Playing Lazarus with Sherlock Holmes

 

“The Final Problem” was, it is has become clearer with each passing decade since its publication in 1893, one of the first exposures of what fandom can do. It also was a testament to the attachment readers had formed not only for Sir Arthur Conan Doyle’s Sherlock Holmes but to the universe he created around him, his friendship with Watson, his connections in London and Scotland Yard, and an accumulating narrative.

Unlike more recent examples, Doyle didn’t have a precedence to test his readers (it could be argued he set the precedence with this story). He simply didn’t care enough what they thought. His mind was made up to kill his famous sleuth to, as he wrote to his mother, pursue other callings even at the expense of his bread and butter.

Fandom, however, was then a relatively unknown phenomenon and the shocking death of the detective he had been writing about for six years set off a literary fury the likes of which had not be seen outside of scandalous writing.

However obtuse Doyle’s thinking was, his conviction is to be admired. He willingly sacrificed both income and reputation for what he conceived as a more rewarding path. Perhaps he was unaware of the devotion of his fans. Be that as it may, when “The Final Problem” ended with Holmes and his arch enemy Professor Moriarty meeting their demise atop Reichenbach Falls his legions made their displeasure known. Hostile letters poured in and The Strand, the literary journal that had been publishing the Sherlock Holmes stories from the start, barely escaped bankruptcy from all the cancellations.

Over a century before social media the power of fandom to influence creators was discovered. This was unheard of and, perhaps because there wasn’t a protocol and perhaps because he did want to spread his literary wings, Doyle resisted caving into the demands. Fortunately, he ultimately consented but, still, such a spine is sorely lacking in contemporary artists.

 Nearly a decade would pass before Doyle wrote another Sherlock Holmes story and that was the apotheosis of the canon The Hound of the Baskervilles. Tellingly, however, Holmes set it before the events of “The Final Problem” indicating a reluctance to resurrect his most famous creation. Likely due to the success (no doubt aided by a public excited to revisit their old favorite) of that novel, however, Doyle took the plunge in 1903 and officially resurrected the character in “The Adventure of the Empty House”, in which it is revealed the Holmes survived the fall tough Moriarty had indeed plummeted to his death. Doyle went on to write many ore Sherlock Holmes story for almost thirty years after that and the fans were delighted.

 Holmes and Watson have a permanent place in the literary canon, but the influence of Doyle’s gamble in “The Final Problem” have been too little discussed. The killing off of an iconic character has become both a ratings play but also, thanks largely to Holmes, a test of the fandom’s sentiments.

An obvious parallel for our generation was the death of Superman in 1992, which made shock waves in the world of comics. The fundamental difference was that DC planned form the start to bring the man of steel back (in fact the idea started off as a joke). Doyle wrote “The Final Problem” with the intention of killing off Sherlock Holmes for good and only revived him a decade later due to a combination of circumstances, the strongest of which was the push from readers. If there is a true contemporary parallel it is the death of Bobby in Dallas, also intended to be permanent as Patrick Duffy’s contract for the show was up. With ratings tanking, however, the character was brought back in the only way possible, the entire season featuring his death was retconned to be a dream.

Doyle had more options. As a grieving Watson narrates, the bodies of neither Holmes nor Watson were ever recovered from the ravine and no one was present (not even Watson who was lured away by Moriarty in a ruse) to witness the fall (conspiracy afficionados may argue that such openness to the demise of the character is evidence that Doyle never intended for him to stay dead in the first place). Doyle was able, therefore, to easily explain Sherlock’s survival in “The Adventure of the Empty House”.

“The Final Problem”, however, is best read as it was intended to be read, as the closing chapter of a series and, read as such, while it is not in itself one of the best in the canon and is a departure from the typical formula, it does create a deeper understanding of the character, his motivation for being a sleuth and, most significantly, the relationship between Holmes and Watson.

What made Sherlock Holmes such a fascinating character was the enigma behind his commitment to bringing the London underworld to justice. He disdained sentimentality, emotive reasoning and superfluous diversion. He was repulsed by criminals but his diligent pursuit of them seemed more a matter of self-stimulation (he would descend into decadence without it) than moral conviction. He had little regard for much of the Scotland Yard force and less so romantic attachments. And yet, as “The Final Problem” reveals, beneath that unflinching vanity and unbreakable composure was a man devoted to righting wrongs.

In Professor Moriarty he finally meets his match and comes to the realization that if he is to rid London of its most influential criminal mastermind he may have to make the ultimate sacrifice. That he doesn’t allow this to stop him is revealing of his motivation. We can be thankful that Doyle resurrected the character but, had “The Final Problem” indeed been the end of Sherlock Holmes, it would have been the perfect, full circle conclusion; one in which everything readers wondered about the ideology of their enigmatic hero was brought to light.

Watson, it is clear to see here, always knew this about his old friend and former roommate. He tolerated Holmes’s peculiar habits, unorthodox lifestyle and misanthropic tendencies because there was enough in humanity in Holmes to form a true bond. His grief throughout the narration of the story is genuine and makes the story hard to read, even with the hindsight of the eventual reunion between the two.

But why Moriarty? His name never appeared before in the canon and would only be mentioned again outside of this narrative's context in The Valley of Fear, set before this story (taking the chill away since we know his threat would be extinguished, as it turned out, without the loss of Holmes). But the innumerable spin-offs have made him the official archenemy of Sherlock Holmes for one reason only. He is Sherlock Holmes devoted to evil. He is the one other character in the canon equal to Holmes in every way but one, morality. He is as brilliant, as resourceful and as insightful as Sherlock Holmes and, had the detective of Baker Street used his talents for evil, the two would have been virtually indistinguishable.

Professor Moriarty was the only villain in which Holmes could have met his match and (for the purposes of “The Final Problem” as it was intended to be read) his demise. The admiration and respect both detective and criminal have for each other is understandable. In each other they see their own counterpart. Two opposing sides of a shared brilliance. A showdown could only mean the destruction of both and it almost did but Sherlock Holmes had a secret weapon that not even Sir Arthur Conan Doyle knew he had; a growing fan base.