Jump to content




Welcome to Sherlock Forum


Sign In  Log in with Facebook Log in with Twitter

Create Account
You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which gives you limited access, you will need to create an account in order to reply to topics and create topics of your own.
Signing up is quick, easy and FREE, just click on the "Create Account" button to begin. You will need a valid email address in order to sign up, but this will only be used to send you notifications the receipt of which you can customise at any time.

We hope you enjoy your time here!
 
Guest Message by DevFuse

Photo

Moriarty was innocent


  • Please log in to reply
66 replies to this topic

#1 lvijay

lvijay

    Detective Sergeant

  • 34 posts
  • Favorite series 1 episode:A Study In Pink
  • Favourite Series 2 Episode:A Scandal In Belgravia
  • Favourite Series 3 Episode:The Empty Hearse
  • Favourite series 4 episode:The Abominable Bride

Posted 09 January 2018 - 02:44 PM

Hello My Sherlockians

 

It's my thesis that Sherlock Holmes was the true criminal kingpin and that he named Prof. James Moriarty just to divert attention from himself.

 

I wrote a blog post about this and it's available at https://medium.com/g...nt-e39610eab8bc

 

The piece remains entirely within the canon of Arthur Conan Doyle's works.  It does not refer to TV shows or movies or spin-off works either.  It's my goal that I add no speculation (but only readers can tell me if I've succeeded).

 

I would very much appreciate your thoughts and comments.

 

Thanks!

~vijay

 



#2 Hikari

Hikari

    Detective Superintendent

  • 473 posts
  • LocationOhio, USA
  • Favorite series 1 episode:The Great Game
  • Favourite Series 2 Episode:A Scandal In Belgravia
  • Favourite Series 3 Episode:The Sign of Three
  • Favourite series 4 episode:The Lying Detective

Posted 09 January 2018 - 05:02 PM

Vijay,

 

I visited your blog and looked over your thesis.  Due to the length, I haven't read it all, but I hope to soon.

 

I commend out-of-the-box thinking and having the courage of one's convictions to take a controversial stance, if that is your truth.  These are murky waters you are swimming in, however.  Anybody who seeks to pull down Holmes from his pantheon of Truth, Justice & the British Way is going to find himself on a lonely path.  Frankly I am not interested in living in a world where Sherlock Holmes is not an heroic figure, even if, at times, he flouted conventional ideas or avenues of justice to suit his own internal standards of what was right and fair.  Holmes himself noted on several occasions that, had he chosen to do so, he could have turned his prodigious mind and talents to becoming the perfect criminal.  But he didn't.  His interest in financial gain was as slim as his interest in personal fame.  Moriarty is presented as the anti-Holmes--a man with as searing an intellect as the Great Detective, who has chosen the Dark Side.

 

The events of The Final Problem & The Empty House are quite flimsily constructed for Doctor Watson's benefit; I can see how you can glean your hypothesis from Holmes's vagueness about his activities in these two tales.  But how do you justify the label of 'Sherlock Holmes, Kingpin & Criminal Mastermind' to the stellar character we get in the other 58 stories?  Surely a criminal mastermind wouldn't present himself time and again as such an incorruptible force for Good?

 

The notion of Sherlock Holmes as the Napoleon of Crime has tempted a lot of people over the years, because Sherlock was right about himself--he would have made a fantastic and probably unbeatable criminal.  Are you familiar with Michael Dibdin's The Last Sherlock Holmes Story?  Using 'evidence' from the Canon itself, Dibdin basically scooped your thesis back in 1978.  I don't want to say any more until I've heard if you read it or not.  If you haven't, find a copy, and then we will talk further. 


  • Artemis and lvijay like this

I am the Stormy Petrel of crime.


#3 lvijay

lvijay

    Detective Sergeant

  • 34 posts
  • Favorite series 1 episode:A Study In Pink
  • Favourite Series 2 Episode:A Scandal In Belgravia
  • Favourite Series 3 Episode:The Empty Hearse
  • Favourite series 4 episode:The Abominable Bride

Posted 09 January 2018 - 07:21 PM

 

Vijay,

 

I visited your blog and looked over your thesis.  Due to the length, I haven't read it all, but I hope to soon.

Thanks for taking the time!

 

if that is your truth.

 

I'm constantly aware that we are discussing fiction so I don't see my thesis as a hill I'd even duck on :).  I do believe my thesis is defensible though.

