Sherlock Holmes and Philosophy Part 8

Holmes is also stoic in the face of danger-for instance later in The Sign of the Four when a poison dart narrowly misses Watson and himself: "Holmes smiled at it and shrugged his shoulders in his easy fas.h.i.+on, but I confess that it turned me sick to think of the horrible death which had pa.s.sed so close to us that night." British qualities of stoicism and "stiff upper lip" are apparent here, but the early Holmes stories also interrogate these sorts of national stereotypes. For example, Jefferson Hope (the killer in A Study in Scarlet) is an American whose name and characteristics are emblematic of the frontier stereotype: courage, dauntlessness and daring. But despite being a murderer, his crime seems validated by Conan Doyle as he ultimately dies of an aneurism, rather than by hanging.

There is a subtle critique of ethical essentialism here that is replicated at other points in the tale, where Holmes also challenges ethics; by being willing to do anything necessary to solve a case. He frequently behaves outside Victorian notions of appropriateness. In "A Scandal in Bohemia" he asks Watson: "You don't mind breaking the law?"

"Not in the least."

"Nor running a chance of arrest?"

"Not in a good cause."

Irene Adler's ultimate outwitting of Holmes in this tale therefore serves a dual purpose: it gives all characters a "deserved" outcome (she is not deprived of her photograph, while Holmes's client, the King, is appeased) and also undercuts innate masculine superiority. Conan Doyle would continue to query the British Empire along similar lines in the rest of the series: Watson's wounding at the battle of Maiwand (a notorious defeat) is just one example.

So it seems that although Conan Doyle created a masculine figure so successful that it was used as a template for a subsequent generation of boy scouts, Sherlock Holmes also challenges the idea of gendered essentialism. The character subtly contradicts fixed notions of masculinity, and the stories also test the limits of ethical essentialism and nationalism.

By contrast, masculinity today is a changing concept with s.h.i.+fting definitions. The emergence of the "new man" in the 1980s (caring, well-groomed, able to do household ch.o.r.es, profeminist) gave way to the "new lad" in the 1990s (knowingly abrasive, adolescent, beer-drinking, pre-feminist). Since the millennium, newer models such as the "metros.e.xual" (straight, young, affluent, enjoys personal grooming and shopping) have blurred the gender lines still further.

Current cultural theorists such as Judith Butler put forward the idea that gendered behavior is no longer linked to biological s.e.x: our gender is simply an (unconscious) performance we put on according to social norms and the situation we find ourselves in. Women in high-powered jobs may adopt a masculine performance (British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher famously took elocution lessons to lower the pitch of her voice); men relating to or negotiating with partners may adopt a feminized one. Although we have recognised that gender today is not an essentialist concept, masculinity still seems in crisis. So, might a modern Holmes reflect these traits rather than the Victorian model of near-perfection?

Who Says a House Is Not a Holmes?

David Sh.o.r.e's American medical television series, House, offers some interesting answers to this question. Rather than a standard medical drama, the show was intended to be more like a police procedural, but quickly became more characterdriven. Lead character Dr. Gregory House is an antihero who diagnoses patients by uncovering their secrets and lies. House is obviously based on Sherlock Holmes; as Sh.o.r.e confirms in a videotaped interview: "Anytime one says 'puzzle' and 'brilliant deduction' in the same sentence, one can't help but think of the great fictional detective Sherlock Holmes and his trusty sidekick, Dr. Watson. And indeed, Holmes-and the real-life physician who inspired him, Dr. Joseph Bell-were very much inspirations for House."

The House series contains some obvious references and name checks, and there are also multiple professional and personal links between the characters. "House" was chosen as a synonym for "home" (based on the British p.r.o.nunciation of "Holmes"); both live at 221B Baker Street (Season 7, Episode 13). House is shot by a man named Moriarty (Season 2, Episode 24); his first patient is named Adler (Season 1, Episode 1); Dr. Wilson later tells a story about House's unhappy love affair with a nurse named Irene Adler (Season 5, Episode 11), called "the woman" by him (referring to "A Scandal in Bohemia"). At other points, House is given copies of Conan Doyle's books (Season 4, Episode 10; Season 7, Episode 5) and also Joseph Bell's Manual of the Operations of Surgery (Season 5, Episode 11).

Both characters are eccentric and arrogant personalities; both are drug addicts (Holmes to cocaine, House to Vicodin, and both to morphine); and both have a supportive best friend (Dr. WatsonDr. Wilson) who is something of a womanizer (Watson marries twice during the Holmes series; Wilson has three ex-wives).

