Reading Response #4: Ethics and where the line is drawn

A balance weighing between
ethical decisions

As I've come to read more of Doyle's work, I've come to realization that there is a blurry line separating what is considered ethical and non-ethical in Holmes' detective work. Sometime we must ask the questions, could Holmes' have saved  Selden's life (in The Hound of the Baskervilles) if he had not been working from the shadows of the moor? Or, could Holmes' have took upon this case himself rather than allowing Watson (who is still an adept at detective work) to take on such a serious case? Or has Holmes' endangered the lives of others by using such a theoretical rather than practical approach to investigating crime?

There are points in the novel where I question what could have been done better in that specific situation. For example Holmes says, "[proving] the connection between the man and the beast" (Holmes is referring to Stapleton and the hound), Watson or Holmes' could have simply arrested Stapleton (Doyle 190). By arresting Stapleton, they would have avoided any suspicions and it would have prevented Stapleton from doing any more harm if even he was not the culprit of the crime. Although, I can see the other side of the argument being that arresting people for a crime they had not committed is infringing on the basic rights and freedoms citizens should have. But is dismissal of these rights and freedoms necessary to protect the lives of others in dangerous times? Or should rights and freedoms always be in place even if it puts others lives at risk?


As seen in October 1970 in Montreal, Quebec, Prime Minister Trudeau imposed the war measures act allowing police to arrest anyone as said in the earlier paragraph (CBC.ca). Even though the FLQ was a bigger threat to the public, mysterious deaths still hold a potential threat (as seen in The Hound of the Baskervilles). Should Holmes' have played the same moves as Trudeau did? In my opinion yes but it is not to say that I would suggest putting all citizens of a region in jail. Then again, giving the power of arresting anyone without warrant can lead to corruption inside law enforcement as we have seen in some police interacting during Occupy Wall Street protests. I do still feel the need to have an authoritative figure to protect the lives of citizens although the way we go about doing this is not and may never will be decided. 

So what is my main point from all this? Well, law is not a discrete way of sorting the innocent from the guilty. The way we go about protecting citizens is and never will be perfect. There will always be holes in any set of laws and rules. 

Reading Response #3: A Study on Foil

Watson, a "rather stupid friend" (MovieTone News, 1928).

*Refer to previous post for some background information

Watson (left) and Holmes (right)

In The Hound of the Baskervilles and A Study in Scarlet, Dr. Watson is the narrator and all words, thoughts, scenes and actions are seen through Watson. You might think, why choose to tell the story through a lesser character? Clearly it would be more exciting to see the insight and thought processes of a guenius detective such as Sherlock Holmes, right? The truth is, no, the story is in fact better told through the eyes of Watson. Don't let Watson's prestigious profession fool you because he is meant to be a relatable character. By the end of reading The Hound of the Baskervilles, I've come to realize there are two reasons for why Doyle chose Watson as the narrator. Reason 1, Watson is a more relatable character from a reader's perspective (than Holmes) and reason 2, Watson is meant to foil Sherlock Holmes.

Throughout the Sherlock Holmes series, Watson plays a huge role for the reader. He allows the reader to relate to a character that will have similar thoughts to those of the reader. For example when Holmes deducts "[he has] been in Afghanistan" from Watson in the first chapter of A Study in Scarlet, Watson responds "how on earth did you know that?" (Doyle 9). Watson's relatability helps to draw the reader into the novel because relatability also translates into familiarity which will make any reader more comfortable with the text. Another example of how Watson is a relatable is in the first chapter of The Hound of the Baskervilles where Watson infers from a walking stick left at Holmes and Watson's apartment. Watson states, "...Dr. Mortimer is a successful elderly medical man..." because of the fact that he is using a walking stick (Doyle 10). If it had been Holmes' who narrated the novel, Watson would be given less chances to speak and the novel would not be as interesting even through the mind of a genius detective. This is because Holmes' makes bigger leaps in between his questioning and his conclusions while Watson makes much more reasonable conclusions that the author can relate to as seen in the previous quote. In addition, Holmes' says to Watson that, "he could not have been on the staff of the hospital, since only a man well-established in a London practice could hold such a position, and such a one would not drift into the country" (Doyle 12). As you see in this quote, Holmes is able to make a bigger leap from his keep observation on the walking stick and from a storytelling perspective, Holmes is not an effective narrator since he is not as easily relatable to the reader (because Holmes would have been able to solve a case with much more ease thus translating into less climatic story arcs).