 

Frankly I am not interested in living in a world where Sherlock Holmes is not an heroic figure, even if, at times, he flouted conventional ideas or avenues of justice to suit his own internal standards of what was right and fair.

 

My wife said the same :-)  It's a sentiment I understand and it's not my intention to hurt anyone's feelings.  As I reread The Final Problem early last year, I tweeted that someone should write a screenplay that showed Holmes as Moriarty.  I chewed over it for 6 months before actually doing the research to make my case.  But since I have zero artistic talent, I instead wrote it as in the blog.

 

I do apologize for the length (nearly four thousand words) but I wanted to make an airtight case :-)

 

I look forward to your further thoughts upon completion.

 

But how do you justify the label of 'Sherlock Holmes, Kingpin & Criminal Mastermind' to the stellar character we get in the other 58 stories?

 

This is a fair question.  As I say in the blog,

 

Of course, since I cannot prove that Holmes was the criminal mastermind, I shall merely present facts that point in that direction.

 

Surely a criminal mastermind wouldn't present himself time and again as such an incorruptible force for Good?

 

Here we must be careful.  When assessing what a person is and isn't capable of, I believe we cannot make broad statements.  The most timid man can, for almost no reason, suddenly become a very aggressive and rude person.  In fiction more so than fact.

 

Holmes never presents himself as incorruptible.  He would hang out at opium dens, he boasted of his criminal connections, he employed a legion of young boys to do his handy work, etc.

 

Are you familiar with Michael Dibdin's The Last Sherlock Holmes Story?  Using 'evidence' from the Canon itself, Dibdin basically scooped your thesis back in 1978.  I don't want to say any more until I've heard if you read it or not.  If you haven't, find a copy, and then we will talk further.

 

I am not.  Thank you for the recommendation.  I will look him up.  I'm not surprised that someone beat me to it—and before I was born!—but I will also add that I quite consciously did not search for any until I'd written my version.

 

Once again, thanks for your time and feedback.  Do know that I revere Holmes myself.  If anything I tried to look at him with cold dispassionate eyes.  If anything, I love him and ACD more.

 

Thanks

~vijay


  • Carol the Dabbler and Arcadia like this

#4 Hikari

Hikari

    Detective Superintendent

  • 473 posts
  • LocationOhio, USA
  • Favorite series 1 episode:The Great Game
  • Favourite Series 2 Episode:A Scandal In Belgravia
  • Favourite Series 3 Episode:The Sign of Three
  • Favourite series 4 episode:The Lying Detective

Posted 09 January 2018 - 07:39 PM

The following post contains a spoiler about Michael Dibdin's The Last Sherlock Holmes Story.  I won't reveal *all*, but I will say that that was Mr. Dibdin's thesis as well--Sherlock Holmes was Moriarty, or rather, Moriarty was his alter-ego, the fanciful product of a paranoid drug addict whose mental brilliance proved impossible to sustain in a world populated by the dull and the prosaic.

 

You really need to read this book.  It was Michael Dibdin's first novel, written when he was barely 30.  As a Sherlockian scholar, his writing and knowledge of Holmes's world is first-rate.  This is a fantastically well-written pastiche that will rip the heart from your body, leaving you hollow.  Dibdin is to Sherlockian purists what Judas Iscariot is for those who love the Christ, I imagine.  I both revile his book and at the same time consider it one of the best-done novels I have ever read.

 

How's that for a paradox?


  • Carol the Dabbler and lvijay like this

I am the Stormy Petrel of crime.


#5 lvijay

lvijay

    Detective Sergeant

  • 34 posts
  • Favorite series 1 episode:A Study In Pink
  • Favourite Series 2 Episode:A Scandal In Belgravia
  • Favourite Series 3 Episode:The Empty Hearse
  • Favourite series 4 episode:The Abominable Bride

Posted 10 January 2018 - 05:45 AM

The following post contains a spoiler about Michael Dibdin's The Last Sherlock Holmes Story.  I won't reveal *all*, but I will say that that was Mr. Dibdin's thesis as well--Sherlock Holmes was Moriarty, or rather, Moriarty was his alter-ego, the fanciful product of a paranoid drug addict whose mental brilliance proved impossible to sustain in a world populated by the dull and the prosaic.

