What do you think?
Rate this book
Sherlock Holmes: A play
First Edition. Based on Sir Arthur Conan Doyle's incomparable stories. An introduction by the editor Vincent Starrett and a preface by William Gillette. Illustrated with line drawings by Frederic Dorr Steele. Dust jacket tattered at the edges and faded in places. xxx, viii , 191+ 1 pages, frontispiece. cloth, dust jacket, top edge stained red. 8vo..
210 pages, Hardcover
First published January 1, 1976
2 people are currently reading
55 people want to read
About the author
William Gillette
50 books1 followerWilliam Gillette was an American actor, playwright, director, producer, and stagecraft innovator whose career helped shape modern theatre and whose interpretation of Sherlock Holmes left a permanent imprint on popular culture. Raised in Hartford, Connecticut, in a family of reformers and intellectuals, Gillette grew up immersed in literature, politics, and social issues; his father was Francis Gillette, a United States senator, and his mother Elisabeth Daggett Hooker came from a long line of New England leadership. After attending local schools and studying at Trinity College and later at Harvard, Gillette pursued acting despite family reservations, making his professional debut in 1875. He quickly gained recognition for combining writing, producing, and acting in his own plays, among them The Professor (1881) and Esmeralda (1881), which he co-wrote with Frances Hodgson Burnett. Throughout the 1880s and 1890s he specialized in plays that emphasized realism in dialogue, gesture, and set design, moving away from the melodramatic excesses common on the American stage. His Civil War-themed dramas, particularly Held by the Enemy (1886) and Secret Service (1896), were widely praised for their subtle portrayals of divided loyalties and personal sacrifice, the latter play earning admiration in both the United States and Britain. In addition to his skill as a dramatist, Gillette was known for his meticulous attention to stagecraft, pioneering innovations in lighting, sound effects, and authentic props that brought a new level of believability to productions. His lasting fame, however, rests on his embodiment of Sherlock Holmes. With permission from Arthur Conan Doyle, Gillette adapted the detective for the stage in 1899 and proceeded to play the role over 1,300 times across decades, becoming inseparable from the character in the public imagination. He introduced enduring visual cues, including Holmes’s curved pipe and dressing gown, and popularized certain lines of dialogue, shaping the way the detective would be remembered in later adaptations. He reprised Holmes in touring productions and even in a silent film version released in 1916, which was rediscovered and restored in the 21st century, cementing his contribution to cinematic history as well. Offstage, Gillette demonstrated an inventive spirit. In East Haddam, Connecticut, he constructed his eccentric mansion, later known as Gillette Castle, between 1914 and 1919, filling it with whimsical architectural details, custom-designed locks and woodwork, and even building his own narrow-gauge railroad to traverse the grounds. The house became a local landmark and eventually a state park, preserving his legacy as both artist and engineer. Though known to be private and never marrying, Gillette maintained close friendships with literary figures such as Mark Twain and Helen Hayes, and he remained active in theatre well into his later years, continuing to tour with revivals of Sherlock Holmes and other plays. His performance style, often understated and deeply observant, emphasized naturalistic behavior rather than exaggerated gesture, influencing subsequent generations of actors who sought to blend theatricality with psychological depth. Gillette’s life and career were characterized by constant experimentation, from his early embrace of realistic dialogue to his pursuit of mechanical contraptions that enhanced stage illusion, and his innovations helped pave the way for modern directing and production design. By the time of his death in 1937, he had secured his place as one of the leading figures in American theatre history. Today, he is remembered not only for his plays and his unique home but above all for creating the image of Sherlock Holmes that continues to shape film, television, and literary portrayals of the world’s most famous detective.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 21 of 21 reviews
June 20, 2013
This is such an American play. Conan Doyle was a good writer, but a terrible playwright. William Gillette took a Sherlock Holmes play that Doyle had written, threw virtually everything out, and recreated it as an American melodrama.
It is actually pretty typical of the other American melodramas of its era except for that whole London/fog/Sherlock Holmes thing, and is really the only of the old melodramas still revived. I doubt anybody today would notice this play if the story was not about Sherlock Holmes.
In other words, anyone indifferent to Holmes has no reason to take an interest this play. It is a bit of a holy grail to Holmes fans, however, because while it is still performed, productions are usually in another part of the country, or even the world. That is a shame because it mostly still works on stage, which is to say that actors, designers, and directors can make this script work even though it is so old it creaks. Reading the play is better than not reading it, but like most plays, it exists to be performed, and only performance can make it shine.
Should you doubt that SHERLOCK HOLMES is as dated as I claim, I invite you to consider this. While Orson Welles 1938 radio adaptation stayed fairly faithfully to Gillette's story, the three film versions changed the plot: the 1922 film added a lot of buffer material while the 1932 and 1939 films changed the story almost beyond recognition. The 1899 play did not seem vital for very long.