As stated earlier, Watson is meant to foil Holmes. Watson's slightly above average mind compared to Holmes' impressive mind creates a contrast between Watson and Holmes. One of many characteristics that contrasts Holmes with Watson is Watson's average characteristics and Holmes' dominant characteristics. For example, Watson cries "I never was more glad to see anyone in my life" when he surprisingly meets up with Holmes' unexpectedly while Holmes' dominant and professional attitude says to Watson, "or more astonished, eh?" (Doyle 165). Two monochromatic characters would have greeted each other with the same emotions. For example, Watson and Holmes' could have both said hello which does not foil either of the characters. By downplaying Watson's personality, Doyle has created a fitting duo that feeds off each others dialogue which in turn creates contrast which makes the novel more diverse in terms of the personality of its characters. In brief, Doyle metaphorically put a rock beside a diamond to enhance the beauty of the diamond.

In all, Doyle has some interested dynamics between Watson and Holmes for the reader. You get to see Holmes' brilliance through the mind of an slightly above average person which allows Doyle to write for the reader while still displaying his ability to create an almost mythical character. In my experience in reading and consumption of various forms of media, narrators that are characters that are slightly elevated thinkers help the reader or consumer of media interested since they are a half step forward. This pushes the reader or consumer of media to think but the concepts presented are always still a graspable by the reader or consumer. For example, in the film Alien, Ripley is able to keep herself alive by thinking on step in front of the Aliens on her ship, but not such a large step ahead that the viewers cannot connect to (Alien 1979). If Ripley had devised a elaborate plan arbitrarily, I would not have enjoyed seeing the exciting story arcs just as in the Sherlock Holmes instantly solved cases rather that using Watson as a relatable character (ibid).

In conclusion, a choice in main character is a critical choice that could make a story a flop or a great.

Reading Response #2: Examining the Scientific & Inductive Writing Styles of Doyle

Unlike many works of mystery fiction around its time, Sir Arthur Conan Doyle is the one of the first mystery fiction writers to write from a purely logical standpoint, doubting everything until it can be proven compared to other novels from the mystery genre at its time (which "always seemed to get his results either by some sort of lucky chance or fluke" as said by Doyle himself) (Movietone News 1928). Doyle also most likely one of the first mystery writers to use a methodological scientific style of writing fiction by use of inductive reasoning and scientific methods. 



A walking stick

In the first chapter of The Hound of the Baskervilles, Sherlock Holmes and his assistant detective, Dr. Watson, are examining a walking stick left at their apartment from the previous day. Watson's clever inductive reasoning leads to his theory that walking stick, Watson infers "the thick iron ferrule is worn down, so it is evident that he has done a great amount of walking with it" (Doyle 10). Here lays a clear example of Doyle employing the use of inductive reasoning: Watson makes an observation ("thick iron ferrule worn down"), sees an emerging pattern (the worn out iron ferrule must indicate heavy usage of the walking stick), and proposes his theory ("he has done a great amount of walking with it") (Doyle 10). His style of presenting ideas as seen here makes for a more concrete and less questionable plot compared to earlier mystery novels which "always seemed to get [their] results by some sort of lucky chance or fluke" (MovieTone News 1928).

The proceeding chapter of this novel sets up the theme, background story, and more importantly, the purpose (or what I would call, the observations). Just as in scientific methodology, Doyle gives Holmes and Watson a set of observations (as given by the doctor of Sir Charles Baskerville who was died mysteriously). Based on the facts that were given by the doctor of Sir Charles Baskerville, Holmes and Watson begin to indirectly hypothesize, for example Holmes inquires about the butler of Sir Charles Baskerville by asking, "did Barrymore profit at all by Sir Charles’s will?" (Doyle 63). As the novel continues more revealing events occur such as Holmes and Watson spotting a dodgy man and the missing boots of  Sir Henry Baskerville which allow Holmes and Watson to inquire and ask more questions about the crime at hand. To find out if their hypotheses are correct the conduct experiments, for example Holmes sends Watson "to go to Baskerville hall" to experiment by talking to people there and observing environmental (Doyle 63). After experiments (such as conversing with neighbors on the subject of the Baskervilles) and observations, Doyle will take small breaks in between the plot to explain the implications (or analysis) of their findings (just as in scientific research and lab reports). For example Watson (the narrator) explains Mr. Stapleton as being "unemotional" leading his to a theory that "he also gives the idea of hidden fires" (Doyle 105). These small break offer the reader insight into the reasoning of Watson which gives a stronger structure to whatever is said, seen, or heard. The process of asking questions, hypothesizing, experimenting, analyzing, and theorizing is seen throughout this novel. Only at the end of the novel you see the actual conclusions to their hypotheses.

