Sherlock Holmes and Philosophy Part 6

Screenshot from Sherlock Holmes vs. Jack the Ripper (C) 2009 Frogwares In many Sherlock Holmes video games while Holmes is the primary character, when it comes time to figure out the clues the burden shifts to Watson-standing in for the player-and Holmes confirms or refutes the conclusions, which he has already reached. Some of the games shift control between the two depending on where matters are in the investigation.

If Not Holmes, then Watson?

Aha! I'm Doctor John Watson.

Well, no, I'm not him either, but in the Conan Doyle stories I am somewhat.

Conan Doyle uses Watson as the source of the first-person narrative perspective in the Holmes tales. We see through Watson's eyes as he recounts Holmes's adventures. In addition to the choice being a dramatic literary one, it's a practical one as well: By putting us in Watson's head as the narrator Conan Doyle doesn't have to put us in Holmes's.

For Conan Doyle as a writer, it must have been hard enough to work up the chain of clues that leads Holmes to his brilliant conclusions, but to put the reader in Holmes's head while it runs through all of the possible permutations of what lies before him would have been painful for both reader and author alike. Fortunately, he chose Watson and spared us all, and himself, that madness.

The presence of a Watson-like figure is standard in any fiction where another character is smarter or has more knowledge or expertise than the other characters. Often this is the protagonist (as in the Holmes's stories) but not always. The smarter character has to have some reason to verbalize his conclusions or intentions, and the presence of the not-quite-as-smart characters provides exactly that. Sometimes the verbalization involves the process prior to reaching a conclusion, or the reverse order where the conclusion is expressed and then by way of explanation the process that achieved it. (Gil Grissom from the CBS Television's CSI: Crime Scene Investigation often has to explain himself in this manner, as does Gregory House in the thinly disguised translation of Holmes to the world of diagnostic medicine in the Fox television series House.) Occasionally, efforts have been made to put us in the head of the genius; the most recent relevant example comes from the 2010 contemporary update of Sherlock Holmes, the BBC Sherlock TV series. In that series, predominantly in the first episode "A Study in Pink," floating text is used to show what Holmes notices. The audience sees the clues, but then has to wait for Holmes to p.r.o.nounce the startling conclusion. It's an interesting technique that is used to a lesser degree in later episodes in part, I suspect, because it just duplicates information that Holmes himself relates when he explains his conclusions to those around him.

Frame from Sherlock "A Study in Pink" 2010 2 entertain Video Limited.

Sticky Paint.

When we look at Sherlock Holmes we often talk about his deductive reasoning skill, which involves using a rule and its precondition to reach a conclusion. For example, "When a wall has been very recently painted, the paint remains sticky for some time. The paint is currently sticky; therefore the wall was recently painted." As Didierjean and Gobet point out, Holmes also uses abductive reasoning, which involves starting from observed data and then deriving the most likely explanation or hypothesis. Holmes himself explains this methodology to Watson in A Study in Scarlet: "In solving a problem of this sort, the grand thing is to be able to reason backward. That is a very useful accomplishment, and a very easy one, but people do not practise it much. In the everyday affairs of life it is more useful to reason forward, and so the other comes to be neglected. There are fifty who can reason synthetically for one who can reason a.n.a.lytically." "I confess," said I, "that I do not quite follow you."

"I hardly expected that you would. Let me see if I can make it clearer. Most people, if you describe a train of events to them, will tell you what the result would be. They can put those events together in their minds, and argue from them that something will come to pa.s.s. There are few people, however, who, if you told them a result, would be able to evolve from their own inner consciousness what the steps were which led up to that result. This power is what I mean when I talk of reasoning backward, or a.n.a.lytically."

Some may think of this more as "guessing," but what it really digs into is the idea of expertise and domain knowledge, which is valid knowledge in a specific area. Holmes can be the master detective because he is able to use both deductive and abductive reasoning in combination with expert knowledge in a wide variety of domains (fields). Holmes, however, is not an expert in everything. Again in A Study in Scarlet, Watson himself created a list of Holmes's domain knowledge: Sherlock Holmeshis limits.

1. Knowledge of Literature.-Nil.

2. Knowledge of Philosophy.-Nil.

3. Knowledge of Astronomy.-Nil.

4. Knowledge of Politics.-Feeble.

5. Knowledge of Botany.-Variable. Well up in belladonna, opium, and poisons generally. Knows nothing of practical gardening.

