A Point of Contact: Letters to the Editors (ACD Journal vol. 3)
A Point of Contact: Letters to the Editors [Vol. 3] is an article published in the A.C.D. - The Journal of The Arthur Conan Doyle Society (Vol. 3, 1992).
This article is a letters page gathering reader responses, tributes, and reflections on Conan Doyle-related subjects, including Peter Costello's dispute with Richard Lancelyn Green, a memorial to Michael Harrison, and personal accounts of discovering Conan Doyle.
Article
The Autumn 1991 issue of ACD (Vol. 2, No. 2) included a review by Richard Lancelyn Green of Peter Costello's The Real World of Sherlock Holmes. Some of the views which Mr Green expressed provoked a lively correspondence in The Parish Magazine (Issue six: March 1992). Subsequently, a further two letters have been received and these are reproduced below. Mr Green declined the invitation to respond at length, but has penned a brief reply which is also printed below.
The Real World of Sherlock Holmes
Reviewed by R. L. Green
A reply by Peter Costello.
It is not my custom as a writer to reply to criticism of my books: critics are entitled to their opinions, which often fail to coincide with the author's. This is only to be expected. However, I cannot let Mr R. L. Green's article in the Autumn 1991 issue of the ACD Journal pass without some comment.
Mr Green considers that Conan Doyle's interest in crime even though it was life-long does not make him a scientific criminologist. Nor did I think that it did: what it made him was a criminologist in the sense that he was a student of crime, from his teens to the last years of his life.
In my text Conan Doyle is followed through the various crimes in which he was interested as a writer: those on which he commented significantly or in which he was actively concerned in some way, usually as an investigator. That Conan Doyle undertook detective work of a kind was known from many earlier biographical works, especially Adrian Conan Doyle's recollections. But no-one had gathered this material together to provide an account of Conan Doyle as a detective in the widest sense of the word.
The actual theme of the book is Conan Doyle's continuing concern with those falsely accused or convicted of crime. In this light Conan Doyle, whatever his other faults as a man and a writer may be (faults to which Mr Green alludes in harsh terms) appears to me as a man of honour and intelligence: not the dupe and fool Mr Green sees.
I am unhappy with Mr Green's remarks on the Edalji and Slater cases: he seems to think that the judicial reviews of these affairs are the final word on the subject and that there was no injustice in either case. I cannot accept that. In the light of the evidence deployed by Conan Doyle and with any knowledge at all of the great difficulties that have historically existed for the falsely convicted (currently some 700 persons, according to a recent survey by the Prison Officers Association) his campaigns are those of a courageous public figure.
Mr Green seems to display a contempt (which surely he cannot really hold) for the falsely convicted, that is unbecoming in any concerned citizen after the revelations of recent years. Of course Conan Doyle was a propagandist: so was M.P. Chris Mullen for the Birmingham Six. Propaganda, however, is not always devoid of truth.
I think that Conan Doyle's concern with justice was part and parcel of his concern with truth. It was this which led him into Spiritualism. The matter of frauds would have concerned him less than it bothers Mr Green. Fraudulent scientists and their 'discoveries' (such as Piltdown Man and many more recent ones, especially in America) do not in any way discredit the pursuit of science itself. So Conan Doyle would have thought of fake mediums as being no reflection on the higher truths of his religion for Spiritualism was his religion. I am not a spiritualist, but I suspect that enough religion remains in my heart to respect Conan Doyle's search for the truth as he saw it. We have to see Spiritualism as Conan Doyle's religion, and respect it for that, not criticise it as some kind of misguided pseudo-science. Abusing Conan Doyle for his views from a reductionist view-point, as Mr Green does, is neither informative nor enlightening.
Mr Green, if I follow him, seems to suggest that it is impossible to call Conan Doyle a criminologist because he was a spiritualist. However, the essential beliefs of Spiritualism are common to several religions. Is Mr Green going to suggest that a Christian who believes, let us say, in the bodily resurrection of Christ or transubstantiation cannot be a detective or a criminologist because his views outrage the views of scientists?
Other points raised must be addressed briefly. Some three publications by Mr Green are acknowledged in my book, in case readers should be misled by his remarks into thinking this was not the case. Indeed, it would be difficult to write anything about Conan Doyle without utilising or benefiting from Mr Green's work.
