archetypes in sherlock holmes [essay]
I wrote this essay independently: I chose the text and what focus to use on the text, hence why I feel entirely responsible for the low marks I got on this. On the other hand, I still think it was a bold essay and that I made my point in a cohesive and structured way. Not in my tutor's opinion though, clearly.
Archetypes in Sherlock Holmes
*
Doyle's detective in the light of the Jungian archetype of the Shadow.
The genre of detective fiction can be said to have begun with Arthur Conan Doyle’s A Study in Scarlet, in 1887, where he introduced the well-known character of Sherlock Holmes. The fame of the Victorian sleuth has since eclipsed the figure of his creator and become one of the heroes of literature, whose success has been perpetuated by its portrayal on the big and small screen. In his chef-d’ouvre The Writer’s Journey, Christopher Vogler examines how stories are written following certain patterns, paying particular attention to the archetypes or ‘ancient patterns of personality that are the shared heritage of the human race’ (Vogler, p. 23). A focused reading of The Memoirs of Sherlock Holmes shall reveal how the characterisation of the main character seems to follow the patterns described by Vogler and, in particular, highlight the affinity of Sherlock Holmes with the archetype of the Shadow. Although the existing literature on the subject is scarce, the longevity of Doyle’s creation comes across as evidence that at the core of its narrative, the adventures of Sherlock Holmes draw from a pool of archetypal imagery capable of speaking to Victorian audiences as well as modern ones.
The extraordinary qualities displayed by Sherlock Holmes make him ‘the literary embodiment of the elaborate network of visual technologies that revolutionised the art of seeing in the nineteenth century’ (Thomas, p. 135). In this perspective, it should not surprise that he also epitomises the archetypal imagery that, according to Jung, is ‘inherited from the earliest human ancestors, and supposed to be present in the collective unconscious’ (OED). What is significant in these terms, however, is what aspects of the archetype of the Shadow are observable in Doyle’s work and, more specifically, in ‘The Final Problem’. Once listed, I shall endeavour to consider each function individually. In view of the claim that ‘the negative face of the Shadow in stories is projected onto characters called villains, antagonists, or enemies’ (Vogler, p. 65), Professor Moriarty represents the physical manifestation of the archetype. Holmes himself defines him as his ‘intellectual equal’ (p. 237), which can lead into an interpretation of the Shadow not as an external force that the hero is fighting against, but as an inner turmoil of darkness. One of the first descriptions that are given of Moriarty compares him to a ‘spider in the centre of its web’ (p. 236), but an uncannily similar description is used to explain Holmes in ‘The Adventure of the Cardboard Box’ (cfr. Freeman, p. xxx). Heroes are subject to manifesting a Shadow side as well and, therefore, Holmes could be both the hero and the villain of his own story. There remains only one option, thanks to Doyle’s narrative style which makes it possible for Holmes to be a Shadow figure humanised ‘by some admirable quality’ (Vogler, p. 66) - his prodigious intelligence. The figure of the Hero is then epitomised in Dr Watson; Holmes serves as a sort of Mentor figure to Watson and ‘the primary Mentor of a story may wear the Shadow mask at times’ (Vogler, p. 66).
In order to explore these manifestations of the Shadow in the Sherlock Holmes adventures, we have to take a closer look at ‘The Final Problem’. The last adventure in The Memoirs is meant to lead the reader into believing that the hero is defunct, but throughout the story there are other aspects of Holmes that come to light. The story begins at its end, giving Doyle and his narrator Dr John Watson the possibility of employing the literary trope of revealing the finale of the tale to the readers well before the events occur. Watson proceeds to relate how the bad press about Holmes on behalf of Moriarty’s brother is what urged him to write about his friend’s last case. The introduction of Moriarty is, therefore, immediately recognisable as that of the villain in the story. Watson highlights how Professor Moriarty’s side of the story is ‘extremely condensed’ and ‘an absolute perversion of the facts’ (p. 233). Needless to say, such an opinion is coloured by Watson’s high opinion of Sherlock Holmes, which in turn influences the sentiments of the reader towards Holmes as well as Moriarty. This is further exemplified by the first exchange between the sleuth and Watson, who remarks that Holmes looks ‘even paler and thinner than usual’ and that ‘his pale, worn face’ is probably due to tension (pp. 234-235). Through such descriptions - at odds with previous portrayals of the protagonist - and the earlier mention of the hero’s demise, the reader is lead to feel sympathy for Holmes and to dread the inevitable encounter with Professor Moriarty. At the same time, the description that Holmes himself supplies of Moriarty is eerily reminiscent of the hero’s own background; ‘his career has been an extraordinary one’ could very well be a statement referring to Holmes (p. 236).