Both solve their cases through inductive reasoning and logical thought-dismissing all the incorrect solutions until only the correct one remains: "Eliminate all other factors and the one which remains must be the truth." House's cases, like Holmes's mysteries, are often couched in factual and masculine terms: for example the mathematical. In Season 2, Episode 24, House claims "numbers don't lie" (speaking metaphorically about physical attractiveness) and Dr. Chase uses a similar metaphor to describe their diagnostic process in the same episode, saying: "the equation has changed." Just like Conan Doyle, mathematical and rational symbols are used to emphasize the masculine process of deduction.

However, despite this use of metaphor, House is certainly not an essentialist model of traditional masculinity; but rather can be read as embodying and critiquing traits of the new man and new lad (themselves critiques of previous concepts of masculinity). Whereas manliness had previously been characterized by aggression, compet.i.tion, emotional coldness, and an emphasis on penetrative s.e.x, a counter-argument emerged which focused on the fears and anxieties that men felt about these established scripts of masculinity.

Boys to Men.

The new man emerged in the 1980s as a response to the "new woman"-coinciding with changes in the market such as a growth in menswear, men's grooming products, and men's magazines. As an advertising product, he is voyeuristically and pa.s.sively constructed through a series of visual codes. He is not afraid to show his feelings, or to occupy roles traditionally filled by woman (for example in the home, the kitchen, or the nursery).

In some respects House fills this role, by displaying behavior and skills that might traditionally be considered feminine: he is an excellent cook (although this is attributed to his masculine knowledge of chemistry-Season 6, Episode 2), watches soap operas (Season 1, Episode 20) and, like Holmes, is very musical (House plays the piano, guitar, and harmonica, and listens to opera in the toilet at work for the sake of the acoustics-Season 2, Episode 2). Despite his curmudgeonly exterior, he even exhibits caring and romantic behavior on occasion: for example buying Dr. Cameron a corsage for their date together (Season 1, Episode 20), organizing a mariachi band as a surprise for Dr. Cuddy at a hospital event (Season 7, Episode 14), or collecting Thirteen on her release from prison with a fresh martini complete with olive (Season 7, Episode 18).

However, House also critiques the new man's emotional and caring outlook by being cynical and mistrustful; and often repeats the maxim "everybody lies." Much like Holmes, he sees through the emotional responses of those around him. In The Sign of the Four, Holmes says "love is an emotional thing, and whatever is emotional is opposed to that true, cold reason which I place above all things." House comments similarly: "the thing about emotional reactions is they're definitionally irrational or . . . 'stupid'" (Season 5, Episode 8). In this regard he goes further than Holmes by openly mocking emotion and empathy, traits that his best friend Wilson possesses in abundance: for example when knocking on his office door: "I know you're in there! I can hear you caring!" (Season 2, Episode 11) and forcing Cameron through the emotional process of taking an HIV test.

But although he critiques the new man's nurturing traits, he undeniably embodies many (perhaps more negative) feminine and emotional characteristics. For example, House often relies on manipulation (frequently emotional) to solve his cases and keep his team working for him; such as encouraging student Martha Masters to lie and manipulate patients in order to get an interns.h.i.+p with him (Season 7, Episode 19). As he comments: "The only value" of people's trust "is that you can manipulate them" (Season 3, Episode 21). He is also b.i.t.c.hy ("I thought I'd get your theories, mock them, then embrace my own. The usual"-Season 3, Episode 10) and sarcastic ("Oh thank you, Rationalization Man, you've saved the village!"-Season 5, Episode 14).

However, this manipulative behavior means he depends on others for much of his strength-as well as a team of doctors working under him, he has his best friend Wilson and friend/ lover Lisa Cuddy. Relying on such a support network or "family" might also be seen as domestic (and therefore feminized) behavior. In these ways he often seems more "spinster" than "bachelor" and his relations.h.i.+p with Cuddy in Season 7 sees the confirmed misanthrope becoming a family man for a short time-a role he plays surprisingly well, helping her daughter get into the preschool of her choice (Season 7, Episode 10) and even attempting to support Cuddy against her mother-although this ultimately ends with him drugging the mother; behavior undeniably more suited to the immaturity of the new lad (Season 7, Episode 9).

Men to Boys.

