Sherlock Holmes

I have always been a huge fan of Sherlock Holmes, a fact that I attribute to seeing in Holmes certain of my own characteristics (introverted, slightly misanthrophic, superior). Judge Richard Posner reviews a new annotated edition of the Holmes stories in The New Republic, "CSI: Baker Street".

Posner is a bit dismissive of the notes that accompany this edition--they are either of the general background knowledge type (various bits of Victorianiana), or of the obsessive Sherlockian nature (how old is Holmes, what kind of revolver Watson carried). Posner's attitude may come from what seems to be a disdain for the character of Holmes himself:

Sherlock Holmes is not the first fictional character to give rise to a cult. But the others, such as Falstaff and Leopold Bloom, have tended to be likable, or at least lifelike, figures. Not icy, didactic, condescending, inhumanly self-sufficient, and therefore (the speculations concerning Irene Adler notwithstanding) sexless Sherlock--a social isolate, monologuist, and know-it-all, whose principal pleasure in life besides solving crimes is making a fool of his stooge, Dr. Watson. He treats Watson with no consideration, summoning him from his medical practice or his wife with a snap of the fingers to do drudge work, such as carrying a pistol. (Watson is Holmes's "muscle.") What is worse, Holmes assiduously endeavors to keep the poor man utterly clueless, so that, unable to close the intellectual chasm that yawns between them by even a hair's breadth, he shall remain ever abjectly worshipful of Holmes's genius. Rather than share insights with Watson as an investigation proceeds, so that Watson can play more than a flunky's role, Holmes keeps him in the dark until the very end of each story, when he reveals the solution to his awed companion. Holmes is God, Watson his congregation.

Posner is surprised at the popularity of Holmes the man, and has further problems with the plots themselves--Posner goes in the article to identify problems with Holmes' methods and his reasoning. Posner's criticism identifies the major misunderstanding most people have with the Sherlock Holmes stories is that they are not mysteries at all--they are adventure stories. Rarely in the Holmes ouevre does Conan Doyle provide the reader with enough information to solve the crime themselves. This is the significant difference between Conan Doyle and Agatha Christie. Christie is involved in a game with the reader, a race between the fictional detective and the reader to solve a puzzle. With Conan Doyle, we are, like Watson, just along for the ride. But what a ride it is.