Possessions and Obsessions: Fandom and the Case of Arthur Conan Doyle

252 Pages·2017·3.83 MB·English

by  Kate Brombley

Possessions and Obsessions: Fandom and the Case of
Arthur Conan Doyle

Katharine Grace Brombley

The thesis is submitted in partial fulfilment of the requirements for the award of the degree
of Doctor of Philosophy of the University of Portsmouth.

Whilst registered as a candidate for the above degree, I have not been registered for any
other research award. The results and conclusions embodied in this thesis are the work of
the named candidate and have not been submitted for any other academic award.

Word count: 79,108

1
Abstract
This thesis focuses on the legacy of Arthur Conan Doyle’s most famous literary creation:
Sherlock Holmes. This thesis examines the historical, literary, and cultural context that
caused a Sherlock Holmes fandom to emerge in the 1890s-1930s. Drawing on a range of
resources, including previously unworked material from the Arthur Conan Doyle
Collection, Richard Lancelyn Green Bequest (Portsmouth, UK), this thesis furthers the
current research being carried out on Sherlock Holmes fandom. The special edition
‘Sherlock Holmes Fandom, Sherlockiana, and the Great Game’ of Transformative Works
and Cultures (2017) offers original research that traces the roots of participatory fandom to
the 1890s, but there are still large gaps to be explored. This thesis therefore aims to engage
with Sherlockian fandom as an 1890s phenomenon that progressed and grew from Holmes’
first appearance in the Strand. It also examines the previously ignored role of the Strand in
cultivating a Sherlock Holmes fandom. It does this by looking at the commercialisation of
Holmes, as well as the concepts of authorship, canon, paratexts, and collections. It
combines existing approaches, such as literary theory, fan studies, and thing theory, and
applies it to Victorian and Edwardian culture.
This thesis argues that the Strand had a contradictory relationship with Sherlock Holmes
fanfiction. On the one hand, the Strand used the idea of self-improvement to actively
encourage readers to participate in authorship; on the other, they also rigorously enforced a
literary hierarchy. Instead, Tit-Bits became the place for fans’ creative output, including
Sherlock Holmes pastiches and parodies. This dual approach to fan behaviours was also
present in the Strand’s attitude to collecting. They produced Sherlock Holmes postcards to
be collected, yet also pathologised collectors in the magazine’s content. This thesis also
argues that the Sherlock Holmes Canon itself offers a self-reflexive and dual portrayal of
fans and collectors.
2
Possessions and Obsessions: Fandom and the Case of Arthur Conan Doyle

Table of Contents
Table of Illustrations 6

Acknowledgements 8

Introduction 9
Richard Lancelyn Green 9
Fan Theory 12
Collecting and Collections 18
The Strand and Arthur Conan Doyle 24

Chapter One: Writing, Self-Improvement, and the Strand 32
Introduction 32
Self-Improvement and Economic Gains 34
Celebrities, Authors, and their Handwriting 40
Writing Tools as Means to Authorship 49
Typewriters and Female Professionalisation 61
‘A Case of Identity’ and the Power of Type 67
Conclusion 76

3
Chapter Two: Escaping the Strand: The Paratextual Sherlock Holmes 78
Introduction 78
Arthur Conan Doyle and Defining the Canon 82
Sherlock Holmes Paratexts in the Strand 89
Paratextual Sherlock Holmes and Tit-Bits 93
Literary Competitions in Tit-Bits 100
Conclusion 112

Chapter Three: Collecting Sherlock Holmes: Autographs and Postcards 115
Introduction 115
Collecting in the Nineteenth Century 116
Handwriting as Sign 120
Arthur Conan Doyle versus Sherlock Holmes 123
Asking for Sherlock Holmes’ Autograph 128
Postcard Collecting 134
Conclusion 154

Chapter Four: Sherlock Holmes, Fandom and the Pathological Collector 158
Introduction 158
Collecting and Thing Theory 159
Stapleton and Naturalism 162
Baron Gruner and the Orientalised Other 178
Conclusion 196

4
Conclusion 201
The Creation of the Sherlock Holmes Society 205
The Sherlock Holmes Society Meetings (1934-1938) 210
Sherlockian Scholarship and the first Sherlock Holmes Society Meeting 212
The Organisation of the Sherlock Holmes Society 215
The Reach of the Great Game 221