The 1990s saw the emergence of the new lad: an attempt to recover conventional forms of masculinity in response to the new man. The new lad, according to Tim Edwards, is "Selfish, loutish and inconsiderate to a point of infantile smelliness. He likes drinking, football and f.u.c.king, and in that order of preference . . . defensively working cla.s.s which also means defensively masculine." Although it's difficult to view House as working cla.s.s (despite his upbringing as an army brat), he certainly fits the criteria of selfish and infantile. His behavior is designed to put himself first; he is, as Cuddy puts it, "an egomaniacal narcissistic pain in the a.s.s" (Season 2, Episode 11). He is (in general) s.e.xually misogynistic, preferring to use prost.i.tutes than date (Season 2, Episode 12), and although not a "lager lout", he frequently overindulges in recreational drugs and alcohol.

But infantile behavior is the strongest evidence of his new lad status. For the first six seasons, his ongoing flirtation with Cuddy is based around playground-type behavior, as he consistently insults the size of her a.s.s (Season 5, Episode 10) or her clothes ("Love that outfit. Says, 'I'm professional, but I'm still a woman.' Actually, it sorta yells the second part"-Season 1, Episode 6). Cameron describes his behavior towards her similarly: "like an eighth-grade boy punching a girl" (Season 1, Episode 20).

Romantic relations.h.i.+ps aside, House is a big kid: he often plays with a tennis ball or yoyo (Season 1, Episode 20) in his office (fans can even buy these oversized monogrammed b.a.l.l.s online) and watches monster trucks at his desk (Season 2, Episode 11). He plays mean practical jokes (such as the hand in warm water) on his friends and colleagues (Season 2, Episode 16) and makes ridiculous bets with Wilson (such as who can keep a chicken in the hospital for longest without getting caught-Season 7, Episode 1). In later seasons his behavior becomes more extreme: he spends days devising a complicated and dangerous practical joke (where he pretends to shoot a prost.i.tute with a crossbow) and parties in a hotel swimming pool with college students (Season 7, Episode 16). In Season 7, Episode 17 he hires a monster truck; plays ping pong with a female companion during a differential diagnosis; installs a flat-screen TV on the wall of his office; and travels everywhere on a Segway. Gadgetry, game-playing and immaturity are all hallmarks of his character. Even "infantile smelliness" is conveyed through his typical outfit of wrinkled t-s.h.i.+rts and sneakers.

Rubik's Complex.

In The Sign of the Four Holmes complains, "I cannot live without brainwork." House claims "Knowing is always better than not knowing" (Season 2, Episode 11). Like Holmes, his triumph comes only when he has "solved my case" (Season 7, Episode 14)-the fate of the patient is irrelevant. As Cameron accuses him, "All that matters is your stupid puzzle!" (Season 2, Episode 1) and Wilson agrees: "You know how some doctors have the Messiah complex-they need to save the world? You've got the Rubik's complex; you need to solve the puzzle" (Season 1, Episode 9). Using a toy metaphor to describe House's case again calls attention to his juvenility.

When Holmes famously tells Watson "The game is afoot" (first used in "The Adventure of the Abbey Grange"), the primary meaning of "game" refers to the "quarry" of their hunt ("the criminal is on the move")-"amus.e.m.e.nt" is a secondary meaning in its Victorian context. House's "Rubik's complex" has no such dual meaning, referring only to entertainment: his "puzzle" is even dissociated from the fate of the patient to emphasise this. As House says: "The sign on the door says I'm a diagnostician. Full diagnosis means I'm finished." Even if the patient dies, "I'm fine with that. I wanted a diagnosis, I got it" (Season 7, Episode 19).

House can therefore be seen as a "new lad" who dissociates maturity from masculinity. While maturity was strongly a.s.sociated with Victorian essential masculinity, today it seems typically rejected. Gary Cross suggests that definitions of masculinity have changed so that now maturity is no longer a requirement (although he notes that "maturity" is also a constructed term with a changing definition). Today it is okay for men in their twenties (and beyond) to indulge in the latest technological gadgets; to play computer games; to live with their parents beyond their teens; to wear a baseball cap and jeans; to prefer sports or online gaming to dating; or even to date a string of women rather than be married to one.

Implicit in this immaturity is the idea that men are no longer perfect or idealized, and fallibility is a significant addition to the Holmes-House character, who describes himself as "damaged" (Season 1, Episode 20)-not just physically, but mentally (in Season 3, Episode 12 he claims his father abused him). Imperfection and failure are a regular part of the process in House.

