What do you think?
Rate this book
The Man Who Created Sherlock Holmes: The Life and Times of Sir Arthur Conan Doyle
With access to new material, Lycett gives a comprehensive, psychologically and readable portrait of the man who created Sherlock Holmes - Arthur Conan Doyle.
576 pages, Hardcover
First published January 1, 2007
21 people are currently reading
620 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 30 reviews
August 28, 2019
***2019 The Summer of Sherlock***
Reading a biography of Arthur Conan Doyle seemed like a necessary thing during my Summer of Sherlock. Last summer, I read Andrew Lycett’s bio of Ian Fleming during my Summer of Spies and found that it greatly enhanced my enjoyment of Fleming’s Bond novels. Perhaps I should have tackled this biography earlier in my summer and it might have given me more insight into the man’s writing.
ACD was born in the Victorian era and lived until the British Interwar period. He saw a lot of change during his lifetime, some of which he could embrace and some of which made him angry. So really, just like most of us! In many ways, he was a man of contradictions: a man with scientific training who was fascinated with mysticism; a deeply conservative man who nevertheless held some very progressive opinions; a Victorian gentleman who strove to become modern.
According to his eldest daughter, Mary, “He didn’t concur with the Victorian view that women should marry at all costs--for he thought the un-married woman, with her freedom, was a whole lot happier than a woman married to the wrong man and, he added, ‘The worst of it is, the poor things can never tell till they have married the chap!’” This is somewhat ironic, as he obviously considered himself one of the good ones, which might have been disputed by Mary’s mother, his first wife Louise. ACD spent the last 6-8 years of her life cavorting around with the woman who became his second wife one year after Louise finally expired of tuberculosis. He then proceeded to be absolutely abominable to his two children from his first marriage, until his son’s death after WWI from the Spanish flu, when he seemed to become a little more sympathetic to Mary and the two were reconciled. Until then, he seemed like the worst sort of child support avoiding cad. In all fairness, his letters & papers appear to have been pruned by the children of the second family, who seem to have wanted Mary & Kingsley to disappear from history, so who knows what the true state of affairs was?
It can’t have helped that Mary looked very much like her mother (at least from the photos included in the book, there is no mistaking their relationship to my eyes). But it does speak volumes that Mary had to arrange the funeral and burial of her brother, a task better suited to their well-to-do father.
By contrast, his 3 children from his marriage to Jean seem to have been spoiled rotten. ACD made his own good fortune by working hard, first as a doctor, then as an author, all the while being very careful of his finances. And he can’t be said to be miserly, as he assisted and supported a whole fleet of family members and frequently contributed to causes and campaigns that he valued. It must have been rather frustrating to him to see his younger children behaving in irresponsible and spendthrift ways.
ACD seems to have been an extroverted person, a real networker before networking was a thing. He knew a tremendous number of authors: Oscar Wilde, J.M. Barrie, H. Rider Haggard, H.G. Wells, Rudyard Kipling, among others. He couldn’t always maintain cordial relationships with all of them, but he was aware of them and probably read their works, as they seemed to read his. He was also very much a sportsman, enjoying cricket, golf, billiards and car racing. In those ways, he was very much a man of his time.
Would he be disappointed that the 21st century knows him almost exclusively for his Sherlock Holmes stories? Would he be surprised at the number of modern authors who have made use of Holmes and Watson to spin more stories of their own? It’s funny how we are too close to our own output to realize which aspects of it are the best--he seems to have always viewed Holmes as a distraction from his more “substantive” writing and as a way to make some quick money when it was needed. Another irony here, when a man who devoted his last years to spiritualism used the ultra-rational Sherlock Holmes to raise a few bucks to support that cause!
Its too bad that his estate, especially the letters and manuscripts, got divided up like some kind of pie between his youngest 3 children and then the early deaths of the sons left some of it to daughters-in-law. One observer noted that they were glad not to be involved in the debacle, as all of the people involved were decidedly unpleasant to deal with. As a result, ACD’s papers are scattered between quite a large number of institutions, making the life of the researcher more difficult. Lycett in his afterword describes his trials and tribulations in trying to access, utilize and obtain permission to quote ACD. Lycett may the the first biographer to be able to use these documents, but someone else undoubtedly will take another stab at it when the dust (and the estates) are settled.
