How come Holmes never had children?
It always puzzled me perhaps due to his personality.
shareOr his sexuality? ;)
shareSherlock Holmes wasn't gay, supposedly. There was no indication of that. In fact, he fell in love once...lady with red hair in one of the stories.
shareHe didn't. You're either thinking of "A Scandal of Bohemia" where he learned to be more respectful and less dismissive of women, or (more likely) the Copper Beeches", where he respected his female client and Watson hoped something would come of it.
The Shadow knows...
The first two posters proposed that Holmes had no children because of his personality or sexuality. So, a person is likely selfish or gay if he doesn't make babies? Consider this possibility: he simply had no interest in children and didn't see any reason to have them.
shareOr his sexuality? ;)
yeah, if you go by the Robert Downey Jr. movies, both Holmes and Watson are apparently gay.
shareHe is an apex-mind. A lot of people that were masters of their fields had little time for leisure activities such as dating because they were passionate about their work. Further, they probably felt that their families would be neglected and so abstained.
Please excuse any typos, this was typed on an iPad
Well, according to some detective fiction theorists; Nero Wolfe was supposed to be the son of Sherlock Holmes and Irene Adler
shareNah. She was in one Doyle book and there he only met Irene when he was in disguise. Even at the end Watson said he never had any love for her.
Sherlock is asexual. Interested in case and problems only - so love or even sex wasn't something he wanted at all.
http://werewolvesbeatingadeadhorse.blogspot.com/
"In 1956 John D. Clark put forth a theory in the Baker Street Journal that Nero Wolfe was the offspring of an affair between Sherlock Holmes and Irene Adler (a character from A Scandal in Bohemia). Clark suggested that the two had had an affair in Montenegro in 1892 (when Holmes was on the run from the remainder of Moriarty's gang; particularly Colonel Sebastian Moran), and that Nero Wolfe was the result. The idea was later co-opted by William S. Baring-Gould, who wrote the book, 'Nero Wolfe of West 35th Street' which further expounded on the theory".
There is also a curious coincidence: in the names "Sherlock Holmes" and "Nero Wolfe", the vowels appear in the same order. In 1957 Ellery Queen called this "The Great O-E Theory".
Of course they were all literary characters and never existed but both are worthwhile theories by these two long time Baker Street Irregulars.
If you read A Scandal In Bohemia it's made clear that Holmes has no interest in relationships or women. He sees all that as being a distraction from solving mysteries. He had a certain admiration for Irene Adler because she outsmarted him.
shareI have indeed read 'A Scandal in Bohemia' as well as the complete Holmes canon many times and know them very well.
Holmes also referred to Irene Adler as 'The Woman' and keeps her photo as payment.
She is not seen again but mentioned in other stories; 'The Blue Carbuncle', 'A Case of Identity', to name but two.
As the narrator of most of the stories, it is Watson who makes it clear "that Holmes has no interest in relationships or women. He sees all that as being a distraction from solving mysteries. He had a certain admiration for Irene Adler because she outsmarted him.", not Holmes himself, so Baring Gould's and John D Clark's theories are interesting and it's fun to theorise.
Read some of Rex Stout's Nero Wolfe Stories and draw your own conclusions.
I love the Holmes stories and have since boyhood but Conan Doyle only used him as a cash cow to finance other ventures and treated his history in a very cavalier way, contradicting himself quite a number of times in the later stories.
He even told the actor William Gillette, that "You may marry him, murder him, or do anything you like to him.", so again Holmes patronage of Nero Wolfe is entirely plausible.
Happy reading :-)
I am afraid I simply don't see it and disagree. Holmes, through most of the stories is depicted as a person "married" to his work. Of course, Holmes flat out lies a lot about himself and Watson is shown to be an unreliable narrator. However, overall I believe that the evidence is fairly overwhelming on the side that Holmes is asexual, or, at the very least, uninterested in romance and procreation.
shareOf course, Holmes flat out lies a lot about himself and Watson is shown to be an unreliable narrator.
Nah. She was in one Doyle book and there he only met Irene when he was in disguise. Even at the end Watson said he never had any love for her.
Sherlock is asexual. Interested in case and problems only - so love or even sex wasn't something he wanted at all.
I think one exercise in reading the Holmes canon is to try and separate Watson from Doyle. It isn't just "here is a story". Doyle wrote Watsons stories as written from memory inside the universe of Sherlock Holmes often years after they happened. Even if we accept that the case progressed the way Watson tells it, which we necessarily must, Watson writes the stories the way he understands them, the way he has been told something happened, or the way that makes sense to him. He puts focus one place, spins another, misunderstands this and over/underplays that. So while he presents the case correctly enough, a lot of details have been forgotten, rewritten or put into new context.
My interpretation of Bohemia is, Watson gets Holmes wrong, when it comes to Irene Adler. In fact, I think a common theme of the series is that the way Watson sees Holmes doesn't always align with what Holmes actually does.
He never married. Although he was in love once.
share[deleted]
I think this sums it up: "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 sex. It was not that he felt any emotion akin to love for Irene Adler. All emotions, and that one particularly, were abhorrent to his cold, precise but admirably balanced mind. He was, I take it, the most perfect reasoning and observing machine that the world has seen, but as a lover he would have placed himself in a false position. He never spoke of the softer passions, save with a gibe and a sneer. They were admirable things for the observer--excellent for drawing the veil from men's motives and actions. But for the trained reasoner to admit such intrusions into his own delicate and finely adjusted temperament was to introduce a distracting factor which might throw a doubt upon all his mental results. Grit in a sensitive instrument, or a crack in one of his own high-power lenses, would not be more disturbing than a strong emotion in a nature such as his. And yet there was but one woman to him, and that woman was the late Irene Adler, of dubious and questionable memory." Arthur Conan Doyle, "A Scandal in Bohemia"
shareSherlock was supposed to be the idea of a genius at that time and a perfectionist. In psychology a perfectionist typically ends up mentally paralyzed. That's due to placing so many demands on themselves and life that everything is dissatisfying and not worth doing.
In the stories Sherlock has a brother who is smarter than he is and just spends his days sitting in a chair in a men's club because he's paralyzed mentally.
Sherlock doesn't really like women or relationships for this reason. He's not sexual because all of that would be too messy, boring, and would require calm that he doesn't really have.
He's too hyper and uncomfortable for a relationship and tends to fall into miserable periods of boredom when exciting stuff isn't happening. So, he could never deal with being a partner to a woman or a father.
In the stories Sherlock has a brother who is smarter than he is and just spends his days sitting in a chair in a men's club because he's paralyzed mentally.
I don't think that Holmes was ever meant to be a family man. He has great rapport with the boy in this. And he always had boy runners in the traditional Holmes stories. But he is an avuncular figure rather than a fatherly one.
share