Literature Review The Philosophy of Fiction Terms: Before we proceed with the literature review, I would like to give

an overview of the necessary philosophical terms and ideological positions regarding fiction. You can cross-reference these terms from the Stanford ncyclopedia of !hilosophy" for more ela#oration$ Metaphysics % while the definitions vary among different te&ts, for the purposes of this discussion, metaphysics is the study of the fundamental concepts of #eing and nature' these concepts include$ what does it mean to #e, what is space and time, how do we uni(uely define and descri#e these terms, etc. Ontology % the study of e&istence' while related to metaphysics, we can think of ontology is asking whether something e&ists or not. In contrast, metaphysics seeks to descri#e and e&plain phenomena that philosophers #elieve e&ist )the what, how, and why (uestions* Phenomenology % the study of consciousness and its components' particularly, we are interested in the origins and conse(uences of the three points-of-view )"st, +nd, ,rd * Narrative Identity % the idea that individuals form their identity #y constructing an internali-ed, evolving story of the self from their life e&periences' this gives the individual a sense of unity and purpose Fiction anti-realist % this is the stance that fictional characters do not e&ist' any and all descriptions concerning fictional entities are in regards to the literal work that descri#es them Fiction realist % this is the stance that fictional characters e&ist in some way or form. .ote that this is an um#rella term and some would o#/ect to grouping the following theories under one la#el, #ut nonetheless, here are the specific positions$ Platonism fictional characters e&ist in every world as transcendent a#stracta )they e&ist independently in space and time* Possibilism % fictional characters do not e&ist in our world, #ut could e&ist in other worlds consistent to the conditions and descriptions needed for said characters to plausi#ly e&ist )called ontological datum*+ Meinongianism % fictional characters occupy a third category of o#/ect' there are o#/ects that e&ist spatial-temporally, o#/ects that do not, and o#/ects that fit neither category. 0he latter descri#es fictional characters, which have a general kind of 1#eing1 insomuch as they have #asic characteristics Creationism this is also an um#rella term, #ut it will suffice for our purposes. 0his view posits that fictional characters are products of the human mind. 2 su#set of creationism is artifact al theory % fictional characters are a#stract artifacts )intangi#le things with a socially agreed meaning or set of characteristics* ine&trica#ly dependent on those who create, evoke and perpetuate them

". 3roon, 4red, and 2l#erto 5oltolini. 64iction.7 +. 8oodman, 9effrey. 6:here is Sherlock ;olmes<7

!iterary Theory Terms: 4urthermore, we will need a few more terms pertaining to the analysis of the Sherlock ;olmes universe)s*. 0he first set of terms come from Bartlett and ;olland1s 60heori-ing the Space of Literacy !ractices7 ,$ Fig red "orld - 6large social environment with its own set of actors, artifacts, rules, and conventions' it is the container for various discourse communities and provides structure for how actors engage with one another7 )=y definition % do I need to cite myself<* I will employ this term li#erally to mean #oth the fictional world as well as the meta-world of its fans and audience. #rtifact % an item, o#/ect, emotion, or idea with a socially agreed meaning )or set of characteristics* $isco rse comm nity % a group with a similar way of communicating and interacting !iteracy practice % how individuals communicate with each other )ver#al, written, gestured, etc*

%herloc&-specific terms$ Lastly, we will need Sherlock-specific voca#ulary$ 'olmes( e % this term refers to the (ualities that >oyle attri#utes to Sherlock ;olmes' this includes, #ut is not limited to$ #eing a detective, living at ++"B Baker Street, having an assistant named :atson, etc.? %herloc&ian % a devout fan of the ;olmes canon )part of a larger discourse community*' this individual actively invokes the tales through role-playing, discussions, fan-fiction, and a 6#elief7 in the feats of ;olmes )whether that faith #e literal or figurative is to #e de#ated*@ na)ve believer % an individual who #elieves that Sherlock ;olmes isAwas a real person ironic believer % an individual who facetiously treats Sherlock ;olmes as a real person for entertainment

0he sources I will review fall into three distinct categories$ )"* the philosophy of fiction and narratives, )+* the legacy of the Sherlock ;olmes canon, and ),* a psychological profile of ;olmes and his admirers. ach component will provide a set of o#servations that I will draw upon to unite this multi-faceted issue and provide my conclusions regarding the personhood of Sherlock ;olmes.