Mr Green suggests that the book contains no original research or information. This, too, is a little hard. Certainly the material in some chapters is richer than others, but one would not guess from what he writes that, for example, a whole episode in which Conan Doyle was involved in investigating a sex killing in South Africa has been resurrected for the book. This is an episode not alluded to by any other writers on Conan Doyle.
My book also contains important new information. I refer to the chapter on George Edalji which has new evidence (taken from the private papers of the Home Secretary of the day) that Edalji's brother Horace was providing information to the police; and to that on the Slater case where, for the first time, an account includes the name of the mysterious 'Man in the Hall' encountered by Helen Lambie and Mr Adams, explaining that as he was a nephew of the Royal Chaplain in Scotland the police preferred to arrest a foreign pimp.
I make no apology for the variety of sources used despite Mr Green's scorn of them. This was a survey book, and it seemed to me better to try to cover as much as possible, leaving the reader (who is often just as intelligent as the reviewer, though reviewers sometimes fail to realise it) to make up his own mind.
Mr Green says the Crimes Club was of little interest to Conan Doyle. The evidence suggests otherwise. Apart from the dinners recalled by some friends, and the Whitechapel walk through the haunts of Jack the Ripper, another dinner is mentioned in passing in a diary entry quoted by J. D. Carr for 1914. Richard Whittington Egan (a member of Our Club, as it was actually called) tells me that Conan Doyle delivered three papers to the club: on 11 November, 1911 (Oscar Slater), 23 November, 1913 (causeries on Edalji and Slater cases), and 30 November. 1919 (the Psychic in crime). He joined the club in 1904, and it must be conceded that sixteen years is a fairly long time to maintain a direct interest in a club which Mr Green claims made no impression on him. That Conan Doyle mentions it rarely means nothing: it was a confidential, almost secret, body.
Readers unacquainted with my book will be puzzled by Mr Green's remarks about Conan Doyle's brother-in-law. My argument - that the knowledge that the innocent can be suspected falsely illustrates much of Conan Doyle's outlook on crime - is not contested. Instead Mr Green seems to suggest that Conan Doyle did indeed poison or kill Touie's brother. But perhaps I have misunderstood his meaning?
On the matter of the bandit Bonnot, I wrote to Irving Wallace in California, who confirmed for me that he had heard from Dr Locard's own lips the statement that Conan Doyle had told Locard that Bonnot had driven him. Certainly Bonnot also drove Ashton-Woolf, as the photograph shows, but this is not evidence against his having also been employed by Conan Doyle. Locard was a life-long admirer of Conan Doyle, as his numerous references to him in his forensic writings show. I believe that what he told Wallace was reliable. In any case, I am hoping to obtain fresh evidence on this matter through my friend Professor Jacques Aubert in Lyons.
I could continue, but enough: doubtless Mr Green enjoyed writing his article. I have enjoyed writing this article: and having had our say we should, like sensible folk, let the matter rest with our readers.
- Peter Costello
- 15 Wellington Place
- Dublin, Ireland
From Mr Harry Stone
It was sad to see that Richard Lancelyn Green has succumbed to a failing common among book reviewers. The more they know their subject, the more space and one suspects relish they take in pointing out mistakes, usually to the detriment of an adequate and comprehensive coverage of the book as a whole.
I cannot believe your readers who may be perusing Peter Costello's The Real World of Sherlock Holmes care a fig whether Mrs Castle was arrested in one month rather than another in 1896, or whether her sentence was with or without hard labour. Far more interesting is the original research, much of which has been completely ignored by the reviewer.
One instance is the discovery of the Home Secretary's private notes, which go far to explain the apparent prejudice the Chief Constable of Staffordshire held against George Edalji.
Of even more interest, surely, is the identity of the murderer of Marion Gilchrist of Oscar Slater fame. In The Casebook of Sherlock Doyle I quote Jack House in naming the murderer as Miss Gilchrist's nephew, Austin Birrell. This has for long been accepted as the reasonable interpretation of the initials 'AB' used in police records. Mr Costello, however, suggests and on good authority that the murderer was really another nephew, Dr Charteris. Not only is this of considerable and obvious interest to anyone studying the case, it raises an intriguing development regarding William Roughead's suggestion that due to the limited time factor there may well have been two people involved. Perhaps it was a bloodstained Dr Charteris who hid further up the stairs while Birrell walked down the hall before Helen Lambie's astonished eyes.
