The Adventures of Sherlock Holmes and Other Stories

An Introduction to a Perplexing Character

"When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable must be the truth." - Sherlock Holmes.

We all know the character's name - Sherlock Holmes, though some of us don't know the stories.

We know that Sherlock was a detective who can solve any crime. The Scotland Yard asked his help from time to time when they got stuck in a case.

Sherlock's eyes didn't miss anything - even the tiniest detail on a dead body like the pallor of the skin and other evidence (ashes, leaves, shoe prints, blood spatters, and etc) that surrounded the crime scene. To ordinary people, he was a genius - or he could actually come across as a powerful seer who saw the crime and could track the killer. He could solve even the most complicated cases because he looked at crimes from different angles, and he used the power of deduction. To him, his methods were a no-brainer, but to the casual reader, he is a hero with infinite knowledge. That was how Conan Doyle described his most famous literary character.

The collection of Sherlock Holmes short stories spanned decades. Readers of the time got first introduced to the characters of John Watson and Sherlock Holmes when both were in their 20's and the collection of stories ended when both of them were in their 60's. Their stories moved along with the times in Victorian England - along with its technology and ideology.

Why were the stories of Sherlock Holmes created by Sir Arthur Conan Doyle still hold a strong appeal to the masses? What inspired him to bring Sherlock into paper and may have unknowingly created a classic read that inspired movies and other characters for almost 200 years? This blog will attempt to answer these questions, but my answers and analogy may appear to be weak to the more intelligent readers. But please humor me by reading this blog in its entirety.

Sir Arthur Conan Doyle and the Birth of Sherlock Holmes

It is easy to assume that John Watson's and Sherlock Holmes' characters - were loosely based on Conan Doyle's life. Doyle studied medicine at Edinburgh University and during the 19th century, Edinburgh University was at the forefront of medicine. The school was famous for its dissection of cadavers. The bodies of executed criminals were donated to the university for dissection to learn more about human anatomy. Doyle also learned forensic pathology - the art of deducing how the person died from Joseph Bell who happened to work for Queen Victoria.

Holmes and Watson were the epitomes of the time's technology. Their stories started with everyone in London used horse-drawn carriages or walked and the publication of Sherlock Holmes ended with the characters being driven around in cars. Doyle aspired to write historical novels but Sherlock Holmes' short stories paid the bills and provided financial security. Doyle was not exactly proud of his Sherlock Holmes short stories because, in the Victorian era, they were considered dime novels - the lowest form of literature.

Sherlock's and Watson's philosophy and detective styles also reflected the changes that were happening during Queen Victoria's reign. Doyle's plot in the stories reflected how Victorian England began to accept new ideas in naturalism, technology, socialism, and modernity with the use of scientific steps. Maybe that's the appeal of Sherlock Holmes' stories - it challenged the sensibilities and the entitlement of the royalty and the aristocrat. In some of the short stories, a nobleman was embroiled in a scandal, a rich powerful man was unmasked as a beggar, and a woman can outsmart a man like Sherlock.

Despite Sherlock Holmes' Short Stories labeled as dime novels, it was exactly what the people of the Victorian era wanted - a form of literature that they understand and through it, they can somehow see that the people they look up to can be toppled and make scandalous mistakes.

In terms of Doyle's narrative style, it was universally the same in all of Sherlock Holmes' short stories. They all started with a crime that deemed impossible to solve. Watson and Sherlock work their way back to kick start the investigation by taking a look into the personal history of the victims and their families, they studied the crime scene, drew conclusions based on the art/science of deduction. Doyle was also the first author to use the concept of "red herring" or false lead - to make the stories more intriguing. You can see that technique being used over and over in movies and television shows and it still works its magic to the audience.

A Glimpse on Sherlock's Mind: Mad Genius, Sociopath, Neurotypical, or Everything in Between?

The introduction of Holmes' character was a mystery - no background story, and odd. He has deep scientific knowledge in biology, crime, history, chemistry, different curiosities like tobacco ashes, but completely clueless that the earth revolves around the sun and didn't care. For Sherlock, his brain could only accommodate a finite amount of information so he decidedly wanted to store information that could help him crack complicated cases.

