MX Book of New Sherlock Holmes Stories - Part XXIV

David Marcum

Description

64 new traditional Holmes adventures in three simultaneously published volumes In 2018, MX Publishing presented Parts XI and XII of this acclaimed and ongoing series, Some Untold Cases. Now that theme is revisited with 64 new Sherlock Holmes adventures that explore those many tantalizing references to some of Holmes's other cases, as mentioned in The Canon. "Somewhere in the vaults of the bank of Cox and Co., at Charing Cross, there is a travel-worn and battered tin dispatch box with my name, John H. Watson, M.D., Late Indian Army, painted upon the lid. It is crammed with papers, nearly all of which are records of cases to illustrate the curious problems which Mr. Sherlock Holmes had at various times to examine . . . ." - Dr. John H. Watson So wrote Dr. Watson in "The Problem of Thor Bridge" - and ever since, Sherlockians have been seeking to know more about these tales from the legendary tin dispatch box. While Watson's original Literary Agent only edited the pitifully few sixty stories that make up the original Canon, there have since been literally thousands of traditional adventures about the true Sherlock Holmes - and yet there will never be enough! Throughout the original Holmes Canon, there were hints and teases of other intriguing cases - The Giant Rat of Sumatra . . . The Abernetty Tragedy . . . The Manor House Case. Watson mentions well over one-hundred of these, which have collectively come to be known as The Untold Cases. Now, once again MX Publishing brings us sixty-four of these adventures in three simultaneously published volumes, with all royalties going to support the Stepping Stones School at Undershaw, one of Sir Arthur Conan Doyle's former homes. Join us as we return to Baker Street and discover more authentic adventures of Sherlock Holmes, described by the estimable Dr. Watson as "the best and wisest . . . whom I have ever known." Each volume contains forwards by Otto Penzler, Roger Johnson, Stepping Stones School, Steve Emecz, and David Marcum, as well as stories by the following contributors: Marcia Wilson, Brenda Seabrooke, Stephen Herczeg, Tracy J. Revels, Kevin P. Thornton, Thomas A. Burns, Jr., Dick Gillman, Jayantika Ganguly, John Davis, DJ Tyrer, Harry DeMaio, Arthur Hall (2 stories), Susan Knight, David Marcum, Craig Stephen Copland (2 stories), Gayle Lange Puhl, John Lawrence, John Linwood Grant, and Paula Hammond, and a poem by Joseph W. Svec III

Informations

• Publié par: Andrews UK
• Date de parution: 08 février 2021
• Nombre de lectures: 0
• EAN13: 9781787056664
• Langue: English
• Poids de l'ouvrage: 1 Mo

Extrait

The MX Book of New Sherlock Holmes Stories
Part XXIV: Some More Untold Cases
(1895-1903)
David Marcum




First edition published in 2021
Copyright © 2021 David Marcum
The individuals listed in the Copyright information section assert their right to be identified as the authors of this work in accordance with the Copyright, Designs, and Patents Act 1988.
All rights reserved. No reproduction, copy, or transmission of this publication may be made without express prior written permission. No paragraph of this publication may be reproduced, copied, or transmitted except with express prior written permission or in accordance with the provisions of the Copyright Act 1956 (as amended). Any person who commits any unauthorised act in relation to this publication may be liable to criminal prosecution and civil claims for damage.
All characters appearing in this work are fictitious or used fictitiously. Except for certain historical personages, any resemblance to real persons, living or dead, is purely coincidental. Any opinions expressed herein are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of any other party.
Published in the UK by
MX Publishing
335 Princess Park Manor, Royal Drive
London, N11 3GX
www.mxpublishing.com
Digital edition converted and distributed by
Andrews UK Limited
www.andrewsuk.com
Cover design by Brian Belanger
www.belangerbooks.com
Photos of Sherlock Holmes and Dr. John H. Watson courtesy of Roger Johnson



Editor’s Note: Duplicate Untold Cases
In some instances, there are multiple versions of certain Untold Cases contained within this volume. Each of these are very different stories and do not contradict one another, in spite of their common jumping-off place. As explained in the Editor’s Foreword, no traditional and Canonical versions of the Untold Cases are the definitive versions to the exclusion of the others. They simply require a bit of additional pondering and rationalization to consider what was going on in Watson’s thinking, and why he chose to present them in this way.
In this volume, the reader will encounter several versions of “The Two Coptic Patriarchs”, “Mr. Fairdale Hobbs”, and “The Refused Knighthood” – Enjoy!