Reading a biography of Arthur Conan Doyle seemed like a necessary thing during my Summer of Sherlock. Last summer, I read Andrew Lycett’s bio of Ian Fleming during my Summer of Spies and found that it greatly enhanced my enjoyment of Fleming’s Bond novels. Perhaps I should have tackled this biography earlier in my summer and it might have given me more insight into the man’s writing.
ACD was born in the Victorian era and lived until the British Interwar period. He saw a lot of change during his lifetime, some of which he could embrace and some of which made him angry. So really, just like most of us! In many ways, he was a man of contradictions: a man with scientific training who was fascinated with mysticism; a deeply conservative man who nevertheless held some very progressive opinions; a Victorian gentleman who strove to become modern.
According to his eldest daughter, Mary, “He didn’t concur with the Victorian view that women should marry at all costs--for he thought the un-married woman, with her freedom, was a whole lot happier than a woman married to the wrong man and, he added, ‘The worst of it is, the poor things can never tell till they have married the chap!’” This is somewhat ironic, as he obviously considered himself one of the good ones, which might have been disputed by Mary’s mother, his first wife Louise. ACD spent the last 6-8 years of her life cavorting around with the woman who became his second wife one year after Louise finally expired of tuberculosis. He then proceeded to be absolutely abominable to his two children from his first marriage, until his son’s death after WWI from the Spanish flu, when he seemed to become a little more sympathetic to Mary and the two were reconciled. Until then, he seemed like the worst sort of child support avoiding cad. In all fairness, his letters & papers appear to have been pruned by the children of the second family, who seem to have wanted Mary & Kingsley to disappear from history, so who knows what the true state of affairs was?
It can’t have helped that Mary looked very much like her mother (at least from the photos included in the book, there is no mistaking their relationship to my eyes). But it does speak volumes that Mary had to arrange the funeral and burial of her brother, a task better suited to their well-to-do father.
By contrast, his 3 children from his marriage to Jean seem to have been spoiled rotten. ACD made his own good fortune by working hard, first as a doctor, then as an author, all the while being very careful of his finances. And he can’t be said to be miserly, as he assisted and supported a whole fleet of family members and frequently contributed to causes and campaigns that he valued. It must have been rather frustrating to him to see his younger children behaving in irresponsible and spendthrift ways.
ACD seems to have been an extroverted person, a real networker before networking was a thing. He knew a tremendous number of authors: Oscar Wilde, J.M. Barrie, H. Rider Haggard, H.G. Wells, Rudyard Kipling, among others. He couldn’t always maintain cordial relationships with all of them, but he was aware of them and probably read their works, as they seemed to read his. He was also very much a sportsman, enjoying cricket, golf, billiards and car racing. In those ways, he was very much a man of his time.
Would he be disappointed that the 21st century knows him almost exclusively for his Sherlock Holmes stories? Would he be surprised at the number of modern authors who have made use of Holmes and Watson to spin more stories of their own? It’s funny how we are too close to our own output to realize which aspects of it are the best--he seems to have always viewed Holmes as a distraction from his more “substantive” writing and as a way to make some quick money when it was needed. Another irony here, when a man who devoted his last years to spiritualism used the ultra-rational Sherlock Holmes to raise a few bucks to support that cause!
Its too bad that his estate, especially the letters and manuscripts, got divided up like some kind of pie between his youngest 3 children and then the early deaths of the sons left some of it to daughters-in-law. One observer noted that they were glad not to be involved in the debacle, as all of the people involved were decidedly unpleasant to deal with. As a result, ACD’s papers are scattered between quite a large number of institutions, making the life of the researcher more difficult. Lycett in his afterword describes his trials and tribulations in trying to access, utilize and obtain permission to quote ACD. Lycett may the the first biographer to be able to use these documents, but someone else undoubtedly will take another stab at it when the dust (and the estates) are settled.
