Sherlock Holmes and Art Bell
71
network, one capable of receiving and transmitting information. Like Holmes, Bell
relies on a vast array of informants, and also like Holmes, these figures come from
all manner of social and intellectual backgrounds, running the gamut from reputable
scientists to utterly marginal conspiracy theorists, UFO buffs, and “experts” on
such topics as demonic possession and extrasensory perception. Bell, though, never
leaves his home (or trailer) to draw upon this collective wisdom, nor is there a
need for personal visits to Pahrump—no ringing of the bell that so often signaled
a new mystery at 221B Baker Street. Instead, satellite linkups, conventional phone
and postal lines, and computer networks supply Bell with the material for his
investigations of the paranormal. Indeed, one trademark of Bell’s hosting style is
his noncommittal prodding of his guests and his relative lack of judgment over
their often bizarre “arguments.” Like a psychoanalyst. Bell lets his clients talk and
talk and talk, putting the hstener in the position of adjudicating their claims. Rather
than the Holmesian vision of man as processing machine. Bell suggests man as a
kind of end-to-end network, one in which there is no alteration of the information
that is transmitted, only a movement from one mechanism to another. The only
real theme that hnks the diverse content of Bell’s program is the sense that the
information being offered is hidden or obscured from public view, usually though
not always in the service of an institution or individual with some political,
economic, or social power. Directly contra Holmes and his modernist rationality.
Bell’s program provides a vision of knowledge more consonant with a postmodern
skepticism — no methodological prudence, a highly subjective, pluralistic
understanding of “the truth,” and a faith that knowledge is often to be found where
it is least expected.
The Theory Connection: Bell and Holmes Reflecting Philosophy
As the last point suggests, there is an intriguing connection between both
Holmes and Bell and the respective intellectual milieux that accompanies the
creation of their work. This is evidence of their status as reflective of a specific
cultural context, of course, but also implies an unusually intellectual character to
each. Holmes’ method, as noted, has been extensively compared to the work of
philosopher-semiotician C.S. Peirce, who was a contemporary of Conan Doyle
and a key figure in the development of a systematic semiotic theory. This connection
is perhaps unsurprising given Peirce’s relentless emphasis on methods of thought—
Holmes, with a httle prodding from Watson, would often provide his own lectures
on methods of detection. However, in the secondary literature on the Holmesian
canon, the detective is linked with a variety of other figures and movements of the
and 20^ centuries: the philosophy of Carlyle (Jones), Locke (Page), and Leibniz
(Crawford); the broader movements of deism (Pearson), existentialism (Page),
positivism (Solberg) and scientific atheism (King); and the aforementioned (and