6. Knowledge of Geology.-Practical, but limited. Tells at a glance different soils from each other. After walks has shown me splashes upon his trousers, and told me by their colour and consistence in what part of London he had received them.

7. Knowledge of Chemistry.-Profound.

8. Knowledge of Anatomy.-Accurate, but unsystematic.

9. Knowledge of Sensational Literature.-Immense. He appears to know every detail of every horror perpetrated in the century.

10. Plays the violin well.

11. Is an expert singlestick player, boxer, and swordsman.

12. Has a good practical knowledge of British law.

Often, Holmes speaks directly to or infers that he simply sees thing differently than everyone else. Didierjean and Gobet quote a variety of sources in saying "Experts literally 'see' situations taken from their domain of expertise differently from novices" and connect back to A.D. de Groot's 1946 work Thinking in Chess which, while talking about chess expertise, pointed out that "this perceptual advantage is one of the keys to experts' superior performance."

The Game Is (and Isn't) Afoot.

Without Holmes's deep domain knowledge (in key areas) or his capacity for deductive and abductive reasoning, I cannot solve crimes as he does. I just simply can't.

Video games currently provide the mechanism for simulating a variety of physical and social actions that I cannot perform, but they haven't yet figured out how to model the vast breadth and depth of knowledge and the intuitive cross-linking necessary for Holmesian crime solving.

Conan Doyle himself in the original works didn't believe it was necessary for his readers to match wits with Holmes. The Sherlock Holmes stories are not whodunits-we can't figure it out because we do not have Holmes's domain knowledge and expertise or his intellect. The stories are about the characters and the chase. We see through Watson's eyes in part because if we could see through Holmes's eyes, the matter at hand would be somewhat less dramatic. Holmes himself is often thrilled primarily by his ability to problem solve, and the fact that the problem gets solved is a serendipitous result.

We still want to be Sherlock Holmes, however, and the continuing popularity of video games shows that clearly. As I write this, Frogwares is planning to release The New Adventures of Sherlock Holmes: The Testament of Sherlock Holmes. The game promises a new deduction system and improved questioning and interrogation systems, but will it bring us closer to truly being Sherlock Holmes, or will his superior intellect and cunning forever counter our desire to be the Great Detective, even if only virtually?

Chapter 11.

The Curious Case of the Controversial Canon.

Ivan Wolfe.

Sir Arthur Conan Doyle wrote fifty-six short stories and four novels about Sherlock Holmes.

There-that's all I need to write, clearly. Those texts are the official "canon" and any other texts are apocryphal at best and spurious at worst. It may be fun for other authors to create short stories, novels, comic books, movies, and TV shows about Holmes's adventures, but they can never be considered official. Only the true tales, written by Doyle himself, can be considered our source for determining the truth about the one true and original Sherlock Holmes.

My edition of The Complete Works contains four novels and fifty-six short stories. I have other books by other authors-a personal favorite is the H.P. Lovecraft/Sherlock Holmes crossover collection Shadows Over Baker Street with Neil Gaiman's brilliant "A Study in Emerald," and I also rather enjoy the collection Holmes for the Holidays despite the groan worthy t.i.tle-but I recognize they aren't the real Holmes.

But I belabor the point. There can be no doubts about the nature of the canon.

And then I pick up a copy of a French edition of Sherlock Holmes-okay, I haven't actually picked up a copy; I can read and write Laotian in addition to my native English, and I minored in Cla.s.sical Greek, but I cannot read French, so in this case, I'm relying on the word of others and hopefully, this won't get me into too much trouble-and it seems that this French edition contains fifty-eight short stories. And the two additional tales are also written by Doyle.

Wait-what's going on here? Have I and other English speakers been cheated? What does this say about the supposedly fixed nature of the canon? Why do the French get more Holmes then we do? Is there some secret conspiracy to hide two missing tales from the English-speaking world? Or are the French just easily fooled?

Later, I find there are several other short stories about Holmes written by Doyle and published during his lifetime, and yet they aren't considered canon. It's a similar feeling to the one a Protestant sometimes gets when leafing through a Catholic (or Orthodox) Bible and realizing it has a several additional books in the Old Testament-though I guess it depends on which Orthodox Church as well; growing up in Alaska, I became more familiar with the Russian Orthodox; most people, in my experience, are only aware of the Greek Orthodox church due to the movie My Big Fat Greek Wedding. But that's another topic for another time. Now where was I?

