TCDE-Team: Created page with "{{Cargo_Reviews_Articles |Date=2000-05-01 |Book=The Intelligence of Sherlock Holmes and Other Three-Pipe Problems |BookAuthor=John Radford |Reviewer=Julia Rosenblatt |Topics=Psychology }} This review of the book ''"The Intelligence of Sherlock Holmes and Other Three-Pipe Problems", by John Radford'' was written by Julia Rosenblatt and published in the A.C.D. - The Journal of The Arthur Conan Doyle Society (Vol. 10, may 2000). This review presents John Radfo..."

2026-03-13T20:36:52Z

Created page with "{{Cargo_Reviews_Articles |Date=2000-05-01 |Book=The Intelligence of Sherlock Holmes and Other Three-Pipe Problems |BookAuthor=John Radford |Reviewer=Julia Rosenblatt |Topics=Psychology }} This review of the book ''"The Intelligence of Sherlock Holmes and Other Three-Pipe Problems", by John Radford'' was written by Julia Rosenblatt and published in the A.C.D. - The Journal of The Arthur Conan Doyle Society (Vol. 10, may 2000). This review presents John Radfo..."

New page

{{Cargo_Reviews_Articles
|Date=2000-05-01
|Book=The Intelligence of Sherlock Holmes and Other Three-Pipe Problems
|BookAuthor=John Radford
|Reviewer=Julia Rosenblatt
|Topics=Psychology
}}
This review of the book ''"The Intelligence of Sherlock Holmes and Other Three-Pipe Problems", by John Radford'' was written by [[Julia Rosenblatt]] and published in the [[A.C.D. - The Journal of The Arthur Conan Doyle Society]] (Vol. 10, may 2000).

This review presents John Radford's book as a psychological reading of [[Sherlock Holmes]], exploring intelligence, observation, behaviour, and parallels with figures such as Freud and William James. It finds the book stimulating and wide-ranging, but judges it more as a loose collection of essays than as a rigorous, consistently documented scholarly study.

== Review ==
[[File:Acd-society-journal-2000-vol10-p91-review-rosenblatt.jpg|thumb|250px|right|[[A.C.D. - The Journal of The Arthur Conan Doyle Society]] (Vol. 10, may 2000, p. 91)]]
[[File:Acd-society-journal-2000-vol10-p92-review-rosenblatt.jpg|thumb|250px|right|[[A.C.D. - The Journal of The Arthur Conan Doyle Society]] (Vol. 10, may 2000, p. 92)]]

: [[File:sigma-forlag-1999-intelligence-sh.jpg|100px]]
: '''The Intelligence of Sherlock Holmes and Other Three-Pipe Problems'''
: John Radford
: London: Sigma Forlag, 1999; 164pp.
: ISBN: 82-7916-004-3; £9.95

'''Reviewed by Julia Rosenblatt'''

Students of the [[Sherlock Holmes]] canon come from all walks of life, and many writings on the writings spring from the vantage point of the authors' professions. We have books examining the stories in the context of medicine, music, law, history, and the culinary arts. Writers use [[Sherlock Holmes]] to dissect chess and even to give instruction in computer programming. In view of the fascinating nature of the character of [[Sherlock Holmes]], it is not surprising that psychologists have also ventured into the fray. With ''The Intelligence of Sherlock Holmes and Other Three-Pipe Problems'', British psychologist John Radford offers the latest psychologist's look into the canon.

We have become accustomed to examining the [[Sherlock Holmes]] stories either as works of fiction or, in what is sometimes called 'The Grand Game', as 'true' accounts written by [[John H. Watson]], M.D. with [[Arthur Conan Doyle]] serving merely as the 'Literary Agent'. John Radford plants himself firmly as a player of the Grand Game. 'In matters Holmesian, if in nothing else, I am a fundamentalist,' he declares. He further asserts that ascribing the [[Sherlock Holmes]] stories to [[Arthur Conan Doyle|Conan Doyle]] 'is the Holmesian equivalent of the Baconian theory about Shakespeare'.

Within this limited focus, Professor Radford tackles a varied miscellany of psychological issues suggested by the canon. The back cover of this paperback volume lists a series of questions to be considered in the book. Some, such as 'Were the famous couple gay?', the author answers swiftly and decisively. In this case 'no'.

Most of the questions posed on the book's cover, however, require considerably more discussion, and Professor Radford's answers become less definitive. The lead question, the one suggested by the book's title, is 'Was [[Sherlock Holmes]] the greatest genius of his age?' [[Sherlock Holmes]] lived and worked during the era when the concept of intelligence and the means to test it were being developed. This offers Professor Radford the opportunity to discuss the various. methods used to assess the intelligence of someone who has never taken an intelligence test. He does not go so far as to declare that [[Sherlock Holmes|Holmes]] was the greatest genius of his age', but it may come as no surprise that Radford concludes that [[Sherlock Holmes]]'s intelligence is of the very highest order'.

[[Sherlock Holmes]]'s career coincided with the development of modern scientific psychology. Professor Radford notes parallels between the two. As [[Sherlock Holmes]] was putting the observation of individual differences to practical use, Francis Galton and Alphonse Bertillon laboured to make human variation subject to scientific scrutiny.

Some comparisons are more relevant than others. For example, the 'other' John Watson, John B. (for Broadus) Watson, founder of Behaviourism, was born in 1878, the same year that 'our' [[John H. Watson|John Watson]] (John H.) received his Doctor of Medicine degree at the University of London. Radford compares the two men but concludes that, although both Watsons engaged in popular writing and both had 'somewhat chequered marital careers', there appears to be little else to link the two.

Other developments of the era include the experimental psychology formulated by German psychologists, such as Wilhelm Wundt (1832-1910), and the functional psychology of William James (1842-1910) in the United States. [[Sherlock Holmes|Holmes]] shares a common emphasis on observation, experimentation, and the comparative approach that emerged in varying degrees in these disciplines. The author concludes that [[Sherlock Holmes]] would have made an excellent practical psychologist.

Many commentators have observed the linkage between [[Sherlock Holmes]] and his contemporary Sigmund Freud, particularly their respective flirtations with cocaine. Radford compares [[Sherlock Holmes|Holmes]] and Freud. He observes that, although the two differed greatly in their working habits, Freud's being quite predictable and Holmes's most irregular, their methods showed similarities. Both formed theories out of the observation of small details. Both handled a multitude of cases, and yet we know the details of only a handful. Both considered their methods to be scientific, but neither tested his deductions rigorously. [[Sherlock Holmes|Holmes]] validated his theories by solving the case; Freud by pronouncing the patient cured.

Except for asserting the historicity of [[Sherlock Holmes]], Radford presents no consistent thesis. Rather, he offers a potpourri of ideas within a breadth of psychological topics. The book is more a collection of essays than it is a scholarly thesis. His use of citations is spotty, sometimes careful and sometimes nonexistent, with more emphasis on the Sherlockian sources than on the psychological. His is not the last word on the topic, but it is food for thought.

Julia Rosenblatt

{{footer_acd_society_article}}
{{footer_periodicals}}
{{footer_review_articles}}

Review:The Intelligence of Sherlock Holmes/Julia Rosenblatt - Revision history