Defining intelligence with the help of Sherlock Holmes

By Kate Norrish Staff Writer

It is not hard to find people talking about misreadings of Sherlock Holmes as a character. He never says “elementary, my dear Watson,” in the original books, is not romantically involved with Irene Adler, and is not, contrary to many, many portrayals of the character, an inhumanly intelligent figure. I first read Sir Arthur Conan Doyle’s “Adventures of Sherlock Holmes” as a 13-year-old. During this time, I was a recent physical abuse survivor at the hands of a teacher and was in a school for autistic students where, amongst other things, I was told that my suicidal ideations were an over reaction, given a class lesson on how to perform “correct” facial expressions, and regularly heard lines from classmates like “I deserve to be dead,” and “we’re all stupid.” Upon reading “A Study in Scarlet,” both my first “Sherlock Holmes” story and the first book in the series, I immediately viewed it as a celebration of different kinds of brains. I showed it to my friends at school, and they also began to view the books as a therapeutic resource. Because of that, I have always found adaptations to be uncomfortable. In many of them, such as “Sherlock,” and the 2009 film, he is a rude, selfish person who the other characters put up with because he is a genius. In reality, that is the polar opposite of what the books are thematically saying. This rhetoric also pushes the narrative that people should be permitted to get away with hurting other people because they are perceived to be smarter than the general populace, and doing so is engaging in a belief that has been long used to justify bigotry against a variety of marginalized groups. In the books, it is also notable that Sherlock Holmes’ famous deduction powers are shown as a learned skill that he has honed through an obsessive amount of research and self training. In fact, Watson becomes better at these skills throughout the books, to the point where late in the series, he begins to point out details that Holmes has overlooked. It is an inside joke between Holmes and Watson that Watson inflates his abilities by not writing about unsolved cases. In general, I feel him being a “genius” is an exaggeration. I rarely see this acknowledged in adaptations, despite Sherlock Holmes being the Guiness World Record holder for most adapted fictional character. It is also notable that at no point in the books is Sherlock Holmes explicitly shown to live well independently. He needs help preparing food, understanding personal safety, and conceptualizing when he needs to eat and sleep. During the few times he lives without assistance, he ends up accidentally harming himself due to his inability to perform basic life skills. However, that is frequently overlooked by readers because he is intelligent, which I often wonder what that indicates about how we see neurodivergent and other disabled people who need lifelong living assistance. Similarly, John Locke once labeled Isaac Newton as an “idiot” due to the fact that his mental illnesses made him unable to care for himself, according to an article by Western University Professor Louis Charland. All of us need to understand that intelligence is far from the most important virtue that a human being can have. If Sherlock Holmes was just smart, and not focused and compassionate, and even if he didn’t need elements of assisted living, then he would not have provided me and my friends with so much comfort. Our society has propagandized many people into believing that intelligence is the best human virtue, something which is at the core of Sherlock Holmes’ inner conflict in the books. He describes himself as “A brain. The rest is an appendix.” However, that is not true - when Watson begins including that belief in his work, he begins to leak inappropriate details, such as Holmes famously being addicted to multiple narcotics. I define intelligence as a wide range of natural talents that we have condensed into one word. It’s the same thing as when you find classes in your major easy but struggle with a certain GenEd class. It’s just called being good at some things and not at others. If you disagree with my definition of being smart, or can’t relate to it, allow me to share a common sentiment amongst the neurodiverse community. I bet many of you have never heard this before - there is nothing wrong with being unintelligent.