For Those Who Came in Late.

I'm tossing around terms like "canon" and "apocrypha" the way Holmes tosses around seemingly insignificant observations that solve cases. Some of my readers are likely already familiar with these terms. Often, I find the people who are most familiar with them are either religious (or at least study religion) or are hardcore Star Trek or Star Wars fans. In a very simplified form, for those unaware of these debates, in Star Trek, anything other than the movies and TV shows-novels, comics, games, and so forth-are apocrypha. In Star Wars, it's more complicated, but Lucasfilm has people whose job it is to determine which novels, comics, games, or other creations are canon and which aren't.

For those of you not too familiar with these terms, a brief examination of their definitions will help move the discussion along, and help us decide whether the English or French editions of Sherlock Holmes are the more correct canon (or if both are incomplete).

We shall start, as one always should, with the Oxford English Dictionary (OED). It defines "canon" as "a piece of ordnance; a gun or firearm of a size which requires it to be mounted for firing." Actually, that is a "cannon"-and "canon" is an archaic spelling for that weapon of war. That is NOT what we are talking about here. So-one "n" for important texts, and two for a weapon of destruction. To help remember the difference, think of having two as overkill, or twice as much power, or something (whatever works for you). Back in the days when spelling was not standardized, this wasn't a problem-but now, it can cause problems online. Imagine discussing where a particular story fits into the overall chronology of a series-you start arguing about "using the cannon to show them all," and then the FBI shows up at your doorstep.

The kind of "canon" that we are discussing is.

The collection or list of books of the Bible accepted by the Christian Church as genuine and inspired. Also . . . a body of works, etc., considered to be established as the most important or significant in a particular field.

The OED, being as comprehensive as it is, has several other related definitions, but this is the one (actually, a combination of two) most suited to our purpose here.

The OED defines the related term "apocrypha" this way: "Of unknown authorship; not authentic, spurious; uncanonical . . . A writing or statement of doubtful authorship or authenticity." The term comes from a Greek word meaning "hidden." For example, "The Apocrypha" (capitalized, thus used as a solid Proper Noun) refers to several books in the Old Testament that were rejected by Protestants, but are still in use (to various extents) by Catholic and Orthodox churches.

By a.n.a.logy, then, any work called "apocryphal" usually has some claim on being official, but it is only accepted by certain adherents (or, if not accepted by any adherents, a decent percentage of informed adherents have to agree there is "something" to the texts, even if it is not enough to raise the texts to official or binding status). If it has no real claim or no one accepts its authenticity, then it's merely non-canonical.

Some apocryphal works are rejected by pretty much everyone today but historically have been accepted by various groups. A canonical work is accepted as official and authoritative. There may be disputes about how to interpret the text, but not about whether the text is official or not. Many religions have a "closed canon" meaning that no new authoritative texts are allowed. Some, such as the Latter Day Saints (or Mormon) church have an "open canon" meaning they can accept new texts into their canon (though they don't accept every possible new text, and getting a new text accepted can be difficult).

Why It Matters.

If you belong to a religion and are seeking salvation, then what serves as canon likely matters quite a bit. When we're discussing Sherlock Holmes, though, it may not seem as important. However, if you are a devotee or a scholar or even a rabid fan, knowing what is and isn't canon allows for fruitful discussion with other fans, scholars, or devotees. You have to have a common ground of some sort, or else discussion cannot happen. Also, among aficionados of Holmes, there's a considerable body of literature that discusses how Holmes could have fit into "real" history and even treats his adventures, for the sake of study, as part of history. Many Sherlockian scholars try to fill in the blanks or read between the lines in the stories to determine more about the background of Holmes and Watson. Some even write whole books dedicated to creating elaborate backstories and end of life explorations for Holmes, Watson, Lestrade, Moriarty, and others. However, to be taken seriously by others with similar interests, these texts have to be grounded in something everyone who talks about Holmes considers authoritative. If there is no "shared language" based in commonly accepted texts, the Holmesian conversation would descend into gibberish.

Having a commonly accepted set of texts allows for the community of Holmes buffs to fruitfully communicate with each other, the way a set of scriptures or laws allows a religious or secular community to determine what is acceptable or how to proceed with life. We all have "canons" of some sort, even if we don't realize it. There are books we consider authoritative and base our lives around, whether they are scripture, self-help, diet, or academic; we also have friends whose advice we trust and consider more important than advice from other people.

