Arthur Conan Doyle, the mastermind behind the iconic detective Sherlock Holmes, found himself in the middle of a literary spat. This whole affair began with a poem titled “To Sir Arthur Conan Doyle” by a critic named Arthur Guiterman. Guiterman’s poem expressed his dissatisfaction with Doyle’s portrayal of other fictional detectives, particularly his disdain for Edgar Allan Poe’s Dupin. Guiterman felt Doyle’s actions were ungrateful, considering how much Doyle himself owed to other authors in the detective fiction genre. Doyle, in turn, responded with a witty and insightful poem titled “To An Undiscerning Critic”. This poem, which we will explore in detail, is a defense of his creative choices and a clever riposte to Guiterman’s critique.
A Creator’s Defense
Doyle starts by acknowledging the critique, using a rhetorical question to highlight the absurdity of the accusation: “Where are the limits of human stupidity?”. He then directly addresses Guiterman, calling him an “esteemed communicator”. This tone, though seemingly respectful, is laced with sarcasm, highlighting the absurdity of the critique.
Doyle then proceeds to explain that the creation is not the creator. He clarifies that he, as the creator, has always admired and praised Poe’s Dupin for his skills and versatility. He even admits that his own detective work is indebted to Poe’s groundbreaking creation. However, he strongly objects to being blamed for his creation’s arrogance. He argues that Sherlock Holmes, being a fictional character, would naturally scoff at other detectives, while Doyle, as his creator, would show respect.
A Lucky Author
Doyle takes a humorous and self-deprecating turn, suggesting that he is a product of fortune. He acknowledges that he had a “prodigiously lucky” life, despite being destined for a career in medicine. He paints a picture of a restless spirit, driven by ambition, that ultimately led him to become a writer. He even mocks himself, suggesting that his success in writing is a mystery to other authors, who question his ability to generate “splendid revenue” from his “inkpot”.
The Knight’s Rebuttal
Doyle humorously recounts the praise he received for his writings, specifically for his defense of Britain’s involvement in the South African Raid. He sarcastically highlights the honor bestowed upon him, receiving a knighthood and the title of “Knight of St. John of Jerusalem”. Despite the accolades, he remains aware that his writing style is not universally praised. He admits that his work has been criticized as “slovenly”, but defends it by asserting that it’s “harmless”.
Doyle then directly addresses the issue raised by Guiterman: Sherlock Holmes’s disdain for other detectives. He playfully admits that he took inspiration from other authors like Poe and Gaboriau, but insists that borrowing ideas is a natural part of the creative process. He playfully calls upon the “Muses of Helicon” to bear witness to the creative debt he owes to other authors. He ends this section with a playful suggestion to borrow ideas “in decent borrowing”.
A Defense of the Genre
Doyle then takes the opportunity to defend his genre, emphasizing its strengths and potential. He highlights the importance of “detective with brains analytical”, advocating for stories that showcase “man’s intrepidity”. He criticizes what he considers “neurotic morbidity”, preferring tales of “adventures and fierce dinotheriums” to “ecstatic deliriums”. In a concluding statement, Doyle offers a witty and self-assured statement of his artistic vision. He recognizes that his work is not without flaws, but overall he is pleased with his accomplishments.