 

You really need to read this book.  It was Michael Dibdin's first novel, written when he was barely 30.  As a Sherlockian scholar, his writing and knowledge of Holmes's world is first-rate.  This is a fantastically well-written pastiche that will rip the heart from your body, leaving you hollow.  Dibdin is to Sherlockian purists what Judas Iscariot is for those who love the Christ, I imagine.  I both revile his book and at the same time consider it one of the best-done novels I have ever read.

 

How's that for a paradox?

 

That sounds great!  Indeed, that's my entire thesis (repeated below) right there.

 

Sherlock Holmes was both detective and kingpin — think Tyler Durden in the 1999 movie Fight Club (schizophrenia optional). [link]

 

I don't see your case as paradoxical.  After all, I've done the same :-).  If I were not a huge fan of Holmes I wouldn't write about him or be willing to discuss it in a forum with other fans.

 

It's why I addressed the first post as "My Sherlockians".  I'm not trying to "troll" :-)


  • Carol the Dabbler likes this

#6 Hikari

Hikari

    Detective Superintendent

  • 473 posts
  • LocationOhio, USA
  • Favorite series 1 episode:The Great Game
  • Favourite Series 2 Episode:A Scandal In Belgravia
  • Favourite Series 3 Episode:The Sign of Three
  • Favourite series 4 episode:The Lying Detective

Posted 11 January 2018 - 02:21 PM

 

The following post contains a spoiler about Michael Dibdin's The Last Sherlock Holmes Story.  I won't reveal *all*, but I will say that that was Mr. Dibdin's thesis as well--Sherlock Holmes was Moriarty, or rather, Moriarty was his alter-ego, the fanciful product of a paranoid drug addict whose mental brilliance proved impossible to sustain in a world populated by the dull and the prosaic.

 

You really need to read this book.  It was Michael Dibdin's first novel, written when he was barely 30.  As a Sherlockian scholar, his writing and knowledge of Holmes's world is first-rate.  This is a fantastically well-written pastiche that will rip the heart from your body, leaving you hollow.  Dibdin is to Sherlockian purists what Judas Iscariot is for those who love the Christ, I imagine.  I both revile his book and at the same time consider it one of the best-done novels I have ever read.

 

How's that for a paradox?

 

That sounds great!  Indeed, that's my entire thesis (repeated below) right there.

 

Sherlock Holmes was both detective and kingpin — think Tyler Durden in the 1999 movie Fight Club (schizophrenia optional). [link]

 

I don't see your case as paradoxical.  After all, I've done the same :-).  If I were not a huge fan of Holmes I wouldn't write about him or be willing to discuss it in a forum with other fans.

 

It's why I addressed the first post as "My Sherlockians".  I'm not trying to "troll" :-)

 

 

Vijay,

 

I don't think you're a troll.  The trolls I've met are not so well-spoken.  :)

 

I confess that I struggle with assimilating what to me are two diametrically opposed views:  Being a huge fan of Sherlock Holmes and at the same time making the case that he was also responsible for all the crimes he attributed to Moriarty.  To deconstruct the character of the 'best and wisest man' Dr. Watson knew into someone who is either completely amoral, insane, or both, doesn't seem like a position a true fan would want to invest in.  It removes Sherlock Holmes's primary characteristic as an agent for good and makes him . . at the worst, evil, possibly psychopathic as well, and at the best . . ?  Profoundly, profoundly disappointing.  If your thesis is 'true'--what then, is the point of Sherlock Holmes?  Reading any of the stories in which he appears, never mind devoting one's whole life to more in-depth scholarship of his doings and sayings,  is a pointless waste of time, unless one aspires to be a crime kingpin oneself.  The effect is to tarnish forevermore the reputation of one of the most beloved literary characters ever created.   Doesn't seem like the motivations of a true fan, because if you are successful, the result is the character assassination of a literary icon.  How could you, or anyone who supports your theory ever rebuild from there and enjoy Sherlock Holmes again?  What is the gain?

 

I have wanted to ask Michael Dibdin these questions but since he's no longer with us, I will have to put them to you.  Because Mr. Dibdin came to the same conclusion you have, and attributed to Sherlock Holmes some of the most heinous crimes of the Victorian era, if not of all time.  His is The Last Sherlock Holmes Story because every word written about SH after the events at Reichenbach--and indeed, even that entire story--were fictions constructed by Dr. Watson to preserve the reputation in the public mind of the great Sherlock Holmes as a hero.  Watson carried on with this whitewashing job for 20-odd years despite knowing the bitter truth about the man he'd shared lodgings with and thought he knew for 10 years.  He created a portrait of 'the best and wisest man (he) had ever known' for the benefit of his readership, but it was wishful thinking, because that man really never existed.  Watson had been Holmes's dupe, and we, the readers, in turn, become Watson's dupes, if we believe that Sherlock Holmes was actually a noble figure.

