From: Chuck.Lavazzi@launchpad.unc.edu (Chuck Lavazzi)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.holmes
Subject: Re: Holmes and others
Date: 21 Dec 92 15:20:42 GMT
Organization: University of North Carolina Extended Bulletin Board Service

In article <BzM5nv.E4n@watserv1.uwaterloo.ca> credmond@watserv1.uwaterloo.ca (Chris Redmond) writes:
>In article <1992Dec20.084459.26908@netcom.com> ewadams@netcom.com (Ernest Adams) writes:
>
>>Holmes is *beyond any doubt* the greatest detective who ever lived. On
>>the other hand, I think he would have enjoyed the company of Hercule
>>Poirot, Lord Peter Wimsey, and Nero Wolfe, but he would have undoubtedly
>>seen character flaws in all three. As Holmes' son, of course, Nero
>>Wolfe is probably the closest to him.
>>
>>Of the four, only Wimsey was modest and easily likeable. I'm sure Holmes
>>would have thought Sam Spade a clod. I can't imagine what he would have
>>thought of Columbo or Jessica Fletcher.
>
>Or Philo Vance?  The mind boggles -- the mighty egos collide . . .
>But are you trying to suggest that Holmes had no "character flaws"
>comparable to those of Poirot, Wolfe and anyone else we might name?
>On the contrary!  I suggest that (in spite of caricatures and
>simplifications that make Holmes into a cartoon superhero) much 
>of his appeal comes from his very evident, if extraordinary, humanity.
>
	I don't know whether or not "flaw" is the right word, but the fact is
that (stepping out of The Grand Game for a moment) Holmes was *intended* to
have a number of eccentricities.  The Holmes of "Sign of Four" was modeled, to
some extent, on Oscar Wilde (whom Doyle knew and admired).  From a literary
standpoint, Holmes was to be the eccentric genuis and Watson the "everyman"
character with whom the reader would identify.

>And if we switch from Holmes as real-life detective to Holmes as
>literary character, we can observe -- we have frequently observed --
>that he is the original of many conventions we now take for granted.
>The Detective must have a dumb companion (Watson, Archie), an artistic
>interest (violin, orchids), and so on, even a forgiveable addiction
>(cocaine for Holmes, beer for Wolfe, and pizza for the Ninja Turtles)!
>
	Neither Watson nor Goodwin are "dumb"; they're just not geniuses.  As
I noted above, Watson was intended to be the "normal" half of the team, and
the person through who's eyes we would view the Great Detective.  But there's
not much doubt that Holmes spawned a horde of imitators and inspired entire
generations of detective fiction writers.  Rex Stout was an avid Sherlockian
who made no secret of his admiration for Holmes, and Nero Wolfe can be easily
seen as a kind of combination of Sherlock and Mycroft.
	The "dumb comic sidekick" character comes, not from literature, but
from the Hollywood western movie.  This is the model Universal used for Watson
in their (mostly awful) Rathbone-Bruce films, not the Canon.  Unfortunately,
it seems to have worked it's way so thoroughly into popular culture that the
principal image of Watson now is a sort of Colonel Blimp-style buffoon.
	Say what you will about the Grenada TV adaptations, they at least
gave Watson back his dignity.
Chuck
(I seem to have rambled off-topic here a bit...)
--
   The opinions expressed are not necessarily those of the University of
     North Carolina at Chapel Hill, the Campus Office for Information
        Technology, or the Experimental Bulletin Board Service.
           internet:  laUNChpad.unc.edu or 152.2.22.80
Newsgroups: alt.fan.holmes