Educated in Yellow

@educatedinyellow / educatedinyellow.tumblr.com

Cases I'm having trouble placing and would appreciate input on:

  • Charles Augustus Milverton: Similar to Second Stain, Watson claims to deliberately obscure the dates surrounding this case due to its delicacy. However, unlike Second Stain, there's no outside reference to it (contradictory or otherwise) to help with placement.
  • The Red Circle: This one basically has no clues except that Watson is living at Baker Street and Holmes refers to his medical practice in the past tense. Also it's winter.
  • The Disappearance of Lady Frances Carfax: About the only possible hint in this one is that Watson claims to be feeling 'old'.
  • The Problem of Thor Bridge: Again, all I can find is Watson living at Baker St and it's October.
  • The Sussex Vampire: It's November, Watson has written Gloria Scott which Holmes didn't think much of, and that's about it.
  • The Three Gables: No idea. Watson hasn't seen much of Holmes for a few days.
  • The Shoscombe Old Place: Nothing I can find to point to anything.

It might be worth asking if any of your followers have a copy of Baring-Gould's Annotated Sherlock Holmes just to check on these last few stories for you and see what he came up with to assign them dates. I understand you are doing your own chronology rather than relying on his, but for stories where you're stuck it can't hurt to compare notes. Trying to date the stories was a huge part of The Game for him, and as I recall when no date was given by Watson, he usually noted down what day of the week/description of the moon (particularly the timing of moonrise)/description of the weather was given and then combed through historical farmer's almanacs to find a match. My old copies of Baring-Gould are back at my childhood home so I can't pass along his notes for those stories, but probably someone out there can, if you're interested.

Reading Les Miserables Out Loud: L'Affaire Champmathieu's Double Trouble

At long last, we have worked out way through L'Affaire Champmathieu. Devotees of the musical will remember L'Affaire Champathieu as an episode covered by a fairly short song titled "Who Am I." Inspector Javert, who is running the police in M sur M, has for quite some time had a suspicion that Mayor Madeleine might really be a convict named Jean Valjean. Then Javert learns that a different man who goes by the name of Champmathieu and was picked up for among other things stealing apples from an orchard has been positively identified as Jean Valjean. Javert is 100% certain that this Champmathieu really is Jean Valjean, which means of course that he was quite wrong to suspect Mayor Madeleine, which according to Javert's Ethical Code means he has to go to Mayor Madeleine, explain his suspicions, explain why he was wrong, and tell Mayor Madeleine that he needs to be fired for this ghastly mistake. But of course Mayor Madeleine actually is Jean Valjean, and now knows that some other poor sap is about to be sent back to prison for life on his behalf. What to do? Let the name Jean Valjean stick to Champathieu and go die in the galleys with him, thus leaving him in the clear forever? Or go down to the court where Champmathieu is being tried, establish that he's Jean Valjean, save Champmathieu, and accept the (extremely severe) consequences?

So, behind the cut tag, I have some thoughts about what it means that this part of the story is told in such detail and from so many different angles and therefore takes...so, so, so much longer.

psa apparently there is a serious GO spoiler that Prime leaked by accident and deleted but it was too late and now it's everywhere so if you can avoid Twitter for a while, I've heard Neil has been heartbroken over this and people are still sharing it anyway 😞 idk what the spoiler is and i don't wanna know and i hope you guys can remain unspoiled too ❤️