Samuel Rosenberg (1) (1912–1996)

This book really splits people in two camps. Some love it, some hate it, as the reviews below clearly indicate [Mia Stampe's Holmes website]
Review 1: Upon re-reading Naked Is the Best Disguise I have to conclude that the author was probably serious in trying to analyze the reasons Doyle wrote the Canon and the sources he used. I only say "probably" because... it is very hard to say how seriously this author may take his own arguments... I retain a sneaking suspicion that this is a parody of the popular "Higher Criticism" of the 30s and 40s practiced by so many Sherlockians. If I were more familiar with the many and varied literary references in this book, I might be better able to deny or support that suspicion. As it is, I can't even draw any amusement from the possible irony of the author's conclusions. Whether or not the book is serious, it is tedious, overly-convoluted and barely readable. Reviewed by: Philip K. Jones, 2003
Review 2: I was fascinated with this book the first time I read it, and I am convinced that it is one of the greatest of all Sherlockian writings... the appeal, most of all, is that Naked Is the Best Disguise is fresh and new and not just a regurgitation of Sherlockian trivia, a filling-in of Sherlockian "biographical" details, yet another summary of the tales, yet another rehash of the same old stuff. It is original; it is intellectually challenging; it is fun; it may well be tongue-in-cheek -- but it is the product of a very bright inquisitive mind. I, for one, wish we had much, much more of this kind of insight in "the writings." I cannot recommend this wonderful book too highly. Reviewed by: Bill Mason [WelcomeHolmes, 2003]

Absolutely awful, but very scholarly and erudite. Psychoanalizes our hero [non-fiction supposedly, at least not a detective story].… (meer)