 

So if your 'truth' about Sherlock Holmes is real, how can you enjoy these stories any more?  I don't suppose you'd be welcomed with open arms to read your paper at any Sherlock scion societies.  Michael Dibdin moved to Italy for three years directly after the publication of his book.  Ostensibly to teach English; personally I think he was hiding out from rabid Sherlockians agitating to kill him, possibly.  So proceed with your theory at your own risk!
 


  • Carol the Dabbler and lvijay like this

I am the Stormy Petrel of crime.


#7 HerlockSholmes

HerlockSholmes

    Detective Chief Superintendent

  • 520 posts
  • LocationWest Midlands
  • Favorite series 1 episode:A Study In Pink
  • Favourite Series 2 Episode:A Scandal In Belgravia
  • Favourite Series 3 Episode:The Empty Hearse
  • Favourite series 4 episode:The Final Problem

Posted 11 January 2018 - 03:19 PM

“Holmes never presents himself as incorruptible. He would hang out at opium dens, he boasted of his criminal connections, he employed a legion of young boys to do his handy work, etc.”

I would say that Holmes was definately incorruptible! He hung around in opium dens to get information which would lead to the solving of crime. He knew criminals because he’d put some away and proved some innocent when they were being falsely accused. He also needed contacts, like Shinwell Johnson, who knew the criminal world better than he did and could help Holmes when no one else could. Likewise the Irregulars who were poverty stricken urchins living on the streets. Holmes paid them well and he wouldn’t have put their lives at risk.

Corruptibility means dishonesty. Holmes might have bent the rules (in true detective style) he even indulged in a bit of breaking and entering in a noble cause but he wa never corrupt.
  • Artemis, Hikari and lvijay like this
Regards, Herlock
"There is nothing more deceptive than an obvious fact."

#8 lvijay

lvijay

    Detective Sergeant

  • 34 posts
  • Favorite series 1 episode:A Study In Pink
  • Favourite Series 2 Episode:A Scandal In Belgravia
  • Favourite Series 3 Episode:The Empty Hearse
  • Favourite series 4 episode:The Abominable Bride

Posted 11 January 2018 - 05:31 PM

“Holmes never presents himself as incorruptible. He would hang out at opium dens, he boasted of his criminal connections, he employed a legion of young boys to do his handy work, etc.”

I would say that Holmes was definately incorruptible! He hung around in opium dens to get information which would lead to the solving of crime. He knew criminals because he’d put some away and proved some innocent when they were being falsely accused. He also needed contacts, like Shinwell Johnson, who knew the criminal world better than he did and could help Holmes when no one else could. Likewise the Irregulars who were poverty stricken urchins living on the streets. Holmes paid them well and he wouldn’t have put their lives at risk.

Corruptibility means dishonesty. Holmes might have bent the rules (in true detective style) he even indulged in a bit of breaking and entering in a noble cause but he wa never corrupt.

 

All of which we know only thru Watson's rose tinted glasses.


  • Carol the Dabbler likes this

#9 Hikari

Hikari

    Detective Superintendent

  • 473 posts
  • LocationOhio, USA
  • Favorite series 1 episode:The Great Game
  • Favourite Series 2 Episode:A Scandal In Belgravia
  • Favourite Series 3 Episode:The Sign of Three
  • Favourite series 4 episode:The Lying Detective

Posted 11 January 2018 - 05:50 PM

 

“Holmes never presents himself as incorruptible. He would hang out at opium dens, he boasted of his criminal connections, he employed a legion of young boys to do his handy work, etc.”

I would say that Holmes was definately incorruptible! He hung around in opium dens to get information which would lead to the solving of crime. He knew criminals because he’d put some away and proved some innocent when they were being falsely accused. He also needed contacts, like Shinwell Johnson, who knew the criminal world better than he did and could help Holmes when no one else could. Likewise the Irregulars who were poverty stricken urchins living on the streets. Holmes paid them well and he wouldn’t have put their lives at risk.

Corruptibility means dishonesty. Holmes might have bent the rules (in true detective style) he even indulged in a bit of breaking and entering in a noble cause but he wa never corrupt.

