“Now hold for a second,” he said. “I do have, since you have convinced me that this is the course you mean to pursue, a suggestion.”

“Yes, of course,” I said.

“This is a precipitous time for your enterprise, and I wonder if you are aware of that fact.”

“I am aware that the public is desperate for an end to the menace and terror of Jack,” I said.

“Not exactly. As of December of last year and more so since June of this year, a great many members of the public, particularly people of our sort, who matter and determine the course of our nation’s mental drift, have come to believe in the moral and intellectual authority of the amateur detective. As a figure, he is enlarging in the public imagination, even while that of the professional police detective has diminished. You yourself, to judge by your comments, are in his thrall. The horror of Jack and the utter failure of Warren’s coppers to halt or solve it has perhaps multiplied this condition. The people want a heroic detective to solve it. In their bosom, they yearn for a man to emerge who has insights, understandings, analytical and deductive powers, forensic attributes, a knowledge of darkness and its methods, and the will and righteous energy to project such on the malefactor while protecting the public. The public yearns for Sherlock Holmes.”

“Of course,” I said. “I had admired the creation. I see him and Watson in us, I must admit.”

“I have at last read A Study in Scarlet, in the Ward Lock edition. It seems to have entered that zone of private but vast awareness. Because Conan Doyle, an opthalmalogist, as I understand it, created the ideal detective. Sherlock Holmes: a man of science, a man of deduction paramount and refined, a man of calm, overall a man of complete rationality who sees what others have missed and is able to put facts in their proper order and context.”

“Exactly,” I said, quite pleased that the living Sherlock Holmes had validated my insight.

“The structure is also interesting. He himself does not narrate. He is, rather, observed by a junior partner, a fellow of keen observation as well as astute literary powers. This would be Watson, an MD actually, recently retired from military service. Holmes solves the case, Watson tells the tale.”

“You are suggesting—”

“What I am suggesting is that before you write your story, you reread Conan Doyle’s. In that way you will learn how someone has done it masterfully, the rhythms between the narrator and the hero, the careful placement of clues, the cycle of interpretation and revelation, all reported in oak-solid, dead-lucid English prose. That is, read A Study in Scarlet again and then write your story in the penumbra of its influence. Thus will you prosper. Thus will you do justice not only to Dare and Jeb but to Polly, Annie, Long Liz, Kate, and poor Mary Jane, and in a way, even to poor Colonel Woodruff, God rest his tormented soul.”

“Excellent advice,” I said. “I shall forthwith. We must publish the day after the funeral, even if they have not found the body. It is imperative that we name the colonel, so that the police may open his rooms and there, no doubt, find Annie’s rings, perhaps a knife, perhaps some pickled bits of Judy, some bloody rags, all signs of his perfidy, making our case air-tight.”

I stopped at Mudie’s on New Oxford and bought the Ward Lock & Company edition of A Study in Scarlet.

And so it was that afternoon that I reintroduced Mr. Holmes and his amanuensis, Dr. Watson, to my life. It was a cracking good read. Conan Doyle wrote clearly and directly, without affectation or ruse. Moreover, he had a gift for vigorous narrative that perhaps approached Louis Stevenson’s or Dickens’s even at this early stage of his career. I roared through the thing a second time, transfigured and pleased to be in the company of two such interesting gentlemen. While I saw a lot of Holmes in Dare, however, I saw very little of Watson in myself, except by structure of the story. Where Watson was wise and well salted, I was impetuous, ambitious, perhaps too brilliant to do anybody any good as an assistant, having a need for my own way and the prime spotlight. Knowing that, I told myself, would be very fine guidance for the long article I was about to write, for I would be able to control my love of self enough to let the true hero, Professor Dare, have center stage. It would benefit not only him but me as well.

When I was finished, I found myself exulted. I saw exactly how the professor thought the book would excite me to my best effort, as it was sure to do—I was so filled with energy, I was ready to buckle down right then and there!—but I had to admit there was more to Holmes than met the eye. Conan Doyle, as seen through the behavior of Mr. Holmes, was clearly a wise man and had thought at length about darknesses of the heart and the tricks to which so constructed people will go to achieve their own ends, and the responsibility of he who investigates to see the truth and not the illusion created. “There’s the scarlet thread of murder running through the colorless skein of life, and our duty is to unravel it, and isolate it, and expose every inch of it.” That was indeed what our real-life Holmes and Watson had done in re: Jack, was it not? That was what Professor Dare and Reporter Shaw had done, was it not? We had skillfully understood what Jack’s acts inferred of him as to experience, type of mind, and skills available, and using them as our guideline, we had uncovered a pool of such men and tested our thesis to the point where we had found the man with knife in hand—and stopped him by the intervention of good fortune. Subsequent information would only prove our point. It was a triumph of cool rationality over clumsy attempts at mantrapping, the only thing the police departments could manage.

I was most furiously proud of one thing. It was Holmes’s own description of method, and I saw how brilliantly we—the professor, that is—had put it to work. “Before turning to those moral and mental aspects which present the greatest difficulties, let the inquirer begin by mastering the more elemental problems.”

And what would the most elementary aspect of the case be?

What made Jack Jack?

It was not that he killed, as many have, and will, kill. That is the sad part of human nature. That was the scarlet thread. No, it was that he did so silently, efficiently, and then got away.

That was the elemental essence. He got away. How did he get away? Well, the professor had many ideas, all pertinent: He planned well, he had superb night vision, he had experience in night work and knew just how much moon he needed to give him advantage, he reconnoitered his sites, he was slight, so he could get out of tight spots as in Dutfield’s Yard, he was—

That was it. His slightness was key to the whole thing, and the professor had foreseen that, applied it to the case, and unlocked it. It was clear how Colonel Woodruff had used his slightness.

One thing lay ahead. I had to go to Dutfield’s Yard. I had not seen it, having spent that night first in Mitre Square, for the second of the “double events,” being the end of poor Kate Eddowes, and then on Goulston Street, where the dyslexic “Juwes” clue had been left. I must get to Dutfield’s, I thought, and have a look around and understand this aspect of the elemental.

I awoke merrily, had a nice breakfast and even a half-decent chat with Mother, who was all alight—knowing nothing of my triumph—because Lucy would sing a small role in La Traviata at the great Paris Opera House. She was beginning to make her way in the professional world.

I think that breakfast was the peak of glory for me. I remember thinking, Oh, but Mother, if you only know what your dim son, the failure, the disappointment, the bearer and inheritor of his drunken father’s dreams, has been up to and what glories await him.