Sir Arthur and the Fairies

In the spring of 1920, at the beginning of a growing fascination with spiritualism brought on by the death of his son and brother in WWI, Arthur Conan Doyle took up the case of the Cottingley Fairies. Mary Losure explores how the creator of Sherlock Holmes became convinced that the ‘fairy photographs’ taken by two girls from Yorkshire were real.

By Mary Losure

In the spring of 1920, at the beginning of a growing fascination with spiritualism brought on by the death of his son and brother in WWI, Arthur Conan Doyle took up the case of the Cottingley Fairies. Mary Losure explores how the creator of Sherlock Holmes became convinced that the ‘fairy photographs’ taken by two girls from Yorkshire were real.

PUBLISHED

June 12, 2013

Spirit photograph of Arthur Conan Doyle taken by the ‘spirit photographer’ Ada Deane in 1922, the same year in which Conan Doyle’s The Coming of the Fairies was published – Source

In the winter of 1920, readers of the popular British magazine the Strand found a curious headline on the cover of their Christmas issues. “FAIRIES PHOTOGRAPHED,” it said. “AN EPOCH-MAKING EVENT DESCRIBED BY A. CONAN DOYLE.” The Strand’s readership was well acquainted with Sir Arthur Conan Doyle; most of his wildly popular Sherlock Holmes stories had appeared for the first time in its pages. The great man’s claim that fairies –real fairies – had been photographed in the north of England by two young girls was greeted with wonder, but unfortunately for Conan Doyle, most of it was of the “what can he be thinking?” variety. How could the creator of the world’s most famous, least-fool-able detective have convinced himself that “fairy” photographs were real? Let us proceed, Holmes-like, to examine the question.

Read more

Streaming: Enola Holmes and the best Sherlock adaptations on screen

The great sleuth’s savvy teenage sister, new to Netflix, would give everyone from Basil Rathbone to Ian McKellen a run for his money


What is it about Sherlock Holmes that holds such enduring fascination for people? After nearly 140 years, you might think a tweedily eccentric, pipe-smoking Victorian detective might have worn out his pop-culture welcome. Yet the updates, sendups and spinoffs of Arthur Conan Doyle’s immortal character keep coming – some delightful, some dire, but never enough to deter the next one. If Will Ferrell and John C Reilly’s clomping, witless, financially disastrous parody Holmes & Watson (it’s on Now TV, but why do that to yourself) couldn’t kill the mythos two years ago, it’s safe to say it’s going nowhere.

Read more