June 21, 2013
Almost a year after starting it, I’ve finished The Man Who Created Sherlock Holmes: The Life and Time of Sir Arthur Conan Doyle. Please don’t think, however, that the slowness of my reading in any way indicates that I found this biography uninteresting; it’s simply an incredibly comprehensive, well-researched biography that I think will leave you with a very good insight into the creator of Sherlock Holmes. But it is slow reading, especially if you’re reading six or seven or eight other books equally … comprehensive (like an annotated Pride and Prejudice or P.G. Wodehouse A Life in Letters or Michael Wood’s The Story of England).
Inevitably, when you’re reading a book like this biography once a week for only thirty minutes or so before you go to sleep, you’ll spend a lot of time flipping back through pages, trying to remember who’s who. After all, Conan Doyle knew a lot of people and once the famous author hits his stride, you realize he was friends, enemies and frenemies with a lot of other famous figures, including H.G. Wells, P.G. Wodehouse, Rudyard Kipling and Harry Houdini. He was related by marriage to E.W. Hornung, the creator of gentleman thief Arthur J. Raffles. He championed several causes, including overturning the wrongful conviction of two men, challenging England’s onerous divorce laws and, of course, spiritualism, which put him at odds with the church, skeptics and even other spiritualists.
All this is as nothing compared to Conan Doyle’s greatest creation, that exemplar of cold logic and reasoning, Sherlock Holmes. Biographer Andrew Lycett, however, has done an admirable job of balancing the importance of Holmes, something Sir Arthur probably would have appreciated, but which might disappoint a Sherlockian. It’s easy to see, however, that the Canon represents only a small fraction of Conan Doyle’s output, despite how much Holmes looms large with the public.
The resulting portrait of Conan Doyle seemed quite understandable to me. I’d always wondered how someone who’d created the rational Holmes—“no ghosts need apply”—could be so gullible as to believe in faeries, automatic writing and ectoplasmic manifestations, but the deaths of so many so close to Conan Doyle (from disease and the Great War) and the burden left him by his creative but alcoholic, depressive and epileptic father, make his need to believe understandable. Conan Doyle was an outsize character who needed things to make sense, either by his own doing or by a power greater than himself. One of the byproducts of his own greatness was that singular creation, Sherlock Holmes.
Another byproduct of portraying this fascinating subject, coupled with the wealth of material Lycett was able to use following the deaths of several Doyle relations, is this somewhat daunting biography. It’s amazing how much we know about Conan Doyle, based on the many letters, journals and published works. Perhaps a less detailed biography would have made for easier reading, but even though I sometimes forgot who was who, I’m glad of Lycett’s thorough job.
Inevitably, when you’re reading a book like this biography once a week for only thirty minutes or so before you go to sleep, you’ll spend a lot of time flipping back through pages, trying to remember who’s who. After all, Conan Doyle knew a lot of people and once the famous author hits his stride, you realize he was friends, enemies and frenemies with a lot of other famous figures, including H.G. Wells, P.G. Wodehouse, Rudyard Kipling and Harry Houdini. He was related by marriage to E.W. Hornung, the creator of gentleman thief Arthur J. Raffles. He championed several causes, including overturning the wrongful conviction of two men, challenging England’s onerous divorce laws and, of course, spiritualism, which put him at odds with the church, skeptics and even other spiritualists.
All this is as nothing compared to Conan Doyle’s greatest creation, that exemplar of cold logic and reasoning, Sherlock Holmes. Biographer Andrew Lycett, however, has done an admirable job of balancing the importance of Holmes, something Sir Arthur probably would have appreciated, but which might disappoint a Sherlockian. It’s easy to see, however, that the Canon represents only a small fraction of Conan Doyle’s output, despite how much Holmes looms large with the public.
The resulting portrait of Conan Doyle seemed quite understandable to me. I’d always wondered how someone who’d created the rational Holmes—“no ghosts need apply”—could be so gullible as to believe in faeries, automatic writing and ectoplasmic manifestations, but the deaths of so many so close to Conan Doyle (from disease and the Great War) and the burden left him by his creative but alcoholic, depressive and epileptic father, make his need to believe understandable. Conan Doyle was an outsize character who needed things to make sense, either by his own doing or by a power greater than himself. One of the byproducts of his own greatness was that singular creation, Sherlock Holmes.
