BSI Weekend 2016: Historical Nostalgia, Anachronism, and Modernity

(Part 1 of my BSI Weekend 2016 write-up)

Last week, I attended, for the third time, what as referred to as the “Baker Street Irregulars Weekend,” though it’s really more like a week, lasting from Wednesday to Sunday. I’ve been meaning to write a post about my experiences attending one of these for several years now, but I think this year is about the right time to do it: my first two years, I was by far too starry-eyed to say anything coherent.

The reason I was so starry-eyed is because the Baker Street Irregulars is the primary Sherlock Holmes society in the world, started in the 1930s by author and publisher Christopher Morley. It has a long and illustrious tradition, and has influenced very much of Sherlockiana and the perception of Sherlock Holmes today. I would use the word “fandom” but it goes beyond that: the Baker Street Irregulars are a way of life, and almost an ideology. As a society, they are dedicated to the study of the Sherlock Holmes stories, referred to as “the Canon,” and membership is by-invitation only. Every year, they hold a dinner (similarly by invitation only) in New York City on January 6th, Sherlock Holmes’ birthday (which is not actually in the stories; in fact, there is nothing in the stories to suggest that it’s on January 6th. The reason we celebrate it on January 6th is because in The Sign of Four, Holmes and Watson are hungover on January 7th). However, though the dinner requires an invite, the rest of the week(end) is a full schedule of events that anyone can attend, and Sherlockians the world over convene in New York to celebrate the great detective – whom we call The Master.

This year has been a landmark BSI year for me, as I was invited to the BSI dinner for the first time (I’m not yet a member of the society itself, but one can hope). In keeping with the tradition of the event, which is meant to be secretive, mysterious, and even esoteric – and cannot be audio or video-taped – I will honor the intentions behind this grand event and won’t dwell too much on describing its details.

20160115_190623

The view from the top of the Yale Club, where the dinner was held – a detail I think I’m allowed to share!

I can, however, say that the best description I’ve been able to come up with for the Baker Street Irregulars dinner is that it’s the annual get-together of a by-invitation-only literary society dedicated to the study of a fictional character, whom we pretend is real, and whose life and career was described in a series of texts we refer to as the Sacred Writings. Members are “invested” into the society on a mysterious basis using “investitures” that are phrases from the Canon – essentially, code names.

And when I put it like that, we do sound a bit insane. Which is quite all right, really.

In fact, I want to use this post to reflect on the culture of Sherlockiana – its beauty, and yet its irony. I have written, time and again, about the way that Sherlock Holmes is ultimately a highly modern figure, using the latest forms of technology, and representing secularism, reason, urbanization, industrialization – all those nineteenth century transformations. And yet the popular perception of him is so often nostalgic and anachronistic, of a Victorian figure in a deerstalker, back when there was fog and gas lamps and fireplaces and tea time in good old England. It’s a myth, and a romantic one, however inaccurate it is. However, it is not just the popular imagination that likes to associate Holmes with good old England – it is also Sherlockian culture that does it, however anachronistic it may seem. In fact, I would hazard a guess that much of this myth was constructed and propagated by the Baker Street Irregulars, many of whom were highly influential writers, actors, executives, lawyers, and politicians, among others, and who helped spread this myth.

In the early days of the BSI, Edgar W. Smith, the founder of the Baker Street Journal, referred to Sherlock Holmes as a “Galahad” from a time of Arthurian mythology and, in the first issue of the Journal, celebrated that very fog and gas lamps. G.K. Chesterton spoke of the stories as fairly tales, and Vincent Starrett, a Chicago man of letters, wrote the poem 221B, which is the best, most beautiful, and most poignant rendition of the myth and magic of Sherlock Holmes I’ve read, and these hallowed words are repeated at the end of every Sherlockian society meeting, including the BSI dinner:

Here dwell together still two men of note
Who never lived and so can never die:
How very near they seem, yet how remote
That age before the world went all awry.
But still the game’s afoot for those with ears
Attuned to catch the distant view-halloo:
England is England yet, for all our fears—
Only those things the heart believes are true.