In comparison, the most recent adaptation of Sherlock Holmes has focused on the character’s dark side more than earlier ones. The 2011 British-American production of Sherlock Holmes is a prime example, particularly as regards to its title. Sherlock Holmes: A Game of Shadows taps into the Shadow archetype inasmuch as the main antagonist, Professor Moriarty, clouds Holmes’s otherwise flawless shrewdness by creating smoke screens. According to Vogler, the role played by the archetype of the Shadow is to ‘challenge the hero’ and give ‘a worthy opponent in the struggle’ (Vogler, p. 66), and the Guy Ritchie’s film plays with this notion. The choice in the title comes then across as a reference to the similarities between Holmes and Moriarty, similarities that are even more evident in this adaptation due to the already present foolhardy behaviour of the title character. Such a portrayal is in line with the trend in crime fiction of exaggerating ‘the moral ambiguity [...] and systematically [tempting] the male character’ so that he may give in to crime (Priestman, p. 233). In the case of Sherlock Holmes, it is Moriarty who provides temptation and incentive for Holmes to join him.
One of the reasons for the early success of the Sherlock Holmes novels can be traced back to his flawed character; while Holmes’s mind is brilliant, he nurtures a dark side as well. This can be interpreted in a number of ways for his dark side could apply to his ill temper and his mood swings which, as characteristics that are human and shared by a large proportion of its readership, bring the character down to Earth. It is through these flaws that readers identify with a protagonist such as Sherlock Holmes, while at the same time identifying with Watson for being the ordinary man stuck by the side of an extraordinary one. In this view, Holmes’s brilliance becomes a flaw as well and his character sinks deeper into the territory of the Shadow figure. Furthermore, Doyle’s creation often withholds information vital to the case he is working on; undeniably, this is a literary device that the author exploits at the expense of his character, but Holmes’s characterisation makes it so that we do not question his method (cfr. Holmes’s letter to Watson in ‘The Final Problem’, p. 251). It is expected of him to conceal facts and suspects from the reader and, by extension, from Watson and that is why ‘The Final Problem’ becomes a much more complex story once we accept Holmes as the Shadow figure in Watson’s story.
Continuing on this idea, the BBC series Sherlock highlights this kind of relationship between Holmes and Watson. The inadequacy of Sherlock amongst people is juxtaposed with John’s sociable, gregarious demeanour; Sherlock’s shady behaviour, however, soon catches John into its web. The series threads carefully on the line between light and dark, as evinced by the final exchange between Jim Moriarty and Sherlock in ‘The Reichenbach Fall’ when Sherlock utters, ‘Oh, I may be on the side of the angels, but don’t think for one second that I am one of them.’ This serves as another reminder of the parallels between him and Moriarty; as in the canon, so in the television series, they are both highly intelligent and their only difference remains which turned to crime and which decided to fight it. It could also a small nod to the role of the Shadow that Sherlock plays in John’s life. In ‘The Final Problem’, when he is recounting Moriarty’s wrongdoings to Watson, Holmes cannot help but say that he was horrified by his crimes as well as in ‘admiration at his skill’ (p. 237). Just the same, ‘when Holmes contemplates Moriarty, he sees an image of himself reflected in a perverse mirror’ (Freeman, p. xxxi); Moriarty personifies ‘anything that has been suppressed, neglected, forgotten’ (Vogler, p. 68).
