What do you think?
Rate this book
Naked is the Best Disguise: The Death and Resurrection of Sherlock Holmes
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 12 of 12 reviews
April 9, 2014
Naked Is the Best Disguise: The Death and Resurrection of Sherlock Holmes by Samuel Rosenberg is a literary criticism revolving around Sherlock Holmes, but unlike most Holmesian critiques it focuses on Sir Arthur Conan Doyle more than on examining the works themselves for the sake of the work. Rosenberg speculates that Doyle left clues throughout his work that reveal hidden meanings and connections between the Holmes stories (and other of Doyle's work) and Nietsche, Oscar Wilde, Dionysus, Christ, Catullus, John Bunyan, Frankenstein, Robert Browning Racine, Flaubert, T. S. Eliot and others.
The title, which may seem odd at first, comes from William Congreve's The Double Dealer and preface the book.
No mask like open truth to cover lies,
As to go naked is the best disguise.
And Rosenberg claims that Doyle has used the open "truth" in his stories to disguise his real meaning and display his true self.
Samuel Rosenberg was a literary detective who also published surprising discoveries about the work of Mary Shelley, Melville and others. In this work Rosenberg posits that Doyle was a brilliant allegorist who left "purloined letter" references to both literary figures and people from real life. He would have us believe that the blueprint for Professor Moriarty was Friedrich Nietzsche and that Irene Adler stood in for George Sand.The author encounters the people who knew Doyle and who, he says, turned up in his stories; displays clue after clue about Sir Arthur himself; and claims the discovery of the real meaning behind the Sherlock Holmes mysteries.
I must say that Naked Is the Best Disguise reads rather oddly from someone claiming to be a literary detective. Rosenberg's prose actually reminds me of Dorothy L. Sayer's Miss Climpson. His work is littered with exclamation points and italicized words and I can almost hear the breathless, urgent tone as he declares his earth-shattering revelations! Although, perhaps I am doing Miss Climpson a disservice--because Lord Peter Wimsey's right-hand woman is much clearer in her reports to Lord Peter than Rosenberg is in his ecstatic "discoveries" about Doyle. If his literary detective work is really that accurate (and I have severe doubts that it is), then he certainly shouldn't need to broadcast it at the top of his lungs and highlight it with little neon signs to say: "Look at this brilliant bit of deduction! Aren't I clever? Nobody else has figured this out yet. And if I use enough exclamation points and italicize all the important words, then you, poor reader, can't possibly miss my point."
So...the method of delivery is quite distracting--as is his frequent digressions to explain just where he was when each brilliant discovery about Doyle's work occurred to him. On a train. At a hotel. Wandering around the countryside. Because, by golly, where you are when you suddenly realize that "This reference is exciting!" (yes, he actually put that right there in the text) is just about the most important thing you can relate while trying to convince your audience that Moriarty is Nietzsche. Or wait---maybe that's Colonel Sebastian Moran. Yeah--he's Nietzsche. NO....they're both Nietzsche! Did I mention that he seems a bit confused?
I don't know if Rosenberg is actually as earnest as he seems to be about all this exclamatory nonsense or whether this is a bit of literary critique parody put on for his friendly group of Holmes aficionados. It doesn't much matter to me. All I know is it was tedious, convoluted, and pedantic when it wasn't being all breathless and urgent and I can't say that I recommend it at all. He has not convinced me with the comparisons he's made. It's sort of like statistics--you can make them mean anything you'd like them to mean. One star. Maybe
First posted on my blog My Reader's Block. Please request permission before reposting. Thanks.
The title, which may seem odd at first, comes from William Congreve's The Double Dealer and preface the book.
No mask like open truth to cover lies,
As to go naked is the best disguise.
And Rosenberg claims that Doyle has used the open "truth" in his stories to disguise his real meaning and display his true self.
Samuel Rosenberg was a literary detective who also published surprising discoveries about the work of Mary Shelley, Melville and others. In this work Rosenberg posits that Doyle was a brilliant allegorist who left "purloined letter" references to both literary figures and people from real life. He would have us believe that the blueprint for Professor Moriarty was Friedrich Nietzsche and that Irene Adler stood in for George Sand.The author encounters the people who knew Doyle and who, he says, turned up in his stories; displays clue after clue about Sir Arthur himself; and claims the discovery of the real meaning behind the Sherlock Holmes mysteries.