A yellow fog swirls past the window-pane
As night descends upon this fabled street:
A lonely hansom splashes through the rain,
The ghostly gas lamps fail at twenty feet.
Here, though the world explode, these two survive,
And it is always eighteen ninety-five.

It’s also, obviously, completely anachronistic- but, as the poem itself says, “only those things the heart believes are true. And there’s a reason that, despite the lack of these historical trappings in the Canon, this is what we cling to. As historian Michael Saler notes in the excellent book As IF, the BSI, as well as much of Sherockian scholarship, came into being around the time of the Great Depression and continued through into WWII and the Cold War. And in those trying times, Sherlock Holmes lived in a nostalgic and idealized version of 1895 to which these people could return.

And yet, though it’s the 21st century, that escapism is alive. The irony of this anachronistic “antiquarianism” had puzzled me for many years, as I was surprised that the careful scholars and devotees of the Canon, who knew how modern a figure Sherlock Holmes was, indulge in this nostalgically inaccurate romanticizing. But this year, attending the BSI dinner, and examining the practices of the BSI (many of which date back to the 1930s and really haven’t changed), I think I’ve come to understand why they have been preserved the way they have.

Every epoch has its escapism, of course – we have our own fair share of modern political events that we want to flee from into the comforting rooms of Baker Street. But I also think it has much to do not only with escapism, but with enchantment. As the aforementioned Michael Saler points out in his book, the late nineteenth century was perceived by many (including the sociologist Weber, who theorized it) to be a period of disenchantment due to the march of technology and progress. But Sherlock Holmes, as Saler points out, re-enchanted modernity, finding the romance in reason, the mystery in the quotidian, the magical in the commonplace. “There is nothing so unnatural as the commonplace,” he told Watson in A Case of Identity (this is, incidentally, probably the line upon which procedurals hinge, but that’s another topic for another day.

And that sense of (dis)enchantment is, I think, exactly what accounts for the practices of the BSI, which haven’t changed for the most part (which the exception of now allowing in women), and why I love them. I do, of course, rely on the conveniences of the twenty-first century, and wouldn’t ever wish to do without any of them – its transportation and communication technologies, its new forms of reference, and I similarly realize that there was nothing particularly magical or enchanting about the Middle Ages (the Plague and death in childbirth really don’t sound like fun). But there’s a certain joy in creating a magical, anachronistic version of a past reality. Just as readers did in the nineteenth century, we today want enchantment and magic in our convenient, technological, modern, positivistic lives. We want a sense of mystery and adventure, and yet reassurance, and the comforts of modernity. We as humans are picky, and difficult to please – for we want the conveniences of our cell phones, our trains and airplanes, or Wikipedia and Google, and yet while keeping these things, we want to preserve a sense of the magical and the mysterious in our modern world.

And that’s both influenced and kept alive the traditions of the BSI, I think. The Sherlock Holmes stories had mystery, intrigue, and enchantment in a modern world, and so does the BSI. A literary society with unwritten rules, with secretive meetings, with members given, essentially, code names (called “investitures,” they’re phrases taken out of the Canon), with a worldwide membership (but membership that must be earned, through a series of unnamed trials, which are not written down and never described) – well, that sounds like something out of a mystery novel. It’s like a combination of the eclectic membership of The Red-Headed League, the puzzles of The Dancing Men, the esoteric rituals of The Musgrave Ritual, the secret code of The Five Orange Pips, the ancient history of the Baskerville legend – all in one. We meet every year for the BSI dinner at the Yale Club, at which membership is exclusive, and you need an invitation to get in, and if you don’t think it looks like the Diogenes Club from the Canon, I don’t know what to tell you:

Its membership is limited to alums of Yale, and this system of university private clubs seems to have been inspired by British gentlemen’s clubs, of the kind to which Mycroft Holmes belonged. And, of course, Sherlock Holmes, being of respectable birth and having attended “college,” probably went to a respectable British university of exactly the kind that would have a club like this. Studying the Canon is called the Game, and it was inspired by Biblical scholarship at Oxford in 1911 – which gives it a long and illustrious history. At every dinner and gathering, poetic toasts are given to characters, places, and events from the Canon – yours truly has had the honor of giving one at a Sherlockian luncheon.

