Sherlock Holmes is about 80% trash.
So I have recently subjected myself to going through the entire original Sherlock Holmes canon. The original set of stories written by Sir Arthur Conan Doyle from 1887 to 1927. They are to my surprise a slog to get through. I hope to here show you my reasons but also express that i think i also understand the appeal to these stories.
For me as someone who likes consuming lots of media and watching things I don’t even enjoy. I wasn’t even expecting not to like Sherlock Holmes. Since I was young, I had fond memories of a cartoon version of The Hound of the Baskerville’s (posted below) and this I discovered is because that story is a highlight. There is a reason it is one of the most beloved pieces of English literature and the best Sherlock Holmes case file. So, upon my recent consumption of the works I was kind of excited for stories to be as good as the Hound of the Baskerville’s. (Spoiler that never happens).
Rache and Serialisation
A study in Scarlet as the first ever outing of the great detective is mostly fine it is probably the least polished of the series and so the formula hasn’t been established yet. Which makes it slightly more interesting because we have Sherlock doing drugs and being awful (we do not know this is his only character trait yet). So these things are new and possibly interesting. To give you a run down of the plot it is about Sherlock and Watson meeting for the first time, then getting brought into their very first case together. They find a dead man who has seeminly written the German word RACHE which can mean revenge sets us off on what could be interesting mystery. Watson as a war veteran from Afghanistan and as a medical man seems like he might be a perfect man to help Holmes. The problem with Watson is that his job as a character is to marvel at Holmes being magic and or get cross with him if he is being awful (he is mostly awful all the time). The stories apart from two in the last short story collection are entirely written from his perspective.
With a Study in Scarlet we get the beginnings of the Sherlock Holmes structure in that Holmes and Watson are taken to the crime scene which is most often a murder. Holmes will work it out instantly besides a few elements, he plays mind games with everyone else so they can see his big brain in action. Then they will capture the culprit and he will decide to tell them an 8 chapter back story for why he did what he did. This does not just happen once but happens almost in every case with a few exceptions. This has made me rethink Sherlock Holmes as more or pulp novel then grand literature if we are to make the distinction. The format almost never changes, the characters almost do not grow at all and Sherlock is almost completely infallible. This becomes incredibly tiresome.
Now there has always been somewhat of a desire of the fans to have Holmes and Watson to hook up especially after the BBC show Sherlock ( which is a dumpster fire) This isn’t in the original stories at all but I can’t definitely pick up on it in the subtext. Just like Tybalt in Romeo and Juliet has the hots for Romeo is not actually a thing but is totally there. So, the way in which Holmes and Watson interact is very intimate and emotional (at very scattered moments throughout the series). They live in the same house, they eat together, Holmes takes Watson with him everywhere even when Watson is comparably useless to Holmes. They call each companion, dear and prey all the time. Whilst those words would definitely have a different connotation to a modern audience, compared to their original intention I can totally understand where a misinterpretation comes from.
The biggest piece of evidence I would say comes in one of the last stories the 3 Garidebbs. The villain of the piece pulls out a gun and shoots hitting Watson:
Sherlock: “You’re not hurt, Watson? For God’s sake, say that you are not hurt!”
“It was worth a wound — it was worth many wounds — to know the depth of loyalty and love which lay behind that cold mask. The clear, hard eyes were dimmed for a moment, and the firm lips were shaking. For the one and only time I caught a glimpse of a great heart as well as of a great brain. All my years of humble but single-minded service culminated in that moment of revelation.”
It seems to be that whilst the stories are not elevated for this extraction from the text. You could enjoy them entirely without this subtext. What I would say is however how much more sense the series makes if there is a closer bond between the two characters. In the Guy Ritchie Sherlock Holmes films, they explicitly show a deep bond between the characters specifically for Holmes towards Watson. It gives so much more depth to their relationship then what the books ever try to achieve, which is not saying much but at least it is something.
However to foil all the evidence i have presented you, Watson incredibly early on gets a case of the “not gays” and marries a young woman after the events in the Sign of Four and she is almost never mentioned again. He also does also get written as ogling almost every woman that comes to see Holmes, so I guess that kills that ship. Then there is another part of the relationship where Holmes has almost no respect for Watson and is constantly bemoaning how stupid is, and Watson just takes it again and again. He does sometimes try to challenge Holmes on his comments and abilities but is proved to be always wrong. So that does not make a very compelling relationship.
