Se: Doyle was very aware of physical and sensory detail, and emphasises it to an extreme extent throughout the Sherlock Holmes stories. His stories were all about experiences, the rush, the effect etc. His stories were all based on bizarre realities found in newspapers and the like and then sensationalised into stories. Sherlock Holmes, the character, was based on a real person (one of Doyle’s university professors). Doyle also wrote very quickly, cracking off one story in no time and immediately starting on the next.
Ti: His writing is not particularly embellished, and doesn’t evoke empiricist values at all. The stories are not organised in a Te fashion, but rather, go into great depth on various topics that don’t necessarily relate to the plot development. Sometimes we forget the plot is actually…you know…developing because he was describing a town.
Fe: Doyle relied heavily on an understanding of social custom to create many of Sherlock Holmes’ observations (the detective himself appears to do this through Ni pattern recognition, however). Doyle writes from a narrator’s perspective other than the character about which the Sherlock Holmes stories were actually written, which suggests a desire for community (if, a bit stifled). Doyle also employed a number of huge stereotypes about groups of people into his work that an individualist Fi writer would be less likely to do.
Ni: Doyle used Ni to visualise the plots of his stories to the end and to work backwards in order to create Sherlock Holmes’ deductions. All of the stories focus heavily on logic and deduction, and are about a very non-conforming character.
You must be logged in to post a comment.