History Headscratchers / SherlockHolmes

*** The fact that Holmes was a flawed and eccentric bohemian does ''not'' mean he was supposed to be seen as or actually was seen as unlikeable (any more than, say, [[Series/DoctorWho the Fourth Doctor]] was). People at the time reportedly mourned the "death" of Holmes to a degree where it was almost as if an actual person had died; this does not tally with the claim that they were supposed to or in fact did view him just as a complete jerk who just happened to be very good at solving crimes. The evidence strongly suggests that Victorian readers genuinely ''loved'' Holmes; the closest modern equivalent we have for how people reacted to Holmes's fictional death is probably how people reacted to the fictional death of ComicBook/{{Superman}}. While the latter might have been hype, it was also hype which got people celebrating a beloved icon of popular culture widely seen as reflecting some of the best of a generation's values -- which doesn't happen or work with a fictional character everyone widely agrees is actually kind of a dickhead who nobody would like. Suggesting Holmes was actually supposed to be read as an unlikeable character seems to be somewhat revisionist history based on both ValuesDissonance between what Victorian mores were versus contemporary values (coupled with a bit of people trying to retroactively apply modern culture's fondness for the AntiHero trope onto a previous culture), as it does not appear to supported either by the stories themselves -- wherein Holmes is consistently depicted as eccentric and unorthodox but ultimately heroic, decent and willing to do the right thing -- or by the way contemporary readers reacted to them and him.

*** The fact that Holmes was a flawed and eccentric bohemian does ''not'' mean he was supposed to be seen as or actually was seen as unlikeable (any more than, say, [[Series/DoctorWho the Fourth Doctor]] was). People at the time reportedly mourned the "death" of Holmes to a degree where it was almost as if an actual person had died; this does not tally with the claim that they were supposed to or in fact did view him as a complete jerk who just happened to be very good at solving crimes. The evidence strongly suggests that Victorian readers genuinely ''loved'' Holmes; the closest modern equivalent we have for how people reacted to Holmes's fictional death is probably how people reacted to the fictional death of ComicBook/{{Superman}}. While the latter might have been hype, it was also hype which got people celebrating a beloved icon of popular culture widely seen as reflecting some of the best of a generation's values -- which doesn't happen or work with a fictional character everyone widely agrees is actually kind of a dickhead who nobody would like. Suggesting Holmes was actually supposed to be read as an unlikeable character seems to be somewhat revisionist history based on both ValuesDissonance between what Victorian mores were versus contemporary values (coupled with a bit of people trying to retroactively apply modern culture's fondness for the AntiHero trope onto a previous culture), as it does not appear to supported either by the stories themselves -- wherein Holmes is consistently depicted as eccentric and unorthodox but ultimately heroic, decent and willing to do the right thing -- or by the way contemporary readers reacted to them and him.

*** The fact that Holmes was an eccentric bohemian does ''not'' mean he was supposed to be seen as or actually was seen as unlikeable (any more than, say, [[Series/DoctorWho the Fourth Doctor]] was). People at the time reportedly mourned the "death" of Holmes to a degree where it was almost as if an actual person had died; this does not tally with the claim that they were supposed to or in fact did view him as a jerk who just happened to be very good at solving crimes. The evidence strongly suggests that Victorian readers genuinely ''loved'' Holmes; the closest modern equivalent we have for how people reacted to Holmes's fictional death is probably how people reacted to the fictional death of ComicBook/{{Superman}}. While the latter might have been hype, it was also hype which got people celebrating a beloved icon of popular culture widely seen as reflecting the best of a generation's values -- which doesn't happen or work with a fictional character everyone widely agrees is actually kind of a dickhead who nobody would like. Suggesting Holmes was actually supposed to be read as an unlikeable character seems to be somewhat revisionist history based on both ValuesDissonance between what Victorian mores were versus contemporary values (coupled with a bit of people trying to retroactively apply modern culture's fondness for the AntiHero trope onto a previous culture), as it does not appear to supported either by the stories themselves -- wherein Holmes is consistently depicted as eccentric and unorthodox but ultimately heroic, decent and willing to do the right thing -- or by the way contemporary readers reacted to them and him.

*** The fact that Holmes was an eccentric bohemian does not mean he was supposed to be seen as or actually was seen as unlikeable. People at the time reportedly mourned the "death" of Holmes to a degree where it was almost as if an actual person had died; this does not tally with the claim that they were supposed to or in fact did view him as a jerk who just happened to be very good at solving crimes. The evidence strongly suggests that Victorian readers genuinely ''loved'' Holmes; the closest modern equivalent we have for how people reacted to Holmes's fictional death is probably how people reacted to the fictional death of ComicBook/{{Superman}}. While the latter might have been hype, it was also hype which got people celebrating a beloved icon of popular culture widely seen as reflecting the best of a generation's values -- which doesn't happen or work with a fictional character everyone widely agrees is actually kind of a dickhead who nobody would like. Suggesting Holmes was actually supposed to be read as an unlikeable character seems to be somewhat revisionist history based on both ValuesDissonance between what Victorian mores were versus contemporary values (coupled with a bit of people trying to retroactively apply modern culture's fondness for the AntiHero trope onto a previous culture), as it does not appear to supported either by the stories themselves -- wherein Holmes is consistently depicted as eccentric and unorthodox but ultimately heroic, decent and willing to do the right thing -- or by the way contemporary readers reacted to them and him.