,. Lesley Bartlett and >orothy ;olland. 60heori-ing the Space of Literary !ractice7 , "B-"?. ?. >avid Lie#esman. 6.ecessarily, Sherlock ;olmes Is .ot a !erson7, +. @. 5era 0o#in. 6:ays of reading Sherlock ;olmes$ the entrenchment of discourse #lends.7

The Philosophy of Fiction and Narratives What is Fiction? 0he (uestion 6:hat is fiction<7 seems to #e as old as fiction itself. Some of the earliest in(uiries into this topic date #ack to ancient 8reece with !lato. 4iction, like num#ers in mathematics, have elusive (ualities that seemingly coincide with the physical world, yet appear distinct from tangi#le o#/ects. .onetheless, our dealings with num#ers and tall-tales would have us #elieve that these entities contain truth in ways that the tangi#le cannot. !lato #elieved that fictional characters and num#ers e&ist independently from space and time, and thus e&ist in every possi#le world. 0his view is called !latonismC. 4ew contemporary scholars hold this view. Since !lato, philosophers and literary theorists have contri#uted to this de#ate #y introducing possi#ilism, =einongianism, and creationism. :ithout delving too deeply into theory, much of what surrounds this de#ate is the notion that #eing and e&istence are distinct )as proposed #y the Stoics*. !hilosopher >avid Lewis )a possi#ilist* re/ected this distinction )accepted #y classical possi#ilists* on the grounds that there is no specific ontological property that determines whether a #eing e&ists or not. ;e uses the term actuality to descri#e relationships #etween spatial-temporal #eings. ;owever, in the case of fictional characters, Lewis does not find a lack of actuality to #e significantD. 0he fact that Sherlock ;olmes is not in my vicinity says nothing fundamental a#out his e&istence. In contrast, those who accept =einongianism treat ;olmes as having a generic #eingness with traits from the canon )regardless of whether individual traits logically contradict other traits, which is an issue for possi#ilists*. Both possi#ilism and =einongianism have moderate support among scholars. 0he most popular view among contemporary scholars is 0homasson1s 2rtifactual theory. 9effrey 8oodman e&plains that artifactual theory is the only idea that accounts for authorial intentE. .amely, it is the view that fictional characters are creations of their author. Both 8oodmanF and >avid Lie#esman agree that our a#ility to discuss and hold relatively consistent depictions of fictional characters means that they e&ist on some level )unlike the anti-realist stance* . 0im Button e&plores this issue called the operator or 6spotty scope7 pro#lem. Basically, those who are fiction anti-realists )or irrealists* face a logical dilemma when they intuitively try to compare fictional entities to entities of another figured world, #oth real or fictional. Simply e&tending the domain of discourse )figured world* or only comparing measura#le (uantities does not eliminate this pro#lem"B. 4or Lie#esman, the primary issue in determining whether fictional characters (ualify as nonphysical persons is the task of uni(uely ascri#ing a set of (ualities to one name and entity. 0his is an e&tension from Saul 3ripke1s argument a#out Sherlock ;olmes. 2ccording to Lie#esman, the connection #etween the name 6Sherlock ;olmes7 and #eing ;olmes(ue fails to meet this re(uirement, leading to the conclusion that ;olmes could not #e a real person on any world"". :hile Lie#esman does not e&plicitly say he is in favor of 2rtifactual theory, he does say that his conclusion );olmes is necessarily not a person* is compati#le with it"+. 0hus, these scholars lead one to conclude that ;olmes is an a#stract artifact dependent on >oyle and his fans. :ithin this perspective, Sherlock ;olmes is a cultural and historical product, and we will e&plore the conse(uences of this perspective in the literary legacy section.
C. =ark Balaguer. 6!latonism in =etaphysics7. D. Ghristopher =en-el. 6Glassical !ossi#ilism and Lewisian !ossi#ilism.7 E. 9effrey 8oodman. 6:here is Sherlock ;olmes<7 F. I#id. "B. 0im Button. 6Spotty Scope and Hur Relation to 4ictions.7 "". >avid Lie#esman. 6.ecessarily, Sherlock ;olmes Is .ot a !erson7, ,-@. "+. >avid Lie#esman, C.

