Did Dr. Watson Really Write Sherlock Holmes?

Getty Images
Getty Images

A few years ago, a poll found that 58 percent of British teenagers thought Sherlock Holmes was a real person (meanwhile, 47 percent thought that Richard the Lionheart was not). That may be just a sad statement on the education system, but that doesn’t mean those kids are alone. There’s actually a whole group of people who enjoy the theory that Sherlock Holmes – or at least sidekick John Watson -- was real.

The explanation is simple: Dr. Watson chronicled the work of the London detective Sherlock Holmes and their relationship. Arthur Conan Doyle? He was Watson’s literary agent and helped bring the stories to The Strand magazine and other outlets.

Of course, Doyle wasn’t just an agent. He claims to have based the Holmes character off of his former teacher, Dr. Joseph Bell, who was said to have similarly impressive deductive powers. The Holmes pieces, starting with 1887’s “A Study in Scarlet,” quickly became his most famous works, overshadowing anything else he wrote (a fact that frustrated Doyle and led to his decision to "kill" Holmes in "The Final Problem"). Eventually, Doyle wrote 56 short stories and four novels featuring Holmes across 40 years.

However, Doyle’s presence creates another problem for the Holmesians who believe in the canon. The author was never one to stick closely to his earlier works and said on many occasions that he wouldn’t let the canon stand in the way of a good story. That means dates don't line up and scholars have had trouble putting the cases in chronological order. Likewise, characters meet and re-meet, physical descriptions change and even personality traits disappear or shift as needed.

For example, in several stories Holmes refuses to take a reward, even claiming that “my profession is my reward.” But in other cases, such as “The Adventure of the Beryl Coronet,” he takes as much 4,000 pounds. This seeming inconsistency has been brushed off with a simple explanation: Holmes only accepts money from wealthy clients when he needs it.

The “great game” of studying the Holmes canon began with Ronald Knox, who sought to apply Holmes’ own methods on the canon in his essay “Studies in the Literature of Sherlock Holmes.” In it, he tackles the exact order and date of the canon mysteries, Holmes' ever-shifting routine of investigation and even the flaws in Watson's personal history. Knox even offers up an explanation of the inconsistencies in Watson's work:

"I believed that all the stories were written by Watson, but whereas the genuine cycle actually happened, the spurious adventures are the lucubrations of his own unaided invention. Surely we may reconstruct the facts thus."

Interestingly, the idea of believing in canon and acknowledging the author can be applied outside of the Holmes literature. For example, TVTropes.org explains how Doylists and Watsonians exist in TV fandom: a Doylist would understand that an actor had to be recast, while a Watsonian would infer that the character in question had gotten plastic surgery to change his or her appearance.

Newly Discovered Documents Reveal Details of William Shakespeare's Early Years, Based on His Father's Financial Fall

Hulton Archive, Getty Images
Hulton Archive, Getty Images

Newly discovered documents found in the UK's National Archives reveal that William Shakespeare's father was in deep legal and financial trouble for most of the Bard's childhood, according to The Guardian. The 21 documents, previously unknown to scholars, were discovered in the archives by University of Roehampton Shakespeare historian Glyn Parry during the course of his research for a book about the playwright's early life.

Records had previously shown that William Shakespeare's father, John, an entrepreneur, landlord, and occasional politician, was in trouble with the law during the playwright's youth. He was accused of illegal money lending and wool trading without a license (wool was highly taxed at the time, making it a valuable smuggled good) between 1569 and 1572, when the young William was between around 5 and 8 years old. Scholars assumed that John settled the cases out of court, but these new documents show that his legal woes lasted much longer—up until at least 1583—which no doubt contributed to William's worldview and the topics he wrote about in his plays.

Parry discovered the documents by poring over the National Archives' trove of historical material related to Britain's Exchequer, or royal treasury. He found record of John Shakespeare's debts and writs against him, including ones authorizing sheriffs to arrest him and seize his property for the Queen as punishment for his crimes. He owed a sizable sum to the Crown, according to these documents, including a debt of £132, or in 2018 dollars, about $26,300 (£20,000).


Writ of capias to Sheriff of Warwickshire to seize John ‘Shackispere’ of Stratford upon Avon
Crown Copyright, courtesy of The National Archives, UK

John Shakespeare's crimes against the Crown were reported by professional informants, known as "common informers," who, within the Exchequer system, were entitled to half of the goods seized from the person they helped convict. The system, unsurprisingly, was riddled with corruption, and informers would often attempt to extort bribes from their victims in exchange for not taking them to court.

John's legal jeopardy damaged his financial standing within the community where he had served as a constable, an alderman, and a high bailiff (a position similar to town mayor). The government could seize his property at any time, including wool he bought on credit or money he had loaned to other people, making him a risky person for people to do business with.

"So John Shakespeare fell victim to a perfectly legal kind of persecution, which ruined his business through the 1570s, and William grew to adulthood in a household where his father had fallen in social and economic rank," Parry explained to The Guardian. This no doubt influenced his view of power, social standing, and money, all subjects he would explore in detail in his plays.

[h/t The Guardian]

George R.R. Martin Says Game of Thrones Could've Gone on Much Longer

Rich Polk, Getty Images for IMDb
Rich Polk, Getty Images for IMDb

by Natalie Zamora

Despite the excitement every Game of Thrones fan had last night when the HBO series won the biggest Emmy award of the night for Outstanding Drama Series, there are still two major things we just can't ignore. The first is that the final season is still ​months away, and the second is the fact that it's all about to end.

George R.R. Martin, the genius behind the A Song of Ice and Fire novels, is clearly feeling our pain. While on the Emmys' Red Carpet last night, the famed author revealed he doesn't actually know why the TV series is ending.

"I dunno. Ask David [Benioff] and Dan [Weiss] when they come through," Martin replied when Variety asked him why the show was ending. "We could have gone to 11, 12, 13 seasons, but I guess they wanted a life."

"If you've read my novels, you know there was enough material for more seasons," the author elaborated. "They made certain cuts, but that's fine." It's not really fine for the diehard fans who aren't going to know what to do with themselves when it's over!

Thankfully, Martin did give us hope as to ​what's to come after Thrones. "We have five other shows, five prequels, in development, that are based on other periods in the history of Westeros, some of them just 100 years before Game of Thrones, some of them 5000 years before Game of Thrones," he shared.

Westeros Forever. No? Fine.

SECTIONS

arrow
LIVE SMARTER