Jungian archetypes in the structure revealed by Vogler are intrinsic to all kinds of storytelling and Sherlock Holmes is no exception. In crafting his hero, Doyle consciously or inadvertently drew on features that are shared inheritance of narratives and as a result, Holmes concretises at least one of those archetypes: the Shadow. His existence is per se in the shadows, for he is the only consulting detective and because he works outside of the police forces. Moreover, his character is shady, as he prefers his own methods - of deduction, of life - to the accepted investigative ways of the time. While he is a Shadow figure, Holmes is also haunted by his antithesis in ‘The Final Problem’; Moriarty stands as a looking glass to Holmes, and therein comes the ending of the adventure. The creation of Moriarty poses the problem of having created a character that is just as cunning and intelligent as the protagonist, therefore he cannot be allowed to survive past one adventure. Similarly, Sherlock Holmes reaches his peak in ‘The Final Problem’ - his antagonist echoes him and his process to the point where they reach an impasse. The final problem that Hero and Shadow are faced with is their continuation without their equal, and terminating both must have seemed, to Doyle, like the only possible solution. This step, of course, feeds into Vogler’s mythic structure as well, for after the Death of the Hero, the next stage is the Resurrection.
*
Bibliography.
Arthur Conan Doyle, The Memoirs of Sherlock Holmes (Florence: Giunti Gruppo Editoriale, 2003).
Kyle Freeman, ‘Introduction to Volume I’ in The Complete Sherlock Holmes, Volume One (New York: Barnes and Nobles Classics, 2003).
Martin Priestman, ed., The Cambridge Companion to Crime Fiction (Cambridge: Cambridge U. P., 2003).
Ronald R. Thomas, ‘Making Darkness Visible: Capturing the Criminal and Observing the Law in Victorian Photography and Detective Fiction’ in Christ, Carol T., and John O. Jordan, eds., Victorian Literature and the Victorian Visual Imagination (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1995).
Christopher Vogler, The Writer’s Journey: Mythic Structure for Writers, 3rd edition (Studio City, CA: Michael Wiese Production, 2007).
Word Count: 1866/2000.
Mark - Grade: 60% - B-
Archetypes in Sherlock Holmes
*
Doyle's detective in the light of the Jungian archetype of the Shadow.
The genre of detective fiction can be said to have begun with Arthur Conan Doyle’s A Study in Scarlet, in 1887, where he introduced the well-known character of Sherlock Holmes. The fame of the Victorian sleuth has since eclipsed the figure of his creator and become one of the heroes of literature, whose success has been perpetuated by its portrayal on the big and small screen. In his chef-d’ouvre The Writer’s Journey, Christopher Vogler examines how stories are written following certain patterns, paying particular attention to the archetypes or ‘ancient patterns of personality that are the shared heritage of the human race’ (Vogler, p. 23). A focused reading of The Memoirs of Sherlock Holmes shall reveal how the characterisation of the main character seems to follow the patterns described by Vogler and, in particular, highlight the affinity of Sherlock Holmes with the archetype of the Shadow. Although the existing literature on the subject is scarce, the longevity of Doyle’s creation comes across as evidence that at the core of its narrative, the adventures of Sherlock Holmes draw from a pool of archetypal imagery capable of speaking to Victorian audiences as well as modern ones.