An example of how this can play out in a less abstract realm deals with the Guy Ritchie/Robert Downey, Jr. Sherlock Holmes films. In those, Holmes does not wear a deerstalker cap and seems to be something of an action man-even engaging in some bare-knuckle boxing. In the popular imagination, it seems, Holmes is something of an atrophied recluse-a genius, but one who rarely gets his hands dirty. Now, no one would consider the film "canon," but many defenders of the film pointed to areas in the canon that supported the movie's interpretation of the world's greatest sleuth. In particular, many pointed to a pa.s.sage from The Sign of the Four: "Oh, yes you do, McMurdo," cried Sherlock Holmes, genially. "I don't think you can have forgotten me. Don't you remember the amateur who fought three rounds with you at Alison's rooms on the night of your benefit four years back?"

"Not Mr. Sherlock Holmes!" roared the prize-fighter. "G.o.d's truth! how could I have mistook you? If instead o' standin' there so quiet you had just stepped up and given me that cross-hit of yours under the jaw, I'd ha' known you without a question. Ah, you're one that has wasted your gifts, you have! You might have aimed high, if you had joined the fancy."

Many also pointed to Holmes's claim in "The Adventure of the Empty House" that "I have some knowledge, however, of baritsu, or the j.a.panese system of wrestling." Of course, this is likely a misspelling of "bart.i.tsu" an actual system of martial arts developed in England by Edward William Barton-Wright, who had lived and studied in j.a.pan for several years. But the point has been made. And there are other references to Holmes's fighting abilities in many of the stories. In these cases, being armed with canon can help win debates and settle issues about how well a particular version of Holmes fits with the original. (Okay, okay, I'm stealing this phrase "armed with canon"-but not its meaning-from the TV Tropes wiki. But, to paraphrase T.S. Eliot: good writers steal, bad writers borrow.) Back to Baker Street.

So, how does this affect the Holmesian canon, and why do the French get two more short stories in their canon? Well, for that, we need to consider the tales that, for the time being, are not considered canonical, but have at least some claim on the status. For the most part, there are pretty clear rules about the canon, but enough fuzziness on the edges to make things difficult when it comes to certain texts.

There are several collections of apocryphal material, and they do not all agree on what is or should be considered canonical or apocryphal. The four I am aware of (all worth getting for any Holmes reader, regardless of your stance on canonicity) are Sherlock Holmes: The Published Apocrypha, edited by Jack Tracy; The Uncollected Sherlock Holmes, edited by Richard Lancelyn Green; The Final Adventures of Sherlock Holmes, edited by Peter Haining; and The Apocrypha of Sherlock Holmes, edited by Leslie S. Klinger.

A few clear criteria for canonicity (with some attendant problem areas) have emerged, though: It must be written by Arthur Conan Doyle. This may seem obvious, but Doyle's son co-wrote a collection called The Exploits of Sherlock Holmes that was intended to be "official" and J.M. Barrie wrote several pastiches for his friend Doyle (which have sometimes been mistakenly identified as written by Doyle). In one instance, Doyle even paid another writer for a story, in case he ever wanted to use the idea. He never did, but the story was mistakenly published as having been written by Doyle. Also, Doyle collaborated with the actor William Gillette on Sherlock Holmes: A Drama in Four Acts, which went through several revisions, making it difficult to tell how much is Doyle and how much belongs to Gillette.

It should have been published during Doyle's lifetime. While there have been some posthumous publications of unpublished plays, story outlines, and the like, the general consensus seems to be that if Doyle didn't publish it, he didn't like the tale, couldn't make it work, or lost interest.

It must be about Sherlock Holmes (or possibly Watson). The dispute over some apocryphal tales is whether or not they actually are about Holmes. The two found in French editions of the complete works actually never mention Holmes by name-though some have speculated they refer to Watson (or even Mycroft) rather than Holmes. Other scholars and writers have argued for mystery tales written by Doyle that predate Holmes but were clearly proto-Holmes or Holmesian in spirit. There is even a case of a play (The Angels of Darkness) written by Doyle that adapts the American parts of A Study in Scarlet and features Watson (in America!), but not Holmes. This play also falls under #2 above, as Doyle never published this play, likely realizing it did not fit well with the direction his Holmes stories were taking (Watson is wildly out of character, though it was written before Doyle had firmly established Watson's character).