Although Holmes talks a lot about the science of deduction, both "detectives" ultimately rely on inductive reasoning: where particular events are used to make generalizations. Holmes uses deduction (reaching a specific conclusion based on generalizations) but his judgements are based on principles which are the result of inductive study (such as his monograph on cigar ash or his study of the different types of mud found in London). In such a process, it's entirely possible that, even if all the premises relied upon are correct, the conclusion can still be false.

But whereas Sherlock Holmes's conclusions are seldom wrong (a notable exception would be "The Adventure of the Yellow Face"), House is often mistaken and in each episode his patient often gets worse, not better. However each new symptom or clue then allows him to adjust his diagnosis. Fallibility is emphasized in the series, and (aside from House's "eureka" moments) the audience work through the differential diagnosis alongside House and his team-rather than being spellbound as Holmes offers what seems an impossibly accurate conclusion from very little evidence.

Defiant Male Behavior.

Like Holmes, House defies ethics and rules nearly constantly; again undercutting the idea of essentialism, as each episode emphasises that context is all that matters when defining appropriate behavior (his successful manipulation of Masters in Season 7, Episode 19 also testifies to this). He invades patients' privacy on a regular basis (breaking and entering their homes to search for "clues") and is unconcerned with the social norms or who he might offend. In Season 2, Episode 16, he "kidnaps" a teenaged patient in an elevator to look for a tick that he is sure must be there and is causing her illness-her outraged father sees House apparently s.e.xually a.s.saulting his daughter, before House reveals he has found the creature he is looking for.

It may even be possible that, as well as ethical essentialism, a critique of cultural essentialism (or stereotyping) is apparent here. House (played by English actor Hugh Laurie) is sarcastic and superior, often delivering deadpan witticisms-traits arguably more suited to a British stereotype than an American one. His lines frequently play off his own bad behavior, such as replying to Cuddy's question "Don't you think this is a little manipulative?" "No, I think it's hugely manipulative" (Season 2, Episode 14), or offering a cynical commentary on events: "The kid is having nightmares. Only happen at night. It's right there in the name" (Season 3, Episode 2).

House's behavior contains the sort of ironic self-awareness often found in contemporary masculinity, which acknowledges its stereotypes and shortcomings while nonetheless following them (for example in men's magazines which perpetuate s.e.xist images and articles while commenting critically on these-the magazine Loaded's slogan "For men who should know better" ill.u.s.trates this).

Both Holmes and House attack essentialist ideas of culture, gender, and ethics. Holmes subtly challenges conventional essentialist Victorian masculinity through his combination of the physical, intellectual and emotional. House, a product of today's society which offers multiple options for male behavior, embodies and critiques the constructed categories of the new man and the new lad. His type of contemporary masculinity is characterized by immaturity and fallibility.

The goal-oriented and rationally deconstructed mysteries that make up the plots of both the Sherlock Homes and the Gregory House stories are complemented and challenged by lead characters whose contradictions undermine these themes. In this way, both Homes and House challenge social convention and gender stereotypes, offering multi-faceted alternatives.

Chapter 15.

A Feminist Scandal in Holmes's Generalizations.

Mona Rocha and James Rocha.

If the eighteenth-century Scottish philosopher, David Hume, met up with the nineteenth century fictional British detective, Sherlock Holmes, David would surely tell Sherlock that it isn't simple deduction, but induction.

And, really, induction is not all that elementary-in fact, it can be quite dangerous. Imagine a husband drawing a conclusion about his wife based on a clear pattern that he regularly witnessed among all of his ex-girlfriends: "But Sweetie, all my girlfriends liked it when I did that to them, so it is simple deduction that you should like it as well!" David Hume argued that we should never a.s.sume the future will be like the past. Hume did not care how many similar instances you had in the past. None of those instances can tell you what would happen next because they are all stuck in the past. This poor husband has no idea how his wife is about to react to him drawing conclusions about her based on his previous girlfriends. His induction from past girlfriends to his present wife is quite a dangerous move!

In the twenty-first century, we know the dangers of generalizing about gender. Not all men are alike, and neither are all women. Men can be feminine; women can be masculine. There are no real differences between the genders in intelligence, personality types, or even physical abilities. Top female weight lifters can lift more than almost any men. And, you certainly should never a.s.sume your significant other is exactly like your exes. We overcome s.e.xism (as well as racism and other forms of bigotry) in large part by refusing to put individuals in boxes based on their gender, race, religion, or s.e.xuality.

But a large part of what Sherlock Holmes does is induction (not deduction), which relies on treating like people as alike. Deduction occurs when you move from a set of premises to a conclusion that is certain to be true based on those premises. All women are human. Irene Adler is a woman (let's ignore that she is a fictional character). Therefore, Irene Adler is human.

Induction occurs when you move from a set of premises to a conclusion that is probably true based on those premises. Most women have two legs. Irene Adler is a woman. Therefore, Irene Adler has two legs. That's probably true. Of course, Moriarty could have intervened and done something horrible to maim Adler! Contrary to what Hume thinks, induction often works out fine. This example seems to be a good case: the conclusion might be false-but it is probably true that Adler has two legs.

At the same time, induction can be quite dangerous when it comes to gender. Let's try another argument. Most women are not as intelligent as a great British detective. Irene Adler is a woman. Sherlock Holmes is a great British detective. Therefore, Irene Adler is not as intelligent as Sherlock Holmes. There is much that is wrong with this argument (the logic appears to be fine, but it is not a cogent argument that should convince us that the conclusion is probably true). We can tell because the conclusion is not probably true: Adler outwits Holmes in "A Scandal in Bohemia." We should not a.s.sume that women are not as smart as British detectiveseven great ones. We should not even a.s.sume that women cannot be British detectives, which might be implied by the first premise.

It is the kind of premise, which is found in many inductive arguments, that a.s.serts "Most women are this way . . ." that troubles us. It's this kind of premise that often falls prey to the fallacy of hasty generalization. That fallacy occurs when a generalization is made on flimsy evidence. How can we know what most women are like? When we say most women have two legs, we're walking on pretty safe ground. But how about when we refer to the intelligence of most women or what most women desire? We can't really know those sorts of things, and that is why we have to be careful about making hasty generalizations.

It Is a Capital Mistake to Theorize before You Have All the Evidence.

Sir Arthur Conan Doyle's female characters are often irrational and gullible, hysterical and vengeful, and always thinking with the stereotypically one-track mind of a woman who does everything for her family or man. They are also often too frail under the monumental stress of the situations they find themselves in and need a man, such as Sherlock Holmes, to save them. In reality, gender patterns (most women are a certain way) are likely to yield some dangerous inductive conclusions (therefore, this woman must be that way). But, in Doyle's universe, most women really do fit into well-established patterns.

Holmes often a.s.sumes it will be easier to trick a woman than to ask an honest question. This kind of a.s.sumption fits into the idea that women are likely to be gullible and dishonest. For example, in The Sign of the Four, Holmes needs to find a boat that contains his primary suspect. Mrs. Smith, the wife of a simple boatman, has the information Holmes requires. Rather than just coming out and requesting the information, Holmes a.s.sumes that Mrs. Smith won't relay it honestly. He uses a ruse against her that plays on her motherly instincts: he compliments her son and gives him money to curry her favor. Holmes then pretends to be confused about what the boat looks like. Mrs. Smith feels she's correcting his mistaken information when, in reality, she is giving him the description he is after. But there is no need for this deceitful move. Holmes seems to have generalized from his views about women to the conclusion that this woman is unlikely to be honest and helpful, but will be easy to trick.

Holmes often generalizes about females, and although these generalizations should be dangerous, they often work out fine for him. Consider Mary Sutherland, who comes to see Holmes in "A Case of Ident.i.ty." Holmes, observing her behavior under his window, works his infamous inductive skills. He a.n.a.lyzes her back and forth movements on the pavement, and quickly decides that her jerky movements and fidgeting behavior indicate that she is of two minds about seeking help. Further, he infers that her distraught behavior is due to a love affair.

We can see the generalizations stirring in Holmes's mind in this case. How did he figure out it is a love affair? Well, it would have to be something that was not too serious since the woman is not certain she wants to hire the detective. But surely there are dozens of random problems that could fit into that category. So, why love affair? Because that's what most women trouble themselves about! We have stepped right into a hasty generalization!

Fortunately, Mary Sutherland's love affair problem is not too serious, since "when a woman has been seriously wronged by a man, she no longer oscillates, and the usual symptom is a broken bell wire" ("A Case of Ident.i.ty"). If a woman is unsure of whether to hire a detective, then she has a mild love problem. If a woman is sure of her need for a detective, then she has a severe love problem and is likely to break down the detective's door- that's why detectives need extra security, not to protect them from super-villains like Professor Moriarty, but from scorned women! By this reasoning, Holmes would have a.s.sumed a love problem the moment any female showed up at his door. It's just a matter of measuring how bad the problem is by checking how little control she has over her emotions.

