Let's talk pastiche
Arthur Conan Doyle is an author whose work is more often subjected to the pastiche treatment than most others of his day. Naturally this is primarily down to the enduring appeal of Sherlock Holmes.
His daughter, Dame Jean Conan Doyle, was firmly against such stories and suggested that people used her father's characters to sell books that would not have sold without them. This may seem harsh but it is probably true. If you took any of the pastiche stories that exist and removed Holmes and Watson they would almost certainly not sell as well (if at all).
My own opinions on this are not unknown. I don't like non-canonical pastiche stories. In my opinion, they must work within the world Conan Doyle created. In the words of the great detective himself 'no ghosts need apply'. I would extend this to include the following:
Some authors attempt to justify fairies in Holmes stories by pointing to Conan Doyle's interest in the subject (Cottingley etc). This will not do. If Conan Doyle did not put fairies into his stories (and he had opportunity to do so - Cottingley was 10 years before the last Holmes story) there is no need for anyone else to.
Now I know full well that this will stir some people up. I also accept that I don't get to arbitrate and that non-canonical pastiche stories will continue to appear whether I like it or not. I would just ask why people feel the need to have Holmes in situations and worlds that Conan Doyle would never have put him into.
Discuss.
His daughter, Dame Jean Conan Doyle, was firmly against such stories and suggested that people used her father's characters to sell books that would not have sold without them. This may seem harsh but it is probably true. If you took any of the pastiche stories that exist and removed Holmes and Watson they would almost certainly not sell as well (if at all).
My own opinions on this are not unknown. I don't like non-canonical pastiche stories. In my opinion, they must work within the world Conan Doyle created. In the words of the great detective himself 'no ghosts need apply'. I would extend this to include the following:
- No fairies
- No magic
- No vampires, werewolves etc
- No cross-overs (e.g. Holmes meets Van Helsing, or Holmes meets Raffles)
Some authors attempt to justify fairies in Holmes stories by pointing to Conan Doyle's interest in the subject (Cottingley etc). This will not do. If Conan Doyle did not put fairies into his stories (and he had opportunity to do so - Cottingley was 10 years before the last Holmes story) there is no need for anyone else to.
Now I know full well that this will stir some people up. I also accept that I don't get to arbitrate and that non-canonical pastiche stories will continue to appear whether I like it or not. I would just ask why people feel the need to have Holmes in situations and worlds that Conan Doyle would never have put him into.
Discuss.
Comments
Post a Comment