I must say that Naked Is the Best Disguise reads rather oddly from someone claiming to be a literary detective. Rosenberg's prose actually reminds me of Dorothy L. Sayer's Miss Climpson. His work is littered with exclamation points and italicized words and I can almost hear the breathless, urgent tone as he declares his earth-shattering revelations! Although, perhaps I am doing Miss Climpson a disservice--because Lord Peter Wimsey's right-hand woman is much clearer in her reports to Lord Peter than Rosenberg is in his ecstatic "discoveries" about Doyle. If his literary detective work is really that accurate (and I have severe doubts that it is), then he certainly shouldn't need to broadcast it at the top of his lungs and highlight it with little neon signs to say: "Look at this brilliant bit of deduction! Aren't I clever? Nobody else has figured this out yet. And if I use enough exclamation points and italicize all the important words, then you, poor reader, can't possibly miss my point."
So...the method of delivery is quite distracting--as is his frequent digressions to explain just where he was when each brilliant discovery about Doyle's work occurred to him. On a train. At a hotel. Wandering around the countryside. Because, by golly, where you are when you suddenly realize that "This reference is exciting!" (yes, he actually put that right there in the text) is just about the most important thing you can relate while trying to convince your audience that Moriarty is Nietzsche. Or wait---maybe that's Colonel Sebastian Moran. Yeah--he's Nietzsche. NO....they're both Nietzsche! Did I mention that he seems a bit confused?
I don't know if Rosenberg is actually as earnest as he seems to be about all this exclamatory nonsense or whether this is a bit of literary critique parody put on for his friendly group of Holmes aficionados. It doesn't much matter to me. All I know is it was tedious, convoluted, and pedantic when it wasn't being all breathless and urgent and I can't say that I recommend it at all. He has not convinced me with the comparisons he's made. It's sort of like statistics--you can make them mean anything you'd like them to mean. One star. Maybe
First posted on my blog My Reader's Block. Please request permission before reposting. Thanks.
September 14, 2013
This book is a winding, endlessly idiosyncratic look at the Doylean corpus. Some of the author's interpretations are plausible; some (like his reading of "The Red Headed League") are so bizarre that they boggle the mind. All the same, this book presents an entertaining jaunt through a limitless number of suggestions--and so for that (not for scholarly value or rigor) it is to be recommended.
June 20, 2016
The literary equivalent of chemtrails. But a good raconteur with some fun anecdotes.
The art of 'reading between the lines' brought to an apotheosis of subjective speculation. But it's all good fun.
The art of 'reading between the lines' brought to an apotheosis of subjective speculation. But it's all good fun.
March 1, 2024
In "Naked Is The Best Disguise" (another book sale find that's been on my shelf for a while) Samuel Rosenberg attempts to play literary sleuth by decoding the real-life inspirations for Conan Doyle's canonical cast. Searching for hidden clues and sub rosa inspirations for Holmes and Co, Rosenberg tries to create links to Nietszche, Oscar Wilde, George Sand (Irene Adler?) etc. Not every speculation is credible, and not every attempt to link a Doyle character to an actual literary or artistic figure holds up - there are definitely times when you feel like he's twisting facts to fit his theories. (though Noble Bachelor did base the story on a real life phenomenon of American heiresses marrying British nobles, and Milverton was based on a real scoundrel).
Part literary analysis, part literary investigation, the forays into subtext are sometimes so "out there" that the reader might wonder if his leg is being pulled. Still, as a book published in the mid-70s well before the real wave of Sherlockian media, scholarship and supplementary literature took off, it does deserve a place if you have a shelf dedicated to Sherlock work. It is available on Kindle now, and you may find a hardcover in decent condition
Part literary analysis, part literary investigation, the forays into subtext are sometimes so "out there" that the reader might wonder if his leg is being pulled. Still, as a book published in the mid-70s well before the real wave of Sherlockian media, scholarship and supplementary literature took off, it does deserve a place if you have a shelf dedicated to Sherlock work. It is available on Kindle now, and you may find a hardcover in decent condition
July 12, 2023
The title made this sound more interesting than it was
July 2, 2025
WARNING: SPOILERS AHEAD. No one will be seated during the philosopher versus detective section.
