing to me that Holmes portrayed his presence here at my aunt's as perfectly reasonable. We chatted of this and that. Then Hannah cleared the table and ladled the remaining stew into a container for an elderly neighbor. As she left, she invited Holmes to take the second bedroom if he would be staying.

"You left me quite a puzzle, Watson."

"One you readily solved."

"Not that readily. One who didn't know you as well as I would have had more difficulty, I believe.

"Mrs. Hudson gave me your note scrawled on the back of that notice your tobacconist sent you, reminding you at Burry's Gold Leaf was in. I'll have to try that.  I thought a spur-of-the-moment holiday to be out of character, Watson. Something must have initiated your departure. So I surveyed the room to see if anything was disturbed."

 "How could you see anything? I was quite thorough. I took the letter from Aunt Hannah with me."

"Ah, there was a letter. I thought so but I didn't ask Mrs. Hudson. I determined that would be cheating."

"At any rate, I did find a disturbance. My first clue appeared on the bookcase. The book of train schedules was set tidily in place. This was unlikely. Our constant use has made its pages tend to bunch up. The little book always bulges out."

"I simply shook my head.

"I took the book down and found that each page had been smoothed out and the wrinkled corners straightened. Turning the pages carefully, I found a page where the inner edge had been carefully aligned, probably with your fingernail. There was a slight indentation part way down the page. I sat at the desk, the nearest flat surface, where you had most probably sat as well. Some papers on the corner were stacked so neatly that it had to be deliberate.. I took the top piece and holding it at the edge of the desk, brushed some dust and ashes from the desk's surface onto the paper. When I shook it gently, times appeared. You removed at least the first piece of paper under the one on which you'd written the times, but you do tend to press down when writing. I found that Scotland was your destination and that you'd left from Euston Station, therefore taking the London and North Western Railway which would have connected you with the Caledonian at Berwick.

"I asked about you at the Caledonian Station in Edinburgh, your medical bag making you memorable, and found you'd hired a trap for Calder. Once I was in Calder it was an easy matter to inquire at the post office for relatives of Dr. John Watson."

"I suppose my lot in life is to be constantly amazed at your perspicacity."

"Indeed, I have worked diligently, as you know, to develop this gift. But tomorrow, I shall depend on yours."

"How so?" I asked.

"Why, to find another pole! A little rejuvenation would be welcomed after Malta. I shall relate my adventure as we see what the Almond River has to offer. And when we return, we might allow Mrs. Hudson to come in and dust up a bit." 

The True Story(ies) Behind the Politician, the Lighthouse, and the Trained Cormorant

February's meeting of The Parallel Case of St. Louis was a Zoom session discussing "The Veiled Lodger."  The introduction includes the following passage:

"I have Mr. Holmes’s authority for saying that the whole story concerning the politician, the lighthouse, and the trained cormorant will be given to the public. There is at least one reader who will understand."

So what is the whole story behind that?  Well, some of our members had thoughts:

Brad Keefauver:

The was a very active steam barge named "The Cormorant" on Lake Superior from 1873 to 1907, which carried lumber for the Edward Hines Lumber Company, a company which also had lumber trains and most certainly dealt with many a politician. In 1927, the year "Veiled Lodger" came out, Hines had attained just status that the following year he would meet the Pope and Mussolini, and his family would have most certainly have been looking to clear his name some illegalities involving a secret lighthouse where the Cormorant would dock to unload stolen goods on to a train.

Sandy Kozin:  

Once there was a politician, married of course, who found a young lady of interest; they eventually began an affair.  Since both of them were well known in society, he purchased an old lighthouse in  a quiet shore area where they could meet in safety.  To ensure that safety when they were busy with each other, he trained a cormorant to flap around and make noise so the woman could hide and the man come out and announce that this was his private retreat, no visitors welcome.

I believe this because I can easily imagine politicians behaving this way, from events I have personally witnessed. (Yes, that's the truth, and no, I don't think I care to tell THAT  story, but it really happened, during JFK's inauguration.)

Edith Pounden:

The opening paragraphs of The Veiled Lodger make clear that certain people involved in past cases are afraid that John Watson will share too much information in his stories: “I may say that the writers of agonized letters, who beg that the honour of their families or the reputation of famous forebears may not be touched, have nothing to fear.” He then states that he will rescind this protection for one such party, who has attempted to steal papers relating to his own case. Watson describes this case as concerning a politician, a lighthouse, and a trained cormorant, but if this case had involved these three elements literally, then what secret would there be left to keep? 

