Save Undershaw

I've been thinking lately about "Save Undershaw."  For anyone who doesn't know, Undershaw is the house in England where Arthur Conan Doyle lived for a time in his life, and also wrote parts of, I believe it was Hound of the Baskervilles, as well as some of the other Holmes short stories.  It has fallen into disrepair and a group is trying to raise money to have it refurnished so that it doesn't get turned into a hotel, I think it is, therefore changing the inside irrevocably.

I admit, I haven't looked into this issue as much as I should be, but honestly, I'd like to have more information.  I wish I had the ability to go to England and see Undershaw.  Or just visit England, because I'm a huge Beatles fan as well as Sherlock Holmes.

Anyway, I think that this house should be preserved as it was.  Too many things are just tossed by the wayside now, in favor of 'modern wonders.'  There should be more care taken with things from the past, especially when they've housed such creative minds.  It's ironic that so many should remember Conan Doyle for a character he ended up hating because he felt said character overshadowed the more serious writing/other characters that he authored.  Yet I think that everyone who is a fan of Sherlock Holmes can appreciate the need to preserve things of the past.  For us Holmes fans/fanatics/obsessors, it's always Victorian England, circa 1880-odd.

Okay, I did want to write more, but unfortunately, I'm being interrupted by my hyper little parrot who doesn't seem to want to sit quietly on my shoulder.  Instead, he wants to climb everywhere, including on my head, which wouldn't be so bad, if he didn't then lean over and try to preen my eyelashes...

Sherlock In Love Review

One of my interview question has to do with what another author most admires and detests in a Holmes story.  When I asked that question to Stephen Seitz, author of Sherlock Holmes and the Plague of Dracula, he didn't name a specific novel or story for 'most admired,' but he certainly had an opinion on the most despised.  Sherlock in Love, by Sena Jeter Naslund.

Intrigued by the title, I decided to investigate on everyone's favorite website for books and other miscellaneous items, Amazon.  It immediately came up, I read the description, and decided to order it.  It came on Monday, I finished it last night, and I wanted to write a review.

I do feel that she has a good grasp of how Watson would write.  It's (obviously) not Conan Doyle, but it is very Watsonian-sounding.  The first thing I noticed was the very first sentence.  "Holmes was dead: to begin with."  I'm sorry, but the grammatical perfectionist inside me cringed at that opening line.  Why the colon?  And I can't help feeling like Watson would say it as, "To begin with, Holmes was dead."

Anyway, I can't find them right now, but there were two spots in the beginning "Present" section that made me pause.  I was getting in the Victorian mood, and reading those two bits were like coming to a screeching halt when you're hurtling down the highway at 60 miles an hour.  It just threw me completely off for that bit of time.

I also didn't feel it was entirely "Holmes" with how the author decided to have Holmes writing in his journal.  Holmes is always hard to do in first person, (believe me, I know that much,) but while it did sound kind of Holmes-ish, I don't know.  There was also something off about it that kept it from being authentic.

All in all, honestly, I did like this book.  I didn't feel that there was so much of a mystery, at least not with the Victor Sigerson case that Watson reads back on.  However, the beginning drew me in and made me want to read more.

It's not the best Holmes pastiche out there, but honestly, I find I can't agree with Stephen Seitz's apparent hatred of this story.  I'd give it a 3 out of 5.  Not great, but there are many, many worse.

Sherlock Holmes Short Stories

As per Watson in the original Conan Doyle stories, I reference unwritten stories in my own Holmes novels.  One such case is mentioned in the Ripper novel on which I'm currently working.  The Case of the Sangrove Diamond, I called it.  I don't know, the name just came to me, and I liked it.  But then I got to thinking about it and decided that I would come up  with a plot and write it up as a short story.  Then, I was thinking about the Beatles song Eleanor Rigby.  I've come up with a short story loosely based on Eleanor Rigby that I can write up as well.  And I already had one, thought up a year or so ago called The Mystery of the Haunted Wife.  I may wait until five stories strike me, but I'm going to write these three up and hopefully get them published in a volume by MX.  I've already given the title of two, but so it's clear:

Sherlock Holmes and the Garden of Sin.  The Mystery of the Haunted Wife.  The Case of the Sangrove Diamond.