Back in the Seventies, when Americans were getting ready to hang themselves after Viet Nam, Watergate, the Energy Crisis and Tony Orlando and Dawn, Sherlock Holmes became a national craze, from reprints of all of Sir Arthur Conan Doyle's books to board games to a faux Holmes novel, THE SEVEN PERCENT SOLUTION. This tidy volume, a literary expose, even made it into the best-seller charts. Rosenberg's bold claim is that Holmes's nemesis, Professor Moriarty, was actually a disguised portrait of (drum roll please) Friedrich Nietzsche! Follow me and I will light the path. Holmes stands for British rationalism, deductive thinking and gluing together clues to form a greater whole, namely the identity of the criminal and how he, or she, did the dirty deed. Nietzsche-Moriarty is the fearsome foreigner who represents irrationality, exults in being an outlaw, and commits crime for the sake of showing off his superiority (the ubermensch), not lucre. Holmes has to win just as England had to be superior to a fast-rising Germany. But, still... Moriarty is given so many chances by Doyle to come back and taunt Holmes that this is one genie that can never be fully put back in the bottle. Crazy, you say? Anachronistic, perhaps, but not without probability. Freud would confirm Nietzsche while Doyle, his faith in reason and religion both shattered, took up a belief in spiritualism and fairies. He even promised his young followers at Oxford he would return from the afterlife. When he did not make an appearance at an Oxford seance one student held up a sign: SIR ARTHUR CONAN DOYLE HAS FAILED TO MATERIALIZE.
Back in the Seventies, when Americans were getting ready to hang themselves after Viet Nam, Watergate, the Energy Crisis and Tony Orlando and Dawn, Sherlock Holmes became a national craze, from reprints of all of Sir Arthur Conan Doyle's books to board games to a faux Holmes novel, THE SEVEN PERCENT SOLUTION. This tidy volume, a literary expose, even made it into the best-seller charts. Rosenberg's bold claim is that Holmes's nemesis, Professor Moriarty, was actually a disguised portrait of (drum roll please) Friedrich Nietzsche! Follow me and I will light the path. Holmes stands for British rationalism, deductive thinking and gluing together clues to form a greater whole, namely the identity of the criminal and how he, or she, did the dirty deed. Nietzsche-Moriarty is the fearsome foreigner who represents irrationality, exults in being an outlaw, and commits crime for the sake of showing off his superiority (the ubermensch), not lucre. Holmes has to win just as England had to be superior to a fast-rising Germany. But, still... Moriarty is given so many chances by Doyle to come back and taunt Holmes that this is one genie that can never be fully put back in the bottle. Crazy, you say? Anachronistic, perhaps, but not without probability. Freud would confirm Nietzsche while Doyle, his faith in reason and religion both shattered, took up a belief in spiritualism and fairies. He even promised his young followers at Oxford he would return from the afterlife. When he did not make an appearance at an Oxford seance one student held up a sign: SIR ARTHUR CONAN DOYLE HAS FAILED TO MATERIALIZE.
March 15, 2011
It actually took me two tries to get through this book. The first time I read a few pages and then put it down thinking, this guy is manic. Crazy.
The second time, I got past that initial giddy hump and read it all the way through. Some of is really interesting; from the evidence provided in the stories themselves, I can believe Rosenberg is right in linking various Holmes characters to real people. He's good at providing supporting evidence to prove that Doyle would have known the person, and liked or disliked him/her.
A lot of the other stuff is just too weird. I'm not into Freudian analysis, and I think Rosenberg sees far more than is actually there. And some of it is just a little silly. Saying that Doyle again and again has Holmes wait in a darkened room for a violent man - well, it's not a cowboy movie. The bad guy doesn't come striding down Main Street at high noon. Of course Holmes is waiting for him in darkness.
It's a far more interesting insight into the mind of Rosenberg than Doyle's. He saw patterns that I doubt anyone else ever saw; that was his job and he was obviously very good at it. Perhaps in this case they were really there, but whereas Rosenberg believed they were a bread-crumb trail left by Doyle for his most astute readers, as intelligent as Doyle was and as good as these stories were, I just don't think that's possible. They were written in ten days, purely for money. Doyle wouldn't have invested that kind of time in them.
The second time, I got past that initial giddy hump and read it all the way through. Some of is really interesting; from the evidence provided in the stories themselves, I can believe Rosenberg is right in linking various Holmes characters to real people. He's good at providing supporting evidence to prove that Doyle would have known the person, and liked or disliked him/her.
