Sherlock

I just finished volume II of The Complete Sherlock Holmes by Sir Arthur Conan Doyle, edited by Kyle Freeman.

I also recently read Sherlock Holmes the Montana Chronicles by John S. Fitzpatrick; this book, written in 2008, is a collection of 4 Holmes stories set in Montana.

One of the things I loved about the original stories is the fact that Doyle set his hero in contemporary times, that is, the late 19th century and early 20th century. There are several interesting observations that I can make because Doyle chose his own era to place his detective stories.

1. With the exception of one story, The Adventure of the Creeping Man, Doyle seems to stick with the logical and ordinary world. The deductions, observations, adventures, and characters all fall within one's experiential norms, and they do not seem to fall outside of natural laws found in physics, chemistry, or other sciences.

An aside, the aforementioned story wanders off the beaten path into the realm of science fiction, however, that observation is made from 2010. In the year that it was written, it may have been a viable scientific theory.

So, the first thing that I like about Holmes' adventures is that they are set in the natural world that I live in. That's a good thing; I know a bit about this world - rain forms mud, things fall down when dropped, and all the other things that we take for granted in the natural world.

2. Without realizing it, I'm sure, Doyle chronicled a time capsule. Kyle Freeman does a wonderful job of explaining some of the more obscure references that are written about as quite ordinary. Doyle assumes that the reader is more than acquainted with his contemporary world.

For example, different carriage terms are used for the various transportation available in that time. I'm sure most people in this century have no clue as to the difference between a hansom, a dog-cart, and a landau; once again, in addition to copious notes, Kyle Freeman includes a list, as well as an explanation, of the available coaches.

So, the second thing that I like about the stories is that I get a glimpse into the lifestyle of the not so average bachelor of 100+ years ago. I also get a good dose of the culture, the mannerisms (so polite!), and thought processes. I find it fascinating.

3. Perhaps it is wishful thinking on my part, but I can't help but think that Doyle would incorporate crime fighting techniques unique to his time. In short, while he may have made stuff up, I don't think that he went into the realm of futuristic crime solving procedures.

Holmes knew mud, Holmes knew cigar ash, Holmes knew poisons. All of these are logical things for the great detective to catalog.

Holmes did not know ballistics, DNA, or pollen tracking through forensic palynology. He didn't have the benefit of CSI or any of its spin offs on TV.

So, the third thing that I like about the stories is that I gain insight into what tools and thought processes were available to detectives around the turn of the 20th century.

These three points make up my issue with the Montana chronicles. I can appreciate fan fiction, and this is very good fan fiction. But, unfortunately, the writer incorporates at least two modern day forensic methods into his stories, and attributes their discoveries to Holmes.

My mind rebels at such an idea because it makes the extraordinary Holmes into little more than Nick the CSI.

There is no great deduction made; it's just matching bullets.

There is no brilliant chain of seemingly unrelated facts; there is a pollen trail.

The mystic of the exceptional Sherlock Holmes is reduced to the trivial CSI lab rat. Ho hum.

Other than that fact(yeah, the fact of taking the world's greatest detective and turning him into just another dude with a clue), as I said, the book is pretty good. It includes what I believe is a nice history of the Anaconda area (although it goes overboard a bit at the beginning of one of the stories). It mentions several readily identifiable landmarks and historical events. And aside from my stated problem, the stories are interesting mysteries.

All in all, I am very glad that I had finished Vol. I and most of Vol. II before picking up The Montana Chronicles; sorry, but, Fitzpatrick's Holmes isn't fit to light Doyle's Holmes' pipe.

I'm not sayin'....I'm just sayin'....