KNOWLEDGE OF LITERATURE. --(sorta) NIL.

Josef Friedrich, A Study in Scarlet, 1907

 

SHERLOCK HOLMES - his limits
1 Knowledge of literature.  - Nil.  2 Knowledge of Philosophy. - Nil. 3 Knowledge of Astronomy. - Nil. 4 Knowledge of Politics. - Feeble. 5 Knowledge of Botany. - Variable. Well up in belladonna, opium, and poisons generally. Knows nothing of practical gardening. 6 Knowledge of Geology: Practical, but limited.  Tells at a glance different soils from each other. After walks has shown me splashes upon his trousers, and told me by their colour and consistence in what part of London he had received them. 7 Knowledge of Chemistry. - Profound. 8 Knowledge of Anatomy. - Accurate, but unsystematic. 9 Knowledge of Sensational literature.  - Immense. He appears to know every detail of every horror perpetrated in the century. 10 Plays the violin well. 11 Is an expert singlestick player, boxer, and swordsman. 12 Has a good practical knowledge of British law.

Dr. Watson rather famously assessed the limits of Sherlock Holmes as he attempted to discern exactly what Holmes was "...driving at by reconciling all these accomplishments, and discovering a calling which needs them all..." and, as we know, he could not sort it out, eventually tossing his list into the fire. It is just as well since the list proved to be highly inaccurate. We are not told how Watson specifically defined "literature", although he also apparently held a personal definition for "Sensational literature."

Sherlockians have spilled a lot of ink arguing one point or another about the list. I have nothing to add to that considerable body of good work. However, I am interested in Arthur Conan Doyle and what he considered to be literature, sensational or otherwise, within his own work. Much has been written on this topic, too, and especially, perhaps, about his dismissal of the Holmes work as unworthy of the title.

I agree with him. I'm a die hard Holmes fan but I seldom think of the Canon as great literature. I've not had an extensive education in great literature and perhaps I couldn't define it in purely academic terminology but I know it when I read it. Doyle did have an extensive education and he knew it when he read it, too.

Britannica.com defines literature as

a body of written works. The name has traditionally been applied to those imaginative works of poetry and prose distinguished by the intentions of their authors and the perceived aesthetic excellence of their execution. Literature may be classified according to a variety of systems, including language, national origin, historical period, genre, and subject matter.

By that definition, all of Doyle's work is literature. Of course it is in that general sense, but he wanted his work to be more, and certainly more than what today we might call genre fiction—very well done genre fiction, but still.

My thoughts go to a letter he wrote to H. Greenhough Smith after his story, "The Leather Funnel", appeared in The Strand Magazine in June 1903:

That "Leather Funnel" was literature, or as near literature as I can ever produce. It is not right to print such a story two words to the line on each side of an unnecessary illustration. It's bad economy to spoil a £200 story by the intrusion of a 3 guinea engraving.

As near literature as I can ever produce. I realize he was annoyed about the magazine layout and probably exaggerating while in a snit but perhaps he was absolutely right. He only gets near to literature, as he defined it. I first read "The Leather Funnel" in the Oxford World's Classics Arthur Conan Doyle Gothic Tales. I found it to be a well written supernatural tale as many other readers have and I didn't give much thought to it as literature.

I see so much advice to writers on the internet and elsewhere, and so much discussion about what defines literature. I can enjoy Doyle's work without worrying too much about definitions and labels. I can also continue to look to him for inspiration and as a teacher in many ways.

I want to write good short stories. Will they rise to my own definition of great literature? No. But they might be somewhere near to it. I can work hard to write them with some of the characteristics of good literature that I admire. I have a note on my wall that I copied from somewhere. It reads: good fiction is elegant, lyrical and layered. 

I think Doyle would understand.