Bibliography 228

Ethics Certificate & UPR16 249

5
Table of Illustrations

Fig. 1. Facsimile of Burns’ Handwriting, Strand Magazine 67 (1896): 54
Fig. 2. Facsimile of the Handwriting of Alfred Lord Tennyson, Strand Magazine (1894):
605
Fig. 3. Facsimile of a page of Mr. Grant Allen’s story Jerry Stokes, Strand Magazine 1
(1891): 298
Fig. 4. Advertisement for Burge, Warren & Ridgley, Strand Magazine 15 (1898): xviii
Fig. 5. Advertisement for Burge, Warren & Ridgley, Strand Magazine 18 (1899): ii
Fig. 6. Advertisement for London Correspondence College, Strand Magazine
Fig. 7. Advertisement for the Regent Institute, Strand Magazine
Fig. 8. Advertisement for British School of Advertising, Strand Magazine
Fig. 9. Advertisement for Premier School of Journalism, Strand Magazine 72 (1926): 57
Fig. 10. Advertisement page from the Strand Magazine
Fig. 11. Sidney Paget, Postcard ‘The Reichenbach Falls’ (1903)
Fig.12. Sidney Paget, Postcard ‘It was the shadow of Sherlock Holmes’ (1903)
Fig. 13. Sidney Paget, Postcard ‘The Hound of the Baskervilles’ (1903)
Fig. 14. Sidney Paget, Postcard ‘The man seized Sherlock Holmes by the throat’ (1903
Fig. 15.) Sidney Paget, Postcard ‘The silhouette on the Blind was a perfect reproduction of
Holmes’ (1903)
Fig. 16. Sidney Paget, Postcard ‘Look at that with your Magnifying Glass, Mr. Holmes’
(1903)
Fig. 17. Advertisement for the “Sherlock Holmes” Picture Postcards, Strand Magazine
Fig. 18. Reverse side for Sidney Paget, Postcard ‘The silhouette on the Blind was a perfect
reproduction of Holmes’ (1903)
6
Fig. 19. Sidney Paget, illustration for The Hound of the Baskervilles, Strand Magazine 23
(1901): 246
Fig. 20. Sidney Paget, illustration for The Hound of the Baskervilles, Strand Magazine 23
(1901): 496
Fig. 21. Sidney Paget, illustration for The Hound of the Baskervilles, Strand Magazine 24
(1902): 12
Fig. 22. Howard K. Elcock, illustration for ‘The Adventure of the Illustrious Client’, Strand
Magazine (1925)

7
Acknowledgements
I would like to thank the Arts Humanities Research Council for gifting me the AHRC
collaborative award and Portsmouth City Council for access to their resources. Without this
practical support, this fantastic project would never have come to fruition.
To my supervisor, Dr Christopher Pittard – thank you for always finding something kind to
say. Your input and eternal support have been invaluable. To Dr Jane Mee and Dr Patricia
Pulham – thank you for your help, guidance, and support, both personally and
academically. I would also like to give special mention to Dr Lincoln Geraghty for reading
drafts and filling gaps in theory in this interdisciplinary thesis, and to Dr Roberta Pearson
for kindly sending me vital proofs of articles that were then forthcoming to print in TWC.
To all the staff and volunteers at the Arthur Conan Doyle Collection, Richard Lancelyn
Green Bequest, especially Michael Gunton and Laura Weston, I want to say that I
appreciate all your work and dedication to such a fine collection. I am grateful for all your
guidance, encouragement, and many trips into the storerooms.
To Sherlockians all over the world, especially Mattias Boström, Alistair Duncan, Benoit
Guilielmo, Tim Johnson, Jon Lellenberg, Steven Rothman, Randall Stock, and Nicholas
Utechin – thank you for so freely sharing your knowledge and contacts with me. This thesis
has benefitted greatly from your years of dedicated research. I am sad to never have known
Richard Lancelyn Green, whose collection I have worked so closely with, and I do not
underestimate the privilege it has been.
To my family, including my ambitiously optimistic parents - without your love, financial
and emotional support, this thesis would never have been written. Words cannot express
how much I appreciate all you have done for me. To all my friends, including Rosie, Jack,
Alex, Sian, Kieran, Millie – thank you for keeping me sane. To my fellow PhD students –
Danni, Lucy, and Mel – thank you for your company, kind words, and advice.
And finally, I wish to dedicate this thesis to my loving, limitlessly patient, supportive
fiancé, Zach. Without you, none of this would have been possible. Your steadfast belief in
me and your persistent encouragement have culminated in this finished piece of work and I
can now happily say that was all worth it.

