“On 30 August 1889 at a dinner party in the Langham Hotel given by Joseph M. Stoddart (1845-1921), managing editor of Lippincott’s Magazine (Philadelphia), Arthur Conan Doyle met Oscar Wilde. At this legendary meeting, both men came away, promising to submit stories to the publication. There is really no record of what was discussed. Wilde went on to pen a salacious, and controversial tale in the Faustian tradition of a man who trades his soul for immortality, and Doyle of course, wrote The Sign of Four.
On the surface, the narrative of SIGN is pretty straight-forward. A young woman comes to Holmes for help, about the disappearance of her father and the appearance of mysterious jewels. Watson steps up, as usual, to assist Holmes with the case, facing off in the story with thieves and murderers. Pretty standard Doyle. But beneath the surface, lies romance, desperation, revenge and intense heartbreak. Woven into the narrative of The Sign of Four is also a Faustian tale. There is a very rich thread of Subtext and References mixed throughout that speaks not just to the epic play, but also the writer, Johann Von Goethe, and his experiences. There are direct quotes, parallels of the narration, direct tie-ins through other pieces of Literature. Even the clouds are in on it.
It is my theory that Arthur Conan Doyle made use of the epic in SIGN, as a homage to Goethe, a possible signal to Wilde (maybe an in-joke or Literary nod? Perhaps a challenge) plus other writers that he admired, also, perhaps to really imprint upon those who wish to see, the underlying story between Watson & Holmes. To help with context, I have included excerpts from Nekomuse, who does excellent work at stripping away the overlaying narrative, and bring better focus to the dialogue between Holmes & Watson. Hennessey’s book focuses on some of Arthur Conan Doyle’s supposed philosophical and literary influences. I attempt to take a closer look at what he has found and see how well it fit’s with my own research. I hope the reader will find much to enjoy in this work.”
I figured it was time to make a handy reference guide to the metas I’ve written in this fandom. I’ll keep this updated and post the link in my blog description.
Sherlock and Paradise Lost – part i, part ii, part iii A collage of verse and images illustrating the parallels between the texts.
The Missing Reichenbach Solution Will we ever find out what “really” happened? First in a series of
three metas approaching S3 from a deconstructionist perspective.
Deerstalkers and Doppelgangers Will the real Sherlock Holmes please stand up? Second in a series of
three metas approaching S3 from a deconstructionist perspective.
The Reconstruction of Sherlock Holmes Sherlock critiques performativity. Third in a series of three metas approaching S3 from a deconstructionist perspective.
Molly Hooper and The Science of Attraction Molly
Hooper is conducting a series of scientific experiments on Sherlock
Holmes. I imagine what her lab notebook might look like.
Feminism and Film Studies A response to a very interesting ask about how to read 70s feminism in a
contemporary context. Only tangentially Sherlockian, though.
I was going through my Torchwood tag because I thought it might be salutary to remind those coping with the disappointment of “The Final Problem” that the BBC has in fact already Gone There. Torchwood was basically Russell T. Davies’s Doctor Who fanfic and there were queer sexual encounters galore on it, including a canon m/m relationship between the protagonist and his second in command. It struggled from the get-go; there were only two ‘regular’ seasons, followed by a miniseries (”Children of Earth”) and a fourth season produced for Starz with a completely different setting and almost completely different cast. Now, there are a lot of reasons why Torchwood might have struggled that have nothing at all to do with the sex, the main one being that the first season was very uneven and included several episodes which were really, REALLY bad. But I digress.
My point was, I found this: “Me and my male showrunners.” It is an in-depth consideration of the question: why, at my advanced age and with my many adult responsibilities, am I still getting so pissed off, all the time, at the men who run my shows?
The bottom line is: it comes down to self-indulgence. What really makes me angry is when the showrunners start treating the show as purely a vehicle for their own fantasies, without taking into consideration not only standards and taste, but the labor of everyone who puts the show together. Sherlock is what it is in large part because of the extraordinary cast and the equally extraordinary production team. When you are surrounded by this much talent, you ought to feel yourself duty bound to give them material that is worthy of it. And I submit that in “The Final Problem” that is definitely not what happened.
Sherlock Fandom Archive 