It’s a huge contrast to what one would call the “fandom” surrounding the newer adaptations like Sherlock and Ritchie’s Sherlock Holmes –not because it’s somehow “less,” or less scholarly, or more frivolous, but because it’s based on an entirely different set of traditions. In the case of Sherlock, especially, the intriguing thing is that the show brings Sherlock Holmes back into modernity. It makes him, once again, a contemporary figure, as he would’ve been for his original readers, and not a historical one. I’ve always thought that Sherlock is actually the most accurate adaptation of Sherlock Holmes precisely because, instead of historicizing, it modernizes, which makes Sherlock fandom today rather analogous to Sherlock Holmes’ original readers. As Anne Jameson notes in an excellent book about fanfiction, Fic, fandom tends to be the first to pick up new forms of technology, because they are the ones striving to communicate with other fans and produce transformative work about the texts they like. This, of course, parallels the modernity of both Sherlock Holmes, who appeared in the most modern form of communication technology available to him (newspapers) as well as Sherlock fandom – which emulates his use of those contemporary forms of technology just like Victorian readers would have used the postal service (which had seven mail deliveries a day) to communicate with Doyle. In fact, there’s a lot of accuracy to both the modern technologies surrounding Sherlock and the fandom that uses them. At the same time, there’s a lot of history, and therefore cultural weight and significance around the BSI and their traditional way of studying and celebrating Sherlock Holmes.

Speaking to a friend of mine who regularly attends Sherlockian events, she told me that the BSI traditions are “preserved in amber” – left over from a previous time and preserved by devotees. By who knows how long those traditions will last? There’s been an influx of younger Sherlockians into the older traditions thanks to, ironically, the newer adaptations – and yet many of these younger Sherlockians are also part of Internet fandom. So as we get further into the new century, I wonder, will these traditions –which are almost a century old now – remain alive? Or will more modern forms of fandom replace these older traditions? Will they merge into some sort of weird Frankenstein-monster?

These are questions I’ve been left pondering. I have always been very pro-fandom, pro-Internet, pro-slash fiction, but at the same time, this weekend, and this dinner, has made me realize the value of keeping certain traditions alive, of preserving them, even in amber, even with their anachronism. That’s why I don’t mind how bizarre and, frankly, insane, we seem from the outside. There’s not only a method to the madness, there’s a meaning to the madness. As Vincent Starrett so eloquently said about Holmes and Watson, but which could very well be applied to Sherlockians:

“So they still live for all that love them well: in a romantic chamber of the heart: in a nostalgic country of the mind: where it is always 1895.”

 

Advertisements

Posted on January 22, 2016, in BBC Sherlock, conventions, Fandom Studies, Sherlock Holmes and tagged , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink. 4 Comments.

  1. So glad you were able to attend and that we spent some time together during the BSI Weekend – one of my favorite times of the year.

    One correction about Sherlock Holmes’s birthday: you mention that “[t]he reason we celebrate it on January 6th is because in The Sign of Four, Holmes and Watson are hungover on January 7th).” This is only partly true.

    We also know that of all of the Shakespeare that Holmes quoted, he only quoted one work twice: Twelfth Night. Of course, in the Christian church, Twelfth Night is the feast of the Epiphany, which is on January 6 (aka the twelfth day of Christmas). Since Holmes chose to quote this work twice, and in conjunction with the perceived hangover on January 7, Christopher Morley inferred that it must have been his birthday.

    That, and his brother Frank V. Morley was born on January 6.

    • You are quite right, of course – there are multiple reasons for January 6th. The “hangover” explanation, though, is by far the most succinct one to present in a post that already got much lengthier than it was intended to be!

