Holmes vs. Holmes

Dr. Holmes is a character in the book Mrs. Dalloway by Virginia Woolf who, as a character, is used to show the incompetence of psychologists in the 1920's. He does not understand Septimus' shell shock, and claims "There was nothing whatever the matter," which only sends Septimus further into what can only be described as his delusional state. Septimus after claims "there was no excuse; nothing whatever, except the sin for which human nature had condemned him to death" (Woolf, 79). While Rezia does recognize that this approach is not helping Septimus and takes him to a different doctor, the damage is done. Dr. Holmes is portrayed as a man who saw one or two trees and assumed a vast forest of knowledge.

Likewise, in Arthur Conan Doyle’s series of Sherlock Holmes, the character of Sherlock Holmes is portrayed as a man who understands everything. He sees a bell without a pull? Exotic snake. He looks at drawings of dancing stick figures? It’s a code! Falls down a waterfall? Wow, he survives! Miraculous. In each story, he comes to what would most likely be a highly irrational conclusion which would get him fired from any bureau, had it not somehow been the correct answer. At least, this seems to be Virginia Woolf’s main complaint. Before she wrote Mrs. Dalloway, Woolf wrote an essay titled Mr. Bennett and Mrs. Brown, in which she complains directly of Conan Doyle’s work by saying, quote, “to me Dr. Watson is a sack stuffed with straw, a dummy, a figure of fun.” While not speaking of Sherlock directly, it’s clear her view on the entire series is that of mild disdain. She feels his book is for the purpose of fanciful entertainment, and that trying to view Holmes as anything other than caricature is stupid.

In her novel, she uses Holmes to make fun of Holmes, and uses his line of thinking (the sparse evidence leading to an illogical conclusion) to make a statement about how Conan Doyle’s work would have worked out realistically. I don’t think she was directly trying to make a metacommentary on the dangers of following the ideals of your favorite characters, it can certainly be read as such.

While I personally don’t agree with Woolf on the idea that Holmes is an unrealistically omnipotent caricature of a detective (I actually quite love the series), I am also petty, and can appreciate the dedication to hating. Naming an incompetent character who unknowingly drives a mentally unstable man to suicide after the main character of one of the most well known series of all time is a level of petty I strive to be.