In spite of these rather poor characterizations of women, Doyle does not write even his minor female characters as stupid. Mary Sutherland manages her yearly income adequately, and is rather adept at understanding the stock market. Holmes recognizes this insight, and is approving of it. Having generalized her as overly emotional, he comes to see that she has a rational side as well.

Still, Holmes does over-complicate matters in the end by not fully accepting that this smart woman could handle the truth. Holmes figures out that Mary was actually engaged to her stepfather in disguise. Instead of telling her that she had been duped, he merely scares away the stepfather. But since Holmes will go on to other cases, and neither Mary nor her mother know that her stepfather is carrying on this ruse, this solution will probably only lead to new problems after the events of the story. Because he a.s.sumed that this woman would not be able to understand the solution to her problem, Holmes left Mary Sutherland unable to protect herself in the future if her stepfather returns.

Finally, let's look at Lady Frances Carfax, who appears in "The Disappearance of Lady Frances Carfax." We learn right at the outset of this story that Lady Frances, who is single, is also "the drifting and friendless woman . . . the inevitable inciter of crimes in others. . . . She is a stray chicken in a world of foxes. When she is gobbled up she is hardly missed." All in all, we can sum up by saying she is a, "rather pathetic figure."

But what provides the basis for these conclusions? It's unclear that there is any basis, other than that she is an older, single woman. By the events of the story, Watson learns that she's "not more than forty. She was still handsome and bore every sign of having in her youth been a very lovely woman." We must imagine that what makes her such a pathetic figure is her inability to find a man, in spite of having been very lovely in her youth.

It is this kind of quick thinking that throws Holmes off in the case at hand. Lady Frances disappeared because a couple is attempting to bury her alive in the coffin of a woman who died of natural causes. Holmes almost misses this clever ruse, which forces him to admit that he is indeed mortal. Though he also thinks of himself as the best kind of mortal since he is the kind that can always "recognize and repair" his mistakes in time. In fact, he does arrive in time to save Lady Frances, but not in time to catch the couple who tried to bury her. We must be on the lookout for whether he eventually "recognizes and repairs" his tendency to form hasty generalizations about women. But, we shouldn't just isolate Holmes's hasty generalizations without noticing that Dr. Watson is even guiltier when it comes to generalizing unfairly about women.

Watson, the Fair s.e.x Is Your Department.

Where Sherlock Holmes often risks drawing hasty generalizations about gender, Dr. John H. Watson is even worse as he consistently objectifies women in his generalizations about them. Feminist philosophers worry a great deal about s.e.xual objectifications where a person treats someone like they are an object, such as when we concentrate on a human's sh.e.l.l-her body-and miss what's inside-the person. Hasty generalizations are a big part of this problem. If you meet some people who can be judged quite accurately based on what's on the outside, it's natural to think that you don't need to keep looking for people's insides. But we can already see how dangerous that is: some of the most interesting people in life are the ones who cannot be judged by how they look. Dr. Watson's generalizations often involve forming opinions on women based only on their looks.

We see this from the first moment he meets his eventual wife in The Sign of the Four: Her face had neither regularity of feature nor beauty of complexion, but her expression was sweet and amiable, and her large blue eyes were singularly spiritual and sympathetic. In an experience of women which extends over many nations and three separate continents, I have never looked upon a face which gave clearer promise of a refined and sensitive nature.

We see the basis for Watson's generalizations: he tells us all about his wealth of experience with women from all over the world. More importantly, we see how Watson has completely figured out Miss Mary Morstan, his future wife, merely by looking at her. She is not beautiful in terms of having a symmetrical face or an attractive complexion, but he can tell that she is sweet, amiable, spiritual, sympathetic, refined, and sensitive just from looking at her facial expression.

Dr. Watson is quick to judge other women based on their appearances. As another telling example, we can look at a situation where Holmes gives Watson the chance to try out induction for himself. Watson's immediately concentrates on the woman's outward display: Well, she had a slate-coloured, broad-brimmed straw hat. . . . Her jacket was black. . . . Her dress was brown. . . . Her gloves were grayish. . . . Her boots I didn't observe. She had small round, hanging gold earrings, and a general air of being fairly well-to-do in a vulgar, comfortable, easy-going way. ("A Case of Ident.i.ty") What's really interesting about this pa.s.sage is not just the fact that Watson zooms in on colors (Sherlock responds, "It is true that you have missed everything of importance, but . . . you have a quick eye for colour"), but that he has deemed that there is something vulgar about the fact that the woman has a comfortable, easy-going way about her. Watson is drawing an opinion about the woman's character just from the air about her.