* Marcia Wilson (aragonite) proposed [[https://www.fanfiction.net/s/4592004/5/Can-You-Hear-Me-Now a theory:]] "The Six Napoleons" followed "Charles Augustus Milverton" because Lestrade read CAM in The Strand and threatened to have Holmes and Watson dragged to court for aiding and abetting murder... unless Watson publishes something that had Lestrade in a complimentary light. Presumably something like this happens whenever Watson publishes something that's too uncomfortable for certain people.

*** Or Watson was just speaking metaphorically - as in, mind travel rather than physical one was necessary to get to the core of some mysteries. Just as none of the abovementioned other examples actually featured Holmes and/or Watson
physically travelling to India, Afghanistan or America.

*** And ''The Adventure of Wisteria Lodge'' concerns events in Latin America (without Holmes or Watson visiting it though).

*** And ''The Adventure of Wisteria Lodge'' concerns events in Latin America.

** The ancient law of finders vs keepers. In seriousness, likely because the "crown" is by that point a few broken and rusted scraps of metal and some old gems, there's really little actual evidence to prove it was the real medieval Crown of St. Edward beyond what's basically a nursery rhyme (in reality the medieval Crown is believed to have been melted down by Cromwell's government) and Holmes is merely speculating when he suggests it's the actual crown, it's not like the British monarchy didn't have a replacement crown by that point, and it's potentially arguable whether the crown by that point was the property of the British monarchy anyway if you really want to get technical about it (it had been missing for four hundred years and was worn by the King of ''England'', a position which hadn't existed since 1707; it could theoretically be argued that in both creating a replacement crown and the subsequent Act of Union, the British monarchy had waived ownership rights over the old crown). The "legal troubles" were almost certainly various lawyers and historians going backwards and forwards about why the crown was/wasn't the historical crown of legend and did/didn't belong to the state, and the settlement was likely just the Royal Family and their representatives throwing their hands up and going "Fine, it's some broken old metal, just chuck us some money for appearances sake and you can keep it if you really want it that badly."

** The ancient law of finders vs keepers. In seriousness, likely because the "crown" is by that point a few broken and rusted scraps of metal and some old gems, there's really little actual evidence to prove it was the real medieval Crown of St. Edward beyond what's basically a nursery rhyme (in reality the medieval Crown is believed to have been melted down by Cromwell's government) and Holmes is merely speculating when he suggests it's the actual crown, it's not like the British monarchy didn't have a replacement crown by that point, and it's potentially arguable whether the crown by that point was the property of the British monarchy anyway if you really want to get technical about it (it had been missing for four hundred years and was worn by the King of ''England'', a position which hadn't existed since 1707; it could theoretically be argued that in both creating a replacement crown and the subsequent Act of Union, the British monarchy had waived it's right to the old English crown). The "legal troubles" were almost certainly various lawyers and historians going backwards and forwards about why the crown was/wasn't the historical crown of legend, and the settlement was likely just the Royal Family throwing their hands up and going "Fine, just chuck us some money and you can keep it if you really want it that badly."

** ''The Strand'' told Doyle that if he brought Holmes back from the dead they'd [[TheMoneyDearBoy pay him a lot]].

** Permit this Troper to resolve this mystery once and for all, by submitting the following likely solutions to the central question - "Why does Watson publish these stories?"
Let us take them item by item.

