Alexandra Leaving: An Exploration into Sherlock Holmes and the Writer, Reader, Character Relationship A Senior Honors Thesis Presented in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for graduation with research distinction in English in the undergraduate colleges of The Ohio State University by Pamela E. Mohon The Ohio State University June 2008 Project Advisor: Associate Professor Stuart Lishan, Department of English I extend my deepest gratitude to Stuart Lishan for his grace and patience in guiding me through the writing of this piece. I also thank my committee of evaluators, Marcia Dickson, Franklin Proaño, and Warren B. McCorkle, and OSUM Honors Director Timothy McNiven. To my parents – “And even though it all went wrong, I’ll stand right here before the lord of song with nothing on my tongue but Hallelujah.” – Leonard Cohen “Escribo porque el grito ya no me cabe dentro.” – Rachel Zipris I write because the scream can no longer be contained inside. Introduction When I first started working on this project nearly a year ago, my thought was to write a research paper about Sherlock Holmes. I wanted to investigate the ways in which writers in various mediums have employed the detective in popular culture through books, films, and even video games. I have been an avid fan of Holmes since my high school days and was fascinated by what I perceived as a revival of the character in recent years. PBS was at the forefront of this action in my mind, having released several well- made Holmesian films in the last few years, including The Hound of the Baskervilles (2002-2003), the Murder Rooms series (1999-2002), and Sherlock Holmes and the Case of the Silk Stocking (2006). The Adventure Company, a producer of intricate, narrative- driven video games, also brought Holmes to life in three tales of varying maturity: The Mystery of the Mummy (rated E), Secret of the Silver Earring (rated T), and Sherlock Holmes: The Awakened (rated M). I also noticed, around the same time, that a few writers had taken up the challenge, as well. For example, there was The Curious Incident of the Dog in the Night-Time, by Mark Haddon (2003); Arthur and George, by Julian Barnes, with a Doyle-Holmes hybrid detective (2005); and The Final Solution, by Michael Chabon (2003). I realized something special was in the air as my generation was discovering Holmes again. As my research unfolded, however, I came to understand that I was vitally wrong about something. Even if Holmes was possibly being rediscovered, he was certainly not being revived. In his study of the Sherlockian world of parody and pastiche, The Sincerest Form of Flattery, Paul D. Herbert writes, “There are probably more imitations of Sherlock Holmes than of any other character from literature” (qtd. in Klinger lvii). 1 Starting from Punch cartoons and Adrian Conan Doyle’s continuation of his father’s work all the way down to Big Idea’s Sheerluck Holmes and the Golden Ruler, with dancing cucumbers and tomatoes, the character has been continually imitated since his first appearance in Strand magazine. Since I have been an admirer of Holmes for several years, parts of my research were done before I began. In 2006, my fascination with the detective peaked as I visited the Holmes Museum in London at 221B Baker’s Street. After I returned, I bought the newly released three-volume The New Annotated Sherlock Holmes, edited by Leslie L. Klinger, which contains an insightful introduction. Before starting this project, I also already owned several of Granada’s The Adventures of Sherlock Holmes films, starring Jeremy Brett. In the 1980s, he personified the perfect representation of Holmes and is still revered by many as the greatest actor to have ever taken up the role. As my research progressed, I had the pleasure of being introduced to Ronald Howard’s version of Holmes, as well as Basil Rathbone’s famous characterization. Before Brett took up the part, Rathbone’s performance reigned as the Holmes for nearly forty years. The official research with my advisor began by us reading selections from Sherlock Holmes: The Major Stories with Contemporary Critical Essays, edited by John A. Hodgson. These essays introduced me to some of the critical thinking being done about Holmes and to some of the problems that arise when studying the adventures. Catherine Belsey’s essay, “Deconstructing the Text: Sherlock Holmes,” was particularly enlightening. She discusses how Doyle’s writing of the stories left critical holes for the reader to explore and how these holes relate to feminism. Her specific argument is that when the narrator Watson writes about women’s sexuality and politics, in stories like 2 “The Second