The main reason I’m interested in the character is because we hardly know anything about him as a person from Canon. Sure, there is info, but it’s all second-hand (third-hand, if you include unreliable narrator Watson). And this is it:
Had an estimated total of 20 bank accounts, for money laundering (VALL)
Art collector, or at least had knowledge of famous painters, and Holmes claimed he did not steal La Jeune Fille a l’Agneau, but bought it (VALL)
Skilled teacher, and could come across as avuncular (VALL)
Paid his chief of staff 6,000 pounds a year, which was supposed to be more than the Prime Minister got (VALL)
Wrote a well-received treatise on the binomial theorem at 21 (FINA)
Wrote a book that, supposedly, no one dared review because it was too deep (FINA)
Stepped down as chair of mathematics at an unnamed university because of unspecified rumours (FINA)
Had that snake-like head-twitching tic (FINA)
Thought duelling/wrestling/baritsu-ing/whatever-ing Holmes above a waterfall was an appropriate way to get rid of him (FINA)
Had a brother, a colonel, also named James Moriarty (EMPT)
Had a younger brother who was a station-master (VALL)
That still filled 12 bullet points, and there's probably more I didn’t sift out of the text, but it’s not enough for me! There’s potential for a story behind each of those things.
Holmes was described in excruciating but contradictory detail. Watson was described in mostly contradictory detail. I want the same for Moriarty. (If Doyle had written more stories with him in them, would he eventually have said he had a wife who called him ‘John’?)
And I think of him as a maths-themed Adam ‘The Napoleon of Crime’ Worth about as much as I think of Holmes as a bohemian Joseph Bell: useful from a Doylean view, but far from the solution to my curiosity.
It's not that I want him to be entirely sympathetic. I'm not against the ideas that he's misunderstood, pursued personal goals other than crime for fun and/or profit, or was shoved into the role by someone else, though those wouldn't be my first preferences. I don't mind thinking of him as gleefully immoral, either. I just want to understand why he became/continued to be himself.
I recently read this quote from the author Jeffrey Deaver:
I think every Sherlock Holmes needs a Professor Moriarty, James Bond needs his Blofeld - it’s the brilliance of the antagonists that bring out the brilliance of the heroes.
Moriarty was created relatively late, to further Holmes’ character only in the direction of death, so it’s lucky that he was convincing in his role, for someone who popped out of nowhere. Though, arguably, any character would have gotten a villainous status boost if they had been the one to kill Holmes.
But popping out of nowhere also increased his credibility. The best criminals don’t get caught. So he does come across as brilliant in Canon - but like an unidentified object shining from thousands of miles away. What is it? Somebody whip out a telescope.
And because I am neither satisfied with what’s in Canon, nor do I have any serious headcanons about Moriarty, I am on a slow, slow quest to appraise various Moriarties.
But I don’t have any Strong Opinions about who Moriarty should be, so I just go “mm, plausible... plausible... I see you’re having a good time, congratulations... doesn’t fit with Canon, but it’s fun... not to my taste, but whatever floats your boat... I don’t like it, so I won’t read... etc.”
So what this means is, I will never pin down Moriarty.
I see why Holmes needed to stalk him.