      Thank you for the comment, and a pleasure to see you as well! I’ll be sure to get in touch the next time I’m in Michigan, too (likely May/this summer).

  2. Anastasia, you’ve got a great deal going on in this piece and it’s clear you’re
    essentially trying to organize some overlapping thoughts and emotions on paper as you
    go through them in the wake of an exciting event. It seems to me you are addressing a
    number of disparate, yet overlapping themes, such as the role of the BSI and how it
    works alongside Sherlock Holmes fandom, of how you perceive Holmes as a modern figure
    and how that clashes with the traditional view held by many, including the BSI in
    terms of how they treat the subject and in the structure of the organization itself,
    both of which you perceive as ‘anachronistic.’

    As far as the BSI goes, I don’t see it as being nearly as mysterious or esoteric as you’ve made it seem. The history of the BSI, with all sorts of detailed minutiae is readily
    available in both BSI publications (such as the BSJ or Jon Lellenberg’s excellent BSI History Series) and in popular mainstream survey-style publications like Baring-Gould’s
    Annotated Sherlock Holmes that began springing up in the 60s and is still going
    strong in books like Sherlock Holmes for Dummies and the recent DK publication The
    Sherlock Holmes Book. The only secretive and mysterious elements are in the mechanics
    behind the selection of new investitures, which is really just a case of the head of
    an organization bestowing recognition, as he see’s fit, for services rendered towards
    the organization’s goal; which simply put is ‘to keep green the memory of the
    Master.’

    While traditions of the organization may seem to be ‘preserved in amber’,
    the organization itself is not. It has evolved significantly, if perhaps slowly, from
    being an excuse for a few ‘literary’ gentlemen to get together for a boozy lunch into
    a thriving formal literary organization with a variety of branches, while maintaining
    a remarkably narrow focus. Once again, I’ll point out that the focus is ‘to keep
    green the memory of the Master.’ I utilize the word ‘memory’ very specifically,
    because the focus is on the canon, the vaguely embarrassingly named ‘Sacred
    Writings’, and nothing else. The BSI isn’t about pastiches, television shows, films,
    radio plays, toys, comics, etc…although these are all on the periphery and subject
    to study because they all stem from and relate to the ‘Sacred Writings’ in one form
    or another. Sherlock Holmes as a character has transcended the limitations of the
    ‘Sacred Writings’ and moved into the realm of pop culture iconography. It is from
    this pop culture iconography, rather than the ‘Sacred Writings’, from which ‘fandom’
    has arisen. You ponder the questions “…will these traditions –which are almost a
    century old now – remain alive? Or will more modern forms of fandom replace these
    older traditions? Will they merge into some sort of weird Frankenstein-monster?” I
    would say the answers are, at least from my point of view: yes, no and no. The BSI
    does a good job doing what it does, focusing on the original form of Sherlock Holmes,
    on the source material, and never losing sight of it. It has purpose and value and it
    appears to be thriving. To merge with or be replaced by Sherlock Holmes fandom would
    be a tremendous loss of identity and of the thread which anchors us to the work of
    Arthur Conan Doyle (or if you prefer, sigh, Dr. John H. Watson). Going back to my comment that the organization has evolved, the BSI does not ignore fandom and has bestowed investitures based on work from the fandom pool…when it, in some cases rather arbitrarily or tenuously, supports the aforementioned focus of the organization. Fandom is a wonderful thing, in its many and varied forms, but I’m also glad the BSI is what it is and does what it does and think it will keep sailing along on the same narrow course for as long as there is any sort of interest in Sherlock Holmes.

    That’ll do for now, more of a rambling mess than I anticipated, but I’ll be back at some point to discuss this whole ‘anachronistic’ notion that viewing Holmes as a Victorian is somehow ‘…a myth, and a romantic one, however inaccurate…’ 😉

  1. Pingback: My Sherlockian Writing Round-Up | Monitoring The Media

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: