Another bit of re-reading done over the summer was the not-quite-complete Sherlock Holmes canon. In bits and pieces, I read all the short stories and two of the novels, as well as part of The Hound of the Baskervilles. I didn’t finish that one, or The Valley of Fear before moving residence, and not being near that particular copy of the collected works. Nor have I any pressing urge to finish the last two. I read them years ago (I read the whole canon as a teenager, and none for years and years) and remember disliking Valley even while I liked most of the others.
I did, you know, enjoy reading them. They are annoying and infuriating, and it’s frustrating that Sherlock Holmes the character in the greater culture is superior to the character as written by Arthur Conan Doyle. I want, on going back to the original, to be struck by the genius of its creation, and to be able to shake my head at the sad decline over the years, and to pity the poor saps who only know the stuff through all the secondary stuff. And, you know, if you only know Sherlock Holmes through the secondary stuff it is worth going and reading the original stories. But as one contribution to the Great Detective, and not necessarily the definitive one.
It’s not just that Mr. Conan Doyle’s detective isn’t as good at detecting as he ought to be, although he isn’t. For somebody capable of noticing scrape-marks on shoes at a glance, determining a man’s occupation from the knees of his trousers, and distinguishing between varieties of cigarette ash in a fire grate, he is surprisingly easily baffled by disguised, including at one point a man dressed as an old woman and a woman dressed as a young man. The woman, at least, had some theatrical experience, although considering the style of theater popular at the time, one would think that might actually be a hindrance in fooling somebody on a street. Which reminds me—where does he get his makeup from? Certainly not from a theatrical supplier, who could provide a fellow with lots of greasepaint and bald caps that weren’t meant to be naturalistic even over footlights. He had to do without all the stuff made for our movie industry, which didn’t exist at the time he started. Hair dye? Nose putty? What about the cotton-wool he would have had to use for changing the shape of his mouth and cheeks? Even given natural talent in mimicry, in changing posture and facial habits, and I have no idea where he would be trained in such things, as they weren’t in the bag of tricks of theatrical actors in Victorian England, he couldn’t possibly have been the master of disguise he is portrayed as, or the one we want him to be.
The other thing that got to me is how totally he trusts to his instincts about people. Over and over, he proceeds based on the assumption that somebody, usually a woman, is telling the truth, saying that it is “impossible” that she should be lying. Hm. Impossible is also frequently used to describe behavior that would be unusual, or difficult to imagine, but well within physical bounds, such as a murderer keeping the murder weapon and placing it in her wardrobe. The famous quote that “when you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth” evidently uses impossible in this sense, that is, as whatever Sherlock Holmes refuses to believe. It makes the quote less impressive. OK, it makes it utter nonsense.
The third thing, which I had actually remembered from the first reading, is how often Mr. Holmes will use his own judgment of appropriate justice rather than giving a criminal to the law. Having remembered that, and it’s place in the (pleasant) arrogance of the character, it didn’t bother me that much. Yes, it’s wrong, and indefensible, and all that, but it is part of Sherlock Holmes as I think of him, so that’s all right. Do you see?
chazak, chazak, v’nitchazek,
-Vardibidian.
Honestly, I agreed with two points, yet what always struck me as the true reason I read Sherlock Holmes was for the sheer impossibility of it. “When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth.” Is entirely true. Would YOU have deducted what really went on in The Adventure of the Speckled Band? What about The Naval Treaty? His impossible methods, and his impossible demeanor, are exactly what make this impossible savant, possible. Also, about the whole woman thing, take into account the morals of the time, that women were incapable of lies, and also, that this particularly sets the stage for Irene Adler, which also explains Holmes’s severe beating at the (dainty I’m sure) hands of this woman.
And, about your problem with his innate trust of his instincts: 1. How is that anything new? Every novel worth reading has a character in-tune with themselves. Sherlock merely takes it to the next level and utilizes it effectively! 2. As a work of fiction (and not a biography although Doyle uses Watson as a biographer of sorts) poetic license IS freely distributed throughout, therefore bringing the brilliant and far-far-above us almost God-like Holmes down to our level, (not necessarily DOWN, but more to the extent that we can understand what is going on (some of the time) while still immersing ourselves in the story and following along with the events as they occur. Watson is a brilliant narrator, because we can see through his eyes, and understand what makes Holmes Holmes most of the time. The fact that he has a brother blew my mind completely, I pictured Holmes as an orphan, with a strong sense of justice, and being all-alone in the world,devoted himself to justice.
Of course the tiny matter of Master of Disguises, leave it be. He is a master of disguise, because he is Sherlock Holmes, and as the matter will forever be unknowable. My only suggestion is: Hold a seance and call on Sir Arthur Conan Doyle, that ought to serve the matter!
As another question, The Valley of Fear? May I ask why you did not like it??
I didn’t like the whole American end of the story at all—the Pinkerton/Molly Maguire/Union/Feenian end of it didn’t work for me as a story, and I suspect that even the first time I read it I was already pro-union and anti-Pinkerton, so that must have rankled as well. But mostly, there was a long stretch that didn’t have Holmes and Watson and didn’t have London! and didn’t have detection or any of the stuff I like about the series. That’s my recollection, but as I say, I haven’t reread it in years. Decades. So I am working from quite a dim recollection.
Thanks,
-V.