Stain,” he leaves gaps where the reader can infer the morality behind the stories. The gaps are obvious as Watson claims he must not reveal specific details for the sake of a woman’s honor and state secrecy; however, readers can additionally surmise that the stories support repression of female sexuality and the exclusion of women from politics. I had vaguely heard of books that take Belsey’s idea to the next level and use gaps in Doyle’s writing combined with bits of fact to create biographies and the personal life of Sherlock Holmes. A prominent example of this type of work is Sherlock Holmes of Baker Street: A Life of the World’s First Consulting Detective, by William S. Baring- Gould (1962). By using Doyle’s bare suggestions of Holmes’ French grandmother and the alias of Sigerson, which Holmes uses while on hiatus after dropping from Reichenbach Falls, Baring-Gould establishes a rough family tree and biography. Other works in this line attempt to answer other pressing questions that readers have, such as “How deep was Holmes into drug culture?”, “Was Watson really the genius while Holmes took all the credit?”, “Was Holmes ever married?”, “Did he have any children?”, and “What are his religious beliefs?” I only barely looked into these types of books beyond their covers because they didn’t feel right to me. The writers of these books seemed to take the canon of Doyle and mutate it into their own views, destroying the true Holmes. The practice felt lazy and unproductive. I didn’t see the point. One of the first assignments that I received from my advisor on this project was to write a conversation between myself and Sherlock Holmes. I still had plenty of time to play with, and he thought it would be a fun way to help me identify some of the questions I might want to address in my thesis. The work has transformed through revision, but the 3 essence of chapter one was this first assignment. After reading it aloud, we were both excited. I felt that it was the best piece of fiction that I had ever written. We agreed that I was on to something, but we had yet to understand it. I continued researching for my larger project, but my advisor suggested that I write another chapter and see what happened. Chapter two was another stroke of inspiration and is similar to its first draft. At certain points, I hesitated. The creative writing didn’t feel like academic work. I had stopped researching. I was scared to write because I didn’t think I’d be any good at it, and I didn’t know if the creative writing was addressing my critical questions about Holmes. Through encouragement, arguing, and, most importantly, more writing, I eventually gave myself over to writing my thesis, now titled Alexandra Leaving. The first major concession that I should make about my story is that my character Leonard is not Sherlock Holmes. One of the intentions in my mind as I wrote was that my work wasn’t going to be another Baring-Gould. That had been done. At times, I stubbornly resisted obvious references to Holmes. Only two months away from completing the project, I finally decided that in chapter two it was okay for Leonard’s great grandfather’s portrait to wear a “deerstalker” hat rather than an “odd” hat. I also resisted the greatest temptation of all: to make my character, Alexandra, a Holmes scholar. Something in me grained against being transparent. Perhaps I’ve seen too many advertisements for The Jane Austen Book Club and Mr. Darcy’s Daughters. I didn’t want to write another potboiler dressed in academia’s clothing. Another thing that I was clear about not wanting to do was writing fan fiction, even though I was using a character initially created by another. I could make snobbish distinctions between my writing and the writers of fan fiction concerning how their work 4 is produced cheaply, quickly, and sometimes poorly, but the main difference between fan fiction and what I have done is that I have created something new. Writers of fan fiction use another’s rules to paint their worlds, but I established my own rules, taking Sherlock Holmes out of Doyle’s hands and giving him a different life. I have gone beyond parody and imitation in my writing. My only imitation would be found in John Le Carré’s appraisal of Watson: he “doesn’t write to you, he talks to you” (Klinger xiii). Similarly, my intention was only ever to write someone telling her story. In this capacity, I have learned a lot about the mechanics of writing fiction and how to tell that story effectively. For all the ways that Leonard is clearly different from Holmes, they also have similarities. The setting of Leonard’s living room is based on my photographs of the Holmes museum.