8
Introduction
Richard Lancelyn Green
World-renowned Sherlockian scholar, Richard Lancelyn Green, dedicated his life to his
many hobbies and scholarly pursuits.1 His many attributes are celebrated in the memoir To
Keep the Memory Green, compiled by two of his friends and fellow Sherlockians, Steven
Rothman and Nicholas Utechin in 2007. In the memoir, contributors explain Lancelyn
Green’s varied interests, which included book collecting, cinema and film, travelling, as
well as Arthur Conan Doyle and Sherlock Holmes scholarship. His interest in the latter
began with his recreation of 221B Baker Street in his family home when he was a boy. (C.
L. Green, 2007, p. 58). Lancelyn Green was also heavily influenced by the interests of his
father, Roger Lancelyn Green who was a renowned bibliophile, a scholar of Arthur Conan
Doyle, and an expert on Victorian literature. Richard Lancelyn Green himself was highly
educated, completing his English degree at Oxford University, and his family’s wealth
enabled him to spend the majority of his time in scholarly pursuits, collecting, and
travelling (To Keep the Memory Green: Reflections on the Life of Richard Lancelyn Green
1953-2004, 2007).
In addition to the management of a few properties, Lancelyn Green’s work was
predominantly writing and producing over 200 publications, most of which were related to
Conan Doyle or Sherlock Holmes. Fellow Sherlockians in To Keep the Memory Green
portray a sense of wonder and awe at Lancelyn Green’s capacity for knowledge. As Marina
Stajic says, ‘Richard held a vast store of out-of-the-way knowledge and his knowledge, in
general, was practically unlimited’ (2007, p. 119). Doug Wrigglesworth summarised it in
these terms:
‘[w]hat a legacy of scholarship and friendship he has left us all. What better
motivation could we have to continue his example of sharing our enthusiasm, our
knowledge and our resources among this unique community of friends with whom
we share this gentle passion?’ (2007, p. 81).

1 ‘Sherlockian’ is the name given to the fans and scholars of Sherlock Holmes. Other alternative names
include ‘Holmesian’ that many understand to be the British alternative to the more American ‘Sherlockian’,
as well as ‘Doylean’ to differentiate those who are scholars of Arthur Conan Doyle, not Sherlock Holmes
(although many study both). I have chosen to use the term ‘Sherlockian’ in this thesis as it has become the
more often adopted term for Sherlock Holmes fan-scholars in both American and British culture.
9
For Sherlockians everywhere, in particular those who knew Richard Lancelyn Green
personally, his death was a tragedy that stole from them a world-class scholar, generous
friend, and exemplary Sherlockian.
However, the press surrounding his death portrayed him instead as obsessive, pathological,
and ‘cursed’. It was publicly known that Richard Lancelyn Green strongly objected to the
upcoming sale at Christie’s of a large number of Arthur Conan Doyle’s papers that had
been in the possession of Dame Jean Conan Doyle (D. Smith, 2004). She had personally
expressed to Lancelyn Green that she wanted them to be donated to the British Library, and
he felt that they should not be separated into private collections, which prompted him to
attempt to stop the sale and fulfil her wishes. However, days before the auction, Lancelyn
Green was found garrotted in his home. An inquest ruled it an open verdict with suicide
being the most probable cause but murder was not ruled out. The newspapers adopted the
event as a kind of real-life Sherlock Holmes detective story and published such headlines as
The Telegraph’s ‘Case of Sherlock Holmes fanatic “who killed himself but made it look
like murder”’ (Day, 2004), reporting that Lancelyn Green had set up his death to resemble a
Sherlock Holmes case and to implicate an American rival. The Telegraph’s use of the word
‘fanatic’ fulfils the specific cultural connotation of fan as ‘obsessive’ and the article uses
biographical anecdotes to feed a negative slant on Lancelyn Green’s life.
The press also concentrated on the existence of a curse, as it was suggested ‘that people
connected with the author [Conan Doyle], […] seem unusually vulnerable to death or
mental break down. Among them were Conan Doyle’s sons, Adrian and Denis, who […]
both died at surprisingly early ages’ (D. Smith, 2004). Friends of Lancelyn Green were
manipulated into perpetuating the angle the press wished to portray. For example, Rothman
and Utechin explain how the press asked friends of Lancelyn Green to comment on the
‘Curse of Conan Doyle’ to which one friend replied ‘by rubbishing the concept. The next
morning, the paper duly reported that he had talked of the Curse of Conan Doyle’
(Rothman & Utechin, 2007, p. 17). The press’ pathologising of Lancelyn Green meant the
conspiracy stories spread and the circumstances of his death considerably overshadowed
the circumstances of his life. Richard Lancelyn Green’s death acts as a case in point to
prove that the term ‘fan’ comes loaded with cultural implications and negative associations
that prompt fan groups like Sherlockians to step away from the term entirely. Many prefer
to be known as enthusiasts (as explained in more detail below), to define themselves as
10