Very short post today, but I'm also reading a book called Sherlock in Love.  It was (not) recommended by Stephen Seitz.  Honestly, he seems to loathe this book.  I'm only about forty pages in, but so far, I'm honestly intrigued.  She writes Watson very well, at least so far, and only two instances have made me say, "Hold on a sec..." but not enough for me to stop reading.  I'll see if that holds.  I'll undoubtedly review it in a few days.

Continuing Interview with David Ruffle

It was commented after my first interview with David Ruffle, which can be found here, that it was desired we continue the questions and answers.  I decided to oblige and recently sent David several more questions that are posted with his answers below.  Happy reading!

1. What do you feel truly makes a Holmes pastiche, and when is it 'just another Holmes story?'

It's easy to be narrow minded and somehow elitist regarding pastiches and stipulate that all true pastiches should be written in the style of ACD and be narrated by Watson. If we all took that as the norm for our Holmesian reading then we would miss out on such much out there that is of the highest quality. I no longer differentiate between pastiches and 'other' Holmes novels....I just appreciate them all on the same level, although my own preference is for 'proper' pastiche.

2. Whether pastiche or 'just a Holmes story,' do you feel there is anything left to be taboo when writing about such an iconic character?

I am not fond of slash/homoerotic Holmes fiction, to my mind it goes a step too far and goes way beyond the characters we know and love. Portraying Holmes and Watson in old age and approaching death or dealing with death itself is just fine with me, after all if we play the game of Holmes and Watson having lived then we must acknowledge they must have died.

3. One thing I noted from looking over my volume of the Canon is that Mrs. Hudson was never the central figure in a story. Why do you suppose that is, and have you ever thought about giving her her own mystery?

I suppose she had a purpose to serve and she served it well. I must admit I haven't thought about making her central to a story although some have.

4. When writing something that has to do with Holmes, how easy and/or difficult is it for you to find the proper 'voice?' Ie - who, if other than Watson, narrates. If you have Watson narrate, being able to write him as if you are Conan Doyle and getting that particular style down.

I love writing as Watson and any praise I get for my Watsonian voice means more to me than any other aspect of my writing. In a way, I do find it easy to write as Watson...not sure why that should be....perhaps I am a Watson myself!

5. And what writing projects do you have planned for the future?

.. An upcoming children's illustrated Sherlock Holmes book...another volume of Tales From The Stranger's Room......and after that...who knows...maybe Holmes and Watson will find themselves in Lyme Regis once more.........

Links, Links, and More Links

Loving that Rendezvous is on this list. :)

Please check out this link and "Like" it on FB.

Rendezvous on Goodreads

I Will Find the Answer on Goodreads

I just wanted to include these in today's blog.  I do have a few things to write about, but I'll come back when I have more time to do that.  In the meantime, please enjoy these links, and I hope you'll pay attention to especially the second one.  Oh, and if you haven't reviewed Rendezvous or Answer, please take a moment and rate/comment on it on Goodreads or Amazon.com.  Thanks!

Jack of All Trades - The Problems

My first two novels, featuring Holmes's interactions with the Phantom and Jekyll/Hyde, were pretty easy compared with this one.  Phantom and Jekyll/Hyde are fictional stories, and assuming an author is good enough at storytelling, can bend the contents of that fictional story to meet what their novel wants to accomplish.  But you can't bend historical fact.  I admit, in Jack of All Trades, I'm taking liberties with the things that are implied, or the things I simply don't know, so the story flows.  My issue right now is the historical aspect of it.  All the different inspectors, commissioners, policemen in general who had their hands in this case, all the facts presented, the false leads, the ones accused . . .  How do I truly know what to put in?