Not only does Watson make quick judgments about women's appearances, but beautiful women get special treatment from Watson, and from Holmes. When a "beautiful intruder," in "The Adventure of the Solitary Cyclist," interrupts Holmes's and Watson's evening, the doctor states that, "it was impossible to refuse to listen to the story of the young and beautiful woman, tall, graceful and queenly." Yet, an "elderly, motherly woman of the buxom landlady type" coming in the afternoon gets no special treatment in "The Adventure of the Veiled Lodger." In fact, Holmes explains to Watson that he should not hold himself back in front of such a woman, and that he should feel free to smoke in her presence. It's as if there is some sort of correlation between attractiveness and respect or courtesy.

Holmes and Watson are enthralled with the beautiful intruder and her story, and Watson is inclined to view her as having great "clearness and composure." But all Watson says about the old lady is that "she waddled out of the room." In both cases, the women's mysteries are solved: but there's a clear indication of differential treatment. With the young, beautiful intruder, the two inquire after her marital status; with the elderly woman, they simply get down to business and dismiss her promptly so that they could have lunch.

Doyle's Proto-Feminist: Irene Adler.

Both Watson and Holmes engage in occasional generalizations about women. That raises the question of whether Doyle thought that it was safe to paint women in such universal strokes. We can tell that he did not by looking at the one case where Holmes was outwitted. As if the dangers of all of these generalizations were adding up to the one big mistake, it turns out that he was outwitted by "the woman." As Watson explains: To Sherlock Holmes she is always the woman. I have seldom heard him mention her under any other name. In his eyes she eclipses and predominates the whole of her s.e.x. . . . there was but one woman to him, and that woman was the late Irene Adler, of dubious and questionable memory. ("A Scandal in Bohemia") We've already seen that Holmes is likely to think that women will be too emotional for their own good, and that this makes them easy to trick. For this reason, Holmes did not think he would have any trouble when he set out to trick Irene Adler into giving up her most prized possession (a picture that could cause a scandal for the King of Bohemia). Irene Adler is the exception that turns Holmes's s.e.xist generalizations upside down, and one of the few individuals, of either gender, to beat him at his own game. Irene Adler, a woman-or "the woman," as Holmes thinks of her-outwits, outmaneuvers, and out-sleuths the usually incomparable Sherlock Holmes, teaching him the dangers of hasty gendered generalizations.

Holmes's entire plan is based on gendered generalizations. Holmes task is to get the picture away from Adler. To do so, he needs to know where she keeps it. He feels it is safe to a.s.sume that it will be in her home because, "Women are naturally secretive, and they like to do their own secreting." Having a.s.sumed she is like all other women, Holmes thinks he can trick her into letting him into her house and into showing him where she keeps the picture.

Of course, Watson-judging character from outside appearances as always-feels guilty about tricking her since she's a pretty woman: "I never felt more ashamed of myself in my life when I saw the beautiful creature against whom I was conspiring."

The trick appears to work as Holmes does get into Adler's home. Once in her home, Holmes's ruse takes form. Holmes continues to think he can draw conclusions about any woman from past experiences of other women: "When a woman thinks that her house is on fire, her instinct is at once to rush to the thing which she values most."

When Holmes returns to her home the next day, he's shocked to find that Adler not only knows who he is, but also has left a note for him. Though Holmes uses his disguise to trick Adler, he does not realize that she has been using a disguise of her own to trick Holmes. She actually wished him "Goodnight" while dressed as a man. Adler out-prepared Holmes, and when he came to trick her, she was ready for him, and he is unable to get the photograph for the King of Bohemia.

The Honorable, the Woman.

This moment-where Adler outwits the greatest detective in literary history-is incredibly important as a response to the dangerous gendered generalizations we have been discussing. If Holmes and Watson always got away with their gendered generalizations, that would be a problem. If the female characters always confirmed their negative stereotypes of women, we would have to think that Doyle himself created a s.e.xist fictional universe. But the exception not only proves the danger of hasty generalizations, but it also indicates that Doyle was aware of this danger.