He must therefore be speaking in a kind of code, which only the receiver would understand. My theory is that the “cormorant” Watson refers to is not a bird at all, but a person. A cormorant is trained to retrieve fish for the benefit of a fisherman; its motivation is to feed itself, but it is prevented from fully swallowing its prey by the fisherman’s noose. So, the “cormorant” that Watson refers to could be a person who had tried to obtain something of value for his own gain, but was manipulated into giving it to someone more powerful. If, for example, this person came to Sherlock Holmes as a client, he may even have made the comparison himself while telling his story. With this one line, Watson communicates to this mysterious person that he can share the true details about the case at any time, while casual readers of the Strand think he describing a case involving a bird.

Alisha Shea:

I think the story of the politician, the lighthouse and the trained cormorant is likely a tale of espionage. Cormorants are sent by their masters to obtain fish. Lighthouses are designed to convey messages. It seems only reasonable, therefore, that cormorant is code for "spy" who "fishes" for information, which is then conveyed via lighthouse to their "master" who waits in a vessel lurking just off the coast.

Bob Sharfman:

ACD was saying in his best "Nicely Nicely" words that politicians don't have the brains of a trained cormorant.  They just head for the brightest light like a moth to a flame.

Case closed!

*Nicely Nicely" Johnson was a bookie in the Damon Runyon stories.

Michael Waxenberg:

“Politician” is Winston Churchill.

“Lighthouse” is the Mehmetçik Lighthouse on the Turkish coast, at the entrance to the Dardanelles and Gallipoli, the site of the worst defeat of the Royal Navy in the Great War, at a time when Churchill was the First Lord of the Admiralty.

“Trained cormorant” is a coded reference. A cormorant is a marine bird that is good at fishing. Admiral John Fisher, the First Baron Fisher, was the First Sea Lord serving under Churchill at the start of the Gallipoli campaign. Fisher had advised against the campaign, which was a disaster and resulted in Fisher resigning as First Sea Lord, and Churchill being fired from the position of First Lord of the Admiralty, in 1915.

Explanation:

In the 1920s, Churchill was busy building his political climb to power, and furiously writing a vast history of the Great War in six volumes, titled The World Crisis, which were published between 1923 and 1931. Churchill was writing to make money, and to bolster his own reputation for leadership. He has been accused of whitewashing his own culpability for the failure of the Gallipoli campaign, and blaming others, including Lord Fisher. For example, see here. 

Lord Fisher died in 1920, and was deceased before the first volume of Churchill’s war history was published, but it is likely that Fisher’s family were distressed at Churchill for putting blame for the Gallipoli campaign disaster on Admiral Lord Fisher. It is likely that they consulted Holmes to protect the reputation and honour of the late Lord Fisher, and to persuade Churchill to correct his writings about Fisher.

Watson’s warning to the “politician” is contained in The Veiled Lodger which was first published in January 1927. That same month, Churchill traveled to the Mediterranean and visited Italy, Greece, and sites of the naval battles of the Gallipoli campaign. It is possible that Churchill was gathering additional information for his history of the war in that part of the world around the “lighthouse.” Watson’s warning to the “politician” would have been just in time to prevent further defamation of the late Admiral Fisher, a/k/a “The Trained Cormorant.” As Watson wrote, "There is at least one reader who will understand." That one and only reader who understood the coded message was Churchill, until now.

Here is an illustration of Churchill and Fisher consulting when they were in charge of the Royal Navy in January 1915, before the Dardanelles (Gallipoli) campaign, which I found on the website cited above:

At long last, now the world knows the true meaning behind the enigmatic phrase from Watson’s writing. One can only hope that the fracas between Holmes and Watson, on one part, and Winston Churchill, on the other part, did not detract from the warm friendship between Churchill and the literary agent and occasional author, Arthur Conan Doyle.

So, readers, what say you?  Do you buy any of these explanations, of do you have one of your own?

Dogs in the Canon of Sherlock Holmes (with a short mention of cats) by Michael Waxenberg

The domesticated dog comes in many different sizes, colors, and breed names, but actually are all considered to be one species of animal, scientific name Canis lupus familiaris. Rather bizarre, since the one species has a dramatic variety from Chihuahua to St. Bernard, Greyhound to Golden Retriever, yet all dogs are genetically so similar they can interbreed, and are all one species. In the Canon of Sherlock Holmes, there are several different dogs mentioned, and this essay attempts to look at all the dogs in the Canon, describe them, and briefly indicate something significant about them. Please let me know if I missed any so I can update this report. (Note 1).

By my count, at least thirteen (13) different dogs are mentioned in the Canon. Of these, we are given the names of only five (5) of them. For some, we are given descriptions or breeds. Most of the dogs are significant for one reason or another in the cases wherein they are mentioned. 