Another byproduct of portraying this fascinating subject, coupled with the wealth of material Lycett was able to use following the deaths of several Doyle relations, is this somewhat daunting biography. It’s amazing how much we know about Conan Doyle, based on the many letters, journals and published works. Perhaps a less detailed biography would have made for easier reading, but even though I sometimes forgot who was who, I’m glad of Lycett’s thorough job.
Read
May 22, 2008I think you are going to see some sherlock holmes on my to read list soon...
November 13, 2020
Four stars for research, three and a half as a work of literature. This book could best be described as workmanlike. I did learn a great deal about Doyle's early upbringing, particularly how early his interest in spiritualism began and the extent of his alcoholic father's mental unraveling. But there is precious little analysis about what really motivated Doyle to create his famous detective, despite the catchy title. For example, quite often it's merely remarked that Doyle wrote such-and-such a story, like his famous beloved "Silver Blaze" with no backstory about what went into its creation.
Part of the problem may be that Doyle did very little research on the Holmes tales, and the few gems which do emerge pertain largely to Doyle's medical study, such as his own self-experimentation for the purpose of a journal article he authored. It was common for physicians to do this at the time, in the absence of systematic medical research practices. But overall, there's very little sense of Doyle the writer. At very least, some contextual history behind the stories would be helpful, like governesses for "The Copper Beeches." But historical as well as literary depth (and breadth) makes this an okay, but not must-read for Sherlockians.
Part of the problem may be that Doyle did very little research on the Holmes tales, and the few gems which do emerge pertain largely to Doyle's medical study, such as his own self-experimentation for the purpose of a journal article he authored. It was common for physicians to do this at the time, in the absence of systematic medical research practices. But overall, there's very little sense of Doyle the writer. At very least, some contextual history behind the stories would be helpful, like governesses for "The Copper Beeches." But historical as well as literary depth (and breadth) makes this an okay, but not must-read for Sherlockians.
February 2, 2024
A. wonderful tale of a man who was much more then the creator of Holmes--an indefatigable pamphleteer against all sorts of injustices, a prolific writer of histories, an enthusiastic cricketer and golfer, and benevolent paterfamilias. I believe it was unfortunate that he expended so much energy by tumbling down the rabbit hole of spiritualism.
January 11, 2018
Exceptional but exhausting biography. Incredibly detailed and interesting (first half) but also pretty long and repetitive (second half). The most interesting point the author makes is that Doyle originally started off identifying with Holmes, but eventually switches that position to Watson in the end - which is made clear if you read the stories along with the bio.
July 9, 2022
So nice to read a biography that is well written, focused and of interest.
Had no idea how prolific ACD was, and varied his body of work.
Very motivated now to seek out lesser known works thanks to My Lycett.
Well done...
Had no idea how prolific ACD was, and varied his body of work.
Very motivated now to seek out lesser known works thanks to My Lycett.
Well done...
May 18, 2025
I only give it a 1 star because I never want to read this again. However, it's extremely detailed and probably great for anyone into bios and Doyle. Sadly, for me breaks any illusion I had that Doyle actually liked his Holmes.
This entire review has been hidden because of spoilers.
December 24, 2018
Fair biography
May 30, 2020
It's good but it jumps from one time to another a lot.
March 10, 2021
An appalingly overdetailed and boring read. But if you'd like to know how much Doyle pay for a ham sandwich the second tuesday of march in 1892 this will be your jam.
March 11, 2021
Apart from being an interesting biography the Afterword, regarding Conan Doyle's estate, is worth reading too.
October 31, 2024
Not only anti-Catholic, but also stupid, mired in narrow bias, much like the subject.
January 17, 2015
A highly detailed, exquisitely researched biography. I would not be surprised to find that Lycett invented both a time machine and a shrink ray so that he could spend every single day of Conan Doyle's life perched on his shoulder like a tiny biographer angel. Or demon, depending on your view of the book.