For those of us who study adaptation, it is nice to have this script available as a book so that we can really compare it to Conan Doyle's Holmes stories and his two extant Holmes plays. Sherlock Holmes fans and completeists consider it quite wonderful, their literary tastes are not always sophisticated, and now they can read it easily.
If anyone doubts that Americaness of this play, consider that Gillette gives the story an improbable ending in the style of American melodramas, played the role for decades, practically until the end of his life, played Holmes with an American accent, and the rest of the cast used their natural accents as well, though Gillette hired some English actors (most famously Charlie Chaplin) for the London run. Gillette played Holmes in an American silent film, now lost, and an American radio adaptation of the story, some of which may be heard here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=38Hgy...
One more thing that seems worth noting is that Holmes famously accuses Watson of adding too much romance into his stories. Holmes equates this to adding a love story into the fifth proposition of Euclid. Gillette uses this line, yet does introduce a romance in the style of American melodrama into his play. I wonder if Gillette did so cluelessly or ironically?
It is actually pretty typical of the other American melodramas of its era except for that whole London/fog/Sherlock Holmes thing, and is really the only of the old melodramas still revived. I doubt anybody today would notice this play if the story was not about Sherlock Holmes.
In other words, anyone indifferent to Holmes has no reason to take an interest this play. It is a bit of a holy grail to Holmes fans, however, because while it is still performed, productions are usually in another part of the country, or even the world. That is a shame because it mostly still works on stage, which is to say that actors, designers, and directors can make this script work even though it is so old it creaks. Reading the play is better than not reading it, but like most plays, it exists to be performed, and only performance can make it shine.
Should you doubt that SHERLOCK HOLMES is as dated as I claim, I invite you to consider this. While Orson Welles 1938 radio adaptation stayed fairly faithfully to Gillette's story, the three film versions changed the plot: the 1922 film added a lot of buffer material while the 1932 and 1939 films changed the story almost beyond recognition. The 1899 play did not seem vital for very long.
For those of us who study adaptation, it is nice to have this script available as a book so that we can really compare it to Conan Doyle's Holmes stories and his two extant Holmes plays. Sherlock Holmes fans and completeists consider it quite wonderful, their literary tastes are not always sophisticated, and now they can read it easily.
If anyone doubts that Americaness of this play, consider that Gillette gives the story an improbable ending in the style of American melodramas, played the role for decades, practically until the end of his life, played Holmes with an American accent, and the rest of the cast used their natural accents as well, though Gillette hired some English actors (most famously Charlie Chaplin) for the London run. Gillette played Holmes in an American silent film, now lost, and an American radio adaptation of the story, some of which may be heard here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=38Hgy...
One more thing that seems worth noting is that Holmes famously accuses Watson of adding too much romance into his stories. Holmes equates this to adding a love story into the fifth proposition of Euclid. Gillette uses this line, yet does introduce a romance in the style of American melodrama into his play. I wonder if Gillette did so cluelessly or ironically?
December 16, 2017
What I remember from the play I saw Frank Langella do in the eighties and what is- in reading it- a turn of the century slog seems like two separate things. I believe it would take a dedicated director and dramaturge to sift through the mountains of stage direction and florid dialogue to find the fun adventure through line that is in the text. Sometimes, you shouldn’t revisit things that thrilled you when you were younger.😉
July 3, 2016
Now I gotta start working on how to cut down on sets, lines. Lots of blocking already in the text.
March 19, 2019
This is a mishmash of Sherlock Holmes stories written into the form of a play that has the distinction of being co-written by Sherlock Holmes' creator, Arthur Conan Doyle.
December 2, 2024
To put it bluntly, this is a lousy play. I'd give it one star, except it does have some historical interest. Amazingly, it was very popular in its era. Corny melodramas were all the rage back then.
The history of this play: Doyle, although weary of his creation, thought he could make some extra coin by putting his character on stage, so he wrote a play. The powers-that-be didn't much like Doyle's effort, so called in William Gillette ( a very popular actor and playwright) to do a rewrite. Gillette was very attuned to what audiences of the day wanted, and so created a melodrama. He also thought this tale --like any good melodrama-- could use a romance. He asked for Doyle's permission to marry off Holmes, and Doyle actually said "yes". God knows why.
(Mind you, I'm not necessarily averse to a love interest for Holmes, as long as it is handled properly. This play is about the worst possible scenario that I can imagine)
In any case, we have here a very silly play with a nausea-inducing romance , that was an immense hit and made its creators a whole lot of money. Gillette played the role well into his old age. And this terrible play is still being revived. God knows why.