The Narrative as a form of understanding Hne of the compelling features of fiction is how fiction conveys truth in the seemingly unreal. In terms of structure, most fictions are narratives with a predetermined #eginning, middle, and end. 0here appears to #e a philosophical #asis for this phenomena. 3im 2tkins argues that human understanding is a narrative and thus our identities take a narrative form. She #elieves that the narrative model is a comple& interplay #etween the first-person )su#/ective*, the second-person )communicative*, and third-person )6o#/ective7*",. 0his arises #ecause of our #odily e&perience % the am#iguity of having a sensing #ody and #eing a#le to sense our own consciousness means that we can view ourselves either as o#/ects )third-person* or as su#/ects performing actions )first-person*. 0he second-person develops as a result of humans #eing social #eings"?' we form ourselves as a result of social interaction and the a#straction that our #ody means 6fi&ed7 over time, despite growth or physiological changes. 0he narrative model gives rise to the ordering of events in time, leading us to construct a past, present, and future. 0his is intrinsically linked to the concept of a #eginning, middle, and end in which events are molded to fit a kind of cause-and-effect relationship"@. Identity also arises from em#odiment' we must appropriate the accounts of some character, and that character must #e the su#/ect in a narrative. In doing so, we #ecome #oth the 6writer7 and 6reader7 of a life narrative and constancy is esta#lished. In claiming actions, we gain lia#ility from them, which implies agency. ;owever, actions themselves are social concepts dependent on accept rules of conduct. 0hese actions #ecome our own only when they are self-ascri#ed and the act of self-attestation is the #asis of ethical su#/ectivity"C. 4urthermore, this view e&plains how if it were possi#le to split oneself in two, there would #e no practical reason to assume that the two clones were the same person since the actions #rought upon one is no longer linked the the effects #rought upon the other"D. :hat all of this means is such$ the development of fiction )let1s stick with realistic fiction for now* stems naturally from the human e&perience. 2nother way of phrasing this finding is that we as individuals em#ody our own narrative #y imposing order to events in times and their relative significance. Hur a#ility to tell cohesive stories in which we are the main actor is analogous to an author writing tales a#out a certain detective. 0he line #etween realistic fiction and reality is fu--y at #est. !iterary !egacy of %herloc& 'olmes 0his section will provide a #rief comparison #etween the original Sherlock ;olmes tales and its recent adaptations and predecessors. I will not delve into cataloging the history or the minor changes with each new reincarnation % rather, I /ust want us to see that Sherlock ;olmes is a dynamic entity. 0he different theories of fiction can 6e&plain7 such changes. 2 possi#ilist may see the different versions of ;olmes as 6actuali-ations7 in differing worlds. 2 =einongianist might see all of these as the same #eingness that is ;olmes. 2nd if you accept artifactual theory, then this section reads an artifact that changes and adapts to the culture of those who continue to reference ;olmes. 4or practical purposes, I will keep my phrasing consistent with artifactual theory as that is the most intuitive method for making this comparison.
",. 3im 2tkins. 6.arrative identity, practical identity and ethical su#/ectivity7, ,?,. "?. I#id., ,?@ - ,?C. "@. I#id., ,?E. "C. I#id., ,@"-,@,. "D. I#id., ,@E.

