Audio link here.
This week American Houdiniphiles and Baker Street Irregulars joined forces on Fox TV for what we hoped would be a more amusing fictional mini-series called “Houdini & Doyle.”
“Truth is gnarlier than fiction,” was all the chief characters -- Harry Houdini, Sir Arthur Conan Doyle and a highly-anachronistic-but-cute British policewoman named Adelaide -- would say when asked about the recently-discovered Sherlock Holmes investigative files on The Case of the Competing Séances.
Here's what we know, leaving out no detail, no matter how insignificant it may seem.
The first séance is one all Houdiniphiles are familiar with: Atlantic City, 1922. Our friend John Cox has written an excellent summary on his blog, Wild About Harry.
Houdini and Conan Doyle’s family were still good friends when this picture was taken under the Atlantic City boardwalk. Later that day, a noble mediumistic effort by Doyle’s wife, Jean, began to rot the friendship. Doyle’s wife, considered a “talented medium,” transmitted a message, via automatic writing commencing with the Sign of the Cross, purporting to come from Harry’s beloved and long-dead mother.
Houdini, as gently as he could, told Doyle the alleged message from beyond could not have come from Harry’s mother because 1) as a Jew, she never made the Sign of the Cross; 2) she never called her son Harry; and, 3) she never addressed her son in English. He reminded the creator of Sherlock Holmes of his own dictum that "it is a cardinal mistake to theorize without data."
Houdini attempted to unmoor Doyle's faith in spiritualism by blowing his mind with magic tricks - everything from removing his thumb to deeply subtle mentalistic illusions. But Doyle’s mind was already overblown - he remained convinced Houdini was simply hiding his true supernatural powers. By the time Harry died in 1926 they were public enemies.
We have written before of the numerous séances held subsequently to contact Houdini in the beyond - all amusing, but, alas, non-productive.
In 1930, Doyle himself passed on. A week after his death came the second in this Tale of Two Séances. (Charles Dickens, incidentally, thought Conan Doyle was "daft as a brush.")
This one, at the Albert Hall in London, attracted more than six thousand spectators. Most of them were convinced they would actually see Doyle’s resurrection in the flesh, or, well ... in the ectoplasm. However you call it, there was a reserved seat in the front row for Doyle’s astral or etheric body to sit. His wife, Lady Jean, still in her planetary body, sat directly on its right.
A detailed description of the proceedings can be found here. If you just want to cut to the chase … you’ve already deduced, from the way the parsley sank in the butter, that no body materialized and Doyle’s chair remained empty, at least to our earthly vision.
The medium did claim to get some kind of psychic contact with Doyle, but as she was revealing his message to the audience, the organ inexplicably began playing so loudly that no one could hear what she said.
Leprechauns, no doubt.
For the rest of her days, Lady Jean Doyle would reveal nothing else publicly, except to insist to the end that she still believed communication with the dead was possible.
In 1934, another séance, with different promoters, held at London's Aeolian Hall attracted a capacity audience. This time "Conan Doyle" was heard speaking from the 'other side'. Click here for the story and an audio recording via the British Library. Suffice it to say that his "voice from beyond" contradicted the verification principles expressed by Doyle himself in the audio link at the top of this post.
Strangest of all was the curious incident of Sherlock Holmes himself in the night-time. The immortal detective continued to keep his bees in the Sussex Downs. He did nothing in the night-time, even as the debut of the mini-series went on the air. And that was the curious incident.
[We'll present our customary scathing review next week.]
###
RELATED:
[Thanks and a tip of the derby to Dr. Jeffrey Fisher, a real Sherlock Holmes.]
###
HAPPY 93D BIRTHDAY, MOM!!!
Dickens could not have commented on Doyle being daft. Doyle was not born till 1859. Dickens died in 1870. Would Dickens have made the comment about a small boy name of Doyle who was living in Scotland at the time? They never met. And Doyle hadn't published then. Probably the comment is from someone other than Charles Dickens. Lots of people thought Doyle was daft, I expect.
ReplyDeleteYour point presents one or two features of interest....
ReplyDelete