The text is very dense with a lot of information crammed into every sentence. This can be fascinating, if you are interested in the period being covered, or tedious, if that particular aspect of Conan Doyle's life leaves you cold. For instance, I greatly enjoyed the sections on Conan Doyle's medical and literary careers, but found myself frustrated by the in depth analysis of his spiritualism. It really is a matter of personal preference.
It should be noted that the title is accurate. This is not just a discussion of Conan Doyle, but of the times in which he lived. Learning about the philosophical movements, historical events, and influential figures which surrounded Conan Doyle can give you insights into how he became the writer he was. But for readers wanting a more stream-lined, Conan-Doyle-centric biography, this book will frustrate the hell out of them. Moreover, readers expecting a major focus on the Sherlock Holmes stories may be disappointed by how cursory their treatment is.
However, if what you are looking for is a deeper understanding of Arthur Conan Doyle as a complete man (not just as the creator of Sherlock Holmes) and the era that shaped him you cannot help but be satisfied. And more than a little impressed by the astonishing breadth of Lycett's research.
The text is very dense with a lot of information crammed into every sentence. This can be fascinating, if you are interested in the period being covered, or tedious, if that particular aspect of Conan Doyle's life leaves you cold. For instance, I greatly enjoyed the sections on Conan Doyle's medical and literary careers, but found myself frustrated by the in depth analysis of his spiritualism. It really is a matter of personal preference.
It should be noted that the title is accurate. This is not just a discussion of Conan Doyle, but of the times in which he lived. Learning about the philosophical movements, historical events, and influential figures which surrounded Conan Doyle can give you insights into how he became the writer he was. But for readers wanting a more stream-lined, Conan-Doyle-centric biography, this book will frustrate the hell out of them. Moreover, readers expecting a major focus on the Sherlock Holmes stories may be disappointed by how cursory their treatment is.
However, if what you are looking for is a deeper understanding of Arthur Conan Doyle as a complete man (not just as the creator of Sherlock Holmes) and the era that shaped him you cannot help but be satisfied. And more than a little impressed by the astonishing breadth of Lycett's research.
July 18, 2016
For a man as interesting as Doyle was, this book was a drag to get through. It's slow going to begin with, but the inclusion of irrelevant details (biographical info on Doyle's contemporaries that has nothing to do with what the author is discussing, bios of Doyle's great grand parents, Doyle's Cricket record) certainly doesn't help. Pair that with poor transitions & the odd assumptions the author makes of the reader, namely that 1) they know the geography of England, & 2) they have a working knowledge of the game of Cricket.
This book could've been improved with tighter writing, inclusion of a map of England, and a fold-out version of the family tree (thankfully, this *was* included in the book, but it's too smashed together, making it harder to follow - especially with the several people who had multiple marriages)
This book could've been improved with tighter writing, inclusion of a map of England, and a fold-out version of the family tree (thankfully, this *was* included in the book, but it's too smashed together, making it harder to follow - especially with the several people who had multiple marriages)
Read
April 5, 2011Well, not read, completely. There is a lot of really good stuff here, but it is a very dense book with lots and lots of detail and I just can't seem to concentrate on it. I think I might be in a "no non-fiction" mood lately which doesn't bode well for the books I've got here right now from the public library. Besides this one I have one on Edgar Allan Poe and another on Lee Harvey Oswald. I'll give them all a chance but I really, really just want to read fiction right now.
I'm not rating this because I think my mood is affecting my response more than my like/dislike of the book. I'll keep it in mind and maybe go back to it when my tastes change back to wanting more variety.
I'm not rating this because I think my mood is affecting my response more than my like/dislike of the book. I'll keep it in mind and maybe go back to it when my tastes change back to wanting more variety.