The Evolution of Sherlock Holmes Sir 2rthur Gonan >oyle is the creator of the Sherlock ;olmes figured world. ;e #egan with The Adventures of Sherlock Holmes, which was a collection of twelve short stories pu#lished in "EF+. 0his figured world reveals >oyle1s ideology and as well as the ideals of the prevailing culture in 5ictorian London. 4or e&ample, llen ;arrington writes the tales su#tlety emphasi-e the need to have a strong state to keep order )for the 6civili-ed7* from dangerous criminals and terrorists. ngland at the turn of the century was a time of imperialist e&pansion and social unrest from disenfranchised workers, minorities, and immigrants. 0here was also the prevailing view of Social >arwinism and pseudoscientific thinking that >oyle alludes to in the stories. >oyle portrays ;olmes as a man of rationality and science, a (uintessential hero who uses cutting-edge technology and pro#lem-solving techni(ues to crack cases. ;arrington would argue that >oyle emphasi-es setting and the scientific method a#ove the characteri-ation of characters while still granting ;olmes sole credit for cases that he did not necessarily solve independently. 0his is ironic #ecause >oyle provides escapism through rationali-ation, and in many instances, the mysteries themselves re(uire a certain suspension of dis#elief "E. In contrast, the contemporary versions of Sherlock ;olmes contain different elements of the original, #ut the #iggest change is that ;olmes is no longer a hero, #ut a postmodern anti-hero. Ben/amin !oore agrees with this view, calling ;olmes the 6new man for the new age7"F. Similarly, 2shley !olasek descri#es the postmodern Sherlock as an 6acer#ic social outcast7 +B. She compares BBG1s Sherlock, GBS1s Elementary, and 8uy Ritchie1s Sherlock Holmes franchise in how they each emphasi-e different aspects of ;olmes1 personality to create a uni(ue yet relata#le version of him for the current audience. 0he adaptations infer and make assumptions a#out ;olmes in these alternate figured worlds, and while they seem to carry on from >oyle1s emphasis on methodology and setting, there is a much more characteri-ation. 0he audience can see ;olmes e&plicitly grow and react to circumstances, and even more noteworthy, the audience can watch social dynamics unfold. Some authors have tried to re-appropriate ;olmes #y removing the cultural #aggage associated with his identity and place in time. 4or instance, Laurie 3ing re-imagines Sherlock as a young feminist woman in her novels, challenging the traditional gender roles of >oyle1s time. Les 3linger )who worked on the 8uy Ritchie versions* remarks that ;olmes1 appeal comes from a uni(ue sense of /ustice despite his outcast and eccentric role+". 2ltogether, this makes Sherlock ;olmes the most portrayed character of all time )cite*. :hat is left from this digression is to analy-e whether this view of Sherlock ;olmes as an a#stract artifact tells the entire story. :e have authors and directors spawning new versions of ;olmes )or characters highly inspired #y him*, and it would seem that ;olmes1 transformation is a container for larger social conte&ts. 0he ne&t section will e&plore at the individual level what is happening when people engage with these figured worlds. But first, we must ponder if ;olmes1 coming to life, or in the case of >idier/ean 2ndrI and 8o#et 4ernand++, ;olmes1 e&pertise as a detective mirrors that of a person whose influence persuade fans to see him not as a fictional character, #ut as a role model and as a mentor. ;e is someone we can learn from, so does this (uality contradict the claims of artifactual theory< )=eaning, that Sherlock displays transformative power, a com#ination of personal agency within his stories, and contains comple& strengths and weaknesses that resem#le that of a person*
"E. llen B. ;arrington. 6.ation, identity, and the fascination with forensic science in Sherlock ;olmes and GSI7, ,CD-,D". "F. Ben/amin !oore. 6Sherlock ;olmes and the Leap of 4aith...7, "C". +B. 2shley >. !olasek. 6Surveying the !ost-=illennial Sherlock ;olmes...7, ,E@. +". Lynn .eary. 60he nduring !opularity of Sherlock ;olmes.7 ++. >idier/ean 2ndrI and 8o#et 4ernand. 6Sherlock ;olmes % an e&pert1s view of e&pertise7.