* The example that springs most immediately to mind is in "The Adventure of Charles Augustus Milverton", but also applies to any other story in which Holmes undertakes illegal behavior. It amounts to a public confession. "And then we broke into the guy's house, hid behind the curtain while some lady came in and shot him, burned all his papers, and then kept the entire escapade a secret- hey, wait a second..."
** Plus the numerous occasions when they let criminals go free. I realise that in many cases (as with the above) all the principals are dead, but surely you can still be found culpable for an offence years after? Another niggle- all the unflattering descriptions of people's habits and/or appearances. You'd expect a good many of the clients to sue for the rude way they're described. And do people really want the Great British Public to know about their drug problems? Jacking up in the living room is one thing, but one character (can't remember the story now) is explicitly portrayed as an opium addict, seen as a real social evil of the time. This attitude would be understandable if he was a villain- but this guy is one of Watson's friends!
*** Well, Watson just needs to say "That was an embellishment" and what does the prosecution do? Sherlock Holmes is a legend and more than that he counts most of the governments of Europe as "people who owe him a favour" as well as His Holiness the Pope as a character witness. Plus can you imagine being the man who "imprisons the greatest foe of crime of all time"?
*** "Surely you can still be found culpable for an offence years after"... yes, but there is a limit. Statute of limitations. I don't know what it was in 19th Century England, but in 21st Century US it's often 5 years or so for burglary or stuff like that.
*** Sorry if this isn't formatted properly, but as far as I'm aware there has never been a statute of limitations in our (the UK's) law.
*** In European civil law countries, ''prescription'' limits the time in which a lawsuit can be filed to a number of years equal to the longest punishment for the said crime. The only crimes which are never prescribed are murder and crimes against humanity.
*** Indeed, many of the stories are stated to have been withheld until they became less sensitive (usually in the case of misbehaving Nobility and Royalty.)
*** We're talking about a man who is owed favors by the Queen of England and at least two Prime Ministers, not to mention has personally and repeatedly saved the careers of every single one of Scotland Yard's top inspectors. Short of committing regicide on the Palace lawn at high noon during a parade, the mind boggles at anything Holmes ''could'' do to get himself put in jail.
*** Watson says as much at the end of the story ''The Illustrious Client'':

*** They not only overlook the burglary charge, but also the fact that Holmes was accessory to a rather nasty assault in which vitriol (sulphuric acid) is thrown in somebody's face - "I didn't know she was going to do it" being a fairly shaky legal defence under the circumstances, which would be aggravated burglary. And the "good object"? To prevent an unsuitable marriage...
*** For the "Illustrious Client" case, the marriage by itself was not the problem, but the fact that all the girls that the Baron intangles with tends to get ruined or die in odd circumstances (while somehow leaving the Baron all their money). The vitrol throwing was done in revenge by a ruined ex-lover, which everyone thought was justified. And to cap it all off, the titular client was implied to be ''King Edward VII'', so I would think that it would be rather easy for Holmes to avoid jail time.

*** In one case, this is ''exactly'' what happened; Watson opens with an explanation that, due to the untimely death of the last innocent person connected with the case, he is no longer bound to secrecy.
*** He openly admits to changing names and locations in at least one of the later stories.

*** Holmes actually confronts Watson about his style of writing several times. Watson's concerned with writing a good story, and while Sherlockians/Holmesians prefer to believe what he recorded was accurate there's no reason why he wouldn't have embellished. The accounts Holmes crafts himself are much more scientific and instructional.
*** Are we ever told when his accounts are released? He could give it to the publisher with strict instructions not to release it until a certain date/until a client is dead/until he and/or Holmes is dead/etc. He could also, as someone suggested, change the names in order to make sure no descendants face the embarrassment of their ancestor's issues.

In other words, the overwhelming majority of the series were written during periods where it was assumed that Holmes was no longer practicing. Viola. (I'll leave all the other posts here, untouched, out of respect, though).

* Marcia Wilson (aragonite) proposed [[https://www.fanfiction.net/s/4592004/5/Can-You-Hear-Me-Now a theory:]] "The Six Napoleons" followed "Charles Augustus Milverton" because a (retired) Lestrade read CAM in The Strand and threatened to have Holmes and Watson dragged to court for aiding and abetting murder... unless Watson publishes something that had Lestrade in a complimentary light. Presumably something like this happens whenever Watson publishes something that's too uncomfortable for certain people.

** Maybe, but I guess we again have to chalk this down to Porlock either/both being not as good at spying/cryptography as he should be and allowing stress/panic/paranoid to cloud his better judgement. Ironically, he's likely making the classic mistake of tying himself in so many knots trying to think of ways of obscuring what he's doing so much that he overlooks the obvious things. Of course, outside the world of the novel as stated this is just to show off Holmes's cleverness anyway (and Doyle was pretty well into his "I don't really care much about any of this" stage anyway).

** "Moriarty will kill him if he's discovered, but that doesn't mean he has to make it easy for Moriarty to discover him" - the thing is, the very fact that Porlock wrote am unauthorized letter to someone while using a code would probably be enough for Moriarty to kill him, regardless of whether he breaks the code or not. So it's the handwriting that really counts here, and according to Holmes, Porlock probably made no attempt to change it. And yet again - if we assume that Moriarty has got some agents at the mail who are able to open the letters, "Douglas" and "Birlstone" are more than enough to get to the core; if not, the whole cryptography thing doesn't seem to make any sense, since Moriarty wouldn't have access to it anyway. If anything, the chosen method is actually likely to ''ignite'' suspicions, since it is so obvious that the message is encrypted. It is actually [[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steganography steganography]] that the situation called for, not cryptography - of the "Gloria Scott" kind at the very least.