It cannot radically contradict the rest of the canon. While the accepted canon is not free from contradiction, anything that is wildly out of line is clearly not a candidate. The play The Angels of Darkness, mentioned above, does this in many ways, most notably with its treatment of Watson.

It should be prose fiction. Several collections also include essays by Doyle about Holmes, but as these are treated as interesting insights from the creator, and not as canonical tales (since, most obviously, they aren't tales).

With these basic ground rules in effect, we can discuss several apocryphal texts and hopefully come to a conclusion about whether they deserve a place in the canon. As stated above, not every collection agrees on what the apocryphal texts are, but even in those collections, the editors admit several of the texts would not pa.s.s muster. Instead, the editors include them in the collection as historical curiosities or for entertainment value. The Angels of Darkness, for example, would never seriously be considered for canonicity. Likewise, the story "The Case of the Man Who Was Wanted" was written by Arthur Whitaker, who sent a copy to Doyle suggesting the two collaborate on a tale. Instead, Doyle paid Whitaker ten pounds for the rights to the story idea, but then never did anything with it. The short comic play "The Painful Predicament of Sherlock Holmes" is almost certainly written by the actor William Gillette, and therefore also fails in consideration. Several other collected apocryphal texts fail similar tests.

That said, a few texts do exist that seem, at the very least, borderline canon. Let us consider them one at a time, and the go where the evidence leads us.

Canon Fodder.

There are the two tales that appear in French editions and are often considered the two apocryphal stories with the best case for being canon (several critics have jokingly called them "canon-fodder"): "The Man with the Watches" and "The Lost Special." They each deal with a seemingly impossible event (a man with thirteen watches in his pockets is found dead in a railway carriage he couldn't have possibly entered; in the second tale, a specially commissioned train vanishes with no indication of how it vanished or where it has gone). Sherlock Holmes is not consulted during these tales, and in both cases a confession well after the fact reveals how the events actually happened. However, in both tales an unidentified letter writer offers potential solutions.

In the first tale, he is identified as "a well known criminal investigator" and in the second as "an amateur reasoner of some celebrity." These identifications have caused many scholars to argue these are clearly meant to be Holmes. The letters use similar language and reasoning as Holmes, including the phrase "when the impossible has been eliminated the residuum, however improbable, must contain the truth."

In both cases, however, there are problems with this identification. One is that the tales take place during the time Holmes was in hiding, after faking his death at the hands of Moriarty. It seems unlikely Holmes would reveal his survival to the world at large through highly speculative letters to the press, especially on cases where he was unable to see the evidence firsthand (such a tactic seems more akin to Poe's Dupin, someone Holmes did not admire). Additionally, the "well known reasoner" is spectacularly wrong in both cases. These details have led some to argue that perhaps the reference is to Watson or maybe Mycroft. It would seem unlikely that it was Mycroft, as he is just as unlikely to get it wrong as Sherlock, but there is, perhaps, a case for Watson, who is known for attempting to reason like Holmes and failing at it. However, calling Watson "a well known criminal investigator" seems somewhat unusual.

These tales were written during the time Doyle had "killed off" Holmes, and so he may have been working out some issues. Perhaps they were a sort of "Take That!" or an affectionate bit of gentle jabbing at the detective. In any case, Holmes was still "dead" at that point, making it even more unlikely the detective was meant to be Holmes, rather than a tribute or pa.s.sing reference.

Bizarre Lack of Adventure.

Edinburgh University asked Doyle (and several other prominent authors) to write a short tale for a newsletter that would be sold to raise funds for expanding athletic facilities. While not a mystery, "The Field Bazaar" does read like the beginning of many of the canonical short stories, with Watson and Holmes at breakfast, Holmes making brilliant deductions that baffle Watson, and then Holmes explaining how he made those deductions to an impressed Watson.

Though nearly every editor refers to this as a "parody," there appears to be very little parody about it. It is humorous, but very little distinguishes it from the opening of many other Holmes tales. Its most unique features are its brevity and that it does not immediately lead into an adventure of some sort.

Tricky Man.

Perhaps the most unusual of all the tales, "How Watson Learned the Trick" was a very brief story written for a miniature book to be placed in the library of Queen Mary's Dolls' House. It was also published in a collection (The Book of the Queen's Dolls' House Library) along with several other books from that library, as many authors of the day contributed very short stories for the project.

