Samuel Rosenberg (1) (1912–1996)

One of the pleasures of reading essays on Doyle / Holmes is the myriad ways in which the subject has been interpreted. I'm generally happy to be persuaded by the theory I'm currently reading, even if it may contradict the previous one and the next one. This book is no exception and I thoroughly enjoyed Rosenberg's take.

Rosenberg notes that despite the many volumes analysing the stories, due certain writers playing the "Sherlock Game" and taking the canon as being true and written by Dr. show more Watson, Doyle as the actual writer was often overlooked, and interpretations relating to his life, opinions and beliefs were necessarily ignored in service of the Game's conceit. He therefore determines to focus on Doyle and his experiences as keys to unlocking the Holmesian mysteries behind the mysteries.

The book starts in raconteur fashion with Rosenberg's humorous account (which includes some racial stereotypes typical of its age) of how the idea impregnated itself and gestated during a trip to Switzerland to interview Everest conqueror, Tenzing Norgay. He then moves on to a light-footed and well-presented thesis, using Freudian analysis, of what Doyle hid in plain sight from his readers, and what he may have unconsciously revealed of himself.

Rosenberg backs up his analysis with sources, the degree to which his conclusions are accurate being debatable, but a very enjoyable debate it is.

Loved this one (but probably for the Doyle/Holmes enthusiast). show less

Droll stuff here, but certainly not enough to support an entire book. Still, several decades after reading it, I recall and often re-tell his great anecdote about the lost (and re-discovered) Correggio. Ditto for his remark, which is even more true now than when we wrote it, that Americans have the shortest collective memory of any group of primates since we came down from the trees.

Frankly disappointing set of essays; there was maybe one (covering stuff the author had collected) that was actually interesting. Other essays drone on and on, and you find yourself skipping to get to the point. Give this a pass.

This book really splits people in two camps. Some love it, some hate it, as the reviews below clearly indicate [Mia Stampe's Holmes website]
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... it is very hard to say how seriously this author may take his own arguments... I retain a sneaking suspicion that this is a parody of show more 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. 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, 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. 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]

Absolutely awful, but very scholarly and erudite. Psychoanalizes our hero [non-fiction supposedly, at least not a detective story]. show less