William S. Baring-Gould (1913–1967)

Una de las cosas que más nos atraen de Holmes y Watson es todo lo que no sabemos de ellos. ¿Tuvo padres Sherlock Holmes? Es de suponer que sí: el hecho de que exista un hermano parece confirmarlo. ¿Se casó John H. Watson más de una vez? Si es así, ¿cuántas? ¿Era el buen doctor una versión moderna de Barba Azul? Y ¿qué hizo Holmes en el Tíbet? ¿Por qué no siguió la pista a su contemporáneo, Jack el Destripador, en lugar de quejarse tanto de que «ya no hay grandes crímenes»? ¿Por qué esa debilidad por atender a clientes llamadas «Violet»? ¿Acabó su relación con Irene Adler en “Un Escándalo en Bohemia”? ¿Por qué Watson muestra esa escandalosa tendencia a equivocarse con las fechas? ¿Tenía acaso buenos motivos para hacerlo?… (plus d'informations)

I'm bound to agree with the reviewer who complained about the layout, which defies reason, though to a large extent I find that this problem is common with many annotated editions of classic works (but this one is especially bad). Also common is the tendency of annotators to take themselves and their insights way too seriously: a good fifteen percent of the annotations could have been dealt with under a single heading: Katherine Elwes Thomas got it all wrong. I think the whole book might better be arranged with simple notes before or after each rhyme--the proliferation of Arabic numerals that deface even the shortest lyrics is worse than distracting, especially when it takes your mind off the rhyme and leads to...yet another refutation of Katherine Elwes Thomas! One begins to wonder whether the world really reeded an annotated Mother Goose. For a genre that's most of all about the fun of rhyme and meter, and of nonsense, the annotations are disappointingly, well, unfun and deflating.… (plus d'informations)

I pulled this out intending to do my annual Christmas read of The Blue Carbuncle, but made the mistake of glancing at the introduction. 12 chapters of introduction later, I finally read The Blue Carbuncle yesterday.

Baring-Gould didn't so much as introduce the annotated volumes and write a short but thorough biography of not only Conan Doyle, but Sherlock, Watson (to a lesser extent) and several chapters of pure out-and-out speculation of exactly where 221B Baker Street was, the layout of the rooms (was Watson on the third floor, or the second?; did Sherlock have 2 doors out of his bedroom?), and what kinds of furniture might or might not have been there. His cited sources include all the great 'scholars' of Sherlock Holmes: Morely, Starr, etc. and I have to say, these men needed more fresh air.

I'm sort of kidding, but sort of not - reading the annotations is fascinating. These men treat Holmes as though he were not only a real life historical figure, but a static one. The dichotomy is surreal. For example, Baring-Gould discusses the furniture in the flat, and the it seems that if Holmes had been a real person, these men (and yes, they're all almost without exception, men) expected him to have never, ever changed or moved any of the furniture.

Anyway, I thoroughly enjoyed reading The Blue Carbuncle, as I always do, though the annotations included quite a few snide comments by one Magistrate S. Tupper Bigelow, who impressed me as a complete prat, who needed to be reminded it's a story and even Conan Doyle was allowed to take creative liberties. There was also a whole discussion on whether or not Doyle intended to use the word commute and whether or not it implied Holmes had royal blood. That made me roll my eyes and cry 'oh, horse sh*t' loud enough to make MT laugh. Overall though, the rest of the annotations were thoroughly interesting, if not always informative, and they gave me a deeper context for enjoying a story that's already a firm favorite of mine.… (plus d'informations)