Naked Is the Best Disguise

[This book really split people in two camps. Some love it, some hate it, as the reviews below clearly indicate (Mia)]

Review 1: Upon re-reading Naked Is the Best Disguise I have to conclude that the author was probably serious in trying to analyze the reasons Doyle wrote the Canon and the sources he used. I only say "probably" because the author describes himself as a "literary Sherlock Holmes" whose job was "to get my employers off the litigious hook by searching the common literary ancestors of (embattled Scripts...whose resemblances...to "theirs"...were too close for comfort)". It is very hard to say how seriously this author may take his own arguments.

According to the book, Sherlock is an embodiment of Nietzsche's (real, not published) philosophy who undergoes death and resurrection in the manner of a Christ figure.and whose actions and adventures parallel any number of other literary and historical forebears. There are certainly enough literary citations and drawn parallels to overwhelm border-line illiterates, such as myself, who are not intimates of Catullus, Flaubert and George Sand. I must confess that my own attitude toward many of the author's Deductions and Discoveries was less than enthusiastic. Like Dorothy Parker, I found the performance "underwhelming".

I retain a sneaking suspicion that this is a parody of the popular "Higher Criticism" of the 30s and 40s practiced by so many Sherlockians. If I were more familiar with the many and varied literary references in this book, I might be better able to deny or support that suspicion. As it is, I can't even draw any amusement from the possible irony of the author's conclusions. Whether or not the book is serious, it is tedious, overly-convoluted and barely readable. For example, the discussion of The Red-Headed League involves a lengthy analysis of the story of Lot and Sodem and Gomorrah (Guess the source for the connection!).

Reviewed by: Philip K. Jones, 2003

Review 2: I was fascinated with this book the first time I read it, and I am convinced that it is one of the greatest of all Sherlockian writings.

The appeal, for me, is partly in the "discovery" of a "Conan Doyle syndrome and allegory" and the truly brilliant hypotheses throughout the book, but especially the conclusions Rosenberg drew about The Red-Headed League and the Biblical story of Sodom and Gomorrah. That was delightful. (Oscar Wilde as one of the Sholtos is great fun, too.) What a great mind Rosenberg must have had, and what fun his book is, and what insight into the psychology of the stories!!!! A truly exciting book. (See, also, his introduction to The Hound of the Baskervilles in the Schocken edition.)

But the appeal, most of all, is that Naked Is the Best Disguise is fresh and new and not just a regurgitation of Sherlockian trivia, a filling-in of Sherlockian "biographical" details, yet another summary of the tales, yet another rehash of the same old stuff. It is original; it is intellectually challenging; it is fun; it may well be tongue-in-cheek -- but it is the product of a very bright inquisitive mind.

It is hated by the stuffy, "don't tell me anything I don't already know", "how dare you not say the same old stuff" crowd. But I, for one, wish we had much, much more of this kind of insight in "the writings." I cannot recommend this wonderful book too highly.

Reviewed by: Bill Mason [WelcomeHolmes, 2003]