Clearly, Doyle's style is a steeple in English literature. His style of writing has left a mark on modern storytelling in media such as the television shows CSI and House which have the same inductive reasoning and scientific methods as Doyle had in his writing. I induct from Doyle's writing that he is one of the figures in culture had started a revolution in the way we think. At this time, people would have been highly dedicated to religion but what Doyle indirectly teachers his readers is that you should not believe something simply because someone exclaimed it.

*On a semi-related note, Doyle was a doctor before he became a writer which explains why his writing was so exact and scientific. In fact, his writing is inspired by one of his colleagues which always could draw large conclusions from small pieces of information!

Response #1: Was Holmes and Watson Truly Successful in Solving Their Case?

Were Holmes and Watson truly
successful in solving the case of
the Baskervilles?

When I think about how a story of crime should end I picture the criminal being taken away by the authorities and then a intense camera pan on the detective saying a horribly written phrase. Not in this case. In The Hound of the Baskervilles Holmes end up allowing a person not involved in the crime (Selden), a Hound that "was savage and half-starved" and the criminal (Stapleton) to drown to his death in marshlands of the moor. Its like when I would attempt to solve a Rubik's cube although I had already gone over the time limit I had set for myself. I was still interested (like Holmes and Watson) in how the puzzle unravel itself, but I had failed at actually solving the puzzle in time (representing Holmes and Watson's failure to save Selden's life and apprehend Stapleton).

Holmes and Watson were "at close grips at last" near the end of the novel but they still let this case escape them (Doyle 181). Holmes and Watson are detectives. These are the people that are meant to solve and investigate crimes that have occurred to protect the lives of others that are at risk. While Holmes and Watson did manage to protect Sir Henry Baskervilles (the next generation down from Sir Charles Baskerville) from being a subject of Stapleton's murders, he let 2 others die. It is by a lucky fluke that Holmes and Watson happened to allow Seldon (a criminal living in the moorlands) and Stapleton to die who are two infamous criminals. Even though Holmes and Watson luckily eliminated the criminal, it is still a failure because they did not actually bring justice to Stapleton. For all they know, Stapleton could have survived what looked to be a "mud bath" which "sucked him in" to be "for ever buried" (Doyle 208). Stapleton's body was never found which does not prove necessarily prove Holmes' theory. As stated earlier, Stapleton was a very clever man which leads to me thinking that Stapleton could have thrown off Holmes and Watson by planting sort of scarecrow in the mud to allow them to think he had perished in the mud. Therefore, Stapleton could still be out there, trying to hijack someone else's fortune meaning Holmes and Watson were not successful in solving their case.

Another reason why they were not successful in solving their case is because they killed two non essential members to the case. There was the who hound in which Holmes "emptied 5 barrels into the creature's flank" and there was Selden who was killed by the hound. This is the same situation as in Afghanistan. Soldiers are not supposed kill civilians in the pursuit of their goals. For example, Australian soldiers killed a civilian which was considered an "incident" hence it is considered a negative act by these soldiers(ABC News).

In conclusion, no, Holmes and Watson were not successful in solving the case of the Baskervilles due to the unnecessary deaths of Selden, the hound, and Stapleton. In a grander sense, they failed because they had not protected the public from the Stapleton (who was not even captured or jailed). This leads me to start to doubt their actual value as detectives.

Welcome Post

Mosaic Art

Greetings chaps and welcome to my blog! Through this blog, I will be synthesizing my thoughts and opinions on works by Sir Arthur Conan Doyle, specifically his novel The Hound of the Baskervilles which tells the story of the renowned detective Sherlock Holmes' assistant detective who is investigating the case of the Baskerville familly curse that is causing the death of family members based in the 1889 Moorland of England.

Throughout the upcoming months, I will be exploring and reflecting on the significance of themes, symbols, and real life implications of Doyle's work as well as why his work is considered to be 'classic'. As a student of science, Doyle's work contains many potent messages to be uncovered and polished and applied to our lives.

As I near the completion of this novel, I plan to expand into some of Doyle's other work such as his collection of short stories featuring Sherlock Holmes.

So with this in mind, I invite you to my diverse mosaic that is my blog and discover and inspect upon the intricate patterns that are carefully weaved by my own words.

Note: The sidebar of this blog contains contextual links meant to accompany and enhance this blog. It is highly recommended that you read/view them.