 

All of which we know only thru Watson's rose tinted glasses.

 

 

This doesn't sound like a big fan of Sherlock Holmes talking.

 

Unless you really admire his criminal mind?  Do we need to report you to Interpol?  lol
 


  • HerlockSholmes and lvijay like this

I am the Stormy Petrel of crime.


#10 HerlockSholmes

HerlockSholmes

    Detective Chief Superintendent

  • 520 posts
  • LocationWest Midlands
  • Favorite series 1 episode:A Study In Pink
  • Favourite Series 2 Episode:A Scandal In Belgravia
  • Favourite Series 3 Episode:The Empty Hearse
  • Favourite series 4 episode:The Final Problem

Posted 11 January 2018 - 06:18 PM


“Holmes never presents himself as incorruptible. He would hang out at opium dens, he boasted of his criminal connections, he employed a legion of young boys to do his handy work, etc.”

I would say that Holmes was definately incorruptible! He hung around in opium dens to get information which would lead to the solving of crime. He knew criminals because he’d put some away and proved some innocent when they were being falsely accused. He also needed contacts, like Shinwell Johnson, who knew the criminal world better than he did and could help Holmes when no one else could. Likewise the Irregulars who were poverty stricken urchins living on the streets. Holmes paid them well and he wouldn’t have put their lives at risk.

Corruptibility means dishonesty. Holmes might have bent the rules (in true detective style) he even indulged in a bit of breaking and entering in a noble cause but he wa never corrupt.


All of which we know only thru Watson's rose tinted glasses.

How can you be sure that Watson saw things through rose-tinted glasses? Why couldn’t he just be telling the truth as he saw it with his own eyes? Everything that we’ve come to learn about Watson shows him as honest and dependable.
  • lvijay likes this
Regards, Herlock
"There is nothing more deceptive than an obvious fact."

#11 Artemis

Artemis

    Consulting Detective

  • 2,277 posts
  • LocationBolt-hole
  • Favorite series 1 episode:The Great Game
  • Favourite Series 2 Episode:The Reichenbach Fall
  • Favourite Series 3 Episode:The Empty Hearse
  • Favourite series 4 episode:The Lying Detective

Posted 11 January 2018 - 06:25 PM

All of which we know only thru Watson's rose tinted glasses.

 
This reminds me of that movie with the premise that Watson is the true crime-solver and Sherlock Holmes is a fictional character/mask he created to enable him to operate incognito.

If we can't trust anything Watson says then we can contrive anything to suit our fancy.

 

That's not a bad thing, but I take it as a bit of amusing conjecture and nothing more.  I trust that Watson's portrayal of Holmes was presented as accurately and honestly as possible because it seems the most reasonable thing to do.  One has to consider author intent as well.  (The real  author, not Watson.)

 

 


  • Carol the Dabbler, HerlockSholmes and lvijay like this

"Why have I got this blanket?  They keep putting this blanket on me."


#12 lvijay

lvijay

    Detective Sergeant

  • 34 posts
  • Favorite series 1 episode:A Study In Pink
  • Favourite Series 2 Episode:A Scandal In Belgravia
  • Favourite Series 3 Episode:The Empty Hearse
  • Favourite series 4 episode:The Abominable Bride

Posted 11 January 2018 - 06:41 PM

 

Vijay,

 

I don't think you're a troll.  The trolls I've met are not so well-spoken.  :)

 

I confess that I struggle with assimilating what to me are two diametrically opposed views:  Being a huge fan of Sherlock Holmes and at the same time making the case that he was also responsible for all the crimes he attributed to Moriarty.  To deconstruct the character of the 'best and wisest man' Dr. Watson knew into someone who is either completely amoral, insane, or both, doesn't seem like a position a true fan would want to invest in.  It removes Sherlock Holmes's primary characteristic as an agent for good and makes him . . at the worst, evil, possibly psychopathic as well, and at the best . . ?  Profoundly, profoundly disappointing.  If your thesis is 'true'--what then, is the point of Sherlock Holmes?  Reading any of the stories in which he appears, never mind devoting one's whole life to more in-depth scholarship of his doings and sayings,  is a pointless waste of time, unless one aspires to be a crime kingpin oneself.  The effect is to tarnish forevermore the reputation of one of the most beloved literary characters ever created.   Doesn't seem like the motivations of a true fan, because if you are successful, the result is the character assassination of a literary icon.  How could you, or anyone who supports your theory ever rebuild from there and enjoy Sherlock Holmes again?  What is the gain?

