I'm still working on my own Sherlock Holmes chronology, and I found this interesting timeline by John Trumbull. He dates all but 3 cases, and he adds references to historical events like the Ripper Murders and the Titanic sinking. Not strictly relevant, but it puts events in context, I guess. I don't agree with everything he says, but it's a good effort. He also supports SIGN being in 1887 due to the six pearls Mary Morstan received. (This Sutori thing seems to be some kind of educational tool for use in schools. I'm not sure if it's worth me signing up too.)
I'm reading the stories in the New Annotated Sherlock Holmes, but I wish that Klinger would stop including notes trying to identify particular place names or famous people like British Prime Ministers. I don't care about the real world, just the fiction. Besides, if we're pretending that Watson is disguising things out of discretion, one could argue that his clues are deliberately wrong to mess people up. Why, just look at the tangled mess of SIGN, and GLOR, and VALL, where the past histories don't add up to the present events of the case. Watson lies, people!
More important historical events like the Indian Mutiny, the gold rush in Australia, and the Crimean War are relevant to some stories of course, and that's where I appreciate Klinger's notes. I'm also rereading some Sherlockian books I have by John Hall and D. Martin Dakin who also did chronology, so I can follow their theories even if I don't agree. The weirdest little details don't fit, like Holmes claiming that he boxed McMurdo 4 years ago in SIGN, but McMurdo has been working for Major John Sholto since 1877, about 11 years ago. What a mess. I'm in the Return stories now, taking copious notes, and will need to consult my perpetual calendar about dates.
No comments:
Post a Comment