Sherlock Holmes is a brilliant detective because of his attention to detail that others easily over look. However, why does Holmes need Watson’s assistance in order to help him solve mysteries he easily can solve on his own? What is it about Watson that makes him so important to Holmes? For example, when Watson attempts to assist Holmes in identifying the mysterious walking stick, Holmes simply responds to Watson hypothesis that “I am afraid, my dear Watson, that most of your conclusions were erroneous. When I said you stimulated me I meant, to be frank, that in noting your fallacies I was occasionally guided towards the truth” (2). Why did Holmes even bother asking for Watson’s opinion if he already knew the answer? Holmes is blunt and frank with poor Watson, yet at the same time realizes his is obnoxious behavior towards him. For example, instead of allowing Watson to grab a cab, that would allow them to quickly take them to the hotel Holmes stops him, insisting that he rather walk because “I am perfectly satisfied with your company if you will tolerate mine” (26). The relationship between these two strikes me to be quite fascinating, especially because later in the novel after learning about the curse of the hound and Sir Charles death, rather than Holmes attending Sir Henry and Dr. Mortimer to Baskerville Hall, he sends naïve Watson. What I found even more striking was that Watson first thought upon learning this information was that “the promise of adventure had always a fascination for me, and I was complimented by the words of Holmes and by the eagerness with which the baronet hailed me as a companion” (34). This left me wondering if Watson is truly fascinated with adventure, or if there is another reason why he is compelled to go on a journey that may end up costing him his life?
4 thoughts on “Best Friends Forever?”
Comments are closed.
In this paragraph you ask a question about why Holmes keeps Watson around if he already knows the answer to everything. I think there are a few reasons for this. In the quotation you mention from page two, Holmes said to Watson “that in noting your fallacies I was occasionally guided towards the truth.” Here, it sounds like Holmes is saying that every once and awhile, Watson has provided insight to solving a case. As we continue to read through the novel, I think we will see more of Watson’s practicality to Holmes–especially during his stay at Baskerville Hall.
The second quote you bring up is also intriguing, although I’m going to focus less on the message and more on the walk. Conan Doyle wrote The Hound of the Baskervilles in 1902, which was an era when people found increased opportunity for leisure and entertainment. The characters in the novel indulge in these new found activities, in the form of a walk or a visit to an art gallery. Not only this, but we also read about the usage of taxis and high-speed trains. Conan Doyle had deliberately picked culturally and technologically relevant qualities of the era, which is something I appreciate about this novel. There are certainly some similarities between Lady Audley’s Secret and The Hound of the Baskervilles in this regard. I am curious to see what more about British culture will surface as we continue reading.
Although I believe that Holmes and Watson are two sides of the same coin, I will partially continue the dialogue produced by The Huntress. In particular, I will focus on the scene that occurred at the end of chapter 11 and continued to go into 12. In this scene, Watson is tracking a man he saw in the area and discovers a hut when he notices somebody walking towards him. Watson “shrank back into the darkest corner and cocked the pistol in [his] pocket, determined not to [show himself] until [he] had the opportunity of seeing something of the stranger” (120). Then, a
“well-known voice” emanates from the stranger and states that “it is a lovely evening, my dear Watson” where Watson then happily declares “Holmes!” (120-121). After reading this scene, I wrote in my book “goddamn it Sherlock” in frustration that the detective did not immediately notify his friend of his presence. Although I will admit that this scene had the perfect amount of tension and buildup, and I commend Doyle for this kind of suspense. However, it is through the both of their work that the detectives were able to solve the case. Also, Sherlock’s isolation was needed for this style of case as his “presence would have warned [their] very formidable opponents to be on their guard”(123). So in turn, although Sherlock treats Watson like a buffoon at times, it is important to recognize that both detectives played their own role in solving the case at the end of the novel. In the end, Watson settled into his own role and proved to Sherlock that he could provide “zeal and intelligence… over an extraordinarily difficult case”(123).
Why Holmes keeps Watson around does appear to be a mystery within itself, and the blog post and Jumpman have made wonderful inquires and insights. As Jumpman hinted at in his comment, Watson could be around because he does occasionally provide insight into a case. Sometimes mysteries can be wrapped up by a single detail to obvious to be picked up by the brilliant detective. However, I also thing Watson is there so that the audience connects more with the novel. Having someone just as clueless as we are really helps to engage readers in the novel. It would be pretty fair to say that no one would like to read a novel where Holmes treats us like he treats Watson. I also think Watson is a device that Doyle used to tell the story through. Holmes has to explain ideas to Watson slowly and bounce ideas off of him, which allows the story to be told effectively and interestingly. Every great detective has a less observant friend to help move the story along, and the original sidekick character was Watson.
I think this is a very interesting post. Seriously, though, what is up with the relationship between Holmes and Watson?
“I am afraid, my dear Watson, that most of your conclusions were erroneous. When I said that you stimulated me I meant, to be frank, that in noting your fallacies I was occasionally guided towards the truth. Not that you are entirely wrong in this instance.”
I’m glad that you highlighted this quote in your post because I think it sets the stage for their friendship as seen throughout the entire novel. Clearly, Holmes has an ego, and he likes to assert his supremacy in situations to “one-up” Watson. In this instance, he basically says to Watson, “Watson, how could you consider something so nonsensical? But thank you for your input.” I’m going to make a claim. It seems that Watson is only in the novel in order to adulate Holmes. He is there to give Holmes an “ego-boost.” But then again, without Watson, would Holmes be able to solve these crimes? After all, Watson is the one doing the “field work.” In addition, it seems as though Watson enjoys helping Holmes because he is associated with such a renowned detective.
Nevertheless, despite Holmes’ egotism, there is something very “comfortable” about the relationship between Holmes and Watson. It’s like those relationships where you have with someone that you are so comfortable around their presence that you repeatedly pick on them because the relationship is too strong to be lost. There is a sense of familiarity here.