I feel like this endeavor could completely consume me, and not in a good way, if I'm not careful.  I want to write.  I want to get this story told.  I want this one out to the public and I want to see the reaction people have, even if they end up hating it.  But I can't help feeling like the beginning, before the second murder (which is where I really start screwing with Holmes,Watson, and Erik,) might just wind up being its own river, with Holmes and Watson running along side, as it were, waiting for a time to jump in and truly mesh with the story.  I haven't yet actually completed a Jack the Ripper/Holmes story, except for Michael Dibdin's.  However, I have begun them.  And one thing I notice is that Holmes is immediately there.  He's part of things right off the bat.  It doesn't feel like he was just grafted on later in a shoddy job that's goig to fall apart at the slightest tweaking.

I suppose this is my writing freak out.  I'm writing from Watson's point of view right now, and I don't think any of his segments previous have been this long.  Yet I can't switch because Holmes is only narrating about three segments in this novel, and Erik isn't present yet.  He comes in after the paper releases news of Annie Chapman's murder.

I know once I get going with screwing with the characters and having the full interactions take place, I'll fare better than I am now, simply because that will be more fiction driven with the historical stuff still present, but more in the background.  Now, the fictional stuff is more in the background and the historical stuff is up at the forefront.  I just have to find a good balance, I guess.  The last thing I want is for the start of the novel to read like some kind of boring history paper with Holmes and Watson present to make it seem better than it is, and the latter parts to read like some kind of overly-dramatised fiction with hints of historical accuracy.

Does anyone else have these freak-out moments when writing?  I'd love to know I'm not alone.

Interview with Stephen Seitz, and Review of Sherlock Holmes and the Plague of Dracula

Back in October of 2008, I was in a Short Story class at the community college in my area.  We had to not only read a bunch of short stories, (all of them incredibly depressing, by the way,) but we also had to write one to be submitted to class as part of the final grade.  Well, I'd written one, but it was based on the experience of a then-friend of mine and he said he'd rather I not hand it in.  I respected that, and ended up writing the short story that would blossom into my novel, I Will Find the Answer, my second Holmes novel.  Not too much later, I was telling that then-friend about the Jekyll/Hyde and Holmes novel, and he said I shouldn't do that, I should write one about Holmes and Dracula.  The next day, I followed him around with a notebook and pen as he gave me the plot for what will become my own Holmes/Van Helsing/Dracula novel.  But I also wanted to do some research into what other authors have done with that pairing/trio.  So, I got Loren D Estleman's Holmes/Dracula book, and Stephen Seitz's Sherlock Holmes and the Plague of Dracula.  I've never finsihed the former, but the latter I've read through at least twice, and I thoroughly enjoyed it.  Especially his explanation of Holmes's Great Hiatus.  And now, Plague of Dracula is being re-released through MX Publishing, and I was lucky enough to catch up with Stephen for an interview.

1. How and why did your interest in Sherlock Holmes start? What is it about the character that fascinates you most?

When I was a high school freshman, I was doing homework in the town library and got bored. So I roamed the stacks and settled on The Hound of the Baskervilles. I checked it out, started reading when I got home, and didn't put it down until 3 a.m. Like us all, I had to have more.

2. What is your favorite story of the canon?

It remains Hound. The first encounter is always the most memorable.

3. What are your top three favorites pastiches? (No fair picking your own!)

Damn! In no particular order: Nicholas Meyer's The Seven Percent Solution, Stephen King's "The Doctor's Case," and Edward Hanna's The Whitechapel Horrors, even though the latter is not in Conan Doyle's style. It does, however, provide the best explanation for Jack the Ripper's close escapes.

4. In fellow Holmes pastiche authors, what do you most admire/most detest?

I admire the ones who take the extra time and effort to get it right. Research is vital in an endeavor like this; it's not just a matter of mimicking style. Today's readers want everything in its proper place. They also want the characters to be in character. If you venture afield, you'd better have a good reason why and provide a solid basis for it.

Sena Jeter Naslund's Sherlock in Love is the rock-bottom worst. She is a man-hating feminist academic who decided to take revenge on Holmes for being a Victorian misogynist (which isn't true; Holmes distrusted women, but did not hate them). She came up with one of the most hateful, and hate-filled, books I've ever read. Ideology is not a good basis for fiction.