Here are the dogs:

Dog	Breed or Description	Action or Significance	Case
Roy	Wolfhound	SH discusses possibly writing a monograph on dogs in detective work.	CREE
Unnamed	An Airedale Terrier	Fitzroy McPherson’s little dog, tossed through a plate glass window. Also McPherson’s dog. Found dead on the beach near the Cyanea capillata. Said to have died of grief, but was a victim of the Cyanea. And was it the same dog as the prior one?	LION
The Shoscombe Spaniels	Spaniel	SH quote: “Dogs don’t make mistakes.”	SHOS
Unnamed		Terrier, terminally ill, poisoned in experiment. Reminiscent of sheep experiment in SILV.	STUD
Toby	Half spaniel, half lurcher	Good sniffer , tracked the suspects.	SIGN
The stable dog		Did nothing in the night.	SILV
A beast of a dog		Guarded the house.	MILV
Pompey	Mix beagle and foxhound	Tracked the missing man.	MISS
Unnamed		Dog drenched in petroleum and set on fire.	ABBE
Unnamed	Curly haired spaniel	Owned by Dr. James Mortimer And killed by The Hound.	HOUN
Hound of the Baskervilles		Shot and killed by Holmes.	HOUN
Carlo	Spaniel	Paralyzed by young boy’s poison.	SUSS
Carlo	Mastiff	Shot and killed by Watson.	COPP

ANALYSIS OF THE DATA

The list above has 14 dogs, or 13 if the two dogs in LION are one and the same dog, although it is not likely that any dog would survive being tossed through a plate glass window. Rather than argue, we can take 13 as the total number of dogs. Of the 13 dogs listed, 7 are maimed or killed. Manners of death are not always quick or kind, such as poisoning and being set on fire. Holmes shoots one dead (the famous Hound), and Dr. Watson shoots one dead (Carlo from "Copper Beaches"). Those killings were arguably cases of self-defense, and not animal cruelty, although the owners of those two dogs treated them cruelly, which is why they were dangerous to Holmes and Watson.

Dogs are helpers in solving some cases. The best example is the dog who did nothing in the night, from "Silver Blaze," whose inaction was an important clue to the identity of the culprit. Holmes uses two dogs for tracking people, one in London and one in the country. In "Lion’s Mane," McPherson’s dead dog, the Airedale Terrier, offers a clue to the murderer of his master.

The brutality and cruelty to dogs in these stories is hard to take. In England, the Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals was formed in a London coffee shop in 1824. Perhaps if it had been formed in a pub it would have been more effective. It received royal patronage from Queen Victoria in 1840, allowing it to be called the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, but even Queen Victoria’s support was not enough to prevent cruelty, judging by the level of mayhem to dogs listed above. Lest you think the British were insensitive to the suffering of dogs and other animals, consider that the U.K. Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children was formed in 1889, which was 65 years after the formation of the society to prevent cruelty to animals. Parliament passed a law making it a criminal offence to be cruel to animals in 1835, and then passed a law against cruelty to children in 1889, some 54 years later. Maybe the British were insensitive to cruelty to animals, but at least we can be consoled by the fact that they were even more insensitive to cruelty to children.

If I had to be reincarnated as a character from the Canon, I would not choose to be one of the dogs. The risk of mayhem and death is too high. You may think it better to be a Canonical cat, the domesticated Felis catus. But no domestic cats are characters in any of the 60 original cases. The only mention of a cat is a brief anecdote about the loathsome Jonas Oldacre in "Norwood Builder," who was rumored to have once turned a cat loose in an aviary. (Note 2). In that example, the action of Oldacre shows cruelty to animals, specifically to the birds in the aviary, not cruelty to the cat. We do not have enough data to determine if Holmes or Watson were cat fanciers, but it seems unlikely, since cats do not get mentioned as appearing anywhere, despite the existence of millions of them in London and throughout Britain. We may speculate that Holmes and Watson were not cat fanciers. Which leads us to note the creative brilliance of T.S. Elliot, who wrote the poem “Macavity: The Mystery Cat,” a feline substitute for the evil Professor Moriarty, in Old Possum’s Book of Practical Cats (1939). Elliot was a Sherlockian of note, an admirer of the Canon, and an admirer of cats, apparently unlike the Master Detective and the good Doctor.

NOTES:

Note 1: If anyone knows of any dogs, or cats, not mentioned in this paper, please comment on this blog, or let me know some other way. I did not include dog-carts, because they are cruel to dogs. Attempts at humor are always welcome, but you do not need to mention the dog in Bruce-Partington Plans, who was killed and fell of the roof of a subway car, namely Arthur CaDOGen West. He died. That is not funny.

Note 2: Mentioning the loathsome Jonas Oldacre from "Norwood Builder" reminds me that I need to express my thanks to Randy Getz for his assistance in 2017 in assembling the first draft of the chart of dogs in the Canon. He and I prepared the chart in connection with a night at the local horse track for a Silver Blaze (Wessex Cup) race, which was also a fundraiser for a charity that rescues dogs and trains them to become service dogs. We had a genuine Dog and Pony Show.