Sherlock was undeniably smart but was socially awkward. Societal nuances were lost on him. He believed that all he needed to do was to solve cases and not really care about how the other people he worked with felt. Watson, on the other hand, was the opposite of Sherlock. Watson tempered or calmed Sherlock's moods and agitation over small things.

Despite Sherlock's ability to solve cases and he sided with the good guys, he was a dark character. He abused substances like cocaine and morphine. His mind cannot stand intellectual stagnation. For Sherlock, solving complicated crimes was the high he was always chasing. If there was nothing gruesome prowling the streets of London, he resorted to drugs to experience that high. Sherlock basically created a job that suited his intellectual capability - a consulting detective. He couldn't be a full-time detective - cooped up in an office, be bothered with paper works, and be assigned with cases that were boring. His self-appointed job just suited him perfectly fine because he didn't have to report to anyone above him.

Sherlock also had the privilege of taking risks and be careless during investigations because he had his big brother, Mycroft who could make his problems go away. Mycroft, as described in the stories, was the "government."

Sherlock Holmes' stories were told in Watson's perspective. He wrote about Sheldon's cases in newspapers and during Doyle's time, it was social media. For Watson, Sherlock was an admirable and honorable man and explained away his repulsive behaviors. In the eyes of The Scotland Yard, however, Sherlock a pompous man and an arrogant prick. They had no choice but to consult with him because he solved puzzling crimes.

Sherlock also used out of the box techniques to get information. He didn't have any qualms using thugs, homeless people, and even addicts to get information just to solve crimes. His utilization of these outcasted segment of Victorian society can be seen as either abusive or helpful. Sherlock's actions in the stories make us confront our stance on propriety, civility, and sometimes even morality. Sherlock's character can blur the line between right and wrong.

In my opinion, he was indeed a genius but his lack of emotional empathy, responsibility, and arrogance were all undesirable. He was everything in between and that is why his character is an enjoyable read.

Doyle's Sherlock and Watson in Pop Culture.

BBC's version of Sherlock and Watson, Leonard and Sheldon, Wilson and House, Kirk and Spock

Sherlock and Watson's character archetypes have been repeated in the 20th century in different television shows through Kirk and Spock of Star Trek, House and Wilson of House, and I could even add Sheldon and Leonard of The Big Bang Theory. Spock, House, and Leonard were all intellectuals and talented persons in their chosen field, but they lack human connection. For them, human emotions could get in the way of getting results or reaching their goals. For them, especially with House, it was all about the cases. House's drug of choice was medical mysteries that no one could solve. He also abused the painkiller Vicodin when he felt his cases were not enough to challenge him. He kept on testing the boundaries of medical protocols like giving psychedelic drugs to his patients, giving a green light to risky medical procedures just to find a cure, and other questionable medical procedures that could make him lose his license. Just like Mycroft, Cuddy, was always ready to go out of her way to "save" House's medical career because she knew that he could solve even the most perplexing medical mysteries.

This kind of relationship on television work well because viewers sort of expect that the cold and extremely rational person can soften over the years with the help of the more compassionate one. We want the lead character to be a genius with a moral compass and the ability to be kind to everyone. We also want our loved ones or even ourselves to be like the lead character, but we all know it is more difficult to become a self-actualized individual.

Conclusion: To Be or Not To Be Like Sherlock Holmes

I have this controversial theory, that maybe, a small part of us, is curious how it's like to be Sherlock Holmes. To always be in wonder of puzzles. To think like an automaton. To be like a well-oiled machine that produces awe-inspiring works. To be devoid of emotions.

A part of us wants to solve problems without being emotionally attached because we know that emotions are messy. We all know that as humans, we would always feel emotions - may it joy, love, anger, or pain and they can sometimes get in the way of what we want to achieve. We have also accepted that our feelings will never go away so we just learn and relearn how to feel and live as we reach for our goals.

We cannot or should be like Sherlock. Sherlock's character though fascinating is questionable. But why should we continue to read the book? As an avid book reader, it is interesting how the beginning of liberalism was slowly changing London's society as the setting of Sherlock's stories. We can also learn a thing or two on how to dig deeper at the mysteries of life, that situations can be more than what they appear - we must dig deeper to know the truth.