 

I have wanted to ask Michael Dibdin these questions but since he's no longer with us, I will have to put them to you.  Because Mr. Dibdin came to the same conclusion you have, and attributed to Sherlock Holmes some of the most heinous crimes of the Victorian era, if not of all time.  His is The Last Sherlock Holmes Story because every word written about SH after the events at Reichenbach--and indeed, even that entire story--were fictions constructed by Dr. Watson to preserve the reputation in the public mind of the great Sherlock Holmes as a hero.  Watson carried on with this whitewashing job for 20-odd years despite knowing the bitter truth about the man he'd shared lodgings with and thought he knew for 10 years.  He created a portrait of 'the best and wisest man (he) had ever known' for the benefit of his readership, but it was wishful thinking, because that man really never existed.  Watson had been Holmes's dupe, and we, the readers, in turn, become Watson's dupes, if we believe that Sherlock Holmes was actually a noble figure.

 

So if your 'truth' about Sherlock Holmes is real, how can you enjoy these stories any more?  I don't suppose you'd be welcomed with open arms to read your paper at any Sherlock scion societies.  Michael Dibdin moved to Italy for three years directly after the publication of his book.  Ostensibly to teach English; personally I think he was hiding out from rabid Sherlockians agitating to kill him, possibly.  So proceed with your theory at your own risk!

 

I can quite honestly say that I have not analyzed my position in so many words.  First, though I do love the works, I don't see any connection between my feelings and an alternate explanation.  Second, though I present my hypothesis, it's merely that.  I believe it's a wholly defensible based solely on ACD's canon.  Does that mean it's true?  Who knows.  Philosophers can't make up their minds about whether the number 19 exists.  I'd hardly try to discuss this :-)

 

So if your 'truth' about Sherlock Holmes is real, how can you enjoy these stories any more?

 

I'm reminded of the famous duck-rabbit optical illusion.  The image can be seen as either duck or rabbit but not both concurrently.  To ask whether it is a duck or a rabbit isn't a question one can entertain fully, I think.  Mine's the same.  I'm able to read the stories at face value and they're wonderful.  I'm also able to interpret it my way and (if I may say so) it's pretty cool too.

 

I don't suppose you'd be welcomed with open arms to read your paper at any Sherlock scion societies.

 

I don't know.  This society has been quite welcoming :-)


  • Carol the Dabbler and Artemis like this

#13 lvijay

lvijay

    Detective Sergeant

  • 34 posts
  • Favorite series 1 episode:A Study In Pink
  • Favourite Series 2 Episode:A Scandal In Belgravia
  • Favourite Series 3 Episode:The Empty Hearse
  • Favourite series 4 episode:The Abominable Bride

Posted 11 January 2018 - 06:53 PM

If we can't trust anything Watson says then we can contrive anything to suit our fancy.
 

 

Oh, I make quite clear in my blog post that

 

In this account, I’m going to take Dr. Watson’s narration as honest and Holmes’s as deserving skepticism.
 

But it is undeniable that (a) Watson greatly admired his friend, (B) Watson was often (almost always) wrong about his own interpretation of a situation.  So it's quite possible that Watson honestly reported what he himself observed while also missing the larger picture.


  • Carol the Dabbler likes this

#14 Hikari

Hikari

    Detective Superintendent

  • 473 posts
  • LocationOhio, USA
  • Favorite series 1 episode:The Great Game
  • Favourite Series 2 Episode:A Scandal In Belgravia
  • Favourite Series 3 Episode:The Sign of Three
  • Favourite series 4 episode:The Lying Detective

Posted 11 January 2018 - 06:56 PM

Ivijay,

 

We may be welcoming here, but if you ventured into a meeting of the BSIs, they'd just as soon tear you limb from limb as show you the door.

 

I'm sure one can find 'evidence' in the Canon to support your theory of Holmes as a master criminal, if one is willing to twist 'facts' to suit theories, Play-doh like.  Sherlock Holmes was never a 'conventional' man, and oftentimes did unconventional things in the pursuit of the truth.  Some of his methods would be considered 'criminal' upon a strict reading.  He had a breezy disregard for the ethics of breaking and entering, for example.  He lifted things from crime scenes for his own analysis.  He often decided on the spur of the moment to let wrongdoers go, when the letter of the law demanded they be handed over to Scotland Yard for incarceration.  He had a blithe relationship with the truth, when divulging too much would harm his cases, and dear friend Watson never heard the whole truth about many of his exploits. 