January 9, 2012
It is rare that I give up entirely on books, but I will make an exception for this book. I am usually a love of non fiction, and I am a lover of Sherlock Holmes, and I have been waiting for a good biography on the man who created the series, but I take great issue with this one. Lycett creates a portrait of Holmes as a bumbling buffoon who just stumbled on the dynamic duo. I don't think that I am being naive when I say that this cannot be accurate; after reading the Sherlock Holmes collection I feel assured that its creator is somewhat talented. This leaves me to discredit the entire volume.
January 6, 2014
A factual(at times too much), well-researched, sincere, honest, and at times rather dry biography of that brilliant storyteller who had given us so many memorable stories, and yet who is remembered by the vast majority only for the creation of one character and his style. The book is a difficult read not only because of its fact-findings, but often due to its rather admonishing tone that I found to be disconcerting after reading the more sympathetic writings of Daniel Stashower. Nevertheless, as the new reboots of Batman & Superman claim to be grittier only to make them more suitable for "our age", perhaps this is the best biography that we deserve in this age. Recommended.
June 10, 2008
This is not a quick read, but it is densely packed with interested information about the man and his times. The author does a nice job in fleshing out the man, his foibles, and his idiosyncrasies, although I can't say that I would have enjoyed meeting Conan Doyle in the flesh (although I imagine that I would feel the same about most Victorian men).
Don't miss the afterword, which gives an excellent impression of the lengths the author had to go through to get this book done. The genteel swipes that it takes against the family are classic.
Don't miss the afterword, which gives an excellent impression of the lengths the author had to go through to get this book done. The genteel swipes that it takes against the family are classic.
July 7, 2012
I am a huge Conan Doyle/Holmes fan so was looking forward to this book. After toiling my way through two thirds of it - I gave up. I don't know how such a fascinating life has been rendered so lifeless. The level of detail, far from being fascinating, was tedious in the extreme and there was no flow to the prose. Conan Doyle would have been appalled and would have wanted a much more dashing and exciting rendition! I hate giving up on a book... but I decided life was too short and I had far more interesting books to read. Yet again - get Claire Tomalin to write it!!
May 11, 2011
This book was a big disappointment. Overstuffed with pointless details drawn from family letters and diaries, it fails to convey anything new or interesting about Doyle and is a slow and tedious read. It doesn't give any sense of an overall shape to his life and includes little discussion of his writing (and isn't that why we're interested in him, after all?). Martin Booth's The Doctor and the Detective is a better read and a more satisfying biography.
January 10, 2014
Although an interesting read it is not for those with limited attention spans. The book is very dense and dry. I usually breeze through books of this length quickly but I had to take it in bit and pieces. It did, however, give an interesting view into Conan Doyle's life. There were many things in this biography that I had not known about the father of my favorite detective. If you have the time and patience it is certainly worth it. I'm glad I finished it.
Read
October 11, 2008I did not like this book, and in fact quit about half way through. This was too detailed in the people he met than in how he found his ideas or how he wrote his books. I felt it was very boring and would not recommend it to anyone.
December 16, 2011
I never knew there was so much more to Sir A.C.D.than Sherlock. I was fascinated from so many angles: Victorian Royalty and society;Spiritualism; Interaction with so many famous contempories; the book business at the time etc. unlike so many comments on this book, I found the details compelling.
February 6, 2008
I love Sherlock Holmes. I enjoy reading about the fin de siecle and the people who inhabited it. Unfortunately, this book just didn't grab me -- I found the author's style dull and unappealing.
October 6, 2009
I really wanted to like this and read it. It was just too detailed and information packed, and not good information. So I gave up on it two hundred pages in it. Wish I could have liked it better.
January 26, 2011
Simply awesome. As a huge Sherlock Holmes fan, it was amazing to be able to learn the history of the stories and the author. Two thumbs up.
June 7, 2011
Interesting but also tedious. I read every word. And enjoyed it well-enough. But nothing over the top.
March 4, 2012
Great details on the man. I think the amount of details stemmed from the number of new sources permitted to be quoted for this new biography. Definitely a man of contradictions.
October 6, 2014
A comprehensive, if long, look at Conan Doyle's life, including his writings and his interest in spiritualism. Well written, but with some dips and duller parts (such is the nature of a life).
Displaying 1 - 30 of 30 reviews