5. What was your inspiration for your own Holmes novel?

On reading Dracula for the first time, I was struck by the "Bloofer Lady" episode. Who do you call when a mysterious crime occurs? So I started taking notes.
6. Who is your favorite pairing with Holmes, crossover-wise? (i.e. --Holmes and the Phantom, Holmes and the Ripper, Holmes and Dracula, Holmes somehow in contemporary times with an original female character, etc.)

I don't have a real favorite. It depends on the skill of the author. But if you've seen Octopussy, you'll note an appearance by Douglas Wilmer, who played Holmes in the 1970s. He joins Roger Moore at an art auction, giving us James Bond and Sherlock Holmes on the same screen.

7. What, if any, is your favorite more obscure Holmes movie? (For instance, Young Sherlock Holmes, Without a Clue, They Might Be Giants, etc.)

Far too few people know Buster Keaton's Sherlock, Jr.

8. What is your favorite Holmes canon quote, and why?

A lot of people could benefit from understanding this: "Mediocrity knows nothing higher than itself; but talent instantly recognizes genius." -- The Valley of Fear

9. What, if any, is your favorite quote from the BBC's Sherlock?

I've only seen the first season.

10. How awesome is Benedict Cumberbatch?? (Lol, just kidding.) Seriously, however, if you've been lucky enough to view the second season of Sherlock, without giving too much away, what is your opinion of it?

See above.

11. There was a recent blog post, (and I'll see if I can find it, but if you know it, please post the link in here?) where it was discussed when a Sherlock Holmes piece is a pastiche and when it isn't. What do you feel truly makes a Holmes pastiche, and when is it 'just another Holmes story?'

If it's in Conan Doyle style, it meets the standard definition of pastiche.

12. Whether pastiche or 'just a Holmes story,' do you feel there is anything left to be taboo when writing about such an iconic character?

No. Everything is fair game.

13. One thing I noted from looking over my volume of the Canon is that Mrs. Hudson was never the central figure in a story. Why do you suppose that is, and have you ever thought about giving her her own mystery?

Most people don't spend a lot of time with their landlords. You pay the rent and expect the roof to stay on. I have a friend with a marvelous theory, though. Since Mrs. Hudson is never described, for all we know she was a stunning young widow who carried on an affair with Holmes for years. That would explain a lot.

14. When writing something that has to do with Holmes, how easy and/or difficult is it for you to find the proper 'voice?' i.e., who, if other than Watson, narrates. If you have Watson narrate, being able to write him as if you are Conan Doyle and getting that particular style down.

Those two have been a part of my life for so long, the voice is natural. I often find myself talking in Holmesian cadence.

15. And what writing projects do you have planned for the future?

Two more for Holmes: I am currently researching the full story of Charles Augustus Milverton, and I believe I know the source of Holmes' distrust of women. I also have a contemporary mystery novel being rejected by agents and publishers everywhere, and I am writing another; they're fun. I am also pecking away at a collection of essays on the art of cinema. I'm a fairly well known critic in these parts.
16. In your book, why did you decide to have vampirism be, ultimately, a virus? And did you have that idea in your mind from the start, or did you decide that later as a way to explain the Great Hiatus?

"You are allowed one impossible assumption per story." -- James Blish

At some point you have to decide in which universe your story will take place: in this case, the natural world or the supernatural. Sherlock Holmes cannot function in a supernatural environment. Therefore, this particular story has to be in the natural world of Victorian London, 1890.
That meant having a scientific basis for certain supernatural elements in Dracula. Stoker himself raised the idea of disease, comparing vampirism to tuberculosis. In this case, I worked from effect (reanimated body, the need to consume blood) to cause, and came up with something which fit into commonly understood vampire lore. That only took about 15 years or so.

With it, finally, came a better explanation for the Great Hiatus. (I never bought "The Empty House" version. Does anyone?) Such a project as ridding the world of vampires is certainly a worthy one for Holmes.

17. What made you choose Dracula?

Explained above, but you have to understand that this book was more or less a hobby for about 20 years. A few years ago I found myself with more than 200 pages piled up in a box, so I organized it into a proper novel, had the excellent Jeanne Cavelos find the flaws and help me fix them, and somehow managed to arrange publication.