 

Infuriating?  Yes.  Unconventional?  Most assuredly.  Flexible in interpreting 'rules'?  You bet.  But criminal?  In the way you mean, I just can't go there.  I couldn't go all the way with Michael Dibdin, either, even though his devastating little book is a model of elegant deduction.  His book made me sick at heart . . so much so you'd think he'd destroyed the reputation of an actual person, someone I knew and loved.  In a way, he did--though only if we accept his conclusions, which I cannot.

 

At best I can see this as only a mental exercise, just to see if it can be done.  It can be done, as Mr. Dibdin so devastatingly proved.  The question is--Should it?  Or rather . . .why bother?

 


  • Artemis likes this

I am the Stormy Petrel of crime.


#15 lvijay

lvijay

    Detective Sergeant

  • 34 posts
  • Favorite series 1 episode:A Study In Pink
  • Favourite Series 2 Episode:A Scandal In Belgravia
  • Favourite Series 3 Episode:The Empty Hearse
  • Favourite series 4 episode:The Abominable Bride

Posted 11 January 2018 - 06:59 PM

 

 

“Holmes never presents himself as incorruptible. He would hang out at opium dens, he boasted of his criminal connections, he employed a legion of young boys to do his handy work, etc.”

I would say that Holmes was definately incorruptible! He hung around in opium dens to get information which would lead to the solving of crime. He knew criminals because he’d put some away and proved some innocent when they were being falsely accused. He also needed contacts, like Shinwell Johnson, who knew the criminal world better than he did and could help Holmes when no one else could. Likewise the Irregulars who were poverty stricken urchins living on the streets. Holmes paid them well and he wouldn’t have put their lives at risk.

Corruptibility means dishonesty. Holmes might have bent the rules (in true detective style) he even indulged in a bit of breaking and entering in a noble cause but he wa never corrupt.


All of which we know only thru Watson's rose tinted glasses.

How can you be sure that Watson saw things through rose-tinted glasses? Why couldn’t he just be telling the truth as he saw it with his own eyes? Everything that we’ve come to learn about Watson shows him as honest and dependable.

 

 

I do say in my blog post that

 

In this account, I’m going to take Dr. Watson’s narration as honest and Holmes’s as deserving skepticism.

 

Watson is honest and dependable certainly but he was biased towards his friend.  As I say in the blog, "Watson only assumes the best of his friend".

 

I'd analogize the situation like watching a sports game.  When an ardent fan of (pick your sport) describes a game everything reported might be true but also biased: "at this stage of the game that happened, it was horrible, and it was a poor judgement from the referee, then they unfairly took the advantage but…".  I see Watson in the same vein.


  • Carol the Dabbler likes this

#16 Artemis

Artemis

    Consulting Detective

  • 2,277 posts
  • LocationBolt-hole
  • Favorite series 1 episode:The Great Game
  • Favourite Series 2 Episode:The Reichenbach Fall
  • Favourite Series 3 Episode:The Empty Hearse
  • Favourite series 4 episode:The Lying Detective

Posted 11 January 2018 - 07:07 PM

So it's quite possible that Watson honestly reported what he himself observed while also missing the larger picture.

 

Sure.  :smile:  But my point there was that, if we can believe that Watson missed something as large as Holmes (basically) being the true Napoleon of Crime, then we can believe anything.  As the majority of what we know about Holmes comes (purportedly) from Watson's account, if your stance is that everything he said can be invalidated using the 'rose-tinted glasses' argument, then we're actually left with no information about Holmes at all.  At least none that can be held as truth.  Which means, anything could be true.  Hence, your case is defensible in so much as any  case is defensible.

Not to say you don't make a good case.  :smile:  I think it's an intriguing theory.  One that I don't endorse, but intriguing nonetheless.

 

 


"Why have I got this blanket?  They keep putting this blanket on me."


#17 HerlockSholmes

HerlockSholmes

    Detective Chief Superintendent

  • 520 posts
  • LocationWest Midlands
  • Favorite series 1 episode:A Study In Pink
  • Favourite Series 2 Episode:A Scandal In Belgravia
  • Favourite Series 3 Episode:The Empty Hearse
  • Favourite series 4 episode:The Final Problem

Posted 11 January 2018 - 08:44 PM

We can only judge Holmes’ character/intentions from the Canon. Everything about Holmes points to someone of high moral character (likewise with Watson.) He put his life and health at risk to solve crimes. Even when no actual crime took place, as in A Case Of Identity, he still pursued justice for Mary Sutherland and was genuinely outraged at her father-in-laws cruel treatment of her.