Holmes is a hack fraud
The way in which Holmes figures out mysteries is not enjoyable and so makes it almost impossible to feel involved in the mystery solving. It is not a process of deduction or investigations because you never see or hear what he says. He will just make a series of assumptions and guess work that almost always turn out to be accurate. In a Study in Scarlet the way in which he deduces it is the cab driver is by noticing cab indentations in the road outside the house the crime was conducted. He figures out it is an American but there is nothing besides those marks that indicate the cab driver. Holmes lures him into the house and hand cuffs him. Mystery solved. Upon which the guy gives his entire back story which takes up half the novel. This would be fine as an establishing story so we are introduced to Holmes and his abilities and you would expect along with some character development we would learn how he deduces what he does.
This does not really happen and instead most stories follow the same structure and there is little tension because none of the people Holmes faces can stop him. The best Sherlock Holmes stories are where he is challenged by a good foe and or he is not the central focus of the story. But Maxim I hear you say what about Moriarty surely that famous villain that engages in a never-ending battle of the wits would really spice up these novels. Yes, if such a character existed it would probably improve the series quite significantly (Except in the case of BBC’s Sherlock). The problem is Moriarty is not really a character he is in one story and dies in that same story. We only find out he is a professor in mathematics and likes crime I guess? He has no real motivations and only engages with Sherlock Holmes because Holmes does not like Crime? and so had kept foiling these schemes (which we never see). Otherwise we are just told about how much of Big Brain he is because must have one to beat Holmes. The thing about Holmes you must realise that Conon Doyle was getting sick of writing about him and so wanted it to end. That is Moriarty, he is but a plot device so that Doyle did not have to keep writing about the Great detective.
The problem is that Final Problem in which Holmes and Moriarty meet their end over the Reichenbach falls is not the final problem. Doyle after trying to be taken seriously as a historical fiction writer realised that no one cared, and he needed to make some money again. This is where we find out Holmes just faked his own death and went in hiding to avoid Moriarty’s goons. Well I am glad there was no consequences in facing the most difficult opponent he ever faced…
Exoticism at Baker street.
I think one of the key draws of Sherlock Holmes is the fact that he is often facing villains who stretch from all corners of the empire and beyond. During the late Victorian era and early 20th century comes, Australian’s, Americans, Mormons, Ku Klux Klan, Sikh’s, South Africans, Germans, Canadians, and many others. Whilst our protagonists may not actually meet them, they will hear stories from the villain inevitable monologue whilst captured. This I can understand can make Sherlock especially for the time very alluring, these foreign ideas and people facing off with Holmes. There is also a hint of British Patriotism in the series that is subtle is most stories but in others such as His last Bow he will face off against evil German spies. This becomes especially tiresome as it was World War One British Propaganda being written in 1917. So, this element makes complete sense to me to engage your audience and if the character and plot points were strong it would be a lot easier enjoy this aspect.
When Sherlock Holmes is good it can be damn good. The two best Stories are a Scandal in Bohemia and Hound of the Baskerville’s. So, whilst the other adventures have some interesting aspects, they all have the same problem Sherlock Holmes’s is the Ubermensch. So, when Holmes’s is beaten or at least challenged it is far more interesting story.
in a Scandal in Bohemia it is where Holmes’s is a sexist who wants to help the crown prince of Bohemia get back some confidential photos from his former lover Irene Adler. Holmes’s goes into the case thinking it will be easy and manages through a disguise learn the location of the photograph, however Irene also figures out that he had tricked her. She then outsmarts Holmes’s and escapes with her new husband leaving Sherlock, Watson, and the prince with pie on their face. She does not want anything, and she is not cartoonishly evil, she has her own life and gets away with it all. Not to beat a dead horse but this works because Holmes’s is shown to be fallible and it was his prejudice that out did him. He from then on whilst not completely reforming does change his views about women and their abilities. It is the smallest amount of growth, but it is growth. Watson in this story is and clearly always has been an author insert and so already supports women’s rights and argues with Holmes’s over this topic.
The Hound of the Baskerville’s is said to be the one of the best Novel’s of all time and it shows. The reasons for me agreeing with this and still holding other stories on a lower bar is for two reasons. Holmes’s is barely in the story, with the focus on Watson as he collects information and follows various leads. So, there is no magic resolution and it is right up to the last moment that they do they save the day. The second element is that of the villain Jack Stapleton. Who is probably the best Sherlock Holmes’s Villain ever? From his first moment in the story he leaves a great impression on what he is capable of and I shall explain why. So, Dr Mortimer comes to Baker Street to ask Sherlock Holmes’s to involve himself in suspicions around Sir Charles Baskerville’s death. Holmes’s is sceptical but is willing to meet the next in line to inherit the Baskerville fortune Sir Henry Baskerville, who has just arrived from Canada. In this second meeting they received a cryptic letter warning Sir Henry to not take up the residence at Baskerville Hall. When Sir Henry and Dr Mortimer leave Holmes and Watson follow on after them in case the person who sent the letter would be watching Sir Henry. They see a man with a dark beard in a carriage, who moves off quickly after being spotted by Holmes. Upon a 3rd meeting Holmes’s invites the cab driver of the carriage to answer some questions in front of Mortimer and Sir Henry. It is found out that the passenger told the driver that he was in fact Sherlock Holmes which shows that he wanted to show off to Holmes that he knew he was being tracked by the great detective.