Editor’s Foreword: Watson’s Obfuscations
by David Marcum
Obfuscate:
Merriam-Webster –
1 – a: to throw into shadow, darken;
b: to make obscure
2 – Confuse
Dictionary.com –
The act or an instance of making something obscure, dark, or difficult to understand
Watson obfuscated. Without a doubt. To pretend that he did otherwise would be rather naïve.
We have obvious evidence or this, and also that which is much more indirect and must be inferred.
That isn’t to say that Watson is an actual liar , with the habitual and intentional regular misrepresentations that this word implies. A true liar cannot help him or herself. Such a person chooses falsehoods over truth with the same lack of thought as when taking a breath. Some liars do so occasionally, while others do it dozens of times per day in the very visible public eye, regardless of the damage that they cause.
When Watson obfuscated, it was for a reason.
Consider: Watson wanted to record his Sherlock Holmes’s various investigations so that the public would be aware of his friend’s abilities, and so that credit for the solution of his investigations would be properly pointed in Holmes’s direction. At the end of their first shared adventure, after Holmes explains how he followed the scarlet thread of murder through the tangled skein to a correct solution, Watson cries: “It is wonderful! Your merits should be publicly recognized. You should publish an account of the case. If you won’t, I will for you.”
Holmes replies, “You may do what you like, Doctor .” – likely little realizing just what he had let himself in for.
A moment later, Watson added, “I have all the facts in my journal, and the public shall know them.” And so they would – but it would be nearly seven years before that occurred. Watson made that promise in early March 1881, but A Study in Scarlet wouldn’t be published until late November 1887, in Beeton’s Christmas Annual.
In the meantime, Holmes continued to investigate, and Watson continued to assist him – more and more as his health improved following his grievous mid-1880 war injury, and also as Holmes’s practice continued to grow and thrive. We view those cases now as something from a long-ago time, stirring within us longings for those mysterious gaslit streets and foggy nights. Sometimes we tend to forget that when Watson first began publishing in 1887, those stories were essentially contemporary. Adventures might occur in streets or locations that no longer exist, but they certainly existed then. Our Heroes made their way across London in hansom cabs and growlers, and while those are long gone, that was the norm then. And when Watson was writing about Holmes’s cases, they weren’t recountings of events that had occurred decades before – some had happened only a few months before they were published.
Consider “The Red-Headed League”, which took place in October 1890. (There is a bit of confusing contradiction within the story regarding this date, but that will be addressed in a moment.) Watson, then married for a couple of years and living in nearby Paddington, relates how he’d stopped by to visit Holmes and found him in consultation with Mr. Jabez Wilson concerning the rather comical pawnbroker’s recent connections to the mysterious aforementioned League, and his subsequent grievances against them – for they had been paying him steadily for months to spend his mornings copying the Encyclopaedia Britannica , and just that morning he’d found that this unusual post had been terminated without any previous warning.
As expected, the matter resolved satisfactorily, and Watson recognized that this was a tale that should be shared. He probably wrote up his notes to a certain degree within a matter of days, and added them to an ever growing stack of narratives. Then, just a few months later – specifically on May 4th, 1891 – Holmes was presumed to have died at the Reichenbach Falls, which gave Watson even more motivation to recall the promise that he’d made on March 6th, 1881, at the end of A Study in Scarlet : “ Your merits should be publicly recognized. You should publish an account of the case. If you won’t, I will for you. ”
As of the spring of 1891, Watson had only published two accounts of Holmes’s cases, A Study in Scarlet (in late 1887, in the aforementioned Beeton’s ), and The Sign of the Four (in February 1890, appearing first in Lippincott’s Monthly Magazine ). With the idea of paying tribute to his fallen friend, Watson, assisted by his friend and literary agent, Dr. – and later Sir – Arthur Conan Doyle, approached the publisher of the recently formed Strand magazine – itself only in business since January 1891 – and arranged for some short sketches of Holmes’s cases to be published, beginning with “A Scandal in Bohemia” on June 25th, 1891. The world was electrified – and soon after the obfuscations began to creep in – sometimes from carelessness or accidentally, and sometimes because Watson had no choice.
For example, from the distance of so many years, it’s difficult to know exactly which names within The Canon are accurate, and which have been adjusted due to Watson’s effort to protect the players. It’s entirely possible that Jabez Wilson’s identity was true as presented – for there is some argument that his modest pawn shop could only have benefitted by being associated with such an interesting story – Wilson could have dined out for the rest of his life on his version of it, were he able to overcome the personal embarrassment at his own gullibility. But as those initial two-dozen stories were published in The Strand between June 1891 and December 1893 (when “The Final Problem” appeared to a stunned and dismayed public), it’s obvious that some facts must have been changed to protect those involved.
For instance, “The Boscombe Valley Mystery”, which occurred in June 1889, was published in October 1891, just a little over two years later. It ends with a dying murderer’s confession that is to be kept secret – and yet, here is Watson publishing it to great interest in a widely read magazine when the events were still somewhat fresh in the public mind. But some delicate obfuscation was occurring here. Try finding Boscombe Valley on a map. And if the location was disguised, then it’s likely that the names were as well. What other information was smudged and altered to hide the specifics while providing the gist of the cases, while also making sure to highlight Holmes’s brilliance?
Of course, if locations and the names of involved parties could be changed, then dates could be altered as well. There are a number of chronological inconsistencies within The Canon that can be blamed on all sorts of reasons – a misreading of Watson’s handwriting by a careless typesetter is always likely. Certainly similar carelessness by Watson’s Literary Agent was another reason, as he failed to pay enough attention to the preparation of Watson’s works for publication while he was instead distracted by his own lesser-known efforts. And of course, Watson certainly made some intentional changes for reasons of discretion.
As early as the publication of The Sign of the Four in 1890, there are unexplained discrepancies. We know that the case occurs in 1888, because it says that 1882 was six years earlier. But then a letter, supposedly sent that first day of the investigation, is postmarked “ July ”, while just a couple of chapters later, Watson comments that it’s a “ September evening ”. The internal evidence seems to set this case in September 1