Moriarty on the other hand had no ‘moral compass.’ If people needed to die or just died as collateral damage to achieve his ends then so be it. He had no sympathy or empathy.

And so, for me, it’s impossible to contemplate Holmes in a Moriarty role. There is just an overwhelming mountain of evidence for Holmes good character. Especially if it’s suggested that Holmes just turned to crime due to boredom.

Holmes turned to drugs to ward off boredom. There is nothing in the Canon to suggest actual addiction. Later in his career he managed to leave drugs behind. But for me it’s unthinkable that Holmes simply turned to crime to fill the gaps. Any evidence of callousness or lack of regard for justice would surely have manifested itself in some way earlier on in his career to those that knew him well.
  • Artemis likes this
Regards, Herlock
"There is nothing more deceptive than an obvious fact."

#18 Arcadia

Arcadia

    Consulting Detective

  • 15,821 posts
  • LocationUSA
  • Favorite series 1 episode:The Great Game
  • Favourite Series 2 Episode:A Scandal In Belgravia
  • Favourite Series 3 Episode:His Last Vow
  • Favourite series 4 episode:The Lying Detective

Posted 11 January 2018 - 09:56 PM

I, on the other hand, am entirely convinced by the theory and am busily printing "Sherlock Holmes Was a Fake" t-shirts in my studio. Only 10 American dollars each. Cash only, up front. Don't bother to try to find me after the purchase. :P
 
However, I would like to point out that just because you have shown Holmes to be guilty, it does not prove your assertion (in your topic title) that Moriarty was innocent. I think it's quite likely, given all the evidence in canon which I am sure you do not need me to point out, that he was deeply involved in Holmes' plans; indeed none other than Holmes' most trusted lieutenant. This fact is so abundantly clear that I shall not endeavor to insult your intelligence by providing the proofs, but will merely say "good evening" and, er, move along.
 
35o46Bs.gif


  • Carol the Dabbler, Artemis, HerlockSholmes and 1 other like this
It's this, or Cluedo.

#19 HerlockSholmes

HerlockSholmes

    Detective Chief Superintendent

  • 520 posts
  • LocationWest Midlands
  • Favorite series 1 episode:A Study In Pink
  • Favourite Series 2 Episode:A Scandal In Belgravia
  • Favourite Series 3 Episode:The Empty Hearse
  • Favourite series 4 episode:The Final Problem

Posted 11 January 2018 - 10:25 PM

I, on the other hand, am entirely convinced by the theory and am busily printing "Sherlock Holmes Was a Fake" t-shirts in my studio. Only 10 American dollars each. Cash only, up front. Don't bother to try to find me after the purchase. :P

However, I would like to point out that just because you have shown Holmes to be guilty, it does not prove your assertion (in your topic title) that Moriarty was innocent. I think it's quite likely, given all the evidence in canon which I am sure you do not need me to point out, that he was deeply involved in Holmes' plans; indeed none other than Holmes' most trusted lieutenant. This fact is so abundantly clear that I shall not endeavor to insult your intelligence by providing the proofs, but will merely say "good evening" and, er, move along.

35o46Bs.gif


Hi Arcadia,

If you do get those t-shirts printed, and anyone who wears one intends to attend a gathering of The Baker Street Irregulars or The Sherlock Holmes Society Of London, you make want to make them with an accompanying balaclava and attach a Health Warning 😀
  • Arcadia and lvijay like this
Regards, Herlock
"There is nothing more deceptive than an obvious fact."

#20 Artemis

Artemis

    Consulting Detective

  • 2,277 posts
  • LocationBolt-hole
  • Favorite series 1 episode:The Great Game
  • Favourite Series 2 Episode:The Reichenbach Fall
  • Favourite Series 3 Episode:The Empty Hearse
  • Favourite series 4 episode:The Lying Detective

Posted 11 January 2018 - 10:30 PM

This thread has opened my eyes.  I had no idea the Baker Street Irregulars were so prone to violence, lol.

 

 


  • Arcadia, HerlockSholmes and lvijay like this

"Why have I got this blanket?  They keep putting this blanket on me."