The Case Study of Sherlock Holmes (2009) - Scholarly Commons ...

Official secondary products: The Private Life of Sherlock Holmes (2008) images
The last official secondary product of my journey was Vincent Starrett‟s classic, The
Private Life of Sherlock Holmes (2008). Private Life (2008) was originally published in
1934 and was “admired not only because it was so good but because it was so unusual”
(Redmond, 2009, p. 285). Starrett‟s book was unlike any other of its time because it was
a biography. At the turn of the century Holmes parodies made way for more serious
endeavours – pastiches. Therefore by the end of Doyle‟s last volume of short stories,
The Case-book of Sherlock Holmes (1927/2005k), “Sherlockians were treating Holmes
and Watson as real people, the Canon as history, and Doyle as „The Literary Agent‟”
(Redmond, 2009, p. 263). While the image of Holmes portrayed in this book is that of a
real person, I was far more interested in Starrett‟s (2008) depiction of the reader, of me.
Starrett‟s (2008) image of the Sherlockian reader cultivates an impression of how one
should react to Doyle‟s stories. During the “death” of Sherlock Holmes, Starrett (2008)
describes “the stain of tears among the thumbprints in the margins” (p. 38) and how we
“suffer[ed] with poor Watson” (p. 34). Similarly, Starrett (2008) imagines the feelings
of joy that the reader shares with Watson upon Holmes‟s return: “Moriarty has fallen to
his doom! “O frabjous day! Callooh! Callay!” (p. 47). Assuring us that while he “is not
quoting Watson literally . . . it is all there between the lines – his joy, his affection, and
his satisfaction” (Starrett, 2008, p. 47).
Official secondary products: The Private Life of Sherlock Holmes (2008) ideologies
Ideologically, all Holmes pastiches are alike. They each, through constructed
enchantment, imply that reality is relative; “modern enchantments are enjoyed as
constructs in which one can become immersed but not submerged” (Saler, 2003, p.
607). With Sherlockian fandom, this form of constructed enchantment is practised as
The Great Game, in which fans often gather to examine the canon as if it were a
historical document. Often such activities inspire much of the Sherlockian scholarship
published today. The tone of such work, as established by Starrett in Private Life
(2008), is often that of mock seriousness and enthusiasm over the most trivial:
The Sherlockian “game” made it a faux pas to acknowledge Doyle as anything
more than “The Literary Agent.” A narrow circle of enthusiasts wrote with
passion on questions about which only a Sherlockian could be truly passionate,
and maintained the pretence that Holmes and Watson and their associates were
historical characters. (Redmond, 2009, p. 286)
67