The Psychological Profile of %herloc&ians and 'olmes 0he previous section provided some historical #ackground as well as gave a glimpse at the postmodern Sherlock ;olmes in contrast to >oyle1s traditional ;olmes. 0his section will attempt to place this information in a more relevant light. 0his section will also provide evidence to challenge the intuition #ehind referring to ;olmes as an a#stract artifact #y e&ploring the psychology of Sherlockians and the BBG1s Sherlock. Sherlockians Faith in !ogic ;arrington noted the role the Sherlock ;olmes stories played for its audience % while the tales emphasi-ed logic and rationality, the premises and conclusions within certain cases were du#ious. Hn some level, the stories operated on faith. ven within my o#servations of Season 0hree of BBG1s Sherlock+,, the individuals within that figured world held a faith-like devotion to Sherlock as a person and as an ideal. 0his mirrors the legions of fans found online who continue to contri#ute and e&plore the mythos of ;olmes. Ben/amin !oore suggests that the role of devout fans are similar to faith-#ased practices, developing some of the characteristics reminiscent to religion. !references to one adaptation over another, and the differences in adaptations themselves are analogous to sects. Since adaptations often #uild from or reinvent the original canon from a new perspective, they are similar to the role the 8ospels play in the Bi#le. !oore1s comparison is not unfounded' in fact, the first Sherlockians, inspired #y an essay #y the theologian Ronald 2. 3no& 6Studies in the Literature of Sherlock ;olmes7 )circa "F""* , had rituals and engaged in carefully researched play that elevated ;olmes and :atson to person status and treated >oyle as simply 6the literary agent7. ven the stories themselves have #i#lical parallels, such as Sherlock1s 6death7 in the Reichen#ach 4all )in #oth the original story and the BBG version* and su#se(uent return mirroring the crucification and resurrection of 9esus. Sherlock1s inner circle, inspired #y the effect ;olmes has had on the world, act as disciples #y perpetuating his mythos+?. "nside the #ind of a Sherlockian 0he final piece to this pu--le comes from 5era 0o#in1s paper titled 6 :ays of reading Sherlock ;olmes$ the entrenchment of discourse #lends.7 0his paper connects the philosophical #asis for the narrative with the faith-#ased -eal of Sherlockians % it e&amines how narratives can provide numerous readings depending on the individual1s mental spaces and world view. 4or this, we come #ack to the discourse community of the Sherlockians, contrasting the psychological difference #etween naJve and ironic #elievers in how they interpret and internali-e the stories. It turns out that this process is closely related to how we make sense of our own life. 0o#in e&plains that readers construct the narratives in this way$ a #lend of e&ternal factors )physical and cultural circumstances* and the reader1s conceptuali-ation of these circumstances to form situations and schematic frames. 0hese frames and situations allow the reader to make sense of what is going on in terms of familiar references. .arratives evoke numerous situations and frames that the reader then has to use to understand not only the plot, #ut rhetorical devices, the relationship #etween the author and narrator )>oyle vs :atson*, etc. 0he identification of characters occurs as one identifies actors in a play, through their consistency #etween la#el )name* and their personality, gestures, ver#al patterns, and actions+@ . 0his is remarka#ly similar to 2tkins1 description of how we construct our own narratives #ased on the raw data at our disposal % our e&periences are akin to words on a page in that neither hold significance in of themselves until we connect them to a cohesive structure.

Gere#rally, the reader is #oth immersed and non-immersed within a work so that, on one level, their #rain provides a suspension of dis#elief' their #rain simulates the meaning of the words read as if the individual were witnessing the event in real-time while at the same time holding the meta-view that the work is still a fiction. 0he naJve #eliever, which historically made up the newly literate British working class, having #een e&posed to few #ooks other than the Bi#le, were ill-e(uipped to handle the certain (ualities of fiction that the ironic #eliever could. Hne such skill lacking was the necessity to (uestion the veracity of the author and thus did not hold the meta-view that the stories they read were in any way false. In contrast, the ironic #eliever engaged in self-delusion to achieveAmimic the reactions of a naJve #eliever while still holding the meta view that the stories are fiction+C. 0he result is a comple& interplay in which, on a superficial level, makes their writings and musings indistinguisha#le from a naJve #eliever. In other words, without a learned concept of fiction, realistic fiction tricks our #rains into treating the details of the work as true. 0his implies that Sherlock ;olmes is indeed a real person to those lacking a fully-formed concept of fiction. If through ignorance it is impossi#le to distinguish truth from fiction, on what grounds can we re/ect the personhood of Sherlock ;olmes to those people< +,. >aniel 8rus-c-ynski, 6Sherlock H#servation .otes7. +?. Ben/amin !oore, "@F-"C,. +@. 5era 0o#in, D@-DE. +C. I#in., E"-E+. Solution$ Sherlock ;olmes is a person whose a#straction is an artifact.