The extraordinary qualities displayed by Sherlock Holmes make him ‘the literary embodiment of the elaborate network of visual technologies that revolutionised the art of seeing in the nineteenth century’ (Thomas, p. 135). In this perspective, it should not surprise that he also epitomises the archetypal imagery that, according to Jung, is ‘inherited from the earliest human ancestors, and supposed to be present in the collective unconscious’ (OED). What is significant in these terms, however, is what aspects of the archetype of the Shadow are observable in Doyle’s work and, more specifically, in ‘The Final Problem’. Once listed, I shall endeavour to consider each function individually. In view of the claim that ‘the negative face of the Shadow in stories is projected onto characters called villains, antagonists, or enemies’ (Vogler, p. 65), Professor Moriarty represents the physical manifestation of the archetype. Holmes himself defines him as his ‘intellectual equal’ (p. 237), which can lead into an interpretation of the Shadow not as an external force that the hero is fighting against, but as an inner turmoil of darkness. One of the first descriptions that are given of Moriarty compares him to a ‘spider in the centre of its web’ (p. 236), but an uncannily similar description is used to explain Holmes in ‘The Adventure of the Cardboard Box’ (cfr. Freeman, p. xxx). Heroes are subject to manifesting a Shadow side as well and, therefore, Holmes could be both the hero and the villain of his own story. There remains only one option, thanks to Doyle’s narrative style which makes it possible for Holmes to be a Shadow figure humanised ‘by some admirable quality’ (Vogler, p. 66) - his prodigious intelligence. The figure of the Hero is then epitomised in Dr Watson; Holmes serves as a sort of Mentor figure to Watson and ‘the primary Mentor of a story may wear the Shadow mask at times’ (Vogler, p. 66).
In order to explore these manifestations of the Shadow in the Sherlock Holmes adventures, we have to take a closer look at ‘The Final Problem’. The last adventure in The Memoirs is meant to lead the reader into believing that the hero is defunct, but throughout the story there are other aspects of Holmes that come to light. The story begins at its end, giving Doyle and his narrator Dr John Watson the possibility of employing the literary trope of revealing the finale of the tale to the readers well before the events occur. Watson proceeds to relate how the bad press about Holmes on behalf of Moriarty’s brother is what urged him to write about his friend’s last case. The introduction of Moriarty is, therefore, immediately recognisable as that of the villain in the story. Watson highlights how Professor Moriarty’s side of the story is ‘extremely condensed’ and ‘an absolute perversion of the facts’ (p. 233). Needless to say, such an opinion is coloured by Watson’s high opinion of Sherlock Holmes, which in turn influences the sentiments of the reader towards Holmes as well as Moriarty. This is further exemplified by the first exchange between the sleuth and Watson, who remarks that Holmes looks ‘even paler and thinner than usual’ and that ‘his pale, worn face’ is probably due to tension (pp. 234-235). Through such descriptions - at odds with previous portrayals of the protagonist - and the earlier mention of the hero’s demise, the reader is lead to feel sympathy for Holmes and to dread the inevitable encounter with Professor Moriarty. At the same time, the description that Holmes himself supplies of Moriarty is eerily reminiscent of the hero’s own background; ‘his career has been an extraordinary one’ could very well be a statement referring to Holmes (p. 236).
In comparison, the most recent adaptation of Sherlock Holmes has focused on the character’s dark side more than earlier ones. The 2011 British-American production of Sherlock Holmes is a prime example, particularly as regards to its title. Sherlock Holmes: A Game of Shadows taps into the Shadow archetype inasmuch as the main antagonist, Professor Moriarty, clouds Holmes’s otherwise flawless shrewdness by creating smoke screens. According to Vogler, the role played by the archetype of the Shadow is to ‘challenge the hero’ and give ‘a worthy opponent in the struggle’ (Vogler, p. 66), and the Guy Ritchie’s film plays with this notion. The choice in the title comes then across as a reference to the similarities between Holmes and Moriarty, similarities that are even more evident in this adaptation due to the already present foolhardy behaviour of the title character. Such a portrayal is in line with the trend in crime fiction of exaggerating ‘the moral ambiguity [...] and systematically [tempting] the male character’ so that he may give in to crime (Priestman, p. 233). In the case of Sherlock Holmes, it is Moriarty who provides temptation and incentive for Holmes to join him.