A lot of the other stuff is just too weird. I'm not into Freudian analysis, and I think Rosenberg sees far more than is actually there. And some of it is just a little silly. Saying that Doyle again and again has Holmes wait in a darkened room for a violent man - well, it's not a cowboy movie. The bad guy doesn't come striding down Main Street at high noon. Of course Holmes is waiting for him in darkness.
It's a far more interesting insight into the mind of Rosenberg than Doyle's. He saw patterns that I doubt anyone else ever saw; that was his job and he was obviously very good at it. Perhaps in this case they were really there, but whereas Rosenberg believed they were a bread-crumb trail left by Doyle for his most astute readers, as intelligent as Doyle was and as good as these stories were, I just don't think that's possible. They were written in ten days, purely for money. Doyle wouldn't have invested that kind of time in them.
January 20, 2011
Once you've read the Sherlock Holmes stories, this opens your eyes to what Doyle is actually doing in the stories. It adds layers that I never knew or even considered. Once you read this, you can't read the stories without thinking of this book.
Doyle wrote in people as characters (Professor Moriarty is Nietszche! Holmes is Frankenstein!), referred to classic works of literature in the plots, and played games with sex, adultery, and sexual identity.
I think a lot of literary analysis is thumb-twiddling and worthless, but to quote one of the reviews of the book, Rosenberg 'has knitted the greatest Doyle-y of them all!'
Doyle wrote in people as characters (Professor Moriarty is Nietszche! Holmes is Frankenstein!), referred to classic works of literature in the plots, and played games with sex, adultery, and sexual identity.
I think a lot of literary analysis is thumb-twiddling and worthless, but to quote one of the reviews of the book, Rosenberg 'has knitted the greatest Doyle-y of them all!'
January 20, 2011
Once you've read the Sherlock Holmes stories, this opens your eyes to what Doyle is actually doing in the stories. It adds layers that I never knew or even considered. Once you read this, you can't read the stories without thinking of this book.
Doyle wrote in people as characters (Professor Moriarty is Nietszche! Holmes is Frankenstein!), referred to classic works of literature in the plots, and played games with sex, adultery, and sexual identity.
I think a lot of literary analysis is thumb-twiddling and worthless, but to quote one of the reviews of the book, Rosenberg 'has knitted the greatest Doyle-y of them all!'
Doyle wrote in people as characters (Professor Moriarty is Nietszche! Holmes is Frankenstein!), referred to classic works of literature in the plots, and played games with sex, adultery, and sexual identity.
I think a lot of literary analysis is thumb-twiddling and worthless, but to quote one of the reviews of the book, Rosenberg 'has knitted the greatest Doyle-y of them all!'
January 20, 2011
Once you've read the Sherlock Holmes stories, this opens your eyes to what Doyle is actually doing in the stories. It adds layers that I never knew or even considered. Once you read this, you can't read the stories without thinking of this book.
Doyle wrote in people as characters (Professor Moriarty is Nietszche! Holmes is Frankenstein!), referred to classic works of literature in the plots, and played games with sex, adultery, and sexual identity.
I think a lot of literary analysis is thumb-twiddling and worthless, but to quote one of the reviews of the book, Rosenberg 'has knitted the greatest Doyle-y of them all!'
Doyle wrote in people as characters (Professor Moriarty is Nietszche! Holmes is Frankenstein!), referred to classic works of literature in the plots, and played games with sex, adultery, and sexual identity.
I think a lot of literary analysis is thumb-twiddling and worthless, but to quote one of the reviews of the book, Rosenberg 'has knitted the greatest Doyle-y of them all!'
January 20, 2011
Once you've read the Sherlock Holmes stories, this opens your eyes to what Doyle is actually doing in the stories. It adds layers that I never knew or even considered. Once you read this, you can't read the stories without thinking of this book.
Doyle wrote in people as characters (Professor Moriarty is Nietszche! Holmes is Frankenstein!), referred to classic works of literature in the plots, and played games with sex, adultery, and sexual identity.
I think a lot of literary analysis is thumb-twiddling and worthless, but to quote one of the reviews of the book, Rosenberg 'has knitted the greatest Doyle-y of them all!'
Doyle wrote in people as characters (Professor Moriarty is Nietszche! Holmes is Frankenstein!), referred to classic works of literature in the plots, and played games with sex, adultery, and sexual identity.
I think a lot of literary analysis is thumb-twiddling and worthless, but to quote one of the reviews of the book, Rosenberg 'has knitted the greatest Doyle-y of them all!'
Displaying 1 - 12 of 12 reviews