Streaming Sherlock Holmes by Nellie Brown

In the past year I acquired a Starlink internet connection and have been able to finally indulge in the joys of high-speed streaming in my rural home (one of the few things Elon got right!) While nearly everyone else of my acquaintance has been able to enjoy entertainment this way for more than a decade, it is a new experience for someone as persistently behind the times like me. To my joy, the streaming options include a far wider range of Sherlock Holmes media than I had ever anticipated. 

Of course, I was delighted to find the Jeremy Brett Granada episodes, in addition to the less well-known Sherlock Hound, by the famed animation artist Hayao Miyazaki. Up until recently, Roku was showing the notable Private Life of Sherlock Holmes, written and produced by Billy Wilder and starring Robert Stevens. Rarely seen, this version shows an unusually sensitive Holmes, more discernably along the queer spectrum than any others to that date.

But a deeper dive into the Kanopy app yielded an even greater treasure, or so I thought at the time. I was able to use some of my library subscription credits to watch the 1916 silent film Sherlock Holmes, starring William Gillette and based off the play he wrote of the same name. In 2015, a mislabeled silver nitrate copy of the previously lost film was found in a French archive and restored the following year. Gillette has long held the reputation of providing the best portrayal of our iconic detective ever, so I was quite interested in watching this sole representation of his acting skills. 

Many Sherlockians today have seen a version of this play Gillette wrote based off Doyle’s stories. Incriminating letters, Professor Moriarty teaming up with the Larrabees, the denouement in the Gasworks, and of course the love interest Alice Faulkner: the only thing this play lacks other than Irene Adler is adherence to the aromantic aspect of our detective. We have all been there and restrained ourselves from rolling our eyes with varying degrees of success. 

And then there was Gillette himself. Deerstalker, calabash pipe, the works. He was masterful. I can easily understand why Doyle considered him the best actor to play him. Gillette inhabited Sherlock Holmes as good as any other actor I have seen.

What I failed to consider before viewing this movie, though, was the age disparity between Gillette and his leading lady/love interest. In 1899, when he wrote and starred in his play, he was forty-six years old. Mature, yes, but perhaps plausible as the potential love interest for a young woman for that day and age. (Shades of Laurie King, anyone?) But by the time of the film in 1915 he was sixty-three years old, and the wrinkles could not be hidden by the stage makeup. During the final revival of the play Gillette participated in, he was seventy-six years old. Seventy-six! To be played as the love interest of a very young woman of approximately twenty years of age. 

In a post-Harvey Weinstein period, this was just . . . no. No, no, no. A big helping of NOPE.

So, my effort to conduct as fair a fan girl review of William Gillette as I could come up with was forever tainted. Please accept my apologies. May I direct you instead to the marvelous Collier’s illustrations of the same actor done by Frederick Dorr Steele? They are stunning, dramatic and beautiful enough to cleanse your palette of that sour aftertaste of patriarchy.

Or, maybe there is another, more modern streaming version of Sherlock Holmes I could share with you? Have you ever tasted Bitter Karella? No, not the melon. The award-winning gothic horror writer, with twitter, tumblr, and substack feeds, creates a regular satire called “Submitted for the Approval of the Midnight Pals.” This imagined late night club parody of horror writers meet periodically to share scary stories around a late-night campfire, with scorching fun poked at the regulars as well as guests. The regulars include Stephen King, Dean Koontz, HP Lovecraft, Clive Barker, Edgar Allen Poe and of course my favorite, Mary Shelley.

The Midnight Pals have just recently been produced as an audio podcast, streaming on a variety of apps near you, including Spotify. Last month on November 21st, the guest was Arthur Conan Doyle, and after much arm twisting, he shared his Tale of Sherlock Holmes and the Case of the Midnight Society.  No one wanted to hear about Professor Challenger, and Doyle was coerced once again into telling a story about the character he was just so tired of writing about.

It is ribald and rude. The actors lean into their roles with gusto, and the quick-witted writing flirts and dances (possibly even twerks) with so many of the Sherlockian tropes we all know so well. The Midnight Pals stories, including this one, are fully conversant in the not so adjacent queer aspects of literature both past and present. The audience of the 1899 Sherlock Holmes play probably would have been absolutely horrified by this podcast.

And I loved it.

Don’t get me wrong, I liked William Gillette as Sherlock Holmes. But his storyline did not hold up to the interior logic of Doyle’s stories. When he told Gillette “You may marry him or murder him or do what you like with him” generations of fans suffered the consequences.  And then there was the age difference between the actors. It was just too much to swallow.

And while raunchy, I have to say that I prefer Bitter Karella’s writing to Gillette’s. It logically follows the style and more of the intent of the writer being parodied. It leans into the humor instead of manufacturing romance where none would fit. Audiences change along with the times, and so do the pastiches and parodies.

Besides, who doesn’t want to imagine Mary Shelley with a switch blade?