One of the reasons for the early success of the Sherlock Holmes novels can be traced back to his flawed character; while Holmes’s mind is brilliant, he nurtures a dark side as well. This can be interpreted in a number of ways for his dark side could apply to his ill temper and his mood swings which, as characteristics that are human and shared by a large proportion of its readership, bring the character down to Earth. It is through these flaws that readers identify with a protagonist such as Sherlock Holmes, while at the same time identifying with Watson for being the ordinary man stuck by the side of an extraordinary one. In this view, Holmes’s brilliance becomes a flaw as well and his character sinks deeper into the territory of the Shadow figure. Furthermore, Doyle’s creation often withholds information vital to the case he is working on; undeniably, this is a literary device that the author exploits at the expense of his character, but Holmes’s characterisation makes it so that we do not question his method (cfr. Holmes’s letter to Watson in ‘The Final Problem’, p. 251). It is expected of him to conceal facts and suspects from the reader and, by extension, from Watson and that is why ‘The Final Problem’ becomes a much more complex story once we accept Holmes as the Shadow figure in Watson’s story.
Continuing on this idea, the BBC series Sherlock highlights this kind of relationship between Holmes and Watson. The inadequacy of Sherlock amongst people is juxtaposed with John’s sociable, gregarious demeanour; Sherlock’s shady behaviour, however, soon catches John into its web. The series threads carefully on the line between light and dark, as evinced by the final exchange between Jim Moriarty and Sherlock in ‘The Reichenbach Fall’ when Sherlock utters, ‘Oh, I may be on the side of the angels, but don’t think for one second that I am one of them.’ This serves as another reminder of the parallels between him and Moriarty; as in the canon, so in the television series, they are both highly intelligent and their only difference remains which turned to crime and which decided to fight it. It could also a small nod to the role of the Shadow that Sherlock plays in John’s life. In ‘The Final Problem’, when he is recounting Moriarty’s wrongdoings to Watson, Holmes cannot help but say that he was horrified by his crimes as well as in ‘admiration at his skill’ (p. 237). Just the same, ‘when Holmes contemplates Moriarty, he sees an image of himself reflected in a perverse mirror’ (Freeman, p. xxxi); Moriarty personifies ‘anything that has been suppressed, neglected, forgotten’ (Vogler, p. 68).
Jungian archetypes in the structure revealed by Vogler are intrinsic to all kinds of storytelling and Sherlock Holmes is no exception. In crafting his hero, Doyle consciously or inadvertently drew on features that are shared inheritance of narratives and as a result, Holmes concretises at least one of those archetypes: the Shadow. His existence is per se in the shadows, for he is the only consulting detective and because he works outside of the police forces. Moreover, his character is shady, as he prefers his own methods - of deduction, of life - to the accepted investigative ways of the time. While he is a Shadow figure, Holmes is also haunted by his antithesis in ‘The Final Problem’; Moriarty stands as a looking glass to Holmes, and therein comes the ending of the adventure. The creation of Moriarty poses the problem of having created a character that is just as cunning and intelligent as the protagonist, therefore he cannot be allowed to survive past one adventure. Similarly, Sherlock Holmes reaches his peak in ‘The Final Problem’ - his antagonist echoes him and his process to the point where they reach an impasse. The final problem that Hero and Shadow are faced with is their continuation without their equal, and terminating both must have seemed, to Doyle, like the only possible solution. This step, of course, feeds into Vogler’s mythic structure as well, for after the Death of the Hero, the next stage is the Resurrection.
*
Bibliography.
Arthur Conan Doyle, The Memoirs of Sherlock Holmes (Florence: Giunti Gruppo Editoriale, 2003).
Kyle Freeman, ‘Introduction to Volume I’ in The Complete Sherlock Holmes, Volume One (New York: Barnes and Nobles Classics, 2003).
Martin Priestman, ed., The Cambridge Companion to Crime Fiction (Cambridge: Cambridge U. P., 2003).
Ronald R. Thomas, ‘Making Darkness Visible: Capturing the Criminal and Observing the Law in Victorian Photography and Detective Fiction’ in Christ, Carol T., and John O. Jordan, eds., Victorian Literature and the Victorian Visual Imagination (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1995).
Christopher Vogler, The Writer’s Journey: Mythic Structure for Writers, 3rd edition (Studio City, CA: Michael Wiese Production, 2007).
Word Count: 1866/2000.
Mark - Grade: 60% - B-