Holmes in Numbers

On June 29 / 2015, The Guardian has published a series of images that contain various 'data charts' on Conan Doyle's Sherlock Holmes stories. Interesting about their collection is how it draws attention to the similarities between the stories, which might say more about Conan Doyle's methods of writing than those of his notorious detective.

Sherlock Holmes: examining the evidence - in charts

“A True Detective: Ideal or Real?”

Although Chandler’s theory of an ideal detective is intriguing and stimulating, it is not fully intact for a genre as complex as detective fiction. Firstly, Chandler’s ideal detective is too ideal, so much so that it is hardly realistic. It seems as if Chandler has too many expectations for this archetype. For instance, a detective cannot and, depending on how one interprets a particular story, should not be “a hero” who “is everything.” Some detectives, such as Sherlock Holmes, possess flaws that make them more relatable to the reader. If the reader cannot relate to the protagonist, there will inevitably be some lack of understanding on the reader’s part; he or she may not understand why the detective lied or acted in a certain way, hence the numerous novels written from the perspective of the detective’s sidekick. The protagonist cannot successfully and simultaneously embody a “hero” who “is everything” and also “complete… common… and yet an unusual man.” When a person is unusual, he or she is certainly not common; he or she may also either be missing a certain common quality that is expected in society or possesses too much of a quality that is either unexpected in society or is taken for granted. For example, in the television show Sherlock, Sherlock Holmes is unusually intelligent, precise, and skilled at his trade; he is also obsessed with gruesome experiments. However, he lacks in social skills and initially appears apathetic. In addition, even if a man simply felt or were actually “complete,” one must question why he would have the thirst for adventure. One must question why he would not be perfectly content with how his life already is.

Moreover, Chandler declares, “The story is his adventure in search of a hidden truth,” and the detective must thus be a “man fit for adventure.” If one is seeking “adventure” and a “truth,” then he or she must be somewhat dissatisfied with how they are without that “adventure” or “truth.” However, Chandler glorifies the detective archetype as nearly perfect and with very few flaws. One might also argue that the world would be “too dull to be worth living in” if there were such perfect detectives in abundance. In “A Philosophical View of the Detective Novel,” Ernst Bloch affirms that the mystery, the discovery and the solution of it, and most especially the reader’s fascination with it, cause him and many others to think, “There must be something to this case after all.” Many detective fiction writers have openly expressed their frustration with the genre, as well. Both people’s frustration and their fascination with the detective fiction genre stems from that first sense that something is off, wrong, or “uncanny,” according to Bloch. Some have speculated that the murderer’s mistake in his crime, however few or many of these mistakes, is what further draws the reader in. If the murderer’s mistake is so fascinating, why must the ideal detective not be flawed, less than a morally perfect hero, or less than the “best man in his world?” If the detective is so perfect, which would soon wear down the reader and bore him or her, then why would the world not be too dull to be worth living in or reading about? Why would there be any adventure if the detective were already so wise or so experienced?

It is said that the ideal mystery novel has no end, and there is no solution to the mystery; however, the reader would keep turning the pages. Perhaps this novel can exist, but the reader’s interest in it will be ephemeral. The story would be too long, and it would become bland. The same applies to Chandler’s perfect, heroic detective. 

The Underrated Detective Novel

Everyone has heard the name "Sherlock Holmes," even if they haven't read a single work of Sir Arthur Conan Doyle or seen a film or television adaption. The famous detective has become so integrated into our culture that "No ----, Sherlock," is a commonly used insult, and "Elementary, my dear Watson," is often quoted (even though Holmes never says those four words together in any of Conan Doyle's original work). Agatha Christie is another household name and her most famous detectives, Hercule Poirot and Miss Marple captured widespread attention and sold millions of copies. Mysteries are so popular and so plentiful that they have their very own section in my public library. But do they get the respect they deserve?

Recently, I attended BookCon, a convention where authors, publishers, and readers all gathered in New York City's Javits Center. At one panel featuring YA authors Leigh Bardugo and Marissa Meyer, both women commented that the two genres that receive the most shame and disdain are romance and young adult, and they theorized the reason was at least partially the fact that a vast majority of the authors and fanbases are female. But the detective novel is a much more male-dominated genre, from the authors to the protagonists (or the cast of the characters in general), and the fanbase. This is not to say that there are not many females in any of those roles - but none of these categories is at all female-dominated. So what is it about the detective novel that makes it, as Ernst Bloch wrote, "seldom praised and often read, even by those who despise it?"

Perhaps the reason is that there seems to be a very distinct pattern and a good number of popular tropes. The detective is often an amateur who is somewhat resented by the police for his/her unwillingness to simply allow the law enforcement to handle the situation. Said detective often experiences social problems (typically some form of isolation), and has few, if any, friends. The plotline is the same - the crime, the investigation, a red herring, more investigation, and finally the revelation of "whodunit" and why and how and all the other questions that required a resolution.

But not everyone can just sit down and pen a detective novel. It's hard work to come up with a mystery that isn't immediately solvable so as to keep the reader engaged while still having relatable characters and a well-written story. The mystery novel requires so many specific details and leaves so much room for plot holes that true skill is necessary for any mystery writer. And because detective stories are so fast-paced, the authors tend to write a lot of them - meaning they must imagine hundreds of impossible crimes that can be solved in interesting and creative ways. Mystery is probably one of the harder genres to write let alone master, especially if it is how a writer makes a living.

Perhaps like romance and YA, the detective novel is typically meant as a short, sweet form of entertainment for the masses. Obviously there are many intellectual, philosophical, and inspirational works in all three genres, but the stereotype of an easy read that the public can stomach exists in all of these categories. So while everyone has heard of Sir Arthur Conan Doyle and Agatha Christie, few would consider them on the same tier as literary "gods" like Tolstoy, the Brontës, or Dickens. People can argue all day about whether or not mystery writers deserve to be placed on the "classics" shelves of libraries. However, detective novels definitely do not deserve to be written off as "trash." Every genre has its good and its bad and its in-between. There is no need to judge an entire genre or its fanbase simply because society says it is poorly-written.

Raymond Chandler's The Simple Art of Murder (1950)

"But down these mean streets a man must go who is not himself mean, who is neither tarnished nor afraid. The detective in this kind of story must be such a man. He is the hero, he is everything. He must be a complete man and a common man and yet an unusual man. He must be, to use a rather weathered phrase, a man of honor, by instinct, by inevitability, without thought of it, and certainly without saying it. He must be the best man in his world and a good enough many for any world. I do not care much about his private life; he is neither a eunuch nor a satyr; I think he might seduce a duchess and I am quite sure he would not spoil a virgin; if he is a man of honor in one thing, he is that in all things. He is a relatively poor man, or he would not be a detective at all. He is a common man or he could not go among common people. He has a sense of character, or he would not know his job. He will take no man's money dishonestly and no man's insolence without a due and dispassionate revenge. He is a lonely man and his pride is that you will treat him as a proud man or be very sorry you ever saw him. He talks as the man of his age talks, that is, with rude wit, a lively sense of the grotesque, a disgust for sham, and a contempt for pettiness. The story is his adventure. He has a range of awareness that startles you, but it belongs to him by right, because it belongs to the world he lives in.If there were enough like him, I think the world would be a very safe place to live in, and yet not too dull to be worth living in."

Photo by Will Jackson