Writer 1879: Solitary Journey in France

Chapter 263 Reconstructing *A Study in Scarlet*

Summer in Meitang is always tinged with a sense of languor.

London or Paris are unbearably hot and smelly, but here, tall trees cast deep shade, a gentle breeze blows from the river, and everything is so refreshing.

In the afternoon, the spacious living room of Meitang Villa was filled with a lively atmosphere that contrasted sharply with the tranquility outside the window.

Guy de Maupassant, Joris-Carl Huysmann, Paul Alexis… and of course, their master Émile Zola, were circulating the full manuscript of “A Study in Scarlet.”

Lionel was flipping through a stack of newspaper clippings sent from England, all reporting on the frenzy the novel had caused in London.

What surprised Lionel the most was the unexpected addition of Scotland Yard.

Although this caused public opinion to deviate somewhat from his plans, the effect was unexpectedly good.

Maupassant was the first to finish reading the novel. He jumped up from his armchair, his face flushed, and exclaimed, "My God! Léon! What a story you've written!"

I confess, when I first heard that you had written a 'detective novel,' I wanted to grab your ear!

I thought this was just a 'game' for you to relax and maybe sneak some gold coins out of John Bull's pocket!

He strode up to Lionel: "But now! After seeing this! I must apologize to you! This is hardly a game!"
The suspense builds layer upon layer, like peeling an onion, bringing tears to the reader's eyes yet making it impossible to put down!
More importantly, your observations of London society, of the citizens, the police, and the rickshaw pullers, are shockingly detailed!

This is something that couldn't be written by simply working behind closed doors!

Lionel smiled modestly and handed the other man a glass of chilled wine: "Guy, calm down."

Ultimately, it's just a story, something for people to enjoy.

Yusman finished reading it and handed the manuscript to the next person: "Just for fun? Leon, you're too modest."

If this is just for 'entertainment', then most of the novels written by the world's novelists are just worthless paper!

Holmes makes his first appearance, deducing the reasoning process by observing Watson's hands and pocket watch...

This is not a deliberately arranged 'coincidence' or 'divine revelation,' but a scientific phenomenon!
By the way, you call it 'deductive reasoning'!

Paul Alexis and Henry Céar nodded in agreement.

Lionel was filled with emotion as he listened to his friends' praise.

He recalled the scene when he first conceived the Sherlock Holmes stories.

He knew perfectly well that while Conan Doyle's original "A Study in Scarlet" pioneered a new era, it had many flaws and was not mature enough.

Lionel's thoughts drifted back to his study in Paris. Under the gaslight, he was studying Conan Doyle's original work and reinventing in this era the various "rules of reasoning" he had learned in later generations.

Conan Doyle's original concept was too fragmented in terms of narrative structure.

The entire "Once Upon a Time in the Mormon Church" book crashed into the London case like a boulder, abruptly disrupting the pace of the investigation.

The reader is like someone being guided up a ladder, only to have the ladder suddenly slip away, leaving them falling into a completely unfamiliar story.

He could only try his best to adjust the structure and use an interwoven narrative style to tell the story like weaving brocade.

The ring, the strange powder, and the coachman's clues discovered during the London investigation, like scattered pearls, each one leading to a revelation of America's past.

The story unfolds along two parallel lines: one is the overt narrative of Scotland Yard and Watson, and the other is the covert narrative of Hope's revenge. Ultimately, these lines converge through Holmes's deductions...

In this way, the "Mormon past" becomes the driving force of the reasoning, rather than an interlude that interrupts it. Céar praised the realism of the scene details in the novel, and while Lionel nodded his thanks, he was thinking about another crucial problem he needed to solve at the time.

—Fairness!
The original story's plot is too unfair.

The motive and the killer's background are completely hidden from London's view, and the reader has no chance to participate in the deduction.

This violates the "fair game" principle that is most captivating in later detective novels.

Lionel has also made improvements in this new version.

First, they planted more "visible" clues at the scene.

The word "RACHE" is not only a misleading statement by the murderer, but also hints at a hidden desire for revenge.

The traces left by the murderer, whether it be the special mud on the carriage wheel or the wear and tear on the boots, allow the reader to vaguely perceive them.

The goal is to make readers feel that if they are attentive enough, they can also draw conclusions like Sherlock Holmes, rather than just passively listening to a "myth".

Even Sherlock Holmes' reasoning itself, in the original works, often resembles magic, directly presenting the conclusion without demonstrating the process.

Lionel, on the other hand, wanted to make every step of his thinking clearly visible.

From the initial linguistic analysis of the words in scarlet, to the poison mystery, to the pattern of the serial killings, and finally to identifying the driver and devising a trap...

Each step is a small puzzle that can be analyzed independently.

Even when Holmes points out the killer's height and occupation at the scene, he does so through specific descriptions of the depth of footprints and the friction marks of ropes, allowing the reader to "see" what he sees, rather than just hearing his assertions...

Émile Zola had been listening quietly to the discussion when he suddenly spoke, interrupting Lionel's thoughts: "Léon, what interests me most is 'deductive reasoning'."

He sat up straight, his eyes shining: "This is a method full of science, rationality, and empirical spirit! Observation, hypothesis, verification, elimination..."

As Zola spoke, he picked up the manuscript on the table: "You see, although the story has elements of the bizarre—strange deaths, mysterious religious backgrounds…"

But Holmes' reasoning does not rely on supernatural powers or romantic inspiration, but is based on meticulous observation of the material world and rigorous logic.

He analyzed every detail of the crime scene like a scientist analyzing experimental data—the composition of the soil, the shape of the soot, the characteristics of the handwriting…

These details are all products of the 'environment'; and his reasoning is the process of revealing how these details determine the 'characters' behavior and fate.

At this point, a sly look appeared on Zola's face: "My dear Léon, although you always deny it verbally and don't want to be labeled a 'naturalist'..."
"But look at the detective you've created, look at the way you've told this story! Your pen is far more honest than your mouth!"

Lionel was speechless in the face of Zola's "accusations".

He tried to change the subject: "Emile, I just think that for a detective story to be convincing, the reasoning process must stand up to scrutiny."

Holmes simply chose what he considered the most reliable method. As for naturalism... perhaps it was just a coincidence.

We all hope that the world we depict in our writing is more realistic.

Zola was about to say something more when Maupassant, remembering something, preemptively asked, "Léon, the detective image of 'Sherlock Holmes' is too unique..."

You've written this Englishman in a really interesting way—is he based on someone?

Lionel was overjoyed and quickly said, "Of course! Do you remember when I fell ill in London last year?"
I met a doctor named 'Joseph Bell'..."

(End of this chapter)