In a sweeping triumph of an unavoidably pretentious narrative, Mr. Rennison delivers as solid an attempt to transmogrify the fictional detective into a living hero of Victorian contrasts as any is likely to achieve. Does this mean that the work is flawless? My question is: what would that even mean in a work of this kind? Would it mean that the author agrees with all my interpretations of Holmes, the legend? If I believed that I am the standard of correctness in depicting Holmes, then I would be a little too arrogant for my own good, and certainly guilty of the one thing Holmes always denigrated: theorizing before I had all the facts. Rennison shows quite clearly the quality of “facts” that are available to us in Watson’s accounts of Holmes’ adventures and, as he demonstrates, many of the names and dates were changed to protect the innocent. So it isn’t easy to say just how perfectly “accurate” Mr. Rennison’s final product really is. One thing is certain, it was a thoroughly enjoyable read.
I would like to list what I considered the most positive aspects of the work:
1. Rennison’s exceptional research collected together a number of historical elements that would simply have been inaccessible to the general reader. These moments were woven into the period of Holmes’ youth, his public activity as the preeminent master of forensic detection, and his later years devoted to a “retiring” life among the bees. I received a valuable connection of historical traces, particularly the earlier history of crime detection in London and America.
2. Rennison took his subject seriously. He didn’t make Holmes appear, as so often happens, as a wooden logic machine. Nor did he come across as riddled with seedy little psychological problems and of dubious ability that was only later puffed up by legend. The portrayal is realistic and full of sympathetic feeling for what might have been Holmes’ real longings, had he been a living person. Rennison showed himself knowledgeable of various psychological and historical theories that have been put forward to explain this or that about Holmes’ relationships or his lifestyle and decisions. Thankfully, the author treats them each as they usually deserve.
3. Rennison also coaxes every suggestive remark from the pages of Watson’s stories. Having read all the stories myself (as well as a few outside works and interpretations), it was a delight to see these provocative clues pieced together in rather plausible ways, even if the verdict was not identical to my own in every way. So much material made its way into the book that I had to respect such careful attention to detail, which only made it all the more rewarding.
4. There was a quality of richness about the mixture of fact and fantasy so that, at times, one gets lost in the narrative and finds it difficult to tell one from the other. In my opinion, this preserves beautifully the vivid realism of Doyle’s characterization, so that you almost believe Holmes might have existed somewhere.
Now for a little criticism:
1. I think, on rare occasions, that Rennison did in fact get his subject wrong. I could just hear Holmes chiming in, “Of course, you have missed everything of importance.” The author’s work on the whole was a delight, but there were moments where I did wish he had portrayed Holmes with a little less interpretive color. Still, even in those moments, I was glad to consider an alternative point of view and thought Rennison’s ideas truly intelligent enough to merit serious consideration.
2. There were also rarer occasions where his portrayal of a historical situation was not quite correct, at least from my own background knowledge. The Crippen case is, to my mind, the foremost example of incorrect reporting. But, as I said, I noticed such slips only on a couple of occasions.
3. There were moments, perhaps for the sake of sufficient material or because of an overabundance of it, that Rennison portrays Holmes’ role in a case which I seriously doubt he would ever have involved himself in. Nevertheless, Rennison does show himself thoroughly acquainted with Holmes’ disinterest in certain kinds of trivial affairs, even where they are of immense importance to others.
A five star rating does not suggest that it was perfect. If it did, no book would merit five stars (and the rating would be useless). I gave it five stars because I seriously doubted, had I labored through as much background material and tried to resolve the many paradoxes of Watson’s account, that I would have done half as well. Should I, like Holmes, strike a more critical tone? I would, if I were him. But I am not. No one ever was. Nevertheless, Rennison comes as close as possible to making me believe there could have been.
His account is highly sustaining and a marked improvement on many of studies of this kind. I am of the opinion that it will stand the test of your perusals and that you will finish it, as I did, glad that you had stepped for a moment into an astounding life that almost was.
This is going on my “eventually must-read” list.