Screen history:
1916- with William Gillette in the title role. A faithful reconstruction of the stage play.( according to notes)
1922 -- John Barrymore in the lead. The film script changes the early part of the play: Sherlock and John Watson have met while in college; Holmes also encounters Alice Faulkner back then and becomes a bit obsessed with her.
1939--Basil Rathbone/Nigel Bruce "The Adventures of Sherlock Holmes". Claims to be inspired by this play, but bears little resemblance .
1981--Frank Langella in the lead role. Made for HBO.
None of the film versions are particularly good.
Do I recommend? Only if you're a dedicated fan of the Matter of Baker Street, or a student of melodramas.
The history of this play: Doyle, although weary of his creation, thought he could make some extra coin by putting his character on stage, so he wrote a play. The powers-that-be didn't much like Doyle's effort, so called in William Gillette ( a very popular actor and playwright) to do a rewrite. Gillette was very attuned to what audiences of the day wanted, and so created a melodrama. He also thought this tale --like any good melodrama-- could use a romance. He asked for Doyle's permission to marry off Holmes, and Doyle actually said "yes". God knows why.
(Mind you, I'm not necessarily averse to a love interest for Holmes, as long as it is handled properly. This play is about the worst possible scenario that I can imagine)
In any case, we have here a very silly play with a nausea-inducing romance , that was an immense hit and made its creators a whole lot of money. Gillette played the role well into his old age. And this terrible play is still being revived. God knows why.
Screen history:
1916- with William Gillette in the title role. A faithful reconstruction of the stage play.( according to notes)
1922 -- John Barrymore in the lead. The film script changes the early part of the play: Sherlock and John Watson have met while in college; Holmes also encounters Alice Faulkner back then and becomes a bit obsessed with her.
1939--Basil Rathbone/Nigel Bruce "The Adventures of Sherlock Holmes". Claims to be inspired by this play, but bears little resemblance .
1981--Frank Langella in the lead role. Made for HBO.
None of the film versions are particularly good.
Do I recommend? Only if you're a dedicated fan of the Matter of Baker Street, or a student of melodramas.
October 10, 2022
My “copy” of this play is a part of a Kindle bundle of Arthur Conan Doyle’s works. I didn’t spot a mention that this is not ACD’s text but actually written by William Gillette. Thus, be sure not to confuse this turd with anything that ACD wrote himself.
ACD is famously quoted as answering (according to Wiki at least, but I do remember reading this somewhere else as well) “You may marry him, murder him, or do anything you like to him.” to Gillette’s question “May I marry Holmes?” As a result, Gillette essentially butchered Holmes, although the play and the following movie adaptations of it had a lasting impact on our visual impression of Holmes.
The play takes bits of A Scandal in Bohemia and The Final Problem (as well as A Study in Scarlett, although I didn’t spot those – it’s been years since I re-read it the last time) and mixes them together with stuff written by Gillette. The whole thing simply doesn’t work and the Holmes we know is not the same as the one portrayed by Gillette.
Just because of its historical interest and importance, I give it 2.5/5 stars. I would only recommend it as a curiosity to those who have a serious interest in Sherlock Holmes, not to any casual fans.
ACD is famously quoted as answering (according to Wiki at least, but I do remember reading this somewhere else as well) “You may marry him, murder him, or do anything you like to him.” to Gillette’s question “May I marry Holmes?” As a result, Gillette essentially butchered Holmes, although the play and the following movie adaptations of it had a lasting impact on our visual impression of Holmes.
The play takes bits of A Scandal in Bohemia and The Final Problem (as well as A Study in Scarlett, although I didn’t spot those – it’s been years since I re-read it the last time) and mixes them together with stuff written by Gillette. The whole thing simply doesn’t work and the Holmes we know is not the same as the one portrayed by Gillette.
Just because of its historical interest and importance, I give it 2.5/5 stars. I would only recommend it as a curiosity to those who have a serious interest in Sherlock Holmes, not to any casual fans.
January 10, 2021
Recientemente descubrí que existía una obra de teatro sobre Sherlock Holmes muy poco conocida y que tampoco se incluye en las grandes colecciones del conocidísimo detective londinense. Es por ello que no pude resistirme a adquirir el libro y leerlo cuanto antes.
En él he descubierto que el primer actor que dio vida al personaje, fue también el único que, con permiso del autor, pudo escribir sobre él, adaptando al teatro otra de sus aventuras contra Moriarty.
La obra en sí me ha resultado algo lenta y, al ser una obra de teatro, en algunos momentos me he llegado a liar con los personajes secundarios, no obstante, me ha resultado sorprendente ver a Sherlock Holmes en una faceta algo más sentimental que a lo que nos tiene acostumbrados. Siendo sincera me encantaría ver la representación de la obra y creo, ademas, que para los amantes de las novelas de Conan Doyle es una lectura muy interesante.