This short tale deals with Watson attempting to show Holmes that he has mastered deduction and failing miserably. Also referred to by many as a "parody," I see little reason to label it as such. While short, it would fit right in place at the beginning of any tale. Not only that, as many others have noted, the tale provides a clue as to Sherlock Holmes's birthplace (or at least his hometown).

At Play.

Sherlock Holmes: A Drama in Four Acts contains many items of interest to Holmes fans, including the first recorded use of "Elementary, my dear Watson." Though it contains several new scenes and borrows heavily from the short stories, it is clear that actor William Gillette made many revisions and changes. However, the play ran for over thirty years, so it was a clear success.

The Stonor Case is a theatrical version of "The Speckled Band," but differs in many key areas. The Crown Diamond is similar to "The Adventure of the Mazarin Stone," but as with The Stonor Case, it differs in many key areas. It seems that the general consensus is that The Crown Diamond came first, and this helps explains why this tale has a third-person narration. However, the short story is solidly canonical, whereas the play is not. And while some of the short stories and novels accepted into the canon have some disagreements and discontinuities, the plays, if accepted, would create too many problems because they radically contradict the tales they are based on.

Interlude.

If it were up to me (and, of course, it isn't), I would reject most of the above tales, even the ones found in French editions of the complete works. It seems quite clear that "The Man with the Watches" and "The Lost Special" do not concern Holmes. The various plays contradict too many other well-established canonical tales, and are best looked at as adaptations or alternate universes.

The two that I feel most likely belong in the canon are "How Watson Learned the Trick" and "The Field Bazaar." They fulfill nearly all the criteria-they are fiction, they were written by Doyle, they were published for public consumption during his lifetime (even if in a very limited way in both cases), they concern Holmes, nothing in them contradicts other strictly canonical tales, and they even provide informative background information on Holmes and Watson. The largest complaints against them are that they are "parodies" or that they are not strictly mysteries. While they're humorous, there is no clear evidence Doyle meant them to be parodies; instead they read more like anecdotes or snapshots from the life of Holmes and Watsonpleasant interludes in between cases that shed light on their relationship and histories. And while they are slight and short, each one does involve some deduction.

But the Contradictions! What about the Contradictions?

Many different versions of Holmes exist, and in some sense, they all have their own canons. The Basil Rathbone films (and radio series) can be said to be their own canon, though one clearly built on "The Canon." The various cartoons, movies, TV shows, comics, and whatnot can all be said to be separate canons, though clearly subservient to the original canon created by Doyle. None could even be considered as important as the original, but often they can flavor how we interpret the original tales (witness the debates over the recent movies, as discussed above). When they contradict the original canon, there's no need to worry.

But-how to deal with contradictions in the official canon? The canon of Sherlock Holmes, with or without the additions I have argued for, is not entirely self-consistent either. Many, many trees have died in attempts by Sherlockian scholars to explain away or harmonize these problems. Perhaps the most common one is the list of things in A Study in Scarlet that Watson claims Holmes does not know, including politics, literature, and philosophy. However, later tales show Holmes very knowledgeable about these fields.

As for how to deal with them, I generally leave that to those more knowledgeable on the issues. However, I do have a few, final suggestions. As far as religious canons go, many believers either find ways to harmonize the contradictions, deny there are any, or admit they are still working on it.

A similar approach applies to Sherlock Holmes. The most common approach is to harmonize the contradictions, usually by coming up with fancy and convoluted explanations. Another common tactic is to argue that there are no contradictions at all, but that perhaps Watson (or Doyle) changed a name or date to protect the innocent or made a mistake when transcribing the details of the case. The third approach is to admit the contradictions are there, but to act as though further research will reveal the truth.

So, to use the example above, perhaps Holmes was playing some game with Watson upon their initial acquaintance, Watson was jumping to conclusions based on incomplete knowledge about someone he just met, or that some other reason exists for the apparent contradiction.

If you want to join in on the study of Sherlock Holmes (or even just argue on Internet chat boards), feel free to add your own contributions on how to deal with any potential problems. But in order to do that, of course, we need a canon to argue over in the first place.

I THINK YOU MIGHT WANT A LITTLE UNOFFICIAL HELP.

Chapter 12.

How Marriage Changed Sherlock Holmes.

Amy Kind.

"But love is an emotional thing, and whatever is emotional is opposed to that true cold reason which I place above all things. I should never marry myself, lest I bias my judgment."