I feel your reviewer has been far from fair. He certainly fails to be comprehensive about a book which, despite some trivial mistakes, carries much merit and contains considerable original research.
- Harry Stone
- 12, Charlwood Place
- London, SW1V 2LU
From Mr Richard Lancelyn Green
I have nothing at present to add to what I said in my review of the book which claimed that Conan Doyle was a criminologist, but I would be happy to withdraw any incidental remarks which I made which gave offence to your readers.
Conan Doyle said that he resembled Dr. Watson and that he was not in the least observant. Who am I to disagree?
- Richard Lancelyn Green
- London
Michael Harrison
From Mr Roger Dobson
Friends of the late Michael Harrison, the novelist, biographer, historian, and
Holmesian, are to honour him with a memorial bench and plaque in Palmeira Square, Hove, where he lived for many years.
The erudite and prolific author of crime and mystery thrillers and Sherlockian studies died in Autumn 1991, aged 84. His books spanned a vast range of subjects - from curious aspects of London and Victorian scandals to the occult, the aristocracy, Jack the Ripper, stamp collecting, spontaneous combustion... He wrote ghost tales and works on Cagliostro, Dickens, and Peter Cheney. His pastiches of Poe's 'Dupin' stories, published in 1968 as The Exploits of Chevalier Dupin (and expanded as Murder in the Rue Royale in 1972) were acclaimed. His biography of Rosa Lewis (1962), mistress of Edward VII, inspired the popular TV series The Duchess of Duke Street.
A warm, humorous man, an authority on strange lore, a lover of language, comic songs and ditties, Michael Harrison was delightful company; he charmed all he met.
To Tina Rhea, an American Sherlockian, he had 'the greatest heart of anyone I've ever known. She plans to write a book about him.
Mrs Sandy Hutchinson, co-licensee of Michael's 'local', The Bow Street Runner, is organising the memorial appeal. Contributions are welcomed. Cheques should be made payable to The Bow Street Runner and sent to the pub in Brunswick Street West, Hove, BN3 1EL.
It was Michael's wish that he be buried in the Sussex village of Brightling, near Battle. Attending the funeral Tina Rhea and the Bow Street regulars were surprised to learn that Brightling does not possess a pub - their friend's devotion to alcohol was renowned and so the wake had to be held elsewhere. After the service, knowing he would have appreciated the gesture, Tina poured a libation into Michael's grave - a large whiskey.
Anyone with any memories of Michael should write to Tina Rhea at 3E Ridge Road, Greenbelt, Maryland, U.S.A., 20770.
- Roger Dobson
- 50 St John Street
- Oxford OXI 2LQ
How did your interest begin?
From Mr James Beales
It is always interesting to learn how other people were first introduced to the world of Arthur Conan Doyle.
I recall how during the 1950's, when the BBC produced a radio serialisation of The Lost World, the first episode completely captured my imagination and I spent the whole of the following week, and succeeding weeks, wondering how the adventurers would escape from the danger in which they always found themselves at the end of each episode. My own solutions were generally wrong, but the mental exercise was a source of enjoyment!
After hearing the dramatisation, I read the book and from that moment Conan Doyle's stories became regular reading material. I remember the sense of loss as I finished the last of his Sherlock Holmes stories it was as if a door had closed on my personal adventures. However, I had discovered Sir Arthur Conan Doyle and had passed through the magic door' to a world of adventure which has been a source of endless entertainment to this day.
Over the years one's reading habits change, and new interests develop, but becoming a member of The Arthur Conan Doyle Society has re-kindled my interest and also taught me a considerable amount about the great man himself. It would be interesting to hear how other Society members discovered Arthur Conan Doyle.
- James Beales
- Field House
- 19 Kingsley Road
- Great Boughton, Chester
The Editors would be interested to hear of how other Society members first became introduced to the non-Sherlockian writings of Arthur Conan Doyle.
- Article courtesy Christopher Roden, founder of The Arthur Conan Doyle Society (1989-2003).
