Talk:Canon of Sherlock Holmes/Archive 1

Archive 1

Copyright Expiry

When did the copyright on the Sherlock Holmes books expire? The "Canon of Sherlock Holmes" says “late 1980s” but the then British 50 (later 70) Years after the author’s death rule gives July 1930 + 50 = July 1980; go to end of year so expiry date is 1 January 1981 ? Hugo999 (talk) 13:55, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

The page for 2023 says the last copyright on any Sherlock Holmes work (presumably the 1927 “Casebook”) will have expired on 1 January 2023 in America under the “Sonny Bony Copyright Law Extension Act”. Hugo999 (talk) 13:36, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Clean up

I have done a fairly thorough cleaning of the article, but it needs some cites, which I shall add when I get a hand on my copy of Hianing's book. But other Sherlockians, please fix! TuckerResearch (talk) 00:53, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Citations

I added some citations to Haining's book. Please add others, and where needed. Also, someone who knows how to clean up the references, please do so. TuckerResearch (talk) 03:36, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

I did some minor style cleanup, but the page still needs some work. I suggest that an editor with a good grasp of the MoS go through it from top to bottom. momoricks (make my day) 05:36, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Suggest Renaming Article; Extracanonical Sherlock Holmes

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was not moved. Non-canonical_works_related_and_derived_from_Sherlock_Holmes already exists, although it currently does not list Doyle-authored works. Suggest merging this article's content as a new section there. Aervanath (talk) 04:15, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

---

This page gives, and has always given, a considerable emphasis to the Extracanonical stories and plays and very little to the 'Canon of Sherlock Holmes'. All of the information in the first section of the article, which actually describes the canon is in the main article on Sherlock Holmes. I suggest renaming this article something along the lines of 'The Extracanonical Sherlock Holmes', 'The Extracanonical Works of Sherlock Holmes' or 'The Uncollected Sherlock Holmes', or something along those lines, and dedicating the entire article to those works.

If it helps in anyway towards the case for renaming it, I was the user that originally added the page (Though I did a pretty poor job on it) back around October 2006. My original intention had been to set up a page informing people on the uncollected Sherlock Holmes works written by Sir Arthur Conan Doyle, but called the article The Canon of Sherlock Holmes because I couldn't think of another title. 81.104.172.224 (talk) 22:20, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Problem is, some Sherlockians believe that some of these should be in the canon, especially the five short stories by Doyle. TuckerResearch (talk) 00:56, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Well as far as I'm concerned, yes they should be canonical, but that's neither here nor there- the works are not generally considered to be part of 'The Canon', and though 'non-canonical' may cause debate, 'extracanonical' should be acceptable, as it doesn't imply an apocryphal nature or a lack of worth. My other suggestion, Uncollected could also be used, considering the works are just that. Either way, my point was that this article has never really been about 'The Canon', and its primary focus has so far always been to provide information on those extracanonical or uncollected works by Doyle, and so it makes sense to me to move it to another title to reflect the content of the article. Let me know if you think there is a strong argument for not moving, and if you do think there is an argument for moving, let me know what you would title the article. (Oh, in case my IP isn't the same- Yes I am the poster above.) 81.104.175.254 (talk) 05:50, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

To canon, or not to canon

I think that this is the correct decision. First "non-canonical" and "extra-canonical" are basically the same things, so it would be confusing to merge these. Second, these works are different from those on the Non-canonical_works_related_and_derived_from_Sherlock_Holmes page. Most of these were written by Doyle, i.e. "The Lost Special," the plays, and the "essays" on Holmes. TuckerResearch (talk) 04:36, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

New Addition to Canon: The House of Silk

The House of Silk by Anthony Horowitz is the first non-Doyle work to be accepted as canon by the Conan Doyle Estate, so I think it is quite vital it is at least mentioned on here, if not have its own section. I've not done it myself in case more skilled hands than mine wish to. Carty239 (talk) 18:34, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Since I believe that this work is at least as important as Extracanonical works and Carty239's suggestion did not get any other response, I have added a section titled New canonical works. — John Harvey, Wizened Web Wizard Wannabe, ^{Talk to me!} 17:38, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Not canon

Sorry, but despite the Arthur Conan Doyle Estate's pronouncements, this is not a part of Arthur Conan Doyle's canon - it is a pastiche. It belongs on that page. See the top of this article: "Traditionally, the canon of Sherlock Holmes consists of the fifty-six short stories and four novels written by Sir Arthur Conan Doyle. In this context, the term "canon" is an attempt to distinguish between Doyle's original works and subsequent works by other authors using the same characters." TuckerResearch (talk) 03:59, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

UPDATE: From what I wrote at Talk:The_House_of_Silk#Canon.3F_I_think_not. The article at The House of Silk stated (see diff) "It marks the first time that the Conan Doyle Estate has upheld an official novel as canon, outside the works of Sir Arthur Conan Doyle." However, the cited article says no such thing, only: "this is the first tine the Conan Doyle estate has authorised a new Sherlock Holmes novel" [sic]. That does not mean it is canon. Thus this is manifestly not a part of Arthur Conan Doyle's canon - it is a non-canonical Sherlock Holmes pastiche, nothing more. TuckerResearch (talk) 05:19, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Someone over on the House of Silk page is going to enquire of the estate as to the canonical status of the book. When there are results from this, it will be clear how to proceed. However, in the mean time, it may be worth mentioning the controversy as to whether it is or is not canon due to the current ambiguity of its 'authorised' status. There is clear belief by some that it does now form a part of the canon of Sherlock Holmes, if not the Canon of Conan Doyle as evidenced by various reviews or comments from commentators e.g. He has added a truly diverting entry to the canon". (Barry Forshaw THE INDEPENDENT ).— Preceding unsigned comment added by Carty239 (talk • contribs) 18:48, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Still not canon. You point us to that quote by Barry Forshaw on Amazon, the very next quote says: "It's a brilliant pastiche, with a wonderful sense of time and place (Christie Hickman SUNDAY EXPRESS)." Just because some people don't know what canon means doesn't make it canon. (And, I'll say that even if the Conan Doyle Estate calls it canon, for pecuniary reasons, the consensus readers and editors here still might not call it canon.) TuckerResearch (talk) 02:13, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

And an inquiry constitutes original research. TuckerResearch (talk) 02:18, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

References to "Strand"?

"Aside from the metafictional twist in which Watson supplants Doyle as the author publishing his own stories in a magazine (similar to the references to the Strand which appear throughout the Canon)..."

If memory serves, there are no references to the Strand Magazine anywhere in the Canon. Perhaps references to the street of the same name are meant? But how are we to know that Conan Doyle intended those as in-jokes? Gildir (talk) 22:06, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

There are no references to a Strand magazine by name, but there are references to Watson writing up the stories for publication, which is what's meant here. Feel free to cut the bracketed clause, it doesn't add much. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.25.245.91 (talk) 15:14, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

The Lost Special

I believe that you'll find there was a movie serial in the 1940s based upon this story.WHPratt (talk) 14:20, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0023150/ WHPratt (talk) 01:44, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

The Man Who Was Wanted

It was published in Hearst's Cosmopolitan magazine in 1948 with Arthur Conan Doyle's byline. If someone can find The Baker Street Journal (published by the Baker Street Irregulars organization) for 1948-49, I believe you will find that, although the public accepted the story as genuine Conan Doyle, the Irregulars were skeptical at the outset.WHPratt (talk) 14:24, 12 November 2010 (UTC)