At this moment it is now immediately clear to Holmes that he is not dealing with the everyday criminal. Jack Stapleton too keeps off almost all suspicions away from him as he continues to be pleasant to Sir Henry and Watson. Holmes removes himself from the story and does not come back until near the end to help click the final pieces into place. This is the perfect use of Holmes as because he is amazing there is no tension when he is in the room. With focus on Watson as he meets the key players and learns the secrets surrounding the Baskerville hall, you follow the mystery as it unfolds in front of you. Rather then long monologues at the end like in a Study in Scarlet and Valley of Fear. Then because Holmes whilst suspecting Stapleton has no proof of his misdeeds and so must use Sir Henry as bait for Stapleton to expose himself. It also helps that Sir Henry is the potential victim in this story as when Holmes or Watson is in danger, we have no feeling that they will even be hurt. So, a likeable character like Sir Henry is used perfectly to ensure you always have some anxiety about his well-being. Stapleton’s demise is also a great relief as not only is he not captured by Holmes, but his own hubris gets him as he tries to survive the marshland and bog under a thick fog running away from Holmes. All you hear is a scream and it is over.
Interpretation and Conclusion
Since his inception the character has been used in various stories canonical and non-canonical with varied results. He is on one hand an extremely durable character and you see him in Batman, Dr Who, House and Spock. So, there is something to be loved by this arrogant authority figure, but I find the best versions seem to be those that deviate most or embellish the most on the original ideas. The Show Sherlock has many deep problems that plaque it is entire run let alone talking about season 4. The problem with that show is not so much that it adds to the source material, (though there is quite a bit there) it is the reliance on the source material. Holmes being a magic git, Watson having no purpose, there being pretty much no villain who can match him besides Moriarty, Moriarty having no motivations really. I could continue but I hope the point is clear that whilst the premises can have interest. These elements are all drawn straight from the books, making an already a haemorrhaging wound added with such elements like Sherlock’s secret sister into a fatal injury.
The Guy Ritchie films whilst done in his style of action definitely move away from the source material seem to do so in ways that keep it fresh. They are not perfect films but for action films that keep enough of the core elements it works well. Holmes himself has enough flaws and failures that his abilities are never story breaking and we can sympathise with his struggles. Watson too experiences as a medical man and solider are now heightened as to give him real purpose in the stories. He also doesn’t act so sheepish to Holmes's belittling which is a vast improvement on the character.
There was also 2015’s Mr Holme’s with Sherlock depicted now as old man suffering gradual memory loss as he slowly deteriorates in retirement. This is a unique depiction that is based on the book a Mitch Cullin A Slight Trick of Mind. This depicts a tragic figure in Holmes that of a man with his abilities who has no loved ones now losing the one thing he prided himself in. That a emotionless man alienates the first and last people who could have been some kind of family whilst trying to hold onto his glory days. A truly Human Struggle which is similar in spirit to Ian Holme in The Emperors New Clothes where Holme upon his 3rd incarnation of Napoleon plays a older Napoleon attempting a second comeback from St Helena. Upon arriving in France his double dies back on the island convincing everyone in France that the dictator is dead. He then meets a whole new community of people as he tries to convince them that he is Napoleon. It all comes to a head that he must give up the glory in his past life because no one believes him and if he doesn’t he will lose the new life he has founded.
I had always thought of the Sherlock Holmes series as being some deep form of literature believed for its craft and characters. Whilst to me the series does improve slightly in each additional story it somehow it always is hurt by some of its core elements. People such as Stephen Fry giving so much praise to the series has impacted how I came into the series. I also think that much of what many have called Pastiches have become some of the most interesting tales of Holmes whether Fry’s own adventure with Charles dickens or another meeting Sigmund Freud.
There is much to do with the character but unfortunately the original stories just largely do not hold up. So, whilst there is nothing inherently wrong with liking the series, I would ask those who do enjoy it to reach a little further. That if you have peaked at Sherlock Holmes and are comfortable with its structure push yourself a little further. There are good ideas there but there is so much more out there to enjoy, and this series does not deserve the place it has by literature cultivators.
External links :
http://www.fanfromfla.net/images/fry_jarvey.pdf To read Stephen fry’s Pastiche
https://gosherlocked.tumblr.com/post/135908293776/holmess-and-watsons-pet-names/amp examples of the possessive nouns used by Watson and Holmes to each other.
