Valley of Fear - Pages 207 to 281

I think in these chapters the difference between the current Holmes and Holmes from past books is more pronounced. I haven't completely read any other Sherlock Holmes books, but last Tuesday I accidentally read the first twenty-five pages of The Hound of the Baskervilles thinking that The Hound of the Baskervilles and the Valley of Fear were the same thing, and I noticed that the Sherlock Holmes in The Hound of the Baskervilles is much more annoying and obnoxious. He insists on belittling Watson and showing off that he's right all the time, but in this one, he’s a bit more subdued. He waits for several people to speak first before giving his own opinion. Although, that might just be a storytelling method. However, Holmes is still a little bit annoying as it seems that he is intentionally trying to draw out the process and string everyone along just to be mysterious on purpose or for the fun of it. What I don’t get is why Holmes couldn’t just tell everyone the plan from the beginning instead of just telling them he knew what was happening but couldn’t tell them? It seems to me like Holmes is still kind of a drama queen. This is also evidenced by the weird question he decided to ask Watson in the middle of the night.

Doyle continues to use the same storytelling method, which is probably to be expected since people don’t usually switch storytelling methods in the middle of their novels. Doyle uses the same method of stringing the audience along in order to increase the suspense. This time, instead of just being a spectator to Holmes’ antics through the lens of Watson, we see Holmes through the lens of the other two, White Mason and MacDonald as well. I think they are meant to mimic our reactions, since as we get strung along with them, first we’re extremely curious and then increasingly frustrated with Holmes as he says that he knows what’s going on but can’t tell them (us). Still, Watson is extremely laudatory of Holmes and acts as kind of a guideline as how we are suppose to react to Holmes. If Watson’s narrations were different (like, if instead of praising Holmes all the time he was more objective or derisive towards Holmes in his narrations), I think we, the audience, may also have a different reaction towards Holmes.

            What was also interesting to me was the treatment of Mrs. Douglas. I think Doyle intentionally tries to make us think that she’s a secretly promiscuous woman having an affair with Mr. Barker. Doyle makes us feel angry at her, because she is painted as this harlot who deceived everyone into thinking she was a loving wife when really she was sleeping with her husband’s best friend. Meanwhile, there is barely any insinuation that Barker may be a bad person because he may be having an affair with his best friend’s wife. I think Doyle’s focus on this is something of a red herring, planted to mislead us into thinking one way and masking the truth. This is a method he uses a lot. Overall, though, Doyle's storytelling is still extremely effective.