Sherlock Holmes Mystery Magazine #3. Arthur Conan Doyle

Чтение книги онлайн.

      THE NON-SOLITARY CYCLISTS

      Not many experts on Sherlock Holmes would rank “The Adventure of the Solitary Cyclist” as one of the best stories in the Canon. Arthur Conan Doyle himself omitted it from his own ranking of the top nineteen short Holmes stories; and in his prologue to his account of the case, good old Watson frankly noted that, “It is true that the circumstance did not admit of any striking illustration of those powers for which my friend was famous,” before adding that “there were some points about the case which made it stand out.” My recent re-reading of the tale supports the Doctors’s two opinions. While the central puzzle—why does an unknown bearded man follow Violet Smith as she cycles between Charlington Hall and Farnham Station?—is an intriguing one, the resolution is much less so. After some atypical violence—the Master’s pub fight with the odious, over-the-top villain, Mr. Woodley, and some gun­play, Holmes foils the criminal’s schemes by being in the right place at the right time—and he is almost too late. And his deductions about the reason for Miss Smith’s shadow are less impressive than in “The Adventure of the Copper Beeches,” another damsel-in-distress short story.

      Despite these deficiencies, “The Solitary Cyclist” was one of the major inspirations for what I contend is one of the best Sherlock Holmes films of all time—although neither Holmes nor Watson appear in it. But the “curious incident of the Holmes” in the Murder Rooms is ­easily explainable. The 2001 BBC adaptation of David Pirie’s superior novel, The Patient’s Eyes: The Dark Beginnings of Sherlock Holmes, is one of a series constructed from Piries’s premise that the real-life model for the Master, Edin­burgh’s Dr. Joseph Bell, did actual detection, aided by a young Arthur Conan Doyle. Considering it a Holmes film is, for me, an easy call, especially after enduring, albeit with an occasional chortle, viewing the execrable 1962 German-French-Italian production, Sherlock Holmes and the Deadly Necklace, with its badly-dubbed dialogue and a jazzy musical score that has to be heard to be believed, in an ill-fated effort to craft a column examining screen adaptations of The Valley of Fear, for which the world is not yet prepared. Just because Christopher Lee plays a character called Holmes in the movie (with the addition of a very obvious prosthetic nose, and with someone else voicing his lines in English), doesn’t make it worthy of serious discussion as a Sherlock Holmes film, unless the subject is Screen Adaptations Of The Works Of Arthur Conan Doyle—Unintended Humor In. By contrast, in my opinion, the episode of Murder Rooms: The Dark Beginnings of Sher­lock Holmes entitled “The Patient’s Eyes” has it all: intelligent writing, brilliant acting, especially from the three leads; outstanding production values; and a carefully-constructed plot. For those readers who have not yet seen it, I hope this column will convince you to buy, or at least rent it on DVD, as well as seek out the novel.

      A fictional Bell/Doyle pairing had been attempted before in Howard Engel’s 1997s novel Mr. Doyle and Dr. Bell, an inferior book in which the doctor and his protegé race the clock to save a man from the gallows. But there’s no comparison between Engel’s work and Pirie’s. The latter, a British screenwriter, film producer, film critic, and novelist, whose previous work included a 1997s adaptation of Wilkie Collins’s The Wo­man In White, made a careful study of Doyle’s early life in constructing his historical fictions.

      Pirie had asked himself, “What is it with Holmes that he has such an uncanny reality about him? Reading the stories undoubtedly brings us closer to the truth, for they have an odd and unexpected intensity. There is a genuine emotion in Doyle’s portrayal of Holmes and Watson, which explains some of its impact, but makes the creative origins of this emotion even more mysterious.” He began to wonder whether “Holmes seems real because, in certain respects we are only just starting to appreciate, he was real?”

      For Pirie, Sherlock Holmes was a product of Doyle’s difficult early life. He was well aware of Doyle’s letter to the charismatic teacher and physician Joseph Bell, who taught him at Edinburgh University, which stated, “It is certainly to you that I owe Sherlock Holmes.” But for Pirie, there was a psychological background to the Bell-Doyle connection. As he has written: “And so it was that Doyle started his early years at Edinburgh medical school with a father who was deranged and whose condition had to be kept secret and now, in the same house, an arrogant older rival for his mother’s affection, a man who had succeeded at the profession he was only just beginning. He seems at first to have been deeply alienated from the university. But at this critical time, when Doyle, by his own admission, was feeling wild, full-blooded, and a trifle reckless, someone else appeared: a teacher opposite in every way to these other troublesome fathers. And his name was Joseph Bell.”

      From this foundation, Pirie crafted a fictionalized Bell and Doyle, spinning engaging narratives taking off from the evidence that the real Bell did assist the official authorities in solving crimes, much as Holmes did. He further imagined that “Bell may have supplied Doyle with some of the actual details of criminal investigation he later put to such good use,” in stories like “The Solitary Cyclist.”

      The first fruit of Pirie’s efforts was the 2000 BBC telefilm, Murder Rooms, which showed how Bell and Doyle met at the University of Edinburgh, and teamed up to track down a serial killer whose methods anticipated those of Jack the Ripper. Ian Richardson, who had played Holmes in middling 1980s television film adaptations of The Hound of the Baskervilles and The Sign of the Four, was perfectly cast as Bell, managing to imbue the character with humor and passion to accompany his for­midable СКАЧАТЬ