En él he descubierto que el primer actor que dio vida al personaje, fue también el único que, con permiso del autor, pudo escribir sobre él, adaptando al teatro otra de sus aventuras contra Moriarty.
La obra en sí me ha resultado algo lenta y, al ser una obra de teatro, en algunos momentos me he llegado a liar con los personajes secundarios, no obstante, me ha resultado sorprendente ver a Sherlock Holmes en una faceta algo más sentimental que a lo que nos tiene acostumbrados. Siendo sincera me encantaría ver la representación de la obra y creo, ademas, que para los amantes de las novelas de Conan Doyle es una lectura muy interesante.
May 27, 2022
Very much a classic turn of the 20th century melodrama. The plot frequently revolves around the characters making appallingly poor decisions, the female lead faints at the worst possible moment, the hero is brave and bold and tortured. The full scale cocaine use onstage is an interesting choice. Having Holmes fall in love with the heroine and give one of those "you're far too good for me, for I am an addict and horrible" speeches is certainly a choice. (She doesn't believe him and the final curtain falls on a languishing and "romantic" embrace)
As a theatre professional preparing the script, it's fascinating to see how detailed the stage directions are, to the point of dictating which hand the actors should use to make which gestures. For a modern cast, better to give them free rein to inhabit the characters their own way.
As a theatre professional preparing the script, it's fascinating to see how detailed the stage directions are, to the point of dictating which hand the actors should use to make which gestures. For a modern cast, better to give them free rein to inhabit the characters their own way.
This entire review has been hidden because of spoilers.
December 3, 2022
Three stars of this is for the absolute loathing then like it goes all the way left. Then it keeps going. By the time you reach the end its this fearlessly honest portrayal of co dependency, addiction, and vanity. I had to take a star off because it took me like two weeks to process it. The ending of this play made me hit a pillow. It's just so undeniably cruel. It's hilarious but that loving embrace costs so much. She's gonna marry Sherlock Holmes. Brilliant detective, homeless, depressed, cokehead, forever targeted SHERLOCK Holmes. Oh my gosh I hope they move because dang!
June 28, 2020
A great play adaptation of Sherlock Holmes. Gillette played the great detective for many years and toured throughout the country with it. He became known as the premiere actor to portray the part. he took a few of the stories and strung them together to make an exciting play for an evening.
January 22, 2022
A thrilling play that was connected well to the existing Holmes stories.
Nonetheless I found the ending a bit too theatrical and had to remind myself that it was written for the masses who wanted to be entertained in theatres.
Nonetheless I found the ending a bit too theatrical and had to remind myself that it was written for the masses who wanted to be entertained in theatres.
June 19, 2017
This is one of the better "fanfictions" of the Sherlock Holmes series.
September 19, 2017
Conan Doyle is much better in prose than he is in drama.
September 6, 2020
La primera represesentación de Sherlock Holmes en el escenario. Reaprovechan bastante material del canon, aunque en un nuevo contexto para dar sentido a la obra. No está mal.
June 8, 2021
This is a classic of its genre.
October 2, 2024
الريفيو لاحقا
February 8, 2025
A Sherlock Holmes vs. Professor Moriarty melodrama that moves along quickly.
December 18, 2014
I don´t know about this. I might have to see it on the stage or on the big screen, but this play didn't really strike a chord with me. The plot felt a bit sloppy, it didn't get really exciting at any point, and PLEASE don't put in love interests for Sherlock Holmes because it just. doesn't. work.
Like I said, I might change my mind, since my drama group will be performing this play in the Spring. It might all come to life a bit more, make more sense, after a few reads or a proper acting session.
Like I said, I might change my mind, since my drama group will be performing this play in the Spring. It might all come to life a bit more, make more sense, after a few reads or a proper acting session.
November 20, 2011
I found this by mere chance on the web (it was in French, but luckily I can read French) and I was surprised by how nicely Gillette, the most popular Holmes of the stage, adapted the character in a clever and well built play. Even making Holmes fall in love with the woman he has to protect doesn't sound false or forced, since the author does not insist excessively upon it. I can understand why this play was such a success. Not a masterpiece but executed with grace and clever twists of plot.
June 29, 2011
Very good play about the events leading up to the "Final Problem" and the sad events at Richenbach falls. Much of the plot line for this play is taken from "A Scandal in Bohemia" which is appropriate because Sherlock has a love interest named Alice Faulkner. I really enjoyed reading this play and would love to see it on stage some time.
April 12, 2012
Yish. A beast of a script. Took me several days to plow through it.
Displaying 1 - 21 of 21 reviews