Agent, No Master
Agent, No Master is an article written by Nicholas Utechin published in the A.C.D. - The Journal of The Arthur Conan Doyle Society (Vol. 1, No. 1) in september 1989.
The article criticises Sherlock Holmes pastiches and some Sherlockian scholarship for marginalising or erasing Arthur Conan Doyle in favour of fictional conceits about Watson as author. It argues that true appreciation of Holmes requires acknowledging Conan Doyle as the sole creative "Master" and defends the importance of author-centred study alongside character-based fandom.
Agent, No Master
On reading the acknowledgements at the back of a recent Sherlock Holmes pastiche (if you are interested, it is excellent: The Quallsford Inheritance by Lloyd Biggle Jr.). I was surprised to see the following words:
- 'Finally, no latter-day book of Sherlock Holmes is complete without acknowledgement and thanks to Sir Arthur Conan Doyle, the creator of one of literature's most memorable and remarkable characters. Monuments of stone may crumble, but the great detective. Sir Arthur's monument, emerges with renewed fascination for each succeeding generation.'
And why was I surprised? Because of its extreme rarity value. Holmes pastiches over the years rarely pay tribute to the original and hardly ever mention the name of Arthur Conan Doyle. They are always 'a sensational discovery from an old, battered tin box found in the vaults... and so on and so on. Often the new adventures are none the worse for the omission of the acknowledgement to Conan Doyle, but the fact of the blind eye being turned is instructive. Few pastiche writers have made big money out of their efforts; but no-one would have earned a single pound or dollar were it not for Sir Arthur's monument and Sir Arthur himself.
Even more embarrassing for some Holmesians is the attitude to Conan Doyle exhibited by writers of scholarship in the leading Sherlockian publications and books. So often he is the 'Literary Agent', or just 'the Agent' or 'the Collaborator'. Dr. John H. Watson penned the Canon, you see, and there has to be a way of explaining away Sir Arthur. And it can become even more complicated: I recently published an article in a Special to celebrate Holmes's centenary in which the author suggested that Doyle wrote some sections of A Study in Scarlet, while Watson wrote others! And, of course, Conan Doyle has several times been identified as the author of The Mazarin Stone.
These are deep waters, dear reader. Sherlockians in this instance are victims of their own enthusiasm for the game. It is a desperately fine line they tread to balance their love for the character and life of Sherlock Holmes with the realisation that Holmes never lived — that he exists only on the printed page and, perhaps more importantly, in the mind.
The Society whose Journal I edit is a character-based society. It is not an author appreciation society and it will not become one. That is why I am especially glad to welcome the Arthur Conan Doyle Society. It has an important role to play in educating those millions who only know of Conan Doyle as a figure in parentheses, as but a name on the title-page of a Sherlock Holmes book. As a forum for exploring the myriad other elements of Conan Doyle's creative work, the new Society and this Journal will be invaluable.
Devotees of Sherlock Holmes have long designated him the 'Master'. We should be brave. That title belongs uniquely to Sir Arthur Conan Doyle.
- Article courtesy Christopher Roden, founder of The Arthur Conan Doyle Society (1989-2003).
