Amateur Holmesian Scholarship

Alistair Duncan, the writer ‘Eliminate the Impossible’ which I reviewed the other day sent me a response in order to answer some of the questions or issues I raised about his book. He doesn’t object to me sharing his comments with anyone reading this blog, so here are some of his comments and a few of my responses.

I wish more authors would do this, I find it fascinating and great fun when and author is willing to discuss parts of their book with the reader. We’re having a bit of a back and forth about the subject of sexuality, but I’m pleased that he is at least approached about the subject rather than certain people who are best left nameless!

(Duncan’s comments are in blue so not to confuse with any additional quotes I’ve inserted from other sources)

“I feel I must take issue with the word ‘delusion’ which is a little strong. I do not consider myself deluded on this matter it is simply my opinion. You are right however that the matter is treated as a joke. The reason for this is simple. Many of those that consider Holmes to be homosexual think it is absurdly clear from the stories and those that don’t consider it to be equally clear. Never the twain shall meet.”

I admit that ‘delusion’ was perhaps a little harsh, but I have to be honest and say that every time the issue is dismissed (and it is a lot, I think the only books that I’ve read a serious take on it are ‘Strangers: Homosexual Love in the 19th Century’ by Graham Robb who devotes a chapter to fictional characters and ‘Sherlock Holmes: The Unauthorised Biography’ by Nick Rension) I groan, particularly when the view that those of us who are interested in discussing it are essentially patted on the head and given a biscuit by people like Christopher Redmond (who I have less than positive things to say about) and June Thompson (who I respect).

“However I believe that Conan Doyle himself regarded homosexuality as medical problem (or aberration of mind – I cannot remember the exact quotation and I will try and locate the source) and was therefore not likely to make it one his character’s traits (I feel I should stress that this negative view is not one that I share). Even if he had been so inclined as to create a homosexual (or bisexual) character, he also had the commercial aspect to consider. Straight-laced Victorian society would have turned its back on such a character (and his creator) and Doyle’s income would have been severely dented. You have only to look at what happened with a heterosexual, cross-class relationship in ‘Lady Chatterley’s Lover’ and the storm it caused (some thirty years later) to gauge the likely response to a non-heterosexual detective. Therefore my opinion is that, regardless of what people like to read into it, Conan Doyle never meant Holmes to either be or appear homosexual for the simple reason that it was not in his interest to do so. Perhaps I should have put all the above into my book to support my position? In any event, I stick to my personal viewpoint that he was asexual.”

Duncan has a very good point that Conan Doyle probably wouldn’t have intended to imply that Holmes was anything other than heterosexual (we are talking about a fictional character). It would have indeed caused a storm and put a dent in Doyle’s future career as an author (I imagine if he really wanted rid of Holmes he could have involved him in a homosexual scandal rather than kill him, but that would kill Conan Doyle’s writing career as well). It is interesting to note however, that Conan Doyle was one of the people who campaigned against the use of Oscar Wilde’s diaries in his sodomy trial – as he believed it to be a medical issue rather than criminal (possibly something about privacy as well, not sure as I can’t find the exact quote I want). Doyle himself was fairly interested in the so called darker areas of human sexuality, as he once asked Roger Casement for details on the sexual perversion of the natives of the Peruvian Amazon… and he continued to support Casement after the publication of his apparent diaries (the ‘Black Diaries’, also Roger Casement’s story was the basis for ‘His Last Bow’).

In ‘The Hound of the Baskervilles’ according to Diana Barsham in her book ‘Arthur Conan Doyle and the Meaning of Masculinity’:

“The story of the hound generates in Sir Charles Baskerville the chronic anxiety associated with blackmail in Doyle’s earlier stories. Emphatically not the aristocratic hound of the Baskervilles, this black mongrel from Fulham Road threatens to interpose its body between criminal man and his privileged clothing signs, invoking the common blackmailers whose evidence led, in 1895, to the downfall of Oscar Wilde. Significantly, Holmes’s pretext for not accompanying Sir Henry to Baskerville Hall is that ‘one of the most revered names in England is being besmirched by a blackmailer, and only I can stop a disastrous scandal.”

Watson comments: ‘… we drove through drifts of rotting vegetation – sad gifts as it seemed to me, for Nature to throw before the carriage of the returning heir of the Baskervilles.’ (124) a reference to the bouquet of rotten vegetables presented to Wilde by the Marquis of Queensbury.”

There also the line “it was in the year 1895 that a combination of events into which I need not enter, caused Mr Sherlock Holmes and myself to spend some weeks in one of our great university towns…” – 3STUD.

What happened in April 1895? Oscar Wilde was arrested and put on trial charged with being a sodomite. Did Doyle intend his readers to consider that Holmes had left London to prevent his sexuality being discovered? It was argued in an article by Christine Kotsifas (The Case of the Asexual Sherlock Holmes) that it would be harder for Holmes to ignore is base instincts and he would have visited prostitutes and brothels… complete conjecture on my part but it’s an interesting thought is it not? The general dating of HOUND is around 1889 but is it possible that it could be dated 1895?

Moving away from the subject of sexuality, Duncan answers my question as to what exactly his source listed simply as ‘Internet’ meant

“The source labelled as ‘internet’ was done as such because I used a variety of sources. Some dates came from Holmes fan pages and others from Wikipedia. As the latter in particular is often attacked for its lack of accuracy, I decided to keep its use hidden to avoid any derogatory remarks for using it.”

Which is fair enough, I would have probably done the same given that using timelines that have not been vastly already established in Holmesian circles doesn’t you get you many Brownie points. He also made it clear that he does actually advance established theories and suggest some original ones during his story commentaries, particularly for ‘The Red Circle’ which was mentioned by the reviewer in the Sidney Passengers.

Concerning my disappointment that he didn’t cover any of the non-English Holmes’s:

“The focus on English versions was primarily down the fact that they were the only ones I’d seen and I wasn’t prepared to ‘review’ performances I’d not seen. I’ve seen some of the Russian series since and I don’t rate it as high as some seem to. However this is all personal opinion.

A second edition may well expand on the ideas suggested by you and others however it would end up costing more to buy as I don’t wish to remove anything already there. I think I may struggle to get people to shell out for a second edition unless it contains a lot more than the first. Radio was omitted for the same reason as non-English adaptations.”

Overall, Mr Duncan was happy with my review and I’m happy that he’s happy with
it… if that all makes sense! I’m certainly looking forward to reading his second Holmes book as it’s bound to make for interesting discussion, particularly if the author is willing to engage in discourse.