In Irene Adler, Doyle created a proto-feminist: a strong female character who was just as smart as the smartest man-a female character that stood for everything any woman is capable of. For this reason, it makes sense to refer to her as "the woman." She is not only the woman who beat Holmes, but she is also the woman who shows why it is always wrong to treat women as a group instead of treating them as particular individuals. Each woman, of course, deserves to be referred to in singular terms to capture her unique personal traits that set her apart as a real individual who cannot be judged simply by her s.e.x or outer appearances.

Notice how important this point is, historically speaking. "A Scandal in Bohemia" is published in 1891, and yet it presents a female antagonist just as intelligent as Sherlock Holmes. It is incredibly difficult to find a female antagonist going head-tohead against a great male hero, and coming out on top. Over thirty years after Holmes's defeat, Agatha Christie's Hercule Poirot goes up against Countess Vera Rossakoff, but he easily sees through her framing of another man and collects the jewels she stole. Forty years after Doyle's "Scandal," Das.h.i.+ell Hammett's Sam Spade goes up against Brigid O'Shaughnessy, but she ends up falling in love with Spade who turns her over to the cops. Fifty years after Irene Adler's tale of success, Raymond Chandler's Philip Marlowe goes up against Helen Grayle, who manages to escape Marlowe's clutches, but ends up killing herself.

Clearly, Doyle was ahead of his time in appreciation for the ability of a woman to equalize his great detective in an intellectual dispute. His characters may have lagged behind him with all of their inductive arguments that moved from previous experiences with women to a conclusion that the next woman would be the same. But, surely, they learned their lesson when they were bested by the woman. As Watson says: the best plans of Mr. Sherlock Holmes were beaten by a woman's wit. He used to make merry over the cleverness of women, but I have not heard him do it of late. And when he speaks of Irene Adler, or when he refers to her photograph, it is always under the honorable t.i.tle of the woman.

THERE ARE UNEXPLORED POSSIBILITIES IN YOU.

Chapter 16.

The Many Faces of Deception.

Don Fallis.

If, like truth, the lie had but one face, we would be on better terms. For we would accept as certain the opposite of what the liar would say. But the reverse of the truth has a hundred thousand faces and an infinite field.

-Montaigne.

Why are they lying, and what is the truth which they are trying so hard to conceal? Let us try, Watson, you and I, if we can get behind the lie and reconstruct the truth.

-Sherlock Holmes, Esq.

Sherlock Holmes is renowned for observing several minute details and then being able to draw amazingly accurate inferences about what has happened. At their first meeting in A Study in Scarlet, Holmes quickly notices that Watson has a military bearing, that his face is darker than the skin on his wrists, and that he holds his left arm in "a stiff and unnatural manner." From these clues (together with his knowledge of the recent Anglo-Afghan War), Holmes famously concludes, "You have been in Afghanistan, I perceive." But obviously Holmes didn't mention all the clues he had employed, because based on that evidence alone, Watson could also have been in South Africa, where the British had been fighting the Zulus at about the same time.

However, the sorts of "deductions" that Holmes regularly makes in order to solve crimes are even more impressive. In these cases, Holmes manages to uncover something that (unlike Watson's military service) someone else is actively trying to keep hidden. In other words, he's dealing with liars and deceivers who attempt to make the world appear to be one way when the reality is actually quite different. And in order to see through their ruses to the truth, Holmes has to understand the various ways in which people try to deceive other people.

Philosophers from Plato and Saint Augustine to Immanuel Kant and Friedrich Nietzsche have been primarily interested in moral questions about lying and deception, such as whether it's always wrong to lie and whether lying is worse than other forms of deception. But philosophers are also concerned with the purely epistemological questions of how people can be deceived and how deception can be detected. In other words, how can we acquire knowledge in a world of liars and deceivers?

All types of deception involve manipulating people's beliefs by altering the way the world appears to be. However, as we see from reading the "Reminiscences of John H. Watson, M.D.," deceit comes in a wealth of different varieties. Thus, philosophers, such as Augustine, Roderick Chisholm and Thomas Feehan, J. Bowyer Bell and Barton Whaley, Jonathan Adler (no relation to Irene), and, most recently, Thomas Carson, have attempted to cla.s.sify the different possible types of deception.

As well as writing a technical monograph enumerating the various types of tobacco ash (The Sign of the Four), Holmes was also interested in categorizing the various types of crime and deceit. As he points out, "There is a strong family resemblance about misdeeds, and if you have all the details of a thousand at your finger ends, it is odd if you can't unravel the thousand and first" (A Study in Scarlet).